Passing races?

[Cesario!]

I'm curious whether the winning players at this site tend to pass alot of races. Most experts advocate passing many races and only betting in when you feel that you have an edge...(as an exception, I know that the HSH/Dave Schwartz method tends to play much more often than pass.)

I recently grown skeptical of the pass approach, feeling that my perception of my edge is often misguided, as I often do better in handicapping contests where I'm forced to play every race than in my normal play. However, on the other end, I was raised on the belief that overplaying is a fast road to financial ruin -- although I plan to reconsider this in the coming months. Or, perhaps, it's simply a case of not passing enough and literally playing something like 1 out of every 15 races analyzed.

Is there really a middle ground or does the answer for you tend to shift towards heavy play or heavy pass? And how does one go about assessing this location of this line?

Seth

[keilan]

I think winning players come in all sorts of packages, but the one common denominator is they all wager only when they have a perceived edge. How that edge is measure per individual are numerous imo.

[Valuist]

Cesario-

Aren't there some races where you have a stronger opinion than others? I know when I take my first glance at a card I'll say "I love the 5th and 8th and the 1st and 3rd are total crap. Maybe the 1st and 3rd are a field of maiden claimers or a small field and the 5th and 8th might be routes on the turf. You probably also have some strengths and weaknesses. If you are a casual player, just avoid your weaknesses. If you are a serious player, then you have to work to improve those areas.

I'd say start tracking your results more closely and eventually you'll see where you are good, and not so good.

[Vegas711]

Winning players are honest with themselves I know that I am weak with certain race situations ( 2 year old races, races with multiple long layoffs etc etc. ) by avoiding these situations where I know I am weak and restricting myself to races where I am strong I become a very strong player.


Some races there may be no issues to deal with but 4 horses are so close in ability that you need a razor blade to seperate them, the odds may be tempting but my records say pass.

[chrisg]

Although I'm not a winning player, I'm not a loser either; just can't play them right now.

My question to you would be: Can you handle passing on races where you would have won?

That's a bit generalized, but I think it makes an important point.

[linrom1]

I'm curious whether the winning players at this site tend to pass alot of races. Most experts advocate passing many races and only betting in when you feel that you have an edge...(as an exception, I know that the HSH/Dave Schwartz method tends to play much more often than pass.)

Seth

In the future I plan to pass the Bel summer meet. I think that this is the most pathetic and crooked meet on the planet for NY breds even without Jose Santos. :mad:

[Vegas711]

Although I'm not a winning player, I'm not a loser either; just can't play them right now.

My question to you would be: Can you handle passing on races where you would have won?

That's a bit generalized, but I think it makes an important point.

There are multiple levels of handicapping. The first stage is just a scan looking for handicapping pitfalls, at this stage you do not have an idea who you like, if you find troubling things its an easy pass. The second stage you look at a race in a little more depth at this stage you only have an idea who the contenders are so if you see pitfalls here again its easy to pass. The next stage you focus on who you want to bet usually at this stage you will have a clean race , the only thing that will cause you to pass is that you are getting a low price. Passing on a race that you picked the winner which is paying a low payoff I can live with that.

[BIG49010]

The Belmont meet is so tough, Todd Pletcher only starts 80 horses!

I got crushed last year, and had some other issues this year, so I must of missed the NY Bred rain fest this year. Never fear, Saratoga is almost here!

[Cesario!]

Cesario-

Aren't there some races where you have a stronger opinion than others? I know when I take my first glance at a card I'll say "I love the 5th and 8th and the 1st and 3rd are total crap. Maybe the 1st and 3rd are a field of maiden claimers or a small field and the 5th and 8th might be routes on the turf. You probably also have some strengths and weaknesses. If you are a casual player, just avoid your weaknesses. If you are a serious player, then you have to work to improve those areas.

I'd say start tracking your results more closely and eventually you'll see where you are good, and not so good.

It's funny how are perceptions can sometimes be different than reality. I went back and analyzed the data from the last month (where I've hit some losing streaks.) While it's a smaller sample than I'd like, it's still a large number of bets, and enough to provide some direction. I always believed that I was better at restricted claimers, maiden races, and stakes -- primarily because I had success there in my early days, and, in regard to maidens and restricted claimers, that I could make easy eliminations. And yet, maiden races and restricted claimers were, by far, the worst ROI of any -- returning a nasty 43 and 60 cents to the dollar, respectively. My return on second and third level allowances/optional claimers wasn't that much better. Dirt Stakes were returning around the level of takeout. But, the search did return two jewels -- open claimers were only losing about 8 cents on a dollar -- and profitable when restricted to certain tracks -- despite the fact that I always thought these were some of my weaker races. But, the ultimate jewel was that dirt first-level allowances were actually a significant money maker -- around 1.24 -- for the period. This was exciting as it wasn't skewed by any big winner, and consituted a significant number of bets.

And, my results for Belmont were simply terrible over the past month. Combined with poor performances at Delaware and Prarie Meadows -- two places that were nice for me in the past, that was significant as well. In contrast, Monmouth, Churchill, and Hollywood were strong, all between .98 and 1.05. Not enough to retire, but still promising, considering the period was a big loser overall. Within some subsets at these tracks, I had great success, but the sample sizes were a bit small, so they might be skewed.

I think the answer to my question lies in actually looking at hard data as opposed to perceptions, and being willing to adjust when the long-term data says otherwise. I plan to go back and keep entering data for past months when I have some more time -- to see if these conclusions hold.

[Valuist]

[QUOTE=Cesario!

I think the answer to my question lies in actually looking at hard data as opposed to perceptions, and being willing to adjust when the long-term data says otherwise. I plan to go back and keep entering data for past months when I have some more time -- to see if these conclusions hold.[/QUOTE]

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Whether its horse racing, trading stocks or betting sports, when perception doesn't equal reality, there's value to be had.

[keilan]

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Whether its horse racing, trading stocks or betting sports, when perception doesn't equal reality, there's value to be had.



When I wrote “but the one common denominator is they all wager only when they have a perceived edge.” I wasn’t even remotely implying that the “edge" WASN’T tested and proven statistically.

Sorry I even bothered with my post, I should have known better.

[Valuist]

I wasn't aware you had trademarked the word "perceived" and I guess using the word "perception" would anger you. The rest of the world will refrain from using the "p" word.

I do believe my post addressed Cesario, not you, so chill out.

[Cesario!]

Not sure what the dispute is about, but thanks to eveyone for their opinion.

One thing I wanted to add was that the dataset already contains a "passing strategy" -- I typically play 30-35% of races analyzed. This is what made me wonder whether "playing every race" would be more profitable. But, when push comes to shove, I can't believe that, across the board and over time, I'm so special to be that much better than the crowd to be able to beat takeout and turn a profit. Seems like a horseplayer ego fantasy. :) I still wouldn't mind testing it -- maybe take 1 day a week and play and analyze every race -- and paper track the conclusions.

Has anyone ever tested to see if they can beat takeout, over time, by betting (in equal amounts) every race looked at -- regardless of the strength of the conclusion? It would seem that you would fall to some base skill level, which while it may be better than takeout, it probably wouldn't be profitable.

[keilan]

I'm hardly angry and you continue to take what I write and put your own slant on it. My orginal post is only two sentences long, go back and read sentence number two.

Knock yourself out :lol:

[46zilzal]

I think winning players come in all sorts of packages, but the one common denominator is they all wager only when they have a perceived edge. How that edge is measure per individual are numerous imo.
correcto

[andicap]

Ah, I missed good ol' Keilan. Board lost some juice without him --
(To newbies not familiar with his posts, he's one excellent handicapper and bettor. And he's the only cranky Canadian I've ever known. ;) )

Anyway, back to the thread.

I will skip races with too many unknowns, unless I don't. In other words I tend not to bet those races but if a longshot has good figures or the pace set up favors him, etc., I'll bet.

One thing that has changed is I don't look at any types of races with prejudice anymore. I used to dismiss turf maidens for example as inscrutable (I'm not a student of breeding), but I've hit some nice prices in these races, possibly because the public is almost -- key word ALMOST -- as confused as I am with these races. Trick for me is not to predict the winner, but a long odds horse that has every chance to run well.

[keilan]

Andy I’ve been posturing for the job of moderator for the past 5 years but I see today that Mike gives the job to cj.

That’s enough to make anyone cranky. ;)

[StartedAt18]

I seriously suck at long distance races... anything that is over a mile, i do not mess with. 7 furlongs is my specialty though. The races I pass would be Maiden, Sloppy Tracks, Off Turf, 11+ Horses, a lot of scratches and jockey changes.. or when the horse i like takes a huge dump before the race lmao. You have to pass races though, too many races = too many defeats or bad beats which will get you out of focus. I try to play win bets on races with 7-9 horse fields.

[ELA]

I think winning players come in all sorts of packages, but the one common denominator is they all wager only when they have a perceived edge. How that edge is measure per individual are numerous imo.

I agree, conceptually -- and not to get caught up in semantics, or be arguementative, however, I think anyone who "invests" -- which to me is an entirely different mindset -- in specific races does so with a certain mindset or methodology. It might be "value" or some sort of "angle", something, but as keilan stated, there is an "edge" there. I think the perception part of this is a bit more, can I say, "philosophical", LOL.

I am not a pro and don't make my primary living from handicapping, but when I am in the game, I am in the game as a business or "investment" -- discipline as never been a problem, passing races (and seeing my pick win, gimmick, etc.) has never been a problem, and control has never been a problem. This is due to a variety of reasons.

Be that as it may, passing races -- yes, I do, and often. I don't view it as something that can dilute ROI, performance, etc.

Good luck.

Eric

[Dave Schwartz]

It takes all kinds to make a world, doesn't it?

Personally, I rarely pass a race. I did actually pass two today out of the 21 consecutive races I looked at. Neither of those two were bettable (for me).


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Jeff P]

Keilan had it right when he posted - I think winning players come in all sorts of packages, but the one common denominator is they all wager only when they have a perceived edge. How that edge is measure per individual are numerous imo. When it comes to passing races I'm the exact opposite of Dave. I'll only play 3 or 4 horses out of every 20 or so races that I look at. And yet I think we're both pretty happy with the results produced by our vastly different and separate approaches.

--jp

.

[JohnGalt1]

I pass races where I like odds on horses. They win about 50%, so at best I'd break even. I'll only use them in pick 4 and 6 wagers.

Other passable races are when my selection is only slightly better than every one else. They win about 10%. One I considered betting the other day paid $13.40. That means the next 8 or nine would probably lose, so I didn't mind passing.

[karlskorner]

This is the " new " Dave Schwartz telling us " Personally, I rarely pass a race ", there was a time awhile back when like most others on this board Dave was very selective in the races he chose to play. What Dave has come to realize there is a winner in "every" race, just find it. Up to a couple of years ago I stayed away from 2 or more FTS in a race, until too many FTS were winning races at good prices and I wasn't on it. Then I got serious about FTS. With help from stats put out by Bloodhorse, Equline and others I keep information on Sires of 2 YO FTS, Sires and Broodmare Sires, Leading Florida sires ( since most horses run at CRC are Fla. bred ) Halo's Image has been "hot" for the past 2/3 years. Looking for a winner in the program you are using is all well and good, but there is a "winner" in every race.

[Dave Schwartz]

Karl,

Actually, I have almost always played all the races I handicapped. I just to not bother to handicap races with certain characteristics.

Now I handicap all races from 5f up as long as there are at least 2 previous starters.

The races I do pass are those where my opinions are so similar to the public's that there is no room for perceived profit.


Dave

[karlskorner]

Dave

Sooo there is a "new" Dave Schwartz, as you stated things are different in your household the past year or so, you now handicap and play every race ( exept those that don't show a profit margin ) knowing there is a "winner" in every race. I had a blind spot with FTS, until I fixed it.

[keilan]

I wasn't aware you had trademarked the word "perceived" and I guess using the word "perception" would anger you. The rest of the world will refrain from using the "p" word.

I do believe my post addressed Cesario, not you, so chill out.


I used the term "perceived edge" and you follow with "perceived profit" -- you are treading on dangerous ground hehe ;)

[Dave Schwartz]

The races I do pass are those where my opinions are so similar to the public's that there is no room for perceived profit.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I did not italicize the word "perceived" in the above quote to join any previous argument. (I had not actually read the post under discussion with K. and V.)

It simply seemed to be the correct word to be emphasized.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[karlskorner]

Now that I am suffering through 4 "dark days" at CRC for the next 6 weeks I am finishing up my Breeders records. Of the 150 breeders I have put together, Adena Springs is the leading breeder in the country with most monies earned so far this year, surprisingly Farnsworth Farms is 2nd with monies earned, but has more wins, seconds and thirds than any other breeder in the country. Farnsworth Farms has quite a few horses at CRC. It all starts in the Breeding shed, maybe with a better understanding of breeding, not as many races have to be passed over.

[classhandicapper]

I pass tons of races.

IMO, the public does a great job of setting the odds and only rarely makes a big mistake. Most of the mistakes are minor enough to not allow significant profits.

When I was younger, I used to find overlays like crazy and when one won, I was sure it was a great bargain. Of course many of them weren't actually overlays even when they did win. There were just many things I didn't understand yet. So my betting was a mix of legitimate overlays, bets where I was just spinning my wheels, and some underlays even though I thought they were all overlays.

The more I learned over the years and the more I understood the limitations of the information I was using etc... the more my own oddsline agreed with the tote board enough to not warrant betting. That increases the number of races I pass.