Can any "system" win?

[jackad]

I define a system as a set of rigid rules for making picks. Can any system (with or without the use of software) win? Your experience please.

If not, what is the alternative?

Jack

[Early]

I don't think a system can win for many reasons. Each race is an individual event and the variables affecting the outcome are unique. The factors affecting that outcome are differently weighted each time. I believe in using pace and trip handicapping, factoring in intangibles.

Could a computer program factor in a cold streak by Frankel's barn? No, but an astute handicapper might look elsewhere, after his top fillies lost odds-on and wait until his barn heats up again.

The other problem with programs - horses are animals that have good days and bad days. A program may point to a horse, but then you check out that horse in the walking ring and he's first time front bandages and sweating. What program can factor in that?

[rmania]

If it wasn’t for one “rigid rule” system I’m familiar with, I’d say that these types are very vulnerable, to say the least, for the reasons conveyed by Early (i.e., too many variables).

The system I’ve been touting (yes touting) is not one that I would recommend to anyone as you would have to be totally dedicated and play everyday to realize the success I’ve noted. And again, this method was born from an observation. It was not by design.

If you’re going to use software then you’re better off (IMO) using that which is of the “decision support” variety. In other words, use software that focuses on defining “race shape” based on past performances then add the variables on top off what it spits out.

Here’s an example:

Based on actual running times from each horse’s last race, #5 is shown to be a 10 length winner IF all horses in the race duplicated their last race effort. Of course, we all know that’s not going to happen. #5 is likely to show some regression and there is a greater chance that some of the others will improve.

Now, going back to the pps we find that #5 normally regresses after such an effort. You make a calculated guess on how much regression and then look for possible improvement from the other runners. After making these adjustments, #5 is now displayed as a 2 length winner.

If #5 is a “mid-pack” runner then you should factor in potential traffic problems, jockey error, etc..

So what started out as a 10 length winner has now become a 1 length winner at best. Now, the decision is up to you as to whether the risk is worth the reward. And, if you happen to be at the track and #5 doesn’t appear to be sound then look for something else or just pass the race.

[Gekish]

25-30 years ago I used the following angle at the S. California circuit.

A race in the last 30 days.
Last race out of the money and within 2 lenghts or less at the first call.
A workout of less then 5 fur in the last 5 days.
Drop in class.
10-1 or higher.

In those days the angle worked because speed was king. It worked on all distances and grass too. Bottom line, in those days
horses were trained for early speed. Bute and lasix changed the whole makeup of racing. I am sure people have their own little angles which are very specialized and never divulged !!!!!
I have my doubts about computer handicapping programs unless they are based on artificial inteligence or logit-probit calculations. In other words, handicapping is a step by step decision making process with several branches being evaluated at the same time. The better programs evaulate the past and make a decision based on that. Let me assure you after having traded commodities for 20 years and spending heavy thousands on programs to predict price changes it is my opinion, that in markets and horse racing the past has no bearing on the future. Both are very efficient market places where the price reflects the true value of the probabilities 95% of the time. If you have any doubts read Fabricand and Ziemba. Better get a hold of Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets by Hausch, Lo and Ziemba. Aside of the miriad of math the book gives you a good insight of betting markets.
If their is a demand I will try to give my explanation, why computer computer programs are not able to get better results.
Sorry for the diarrheatic lenght of the post, but being retired my hobby is the theory of handicapping. Not finding the Holy Grail but just to gain understanding of what makes a horse win or lose in a particular situation. This opens the door to contrary handicapping. Why will this horse lose today ?

[Amazin]

Can any system win?

Well consider what my mechanical software system did today at Del Mar.Swept the pick 6 with it's top 2 picks.Nobody hit the P6.Carryover $252,000.This is not unusual for my program to come up with monster payoffs.I'd say my system has a pretty good ROI.

[dav4463]

I'd be sick right now after checking the results and not playing the Pick 6 !!!

[Amazin]

I don't get sick anymore over theses things.I've had so many of them and have heard so many horror stories from other players that I realize it's all part of the game. You can't let it bother you or you'll hang your head and it will affect your game negatively.I subscribe to Murphy's law so I kind of expect it.

One of the beauties of horseracing is everyday is a new and fresh opportunity to correct your mistakes and breakthrough to your goal.These fish that got away experiences now reinforce my confidence and faith in my own methods. I know the opportunity will return soon.So why be blind to it when it comes again with self pity.Life doesn't owe anyone a dime. It's all a gift.Even your skill as a player.

[melman]

Amazin you and I have a lot of views that do NOT agree on a wide amount of subjects. After all I am a "right-wing conservative nut case". That said nothing takes away from the beauty of your second paragraph in that last post. It is dead bang 100% right on the mark. There is something from Churchill that I have in my computer room for a constant reminder. Never never never never give up. On the subject of horse racing the only advise I would give you is keep records. Vital. Everything we have is a gift and our job is to not mess it up. Thanks for the post.

[dav4463]

Very true, the next Racing Form you open up may be the life-changing one !

[freeneasy]

sunday night it took me all of 2 minutes to come up with this new mathamatically designed formula for breaking the track. so ok, freaken monday at the spa this little toilet bowl system of mine just flat out knocked their freaken dicks off. couldnt freaken believe it. iam going wtf is going on here. i mean this thing was hitting everthing. had those two or three long priced pk3s with a $32 winner and another long winner in the later races. had most of the tris, almost straigth up, i mean yesterday had i of bet all the top 1,2,3 and 4 picks in all the pk3s and tris i would have made some very scary money. and if i told you how it works you guy would probably think that ive been talking to my pet upside down dodo bird again. all i can tell you is it didnt make any kind of sense that i can figure out and right now for whatever all its worth, i dont care. well we'll see how it goes next time.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The only 2 rigid rules that at least will break even for me is- good trainer / consistent horse. Even then you may find different factors being consistent count more in different types of races.
In the long run, only the good trainers have a long run in this game! Every 1-2 years you see almost total changes in owners, and horses, and many changes in jockeys and/or their riding style. How long have the good trainers been making a living at the track?

[turfspec]

What would the required parameters of a "Winning System" be ( other than mechanical application of a set of rules)? Positive ROI for sure. Win %? How many races would be a fair test? Could you claim a win, as some do, if any one of your top 3 or 4 choices won or do we require the top rater only as winner?

Is there a "Magic Bullet" that will win under all conditions, in every sort of race? Highly improbable I would say. A mechanically applied method or system of more limited or modest scope? Possibly.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by jackad
I define a system as a set of rigid rules for making picks. Can any system (with or without the use of software) win? Your experience please.

If not, what is the alternative?

Jack
I have been gathering all-ways/bis data for 4 years and have developed what I call my "basic" system.
The system is based on BACKFITTED data prior to 2003.
Results for the back fitted data, almost 5000 races are about the same for the NEW data. The New date is from Jan 1, 2003 to date
almost 1500 races.

Both sets of data return 0% loss.
Results are for all tracks, surfaces, race types, distances, track conditions and odds..

The system is 100% mechanical.

The data base includes over 150000 horses.


Joe M

[VetScratch]

Jackad,
I define a system as a set of rigid rules for making picks.If your "rigid set of rules" accepts "systems" where you need to put in a lot of hours monitoring toteboards, several of the value-play software packages associated with HDW, ITS, BRIS, TSN, etc., should produce a positive ROI with rules such as:
(1) No bets if any program scratches.
(2) No bets if toteboard favorite is under some pre-defined floor.
(3) Flat-bet all handicapped contenders going off above fair-value odds projection.

The three drawbacks are:
(1) Downloading all tracks is expensive and time-consuming.
(2) Very little recreational value is derived from tediously (and sometimes frantically) monitoring toteboards for numerous tracks at the same time.
(3) Getting wagers down as late as possible (when it seems that some big-time value-oriented players may already be using automated toteboard monitoring and high-speed asynchronous wagering systems).

Thus, while you might profitably test such a system against years of races and results, it would take a team of online players to successfully execute the system for all North American tracks and none of them would enjoy the work (glued to their PCs for hours on end).

An Internet Explorer plug-in engineered like Gator or RoboForm can capture/monitor odds and then invoke/complete wagering form-fill sequences. However, the process is synchronous rather than asynchronous. By synchronous, I mean you have to follow the step-by-step logic of the Internet application to select and submit each wager. As a result, while this approach automates toteboard monitoring, it is still cumbersome because it only goes as fast as the request/response sequences required to place a single wager (i.e., all you eliminate are the manual keyboard entries in the several forms required to submit each wager through services such as YouBet).

What is really needed is an asynchrous wagering interface that bypasses the synchronous logic of the current online wagering applications. Of course, widespread use of such an interface would soon dilute profits and ultimately defeat each system, so pari-mutuel wagering would triumph once again when a good thing falls into too many hands!

[sjk]

It's not so bad being glued to a PC when you can watch the races you bet on. It does get a bit frantic when I try to play too many tracks at once; it bothers me more to get shut out on 1 winner than it does to bet and lose 20 in a row (happens all the time).

It is easy to use macros to automate the toteboard watching, but I do the betting manually (mostly exactas). I would be interested to know if anyone has found a way to automate betting of exactas on multiple tracks (I use youbet).

[VetScratch]

SJk,
It's not so bad being glued to a PC when you can watch the races you bet on. It does get a bit frantic when I try to play too many tracks at once; it bothers me more to get shut out on 1 winner than it does to bet and lose 20 in a row (happens all the time). Since all tracks want more handle, isn't it amazing that post-times aren't coordinated better? The further you get into each day, the more races go off almost simultaneously. How hard could it be for the tracks to intersperse the precise post-times a few or even a couple minutes apart since they are all simulcasting each other's races?

[ranchwest]

Most tracks don't even know what time they're going to send their own races, much less coordinate with another track.

[VetScratch]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Most tracks don't even know what time they're going to send their own races, much less coordinate with another track. They don't even try is more like it. Most schedule their first race on the hour or half-hour and then attempt to stay on a pre-determined schedule that may match many other tracks. If you stand in the video control room, you can see all the track feeds converging on practically the same post-times. This is not a rocket-science problem for a greedy industry to solve.