Worst Handicapping Factor

[Tom]

What is the worst factor for you to grasp? What one just kills you every time? What is the one factor that you misread more than the ohers?

Do the they bounce when you think thyey won't, is their form better than you thought, is the distance a tad too long, did the pace duel never develope?

When you lose, what is the most common reason why?

[jfdinneen]

Tom,

Selecting winners is the biggest handicapping error we all make instead of focusing on eliminating losers.

Best wishes,

John

[Valuist]

I would say its races that come off the turf. And I know somebody will tell me just handicap dirt form. Well I've seen way too many races where the dirt form ended up being irrelevant, or nobody wanted the lead and some unlikely rat gets on the lead with a slow pace. I just avoid these races now, or play them only if I really like the other legs of a P3 or P4.

[cj]

I think for me, as basically a figure guy, the absolute toughest decision is analyzing figures earned at different distances. Even within the same distance structure. I'm learining though. For example, my top figure horse in yesterday's 7th at SA was going from 6 to 7 furlongs. In the past, I would have focused on this horse. Now, having run a pace-speed combo of 92-76 last out, I know this is not the best candidate to stretch to 7f, especially at fairly short odds. I tossed the horse, something I wouldn't have done even a year ago, and she ran dismally keying a nearly $1,500 tri for me while playing in the War Room.

I think distance is very key to any race but is underrated by most cappers. I've learned the hard way.

[Valuist]

One factor I overlooked for a long time, but do not anymore, is the Bute factor. I now view skeptically high speed figures earned by horses who've earned them running on Bute at a different track but will be running without the aid of that painkiller in today's race.

[keilan]

[QUOTE=cj] my top figure horse in yesterday's 7th at SA was going from 6 to 7 furlongs. In the past, I would have focused on this horse. Now, having run a pace-speed combo of 92-76 last out, I know this is not the best candidate to stretch to 7f, especially at fairly short odds. I tossed the horse, QUOTE]


This race illustrates a classic example of when to attack a race, the odds on favourite is a 2yo California bred stretching out after winning a S-mdspwt race. Though the horse earned a decent speed figure that is only half the story, the other half is how he earned it. As cj wrote the pace-speed combo of 92-76 w/ an energy number of 53.41% makes him a toss unless of course the horse was wrapped up at the 1/16 pole. In addition to that I estimated that the pace figure to be somewhere in the high 80’s+ which doesn’t allow this horse much of an chance to win.

This race screamed “attack”

[keilan]

What is the worst factor for you to grasp? What one just kills you every time? What is the one factor that you misread more than the ohers?

Do the they bounce when you think thyey won't, is their form better than you thought, is the distance a tad too long, did the pace duel never develope?

When you lose, what is the most common reason why?


Tom -- not being prepared is the most common reason I lose and secondly playing races where I don't have a strong opinion.

[keenang]

FOR ME IT IS FORM. JUST THE OTHER DAY A HORSE WHO HAS BEEN BEAT BY AT LEAST 10 LENGHTS IN HIS LAST 3 RACES WON GOING AWAY. THE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS HE DID NOT PAY AS BIG A PRICE AS YOU WOULD THINK.SOMETIMES IT MAKES YOU WONDER :confused: :confused:
GENE

[Overlay]

"Selecting winners is the biggest handicapping error we all make instead of focusing on eliminating losers."

I would amend that slightly to read, "Selecting winners is the biggest handicapping error we all make instead of focusing on evaluating the true winning chances of each horse in a race, and wagering on the one with odds that compare most favorably to those chances (that is, the greatest overlay, or the best return on investment)."

[breakage]

FOR ME IT IS FORM. JUST THE OTHER DAY A HORSE WHO HAS BEEN BEAT BY AT LEAST 10 LENGHTS IN HIS LAST 3 RACES WON GOING AWAY. THE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS HE DID NOT PAY AS BIG A PRICE AS YOU WOULD THINK.SOMETIMES IT MAKES YOU WONDER :confused: :confused:
GENE
Right, and I have trouble anticipating horses that drop from 2-1 to even money 20 seconds after the gate opens with a 3 length lead. They seem to win alot. :mad:

[46zilzal]

Most overblown nonsense is "cover." What baloney

[jfdinneen]

Overlay,

I understand the valid point you are making but I would still focus on eliminating first and selecting second. (Think Sherlock Holmes: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth (Sign of Four, 1890)). In other words, eliminate the losers and whatever remains should then be evaluated (as you suggest) in terms of winning chances and overlays.

Best wishes,

John

[shanta]

Tom,
Not sure if u consider this a factor but betting turf races for me is a losing prop.

Also races where a "need to lead" figures to never get the lead today and doesn't BUT changes running style and closes to win. This type I am talkin bout shows "no chance" in his pp's when not getting the lead.

Richie

[andicap]

[/QUOTE]
This race illustrates a classic example of when to attack a race, the odds on favourite is a 2yo California bred stretching out after winning a S-mdspwt race. Though the horse earned a decent speed figure that is only half the story, the other half is how he earned it. As cj wrote the pace-speed combo of 92-76 w/ an energy number of 53.41% makes him a toss unless of course the horse was wrapped up at the 1/16 pole. In addition to that I estimated that the pace figure to be somewhere in the high 80’s+ which doesn’t allow this horse much of an chance to win.

This race screamed “attack”[/QUOTE]

Keilan, question,
When you said you estimated the pace figure to be somewhere in the high 80s, do you mean that was the pace you were predicting for yesterday's race? and that it figured to be too fast for the horse to stretch out?

[keilan]

QUOTE]Keilan, question,
When you said you estimated the pace figure to be somewhere in the high 80s, do you mean that was the pace you were predicting for yesterday's race? and that it figured to be too fast for the horse to stretch out?[/QUOTE]


Andy -- exactly :)

[DeoVolente]

I think whenever you can't project improvement and take the best form or speed horse that is obvious on paper your asking for trouble in the long run

[midnight]

Every handicapping factor is important in some situations. No handicapping factor is all-important in every situation. The key is to be able to analyze the race and know which are relevant today. Of course that's much easier said than done.

[cj]

Every handicapping factor is important in some situations. No handicapping factor is all-important in every situation. The key is to be able to analyze the race and know which are relevant today. Of course that's much easier said than done.

You hit the nail on the head, for me at least. Identifying the right factors for THIS race is important. I'll add, that when you hit them right, make sure you are being paid generously for your foresight. In other words, I look for the factors that I think are most important in today's race, and that are being overlooked by the public.

[schweitz]

I think whenever you can't project improvement and take the best form or speed horse that is obvious on paper your asking for trouble in the long run

Since I play mostly cheap claimers I couldn't agree more with the above statement.

[Overlay]

I understand the valid point you are making but I would still focus on eliminating first and selecting second. (Think Sherlock Holmes: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth (Sign of Four, 1890)). In other words, eliminate the losers and whatever remains should then be evaluated (as you suggest) in terms of winning chances and overlays.


I don't deny that racing is a game of percentages, and that it pays to go with the probabilities rather than against them. But it seems to me that this same logic would preclude assigning any horse in any race an absolute, literal zero chance of winning. Of course, a quick glance through the past performances of any race field will generally produce one or more immediate reactions to the effect of, "Forget this horse." And usually (or even nearly always) that judgment may be correct. But I prefer to address this by examining all entrants in light of a sufficient mix of fundamental handicapping factors so that I arrive at fair odds for each horse, while also not overlooking any positive aspect of the entrants' records, rather than starting out by totally eliminating one or more horses based on any negative factor, no matter how strong. I find that this allows me to effectively distinguish between horses that are at high odds because they deserve to be from those which the public has genuinely undervalued. When I do end up betting an overlaid longshot, the wager will usually be of the small "saver" variety that doesn't seriously affect my overall money-management strategy, but assures I won't end up kicking myself when a horse that might otherwise have been a quick throwout wins because of positive considerations in its record that I failed to take into account.

[jfdinneen]

When I do end up betting an overlaid longshot, the wager will usually be of the small "saver" variety that doesn't seriously affect my overall money-management strategy, but assures I won't end up kicking myself when a horse that might otherwise have been a quick throwout wins because of positive considerations in its record that I failed to take into account.

Overlay,

If the objective is not to miss any winners (kicking myself) then placing saver bets on overlaid longshots is logical. This fear of regret (to which we are all susceptible) is probably the prime motivator of our desire to select winners. Alternatively, if the objective is to make money then first eliminating dominated alternatives and then making a betting line for what remains (while allowing a certain percentage for those non-contenders) is the rational approach.

Additional points worth noting:

Ranking contenders is preferable to rating them;
No such thing as insurance (saver bet) - Money Secrets at the Racetrack;
Longshots at odds greater than natural odds are still underlays - http://www.icapper.com/carrollArt9.html (www.icapper.com/carrollArt9.html).


In sum, selecting winners and making money are both legitimate objectives but are not necessarily compatible.

Best wishes,

John

[Overlay]

John:

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Perhaps my characterization of the type of wager I make on a longshot that I judge to be overlaid as a "saver" wager was somewhat inaccurate. I don't bet any longshot just so I'll be covered in case it wins. I arrive at my odds line first, bet only on horses that are overlaid according to my line, and calculate the amount to bet in the same way I would for any other overlaid horse in the field based on the relationship of its tote-board odds to my calculated true odds. With regard to the possibility of a horse with true odds above random even being considered an overlay, I would agree that if I had to draw a line through a field that I have handicapped which would separate "contenders" from "non-contenders" in the "traditional" sense, I would make the cut at the random-odds figure based on the field size. Maybe (as you suggest) it's just my aversion to "loser's regret" kicking in, but, again, I've found that the number and size of wagers I make on high-odds horses that I judge to be genuinely at longer odds than they should be is sufficiently low and sized in such a way that the return I realize from them justifies the outlay I make on them. (In the terms you stated, I view this as the process of dividing up the probability that you would assign to the "stuff happens" category (as Dick Mitchell called it) among the "non-contending" horses in a field in a way which separates those which have some redeeming aspects in their records versus those which do not, and then putting that information to productive use, rather than just having it floating in space, as it were.) As far as ranking versus rating, don't fair odds both rate and rank the horses in a field on a common scale? Also, I respect Charles Carroll enormously, but with all the hard data that exists on thoroughbred performance, and with the demonstrated effectiveness of the use of statistical techniques in analyzing it, I've found that a quantitative methodology works better for me than the type of approach that assigns probabilities based on experience or estimation (however educated). (Again, my hat is off to those who can set an accurate line and replicate it race after race relying only on "feel" and experience, but for me, quantitative analysis works best, especially when I try to go back and do a meaningful review of past results, or make adjustments in my overall handicapping model for future wagers.)

[Larry Hamilton]

Although, I agree theoretically with this ongoing thread, there is at least one fly in this ointment. It takes two numbers to determine an under/over lay: a benchmark (what you think the odds should be) and actual (the dynamic toteboard). The fly is how do you make the tote board stop changing when you want to bet. It is going to change for several seconds past when you make your decision. We all have seen the odds change from 8/5 to 4/5 DURING the race. How do you handle that? There is no "oops" or "do overs", when this occurs, you may have made the wrong bet.

[jfdinneen]

...I arrive at my odds line first, bet only on horses that are overlaid according to my line, and calculate the amount to bet in the same way I would for any other overlaid horse in the field based on the relationship of its tote-board odds to my calculated true odds. With regard to the possibility of a horse with true odds above random even being considered an overlay, I would agree that if I had to draw a line through a field that I have handicapped which would separate "contenders" from "non-contenders" in the "traditional" sense, I would make the cut at the random-odds figure based on the field size...

Overlay,

We are of one mind.

A minor clarification on ranking versus rating:

At an overly simplistic level, you and I get paid (or not) on our final rankings. If we both bet the one horse to win and it does, then it does not matter a whit whether we both rated it against the other runners according to class, form, fitness, and so on or whether I stuck a pin in the form and you like the color blue. Either way only the ranking counts not the rating system. Over the years, we have increased the level of precision of the data we use in handicapping without necessarily getting a commensurate increase in the level of information.

As an exercise, I would recommend every handicapper to do a pairwise comparison of ever pairing of horses in a race using whatever criteria you deem appropriate with a simple ranking scale (-1, 0, 1 for worse than, same as, and better than respectively) and making a betting line on the final scores. You will be pleasantly surprised at how well you handicap the race. After all, in the pre-computer age, handicappers still bet races and won.

Best wishes,

John

[sjk]

There is no reason why accurate odds cannot be made for longer priced horses as well as shorter priced ones. I use any overlaid exacta with a horse that I give a 5% chance or more of winning on the top and a horse with at least a 4% chance of running second on the bottom.

Some back testing I was doing yeserday indicated that I might be money ahead to expand the bottom to any with a 3% chance.

As to the issue of prices coming down, there are plenty of overlays that do not come down. For borderline situations experience tells you when certain horses are likely to get bet down at the end (most any horse at 6-1 or less on the morning line and that is well above that at 3 MTP gets late action; exactas with the favorite on top that are paying much more than the win odds of the two horses would indicate usually come down.)


There are some tracks that are so small that you can get in trouble betting overlays even at 1 MTP (I can't play PrM after the fourth of July). At tracks like Tdn and Mnr overlaid exactas with the favorite often disappear. Any time the exacta is paying above what the win odds would indicate things are pat to change.

I would estimate that 95% of the bets that I make as overlays are still overlays after the race is official and I live with the other 5%. Don't know any other way to bet value.

[RXB]

Although, I agree theoretically with this ongoing thread, there is at least one fly in this ointment. It takes two numbers to determine an under/over lay: a benchmark (what you think the odds should be) and actual (the dynamic toteboard). The fly is how do you make the tote board stop changing when you want to bet. It is going to change for several seconds past when you make your decision. We all have seen the odds change from 8/5 to 4/5 DURING the race. How do you handle that? There is no "oops" or "do overs", when this occurs, you may have made the wrong bet.

I can tell you how I handle it now. I demand a full odds point of "buffer" for late odds changes. In other words, if I think a horse is an overlay at 4/5 but nothing less than that, then I won't make the bet unless he's at least 9/5 at the gate.

Now, you might say that this puts severe limitations on my ability to bet horses at low odds. And you would be right. But it's no big deal these days to see a horse at 2/1 when the gates open, then drop to 6/5 when all of the wagering is tallied. So, why bother with low-priced horses unless an advantage seems almost guaranteed?

[cj]

Although, I agree theoretically with this ongoing thread, there is at least one fly in this ointment. It takes two numbers to determine an under/over lay: a benchmark (what you think the odds should be) and actual (the dynamic toteboard). The fly is how do you make the tote board stop changing when you want to bet. It is going to change for several seconds past when you make your decision. We all have seen the odds change from 8/5 to 4/5 DURING the race. How do you handle that? There is no "oops" or "do overs", when this occurs, you may have made the wrong bet.

The horses I bet are very rarely the ones that take the late action you are talking about, so its not really an issue. More often than not, they go up.

[schweitz]

Almost automatic toss-out---5yr old maiden (regardless of how few or many races) in a field of 3 and 4 yr. olds.

[46zilzal]

Almost automatic toss-out---5yr old maiden (regardless of how few or many races) in a field of 3 and 4 yr. olds.

if this is the animal's second or third start

[schweitz]

if this is the animal's second or third start

Any start.

[46zilzal]

Any start.

Often there are good reason a horse does not start until 5. If they show life you have to consider them

[Tom]

Sometimes a horsed is just so damn fast they can't catch him until he is 5 years old! :D

[schweitz]

Often there are good reason a horse does not start until 5. If they show life you have to consider them

Been throwing them out for the win spot for along time---haven't been burnt yet. Maybe just lucky. :)

[Secretariat]

For me the worst handicapping factor is last race obsession. Cardello's book and Cramer point to the dramatic changes in Beyers from race to race. As someone else said here knowing what the horse is set up to do today is the art in this. A line that focuses on the wrong paceline often gets an underlaid horse.

[46zilzal]

For me the worst handicapping factor is last race obsession. Cardello's book and Cramer point to the dramatic changes in Beyers from race to race. As someone else said here knowing what the horse is set up to do today is the art in this. A line that focuses on the wrong paceline often gets an underlaid horse.


IT is ONE entire RECORD vs. the other horse's entire RECORD