Still Picking Pacelines?

[azmike]

In the past picking pacelines was the predominant method of inputting data in the handicapping programs. Then programs began "automatic" paceline selections. Some permitted user defined parameters.

Like many, I would go back after I missed the winner and could invariably find a different paceline that would have moved the winner to the top of my contenders.

Now, more and more I am hearing about successful handicappers who don't spend any time mulling over the various pacelines. Some say that what they miss by not picking the best paceline they make up in volume--that is, they spend so little time picking lines they can bet more races.

I have read in some posts that Dick Schmidt, Gordon Pine and others never pick a paceline. This is something I haven't done so far. But again, I haven't used all the new programs: HSH, HTR, Capper, HM etc


I am curious as your experiences in this regard...

[Dick Schmidt]

Az,

I certainly select pacelines, I just don't pick them by hand. In HSH, you can design a paceline selection process and code it into a set of rules. I did this about a year ago and since then have continued to pick pacelines by letting HSH follow my rules. I can do almost the same thing in Synergism, though it is more paceline sensitive and thus benefits from a bit of user intervention.

It took me a couple of weeks of work to design the paceline method I use, and at least a month more to prove to myself that it works, but now I can select pacelines for every horse in a race as quickly as I can click a mouse. Two more clicks let me blend the paceline information with the overall performance of the horse (non-paceline specific things like class, EPS, average Quirin number etc.), check the horse's current form and make my selections.

Dick


P.S. I doubt that it would mean much to anyone who doesn't use HSH, but I have posted my paceline selection (and handicapping) methods on the HSH board. Look for posts about SSS and Grades.

[Tom]

If you go with automatic pacceline selection, you have a the upside of repeatability. You can store the results and querry the result and not worry about variations in the selection process. If you do this, you will also miss somoe winner by blindly using a bad line. Using Equisim ROI at FL a couple Saturdays ago, the automatic paceline mode would have had a decenbt day, three winners, slight profit over 9 races. But by overriding just one paceline, I was able to get a $25 horse on top of the simulation. The last line used by the program was an abberent line on a horse that ran wire-to-wire in the slop and earned a huge figure by winning off. In every other race, the horse ran last or close to it early. Descion time-the horse runs early or it runs late. At 6-5, I said it was a fluke last time and picked a closing line. The result was the E2 horse wired the field. day, Sunday, same type of situation arises, I make the same call. Result - the auto-selected lines turns out to be best, and I lose.
My preference is to let the programs select lines and then review them and make changes when I think it is warranted. I win or lose on my own calls, but to me, getting there (the handicapping process) is at least as important as the destination (profits).
If profits were all that mattered, I would get another job or sell drugs. (<G>). I want to enjoy the game, not just the money.

[azmike]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
[B]Az,

I certainly select pacelines, I just don't pick them by hand.


Of course that is what I meant. I understood you (and others mentioned) did not mull over each paceline trying to pick the most representative line for today's race. Instead, you accepted what the program gave you, using your parameters--to the extent allowed, as the line "it" selected. I have not used Horse Street but I have used Synergism. In the later program, if I recall, you can limit the number of lines to choose from and limit the time frame but not much else. I wished I could impose some more criteria so I could make it more "automatic" in selecting the type of lines I wanted. What was/is your experience?

[Dick Schmidt]

Az,

I use Synergism frequently, and you can set it to prefer lines that are the same distance and surface as well as in a date range or number of lines back. The program will automatically use the last line if no match is found if you tell it to. Otherwise, you must select a line by hand.

When I use Synergism, I find that it is more sensitive to paceline selection than HSH, and though I have won using the automatic lines, I do much better picking my own lines. I don't spend much time at it, maybe 10 seconds a horse, and use the TPR numbers to determine my choice. I look at the last few races and try to find the one that best represents the horse. I try to avoid the highest number showing unless it is the last line (even then I'm cautious), but also avoid low numbers when I think the horse will do better. I try to avoid layoff lines (just before a layoff, and just after) and try to avoid different surfaces and distance structures as much as possible. This is quick and easy since Synergism uses different colors for these.

If you want a rule of thumb to start with, look at the last three lines (at today's surface and distance as much as possible) and choose the one in the middle. Do this a few hundred times and you'll start to get a feel for which line to choose. I use TPR numbers because I am very familiar with them, and also because I think they are the best overall representation of what the horse actually did in the race.

Dick

[azmike]

Thanks. Do you use or give much weight to SSR, POR or ME% in selecting the "right" paceline? I am also most familiar with TPR as opposed to the aforementioned.

[Dick Schmidt]

AZ,

The only thing I usually look at is TPR. I might take a peek at the EPR and FFR to see how the line is balanced, but 95% of my decisions are based on TPR.

I'm a KISS kind of handicapper.

Dick

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
AZ,

I'm a KISS kind of handicapper.

Dick

I "kiss" my money good-bye all too often <G>

BTW, thanks for mentioning your paceline methods- I spent an enjoyable morning surfing the HSH board looking for your posts-very interesting reading, what I understood of it. I have to get a English-Schwartz/Schwarts-English dictionary <G>
But, some neat ideas, especially the L2L5 discussions.

[azmike]

How far back do you set the pacelines? Do you change any other default settings?

I assume you don't mind sharing since you divulged your strategy using Horse Street.

Appreciate your assistance.

[Dick Schmidt]

AZ and Tom,


Tom, you stay away from L2/L5, that's our secret weapon!



AZ, I will take any paceline, though when I review them manually, I try to stay recent. Sometimes you just have to go back a year and 9 pacelines to get the one you want, but most of the time I stick to the last three and the current form cycle.

Dick

[GR1@HTR]

I assume that L2/L5 means best 2 out of last 5 or some such. Me thinks this is good that one selects more than one PL for older horses. If you think about it, what are the odds of a horse running exactly like it did in the paceline you selected...About ZERO! But if you mix and match you can come to something closer to how the granimal is going to run today.

[Tom]

I am having very good results on turf using HTR and averageing 2-4 lines per horse, turf only, no more than 1/2 furlong difference.
I use the crammer speed figs to get an idea who the real contenders are, then throw a bunch of good lines together.
Looking at the velocity past performances, there is sometimes a lot of variation in that third fraction velocity. This seems to average it out so you don't get one real crazy race.

[Dave Schwartz]

GR1,

I will give you a small clue about the L2, L5 stuff. In essence, we are comparing each horse's recent performances with his earlier performances using an energy expension rating. The L2 and L5 ratings represent the difference between his "last 2" and "last 5" and what is average for him.

Next we are using those trends to "grade" the horse on form cycle.

Dave

[azmike]

I have heard some very good things about your expertise and devotion to developing your program.

I think the only negative I have heard from a small number is the so-called "learning curve". I have heard of the necessity of buying and viewing video tapes, seminars etc. I am not opposed to spending good money for a good product and a video might be easier than a manual. But I would like to know how-if you can quantify at all--labor/mental intensive is it to learn and operate your program.

I know "everyone is different"but can you give us some idea what is required to get comfortable with HSH.

[Dave Schwartz]

AZ,

Rather than turning this into a "sales board" why don't you just give me a call and we can discuss it?

http://www.horsestreet.com/contactus/index.html

I will say that HSH now comes bundled with the learning materials to get you up to speed.

Dave

[azmike]

I apprecaite your sensitivity to unwarranted claims of "selling" but I think we all know of your contribututions to the board and your belief in your program. I have read many of your posts and have never seen you hype your program. I certainly don't see the risk of this becoming a "sales board". You wouldn't allow that, nor would the rest of us.

Of course, I know I can call you privately but I thought my question was of some interest to other non-users and the economy of one reply that might cause discourse among many was appealing.

What better source for info re: HSH than its users AND its creator.

I don't want and did not request a "sales" pitch and I am confident you are professional enough you would not present one on this board in any event.

[Dick Schmidt]

Well, hell AZ, I'm not selling anything so I'll answer your question.

With no more than 8 or 10 hours a day spent in intensive study, I feel HSH can be mastered in a matter of just a few weeks.

Of course, if you just want to learn to use a small part of the program to win, I think you could be up and going in a few days. This is a HUGE program and has a little something for everyone. Things get added to the program all the time; some work out, some don't, but nothing ever gets removed. Never can tell what will come in handy in the future. Know that this is very much a work-in-progress and accept it as such.

There are whole sections of the program that others use to beat the races like a drum that I have never really looked at. I do think that mastery of the entire program would be a long term project, but there are several methods described on the HSH board that will pay for the program in short order. Yes, you have to flail around a bit and discover ways of going that you like and fit your style of play, but unlike so much on the market, the goods are there if you look.

I use maybe 5% of the program in my handicapping and have been very satisfied with the results. Others like to do a more in-depth analysis of one or two cards and zero in on the best plays. The program works either way.

Come round to the HSH board, do some reading and ask some questions. You don't need to buy the program to ask questions. You're sure to find any number of folks who are happy to answer anything you ask. See you there.

Dick