When do you handicap and how long does it take you?

[Laminarman]

Do you handicap the day before? The morning of? Place your horses in your order and then check for SCR an hour or two before post? Just curious. I'm starting out, and find I can't do this in ten minutes before post time. I need a half hour per race but I also am trying to learn the ropes. Also, do you HC a full card, or multiple tracks and do select races to HC? Perhaps only stakes or allowance or optional claiming, turf? Based on your "specialty?"

[alf1380]

Do you handicap the day before? The morning of? Place your horses in your order and then check for SCR an hour or two before post? Just curious. I'm starting out, and find I can't do this in ten minutes before post time. I need a half hour per race but I also am trying to learn the ropes. Also, do you HC a full card, or multiple tracks and do select races to HC? Perhaps only stakes or allowance or optional claiming, turf? Based on your "specialty?"

I have a virtual stable (you can get one at DRF), and I get alerts to when they work, are entered, etc...that starts my log for the day.

-I find them first (the morning of the race). Handicap those races first.
-Then go over every race from the tracks I wish to play that day.
- I rank my best bets for the day and devise a Pick 4 strategy for the tracks that are offering the most value for a P4 that day.
- At Race time, I handicap the race again, to make sure I didn't miss anything. I make sure to catch the post parade.
- If I am convinced and the odds will be acceptable, bet gets placed.
- If not, I wait till 1 MTP to put my bet in at the acceptable odds.

[Ocala Mike]

I try to scan the PP's for one or two angles at just one track. Sometimes I do this the night before, but today I did it the morning of. 30 minutes scan time for 9 races.

Today's angle was second-time starters in maiden races (Belmont), and it worked for me in races 2 and 4. Got beat in the last with PSYCHIATRY which I failed to back up in the place hole. Made up for it big-time in the earlier races as I caught the early double on a back wheel, and the 4th exacta (2 second-timers).

[Appy]

Do you handicap the day before? The morning of? Place your horses in your order and then check for SCR an hour or two before post? Just curious. I'm starting out, and find I can't do this in ten minutes before post time. I need a half hour per race but I also am trying to learn the ropes. Also, do you HC a full card, or multiple tracks and do select races to HC? Perhaps only stakes or allowance or optional claiming, turf? Based on your "specialty?"

I generally look at entry cards for all tracks I play 2 days in advance so long as ML is posted. I narrow things down by seeing which track has the most races carded for my specialty/s. I usually only play one card at a time. I cap ALL races on the card, but may only play those conditions at which I am currently hitting a high rate and posting nice profits. After changes are posted I go through all my race figures to make certain everything is right, note any variance in potential race shape, mark my potential plays, then sit back to watch what the tote does. I generally make my play at 0, maybe later if I'm watching pre-race on TV.

[Robert Goren]

I find I do best if I handicap the next race just after the last one has run. Sometimes I glace over the PPs ahead of time, but do not try to pick a winner ahead of time. It is what works for me.

[proximity]

Also, do you HC a full card, or multiple tracks and do select races to HC? Perhaps only stakes or allowance or optional claiming, turf? Based on your "specialty?"

Friday I had a bad day and fell behind for the year. we're not talking about a lot of $$ but that night I couldn't sleep (again) and I was laying awake thinking about compound pace ratings until the sun came up. this is a sickness I've had for years.

finally after a couple more days of this I decided that enough was enough and I was just going to read the pps for the pure joy of it. I mostly looked at your boring and vanilla non-maiden main track races. I think I studied every track but Belmont, Charles town, and les bois?

I tried to look for horses who (1) I thought would almost definitely win the race. (2) who would almost definitely improve to do it, and (3) were not morning line favorites (and probably wouldn't be crushed in the betting).

I found like three of these horses and another race where I liked three horses for an exacta box. unfortunately one of the horses and the exacta box were at Indiana..... which I forgot that my adw didn't take. :bang:

i put the bets in in the morning and tonight was pleased to see that both horses won and that i'm a "winner" again for the year.

maybe tonight i'll get some sleep, but soon enough again i'll be up all night and dreaming about compound pace ratings and the elusive perfect computer program to use them in. it is a sickness. :)

[BlueChip@DRF]

I prefer graded turf stakes and maiden special weights going long. I am an angle-player, so it doesn't take me long to handicap. If I don't find anything, then I go with my favorite trainer and/or rider.

[Dave Schwartz]

My software allows me to complete the handicapping process in about 3 minutes.

I never look at a race until it comes up on the tote board, because the first thing is to scrape the tote for scratches.

[pondman]

Angle bets-- I look through the entries for the type of race that may have the angle. If I see the type of race, I'll look for a single about 4 days in advance through the Equibase site for free.I do this for logistics-- trying to make sure I can get a bet through a window with no paper trail. I have to plan these a few days in advance.

Pace-- When I look through all the US entries, If I see the type of race, I'll make a note, and download an equibase program and take a look at their early pace number for free the day before. If there is a singe in the race I'll bet.

The front end only takes a few minutes. It's the after the race record keeping that take the time. I usually bet at 5:00 am for the pace races. I try to use conditional betting features and the cancel button if the horse gets slammed.. But that's getting more difficult

I should add my volume of races is low. I'll have on average about 10 good bets on days when the big pools are running. On a off day, I might have a smaller bet at Finger Lakes or Sam Houston. But those don't happen everyday.

I would love to wake up in the morning and have my bet sitting on a piece of paper. But that would cost some money. I'm taking the miser way out.

[Grits]

Friday I had a bad day and fell behind for the year. we're not talking about a lot of $$ but that night I couldn't sleep (again) and I was laying awake thinking about compound pace ratings until the sun came up. this is a sickness I've had for years.

Proximity, please, don't continue on this path. Lack of sleep, and interrupted sleep will lead to jeopardizing your immune system, your total health, at some point, may well be in shambles. In the greater scheme of life, no amount of handicapping or betting on horseracing is worth this. Life is short. :kiss:

[DeltaLover]

Well, my handicapping process consists the following:

Back end jobs that are completed during after hours, a process that is going to last approximately one hour or a little longer...
During this process my cron jobs, will discover and download new comprehensive and drf files, they will bounce all the data bases recreating them directly from raw data, rebuilding the track variant curves I am using, the various figures I need (like pace and closing) and also go through the complete universe of available races recalculating all the handicapping factors I am using in my systems.
Also, the crons are going to recalculate jockey - trainer stats, post position stats and retrain all of my race track profiles and clusterization groupings...

During a racing day, I will usually wait until the final scratches are in and then I will start a process that will automatically process each race (given the scratches) spawing several agents each of them is looking for certain kind of different profiles of candidate bets... This process will take a few minutes..

Before the post time of the first race, I will manually go through each prime bet that was suggested by the automatic clients, paying closing attention to the details of the race and if needed I might do some additional hand coded data base research, if I think there is an angle that is not covered by the automated process..
Usually this will require something in the range of 1 to 2 hours. Of course during this stage I will go through race replays where needed and possibly also update my bias and trip notes if I see something new.

At this point I am ready to construct an excel spreadsheet sorted by the time of each race, where I can see my prime bets and also the higher risk bets that I might decide to take a shot trying a long shot bet.
From now on, my attention will mainly be on track changes, tote board movement, late scratches and any thing in general that I did not anticipated in the beginning.. My decision about any bet that I will make, will be assisted by my software and it will not take more than a minute or two to decide whether I will bet or not..

After each bet, I spend a few seconds, updating my running balance to a spreadsheet that after the end of the day will be imported into a sql data base..


From what you can see, my handicapping day is pretty busy and occupies a good portion of the day (and night in some times!)

[Show Me the Wire]

Day of during the card, approx. 3 to 5 mins. per race. if I am interested in the race. It takes me probably less than 60 seconds to determine if the race is playable or not for me.

[proximity]

Proximity, please, don't continue on this path. Lack of sleep, and interrupted sleep will lead to jeopardizing your immune system, your total health, at some point, may well be in shambles. In the greater scheme of life, no amount of handicapping or betting on horseracing is worth this. Life is short. :kiss:

thank you, grits. if you read the poker section at all, I was actually real sick recently from a tick bite. fortunately I've pretty much recovered but in the process my sleep got all twisted around. last night was one of my better nights though as I actually got tired and fell asleep shortly after my 2:30 post.

before that I looked at four tracks in probably about an hour and a half. out of those tracks I came up with one play and since the horse lost I will tell you that it was Edson's pride in the 4th at belterra.

[Laminarman]

Well, my handicapping process consists the following:

Back end jobs that are completed during after hours, a process that is going to last approximately one hour or a little longer...
During this process my cron jobs, will discover and download new comprehensive and drf files, they will bounce all the data bases recreating them directly from raw data, rebuilding the track variant curves I am using, the various figures I need (like pace and closing) and also go through the complete universe of available races recalculating all the handicapping factors I am using in my systems.
Also, the crons are going to recalculate jockey - trainer stats, post position stats and retrain all of my race track profiles and clusterization groupings...

During a racing day, I will usually wait until the final scratches are in and then I will start a process that will automatically process each race (given the scratches) spawing several agents each of them is looking for certain kind of different profiles of candidate bets... This process will take a few minutes..

Before the post time of the first race, I will manually go through each prime bet that was suggested by the automatic clients, paying closing attention to the details of the race and if needed I might do some additional hand coded data base research, if I think there is an angle that is not covered by the automated process..
Usually this will require something in the range of 1 to 2 hours. Of course during this stage I will go through race replays where needed and possibly also update my bias and trip notes if I see something new.

At this point I am ready to construct an excel spreadsheet sorted by the time of each race, where I can see my prime bets and also the higher risk bets that I might decide to take a shot trying a long shot bet.
From now on, my attention will mainly be on track changes, tote board movement, late scratches and any thing in general that I did not anticipated in the beginning.. My decision about any bet that I will make, will be assisted by my software and it will not take more than a minute or two to decide whether I will bet or not..

After each bet, I spend a few seconds, updating my running balance to a spreadsheet that after the end of the day will be imported into a sql data base..


From what you can see, my handicapping day is pretty busy and occupies a good portion of the day (and night in some times!)

Uh...I have a DRF and Bris PP. Printed. And markers. And highlighters. And I just lose. I think I'm way out of your league since now I'm completely intimidated!

[DeltaLover]

Uh...I have a DRF and Bris PP. Printed. And markers. And highlighters. And I just lose. I think I'm way out of your league since now I'm completely intimidated!

Based on what your saying, you are still in the beginning of your handicapping career and even more you view it as an intellectual challenge rather than an serious activity. Having said this, you cannot expect to have the same approach as somebody who is doing this for all of his adult life.

If you want my opinion, if you want to accelerate your learning curve and improve your understanding of the game, you should start building your databases, data mine them and learn how to create figures. Any other approach will be proven an extremely lengthy and frustrating journey..

[raybo]

Like Dave, my program gets me the win selections in a few seconds, then a couple of minutes to make sure I agree that there aren't any extenuating circumstances that the program doesn't look for, that light cause me to lower a horse's ranking or cause me to pass the race completely.

My superfecta play starts with the same win selection method, but then I use a combination of my several rankings methods in the program and some "old school" 'capping to get to other betting lines.

High class races (TC, BCC, etc) are similar to my superfecta process, even for the win line, because these race types are more rare.

[EMD4ME]

If you are not taking trip and horse notes on every horse at a certain circuit and you are not verifying the (beyer numbers, timeform numbers, actual PP running line) numbers attached to the pps and you are not in tune with the biases on each running line of the pps, my advice is don't play.

Pick a circuit, get an old fashioned paper notebook. List the entire day's races on 1 sheet, start looking at trends (which race had a fast pace, slow pace, how many speed horses won, what paths were they in etc.)

After a while you'll see WHY each horse won from a trip and bias perspective in conjunction with their pps.

The more prepared you are for 1 race, the more confidence you have. The more prepared you are, the more confidence you'll have in SKIPPING a race because it's unplayable.

If you like this game because of the mental challenge attached to it, follow what I tell you.

if you're looking for action, just play every race, lose your bankroll and work to support your action bets. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

[Dave Schwartz]

If you are not taking trip and horse notes on every horse at a certain circuit and you are not verifying the (beyer numbers, timeform numbers, actual PP running line) numbers attached to the pps and you are not in tune with the biases on each running line of the pps, my advice is don't play.

Ah yes... the "Only one way to play this game," belief. I have heard this one before. I've also heard about a dozen other versions, like make your own race figures, keeping track of key races, stable watching (which might make the most sense from a work standpoint but seriously cuts back on activity) or the junior version of that, only playing one or two trainers.

I especially detest the part about making trip notes on every horse. That ought to keep one busy for a few hours every day, even on days (or weeks) when one doesn't have time to play.

What you are describing, Mr. EMD4ME, is called a "j-j-job."


Personally, I would rather have done my work of creating my system of play way ahead of time, collect the data necessary today, spread the data out in front of me (figuratively or literally) and make my decisions. That way I get to actually enjoy the running of the races.

If one needs to dial that back a notch, to deciding creatively how to wager this particular race, it still begins with assessing the race through the data gathered.

My point is almost the opposite of what Mr. EMD4ME says: Use reports - including those created by you - and learn to analyze those reports. Develop systems and/or methods to sift through that data quagmire as quickly as possible.

It just so happens that in my own case, my "data sifting" is done just short of the speed of light.

[MJC922]

I have the computer doing a lot of the heavy lifting obviously as I have to provide my numbers to Trackmaster as a contractor. That's all automated. While the computer is generating those reports during the day it's collecting relevant data race by race and dumping it into excel. The excel sheet gets written into a comma delimited file which is automatically emailed to me as a scheduled task at around midnight. In the morning I grab the comma delimited file from webmail on my desktop PC and load it into access to run several queries against it. The queries are used to filter / flag specific races where the top ranked class horses meet specific criteria or certain races meet criteria with respect to race shapes etc... it's all still a work in progress, continuous improvement, I'm not saying I have the answers but I like the potential of this approach in today's game vs the old ways where I was locked into a track specific daily grind and winning but only through hard earned local knowledge.

[jahura2]

Do you handicap the day before? The morning of? Place your horses in your order and then check for SCR an hour or two before post? Just curious. I'm starting out, and find I can't do this in ten minutes before post time. I need a half hour per race but I also am trying to learn the ropes. Also, do you HC a full card, or multiple tracks and do select races to HC? Perhaps only stakes or allowance or optional claiming, turf? Based on your "specialty?"
45 year weekend player here. I usually take 3-4 hours to handicap a whole card the night before with a pretty organized process.I will scan the whole card for angles first, then start the laborious process of looking at every horse. The thing is I LOVE the process of handicapping and that is the main reason I have done this for so long. My handicapping year runs like a circuit. I bet Gulfstream, Tampa, or FG beginning in January depending on the card, move to Keeneland in the spring(Home track) then to Belmont until the actual Belmont runs. Then a short break until Saratoga opens, Belmont in September then Keeneland until the Breeders Cup runs and then another break. Been doing this pattern for years and it works for me. I am not as serious as most on here but I do love the sport and the process, and usually cash enough tickets to keep me playing and thats all I need .

[Laminarman]

Based on what your saying, you are still in the beginning of your handicapping career and even more you view it as an intellectual challenge rather than an serious activity. Having said this, you cannot expect to have the same approach as somebody who is doing this for all of his adult life.

If you want my opinion, if you want to accelerate your learning curve and improve your understanding of the game, you should start building your databases, data mine them and learn how to create figures. Any other approach will be proven an extremely lengthy and frustrating journey..

I've started (for now) with a simple notebook with the track, condition, my quickly written analysis of why I chose which horse(s) and how I think the race will unfold and then whether I won or lost. I haven't started putting things in a spreadsheet or database yet as I'm not sure what exactly to track. I'm at the stage where figuring out pace and who might win is a challenge.

[Laminarman]

45 year weekend player here. I usually take 3-4 hours to handicap a whole card the night before with a pretty organized process.I will scan the whole card for angles first, then start the laborious process of looking at every horse. The thing is I LOVE the process of handicapping and that is the main reason I have done this for so long. My handicapping year runs like a circuit. I bet Gulfstream, Tampa, or FG beginning in January depending on the card, move to Keeneland in the spring(Home track) then to Belmont until the actual Belmont runs. Then a short break until Saratoga opens, Belmont in September then Keeneland until the Breeders Cup runs and then another break. Been doing this pattern for years and it works for me. I am not as serious as most on here but I do love the sport and the process, and usually cash enough tickets to keep me playing and thats all I need .

This is kind of how I see myself evolving as a player. I don't need the income, I sure like winning money but will not do this as a job but more as a passion for the process. It's a kick in the ass when I'm (rarely) right and the horses run close to the way I think they will.

[DeltaLover]

I've started (for now) with a simple notebook with the track, condition, my quickly written analysis of why I chose which horse(s) and how I think the race will unfold and then whether I won or lost. I haven't started putting things in a spreadsheet or database yet as I'm not sure what exactly to track. I'm at the stage where figuring out pace and who might win is a challenge.

Looks good for now, but as you go on you will need a better approach than one that can be based on spreadsheets alone.. Try mysql, which is a high end open source data base that will allow you to anything you need.

[Robert Fischer]

Today is my Friday, but I'll go ahead and answer the question...

I use a latticework of tools that find where the public is likely to have made mistakes regarding the value of a favorite or several contenders. These tools are often very different from one another.

I am generally running those tools (in the evening) after a day's races, or any time I have a desire to take an action toward working at it.
An hour is usually enough time to find some of the inefficiencies.

I then enter notes for each tool and each horse that comes up in my watch-list.

In the mornings I check my watch list, as well as browse over some of the entries for other instant angles (field size, suspect favorite, bias, etc..).
I then look at the watch-list horses and determine if any of them have a chance to offer real value. This process should take me 30min-45min.

[flatstats]

One problem with long time handicapping is that you will convince yourself that what you have already handicapped is the definitive outcome. Everything else you do from then on will just be confirming that outcome and that is the wrong thing to do.

Here's how it goes:

For whatever reason you fancy Lucky Joe in the first race. It may have good speed figures, trainer stats, jockey switch - whatever. You would have made your opinion on this horse in 15 or so seconds.

For the next 15 minutes you will do all you can to justify your initial assessment.

* You will see a worthy favourite but find a weak stat to discount it because Lucky Joe is the winner.
* You will talk yourself out of an outsider because Lucky Joe is the winner.
* You will look at Lucky Joe 5 times, spot 5 negatives but discount them because Lucky Joe is the winner.

You have already made up your mind but you spend 15 wasted minutes just justifying that selection.

Moral Of The Story
If you spend 15 seconds finding a selection you are too confident and will fail.
If you spend 15 minutes justifying a selection you are too weak and will fail.

[ReplayRandall]

One problem with long time handicapping is that you will convince yourself that what you have already handicapped is the definitive outcome. Everything else you do from then on will just be confirming that outcome and that is the wrong thing to do.

Here's how it goes:

For whatever reason you fancy Lucky Joe in the first race. It may have good speed figures, trainer stats, jockey switch - whatever. You would have made your opinion on this horse in 15 or so seconds.

For the next 15 minutes you will do all you can to justify your initial assessment.

* You will see a worthy favourite but find a weak stat to discount it because Lucky Joe is the winner.
* You will talk yourself out of an outsider because Lucky Joe is the winner.
* You will look at Lucky Joe 5 times, spot 5 negatives but discount them because Lucky Joe is the winner.

You have already made up your mind but you spend 15 wasted minutes just justifying that selection.

Moral Of The Story
If you spend 15 seconds finding a selection you are too confident and will fail.
If you spend 15 minutes justifying a selection you are too weak and will fail.
Thanks for your mildly entertaining opinion......

[Laminarman]

Thanks for your mildly entertaining opinion......

Unfortunately he just described me : ( Honestly, that's me. I'm the OP too and a loser but I'm learning. Holy crap I "fit a mold."

[therussmeister]

If you are not taking trip and horse notes on every horse at a certain circuit and you are not verifying the (beyer numbers, timeform numbers, actual PP running line) numbers attached to the pps and you are not in tune with the biases on each running line of the pps, my advice is don't play.

If I followed your advice I would be a lot poorer than I am now.

One problem with long time handicapping is that you will convince yourself that what you have already handicapped is the definitive outcome. Everything else you do from then on will just be confirming that outcome and that is the wrong thing to do.

Here's how it goes:

For whatever reason you fancy Lucky Joe in the first race. It may have good speed figures, trainer stats, jockey switch - whatever. You would have made your opinion on this horse in 15 or so seconds.

For the next 15 minutes you will do all you can to justify your initial assessment.

* You will see a worthy favourite but find a weak stat to discount it because Lucky Joe is the winner.
* You will talk yourself out of an outsider because Lucky Joe is the winner.
* You will look at Lucky Joe 5 times, spot 5 negatives but discount them because Lucky Joe is the winner.

You have already made up your mind but you spend 15 wasted minutes just justifying that selection.

Moral Of The Story
If you spend 15 seconds finding a selection you are too confident and will fail.
If you spend 15 minutes justifying a selection you are too weak and will fail.

If I followed your advice I would be a lot poorer than I am now.

[Helles]

I use the same software as Dave Schwartz. It takes me about 20 seconds to handicap a race and make my initial decision whether the race is a pass or play. I usually bet just one horse to win.

After I have my selection, I just have to watch the odds and pass if the odds go down into unprofitable (for me) territory.

It takes me 20 seconds now, but that is because of the thousands of hours spent getting to this point. And I DO mean thousands.

[romankoz]

I too love the process.
Here in Oz I download the form for the required races from racenet.com.au and then create my racemap. They have one too but it is automated and although that's a start it's not always the true picture.

I then sift through the obvious chances that seem to have some sort of form at this level in the last three or so runs and list my top five or six depending on field size. Then I have plus and minus factors to sift through as I juggle positions for each horse.

Eventually I have an order 1 2 3 4 5.

I have enormous respect for our pre post oddsmakers via the corporate bookmakers (I think USA bettors get a fair bit of this from somewhere in Las Vegas??) and I check my top few versus their top 7 or 8. If they have something listed at say 12/1 or less and I don't have it I double check the horse/s credentials to make sure I am ok with dropping it. Naturally I am wrong x number of times when they get up and beat me (that's from their 6 7 8) but that's racing.

After that I wait until raceday for track conditions and scratchings and from there concentrate on my top two selections seeking value either for the win or place (123 in Oz) but if contention is close a bet on my fourth is not out of the question. If I do a race thoroughly I have an idea of what I think is a fair price.

From there I bet and pray they jump as hoped for via my race map. Naturally, the staking becomes another facet but thats my form process.

[GatetoWire]

Great thread just shows that every person approaches the pre race work in a different way and guess what....there is no correct way!!!

Lots of computer players and others spend minimal time coming up with contenders....lots of people spend hours pouring over the races.

One of the best Handicapping books you will ever read is not about handicapping at all. the book is Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

Goes into great detail on decision making and is a great read.

[Robert Fischer]

Great thread just shows that every person approaches the pre race work in a different way and guess what....there is no correct way!!!

Lots of computer players and others spend minimal time coming up with contenders....lots of people spend hours pouring over the races.

One of the best Handicapping books you will ever read is not about handicapping at all. the book is Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

Goes into great detail on decision making and is a great read.

I've heard good things about that book and actually studied some of the ideas from it. Thanks GatetoWire. :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

Ah yes... the "Only one way to play this game," belief. I have heard this one before. I've also heard about a dozen other versions, like make your own race figures, keeping track of key races, stable watching (which might make the most sense from a work standpoint but seriously cuts back on activity) or the junior version of that, only playing one or two trainers.

I especially detest the part about making trip notes on every horse. That ought to keep one busy for a few hours every day, even on days (or weeks) when one doesn't have time to play.

What you are describing, Mr. EMD4ME, is called a "j-j-job."


Personally, I would rather have done my work of creating my system of play way ahead of time, collect the data necessary today, spread the data out in front of me (figuratively or literally) and make my decisions. That way I get to actually enjoy the running of the races.

If one needs to dial that back a notch, to deciding creatively how to wager this particular race, it still begins with assessing the race through the data gathered.

My point is almost the opposite of what Mr. EMD4ME says: Use reports - including those created by you - and learn to analyze those reports. Develop systems and/or methods to sift through that data quagmire as quickly as possible.

It just so happens that in my own case, my "data sifting" is done just short of the speed of light.

Unlike others, I enjoy watching a replay 10-12 times and sometimes 20 times to accurately see EVERY thing that transpired in one specific race to every single horse.

I enjoy knowing all that I can about every horse's style, preferences, details etc. Why? Because if my computer (My brain) knows all the nuances and has the unknown down to a minimum, THEN and only then can one, with the least amount of ambiguity possible, BE ABLE to accurately determine what is a bias and what is not a perceived bias. Biases obviously don't just effect today, they effect tomorrow. Mistakenly marking a track pro closers or pro speed (because one's model says so and so should win and they didn't etc.) not only hurts today but it hurts a player tomorrow as illegitimate excuses (or too much credit) is given to horses based upon the incorrect assessment of a track surface.

To each his own.

There are people out there that are lazy, there are people out there that look to sell products, there are people out there that don't like or don't want to know as much as possible about a circuit or a race. There are people out there that want to bet 10 different tracks a week. That style of play doesn't require watching replays or knowing a track inside and out.

Point is: There are mean reasons why one won't spend countless hours watching replays and taking notes.

Every one has their preferences. I respect yours.

After watching replays endlessly, taking notes, yes painstaking notes, I could never go back to playing without my own notes, my own pace analysis, figures etc.

I like to BE specific, to a pin point nail when I bet a horse.

Some people like to have their model say: 40% chance this 2/1 will win and will bet accordingly.

Again, to each his own.

I'm the guy who likes to know there are 14 cards left in the deck and all are high cards. Yes, I do play when the odds are in my favor but I love it when I know something with no uncertainty.

Here's another example. How many people take detailed notes on all breaks at the gate and how hard a horse is used (by the jockey for speed-depleting energy reserves) throughout the pace part of the race?

This provides me a huge edge from multiple angles that no computer in the world can provide.

By doing all the necessary legwork, much less is left to the unknown.

The OP asked a question, I wanted to give him my 2 cents.

You didn't like my method, so I'm giving you some detailed feebdack.



Be well.

[Robert Fischer]

Sounds like you guys both get a lot of enjoyment from your approaches. :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

Unlike others, I enjoy watching a replay 10-12 times and sometimes 20 times to accurately see EVERY thing that transpired in one specific race to every single horse.

I enjoy knowing all that I can about every horse's style, preferences, details etc. Why? Because if my computer (My brain) knows all the nuances and has the unknown down to a minimum, THEN and only then can one, with the least amount of ambiguity possible, BE ABLE to accurately determine what is a bias and what is not a perceived bias. Biases obviously don't just effect today, they effect tomorrow. Mistakenly marking a track pro closers or pro speed (because one's model says so and so should win and they didn't etc.) not only hurts today but it hurts a player tomorrow as illegitimate excuses (or too much credit) is given to horses based upon the incorrect assessment of a track surface.

To each his own.

There are people out there that are lazy, there are people out there that look to sell products, there are people out there that don't like or don't want to know as much as possible about a circuit or a race. There are people out there that want to bet 10 different tracks a week. That style of play doesn't require watching replays or knowing a track inside and out.

Point is: There are mean reasons why one won't spend countless hours watching replays and taking notes.

Every one has their preferences. I respect yours.

After watching replays endlessly, taking notes, yes painstaking notes, I could never go back to playing without my own notes, my own pace analysis, figures etc.

I like to BE specific, to a pin point nail when I bet a horse.

Some people like to have their model say: 40% chance this 2/1 will win and will bet accordingly.

Again, to each his own.

I'm the guy who likes to know there are 14 cards left in the deck and all are high cards. Yes, I do play when the odds are in my favor but I love it when I know something with no uncertainty.

Here's another example. How many people take detailed notes on all breaks at the gate and how hard a horse is used (by the jockey for speed-depleting energy reserves) throughout the pace part of the race?

This provides me a huge edge from multiple angles that no computer in the world can provide.

By doing all the necessary legwork, much less is left to the unknown.

The OP asked a question, I wanted to give him my 2 cents.

You didn't like my method, so I'm giving you some detailed feebdack.



Be well.

It was not too many years ago that this was considered the primary (if not the only) approach for "serious" bettors. The proliferation of software applications and data downloads encourage a more superficial approach to "race analysis" and--like the near-endless piles of food for a food glutton at a buffet encourage over-consumption--encourage wagering on more races at more tracks "because they are available."

Personally, I think a combination of direct observation and computer analysis works well (at least for me). Most of the bets I make are based on computer models. The serious bets are made on-track (one track) and use a process very similar to the one you describe--in addition to (not in place of) computer models. One difference is that I am skeptical of watching replays of races unless I actually watched those races live (at the track), and recorded my observations. I have found over the years that a wealth of information is lost in the selected focus of replays that can be gained by direct observation.

[thaskalos]

I use the same software as Dave Schwartz. It takes me about 20 seconds to handicap a race and make my initial decision whether the race is a pass or play. I usually bet just one horse to win.

After I have my selection, I just have to watch the odds and pass if the odds go down into unprofitable (for me) territory.

It takes me 20 seconds now, but that is because of the thousands of hours spent getting to this point. And I DO mean thousands.
Well...how is it working out? :)

[raybo]

Well...how is it working out? :)

LOL - according to some here he won't know that until he dies, so I guess he will never know (unless there really is a hereafter that is). Sample size too small! :lol:

[whodoyoulike]

Ah yes... the "Only one way to play this game," belief. I have heard this one before. I've also heard about a dozen other versions, like make your own race figures, keeping track of key races, stable watching (which might make the most sense from a work standpoint but seriously cuts back on activity) or the junior version of that, only playing one or two trainers.

I especially detest the part about making trip notes on every horse. That ought to keep one busy for a few hours every day, even on days (or weeks) when one doesn't have time to play.

What you are describing, Mr. EMD4ME, is called a "j-j-job."...

I agree with Emd4me's suggested approach for someone beginning to learn handicapping which I believe the OP has mentioned previously. And, I agree with you that it is a lot of work. We need to use the available tools as they're provided and wherever we can find them. You're a very knowledgeable guy.

Didn't you start out attempting to learn everything you possibly could?

I would think you did which is the way I interpreted his post. You have to build on prior knowledge acquired. Emd4me has mentioned his approach before and it works for him and should work for others. I've done something similar and I think it only improved my understanding of the game.

[EMD4ME]

It was not too many years ago that this was considered the primary (if not the only) approach for "serious" bettors. The proliferation of software applications and data downloads encourage a more superficial approach to "race analysis" and--like the near-endless piles of food for a food glutton at a buffet encourage over-consumption--encourage wagering on more races at more tracks "because they are available."

Personally, I think a combination of direct observation and computer analysis works well (at least for me). Most of the bets I make are based on computer models. The serious bets are made on-track (one track) and use a process very similar to the one you describe--in addition to (not in place of) computer models. One difference is that I am skeptical of watching replays of races unless I actually watched those races live (at the track), and recorded my observations. I have found over the years that a wealth of information is lost in the selected focus of replays that can be gained by direct observation.

Since I was 4, I am now 39, I have attended live racing at every opportunity. I was a mainstay at Bel, Aqu and some cases Sar. I would make 3 1/2 hour trips to Penn once a month for years. I love live racing. You make a great point in that you can (through binoculars) see what the camera isn't capturing. Yes, you can watch a horse who is 25 behind via the head on shot but there's nothing like watching via binocs live. Also, the gallop out is much more accurate as you watch it live and for whoever and however long you want. I was the guy who complained that NYRA gallop outs were putrid. They changed them. I've watched Assistant Starters drive a horse wild before they load, off course, that HORSE WAS OFF SLOW. Those are things you will never get watching a replay.

Great point.

[EMD4ME]

I agree with Emd4me's suggested approach for someone beginning to learn handicapping which I believe the OP has mentioned previously. And, I agree with you that it is a lot of work. We need to use the available tools as they're provided and wherever we can find them. You're a very knowledgeable guy.

Didn't you start out attempting to learn everything you possibly could?

I would think you did which is the way I interpreted his post. You have to build on prior knowledge acquired. Emd4me has mentioned his approach before and it works for him and should work for others. I've done something similar and I think it only improved my understanding of the game.

I've plucked out many winners or truly solidified many horses who I thought were solid by KNOWING, not thinking, that a second quarter was abnormally fast in sprint races. By writing down all races, knowing all the capabilities of all horses in a certain races (to a certain degree, we sometimes have 8 first time starters in a race-those don't count), you can easily pluck out the most abnormally fast quarter of a race on that certain day. By doing that homework, you don't just see a big number (via various services that are out there) YOU KNOW firsthand that there was a huge nugget out there to leverage. If a horse gained in that quarter, you know you have a nugget to work with (assuming all other relevant angles are there-form-capability-pace set up-trainer-etc.).

At the same time, I've seen days where all sprints came home in under 24. (maybe a headwind on the backstretch with a tailwind in the home stretch). It's nice to know specifically WHY and how much. At first glance the come home is fast, at further perusal, it's slow compared to other races (of course taking the level into effect).

Yes, figs and software can tell you that BUT knowing specifically why and who and when and what and where is a whole different ballgame and understanding of events.

As a newcomer, I would want to grasp all that before I graduate to other types of handicapping. That's all I wanted to express.

[traynor]

Since I was 4, I am now 39, I have attended live racing at every opportunity. I was a mainstay at Bel, Aqu and some cases Sar. I would make 3 1/2 hour trips to Penn once a month for years. I love live racing. You make a great point in that you can (through binoculars) see what the camera isn't capturing. Yes, you can watch a horse who is 25 behind via the head on shot but there's nothing like watching via binocs live. Also, the gallop out is much more accurate as you watch it live and for whoever and however long you want. I was the guy who complained that NYRA gallop outs were putrid. They changed them. I've watched Assistant Starters drive a horse wild before they load, off course, that HORSE WAS OFF SLOW. Those are things you will never get watching a replay.

Great point.

I learned a lot about trip handicapping from a group that used to hit the Maryland circuit when the carryover pools were impressive enough. They used voice-activated recorders, each stationed at a different position on the track, and each essentially "called" the race into the recorders. It was quite an eye-opener to compare (for example) the race description at the same point from the perspective of an observer at the start of the final turn, another at the head of the stretch, and yet another in the clubhouse above the finish line. They didn't miss much. And what they saw--routinely--was way different than what those who only watched videos thought they were seeing.

Videos are nice, but I don't think they even come close to being a substitute for watching the races live, then comparing one's observations with the videos. Catching things the videos miss can be rewarding.

[thaskalos]

I have read the repeated references pertaining to carefully watching the races either on replay or live, through binoculars...and am wondering if competent PACE ANALYSIS should not be a necessary part of the competent trip handicapping process. After all...only the careful review of the fractional splits in a race can reveal to us how "impressive" these wide moves or trouble trips really are.

Why don't we hear more about the "pace" aspect of trip handicapping?

[EMD4ME]

I learned a lot about trip handicapping from a group that used to hit the Maryland circuit when the carryover pools were impressive enough. They used voice-activated recorders, each stationed at a different position on the track, and each essentially "called" the race into the recorders. It was quite an eye-opener to compare (for example) the race description at the same point from the perspective of an observer at the start of the final turn, another at the head of the stretch, and yet another in the clubhouse above the finish line. They didn't miss much. And what they saw--routinely--was way different than what those who only watched videos thought they were seeing.

Videos are nice, but I don't think they even come close to being a substitute for watching the races live, then comparing one's observations with the videos. Catching things the videos miss can be rewarding.

God I wish I was THERE! That sounds awesome! What an edge!!!

[EMD4ME]

I have read the repeated references pertaining to carefully watching the races either on replay or live, through binoculars...and am wondering if competent PACE ANALYSIS should not be a necessary part of the competent trip handicapping process. After all...only the careful review of the fractional splits in a race can reveal to us how "impressive" these wide moves or trouble trips really are.

Why don't we hear more about the "pace" aspect of trip handicapping?

Of course competent pace analysis should BE a part of the competent trip handicapping process.

A sweeping 3 wide move during the 2nd quarter of a 6F sprint MEANS ZERO, absolutely ZERO to me if I had the race as follows:

2 h duel in a 4/5 fast Q1
continued 2 h duel in a 4/5 SLOW Q2
sweeper wins and holds lead/draws clear in avg to soft Q3

Now, if a 3 wide sweeping move is made in a race where the 2 leaders stuck around to finish 2nd and 3rd and the pace was as follows, I give much more credit to the winner.

Q1 is average or anywhere on the slow side
Q2 is average or anywhere on the fast side
Q3 is where it should be. Par or above par

I love it when i see a horse make a stressed out move, where they gain, easily seen (or preferable not easily seen) into an above average split.

I am NOT saying all these examples are black and white. Assuming all other aspects of true solid performance are there, these are just SIMPLE examples of what I look for.

Bottom line, visual analysis is gold to me but when you add in the pace/dynamics aspect it turns it into an entire new ballgame.

[ReplayRandall]

I learned a lot about trip handicapping from a group that used to hit the Maryland circuit when the carryover pools were impressive enough. They used voice-activated recorders, each stationed at a different position on the track, and each essentially "called" the race into the recorders. It was quite an eye-opener to compare (for example) the race description at the same point from the perspective of an observer at the start of the final turn, another at the head of the stretch, and yet another in the clubhouse above the finish line. They didn't miss much. And what they saw--routinely--was way different than what those who only watched videos thought they were seeing.

Videos are nice, but I don't think they even come close to being a substitute for watching the races live, then comparing one's observations with the videos. Catching things the videos miss can be rewarding.

You can't beat having all those different eye-views for maximum race coverage and unique info. While you can get the upper hand at this ONE track, others are cherry-picking value from 8 different tracks doing what I do, watching and breaking down replays. Your team has a bigger advantage at your specific track, but overall, my approach will outperform and profit more on a daily basis.....

[Dave Schwartz]

I agree with Emd4me's suggested approach for someone beginning to learn handicapping which I believe the OP has mentioned previously. And, I agree with you that it is a lot of work. We need to use the available tools as they're provided and wherever we can find them. You're a very knowledgeable guy.

Didn't you start out attempting to learn everything you possibly could?

Actually, no. I simply tried to win. Simpler was easier and, therefore, better. Unfortunately, it didn't work, so I kept learning.

LOL - I can tell you lots of things that don't work. Or, more accurately, did not work for me.


I would think you did which is the way I interpreted his post. You have to build on prior knowledge acquired. Emd4me has mentioned his approach before and it works for him and should work for others. I've done something similar and I think it only improved my understanding of the game.

I completely agree!

My post was that I - emphasis "I" as in me, personally - I HATE the idea of working that hard on "homework," (so to speak), the night before.

When I play, I show up in front of my computers and televisions about 40 minutes before first post to get set up.

Of course, I have done my homework - in the sense that I've built the software to do the heavy lifting for me - so, I am not suggesting that it is free lunch. It has its moments when it feels that way, but then things go south and you get the bill.

[traynor]

You can't beat having all those different eye-views for maximum race coverage and unique info. While you can get the upper hand at this ONE track, others are cherry-picking value from 8 different tracks doing what I do, watching and breaking down replays. Your team has a bigger advantage at your specific track, but overall, my approach will outperform and profit more on a daily basis.....

Not my team. I just had the opportunity to learn from them because I was on good terms with several members who played blackjack.

I don't really know which approach would outperform and profit more, to be perfectly honest about it. There is a whole lot more to it than just watching the races. That is a big part, but only a part. Other things have to be considered to form a complete picture.

The only reluctance I have about watching too many videos from too many tracks is that the horses and jockeys quickly become a blur. I like to know enough about the individual horses and jockeys, and their idiosyncracies, to make a (fairly accurate and highly specific) analysis of what I am seeing as I see it. Same with trainers. I find it easier to focus on a specific track/circuit for that type of analysis, and rely almost exclusively on computer models for the volume betting on multiple tracks.

[traynor]

God I wish I was THERE! That sounds awesome! What an edge!!!

Jim Selvidge was doing something similar at Longacres thirty some years ago. He tried to organize it for multiple tracks, but couldn't pull it off. I think he did pretty well at Longacres, though.

[EMD4ME]

Jim Selvidge was doing something similar at Longacres thirty some years ago. He tried to organize it for multiple tracks, but couldn't pull it off. I think he did pretty well at Longacres, though.

Wish I was at Longacres just once as well!!!

BTW, I remember hearing about Paul Cornman doing something similar at NYRA years ago. He would watch via binocs, verbally call out his chart comments and his team would write them down. Not sure if he had others placed elsewhere but I love to hear all this stuff!!!

[MJC922]

On the validity of trip handicapping there's no argument. It provides value, however ultimately its value is to the extent that you can re-order the finish positions of a race. Reduced field sizes and many more 'practitioners' IMO continue to erode away at the value proposition.

A couple of the gotchas, (1) horses coming off an impressive trip like a huge number often regress next out and lose to horses they clearly outperformed in that particular race. I find that I end up waiting for a 'cycle back' to make any money off my trip handicapping opinions (if they ever do cycle back). A horse like Slumber whom I was thoroughly impressed with at one point enough to mention on this very board is a good example, Frankly I'd have had to wait three months short of two years to get that 2013 Hirsh effort out of him again... am I buying into 10-year bonds here? Not.

(2) Slow congested races produce more 'trips' than fast races, you obviously want to use caution chasing after horses exiting slow races. It's one thing for a trip handicapper to be able to reorder the finish within a race, it's a little more challenging to compare horses coming out of different fields from different days which is where the figures take on increasing importance. Horses coming off of impressive trips can sometimes be a complete throw-out on numbers.

There are no shortcuts, experience counts, one of the constants is that you have to do the work and be a good money manager. I like the potential the computer has for research purposes or for putting me onto the types of races and horses that are more apt to be of interest to me on the day, but you also can't be sloppy, there's no substitute for local knowledge.

[traynor]

On the validity of trip handicapping there's no argument. It provides value, however ultimately its value is to the extent that you can re-order the finish positions of a race. Reduced field sizes and many more 'practitioners' IMO continue to erode away at the value proposition.

A couple of the gotchas, (1) horses coming off an impressive trip like a huge number often regress next out and lose to horses they clearly outperformed in that particular race. I find that I end up waiting for a 'cycle back' to make any money off my trip handicapping opinions (if they ever do cycle back). A horse like Slumber whom I was thoroughly impressed with at one point enough to mention on this very board is a good example, Frankly I'd have had to wait three months short of two years to get that 2013 Hirsh effort out of him again... am I buying into 10-year bonds here? Not.

(2) Slow congested races produce more 'trips' than fast races, you obviously want to use caution chasing after horses exiting slow races. It's one thing for a trip handicapper to be able to reorder the finish within a race, it's a little more challenging to compare horses coming out of different fields from different days which is where the figures take on increasing importance. Horses coming off of impressive trips can sometimes be a complete throw-out on numbers.

There are no shortcuts, experience counts, one of the constants is that you have to do the work and be a good money manager. I like the potential the computer has for research purposes or for putting me onto the types of races and horses that are more apt to be of interest to me on the day, but you also can't be sloppy, there's no substitute for local knowledge.

I think some confuse trip handicapping with searching for anomalies (something unusual happening). A lot of it is gaining an overall gestalt of what is happening in a race, and what is not happening that should. An example might be knowing the horses and jockeys well enough to realize that at some point late in the race Jockey A on Horse B has to "move into contention" if intent on winning and does not. Not blocked, impeded, or anything else. An observer would see a relatively smooth flow of horses at that point. Nothing unusual, no superfast quarters. Just something that someone knowledgeable about the local jockeys/trainers/horses reasonably expected to happen that didn't.

Many seem to believe that watching for horses blocked, boxed in, etc. is "trip handicapping," creates an excuse for losing, and becomes a near-automatic "bet next time." Or a Big Move in a fast quarter, or something similar. Those are parts of trip handicapping, but relatively trivial parts because they are obvious to most (even casual) observers.

[traynor]

Wish I was at Longacres just once as well!!!

BTW, I remember hearing about Paul Cornman doing something similar at NYRA years ago. He would watch via binocs, verbally call out his chart comments and his team would write them down. Not sure if he had others placed elsewhere but I love to hear all this stuff!!!

Take a trip to Fraser Downs once in awhile. There are several very active trip handicapping teams that spend time there (at least one as "vacation" from the Sha Tin/Happy Valley circuit). Another is referred to generically as "the Argentineans." None are particularly secretive (at least those I know of) and have few reservations about discussing trip handicapping. Fairly gregarious bunch. You might find you have much more in common with them than you do with the pace/speed/number crunching fans.

[MJC922]

I think some confuse trip handicapping with searching for anomalies (something unusual happening). A lot of it is gaining an overall gestalt of what is happening in a race, and what is not happening that should. An example might be knowing the horses and jockeys well enough to realize that at some point late in the race Jockey A on Horse B has to "move into contention" if intent on winning and does not. Not blocked, impeded, or anything else. An observer would see a relatively smooth flow of horses at that point. Nothing unusual, no superfast quarters. Just something that someone knowledgeable about the local jockeys/trainers/horses reasonably expected to happen that didn't.

Many seem to believe that watching for horses blocked, boxed in, etc. is "trip handicapping," creates an excuse for losing, and becomes a near-automatic "bet next time." Or a Big Move in a fast quarter, or something similar. Those are parts of trip handicapping, but relatively trivial parts because they are obvious to most (even casual) observers.

Trip handicapping quite simply is a post-mortem reordering of finish position to reflect what would have been the final order of finish under neutral conditions. Based upon the insight, experience and skill of the trip handicapper it's highly subjective and as such opinions will vary. I would argue that it's far from being a trivial judgment when anomalous pace is involved. Pace is actually one of the few subtle and yet most significant areas of trip handicapping where it finally becomes possible to shift positions around without casual observers having even the slightest inkling of it being warranted. I don't get a lot of personal benefit from riders not having any intent to win a race such as 'Dos Pasos' the other day. Yet another healthy reminder not to invest in my home track where fixing the gimmick is prevalent now even 15 years after I walked away from there.

[DeltaLover]

Based upon the insight, experience and skill of the trip handicapper it's highly subjective and as such opinions will vary.

:ThmbUp:

Good posting...

Setting aside observations that can be objectively reported (like the horse went fourth wide or stumbled in the gate), everything else is a subjective judgement that cannot easily be quantified (like for example Forsted getting close to American Pharoah in the middle of the stretch, was the latter who made a superb move going ahead or the former who fainted miserably?) thus can be interpreted in more than one ways.

[Laminarman]

I posted the original question, now I'll follow up with really dumb ones: why not pay more attention to "professional" handicappers? Are they inherently worse than folks here? Are they not good at their job? Or are they actually very good at what they do but the masses follow their recommendations and then the odds become unprofitable? Are we trying to beat the professional HC's or the folks in the pool? Are they one and the same? I hope you get the gist of the question. In other words, people spend an awful lot of time handicapping when the winners are frequently who the pros have already picked. The reason I ask is that speaking to my dad (now 85) who used to play horses many, many years ago, he said the opinion of professional handicappers was very important (I'm guessing the game is changed and there is probably waaay too much information now.) He said the newspaper HC's were very important to the game.

[thaskalos]

I posted the original question, now I'll follow up with really dumb ones: why not pay more attention to "professional" handicappers? Are they inherently worse than folks here? Are they not good at their job? Or are they actually very good at what they do but the masses follow their recommendations and then the odds become unprofitable? Are we trying to beat the professional HC's or the folks in the pool? Are they one and the same? I hope you get the gist of the question. In other words, people spend an awful lot of time handicapping when the winners are frequently who the pros have already picked. The reason I ask is that speaking to my dad (now 85) who used to play horses many, many years ago, he said the opinion of professional handicappers was very important (I'm guessing the game is changed and there is probably waaay too much information now.) He said the newspaper HC's were very important to the game.

The "professional handicappers" are paid to do a job...and that job isn't to release profitable selections. Their main objective is to stimulate the betting action on the day's card...that's why you'll hardly ever see them recommend passing a race because it is unsuited for wagering purposes. If you want to turn a profit in this game...then you have to do the heavy lifting yourself.

[DeltaLover]

Are they inherently worse than folks here?

My belief has it ,that very few among to pro handicappers are really good, otherwise they would had been betting rather than working (of course there are always exceptions)

[traynor]

Trip handicapping quite simply is a post-mortem reordering of finish position to reflect what would have been the final order of finish under neutral conditions. Based upon the insight, experience and skill of the trip handicapper it's highly subjective and as such opinions will vary. I would argue that it's far from being a trivial judgment when anomalous pace is involved. Pace is actually one of the few subtle and yet most significant areas of trip handicapping where it finally becomes possible to shift positions around without casual observers having even the slightest inkling of it being warranted. I don't get a lot of personal benefit from riders not having any intent to win a race such as 'Dos Pasos' the other day. Yet another healthy reminder not to invest in my home track where fixing the gimmick is prevalent now even 15 years after I walked away from there.

Opinions are opinions. What you do and call "trip handicapping" may be quite different from what I (and others) do and call "trip handicapping." Labels conceal more than they define.

[DeltaLover]

Opinions are opinions. What you do and call "trip handicapping" may be quite different from what I (and others) do and call "trip handicapping." Labels conceal more than they define.

Definitions usually help to clarify this kind of confusion.

[Laminarman]

The "professional handicappers" are paid to do a job...and that job isn't to release profitable selections. Their main objective is to stimulate the betting action on the day's card...that's why you'll hardly ever see them recommend passing a race because it is unsuited for wagering purposes. If you want to turn a profit in this game...then you have to do the heavy lifting yourself.

Got it. Thanks.

[dirty moose]

Great thread just shows that every person approaches the pre race work in a different way and guess what....there is no correct way!!!

Lots of computer players and others spend minimal time coming up with contenders....lots of people spend hours pouring over the races.

One of the best Handicapping books you will ever read is not about handicapping at all. the book is Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

Goes into great detail on decision making and is a great read.

I started to read this book, then stopped for some reason. Maybe I should pick it back up.

[badcompany]

The amount of time I spend handicapping usually depends on what I had for dinner the night before.

[Clocker]

I posted the original question, now I'll follow up with really dumb ones: why not pay more attention to "professional" handicappers?

The pros have to handicap every race, usually in advance without knowledge of scratches, conditions, or odds. Folks here have the luxury of being able to pass on unplayable races or races in which they can find no value.

The value of the professionals, at least for me, is not their picks, but their insights, their commentary when they can actually analyze some horses beyond just listing numbers. They will occasionally point out something I missed in my analysis that will break a tie in my mind or cause me to pass on a race.

If I cannot be at the track, I especially value the comments of a few people I trust concerning the physicality of the horses, which look fit and which do not. Of the usual suspects at TVG, the only one I would listen to is Simon Bray when they take time out from touting exotics and he actually has a chance to talk about the appearance of the horses in the post parade.

At the risk of being sexist, the top people here are women. Dawn Lupul at Woodbine and Christina Bossinakis at Monmouth are tops if you can catch them on cable or on the track feed.

[thaskalos]

The amount of time I spend handicapping usually depends on what I had for dinner the night before.
I am the exact opposite. What I have for dinner usually depends on how much time I spend handicapping.

[traynor]

Definitions usually help to clarify this kind of confusion.

Not quite. That presumes that all (without exception) words, terms, descriptions, and whatever else have the same (identical) meaning to the reader as they have to the writer. That is rarely the case.

[Clocker]

Not quite. That presumes that all (without exception) words, terms, descriptions, and whatever else have the same (identical) meaning to the reader as they have to the writer. That is rarely the case.

To paraphrase Churchill, a widely diverse community separated by a common language. ;)

[traynor]

To paraphrase Churchill, a widely diverse community separated by a common language. ;)

A common language makes it even worse, because one tends to get sloppy and presumes to understand what the other means. Chomsky did well with his explanations. So did Korzybski. The latter emphasized the basic human "need" to affix labels to things so they don't have to think about them further--they can then respond to the label as if it were the thing labeled. The whole "map is not the territory" concept. Science and Sanity is an interesting read.

I shudder at the prospect of a world filled with Sticky Notes that label everything as thus and so, to "preserve precious cognitive resources."

[MJC922]

Opinions are opinions. What you do and call "trip handicapping" may be quite different from what I (and others) do and call "trip handicapping." Labels conceal more than they define.

Fair enough. If those labels are concealing to anyone, that probably isn't some one who can be 'helped'. The point is a theoretical rematch under neutral conditions. Whether you think the race put the winner over the top in form cycle or moved some other horse forward as it was a good prep, or some jock wasn't doing things as expected, that's all (at least in my world anyway) part of the upcoming and theoretical 'neutral' rematch. (IMO)

[Capper Al]

The "professional handicappers" are paid to do a job...and that job isn't to release profitable selections. Their main objective is to stimulate the betting action on the day's card...that's why you'll hardly ever see them recommend passing a race because it is unsuited for wagering purposes. If you want to turn a profit in this game...then you have to do the heavy lifting yourself.

Heavy lifting, for me, comes in two spots. The first is in coding and is an investment of my time so that when it's handicapping time it takes me less than 10 minutes a race. Most of this 10 minutes is just looking over all the various outputted data hunting for anything abnormal.

The second heavy lifting for me occurs at wagering time. How am I going to put my tickets together? I go by some general rules here, but haven't found a way to automate this.

[ReplayRandall]

Heavy lifting, for me, comes in two spots. The first is in coding and is an investment of my time so that when it's handicapping time it takes me less than 10 minutes a race. Most of this 10 minutes is just looking over all the various outputted data hunting for anything abnormal.

The second heavy lifting for me occurs at wagering time. How am I going to put my tickets together? I go by some general rules here, but haven't found a way to automate this.

If you keep trying to automate the whole process, your mind will atrophy, and by the looks of your posts lately, it appears it already has..... ;)

[DeltaLover]

Heavy lifting, for me, comes in two spots. The first is in coding and is an investment of my time so that when it's handicapping time it takes me less than 10 minutes a race. Most of this 10 minutes is just looking over all the various outputted data hunting for anything abnormal.

The second heavy lifting for me occurs at wagering time. How am I going to put my tickets together? I go by some general rules here, but haven't found a way to automate this.

As far as the second part of wagering, I think that the simplest approach is also the best.

Usually your best approach is going to be to simply bet your horse to win or if you have strong opinion in two consecutive race to bet the double.

There are also some other cases where you might bet on exactas as well, usually trying to limit their number to the smallest number possible (one or two in most cases, unless you are betting a huge longshot that allows for a couple of more combinations...

[traynor]

Fair enough. If those labels are concealing to anyone, that probably isn't some one who can be 'helped'. The point is a theoretical rematch under neutral conditions. Whether you think the race put the winner over the top in form cycle or moved some other horse forward as it was a good prep, or some jock wasn't doing things as expected, that's all (at least in my world anyway) part of the upcoming and theoretical 'neutral' rematch. (IMO)

I think much more is involved than re-ordering the finish. If that conceptual framework works well for you, great. It seems (to me) to be an (overly) simplistic reduction to create the illusion of control. Similar to defining speed in the form of Beyer numbers, or whatever one's preferred methodology might be.

[Dave Schwartz]

The second heavy lifting for me occurs at wagering time. How am I going to put my tickets together? I go by some general rules here, but haven't found a way to automate this.

From a coding standpoint this is not as difficult as it seems. Just build a rule-based system - where you create the rules.

It works much like building a Paceline Selection System.

There are three distinct types of rules for paceline selection:

1. The pacelines I will consider today. (i.e. distance, surface, races back, etc.)
Load them into a sortable queue or file.

2. A rule for sorting the pacelines being considered. (i.e. highest FT, 2nd highest, fastest pace, etc. or some kind of weighting)

3. A rule for deciding how many pacelines to select.


Doing it for a wagering system is much the same thing:

1. The horses I will consider today. (i.e. probability rank, projected $net, marked as a contender, odds range, etc.)

Load them into a sortable queue or file.

2. A rule for sorting the horses being considered. (i.e. minimum or maximum hit rate, min/max $Net, min/max Opt%, etc.)

3. A rule for deciding how many horses to bet. (i.e. 1, 2 or some other number, bet until a certain amount of money or pool pct is wagered, etc.)

4. A rule for deciding How Much and How to bet. (This could be more of a check box affair.)

Exotic wagers are a little more difficult because you might have a different set of rules for the #1 slot vs. #2. Trifectas more difficult still.


You guys who are programmers... once you get into to this it really isn't that difficult. Think of a spreadsheet for each type of rule, with each row being a rule and each column being fields to consider.

I'd bet that a spreadsheet wizard who used VBA or even macros could do this as well.


Please note that all of this is implemented in our software, so this is not theoretical.

[Capper Al]

Dave,

With all do respect, most of my rules are not understood until after they are tested. In a normal coding project, one codes from a premise and follows the steps you suggest. I'm not interested in coding Hamilton's or Brohamer's pace formula or Beyer's speed figures. I do learn from these gentlemen, but I want to supersede or better adapt their ideas along with adding a few of my own. Yet, I agree that getting into coding, be it a programming language or a spreadsheet, yields a better understanding of the game and is a worthwhile endeavor. What I disagree with is that anyone knows the premise and just has to code it without the risks and adventures involved. Many in the forum have that tone in their posts, as if they understand the game without profiting from it.

[raybo]

Dave,

With all do respect, most of my rules are not understood until after they are tested. In a normal coding project, one codes from a premise and follows the steps you suggest. I'm not interested in coding Hamilton's or Brohamer's pace formula or Beyer's speed figures. I do learn from these gentlemen, but I want to supersede or better adapt their ideas along with adding a few of my own. Yet, I agree that getting into coding, be it a programming language or a spreadsheet, yields a better understanding of the game and is a worthwhile endeavor. What I disagree with is that anyone knows the premise and just has to code it without the risks and adventures involved. Many in the forum have that tone in their posts, as if they understand the game without profiting from it.

My philosophy is one of coding/formulating "ideas" that can then be tested in an automated fashion, against real races and results. The good "ideas" are kept and the bad ones discarded, until you end up with the "core" of a "method" (and there can be many, many methods, to handle many, many different tracks, distances, surfaces, classes, etc.). One size does not fit all, IMO.

[DeltaLover]

My philosophy is one of coding/formulating "ideas" that can then be tested in an automated fashion, against real races and results. The good "ideas" are kept and the bad ones discarded, until you end up with the "core" of a "method" (and there can be many, many methods, to handle many, many different tracks, distances, surfaces, classes, etc.). One size does not fit all, IMO.

From the quoted paragraph, the last sentence hides the secret to successful (horse) betting..

The easiest approach to horses, is to become a specialist realizing the races that fit your handicapping as opposed to try to develop a generic and global approach, applicable to every race.

[Capper Al]

My philosophy is one of coding/formulating "ideas" that can then be tested in an automated fashion, against real races and results. The good "ideas" are kept and the bad ones discarded, until you end up with the "core" of a "method" (and there can be many, many methods, to handle many, many different tracks, distances, surfaces, classes, etc.). One size does not fit all, IMO.

That sounds like my reality.

[Dave Schwartz]

With all do respect, most of my rules are not understood until after they are tested.

Al,

Perhaps I was unclear.

I did not CODE the rules. I coded systems that allow the user to BUILD the rules.

That means when you want to change or add a rule to a system (or build a completely new system), you do not have to write any code.

[MJC922]

I think much more is involved than re-ordering the finish. If that conceptual framework works well for you, great. It seems (to me) to be an (overly) simplistic reduction to create the illusion of control. Similar to defining speed in the form of Beyer numbers, or whatever one's preferred methodology might be.

"All I do is add and subtract" - Ernie Dahlman

[ReplayRandall]

"All I do is add and subtract" - Ernie Dahlman

The actual quote from Dahlman: "What I'm good at is arithmetic. I can add and subtract."

Excerpt from N.Y. Times By WILLIAM GRIME:

If Dahlman does not look like a gambler, he does not bet like a gambler either. At least not like any gambler I've seen in action, most of them, admittedly, losers. In the two days I watched him bet, he never put serious money on a horse with long odds. Not once did I get the vicarious thrill of seeing him hit a 20-to-1 shot or collect on a $500, $200 or even $50 exacta. He is a plodder. And he talks like one too.

"Winter is is my favorite time of year," he said cheerfully. "It's more predictable. The horses tend to be older, and you know what they're going to do. And out in Northern California it rains, and you get a lot of grass races switched to the main track, resulting in complete mismatches."

Most horseplayers love a contentious 12-horse race with the promise of three-figure exactas and monster trifectas. Not Dahlman. "Anyone who knows anything about gambling will tell you I'm not a great gambler," he says. "What I'm good at is arithmetic. I can add and subtract."

[traynor]

"All I do is add and subtract" - Ernie Dahlman

Is this someone famous in the horsey set?

[MJC922]

The actual quote from Dahlman: "What I'm good at is arithmetic. I can add and subtract."

Excerpt from N.Y. Times By WILLIAM GRIME:

If Dahlman does not look like a gambler, he does not bet like a gambler either. At least not like any gambler I've seen in action, most of them, admittedly, losers. In the two days I watched him bet, he never put serious money on a horse with long odds. Not once did I get the vicarious thrill of seeing him hit a 20-to-1 shot or collect on a $500, $200 or even $50 exacta. He is a plodder. And he talks like one too.

"Winter is is my favorite time of year," he said cheerfully. "It's more predictable. The horses tend to be older, and you know what they're going to do. And out in Northern California it rains, and you get a lot of grass races switched to the main track, resulting in complete mismatches."

Most horseplayers love a contentious 12-horse race with the promise of three-figure exactas and monster trifectas. Not Dahlman. "Anyone who knows anything about gambling will tell you I'm not a great gambler," he says. "What I'm good at is arithmetic. I can add and subtract."

A different interview but thanks for posting.

[Capper Al]

Perhaps I was unclear.

I did not CODE the rules. I coded systems that allow the user to BUILD the rules.

That means when you want to change or add a rule to a system (or build a completely new system), you do not have to write any code.

Sounds like a time saver.