Search for handicapping knowledge

[Jaguar]

As an older computer handicapper, over the years a number of younger men have approached me with questions about handicapping.

These men may be neophytes in the racing world, or they may have 6 or 7 years of disparate experiences under their belt- as they hunt for "the answer", or, "the method" which will unlock the parimutuel vault and suddenly transport them into the realm of vast wealth.

All of these men are serious, and they E-mail such intense questions to me- (and perhaps to others)-. They grill me at handi-capping seminars, as though I possess far more understanding than I have. They approach me at OTB, sometimes in what turns out to be a half questioning- half lecturing attitude.

I am delighted to share the agonies and joys I have experienced in researching this fabulous racing world for 22 years, and I am pleased when my suggestions make sense to these handicappers- who are so deeply committed in their quest for knowledge.

Today, I was pondering why their is so little awareness of the fundamentals of horse handicapping among these newcomers and I realized that since there is no central repository for racing wisdom, an inexperienced handicapper must shoulder the burden of research on his own.

Aside from reading Huey Mahl, Brohammer, Scott, Cramer, Quirin, Barry Meadows(spelling?), Prof. Evans, etc. - all essential texts- a newcomer to the handicapping field must study Nunamaker and really absorb this material. Impact values are part of the core curriculum.

But, there is no one to guide the aspiring student of this horse racing field and we are almost in an 18th century master/apprentice circumstance, whereby an older handicapper has to instruct and oversee a beginner. Otherwise, without guidance, a newcomer will have to stumble around in ignorance- or at best- half-baked knowledge- for years, the way I staggered around searching out mentors for 10 years.

Just the other day, at OTB, a guy in his 40's- a handicapper of 7 or 8 years experience, asked me for suggestions pertaining to software and other handicapping matters.

Afterwards, I realized from his comments and questions, that this man really doesn't have a firm, coherent grasp of what good, thorough handicapping entails. This- in spite of all the superb literature out there, as well as killer computer discs which are easily available(albeit not cheap).

While I was chatting with this guy, a mutual acquaintance- who was sitting 10 seats away in the same row of the Teletheater, caught a $43. horse with his laptop, using Handicapping Magic(I never get the name of this new program right).

This dramatic contrast of the expert handicapper and the amateur horse player- sitting only a short distance away from one another, really highlights the degree to which handicapping knowledge is not as widely disseminated as we might think.

No wonder we can still make nice scores at the track, once in a while, since so many folks don't know what the heck they are doing.

Oh well, let's hope the daily newspaper handicappers never smarten up- because I can't go back and work on the dairy farm, my uncle sold the farm to a pharaceutical company as a research facility for veterinary medicine.

Never mind, I always hated lifting those 55 - pound bales of hay all day in the hot summer sun.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Dick Schmidt]

Jag-Man,

A thought on educating newbies. Remember that racing is a competitive sport, and the other players around you are your competition. I agree that most players need more information, but since it's out there already, I don't feel too bad for them. Deep down inside, after the platitudes, what every pro thinks racing really needs is more dumb money.

Dick

[Bob Harris]

I don't think the situation will change either. The best way to become a winning player is to hang around other winning players...the catch is, everyday more and more winning players are betting from home. They don't want to spend their day socializing and they don't have a desire to show off their winning tickets to everyone...unless a player just loves the "smell" of a racetrack, why else would he want to add track expenses to his monthly nut?

My guess is that once all the legalities have been figured out and online betting is available everywhere, a new player will be very hard pressed to find many winners at the tracks or racebooks.

[Jaguar]

Dick, you have gone to the nub of it. I don't want to sound anymore arrogant than I already have, but I sincerely wish all the newbies would remain unenlightened.

When I think of the time and expense it has caused me to ferret out nice little gems half-buried in the dark rock of the racing universe. Some of them steady and profitable.

I was a bit disgruntled 10 years ago, when Dan Pope- a very sharp handicapper- sold inexpensively the 24 best angles in horse racing for about $50. Glad that volume is off the market.

I am also delighted that the magazine, Turf and Sport Digest, closed down a decade ago. It is also comforting to acknowledge that America's premier horse racing rag, American Turf, is so profoundly and hopelessly incompetent.

American Turf maintains a pleasing attitude of complete indifference to the realities of horse racing, even re-printing totally outdated and irrelevant Ray Taulbot articles on handicapping, with great regularity. I say, "Bravo, lads, keep it up!"

As long as the racing public is misinformed by magazines, isolated by the relative difficulty of obtaining pertinent statistical information from expensive tomes, and intimidated by expensive computer handicapping discs- for which their is no reliable and easily available rating service, experienced handicappers should be able to make good money from the exotics.

I should add that the present rating publication is unreliable and downright bizarre in giving "81/2" scores to absolute junk.

Moreover, racing newspapers, internet sites, and racing magazines often highlight obscure statistics which, while they may pertain to certain race scenarios, are utterly misleading to newcomers in the handicapping fraternity, who are often unable to measure how information relates to the projected outcome of a horse race.

Layoffs would be a classic example of the forgoing, since the advent of big purses and powerful drugs has changed the landscape of racing- and the typical trainer's mode of operation. So that layoff stats mean next to nothing in a specific race, unless there is a distinct "trainer-layoff-jockey" pattern, which occasionally the computer will catch. Curiously, some handicappers still shy away from well-meant, long layoff horses. How deeply imbedded are the shibboleths of the past.

Long live ignorance and misinformation, - and you systems developers out there- working in your spare time in the garage office- finding new ways to select the correct pace line, keep up the good work, and don't forget to figure out a new "workout" rating chart, that 's an item that should really sell.

But don't feel bad if your best efforts turned out to be a little bit antique. I sympathise, because my greyhound racing method, which I introduced 18-years ago to the unsuspecting public, is also somewhat arthritic and outmoded.

Dick, let's hope the market doesn't get flooded with dynamite new programs like Fastcapper(with Cramer's superb numbers), since I can't go back to work at the produce market because my Watermelon stand collapsed, crushing an old woman, who's last words to me were: "Sonny, are you sure these melons are fresh?"

All the best,

Jaguar

[Jaguar]

Bob, you made an excellent point. Not only is there an annoying lack of privacy at Racebooks, there is also a corrosive atmosphere of inappropriate scrutiny by on-the-payroll informers for various local, State, and federal agencies.

The operators of various OTB facilities are distinguished by their disregard for the privacy of their patrons. While law-abiding horse players are concentrating on their printouts and on their pending betting decisions, these low-lifes are skulking around "spying" on folks who are minding their own business.

While this situation is not every day, it can- at times- become irritating, even including the taking of photographs of groups of innocent people.

OTB should not be too concerned that the Casinos are the only dynamic hurting OTB attendance, many other factors, such as: cleanliness, absence of good customer relations, failure to ensure privacy, inadequate parimutuel information(not showing exacta or quiniela screens before a race; not showing entries as having been scratched- as in the 1a is scratched and the TV info does not reveal that fact after the race is over, when reporting the payoffs). Not to mention the absence of comps, etc., etc.

Just another example of the Racing business shooting itself in the foot.

No wonder the Casino Racebooks and the legal off-shore books are eroding OTB's customer base.

All the best,

Jaguar

[jandrus]

hen you are right. look how sports haven went down hill since its opening. less tellers and such. by the way i was sitting along side mike. I had the ex. tiwce for 190+ also after you left sat. had the tri. at delmar for 400 all with out a computer.

[so.cal.fan]

Is Teletrack still operating?
I once visited there in 1988. Grim place, imho.
I personally like "live" racing. It is a participation sport.
There is just something about being there.
I like to look at horses in paddocks. It is not only enjoyable, but it is also profitable.
Part of the fun of handicapping and picking winners is to learn to develop your own method. These new people have to do the same thing we did 40 years ago. They have to study and decide for themselves how they want to play horses.
In my opinion, you can learn from winning players, but you have to develop your own style and what you are intuitively comfortable with.
Hey, good luck to all who try, be it on their computer or in the paddock.:)

[Lefty]

There's more good "stuff" n handicapping than ever before. When I started there wasn't much: Taulbot, Ainslie and Longworth and a million crooks. Well we prob. still have the million crooks with their slick systems and promises of millions but the universe abounds with good info these days.
Prob is some people think they can start with a few bucks and make a fortune. I tell people if you don't love racing and just want some money then go do something else; you can make a lot more money elsewhere.

[ranchwest]

IMHO, the biggest mistake that newbies make is to always look for winners, never looking for losers. Good statistical factors often fall in the range of 10% to 25% winners. That's 75% to 90% losers. While good impact values are strong indicators, an individual factor with a high impact value is not going to yield winners every time.

As long as everyone is looking for the perfect horse, looking for winners, there will be opportunities at the track.

[so.cal.fan]

Good point, RW.
I find myself guilty of "redboarding myself" at times, even after all these years.
S**T HAPPENS! We all need to deal with it or better yet, concentrate on our strengths and ignore it!;)

[Rick]

I'd say the biggest mistake is using too many factors that are correlated with one another. In the attempt to find a horse that has everything going for it, they find an obvious underlay. On the other hand, if you put a few independent factors together that lose a little individually the combination may show a profit.

[Rpd]

This is just my thought and my own opinion for what it is worth.

I don't think the issue is picking winners or information that would teach how to do that. Since I have been wagering since the early 1970's I have found that there is so much information out there on how to do it that sometimes there is just too much.

I think we all know what to look for in a winner and obviously after the race is over we can all clearly see why it won.

I believe the most important factor is in the wagering. To account for the possilbe choas in a race beforehand. If you want to call it value or overlay or whatever it is the very same.

Each time we handicap a race there are always unknown factors which I call choas. Can the layoff horse return to form, how does it's training between races affect it, will the addition of Lasix change things, is a young horse on the rise, or an overworked horse on the decline, etc, etc.

My method is to handicap a race using what I am sure to all is just standard factors:

Capability - measure of the basic ability of the horse - measured by many factors (10) including average, min, and max speed
Connections - how good are the connections and what is their intent
Condition - a measure of what I believe to be the current condition fo the horse
Changes - what has changed in the training of the horse compared to the previous types of races and the training and/or rest the horse has received or change in connections
Competition - how will the horse measure up to the competition in today's race (pace) and how will it affect his performance.

Then using a special ranking method I can clearly see the race from strictly an information standpoint.

Once I am all done, then my program then reruns the races with choas in mind changing "artful" decisons and prepares a scenerio that could be called shoulda, woulda, coulda BEFORE the race.

I then look at what everyone calls overlay, value, etc to make 2 decisions:

1. With choas in mind can the race be played profitably using various tools - win, place, exacta, trifecta, pick 3 and still show a reasonable profit. This is all based on one premise. Is the risk taking into account the size of the needed wagers to cover chaos worth it considering the reward - the expected return based on payouts and expected chances of success.

2. If I feel it is not, then pass the race and move on.


I guess what I am trying to say with all this is that it's not so much the information or whether you are new or experienced but how you use the information in a structured wagering plan to best take advantage of your work and achieve whatever you set out to accomplish. The knowledge is there, it is the final action of implementing the knowledge that is key.

Karl in Florida has his way, Dick Schmidt has his way and many others on the board their own way. Each is suited to their method and needs. I don't think any one of them would say the issue is information or knowledge or the right instructions. I think they would all say it is their experience on how to use the information learned the hard way that makes the difference to their success.


Man this is the longest post I have ever made. Thanks in advance for listening.

[Dick Schmidt]

Rpd,

Long post indeed, but very well thought out. Worth the read.

Dick

[Tom]

...we need more players in the game so that they will lose more money and let us have it. Yet if they lose their money, they won't stay long.
What we need are very rich losers who need action, not cash.

[keilan]

Jaguar are you for real!!

What is the point of this thread?

Newbie's are uneducated in the ways of horse racing and lets keep them that way. Promoting poor services and bad publications then giving thanks that some quality information is no longer available on the market. You self proclaimed pro's just love that dumb money. This is the most small mindedness thinking I have read on this website.
What do you think new people to this game are thinking after reading this?

Why on earth would anyone wish to help new players to the game? Just maybe -- without new players the game will die. Because whether you believe this or not most people will only continue to play if they feel they have a chance to cash some tickets. Education is the best way to further develop and promote the sport and secure the future of the game.

Let me ask some posters of this thread a question.

Do guys like Steve Fierro and Tom Brohamer help to further the participation and renewed interest in the game or would they best serve the game by keeping their pen in their pocket?

By the way boys -- any professional athletes which I have known in the past thirty years all have at least a couple of similar characteristics
1) They always give back to their sport. 2) They conduct themselves with humility and a nice blend of confidence.

Rpd -- responsible post.

[Bruddah]

First reall intellectual comment on this thread. Thank you.

[Tom]

Originally posted by keilan
Jaguar are you for real!!


By the way boys -- any professional athletes which I have known in the past thirty years all have at least a couple of similar characteristics
1) They always give back to their sport. 2) They conduct themselves with humility and a nice blend of confidence.

Rpd -- responsible post.

Must be you haven' t met any of the baseball players who sell their autographs to kids.....real he-men in the sporitng world (spit).

[Rick]

Rpd,

You mentioned a very good point about handicapping. One must always take into account the variance of the performance possibilities (what you call chaos), not just the expected values. My favorite example is the consistent horse vs the inconsistent hores. The inconsistent horse is frequently the better bet to win because it really doesn't matter what the average performance of your horse is, only if it wins or loses. Early speed types are sometimes like this and that's why overlays on them can still be found.

[Dave Mark]

Having played the track for 30 years, you learn or to put it bluntly, you lose.
I have to laugh at many of these seemingly intellegent people behind some of these posts.
I do not necessarily mean this categorys posts.

From the beginning of racing until the "Cow jumps over the Moon", the "real" secret to succeeding in todays races is "reading" the trainers mind.
Of course the horse MUST be in top form to win the race the trainer intends to.

Anyway you cut it, speed figures are useless, the fastest 1/2 mile means absolutely nothing, a recent 24 for final close at 6 panels is zippo, if the trainer says "Not Today", just out for some sun and a little workout for Mistyblue today.

Anyone can look at the form after the race and come up with something they believe is why the horse won that race, but you have to ask yourself,
if the horse won by a nose, that means the other horse would also have something in the racing form that would point out why he could have won too.

The point is, in any given field, there are half or more horses that IF any of them won, you could find reasons why he did.
In fact if you look hard enough, you could probably find at least one plus, that would lead to the winning of any race, regardless of how remote.
Could be jockey switch, weight taken off, showed fast break from gate, even though was 12 lengths behind first 1/4,a workout at 3AM, could be one of many unseen on paper things too.

Of course if the horses diet has been changed we would never know. <G>.

There are some talented handicappers out there,some using pencil and paper, and some can use the most complicated programs imaginable to get their picks.

I state without reservation, anyone who is interested in taking their game to the next level, start studying the only direct connection to the horse. (Excluding the jockey).
The trainer tells the jockey what to do, so that puts the trainer as head honcho.

One of the things I learned from a good friend many years ago, jockeys make many mistakes during their rides, and some of what we believe to be mistakes are only directions in how to ride from the trainer. The trick is to seperate the "real" mistakes from the intentional to further deceive betters, so trainer Moe can hit a big score next out.

Must say, very entertaining, reading everyones opinions, pros, cons, and whatever anyone has to say.
You never know when someone will post something that will cause you to really think.

Dave Mark (There really are alot of Daves here).

[Rick]

Dave M,

You're certainly correct about trainer intention being an important factor but it's difficult to determine with a high degree of certainty except in rare situations. That being said, if you're correct even half of the time it probably would be a big edge. I can think of a few things along those lines that worked very well for me over the years, but it's not part of my handicapping now, at least not directly.

I remember reading something from the Sartin disciples that said that 80% of the time you could find a pace line that selected the winner. It sounds really impressive, but actually isn't since there are so many possibilities.

[keilan]

See Tom I live in a City in Canada that is referred to as "The City Of Champions " maybe some of you may of heard of us.

Baseball players Fergee Jenkins (Hall Of Fame) and Larry Walker with Colorado are Canadian boys. Both guys to my knowledge are stand-up -guys. We had a couple Canadian pitchers taken very high in last years draft.

Where does a guy begin talking about the quality guys in Hockey. We gave NYR Mark Messier and the LA Kings The Great One.

Football- take a look at a guy called Warren Moon (American) I believe he has gone on record at least a couple of times stating that Edmonton was the best place he ever played.

Last year my City hosted the World Track and Field Games and last week hosted the first- ever U-19 Women's World Championship. US beat Canada in the final Yesterday 1-0 in 18:28 of extra time. Congrats to the US Team.

I have been around athletics all of my life and have eaten, drank and played a couple of sports with a few household names. But I can honestly say I have never encountered the type of Athlete that charges kids for anything.

Maybe that has something to do with demographics, but I don't think so. - my family had an opportunity this summer to spend some time with two former World Series Pitchers Jon Warden and Ronnie Robinson. I can not begin to tell you how gracious and fun loving those guys were with the kids.


Sorry for rambling.

P.S. ( referring to another thread) By the way Tom a Company out of Calgary, Alberta put out most of the fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War.

[Tom]

Did I say something negative about Canada???

[keilan]

Nope!

[Rpd]

"You mentioned a very good point about handicapping. One must always take into account the variance of the performance possibilities (what you call chaos), not just the expected values. My favorite example is the consistent horse vs the inconsistent hores. The inconsistent horse is frequently the better bet to win because it really doesn't matter what the average performance of your horse is, only if it wins or loses. Early speed types are sometimes like this and that's why overlays on them can still be found."

Rick,

That is a very interesting observation. When I check my rankings for total speed I look at max, avg and min and the ranges of variance. I have been experiementing with an algorithim to make sense out of the data. Usually the #1 rated max horse does not due well if it's avg ranking is very low, but a higher ranked avg rating with a lower max rating does quite well.

For example


(Horse-Max-Avg-Min Total Speed Rankings)
A 1 5 3
B 3 2 2
C 2 4 4
D 4 1 1
E 5 3 5

I've been finding that Horse B&D outperform Horses A&C

I thought I would post actual statistical results once I accumulate enough to really mean something.

Thanks,

[Rick]

Rpd,

I don't have a clue as to why that would be true, but if you say it is I'd better check it out. It's totally contrary to my experience but I've been wrong before. I don't understand it but I'd appreciate it if you'd show me the results. Since my handicapping involves both elements, it won't be affected at all though.

[Dave Mark]

RPD.

Seems what you are working on regarding the algorithyms and maximum, average and minimum speed ratings is interesting, and any series of tests we do on any given number of data, will certainly reveal paterns of some magnitude.

My only concern is this:
To get the maximum value out of your tests, IMHO, many elements will need to come into play.

It is the little things that can show whether or not a horse is ready to run his best race, and many times there is no number to justify the horses seeming "wake up".

In looking closer than numbers, we find it was the trainers method of conditioning that hid the "numbers".

I have tried and continue to take as much common information and cast it aside.

Meaning, all the information that everyone sees and uses verbatim, I use this information as basically secondary.

Handicapping for 30 or so years you realize what actually is important, and very importantly why it is.

I think after trying literally thousands of combinations, and untold systems, software etc, I have drawn my own conclusion, there are no magic numbers, black boxes or Aladins lamps.
It is always going to be the wizzard beyond the curtain.

I do concede though, that certain combinations of numbers can definitely make you money at the races, albeit, they may not necessarily pick the first place horse as consistant as you would like.

It is interesting to note that when anyone makes a profit of 20% - 25%, playing whatever method they use, that over time can make you pretty well off, if you know how to wager.

My last humble suggestion is:
May hold more value in your tests if you specialize. 6f, X amount class, recency etc.

That's enough from me for now.

Good Luck RPD.

[Jaguar]

JANDRUS,

you rocked 'em the other day- and without your laptop- proves experience is important in handicapping.

I can't rock 'em even with a database.

For raw courage, you have to admire M. who is not afraid to pull the trigger. Magician picks alot of longshots and M. jumps all over them.

I'm more cautious by nature, anything over 5-1 I look at with trepidation.

Hey, if my horses won- instead of finishing second all the time, I would be driving a new Aston Martin, instead of a Ford. My horses don't pay alot when they do win, but they're almost always in the place photo.

How come database "profile" horses don't do better? They're supposed to win, win, win. Shows how tough this game is, even with pretty good tools.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Foolish Pleasure]

Is it deliberate misinformation or just the usual delusional ATM's that pay my bills.

"Layoffs would be a classic example of the forgoing, since the advent of big purses and powerful drugs has changed the landscape of racing- and the typical trainer's mode of operation. So that layoff stats mean next to nothing in a specific race, unless there is a distinct "trainer-layoff-jockey" pattern, which occasionally the computer will catch. Curiously, some handicappers still shy away from well-meant, long layoff horses. How deeply imbedded are the shibboleths of the past.

Long live ignorance and misinformation, - and you systems developers out there- working in your spare time in the garage office- finding new ways to select the correct pace line, keep up the good work, and don't forget to figure out a new "workout" rating chart, that 's an item that should really sell. "

Long live ignorance it should have been, clearly a leading factor in underperforming ROI's, that of layoffs, but you keep thinkng you're smarter than that guy that shy's away from layoff horses. Data from hundreds of thousands of races does not lie.

The absolute best facet of horseracing is the insanity of those losing yet convincing themselves their actually smarter then the crowd. The following factors are clear negative factors, regardless of the genius come lately contrarian crap.

1)First time surface
2)Layoff over 180 days
3)over two level class jump
4)over an 8th stretchout
5)Drop off a good effort

Repeatedly proven over hundreds of thousands of races horses with the above will return less then their counterparts.

Next epitome of ignorance, the 30 years experience is what the end all of the bottomline is. Wrong, horseracing is dynamic constantly changing, wtf happened in 1983 has absolutely zero bearing on what happens tomorrow. Without one iota of doubt, I have witnessed more races in the last 30 years then any other human on earth, how do I know? It is physically impossible to have seen more. The importance? The fact that it makes not one tiny iota of difference to what happens today.

Next gem of delusion, "we all have our own way" wrong, there is only one way to consistently win and that is to consistently outperform the market. That does not happen to those reading books, subscribing to other's theories, it comes from knowing more about the market then anyone else and practically applying the knowledge.

Next moronic reiteration of other's material, prefer inconsistgent horses? Really, inconsiustency breeds uncertainty which breeds disadvantage. But it's OK you bought into the latest $25 a decade tagline as your own. Try actually running the data again, see just how those inconsistent animals do. Sounded so pretty you adopted it as your own, yet the practical application is beyond hilarious. Go run some data tests next time.

I need to add the trainer intent post was nice and colrful as well, but in infinity plus one races the trainers intent is to make money. A nose here, a nose there, the difference between me and you is a measily couple of points, ergo in 95% plus races you and I are on equal footing, variance clearly overcomes my edge, hence a nose here or there, however that other 5%, you're deadmeat.

It's nice to stop in once in a while and see the blind still leading the blind.

don't like it, think it's offensive? someone's gotta wake you people up once in a while, the disinformation on racing boards outweighs the good information about a million to one, but hey isn't that about the ratio of winners to losers?

just remember next time you go to the tote, I'm out there and rest assured that lingering doubt in the back of your head about some runner and whether he'll run to form today or not was asked and answered more accurately by me and my friends before you even knew that horse was entered.

[JustMissed]

What was the purpose of your post? I didn't get it I guess. Were you saying that the layoff, new surface, etc. angles don't work?

You said your conclusions were based on the results of thousands of races but then you said racing was dynamic and things change. Seems like a contridiction to me. I just don't understand what point you were trying to make.

If your point was that you are the world's best pony player then I want you to know I am very, very happy for you. If you want to post something that will make me a better pony player then I will be even more happy.

I'll close for now, I guess its about time for you to start placing your winning bets.

See ya,

JustMissed:p

[Dave Mark]

Foolish Pleasure, sure could run some.

You state much more than a mouthful.
Not sure what makes you think you have seen more races than anyone else, you could never prove it.

You can state all the information you want, and that is certainly your right.

I do agree with some of what you write, but Anyway you slice it, the Trainer to the inth degree Controls the pot, good bad or otherwise.

There literally is no other way.
All the pluses a horse can show in a given race, directly or indirectly Affects the money put on the horse today, however, it was done yesterday, and not likely to be repeated today.

If handicappers wanted to up their ROIS, they would study trainers more than the time spent on yesterdays speed figures.

Trainers, (I had a good friend in the 80,s who trained horses in Loisiana), use all the tools and options the rules allow, and many the law doesn't allow.
Class raises and drops will allow the trainer to run a horse 75-80% of his current ability, while finishing so poor, you would not know this horse will wire his next field at 8-1.

It should not come as a big surprise, but whenever a human is involved with money outcome, that alone sends up the proverbial red flag.

Look no farther than Wall Street!

I really did like Foolish Pleasure though.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Foolish Pleasure
Is it deliberate misinformation or just the usual delusional ATM's that pay my bills.


.....The following factors are clear negative factors, regardless of the genius come lately contrarian crap.

1)First time surface
2)Layoff over 180 days
3)over two level class jump
4)over an 8th stretchout
5)Drop off a good effort
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First time turf, woith a turf pediree, and proven losers in the filed is one of the best bets in racing-stiull gets big prices every day.

2-level class jumpy can be a very profitable play, if you handicap the race, not a database.

Over an eigth stretchout - against proven losers a horse bred to go long can win and pay good easily.

Problem wiht blindly looking at statistics is that you don't bet averages or trends or whatever-you bet this race, rihgt now, today. The problem with your data is that you say a horse stretching out over and eight is a negative, maye, in general terms. But today's specifics were not the querry you used to get this jewel. Today's race has a specific match up (proven losers at the route) and specific breeding and a specific trainer.....no way your database reflects that. Apples and oranges, here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's nice to stop in once in a while and see the blind still leading the blind.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think many posters here do quite, well thank you, without the benefit of our great insights. The blind leading the blind, eh?
Sounds to me like you're the one who can't see here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just remember next time you go to the tote, I'm out there and rest assured that lingering doubt in the back of your head about some runner and whether he'll run to form today or not was asked and answered more accurately by me and my friends before you even knew that horse was entered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good grief...do you actually believe this carp??? You bet next time I am at the track, and I see the horses going into the clubhouse turn, I will remember you are out there <G>

[so.cal.fan]

Tom:

:D :D :D

Foolish Pleasure seems to have some time on his hands waiting for that 2:00 post time at Del Mar...........:D :D :D

[Jaguar]

Dave Mark, you made some cogent points recently- right on the money.

I don't know about others, but some of the long, rambling posts folks have put up recently are incomprehensible to me. Do they make sense to anyone?

All the best,

Jaguar

[Dave Mark]

Thanks Jaquar.

I believe in telling the truth and coming from certainty, for that is our core being.

I wonder when I see posts, with the topic related to not helping novices in handicapping, and hoping that they never learn what is important and they lose all their money so "I" can make what they lose.

As if the person writing the post is blatantly saying: "I don't want you to gain knowledge, for if you do, you will kill MY odds, and take money out of my pocket".

I think the poster should take a good look at them self, for you have a small problem.

I want everyone on this post and in handicapping to do Great! That is my wish, for by wishing you all the best, I am Eliminating ALL negatives in my being.

When you want good for others, it is returned.

I will agree, that those who sell software and various systems certainly deserve to make and charge for their services, I would too.

But when a novice reads some of these posts, hoping they fail, that hurts me as a person.

Did not want to write about this but my heart said go.

[Derek2U]

This season I bet a lot of races unlike last 2 seasons; and I
WATCHED the races very closely on home TV. (I only bet
NY races: Saratoga now Belmont). I'm amazed at how the
head-on shots show tons of bumping at the break & Just after.
What a mess! I think this season provided me with quite an
education..... Now the issue of how many factors to use before
diminishing returns set in was raised? In regression, 4-5 factors
have almost always provided the optimal prediction because
of that "inter-correlation" among the factors: Factors 1 & 2 overlap a bit, hence are largely different measures, but by the
time you introduce Factor 4, you realize you've got nothing new
to add. Almost all improvement beyond the opening few factors
are largely illusory stats. Sad, ahhh. But, when you use OTHER
techniques, you can dabble a bit more.

[anglemaster]

Howdy all!!! Great thread!!!!

Keilan, the art of handicapping is very difficult and as mentioned every body has their own style.

That being said I am sure that there are common "factors" in successfull handicapper's arsenals, yet because of the "pari-mutual" aspect of this game it would be "self-defeating" to share the "keys to the kingdom" with newbies or experienced cappers.

Keilan I compare your sports comment to the stock market. The professional analyst are more than happy to share their research because the more people that "listen" the more people that will buy therfore increasing the demand, therefore increasing the share price.

The sports person might share techinques to give back to his field, yet it is up to the individual to train hard to grasp any new concepts, as it is for the horse handicapper.

That leads me to my final point that since success at the track is in direct propotion to higher mutual payoffs , I wonder why the "successfull" handicapper would want to share his methods with the world??

JOhn

[Dick Schmidt]

Dave Mark,

If you really want to listen to your heart and help newcomers, then stop being such a absolutist. Trainers are not the be-all and end-all of handicapping. Many people can, and continue to, beat the game without using trainer data at all. Saying that if you aren't using trainer stats you are sure to lose is condemning many people to oblivion.

Part time players, or those who play many circuits, can't do trainer stats. Not enough hours in the day. Maybe some basic tracking with a computer, but not detailed work. Would you do it if you played 3 days a month? Or bet 10-12 tracks a day?

I've made my living on and off for well over 10 years as a handicapper, and not once during that time did I know who was training a horse I bet on. I might notice the jockey if I was at the track, (they never influenced a bet either) but never the trainer. Impossible? Maybe in your world, but let's not be so one-way that you can't accept that other techniques work for other people.

Dick

[Dave Mark]

My good man, you do have a great sense of humor.

These are your exact words:

"I've made my living on and off for well over 10 years as a handicapper, and not once during that time did I know who was training a horse I bet on. I might notice the jockey if I was at the track, (they never influenced a bet either) but never the trainer."

You are real smart aren't you?

Who entered the horse in the race?
Did the horse deceide he would run for a 10000 Claiming price by himself?
Who gives jockeys instructions how to ride?
If you believe your not influenced directly or indirectly by the trainers moves, your really playing a game I never heard of.

Dont't tell me you handicap and make a living without looking at either the fractions, Speed Ratings, running lines, or anything else, and your not influenced by the trainer.

You can handicap number 4 in Calders 6th race and if the trainer deceides to (with good reason), he can scratch the horse, but I guess if he was the only speed in the race, your not influenced.
Amazing!

Take away the trainer, and let's see how fast the jockeys can run 6 furlongs.

I bet Pat Day would be running behind the leaders for the first 1/2.
"As they hit the quarter pole.. Chavez by 2 over Bailey.., but closing stoutly on the grandstand side... Gary Stevens, but the real danger is...

Thank you Dick for my Laugh of the day....

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Dave Mark,

If you really want to listen to your heart and help newcomers, then stop being such a absolutist. Trainers are not the be-all and end-all of handicapping. Many people can, and continue to, beat the game without using trainer data at all. Saying that if you aren't using trainer stats you are sure to lose is condemning many people to oblivion.

Part time players, or those who play many circuits, can't do trainer stats. Not enough hours in the day. Maybe some basic tracking with a computer, but not detailed work. Would you do it if you played 3 days a month? Or bet 10-12 tracks a day?

I've made my living on and off for well over 10 years as a handicapper, and not once during that time did I know who was training a horse I bet on. I might notice the jockey if I was at the track, (they never influenced a bet either) but never the trainer. Impossible? Maybe in your world, but let's not be so one-way that you can't accept that other techniques work for other people.

Dick

Hmmm....I had a pretty decent day today and I don't know who trained any of my horses, who rode any of my horses and I honestly can't remember the names of any of my horses. Does this mean I have to give the money back?

[Tom]

Try running any races without the track superintendent grooming the dirt first. Do you figure him into your handicapping? Suppose he decides to make the rail deep today? Does that influence your bets?

Get Real Man!

Trainers are NOT the only way to win races. I mostly don't care who trains it who rides it, who harrows the track, who makes the morning line, or anyone else that happens to show up at the track.

If you can make money betting trainers, more power to you. I use pace as my main factor. I would never think of saying pace was the only way to win. If the trainer was such a bad one to begin with, the horse would probably not have a good recent paceline to use anyway.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people come drifting though cyber-space with all the answers. PA must have a magnet on his server.

[Dave Mark]

Hi Bob,

must say some of the posters could make a decent living writing for Leno, or Letterman.

Glad you had a good day.

If I get out of bed in the morning, and make it to the little room, I consider it a great day, but these arm straps they have me in restrict me something bad.

I conceded that there are very talented handicappers who DO make their livings, using other methods, and if you check back a couple posts, you would see it.

Did not mean to ruffle any feathers,no one should take this stuff personally!
I WILL very Carefully choose what I write when the mood hits.

Every shot makes someone happy!

[keilan]

Anglemaster -- Welcome to the Board.

Please go back and re-read the posts I was making reference to.

There are different handicapping approaches and wagering strategies that are successful at the track. Newbies and handicappers alike are an essential ingredient to Horse Racing. Without new players Professional Players would at some point need a second job. Why, because the handles would no longer be large enough for that group to prosper.

Don't confuse educating the new player as the same as giving him the "Keys to the Kingdom". First of all no-one possess that set of keys. Most professional players that I have heard about or met could hardly be considered main stream wealthy. This is a tough business not all that glamorous.

Secondly don't confuse the Stock Market to Sport. The Stock Analyst is not someone I would listen to or consider when making a decision to purchase a particular Stock in the same way I would not consider someone selling their touts regarding Horse Racing. Your assuming the Professional Stock Analysts actual knows something. On the other hand Professional Athletes have a track record, they were there, they were the best of their day and they give back because of their love of the game. I don't see Stock Analysts in the same light.

Thirdly this is a Discussion Forum, a place to share and exchange handicapping methodologies and information. For someone to speak about their vast knowledge of the game and then to offer little or no insight followed by their hope that Newbies " remain unenlightened etc" is something that puts a bad taste in my mouth.

Lastly I have been successful playing the horses the past two of three years. I'm not the Newbie here, I have played for many years. But I constantly look wherever possible to find new pieces of information. To Dave Mark it is not my intent to support D Schmidt on this Trainer angle but for what it's worth I to have never bet any horses based on the current Trainer. For me it was always about race shape, pace and each horse's potential/advantage in today’s race. In other words I attempt to handicap the race not just the horses.

To all my fellow Handicappers which pay particular attention to Trainer angles " continued good luck". Everyone to their own.

[Dave Schwartz]

Bob,

>>>Hmmm....I had a pretty decent day today and I don't know who trained any of my horses, who rode any of my horses and I honestly can't remember the names of any of my horses. Does this mean I have to give the money back?<<<

No, you don't but you must donate it to charity. Might I suggest a Reno address... I have it right here somewhere... <G>

Dave

[hdcper]

Hope that Charity zipcode isn't OU812!!!!


Hdcper

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Dave Mark
My good man, you do have a great sense of humor.

These are your exact words:

"I've made my living on and off for well over 10 years as a handicapper, and not once during that time did I know who was training a horse I bet on. I might notice the jockey if I was at the track, (they never influenced a bet either) but never the trainer."



Dave Mark:

I have to side with you on this one, at least some. I cannot imagine ignoring who the trainer is. I guess I wouldn't say that its the end all, just another factor. But sometimes that one factor can be pretty damn telling. If Bobby Frankel has a horse in a grade one race, I think it would be a pretty damn good bit of info to be aware of...huh? This can run down to low level claimers too. Some of my biggest scores have come watching maybe the last race of the night at Sam Houston, Mountaineer, etc. and seeing a very distinct pattern developing amongst the trainers with the low level horses. Sometimes its so damn obvious that so and so trainer has put a horse in for an easy score, that you cannot ignore it. The trainer pattern at some tracks is very easy to see. They have low level claimers, they are long time trainers at certain tracks, they ship in on some tracks for easy money. But other tracks it is very hard to see any pattern. But I think I want the info on the trainers.........I couldn't ignore it totally. Oh yeah, I want to know who the jock is too. I know a few that would never get a dime of my money. Some in route races that couldn't rate a horse with a giant stopwatch posted every furlong. Others that can do it with extreme precision. I think this gets back to pace scenario. But sometimes the wrong jock can screw up any anticipated pace scenario. This effects the outcome of the race very often. If you believe in pace handicapping, I would think you would want to know who the rider is. I don't use pace handicapping anymore than I do "trainer influence". But I want the info to consider. I just couldn't ignore either.

[superfecta]

I like to pay attention to that big animal with four legs in the race,like whats he done recently,hows he look today does any one use this angle?!:rolleyes:
I look at trainers the same way I look at jocks,a majority of what they could do for a horse is bad,some are better at their job than others but to state they are the end all be all( or any other "angle")is not realistic,and insulting to those who do well using many factors.

[ranchwest]

Dave Mark,

Speaking of chuckling, you are suggesting that those of us who ignore who the trainer is are actually handicapping trainers whether we want to acknowledge it or not. What a joke!!!!!

Studying trainers involves studying the patterns of the individual trainer. I have friends who do this quite successfully and can tell me what that trainer's intent seems to be.

Simply noting strong patterns used by trainers without correlating those patterns to specific trainers is NOT trainer handicapping.

The primary reason why I don't do trainer handicapping is simply that I don't have the required time.

[Dave Mark]

This is Nuts!

I think most are taking my comments out of context.

I never meant to take a list of trainers, individually and study them, heck man, no way!

I only meant to imply, how looking at the different pacelines, jockeys, and basically any sane handicapping, that the trainer in some capacity is making moves to get his charge ready for today, or some upcoming race.

Of course the horse has to run, and the jockey has to ride.

The easiest example to show what I have been saying:

When Fly So Free had been rested 3 months, and he was the odds on favorite, however, the trainer did not want to run him too hard his first start off the layoff.
This is a simple trainer move. Nothing to really figure here, just knowing the intent.
That is it in a nut shell.

I did not mean to imply other methods are no good.

To simplify this whole post:

The Trainer simply is a connection to what goes on beyond the barn.

Honestly, many trainers are not that competant, and that has been said by many in the game.

I said it before and I'll say it again, there are a number of talented handicappers using all kinds of means to make a living.
I would be the last to knock anyones methods, for it's not how it's how many.

Good luck to All of you.

[ranchwest]

To know the real intent of the trainer, you need to know the trainer. Otherwise, it is a crap shoot.

[Dick Schmidt]

DM,

So, welcome to the board. Sort of like jumping into a washing machine on spin cycle sometimes, but we mean well. You just need to watch making sweeping statements of opinion stated as if they were fact.

When you say that you "do not mean to imply other methods are no good." does that include your first post in this thread?



Having played the track for 30 years, you learn or to put it bluntly, you lose. I have to laugh at many of these seemingly intelligent people behind some of these posts. I do not necessarily mean this categories posts.

From the beginning of racing until the "Cow jumps over the Moon", the "real" secret to succeeding in today’s races is "reading" the trainers mind. Of course the horse MUST be in top form to win the race the trainer intends to.

Anyway you cut it, speed figures are useless, the fastest 1/2 mile means absolutely nothing, a recent 24 for final close at 6 panels is zippo, if the trainer says "Not Today", just out for some sun and a little workout for Mistyblue today.



Sure sounds like you are saying that speed figures are useless, that pace handicapping doesn't work, that final time means nothing and that only trainer intent means anything. In fact, I do believe you are saying exactly that. Of course trainer intent can be important, but it can also be ignored, as can class, speed, pace or any other single factor you care to name. You're right that every horse must have a trainer, but every bettor needn't know who it is. I regularly bet races where I do not look at the trainer's name, the jockey's name or even the horse's name. I do it all with post position numbers and past performance data that has been heavily massaged by a computer program.

To state that the "real" secret to succeeding in today’s races is "reading" the trainers mind" implies that we can't win without trainer stats and intentions. I just want to point out that this is not really true, at least for some of us, and that new players need not start devoting hours a day reading anyone's mind. Reading the Racing Form is many times enough.


Dick

[anglemaster]

Thanks for the welcome Keilan. As an aside I can name the town you live in :) I once stayed at the Wheels INN??

In regards to your response I also would not "trust" a stock analyst, and certainly I would not want to compare the same to a sports person.

I guess what it really comes down to is the educating of the new player. If we are not going to give them the"keys to the kingdom"what ever that might be, but what would you suggest one does to get the new player "started"?

All the best

John

[Dave Mark]

DM

The white flag is now up.

And foolish me thought a downhill 3 footer to win a match was pressure.

I see what your saying, and what I did say.

Forget the washing machine, try the front lines!

Anyway, I am much more aware of how this is a fine line, and because I don't have benefit of verbally conversing with posters and and vice/versa, these written words will have everyones own interpretation, which is only logical.

So, after seeing my shrink today, I will put on my space outfit, and select "careful what you say mode", then all the past thoughts I expressed to this board will be forgotten by all, and back to finding the Golden Grail to the winners cicle.

Tomorrow I may be Reginald von Finishline, and investigate how the psychics talk to the animals, and prove Once and for all, the horses agree amongst themselves, who runs 1st!

Me Gotta lay off the caffeine!

[Richard]

Jaguar,
I read your posting where you mentioned handicapper Dan Pope.Did he author a couple of booklets known as "THE MILLION DOLLAR MOVE COLLECTION" and/or"SUPER SIMPLE SELECTION SYSTEMS:THE LAZY MAN'SGUIDE TO THOROBRED SELECTION"?Any reply at all would be greatly appreciated.

[JustMissed]

If you have ever read or studied the work of guys like Jerry Stokes or Jim Lehane, who are strong on identifying trainer maneuvers, you soon realize that they rely on speed, pace, workouts, etc. just as much as anything else.

I subscribe to Jerry's weekly lessons. He usually tries to identify the various "trainer maneuver" angles first. I would not put words in his mouth but I believe he does this because these horses usually carry high odds and are great value, not because he thinks that this is the best angle or handicapping factor, but he simply does not want to pass a good longshot horse.

Next he may look at number of works, races since layoffs, weight carried, pilot changes, etc. and then when he is looking over the best horses as contenders he not sometimes, but always considers pace and speed figs as well as raw time. Some might disagree with me, but when I see old pros like Jim & Jerry using ever handicapping angle or factor available to give them an edge, it makes me think a guy had better be open minded.

Some of you guys seem to have a problem in recognizing that successful players play the game differently. There's one guy here who plays two horse win bets on multiple tracks by video. Another guy plays only one track in person and looks at the shoe board. If you think these guys should be using the same handicapping factors then you are NUTS. I would even bet both these guys pick the same winners alot of the time which tells me they are both successful but simply take a different route to get their results.

My personal take is that we should try to learn as much as we can from each other, regardless of our methods, and we will all be better players. The guys that post here should not be our competitors, but should be our mentors and allies.

JustMissed

:)

[Lefty]

Richard, I can answer question you asked of Jaguar. Yes, Dan Pope authored those booklets as well as others.

[Dave Mark]

Know both the books you mention, as I have them and read them.

Jims Callibration, and Jerrys manual are very good indeed.

I am not knocking anyones handicapping, and yes! you can get there from different roads.

I like Jerrys angles.

Your last comment about helping each other is your most important comment, and that should be the focus.

I rest my case, time for medication.

[keilan]

Anglemaster -- You asked "what would I suggest to get a new player started"

For me this is the ultimate game, it tests us mentally and emotionally. Some of the best minds I have ever encountered are dedicated horse players. This endeavour seems to in part; attract that type of individual.

There is much to learn about Horse Racing, obviously I do not have all the answers nor do I wish to write a book on what I consider to be important. That being said here are some random thoughts.

1) Determine which books on Horse Racing are considered a must read, see a previous thread on this web site it may be helpful.

2) Gain a working understanding how the measurements are calculated. i.e.: variant, pace number power figure etc.

3) Develop an understanding of one track to start with. Learn why certain horses win there. Develop a track profile, determine if there are track biases, are there post position biases at different distances. Do different types of runners win when the track becomes wet or muddy. Know your track layout. This will give the new player invaluable experience. You can't buy this , nobody can give you this, you earn it.

4) Develop a class ladder at your track and construct pars for each class, distance, age and sex. It may surprise you to learn the marginal differences between classes and give you an understanding of pace requirements.

5) Identify the running style of each horse in the race, it takes no more than a minute or two. This step will pay you back many times.

6) I believe many good handicappers are able to identify false favourites at a very high percentage. They know who the contenders are, they understand wagering and money management, keep detailed records about wagering decisions (my downfall).

7) Become your own expert, as one becomes familiar with the subtleties, and nuance's of the game you will be in a position to separate the wheat from the chaff.

8) I think the best players have talent, they know instinctively almost, when a horse is going to regress or move forward and that is key. Again I think with enough work and experience, this talent or art-like characteristic can be developed.

Most of what I have suggested for the new player will require both time and money. Many people are not prepared to dedicate the number of hours it takes to be in the top 5% of horse players. There's your first edge over the crowd.

Primarily I'm a pace handicapper, there are many others on this board who are extremely knowledgeable and share their insights regularly, stay tuned.

Good luck to the New Player.

[anglemaster]

Keilan a well thought out post!!!

What I have found is that the "newbie" that is truly interested in learning will get the info from a seasoned pro. In my experience I have found 'cappers to be very generous with sharing concepts etc.

I have known some of the posters to this board for many many years, and certainly am aware of their "skills". I look forward to many more great threads.

Regards

John

[Richard]

Lefty,
Thanks for the reply.I picked up those two booklets back in the '80's.If memory serves me correctly,Dan Pope operated out of Kansas City,MO.I used the workout within a race angle up at (now defunct)AK-SAR-BEN with some success.Haven't looked at those booklets for a few years.Gonna look them over again real good.Thanks again,Lefty.

[delayjf]

can anybody tell me what book or manuel Jerry Stokes wrote?
I've heard that the Dan Pope angles are out of print is that so?

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by delayjf
can anybody tell me what book or manuel Jerry Stokes wrote?
I've heard that the Dan Pope angles are out of print is that so?

Secrets of Handicapping . It is a self published book he sells on

a1handicapping.com


Ad says ROI of 100% on as little as 10% hit rate - gee that's a $40.00 average pay.

AD

[karlskorner]

I don't think Trainers or Jockeys should be completely ignored by any handicpaper, but many do. There are 400 plus Trainers at CRC, I am interested only in the top 10%, as they win the majority of the races, the balance can win without me.

There is such a thing as "Trainer Intent"

The other day I walked into the paddock and checked the shoe board, 2 horses were shod with "blocks", one trained by a young man who got his license 3-4 years back, I figured he was trying something different. The other was trained by an old timer and one of the leading trainers, who put a 20% jock up. The horse paid 18 and change.

You can go broke playing trainers only, but you cannot ignore them.

Karl

[JimG]

Originally posted by delayjf
can anybody tell me what book or manuel Jerry Stokes wrote?
I've heard that the Dan Pope angles are out of print is that so?

I think you can find out about Stokes and his book at

www.a1handicapping.com



Jim

[Jaguar]

Richard,

while Dan Pope's compilation of the 2 dozen best angles in racing is an excellent piece of work, his "Stretch Run" method and his technique for correcting the Beyer's are his ultimate insights into racing success.

I am reliably informed that Pope made alot of money in the early years of "Stretch Run", betting on fast-closing horses. That might not be possible today, due to the introduction of chemical stimulants and due to the tremendous importance of a horse's connections(these two considerations are closely related, of course).

Dan Pope was trained as a mechanical engineer and he seized upon the Huey Mahl concept of expended energy at roughly the same time that Robert Sinn, RaceCom, David Brown, and other system developers did.

On their own, Robert Sinn and Dan Pope wrote simple formulas for measuring the rate at which a horse tires the farther he runs. David Brown's algorithm was written by his temporary partner, but it was a darned good one.

For a couple of years I used RaceCom's excellent Analyst 2.0 in tandem with the hand-held "Stretch Run" calculator. Mostly I caught favorites, but occasionally a $9. horse would come my way.

Analyst 2.0 gave a fascinating graphical breakdown on how a horse slowed at 10 different points during his best race, but it wasn't good as a predictive tool, because the program lacked the true "Matchup" feature,
as found in Bradshaw's programs.

The exception to this point is the case in which Analyst 2.0 found a horse which was likely to close at 57fps, or so. In that event, the animal was such a fierce competitor that I was able to enthusiastically key him in the exotics.

Dan Pope is such a bright guy- and he was a pioneer in finding a really compelling way to measure a race horse's closing ability at different distances. Too bad he discontinued his racing work, because anything he produces is really solid.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Dave Mark]

The Secrets of Handicapping was the book written by Jerry Stokes, wrote it in 1986, and redid it in 1998.

I like the book, has some angles that are very powerful, among other useful info.

Hope this helps.

He does have a webpage that sells his book and software, and you can find in Google search, I don't have it marked, but I remember he does.

Dave

[andicap]

BTW, his angles are much the same as Jim Lehane's in "Calibration Handicapping," now out in its 3rd edition (I just ordered it.) Lehane actually has a few more angles than Stokes. It's not theft: The two are buddies. Stokes, I believe, helped design Jim's website.

[keilan]

Jaguar--you wrote.

The exception to this point is the case in which Analyst 2.0 found a horse which was likely to close at 57fps, or so. In that event, the animal was such a fierce competitor that I was able to enthusiastically key him in the exotics.


Jag-- Curious to the comment "likely to close at 57 fps, or so " What was the distance of the race and was it dirt or turf surface. I would appreciate hearing about such a race.

[delayjf]

I think a lot of the various handicapping methodologies can work together.

I use trainer data to determine when a trainer will try to strike with a longshot, then use pace handicapping to determine if that horse is competitive with this field. I want pace handicapping to tell me "if this horse runs his race, can he win" if so its a bet, if not the trainer in my opinion has made a mistake and has the horse over his head.
I'm not sure about this, but I don't think a trainer can preview his competetion prior to entering a horse in a race, he may have an idea who his competion is, but still won't be able to handicap the race prior to entry, anybody know for sure. (So Cal Fan)

[delayjf]

Thanks to all responding about Jerry Stokes book, anybody know where to find Dan Pope's books???

[Jaguar]

Keilan,

the scenario you refer to would in all likelyhood be 5-6 1/2f sprint run in a classic Pat Day, upside-down Bell curve- in wich the fast horse sets a moderate first call, then rests for a bit and comes on like the hammers of Hell for the final fractions.

Alot of horses close at those distances in the 54-56fps range. When you find a starker, they really light up the toteboard, often paying in the 6-5 range.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

Quite a few trainers use the pars and they also use the Sheets.

They understand very well the different levels of performance required to earn a piece of the pie.

Some trainers use consultants, who measure horses form cycles, and advise the conditioner on when to enter a horse.

I know a retired guy in Louisiana who worked for several trainers-doing just that.

Naturally, spotting a horse just right is crucial when it comes to the larger purses. The advent of the computer enhanced this whole process of figuring out when the horse is "well-meant" for today".

All the best,

Jaguar

[keilan]

Jaguar -- Big difference between a horse closing in 54.0 to 56.0 fps vs. 57.0 fps. I suspect any worthwhile program projecting a 57.0 closing fraction would be projecting this for races at, 4 to 5 furlongs in distance.

Certainly there are horses who close occasionally at those fractions but those are not the norm. Again only at the shorter sprints.

Example 6 furlongs ( splits of 22.0 45.8 1:09.0 ) these splits are atypical and still do not produce a closing fraction of 57.0 fps.

[jandrus]

jag
I must say that you put out some brillant posts on the board.you really seem to know your horse racing. but as a guy who sit by you at tele. you are the worst player i ever seen. sorry had to blow your cover. hope the program i gave you helps.GET OFF THE 3 to 5 SHOTS

[Jaguar]

Truck,

Do you mean that there are horses which pay more than $3.20?

Now you tell me.

Only you and M. can hit the $500. triples with regularity. Once, long ago, I hit an $8.00 quiniela- I didn't box it though, played it straight.

Gotta start sitting with you guys from now on, you know how to get the money.

All the best,

Jaguar

[delayjf]

Interesting post concerning trainers, thanks for the response. Still, would be interested in knowing, do trainers know who the competition is prior to entry.
Along those same lines, I've often wondered if trainers purposefully change their modes Operatis once their manuevers are made public. In my limited (one season) use of Jim Mazurs trainer patterns, it seemed that often patterns discovered one season don't repeat the next, might they re-emerge the season after that???, don't know, that would be a question for more experienced trainer handicappers on this site, anybody care to kime in??
Another area of handicapping I think can be combined is form cycle analysis (ala the sheets, equiform) and paddock inspection/evaluation.
Also you seem to be very familiar with Dan Pope, perhaps you can tell me where I might pick up his book on angles?? thanks again.

[Derek2U]

What a great question: do trainers know whose running in some
particular future race? My immediate answer is yes, but most
likely just a few days before the race. The racing secretary's
office has got to know the entrants about 2 days before a race;
maybe racing offices are informal where a trainer can just ask
"Hey Pete is next wednesdays turf race filled yet? Let me see
whose entered."

[so.cal.fan]

Most trainers know who their competiton is here in So. Cal.
All the good jocks agents do.
Obviously, some types of races are easier to predict who will be in them than others.

[Rick]

SCF,

What is the latest you can enter a horse in California? I thought it was two weeks or something like that, but I know that if the racing secretary has trouble filling a race he might have to twist some arms. Do they compromise and try to get late entries by convincing them that it's an easy race? What's your opinion?

[so.cal.fan]

Rick,
They take entries two, sometimes three days in advance.
Yeah, they twist arms. I have been in the entry booth when they start taking entries in the early morning, and sometimes do not have the races filled until noon!
I would guess they use any pressure they can to get these races filled. Stall space would be a good "leverage angle".
The worst part is when they get a 6 or 7 horse field and they want to scratch out........AND CAN'T. Stuck horses are a lot more common in So. Calif. than people realize. Yeah, they win once in a blue moon, but they are BAD bets for the most part.
And, yeah, the only way you know is to be at the entry/scratch booth in the morning at the track.
That is why some handicappers ONLY bet fields of 8 or more horses. They want to make sure their selection really wants to run in this race. Not such a bad idea. Why take extra risks?

[ranchwest]

The racing secretary has to know the available horses to write a race. If the racing secretary knows, the trainers should know, too. You know which horses you're running against by which horses are on the grounds. At most tracks, there aren't all that many shippers except for major stakes races.

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

from what I can glean from hanging around horsemen years ago,
and from a retired guy who worked for several trainers, it seems that conditioners are not really that concerned about who their competition is- except in major Stakes- because it's almost impossible to put everything together before a race.

What The trainers look out for is their horse's athletic ability, and that horse's form. Then, if the animal is stretching out, they hope he can get the distance.

Some trainers carefully analyze the pars from Cynthia pub., so they know what their horse will have to do to get up for at least 2nd place, otherwise why bother?

In addition, quite a few trainers consult the Sheets or Thorograph, as these programs give a horseman a good overall grasp of his own mount's performance potential- as well as the running ability of a good many competing horses.

Then the trainer- or his consultant- runs a good pace program on the animal's best recent performance, so they can project the fps the mount will probably run at different distances, and different points within a given race.

This is why some trainers do well on stretch-outs, and you can cash a ticket on them when you find the good old "Z" pattern in the horse's prep race- the race prior to today, where the trainer instructs the jockey to come out strong, run a good half, back off a bit, then finish out smartly- but still leaving something in the tank.

Depending on the horse's expended energy, if the animal shows closing ability at 6f or 6 1/2f, the trainer may stretch him out next time, to 7f- or even a flat mile, catching most of the bettors unaware, and leaving the competing entries with a good view of the winner's hind-quarters.

How many times have we heard this comment, 10 minutes before the race: "Forget about the 4 horse, he never ran 7 furlongs before, he'll be puking his guts out at the wire."

It's situations like that that made some pace handicappers rich in the 1980's, before the whole world caught on to pace analysis.

Moreover, the introduction of stimulants muddied the handicapping waters, because nowadays, when they hit a good closer with the needle, the horse finishes out like Damascus in the Makibu Stakes(7f) at Santa Anita in 1968, when he beat fast horses Rising Market and Ruken. - Willy Shoemaker was in the irons, a champion riding a champion.

Dan Pope no longer sends me flyers advertising his latest insights into handicapping, so I assume he has retired from the system development game. I have heard he moved to Florida, but he has vanished from the radar screen. Too bad, I could learn alot more from him, I am sure.

All the best,

Jaguar

[cash]

don't forget the jockey agents. some of the sharper ones download speed and pace figs from Colts Neck data. they can download it all into a pc or palm and give a trainer good figs for every horse on the backside.

[JustMissed]

If you analyze the types of races for any given day at your track
you'll see a majority are claiming races of various types. The rest may be turf, allowance, maidens, etc., so any trainer is limited to the races he can enter.

If a trainer is only working 30 short sprinters that are 8-10,000 claimers then if he's not careful he could run out of horses for these cheap races. Although 200-300 horses seems like a lot of horses to train, when your racing 9-11 times a day, 20 days a month, you can run out of entries real quick. Kinda makes it interesting when trying to figure a class drop or rise--or why is a NW2L running in a NW3L.

It seems like an endless quantity of horses coming from the barn around the track to the paddock-but it is not.

Which brings us to the ultimate question: "Why is this horse in this race?"

JustMissed


:)

[delayjf]

Might you or anybody consider selling me a copy of his stuff. I could see how a trainer might consult the sheets or whatever, but do you know of any trainer who would change his SOP after it was published that he was good with horses in certain situations. ie, he starts sending his horses second of a layoff or in his second lifetime start instead of 1st off a layoff or FTS?

[Derek2U]

ouside of Cal-NY circuits, how many horses does an average
trainer train? I think not too many, but I don't know for sure.

[Tom]

I found a booklet called
101 Ways to Pick the Winners
Master Collection of Winning Systems
$25

I found it in with S-18 Class Buster Method and
Trip Hancdicapping by Pope, but it says it is from Consensus Research Bureau out of Rockville Maryland....is this the one by Pope we are talking about here?
Also, is Pope related to Royal B Wilson? I have one by him in the same file and the styles are similar.
I know I have a whole series of booklets with systems and angles from the 70's-80's and I think some of them are by Pope,
but I use a filing system called "random" so I can't seem to find any of them right now.
One good thing, getting me interested in Pope again, I did find my whole set of National Railbird Reviews and my TIS handicapping course - time for a re-read, if for nothing else than to see what has changed in 20 years.

[John]

Jaguar
I have Dan Pope's software "Stretch - Run" I have to manually enter data from the raceing form to get stretch run figures. As hard as I tried I could never make money with it.maybe I was doing something wrong.[ you know ,pace lines etc. ] Maybe I will drive out to New Haven from Boston and you can give me a few points on Stretch - Run

I still have Pope's books buried someplace.

[Jaguar]

Rocajack,

You are undoubtedly using the program correctly(if you are selecting the best pace line from the horse's 3 most recent races).

The reason the program doesn't work anymore is due to the introduction of legal(Lasix and Bute), as well as illegal- chemical stimulants.

Layoffs no longer matter, workouts are not nearly as important as they used to be, and several other traditional handicapping criteria are less relevant than in the 80's - when Dan Pope really had something going with the "Stretch Run" method- and you could nail a fast closer at the ticket window.

In those days, pace handicappers ruled, past performance numbers were real, and you could confidently clock a horse's form cycle.


One day at Philadelphia Park I caught a $48. exacta off David Brown's 23-day form cycle chart. Can't do that today.

Today a conditioner can give a sound animal a few long works after a 13-month layoff, to put some bottom in him. Then the trainer can send the racer into 2 or 3 4-furlong tighteners, hit the beast with the needle on race day- and cash a double-digit mutuel- while the traditional punters, who are scared of long layoffs- are staring at their castoff tickets on Aqueduct's concrete floor.

The handicapper's edge today is in the stability of the connections statistics. I won't back a Maiden Special Weight entrant unless the trainer/jockey stat is at least 27% winners.

In an Allowance contest, I will not get out of my seat for an animal that shows a connections number below 42%. I want to be confident of cashing a ticket. I don't want to have to hitchike home from the track and explain to Aunt Sue why I don't have the grocery money.

Briefly stated, "Stretch Run", and a great many other excellent handicapping programs from 10, 15, or 20 years ago, are fun to fool around with on a rainy afternoon, just like a jigsaw puzzle, but they are not to be taken seriously- where money is involved.

Let the propellor planes stay in the WWII movies, we're in the age of Stealth fighters, now.

The killer A.I apps bury the old pace programs. If you want to see it for yourself, take a day's free selection off www.winningtrack.com- a traditional speed and pace program, and benchmark it against the same predictions from a first class A.I. program. Right away, you'll notice that the A.I. programs pick up winners that the pace program overlooks- and take a gander at the fat mutuels some of those " connections" horses paid.

Trouble is, of course, there aren't a whole lot of them and you gotta be patient(Handicappers idea of Heaven: you can bet every race at every track every day. You win every bet and no Win mutuel returns less than $23.)

Keep in touch.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Dave Schwartz]

Jag,

Tell us about David Brown, please.

Dave

[jackad]

Jaguar,
In your opinion. which is the "killingest" of the killer A.I. programs? Which is the runner-up? Thanks.
Jack

[John]

Jaguar.

O.K. Pope is back in moth balls.

But, If trainers drug horses to make sure of a score. You must be able to look at the physical appearance at the paddock. Their must be some signs that show up that don't seem right.I can tell when A person is on something by there frantic behavior. Are horses deferent. Also, won't this drug show up in the urine
test. To me there is a lot at stake at New York tracks [ big purses and all ]

[JustMissed]

In your opinion, what are the three to A.I. programs?

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by JustMissed
In your opinion, what are the three to A.I. programs?

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)


I meant to type: top three A.I. programs.

Sorry,

JM

[John]

Can somone tell me what A.I. means. so I can get on the same page....Thanks

[JimG]

artificial intelligence

[JustMissed]

It means artificial intelligence. Kinda like the robot movie that was out not too long ago.

Seems like someone at this site said programs fell into two catagories:

1. Data managers/sorters(something like that)

2. Black Box programs-Where you put in the data and the program picks the winners.

I think Jaguar is calling the black box programs A.I. programs.

If I'm wrong I'm sure he'll let us know when he post what his favorite A.I. programs are.

Hope this helps.

JustMissed
:)

[John]

Just Missed

Thanks.for the definition A.I. Arttifical intelligence sounds like a lot of chaos.

[GameTheory]

The clearer meaning of AI in this context might be something like:

A program that takes a multitude of factors as input, some of which are self-determined (the program itself decides which features to look at), and automatically combines (weights) them to produce accurate output probabilities for each entry. Furthermore, this process is automatically "self-tuning" for greater accuracy (or ROI, or whatever) as the amount of data collected is increased.


In other words, you just give it a bunch of raw data, and it figures out the best thing to do with it based on the results. The "self-tuning" part is really the difference between an "AI" program and another program that just has a really complicated algorithm, but one that doesn't adapt over time. (Somewhat of a gray area there -- a complicated algorithm might have certain kinds of adaption hard-coded into it, but in the second case all users would get the same results (with the same input data), but with an AI program that wouldn't neccessarily be so because there would usually be some randomness to its self-tuning.)



Another definition of an AI program (favored by people marketing such things, because "artificial intelligence" sounds good) might be any program that uses any computer technique that is generally considered an AI technique -- any program that uses a neural network, for instance. But if you have a program that uses a neural network that never changes (is never re-trained) then what you have is a program *created* with AI (to create the neural network), but that doesn't *use* AI (because the network is static, and is really just one possible form for the final algorithm it represents).

[John]

GameTheory

Very good sir, it makes sense.

[Rick]

Artificial intelligence involves developing a very large set of rules that could be followed by someone who's not too bright but really good at following instructions (i.e., a computer). But someone who really IS intelligent needs to develop the very large set of rules before any of this works. There have been a few very impressive applications of this technology but in most applications nobody knows enough to define all of these rules. Horse race handicapping is one of those areas where very little has been accomplished.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Rick
Artificial intelligence involves developing a very large set of rules that could be followed by someone who's not too bright but really good at following instructions (i.e., a computer). But someone who really IS intelligent needs to develop the very large set of rules before any of this works. There have been a few very impressive applications of this technology but in most applications nobody knows enough to define all of these rules.


I would disagree somewhat with that, although it is mostly semantics because these terms don't have strict definitions. If I understand you, what you are describing (a person coming up with a large set of rules himself, then coding them into a computer) would be called in AI terms an "Expert System", wherein a computer program attempts to emulate a human expert by following a "decision tree" of coded rules to hopefully arrive at the same conclusions that the human expert would.

But that's just one category of AI. The stuff I was talking about (and have been working on personally for 10 years now) would fall under the sub-category of AI known as "machine learning" where you take a problem where maybe NO ONE really knows what the best answer is and attempt to get the computer to come up with a solution. The computer has a system by which it comes up with its own rules based on the raw data. The solutions found are generally uniquely "computeristic" -- in that a human generally will never be able to determine with certainty just what the final algorithm *IS*. At a certain level of complexity, the only way to tell what a computer program does is to run it and examine its behavior.

And machine learning has in fact had some quite impressive applications in the industrial & medical worlds.

Horse race handicapping is one of those areas where very little has been accomplished.

That's somewhat true if you restrict that statement to "black boxes" -- computer programs that attempt to operate with basically no human judgement. I would say that there hasn't been much of an effort to create a true black box for commercial sale -- pretty much all of the handicapping programs (AI included) I know of are designed as aides to the people using them, not replacements.

My own work is in the area of machine learning and "black box creation" has been quite fruitful, but I've no plans to package and sell anything along those lines. So these kinds of accomplishments may just tend to remain hidden...

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

Your definition would have worked 10 years ago... back then even the A.I. community felt that only "expert systems" were A.I. "Genetic Algorithyms," "Neural Networks," and "evolutionary nets" were considered something else entirely. (Neural nets were called "brain simulations" back then and were excluded from classification as A.I.)

That has all changed in recent years.

Now, "expert systems" (that is, those created by a living expert) are hardly taken seriously anymore. If the XS is not developed by a training process it is just another set of people-derived rules, dependent upon the brilliance of the expert to succeed.

I am not suggesting that it is easy to come up with a definition of A.I... It is difficult enough to come up with a definition of "intelligence."

I would say that the definition of A.I. that applies to us, would have to be something like: "A system which exhibits human-like learning capabilities, ultimately providing better answers than a human could reasonably expect to find by themselves."

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Jaguar]

Dave,

delighted you asked about David brown, who was a remarkable man.

For many years, David Brown was a successful insurance executive in Florida. He had a wide-ranging mind and his hobbies were varied. He was an airplane pilot, a student of history, and in addition had a good command of mathematics and statistics.

As well, David brown was an avid greyhound and thoroughbred handicapper. One salient feature about his attitude toward horse and greyhound betting was that he had a fierce desire to win.

Early in his research into the nuts and bolts of handicapping(he was an early computer handicapper, by the way), David Brown fastened upon certain patterns in horse and greyhound past performance lines which- when identified in a new race- led him to classify that race as predictable.

Races which did not reveal distinct patterns were considered by him to be unplayable- what we would call "chaos" races.

David Brown's approach to handicapping, while rigorous and scientific was very much "gestalt", that is he stood back from the race, mentally, and took a broad over-view of the the race as a whole.

Because of this unique point of view, David Brown divided the animals entered in a given race as members of a team. Post positions 1-3- in an 8-horse race- would be team 1. Post positions 4-6 would be team 2. Post positions 7 and 8 would constitute team 3.

David Brown's next task in handicapping a race, would be to select one best animal from each team. His resulting trifecta ticket would look like this: 2/347/347, or possibly: 234/2347/2347, and so on. He wasn't afraid to spend money on tickets, once he had made his selections, and for several years he was the biggest money-winner at the Florida greyhound tracks.

David Brown's large winnings translated into celebrity, and in the last decade of his life he was the subject of several newspaper articles, which resulted in his being besieged by eager fans who wanted to learn his methods.

One of the great aspects of Mr. Brown's personality was his generosity. He enjoyed sharing his handicapping and betting knowledge with others. He also enjoyed making money from his annual seminars- which evolved into a mini "cult".

Mr. Brown was patient and understanding with his "students" and scheduled regular weekly phone hours, when he would talk with anyone concerning handicapping and betting- at no charge(except for the phone call, of course).

David Brown believed that there were core phenomenon- or criteria- in both horse and greyhound racing- though these criteria differed according to the type of animal involved.

For example, in thoroughbred racing Mr. Brown subscribed to the theory that a horse's form cycle was crucial. Whereas in greyhound racing, he made no effort to measure a dog's current form. Instead, expended energy was his foremost concern.

David Brown believed that in both horse and greyhound handicapping, it was vital to analyze the way in which an animal tired as he ran a race.

In the last 2 years of his life, David Brown developed what he considered to be his greatest work: his handicapping calculator which measured a horse or a dog's expended energy.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brown's associate in the undertaking thought that David Brown was not giving the programmer a big enough piece of the pie, and he sued Mr. Brown.

The lawsuit prevented the sale of the calculator. Shortly thereafter- and these events took place about 8 years ago- David Brown died in his late 60's.

After David Brown's death, Mrs. Brown told me she was closing her late husband's office, letting the staff go, and that nothing more would be issued.

Anyone who has David Brown's course materials or handicapping publications is delighted to own these mementos of a scholar and a gentleman- and a pioneer in the handicapping field.

These few words do not convey the warmth, the humor, the intelligence, the insight, and the generosity of this unusually talented man.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

not sure if I understand your question. But, most trainers are constrained by the type of animal in their string, and by the "buttinsky" nature of some of the owners- who want to see their horse run on Saturday- whether the nag is sound or not- because Mr. Buttinsky owner has clients coming to the track with him.

Also, trainers are creatures of habit and when they learn a successful move- or, "angle"- from their past mentor in the training game, they generally adhere to it, as long as it makes money. These are my kind of trainer because if they are good at it, my computer will catch 'em at it.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Dave Schwartz]

Jag,

Nice tribute. Thanks for taking the time.

I assume you knew him well?

Dave Schwartz

[Jaguar]

Jackad,

Can't give you a definitive answer, since I have not seen all the current A. I. programs, and have not seen All-Ways new upgrade.

Nevertheless, from the programs I have used or have friends who are using- the First Rank has to be: TB5, and All-Ways.

The Second Rank consists of fancy speed and pace programs which have been cleverly and scientifically re-tooled to more accurately reflect the dynamics of today's racing game.

These second tier programs effectively handle the vital "Match-Up" question, which of course is where the old speed and pace programs fell down.

The Second Rank programs are: FastCapper(with Cramer's amazing numbers, you have to see it to believe it) and Master Magician(when the pending upgrade is issued, which uses the remarkable new "Value Technology").

Magician is excellent now, imagine the earning power of this very clever program once the V.T. is part of it.

Hope this is helpful.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Rick]

GT & Dave S,

You're right. I was really thinking only of expert systems. But I don't see a lot of progress in other areas as far as horse racing is concerned. I've experimented with a lot of techniques involving self-adjusting programs with feedback, mostly trying to follow track bias, and they haven't been very successful. Most of the time there aren't any significant patterns there, just interesting noise. Neural networks seem to find a lot of the same meaningless patterns. Chess is probably one of the most successful applications of A.I. but as far as I know, the leading programs still contain a lot of heuristics developed by expert players. I suspect that the same thing would be required in a really successful horse race handicapping program.

[GameTheory]

[WARNING: long post]

Chess is an interesting case. (By the way, I run a website called Chessopolis (http://www.chessopolis.com).) In that case, all the successful programs have painstakingly hand-coded hand-tuned rules that the computer is then able to apply to 1000's of positions a second. So they are sort of turbo expert systems looking farther ahead than a human could using the same rules (but a human doesn't need to use the same rules -- a chess master can just take a moment and "absorb" the position and then direct his attention to the areas he knows are important.). The best computers are now unbeatable at short time controls -- humans (the best humans) can still put up a decent fight in a long game.

There are literally hundreds of free computer chess programs written by amateurs -- some of them very strong but they all use more or less the exact same guts -- a fast mini-max search function with a bunch of human-written rules as an evaluation function. There have only been a handful of prolonged attempts to use any kind of "real" AI to teach a computer to play chess. (There have been lots of abortive efforts & academic papers, etc. written on AI & chess, but they are never developed very far.) Why should anyone bother? They play very well already using nothing but the brute force approach.

I imagine the same thing with handicapping -- if you tried to make a program using NOTHING but computer-generated heuristics, it would be a ton of work, and you could come up with something reasonably successful much much faster using human-generated ones. And why shouldn't you if you just want to make a good handicapping program?

My feeling is that the computer AI approach *may* be ultimately more fruitful, BUT that the computer-generated heuristics don't really mix that well with the human-generated ones. Computers "think" like computers. So when you use a bunch of human heuristics and you try to add computer ones to them as improvements, I believe your resulting analysis is going to be heavily biased towards "the human approach". The result is you can make a very nice fast processor of human rules -- essentially an expert system.

But to use AI to discover *new* approaches and new ways to analyze races, I think it may be necessary to force the computer to start from scratch.

To clarify what I'm talking about, human heuristics for horse-racing involve things like comparing pace ratings, running styles, trainer stats, feet-per-second calculations, etc.

So if you give the a sophisticated AI learning algorithm the RAW data and tell it to predict races, will it come up with its own pace ratings, running styles, trainer stats, & feet-per-second calculations? Not in a million years! It will come up with the most bizarre-looking formulas you can imagine -- because you don't think like a computer. It will be comparing stuff that you would think is nonsense, like "days since last race" to the "beaten lengths at the stretch position from three races back". Much of it *is* nonsense, of course, but in combining and weighting thousands of such comparisons & calculations, patterns emerge. It automatically cancels out its own nonsense. (In the end, it is literally impossible to know just what the computer is taking into account and how and why.) And it will come up with relationships that do make sense, but that a person would never have noticed (or captured in a different way). Computers programs (no one has done this in horse racing to my knowledge) can also be designed to KEEP WORKING on the problem indefinitely with an "anytime algorithm" -- like a chess program the answer will get better the longer it thinks about the problem. (Imagine a handicapping program where it did pretty good if it took 10 seconds to process each race, but it did GREAT if you let it purr away for 10 minutes on each race.)

But all that is a lot of hard work for the human as well as the computer, and only people who are at least as much interested in the AI techniques themselves as in analyzing horse races will bother to endeavor in this area. In short, you have to be a person like me, and well, I've never met anyone like me so there probably aren't many.

[JimG]

Stokes' web site is www.a1handicapping.com

He sells his book and software there.

[BillW]

Originally posted by GameTheory
[WARNING: long post]

So if you give the a sophisticated AI learning algorithm the RAW data and tell it to predict races, will it come up with its own pace ratings, running styles, trainer stats, & feet-per-second calculations? Not in a million years! It will come up with the most bizarre-looking formulas you can imagine -- because you don't think like a computer. It will be comparing stuff that you would think is nonsense, like "days since last race" to the "beaten lengths at the stretch position from three races back". Much of it *is* nonsense, of course, but in combining and weighting thousands of such comparisons & calculations, patterns emerge. It automatically cancels out its own nonsense. (In the end, it is literally impossible to know just what the computer is taking into account and how and why.) And it will come up with relationships that do make sense, but that a person would never have noticed (or captured in a different way). Computers programs (no one has done this in horse racing to my knowledge) can also be designed to KEEP WORKING on the problem indefinitely with an "anytime algorithm" -- like a chess program the answer will get better the longer it thinks about the problem. (Imagine a handicapping program where it did pretty good if it took 10 seconds to process each race, but it did GREAT if you let it purr away for 10 minutes on each race.)


GameTheory,

Is the above considered a genetic type algorithm? (I have some exposure to expert systems and neural nets but only an intuitive WAG as to the nature of GA's)

In any case, how well does the state of the art have convergence of an algorithm like you describe understood? Intuitively it seems that a progressive (brute force) chess algorithm can easily converge due to the finite and complete nature of the data and the problem involved. In horseracing the data is very sparse and infinitely more variable.

I ask this because I am fooling around with some "shade tree genetic algorithms" employing an IV approach with a universe of 80 some parameters and have found myself questioning the quality of the convergence. (Has the algorithm converged on a local maxima? is there enough chaos in the system to avoid this? How much is too much chaos? etc.)


I'm sure that having a 3rd grade education in AI would probably point out quite a few flaws in my approach that are not apparent to me now. But I find it interesting to fool around with this concept and observing the algorithm's characteristics.

Your comments would be appreciated,

Bill

[GameTheory]

You've touched upon the biggest hurdle in applying these techniques (or indeed just to applying simple stats) to horse racing data -- the data is noisy. In chess, there is no randomness -- every position has a definite answer (win for white, win for black, draw) even if it is unknowable because of the complexity of the problem. In chess, there is essentially no difference between "data about a chess position" and the chess position itself. A chess position *is* data. Horse racing is a whole different ball game. The data is incredibly noisy (same data doesn't mean same results). We've just got a few measly and inaccurate numbers that may or may not measure something useful, and we're going to use them to try to predict what's going to happen in the future. A daunting task.


What I described was very general, and actually covered two areas:

-- that of learning algorithms

-- that of combining & weighting the results of numerous learning algorithms to generate a final answer


In regards to the learning algorithm, my experience has been mostly with "genetic type" algorithms, generally known as "Evolutionary Computation" whereby you generate a set of candidate solutions to a problem, evaluate their "fitness" by some measure, and then combine them (favoring the ones with higher fitness for reproduction) in various ways to create another round of candidate solutions. In other words, you evolve a solution in Darwinian fashion. Note that this generally refers to the PROCESS by which you arrive at a solution, and doesn't indicate the form the solution will take. You can evolve a mathematical formula, a set of numerical weights, or even music or visual art.

Other learning algorithms (non-evolutionary) might be neural nets, expert systems, multiple regression, etc.

Most AI research has been in the direction of creating new & improved "learners" like the above. However, in the past 10 years, there has been much work in the field of voting schemes whereby you can combine the results from different learners (or different instances of the same learner) to produce very accurate predictions even if the underlying learners aren't so accurate. Now, if you can evolve or train some solution (predictor) that does just slightly better than random, it can be combined with many other solutions in a particular way to create a highly accurate predictor even if none of the individual ones are.


Not sure what you're getting at about convergence -- convergence to SOMETHING is not a problem. A genetic algorithm will converge even on random data. Delaying converage through mutation, etc. is often used.

Now then, regarding your genetic algorithm. If I understand you, you have some 80 factors, and you are using a GA to weight them in some manner to achieve a maximum Impact Value (so IV is your measure of fitness). While "amount of chaos" and avoiding local maxima are problems, your biggest concern BY FAR should be with over-fitting. In some ways, GA's are almost too powerful. It will find an impressive solution on practically any set of data. The trick is finding a solution that will also work well on new data. (Hint: the more factors, the bigger the training set needs to be.) There are reams of material on how to over-fitting, but the "sparse and infinitely variable" nature of horse-racing data makes the problem especially hard for us. You may want to use a small number of factors (like 5 - 10) and evaluate in parallel with a separate test set. As you go through "generations", the performance on the training set will only go up. But if you examine the best solution(s) from each generation on an out-of-sample test set, you'll normally see the performance go up for a bit, then start to decrease again. Stopping training at the point that generalization (test set) performance starts to go down again is known as "early stopping" and is one simple technique that attempts to avoid over-fitting.

Dave Schwartz may have something to say about that problem, as I believe his "ants" in HSH are some sort of genetic algorithm, aren't they?

[BillW]

Game Theory,

By convergence, I meant convergence on a proper/acceptable solution (as opposed to randomness or some other unacceptable point in the solution space)

Yes these things can be trained to hit > 50% of the training set. Extremely efficient in that manner. (I do use training and test sets that are mutually exclusive)

One thing I have done in hopes of training for new data is break up the test set into a random subset for each generation. i.e. I may have 200 races in the test set, I will choose at randon 75 out of this set for each successive generation. Not sure if this has any effect.

I constantly observe over training when testing test sets (usually in the 200-300 generation region)... glad to see it is a known phenomenon and not just a characteristic of my implementation. The early-stopping sounds like something that could be very useful to me, thank you for that.

The 80 factors are the total universe. I am building individual solutions from usually 5 to 8 factors selected from this universal set. Min and max factors are programmable, 5 to 8 seem to be appropriate.

The concept of combining intermediate solutions into a more refined solution is something I haven't thought of ... gonna play with this for awhile.

Sorry I've steered this thread way off course, I'll cut it here. Your comments are much appreciated.

Thanks,

Bill

[Dave Schwartz]

Forgive me for not chiming in much here, but I have a major upgrade coming in a couple of weeks that addresses exactly what this thread is all about.

As such, it is "put the money where my mouth is" time and I figure that the result will be well known, one way or another in the next few weeks.

In a nutshell, we are building artificial "people" to play the races for us.

A "people" is, well, a person. Think about how a person (you, for example) plays a race. (In fact, I challenge you to write out what you do. I think you will find it very interesting.)

Our "people" go through the following phases in a "system:"

Phase 1
=======
Prime Tables. Select a set of factor tables and a weighting system for each of these factors. The formula looks like a regression analysis formula (although no statistical analysis was used).

(BTW, first-time starters use a different set of tables and weights than previous starters.)

After this phase, each horse has a "score."

Phase 2
=======
Good news/Bad news rules. These are essentially "spot play angles" (either positive or negative) that result in horses gaining or losing points from their "score."

Each "rule" is made up of up to 8 sub-rules. There are 10 possible rules.

Phase 3
=======
Normalize the scores and (optionally) mix in the impact of the tote board and/or morning line.

What comes out of this phase is a final probabillty for each horse.

Most people would assume that the game is over here as if you have an accurate probability you have all you need.

Not so! There are still the wagering phases.

Phase 4
=======
Contender Selection is next. (Do not confuse this with the conventional contender selection done by most players. To most players, "non-contenders" are the horses they do not handicap.

To us, contenders are the horses we will consider making bets on. For example, suppose our person will only consider horses that rank in the top 4 in the field and have a probability above 8% (or 12%, or 22%), that have an "expected" ROI (advantage) of +20%, or are within a certain odds range. (This is, of course, just an example.)

At the end of this phase our person will have some number of horses to consider playing (or none and pass).

Phase 5
=======
Who to bet? This is the phase where the remaining contenders (if there are any) will be "ordered" (sorted) according to some criteria such as highest $Net, highest probability, or highest Optimum Bet.

This phase also covers how many to bet. Perhaps our person will only play the top horse (however sorted) or the top 2 or top 4 (if there were that many qualified horses).

Phase 6
=======
How to bet. In this phase the person decides to bet flat, or dutch, or bet by optimum percentage (or some fraction thereof). He also decides to bet 2 units to win and 3 units to place, or perhaps just 1 unit to win.

Phase 7
=======
Final Exclusions. Perhaps the race has too many horses to bet (or too few). Perhaps the net odds on the horses are too low to play.

Perhaps the dutch does not return enough profit to play. Perhaps the combined horses do not have a high enough probability to make a bet.

This phase determines that.

Okay, these 7 phases all describe a "system."

Now that you get this much, let me add phase 0, which actually comes first.

See, our person actually plays as many as 20 of these systems at once! In "Phase 0" our person decides, based upon a set of rules about the conditions of the race (and the "race shape"), which system should be used in this race!

Why does he play so many systems? Because it eliminates (or reduces) the need to "segment" the races into many different data sets (i.e. "claiming sprints/ older males/ fast track/ large field/ two front runners/ odds-on favorite" might be an example of a data set.). We will let the "person" decide how to segment the races.

Summary
=======
So, we have a decision-making engine (called "people") that the "Ants" will fine-tune over time. (How long? Your guess is as good as mine. Could be days, weeks, or even a couple of months. I just don't know.)

BTW, you can also define a "simple" (i.e. single-system) person of your own and let the Ants fine-tune from your starting point. You can even tell the Ants what they are not allowed to change. (For example: "Here are my Prime Tables. Don't change them. Just work on the contender process and the wagering.")


Whew! Now, this is what I think of as Artificial Intelligence. Will it work? Well, we'll see in a couple of months, won't we? (Keep a good thought.)

Can you understand why this has taken me about 600 hours thus far? (And I estimate under a hundred hours to go.)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[BillW]

Dave,

You win the nomination for unique approach of the year! I'm definitely going to be following your progress.

Thanks for the post and good luck,

Bill

[freeneasy]

this is the type of analitical dialasis Dave, I think we all ponderd upon at least once in our idealistic way and or, desire and or understanding, of handicapping a race to it most fullest as well handicapping a race to its most maximum potential.
long, long time ago when pars were more or less unknown or unheard of I did a work developing a chart involving a point value per each 1/100th of a second of a race based on the track record of each distance at each track. the effort was a monumental effort to say the least and here I must congratulate you on that as well as your thoughts and concepts to hopefully be brought into fuition.
when you come on to this site you must gain a full insight to the level of knowledge and understanding that the players on this board have of and put into this game, and to see it this way has been a slow rekindeling of an inspiration i once had to search out the secrets that lay hidden in the depths of this game. hey, ya gotta love it.

[Rick]

Some of you may find this link about Michael Nunamaker's search for the ultimate handicapping model interesting:

http://www.minnow.com/racing/evolve.html

[keenang]

no sport or effort in the world will last without new people.i live in hot springs and go to op during the live seasonand am happy to see so many young people there. i have been to just about every track in the country and would guess the average ag e to be about 65. we nee more people to attend.
thanks gene

[delayjf]

To clarify, it occured to me that if trainers can read and use "the sheets" or hired handicappers to assist them, that they might also look a trainer studies that pattern their operation. If they notice a drop in the odds of horses that fit their particular pattern, they may try to change it. For example, instead of "sending" his mounts 1st of layoffs, he starts sending them 2nd or 3rd off the layoff. All this assumes the trainer intends to cash a bet. I've heard of trainers signaling a Jocky to stiff a horse prior to the race during the warm up because they didn't like the odds.

Jeff

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

While you are right about the many manipulations which have beset the racing game for more than 200 years, we can have confidence in the intentions of a trainer entering a racer in an Allowance, Maiden Special Weight, or Stakes contest.

If you speak with the better conditioners they will- to the man or woman- emphasize that they want to win a piece of the purse.
A trainer must earn money for the horse's owner, otherwise he or she will be exploring opportunities in the fast-food business, and practicing the phrase: "Would you like to Supercise your fries?"

This is why we have Hall of Fame conditioners being set down for running their mounts on prohibited drugs. After all, who wouldn't want to have a portion of a $45,000 tag at Belmont or Santa Anita?

It has been said that Success is a fierce and demanding mistress- and, having tasted the best wine, not too many horsemen want to return to their usual origins, hustling for claiming nags to train.

If a handicapper studies the great body of racing literature, among the stronger angles is the owner-jockey-trainer angle. Since the "owner" portion of this triangle is obscure and complicates the puzzle, most handicappers focus on the trainer/jockey nexus.

When I handicap a horse race, my goal is to eliminate uncertainty, and to discover a positive indicator- which will ensure that I will cash a ticket. Some of my fellow race track habitues make fun of me for being cautious, and for the fact that I celebrate when I catch a 9-5 shot on top, as I did today.

But, my greatest pleasure is in the beautiful moment of victory, when my horse thunders to the front, deep in the stretch, a magnificent athlete- straining to win, passing the other horses, the excited jockey raising his whip in exultation. What a moment!

When my long years of studying the racing game and betting on losing horses has finally evolved into a successful, rewarding enterprise. This Trainer/Jockey technique has turned the game around for me, and while the angle is only one part of the mysterious business of picking winning horses- it's a major piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

Today, Wednesday Sept. 18th, in the 10th race at Pimlico, I caught another winner, Stormin Down, in a Md Sp Wt($25,000) contest at 6f. These were 2-year olds, not the classy type of race I prefer, but 2-year olds are honest.

My expended energy (speed and pace) algorithm had Stormin Down as tons the best, the horse's class and form were excellent, and the Trainer/Jockey number was strong. Thus, all the indicators said, "Step on the money pedal!, Capuano is goin' for the bragiole".- And he did, and I cashed.

There are a zillion ways to win in horse handicapping, but only 2 dozen really important, easily measured angles. The game ain't that hard, if you're willing to do the homework, find the angle that works for you- and then comes the hard part- a handicapper has to be patient, and wait like a spider.

All the best,

Jaguar

[ranchwest]

Jaguar,

I agree with most of your post, but I can look back at many, many significant races where I saw a winner who I saw lose a couple of weeks earlier. That's when I realize that if I'd looked at the condition book, I might have known to be wary of the earlier race because it was only a prep for the bigger race to come. Trainers are not looking to win every time.

[Jaguar]

Ranchwest,

You make a good point. I always look for those "Z" pattern horses, the ones that prep at a shorter distance and stretch out today goin' for the tag.

When I handicapped claimers, which was a few years ago, I caught a few- and lost on quite a few. I don't find the conditioners trying the "Z" move in the allowance ranks so often. Seems like the boys are really tryin' when those big, fat purses like $30,000 and $40,000 are involved.

With my limited skills, I try to stick to the situations where the Dutrows and Klesaris's are crackin' down, hell for leather, and "Let the Devil take the hindmost", as my grandmother used to say.

All the best,

Jaguar

[delayjf]

Jaguar,
What is this Z- pattern I keep hearing about. Thanks for the indebt replies, could talk about this all day.

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

delighted to answer. The "Z" pattern move is an old trainer ploy designed to put some bottom in a sprinter, before stretching him or her out, and grabbing a purse- leaving the punters in the dark.

The move is good for 20-25% winners and- like everything else in the racing game- is dependent for its success on the quality of the horseflesh involved.

The way the "Z" pattern scheme works is: a trainer runs a horse say at 6f for a while. The conditioner sees that the animal closes strongly and may be able to handle 7f or a flat mile.

So, next time out the horseman cards the beast for a 7f contest, not intending to win or to push the horse too hard. The jockey's instructions will be to urge the horse on at the 1/2 mile pole, then rest the mount for a bit and finish out strongly, but leaving something in the tank.

Then, assuming the trainer is pleased with the fractions, he will card the racer for 6.5f, 7f, or sometimes even a flat mile. This time, the horseman will crack down and instruct the rider to stay just off the pace, beginning at the 1/2 mile pole, and when he comes around the far turn and sees the stretch opening up before him, "pour it on like Bob Hayes running the 440 in the Olympics, and let the rest of them try to catch him."

All the best,

Jaguar

[delayjf]

Interesting, in your experience, do you consider this more of a trainer pattern, or a horse performance pattern.

On a simular theme, are you aware of other race performance clues that signal a sharp improvement next time out. I've read "blinkers Off" and loved the performance patterns outlined in the book. But all patterns are attributed to the horses performance and not a trainers instruction. Do you look for specific trainers to race/workout a horse in a specific manner like (the z-pattern or any other pattern) as a tip-off to a improved performance next out?

As you can probably tell, I'm into trainer patterns, never considered a looking for racing/workout patterns as a preclude to a wakeup performance. I assume there are other patterns besides the z-pattern.

Sorry for all the inquires, but I told you I could talk on this all day.

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

Glad to have a chance to talk about horses and racing.

While alot of handicappers use the "trainer moves" books and annually updated pamphlets- the dramatic changes which have occurred in the racing world in the last 10 years have compelled me to focus the cross-hairs on trainer/jockey interaction.

When costs rose so precipitously in the areas of veterinary fees, feed, insurance, personnel, transportation, etc., owners and trainers were constrained to make a decision, i. e., either face the brutal overhead- or- sell their string and quit the game.

As a consequence of rising costs- as well as a punishing decline in on-track attendance- resulting from the proliferation of gambling casinos- race tracks began closing and breeding diminished. This led to small fields and small purses, at most tracks.

In addition, this new atmosphere of high costs and intense competition caused trainers to seize any and every type of performance enhancement these horsemen could get their hands on.

Indeed, it is not too much to say that in some quarters of the racing world, there is an undercurrent of near desperation.

Imagine a trainer at Hawthorne, struggling to earn a living- while the gambling boats are proliferating within a short drive away.

Or, think of a trainer at beautiful old Garden State Race Track, which is a classy old institution and looks the way a horse track should look, trying to keep up the mortgage payments, while a few miles away, Delaware Park introduced the slots.

Slot revenue exploded and Delaware Park's purses shot through the roof. In turn, the allowance horses fled Calder for Delaware Park and today you could not find an allowance horse at Calder even if you had Sherlock Holmes on your payroll.

Summing up, the circumstances a horse trainer finds himself or herself operating in are unforgiving- they have to win. Therefor, the moves they make are different than the old workout patterns we memorized years ago.

In fact, I was astonished when a serious, mature handicapper, recently told me that he catches trainer patterns off workouts. I was tempted to comment- but didn't- "My friend, this isn't 1986 anymore, you can put away your workout rating chart."

Because these days, the trainers make their intentions known on the race track and fortunately we can still analyze their moves and find their patterns.

Capuano is a classic example of this. When he cards a claimer, he sometimes doesn't drop the horse enough in class to assure a win.

But, in the allowance events he's smarter at spotting a horse he has carefully prepped and frequently gets the money. I have had some solid paydays this past summer thanks to Mr. Capuano's labors- and come to think of it- I never wrote to thank him. Oh well, handicappers are more famous for their greed than their gratitude- so let me say here: "Thank you, Mr. Capuano, you are a true professional and a credit to the game".

What I left out- for the most part- in this diatribe, is the sad fact that today the needle rules the game, simply because- to be perfectly blunt- money rules the game.

Keep in touch.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Derek2U]

Just a small point on this issue: It's a SMALL world ... Trainers,
Agents, Owners, Wifes/Husbands of them .... They know each
other lots more than we remember ... So, when a Trainer puts
a jockey on his horse & let's say the horse does so-so only;
then 1 more race with ANOTHER jock, but TODAY, the original jock
is back UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIINS ... Look Out because this
jock had a PRIOR understanding w/ the trainer to Ride His Horse
Back when NOW ready. 2nd race back, Prado on Turf; last race,
Castellano on but NOT on Turf; Today, Prado back on & ON TURF ... so what do you think happens ... That Horse is GOING
for it no question.

[delayjf]

Along our topic line, I'm have a trainer research program put together that will allow me to research trainer moves to determine what their current methods are. One feature will be a snap-shot feature (ala Lifton) that will allow me to view the PP of several horses that fit a specific catagory.
For example, if I suspect a trainer is winning with second time starters, I can scroll down a list of such horses that the trainer has run to include any such horse that was competitive (by my definition) as a second time starter. However, I'm screening out horses who ran a competitive race prior to the second start. I'm only interested in the wake-up performance which is usually at higher odds.
One of the area's that I'll be looking at is the "Jockey switch"
When a trainer switches to a specific jockey is it significant. I've never heard anybody track this situation before, is it something you look at. Will also be able to track the various owner/trainer/jockey teams as well. I agree with your assessment about the change in the sport. I've cashed a few big bets on horses owned by the Thourought Bred Corp. who were ridden by Victor Espinosa, reguardless of the trainer. Unfortunitly since the triple crown, the prices has dropped. But this is my one and only experience using owners as a handicapping factor. We'll see how it goes. Perhaps later you can give me some hints as to areas I might look at.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by ranchwest
IMHO, the biggest mistake that newbies make is to always look for winners, never looking for losers. Good statistical factors often fall in the range of 10% to 25% winners. That's 75% to 90% losers.

Ranch West,

For completeness, I just want to add to your comment. While it is true that the "winners", (favorites) fall in a range of about 25%, and that means losers win about 75% of the time, in any given race, any other INDIVIDUAL horse will win less than 25%. It's only the aggregate of all the other horses that can claim a 75%, win percentage. So by choosing a single statistical loser, by your numbers, it's good to point out that our win rate will be less than 25%. (Or less than 10%, if you use your lower bound".)

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

You've outlined a smart approach for playing the horses in this day and age.

Since workouts are no longer as predictive a tool as they were years ago, the trainer\jockey interaction is a fertile field for study.

In the past, handicappers used to lament: "If only I could read the trainer's mind..."

Today, the better A. I. discs are- in effect- doing just that. Since it is so easy for the computer to discover what types of races the horseman's moves are dominating, our task has become much simpler.

Racing has always been a "spot" game and much of the public was misled- over the years- by the publication of books and newsletters, which issued statistics that made it seem that a certain trainer\jockey combination was invulnerable.

Hence, every day at the New York tracks I see horses overbet-(Mott/Bailey is a good example)-. Several times during the week, my machine will tell me that a Mott/Bailey lacks the stamina to win a certain race, -but the public pours on the gold, wishing and hoping for a win from this talented duo.

It's ironic that today the handicapper has to be smarter than the trainer, because so often trainers don't spot their charges properly. At least now we can measure the rate at which a horse expends energy, so we can determine if the beast is likely to leg it up at the wire and take the money.

Good luck with your research, you're knocking on the right door.

All the best,

Jaguar

[delayjf]

The new a. i programs look for trainer patterns?? I did not know that. I thought it only looked at performance patterns. I took a long look at Allways, it looked like a great program with outstanding modeling features. I was a bit dubious about using the Bris varients with the various pace reports as I had grown to distrust them. That plus the price. I'm looking to put together a pace program that puts more emphasis on the horses entire record rather than one pace line, more form analysis ala raggozin. I wonder if Daves new program does the same thing (trainer patterns). What say you dave.

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

if you would like to see a brilliant analysis of trainer tactics, Dave Schwartz's Thorobrain does it with great subtlety.

All the best,

Jaguar

[delayjf]

JAGUAR,
took a look at the Thorobrain website. Not sure if its creating its own trainer reports based on what the trainer has been up to lately, or simply presenting what HDW has in its file. Perhaps Dave can lend a hand here.

[Jaguar]

Delayjf,

By cleverly measuring the trainer/jockey impact value- not in general, not as a gross number- but rather insofar as the trainer's record pertains to the projected outcome of a specific race, Thorobrain enhances its predictions.

I have noticed that some folks on PA refer to statistics which have been compiled from many types of races- and many race tracks- as a body of knowledge which they assume should- or, in some cases, should not- be used for handicapping.

While these broad-guage stats are interesting, they are by no means applicable to a specific race. Each race is a puzzle in and of itself.

Recently, we have seen some very doctrinaire and downright bizarre postings, making all kinds of categorical statements concerning early speed, etc.

Just because most 6f Allowance sprints are won by horses leading at the 2nd call, it doesn't necessarily mean that today's 6f Allowance winner will not come from behind. The horse has to have the athletic ability to beat the competition, but must also be well-meant for today.

Similarly, you may have noticed that even experienced handicappers posting on PA appear not to understand how to use statistics in their handicapping. There is alot of confusion in regard to going from the general trends which occur in horse racing, to the specific analysis of a given race.

Perhaps- over time- we can shed a little light on this subject, but some handicappers are going to have to let go of past misunderstandings, and become more open-minded.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Show Me the Wire]

Jaguar:

I am curious. How can you measure t/j impact relating it to the outcome of a specific race?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

The more I experience the less I know.

[Jaguar]

Show Me The Wire,

It's been my experience that racing trainers can be placed into 4 broad categories.

The first group runs platers and maybe a handful of Allowance stock. These men constitute the bulk of the racing roster.

The second group runs some platers, but the greater part of their string is made up of Allowance horses.

The third group runs Allowance stock and sometimes a Grade III competitor or 2 or 3.

The fourth group trains only the finest bloodlines. These are the Bafferts, McGhaugheys(spelling?), etc.

Trainers in general adopt certain training techniques which- depending on the quality of their string- will result in the conditioner spotting his or her horse where the trainer thinks they can get the money.

Horse trainers are creatures of habit and tend to repeat their moves. Some A.I. programs- the discs that incorporate expert systems, have algorithms which track the success of trainer/jockey combinations in relation to the horse's potential for winning the race, based on that horse's condition and athletic ability, and the level of competition in the race.

An old program I use, Multi-Strats, does an excellent job of this. Also, Bradshaw's Match-Up discs do a fairly decent job of it, even without the trainer/jockey analysis.

But, it's when you benchmark an excellent Match-Up program such as AODDS, against a good A.I. program, right away you notice that the A.I. program picks winners which are over-looked by the speed and pace programs. Reason being, that trainers- like tigers- can't change their stripes-. The computer can track their moves and can tell you when a horse is well-meant for today.

Unfortunately, the horse still has to win the race on the race track before I can cash.

An excellent compilation of trainer moves can be found in Dan Pope's book, outlining two-dozen identifiable patterns, the most important techniques in the racing world.

If you know someone who has a Multi-Strats disc in their diskette box, ask them to show you the trainer/jockey algorithms.

This summer, using an expert systems disc, I made nice money from the very effective moves made by Dale Capuano. He's a trainer who knows his business, with allowance horses. When he spots a horse correctly, the numbers jump right off my computer screen. Dale Capuano is the sort of professional which makes this game such a pleasure- he's a winner.

There are many ways to make money by handicapping horses, and it's a comprehensive, complicated game- yet some aspects of this beautiful game can be tracked with great precision. Thank Heaven.

All the best,

Jaguar

[John]

Try this link, it might help someone


TrRid0915.pdf

[Show Me the Wire]

Jaguar:

I did not know some A.I. programs had that ability. I agree with you trainers are pretty much creatures of habit.

I use to keep manual records of trainers and moves and scored nicely. A favorite GP was Julien Canet on the class rise off the claim with Eibar Coa riding. If Prado rode it was an automatic toss. Of course I have several more, but I found it too time consuming to keep manual records.

Thanks for the heads up.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Knowledge and experience are real, but reality has many forms.

[John]

Try this web for J/T information.
Front page has J/T stats Let me know if it is useful.

Address........eqitec@aol.com >

[GameTheory]

http://hometown.aol.com/eqitec/

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory:

Thank you for the link. It seems to be a nice summary of t/j combinations. Summaries of general t/j combinations are not useful enough to me. I would like a program to highlight specific boundaries for with the t/j combination i.e. Canet and E. Coa on the class rise off a claim. I am also interested in highlighting specific trainer/ owner combinations, and specific trainer/ horse combinations.

The danger of using gross numbers is it cannot isolate important factors. For example Catalano shows a high winning percentage with E. Trujillo. This is certainly true but misleading. Catalano used Trujillo extensively while Trujillo had the bug. Any Catalano horse ridden by R. Douglas is alive and now he is testing the waters with C. Montalvo for some of his live ones.

Additionally, trainer owner combinations can be very powerful. Some trainers have an overall winning record but it is based on the efforts of one owner or horse. A good example of trainer/ owner combinations is Magana/ Bruner. I am doing this from memory, at the current AP meet I believe Magana has 9 wins and all the wins result from Bruner's ownership. Magana has other owners but he is not winning with their stock.


My question. Are there A.I. programs that will highlight specific boundaries for these trainer/ jock, owner, and horse combinations?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Plan nothing and yet leave nothing undone.

[hurrikane]

SMTW,
any data mining software can find these patterns. The real problem is compiling enough data to make it meaningful. And once you have the data what changes..(as in the case of the bug) affect the data. Remember too..the more you filter the data the smaller the sample the less reliable the results. There is not question it can be done. If you have the data I can do it. It's compiling a meaningful set of data that's the key.

[Show Me the Wire]

hurrikane:

I guess sample size is a problem for db minining. What I want is a program that can look at the pps for a specific meet at all the trainer's winning or close seconds (neck/nose)with his horses and to match common factors in each performance.

Based on some previous posts I thought I understood this process might lend itself to A.I. programs.

Additionally, to answer your inquiry I do not have a db of data. I retain a couple of months of DRFs to manually mine data.

Regards,
Show me the Wire

By not desiring you will not suffer disappointment.

[ranchwest]

Full blown AI doesn't necessarily report the basis of its "decisions".

Expert Systems report intelligently upon instructions.

It seems to me that what you are looking for is a data mining tool.

[so.cal.fan]

SMTW writes:
"Additionally, to answer your inquiry I do not have a db of data. I retain a couple of months of DRFs to manually mine data".

Wouldn't this be more accurate as to the current trends?
I have a problem with a db that goes back too far.
Yeah, you may have certain advantages, but it is sort of like having too long a memory on a horse. The current form is usually more reliable.
How many of you handicappers use PP's more than 6 months to a year old?
With the exception of layoffs......I really don't go back more than
the past 6 months to judge a form pattern or judge pace lines.
Am I missing something?

[hurrikane]

so cal,
I would think it would depend on whether you are looking for trends or anomolies. If you want to see the effect of Ev1 in North American racing then the last year or 2 would be necessary.
If you wanted to track trainers you might just keep his 30 day win%.

Not an easy question to answer.

[delayjf]

Hurrikane, Ranchwest,
can you give me a little more info on the data mining tool.?
Thanks

[Show Me the Wire]

ranchwest:

Maybe I do not understand the correct use of data mining in a db. I am under the impression I have to filter or set the parameters for the inquiry. My problem is I do not know what the parameters are until I see them. I guess, I am saying I do not know what question to ask until I know the answer.

I look for the answer with my cognitive abilities by comparing commonalities and then formulate the inquiry, while reviewing pps. Is it my understanding it is possible to do the same with a db mining tool. If so I previously used my db incorrectly.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Too much color blinds us.

[hurrikane]

here's a trial version.

http://www.daisy.co.uk/

there are several up there. many attached to nueral network software.

SMTW..
maybe ranchwest can give you a better understanding. It's not really filters. Let say you set one paramter as Tod Pletcher to find wins. You could then mine all(if you have a big enough processor) the data fields you have concerning Tod Pletcher and it will come up with the strongest to weakest combinations of factors. Now..this is in theory. Again..if you have a big enough processor.

[hurrikane]

Attached is an absolutely meaningless datamine I just ran real quick with daisy. It uses meaningless(apparently)info on 160 of Scott Lakes ITM finishes over the last 3 month. It is only comparing distance/surface age sex and jockey. Again..somewhat meaningless info. The darker the lines the more powerfull the combination. You can see the with older horses on dirt sprints with potts aboard he is at his best. as you move away from that he weakens quickly.

Again..just a sample and rather meaningless.

sorry, they must have the attachments turned off.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
ranchwest:

Maybe I do not understand the correct use of data mining in a db. I am under the impression I have to filter or set the parameters for the inquiry. My problem is I do not know what the parameters are until I see them. I guess, I am saying I do not know what question to ask until I know the answer.

I look for the answer with my cognitive abilities by comparing commonalities and then formulate the inquiry, while reviewing pps. Is it my understanding it is possible to do the same with a db mining tool. If so I previously used my db incorrectly.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Too much color blinds us.

I use Expert Systems, but not full AI. Partly because I lack the expertise, partly because I'd rather formulate the inquiries myself. That might be a mistake, but, hey, I can follow what I'm doing. :)

It is certainly very possible to come up with inquiries and analyze the results with a database. I find it fun, but very tedious.

[PaceAdvantage]

Attachments are ON, however, I must review them in case someone purposely or mistakenly uploads a virus....



==PA

[Tom]

Originally posted by GameTheory
http://hometown.aol.com/eqitec/


Are you associated with this website?
I know the guy who runs it - nice fellow, see him at FL and OTB sometimes.

[Tom]

What does this Daisy do? Does it go through your db and come back with a report?

[Show Me the Wire]

hurrikane and ranchwest:

Thank you for your responses. I do not know what Expert Systems is/are. Would you enlighten me?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Plan nothing and yet leave nothing undone.

[Show Me the Wire]

BTW for those keeping score at home. The trainer jock combo of Catalano and C. Montalvo scored twice today. Elvis isn't in the building anymore.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

The more I experience the less I know.

[GameTheory]

Tom --

Nope, don't know anything about it. It looked as though rocajack was trying to post the link, but didn't succeed. I simply did a search on "equitec" and came up with the address -- just trying to be helpful.


SMTW --

You might want to go back to page 7 (!) of this very thread where we start talking about AI & expert systems...

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory:

Maybe I shoukd rephrase my request. I don't understand the prior posts about expert system disks, so can anyone simplify it?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

The more I experience, the less I know and I mean it!!

[GameTheory]

SMTW--

Well, you asked what an Expert System was, and in fact we defined that term earlier in this thread, with some follow-up discussion.

Quoting from myself:


...what you are describing (a person coming up with a large set of rules himself, then coding them into a computer) would be called in AI terms an "Expert System", wherein a computer program attempts to emulate a human expert by following a "decision tree" of coded rules to hopefully arrive at the same conclusions that the human expert would.

[Show Me the Wire]

GameTheory:

What can I say, except duhh. Your definition was not recognized and processed by my processor.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Overwelmed by sensory input.

[GameTheory]

Well,

In your defense it *was* surrounded by a bunch of that superfluous b.s. I often put into posts to make myself sound smarter....

[hurrikane]

Ok, sending PA a screen shot of Daisy. This is $15 + horses from 6 tracks in the east. The data itself is rather meaningless. The darker the lines in the Chart the more meaningful the factors.
So it is showing that most(half) of the horses were in fast dirt sprints, layoff between 12 and 21 days with a MLO around 8 and qpts between 3 and 5. As you move away from these figs you will have less wins and need a higher price on your horse.

Now, before everyone starts firing bullets, please, this is some meaning less data I pulled out in 5 minutes without thinking about any of it. I could have used (and usually do)20 test fields and more than 200 races (takes about 2hr to process)and then maybe..or maybe not..got some meaningful information out of it.

Although I have worked with db for years I am rather new to mining. Anyone with ideas would be great.

[PaceAdvantage]

Never got a screenshot hurrikane....