Greatness At The Windows

[BMeadow]

Without getting into name-calling or anybody’s specific claims either on this forum or any other--and I won't get into personal debates with anyone--let’s do a little math on the type of claims that I frequently see both on the Internet and in sales letters and catalogs.

Let's say, for instance, that I claim that my system hits 50% winners playing two horses in a race, and every winner pays 2-1 or higher. Math time on this claim:

Out of every 1000 races, on average 292 are won by horses that go off at odds below 2-1. Therefore, anyone who says he plays just about every race but never bets horses below 2-1 must lose at least this number.

To reach 50% overall wins betting two horses per race, our nothing-below-2-1 player must therefore hit 70.6% of the remaining races. Now, here are the typical win percentages of horses at certain odds:
2-1 25.7
5-2 22.4
3-1 19.3
7-2 17.4
4-1 15.7
9-2 14.5
5-1 12.6
This list continues in a straight line. Horses at 10-1, for instance, win 7.1% of their starts. This means that unless our guy is betting 2-1 and 5-2 shots as his two horses, he is pulling off a spectacular handicapping feat by getting 50% winners without using horses under 2-1. The public at large, betting a pair of 7-2 and 4-1 shots, for instance, wins only 33.1%. To be able to increase this to 50% is, well, pretty amazing, unless you’re talking about a short series of bets.

Few public handicappers (whose pre-race predictions are trackable) can claim to hit much more than 30% wins for the year, even those who pick nothing but favorites. Now if we exclude all those winning favorites, what happens to their win percentage? Hint: It doesn’t go up.

How about this one: "You can make $1,000 a week and up with $20 bets." Even if you had a highly unlikely 20% ROI, you'd have to make 250 bets per week with this advantage to be able to make $1,000 a week. Likely? Hardly.

And speaking of ROI, whenever I have written that most pros would kill for a 10% ROI (I’m not talking about a zillion-dollar pick 6 hit which throws everything out of whack), I receive e-mails from players who tell me their ROI is 40% or 50% or 60% or whatever. Sometimes they tell me they’re playing their own particular method at a dozen tracks a day and I must be some kind of idiot for advising people to be skeptical of claims just because my own pathetic handicapping skill comes nowhere close to this.

At Meadow’s Racing Monthly, we’ve tested dozens of commercial systems from a variety of sources, all of which come with sales letters attesting to their alleged prowess. When we’ve run them through a database, not a single one has ever come close to matching the claims.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that some individual handicapper might not be coming up with spectacular results with his own computer printouts or system or whatever. But maintaining a 40% ROI playing hundreds of races a week, or maybe hitting 40% winners betting every race at every track? Sounds fishy. Real fishy.

As far as potential profit, if I’m making a 30% ROI by betting 200 races a week and playing 50 weeks a year, even if I bet a measly $200 per race, I’d make $600,000 a year at the track. But why bet only $200? It’s easy for even the lamest deadbeat these days to accrue $25,000 in credit-card advance money. Now let’s say our hero bets only 4% of his capital per race (a safe amount with such a huge edge), or $1,000--spreading it around if necessary to avoid affecting his win price by using his key horses in exactas, trifectas, daily doubles, etc., or maybe even moving some of it through an offshore non-parimutuel book.

So, given 200 bets per week, our guy should make $3 million per year. Not including rebates. After five years, he’s got $15 million in his pocket (actually, probably a great deal more, since he’s probably upped his betting level by then).

Just because I can’t do something, or I don’t know of anybody who’s done it, doesn’t mean that somebody somewhere can’t do it. After all, hardly anybody gets to play in the World Series or gets to conduct the New York Philharmonic, either. Sometimes extraordinary people can do extraordinary things.

Still, in all walks of life, some people lie (or at the very least exaggerate), and the reasons vary greatly. When I was doing magazine writing, sometimes people I’d interview would look me in the eye and recite the most incredible stories, full of details--only when I checked them out they didn’t prove true. It’s not always just about money (I have this product which makes me a pile of money, and you too can make a pile of money if you buy it from me). Sometimes people pad a resume to qualify for a job. Sometimes they claim a storied military history to make themselves seem more important. Sometimes...aw, just watch any episode of Judge Judy.

Lying has long been endemic in the horse-handicapping business, both by salesman (buy my system and you can retire!) and by horseplayers (no, sweetheart, I actually won $800 today!). After all, many of us believe that there’s easy money to be made out there. The easier, the better.

If I make some claim which seems counter to common sense, or mathematical likelihood, you should have the right to demand proof of what I say. Now I could say that what I have is so fabulous that it’s proprietary, or I feel comfortable betting only $20 a race, or whatever, but it seems that somewhere along the line, I should have to put up or shut up.

For some reason, some players mistakenly believe that I think "Nobody can win at the track," which is ridiculous. Sure, some players can and do win at the track. And some win more often than others, or more money than others. This is still a game of skill and talent, as well as luck.

But,in general, I would say to take most claims of fantastic handicapping and ROI prowess as just that--fantasies.

[hdcper]

Barry,

Like always, I totally agree with your comments and believe that mathematics tends to prove the likelihood of many handicappers claims to be false(or at least somewhat exaggerated).

However, I do have a question regarding the system that claims 50% winners and every horse paying 2/1 or better. What if we exclude or pass all races with any horse(s) below 2/1? This way we only have to win 50 out of 100 races to meet our criteria and have eliminated the 292 races won by horses below 2/1.

Realize I still believe reaching this success rate is highly unlikely, but wondered if you could exam races meeting this criteria and provide win percentages of horses at various odds.

Thanks for stepping up to the plate on others so called claiming,

Hdcper

[Rick]

You can get any ROI you want if you play few enough races. I have a spot play that's been getting over 30% ROI for the last 20 years, but it only gets 2 plays a week. I'd surely become rich if only I had an infinite lifetime.

The thing I don't understand is why people get so angry when you ask them for proof. Experts in other fields generally have to provide some evidence that what they're saying is true and don't get angry when you ask for it. But we're "calling them a liar" if we ask for that from self-proclaimed horse racing experts.

I had one guy call me "simple minded" because I asked him what the results for his method were using a fixed set of rules. I just wanted to see if his ideas had any promise by evaluating something that is testable. So now we get back to the "if you'd only used the right pace line you would have won" and "you can't define the rules because it requires judgement" kinds of arguments. Yeah, right. If I was a handicapping savant, I wouldn't need any method whatsoever. All I'd need to do is look at the past performances and the solution would pop into my mind. I'm not saying those types don't exist but it does me absolutely no good to know how easy it is for someone else to do something that he can't teach me.

[smf]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick
[B]
The thing I don't understand is why people get so angry when you ask them for proof. Experts in other fields generally have to provide some evidence that what they're saying is true and don't get angry when you ask for it. But we're "calling them a liar" if we ask for that from self-proclaimed horse racing experts.



Rick, you sure are all over the road tonight.

If you are referring to me, you're mistaken. I am calmly (and with a big ol smile) calling alyingthief and freeneasy on an offer that was freely made. Not sure how you can detect any "anger" from me. If they want to come to Dallas, I'll prove what I posted. If they don't wanna come, that's cool too.

Actually, the only "attitude" I detect lately is from those that are tossing the "this doesn't compute in my world" pitch. They're entitled to their opinions, imo. And if they want to throw down offers of cold cash to someone that can back claims up, I'll take 'em up on it.

[Rick]

smf,

I wasn't thinking of you when I said that. The statement isn't generally true of people posting here, but there have been a few exceptions. I think most of them are gone now. Most handicapping authors fall into that category though (but not you either, Dick).

I remember asking one guy about a method with ambiguous rules that he'd published a massive database study on. He angrily replied that this "ain't rocket science you know". Well, jeez, I'm sorry for asking but every database query I've ever done had specific rules so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what they were. Now, after that I don't know whether the guy is just always grumpy or fabricated the entire study.

Another guy told me I was "simple minded" for asking if he'd tested his method with any fixed rules like using the last race or last race at the distance, etc. He had an untested theory that sounded pretty good but was offended that I asked him if he had any data to support it.

Actually as you said, come to think of it, the "this doesn't compute in my world" types seem to be the angrier group on this board.

[smf]

Rick,

Cool... I don't understand the anger over this stuff either. What Schmidt says he does, I couldn't. I used to think that players that used s/w programs were full of bull until I saw an HTR guy at LS make some major cash during the past year. Also met a guy that rolls his own and is kicking ass also.

I just don't understand all the negative reviews on products and services that the "reviewer(s)" know very little of.

[andicap]

SMF,
the programs are kind of irrelevant in a way. People like Dick and GR1 (and others here) would find a way to win at the track even without the programs they use. It just saves them a ton of time and effort.

I'm not putting myself in that category, but several times when I went to the track I accidentally left all my printouts at home. All I had was the track program (with one pace number) and the DRF with the Beyers (which I like a lot). I have won almost every time. That was because I was forced to really handicap, get down and dirty into the Form and I demanded value.

So why not do that all the time? Mostly lack of time, but also a bit of laziness.

[ranchwest]

I typically download 6 to 12 cards per day. I download, computer analyze and print the selections in less than 30 minutes (maybe much less, haven't really timed it). I usually come out with about 1 play per two cards.

I guess it would be possible to do that by hand, but I'm glad I don't have to go through that laborious task. Why would I?

[boxcar]

andicap wrote:

>>
the programs are kind of irrelevant in a way. People like Dick and GR1 (and others here) would find a way to win at the track even without the programs they use. It just saves them a ton of time and effort.
>>

Very well put. You nailed down solidly what programs are really all about.

Boxcar

[David McKenzie]

//If they want to come to Dallas, I'll prove what I posted. //

Smf, if you don't mind, would you please be so kind as to share HOW you go about your track business?

Are you strictly a win better? Do you spot play a few races at one track? What do you use for aids?

Very few beat this game on a regular basis. If you're doing it professionally, then you must be doing something right.

Dick and Karl were kind enough to tell us how they do it. How do you do it?

I know a few people (note the judicious use of *few*) that do rather well using the Sheets full time.

A friend of mine in Vegas' makes a nice living using only The Daily Racing Form and result charts he cuts out by hand. He handicaps every race at every track, but makes only one or two bets a week. He bets BIG (usually with a bookmaker at set odds) and bets one horse to win, unless it's going off at 8-1 or more. In that case he bets to place. He never bets the favorite and always gets 7/2 or more. He owns a beautiful home in the mountains purchased with race track winnings and he enjoys his life.

He's also got ice water in his veins and has somehow managed to remove all emotion from his wagering. I remember him going through a six month losing streak and still coming out with a resounding profit at year's end. Personally, I couldn't endure that kind of mental anguish, but that's probably true for most of us. Heck, I get upset losing three consecutive races.

I'm wondering if there are as many different ways to win at this game professionally as there are venues to lose at the dilettante's level?

~~~

[Rick]

smf,

Right on. Using Dick's case as an example though, Dave S is able to verify the validity of the approach using a fixed set of rules. It's not important that he can't do as well without using judgement on top of that. But if someone said they could start out with an approach that we know loses about the track take using fixed rules and claims that adding their judgement puts them in the large positive ROI territory, well I just don't think I'd believe that.

My subjective handicapping ability consists of a large bag of tricks I've developed over the years that individually lose less than average combined with some others that I know lose more than average. So, I can look over the + and - ROI factors and find a horse that's at least break even in just about every race. That's what I'll do if I'm just playing for fun with a Racing Form. So, of course, I do believe that good judgement can make a difference, just probably not enough to turn a really bad method into a good one.

[Sekrah]

I regularly and consistantly turn very large profit off of trifectas, and trifectas alone.. I could probably make just as much profit by using win bets on my key horses, but this is just the way I feel comfortable with, as long as I'm winning, I'm not going to tinker with my mental game.

I only use the poor man's OTW simulcast program (i.e. basically DRF without Beyers & trainer angles.) to do it with. You don't have to believe me, that's fine, I'm secure with it. Speed ratings are worth a blade of grass to me.

I use to think all these high ROI's people were claiming were bull$hit as well, until my extensive studying on pace and endurance exertion finally began reaping benefits. I imagine I could implement my ideas into some sort of software that spits out a number for me that makes it simpler and quicker, but I also think I would miss out on other handicapping tidbits tha others have pointed out.

I'm sure everybody in the 1% has their own methods.. whatever works for them.

[Rick]

Sekrah,

What info is available in your programs, and what do you think is significant?

[Sekrah]

it has basically everything DRF has except beyers and trainer angle stats (like 30-60 rest percentages, etc..).

I think Equibase puts it out..

The only numbers of relevance to me are each fractional time, the lengths behind at each call, and the trip comments.

Equibase has there own speed ratings that I use SOMETIMES to get a feel of how much faster/slower another track was when comparing horses.. but the final speed ratings are of very little relevance when it comes to my selections.

[Derek2U]

About what per cent of races have favorites that go off at less
than 2:1? Now, since my play is at ONLY New York tracks,
I can only relate this fact: In EVERY race I make a non-math
judgment that goes like this: "I feel this favorite will NOT win
this race" or "I feel this favorite is well-deserved." Or, "NOT SURE"
When I say "Will NOT win", I prove correct 91% of the time.
I NEVER bet if I'm "NOT SURE" and I NEVER bet Against the Fav
if I think its "Well-Meant" --- I either Bet on the Fav or Not At All.
So I only bet Against the Fav when I say it "Will NOT Win."
Just for the record, I note that opinion on my Form/Printout &
I will often spend much time on just That Judgment.
Any comments, please?

[so.cal.fan]

Derek writes:
" I either Bet on the Fav or Not At All. "
I think the favorite is the "key" to any bet you are going to make.
I know a man, who is a very good player/winner. He bets rolling pick threes for the most part.
This is his strategy. If he feels a favorite is a likely winner...he singles it. If he has to use other horses in a spread.....he leaves the favorite off the ticket. Simple.

[smf]

David McKenzie,

I've bored everyone w/ my methods before so here's the short version.

I play mostly claimed horses now. The book Inside The Claiming Game is a great read and actually makes business sense from a handicapper's view. I employ the 3 charts/ excercises in the book (claimed-from chart, daily claims chart, and individual claim information) and add a few things of my own, such as I cut and paste all the winner's pp's in a binder filed alphabetically by trainer. (Dave Litfin goes into detail about this in his books)

I am currently playing 4 tracks, 3 more than I would like. If I had a year-round circuit to play locally like so cal fan, karlscorner and crackers has, I'd stick to one track/ circuit. I tape and review all the races for those 4 tracks (wo, fe, cd, ls), except Lone Star, which I don't bet much of any more. I rely on replays a good bit and look for biases and trips. Right now, most of my bets are on WO, or FE.

I also play turf for 3-4 yo's in MSW, NIX races at FG. A lot goes into what I do, but Helms book was a good start, then Litfin's 2nd book (chapter, "spring") will walk thru a lot of good info on turf play for younger horses that have just grown into their breeding (so to speak). Betting some of the well bred 2yos on turf is a risky prop. They are usually later to mature than the speed-influenced types, and you can get some decent prices beginning mid-February or so when they begin to develop. I definitely need tapes of turf races to make a profit. When TRN went belly up, I missed out on FG turf betting last season for the most part, unfortunately.

Toss in a key race horse here and there, and that's my gig.

If you're in Dallas sometime give me a heads up if you want and we can meet at LS.

Good luck.

(p.s..I bet mostly win or win/ place wagers and about one pick4 maybe 4-5 pick 3's per week....Only bet tri's for turfers.

[kitts]

Barry-
Thanks for your solid info and interpretations. I knew I could rely on you. However, as is so often the case, this thread blows up into many directions with "whistling" contests and the like. I just want to add comments to the original post.

[alyingthief]

perhaps it is mr. meadow's unflinching insistence on numbers that gains him so much respect--and so much dislike. there's something unfailingly harsh about being forced to look in a mirror that exposes all your warts and strange hair, when you're feeling like fred astaire. mathematics is just such a mirror.

on the other hand, there is room for adjustment of mathematical universalities, likewise. i would like to argue that there are race groups--three year olds into four year olds only races, for instance; or the 20-25k races at SA winter--that skew the probabilities. you have to remember that much of the regularity of the odds is a commingling of thousands of races, often of dissimilar characteristics. at SA, in the winter, much of the "favorites win 33%" statistic is compounded of the MSW win-rate stat (for this time of year) of around 40% favorites...this means degraded contours for the odds structure of the remaining races--they do NOT sustain the 33% statistic. also, although odds structure does display a regularly logarithmic degradation, there is a significant kurtosis at odds around 50 to 1. this is precisely the flaw in blanket use of mathematical evidence. mathematics IS a mirror, but it CAN distort the evidence. maybe YOU DO look like fred astaire.

would mr. meadow address these observations?

and, as an aside barry, if someone told you they bet 7 races on every card, every day, at 9 to 10 tracks a day, what would your response be? here, the universal and ubiquitous 33% really does hold....because you have NOT extracted the possibly marginally profitable races from the definitely unprofitable.

[smf]

Kitts,

Ok, let's get back to Mr Meadow. Great idea.

Barry,

Apparently you wrote a review of Ed Bain's book that contained many errors, per Ed. I haven't seen your newsletter or review, just the reply by Ed.

I haven't seen any reply of any kind by you on his site (link below). Did you not do your homework on this subject, or did Ed misunderstand your review?

Thanks.


http://www.edbain.com/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3

[David McKenzie]

//If you're in Dallas sometime give me a heads up if you want and we can meet at LS.//

Thanks for the information and offer, smf.

I've got a 1/2 sister that recently moved to Canyon Lake. So, maybe I'll meet you at the track now that I've got an *excuse* to visit Texas.

Lone Star looks like a beautiful facility from what I've seen via simulcasting. Every night I've played it seems there's been a $500 exacta, not that I've hit one, mind you, but the opportunity for a nice score seems to be the rule, not the exception there.

Here's to your continued success.

~~~

[bedford35]

David Mckenzie mentions threads where Dick, Karls Korner and Smf among others might have discussed their methods in playing for a living. Can David or anyone else here direct me to those threads? I know Dick has recently in the "How Good are you" thread but I don't recall seeing anybody elses. Any help much appreciated. Thanks.

bedford35

[David McKenzie]

//Can David or anyone else here direct me to those threads?//

People go off on tangents and threads develop a life of their own.
I'm not sure where they appeared.

Our generous host allows us a SEARCH option.

The posts in question were all within the last week, two weeks at most.

Perhaps a "search by author" is the most expedient way to proceed.

~~~

[BMeadow]

to hcpr: Horses win according to their odds--a 4-1 shot in a 12-horse field wins at the exact percentage as a 4-1 shot in a 5-horse field. If you eliminate races with horses below 2-1, you're still left with the same mathematical problem--hitting 50% winners using two horses whose odds are 2-1 and up.

to smf: Re the review of Ed Bain's book, I did make a typing error (a correction box is in my upcoming July newsletter) which should have stated that Bain's method involves trainer angles with 4 wins and 30% wins. That's the only error Bain mentions. I do have a reply on his site. Bain does vigorously dispute my contention that he could make a living given the betting stats he includes in his book, but he says he made 36% ROI last year with his method, and that last year was his worst since 1994. Hey, I've never said anybody COULDN'T do this; in every field, somebody's gotta be at the high end. I do wonder why he bets only $200 per race given this huge ROI, though; even though Bain says in his book that he feels uncomfortable betting more than this, I'm still scratching my head.

to alyingthief: Re commingling of the favorites stat, $20K claimers have more closely matched fields that MSWs, which means the average favorite goes off at a higher price and hence wins less. Actual stat nationwide:
22,791 MSW races, 36.9% favorites, average odds $1.32-1;
117,057 claimers, 30.4% favorites, average odds $1.59
Regarding betting 7 races a day at 9 or 10 tracks, I'm sure these folks are having fun. But are they making any money? Seven races each card on a whole bunch of tracks with public perceptions bad enough to be exploitable by a single sharp player who can outhandicap the on-scene locals? It would surprise me.

[Rick]

smf,

Claims are definitely the way to go. The most reliable system I've ever seen involves claims.


BM,

Using averages as a way of proving something can't be done is very misleading. You remind me of those guys who say that nobody can do better in the stock market than the average because the average guy does worse. Yes, it's hard but that doesn't prove that it's impossible. Efficient markets is a religion for people with average abilities. No offense though, I understand your position and respect you. I just think you're wrong about this.


Sekrah,

How many races do you get in your program and how do you account for off-tracks if you use fractional times? I don't doubt that you could use that as a pretty good measure of the class of a race since I've done some studies along those lines, I'm just wondering how accurate it is. I played a method in the 80's that required only the first call lengths of the last 3 races, dates of last 2 races, finish position of last race, and class change from last to today. So I definitely believe it's possible to achieve good results with very little information. You just can't use it in conventional ways.

[Sekrah]

Originally posted by Rick
smf,

Sekrah,

How many races do you get in your program and how do you account for off-tracks if you use fractional times? I don't doubt that you could use that as a pretty good measure of the class of a race since I've done some studies along those lines, I'm just wondering how accurate it is. I played a method in the 80's that required only the first call lengths of the last 3 races, dates of last 2 races, finish position of last race, and class change from last to today. So I definitely believe it's possible to achieve good results with very little information. You just can't use it in conventional ways.


I get every track that runs in my program.. Today for example.. Philly, Delaware, Calder, River Downs, Fort Erie, Finger Lakes, Hawthorne, and Fairmount were all on the afternoon program.
I usually play about 50-60% of the races I encounter.. I usually leave out maidens with many first time starters, and races inwhich there are 2 or more horses coming in from long layoffs. Also.. in races where I find the odds-on favorite (less than 2-1) to having very little chance of losing, and if I can't find a single longshot worthy of contending for exotics, I don't bet the race.. But other times I will happily key an 8-5 that I love on a few 7-1 or better horses in hopes of hitting a decent trifecta. Especially in large fields. $6 bet (key 1 with 3) can easily turn into a $50-$100 profit with the right horses coming in behind him




I am still in the process of making track variants to mold my numbers into somethign more accurate from track to track, and variant to variant.

Today, I was analyzing Fort Erie numbers (yes, I play them, and quite profitably today).. and noticed the track is stunning more than 1.5 to 2 seconds slower at the 2nd calls when the track is wet.. I found many good value plays on horses who ran seemingly well on wet tracks.. and I will use this angle more in the future.. i.e. A horse who runs a :47 on a wet track at FE, will be extremely higher than a 2nd call time of :46 performance on the fast dry track.. and often represent top value bets.

I have MANY MANY other varying track variants that I look at from track to track that I have logged.. that are quite startling.

I'm still molding variants from track to track, and the process is almost there.. I have tried many systems before, and have never come close to teh success I've had with this one.. I could have claimed myself the world's biggest loser.


Like you said.. I analyze the class of the race not by the conditions (Clm 20k).. I analyze it by the fractions.. How many times have we seen 20k Claiming races where it looks like nobody deserves to win? The people who play horses coming out of those races have no idea that there seemingly victory in that race was nothing more than a laugher, and a performance worthy of a 8-10k winner.

The fractional times/variants have been unlocking that for me.


I could write pages and pages on what I've discovered with my studies.. but it would take all day.. So I will go question by question.

And I'm reachable by email, joshb729@hotmail.com


My entire system works on the theory that it only takes a horse to slow down a tiny bit, to help them reserve themselvs TONS of energy for later in the race.. and it's extremely successful..

But practice makes perfect.. the variants are the key. More than 2 years went into studying this, to make sure it's sound.. and common handicapping sense is still required to apply it.

[Rick]

Sekrah,

I wouldn't toss out races with first-time starters if there are at least 3 horses who have previously raced. Also, there are big overlays to be found among layoff horses so don't count those out.

Otherwise, my limited studies show that the 4 furlong time of the leader and the lengths behind of the horse are a pretty good measure of class in either sprints or routes. If you want to discuss this in more detail you can e-mail me privately, but I don't know if I have that much to offer you since I haven't researched these things as much as you have.

[Sekrah]

Originally posted by Rick
Sekrah,

I wouldn't toss out races with first-time starters if there are at least 3 horses who have previously raced. Also, there are big overlays to be found among layoff horses so don't count those out.




If you have good first-time starter stats with sires, trainers etc.. you could find some value in the maiden races.. I just tend to stay away from them as there isn't enough information for me to really process things.. I could analyze those 3 horses you mentioned, but they also wouldn't be accurate.. young unraced horses are fickle. they can run complete crap one day, and great the next, and they can make improvements and strides forward very quickly between races.

If there's 1 or 2 layoff horses, I'll look at the race.. It's the ones with 3 or 4 coming off a 120 day+ layoff that I just want to throw out, because I can really only speculate the intentions of the trainer and whether the animal is sharp enough to win today.

Again, there are better fish out there for me to be betting on than trying to chase this one race with many many unknown variables. I have enough troubling calculating the true ability of each horse and adding this doubt of 3 or 4 of them isn't a good bet IMO.


Information is the key. For every bit of mystery you remove from a horse, is a step you are ahead of everybody else who is playing. Let the guy yelling at the TV screen in the corner bet on these guys and wait for races where you have an idea of what's going on.

[Derek2U]

Just like the IV approach, all the stats regarding Odds Ranges/
#Winners/ etc etc are interesting, but descriptive, and not useful
in predicting todays race. It is always (yes always) a matter
of finding "moderating variables" that can explain the variance
in all prediction systems. What happens when you are able
to CORRECTLY eliminate that 2:1 fav from consideration ... assign
that horse a ZERO probability of winning? The trouble with ALL
prediction systems in racing I know of is this: they are built on
data that looks at ALL the horses in a race equally ... studying
them all ... measuring horses, NOT ENTERED TO WIN, alongside
the real ones with real intent to TRY TO WIN. And thus, what
emerges is confusing conclusions. This probably explains why
true mathematicians are terrible handicappers. It also bears
mention that most (if not all) of these math techniques (like
regression and IVs) were NOT meant to study horse racing to
begin with. So, once again, all they do is provide good bathroom
reading: You will never be able to use them in any prediction
system simply because they do NOT lead to any predictive variables.
hehe...

[thoroughbred]

In general, we, as a country have lost the advantages of civil debate.

I don't pretend to know why this is so.

But whether it is handicapping, politics, or whatever, more and more people get angry when presented with FACTS, (not opinion), that disagrees with their beliefs, (feelings).

Í've been hoping for a long time that this trend will reverse.

Will my life span be long enough to see such a reversal; I''m almost 75 years old?

[Derek2U]

hehe ... isn't what you say sooooooooo true. There are so many
really smart peeps here, in this room, but wow ... what thin skins.
I like disAgreements ... i kinda like the feeling of "You say What?"
heheh ... now i see how some have called the hall monitor into
the picture ... of yeah PA ... maybe some of these guys are just
as. kissers ... consider the LillY? heheh .... at any rate, this room
rules & its my opinion that I think so much can be acheived with
kinda spirited talk ... I'm not made of glass so toss me about,
please. hehe

[Tom]

If you can make a good call on the favorite, you are cooking.
If you can throw out a 2-1 shot or better yet, a 3-5 shot, you can play several horses and make money. Personally,I handicap the horse, not races.that is, I look for the hrose or horses I think can win and then bet them if the odds seem right to me. Pure gut instinct. Somedays I am happy to get 5-2, some days I won't bet at 5-1. If I think the favorite is legit, I won't bet something else to get value. Value is cashing a tickets. I read about a lot of math on these threads, but I would rather spend my time working on my variants and pace numbers and improving my handicappng...my belief is tha the cure for losing is winning. If you bet enough winners, everything else will take care of itself. The two most profound things I think I learned from Jim Bradshaw were that any winner is an overlay and that second bya head is not the same as being on the lead (but that's amother story).

[ranchwest]

Tom,

Good post.

[freeneasy]

There ya go 2. I have absolutely no problem believing you or anybody else can and does hit 90% of their bets made on the favorites. Lets see, how would the figuring on that have to be calculated. ok I think this would have to be the way it figures out.
you have a system that hits the favorite 9 out of 10. So if the fav. in every race wins 33% of the time, out of every 100 races, you would have to bet the fav. how many times in order to hit 9 out of 10 times. So let me see I think that that would have to mean that the ratio of betting the winning fav. 10 out of the 33 times it wins and hitting 9 out of the 10 times you bet it is 33 divided by 10 which =s 3.33 bets, and so D, would that be correct in saying this, and that is in order to hit 90% of bets made on the favs. you bet on 3.33 winning race favorites out of every 33.33 race favorites that win, out of every 100 races run? And after saying all that a simpler dawning comes to mind to put it all into a more simple breakdown, and that would be this. Out of every 100 races, you will bet on the favorite apprx. 10 times, and out of every 10 of those bets made on the fav. 9 will win.
I love it

[hdcper]

Freeneasy,

I think you may want to re-read Derek2u's post again. He was not claiming that he wins 9 out of 10 favorites he bets.

But that if he determines the favorite will not win, 91% of the time the favorite gets beat. With a performance rate like that, a large part or all of the track take is offset in those specific races. Which offers Derek a big opportunity to capitalize on this type of race.

Hope that makes sense,

Hdcper

[freeneasy]

Oh, ok, thankie cap
then Ill just put that in my okie-doke and smoke it, whatever the hell that ment,
so lets see, (66.33 losing favorites) x (91% predictability of those losing favorites) is predicting the losing favorite 60.36 out of every 66.33 losing favorite that runs. If you bet only favorites, than that would have to mean that out of every 100 races to bet on a favorite, you will pass on 60.36 of those races knowing that these will lose. That leaves you with a remainder of 5.97 losing favorites that are the bettable favs. ( 66.33 - 60.37=ing 5.97). And after betting these 5.97 bettable losing favorites, you are left with the remaining 33.33 bettable favorites that will win. Adding up the bettable races of the 5.97 that lose and the 33.33 that win, totals 39.30 bettable races. Betting these 39.30 favorites and winning 33.33 of these bets gives you a win %age of 84.8.
Deceiving figure? maybe at first, but can be doable, put yourself to the test. one little clue. you aint gonna be betting 39.3 favorites out of every 100

[Derek2U]

Thanks Cap yeah it's true I Always look hard & mean at the FAV
or Any horse going off at 2:1 or less. It's The Horse I always return to. Now, by my own reckoning, I am definitely able to
divide Favs into 3 groups:
(1) ZERO Chance to WIN ; (2) GREAT Chance to Win; (3) UnSure.
When I think #1 (Zero Chance) I am right 90% of the time.
Many, many times my reasons are subtle: Example: It's a maiden
non-claimer & the horse is speedy but has tried say more than
6-8 times to win ... RED FLAG. That flag becomes redder if there
is a speedy sort outta a speedy sire etc (a Phone Trick/Smoke
Glacken, etc etc) entered as well. You get the drift: You must
handicap to the Fav weakness. Now, other times (and you wouldnt think how often) the Fav is 7rs old or older, with maybe
2-3 exerting efforts & now Today faces speed etc. Just where oH
where does the Public expect that oldster to go?
My reasons are varied: after all, don't we all agree that most races are Different Puzzles? Layoffs/Recent Exertions/Speed but
Lacking Class/Class but No Speed .... yada yada ... u get my drift?
It's because I have a Profound respect for the Fav that I devote
my time to searching for its Achilles heal. It's sounds harder to
do than what it really is.
If anyone cares to know, my Sunday on June 2 at Belmont, was
a perfect day. At any rate, sometimes I play the Fav; sometimes
I pass the race; but I ONLY Potentially bet against the Fav when
& if I pigeon-hole it #1 (NO CHANCE TO WIN). Comprende?