Software Cappers: PP or No PP

[GR1@HTR]

Software Junkies out there. Do you all look at a Past Performance when you cap using your favorite software of choice? Or just use the software and let it fly?

[joeyspicks]

I now use the pp's in the software. For a long while I bought PP's and still handicapped by hand. It took me awhile to give it up. I still use the pp's in the software alot and still print them out a majority of the time. I can see a time when I will stop the printing out (its almost like a security blanket I cant give up:lol: :lol: ). For me a big part of software handicapping is choosing the correct paceline and I often find myself changing it. As part of your survey I wonder how many guys just use the programs paceline selection and who does it manually and why? How do your results compare ? Hope you dont mind me asking these questions as part of your survey......but I think it would be interesting to hear from some of the better handicappers on their procedures in this area.

[46zilzal]

paceline tip: ALWAYS put in a second line to see if the chosen one is not sample error. Oft get their best which they will rarely repeat.

[ryesteve]

I'll still refer to the pp's because it gives me a better frame of reference. Also, I like to try to get an idea how the software is doing what it's doing. It might also highlight some bugs. For example, I was trying out the demo of a piece of software, and looking at the PPs for a particular horse, I couldn't figure out why the software was using a particular paceline that was run under identical conditions to a much more recent race, which the software was bypassing. It turns out that in the comment field of the recent race, it said, "Increased Margin"... the software parsed this comment, found the string "eased" and bypassed the race. Stuff like this is why relying solely on software output scares me.

[Nickle]

I just use services like flashnet and drf quick sheets that just give you some numbers to use

I am lazy now

[Jeff P]

It's been years since I stopped looking at traditional past performances. As soon as I stopped using them I began noticing an immediate improvement in my bottom line.

Mine is a unique case. I had used traditional PPs for over 20 years. Sometimes the truth hurts. In my case, the truth is this: Although I was a competent handicapper capable of identifying overlays, I also had a discipline problem. I was making "action" bets in too many races - races I hadn't planned on playing when I left home for the track or otb. My action bets were taking too big of a chunk out of the profits that my overlay winners were producing. This was a really hard habit for me to break and I struggled with it for a long time. Years, in fact.

Back in the day I might show up at a track or otb with an average of three potential overlay plays. They would be scattered throughout the day's card. While waiting for my races to come up there would be nothing to do except look at PPs. For whatever reason whenever I look at PPs I begin to form an opinion. I think I'm just wired that way. It's a natural progression to want to back that opinion at the windows, even in a small way. At first it was just $2.00 here and $5.00 there. Very early on, my action bets were small and fun. They kept me entertained while I waited for my real plays to come along. Somehow over time my action bets grew to the point to where some days I was just completely out of control.

I knew deep down that if I ever wanted to get serious about playing horses and take my game to the next level I was going to have to do something about my action bets. Specifically, I was going to have to find a way to stop making them.

I began working on home grown software that would not just identify my prime potential overlays but spit them out onto a report I could take with me to the track. No other information. Just one report with my prime plays on it and nothing else. This home grown program eventually evolved into JCapper's Text Report. Once I saw that my prime plays were all listed on a single report I was able to finally make the leap and realize that I no longer had the need for traditional past performances.

Once I stopped looking at traditional PPs the temptation to make action bets stopped too.

The results to my bottom line have been dramatic. Doing away with traditional PPs has completely turned the game around for me.

-jp

.

[keilan]

I know we all do things differently but I can't imagine picking one paceline, handicap and then wager. That gives if the shakes just thinking about it, the margin of error is mind boggling. :eek:

Jeff -- the first part of your post is erringly familiar.

[joeyspicks]

thanks Jeff,

The first part of your explanation is like Keilan said is "erringly familiar". In fact its why I was a "net" losing player for many, many, years.

I feel more comfortable with the bets I actually place checking the paceline selection of the software and comparing it to my paceline selection. My discipline has actually grown with the knowledge that I can produce a regular profit with the procedures I now use. I find I now spend an amazing amount of time just checking out races I never really intend on playing....and its ok. Maybe its the newness of using software but I like checking different pacelines and seeing how it changes the pace scenerio, etc. You can learn a lot and you can see just how many different horses can win a race under changing circumstances.

[ratpack]

I use All in One and I do have to refer to the PP for certain races Layoff, FTS, they need to be available for referance.

[Zaf]

90% of the time I just look at CJ's figs and the FV Screen on Equisim.

On occasion I will buy the print version of the DRF in addition to the above.

ZAFONIC

[nomadpat]

I've found that no matter what software I'm using, I need to see some form of PPs as well. The software output represents the numbers/science side if you will, yet the creative side and seeing how the numbers look in the lines needs to be used as well. I've found I do poorly when I neglect one side.
In regards to the action bets part, I found they occurred more when I hadn't looked at the day's cards and was just winging it. When I looked things over for a period of time, it is easier to maintain control because you've already had an idea of what bets should/should not be made.

[BIG RED]

I've found that no matter what software I'm using, I need to see some form of PPs as well. The software output represents the numbers/science side if you will, yet the creative side and seeing how the numbers look in the lines needs to be used as well. I've found I do poorly when I neglect one side.
In regards to the action bets part, I found they occurred more when I hadn't looked at the day's cards and was just winging it. When I looked things over for a period of time, it is easier to maintain control because you've already had an idea of what bets should/should not be made.

I agree. I call it the input of the human factor.

[Hosshead]

I've found that no matter what software I'm using, I need to see some form of PPs as well. The software output represents the numbers/science side if you will, yet the creative side and seeing how the numbers look in the lines needs to be used as well. .

I agree. If you have that creative talent, the PP's Do Form a PICTURE.
A picture drawn from thousands of PP's seen in the past, and stored somewhere in the back of your mind.

I particullarly find that "Class Changes" (that the horse has gone thru) can be seen better as a picture, in the past performances. Instead of looking at sw class ability ratings etc., you can see the race type/finish, and how the horse has been spotted over his career.
But this all takes time, and if your doing many tracks across the country, it becomes too time consuming to look at all the pp's, unless you can narrow it down to just a few "possible plays" with the software, then get the "Go For Launch" thru the PP's.

[bettheoverlay]

I think PPs are like works of art. They are beautiful things I have been addicted to for 30 years.

Its no fun without them (I've tried), and I'm in it mostly for the fun.

And being reared on Ainslie's books, I can't get past the notion that current condition trumps all, no matter what internal fraction a horse ran 8 weeks ago.

[NoDayJob]

It turns out that in the comment field of the recent race, it said, "Increased Margin"... the software parsed this comment, found the string "eased" and bypassed the race. Stuff like this is why relying solely on software output scares me.

:lol: 1691919161515181989202025 amateurish programming, for sure. :lol:

NDJ

[bobhilo]

Tonight at a horse won at 12/1, a maiden route....EVD

it had one race at 6F and PPs showing blanks or dnf, eased....but the trainer win % was 33%
so that ...could not be seen in software....so looking at PPs can help, where software may miss....

Sartin's writings talk about looking at the race and figuring what factor picks up the winner....

PPs showed a little

[ryesteve]

so looking at PPs can help, where software may miss....

All depends on the type software... true, something that's running line based would've had nothing on this horse. But something that's db and/or angle-based could've picked up on things such as you said, the trainer's win rate, and other positive signs such as that the horse was bet fairly well in its debut, had a comment line excuse, and a positive jockey switch.

[Nickle]

I still like the flashnet cards by trackmaster as there top horse in each category (speed, pace, class, power) are pretty accurate.

[Vegas711]

I find that I do much better when I ignore the PP's and just focus on the ratings. If i look at more than 2 columns of information everything gets more fuzzy.Then again my programs do not require picking a paceline, I have ratings for all pacelines.

[mainardi]

I probably went 10 years without looking at the PPs -- I became dependent on my software to point me in the right direction -- and about a year ago I figured out what a dolt I was!!!

What I've discovered is that even if the software points you towards a certain horse (or more than one), you need to perform a "sanity" check by looking at the entire "form" for a race. Case in point: last weekend, my software spit out a horse, and when I went to validate it, the horse looked like he was from another planet. Even though the numbers put him on top, it was because he was the "best" of a bad lot. It was an easy decision to skip the race and watch him finish up the track.

The difference between then and now is that I now look at the form to validate my software's decision, instead of using it to do the grunt work. ;)