Where's the R.O.I?

[Amazin]

I've read alot of talk about various software I.E.Equism,HTR,At the races,etc.etc.Some say this is great software or that is.Like the commercial said "where's the beef",or in this case the R.O.I.I don't see how anyone can say anything unless they've kept track of their profits or losses.You may like the "toy" but when it really counts,do you rely on it to come thru for you. If it makes you 20% R.O.I.or more consistently,there's no reason not to give up your day job(if you don't like it). I've only read from 2 people on this board who say they bet the races for a living using software.Extremely low percentage if all this software is so great.

[Handle]

If you were an aspiring author but you couldn't get published, would you blame it on your Word Processor? Or maybe you'd pick up a pencil instead? And why do you use a computer, instead we could bring back the Town Crier, I'm sure that would suffice for our communications needs.

(Hold on, I'm having a vision. The next question is -- if its so good, why would anyone sell it?)

Eventually it won't be a question of whether or not people use handicapping software, but which software they use. A better question than "where is the R.O.I", I think, is how do you use the software and how do you wish to use the software. There are many, many reasons to use handicapping software apart from whether the software, completely on its own, can make you money.

-Nathan

[anotherdave]

Handle, I understand your thoughts on that. I do think the basic question is valid, though.

It would be nice to know what the top choice's ROI was, the 2nd choice's ROI. Maybe ROI by track or ROI based on odds-say First choice 2-1 and up, 4-1 and up, etc. Second choice 2-1 and up , 4-1 and up. I do statistics on that on my bets. I find them invaluable.

Or if the software developer is a value proponent, then how about ROI on horses with a certain edge or more. It would be quite useful and a good sales tool.

And even if the top choice ROI gives a slight loss, I'd still consider that pretty good. I would think the software would have some merit and some selective wagering would probably put it in the black.

AD

[Handle]

AD,

Indeed -- I see the validity in knowing the ROI -- heck, I put the ability to track the performance in terms of win % and ROI in EquiSim for the simulation winner and, of course, every Profiler ability.

I just thought the question was stated in a way that pre-supposed that the worth of handicapping software is whether it was able to do all your work for you, wash your cars, take out the trash, etc.. If its a "one dimensional" system with no depth to it and it is promoted as a "winner picker", then I couldn't agree more. But the programs listed, EquiSim, HTR, etc, are not these types of programs.

The big thing with programs that do offer certain key factors along with other tools (EquiSim's Simulation Winner, for instance) is that the profitability of these plays will vary considerably through time, from race type to race type, and from track to track. I don't think anyone has yet figured out a way to make the same play work every time. Maybe they have.

I'm currently working on at least being able to know, mechanically, when its a good time to trust a particular "play" (or angle, or selection, etc.). I guess that would answer Amazin's question as to what you would rely on. Right now, all the software that I know requires familiarity with it to know when to "rely" on it or not. By it, I mean the vapid, "who's going to win" selections one formula or another might spit out in any given program. As much as I've always tried to produce software that you can work with, I have to admit that one of my current pursuits is to be able to answer this question mechanically.


Best,
Nathan

[anotherdave]

Good answer Nathan. I appreciate your well thought out comments. (Makes me even madder at myself that I didn't get your software when it was only $59! )

AD

[Dick Schmidt]

Amazin',

The problem in reporting ROI is that the underlying assumption of the request is false. If I get a certain ROI using a program, there is no guarantee that you will match it. With the exception of rigid systems and "black box" programs, users of differing skill levels will get different results.

If you really want a report, I'll give you mine. I use Horse Street Handicapper (HSH) by Dave Schwartz and average a return of between 30 and 35% over a week's play. I think I could do a bit better, but then I wouldn't be able to play as many races and shove as much money through the windows. I don't know if others could (or would want to) duplicate my results, but I believe most anyone who is willing to change his basic ideas on handicapping and learn a new paradigm could make money with this program.


Dick


P.S. I gave up the day job back in the mid 80's.

[ranchwest]

Every race is a new puzzle. While historic data, such as ROI, can be somewhat predictive, it is based on a particular set of races at specific tracks and surfaces and distances and conditions.

The proof of what software can do is in real life performance. When software is used to win tournaments or when user after user proclaims being a winner based in large part on use of the program, then I have to think that software is one of the better products.

Now, before anyone thinks I'm touting something, let me point out that I write my own software for my own use, so I have no stake in any other software. I don't own any other software.

HTR is the one that repeatedly is used to win tournaments. Equisim consistently gets rave reviews by users here. HSH has some devoted followers. I'm sure there are other useful products.

When this sort of topic comes up, I often think back to some of my early efforts. About 17 years ago, I wrote a program that broke out the fractional times and measured the change between the times. Had I had more time to study what I was producing, I would probably have found it quite useful, especially since most people at the time didn't have anything like that available. A friend kept asking me how to use it and my answer was always that I didn't know.

It can be the same way with today's software. How do you use it? Seems some of today's software can give you a lot of different answers, depending on how you use it.

[GR1@HTR]

Horse racing software is always an interesting topic of conversation but also kinda of a beating. The bottom line is that no software will turn a losing player into a winning player overnight. It takes a lot of batting practice time and study to learn how to use it. It is common among beginning software users to assume that if I play all top ranked horses going off at good odds will produce a profit. The game just isn’t that simple.

Horse racing is not rocket science. It is actually much more difficult than Rocket Science because of the uncertainties of the living breathing 4 legged beast. Rockets don’t wake up in the morning with real bad menstrual cramps or a case of diarrhea. These phockers are unpredictable and do not follow certain rules of physics that rockets do.

To be able to digest all that information quickly and efficiently is what we are trying to do. All that software does is present the same information that you receive from the DRF or any other PP into a more simplified format. A format that will enable one to perhaps make clearer decisions.

On to ROI:
Keep in mind intermediate or advanced software users don’t just blindly play top ranked horses. They pick and choose their spots when combining certain factors together. And in my case, I don’t even use the “K” factor much. I prefer to “project” a speed figure or use manual paceline selection in combination with all the other crap out there (trn data, jky, bias, post positon, pace, class, workouts…)

The following are HTR results (top rated K/Windows Version horse) from July 21 (the 4 majors) and all tracks/all races(ARP to YAV) from July 22 to July 28th.


ALW/DIRT SPRINTS
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00144 0052 36% 1.06 14% 0 $15
K2 00144 0032 22% 0.94 14% 3 $32
K3 00144 0025 17% 1.10 14% 7 $44
K4 00144 0013 09% 0.54 14% 3 $25
K5 00143 0012 08% 0.49 14% 2 $19
K6 00129 0007 05% 0.61 12% 4 $43
K7 00092 0001 01% 0.45 09% 1 $82
K8 00049 0001 01% 0.63 05% 1 $62
K9 00052 0001 01% 0.70 05% 1 $73

CLM/Dirt Sprints
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00389 0123 32% 0.99 12% 1 $15
K2 00389 0068 17% 0.74 12% 8 $29
K3 00389 0058 15% 0.97 12% 16 $46
K4 00389 0057 15% 0.93 12% 16 $45
K5 00386 0034 09% 0.62 12% 9 $40
K6 00365 0019 05% 0.84 12% 14 $100
K7 00302 0015 04% 0.68 10% 11 $90
K8 00221 0007 02% 0.48 07% 6 $88
K9 00289 0008 02% 0.73 09% 8 $100

MDN SPC WEIGHT/Dirt Sprints
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00097 0032 33% 0.80 11% 0 $13
K2 00097 0019 20% 0.64 11% 2 $16
K3 00097 0017 18% 0.69 11% 0 $13
K4 00097 0011 11% 0.66 11% 1 $30
K5 00097 0004 04% 0.24 11% 1 $16
K6 00096 0004 04% 0.48 11% 2 $39
K7 00086 0001 01% 0.10 10% 1 $18
K8 00067 0004 04% 1.19 08% 3 $71
K9 00111 0005 05% 0.74 13% 3 $94

MDN CLM/Dirt Sprints
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00158 0051 32% 0.83 11% 1 $16
K2 00158 0028 18% 0.80 11% 4 $24
K3 00158 0018 11% 0.57 11% 2 $23
K4 00158 0019 12% 0.93 11% 8 $36
K5 00158 0011 07% 0.74 11% 7 $54
K6 00157 0012 08% 1.07 11% 9 $55
K7 00144 0008 05% 1.07 10% 6 $86
K8 00119 0004 03% 0.48 08% 3 $48
K9 00208 0007 04% 1.24 15% 6 $123

ALW/Dirt Routes
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00080 0022 28% 0.68 14% 0 $10
K2 00080 0021 26% 1.00 14% 1 $16
K3 00080 0014 18% 0.72 14% 1 $20
K4 00080 0011 14% 0.81 14% 3 $17
K5 00078 0008 10% 0.82 14% 4 $28
K6 00069 0000 00% 0.00 12% 0 $0
K7 00053 0003 04% 0.66 09% 1 $48
K8 00026 0000 00% 0.00 05% 0 $0
K9 00031 0001 01% 0.37 05% 1 $23

CLM/Dirt Routes
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00190 0059 31% 0.95 13% 1 $20
K2 00190 0032 17% 0.79 13% 2 $66
K3 00190 0022 12% 0.52 13% 1 $27
K4 00190 0031 16% 0.89 13% 5 $34
K5 00189 0017 09% 0.82 13% 11 $31
K6 00181 0021 11% 1.14 12% 12 $46
K7 00151 0005 03% 0.30 10% 3 $31
K8 00102 0003 02% 0.48 07% 3 $44
K9 00126 0000 00% 0.00 08% 0 $0

MDN and MDN CLM/Dirt Routes
ITEM Plays Won Wn% $ROI Pla Long High
--------------------------------------------------
K1 00062 0024 39% 1.09 12% 0 $11
K2 00062 0012 19% 0.70 12% 1 $15
K3 00062 0008 13% 0.44 12% 0 $13
K4 00062 0008 13% 0.93 12% 4 $22
K5 00062 0007 11% 0.96 12% 3 $38
K6 00062 0002 03% 0.36 12% 2 $27
K7 00054 0000 00% 0.00 10% 0 $0
K8 00041 0001 02% 0.82 08% 1 $67
K9 00056 0000 00% 0.00 11% 0 $0

As a side note: Although there are some positive ROI situations listed above, over a larger sample I doubt that those would hold up as it is IMPOSSIBLE for any software to produce a positive ROI playing every race on it's top ranked horse. And any program, tout, software or publication that says it is producing a 44% or so profit playing every race is just dishonest.

[hurrikane]

One of the best uses of the information listed by Gr1 is not picking the winner.
I use it daily to eliminate horses without discretion.

As in..dirt routes..would you bet a horse with a rating of K-9. Not if you like your money.
You can't measure ROI on something like this.

As Dave said...if we both use the same software my ROI will never be exactly the same as his.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by hurrikane


As in..dirt routes..would you bet a horse with a rating of K-9. Not if you like your money.
You can't measure ROI on something like this.



Sure you can. It is zilch. lol

[Tom]

I've been using HTR for about a year and I must have gotten the basic version...I don't have the screen that lists all the winners.
Damn thing makes me pick my own! Imagine that!
But the K rating is just one small thing. There are many, many ratings and options to choose from. Why? Beccase there is more than one track out there. Things that win like crazy at Penn don't do spit at Finger Lakes. So I use what works at Penn when I play Penn and what works at FL when I play FL.
There is no program roi because there is no program pick.
But there is a wealth of good, solid information, with historical performance tracking to use to judge it. And the ability to export data to a database for further study. What else could a handicapper ask for in a program?

[Amazin]

My understanding of computers is that they can make our lives simpler not more complicated.Handicapping software is the "fast foods" of a horseplayer.Who has time to handicap these days and now we have access to tracks that we never even heard of before.Go handicap 225 races a day.Most horseplayers are not computer programers nor have posted 371 messages on this board.When "Beyers" were added to the form most people said "Who's he?"If I'm going to use handicapping software I don't want to spend more than a few days learning it.Then if I have to make a judgement from it's output and come up with a nother ranking of horses than what the program put out,I don't see the point. I can do that manually in the first place without a computer program.Now as far as R.O.I,I don't buy the excuses for not having it.What's wrong with saying that one of the computers top 2 picks wins X amount of times for a return of X.I think that's a valid criteria.If the software is mean't for the average Joe at the track,he's not going to stick with it if it doesn't come thru on that basic level.And he won't see why he has to "adjust"the computer's lousy picks when that's what he paid for when he bought the program in the first place.However if horseracing software is only for programers and people who have posted over 300 messages on this board and have time to make all the adjustments the program is not intelligent enough to do,then it's not for me.

[Handle]

Amazin,

There is no free lunch. Last I looked, neither my compiler nor any other part of my software development environment was writing my programs for me. I still had to pay for it. And a good thing I have them, I'd hate to be hand assembling a few million op codes.

Your take on handicapping software dooms you to dissatisfaction from the start. You either want something quick and dirty that, inevitably, turns out to be expired snake oil, as someone put it, or you are unwilling to spend any amount of time learning to use a decent tool. Others, many of whom are not programmers and do not participate avidly in discussion forums, are willing to accept that being successul at anything requires some amount of work.


Here are a few ways in which handicapping software is beneficial:

A) It can save you time by automating many tasks you would otherwise do by hand. This, of course, depends on the program and the task, though just about anything is possible.

B) It can do more in an instant than you could do in a week. Given that, you're more likely to be able to spend more time analyzing the relevant data than creating it. There are countless usages for statistical information. But you only want the best ones that work all the time while forgetting the fact that you need to have this information before you can even begin to find the best one. Here I'm not talking about what's available in one racing form, but what is in countless amounts of data. Here's a task. Take the daily racing form, or whatever form you use (if you use one), and find the horse with the best speed figure in each race. Throw out "excuse" efforts and find suitable pace lines to take the speed figure from. How long did it take? Now, how well did this best speed figure horse do in the last 10 races that were at this track, at the same distance, and on the same surface? How long does it take to derive that little piece of information if you do it by hand?

C) It can bring you insight that you otherwise wouldn't have. This either through the custom formulas and features of the program, or through the presentation of the "old" information in new ways. You can further capitilize on this insight in ways that you know the guy sitting next to you won't have.

D) This, in my opinion, is really a golden age of handicapping software (except that its hard to make a living producing it). Who knows what the future will bring -- maybe there will be one Microsoft like handicappig program, or maybe horse racing (heaven forbid) will dwindle and die out. But right now people developing handicapping software can pretty much discuss ideas openly, solicit feedback from their clients, and continue to explore a lot of uncharted territory. I mention this here because in many cases just by using someone's handicapping software you get to take part in the community effort that develops it. Go to Microsoft and tell them about the new feature you'd like to see in their web browser....


-Nathan

[Tom]

Do tink you can be an accountant if you buy Excel?
Of course not. Whay do you think a software packeage has to tell who the winner is? The software is a tool you use, not a crystal ball. With HTR, or other good programs, I can handicapp many races and bet the ones that look promising. By hand, I am limited to a few a day. The idea is to use software to save time and organize data into information.
What is the point of stating an roi for a factor if you aren't beting that factor exclusively? Do you bet one factor alone when you handicap by hand? These program aren't magic boxes. I can't speak for HSH, but HTR, MPH, Sartin's programs, Total Pace,
all are not tout sheets. Equisim has a feature that does pretty good on it's own, but I don't just bet the sim winner blindly - I pick the pacelines let it run. If I spend 20 minutes handicapping a race and find no play, I have wasted the time. I can handicap 20 races in 20 minutes with HTR and maybe find 4-5 plays. In the example above, you can see exactly where HTR shows a short term profit in certain races with a certain rating. That is not the point of it all. But without the program, you would never know that.

[Amazin]

O.K. call it a tool or call it what you will, but the question remains: where's the R.O.I. ? Is it exempt from an R.O.I.because it's a tool and not a "Pick-em" program.The process either makes money or it doesn't and as far as I can tell,only one person has been bold enough to say they are making a consistent profit using software and know its R.O.I. What that tells me is it's not really the software but the handicapper's style that's at the core of the R.O.I. Where does that leave the rest of us less gifted users of the such software?Looking for one that doesn't require a rare talent to produce a positive R.O.I .

[BillW]

Originally posted by Amazin
What that tells me is it's not really the software but the handicapper's style that's at the core of the R.O.I. Where does that leave the rest of us less gifted users of the such software?Looking for one that doesn't require a rare talent to produce a positive R.O.I .

Amazin,

That's what a tool is. Ted Williams' bat was made out of Ash. Mario Mendoza's (of the infamous Mendoza line) bat was made out of Ash. It doesn't make sense to ask what the batting average of an Ash bat is. But Ted's use of that tool was much more successful than that of Mendoza's.

You will not find a program that will make you a winner. As a tool it will enhance your handicapping style that will lead you toward that goal.

Bill

[Lefty]

Bill, great analogy.
I have friends that can take a few simple tools and build a house, I with the same tools am liable to hurt myself.

[JimG]

Originally posted by Lefty
Bill, great analogy.
I have friends that can take a few simple tools and build a house, I with the same tools am liable to hurt myself.


...and I end up saying....what tools?<g>


Jim

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by BillW


Amazin,

That's what a tool is. Ted Williams' bat was made out of Ash. Mario Mendoza's (of the infamous Mendoza line) bat was made out of Ash. It doesn't make sense to ask what the batting average of an Ash bat is. But Ted's use of that tool was much more successful than that of Mendoza's.

You will not find a program that will make you a winner. As a tool it will enhance your handicapping style that will lead you toward that goal.

Bill


You just won "Post of the Month" in my book, Bill...what a fantastic analogy!!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
Bill, great analogy.
I have friends that can take a few simple tools and build a house, I with the same tools am liable to hurt myself.

My insurance agent tells me I am no longer allowed to use tools
<G>

[Amazin]

Billw

I knew someone would quote that line I said and turn it to me as an argument.But It's a bit out of context and I can now say that your analogy of Ted Williams talent making the bat come alive is making my point.We're NOT Ted Williams caliber.What would your batting average be if you or I played on a major league team.Pretty dismal.What do I have to do to turn a profit?How good do I have to be with this tool?Do I have to be a Ted Williams to make a profit?Is a 250 batting average good enough?As I said in the beginning of this thread,apparently only one person is batting good enough with software to claim a profit.No one else has claimed a profit.Are we to blame the software or ourselves?What if the software sucks.WHAT IF TED WILLIAMS BAT IS MADE OF RUBBER.IS HE GOING TO HIT .300?HE'S GOING TO NEED A NEW BAT OR TOOL.Einstien knew what to do with figures.Do you?Could you?I think that while I am placing more blame on the software you and others take the position that the tool is blameless.That's great for system and software sellers.All I'm saying is I'm open.If it's great,tell me about it.What's your R.O.I using your software tool.Keep beating around the bush just gives me the unspoken answer.

[hdcper]

Amazin,

I am sort of curious, who indicated they were making a profit(positive ROI) with a software program and how did you verify what they said?

Just wondering,

Hdcper

[Handle]

Amazin,

If you're always going to be a loser, you're a loser. A loser is a loser is a loser. I'm not going to pull you from the Abyss of Loserville, nor will any software.

I'm amazed that this startles you so. Look, if you don't win at this game, why don't you give up now?

There are many answers why you wouldn't, including being a compulsive gambler. Let's hope that's not the case and take the high road. It's the American Way, the Dream, the thing we are all taught (or were taught...) in school -- you want to be good at something, damn it, you work at it until you get it right.

Now, you go on talking about the be all and the end all of ROI as if this is the last measure of any particular type of handicapping practice you might think to engage in. Guess what -- it isn't. There are no easy answers. Dick always surprises me, but I doubt he's been a winning player all of his life. Why didn't he give up early? Do you think Ted batted over .400 every year? Why do you insist on evaluating the worth of someone's style of play by his current ROI alone?

I agree, it is fundamental to understand how well your approach is working, and ROI is sometimes a good measure of that. But what you refuse to understand is that good software should not claim to be the Alpha and Omega of handicapping sans You, the handicapper. You seem to think it NEEDS to be.

Again, it is a tool and tools, in the hands of those willing to learn to use them, have proven to be what separates the human race from other species -- its called innovation. If you wholly lack this, or if you choose to target software that provides no room for the handicapper's own innovation, then, again, you are doomed to dissatisfaction. If, however, you feel that you are a consummate loser in the world, then how can you persist at the game in the first place? Your destiny is sealed.

-Nathan

PS. Since this is a competitive affair, who do you want to be -- the competitor with all the information and technology that provides that information, or the one without? Albert Belle's corked bats look pretty good right about now.

[Dr.Larry]

Amazin,
Think your thinking on this complex issue is
too simplistic. For most of us, it is not a "living".
We win, we lose. Sometimes we win small amounts for
a considerable period and then lose it back. We also
have good years, good seasons, etc. and the reverse.

We study and play because we love the game. You
would invest in a better set of Clubs if you loved golf.
Same with Software if it works for you.

Despite some bad losing streaks (where I stopped playing
for awhile, once or twice.) I have never had a losing
year using HTR software. But here is the main point;
There were long periods where I was working for less
than $1 an hour, when I could of earned 125 times that,
working an extra hour in my Practice. It gave me great
pleasure, because I was able to call my father (who had
been a loser all of his life) and give him a winner, and a positive ROI of pennies.

[GR1@HTR]

And the great/interesting thing about Dr. Larry is that he uses the software like very few others. He is a former sheets player that utilizes his expertise in form cycles, pace and trainer moves within a sheets style program in HTR.

[Amazin]

I can't believe that several on this board have taken offense to the simple question of "What's your R.O.I.?"Handle: I can't believe you are so insecure about that question that you have to resort to insulting and pidgeonholing even though you know nothing about me.That tells me a bit about you.
I am not looking for a magic box,and I realize that there are different R.O.I's with different skilled players. But some act as if I commited a sin by asking that simple question.It's sad when people are narrow minded and set in their ways.I think my question is answered via the unspoken and you needn't worry that someone is asking you to validate a products worth.I will drop this subject cause you can't handle it.Ignorance is bliss.

[hurrikane]

Amazin,
Curious..what is your ROI without software?
Software can only help you handicap the race. That is only 1 part of the puzzle. The other pieces you have to fit yourself.
I will fit the other pieces different than you will. Even with the same software you and I will not have the same ROI because of the other pieces of the puzzle.

As for me. 2001, 1.11 ROI.

[Handle]

Amazin,

Insulting and pigeon-holing you? You're the one that's doing that to yourself. My use of the "You" is the royal You. It was your post that brought up the subject up -- the subject of not being good enough to win at the game in the first place. I apologize if you think I was trying to insult you personally.

Every post you've made in this thread indicates that you are not open minded in this discussion, as you suggest. This is not an insult -- I gather this from reading your posts. In your latest, you say that you "realize that there are different R.O.I's with different skilled players." It sure doesn't sound like it from any of your other posts. It sounds like you are trying to say that software is worthless if, right out of the box, it doesn't produce a positive ROI for you.

You did ask people to tell you why a piece of software is so great. They told you. You responded by saying so what, what's your ROI? People told you that it may be good for some, worse for others, but its not the only thing to consider. You responded with -- so what, what's your ROI? Actually, it seemed more like you were asking "What's the Software's ROI"? That tells me a lot about you.

-Nathan

PS. My ROI in the last 12 months is +13%, but I haven't played steadily in a number of months.

[PMANN1]

It's interesting how all these posts get so personal after a while, kind of tiring. I'm not sure why vendors get upset when people them for thier ROI. I have a friend who's a stockbroker. What do you think they ask him? Should he get offended if they ask for some proof? His answer is similar to some of the posts here. The returns are different for different people depending on their goals and style of investing. However he does show them examples of actual returns of clients (while keeping them confidential) and references. We know another guy who does quite well in the commodities markets. They laugh at some of the software tools and technical analysis software that's for sale at a very steep price because it doesn't work in "real life". But they know others who do use software to trade succesfully. Hopefully nobody is asking for a software system that makes the picks for them and shows a positive ROI. It won't happen. If it does exist for a short while everyone betting on the same picks would kill the ROI.
Still, if someone is going to invest the money and a considerable amount of time there should be some evidence from someone other than a vendor and their friends that it does work.

[PMANN1]

HTR is a good example. They're doing quite well in some of the handicapping tournaments. Ed Bain gives his win percentage and ROI for all plays that qualify under his 4/30 method. They're not profitable overall but they do much better than the track take and allow people to achieve a positive ROI. Looking at the posts on HTR and their results in tournaments has me considering trying them. HSH or Equism could be good too, I don't know.
I don't see anything wrong with asking for some type of proof showing that the software can clue you in to horses that beat the track take by at least half. Shouldn't be too hard considering the data can be back-fitted. If a vendor can't do at least that, or provide some other hard data for proof I'll always remain skeptical which keeps me away from a majority of the things that will waste my time and money, even though I may miss a nugget.
Long post and the last one on the subject for me(me thinks?).

[Handle]

PMann1,

I don't think anyone, including myself, is getting upset about the question itself. As I mention elsewhere in this thread, EquiSim has the ability to track its own performance in terms of win percentage and ROI into the program -- its _built_ in. I think this is a fundamental part of any software system whether you do it by hand or the software does it for you. I'm certainly not in disagreement.

But, Amazin isn't just asking "Where's the ROI?" He's arguing that there is something wrong with a program if it cannot turn you into a successful handicapper with little or no work on your part. That was my initial understanding of his post and so it remains given his/her response to the number of different reasons people have given him/her for why they use handicapping software. To me, that just sounds silly and more than a little obstinate.

-Nathan

[PaceAdvantage]

Didn't Amazin answer his/her own question with "I realize that there are different R.O.I's with different skilled players"


I don't understand the need to pursue this line of thinking. Unless a piece of software is a black box, the only ROI you will get is from a player using the software. And as you said, different players will have different ROIs.

Right??


==PA

[sligg]

Amazin,

I'm in your camp.

There is so much effort in learning a software program, so many nuances, so many columns of data to filter-it seems that handicapping a race is akin to writing a doctoral thesis. If 100 handicappers use a particular software and everyone is betting a different horse in the same race, and the results pop up with varying ROI, it then makes me wonder just what is the magic of any software.

I'm inclined to think that Dick Schmidt is right-you need to bet volume. There was a player from the NY circuit, Dave Hardoon who was a large volume player. He would start the racing day with nine $5000 vouchers and bet all of the money in each race. I used to peak over his shoulder but it was impossible to follow his betting patterns-he bet so many numbers and so many combinations. Rumor has it that he made 5-8% on his volume bets which in a year was in the millions. When NY raised the takeout on the exactas, he moved to Las Vegas where the casinos bid on his action with rebate enticements. Apparently, this man was a winner.

Even with a computer, handicapping is a grind. Day after day, the same dumb numbers staring you in the face, the same perplexing problems, the same iffy decisions, the same little prayers that you made the right choice-work...work...and more work. What is the lure-I guess it must be the tax free income every computer handicapper is making. I always wonder after deducting the expenses what is the hourly wage of the successful handicapper?

ROI...ROI...ROI! That is the name of the game.

I took a subscription to Bob Pandolfo tout service and I'm not to thrilled with the results thus far. The only winning segment of his selections is betting the two best bets for place-the ROI 14.9%.

I will post the complete results of this test after my subscription runs out.

[Dick Schmidt]

Sligg,

I'm also inclined to think that Dick Schmidt is right on this issue, but then I'm inclined to think that Dick Schmidt is right on every issue!

If you were to ask Dick Schmidt about his play, he would tell you that the only reason he can play so many races each day (when the entire damn nation of Costa Rica isn't having a power outage) is that he uses a computer. Not because the computer is a "black box" that points to winners, but because the computer takes the basic data and produces "high level" complex numbers. If you look at the Form, you can see that the horse ran the opening quarter in 22.3. With a computer, you can compare that to every other horse in the race, then compare the horse's best race with every other best race, then look at the average of all 10 lines (maybe tossing out the high and low) and comparing that average to the averages of the other horses in the race.

When you get done with that, you can instantly convert all the third fractions to a common distance, and play all the same games with that. You can start compounding numbers, adding factors, discount early speed not accompanied by good Quirin Early Speed Points, looking at "Hidden Fractions" and any other thing you can possibly imagine. The software I use automatically picks pacelines for every horse in the race and rates the horse using that line. It next analyzes the non-paceline specific stuff, like earnings, and rates that. Then it does a very complex analysis of all ten lines for every horse and builds 20 (or so)compound numbers reflecting all the horse's races showing. Of course, it then combines all three of these rating systems to predict an order of finish. Does all this with the push of a button, in well under 2 seconds. At the same time, it is also calculating each horse's form cycle, and building two moving averages based on that form cycle analysis for each horse. It takes all this and gives each horse a form cycle grade and recent form evaluation.

So I look for fast horses with good recent form. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I use computers. Automatic? No. Effective? Yes. I get a look at a race that almost no one else in the country has. Result? A 30-35% edge. My box isn't black (kinda a light gray or beige) but for me it is the difference between profit and loss, playing and getting a job! Gotta love that box.

Dick

[sligg]

Dick,

Nothing is forever...not in love, not in horseracing and especially software. Horseracing and software are dynamic in their coupling and it is a constantly changing dynamic. Difficult to master but always challenging and enticing with it's lure of untold wealth.

Dick, in the thirty years I know of you, how many software programs have you tried, mastered, and was successful? I'm thinking of you and Michael Pizzola from the Sartin seminar at Albany, NY sometime in the 1980's. You started from a common base and years later you both took different paths. I assume he is equally as successful as you are and yet your methodology is not the same.

The older you get, the more desparate you get looking for the holy grail...THE BLACK BOX. Maybe we will all find it in Handicapper's Heaven.

Dick, I know you have answered this question before: What software are you currently expert in and what is the learning curve? How much time and how many days a week do you handicap?

As others have intimated, maybe you have a special talent. You certainly have a lot of experience. Talent plus hardwork and the conclusion is always the same-another winner.

[GR1@HTR]

Sligg wrote:
"There is so much effort in learning a software program, so many nuances, so many columns of data to filter-it seems that handicapping a race is akin to writing a doctoral thesis. If 100 handicappers use a particular software and everyone is betting a different horse in the same race, and the results pop up with varying ROI, it then makes me wonder just what is the magic of any software. "
==


True, in my opinion it takes a bung load of time to learn how to use this kinda stuff. But that is the way it is with anything else. If you go out an buy an the best set of golf clubs that money can buy, you still have to practice with the new tools to get a good feel for them. Same as if you are Troy Aikman and you go from throwing balls to Michael Irvin and now you have Joey Galloway, you still gotta spend time learning how to throw to your new receiver. Unfortunately, the previous example was a failed bit for both parties...

[ranchwest]

Amazin,

Does your television show Emmy award winning shows?

What? Depends on which channel you're on?

[JimG]

Originally posted by sligg
If 100 handicappers use a particular software and everyone is betting a different horse in the same race, and the results pop up with varying ROI, it then makes me wonder just what is the magic of any software.



I feel there is no magic to software. Only certain users once they get comfortable with a program and learn to adapt to the strengths as a handicapper and bettor.

For me, if using a piece of software meant everyone wound up with the same horse, it would be of no use given the fact we bet against one another. I love to try software and most of it that is talked about on this board will help you narrow a race down to the true contenders. Most will also crunch numbers and manage information for you. However, the final selection and betting is left up to the horseplayer, and that is how it should be.

Jim

[Dick Schmidt]

Sligg,


"The older you get, the more desperate you get looking for the holy grail...THE BLACK BOX. Maybe we will all find it in Handicapper's Heaven. "



I'd love a black box, but I get the feeling that most handicappers would rather pick their own horses. They love the challenge and aren't really in it for the money.

BTW, for those who think a black box can't be done, try reading Calculated Bets by Steven Skiena. He not only built one that played jai alai, also a pari-mutuel game, but he allowed it to run unsupervised. It got so good that he left it running while he was out of the country. It downloaded the entries, called his betting service, made the bets and then recorded the results every day. In a month it more than doubled its bankroll.



"Dick, I know you have answered this question before: What software are you currently expert in and what is the learning curve? How much time and how many days a week do you handicap? "


I currently use Horse Street Handicapper for win bets, and am branching out into Synergism for exotics. I handicap "on the fly" so I spend as long as it takes for the tracks to run the races. I never look at the races before about 10 minutes to post for the first race of the day. I play 3 or 4 days a week.

Dick

[Rick]

I don't use software to rate the horses I bet but used a number of tools combined with my experience to develop the method. I can compute my ratings easily with a calculator. It would probably be more convenient to have software do the same thing and would allow me to play more tracks. But whether you use software or a manual approach, I think it's important to follow a fixed set of rules in order to be able to test your approach at all. Most software users seem to have a fuzzy subjective approach to how to combine the information, and have very inconsistent success as a result. I'd bet that the approach Dick uses could be programmed but probably the last few steps are manual just because the software doesn't support every possible way of combining the information. If you don't select the same horse every time when using the same inputs, you've got a fuzzy approach that needs refining.

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

Actually, I have tried a great length to systemize Dick's "artful" approach. Thus far, I have not been able to duplicate his approach nor his results, although my "systematic" version of what he is doing is clipping along at an 8% ROI after 600 bets.

While that is good (especially considering the quantity of plays), it is nowhere near the 30+% he is getting by zigging and zagging occasionally.

The bottom line is, he is a strong artful player and I am not. In fact, I don't even want to be artful.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[hurrikane]

to me it was a saver. I used to spend hours doing the racing form. Making my own speed figs for most of the tracks that shipped here, trainer patters, class figs, trip notes. Christ, it became a drudgery. Then when the Beyers hit the DRF my prices fell. It wasn't worth the time and energy anymore. Everyone had what I had..the avg $ went in the toilet. I quit.

10 years later I came back, got into the computer side of it. I can handicap an entire card in about 1 minute. all races for every track in about 7 min. Then I sit back and watch the races and look for prices. I can put a hell of a lot more money through the windows and although my ROI has suffered a couple of % pts, for the number of races I play, the $ return is much greater.

Computers. I love em. To all those who do not.

--Thank you and may God bless you.--

:D

[Rick]

Dave,

Yeah, but you'd have to agree that it's possible, even if it's necessary to use AI, to come close to his performance with a set of fixed rules imbedded in software. Now, he may not even be aware of some highly effective heuristics that he's using, but I'll bet that he's acting consistently. Many years ago, I volunteered to check some systems for a pro using his racing forms. His plays were marked in every form. I reverse engineered his method well enough to pick the same horses better than 95% of the time. Even though I wasn't using exactly the same method, I was able to capture the essence of it and that was good enough.

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

Oh, I defintely agree with you. In fact, I expect to accomplish exactly that.

Dave

[Tom]

Originally posted by sligg
Amazin,


ROI...ROI...ROI! That is the name of the game.

I took a subscription to Bob Pandolfo tout service and I'm not to thrilled with the results thus far. The only winning segment of his selections is betting the two best bets for place-the ROI 14.9%.

I will post the complete results of this test after my subscription runs out.


Roi is the name of the game, you're getting about a 15% roi, and you are not thrilled with the results? What would you expect for a thrilling roi?

[CumberlandBluesHSH]

I disagree that ROI is the name of the game. All that matters is that the ROI be positive. A method with a 5% is fine if you can push enough money through the windows. 15% is great - but only if you can push enough money through to make more $ than the 5% ROI method.

I don't care if my ROI is 5% or 20% or 40% - I want to make $300 a day. I don't care if I do it with 5 big bets or 55 little bets. I just want to know that I can make an average of $300 or more a day over the long haul. When I reach that goal, I give notice at my day job.