Quantitative Vs Qualitative capping

[Light]

Or Plan A Vs. plan B. I think most serious cappers are quantitative in that they are concerned with cold hard facts like final time,pace fractions,trainer/jock win % etc.A comparison of those gives this type of player his pick

I resort to plan B when plan A is getting killed. In plan B,the above factors take a back seat to a projected performance not supported by plan A. Such things as equipment /med change, tote board action,trainer change,surface/distance change etc to bring about a form reversal.

I find it hard to balance the two plans and give them equal weight because in every race,one plan was right and the other,not so right. I think this is the art we have to master as handicappers. When do you use a quantitative approach and when do you use a qualitative approach? That seems to be more of the riddle rather that does plan A or Plan B work. They both work. The question is in what situations do you choose one over the other?

[sjk]

I let my computer do all the work and it is entirely quantitative. Do not even look at the horses names until the bets are made and it is time to watch the race.

[alysheba88]

To me both parts are factored into every selection. Not a case of one or the other. Think players spend way too much time on the quantitative part

[peakpros]

Originally posted by Light
Or Plan A Vs. plan B. I think most serious cappers are quantitative in that they are concerned with cold hard facts like final time,pace fractions,trainer/jock win % etc.A comparison of those gives this type of player his pick

I resort to plan B when plan A is getting killed. In plan B,the above factors take a back seat to a projected performance not supported by plan A. Such things as equipment /med change, tote board action,trainer change,surface/distance change etc to bring about a form reversal.

I find it hard to balance the two plans and give them equal weight because in every race,one plan was right and the other,not so right. I think this is the art we have to master as handicappers. When do you use a quantitative approach and when do you use a qualitative approach? That seems to be more of the riddle rather that does plan A or Plan B work. They both work. The question is in what situations do you choose one over the other?


Here's a case for the qualitative approach.


Last week at monmouth we had an unusually hot day in the middle of the week. In a MC16,000 on the card the only horse not washed out (even a bit) in the paddock was 42-1. I played him to win and with the fav in the exacta.

Come in second to the 4/5 fav, but was placed first on a DQ. (Sometimes lady luck does smile on you)

To me you had to be there to have this one.

[Light]

Peak

Very true. Did not want to list all the qualitative and quantitave factors but post parade is definetly one qualitative factor some cappers I know use as their predominate tool. It does make the quantitative approach look foolish at times when the even money horse is washed out with kidney sweat getting into the gate.

[ranchwest]

I study numbers like crazy and yet many of my biggest scores result from qualitative analysis. Qualitative eliminations (even if based on data), physicality, connections, etc.

There are simply a lot of cases where it is best to focus on a very small segment of the data/information available and realize that for the particular circumstance of that race there is little other important information.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The things you listed under plan B are all changes made by the trainer for certain reasons; they should be a suplement to plan A, not a subsitute.
The more you can figure out the reasons for the changes made, the better you will handicap.
You are not really dumping figures of a horse showing speed earlier in the races who is switching from routes to sprints, or vice versa, and then dumping the horse because it is switching dinstances, are you?
You need to be able to assess all the information available relative to all the other information and according to circumstances.
All the sensible authorities say, and I totallt agree, you cannot handicap all situatuions the same. You need different handicapping strategys for different situations.
See James Quinn's book, "Recreational handicapping", and Ada Kulleck's book, "Beat the track".

[Light]

Ken saidThe things you listed under plan B are all changes made by the trainer for certain reasons; they should be a suplement to plan A, not a subsitute.

Not entirely true. Best example is Birdstone. To bet him you would have to look at the qualitative angle.His latest times sucked. Zito was full of doubt about his horse and only entered him on the urging of another person. I think they(trainer and jockey) were so stunned at their horse's performance,that's why they aplogized for winning. I have never seen an apology by a trainer or jockey for winning. They usually have confidence and say things like,"we knew he could do it"."We allways had confidence in him".etc. Zito didn't think Birstone could win. This is not the first trainer to be fooled by his own horse.

[andicap]

Mark Cramer calls this "dialectical handicapping." The speed/pace figs will point to one horse but another non-numerative angle will point to another. Or a horse will have positives and negatives within qualitative factors. Plus angles and negative angles.

Example: Top speed horse coming off his best race ever and a short rest. Top speed or bounce?

Or a horse in a field full of losers has a great betdown pattern on the board and likes the track (horse for course), but hasn't won at the distance.

I agree wholeheartedly with the main point -- when the things you normally do with figures (even when you are including trainer intent in your final picks) are not working, look for a CONTRARIAN approach. Find excuses why a horse -- who appears to be hopelessly outclassed -- could win.

Easier said than done because people (meaning me) are loathe to abandon what they know for something far more amorphous. I really think it's a right-brain, left-brain type of thiing. I'd love to bring a smart right-brain person to the track and give me their instincts on reading the DRF as a book, a story, a narrative with each of the horses as a figure in the plot. Cramer approaches it that way at times and it's fascinating.

[linrom1]

"Not entirely true. Best example is Birdstone. To bet him you would have to look at the qualitative angle.His latest times sucked. Zito was full of doubt about his horse and only entered him on the urging of another person. I think they(trainer and jockey) were so stunned at their horse's performance,that's why they aplogized for winning. I have never seen an apology by a trainer or jockey for winning. They usually have confidence and say things like,"we knew he could do it"."We allways had confidence in him".etc. Zito didn't think Birstone could win. This is not the first trainer to be fooled by his own horse."


Zito did not apoligize for winning, nor did E. Prado, it was the horse's owner that did. Besides your assertion that Zito did not think the horse could win is pure bullshit. Zito had the intention to run this horse in the Belmont even before the horse ran in the derby, that was the plan.

On TVG Zito basically said that this the game, and it must go on, what else can you do, appoint Samrty as a TC winner without even running in the Belmont. Get your facts straight.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, don't you remember what I said in another note? Zito had the whole thing mapped out by CHRISTMAS 2003!! DON'T FORGET THIS! He's the master trainer...the best there ever was...or just plain lucky.... :rolleyes:


Ps. Everything is a conspiracy....

pps. Zito did not enter Birdstone on the recommendation of another...that was Frankel with Master David and Pletcher with Purge....

[Light]

Limron saidZito did not apoligize for winning, nor did E. Prado

Not what I read. Here's Zito's apology:

http://sports.yahoo.com/rah/news?slug=zitofeature&prov=st&type=lgns

Here's Prado's apology:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/sports/8852127.htm

Now I think you owe me an apology for telling me how I don't get my facts straight. But I don't need one dude.Just look before you leap. Besides this isn't what this thread is about.

[Light]

PA said:pps. Zito did not enter Birdstone on the recommendation of another...that was Frankel with Master David and Pletcher with Purge....

What I meant was that Zito's confidence in his horse was shaken enough to consider passing the Belmont.

From article: Zito wasn't certain he was going to start Birdstone here until May 30, when the horse delivered a sizzling work at Saratoga. Whitney watched that work and told Zito to go for it, even though the trainer hesitated because Birdstone had lost 100 pounds since April.

Regarding Belmon't track condition Zito said:

"If they had sealed it even a minute before the race, I would have scratched," Zito said.

Story if you're interested:

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjsports/news2004/06/06/C14-boz0606-7419.html

I'm not really interested in correcting your misunderstanding of Zito's mindset. If anyone has something to say on the subject of this this thread that would be more relevant,I'd appreciate it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Light
I'm not really interested in correcting your misunderstanding of Zito's mindset. If anyone has something to say on the subject of this this thread that would be more relevant,I'd appreciate it.

I wouldn't count Whitney (the owner) as another person, would you? She IS the connections!!

I don't think you and I disagree on anything. My reply was to linrom1, and it was entirely tongue in cheek.

And when I wrote that Zito did not enter Birdstone based on someone else's recommendation, I meant someone besides the immediate connections.

[linrom1]

So, you guys think that Zito just got lucky, and he entered two closers in the Belmont just for fun.

[Valuist]

I think there is more value in the "plan B". A lot of the time, the speed figure players will come up with the same horses, whether they use Beyer, Brisnet or Thorograph. I like angles like knowing a speed horse was running against 4 other lead-at-all cost types last time, or a particular field was so tough and contentious I'd have to spread 6 deep in a Pic 3. Knowing the quality of a given field is something that isn't in the past performances.

[Light]

I have been experimenting with qualitative capping. I have used 2 qualitative factors so far to win 2 contests on trackchampion. One was betting the horse with a trainer change,regardless of the horses form and the other was the tote board. I never saw the horse's form in that last angle. Yet I achieved the highest bankroll.

[jackad]

Light,
How were you betting the tote board?

[Light]

Jackad

The horse had to be bet down from M/L. Or the horse had to have signigicant early money and then drift up. Then I looked for connections.This verified the betting action may be barn money. If there was still more than 1 qualifier,I played the longer shot.