The secret to handicapping is.....

[turfbar]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................YOUR ANSWER HERE.





Turfbar

[Overlay]

being able to develop an accurate estimation of a horse's winning probability, to compare with its odds

[illinoisbred]

Being on them as they're starting to peak and not after they've run their guts out for 3-4 races-probably too late.

[Bochall]

The secret is there aint no secret...stop looking for one.

[classhandicapper]

Studying any factor or race type in a detailed enough manner to find a handful of profitable situations.

Finding situations where you "know" the horse is extremely likely to fire its "A" race or improve.

[andymays]

Nobody is going to give you the map to the Gold Mine. And if they do chances are you will get lost.

Everybody is going to try to sell you the map to the Gold Mine. And if you buy it chances are you will get lost.

The Gold Mine probably doesn't exist but many out there will tell you it does for profit or ego!


Once you develop your handicapping skills it boils down to instinct and timing. In other words you have to make the right move at the right time!


There was a guy out here who owned a popular restaurant and also played the Horses. He alway carried around a small book and on the cover it said "everthing I learned about handicapping". When you opened the book all the pages were blank!

[Light]

Discipline and patience.

[the little guy]

Discipline and patience.


Ah the irony!

[DanG]

It’s like trying to become a good musician. Learn from people you respect and then file everything they taught you in a subconscious folder and find your own sound.

[DJofSD]

Pattern recognition.

[RaceBookJoe]

Keeping and open mind and being able to react to different and sometimes quick changing situations. rbj

[bisket]

try to figure which horsey is gonna win and playem. yell like a banchee when he's 24-1 and flying down the stretch to get up in the last 100 yards. whooooohooooo!!! thats handicapping and the game at its best. win or lose!!!!
the secret is to enjoy what your doing and don't take yourself too seriously :cool:

[DJofSD]

try to figure which horsey is gonna win and playem. yell like a banchee when he's 24-1 and flying down the stretch to get up in the last 100 yards. whooooohooooo!!! thats handicapping and the game at its best. win or lose!!!!
the secret is to enjoy what your doing and don't take yourself too seriously :cool:
bisket, are you reliving your score in the Pacific Classic (congrats)?

[Fingal]

The secret is there aint no secret...stop looking for one.

That's why there are those things called percentages- nobody bats 1,000 %.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu in the art of war-

Know yourself, know your enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.

Keep records, be honest & don't fudge. Become selective in the races one bets & take the ego out of your game, realize there are certain races that are unbettable. When I did & realized that the track doesn't owe me anything, my game opened up.

Learn to find contenders. Whatever the method is not the point, it's eliminating from consideration those that can't measure up.

There's an old song by Bing Crosby called Accentuate the positive-

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

[bisket]

bisket, are you reliving your score in the Pacific Classic (congrats)?
once every now and again you win enough to get a new pair of shoes. whoooohoooo!! hopefully everyone wil get the chance to join da bisket in the squeeky shoe club ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGraw1mODv4

[bisket]

might i suggest the starfighters for any handicappper. as lukas would say, "may the force be with you" :cool:

[DJofSD]

Sounds like a bunch or nurses walking their rounds!

[TJDave]

The secret to handicapping horses is................

Knowing what no one else knows. ;)

[rokitman]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................YOUR ANSWER HERE.





Turfbar
When you see a fork in the road, take it.

[jonnielu]

Nobody is going to give you the map to the Gold Mine. And if they do chances are you will get lost.

Everybody is going to try to sell you the map to the Gold Mine. And if you buy it chances are you will get lost.

The Gold Mine probably doesn't exist but many out there will tell you it does for profit or ego!


Once you develop your handicapping skills it boils down to instinct and timing. In other words you have to make the right move at the right time!


There was a guy out here who owned a popular restaurant and also played the Horses. He alway carried around a small book and on the cover it said "everthing I learned about handicapping". When you opened the book all the pages were blank!

Half of the secret is that the handicapping is already done, and an analysis of that work is what is left for the player to do today.

The other half of the secret is that what happens today, will likely differ from last week.

jdl

[Tom]

The secret to handicapping is.......expensive!

http://www.amazon.com/Consistent-handicapping-profits-E-Donaldson/dp/B0008ALO7K

[trigger]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................YOUR ANSWER HERE.
Turfbar

PURE SH#T LUCK! :D

[DeadHeat]

Handicapping is easy. Wagering and betting the winning horse or horses is the hard part. Learning to lose and accepting that fact that you will, is even harder.

You need a way to beat the races and not the race, whatever that may be. Some do it with rebates, others - longshots and/or spot plays, some are lucky, some are skilled. Don't expect the skilled ones to ever tell you all they know. That's something you find on your own.

Lastly, attention to detail. How many races have you missed because you failed to pay attention to one fact or another? I know I have plenty.

Caveat: There is no one answer.

Disclaimer: The preceding should not be construed to contain any actual advise and is for entertainment purposes only.

[dansan]

if I told ya it would"nt be a secret :cool:

[WinterTriangle]

Being on them as they're starting to peak and not after they've run their guts out for 3-4 races-probably too late.

I agree. I watch and track YOUNG horses on the improve that run 2nd and 3rd (or even 4th if they ran great but had trouble (gate, bumped, etc.). If they are in my virtual stable, they are live.

[Cratos]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................YOUR ANSWER HERE.





Turfbar

There aren't any secrets; just hard work and patience

[ranchwest]

There aren't any secrets; just hard work and patience

Sound comment.

If I had patience, I'd be dangerous.

The harder I work, the better I do.

[Wickel]

Information. And lots of it.

[ranchwest]

Information. And lots of it.

For me, it isn't the quantity of information, it is having the information in a readily digestible format.

[markgoldie]

Playing against favorites. This requires a deep analysis of (1) how and why the public makes a horse a favorite and (2) an equally in-depth analysis of situations in which the favorite may be vulnerable. Once this is done, I recommend play in gimmicks to take advantage of the greater value of non-favorites in these pools,

[stu]

is to establish a positive feeback loop.

[Imriledup]

Being able to accurately evaluate racehorses as athletes.

[TJDave]

Being able to accurately evaluate racehorses as athletes.

Now...If we could just get rid of the damned jockeys. ;)

[speculus]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................YOUR ANSWER HERE.
Turfbar

I presume you wish to know the secret(s) to WINNING money at the races (without LOSING quality time, family life, peace of mind, health and joy of living), so here I is my list:

1. Invent a simple (as opposed to complex) handicapping method that has the potential to show flat bet profit over the long term. [And take my advice, if you cannot find such a method--quit this game RIGHT NOW!]
2. The method MUST be such that allows you to focus on ONLY 3% of the horses (max), and disregard the other 97% horses COMPLETELY and FOREVER without any loss of profitability.
3. Develop the temperament--patience and discipline--NOT to deviate from this method--EVER!
4. Based on such method, do your OWN assessment for ONLY such number of tracks that you can handle WITHOUT devoting more than HALF HOUR a day on the average to this pursuit.
5. Stick to your assessment in the face of contrary opinion even if the entire world gangs up against you if you are sure you will be right more often than the world.
6. Bet ONLY on the FORM of your choice (from the 3%), not on class, pedigree or hype (of the other 97%).
7. Once you make up your mind that your method horse is going over the right trip, right class/level and with the right jockey on top of it, don't even look at the rivals or competition--just go ahead with your bet.
8. If your horse (from the 3% list) is running over suitable trip, reasonable class level and going out with one of the top 5 jocks (on current form) on the circuit, ignore ALL the other runners ALL the time, and make a WIN or SHOW bet as you deem fit.
9. Stay away from numbers of any kind at ALL TIMES--however crude or sophisticated they may be. Because numbers are always a double-edged sword, and even the best mathematical brains cannot be sure they have assigned optimum weightage to all factors that have gone into making those numbers.
10. Get out of the nonsense of overlay/underlay. Remember, EVERY winner is an OVERLAY. Period.
11. Make VERY FEW bets, and ONLY those which fulfill ALL your desired criteria. Remember the maxim: When in doubt, stay out!
12. Remember, between MISSING A WINNER and BETTING A LOSER, the first is wiser, because races are forever, and more importantly, NOT BETTING, by definition, makes you stronger in the "patience and discipline" department.
13. Take a better price on your method horse as an opportunity to make a bigger killing, NOT to re-examine your bet.
14. Once you have checked you have made the right decision, IGNORE the market and its assessment (odds) of your choice.
15. If your method horse comes from a dependable barn and is being ridden by a top jockey, NEVER skip it unless you have reason to believe it cannot handle the trip distance.
16. NEVER load money on a horse that is NOT your method horse.
17. Take form cycles (not horse's, but your own) very seriously. Be proportionately aggressive in your betting when winning, but calculatedly conservative when losing.
18. Enter the racecourse (if you MUST visit, it is NOT necessary in this age of internet betting) WITHOUT the form in your hand. You can always remember which track, which race and which horse# you wish to bet because, (if you follow all this advice), you are very rarely going to make more than 2 or 3 bets in a day.
19. Stick only to WIN (or SHOW) bets, and shun exotics. Because WIN and SHOW depend more on skill than chance, while exotics depend more on chance than skill.
20. Never invest in pick 3s, pick 4s and 6s UNLESS there is a carryover up for grabs AND/OR you can bank on a method horse in at least two of the races that are taking on undeserving, cramped-odds, false favorites.

[crestridge]

Develop a method that is verifiable for a edge, where the probabilities are favorable, develop a mind set driven by edge only, not emotion--Build a money management program which produces profit (for which there are several which have been suggested on this board)--follow YOUR rules precisely with consistency (the hardest part of the equation), and you will have a profit long term. Method, money management, and mind--three M's.

There are several good strong methods discussed on this board which will get you there!! Do a search, there's "Gold in them there searches". Of course, as everybody has mentioned, record keeping, the fourth element.

[classhandicapper]

It’s like trying to become a good musician. Learn from people you respect and then file everything they taught you in a subconscious folder and find your own sound.

I love that one.

It reminds of my attempts to become a good blues guitarist by listening to Robert Johnson and Robert Lockwood Jr and stealing all their licks. :D

[Imriledup]

Now...If we could just get rid of the damned jockeys. ;)

You ain't whistling dixie. I always have the best horse, if i lose, its almost always rider error. Once in a while my horse doesn't run a lick, but a very high pct of the time i lose, its because of rider incompetence.

[docicu3]

The secret is to maximize the return on the few times you find "true value" on a race card. Sometimes it requires horizontal plays or multi's like doubles P3's etc. other times vertical plays are the only way to maximize a "truth" and occasionally the "all" button must be used with the play.

Then most importantly take your score and walk away for the day......you made your money now avoid throwing it back unless you really do have a well thought out value play to follow

[ranchwest]

I love that one.

It reminds of my attempts to become a good blues guitarist by listening to Robert Johnson and Robert Lockwood Jr and stealing all their licks. :D

Hehehe. Makes me recall what Keith Richards said when he heard Robert Johnson -- hey, that guy is good, who is the other guy on guitar?

[dav4463]

the secret to handicapping?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37732

[Mike A]

1. View movie "Annie Hall" repeatedly, paying close attention to detail.
2. Read and understand "Theory of Poker" by David Sklansky.
3. Figure out why G.K. Chesterton could have written it.

[turfbar]

the secret to handicapping?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37732


In the words of John McEnroe "you can't be serious".

[46zilzal]

Handicapping is mutually exclusive to finding value in the betting pools. Don't know a person good at this game who doesn't know that as TRUTH

[Barney Rubble]

the secret to handicapping?



The Great Gazoo.

[turfbar]

Handicapping is mutually exclusive to finding value in the betting pools. Don't know a person good at this game who doesn't know that as TRUTH

..Then you add 1+1 and it is 2 gee thanks teach



Turfbar

[rokitman]

The Truth and The Way.

So says the Great Gazoo.

And so it shall be.

[fmolf]

handicapping is knowing where the value lies in a playable race, and knowing how to bet it to get the most leverage, even if it means betting your second or third selection!also one must know when not to bet against a legitimate low priced favorite,unless using leverage in the exotic pools.

[tribecaagent]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................

Turfbar


Change.


Change in:

Surface
Trainer
Rider
Distance
Post position (inside to outside or vice versa)
Equipment
Surroundings
Et cetera

Change is the catalyst for improved performance.

[cmoore]

There is no Secret to Handicapping..All who make a consistent profit at the track over the long haul. Most likely do it in different ways..You just have to find what way works for you..I'm still searching..:D

[46zilzal]

There is no Secret to Handicapping..All who make a consistent profit at the track over the long haul. Most likely do it in different ways..You just have to find what way works for you..I'm still searching..:D
Most don't experiment at enough venues to locate where their style works the best.

After my wife died, and I had a lot of time on my hands, I played 30 tracks and monitored the ones that offered value and understanding using pace analysis. I found about 10 that were effective and stayed with them


They are out there you just have to find them

[rokitman]

The Secret is having a supersharp mind. Do you? Probably not. (http://www.eyetricks.com/scary_optical_illusion2.htm)

[raybo]

There are no secrets that I know of, just hard work and consistency in your approach. Know what works for you and stick with it.

[Light]

The secret is finding something that works that is unconventional.

[fast4522]

Knowing when to walk because you have made a good days pay. Few understand this, if your up a few hundred bucks early do something else. The secret is do not give it back, the races will be there tomorrow and your eye's would prefer to look at something nicer. One might think if your going good, keep it going. Or the more you look at the sharper you will be. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is some luck involved besides skill, if you take the money and run you short circuit luck from going the other way on you.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm surprised that nobody in this thread has mentioned the secret yet. ;)


I won't give it out either so here is a rather tame consolation prize - "Horseplaying is a science." systematic knowledge based technique or practice often times highly skilled, capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable outcome...

[raybo]

Knowing when to walk because you have made a good days pay. Few understand this, if your up a few hundred bucks early do something else. The secret is do not give it back, the races will be there tomorrow and your eye's would prefer to look at something nicer. One might think if your going good, keep it going. Or the more you look at the sharper you will be. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is some luck involved besides skill, if you take the money and run you short circuit luck from going the other way on you.

In my opinion, this would depend on your personal handicapping/wagering method and what your ROI is dependent on. Mine is dependent on handicapping all qualified races for up to 2 tracks per day, 3 days per week.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by turfbar
The secret to handicapping horses is................Originally Posted by TJDave
Knowing what no one else knows.A very salient point considering that the vast majority of handicappers at any level of proficiency use the same basic information resources to arrive at some sort of conclusion for playability. The fact that 90% or more of the horse-betting population is losing on a consistent basis means either that this information is misinterpreted, misunderstood, or flawed. If it’s the latter, then it follows that there’s no way of properly comprehending it anyway.

Originally Posted by Robert Fisher
I'm surprised that nobody in this thread has mentioned the secret yet.

I won't give it out either so here is a rather tame consolation prize - "Horse playing is a science." systematic knowledge based technique or practice often times highly skilled, capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable outcome....... And handicapping (horse-playing) is not only an attempt to make those “predictions”, but to make them worthwhile. In order to find those entries that are able to run the fastest on any given day, they have to meet (3) basic criteria before they enter the gate:
1) Capability, 2) Conditioning , 3) Intent
Unfortunately handicapping attempts to uncover the 1st very subjectively through traditional sources of information, the 2nd by instinctive observation, and the 3rd not at all. Does that sound like it requires using a scientific approach? The “secret” is very simple: Don’t handicap! (At least not in a conventional way)

I highly doubt that many winning horseplayers consider themselves scientists. I know I don’t. I personally consider this analogy as relevant as building a rocket ship from an instruction manual. Are losing players going to receive any solace from reading this “rather tame consolation prize”? I doubt it! I’ll let you in on a little secret: Horse-playing is not a science at all! It’s a game. Until a person recognizes how the game works and who all the players are, they’ll never play it properly.

Originally Posted by Light
The secret is finding something that works that is unconventional.Another excellent observation: “Think outside the box”. Because after all aren’t those of us who play this game who aren’t connected really just Outsiders?

Best of Luck

[JustRalph]

Staying out of Threads about Secrets

[turfbar]

Wow totally impressed with the response that are here,but as Robert Fischer said nobody has revealed the secret. My idea of a secret is something that I know and you don't. If I keep that from you,then it's a secret. Knowledge is power.
So far no one in this thread has come to close of what I think the secret is and of the 40 response no one said it.

Now let me explain "the secret" and I will in this context,if when I first started handicapping or playing horses, some wise gent would have uttered :"the secret"
to me it sure would have made my 45 year struggle to figure out how to win consistently at this game a helluva lot easier.


Turfbar

[rokitman]

Whatthe....that's it?

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, it is not so much about secrets as it is weights.

Most on this forum know what the factors are. It is the importance of those factors that makes the difference.

For those people who do not produce a single number, another way to say that is it is the ordering that is important. That is, the hierchy of factors.

The closest thing to a secret - the area that is most difficult to quantify - is "form."


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[raybo]

The closest thing to a secret - the area that is most difficult to quantify - is "form."


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Totally agree!!

If I'd been taught how to evaluate works and to "read between the lines" (pacelines) earlier, it wouldn't have taken me 20+ years to become profitable.

Form is more than just physical condition, btw.

[turfbar]

I was wondering if some of the speed # guys would chime in,cause they know it all , well according to thier posts, at least I give Dave an E for effort ,although to me his answer was as muddy as the bottom of the Mississippi River, no response CJ---these guys make a living doing what they do,just funny to me they don't have an opinion .


Turfbar

[46zilzal]

In each race there are only about 5 relevant factors. FORGET the rest.

[Fastracehorse]

I was wondering if some of the speed # guys would chime in,cause they know it all , well according to thier posts, at least I give Dave an E for effort ,although to me his answer was as muddy as the bottom of the Mississippi River, no response CJ---these guys make a living doing what they do,just funny to me they don't have an opinion .


Turfbar

I'll chime in? Speed figs help U evaluate what animal ran better in the past. Past performance doesn't neccessitate future performance. I try and determine who is sharp today to find the contenders, and of these contenders who has the best figs.

Prices attained with high speed fig horses are out there because usually good #s are the handicappers's own. Logical adjustments are made for a host of factors including improving horses and wide trips - many others.

Today at Belmont:
3rd race: highest adjusted figure was a good single in the p-4. Sorry 'bout the price.

6th race: the 7 horse had the 2nd highest fig and won at 17-1. Figures help you determine contenders most times. But my approach is holistic handicapping: Trip, figs, and, sharpness - even to undercover horses that are hidden but going today.

fffastt

[reckless]

... really there is.

And that secret has little, if anything, to do with learning standard or ecletic handicapping factors we discuss here ad nauseum, such as class, form, pace, speed figures, those using volumes of database cells and records, trainer intent, workout analysis, and the most ridiculous of them all, physicality ... etc., etc., etc.

The one secret a handicapper needs to learn first and foremost before they attempt to master this great game of ours is to ...

know thy self.

[Fastracehorse]

... really there is.

And that secret has little, if anything, to do with learning standard or ecletic handicapping factors we discuss here ad nauseum, such as class, form, pace, speed figures, those using volumes of database cells and records, trainer intent, workout analysis, and the most ridiculous of them all, physicality ... etc., etc., etc.

The one secret a handicapper needs to learn first and foremost before they attempt to master this great game of ours is to ...

know thy self.

Know thy self? I hate it when people think out loud.

fffastt

[raybo]

The one secret a handicapper needs to learn first and foremost before they attempt to master this great game of ours is to ...

know thy self.

If you mean, by that, that you should know your strengths and weaknesses, I agree. But, that is true for almost any endeavor, it's no secret.

[Robert Fischer]

I highly doubt that many winning horseplayers consider themselves scientists. I know I don’t. I personally consider this analogy as relevant as building a rocket ship from an instruction manual. Are losing players going to receive any solace from reading this “rather tame consolation prize”? I doubt it! I’ll let you in on a little secret: Horse-playing is not a science at all! It’s a game.

Whatever works best for you(or me) is all I really care about. Characterizing this thing of ours is only the broadest sense, and there's no reason it can't be both a game and a science, whatever personal preference may be. I don't wish solace on any losers, only to be fruitful and to multiply.

[Nitro]

Wow totally impressed with the response that are here,but as Robert Fischer said nobody has revealed the secret. My idea of a secret is something that I know and you don't. If I keep that from you,then it's a secret. Knowledge is power.
So far no one in this thread has come to close of what I think the secret is and of the 40 response no one said it.

Now let me explain "the secret" and I will in this context,if when I first started handicapping or playing horses, some wise gent would have uttered :"the secret"
to me it sure would have made my 45 year struggle to figure out how to win consistently at this game a helluva lot easier.I think your explanation is a bit disingenuous, because I guarantee that if you represent the mindset of the typical horseplayer you wouldn’t have listened to that gent anyway. (At least not right away) It might occur to you after struggling a while with your own techniques to perhaps humble yourself to the realities of his suggestions. Or maybe it would happen after you witnessed that gent make a nice score on a race where you totally blew it. But the fact is that even if you were given some “secret” approach 45 years ago you apparently never listened then. So what makes you think you’d listen now? And when I say “you” I’m really referring to all horseplayers in general who (win or lose) simply want to do it THEIR OWN way no matter who might reveal that “secret” winning approach.

That’s what makes this game so much fun and why there will always be a nice score for the taking when the majority is doing it THEIR way!

Best of Luck

[Dave Schwartz]

I was wondering if some of the speed # guys would chime in,cause they know it all , well according to thier posts, at least I give Dave an E for effort ,although to me his answer was as muddy as the bottom of the Mississippi River, no response CJ---these guys make a living doing what they do,just funny to me they don't have an opinion .

Of course it was muddy.

What did you expect?

Did you expect that the winning players here - the REAL winning players - would simply come in here and explain it to you?


Listen, find a successful player and they WILL have a secret. That secret is the way they managed to put all the ingredients they chose together to make a good tasting cake.

Ironically, if they ever decide to share that recipe, rarely does it produce as good a cake for someone else. Maybe you have to stand on one foot while stirring the mix; maybe you have to throw the ingredients over your shoulder when you add them. Maybe it doesn't bake well on Saturday mornings. Whatever.

It just does not seem to work the same for everyone.

Seems like it should but it doesn't.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Nitro]

By Robert FischerWhatever works best for you(or me) is all I really care about. Characterizing this thing of ours is only the broadest sense, and there's no reason it can't be both a game and a science, whatever personal preference may be. I don't wish solace on any losers, only to be fruitful and to multiply. Mr. Fischer
That sounds good to me! And you’re right! I guess we can call it anything that suits us. As long as we’re the ones who are “fruitful” and our bankrolls are “multiplying”.

Of course it was muddy.

What did you expect?

Did you expect that the winning players here - the REAL winning players - would simply come in here and explain it to you?


Listen, find a successful player and they WILL have a secret. That secret is the way they managed to put all the ingredients they chose together to make a good tasting cake.

Ironically, if they ever decide to share that recipe, rarely does it produce as good a cake for someone else. Maybe you have to stand on one foot while stirring the mix; maybe you have to throw the ingredients over your shoulder when you add them. Maybe it doesn't bake well on Saturday mornings. Whatever.

It just does not seem to work the same for everyone.

Seems like it should but it doesn't.
Regards,
Dave SchwartzNot to worry Mr. Schwartz!
You can put it out there, dress it up, silver-line it and even gift-wrap it. And guess what? It isn’t that “it won’t work for everyone”. Horseplayers just want to do it their own way, anyway! Even those of us with a solid edge will often stray into unknown territory knowing full well what the consequences might be. Call it ego, call it greed, call it taking a bigger then normal risk, but only a nice kick where it hurts (in the pocketbook) will get us back on track. So where does that leave those who won’t listen to reason? Yes, Still searching for that “secret” that’s right in front of their nose!

Best of Luck

[Overlay]

IMHO, it is not so much about secrets as it is weights.

Most on this forum know what the factors are. It is the importance of those factors that makes the difference.

For those people who do not produce a single number, another way to say that is it is the ordering that is important. That is, the hierarchy of factors.

Very well stated. The only other thing that I would recommend is then taking the weighting process one step further by comparing each horse's chance of winning (based on its number, ranking, or whatever assessment tool one might use) with the horse's odds.

[rokitman]

Whatever works best for you(or me) is all I really care about. Characterizing this thing of ours is only the broadest sense, and there's no reason it can't be both a game and a science, whatever personal preference may be. I don't wish solace on any losers, only to be fruitful and to multiply.
:lol:

[Quagmire]

I was wondering if some of the speed # guys would chime in,cause they know it all ,
Turfbar


Never keep any records....they only confuse you.

[Tom]

In each race there are only about 5 relevant factors. FORGET the rest.

And the secret is knowing which 5 those are in each race.
Hint - they are not the same race to race.

[turfbar]

Of course it was muddy.

What did you expect?

Did you expect that the winning players here - the REAL winning players - would simply come in here and explain it to you?


Listen, find a successful player and they WILL have a secret. That secret is the way they managed to put all the ingredients they chose together to make a good tasting cake.

Ironically, if they ever decide to share that recipe, rarely does it produce as good a cake for someone else. Maybe you have to stand on one foot while stirring the mix; maybe you have to throw the ingredients over your shoulder when you add them. Maybe it doesn't bake well on Saturday mornings. Whatever.

It just does not seem to work the same for everyone.

Seems like it should but it doesn't.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Thats a self serving answer, Dave admit to me that in your recipe is one (1)
ingredient that makes the cake, without that ONE ingredient your cake will taste like everybody elses'. You know wnat that 1 ingredient is,not standing on one leg or throwing over your shoulder thats hogwash, seriously sounds like a speech at a college graduation.RAH RAH RAH


Turfbar

[Dave Schwartz]

I can tell you that I have a single factor that tosses out horses under 5/1 which allows me to wager many races that would otherwise have about .5 horses too many to play.

Does that do it for you?


And just how is my answer "self-serving?" What do I gain by that answer?

[markgoldie]

Let me take a more in-depth stab at this because it seems to have provoked a great deal of interest amongst forum members.

As a man who has been doing this for more years than many of you have been alive, I have seen a great many changes in approach to handicapping. In my early years, the gurus were Talbout and Ainsle and in those days, quantification of speed was thought to be impossible. Class and form were the only major considerations.

Then came Beyer with his speed figs. This innovation was important for more than the fact that he proved that speed could be quantified and that such quantification explained (more or less) who the best horse in the race was. But little understood at the time was the more general proposition that a horse's ability vis-a-vis a specific field could be quantified in a single number. Even though this was just the beginning of such a quest, and was very rudimentary in nature, I think it was the precursor of what today's best automated handicappers try to do.

Personally, I have never been an automated handicapper. However, that fact does not prevent me from understanding that the automated players are the key to the future. Their great advantage is possessing large data bases on which to test propositions. Dave Schwartz would call this "weighing" of factors that we all use. This "weighing" can and should be accomplished by data mining of large data files.

A couple of notes about this: First, I have argued on this forum several times that decision making in handicapping boils down to numbers whether we think of it that way or not. When a handicapper completes his analysis of a race, he weighs many factors based on his experience (which, by the way, is nothing more than the impressions from memory that the handicapper holds in his head). But the final product of his handicapping always places the horses in the race in some form of hierarchy and within this hierarchy, there are divisions of strength. This can be expressed in numbers even if the handicapper doesn't think so or doesn't think of it in such terms. The second point is that assigning numbers to the hierarchy is always a better way to accurate quantification. Why? Because the human mind, wonderful instrument that it is, constantly overlooks things and in general does not apply the lessons of its experience in a uniform manner. This happens constantly and we all see it. When? Well, the best example is after we have played a race and a horse wins that we didn't use. We look at the past performances to see exactly why this horse should have won a low and behold, we now see something in his form that we know we should have picked up when handicapping. But we didn't. The third point is that our experience itself is only very hazy. Not only do we remember selectively, but our memory is dependent on the races which we have considered in the past. Since this is necessarily only a small sample of all races run, it is based on selective anecdotal evidence.

But the topic of this discussion is the "secret" to handicapping. The secret is this: (1) Single-number quantification of a horse's prospects in a given field is (paraphrasing Beyer) the way, the light, and the truth. (2) The accuracy of that single number should be relentlessly pursued (3) The avenue of pursuit should be data mining over a large sample base, which is far more accurate than the anecdotal "experience" that any handicapper (no matter how accomplished) believes he holds in his head. This is the only way to scientifically and accurately accomplish what Dave Schwartz refers to as the proper weighing of factors. Could this be done with paper and pencil? Sure. But the human lifespan is unfortunately rather short. (4) What can or should be data mined? Everything. Every single factor that you weigh when handicapping a race. And don't forget to throw in those factors which you think about but can't quantify because you realize you don't have the information. (5) Start with a base number and then refine it as you apply data-mined influences on it. I would recommend a good, uniformly constructed final speed number (fig) as a starting point. (6) As we all know, wagering "value" is the key to success. This has been said thousands of times here and elsewhere. But the only way to consistently find value is by possessing a better means of handicapping quantification than the wagering public. That's why you have to do the work.

Lastly, I cannot believe that in the year of our Lord of 2009, there are still rational people out there who believe that handicapping is more art than science and/or that computer handicapping will never beat the the experienced "feel," "gut," or "instinctual" player. Nonsense. Everything and I mean everything you do can be reduced to numbers and whether or not you are profitable as you are, the consistent, accurate, and relentlessly uniform application of those numbers will outperform you in the long run.

[turfbar]

I can tell you that I have a single factor that tosses out horses under 5/1 which allows me to wager many races that would otherwise have about .5 horses too many to play.

Does that do it for you?


And just how is my answer "self-serving?" What do I gain by that answer?

Oh I see there is one factor that YOU use (your secret) , and I also see that you charge $1199 for your secret{with an increase coming},so forget the RAH RAH RAH speech ,in other words I know a secret but it will cost you to USE that secret.

Turfbar

[LottaKash]

Oh I see there is one factor that YOU use (your secret) , and I also see that you charge $1199 for your secret{with an increase coming},so forget the RAH RAH RAH speech ,in other words I know a secret but it will cost you to USE that secret.

Turfbar

You would just give it to everyone, for free ?...

I have a few "little" secrets, and if you asked me to give you my opinion in a particular race, I would do it, but the "farm" for free.?...unhunh...

Dave has been on the "roller coaster ride" maybe more times than many of us, and I believe that he would be foolish, to just pour his hard earned knowledge out, on you, or anyone, just for the heck of it...

best,

best.

[Overlay]

Oh I see there is one factor that YOU use (your secret) , and I also see that you charge $1199 for your secret{with an increase coming},so forget the RAH RAH RAH speech ,in other words I know a secret but it will cost you to USE that secret.

Turfbar

I seem to recall similar sentiments in the past from posters such as RaceIsClosed / PriceAnProbability / Judicious Player. The way that I see it, Dave has a right to do what he wants with products of his creation. He's entitled to compensation for the time, knowledge, and effort that he put into them, and we're free to buy or not to buy at the price he sets. And, since he has stated that he will now be turning his attention to wagering rather than to further product development or to promoting sales, he is also apparently thinking about the adverse effect on mutuel prices that would result from overdistribution, which is a common -- and understandable -- concern in a game where players are betting against each other (rather than against the house), and he is using his pricing scheme as a means of exercising control over that area.

[Robert Fischer]

^^right, proprietary.


back to all the food recipe analogies, I have a secret recipe for carrot-based pasta sauce. No tomatoes involved. Competitive with my tomato based sauce and more interesting, more unique. Never would have came up with the recipe if I hadn't been stranded with no tomatoes :D

punchline: "necessity is the mother of invention"


:confused: sometimes if you want it bad enough and you mix a little creative thinking and resourcefulness in you can figure out something or learn something from someone or something


you can't even find recipe results for "carrot based pasta sauce" on google
maybe horseplaying is the wrong field :lol:

[fmolf]

^^right, proprietary.


back to all the food recipe analogies, I have a secret recipe for carrot-based pasta sauce. No tomatoes involved. Competitive with my tomato based sauce and more interesting, more unique. Never would have came up with the recipe if I hadn't been stranded with no tomatoes :D

punchline: "necessity is the mother of invention"


:confused: sometimes if you want it bad enough and you mix a little creative thinking and resourcefulness in you can figure out something or learn something from someone or something


you can't even find recipe results for "carrot based pasta sauce" on google
maybe horseplaying is the wrong field :lol:
excellent analogy.....I believe all handicapping methods to be effective it just depends on how each handicapper uses the tools before him.If you are a pace guy, with experience you''ll know which races lend themselves to pace handicapping....ditto for the speed and class guys...trainer pattern guys recognize patterns in races otherwise they pass...selectivity is still the key component of handicapping and this includes passing selections that offer no value!Does not matter how you mine your data or even if you do.Sometimes i think the computer guys are awash in a sea of data and lose sight of the human element of horse racing.

[Dave Schwartz]

Oh I see there is one factor that YOU use (your secret) , and I also see that you charge $1199 for your secret{with an increase coming},so forget the RAH RAH RAH speech ,in other words I know a secret but it will cost you to USE that secret.

Turfbar,

Purchasing my software does not purchase my "secret." It purchases the software.


You started this thread asking for secrets. Then you cryptically allude to having some secret without sharing it. Now you are going to criticize because I choose to - gasp - ask for money for my software?


Tell me - what value have you offered to this forum?


You know, the tone of your post indicates to me that you are simply looking for something to argue about. Unlikely that you will find that with me.



Dave Schwartz

[Fastracehorse]

Of course it was muddy.

What did you expect?

Did you expect that the winning players here - the REAL winning players - would simply come in here and explain it to you?


Listen, find a successful player and they WILL have a secret. That secret is the way they managed to put all the ingredients they chose together to make a good tasting cake.

Ironically, if they ever decide to share that recipe, rarely does it produce as good a cake for someone else. Maybe you have to stand on one foot while stirring the mix; maybe you have to throw the ingredients over your shoulder when you add them. Maybe it doesn't bake well on Saturday mornings. Whatever.

It just does not seem to work the same for everyone.

Seems like it should but it doesn't.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I think that people don't want to do what I do for example. I do an adjusted speed fig for every horse running on every card I play. And then there is the form and pace analysis I do. I need to see them warm up as well; takes time and effort.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Let me take a more in-depth stab at this because it seems to have provoked a great deal of interest amongst forum members.

As a man who has been doing this for more years than many of you have been alive, I have seen a great many changes in approach to handicapping. In my early years, the gurus were Talbout and Ainsle and in those days, quantification of speed was thought to be impossible. Class and form were the only major considerations.

Then came Beyer with his speed figs. This innovation was important for more than the fact that he proved that speed could be quantified and that such quantification explained (more or less) who the best horse in the race was. But little understood at the time was the more general proposition that a horse's ability vis-a-vis a specific field could be quantified in a single number. Even though this was just the beginning of such a quest, and was very rudimentary in nature, I think it was the precursor of what today's best automated handicappers try to do.

Personally, I have never been an automated handicapper. However, that fact does not prevent me from understanding that the automated players are the key to the future. Their great advantage is possessing large data bases on which to test propositions. Dave Schwartz would call this "weighing" of factors that we all use. This "weighing" can and should be accomplished by data mining of large data files.

A couple of notes about this: First, I have argued on this forum several times that decision making in handicapping boils down to numbers whether we think of it that way or not. When a handicapper completes his analysis of a race, he weighs many factors based on his experience (which, by the way, is nothing more than the impressions from memory that the handicapper holds in his head). But the final product of his handicapping always places the horses in the race in some form of hierarchy and within this hierarchy, there are divisions of strength. This can be expressed in numbers even if the handicapper doesn't think so or doesn't think of it in such terms. The second point is that assigning numbers to the hierarchy is always a better way to accurate quantification. Why? Because the human mind, wonderful instrument that it is, constantly overlooks things and in general does not apply the lessons of its experience in a uniform manner. This happens constantly and we all see it. When? Well, the best example is after we have played a race and a horse wins that we didn't use. We look at the past performances to see exactly why this horse should have won a low and behold, we now see something in his form that we know we should have picked up when handicapping. But we didn't. The third point is that our experience itself is only very hazy. Not only do we remember selectively, but our memory is dependent on the races which we have considered in the past. Since this is necessarily only a small sample of all races run, it is based on selective anecdotal evidence.

But the topic of this discussion is the "secret" to handicapping. The secret is this: (1) Single-number quantification of a horse's prospects in a given field is (paraphrasing Beyer) the way, the light, and the truth. (2) The accuracy of that single number should be relentlessly pursued (3) The avenue of pursuit should be data mining over a large sample base, which is far more accurate than the anecdotal "experience" that any handicapper (no matter how accomplished) believes he holds in his head. This is the only way to scientifically and accurately accomplish what Dave Schwartz refers to as the proper weighing of factors. Could this be done with paper and pencil? Sure. But the human lifespan is unfortunately rather short. (4) What can or should be data mined? Everything. Every single factor that you weigh when handicapping a race. And don't forget to throw in those factors which you think about but can't quantify because you realize you don't have the information. (5) Start with a base number and then refine it as you apply data-mined influences on it. I would recommend a good, uniformly constructed final speed number (fig) as a starting point. (6) As we all know, wagering "value" is the key to success. This has been said thousands of times here and elsewhere. But the only way to consistently find value is by possessing a better means of handicapping quantification than the wagering public. That's why you have to do the work.

Lastly, I cannot believe that in the year of our Lord of 2009, there are still rational people out there who believe that handicapping is more art than science and/or that computer handicapping will never beat the the experienced "feel," "gut," or "instinctual" player. Nonsense. Everything and I mean everything you do can be reduced to numbers and whether or not you are profitable as you are, the consistent, accurate, and relentlessly uniform application of those numbers will outperform you in the long run.

There is more to the game than weighing of factors and yes, handicapping is as much an art as it is a science.

There are alot of factors that weigh heavily, and the tote says alot of people agree. Don't U think horsemen know this? Hence, insider trading can make a heavily weighed factor a detriment. This is the art part. In spite of what the factors say, this horse may wait for another day - a juicier mutuel.

U can quantify all U want, but U have to understand what makes a horse sharp, and this is often unquantifiable. Just ask me, I have to quantify every horse, but I know the weakness of science, and its strengths.

The game is also an art - but U don't have to treat it as such. But vice versa! A melding of both art and science is comprehension, read Einstein.

fffastt

[LottaKash]

There is more to the game than weighing of factors and yes, handicapping is as much an art as it is a science.

There are alot of factors that weigh heavily, and the tote says alot of people agree. Don't U think horsemen know this? Hence, insider trading can make a heavily weighed factor a detriment. This is the art part. In spite of what the factors say, this horse may wait for another day - a juicier mutuel.

U can quantify all U want, but U have to understand what makes a horse sharp, and this is often unquantifiable. Just ask me, I have to quantify every horse, but I know the weakness of science, and its strengths.

The game is also an art - but U don't have to treat it as such. But vice versa! A melding of both art and science is comprehension, read Einstein.

fffastt

FFFast, I tend to agree with you on the "art" part....For me, it comes down to "Form Cycle and Ability" and "Trainer's Intentions on Race Day"....The numbers will be used to reinforce my opinion (red light/green light) about those things.....

best,

[Nitro]

excellent analogy.....I believe all handicapping methods to be effective it just depends on how each handicapper uses the tools before him.If you are a pace guy, with experience you''ll know which races lend themselves to pace handicapping....ditto for the speed and class guys...trainer pattern guys recognize patterns in races otherwise they pass...selectivity is still the key component of handicapping and this includes passing selections that offer no value!Does not matter how you mine your data or even if you do.Sometimes i think the computer guys are awash in a sea of data and lose sight of the human element of horse racing. Give that man a cigar!
But I wouldn’t single out any particular group of handicappers or players from those who disregard this so very often overlooked but very obvious FACT of the game. It’s the “secret" that most ignore because they’re focused on the attributes of the commodity and not those who control it. Yes, no matter what anybody tells you it’s certainly a game and nothing more! The most important participants are NOT the horses! It’s those who really play the games by intentionally placing their entries in specific racing events for specific reasons:
Sometimes to win, Sometimes to test, Sometimes to work, Sometimes to deceive.
The “secret” is knowing when to pull the trigger.

How do you get started? Very simple! Learn everything about the same things that those use to justify placing their entries in various races: The Condition Book. There’s the “human element” all right and once you understand it, you won’t even have to compare one horse to another (handicapping). The advice is free, but there’s definitely some sweat equity and time involved to learn all about it. How do I know? Well you’ll just have to trust me on that one.

Best of Luck

[Fastracehorse]

FFFast, I tend to agree with you on the "art" part....For me, it comes down to "Form Cycle and Ability" and "Trainer's Intentions on Race Day"....The numbers will be used to reinforce my opinion (red light/green light) about those things.....

best,

Trainer intent is huge. Ex., at Wdb today: Two trainers had uncoupled entries in 2 different races. One horse won at 14-1, the other 8-1. Was there intent?

fffastt

[turfbar]

Turfbar,

Purchasing my software does not purchase my "secret." It purchases the software.


You started this thread asking for secrets. Then you cryptically allude to having some secret without sharing it. Now you are going to criticize because I choose to - gasp - ask for money for my software?


Tell me - what value have you offered to this forum?


You know, the tone of your post indicates to me that you are simply looking for something to argue about. Unlikely that you will find that with me.



Dave Schwartz


I have no problem with you making money(really don't know what your software involves) more power to you, what I do hold you accountable because you did chime in and explained how "the REAL winning players"
would ever give out secrets for no cost,implying that there is secrets,and then you give the anaolgy of recipes which sounded like something Bernie Madoff may have given at a college commencement . I really don't want to argue with you and I respect you for joining in. I did want to draw a "real winning player" to see what there response would . You did answer that.

As far as value to this forum I don't think I've added any ,didn't realize I was required to,plus I get censored alot when I do have a strong opinion.

I too have a recipe,this one is for chicken wings,and I know that if i withold my one secret spice, my wings taste like everybody elses".

[rokitman]

You are clearly not smart enough to win at horseracing.

[markgoldie]

There is more to the game than weighing of factors and yes, handicapping is as much an art as it is a science.

There are alot of factors that weigh heavily, and the tote says alot of people agree. Don't U think horsemen know this? Hence, insider trading can make a heavily weighed factor a detriment. This is the art part. In spite of what the factors say, this horse may wait for another day - a juicier mutuel.

U can quantify all U want, but U have to understand what makes a horse sharp, and this is often unquantifiable. Just ask me, I have to quantify every horse, but I know the weakness of science, and its strengths.

The game is also an art - but U don't have to treat it as such. But vice versa! A melding of both art and science is comprehension, read Einstein.

fffastt
Thanks for this post as it perfectly points out the inability of "art" handicappers to understand what they are doing. You mention two factors that you believe are not quantifiable- insider trading and "what makes a horse sharp" (whatever that is supposed to mean, but fine; it doesn't matter).

So here's what happens. You diligently handicap the race and come to an opinion of who the contenders are in the race. You also notice some other horses who might have a chance (possibly for use underneath in a gimmick play). Now. Somehow or other, you have to decide on the different strengths of the main contenders and the lesser players. How do you do that? Well, you can use words if you want to. For example, you like horse A a lot; you like horse B a whole lot; and you like horse C a super whole lot. Horse D, you like a little bit; horse E a little less than a little bit, etc. etc. But in reality, you are setting up a hierarchy of strength that is better and more accurately expressed in numbers. And sooner or later, these word impressions are going to have to be converted into a number anyway because you don't tell the mutuel teller "Give me a super whole lot on horse C to win."

As far as insider trading is concerned, this is quantifiable through tote board action. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there are players who do nothing but study the betting patterns and the best of them are using computer programs to track the action for them so that they don't miss a thing. The computer is fast and accurate at all times whereas standing with a pencil and paper is painfully slow and subject to error. Such toteboard patterns can be incorporated along with you own handicapping decisions or used as a stand-alone method of play.

As far as " what makes a horse sharp": you say this is something you have to understand but it is often unquantifiable. Well, if it is unquantifiable, I guess you don't understand it very well, do you? So how does this information seep through to a betting decision on your part? Is it though some sort of mystical osmosis? But seriously, I understand what you're trying to say. But here's what you are missing. Whatever the source of this information might be and whatever the nature of this information for that matter, if you are using it to impact on your wagering decisions, it can be quantified. Why? Because it is having a quantifiable impact on your wagering. Again, you don't tell the mutuel clerk "Give me horse C to win for a super-duper handicapping edge plus a whopping sharpness angle."

The bottom line is that you are working with numbers and percentages whether or not you know it. My point is that when you start assigning numbers to these things, you will have set the groundwork for refining your methodology. And even if you don't use a computer, you will step your game way up by an analysis of how you are weighing factors and the results that you are getting.

As far as the long winded part. Yes, I agree I am. But if I didn't think this was important or could be helpful, I wouldn't bother.

[Dave Schwartz]

Excellent post Mark.

You have done a remarkable job of addressing the "not quantifiable" issue.

To that end, may I suggest a worthwhile read?

How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business


http://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anything-Intangibles-Business/dp/0470110120/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253984315&sr=8-1

[markgoldie]

Excellent post Mark.

You have done a remarkable job of addressing the "not quantifiable" issue.

To that end, may I suggest a worthwhile read?

How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business


http://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anything-Intangibles-Business/dp/0470110120/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253984315&sr=8-1
Thanks Dave. Just ordered it. Mark.

[Cratos]

Thanks for this post as it perfectly points out the inability of "art" handicappers to understand what they are doing. You mention two factors that you believe are not quantifiable- insider trading and "what makes a horse sharp" (whatever that is supposed to mean, but fine; it doesn't matter).

So here's what happens. You diligently handicap the race and come to an opinion of who the contenders are in the race. You also notice some other horses who might have a chance (possibly for use underneath in a gimmick play). Now. Somehow or other, you have to decide on the different strengths of the main contenders and the lesser players. How do you do that? Well, you can use words if you want to. For example, you like horse A a lot; you like horse B a whole lot; and you like horse C a super whole lot. Horse D, you like a little bit; horse E a little less than a little bit, etc. etc. But in reality, you are setting up a hierarchy of strength that is better and more accurately expressed in numbers. And sooner or later, these word impressions are going to have to be converted into a number anyway because you don't tell the mutuel teller "Give me a super whole lot on horse C to win."

As far as insider trading is concerned, this is quantifiable through tote board action. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there are players who do nothing but study the betting patterns and the best of them are using computer programs to track the action for them so that they don't miss a thing. The computer is fast and accurate at all times whereas standing with a pencil and paper is painfully slow and subject to error. Such toteboard patterns can be incorporated along with you own handicapping decisions or used as a stand-alone method of play.

As far as " what makes a horse sharp": you say this is something you have to understand but it is often unquantifiable. Well, if it is unquantifiable, I guess you don't understand it very well, do you? So how does this information seep through to a betting decision on your part? Is it though some sort of mystical osmosis? But seriously, I understand what you're trying to say. But here's what you are missing. Whatever the source of this information might be and whatever the nature of this information for that matter, if you are using it to impact on your wagering decisions, it can be quantified. Why? Because it is having a quantifiable impact on your wagering. Again, you don't tell the mutuel clerk "Give me horse C to win for a super-duper handicapping edge plus a whopping sharpness angle."

The bottom line is that you are working with numbers and percentages whether or not you know it. My point is that when you start assigning numbers to these things, you will have set the groundwork for refining your methodology. And even if you don't use a computer, you will step your game way up by an analysis of how you are weighing factors and the results that you are getting.

As far as the long winded part. Yes, I agree I am. But if I didn't think this was important or could be helpful, I wouldn't bother.

Mark,

Although your posts are some what extended and you have raised some very good issues about numbers; and the handicapping of racehorses, you have missed the point.

I disagree with your use of the word “quantifiable” and will replace it with the word “numerical.”

It is my understanding that when one quantifies, one determines and to that point “class” in horseracing cannot and never has been pre-race determined or quantified.

On the other hand by assigning a number to “class” in horseracing as some do with their speed figures the reduction of class complexity is realized, but not determined.

An easy example is that when an owner enters his/her horse in a $50,000 claiming race they have assigned a number (in their mind) to the horse’s value or “class,” but that value hasn’t been determined(quantified) and many times never will.

[GameTheory]

Excellent post Mark.

You have done a remarkable job of addressing the "not quantifiable" issue.

To that end, may I suggest a worthwhile read?

How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business


http://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anything-Intangibles-Business/dp/0470110120/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253984315&sr=8-1Recommending my recommendations, huh? I was just about to, but you beat me to it...

[markgoldie]

Mark,

Although your posts are some what extended and you have raised some very good issues about numbers; and the handicapping of racehorses, you have missed the point.

I disagree with your use of the word “quantifiable” and will replace it with the word “numerical.”

It is my understanding that when one quantifies, one determines and to that point “class” in horseracing cannot and never has been pre-race determined or quantified.

On the other hand by assigning a number to “class” in horseracing as some do with their speed figures the reduction of class complexity is realized, but not determined.

An easy example is that when an owner enters his/her horse in a $50,000 claiming race they have assigned a number (in their mind) to the horse’s value or “class,” but that value hasn’t been determined(quantified) and many times never will.
Cratos;

Look. I am not saying that any horse is certain to perform in any particular manner in a given race based on class, power ratings, or anything else. It's a game of averages. Neither am I saying that any horse has an inmutable "class," value, worth, or anything of the sort.

We're talking about wagering on a specific event based on the information we possess and the process by which we determine on whom and how much to bet. Now. I've already beaten this to death so there's no point in reiterating. If you don't agree with me, fine. I can't be responsible for bringing the world into agreement. If I could do that, the world would be a happy and peaceful place. :) But I can't, so it isn't. :(

[Tom]

So the then the "secret" is to find what works for you.

[Fastracehorse]

Thanks for this post as it perfectly points out the inability of "art" handicappers to understand what they are doing. You mention two factors that you believe are not quantifiable- insider trading and "what makes a horse sharp" (whatever that is supposed to mean, but fine; it doesn't matter).

So here's what happens. You diligently handicap the race and come to an opinion of who the contenders are in the race. You also notice some other horses who might have a chance (possibly for use underneath in a gimmick play). Now. Somehow or other, you have to decide on the different strengths of the main contenders and the lesser players. How do you do that? Well, you can use words if you want to. For example, you like horse A a lot; you like horse B a whole lot; and you like horse C a super whole lot. Horse D, you like a little bit; horse E a little less than a little bit, etc. etc. But in reality, you are setting up a hierarchy of strength that is better and more accurately expressed in numbers. And sooner or later, these word impressions are going to have to be converted into a number anyway because you don't tell the mutuel teller "Give me a super whole lot on horse C to win."

As far as insider trading is concerned, this is quantifiable through tote board action. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there are players who do nothing but study the betting patterns and the best of them are using computer programs to track the action for them so that they don't miss a thing. The computer is fast and accurate at all times whereas standing with a pencil and paper is painfully slow and subject to error. Such toteboard patterns can be incorporated along with you own handicapping decisions or used as a stand-alone method of play.

As far as " what makes a horse sharp": you say this is something you have to understand but it is often unquantifiable. Well, if it is unquantifiable, I guess you don't understand it very well, do you? So how does this information seep through to a betting decision on your part? Is it though some sort of mystical osmosis? But seriously, I understand what you're trying to say. But here's what you are missing. Whatever the source of this information might be and whatever the nature of this information for that matter, if you are using it to impact on your wagering decisions, it can be quantified. Why? Because it is having a quantifiable impact on your wagering. Again, you don't tell the mutuel clerk "Give me horse C to win for a super-duper handicapping edge plus a whopping sharpness angle."

The bottom line is that you are working with numbers and percentages whether or not you know it. My point is that when you start assigning numbers to these things, you will have set the groundwork for refining your methodology. And even if you don't use a computer, you will step your game way up by an analysis of how you are weighing factors and the results that you are getting.

As far as the long winded part. Yes, I agree I am. But if I didn't think this was important or could be helpful, I wouldn't bother.

Somehow U think that artful thinking is less superior to scientific analysis. In fact artisits think critically, which in my mind anyways, is a superior form of analysis when handicapping. Yes, science has its prowess, and in some cases can usurp even the most clever of artful analyses, but since most races are competitive, this is most often not the case.

Problem is, U cannot have a definitive answer to everything, all the tote analyses in the world will not undercover the smartest of insider traders. In fact, some horsemen say don't bet the horse to win (so as to not tip anyone off ). If you grow up close to the game U learn these intangibles that can be applied artistically, a dab of paint here, a dab of paint there.

The computer is fast and sharp, but because of 'tunnel vision' is constrained from noticing intangibles that can lead to quick scores. The computer is inflexible and hard in its approach, and hence brittle. The mind is flexible and subtle, can move in many directions and hence, is superior. This isn't just my opinion, this is a cultural phiosophy.

Form is analysis of Biology in a sense, organic organisms aren't static, they are forever changeing and that is why U need an artful approach. If they were cyber beings I would say U were right.

fffastt

[Dave Schwartz]

Somehow U think that artful thinking is less superior to scientific analysis. In fact artisits think critically, which in my mind anyways, is a superior form of analysis when handicapping. Yes, science has its prowess, and in some cases can usurp even the most clever of artful analyses, but since most races are competitive, this is most often not the case.

I don't think that is what Mark is saying. I think what he is saying is closer to "artful thinking is less useful beyond the individual doing the thinking."

You can use artfulness (in decision-making)to whatever degree you wish. However, when one tries to extend artful observations beyond the individual, calibration often becomes an issue.


Imagine two horse players trying to turn their artful picks into a single line for every horse in a race. How does one integrate "I like this horse a lot" with "He's okay, but not a standout?" How Is that 9/2 or 11/1?

For that matter, how does the artful handicapper learn that horses he "likes a lot" can be bet at a certain range like (say) 4/1?


Dave

PS: The book I reccomended will actually tell you how to do that. (Note that GT didn't get there first. It was all me, me, me!)

[PanamaPete]

Let me take a more in-depth stab at this because it seems to have provoked a great deal of interest amongst forum members.

As a man who has been doing this for more years than many of you have been alive, I have seen a great many changes in approach to handicapping. In my early years, the gurus were Talbout and Ainsle and in those days, quantification of speed was thought to be impossible. Class and form were the only major considerations.

Then came Beyer with his speed figs. This innovation was important for more than the fact that he proved that speed could be quantified and that such quantification explained (more or less) who the best horse in the race was. But little understood at the time was the more general proposition that a horse's ability vis-a-vis a specific field could be quantified in a single number. Even though this was just the beginning of such a quest, and was very rudimentary in nature, I think it was the precursor of what today's best automated handicappers try to do.

Personally, I have never been an automated handicapper. However, that fact does not prevent me from understanding that the automated players are the key to the future. Their great advantage is possessing large data bases on which to test propositions. Dave Schwartz would call this "weighing" of factors that we all use. This "weighing" can and should be accomplished by data mining of large data files.

A couple of notes about this: First, I have argued on this forum several times that decision making in handicapping boils down to numbers whether we think of it that way or not. When a handicapper completes his analysis of a race, he weighs many factors based on his experience (which, by the way, is nothing more than the impressions from memory that the handicapper holds in his head). But the final product of his handicapping always places the horses in the race in some form of hierarchy and within this hierarchy, there are divisions of strength. This can be expressed in numbers even if the handicapper doesn't think so or doesn't think of it in such terms. The second point is that assigning numbers to the hierarchy is always a better way to accurate quantification. Why? Because the human mind, wonderful instrument that it is, constantly overlooks things and in general does not apply the lessons of its experience in a uniform manner. This happens constantly and we all see it. When? Well, the best example is after we have played a race and a horse wins that we didn't use. We look at the past performances to see exactly why this horse should have won a low and behold, we now see something in his form that we know we should have picked up when handicapping. But we didn't. The third point is that our experience itself is only very hazy. Not only do we remember selectively, but our memory is dependent on the races which we have considered in the past. Since this is necessarily only a small sample of all races run, it is based on selective anecdotal evidence.

But the topic of this discussion is the "secret" to handicapping. The secret is this: (1) Single-number quantification of a horse's prospects in a given field is (paraphrasing Beyer) the way, the light, and the truth. (2) The accuracy of that single number should be relentlessly pursued (3) The avenue of pursuit should be data mining over a large sample base, which is far more accurate than the anecdotal "experience" that any handicapper (no matter how accomplished) believes he holds in his head. This is the only way to scientifically and accurately accomplish what Dave Schwartz refers to as the proper weighing of factors. Could this be done with paper and pencil? Sure. But the human lifespan is unfortunately rather short. (4) What can or should be data mined? Everything. Every single factor that you weigh when handicapping a race. And don't forget to throw in those factors which you think about but can't quantify because you realize you don't have the information. (5) Start with a base number and then refine it as you apply data-mined influences on it. I would recommend a good, uniformly constructed final speed number (fig) as a starting point. (6) As we all know, wagering "value" is the key to success. This has been said thousands of times here and elsewhere. But the only way to consistently find value is by possessing a better means of handicapping quantification than the wagering public. That's why you have to do the work.

Lastly, I cannot believe that in the year of our Lord of 2009, there are still rational people out there who believe that handicapping is more art than science and/or that computer handicapping will never beat the the experienced "feel," "gut," or "instinctual" player. Nonsense. Everything and I mean everything you do can be reduced to numbers and whether or not you are profitable as you are, the consistent, accurate, and relentlessly uniform application of those numbers will outperform you in the long run.


I think this post by Mark is one of the more informative on this thread. He referenced a few of the greats. However IMHO, he left out some of the real movers and shakers of modern handicapping. Names like Howard Sartin, Jim (The Hat) Bradshaw along with a few others. I'm sure a few will feel differently but to each their own.

Pace Handicapping was revolutionary. Pace Handicapping meant observing the performance of Thoroughbred Horse like the athletes they are. Jockeys are part of the mix because they must have the ability to read the animal. Let's not overlook the Stewards. They get and keep their jobs by being able to determining the ability and class qualifications of any single horse compared to others in the same race by setting a good ML. Consequently, there are many other factors to numerous to list that must be taken into consideration. Is the horse an early or front runner? Does he give up if passed? Will he tolerate or stretch out with another horse pressing from behind, right on his tail? Is he a horse that can come from behind with a burst of reserve speed while the front runners are out of gas? These are only a few of the many qualities that make up a race.

Dave Schwartz is right in calling this weighing various beneficial factors derived from a horse's past performance. I haven't kept up with Dave over the years but I remember him from years back for developing one of the best Money Management Methods around.

This weighing or ranking of various factors will produce a true pattern of how a race should run. However, to accomplish this you will need a very extensive database. No one ever said true expertise in handicapping could be accomplished overnight. For the real pros it takes years. Building these databases and knowing how to read them depends on the individuals computer ability but for most it could take a long time. Although by no means, don't let this deter you. If you really want to succeed you will make the effort.

Keep in mind there is always an unknown factor no amount of skill or practice can prevent. It's a little thing called Murphy's Law and is real. True to it's nature it usually will appear at the worst possible time. However, with skill and persistence the damage from Murphy's Law can be minimized. Allowing stress to take over after losing a single race is like counting your money while you are sitting at the table. With true professionals, this just isn't done. This is why a single race does not make or break a profitable meet. Never allow yourself to become emotionally involved with any single race. It's all in the ROI when it's over. In my opinion it starts with the first and ends with the last playable race of a meet.

Another must is to really know your true score. To do this it's absolutely necessary to keep accurate records of every penny earned or spent. Without accurate records why even bother to make this a profession? Good business survives on record keeping, and this is a business.

Mark is correct is saying it all boils down to numbers. Database numbers or rankings are the nucleus of predicting any race. Unfortunately, there are so many factors to evaluate from over a long period of time it would take days just to evaluate a single race properly. This is where computer's come in. They do just that and they do it in a matter of seconds. Once a collection of DRF and RESULTS files are acquired, a database management system like MS Access must be created to evaluate the data accumulated. Numbering or ranking this data will point to a winning pattern that will repeat itself over and over. Granted, computers take from the picture the personal pleasure and bragging rights from selecting winners manually the old fashion way. However, IMHO the name of the game is not working your ass off to grind out a few winning races, but it's in the long haul by making money. I don't pretend by any stretch to know it all. However, these are my personal observations and they seem to work well for me.
pp

[Light]

Rules are meant to be broken. This is where the art comes in. You like a horse and the trainer is 0-50. What do you do? Do you stick with your numbers or do you key the bomb? It is my experience that if you really like the horse you are a fool to believe the numbers.

On the other hand, in this game,art needs a reference. You cannot get so out there in your creativety that you lose sight of reality. Numbers do provide a sobering definition when the horse in question is questionable.

[Dave Schwartz]

What you are describing is precisely how I suggest that our software be used by an artful handicapper:

The numbers tell you how good the horses are then the user applies his artfulness in moving a horse up or down. I like to call this "leaning."


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[GameTheory]

PS: The book I reccomended will actually tell you how to do that. (Note that GT didn't get there first. It was all me, me, me!)Yeah, but who told you about that book in the first place?

But the topic of this discussion is the "secret" to handicapping. The secret is this: (1) Single-number quantification of a horse's prospects in a given field is (paraphrasing Beyer) the way, the light, and the truth. (2) The accuracy of that single number should be relentlessly pursued (3) The avenue of pursuit should be data mining over a large sample base, which is far more accurate than the anecdotal "experience" that any handicapper (no matter how accomplished) believes he holds in his head. This is the only way to scientifically and accurately accomplish what Dave Schwartz refers to as the proper weighing of factors. Could this be done with paper and pencil? Sure. But the human lifespan is unfortunately rather short. (4) What can or should be data mined? Everything. Every single factor that you weigh when handicapping a race. And don't forget to throw in those factors which you think about but can't quantify because you realize you don't have the information. (5) Start with a base number and then refine it as you apply data-mined influences on it. I would recommend a good, uniformly constructed final speed number (fig) as a starting point. (6) As we all know, wagering "value" is the key to success. This has been said thousands of times here and elsewhere. But the only way to consistently find value is by possessing a better means of handicapping quantification than the wagering public. That's why you have to do the work.I don't disagree with any of this except that it is *the* secret. It is one way to go, but a very tough way.

I bet on horses all the time where I don't examine the other runners in the race at all. In fact, I prefer not to because it is good way to talk yourself out of a high-priced winner because such plays are invariably based upon things that aren't in the PPs at all (which might look terrible), generally something I think the trainer is up to, or some pedigree thing. (Handicapping from the business/horseman's/condition book perspective.) And so I'm not even handicapping the race since I'm not considering the field. I'm considering a group of horses *like* this one (or in a similar situation as this one) across many races knowing full-well that many of those I will be betting on won't run a lick and will come in last. And these types of plays are much more profitable (as well as easier to learn) than the type of comprehensive number handicapping where you try to quantify every entrant's chances exactly. You can't play every race that way because you can't always find some "special" reason to bet on an a horse, but when you can the prices sure are better because those methods have hardly any correlation to the odds and picking a decent win rate at high prices is entirely possible.

So despite my fondness for oodles of data and the mining of it, these numbers we've got to work with are frankly not very representative of what's actually happening out there. They are abstractions of abstractions, and since everyone is using them they are even less valuable. People are always asking questions like, "Why does the top speed horse lose X% of the time? How do favorites do when Y & Z? Let's look at the numbers." The answers aren't really in the numbers -- only a funhouse mirror reflection of some side-effects of the true answers. Or possibly more accurately, the answers are ONLY in the numbers, and so are the questions, but it is all some fantasy world only tangentially related to the actual horses running around in the circle. Now, if you are significantly better than others at interpreting those funhouse reflections and know how to leverage that advantage, you CAN profit, but not because you're truly evaluating the horse race, but because this is a pari-mutuel game and being better than the competition is the name of the game.

But those other types of plays, based on the realities of the BUSINESS of racing and that are not contained in the PPs at all or only in the most indirect ways (requiring collection of records that only you will have), and are therefore totally invisible to 99.9% of the horseplayer population, are a hell of a lot easier to make money with when you can find them.

[speculus]

.....I bet on horses all the time where I don't examine the other runners in the race at all. .....

..Rule#7 (post#34) ....Once you make up your mind that your method horse is going over the right trip, right class/level and with the right jockey on top of it, don't even look at the rivals or competition--just go ahead with your bet......

That's THE secret!:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
PS: The book I reccomended will actually tell you how to do that. (Note that GT didn't get there first. It was all me, me, me!)

Yeah, but who told you about that book in the first place?


You were serious about that?

;)

[speculus]

Hello Dave,

Not heard from you about the file I sent. Too busy to look at it?

[Dave Schwartz]

Speculus,

Please jog my memory... perhaps I have completely forgotten this.


Dave

[speculus]

Speculus,

Please jog my memory... perhaps I have completely forgotten this.


Dave

I am talking about THIS MONEY MANAGEMENT FORMULA FILE (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=756495&postcount=79)

[Cratos]

I don't think that is what Mark is saying. I think what he is saying is closer to "artful thinking is less useful beyond the individual doing the thinking."

You can use artfulness (in decision-making)to whatever degree you wish. However, when one tries to extend artful observations beyond the individual, calibration often becomes an issue.


Imagine two horse players trying to turn their artful picks into a single line for every horse in a race. How does one integrate "I like this horse a lot" with "He's okay, but not a standout?" How Is that 9/2 or 11/1?

For that matter, how does the artful handicapper learn that horses he "likes a lot" can be bet at a certain range like (say) 4/1?


Dave

PS: The book I reccomended will actually tell you how to do that. (Note that GT didn't get there first. It was all me, me, me!)

Dave,

You have made a good case for this game being “numerical” and against being “quantifiable”, because if it was “quantifiable” as suggested, there would be many mathematicians and computer geeks that would clean-up at the betting windows.

Paraphrasing the legendary Pittsburgh Phil, “this game is ½ art and ½
science.”

[Dave Schwartz]

You have made a good case for this game being “numerical” and against being “quantifiable”, because if it was “quantifiable” as suggested, there would be many mathematicians and computer geeks that would clean-up at the betting windows.

That is precisely what I am saying.

I think of the "big six" wagering $1.6b and making over $150 million as "cleaning up."


Dave

[Show Me the Wire]

.....I bet on horses all the time where I don't examine the other runners in the race at all. .....

Find a KEY race and bet the 4th and 5th finishing horse blindly, as long as they are not in the same race.

[markgoldie]

Dave,

You have made a good case for this game being “numerical” and against being “quantifiable”, because if it was “quantifiable” as suggested, there would be many mathematicians and computer geeks that would clean-up at the betting windows.

Paraphrasing the legendary Pittsburgh Phil, “this game is ½ art and ½
science.”
Wow. Now we're getting bogged down in semantics. "Quantifiable" means that something can be measured. That's all. It does not mean that the game in general can be beaten or not beaten and in the context I was using it, referred to variables that artful handicappers believe cannot be satisfactorily measured. "Numerical" means expressed as a number. That's all. So what I was saying is that these nebulous factors that artful handicappers use can be quantified numerically. Again, this does not mean that we're all automatically winners or anything of the sort. It means that since this is a game of numbers, somewhere along the line you can express any opinion, no matter how esoteric, subtle, or nuanced as a numerical value. Why? Because unless you're doing this as a purely intellectual pursuit, you have to decide to make or not make a wager. If the horse you like because of all these esoteric considerations is 1-20 on the tote board, you may not want to make a wager. Therefore, a number exists under which you will not bet. If the decision to bet or not bet can be triggered by a number, then the decision itself must therefore be numerical in nature. This principle extends to every constituent factor that comprises the aggregate of the master decision. Each individual factor has some percentage influence on the master decision and again, percentages are numerical.

Game Theory and Speculus propose betting on a horse that meets a certain criteria without looking at the balance of the field at all. Fine. But in order to find such angles, you must judge the angle versus profitability and again, this can be expressed as a number. For example, a return of >1.0 roi represents a profit and <1.0 roi is a loss. So if finding the conglomeration of factors must result in a specific numerical outcome, then the conglomeration itself must be numerical in nature. Furthermore, I would bet that they both have an odds' trigger to their wagers as above. I would also bet that they have found that if you remove a factor or factors that go into producing their profitable angle, it doesn't work. That means that the constituent factors that go into their master decision have some numerical impact on the decision itself.

Now. All this is not meant to be argumentative, but as a potential help. Once you learn to numerically quantify all these brilliant, artful factors, you can significantly improve your performance and I'm assuming that this is something which we all might want to do. But how do we do this? Trial and error? Well, that's certainly one way but clearly not the most efficient. My suggestion is through targeted data mining of a large sample of situations (races). This, by the way, does not mean that the goal is to handicap and play every race as has been charged by some people on this thread. It does mean improving your results whatever angle or angles you are playing.

Numbers are tools meant to help us understand reality. They are meant to be our friends. Why the resistance to them? No field of science could exist without them and without them we'd still be huddling in caves. With regards to the quote from Pittsburgh Phil and the game being half art and half science, I would say to Phil: You just never learned how to assign a number to the "art" half.

[RXB]

Parts of the human brain that are very important to the cause of rational decision-making do not process data in mathematical terms.

Also, there is no way to put a number, particularly an accurate number, onto every piece of information.

I love numbers; always have, always will. Numbers are very useful within context. However, they should not become totalitarian within an individual's thought processes.

[raybo]

I really don't know why ya'll are busting Mark's chops over his "quantifiable" statements. He's explained exactly what he means by it and, as one who actually believes he is a winning player (moreso than any other member here who claims to be profitable), I completely understand and believe what he said.

If any of you believe that all relevant information can't be "quantified" then keep on believing that, and keep winning (or more likely, losing) your own way.

Just because you can't quantify the info doesn't mean it can't be done, only that you either haven't tried or haven't figured out how to do it yet.

[GameTheory]

I really don't know why ya'll are busting Mark's chops over his "quantifiable" statements. He's explained exactly what he means by it and, as one who actually believes he is a winning player (moreso than any other member here who claims to be profitable), I completely understand and believe what he said.

If any of you believe that all relevant information can't be "quantified" then keep on believing that, and keep winning (or more likely, losing) your own way.

Just because you can't quantify the info doesn't mean it can't be done, only that you either haven't tried or haven't figured out how to do it yet.The only one busting his chops was Cratos, and that was simply about the exact definition of the term.

[LottaKash]

Numbers are tools meant to help us understand reality. They are meant to be our friends. .

That is how, I would have liked to express my opinion on the subject...Well put, Mark....:cool:

best,

[speculus]

Wow. Now we're getting bogged down in semantics. "Quantifiable" means that something can be measured. That's all. It does not mean that the game in general can be beaten or not beaten and in the context I was using it, referred to variables that artful handicappers believe cannot be satisfactorily measured. "Numerical" means expressed as a number. That's all. So what I was saying is that these nebulous factors that artful handicappers use can be quantified numerically. Again, this does not mean that we're all automatically winners or anything of the sort. It means that since this is a game of numbers, somewhere along the line you can express any opinion, no matter how esoteric, subtle, or nuanced as a numerical value. Why? Because unless you're doing this as a purely intellectual pursuit, you have to decide to make or not make a wager. If the horse you like because of all these esoteric considerations is 1-20 on the tote board, you may not want to make a wager. Therefore, a number exists under which you will not bet. If the decision to bet or not bet can be triggered by a number, then the decision itself must therefore be numerical in nature. This principle extends to every constituent factor that comprises the aggregate of the master decision. Each individual factor has some percentage influence on the master decision and again, percentages are numerical.

Game Theory and Speculus propose betting on a horse that meets a certain criteria without looking at the balance of the field at all. Fine. But in order to find such angles, you must judge the angle versus profitability and again, this can be expressed as a number. For example, a return of >1.0 roi represents a profit and <1.0 roi is a loss. So if finding the conglomeration of factors must result in a specific numerical outcome, then the conglomeration itself must be numerical in nature. Furthermore, I would bet that they both have an odds' trigger to their wagers as above. I would also bet that they have found that if you remove a factor or factors that go into producing their profitable angle, it doesn't work. That means that the constituent factors that go into their master decision have some numerical impact on the decision itself.

Now. All this is not meant to be argumentative, but as a potential help. Once you learn to numerically quantify all these brilliant, artful factors, you can significantly improve your performance and I'm assuming that this is something which we all might want to do. But how do we do this? Trial and error? Well, that's certainly one way but clearly not the most efficient. My suggestion is through targeted data mining of a large sample of situations (races). This, by the way, does not mean that the goal is to handicap and play every race as has been charged by some people on this thread. It does mean improving your results whatever angle or angles you are playing.

Numbers are tools meant to help us understand reality. They are meant to be our friends. Why the resistance to them? No field of science could exist without them and without them we'd still be huddling in caves. With regards to the quote from Pittsburgh Phil and the game being half art and half science, I would say to Phil: You just never learned how to assign a number to the "art" half.

IMO Markg has attempted to put it in the best possible way here.

After reading this thread up to this point, I would say every winning horseplayer HAS to go through minimum four stages:

1. Finding a winning (as in +ve flat-bet roi) handicapping method requires ART
2. Testing, validating and refining it requires SCIENCE (and its tools)
3. Applying it without deviating (or getting distracted by external noise) requires DISCIPLINE
4. Waiting ONLY for the spots thrown up by the method requires PATIENCE.

The first two can be had ready-made from someone who has invented it (you don't really have to re-invent the wheel, because after stage two the process of "picking plays" becomes mechanical--almost robotic), but stage 3 & 4, you HAVE to work on yourself.

My personal experience is however that if you are the inventor of the method, it's easier to inculcate a sense of patience and discipline because you can see for yourself what an egregious fool you would be if you let this great opportunity of making guaranteed profits slip by just because you lack patience and discipline.

[speculus]

Game Theory and Speculus propose betting on a horse that meets a certain criteria without looking at the balance of the field at all.

Is it really a heretic thought? I don't think so.

In fact, I think that could the WHOLE secret of beating this game LONG TERM!

[markgoldie]

Is it really a heretic thought? I don't think so.

In fact, I think that could the WHOLE secret of beating this game LONG TERM!
No, it's not and btw, I didn't say that it was. In fact, it takes into consideration that the overwhelming majority of what handicappers do is done by other handicappers and therefore is already incorporated in the line. This reminds me of when I was a young handicapper in the early 1960's, playing at Saratoga. I became friendly with an older, distinguished gentleman from NYC who vacationed at the Spa every summer and played the races every day. He studied the form for hours both before and during the races and he invariably arrived at the conclusion that the favorite was the best horse in the race. He'd wind up playing the favorite $50 to win, which in those days was quite a significant wager, and he always lost, usually on a daily basis but certainly by the end of the meet. Even though he could well afford the losses and definitely enjoyed himself while losing, it was clear that he could have saved himself a lot of labor by letting the public do the handicapping for him, since they obviously were doing exactly what he was.

So you are correct in believing that the secret to success is finding angles that are not incorporated in the line so that you can attain wagering value.

Where I would disagree is that this is purely art. Why? Because the quest for finding such angles must begin with some anecdotal belief that your area of inquiry might be successful. That means that you have seen or think you have seen that such general situations produce profits (positive roi). This, in turn, pushes you to a more in-depth examination of the underlying principle.

Whereas this might seem or feel like pure intuition (art), it is actually factually based on an underlying mathematical calculation which might be expressed as % hit rate x average payoff. This is what your memory or experience has seen or thinks it has seen in the past and therefore, you have been making mathematical calculations all along without having realized it.

On the other hand, maybe you are investigating angles which you have zero intuitive belief have led to a positive mathematical result in the past. Isn't this at least artful? No, it isn't. Without any preconceived expectation of profit, you are randomly mixing factors which could just as easily be replicated by pulling factors out of a hat.

The ensuing dissection of an angle may involve tweaking by way of of adding or subtracting factors or restrictions but again, this all involves mathematical effects to a bottom line. On this point you seem to agree. (Your stage 2).

Now. None of this would be important in the least because it only involves semantic labelling if it did not cause so-called artful handicappers to reject sustained and logical mathematical testing of their processes.

Hopefully, we can help each other on this forum. My hope is that the artful handicappers, by realizing that they are already dealing with numbers in everything that they do, will subject their processes to some better numerical examination. And if they have been struggling with making their art successful, this alone may allow them to join the ranks of the profitable bettors.

[fmolf]

that is very well said and i agree with it totally... i think that with people who say they do not use numbers they really mean they do not do any calculations such as making an average pace number or calculating who has the faster turn time etc..etc... they do however look at numbers provided by others research and data bases as to trainer % blinkes on....first gelded...two classes down...etc etc... although they perceive themselves as not using numbers they are using them in a slightly different light than speed/pace handicappers.Unless picking your horses from a hat it is impossible to handicap without using statistics/numbers/calculations in some form or another.

[GameTheory]

Can't we also reject the notion that art is pure intuition -- you can use numbers and still be artful, eh?

Isn't some art involved when evaluating situations which have never occurred before and will never repeat? You are always bringing to bear in some way (subjective or otherwise) your knowledge about what has happened in the past, but does that automatically make it all science, no art?

For instance, let's say I am heavily into trainer stats, trainer/jockey combos, etc. One day I notice that small-time Trainer X, with a tiny stable of only four horses (all for the same owner), who averages only 1 start every 10 ten days; suddenly has all four of those horses entered on the same card (different races). Not only that, but they've all got the same jockey, who rarely wins, but actually has a reasonable record with this particular trainer. I look over their PPs and don't see anything special -- taken individually I've got only got one reason to bet on them --the half-decent Trainer/Jockey combo. But their record isn't THAT good, just reasonable, so really no reason at all. But then I've got the very unusual circumstance that all four of these horses are entered on the same day. I suspect the owner is around, but I'm not at the track and have no way of finding out.

So, I've got some stats that alerted me to this situation, but the only thing the stats are telling me is that the situation is weird -- I have no stats that actually indicate I should be betting in this situation. And obviously there is no data mining I can do -- this is a unique situation that hasn't occurred before, with this trainer anyway, and isn't likely to occur again. So I've got a hunch that Trainer X is up to something, and I feel he's a decent enough trainer that it is worth it to go along. So I "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning I've got no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe I get two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and I hit a good exacta). (Or maybe I lose them all, that's not really the point.)

Now, if you can't call what I just described as playing "artfully", then the word doesn't have any meaning and it really is all semantics...

[andymays]

Art/whatever


After the handicapping process is over the final decision (placing the bet) is based on instinct.

Your instinct is developed over a long period of time and is based on the total sum of your experiences as a Handicapper.

[Show Me the Wire]

The art is knowing what is behind the numbers i.e. if ground loss is an intergal part of the number and on that specific day being wide was advantageous. Another example a horse always runs a big number when it is on the outside of horses, but not when inside of horses.

How about blinkers and the improvement they produce. Will the horse improve off his improving win resulting from wearing blinkers the second time? The numbers quantify what is quantifiable and the art addresses the essence.

[illinoisbred]

Art/whatever


After the handicapping process is over the final decision (placing the bet) is based on instinct.

Your instinct is developed over a long period of time and is based on the total sum of your experiences as a Handicapper.
Couldn't agree more but also agree with an above poster-Mark,I think, regarding the ability to consistently apply that instinct.We are vulnerable at times to what prove to be wayward influences.You may be better than me when it comes to foiling such"noise".I'm at the point that I quickly recognize it,fend it off before it becomes too costly

[Dave Schwartz]

After the handicapping process is over the final decision (placing the bet) is based on instinct.

Andy,

Doesn't have to be.

The same conversation we are having about the handicapping process could easily apply to the wagering process as well.


Dave

[dietant]

build a homemade risk seek multinomial logit model and U are done.

[andymays]

Couldn't agree more but also agree with an above poster-Mark,I think, regarding the ability to consistently apply that instinct.We are vulnerable at times to what prove to be wayward influences.You may be better than me when it comes to foiling such"noise".I'm at the point that I quickly recognize it,fend it off before it becomes too costly


I am on one end of the spectrum and I have had success in the past although I am inconsistent and lack discipline.

I find that those on the other end of the spectrum offer value in what they say and I would certainly admit that I should move at least a little in that direction.

[speculus]

One important point which I wanted to make but did not was this: I think there are many really excellent, brainy handicappers around trying to figure out this sport for profitability, and most of them, at some point in time in their pursuit of this game, place over reliance on the numbers. I have myself been one of them.

But what they don't realize is that their obsession with numbers has a side effect which goes unnoticed for a long time. Once you get lost in the labyrinth of numbers, a complete burnout of the handicapper is almost certain. Numbers, especially the quality of their occasional success, has a way of enticing the practitioner into a never-ending maize, and in 99 out of 100 cases, you will see a complete "burnout" of the numbers guy over the years. It's too late for him to realize that he has lost quality time with himself, family and friends--and hasn't really covered significant ground in his quest to master this game. When he looks back, most of the so-called great moments of victories along the way suddenly appear hollow when compared to the quality of the things lost due to obsessive involvement with numbers, and the time spent in producing them.

Even with computers today slaving for you, the intense thought that goes into designing new ways to work out more effective numbers is the main reason for burnout of this kind.

My precise thoughts on this subject I had expressed in a mail last year which you can read here. (http://prakashgosavi.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-finoo-was-born-logic-and-reson.html)

I think the earlier a numbers guy understands and accepts this truth, better is his chance of picking up a technique with which to easily beat this game long term, because he has the knowledge, intelligence, insights and capability to accomplish that (or he wouldn't be a sworn numbers guy in the first place).

It happened in my case only when I allowed myself to come out of the dogmatic slumber of numbers, and the experience is so refreshing and enjoyable, it's difficult to express it with mere words. On the average, I now devote NOT more than 3 hours a month (per track) to my new style of handicapping and my bottom line had never been better.

[andymays]

Andy,

Doesn't have to be.

The same conversation we are having about the handicapping process could easily apply to the wagering process as well.


Dave


I know it doesn't have to be. Until someone can convince me of a better way to make a score then I will stick to what I do and attempt to be a little more disciplined when it comes to pulling the trigger on a play.

[markgoldie]

Can't we also reject the notion that art is pure intuition -- you can use numbers and still be artful, eh?

Isn't some art involved when evaluating situations which have never occurred before and will never repeat? You are always bringing to bear in some way (subjective or otherwise) your knowledge about what has happened in the past, but does that automatically make it all science, no art?

For instance, let's say I am heavily into trainer stats, trainer/jockey combos, etc. One day I notice that small-time Trainer X, with a tiny stable of only four horses (all for the same owner), who averages only 1 start every 10 ten days; suddenly has all four of those horses entered on the same card (different races). Not only that, but they've all got the same jockey, who rarely wins, but actually has a reasonable record with this particular trainer. I look over their PPs and don't see anything special -- taken individually I've got only got one reason to bet on them --the half-decent Trainer/Jockey combo. But their record isn't THAT good, just reasonable, so really no reason at all. But then I've got the very unusual circumstance that all four of these horses are entered on the same day. I suspect the owner is around, but I'm not at the track and have no way of finding out.

So, I've got some stats that alerted me to this situation, but the only thing the stats are telling me is that the situation is weird -- I have no stats that actually indicate I should be betting in this situation. And obviously there is no data mining I can do -- this is a unique situation that hasn't occurred before, with this trainer anyway, and isn't likely to occur again. So I've got a hunch that Trainer X is up to something, and I feel he's a decent enough trainer that it is worth it to go along. So I "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning I've got no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe I get two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and I hit a good exacta). (Or maybe I lose them all, that's not really the point.)

Now, if you can't call what I just described as playing "artfully", then the word doesn't have any meaning and it really is all semantics...
Actually, with your admitted non-experience in such situations and no facts and/or figures to go by, you are not playing artfully, you're shooting craps. And as you say, it may or may not work out but so too will pulling names out of a hat.

[Dave Schwartz]

I know it doesn't have to be. Until someone can convince me of a better way to make a score then I will stick to what I do and attempt to be a little more disciplined when it comes to pulling the trigger on a play.

And the same goes for many players.

I would never say that anyone must embrace a "systematic" approach, to be successful in the handicapping phase or the wagering phase.

For me, systematic is the only thing I can identify with. That certainly does not make it the only way to skin that cat.

Conversely, there seem to be many people who view it exactly the other way around.


Dave

[Jeff P]

GT,

That's a brilliant (and refreshing) example.

But let me play devil's advocate for a second...

A player - let's call him Chuck - happens to notice (for whatever reason) the very unusual set of circumstances you described that day. And Chuck reacts accordingly... in Chuck's own intuitive manner.

What if Chuck files away the outcome (good or bad it doesn't matter) of that one very unusual day in his mind's eye for future reference?

And suppose for the sake of argument that on some other day... at some other track... with some other trainer, rider, and owner... the same set of circumstances (event) arises again. The only thing different from the last time is the name of the trainer, rider, and owner... and the names of the horses involved.

Chuck has the event right in front of him...

Would he react the same way this time around? Or would Chuck not even notice this time around... or maybe choose to ignore the event even if he does notice it?

This is where the lines between art and science sometimes cross.

What if Chuck had reacted to the event the first time around by betting it?

What if he... to use your words... "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning he had no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe he got two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and hit a good exacta.)

And what if afterwards he made it a point to look for that type of event in the future?

When he looks for that event going forward Chuck can express it in terms of numbers:

0 = Event does not exist today
1 = Event exists today

And from there he can map out how best to handle it...

Event = 0: Look elsewhere for plays
Event = 1: Tighten focus on the event's horses

What if Chuck notices that the event doesn't happen very often, but when it does happen, he usually has a pretty good day?

Chuck has just taken something that used to be intuitive... and made it into an automated process.




Is this all semantics? Maybe.

I tend to agree with Mark. Much of our thought processes and decisions in everyday life can be expressed in terms of numbers... even thought processes and decisions we'd rather not examine and often think of as "intuitive."

But they can be expressed as numbers if we want to do that...

But when we do that... depending on the thought proceess involved... we also run the risk of taking some (or all) of the "fun" out of whatever it is we are doing in the first place.


-jp

.

[GameTheory]

Actually, with your admitted non-experience in such situations and no facts and/or figures to go by, you are not playing artfully, you're shooting craps. And as you say, it may or may not work out but so too will pulling names out of a hat.You're not shooting craps -- can't you play "artfully" and still lose? (Are losers who rely purely on numbers and science "shooting craps"? Most people lose.) My point was about my reasoning and intention. And as far as "non-experience", my point about that was that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have experience for certain situations because they never repeat but still possible to make a smart play, or at least a well-thought out one.

[andymays]

And the same goes for many players.

I would never say that anyone must embrace a "systematic" approach, to be successful in the handicapping phase or the wagering phase.

For me, systematic is the only thing I can identify with. That certainly does not make it the only way to skin that cat.

Conversely, there seem to be many people who view it exactly the other way around.


Dave


I know I would benefit from a more systematic approach but as I get older I find it hard to grind it out. It takes me 6 to 8 hours to handicap a card. That used to always pay off when my home tracks had dirt surfaces. With synthetic surfaces that approach is a waste of time. Synthetic surfaces have come close to driving me away for good. If Santa Anita keeps their synthetic surface I will probably take a pass for a long while. Probably. ;)

[illinoisbred]

I know I would benefit from a more systematic approach but as I get older I find it hard to grind it out. It takes me 6 to 8 hours to handicap a card. That used to always pay off when my home tracks had dirt surfaces. With synthetic surfaces that approach is a waste of time. Synthetic surfaces have come close to driving me away for good. If Santa Anita keeps their synthetic surface I will probably take a pass for a long while. Probably. ;)
So true regarding synthetics.My pace figures are very useful at Hawthorne but many days I could flip or reverse them at Arlington and it wouldn't matter-good or bad.

[Show Me the Wire]

Another example. A horse has a double Beyer (let's assume the numbers are accurate) advantage and the horse is taking a significant drop in class, even though his speed numbers indicate it should be running in a higher class.

Would you select this horse solely on numbers or do some other factors come into play?

[GameTheory]

But let me play devil's advocate for a second...

A player - let's call him Chuck - happens to notice (for whatever reason) the very unusual set of circumstances you described that day. And Chuck reacts accordingly... in Chuck's own intuitive manner.

What if Chuck files away the outcome (good or bad it doesn't matter) of that one very unusual day in his mind's eye for future reference?

And suppose for the sake of argument that on some other day... at some other track... with some other trainer, rider, and owner... the same set of circumstances (event) arises again. The only thing different from the last time is the name of the trainer, rider, and owner... and the names of the horses involved.

Chuck has the event right in front of him...

Would he react the same way this time around? Or would Chuck not even notice this time around... or maybe choose to ignore the event even if he does notice it?

This is where the lines between art and science sometimes cross.

What if Chuck had reacted to the event the first time around by betting it?

What if he... to use your words... "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning he had no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe he got two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and hit a good exacta.)

And what if afterwards he made it a point to look for that type of event in the future.

When he looks for that event going forward Chuck can express it in terms of numbers:

0 = Event does not exist today
1 = Event exists today

And from there he can map out how best to handle it...

Event = 0: Look elsewhere for plays
Event = 1: Tighten focus on the event's horses

Semantics? Maybe.

I tend to agree with Mark. Much of our thought processes and decisions in everyday life can be expressed in terms of numbers... even thought processes and decisions we'd rather not examine and often think of as "intuitive."

But they can be expressed as numbers if we want to do that...

But when we do that... depending on the thought proceess involved... we also run the risk of taking some (or all) of the "fun" out of whatever it is we are doing in the first place.

Some of you know me well enough to know that I thought of all that already and I'm right there with you, but let's really think about what you're saying for a moment.

You're talking about generalizing. Sure, the names have changed, but the situation hasn't. Except it has -- of course it has. The names have changed. No two situations are EXACTLY alike. (How is it we know that the names themselves -- the literal names -- aren't important? Do we need a database for that?) Maybe I did notice that the owner was hanging around that other day, but I don't see this owner today. Maybe the Trainer/Jockey combo is still decent, but I happen to also know that with today's trainer he has got ANOTHER different jockey that is his TRUE "money rider", and that guy is here today but on different horses. So do I play today or not?

Well, I've got to decide if this situation is CLOSE ENOUGH to some other situations like it in order to include it as "event exists today" or "event doesn't exist today". I could say yes, it is close enough, I'm going to bet; or not. But notice I'm simply controlling (arbitrarily, subjectively, artfully) how general I allow the situation to get. I could also say, "Well, those other things I bet on were horse races and so are these, so the situation is the same." And on that level of generality/specificity, IT IS THE SAME.


In other words, I've got to define my parameters -- just like we do when we've got more "well-defined" situations with huge databases backing them up. Aren't those parameters THAT WE HAD TO CHOOSE at some point arbitrary and subjective? We can pretend that we are all pure numbers and science because we look at everything objectively inside those parameters, but those parameters are just thresholds we picked that define the "arena" in which our numbers do battle, so to speak. And the factors that we considered -- which numbers to include, which to not include, which not even to think about -- all essentially "artful" decisions. When you decided not to consider the color of the horse in your numbers database, did you first check some other database to see whether or not you should?

Unless you are God, you are using nebulous, fuzzy impressions about how to go about things AT SOME LEVEL. You might be able to nail something down, but you can't necessarily nail down the thing that the first thing is nailed to.

In any case, getting to write the previous sentence makes this post worthwhile sez the artist in me...

[RXB]

Unless you are God, you are using nebulous, fuzzy impressions about how to go about things AT SOME LEVEL. You might be able to nail something down, but you can't necessarily nail down the thing that the first thing is nailed to.

In any case, getting to write the previous sentence makes this post worthwhile sez the artist in me...

The artist in me is envious of that paragraph.

[Fastracehorse]

Rules are meant to be broken. This is where the art comes in. You like a horse and the trainer is 0-50. What do you do? Do you stick with your numbers or do you key the bomb? It is my experience that if you really like the horse you are a fool to believe the numbers.

On the other hand, in this game,art needs a reference. You cannot get so out there in your creativety that you lose sight of reality. Numbers do provide a sobering definition when the horse in question is questionable.

I think it's a melding of Art and Science. I know I came across as pro-Art but it's because Dave and Mark lean so hard the other way.

I would bet the '0 for trainer' BTW. U see these types alot.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Another example. A horse has a double Beyer (let's assume the numbers are accurate) advantage and the horse is taking a significant drop in class, even though his speed numbers indicate it should be running in a higher class.

Would you select this horse solely on numbers or do some other factors come into play?


Simple, why the drop?

Problem is, U can't always be right, but U should try and beat these types because they will be well bet.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

I don't think that is what Mark is saying. I think what he is saying is closer to "artful thinking is less useful beyond the individual doing the thinking."

You can use artfulness (in decision-making)to whatever degree you wish. However, when one tries to extend artful observations beyond the individual, calibration often becomes an issue.


Imagine two horse players trying to turn their artful picks into a single line for every horse in a race. How does one integrate "I like this horse a lot" with "He's okay, but not a standout?" How Is that 9/2 or 11/1?

For that matter, how does the artful handicapper learn that horses he "likes a lot" can be bet at a certain range like (say) 4/1?


Dave

PS: The book I reccomended will actually tell you how to do that. (Note that GT didn't get there first. It was all me, me, me!)

Picking winners does. That's the art part, critically evaluating a horse's chance in context of the #'s.

Know this, I assign a # to every horse on every card I play. But it's not enough Dave. A comprehensive analysis of the game is very important IMO.

fffastt

[cmoore]

I posted earlier that there isn't a secret to handicapping..But if I had to make one suggestion to someone who is just starting out in this game..It would be summed up like this.

This game isn't about picking winners. The public does this better then anyone and still loses. It's about picking horses whose odds are equal to or higher then their chances of winning the race. If you can't find a horse that gives you a better chance then his or hers odds reflect. Then you pass the race..Once you understand this..Your on the right path. It won't make you an automatic winner. But it will get you going in the right direction..

[Dave Schwartz]

I know I would benefit from a more systematic approach but as I get older I find it hard to grind it out. It takes me 6 to 8 hours to handicap a card. That used to always pay off when my home tracks had dirt surfaces.

See, this is where we differ. You take 8 hours a card and I do 8 races per hour.


Seriously, for several months a couple of years ago I committed to playing for 1 hour each day. Generally, it would be 11am to noon, sometimes earlier. I averaged 50 bets per week, playing 4 days.

Personally, I love that kind of bang-bang action. It is a lot like playing blackjack - but skipping the hands with a disadvantage.


Dave

[andymays]

See, this is where we differ. You take 8 hours a card and I do 8 races per hour.


Seriously, for several months a couple of years ago I committed to playing for 1 hour each day. Generally, it would be 11am to noon, sometimes earlier. I averaged 50 bets per week, playing 4 days.

Personally, I love that kind of bang-bang action. It is a lot like playing blackjack - but skipping the hands with a disadvantage.


Dave


Sounds like easy money Dave.

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - There are times it seems that way. Then there are other times...

It was a profitable endeavor, but not enough to justify my time investment. (That seems to be changing now.)

[Fastracehorse]

I posted earlier that there isn't a secret to handicapping..But if I had to make one suggestion to someone who is just starting out in this game..It would be summed up like this.

This game isn't about picking winners. The public does this better then anyone and still loses. It's about picking horses whose odds are equal to or higher then their chances of winning the race. If you can't find a horse that gives you a better chance then his or hers odds reflect. Then you pass the race..Once you understand this..Your on the right path. It won't make you an automatic winner. But it will get you going in the right direction..

I think a blend of high-priced mutuels and a good win % would suffice.

You better pick winners, 2nd doesn't do much.

fffastt

[cmoore]

I think a blend of high-priced mutuels and a good win % would suffice.

You better pick winners, 2nd doesn't do much.

fffastt

Say you go to your local OTB for the first time..A race is coming up and you ask the guy to your right. Who do you like? He says the 2 will win this. The 2's odds are 8/5. You then ask the guy to your left. Who do you like? He says the 2 is the logical winner but his odds are too short..I like the 5 at 5-1..He should be the 2nd choice on the board at around 7/2 but is a nice little overlay at 5-1. That's the one to go with. Now I'm not advocating someone to ask others who they like..Just an example how to approach the game when making your final decision on a win bet.

You say 2nd doesn't pay much..A 7-1 that finishes 2nd will pay more then a 2-1 that wins quite often. Sometimes the overlays are in the place and show pool.

[JohnGalt1]

The secret to handicapping horses is.................YOUR ANSWER HERE.





Turfbar


To make a profit, the secret is a method or angle that VERY FEW handicappers use that WORKS!

[DeadHeat]

I think a blend of high-priced mutuels and a good win % would suffice.

You better pick winners, 2nd doesn't do much.

fffastt

You are right but I'll bet they are more consistant. I have a way of wagering that only uses place bets and is profitable day after day, week after week, month after month and is used at different tracks.

[AAcoolguy]

You are right but I'll bet they are more consistant. I have a way of wagering that only uses place bets and is profitable day after day, week after week, month after month and is used at different tracks.

Care to share that secret! :D

[DeadHeat]

Sure, I'll share, but don't tell anyone.

One way to do it is to get 4 dice. Two have to be a black and the other two white. For whatever track you want to bet on, you throw them up in the air and let them land on the floor. Now on the black dice you use what ever the two dice total for the race number and the white dice will pick your place bet. If either the white or black dice give you a number that will not work, then you need to throw again.

You bet $100 bucks on the horse number that comes up to place.

Hint: It's all in the wrist.

The other way I think I will keep to myself for a while. ;)

[RichieP]

Sure, I'll share, but don't tell anyone.

One way to do it is to get 4 dice. Two have to be a black and the other two white. For whatever track you want to bet on, you throw them up in the air and let them land on the floor. Now on the black dice you use what ever the two dice total for the race number and the white dice will pick your place bet. If either the white or black dice give you a number that will not work, then you need to throw again.

You bet $100 bucks on the horse number that comes up to place.

Hint: It's all in the wrist.



So you are the one who I see assisting Criss Angel!

[AAcoolguy]

Sure, I'll share, but don't tell anyone.

One way to do it is to get 4 dice. Two have to be a black and the other two white. For whatever track you want to bet on, you throw them up in the air and let them land on the floor. Now on the black dice you use what ever the two dice total for the race number and the white dice will pick your place bet. If either the white or black dice give you a number that will not work, then you need to throw again.

You bet $100 bucks on the horse number that comes up to place.

Hint: It's all in the wrist.

The other way I think I will keep to myself for a while. ;)

I throw some chicken bones and then consult Mozan's numerology book. :D

[Fastracehorse]

You are right but I'll bet they are more consistant. I have a way of wagering that only uses place bets and is profitable day after day, week after week, month after month and is used at different tracks.

I'm more of an exotics payer. Sometimes if I'm alive in the last leg I'll bet another horse to win or even one of the longshots I'm alive with to place.

fffastt

[Gold9er]

the secret to beating the races is speed figures. and estimating when a horse caint win. like..
1. needs the lead and wont make it
2. not fast enough
3. bad pp according to running style
4. bad form
and betting a horse at the right odds

[Dave Schwartz]

Gold,

I would say that you have covered it pretty well. Of course, the secret is integrating all that together.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[showbet]

I have no idea what "the secret to handicapping" is, but the way to show a profit is to make wagers that have a positive expectation.