Handicapping Method Vs Spot Play Angles

[InFront]

I was curious if players are more successful with using a handicapping method formula vs raw spot play angles? What I mean is it better to develop a handicapping method where you use several factors combined in a overall formula to compare each horse to one another in every race in trying to come up with the winner. This means that the horse is picked to win based on which other horses are in the race. A simple example of this: horse must be in the top 4 speed ratings, has the highest win% jockey in the race and has the best late pace number. So this type of handicapping is influence by exactly what horses in the race.

Or is using raw spot play angles to pick winners a better approach? What I mean by this is a horse is picked based on certain factors it has REGARDLESS what horses are in the field. An example of this: play any beaten favorite last race that ran 4th or worse but was within 10 lengths of the winner. So this would qualify any horse as an automatic play no matter what horses it's running against.

These are just some silly examples to make it clear. From my own experience over the years it seems the best approach is a combination of rules using BOTH a handicapping formula combined with a spot play angle to pick winners that may be profitable. An example of this would be: horse must have best last race speed, in top 4 early pace ratings, odds last race over 6/1, not won last race and has trainer with over a 12% win rate. As you can see by these rules we are sort of combining a "comparison handicapping formula" that compares horse to horse but at the same time have some "raw spot play angles" mixed in.

Curious to see what others think is the best approach?

[Overlay]

I think a method formula that takes account of all the horses in a race is the way to go, but (as you implied) it needs to provide some means of judging whether the final selection is worth a bet at its posted odds. If you're seeking a single horse to play, then the more criteria you apply to arrive at that horse, the greater the chance that the one that survives the screening will be a heavily-bet underlay.

A better approach would be to take those factors and apply the probabilities associated with them (rather than using them as strict elimination criteria), so that you can come up with an estimation of the winning chances of each horse in the field. Then you can capitalize on betting value wherever in the field it might be found. (However, the factors have to be balanced with regard to the major handicapping areas; weighted properly according to their degree of influence on race outcomes; and also sufficiently strong that they'll retain their predictive effectiveness, regardless of the final odds the horse goes off at. If they meet those criteria, it will provide greater confidence that, when a horse goes off at odds higher than the winning probability you've calculated for it, it will be as a result of a genuine error on the part of the public, rather than in your own assessment.)

Spot-play angles that deal in selecting a single horse based on a particular factor or combination of factors without regard to the other horses in the field have the weakness of losing profitability as knowledge of the angle becomes more and more widespread. At a minimum, they need to factor acceptable odds into the picture, but they still run the double risk of horses with those odds or higher not winning frequently enough to make a profit, and then eventually reaching the point where all angle horses are bet down below acceptable odds, which then forces you to begin the search for another as-yet-undiscovered angle to play.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I find methods better for betting other than win in more varied types of races overall and depending on consistent horses, and angles for certain situations that come up and comparing horses.

[Capper Al]

I use my formula first then hunt for angles and value. Formulas give order to the selections. One should get to know their own formula's strengths and weakness by keeping records. No system is perfect. Your top numeric formula pick will probably be a favorite a lot of the time. Remember, the numbers in the past performance lines determines the favorites most of the time. The favorites are right one third of the time. Therefore, numbers indirectly can only lead us to one third of the information that we need when selecting a bet.

[K9Pup]

A simple example of this: horse must be in the top 4 speed ratings, has the highest win% jockey in the race and has the best late pace number. So this type of handicapping is influence by exactly what horses in the race.

Curious to see what others think is the best approach?

Some people even consider this method a "spot" play. In this case you are filtering all races looking for horses that qualify for your filters. Really not much different than looking for horses that fit spots, except of course this process DOES compare each horse in the race against all others.

What I've found (and few spot players will admit) is that SUCCESSFUL picks made by spot plays in MOST cases are also high on the list from the handicapping point of view.

[wonatthewire1]

Good topic question!

Overlay wrote:

"Spot-play angles that deal in selecting a single horse based on a particular factor or combination of factors without regard to the other horses in the field have the weakness of losing profitability as knowledge of the angle becomes more and more widespread."

Depends on how 'widespread' the angle becomes...though I tend to look at some interesting combinations that have been leading me to nice overlays (no pun intended).

I have been using several angles but will only bet when I have at least 2 of them present on a horse - therefore, I'm looking at it with combination of angles. This also gets me out of betting too many races where my edge is not that great. The most difficult thing for me lately has been getting acceptable odds at 2-3 minutes to post. A work in progress with win betting. The exacta is looking promising as well with this type of waging as it gets 10 horse fields down to 2-4 'playable' horses.

The combination approach has been working well for me and I'll keep pursuing that method of play for now - but as a weeknight and weekend warrior - I don't know how much patience I would have if I was trying to wager full-time.

[Cangamble]

One of my favorite overlay angles is what I call the "Filly Rule." If a filly/mare finished first or second, or had the lead by one length or more at any of the calls in the last race, I throw her out. It takes a lot of guts and sometimes a lot of stupidity to do it.

This is a very difficult rule to follow, and I sometimes can't follow it. But many of my most profitable days, were days when I cashed on filly races.

It is a rule for the long term. Inevitably that is what it is all about when it comes to having a chance to win at the races.

I don't do it with the boys, because I find fillies to be more inconsistant.

[InFront]

Thanks to all who replied. I have found this a good approach too. First to have a spot play angle that applies both handicapping rules and straight forward spot play rules to make one overall angle. Then only play a horse if 2 or more of these what I call "spot play handicapped angles" apply. These seems to help boost a single angle's overall win% but of course at the same time cuts down on plays.

[Overlay]

Aside from the concerns about possible loss of profitability through overbetting and/or use of too many angles that I mentioned earlier, I also see a problem in playing angles due to their almost infinite variety. Even if you find a horse with an angle (or even a combination of angles) that you consider reliable and applicable to a given race, how can you be sure that one (or more) of the other horses in the race don't have another set of factors working for it/them that are more powerful, and that you might not even be aware of, because you were focused on finding and betting only the one horse that fit the particular profile you were looking for? Whereas evaluating the winning chances of each horse in a race field by using probabilities associated with a properly selected variety of fundamental performance factors provides a basis for judging both the likelihood of winning for each horse, and the degree of value that the horse is offering. To me, that assessment of value is the primary question that a handicapping approach has to address in order to produce consistent, long-term positive returns.

[InFront]

Good point. While there are dozens of handicapping factors there are thousands of ways one can use them. So as you say I may like a horse cause of one angle I developed not aware that other horses in the race have other angles going for them I'm not aware of. But that could be said about any thing even handicapping probability methods. We base our opinion on research of PAST races and then hope what we find holds up in future races like a race today. But who says that the trainer of that horse is going for a win, the horse likes this track, feels good, etc. There are so many variables in racing which is why the favorite loses more often than not. Why these bomber horses win like favorites, etc. This no doubt a tough game. But I do believe that whenever using any kind of spot play angle there must be at least one or more comparison handicapping rules to at least make sure we some how compare one horse to another.

[BIG RED]

Simple for me to answer this Infront, raw spots.

Do decent in all plays here and there (6 circuits), but it's my spots that are my bread and butter.

[Overlay]

We base our opinion on research of PAST races and then hope what we find holds up in future races like a race today. But who says that the trainer of that horse is going for a win, the horse likes this track, feels good, etc. There are so many variables in racing which is why the favorite loses more often than not.

Absolutely. There will always be variables that we have no knowledge of or control over. Betting with the percentages of the game, and using factors that have demonstrated their durability, applicability, and consistency over time and the broadest range of racing circumstances, are the best ways I've found of assuring that those unknown (and perhaps unknowable) elements break in my favor often enough to provide an edge.

[InFront]

One of the problems I encounter when using a handicapping method that compares each horse to one another is late scratches. Since our research is based on PAST races that already eliminate scratched horses to use these formulas for todays races all scratches must be first eliminated. The problem is for me anyway is it seems most tracks don't release their scratches about a hour before post time and since tracks run all day long you have to constantly wait for final scratches before accurately handicapping each race at that track. You can many times have no play in some races according to your handicapping process but now have a play due to some scratches. I was wondering how you handle scratches? I like to do all my handicapping the night before which is sometimes a waste of time since it has to be redone right before post time of each track due to late scratches to be done accurately that is.

[Overlay]

I share your frustration with the need for recalculation due to late scratches. Using a quantitative approach helps me in that regard, because it reduces recalculating to assigning new ranks/values and refiguring resulting products and ratios, rather than consuming time by having to make subjective judgments about the effects of the scratches. And since I already have all my prior calculations with me when I bet, broken down by the individual elements in my method, this doesn't take an inordinate amount of time. Like you, I usually handicap the night before, but I can also develop an odds line for a race from scratch in the time between races as they are run, so making late changes to a line that I've already calculated doesn't take that long. (To deal with the increased time pressures of multi-track simulcasting, I also have a shorthand approach for making the same calculations when necessary that I've found arrives at acceptably similar results. I concentrate on the most powerful of the variables from my normal handicapping (speed), and supplement it only with values from the other basic handicapping areas that are so high or low that they qualify as independent variables, so that even less calculation is required.)