No Handicapping Required

[PICSIX]

Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever. Are you the type that can be content playing a method like this, or, are you the type that has to dig into the PP's (even if it has proven to be a long-term losing method)? ;)

[Dave Schwartz]

You have a method that requires no handicapping and is profitable?

How does that even exist?

Or do you actually mean something else?

[thaskalos]

Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever. Are you the type that can be content playing a method like this, or, are you the type that has to dig into the PP's (even if it has proven to be a long-term losing method)? ;)
At the track, I am the type who values tangible results above anything else.

If the non-handicapping method was indeed profitable, I would embrace it immediately.

Granted, it's more fun digging into the past performances...but the money is just as green either way.

[Overlay]

You have a method that requires no handicapping and is profitable?

How does that even exist?
Perhaps referring (for example) to tote-board patterns, or using the picks of one or more other handicappers (like in the Form) as the basis for selections, without actually looking at the horse's records. (Profitability would still be a question, however.)

[thaskalos]

You have a method that requires no handicapping and is profitable?

How does that even exist?

Or do you actually mean something else?
A resurrection of "The Dot System" perhaps?

I remember I fell for it many years ago, because it was endorsed by Don Adams (of Get Smart).

"If it was good enough for Maxwell Smart, it was good enough for me"...I thought.

[Pcon04]

Talking Horses !!!! throw the pp's in the trash

maggie W was real good when andy takes a day off

hope she stays.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think the OP is merely asking a 'what if' question instead of hinting that he's found the holy grail.
Wondering if you would be content to mindlessly send it in if it's profitable or would the absence of a challenge bore you...like counting cards in blackjack i guess.

[Overlay]

Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever. Are you the type that can be content playing a method like this, or, are you the type that has to dig into the PP's (even if it has proven to be a long-term losing method)? ;)
As long as I was satisfied that the method had a sound, logical basis, and would not be subject (as far as I could tell) to future obsolescence or unprofitability through overbetting (as with typical single-selection systems), I'd play it without hesitation, even if the past performances were not involved.

[2low]

I'm testing a method I programmed now. I haven't looked at a PP in several months worth of race cards. If it shows a long term profit, I'll gladly have no idea what I'm doing:jump:. Saying it's no work, though, implies I am not owed for the work I've already done. I feel in debt to myself.

I will, however, work on another theory I've been kicking around.

[therussmeister]

I had a method that worked one entire Hawthorne meet years ago. Didn't work at any other track, and didn't work the next Hawthorne meet - or ever again. :(

Except for separating contenders when it picked too many horses in a race, I didn't do any handicapping, and stopped playing other tracks.

[Capper Al]

I'm testing a method I programmed now. I haven't looked at a PP in several months worth of race cards. If it shows a long term profit, I'll gladly have no idea what I'm doing:jump:. Saying it's no work, though, implies I am not owed for the work I've already done. I feel in debt to myself.

I will, however, work on another theory I've been kicking around.

Random picks might have done better in this year's Breeders' Cup.

[Robert Goren]

You have a method that requires no handicapping and is profitable?

How does that even exist?

Or do you actually mean something else?Betting every horse against a horse that has 90% or more the show pool at 1 MTP is pretty close, if in fact it doesn't show a an out right profit. My sample size is limited, but it shows a pretty good ROI. Of course these 90%ers only show up on average few times few times a month and you might go several months with out one of them running out of the money. My figures show that even at 80% there is a profit, but it is lot lower, but decent ROI. Again the sample is small.

[melman]

Dave--The two biggest winners I ever met in over 30 of regular racetrack attendance used no pp's or speed or pace figs. They looked and kept records of how a horse looked both in the walk over, in the paddock, and in the pre race warmup. Not what most peoplee would call "handicapping". However some do refer to it as physicality handicapping". Sure is a skill which I wish I would have had. VERY effective, with no pp's or figs or trip capping which the huge majority of people I believe would call "handicapping".

[Johnny V]

It would depend on how profitable it is in relation to how tedious the work is in comparison. Another factor would be the amount of plays generated on a daily or weekly basis. If the method does not meet this criteria for me I would much rather roll up the sleeves and dig into the pp's.

[Light]

I used to know a guy that only bought the program,(never the form), and knew all the trainer/owner combos in the country. I saw him hit a $10k tri one day, but that kind of hit was not unusual for him.

His strength was not only in his knowledge of sneaky trainer/owner combos but more importantly he was probably the best player I saw in constructing his tickets. Without handicapping to take up his time,he spent that time planning his bet. This is the difference between winning and losing regardless of handicapping or no handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

I'm pretty sure I could construct a profitable method using no handicapping at all and have actually been considering putting it into effect with $2 bets just to see if I am right. Maybe I'll start this week. :eek:

[Chris Longshot]

I used to know a guy that only bought the program,(never the form), and knew all the trainer/owner combos in the country. I saw him hit a $10k tri one day, but that kind of hit was not unusual for him.

His strength was not only in his knowledge of sneaky trainer/owner combos but more importantly he was probably the best player I saw in constructing his tickets. Without handicapping to take up his time,he spent that time planning his bet. This is the difference between winning and losing regardless of handicapping or no handicapping.

Wish I knew this guy Light, he would be a good companion for me for a variety of reasons.

[PICSIX]

You have a method that requires no handicapping and is profitable?

How does that even exist?

Or do you actually mean something else?

I don't know yet.

A little hint; could there exist a sub-set of races where the price horse(s) is an "true" overlay? An overlay just because of the makeup of the race itself. There is a theory (may indeed be a fact, I don't know) that favorites as a group are under bet and long shots are over bet. Is it possible to find races (without handicapping) where the reverse is true?

[TrifectaMike]

I don't know yet.

... could there exist a sub-set of races where the price horse(s) is an "true" overlay? An overlay just because of the makeup of the race itself...

It is highly probable.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[thaskalos]

I don't know yet.

A little hint; could there exist a sub-set of races where the price horse(s) is an "true" overlay? An overlay just because of the makeup of the race itself. There is a theory (may indeed be a fact, I don't know) that favorites as a group are under bet and long shots are over bet. Is it possible to find races (without handicapping) where the reverse is true?
You are only partially correct.

Not all the favorites are underbet...only the extreme ones.

And only the biggest longshots are overbet.

[Dave Schwartz]

A little hint; could there exist a sub-set of races where the price horse(s) is an "true" overlay? An overlay just because of the makeup of the race itself. There is a theory (may indeed be a fact, I don't know) that favorites as a group are under bet and long shots are over bet. Is it possible to find races (without handicapping) where the reverse is true?

That would depend upon your definition of the phrase "makeup of the race itself."

In other words, if you are saying something like, "If the 3 low-priced horses are all under 5/2 then the horses over 30/1 are profitable," I would say, "Yes, that is possible."

However, I caution you against two things:

1. To prove that such a longshot bias exists, would demand a very large sample. How large? I would say that at an absolute minimum - and I mean ABSOLUTE MINIMUM - enough races such that you have found at least 30 such winners at your average odds range.

In other words, if you were basing this bias upon (say) horses that were 30/1 or higher, but the average was (say) 50/1, I would expect to see at least 30 winners that paid $100 to even begin to call it "proof." Since we know that the "normal" hit rate for such horses would be under 2% and you would be getting (say) 3% to be solidly profitable, a minimum of 30 / 3% or around 1,000 races is where you would have my attention.

If you've got (say) a 100-race sample where you're "solidly profitable" - a sample where taking out a single $100 horse makes the sample a loser, then you don't have enough.


2. If you did discover such a bias, I would expect that it does not come up often. Thus, to find such a 1,000-race sample might take you years to accumulate data for a test. In addition, the method would then (logically) be impractical.

As an example, it is a well-know fact (if memory serves me right) that HDW's top-ranked PSR horse can be wagered at about 13/1 or higher and be flat-bet profitable. Period. Has been for years.

The problem is that it produces (again, from memory) about 3-4 bets per day on average. In order to play those bets, you must watch EVERY RACE, at EVERY TRACK. In other words, if you play one track, you might watch every race for 2 weeks and get only a single bet.

I would call such a system "impractical."


So, tell us more... without telling us how it works. <G>

Dave

[Capper Al]

When it is said "No Handicapping" then it usually implies angle play of some sort. Scouting through the form for angles can be more confusing than just using numbers.

[pondman]

Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever.

I have a method at 14 tracks which doesn't require doing anything with the performance of a horse (no ratings.) I could blot them out. It's all class based. However, it does take having structured data,which I've collect since the days of the 286.

[Dave Schwartz]

When it is said "No Handicapping" then it usually implies angle play of some sort. Scouting through the form for angles can be more confusing than just using numbers.

So, what the user means is that he uses no judgement?

If that is the case, then I would say that describes almost every HSH user I know. Ironically, the handful (of which I am aware) that it does not include are very successful.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Robert Fischer]

I've completed a proprietary method involving NO HANDICAPPING REQUIRED, and NO WAGERING...

PM: to propose a bid

[davew]

I have a decent method of picking win bets just on exacta probables - I would say I am doing no handicapping, just arbitrage between 2 markets

I have to do some work (until I can figure out how to have my computer do it all)


is this similar to what you are saying? I do not need any past performances or even names of horses, and I still can cheer for a horse

[JohnGalt1]

[QUOTE=PICSIX]Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever. Are you the type that can be content playing a method like this, or, are you the type that has to dig into the PP's (even if it has proven to be a long-term losing method)? ;)[/QUOTE

Mike Goodman, a former--now deceased--casino floor manager, wrote a book "How to Win" in the '60's on how he advises players to win--or lose less--at casino games.

His chapter on horse racing he described a system that a friend of his used that involved NO handicapping and was profitable.

Rules---

1) Bet up to 4 horses at 9-1 or higher $2 WP.

2) Pass races with more than 4 horses going off at 9-1.

3) Pass a race with no horse 9-1 or over.

4) If you lose all WP bets betting 1-4 horses, increase next playable race to $3 WP then $4 WP, $5 WP and increase by $2 after every loing race.

5) If you break even in a race, say you have 4 horses bet at $4 WP and the $2 place pays $11 repeat $4 WP on next playable race.

One advantage--You save money on past performances. You won't care who the trainer, jockey is, if the horse is fit, if the race is the right distance, if a race comes off the turf, etc.

Disadvantages--

It's a negative progression.

You should not try to handicap. That 1 for 33 lifetime nag with last 5 races double digit losses wins and pays $42-$15, because you played the "good" longshots.

Or be afraid of the 3-5 that "can't" lose, by passing a race with 3 9-1's or higher then have him stumble and your $21 horse wins a race you passed.

You can't use this to play big fields--no Kentucky Derby, almost no breeder's cup races. Or small fields.

You can't play any exotics, to pick 4's, superfectas, etc. Why would you want to box these horses, just getting one of them to win or place is tough enough.

It's boring. No thinking. No bet structuring.

I prefer to handicap. If I get a $20 winner I want to find it myself. I want to play and win an exotic that pays thousands using my brain.

But for PICSIX or anyone else, you can test this system using any and all charts.

This thread got me curious, I might just look up some charts myself.

[PICSIX]

I've completed a proprietary method involving NO HANDICAPPING REQUIRED, and NO WAGERING...

PM: to propose a bid

Are you saying wagering decisions are made automatically?

[Gapfire]

I have several long term profit angles. However, I'm not content waiting around to play them. I need the action I guess.

Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever. Are you the type that can be content playing a method like this, or, are you the type that has to dig into the PP's (even if it has proven to be a long-term losing method)? ;)

[Robert Fischer]

Are you saying wagering decisions are made automatically?

passing races

[TrifectaMike]

I have a method at 14 tracks which doesn't require doing anything with the performance of a horse (no ratings.) I could blot them out. It's all class based. However, it does take having structured data,which I've collect since the days of the 286.

Is the method based on statistics?

Mike (Dr Beav)

[skate]

You have a method that requires no handicapping and is profitable?

How does that even exist?

Or do you actually mean something else?

Schwartzy;

Some use tote boards.

Some talk to the horse.

Some even pray.

Others show a profit by not betting.

[skate]

I used to know a guy that only bought the program,(never the form), and knew all the trainer/owner combos in the country. I saw him hit a $10k tri one day, but that kind of hit was not unusual for him.

His strength was not only in his knowledge of sneaky trainer/owner combos but more importantly he was probably the best player I saw in constructing his tickets. Without handicapping to take up his time,he spent that time planning his bet. This is the difference between winning and losing regardless of handicapping or no handicapping.


Makes cents to me, thanks.

[Dr Jersey Jim]

I really believe very strongly that legalizing some sports betting and maybe some slot machine type games at the tracks will bring back the ratio of "smart money" / "not so smart money" that used to make it easier to beat the take without melting your brain with intense handicapping.

Betting on a race and watching it live is 'thrilling'. If you've got a crowd there for other gambling activities, they are going to bet races on 'hunches', 'tips' and because they like the horse's name.

Heck, maybe tracks would start competing for the crowds by reducing the takeout or dropping breakage.
Okay, maybe I got carried away there LOL! :D

JJ

[mannyberrios]

I really believe very strongly that legalizing some sports betting and maybe some slot machine type games at the tracks will bring back the ratio of "smart money" / "not so smart money" that used to make it easier to beat the take without melting your brain with intense handicapping.

Betting on a race and watching it live is 'thrilling'. If you've got a crowd there for other gambling activities, they are going to bet races on 'hunches', 'tips' and because they like the horse's name.

Heck, maybe tracks would start competing for the crowds by reducing the takeout or dropping breakage.
Okay, maybe I got carried away there LOL! :D

JJSounds good to me

[JJMartin]

I believe I've developed a successful black box system with no PP handicapping, although it requires Tote Board analysis from 10 minutes to 0 post which I suppose could be considered a form of non-traditional handicapping. I use Excel which incorporates a rather complex set of formulas and macros working together and is fully automated. The formulas were programmed as an algorithm to detect betting patterns that emphasize on long shots that I've developed over time. It took several hundred hours and countless revisions. The system consistently picks winners and second place finishers at a rate much higher than random chance allows and in favorable contrast to what the closing odds ranks dictate the finishing order should be. The direction in the research and the programming structure employed were based on the premise that inside information and/or keen handicapping methods can be detected as a reflection of the information harnessed from the Tote when viewed in aggregate. At about an 8% strike, by no means would I consider this to be a Holy Grail. Finding legitimate long-term profitable patterns derived from any form of handicapping is extremely elusive.

[pondman]

Is the method based on statistics?

Mike (Dr Beav)




It's data driven-- this many horses win under these conditions. There is some probabitlity involved but I can't be confident beyond 45%. If I think it has a 45% chance of winning and it's at 20-1, it's a bet. It doesn't have a coin or card game structure And I'm flexible enough to include intent and games played by"high end owners" and "little know 12% jockeys", which boost the ROI (see "Right up my alley". I sat 3 days waiting for that race.) Add a layoff and grass and I'm going to bring out all the cannons. It not an easy thing to quantify any of these things.

I don't seek out average , or means. And I don't care about a horse's time at all. The result: it takes about 30 seconds to scan a card. There is data behind it, but the front end of it doesn't require hours of mental debate and calculations. The only obstacle is waiting to get the odds and making sure I'm going to positively net over time.

[davew]

If I think it has a 45% chance of winning and it's at 20-1, it's a bet.



would you post a couple of these before post, as I do not think I have ever seen one

[Tape Reader]

I believe I've developed a successful black box system with no PP handicapping, although it requires Tote Board analysis from 10 minutes to 0 post which I suppose could be considered a form of non-traditional handicapping. I use Excel which incorporates a rather complex set of formulas and macros working together and is fully automated. The formulas were programmed as an algorithm to detect betting patterns that emphasize on long shots that I've developed over time. It took several hundred hours and countless revisions. The system consistently picks winners and second place finishers at a rate much higher than random chance allows and in favorable contrast to what the closing odds ranks dictate the finishing order should be. The direction in the research and the programming structure employed were based on the premise that inside information and/or keen handicapping methods can be detected as a reflection of the information harnessed from the Tote when viewed in aggregate. At about an 8% strike, by no means would I consider this to be a Holy Grail. Finding legitimate long-term profitable patterns derived from any form of handicapping is extremely elusive.

Does it automatically place the bet for you at 0 MTP?

[Dave Schwartz]

Pondman,

How many bets do you have in your test sample?


Dave

[Capper Al]

[QUOTE=PICSIX]Lets say you've developed a method that is profitable long-term that requires no handicapping (doesn't mean no work) whatsoever. Are you the type that can be content playing a method like this, or, are you the type that has to dig into the PP's (even if it has proven to be a long-term losing method)? ;)[/QUOTE

Mike Goodman, a former--now deceased--casino floor manager, wrote a book "How to Win" in the '60's on how he advises players to win--or lose less--at casino games.

His chapter on horse racing he described a system that a friend of his used that involved NO handicapping and was profitable.

Rules---

1) Bet up to 4 horses at 9-1 or higher $2 WP.

2) Pass races with more than 4 horses going off at 9-1.

3) Pass a race with no horse 9-1 or over.

4) If you lose all WP bets betting 1-4 horses, increase next playable race to $3 WP then $4 WP, $5 WP and increase by $2 after every loing race.

5) If you break even in a race, say you have 4 horses bet at $4 WP and the $2 place pays $11 repeat $4 WP on next playable race.

One advantage--You save money on past performances. You won't care who the trainer, jockey is, if the horse is fit, if the race is the right distance, if a race comes off the turf, etc.

Disadvantages--

It's a negative progression.

You should not try to handicap. That 1 for 33 lifetime nag with last 5 races double digit losses wins and pays $42-$15, because you played the "good" longshots.

Or be afraid of the 3-5 that "can't" lose, by passing a race with 3 9-1's or higher then have him stumble and your $21 horse wins a race you passed.

You can't use this to play big fields--no Kentucky Derby, almost no breeder's cup races. Or small fields.

You can't play any exotics, to pick 4's, superfectas, etc. Why would you want to box these horses, just getting one of them to win or place is tough enough.

It's boring. No thinking. No bet structuring.

I prefer to handicap. If I get a $20 winner I want to find it myself. I want to play and win an exotic that pays thousands using my brain.

But for PICSIX or anyone else, you can test this system using any and all charts.

This thread got me curious, I might just look up some charts myself.

This isn't the system that Pondman is talking about is it? Why would anyone put it on a forum for everyone to see? It doesn't make sense.

[JJMartin]

Does it automatically place the bet for you at 0 MTP?
Yes, because I use Betfair and another program that works with Excel. At 0 MTP, if there is a selection, it is auto submitted and usually accepted fast enough before getting locked out. Incidentally, there is another huge advantage with Betfair as the odds offered are sometimes more than twice the track odds on the long shots. But when I tested it, I only used track prices which are usually lower pay-offs. The downside is Betfair doesn't offer that many tracks and some of them are cut short.

[jerry-g]

For me I had to do a little introspection and find my best way. I re read some books to get more information on how I could do my handicapping in less time. Finally, I arrived at a system that works for me and I might add, will no doubt not work for anyone else. I know now that you must come up with what works for you. For me, the simpler the better. So now I come up with a pick in 3-5 minutes a race. I look at the pack racing today to find the one best suited. It is who they are racing against and not how good the speed or class they came from. I look for only one factor in past performances and that is my bet. If two have it then I consider speed or class. A horse with a high percentage trainer wins a race and I now look at it as: The horse won the race, not because of the high percent trainer but because of the horse.

[Capper Al]

About that Brooklyn Bridge, is it still for sale?

[Mike at A+]

I've been trying something new over the past few weeks that has been very successful. I use my own self written software (and no, I'm not "promoting" it here to get free advertising). I would think that you could use any software or none at all to make your selections. My software has a feature that allows me to quickly produce a report consisting of the best value bets at all tracks running on a particular day. The software allows me to set criteria for bet selection. Currently I use the following settings:

1.) Top pick must be at least 15 points (power rating) above second pick
2.) Morning line odds must be at least 3/1
3.) Skip races with fewer than 8 runners
4.) Skip races with more than one first time starter
5.) Require at least 2/1 post time odds

After each set of two consecutive losses, you double your base bet. So if you start with $2 bets, your bet sequence is:
2-2-4-4-8-8-16-16-32-32-64-64 ....

As soon as you win a bet, you go back to your minimum bet. Or if you've increased your bankroll enough, you can set a new minimum bet as I have ($4). On days where you show a net profit, you restart the next day's bet at the minimum regardless of where you were in the previous day's sequence.

I know these "double up" systems could get you into trouble if you have a prolonged losing streak which is why I chose doubling up every other race instead of every race. But if you (or your software) can select winners 25% of the time, the probability of losing 16 races in a row is about 1% and your bet at that point would be $256 with a total loss of $1,020. If you can get 30% winners, the probability of 16 straight losers drops to 1/3rd of 1%.

What I like about this method is that you often get rewarded significantly after a few losses. Yesterday I hit Campo Joti for $23.80 at Hawthorne in the 5th. race and my bet was up to $16.

Prior to this, my bet of choice was the dime superfecta but the hits are so few and far between that I lost interest in that type of bet. I have made some nice hits ($2,700 for a dime once) but the betting process is tedious and I found myself punching in bets for hours on some days.

Is this my "holy grail"? I doubt there is such a thing but I'm sticking with it for now.

[Dave Schwartz]

I know these "double up" systems could get you into trouble if you have a prolonged losing streak...

It is not actually the losing streak but the lack of a profitable methodology that will do you in.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Mike at A+]

Good point Dave. After running the numbers, it looks like I'd need to get 3/1 post time odds to guarantee a profit if my hit was on an even numbered iteration and 2/1 if on an odd numbered one.

[Capper Al]

That bridge, where was it again? Oh yeah, Brooklyn. Where else would the Brooklyn Bridge be?

[Dave Schwartz]

Wherever you want it to be, Al.