Boxcars Angles

[WaHoo]

I've put just his Angles posting on one page . Hope this helps anyone that wants to read them.

Boxcars Angles (http://www.bm-dist.com/BoxcarsAngles.html)

[shanta]

I've put just his Angles posting on one page . Hope this helps anyone that wants to read them.

Boxcars Angles (http://www.bm-dist.com/BoxcarsAngles.html)

Lotta class there Buffalo!

Thank you
Richie :)

[GaryG]

That was a lot of work....nice job! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Niko]

Beats the cut and past work I've done so far, I should've waited...Thanks a ton

[boxcar]

It's really great to see, in an online community like this, people reaching out in tangible ways to help others.

Thanks, BB, for your contributions. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Fastracehorse]

Buffalo did a fine job.

fffastt

[Doug3312]

;) Thanks!

[DJofSD]

I nominate buffalo as user of the month.

[grahors]

I'll second that!!!! :ThmbUp:

[WaHoo]

Your Welcome :blush: :blush:

The thanks goes to boxcar,
I hope we have the whole book by the end of the year.

[grahors]

Buff....
Just a question????
Are you a Ray Taulbot fan? Have you ever done anything like this work of art on his stuff??
Right now, I have some time constraints but have been playing with Boxcars angles..mostly the 1st and 2nd one due to the time thing...but..with very, very great results...playing mostly show bets and sporadicly due to time but have been hitting a bunch of $6 to $12 SHOW bets...I love it.
Thanks again Buffalo and especially BOXCAR.
Grahors

[WaHoo]

Buff....
Just a question????
Are you a Ray Taulbot fan? Have you ever done anything like this work of art on his stuff??

No only thing i've read about him is whats been posted on PA site. I'll try to check him out.

Just what horses i've found using boxcars angles is impressive to me, he has excellent writing skills mine are usually 4 letter words haha. Just me going back and forth i thought putting it together for everyone could help us if we study it and Boxcar said ok, he's giving it Free to use or not and the number of hits on his post is unreal, so people are wanting to know. I see alot of new posters and i think thats what we need ..
I always say i'm a Dollar bettor, really i am on my dollars, I like taking a $150 turning it into a thousand or two which i did in jan. I'm not new to the game (started in 1970 or so) but I like to listen to others, thats why i'm alway lurking on PA.

[LurkingBettor]

Thanks to Buff and Box!

[kingfin66]

I always say i'm a Dollar bettor, really i am on my dollars, I like taking a $150 turning it into a thousand or two which i did in jan. I'm not new to the game (started in 1970 or so) but I like to listen to others, thats why i'm alway lurking on PA.

This says a lot about you - all of it good. You play the horses for the enjoyment of the game and have been doing so for a long time (I was 4 years old in 1970), yet you are willing to learn something new from somebody you don't know. I think it's great that you have been able to take some of Boxcar's info and quickly integrate it into your handicapping with positive results.

Carry on!

[boxcar]

This says a lot about you - all of it good. You play the horses for the enjoyment of the game and have been doing so for a long time (I was 4 years old in 1970), yet you are willing to learn something new from somebody you don't know. I think it's great that you have been able to take some of Boxcar's info and quickly integrate it into your handicapping with positive results.

Carry on!

I never knew Taulbot personally, but I learned a lot from him. Knowing the messenger is not nearly as important as understanding the message. This is so because the latter can always be checked out and either be validated or invalidated.

Boxcar

[dastar]

That's quite an undertaking!

Great dedication.:ThmbUp:

Dastar

[Buzz]

Buffalo,

Awesome work... "Box-E-Book" ... with documentation!

It doesn't get any better than this.

I will send you my abbreviation list and anything else that you think might be helpful.

Thanks for adding your time and effort to the mix.

Buzz

[WaHoo]

Thanks Buzz it's added to the page--- Voc and Abbr.

Please any other help appreciated, just email me.

[GaryG]

I tried to sort them out but got lost with the abbreviations...thanks again.

[hurrikane]

I just wanted to add that I have tested some of these with my db and I am really quite surprised at their performance.

Most do ok at the minor tracks which is Box's forte' if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for sharing Box and thanks for all the hard work putting together buff et al.

[boxcar]

I just wanted to add that I have tested some of these with my db and I am really quite surprised at their performance.

Most do ok at the minor tracks which is Box's forte' if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for sharing Box and thanks for all the hard work putting together buff et al.

Actually, the "minor" tracks were not my forte. Just take a look at the tracks from where the majority of the examples of my angles come. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that my racing angles wouldn't fare well at minor tracks. But my rationale for avoiding them was that since I relied so heavily on the Form Factor to make my selections, why would I want to incur more risks by betting on the cheapest of the cheap, who aren't known for holding their form for very long? This is why I stuck with "A" and "B" grade tracks.

Boxcar

[hurrikane]

My mistake Box.

however...many of them did not show a pos ROI at the major venues.
likely people could see form on the better animals but it was a little more hidden at the cheaper rings. Paid some very nice prices on the cheap tracks

In any case, thanks for sharing.

[kingfin66]

Alright Hurrikane, since nobody else asked I will, any chance of you tipping us off to which of the angles are showing a positive ROI?

[WaHoo]

i've made a few changes and corrections to the Voc and Abbr page.

PS: i like the DD LW BA and good odds ;)

[Niko]

I'd be curious to know why their was a difference between Hurricane's results and those that were run through JCapper which really didn't show anything to beat the track take. Different angles tested or in conjunction?

One reason I envy the database guys, the ability to test. I suppose I could hire someone....

Of course you don't have to share Hurricane, but being Boxcar shared the angles would you be willing to share your query results?

[rokitman]

Bravo Buffalo and Boxcar :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

A couple of things about mining for gold nuggets in data bases. First, there often are multiple angle horses in one race. If there are four A angle types in one race,for example, only one of them can win; and if one wins this type's win percentage and ROI suffers penalized due to the presence of the three A losers in the race.)

But even more importantly, data base mining is a linear approach to handicapping, and as such will invariably miss all the subtelites, shadings and obscurities that are so often present in horses' charts. These kinds of things are best seen through careful comparitive analysis of the qualitative nature.

I think I'll be able to demonstrate what I mean by all this in that Famosa Senorita race at LRL.

But even in this last winning example I posted on long shot thread, I have to think that the heavy fave Replication would have been the overwhelming choice of many if not most quantitative approaches based on certain positive data that such approaches would have taken into account. But what about the strong negative data in his chart? Would such approaches have picked up on those two strong negative angles? Would they have even recognized their presence in the horse's chart? And if so, how would such approaches evaluated that negative data in relation to all the other horses in the race?

Boxcar

[Jeff P]

I'd be curious to know why their was a difference between Hurricane's results and those that were run through JCapper which really didn't show anything to beat the track take. Different angles tested or in conjunction?Niko, I studied and coded out (to the best that I could understand them) only a handful of the angles presented by Boxcar. I did A, B, BB3, BW2, ES, HC, and UFI when it appears in tandem with A, B, BB3, or BW2.

It's very possible that Hurrikane may have looked at different angles than I did. It's also very possible that Hurrikane may have looked at angle horses running at different tracks or during a different time period than I did.


A couple of things about mining for gold nuggets in data bases. First, there often are multiple angle horses in one race. If there are four A angle types in one race,for example, only one of them can win; and if one wins this type's win percentage and ROI suffers penalized due to the presence of the three A losers in the race.)

But even more importantly, data base mining is a linear approach to handicapping, and as such will invariably miss all the subtelites, shadings and obscurities that are so often present in horses' charts. These kinds of things are best seen through careful comparitive analysis of the qualitative nature. Boxcar, you are correct in that my testing in no way accounts for human interpretation of the "subtelites, shadings and obscurities" involved. My own intuition tells me that a successful angles player needs lots of practice and study and work to understand these. With enough study and practice and work, I'd bet the angles player eventually develops a sort of sixth sense for knowing when to play and when to pass.

But you are also wrong about about database testing. The work I did was not entirely linear. I did test every possible combination of the angles that I coded out. For example, I looked at B with UFI. I wanted to know if B with UFI was stronger or weaker than B by itself, etc. Anglemaster suggested someone look into B, ES, and UFI combined. I did that. I looked at angle horses vs non angle horses. I looked at angle horses under a variety of conditions: distance, surface, purse value, class level, form cycle, odds ranges etc. I spent about 2 1/2 weeks coding out angles and testing them against a full year's worth of data.

Database testing (even purely linear testing) can and does tell you something about a handicapping approach. It tells you the raw numbers under a variety of circumstances. Done right, it gives you a foundation upon which you can reach a resonable expectation of what you might experience going forward. The whole idea of database testing - at least for me - was to completely eliminate the need to subjectively interpret the subtelites, shadings and obscurities involved.

My own research tells me this about an angles based approach: There is a little something there. Flat bet win roi for many of the angles themselves that I tested did outperform flat bet win roi of simply picking a horse at random. If nothing was there then this would not have been the case. I also found that certain combinations of angles - when played at high odds - actually did bring the player pretty close to break even - but always with a very low win rate. With study and practice and work - and a sort of sixth sense for understanding the "subtelites, shadings and obscurities" involved - I could see where an experienced devoted angle player might be able to turn a profit. But only after lots of study practice and work. What IS there isn't strong enough for ME to wish to pursue it further. There are easier paths to walk on. Others may see things differently and wish to dig deeper than I did.

-jp

.

[twindouble]

Boxcar, you are correct in that my testing in no way accounts for human interpretation of the "subtelites, shadings and obscurities" involved. My own intuition tells me that a successful angles player needs lots of practice and study and work to understand these. With enough study and practice and work, I'd bet the angles player eventually develops a sort of sixth sense for knowing when to play and when to pass. Quote; Jeff P.

Jeff, every factor a handicapper comes up with has some weight to some degree, some we discount right away because of the conditions of the race, other factors put together may fit those conditions in a way that produces the contenders or a possable winner with good value. I wouldn't call that having a sixth sense.



I could see where an experienced devoted angle player might be able to turn a profit. But only after lots of study practice and work. What IS there isn't strong enough for ME to wish to pursue it further. There are easier paths to walk on. Others may see things differently and wish to dig deeper than I did. Quote; Jeff P.

I would have said it this way, an experienced devoted handicapper can turn a profit. Why? Because an experienced handicapper isn't going to lump any series of factors together and use them a their primary tool to handicap a race, on any given race they may not apply, even though they may be present but not be good enough to support a serious wager. Other races those factors could be what the doctor ordered.


T.D.

[Grifter]

This is an old refrain that shows up in so many posts on PA. It's the quant guys (like Jeff, Game Theory, et al.) versus the "art" guys

[Grifter]

Sorry... it's that typing thing.... hit a wrong key and boom!... I posted before I was ready... premature expatiation.:)

-------------------------------

This is an old refrain that shows up in so many posts on PA. It's the quant guys (like Jeff, Game Theory, et al.) versus the "art" guys (like Boxcar, TD. etc.). The "art" guys know it when they see it.... it's all there in the PPs, if you know how to read 'em. The quant guys need to make the data prove it.

Although I consider myself in the quant camp, we all started out learning how to read the PPs. That's art. Guys like Boxcar make it work for them throughout their handicapping career. Other folks need to turn those "angles" into rules that can be coded in the computer. Gotta force the truth from the data and make it sing....

I want to be a quant guy because I lack the sang-froid to make bet after bet depending on nothing more than my savvy at reading PPs. I like the science approach (like Bentner (sp?) in Hong Kong). I want the data to define the overlays, rather than torture myself every race.

And still, take away my computer, put me in Saratoga in August at the paddock, relying on nothing but the Form, my assessment of horseflesh, and intuition, and I'm happy as a pig in poop.....

On such days, winning or losing is immaterial. (OK... better to win).

-- Grifter

[Fastracehorse]

Sorry... it's that typing thing.... hit a wrong key and boom!... I posted before I was ready... premature expatiation.:)

-------------------------------

This is an old refrain that shows up in so many posts on PA. It's the quant guys (like Jeff, Game Theory, et al.) versus the "art" guys (like Boxcar, TD. etc.). The "art" guys know it when they see it.... it's all there in the PPs, if you know how to read 'em. The quant guys need to make the data prove it.

Although I consider myself in the quant camp, we all started out learning how to read the PPs. That's art. Guys like Boxcar make it work for them throughout their handicapping career. Other folks need to turn those "angles" into rules that can be coded in the computer. Gotta force the truth from the data and make it sing....

I want to be a quant guy because I lack the sang-froid to make bet after bet depending on nothing more than my savvy at reading PPs. I like the science approach (like Bentner (sp?) in Hong Kong). I want the data to define the overlays, rather than torture myself every race.

And still, take away my computer, put me in Saratoga in August at the paddock, relying on nothing but the Form, my assessment of horseflesh, and intuition, and I'm happy as a pig in poop.....

On such days, winning or losing is immaterial. (OK... better to win).

-- Grifter



Einstein thought Picasso's art was inspiring in resepect to the 'space-time continuum.'

fffastt

[Niko]

Thanks again Jeff for the clarification...and Hard Work!! Your database results matched MY past experiences with SOME of the angles.

You're so right Grifter. It's like the Republicans arguing with the Democrats. Two different parties that each "believe" they're right and will fight for their truth. Nothing wrong with it and there's different approaches. I just require some validity to my artistic foundation before I'll pursue it.

Boxcar does have me thinking in different directions again, so thanks for getting the old juices flowing.

[hurrikane]

I can honestly day I do not use Box's firm rules. There is no way to program 'a horse wore a blue hat 2 races back and the last race race back the trainer wore boxers with hearts'. (that's a joke box)

but I took the concept. horse was ITM 2 back, OTM LB, clm in form (I have a fig for I use for form), the <=60 (generally speaking) became <=60. I'm not sure how you can turn an equation like <=60 into 'generally speaking'.

Anyway, I took Box's concept, firmed it up and found something that looks interesting.

What I find really most interesting is that it looks great at the lower tracks but clearly Box says he did not use it that way. He plays he top tracks because he makes his algorithms based on form so why would you use it on a cheap track.
Everything I have shows it's a big loser at the upper tracks.

Probably need to figure in the trainers boxers. :D

[chickenhead]

~

[Jeff P]

posted by anglemaster in the other Boxcar debate thread - Jeff I am amazed at your data base work. All I can say is cool.

The only problem with your study is that you are using the angles as standalone. If you read Boxcar's "longshot" thread he posts many times that no angle is standalone.
I personally would never bet an "A" angle or a "B" angle if that is all that the horse had.
I did ask RyeSteve about the b/es/ufi combo, I would likely bet this kind of horse (of course depending on competition)
I personally bet three angles no matter what: The VC(claim angle) FO (betting angle) and the BB3.
I think the misunderstanding is in regards to one angle. I know CJ querried about how one differenciates between all of the horses in a race because likely all of them would have some kind of angle(s) in their PP. The answer is simply, it is how all of the pony's angles interact with each other.

I can see all of the work that Jeff did, but I liken it to doing a study of a Cake ingredients.
One does a study of people and their likes for said ingredients of a chocalate cake:
10 per cent like salt
12 percent like flour
5 percent like eggs
60 percent like chocolate.
Alone the single ingredients are not that strong but put them together and 100 percent of the people like chocolate.

I understand that this might be a bad example but I am trying to make a point.Anglemaster,

I ran the b/es/ufi combo against my 2005 database. I also did the BB3. Results for both can be found in that same thread.

I've also had time to do some further testing and have now added some breakouts for various subsets to my initial B Angle post in that same thread.




and posted by rrbauer in the other Boxcar debate thread - Good work on evaluating the angles. How much trouble to do some subsets....the typical ones....by track....by sprint/route....by dirt/turf. I have no hunches here, but you have the data and have the "rules" setup. Stratifying the data shouldn't be too big a deal.Richard,

As indicated in my reply to Anglemaster above I've had the time to do a little further testing and have now added some breakouts for various subsets to my initial B Angle post in that same thread.

Here's a link to the angles test results posted on my own message board:
http://www.jcapper.ajthau.com/index.php?showtopic=460

I'll try and add a few more subsets in the near future as time allows.

-jp

.

[WaHoo]

I was hoping this thread won't get back into a debate,
but since it has i've never seen a Program that stands alone as a black box, theres always some re-handicapping the programs info to make your bets.
Some are trying to prove Boxcars Angles doesn't work or show a profit.
Boxcar posted (can't find it) that he play 5 or 6 tracks 5 days a week and found maybe 125 plays, BUT only played about 60 and won maybe 10 or 12.
In the last 2 or 3 weeks I've found horses at that time i thought that qualified using his Angles maybe 15 or 16, Some i added to my trifectas or picks3 and bet a couple across and last count + $1200 from Boxcars horses that i probably wouldn't have used. Also i've found most of his horses do figure in early or late speed in my programs i use, but their ratings didn't look like they could win or get in the money. I also knew a few trainers, had some tell me put horse in my bets but Don't bet it to win use in exoctics, why they knew the horse was ready....
Trainer Intent angles to me it's a Winner, now i don't have to talk to a trainer i'm seeing what they're doing better.

[Fastracehorse]

I can honestly day I do not use Box's firm rules. There is no way to program 'a horse wore a blue hat 2 races back and the last race race back the trainer wore boxers with hearts'. (that's a joke box)

but I took the concept. horse was ITM 2 back, OTM LB, clm in form (I have a fig for I use for form), the <=60 (generally speaking) became <=60. I'm not sure how you can turn an equation like <=60 into 'generally speaking'.

Anyway, I took Box's concept, firmed it up and found something that looks interesting.

What I find really most interesting is that it looks great at the lower tracks but clearly Box says he did not use it that way. He plays he top tracks because he makes his algorithms based on form so why would you use it on a cheap track.
Everything I have shows it's a big loser at the upper tracks.

Probably need to figure in the trainers boxers. :D

Personally,

Most of the horses that I have hit at 50-1 or more have come at major tracks. In fact, most have come at the California A-circuit.

The reason why I am mentioning this is because I think form isn't invisible at the so-called 'cheaper' venues.

Yes, there are some very ugly races; ie, impossible to grasp who will win at smaller venues. However, many of the same form principles apply at smaller tracks and their bigger cousins.

In fact, smaller tracks add insights to betting bigger tracks. As, rarer seen handicapping contexts at A-circuits have already been encountered at B or C circuits.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

I was hoping this thread won't get back into a debate,
but since it has i've never seen a Program that stands alone as a black box, theres always some re-handicapping the programs info to make your bets.
Some are trying to prove Boxcars Angles doesn't work or show a profit.
Boxcar posted (can't find it) that he play 5 or 6 tracks 5 days a week and found maybe 125 plays, BUT only played about 60 and won maybe 10 or 12.
In the last 2 or 3 weeks I've found horses at that time i thought that qualified using his Angles maybe 15 or 16, Some i added to my trifectas or picks3 and bet a couple across and last count + $1200 from Boxcars horses that i probably wouldn't have used. Also i've found most of his horses do figure in early or late speed in my programs i use, but their ratings didn't look like they could win or get in the money. I also knew a few trainers, had some tell me put horse in my bets but Don't bet it to win use in exoctics, why they knew the horse was ready....
Trainer Intent angles to me it's a Winner, now i don't have to talk to a trainer i'm seeing what they're doing better.

He reminds me of, but definitely not limited to, Jay Mazur's ideologies.

IMO however, Boxie is a highly intellectual handicapper and it is wonderful to see. It is even better that so many have embraced his ideas.

fffastt

[boxcar]

posted by anglemaster in the other Boxcar debate thread - Anglemaster,

I ran the b/es/ufi combo against my 2005 database. I also did the BB3. Results for both can be found in that same thread.

I've also had time to do some further testing and have now added some breakouts for various subsets to my initial B Angle post in that same thread.
and posted by rrbauer in the other Boxcar debate thread - Richard,

As indicated in my reply to Anglemaster above I've had the time to do a little further testing and have now added some breakouts for various subsets to my initial B Angle post in that same thread.

Here's a link to the angles test results posted on my own message board:
http://www.jcapper.ajthau.com/index.php?showtopic=460

I'll try and add a few more subsets in the near future as time allows.

-jp

.


JP, I’m flattered you went to all the trouble. But if you had asked me, I would have told you that I don’t believe any angle or angle combos would have produced a profit. After all, I have repeatedly said that they aren’t “magic wands” that will produce winners on demand. I never developed a mechanical system with any of my angels.

I really don’t want to get into a debate over handicapping philosophies, especially the age old Quant v. Qual one. This would be akin to arguing political philosophies (something in which I rarely engage :) ). However, once again, I believe there are some serious weaknesses to a quantified approach, including your db test results.

The first glaring one that is immediately evident to me is that the warp ‘n’ woof of handicapping is comparative analysis (at least it used to be when I started playing the game). After all, we are still talking about a game wherein horses compete against one another, which means horses neither win or lose races in a vacuum. They win and lose for reasons. Poor racing luck notwithstanding, they lose on the basis of any number of their own inherent deficiencies which are unable to overcome the superior angles or attributes of the winners. Likewise, horses win on the basis of any number of their superior angles or attributes compared to the losers’.

Yet, when you run your db tests, even on angle combos, these tests are run in a vacuum. Just as there are legitimate reasons, in most cases, for why angle horses won, likewise there are legitimate reasons for them losing. But because such tests totally ignore the dual context of each horse’s chart from where the data was immediately pulled and the larger context of all the competing horses’ charts, we don’t have any idea what these legitimate reasons were.

And since in very many cases, there would have been legit reasons for angle horses losing (again, poor racing luck aside), then chances are good that an experienced player would have seen that beforehand when handicapping, and took a pass on such horses in many, if not most cases. After all, we don’t handicap races beforehand in a vacuum, do we? It seems to me that at best, your test results resemble anecdotal evidence.

Obviously, then, in the real world, just because a horse has a certain “strong angle combo” in his chart, doesn’t make him an automatic bet. For one thing, maybe the price isn’t right. Or for another, the strong combo might be weakened considerably with offsetting negative angles, which would render the horse a non-contender. Or maybe the horse is outclassed. Or maybe it’s a case of going with the known v. the unknown in situations where other horses are clearly sharp, but the strong angle horse’s form is questionable for any number of reasons. In short, there could be a host of legitimate reasons for tossing out an “angle play”.

Then, of course, there is the other nagging and persistent problem of having multiple angle horses in a race. How does you db testing account for this? You’re practically guaranteed a negative return when the db spits out all the angle horses, even though chances are very good that in the real world, a handicapper would not have bet all of them! And this isn’t as rare occurrence as one might think. (I will demonstrate this once I complete my analysis of the Famosa Senorita race that was run at LRL on the long shot thread.)

These reasons, then, account for why I have to take db test results with a big grain of salt. In the end, it’s all too linear. Quantified approaches tend to oversimplify a complex game for the sake at arriving at a number or numbers.

Boxcar

[cj]

The first glaring one that is immediately evident to me is that the warp ‘n’ woof of handicapping is comparative analysis (at least it used to be when I started playing the game). After all, we are still talking about a game wherein horses compete against one another, which means horses neither win or lose races in a vacuum. They win and lose for reasons.

Boxcar

This is what I was getting out earlier. You post horse after horse that won fitting certain angles without showing the other horses.

Obviously, more are losing than winning while showing these angles and at a net loss, but we never here about these losers, or why they should or should not have been bet.

I could make up an angle or set of angles, find that it shows a 20% loss, but still post 100 winners PPs that fit the description. It proves nothing, other than you can find winners paying big prices for any angle you can dream up.

[Sinner369]

To Boxcar:

How do you prioritize your angles in situations where 3 or 4 horses in the same race fit those angles. I believe you have stated before that in certain cases you bet more than one horse!

:confused:

[boxcar]

This is what I was getting out earlier. You post horse after horse that won fitting certain angles without showing the other horses.

Obviously, more are losing than winning while showing these angles and at a net loss, but we never here about these losers, or why they should or should not have been bet.

I could make up an angle or set of angles, find that it shows a 20% loss, but still post 100 winners PPs that fit the description. It proves nothing, other than you can find winners paying big prices for any angle you can dream up.

CJ, on the long shot site, we're in the process of looking at and studying a full-blown methodology. An angle or any subset of angles is but a very small part of a very comprehensive approach.

Two things: I never represented the angles in the methodology as anything but handicapping tools. I never represented them as magic bullets, as magic wands, the holy grail, etc. I never said or implied that any angle or combination of angles could be used in a mechanical fashion to produce a profit. The reason I chose the term “tools” is because tools are made for specific purposes to do specific jobs. As such, a workman needs to learn how to use each tool properly, if he hopes to get the job done. (And these tools include all the negative racing angles, as well.) In this regard, then, I have repeatedly stated that users of this methodology need to learn how to properly evaluate racing angles – which is the same as telling a workman he needs to learn how to use his tools.

And this brings me to the second point, which is: You might want to revisit post #403 on the long shot thread which also addresses the issue you raise.

Boxcar

[twindouble]

This is what I was getting out earlier. You post horse after horse that won fitting certain angles without showing the other horses.

Obviously, more are losing than winning while showing these angles and at a net loss, but we never here about these losers, or why they should or should not have been bet.

I could make up an angle or set of angles, find that it shows a 20% loss, but still post 100 winners PPs that fit the description. It proves nothing, other than you can find winners paying big prices for any angle you can dream up.

I'm not speaking for boxcar here but as you know the basic principals in handicapping are the conditions of the race and weather the horses qualify for those conditions, a trainers job is to find conditions where his horse or horses can win. So, that's a good starting point and we ask the question, "why is this horse entered this race," (trainer intent). Qualifying for a race doesn't mean the horse has a shot to win it but the reasons for entering can vary from trainer to trainer, a prep race is a good example along with others like trying the turf, stretching out or racing into form. (form cycle). We all can conclude how a trainer moves his horses around is an important factor in handicapping and whatever insight we get will help eliminate or lean on horses.


Funny thing happened on another forum, we had a fun contest called pick a loser, if your horse hit the board you got eliminated. The surprising thing was how fast most got eliminated including myself mid way through it. I bring this up because nowadays we play the gimmicks, well at least I do and horses like that are a ticket to success. While the contest was going on, I made it a point to go back whenever I could, depending on the pp's I had to see why those horses hit the board or won the race. To me it's was a good exercise in handicapping. Boxcar is trying attach sound handicapping principles in finding or eliminating those horses. That's the way I see it.

Just yesterday at Aqueduct the last race super bailed me out of my losing streak and put me confortably in the black. Well for now anyway. :cool: No red boarding here, I posted it in the war room. Keep in mind out of 12 or 13 days of racing, about 20 races or so I hit just 3 races total. The other two just helped the cause some.


Good luck,

T.D.

[Fastracehorse]

Yes,

Most races are competitive. And hence, I prefer to 'spot play.'

fffastt

[John]

Spot play is an angle play.

[Jeff P]

I’d like to point something out. I’m not on any type of quest or witch hunt trying to disprove those handful of Boxcar’s angles that I have coded out and tested. Based on some of the feedback in the private emails I have received, I get the feeling that a few of you out there think that I am.

Actually the exact opposite is true. The main reason I took the time to code out and test a handful of these angles with a database in the first place was to do some ground work before attempting to integrate some of these angles into my own play – provided of course that such a thing is even possible in the first place. I needed to get a handle on their strengths and weaknesses – to reach my own understanding of their wagering potential (if any) based on an examination of the large numbers of historical occurrences involved. I consider this a necessary prerequisite. It’s just one of the things I always do before moving forward with any new handicapping approach I take a look at. It’s simply the way I operate.

In the thread on my message board where I posted my results I made a rather lengthy post addressing the shortcomings of my testing – and clearly addressed the one thing I wasn’t doing: attempting to account for the make up of the race itself in terms of which horses had which angles and how many.

I fully realize the difficulty involved in reaching profitability by playing all angles horses everywhere. That’s certainly a tough hill to climb. And I fully realize that Boxcar never claimed anyone could.

But I also contend that subjecting a handful of these angles (or any other handicapping approach) to database testing and breaking the results up into subsets is meaningful in ways most players will never understand. Database testing – even purely linear database testing - gives you certain clues about what to expect going forward – provided you know how to interpret your results. The argument here isn’t just one of quant vs. art. Believe me when I say this: Both quant and art have their place. Art can be everything. I strongly believe that tuning into it when interpreting database results and crafting handicapping models is a thing of utter beauty when you can pull it off.

By breaking the results up into subsets you can actually start to separate the good from the bad. By tossing weak subsets and homing in on the stronger subsets one can actually start to craft viable handicapping methods out of what appears to be a jumbled mess at first glance. For example, my own testing proved to my own satisfaction that B Angle horses carry a significantly stronger flat bet win roi than A Angle horses do. So by tossing A Angles horses and narrowing my focus to a limited number of the subsets of B Angle horses I actually made some significant progress in my quest to craft a viable handicapping model out of my results. In my opinion that’s the exact opposite of operating without context.

The aspiring player who dives in without the benefit of database testing can’t do this. He is in effect flying blind. I’ll make the argument every time that it is he who is operating in a vacuum and not I.

Boxcar I want to say thank you for taking the time to share your angles and insights with the rest of us. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. And I can honestly tell you that I have made some real progress in crafting a viable handicapping model that combines B Angle horses with some of my own numbers and factors. By all means, keep posting.

-jp

.

[BIG RED]

Wow, great job! I have some slack time coming up end of next week. Had a 2000 page book picked out to read, will read this instead. Timing is everything. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Thank you, Jeff, for your thoughtful explanation. And I'll be the first to admit up front that I know diddly about data mining, or whatever you call it. Of course, when I started playing this game back in the early 70s, PCs weren't a gleam in anyone's eye. But looking back at that time and all the hard manual, laborious, tedious research and study I did, I think I can still honestly say that I'm glad I went that route.

That kind of study set the foundation for everything I did throughout my playing career. It's difficult to put in words what I actually experienced using the methodology. Perhaps the closest thing I can compare the methodology to is something a judge once said about pornography. (I'm sure most know what I'm getting at.) Remember when some judge essentially said (to paraphrase him), "I can't define pornography, but I sure know it when I see it"? Well, that's how it is with my methodology. I can't define what a "really good thing" is in broad terms, but when I see it -- I sure know what it is.

Even professional art critics will often be hard-pressed to define what a masterpiece is until they see one and recognize it for what it is. After all, masterpieces come in all forms and are created in various styles. Yet, I’m sure in most cases, these professionals would be able to come to a consensus on whether or not a specific piece of art qualifies as a “masterpiece”. And so it is with specific race problems. Every race problem is unique. No two races are alike. Similar? Maybe. But not the same. This is why some races can offer up a horse that is a “masterpiece” – a standout selection. Or why other races offer up more than one “standout”. Or why others only offer up contenders who border on masterpieces. Or why some races offer up no masterpieces at all.

The game is so complex, so nuanced, so overflowing with subtleties and obscurities that it requires an approach that can look beyond the numbers. It's not that numbers aren't important in the game – that they don’t have their place in it. It's, just that a numbers-oriented approach can't possibly pick up on these kinds qualities I just mentioned. Numbers just can't! They have limitations. They can't embrace the numerous complexities.

Yes, numbers are great for delineating the relative running abilities of horses.
But even then, we should be careful of not putting the cart before the horse. Our first priority (according to my way of thinking) should be a very careful analysis of the horse’s form to see if he’s a likely candidate to run to his best pace and speed ability (or at least very close to it) in today’s race. But Form itself is a complex, multi-faceted factor that requires close scrutiny utilizing figures and, yes… racing angles – both of the performance and trainer’s intentions types. This is so because too often a horse’s form will manifest a dismal appearance that can frequently lead, even a seasoned player, to draw faulty conclusions, while other evidence within the same chart at the same time will suggest that the trainer probably has a very different opinion about his horse’s current condition. Or a horse’s recent SR pattern (form cycle mode) will outright contradict the horse’s aggregate beaten lengths in those very same recent races! And this is especially true when the horse has also performed in certain ways in those races. These reasons are why racing angles add such an important and needed dimension to the handicapping process.


How many angle winners have we already seen that exactly fit this kind of “obscure” mold? How many horses have we already seen who won, coming out of these kinds of situations? Yet, when a bomb wins, most handicappers are left scratching their heads because this rotten, no good long shot, who only figured to run like a mule jumped up and totally wrecked these players’ figs. These players are left holding a fistful of losing tickets while cussing out the long shot winner, or cussing out the jock who “stiffed” their horse, etc., etc. After all, the player has to find some excuse for why this horrible looking horse on paper upset his apple cart. And if you, and others here attend the track on a regular basis, you know exactly what I'm talking about when a big bomb lights up the board. More than a few people tend to get upset.

Many years ago, when I used to attend tracks on a regular basis, I had my own box seats for each meet. And sometimes friends and acquaintances would come and sit with me. And even they used to give me the most incredulous looks at times whenever I connected on nice scores -- which wasn't all that infrequent. They just couldn't understand how I could come up with many of the winners I did. It was as far beyond their understanding, as my racing angles were that often went beyond the raw numbers to impart insights that numbers alone could not.

I stated a long time ago on the long shot thread that very few people will want to run with this kind of methodology – for any number of reasons. But perhaps there may even be people like you, Jeff, who are contemplating possibly integrating some of these angles into your own personal approach. If so, I wish you the very best. Just keep in mind, though, that you’ll find it very tough (at least at first) to not rely so heavily on your numbers. To the extent that can’t, the effectiveness of the angles will be compromised. But if you’re able to eventually take a more “fair and balanced” approach by synthesizing my angles with your numbers, and you’re willing to develop sound personal judgment (which I personally think is a bane to many players) through the practice of evaluating these angles, then I think you’ll do fine. Your judgment will tell you, after a while, when to rely more on your numbers and when to rely more on the racing angles.

I hope you’ll continue to enjoy my posts, and that at the very least they will serve you and others here as an “awakening” of sorts. If nothing else, the next time you’re at the track and some bomb that “didn’t figure well” lights up the board with a boxcar-type price, you’ll be able to recall some of the things I have written and know where to begin your search for possible answers…before pulling out your hair. :)

Boxcar

[Fastracehorse]

"Even professional art critics will often be hard-pressed to define what a masterpiece is until they see one and recognize it for what it is. After all, masterpieces come in all forms and are created in various styles."


In the early 20th C. Picasso turned the art world on it's head.
And, he became the most prolific artisit of that C..

fffastt

[Kappa]

Has the address for Boxcar's Angles ben changed? I get a page not found message.

[Overlay]

They're still on the board (even though the thread was closed).

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24232

[bobsbet]

Buffalo:

Trying to access your page listing boxcar angles. Has it been moved??

Thanks

Bob

[BeatTheChalk]

Yup .. I could not find the file ! Help:) thanks Just tried to access the
file .. March 30th around 8 am Central.

[BeatTheChalk]

Doesnt work. Get error message .. Site doesnt exist on this server ...
HELP ! THANKS :)