Wow

[RaceTrackDaddy]

Every once in a while I stop in to see if any topics are posted that I might be interested in viewing.

Seems this forum has become a pick site.

I miss those days of heated discussions on the problems of the industry. Given the decline in horses entered in the stake races this year I have to assume that it trickled down to the message boards.

No controversies? No new equipment?

Happy Juggette and Jug Week to one and All!

[traynor]

Every once in a while I stop in to see if any topics are posted that I might be interested in viewing.

Seems this forum has become a pick site.

I miss those days of heated discussions on the problems of the industry. Given the decline in horses entered in the stake races this year I have to assume that it trickled down to the message boards.

No controversies? No new equipment?

Happy Juggette and Jug Week to one and All!

It may seem that way, but the contrarian view--that "practical application" is FAR more important than "just theory" seems much more prevalent. Both here and on the thoroughbred side. "Theoretical" discussions (which I MUCH prefer) are frequently sidetracked or overloaded with "demands of proof"--usually along the line of "posting selections for an extended enough period to indicate you are not blowing smoke."

In some cases, the two otherwise distinct points of view may be presented in concert, with nothing more useful than either presented separately. Other than an excuse to engage in some kind of "cyber dialogue" that goes nowhere and serves little or no purpose, the bottom line is that anyone with some kind of "positive return strategy" is not going to reveal the workings of such a strategy--other than in intentionally generic, ambiguous terms (the "theory" part) or short segments of output (the "application" part) that--in most cases--does little more than going nowhere and serving little or no purpose. It is the nature of the playing field.

Some time back, I made a statement that I found Yonkers an easy track at which to make a profit with a specific type of wager. That could be considered the "strategy" part (without going into extended, boring detail of the specific tactics involved in individual applications). The subsequent postings I have made, very narrowly focused on the "application" part, have been posted relatively regularly, with little or no comment other than a running balance (currently quite negative). There is purpose in such.

As much as I personally dislike the notion (primarily because I have little or no interest in which horses others select, or why they select them, because I think I can do better), I understand that "theory without specific application" requires a rigorous type of cognitive effort that many (if not most) seem to avoid--applying generic principles to their own specific examples and their own specific applications. Rather than being taught how to fish, they seem to want only the fish--preferably caught, cleaned, cooked, garnished, and served up on a silver platter in a manner that requires little or no actual thought or effort. Again, it is the nature of the playing field, and of the "players" on that field.

I am acquainted with a number of people "consistently doing well" at wagering on horse races. The specific techniques and strategies they employ--for the most part--I have never seen in print, nor have I seen them posted on the various "handicapping" forums. The generic techniques and strategies are often found in writings (and postings) on the topics of data analysis, data mining, and data modeling. Mostly not rocket science, mostly not too rigorous, but ALL requiring more thought than endless debates about Beyer Speed Figures or "track biases" or "hidden class" or any number of other topics that seem so dearly loved by forum readers (and horse race bettors in general).

From my perspective (and I think from the perspective of a number of others who bet for income rather than "play") it is not so much that they don't want to "reveal their strategies" as that--lacking the theoretical foundations of knowledge essential to the understanding of the underlying principles of those strategies--it really wouldn't do the readers any good anyway. They would look at it, dismiss it as "unsupported theory," and go back to the same endless "debates" about topics that were old school 30 years ago.

That is all fine with me.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

A message board is capable of multiple threads. I have no disagreements with the philosophy of your post and the art of handicapping is what brought me to favor harness racing.

But there are so many issues affecting the game which has caused many handicappers to become ex-handicappers. It is why so many of us see the continued decline in popularity resulting in the ultimate demise of harness racing in the not too distant future unless somebody with a clue is given the authority to change the game and the culture.

Examples of issues worth discussing:

* Gural has officially given up on the passage of North Jersey casinos which should lead to the end of harness racing at the Meadowlands and the possible domino effect towards the ultimate end of the sport.

* Delaware casinos screaming poverty. They did not mention ending the subsidy of Dover and Harrington purses as a solution -- yet.

* The prevalence of the courtesy tuck makes harness racing more like bicycle racing.

* Judges at different tracks make up the rules as they go regarding pylon infractions.

* Fewer owners and trainers. Uncoupled entries have become the rule instead of the exceptions.

* Illegal drugs as the catalyst for success.

* Lack of marketing

[pandy]

All of the things you've mentioned are negatives and problems. But the biggest problem harness racing has is the high percentage of winning favorites and the speed and post position bias. Once you relegate handicapping to trying to figure out which horse or horses from post 1 through 5 are going to leave, that is not interesting or exciting. It's not good racing. That's the biggest problem, imo, speed and post bias and chalk. And the reason for that is the advancement of the sulky, so it isn't going to get any better. The only way to have decent harness racing with the modern day sulkies and wheels is to go around two turns, or, on the three and four turn tracks, they would have to experiment with longer races and longer run ups until they find something that gets the closers back into the game.

When I first started following racing at Roosevelt and Yonkers, there were drug trainers and letting a horse leave and tuck was common, yet the handle was huge, the racing was great, and the payoffs were great with favorites winning at 34%. But horses won from second and third over and posts 6, 7 and 8 won twice as often as they do no.

[traynor]

A message board is capable of multiple threads. I have no disagreements with the philosophy of your post and the art of handicapping is what brought me to favor harness racing.

But there are so many issues affecting the game which has caused many handicappers to become ex-handicappers. It is why so many of us see the continued decline in popularity resulting in the ultimate demise of harness racing in the not too distant future unless somebody with a clue is given the authority to change the game and the culture.

Examples of issues worth discussing:

* Gural has officially given up on the passage of North Jersey casinos which should lead to the end of harness racing at the Meadowlands and the possible domino effect towards the ultimate end of the sport.

* Delaware casinos screaming poverty. They did not mention ending the subsidy of Dover and Harrington purses as a solution -- yet.

* The prevalence of the courtesy tuck makes harness racing more like bicycle racing.

* Judges at different tracks make up the rules as they go regarding pylon infractions.

* Fewer owners and trainers. Uncoupled entries have become the rule instead of the exceptions.

* Illegal drugs as the catalyst for success.

* Lack of marketing

There are many factors that influence the future of harness racing. It is unclear what value there is in extended discussions of topics about which one can do absolutely nothing, and which will have zero effect on the topic discussed. Specifically, discussions without action are of little or no value beyond creating an illusion of "doing something about it." They become equivalent to complaining about the weather/politics/economy/whatever else--a social activity primarily motivated by a desire to create a sense of affiliation by complaining about the same things others are complaining about.

It is what it is. If complaining does zilch to change it, why bother? The time might be better spent thinking about what you can do "right" rather than what others are doing "wrong." Perhaps teach prospective or new "racing fans" how to lose less and win more? This is a capitalist society. Showing them how to put money in their pockets is far more persuasive (and more useful, and more likely to encourage further involvement) than encouraging them to complain about things they can do nothing about anyway.

Which may be exactly why so many "post selections." They may have realized that the continual emphasis on what is "wrong" with racing plays out as a strong deterrent to anyone considering further involvement. Attracting new bettors is easy. Just show them how to win. All the many "problems" of racing pale in comparison to the primary problem--most bettors have nothing to look forward to as a reward for further involvement except losing--and the company of complainers.

[pandy]

In the 70's and 80's I knew many harness bettors and several professional harness bettors, all from the NY and NJ area. As the percentage of winning favorites, and the percentage of wire to wire winners, kept increasing, one by one these harness bettors switched to thoroughbred racing.

I agree with Traynor, if people win they'll keep betting. But that's the problem. Most good harness handicappers switched to thoroughbred racing because of perceived "value" in wagering opportunities. You're not going to generate more harness fans trying to teach them how to bet a bad product.

[caper]

All of the things you've mentioned are negatives and problems. But the biggest problem harness racing has is the high percentage of winning favorites and the speed and post position bias. Once you relegate handicapping to trying to figure out which horse or horses from post 1 through 5 are going to leave, that is not interesting or exciting. It's not good racing. That's the biggest problem, imo, speed and post bias and chalk. And the reason for that is the advancement of the sulky, so it isn't going to get any better. The only way to have decent harness racing with the modern day sulkies and wheels is to go around two turns, or, on the three and four turn tracks, they would have to experiment with longer races and longer run ups until they find something that gets the closers back into the game.

When I first started following racing at Roosevelt and Yonkers, there were drug trainers and letting a horse leave and tuck was common, yet the handle was huge, the racing was great, and the payoffs were great with favorites winning at 34%. But horses won from second and third over and posts 6, 7 and 8 won twice as often as they do no.



I agree. Honestly I believe Yonkers for example should start making horses carry weight. It would have to be different then thoroughbreds as pulling weight is probably easier then carrying it. Maybe clamping the weight to the bikes.... Either way a lot of trial an error would have to go into it. The 8 hole would be carrying 50lbs less then the 1 hole for example. I know that would make a HUGE difference.

[caper]

After thinking about it some more this is how I would like to see Yonkers raceway do it. The weight would be carried by some clamping device that would go on the bike.

Post 1&2- 50lbs
Post 3&4- 40lbs
Post 5&6-20lbs
Post 7&8- 0lbs

I think this would be huge in helping out how a race develops. Outside horses would leave harder to attempt to take advantage of the weight advantage, which itself would create major flow. That inside speed would be much better challenged by the 5 and 6 horses and over all speed would just not hold up as well, unless it's from big time leavers from the outside, but that itself is hard to do.

[pandy]

After thinking about it some more this is how I would like to see Yonkers raceway do it. The weight would be carried by some clamping device that would go on the bike.

Post 1&2- 50lbs
Post 3&4- 40lbs
Post 5&6-20lbs
Post 7&8- 0lbs

I think this would be huge in helping out how a race develops. Outside horses would leave harder to attempt to take advantage of the weight advantage, which itself would create major flow. That inside speed would be much better challenged by the 5 and 6 horses and over all speed would just not hold up as well, unless it's from big time leavers from the outside, but that itself is hard to do.

Interesting idea.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

After thinking about it some more this is how I would like to see Yonkers raceway do it. The weight would be carried by some clamping device that would go on the bike.

Post 1&2- 50lbs
Post 3&4- 40lbs
Post 5&6-20lbs
Post 7&8- 0lbs

I think this would be huge in helping out how a race develops. Outside horses would leave harder to attempt to take advantage of the weight advantage, which itself would create major flow. That inside speed would be much better challenged by the 5 and 6 horses and over all speed would just not hold up as well, unless it's from big time leavers from the outside, but that itself is hard to do.

I have absolutely no idea if that idea makes sense, but I love seeing people thinking about a problem and coming up with ideas.

Can someone with an engineering background comment?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

There are many factors that influence the future of harness racing. It is unclear what value there is in extended discussions of topics about which one can do absolutely nothing, and which will have zero effect on the topic discussed. Specifically, discussions without action are of little or no value beyond creating an illusion of "doing something about it." They become equivalent to complaining about the weather/politics/economy/whatever else--a social activity primarily motivated by a desire to create a sense of affiliation by complaining about the same things others are complaining about.

It is what it is. If complaining does zilch to change it, why bother? The time might be better spent thinking about what you can do "right" rather than what others are doing "wrong." Perhaps teach prospective or new "racing fans" how to lose less and win more? This is a capitalist society. Showing them how to put money in their pockets is far more persuasive (and more useful, and more likely to encourage further involvement) than encouraging them to complain about things they can do nothing about anyway.

Which may be exactly why so many "post selections." They may have realized that the continual emphasis on what is "wrong" with racing plays out as a strong deterrent to anyone considering further involvement. Attracting new bettors is easy. Just show them how to win. All the many "problems" of racing pale in comparison to the primary problem--most bettors have nothing to look forward to as a reward for further involvement except losing--and the company of complainers.

See, you contradicted your own "head in the sand" remarks that started your post with your opinion on the primary problem. :)

People can make a difference by offering opinions. Just ask Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine about their thoughts on the power of the people.

OK. so it might be difficult to ask them anything--but you get my point.

Keep those thoughts flowing.

[caper]

I have absolutely no idea if that idea makes sense, but I love seeing people thinking about a problem and coming up with ideas.

Can someone with an engineering background comment?



Yeah. You would have to do a lot of testing IMO. I know drivers weight makes a difference, but only to some optimal weight. You see some good heavy drivers, say over 200/220, with good instincts, but in the end the extra weight just kills them. You're over 200lbs that hurts a horses chances pretty bad. A guy 160 lbs has a huge advantage over a guy 200 lbs, but that same advantage doesn't seem to carry for the guy at 120 lbs vs the guys 160. Not sure why, maybe a traction thing, I don't know, but I believe that to be the case.

Anyway, yeah, to me that would be the biggest thing you could do in regards to change. I'd be a lot more confident in the 7&8 posts if they had a 50 lb weight advantage on the 1 & 2 post. For me it would make for a lot more interesting puzzles. I just think it would make for a lot more flow in a race. I really think they should start experimenting with weight.

Just have to figure out a mechanism to attach it safely to a race bike.

[traynor]

See, you contradicted your own "head in the sand" remarks that started your post with your opinion on the primary problem. :)

People can make a difference by offering opinions. Just ask Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine about their thoughts on the power of the people.

OK. so it might be difficult to ask them anything--but you get my point.

Keep those thoughts flowing.

No contradiction.

"People can make a difference by offering opinions" is a myth to keep the weak and powerless weak and powerless. Or are you aware of some change in the racing industry that was precipitated by the opinions of bettors (other than track management catering to the VERY small handful of "major bettors" they consider primary customers)?

Similarly, "the power of the people" is highly debatable as a source of meaningful change. People think what people think because they are told to think that way. People believe what people believe because they are told to believe those things.

Effecting meaningful (and useful to the bettor) changes in the racing industry is simple. Stop attending races and stop betting until those changes are made. Simple stuff. Not rocket science.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

Now this is the social interaction that I desire. I posted the thread prior to the Jugette and Jug and came back post events.

I feel like I am back at home at PA.

Thanks to all who responded to this thread.

[pandy]

Effecting meaningful (and useful to the bettor) changes in the racing industry is simple. Stop attending races and stop betting until those changes are made. Simple stuff. Not rocket science.

People have already stopped attending and betting harness races, and yet no significant changes in the industry.

[traynor]

People have already stopped attending and betting harness races, and yet no significant changes in the industry.

On the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting.

[pandy]

On the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting.

I hope you're not serious. If no one bets anything the tracks won't change, they'll just close their doors. My point is, whenever handle and attendance have taken sharp drops, not only did the tracks make no moves to correct the problems, but they doubled up on their mistakes. The best example is the infamous "modified sulky." As soon as every driver had one of these miracle bikes, the percentage of winning favorites and wire to wire winners jumped precipitously. The bikes actually hurt business even before every driver had one because they weren't listed in the equipment changes or in the past performances, so unwitting bettors were getting beat by a horse that looked like a rank outsider but was "first time bike." I was a reporter for Sports Eye, I heard the customers complain loudly about this. But no one listened.

And then, the tracks kept allowing the sulky manufacturers to come out with a new and faster bike every few years, and each time that happened, another nail was driven into the coffin, as the percentage of winning favorites and winning "leavers" kept rising. And the handled kept dwindling.

[castaway01]

On the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting.

For what it's worth:
2014
Thoroughbred $10.55 billion, down 3%
Harness $1.497 billion, down 6.7%

2015
Thoroughbred $10.68 billion, up 1.2%
Harness $1.512 billion, up 1.0%

[EMD4ME]

For what it's worth:
2014
Thoroughbred $10.55 billion, down 3%
Harness $1.497 billion, down 6.7%

2015
Thoroughbred $10.68 billion, up 1.2%
Harness $1.512 billion, up 1.0%

I would assume, like most tracks, attendance numbers are not available. Is that correct?

[traynor]

I hope you're not serious. If no one bets anything the tracks won't change, they'll just close their doors. My point is, whenever handle and attendance have taken sharp drops, not only did the tracks make no moves to correct the problems, but they doubled up on their mistakes. The best example is the infamous "modified sulky." As soon as every driver had one of these miracle bikes, the percentage of winning favorites and wire to wire winners jumped precipitously. The bikes actually hurt business even before every driver had one because they weren't listed in the equipment changes or in the past performances, so unwitting bettors were getting beat by a horse that looked like a rank outsider but was "first time bike." I was a reporter for Sports Eye, I heard the customers complain loudly about this. But no one listened.

And then, the tracks kept allowing the sulky manufacturers to come out with a new and faster bike every few years, and each time that happened, another nail was driven into the coffin, as the percentage of winning favorites and winning "leavers" kept rising. And the handled kept dwindling.

I am quite serious. Your comments seem like a textbook case of learned helplessness.

[traynor]

For what it's worth:
2014
Thoroughbred $10.55 billion, down 3%
Harness $1.497 billion, down 6.7%

2015
Thoroughbred $10.68 billion, up 1.2%
Harness $1.512 billion, up 1.0%

So much for the complaints. Looks good to me.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

On the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting.

Try again. From the USTA. You can follow the demise daily on their website.


YTD 2016 YTD 2015 % Change
Total Wagered $1,123,116,334 $1,167,815,499 -3.83%
Per Race avg. $38,268 $38,534 -0.69%
Purses $318,331,821 $325,362,813 -2.16%
Race Days 2874 2934 -2.04%

[traynor]

Try again. From the USTA. You can follow the demise daily on their website.


YTD 2016 YTD 2015 % Change
Total Wagered $1,123,116,334 $1,167,815,499 -3.83%
Per Race avg. $38,268 $38,534 -0.69%
Purses $318,331,821 $325,362,813 -2.16%
Race Days 2874 2934 -2.04%


On the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting.

There is no situation in which $1,123,116,334 $1,167,815,499 could be declared proof that "people have stopped betting."

[pandy]

If you look at harness betting in the proper context, it has dropped at a much sharper rate than thoroughbred racing. But even though thoroughbred racing has made blunders, like allowing lasix, and inbreeding for speed, a thoroughbred race today looks indistinguishable from 40 years ago. Even the fractions and final times are the same.

But harness racing is dramatically different. It is not the same sport. When harness racing was a big time sport, the races were won by horses that had class, stamina, whatever you want to call it. Horses won from second and third over, horses won from outside posts, horses rallied three and four wide at the three quarter pole, there were very few strung out fields like you have now, it was a much tighter pack. And, of course, the main difference, the favorites won at 34% of the time, not 43%. I've tried to explain to the tracks that if the favorites are winning over 40%, and 80 to 90% of the winners are leavers, you will go out of business. That type of racing is unsustainable.

[pandy]

On the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting.

There is no situation in which $1,123,116,334 $1,167,815,499 could be declared proof that "people have stopped betting."


Okay, so they haven't stopped betting, but the sport has been in a downward spiral for over 40 years. I don't think that harness racing will cease to exist in our lifetime. But I could see the day where you have just a handful of harness tracks, or maybe just a summer stakes meet where you pack in the major events, and then have limited racing the rest of the year. I just don't see how they can keep the sport going with all of the favorites winning and very little movement in the races.

I realize that there are still people who like it and don't mind the bad racing and all of the chalk. But, it's not sustainable. If you take someone to Yonkers or many of these other tracks, there is very little chance that they'll get excited like we did when we first when to a harness track years ago. The first night I went, at Roosevelt, horses were charging three wide down the backstretch, the racing was a hundred times more exciting than it is now.

[caper]

I agree 100%. Also, at some tracks. like Yonkers when a decent priced horse does win, it's almost impossible to predict, not all the time, but much of the time. Breaking horses that take out one or two more. Favorites that fall apart after a 57 half... that happens, but so unpredictable.

To me. You have to add weight to the bikes. It's the only way forward.

[traynor]

Okay, so they haven't stopped betting, but the sport has been in a downward spiral for over 40 years. I don't think that harness racing will cease to exist in our lifetime. But I could see the day where you have just a handful of harness tracks, or maybe just a summer stakes meet where you pack in the major events, and then have limited racing the rest of the year. I just don't see how they can keep the sport going with all of the favorites winning and very little movement in the races.

I realize that there are still people who like it and don't mind the bad racing and all of the chalk. But, it's not sustainable. If you take someone to Yonkers or many of these other tracks, there is very little chance that they'll get excited like we did when we first when to a harness track years ago. The first night I went, at Roosevelt, horses were charging three wide down the backstretch, the racing was a hundred times more exciting than it is now.

It may well be that as it is with many other things, horse racing fails to excite prospective new bettors sufficiently to encourage participation because there are so many other things available that are more exciting/interesting. It is the way of the world, and pining for how one believed things to be way back when is pointless. Playboy is another example of something that used to be interesting, but is now considered boring.

The argument that horse racing is no longer interesting assumes that at one time it was (much) more interesting--and that may be a totally false assumption. The "interest" may have been directly related to the absence of other (competing) stimuli, rather than something inherent in horse racing. The frequent description of the fan base as being primarily comprised of older men and nearly devoid of younger people is telling. The continued interest of the older men may well be related to their association of the "excitement" experienced while watching horse races in their younger days with horse racing, while avoiding or failing to realize that the exciting component was the world and their (perceived) place in it that existed at the time, rather than horse racing.

[pandy]

I agree that there are more things to do now, and the younger generation may not care for harness racing even if it was still great. But, to me, if you run a racetrack you have to try to put out a good product. The product years ago was infinitely better. The NFL is the most successful sport because the games are exciting. If many of the games were boring blowouts where the favorite won 56-0, the sport would start to lose customers.

[pandy]

I agree 100%. Also, at some tracks. like Yonkers when a decent priced horse does win, it's almost impossible to predict, not all the time, but much of the time. Breaking horses that take out one or two more. Favorites that fall apart after a 57 half... that happens, but so unpredictable.

To me. You have to add weight to the bikes. It's the only way forward.


Yes, the longshot winners now, many of them are inscrutable.

[traynor]

I agree that there are more things to do now, and the younger generation may not care for harness racing even if it was still great. But, to me, if you run a racetrack you have to try to put out a good product. The product years ago was infinitely better. The NFL is the most successful sport because the games are exciting. If many of the games were boring blowouts where the favorite won 56-0, the sport would start to lose customers.

The NFL does a good job of marketing, because they have a high level of awareness that they are tapping in to people's need for affiliation, with the various teams acting as surrogates in a contrived, totally fictitious "competition" that is a metaphor for war. The "sport" itself is almost irrelevant, and holds little interest outside the needs indicated above. To MANY, it matters not at all that the paid athletes of one city's franchise are putting on an exhibition of "conflict" with the paid athletes of another city's franchise. It is about as exciting as a "sales contest" between "competing" insurance companies. Or roller derby.

The Canadians have done a similar number with hockey, as many other venues have with "soccer" ("football" to most of the world). That is all in the marketing, and the understanding of the needs of people for a sense of affiliation, and "participation" (as voyeurs) in "surrogate warfare."

[pandy]

The NFL does a good job of marketing, because they have a high level of awareness that they are tapping in to people's need for affiliation, with the various teams acting as surrogates in a contrived, totally fictitious "competition" that is a metaphor for war. The "sport" itself is almost irrelevant, and holds little interest outside the needs indicated above. To MANY, it matters not at all that the paid athletes of one city's franchise are putting on an exhibition of "conflict" with the paid athletes of another city's franchise. It is about as exciting as a "sales contest" between "competing" insurance companies. Or roller derby.

The Canadians have done a similar number with hockey, as many other venues have with "soccer" ("football" to most of the world). That is all in the marketing, and the understanding of the needs of people for a sense of affiliation, and "participation" (as voyeurs) in "surrogate warfare."

You are definitely in the minority if you think that harness racing is more exciting than the NFL. The NFL has a phenomenal product because of parity, something that harness racing doesn't have anymore. Teams can be losing by 20 points with 8 minutes to go and come back and win at the last second. That's exciting. The Meadowlands had it in the 70's and 80's when horses would be dead last turning for home and sweep the field.

I will say, Hawthorne and Hoosier, do have some exciting races, but they are both tiring two turn tracks where closers still have a shot. The half and five eighth tracks are too speed favoring to offer any excitement, unless the top stakes horses are in town.

[traynor]

For those who may not understand the concepts, I suggest a bit of research on Schacter-Singer:

"The Schachter–Singer theory, or two-factor theory of emotion, states that emotion is based on two factors: physiological arousal and cognitive label. The theory was created by researchers Stanley Schachter and Jerome E. Singer. According to the theory, when an emotion is felt, a physiological arousal occurs and the person uses the immediate environment to search for emotional cues to label the physiological arousal. This can sometimes cause misinterpretations of emotions based on the body's physiological state. When the brain does not know why it feels an emotion it relies on external stimulation for cues on how to label the emotion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory_of_emotion

[traynor]

You are definitely in the minority if you think that harness racing is more exciting than the NFL. The NFL has a phenomenal product because of parity, something that harness racing doesn't have anymore. Teams can be losing by 20 points with 8 minutes to go and come back and win at the last second. That's exciting. The Meadowlands had it in the 70's and 80's when horses would be dead last turning for home and sweep the field.

I will say, Hawthorne and Hoosier, do have some exciting races, but they are both tiring two turn tracks where closers still have a shot. The half and five eighth tracks are too speed favoring to offer any excitement, unless the top stakes horses are in town.

As I have stated a number of times, I do not find horse racing in the least bit "exciting." NFL football even less so. My only interest in horse racing is the money. Nothing more. Because I don't bet on sports, I have zero interest in the outcomes of any sporting events.

[pandy]

As I have stated a number of times, I do not find horse racing in the least bit "exciting." NFL football even less so. My only interest in horse racing is the money. Nothing more. Because I don't bet on sports, I have zero interest in the outcomes of any sporting events.


I see. I don't think a sport can survive without the excitement factor. But harness racing has another major problem besides boring races, the perception that it's no longer a good betting product.

[traynor]

I see. I don't think a sport can survive without the excitement factor. But harness racing has another major problem besides boring races, the perception that it's no longer a good betting product.

I think thoroughbred racing and harness racing are both great "betting products." Both make it fairly easy to turn a consistent profit for anyone willing to do a bit of work, and get rid of the silly notion that "excitement" somehow compensates for losing. There are links to ample resources on the Why Learn Basic Programming thread in the computer section that will enable anyone to seriously improve their wagering results.

[pandy]

I think thoroughbred racing and harness racing are both great "betting products." Both make it fairly easy to turn a consistent profit for anyone willing to do a bit of work, and get rid of the silly notion that "excitement" somehow compensates for losing. There are links to ample resources on the Why Learn Basic Programming thread in the computer section that will enable anyone to seriously improve their wagering results.


I think harness racing is still a good betting product, but all of the big harness bettors I know now bet thoroughbreds. They switched a long time ago. As I said, prior to the new sulkies, there were a lot of serious harness bettors. But, if it is working for you, that's great. Because of my involvement in the sport, it hurts me to see what's happened to it.

[traynor]

I think harness racing is still a good betting product, but all of the big harness bettors I know now bet thoroughbreds. They switched a long time ago. As I said, prior to the new sulkies, there were a lot of serious harness bettors. But, if it is working for you, that's great. Because of my involvement in the sport, it hurts me to see what's happened to it.

I know a number of serious bettors. Their approach is strictly business, no "sport" involved. Most bet both harness and thoroughbreds, with little or no preference for one over the other. They are very similar, in that the strategies and processes (mostly data mining and data modeling techniques from business analysis and predictive analytics) work as well at either one. Pool size is more an issue than a distinction between thoroughbred or harness.

There are substantial opportunities in both thoroughbred and harness, and--if anything--those opportunities are increasing rather than decreasing. Again, for those willing to do the work.

[pandy]

I have met a few people that bet but don't actually call themselves "fans," but not many, and no one that I can say was a consistent winner. Every professional horse player I've ever met or known personally, people that won a lot of money, loved the sport. You probably came into it from a different social situation. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but I find that extremely unusual. I simply haven't met that type of person.

If you look at Yonkers, for instance, I have always believed that I was aware of every big bettor who played Yonkers on a consistent basis. At the Meadowlands, not as much because I have not had any personal interaction with syndicate bettors.

[traynor]

I have met a few people that bet but don't actually call themselves "fans," but not many, and no one that I can say was a consistent winner. Every professional horse player I've ever met or known personally, people that won a lot of money, loved the sport. You probably came into it from a different social situation. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but I find that extremely unusual. I simply haven't met that type of person.

If you look at Yonkers, for instance, I have always believed that I was aware of every big bettor who played Yonkers on a consistent basis. At the Meadowlands, not as much because I have not had any personal interaction with syndicate bettors.

The majority of the "serious bettors" I know were classmates or associates of classmates I met while attending graduate school as a business major. Through them, I met a number of others with similar backgrounds. They are not unique to the university I attended--you are much more likely to find consistent winners in a graduate business school than hanging out at the local OTB or racetrack. Especially foreign students who are forbidden by visa regulations from "working" or other conventional means of making "extra" (a euphemism for party) money.

[pandy]

At a lot of harness tracks, the pools indicate that there are no "pros" betting the track. The pools at the three Pennsylvania tracks for instance.

[traynor]

At a lot of harness tracks, the pools indicate that there are no "pros" betting the track. The pools at the three Pennsylvania tracks for instance.

If that is true, it may well be that the infusion of money from "pros" using antiquated, conceptually impoverished wagering paradigms may be the reason the mutuel pools at MOST tracks--thoroughbred AND harness--offer such generous opportunities for those willing to discard those antiquated, conceptually impoverished wagering paradigms and use more astute (and up to date) strategies.

Again, if your comment is true, it would appear that the "pros" are wrong a sufficient percentage of the time to create exploitable scenarios that competent analysts can readily leverage to their advantage. In particular, the notion of moving large sums through the mutuel pools in pursuit of (relatively) trivial advantage is a fool's game that was obsolete many years ago. Rather than "draining the mutuel pools" such antiquated approaches serve more to fill those mutuel pools with what amounts to the "pro" equivalent of chump money. Easy pickings for those with the requisite skills and willing to do the work necessary.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So much for the complaints. Looks good to me.

I assume you're joking. What did harness racing handle in 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015? We have the last number. Now inflation adjust the numbers.

[traynor]

I assume you're joking. What did harness racing handle in 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015? We have the last number. Now inflation adjust the numbers.

It is what it is. And what it is today is way more important from a wagering perspective than what it was at some time in the past. What it is today--using the technologies and strategies readily available today to anyone willing to put in the time and effort--is a great profit opportunity. I don't think it matters in the least what it used to be, for any purpose other than talking about it.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Serious bettors in harness racing are all but gone. The pools simply are not big enough. Freehold is now handling less than $300k a day -- the lowest in history. The Meadowlands had handles less than $2 million on that four day meet in the beginning of the month.

The overall handle is down almost 4% this year. Membership in the USTA drops every year and less horses are being bred. Only a handful of trainers dominate the sport.

I would say the future is dim, but dimness requires some light. There is no light. There will be a racing commission running the sport under a dictatorship, or there will be no more sport.

[pandy]

It's a shame but I would guess that there will be major changes in the next 10 years, tracks closing. Ohio and Indiana are set for a while, though. They just got slots and the breeding industry is picking up there. New Jersey is sunk. My feeling is that Pennsylvania will pass legislation that will give them a way out of racing sometime in the next decade. As for N.Y., hard to guess, but I can't imagine Monticello and several other tracks staying in business that long.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It is what it is. And what it is today is way more important from a wagering perspective than what it was at some time in the past. What it is today--using the technologies and strategies readily available today to anyone willing to put in the time and effort--is a great profit opportunity. I don't think it matters in the least what it used to be, for any purpose other than talking about it.

Pandy made the statement that people have stopped attending and betting on harness racing. You responded with, "on the contrary, people have NOT stopped attending, nor have they stopped betting." Your statement was incorrect. I guess you could play semantics and say, "they've reduced their attendance and reduced their betting, not stopped it." In any case, harness racing is a dying sport. The size of the handle matters unless you're betting small amounts. I'm not doubting that you make money betting on harness racing*; I'm just questioning the long-term viability of the product you're betting on.

*I find your approach very interesting, as I equate it to quant investing.

[Saratoga_Mike]

. As for N.Y., hard to guess, but I can't imagine Monticello and several other tracks staying in business that long.

Monticello's product is clearly inferior to YR, yet on many days the handle is almost comparable. Monti probably cards a few more races/card, but it's still amazing how well they do compared to YR. I'm not sure why?

[pandy]

Monticello's product is clearly inferior to YR, yet on many days the handle is almost comparable. Monti probably cards a few more races/card, but it's still amazing how well they do compared to YR. I'm not sure why?


Well, Monday and Tuesday they run in NY when NYRA is closed, and they are the only harness track racing. Yonkers has to compete with Hoosier, Pocono, Northfield, and all of the other night time harness tracks.

Monticello used to be fun, closers did pretty well there until maybe six years ago, and the racing was much more competitive than it is now.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Well, Monday and Tuesday they run in NY when NYRA is closed, and they are the only harness track racing. Yonkers has to compete with Hoosier, Pocono, Northfield, and all of the other night time harness tracks.

Monticello used to be fun, closers did pretty well there until maybe six years ago, and the racing was much more competitive than it is now.

How does YR do on Tuesdays (afternoon racing)? I don't see the handle at the USTA website.

[thaskalos]

I think thoroughbred racing and harness racing are both great "betting products." Both make it fairly easy to turn a consistent profit for anyone willing to do a bit of work, and get rid of the silly notion that "excitement" somehow compensates for losing. There are links to ample resources on the Why Learn Basic Programming thread in the computer section that will enable anyone to seriously improve their wagering results.

I find the notion that it is "fairly easy to turn a consistent profit for anyone willing to do a bit of work" to be a spurious argument...especially when applied to the harness version of the game. If the betting opportunities were increasing instead of decreasing, as you claim...wouldn't this "increase" be noticeable in the betting pools?

People have been saying for years that there are "whales" out there in the harness racing waters...and you now say that there are also more than a few college-educated bettors who are attracted only in the money aspect of the game. And yet...the harness betting pools have declined to the level where even a moderate wager causes devastation to the mutuel payoffs. Why are all these super-sophisticated players out there betting only nickels and dimes?

[traynor]

I find the notion that it is "fairly easy to turn a consistent profit for anyone willing to do a bit of work" to be a spurious argument...especially when applied to the harness version of the game. If the betting opportunities were increasing instead of decreasing, as you claim...wouldn't this "increase" be noticeable in the betting pools?

People have been saying for years that there are "whales" out there in the harness racing waters...and you now say that there are also more than a few college-educated bettors who are attracted only in the money aspect of the game. And yet...the harness betting pools have declined to the level where even a moderate wager causes devastation to the mutuel payoffs. Why are all these super-sophisticated players out there betting only nickels and dimes?

I think you may be confused about what it takes to profit. Pushing large amounts in to mutuel pools to take (relatively) small amounts out is foolish. The money can be invested elsewhere with better return. Leverage is important. Betting $5k to win $500 may seem rational, if that is all one knows how to do. Betting $500 to win $5k is MUCH more desirable (although as rare for me as for most others--I make no claims, and the numbers are used for illustrative purposes only).

Rather than big bets-small profit, it is much more advantageous to leverage (relatively) small bets into large(r) profit. ("Small" and "large" are relative terms--one person's "large" may be another person's "small.")

[Saratoga_Mike]

Rather than big bets-small profit, it is much more advantageous to leverage (relatively) small bets into large(r) profit. ("Small" and "large" are relative terms--one person's "large" may be another person's "small.")

In the past, you've said a "value-based" strategy may not be the best approach. Instead, you've suggested an approach that follows the "smart money." Under the "smart money" strategy (my name for your past suggestions), one should accept low-priced odds in exchange for consistent profits. Now you're suggesting something entirely different, no?

[thaskalos]

In the past, you've said a "value-based" strategy may not be the best approach. Instead, you've suggested an approach that follows the "smart money." Under the "smart money" strategy (my name for your past suggestions), one should accept low-priced odds in exchange for consistent profits. Now you're suggesting something entirely different, no?

You beat me to it. :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

In the past, you've said a "value-based" strategy may not be the best approach. Instead, you've suggested an approach that follows the "smart money." Under the "smart money" strategy (my name for your past suggestions), one should accept low-priced odds in exchange for consistent profits. Now you're suggesting something entirely different, no?

No. I have explained several times that I use two fundamentally different approaches to wagering at both thoroughbred and harness. For "larger" bets, I prefer ontrack, paddock inspection, trip notes, and more "conventional" handicapping methods. For "high volume" wagers, I use models (almost) exclusively, and adjust wagers up or down according to other criteria (also derived from models).

I think you may be referring to a posting about an experience with Katherine Jung at Fraser Downs that got me started taking note of particular types of betting trends at particular tracks. Most notably, the fact that horses I was betting at Fraser Downs (at the time) that went off at odds under 3/1 mostly won, while those that went at over 3/1 (using the same selection model and method) mostly lost.

"Following the smart money" should not be considered a generic strategy to use at all tracks all the time. It is highly specific. Developing a model for a specific track to determine when such may be profitable is relatively simple.

[traynor]

"Relatively simple" may mean something different to different people. If you have a consistent method of selecting which horse you intend to bet on, it should be fairly simple to model that selection process, and track the final odds of the selections that win, compared to the final odds of the selections that lose. "Layering" in such a fashion readily indicates the "profit areas" in final odds, that are thoroughly obscured using simplistic "ROI" calculations.

It is definitely not an exact science. However, one can often gain useful insights into comparisons of one's own selection method relative to the selection methods of the other bettors at particular track. If one is doing a lot of "handicapping" to pick mostly chalk, it might be useful to find a different selection method. Unless one can amp up the win percentage at that track, using that or some other selection method, enough to make a profit betting the lower odds entries.

[Saratoga_Mike]

No. I have explained several times that I use two fundamentally different approaches to wagering at both thoroughbred and harness. For "larger" bets, I prefer ontrack, paddock inspection, trip notes, and more "conventional" handicapping methods. For "high volume" wagers, I use models (almost) exclusively, and adjust wagers up or down according to other criteria (also derived from models).

I think you may be referring to a posting about an experience with Katherine Jung at Fraser Downs that got me started taking note of particular types of betting trends at particular tracks. Most notably, the fact that horses I was betting at Fraser Downs (at the time) that went off at odds under 3/1 mostly won, while those that went at over 3/1 (using the same selection model and method) mostly lost.

"Following the smart money" should not be considered a generic strategy to use at all tracks all the time. It is highly specific. Developing a model for a specific track to determine when such may be profitable is relatively simple.

I didn't realize you had two fundamentally different approaches. I do remember the Fraser Downs discussion. Is this Katherine Jung a professional bettor?

[traynor]

I didn't realize you had two fundamentally different approaches. I do remember the Fraser Downs discussion. Is this Katherine Jung a professional bettor?
Katherine develops and maintains data analysis and data modeling software for a group of bettors in Hong Kong. Comes and goes a lot. We were in classes together in grad school, and bowhunt together in British Columbia on occasion. Friends. Mostly.

[pandy]

All good handicappers create what is referred to as "models". You don't need a computer to do it. For instance, Parx played as a "sustained" track that favored outside closers and outside paths for several years. You didn't need a computer model to find that out. Anyone with two eyes could see it.

The thing with "modeling" a track, there's no guarantee that the model will work. Things change. You have to be able to make adjustments based on what you see, otherwise, by the time your model changes from "closers track" to "speed track," you've already given back all of the money you made on the closers model.

[traynor]

All good handicappers create what is referred to as "models". You don't need a computer to do it. For instance, Parx played as a "sustained" track that favored outside closers and outside paths for several years. You didn't need a computer model to find that out. Anyone with two eyes could see it.

The thing with "modeling" a track, there's no guarantee that the model will work. Things change. You have to be able to make adjustments based on what you see, otherwise, by the time your model changes from "closers track" to "speed track," you've already given back all of the money you made on the closers model.

Modeling with a computer is a bit more complex than eyeballing PPs and pushing a few numbers around. You might consider reading (and learning from) some of the material linked from the Why Learn Basic Programming thread in the computer section.

[pandy]

Modeling is an interesting concept, but I am skeptical because of all the changes I've seen, especially in harness racing. I know some people try to model trainers, but trainer patterns often change abruptly.

[traynor]

Modeling is an interesting concept, but I am skeptical because of all the changes I've seen, especially in harness racing. I know some people try to model trainers, but trainer patterns often change abruptly.

It is the nature of reality that people often see patterns that are not really there. "Stuff" is rarely evenly distributed. More often, it appears in clusters of data points that may seem be a "pattern" of one kind of another, but are no more than a small section of uneven distributions. Betting on such can be costly.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

It is the nature of reality that people often see patterns that are not really there. "Stuff" is rarely evenly distributed. More often, it appears in clusters of data points that may seem be a "pattern" of one kind of another, but are no more than a small section of uneven distributions. Betting on such can be costly.

It is the job of the handicapper to find reasons for every pattern and decide if there is logic behind them.

[traynor]

It is the job of the handicapper to find reasons for every pattern and decide if there is logic behind them.

That leaves wide-open a floodgate of situations in which utter nonsense can be declared "reasonable and logical" through rationalization and/or erroneous attribution.

It might be more useful for a handicapper to learn the basics of research and data analysis techniques that are accepted as minimal by most everyone else, but avoided like the plague by handicappers because the use of such would expose the foolishness of the conclusions reached after much of the "research" handicappers believe they are doing.

It is the underlying belief that one is seeing a "pattern" of causation in an uneven (but random) sprinkling of data points that so often leads handicappers astray. Avoiding the deception of such non-patterns is the best reason to learn the basic techniques of data mining and data analysis. Not rocket science. Not overly complex. No PhD required. Just the basics research methods used by (and accepted as valid by) most researchers outside the handicapping world.

Handicapping is one of the few areas in which participants routinely express the belief that research and statistical methods "are only theory and don't apply to the real world."

[traynor]

"Gambler's fallacy arises out of a belief in a "law of small numbers", or the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population
. ...
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic, which states that people evaluate the probability of a certain event by assessing how similar it is to events they have experienced before, and how similar the events surrounding those two processes are.
...
Kahneman and Tversky interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones. The representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non-random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect.
...
Other researchers believe that individuals with an internal locus of control—i.e., people who believe that the gambling outcomes are the result of their own skill—are more susceptible to the gambler's fallacy because they reject the idea that chance could overcome skill or talent."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

The more one fancies himself or herself to be the sharpest tack in the box, the more susceptible one is to tricking one's self to maintain that illusion--most often by "discovering patterns" that don't really exist.

Indulging one's self in such shallowness is not especially harmful, unless one bets on the illusions or--even worse--presumes to "advise others" with his or her erroneous beliefs.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

"Gambler's fallacy arises out of a belief in a "law of small numbers", or the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population
. ...
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic, which states that people evaluate the probability of a certain event by assessing how similar it is to events they have experienced before, and how similar the events surrounding those two processes are.
...
Kahneman and Tversky interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones. The representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non-random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect.
...
Other researchers believe that individuals with an internal locus of control—i.e., people who believe that the gambling outcomes are the result of their own skill—are more susceptible to the gambler's fallacy because they reject the idea that chance could overcome skill or talent."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

The more one fancies himself or herself to be the sharpest tack in the box, the more susceptible one is to tricking one's self to maintain that illusion--most often by "discovering patterns" that don't really exist.

Indulging one's self in such shallowness is not especially harmful, unless one bets on the illusions or--even worse--presumes to "advise others" with his or her erroneous beliefs.

Translation: These experts have no idea how to handicap horse racing.

[pandy]

Translation: These experts have no idea how to handicap horse racing.


When my two Best Bets a night showed a flat bet profit of 25% on the dollar at Roosevelt and Yonkers over a period of 7 years, I didn't use a computer. I didn't have any spreadsheets, and I paid little attention to statistical trends or modeling. But I knew how to evaluate a horse's ability, analyzing fractions, pace, time, and trips. I showed a profit because I found horses that weren't the favorite that had a very good chance of winning.

[thaskalos]

When my two Best Bets a night showed a flat bet profit of 25% on the dollar at Roosevelt and Yonkers over a period of 7 years, I didn't use a computer. I didn't have any spreadsheets, and I paid little attention to statistical trends or modeling. But I knew how to evaluate a horse's ability, analyzing fractions, pace, time, and trips. I showed a profit because I found horses that weren't the favorite that had a very good chance of winning.

Did your profit at Roosevelt evaporate, and if so...WHY? Yes, you didn't use a computer when you beat Roosevelt back then...but neither did anybody else. The game has gotten a lot harder to beat in recent years...and, who's to say that the widespread popularity of the computer isn't the reason why?

I have been as computer-resistant as anybody else when it comes to handicapping...but I've finally determined that I might be making a mistake in this assumption of mine. The game evolves, and the bettor ought to evolve as well...lest he be left lengths behind.

[traynor]

An interesting book:

"One interesting bit of research: The author points out a phenomenon called the "Dunning-Kruger effect." This means that those who are the most ignorant cannot appreciate their own ignorance: "Those most lacking in knowledge and skills are least able to appreciate that lack. This observation would eventually become known as the Dunning-Kruger effect."
https://www.amazon.com/Head-Cloud-Knowing-Things-Matters/dp/0316256544

A neat article on BBCNews that argues using technology can make you smarter (can--not will):
" ... some researchers have argued that our whole world is now engineered to make us think in this way, thanks to an increasing reliance on technology. Where our great-grandparents may have grappled with typewriters, our parents struggled to program their video recorder, while children today learn to use a touchscreen from an early age.
...
This progression has forced us to think in hierarchies and symbols, to learn how to follow rules and draw analogies – and it is now so widespread that we forget the cognitive leaps it requires."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart

[traynor]

Translation: These experts have no idea how to handicap horse racing.

On the contrary, an understanding of those experts (and their advice) is considered mandatory for those writing anything more advanced than simplistic number massaging apps used in handicapping horse races.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Did your profit at Roosevelt evaporate, and if so...WHY? Yes, you didn't use a computer when you beat Roosevelt back then...but neither did anybody else. The game has gotten a lot harder to beat in recent years...and, who's to say that the widespread popularity of the computer isn't the reason why?

I have been as computer-resistant as anybody else when it comes to handicapping...but I've finally determined that I might be making a mistake in this assumption of mine. The game evolves, and the bettor ought to evolve as well...lest he be left lengths behind.

Personally, I believe there are two primary explanations: quant bettors and far fewer hobbyists betting into the pools.

I have a suggestion for you. Why not take a quant approach with a fundamentalist overlay? What do I mean by this? I'm borrowing a term from equity investing. If you look at the US equity markets, there are well over 5,000 equities for potential investments. One can easily narrow that investable pool to 500 or so less by running simple quant screens (e.g., show stocks trading at the lowest cash flow to enterprise value). At that point with an adequate research staff, one can perform fundamental analysis and select securities for a portfolio.

Fish from a pool rich with fish. Create a model that presents you with situations that have worked best for you historically, then apply your handicapping skills. I'm not a quant handicapper, so I have no idea how to create such a database, but I'm sure it's possible with some basic programming skills.

[traynor]

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Free PDF:
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf

[traynor]

Personally, I believe there are two primary explanations: quant bettors and far fewer hobbyists betting into the pools.

I have a suggestion for you. Why not take a quant approach with a fundamentalist overlay? What do I mean by this? I'm borrowing a term from equity investing. If you look at the US equity markets, there are well over 5,000 equities for potential investments. One can easily narrow that investable pool to 500 or so less by running simple quant screens (e.g., show stocks trading at the lowest cash flow to enterprise value). At that point with an adequate research staff, one can perform fundamental analysis and select securities for a portfolio.

Fish from a pool rich with fish. Create a model that presents you with situations that have worked best for you historically, then apply your handicapping skills. I'm not a quant handicapper, so I have no idea how to create such a database, but I'm sure it's possible with some basic programming skills.

Good advice! That is exactly why I started the Why Learn Basic Programming thread in the computer section (but took way too many words to explain it). Your explanation is much clearer (and MUCH shorter).

[pandy]

Did your profit at Roosevelt evaporate, and if so...WHY? Yes, you didn't use a computer when you beat Roosevelt back then...but neither did anybody else. The game has gotten a lot harder to beat in recent years...and, who's to say that the widespread popularity of the computer isn't the reason why?

I have been as computer-resistant as anybody else when it comes to handicapping...but I've finally determined that I might be making a mistake in this assumption of mine. The game evolves, and the bettor ought to evolve as well...lest he be left lengths behind.


Well, once the sulkies changed, the sport, especially on the half mile tracks, changed drastically. It went from a class/stamina profile to, who is leaving, and the percentage of winning favorites went from 34% to way over 40%. This year some harness tracks are at 49% winning favorites. So those $10 to $30 winners I used to pick, forget it. The only way to get that kind of return is to bet exactas.

Personally, I love using computer-generated past performance information. I don't think it's necessary, for a person who has a sharp analytical mind, but, it makes things easier. I like creating my own performance ratings, so I can compare them to the published performance ratings, such as the published speed and pace figures. Sort of what Brohamer/Sartin did. I was tinkering with feet per second numbers on my calculator back in the early 80's because I wanted to see a horse's incremental speed, or acceleration, more precisely.

As to whether more people are using computers and that makes it tougher to win, that's certainly possible.

[pandy]

Personally, I believe there are two primary explanations: quant bettors and far fewer hobbyists betting into the pools.

I have a suggestion for you. Why not take a quant approach with a fundamentalist overlay? What do I mean by this? I'm borrowing a term from equity investing. If you look at the US equity markets, there are well over 5,000 equities for potential investments. One can easily narrow that investable pool to 500 or so less by running simple quant screens (e.g., show stocks trading at the lowest cash flow to enterprise value). At that point with an adequate research staff, one can perform fundamental analysis and select securities for a portfolio.

Fish from a pool rich with fish. Create a model that presents you with situations that have worked best for you historically, then apply your handicapping skills. I'm not a quant handicapper, so I have no idea how to create such a database, but I'm sure it's possible with some basic programming skills.

When creating models, here is an important distinction: You said "presents you with situations that have worked best for you historically"

What a handicapper has to decide, when you say, "worked best" do you mean, produced the highest percentage of winners? Or the best ROI?

I've seen many handicappers, myself included, produce a positive ROI on selections. But most computer handicapping systems are designed to try to pick the winner, and because of that they fail. At some point you have to "back out" factors that contribute to the win percentage, but diminish the ROI. In other words, it's extremely difficult to generate a positive return with a high win percentage. So you have to eliminate some of the logic. You almost have to make the system pick less logical selections.

[thaskalos]

When creating models, here is an important distinction: You said "presents you with situations that have worked best for you historically"

What a handicapper has to decide, when you say, "worked best" do you mean, produced the highest percentage of winners? Or the best ROI?

I've seen many handicappers, myself included, produce a positive ROI on selections. But most computer handicapping systems are designed to try to pick the winner, and because of that they fail. At some point you have to "back out" factors that contribute to the win percentage, but diminish the ROI. In other words, it's extremely difficult to generate a positive return with a high win percentage. So you have to eliminate some of the logic. You almost have to make the system pick less logical selections.

To me...neither win percentage nor ROI is the most important thing when judging a handicapping method. The best method, IMO, is the one that generates the most profit over a given period of time. Some of those methods that are advertised as "great ROI producers" are highly restrictive...and their severely limited plays adversely affect the long term profit, regardless of the lofty ROI.

And, for the life of me...I can't understand how ANY horseplayer worth his salt could possibly value a method's winning percentage as highly as he does its profit-producing capability. Winning percentage never put a dime in ANY horseplayer's pocket.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Personally, I believe there are two primary explanations: quant bettors and far fewer hobbyists betting into the pools.



I have additional explanations. The players who made a living at handicapping are getting old (and dead) and no longer have the patience nor the stamina necessary to do the work necessary to win on a regular basis. Add this to the lack of interest for younger people to take their place

In addition, the nut has grown exponentially large (cost of living) while there is no increase in the amount that can be won. 40 years ago, a $1,000 trifecta was four months rent.

Now you can add in the unpredictability of driving strategy due to the prevalence of courtesy tucks and the drug lords. Making a living playing this game has become a fantasy and a prayer of hitting some rainbow ticket.

[pandy]

That's what makes betting on horses so tough. The only way to win is to lose more bets. I've met bettors who cash a lot of tickets and lose consistently, and then they blame it on poor money management. But it has nothing to do with money management. Their win percentage is too high. If you're winning a lot of bets, you're betting too many favorites.

It's kind of like a baseball player. The home run hitters make more money. But if you want to hit more home runs, you have to change your swing so you lift the ball more. But that kind of swing produces more misses, so you'll also strike out more often. But you can't have it both ways (unless you're as good as Joe Dimaggio, and no one is).

[pandy]

I have additional explanations. The players who made a living at handicapping are getting old (and dead) and no longer have the patience nor the stamina necessary to do the work necessary to win on a regular basis. Add this to the lack of interest for younger people to take their place

In addition, the nut has grown exponentially large (cost of living) while there is no increase in the amount that can be won. 40 years ago, a $1,000 trifecta was four months rent.

Now you can add in the unpredictability of driving strategy due to the prevalence of courtesy tucks and the drug lords. Making a living playing this game has become a fantasy and a prayer of hitting some rainbow ticket.


You may be right in terms of grinding out a profit. In the 70's and 80's most good harness bettors I knew bet exactas and the value was tremendous. Now the serious harness bettors are probably playing the Pick 4 or Pick 5's, hoping for those occasional big hits.

[traynor]

I think one of the biggest changes in harness racing came from the shift from ignoring time to emphasizing time. Kusyshyn's PPC made winning easy for quite a few people, who were happy to pay $200 a copy. It was worth it (then) but overly simplistic compared to what is available today. Points were scored for final time and last quarter in last two, with a couple of added (minor) factors. Did really well. However, at the time, the last quarter had to be calculated (it was not in the program--that came later).

Kusyshyn was a major change in emphasis in "factors considered important." Before that, time was mostly ignored as irrelevant (as unusuial as that may seem today). By the time of Sports Eye PPs and individual final and final quarter times listed in most programs, lots of people were picking lots of winners. Winning percentage of favorites went up, mutuels went down, and it took a bit more work to prise out decent winners. Still does.