Polytheistic approach?

[Capper Al]

Turfway Ed and I interviewed the late Danny Holmes a few years back. If you are interested, the interview can be found at

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50961

In Danny Holmes book,

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Steps-Winning-Professional-Selecting/dp/0897091728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329218949&sr=8-1,

he discusses a mixed approach for selecting middle distance (7.5 furlongs to 8.3 furlongs) races. He picks them top class horse, top pace horse, and second best class horse in that order. In other words, not all class picks and not all pace picks. I call this the polytheistic approach.

There is some sense to it:

No one school of handicapping can explain everything.
One might get some good prices with an alternative approach to handicapping.
Comprehensive handicapping (add statistical weights for pace, class, trainer, etc.) could be like adding apples and oranges together to come up with your final selection.
Please speak up if you use a polytheistic approach and share your experience with us.

Thanks

[jdhanover]

Seems awfully simplistic in this day and age. As I delve further and further into computer handicapping (HSH user), I continue to be amazed at the complexity of the problem we are attacking.

I spent a couple of hours this past weekend on the phone with another HSH user going thru just a handful of races looking at many factors and combinations (there are literally 1000s in the program) of factors to look for value plays (as an aside, we did find a 28/1 shot at SA that finished 2d and likely wins if not for being interfered with around the first turn badly enough that the inquiry sign went up). Reinforced to me the need to analyze this game froma a wide variety of angles and that different races pose differnet situations and therefore require different approaches.

I think his the right general approach, but one needs to factor in much more than what he suggests.

[Robert Fischer]

Better off being intensive than extensive for most people, most of the time.


(and) among disciplined players with sound approaches, I am probably an odd-ball who believes more in extensive approach application than most all players, but being extensive and simplistic isn't a money-maker for me.

[pondman]

Reinforced to me the need to analyze this game froma a wide variety of angles and that different races pose differnet situations and therefore require different approaches.

More isn't always better. You could have 5 parameters or 10 parameters, and you'd still be limited to about 40% confidence in a horse. At that point you've got to get a price high enough to cover the 60% loss margin, or you've got to learn to pass, as Mr. Holmes suggests.

I'd rather see another handicapper read this book, rather than something as silly as a book on speed handicapping. If I wrote a book it would say, "Most past performances, and ratings are irrelevant."

As someone who spends most of my time analyzing class, and trying to understand motivation of Billionaires/ Millionaires (such as whether Toby Kieth is serious about Reckless Jerry on the 20th), I would dispute most general rating makers intra track class comparisons. Specific connections, at specific tracks, ship their horses to other tracks for a reason. It's dangerous to say, they ran well for 10,000 here, so they can win at 8,000 anywhere. And this is equivalent to that. Unless you add owner intent to handicapping, such as firing a trainer and moving a high dollar horse, your methods will be overly restrictive and observable by the crowd, meaning you'll get nothing back on your bet.

[thaskalos]

More isn't always better. You could have 5 parameters or 10 parameters, and you'd still be limited to about 40% confidence in a horse. At that point you've got to get a price high enough to cover the 60% loss margin, or you've got to learn to pass, as Mr. Holmes suggests.

I'd rather see another handicapper read this book, rather than something as silly as a book on speed handicapping. If I wrote a book it would say, "Most past performances, and ratings are irrelevant."

As someone who spends most of my time analyzing class, and trying to understand motivation of Billionaires/ Millionaires (such as whether Toby Kieth is serious about Reckless Jerry on the 20th), I would dispute most general rating makers intra track class comparisons. Specific connections, at specific tracks, ship their horses to other tracks for a reason. It's dangerous to say, they ran well for 10,000 here, so they can win at 8,000 anywhere. And this is equivalent to that. Unless you add owner intent to handicapping, such as firing a trainer and moving a high dollar horse, your methods will be overly restrictive and observable by the crowd, meaning you'll get nothing back on your bet.
See Pondman...here is the thing from what I have seen with you.

You have presented many unorthodox handicapping views on this game, and have made many unsubstantiated claims about having wild success while playing it...and no one has questioned you, or doubted your veracity.

And yet, you persist on pointing out to us the "silliness" of speed handicapping, and how transparent and restrictive this approach is...eventhough you clearly have no experience in the matter.

Why not extend the same courtesy to the "figure players" that they are extending you?

[ArlJim78]

so past performances and ratings are irrelevant, but trying to understand the motivations of people like Toby Keith is pertinent to picking winners? wow

[bob60566]

More isn't always better. You could have 5 parameters or 10 parameters, and you'd still be limited to about 40% confidence in a horse. At that point you've got to get a price high enough to cover the 60% loss margin, or you've got to learn to pass, as Mr. Holmes suggests.

I'd rather see another handicapper read this book, rather than something as silly as a book on speed handicapping. If I wrote a book it would say, "Most past performances, and ratings are irrelevant."

As someone who spends most of my time analyzing class, and trying to understand motivation of Billionaires/ Millionaires (such as whether Toby Kieth is serious about Reckless Jerry on the 20th), I would dispute most general rating makers intra track class comparisons. Specific connections, at specific tracks, ship their horses to other tracks for a reason. It's dangerous to say, they ran well for 10,000 here, so they can win at 8,000 anywhere. And this is equivalent to that. Unless you add owner intent to handicapping, such as firing a trainer and moving a high dollar horse, your methods will be overly restrictive and observable by the crowd, meaning you'll get nothing back on your bet.
You have a point by using the word most are irrelevant in your statement. Can you define the lines that are relevant to you and that might clear up your post.
Mac:)

[Capper Al]

OK, back to the topic. I would guess most of us are into a single method for a certain type of race. Let's say for simplicity one is a pace handicapper. Generally, their picks will be top pace horse, followed by second best pace horse, followed by third best pace horse. The same would be true for a class handicapper, or a speed handicapper, or a comprehensive player like myself. They pick them 1-2-3 based on their preferences. Yet no one handicapping method can explain every winner. So what was asked was does anyone use a mixture, say class, speed, and class? There is nothing simplistic about this. It might make good sense to do so.

[thaskalos]

OK, back to the topic. I would guess most of us are into a single method for a certain type of race. Let's say for simplicity one is a pace handicapper. Generally, their picks will be top pace horse, followed by second best pace horse, followed by third best pace horse. The same would be true for a class handicapper, or a speed handicapper, or a comprehensive player like myself. They pick them 1-2-3 based on their preferences. Yet no one handicapping method can explain every winner. So what was asked was does anyone use a mixture, say class, speed, and class? There is nothing simplistic about this. It might make good sense to do so.
Everybody uses a mixture , Al; you cannot be an one-dimensional handicapper and still hope to prevail in this game.

The speed and pace handicapper has to make sure his selection in not outclassed...while the class handicapper has to consider the "dynamics" of the race, to make sure that his "classy" choice doesn't have significant pace obstacles to overcome.

Our game is a lot like golf; you need more than one club in your bag if you want to be a threat...

[bob60566]

OK, back to the topic. I would guess most of us are into a single method for a certain type of race. Let's say for simplicity one is a pace handicapper. Generally, their picks will be top pace horse, followed by second best pace horse, followed by third best pace horse. The same would be true for a class handicapper, or a speed handicapper, or a comprehensive player like myself. They pick them 1-2-3 based on their preferences. Yet no one handicapping method can explain every winner. So what was asked was does anyone use a mixture, say class, speed, and class? There is nothing simplistic about this. It might make good sense to do so.

Al

Yes the single method is for me is understanding the last four pacelines at minor tracks and no workouts between races and being able to interpret the trainer intent and yes they play poker with pace lines very good .

Mac:)

[Dahoss9698]

...and no one has questioned you, or doubted your veracity.


This isn't true. ;)

[bob60566]

Everybody uses a mixture , Al; you cannot be an one-dimensional handicapper and still hope to prevail in this game.

The speed and pace handicapper has to make sure his selection in not outclassed...while the class handicapper has to consider the "dynamics" of the race, to make sure that his "classy" choice doesn't have significant pace obstacles to overcome.

Our game is a lot like golf; you need more than one club in your bag if you want to be a threat...

What course are you talking about????

Mac:confused:

[garyscpa]

Anyway, what's this comprehensive handicapping I've ben hearing about?

[windoor]

OK, back to the topic. I would guess most of us are into a single method for a certain type of race. Let's say for simplicity one is a pace handicapper. Generally, their picks will be top pace horse, followed by second best pace horse, followed by third best pace horse. The same would be true for a class handicapper, or a speed handicapper, or a comprehensive player like myself. They pick them 1-2-3 based on their preferences. Yet no one handicapping method can explain every winner. So what was asked was does anyone use a mixture, say class, speed, and class? There is nothing simplistic about this. It might make good sense to do so.




I do not believe any one method of handicapping can transcend all the different "types" of races that are out there.

I have been preaching this since I came to these boards, and I have not found anything that would change my mind on this belief as of yet.

Each Track, Surface, Distance, Class level, Age, Sex and Time of Year (The Seven) will require a different approach as to the values (the numbers have hinges) to whatever factor you consider to be of importance.

Some of these can not be known in advance, (true track variant, pace, owners intent, the actual trip around the race course,etc.) so you are left with a best guess, based on past performances.

Once you have an intimate knowledge of the seven, you can then apply handicapping factors that can single out a horse with an advantage. Your average hit rate and average odd will determine whether or not you can turn a profit.

I started my journey into database handicapping simply looking for tracks that would yield a profit with my current spot plays. I was very disappointed with the over all results at first glance. Some tracks were quite good, but most would not yield the profit I was expecting to see. Why?

When you choose a track, you are also choosing a geographical location and all that applies to it, in terms of weather, (dependant on time of year) Track layout, surface, a group of horses that run the circuit, a group of owners, trainers, jockeys and so on. A very important first choice, wouldn't you say?

I have leaned a lot more about the "seven" in my first year working with a database then I have in the last 20 years. It is much more complicated then I first thought. There are indeed many, many combinations to take into consideration, and none will work all the time at all tracks and types of races. At least, I have not found one yet. I truly believe such a thing does not exist, at least not long term.

I have now stated a research program that will take each track and time of year as a starting point. Then run my factor set for each of the other seven (and combinations of) to see which Key factor shows an advantage by itself. Then move on to a combination of primary and secondary factors to see if helps the bottom line historically. I will need at least three (Probably five) years of data, and many hundreds (if not thousands) of hours to complete it. I should live so long.

I have been criticized for my approach, but consider the reverse. If you could get a computer program to pick the same horse as you would (regardless of method) and it historically showed you that it would not turn a profit, why on earth would you consider risking a bankroll on it.

In my opinion, most all accomplished handicappers could turn a profit if they would simply follow these rules. Divide by seven, Patience, Discipline, survive the losing streak.

And I guess I should add this: As always IMHO.

Regards,

Windoor

[Capper Al]

Getting close to the topic. We're beginning to focus here. What I am looking for is someone whose top pick is from method A, second pick method B, and third pick from either A, B, or C. The point is that at least two or more methods are being used to select horses. The sense to this is that by not committing to only one method, they are experiencing a higher ROI than if they went with only one method. Any takers?

P.S.

Consider, for example, how many times one looks back at a race and says the only thing the winner had was .......? If you are a pace capper, you might say after the race, the only thing the winner had was class. If you are a class handicapper, you might say after the race, the only thing the winner had was speed. Now consider playing with a diverse selection method where you had the top pace included with your top class horse in your top three picks. Might you cash more winners? Hit more exactas? This is the discussion here.

[Capper Al]

Everybody uses a mixture , Al; you cannot be an one-dimensional handicapper and still hope to prevail in this game.

The speed and pace handicapper has to make sure his selection in not outclassed...while the class handicapper has to consider the "dynamics" of the race, to make sure that his "classy" choice doesn't have significant pace obstacles to overcome.

Our game is a lot like golf; you need more than one club in your bag if you want to be a threat...

I handicap this way too as probably a lot of people do. It's kind of like zeroing in on the bull's eye. What I'm suggesting is a radical approach different from the mainstream. Instead of averaging the attributes for a total score, going by the most strongest attributes like top speed and top class instead of a little speed plus a little class equals the top pick.

[Capper Al]

Al

Yes the single method is for me is understanding the last four pacelines at minor tracks and no workouts between races and being able to interpret the trainer intent and yes they play poker with pace lines very good .

Mac:)

Interesting. They do play poker well. I like the second episode of Luck where the trainer put front leg bandages on his horse to discourge others from claiming him. Reading through the PP lines is difficult.

[Capper Al]

Anyway, what's this comprehensive handicapping I've ben hearing about?

Comprehensive handicapping is assigning values for attributes such as pace, speed, class, form, connections, whatever you wish to follow etc-- then adding these values up. The horse with the highest value is your top pick. The horse with the second highest value is your second pick, etc. Most computer programs do this or something similar to come up with THE NUMBER that they go by.

By contrast, paper and pencil handicappers usually use various ways to narrow down the field to contenders and then apply the highest pace or the highest class or the horse with the most marks on different attributes, or something similar.

And, of course, there are hybrids of both methods.

[Capper Al]

I do not believe any one method of handicapping can transcend all the different "types" of races that are out there.

I have been preaching this since I came to these boards, and I have not found anything that would change my mind on this belief as of yet.

Each Track, Surface, Distance, Class level, Age, Sex and Time of Year (The Seven) will require a different approach as to the values (the numbers have hinges) to whatever factor you consider to be of importance.

Some of these can not be known in advance, (true track variant, pace, owners intent, the actual trip around the race course,etc.) so you are left with a best guess, based on past performances.

Once you have an intimate knowledge of the seven, you can then apply handicapping factors that can single out a horse with an advantage. Your average hit rate and average odd will determine whether or not you can turn a profit.

I started my journey into database handicapping simply looking for tracks that would yield a profit with my current spot plays. I was very disappointed with the over all results at first glance. Some tracks were quite good, but most would not yield the profit I was expecting to see. Why?

When you choose a track, you are also choosing a geographical location and all that applies to it, in terms of weather, (dependant on time of year) Track layout, surface, a group of horses that run the circuit, a group of owners, trainers, jockeys and so on. A very important first choice, wouldn't you say?

I have leaned a lot more about the "seven" in my first year working with a database then I have in the last 20 years. It is much more complicated then I first thought. There are indeed many, many combinations to take into consideration, and none will work all the time at all tracks and types of races. At least, I have not found one yet. I truly believe such a thing does not exist, at least not long term.

I have now stated a research program that will take each track and time of year as a starting point. Then run my factor set for each of the other seven (and combinations of) to see which Key factor shows an advantage by itself. Then move on to a combination of primary and secondary factors to see if helps the bottom line historically. I will need at least three (Probably five) years of data, and many hundreds (if not thousands) of hours to complete it. I should live so long.

I have been criticized for my approach, but consider the reverse. If you could get a computer program to pick the same horse as you would (regardless of method) and it historically showed you that it would not turn a profit, why on earth would you consider risking a bankroll on it.

In my opinion, most all accomplished handicappers could turn a profit if they would simply follow these rules. Divide by seven, Patience, Discipline, survive the losing streak.

And I guess I should add this: As always IMHO.

Regards,

Windoor

I'm with you. After I finish my software application, that's where I'm going. Follow that data. Maybe you can start another thread on this topic. I'm not there yet.

[windoor]

Getting close to the topic. We're beginning to focus here. What I am looking for is someone whose top pick is from method A, second pick method B, and third pick from either A, B, or C. The point is that at least two or more methods are being used to select horses. The sense to this is that by not committing to only one method, they are experiencing a higher ROI than if they went with only one method. Any takers?

P.S.

Consider, for example, how many times one looks back at a race and says the only thing the winner had was .......? If you are a pace capper, you might say after the race, the only thing the winner had was class. If you are a class handicapper, you might say after the race, the only thing the winner had was speed. Now consider playing with a diverse selection method where you had the top pace included with your top class horse in your top three picks. Might you cash more winners? Hit more exactas? This is the discussion here.


Ok, I get it.

The A, B, C method.

I illustrated something similar some time ago.

Lets say you are an interested investor, but knew nothing of handicapping.
You always had a seat behind three successful handicappers and can look over their shoulder to see their selections.

Lets say handicapper A was a speed handicapper, B was a Pace handicapper and C was a class handicapper.

They often are on different horses, but all are profitable.

Which opinion would you use to place your wager?

The answer is all three.

I do the same with my spot plays. I never really know which one will win or when.

I do know that historically all will show a profit over time. So each has it's own supporting bank, and I am often on more than one horse in the race.

I found this some years ago, when my dad sent me to the track to play his system. I would look for the A horse as it had the best win percent. If none were found I went to the B horse to plays this. Again if none were in the race I would go to C or Pass the race.

After about six weeks the bank went bust. A review of the races showed all were profitable by themselves, but sometimes the B horse would beat the A, or the C horse (usually at a higher odd) would best the A and/or the B horse.

It all comes down to doing your homework and validating the plays.

Regards,

Windoor

[Aner]

There is merit in single factor handicapping. When you search for the best horse combining several approaches (like speed, pace, recent form, class) most likely you have zeroed in on one of the favorites. If you consider the best horse in any one approach, you can usually find a long shot. The goal is to make money, not have the most winners.

[thaskalos]

Here is what I think most players do when they handicap:

They start off by eliminating the non-contenders...and they do this by using a "cliff notes" version of comprehensive handicapping.

They will eliminate the outclassed horses...unless they display extra-sharp form.

They eliminate the horses who have been running rough-looking recent races...unless these horses are dropping sharply in class, in which case they may warrant a second look.

And then they use speed figures to eliminate those horses who are obviously much slower than the others in the race.

And now they reach a point where the race is reduced to about 4-5 contenders...and this is when the "real" handicapping begins.

The player who fancies himself to be a "speed" handicapper will now focus his attention on the speed figures of the remaining contenders...hoping to identify certain "patterns", which might reveal what speed figure these horses are likely to run today.

The "class" handicapper will concentrate on the quality of the fields that these contenders have recently been competing against...hoping to discover certain hidden discrepencies, which are not apparent to the masses.

The "pace" handicapper will isolate on what the race's "pace bias" might be...and which horses will be helped or hurt by it.

And the "form" player will be more concerned with the form cycles of these horses...hoping to spot the improving or declining horses, and making the needed adjustments either way.

Their final opinion might be shaped by a particular factor...but they employ certain "comprehensive" guidelines at the start of the handicapping process, to make sure that their contenders meet the general conditions of today's race.

Of course, their ultimate success will depend on how competent they are in determining "cause and effect"...how expert they are in their handicapping factor of choice...and how well they handle their money, especially under pressure.

To call yourself a "speed and pace" handicapper is one thing...

To outplay the OTHER speed and pace handicappers out there...that's what this game is really about.

[Capper Al]

There is merit in single factor handicapping. When you search for the best horse combining several approaches (like speed, pace, recent form, class) most likely you have zeroed in on one of the favorites. If you consider the best horse in any one approach, you can usually find a long shot. The goal is to make money, not have the most winners.

You might be able to do both, pick more winners and make more money with a diverse system. If you are lucky you could cash when a pace or a class horse wins instead of limiting to wins to only when a pace horse wins. No doubt this will be difficult to implement.

[Capper Al]

Here is what I think most players do when they handicap:

They start off by eliminating the non-contenders...and they do this by using a "cliff notes" version of comprehensive handicapping.

They will eliminate the outclassed horses...unless they display extra-sharp form.

They eliminate the horses who have been running rough-looking recent races...unless these horses are dropping sharply in class, in which case they may warrant a second look.

And then they use speed figures to eliminate those horses who are obviously much slower than the others in the race.

And now they reach a point where the race is reduced to about 4-5 contenders...and this is when the "real" handicapping begins.

The player who fancies himself to be a "speed" handicapper will now focus his attention on the speed figures of the remaining contenders...hoping to identify certain "patterns", which might reveal what speed figure these horses are likely to run today.

The "class" handicapper will concentrate on the quality of the fields that these contenders have recently been competing against...hoping to discover certain hidden discrepencies, which are not apparent to the masses.

The "pace" handicapper will isolate on what the race's "pace bias" might be...and which horses will be helped or hurt by it.

And the "form" player will be more concerned with the form cycles of these horses...hoping to spot the improving or declining horses, and making the needed adjustments either way.

Their final opinion might be shaped by a particular factor...but they employ certain "comprehensive" guidelines at the start of the handicapping process, to make sure that their contenders meet the general conditions of today's race.

Of course, their ultimate success will depend on how competent they are in determining "cause and effect"...how expert they are in their handicapping factor of choice...and how well they handle their money, especially under pressure.

To call yourself a "speed and pace" handicapper is one thing...

To outplay the OTHER speed and pace handicappers out there...that's what this game is really about.

Agree. Yet what we are considering is what if at the end instead of going with the best speed horses-- one takes the best pace, the best class, and the best speed horse for their top three picks?

[Dave Schwartz]

Divide by "SEVEN"

Windoor,

Can you explain this please?

[bob60566]

Agree. Yet what we are considering is what if at the end instead of going with the best speed horses-- one takes the best pace, the best class, and the best speed horse for their top three picks?
Would it not be easier to buy Thorough Graph or better still use Bris power picks selections on the all four classes, Three selected for each class.
Mac:)

[thaskalos]

Agree. Yet what we are considering is what if at the end instead of going with the best speed horses-- one takes the best pace, the best class, and the best speed horse for their top three picks?

Would you mind telling me how you would go about determining who the best pace and the best class horses are?

[windoor]

Windoor,

Can you explain this please?


I am under the belief that you can not handicap all races with the same factor set and/or values.

The original question as I understand it now, was to determine which factor (s) were of more importance for a race. Speed, Class and pace were given as examples. Could you combined them to come up with a power number? Yes, but this most often will land you on a low odd horse.

My answer is: It depends. On the Track, Surface, Class, Distance, Age of horse, Sex, and time of year. The "SEVEN"

To put in simply, I handicap a 5K claimer much differently that I would a 25K claimer.

To make it more complicated. I handicap a 5K claimer for NW2 for fillies and mares at 1 mile and1/16 at Philly on the dirt in the fourth quarter of the year, differently than the same horse if it was running at Pimilco in the Spring. Or running a shorter distance, or running at a higher class level. ETC. ETC.

Some factors remain the same with the same value for many types of races. Other factors (or their values) change dramatically from one "Type" of race to another. From one track to another, Surface, etc. (the numbers have hinges)

I heard it said every race is unique. I disagree, but there are many, many different kinds of races. It has taken me most of the year to get the values for most North American tracks for claimers from 5K to 16K. I rarely play anything else at the moment. There is much work to be done.

Regards,

Windoor

[Tom]

Read Quirin's chapter on outcome scenarios in his second book, I think.
then assign probabilities to the various possibilities.

[windoor]

Read Quirin's chapter on outcome scenarios in his second book, I think.
then assign probabilities to the various possibilities.

For better or worse, I have never read a book on handicapping.

This may be why I have a unique outlook on the game. It is also why most everyone here, are light years ahead of me on the finer points of speed, pace and class.

Ray has some interesting ideas on his new handicapping system over at AllData. I get about halfway through one of his explanations and my eyes glaze over. HUH?? You can't participate if you don't understand the language.

There is a reason, I hardly ever post on these types of threads. I don't know anything about them :) Learning ever so slowly.

Regards,

Windoor

[raybo]

Turfway Ed and I interviewed the late Danny Holmes a few years back. If you are interested, the interview can be found at

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50961

In Danny Holmes book,

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Steps-Winning-Professional-Selecting/dp/0897091728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329218949&sr=8-1,

he discusses a mixed approach for selecting middle distance (7.5 furlongs to 8.3 furlongs) races. He picks them top class horse, top pace horse, and second best class horse in that order. In other words, not all class picks and not all pace picks. I call this the polytheistic approach.

There is some sense to it:

No one school of handicapping can explain everything.
One might get some good prices with an alternative approach to handicapping.
Comprehensive handicapping (add statistical weights for pace, class, trainer, etc.) could be like adding apples and oranges together to come up with your final selection.
Please speak up if you use a polytheistic approach and share your experience with us.

Thanks

AllData RS doesn't mix in traditional "class", but it does select horses with different running styles in it's win contenders. There could be up to 3 different running styles as win contenders in a race. You could have 1 E horse, 1 E/P horse, and 1 S horse, or any other combination of the 4 basic running styles.

I don't know if this is a "polytheistic approach" but it sure covers all the bases.

[raybo]

In the distant past I was a pace and form handicapper, my pace work derived "class" for me, so you could say pace/class and form handicapping.

Being a pace handicapper, as Al stated, often meant the player looked for the best "pace" horse, meaning best horse at the pace call, but my pace handicapping evolved from best at the pace call to best pace at various calls, depending on the distance and surface. This evolution was better than what I had been doing, but I knew something was missing.

That missing part was running styles and probable pace of the race. When I started using Randy Giles PPG and combined it with Quirin points, things started popping out at me. The original PPG method was far too simplistic, and Quirin points didn't measure early speed, it measured tendency to try for the early lead, or to press the early lead. So, I now needed to know whether, for instance, an E or E/P, or even a P horse had enough early speed to get the lead without expending too much energy early. I needed to know which horses were likely to compete early (races within a race). The PPG and Quirin points wasn't telling me that accurately enough, so I added fractional velocities from adjusted fractional times.

That last addition really cleared things up a lot. I also decided that "early" or "late" wasn't enough of a projected pace shape, so I separated all the possible PPG scenarios into groups, created a database for recent races at a particular track, filtered those races by their PPG group, then filtered each of those "groups" by all the possible Quirin points, and aggregated that data into a summary, for each of those PPG groups. This told me what percentages of winners, in a particular group were winning at each of the 4 running styles and the range of Quirin points they had.

This became my "elimination" method in RS, combined with 1st and 2nd fractional velocities, which pointed to "races within a race".

What really surprised me was that the remaining non-eliminated win contenders represented more than 1 running style, and their best velocities happened at different sections of the race. Another surprise was that any of them could win the race. So, what to do on the wager side?

The answer was bet them all, if they had high enough odds to more than pay for the total wagered amount. Since I decided that the top 3 final contenders were winning most of the races, I decided on 3/1 odds as the minmum for betting those final contenders. It works extremely well and you are covering a good percentage of the possible pace scenarios that might occur.

So, this method is, indeed, a very dynamic and multifaceted approach.

I agree with most that there is no "one way" to handicap races, that is too static. What is needed is an approach that morphs according to the race type, conditions, and competitors.

[raybo]

For better or worse, I have never read a book on handicapping.

This may be why I have a unique outlook on the game. It is also why most everyone here, are light years ahead of me on the finer points of speed, pace and class.

Ray has some interesting ideas on his new handicapping system over at AllData. I get about halfway through one of his explanations and my eyes glaze over. HUH?? You can't participate if you don't understand the language.

There is a reason, I hardly ever post on these types of threads. I don't know anything about them :) Learning ever so slowly.

Regards,

Windoor

Is it bad explanations by me :p , or are you trying to take it all in at once? :sleeping:

I've always done better, in understanding things, when I break them down into bite sized chunks, making sure I understand each chunk before moving to the next. I guess that's why I use so much punctuation in my posts, trying to let readers absorb a phrase, statement, or paragraph before moving on.

And when all else fails you can always ask "What the hell are you talking about!" :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

That missing part was running styles and probable pace of the race. When I started using Randy Giles PPG and combined it with Quirin points, things started popping out at me. The original PPG method was far too simplistic, and Quirin points didn't measure early speed, it measured tendency to try for the early lead, or to press the early lead. So, I now needed to know whether, for instance, an E or E/P, or even a P horse had enough early speed to get the lead without expending too much energy early. I needed to know which horses were likely to compete early (races within a race). The PPG and Quirin points wasn't telling me that accurately enough, so I added fractional velocities from adjusted fractional times.

That last addition really cleared things up a lot. I also decided that "early" or "late" wasn't enough of a projected pace shape, so I separated all the possible PPG scenarios into groups, created a database for recent races at a particular track, filtered those races by their PPG group, then filtered each of those "groups" by all the possible Quirin points, and aggregated that data into a summary, for each of those PPG groups. This told me what percentages of winners, in a particular group were winning at each of the 4 running styles and the range of Quirin points they had.

This became my "elimination" method in RS, combined with 1st and 2nd fractional velocities, which pointed to "races within a race".

What really surprised me was that the remaining non-eliminated win contenders represented more than 1 running style, and their best velocities happened at different sections of the race. Another surprise was that any of them could win the race. So, what to do on the wager side?

The answer was bet them all, if they had high enough odds to more than pay for the total wagered amount. Since I decided that the top 3 final contenders were winning most of the races, I decided on 3/1 odds as the minmum for betting those final contenders. It works extremely well and you are covering a good percentage of the possible pace scenarios that might occur.

So, this method is, indeed, a very dynamic and multifaceted approach.

You just described almost perfectly, my usage of NewPace.

About the only thing different is the use of Early Speed points, which I do not use in NP.

Dave

[Capper Al]

:eek: Would you mind telling me how you would go about determining who the best pace and the best class horses are?

I'm leaving this part open. How a person does it isn't the issue here. What we are looking for is breaking away from handicapping from within a myopic view, being diverse instead. Being diverse suggest that a pace horse, a class horse, and a speed horse might make our top three instead of the top three pace horses if you happen to be a pace handicapper.

To answer your question, I use Giles' extreme pace and BRIS class ratings. And I am myopic in that I use my top three comprehensive picks. I don't use a diverse method myself. I was hoping to engage in dialog with someone who might have experience with this. What would an ROI look like playing diverse exacta boxes verse using only one method?

[Capper Al]

Would it not be easier to buy Thorough Graph or better still use Bris power picks selections on the all four classes, Three selected for each class.
Mac:)

If I read this correctly, I'm hearing a particular method being suggested. What I'm looking for is some who would do BOTH Thorough Graph AND BRIS power picks not OR. A method isn't the issue here. Using multiple methods is. That's why I call it polytheistic as in many Gods. Gods being systems or methods here.

[Capper Al]

I am under the belief that you can not handicap all races with the same factor set and/or values.

The original question as I understand it now, was to determine which factor (s) were of more importance for a race. Speed, Class and pace were given as examples. Could you combined them to come up with a power number? Yes, but this most often will land you on a low odd horse.

My answer is: It depends. On the Track, Surface, Class, Distance, Age of horse, Sex, and time of year. The "SEVEN"

To put in simply, I handicap a 5K claimer much differently that I would a 25K claimer.

To make it more complicated. I handicap a 5K claimer for NW2 for fillies and mares at 1 mile and1/16 at Philly on the dirt in the fourth quarter of the year, differently than the same horse if it was running at Pimilco in the Spring. Or running a shorter distance, or running at a higher class level. ETC. ETC.

Some factors remain the same with the same value for many types of races. Other factors (or their values) change dramatically from one "Type" of race to another. From one track to another, Surface, etc. (the numbers have hinges)

I heard it said every race is unique. I disagree, but there are many, many different kinds of races. It has taken me most of the year to get the values for most North American tracks for claimers from 5K to 16K. I rarely play anything else at the moment. There is much work to be done.

Regards,

Windoor

This is my ultimate handicaping goal. So much work, so little time.

[Capper Al]

Read Quirin's chapter on outcome scenarios in his second book, I think.
then assign probabilities to the various possibilities.

What's Quirin's second book?

[Capper Al]

AllData RS doesn't mix in traditional "class", but it does select horses with different running styles in it's win contenders. There could be up to 3 different running styles as win contenders in a race. You could have 1 E horse, 1 E/P horse, and 1 S horse, or any other combination of the 4 basic running styles.

I don't know if this is a "polytheistic approach" but it sure covers all the bases.

I look at off-pace horses coming in the top three also. This is a step toward mixing them up a bit. And I have been surprised on several occasions that the off-pace have won. They win more than would be expected. This is mixing them up with a single method. Good point.

Thanks

[Capper Al]

In the distant past I was a pace and form handicapper, my pace work derived "class" for me, so you could say pace/class and form handicapping.

Being a pace handicapper, as Al stated, often meant the player looked for the best "pace" horse, meaning best horse at the pace call, but my pace handicapping evolved from best at the pace call to best pace at various calls, depending on the distance and surface. This evolution was better than what I had been doing, but I knew something was missing.

That missing part was running styles and probable pace of the race. When I started using Randy Giles PPG and combined it with Quirin points, things started popping out at me. The original PPG method was far too simplistic, and Quirin points didn't measure early speed, it measured tendency to try for the early lead, or to press the early lead. So, I now needed to know whether, for instance, an E or E/P, or even a P horse had enough early speed to get the lead without expending too much energy early. I needed to know which horses were likely to compete early (races within a race). The PPG and Quirin points wasn't telling me that accurately enough, so I added fractional velocities from adjusted fractional times.

That last addition really cleared things up a lot. I also decided that "early" or "late" wasn't enough of a projected pace shape, so I separated all the possible PPG scenarios into groups, created a database for recent races at a particular track, filtered those races by their PPG group, then filtered each of those "groups" by all the possible Quirin points, and aggregated that data into a summary, for each of those PPG groups. This told me what percentages of winners, in a particular group were winning at each of the 4 running styles and the range of Quirin points they had.

This became my "elimination" method in RS, combined with 1st and 2nd fractional velocities, which pointed to "races within a race".

What really surprised me was that the remaining non-eliminated win contenders represented more than 1 running style, and their best velocities happened at different sections of the race. Another surprise was that any of them could win the race. So, what to do on the wager side?

The answer was bet them all, if they had high enough odds to more than pay for the total wagered amount. Since I decided that the top 3 final contenders were winning most of the races, I decided on 3/1 odds as the minmum for betting those final contenders. It works extremely well and you are covering a good percentage of the possible pace scenarios that might occur.

So, this method is, indeed, a very dynamic and multifaceted approach.

I agree with most that there is no "one way" to handicap races, that is too static. What is needed is an approach that morphs according to the race type, conditions, and competitors.

Excellent, so much so that I printed your post out for later reading. I do similar stuff. It is a bit of mixing it up. You use Giles, Quirin, and Sartin (average velocity) within pace. Again it is within the realm of pace. Are you not surprised when a horse with only class defeats your pace horses?

[Tom]

What's Quirin's second book?
It's the one where he introduced pace figures, in the back, after the section about marking the form, and answering three questions about the race.

Actually, the Outcome Scenario stuff came from Quinn, in his High Tech handicapping book, around pages 32 or so. Both have logical possibilities for the outcome of a race.

[Overlay]

What's Quirin's second book?
I believe that the title was Thoroughbred Handicapping: State of the Art.

[Tom]

That's the one.

[raybo]

Excellent, so much so that I printed your post out for later reading. I do similar stuff. It is a bit of mixing it up. You use Giles, Quirin, and Sartin (average velocity) within pace. Again it is within the realm of pace. Are you not surprised when a horse with only class defeats your pace horses?

"Class" is too ambiguous, for me "pace analysis" is "class" analysis. There are really 2 types of "class", objective and subjective. Objective is readily obtained by numbers or letters, etc.., while subjective is not, rather, it is obtained by "knowing the horse", visually, via in person observation, videos, etc., how a horse behaves among other horses, what his competitive temperament is, what his physical and mental attributes advantage or disadvantage, regarding performance characteristics, etc..

Pace analysis teamed with positional analysis tells me enough about a horse's class, that I don't need to use man made class levels nor do I need to visually study a horse, or be at morning workouts or in the paddock, in person. As a "computer player", this is huge.

[Capper Al]

"Class" is too ambiguous, for me "pace analysis" is "class" analysis. There are really 2 types of "class", objective and subjective. Objective is readily obtained by numbers or letters, etc.., while subjective is not, rather, it is obtained by "knowing the horse", visually, via in person observation, videos, etc., how a horse behaves among other horses, what his competitive temperament is, what his physical and mental attributes advantage or disadvantage, regarding performance characteristics, etc..

Pace analysis teamed with positional analysis tells me enough about a horse's class, that I don't need to use man made class levels nor do I need to visually study a horse, or be at morning workouts or in the paddock, in person. As a "computer player", this is huge.

OK, did you ever look back as a pace player and say-- well the winner had the best speed if not pace?

[thaskalos]

OK, did you ever look back as a pace player and say-- well the winner had the best speed if not pace?
Al, I know what you are asking...but it's unrealistic, IMO.

No pace handicapper would ever consider blindly accepting the top "class" horse and the top "speed" horse as his main picks in a race.

That's why we became pace handicappers; we distrust speed figures and class designations.

To the pace handicapper...PACE makes the race. How can he blindly accept the top class and the top speed-figure horse as his picks in a race, if they contradict his philosophy about the game?

[raybo]

OK, did you ever look back as a pace player and say-- well the winner had the best speed if not pace?

As Thaskalos stated, I don't look at speed figures or pace figures, and I definitely don't look at class designations, restrictions, claiming prices, purse values, breeding, APV, win %, ITM %, or weights.

I work with the raw fractional times, the drf track variant, and beaten lengths, using all 3 plus my variable beaten lengths multiplier method, to adjust the raw times, then I convert those to fractional velocities.

[Robert Fischer]

Al, I know what you are asking...but it's unrealistic, IMO.

No pace handicapper would ever consider blindly accepting the top "class" horse and the top "speed" horse as his main picks in a race.

That's why we became pace handicappers; we distrust speed figures and class designations.

To the pace handicapper...PACE makes the race. How can he blindly accept the top class and the top speed-figure horse as his picks in a race, if they contradict his philosophy about the game?

I think Al's approach could work well with beginning-level players who were using the bris pps.
Would be especially useful if the players were taught to choose the best 2 out of 5(or whatever) ratings that applied to the specific distance and surface (perhaps a glance at the track bias stats or a general reference to surface and distance).

For more advanced players I think it would be bad for a large amount of reasons. The caveat would be if the method happened to fit well to your style - then who is to disagree!

[Tom]

That's why we became pace handicappers; we distrust speed figures and class designations.

Not true at all.
I am more of a pace handicapper than anything, but I pay a great deal of attention to class, and I don't ignore speed figures. I pay attention to trainers and jockeys as well. I use pace to separate logical contenders.

[thaskalos]

Not true at all.
I am more of a pace handicapper than anything, but I pay a great deal of attention to class, and I don't ignore speed figures. I pay attention to trainers and jockeys as well. I use pace to separate logical contenders.
I am a pace handicapper too Tom, and, although I don't ignore class and speed figures...those concepts mean nothing to me unless they are viewed within the concept of pace.

The fact that a horse has the best speed figure means nothing to me in and of itself.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don't have the technical abilities to do things via computer so I have had to adjust everything I do around that.I have gone through the Beyer,Quirin,Brohamer,Sartin,Giles progression and have added a few things,so I fairly well understand where everybody is coming from.

I use form,class,speed,probable pace,and actual pace.Plus my versions of E/P,L/P,and ability times.

Class is being swept under the rug a little IMO.I have heard people say class is?? but there is no actual class and I've heard Randy Giles and Jim Bradshaw say there is no such thing as bias.I think both notions are right and wrong to some extent.When you look at allowance and stakes fields there are horses that outclass the conditions.Then there are horses exiting key races,horses who have matched up with another classier horse who was dropping and went on to better things,then horses exiting the fastest pace races.All are forms of class.Below the allowance level I would qualify class horses as droppers or who have only lost once or twice at the level.And they don't have to have a FF pace on their side.Mark Cramer did a class dropper study that stated 68% of droppers increased their figure by an average of 7 points and that included the 29% of horses whose figures declined.These realities are ignored in general just as 2nd starters and their routine improvements of 8-13 speed points are.Speed vs better is class.Faster pace is class,and droppers a notch below the top figure horses in a race also represent class.

The pace picture to me is the best method of probable pace for the non tech able,like myself.It's a great starting point.Verifying with CJ's figures who can survive a likely crowded or blistering pace and what closers can finish vs that faster pace is all I can manage with my lack of computer skills.Using Jim Bradshaw's matchup concept with actual speed and pace figures works very well.The only thing I can't do is use all 3 of my compund ratings.I used to use the DRF variant and adjust times as Raybo does but it was too tedious to do by hand.My compund rating which worked well in practice were very simple;

EP=1st fr + 2nd FR

LP=2nd call + 2nd half

Ability Time=EP + LP

I ca still do the first but not the 2nd or 3rd.I think the LP rating is better than the formula in Brohamer's book because it includes the turn time so it doesn't give 1 run closers too much credit.I can't do anything else with this.Plus I'd like to figure out a way to use the information in Quinn's last chapter in "Figure Hanicapping" on turf figures.I'm at a wall regarding pace.I have to do end arounds about what you guys are talking about.But I do feel I have a pretty good understanding of races.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Not true at all.
I am more of a pace handicapper than anything, but I pay a great deal of attention to class, and I don't ignore speed figures. I pay attention to trainers and jockeys as well. I use pace to separate logical contenders.

Me too and within each running style.

[Capper Al]

Tom Ainslie in one of his books tells the story of the man that drown when his friend told to cross the river and not worry because the average depth was only 5 feet. This might at sound like it's missing the point, but when we choose a method on a single factor we are saying that our pace figure or class figure or speed figure of our pick should be better than the average pace or class or speed and, therefore, should win. They're betting on it. They ignore the fact when they loss on their pace pick that the class handicapper is cashing or visa versa. The make-up of the three horses may not be explained by a single system, and is probably not. What is needed is research.

[Capper Al]

I think Al's approach could work well with beginning-level players who were using the bris pps.
Would be especially useful if the players were taught to choose the best 2 out of 5(or whatever) ratings that applied to the specific distance and surface (perhaps a glance at the track bias stats or a general reference to surface and distance).

For more advanced players I think it would be bad for a large amount of reasons. The caveat would be if the method happened to fit well to your style - then who is to disagree!

It's not my approach. I'm a one system player like most. But I would agree that it would be a good approach for a beginner. They can learn what works (pace, class, speed, etc.) and, better yet, how it works.

[Capper Al]

Al, I know what you are asking...but it's unrealistic, IMO.

No pace handicapper would ever consider blindly accepting the top "class" horse and the top "speed" horse as his main picks in a race.

That's why we became pace handicappers; we distrust speed figures and class designations.

To the pace handicapper...PACE makes the race. How can he blindly accept the top class and the top speed-figure horse as his picks in a race, if they contradict his philosophy about the game?

Wait no one said blindly here. Let's say after eliminations that we pick our contenders from multiple schools of though instead of just one. Would our ROI increase? Would we hit some surprises with exactas?

[Capper Al]

One last approach could fit in here, and some of you might be using it. Some players wait for their shot and then key box it with the first and second favorites in an exacta. I actually tested this, and it does well. I don't use it, but may be reconsidering it once my database gets going if it proves positive again.

[raybo]

Wait no one said blindly here. Let's say after eliminations that we pick our contenders from multiple schools of though instead of just one. Would our ROI increase? Would we hit some surprises with exactas?

Wouldn't this depend on what your "multiple schools of thought" are based on? If you use, for example, Bris Prime Power, last Beyers, best Beyers, etc., your ROI might decrease.

[Dave Schwartz]

What, exactly, do you mean by "Polytheistic approach" approach, anyway?


Dave

[Capper Al]

Wouldn't this depend on what your "multiple schools of thought" are based on? If you use, for example, Bris Prime Power, last Beyers, best Beyers, etc., your ROI might decrease.

It's more about not caring what the characteristic of the top favorites are, if the crowd sees something in them then they are good enough. What this holds on to is the premise that it is outside of the handicapper's system's vision. Instead of knowing the other characteristics, they are accepted as unknown. This won't be popular here, but some do it and do it successfully. It's just good enough to have a live long shot in an exacta. Don't try pushing too much over the public who happen to be one of the best handicappers around. BTW, I don't use this approach.

[raybo]

What, exactly, do you mean by "Polytheistic approach" approach, anyway?


Dave

I think he is referring to the use of "multiple selection methods" rather than a single approach method, in finding the wagering selections. At first the discussion was centered around speed vs pace vs class vs form, etc., but has grown to include more "sub methods" within those major handicapping methods.

[Capper Al]

What, exactly, do you mean by "Polytheistic approach" approach, anyway?


Dave

Substituting systems or characteristics of a horse (such as speed, pace, class) for Gods like in a polytheistic religion. Whatever system or method we choose is what we worship when we handicap. The truth may be (and probably is) outside of our though processes. Accepting that we only hold a piece of the truth then it might be suggested that we should consider other system's or chosen methods or characteristics outside of our own to include in our top three picks? We are mostly monotheistic handicappers that believe in one system and only one system with no false systems ahead of them. We might believe in only our methods and be profitable, but does it stand up to reality as the best way of looking at the races? For example, can the speed handicapper take it for granted that class horses wins? Are we serious about the most unlikely scenario that our methods are going to pick them 1-2-3?

[windoor]

It's more about not caring what the characteristic of the top favorites are, if the crowd sees something in them then they are good enough. What this holds on to is the premise that it is outside of the handicapper's system's vision. Instead of knowing the other characteristics, they are accepted as unknown. This won't be popular here, but some do it and do it successfully. It's just good enough to have a live long shot in an exacta. Don't try pushing too much over the public who happen to be one of the best handicappers around. BTW, I don't use this approach.

I see the approach that I use as being near the same thing. Each spot play that I have, has a Key factor that a horse must have, to be considered a contender. Others might use the best speed, or the best class, pace etc., I use Key factors.

Lets look at the CDL horse. With this play, every horse is eliminated regardless of class, speed, pace etc. If it is not Changing distance, it is eliminated as a contender. It then goes through a process of additional qualifiers and filters. If it passes these tests, then a win wager is called for.

This will fly in the face of common sense and most handicapping principles.

It's true, I often throw the winner out with the process, but I only need to be right a small percentage of the time to turn a profit with the nice average odd this play produces.

If one were to look back on this horse after it won, one might see that it did indeed have some good numbers in other areas, such as class, speed, or pace. This is of no importance to me, though others may read something into it.

This of course does not work with exotics by itself, but can give you a horse to include on the ticket.

It may seem pretty stupid to "handicap"? (just a pattern really) this way, and indeed it can not be profitable if you play every race, but the average odd is quite good, and if you can pick your spots accurately, you can do well with it.

I am working on one that requires the horse to be going up in claiming price. Another automatic throw out for most handicappers, (so the average odd is again, quite good) yet there are times when this too, can be a very good play. Would you ever consider playing only horses that are going up in class? I am still working on it, and not quite there yet, but it looks to be another good spot play when finished.


Regards,

Windoor

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

So what you are saying is (if I understand correctly) is using multiple comprehensive approaches looking for intersection or unions in the approaches?

[TrifectaMike]

Al,

So what you are saying is (if I understand correctly) is using multiple comprehensive approaches looking for intersection or unions in the approaches?

As I read the thread and Al's posts, I don't believe he is saying that his interest are the intersections or unions of multiple comprehensive approaches.

Let me try to explain his approach by the use of multiple handicappers working as agents to a Master Handicapper.

He has several agents working independently. Each agent is an expert in a different field (Speed, Class, Pace, Trips, etc.).

Each agent provides his ordered (ordered by some criteria i.e. probabilities, ratings, ranks etc.) to the Master Handicapper. The Master Hnadicapper doesn't blend the experts selections into a final selection, but instead makes multiple selects. It might be that his final ordered selections are top class agent selection, top pace agent selection, etc.

The basic idea is not to combine the agents expertise into ONE final selection, but, intead have possibly multiple selections or in the case of a vertical exotics,

Agent Class maybe top pick
Agent Pace maybe second pick
Agent Trip maybe third pick

or any particular order the Master Handicapper desires depending on his level of expertise and knowledge of a particular track.

This is not meant as an applications. This is only a description. Although this type of setup has merit.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[raybo]

As I read the thread and Al's posts, I don't believe he is saying that his interest are the intersections or unions of multiple comprehensive approaches.

Let me try to explain his approach by the use of multiple handicappers working as agents to a Master Handicapper.

He has several agents working independently. Each agent is an expert in a different field (Speed, Class, Pace, Trips, etc.).

Each agent provides his ordered (ordered by some criteria i.e. probabilities, ratings, ranks etc.) to the Master Handicapper. The Master Hnadicapper doesn't blend the experts selections into a final selection, but instead makes multiple selects. It might be that his final ordered selections are top class agent selection, top pace agent selection, etc.

The basic idea is not to combine the agents expertise into ONE final selection, but, intead have possibly multiple selections or in the case of a vertical exotics,

Agent Class maybe top pick
Agent Pace maybe second pick
Agent Trip maybe third pick

or any particular order the Master Handicapper desires depending on his level of expertise and knowledge of a particular track.

This is not meant as an applications. This is only a description. Although this type of setup has merit.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Well put, that's my understanding of what Al is suggesting, also.

[BIG49010]

The problem that you can get into when you merge thoughts together, is what has been call pseudo-statistics, which can be dangerous to your bankroll.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks, I think I get it now.

[Capper Al]

As I read the thread and Al's posts, I don't believe he is saying that his interest are the intersections or unions of multiple comprehensive approaches.

Let me try to explain his approach by the use of multiple handicappers working as agents to a Master Handicapper.

He has several agents working independently. Each agent is an expert in a different field (Speed, Class, Pace, Trips, etc.).

Each agent provides his ordered (ordered by some criteria i.e. probabilities, ratings, ranks etc.) to the Master Handicapper. The Master Hnadicapper doesn't blend the experts selections into a final selection, but instead makes multiple selects. It might be that his final ordered selections are top class agent selection, top pace agent selection, etc.

The basic idea is not to combine the agents expertise into ONE final selection, but, intead have possibly multiple selections or in the case of a vertical exotics,

Agent Class maybe top pick
Agent Pace maybe second pick
Agent Trip maybe third pick

or any particular order the Master Handicapper desires depending on his level of expertise and knowledge of a particular track.

This is not meant as an applications. This is only a description. Although this type of setup has merit.

Mike (Dr Beav)

That is right, not to blend. Opposite of what I do as a comprehensive handicapper. Any studies on this approach?

[Capper Al]

The problem that you can get into when you merge thoughts together, is what has been call pseudo-statistics, which can be dangerous to your bankroll.

We play with danger as handicappers and, at best, loss only about 70% of the time. One can simply use a method like Holmes mentioned earlier- top pace, top class, second Pace for the top 3 selections. Or long shot, favorite, second favorite in a key exacta box. Many ways to do it. The bottom line is that we won't play with only one method.

[raybo]

"RS" could be considered this type of method, you receive up to 3 selections per race, and bet all of them that are 3/1 or higher odds. Within those 3 selections, you could have totally different running styles, Quirin points, best velocities at different sections of the race, different pace and speed figure ranges, different ages, classes, pedigrees, form, etc., etc..

It has tested to a positive ROI at every track tested so far. Some at around 1.50 ROI (TuP since 11/18/2011 at 1.48 ROI, and DeD since 12/01/2012 at 1.52 ROI).

So yes, multiple handicapping methods and multiple bets, in the same races, can indeed be very profitable.

It still boils down to the wagering, you must get value for your dollar.

[Capper Al]

"RS" could be considered this type of method, you receive up to 3 selections per race, and bet all of them that are 3/1 or higher odds. Within those 3 selections, you could have totally different running styles, Quirin points, best velocities at different sections of the race, different pace and speed figure ranges, different ages, classes, pedigrees, form, etc., etc..

It has tested to a positive ROI at every track tested so far. Some at around 1.50 ROI (TuP since 11/18/2011 at 1.48 ROI, and DeD since 12/01/2012 at 1.52 ROI).

So yes, multiple handicapping methods and multiple bets, in the same races, can indeed be very profitable.

It still boils down to the wagering, you must get value for your dollar.

Raybo,

This sounds like what I do-- comprehensive handicapping. The totals might comprise of any mixture of characteristics, but it is a blend usually with the highest points or statistical weights. Let's say your top scoring horse gained it points from mainly speed, and your second horse from mainly pace, and your third choice was pace and trainer. In spite of this you might want to throw in the top class horse even if he didn't have a total higher than fourth. Or simply toss in the favorite instead of your third choice.

[Overlay]

Please speak up if you use a polytheistic approach and share your experience with us.
My approach is "polytheistic" in that I employ a weighted combination of factors (based on statistics), broken down by distance and running surface, that apply to each horse, rather than using individual factors exclusively to handicap specific distances or distance ranges, or to forecast given finishing positions. I let each horse's or combination's aggregate result in comparison to its competition determine its likelihood of finishing in any particular place in the field, and (particularly) to indicate the odds level at which it becomes an acceptable wager/risk.

[garyscpa]

Oh, you mean looking at the elephant from more than one side. I never thought of that.

[thaskalos]

These different handicapping factors like class, form, speed and pace; can we even agree on the definition for them? Are we even sure that they exist independently from one another?

Which horse has more "class"; the one who finished 3rd by three lengths in a 15,000 claimer...or the one who beat 10,000 claimers by five? Do their speed figures matter in this class assessment?

Speed figures are there for everybody to see...but which figure do we look at to determine our top "speed" horse? The last one...the best of the last two....or some combination thereof?

Who is our top "pace" horse? Always the one who figures to lead at the half-mile? In the pace handicapping that I practice...the top pace horse is often a stretch runner!

Define your terms, sir. :)

[bob60566]

These different handicapping factors like class, form, speed and pace; can we even agree on the definition for them? Are we even sure that they exist independently from one another?

Which horse has more "class"; the one who finished 3rd by three lengths in a 15,000 claimer...or the one who beat 10,000 claimers by five? Do their speed figures matter in this class assessment?

Speed figures are there for everybody to see...but which figure do we look at to determine our top "speed" horse? The last one...the best of the last two....or some combination thereof?

Who is our top "pace" horse? Always the one who figures to lead at the half-mile? In the pace handicapping that I practice...the top pace horse is often a stretch runner!

Define your terms, sir. :)
These are all covered in every data bank from Bris,Fomulator, and Joe Blows data bank.
If they all ran to the Data numbers in past performances there would be no betting.
Mac:)

[thaskalos]

These are all covered in every data bank from Bris,Fomulator, and Joe Blows data bank.
If they all ran to the Data numbers in past performances there would be no betting.
Mac:)
They are covered WHERE?

I've been running a little test on the BRIS class and pace ratings lately...

Not a pretty sight so far...

[bob60566]

So tell me where do you get your info from, I get mine from Bris single file data download which has about 1632 lines of data.
Which everybodys data bank and figures have ranked.

Mac:)

[raybo]

These different handicapping factors like class, form, speed and pace; can we even agree on the definition for them? Are we even sure that they exist independently from one another?

Which horse has more "class"; the one who finished 3rd by three lengths in a 15,000 claimer...or the one who beat 10,000 claimers by five? Do their speed figures matter in this class assessment?

Speed figures are there for everybody to see...but which figure do we look at to determine our top "speed" horse? The last one...the best of the last two....or some combination thereof?

Who is our top "pace" horse? Always the one who figures to lead at the half-mile? In the pace handicapping that I practice...the top pace horse is often a stretch runner!

Define your terms, sir. :)

Yeah, they are all related, that''s why I stated earlier that to me "class" is determined by how fast a horse can run early and keep running strong through the rest of the race. Man made class means nothing to me and I don't use it. Pace ratings and speed ratings all come from fractional times, variants, beaten lengths, "class", etc., so they are related to the other factors too. Even ?"form" is related if you look for form cycles in the past performances, you're using pace, speed, class, etc., to determine form also.

To me a "monotheistic" approach means using multiple factors and betting multiple horses, with different characteristics; early speed, pace speed, final speed, breeding, jockey/trainer, form, etc..

[raybo]

They are covered WHERE?

I've been running a little test on the BRIS class and pace ratings lately...

Not a pretty sight so far...

Exactly! I use to use them, they sucked for making a profit, so I quit even looking at them. Prime Power is pretty good, but everybody and his brother uses it, no value.

[bob60566]

So tell me where do you get your info from, I get mine from Bris single file data download which has about 1632 lines of data.
Which everybodys data bank and figures have ranked.

Mac:)
Need that source intresting.

Mac:)

[raybo]

So tell me where do you get your info from, I get mine from Bris single file data download which has about 1632 lines of data.
Which everybodys data bank and figures have ranked.

Mac:)

What is your point, that everyone uses the same factors? Not true, if you can manipulate the raw data.

Even though we all have access to the same raw data, we don't all use it as it is, and we all don't combine them in the same way. But, using a "canned" figure, like Bris pace or speed figures, alone, is a sure losing approach because too many players are doing the same thing. Plus, you don't even know how they are calculated by Bris, or any other data provider, so if you use them you are assuming they are accurate. You know what assuming does.

[bob60566]

What is your point, that everyone uses the same factors? Not true, if you can manipulate the raw data.

Even though we all have access to the same raw data, we don't all use it as it is, and we all don't combine them in the same way. But, using a "canned" figure, like Bris pace or speed figures, alone, is a sure losing approach because too many players are doing the same thing. Plus, you don't even know how they are calculated by Bris, or any other data provider, so if you use them you are assuming they are accurate. You know what assuming does..

My point is do we all receive the same data from the source yes or no that simple.
Mac:)

[thaskalos]

.

My point is do we all receive the same data from the source yes or no that simple.
Mac:)
Yes my friend...we all use the same raw data.

And all the carpenters use the same tools. But some are "craftsmen"...and some aren't... :cool:

[Beachbabe]

I've used the "polytheistic" approach.

I pray to 3 or 4 gods right before the gate opens.

[thaskalos]

I've used the "polytheistic" approach.

I pray to 3 or 4 gods right before the gate opens.
If that worked...we Greeks would all be rich.

We have 12 of them...

[windoor]

I've used the "polytheistic" approach.

I pray to 3 or 4 gods right before the gate opens.


I obviously left one out and got him/her/it mad at me, judging by the last couple of days results.

Another losing streak to suffer through. I though I made enough progress to limit them this year. Not to be.

I need to find another more powerful deity :)

Regards,

[Capper Al]

My approach is "polytheistic" in that I employ a weighted combination of factors (based on statistics), broken down by distance and running surface, that apply to each horse, rather than using individual factors exclusively to handicap specific distances or distance ranges, or to forecast given finishing positions. I let each horse's or combination's aggregate result in comparison to its competition determine its likelihood of finishing in any particular place in the field, and (particularly) to indicate the odds level at which it becomes an acceptable wager/risk.

Overlay,

This sounds comprehensive to me. Once you start adding and using statistics, it's usually comprehensive. If we put it through the sausage grinder, it's comprehensive. If we just identify the best of each category and use multiple best, it's poly.

[Capper Al]

These different handicapping factors like class, form, speed and pace; can we even agree on the definition for them? Are we even sure that they exist independently from one another?

Which horse has more "class"; the one who finished 3rd by three lengths in a 15,000 claimer...or the one who beat 10,000 claimers by five? Do their speed figures matter in this class assessment?

Speed figures are there for everybody to see...but which figure do we look at to determine our top "speed" horse? The last one...the best of the last two....or some combination thereof?

Who is our top "pace" horse? Always the one who figures to lead at the half-mile? In the pace handicapping that I practice...the top pace horse is often a stretch runner!

Define your terms, sir. :)

thaskalos,

How a capper picks his categories is outside of the scope of the discussion. What is in the discussion is does the capper keep them separate and identifiable at the end of the handicapping process or does the capper merge them into some kind of formula looking for best or highest number?

[Capper Al]

I've used the "polytheistic" approach.

I pray to 3 or 4 gods right before the gate opens.

So do I and hope the pigeons don't get in the way of my horse.

[Overlay]

Overlay,

This sounds comprehensive to me. Once you start adding and using statistics, it's usually comprehensive. If we put it through the sausage grinder, it's comprehensive. If we just identify the best of each category and use multiple best, it's poly.
I agree with your categorization, and yet I still retain visibility of the contribution that each individual factor makes to the end product. If actual results should start falling outside expected/normal variance, I can account for which individual element is not performing as anticipated, which allows for indicated adjustments.

[Capper Al]

I agree with your categorization, and yet I still retain visibility of the contribution that each individual factor makes to the end product. If actual results should start falling outside expected/normal variance, I can account for which individual element is not performing as anticipated, which allows for indicated adjustments.

As a fellow comprehensive handicapper, that's nice being able to make those adjustments. It's almost a middle ground of sorts between the two extremes of comprehensive and poly. If I understand you, if you believe the top class is being left out you will make adjustments to include him. I do this also. When you are close to the numbers you can see these things. But here's the but. But the how it is selected is based on separate attributes acting independently, not formulated together. Remember Holmes, top pace, top class, and second pace. No integration of pace and class values together.

[Capper Al]

If that worked...we Greeks would all be rich.

We have 12 of them...

It's all Greek.

[Overlay]

If I understand you, if you believe the top class is being left out you will make adjustments to include him. I do this also. When you are close to the numbers you can see these things. But here's the but. But the how it is selected is based on separate attributes acting independently, not formulated together. Remember Holmes, top pace, top class, and second pace. No integration of pace and class values together.

My decisions are not so much to include or totally exclude any factor, but to make sure that I am properly weighting each factor's contribution to the overall result. Statistics provide me with an objective basis for doing that.

As you note, the (really big) "but" is that the factors do indeed have to be independent, with no redundancy or overlapping influence among themselves. But provided that that is the case, I believe that factors can be considered in combination (as with multiple regression), without having to limit the scope to single factors only (such as using pace alone to pick the winner, speed alone to pick the place horse, or whatever).

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I like the idea of segmenting the field via multiple (simple) handicapping approaches as opposed to a single factor.

In NewPace I suggested that, dividing the field into Early and Late horses. In the Monty Hall approach, we do it with one (or more) simple factors and a comprehensive approach.

IMHO, it is very unlikely that multiple single-factor handicapping groups will produce anything that resembles profitability. It all boils down synergy; to how they integrate together.


Dave

[TrifectaMike]

Personally, I like the idea of segmenting the field via multiple (simple) handicapping approaches as opposed to a single factor.

In NewPace I suggested that, dividing the field into Early and Late horses. In the Monty Hall approach, we do it with one (or more) simple factors and a comprehensive approach.

IMHO, it is very unlikely that multiple single-factor handicapping groups will produce anything that resembles profitability. It all boils down synergy; to how they integrate together.


Dave

Dave, I agree.

Let me quote ( with slight modifications ) what I said in an earlier post and take it to it's proper conclusion.

There are multiple handicappers working as agents for a Master Handicapper.

He has several agents working independently. Each agent is an expert in a different field (Speed, Class, Pace, Trips, etc.).

Each agent provides their probabilities to the Master Handicapper. The Master Handicapper combines the agents expertise into ONE probability vector.

The Master Handicapper does this in an OPTIMAL fashion.

The method he employs is a "Beta Transformed Linear Opinion Pool".

Depending on the expertise level of the Master Handicapper the process can continue into Bayesian updates!

Here you you go... a team approach that REALLY works!

Mike (Dr Beav)

[raybo]

I obviously left one out and got him/her/it mad at me, judging by the last couple of days results.

Another losing streak to suffer through. I though I made enough progress to limit them this year. Not to be.

I need to find another more powerful deity :)

Regards,

That's the reality of historical research, there's no absolute guarantee that anything will carry forward. There will always, IMO, be losing streaks, no matter what method you use.

[pondman]

Here you you go... a team approach that REALLY works!

Mike (Dr Beav)

Don't know the product...

It's not going to matter how many methods, people, or how much bandwidth you employ. If the product can not anticipate the crowd, and exploit the crowd's foolishness, it won't be successfull. It's only when the crowd makes an error, and you can hit a home run, will the margins be large enough. When you go with a consensus, either your wallet will run out (for most players), or your lifestyle will fall apart.

A class player will rarely agree with a speed player. If they are in agreement, you'll have a 3-5 favorite. The class player hits a homerun when an awful-mediocre looking horse is entered into a soft spot. A speed player hits a home run when a hot horse jumps two levels, or comes back to win off a maiden victory. I think it's feasible to be a multi-method (class, speed) person, but I don't believe within the same field. And I doubt on the same horse.

Within my own play I would rarely consider speed (or performance.) I think my last major play was Stopshoppingmaria in the Breeder cup. I play it on the higher end, but I don't think there is enough value to play it every day, at least not for me.

[Dave Schwartz]

It's not going to matter how many methods, people, or how much bandwidth you employ. If the product can not anticipate the crowd, and exploit the crowd's foolishness, it won't be successfull

And you can do this without any software?

Are you the guy that doesn't look at PPs?

[raybo]

Don't know the product...

It's not going to matter how many methods, people, or how much bandwidth you employ. If the product can not anticipate the crowd, and exploit the crowd's foolishness, it won't be successfull.

Not true. RS could care less about what the crowd does, and it's profitable at every track I've tested it on. If a race is a play you just bet all the selections that are 3/1 or higher, period.

[TrifectaMike]

Don't know the product...

It's not going to matter how many methods, people, or how much bandwidth you employ. If the product can not anticipate the crowd, [ This should be trivial for a Master Handicapper ] and exploit the crowd's foolishness, it won't be successfull. It's only when the crowd makes an error, and you can hit a home run, will the margins be large enough.[ Individual margins are not required to be large] When you go with a consensus,[ Consensus has many meanings ] either your wallet will run out (for most players), or your lifestyle will fall apart.

A class player will rarely agree with a speed player.[ It's not a question of agreemeent, it's about the strength of the individual agents ] If they are in agreement, you'll have a 3-5 favorite. The class player hits a homerun when an awful-mediocre looking horse is entered into a soft spot. A speed player hits a home run when a hot horse jumps two levels, or comes back to win off a maiden victory. I think it's feasible to be a multi-method (class, speed) person, but I don't believe within the same field. And I doubt on the same horse [ A terrible assumption on your part about the same horse ].

Within my own play I would rarely consider speed (or performance.) I think my last major play was Stopshoppingmaria in the Breeder cup. I play it on the higher end, but I don't think there is enough value to play it every day, at least not for me.

Pondman, you too, can be an expert agent with your shippers thingy ( Assuming you are good enough ).

I don't believe understand the process nor the strength of the results.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Jeff P]

"...The method he employs is a "Beta Transformed Linear Opinion Pool".

Seems like a reasonable approach... ;)


-jp

.

[Capper Al]

We are talking about our top three picks. What it boils down to is not to upset our top pick, whatever method we use. The question is about our second and/or third selections. Should they be made from the same process we used to pick the top pick especially since we know ahead of time that we are 70% wrong in our selection method. Maybe if I'm a pace handicapper, it might be more profitable to put a class horse second to cover my bases? I don't have the 100,000 horse database to ask the question to.

[thaskalos]

We are talking about our top three picks. What it boils down to is not to upset our top pick, whatever method we use. The question is about our second and/or third selections. Should they be made from the same process we used to pick the top pick especially since we know ahead of time that we are 70% wrong in our selection method. Maybe if I'm a pace handicapper, it might be more profitable to put a class horse second to cover my bases? I don't have the 100,000 horse database to ask the question to.
I my opinion...NO!

If the handicapper has enough confidence in his single-factor handicapping method to use it for his MAIN pick...he should rely on the same method for the secondary picks.

So what if our selection method loses 70% of the time...it's the ROI that counts.

Why should a pace handicapper mess with the "class" horses in the race...if class handicapping is inferior to pace handicapping in his mind? And make no mistake...class and speed handicapping ARE inferior to pace in the pace handicapper's mind...otherwise he wouldn't call himself a "pace" handicapper...

[Capper Al]

I my opinion...NO!

If the handicapper has enough confidence in his single-factor handicapping method to use it for his MAIN pick...he should rely on the same method for the secondary picks.

So what if our selection method loses 70% of the time...it's the ROI that counts.

Why should a pace handicapper mess with the "class" horses in the race...if class handicapping is inferior to pace handicapping in his mind? And make no mistake...class and speed handicapping ARE inferior to pace in the pace handicapper's mind...otherwise he wouldn't call himself a "pace" handicapper...

That's an assumption made out of our myopic view of reality. At some point someone has to ask is it so that the earth is the center of the universe or do I need to look at the stars and see for myself. We could be limiting our profits with our stubbornness.

[thaskalos]

That's an assumption made out of our myopic view of reality. At some point someone has to ask is it so that the earth is the center of the universe or do I need to look at the stars and see for myself. We could be limiting our profits with our stubbornness.
Look Al...

Being Greek, I love philosophical discussions...but there has to be a point.

I am a PACE handicapper. I did not become a pace handicapper because of my myopic point of view...or because of my stubbornness. If fact...I was introduced to all the OTHER handicapping factors first.

Class...form...speed...I looked into them all, in great detail, and with much vigor and enthusiasm. And they all disappointed me.

To me, pace handicapping -- when properly carried out -- encompasses every handicapping factor out there...with as much accuracy and precision as could be expected, considering the race-timing limitations in the game today.

Pace handicapping tells me all I need to know about the form, speed, and class of a horse...and I can't say that about any of the other handicapping factors out there.

But, of course, not all pace handicapping is the same...:)

[bob60566]

Look Al...

Being Greek, I love philosophical discussions...but there has to be a point.

I am a PACE handicapper. I did not become a pace handicapper because of my myopic point of view...or because of my stubbornness. If fact...I was introduced to all the OTHER handicapping factors first.

Class...form...speed...I looked into them all, in great detail, and with much vigor and enthusiasm. And they all disappointed me.

To me, pace handicapping -- when properly carried out -- encompasses every handicapping factor out there...with as much accuracy and precision as could be expected, considering the race-timing limitations in the game today.

Pace handicapping tells me all I need to know about the form, speed, and class of a horse...and I can't say that about any of the other handicapping factors out there.

But, of course, not all pace handicapping is the same...:)

Very good read
So after you have handicapped on the above how do you know your selection is ready to perform to your expectations .
Or does PP tip you off your selections is ready???
Mac:confused:

[Robert Fischer]

Dave, I agree.

Let me quote ( with slight modifications ) what I said in an earlier post and take it to it's proper conclusion.

There are multiple handicappers working as agents for a Master Handicapper.

He has several agents working independently. Each agent is an expert in a different field (Speed, Class, Pace, Trips, etc.).

Each agent provides their probabilities to the Master Handicapper. The Master Handicapper combines the agents expertise into ONE probability vector.

The Master Handicapper does this in an OPTIMAL fashion.

The method he employs is a "Beta Transformed Linear Opinion Pool".

Depending on the expertise level of the Master Handicapper the process can continue into Bayesian updates!

Here you you go... a team approach that REALLY works!

Mike (Dr Beav)

hows come the bayesian guy gets the title Master Handicapper ?

:cool:

[Capper Al]

Look Al...

Being Greek, I love philosophical discussions...but there has to be a point.

I am a PACE handicapper. I did not become a pace handicapper because of my myopic point of view...or because of my stubbornness. If fact...I was introduced to all the OTHER handicapping factors first.

Class...form...speed...I looked into them all, in great detail, and with much vigor and enthusiasm. And they all disappointed me.

To me, pace handicapping -- when properly carried out -- encompasses every handicapping factor out there...with as much accuracy and precision as could be expected, considering the race-timing limitations in the game today.

Pace handicapping tells me all I need to know about the form, speed, and class of a horse...and I can't say that about any of the other handicapping factors out there.

But, of course, not all pace handicapping is the same...:)

thaskalos,

My concern here is that you might have taken this personally. Please don't. 99.9% of us are stuck on one view including myself. It is a lot of work to get where you are with handicapping. After all that hard work, and presumably profitable, who needs to go further? I'm frustrate by my limitations, so much to learn, so little time.

[Capper Al]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Shakespeare

Racing version:

There are more handicapping methods in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Dave Schwartz]

Al,

I could be wrong but I think you missed Thaskalos' point.

I think what he was saying IF a guy was a pace handicapper, then he would (logically) feel that pace was the best approach (otherwise he wouldn't be a pace handicapper). If that was the case, then why would he wish to dilute his method?

"Speed handicapper or "form handicapper" could just as easily be substituted for "pace handicapper."


Dave

[Tom]

I would look to my second and third pace choices as my other bets, not a class horse, or a trainer horse. If I think the pace will fall apart, I will look at the two or three horses most likely to be helped by that.

[Robert Fischer]

Al,

I could be wrong but I think you missed Thaskalos' point.

I think what he was saying IF a guy was a pace handicapper, then he would (logically) feel that pace was the best approach (otherwise he wouldn't be a pace handicapper). If that was the case, then why would he wish to dilute his method?

"Speed handicapper or "form handicapper" could just as easily be substituted for "pace handicapper."


Dave

pretty much.

I wouldn't mind revisiting the topic with a "comprehensive" approach or simply a multi-factor approach .

going down a list for "top class", "top speed", top... is a little too basic for my interest and as said you water down a little.
HOWEVER - This isn;t to say that the approach may not be the best for Al or a bunch of people.
Lots of room to experiment here.
I'll never disrespect or underestimate someones honest proffered method.

I was going to list a bunch of different "POLYTHEISTIC" stuff I use for a single given race, but saw that it didn't exactly fit the thread. So even a poly / muti-tiered / comprehensive ... style can vary.

[thaskalos]

Al,

I could be wrong but I think you missed Thaskalos' point.

I think what he was saying IF a guy was a pace handicapper, then he would (logically) feel that pace was the best approach (otherwise he wouldn't be a pace handicapper). If that was the case, then why would he wish to dilute his method?

"Speed handicapper or "form handicapper" could just as easily be substituted for "pace handicapper."


Dave
Exactly!

All of us who favor one handicapping approach over another do so for a reason; it isn't because we are short-sighted or stubborn.

And if our method of choice can be relied on to supply us with our #1 pick...why can't it be relied upon to give us the secondary picks as well?

Al brings up the fact that by using the solitary approach we stand to lose about 70% of the time. Well, we can use the TWO best horses of our solitary approach...and I can guarantee that our winning percentage will go up noticeably. Of course...whether it helps the bottom line or not is another matter...

I am not pretending to be a know-it-all; I am just sharing opinions formed from many years of participation in this game. Others may have completely different thoughts on how to play this game...and I fully respect that.

IMO, in order to succeed in this game, we need more that just handicapping knowledge...and even more than patience, discipline and self-control. We need to understand risk, we need to understand fallibility...and we need to know not to fly too close to the sun.

There is the urge to spread-out more in order to smooth-out the rough spots...but, in my experience, we lose the most when we are trying NOT to lose.

IMO...our game is a lot like the ocean. You don't tame the ocean; you respect it, or you pay the price.

[dnlgfnk]

Didn't Benter prove that the greatest success comes from a comprehensive, albeit "weighted factor" approach?

I have received confirmation many times over regarding my basic premise that from where, when, and how often a horse is asked for energy before the stretch directly explains his performance. My point of reference is, "It's not how fast they run. It's how they run fast that counts".

Yet, other analytical factors now help me analyze a horse's trip in relation to his finish. More than once, as late as Sunday's Southwest Stakes, I'll see an inner speed horse much more relaxed than his outer challenger to the far turn, only to find the outer horse overtake the seemingly advantageous position of the easy leader. Grudgingly looking at analytical data full of other factors helps me explain the visual impression, as in Secret Circle vs. Scatman.

Of course, Davidowitz suggested that 35 years ago.

[Capper Al]

OK guys. I'm a profitable comprehensive capper also. I use my top 3 picks with usually pace being my biggest weighed factor except for maiden races. Being a lone player with limited resources for R&D, I wonder if I'm not limiting myself. Until I get my database going, I'll have no way of knowing.

[Capper Al]

BTW, this is how Holmes saw the top three picks with one exception, lone early speed:

Maidens -- Class
Sprints -- All Pace
Mid Distance -- Pace - Class - Pace
Routes -- Class

[bob60566]

Al

Once you made your three selections for that race and maybe have considered my next question in you selections.
How do you or any datbase handicapper equate how there selections will run today in there form cylcle and are they ready today or not.
Mac:)

[Capper Al]

Al

Once you made your three selections for that race and maybe have considered my next question in you selections.
How do you or any database handicapper equate how there selections will run today in there form cylcle and are they ready today or not.
Mac:)

My app has an algorithm that basically estimates. It takes into consideration things like days since last raced and worked, etc just like a paper and pencil capper would do but in an flash.

[bob60566]

[QUOTE=Capper Al]My app has an algorithm that basically estimates. It takes into consideration things like days since last raced and worked, etc just like a paper and pencil capper would do but in an flash.[/QUOTE
]
Now is this major track or minor to me night and day.
Workouts no Workouts and racing into shape as happens at minor tracks.
It took me while but San Anita handicapping ie Mountineer/ Charles Town night and day.
To me it it easier at the minor tracks to see when a horse is being readied to give a good effort from the last four running lines.

Mac:)

[raybo]

[QUOTE=Capper Al]My app has an algorithm that basically estimates. It takes into consideration things like days since last raced and worked, etc just like a paper and pencil capper would do but in an flash.[/QUOTE
]
Now is this major track or minor to me night and day.
Workouts no Workouts and racing into shape as happens at minor tracks.
It took me while but San Anita handicapping ie Mountineer/ Charles Town night and day.
To me it it easier at the minor tracks to see when a horse is being readied to give a good effort from the last four running lines.

Mac:)

I'll jump in here and say, and this is just my opinion, that what you mention about the difference between major tracks and minor tracks is really the difference between the quality of the horses, call it class if you like. The higher quality a horse is, the longer he/she stays in form (generally), and may only need some light works between races, and finally will be laid off for a while. Lower quality horses falls out of form more quickly, and most need some heavier works or a race or 2 to get back in form, and often they will be laid off more often.

[bob60566]

[QUOTE=bob60566]

I'll jump in here and say, and this is just my opinion, that what you mention about the difference between major tracks and minor tracks is really the difference between the quality of the horses, call it class if you like. The higher quality a horse is, the longer he/she stays in form (generally), and may only need some light works between races, and finally will be laid off for a while. Lower quality horses falls out of form more quickly, and most need some heavier works or a race or 2 to get back in form, and often they will be laid off more often.
Ray
That is correct these horses have issues and are four and up and will be unlikely to never improve on there lifetime #.
So if you handicap this type of class these horses go up from Mdn to Nw1 and beyond Nw1/2/3/4 with restrictions.
Try that against a 65k OC at Gufstream to handicap, Just my opinion

Mac

[raybo]

[QUOTE=raybo]
Ray
That is correct these horses have issues and are four and up and will be unlikely to never improve on there lifetime #.
So if you handicap this type of class these horses go up from Mdn to Nw1 and beyond Nw1/2/3/4 with restrictions.
Try that against a 65k OC at Gufstream to handicap, Just my opinion

Mac

Just a little amount of checking tells you which horses need work/races/rest and which ones don't. "Think like a trainer".

[Capper Al]

[QUOTE=Capper Al]My app has an algorithm that basically estimates. It takes into consideration things like days since last raced and worked, etc just like a paper and pencil capper would do but in an flash.[/QUOTE
]
Now is this major track or minor to me night and day.
Workouts no Workouts and racing into shape as happens at minor tracks.
It took me while but San Anita handicapping ie Mountineer/ Charles Town night and day.
To me it it easier at the minor tracks to see when a horse is being readied to give a good effort from the last four running lines.

Mac:)

Major/Minor track analysis deserves some of my time for R&D. I am interested. So much to learn, so little time.

[Capper Al]

pretty much.

I wouldn't mind revisiting the topic with a "comprehensive" approach or simply a multi-factor approach .

going down a list for "top class", "top speed", top... is a little too basic for my interest and as said you water down a little.
HOWEVER - This isn;t to say that the approach may not be the best for Al or a bunch of people.
Lots of room to experiment here.
I'll never disrespect or underestimate someones honest proffered method.

I was going to list a bunch of different "POLYTHEISTIC" stuff I use for a single given race, but saw that it didn't exactly fit the thread. So even a poly / muti-tiered / comprehensive ... style can vary.

How many times do I need to say that I don't do this approach myself? This approach may pan out with R&D. I don't know.

[pondman]

And you can do this without any software?

Are you the guy that doesn't look at PPs?

Yep. Data Yes; Software No;

Yep. Studying the PPs is a waste of time, although I do believe there is some promise in hidden Pace analysis.


Doesn't mean I haven't read the books and studied speed handicappping. It's important to know other methods, and avoiding the pitfalls of speed handicapping. That's how I make my money.

[pondman]

going down a list for "top class", "

It's possible to view class as something other than a purse value. It could be the maniacal ego of a billionaire. The person wants a win; And they want it now. Therefore, there is no class mechanical rating system and no such thing as top. Class can be the wallet size of the barn, and their ability to go out and find a horse to run in the big one. It's too much a part of racing to ignore.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=bob60566]

Just a little amount of checking tells you which horses need work/races/rest and which ones don't. "Think like a trainer".

And nail Jill Hennessy? :eek:

[Robert Fischer]

How many times do I need to say that I don't do this approach myself? This approach may pan out with R&D. I don't know.

maybe I need a disclaimer that says I am human, and contribute the best that I can?

[Capper Al]

maybe I need a disclaimer that says I am human, and contribute the best that I can?

I'm sorry. It just happened one too many times. I appreciate your input.

Al

[Capper Al]

It's possible to view class as something other than a purse value. It could be the maniacal ego of a billionaire. The person wants a win; And they want it now. Therefore, there is no class mechanical rating system and no such thing as top. Class can be the wallet size of the barn, and their ability to go out and find a horse to run in the big one. It's too much a part of racing to ignore.

Your wallet size describes the super rich with the Breeders' Cup horses.

[Capper Al]

Yep. Data Yes; Software No;

Yep. Studying the PPs is a waste of time, although I do believe there is some promise in hidden Pace analysis.


Doesn't mean I haven't read the books and studied speed handicapping. It's important to know other methods, and avoiding the pitfalls of speed handicapping. That's how I make my money.

My applications gives me all the data that I need to handicap a race, but the story. Since I've been using my app, I believe my new weakness is not reading the PPs for the racing story. This is something a computer can't grasp.

[thaskalos]

How many times do I need to say that I don't do this approach myself? This approach may pan out with R&D. I don't know.

Al, I would very much like to discuss this with you in person when we meet in a few months...preferably over a bottle of ouzo. :)

[bob60566]

Yep. Data Yes; Software No;

Yep. Studying the PPs is a waste of time, although I do believe there is some promise in hidden Pace analysis.


Doesn't mean I haven't read the books and studied speed handicappping. It's important to know other methods, and avoiding the pitfalls of speed handicapping. That's how I make my money.

Are you saying that horses do not run every race to to win or show there full potential.

Mac:confused:

[Capper Al]

Al, I would very much like to discuss this with you in person when we meet in a few months...preferably over a bottle of ouzo. :)

Sounds good. It's amazing how much smarter we become with a little ouzo. Opa!

[Capper Al]

Are you saying that horses do not run every race to to win or show there full potential.

Mac:confused:

I've bet on a few that hardly made it out of the gate. The jockey had his coffee and donuts in front of him and was reading the newspaper.

[Capper Al]

Here's one recipe for winning in honor of Thaskalot:

SAGANAKI (FLAMING CHEESE OPA)

1 lb. soft Kasseri or Kofalotiri cheese
3 tbsp. butter
1/2 lemon (juice)
2 tbsp. brandy



Cut cheese into slices 1/4 inch thick. Place on broiler pan and brush with melted butter. Broil on high 4 to 6 inches from heat until cheese bubbles. Remove from heat. Pour brandy over cheese and ignite immediately.Sprinkle with lemon juice and serve with bread. Opa!