Levels of thought in horse racing

[jeebus1083]

Not only do I play horses, but I also play a little bit of poker here and there. One of the most amazing concepts in poker was brought forward by poker expert David Sklansky. It's a pretty simple, yet powerful concept. It's called thinking on multiple levels. In Sklansky's book the levels are defined as follows:



Level 0: I know nothing
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What does my opponent have?
Level 3: What does my opponent think I have?
Level 4: What does my opponent think that I think they have?
Level 5: What does my opponent think that I think they think I have?

The same concepts can be applied to horse racing. How? Very simple.

Level 0 is just that. You're not using past performances. Just blind ambition.

Level 1 is Handicapping 101. Speed/Pace/Form/Condition/Jockey/Trainer. In other words, you see what everybody else can see. These are the basics. You're looking to find the most likely winner using superficial analysis.

Level 2 is Handicapping 201. Level 2 thinking is built upon Level 1 thinking, but is supplemented by more intermediate concepts, such as trips, advanced analysis of speed/pace, and human connections. You're still trying to find a winner, but a winner that might not be as obvious as it would if using PPs alone.

Level 3 is Handicapping 301. It's everything from Level 2, except now you're thinking in terms of betting value.

Level 4+ should be called "anti-handicapping" as it throws conventional wisdom out the window. You're thinking in terms of betting value, but instead of looking at the race like everyone else does (asking who is most likely to win), now, you're asking how a horse can LOSE. You're asking tough questions challenging the obvious and making cases for standouts not to fire. Selectivity is very crucial here. Hit rates are low, but ROIs are profitable. I say that this level is 4+ because once you hit this level, you're basically in Mark Cramer territory, and can go in many many directions.

I think that prices have decreased over the years because many players who were Level 0 or Level 1 players over 15-20 years ago, have now graduated to Level 2, because a lot more material is available. People bet horses down more than ever before, and the $20 standouts that could be had when speed figures were not as widespread (essentially a Level 2 thinking) are now a Level 1 player's $5 gift.

I consider myself between Level 2 and Level 3. I've been so selection-conscious for years that I neglected to really pay attention to the anti-handicapping factor. My goal is to become a Level 4+.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Level 0: I know nothing
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What does my opponent have?
Level 3: What does my opponent think I have?
Level 4: What does my opponent think that I think they have?
Level 5: What does my opponent think that I think they think I have?



I think Yogi Berra is on Level 5.

[rastajenk]

I think that prices have decreased over the years...Is this a verifiable fact, or just your intuition?

[JustRalph]

I think Yogi Berra is on Level 5.

agreed......... great line....... :ThmbUp: :lol:

[thaskalos]

Not only do I play horses, but I also play a little bit of poker here and there. One of the most amazing concepts in poker was brought forward by poker expert David Sklansky. It's a pretty simple, yet powerful concept. It's called thinking on multiple levels. In Sklansky's book the levels are defined as follows:


Level 0: I know nothing
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What does my opponent have?
Level 3: What does my opponent think I have?
Level 4: What does my opponent think that I think they have?
Level 5: What does my opponent think that I think they think I have?
The same concepts can be applied to horse racing. How? Very simple.

Level 0 is just that. You're not using past performances. Just blind ambition.

Level 1 is Handicapping 101. Speed/Pace/Form/Condition/Jockey/Trainer. In other words, you see what everybody else can see. These are the basics. You're looking to find the most likely winner using superficial analysis.

Level 2 is Handicapping 201. Level 2 thinking is built upon Level 1 thinking, but is supplemented by more intermediate concepts, such as trips, advanced analysis of speed/pace, and human connections. You're still trying to find a winner, but a winner that might not be as obvious as it would if using PPs alone.

Level 3 is Handicapping 301. It's everything from Level 2, except now you're thinking in terms of betting value.

Level 4+ should be called "anti-handicapping" as it throws conventional wisdom out the window. You're thinking in terms of betting value, but instead of looking at the race like everyone else does (asking who is most likely to win), now, you're asking how a horse can LOSE. You're asking tough questions challenging the obvious and making cases for standouts not to fire. Selectivity is very crucial here. Hit rates are low, but ROIs are profitable. I say that this level is 4+ because once you hit this level, you're basically in Mark Cramer territory, and can go in many many directions.

I think that prices have decreased over the years because many players who were Level 0 or Level 1 players over 15-20 years ago, have now graduated to Level 2, because a lot more material is available. People bet horses down more than ever before, and the $20 standouts that could be had when speed figures were not as widespread (essentially a Level 2 thinking) are now a Level 1 player's $5 gift.

I consider myself between Level 2 and Level 3. I've been so selection-conscious for years that I neglected to really pay attention to the anti-handicapping factor. My goal is to become a Level 4+.
Both poker and horse racing are sure to get tougher to beat, as the players get more informed...while, at the same time, the least sophisticated ones get discouraged and flee the game.

Once the players of these games reach a certain level of sophistication...just sticking to the "basics" won't get it done anymore. The "winning" players will have to make an adjustment, if they hope to continue operating in the black.

In poker, it is still possible to beat the low-limit games by utilizing a disciplined approach focusing on careful starting hand selection...but, as you get into the higher stakes games, this approach proves inadequate.

The more advanced players notice the "tight" player's playing style...and refuse to give him "action" whenever he enters a pot. Our low-limit "hero" now has to adopt a looser playing strategy which - eventhough it creates more variance in the short run - will increase his profits in the long run...by disguising the strength of his hand.

The horseplayer too, will soon find himself in a similar situation.

Today's full-card simulcasting landscape is very unforgiving towards the losing players...and depletes their bankrolls very quickly. As the unsophisticated players get scarce, this game will soon become a battle between the "sharks" and the "whales"...and only the very best will survive.

[RXB]

Level 0: I know nothing
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What does my opponent have?
Level 3: What does my opponent think I have?
Level 4: What does my opponent think that I think they have?
Level 5: What does my opponent think that I think they think I have?



MjaAqY_KFdw

[trying2win]

JEEBUS:

I enjoyed reading your post here! It was really interesting. :ThmbUp:


Thanks,

T2W

[therussmeister]

I don't think everybody's levels are the same.

What you posted probably applies to your progress, but not mine. I consider each level to be a fundamentally different way of thinking, a complete revision of how I think about handicapping, not something built upon the previous level. I believe I've gone through seven levels in my career.

Also there are different levels regarding structuring bets that are completely independent from the handicapping levels. Some people are quite advanced in handicapping, but stuck at level 1 betting. A very few are more advanced at betting than handicapping.

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I believe that all it takes is a true mastery of level 3.

By "mastery," I do not mean, "Make a line and bet into it." I believe that concept is dead to all but those with a very highly trained mathematical model.

Instead, the competitive player of today must look for perceived value among a group of horses (i.e. contenders) and bet those contenders that figure to pay higher prices. While this is not a new concept, when viewed as a technology, it is still relatively young.


regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DeltaLover]

Personally, I believe that all it takes is a true mastery of level 3.



As usually, Dave is absolutely right!

Moving higher beyond the third level is just recycling the previous....

In a high level poker the expert is playing his hand against his opponent's possible holdings while in a world class level he is playing his possible holdings against his opponent's.

[pondman]

Level 4+ should be called "anti-handicapping" as it throws conventional wisdom out the window. You're thinking in terms of betting value, but instead of looking at the race like everyone else does (asking who is most likely to win), now, you're asking how a horse can LOSE.+.

I could accept the first few levels, but I think this one falls off the edge. I currently am consistently betting a group of horses, day in and day out, and win at approximately %40. That means I lose 6 out of 10. It's so profitable that I expect horses to lose and often tell people I'm probly going to hang myself on a 40-1 shot today.

Be carefull in your analogy with poker. Poker is a structure game. You know the odds of a hand and the odds of your opponent's hand being higher. And then you need to BS your opponnet. You won't be able to do this with horse racing. Your only hope is the crowd is wrong.

Horse racing is chaotic. The math is gimmicky. A high school drop out with experience can beat you by studying something obscure such as training patterns. Every horse is a business. Hundreds of things can go wrong-- including giving the horse the wrong feed. I've personally watched trainers throw their horses hay in the morning before a race to sandbag their performance. And there are more drugs in the backfield than in a crackhouse. (Santa Anita is the only place I've ever seen a kilo of heroine.) My point is horse racing has so many unknowns, and it usually pays off going with something simple, kookie, and ridiculous sounding, once you find it pays off well.