First Impression Handicapping

[CBedo]

After having a few too many (ok, more than a few) martinis last night, I was moving a bit slow today and forgot about the Keeneland handicapping contest. When I realized my omission, I had less than 7 minutes until the entries closed for the day, obviously not much time to handicap 4 races.

To get it done, I quickly scanned each race. I guess I'd explain as just soft focusing on the each horse's past performances and trying to think about the big picture of each race. Interestingly, I ended up with 7.20 and 8.00 winners and two second place finishers at odds of 4.2 & 9.6 to 1. (As a funny aside, in my haste to get my entries in, I accidentally entered the wrong selection in the 10th race, and instead of the 8.00 winner, I selected the McPeek firster than somehow ran 2nd at 16.1 to 1 which ironically paid more to place than the winner paid to win, thus actually helping me in the contest.)

The reason that I mention this experience is that it made me think about how our brains work and how often, we get so caught up in the "I need more data" mentality. Most of us have handicapped too many races to count, and over time, have built methodologies and beliefs that hopefully work. The most powerful computer each of us have is the amazing human brain and I found it very interesting that just by looking at the big picture, how much detail our minds process quickly giving us that "first impression."

I'm by no means advocating 1 minute race handicapping, but the next time you handicap a race, try taking a step back and try to see the forest for the trees before you delve into the details.

[fmolf]

After having a few too many (ok, more than a few) martinis last night, I was moving a bit slow today and forgot about the Keeneland handicapping contest. When I realized my omission, I had less than 7 minutes until the entries closed for the day, obviously not much time to handicap 4 races.

To get it done, I quickly scanned each race. I guess I'd explain as just soft focusing on the each horse's past performances and trying to think about the big picture of each race. Interestingly, I ended up with 7.20 and 8.00 winners and two second place finishers at odds of 4.2 & 9.6 to 1. (As a funny aside, in my haste to get my entries in, I accidentally entered the wrong selection in the 10th race, and instead of the 8.00 winner, I selected the McPeek firster than somehow ran 2nd at 16.1 to 1 which ironically paid more to place than the winner paid to win, thus actually helping me in the contest.)

The reason that I mention this experience is that it made me think about how our brains work and how often, we get so caught up in the "I need more data" mentality. Most of us have handicapped too many races to count, and over time, have built methodologies and beliefs that hopefully work. The most powerful computer each of us have is the amazing human brain and I found it very interesting that just by looking at the big picture, how much detail our minds process quickly giving us that "first impression."

I'm by no means advocating 1 minute race handicapping, but the next time you handicap a race, try taking a step back and try to see the forest for the trees before you delve into the details.
i agree sometimes we all experience paralysis by analysis.Whenever i go into a slump I try to remember what i used to tell the high school hockey team i used to coach.That is to K.I.S.S. it.....Which means keep it simple stupid!It usually works.

[bisket]

After having a few too many (ok, more than a few) martinis last night, I was moving a bit slow today and forgot about the Keeneland handicapping contest. When I realized my omission, I had less than 7 minutes until the entries closed for the day, obviously not much time to handicap 4 races.

To get it done, I quickly scanned each race. I guess I'd explain as just soft focusing on the each horse's past performances and trying to think about the big picture of each race. Interestingly, I ended up with 7.20 and 8.00 winners and two second place finishers at odds of 4.2 & 9.6 to 1. (As a funny aside, in my haste to get my entries in, I accidentally entered the wrong selection in the 10th race, and instead of the 8.00 winner, I selected the McPeek firster than somehow ran 2nd at 16.1 to 1 which ironically paid more to place than the winner paid to win, thus actually helping me in the contest.)

The reason that I mention this experience is that it made me think about how our brains work and how often, we get so caught up in the "I need more data" mentality. Most of us have handicapped too many races to count, and over time, have built methodologies and beliefs that hopefully work. The most powerful computer each of us have is the amazing human brain and I found it very interesting that just by looking at the big picture, how much detail our minds process quickly giving us that "first impression."

I'm by no means advocating 1 minute race handicapping, but the next time you handicap a race, try taking a step back and try to see the forest for the trees before you delve into the details.
sheesh thats the point i've been trying to make for months at this site :ThmbUp: trust me you can think to much and miss what's important in this game!!!

[jonnielu]

I'm by no means advocating 1 minute race handicapping, but the next time you handicap a race, try taking a step back and try to see the forest for the trees before you delve into the details.

Why not, it seems that you did pretty good with it, why not advocate it?

jdl

[Imriledup]

Excellent post.

One of my wacky theories is that if you've handicapped for years and years and are really on top of your own circuit you really need to be in tune with your inner self and your 'instinct'. I've gotten good at scanning a race for a few seconds and without even coming up with a pick, i know right away if this is a race i feel comfortable doing more work on, or its a race i have no clue.

Quite often i'll know within 30 seconds if a race is a 'pass' or not.

Back in the old days, i'd handicap for a while and THEN figure out the race wasn't up my alley. Now, i have the ability to better understand that 'gut' feeling i get when a race is passable or playable within the first 30 seconds.

Not that im always right, but i'm much better now with tons of experience under my belt.

[Bochall]

Can't count how many times that has happened. I spend all night 'capping a feature race only to have my ticket go up in flames; then scan the last race at 2mins to post and pull down a $300 tri. I had 4 of 5 in the BC pick six going into the classic one year...missed badly, then nailed a fat tri at LaD that i spent 45secs on...go figga!!

[Robert Fischer]

regardless of what works for me, I can see that most players would be more successful if they simplified and specialized.

[rusrious]

Yeah, I can usueally make a decision with-in seconds if I will play or pass alot, Have to teach the brain to look for keys, and usually pops out, in a sequence.

Good thread,

[illinoisbred]

Same here with me. A few seconds glance often confirms what I discover after spending 20 minutes on a race. This only applies with my local circuit- horses I'm very familiar with-particularily state-breds.

[Overlay]

I find it relatively easy to "separate the sheep from the goats" from just a general overview of a race. What I tend to need more quantitative data for is to "put a price" on each horse in a field accurately and consistently from one race to the next, which I view as a necessary skill for long-term wagering success. Otherwise, I would either get into the mode of eliminating horses one by one, until I would usually be left with unprofitable chalk, or else have to keep switching from one angle or spot play to another as each gets discovered and bet into unprofitability.

[GaryG]

That is a good point. I have often gotten an impression from first glance at the pp's then spent a couple of hours trying to prove or disprove that impression. The first impression is very often better than the detailed analysis. I hahe a hard time betting in that manner though.

[Pell Mell]

That is a good point. I have often gotten an impression from first glance at the pp's then spent a couple of hours trying to prove or disprove that impression. The first impression is very often better than the detailed analysis. I hahe a hard time betting in that manner though.

Same here. I spot play using a particular angle and then handicap the contenders for exotics. When doing the contenders my first take is always better. I think the problem is when you try to dig too deep you can make a case for too many, but your first glance is probably using an instinctive knowledge of what factors carry the most weight.

[Pell Mell]

For instance; Just a little while ago I found a key longshot at WO, not that I do good at that track, and looked for the contenders. In less than a minute I decided on 4 horses.

I was then browsing another web site and saw that a capper that I know is very good had made his picks for that same race. I know he uses pace and speed figures and spends a lot of time at it. Bingo, his top 4 for that race were the same as mine in the exact order, minus my long shot. Go figure.:confused:

[the_fat_man]

I've being 'doing' first impression handicapping at WO the entire meet. I'm doing very well there. It typically takes me 5 minutes to do a race (even those with 14 horse fields) and I never look at the races in advance. I also play a good portion of each card.

I also try to play this way at other tracks but find that:

1) I need to do more work and thus 5 minutes is usually not enough -- I need significantly more time

2) I don't do as well in general (so I spot play a lot more)


What's the difference?

WO has TRAKUS data incorporated into the EQUIBASE charts SO

I'M WORKING WITH ACCURATE CHARTS


Which explains why I feel that accurate data is the KEY to winning at the track and should be the #1 priority for HANA.

[illinoisbred]

I've being 'doing' first impression handicapping at WO the entire meet. I'm doing very well there. It typically takes me 5 minutes to do a race (even those with 14 horse fields) and I never look at the races in advance. I also play a good portion of each card.

I also try to play this way at other tracks but find that:

1) I need to do more work and thus 5 minutes is usually not enough -- I need significantly more time

2) I don't do as well in general (so I spot play a lot more)


What's the difference?

WO has TRAKUS data incorporated into the EQUIBASE charts SO

I'M WORKING WITH ACCURATE CHARTS


Which explains why I feel that accurate data is the KEY to winning at the track and should be the #1 priority for HANA.
Accurate information is very important. This last week, Hawthorne had 3 timer malfunctions and 1 incorrect time published in the DRF charts[9th race wednesday-actual time 1:46.22,reported time-1:46.72].

[speculus]

After having a few too many (ok, more than a few) martinis last night, I was moving a bit slow today and forgot about the Keeneland handicapping contest. When I realized my omission, I had less than 7 minutes until the entries closed for the day, obviously not much time to handicap 4 races.

To get it done, I quickly scanned each race. I guess I'd explain as just soft focusing on the each horse's past performances and trying to think about the big picture of each race. Interestingly, I ended up with 7.20 and 8.00 winners and two second place finishers at odds of 4.2 & 9.6 to 1. (As a funny aside, in my haste to get my entries in, I accidentally entered the wrong selection in the 10th race, and instead of the 8.00 winner, I selected the McPeek firster than somehow ran 2nd at 16.1 to 1 which ironically paid more to place than the winner paid to win, thus actually helping me in the contest.)

The reason that I mention this experience is that it made me think about how our brains work and how often, we get so caught up in the "I need more data" mentality. Most of us have handicapped too many races to count, and over time, have built methodologies and beliefs that hopefully work. The most powerful computer each of us have is the amazing human brain and I found it very interesting that just by looking at the big picture, how much detail our minds process quickly giving us that "first impression."

I'm by no means advocating 1 minute race handicapping, but the next time you handicap a race, try taking a step back and try to see the forest for the trees before you delve into the details.

Commandment#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!]

For all the 20 commandments click this link (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=756651&postcount=34)

[Pell Mell]

Commandment#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!]

For all the 20 commandments click this link (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=756651&postcount=34)

I want to know if anybody clicked the link. Oh, I forgot, if they clicked the link they are probably unable to let us know.:bang: :lol:

[46zilzal]

K.I.S.S. the basic maneuver that will free your mind to BLINK races. After all, in reality each contest hinges on a very few factors. Just forget the rest.

[BlueShoe]

All of the above.Do very much tend to spend way too much time on races that after a short analysis should be decided to pass.If I spend 30 minutes handicapping a single race in minute detail without forming a strong opinion then that race surely should be passed.We all have our pet plays and angles,these are our strengths.Have constantly noticed that many of my most solid plays "practically jump off of the page at me".It often appears that spending six hours handicapping an entire card,three the night before and three the next morning,produces no better results than just an hour or two of just focusing on my strengths.

[JustCoolGene]

Quote from:The Magic of Soft Focus section in the book “Handicapping Magic by Michael Pizzolla”

"The best technique for making this evaluation that I have found is one
that I refer to as "soft focusing" a race. Very simply, you are going to
look at a race with your eyes not in sharp focus, but in soft focus. This
allows the parts of your mind other than the conscious to begin working
on the race. Not only that, but I believe that this process will actually
begin to allow your mind to "soak in" masses of information."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before simulcasting, we handicapped only one race card per day. We studied the form the night before and then again during the minutes between races. Over the years with so many tracks running a once, many times we found ourselves only having a few minutes to handicap. Immediately after one race, another race was coming up in a few minutes. We were forced to dramatically speed up the handicapping process and quickly run to the window or open the race in our web-based betting pad. We became trained to apply this process and all realized the benefits of Soft Focus handicapping. The old maxim “study long…study wrong” definitely applied. How many times have we said "I wish I would have trusted my instincts". My biggest scores have come from soft focus, however, soft focus only works if you have the handicapping skills to take advantage of this thought process. So never stop learning.

God Bless All
Gene

[senortout]

Quote from:The Magic of Soft Focus section in the book “Handicapping Magic by Michael Pizzolla”

"The best technique for making this evaluation that I have found is one
that I refer to as "soft focusing" a race. Very simply, you are going to
look at a race with your eyes not in sharp focus, but in soft focus. This
allows the parts of your mind other than the conscious to begin working
on the race. Not only that, but I believe that this process will actually
begin to allow your mind to "soak in" masses of information."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before simulcasting, we handicapped only one race card per day. We studied the form the night before and then again during the minutes between races. Over the years with so many tracks running a once, many times we found ourselves only having a few minutes to handicap. Immediately after one race, another race was coming up in a few minutes. We were forced to dramatically speed up the handicapping process and quickly run to the window or open the race in our web-based betting pad. We became trained to apply this process and all realized the benefits of Soft Focus handicapping. The old maxim “study long…study wrong” definitely applied. How many times have we said "I wish I would have trusted my instincts". My biggest scores have come from soft focus, however, soft focus only works if you have the handicapping skills to take advantage of this thought process. So never stop learning.


God Bless All
Gene


I now have my eyes in soft focus...wait a second, now I can't read the form....maybe thats the answer?...just kidding!

senortout

[Overlay]

For all the 20 commandments click this link (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=756651&postcount=34)

You lost my attention after commandments nine and ten:

"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."

[Tom]

Sounds more like Letterman's Top 10. :D

[jonnielu]

The only commandment that I've heard, that made sense too is, don't bet against live favorites. If you can't bet on it pass the race. The live favorite would be the one at half its ML at 3 minutes to post.

I'm often reminded of it when I try to beat the live favorite anyway.

jdl

[speculus]

You lost my attention after commandments nine and ten:

"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."

Hmmmmmm, quite obvious if I look at your name and nature of business.

Here is an amendment to commandment #10:
10a. Get out of the nonsense of overlay/underlay. Remember, EVERY winner is an OVERLAY. Period. (However, the converse, every Overlay is a WINNER, may NOT be true.) ;)

[illinoisbred]

You lost my attention after commandments nine and ten:

"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."
I disagree. Almost anyone with years of experience can manufacture very accurate speed figures. 2yr olds can exhibit meteoric improvement,3yr olds can explode and hold that form for a few races or regress immediately. Even healthy 4 yr olds can move forward several times. Figures are a history of "run" races, how you interpret or project the future off them really isn't much different from what all those that pooh pooh numbers do- try to determine who will be the best today. Different strokes for different folks.

[speculus]

I disagree. Almost anyone with years of experience can manufacture very accurate speed figures. .....

And can they win long term with those speed figs? I have yet to come across a single figs individual who can prove he is a long term winner. Most of them make a living by selling their figs, don't they? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Now internet has made it VERY EASY to take a transparent public trial if you really have a winning method. How many avowed fig guys have taken it to convince us?

[illinoisbred]

And can they win long term with those speed figs? I have yet to come across a single figs individual who can prove he is a long term winner. Most of them make a living by selling their figs, don't they? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Now internet has made it VERY EASY to take a transparent public trial if you really have a winning method. How many avowed fig guys have taken it to convince us?
I'm familiar with a couple public handicappers that use figures and off the races where their figures led to a selection, they have a positive roi.I think the problem with analyzing figure efficiency lies in the fact that they don't fit neatly into any method/system approach. Two horses can share the same figure pattern and 1 could be a great bet and the other the kiss of death. Many other variables come into play- days since last race, particularily if the last race was huge,the likely pace scenario, a trainer change, the age of the horse in question,and to an unquantifiable extent, drugs. Figure usage requires creativity and an understanding of the ebb and flow of racing. We all know who's the fastest, the question one tries to answer is who will be the fastest today,and for me personally,who's going to run faster than they've ever run. To answer your question, do I make my living off figures-NO. Have I had profitable meets-yes[1st time on polytrack this year at Arlington after 2 losing meets]. It's the approach I choose to examine racehorses fully understanding their pitfalls.I'm not getting rich but I would never sell my numbers for any price!

[the_fat_man]

And can they win long term with those speed figs? I have yet to come across a single figs individual who can prove he is a long term winner. Most of them make a living by selling their figs, don't they? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Now internet has made it VERY EASY to take a transparent public trial if you really have a winning method. How many avowed fig guys have taken it to convince us?

So, either YOU have a winning method and have not followed your own advice (feel free to point me to it if you have) OR you don't have a winning method and feel the need to make demands on those that do.

Interesting.

[speculus]

....I'm not getting rich but I would never sell my numbers for any price!

Precisely the point I tried to make. If you make (or hope to make) profits with your winning method, you wouldn't want to sell it.

[illinoisbred]

Precisely the point I tried to make. If you make (or hope to make) profits with your winning method, you wouldn't want to sell it.
NO!

[speculus]

So, either YOU have a winning method and have not followed your own advice (feel free to point me to it if you have) OR you don't have a winning method and feel the need to make demands on those that do.

Interesting.

Looks like at present I have a winning method (check my blog). However, it seems to be track specific so far. It's success is stupendous for tracks where it works, but disastrous at some tracks where it just doesn't seem to be hitting anything. Only time and more data piling in will show if it can be a long term winning method even for the tracks where it seems to be working.

The only good thing about it is it requires about 10 minutes per day per track, and that way saves a great amount of quality time.

[speculus]

NO!
Then maybe I am not getting what you are saying.

[illinoisbred]

I find quirks with certain tracks too. I love Fair Grounds but have never been very successful there. My selections seem to consistently hit a brick wall midstretch and the winners come closing out in the middle of the track. I plan on studying the race shape on winners there a little closer this year.Do you play tracks here in the U.S. or concentrate on tracks in your country?

[speculus]

I find quirks with certain tracks too. I love Fair Grounds but have never been very successful there. My selections seem to consistently hit a brick wall midstretch and the winners come closing out in the middle of the track. I plan on studying the race shape on winners there a little closer this year.Do you play tracks here in the U.S. or concentrate on tracks in your country?

The only track I have attempted outside my country is Hong Kong. Had seven losers in a row and thought maybe it's one of those tracks where FINOO doesn't work. But ironically, yesterday when I was busy celebrating our Indian new year, two bets won at Sha Tin. Pity I could not tip them in public trial, so can't really "claim" they were my bets. But maybe things would work at HK. Will have to wait n watch.

[illinoisbred]

I remember seeing a 60 minutes story on Hong Kong. They went to Sha Tin- incredible crowds and handle. Best of luck to you.

[Overlay]

Here is an amendment to commandment #10:

10a. Get out of the nonsense of overlay/underlay. Remember, EVERY winner is an OVERLAY. Period. (However, the converse, every Overlay is a WINNER, may NOT be true.) ;)

I agree that your converse statement is not true. I'll even go so far as to agree with you that every winner is an overlay after the fact. But (as I've commented on the board before) as long as we have to bet before a race is run, and as long as it can never be said (before a race is run) that any one horse in it has an absolute, guaranteed 100% assurance of winning, considerations of wagering value should be part of the handicapping process.

[Overlay]

Precisely the point I tried to make. If you make (or hope to make) profits with your winning method, you wouldn't want to sell it.

This also doesn't need to be true, as long as the method doesn't direct everyone who uses it to the same horse by a process of elimination (such as through application of an angle, or by a series of qualifying rules).

[speculus]

I agree that your converse statement is not true. I'll even go so far as to agree with you that every winner is an overlay after the fact. But (as I've commented on the board before) as long as we have to bet before a race is run, and as long as it can never be said (before a race is run) that any one horse in it has an absolute, guaranteed 100% assurance of winning, considerations of wagering value should be part of the handicapping process.

You are right.

Having to bet BEFORE the race, based on assessed overlay considerations, can be very tricky.

Even I used to follow the value-based (preparing the odds line and basing betting decisions on that) approach, but one day, after very pains-taking research I devised a very useful "objective" or "real" odds formula (based on actual results AFTER the race), and only when I compared it with the subjective oddsline, my eyes opened to the fact how misguided & ignorant we can be when we have to make a line BEFORE the race.

[Overlay]

You are right.

Having to bet BEFORE the race, based on assessed overlay considerations, can be very tricky.

Even I used to follow the value-based (preparing the odds line and basing betting decisions on that) approach, but one day, after very pains-taking research I devised a very useful "objective" or "real" odds formula (based on actual results AFTER the race), and only when I compared it with the subjective oddsline, my eyes opened to the fact how misguided & ignorant we can be when we have to make a line BEFORE the race.

I take you to be saying that if you find that your before-the-fact estimate of probabilities (however derived) is not borne out by actual results, then those results can be used to tweak the odds model as needed to make it more predictive/accurate, with which I would agree.

Also, I note that you used the word "subjective" to describe the before-the-fact odds line. While the line certainly can be a matter of personal opinion, it can also be based on quantitative/statistical data, which facilitates analysis of inaccuracies for modification purposes, and also provides greater race-to-race consistency and replicability.

[Fastracehorse]

regardless of what works for me, I can see that most players would be more successful if they simplified and specialized.



U simplified a post :)


fffastt

[speculus]

I take you to be saying that if you find that your before-the-fact estimate of probabilities (however derived) is not borne out by actual results, then those results can be used to tweak the odds model as needed to make it more predictive/accurate, with which I would agree.

Also, I note that you used the word "subjective" to describe the before-the-fact odds line. While the line certainly can be a matter of personal opinion, it can also be based on quantitative/statistical data, which facilitates analysis of inaccuracies for modification purposes, and also provides greater race-to-race consistency and replicability.

I would rather say once you see the objective odds picture "after the fact", you at once realize the utter futility of effort that goes into making the pre-race odds line. I think it will be better if I dig up from my old notes the actual formulas (and the logic on which they were based) before we take this discussion any further.

[redeye007]

the human brain is an amazing computer at times. have you ever just glanced at a race in the racing form and a horse in the race that outclasses the field sticks out like a sore thumb and is going off at 4 or 5 to 1 and wins easily? It's amazing how frequently these opportunities arise and spotting them takes less than 60 seconds.

[speculus]

I would rather say once you see the objective odds picture "after the fact", you at once realize the utter futility of effort that goes into making the pre-race odds line. I think it will be better if I dig up from my old notes the actual formulas (and the logic on which they were based) before we take this discussion any further.

Overlay,

I have put the formula in a new thread titled "How to reduce subjectivity from the odds line". Pl check it and let's continue the discussion on this particular angle there.

[andicap]

Very interesting topic. I discovered something similar -- a nice winning streak using "soft focus" until I hit a couple of losing days -- didn't win a race. After a little investigation I discovered I was picking against the grain of the track.

So now if i engage in that right brain type handicapping I also make sure that I'm not going with early energy types when late energy is winning, etc.