More Profitable..Numbers or Angles..?

[only11]

What do you think is more profitable when capping races NUMBERS OR ANGLES?

[OTM Al]

What do you think is more profitable when capping races NUMBERS OR ANGLES?

The proper use and understanding the limitations of either.

[therussmeister]

Depends. How many bettors have the same numbers, and how many bettors have the same angles.

[Bruddah]

My experience only, give me live angles. The numbers will be buried in the PP's. Numbers are great for seeing horses all ready exposing their form. Angles are for finding horses which have hidden form and big $$$. (JMHHO)

[Overlay]

I'd say numbers. They allow the development of multi-factored, full-field winning probabilities, which is what gives handicapping durability over time. Individual angles may be fine initially, but they always become overbet and unprofitable, requiring continual replacement or re-inventing, because they focus on narrowing play down to one horse.

[thespaah]

I use angles because I am more comfortabel with them However not exclusive of numbers. One might say I combine the two.

[thaskalos]

It depends on what numbers we are talking about. If the numbers encompass both pace and final time...then they are preferable, because they give us a better understanding of the horse's form and ability.

Another edge that numbers have is that they allow us to rank the horses for exotics play.

[Jeff P]

I'm not the first one to say it; in my opinion numbers can be created to represent anything - including angles.

It's also possible to create angles based on numbers. :D


-jp

.

[proximity]

numbers.

angles should be used sparingly, ESPECIALLY by players who don't do the work ahead of time and handicap between races.

[Johnny V]

Numbers. I think generally they are more comprehensive and will give you a better feel for the quality and competitiveness of the field than any one specific angle or set of angles. There are certain angles which will probably show profits over time but may have very limited plays on a daily basis. The use of angles in conjunction with numbers may be the best approach.

[cosmicway]

An "angle" is something that we have n't quantified. Ultimately angles are numbers.

A tip is something different.
What are the origins of the tip one has to ask ?
Is our racing pal true to form, is he just another happy-go-lucky character or perhaps someone with dishonest motives ?
Most tipsters will say "take it from me and don't ask questions" so you have to become a judge.

It's very difficult to learn the game of angles, because it is psychological.
It requires intuition and you make mistakes.
With numbers you don't make mistakes.

[Robert Goren]

I'd say numbers. They allow the development of multi-factored, full-field winning probabilities, which is what gives handicapping durability over time. Individual angles may be fine initially, but they always become overbet and unprofitable, requiring continual replacement or re-inventing, because they focus on narrowing play down to one horse. That is true of angles that pop up on a daily basis. Things that pop once a week or so remain profitable for a lot longer, but are much harder to find. The trouble with numbers is that you have to rely on unreliable information to get them. The thing that pace handicappers hate to discuss is that internal fractions and lengths backs various parts of the race published are often just plain wrong.

[Stevie Belmont]

I never thought there is one set rule of what one should rely on to cash a winning ticket. I think it's a combination of many factors. There are some good angles. And numbers point to how fast a horse has run in the past. A lot of variables go into picking a horse other than speed figures. I look at them, but do not soley rely on them.

[Fingal]

Numbers don't lie, they don't fudge, they don't ifa, coulda, shoulda, woulda, maybe. But they should be something of one's own design, that's why I feel the Beyers are useless. And that's because everyone sees them.

Numbers help you quantify things, experience tells you what to place a value on. Because when you try to quantify everything, you quantify nothing.