Eliminate the Losers

[Norm]

Steve Klein wrote an insightful article today in the DRF to remind us that once in a while we should go back to basics, just to make sure we are on track. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the intricacies of our craft that we forget the fundamentals. Just as a major league baseball player is always taking basic batting practice and engaging in simple and basic fielding techniques to stay sharp, so the experienced handicapper should periodically take a race card and accurately eliminate the losers. Don't worry about which horse will win, just be sure that eliminated horses actually lose. It's an especially good exercise if you are in a slump. I have been doing this myself for years. For me, if at any time more than five races out of a hundred are won by an eliminated horse, it's time to go back to the drawing board for some technique adjustment.

I believe that every beginning horseplayer should start with this basic skill. Learn to eliminate the losers, and be right, before you try to pick winners from among the remaining contenders. A tip of the hat to Steve Klein for high-lighting this topic.

[dav4463]

good reminder, thanks!

[Overlay]

An "eliminate the losers" exercise such as you describe is useful for getting an idea of the relative importance of various handicapping factors. It seems to me, however, that using it to remove horses totally from further consideration starts you down the road to selecting the same "obvious" underlaid horses that the public as a whole focuses (and loses money) on. I think that it's preferable to look at the potential winning chances of all the horses in a race (considering both the positive and negative aspects of their records), and then let the odds determine whether any given horse is bettable or not.

[Toss_DeLoser]

Don't worry about which horse will win, just be sure that eliminated horses actually lose.

One of the main Bingos
:ThmbUp:

[Norm]

An "eliminate the losers" exercise such as you describe is useful for getting an idea of the relative importance of various handicapping factors. It seems to me, however, that using it to remove horses totally from further consideration starts you down the road to selecting the same "obvious" underlaid horses that the public as a whole focuses (and loses money) on. I think that it's preferable to look at the potential winning chances of all the horses in a race (considering both the positive and negative aspects of their records), and then let the odds determine whether any given horse is bettable or not.
I find it to be a very time/cost effective procedure. The elimination rules must be statistically tested for acuracy, and there aren't many that are really good, but you save so much valuable handicapping time using them that I have always thought it worth the minor losses to use them. Just to offer an example - I keep a track-specific list of trainers that have a history of low win production. At last year's race meet, this group collectively saddled 635 horses. Twelve of those horses actually won. I arbitrarily eliminated all horses entered by those trainers, saved the time of handicapping 635 horses and experienced a loss rate of about two races per hundred for the convenience of it. At the current meet this same group have, so far, saddled 165 horses and haven't won one yet. Of course, they will eventually win a few, but so few that I will continue to eliminate their horses.

[Robert Fischer]

I keep a track-specific list of trainers that have a history of low win production. At last year's race meet, this group collectively saddled 635 horses. Twelve of those horses actually won. I arbitrarily eliminated all horses entered by those trainers, saved the time of handicapping 635 horses and experienced a loss rate of about two races per hundred for the convenience of it. At the current meet this same group have, so far, saddled 165 horses and haven't won one yet. Of course, they will eventually win a few, but so few that I will continue to eliminate their horses.

good idea

[sealman]

I agree completely. The first order of business is to eliminate the losers. If you can more or less automatically throw out 4 horses in a ten horse field, you've improved your blind chance of winning almost by two-thirds. And from that point on some smart handicapping can get you your share of winners. I also like your idea of keeping track of the low-percentage trainers, something I just might pick up on myself.

I don't come around here all that often (afraid I might slip and give away some of my secrets) but when I do I always find something worthwhile.

[Overlay]

I find it to be a very time/cost effective procedure. The elimination rules must be statistically tested for acuracy, and there aren't many that are really good, but you save so much valuable handicapping time using them that I have always thought it worth the minor losses to use them. Just to offer an example - I keep a track-specific list of trainers that have a history of low win production. At last year's race meet, this group collectively saddled 635 horses. Twelve of those horses actually won. I arbitrarily eliminated all horses entered by those trainers, saved the time of handicapping 635 horses and experienced a loss rate of about two races per hundred for the convenience of it. At the current meet this same group have, so far, saddled 165 horses and haven't won one yet. Of course, they will eventually win a few, but so few that I will continue to eliminate their horses.

I recognize the logic of your approach, but in my own style of handicapping and wagering, taking those horses into consideration doesn't materially impact my overall time requirements, or cause me to arbitrarily back horses just because they're at high odds. And I then know that I won't end up kicking myself when one of them does win as an overlay based on a positive aspect of its record that I would have otherwise disregarded completely.

[rusrious]

I perfer to eliminate by the number of frontrunners and closers. if you have 4-5 frontrunners, and 1 closer in the race, you can pretty much bet that the frontrunners will wear eachother down, making it almost sure bet that the closer will be in the money. JMO

I found it very weak to pull a horse from you selections based on certain values, or lack there of.. Its a losing battle in the long run..