What place hunch/intuition/your own eyes?

[WinterTriangle]

I did well at Oaklawn this season. Watching saddle-up in paddock area, write down in a notebook what I *see*, often caused me to change my picks.

I did that for the TC and my notes say (in no particular order) DoC, Ready, DaTara.

Instead, I keyed BB on top when I placed my wagers.:D (I *wanted* to believe!)

I used my hunches on R#9 & R#10, changed the order of my original picks, and ended up playing exacta placed Exactas 5,3 & 10,5. Won back what I was soon-to-lose on the TC. :)

How often do you go with a hunch/intuition/own eyes--- over your original picks?

I need more confidence in my own system, which is often based on what I *think* I see when I view the horses live.

[KMS]

How often do you go with a hunch/intuition/own eyes--- over your original picks?



Never. I try to be completely systematic. I know some people do well with seat of the pants handicapping, for lack of a better term. It's never worked for me. I'm a math guy, and that's how I approach handicapping.

Now if I see my pick obviously limping in the post parade, or something of that nature, that's different.

[Jeff P]

My selection process is about as close to 100 pct computer automated as I can make it - with computer algorithms selecting in seconds what I myself would select had I spent 30-40 minutes "handicapping" each race.

That said, IMHO, me betting anything other than one of my automated selections is just me losing control and failing to maintain discipline.

I don't care how you handicap or what you use as tools to handicap. IMHO discipline is THE most important aspect of successful play. Period.


-jp

.

[Overlay]

I'm kind of torn between Winter Triangle's comments and Jeff's/KMS' viewpoints. On the one hand, I wish I could be more visual/intuitive, not necessarily as a complete substitute for my quantitative approach, but as a supplement to it. (I often marveled at my friend falconridge's intuitive aptitude on our trips to the track.) On the other hand, I think Jeff makes a valid point that the more qualitative an approach becomes, the harder it is to apply criteria and make handicapping/wagering decisions on a consistent basis from race to race. Plus, with the greatly increased prevalence of simulcasting and off-track play, it seems to me that it almost forces the player to rely more on the quantitative. (However, I guess there's still room for the intuitive aspect in the sense of reading between the lines of the past performances to answer the question that Steve Davidowitz recommended asking about each horse -- "What's he doing in today's race?" -- as it relates to subjects like trainer patterns and intent.)

[46zilzal]

My selection process is about as close to 100 pct computer automated as I can make it - with computer algorithms selecting in seconds what I myself would select had I spent 30-40 minutes "handicapping" each race.


.
Doesn't that indicate that all of those algorithms weigh each factor the same when it truth, factors are very different race to race?

[Tom Barrister]

Doesn't that indicate that all of those algorithms weigh each factor the same when it truth, factors are very different race to race?

Perhaps his JCapper "alogrithms" (UDMs, I believe) have already taken into account the different conditions, tracks, factors, pace-shape, etc. that make up each race.

As far as going with hunches, that's for the birds. Visual inspection of the horses in the paddock, post-parade, and warming up is another matter, provided the person viewing such knows what to look for and how to interpret it.

[BCOURTNEY]

Never. I try to be completely systematic. I know some people do well with seat of the pants handicapping, for lack of a better term. It's never worked for me. I'm a math guy, and that's how I approach handicapping.

Now if I see my pick obviously limping in the post parade, or something of that nature, that's different.

I might change my bet if I see the owner or family of owners and or trainer heading towards or in the direction of the winner's circle before the race is run.
That's a visual signal that is hard to ignore. Lol.

[Jeff P]

Doesn't that indicate that all of those algorithms weigh each factor the same when it truth, factors are very different race to race?No.

Who says algorithms can't break races out into known race types and then treat each race type separately?

Ability, form, trainer intent, run style, surface, distance, breeding, demands of the track, pace pressure and even match up... Believe me when I say this: If a human brain can handle those things in a consistent organized manner - then algorithms can be written (and already have) to do the same thing - except that algorithms have the advantage of never getting tired while operating faster and with fewer mistakes than a human brain.

But in the end, it doesnt matter whether or not successful selections are arrived at by algorithm or by a human being reaching a logical conclusion.

The enitire point of my post is that the successful player has to muster the discipline to play his or her successful selections AND avoid the loss of self control that leads to "action bets."

IMHO discipline is the one thing that separates the tiny pct of winning players from everyone else.


-jp

.

[WinterTriangle]

I often marveled at my friend falconridge's intuitive aptitude on our trips to the track

I think we can all agree that there are a *few* persons out there who can *read* an animal intuitively.

For instance, Ceasar Milan is a genius when it comes to *reading* dogs.
I won't assume there aren't "horse-whisperers", because I have witnessed them as Overlay has.

I will agree with Jeff that for the rest of us, discipline is the key.

BTW, this figures into my belief that CD may have won the race. My brothers are all math, physics, engineers by profession, who have worked on start-ups with the Japanese. You may or may not find this interesting:

Japanese way is to plan in immense and greater reater detail and way far in advance. Startups there are like launching a rocket into space. ALL the detail goes in upfront.

Then, when the time comes, they press the "go" button, and sit back and "watch it happen." This method yields a lot less *surprises*.
The American method is more like a jet taking off: While it's going down the run-way, they are still making calculations and last minute changes.

Different, not one better than the other.....although one could provide exhaustive studies to show the wins vs. losses, I guess.

So, I believe that, had CD not scratched, he would've won the Belmont. Because the Japanese culture is very into discipline of mind, and when they launch an enterprise, they do not go on *guess-work*. They brought this horse to the Belmont and knew beforehand why. :)

All my brothers had him first, in any case, and they are hard-information scientist types. (who don't follow horse racing)

[WinterTriangle]

BTW, I AM aware I am comparing apples to oranges. :) But there's probably a link there somewhere. :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Never for me.

The numbers are the sum total of my handicapping. The wagering decision is also 100% systematic.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[KMS]

I might change my bet if I see the owner or family of owners and or trainer heading towards or in the direction of the winner's circle before the race is run.
That's a visual signal that is hard to ignore. Lol.

When I went to LaDowns pretty often in the eighties and early nineties, and had a friend who was there 2-3 times a week, if not more. His surefire lock was whatever the porter in the third floor men's room was betting on. The horsemen all liked the guy, and when one stuck his head in the door and said "today's the day," it was easy money. My friend swore by it.

[ranchwest]

I think we can all agree that there are a *few* persons out there who can *read* an animal intuitively.

For instance, Ceasar Milan is a genius when it comes to *reading* dogs.
I won't assume there aren't "horse-whisperers", because I have witnessed them as Overlay has.

I will agree with Jeff that for the rest of us, discipline is the key.

BTW, this figures into my belief that CD may have won the race. My brothers are all math, physics, engineers by profession, who have worked on start-ups with the Japanese. You may or may not find this interesting:

Japanese way is to plan in immense and greater reater detail and way far in advance. Startups there are like launching a rocket into space. ALL the detail goes in upfront.

Then, when the time comes, they press the "go" button, and sit back and "watch it happen." This method yields a lot less *surprises*.
The American method is more like a jet taking off: While it's going down the run-way, they are still making calculations and last minute changes.

Different, not one better than the other.....although one could provide exhaustive studies to show the wins vs. losses, I guess.

So, I believe that, had CD not scratched, he would've won the Belmont. Because the Japanese culture is very into discipline of mind, and when they launch an enterprise, they do not go on *guess-work*. They brought this horse to the Belmont and knew beforehand why. :)

All my brothers had him first, in any case, and they are hard-information scientist types. (who don't follow horse racing)

Using your senses to enhance your handicapping is not some mystical process that comes through trances and visions. It's just as much learned as anything else one does.

[samyn on the green]

When I am on-track appearance is a major factor for me. For me the physical handicapping decisions I make are more reliable than the paper handicapping. This week I was at Belmont Friday and Saturday and made frequent trips to the paddock or I analyzed the post parade. One horse that was a complete mess in the paddock, post parade and gate was Nite Lite in the Brooklyn Handicap. This horse was soaking wet, dull and listless in the paddock. I was sure he was not going to run his race.

Then on the track he continued to be dull and listless. Then he did not want to load in the gate, he kicked and it took 5 men to push him in. This was the 3-2 chalk and he had no chance. Unfortunately I had him singled in the pick 4 but I was able to cancel all of the doubles I started with him and he ran like he was 32-1 and not 3-2.

There have been times where I can gotten on a horse because of appearance and they did not run all that well, but I can only remember one or two instances where a horse looked awful, I tossed him and he won anyway. Physical handicapping seems to be better used as a tool to identify tosses than to identify winners.

[GameTheory]

Never for me.

The numbers are the sum total of my handicapping. The wagering decision is also 100% systematic.
Same here. Pretty much the only thing I ever know about the horses in a race is their final "number", so I can't really go against them because I have no alternative information to grab onto.

[GameTheory]

Doesn't that indicate that all of those algorithms weigh each factor the same when it truth, factors are very different race to race?How many times do we have to hear this line of reasoning? Where does this idea come from that modern computer handicapping is some sort of one-size-fits-all super-simple fixed weight or point-counting system? Believe it or not, we've moved on from the days of the "Horse Race Analyzer".

http://www.dvdsaurus.com/misc/jcapper-handheld.jpg

[thespaah]

Never. I try to be completely systematic. I know some people do well with seat of the pants handicapping, for lack of a better term. It's never worked for me. I'm a math guy, and that's how I approach handicapping.

Now if I see my pick obviously limping in the post parade, or something of that nature, that's different.I use a combinatiomn of the two. If that makes any sense. I use the latter more than the former if nothing jumps off the page at me. Sometimes good strong gut feeling is all I need to cash.