How many races do you need to feel confident?

[bgbootha]

Ok, I have 26,992 races in my database since April. Looking at different angles for how many qualified races would it take for you to feel confident in an angle.

For instance, I have an angle that has occured 81 times in that 27000 or 0.3% of the time, but has a positive return of $1.60 per race. This is an extreme example but the question remains.

How many races should an angle have to be a true quality angle?

Others are obvious, some have 2,500 or so races and show positive ROI but how small of a sample is too small?

[thaskalos]

Are you creating the angles before, or AFTER you check the results.

[bgbootha]

These are reflective angles, so I guess to answer your question...after.

I am looking for angles in my own values that are created.

[Dave Schwartz]

Note that there are many more precise mathematical methods but this is a good guesstimate method.


A good rule of thumb would be an absolute minimum of 30 winners at the highest range of mutuels.

Thus, if you are wagering on horses that are typically around 3/1 but you have 3 horses in the sample that pay over $30, when you get 30 winners at $30 and up you have a pretty good sample.

In other words, starting from highest down, remove all odds "categories" of winners where you do not have 30 winners until you get the highest range that does have 30 winners.

When you have reached a point where you do have 30 winners in a category, then test you data sample again for profitability.

If you still have a solid profit, then there is a good chance that you have a profitable system.


I am amazed at how many guys come to me with data sets of 300 races where their profitability was driven by 2 $80+ horses. I tell them, when you have 30 of those $80+ winners, you can begin to count on the system.

They never like the answer.

[ReplayRandall]

Note that there are many more precise mathematical methods but this is a good guesstimate method.


A good rule of thumb would be an absolute minimum of 30 winners at the highest range of mutuels.

Thus, if you are wagering on horses that are typically around 3/1 but you have 3 horses in the sample that pay over $30, when you get 30 winners at $30 and up you have a pretty good sample.

In other words, starting from highest down, remove all odds "categories" of winners where you do not have 30 winners until you get the highest range that does have 30 winners.

When you have reached a point where you do have 30 winners in a category, then test you data sample again for profitability.

If you still have a solid profit, then there is a good chance that you have a profitable system.


I am amazed at how many guys come to me with data sets of 300 races where their profitability was driven by 2 $80+ horses. I tell them, when you have 30 of those $80+ winners, you can begin to count on the system.

They never like the answer.

When the answer takes much more work than a handicapper is willing to do, they get what they deserve, which is a long-term losing system. Sample size means nothing without layering of odds and elimination of suspect outliers......Good stuff, Dave.

[bgbootha]

Note that there are many more precise mathematical methods but this is a good guesstimate method.


A good rule of thumb would be an absolute minimum of 30 winners at the highest range of mutuels.

Thus, if you are wagering on horses that are typically around 3/1 but you have 3 horses in the sample that pay over $30, when you get 30 winners at $30 and up you have a pretty good sample.

In other words, starting from highest down, remove all odds "categories" of winners where you do not have 30 winners until you get the highest range that does have 30 winners.

When you have reached a point where you do have 30 winners in a category, then test you data sample again for profitability.

If you still have a solid profit, then there is a good chance that you have a profitable system.


I am amazed at how many guys come to me with data sets of 300 races where their profitability was driven by 2 $80+ horses. I tell them, when you have 30 of those $80+ winners, you can begin to count on the system.

They never like the answer.

Big thanks dave, I love your stuff. Watched many of your videos over the time and miss you on the Twinspires podcast...why aren't you one there much anymore.

Agreed with the people with small sample sizes. Thanks for the input I will crunch some numbers tomorrow when I have some more time.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thank you, BG.

After a year off working on lots of custom software requests, I will be back just after Thanksgiving on my own BlogTalk. Plus a lot more stuff.

Currently in the middle of an HSH seminar - 4 more days to run over the next 2 weeks.

[Dark Horse]

Are you creating the angles before, or AFTER you check the results.

This is the whole key.

As pointed out before, a monkey with a typewriter and eternal life will eventually type out the Bible word for word.

Come up with the angles BEFORE, so that YOU create the logic behind them.

[cashmachine]

This is the whole key.

As pointed out before, a monkey with a typewriter and eternal life will eventually type out the Bible word for word.

Come up with the angles BEFORE, so that YOU create the logic behind them.

I would disagree here. It doesn't really matter whether you came up with angle before or after, because this is only first stage of research. After that you need to test the angle on new races (races that physically took place after you discovered pattern). This way you can be sure whether pattern is real or not. If you discovered a pattern, and then you wait for a year to see how it works on the future races, and it indeed continues to work, then pattern is real.

[cashmachine]

Note that there are many more precise mathematical methods but this is a good guesstimate method.


A good rule of thumb would be an absolute minimum of 30 winners at the highest range of mutuels.

Thus, if you are wagering on horses that are typically around 3/1 but you have 3 horses in the sample that pay over $30, when you get 30 winners at $30 and up you have a pretty good sample.

In other words, starting from highest down, remove all odds "categories" of winners where you do not have 30 winners until you get the highest range that does have 30 winners.

When you have reached a point where you do have 30 winners in a category, then test you data sample again for profitability.

If you still have a solid profit, then there is a good chance that you have a profitable system.


I am amazed at how many guys come to me with data sets of 300 races where their profitability was driven by 2 $80+ horses. I tell them, when you have 30 of those $80+ winners, you can begin to count on the system.

They never like the answer.

Really good advice; I am using similar method, just prefer to have a bit more winners, like 50+.

[jdhanover]

Well we (a friend and I) had a system that worked for over 1,500 races (not a retrofit btw). Looked good at all odds levels, etc.

We thought we finally had "It". Nope. Crashed and burned (badly) over next 1,000 or so races.

[Dark Horse]

I would disagree here. It doesn't really matter whether you came up with angle before or after, because this is only first stage of research. After that you need to test the angle on new races (races that physically took place after you discovered pattern). This way you can be sure whether pattern is real or not. If you discovered a pattern, and then you wait for a year to see how it works on the future races, and it indeed continues to work, then pattern is real.

See how the time, idea strength, and sample size work out for each option:

1) a year (delay) of forward testing, of an unproven or not understood concept, to end up with a small sample that could very easily still be unstable.
2) start out with a strong concept, backtest it on a large sample, and start betting it if it passes the test.

[cashmachine]

See how the time, idea strength, and sample size work out for each option:

1) a year (delay) of forward testing, of an unproven or not understood concept, to end up with a small sample that could very easily still be unstable.
2) start out with a strong concept, backtest it on a large sample, and start betting it if it passes the test.

You have no idea weather your concept is "strong" or "unproven" until you do forward testing of significant length. By "come up with idea" I meant exactly "backtest it on a large sample", no shortcuts around it. Problem is that on practice you almost never get "large" sample. And if you start betting it if it passes backtesting test you are risking real money when you really shouldn't.

[Dark Horse]

You have no idea weather your concept is "strong" or "unproven" until you do forward testing of significant length.

Quite frankly, you should already know that an idea is strong before you even backtest it. The backtesting is to determine how strong.

Those who instead put their faith in numbers to tell them their hidden story are going to be fooled by randomness.

[cashmachine]

Quite frankly, you should already know that an idea is strong before you even backtest it. The backtesting is to determine how strong.


You cannot get an idea from nowhere, it comes from the data. I do not consider obvious (and pretty much useless) stuff that you read in books like class, pace, etc. just because people who wrote whose books never knew the truth, and never were profitable in the first place. The only reason why they wrote the book is to make money that they cannot make otherwise, for example by betting on horses. So what you read in books is plain wrong. Believe me, I tried to test ideas from books - they are just bitter nonsense. They just give you starting point for your research, where you discover the actual patterns. And believe me, real patterns are non-linear and so non obvious that you never ever would come up with the "idea" just from common sense considerations. The only way to discover ideas is to mine historical information.

[AndyC]

You cannot get an idea from nowhere, it comes from the data. I do not consider obvious (and pretty much useless) stuff that you read in books like class, pace, etc. just because people who wrote whose books never knew the truth, and never were profitable in the first place. The only reason why they wrote the book is to make money that they cannot make otherwise, for example by betting on horses. So what you read in books is plain wrong. Believe me, I tried to test ideas from books - they are just bitter nonsense. They just give you starting point for your research, where you discover the actual patterns. And believe me, real patterns are non-linear and so non obvious that you never ever would come up with the "idea" just from common sense considerations. The only way to discover ideas is to mine historical information.

Absolute truth about what you read in books. I don't believe anything I hear or read until I test it.

There are many ways to discover ideas outside of mining historical data. Many of the ideas I have had that proved to be useful could not be found or tested using historical data.

[thaskalos]

You cannot get an idea from nowhere, it comes from the data. I do not consider obvious (and pretty much useless) stuff that you read in books like class, pace, etc. just because people who wrote whose books never knew the truth, and never were profitable in the first place. The only reason why they wrote the book is to make money that they cannot make otherwise, for example by betting on horses. So what you read in books is plain wrong. Believe me, I tried to test ideas from books - they are just bitter nonsense. They just give you starting point for your research, where you discover the actual patterns. And believe me, real patterns are non-linear and so non obvious that you never ever would come up with the "idea" just from common sense considerations. The only way to discover ideas is to mine historical information.

When a person sits down to write a handicapping book, he has a choice to make. Is he interested in selling a lot of copies...or is he interested in telling the "truth", as he really sees it? Since the truth doesn't usually attract many followers...the handicapping author usually lies.

[cj]

When a person sits down to write a handicapping book, he has a choice to make. Is he interested in selling a lot of copies...or is he interested in telling the "truth", as he really sees it? Since the truth doesn't usually attract many followers...the handicapping author usually lies.

Who are these handicapping authors that lie? I haven't seen much written lately at all in the handicapping field. It is very easy to test anything purported as truth in a handicapping book in today's world. I think there is a correlation.

That said, I don't think earlier authors were lying. I think they believed what they wrote. It is just that it was based on assumptions, not real proof. The tools to test stuff just weren't available.

[AndyC]

When a person sits down to write a handicapping book, he has a choice to make. Is he interested in selling a lot of copies...or is he interested in telling the "truth", as he really sees it? Since the truth doesn't usually attract many followers...the handicapping author usually lies.

I personally know several handicapping authors and I would say they are the furthest thing from liars. I think a reader needs to be aware that often the writer is putting down his/her beliefs and not necessarily facts. Of course, there are probably a few writers out there making things up to make their books more interesting.

[thaskalos]

Who are these handicapping authors that lie? I haven't seen much written lately at all in the handicapping field. It is very easy to test anything purported as truth in a handicapping book in today's world. I think there is a correlation.

That said, I don't think earlier authors were lying. I think they believed what they wrote. It is just that it was based on assumptions, not real proof. The tools to test stuff just weren't available.

IMO...every handicapping author who has ever claimed that their book would turn the reader into a winning player, has lied. These books are only good for "motivation". If you haven't read a handicapping book in the last 20 years...then you haven't missed anything, as far as I am concerned.

[thaskalos]

I personally know several handicapping authors and I would say they are the furthest thing from liars. I think a reader needs to be aware that often the writer is putting down his/her beliefs and not necessarily facts. Of course, there are probably a few writers out there making things up to make their books more interesting.

The "fact" is that you cannot take a person to a place that you, yourself, haven't been. To tell someone that you can turn him into a "winning player", when you are not a winning player yourself, is dishonest.

[ReplayRandall]

IMO...every handicapping author who has ever claimed that their book would turn the reader into a winning player, has lied. These books are only good for "motivation". If you haven't read a handicapping book in the last 20 years...then you haven't missed anything, as far as I am concerned.

I agree with your comment as far as conventional handicapping authors are concerned. However, I personally recommend an out-of-print book by Mark Cramer called "Kinky Handicapping", as it deals with non-conventional ideas. I found this book to make me think past pure logic, reason and 2+2 conscious thinking and go to that deeper sub-conscious supercomputer part of the brain. To put it another way, I automatically know what 4x4 is, and that uses the simplistic part of my brain to answer. Cramer pushes you to think on that second, much more complex deeper level, which is never the obvious answer....

[Robert Goren]

The best books on handicapping are not on handicapping per say. They are books on other things that get you to thinking, "I can apply that to horse race betting"

[Robert Fischer]

There's also a fun little paradox here, due to the nature of the parimutuel system.

Lets say a master handicapper writes a tell-all how-to book...
The more he explains his wisdom(and the more the public puts his wisdom into practice), - the weaker/less-useful his wisdom becomes. :eek: :D

[thaskalos]

I agree with your comment as far as conventional handicapping authors are concerned. However, I personally recommend an out-of-print book by Mark Cramer called "Kinky Handicapping", as it deals with non-conventional ideas. I found this book to make me think past pure logic, reason and 2+2 conscious thinking and go to that deeper sub-conscious supercomputer part of the brain. To put it another way, I automatically know what 4x4 is, and that uses the simplistic part of my brain to answer. Cramer pushes you to think on that second, much more complex deeper level, which is never the obvious answer....

I like Cramer...because he is an "original"...and also a very good writer. He gets overly excited about things which are supported only by scant evidence, though. Are the Tomlinson Ratings really as useful on the turf as Cramer thinks?

[DJofSD]

The best books on handicapping are not on handicapping per say. They are books on other things that get you to thinking, "I can apply that to horse race betting"
Exactly, and, that was one part about PIRCO I miss alot -- Doc performed a valuable service when publishing those "outside the box" ideas and sources.

The most recent example of repurposing I've had came after watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yj3QsQbNIg4

It was not anything I thought would apply to handicapping but it did make the light bulb go on for a certain aspect of another game.

[AndyC]

The "fact" is that you cannot take a person to a place that you, yourself, haven't been. To tell someone that you can turn him into a "winning player", when you are not a winning player yourself, is dishonest.

Yes and no. I know a few winning players who were mentored in their early development by losing authors.

The concept sure works in sports and other areas whereby coaches develop players into something much better than the coach ever was.

[Dark Horse]

The only way to discover ideas is to mine historical information.

This is simply incorrect. I'm assuming people are capable of some creative thought. I call it dream-thinking. You just sit back or lay back, ask questions, and let the thoughts fall in place.

A simple example, just because it came up recently. There are hundreds of these. This was the thought process:

- Both NBA and NHL teams play 82 games per season. What is the difference per league? Answer: NBA teams often take the night off during the regular season. Part of the culture. NHL has much greater intensity and speed.
- What can I do with this? Answer: look at fatigue.
- Where do I look for fatigue? Answer: combine no-rest with the 3rd period.

Now, and not before, it was time to look at the data. Sure enough, this simple idea produced a strong angle. The data confirmed the idea. After this the data allowed me to add one strengthener, by adding different settings for the distance traveled.

Remember. Everybody is looking at the same data. If you want an edge, you have to out-think others.

[biggestal99]

I like Cramer...because he is an "original"...and also a very good writer. He gets overly excited about things which are supported only by scant evidence, though. Are the Tomlinson Ratings really as useful on the turf as Cramer thinks?

I am a cramerite, some of his theories about horse racing are as you say original, turf tomlinsons work for me but have no data on what a 400 turf tomlinson first time turf % and ROI are.

Would be agreat addition to the drf formulator.

Allan

[cashmachine]

I agree with your comment as far as conventional handicapping authors are concerned. However, I personally recommend an out-of-print book by Mark Cramer called "Kinky Handicapping", as it deals with non-conventional ideas. I found this book to make me think past pure logic, reason and 2+2 conscious thinking and go to that deeper sub-conscious supercomputer part of the brain. To put it another way, I automatically know what 4x4 is, and that uses the simplistic part of my brain to answer. Cramer pushes you to think on that second, much more complex deeper level, which is never the obvious answer....

Just looked up the book on amazon, the full name of the book is "Kinky Handicapping: The Uninhibited Path To Promiscuous Profits". Lol :lol: . That is quite a name :). I have some vague suspicion that this author is one of those authors Thaskalos was warning about :). LOL.

[ReplayRandall]

Just looked up the book on amazon, the full name of the book is "Kinky Handicapping: The Uninhibited Path To Promiscuous Profits". Lol :lol: . That is quite a name :). I have some vague suspicion that this author is one of those authors Thaskalos was warning about :). LOL.


Sarcasm or haven't you read the book? Thask's post referred to Cramer in a positive light:

Originally Posted by thaskalos
I like Cramer...because he is an "original"...and also a very good writer. He gets overly excited about things which are supported only by scant evidence, though. Are the Tomlinson Ratings really as useful on the turf as Cramer thinks?

[cashmachine]

This is simply incorrect. I'm assuming people are capable of some creative thought. I call it dream-thinking. You just sit back or lay back, ask questions, and let the thoughts fall in place.

A simple example, just because it came up recently. There are hundreds of these. This was the thought process:

- Both NBA and NHL teams play 82 games per season. What is the difference per league? Answer: NBA teams often take the night off during the regular season. Part of the culture. NHL has much greater intensity and speed.
- What can I do with this? Answer: look at fatigue.
- Where do I look for fatigue? Answer: combine no-rest with the 3rd period.

Now, and not before, it was time to look at the data. Sure enough, this simple idea produced a strong angle. The data confirmed the idea. After this the data allowed me to add one strengthener, by adding different settings for the distance traveled.

Remember. Everybody is looking at the same data. If you want an edge, you have to out-think others.

Ha-ha-ha. That was funny. Like, you think you have a "strong" idea once you dreamed about something that is potentially likely? By this definition of "idea" I always start with a "strong idea" because in order to mine the data you need to give computer precise instructions what you are looking for. But frankly speaking you don't have anything at this point yet, simply because like 95% of such "ideas" simply do not work and do not survive simplest statistical test. I am working on horseracing program full-time and essentially what I do all my waking hours is to try to come up with "idea" that was not tested yet by reading books, forums, actually betting, thinking, etc. I test dozens "ideas" per month and I am lucky if I get 2 good ones in a month. Since survival ratio is so low, you can't really call them "strong ideas". If your project is in such infant stage that something simple and naïve like you described is not tested yet and not implemented yet then you like, nowhere.

[cashmachine]

Sarcasm or haven't you read the book? Thask's post referred to Cramer in a positive light:

I have not read the book, and I wrote my comment before I saw that Thask said it is a good book. But the name of the book triggered alarm of my BS detectors, I smell rat.

[Dark Horse]

Ha-ha-ha. That was funny. Like, you think you have a "strong" idea once you dreamed about something that is potentially likely? By this definition of "idea" I always start with a "strong idea" because in order to mine the data you need to give computer precise instructions what you are looking for. But frankly speaking you don't have anything at this point yet, simply because like 95% of such "ideas" simply do not work and do not survive simplest statistical test. I am working on horseracing program full-time and essentially what I do all my waking hours is to try to come up with "idea" that was not tested yet by reading books, forums, actually betting, thinking, etc. I test dozens "ideas" per month and I am lucky if I get 2 good ones in a month. Since survival ratio is so low, you can't really call them "strong ideas". If your project is in such infant stage that something simple and naïve like you described is not tested yet and not implemented yet then you like, nowhere.

I gave that as a simple illustration. To laugh at a profitable concept, because of its simplicity, in my world would be surprising, if not immature. You may underestimate others, which is not a good idea in gambling. Even so, good luck with your datamining.

[whodoyoulike]

Well we (a friend and I) had a system that worked for over 1,500 races (not a retrofit btw). Looked good at all odds levels, etc.

We thought we finally had "It". Nope. Crashed and burned (badly) over next 1,000 or so races.

I'm surprised no one has asked this of you. Since, the system once worked for 1500 races etc. but crashed and burned over the next 1000, how about describing it? Maybe someone can see where and why it went wrong or maybe as you discovered it wasn't really a worthwhile method. I'm always interested in different ideas. I or someone else may be doing something similar and it would nice to know it will not work. How about helping a guy out? What do you have to lose since it doesn't work? But, only if it's not very complicated.

Thanks and I'm being sincere with this post.

[cashmachine]

I gave that as a simple illustration. To laugh at a profitable concept, because of its simplicity, in my world would be surprising, if not immature. You may underestimate others, which is not a good idea in gambling. Even so, good luck with your datamining.

Don't take me wrong - I do not laugh at any profitable edge. If it is profitable use it, that for sure. I just want to notice two things:

1. As you said, they playing like 80 games a season, that is probably the main reason why you "think" it is a profitable concept (because of statistically insignificant sample size).

2. From my experience, simple things like you described practically almost never ever give you any edge in horse racing, simply because there are professional syndicates who invest substantial time and resources in the research, and without any doubt tried all obvious ideas. So these observations already incorporated in the odds. At least that was my experience: wherever I tried such a "common sense" concept, I usually found 2 things: it really has some predictive value in the sense that it gives measurable increase in the winning rate; and second: for practical purposes this edge is absolutely useless because horses it gives credit almost invariably have lower odds, in other words bettors are very well aware of it and it is impounded in odds, so no profit can be achieved from this edge. That again make me return to point 1) above: you probably only "think" it is profitable. I am not sport bettor and don't know current state of competition in sports betting, but if something obvious give you profitable edge, then it is way much easier to make money there.

Having said that, I have to admit that I spend my time to test BS like "first time blinkers off" anyway, just because it is hard to come up with really creative ideas and I want to be sure that I did not miss anything; but I never had an experience that something simple like this actually works, it is always in the odds.

[Dark Horse]

Don't take me wrong - I do not laugh at any profitable edge. If it is profitable use it, that for sure. I just want to notice two things:

1. As you said, they playing like 80 games a season, that is probably the main reason why you "think" it is a profitable concept (because of statistically insignificant sample size).

2. From my experience, simple things like you described practically almost never ever give you any edge in horse racing, simply because there are professional syndicates who invest substantial time and resources in the research, and without any doubt tried all obvious ideas. So these observations already incorporated in the odds. At least that was my experience: wherever I tried such a "common sense" concept, I usually found 2 things: it really has some predictive value in the sense that it gives measurable increase in the winning rate; and second: for practical purposes this edge is absolutely useless because horses it gives credit almost invariably have lower odds, in other words bettors are very well aware of it and it is impounded in odds, so no profit can be achieved from this edge. That again make me return to point 1) above: you probably only "think" it is profitable. I am not sport bettor and don't know current state of competition in sports betting, but if something obvious give you profitable edge, then it is way much easier to make money there.

Having said that, I have to admit that I spend my time to test BS like "first time blinkers off" anyway, just because it is hard to come up with really creative ideas and I want to be sure that I did not miss anything; but I never had an experience that something simple like this actually works, it is always in the odds.

You got the right idea by trying to think outside of the box. But you could be better if your starting ideas were more clearly defined.

Let me give an example. Nikola Tesla. This creative genius was so good at visualizing that he could create an electrical motor in his mind. He could build it from scratch, and see it in detail and even notice if it was out of sync (I can find the quote if you want).

Let's say it wasn't an engine, but a clock. If I'd take the clock apart and give you its thousand-and-one pieces, what are the chances that you're going to recreate the clock? You might come up with some interesting contraptions, that may sell well in certain tourist shops. But to create the clock you would need more of that idea clarity that someone like Tesla demonstrated.

Simplicity is key. Like a clock, horse racing has many moving parts. When you combine a number of ideas -like the moving parts inside a clock - their combinations create complexity. But if you distill the ideas one by one you'll find each is simple.

[_______]

This is simply incorrect. I'm assuming people are capable of some creative thought. I call it dream-thinking. You just sit back or lay back, ask questions, and let the thoughts fall in place.

A simple example, just because it came up recently. There are hundreds of these. This was the thought process:

- Both NBA and NHL teams play 82 games per season. What is the difference per league? Answer: NBA teams often take the night off during the regular season. Part of the culture. NHL has much greater intensity and speed.
- What can I do with this? Answer: look at fatigue.
- Where do I look for fatigue? Answer: combine no-rest with the 3rd period.

Now, and not before, it was time to look at the data. Sure enough, this simple idea produced a strong angle. The data confirmed the idea. After this the data allowed me to add one strengthener, by adding different settings for the distance traveled.

Remember. Everybody is looking at the same data. If you want an edge, you have to out-think others.

The NBA season started 10/28 and ends 4/15. The NHL started 10/8 and ends 4/11.

How did you intuit more fatigue over the longer season?

[Robert Fischer]

Ultimately, you have to have superior insights, and good betting-behavior, to win or improve at this game.

Whether you do this with math and computers, or conceptualizing ideas or some other method is fine.

[Tom]

Exactly, and, that was one part about PIRCO I miss alot -- Doc performed a valuable service when publishing those "outside the box" ideas and sources.

The most recent example of repurposing I've had came after watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yj3QsQbNIg4

It was not anything I thought would apply to handicapping but it did make the light bulb go on for a certain aspect of another game.

I "whined" to the Doc once that all the winners were ranked 3 and 4 on my line scores and what should I do about it.

"Bet all the 3's and 4's." He told me. :bang:

[Robert Goren]

Few of us are able to come up with something out of the blue. We observe and learn. Books are just somebody else's observations. A true genius would say most winners ran a race a month ago without ever looking at how long a winning horse has been off. He would come up with a few reasons why that happens. Most of the rest of us would notice that winning horses that have been off a month and go from there. A few of us would have to read it in a book in order to figure it out. There is not a whole lot of things being written in books today on horse race betting that did not appear in a book written 25 years ago. There are ideas that have not been written about but for what ever reason they aren't being put to paper. It used to take a new idea of being use about 7 years before somebody wrote about it. There are ideas being used that are older 7 years, but nobody is putting them down on paper for others to read right now. At some point bunch of these previously about unwritten ideas will hit the presses, probably pretty close together in time.

[Dark Horse]

The NBA season started 10/28 and ends 4/15. The NHL started 10/8 and ends 4/11.

How did you intuit more fatigue over the longer season?

For the NHL I use short term fatigue. If you have to play two nights in a row and also travel 500 miles, while the home team is rested, a NHL team is going to pay the price in the third period. It just comes with the territory of the high intensity NHL.

The NBA season is similar to a horse race. Some teams are fast out of the gate, but the question about the winner is answered in the stretch. Experienced teams pace themselves.

When I was more into sports betting, I divided the NBA season into four parts:
1) Establishing the team's identity. Teams have to find out who they are first. Roughly November through December (or mid December).
2) January to the All Star Break. As soon as a team identity is established it's time to cruise, because there are way too many games in a season to keep up intensity. This is the elevated training session part of the season, especially so for the teams that consider themselves playoff contenders. Teams that are trying to join that elite will burn brighter here, and pay for the extra effort during the playoffs. Bettors who don't understand this cruising element are going to pay the price for the oversight here.
3) All Star Break to Playoffs. Now intensity goes up, and teams play much more consistently true to talent. This is probably the easiest part of the season in terms of handicapping.
4) Playoffs. War.

A difference between the NHL and NBA is obviously in the scoring. NHL teams have to fight hard for a goal advantage, where a NBA team can just stay close to the opponent and wait for the final minutes. A game that is decided by 2 points with a total of 200 points is decided by 1% of the points. Try that on the ice. And in the NHL people take off the gloves and fight each other. That's a totally different level of intensity. ;)