Think long, think wrong

[LutherCalvin]

The off track counter girl said something interesting the other day between her usual smiles and "Good racing!" comments. She said, "Most bettors over analyze the race." I think that she's right. If your initial handicapping doesn't point you in the direction of a winner with overlay possibilities, it's best to pass the race rather than continue with indepth handicapping of the remaining contenders. "Think long, think wrong" should be the motto of the handicapper. My biggest scores at the racetrack have been confirmations of my initial review of the past performances where my picks disagree with the program picks.

[xfile]

the old quote = "Study long-study wrong"

[Snag]

A friend of mine use to say that the horse just "jumped off the page" at him. After about 15 years, I now know what he means. How many times have we caught a winner because we kept going back to a certain horse and reviewing the PP's over and over for no good reason. Something catches your eye in comparsion to the others. Those are the ones I love. I catch my self trying to make a horse fit the race instead of the other way around.


Good Luck

[Overlay]

I've found advantages in keeping my handicapping as quantitative and standardized as possible from race to race. I may miss out on some of the nuances that in-depth analysis can catch, but if I'm betting with the probabilities and percentages of the game, and giving due weight to the fundamental factors of handicapping, the breaks will even out over time. More importantly for me, it saves me the kind of second-guessing that would waste time and drive me crazy with endless thoughts of “What if?” or “But what about this?”

[twindouble]

The off track counter girl said something interesting the other day between her usual smiles and "Good racing!" comments. She said, "Most bettors over analyze the race." I think that she's right. If your initial handicapping doesn't point you in the direction of a winner with overlay possibilities, it's best to pass the race rather than continue with indepth handicapping of the remaining contenders. "Think long, think wrong" should be the motto of the handicapper. My biggest scores at the racetrack have been confirmations of my initial review of the past performances where my picks disagree with the program picks.

I agree but it isn't all that simple, the saying goes back as far Is I can remember. There's an accumulative handicapping experience that contributes to conditions where they "jump off the page". In other words they don't look like the chalk in the race that everyone is going to see. I told a little story here where I told my brother in-law, I got the winner but he'll be chalk or second choice prior to looking at the board, the horse went off 19-1 and won by 6. That horse jumped off the page.

Good luck,

T.D.

[46zilzal]

after about 4 basic things per race, it's all baloney

it changes which 4 or 5 are the most dominant, however

[cnollfan]

In "Betting Thoroughbreds," Steve Davidowitz said something to the effect of: "There are two kinds of picks -- easy ones and hard ones." I have found this to be true. Some picks jump off the page, but sometimes, especially in contentious races, the winner bubbles to the top only after much hard work and thought. (Or, the relative strength of the contenders does the same and the odds then point to the one or ones to bet.)

[bettheoverlay]

Thinking gives me a headache. So I made a deal with my computer/software. He/She/It does the thinking. Does a whole card in about 5 seconds. My job is to find the value, and be brave enough to do the wagering.

Sometimes it works.

[twindouble]

In "Betting Thoroughbreds," Steve Davidowitz said something to the effect of: "There are two kinds of picks -- easy ones and hard ones." I have found this to be true. Some picks jump off the page, but sometimes, especially in contentious races, the winner bubbles to the top only after much hard work and thought. (Or, the relative strength of the contenders does the same and the odds then point to the one or ones to bet.)

In some races there's no magic bullet, just to competitive or the field sucks all around. Then there's the races that are key components in your pick 4 or 6. I've had times where I put the race down a half dozen times and then out of the blue it all came together. Also times where in the pick 6, I couldn't get the race down to 4 horses or 5 so I tuff it up and cover all the contenders. $$$$$. :faint: For me anyway. Every race is different.

T.D.

[mainardi]

the old quote = "Study long-study wrong"
Nobody is immune to it... I just did it last Saturday.

My software picked a horse and I liked it "at first blush" -- lone speed at a mile on the turf at Santa Anita, ML at 7/2 in a 5-horse field -- I over-analyzed it, knew I was over-analyzing it... and still I passed on the race. Long-story-short, the horse won easily and paid $10.60!!! :(

[Valuist]

How's this for a cliche:

Paralysis by lack of analysis.

Also, the harder I work, the luckier I get.

[kingfin66]

I am so greatful for this thread. A while back, somebody on PA posted something to the effect of, "Winning is easy, find something you like and insist on 8/1 or better odds." That's not an exact quote, but close to it. I have tried to search it out but to no avail.

The other profound quote came from Traynor in a thread regarding how big a bankroll a player needs to go pro. Traynor made a good point that $100 but should do the trick and then elaborated a little bit.

From having these two quotes in my brain and also re-listening to a seminar CD where the presenter reviewed his "down and dirty" approach to handicapping, I was able to get back to a very simple handicapping approach that had given me great success in the past. Somewhere along the line, I started making things more complicated than they needed to be and tried to refine techniques and info that, quite frankly, don't need refining.

What I did was take all but $50 out of my account. It wasn't much of a withdrawal that brought me down to that amount <G> Utilizing 8/1 morning line odds for action I began keeping my handicapping very, very simple. Basically, I have been taking my ratings and then quickly assessing whether a horse has the form, class and ability to compete in today's race. I then make sure that the anticipated race structure (i.e. pace) will not compromise it's chances. I managed to get down to $33, but then on April 18, things just simply exploded. I'm not going to give any representative picks after the races have been run lest I be accused of redboarding, but the balance in my account is $206. This is all from minimum $2 bets which, of course, is about $1 too large for a $50 beginning bankroll. Anyway, this experiment in basic, basic, basic handicapping an betting is not over, but it sure will continue.

1. Simple information +
2. Simple analysis +
3. Longshot odds +
4. Simple betting technique =

Success

Is it really this easy? No, as I'm sure the 20 race runout will rear its ugly head soon enough. Yet it actually is easy in many respects if you just keep it simple. Or something like that...

[Overlay]

As another comment, I think that one of the factors that may contribute to over-analysis is the perceived need to keep narrowing a field down by eliminating one horse after another until arriving at "the winner" (or "the selection"), according to whatever criteria are used to find it. As a result, it becomes necessary to keep splitting finer and finer handicapping hairs to distinguish between horses, with the side effect of driving down the odds on the ultimate choice.

[twindouble]

As another comment, I think that one of the factors that may contribute to over-analysis is the perceived need to keep narrowing a field down by eliminating one horse after another until arriving at "the winner" (or "the selection"), according to whatever criteria are used to find it. As a result, it becomes necessary to keep splitting finer and finer handicapping hairs to distinguish between horses, with the side effect of driving down the odds on the ultimate choice.

What I enjoy the most about handicapping is calling the race as I see it on the form. Who's going to be where from start to finish. I think it's a mistake just find one of two negative factors and toss a horse like he's no longer in the race then go on to the next one. In most cases those very horses you knocked out will have an impact on the race to some degree or another.


T.D.

[Overlay]

In most cases those very horses you knocked out will have an impact on the race to some degree or another.

As you say, not only may they have an impact, but they'll also jump up and win occasionally, which is why I prefer to think in terms of a winning probability (of whatever size) for each horse in the race (to facilitate betting for value), rather than eliminating any horse outright.

[twindouble]

As you say, not only may they have an impact, but they'll also jump up and win occasionally, which is why I prefer to think in terms of a winning probability (of whatever size) for each horse in the race (to facilitate betting for value), rather than eliminating any horse outright.

I agree, we are pretty much on the same page. Many times those very horses rounded off a nice tri or super at long odds. I have to admit there was also times when the suckers hung on to win and I didn't put them on top. In most cases they were speed that I figure would quit or a deep closer I didn't think would get up in time. The fact I had them in the play made me feel a little better. Can't win them all as we say.

[JustRalph]

interesting thread. The other day in a stakes race at Santa Anita I worked over a race for about 20 minutes or so and placed a bet just after the post parade...put $10 to win place on my horse. ......and decided to look back at the odds nearer to post time, and see if I wanted to put anymore on my horse. Poured a coke went to get the mail.

When I came back in I went back to the computer screen and glanced at the form as they were going in the gate. Realized I had blown it big time and dumped 40 to win place on the one I missed.........it jumped out at me. Just got it in before the bell went off.

The one that jumped out at me won easy and I got 17 and change for $2. I almost blew it. Why did this one jump out at me? I have to admit it was a seriously easy one.......but I am not sure why I missed it in first place. Over thinking? Maybe.........

[andicap]

In any kind of study if you look at a problem too long you end up "too close to it." When I write a story and return to it the next day, I'll usually say, "Yikes! How could I write that trite crap?"
No different. A fresh, clear mind sees things in fresh, clear ways.

[twindouble]

In any kind of study if you look at a problem too long you end up "too close to it." When I write a story and return to it the next day, I'll usually say, "Yikes! How could I write that trite crap?"
No different. A fresh, clear mind sees things in fresh, clear ways.

I agree, I do find putting the race down and coming back with a different frame of mind clears things up. I find some races very challanging but there is a point where I'll also pass on some.

[JackS]

Isn't it possible that when a player catches himself "thinking long" that the ML or public favorite has some issues with this status.?
Although we may seldom know who the actual winner will be, we do know that anything we play other that the favorite is going to have a chance.
Acceptable odds now become primary. Who will win becomes secondary and our play win or lose hopefully can be viewed positive over long periods of time.
Stratagy- Catch yourself "thinking too long" and once this realization has been made, find a way to take advantage of it.

[traynor]

kingfin66 wrote: <Is it really this easy? No, as I'm sure the 20 race runout will rear its ugly head soon enough. Yet it actually is easy in many respects if you just keep it simple. Or something like that...>

Congratulations. Not on winning, but rather on seeing that it is possible. The value of small wagers is huge; it eliminates the wild exacta wheels and reverse trifecta wheels that seem so reasonable when they win, and so horrendous when they lose. The wild flurry of exactas advocated by some "experts" may or may not work for them. For someone without a substantial bankroll, that kind of action can bury you in short order.

The most important lesson is one you have learned already--you know how to win. All the rest of it--all the ups and downs and wins and losses and bad beats and lost photo finishes--is all score keeping. Whether you are up or down at any given moment is almost irrelevant once you realize that you understand the basic process of how to win. The best days and the worst days are much they same; they all pass.

I wish you the best of luck in your continued efforts. It is the game that matters, not the immediate ups and downs within it. Once you understand the process of winning, it is only a matter of time.
Good Luck

[Snag]

[QUOTE=JackS]Isn't it possible that when a player catches himself "thinking long" that the ML or public favorite has some issues with this status.?
QUOTE]

JackS, I would hope that the ML isn't one of the things used when I look at a race. The information, PP's, I'm using are hopefully the same used by the person that set the ML. The change in odds is based on all other bettors putting down their money. BUT, I have no control over the odds. In todays game, with simo money coming in so late, the odds change after the gate opens. I don't like passing on a bet because the odds are low and then see them fall within an accetable range after I passed on making my bet. :bang: That's what I call "thinking long, thinking wrong" also.

[andicap]

Of course you can come up with a catch phrase to rationalize anything

"Study Brief -- Come to Grief."

:)

[twindouble]

Of course you can come up with a catch phrase to rationalize anything

"Study Brief -- Come to Grief."

:)

The racing form is your bible--Your bankroll is your sole.


T.D.

[Hosshead]

Sometimes I think that continuing to split hairs when analyzing a race, is because we have subconsciously concluded that there are going to be 3 or 4 horses within a neck, when they hit the wire.
And we're still trying to pick the winner of a head bob.

[twindouble]

Sometimes I think that continuing to split hairs when analyzing a race, is because we have subconsciously concluded that there are going to be 3 or 4 horses within a neck, when they hit the wire.
And we're still trying to pick the winner of a head bob.


I think we are over looking some other things that influence our thinking when it comes to time spent in a race along with the type of player you are. For example, if your a spot player. The traditional spot player as I knew him was the guy who was waiting for a horse to get the right conditions to win and that was backed up by other supporting factors, be it trip, trainer intent, the distance and so on. When he felt things were right he's make his bet and less time spent in the race. In today's world some call themselves spot players when they scan 10 cards (computers) looking for a bet or a card or two. They aren't spot players in the true sense, more time spent if your a traditional handicapper.

Another thing that drives us to look further into the race is the gimmicks, now it isn't just finding the winner, like it was at one time. We are also giving others consideration, that are just competitive to some degree or another to make up an exacta, tri or super, when you get it right, that time spent can pay off. Those horses don't normally "jump off the page". When they do and have good value a good score is in hand. Same could be said of the picks, looking for horses that could upset the chalks, going 3 or 4 deep in some races is par.

Action players don't spend much time in any race, they wager on consensus, odds, movements on the tote, overlays, underlay's and whatever inspires them, could be just a jock change or FTL. If there's no reason they will bet anyway.


Good Luck,

T.D.