Most Overrated Handicapping Factor?

[alysheba88]

What do you think? Speed figures? Class? Pace? Jockey?

My choice would be last race. Think players put way too much emphasis on the last race. Giving too much credit to a good finish and being too disparaging about a poor performance. Many of my notable scores over the years have been on horses who ran poorly last time out, but had a good record in general. The one bad race gets overemphasized.

Obviously this is a generalization. There are obviously cases where the last race gets ignored and the public doesnt buy into a real good performance, particulary if its a horse stepping up, or went off at huge odds last time.

[Fastracehorse]

The jockey per say is not an important factor for me.

In fact, I don't care who is riding my horse.

However, I believe jockey switches indicate trainer intent so I am not blind to them. But it is the intent that is important to me - not who is riding.

fffastt

[so.cal.fan]

Speed figures.......Beyers, Sheets, Bris........if I left any out....those too!

[freeneasy]

i dont care whos dropping in class, its gotta have something to go with it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Speed kills bankrolls, but do not tell anyone. Let them continue to emphasis speed, speed and more speed.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[DJofSD]

The guys wearing the size 3 hats.

DJofSD

[betovernetcapper]

While it's not used as a handicapping tool as much as it was 20 years ago, I still see an occasional reference to it-WEIGHT. In my experience it means nothing. :)

[Early]

I agree 100%. Toss the winners and look for the losers to rebound. All you have to do is browse an entire form and check out how many horses win 2 in a row to confirm.

[sq764]

Most overrated - highest trainer %

Most underrated - Never betting 0-for horses, except in maiden races

[B. Comin']

Jockey most overrated factor.

A smart player once told me that if a horse is well placed and fit and ready, then a monkey could ride it (no disrespect meant to Tom).

Ever see a horse lose the jock and beat a field?

[pizzaboy]

Morning Line Odds

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Interesting question. Of course, we have to distinguish between which is the factor that contributes to the odds most, vs which is the most overrated.

Using Morning Line as a constant, I looked at all dirt, non-mdn races from last year at all but the lowest level tracks. I used only horses who's ML odds were exactly 5/2.

ML odds = 5/2
All races (about 29000)
Avg final odds = 2.16
Pool Impact Value = 0.97

ML odds = 5/2
Rank, Jockey rating = 1
Avg final odds = 1.53
Pool Impact Value = 0.97

ML odds = 5/2
Rank, Trainer rating = 1
Avg final odds = 1.54
Pool Impact Value = 0.99

ML odds = 5/2
Rank, Final Time last race = 1
Avg final odds = 1.45
Pool Impact Value = 1.04

ML odds = 5/2
Last race finish position = 1
Avg final odds = 1.64
Pool Impact Value = 1.01

ML odds = 5/2
Rank, APV = 1
Avg final odds = 1.53
Pool Impact Value = 1.00

Based on that, the factor that contributes most to the odds is Final Time, last race, but the most overbet factor was Jockey rating, which showed no improvement in value from simply betting all 5/2 ML horses.

MP

[andicap]

is that the trainer/jockey rating via HSH? How is it figured?

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Originally posted by andicap
is that the trainer/jockey rating via HSH? How is it figured?

It's a weighted rating scoring the percentage of Wins-Places-Shows. Off the top of my head, I don't remember the weights.

MP

[Secretariat]

I just want to comment on Maryland@HSH's note. I don't necessarily agree that because a factor forces more public action, that it necessitates being an overrated factor.

What is missing from his study of ML Odds to Final Odds, is how effective was performance in terms of Final Odds (Actual Win% and ROI ). That is a large sample. I would be curious how the ROI of those factors were against the track take. For example, if the Public bet jockeys down to 1.5 from 5/2 ML Odds, but they won 50% of the races, then I woudl consider it an underrated factor. However, if they only won 25% percent at those odds it would be an overrated factor.

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Originally posted by Secretariat
What is missing from his study of ML Odds to Final Odds, is how effective was performance in terms of Final Odds (Actual Win% and ROI ). That is a large sample. I would be curious how the ROI of those factors were against the track take. For example, if the Public bet jockeys down to 1.5 from 5/2 ML Odds, but they won 50% of the races, then I woudl consider it an underrated factor. However, if they only won 25% percent at those odds it would be an overrated factor.
Pool Impact Value tells you that. If a group of 2-1 horses win 1/3 of their starts, their PIV=1.00, meaning that they've won at the same percentage as the odds say they would. A positive PIV tells you that those horses are winning more often than the odds indicate.

MP

[Dave Schwartz]

Paul,

You have described the concept correctly but one small correction.

Pool Impact Value (P.I.V.) is a comparison between the factor's hit rate and the percentage of money wagered in the pool. Thus, a 2/1 horse actually has slightly less of the pool (i.e. results of the takeout).


This prevents a sample from being skewed because of a few high-priced horses.

In other words, if a sample produces a $3.00 $net (i.e. +50% ROI) but the PIV is low, one can probably assume that it was because of one or more excessively long-priced horses.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Thanks for the correction Dave...

Geez, you'd think he wrote the damn program...:D

MP

[jjgold]

Pace is useless

jockey most important

[alysheba88]

Great and diverse feedback everyone.

[Jed]

>> What do you think? Speed figures? Class? Pace? Jockey? <<


Depending on the race, any of these can be the most useless.

[Valuist]

In any non-2 YO race, a stretch running sprinter who stretches out to a route. These horses are always overbet off the "stretch gain" and are giant money burners.

[Zaf]

Top beyer last out.

Usually vulnerable & underlayed.

Same for horses who won their last start.

ZAFONIC

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

One thing that wasn't mentioned, but struck me as I played today....are entries overbet? Hey, 8 legs for the price of 4 looks good to some people.

I don't believe I can dig that out of my DB...at least not easily....anyone?

MP

[dav4463]

How about most underrated ? Also-eligibles who get in the race are way underbet.

[Valuist]

Whoever started this angle: in Grade 1 races NEVER bet a horse who hasn't won a Gr. 1; In Grade 2 races, NEVER bet a horse who's never won a Grade 2, etc, etc. I see this mantra get defied all the time. I don't know who thought of it, but its hogwash.

[ljb]

Ok I have a sample:
Morning line odds 5-2
average off odds 3.07
win percent .277
what does this tell me?

[SandyE]

the horse went off at even odds, or something like that.

DJofSD

Silly question but who wears a size 3 hat?

[Zaf]

Originally posted by Valuist
Whoever started this angle: in Grade 1 races NEVER bet a horse who hasn't won a Gr. 1; In Grade 2 races, NEVER bet a horse who's never won a Grade 2, etc, etc. I see this mantra get defied all the time. I don't know who thought of it, but its hogwash.

I agree, you would probably wind up eliminating 90 % of the field with the garbage running in most graded events. You would also eliminate up and coming horses presenting great value also.

I think I read that garbage in one of Quinn's books.

ZAFONIC

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Handicapping to find a horse instead of handicapping to find a race.

Think about it.

[bigray76]

Weight is the thing I look at least. I used to think it was jockey, however I did find that a good jock can help (based on a bank of favorites)

Jock's Win Pct. > Jock's Place Pct. (2372 Races used)
33.5% winners, .859 ROI

Jock's Win Pct. < Jock's Place Pct. (1292 Races used)
29.0% winners, .781 ROI

[Valuist]

Zafonic-

It may have been in one of Quinn's books. In the DRF, Brad Free basically said only 3 horses had a chance to win the San Diego Cap the other day based on his "class assertions". Needless to say, one of the "no-chance horses" wired the field. I've seen many Classified Allowance races that were tougher than some Grade 3 races and I've seen strong Grade 3s be tougher than weak Grade 1s. The whole idea is a generalization, and handicapping is about specifics; not generalities.

[DJofSD]

SandyE,

Those wearing the size 3 hats are the jockies. That's a expression the late Charlie Whittingham would use when he talked about the jocks.

DJofSD

[VetScratch]

Ljb,
Ok I have a sample:
Morning line odds 5-2
average off odds 3.07
win percent .277
what does this tell me?
You didn't supply average takeout, but assuming 15% takeout, which would be about the average for equal play at NYRA and SO-CAL:
(1) Your 3.07/1 horses have an expected win percent of 20.6%.
(2) By winning 27.7%, the IV for 3.07/1 horses is 1.34.
(3) Your $2 Net is $2.25.
(4) Your $1 ROI is 12.5%.

All math available in Quirin's original 1979 book.

Now, what you have to tell everyone is where and how we can all get such a nice sample of 5/2 ML horses. :D

[hurrikane]

most over rated handicapping factor.

Daily Racing Form!

After that..weight and how the fast the horses worked in the morning. Or really how fast they worked anytime.

[VetScratch]

InsideThePylons-MW,
Handicapping to find a horse instead of handicapping to find a race.Worthy of engraving in stone!

[GameTheory]

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Handicapping to find a horse instead of handicapping to find a race.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Worthy of engraving in stone!


Really? I still don't understand that one, even after I thought about it.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,
I think the races you pass are at least as important as the ones you play, and they certainly should be the majority, IMHO.

[VetScratch]

To amplify what I meant:

I have watched my share of "great naturals" in action, and while they had no common method, they all had one common trait. They enjoyed seriously studying and attentively watching races, and they were perfectly content to pass every race, even for days in succession.

Most players derive their entertainment value from wagering, and they must find constant action to justify their participation in racedays lasting four to twelve hours.

[GameTheory]

I meant I literally did not understand the statement, so I couldn't say if I agreed with it or not. If he meant that you need to pass a lot of races, I'll agree with that as a general statement.

Actually, I've come to the conclusion that if you're willing to have a only a 15%-16% hit race (betting one horse a race), you can bet pretty much every race (where your method applies, which hopefully is most races) and make money. All the profits come from longshots, of course. It actually doesn't seem all that hard to come up with methods (usually a single factor method, or it won't hit longshots) that fit the bill. Stuff like my "chart comments" factor I was talking about in the other thread would be an example. Pretty much anything that is at least somewhat predictive but that hardly anyone pays attention to, or is willing to dismiss when the horse has lots of other negatives. Long losing streaks and difficulty in testing such systems (for most people) ensures that methods like that never really catch on.

In the Kenwoodall workout thread, lots of people were saying that individual workouts are very unreliable, etc. Agreed. Yet I have a factor that is based solely on workouts that hits about 15% on the top-ranked horse with the ROI usually well over 1.20. I say usually because performance varies from track to track as with all such factors, but performance at each track is fairly constant from year to year. These aren't spot plays I'm talking about -- for instance, my workout factor rates the workouts for every horse in every race -- I can just bet the top-ranked one every time.

Once you start you demanding a hit rate in the 20%-30% range, the prices go down and it is much harder to come out ahead. (It seems the win% goes up linearly, but the prices go down almost geometrically.) And if you come up with plays (usually very selective) that hit in the 30%-40% range, you start to overcome low prices with the more frequent hits.

Once you're willing to REALLY separate yourself from what the public is doing instead of trying to do the same thing better, the game becomes a lot easier.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,
In the Kenwoodall workout thread, lots of people were saying that individual workouts are very unreliable, etc. Agreed. Yet I have a factor that is based solely on workouts that hits about 15% on the top-ranked horse with the ROI usually well over 1.20. I say usually because performance varies from track to track as with all such factors, but performance at each track is fairly constant from year to year. These aren't spot plays I'm talking about -- for instance, my workout factor rates the workouts for every horse in every race -- I can just bet the top-ranked one every time.
Do you mean that your workout factor identifies about 15% of your top-ranked horses, and that this subset gives you about a 1.20 ROI? Or do you mean that by ranking horses by workouts in all races your top-ranking wins 15% of the time with about 1.20 ROI?

BTW, I certainly agree with your statement that win percentages are a harder road to travel than seeking paths less trodden.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Or do you mean that by ranking horses by workouts in all races your top-ranking wins 15% of the time with about 1.20 ROI?


Yeah, that one. It doesn't rate individual workouts, but all "workout activity" as a whole for this horse since his last race. So every horse gets a number. Betting the top number in every race hits about 15% with a healthy ROI. The profits come from $30, $40, even $100 horses, so betting every race isn't neccessarily the smart thing to do (although if you only bet the longshots, the w% would be even less), just saying you could.

I've got lots of factors like that -- they're all based on weakly predictive stuff that no one pays attention to as a stand-alone factor.

Most people like to know that *this* horse they're betting on today is well-meant, or will improve, or whatever. I also think that people like to see even their losing horses at least put in a good effort. I tend to do bet on groups of horses where I know that 80% or more of them are total dogs and will likely finish last, but I also know 15%-20% of them will win anyway.

Here's a trick from an old book for picking longshots: start with the highest-odds morning line horse and work towards the lowest. Bet the first horse you come to (from highest to lowest) where you can find any positive factor at all. I'm not recommending that as a money-making technique, just pointing out that most longshots only have *one* reason to bet on them, and often it isn't even much of a reason. However, if you do your homework, you can find reasons that do much better than people think they do as indicated by the odds.

[VetScratch]

Thanks Game Theory,
My friend and I will have to re-examine the way we look at tracks, distances, workouts, and dates. Did I leave anything out?:)

[SandyE]

I know I was having fun wit ya that's all. I think he might have gotten it from another old time trainer/conditioner who used to use words like that and also that word pinhead. I believe the guy was the one who had Seabiscuit as a 2 year old. In fact if you ever get your hands on a book that's based on Jockey Billie Shoemaker or even Eddie Arcaro those words appear in those books. I believe Ainsley's book on Jockeys' uses those words. I could be wrong about the latter though.

VetScratch your a fan of Zena warrior princess? :cool:

[VetScratch]

SandyE,
VetScratch your a fan of Zena warrior princess?
Yes, but my all-time American hero is Abe Lincoln; however, using Abe as an avatar would have agitated some politically inclined members. The best alternative I could find was Xena (Zena) in her trademark pose as "The Great Emasculator."

:) :)