CD House Handicappers

[kenwoodallpromos]

I got this 3-12-05 from the CD website. How can official track handicappers have such a low win %?
A couple of Hollywood Hcprs had bad records also.

Analysis
by Jill Byrne
2004 Final Fall Meet Record: 206-50-37-34
24% Win - 59% ITM


Value Plays
by Steve Fugitte
2004 Final Fall Meet Record: 69-14-12-11
20% Win - 53% ITM

[cj]

These numbers mean absolutely nothing unless you know the odds of the winners.

[JPinMaryland]

well I dunno, these numbers must mean something. After all, we've established that favorites win about 33% of the time. One would think that a handicapper making an odds line should have HIS favorite win at about that rate.

Wouldnt you?

[cj]

No, they don't mean anything by themselves. I could pick 40% winners and lose, and I could pick 10% winners and win. Maybe Steve Fugitte is picking 20% winners at average odds of 5-1. That would be spectacular. Maybe Jill Byrne is picking 24% winners at average odds of 7-2. I'll leave it to you to determine if that is good or not. The point is, its all in the price.

Does it mean anything if all I tell you is the Orioles have won 50 games this year? Of course not, unless I tell you it is the end of May, or more likely, the end of September. You need more info than what they are giving you.

[aaron]

JP,
there is an handicapper in one of the papers in NY who picks about 22-23% winners,but has shown a profit at various NY meets thru out the year.

[thoroughbred]

We should keep two thoughts separate here. One, is the picking of winners, which is what the official handicappers attempt to do. Two, is betting to make a profit. They do not go hand in hand.

Yes, an official handicapper could, to up his win percentage, go with the favorite, but as has been pointed out by others, that would not make a profit, primarily because of the takeout, and also because of the inherently average low odds of favorites to begin with.

There have been some studies, (and I set up a computer simulation some time ago to confirm the results of such studies), which show that under the assumptons where: YOU BET EVERY RACE AND ONLY BET ONE HORSE TO WIN,
(large type used to emphasize the assumptions since the results of the studies only hold when those assumptions are met), you do not start to make a profit until you have handicapping skill which achieves about a 31% win rate. One other interesting result of the studies is, (and AGAIN UNDER THE ASSUMPTIONS NOTED), achieving a day-in, day-out, long term win rate of 40% is extremely difficult to come by.

I've been looking for results of studies with different assumptions, but have not seen any. If anyone knows of any, please respond.

[kenwoodallpromos]

So is the track encouraging people to bet those horses the House Handicappers pick and make those favorites, or are most bettors ignoring the house picks and picking others as favs? The ROI's would be interesting!

[midnight]

24% isn't bad at all at Churchill, where the fields are large. I don't know what the percent of winning favorites is, but I doubt it's 33% over the past few years.

What needs to be considered is that the tote action does a better job of picking winners, percentage wise over all races, than any one person does (ROI-wise is a different matter). The tote odds are a combination of the knowledge, ability, programs, observations, etc. of everybody betting into the pool, combined with whatever "inside money" may be bet and has an edge over the guy who has to post his picks 24 hours ahead of time, before scratches, weather, biases, etc. are known.

24% at Hollywood isn't too swift, since they're dealing with short fields.

[kev]

I didn't know that Jill and Steve made the line for CD anyways??

[raybo]

Is the 33% benchmark win% for favorites based on the morning line? I don't think so. If I'm correct, it is based on the final odds after the betting is completed. The morning line odds are simply one person's analysis, and even that analysis can be suspect, if you are considering the actual probabilities it suggests. The morning lines at different tracks are arrived at differently and may not even be intended as probabilities of the order of finish, but rather, as expected odds or even as a means of promoting wagers. To say that the track's handicapper is no good simply because of his win% being below the accepted benchmark of 33% is probably off the mark. If all track handicappers were wagering their hard earned money according to their handicapping abilities, many of those handicappers' picks would probably be much different.

[Speed Figure]

I would love to see racing without a ML.

[BillW]

well I dunno, these numbers must mean something. After all, we've established that favorites win about 33% of the time. One would think that a handicapper making an odds line should have HIS favorite win at about that rate.

Wouldnt you?

Not necessarily. One way would be to use exactly the same data as the public - which would lose money. The idea is to have a positive return regardless of the percentage hit by your line favorite.

Bill

[BillW]

24% isn't bad at all at Churchill, where the fields are large. I don't know what the percent of winning favorites is, but I doubt it's 33% over the past few years.


It's at 34% since Nov. 2002

[Steve 'StatMan']

The emphasis CD V.P. of technology Steve Fugite puts into his website handicapping is speed to get it done and up on the website as soon as possible.

My good friend Scott McMannis was tapped by then AP President Steve Sexton to replace another well known racing personality (I shall not name, you could say he was a 'good friend' too) because of complaints that the prior selector's win percentage was too low on the AP 'Value Plays'. Sexton instructed Scott to focus on a high rate of winners, regardless of price. Scott took his time, looked at his personal information (speed & trip notes, trainer data that he sells) over night after the races were drawn, selected his most likely winners, albeit sometimes chalky, and submitted his selections the next day, more than 24 hours before the races, as is standard for those of us making selections in print. Admittedly, Scott's picks at that time needed to be retyped into a Window-Friendly format in order to be placed on their website.

Scott picked 5 winners with plenty in the money from 12 selections, 42% winners in only a short time, wonderful results, double, maybe triple the prior win %. However, CD V.P. Steve Fugite, who manages CD's websites, was unhappy because he wanted the picks on the website within a few hours after the entries were drawn. He explained his opinion to Scott that he felt that the sooner the selections were on the website (in this case roughly 40-44 hours before first post), the more it would increase handle than having the picks available 24-30 hours in advance. (I can't agree argee with that assessment at all, nor could Scott, who used to teach college Economics). Fugite also had agreement in that philosopy with a key Marketing V.P.

Fugite suggested Scott do what he (Steve Fugite) does for his own selections - rather than examine all the races before selecting which ones to use, just decide on the 2-3 races you're going to do, and make selections and comments from there.

Scott, having his own handicapping services and therefore a reputation to keep up, did not want to artifically pick races that would force him to pick less likely winners from contentious races, which would cause a much lower win percentage, and therefore make him, and his products, look bad, and thus hurting his business. Nor did he want to speed up, and again have lower percentage results, and similar concequences for his business. Since Scott had no need for the money from this part-time job, unlike many who are looking for extra work, he declined to change his methods, and Fugite replaced him on the AP website with himself. Fugite then proceeded to have a much lower win % afterwards (I'm recalling 18% to 22 at the most).

I've looked at Fugite's win % over the last few years, and is normally well under 25% all the time, at AP and elsewhere. In the meets that I pick the same tracks as he does, I always compare my win % (for the whole card) vs his win % for his selected races. I've always had a higher win % than his, and when I'm only 1 to 3 points higher than his, I get mad at myself, even though if I had a chance to cherry pick the races, my win % should always be much higher.

Given the "get it up and out there" philosophy, (even 18 hours before I have to have my own picks in for a printed selection sheet that is sold the next day!), I would not put much stock in his selections.

I have never tracked his results from an ROI standpoint, although it is rare for anyone to show flat bet profits for a whole meet of time betting advance selections without using some criteria on price or likehood. Yes, that includes my own selections. But usually selection sheet style handicapping focuses on more likely winners, to pick as many winners for the fans when the are attending as possible. Virtually no fan bets every top selection in every race on every card.

Perhaps Steve Fugite is a nice guy. He certainly must be very good with technology to be in his position - their website works very well. I hope if I ever need part time work he won't hold this against me - I'm not wanting to make trouble or burn potential bridges. But without ROI information that would justify the low win percentage, and given the earlier discussion in this thread, I thought I should shed some light on some of the factors that go into making public selections, that often don't have anything to do with picking a winner.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Ok, have to add a couple things before going to bed. If I don't, I won't be able to sleep well.

Scott read the post, and wanted to let me know (and so I'm passing on) that he chose to discontinue making selections rather than change his process. so the he chose to quit. Although I frankly remember at that time (2002) that if he did want to continue making selections for them, not making the speed changes they wanted was not an option.

Other notes:

Donna Brothers also made selections for the Spring and Fall CD meets, and she did well. I believe she had 30-31% winners during the spring meet for all the races. Actually outdid me by 1% that meet.

On the AP site for 2004, Ron Uchman picked 30% winners, which I thought was very good, esp. for that meet. He had a higher win% for that meet than all of the local newspaper handicappers, yes, even besting Scott (who selected for the Chicago Sun-Times that meet, the story has a happy ending) by about 3-3.5%, and myself by 4%. The other paper cappers were in the 22-25% range. I do not know the results of the other selections sheets that were available. Normally I've averaged 29-30% on most of the tracks and circuits I cover. In 2004 I selected 1,448 race cards last year across the country, 14,031 races, 4,145 winners (29.54%) 9,031 in the money (64.36%). But that last AP meet was a rough one for most of us.

So my kudos to Donna and Ron. Hope that sheds some better light on some of the other handicappers and their website, their selections and their success rates. And the very good overall CDSN websites.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Thaanks for the info- sounds like the pricemakers in that tracks want to get some kind of picks down and do the best they can.

[andicap]

Steve,
maybe you've said this in the past, but who do you make selections for?

I know with some public handicappers there might be subsets where they are profitiable -- specialties if you will. The best gig is writing the Closer Look section for the DRF where you don't have to go out on a limb and actually choose a horse, just write a line or two of insight.

Virtually every horse (except the rank outsiders, the ones who actually pay anything) are "worth a look." Or "Don't ignore."

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm a nom-de-plume handicapper for Illinois Sports News, a.k.a. The Green Sheet, based for decades in Chicago, with various editions in IL, IN, KY & FLA. To offer an alternative product, I'm the regular handicapper for the Clocker Riley's Turf Analysis, a single page selection and comment sheet offered on track at AP & CD. (It's another nom-de-plume the company uses, we're not out there clocking horses).

We've grown our Illinois Green Sheet product from the tradional 4 page sheet (1 long sheet folded) to an 8 page day-track edition, and lately a 12 page day track edition for Saturdays. I regularly make the Chicago Version's "Kay Wells" selections and comments, or the "Finger" selections (no comments) for the NYRA tracks, FG daily, most days MNR, DED/EVD, Often Ohio, and as needed SUF, PIM & LRL, and a few others and special events. Everything from $2500 claimers at PM to the Dubai World Cup Card. Even QH's, Arabians & Jumpers when the tracks add a few to their cards. I handled LS during their BC meet and BC Day with comments. I work from my home, near AP.

Others make the "Kay Wells" and/or "Finger" or "Whitey" selections for AP/HAW, IN, KY & FLA.

I tend not to talk about it here too often since the vast majority on the site understandably prefer to do their own handicapping and selecting, and I'm not out here suggesting anyone change.

One of these days, hopefully I'll get to look for those profitable subsets within my own selections. Lots of time spent picking all the cards before Noon for the public, plus following AP & HAW, my local track. I don't have much of a life outside of handicapping and going to the track the last 5 years I've been working for them. Glad to get to chat with all of you on the Forum - it's been sort of a substitute social life for the last couple of years.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I forgot to note, the 'Green Sheet' selections are in a 'Graded Handicap' format - sorting the field in the our preference to win order, and in the case of the feature tracks, commentary on each horse.

[The Hawk]

All of this begs a question: Does anyone pay attention to any public handicappers any more? It seems to be that the people left playing this game are people who have their own opinion and have no interest in what public handicappers like. Obviously, public 'cappers may interest day-trippers at those tracks with a high percentage of tourists, and perhaps a group trip on a weekend will attract a few people who have an interest in what the local newspaper handicapper likes, etc. But, obviously, the days of touts of any kind are largely over, which is why the other threat about "Touts" is interesting, as that industry is a shell of what it was, at least in terms of "picks", not in terms of handicapping information.

What the game seems to have become is the same X number of us playing against each other on a given day (50,000? 100,000?). What percentage of you guys has any interest in what a public 'capper picks? Just curious what you think.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I like to get an idea what odds the pros rate all the entries; I also like to read any comments about the entries.
A couple of things I do that public handicappers cannot do is know the current track surface or adjust for scratches.
I actually enjoy seeing a fair amount of my horses scratched- I always think my horse is ready but needs a better post or to avoid the current favorite and they often do well next out, even if they were scratched for minor physical reasons.

[raybo]

From The Hawk: "What the game seems to have become is the same X number of us playing against each other on a given day (50,000? 100,000?). What percentage of you guys has any interest in what a public 'capper picks? Just curious what you think."

Can't speak for the others here but I haven't seen, read, or heard anything a "public" handicapper has had to say in years. I just don't care what their opinions are. I personally have never known one that was much good anyway. I'm sure there are good ones out there, but not at any of the tracks I've followed or in any of the newspapers I've ever read. I have never put any faith in the tip sheets either. The morning line means nothing to me, as far as what horses might actually do. I look at it, of course, to get an idea of who the public might be betting on and why, but that's about it. I have always figured that the people who do that stuff are doing it for the "$2 shooter" who doesn't have a clue, not for those of us who can actually read a racing form and especially between the lines. I have enough faith in my own skills. Just my opinion.

[pandy]

As a professional tout who sells his picks to the public, I can shed some light on this. I've been selling thoroughbred picks on a tip sheet, phone/web, etc., since 1981. Before that my picks appeared in Sports Eye from 1976 through 1981. I also give out free Meadowlands harness picks at www.ustrotting.com Anyway, my take is, most people who buy tip sheets or selections in general, want as many top winners as possible, and they want listed (boxed) exactas. They want to go to the track, bet every race, and hit 5 or 6 tickets. If they break even or win a few bucks, they're happy. There are some players who want a public tout to give them one or two solid plays--in other words, someone who is good at Best Bets. As for win percentage, as odd as this sounds, a handicapper with a lower win percentage usually has a better chance of producing a flat bet profit. Why? Because the lower percentage touts tend to pick more longshots. I pick between 30 and 35% winners depending on the meet and time of year (NY and So.Cal). But, if I only put longshots on top, my percentage would drop to around 20%, and my R.O.I. would go up. However, most of my customers would completely ignore the profit and complain about the low win percentage. Thus the nature of the players, the want winners! Here's an example: Years ago on my "Pandy's Picks" tip sheet, I offered a 'BEST COLD EXOTIC PLAY" of the day. This won about 9% of the time and was normally a cold double or exacta. The year end profit was huge, generally between 75 and 100% profit, an R.O.I. of 1.75 to 2.00. When I asked some of my customers what they thought of the cold exotic section of the sheet, not one person had a positive comment on it. The general reaction was, "it hardly ever hits," or "you had 15 straight losers," or "I prefer your Best Bet, you hit 5 out of 7 last week." Now on my selection service I list 3 or 4 picks each race, and I mark some of them as LS, or Live Longshots. So far this year these live longshots are hitting at 20% and have a profit. The live longshots are the most profitable portion of my picks, yet the win percentage is lowest. So don't judge someone on win percentage (although most people do just that, they want winners!).

[pandy]

There are some very good public handicappers. Tip sheet handicappers tend to be better than newspaper handicappers, in my opinion. For example, Clocker Lawton has been the leading tip sheet in New York for decades. Another good sheet in New York is The Wizard. If you bought either one of these sheets everyday and compared their picks to the picks in the Daily News, NY Post, or Newsday, you'll find that Lawton and Wizard are more consistent and pick more longshots. They have to, because no one would buy their sheet if they didn't (when you can get a newspaper much cheaper). The newspaper touts don't have any pressure. Often it's just someone who works at the paper who also does picks. If their picks stink, they don't lose their job because of it. Personally, even though I sell my picks, I like to look at other picks. I love Dave Litfin's picks in the Racing Form, because he gives important comments that can say you time. For instance, he may say that a horse raced against the bias and "galloped out strongly" after the finish. Wow, that's not in the pps! Brad Free also has insightful comments. Last week he picked against a big favorite and said that the horse came out of a "negative key race" which already produced 3 beaten favorites. Well, the horse ran 2nd, and was the 4th horse to come out of this quick sprint to lose as the favorite. I had the exacta cold in the race, but Free's insightful comments helped me make my final selections. Gotta give credit where credit is due!

[kev]

Good question, I don't look at their picks to bet on them, sometimes I might look to see how the public might go. One year that comes to mind that this didnt happen was last derby. I loved Smarty Jones and I though to look threw their picks (DRF) to see if they were all over him, out of 18 people picking, only one like SJ on top(Jay Hovdey) and 2 had him for 2nd, I was thinking oh maybe I will get some odds on him, which 4-1 was still ok for me. The overall consensus for the derby was Tapit-The Cliff's E.-Read the Footnotes-Master David.

[alysheba88]

I cant believe people look at hit rates alone to make judgements about someones handicapping.

Its about making money.

My hit rate on win bets this year has been pretty steady 20-22%. That alone tells you nothing though. Its the positive ROI I am interested in and tracking.

As Pandy said, most players just want "winners" and do not care about profit.

[kev]

Let me ask you this A88, What are they there to do?? Pick winners to make money ( picking bombs) are they there to give us the best outcome of a race, no matter what the odds are??? Take the derby last year ( I know it's one race) did they not pick SJ cause of odds or they didnt like him?? Like someone said early, people who buys these are wanting winners and don't care about odds to much.

[alysheba88]

Hey if people want to buy crack, sell em crack.

[andicap]

In the old days when Jack Wilson was Trackman at DRF (right, the chart-caller?), there was an angle that some people swore by in NY (and possibly other venues where there was a reliable Trackman).

If the Trackman had a pick for 2nd or 3rd that no one would else had in the money, the horse was supposedly a live longshot. The thinking was that since Trackman watched all the races very carefully as the chart-caller he often saw things that others didn't. Since his job was to pick winners, however, he would rarely put these horses on top.

Anyone else heard of this angle?

[Doug]

In the old days when Jack Wilson was Trackman at DRF (right, the chart-caller?), there was an angle that some people swore by in NY (and possibly other venues where there was a reliable Trackman).

If the Trackman had a pick for 2nd or 3rd that no one would else had in the money, the horse was supposedly a live longshot. The thinking was that since Trackman watched all the races very carefully as the chart-caller he often saw things that others didn't. Since his job was to pick winners, however, he would rarely put these horses on top.

Anyone else heard of this angle?

Tom Worth referred to this type of play as a DIRTY SHIRT. Although the play was not restricted to any one handicapping.

the DRF handicappers hit some pretty good bombs here and there just like the rest of us. Sdome research on this idea would be very interesting in my opinion. The bombs I mentioned are not just the 2nd and 3rd picks but also selected on top. As long as nobody else has picked them anywhere.


Doug

[raybo]

There are probably many "angles" that will produce profit, if well thought out and given the proper amount of patience. I'm sure if someone took the time to study the subject there could be a profitable angle made of betting the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th favorite, etc., under certain circumstances. Making a profit in this game is highly personalized. By that, I mean, there are many ways to succeed, depending on the player and his strengths and preferences, and in a large degree, on his personality and character traits. Of course, it helps to have a little intelligence and common sense. Two examples have been given already concerning betting on winners: betting for consistent, meager profits and betting for inconsistent, high profits. Both will work, depending on the player, his particular set of methods and rules, intelligence and common sense, and his personality and character. It really boils down to one thing. You must know, pretty closely, how often you hit and how much your average payout is. If you do the math and it doesn't produce a profit then you better try something else.

As previously stated, public handicappers are many and varied. If you find one or more that you can figure an angle on that will produce a profit, then good for you. Let them do the work of analyzing the data for you, and you just sit back and wait for the right situation to occur.

Some, if not most of us here, get as much kick out of figuring it out as getting the hit.

[Lasix1]

No, they don't mean anything by themselves. I could pick 40% winners and lose, and I could pick 10% winners and win. Maybe Steve Fugitte is picking 20% winners at average odds of 5-1. That would be spectacular. Maybe Jill Byrne is picking 24% winners at average odds of 7-2. I'll leave it to you to determine if that is good or not. The point is, its all in the price.
Truer words were never spoken.

The best handicapper I've ever known is Mark Cramer who is also a friend of mine. He related a story once that is very revealing about House Handicappers. Mark said he was once hired by a paper to be one. He had the lowest win % of the handicappers they hired, but by far the highest ROI. In fact, many of the others had a negative ROI even though they had a much higher win percentage. Mark said the paper's editors got on his case about his low ROI. They said their readers didn't give a rat's rear about the ROI, all they wanted was the bragging rights that came from picking winners. He gave up after one season in disgust.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I gave up after 3 weeks. The editor wanted the winner of the 2003 KY Derby, not 7 of 12 1st choice pick and a good ROI. He wanted the right pick in the big races. I understand that.
I wonder if the people who buy picks even track their own ROI.
The only blanket policy I have is to find enough value regardless of odds and win % to pick about 40%+ better than the average gambler.
At BM and GGF, I like to beat the 3/5 odds favorites- the are often overworked.

[Lasix1]

I wonder if the people who buy picks even track their own ROI.
Not a chance. And it's a good thing too. If they did, handicappers like you who do it right would find it even tougher.