Handicapper's Kill Zone

[tanda]

I read once (I believe Charles Carroll's columns) of a "handicapper's kill zone" or something to that effect.

The idea was was most successful handicappers make their money with solid 3:1, 7:2, 4:1, 9:2 shots.

Obviously, there are many longshot handicappers, but I agree that many handicappers probably focus on these low-priced overlays (for example a 3:1 shot who is actually the best horse in the field and goes as the third choice).

An idea which I had (and am testing) is to play horses in an odds range (for example 3:1, 7:2, 4:1 in an eight horse field). I use two form and two ability criteria to determine contenders, then I use a rating to rank and assign odds to contenders. Any horse with two or more defects is a non-contender, any with one is a contender that is non-playable and any with no defects is a playable contender. Also, any contender must rank in the top half of the field in my rating method. Thus, about 4 horse in an eight horse field are contenders on average with a contender win percentage of between 75% and 80%. This is the contender identification method I use for my "classical" handicapping.

So, the idea is to play any playable contender (by definition no contender defects and in top half of field in rating method), but only at in the designated odds range and no action on those above and below the range. The idea is that these solid selections are not "dead on the board" but mid-priced enough to give value. Also, it hopefully eliminates "false overlays".

I paper test, without a database, and play along with the races in real-time on the Internet whenever I am testing. I am using the SoCal and NoCal circuits since I follow those regularly and am playing them for money now. So far, the results are mildly encouraging.

Any feedback on the idea? Hopefully, I have clearly explained the idea (hopefully, I understand the idea, it is still germinating).

[so.cal.fan]

My late father, used a similar plan with success for many years.
He played 3/1 to 5/1 shots. He did no paper handicapping.
He would just select his bets on looks in the paddock, provided they were in this odds range. If he had two or three, he boxed them in exactas.
I know another man, who uses a similar method based on trainers he likes in this odds range.
It must work pretty well, because he has been doing it for many years, and is at the track everyday.

[Dick Schmidt]

Tanda,

Interesting approach. A couple of thoughts: as long as you are playing on paper, track all the horses who qualify as contenders, even outside your odds ranges. You want to make sure your criteria are selecting a high percentage of winners and you want to fine tune your odds ranges. At first glance, I think your low odds of 3/1 is about right, but that you need to go a bit higher, maybe 7/1 or so. Of course, I may be completely wrong, but that has been my experience. Let us know how it works out.

Dick

[andicap]

As mentioned elsewhere the problem with these methods is that the odds are now changing in profound ways very late in the process even if you've bet 1 minute to post. You might think you're getting 3-1 and end up with 5-2.

[tanda]

Andicap,

Speaking of late odds changes. I agree with the complaints on this board and elsewhere about the problem. But nobody has mentioned that the problem is usually quite predictable and can, therefore, be somewhat guarded against.

The odds change in a predictable pattern. I find that low odds horses generally get pounded in the last minute. So if I am willing to play a horse at 3:1 who is at those odds right before post, I am well aware that he will probably be a tick lower.

However, if it is a minute to post and a longshot I like is 6:1 and I need him/her to be 8:1, I know that it will generally rise in the last minute. I am usually pretty accurate in predicting the "momentum" and guard against it. Still, this is less perfect than instantly updated odds. Seems to me that odds could be continously updated, not just every minute with a lag.

[Rick Ransom]

I think you would do about the same if you just used a morning line odds range. It would probably be higher on the low end and lower on the high end. You could adjust for scratches but it usually won't make that much difference. I've found that 4-1 and up morning line gives about the same results as 3-1 and up actual odds, so that might be a good place to start (for the low end).

I don't use a high end limit but it may be a good thing. The trouble is, it will probably take checking a lot of races to get it right. It really hurts if you set your limit and a couple of winners come in at just over those odds. I've almost gotten to the point of doing this a couple of times after I had a string of horses finish second at high odds. But usually, things turn around the other way soon, and I would eliminate a lot of my profit if I set the limit too low. Based on my experience, I wouldn't set my upper limit at lower than 25-1.

While I'll agree that you can watch a trend and many times predict which way the odds will move, the point is that you shouldn't have to do this. the racing industry could fix this if they really wanted to. Just another example of how racing ignores their customers.

[tanda]

I agree. But we have to do the best we can now. I rarely bet 5:2 shots or lower but when I do, it is with apprehension.

We should get instant updates, but we still live in an age when votes are cast on paper and counted by hand in places. There ought to be instantaneous voting results as well.

By the way, I recently bet a 9:1 shot about 30 seconds before they went off, he was 9:2 on the backstretch.

[tanda]

Recent results: 40 qualifiers. 10-2-12. Average odds on winners 3.84. R.O.I. +21%. Play at Solano and Hollywood primarily.

Not statistically significant, but continuing to follow-up.

[Aussieplayer]

A little off the current subject heading (again!) but:

Isn't it interesting that 2 "opposing" views can be "right?"

I really like Mark Cramer's stuff, and I have recently had the pleasure of reading "The New Pace Makes The Race" by Tom Hambleton and Dick Schmidt. (A GREAT read Dick!) - I recommend it to anyone, even if you aren't into pace at all (remember - I can't even use most of the pace ideas here!). The money management, paceline selection etc. etc. is GREAT reading for anyone.

Anyway - Dick mentions his betting strategy of betting 2 horses per race. About 60-40 (off the top of my head), with 60 on the LOWER odds. Did it work? It id for Dick.

The same (2 horse per race) idea is also discussed by Cramer, again using 60-40, but this time with 60 on the LONGER priced horse!

Interesting isn't it? Well I thought it was! I love both these guys, they both express a different opinion on this example - and I think they're both right!!

I suppose the simple answer is that they handicap differently, with a different betting approach being necessary.

Still, it does encourage you to think, "well this may not be wrong after all," just because others/fav. authors etc. go another way.

Cheers
Aussieplayer

PS. Get a hold of Dick's book - maybe he'll even do a "paceadvantage" special???

[andicap]

I bought the original. How much change is there in this one? The "New" Brohamer book was pretty much the same as the first one with I think one new chapter and a new cover with a new intro. Same with Quinn.
Just a way to get the book back into the market...

[Tom]

There is an update to Pace Makes the Race?
I have a second edition, more of a softcover book that had a chapter about the RS POS type use of 1st call times. Is that the one you are talking about or is there a newer version?
Tom

[andicap]

Y'know, I never bought into the RS-POS stuff.
Didn't ring true that you could categorize a horse based on its fastest 1/4 fraction in its last 10 races. One race doesn't seem representative to me, especially if it could have been a year ago.
Has anyone used it with any success?

[Dick Schmidt]

There were two editions of "Pace Makes the Race," the first in hardcover and the second in soft cover. If you have the first edition, I don't think there is enough new in the second to warrant buying it unless you are actively using TPR to handicap with. In the second edition, the numbers were tinkered with a bit, it has all new examples and some new stuff, but the basics are the same. One other difference is that it is still available.

I don't know what the PA board's attitude is toward "specials" listed here, but I'll be glad to do so if it is ok with the management. Say half off?

Dick