Information overload and Handicapping

[shanta]

Speed figs, pace,track to track adj, jockeys, trainers, visual inspection, form cycles, horses for courses, median energy, weight, class, form, models, profiles, track biases, pp bias etc.

These are but a few of the many things available today to the handicapper. With the internet and today's software the list is sure to expand.

I found out the hard way that for ME the least amount of FACTORS to consider when making final wagering decisions is best. 3 is the maximum number I can handle. Right now I am only using 2 ( betting line and early/ late look at contenders).

I would love to hear other people's thoughts and ideas on this subject.

Richie

[andicap]

You are so right on.....
That's my problem with the Jim Quinn school of "full-dress handicapping."
Takes too long in a simulcast era and it's sooooo unnecessary. And tedious. If I'm teaching someone to play the races I'll tell them to focus on two or three things -- but REALLY focus on them.

I use pace, speed, form cycle (and form factors like suitability for distance, surface, track), and to a lesser extent trainers as my main indicators. Also if I have time to keep records on, track bias
(or modelling what pace factors are winning at a track -- really the same thing as bias except for the rail factor.)

To make up for the lack of in-depth research I can do, I demand better odds on my horses -- this works as long as records show my higher odds horses are holding their own.

Its silly to demand 6-1 when all of your winners are 4-1 and under!!!!

That's why I hate a lot of these "methods" or textbooks that give you rules. How do you know to demand 6-1 or better, etc. What matters is how YOUR horses are running.

So I'd add value and record keeping to my themes above.

[DJofSD]

Too much information, too little time?

Paralysis by analysis.

DJofSD

[JimG]

And the funny thing is with all that information, if someone tries to tackle all of that, they will land on one of the favorites most of the time. Now what do you do?

Nice post Shanta.

[Turfday]

The one single thing that has changed the game, at least out west in Southern California, is field size.

No matter how little or how much work you do or time you put in, when you are looking at a five, six or seven horse field, there are less contenders and it makes it easier for the novices to land on the right horses.

I remember the days when it took me three or four hours to handicap a card, often times the night before. And then do a "refresher" in the morning after scratches. And enjoy doing it.

Now, when there are five, six or seven horses to deal with and a "longshot" is 8/1 ....it's tough to justify that much time to come up with so many horses the public, or public handicappers come up with.

[RXB]

Not only short fields, but short careers. Way more maiden races now.

And, short races. Stamina and soundness are receding in lockstep as the quality of the breeding stock continues to decline.

[hurrikane]

as Rick use to say...more than 3 rules and you could fit an elephant in there

That really holds true. I usually look for a couple of things that give an advantage to a horse in a certain situation. then the things that make it profitable are usually

#1 field size. typically 7 or more. larger the better.

#2 t/j % and trn ablility for the conditions.

but #1 would be the field size. Small fields are not profitable for my style of play. It's too easy for the public to see the horses and how the race will develope.

[shanta]

Replies:

Andicap- I bet 2 horses to win in every race. Looking at my records 60% of my winners pay LESS than $10.00. I used to wager at 6/1 and up but MY method would have big runouts and then when the winner would hit a lot of times most of the price would be used to just get back to even after the runout.

Turfday- I know what you mean about the shrinking fields in California. I really don't wager there much cause of the reason you stated. The other reason is the old " what works here might not work there". For me California racing is the "might not work there" place.

Hurrikane- to me field size is not much of an issue. I mean I would not want to always be "cappin" 5 horse fields but in working a card if I hit a short field I will work it. Like everything else when it is time some prices will come. So WILL a lot of chalk. If I can ask you say you look at trainer stats and weigh them heavily. If I understand right if today's race is for young horses stretching out for the first time in order for you to wager the trainer has to be a "proven commodity" in doing well first time stretching out?


Richie

[so.cal.fan]

Interesting thread, I'm only posting so I can get notified of your replies.
My old friend, the late Jeff Goldstein used to always say.....

K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid).

He was probably close to being right.

[Overlay]

All excellent arguments for concentrating on assigning a true probability of winning to every horse in a race, or otherwise gauging with reasonable accuracy the actual winning chances of the particular horse you are betting, so that you can spot both false favorites and hidden overlays, while also being able to pass races where value is not present (instead of focusing only on picking and playing the most likely winner in a small field regardless of odds, and watching its price get beaten down to the point where nobody can hit at a high enough rate to make money).

[osophy_junkie]

Having many attributes to look at isn't necessarly bad. If all of them are closely related, useing several types of speed ratings for example, will not yield any benefit. However I've noticed the more orthogonal attributes you use the more stable your results become.

Ed

[cosmicway]

You have to look for clues everywhere like a good Yard detective.
Maybe then you will be succesful.
My university prof used to say "the more Physics you put in, the more accurate scientific models become". The same is true with horse racing.
You also have to measure their relative importance.
For example rail bias in some tracks is unbeaten - while in others it counts for nothing.
And what about new jockey-trainer partnerships ? The jocks usually do some crying on their knees to get the job, so when you see such a scenario you may expect them to fire.

[shanta]

Replies:

Overlay- I have never had a clue on making a "probability line". The line I use is computer generated and while not "real" it lets me SEE horses who are greatly overlaid against it. As a 2 horse win bettor I need value for my 2nd bet otherwise I am seeing what the public sees and the race offers little reason to bet. I agree with what you say about false favorites.


Osophy- orthogonal attributes. I had to get the dictionary out for this one. Learn something new every day.
:) Thank you.


Cosmic Way- I had a chance to speak with a jockey very briefly last night at the Meadowlands. He was upset that he had given a horse a bad ride earlier in the week and he was worried he would not ride any more for the trainer. I understand where you are coming from with the jock/trn. Especially the new "hookups".

Richie

[trickey]

great post shanta......i am also learning the hardway about too much information.....for me from now on it is 2 screens on val 3

1- the bottom line betting line.....

2- the early late graph..........

that is it........

[cosmicway]

In the end only one angle counts - but you don't know which
one.
It is not like making ice cream where you mix all the ingredients.
On Monday I placed my money on a fair sprinter - dispatched himself up front with no opponent in sight but it was the girlie jockey who lost the reigns and ... finito !

[fmhealth]

Shanta, good post. Only thoughts I would add are: At HAW virtually all the winners are coming on their 2nd run over the track, or some past races at HAW. Perhaps this is "situational" but nevertheless it's happening 5 days/week.

Final factor & screen for me is "physicality". Cannot tell you how many "qualifiers" become throwouts in the paddock. While invariably you toss some winners as well. On balance, if you can get a grip on this skill, which btw is not difficult to master. You have a material edge over most 'cappers.

[thelyingthief]

I was reading a book on genetic algorithms and their application to speculative games a few years ago, and the writer interestingly stated that the succesful systems which had evolved were either very simple, and composed of few rules; or they were exceedingly complex with many rules. He also stated that the complex methods were more successful, and more robust.

I know that the system I use is very complex, although the rules are not completely formulated--there is more room for intuition, and, maybe, error. I will frankly state that I mostly like to hear my opponents have renounced complexity in favor of simplicity. Particularly in horseracing where the fundamental elements of the models which describe it are largely understood by all participants; and since this is so, the vast majority of players are led to focus on the wrong horses, driving up the prices on the real contenders. I also like to hear that they love simulcasting, and betting many tracks. I feel this increases my edge, since many of the distinctions that bring a bettor money are track, season, and race specific. Pursuing multiple tracks ignores these subtleties.

I also feel that those who adopt simple systems by and large use speed based algorithms or their derivatives. Speed kills, as they say, but mostly the pocketbook. Simple systems need definitely to utilize uncommon parameters if they're to succeed, I think.

[shanta]

Fm Health- I have never gotten into the appearance aspect of handicapping. I have a couple of friends who are trying to tilt me in that direction. They also believe it offers a unique edge in wagering for value.

the lying thief- Intuition is such an important part of successful wagering. When to step in and when to sit on my hands. Someone I respect once said" horse gonna go to the lead and the others are gonna catch him or they will not". Does not get much simpler than that.

Richie

[cosmicway]

>> i dont think so, but...

The race regulars in the racecourses tend to behave like a giant computer.
That's because the process of trial and error is taking effect.

Let me illustrate the difference between an intelligent crowd and a non-intelligent crowd.
Once upon a time I entered a supestores contest to predict next day's soccer winners in the world cup series.
So my prediction was that Costa Rika were going to defeat Scotland, which indeed came true. The next day I found there were only 3 people with the correct answer from the thousands of customers who casted votes.
This could not possibly have been the case with a crowd of soccer experts and Costa Rika were likely to attract a sizeable support of about 20%.

In horse racing, where you can defeat the crowds is perhaps in mathematical accuracy and in the complext typew of game such as exactas and tricasts.

[Diamond K]

Dave Schwartz in his directions (as I interpret them) in the use of HSH Race Reports indicates that the user can use up to 4 composite factors but seems to recommend only two. He goes on to state that the use of two factors can bring in longer price horses where the use of more than two factors leans towards the chalk.