Long term positive factors

[obeguy]

I found the thread "Long term negative factors" very interesting and was wondering what some of the positive situations were. The ROI and percents were also useful in gauging the magnitude of the factor.

[ryesteve]

My guess is that if there was such a thing as a simple positive factor, it wouldn't stay positive for very long.

[acorn54]

there are long term positive factors such as cj's pace figures and jfactor in the jcapper software and probably others but they are positive only because the proprietors limit there use to only a handful of users
acorn

[Overlay]

I think that there are many factors that have remained positive and consistent for a long period of time with respect to their power of predicting the likelihood of winning. As noted, however, the problem arises when handicappers treat each such individual factor in isolation, and start overbetting it down to odds that are below the winning percentage associated with the factor, at which point profits dry up. The key is to consider any factor in terms of the probabilities associated with it rather than as a go/no-go proposition, and also to utilize a proper blend of elements covering the major handicapping areas, to avoid the losses that result from continuing to bet a single aspect of performance that has become too widely played.

[ryesteve]

there are long term positive factors such as cj's pace figures and jfactor in the jcapper software and probably others but they are positive only because the proprietors limit there use to only a handful of users
acorn
Not to nitpick, but while it does soundly beat the take, the Jrating by itself isn't a positive factor.
But your point is well-taken... any positive factors that are out there would by necessity need to be proprietary and available to a limited number of people. I don't think it's possible for anything you can glean from PPs to be positive for very long.

[classhandicapper]

I think that there are many factors that have remained positive and consistent for a long period of time with respect to their power of predicting the likelihood of winning. As noted, however, the problem arises when handicappers treat each such individual factor in isolation, and start overbetting it down to odds that are below the winning percentage associated with the factor, at which point profits dry up. The key is to consider any factor in terms of the probabilities associated with it rather than as a go/no-go proposition, and also to utilize a proper blend of elements covering the major handicapping areas, to avoid the losses that result from continuing to bet a single aspect of performance that has become too widely played.

:ThmbUp:

This is one reason why my handicapping approach is so comprehensive.

In my first few years of handicapping I found a handful of trainer patterns that produced explosive profits. I hit a few $40/$50 Frank Wright 2nd time starters and the like. I was making multi-thousand dollar scores in my late teens when I was still mostly a $25 bettor. When those patterns vanished, so did my profits. I had to learn new tricks because I was mostly a one trick pony. I've seen the same thing with other players.

IMO, the more comprehensive your handicapping the more likely you are to actually understand the fair odds on horses.

There can be some value in a single factor or combination of factors, but there is no guarantee it will remain there as others apply similar methods. If you aren't making a good odds line (or don't at least have a good mental picture of good value) you won't even realize that the value is evaporating right in front of your eyes. You'll continue playing your top figures and start losing.

IMO, the only downside of being more comprehensive is that you start realizing how efficient the odds board actually is. (actually maybe that's not a downside) As a result, you spend a lot of time handicapping without finding any good bets. At least that's my experience.

This is why I strongly believe that people that are less comprehensive and are making lots of bets are probably spinning their wheels a real lot of the time. They are playing lots of underlays that they think are overlays. Perhaps in these days of rebates, the extra 7% keeps them even or plus/minus a couple of percent on all those bets, but IMO the real profits are coming from a minority of what they are doing.

[Valuist]

:ThmbUp:

This is one reason why my handicapping approach is so comprehensive.

When those patterns vanished, so did my profits. I had to learn new tricks because I was mostly a one trick pony. I've seen the same thing with other players.

IMO, the more comprehensive your handicapping the more likely you are to actually understand the fair odds on horses.

IMO, the only downside of being more comprehensive is that you start realizing how efficient the odds board actually is. (actually maybe that's not a downside) As a result, you spend a lot of time handicapping without finding any good bets. At least that's my experience.

This is why I strongly believe that people that are less comprehensive and are making lots of bets are probably spinning their wheels a real lot of the time. They are playing lots of underlays that they think are overlays. Perhaps in these days of rebates, the extra 7% keeps them even or plus/minus a couple of percent on all those bets, but IMO the real profits are coming from a minority of what they are doing.

Great post. I find it funny when somebody claims they are a "10% advantage or 6% advantage" player since the game is constantly changing. Player X might've shown a 7% ROI the last 2 years but there's no guarantee he's even going to be profitable now. I also have to wonder if the software players aren't ending up on the same horses more often than not.

[classhandicapper]

Great post. I find it funny when somebody claims they are a "10% advantage or 6% advantage" player since the game is constantly changing. Player X might've shown a 7% ROI the last 2 years but there's no guarantee he's even going to be profitable now. I also have to wonder if the software players aren't ending up on the same horses more often than not.

Thanks.

I know I'm one of the more opinionated people around here. Some may find that annoying from time to time, but you'll always get honesty from me.

I've been beating the game fairly steadily for about the last 10 years. I had more mixed results for many years before that. I'm not a big bettor and don't even win a real lot of money. I had a very good full time job in data processing until last year and this was/is mostly a passionate hobby for me.

However, with all my experience playing this game, I think I bring some insights to the table that will help people that are currently where I was exactly 10 years ago get to the next level. If they have a personality more suited to betting large amounts of money and handicapping more races per day, there's no reason they can't win a lot more money than I do.

[Overlay]

IMO, the only downside of being more comprehensive is that you start realizing how efficient the odds board actually is. (actually maybe that's not a downside) As a result, you spend a lot of time handicapping without finding any good bets. At least that's my experience.

The situation you accurately describe could be viewed in a positive light as well. As long as you're using valid probabilities to govern your wagering, and you're betting in accordance with those probabilities, you have a double advantage: a sound basis for passing a horse or race when the odds are too low justify a bet; and the potential for increasing your rate of return through a higher volume of play, which gives the percentages a greater chance to manifest themselves.

[Overlay]

In each of the editions of Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing, Ainslie included a listing of plus factors to use as separation criteria among horses that made it past an initial screening on more basic factors such as distance, condition, class, and pace, as well as a collection of quick, one-factor systems. I suppose some of the elements he discussed might be dated by now, but his thoughts might be worth checking. (I don't have my copy handy at the moment, or I'd mention some.)

Quirin also examined several positive factors in Winning at the Races. Aside from specialized cases like speed figures and turf racing, the main general elements I recall are horses that figure to get a clear early lead; horses that ran a "good race" (third or better or within two lengths of the winner) in a sprint and are coming back in another sprint within ten days; horses that engaged in a prolonged duel for the lead in the late stages of their most recent race; and horses breaking from post position number one in sprints of six furlongs or less, or in routes of 1 to 1-1/8 miles at large tracks (with a main track one mile or more in circumference), or from post positions 1-3 in two-turn turf routes at those same size tracks. There were also several other such positive angles that he touched on that were equally positive, but not quite as statistically powerful as far as qualifying as a lasting trend rather than just a temporary fluctuation that was within the limits of expected variance.

[acorn54]

one of the first things i did when i got jcapper and a large database of 10000 plus races was to test the qurin factors in his book. none of them showed a positive roi when i tested them if they ever did over a large database.
acorn

[classhandicapper]

one of the first things i did when i got jcapper and a large database of 10000 plus races was to test the qurin factors in his book. none of them showed a positive roi when i tested them if they ever did over a large database.
acorn

Did any of them outperform the take by a meaningful amount?

[Overlay]

one of the first things i did when i got jcapper and a large database of 10000 plus races was to test the qurin factors in his book. none of them showed a positive roi when i tested them if they ever did over a large database.
acorn

That's quite possibly true (especially considering the time that's elapsed since Quirin's work). (I don't remember that many positive factors that even Quirin found to be profitable on a "stand-alone" basis.) But I think the key is to consider the factors in combination, and in light of the probabilities associated with them, which (in my opinion) gives their usefulness a longer "shelf life".

[acorn54]

it was awhile back that i tested the angles in quirin's appendix to his computer study book but i do not use any of the idea's in my profitable plays
all of the ideas were dead ends. in my database studies i have found no combination of commercially available factors to show a positive roi . all my profitable plays come from proprietary factors.
acorn

[acorn54]

just ran two data queries
this database is from january to september of 2005

speed point leader by 1 or more qurin speed points

7522H/1527 winners 16 cents loss for every dollar bet


sprinter non maiden
at least 1 speed point
second race off a layoff
finished in front half of field last race
today's race a sprint

1401 horses 264 winners for a 12 cent l oss on every dollar

interestingly enough the win pct on these two data queries match the results in quirin's study however the payoffs are lower
acorn

[dav4463]

My worst days are days when the best horse wins consistently. I depend on upsets to make money. It isn't that hard in most races to identify who SHOULD win or at least narrow it down to a couple of horses. My value is when I like a horse who is ALMOST as good and wins at a price.

[Overlay]

interestingly enough the win pct on these two data queries match the results in quirin's study however the payoffs are lower

Which speaks to my earlier point about the continuing validity of the data from a probability standpoint, and its potential usefulness in developing composite odds lines, as long as you don't consider it apart from the odds of the horses involved.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Betting the horse who is walking forward when mounted by the jockey?

[delayjf]

there are long term positive factors such as cj's pace figures and jfactor in the jcapper software and probably others but they are positive only because the proprietors limit there use to only a handful of users

What were your findings with regards to CJ's pace figures?

[acorn54]

my info on cj figures comes from formula 2000 (joe)
i do not subscribe to cj figures
formula 2000 related to me in his extensive research that if you bet the top fig last out horse that is going off at 10-1 or higher you have a positive roi.
thats all i know about it. contact formula 2000 for more info on this
acorn