ANOTHER POLY QUESTION:

[SMOO]

Of all the poly/cushion tracks, which ones act the most like dirt and which ones act the most like turf in terms of winning running styles?

[46zilzal]

Of all the poly/cushion tracks, which ones act the most like dirt and which ones act the most like turf in terms of winning running styles?
Woodbine: no change in running style with polytrack
Keeneland: polar opposite

[cj]

WO, sprints are similar, routes have changed more towards late speed.
TP, same as WO
Kee, sprints and routes both have changed dramatically towards late speed.
Hol, similar to Kee, though not as drastic.
AP, still new, but pretty much the same as Hol. All races seem to favor later running.

[so.cal.fan]

I've noticed at Hollywood, the horse or horses who have the fastest closing fractions are overbet, and often win. So.......the handicappers picked up on that real quick.
Is it the same at the other cushion tracks that favor closers?

[Gibbon]

Perhaps it’s me but I cannot understand this gross Hollywood bias bantered by many handicappers.

Hollywood is clearly the most consistent and most efficient major track in the country currently. On most days anything above 7/2 is to consider an extreme longshot.

Drop all your preconceived Sartin ideology and play the late fractions. I recall a recent thread by Jeff Platt discussing new opportunities. Obviously, since most all computer programmers heavily weigh power numbers toward the usual brainwashing of an array of early speed numbers –-> a single fig. {stretch run} is often overlooked as insufficient information.

Curiously, sheet player have no such rabid compulsion toward early speed and consequently are cleaning up at Hollywood.

Also curiously, Bris' last fraction fig displayed on any PDF PP’s is also producing exceptionally well.

But how cares for simplicity. As long as it’s a complicated handicapping procedure, it must be correct. As a predominantly East coast player, currently I play Holly almost exclusively. Although the hours are a killer.






______________________________
Opportunity often comes disguised in the form of misfortune, or temporary defeat.

[46zilzal]

Drop all your preconceived Sartin ideology and play the late fractions.
Spoken like a person who has no idea how the numbers calcualted in energy balance foretell a handicapper's understanding of their being a bias ONE way or the OTHER.

Understand before you generalize.

The one thing at the heart of Sartin's method is understanding CHANGE. Article upon article in his journal (THe Follow Up) promoted that idea over and over.

He constantly talked about the yin and yang of racing, quoted the I Ching, suggested reading in Chaos theory, promoted that each race was a holistic representation of both the early and the late akin to the yin and yang.

[bobozoid]

i noticed at ap the hotter it gets the better speed holds watch for those 100 degree days in august

[Tom]

Perhaps it’s me but I cannot understand this gross Hollywood bias bantered by many handicappers.


Drop all your preconceived Sartin ideology and play the late fractions.

Uh, then the bias is there, right?

Obviously, since most all computer programmers heavily weigh power numbers toward the usual brainwashing of an array of early speed numbers –-> a single fig. {stretch run} is often overlooked as insufficient information. You have not a clue what you are talking about.


Also curiously, Bris' last fraction fig displayed on any PDF PP’s is also producing exceptionally well. So there is a late bias, huh? Try using only late ractins at most tracks and see how long your ten-spot lasts.

But how cares for simplicity. As long as it’s a complicated handicapping procedure, it must be correct. For you, maybe, but most of us software users have no problems understanding the outputs.






______________________________
Opportunity often comes disguised in the form of misfortune, or temporary defeat.

Comments in bold above.

[Gibbon]

So there is a late bias, huh? Try using only late ractins at most tracks and see how long your ten-spot lasts.T, you’re not looking at this objectively. I’m exclusively referring to Hollywood Park and not other synthetic surfaces. Over the past 30 days Hollywood’s winners have been hard pressed to pay above 4-1. The occasionally $17.00 horse if all too painfully rare.

Simply looking at the top three of Bris’ late pace PDF fig has the winner a vast, vast majority of races. The racing at Hollywood in terms of consistency is obvious.


zilzal, I understand Sartin with intimidate detail. I practiced in the late ’80,s through most of the ’90,s. Lucky for me I was brought out of this mind numbing cult by some concerned sheet players. .....I Ching.....Holistic representation......akin to the yin and yang Never could understand the irrational feelings based believes in Tao and Zen.

....Chaos theory.... What chaos? Every other race at Hollywood pay $7.00 to win. The most predictable track on earth right now is Hollywood. Ride the wave until it stops!



___________________________
Opportunity often comes disguised in the form of misfortune, or temporary defeat.

[46zilzal]

zilzal, I understand Sartin with intimidate detail. I practiced in the late ’80,s through most of the ’90,s. Lucky for me I was brought out of this mind numbing cult by some concerned sheet players. Never could understand the irrational feelings based believes in Tao and Zen.

What chaos? Every other race at Hollywood pay $7.00 to win.


You obviously missed what he was trying to say. One has to be attuned to the holistic nature of anything like the Taoist's call The Way, to understand what he was getting at. It takes a lot of reading OUTSIDE of the methodology to understand the idea of "the uncarved block" "suchness" and many of the concepts promoted by Eastern thought. Without that basis, of course you won't get it.

The entire idea of chaos, is what Gleick presented in Chaos and Waldrop presented in COMPLEXITY, there is form within what appears to others as randomness.

Mind numbing? Only for that group ("you MUST follow the rules, there is no room for dissent") I call the MUSTERBATORS...That's the great thing about it to rational ones amongst us: it's adaptability. There are no rules, only how one uses it.

[Kelso]

Simply looking at the top three of Bris’ late pace PDF fig has the winner a vast, vast majority of races.


Gibbon,
Are you referring to the "average for surface/distance - late" fig, or the "late pace last race" fig?

Thank you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Drop all your preconceived Sartin ideology and play the late fractions.

Actually, if you were employing the Sartin/Brohamer methodology correctly, you would know this rather quickly, so I don't see why I would want to drop the Sartin ideology. Using Sartin-style methods and numbers would be ideal in zeroing in on this kind of bias towards late speed.

[BeatTheChalk]

I've noticed at Hollywood, the horse or horses who have the fastest closing fractions are overbet, and often win. So.......the handicappers picked up on that real quick.
Is it the same at the other cushion tracks that favor closers?

Oh for the old days at Hol. The early Sartin players ( I being the
least talented ) did great.. And the prices were fabulous. No mas ..
Short fields and too much information = well better than losing. :bang:
And GG .. whoa. Nobody at that track knew anything. Back before
OTB .. Satelite and such. But that was then and this is ahora. :cool:

[Gibbon]

For those that are not familiar with Bris, after every race Bris has what they call “Ultimate Race Summary.” Although one does not have to purchase full Bris PPs. Ultimate Race Summary are available as a stand alone report.

On the very bottom of page – to the far right there is a column called "Late pace, Last race." If a horse demonstrates the ability to run anywhere near the Bris par for this column the horse is an automatic contender.

This applies to Hollywood exclusively. I have not found this angle as predictive on other synthetic surfaces. Will it last indefinitely? Unlikely. No doubt the fancy schmancy computer programs will eventually make adjustments. Until such time, this handicapper will surf the wave for as long it will carry me. Those who played Hollywood immediately during the transition to poly got burned. Take a look at any charts provider for Hollywood the past 30+ days. It has become the single most efficient track in North America.



Kelso,
For other synthetic surfaces I have found Bris "Best Pace" column {Late} is essential to keep on your handicapping radar. Also to be found on Ultimate Race Summary reports.


For those who use HDW data supported computer Apps...
This method is nowhere near as effective as Bris. Jim Cramer has a unique way of crafting his numbers which does not lead to predictive late pace figs. Cramer's early pace figs may rule dirt tracks but - no one is perfect.

Have not tested Moss late pace figs. On my to do list. Will report back later.








_________________________________
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers. ~ Barry Meadow

[Gibbon]

.....employing the Sartin/Brohamer methodology correctly.....why I would want to drop the Sartin ideology. Using Sartin-style methods......zeroing in on this kind of bias towards late speed. My initially post may have been incomplete. I was referring to the various power ratings in most programs used by many members of this board. Since I am a known troublemaker and do not which to start yet another fight with any sponsors or potential sponsor, I won't mention any names.

All power ratings which I have dissected are grossly weighted toward early speed. This is dandy for dirt tracks. With synthetic surfaces a new formula must be implemented emphasizing late pace.

One program already does this. I do believe http://www.revelationprofits.com/ is a sponsor so I'll refer to virtuoso mathematician Rube Boxer. Currently on plastic surfaces Boxer power ratings are far superior to others.

Again, will this indefinitely hold up? In our game everything is in a constant state of perpetual change.







___________________________________
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers. ~ Barry Meadow

[how cliche]

I'm interested by a couple of recurring themes in this ongoing discussion.

1) The constant laments about synthetic tracks & how complicated all the adjustments in a person's handicapping are...
They all still have to race over the same stuff. In my opinion, this game is as simple or complicated as it's ever been. If you're able to find the fastest & fittest horse whose connections are trying to win, then with a decent trip you will find the winner.

2) The incredible bickering over whose method of handicapping is superior...
The late great bdhsheets once told me, "I don't care how you pick 'em as long as they win." He was a numbers guy. I'm a problem solver. We had a mutual admiration and respect for our ability to thrive in the same game via different techniques. I feel the same about all you pace figure & sheets guys on this board. I'm blown away by how well you all perform and congratulate you for all your hard work paying off. Back when I first came on PA there were a lot of nice priced winners pegged by both cj of pacefigures.com fame and myself. I was posting more selections in those days. Somehow we landed on the same runners through completely different methods of analyzing races. I used to call those races "where intuition and figures collide." I think what those race results hinted at is: There are many, many ways to approach a race and no one approach is above or below another.

[njcurveball]

All power ratings which I have dissected are grossly weighted toward early speed.



Since you said ALL, I will respond by saying HTR has 2 Power ratings of note. The K rating and the HTR rating, they are very good numbers and do not fit your description above.

Since you continue to promote BRIS, I guess you are talking about their Power Rating.

[njcurveball]

Actually, if you were employing the Sartin/Brohamer methodology correctly, you would know this rather quickly, so I don't see why I would want to drop the Sartin ideology. Using Sartin-style methods and numbers would be ideal in zeroing in on this kind of bias towards late speed.

This is EXACTLY why many did so well with the Sartin stuff and why so many software vendors tried to duplicate the formulas.

Funny someone using late fractions would think different.

[socantra]

It also seems somewhat strange that anyone so opposed to "fancy-schmancy" computer programs would be touting the sheets and Bris pace figures, both of which are the product of "fancy-schmancy" computer programs.

I can see though why Gibbon has such a low opinion of computer handicapping if his understanding of it is that you simply bet the best "power number" in whatever program you use. I've never seen any reputable software vendor who advocated such an approach, but it would be the easiest for those who prefer not to think.

By the way, those Bris Ultimate Past Performances have a power number too.

[Gibbon]

Njcurveball,
Evidently you missed the part where I stated programs supported by HDW data. That's all right, this seems to be a common theme among handicappers. Read one sentence and ignore the context of the paragraph.

“...This is EXACTLY why many did so well with the Sartin stuff and why so many software vendors tried to duplicate the formulas...” --> Also, must be why “sheet” players dominate pools at big racing venues. Love taken money from Sartinistas.

BTW: I was not advertising for Bris. Simply stating sometimes {many times} simplicity rules over fancy computer apps.

Socantra,
Contrary to popular opinion I am not against computer apps. For the pro, modeling is an essential part of understanding your track. However, the vast, vast majority of players do no fit this description. You may find enlightenment by burying your noggin in an array of numbers on many different screens, but “sheet” player get one number representing a particular race.

Simplify, Simplify, and simplify.


how cliche,
A lucid post, thank you. Undoubtedly you clarion logic will be lost by many handicappers.









____________________________
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers. ~ Barry Meadow

[46zilzal]

A lucid post, thank yoYou may find enlightenment by burying your noggin in an array of numbers on many different screens, but “sheet” player get one number representing a particular race.


Amazingly naive and utterly passive without a modicum of personal evaluation.

[Gibbon]

....modicum of personal evaluation. If you wish to pursue further....

Speed to Spare by Joe Cardello

The Odds Must Be Crazy by Len Friedman

Blinkers Off by Cary Fotias

The road to simplicity – the road to recover from Sartin's cult will be a difficult one.






_______________________________________
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers. ~ Barry Meadow

[njcurveball]

For those who use HDW data supported computer Apps...
This method is nowhere near as effective as Bris. Jim Cramer has a unique way of crafting his numbers which does not lead to predictive late pace figs. Cramer's early pace figs may rule dirt tracks but - no one is perfect.


Nope, I read it, didn't think you meant their power numbers was good by what you wrote, my mistake.


p.s. I real ALL the sentences, but I do not read minds and sometimes cannot see the agenda of people who post on this board. Obviously you are promoting BRIS and the Sheets. And indirectly the IGNORE button.

[njcurveball]

The road to simplicity – the road to recover from Sartin's cult will be a difficult one.



LOL! Now I see where you are headed. Salvation brother! :jump:

[Gibbon]

njcurveball,

Would it surprise you if I tell you I emphatically use HDW RS_Pos sheets the great fanfare? And I promote HDW every chance I get? But does this imply HDW supported apps are beyond criticism? I think not.

A adore Cramer's PSR's. However, I temper my enthusiasm with other sources of proprietary data.

As you may see, this is the dilemma. For the weekend warrior, how much are you willing to spend yearly on data downloads. It can add up real quick. Bris is on the cheap. {Except All Ways}









_______________________________
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers. ~ Barry Meadow

[Tom]

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us - specifically - what about the Sartin methodology is so bad? Remeber, specifically.

[46zilzal]

Davidowitz has an entire chapter calling it pseudo-science in Betting Thoroughbreds, so clones pick up on what a guru says!

[Gibbon]

Tom,

I have attempted to explain the inherent contradictions of Sartin in the past. But since Sartin is a guru my word are futile. I'll start a new thread and elaborate this Monday/Tuesday when I have more time.

In the mean time you can read the words of a poster much more eloquent and wiser than little old me.

post # 19 here (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27138&page=2&pp=15) entitled "analysis leads to paralysis"

and reply from post # 23 same thread.







_________________________________
The Internet has vastly expanded the number of players who claim to be winners....On the typical handicapping message board, almost nobody admits they're consistent losers. ~ Barry Meadow

[46zilzal]

I have attempted to explain the inherent contradictions of Sartin in the past. But since Sartin is a guru my word are futile. I'll start a new thread and elaborate this Monday/Tuesday when I have more time.


The thing about the Sartin method is that the sum is greater than it's parts. It was designed for widespread use with lots of redundancy for the many idiots who used it as a black box, for which it was never designed other than as a selling point.

You have to "get it," to make it work and MOST give up before that epiphany strikes them.

HINT: you only use a small part of it for sprints, another small part for routes and yet another small part of it for the turf, SELECTIVELY.

Guru? I never once thought that. The methodology continues to grow by the feedback of the many users out there who exchange ideas.

Now outside of the veiled secrecy it once was promoted under, the explanations are cogent and relevant.

[Tom]

Tom,

In the mean time you can read the words of a poster much more eloquent and wiser than little old me.
post # 19 here (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27138&page=2&pp=15) entitled "analysis leads to paralysis"
and reply from post # 23 same thread.


Two posts by guys who don't understand pace handicapping......proves what, exactly?????

[Gibbon]

Tom,

Of course you're right - we must always consider the source.

How about a respected source. Meadow's Racing Monthly did an expose in October 1997. Excerpt available here (http://www.trpublishing.com/p0000443.htm).







_______________________
Winning may not be everything, but losing has little to recommend it.

[DanG]

Tom,

Of course you're right - we must always consider the source.

How about a respected source. Meadow's Racing Monthly did an expose in October 1997. Excerpt available here (http://www.trpublishing.com/p0000443.htm).

Gibby,

Wasn’t it a Meadow article where they had a challenge and bet a live bankroll and did very well with the methodology? I could be wrong, but that newsletter looks exactly like a copy Sartin himself used to send with introductory materials.

Anyway…

I could never figure out what people are trying to achieve in denigrating “Sartin” and especially using his last name to throw a blanket over so many variables.

Sartin is one of the men in this sport that if he was removed from history it would greatly alter the future. It doesn’t matter what you think of him as an individual or the “myths” surrounding the methodology. He is directly involved in exposing us to some of the greatest minds this sport has to offer. Many of which have taken the groups original concepts far beyond what the good doctor proposed.

What is the actual debate? :confused:







Incremental velocity isn’t valid and / or doesn’t work in experienced hands?
“The sheets are driving a large % of many pools”…Exactly! And that’s the reason to use the same information base as your competition? :confused:

I was a sheet player…One of my partners is currently a sheet player and I have access to them indirectly every day. I can say with no ego that I have changed his approach for the better and shown him another dimension to final time that has increased our overlays drastically. The main focus of our “sheet” collaboration is to determine when the majority of TG players will likely read the same pattern and over bet accordingly.

I’m getting off the tracks here, but for so many years I’ve heard Sartin referred to in less than flattering terms and if you weren’t directly screwed in a business transaction, then I really don’t get it. If you don’t use / like / understand the methods…fine, who really cares... but to go out of ones way to attack something that works for a portion of gamblers is just a waste of effort IMHO.

[Tom]

Gibbon, if you think a guy who supposedly "protects" the horseplayer while selling his own products respectable, go right ahead. I do not hold Barry in any great respect nor do I give a crap what he has to say - on any subject,

The fact of the matter is, no matter what an dipstick says, the ONLY proof abouthte methodology is if it works or not. Neither you nor Barry has ever proven that. Do you always let other people do your thining for you? No wonder you do not understand pce. The Doc would call you a "one-ball juggler." Some here will get the inside joke! Hahahahahahaha!

[how cliche]

Hi Gibbon. While you personally do not utilize The Sartin Methodology, attempt to have an open mind about it & the good players who do. These colleagues, many of whom post on this site are quite successful, & it's success that we all seek, is it not? Explain your position in a constructively critical way or just stop it. Okay?

[46zilzal]

When I lecture on the Methodology to groups of new handicappers, I open with an analogy: "NOTHING works all the time, there is no holy grail as on any given day one of many solid systems will work. I know one that works very well but it is not the only one."

Then I liken sucess at the races as climbing a mountain. There is no ONE road to get there, but the one I am going to lecture on today is ONE of them.

[DanG]

There is no ONE road to get there, but the one I am going to lecture on today is ONE of them.
46,

Is this really you talking, or are you being held hostage and someone has commandeered your keyboard. :faint: :cool: :)

[GaryG]

There is no ONE road to get there, but the one I am going to lecture on today is ONE of them.I take the Long and Winding Road whenever possible...

[Tom]

You take the high road, and I'll take the low road.

[46zilzal]

46,

Is this really you talking, or are you being held hostage and someone has commandeered your keyboard.
That anaology puts people in the position that there is no one way to do anything. That has been the feedback so I continue to use it.

[classhandicapper]

This is just a general commentary.

I must have a somewhat unique perspective on handicapping because there are obviously some extemely bright and successful people here that are using methods that I would reject almost immediately.

IMHO, the goal of the handicapper should be to get at the underlying truth about race results and thoroughbred performance. I think value flows from superior understanding and more accurate measurements of reality.

There are all sorts of methods being used that to me are obviously very flawed. They get at bits and pieces of that "truth" but they often select horses that are almost obviously not the best horse, most likely winner, or even good value because of those huge flaws.

Some of those bad horses win, but they typcially win for the wrong reasons, not because the method uncovered some hidden aspect of their ability. They win because the best horse had a horrible trip, got hurt etc... or because the selected horse unexpectedly improved.

I can assure you I don't have some sort of monopoly on the truth etc... I'm still a pretty mediocre turf handicapper and am clueless on the artificial surfaces for example (among other things).

However, my eventual goal is to understand those types of races and to measure the horses' performances better, not to simply find a method that picks occasional live long shots and eeks out a profit while often having very little to do with reality.

I guess I never really thought about it any other way.

[46zilzal]

Some of those bad horses win, but they typcially win for the wrong reasons, not because the method uncovered some hidden aspect of their ability. They win because the best horse had a horrible trip, got hurt etc... or because the selected horse unexpectedly improved.


That is why randomness must always be your associate when handicapping. No one can predict getting boxed in, the rider losing an iron or dropping the whip, a mis-step etc.

[Tom]

I'm not looking for truth or the best horse. I'm looking for profits and the horse most likely to win today, at acceptable odds. The best horse is usually an underlay and looses 60-70% of the time. Secretariat got beat more than once. Was he beat by the better horse?

I am at my best on tuf and poly because I look for winning stiuations or pattern in today's situation, not any truth, understanding, or who is the best horse. Cigar was beaten repeatedly on grass.

I can't speak for others, but my methods do not pick lousy horses - they rate all horses and I use my models and profile to see which ones best fit today's situation. I do the only picking. As Ainsle once said, "Now is how."

And like Robin William once said, "If you find Miss Right, settle for Miss Right Now. :lol:

[cj]

You'll be looking a long time to cash on $50, $60 and even $100 horses if you get detailed. Not only does that make the game more exciting as a player, it is also where I get most of my profits, the occasional bomber.

[classhandicapper]

I believe you guys are misunderstanding my point.

My grandmother used to play horses. She had no idea what she was doing, but as far as she was concerned she had a system that helped her pick live longshots.

She did cash loads of longshots over time, but there wasn't much basis in reality for her methodology. Her horses sometimes won because every horse has some chance of winning and sometimes she stumbled onto a big winner. Crazy things happen in racing. Horses improve dramatically with no clue beforehand, terrific horses go off form, sometimes multiple contenders get into trouble etc...

So naturally, at the end of the day, she didn't net out to profits.

There is a huge difference between identifying a horse that REALLY has a better chance to win than the odds suggest and stumbling onto occasional long shot winners because your data and methdology are wrong but something worked out well because of the randomness of the game. The latter are underlays.

To know the difference, IMO you need to improve your measurement and understanding of reality.

You don't have to play the high rated horse or most likely winner if there is no value, but if someone figures close on your figures at 10-1, you need to know that he really has a very good chance to win and not that your figures are just wrong. If the horse wins, that does not mean the figures were right (as explained above).

That's why I refuse to accept anything that I know is very flawed even when it picks a lot of winners. I can't tell which of the highly rated contenders are really overlays and which are only highly rated because the methodology is wrong.

Even if you can net out to slight profits when a flawed method is used well because there is at least some underlying relation to reality, I can't see how the goal can be anything other than to have the best possible measurement and understanding of racing results.

[Tom]

I really do not think you have the basis to call anyone's methods flawed. You can call it different from yours, which I think is entirely too complicated and deep to be useful to my method of play. But flawed, you have no grounds to make that call.

"That's why I refuse to accept anything that I know is very flawed even when it picks a lot of winners. "

To me, that is a ridiculous statement. Seriously ridiculous. If it picks winners, is making a profit, how in hell can you call it flowed????? You are far to concerned with the trip than the destination. You would make a great bus driver, but let me off at Atlantic City!:eek::lol:

[classhandicapper]

I am at my best on tuf and poly because I look for winning situations or patterns in today's situation, not any truth, understanding, or who is the best horse. Cigar was beaten repeatedly on grass.

You are doing what I am suggesting.

I am not talking about taking Cigar on grass because he has the high dirt figure. That would obviously be a beginner's error.

I'm talking about having special insights into grass racing/poly that allow you really understand which horses are the major contenders, which is the most likely winner etc.. so you can determine if there are any overlays. You can't do that with a flawed method of measurement and flawed understanding of grass/poly racing and expect to excel.

I see successful people using methods I would reject immediately even if they work because I know something vastly superior can be developed with the proper understanding.

I know from experience that I still don't have an understanding of grass racing that's on a par with dirt racing. I can win, but only by being extremely selective and sticking with a handful of situation I do understand. My methods of measuring performance and ability on turf aren't even close to my ability on dirt.

[classhandicapper]

I know from experience that I still don't have an understanding of grass racing that's on a par with dirt racing. I can win, but only by being extremely selective and sticking with a handful of situations I do understand. My methods of measuring performance and ability on turf aren't even close to my ability on dirt.

add one thing....

On grass I often find myself loving a longshot because he has my top rating or figures real close. Then watch as the horse barely lifts a hoof. Sometimes I hate the favorite and he romps for fun. That kind of thing happens to me in dirt racing also because it's part of randomness too, but not nearly as often. Plus I usually at least understand the odds and results.

On turf, I often find myself shaking my head about the odds and results after the fact.

That screams that my understanding of turf racing and my measurement of ability is very flawed on turf even though I manage to eek out profits by being very selective.

[46zilzal]

That screams that my understanding of turf racing and my measurement of ability is very flawed on turf even though I manage to eek out profits by being very selective.
Read Pizzola's Handicapping Magic. It radically changed my fortunes with the blade runners.

[Greyfox]

add one thing....


That screams that my understanding of turf racing and my measurement of ability is very flawed on turf even though I manage to eek out profits by being very selective.

Maybe the available "measuring sticks" for turf are flawed.
1. where's the fence today in comparison to the previous races?
2. was the turf really firm or....?
3. was the gate the same?
4. were there too few races on the card to get a proper variant?

I can score too on turf. But not with as much confidence. In Figure Handicapping , James Quinn had a suggestion for turf assessments and gave figs for various tracks. I haven't seen any recent ones of that nature though.

[classhandicapper]

Maybe the available "measuring sticks" for turf are flawed.
1. where's the fence today in comparison to the previous races?
2. was the turf really firm or....?
3. was the gate the same?
4. were there too few races on the card to get a proper variant?

I can score too on turf. But not with as much confidence. In Figure Handicapping , James Quinn had a suggestion for turf assessments and gave figs for various tracks. I haven't seen any recent ones of that nature though.

I think that's part of the problem, but somehow the odds are typically more efficient than my own views. So the public is overcoming some of those difficulties.

[46zilzal]

Turf racing is all about making one late sustained run. Simple as that most of the time.

[classhandicapper]

Turf racing is all about making one late sustained run. Simple as that most of the time.

I agree that the races develop differently.

As a result, IMO, speed and pace figures are less effective because they are both less accurate and sometimes less relevant.

One still needs to develop an effective way of measuring performance that acknowledges these differences and is also reasonably accurate.

Every "late pace" and "hybrid" model I have looked at is sensible in terms of what it is trying to accomplish. They even pick winners. But IMO they do not measure the relationship between pace and closing ability accurately enough to produce ratings that allow you to form solid opinions on ability/performance so you can make reasonable odds line estimates. In fact, the results are sometimes so preposterous it screams and shouts that they are wildly flawed.

That's the problem.

Sure, maybe it's possible to win a little with these models if you have some good insights, but I can guarantee you that a lot of your opinions will be wildly off the mark with these models because they are so flawed.

That's been my point.

It seems like many people are putting their energy into winning with crappy models and ratings. My own energy is typically directed towards understanding the different racing style and the relationships between pace and closing ability so I can create a better model. My assumption is that when I have a superior model, the profits will flow to me.

Now granted I admit I don't have a good model yet, but I understand many of the problems with the existing ones.

[46zilzal]

Racing is not as layered into as many compartments as many would think. There are no subatomic particles to a race.

Often it is just a few simple factors. Any greater analysis does not hold up race to race.

[cj]

That's the problem.

Sure, maybe it's possible to win a little with these models if you have some good insights, but I can guarantee you that a lot of your opinions will be wildly off the mark with these models because they are so flawed.

That's been my point.


I think you are vastly underestimating the value of winning actual cash. If you are winning, you may bet some very bad horses, but it doesn't mean your opinion is far off the mark. I bet a lot of horse that I know have a better chance of finishing last than first. Does that make them bad bets?

[classhandicapper]

I think you are vastly underestimating the value of winning actual cash. If you are winning, you may bet some very bad horses, but it doesn't mean your opinion is far off the mark. I bet a lot of horse that I know have a better chance of finishing last than first. Does that make them bad bets?

No.

If you bet a horse that's good value even though he has a low probability of winning, that's fine. I also do that when I think I know something about a horse that's not fully reflected on the odds board even though he's not the most likely winner.

If you bet a horse that you "think" is good value, but your figures are wrong or you are misunderstanding significant aspects of the race, you are not really playing an overlay. You are actually losing money over the long haul even if that particular one happens to win, because he wasn't really good value. It's kind of like getting 4-1 on a roll of dice and winning.

There are times I look at figures and know they can't possibly be reflective of the true ability of the horses because of other insights I have. When I see that, I'm usually right. If it happens often enough, I know there's a problem with the model being used etc... That makes me very skeptical of all the figures using that model. So I try to improve it rather than refining my use of it. When it comes to turf, I've had limited success at measuring and understanding results and performances. But I do believe a great model exists. I just don't have it yet.

[Tom]

You and Joe should get together - you both seem to be looking for reasons not to win. ;)

[cj]

The key for me is not to get too comprehensive. The more factors you try and consider, the more likely you are to land on the same exact horses as the public. The more you can do things in a completely different direction than the public, the more you will win if your ideas are valid.

This has gotten off topic, but polytrack is proving to be a real source of profits for me now that there is a decent sized sample of races to study.

[classhandicapper]

You and Joe should get together - you both seem to be looking for reasons not to win. ;)

Tom,

I win plenty, but I prefer doing it by actually understanding what's going on. ;)

[classhandicapper]

The key for me is not to get too comprehensive. The more factors you try and consider, the more likely you are to land on the same exact horses as the public.

I actually agree with this, but I draw a different conclusion from it.

I believe that's because the public is using all the relevant information and weighing it quite effectively in setting the odds. So when you disagree, it's hard to know if you are missing or wrong about something or actually have an overlay.

That's why the game is so difficult beat.

You have to look for the little things you know the public does wrong by having better data or a better understanding of it (preferably both).

I still don't have much of either on turf or poly.

[Greyfox]

If the thread is about poly, Joe Kristufek is touting that it has brought new life back to Arlington Park. He cites the following average payouts:

Arlington's Average Exotic Wager Payoffs (May 4 - June 24)

$2 Daily Double -- $114
$2 Exacta -- $109
$1 Trifecta -- $409
$1 Superfecta -- $3,388
$1 Pick 3 -- $562
$1 Pick 4 -- $3,160

Joe's "blog" is at
http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=feature&id=26187

[classhandicapper]

Is that evidence that it's brought about new life to the racing or that handicappers can't figure out the form yet?

I apologize for taking this thread a little off topic earlier, but it really wasn't as far off as it looked.

Does anyone know off hand what the percentage of winning favorites on the various artifical surfaces and turf is vs. the low 30s on dirt?

[Overlay]

I believe that's because the public is using all the relevant information and weighing it quite effectively in setting the odds. So when you disagree, it's hard to know if you are missing or wrong about something or actually have an overlay.

Despite the public's general efficiency in odds-setting, race-to-race errors still occur because of the overrating of factors that may have a bearing on the outcome of the race, but not to the extent that the public thinks. If you make an odds-line that generally agrees with the public's estimation, I think it provides greater assurance that, when a discrepancy does arise, it will be due to an error on the public's part, rather than your own.

[classhandicapper]

Despite the public's general efficiency in odds-setting, race-to-race errors still occur because of the overrating of factors that may have a bearing on the outcome of the race, but not to the extent that the public thinks. If you make an odds-line that generally agrees with the public's estimation, I think it provides greater assurance that, when a discrepancy does arise, it will be due to an error on the public's part, rather than your own.

Exactly.

I have been saying the same thing, in another way.

If many of your figures disagree with the public odds and you keep watching those low rated favorites win and high rated longsots finish up the track, there is something wrong with your figures even if they can be used profitably. So why not try to fix them AND retain whatever value is embedded.

[Tom]

My figures are pointing out good bets - repeatedly on poly, cushion, foam, linoleum, turf, carpet and vinyl. I caught a $400 exacta - cold - with CJ's top two figs this winter at TP. I don't see any reason to wonder why the crwod is doing anyhting - I know for a fact, as a whole, they are losing.

[cj]

Exactly.

I have been saying the same thing, in another way.

If many of your figures disagree with the public odds and you keep watching those low rated favorites win and high rated longsots finish up the track, there is something wrong with your figures even if they can be used profitably. So why not try to fix them AND retain whatever value is embedded.

There are lots of things that make a horses odds in addition to figures. If you have a big figure and high odds, there is probably a reason other than the figure why the odds are high.

[Tom]

Am I off base here, or isn't that what I am looking for? :bang:

[cj]

It is what I am looking for, no doubt. It usually helps to understand why a horse is big odds. I think this is what classH is getting at in his posts. Usually, it might be as simple as your figures disagree with the Beyers, or the rider is terrible, or the trainer, or the horse ships in from a small track, etc.

Where he loses me is with stuff like this:

If many of your figures disagree with the public odds and you keep watching those low rated favorites win and high rated longsots finish up the track, there is something wrong with your figures even if they can be used profitably.

You already admit the game is very tough to beat. Once you are profitable, it is time to BET. If you keep tinkering around with numbers trying to make each one perfect, you are wasting your time. It is never going to happen. Even if you could eventually perfect every figure after watching most of the horses run back, it would be too late. The single most important factor is performance in the prior race.

If you are profitable, you are right often enough on the tough calls to beat the public. That is good enough for me.

[so.cal.fan]

Does anyone know what the percentage of favorites is at Hollywood?
The other polytracks/cushion tracks?

[BillW]

Does anyone know what the percentage of favorites is at Hollywood?
The other polytracks/cushion tracks?

yes... AP 29% down from 35% last year (fields increased by 1.25 and accounts for some of this decrease)

HOL 28% favs on dirt and 33% on synthetic with a 0.5 increase in field size on the synthetic.

[BillW]

Keeneland 35% on dirt at a field size of 7.99 and 30% on synthetic with a field size of 9.85

I don't have any dirt data for Turfway but for synthetic favs hit at 32% with an avg. field size of 8.87

[classhandicapper]

There are lots of things that make a horses odds in addition to figures. If you have a big figure and high odds, there is probably a reason other than the figure why the odds are high.

I agree, but I am talking about after being at least a little comprehensive.

If you keep selecting longshots based on a figure that's at the core of your handicapping and they often don't lift a hoof and you keep tossing favorites that are romping, you have to at least question what you are doing.

The difficulties of making accurate turf variants have been discussed to death and are part of the problem, but there are others.

1. Everyone agrees that turf paces tend to be slower than dirt paces, yet despite that closers do better on turf. If you give front runners extra pace credit for racing on the lead in an average or fast/average pace, it may be evaluting their performances properly, but they tend to get drawn into an average pace the next time too etc... So they collapase again despite the high rating.

2. If you rate horses strictly off closing times, you tend to overrate the deep closers because even though they might close fastest of all, they ususally have several lengths to make up from the top of the stretch home and are closing off slower fractions given that they were further off the pace.

3. If you try to capture the inter-relationship between the pace and closing times, you find that it's not at all easy or the same as dirt racing because the paces are different and are often more extreme relative to average for the class. There isn't a nice and neat relationship to work with the way some models try to do it.

The answer lies in #3, but IMO every method I have seen to date that tried to do this is still wildly flawed (including all my own attempts).

I think Poly racing is more or less spared from at least some of the variant issuses we see on turf (rails in or out, lack of races on which to base a varant, frequent pace extremes etc...), but I think some elements of the turf riddle are present on Poly because the race developments and paces are closer to turf than dirt racing.

[classhandicapper]

Keeneland 35% on dirt at a field size of 7.99 and 30% on synthetic with a field size of 9.85

I don't have any dirt data for Turfway but for synthetic favs hit at 32% with an avg. field size of 8.87

Thanks for those stats.

So basically your data suggests that the public is doing as good a job on synthetic as on dirt.

[cj]

If you keep selecting longshots based on a figure that's at the core of your handicapping and they often don't lift a hoof and you keep tossing favorites that are romping, you have to at least question what you are doing.

If you are consistently winning, why would you question this? The goal of the game isn't to pick winners, it is to win money. I know that is what my figures are geared to do. I wouldn't want them any other way.

[classhandicapper]

If you are consistently winning, why would you question this? The goal of the game isn't to pick winners, it is to win money. I know that is what my figures are geared to do. I wouldn't want them any other way.

The goal is to win as much money as possible and one part of that is having better figures and a better understanding of the races/handicapping riddle. I think you are missing my point entirely. I'm not just talking about picking winners. I'm talking about evaluating all the horses "properly" so you can actually recognize who the overlays are.

[cj]

I think I know exactly what you are talking about. However, there are conventional ways to do it, which you are advocating, and newer, unconventional ways. Both can work, but one takes a lot less work and is more profitable, in my opinion.

Further, the chances of this happening:

If you keep selecting longshots based on a figure that's at the core of your handicapping and they often don't lift a hoof and you keep tossing favorites that are romping, you have to at least question what you are doing.

and still winning money long term are slim and none.

[classhandicapper]

I think I know exactly what you are talking about. However, there are conventional ways to do it, which you are advocating, and newer, unconventional ways. Both can work, but one takes a lot less work and is more profitable, in my opinion.

I'm not talking about being wildly comprehensive in your handicapping here.

I'm talking about creating figures to be used at the core of your handicapping that actually reflect turf and poly ability better than those that exist now. How comprensive you want to get in your own handicapping after that would be a personal choice.