Handicapping Minutiae

[rsetup]

Seems no matter where I 'go' these days, I'm bombarded with handicapping minutiae. It seems that handicapping has become all about leads and track biases, and jocks.

I go to one thread, and someone is going on about how the favorite was a bet against because he didn't change leads last out and thus wouldn't today. (In fact, this turned out to be the case, in this instance.) But it goes beyond that: we're now charting the lead at different parts of the race.

Having a few minutes between races, I venture over to the NYRA feed earlier and the expert there is going over the contenders in the race and it's all about biases: 'was outside, when the inside was fast'; 'was inside when the inside was dead'; blah, blah, blah.

Someone with the technical acumen to be modeling setups, is now, apparently, concerned with which side a horse is getting whipped upon entering the stretch.

And let's not even begin with all the nitpicking concerning jocks' rides. Clearly, there are some poor rides but some would have us believe that jocks need to be mind reading psychologists in order to give proper rides. 'Is this where you want to run?' 'Are you comfortable?'

I've been building real estate models for the past 5+ years. I've also been playing the game since the mid 70's and spent a good part of the '80's doing precisely what I'm criticizing above.

Maybe I agree that leads during a race are important IN TURF SPRINTS. But if leads were relevant 'variables' then there wouldn't be so many horses winning with bad footwork. Try it in a model: it will get kicked out.

Same goes for biases: for every horse that wins next out after having run on the bad part of the track, there's at least one that doesn't. That runs every bit as poorly.

And, I bet that lefty versus righty stick upon entering is pretty much a wash as well.

And that plenty of horses win with bad rides, simply because they're better that day than their competitors.

The idea is to focus on those factors that have more general application rather than the minutiae. It might then become apparent that these irrelevant factors, on their own, are subsumed within more generally relevant ones. Mere trees in a forest.

[FakeNameChanged]

Great post!

[EMD4ME]

I could NOT disagree more with your entire post.

1) Bow Town Cat, for the first time in at least a long while, raced on the wrong lead all of the backstretch in last start at GP (then, as he should, stayed on that same lead on the far turn and HAD ZERO rebrake in his last race). Combine factor #2. I knew the rail was DEAD at Aqueduct today. So, we have a horse with physical issues, racing on a dead rail and he's 6/5 going into the gate. Ran TERRIBLE.

I crushed the 5, in all horizontals.

Now, you're going to tell me that checking lead changes and bias notes are Minutiae?

That's great :) I love stuffing my pockets with more money.



2) DWildcat Girl WON on Dec 4th and was professional with her lead changes.

Why the layoff after the win? Came back off the layoff and after getting into 2nd in the lane, went back to the wrong lead (something unusual for this horse) and flattened out late. Was an absolute THROW out of the win spot in the next race. In her next start, there were 4 cheap the need the leaders and 2 closers in a field of 6. Who do you think I singled and went to town on? Not DWildcat Girl. The other closer that I singled won and more importantly,

A) DWildact girl sucked up into 2nd but went back to the wrong lead again late and flattened out. Securing the win for my horse.

B) If I didn't know, what I knew about DWildcat Girl, I might've went 2 deep in all horizontals, still hit the tickets but RECEIVED 50% of my return.

By chucking her, I just doubled up my return.



Jocks????


I had long tirades about the following jocks rides just recently:

Beach Hut---was destroyed by Cancel on 3/12/17. Knowing that helped me single Beach Hut in a cold $200 DD that paid $56. $5 pick 4 that paid $3200 etc etc.

Bunyaan-Massacred by Cornelio 4 weeks back-WON BY A POLE next out.

There's a list of many more. Just look in the old TLG thread.

I respectfully, completely disagree with all points you made.

[Murph]

Seems no matter where I 'go' these days, I'm bombarded with handicapping minutiae. It seems that handicapping has become all about leads and track biases, and jocks.

I go to one thread, and someone is going on about how the favorite was a bet against because he didn't change leads last out and thus wouldn't today. (In fact, this turned out to be the case, in this instance.) But it goes beyond that: we're now charting the lead at different parts of the race.

Having a few minutes between races, I venture over to the NYRA feed earlier and the expert there is going over the contenders in the race and it's all about biases: 'was outside, when the inside was fast'; 'was inside when the inside was dead'; blah, blah, blah.

Someone with the technical acumen to be modeling setups, is now, apparently, concerned with which side a horse is getting whipped upon entering the stretch.

And let's not even begin with all the nitpicking concerning jocks' rides. Clearly, there are some poor rides but some would have us believe that jocks need to be mind reading psychologists in order to give proper rides. 'Is this where you want to run?' 'Are you comfortable?' I sift out what is relevant to me and let the rest go. I am more concerned to answer your questions from a different perspective. The bettor should ask himself "Is this where I want to bet?" "Am I comfortable (with the risk)?

I've been building real estate models for the past 5+ years. I've also been playing the game since the mid 70's and spent a good part of the '80's doing precisely what I'm criticizing above.

Maybe I agree that leads during a race are important IN TURF SPRINTS. But if leads were relevant 'variables' then there wouldn't be so many horses winning with bad footwork. Try it in a model: it will get kicked out.

Same goes for biases: for every horse that wins next out after having run on the bad part of the track, there's at least one that doesn't. That runs every bit as poorly.

And, I bet that lefty versus righty stick upon entering is pretty much a wash as well.

And that plenty of horses win with bad rides, simply because they're better that day than their competitors.Maybe a blinkers off move here could help you. You may be using an outdated method? Old MLS type factor flow charts plugged into some kind of AI modeling never worked for me. I am not about to say your method does not work for you but if you are frustrated this might be a place to begin looking for answers to that.

The idea is to focus on those factors that have more general application rather than the minutiae. It might then become apparent that these irrelevant factors, on their own, are subsumed within more generally relevant ones. Mere trees in a forest.
If you want to talk handicapping comment here.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137427

Check your models for factors we can test to spot 1st and 2nd out maiden winners.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136755

Take a peek into some blind alleys.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117956

Polish a single method and practice it here.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137399

These are just a couple of things I'm doing to try and elevate my game. I'm having alot of fun and I've yet to be embarrassed for my opinions. Rsetup, I hope you can get your groove back.

[Dahoss9698]

It's a game of inches, but some would rather list 4 horses per race and claim win if any of them win. Others like to dig into every detail they can.

Great game and lots of different ways to play it.

[Tom]

Great post!

How so?
It's a horse racing forum - where people talk about the game of horse playing. If you can't feel good about winning, then you can always feel good about whining.

Feel free to quote that. :rolleyes:

[EMD4ME]

It's a game of inches, but some would rather list 4 horses per race and claim win if any of them win. Others like to dig into every detail they can.

Great game and lots of different ways to play it.

Good morning Dahoss. Being sincere, who the heck does that? That is ridiculous, if one does so. I can see someone saying I'm going to use these 4 horses against a 4/5 in a horizontal play but to tout 4 horses in terms of win ROI, is ridiculous.

As for digging, absolutely, I do have that disease. I can relate to that.

If you don't mind me asking, what type of capper are you? What tools do you favor, unfavor etc?

[Murph]

Feel free to quote that. :rolleyes:
Diggity! :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
If you don't mind me asking, what type of capper are you? ...

One whose picks are as solid as his biceps.

[whodoyoulike]

Seems no matter where I 'go' these days, I'm bombarded with handicapping minutiae. It seems that handicapping has become all about leads and track biases, and jocks. ...

Same goes for biases: for every horse that wins next out after having run on the bad part of the track, there's at least one that doesn't. That runs every bit as poorly.

And, I bet that lefty versus righty stick upon entering is pretty much a wash as well.

And that plenty of horses win with bad rides, simply because they're better that day than their competitors.

The idea is to focus on those factors that have more general application rather than the minutiae. It might then become apparent that these irrelevant factors, on their own, are subsumed within more generally relevant ones. Mere trees in a forest.

I agree with the general concepts of your post. Good observations.

Btw, I saw references that you may have posted on here as The Fat Man. I remember The Fat Man's postings and thought he was a pretty good handicapper then he disappeared.

I like to have an idea just who is who on here to keep things straight in my own mind. FYI, we never got into any arguments on here. Just curious.

Are you two the same individual?

[Secondbest]

One whose picks are as solid as his biceps.

Now that's funny

[johnhannibalsmith]

Now that's funny

That was his line and I think I misquoted. I think it was 'opinions', not 'picks'. I don't want to steal anyone's material.

[Dahoss9698]

That was his line and I think I misquoted. I think it was 'opinions', not 'picks'. I don't want to steal anyone's material.

I said that? Was I drunk?

[Exotic1]

......
The idea is to focus on those factors that have more general application rather than the minutiae. It might then become apparent that these irrelevant factors, on their own, are subsumed within more generally relevant ones. Mere trees in a forest.

Which factors (that fit a more general application) are you referring to?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I said that? Was I drunk?

It was your signature for a long time. Come on man. I even had my own variation on it for a while. But the boss didn't like my comparison to diarrhea instead of muscle.

[Murph]

I said that? Was I drunk?I don't know, I can't remember.

[EMD4ME]

It was your signature for a long time. Come on man. I even had my own variation on it for a while. But the boss didn't like my comparison to diarrhea instead of muscle.

Omg :lol::lol:

This thread is comedic gold :ThmbUp:

I was still hoping Dahoss would come play for charity. We have 15 cards left. Whatdoya say Dahoss ? Do it for the kids:ThmbUp:

As for minutiae , I think every detail matters. If I see kids and women in the paddock with a horse at AQU, I take a 3rd look at the horse.

[Dahoss9698]

It was your signature for a long time. Come on man. I even had my own variation on it for a while. But the boss didn't like my comparison to diarrhea instead of muscle.

If it was my signature I didn't say it. I must've been mocking someone. I tried to find the original comment but couldn't.

[Jeff P]

I've been building real estate models for the past 5+ years. I've also been playing the game since the mid 70's and spent a good part of the '80's doing precisely what I'm criticizing above.
I've had some experience with logistic regression models. (So most of what follows is intended to be taken within the context of logistic regression modeling.)


The idea is to focus on those factors that have more general application rather than the minutiae. It might then become apparent that these irrelevant factors, on their own, are subsumed within more generally relevant ones. Mere trees in a forest.
Yes, having a good base model is important.

That said, most base models can be improved by working additional factors into the model - provided the new factor that you're adding isn't correlated to the exiting factors in the model and provided the new factor isn't well reflected in the odds.

For example - say you've developed a decent base model centered around factors that do a reasonably good job of reflecting a horse's class-speed-pace-form.

Oddly enough such a base model might even be good enough for profitable play "as is." And who am I to say that a player would be wrong to stop there and use the model "as is."

But the model I've described above doesn't reflect the abilities of the horse's human connections (rider and/or trainer) in any way.


Someone with the technical acumen to be modeling setups, is now, apparently, concerned with which side a horse is getting whipped upon entering the stretch.
More often than not - I've found that by adding a factor that reflects the abilities of the rider to a model like the one I described above:

The model can be improved incrementally. (So long as the new factor being added does in fact reflect the abilities of the rider and provided the new factor is not well reflected in the odds.)


And, I bet that lefty versus righty stick upon entering is pretty much a wash as well.
One night back in July of 2013 I was betting the races at Northlands Park - and I noticed that (rider) Rico Walcott was having a good night. Somehow that night his mounts seemed to be the only runners accelerating through the turn.

While watching replays (the head on shot not the pan shot) I noticed Walcott was the only rider going to the left hand with the whip. To this day I don't know if he is left handed or right handed. But I do know from watching replays that when his horse and another rider's horse were right next to each other - when he went to the left hand and the other rider went to the right hand - Walcott's horse began pulling away from the other rider's horse. Not just that night. But on many other nights at Northlands as well.

As a lifetime baseball fan I also know that left handed pitchers are more effective in certain situations than right handed pitchers. Could the same thing be true of riders?

So I asked myself What if?

What if going to the left hand vs. going to the right hand (in certain situations) gets slightly more out of a horse? What if compiling stats for riders with a tendency to go to the left hand in those situations could provide an incremental improvement to my results?

So that's exactly what I did. I began compiling a list of rider names who I saw go to the left hand (and use it effectively.)

And I quickly discovered the "lefty vs. righty stick upon entering the stretch" thing to be a difference maker.

No, not as a stand alone bet that rider because he has a left hand thing --

But as a way to get an incremental improvement out of an already working base model.



-jp

.

[EMD4ME]

That's is why you can hear me rooting :

"Left hand whip" for 30 years !

If I ever see my jock whipping right handed, I get convulsitions. Right hand whipping is only appropriate in certain situations or for some certain horses.

[elhelmete]

As for minutiae , I think every detail matters. If I see kids and women in the paddock with a horse at AQU, I take a 3rd look at the horse.

There is one owner/trainer combo I follow if I'm on track...looking for whether the trainer is in a dress shirt and tie or not. Been good to me...and BAD to me if I ignore.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

If I ever see my jock whipping right handed, I get convulsitions. ...

You'll give Tyson a run for his money with one-liners like this.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think there are lots of ways to handicap and win. But if you don't choose what fits "Your" style of play you will lose. Lately I find myself going back to notebooks from 2004 or 2007 and pulling out old ideas and breathing new life into them. Just because that is how I "used" to handicap doesn't make it old news or a dead concept. Far from it. We all go through cycles and evolutions. I think many handicapping factors go through the same. Today's underlay factor is tomorrow's overlay. I think the most comprehensive approach is the likeliest winner. While I focus on and have created standards to look for in horses in general, I always feel better and win more when I know specific details about a horse. It's the crush concept. That can't be duplicated with generic win standards.

[EMD4ME]

There is one owner/trainer combo I follow if I'm on track...looking for whether the trainer is in a dress shirt and tie or not. Been good to me...and BAD to me if I ignore.

Good stuff !

I remember a trainer , name evades me right now, who Maggie said had his daughter with him as it was her birthday.

You know that FTS won :)

[thaskalos]

Gee...I could have sworn having read on this board that trainers, as a rule, are HORRIBLE handicappers. Now...we are supposed to tailor our wagers by the way these trainers dress in the paddock?

[EMD4ME]

You'll give Tyson a run for his money with one-liners like this.

:lol::lol::lol:

Thankfully I was only half kidding.

I do have a nerve twitch when I see jock on the lead , a slow grinder coming at him and my jock is whipping right handed making sure he doesn't get in the way of the closer . Infuriates me to no end.


Other pet peeve or should I say horse peeve:

Bet the closer whos trying to rally outside. Watch stupid jock whip right handed as horse is storming home , due to right hand whip, horse moves inward , jock has to take up (all caused by himself) , regain stride , lose momentum, miss catching leader by diminishing nose.

Just Whip left handed and none of that ensues and you blow right by !

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I was up in the grandstand at SAR once and the trainer - I want to say Bill Mott, but at least someone in that level of the stratosphere - is talking to the owner who is there with his family. The trainer is pretty much telling them it's picture day. So I keep my eye on the owner and his family, and when they head down to the paddock a little later in the card I spot which horse is theirs. I liked the horse a little, and the odds were 8-1, so of course I made the bet.

Lost in a photo.

I won't make fun of anybody who notices a trainer pattern, even if it has to do with how the trainer is dressed.

[EMD4ME]

Gee...I could have sworn having read on this board that trainers, as a rule, are HORRIBLE handicappers. Now...we are supposed to tailor our wagers by the way these trainers dress in the paddock?

Tailor? No. But when Maggie says it's the trainer's daughter's birthday, the young girl is in the paddock, it's the trainer's only entry of the day and it's a FTS at the SPA, I pay attention.

I agree overall. 2 Friday's ago, my buddies, who hang out with a certain trainer at NYRA, were told that a certain horse can't lose the last at AQU.

I bet Beach Hut :pound:, they're still cussing that they listened to the trainer and lost.

[Robert Fischer]

I've had some experience with logistic regression models. (So most of what follows is intended to be taken within the context of logistic regression modeling.)



Yes, having a good base model is important.

That said, most base models can be improved by working additional factors into the model - provided the new factor that you're adding isn't correlated to the exiting factors in the model and provided the new factor isn't well reflected in the odds.

For example - say you've developed a decent base model centered around factors that do a reasonably good job of reflecting a horse's class-speed-pace-form.

Oddly enough such a base model might even be good enough for profitable play "as is." And who am I to say that a player would be wrong to stop there and use the model "as is."

But the model I've described above doesn't reflect the abilities of the horse's human connections (rider and/or trainer) in any way.



More often than not - I've found that by adding a factor that reflects the abilities of the rider to a model like the one I described above:

The model can be improved incrementally. (So long as the new factor being added does in fact reflect the abilities of the rider and provided the new factor is not well reflected in the odds.)



One night back in July of 2013 I was betting the races at Northlands Park - and I noticed that (rider) Rico Walcott was having a good night. Somehow that night his mounts seemed to be the only runners accelerating through the turn.

While watching replays (the head on shot not the pan shot) I noticed Walcott was the only rider going to the left hand with the whip. To this day I don't know if he is left handed or right handed. But I do know from watching replays that when his horse and another rider's horse were right next to each other - when he went to the left hand and the other rider went to the right hand - Walcott's horse began pulling away from the other rider's horse. Not just that night. But on many other nights at Northlands as well.

As a lifetime baseball fan I also know that left handed pitchers are more effective in certain situations than right handed pitchers. Could the same thing be true of riders?

So I asked myself What if?

What if going to the left hand vs. going to the right hand (in certain situations) gets slightly more out of a horse? What if compiling stats for riders with a tendency to go to the left hand in those situations could provide an incremental improvement to my results?

So that's exactly what I did. I began compiling a list of rider names who I saw go to the left hand (and use it effectively.)

And I quickly discovered the "lefty vs. righty stick upon entering the stretch" thing to be a difference maker.

No, not as a stand alone bet that rider because he has a left hand thing --

But as a way to get an incremental improvement out of an already working base model.



-jp

.

Great post.

There may be something like 80 important models in handicapping.
(My usage of the word 'model' is related to systems and their dynamics, although the usage should be congruent here)

And, of those 80 or so important models, perhaps only 5 of those are important enough to be 'base model' worthy.

When a horse is a stickout on a base model, and at the same time, it isn't accounted for in the odds, the long-term ROI is probably somewhere near profitability "as is".

Ideally, a horse will have multiple important models pointing in the same direction. Because of the way the dynamics are interrelated, this can sometimes cause a nonlinear positive event.

Attempting to contribute, but not disputing Rsetup's post. Horseplayers, and public handicappers, do seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the minutiae, and at times the models that they are repeatedly referencing are very questionable. Particularly instances when those questionable models are probably better explained as an effect of a 'base model' that happened to actually carry heavy freight in the dynamics of the race.

[EasyGoer89]

Seems no matter where I 'go' these days, I'm bombarded with handicapping minutiae. It seems that handicapping has become all about leads and track biases, and jocks.

I go to one thread, and someone is going on about how the favorite was a bet against because he didn't change leads last out and thus wouldn't today. (In fact, this turned out to be the case, in this instance.) But it goes beyond that: we're now charting the lead at different parts of the race.

Having a few minutes between races, I venture over to the NYRA feed earlier and the expert there is going over the contenders in the race and it's all about biases: 'was outside, when the inside was fast'; 'was inside when the inside was dead'; blah, blah, blah.

Someone with the technical acumen to be modeling setups, is now, apparently, concerned with which side a horse is getting whipped upon entering the stretch.

And let's not even begin with all the nitpicking concerning jocks' rides. Clearly, there are some poor rides but some would have us believe that jocks need to be mind reading psychologists in order to give proper rides. 'Is this where you want to run?' 'Are you comfortable?'

I've been building real estate models for the past 5+ years. I've also been playing the game since the mid 70's and spent a good part of the '80's doing precisely what I'm criticizing above.

Maybe I agree that leads during a race are important IN TURF SPRINTS. But if leads were relevant 'variables' then there wouldn't be so many horses winning with bad footwork. Try it in a model: it will get kicked out.

Same goes for biases: for every horse that wins next out after having run on the bad part of the track, there's at least one that doesn't. That runs every bit as poorly.

And, I bet that lefty versus righty stick upon entering is pretty much a wash as well.

And that plenty of horses win with bad rides, simply because they're better that day than their competitors.

The idea is to focus on those factors that have more general application rather than the minutiae. It might then become apparent that these irrelevant factors, on their own, are subsumed within more generally relevant ones. Mere trees in a forest.

Personally, I take all this info in, nothing is minutia to me because I don't know which 'nugget' will get me there. The factors you focus on might get you there today, but for me, it's vital to know exactly why I won vs thinking I know why I won and not being correct. If I win for reason A, but THINK it's really reason B, that might hurt me next time these horses run, there's a million pieces to the puzzle, I need as many of them as I can get.

[ultracapper]

Omg :lol::lol:

This thread is comedic gold :ThmbUp:

I was still hoping Dahoss would come play for charity. We have 15 cards left. Whatdoya say Dahoss ? Do it for the kids:ThmbUp:

As for minutiae , I think every detail matters. If I see kids and women in the paddock with a horse at AQU, I take a 3rd look at the horse.

The "Who's in the paddock and what are they wearing" has been a rock solid angle in cheap races at Delmar for years. I remember last summer I was locked up trying to make a decision between a couple horses and noticed Kathy Walsh had obviously just been to the hairdresser. Her perm was as tight as if she'd just walked out of the salon. She paid $11 if I remember right.

[ultracapper]

Gee...I could have sworn having read on this board that trainers, as a rule, are HORRIBLE handicappers. Now...we are supposed to tailor our wagers by the way these trainers dress in the paddock?

They may be lousy cappers, but they do pull the strings.

[whodoyoulike]

Personally, I take all this info in, nothing is minutia to me because I don't know which 'nugget' will get me there. The factors you focus on might get you there today, but for me, it's vital to know exactly why I won vs thinking I know why I won and not being correct. If I win for reason A, but THINK it's really reason B, that might hurt me next time these horses run, there's a million pieces to the puzzle, I need as many of them as I can get.

I think I'm following your line of thinking but I interpreted Rsetup's reference to minutiae as these ideas or angles which can't be predicted to occur in the upcoming race e.g., horse switching leads, he does or doesn't, jockey using right or left hand whipping which always depends on the situation, inside or outside track bias etc.

How does one predict for these things?

Instead one should focus on the general predictable items.

[ultracapper]

If a horse has run multiple races, you can see on replays whether changing leads is a reoccurring problem or not. If it's not reoccurring, an isolated occurrence probably means the horse is sore or worn out and needs a break. If it is reoccurring, it could be a break through training development if the horse can be persuaded to start doing it. Predicting whether this is the race or not, and whether it's the only obstacle to the horse not winning is another matter entirely.

Either way, I would want to see some kind of break from racing to indicate it's being addressed in the mornings, and the connections are serious about fixing it before putting the horse back out there with this particular obstacle to running a top race.

Here is a great angle. FTS wins while running the length of the stretch on the wrong lead. You see it now and then. Trainer then gives the horse 8 to 10 weeks to the next race, with a handful of 5f works. Seen these repeat a number of times, usually bumping their BSF 15-20 points.

[EasyGoer89]

I think I'm following your line of thinking but I interpreted Rsetup's reference to minutiae as these ideas or angles which can't be predicted to occur in the upcoming race e.g., horse switching leads, he does or doesn't, jockey using right or left hand whipping which always depends on the situation, inside or outside track bias etc.

How does one predict for these things?

Instead one should focus on the general predictable items.

I read into his OP as thinking to ignore certain things so you don't overload your brain. There's something to the op point that if a capper isn't good at 'assigning percentages' to the small details that could hurt him, gotta be able to know bigger factors vs smaller factors.

[PaceAdvantage]

Personally, I take all this info in, nothing is minutia to me because I don't know which 'nugget' will get me there. The factors you focus on might get you there today, but for me, it's vital to know exactly why I won vs thinking I know why I won and not being correct. If I win for reason A, but THINK it's really reason B, that might hurt me next time these horses run, there's a million pieces to the puzzle, I need as many of them as I can get.Good luck sorting all those pieces out. :eek: