Orleans handicapping contest

[karlskorner]

Dave Tuley of the DRF wrapup of the Orleans Handicapping contest.

[url]http://www.drf.com/members/web_news.generate_article_html?_news_head=31051&p_arc=1

Ineresting the winner was not a computer user, nor was the winner the year before or the year before that.

To quote a paragraph

"You see guys with computers, but they're not handicapping," Downs said, "The computer is giving them someone else's opinion of how to look at a race, unless they wrote the program themselves. I do all my handicapping with the DRF. I like to think I won this for the little guy."

A lot of readers will say 'he was just lucky", I don't think so.

Karl

It looks like the person who put the article up doesn't know how to use a computer either all I get is error mesages when I click on the thread.

For the record the person who won this this tourney in the spring at the Sun Coast is a computer user. I know him personally, and I also know a number of of people who have finished in the top ten in past tourneys that use computers. IMO the % of computer users who cash at these events would far exceed the % of people who cash using paper and pencil, if you wer able to measure it.

If he won this for the little guy pehaps he wants to share it us, let me know and I'll send him my address.

[GR1@HTR]

Speaking of the little guy, to me the little guy was the computer player. Out of the 600 plus entries, only about 8 or 10 had computers and I was sitting with 5 of those guys. Two of them had written their own program (Massa and Hinson). Actually throw 2 more in their that had custom programs written for them (myself and Tommy Castillio). Although I didn't do jack squat in the tourney, Tommy Castillio has won $130K this year (w/ $100K of it coming from the Suncoast[Orleans Sister Contest]).

Tuley says "The computer is giving them someone else's opinion of how to look
at a race"

My take: We are all using some else's opinion of how to look at the race since we are using data/times/beaten lengths/comments taken from Joe Baloney(Equibase Employee?) of your lovely host track. So unfortunately, unless one takes his own times and comments, we are held hostage by Joe Baloney and his take of how the race is run.

[GR1@HTR]

Oh, BTW the poster above MRDezo finished 4th in last years Orleans contest. Good enuf for $25K...

[karlskorner]

Mrdezo;

Fortunately my life is not governed by the fact that I can or cannot use a computer. That was the heading, as I backtracked I find it now has a different heading.

Hey I am just the messenger, no need to get insulting.

It's a great article, go find it.

Karl

[hurrikane]

geezz...why the attitude towards computer users Karl?

As for the luck thing...winning a tourney or 'championship' of any kind takes a certain degree of luck...I don't care it is golf, football, basketball, gymnastics, or horseracing. There is no way luck did not enter in there somewhere. If just that nothing went wrong he was lucky. For example, yesterday at PIM...I'm riding on a pick4 when one of my key horses gets whacked in the face with a whip..twice...as he is beginning his run coming out of the turn into the stretch..well, of course the horse sat down...I missed the Pick4 because of this UNLUCKY occurance..thing is...there was someone else somewhere who won the P4 (4 grand) because he was LUCKY and my horse didn't beat him. I happens every day in everything we do...me thinks it is just life but we can call it luck for lack of a better word.

[Dave Schwartz]

I don't think that Karl is attacking computer users. AFter all, he is one.


It is a fact that the most successful handicappers are using the output of some computer software either directly or indirectly.

(By "indirectly" I mean a "Sheets" user, for example. I do not count a DRF user simply because the data originates in a computer.)

This is difficult to deny.

Recently I had dinner with an old friend who (along with his partner) won the Cal-Neva tournament last summer. (Yes, they use a computer.)

We talked about what it takes to win a tournament like that one. From his description, it essentially takes returning about 300-400% of your total wagers during the tournament. Since showing a $6.00 or $8.00 net (per $2 wagered) is not within the scope of ANYONE long term, it is obvious (to me) that winning a handicapping tournament does not take the same skill set that it takes to "beat the game."

It takes a winning tournament strategy!

Now, I am not suggesting that players who do well in tournaments are not winning players. I am suggesting that a day-to-day winning player has zero chance to win a tournament USING HIS DAY-TO-DAY strategy.

My friend described their approach to the game is to look for long shots that "have a chance" and then "hope they get lucky."

Just my $.04 cents worth (inflation).


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[karlskorner]

Dave:

If Mrdezo had read the article he would undefrstand that Dave Tuley was not attacking computer users, rather the father/son team that won, by name of Downs, stated that they did not use a computer. Had he been more civil, I would have explained that the article had been archived since I posted and the URL changed. You have corrected me in the past and I dug up the proper URL. Agreed, I use a computer, but not to the extent that many posters on this site use theirs. What comes out of my computer is printed on paper, not stone.

Hurrikane;

You can call it "luck" what happened to you yesterday at PIM, I call it "karma", it just wan't your time to win. The Racing Gods saw fit to chose others. But not to worry, you are just that much closer to your next win.

Karl

[Rick Ransom]

karmascorner... I mean karlscorner,

I agree with you. Most of the handicapping software is almost useless. If you have no control over how various factors are weighted you are using someone else's opinion. The best you can do is take whatever raw ratings they have (speed, pace, etc.) and input them to your own software so that you can determine how to use them best.

The best handicapping software would be something that just generates a lot of creative information and lets me access it and combine it using a programming language built into the product. Database management sytems are the closest thing to that, but still a little too awkward and inflexible for my liking.

Some data providers offer comma delimited files, but then don't include all of their ratings in it. The most information for the price is usually available in pdf files, which can't be imported into anything. I still think it would make life much easier if someone would put all of the data from various sources in one online database and let us query it and download selected fields.

And with the technology available today, you should be able to create personalized past performances. If they add any more useless items they're going to bankrupt me from buying so much paper and ink.

[hurrikane]

I agree with what Dave is saying....the people I have know that win tournies will tell you they don't really handicap anything the same way...looking for a few good pops to put them over the top.

That being said...maybe I should trade my computer in for a better karma. :D

PS...all that winning it for the little guy...what a bunch of BS...I think this guy watches to many oscar awards.

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
I don't think that Karl is attacking computer users. AFter all, he is one.


It is a fact that the most successful handicappers are using the output of some computer software either directly or indirectly.

(By "indirectly" I mean a "Sheets" user, for example. I do not count a DRF user simply because the data originates in a computer.)

This is difficult to deny.

Recently I had dinner with an old friend who (along with his partner) won the Cal-Neva tournament last summer. (Yes, they use a computer.)

We talked about what it takes to win a tournament like that one. From his description, it essentially takes returning about 300-400% of your total wagers during the tournament. Since showing a $6.00 or $8.00 net (per $2 wagered) is not within the scope of ANYONE long term, it is obvious (to me) that winning a handicapping tournament does not take the same skill set that it takes to "beat the game."

It takes a winning tournament strategy!

Now, I am not suggesting that players who do well in tournaments are not winning players. I am suggesting that a day-to-day winning player has zero chance to win a tournament USING HIS DAY-TO-DAY strategy.

My friend described their approach to the game is to look for long shots that "have a chance" and then "hope they get lucky."

Just my $.04 cents worth (inflation).


Regards,
Dave Schwartz





This has been a pet peeve of mine for quite some time and I'm glad Dave brought it up. Handicapping tournaments are won either by sheer luck (ala the lady who was betting Shane Sellers just because they shared the same last name) or by players who are excellent TOURNAMENT players. They have become skilled at identifying junk races where anything could happen and then using their multiple entries to "buy" any horse with a smigeon of a chance. If a bomb hits, that particular entry takes a huge jump forward.

This has been going on for quite some time and is not a big secret to anyone. The whole reason that the tournaments started to restrict people to a specific number of contest entries was to keep some of this from happening...it has certainly helped, but the better tournament players are still playing multiple entries thru friends and family members...they may not get the glory but they are still getting a good piece of the prize money.

Sour grapes, you say?? Not at all! I applaud anyone who can exploit a situation and turn it into an advantage...that is the name of the game! On the other hand as Dave mentioned, the people winning these tournaments aren't necessarily great handicappers...in fact most of these strategies would put them deeply into a sea of red if used on a regular basis.

The really competent handicappers, those able to generate profits on a regular basis, are usually the names you see keep popping up in the second flight of the final results. Occasionally one of these players will have "one of those streaks" and finish at the top but it's a rare occurrence.

[GR1@HTR]

Luck, aptitude and knowledge of how to win the thing are all important components of Tourney play. If you were strong enough to hit 31 out of 36 for an average mutual of $6 at the Orleans you were good enough for 2nd place at the Orleans...

[smf]

Whenever I think of tournament play I'm reminded of an article I saw on the derby list about a year ago. At one of these tournaments a lady came in 2nd or 3rd. She was interviewed and said that she "hated racing" and was there only b/c her husband (who didn't place) made her go. She never bet on horses.

Another instance I recall was that of a guy from the midwest coming in 3rd place at one of these "qualifying" tourneys and it was his first trip ever to a track! He tagged along w/ a friend and just picked #'s.

Yeah, I would agree it's mostly luck. Tournaments kind of remind me of a Punt, pass and kick contest; It may require skill(s) but it doesn't define you as a player.

I do agree w/ Bob Harris in that if you can be efficient at tournament play and bag an xtra 25k per year like Mr Dezo, then I'm happy for you. You've earned it by working at it, and the $$ is there for the taking.

[Dave Schwartz]

Karl,

About the only thing I wouyld like to add is that I had
no intention of correcting you. In fact, I thought I was agreeing with you. <G>

I am sorry if I came of sounding sactimonious. I assure you it was unintentional.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

SMF,

I don't know that I would say, "It's mostly luck," simply because the winners of these tournaments have a strong tendancy to repeat as winners. Obviously they have a strategy that works in tournament play.

I would say that for ME to win (or even place highly) in one of those tournaments it would have to be luck because the nature of my play is mid-priced horses and below rather than long shots.

I recall playing in a blackjack tournament about 24 years ago. (This was at a time that I was making 100% of my living from playing 21.) The rules were that the winner of each table moved to the next round. So, my goal was (simply) to bet the money based upon all the other guys at the table in order to get to the next round. Unfortunately, after winning a couple of rounds with the ultra-conservative strategy, I discovered I had so little money in round 3 that I had to come out firing hard. (Okay, so that strategy was not the right one, but either was my standard "grind 'em out" style of play.)

My point is, I was like a duck out of water. I had no clue which way to turn. Decided that tournament play would do my game more harm than good and never played in another.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[smf]

Dave,

Good point about a duck being out of the water. I'd feel the same way if I were in a capping tourney. I'd be out of my element.

However, I read GR1' s post on the HTR bbs about what you'd have to hit in order to win the most recent tourney. Seems like luck to me and I'll stand by the comment, but I've been wrong before.

I've been at the track w/ GR1 a few times and I know he DOES make a profit at the windows. Not all tourney players are one trick ponies and I don't want to come across that they are.

Just that if you were to hit 70% winners at 2-1 and don't win a tournament, the winner is more than just a little lucky.

[karlskorner]

Dave;

What I was referring to is that on 1 or 2 occasions in past I have put up bad URL's and you brought it to my attention. What I didn't realize was that they go into archive and the URL's change.

Karl

[Tom]

I have only been in a few tournements, all local at FL or OTB or BRIS. Maybe I am biased, but isn't tourney play a little bit like dating your sister? Sure, she's a girl, and you look impressive on the dance floor, but, it isn't real.
In real life, you have to last for the long run, and rish real money. Are there tourneys where you actually bet your selectins? I don't know.
Last weekeknd, I was in one at FL, and in great shape.I was in third place after one day, with 5 wins two places and one show in 8 races (Thank you HTR!) Sunday, I hit the first three winners and I though I was going to be tough to beat. Then the rains came and since all my bets were already in, I was unable to react to the real word. So what did this contest prove? In my real betting, I adjusted and managed to cash some nice tickets. Maybe I just don't get this tourney stuff, but there is no way I could ever win in real life with a tourney strategy. Am I missing the point? Or am I in the worng tourneys?
Tom

[smf]

Tom,

Exactly.

I've seen respectable people post stuff like "if Beyer, Davidowitz, etc are so great why aren't they here at the tournament?"

Hell, the exact opposite is the more logical question! The fence swingers can knock down more cash at the windows than touney winnings if what they practice in tourneys actually works day in, day out.

[Rick Ransom]

You're right guys. What you have to do in a tournament is always bet longshots and hope you get lucky. It might help a little bit if they aren't big underlays but price is the most important factor. I don't play in too many of these things because it's bad practice for what I do on a day-to-day basis. You start looking for those 20-1 horses in contests and it becomes a habit. Playing for a consistent profit usually involves betting a lot of medium odds horses in my experience. I think most of my profit is between 4-1 and 10-1 but I do play others at the low end to minimize my losing streaks and at the high end for the big score. I'm probably not as disciplined as I should be.

[Barchyman]

I somehow managed to land in the top 100 at the Orleans tourney.

Had some interesting discussion with one of the racebook supervisors. He hung around our table a lot since a couple of the guys at my table were Orleans regulars, and one was a big phone account bettor. He did say (in response to a question) that during the tournaments the players do wind up with more than what their fair share would be (i.e. if we were betting into an average 20% takeout - during the tournaments the Orleans winds up paying out about 85% of the total handle or more - not the real numbers, but just an example).

Sorry I didn't get to stop by and see you GR1 - didn't see your message until after I got back. (Not a computer user for the tourney). I was in the "Siberia room" over by the dessert. ;)

I don't know if I would have come up with my highest paying horse during the tourney if I was using any of the computer software I've toyed with in the past. Played Galic Boy in the John Henry stakes last Friday at Arlington - it was a yielding turf course. Galic Boy won the previous year's John Henry on a soft turf course by a nose. This year he won again by a nose at 19-1.

Tom

[karlskorner]

I was given a copy of the Official Finish for the Orleans contest today. Some of the names I know, Lenny Friedman (The Sheets, that sell for $35.00 a pop) with 3 entries finished with a score of 2460, bottom 1/3, Martin Kram, author of a Trifecta program that sells for $5000. never had 1 winner in 3 days, although he has won a couple of contests in the past, a programmer I know in Las Vegas, who's program sells for $1195.00, bottom 1/3rd.

I guess "luck" plays a big part when you enter a contest.

Karl

Karl,
Don't check this board every day, so that's why I did not respond sooner. My comments were not directed at you. I was referring to the author of the article that you copied the quote from. that stated that a computer user had never won this touney. This is not true if you consider the spring tourney at Suncoast was the same spring touney that used to be at the Olreans, They are part of the same ownership tourney is run by the Orleans staff at both sites and follow the same format.

Regarding the link I was not referring to you either, I know you simply copied the link that was there. I was reffering to whomevver at the web site that created the document, they did something that made the doc full of errors.

Sorry for not making my orginal post clearer, there was no intentin to shoot the messinger, thanks for posting the link.