View Full Version : consensus picks in local papers
ALL CIRCUITS GO
07-28-2011, 01:54 PM
I am in NJ. The local NY Post newspaper carries their staff selection and consensus picks ala DRF in the sports section. I can access that information online.
see for example: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/horse_racing/post_experts_pick_the_winners_hAuGGnGUaKdV9tbT5MXX oM
So the question I have for others in the country, does your local paper have a similar grid on a daily basis that is also accessible online? I am looking at an old angle and would like to review something other than NY area tracks, and I am unwilling to pay DRF anything for their picks.
Thanks.
:)
BlueShoe
07-28-2011, 03:06 PM
Back in the days when the DRF had five selectors and large metro newspapers also carried a selectors page, there were almost endless "systems" devised based on the picks of public handicappers. None of them proved to be of any value over a long term. Bests bets, picked by only this or that handicapper, picked by only these but not those, etc., any combination you could think of, none of them worked. Best advice is to ignore the selectors page. In my case, I take a contrarian view. When a horse I like is not mentioned first, second, or third by any selector on the Form consensus page I am delighted.
Quesmark
07-28-2011, 05:57 PM
I'll bet it's the "dot system"?http://www.printactivities.com/ConnectTheDots/Horse_Dot-to-Dot.gif
mistergee
07-28-2011, 06:31 PM
I'll bet it's the "dot system"?http://www.printactivities.com/ConnectTheDots/Horse_Dot-to-Dot.gif
remember when that system was hawked by Mickey Rooney?
HoofedInTheChest
07-28-2011, 06:56 PM
I would have to agree with Blueshoe, i use the selections in the paper as a bit of a guideline as to what i'm up against. When my selections are completely different than the "expert picks" it's time to make a wager.
My local newspaper (The Toronto Star) has selections everyday by a pretty decent handicapper (Jennifer Morrison). As well the Woodbine free program has two reputable handicappers giving their picks and analysis, i use all three after i have made my selections to judge what kind of value i'm going to end up with. I keep track of all three just to see who is more consistent at the end of the day.
To answer your question, my newspaper selections are not online, maybe they are but i can't find them. If you dig around online you can find alot of different selections depending on the track that you want to play. I don't hold much stock in alot of these selections for i find they are not consistent enough to turn a profit. I read them to compare what i have and to see if i have overlooked something, kind of like bouncing off ideas with a fellow handicapper.
I think there are people on this board that provide better selections than alot of these so called "experts". I follow their picks out of curiousity, just to see who has game and who doesn't. One thing i have noticed is the three star selections on the Brisnet free selections lose more often then they win, i always bet against them, thanks Brisnet!
Canarsie
07-29-2011, 07:23 AM
My local newspaper (The Toronto Star) has selections everyday by a pretty decent handicapper (Jennifer Morrison). As well the Woodbine free program has two reputable handicappers giving their picks and analysis, i use all three after i have made my selections to judge what kind of value i'm going to end up with. I keep track of all three just to see who is more consistent at the end of the day.
How does that lady do who makes 4 horse trifecta boxes on TVG? I have never seen her make a stand picking a horse on top or the second slot in that type of wager. Of course she works for management and her job probably calls for the maximum bet she can wiggle out of a newbie.
ALL CIRCUITS GO
07-29-2011, 09:44 AM
no, its not the infamous DOT system. in fact , its more aligned with the contrarian handicapping idea where if a horse is not mentioned, it becomes something of interest if other factors are also present.
thanks for the responses
:cool:
Steve 'StatMan'
07-29-2011, 10:13 AM
All the regular newspapers in my area stopped their selection boxes a long time ago, some nearly stopped all their racing coverage. I cannot recomend using a consensus box from a list of handicapeprs esp ones with only nicknames or nom-de-plumes. There may be several selections under different nom-de-plumes, and good handicappers using different ways of looking at races could easily see 1, 2, 3 or more likely winners in a race. But just because there are several nickname handicappers listed, it doesn't necessarily mean there were several real human handicapprs making those different selections. Newspapers learned long ago that if a handicapper was gone for a day, one of the others could put picks in for that person. Plus, any good hanicapper can often see several possible winners in a race. Newspapers thus learned long ago they need not pay more than one handicapper for the work unless they really wanted more than one handicapper. 'Multiple Handicappers' can be a very effective literary tool to describe the chances of the various horses and/or the selector's feelings about the race, without going through all the type copy like I am about to type in the folloing example: One could write "Horse A has a good chance based on recent races, Horse B could improve enough to win, Horse C has some back class, Horse D won last year at this level, Horse E is often in the money but rarely wins" Or you could save yourself the trouble and space and write "Analyst A-B-C Clocker B-A-D Trackman C-A-E" and give the common readier an easier to understand recap. However, one won't make money betting any of those handicappers unless they are (and can tell) if the odds given are worth the risk. It is just something to go on, or gives a smaller list of horses to look at - experienced handicappers know how to do that, but many novices and casual fans who only read the newspaper likely do not. It can give them a fighting chance to know which horses might be good enough to use on the days they do attend the races, but blindly betting them without a good analysis of odds vs probabilty will rarely work in the long run. Newspapers aren't concerned that their handicapper returns a flat bet profit - they're glad if they do, but they know they make their money selling papers to the casual horse fan, and the news section reader, the horoscope reader, they people who mainly want TV listings, people following other sports, pro, college, high-school, etc. They also don't pay their handicappers all that much, because to them it is just another added expense along with all the other features in the newspaper.
I don't really want to delve into this any further, but I believe I explained it well enough.
mistergee
07-29-2011, 11:34 AM
I thought the dot system was picking the horses who were not mentioned?
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.