Some people make handicapping too complicated

[dav4463]

I've seen programs, pace figures, complicated calculations, etc...... and they will many times come up with the same horses that you would pick just picking the top Beyer figures in each race.

The value always seems to come from those horses that are not top ranked. Many times you have to go below the top three selections from a program to find value.

You can do the same by eliminating top Beyer horses and then looking for those who have a chance (have run well enough in the past) to win the race today.

I normally end up with one of the top two Beyer figures as one of my contenders, one of them from the 3rd or 4th ranked, and one or two longshot contenders.

Then it's just a matter of checking odds for your contenders.




The point I'm trying to make is that you can use complicated programs or simple speed figures and it still all comes down to structuring bets. You still have to use horses that offer value that have some chance to win.

The way you structure a bet is more important than good handicapping in my opinion.

I can tell you who the contenders should be most of the time. Making the right bet is a different story and to me is the hardest part of horse racing.

[jonnielu]

I've seen programs, pace figures, complicated calculations, etc...... and they will many times come up with the same horses that you would pick just picking the top Beyer figures in each race.

The value always seems to come from those horses that are not top ranked. Many times you have to go below the top three selections from a program to find value.

You can do the same by eliminating top Beyer horses and then looking for those who have a chance (have run well enough in the past) to win the race today.

I normally end up with one of the top two Beyer figures as one of my contenders, one of them from the 3rd or 4th ranked, and one or two longshot contenders.

Then it's just a matter of checking odds for your contenders.




The point I'm trying to make is that you can use complicated programs or simple speed figures and it still all comes down to structuring bets. You still have to use horses that offer value that have some chance to win.

The way you structure a bet is more important than good handicapping in my opinion.

I can tell you who the contenders should be most of the time. Making the right bet is a different story and to me is the hardest part of horse racing.

Careful Dave, that (simplicity), could be lightning rod talk around these parts.;)

[Overlay]

The value always seems to come from those horses that are not top ranked. Many times you have to go below the top three selections from a program to find value.

The problem is not so much the factors that are being used, or the complexity of the systems as such. The problem is that the factors are being used to narrow a field down to one horse to bet by considering only the top-ranked horse, or by using a checklist of qualifying criteria to completely eliminate horses that do not meet one or more items on the list until only "the winner" is left. This is generally done without consideration or calculation of the actual winning probability of any of the horses involved. As a result, the public's wagering gets concentrated on the same "obvious" horses and drives their odds into the ground. So, even when the "best" horse wins, its odds are too low to compensate for the losses on those races when it doesn't win.

As you say, the way to get around this is to consider the winning chances of every horse in a race, and to bet based on the presence of value (wherever in a field it might be found), rather than just finding the one horse that is likeliest to win, and betting it regardless of its odds.

[LottaKash]

As (wherever in a field it might be found), rather than just finding the one horse that is likeliest to win, and betting it regardless of its odds.

I have always had an extremely hard time betting against my own "Best-Horse" that seems to be very-best....I know that the "Pros" are into that sort of value stuff, like betting 3d,or 4th choices... I have tried to live this way but it is way more uncomfortable for me than I care to admit... But, I seem to do more that OK when betting my "best-horse" when the odds are to my advantage.....It is just that it limits my action, but this is easily made up with wagering more to win & place on my "best-horse".....I do not bet it regardless of odds, but if he is favored and still overlayed, I say, so what.......I get a lot of low priced winners this way, and I still get to keep my advantage & edge.......

This way of going, also means, that I am unafraid to go after another contender that I have put very close to my "best-horse"....That would be sacrilege to a savvy player, not to....:eek:

[Fingal]

Careful Dave, that (simplicity), could be lightning rod talk around these parts.;)

Wasn't it Jim " The Hat" Bradshaw that once said said-

"It's just a damn horserace."

[cmoore]

Many of the long shots that hit can't be found by a computer. I don't care how advanced it may be. Software is good for one thing..Crunching numbers and thats it. When it comes to pedigree, blinkers on, lasix, jockey change, surface, hot jockey/trainer. Software will have a hard time finding any of these angles..

[Tom]

Pardon me but......:lol::lol::lol: how wroooooooong you are.
You obviously have not looked at a a lot of software.

[dav4463]

Pardon me but......:lol::lol::lol: how wroooooooong you are.
You obviously have not looked at a a lot of software.

What software do you use?

[cj's dad]

Many of the long shots that hit can't be found by a computer. I don't care how advanced it may be. Software is good for one thing..Crunching numbers and thats it. When it comes to pedigree, blinkers on, lasix, jockey change, surface, hot jockey/trainer. Software will have a hard time finding any of these angles..

All of the things you listed may be a factor and allow the horse to run to the best of it's ability; however, the #'s will indicate if the horse has enough speed to win a particular race.

[cmoore]

Pardon me but......:lol::lol::lol: how wroooooooong you are.
You obviously have not looked at a a lot of software.

Of course I'm not saying software doesn't pick long shots. Most of the long shots I hit will not be picked by a computer program. I dont' care how advanced it is. You can laugh all day long. I know breeding better then a pc and you can take that to the bank.

[DanG]

Many of the long shots that hit can't be found by a computer. I don't care how advanced it may be. Software is good for one thing..Crunching numbers and thats it. When it comes to pedigree, blinkers on, lasix, jockey change, surface, hot jockey/trainer. Software will have a hard time finding any of these angles..
At 1st glance I thought you were describing HTR…Then I realized you were trying to describe what it can’t do.

I couldn’t disagree more…but that’s why we all don’t bet the same animal and obviously don’t use the same methods.

[LottaKash]

At
I couldn’t disagree more…but that’s why we all don’t bet the same animal and obviously don’t use the same methods.

Hey Dan, and perhaps, maybe why and what ?....very piqued curiosity..........:jump:

best,

[cmoore]

All of the things you listed may be a factor and allow the horse to run to the best of it's ability; however, the #'s will indicate if the horse has enough speed to win a particular race.

Wrong..you have to learn to anticipate an improvement before the public does. Most will eliminate a long shot for the exact reason you stated. The final numbers that are shown on the pps say he can't. I'll go back to my pick thread for an example. Yesterday Hawthorne race 2.... http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=602098&postcount=1459

This is a mdn claiming race. This 7 Totally Unreal led in last at the 4F mark before tiring. In the commnets it reads. Rushed to lead, set fast pace, stopped stretch and bled. This horse gets lasix and you would think an improvement likely..He ran 19 points below par and only beat 3 runners in speed rating last time out. That's why he was 19-1. You have to anticipate improvements. The public eliminated him probably on speed rating alone.

[cj's dad]

Congrats- you found a diamond in a bag of coal. I'll stick with the consistency of the PP's as a stronger indicator of today's chances to win. Considering all factors is a positive approach to winning. I simply believe that since the sport is all about speed or lack thereof, I'll stay w/ the #'s crunching
Wrong..you have to learn to anticipate an improvement before the public does. Most will eliminate a long shot for the exact reason you stated. The final numbers that are shown on the pps say he can't. I'll go back to my pick thread for an example. Yesterday Hawthorne race 2.... http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=602098&postcount=1459

This is a mdn claiming race. This 7 Totally Unreal led in last at the 4F mark before tiring. In the commnets it reads. Rushed to lead, set fast pace, stopped stretch and bled. This horse gets lasix and you would think an improvement likely..He ran 19 points below par and only beat 3 runners in speed rating last time out. That's why he was 19-1. You have to anticipate improvements. The public eliminated him probably on speed rating alone.

[TurfRuler]

Of course I'm not saying software doesn't pick long shots. Most of the long shots I hit will not be picked by a computer program. I dont' care how advanced it is. You can laugh all day long. I know breeding better then a pc and you can take that to the bank.

Sorry I laughed.

Casino Drive out of Mineshaft should be able to run all day long..Plus Curlin will be overbet..

$1 super.... 2 / ALL / ALL / ALL = $990

$1 super ....ALL / 2 / ALL / ALL =$990

$20 win 2

[Tom]

News Flash...software goes far beyond number crunching.
Pedigree, workouts, equipment, form cycle, jock, trainer......one does to have to look a speed figure, pace figure, or any velocity numbers at all.

[Donnie]

cmoore-
not trying to start a p*ssin' contest here.... I won a tournament at the local track in Feb based on the PED number out of HTR. First prize: $2000 and a free trip to the Belmont. Horse paid $56 (or so to win). Woulda never picked the horse without that PED number. Crunching numbers is now one of he things computers can do!

<fully agree with your "anticipated improvement" comment. That is why I love Spring! But that is not the total game.>

Congrats on your success! Best of luck spotting those longshots!

[cmoore]

Sorry I laughed.

Casino Drive out of Mineshaft should be able to run all day long..Plus Curlin will be overbet..

$1 super.... 2 / ALL / ALL / ALL = $990

$1 super ....ALL / 2 / ALL / ALL =$990

$20 win 2

Are you kidding me...That was a 2k fantasy bankroll.

[cmoore]

Congrats- you found a diamond in a bag of coal. I'll stick with the consistency of the PP's as a stronger indicator of today's chances to win. Considering all factors is a positive approach to winning. I simply believe that since the sport is all about speed or lack thereof, I'll stay w/ the #'s crunching

I'm not here to argue with you CJ...I find diamonds all the time. Big Fat bombers that the public dismisses over and over again..

[cmoore]

cmoore-
not trying to start a p*ssin' contest here.... I won a tournament at the local track in Feb based on the PED number out of HTR. First prize: $2000 and a free trip to the Belmont. Horse paid $56 (or so to win). Woulda never picked the horse without that PED number. Crunching numbers is now one of he things computers can do!

<fully agree with your "anticipated improvement" comment. That is why I love Spring! But that is not the total game.>

Congrats on your success! Best of luck spotting those longshots!

Good Job on that tourny win Donnie...Was it a first timer or a first time runner on the grass??

When dailyhandicappingcontest website was up and running..I pretty much dominated the contests. I was 3rd in money won over a 2 year span out of 200+ handicappers..I'm sure there are people here who played in those contests..when neteller was closed, they eventually shut down.

[TurfRuler]

Are you kidding me...That was a 2k fantasy bankroll.

Don't get hot under the collar :) I checked out somemore or your picks from the other day and I couldn't find anything to laugh about.

[cmoore]

Don't get hot under the collar :) I checked out somemore or your picks from the other day and I couldn't find anything to laugh about.

It's all good TurfRuler..Obviously you like turf races..Watch out for first timers on the turf out of elusive quality. I haven't seen any lately.

[completebill]

Many of the long shots that hit can't be found by a computer. I don't care how advanced it may be. Software is good for one thing..Crunching numbers and thats it. When it comes to pedigree, blinkers on, lasix, jockey change, surface, hot jockey/trainer. Software will have a hard time finding any of these angles..


Tom sure hit it right on the head. Indeed, some of these more esoteric factors are BEST analyzed by the use of a sophisticated handicapping program, as long as the data itself is comong fom a good source. There is, indeed, a wealth of available data available on pedigree, "hot" jockey/trainer stats, etc., etc.

I'm not claiming that computer handicapping is the be-all and end-all, but there is some great data available, and some great software available to quantify it and analyze it.

[Cratos]

I've seen programs, pace figures, complicated calculations, etc...... and they will many times come up with the same horses that you would pick just picking the top Beyer figures in each race.

The value always seems to come from those horses that are not top ranked. Many times you have to go below the top three selections from a program to find value.

You can do the same by eliminating top Beyer horses and then looking for those who have a chance (have run well enough in the past) to win the race today.

I normally end up with one of the top two Beyer figures as one of my contenders, one of them from the 3rd or 4th ranked, and one or two longshot contenders.

Then it's just a matter of checking odds for your contenders.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can use complicated programs or simple speed figures and it still all comes down to structuring bets. You still have to use horses that offer value that have some chance to win.

The way you structure a bet is more important than good handicapping in my opinion.

I can tell you who the contenders should be most of the time. Making the right bet is a different story and to me is the hardest part of horse racing.

It is not about just picking the winning horses because random favorite odds do that about 33% of the time. IT IS ABOUT PICKING THE WINNING HORSE AT THE RIGHT PRICE AND THAT IS VERY COMPICATED.

[point given]

Found out a better way to hit the P3 today at Big A. Switched my pics for the middle race to the end and last leg to the middle without realizing it ,and won ! Pretty much dumb luck, but better than no luck, which is my usual state :jump:

[jonnielu]

Gee, it's almost like saying that your own particular perspective is the most influentual factor.

You see, according to what you believe.

jdl

[so.cal.fan]

Do any of you guys use the DRF Formulator?

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

Sorry I laughed.

Casino Drive out of Mineshaft should be able to run all day long..Plus Curlin will be overbet..

$1 super.... 2 / ALL / ALL / ALL = $990

$1 super ....ALL / 2 / ALL / ALL =$990

$20 win 2

Casino Drive out of Mineshaft? That would be an incredible occurence.

[cmoore]

Casino Drive out of Mineshaft? That would be an incredible occurence.
your a funny guy..

[andicap]

I can't believe no one has challenged you on this HAW race from Friday. Yes, this is a redboard but I'm attaching HTR's ratings for the race based on the last paceline. I'm not saying HTR PICKED the horse or that I would have bet him, -- ONLY that the horse had the figures. You can't say looking at the HTR charts that Totally Unreal was a dud based on figures.

Top first fraction in a maiden race.
2nd best EP (pace call fraction) in a maiden race.
Race had very little early pace.

You could see all that from the program.
Of course you don't use figures in a vacuum. The horse was 2nd off a layoff and lightly raced. First time Lasix. All of which a good software program will show you.
Any figure analyst worth his salt knows to expect improvement, but the key here is the horse SHOWED ON PAPER HE COULD WIN.

Oh yes, under HTR's trainer ratings, the horse was rated "A" under the "BET" category which is aimed at uncovering trainers whose horses offer value in the race. AND HTR gave the horse the $$ sign which means live longshot.

Sure, the winner's "speed figure" didn't look competitive, but who the hell looks at just the equivalent of a Beyer figure when evaluating horses in a software program?

Did I add that the trainer patterns HTR includes showed traiiner George Weir was an incredible 10% with horses 10-1 and higher?

In many longshot races a good program will point to the winner. It takes a good handicapper (not saying myself), however, to find out where.



Wrong..you have to learn to anticipate an improvement before the public does. Most will eliminate a long shot for the exact reason you stated. The final numbers that are shown on the pps say he can't. I'll go back to my pick thread for an example. Yesterday Hawthorne race 2.... http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=602098&postcount=1459

This is a mdn claiming race. This 7 Totally Unreal led in last at the 4F mark before tiring. In the commnets it reads. Rushed to lead, set fast pace, stopped stretch and bled. This horse gets lasix and you would think an improvement likely..He ran 19 points below par and only beat 3 runners in speed rating last time out. That's why he was 19-1. You have to anticipate improvements. The public eliminated him probably on speed rating alone.

[cmoore]

Here's another bomber...See if HTR figured this one at all...I've have plenty more that I actually posted before the race..;) http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=595011&postcount=227

[DanG]

Here's another bomber...See if HTR figured this one at all...I've have plenty more that I actually posted before the race..;) http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=595011&postcount=227
You’re losing me as to the point in this?

I often feel like the conversation goes in circles when software and its role in capping are discussed. It’s a tool; just like two day trader’s who both use “Realtick” with all its power can wind up with different conclusions. I thought ‘andicap post a few back was right on about user interpretation and HTR’s central role is clearly aimed at price / value identification.

99% of all races carry mixed signals and to isolate one GG race (How far back is your example anyway?) as a hidden sprint sire getting the money is a little…well; lets just say inconclusive.

A real positive with software is antidotal theory can be tested with hard data. You stated a few posts back that Elusive Quality is a productive sire 1st time turf.
cmoore ~ Watch out for first timers on the turf out of elusive quality
Your right; assuming over the last two years you caught the $68 horse (9/5/08) at Belmont. If you had a dentist appointment that day you’re losing money in turf routes and regardless you’re giving away half your stake in turf sprints.


1st time turf Elusive Quality (last two years minus the last few days)
Sire DS Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AVGM $16.25+ High I.V.
Elusive Quality Turf-S 52 5 10% 27% 48% $0.53 $0.74 $0.92 $11.08 1 $20 0.79
Elusive Quality Turf-R 43 4 9% 14% 23% $1.16 $0.79 $0.72 $24.93 2 $68 0.76

Same query minus the one Belmont Bomber on 9/5/2008.
Sire DS Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AVGM $16.25+ High I.V.
Elusive Quality Turf-S 52 5 10% 27% 48% $0.53 $0.74 $0.92 $11.08 1 $20 0.79
Elusive Quality Turf-R 42 3 7% 12% 21% $0.38 $0.43 $0.58 $10.73 1 $20 0.58
I’m only pointing this out in how precarious some racing theory can be and the role software can play in researching an angle. The speed of retrieving information, ease of use and of course proprietary ratings are keys but in the end; regardless of methods (primitive / complex) there is only one way to keep score in this game.

I don’t care if you’re attempting to put a jockey on the moon or drawing daily doubles on a cave wall…bottom line is all that matters. No method should be criticized for perceived complexity / or lack there of if it works for the user imo.

[Capper Al]

This is a topic that I often struggle with. To add to the complications of making handicapping too complex, there's a concept I call Going in through the Front Door or the Back Door. The Front Door is just picking the horse on the obvious factors, like picking War Emble on Speed and the fact the Baffert went out of his way to buy him for the Kentucky Derby. The Back Door is the E = MC^2 of handicapping that makes one not pick War Emblem based on other factors usually considered subtle and hidden like Class or Pace. This worked for me with picking BarBaro based on Class in the Derby. When to go through the Front Door verse the Back Door must come from horse sense and the school of hard knocks of playing experience. Math fails us here.

[Overlay]

I seem to do more that OK when betting my "best-horse" when the odds are to my advantage.....It is just that it limits my action, but this is easily made up with wagering more to win & place on my "best-horse".....I do not bet it regardless of odds, but if he is favored and still overlayed, I say, so what.......I get a lot of low priced winners this way, and I still get to keep my advantage & edge.......

That can certainly be a valid way of playing. It combines value with a perspective similar to that of Burton Fabricand. He made a statement to the effect that anyone who was looking to make a profit when betting on horse races, and who started by focusing their attention anywhere other than on the consistent statistic that one particular horse in each race (the favorite) won one-third of the time, was making their task much more difficult. As I recall, he employed what he called "the principle of maximum confusion" to isolate races where the record of the favorite was similar enough to that of other horses in the race that it was likely that the favorite's odds were higher than they should be.

[Valuist]

Pardon me but......:lol::lol::lol: how wroooooooong you are.
You obviously have not looked at a a lot of software.

There isn't a software made that can judge a horse's appearance in the paddock and post parade.

[DanG]

There isn't a software made that can judge a horse's appearance in the paddock and post parade.
I’m missing your point...

Tom’s response was to this statement and you’re quoting him out of context imo…

cmoore ~ Software is good for one thing..Crunching numbers and thats it. When it comes to pedigree, blinkers on, lasix, jockey change, surface, hot jockey/trainer. Software will have a hard time finding any of these angles..
That statement is flat out false and actually points out some of the best things software aids the player with.

[Tom Barrister]

We all approach the game different ways. The "best" way is the way that works for you.

[lamboguy]

using numbers and racing forms, sheets or anything else keeps the game alive.

i hope everyone is happy with what ever system they use or numbers they come up with.

personally, i never buy the racing form, do no forms of numbers, and never read a sheet in my life.

[jonnielu]

We all approach the game different ways. The "best" way is the way that works for you.

Taking the laundry down to the river and beating it with a rock is a good way to get your clothes clean too. And, an approach used by many. I wonder why it went out of fashion?

jdl

[MONEY]

Making Selections is easy, Betting is the hard part.

The problem is not how to pick a horse, but how to bet on it. Most decent handicappers are going to select around 30% winners. It doesn't matter whether they use computer software, a Racing Form, a track program or a horses appearance. None of the above are complicated. We all have our favorite things to look for.
What makes winning difficult is knowing when to pull or not to pull the trigger on your bets. And also learning what you and/or your computer program do best.
IE: By habit I always write down my 1st 4 picks in the races that I like in order of preference. Then when I bet, I bet only my 1st pick to win and in DDs.
Recently I had a few slightly positive days in a row sticking to what I do best. But yesterday morning I checked my records against my bets & selections and realized that if I had bet exactas, triples and p3s over the last few winning days I would have made much more money. So when I made my bets I included exactas, triples and p3s.
To make a long story short, my 1st picks had a bad day, winning only a small percentage of the races that I played and when they did win I missed the exotics. I ended up losing $200.00 yesterday. I would have lost over $300.00, but hit my last bet of the day, a $10.00 win bet on a $25.00 horse in the 9th at Mountaineer. Had I stuck to what I do best, I would have had another slightly profitable day, instead of a big losing day.
I will return to what I do best today, and hopefully I leaned a lesson from yesterday's experience.

money

[jonnielu]

using numbers and racing forms, sheets or anything else keeps the game alive.

i hope everyone is happy with what ever system they use or numbers they come up with.

personally, i never buy the racing form, do no forms of numbers, and never read a sheet in my life.

With the form considered "the bible", how do you resist picking it up? That is a lot of peer pressure to resist.

jdl

[Pell Mell]

I only want the answer to 1 question so tell me what program is going to tell me, "Who is going to run good today", or, as they say in other sports, who is going to have their game face on today?

[Capper Al]

I thought the two examples of War Emblem and Barbaro were excellent examples of the extremes mentioned here. War Emblem with it's highest speed figure and Baffert move should have been an obvious choice and Barbaro with his Class and strong works wasn't obvious. Did anybody hit on both of these? If so, can you remember why you picked War Emblem when you did and Barbaro when you did? This is at the heart of this discussion, to know when to go with what -- Front Door obvious or the Back Door with its complex formulas (E = MC^2).

[TurfRuler]

The point I'm trying to make is that you can use complicated programs or simple speed figures and it still all comes down to structuring bets. You still have to use horses that offer value that have some chance to win.

The way you structure a bet is more important than good handicapping in my opinion.

I can tell you who the contenders should be most of the time. Making the right bet is a different story and to me is the hardest part of horse racing.

I gained my knowledge of handicapping by sticking with it even though I picked losing bets. I gain wisdom evey day by reading the threads at PaceAdvantage.

[Tom]

I only want the answer to 1 question so tell me what program is going to tell me, "Who is going to run good today", or, as they say in other sports, who is going to have their game face on today?

That is something several program can help you with. HTR has workout ratings, form cycle ratings, PPX PPs that highlight the changes in key predictors for you.....

[Bruddah]

I had a track buddy and he and I came to find winners with completely different styles and methods. We both did well and both ran in streaks. I was hot when he was cold and he was hot when I was cold. We started constructing trifecta tickets using each others picks and started making a killing. No one handicapper holds the Keys to the Kingdom of Horse racing. Too many factors.

Just accept other peoples strategies work and listen and learn. There are many fine "cappers" on this board and their thoughts should be considered, added or thrown out to your own style. (JMHO)

[Capper Al]

I thought the two examples of War Emblem and Barbaro were excellent examples of the extremes mentioned here. War Emblem with it's highest speed figure and Baffert move should have been an obvious choice and Barbaro with his Class and strong works wasn't obvious. Did anybody hit on both of these? If so, can you remember why you picked War Emblem when you did and Barbaro when you did? This is at the heart of this discussion, to know when to go with what -- Front Door obvious or the Back Door with its complex formulas (E = MC^2).
I take it that no one hit both War Emblem and Barbaro in the Derbies. I hit Barbaro and this would be my typical Back Door approach. It was this same approach (Back Door) that got me off War Emblem as it did with much of the public. There sure is a lot of advise flying around here, yet no one made the claim to have hit them both and this is what the discussion circles around. A Capper needs a certain kind of horse racing sense. Numbers, systems, software ain't going to get it all of the time or even most of the time. Sometimes the complicated approach gets it and other times the simple direct approach gets it.

[MONEY]

I take it that no one hit both War Emblem and Barbaro in the Derbies. I hit Barbaro and this would be my typical Back Door approach. It was this same approach (Back Door) that got me off War Emblem as it did with much of the public. There sure is a lot of advise flying around here, yet no one made the claim to have hit them both and this is what the discussion circles around. A Capper needs a certain kind of horse racing sense. Numbers, systems, software ain't going to get it all of the time or even most of the time. Sometimes the complicated approach gets it and other times the simple direct approach gets it.
I hit both of those winners, but it had nothing to do with handicapping.
I haven't handicapped a Derby race since Winning Colors won.
I bet War Emblem because everybody said that he couldn't win.
I think I bet on Barbaro because he was either the favorite or close to the favorite with the British bookies.
With Street Sense, I just liked the name.
I had a friend that we called E T back in the 90s, and that got me on Lil E. Tee.
Lastly I hit Grindstone because he had the same name as a Magic the Gathering game card.

money

[FUGITIVE77]

I can't believe no one has challenged you on this HAW race from Friday. Yes, this is a redboard but I'm attaching HTR's ratings for the race based on the last paceline. I'm not saying HTR PICKED the horse or that I would have bet him, -- ONLY that the horse had the figures. You can't say looking at the HTR charts that Totally Unreal was a dud based on figures.

Top first fraction in a maiden race.
2nd best EP (pace call fraction) in a maiden race.
Race had very little early pace.

You could see all that from the program.
Of course you don't use figures in a vacuum. The horse was 2nd off a layoff and lightly raced. First time Lasix. All of which a good software program will show you.
Any figure analyst worth his salt knows to expect improvement, but the key here is the horse SHOWED ON PAPER HE COULD WIN.

Oh yes, under HTR's trainer ratings, the horse was rated "A" under the "BET" category which is aimed at uncovering trainers whose horses offer value in the race. AND HTR gave the horse the $$ sign which means live longshot.

Sure, the winner's "speed figure" didn't look competitive, but who the hell looks at just the equivalent of a Beyer figure when evaluating horses in a software program?

Did I add that the trainer patterns HTR includes showed traiiner George Weir was an incredible 10% with horses 10-1 and higher?

In many longshot races a good program will point to the winner. It takes a good handicapper (not saying myself), however, to find out where.

Here's the challenge:

It wasn't a bad play considering that on paper UNREAL was going to get the lead on a track that favors speed, BUT I would have a hard time betting that play considering I know that George Weir gets ALL of his wins other than 2nd race after a layoff in the Fall HAW Meet. You can go back six presidents and still not produce a win in that catagory. PLUS, the HAW regulars know Lopez is the slowest breaking jockey on the grounds. Still there's a time and a place for everying thing and maybe it hurts to know too much and in that weak field .it was the right play. Still I would bet only a nominal amount based on those two facts.

[cmoore]

You’re losing me as to the point in this?

I often feel like the conversation goes in circles when software and its role in capping are discussed. It’s a tool; just like two day trader’s who both use “Realtick” with all its power can wind up with different conclusions. I thought ‘andicap post a few back was right on about user interpretation and HTR’s central role is clearly aimed at price / value identification.

99% of all races carry mixed signals and to isolate one GG race (How far back is your example anyway?) as a hidden sprint sire getting the money is a little…well; lets just say inconclusive.



GG race was on Oct 24th..I use this angle all the time and hit plenty of long shots.

[cmoore]

A real positive with software is antidotal theory can be tested with hard data. You stated a few posts back that Elusive Quality is a productive sire 1st time turf.

Your right; assuming over the last two years you caught the $68 horse (9/5/08) at Belmont. If you had a dentist appointment that day you’re losing money in turf routes and regardless you’re giving away half your stake in turf sprints.



1st time turf Elusive Quality (last two years minus the last few days)
Sire DS Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AVGM $16.25+ High I.V.
Elusive Quality Turf-S 52 5 10% 27% 48% $0.53 $0.74 $0.92 $11.08 1 $20 0.79
Elusive Quality Turf-R 43 4 9% 14% 23% $1.16 $0.79 $0.72 $24.93 2 $68 0.76

Same query minus the one Belmont Bomber on 9/5/2008.
Sire DS Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AVGM $16.25+ High I.V.
Elusive Quality Turf-S 52 5 10% 27% 48% $0.53 $0.74 $0.92 $11.08 1 $20 0.79
Elusive Quality Turf-R 42 3 7% 12% 21% $0.38 $0.43 $0.58 $10.73 1 $20 0.58



Maybe I need to clarify a little more..When I said watch out for Elusive Quality runners on the turf. I meant 1st time starters...not runners switching from dirt to turf... Also 2 year olds only. This sire gets a 731 layoff factor zero days off (which means a 1st timer) and the avg is 100. This data is over the last 3 years. I'm sure some of your stats include runners who have ran on the dirt then switched to the turf.

[cmoore]

Here's the challenge:

It wasn't a bad play considering that on paper UNREAL was going to get the lead on a track that favors speed, BUT I would have a hard time betting that play considering I know that George Weir gets ALL of his wins other than 2nd race after a layoff in the Fall HAW Meet. You can go back six presidents and still not produce a win in that catagory. PLUS, the HAW regulars know Lopez is the slowest breaking jockey on the grounds. Still there's a time and a place for everying thing and maybe it hurts to know too much and in that weak field .it was the right play. Still I would bet only a nominal amount based on those two facts.

When it comes to 2 year old mdn races..I focus more on the sires and odds then the trainers. I've been burned too many times throwing out a good sire at long odds because the trainer is hitting at a 6% clip.

Unreal Zeal is also another top sprint sire. This sire has 61 total wins...39 of those are dirt sprints..That's a 64% clip. This data is from the last 3 years.

[cmoore]

Your right; assuming over the last two years you caught the $68 horse (9/5/08) at Belmont. If you had a dentist appointment that day you’re losing money in turf routes and regardless you’re giving away half your stake in turf sprints.





I wasn't at the dentist that day..
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=573609&postcount=55

[ndsc32]

When all else fails, use a BLINDFOLD and DARTBOARD. Works just as well.

[DanG]

I wasn't at the dentist that day..
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=573609&postcount=55
Podiatrist maybe? :)

[LottaKash]

When all else fails, use a BLINDFOLD and DARTBOARD. Works just as well.

I read somewhere?....Sans blindfold,,,,,1 out of 10 hit rate.......:jump:

best,

[DanG]

When all else fails, use a BLINDFOLD and DARTBOARD. Works just as well.
DRF press will jump on this one NDSC32! :jump:
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1589/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1589R-11879.jpg

[ryesteve]

Unreal Zeal is also another top sprint sire. This sire has 61 total wins...39 of those are dirt sprints..That's a 64% clip. This data is from the last 3 years.I'm not saying you're wrong about Unreal Zeal, but that's not the right way to look at those numbers. If 64% of the wins were in dirt sprints, but 80% of the starts were dirt sprints, then they'd be underperforming. Without any context for that 64% figure, you can't tell.

[Light]

I think cmoore has a point when it comes to 2yo's and 3yo's or lightly raced horses.The window of their form cycles seems more volatile than older horses and harder to predict, especially for software. On the other hand, I find computer handicapping incredibly reliable for predicting the winner with older, more established types,regardless of odds.

[DanG]

I think cmoore has a point when it comes to 2yo's and 3yo's or lightly raced horses.The window of their form cycles seems more volatile than older horses and harder to predict, especially for software. On the other hand, I find computer handicapping incredibly reliable for predicting the winner with older, more established types,regardless of odds.
I’ll probably get flamed as an HTR / software shill; but I will respectfully disagree Light.

I’ve never been more confident in evaluating lightly raced animals since joining HTR. Between the (very misunderstood) workout-fitness rating, pedigree information, dozens of newsletters dedicated to inexperienced horses and the ability to export and research they have actually become a strength.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence the originator of the software (Ken Massa) specializes in maiden races, so he places special emphasis on them.

In fact; I would argue good software makes more of an impact in ‘chaotic events then when all runners are well established.

Could just be the way I approach it but I’ve heard the same form other users as well.

BTW: I do agree on the edge in evaluating lightly raced animals. The largest overlays day in day out imo. :ThmbUp:

[Pace Cap'n]

Podiatrist maybe? :)

The dude wasn't redboarding. Why not give him his props?

[cmoore]

The dude wasn't redboarding. Why not give him his props?

I think Dan G was just kidding Pace..

[Capper Al]

I hit both of those winners, but it had nothing to do with handicapping.
I haven't handicapped a Derby race since Winning Colors won.
I bet War Emblem because everybody said that he couldn't win.
I think I bet on Barbaro because he was either the favorite or close to the favorite with the British bookies.
With Street Sense, I just liked the name.
I had a friend that we called E T back in the 90s, and that got me on Lil E. Tee.
Lastly I hit Grindstone because he had the same name as a Magic the Gathering game card.

money

Okay, I should have stipulated picked both War Emblem and Barbaro through handicapping, not a hairpin method or tote-board watching. What I was looking for was someone who knew when to pick the obvious and when to use a complex method. And how they determine when to go with either method.

[cj]

Okay, I should have stipulated picked both War Emblem and Barbaro through handicapping, not a hairpin method or tote-board watching. What I was looking for was someone who knew when to pick the obvious and when to use a complex method. And how they determine when to go with either method.

I loved War Emblem, hated Barbaro. I'll take that trade. :)

Hated him is probably harsh, but I thought he was an underlay. Underlays can still win.

[DanG]

The dude wasn't redboarding. Why not give him his props?
I was glad to see cmoore took it in the spirit it was meant. Very tough to try humor on the net without voice inflection and such. Those little symbols help some; but not always.

I have many flaws; but begrudging another mans gambling success is thankfully not among them.

[Capper Al]

Here's what I have concluded about complicated handicapping. Beyer says that 2 speed points is significant. Let's say that a top speed figure horse with a greater than 2 speed point advantage is the dominate horse on the card. Given that this horse has no flaws, like form or lower class, then this is a dominate horse and should be taken at face value. This is the logic that makes favorites. This logic wins 1/3 of the times. Should one be lucky enough to find a horse like this going off at greater than 2/1 odds, like War Emblem, they should look no farther. If there isn't a dominate horse or there is one but the odds are 2/1 or less then they should look for hidden value and find a Barbaro. Complicated handicapping is necessary in the Barbaro example, but not in the previous War Emblem example.

[Alyblakester]

You can make a horse race as complicated or as simple as you want to - it's up to you how to approach the riddle....somewhere in the middle is your best bet. After all, you don't have an eternity to solve one race. You just take your best shot and let the chips fall where they may. I do think some people go overboard making it ridiculously difficult. It ain't rocket science!

[cmoore]

I'm not saying you're wrong about Unreal Zeal, but that's not the right way to look at those numbers. If 64% of the wins were in dirt sprints, but 80% of the starts were dirt sprints, then they'd be underperforming. Without any context for that 64% figure, you can't tell.

There were only 2 top sprint sires in that race. Unreal Zeal(64%) and Classified Facts(60%). I doubt runners from these two sires had a significant amount of more 6F races then all others in race. I just accept the figure as it is and don't read that far into it.

[HUSKER55]

CapperAl, re-read "Picking Winners" by Beyer. Sometimes a horse gets a figure that don't make sense so Beyer throws the race out. The DRF still publishes it.He was not referring to a "60" all of a sudden running "95". My interpretation was a consistent "70" horse all of a sudden has run a race or two at "80".

Maybe I misinterpreted it.

Just MHO

husker55

:)

[ryesteve]

There were only 2 top sprint sires in that race. Unreal Zeal(64%) and Classified Facts(60%). I doubt runners from these two sires had a significant amount of more 6F races then all others in race.Except you'd be wrong. Going into that race, 78% of Unreal Zeal's progeny's races were dirt sprints; 75% for Classified Facts. On the other hand, for Prime Timber's it was only 47%, and for Down the Aisle's, only 35%.

I'm just saying that the metric "%wins at distance" doesn't tell you anything about how well these horses perform at this distance, if you don't also know the % of starters at that distance, and the number of wins. Example of the latter: would it really matter if 100% of the wins were in sprints if they hardly ever win in the first place?

Getting back to the race in question, the overall win% in dirt sprints for Unreal Zeals is 12%. For Prime Timbers, it's 13%. When running in sprints, progeny of Prime Timber attract more betting action; they've gone off as the favorite 14% of the time, compared to 11% for Unreal Zeals; and when they are the favorite, they win more often (37% vs. 35%).

So regardless of the fact that one of the two Unreal Zeals in this race ended up winning it, based on actual prior performances, there's nothing that showed that the progeny of Unreal Zeal outperformed the progeny of Prime Timber in sprints. If you want to consider a sire to be a "top sprint sire" because his offspring run mostly in sprints, that's different than considering a sire to be a "top sprint sire" because his offspring actually run WELL in sprints, and folks should be aware of which type of measurement they're looking at.

[cmoore]

Except you'd be wrong. Going into that race, 78% of Unreal Zeal's progeny's races were dirt sprints; 75% for Classified Facts. On the other hand, for Prime Timber's it was only 47%, and for Down the Aisle's, only 35%.

I'm just saying that the metric "%wins at distance" doesn't tell you anything about how well these horses perform at this distance, if you don't also know the % of starters at that distance, and the number of wins. Example of the latter: would it really matter if 100% of the wins were in sprints if they hardly ever win in the first place?

Getting back to the race in question, the overall win% in dirt sprints for Unreal Zeals is 12%. For Prime Timbers, it's 13%. When running in sprints, progeny of Prime Timber attract more betting action; they've gone off as the favorite 14% of the time, compared to 11% for Unreal Zeals; and when they are the favorite, they win more often (37% vs. 35%).

So regardless of the fact that one of the two Unreal Zeals in this race ended up winning it, based on actual prior performances, there's nothing that showed that the progeny of Unreal Zeal outperformed the progeny of Prime Timber in sprints. If you want to consider a sire to be a "top sprint sire" because his offspring run mostly in sprints, that's different than considering a sire to be a "top sprint sire" because his offspring actually run WELL in sprints, and folks should be aware of which type of measurement they're looking at.

The data that is used only goes back 3 years and is used for 6 furlong races or less. So 6.5 to 7F races don't count which I'm sure you included..

I concentrate on maiden races every day and will give the edge to top sprint sires because they have been PROVEN TO WIN at 6F or less and are bred to run at these shorter distances for the most part

I'll take first time starters out of sires like Unreal Zeal, In Excess, Double Honor over sires like Pulpit, Giants Causeway, Royal Academy in the same race..The last 3 sires progeny's are for the most part a much classier animal. But the long shots I usually hit in mdn races are by runners who get out fast and are not bred to run at longer distances.

[Capper Al]

CapperAl, re-read "Picking Winners" by Beyer. Sometimes a horse gets a figure that don't make sense so Beyer throws the race out. The DRF still publishes it.He was not referring to a "60" all of a sudden running "95". My interpretation was a consistent "70" horse all of a sudden has run a race or two at "80".

Maybe I misinterpreted it.

Just MHO

husker55

:)

I didn't mean just jump at the big number. It has to make sense first with other handicapping factors. No problem. I agree with you.

[ryesteve]

The data that is used only goes back 3 years and is used for 6 furlong races or less. So 6.5 to 7F races don't count which I'm sure you included..It's easy enough to re-run and change the definition of what a sprint is, and all it does is magnify the bias I'm alluding to. 69% of Unreal Zeal's progeny's starts were in dirt races of 6f or less, compared to just 34% for Prime Timber's. And the performance stats I cited above still hold when only looking at races at 6f or less.


give the edge to top sprint sires because they have been PROVEN TO WIN at 6F or lessI'm not looking to disagree with that... I'm disagreeing with the proper metrics that would determine it. 6f wins/total wins, shouldn't be one of them.

[cmoore]

It's easy enough to re-run and change the definition of what a sprint is, and all it does is magnify the bias I'm alluding to. 69% of Unreal Zeal's progeny's starts were in dirt races of 6f or less, compared to just 34% for Prime Timber's. And the performance stats I cited above still hold when only looking at races at 6f or less.


I'm not looking to disagree with that... I'm disagreeing with the proper metrics that would determine it. 6f wins/total wins, shouldn't be one of them.

It is one and one that I will continue to use because it works. I list often in the pick thread that a certain sire is a top sprint sire. They win and at big prices and will continue to do so. I use to pay more attention to percentages first time out but lost to top sprint sires often..I'm telling you, your over analyzing..Take the runners from sires who have proven to win at shorter distances over the ones who haven't even though the runners who haven't, haven't had the same number of starts at that distance..Just maybe there is a reason why certain sires progenys are entered at shorter distances..

[ryesteve]

Just maybe there is a reason why certain sires progenys are entered at shorter distances..I assumed the reason was that they can't go long... but inability to run at a longer distance shouldn't earn them extra credit for sprint performance if they're being compared against a sire whose progeny perform well when entered in sprints, and yet are versatile enough to also perform well at longer distances.

[raybo]

You can make a horse race as complicated or as simple as you want to - it's up to you how to approach the riddle....somewhere in the middle is your best bet. After all, you don't have an eternity to solve one race. You just take your best shot and let the chips fall where they may. I do think some people go overboard making it ridiculously difficult. It ain't rocket science!

No, it's not rocket science, but it comes closer to being that than most other disciplines. This fact is why many of us are in this game. We feel that our intelligence and attention to detail offers us a distinct edge. The way we arrive at our selections differs, true, but one thing remains constant amongst all, you must use your intellect to your advantage.

Being rigorously thorough in your handicapping method doesn't mean that you must "have an eternity to solve one race".

Computers have taken that part out of the equation while still allowing us to be as thorough as we choose.

[JustRalph]

I loved War Emblem, hated Barbaro. I'll take that trade. :)

Hated him is probably harsh, but I thought he was an underlay. Underlays can still win.

same here, but I did bet barbaro,,,,,,,,,,although lightly.

I did learn something from Barbaro's Derby though. I watch more video now. After Barbaro won the Derby I went back and watched all of his races. They were much more impressive on Video than in the PP's............

[Alyblakester]

There are some fine handicappers who lose due to poor money management. If you can't control your bankroll properly you won't win, I don't care if you're the Albert Einstein of handicapping. Whatever method you use to wager I think you must, above all else, be consistent in what you are doing. My method of money management is portfolio-like, not an original idea, but one that I adopted for my own.

[Capper Al]

There are some fine handicappers who lose due to poor money management. If you can't control your bankroll properly you won't win, I don't care if you're the Albert Einstein of handicapping. Whatever method you use to wager I think you must, above all else, be consistent in what you are doing. My method of money management is portfolio-like, not an original idea, but one that I adopted for my own.


I'm changing my wagering methods. Instead of focusing race by race, I'm looking over the whole card and figuring which races deserve to be skipped, bet lightly, or wagered seriously.

[cmoore]

It's all good TurfRuler..Obviously you like turf races..Watch out for first timers on the turf out of elusive quality. I haven't seen any lately.

Another First time starter out of Elusive Quality won Saturday at Gulfstream park..She only paid $8.20 and won by a nose..First Elusive Quality first timer on the turf that I've seen in awhile..

[BIG HIT]

Actually work or should be working in tandem not one verse other.Computer prgm can have large learning curve or small to none.Htr,jcapper are expense but very very good as other's such as equisim is not as expensive as frist two.I like propace it low price and won a online free contest with it and it had waremblem.and volponi in bc classic all on top in contender report.
I do not use program any more of any kind as computer and me just have problem's.I'am not a great or that good of hdcpr.As a lot of you guy's get way more in to it than i and kinda like spot playing now useing useingsome of all hdcprs book's program's and angle's have had over years to point to price horse.And think keeping it simple is the way for me.But i understand those with htr jcapper do samething and can answer more question that i can't and they do it simply P.S. sorry if was rabbling

[Dahoss9698]

Another First time starter out of Elusive Quality won Saturday at Gulfstream park..She only paid $8.20 and won by a nose..First Elusive Quality first timer on the turf that I've seen in awhile..

You need to pay closer attention.

[cmoore]

You need to pay closer attention.

Let me rephrase that..First career start and it's on the turf..