What are the Greatest Handicapping Mistakes we can make?

[boxcar]

I thought it would be interesting and, perhaps, even informative to look at the "dark side" to handicapping. Let's do a little self-examination, as we kick off the New Year, to look at some of the counterproductive things that many of us do, perhaps, habitually -- and maybe even unconsciously. Maybe a discussion like this might bring those habits to the fore, and cause us to make a conscious effort this year to replace any poor habits with some good ones.

Now, I'm not looking for things that occur outside the handicapping process -- things like getting shut out at the windows, betting procrastination. I'm looking for bad hadicapping habits. And we all have them or are prone to having them, since we're creatures of habit.

I'll kick off the discussion by listing things that I thought were really counterproductive to the handicapping process generally and, therefore, tried to make a conscious effort to avoid. There is a little bit of overlapping on a couple of these.

1) Violations of the First Handicapping Principle.

2) Violations of the K.I.S.S. Principle in a complex game.

3) Hairsplitting.

4) Failing to subscribe to the More = Less and Less = More Principles.

5) Approaching Handicapping as though it were a Scientific Endeavor.

6) Pursuing the Impossible Dream by trying to find Investments in every race.

Boxcar

[xfile]

Number crunching the ratings whether they be final time, pace or whatever. Study long, study wrong is another one. :cool:

[boxcar]

Number crunching the ratings whether they be final time, pace or whatever.

Exactly! This is the kind of thing I had in mind in points 3 and 5. Today more and more people seem to be on the quest to reduce a complex game down number-crunching because mathematical approaches are more scientific.

Study long, study wrong is another one. :cool:

Great point. Why pore over a race for a long period of time? Spending too much time on a race usually indicates it's uplayable.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Great point. Why pore over a race for a long period of time? Spending too much time on a race usually indicates it's uplayable.

Another lesson from Malcom Gladwell's great work BLINK

[NoDayJob]

:lol: The greatest handicapping mistake is having your "dough" on the wrong horse! :lol:

[Overlay]

I resolve to continue to make my wagering decisions on the basis of winning chances versus odds (wagering value) rather than winning probability alone, and not to discard any entrant out of hand without evaluating its chances in today's race.

This may tend to run me afoul of some of your principles, since I'm undoubtedly more quantitative in my approach than you might consider workable or perhaps even possible, and I take longer to handicap than I would if I tossed certain whole categories of horses at the outset of my analysis, rather than giving them closer consideration. And, while comparing winning chances with odds offers a firm basis for me to avoid underlays and pass entire races, it also opens up to me an equal or greater number of wagering opportunities where solid horses or combinations have been overlooked.

However, this orientation also helps me comply with your other principles by reducing the time I spend on making subjective judgments, while taking multiple factors (the "significant few") into consideration.

Please understand that I'm speaking from a personal viewpoint, and not disputing a method that works for you, or principles that you have found valid.

[GameTheory]

I think Overlay points out the difference between computer vs. human handicapping. They are not alike, so the mistakes one can make with each approach are different. Whereas a human needs to use his brain to distill the information to get to the essence of a race, a computer will usually do better using as much data as possible. Look at the way computers play chess -- mostly by brute force, where strong human players can quickly see the relevant lines without doing a lot of calculating.

I would submit that Boxcar's list of mistakes only apply to "human" handicapping...

[GaryG]

Study long, study wrong is another one. :cool:
This is a good point, sort of like practice doesn't make perfect, just permanent. I also think too much time is spent splitting hairs when the human connections and form cycle should be considered. I use figures to point out the contenders and angles/price to isolate the plays.

[boxcar]

I think Overlay points out the difference between computer vs. human handicapping. They are not alike, so the mistakes one can make with each approach are different. Whereas a human needs to use his brain to distill the information to get to the essence of a race, a computer will usually do better using as much data as possible. Look at the way computers play chess -- mostly by brute force, where strong human players can quickly see the relevant lines without doing a lot of calculating.

I would submit that Boxcar's list of mistakes only apply to "human" handicapping...

Hmm...really? If this is so, then what are the mistakes of "computer" handicapping?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Human errors:


Drinking too much while handciapping
Not drinking enough while betting
Overhandicapping the race

Computer errors:

Blindly accepting automatic paceline selections
Trying to play too many tracks at the same time

[Tee]

Not going with your "gut" instinct.

Letting your brain get in the way.

[boxcar]

Human errors:


Drinking too much while handciapping
Not drinking enough while betting
Overhandicapping the race

Computer errors:

Blindly accepting automatic paceline selections
Trying to play too many tracks at the same time


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[twindouble]

Boxcar;

I think one of the greatest mistakes anyone can make in this game is ignoring the humanity that's involved, along with not appreciating the wonder of these animals. To me that's the footing to a good solid foundation when it comes to handicapping and gambling.




T.D.

[DJofSD]

Falling victim to the old lizard brain -- looking for patterns where none exist.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

One of the great mistakes handicappers make is how we deal with 'risk'.It takes confidence to bet against a chalk that you determne is suspect.I always follow the phrase some smart player from years past lived by "even after a losing play i would make the same wager again..because it was a confident bet that had my approval based on my handicapping beliefs that have been successful in the past."

In summary never doubt your selections just step up and wager with confidence win or lose with it knowing it was the right bet.

Zappi

[OTM Al]

Playing Mountaineer and drinking too much.....wait, that is usually the same mistake.......

Seriously though I think the biggest mistake I've ever made is not following through with my initial picks, either losing too much early and chickening out or convincing myself I was wrong in the first place. I also tend to not place win bets on live longshots, which has cost me often when the horse comes in but the exacta doesn't, which is something I'm trying to work on.

[boxcar]

Boxcar;

I think one of the greatest mistakes anyone can make in this game is ignoring the humanity that's involved, along with not appreciating the wonder of these animals. To me that's the footing to a good solid foundation when it comes to handicapping and gambling.

T.D.

That's a very interesting perspective. I might have been guilty of the former, but as an animal lover, generally, I certainly did appreciate the animals. Also, it greatly distressed me whenever I would see a horse injure himself or break down. And it is so distressed my wife that she eventually refused to attend the races with me out of fear of having to witness those kinds of mishaps.

Having said this, however, I'm not sure that having any genuine appreciation for the humans or horses involved is a prerequisite for gambling success. After my software was completed, I opted to conduct all my handicapping and wagering activities from the comfort and quietness of my office at home.
I never "darkened" the doorstep of another thoroughbred race track after that -- which was the last 6 years or so before I retired. I removed myself entirely from any exposure to or influence by human and equine elements. This became the perfect work envirionment for me since I never was a "racing fan" in the truest sense of this phrase.

Boxcar

[DeoVolente]

Another lesson from Malcom Gladwell's great work BLINK

Best way to thin slice is to watch a race

[DJofSD]

Sometimes the thin slicing occurs in the post parade.

[dav4463]

My main mistake is trying to beat too many legitimate favorites. I seem to always find something wrong with the horse and try to beat him. Frequently, this horse is just too good and I should not have played against him.

I remember a few years back when I hit 5 of 6 on the Breeders Cup Pick 6 and left Spinning World off my ticket. I remember my Mom asking, "Why would you leave out the best horse in the world?" Such a simple question, I really had no answer!

[twindouble]

Boxcar;

Just to elaborate a little further, the life blood of the game is the owners, trainers, horses and the jocks that ride them. We can't like I said, lose site of that humanity involved and how it effects us as handicappers. Understanding that gives me a better perspective on the game and ultimately the right frame of mind to become a good gambler.

A computer will never capture the true breath of racing with numbers but your insight and understanding the above will. That's just the footing I mentioned, the foundation is what you build from there with your knowledge of those players horses included, so to me that's what makes a good handicapper gambler along with a good wagering strategy.


T.D.

[chrisg]

1) Violations of the First Handicapping Principle.
Boxcar

Unless this is to not ever bet , I have no idea what it is.

[toetoe]

Learn the "rules," based on your own research.

Know when to break the rules. Very important for me.

Resist the temptation to raise the stakes wildly after a big win. Persevere when losing. This isn't craps at Las Vegas. It's a steady, professional endeavor and, dare I say it, a living for some.

Know yourself. If you can't bring yourself to leave your "world view" out of your approach, that's fine. Just don't let that jump up and surprise you. I guess this can be called handicapping the self. Example: "Oh, I never bet first-timers in maiden claimers." That's dandy, but that means passing some races. Example: "Pedroza wins every race at Fairplex." Gorgeously simplistic, but if you think that way, stay away. If you don't have a decent alternative to big chalk, PASS!

Nothing personal, but avoid losers at the simulcast site, especially as partners. That's too small a step away from the hatpin method.

Keep records, or at least try. Some people just don't have it in them.

When in doubt, ask Light. Then you have three choices: bet his horse, throw it out, or pass the race. :D

[traynor]

This may fall into the "over-handicapping the race" area, but it is distinct.

Falling in love with your selection. Specifically, seeing something that looks like a Good Thing, and talking yourself into betting more than you ordinarily would because you only "see" (or process) information that agrees with your decision--and virtually ignore overwhelming evidence that you should have passed the race, or at the very least, eliminated the entry you thought was a world-beater.

Personal weakness. I lost the two biggest bets I ever made in my life, both on horses that I talked myself into "overly supporting."

Conversely, I do very well when I have little or no opinion (or even real interest) in the outcome of individual races.
Good Luck

[Overlay]

Unless this is to not ever bet , I have no idea what it is.

According to a quote from one of Boxcar's previous posts in another thread:

"The First Handicapping Principle essentially says that there aren't any isolated factors in handicapping -- that all factors are related to one another to some degree, and all are especially related to the Form Factor. To limit the comprehensiveness of an approach would necessarily violate this First Principle."

[FORGO]

Understand the nature of the beast of which you pursue. Handicapping is one of the most complex games of chance out there because of the changing variables.
The good news is the game can be profitable if you follow the people who make the money. Not all of them write books or sell systems or software.
Each person must decide what they want to do with their game and what level they want to take it to. Having fun should be a part of it. Makeing some money should be part of it . If you are not exsperienceing some sucess stop and regroup. Get away from the game and go do something you enjoy or just relax.
Let your head clear before you regroup. Go back to the basics retrain physically and mentally everyday not when you feel like it everyday. Read study and consult with other people on delveloping a game plan that will work for you. Good free information and help right here on this board. Master students become Masters Players when they recommit to themselves on winning. The first step to greatness is total commitment to yourself. Each one of us decides how much of life we really want and what price we are willing to pay for it. The deffinition of insanity is when you keep doing the same things over and over again without achieving a positive result. Know if there is any players out there that need help with the mental aspect of the game emailme and I will tell you what does't work. I know because I have made most all of the mistakes and I know where the pot holes are. Remember success happens when preperation meets oppertunity. Health Happynes and good Fortune to ALL in the New Year. FORGO:)

[captvancouver]

I am really new to the handicapping, and my progress has been slow but steady.To me the secret of handicapping must be this:

Think of something you have become really, really good at in life. That means being within the top 2% of what you became good at. If it was baseball, or basketball..maybe you had a shot at the pros.If it was soccer, maybe Manchester United. If it was music, you could have been a professional musician.

And you probably would have done it for little money, and the love of the game,even tho you would have earned big bucks.And because you loved it, the long hours of practise to perfect your skill didn t seem like a sacrifice at all. And you only got an incremental amount better each time you practiced..maybe a small fraction of 1/100 of 1 percent.

I think we all have a few areas where we have excelled. And felt exhilarated as a result.

In my case , I did that in a few areas, but started out being in the bottom 5 percent.





For me, getting good took a lot of practise, and a lot of mistakes.But the love of the game carried me thro, and when I became real good(I was on the negotiation list for Chicago and Detroit of the NHL when I was 17..and no one would take me on their team when I was smaller..I was too small, and spent most of the time on my ankles).(And alas , my aspirations were cut short by a severe accident when I was 18..just enough to keep me out.)



I think horse- racing is similar. You have to love it, and it will love you. And you may be lousy now. But you’ll get better ,by bits and bits,if you love it. To me, each horse race is like an Agatha Christie book. I find it quite thrilling. Again, tho, the m otive is not to put my fellow racers down..I wish them well to, but rather to love the game.

[railbird]

My biggest mistake is knowing there is a winner for every race and
trying to find and bet it.
Starting off the new year exactly like the last 30 + missing by inches' just enough to keep you going to the next one . :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Buckeye]

railbird,

if you can color enough uncertainty into your selections they will pay enough.

[xfile]

The answer to all of your questions involving making a long term profit in this game, gentlemen -and- gentleladies, I believe.....now keep in mind this is just my humble opinion........ is alchemy :cool: hint: m-w.com (definition 2 and/or 3) if needed ;)

[shanta]

Not going with your "gut" instinct.

Letting your brain get in the way.

I agree 100% Tee.

Good one!

Richie

[twindouble]

The deffinition of insanity is when you keep doing the same things over and over again without achieving a positive result. Know if there is any players out there that need help with the mental aspect of the game emailme and I will tell you what does't work. I know because I have made most all of the mistakes and I know where the pot holes are. Remember success happens when preperation meets oppertunity. Health Happynes and good Fortune to ALL in the New Year. FORGO


The above cracked me up! Your online couch could very well turn into a huge business if you charged a small fee. :lol:

Seriously though, most young kids are told early on not to quit, perseverance always pays off and the day will come when the sun will shine on them. They forget to tell them they might not have the talent, tools or resources to succeed in the endeavor. Finding your calling in life isn't an easy thing to do. Hard work doesn't mean success, for the simple reason, success to you or someone else varies to no end, it depends on what pond of life you swim in.

When it comes to horse racing I was fortunate enough to hook up with two of the best handicapper gamblers in my area, common sense to me to take that road. The same applied to my contracting business, served my apprenticeship under one of the best finishing craftsman that could be found. Again, common sence, it's the finished product that sells, not the bull work that goes into it.
So getting off on the wrong foot is a huge mistake.

Today, when it comes to handicapping there's a clash of two worlds, those that can evaluate the information that's in hand and those that use computers to simplify it for those who can't. Who will win this battle over the long term has yet to be decided but from where I came from I wouldn't bet on the computer, for the simple reason our brain is the best computer going when it takes into account all the variables that's required.


T.D.

[Que]

ignoring value...

[chickenhead]

I make the same handicapping mistakes as eveyone else, but they really aren't bad enough to cause real problems. Without a doubt wagering mistakes cost me so much more:

Action Bets

Chasing after losses

Betting above what my bankroll allows

Not going after the right (or enough) pools to maximize return


etc etc etc

And a more general mistake that applies to both handicapping and wagering:

Continuing to play after my brain is fried


These are my battles. My capping is plenty good enough--but not good enough to overcome all these liabilities that pop up repeatedly in my play.

[boxcar]

Unless this is to not ever bet , I have no idea what it is.

I've stated this a few times on this forum, but here it is again:

There is no such thing as an isolated handicapping factor; for all factors are related to one another to some degree, and all are especially related to the Form Factor.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I am really new to the handicapping, and my progress has been slow but steady.To me the secret of handicapping must be this:

Think of something you have become really, really good at in life. That means being within the top 2% of what you became good at. If it was baseball, or basketball..maybe you had a shot at the pros.If it was soccer, maybe Manchester United. If it was music, you could have been a professional musician.

And you probably would have done it for little money, and the love of the game,even tho you would have earned big bucks.And because you loved it, the long hours of practise to perfect your skill didn t seem like a sacrifice at all. And you only got an incremental amount better each time you practiced..maybe a small fraction of 1/100 of 1 percent.

I think we all have a few areas where we have excelled. And felt exhilarated as a result.

In my case , I did that in a few areas, but started out being in the bottom 5 percent.





For me, getting good took a lot of practise, and a lot of mistakes.But the love of the game carried me thro, and when I became real good(I was on the negotiation list for Chicago and Detroit of the NHL when I was 17..and no one would take me on their team when I was smaller..I was too small, and spent most of the time on my ankles).(And alas , my aspirations were cut short by a severe accident when I was 18..just enough to keep me out.)



I think horse- racing is similar. You have to love it, and it will love you. And you may be lousy now. But you’ll get better ,by bits and bits,if you love it. To me, each horse race is like an Agatha Christie book. I find it quite thrilling. Again, tho, the m otive is not to put my fellow racers down..I wish them well to, but rather to love the game.

Another interesting perspective. I'm not sure, however, I "loved the game" -- as much as relished a good challenge. So, yes, while I became involved in the game due primarily to my fascination with the pari-mutuel form of wagering, as I came to realize that this form of gambling represented the best vehicle for profit-making, this wasn't my only motive for learning the game. It didn't take me too long to figure out that the public was a worthy opponent at the windows, so this stirred up my competitive spirit. (This is why I enjoyed nothing better than capitalizing on the crowd's big mistakes. They never made them often; but as sure the Day follows the Night, they made them! :) )

Boxcar

[TimesTheyRAChangin]

but as sure the Day follows the Night, they made them! :) )

Boxcar

Sometimes it pays to think outside the boxcar!
I use the Night follows the Day angle!

[boxcar]

Sometimes it pays to think outside the boxcar!
I use the Night follows the Day angle!

Either way they're both sure things! :D

Boxcar

[Fastracehorse]

I resolve to continue to make my wagering decisions on the basis of winning chances versus odds (wagering value) rather than winning probability alone, and not to discard any entrant out of hand without evaluating its chances in today's race.

This may tend to run me afoul of some of your principles, since I'm undoubtedly more quantitative in my approach than you might consider workable or perhaps even possible, and I take longer to handicap than I would if I tossed certain whole categories of horses at the outset of my analysis, rather than giving them closer consideration. And, while comparing winning chances with odds offers a firm basis for me to avoid underlays and pass entire races, it also opens up to me an equal or greater number of wagering opportunities where solid horses or combinations have been overlooked.

However, this orientation also helps me comply with your other principles by reducing the time I spend on making subjective judgments, while taking multiple factors (the "significant few") into consideration.

Please understand that I'm speaking from a personal viewpoint, and not disputing a method that works for you, or principles that you have found valid.

"since I'm undoubtedly more quantitative in my approach than you might consider workable or perhaps even possible,"

Thanx :)

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Not going with your "gut" instinct.

Letting your brain get in the way.

There's something to this.

I've heard many experts in many other art forms say: "less brain - more reaction."

[Overlay]

"since I'm undoubtedly more quantitative in my approach than you might consider workable or perhaps even possible,"

Thanx :)

fffastt

I was only reacting to my interpretation of boxcar's initial post in the thread (which I believe I've seen him elaborate on elsewhere), where he spoke of "approaching handicapping as though it were a scientific endeavor" as a mistake. I was taking that to mean that he believed that proper handicapping entailed a certain amount of subjective judgment, and of decisions involving experience and intuitive knowledge (or "gut instinct", as Tee put it) that couldn't be reduced to a basis of scientific exactness, or encompassed by a mathematical formula. (If I've misstated his opinion, I'll be glad to stand corrected.) As I indicated in my response, I was in no way disputing what may work for boxcar (or any other handicapper, for that matter). I was just saying that I personally tend to lean more on the use of statistics, and of quantitative methods of evaluating performance and winning probabilities, than boxcar might think was feasible or possible.

[FORGO]

I wrote a reply but it some how it got lost. To bad it was entertaining. I am to tired to write it again. Anyway based on your reply you have done what I recommend learn from the people who make the money. I wrote that piece for the people who have been beaten up and taken advantage of. Mike Crammer wrote a book on why good handicappers don't make enough money. Basically it is because of bad habits. Many people do not know how to change or think change is to tough. Almost all things are possible if you make a conscious effort.
They have to be taught how to eat an elephant. I used to retrain my sales force when they were in a slump and those that listened benifited financially.
Some people will listen some won't. You have got the right idea about handicapping this game its not a black box and never will be.You need a combination of handicapping and computer skills togethers with a little LUCK.
Enough said Penn State needs Me for tomorrow night. I also PRAY AMEN Brother:D
FORGO

[maxwell]

Don't expect a hoss to do something it hasn't done before.

Don't expect to get value when the fave is 3/1.

[Fastracehorse]

I was only reacting to my interpretation of boxcar's initial post in the thread (which I believe I've seen him elaborate on elsewhere), where he spoke of "approaching handicapping as though it were a scientific endeavor" as a mistake. I was taking that to mean that he believed that proper handicapping entailed a certain amount of subjective judgment, and of decisions involving experience and intuitive knowledge (or "gut instinct", as Tee put it) that couldn't be reduced to a basis of scientific exactness, or encompassed by a mathematical formula. (If I've misstated his opinion, I'll be glad to stand corrected.) As I indicated in my response, I was in no way disputing what may work for boxcar (or any other handicapper, for that matter). I was just saying that I personally tend to lean more on the use of statistics, and of quantitative methods of evaluating performance and winning probabilities, than boxcar might think was feasible or possible.

What do you think of the Science melding with Art theory?? Especially as it relates to handicapping.

fffastt

[Overlay]

I'm not sure of all the ramifications of your question, but I've seen both sides of the coin from handicappers I've known -- some with tremendous intuitive judgment and some who stuck with the purely quantitative and definable. I'm sure there are fortunate individuals who have a natural aptitude for both approaches, and I wish I were one of them, although I think that either can be learned or mastered to a certain extent, and also that it's entirely possible for handicappers to blend them. (However, I imagine that learning would come easier and/or faster with the quantitative than the intuitive). Since I'm more comfortable with the quantitative side (just my nature), that's what I tend to go with. Even if I had more acute powers of intuitive judgment and observation, I think I would want to combine that with some concrete insight (more than just a "feel" or hunch) into the probabilities associated with what I was encountering, so I could tell whether I was getting betting value or not. I don't think I would ever be able to get far enough away from the quantitative to forget the fact that my wagers need to be focused on horses with odds that are longer than I judge their winning chances to be -- whether I reach that judgment through quantitative or intuitive means.

[boxcar]

I'm not sure of all the ramifications of your question, but I've seen both sides of the coin from handicappers I've known -- some with tremendous intuitive judgment and some who stuck with the purely quantitative and definable. I'm sure there are fortunate individuals who have a natural aptitude for both approaches, and I wish I were one of them, although I think that either can be learned or mastered to a certain extent, and also that it's entirely possible for handicappers to blend them. (However, I imagine that learning would come easier and/or faster with the quantitative than the intuitive). Since I'm more comfortable with the quantitative side (just my nature), that's what I tend to go with. Even if I had more acute powers of intuitive judgment and observation, I think I would want to combine that with some concrete insight (more than just a "feel" or hunch) into the probabilities associated with what I was encountering, so I could tell whether I was getting betting value or not. I don't think I would ever be able to get far enough away from the quantitative to forget the fact that my wagers need to be focused on horses with odds that are longer than I judge their winning chances to be -- whether I reach that judgment through quantitative or intuitive means.

Overlay, the two biggest problems I see with an essentially "quantitative" approach is that the probabilities aren't capable of answering the two most important questions (in my opinion, of course :) ) which I think must be brought to bear upon every race problem. The raw numbers ("probabilities"), in and of themselves, will prove inadequate to the task quite often because of their inherent limitations.

Convesely, the "intuitive" approach that embraces a sound handicapping methodology does not suffer from such limitations because inherent in it is the necessary interpretative framework within which a user would be able to properly analyze a race based on the raw data (facts) in each horse's chart.

I'll give but one example of what I mean -- and it's a very important one. Your numbers (probabilities), in all probability, (forgive the bad pun) won't tell you what the probable effects a horse's recent good races will have on his condition today. Admittedly, this is the most difficult aspect of the Form Factor to master -- yet, a vitally important one if one hopes to capitalize on a large and recuring public handicapping mistake.

Whether a selection is an overlay in a race or not is of secondary importance next to selecting a sufficient number of winners at big enough mutuels that would more than offset the investment outlay over a period of time. The way to accomplish this is by betting a sufficient number of identifiable vulnerable or, better yet, false longshots.

As you know, there are many science disciplines that are inexact. Such disciplines require that the professionals have knowledge and experience-- both of which over time will combine to produce sound personal judgment in a dedicated student. Not perfect judgment. Not infallible judgment. But judgment, nonetheless, that is substantially and essentially sound. And this kind of judgment is all that is needed to beat the public at the windows. This kind of judgment is the most valuable asset a handicapper can own, and can only be had through knowledge (study) and experience.

Boxcar

[Overlay]

boxcar,

I'm in complete agreement with your statement that the way to select "a sufficient number of winners at big enough mutuels that would more than offset the investment outlay over a period of time is by betting a sufficient number of identifiable vulnerable or, better yet, false longshots" (by which I assume you mean longshots that you judge to have actual chances of winning that are greater than their long odds indicate). That's exactly my opinion, also. You apparently rely on subjective evaluation to arrive at your estimation of what those "actual chances of winning" are, and more power to you in doing so. As I said, I wish I had that same degree of insight, so that I could be sufficiently confident of judging those winning chances on a basis that was consistent and accurate enough from one race to the next for me to risk money on the outcome. But aren't you really using your experience and judgment in the same manner as I use statistics? You have an idea at some level (conscious or perhaps even subconscious) of the probabilities that are associated with the various observations you make, and how they affect a horse's overall winning chances. Or, even if you do not assign probabilities to individual components of your analysis, you somehow arrive at a determination of the acceptable fair odds that serve as an overall reflection of the sum total of your impressions as to a horse's winning probability, and that guide your thinking as to whether the horse is worth a bet or not. You have confidence in these probabilities because they have proven their dependability over time, even though they may not be accurate in every single race. In the same way, the statistics that I favor don't guarantee selecting a winner or even being completely accurate in each and every race. But they have a sufficiently consistent and longstanding correlation with the winning chances of horses that their predictive power cannot be dismissed as coincidence or random chance. I agree that there will always be subtleties and nuances that a quantitiative approach may miss. The tradeoffs that make that acceptable to me are the time savings and increased volume of play the quantitative approach makes possible (at least compared to the time it used to take me to apply full-dress, "what-is-he-doing-in-today's-race?" analysis to every horse in every race), and the greater degree of confidence that I personally have that the results of my analysis will be consistent and accurate enough in the long run to come out ahead.

[Jeff P]

posted by Boxcar - 5) Approaching Handicapping as though it were a Scientific Endeavor.
posted by xfile - Number crunching the ratings whether they be final time, pace or whatever. Study long, study wrong is another one....

The answer to all of your questions involving making a long term profit in this game, gentlemen -and- gentleladies, I believe.....now keep in mind this is just my humble opinion........ is alchemy
Color me part of the minority then. You see I never developed my own innate ability to pick apart traditional past performances effectively enough to grind out steady profits. Truth is I seriously doubt that I ever will. And believe me I TRIED. In fact, I tried for many years. And I failed miserably along the way. To those who enjoy success with the approach of reading traditional past performances and reaching consistently profitable intuitive decisions, I tip my hat to you. You deserve all the credit in the world. You do something successfully that I, well... just suck at.

Ahh... But I CAN beat the game with the help of a database.

Twenty years ago when I first set out on my current path I had this inner belief system - the same one I still have today. Deep down in the core of my being I BELIEVED - I believed if I created the proper tools - I believed if I WORKED hard enough - I believed that if I STUDIED long enough - I believed that proper tools combined with enough hard work and intense study would cause my game to improve over time. I believed that if I just kept improving all the time I would eventually improve to the point to where I had become substantially better than enough of my competition to be able to grind out steady profits. Guess what? Because I believed and because I worked hard and because I studied I eventually turned the corner. No, it didn't happen for me overnight. But it did eventually happen.

The only reasons it happened for me are:

1. The Unshakeable Believe that I could do it
2. Proper Tools
3. Hard Work
4. Intense Study

My approach involves treating the game of betting on horses as a scientific endeavor. I use a computer to run algorithms that I wrote. My algorithms crunch my own unique numbers. The algorithms crunch the numbers the same way, for horse after horse, in race after race, hundreds of thousands of times each year. The algorithms then store my numbers in a database. I can then use that database to look at large numbers of occurrences. When I do his I take on the role of "actuary." Using a database and a proper set of tools I can develop my own models, nothing more special than electronically stored sets of rules that define a spot play. These electronically stored sets of rules describe horses that I choose to play based on the results of my research. Further, I can run other algorithms that will find my plays for me - so that I don't have to waste valuable time each day combing through past performances manually.

Call what I do alchemy if you want. Snicker at me a little too. I won't mind a bit. You see I'm finally enjoying the fruits of my labor.

One of the biggest mistakes I could ever imagine making would be to abandon my approach - because it unquestionably works for me.

One result of using a database, and using this scientific (if you can call it that) approach, is that I can very clearly see past histories and large numbers of occurrences and understand precisely WHY treating this game as a scientific endeavor in a competent manner MUST lead to profits at the windows.

Here's my list. Here are those things I think qualify as the biggest mistakes we as horseplayers - computer or otherwise - are capable of making:

1. Not BELIEVING

2. Not working hard

3. Not studying hard

4. Not striving to improve yourself and your game

5. Not doing what you know works for you

6. Doing what you know hasn't worked for you



Here's to a Healthy and Happy New for everyone here at PA in 2006!!!


-jp

.

[boxcar]

boxcar,

I'm in complete agreement with your statement that the way to select "a sufficient number of winners at big enough mutuels that would more than offset the investment outlay over a period of time is by betting a sufficient number of identifiable vulnerable or, better yet, false longshots" (by which I assume you mean longshots that you judge to have actual chances of winning that are greater than their long odds indicate). That's exactly my opinion, also. You apparently rely on subjective evaluation to arrive at your estimation of what those "actual chances of winning" are, and more power to you in doing so. As I said, I wish I had that same degree of insight, so that I could be sufficiently confident of judging those winning chances on a basis that was consistent and accurate enough from one race to the next for me to risk money on the outcome. But aren't you really using your experience and judgment in the same manner as I use statistics? You have an idea at some level (conscious or perhaps even subconscious) of the probabilities that are associated with the various observations you make, and how they affect a horse's overall winning chances. Or, even if you do not assign probabilities to individual components of your analysis, you somehow arrive at a determination of the acceptable fair odds that serve as an overall reflection of the sum total of your impressions as to a horse's winning probability, and that guide your thinking as to whether the horse is worth a bet or not. You have confidence in these probabilities because they have proven their dependability over time, even though they may not be accurate in every single race. In the same way, the statistics that I favor don't guarantee selecting a winner or even being completely accurate in each and every race. But they have a sufficiently consistent and longstanding correlation with the winning chances of horses that their predictive power cannot be dismissed as coincidence or random chance. I agree that there will always be subtleties and nuances that a quantitiative approach may miss. The tradeoffs that make that acceptable to me are the time savings and increased volume of play the quantitative approach makes possible (at least compared to the time it used to take me to apply full-dress, "what-is-he-doing-in-today's-race?" analysis to every horse in every race), and the greater degree of confidence that I personally have that the results of my analysis will be consistent and accurate enough in the long run to come out ahead.

Since you seem to favor "increased volume of play" over selectivity (or even quality of play),then, yes, I suppose your stastitical approach would facilitate that preference. (In the business world our two different handicapping approaches would equate to making money on the basis of high volume on low margins, or low volume on high margins.)

But my methodology is not entirely "intuitive" either. For one thing, I used pace and speed figures, which were very important quantitative aspects to my work.

Moreover, the secondary definition of "quantify" is to determine, express, or measure the quantity of. Racing angles, in and of themselves, are quite often a form of expressing the number of positive and negative attributes present in a horse's chart. (Recall my oft-repeated remarks about how I avoided betting on angle-poor horses, while frequently wagering on angle-rich horses? And "rich" could mean just the sheer number of angles or the number of very poweful angle combos, which wouldn't necessarily mean a large number of angles in a horse's chart.) Stated differently, racing angles were the way I translated raw pp data into an understandable language -- something around which I could wrap my mind -- something I could identify and subsequently analyze.

As stated previously, there were many angles I could quantify in the conventional way (ratings for example); however, there were many other valuable angles that just didn't lend themselves to this kind of process. For example, how could I quantify any of my pinpoint angles I covered here recently -- especially on a race-specific basis? These kinds of problems were the reason I decided to forgo the incorporation of any rating system into my software.

The upshot is that I guess I felt that I had a "fair and balanced" approach -- a nice mixture of the intuitive with the quantitative. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

posted by Boxcar -
posted by xfile -
Color me part of the minority then. You see I never developed my own innate ability to pick apart traditional past performances effectively enough to grind out steady profits. Truth is I seriously doubt that I ever will. And believe me I TRIED. In fact, I tried for many years. And I failed miserably along the way. To those who enjoy success with the approach of reading traditional past performances and reaching consistently profitable intuitive decisions, I tip my hat to you. You deserve all the credit in the world. You do something successfully that I, well... just suck at.

Actually, I have to tip my hat to you! Anyone who can use the "scientific method" and make money at this game must be related to Einstein. :)

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Jeff and Boxcar,

You guys have the outlook to be winners. That's gold right there.

Jeff, are you saying you isolate 20 or 30 or 50 factors and just crunch their numbers? Without giving anything away, can you explain the approach a bit more, if not the methodology?

[Jeff P]

Jeff, are you saying you isolate 20 or 30 or 50 factors and just crunch their numbers? Yes.


Without giving anything away, can you explain the approach a bit more, if not the methodology?I can take any of the factors I elected to keep in the database and combine them together in just about any way my imagination says to, and run it through the database to see what I get. I can make this pretty complex, using several hundred separate bits of information in a model if I want to. In reality, most of the models I use are really pretty straighforward, but have their basis a little outside of traditional handicapping.

For example, I love to grab a small handful of factors that describe a horse as being fit and having early speed vs today's field, and insist on today's field being large enough and contentious enough (I've done some very interesting studies on that topic alone) so that the public historically has a difficult time landing on the right horse, and further insist that the race is taking place on a running surface that my database says has recently been kind to early speed, and maybe further restrict things to those riders who I've presonally charted as having a predictable ability for getting mounts to the front and then getting them to relax while on the lead.

That would be an example of just one active model for me and a pretty good one at that. This single model won't give me many plays but produces a very high quality play whenever one occurs. I run with many active models concurrently and bet each play as it comes up. I generally get between 2-3 solid overlays on a typical 9 race card. My preferred method of play is running enough tracks to try and get myself 25-30 quality plays per day. That gives me enough action that I never feel the need to make "action bets" between races (which years ago used to be the death of me.) I also feel that running 7-10 tracks each day helps me avoid having the feeling of all my eggs being in one basket for a day. When I first started doing things this way I'd play just one or two tracks and on some days it wasn't unusual to go 0 for 4 and go home without cashing a ticket. Typically, the horses I end up playing win between 12-18 percent of the time I bet them with an average win mutuel depending on the play type anywhere between $14.00 and $23.00. Every once in a while I'll catch a real bomb. I view those as gifts - and while they do happen - I don't count on them happening too often.

I also used to be a slave to the oddsboard. Lately I find I'm getting away from that. Most of the models I use these days focus on horses where I know ahead of time that I'm going to get my price. So basically once I process scratches I can just make my plays and go do something else for the day.

I live in San Diego and there's always something cool to do. My typical day consists of downloading race card files, processing scratches, getting the plays in, working several hours on the software, and then later knocking off and going for a run on the beach, seeing a movie, hitting the gym, or whatever. Last year there was this show on ESPN called Dream Job. I giggle every day that I get to play horses and work on the software. I think having to show up in a suit and tie on a set in Connecticut this time of year would be dreadful. Not knocking the East Coast. But ya have to admit it gets pretty cold up there this time of year.

It wasn't easy getting to where I am. It may not be easy to stay where I've gotten to. One thing I'm not going to do is stop working and studying and trying to improve.

-jp

.

[toetoe]

Jeff,

The foreknowledge of a big price was brought up by someone a while back. I think he said he was usually getting huge prices and betting early, and therefore he made sure to bet only about 1% of bankroll. Anyway ...

The subject of field size is not considered nearly often enough. Maybe 'cappers see a greater chance to cash, but it's about cashing enough per pot, not just winning pots. Consider the pick-four. A sequence with 12 per race, admittedly rare at the average track, has over 20,000 combinations. With 8 per race, just over 4,000(!). The Breeders Cup usually presents a huge opportunity, pick-fourwise. Now, combine big fields with Maryland's 14% takeout, Woodbine's 14.75%, Meadowlands' 15%, or Keeneland's 17%, and, assuming decent pool size, and you have something.

[FORGO]

Thank you Jeff for a great response. You left one out I think you should include #7 Refusing to acknowledge the first six. I also think you should include Toms post on applying the proper amount of Alchol when handicapping and betting. I new there was something missing in my game. When I read Toms responce It cracked me up. I am copying these seven down and adding Toms as #8.
FORGO:D

[formula_2002]

My previous mistakes;

Not understanding the difference between luck, and significance.

Not knowing what the difference is between what I have predicted and what the public has predicted and determining it's significance over a finite number of races.

Averaging odds rather than looking at them at the smallest increments "possible".
Not analyzing results with the same acumen as my handicapping.

Spending too much of my thoughts on optimal betting strategy without having proven our edge.

[twindouble]

Jeff P; Quote;

1. Not BELIEVING

2. Not working hard

3. Not studying hard

4. Not striving to improve yourself and your game

5. Not doing what you know works for you

6. Doing what you know hasn't worked for you

No one can discredit your 6 points, applies to just about everything we do in life.

I'll add another, enjoy what your doing. I give you credit for not dropping the ball, early on that couldn't have been a very enjoyable experience. Not many intellgent people would have hung in for so long.

To be honest, I think the triditional handicapper get more enjoyment out of the game and these computer programs don't do justice a sport that has such a long tridition of how I approach it.

Won't be long I'll be visiting some friends in Fla and guess what, by the sounds of it I'll have no desire to visit Magna's Vegas Gulfstream. The freaking building is enough to turn me off. Anyway, continued success, I get depressed just thinking about it.

T.D.

[DJofSD]

I live in San Diego and there's always something cool to do.

I remark to my son on a regular basis how lucky he is to live not only in the US but San Diego too. When he gets older and does some traveling on his own he'll only then appreciate the validity.

OTOH, it costs a king's ransom to live here.

Then there's the important stuff like the DMTC meeting.

[Fastracehorse]

It's hard to know where to begin with a commentary.

I really believe there is a lot of psychology in the way we approach the game.

There are obviously some intelligent and driven individuals on Pace Advantage. And some innovators as well.

Our methodologies are a big product of our personalities. And it takes many years of experience to understand the internal psychic forces that make us do the things we do. Specifically, the way these forces affect our wagers.

I also believe that most of us hard-cores are innately action players - and to be successful we know we have to curb some of that enthusiasm.

Database players - of which group I do not belong - rely on weighted factors and minimum odds requirements. While, dissectional handicappers like to contextualize everything.

Speaking from personal experince there is a bit of illusory magic in handicapping - the logic of illogic. For eg.: It's not logical to bet a soundly beaten horse in a lower class stepping up today - or is it??

I have a good speed figure - I innovated it - and I can't live without it - but I also love the illusory magic - that comes in may forms; and which I can distill into 2 words: TRAINER INTENT.

I guess the way you play is largely based on your mental make-up.

fffastt

[JackS]

Live or die using your own intuitions. Allowing another person to change your bet because you think (or do you really?) he knows something you don't.
I often ask good handicappers who they like but the question is asked out of curiosity and friendship or perhaps to bolster the opinion on my own horse and never to dissuade me from my original opinion.

[boxcar]

One of the worst things a player can do is engage in wagering activities with "scared money".

From time to time, I hear from former students who write to tell me how they're doing, or to ask for some advice on a particular matter, or to seek clarification on some complex angle, etc. This was the case just a few days ago with one of my favorite students...and one who challenged my mentorship, I might add. :)

I hadn't heard form this fine gentlemen in over two years, so I was pleasantly suprised to receive his email, especially since I often thought about him, the problems he was having, etc. Because of those problems, I had strongly urged him back then to quit play until such time he could get his life in order. His personal and financial situations were adversely affecting his play by clouding his judgment.

To make a long story short, his recent email was a story with two happy endings, for which I'm overjoyed. He managed to get out of debt, resolve his maritial problems, focus on his work so he could make decent money, etc., etc.

The other happy ending is, that upon finally taking my advice to heart a couple of years ago to quit, by late last year, his life improved enough whereby he was able to confidently resume play. Because his entire pyschological outlook toward life in general and the "game" in particular has changed for the better, he told me that he's now doing quite well for himself. (Just off his winnings this year thus far, he was able to buy a laptop computer he's been wanting.) His whole mental attitude has changed. He told me that he no longer feels the pressure that he used to feel. That he approaches handicapping not as a work of drudgery, but as an emancipated man -- who's has found freedom from the things that used to cause him great concern and even anxiety. While his approach is more light-hearted, it's also far more objective now.

Of course, I wrote back to him to express my joy at the great news. I was really happy for him. He wrote back to expand a bit on just how he has managed to improve his handicapping and to answer some of my questions. The very first thing he said was that he is so thankful that I kept drumming into him the folly of "hairsplitting" during the handicapping process. He said that he no longer does this, and the results have been remarkable.

But even more than this...he told me that he no longer uses my program! He's a Canadian and said that when the CAN Dollar dropped so low last year, he decided to forgo the expense of having to buy two data files for every card of races. Instead, he buys the el cheapo TSN PDF files. He said that this move, too, was a blessing in disguise because now he doesn't spend much more than ten minutes or so on a race! He looks for certain long shot angles, and if they're there...fine. He'll bet the horse if the price is right. But if not, he just moves on quickly to the next race. In essence, he's became a sharper handicapper by manually analyzing races.

He even "boasted" about how he now "anticipates" things better, and to demonstrate this, he attached a TSN file so that I could look at a particular horse that ran recently at TAM, and that he had backed. In fact, what I'll do is share the particular odds angles that movtivated him to bet this horse on my Long Shot thread. Sometimes having recent races to look at -- to see close up and personal lends more authenticity to the angles. And it certainly speaks to the ageless, timeless quality of the universal factors, as these find expression through racing angles.

I write this little story for the benefit of the newbies out there, or for any person struggling in making sound selections. Sometimes it's nothing more than ordering your priorities properly -- taking a sabbatical to work through life's' problems --difficulties that plague all of us. Even as tough-minded as I can be, I used to take time off to walk away from the game, occassionally, to take a breather, sort through my problems, find solutions, etc.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

bocksie,

Just curious ... where's this longshot thread? I love to hash over this stuff.

[boxcar]

bocksie,

Just curious ... where's this longshot thread? I love to hash over this stuff.

Be patient. I'll find it for you soon. :)

Boxcar