5% you can't figure

[Capper Al]

I believe it was Barry Meadows who said there is about 5% of the races that he expects not to be able to pick. These are the races, that even after the race, one can't figure. These horses will usually be eliminated and/or show no sign of ability. This 5% just becomes another form of take-out that the handicapper has to over come. If you have any races that you can't after the race, discuss them in this thread.

[Turkoman]

I believe it was Barry Meadows who said there is about 5% of the races that he expects not to be able to pick. These are the races, that even after the race, one can't figure. These horses will usually be eliminated and/or show no sign of ability. This 5% just becomes another form of take-out that the handicapper has to over come. If you have any races that you can't after the race, discuss them in this thread.

I think it's safe to say that this happens to all horseplayers at one time or another, especially with horses whose form has pretty much been hidden by the trainer. The claiming levels at different tracks can be very confusing also. Sometimes an open claiming race at $4000 or $5000 is a tougher race than the very next claiming price at the same track.

Turkoman

[Overlay]

For what it's worth, the working estimate that the late Dick Mitchell used for that same figure (the percentage of race outcomes that can't be explained, which he euphemistically referred to as "stuff happens" races) was 20%.

[lamboguy]

the toughest races i have to figure are horses that win an open $4k and now ae in a double beaten $5k. impossible to figure.

i like races that have all first time starters, those are the easiest because i know what it takes to find the winner.

[Dave Schwartz]

I used to say 12%, now I say 8%.


Always relative to one's on handicapping AND the depth they wish to work to.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[mannyberrios]

I put it at 99% :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rastajenk]

You must be an Occupier! :eek:

[Jeff P]

Thank God a percentage of race outcomes are tough to predict. Can you imagine how boring the game would be (both aesthetically and from a betting standpoint) if that were not the case?

-jp

.

[Capper Al]

Thank God a percentage of race outcomes are tough to predict. Can you imagine how boring the game would be (both aesthetically and from a betting standpoint) if that were not the case?

-jp

.

Of the 95% that I can look back and figure something, at least a third of them is still a stretch.

[Cardus]

I believe it was Barry Meadows who said there is about 5% of the races that he expects not to be able to pick. These are the races, that even after the race, one can't figure. These horses will usually be eliminated and/or show no sign of ability. This 5% just becomes another form of take-out that the handicapper has to over come. If you have any races that you can't after the race, discuss them in this thread.

Do you believe that this 5% becomes another form of takeout?

[bob60566]

I would advise if you are serious in playing this game to read.

Horse Racing Logic.

A Guide for the serious Horseplayer.

Glendon Jones

This book will enlighten this thread and more.

Mac:ThmbUp:

[jacklantern]

I would advise if you are serious in playing this game to read.

Horse Racing Logic.

A Guide for the serious Horseplayer.

Glendon Jones

This book will enlighten this thread and more.

Mac:ThmbUp:

Holy moly - $54.80 USED on Amazon...

[Cardus]

I would advise if you are serious in playing this game to read.

Horse Racing Logic.

A Guide for the serious Horseplayer.

Toussaud

This book will enlighten this thread and more.

Mac:ThmbUp:

That'll do.

[Overlay]

Of the 95% that I can look back and figure something, at least a third of them is still a stretch.
All the more reason why it's important to keep the entire field -- and the respective winning chances of each horse in it (not just the one horse most likely to win) -- in view when handicapping, in order to be able to detect wagering value over the entire odds spectrum, wherever it may occur.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Rail horses,especially the 1 hole at Beulah from 11/9 to 11/16 were finding their way into blowing me out of exactas.

Al you know I've been struggling to assimilate bias vs a prerace shape via Giles while using CJ figs.A lot of the intruders looked weak on both actual pace figs and the pace picture.

I am talking a lot of offtracks though too.

[thaskalos]

I estimate my "surprise" factor to be around 14%...and I am not overly troubled by it.

I have long given up on the expectation to understand every race result I see.

When I am "dead wrong" about a race, I attribute it to the uncertainty of the game...and I go on unperturbed.

[Capper Al]

Do you believe that this 5% becomes another form of takeout?

One has to treat it that way.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Capper Al]

I would advise if you are serious in playing this game to read.

Horse Racing Logic.

A Guide for the serious Horseplayer.

Glendon Jones

This book will enlighten this thread and more.

Mac:ThmbUp:

I have read it and liked it. Is there something you would want to point out?

[Capper Al]

Rail horses,especially the 1 hole at Beulah from 11/9 to 11/16 were finding their way into blowing me out of exactas.

Al you know I've been struggling to assimilate bias vs a prerace shape via Giles while using CJ figs.A lot of the intruders looked weak on both actual pace figs and the pace picture.

I am talking a lot of offtracks though too.

Off tracks, especially at minor tracks, are tough.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Capper Al]

I estimate my "surprise" factor to be around 14%...and I am not overly troubled by it.

I have long given up on the expectation to understand every race result I see.

When I am "dead wrong" about a race, I attribute it to the uncertainty of the game...and I go on unperturbed.

Actually, I haven't done my own research on this. 5% just felt about right. I too have long given up on the expectation to understand every race result I see, most of the time.

Happy Thanksgiving

[keilan]

Not to be the wise guy here but 5% is probably on the high side...... There aren't many days after they've run that I couldn't see a horse winning!!

[iceknight]

Not to be the wise guy here but 5% is probably on the high side...... There aren't many days after they've run that I couldn't see a horse winning!!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

I agree with you, that 5% can be figured out by looking at the alignment of the moon wrt the constellations :P

[mountainman]

I believe it was Barry Meadows who said there is about 5% of the races that he expects not to be able to pick. These are the races, that even after the race, one can't figure. These horses will usually be eliminated and/or show no sign of ability. This 5% just becomes another form of take-out that the handicapper has to over come. If you have any races that you can't after the race, discuss them in this thread.

I don't think wild results are what make the game so very hard to beat. It's the many winners with decent, but nondescript forms that stood out in no particular regard. Those kind really muddle things and confound the handicapping process.

[Robert Fischer]

Do you believe that this 5% becomes another form of takeout?


Good Question...

Do you ??

would be interesting to hear everyone go into a little detail (...guessing you do not, and could add insight with a genuine paragraph.)

Personally? , No.

With a playable race, I eventually narrow the choices down to the "best" obvious wagers available. Then using the size of my bankroll, a low-estimate of hit% and a low-estimate of payoff, I compare them and choose the "best" of the best. Now I plug that wager into my spreadsheet(if needed).
EXAMPLE: horse # :8: to win.
Low Estimate hit% = 35%
Low Estimate payoff = $6
This is typical of the kind of tough decisions that players face. If your lowest estimates both come in here(and nothing lower!) = you make just 5¢ on the dollar.
For "all that work". The good news is that a lot of these prices and probabilities are repeating patterns. My method requires ability to estimate hit% and , probability, but something like a 2-1 shot happens enough that entering each play in a spreadsheet is not necessary every time.

Players almost ALWAYS struggle with low-estimates when starting out, and it takes some practice to get more accurate.
This "buffer zone" can be 10 or 20 points! And is similar to some of the numbers mentioned in this thread.

AFTER THE RACE - A player watches the race replay or applies their handicapping method, program. This review is actually the second test of their handicapping method(the first is the selection process). - In the long-term "results" can prove a handicapping method. But in the short-term, reviewing the race is necessary to see if your estimates were good. You really only need to review Hit%, because price shouldn't fluctuate unless you made an error at a small track or thought an inefficiency on the favorite would hold... So I use video and some other factors, and everyone uses their best methods. In this review you have to give the horse a new probability based on what the horses chances of winning that wager look like NOW(or during that race). The tendency is to over or under estimate based on the RESULT. Fight that tendency if you want accuracy.

5%? YOU CAN'T FIGURE: - this is a tricky thing here... What I guess matters is whatever helps the player!
Your horse can finish last - and he still may have been the true 35% favorite! There are 65% of the scenarios where he doesn't win and some where he is last that are within the realm of probability for a true 35% horse. However if I won't assign this horse as 35% win prob if he finishes Last with no Excuses. This isn't a freebie card - you have to have a real understanding of what constitutes trouble. But if he doesn't have trouble = it is now POSSIBLE that he was in fact best and just ran against probability this day = but much more PROBABLE that he was not best and a trouble free trip is more likely to give a sense of his true form today.
CANT FIGURE? = so why did the horse lose so much form?? There are things we could settle on after the race, and some are real possibilities. Then we have the "dark form" where things that we will never know about occurred. A horse is off its meds... a horse was injured/sick/ill/etc...
What do we do in those situations? HOW MUCH % do they account for...
Will record-keeping as mentioned ^^ keep the bettor up to speed or is it random??

TIME FOR SOME BIRD have to think about this later

[Capper Al]

I don't think wild results are what make the game so very hard to beat. It's the many winners with decent, but nondescript forms that stood out in no particular regard. Those kind really muddle things and confound the handicapping process.

I agree. The difficult part is filtering through the many contenders. Nobody, except many a few insiders, are going to get those 5%.

[Capper Al]

Robert Fischer (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/member.php?u=3161),

It has to be another form of takeout. A capper is blind to these 5% unless they can sense that it is a race to pass. But usually these races on paper all look as good as any other race. And I always have an action bet anyway. After I have spent time and crunched a race to get to know it, I'm putting a little something on it.

Now you bring up another point, when favorites finish last or near to last.This doesn't figure also. These horses, generally, have all the stats in their favor. How could they end up in the rear?

[pondman]

If you have any races that you can't after the race, discuss them in this thread.

After reflecting on my own bets, I've found positive ROI on turf races (US.) I rationalize that I have more knowledge than the crowd; And I believe the turf is an equalizer, allowing injured horses to run with higher payouts. I also believe I have more knowledge on maiden races than the crowd. I found avoiding claiming races will boost my ROI (dramatically), with the exception of a few recent maiden winners, but that's only if they have the variable I need to see.

Therefore my own view would be to avoid 70% of all races because I can't find a horse to single. And to bet far more than the average betting when I've got a horse to single. If I were force to make a bet on every race, then the takeout for the unknowns would be much higher than 5% for me.

[classhandicapper]

The 5% is not an extra take. It's already built into your results.

[Capper Al]

The 5% is not an extra take. It's already built into your results.

Agree. One just has to absorb the loss like takeout.

[Overlay]

If you approach every race from the perspective that every horse in it has some chance (no matter how small) to win, then determining whether a given horse "figures" to win becomes secondary to assessing whether any particular horse or combination of horses is worth a bet at its odds or projected payoff. To me, asking, "Does this horse figure?" is one step removed from deciding, "No, he doesn't," and discarding him completely from any further consideration, when those are the very horses who will jump up and win at long odds, and in the process nullify your wagers on the horses that did "figure" (according to your handicapping). Any horse can potentially "figure", if its odds are right.

[Capper Al]

If you approach every race from the perspective that every horse in it has some chance (no matter how small) to win, then determining whether a given horse "figures" to win becomes secondary to assessing whether any particular horse or combination of horses is worth a bet at its odds or projected payoff. To me, asking, "Does this horse figure?" is one step removed from deciding, "No, he doesn't," and discarding him completely from any further consideration, when those are the very horses who will jump up and win at long odds, and in the process nullify your wagers on the horses that did "figure" (according to your handicapping). Any horse can potentially "figure", if its odds are right.

I eliminate horses as not to win. Sure, they win sometimes-- about 5% of the time. I do set a minimum odds at 4/1 also. I don't know what or who the highlighted is about. My handicapping and wagering are independent of each other. I pick my horses and wait for my prices.

[Overlay]

I eliminate horses as not to win. Sure, they win sometimes-- about 5% of the time. I do set a minimum odds at 4/1 also. I don't know what or who the highlighted is about. My handicapping and wagering are independent of each other. I pick my horses and wait for my prices.
All I meant by the portion that you highlighted was to emphasize that (in my view) it's preferable when you're handicapping to consider the winning chances of every horse in a race in comparison to its odds, rather than to narrow a field down to the horses that you view as "figuring" to possibly win, and then limiting your wagering consideration solely to those horses, which results in losses when one of the horses that did not "figure" (according to the elimination-based method of handicapping that was used) manages to win (and most likely at long odds).

[Midnight Cruiser]

I believe it was Barry Meadows who said there is about 5% of the races that he expects not to be able to pick. These are the races, that even after the race, one can't figure. These horses will usually be eliminated and/or show no sign of ability. This 5% just becomes another form of take-out that the handicapper has to over come. If you have any races that you can't after the race, discuss them in this thread.


I would love for someone to help me not just how the 3 won today, but how he won and only paid 12 bucks? This horse has not won in at least 2 years maybe longer and won for fun today. Help!!

[Capper Al]

I would love for someone to help me not just how the 3 won today, but how he won and only paid 12 bucks? This horse has not won in at least 2 years maybe longer and won for fun today. Help!!

It can be amazing at times. When something is going on with a horse drawing way too much money, it's probably best to skip the race.

[Midnight Cruiser]

It can be amazing at times. When something is going on with a horse drawing way too much money, it's probably best to skip the race.

I wish I could have, but it was in my pik3 and 4 sequence. Usually, there is something you can go back to and see some previous speed, a trainer angle, equip change, but with this horse he has run 5k claimers for 2 years without a win and never better than 4th or 5th! The only thing I can think of are that his Beyers, even though low, have been consistent and it was a matter of time before he found the right company. Just when you thought you were getting sharp, the racing Gods knock you right back into your rightful spot! Oh well, onward and upward...

[pondman]

(in my view) it's preferable when you're handicapping to consider the winning chances of every horse in a race in comparison to its odds, rather than to narrow a field down to the horses that you view as "figuring" to possibly win, and then limiting your wagering consideration solely to those horses,

It's possible to make a profit by singling out horses with certain variables, and as CapperAl suggest wait for the crowd to give you favorable odds. And if it doesn't happen in that order, you sit out of the race.

If you can hit at a high enough percentage with spot plays, why not save up all the small collective, dutch style bets, and bet one horse on the nose once a day?

This is the way I was taught to play. All of the people I know who make money at SA do it this way-- sitting and waiting for the home run; And not getting involved in those races which make no sense, which for me is many.

[Elliott Sidewater]

The horse in question, Satin Sweep, had the top last race Beyer in the field, a 50. the horse had back numbers in the mid and high 60's including a 61 in $10,000 open company at Hawthorne in April. The horse was 4-1 on the morning line, because the field is weak. Someone had to win this race, and this horse was as likely as any. What do you expect a winning horse to look like in a race for non-winners in 2011? Also, I see a 3rd place finish in an Allowance race, you must have missed it. You need to spread in races like this, and if you do, the horse has to be in, not out of your pk3 and pk4 tickets. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[Midnight Cruiser]

The horse in question, Satin Sweep, had the top last race Beyer in the field, a 50. the horse had back numbers in the mid and high 60's including a 61 in $10,000 open company at Hawthorne in April. The horse was 4-1 on the morning line, because the field is weak. Someone had to win this race, and this horse was as likely as any. What do you expect a winning horse to look like in a race for non-winners in 2011? Also, I see a 3rd place finish in an Allowance race, you must have missed it. You need to spread in races like this, and if you do, the horse has to be in, not out of your pk3 and pk4 tickets. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.


thanks sidewinder. I was only 3 deep in the race and probably needed to be 5 or 6 deep but was chasing it late.

[Capper Al]

It's possible to make a profit by singling out horses with certain variables, and as CapperAl suggest wait for the crowd to give you favorable odds. And if it doesn't happen in that order, you sit out of the race.

If you can hit at a high enough percentage with spot plays, why not save up all the small collective, dutch style bets, and bet one horse on the nose once a day?

This is the way I was taught to play. All of the people I know who make money at SA do it this way-- sitting and waiting for the home run; And not getting involved in those races which make no sense, which for me is many.

I'm human. After all that work handicapping, I put $2.00 on the nose of my top pick as an action bet. Otherwise, I wait for the odds to strike.

[fmolf]

I'm human. After all that work handicapping, I put $2.00 on the nose of my top pick as an action bet. Otherwise, I wait for the odds to strike.
Why the odds limit of 4/1 ?.....I know you are a good enough handicapper and should be able to bet with confidence on a 2/1 shot that should be 6/5. It does not happen often but it does happen. Do you ever bet your second win horse or third for that matter if they are overlayed when compared to your odds line?

[Capper Al]

Why the odds limit of 4/1 ?.....I know you are a good enough handicapper and should be able to bet with confidence on a 2/1 shot that should be 6/5. It does not happen often but it does happen. Do you ever bet your second win horse or third for that matter if they are overlayed when compared to your odds line?

I bet any of my top 4 horses should the odds be right. Knowing that a horse is worth 6/5 is a call I can only make after the race.