basic handicapping v. more advanced methods

[hankbuck]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby. At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?

[Mineshaft]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby. At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?





To answer your last question. I say yes. But sometimes it would be helpful if you were at track to visually see a horse in paddock and how they warm up.

[Norm]

[QUOTE=hankbuck]Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?/QUOTE]

I would agree that the answer is "yes", but you should at least have an extensive library of charts and condition books stored on your computer for reference. That's not high-tech, it's just good record keeping. There is more than one way to stay ahead of the game so both high-tech and low-tech players can stay solvent. Not being at the track is a disadvantage, you will lose some races because of what you didn't see, but you can overcome that drawback with careful spot selection and only playing types of races at which your own records show you are successful. It's not necessary to be an expert at every kind of race, just a few that you are comfortable playing.

[HUSKER55]

I don't know about other tracks but at NYRA, Jan Rushton does a nice job from the paddock, in my opinion.

[SmartyMarty]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby. At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?


stand a chance at WHAT? winning loot over the long run?
answer is NO...
HOBBYISTS ALWAYS LOSE...

some fast, others more slowly

ditto if ya get more programs in ya computer...
you'll be pale as a ghost from sittin home so much....
on the positive side, ya might get to know your repo-man on a first name basis ...

he'll be showin more often than the mailman...

[dav4463]

I think making the right bet and structuring a bet wisely is more important than good handicapping whether basic or advanced.

[SmartyMarty]

I don't know about other tracks but at NYRA, Jan Rushton does a nice job from the paddock, in my opinion.

Yes Jan's a great job....

paddock , sittin on the A train or shoppin for stuff at Victoria's Secret... :)

[jonnielu]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby. At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?

More complex is not necessarily more advanced, you can build on the basic consistencies of the game without getting too complex at all. I would suggest starting by observing how frequently one of the top four ML horses wins the race, and thinking about consistent ways that you can play that consistency.

jdl

[raybo]

More complex is not necessarily more advanced, you can build on the basic consistencies of the game without getting too complex at all. I would suggest starting by observing how frequently one of the top four ML horses wins the race, and thinking about consistent ways that you can play that consistency.

jdl

For someone just starting out, I agree with jdl's statement. Keep it simple and build on known quantities/qualities.

The top 4 M/L horses produce the race winner very frequently. Post time top 4 produce even more. Comparing the M/L with the post time favs isn't a bad place to start your analysis.

[Robert Fischer]

Some people look at very small differences in physicallity. More power to them.

Some people on the other end of the spectrum have no sense of what an athlete or an athelete in motion should look like. - They can still be winners.

Rather than assessing a lot of cues, What works for me is looking at the horses like you would a football player or something. To be honest I don't know enough about shoes/bridles and those are two areas I would like to improve in.

My talent of observation is like watching a safety vs. a running back, or a lion vs. a gazelle. It might be a human survival ability, but if you never watched or played sports in your life it might be more difficult.

You should probably at least notice the great athletes and the injured ones. You should see a Bo Jackson or a Herschal Walker out there among the average athletes, and you should be able to see the ones with a messed up stride or that look sickly.
Extreme cases.

Sometimes, just like in football you see a great physical specimen that stinks at the sport , and sometimes a skinny guy will get the job done. I notice a trend that once in a while I see a long odds horse that looks much the best physically at some random track and I watch it with interest. Often he goes out fast from the gate and quits. That is something to check for before you think you've found a great athlete...

In general noticing the extreme cases helps the cause a little bit. 2yos and young 3yos always get a little bit of hype without regard to the fact of whether or not they are actually physically talented (or flawed).

Most of the so called experts are horribly inconsistent with their paddock assessments. They are whining about whatever paddock cue is currently hot, and they will dismiss a horse as being sweated out or something... If the horse always sweats, or if he has that new drug that makes you sweat you ass off...

[karlskorner]

NO I AM NOT REDBOARDING, DIDN'T PLAY THE HORSE, just an example of "being there". Yesterday at CRC, 2nd race, #2 horse with a jockey that never won a race, a trainer that never won a race and a horse with 20 starts and never in the money. Not going to see my wager. HOWEVER, I noticed what I call "full cups" blinkers on the horse, my charts for his last race on 11/24 showed what I call 1/2 cups. A change of equipment that those playing from home will never see. He led all the way and paid $105.40.
Several people won money on this race, the DD paid $121.00, the winners had to wheel the DD with "chalk" in the 1st race (wasn't even near in the CD)and those who played him in the 2nd race had to see the CHANGE IN EQUIPMENT.

[cj]

Horses could have had three legs for all I knew. Here are my figures for the race:

CRC 12/10/2008 Race 2 12:50 5.0f Dirt 0/0 Md 12500 3, 4, and 5 yo

1 Uncle Emil 15-1 NA 28/0 10 X
2 J V's Mad Hatter 15-1 NA 51/2 34 20
3 High Commander 8-5 NA 49/1 30 50
4 Seminole Warrior 15-1 NA 46/2 1 20
5 Pender's Tune 3-1 P 56/4 22 45
6 Sumbubblee 8-1 NA 30/0 22 35
7 Europa Dancer 2-1 E 50/2 27 51


Three underlines, top 3, including the $105 winner.

[DanG]

NO I AM NOT REDBOARDING, DIDN'T PLAY THE HORSE, just an example of "being there". Yesterday at CRC, 2nd race, #2 horse with a jockey that never won a race, a trainer that never won a race and a horse with 20 starts and never in the money. Not going to see my wager. HOWEVER, I noticed what I call "full cups" blinkers on the horse, my charts for his last race on 11/24 showed what I call 1/2 cups. A change of equipment that those playing from home will never see. He led all the way and paid $105.40.
Several people won money on this race, the DD paid $121.00, the winners had to wheel the DD with "chalk" in the 1st race (wasn't even near in the CD)and those who played him in the 2nd race had to see the CHANGE IN EQUIPMENT.
Nice observation Karl;

Question: Can you quantify how often that angle works?

By that I mean; with HDW / HTR for example we have records of all types of bandage /blinker / Lasix / shoe data for some tracks if we export charts etc…the list is long. There is little ambiguity if Joey Pickles is putting wraps on for the FT or 2nd time juice.

Of course not in the case you’re describing with new shooters, but if your applying esoteric equipment changes are they automatic bets, or is there some type of record keeping involved?

BTW: One of the best opportunities in trainer research is the small barn before the locusts descend.

Example; Race-2, PHA Dec-8th.

#9 Brandy For Three / Trn: J. Bakus may be someone to keep an eye on. Nice work with this FTS making him 3/8 sprinting this year / 3/11 >= 8/1 MLO.

[the little guy]

Horses could have had three legs for all I knew. Here are my figures for the race:

CRC 12/10/2008 Race 2 12:50 5.0f Dirt 0/0 Md 12500 3, 4, and 5 yo

1 Uncle Emil 15-1 NA 28/0 10 X
2 J V's Mad Hatter 15-1 NA 51/2 34 20
3 High Commander 8-5 NA 49/1 30 50
4 Seminole Warrior 15-1 NA 46/2 1 20
5 Pender's Tune 3-1 P 56/4 22 45
6 Sumbubblee 8-1 NA 30/0 22 35
7 Europa Dancer 2-1 E 50/2 27 51


Three underlines, top 3, including the $105 winner.


It's scary to think of how much you would have won on the race if you had been in the paddock at Calder.

Scary.

[DanG]

It's scary to think of how much you would have won on the race if you had been in the paddock at Calder.

Scary.
It’s going to be one of those threads…again.

[point given]

I don't know about other tracks but at NYRA, Jan Rushton does a nice job from the paddock, in my opinion.
I always paid attention to her in the past, but lately its been sort of same old, same old. During the weekdays shorter , weekends longer analysis. Mostly wraps and getting warm now, used to have more trainer talk. Still better than not.

[cj]

OK, so what do people think was more pertinent? That a horse made a minor blinker change, or that he actually caught a field where his demonstrated ability showed he had a real chance for a change?

Suddenly, we are to believe this winless trainer is smart enough to stage a betting coup with a blinker change. Not only that, but judging by the win price and the pool size, he apparently forgot to bet.

[Tom]

I wore a full cup to Saratoga last year and it didn't help me.

[ryesteve]

It’s going to be one of those threads…again.And it should be, if someone is seriously suggesting that bigger blinker cups is enough of a reason to turn a horse from a "no way" into an automatic wager.

[Robert Fischer]

It's scary to think of how much you would have won on the race if you had been in the paddock at Calder.

Scary.

Trip handicapping has to be right up there with physicallity (and anything else) among the "more advanced" handicapping methods ?

[DanG]

And it should be, if someone is seriously suggesting that bigger blinker cups is enough of a reason to turn a horse from a "no way" into an automatic wager.
Enjoy…

[jonnielu]

OK, so what do people think was more pertinent? That a horse made a minor blinker change, or that he actually caught a field where his demonstrated ability showed he had a real chance for a change?



I'd have to go with this one, ability should always direct the observations, or focus them. Without first observing some glimmer of ability, one would rarely catch other things that may support the initial take.

That is not to say that there could not be those that work from the opposite end. But, it would be doubtful that they could bet with confidence working from a shred of evidence as opposed to a chunk.

jdl

[DeanT]

It’s going to be one of those threads…again.

:D

I think (and I am not trying to be nice) that both can be used.

If I was at the track and had CJ's figures I would bet maybe 0.3% of my bankroll on the horse. If I was in the paddock and saw that last time the horse looked to be looking around during the race, and noticed the full cup, I might have played 0.4% or 0.5% at those odds.

[cj]

I hear you Dean, but I'm not sure I'd want to risk more on what a winless trainer is attempting. Then again, you would be using the figures of a winless bettor, so why not!

[ryesteve]

Enjoy…You're missing the point. The idea isn't to be unnecessarily argumentative; the idea is to keep people from throwing away money on this sort of advice.

[DeanT]

I hear you Dean, but I'm not sure I'd want to risk more on what a winless trainer is attempting. Then again, you would be using the figures of a winless bettor, so why not!
Equipment as a rule is a bad bet, I would say certainly in that case. But if you saw the last race and agree with what they guy is doing, then I think it could be construed as a positive move.

I play longshots quite a bit, compared to many, so I am maybe not the best to have an opine on this.

Blinkers on in harness are a terrible bet as well. But it does give you a good idea where the horse will be and it gives you an edge on the pace scenario. Sometimes it works for some bomb prices.

[Bruddah]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby. At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?


Your question is the same as someone asking how to build a house without a foundation or walls. All you seem to want is a roof. There is no substitute for a good foundation and understanding of the basics.

Even thoae using electronic programs or pace, speed numbers etc. have a solid understanding of Basic Handicapping.

As my old Pappy once told me, there are no shortcuts to success. ;)

[DanG]

the idea is to keep people from throwing away money on this sort of advice.
Fair enough; but what is the “throwing away money” based upon?

Do you have empirical evidence that this type of blinker change has little effect? Blinkers off for example is a remarkably powerful angle that improves almost every factor it’s paired with…long term.

I was trying to bring out something similar to your point. If this is something Karl (or anyone) looks for…do they have records to back up the angle or are they flying without a parachute.

Side note: It’s amazing how many “positive” angles get taken for granted in our game and then when there researched it’s…not so pretty. (and vice a versa at times) Between Meadow’s / Massa / Tiller and Cramer they have done more myth dispelling then any four people I’m aware of.

[DeanT]

I've got a couple of speed things I play that are ROI positive with blinkers on. Just because they are a bad bet overall, does not mean they are a bad bet all the time.

[ryesteve]

Do you have empirical evidence that this type of blinker change has little effect? Blinkers off for example is a remarkably powerful angle that improves almost every factor it’s paired withYes, I would agree with that. The data bears it out. But there is absolutely no equipment change whatsoever that is powerful enough to provide so much ROI improvement that it turns throwouts into a good bets. The data would bear that out too.

This is the sort of thing you might use as a reason to become more aggressive with a horse you already like, or perhaps to take a flyer on a horse you thought was marginal, but in a case where one is saying that they hate everything about this horse, a blinker switch is a really poor reason to change that assessment, unless perhaps there's some really compelling trainer history to go along with it.

[GameTheory]

You're missing the point. The idea isn't to be unnecessarily argumentative; the idea is to keep people from throwing away money on this sort of advice.To be fair, Karl made it perfectly clear he would never bet on that horse -- he was just pointing out that a such changes of equipment aren't going to be noticed from home.

[DanG]

Yes, I would agree with that. The data bears it out. But there is absolutely no equipment change whatsoever that is powerful enough to provide so much ROI improvement that it turns throwouts into a good bets. The data would bear that out too.

This is the sort of thing you might use as a reason to become more aggressive with a horse you already like, or perhaps to take a flyer on a horse you thought was marginal, but in a case where one is saying that they hate everything about this horse, a blinker switch is a really poor reason to change that assessment, unless perhaps there's some really compelling trainer history to go along with it.
I agree completely, unless where talking about a well researched / blind spot play that requires zero override.

I’m guessing that Karl doesn’t have a 5 year database showing this cup change has a verifiable +- effect, but then again…maybe he does.

[bigmack]

There's a reason guys like EDahlman dials in on footwear like he does. Few do. Going beyond what is commonly found/known is the start of a player having what some might call 'an edge'. But it takes work.

Having the ability to readily identify changes whether they be equipment, trn/jock, surface, can be an interestingly profitable starting point. Scrutinizing them through other criteria then triggers the 'play or pass'

Database programs that offer a quick peak into changes are a nice asset.

[2low]

I'm fairly new at this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe the idea is to bet on a horse that I think will win 25% of the time when the wagering public has said it, collectively, believes that horse will win less than 25% of the time. The other important part of my job is to not bet said horse if the public, collectively, has stated with their money that they believe the horse will win more often than 25% of the time.

If my strategy has proven over time that, on average, when I say a horse will win 25% of the time, it actually does win close to 25% of the time, my strategy is a good one whether simple or complicated.

So, the task is not to determine whether a simple system is better than a complicated system, or whether a complicated system is better than a simple system, but whether your system is, on average, putting you on profitable wagering opportunities.

How people decide whether to bet a horse or not without deciding how valuable that horse is in today's race is beyond me. I suppose if a person gives a horse a "good shot" in the race and the tote board reflects essentially "no shot" the spread woud possibly be large enough to work long term.

[DeanT]

To be fair, Karl made it perfectly clear he would never bet on that horse -- he was just pointing out that a such changes of equipment aren't going to be noticed from home.
Thanks for that GT. It is extremely rare that we get off topic here from an original poster's answer, but when we do it is nice to be reminded :D

[Tom Barrister]

I'm fairly new at this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe the idea is to bet on a horse that I think will win 25% of the time when the wagering public has said it, collectively, believes that horse will win less than 25% of the time. The other important part of my job is to not bet said horse if the public, collectively, has stated with their money that they believe the horse will win more often than 25% of the time.



The general idea is correct, if over-defined. The general idea is to bet where the odds exceed the probability of success. Of course, this is easier said than done, since the public generally tends to assign odds relative to the actual probabilities, resulting in takeout-caused underlays, and since most of the money doesn't show up until late in the betting (or after betting closes).

[ryesteve]

To be fair, Karl made it perfectly clear he would never bet on that horseMaybe you're right... I took it to mean that was his assessment before he saw the blinker switch

[TurfRuler]

NO I AM NOT REDBOARDING, DIDN'T PLAY THE HORSE, just an example of "being there". Yesterday at CRC, 2nd race, #2 horse with a jockey that never won a race, a trainer that never won a race and a horse with 20 starts and never in the money. Not going to see my wager. HOWEVER, I noticed what I call "full cups" blinkers on the horse, my charts for his last race on 11/24 showed what I call 1/2 cups. A change of equipment that those playing from home will never see. He led all the way and paid $105.40.
Several people won money on this race, the DD paid $121.00, the winners had to wheel the DD with "chalk" in the 1st race (wasn't even near in the CD)and those who played him in the 2nd race had to see the CHANGE IN EQUIPMENT.

Avoid these Common Wagering Mistakes by Jerry T. (another old head like karlskorner). On the page he list six bad decisions that will negatively affect your bankroll.

2. Not paying attention to the race changes - Smart handicappers always check the monitors 10 - 15 minutes before the race for changes. Vital data is displayed on the monitors that are critical for your handicapping success. Some examples are: jockey changes, over weights, updated track condition, surface change (turf to dirt), equipment changes, and shoeing information. Without knowing these late developing changes you are at a severe disadvantage to other players and are less
likely to select a winner. I recommend that you always check the monitors for changes….always.

http://www.tricitiessports.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=210&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=30883&wpage=&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1131&hn=tricitiessports&he=.com

Now back to an answer for the originator of this thread.

[SMOO]

I wore a full cup to Saratoga last year and it didn't help me.


--------------------

┏┫　┏┓　┏┓　┣┓　　　　┃┃
┗┫　　　┃　　　┣┛　┏━━┻┃
　┃　┗━━━┛　┃　　┣━━　┃
　┗━━━┳━━━┛　　┣━━　┃

[TurfRuler]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby.
At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?

You obviously know the basics of handicapping. Then to thoroughly enjoy predicting the winners of races as a serious hobbyist I suggest that you watch race replays and follow the horses you want to see in return races with a virtual stable e-mail. Here are a few places I would recommend that you use. Some are free other not so free.

DRF Plus - Unlimited access to exclusive DRF news coverage, commentary, and handicapping information including video analysis, BreezeFigs Reports, and much more!

Stable Alert at Brisnet.com E-mail Notification Service!
discover anInternet's E-mail notification service for horse racing enthusiasts. Brisnet.com offers FREE access to the entries and results scanner for individual Horses, Trainers, and Races. You do not have to be a member in order to take advantage of the free emails on Horse entries.

At Equibase Virtual Stable offers a e-mail notification service for Every workout, every entry, every result with free daily updates delivered to your e-mail in-box. You can create and view your own stable of horse that you want to watch for in upcoming races.

Register here www.equibase.com

Search the homepage for the virtual stable icon.

Video Race Replays at the same site now have great NEW features including
Additional new camera angle to view the race head-on
Starter and results information that displays right beside your video
New easy-to-use display
At-a-glance subscription status to let you know how many downloads you have left
Look for the Video Camera icon within your favorite products and you will have instant access to video replays with one click.

Race re-plays can be found racetrack websites, Bloodhorse’s site shows weekly race replays, Race Replays.com offers a majority of racetrack replays.

Here is an example of DRF’s

http://www.drf.com/stakeresults/drfStakeResults.jsp


ESPN’s Horse racing index has weekly replays.

All you have to do is have the time and in some cases the money to watch.

Recently I started a thread where I asked if anyone had success using some of the services along with their past performance data. No one joined the thread to reply. So I concluded, (They know but are keeping silent) since I had already done a limited research on this stay at home, hobbyist, make picks for my own pleasure and saw some positive results from watching these replays.

[jonnielu]

I'm curious about the need for using what I consider to be more advanced handicapping techniques-specifically handicapping software and visually assessing a horse's pre-race demeanor.

How important do you consider these techniques? How much of an edge do they provide?

I don't intend to handicap for a living but rather simply as a hobby. At the same time, I'd like to improve my knowledge of horseracing and my ability to win consistently.

Does a person sitting at home watching a race on TV reading the DRF without anything else stand a chance in these high tech times?

You might look at everything beyond the ML as more complete, rather then more advanced. Many players use the information between the PP's and the gate, not as a continuation of measurement, or as a continued comparison of one horse to the other, but as a positive method of either green lighting or red lighting the wager.

An example would be that you have made a selection for a win bet based on PP criteria, and odds. You could take that further by now adding that you will not bet the horse unless you see it warm up effectively, or more then the usual. If yes, you bet, if no, you pass. Not complex, but you may find it effective. If you developed that skill to the point you were doing it well, then you could look at the ways to build from that basic.

A starting point that you can build on can be quite simple. If your starting point is consistent, you can then think about what makes it so, and advance by answering those questions.

jdl

[karlskorner]

As pointed out by Ron Tiller on another post, this forum has it's share of those educated in Computer Science, Engineering, Psychology, Physics, Business, Statistics and of course Mathematics.

But lets get back to my original thoughts that "at home players" are at a disadvantage when it comes to equipment changes etc. that they cannot see on their monitors. To start with, as I stated, I did not wager on the horse for reasons explained. To begin I assume Juan Santos is a newly licensed Trainer having only entered 2 races for the entire year, therefore he needs all the help he can garner. What do you think Trainer and Jockey are talking about after the race is run and their walk back to the Jocks room ?
Maybe you never noticed that the Trainer who walks a Jock to the Jocks room and stands outside for a few mintues is trying to learn why his horse did not win, who knows better than than the Jockey, in this case M. Santiago might have stated that the horse was still not paying attention and suggested "full cups" or maybe this suggestion came from a Trainer in the next barn, trainers are always looking for reasons and changing the type of blinkers is one of them.

[TurfRuler]

basic handicapping v. more advanced methods

Visited Cristblog for April 2008 found this amusing post related to the subject of this thread:

c says:
Let's see, the come home time was 12.43, divided by 1.455*log(distance). Now take the derivative of pi*(stride length) with respect to distance, divided by the Beyer added to the speed of light. Then take the half-mile pace of 47.29 and add 93.532773*sqrt(traction in the surface/the angle of the banked turns)+length of the stretch-speed variant^7. Add log(quarter-mile time/3.44) for every bump. Of course, the weight of the blinkers has to be multiplied by the arctan of the 6f split, and we have to somehow factor in the possibility that some horses may be spooked when they hear the track announcer's voice over the PA. That deducts 0.02 seconds per foot.

What has handicapping evolved, or devolved, in to? Are you guys actually serious with these calculations? Isn't part of the problem that handicappers have become so heavily dependent on numbers and figures that they have become totally incapable of watching and evaluating races for themselves? Does anyone use their eyes anymore, or has that become a lost art? Did you guys need numbers to know that Ghostzapper was good? Would your opinion of Curlin be any different if he was getting 85s in every race? In the old days, nobody needed a number or a figure to know that Secretariat was great. Gee, was that Belmont a 139 or a 137? Come on guys, get real.
Posted by C Apr 17, 2008 12:35:46 PM

[Dave Schwartz]

TurfRuler,

What has handicapping evolved, or devolved, in to? Are you guys actually serious with these calculations? Isn't part of the problem that handicappers have become so heavily dependent on numbers and figures that they have become totally incapable of watching and evaluating races for themselves?

As the public has become more and more sophistcicated this is simply not enough for most winning players to win.


Does anyone use their eyes anymore, or has that become a lost art? Did you guys need numbers to know that Ghostzapper was good?

How good? 3/5? 6/5? 2/1?

Knowing that a horse is good just is not a fine enough distinction these days.


Would your opinion of Curlin be any different if he was getting 85s in every race? In the old days, nobody needed a number or a figure to know that Secretariat was great.

Same as above. You have picked out an obvious play... one that we have not seen in many years. In the trenches on a day-to-day basis, it simply is not enough to say, "He is a great horse."

At least it is not enough to be profitable with. You can certainly "have a good time" but I would not expect that such generalities as "good," great," "bad" etc. would result in positive results.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[dav4463]

I'm not smart enough to use sophisticated figures I guess. My handicapping is fairly simple. I've been winning because I am constantly working on structuring bets better and avoiding chasing too many bets. I try to eliminate obvious contenders if I can and then look for those "who have a chance" that I know the public will shy away from. Then I try to make the right bet for the situation. I don't use charts, computer programs, or pace figures. I just use the DRF and a pen and keep track of the winning patterns that I notice on a day to day basis. I also keep records of my own play and review it constantly looking for where I have an edge.

[eastie]

I don't know about other tracks but at NYRA, Jan Rushton does a nice job from the paddock, in my opinion.


she has awesome lids too, and is very nice to everyone at Saratoga.

[cmoore]

I'm not smart enough to use sophisticated figures I guess. My handicapping is fairly simple. I've been winning because I am constantly working on structuring bets better and avoiding chasing too many bets. I try to eliminate obvious contenders if I can and then look for those "who have a chance" that I know the public will shy away from. Then I try to make the right bet for the situation. I don't use charts, computer programs, or pace figures. I just use the DRF and a pen and keep track of the winning patterns that I notice on a day to day basis. I also keep records of my own play and review it constantly looking for where I have an edge.

No pace, class or race ratings...WOW!!! If it works, good for you..I like to keep it simple also..I only print 6 races back for each horse. Any race over 180 days back is in lighter ink also..Current form is key for me and not what the horse did a year ago.

[Tom]

An HTR member used to use the last line only. Everything was based on that one line, and he had spot plays that were profitable for him. All his testing was done off that line, and he made money. I do not think he did any observations of trips, appearance, whatever.