General Advice versus Rule Based Advice

[Secretariat]

I'm just kind of curious which people prefer.

I've often been perturbed by writers like Quinn, Ainslie, and occasionally Mark Cramer because they are what I call "general writers" as opposed to someone like Steve Wolson or Gordon Jones or certain system writers.

The rule based writers still give ideas, but allow their methods and hypothesis to be thoroughly tested by anyone. In one of the few rule based books of Ainslies I have tested it, and the performance was dreadful. Even old Lou Holloway would put it on the line so you could test his ideas. Today more and more writers like Beyer or Quinn or Litfin seem to be taking this general approach to handicapping.

I notice that many of these "subjective" handicappers based on "general concepts" seem to be quite popular, but rarely are they seen as successful in handicapping contests.

Just curious on how others feel about this. It's easier to put down the "rule based" writers, but you haveto admire them for at least putting their rules out there for anyone to test.

[First_Place]

I lean more towards systems-type writers. I get annoyed with those that present their ideas via "general concepts."

"I notice that many of these "subjective" handicappers based on "general concepts" seem to be quite popular, but rarely are they seen as successful in handicapping contests."

I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, if you give someone general-type rules then the harder it is to put the blame on the writer if things don't work out in the real world. It must be something that YOU aren't doing right; something that YOU misinterpreted from the author's writings. Or something like that.

FP

[Secretariat]

Good point.

[alysheba88]

So your definition of success is how they do at handicapping contests?

Thats your problem right there. You create a definition of "success" (your performance at a handicapping contest) and say the books failed if you dont experience it. Are the books you are reading solely for handicapping contests?

Personally find system based books utterly worthless. Handicapping is more art than science.

[andicap]

The problem with "systems" or methods is that many decisins end up being subjective and most handicappers looking for the Holy Grail can't deal with that.
I am developing a systematic method of using HTR but in the end I still have to engage my computer brain (it's more of a UNIVAC than a Pentium) to make the final decision. Yesterday I hit my first three races with my "computer," than screwed up and made bad choices in the last two.
My "method" was working, but when push came to shove I made some bad choices after my method got me down to the correct three finalists. I would love to be able to look at my data and say, "I'll bet x" without any kind of interpretation, but outside of Steve Wolson's successful test on this board I haven't seen it happen yet.
Sometimes the decision is as basic as to whether bet or pass. It's often a borderline call.

That said I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread: Authors prefer to give out general advice because it is easier to pontificate than lay out detailed strategies.

BTW, I don't think these authors are getting rich on their writing. I doubt there's much of a general market for these $30 books. I have to believe they do it for the ego and the fun of being able to say, "I wrote a book!!!"

[Secretariat]

No, I don't just judge success by handicapping contests, but in the ability to communicate one's idea consistently and set up parameters to allow it to be tested.

I could find three or four races which illustrate an "artful" piece of handicapping, but the question of a methodology is it sustainable? What I've done with many of the general books is look at their example, and apply the basic rules they apply to arrive at their conclusions, program them, and see how they hold up against a tightly ruled system writer. In the case of Ainslie the system writer performs just as well, in fact better. I would imagine the same is true of others such as Litfin.

I don't disregard their work, in some cases it is imaginative and intriguing, but they leave themselves open ended without an abiltiy to test the concepts. Bill Quirin's book was phenomenal because he went out on the line, and measured the success fo his theories. He may not have been the best handicapper in the world, but you could personally measure his suggestions. Nowadays, it seems there is a return to the Ainslie style of book, more subjective in nature. Unless someone has put something out like quirin lately. Always admired Jim Bayle and Mike Nunamaker for objectively testing the results of theri ideas.

[ranchwest]

How many books handicap tomorrow's race?

Having a strategy that worked yesterday is one thing, but being able to do it tomorrow is something else.

Most of my biggest scores have come from doing something that I haven't done before.

Having a way to grind out 5% is great, but being patient enough to rack up is where the money is.

How many books help you to think contrarian in such a way that you can actually learn to hit big ones?

[alysheba88]

Originally posted by ranchwest
How many books handicap tomorrow's race?

Having a strategy that worked yesterday is one thing, but being able to do it tomorrow is something else.

Most of my biggest scores have come from doing something that I haven't done before.

Having a way to grind out 5% is great, but being patient enough to rack up is where the money is.

How many books help you to think contrarian in such a way that you can actually learn to hit big ones?


Mark Cramer has put out some real good stuff.

[BMeadow]

I've gotten more out of general books (Beyer, Davidowitz, Kuck, Quinn, Litfin) than out of rules-based ones.

Problem is that rules are inflexible, while handicapping is not. Some simple examples:

Sometimes bullet workouts are good, other times they're just advertising works to get the horse claimed.

Sometimes a trainer claims a horse for $20,000 and immediately enters him for $16,000 because he wants to get rid of a horse, while other times he just wants to keep his competition guessing.

Sometimes a short layoff is a negative (injury), while other times it's a positive (the horse has grown, or has been freshened and is now ready for a good race).

Sometimes a horse's good last race is an indication of something even better to come, or it was a peak in which we expect him to run worse this time.

There are so many exceptions to every rule that the only rule I use is this--Handicapping must be in context. That includes the context of the race, and the context of the horse's career and where this race fits into it.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by BMeadow
I've gotten more out of general books (Beyer, Davidowitz, Kuck, Quinn, Litfin) than out of rules-based ones.

Problem is that rules are inflexible, while handicapping is not. Some simple examples:

Sometimes bullet workouts are good, other times they're just advertising works to get the horse claimed.

Sometimes a trainer claims a horse for $20,000 and immediately enters him for $16,000 because he wants to get rid of a horse, while other times he just wants to keep his competition guessing.

Sometimes a short layoff is a negative (injury), while other times it's a positive (the horse has grown, or has been freshened and is now ready for a good race).

Sometimes a horse's good last race is an indication of something even better to come, or it was a peak in which we expect him to run worse this time.

There are so many exceptions to every rule that the only rule I use is this--Handicapping must be in context. That includes the context of the race, and the context of the horse's career and where this race fits into it.

I think your post preferring general handicapping books to system based ones surprising to me the most since you run tests of methodologies.

For example, you state that bullet workouts are good, other times they are bad. Well, how is this measurable? Everyone knows that information. Without knowing how "specifically" that information is useable it leaves a bettor with what Sartin called abulia or indecision.

For example Trainer A may use bullets to bring a horse along, and another may use slower works. Granted, but a ssytem looks at long term trends and not the race at hand. For example, IF in fact a handicapper lists for example that he plays workouts for certain trainers this way can he not list BEFOREHAND how he will handle the bullet workout, or is it just intuitive? If so, that's fine as well, but the handicapper's performance has to be measurable BEFORE races

[Tom]

And assuming that the workouts are accurrate, and were actually performed by the horse in question, and forget WO's done on private farms, and totally rule out swimming pool training. WO reporting leaves a lot to be desired.

[ranchwest]

the handicapper's performance has to be measurable BEFORE races

Why? Are you betting what you bet yesterday or are you betting on today's race? Today's race was never run before.

I process probably just about as many numbers as anyone, but my best scores have usually come when I found a unique situation and took advantage of it. There's nothing from the past that can tell you that you're going to find a usable unique situation.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Why? Are you betting what you bet yesterday or are you betting on today's race? Today's race was never run before.

I process probably just about as many numbers as anyone, but my best scores have usually come when I found a unique situation and took advantage of it. There's nothing from the past that can tell you that you're going to find a usable unique situation.

Exactly. Your approach leaves one without being able to measure the effectiveness of your decisions, Therefore "plausible deniability". I worked on a system for a guy which showed merit over two months. The concept was sound. He found the method intuitively, and it would have made good reading in a book with scores of examples. But it didn't hold up. Some of your "best scores" may as you say have come when you found a unique situation and took advantage of it. So what was unique about it? How did you know to play that horse? And even more important how do you know that your decision would hold up long term. For example, maybe you determined that bullet workouts for Trainer A gave him an advantage in this unique race today. (a) How did you arrive at that decision? (b) If intuitive how do you know that your decision process isn't just anecdotal? (c) Can it be measured?

This is my point. Many system writers get a bum wrap because they go out on the line, and their decisions can be verified. A "general" writer throws out concepts which often point to a specific race (which conicidentally is often after the fact), to point up some anecdotal theory. However, they also generally refuse to put the decision process into any real specifics for fear of being discovered as non-thorough researchers. I do not put Mark Cramer in that category as he does research, but he knows how difficult it is to sustain a method. Tom also makes a good point in terms of Workout Patterns. How would one know all the "Strange Attractors" as Sartin might say surrounding that workout. Was the horse ill when it ran that slow workout? Was a horse juiced for that work? Looking at a specific situation is dangerous without a long term viewpoint and proven facts to back one up. System Writers almost always lose money except in unique situations. But thay allow measurable testing.

[ranchwest]

Secretariat,

You seem to be assuming there is a number for everything. There isn't.

Sometimes it is better to handicap.

OK, I hope nobody goes ballistic and whines about the following being red boarding, but we need an example here.

The War Emblem Preakness. I had liked War Emblem in the Derby but didn't get the horses underneath, so I didn't fair all that well. I certainly liked him coming back into the Preakness, but, hey, I'm sure many of you did.

In examining the field, I noticed that several horses in the race had simply never run an impressive race, nothing to indicate Grade I ability. I threw those out.

Next, I looked at blood lines and running lines and decided that several more horses wouldn't like the distance.

I was left with basically four longshots. I played all four under War Emblem and hit a fairly nice exacta when Magic Weisner came in.

No, this wasn't a huge score, but it is a good example of how going beyond the raw numbers and handicapping systems can produce a nice play based on the specific circumstances of the race at hand.

Physicality is another means of going beyond the numbers. You can't determine muscle mass with a Beyer speed figure.

Are the owners present and dressed for a photo? You won't find that in the PP's.

I once knew a jockey who could be "read" by when he tossed away his cigarette. You won't find that in your database.

You can call these things "anecdotal" if you want, but I call them big score opportunities.

[Tom]

Arnie Fink, FL trainer, used to wear a dress shirt whenever he thought one his horses might win, and he wanted to look good in the photo. We had a woman trainer who used to go from the paddock to the ladies room to freshen up if she thought her horse was going to do it. One trainer used to get real nervous and head right to the bar for a couple of belts while they did the post parade.
One trainer had only two horses - she would send them over dolled up with little ribbons in their bridles when a photo was I the offing.
Lots of horses look dramaticly dufferent in some races if you are there every day. You can see a horse washed out, fighting the handlers wehn they come over when they usually are the "sharp" horse type. Many things that affect the outcome cannot be put into databases, cannot be quantified. That is why horses pay $50. That is why db guys aren't hitting 60% winners everyday.
This is not a numbers game, it is a living creature business. If I can come u p with a number method that hits 30% of the time, I am happy. I bet two horses normally because the of the unknonw factors. Anyone who makes an odds line and assings probabilities to each horse can never know the real probablities because all the pertenent facts are never know.
That it is why it so much fun, execept on days when your drive 190 miles, sit in border customers for an hour, get a crappy motel wher it takes three rooms to find one where both the air conditioner and TV work, just to bet the races at Woodbine only to have them cancel oafter 4 races due to rain (which I had to walk through!) Other than that, it is fun.
:eek:

[Tuffmug]

ranchwest,

Nice post. Numbers are fun but give most people too much of a feeling of exactness and precision in this often chaotic and nonlinear universe.
Methodical system checking and statistical testing only tells you what you could have done in the race series tested. A good test result may make you feel comfortable about betting that way in the future BUT IT REALLY SHOULD'T! The next set of races using that well checked system may bash your head in!

The only true test is the thickness or thinness of your wallet after a session.


Tom,

Know you were looking forward to that trip. Tough trip to Woodbine, ouch!!! Hope it won't sour you for Saratoga.

[Tom]

Tuffmug...I expect rain at Saratoga.:D