the greatest myth in racing

[traynor]

The greatest myth in horse racing is that all the
information you need to win is contained in the Daily
Racing Form past performances, or in the daily downloads
from BRIS or TSN. It is equivalent to stock traders believing
that all the information they need to make investment decisions
is published daily in the Wall Street Journal. In both cases,
the data provided is valuable, and should form the basis for
further research. In neither case should it be considered the
only-or even the best-source of information.

In business terms, the data presented represents a closed system;
everyone gets essentially the same data, and manipulates it
primarily in form, rather than content. Handicapping software
developers are particularly guilty of restrictive thinking; they
seem more concerned with earning commissions from data providers
for subscriptions than with the success of their clients. The
relevance to professional bettors is that the primary focus of
handicapping software is on database connectivity, rather than
on enabling clients to earn above average returns. Just as
successful entrepreneurs must "think outside the box," so must
successful bettors "think outside the system."

As interesting and useful as the available data may be, the
simple truth is that the data should only form a part of your
wagering decision-making process, rather than forming the
entire basis on which decisions are made. The abject failure
of handicapping software to show a profit over time for
most users is not surprising-with minor variations, users
are attempting to extract a few crumbs from a continually
decreasing piece of the same pari-mutuel pie.

That the data in the Daily Racing Form and the data made
available by vendors is useful is not the issue; the issue
is that using only that data as the basis of a decision-making
process is only suitable for recreational bettors and hobbyist
racing fans. Professionals should realize that mindlessly
manipulating the same raw data as everyone else, hoping for
insights and advantages unavailable to the competition, is
ultimately futile.
Good Luck

[Hank]

Nice post,I was was thinking basicly the same thing as I read the thread concerning the blinkers off book and the 'extras' that it is based on.Though I use software to aid in line making and recordkeeping,handicappers are allways trying to reinvent the wheel,to my way of thinking the BEST supplementry information the handicapper can have, can only be gained my the charting and watching of races.The essence of superior handicapping is knowing when a horse is BETTER or WORSE than his pps line shows, what better way to gain this insight other than charting and watching?

[traynor]

Hank wrote: <The essence of superior handicapping is knowing when a horse is BETTER or WORSE than his pps line shows, what better way to gain this insight other than charting and watching?>

Well said. The fallacy in over-reliance on historical data is that racing is dynamic. If every horse "ran back to its latest/best/average/representative paceline" in subsequent races, there would be no horse racing because everyone would be betting on the same horse. After a number of years, I think the farther you are from the horses, the less you know about what is going to happen in the race. My point is that the best software in the world is only a part of the puzzle, and definitely not "all you need to know to win."
Good Luck

[sjk]

Traynor,

I am sure there is more than one way to be successful but I use nothing more than daily chart information. So far for me that is all I need to know to win and I have really not observed any fall-off in effectiveness over the course of a number of years.

Since I am playing from home and following a large number of tracks I don't know what other information I would be able to use. I can't see the horses in the paddock. In fact even if I were at the track I would not be spending time in the paddock since it would cost me too much action on other tracks.

[traynor]

sjk wrote: <Since I am playing from home and following a large number of tracks I don't know what other information I would be able to use. I can't see the horses in the paddock. In fact even if I were at the track I would not be spending time in the paddock since it would cost me too much action on other tracks.>

If you are making a decent profit doing what you are doing, then obviusly you should keep doing it. The number of people who can consistently profit exclusively from number-crunching is extremely small, and getting smaller every day (with all due respect to the "Canadian pros" and support staff). For someone who is NOT already winning a substantial profit, that seems entirely the wrong direction to go.

Your belief that it would "cost too much action on the other tracks" is telling; if you are spreading a lot of bets on a lot of tracks and getting a good return, you are doing something that will bury most bettors. Especially those with less experience, or a less accurate Access app to rely on.

Most professionals are highly selective in which races and which tracks they wager; that is in direct oppostion to the "shotgun" approach used by recreational or hobbyist bettors. The latter seem to believe that the more races they bet, the more chances they have to win. The opposite is usually true.

The equivalent is seen every day in casinos. Poker can be profitable, blackjack can be profitable, but thousands of people lose the rent money every day doing what professionals consider easy money. I applaud your Access application and the proprietary strategies you use to profit. I think most trying to replicate your success (without your Access app) would fail miserably.
Good Luck

[Indulto]

Originally posted by traynor:

The latter seem to believe that the more races they bet, the more chances they have to win. The opposite is usually true.traynor,
How does that square with your post in “bankroll” that diversification is the best strategy?

[sjk]

Traynor,

I am suprised that no one else has jumped in on either side of this issue. I would have thought that the great majority of the players here are using PP or chart data to make their decisions and are in many cases betting multiple tracks from home as I am.

I do not know a majority of professional players; I can't say that I know any of them. How many professional players do you know that allows you to know for sure what the majority approach of the group is?

[Overlay]

Professionals should realize that mindlessly
manipulating the same raw data as everyone else, hoping for
insights and advantages unavailable to the competition, is
ultimately futile.

What you say is true, if the object of the game is treated as just picking winners regardless of odds. But if you can use that raw data (despite its easy availability) to develop any kind of an accurate projection as to the true winning chances of horses in order to allow betting for value, and unless the public (despite its proven accuracy in setting aggregate overall odds) suddenly starts sending every horse in every race off at odds corresponding exactly to the horse's true chance of winning, there will always be instances of solid horses that will be underbet, and that can serve as the basis for a consistent long-term edge.

[clue]

Thank you for your post, traynor.

I would like to suggest that the Greatest Myth in the history of human consciousness is:

"All that I see is all that there is."

and its pathological derivative:

"My way is The Way."


And all the information one needs to make investment decisions
is published daily in the Wall Street Journal:

open / high / low / close / volume


-clue

[ratpack]

I think it was Pittsburgh Phil who had it right and I am paraphrasing

You have to have information the public does not have.

I guess you can add something on to that OR THE PUBLIC DOES NOT SEE.

[Koko]

What you say is true, if the object of the game is treated as just picking winners regardless of odds. But if you can use that raw data (despite its easy availability) to develop any kind of an accurate projection as to the true winning chances of horses in order to allow betting for value, and unless the public (despite its proven accuracy in setting aggregate overall odds) suddenly starts sending every horse in every race off at odds corresponding exactly to the horse's true chance of winning, there will always be instances of solid horses that will be underbet, and that can serve as the basis for a consistent long-term edge.

Very good point, very well stated.

[Koko]

And all the information one needs to make investment decisions
is published daily in the Wall Street Journal:

open / high / low / close / volume


-clue

And it's corollary. After I read this week's Barrons on Sunday and put my order in for that stock at the open on Monday, they'll be a block long line of greater fools who'll drive the price up or down for me.

[DJofSD]

traynor -- good post.

For me, this is more or less an application of Kirt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Wikipedia link for more details about the Incompleteness Theorems. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem)

[traynor]

Very square. There is a difference between distributing wagers in positive expectation situations, and betting races because one or more of the entries usually wins. There are several tracks (Palm Beach Greyhound and Turf Paradise for two) at which certain types of races are so overbet that you can win 40-45% of the races and lose money. Diversification refers more to spreading risk over several related areas (harness and greyhounds, especially) rather than "shotgun" betting.
Good Luck

[traynor]

sjk wrote: <I do not know a majority of professional players; I can't say that I know any of them. How many professional players do you know that allows you to know for sure what the majority approach of the group is?>

Pick the number of people you know for sure are making a full-time living wagering on horse races using only downloaded data and computers, and multiply that by whatever number you choose that will provide the answer you want. I have been hanging around racetracks and professional bettors for more than 25 years, and of that group, the overwhelming majority dismiss computer handicapping as a dead end street. I tend to disagree; I think there is a lot of potential in it that is not being utilized.
Good Luck

[the_fat_man]

traynor -- good post.

For me, this is more or less an application of Kirt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Wikipedia link for more details about the Incompleteness Theorems. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem)

Prima facie, this appears trivial
as
everybody knows that models are incomplete by definition.

Wasn't the case before Godel, however (when turn of the century advances in mathematical and logical rigor had mathematicians convinced that anything was possible).

Good one.

Although, I think that what's happening in handicapping/betting is better captured by Hume's problem of induction.

No one really argues that their data or method is comprehensive. Any distinction here is one of degree.

But we all, whether our focus is numbers, databases, trips, trainers,etc.,
expect past events to hold in the future.
No logical basis for this
but
it works (to some degree).

Hume knew that.

The problem of induction is everywhere.

Hume is the man.

[DJofSD]

Hume will be an interesting read. Both for his study of induction and causation. Of coarse, the line in The Matrix always comes to mind when thinking about causation.

Thanks for the info about Hume.