Which is the better handicapper?

[penguinfan]

Two choices here, the first guy picks several winners, mostly all chalk, they are not always the morning line chalk but get bet that way. Alot of these are less than even money, but they are winners. I mean like 3 or 4 out of 10 on a very consistent basis. This tells me he is picking the best horse but so is everybody else, meaning just because it was chalk does not mean it wasn't good handicapping. This guy NEVER hits a big winner though, unless he plays a pick 3 and uses an ALL in the last spot and gets lucky with a pig coming in.

The second guy doesn't pick nearly as many winners, but always has his horse in the running it seems at very nice odds. I was with him at the track the other night when he was telling everyone he came with that a 17-1 shot was as close to a lock as he had seen in quite some time, and sure enough that horse wired the field and won by 5 lenghts, he banged this one on a VERY nice win ticket along with the exacta and I am not kidding when I say he just missed the $9000 tri when the horses he had in the third spot finished 4th, 5th and 6th. I think he had one other winner that night and thats it.

Who is the better handicapper? The first guy can obviously find the best horse in the race while the second guy seems to be a value hunter, but does that make him a better handicapper?

Hope I explained this clearly.

Penguinfan

[GameTheory]

Ummm...

I would probably go with the second guy because he is obviously choosing to go with the longer odds horses, and if he can pick those and they always run well, then I bet you he could pick the chalk just as well as the other guy if he wanted to. Of course, the opposite could also be true -- the chalk guy might be able to pick longshots, but doesn't like to play that way. But Mr. Longshot's advice would be more valuable to me than Mr. Chalk.

Of course, being a better handicapper doesn't mean that he is the better player -- the way we keep score is in dollars, not win percentage or some "handicapping quotient".

[Chico]

Who is the better handicapper? The first guy can obviously find the best horse in the race while the second guy seems to be a value hunter, but does that make him a better handicapper?

Penguinfan [/B]

It depends on what you mean when you say "handicapper." Picking lots of winners from "chalky" types that pay little may be good handicapping, but it doesn't do much for the bankroll. I believe that when the "crowd" sees what I see in a race they pound it so hard as to not let anyone really make money in the race.

The real key to making money is to see something the crowd has either overlooked or mistakenly downgraded. For example, when Mott & Bailey team up they get bet off the board and the money to be made in that case is when their entry is "suspect" and there is a live longshot begging to be backed.

Regards,
Chico

[JustRalph]

I like the 2nd guy. Anybody can find the chalk.

[keilan]

17-1 lock and he doesn't go all/all in the 2nd and 3rd spots on at least one $1 ticket. Guess he doesn't need the money.

[Fastracehorse]

I am a a good longshot player. I learned to handicap from the persepctive of finding bombs.

The above perspective is different from the player who specializes in shorter prices - which is also a talent if he can pick more than 33% winners.

I have some good handicapping friends on DRF and one of them today got 7 wins at AQU. Another has gotten 7 wins twice in the last 2 weeks at AQU.

I have realized that I need to improve my handicapping - yes I pick more bombs than them - but they have a higher win % than me.

Sohhhh, my quest has been to improve my win % while not hurting my ROI - I luv bombs - but I no longer scoff at the $9 horse.

My betting involves p-3's - so even a 2-1 shot can be useful if I have a demon racehorse.

fffastt

[superfecta]

Originally posted by keilan
17-1 lock and he doesn't go all/all in the 2nd and 3rd spots on at least one $1 ticket. Guess he doesn't need the money. Thats what I don't get,guys that can pick a good paying horse and instead of betting tri or supers,they hammer the horse.of course they may not know how to pick the other horses,they may just be good at spotting winning horses at long odds.

[Observer]

This game is about trying to make money .. why would you bet if you're likely to being losing money at the end of the day .. so with that said .. someone who can pick a few chalk horses on a 10 race card is not likely to come away with a profit at the end of the day, and probably won't even break even. It is for that reason that a handicapper who can find winners with value is better, in my opinion .. but not everyone will agree on this either .. but what do you expect .. this is a horse racing topic .. so obviously there will be many various opinions.

[JustRalph]

I think I fall into the 2nd guy crowd. Yes I hammer winners when I think it's right. I have played some "all" ticks behind a few horses before. Sometimes the "all" has gone in front. And a few of them have paid well (2-3G) but there are just a few of those in my history. The worst one I ever keyed in and didn't play was on Street Cry in Dubai last year. I actually was way ahead for the week and had a couple Grand floating in the account when I went to work on that Saturday morning and keyed in the Super- Street Cry/all/all/all and it came up I think something like $714 bucks. One of the guys who worked for me saw me put it in just to see what the cost was. We actually discussed it. It was on my computer screen waiting to be submitted for about 3-4 minutes. I decided not to. Well.....
it paid over 14Grand. couldn't pull the trigger..........I just know it's not good betting strategy and you have to play by those rules sometimes. :cool:

I tried to play oaklawn today and my new bank here in Ca won't let me play online wagering for deposits. I didn't know? until today. I capped the card, everything, before both services I used couldn't get the card to work. A call to the bank revealed they had just recently come up with this policy (it's a debit card, and I asked when I got it, they said "no problem" back then) so I am sitting there looking at a card that I capped with no money in my account. You gotta know what happen right.................5 out of ten winners, including a $24 dollar horse. I would of had 20 across on the $24 dollar pick.......with some nice prices for place and show...$350 dollar pick 3 that I usually would play about 5 times. Probably the best day I have ever had by sheer percentages (50% winners) instead I was out screwing around and took a nap. No money to play with. I did post my picks early this morning over on the Hottalkers board just for fun. I guess I won that little daily deal. It won't pay the bills though ! Sometimes you're the windshield.........sometimes.........you know!

[superfecta]

I am definitely the second type of bettor.Can't pick a low priced horse to win to save my skin.Don't know why,seems its always been that way.But depending how each bettor manages his money,they both could be profitable players.Or both could be losers.It can go either way.

[alysheba88]

Not enough data. What are there long term records? How much do they bet per selection? Does the "chalk" guy use a odds line? In general you need unique opinions to be sucessful, but I am a big believer in records. If both players keep detailed records the answer should be self evident. I also believe in going for the big when you really like a race with tri's but using "all/"all" is not necessarily a sign of being a good handicapper. Would suggest the exact opposite in fact

[JimG]

I don't know about the "better handicapper", but I would guess the most likely long term winner goes for price (value). For me great handicapping is overrated, long term winning is not.

Jim

[Early]

If handicapping skill implies picking winners, the 'better' handicapper is the one who picks the most winners.

Since paramutuel odds depend on public 'opinion' and the goal of the game is to win money, the 'better' handicapper is the one who's opinion is actually correct at a greater frequency than the overall public. To simplify, if the public's 8-1 horses come in 1 in 10 times over a long time period, the 'expert's' 8-1 horses maybe come in 1 in 7 times. That would elevate that handicapper to something other than human status.

It all depends on the frequency of wins versus the odds you are comfortable with. If you can't play anything greater than 4-1, but you wait for your spots and hit at a high enough rate, you can win money and are a great handicapper. Conversely, if you can't bear to bet on anything less than 8-1, but you wait for your spots and hit at a high enough rate, you are also a great handicapper.

I prefer to play higher odds and I remember one huge ticket at (coincidentally) 17-1. 60-1 is the highest winner I've had and I thought that one had a great shot. At the same time, I've studied a race and figured horses had great chances at high odds, to have them nowhere. Before your friend is granted 'god of handicapping' status, keep track of how often his high odds 'locks' come in.

In other words, I suppose there are many answers to your question.

[sq764]

I think the best handicapper is simply the one that chooses the best horse at the best price..

Of course, that's a tough thing to properly guage..

[penguinfan]

Wow, thanks for all the replies guys. I agree with almost all of what posted here and have come to the conclusion that there is no answer to my own question. I guess the best handicapper picks the most winners, but you guys are right, it's not about being the best capper, it's about money. The second guy in the equasion doesn't really have a set number of odds he will or won't play, it just seems to me his horse is always in the race, he may not always win but he definatly gets a ride out of those bombs.
More replies???

Penguinfan

[tricky(netcapper)]

here is my answer :

it's the guy who picks the chalk when the chalk is a deserving favourite and is still a good value at 6/5 and wins by open lengths. like HOt Golden Jet today on the stretch out AQU 5th

then the next race he plays something at 10/1 that is the only early speed in a race like that sweet little DED shipper at FG today off the claim in the 10th ALW race.... thank you very much!!

then realises that a clear cut 2nd place finisher offers better value to place than betting the chalk... etc etc....flexibility and discipline is what puts you in the winners circle more often.

basically the best handicapper is flexible and quick thinking. if joe "longshot" keeps making false reasoning his way and is always reaching for something that is not there... he is going to get burned. if joe "chalk" keeps playing chalk with the blinders on and not tuning into those short priced horses that are up against it by means of post position, running style, pace set-up than he too will lose in the long run.

just be flexible and allow your gut to tell you a little bit. don't try to be too rigid in your playing and be willing to go with what feels right including abstaining from brain freezer.

here is a good drill to work on your discipline and flexibility . down load your cards for the day. play only 1 short play (2-1) and one longer play (8-1)... that is it ... for a week. by the end of a week you will be sharp as a tack. it gets you very focussed. then after a week of just 2 races a day.. increase your wagers to 4 a day... and so on. this will sharpen your capping and your discipline as you will see your win% sky rocket.

The profitable players don't win more than you... they lose less. Keeping your 2 winning wagers and cutting out all of your losing wagers will help you to realize how many wasted bets you are making. this is something that has helped me immensely as i get a little crazy when im up and without self-imposed rules im a run-away train full of losing wagers.

trickydicky.

[hurrikane]

handcapper schmandicapper.

It's the guy(girl) who makes the most money.
I think in our persuit to be the 'enlightened horseplayer' we forget why we(at least me) are in this game.

Show me the money!!!

If you want to be the person who picks horses without concern for making money...you better know how to write a book. :D

[rmania]

I don’t know that you could say that one is better than the other, but if both are betting every race, using the specified criteria, then IMO neither are good handicappers.

I consider a good handicapper as one that can consistently predict how a race will be contested (gate to wire) and whose predicted contenders are consistently contending.

Being profitable at the track (or gambling) is a separate issue. I’ve known many great handicappers that were terrible gamblers. Conversely, I’ve known a few gamblers who couldn’t tell you, before a race, why they bet the way they did and yet they always seem to collect.

I’ve often wondered if a “team” approach could be successful at this game.

[122425]

THE BETTER HANDICAPPER IS THE GUY WHO "WALKS A LITTLE TALLER" AT THE END OF THE WEEK!!!!

[JustRalph]

How about the one that sits a little taller........? From a larger wallet? :cool:

[Fastracehorse]

The one who has many good days but limits the sting of the many bad days because he understands the beauty of money mangement ( there is no sure thing ).

In this way, he is psychologically stable and able to pick more winners just on the stability fact and, he was a goood 'capper anyways.

fffastt

[stgeorge]

I've always contended that judging handicappers has -- as has been outlined in this thread -- two different criteria. Both seem valid. And in fact when I read about various handicapping contest around the country I'm curious why they tend concentrate on only one area. Most seem geared towards the handicapper that makes the most money -- therefore the players will tend to look for longshots and you have to wonder if they are truly playing horses they would normally play.

If we use a five-race card as an example and player A picks four winners paying: $3.00, $4.20, $6.80, and 8.00. Meanwhile player B pick one winner paying $28.00. Which is the better handicapper? Both made money over the course of five races.

I'd say both are good handicappers.