Teach
03-17-2015, 02:16 PM
Item Analysis
Aqueduct. Belmont. Saratoga. Finger Lakes. Santa Anita. But also Mahoning Valley, Delta Downs, Fonner, plus harness tracks like Freehold, Monticello, Saratoga, Yonkers and The Meadowlands.
When I was a high school history teacher here in Massachusetts and on Long Island, NY, I would occasionally do what I called an “Item Analysis”. “Item analysis. What’s that you ask?”
Well, periodically, I’d evaluate the individual questions I gave on a unit-exam tests. Oh, there were objective questions like multiple choice, matching, fill-ins, etc., but also subjective questions like essays and what I called ‘interpretative thinking’ paragraphs.
Yes, it was time consuming to do this evaluation, but it allowed me to get an overall view of how my students, as a group, were doing on my test questions. What I was particularly looking for were questions that the students, again, as a group, did poorly on.
When I identified those questions, I would then ask myself: “Did I effectively teach that material?” Or, “Had I properly worded the question?” Sometimes, after the evaluation, I would scrap a question entirely. Or, at the very least, I would re-word it, or find an alternative way to ask it.
What does all have to do with pari-mutuel horse-race wagering?
Well, most ADWs will give you a section that you can access that shows your ROIs and plus-minus wagering history. Just like my teaching days with “item analysis,” you can do your own item analyses of your wagering activities at the tracks you bet on.
Personally, I recently did an analysis of a year’s worth of action. First, I must admit I was blown away by the number of individual wagers I had made during the course of the year. What I personally found (and this is just my own personal analysis) is that I did best at the NYRA tracks. In fact, I did very well (positive numbers) for the Saratoga Meet. I find that last fact hard to quantify, except for the fact that I do find “The Spa” Meet to be most formful. And, they usually have several stakes races. I personally believe that helps my handicapping.
Moreover, I won’t go into the individual tracks that I’ve struggled with (I don’t think that serves a purpose in this discussion).
Suffice to say is what this pari-mutuel self-analysis has educated me about is the realization that – at least when it comes to my own betting patterns (I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist) is that not all tracks are created equal.
Oh, by the way, when it comes to harness racing, my personal favorites are the half-milers. As I’ve looked over my numbers, I’ve done reasonably well at Freehold (I actually “cut my racing teeth” at a now defunct half-mile harness track called Foxboro Raceway, south of Boston, in 1958).
As I conclude, what I’m suggesting (please take this as a suggestion) is that it might behoove our individual forum members to take an occasional look at how they’re doing at various tracks they make wagers at. It might well provide a wealth of information. What they do with that information is certainly up to them. Yet, from my perspective, as a veteran horseplayer, it might make some sense to take an occasional look
In the end, I find the whole thing similar to my teaching days when did item analyses of individual test questions, maybe the same feedback I got then would be helpful to all of us with regard to the array of individual tracks we have to choose from and make wagers on from our ADW betting menus.
Aqueduct. Belmont. Saratoga. Finger Lakes. Santa Anita. But also Mahoning Valley, Delta Downs, Fonner, plus harness tracks like Freehold, Monticello, Saratoga, Yonkers and The Meadowlands.
When I was a high school history teacher here in Massachusetts and on Long Island, NY, I would occasionally do what I called an “Item Analysis”. “Item analysis. What’s that you ask?”
Well, periodically, I’d evaluate the individual questions I gave on a unit-exam tests. Oh, there were objective questions like multiple choice, matching, fill-ins, etc., but also subjective questions like essays and what I called ‘interpretative thinking’ paragraphs.
Yes, it was time consuming to do this evaluation, but it allowed me to get an overall view of how my students, as a group, were doing on my test questions. What I was particularly looking for were questions that the students, again, as a group, did poorly on.
When I identified those questions, I would then ask myself: “Did I effectively teach that material?” Or, “Had I properly worded the question?” Sometimes, after the evaluation, I would scrap a question entirely. Or, at the very least, I would re-word it, or find an alternative way to ask it.
What does all have to do with pari-mutuel horse-race wagering?
Well, most ADWs will give you a section that you can access that shows your ROIs and plus-minus wagering history. Just like my teaching days with “item analysis,” you can do your own item analyses of your wagering activities at the tracks you bet on.
Personally, I recently did an analysis of a year’s worth of action. First, I must admit I was blown away by the number of individual wagers I had made during the course of the year. What I personally found (and this is just my own personal analysis) is that I did best at the NYRA tracks. In fact, I did very well (positive numbers) for the Saratoga Meet. I find that last fact hard to quantify, except for the fact that I do find “The Spa” Meet to be most formful. And, they usually have several stakes races. I personally believe that helps my handicapping.
Moreover, I won’t go into the individual tracks that I’ve struggled with (I don’t think that serves a purpose in this discussion).
Suffice to say is what this pari-mutuel self-analysis has educated me about is the realization that – at least when it comes to my own betting patterns (I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist) is that not all tracks are created equal.
Oh, by the way, when it comes to harness racing, my personal favorites are the half-milers. As I’ve looked over my numbers, I’ve done reasonably well at Freehold (I actually “cut my racing teeth” at a now defunct half-mile harness track called Foxboro Raceway, south of Boston, in 1958).
As I conclude, what I’m suggesting (please take this as a suggestion) is that it might behoove our individual forum members to take an occasional look at how they’re doing at various tracks they make wagers at. It might well provide a wealth of information. What they do with that information is certainly up to them. Yet, from my perspective, as a veteran horseplayer, it might make some sense to take an occasional look
In the end, I find the whole thing similar to my teaching days when did item analyses of individual test questions, maybe the same feedback I got then would be helpful to all of us with regard to the array of individual tracks we have to choose from and make wagers on from our ADW betting menus.