A New Look at William Scott's "Investing At The Racetrack"

[Calif_Eagle]

I don't have my copy of "Investing At The Racetrack" available to me as I type this. Doing this strictly from memory, I recall that the numbers that "Mr. Scott" (Joe Finley) based his system on were an historical pattern of 33% winning favorites, 21% winning 2nd public choices, and 14% winning 3rd public choices for all races. (I believe he mentioned in passing that the numbers on 4th and 5th public choices for all races were 10% and 7% respectively.)

I have seen in some recent threads that these numbers are no longer accurate and that due to the massive use of computers (and whales betting huge amounts of money) that the figures for at least the top 3 are much higher now.

I am curious as to what the numbers are for recent samples of all races and breakouts of the percentages as well by field sizes 3 thru 12.

In the *past* it seemed that 1/3 of races were won by public favorites with each succeeding number being about 2/3 of the starting 33% as one moved down the scale from second public choice on down. It seems that if such a relationship is constant / consistent one actually COULD come up with some sort of system that would accomplish what Mr. Scott set out to do with his comparison of the 3 top public choices. Perhaps one could use the top 5 choices to try and include more winners as well as more prices.

I know that in many threads in the handicapping and library sections of this forum that Scott's attempts to do this have been found wanting by people that have worked it out themselves using Scott's systems / methods of determining Form and calculating "Ability Times".

My main intent here is to provoke comment and debate on Scott's BASIC idea. (Not his two methods (Form analysis & ability times) or even his PCR ratings from Total Victory At The Track to try and do this.) The basic idea of capitalizing on the consistent performances of the top 3 (or 5) is what I am interested in hearing perspectives on.

Does anyone here think that via using different or alternate means of separating the top 3 or top 5 public choices has merit, in light of the consistent relationship of these numbers over time for top choices on down through say the 5th of 7th spot? A database finding once published here on a thread said that public choices 2 thru 7 ALL have a positive betting expectancy in races not won by the favorite.)

[MJC922]

I wouldn't discourage anyone's exploration of a method or a framework but one thing about today's game that's a bit different from the book (when it was written) is odds volatility. To think anyone can peg who is going to be the favorite, co-fav and on down the line to fourth or fifth choice, logistical problems abound with that. This is one of those methods which can probably be made to work somehow on paper but not real-world betting. Still things should be investigated as something else may come out of it. There isn't much I see as a complete waste of time when it comes to handicapping research but odds cutoffs these days are one of the most troublesome.

[Calif_Eagle]

I wouldn't discourage anyone's exploration of a method or a framework but one thing about today's game that's a bit different from the book (when it was written) is odds volatility. To think anyone can peg who is going to be the favorite, co-fav and on down the line to fourth or fifth choice, logistical problems abound with that. This is one of those methods which can probably be made to work somehow on paper but not real-world betting. Still things should be investigated as something else may come out of it. There isn't much I see as a complete waste of time when it comes to handicapping research but odds cutoffs these days are one of the most troublesome.

I was anticipating just such a concern being raised and agree this would be more of a problem for todays handicapper than it was in 1980 when Mr. Scott wrote his book. I know that Dave Schwartz has a product out called the "Renegade Handicapper" that purports to work around this problem and allow the user to make or estimate a priceline as we are close to post.

(Disclaimer: I don't own this product (as yet) and am not affiliated with Mr. Schwartz. I have read about this item here on the Forums and think it may have the answer or a satisfactory substitute to the actual tote odds that Mr Scott was able to get an estimate on in 1980 that todays handicapper would find difficult or impossible to do.)

The thing that fascinates me about what Mr. Scott tried to do, is that the numbers were so constant for so many years and may even be more favorable today. Also that the 2/3 relationship between each succeeding number as you go down the scale was a constant for decades. It seems with such enduring consistency that SOME sort of system or effective separation method should be possible. That there is, or at least should be, something out there that hasn't been hit on or discovered as yet in regard to these enduring relationships.

[thaskalos]

IMO...the basic premise of confining our wagers to the top 3 betting choices is misguided at best. It's tough to be right a large percentage of the time in this game...and the only way to survive in this game is to latch on to the occasional price horse. We trade money with the track the vast majority of the time...and look to the occasional score to put us over the top.

More important than the determination to reduce our list of contenders is the quality of our rating method. Nothing can help us if our handicapping method isn't up to the task of properly rating these horses.

[Calif_Eagle]

IMO...the basic premise of confining our wagers to the top 3 betting choices is misguided at best. It's tough to be right a large percentage of the time in this game...and the only way to survive in this game is to latch on to the occasional price horse. We trade money with the track the vast majority of the time...and look to the occasional score to put us over the top.

More important than the determination to reduce our list of contenders is the quality of our rating method. Nothing can help us if our handicapping method isn't up to the task of properly rating these horses.

I hate to digress from my own thread, but I have to ask you a question about your contender selection method. Is it based on concepts you read about in a book you had sitting on your shelf ignored for years before finally reading it, that was written by a 30 year veteran trackside Blacksmith?

You discussed this book on an old (2014) thread I was perusing about Warren Buffett and whether or not someone had discussed the "true secret to racing" and put it out there only to have it go totally unnoticed by all. You indicated the concepts in the book had incredible power and declined to name the title or author.

I'd love to know both (of course) but am reluctantly not asking you to divulge your secrets. I am merely curious if you are still making use of these book concepts in your contender identifications and separations?

[thaskalos]

I hate to digress from my own thread, but I have to ask you a question about your contender selection method. Is it based on concepts you read about in a book you had sitting on your shelf ignored for years before finally reading it, that was written by a 30 year veteran trackside Blacksmith?

You discussed this book on an old (2014) thread I was perusing about Warren Buffett and whether or not someone had discussed the "true secret to racing" and put it out there only to have it go totally unnoticed by all. You indicated the concepts in the book had incredible power and declined to name the title or author.

I'd love to know both (of course) but am reluctantly not asking you to divulge your secrets. I am merely curious if you are still making use of these book concepts in your contender identifications and separations?

My rating system is strictly home-made...and most of the components are my own creation. But I have also borrowed liberally from other sources that I've encountered on the path, including from the book that you've mentioned above...which, by the way, remains the most eye-opening handicapping text that I've ever seen.

I use speed and pace figures in combination, to create performance ratings for the horses' races that I deem representative of the upcoming race conditions. I am not a slave to the numbers, of course...and I don't always favor the highest ratings. Experience plays a vital roll too. :)

After I submit this post...I will send you a private message with the title and the author of the book that you inquired about.

[Calif_Eagle]

My rating system is strictly home-made...and most of the components are my own creation. But I have also borrowed liberally from other sources that I've encountered on the path, including from the book that you've mentioned above...which, by the way, remains the most eye-opening handicapping text that I've ever seen.

I use speed and pace figures in combination, to create performance ratings for the horses' races that I deem representative of the upcoming race conditions. I am not a slave to the numbers, of course...and I don't always favor the highest ratings. Experience plays a vital roll too. :)

After I submit this post...I will send you a private message with the title and the author of the book that you inquired about.

Mr. Thaskalos, I received your PM and have responded to it, and would like to openly thank you publically here for the information, which I never expected or intended that you would share with me. Very much of a classy gesture by you in my book, to be sure and I am very grateful for it. You can be assured I accept this info in the spirit that you stated in the 2014 Buffett thread post, and wont be passing it on at all. I see that as solely being for you to do, or not do, as you see fit. should anyone else be interested in what was YOUR discovery.

Now... digression aside... does anyone out there think William Scott's basic idea of focusing on the top 3 (or possibly more, say 5?) public choices has any merit to it if pursued by a different contender separation method than what Scott used back in 1980? (Form and Ability Times, that which many have indicated they don't feel works well in trying to duplicate / obtain the impressive results Mr. Scott claimed he got in the book.)

I find it hard to believe that numbers with such a long standing and recurring relationship cant be somehow inserted into some sort of a system or method and massaged into a profitable system. If anything, the percentage numbers Mr. Scott quoted are even stronger / larger today for at least the 1st 3 public choices. A product offered by Dave Schwartz (The Renegade Handicapper) is apparently a way around the last minute money dump by the whales at post time.

Anyone out there with any novel or fresh takes on this basic idea?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thaskalos,

Now you went and piqued my interest in the mysterious book with the undisclosed title and author... May I please have the information also?
I don't know how to privately communicate on this site and you really don't know me from Adam but...

Regards,
Vigors

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

Now you went and piqued my interest in the mysterious book with the undisclosed title and author... May I please have the information also?
I don't know how to privately communicate on this site and you really don't know me from Adam but...

Regards,
Vigors

Vigors...the book's title is SEE HOW THEY RUN; A Guide to Financial Freedom at the Racetrack...and the author's name is Thomas McCormick. I bought my copy many years ago, and I have recommended the book to several of my friends...but it is virtually impossible to find a copy anywhere, no matter HOW hard you look. Every time I run a google search on it...I never get even a single bite. It must the the rarest somewhat-recent handicapping book in existence.

As I said, the book is eye-opening in many ways...and proves that Mr. McCormick was a horseplayer who was WAY ahead of his time. The only negative that could be said about this book is that the author lacked the needed literary skill to make this book a little easier to read. As it stands...it has a certain complexity about it which might turn off the beginner-type player. McCormick also insists on sharing some of his personal stories in this book...and this storytelling doesn't mix well with the handicapping instructions...IMO.

That aside...this is strictly 5-star reading material...as far as I am concerned. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Johnny V]

I think that Scott's method of using the top 3-4 public choices should still have some merit to it. I don't think the idea that the odds volatility rampant in todays racing will nullify it very much. You may not know the actual favorite or whom the second public choice may be and so on but it should be fairly easy to determine the top 4 or 5 or so regardless of their ranking as public choices. In case of ties I would think you could use the M/L or the Bris Prime number or some such thing.
Then you could use whatever preferred handicapping you choose to narrow down your final choice/choices. As Thask mentioned the only way to stay ahead in this game is with the occasional price horse. When you latch on to that 4th or 5th choice or even 3rd sometimes you may get that price horse.

That book See How They Run sounds familiar although I am pretty sure I never read it. It may have been one of those titles that were available by RPM systems published in Ca. I don't know if they are still in business or not.

[Light]

Vigors...the book's title is SEE HOW THEY RUN; A Guide to Financial Freedom at the Racetrack...and the author's name is Thomas McCormick. I bought my copy many years ago, and I have recommended the book to several of my friends...but it is virtually impossible to find a copy anywhere, no matter HOW hard you look. Every time I run a google search on it...I never get even a single bite. It must the the rarest somewhat-recent handicapping book in existence.

As I said, the book is eye-opening in many ways...and proves that Mr. McCormick was a horseplayer who was WAY ahead of his time. The only negative that could be said about this book is that the author lacked the needed literary skill to make this book a little easier to read. As it stands...it has a certain complexity about it which might turn off the beginner-type player. McCormick also insists on sharing some of his personal stories in this book...and this storytelling doesn't mix well with the handicapping instructions...IMO.

That aside...this is strictly 5-star reading material...as far as I am concerned. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I understand from a previous thread of this RPM book that the author uses "feet per second". Is this the same FPS as Brohamer detailed in Modern Pace Handicapping? If so, what would make McCormick's use of FPS unique or better than Brohamer's.?

[thaskalos]

I understand from a previous thread of this RPM book that the author uses "feet per second". Is this the same FPS as Brohamer detailed in Modern Pace Handicapping? If so, what would make McCormick's use of FPS unique or better than Brohamer's.?

FPS is a just a time-measuring device...same as fifths-per-second. Just because we use the same measuring device doesn't mean that we'll all use it in the same way. How many handicappers use the fifths-per-second rating methodology today? Do they all use it in the same manner?

McCormick's method is different than Brohamer's...because he uses his velocity ratings to give concrete definitions to subtle concepts like "class" and "form". What also makes this man's work unique is that he doesn't just compare the one particular horse to the other horses in the race. He also compares that one particular horse to the horse ITSELF...by observing the relationship between the different ratings of the SAME particular horse. He says..."Thoughtful handicapping isn't just about concerning ourselves with the SIZE of a horse's ratings...and how these ratings compare to those of its competition. As careful handicappers, we should also concern ourselves with how the horse's OWN ratings relate to one ANOTHER."

We often talk about "unique ideas" found in handicapping books. Well...this was a unique idea that I had never heard before, or since...even though I try to read ALL the handicapping books out there. Compare a horse not only to its competition...but also to the particular horse ITSELF.

Two handicapping questions beg to be answered in every race, IMO: Who are the best horses in the race...and will these horses run their best TODAY, when it matters MOST? We answer the first question by comparing the horses to one another. But we answer the second question, by comparing each horse to ITSELF. McCormick does that...and he uses velocity ratings to do it.

This is REAL insight, folks, that we can use in our OWN preferred ways. We don't have to stick to McCormick's guidelines here; we can supplement our OWN thinking onto his, and chart our OWN course. That's what I've done. But McCormick gave me the idea...and he deserves the recognition for it, along with my thanks.

Gee...you guys got me excited all over again about this book. Maybe later, when I have more time...I'll start a thread here about this particular book. If William L. Scott deserves several threads of his own here...then it occurs to me that Thomas McCormick should have at least ONE. No? :)

[tlinetrader]

Would be interested in obtaining a copy of McCormicks book. No luck on ebay or amazon. Anyone have any thoughts on where it might be available? Thanks.

[Tom]

Gus, would you say his methods was like using speed figures to describe a horse's from cycle to predict improvement or decline?

I have to look in my archives - I would like to read that book, too.

[raybo]

I, many years ago, decided that I needed to get back to the "real" numbers (at least as "real" as they are anyway), so I decided to totally ignore pace ratings and speed ratings completely, and went back to the raw times in the PPs. Of course, I knew that raw times alone would not help me. I needed the variants, and not just the total variant for the whole race, I needed fractional variants in order to get closer to the actual times run during the fractional segments of races. The segmental times needed to reflect, as close as possible, "universal" times, just to be able to compare races run at the same track and on the same surface. Track to track adjustments are another hurdle that one must jump. Recently I added the run up distances to the equation, regarding the calculation of fractional velocities and total velocities, because earlier I was using Brisnet data files which do not include the run up distances.

The question is: Do my velocities do a better job than published pace and speed ratings? IMO, yes they do, because I know every calculation that goes into them, I don't need to "trust" someone else's adjustments to the raw times, I adjust them myself. So, I only have myself to blame if errors have been made (and because of my thorough automation of all my calculations, no errors are made within my method, other than those inherent in my doing them myself in the first place). At least I know what the possible errors could include, and can make allowances for them. If I used someone else's ratings, I would have no idea of what and where those possible errors would be.

As Gus said, all velocities are not the same, and all velocities are not used in the same ways, by all people. The key, for me, is knowing what they are, and how to use them. The only restrictions on mine, and what I do with them, are that they are based on published raw data, and that raw data can contain errors from time to time.

[whodoyoulike]

... The only restrictions on mine, and what I do with them, are that they are based on published raw data, and that raw data can contain errors from time to time.

I think you've mentioned that you use several pp's per horse which is always a good idea. One or two data points may be incorrect but using a number of data items should provide a good range of the horse's past ability plus adding a good or decent algorithm for projecting the horse's ability based on those numbers can only improve your chances.

[Terry Riggs]

Gee...you guys got me excited all over again about this book. Maybe later, when I have more time...I'll start a thread here about this particular book. If William L. Scott deserves several threads of his own here...then it occurs to me that Thomas McCormick should have at least ONE. No? :)


Oh boy this is going to be special....thanks thaskalos :jump:

[raybo]

I think you've mentioned that you use several pp's per horse which is always a good idea. One or two data points may be incorrect but using a number of data items should provide a good range of the horse's past ability plus adding a good or decent algorithm for projecting the horse's ability based on those numbers can only improve your chances.

That's one of the reasons I use multiple pacelines rather than one. The main reason is that there may not be a single paceline that represents all of today's race obstacles and conditions. Another is that I work off of "ranges" of data, rather than individual ratings, for the simple fact that none of us knows exactly what kind of form each horse in a race is in, or how the running of the race may play against the strengths of individual horses or favor others, so ranges help to throw out the chaff, those horses whose better performances can't compete with other horses poorer performances (the highs versus the lows), and push the more versatile horses to the top of the contender ladder.

[MJC922]

Winning horseplayers must somehow see what others can't and bet those situations accordingly. It's reasonable to assume the odds in those cases should not be expected to 'indicate' what the opposition sees and might as well be ignored except for perhaps bet sizing. Choosing contenders initially by using the opposition's own odds ranking doesn't seem sensible. Not that you can't possibly win doing it, but it just shouldn't have a thing to do with WHY you're able to win.

[Secondbest]

Would be interested in obtaining a copy of McCormicks book. No luck on ebay or amazon. Anyone have any thoughts on where it might be available? Thanks.
Not knowing the publisher my guess is the book had a very small publishing rate. And the unsold ones were destroyed.
Thas ,who was the publisher? If you don't mind looking.

[Calif_Eagle]

Winning horseplayers must somehow see what others can't and bet those situations accordingly. It's reasonable to assume the odds in those cases should not be expected to 'indicate' what the opposition sees and might as well be ignored except for perhaps bet sizing. Choosing contenders initially by using the opposition's own odds ranking doesn't seem sensible. Not that you can't possibly win doing it, but it just shouldn't have a thing to do with WHY you're able to win.

Using the numbers Scott used **in 1980** indicated that the top 5 public choices win ** 85% ** of ALL races. They had been doing so for years (decades even) and have continued to do so since, maybe even winning more often now, as many threads here have shown recent numbers on at least the public favorites to be even above the old standard of roughly 33%.

Scott's original idea was that choices 1-3 would win on average 6 races a card and that with powerful separation techniques you should be able to win 4 races a card based on choosing the one of the top 3 that would beat the others 2 out of 3. He felt if you could do that, profit was assured. It worked better than that in his published workouts, but that was a handicapping book example for publication and workouts typically do very well in those. People that tried it in the "real world" seemed to feel his methods (Form and "Ability Times") were lacking in the predictive ability he said they would have, according to threads here, book reviews on sites like Amazon etc.

It seems (to me anyway) like with powerful contender separation methods that this is the very key to the door to winning at the races. With such enduring and decade in - decade out consistent numbers there ought to be a way to somehow make this a starting point to a profitable system.

I would love to see the numbers for all the public choices in order broken down from a large database of more recent results, both for all races and by field size as well. (I'm also sure surface and distance would be revealing numbers as well.)

[Calif_Eagle]

RE: The book by Mr. McCormick, See How They Run

Since Mr. Thaskalos has chosen to reveal the title and author here, I did a search of all posts on that book here at PA and found that Mr McCormick was a one time Sartin practitioner (or at least an admirer or sympathizer) and made the book available to Dr. Sartin prior to publication for his review.

Dr. Sartin seemed to feel that his own current material at the time of the review (presumably somewhat after Mr. McCormick left the group or stopped following them and wrote the book) had surpassed what Mr. McCormick chose to use / include in his book.

It also appears that there is other content in the book that makes it more than just another pace based system. I am referring to the discoveries Mr Thaskalos made in the books content about comparing the horse to itself as well as to the opposing field. This content appears to be where the unique content lies and I can't wait to read it.

I also tried Google searching and going to numerous book sites to find it, to no avail, at least right now. The print run must have been small and the sales even smaller. But I am sure one will surface somewhere at sometime.

Some PA members may even have it and not even recall that they do. Anything is possible !

EDIT: This book was once available on the RPM website / catalog according to an old post here. However, a look at the RPM website yesterday did not show this book being offered. I add this to address a previous comment on this thread.

[whodoyoulike]

Using the numbers Scott used **in 1980** indicated that the top 5 public choices win ** 85% ** of ALL races. They had been doing so for years (decades even) and have continued to do so since, maybe even winning more often now, as many threads here have shown recent numbers on at least the public favorites to be even above the old standard of roughly 33%.

Scott's original idea was that choices 1-3 would win on average 6 races a card and that with powerful separation techniques you should be able to win 4 races a card based on choosing the one of the top 3 that would beat the others 2 out of 3. He felt if you could do that, profit was assured. It worked better than that in his published workouts, but that was a handicapping book example for publication and workouts typically do very well in those. People that tried it in the "real world" seemed to feel his methods (Form and "Ability Times") were lacking in the predictive ability he said they would have, according to threads here, book reviews on sites like Amazon etc.

It seems (to me anyway) like with powerful contender separation methods that this is the very key to the door to winning at the races. With such enduring and decade in - decade out consistent numbers there ought to be a way to somehow make this a starting point to a profitable system.

I would love to see the numbers for all the public choices in order broken down from a large database of more recent results, both for all races and by field size as well. (I'm also sure surface and distance would be revealing numbers as well.)

I think you're going down a dead end. Instead you should concentrate on improving your handicapping methodology. As you've stated those 33% etc. stats have been around for a long time and it hasn't helped anyone that I know or have read about.

[MJC922]

Using the numbers Scott used **in 1980** indicated that the top 5 public choices win ** 85% ** of ALL races. They had been doing so for years (decades even) and have continued to do so since, maybe even winning more often now, as many threads here have shown recent numbers on at least the public favorites to be even above the old standard of roughly 33%.

Scott's original idea was that choices 1-3 would win on average 6 races a card and that with powerful separation techniques you should be able to win 4 races a card based on choosing the one of the top 3 that would beat the others 2 out of 3. He felt if you could do that, profit was assured. It worked better than that in his published workouts, but that was a handicapping book example for publication and workouts typically do very well in those. People that tried it in the "real world" seemed to feel his methods (Form and "Ability Times") were lacking in the predictive ability he said they would have, according to threads here, book reviews on sites like Amazon etc.

It seems (to me anyway) like with powerful contender separation methods that this is the very key to the door to winning at the races. With such enduring and decade in - decade out consistent numbers there ought to be a way to somehow make this a starting point to a profitable system.

I would love to see the numbers for all the public choices in order broken down from a large database of more recent results, both for all races and by field size as well. (I'm also sure surface and distance would be revealing numbers as well.)

I'll try to get you what you're looking for, I'm not sure when I'll have the chance, maybe this weekend. I have a years worth of races split into three groups that I'm planning to use for upcoming research. Should be plenty of data.

[Calif_Eagle]

I think you're going down a dead end. Instead you should concentrate on improving your handicapping methodology. As you've stated those 33% etc. stats have been around for a long time and it hasn't helped anyone that I know or have read about.

You are surely right that they have been around forever. The thing is that "Investing At The Racetrack" is the only work I have ever encountered (I have dozens of handicapping books in my personal library) that tried to base a system around it. And that system was done a long time ago, as basically a paper and pencil system without applying the power of computers. Today the % numbers for all 3 or 5 of the publics first choices may even be higher. I think 67% (using Scott's 1980 numbers) for the top 3 or 85% for the top 5 public horses is a nice starting point and, of course I don't think one should bet EVERY race.

Even the system in IATR called for passes in certain situations. And it could be modified to pass races when the favorite is overwhelming and super short priced, etc.

Besides, I don't think one has to use Scott's basic idea in the exact way he tried to do it. There may be other ways to apply the kernel idea. Perhaps a form of dutching, or tiers using 1-3 and 4-5 and even 6-7. A database finding published here showed when the favorite LOSES, ALL public choices 2-7 have positive betting expectancy. That could be incorporated somehow on races where the favorite looks vulnerable.

This long standing constant relationship with numbers may BE an illusion or a "dead end" or even a complete waste of time and thought, but I would be curious, WHY do you think so?

[Calif_Eagle]

I'll try to get you what you're looking for, I'm not sure when I'll have the chance, maybe this weekend. I have a years worth of races split into three groups that I'm planning to use for upcoming research. Should be plenty of data.

That would be tremendous and Greatly appreciated if you could / would do that!

I am primarily a recreational handicapper and don't have a database of my own. That may change soon, as I hover on the verge of retirement, but I think (and in some ways sort of hope) I may have a few more years of 9-5 office time in front of me. If I don't wind up with that, I will be at the race book a lot more often soon and may take up the game on a much more serious & intensive basis than I have in the past.

[tlinetrader]

I sent an email to RPM to see if they had any leads on obtaining a copy of the McCormick book. Havent heard back yet.

[raybo]

Winning horseplayers must somehow see what others can't and bet those situations accordingly. It's reasonable to assume the odds in those cases should not be expected to 'indicate' what the opposition sees and might as well be ignored except for perhaps bet sizing. Choosing contenders initially by using the opposition's own odds ranking doesn't seem sensible. Not that you can't possibly win doing it, but it just shouldn't have a thing to do with WHY you're able to win.

I agree completely! Most won't though, but then, that's a good thing. ;)

[InsideTheRaces.com]

I would love to see the numbers for all the public choices in order broken down from a large database of more recent results, both for all races and by field size as well. (I'm also sure surface and distance would be revealing numbers as well.)

This thread has the data you're looking for. It's scattered so look at each page. http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48485&highlight=contender+selection

[raybo]

I think you're going down a dead end. Instead you should concentrate on improving your handicapping methodology. As you've stated those 33% etc. stats have been around for a long time and it hasn't helped anyone that I know or have read about.

The only thing about the 33% favorites' winning rate that has ever interested me, is that 66% of winners are not the favorite, and they, cumulatively, average drastically higher odds. Bottom line is that, under certain conditions you must either bet the favorite or pass it, and at other times you must find the favorite unworthy, and others worthy. The latter is where I prefer to live, regarding win betting anyway. The verticals of course, are a different matter completely.

[Calif_Eagle]

This thread has the data you're looking for. It's scattered so look at each page. http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48485&highlight=contender+selection

Thanks for the heads-up ! :ThmbUp: I will go there and check it out!

[whodoyoulike]

...
This long standing constant relationship with numbers may BE an illusion or a "dead end" or even a complete waste of time and thought, but I would be curious, WHY do you think so?

Without spending any time considering the situation as you've presented, I would calculate the number of combinations and odds based on this number.

Decide on what type of bet you'll be making and is it worth it?

Probably very few situations if any and because I suspect it would be only a few cases most will want more action and lose any advantage. I'm not trying to dissuade you but test it and let us know if it does work.

[InsideTheRaces.com]

Thanks for the heads-up ! :ThmbUp: I will go there and check it out!

It's on the last page

All races for the past 6 + years = about 341195 races. For the top 4 win %:

Public Choice = 81.56 % $Net of $1.61
Morning Line = 79.56 % $Net of $1.59
PSR* = 76.49 % $Net of $1.66

*Projected Speed Rating in HSH

[Calif_Eagle]

The only thing about the 33% favorites' winning rate that has ever interested me, is that 66% of winners are not the favorite, and they, cumulatively, average drastically higher odds. Bottom line is that, under certain conditions you must either bet the favorite or pass it, and at other times you must find the favorite unworthy, and others worthy. The latter is where I prefer to live, regarding win betting anyway. The verticals of course, are a different matter completely.

This is kind of what I am getting at re: Scott's basic idea. You are taking what he said (or, if you prefer; taking a long standing statistic that has held up "forever", since Scott didn't really originate it) and putting it to use. Looking to pass the race that has the legitimate strong favorite (or else look to the verticals as you stated) and look to profit when the favorite looks beatable.

To me, that's sort of a variation on Scott's theme, but that's perfectly OK. The goal is to somehow use this long standing arithmatical relationship to profit. It doesn't have to precisely be the way that Scott tried to do it. Or for that matter, it doesn't have to be the way he did it at all.

I found a post here awhile ago by Dave Schwartz in which he said he looks to eliminate a large enough portion of the pool to counter the takeout and give himself an arithmatic advantage. It was basically looking for one or 2 runners at 7-2 or less that were basically dead money in the pool (Could not or at least should not, win the given race.) He indicated that if/when he could do this he then had an advantage *over the long haul* even betting blindly on the rest of such a field.

I am certain he didn't actually go ahead "bet blindly" in these spots, but this goes to the type of thing I am thinking about. Looking for the spots where the intrinsic & basic math of the game is in your favor. (I believe Dick Mitchell was also a big proponent of this type of strategy. Look for reasons why the favorite is vulnerable and when you find one that is, you have eliminated a whole bunch of the mutuel pool and you can bet confidently on one or even more of what remains in the field.)

[Calif_Eagle]

This thread has the data you're looking for. It's scattered so look at each page. http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48485&highlight=contender+selection

Lots of good discussion on this thread about the same basic idea, although the word "Scott" appears nowhere on it. The basic consensus on this thread is that knowing you have your winner 80% of the time in your top 4 is tantalizing, but there is no effective way to Dutch it or otherwise play it, with the favorite included.

IF... one had a powerful technique to eliminate the favorite (or when failing that, pass the race, of course) one probably would be able to Dutch the public's 2-5 or even 2-7 choices and make consistent profits.

I suppose that's "Holy Grail" type stuff but favorites even today are losing 60% of the races... food for more thought, I guess.

[thaskalos]

Lots of good discussion on this thread about the same basic idea, although the word "Scott" appears nowhere on it. The basic consensus on this thread is that knowing you have your winner 80% of the time in your top 4 is tantalizing, but there is no effective way to Dutch it or otherwise play it, with the favorite included.

IF... one had a powerful technique to eliminate the favorite (or when failing that, pass the race, of course) one probably would be able to Dutch the public's 2-5 or even 2-7 choices and make consistent profits.

I suppose that's "Holy Grail" type stuff but favorites even today are losing 60% of the races... food for more thought, I guess.

The way the game is played today...the favorite who looks "undeserving" may be the most dangerous horse of all.

[Dave Schwartz]

The way the game is played today...the favorite who looks "undeserving" may be the most dangerous horse of all.

Thaskalos,

I actually have some stats on that somewhere. Something like worse than 4th for M/L and goes off as favorite.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

I actually have some stats on that somewhere. Something like worse than 4th for M/L and goes off as favorite.

I don't know if the M/L is trustworthy enough for this sort of research. One's own betting line would be a much better choice...IMO.

[Actor]

I don't have my copy of "Investing At The Racetrack" available to me as I type this. Doing this strictly from memory, I recall that the numbers that "Mr. Scott" (Joe Finley) based his system on were an historical pattern of 33% winning favorites, 21% winning 2nd public choices, and 14% winning 3rd public choices for all races.A couple of years back I ran a test of my own database and found that morning line 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices had about the same percentages. The same was true of 1st, 2nd, 3rd Bris Prime Power rating. It occurs to me that, instead of waiting until the last minute to find out what the public is betting on, you could just as well use the ML or the Power rating, go to the windows early and then take your seat and enjoy the races.

The problem I have with Scott's approach is that he takes the top three public choices, which the public has supposedly squeezed out of the data in the Form, and then tries to take that same data and find something the public has missed. It has not worked for me.

[Dave Schwartz]

A couple of years back I ran a test of my own database and found that morning line 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices had about the same percentages.

I'm assuming that your database was not very large. I assure you that as the sample size increases those categories become very definitive.

Do not mistake this for me saying that morning line is a viable handicapping factor.

[Calif_Eagle]

I'll put another question out there for any of those concerned / interested. Has anyone tried Scott's idea, either with his original separation techniques or with something different of their own choosing or development, and had any consistent success with it? Even if it was some time ago... pre-dating the very common final odds / payouts volatility of todays game?

I personally have not, as in the past I have been an occasional player, almost always strictly "weekend warrior" type recreational when I go. Naturally as a smaller bettor, going out primarily for fun, I have looked for a good prices via logical means for the thrill provided when they come home. Betting (a small amount) for a 2.60 payoff doesn't really jazz anyone but a whale with massive amounts to bet & massive rebates, I would think.

Just the same, the "Scott numbers" have always intrigued me, especially the constancy of their relationship to each other & their persistence in recurring over the years.

[jasperson]

I'll put another question out there for any of those concerned / interested. Has anyone tried Scott's idea, either with his original separation techniques or with something different of their own choosing or development, and had any consistent success with it? Even if it was some time ago... pre-dating the very common final odds / payouts volatility of todays game?

I personally have not, as in the past I have been an occasional player, almost always strictly "weekend warrior" type recreational when I go. Naturally as a smaller bettor, going out primarily for fun, I have looked for a good prices via logical means for the thrill provided when they come home. Betting (a small amount) for a 2.60 payoff doesn't really jazz anyone but a whale with massive amounts to bet & massive rebates, I would think.

Just the same, the "Scott numbers" have always intrigued me, especially the constancy of their relationship to each other & their persistence in recurring over the years.
I used his method in some races at Golden Gate back in the 80's but I don't remember my results. I must have had enough success to write a program to do most of his calculations. If I remember correctly it didn't yield enough bets to encourage me to continue using it.

[Actor]

I'm assuming that your database was not very large.It was about 1500 races at the time. I agree that is not very large. In How Will Your Horse Run Today Scott based his findings on about 500 races. I've always thought that was too small. As far as morning line is concerned the result probably represents an average of several track handicappers. I'd prefer to do separate studies for each track handicapper but that information is not part of my database. Adding that information to my database would be very time intensive and, unfortunately, I don't have the time.

One thought that intrigues me is that the track handicapper could have access to information not in the Form and the ML could be useful in eliminating losers. I have yet to do a study.

I'm increasing the size of my database as time goes by. I hope to one day have more than 10,000 races.

[MJC922]

This is from the past 12 months or so, missing some small tracks but at least all majors and mid-level tracks. I left out ties in rank. Should be accurate, I haven't had a drink yet tonight. :)


FieldSize OddsRanking Winners Count Wpct
4 1 173 332 52.1%
4 2 84 327 25.7%
4 3 47 338 13.9%
4 4 28 343 8.2%
5 1 903 2082 43.4%
5 2 529 2034 26.0%
5 3 330 2072 15.9%
5 4 203 2109 9.6%
5 5 104 2140 4.9%
6 1 2140 5187 41.3%
6 2 1167 5042 23.1%
6 3 821 5115 16.1%
6 4 554 5222 10.6%
6 5 344 5288 6.5%
6 6 166 5342 3.1%
7 1 2432 6292 38.7%
7 2 1372 6106 22.5%
7 3 929 6199 15.0%
7 4 670 6336 10.6%
7 5 462 6352 7.3%
7 6 293 6438 4.6%
7 7 151 6516 2.3%
8 1 2107 5663 37.2%
8 2 1182 5442 21.7%
8 3 813 5534 14.7%
8 4 622 5645 11.0%
8 5 407 5730 7.1%
8 6 275 5792 4.7%
8 7 192 5872 3.3%
8 8 86 5924 1.5%
9 1 1561 4349 35.9%
9 2 830 4192 19.8%
9 3 583 4239 13.8%
9 4 431 4310 10.0%
9 5 366 4450 8.2%
9 6 230 4428 5.2%
9 7 183 4464 4.1%
9 8 103 4512 2.3%
9 9 74 4540 1.6%
10 1 1242 3739 33.2%
10 2 676 3623 18.7%
10 3 486 3666 13.3%
10 4 410 3700 11.1%
10 5 303 3746 8.1%
10 6 238 3792 6.3%
10 7 166 3825 4.3%
10 8 119 3850 3.1%
10 9 80 3871 2.1%
10 10 40 3891 1.0%
11 1 477 1601 29.8%
11 2 301 1547 19.5%
11 3 229 1565 14.6%
11 4 170 1569 10.8%
11 5 130 1584 8.2%
11 6 95 1626 5.8%
11 7 74 1618 4.6%
11 8 63 1629 3.9%
11 9 28 1647 1.7%
11 10 30 1660 1.8%
11 11 14 1666 0.8%
12 1 428 1382 31.0%
12 2 246 1348 18.2%
12 3 183 1358 13.5%
12 4 128 1366 9.4%
12 5 103 1365 7.5%
12 6 84 1375 6.1%
12 7 74 1404 5.3%
12 8 58 1411 4.1%
12 9 37 1414 2.6%
12 10 23 1417 1.6%
12 11 13 1423 0.9%
12 12 8 1429 0.6%

[therussmeister]

I'll put another question out there for any of those concerned / interested. Has anyone tried Scott's idea, either with his original separation techniques or with something different of their own choosing or development, and had any consistent success with it? Even if it was some time ago... pre-dating the very common final odds / payouts volatility of todays game?

I personally have not, as in the past I have been an occasional player, almost always strictly "weekend warrior" type recreational when I go. Naturally as a smaller bettor, going out primarily for fun, I have looked for a good prices via logical means for the thrill provided when they come home. Betting (a small amount) for a 2.60 payoff doesn't really jazz anyone but a whale with massive amounts to bet & massive rebates, I would think.

Just the same, the "Scott numbers" have always intrigued me, especially the constancy of their relationship to each other & their persistence in recurring over the years.


"Investing at the Racetrack" was my introduction to handicapping. It took only about three days of using it to give me the impression it would not be profitable and start trying to improve on his methodology. It didn't take me long to give up on the idea of only betting one of the top three favorites, and foregoing that approach immediately improved my ROI.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Vigors...the book's title is SEE HOW THEY RUN; A Guide to Financial Freedom at the Racetrack...and the author's name is Thomas McCormick. I bought my copy many years ago, and I have recommended the book to several of my friends...but it is virtually impossible to find a copy anywhere, no matter HOW hard you look. Every time I run a google search on it...I never get even a single bite. It must the the rarest somewhat-recent handicapping book in existence.

As I said, the book is eye-opening in many ways...and proves that Mr. McCormick was a horseplayer who was WAY ahead of his time. The only negative that could be said about this book is that the author lacked the needed literary skill to make this book a little easier to read. As it stands...it has a certain complexity about it which might turn off the beginner-type player. McCormick also insists on sharing some of his personal stories in this book...and this storytelling doesn't mix well with the handicapping instructions...IMO.

That aside...this is strictly 5-star reading material...as far as I am concerned. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

All the more mysterious and intriguing as I am a bibliophile and literary "kook"...! In wake of said book's absense in my sweaty palms, I guess I (we) must rely upon you to disclose its restricted arcana...There is nothing more appetizing than know there is 5 star material out there that I may not at my leisure peruse! It's the proverbial "itch that you cannot scratch" and your enticement and disclosure has done nothing but whet my insatiable thirst for all things "horsey" and my now hunger for this book will no doubt advance...If the Horse Gods so deem, may they impinge upon thee to redeem my plight...
Regards, Vigors

[Calif_Eagle]

This is from the past 12 months or so, missing some small tracks but at least all majors and mid-level tracks. I left out ties in rank. Should be accurate, I haven't had a drink yet tonight. :)


FieldSize OddsRanking Winners Count Wpct
4 1 173 332 52.1%
4 2 84 327 25.7%
4 3 47 338 13.9%
4 4 28 343 8.2%
5 1 903 2082 43.4%
5 2 529 2034 26.0%
5 3 330 2072 15.9%
5 4 203 2109 9.6%
5 5 104 2140 4.9%
6 1 2140 5187 41.3%
6 2 1167 5042 23.1%
6 3 821 5115 16.1%
6 4 554 5222 10.6%
6 5 344 5288 6.5%
6 6 166 5342 3.1%
7 1 2432 6292 38.7%
7 2 1372 6106 22.5%
7 3 929 6199 15.0%
7 4 670 6336 10.6%
7 5 462 6352 7.3%
7 6 293 6438 4.6%
7 7 151 6516 2.3%
8 1 2107 5663 37.2%
8 2 1182 5442 21.7%
8 3 813 5534 14.7%
8 4 622 5645 11.0%
8 5 407 5730 7.1%
8 6 275 5792 4.7%
8 7 192 5872 3.3%
8 8 86 5924 1.5%
9 1 1561 4349 35.9%
9 2 830 4192 19.8%
9 3 583 4239 13.8%
9 4 431 4310 10.0%
9 5 366 4450 8.2%
9 6 230 4428 5.2%
9 7 183 4464 4.1%
9 8 103 4512 2.3%
9 9 74 4540 1.6%
10 1 1242 3739 33.2%
10 2 676 3623 18.7%
10 3 486 3666 13.3%
10 4 410 3700 11.1%
10 5 303 3746 8.1%
10 6 238 3792 6.3%
10 7 166 3825 4.3%
10 8 119 3850 3.1%
10 9 80 3871 2.1%
10 10 40 3891 1.0%
11 1 477 1601 29.8%
11 2 301 1547 19.5%
11 3 229 1565 14.6%
11 4 170 1569 10.8%
11 5 130 1584 8.2%
11 6 95 1626 5.8%
11 7 74 1618 4.6%
11 8 63 1629 3.9%
11 9 28 1647 1.7%
11 10 30 1660 1.8%
11 11 14 1666 0.8%
12 1 428 1382 31.0%
12 2 246 1348 18.2%
12 3 183 1358 13.5%
12 4 128 1366 9.4%
12 5 103 1365 7.5%
12 6 84 1375 6.1%
12 7 74 1404 5.3%
12 8 58 1411 4.1%
12 9 37 1414 2.6%
12 10 23 1417 1.6%
12 11 13 1423 0.9%
12 12 8 1429 0.6%



Thanx very much for taking the trouble and posting this! :ThmbUp:

[whodoyoulike]

This is from the past 12 months or so, missing some small tracks but at least all majors and mid-level tracks. I left out ties in rank. Should be accurate, I haven't had a drink yet tonight. :) ...


Thanks for the info. Dave Schwartz published something similar about a year ago. So, your results appear consistent with his but over a different time period.

The smaller field sizes have the favorites winning 40% +/- and the larger the field sizes the favorites win at a lower % which is the reason Horseplayers should always prefer large fields if they want to make their bets worth it. And owners and trainers will always prefer smaller field sizes if they want to take home purse money.

[headhawg]

Vigors...the book's title is SEE HOW THEY RUN; A Guide to Financial Freedom at the Racetrack...and the author's name is Thomas McCormick. I bought my copy many years ago, and I have recommended the book to several of my friends...but it is virtually impossible to find a copy anywhere, no matter HOW hard you look. Every time I run a google search on it...I never get even a single bite. It must the the rarest somewhat-recent handicapping book in existence.

As I said, the book is eye-opening in many ways...and proves that Mr. McCormick was a horseplayer who was WAY ahead of his time. The only negative that could be said about this book is that the author lacked the needed literary skill to make this book a little easier to read. As it stands...it has a certain complexity about it which might turn off the beginner-type player. McCormick also insists on sharing some of his personal stories in this book...and this storytelling doesn't mix well with the handicapping instructions...IMO.

That aside...this is strictly 5-star reading material...as far as I am concerned. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:I always thought it was a hidden gem, that's for sure. I was thinking about trying to incorporate his methods into some homegrown software, but there are so many exceptions to the main concepts that I am not sure I can make it work.

I wonder what the book would fetch on ebay, now that thask has endorsed it. ;)

[VigorsTheGrey]

Once again I'm both intrigued and mentally challenged by the quality and intellectual level in these threads. I am not a data-baser not am I adept at computer programming. I wish I was. Many years ago I considered becoming a subscriber of HTR. Back then, in speaking with HTR's Ken M., I quickly realized that my level of competence in these areas was a significant hindrance.
I did not become a subscriber. I know that I am definitely below par in that respect. I do however enjoy reading and responding to your threads mainly because it affords me a vehicle for my own self-expression. The candor and sense on this website is fascinating, stimulating and truly rewarding. I have never encountered so many genuinely thoughtful AND thought-provoking people as on this website. Thank you so much for providing the space and time for me to grow as an individual as I participate in the topics that interest me so much...horse racing and handicapping!
You know I sometimes wonder...suppose we did discover the methodology whereby we could intelligently "game" the system...The "Holy Grail Edge" as it were...I think it would make a great plot and even a good movie....about these "racetrack characters" who from their own as yet to be explored motivations and pathos, now legally and effectively, begin to bring home bags and bags of cash from the racetrack..How would all this change the game and ourselves? Their secret would get out because of forums such as this one, because handicappers and players alike are not just singularly selfish creatures.
And so others, like you and I, would shortly be included as people "in the know" using the Holy Grail Methodology (HGM) to line our pockets and swell our purses, while we swill our spirits and toast our successes within the velvety turf clubs over-spanning the verdant racing lanes below...meanwhile the under-privileged because under-knowledge common racing fan continues on, giving over his hard earned money, to the track, to the state, to the now well-heel sharpies now elbowing their way amidst the denizens and socialites of the global equine world...What my dear fellow handicappers....what if we got what we wanted? What then?

[thaskalos]

I always thought it was a hidden gem, that's for sure. I was thinking about trying to incorporate his methods into some homegrown software, but there are so many exceptions to the main concepts that I am not sure I can make it work.

I wonder what the book would fetch on ebay, now that thask has endorsed it. ;)

Put your copy up for auction...and we'll find out. :)

[thaskalos]

Once again I'm both intrigued and mentally challenged by the quality and intellectual level in these threads. I am not a data-baser not am I adept at computer programming. I wish I was. Many years ago I considered becoming a subscriber of HTR. Back then, in speaking with HTR's Ken M., I quickly realized that my level of competence in these areas was a significant hindrance.
I did not become a subscriber. I know that I am definitely below par in that respect. I do however enjoy reading and responding to your threads mainly because it affords me a vehicle for my own self-expression. The candor and sense on this website is fascinating, stimulating and truly rewarding. I have never encountered so many genuinely thoughtful AND thought-provoking people as on this website. Thank you so much for providing the space and time for me to grow as an individual as I participate in the topics that interest me so much...horse racing and handicapping!
You know I sometimes wonder...suppose we did discover the methodology whereby we could intelligently "game" the system...The "Holy Grail Edge" as it were...I think it would make a great plot and even a good movie....about these "racetrack characters" who from their own as yet to be explored motivations and pathos, now legally and effectively, begin to bring home bags and bags of cash from the racetrack..How would all this change the game and ourselves? Their secret would get out because of forums such as this one, because handicappers and players alike are not just singularly selfish creatures.
And so others, like you and I, would shortly be included as people "in the know" using the Holy Grail Methodology (HGM) to line our pockets and swell our purses, while we swill our spirits and toast our successes within the velvety turf clubs over-spanning the verdant racing lanes below...meanwhile the under-privileged because under-knowledge common racing fan continues on, giving over his hard earned money, to the track, to the state, to the now well-heel sharpies now elbowing their way amidst the denizens and socialites of the global equine world...What my dear fellow handicappers....what if we got what we wanted? What then?

The "underprivileged, common racing fan" has already given up, and he is standing on the sidelines licking his wounds...or he remains barely active...while wagering only a tiny fraction of what he once bet. This game has now become a battle between those enigmatic "Whales", with their unlimited resources and their super-powerful computer software...and the hard-working "Sharks" -- who rely on their nimbleness and their guerrilla tactics to keep from becoming extinct in this game.

What happens next?

The Whales will defeat the Sharks...and then they will have no choice but to feast on each other. And in the end...the only winners will be the ones who had the sense to realize that they were beat...and walked away with some of their profit still intact.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The "underprivileged, common racing fan" has already given up, and he is standing on the sidelines licking his wounds...or he remains barely active...while wagering only a tiny fraction of what he once bet. This game has now become a battle between those enigmatic "Whales", with their unlimited resources and their super-powerful computer software...and the hard-working "Sharks" -- who rely on their nimbleness and their guerrilla tactics to keep from becoming extinct in this game.

What happens next?

The Whales will defeat the Sharks...and then they will have no choice but to feast on each other. And in the end...the only winners will be the ones who had the sense to realize that they were beat...and walked away with some of their profit still intact.

Perhaps this is what Hamlet meant when he said..."the readiness IS ALL"

[thaskalos]

Perhaps this is what Hamlet meant when he said..."the readiness IS ALL"

INDEED! :ThmbUp:

[headhawg]

Once again I'm both intrigued and mentally challenged by the quality and intellectual level in these threads. I am not a data-baser not am I adept at computer programming. I wish I was. Many years ago I considered becoming a subscriber of HTR. Back then, in speaking with HTR's Ken M., I quickly realized that my level of competence in these areas was a significant hindrance.Two things -- One, after you spend more time here, you'll be able to weed out the pseudo-intellectual b.s. from the real stuff. There's more of one kind here than the other.

And two, with HTR you just need to put the time into it. There's no need to be a programmer. It does have a database export feature so you can go that way if you want. A dbms like Access isn't that hard to learn at the level that you would need to do some research. A program like HTR that requires a monthly subscription isn't cheap so you would likely have to be a regular player or at least a regular weekend warrior to justify the cost. It would be my program of choice if I played regularly, for what that's worth. :)

[raybo]

Once again I'm both intrigued and mentally challenged by the quality and intellectual level in these threads. I am not a data-baser not am I adept at computer programming. I wish I was. Many years ago I considered becoming a subscriber of HTR. Back then, in speaking with HTR's Ken M., I quickly realized that my level of competence in these areas was a significant hindrance.
I did not become a subscriber. I know that I am definitely below par in that respect. I do however enjoy reading and responding to your threads mainly because it affords me a vehicle for my own self-expression. The candor and sense on this website is fascinating, stimulating and truly rewarding. I have never encountered so many genuinely thoughtful AND thought-provoking people as on this website. Thank you so much for providing the space and time for me to grow as an individual as I participate in the topics that interest me so much...horse racing and handicapping!
You know I sometimes wonder...suppose we did discover the methodology whereby we could intelligently "game" the system...The "Holy Grail Edge" as it were...I think it would make a great plot and even a good movie....about these "racetrack characters" who from their own as yet to be explored motivations and pathos, now legally and effectively, begin to bring home bags and bags of cash from the racetrack..How would all this change the game and ourselves? Their secret would get out because of forums such as this one, because handicappers and players alike are not just singularly selfish creatures.
And so others, like you and I, would shortly be included as people "in the know" using the Holy Grail Methodology (HGM) to line our pockets and swell our purses, while we swill our spirits and toast our successes within the velvety turf clubs over-spanning the verdant racing lanes below...meanwhile the under-privileged because under-knowledge common racing fan continues on, giving over his hard earned money, to the track, to the state, to the now well-heel sharpies now elbowing their way amidst the denizens and socialites of the global equine world...What my dear fellow handicappers....what if we got what we wanted? What then?

Why, we'd all be right back here trying to figure out the next "Holy Grail", because the first one won't last long. Horse racing is a constantly evolving thing, the "Holy Grail" of today becomes the loser of tomorrow. "And the beat goes on".

[classhandicapper]

I don't know if the M/L is trustworthy enough for this sort of research. One's own betting line would be a much better choice...IMO.

The key to that is being a good enough handicapper to know who the favorite should be.

As I've said in the past, if you know who the favorite is going to be and why, but you disagree, that can be a good bet against. If you can't understand why they are making a horse the favorite, then that horse could be very dangerous because it could indicate that someone knows something you do not.

I think you have to be a really experienced handicapper to think in those terms.

[ultracapper]

The key to that is being a good enough handicapper to know who the favorite should be.

As I've said in the past, if you know who the favorite is going to be and why, but you disagree, that can be a good bet against. If you can't understand why they are making a horse the favorite, then that horse could be very dangerous because it could indicate that someone knows something you do not.

I think you have to be a really experienced handicapper to think in those terms.

Whether the favorite or not, if I can't understand the price of a horse, if I can't understand why that horse is being bet as it is, the race becomes more puzzling than it already would be. I feel like a handicapper should be able to conciliate the betting on all entries.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Why, we'd all be right back here trying to figure out the next "Holy Grail", because the first one won't last long. Horse racing is a constantly evolving thing, the "Holy Grail" of today becomes the loser of tomorrow. "And the beat goes on".

Indeed....And from Cervantes,

........"Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

....Regards,
Vigors

[jasperson]

I posted this to the wrong Scott thread so it is again. Ability txt from Sat aqu races.

[Speed Figure]

I posted this to the wrong Scott thread so it is again. Ability txt from Sat aqu races.Can you explain the output? what are we looking at? what does each column mean?

[NorCalGreg]

Can you explain the output? what are we looking at? what does each column mean?


I'm trying to figure that out, myself.

[jasperson]

Basically it was the time from the 4f to 6f. Points were given for each 1/5 from 23 to 27 sec. 23=25 points 27=5 points. He adjusted to those times for various reasons such as slow epace which to lengthy to go into here. He gave extra points for strong early pace and form points which I forgotten the reason. Form ua=unavailable(maiden no starts), q=qualified, un not qualified' unk=unknown as in a dirt starter from turf. I wrote the program in the 90's and tried to make the calculation like he stated in his book. I wanted to give his method a fair chance which I think I did. I did used some of his rules on form in another program, because I thought they were valid.

[VigorsTheGrey]

In the tabulation of winners by field size odds ranking ranking that is reposted a few pages back on this thread: Why do the "count" figures show different count for each line? Shouldn't the counts be the same for each field size category? Vigors.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The "underprivileged, common racing fan" has already given up, and he is standing on the sidelines licking his wounds...or he remains barely active...while wagering only a tiny fraction of what he once bet. This game has now become a battle between those enigmatic "Whales", with their unlimited resources and their super-powerful computer software...and the hard-working "Sharks" -- who rely on their nimbleness and their guerrilla tactics to keep from becoming extinct in this game.

What happens next?

The Whales will defeat the Sharks...and then they will have no choice but to feast on each other. And in the end...the only winners will be the ones who had the sense to realize that they were beat...and walked away with some of their profit still intact.

Thaskalos,

The idea of a battle between "those enigmatic whales, and the hard working sharks, has really captured my imagination. The novelty of this idea is striking. I know very little of what you speak of, but I can tell you that I am REALLY interested in hearing more along these lines..

...Can you gives us more insight into the inner betting mechanics that whales utilized versus what the betting mechanics of nimble and guerrilla-oriented sharks look like?

Just who, generally speaking, are these whales? What are their methods? What are their goals? What are their tactics? And who, generally speaking are the sharks? What are their methods, goals and tactics...?

... I guess what you are referring to are syndicates versus individual big bettors. How do we see and feel the effect of this struggle? How are the betting options exercised? What is the nature of the relationship between the owners of the racecourses and the syndicates? What is the nature of the owners of the racecourses and the non-syndicated big bettors...How do big bettors operate? How does Wall Street become involved?

Are there larger forces at work here that the theater of daily racing serves as a stage for? A prop? What percentage of mutual handle do you suppose is whale related, and how much of gross parimutuel payouts end up in the hands of the whales versus the sharks versus the casual fans? Is there any way to determine any of this?

Vigors.

[whodoyoulike]

In the tabulation of winners by field size odds ranking ranking that is reposted a few pages back on this thread: Why do the "count" figures show different count for each line? Shouldn't the counts be the same for each field size category? Vigors.

I think it's because each field size is a different field or race. He's reporting how many winners with odds ranking with #1 and then as #2 etc. It shows that there are only a few races in his database (about 1300 +/- in total) with a 4 horse field compared to the other field sizes.

[Speed Figure]

Basically it was the time from the 4f to 6f. Points were given for each 1/5 from 23 to 27 sec. 23=25 points 27=5 points. He adjusted to those times for various reasons such as slow epace which to lengthy to go into here. He gave extra points for strong early pace and form points which I forgotten the reason. Form ua=unavailable(maiden no starts), q=qualified, un not qualified' unk=unknown as in a dirt starter from turf. I wrote the program in the 90's and tried to make the calculation like he stated in his book. I wanted to give his method a fair chance which I think I did. I did used some of his rules on form in another program, because I thought they were valid.It's the time from which race? last race, best of last 3, best 2 of 3?

[jasperson]

It's the time from which race? last race, best of last 3, best 2 of 3?
It is the 2 best out of the 10 pp with some restrictions on how recent they were. He would use the 10th race if it was within a year of this race.

[turfeyejoe]

I used Scott's methods from "Total Victory" years ago and it was effective. The drawback was that it was extremely tedious and time-consuming.

[thaskalos]

I used Scott's methods from "Total Victory" years ago and it was effective. The drawback was that it was extremely tedious and time-consuming.
Is that why you stopped using it? Because it was tedious and time-consuming?

[whodoyoulike]

In the tabulation of winners by field size odds ranking ranking that is reposted a few pages back on this thread: Why do the "count" figures show different count for each line? Shou ldn't the counts be the same for each field size category? Vigors.

I think I see what you're getting at that the totals for each of the 4 horse field should be 332 which is the total of all the winners because all of the odds on is presented and not the 1300 I previously calculated.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think I see what you're getting at that the totals for each of the 4 horse field should be 332 which is the total of all the winners because all of the odds on is presented and not the 1300 I previously calculated.

Entries?

8-horse fields with only 7 betting interests? Are they in the 7 or 8 group?

[VigorsTheGrey]

I think I see what you're getting at that the totals for each of the 4 horse field should be 332 which is the total of all the winners because all of the odds on is presented and not the 1300 I previously calculated.

Yes, In the important post by mjc922 #44 on this thread: For example the odds ranking for the 4 runners show 332, 327, 338, and 343 respectively. I originally questioned why this is so....If you look at the 5 lines for the 5 runners below the 4 runners, similar dissimilarities occur, and so on down the listing with all the other field sizes...Dave S. seems to suggest entries? Still wondering.
Vigors.

[whodoyoulike]

Entries?

8-horse fields with only 7 betting interests? Are they in the 7 or 8 group?

Thanks Dave, didn't consider it.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos,

The idea of a battle between "those enigmatic whales, and the hard working sharks, has really captured my imagination. The novelty of this idea is striking. I know very little of what you speak of, but I can tell you that I am REALLY interested in hearing more along these lines..

...Can you gives us more insight into the inner betting mechanics that whales utilized versus what the betting mechanics of nimble and guerrilla-oriented sharks look like?

Just who, generally speaking, are these whales? What are their methods? What are their goals? What are their tactics? And who, generally speaking are the sharks? What are their methods, goals and tactics...?

... I guess what you are referring to are syndicates versus individual big bettors. How do we see and feel the effect of this struggle? How are the betting options exercised? What is the nature of the relationship between the owners of the racecourses and the syndicates? What is the nature of the owners of the racecourses and the non-syndicated big bettors...How do big bettors operate? How does Wall Street become involved?

Are there larger forces at work here that the theater of daily racing serves as a stage for? A prop? What percentage of mutual handle do you suppose is whale related, and how much of gross parimutuel payouts end up in the hands of the whales versus the sharks versus the casual fans? Is there any way to determine any of this?

Vigors.

Vigors...I'd like to answer your questions in the best way I can...but I don't know where to start. :)

Maybe a little later tonight...when I have more time?

[MJC922]

Yes, In the important post by mjc922 #44 on this thread: For example the odds ranking for the 4 runners show 332, 327, 338, and 343 respectively. I originally questioned why this is so....If you look at the 5 lines for the 5 runners below the 4 runners, similar dissimilarities occur, and so on down the listing with all the other field sizes...Dave S. seems to suggest entries? Still wondering.
Vigors.

As I mentioned in the original post for this listing I omitted all ties in odds ranking and this was simply done to bring the percentages into the best possible focus. Coupled in the wagering would create ties in rank as well. All of that is left out of here. So for example in an 8 horse field when a horse clearly had the lowest odds in the race there were 5663 horses who met that criteria, they won 2107 times. I would also add that I did not omit any dead heats but that shouldn't move the percentages much. You mentioned total number of races per field size that is not shown here. If I search for all 8 horse fields with no other criteria I get 47600 participants and dividing that by 8 gives me the number of races with 8 horse fields as 5950, the highest number in the listing is 5924 for those ranked 8th so entries and ties explain the rest of that. Hope this helps.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Vigors...I'd like to answer your questions in the best way I can...but I don't know where to start. :)

Maybe a little later tonight...when I have more time?

Thaskalos,

This is one of those topics that is best left alone...sometimes my mind spins out to where it ought not, for anyone's good....to go.

There is a dimension to my questioning that borders on mania...it has been a great hindrance in my life, in my relationships with others....

This dimension of my personality presses on too hard, beyond the natural cadence of normal discourse.

It seeks answers to questions, and questions all answers....a brutal logic that spins back upon itself in a endless quest for certainty...

Once you understand this weakness of mine you will be able to see a pattern to my thinking...

I look forward to other topics to exchange thoughts with you...I sense a superior mind here, and intelligence is something I seldom can resist..

Regards,
Vigors

[tlinetrader]

I have all three of Scott's books. I haven't had much success with the methods but that's probably more me than the method. I do enjoy his writing though and have picked up some useful info, particularly on form (which his second book covers extensively). Would be willing to trade all three for the McCormick book if anyone is interested.