What's Left?

[Handiman]

I have been around handicapping for a long time. And it's been a great time. That being said, I still am trying to learn and get better all the time. But I have a question.

What is there left to discover? With speed points, Carrol speed, Klein speed, Brohammer, Schmidt, Ragozin.....Beyer, Quirin, TSN data files, Bris files...Schwartz here and other's.....Doug's latest FAST program....Impact Values and then all the crazy crap that comes in advertisements.

What have we not touched, felt, massaged, queried, added, threw darts at, leaned on, selected by name and read about? Is there really anything that has not been scrutinized over these many years?

If so I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Handiman :)

[fmolf]

I have been around handicapping for a long time. And it's been a great time. That being said, I still am trying to learn and get better all the time. But I have a question.

What is there left to discover? With speed points, Carrol speed, Klein speed, Brohammer, Schmidt, Ragozin.....Beyer, Quirin, TSN data files, Bris files...Schwartz here and other's.....Doug's latest FAST program....Impact Values and then all the crazy crap that comes in advertisements.

What have we not touched, felt, massaged, queried, added, threw darts at, leaned on, selected by name and read about? Is there really anything that has not been scrutinized over these many years?

If so I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Handiman :)
i have been able to choose between runners that i have selected as contenders using a body language method....as much to select a horse as to eliminate them

[acorn54]

I have been around handicapping for a long time. And it's been a great time. That being said, I still am trying to learn and get better all the time. But I have a question.

What is there left to discover? With speed points, Carrol speed, Klein speed, Brohammer, Schmidt, Ragozin.....Beyer, Quirin, TSN data files, Bris files...Schwartz here and other's.....Doug's latest FAST program....Impact Values and then all the crazy crap that comes in advertisements.

What have we not touched, felt, massaged, queried, added, threw darts at, leaned on, selected by name and read about? Is there really anything that has not been scrutinized over these many years?

If so I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Handiman :)







well each day the track surface changes and you have to keep on top of track and rail bias' or so some think. if you think this is true then each day is a new a different day at the track

[kenwoodallpromos]

I have been around handicapping for a long time. And it's been a great time. That being said, I still am trying to learn and get better all the time. But I have a question.

What is there left to discover? With speed points, Carrol speed, Klein speed, Brohammer, Schmidt, Ragozin.....Beyer, Quirin, TSN data files, Bris files...Schwartz here and other's.....Doug's latest FAST program....Impact Values and then all the crazy crap that comes in advertisements.

What have we not touched, felt, massaged, queried, added, threw darts at, leaned on, selected by name and read about? Is there really anything that has not been scrutinized over these many years?

If so I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Handiman :)
I have admittedly not studyed all of the various figures makers; but I would like to find the place that shows from past races, a horse's M/L odds, and any previous scratches.

[Handiman]

Ken.

Do you mean what horses were scratched or when a particular horse was scratched? And aren't previous m/l from the horse's PP's shown in the form?

Handi

[BIG HIT]

It not so much undiscoverd there was a time we didn't have enough info now we are faced with overload.Which is about same problem except now you ethier change your perseption of your thought on if for example which spd fig work best for you.? where as before you just had drf fig now you have half dozen.Now your more in control as you have more choice as to what method or computer prgm or how in depth you want to go.

[Cadillakin]

I have been around handicapping for a long time. And it's been a great time. That being said, I still am trying to learn and get better all the time. But I have a question.

What is there left to discover? With speed points, Carrol speed, Klein speed, Brohammer, Schmidt, Ragozin.....Beyer, Quirin, TSN data files, Bris files...Schwartz here and other's.....Doug's latest FAST program....Impact Values and then all the crazy crap that comes in advertisements.

What have we not touched, felt, massaged, queried, added, threw darts at, leaned on, selected by name and read about? Is there really anything that has not been scrutinized over these many years?

If so I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Handiman :)
It begins and ends with the horses!

Who they are, who they beat, how they do it, how fast they run, and with how much courage. Who will fight it out and who will fold.. Where they belong, where they are going, how far they like to run... and what surface(s) best suits them.

And next week, some of the things you learned last week will be obsolete. Some rethinking will be necessary.. It is a fluid game, with underlying principles, but if one cannot or has not attained expertise on the subtle differences within the athletes themselves, you might as well hang up your spikes and find a new game to play...

[Bettowin]

It begins and ends with the horses!

Who they are, who they beat, how they do it, how fast they run, and with how much courage. Who will fight it out and who will fold.. Where they belong, where they are going, how far they like to run... and what surface(s) best suits them.

And next week, some of the things you learned last week will be obsolete. Some rethinking will be necessary.. It is a fluid game, with underlying principles, but if one cannot or has not attained expertise on the subtle differences within the athletes themselves, you might as well hang up your spikes and find a new game to play...


So true. In theory, they could have the same 10 horses run the same distance every 14 days for 6 months and it would still be hard to pick winners not to mention make money:)

[fmolf]

So true. In theory, they could have the same 10 horses run the same distance every 14 days for 6 months and it would still be hard to pick winners not to mention make money:)very well said....although most of the time the field can be norrowed in half thru even lenient elimination rules

[Track Phantom]

I have been around handicapping for a long time. And it's been a great time. That being said, I still am trying to learn and get better all the time. But I have a question.

What is there left to discover? With speed points, Carrol speed, Klein speed, Brohammer, Schmidt, Ragozin.....Beyer, Quirin, TSN data files, Bris files...Schwartz here and other's.....Doug's latest FAST program....Impact Values and then all the crazy crap that comes in advertisements.

What have we not touched, felt, massaged, queried, added, threw darts at, leaned on, selected by name and read about? Is there really anything that has not been scrutinized over these many years?

If so I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Handiman :)

Good question. I take a completely different approach. I don't believe all of those figures, speed numbers, etc mean a damn thing. There are so many uncontrolled and unknown variables that it is futile to try to come up with some magic "number". Handicapping is a "feel" or an "instinct" based on years of experience. What data points or method might work for one race, may not for another.

I equate handicapping to painting a picture from a blank canvas. You have to use imagination and make educated guesses and hypothesis. There are no hard and fast rules. In my opinion, going down the path of speed figures usually leads to low odds runners and offers no more winners than you might get with just betting favorites.

I lean on trainer patterns and race replays quite a bit. I like to identify "well meant" runners based on what trainers usually do or don't do. I also like to watch a race replay to see if a horse was comfortable, intimidated on the rail, chasing the speed or stalking the speed, ran into traffic, etc. I also like to look at the other runners it ran against in a previous race to get a feel for how strong the race was, at least on paper.

[Red Knave]

What is there left to discover? I can't answer that except to say that no one knows until the discovery gets made.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
- George Bernard Shaw

[markgoldie]

Hey Handiman;

There's no question that we are currently awash in numbers and I don't really see any glaring deficiency in the attempt to mathematically describe what goes on out on the track.

Most serious players are working in the area of the specialized use of the numbers we already have. It's interesting that the so-called "feel" players or handicapping artists as it were have little use for all these numbers. But they all use numbers anyway unless they never buy a past performance sheet. They say it depends on who they beat and how. Fine. Who they beat and how is all described by numbers, even if it's just a class level or a margin of victory or a date when they last ran. "Who they beat" is numbers because how in the world do we measure the quality of horses unless it relates to how they ran and margin of victory or loss. Even a given class level is a number because once you compare it to another class, it's either better or worse and how many levels better or worse is a number.

So everyone is working with numbers, it's just that some won't admit it. And since the number players dominate the odds' boards, even the non-number players have to deal with the opinions of the numbers guys in order to find their value. In other words, you're dealing with numbers when you try to find instances in which the numbers are wrong.

So I think the future lies in just more sophisticated use of the available numbers.

Mark

[Dave Schwartz]

Handiman,

We live in a world where everyone is an expert. We all know everything.

I am not being sarcastic here. I don't mean that we think we know everything. We really do.

Look, we live in the information age. Everybody has lots of information. And not just about horse racing.

What do you want to know?

Just ask a friend about anything from a heart attack to diabetes, from gumbo to the Super Bowl, or from fishing to froglegs. Everyone knows everything.

Almost all the horse players I know have read every book on horse racing. Twice. And the ones that haven't are woefully ignorant in comparison to the rest.

So, the information you have gathered is not the end of what you have to learn, it is the beginning.

So, when you ask "What is left?" the correct answer is "How to play" or "How to win."

For me, this whole thing has been an issue of self-discovery. 32 years of it. I think that those of us who have been at it for awhile with some degree of success would agree that the discoveries we make come out sounding like - "I learned so much more this month compared to what I learned in the last 2 years."

The answers are not found in the books. The questions are found in the books.


Okay, so this whole post is beginning to sound a lot like it should have begun with "Grasshopper, what is the sound of one hand clapping?" Sorry about that but I am serious.

So, begin now, from the standpoint that you are asking good questions like, "What do I DO with what I know?" or "What am I missing that was not in the books?" or "What must I do to find a way to win?"

You must look at your game. What horses do you win with? In what scenario do you win most often or biggest? When do favorites beat you that you should not have bet against (or should have bet upon)?

Here are some practical ideas...

Handicap 250 races. Note every piece of information about those races that you deem important. Not sure what is important? This is your first clue about what was missing from those books.

What can be important?

1. Look at the winners you hit.
Those were great, weren't they? Now, forget them. You scored. There is a limited amount you can learn from them.

2. Take the winners you did not have at low-odds.
How did you rate those horses? You didn't rate them? You think that a play at 8/1 has the same value to you whether the favorite in the race is 5/2 or 2/5? They probably don't win as often or return the same value to you.

Yes, I know that in a pefect world your best bet is your best bet no matter what the other horses are or do. I also know that you'd like to believe that. But is that true in reality? Maybe it is. Probably not.


3. Take the winners you did not have at higher odds but still within your range.
Why did you under rate these horses? Dig out the horse(s) you did bet in these races. Why did the winner beat your horse? Did you over-rate your horse or under-rate the winner?


4. NOW go get all your bets, winners and losers.
How did these horses compare on a few key factors that are NOT part of your handicapping? In other words, what are you leaving out that might improve things for you?


Okay, diatribe almost done.

The point is that after you have read all the books, the next step is to right your own. I don't mean for publication. Rather, you need to collect the materials that you need to write a book specifically about the way YOU handicap.


The majority of players will continue to read and re-read ad nauseum the books they have already read rather than doing anything that resembles figuring out what they must do to win. They keep looking for the answers in other people's work rather than their own. That is why they lose.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Who is constantly updating
his own book of handicapping.

[raybo]

I believe that most of what can be done with the raw data has been done. The one glaring problem with handicapping, IMO, is still the difficulty in establishing each horse's current form. Those handicappers who have developed this skill are head and heels ahead of those who haven't.

[Warren Henry]

I believe that most of what can be done with the raw data has been done.

Gee, I hope not.

If there isn't anything else to study or manipulate regarding the raw data for the horse, we must find some other numbers to play with.

After we have handicapped the race and have established the probabilities for various outcomes, Can we handicap the crowd? There is a lot of raw data available about how the crowd has performed in the past, can we massage that data to find an edge?

Given the track, race, data representing today's entries, how will the crowd likely bet their money. If we can develop a model for that, we can automatically structure bet spreads to maximize our ROI without taking much risk.

Developing a method of betting a lot of money with relative safety is a worthwhile goal if one has rebates available.

[Handiman]

Thanks for all the response. My post brought forth just exactly what I had hoped for, and that was a discussion as to where handicapping is in this point in time.

It seems to re-confirm my own beliefs in what steps I need to take in furtherance of my own abilities. I have written so many programs over the years that it's surprising my finger tips don't bleed at the sight of a keyboard.

Thank you all for contributing. I really appreciate it!

Handiman :)

[markgoldie]

Gee, I hope not.

If there isn't anything else to study or manipulate regarding the raw data for the horse, we must find some other numbers to play with.

After we have handicapped the race and have established the probabilities for various outcomes, Can we handicap the crowd? There is a lot of raw data available about how the crowd has performed in the past, can we massage that data to find an edge?

Given the track, race, data representing today's entries, how will the crowd likely bet their money. If we can develop a model for that, we can automatically structure bet spreads to maximize our ROI without taking much risk.

Developing a method of betting a lot of money with relative safety is a worthwhile goal if one has rebates available.


With all respect, I'm not quite sure I'm following this line of logic. Why do we need prediction models on how the crowd will bet, since it's relatively simple to see what and how they are betting as they are betting it? If your point is that the very last money which comes in is drastically altering the percentages in the pools, then I would stick to the higher-handle tracks where this is much less of an issue. But whatever the case, I would much rather make a wager based on the real odds at one minute to post than I would depending on a prediction model to tell me what the final odds should be.

[fmhealth]

Handi, your thread reminded me of a famous quote from I believe a Senator in the 1930s. He suggested that the Patent Office should be closed "since everything that could be invented already has".


I believe 'capping will eventually enter a new era that will produce breakthroughs we can't even start to imagine at this point.

[Dave Schwartz]

With all respect, I'm not quite sure I'm following this line of logic. Why do we need prediction models on how the crowd will bet, since it's relatively simple to see what and how they are betting as they are betting it?

Mark,

IMHO, Warren has it right: This is precisely where the new answers lie.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Warren Henry]

With all respect, I'm not quite sure I'm following this line of logic. Why do we need prediction models on how the crowd will bet, since it's relatively simple to see what and how they are betting as they are betting it? If your point is that the very last money which comes in is drastically altering the percentages in the pools, then I would stick to the higher-handle tracks where this is much less of an issue. But whatever the case, I would much rather make a wager based on the real odds at one minute to post than I would depending on a prediction model to tell me what the final odds should be.

If you have software capability to evaluate the various pools in real time and push through a lot of combinations of bets at the last minute, I agree with you. If not, next best thing would be to accurately project what the odds are likely to be at the off.

The real point of my post was intended to be that there will always be new frontiers for us to explore. If you can't figure out a way to handicap better, figure out a way to bet better, etc.

[Cratos]

It begins and ends with the horses!

Who they are, who they beat, how they do it, how fast they run, and with how much courage. Who will fight it out and who will fold.. Where they belong, where they are going, how far they like to run... and what surface(s) best suits them.

And next week, some of the things you learned last week will be obsolete. Some rethinking will be necessary.. It is a fluid game, with underlying principles, but if one cannot or has not attained expertise on the subtle differences within the athletes themselves, you might as well hang up your spikes and find a new game to play...

You are so right and if I had to put a title to your “what is left response” it would be how does one quantify class?

[Cadillakin]

Hey Handiman;

There's no question that we are currently awash in numbers and I don't really see any glaring deficiency in the attempt to mathematically describe what goes on out on the track.

Most serious players are working in the area of the specialized use of the numbers we already have. It's interesting that the so-called "feel" players or handicapping artists as it were have little use for all these numbers. But they all use numbers anyway unless they never buy a past performance sheet. They say it depends on who they beat and how. Fine. Who they beat and how is all described by numbers, even if it's just a class level or a margin of victory or a date when they last ran. "Who they beat" is numbers because how in the world do we measure the quality of horses unless it relates to how they ran and margin of victory or loss. Even a given class level is a number because once you compare it to another class, it's either better or worse and how many levels better or worse is a number.

So everyone is working with numbers, it's just that some won't admit it. And since the number players dominate the odds' boards, even the non-number players have to deal with the opinions of the numbers guys in order to find their value. In other words, you're dealing with numbers when you try to find instances in which the numbers are wrong.

So I think the future lies in just more sophisticated use of the available numbers.

Mark
Since you're reply above is not so subtly directed at me and those who use experience and the intuition it brings into our game - which you refer to as "feeling," I thought I'd respond.. Not so much for your benefit, but for others, like the OP, who should be listening to people more schooled and learned than you are..

It's not surprising that a fellow like yourself who knows very little about horses would portray handicapping as ONLY an exercise in numbers... That may be your point of view, but it's not mine.. Nor is it the point of view of anybody who either loves or knows the horses... Horsemen and those who may have insight into the equine athletes may learn many things from observing or working with horses.. Here are a few;

Acceleration - Brief or sustained, it can be recognized without the benefit of a watch.. When side by side with another athlete, observation can reveal the quicker or more nimble of the two - Again, without a watch. It can be in various sports, a quick pickoff move.. a quick first step to the basket, or with horses, a quick entrance into a fast-closing hole ... It can be and often is, the difference between winning and losing in many sporting events or games. The equine matchups - we can see in the paddocks, in morning workouts, and within the body of races. They have little or nothing to do with numbers..

Action - Efficiency of action is the hallmark of our better horses. Those who are schooled or natural horsemen may be able to make better predictions than the normal player as to what surface the horse is best suited.. and which horses presently have or might soon encounter soundness issues.. No numbers are necessary or useful.

Condition - The tracking of physical well-being, either in decline, or advancement, gives the better handicappers a way to more accurately predict improvements or deterioration. This is observation only, nothing to do with numbers. Many of the VERY BEST claiming trainers are very adept at this.. and will know when horses lose weight or gain condition from one race to the next. Or they might see some physical issues.. Even on a small TV screen, some of these issues can be tracked and be of benefit to the player.

Disposition - The ability to cooperate with his/her handlers is a critical aspect of a horses schooling and development. Those with the better dispositions may learn their lessons faster and are also likely to be more confident and have good economy in their movement. In racing, we see the horses with the kinder dispositions not fighting against the jockey so fiercely when the jock needs to take them back. As you may or may not know.. the harnessing of racing energy is an extremely important aspect of the racing athlete.. Those that do it well are mostly realizing their best potential.. A horse of good disposition generally stands well in the gate without fighting and often comes out with good dexterity and balance.. How important is a good break? Very! Do you know which ones do it well, and which ones don't? I do. If you can see and note the animals that are cooperating well and learning faster, you may also guess which ones may handle the new things that are often asked of them..ie changing distances.. That helps the handicapper.. No numbers are needed or necessary..

Courage - Those who display it on the track will win you money... The winning of photos is not always an accident. In some cases, numbers may be of some assistance, in assessing records, etc.. but visual observation is the best way of assessing courage in the racehorse... You see them fight on for the place spot after being passed.. you know, this is a horse I can count on if he is placed well.

There's other tendencies and characteristics that the racehorse may or may not have which might be valuable to him as an athlete and/or to the observer in predicting athletic behavior.. but I'm not writing a book here.. I'm simply responding to your incorrect advisement to the OP that "everything is numbers."

Perhaps you are just unaware of the natural world..I don't really know.. but what you advised is far from the truth... Consider this a needed correction to your posting.

[Cadillakin]

You are so right and if I had to put a title to your “what is left response” it would be how does one quantify class?
Thanks for your posting, Cratos.. In fact, I am a class handicapper..

[markgoldie]

It's not surprising that a fellow like yourself who knows very little about horses would portray handicapping as ONLY an exercise in numbers... That may be your point of view, but it's not mine.. Nor is it the point of view of anybody who either loves or knows the horses... Horsemen and those who may have insight into the equine athletes may learn many things from observing or working with horses.. Here are a few;


I have owned hundreds of racehorses over the years beginning with my first horse bought in 1967. I spent decades of my life grooming, training and working with racehorses. Your credentials are exactly what???

[Cadillakin]

I showed you my ROI... Where's yours? I'd like to see your ROI, Mark... You're a smart guy giving advice... Show it to us...

[fmolf]

the two of you are right and wrong!One of you is using a left brained approach, the other is using a right brained approach.what neither of you realize is that you are each using the others approach just not realizing it.
That is the beautiful part of our game in order to succeed you need a blend of art and science.....some use more art than science,some more science than art.Both will work equally as well when carefully applied by intelligent thoughtful minds!
Mark i am sure you have looked at the horses in the paddock for nervousness,frightened horses,washiness......alertness,sheen of coat,new trainer tongue tie added etc...etc..
Cadallakin...i'll bet you have calculated turn times....average earnings per race...average purse competed for...number of furlongs worked since last start....
i hope you both see my points here and i hope that instead of arguing and trying to knock each other down.We can get back o the main reason we have these threads which is to share information and bounce ideas off of other handicappers.

[markgoldie]

I showed you my ROI... Where's yours? I'd like to see your ROI, Mark... You're a smart guy giving advice... Show it to us...


To my knowledge I have never addressed anyone in this forum in a negative or derrogatory way, including you. Therefore, I have no idea what problem you have with me. I know you have attacked others here in the short time you have been a member, so maybe it's your way of having fun.

You posted some numbers here with great fanfare and basked in their glory until another poster showed how easy it is to fake the numbers. Whether or not the numbers you posted were genuine or not is beside the point. I don't bet with a website like you and so I don't have numbers to post even if I wanted to and I don't. Frankly, I am past this juvenile sort of grandstanding.

My aim here was to offer and receive information. And that has happened. There are some truly intelligent posters on this site with a wealth of information into the cutting-edge areas of the game. I prefer to interact with them.

Best of luck.

Mark

[Cadillakin]

To my knowledge I have never addressed anyone in this forum in a negative or derrogatory way, including you. Therefore, I have no idea what problem you have with me. I know you have attacked others here in the short time you have been a member, so maybe it's your way of having fun.

You posted some numbers here with great fanfare and basked in their glory until another poster showed how easy it is to fake the numbers. Whether or not the numbers you posted were genuine or not is beside the point. I don't bet with a website like you and so I don't have numbers to post even if I wanted to and I don't. Frankly, I am past this juvenile sort of grandstanding.

My aim here was to offer and receive information. And that has happened. There are some truly intelligent posters on this site with a wealth of information into the cutting-edge areas of the game. I prefer to interact with them.

Best of luck.

Mark
Actually Mark.. You did accuse me of faking my ROI.. Right then and there you got on my shit list.. And you'll stay on it too... I don't take being called a fraud and a liar lightly... You think you can suggest to others that they are liars or are perpetrating fraud and and all will be well? Were you born yesterday?

The bottom line is this.. I've got no interest in what you say, Mark.. You can go on with what you are doing and I'll give you a very wide berth.. I'm not going to correct you or bother you... but if you challenge me like you subtly did in this very thread... diminishing my work and accomplishment, I'll be right back in your face...

Promise..

[rwwupl]

Since you're reply above is not so subtly directed at me and those who use experience and the intuition it brings into our game - which you refer to as "feeling," I thought I'd respond.. Not so much for your benefit, but for others, like the OP, who should be listening to people more schooled and learned than you are..

It's not surprising that a fellow like yourself who knows very little about horses would portray handicapping as ONLY an exercise in numbers... That may be your point of view, but it's not mine.. Nor is it the point of view of anybody who either loves or knows the horses... Horsemen and those who may have insight into the equine athletes may learn many things from observing or working with horses.. Here are a few;

Acceleration - Brief or sustained, it can be recognized without the benefit of a watch.. When side by side with another athlete, observation can reveal the quicker or more nimble of the two - Again, without a watch. It can be in various sports, a quick pickoff move.. a quick first step to the basket, or with horses, a quick entrance into a fast-closing hole ... It can be and often is, the difference between winning and losing in many sporting events or games. The equine matchups - we can see in the paddocks, in morning workouts, and within the body of races. They have little or nothing to do with numbers..

Action - Efficiency of action is the hallmark of our better horses. Those who are schooled or natural horsemen may be able to make better predictions than the normal player as to what surface the horse is best suited.. and which horses presently have or might soon encounter soundness issues.. No numbers are necessary or useful.

Condition - The tracking of physical well-being, either in decline, or advancement, gives the better handicappers a way to more accurately predict improvements or deterioration. This is observation only, nothing to do with numbers. Many of the VERY BEST claiming trainers are very adept at this.. and will know when horses lose weight or gain condition from one race to the next. Or they might see some physical issues.. Even on a small TV screen, some of these issues can be tracked and be of benefit to the player.

Disposition - The ability to cooperate with his/her handlers is a critical aspect of a horses schooling and development. Those with the better dispositions may learn their lessons faster and are also likely to be more confident and have good economy in their movement. In racing, we see the horses with the kinder dispositions not fighting against the jockey so fiercely when the jock needs to take them back. As you may or may not know.. the harnessing of racing energy is an extremely important aspect of the racing athlete.. Those that do it well are mostly realizing their best potential.. A horse of good disposition generally stands well in the gate without fighting and often comes out with good dexterity and balance.. How important is a good break? Very! Do you know which ones do it well, and which ones don't? I do. If you can see and note the animals that are cooperating well and learning faster, you may also guess which ones may handle the new things that are often asked of them..ie changing distances.. That helps the handicapper.. No numbers are needed or necessary..

Courage - Those who display it on the track will win you money... The winning of photos is not always an accident. In some cases, numbers may be of some assistance, in assessing records, etc.. but visual observation is the best way of assessing courage in the racehorse... You see them fight on for the place spot after being passed.. you know, this is a horse I can count on if he is placed well.

There's other tendencies and characteristics that the racehorse may or may not have which might be valuable to him as an athlete and/or to the observer in predicting athletic behavior.. but I'm not writing a book here.. I'm simply responding to your incorrect advisement to the OP that "everything is numbers."

Perhaps you are just unaware of the natural world..I don't really know.. but what you advised is far from the truth... Consider this a needed correction to your posting.

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

I do not wish to take sides when both posters are obviously well qualified to state their thinking toward handicapping.

To me the formula differs from person to person, but my own thinking is there is plenty to learn,discover and develop and adjust our game. I have been doing this for 40 years, and I will discover new things all the time.

Handicapping is a mixture of Art,Science and observation. We all are a product of our experience.

I thought Cadillakin gave an outstanding post and explained his position well. Perhaps I thought so because it is so close to my own thinking, but we are all entitled to our own direction, and that must be,because if we all used the same methods and came up with the same horse there would be no game.

The one thing you can count on when discussing horses with a horse player, is that we are all opinionated and want our opinion validated.

[andymays]

Some outstanding comments and observations!

[fmolf]

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

I do not wish to take sides when both posters are obviously well qualified to state their thinking toward handicapping.

To me the formula differs from person to person, but my own thinking is there is plenty to learn,discover and develop and adjust our game. I have been doing this for 40 years, and I will discover new things all the time.

Handicapping is a mixture of Art,Science and observation. We all are a product of our experience.

I thought Cadillakin gave an outstanding post and explained his position well. Perhaps I thought so because it is so close to my own thinking, but we are all entitled to our own direction, and that must be,because if we all used the same methods and came up with the same horse there would be no game.

The one thing you can count on when discussing horses with a horse player, is that we are all opinionated and want our opinion validated.
i have been at it 35 yrs and i am more of an old school class handicapper but i do use pace figures speed figures and the like .....i would call myself a comprehensive handicapper.I try to look at the whole picture.whenever we are so stubborn as to not want to learn and share ideas we are destined to fail.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by the little guy
Interesting discussions about racing and handicapping are terrific, but when you fill them with endless posts about your own brilliance, they become boorish and ultimately appear supremely self-serving. It is very easy to do the former without the latter.


In response to Little Guy in post 121 of your (Cadillakin's) thread on ROI, I wrote the following:

"AGREED! Let's try to move on here. Aside from realizing that tracking your own performance as a handicapper is very important, the thread had disintegrated into a form of hero worship. Now that the ease of doctoring figures has been exposed, Cadillakin's cult may remain, though now clearly faith-based, and we can hopefully get back to discussing handicapping and wagering."

A careful examination of this statement by someone conversant with the English language reveals that I most certainly did NOT accuse you of faking anything. I said that those who were continuing to laud your brilliance on the basis of what you posted were obviously relegated to doing so based on blind belief (since I don't believe anyone here has said they have personal, first-hand knowledge of your betting results). That statement is little more than incontrovertible fact.

You apparently took it as an affront because the position that you had adopted throughout the discussion (which became juvenile and boorish) was that anyone who did not take your word on faith was somehow an ignorant fool. In a later post you accused me of being a moron or some such term because I was a show bettor, something that I am not and have never said either here or elsewhere. You never apologized for this error though I pointed it out. However, this seems to fit your MO perfectly.

At any rate, my failure to come to the defense of you, a complete stranger, was apparently the beginning of your animosity, since I reiterate, I never said anything derrogatory about you. You can check all my posts carefully and you will find this is correct.

Good luck.

Mark

[Cadillakin]

Mark, the relevant point in this thread is that you inaccurately advised others that all of handicapping is about numbers. I corrected you...

Did you want to refute anything I said in my post or change the content of yours to include other factors that are not about numbers? If so, do it.. If not, accept you were wrong about the elements of handicapping and that a correction was justified..

[Dave Schwartz]

Mark, the relevant point in this thread is that you inaccurately advised others that all of handicapping is about numbers. I corrected you...

Caddy,


For some of us it is absolutely ALL about numbers. I haven't looked at a horse in the paddock for 20 years. Neither have I done any kind of "from analysis" except the ones in my software and then it is simply another number to be used by the system.

That does not make us right any more than it makes you wrong.

What I do is I click buttons. No opinions, no thinking. Heck, there are races I play where I don't even know the distance, surface or track condition of the race. I let the software take care of that for me.


Differnt strokes for different folks.


Dave

[Cadillakin]

Caddy,
For some of us it is absolutely ALL about numbers. I haven't looked at a horse in the paddock for 20 years. Neither have I done any kind of "from analysis" except the ones in my software and then it is simply another number to be used by the system.

That's fine, Dave, but that's not what was asserted.. It was said that all handicapping is about numbers, not all handicapping he prefers is about numbers.. or all handicapping Dave Schwartz uses is about numbers...

Saying it in the way he did is no more correct than if somebody were asking about music.. and a poster said music is all about hip-hop.

Anyway, I like your writing... You always make sense.. I even read your stuff on Geo-whatever the f*** it is.. I thought; Are these guys on a handicapping forum? Do they know that little horsies run around the track?

[Dave Schwartz]

I even read your stuff on Geo-

Caddy,

First, thank you for the respectful words. I, too, always appreciate a successful player explaining how they do things, their outlook, etc. It is amazing what one may learn with an open mind.

Now, about his quote... what does that mean? I do not post anywhere else except here, our BBS and the programmer's newsgroup I am part of.

Somebody says they are me?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[markgoldie]

Caddy,


For some of us it is absolutely ALL about numbers. I haven't looked at a horse in the paddock for 20 years. Neither have I done any kind of "from analysis" except the ones in my software and then it is simply another number to be used by the system.

That does not make us right any more than it makes you wrong.

What I do is I click buttons. No opinions, no thinking. Heck, there are races I play where I don't even know the distance, surface or track condition of the race. I let the software take care of that for me.


Differnt strokes for different folks.


Dave


I think what you are saying, Dave, is that virtually any opinion that results in a quantitative decision involves numbers. For example, let's say you handicap by looking at horses in the paddock and combine that information with what's in the pp's. Now, let's say you see a horse who is washy and you know from past experience that washy horses do not perform as well as calmer horses. (Let's also assume you know that the particular horse was not washy in his other recent races, so there is an important change here).

Now. The question is, how do you import this information into a wagering decision? Do you throw the horse out altogether? If he is the outstanding favorite in the race, could you still use him in gimmicks in underneath positions? Do you bet against him? If so, how strongly do you bet against him? In other words, this information, which some would believe has nothing in the world to do with numbers, must result in some sort of quantative decision and whether or not we realize it, in order to do so, our mind is working with numbers.

To illustrate further, suppose we had a friend with us who knew nothing about horses. We would point out the washy horse and explain that this is a negative sign. Horses like this don't win very often. So the naive friend might ask, "Well, how often do horses like this fail to win? Is it 50% of the time? Or is it more like 75% of the time?"

At this point, we might realize that our knowledge and/or opinion about this wagering angle is all numbers based. What is the number of times we have seen this before? What number of horses won with such a condition? What number of horses lost? What were the betting odds of such horses (numbers again)? And if a stranger overheard the conversation and said, "I make a study of washiness in horses. I have a record here of every horse who exhibited new washiness in this paddock for the last five years. I rate the degree of washiness on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worst case of washiness possible. I have the average odds and ROI for every degree of washiness on the scale."

Now. Would an artist handicapper be interested in what this guy's numbers said?? Maybe, maybe not.

The point is, Dave, as you and I know, the identification and measurement of any effect which has a bearing on an eventual outcome such that a quantative response is necessary, is all about numbers.

I know the "feel" handicappers won't like this statement but I wonder just how much they won't like it? Hmmm... On a scale of 1 to 10...

Mark

[Dave Schwartz]

The point is, Dave, as you and I know, the identification and measurement of any effect which has a bearing on an eventual outcome such that a quantative response is necessary, is all about numbers.

Mark,

Yes, but we must remember that this is our viewpoint.

What Caddy was saying is that he doesn't do it that way.

Guys like you and me have a need to quantify everything into a number because for us that number is something we can use.

I think I have this right - Caddy, please correct me if I don't - Caddy's mind simply works differently. He does not have the need to quantify everything into a number. He is quite happy to fly by the seat of his pants, so to speak, and, apparently, is very good at it.

I have always had great respect for handicappers like that because they would do what I could not do - gathering bits of information from here and there and somehow assembling it to make a good decision.

I think I see what Caddy does as "real" handicapping while I see what I do as "gathering information." Believe me, gathering information is much easier.

(Of course, the hard part is building the number-crunching engine to do that work.)

Perhaps Cadillac can straighten me out here - maybe the guys on his side of the fence wish THEY could use numbers. I don't know.


Dave

[Red Knave]

re:I even read your stuff on Geo-
Now, about his quote... what does that mean? He may have been referring to the thread on genetic algorithms.

[Cratos]

The point is, Dave, as you and I know, the identification and measurement of any effect which has a bearing on an eventual outcome such that a quantative response is necessary, is all about numbers.

I know the "feel" handicappers won't like this statement but I wonder just how much they won't like it? Hmmm... On a scale of 1 to 10...

Mark

From statistics we learn that there are qualitative results and quantitative results.

For example, a qualitative comment is made that horse A ran an excellent 6F race with a final time in 1:09 because it was able to overcome traffic barriers during the race and it also stumbled coming out of the gate.

A quantitative explanation might be that horse A negotiated a fast pace of X while losing Y lengths and went wide to avoid traffic; yet ran a 1:09 for the 6F.

Therefore it is not the result numbers that define horse A’s results, but how horse A’s results were achieved and under what circumstances. “Excellent” in the above hypothetical would be qualitative. A “pace of X’ and losing “Y lengths” would be quantitative.

[markgoldie]

From statistics we learn that there are qualitative results and quantitative results.

For example, a qualitative comment is made that horse A ran an excellent 6F race with a final time in 1:09 because it was able to overcome traffic barriers during the race and it also stumbled coming out of the gate.

A quantitative explanation might be that horse A negotiated a fast pace of X while losing Y lengths and went wide to avoid traffic; yet ran a 1:09 for the 6F.

Therefore it is not the result numbers that define horse A’s results, but how horse A’s results were achieved and under what circumstances. “Excellent” in the above hypothetical would be qualitative. A “pace of X’ and losing “Y lengths” would be quantitative.


Understand what you are saying and you are correct. My point simply was and is that somewhere along the line a quantative judgement will have to be made in regards to the qualitative effect which we witnessed. For example, the horse that you mentioned ran a 1:09 under adverse circumstances. Fine. Now he is pitted against a horse who under perfect conditions ran a 1:08 in his last race. Who do we bet (or, of course, do we bet at all?). Whatever the case, we will have to determine in our minds if what we saw was better than a 1:08 performance. That is, we must GRADE the qualitative phenomena somehow and grading is all about quantification (which again is numbers). In addition, the odds of the participants will be weighed too, no doubt, but that's numbers also.

Mark

[CincyHorseplayer]

Wow.What an excellent thread.I'll add my 2 cents.

I use a ton of numbers,we all do.Some might disagree with Dave's approach,I handicap differently,but I couldn't live without guys like Dave out there.The pure mathematical minds have brought us numbers and the computer afficionados have taught us how to process information efficiently.

What's left for me is exactly how to fine tune the harvesting of information efficiently.I want to sit down with my track profiles/shorthand race summaries,with an Excel based Sartin program(thanks Raybo) and CJ/Quirin style pace fig methods at ready,and bust into a form.

I want to think more and process less because I think the ultimate threshold of success is not only having solid information but having the time to do comprehensive handicapping and devote ontrack or betting time to self analysis and the decision making process of coming up with a solid bet.That is art not science but one begets the other IMO.Finetuning the form and elimination process,playing ping-pong in your mind of probability and value,splitting hairs on everything available is what I think separates success from mediocrity.I'm no pro but I recognize the distinction within my own experiences of success and failure.

I think once the foundation of fundamentals is in place and a person understands how the conclusions of those principles are arrived at,an eclectic approach using all of those principles,much like a 5 tool baseball player,is what I think is left.When all the parts metamorphosise into a whole.

I don't know how else to explain what I'm trying to say without some of these words which some might think are hokey.But that's where my mind is at right now.Great topic.

[Dave Schwartz]

I want to think more and process less because...

Cincy,

A great post because it does a better job of capturing what I was trying to say! Thank you.

I see it precisely in reverse. I want to think less and have the computer process more.


Dave

[fmolf]

Cincy,

A great post because it does a better job of capturing what I was trying to say! Thank you.

I see it precisely in reverse. I want to think less and have the computer process more.


Dave
unless you go to the track without looking at pp's ,and look at the horses in the walking ring and post parade without looking at the tote board. Then you are not using any numbers in your race analysis!

[Dave Schwartz]

Wolfie,

(May I call you that? We seem to be conversing so often these days.)

Numbers are everywhere. Nobody is saying "play without any numbers."

My response - which I thought was pretty clear, but I could certainly be wrong - is that some people rely entirely on numbers and some people rely on their intrinsic ability to create a decision with numbers.

By "rely entirely on numbers" I mean that the numbers are used in some systematic or methodical fashion to produce a score of some kind for a horse and that score is directly used to determine who and/or how to bet in the race.

To make this as clear as I possibly can - think of a scale of 1 to 5:

1) I have a totally systematic approach, where each horse is given a single "score" using some finite number of factors. These "scores" determine precisely how to bet in a given situation.

2) I have a systematic approach, where each horse is given a single "score" using some finite number of factors. These scores help me to determine who and how to bet in a given situation.

3) I have a systematic approach, where each horse is given "scores" in some finite number of factors. These scores (or ratings) help me determine how good each horse really is and, ultimately, I decide who and how much to wager.

4) I have a methodical approach where I consider some factors in some races and other factors in other races depending upon what I feel is important in today's race. While I do things in a similar way in most races, I do not handle each race the same way.

5) I use a very free-form approach, where I consider information from many sources. From my years of experience I can just "tell" when a horse is a good bet today.


I am a #1. What number are you?

Can you make a suggestion for numbers that I left out? Please feel free to renumber the group, adding whatever you think I have missed.


Dave

[Dave Schwartz]

Just realized that you are not "Wolf." I thought that was FWOLF!

Sorry.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Cincy,

A great post because it does a better job of capturing what I was trying to say! Thank you.

I see it precisely in reverse. I want to think less and have the computer process more.


Dave

Well I wish I would have had you at my disposal when I launched into a project to make deficient form profiles for all the classifications of races in Ohio back in 07!!!:)

Nothing wrong with that Dave.I wish I knew more about your side of it.

BTW does Horsestreet carry extensive pars for all the class subsets for Ohio tracks??Nearly all are restricted and there is no such thing as a 10,00 par.Just curious because I want to get a set.

[fmolf]

Wolfie,

(May I call you that? We seem to be conversing so often these days.)

Numbers are everywhere. Nobody is saying "play without any numbers."

My response - which I thought was pretty clear, but I could certainly be wrong - is that some people rely entirely on numbers and some people rely on their intrinsic ability to create a decision with numbers.

By "rely entirely on numbers" I mean that the numbers are used in some systematic or methodical fashion to produce a score of some kind for a horse and that score is directly used to determine who and/or how to bet in the race.

To make this as clear as I possibly can - think of a scale of 1 to 5:

1) I have a totally systematic approach, where each horse is given a single "score" using some finite number of factors. These "scores" determine precisely how to bet in a given situation.

2) I have a systematic approach, where each horse is given a single "score" using some finite number of factors. These scores help me to determine who and how to bet in a given situation.

3) I have a systematic approach, where each horse is given "scores" in some finite number of factors. These scores (or ratings) help me determine how good each horse really is and, ultimately, I decide who and how much to wager.

4) I have a methodical approach where I consider some factors in some races and other factors in other races depending upon what I feel is important in today's race. While I do things in a similar way in most races, I do not handle each race the same way.

5) I use a very free-form approach, where I consider information from many sources. From my years of experience I can just "tell" when a horse is a good bet today.


I am a #1. What number are you?

Can you make a suggestion for numbers that I left out? Please feel free to renumber the group, adding whatever you think I have missed.


Dave
you must mean molfie?..... almost impossible to really play this game without using numbers....ah its all semantics anyhow....obviously caddy means pace and speed figs ..making and using and not class type numbers ....i use everything i can get my little hands on andthen try to cut the wheat from the chafe....everyone calls me molfy ...kids get called that too!

[fmolf]

you must mean molfie?..... almost impossible to really play this game without using numbers....ah its all semantics anyhow....obviously caddy means pace and speed figs ..making and using and not class type numbers ....i use everything i can get my little hands on andthen try to cut the wheat from the chafe....everyone calls me molfy ...kids get called that too!
i am between a 4 an 5 somewhere...i think you did a good job of categorizing all types of cappers.....maybe the only guys you left out would be
#6- strictly angle players....i will make no bet unless a horse shows certain characteristics that my database has shown me to be profitable in the long run.
#7-iam strictly a tote board watcher ...i make bets when i see trends occur in the straight win/place/show pools...looking for early or late monies or imbalances between the three straight pools.

[Dave Schwartz]

I like the 6 & 7 but the need to be within the list. How should we renumber it?

[fmolf]

within the list i guess the angle player should be 4 since he is a different type of system player......the tote watcher should be las since he is really handicapping the tote/other players and not the horses...this approach always fascinated me..i have read ziembas work and was fascinated by it!
i do use one tote angle in my arsenal in maiden races and usually will not bet any maiden or maiden claimer that has not dropped from its morning line.i know this works at belmont and monmouth...not sure about other tracks and their linemakers