View Full Version : How do you measure your handicapping?
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 09:48 AM
Many times we modify our approaches to the royal game and actually wonder if we improved our game or not. There are many ways to measure our approach. Here are a few ways to score ourselves with some comments.
(1) Return on Investment (ROI):
-- Money returned/money invested on a $2.00 win wager.
This is the measure of all measures with a direct application to the real world. All other measures would just be considered BS.
(2) Strike or Hit Ratio:
-- wins/attempts
One can't help that the public does so well. What really counts is how well am I doing by comparing my current handicapping to my own past.
(3) Universal Driver Rating (UDR) method from harness racing:
-- (9*wins+5*places+3*shows)/(9*amount of races)
The nice thing about this system is that it gives a kind of like baseball batting average score. A score here of 300 is similar to a batting average of 300. We have a feel for these numbers.
(4) Quirin style modification on the UDR:
-- (6*wins+3*places+shows)/(6*amount of races)
Quirin established that the true value in thoroughbred racing is 6-3-1 not 9-5-3.
(5) Fred Davis is credited with this method:
-- If any of your top three score 1 / amount of races. 60% is considered good.
(6) TTC (I forgot what this stands for, but these TTC contests are popular.)
-- 40 points for a win, 20 points for a place, 10 points for a show. Double points on your best bet of the day horse. This score is typically used over 8 races on the same card. To make this a measure, one would have to take the total points divided by the amount of races plus one (because of the double points on best bet). The challenge of the best bet adds an interesting complexity- Do you really know what a winner looks like?
What's your take on these or any other method of measure?
Greyfox
05-16-2015, 09:53 AM
By the thickness of my wallet on a weekly basis or the changes in my betting account on a monthly basis.
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 09:54 AM
Many times we modify our approaches to the royal game and actually wonder if we improved our game or not. There are many ways to measure our approach. Here are a few ways to score ourselves with some comments.
(1) Return on Investment (ROI):
-- Money returned/money invested on a $2.00 win wager.
This is the measure of all measures with a direct application to the real world. All other measures would just be considered BS.
Al, I do not agree with your statement.
The most significant metric is P&L in absolute value. A low ROI can very well be way better than a very high one, assuming that the former is suggesting way more bets than the latter.
BlueChip@DRF
05-16-2015, 09:59 AM
By the existence of the moths in my wallet.
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 10:01 AM
Many times we modify our approaches to the royal game and actually wonder if we improved our game or not. There are many ways to measure our approach. Here are a few ways to score ourselves with some comments.
(1) Return on Investment (ROI):
-- Money returned/money invested on a $2.00 win wager.
This is the measure of all measures with a direct application to the real world. All other measures would just be considered BS.
(2) Strike or Hit Ratio:
-- wins/attempts
One can't help that the public does so well. What really counts is how well am I doing by comparing my current handicapping to my own past.
(3) Universal Driver Rating (UDR) method from harness racing:
-- (9*wins+5*places+3*shows)/(9*amount of races)
The nice thing about this system is that it gives a kind of like baseball batting average score. A score here of 300 is similar to a batting average of 300. We have a feel for these numbers.
(4) Quirin style modification on the UDR:
-- (6*wins+3*places+shows)/(6*amount of races)
Quirin established that the true value in thoroughbred racing is 6-3-1 not 9-5-3.
(5) Fred Davis is credited with this method:
-- If any of your top three score 1 / amount of races. 60% is considered good.
(6) TTC (I forgot what this stands for, but these TTC contests are popular.)
-- 40 points for a win, 20 points for a place, 10 points for a show. Double points on your best bet of the day horse. This score is typically used over 8 races on the same card. To make this a measure, one would have to take the total points divided by the amount of races plus one (because of the double points on best bet). The challenge of the best bet adds an interesting complexity- Do you really know what a winner looks like?
What's your take on these or any other method of measure?
A typical way for me to keep track of my daily betting results is to record all my bets in a spreadsheet, having a running ROI, hit rate and PNL.. The following is an example of my approach (note that this is my main model, which only spawns to win bets, for other bets I keep a less detailed sheet)
http://i57.tinypic.com/2mmg7l5.png
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 10:10 AM
Al, I do not agree with your statement.
The most significant metric is P&L in absolute value. A low ROI can very well be way better than a very high one, assuming that the former is suggesting way more bets than the latter.
All I'm suggesting is that we need a method to measure our changes. There are many ways to measure. P&L is the ROI with maybe other wagers than win to considered.
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 10:11 AM
By the existence of the moths in my wallet.
A realist,ROI.
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 10:13 AM
By the thickness of my wallet on a weekly basis or the changes in my betting account on a monthly basis.
ROI
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 10:14 AM
All I'm suggesting is that we need a method to measure our changes. There are many ways to measure. P&L is the ROI with maybe other wagers than win to considered.
PNL is not the ROI..
You remember like a year ago, when somebody posted about a (silly) handicapping approach that was finding extremely sparse bets (in the range of a few of them every half a year, if memory serves) using Bris PP claiming a very high ROI? This approach is next to useless, as the objective of the game is not to show some theoretical positive return based on your betting action but to maximize your absolute income, which is not necessary the same as maximizing your ROI
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 10:18 AM
Of course, in the end it will always be ROI. Can anyone see this like tuning a piano? (Increase my hit rate here, improve my Quirin style UDR there, improve my overall TTC score, and hopefully eventually my ROI will go up.)
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 10:19 AM
Of course, in the end it will always be ROI. Can anyone see this like tuning a piano? (Increase my hit rate here, improve my Quirin style UDR there, improve my overall TTC score, and hopefully eventually my ROI will go up.)
Al, Please try to think it a little more..
HIGHER ROI DOES NOT NECESSARY MEAN HIGER PROFITS
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 10:21 AM
PNL is not the ROI..
You remember like a year ago, when somebody posted about a (silly) handicapping approach that was finding extremely sparse bets (in the range of a few of them every half a year, if memory serves) using Bris PP claiming a very high ROI? This approach is next to useless, as the objective of the game is not to show some theoretical positive return based on your betting action but to maximize your absolute income, which is not necessary the same as maximizing your ROI
P&L doesn't directly correlate to ROI? One can be positive while the other negative? I don't think so.
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 10:28 AM
P&L doesn't directly correlate to ROI? One can be positive while the other negative? I don't think so.
I am not referring to positive vs negative here.
BUT
a model with a 1.10 ROI will be WAY more profitable from a model with a 1.20 ROI if it is able to find three times more frequent bets.
The key point is that we measure profits in conjunction to time and not as an abstract concept.
Robert Goren
05-16-2015, 11:05 AM
Being a small bettor, I measure myself by two things. Reloads and Withdrawals. A good year is marked by no reloads and several withdraws. If I need to reload, then I know it is time to re-evaluate what I have been doing. I used to keep a journal, but with he advent of ADWs, it is no longer necessary. If I bet more money, I would do a better job of keeping track.
ROIs are only a way to keep track of how well certain types of bets are doing. Certainly you don't want to make any negative ROI bets, so you should keep that kind of record. I have one bet that pops up maybe once a month with a very high ROI, It is nice when I see it, but it is not worth hunting for on days when I have other things to do other than scour the PPs.
traynor
05-16-2015, 11:09 AM
I think that depends on whether ROI is used as a "real" value (actual money earned in the real world) or a fantasy value ("paper profit"). It is an interesting point, because most seem to think "ROI" means whatever they think it means (or want it to mean). That may be why many bettors (to their dismay) find that the strategies they discover by studying the past do not function (as well) in the present or future. It might help to understand that "return" does not mean "woulda coulda shoulda"--it means "money that came back as a result of money that went out."
Perhaps a more realistic term than "return on investment" should be used in regard to horse races. I have never really thought about it, but the term "ROI" seems to be used in a different context by serious bettors (who tend to consider it only in "real" terms of actual money won) and by more casual bettors (who consider "paper profit" and "actual money won" as essentially equivalent).
This issue was discussed on another thread, with the overall impression that some (or most, unfortunately) believe a "paper profit ROI" of 1.2 is equivalent to a guarantee of exponential growth on future wagers (each and every one of which operates with a 20% advantage--"POI").
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 11:13 AM
I think that depends on whether ROI is used as a "real" value (actual money earned in the real world) or a fantasy value ("paper profit"). It is an interesting point, because most seem to think "ROI" means whatever they think it means (or want it to mean).
I do not agree.
I think that ROI is very well defined and it equals total payoffs over total amount of bet. Do you know of any other alternative definition? (I do not)
therussmeister
05-16-2015, 12:04 PM
I measure profit divided by number of races handicapped.
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 12:45 PM
I am not referring to positive vs negative here.
BUT
a model with a 1.10 ROI will be WAY more profitable from a model with a 1.20 ROI if it is able to find three times more frequent bets.
The key point is that we measure profits in conjunction to time and not as an abstract concept.
I only suggested a few ways to look at things and requested that other points of view be added. You're right. Opportunity to use a system matters.
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 12:46 PM
I only suggested a few ways to look at things and requested that other points of view be added. You're right. Opportunity to use a system matters.
I understand..
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 12:49 PM
I think that depends on whether ROI is used as a "real" value (actual money earned in the real world) or a fantasy value ("paper profit"). It is an interesting point, because most seem to think "ROI" means whatever they think it means (or want it to mean). That may be why many bettors (to their dismay) find that the strategies they discover by studying the past do not function (as well) in the present or future. It might help to understand that "return" does not mean "woulda coulda shoulda"--it means "money that came back as a result of money that went out."
Perhaps a more realistic term than "return on investment" should be used in regard to horse races. I have never really thought about it, but the term "ROI" seems to be used in a different context by serious bettors (who tend to consider it only in "real" terms of actual money won) and by more casual bettors (who consider "paper profit" and "actual money won" as essentially equivalent).
This issue was discussed on another thread, with the overall impression that some (or most, unfortunately) believe a "paper profit ROI" of 1.2 is equivalent to a guarantee of exponential growth on future wagers (each and every one of which operates with a 20% advantage--"POI").
I'm always surprised by how paper and real can differ.
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 12:51 PM
I measure profit divided by number of races handicapped.
Similar to the ROI folks.
AndyC
05-16-2015, 12:53 PM
Of course, in the end it will always be ROI. Can anyone see this like tuning a piano? (Increase my hit rate here, improve my Quirin style UDR there, improve my overall TTC score, and hopefully eventually my ROI will go up.)
If you bet the same amount each and every year then ROI is certainly an accurate measure of success. Would you rather have an ROI of 1.05 betting $1,000,000 or an ROI of 1.25 betting $100,000?
traynor
05-16-2015, 01:20 PM
I do not agree.
I think that ROI is very well defined and it equals total payoffs over total amount of bet. Do you know of any other alternative definition? (I do not)
"Well defined" does not mean accurate, when the definitions are subjective. ROI involves more than total amount of bet. TCO has to be factored to make ROI meaningful. Calculating ROI on any business endeavor involves considerably more than "sale price of goods" divided by "raw cost of goods." ALL costs associated with selling the goods, from storage, to transportation, to TVM used to maintain supplies must be included to generate a meaningful value. Unless one happens to be a student of the Arthur Anderson College of Creative Accounting.
Greyfox
05-16-2015, 01:29 PM
"Well defined" does not mean accurate, when the definitions are subjective. ROI involves more than total amount of bet. TCO has to be factored to make ROI meaningful. Calculating ROI on any business endeavor involves considerably more than "sale price of goods" divided by "raw cost of goods." ALL costs associated with selling the goods, from storage, to transportation, to TVM used to maintain supplies must be included to generate a meaningful value. Unless one happens to be a student of the Arthur Anderson College of Creative Accounting.
The question was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
For that ROI is well defined as Delta Lover pointed out.
The question was not "What profit do you earn with respect to horse handicapping?"
Obviously, you'd then include other expenses such as program, bus ticket,
gate entrance, coffee, snacks or computer cable costs etc.
ROI is exactly as Delta Lover defined it x 100.
traynor
05-16-2015, 01:30 PM
If you bet the same amount each and every year then ROI is certainly an accurate measure of success. Would you rather have an ROI of 1.05 betting $1,000,000 or an ROI of 1.25 betting $100,000?
That is getting closer to a "real" ROI--based on wagers actually made. My contention is that bettors who look at past results, see X mutuel total divided by (number of bets * $2) and define that as "ROI" are seriously misleading themselves. I also agree (with certain exceptions involving TCO) with DL's formula of amount won/amount bet--which implies something in the real world as opposed to "paper profit."
I don't think "ROI" based on the (hypothetical) "result" of wagers not made is anything more than deceptive.
traynor
05-16-2015, 01:33 PM
The question was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
For that ROI is well defined as Delta Lover pointed out.
The question was not "What profit do you earn with respect to horse handicapping?"
Obviously, you'd then include other expenses such as program, bus ticket,
gate entrance, coffee, snacks or computer cable costs etc.
ROI is exactly as Delta Lover defined it x 100.
I think you made my point. The overwhelming majority of bettors are unwilling to use an accurate measure of their handicapping--and prefer the ego-saving metric of "ROI" on paper profits.
Greyfox
05-16-2015, 01:39 PM
I think you made my point.
I don't think I made your point.
ROI is not subjective, and strictly refers to actual bets made and income received from them.
Profit is larger issue in scope.
traynor
05-16-2015, 01:43 PM
The question was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
For that ROI is well defined as Delta Lover pointed out.
The question was not "What profit do you earn with respect to horse handicapping?"
Obviously, you'd then include other expenses such as program, bus ticket,
gate entrance, coffee, snacks or computer cable costs etc.
ROI is exactly as Delta Lover defined it x 100.
Calculation
For a single-period review, divide the return (net profit) by the resources that were committed (investment):
return on investment (%) = (Net profit / Investment) × 100
where:
Net profit = gross profit − expenses.
investment = stock + market outstanding + claims.
or
return on investment = (gain from investment – cost of investment) / cost of investment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
The latter value is more often considered POI rather than ROI.
traynor
05-16-2015, 01:48 PM
I don't think I made your point.
ROI is not subjective, and strictly refers to actual bets made and income received from them.
Profit is larger issue in scope.
Only in the minds of those who want to believe such. "ROI" is not a horsey term--it is a fairly common term used in many other areas of endeavor. Tweaking it to mean "this and only this" when applied to horse races is misleading. Or--perhaps more accurate a term--subjective.
Greyfox
05-16-2015, 01:51 PM
Calculation
For a single-period review, divide the return (net profit) by the resources that were committed (investment):
return on investment (%) = (Net profit / Investment) × 100
where:
Net profit = gross profit − expenses.
investment = stock + market outstanding + claims.
or
return on investment = (gain from investment – cost of investment) / cost of investment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
The latter value is more often considered POI rather than ROI.
True, but when at the track if you are asking handicappers their ROI they will strictly refer to monies on wagering.
If you have a company that is interested in Profit (loss) margins then they will use what you have presented above.
The specific question of this thread was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
It was most reasonable that horse players here would respond with ROI as defined by Deltalover, as we are not in a company boardroom meeting with Directors.
I think that your response simply complicates the issue for most horse players as you are focusing on net profits and total investment as a businessman would.
Greyfox
05-16-2015, 02:03 PM
Traynor - Consider the following example.
Handicapper A - goes to the track and wagers $1000 and earns back $1200 over the course of an afternoon.
He treats his wife two supper and drinks and spends $150 back, going home with $50 extra in his pocket.
Handicapper B - Goes to the track and bets $500. He gets back $550 and walks out of the track, not spending a nickel on food, drink, programs etc.
He leaves the track ahead with $50 extra in his pocket.
If we were measuring handicapping ability Handicapper A has done better on his wagering, with an ROI of 1.20, but with costs his Profit is the same.
Handicapper B , a cheapskate, walked out with the same Profit because he didn't spend a nickel. He's done so with weaker handicapping ability.
So when we ask "How do you measure your handicapping?" introducing extra costs and actual profit is superfluous to this discussion.
traynor
05-16-2015, 02:15 PM
Traynor - Consider the following example.
Handicapper A - goes to the track and wagers $1000 and earns back $1200 over the course of an afternoon.
He treats his wife two supper and drinks and spends $150 back, going home with $50 extra in his pocket.
Handicapper B - Goes to the track and bets $500. He gets back $550 and walks out of the track, not spending a nickel on food, drink, programs etc.
He leaves the track ahead with $50 extra in his pocket.
If we were measuring handicapping ability Handicapper A has done better on his wagering, with an ROI of 1.20, but with costs his Profit is the same.
Handicapper B , a cheapskate, walked out with the same Profit because he didn't spend a nickel. He's done so with weaker handicapping ability.
So when we ask "How do you measure your handicapping?" introducing extra costs and actual profit is superfluous to this discussion.
That is comparing apples and oranges. ROI calculations involve direct costs associated with generating the return, not unrelated expenditures. However, if Handicapper A is forced to spend $x in order to gain the return, then the cost of dinner and drinks should accurately be considered a necessary expense.
Greyfox
05-16-2015, 02:20 PM
That is comparing apples and oranges. ROI calculations involve direct costs associated with generating the return, not unrelated expenditures. However, if Handicapper A is forced to spend $x in order to gain the return, then the cost of dinner and drinks should accurately be considered a necessary expense.
My point is the question was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
You should start a thread entitled "How do you measure your profit from horse racing?"
You are the one that added oranges to the apples, as lifestyle preferences would have to be included in answers to profits (eg. purchase of box seats, dining, drinks.)
traynor
05-16-2015, 02:32 PM
True, but when at the track if you are asking handicappers their ROI they will strictly refer to monies on wagering.
If you have a company that is interested in Profit (loss) margins then they will use what you have presented above.
The specific question of this thread was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
It was most reasonable that horse players here would respond with ROI as defined by Deltalover, as we are not in a company boardroom meeting with Directors.
I think that your response simply complicates the issue for most horse players as you are focusing on net profits and total investment as a businessman would.
Again, I think you are making my point. As a group, handicappers are disinclined to measure their handicapping in any real world terms. Other bettors--who view racing as income generation--use what seems superficially to be the same metric (ROI), but definitely is NOT--to "measure their handicapping."
I can think of few sillier comments than someone declaring "profitability" in their handicapping based on the paper results of wagers not made.
traynor
05-16-2015, 02:36 PM
My point is the question was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
You should start a thread entitled "How do you measure your profit from horse racing?"
You are the one that added oranges to the apples, as lifestyle preferences would have to be included in answers to profits (eg. purchase of box seats, dining, drinks.)
Profit is directly related to return--not a "separate issue." Lifestyle preferences are an unrelated issue.
ROI = actual return/investment.
POI = (actual return - investment)/investment.
No creative definitions or alternative (subjective) definitions necessary.
thaskalos
05-16-2015, 02:38 PM
I don't measure my handicapping; I measure the results of my entire play. And I find that my bi-monthly profit/loss record provides a pretty accurate portrayal of how well I am doing. ROI and hit rates may have their place...but, IMO, they don't really tell me enough about the important things that I need to know.
I wish I could provide a more thoughtful answer, but I couldn't come up with anything more creative. Or, maybe I misunderstood the questions asked in the original thread. Capper Al does that to me sometimes... :)
traynor
05-16-2015, 02:47 PM
My point is the question was "How do you measure your handicapping?"
You should start a thread entitled "How do you measure your profit from horse racing?"
You are the one that added oranges to the apples, as lifestyle preferences would have to be included in answers to profits (eg. purchase of box seats, dining, drinks.)
I think there is an easier way to clarify, given the prevalence of "winners" on this forum. Change the question to: "How do you measure your handicapping--when reporting your additional income to the IRS?"
There are few areas in which self-deception and denial exert as much influence as in horse race handicapping. I don't really care, other than I think people would do way better if they were a bit more honest with themselves. If one doesn't realize (or refuses to accept) that something is broken, there is little motivation to fix it.
I think a LOT of bettors could win a lot more if they bypassed the ego-saving interpretations of "profitability" and concentrated on making money. The ego-saving ploy of declaring costs and directly related expenses as "entertainment" or "having fun" or whatever is a costly one. Not for me. For them.
DeltaLover
05-16-2015, 03:35 PM
What's going on boys? You don't bet?
thaskalos
05-16-2015, 04:02 PM
When you run a deli, how do you measure your operation?
When you run a deli, how do you measure your operation?
Money.
thaskalos
05-16-2015, 04:24 PM
Money.
Okay then. Does anything more need to be said? :)
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 04:30 PM
First of all, I asked, "How do you measure your own handicapping." So there is no right or wrong here. Second, I didn't even try to come up with all the possible ways. I listed 5 or 6 popular methods for a conversation starter. Third, Gus I'll get back to you in my next reply. And fourth and not last, I see value in all the methods that I listed. For example, the UDR method produced numbers like batting averages. The UDR's value was that we intuitively have an understanding for these numbers. UDR most likely is not the best method, but it is listed for discussion. We all need measures to perfect our game.
Capper Al
05-16-2015, 04:38 PM
I don't measure my handicapping; I measure the results of my entire play. And I find that my bi-monthly profit/loss record provides a pretty accurate portrayal of how well I am doing. ROI and hit rates may have their place...but, IMO, they don't really tell me enough about the important things that I need to know.
I wish I could provide a more thoughtful answer, but I couldn't come up with anything more creative. Or, maybe I misunderstood the questions asked in the original thread. Capper Al does that to me sometimes... :)
This question of how one measures may be more important to computer types. A lot of what we do is measure the impact of one factor against another in producing our final formula or selection. If what is important to you is not seen by numbers directly or in an angle then this discussion is not of importance to you. You're not going to ask yourself how well does your class or speed figures do or in what combination.
traynor
05-16-2015, 04:44 PM
Okay then. Does anything more need to be said? :)
Thanks to both you and cj for succinctly expressing something I have been trying to express (and using WAY too many words).
Robert Fischer
05-16-2015, 04:53 PM
I start with my own insight into the game in general and into my specific advantages.
Then I will have an understanding of how the results will look over time.
Then I look at the results.
Things like Bankroll and ROI are fine for me as general markers. I actually usually have goals for expected percentage of bankroll increase for each day, and then an expected flat dollar amount after a certain point.
traynor
05-16-2015, 04:55 PM
This question of how one measures may be more important to computer types. A lot of what we do is measure the impact of one factor against another in producing our final formula or selection. If what is important to you is not seen by numbers directly or in an angle then this discussion is not of importance to you. You're not going to ask yourself how well does your class or speed figures do or in what combination.
Then the question might have more appropriately been, "How do you measure the relative values of your handicapping factors in your overall selection process?" That is a totally different question.
traynor
05-16-2015, 05:02 PM
I start with my own insight into the game in general and into my specific advantages.
Then I will have an understanding of how the results will look over time.
Then I look at the results.
Things like Bankroll and ROI are fine for me as general markers. I actually usually have goals for expected percentage of bankroll increase for each day, and then an expected flat dollar amount after a certain point.
Agreed. What makes "ROI" figures suspect (and seriously erodes their advantage) is dirty data. Admonitions to correct for outliers, or to establish baselines for acceptable mutuel prices (when studying results) should be heeded. Few things can get more expensive than two-fisted betting a small sample model that has been tweaked by one or two boxcar mutuels that are highly unkely to repeat within the group of "wagers actually made." (The latter is limited by how long it takes to go broke or stop betting using a small sample model that has been tweaked by one or two boxcar mutuels.)
Robert Fischer
05-16-2015, 07:52 PM
Agreed. What makes "ROI" figures suspect (and seriously erodes their advantage) is dirty data. Admonitions to correct for outliers, or to establish baselines for acceptable mutuel prices (when studying results) should be heeded. Few things can get more expensive than two-fisted betting a small sample model that has been tweaked by one or two boxcar mutuels that are highly unkely to repeat within the group of "wagers actually made." (The latter is limited by how long it takes to go broke or stop betting using a small sample model that has been tweaked by one or two boxcar mutuels.)
True.
I think you should know if you have an advantage (and/or a group of advantages). You should see it and understand it in a fundamental sense.
When you start chasing after results from small sample models you are in big trouble.
traynor
05-16-2015, 11:32 PM
True.
I think you should know if you have an advantage (and/or a group of advantages). You should see it and understand it in a fundamental sense.
When you start chasing after results from small sample models you are in big trouble.
Exactly. And yet some argue (some quite vigorously) that "all that statistical stuff" doesn't apply to horse racing ("in the real world") and especially not to them. As I said, it is to their advantage to look a bit more deeply, not mine.
I think the biggest single factor in improving my own results was data cleaning. That avoids (many of) the problems of overfitting to less-than-optimal-size models. Next most useful is extracting a training set, to compare with races not included in that set. Two-thirds for training and one-third for testing works well.
There is purpose in it, beyond being able to cite snarky statistical buzz words. It can dramatically improve your bottom line. With minimal effort. The most useful bit of knowledge is not necessarily "what is winning." It may just be "what is NOT winning." Every loser culled from the wagering is equivalent to 50% winners at even money.
ultracapper
05-17-2015, 02:42 AM
Measure my handicapping by the percentage of horses I bet that win or place. I measure how well I'm playing by...................counting my money.
Capper Al
05-17-2015, 08:12 AM
Then the question might have more appropriately been, "How do you measure the relative values of your handicapping factors in your overall selection process?" That is a totally different question.
Close. I'm tweaking the factors and not only looking at the factor tweaked here, but in the overall final results as a whole of all the factors. Let's say the impact value of the new factor added is 1.3. When combined with my other factors how does the new set of factors translate together.
Capper Al
05-17-2015, 08:16 AM
Agreed. What makes "ROI" figures suspect (and seriously erodes their advantage) is dirty data. Admonitions to correct for outliers, or to establish baselines for acceptable mutuel prices (when studying results) should be heeded.
Right. That's why the focus is on how to measure the overall effectiveness of the change by methods similar that were suggested in the original post.
Capper Al
05-17-2015, 08:18 AM
Measure my handicapping by the percentage of horses I bet that win or place. I measure how well I'm playing by...................counting my money.
Since I'm a weekend warrior and have few races to look at, I include places in a lot of my research too.
traynor
05-17-2015, 11:53 AM
Close. I'm tweaking the factors and not only looking at the factor tweaked here, but in the overall final results as a whole of all the factors. Let's say the impact value of the new factor added is 1.3. When combined with my other factors how does the new set of factors translate together.
Impact values are not additive. The IV of A cannot be added to the IV of B. When A and B both exist, it creates a new, different factor AB--and the IV of that new factor has to be calculated as a discrete entity.
Least squares would give you the best weighting for each factor, but would take a (relatively) large chunk of races to locate the best fit. Google WEKA. Free, easy to use, useful (brief) tutorials to get you started quickly.
Beware of overfitting. Establishing (meaningful) weighted values that actually work in the real world (other than in retrospect on a specific group of races already run) is not trivial. It too often results in the kind of neat, computer-generated value that looks impressive, precise, and meaningful and is none of the above.
Dave Schwartz
05-17-2015, 01:43 PM
Causation vs correlation is a big issue.
What is demanded is some kind of step-wise analysis, where you put in a single factor, research to determine its optimum weight, then subsequently add other factors one at a time, determining what single factor should be added; next determine its optimum weight. Then the entire process is repeated with each subsequent slot.
Thus, with (say) 100 factors, you need a way to look through:
100 x 99 x 98 x 97... etc. combinations.
There are logical shortcuts, of course.
It is a lot of work.
traynor
05-17-2015, 01:59 PM
Causation vs correlation is a big issue.
What is demanded is some kind of step-wise analysis, where you put in a single factor, research to determine its optimum weight, then subsequently add other factors one at a time, determining what single factor should be added; next determine its optimum weight. Then the entire process is repeated with each subsequent slot.
Thus, with (say) 100 factors, you need a way to look through:
100 x 99 x 98 x 97... etc. combinations.
There are logical shortcuts, of course.
It is a lot of work.
I nominate that for the understatement of the year.
classhandicapper
05-17-2015, 02:14 PM
I measure may handicapping ability by how often my "most likely winner" actually wins and I measure my gambling ability by my ROI and betting volume.
The way I see, the more top winners you pick, the more accurate your odds lines will be even if you are betting other horses.
Capper Al
05-17-2015, 02:40 PM
I'm liking the TTC approach mention in the original post for handicapping. It focuses on how well one is picking them. For wagering, I use a simple P&L. For factors, I use impact value.
Overlay
05-17-2015, 04:41 PM
I measure my handicapping by how closely the actual performance of horses or exotic combinations corresponds to the fair odds/payout that I calculate for them based on my handicapping factors and weights.
Greyfox
05-17-2015, 06:14 PM
I measure my handicapping by how closely the actual performance of horses or exotic combinations corresponds to the fair odds/payout that I calculate for them based on my handicapping factors and weights.
Yes and as I recall Overlay you always did very well in that contest we used to have on this board leading up to the Kentucky Derby even with a different two players on your team each year.
Your post here though begs the questions "Do you quantify whether or not your performances are matching your predictions for fair odds."
Do you have an index of variation that changes with different types of races, at different distances and on different surfaces? If so, does it change week to week or through the different seasons? If your predictions are out of whack do you change the weight of your predictors?
Overlay
05-17-2015, 11:07 PM
Yes and as I recall Overlay you always did very well in that contest we used to have on this board leading up to the Kentucky Derby even with a different two players on your team each year.
Your post here though begs the questions "Do you quantify whether or not your performances are matching your predictions for fair odds."
Do you have an index of variation that changes with different types of races, at different distances and on different surfaces? If so, does it change week to week or through the different seasons? If your predictions are out of whack do you change the weight of your predictors?
Thanks for the positive recollection of past PAIHL performance. (I was all primed to give it another go this year, but I enjoyed the additional time off.) :)
I take both distance and surface variations into account, and, through compartmentalization of the factors that I use, also have a means of determining which element(s) is/are accounting for statistically-significant observed performance variances as a guide in adjusting weights.
Greyfox
05-17-2015, 11:22 PM
Thanks for the positive recollection of past PAIHL performance. (I was all primed to give it another go this year, but I enjoyed the additional time off.) :)
I take both distance and surface variations into account, and, through compartmentalization of the factors that I use, also have a means of determining which element(s) is/are accounting for statistically-significant observed performance variances as a guide in adjusting weights.
Thank you:ThmbUp:
Greyfox
raybo
05-18-2015, 09:12 AM
I track all 3 of my top 3 ranked horses by rankings method used, number of plays versus number of races, hit percentages, and ROIs. All by individual track.
I also analyze the actual listing of races played for obvious mutuel outliers, track condition, distance, surface type, class, and day of the week.
Day of the week is new to me the past year.
It has opened my eyes for sure.
The difference between profit and loss might depend when you play your spot plays. I have one at Aqueduct that is pretty good on weekends but dreadful during the week, going back over two years. It is based on class.
Capper Al
05-18-2015, 02:58 PM
Playing in contests might be added on the OP list also.
raybo
05-18-2015, 04:26 PM
Day of the week is new to me the past year.
It has opened my eyes for sure.
The difference between profit and loss might depend when you play your spot plays. I have one at Aqueduct that is pretty good on weekends but dreadful during the week, going back over two years. It is based on class.
Almost without fail, every time I test a track, there is one day (or maybe 2 days) in the week that simply do not pay enough to make a profit, regardless of the hit rate. Knowing that in advance automatically puts you on days that have higher average payouts, and in my game that is very important.
I track the days of the week by ">=3/1" winners and ">=6/1" winners ($8 or higher and $14 or higher). It's an eye opener, for sure!
Poindexter
05-18-2015, 07:59 PM
Measuring handicapping and measuring my performance are two different things. Measuring handicapping for me has to do with comparing my opinion seeing what happened and ratingmy self. Let's take Santa Anita for Yesterday just to give an example of what I am talking about.
Skip the 1st (obvious favorite won at 1-2). Lousy race.
2nd Race. Liked winning in Fashion. Did not have much of an opinion after that. Winninginfashion paid a nice 6.80-1, got a very comfortable trip and faded. Winner at 2-1 I would not have liked at 2-1 in a million years. No excuse, just lost. One for the crowd.
3rd race. Looked like a 2 horse race to me, Ms. KJ who I liked best and went off at 5-2 and LX Sunrise who went off at 6-5. Got the order wrong as LX sunrise was first and Ms. KJ was end, but brownie points for me on having more seperation of the top two over the 3rd and 4th favorite. Did not even bet the race other than maybe daily doubles none of which hit.
4th race. Loved Two Step Flor at a very nice 5.40-1. He paid a nice 5.40-1, got the lone speed trip I was hoping for, but it was his first start off of a layoff and he obviously needed the race and faded to 3rd. I think it was a good play that just lost. One for the crowd, I will live with it.
5th race. I cut the race off with 4 contenders 1-3-6-8. They managed to run 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, behind what likely would have been my 5th choice if I chose to go there. My key horse was Sensation Niki who I was hoping would be sent, but unfortunately wasn't the tactics employed. Don't think I was terribly off with my horses coming 2nd to 5th at odds of 7/5, 3.4-1, 9-1 and 9-1, but with the horse I did not use winning and the favorite coming second, I would call that a fairly poor result, but betting wise a disaster as it kills all doubles and pick 3's on top of whatever I lost in the race.
6th race-One of those races that makes you feel like a complete idiot. The crowd bet Forrest Chatter down to odds on and he won like an odds on horse should. I basically had the race down to 1-2-6-7 keying #6 US Citizen at 3.90-1. Not only did the 1 spoil the exotics by winning at 4-5 (took me 4 horses to get home a $3.80 winner, but my other 3 were 2nd, 3rd and 4th to last.
7th race- Then 2nd favorite Parlimentarian won at 3.90-1 and the heavy favorite Peacenik was 2nd at 1/2. Played the exacta and made a little bit, but turned out good in the double, pick 3 and pick 4 where I was able to get home the winner on a double. Nothing to brag about from a handicapping standpoint, but got the job done.
8th race-did a good job here. My top choice was winner Clever Royal my second choice was favorite Somethin unusual who came 3rd, my cover horses in the rolling pick 3 and pick 4 were the 2nd and 4th place finishers. It was just one of those situations I was stuck a lot at the time and needed Clever Royal so badly for doubles, pick 3's etc, I did not get overly involved in the race. Had the exact and tri small, a place bet on Clever royal, and he ended up keying a nice pick 3 and pick 4, but failed to bring down the easy $494.50 super. Great handicapping(it happens once every 50 races or so :lol: :lol: :lol: ) not so great betting.
9th race-had no opinion in a race loaded with 1st time starters. Went 6 deep in the pick 3 and pick 4 and was fortunate to get home a 12-1 shot 1st time starter.
Ended up being a nice day for me, but as far as the subject of the post, it is not as cut an dry as money. I hit a nice enough late pick 4, but it took me 4 horsesto get home 4/5 shot in the first leg(usually you want to single 4/5 winners if possible or at worst have them as 1 of 2). But could have been worse I could have gone 4 deep and gotten home someone else and torn up my ticket(like what happened in the 5th).
You just have to evaluate your capping race by race, day by day and take it from there.
When it comes to measuring performance it is all about record keeping. Track every bet seperately(win, place, show, exacta, trifecta....). win/loss and $ bet. As you accumulate data, you begin to see where you are. If you are losing over 15% on the bet, chances are it is a low probability event like a pick 4. 1 good score will put you in the black for months, don't worry about it. If you are are losing 15% + on Win or Place or exacta over a large number of racing days, that should concern you. You are probably betting too many undervalued plays. Bottom line is you just see where your roi is for each kind of bet, and of course what your overall profit and loss is and go from there. As your sample size gets really large you will have a better idea of what you are capable of. If you are getting rebates, you should track them seperately. Hopefully they are paying for a good portion of your losing bets or better yet adding to your profits.
Kash$
05-19-2015, 08:51 PM
Steve Crist-
Bankroll start of the day
Bankroll end of the day
bugboy
05-19-2015, 09:24 PM
I'm with you Kash$
Steve Crist-
Bankroll start of the day
Bankroll end of the day
I'd change that to month, at least, maybe quarter. You measure by the day, you are asking for trouble.
taxicab
05-20-2015, 12:32 AM
Keep track of every dollar you push through the windows for 24 months(or so).
If you're down less then 15% of that number.......you're really good.
The high takeout really does kill us in this game. :faint:
raybo
05-20-2015, 01:07 AM
Keep track of every dollar you push through the windows for 24 months(or so).
If you're down less then 15% of that number.......you're really good.
The high takeout really does kill us in this game. :faint:
If you are betting every race, I agree I suppose.
But, if you are disciplined and play only those races that fit your personal criteria, -15% is NOT "really good", it's close to what the public as a whole does. If you are not positive ROI, or close enough for rebates to put you positive, then you are NOT "really good", IMO.
LottaKash
05-20-2015, 01:22 AM
After 52 years at this, my game has evolved into a very simple way of wagering and kashing in on my rewards...
I am still a P&P handicapper, but my game has been reduced to about a "dozen" of tried and true angles, and a subset of another dozen or so lesser angles....My wagering rules are simple, "No Angle - No Bets"...With very little speculation in between...
I have had much, albeit, modest success, for the past 10-years or so...Modest because I have all but given up on getting rich, and just play to supplement my fixed income....But the reality is, it works for me...
Regardless of Bankroll size, I size my bets so that I have enough of a BR to insure that I always have "20-Bets"...I like 30 better, but 20 does well all the same...
Each month I take inventory, and sometimes twice a month, depending how well I have been faring lately....At the end of the Inventory, I usually am ahead...And, if having great success, I will take only half of the starting BR, and reinvest the Bankroll into a new wager-level, and bet for more....And, depending on my needs for the month or the moment, I will often withdraw the whole profit margin if the need arises....And then re-establish the new BR, and carry on with the 20-bet thing...
For an old guy this works out well for me...Of course, I only wager mostly WP and some straight cold 1-way exacts, and my wagers are quite modest as well....Most times, I just grind away never losing or winning too much, but when the Angles are clicking, and I am in the zone, that is when the profits start rolling in again...Doing it this way, I have been, after program expenses (I play at home), averaging between $1500 & $2000 a year....I am not greedy just old and needy...
The thing of it is, I haven't had to replenish the BR for a good long while now doing it this way...And I get to get those little things that the household budget does not allow for... :cool:
raybo
05-20-2015, 02:09 AM
After 52 years at this, my game has evolved into a very simple way of wagering and kashing in on my rewards...
I am still a P&P handicapper, but my game has been reduced to about a "dozen" of tried and true angles, and a subset of another dozen or so lesser angles....My wagering rules are simple, "No Angle - No Bets"...With very little speculation in between...
I have had much, albeit, modest success, for the past 10-years or so...Modest because I have all but given up on getting rich, and just play to supplement my fixed income....But the reality is, it works for me...
Regardless of Bankroll size, I size my bets so that I have enough of a BR to insure that I always have "20-Bets"...I like 30 better, but 20 does well all the same...
Each month I take inventory, and sometimes twice a month, depending how well I have been faring lately....At the end of the Inventory, I usually am ahead...And, if having great success, I will take only half of the starting BR, and reinvest the Bankroll into a new wager-level, and bet for more....And, depending on my needs for the month or the moment, I will often withdraw the whole profit margin if the need arises....And then re-establish the new BR, and carry on with the 20-bet thing...
For an old guy this works out well for me...Of course, I only wager mostly WP and some straight cold 1-way exacts, and my wagers are quite modest as well....Most times, I just grind away never losing or winning too much, but when the Angles are clicking, and I am in the zone, that is when the profits start rolling in again...Doing it this way, I have been, after program expenses (I play at home), averaging between $1500 & $2000 a year....I am not greedy just old and needy...
The thing of it is, I haven't had to replenish the BR for a good long while now doing it this way...And I get to get those little things that the household budget does not allow for... :cool:
My approach is much the same, except my win play is strictly cash flow for superfecta play. As my win bankroll increases, and reaches a level that allows a higher base superfecta wager, I will bet that higher base. When I hit a very large superfecta payout, compared to my average, I remove that excess profit from my superfecta bankroll, and continue. If my win bankroll decreases below the level at which my superfecta base bet amount becomes non-supported by the win bankroll, I will decrease my superfecta base bet amount.
Like you, my play is strictly supplemental to my fixed income. I have no preconceptions, nor fantasies, regarding getting rich via horse wagering. If I were going to become rich, it would have happened years ago, IMO. My total income is modest, and I live well below that income, because it is monetarily sound, and I am comfortable living the way I do. (just don't take away what I worked all my life for - please! I suppose, I could deal with soup lines, if everyone else is standing in those lines too - LOL)
LottaKash
05-20-2015, 03:02 AM
Like you, my play is strictly supplemental to my fixed income. I have no preconceptions, nor fantasies, regarding getting rich via horse wagering. )
Cool, Raybo, keeps it fun, right ?...
As an aside tho, I just had to drain all but a modest amount of my BR, to finance, a "new hobby" that I have embarked on...
I bought a 34-old Vintage-Honda, at a good price, but getting it back up to code has taken all the profit I have worked for, these past 6mos...haha...
Plus, I have taken the last two months off from racing...Burned out a bit from my ever vigilant P&P fact finding missions....(no money coming in now, haha)
I thought I would miss it very much, but you know what, not nearly as much as I thought I would....I'll be back tho, "I Always Come Back"...( And, I still have enough for "20-Bets"...) :jump:
raybo
05-20-2015, 03:14 AM
Cool, Raybo, keeps it fun, right ?...
As an aside tho, I just had to drain all but a modest amount of my BR, to finance, a "new hobby" that I have embarked on...
I bought a 34-old Vintage-Honda, at a good price, but getting it back up to code has taken all the profit I have worked for, these past 6mos...haha...
Plus, I have taken the last two months off from racing...Burned out a bit from my ever vigilant P&P fact finding missions....(no money coming in now, haha)
I thought I would miss it very much, but you know what, not nearly as much as I thought I would....I'll be back tho, "I Always Come Back"...( And, I still have enough for "20-Bets"...) :jump:
Understand! I have a '73 Chevy Cheyenne pickup sitting on jack stands that I've been working on for about 6 months (should have been sent to a real mechanic already, but not in the budget, just have to do it myself as budget allows). By the way, I also have a '76 Cadillac Sedan DeVille that went through the same slow process (now my local driver until the pickup gets finished). :ThmbUp:
LottaKash
05-20-2015, 03:26 AM
Understand! I have a '73 Chevy Cheyenne pickup sitting on jack stands that I've been working on for about 6 months (should have been sent to a real mechanic already, but not in the budget, just have to do it myself as budget allows). By the way, I also have a '76 Cadillac Sedan DeVille that went through the same slow process (now my local driver until the pickup gets finished). :ThmbUp:
Love those old Caddies... :jump:
"Money can't buy you love, but it can buy you a new Cadillac-Car, so you can go out lookin' for some"... :D
Riding a MC @70yrs, after not for 32 years, is cool fun... And, the ponies made it all possible, otherwise not...Scratch one thing off of my "Bucket-List"... :cool:
Capper Al
05-20-2015, 07:18 AM
Understand! I have a '73 Chevy Cheyenne pickup sitting on jack stands that I've been working on for about 6 months (should have been sent to a real mechanic already, but not in the budget, just have to do it myself as budget allows). By the way, I also have a '76 Cadillac Sedan DeVille that went through the same slow process (now my local driver until the pickup gets finished). :ThmbUp:
Now this is interesting.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.