How do you assess who is good?

[Track Phantom]

On another thread here, shots were taken at Brad Free regarding his handicapping.

It got me wondering, what is the best way to gauge if someone is a good handicapper? Doesn't seem like there is a legitimate, quantifiable way to asses it.

I know the thought process is more valuable than the actual results but you can't quantify something that subjective.

Seems like a "handicapping score" would be nice if there was a good algorithm to make it work.

[ReplayRandall]

Nothing like a conversation about good asses.....:ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

On another thread here, shots were taken at Brad Free regarding his handicapping.

It got me wondering, what is the best way to gauge if someone is a good handicapper? Doesn't seem like there is a legitimate, quantifiable way to asses it.

I know the thought process is more valuable than the actual results but you can't quantify something that subjective.

Seems like a "handicapping score" would be nice if there was a good algorithm to make it work.

OF COURSE there is a legitimate, quantifiable way to assess people's handicapping skills. You keep track of their handicapping selections over an extended period of time...and the cream always rises to the top.

[Track Phantom]

OF COURSE there is a legitimate, quantifiable way to assess people's handicapping skills. You keep track of their handicapping selections over an extended period of time...and the cream always rises to the top.
But that assumes only their top selection matters right? What if your second choice wins at 25-1 and the top choice runs second at 5-1. Is that better than someone who picks an 8-5 winner?

[Track Phantom]

Nothing like a conversation about good asses.....:ThmbUp:
Freudian slip....

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don't need to track somebody. I come here for real handicapping and betting conversations and get it. I think if you are a good player you aren't looking for x from somebody. Small snippets of stuff a person will say here and that turns into a goldmine insight. Much of the best stuff I have gotten on here is betting psychology tips.

[thaskalos]

But that assumes only their top selection matters right? What if your second choice wins at 25-1 and the top choice runs second at 5-1. Is that better than someone who picks an 8-5 winner?

Let me put it this way:

If a handicapping contest was announced on this very board, and the contestants were asked to submit 5 win-bets a day for an entire year...would we get a pretty good indication of who the best handicapper of this board is?

[ReplayRandall]

Let me put it this way:

If a handicapping contest was announced on this very board, and the contestants were asked to submit 5 win-bets a day for an entire year...would we get a pretty good indication of who the best handicapper of this board is?

And your point is ???.......

[thaskalos]

And your point is ???.......

I am just answering the question posed by the title of this thread.

[thaskalos]

And your point is ???.......

Don't get too cocky. Saratoga is over...and you are back to being mediocre.

[Track Phantom]

Bowlers have an average (or handicap), golfers have a handicap. Even those that play billiards or darts have a way to give a player a handicap.

I think there is a way to gauge a handicapper in similar ways if there was a desire to do so.

If I were doing it, I would allow for two choices in a race per handicapper, with higher weighting to the top choice. Score would be a balance of finish position, field size and off-time odds. Over time, a handicapper would accumulate a score (as an average of all races).

[ReplayRandall]

Don't get too cocky. Saratoga is over...and you are back to being mediocre.

Mediocre just like you? At least I have Saratoga and the AQU-winter to fall back on......What's your strong suit, Presque Isle?..:rip:

[thaskalos]

Mediocre just like you? At least I have Saratoga and the AQU-winter to fall back on......What's your strong suit, Presque Isle?..:rip:

I can't miss at Fairmount and Zia Park. :kiss:

[ReplayRandall]

I can't miss at Fairmount and Zia Park. :kiss:

Can't bet more than $20 in a race without killing your price at those gems..;)

[JustRalph]

In today’s game, anybody that can get near .95 ROI is probably pretty damn good

Ten years ago I would have said 1.01

[jocko699]

Bowlers have an average (or handicap), golfers have a handicap. Even those that play billiards or darts have a way to give a player a handicap.

I think there is a way to gauge a handicapper in similar ways if there was a desire to do so.

If I were doing it, I would allow for two choices in a race per handicapper, with higher weighting to the top choice. Score would be a balance of finish position, field size and off-time odds. Over time, a handicapper would accumulate a score (as an average of all races).

I agree. I would put $5,000 up in a formatted event where you have to bet 5 days a week at one of lets say 5 tracks. The bet would be $2 to win on a maximum of 2 horses per race or 1 bet of $4 to win on one horse.

The highest accumulated total at the end of the year is the winner.

[jocko699]

I agree. I would put $5,000 up in a formatted event where you have to bet 5 days a week at one of lets say 5 tracks. The bet would be $2 to win on a maximum of 2 horses per race or 1 bet of $4 to win on one horse.

The highest accumulated total at the end of the year is the winner.

Of course I understand that 52 weeks times $100 is $5200. I would think that any player that was dead with 2 weeks to go deserves a break:pound::pound::pound:

[Fred Mertz]

I've always thought baseball statistics were superior to all others; batting, fielding and pitching.

I'm not sure how a similar standard could be applied to horse racing handicappers. I believe our local newspaper has a paid handicapping 'expert' who provides selections for Kentucky tracks. I don't subscribe to the paper and see it once in a blue moon if I'm visiting the library. They give some sort of summary results of his past recommendations, but only at the caveman level such as: 98 selections, 24 win, 31 place 37 show...something like that.

Like I asked the guy in the wheelchair at the track the other day, "Who's going to win the next race?" He replied, "Who cares?"

Hey, if they can sell $3 and $4 tip sheets at the track I'm happy for them. I used to buy them on occasion.

[classhandicapper]

I think the best handicapper is the guy that picks the most winners. This game is about assessing probabilities. If you are picking the most winners, that means you are assessing the probabilities the best.

The best horse player is the guy that translates his opinions into profitable plays by knowing what he knows, sticking with what he knows, and betting intelligently.

[storyline]

On another thread here, shots were taken at Brad Free regarding his handicapping.

It got me wondering, what is the best way to gauge if someone is a good handicapper? Doesn't seem like there is a legitimate, quantifiable way to asses it.

I know the thought process is more valuable than the actual results but you can't quantify something that subjective.

Seems like a "handicapping score" would be nice if there was a good algorithm to make it work.


The guy/gal who consistently wagers on horses that outrun their odds... doesn't necessarily have to be used in the win position.

[Poindexter]

The guy/gal who consistently wagers on horses that outrun their odds... doesn't necessarily have to be used in the win position.

Short, clear, concise and bullseye. Totally agree.

[MPRanger]

This is a difficult question to know the answer to.
Take me for example. I'm probably the best handicapper here.
Certainly the most intelligent. But if I didn't just come right out
and tell you, how would you know? :cool:

[ultracapper]

This is a difficult question to know the answer to.
Take me for example. I'm probably the best handicapper here.
Certainly the most intelligent. But if I didn't just come right out
and tell you, how would you know? :cool:

Short, clear, concise......

[VigorsTheGrey]

Clear, correct, concise and complete...