PDA

View Full Version : strategies


traynor
04-09-2006, 03:58 AM
An interesting question; have you ever considered that the cause-and-effect relationship of odds to winning may be the reverse of what most consider it to be? I have been doing a LOT of research on this topic, and I keep getting the same odd pattern.

Horse A runs well at fairly low odds, runs poorly at high (over 12 to 1) odds. Thens runs back at lower odds and performs well. It doesn't look like darkened form, or lack of stable betting, as much as it looks like another horse in the race is so much better (and is taking so much of the money) that it is essentially a "no try."

A betting stable would reverse the situation--the horse would run well at higher odds, poorly at low odds. I am beginning to think that it has less to do with the horse and its perceived chance of winning as it does with the (better) chances of another horse stealing the race.

Has anyone else encountered this, or given any thought to it? It looks like something useful could be made of it. Many of the races of this type seem to have similar patterns, and are often won by a short-priced favorite. Rather than the horse in question "going off form," it seems more a case of an exercise run in a race that the trainer and jockey realize is not reasonably winnable.
Good Luck

valueguy
04-09-2006, 03:01 PM
I think it has to do with a couple of things .
A .Form cycle
B.Energy expended last race.
C.Competition.
D.Pace.

Horses that win at low odds are quite transparent when it come to handicapping them.This same horse that goes off at high odds in another race is usally up againest horses that are formful and show better ability.

kenwoodallpromos
04-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Chaeck your theory in relation to post position. many run ok at a low post, but terrible 8th or father out, slow start or "eased" later.

twindouble
04-09-2006, 03:35 PM
Traynor;

When your handicapping or fooling around with Stats many different conditions will repeat, if they didn't we all would be in trouble. I call it prevailing conditions, like you know when the dark clouds form you know darn well it's more than likely to rain or clear up and the sun will shine. All the factors you put together handicapping and picking your horses should send the message the conditions are right or wrong for others. Forcing those conditions to come about via stats just won't work with the wagering strategy your suggesting.

I don't know how else to explain it.


T.D.

traynor
04-09-2006, 05:23 PM
twindouble wrote: <All the factors you put together handicapping and picking your horses should send the message the conditions are right or wrong for others. Forcing those conditions to come about via stats just won't work with the wagering strategy your suggesting.>

I am not suggesting a specific wagering strategy as much as a different view of past performances. I am increasingly convinced that viewing individual race lines out of the context of the race itself is misleading. That is, unless you know how the race developed, why the particular horse in question was where it was at each point of the race, the values attached to that position may be of questionable value.

I have a number of friends in the UK and Australia who "handicap" races almost entirely subjectively. They watch races, they evaluate each entries performance in each race, keep immense amounts of notes. and do very well. It seems a lot of that comprehensive overview is lost when individual race lines are viewed out of context--a tendency that computer handicapping encourages by its nature.

The specific scenario I described--"poor" performance at low odds that may be caused by another entry having a lot better shot at winning in a specific race--is a situation that can be very profitable if understood. It would also aid in form analysis--are the numbers generated in that race "valid" or should they be ignored? Is the entry "going off form" or was it simply an extended workout?

My reason for emphasizing this point is that a lot of computer handicappers believe the strongest indicator of an entries current condition is its last race. A lot of contenders are thrown out with such generic "rules" as "failed to beat half the field in its last" or similar. I suggest that a lot of winners may be inadvertently lost because of the view that every entry exerts maximum effort in every race. That view is highly suspect, at best.
Good Luck

traynor
04-09-2006, 05:28 PM
valueguy wrote: <Horses that win at low odds are quite transparent when it come to handicapping them.This same horse that goes off at high odds in another race is usally up againest horses that are formful and show better ability.>
That is exactly my point. How do you detect this when your only view is the PP lines, that indicate a couple of good finishes, followed by one or more mediocre or poor lines. That is an almost classic description of a horse going off its form. I suggest that description may be wrong.
Good Luck

traynor
04-09-2006, 05:35 PM
kenwoodallpromos wrote: <Chaeck your theory in relation to post position. many run ok at a low post, but terrible 8th or father out, slow start or "eased" later.>

Perhaps in routes with a short run to the first turn, or at some of the smaller bullring tracks. The situation I am referring to is more directly related to the odds of an entry being determined by the relative strength of the belief that another entry has a better chance of winning, and the direct effect that belief has on how the entry performs. I realize that someone is going to say "that is what pari-mutuel is all about," but I am not speaking simplistically.

If a "superior" entry is in a race with "mediocre" entries, it seems the values associated with the performance of the mediocre entries in that race may be highly misleading, and fail to indicate the actual potential of those entries to perform in subsequent races.
Good Luck

Overlay
04-09-2006, 05:55 PM
A lot of contenders are thrown out with such generic "rules" as "failed to beat half the field in its last" or similar. I suggest that a lot of winners may be inadvertently lost because of the view that every entry exerts maximum effort in every race. That view is highly suspect, at best.
Good Luck

This also points up the advisability of not viewing handicapping factors as "go/no-go" propositions, where a horse is eliminated entirely from consideration if it doesn't meet some arbitrary (or even statistically-based) performance criterion. Instead, it's better to treat the factors in light of the probabilities associated with them, and to adjust horses' winning chances accordingly, rather than to rule out a horse altogether.

sjk
04-09-2006, 06:00 PM
My reason for emphasizing this point is that a lot of computer handicappers believe the strongest indicator of an entries current condition is its last race. A lot of contenders are thrown out with such generic "rules" as "failed to beat half the field in its last" or similar. I suggest that a lot of winners may be inadvertently lost because of the view that every entry exerts maximum effort in every race. That view is highly suspect, at best.
Good Luck

For a computer with data about a horse's full past performances available it would strike me as pretty lame that it would focus on the most recent race to the exclusion of the previous races. Each recent race contributes information about the horse's possible performance in his upcoming race. The most recent race is the most significant but there is a very real chance that the horse will run like he did 3-4 races back.

twindouble
04-09-2006, 06:59 PM
When I said all the handicapping factors picking your horses that obviously included pace, fractions, conditions and a like.



I have a number of friends in the UK and Australia who "handicap" races almost entirely subjectively. They watch races, they evaluate each entries performance in each race, keep immense amounts of notes. and do very well. It seems a lot of that comprehensive overview is lost when individual race lines are viewed out of context--a tendency that computer handicapping encourages by its nature. Quote;

I also try to stress the need to zero in on one or two tracks and include trip handicapping, that's must like any other factor. Regardess of how you come up with horses to bet, in the end there has to be a wagering strategy to compliment them.


My reason for emphasizing this point is that a lot of computer handicappers believe the strongest indicator of an entries current condition is its last race. A lot of contenders are thrown out with such generic "rules" as "failed to beat half the field in its last" or similar. I suggest that a lot of winners may be inadvertently lost because of the view that every entry exerts maximum effort in every race. That view is highly suspect, at best. Quote;


Traditional handicapping is far from being generic and I have no strict rules when it comes to handicapping or wagering.



Can't help it but I'm still confused as to where your going with this. It's not you, it's me. :bang:

T.D.

traynor
04-09-2006, 08:07 PM
twindouble wrote: <Can't help it but I'm still confused as to where your going with this. It's not you, it's me.>

Easy. As sjk mentioned, past performances need to be taken in context, according to relationships with other past performance lines. That is only a part of the picture; each race line is only one line out of the race, and when viewed in isolation--regardless of other adjacent running lines of the same horse in other races--may be misleading due to factors obscured by the form of viewing.

Specifically, the conceptual underpinnings of "pace lines" or "running lines" analyzed out of the context of the race from which they are extracted may be flawed. In that type of analysis, the view is narrowed to "how this horse ran" rather than the potentially more meaningful view of "why did this horse run the way it ran." When taken out of context, a simplistic numerical evaluation of a horse's performance may be misleading.

I think it is directly related to the desire for certainty; it is a lot easier to "put a number on it," then respond to the number as if it were the event. The fuzzy, uncertain, unspecific type of analysis creates an unusual state of anxiety in a lot of people. That may be why computer apps are so popular.
Good Luck

Hank
04-09-2006, 10:50 PM
Traynor, you are no DOUBT on to something here.This is something that is almost never dealt with or disscussed in handicapping circles.The intentional NON try race,the LAST race run out is the basis of a VERY strong longshot profileing method that I use sometimes.This also ties into the fact that with regard to paceline selection the BEST of last 3 or so will usually prove most profitable.:ThmbUp:

traynor
04-10-2006, 01:07 AM
Hank wrote: <Traynor, you are no DOUBT on to something here.This is something that is almost never dealt with or disscussed in handicapping circles.The intentional NON try race,the LAST race run out is the basis of a VERY strong longshot profileing method that I use sometimes.This also ties into the fact that with regard to paceline selection the BEST of last 3 or so will usually prove most profitable.:ThmbUp:>

I have no real theory, beyond the fact that I have noticed a strong correlation between unusually high odds (considering recent performances) and unusually poor performance. It is difficult not to wonder if some exploration in this area might establish connections between somethng as simple as unusually high odds and poor performance, essentially a means of ignoring that race completely.

If that idea is factored in, not as a value, but just as an awareness of the possibility, it significantly changes the view of "how did this horse do so poorly in its last race, given the races before that pointing to improving form" in a much more understandable direction. I very strongly agree that it may also point the way to a number of decent longshots, given the general public's focus on betting a horse that either won or almost won its last race.

Good Luck

twindouble
04-10-2006, 11:52 AM
Traynor;

I have no real theory, beyond the fact that I have noticed a strong correlation between unusually high odds (considering recent performances) and unusually poor performance. It is difficult not to wonder if some exploration in this area might establish connections between somethng as simple as unusually high odds and poor performance, essentially a means of ignoring that race completely.Quote;

Regardless of where your going with this or have it prove out to be anything of value, the fact still remains it's the race in hand, past performances and the trainers involved. There's many reason why horses go off at unusual odds be it just a prep race, the wrong distance, over matched, declining form and so on. By the same token those same horses can be spotted in the right conditions, freshened or raced into form, get equipment changes or correct a problem that wasn't in the form or what ever and yes they can light up the board. How your going to correlate all that is what's confusing to me. I'm just throwing in things off the top of the head, I could go on.

Good luck,

T.D.

the_fat_man
04-10-2006, 02:38 PM
Traditional handicapping is far from being generic and I have no strict rules when it comes to handicapping or wagering.



Can't help it but I'm still confused as to where your going with this. It's not you, it's me. :bang:

T.D.

Let me clarify it for you, Twin, with an (historical) analogy:

Christopher Clavius, one of the preeminent mathematicians and astronomers of his time, also happened to be a Jesuit, and thus his public views were under the strict censorship of the Catholic Church (as was that of just about anyone of intellectual repute at the time--Galileo and Descartes, among others, for example).

Thus, when Galileo's 'Sidereus Nuncius' was released, and 'empirical' evidence for a Copernican world was provided, the church instructed Clavius (and his peers) to refute any notion of a non-Aristotelian view of the world.

Traynor is like Clavius (sort of):

Clavius wanted to embrace the NEW SCIENCE
and abandon the old methodolgy (logic tells him so)
(After all, this is the 17th century and the dawn of a NEW SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Traynor is an old style handicapper at heart
(he lusts for AN OPINION the way Clavius lusted after new learning)
but can't let go of the NEW way to do things (models, databases, etc.)
(He's also probably a bit put off by the daily work required to actually have an opinion.)

The Catholic Church censored Clavius (and Galileo)

The DBers and MODELERS of the handicapping world serve to censor Traynor. The Cardinal Bellarmines of the gaming world, so to speak.

That clarify it for you Twin?

Next time, we'll deal with Universal and Existential Quantifiers and their (mis)application to models.


Traynor :: all tongue in cheek, bro (nothing personal, of course):ThmbUp:

traynor
04-10-2006, 02:51 PM
twindouble wrote: <How your going to correlate all that is what's confusing to me. I'm just throwing in things off the top of the head, I could go on. >

Unlike handicapping, business enterprises often use (and thrive on) exactly that process--uncritical idea generation, usually referred to as "brainstorming." Sometimes nothing comes of it, sometimes treasures are uncovered or discovered. I appreciate your input.
Good Luck

traynor
04-10-2006, 03:01 PM
the_fat_man wrote: <(a lot of stuff)>

You may be aware of that most fascinating of fields; non-Aristotelian logic, which usually parades under the label "general semantics." While many quote from "Science and Sanity," few understand it. One of the gems Korzybski polished was the notion that humans have an insufferable desire to label a thing, then stop cognitively processing any further information about that thing, acting as if the label is the thing itself. Even that concept was trivialized, by suffering its own prescription; it is generally enclosed in the pseudo-explanation "the map is not the territory." Thanks for an interesting post!
Good Luck

the_fat_man
04-10-2006, 03:19 PM
I had the unique privilege in the mid '90's
to attend a philosophical talk
in which (the late) Jon Barwise, Anil Gupta (both renowned philosphers and 'Aristotelian' logicians) and Graham Priest, the para consistent logician, argued
their (differing) positions on the theory of truth.

What an event:

Barwise stuttering away

Gupta with his typical 'Indian' English

and

the Aussie, Priest, as eloquent as Cicero

twindouble
04-10-2006, 03:38 PM
the_fat_man wrote: <(a lot of stuff)>

You may be aware of that most fascinating of fields; non-Aristotelian logic, which usually parades under the label "general semantics." While many quote from "Science and Sanity," few understand it. One of the gems Korzybski polished was the notion that humans have an insufferable desire to label a thing, then stop cognitively processing any further information about that thing, acting as if the label is the thing itself. Even that concept was trivialized, by suffering its own prescription; it is generally enclosed in the pseudo-explanation "the map is not the territory." Thanks for an interesting post!
Good Luck

I would assume Korzybski was just referring to just ignorant people, otherwise to paint brush using the word humans would say to me he thinks he's above all with his thinking.

T.D.

Fastracehorse
04-10-2006, 04:42 PM
An interesting question; have you ever considered that the cause-and-effect relationship of odds to winning may be the reverse of what most consider it to be? I have been doing a LOT of research on this topic, and I keep getting the same odd pattern.

Horse A runs well at fairly low odds, runs poorly at high (over 12 to 1) odds. Thens runs back at lower odds and performs well. It doesn't look like darkened form, or lack of stable betting, as much as it looks like another horse in the race is so much better (and is taking so much of the money) that it is essentially a "no try."

A betting stable would reverse the situation--the horse would run well at higher odds, poorly at low odds. I am beginning to think that it has less to do with the horse and its perceived chance of winning as it does with the (better) chances of another horse stealing the race.

Has anyone else encountered this, or given any thought to it? It looks like something useful could be made of it. Many of the races of this type seem to have similar patterns, and are often won by a short-priced favorite. Rather than the horse in question "going off form," it seems more a case of an exercise run in a race that the trainer and jockey realize is not reasonably winnable.
Good Luck

Good point - there aer many times there is a no try against a superior animal - makes sense.

But what if there was a no try against a field this horse should have beaten??

Sometimes it's good to think like the barn.

fffastt

toetoe
04-10-2006, 08:03 PM
Regarding the labeling notion, a lazy handicapper's version of that is to discover an angle, a trainer, a bias, whatever, and bank on it forever and ever. Why go to the trouble of thinking freely, maybe even scientifically every single day? Too much work, man.

Ye Olde Public House saying: "Strive to be Barwise, and never discuss Anil with a Priest." :eek:

twindouble
04-10-2006, 08:39 PM
Regarding the labeling notion, a lazy handicapper's version of that is to discover an angle, a trainer, a bias, whatever, and bank on it forever and ever. Why go to the trouble of thinking freely, maybe even scientifically every single day? Too much work, man.

Ye Olde Public House saying: "Strive to be Barwise, and never discuss Anil with a Priest." :eek::lol: It's good to end the day with laugh. :)


T.D.

traynor
04-11-2006, 07:28 PM
twindouble wrote: <I would assume Korzybski was just referring to just ignorant people, otherwise to paint brush using the word humans would say to me he thinks he's above all with his thinking.>

Again, the issue is labeling; by defining, one categorizes. It is the issue of labeling and categorizing that Korzybski argued so eloquently. Does it apply to "all humans"? Yes. Korzybski's explanations were much kinder than the view taken by most advertisers, marketers, and psychologists, in particular the combination of those fields synthesized by Bob Cialdini. Cialdini refers to the reactionary cognitive processing as the "Click! Whirr!" response.

It is meant as descriptive, not insulting. And it affects intelligent people every bit as strongly as it affects ignorant people (however one defines and categorizes those groups).
Good Luck

traynor
04-11-2006, 07:35 PM
Fastracehorse@DRF wrote: <Good point - there aer many times there is a no try against a superior animal - makes sense.

But what if there was a no try against a field this horse should have beaten?? >

That is where race analysis comes in. My point is that being aware of one simple bit of information--a connection between actual odds and performance--may enable that little tickle of curiosity that would motivate one to go back and look at a chart of the race to get a better idea of what really happened (or may have happened). The alternative--regarding an isolated "pace line" of one entry in the race as containing everything necessary to evaluate a race--is fine if a racing fan is happy with his or her bottom line. Being a bit more greedy than most, I want every bit of leverage, advantage, and insight I can get.
Good Luck

twindouble
04-11-2006, 08:01 PM
Fastracehorse@DRF wrote: <Good point - there aer many times there is a no try against a superior animal - makes sense.

But what if there was a no try against a field this horse should have beaten?? >

That is where race analysis comes in. My point is that being aware of one simple bit of information--a connection between actual odds and performance--may enable that little tickle of curiosity that would motivate one to go back and look at a chart of the race to get a better idea of what really happened (or may have happened). The alternative--regarding an isolated "pace line" of one entry in the race as containing everything necessary to evaluate a race--is fine if a racing fan is happy with his or her bottom line. Being a bit more greedy than most, I want every bit of leverage, advantage, and insight I can get.
Good Luck

Well, I like to keep things as simple as I can, it isn't like I'm trying to take a little company and turn it into a multi Billion dollar corporation. This is just horse racing and I don't think it's all that complicated.

Good luck,

T.D.