Play with Software or a mechanical system?

[Capper Al]

Here's the big question, how true are you to your system's or software's picks? I have found for me staying with the automatic pick does better than second guessing my system. The only modifying of my picks that I have found that works is reordering my top picks based on Form or Trainer's intent. Everything else loses out big time.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's akin to having an automated trading system in the stock market. It takes human emotion out of the equation.

Lost the last 5 races? The computer doesn't care...it's going to pick the same horse in the next race using the same exact methodology as before. Unlike a human, you may be suffering emotionally from the losing streak, and may look to "switch things up a bit" in the next race, because he or she "thinks" they may know why they lost the last five races...perhaps it was some sort of perceived "bias" or some other faulty assumption that now makes its way into the next race's selection process.

If you have a sound method and you automate it or program it, then you've taken a huge source of error out of the equation...human emotion.

[Overlay]

If you have a sound method and you automate it or program it, then you've taken a huge source of error out of the equation...human emotion.
However, if your method is entirely quantitative or objective to begin with, you can achieve the same result without computerization. Converting the method to a program just enables faster calculation/selection.

[Capper Al]

However, if your method is entirely quantitative or objective to begin with, you can achieve the same result without computerization. Converting the method to a program just enables faster calculation/selection.

There's way too many calculations made by my system. I couldn't do it even if I was cool headed.

[Overlay]

Here's the big question, how true are you to your system's or software's picks? I have found for me staying with the automatic pick does better than second guessing my system.
In my opinion, if your system is compartmentalized into the various handicapping factors, and you know exactly how your selection was derived, it minimizes second-guessing, since you can see exactly where anomalies occur. Review would only be indicated if system performance were falling outside the limits of normally expected variance. Software doesn't always allow such visibility.

[Overlay]

There's way too many calculations made by my system. I couldn't do it even if I was cool headed.
Agreed. My main point was that being exclusively objective/quantitative (however the manipulation of factors is accomplished) helps minimize the irregularities caused by the incorporation of opinion or subjective criteria.

[2low]

My whole goal in writing a black box is to be completely uninvolved.

I want to eliminate emotion

I want accurate stats on my methods. If my brain makes small changes along the way, I can't say race 1 was capped the same as race 1000. How will I ever know how good/bad I really am if there is any chance this is happening?

I want to "work" when it's convenient for me and my family. Race time is rarely convenient. I can bang out code/spreadsheeting whenever.

I want to play every track every day.

I don't want to get sick of the grind.

I find programming my black box fun and rewarding. I find watching races fun and rewarding approximately 1/6.8965th of the time:lol:

[bigmack]

I want to play every track every day.
Often lost in the thrill of a black box approach in its ability to 'churn' is the single most important part of the entire process. Playing only those races 'the box/angle' shows a +roi on a time-tested basis.

[windoor]

I have all of 2011 in my database at the moment and have spent most of this year learning how to use the software I have. Some custom Excel apps let me look for things that other software solutions can not produce, so I am hoping this will give me enough of an edge come 2012 to make a real difference in the month to month handicapping.

There is no way I could cap this many tracks and races looking for spot plays on a day to day basis. From start to finish it takes less than an hour for it to spit out my plays for the day.

I have found that my win percent is slightly better if I check each play beforehand to make a play or pass decision, but the ROI is about the same or slightly better going with the software picks alone.

At the moment I have 19 UDM’s that show a profit for the 2011 racing year. The trick is going to be how many of them survive the 1st quarter of 2012. We shall see.

Regards,

Windoor

[raybo]

My brief time as a full time player, taught me that, if your method is valid and shows a long term profit, DO NOT stray from it.

Whether your method is a "black box" or requires the adherence to rules or subjective analysis, makes no difference. If the method is sound, apply it, unflinchingly, and consistently, every race you play. Otherwise, you might as well not have a method at all, and just bet the color of the horses, or whatever.

Failure, while using a sound and up to date method, is more than likely the fault of the method's user, not the method.

Oh, and don't forget, the wagering method is a major part of the overall method.

[Rigger]

When I input the exact times in 100's/sec in a program, the final times are pace/speed calculated. When the variables in a race are at a minimum, the only thing I allow is for one horse only to have a non-race day. So, if betting an exotic like a tri, an example would be 1,2w1,2,3w1,2,3,4. If a time of a horse is within .10/sec, it is also possible for them to beat one another on any given day. I bet according to the final times the program outputs. If one horse is picked to win, most of my bets will have him bet that way unless it has a high roi.

[HUSKER55]

A person builds a program based on what they believes will work. So why would you stray? Ray is correct. Making a correct wager is just as important as making your selection.

Job one is to make a clear decision on where your problem lies.

[Capper Al]

A person builds a program based on what they believes will work. So why would you stray? Ray is correct. Making a correct wager is just as important as making your selection.

Job one is to make a clear decision on where your problem lies.

The problem is one cannot anticipate all the variables ahead of time. This has happened to me on many occasions. I set up a plan with the tested criteria being that it either has to be A, B, or C. If A I bet at these odds. If B I bet at these odds. If C I don't play. I'll test this premise at least 20 or 30 times. Everything I tested it fits into categories A, B, or C only. Come race day I find myself looking at a possible D. I have no plan for D. What to do? Go with the A horse and ignore the D?

[098poi]

It's akin to having an automated trading system in the stock market. It takes human emotion out of the equation.

Lost the last 5 races? The computer doesn't care...it's going to pick the same horse in the next race using the same exact methodology as before. Unlike a human, you may be suffering emotionally from the losing streak, and may look to "switch things up a bit" in the next race, because he or she "thinks" they may know why they lost the last five races...perhaps it was some sort of perceived "bias" or some other faulty assumption that now makes its way into the next race's selection process.

If you have a sound method and you automate it or program it, then you've taken a huge source of error out of the equation...human emotion.

This says it all for me. I let emotion play much to big a part in my wagering. Playing catch up, making bets without demanding min odds or return. I had a nice little hit last weekend and I plowed through most of it already, throwing money at the track. Last night after work I pulled back my wager amount dramatically and actually passed races where I thought I wasn't getting any value. At the end of the night I was up! (Still way down from last week) Trusting your handicapping, your figs whatever and having discipline is what it's all about. A work in progress for me.

[offtrack]

I use my software to find playable races, cap and grade the race, and identify contenders.

After live odds updates, I use my judgement to create a betting plan.

[pondman]

Agreed. My main point was that being exclusively objective/quantitative (however the manipulation of factors is accomplished) helps minimize the irregularities caused by the incorporation of opinion or subjective criteria.

I use an expert style method. It's based on observation. It's also subjectively based on the past. I winnow down the races until I find a horse (a single) that I believe is ready, and then I wait for the odds. You'll only get a shot at my money, when I know I've got the advantage. I've gotten very selective and my advantage will generally be at least 3 points. The computer is only a storage for data, money management, and accounting. It could be done on paper, however, the computer allows me to quickly manipulate the data.

I never vary from my method. Only rarely, if I'm assured by connections that they are going to send a horse wiil I bet away from my method.

[pondman]

Lost the last 5 races? The computer doesn't care...it's going to pick the same horse in the next race using the same exact methodology as before. Unlike a human, you may be suffering emotionally from the losing streak, and may look to "switch things up a bit" in the next race,.

The key is having the correct method for your level of resources. Having a computer make selections isn't going to decrease the pain if the losing streak takes you on a roller coaster dive and you only recover your loses on a 50-1 shot. Most humans will require enough wins and reasonable odds, computer or no computer.

[Capper Al]

We have plans, systems, softwares, spreadsheets-- and then we have emotions and hunches. Hunches can be good, but they are difficult to separate from emotions.

[Jeff P]

The problem is one cannot anticipate all the variables ahead of time. This has happened to me on many occasions. I set up a plan with the tested criteria being that it either has to be A, B, or C. If A I bet at these odds. If B I bet at these odds. If C I don't play. I'll test this premise at least 20 or 30 times. Everything I tested it fits into categories A, B, or C only. Come race day I find myself looking at a possible D. I have no plan for D. What to do? Go with the A horse and ignore the D?

A random thought about the bolded part of the above quote...

I think all of us experience this. (At least I know I experience it.)

When play types A, B, and C aren't present in a clear way on race day - Why are we sometimes drawn to D?

What's the mechanism driving that? Player's instinct? Is it recognition of a pattern (one we haven't given much in the way of previous thought to) that the inner voice each of us sometimes hears is telling us needs to be paid attention to given the circumstances in front of us today?

Here's how I handle this:

I'll stick to proven play types A, B, and C on race day - but I'll also take note of D.

Then I'll follow up at some point in the next day or two and devote R&D time to D to see if anything might really be there.

I find this aspect of the game interesting because it's exactly how new methods of play (the next A, B, and C) are born.



-jp

.

[Capper Al]

A random thought about the bolded part of the above quote...

I think all of us experience this. (At least I know I experience it.)

When play types A, B, and C aren't present in a clear way on race day - Why are we sometimes drawn to D?

What's the mechanism driving that? Player's instinct? Is it recognition of a pattern (one we haven't given much in the way of previous thought to) that the inner voice each of us sometimes hears is telling us needs to be paid attention to given the circumstances in front of us today?

Here's how I handle this:

I'll stick to proven play types A, B, and C on race day - but I'll also take note of D.

Then I'll follow up at some point in the next day or two and devote R&D time to D to see if anything might really be there.

I find this aspect of the game interesting because it's exactly how new methods of play (the next A, B, and C) are born.



-jp

.

Agree.

[HUSKER55]

I agree as well. The one that always nails me is that I make a selection and throw out a horse and the next thing I see is the track has it as 3:5.

[raybo]

I see things like this in my latest program, more often than a simple case of "racing luck" would likely explain.

How, for example, can you have a field of horses, all of which have racing history, except 1 horse, who has none and somehow becomes the favorite, or has unusually low odds, and go on to win the race, easily?

This more often than not, is not a case of a hot jockey garnering all those bets, or a hot trainer, or a seemingly superior bloodline, or even a bullet work or 2.

One of the things I have done for years is to try to discover why a horse, all of a sudden, gets bet down dramatically. The reason is often one or more of the above cases. But, sometimes, there is just no reason to be found. When this situation occurs, and it occurs fairly often, I tend to pass the race, or if it's obvious that someone, or some "group" of bettors is "popping" the horse's odds, in increments, and at post time the horse's odds are in a particular odds range, I will use this horse as my win selection in the superfecta. These kinds of horses just win way too often to just be an "anomaly".

Research into these situations has been the answer, in my experience.

[Overlay]

I see things like this in my latest program, more often than a simple case of "racing luck" would likely explain.

How, for example, can you have a field of horses, all of which have racing history, except 1 horse, who has none and somehow becomes the favorite, or has unusually low odds, and go on to win the race, easily?

This more often than not, is not a case of a hot jockey garnering all those bets, or a hot trainer, or a seemingly superior bloodline, or even a bullet work or 2.

One of the things I have done for years is to try to discover why a horse, all of a sudden, gets bet down dramatically. The reason is often one or more of the above cases. But, sometimes, there is just no reason to be found. When this situation occurs, and it occurs fairly often, I tend to pass the race, or if it's obvious that someone, or some "group" of bettors is "popping" the horse's odds, in increments, and at post time the horse's odds are in a particular odds range, I will use this horse as my win selection in the superfecta. These kinds of horses just win way too often to just be an "anomaly".

Research into these situations has been the answer, in my experience.
Whatever the reason for the bet-down, Quirin found that, for two-year-old first-timers, odds below 6-1 were the best individual gauge as to the horse's chances. That support had to be coming from somewhere. First-timers at 6-1 or above won only 2.6% of the time.

[Dave Schwartz]

You will be very surprised at 2yr old FTS + Toteboard when you see it today.

It is not what you expect.

[Fingal]

I use my software to find playable races, cap and grade the race, and identify contenders.

After live odds updates, I use my judgement to create a betting plan.

That's about what I do. I use a couple programs to identify contenders & pace lines to break a race down to 4-6 entrants, run my own numbers for a final bet or pass decision & then consult the tote board to see if I'm getting an acceptable price on my choice.

I would never blindly bet a computer's top pick.

As Gordon Gekko said:
The most valuable commodity I know of is information.

[JohnGalt1]

The way I read and understand the survey question is yes, I always play the horse my method selects.

If a buddy says he likes another horse I'll look at my handicapping worksheet I've created and see if I missed something. Very rarely will I switch my bet. It's like when watching a show like the old Wall Street Week when one of the guests recommends a stock to buy. I would look up all the data I can find before considering buying.

Someone commented that they determine their bet size if they have an A, B, pr C horse.

I bet the full amount on a horse to win, regardless of odds -- minimum 3-1.

An old book I read stated, "If a horse is NOT worth betting at $20 (or your normal bet) then it is NOT worth betting at $2." I take that to mean that some will bet $20 on a 7-5, but bet only $5 on a 9-1, figuring the crowd must be right.

[HUSKER55]

John, I understand what you are saying and you are probably right. However, for me, 99% of my wins are under 10:1. so for me if the public says the horse has true odds of (say 15:1) it will definitely be a 1% payout for me.

Now if it is my top pick, it gets bet but if I am choosing between two horses I will go with the one in my strike zone.

[jerry-g]

Sometimes you cannot find one handicapping factor to say a horse has even the slightest chance of winning or even coming in next to last. A race I watched the other day, it looked like there were some really good chances in the field but one horse, I guess shipped over here in a crate, had poor information in past performance lines. Just finishes and no info on how the races were ran. Also, the jockey on board was a new one, just out of jockey school, I guess, so no win %. In the last ten starts, the horse never finished better than 4th and most were 7th or worse. Well, surprise...surprise...that horse came flying by all the others in the stretch and was so far in front that you could have gone for coffee and came back and still seen the place horse cross the line. The last workout this horse had was three weeks back and was not special. He was on 1st time la-six however. The horse went off at 50-1. Is it best to pass these races when we have one or more horses we can't figure due to lack of info?

[Capper Al]

Sometimes you cannot find one handicapping factor to say a horse has even the slightest chance of winning or even coming in next to last. A race I watched the other day, it looked like there were some really good chances in the field but one horse, I guess shipped over here in a crate, had poor information in past performance lines. Just finishes and no info on how the races were ran. Also, the jockey on board was a new one, just out of jockey school, I guess, so no win %. In the last ten starts, the horse never finished better than 4th and most were 7th or worse. Well, surprise...surprise...that horse came flying by all the others in the stretch and was so far in front that you could have gone for coffee and came back and still seen the place horse cross the line. The last workout this horse had was three weeks back and was not special. He was on 1st time la-six however. The horse went off at 50-1. Is it best to pass these races when we have one or more horses we can't figure due to lack of info?

Unfortunetly, passing the race would be the correct play. I place a $2.00 action bet when I find myself in this situation.

[Overlay]

Is it best to pass these races when we have one or more horses we can't figure due to lack of info?
That's always a sound available option. Races where horses have past performances with missing/incomplete information on things like fractional times or running positions, or "non-standard" data (such as Timeform ratings, rather than Beyers) make it harder for me to get a handle on the horse's winning chances. (Not to mention the possible effects on the horse if it has been shipped in for the race, particularly from overseas.)

[HUSKER55]

how many times have you looked at a horse in the parade and said "damn, that horse looks ready" and then bet it instead of your system?

any of you boys and girls have an edge in that department? I am with AL, $2 action bet and stick with my system. It is about 50-50 with me, (if I am in a good streak ;) )

[Robert Goren]

I have learned the hard way that if you have a system, you either bet it all the time or you don't bet it any of the time. There is no surer winner than a horse your system picked and you decide not to bet it for whatever reason. After you miss a couple of $100 winners, you learn your leason.

[thaskalos]

Sometimes you cannot find one handicapping factor to say a horse has even the slightest chance of winning or even coming in next to last. A race I watched the other day, it looked like there were some really good chances in the field but one horse, I guess shipped over here in a crate, had poor information in past performance lines. Just finishes and no info on how the races were ran. Also, the jockey on board was a new one, just out of jockey school, I guess, so no win %. In the last ten starts, the horse never finished better than 4th and most were 7th or worse. Well, surprise...surprise...that horse came flying by all the others in the stretch and was so far in front that you could have gone for coffee and came back and still seen the place horse cross the line. The last workout this horse had was three weeks back and was not special. He was on 1st time la-six however. The horse went off at 50-1. Is it best to pass these races when we have one or more horses we can't figure due to lack of info?
My friend, I will give you the "key" to more profitable play...which took me 20 years to fully realize.

You must pass races!

Many of them!

Most of the races we see do not deserve a wager...and the fact that we refuse to pass up on them reveals a major "leak" in our game, which prevents us from being the players we wish we could be.

Some races offer limited information on the horses involved, which makes it difficult for us to determine their ability; others contain several "unknown factors", which give us an uncomfortable feeling as we start to figure them out; and still others, while being exactly the types of races we love to play, feature too many contenders...and we have a hard time separating them.

PASS THEM ALL, I say...and concentrate on those races that DESERVE to be played.

In today's full-card simulcasting environment, there is no reason for us to bet on anything except the best wagering opportunities out there.

[raybo]

My friend, I will give you the "key" to more profitable play...which took me 20 years to fully realize.

You must pass races!

Many of them!

Most of the races we see do not deserve a wager...and the fact that we refuse to pass up on them reveals a major "leak" in our game, which prevents us from being the players we wish we could be.

Some races offer limited information on the horses involved, which makes it difficult for us to determine their ability; others contain several "unknown factors", which give us an uncomfortable feeling as we start to figure them out; and still others, while being exactly the types of races we love to play, feature too many contenders...and we have a hard time separating them.

PASS THEM ALL, I say...and concentrate on those races that DESERVE to be played.

In today's full-card simulcasting environment, there is no reason for us to bet on anything except the best wagering opportunities out there.

Well said! Totally agree, 100%.

If you can't be patient, for the right wagering opportunity, you might as well take out all the cash you brought with you, along with whatever you have available via debit/credit card, turn around and give it all to the nearest patron, then walk out. This will save you much wasted time and angst.

[thaskalos]

If you can't be patient, for the right wagering opportunity, you might as well take out all the cash you brought with you, along with whatever you have available via debit/credit card, turn around and give it all to the nearest patron, then walk out. This will save you much wasted time and angst.
I read it here, and it seems so obvious...

Why did it take me 20 years to fully realize it?

The game doesn't beat us. It just gives us the opportunity to beat ourselves.

And we readily oblige...

[raybo]

I read it here, and it seems so obvious...

Why did it take me 20 years to fully realize it?

The game doesn't beat us. It just gives us the opportunity to beat ourselves.

And we readily oblige...

I was fortunate to have a mentor over 30 years ago, when I was introduced to racing, that was adamant regarding looking for proper wagering opportunities, stating that the "public" loses money betting on every race, so, why follow them, if your goal is to make money, and not just throw it away?

[raybo]

These 3 things speak directly to the topic of the thread:

Patience, in the selection of wagering events/races.

Consistency, in your approach to handicapping and selecting quality contenders.

Discipline, in the strict adherence to a proven method of wagering value.

[Sinner369]

That's about what I do. I use a couple programs to identify contenders & pace lines to break a race down to 4-6 entrants, run my own numbers for a final bet or pass decision & then consult the tote board to see if I'm getting an acceptable price on my choice.

I would never blindly bet a computer's top pick.

As Gordon Gekko said:
The most valuable commodity I know of is information.


That's exactly what I did.......true example, last week, I played the Pick 4, got down to 4 contenders, threw out all the winners and was zero for 4 on all the legs.

A friend, had the same contenders, pick the right race to single and got the only ticket....paid over $3,000..........what can I say......take my lumps and try again...............!!!

[dlivery]

Sometimes you cannot find one handicapping factor to say a horse has even the slightest chance of winning or even coming in next to last. A race I watched the other day, it looked like there were some really good chances in the field but one horse, I guess shipped over here in a crate, had poor information in past performance lines. Just finishes and no info on how the races were ran. Also, the jockey on board was a new one, just out of jockey school, I guess, so no win %. In the last ten starts, the horse never finished better than 4th and most were 7th or worse. Well, surprise...surprise...that horse came flying by all the others in the stretch and was so far in front that you could have gone for coffee and came back and still seen the place horse cross the line. The last workout this horse had was three weeks back and was not special. He was on 1st time la-six however. The horse went off at 50-1. Is it best to pass these races when we have one or more horses we can't figure due to lack of info?

I believe this is the type of horse your refering to as they brought the horse out of the garage.
And tried the horse in garbage race

[jerry-g]

It was the seventh race at Tampa Bay Downs, a 10K claiming race. The horse had been brought over here from outside U.S.

[jerry-g]

I guess I should mention that it was on 12/22, seventh race. A $2 bet returned over $111 Tampa.

[Casino]

It was the seventh race at Tampa Bay Downs, a 10K claiming race. The horse had been brought over here from outside U.S.

At one point they thought highly enough of the horse to make his debut at Saratoga 2 years ago,the breeding is above average,but i agree tough horse to bet,on that note i will bet this horse when he wheels back.Mott was Starlighter's trainer in the states.