jhilden
03-07-2008, 03:10 PM
From what I read on this board, the general consensus for many is that computer software programs cannot pick constant winners, but point the handicapper to contenders worth further study. Also, there have been discussions on the merits of database regressions for finding plays. Even though the debate on computers and handicapping will continue forever, I still would like to open a discussion on computer experiences in handicapping
First ,more about me. I grew up in Philadelphia and had family in Queens. My parents traveled a lot so I would spend days with my great uncle who loved horseracing. When I was six, he started taking me to the Big A and Belmont. These trips continued until his death when I was ten. Since that time and until my 20’s, I never visited the track; I had more interest in girls, cars, and other sports. I was in the Marines until age 26 when I was medically discharged. This is when I started my interest in horseracing (Again) and became a frequent visitor of Philadelphia Park. The PP’s were foreign to me so I read as much as possible. My first books were Free’s “ Handicapping 101” and “ The Handicapper’s Condition Book” by Quinn. I then bought the “Best of Thoroughbred Handicapping”. I soon had an idea on how to handicap using a pencil and paper.
Once comfortable in dissecting the PP’s in a basic way, my thirst for knowledge expanded. I then read “Modern Pace handicapping”, soon my eyes opened and I crunched many numbers. This is when I first started keeping records documenting my plays and keeping track profiles and the losses diminished to the point of being acceptable for a fun day out at the track. But the work became tedious, so I started handicapping using MS Excel. With Excel, I set up a workbook that allowed me to punch in PP lines and output pace figs, a separate workbook for play documentation, and another for profiles. It was fun until the data entry became tedious also.
During this time, I still continued my pursuit of collecting handicapping books and systems (Most bought off ebay). I grabbed the Quirin and Scott trilogies, all books by Quinn and Cramer, and the DRF elements of handicapping series. I also got some of the Mitchell books and “Pace Makes the Race” by Schmidt and Hambleton. With this information overload, I needed to find a methodology, no matter how comprehensive, and get organized.
I soon discovered Brisnet and downloaded the manual for Allways. I read through the manual and found that many of the output screens had what I was looking for; it crunched the numbers for me and presented them in an organized format. I kind of balked at the price of the data files but I only planned to concentrate on one or two tracks, so I went for Allways. The results were not that bad, I was winning close enough to pay for the data files in no time. One day I turned $32 into $2k by winning a great trifecta; one of the few times that Allways had a high priced horse as a top pick. I was not necessarily using Allways for picks, but I paid attention to the horses it did pick. Without the big score, I was still performing mediocre with the program. After a year, minus the big score, I was at a slight loss. If I left out the money spent on data files, I would have been in the black. Plus at the time I was an engineering student and very computer savvy, so I wanted to go further in database analysis (Influenced by Quirin).
I discovered HTR and after looking over the trial and reading some of the documentation, I decided to take the jump into HDW land and pay for a monthly subscription. I justified the expense compared to Allways in that I could get data for every track in the country. The program was amazing to me. The screens were like PP’s on steroids and the trainer, jockey, and pedigree info was amazing. Exporting data into MS Access and studying took my game to the next level. With my training in statistics and risk assessment, I had a comfortable grasp on what to look for and what to caution. The one major problem I had was wagering. At this time in my life, for the horse playing equation, I had the handicapping down but not the wagering side. I grasped value, but somehow, was still making bad wagering decisions. I soon searched for a program that could help me in wagering. Plus, I wanted to play at a professional level and my wagering decisions kept me back
Then HSH came into play. Since David Schwartz has a disabled veteran’s discount, I had nothing to lose in trying the program except for the cost of data. I used both HTR and HSH together for awhile. But with two HDW accounts (I wish there was a discount for using multiple HDW data programs), I knew I had to drop one. It was a very tough decision, but I stayed with HSH. HSH did what I hoped it would, I improved on my wagering. I spent over 100 hours setting up and tweaking a method to use within the program. It is the closest thing to a black box I discovered – that is for picking contenders. I said close to a black box and this is after hours of research and set up. But, I still handicap further to justify picks. The program is not a black box out of the box; you need to do the work to get it close. For wagering, the method points to the value horses such as, the fourth pick may be the choice to bet, not the first ranked horse.
All in all, my experience with handicapping software has been a positive one. The most important point I learned was that out of the box, you cannot expect the program to be an automated system. You need to do the work and handicapping further should be conducted, especially when a high priced horse is your top pick.
As an example, HSH had an 8-1 horse as the top pick for the race. The favorite, who was 4/5 (Second pick), was a Scott Lake horse with Frankie Pennington riding and was second last out and dropping class, but, the horse did not meet the profile for the track. What to do? I set up my system to find the best three factors for a similar race level for claiming males on fast dirt for 8 furlong races. The factors it picked for the profile (In my database) were Early pace, Average Competitive Level, and Factor X. These factors were weighted so early pace got more weight and so on. Since the 8/1 had the top early pace figures and third for ACL and FX, it was top rated. After seeing this I knew I had to handicap further. I checked the 4/5 and noticed it had the best projected speed rating, sustained pace and class level. But again, it did not meet the profile. I then looked at the pace match up. The 8/1 had an ES of 8 but another horse had a 7 and looked to be in contention for the lead –it was 10/1. The 4/5 had an ES of 5 and looked to be near the front.
So the pace analysis looked to be a speed duel for the 8/1 and the other horse with the 4/5 staying back pressing. What the HSH system set up missed is that even though the 4/5 was not the best EP horse (Which the profile was set up for), it still had enough early speed to be near the front and win. I decide to skip the race as the 4/5 showed no value and ended up going off at 3/5. When the race was ran. The 8/1 shot to the front with the 10/1 horse staying back. By the second call the 8/1 was leading by three lengths with the 3/5 next. In the stretch the 8/1 hung on but was taken over by the 3/5 - the 8/1 lost by a length; a great effort, but not enough to win.
I have plenty more real life examples were a mid priced horse looked favorable and the favorite vulnerable and I won big. This is what I like about computer handicapping; in an instant the program sets up the race for the conditions I have set pointing to the contenders. The program has other screens to check these results and allows me to view this in an organized format making the handicapping decisions a bit easier.
What is your experience in computer handicapping?
First ,more about me. I grew up in Philadelphia and had family in Queens. My parents traveled a lot so I would spend days with my great uncle who loved horseracing. When I was six, he started taking me to the Big A and Belmont. These trips continued until his death when I was ten. Since that time and until my 20’s, I never visited the track; I had more interest in girls, cars, and other sports. I was in the Marines until age 26 when I was medically discharged. This is when I started my interest in horseracing (Again) and became a frequent visitor of Philadelphia Park. The PP’s were foreign to me so I read as much as possible. My first books were Free’s “ Handicapping 101” and “ The Handicapper’s Condition Book” by Quinn. I then bought the “Best of Thoroughbred Handicapping”. I soon had an idea on how to handicap using a pencil and paper.
Once comfortable in dissecting the PP’s in a basic way, my thirst for knowledge expanded. I then read “Modern Pace handicapping”, soon my eyes opened and I crunched many numbers. This is when I first started keeping records documenting my plays and keeping track profiles and the losses diminished to the point of being acceptable for a fun day out at the track. But the work became tedious, so I started handicapping using MS Excel. With Excel, I set up a workbook that allowed me to punch in PP lines and output pace figs, a separate workbook for play documentation, and another for profiles. It was fun until the data entry became tedious also.
During this time, I still continued my pursuit of collecting handicapping books and systems (Most bought off ebay). I grabbed the Quirin and Scott trilogies, all books by Quinn and Cramer, and the DRF elements of handicapping series. I also got some of the Mitchell books and “Pace Makes the Race” by Schmidt and Hambleton. With this information overload, I needed to find a methodology, no matter how comprehensive, and get organized.
I soon discovered Brisnet and downloaded the manual for Allways. I read through the manual and found that many of the output screens had what I was looking for; it crunched the numbers for me and presented them in an organized format. I kind of balked at the price of the data files but I only planned to concentrate on one or two tracks, so I went for Allways. The results were not that bad, I was winning close enough to pay for the data files in no time. One day I turned $32 into $2k by winning a great trifecta; one of the few times that Allways had a high priced horse as a top pick. I was not necessarily using Allways for picks, but I paid attention to the horses it did pick. Without the big score, I was still performing mediocre with the program. After a year, minus the big score, I was at a slight loss. If I left out the money spent on data files, I would have been in the black. Plus at the time I was an engineering student and very computer savvy, so I wanted to go further in database analysis (Influenced by Quirin).
I discovered HTR and after looking over the trial and reading some of the documentation, I decided to take the jump into HDW land and pay for a monthly subscription. I justified the expense compared to Allways in that I could get data for every track in the country. The program was amazing to me. The screens were like PP’s on steroids and the trainer, jockey, and pedigree info was amazing. Exporting data into MS Access and studying took my game to the next level. With my training in statistics and risk assessment, I had a comfortable grasp on what to look for and what to caution. The one major problem I had was wagering. At this time in my life, for the horse playing equation, I had the handicapping down but not the wagering side. I grasped value, but somehow, was still making bad wagering decisions. I soon searched for a program that could help me in wagering. Plus, I wanted to play at a professional level and my wagering decisions kept me back
Then HSH came into play. Since David Schwartz has a disabled veteran’s discount, I had nothing to lose in trying the program except for the cost of data. I used both HTR and HSH together for awhile. But with two HDW accounts (I wish there was a discount for using multiple HDW data programs), I knew I had to drop one. It was a very tough decision, but I stayed with HSH. HSH did what I hoped it would, I improved on my wagering. I spent over 100 hours setting up and tweaking a method to use within the program. It is the closest thing to a black box I discovered – that is for picking contenders. I said close to a black box and this is after hours of research and set up. But, I still handicap further to justify picks. The program is not a black box out of the box; you need to do the work to get it close. For wagering, the method points to the value horses such as, the fourth pick may be the choice to bet, not the first ranked horse.
All in all, my experience with handicapping software has been a positive one. The most important point I learned was that out of the box, you cannot expect the program to be an automated system. You need to do the work and handicapping further should be conducted, especially when a high priced horse is your top pick.
As an example, HSH had an 8-1 horse as the top pick for the race. The favorite, who was 4/5 (Second pick), was a Scott Lake horse with Frankie Pennington riding and was second last out and dropping class, but, the horse did not meet the profile for the track. What to do? I set up my system to find the best three factors for a similar race level for claiming males on fast dirt for 8 furlong races. The factors it picked for the profile (In my database) were Early pace, Average Competitive Level, and Factor X. These factors were weighted so early pace got more weight and so on. Since the 8/1 had the top early pace figures and third for ACL and FX, it was top rated. After seeing this I knew I had to handicap further. I checked the 4/5 and noticed it had the best projected speed rating, sustained pace and class level. But again, it did not meet the profile. I then looked at the pace match up. The 8/1 had an ES of 8 but another horse had a 7 and looked to be in contention for the lead –it was 10/1. The 4/5 had an ES of 5 and looked to be near the front.
So the pace analysis looked to be a speed duel for the 8/1 and the other horse with the 4/5 staying back pressing. What the HSH system set up missed is that even though the 4/5 was not the best EP horse (Which the profile was set up for), it still had enough early speed to be near the front and win. I decide to skip the race as the 4/5 showed no value and ended up going off at 3/5. When the race was ran. The 8/1 shot to the front with the 10/1 horse staying back. By the second call the 8/1 was leading by three lengths with the 3/5 next. In the stretch the 8/1 hung on but was taken over by the 3/5 - the 8/1 lost by a length; a great effort, but not enough to win.
I have plenty more real life examples were a mid priced horse looked favorable and the favorite vulnerable and I won big. This is what I like about computer handicapping; in an instant the program sets up the race for the conditions I have set pointing to the contenders. The program has other screens to check these results and allows me to view this in an organized format making the handicapping decisions a bit easier.
What is your experience in computer handicapping?