Sabremetrics, Handicapping and Moneyball. Any Comparisons?

[maddog42]

While some on this board may say that we were light years ahead of baseball
in quantifying the value of horses and using computers to do it, I am not so sure. There probably are some "math Geeks" out there that are working on this new frontier( or have already discovered it} and we are not aware of it. Baseball couldn't keep this proprietary knowledge secret and neither can the whales.Two People can't keep a secret, and 50? Forget it.
Just as statistical analysis changed baseball forever, what might the new frontier consist of? It will come whether we like it or not.

[VastinMT]

Moneyball isn't about Major League Baseball finally using statistics -- that's been going on pretty much since the game began.

Moneyball was about deciding that some statistics are junk, no matter how popular they are, while the statistics that actually predict success may not be popular or well known. Yet.

I'd say any handicapper making a profit is doing Moneyball every day.

[maddog42]

Moneyball isn't about Major League Baseball finally using statistics -- that's been going on pretty much since the game began.

Moneyball was about deciding that some statistics are junk, no matter how popular they are, while the statistics that actually predict success may not be popular or well known. Yet.

I'd say any handicapper making a profit is doing Moneyball every day.

"Moneyball isn't about Major League Baseball finally using statistics -- that's been going on pretty much since the game began."

Wow, I didn't know that!!! Sorry!! Couldn't help it.

If you are referring to batting average, I wouldn't call it junk. It is less predictive than on base percentage(and other stats) when judging a hitters value to the team. Batting average has its place.

Your first sentence was stating the painfully obvious. Your second paragraph
was stating something very profound and well put.

"....while the statistics that actually predict success may not be popular or well known. Yet."
That unknown Statistic is actually what I am referring to.
Thanks for your post, and pardon my smart aleck reply. You actually captured the essence of the thing better than me.
I have a question for you and anyone else. What statistic or factors in handicapping are junk?

[Dave Schwartz]

What statistic or factors in handicapping are junk?

There are lots of them. For example, layoffs. The accepted notion is that a horse off more than 30 days is at a huge disadvantage despite the fact that statistics show a horse of in the 31-45 day range actually has a higher impact value that a horse back in 14 days.

When I tell someone that the most common response I get is something like, "Well, I still won't play a horse that is coming off a layoff."

There are more than a few others like that.

[thaskalos]

There are lots of them. For example, layoffs. The accepted notion is that a horse off more than 30 days is at a huge disadvantage despite the fact that statistics show a horse of in the 31-45 day range actually has a higher impact value that a horse back in 14 days.



Well...I still won't play a horse coming off a layoff...unless he has done so with success in the past.

[thaskalos]

What statistic or factors in handicapping are junk?

IMO, all statistics that are related to a horse's earnings...along with all the consistency stats that look at the horse's win, place and show placings are junk.

I also can't find a use for the Tomlinson Ratings...other than as a guide for sprinters stretching out.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The "Moneyball" in horse racing has already been figured out.The OBP is say the average big rise in figures in class droppers and 2nd starters and the SLG is say the pace fig indicator or form cycle manuever that anticipates a bigger figure.The OPS is the faith in betting these likelihoods IMO.Something along these lines of.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well...I still won't play a horse coming off a layoff...unless he has done so with success in the past.

Despite the fact that they are actually better bets.

See what I mean? :bang:

[CincyHorseplayer]

Despite the fact that they are actually better bets.

See what I mean? :bang:

Dave I like to bet layoff horses.Usually of the younger or turf variety.They seem most consistent in this aspect to me.The rest are obvious IMO.

[proximity]

I also can't find a use for the Tomlinson Ratings...other than as a guide for sprinters stretching out.

i actually prefer the helm ratings for situations like this. a horse could have a "good" tomlinson for today's distance, but possibly his tomlinson for the other distance was even better? since the number for the last race's distance doesn't appear on the form, i don't really know. jmo.

[thaskalos]

Despite the fact that they are actually better bets.

See what I mean? :bang:

Just wanted to see if you were paying attention, Dave...:)

[lsosa54]

Moneyball isn't about Major League Baseball finally using statistics -- that's been going on pretty much since the game began.

Moneyball was about deciding that some statistics are junk, no matter how popular they are, while the statistics that actually predict success may not be popular or well known. Yet.

I would say it was more about undervalued statistics in relation to payroll. Oakland had a limited payroll and so Beane came up with OBP as the stat that other teams were "undervaluing" and pursued players with that trait, as he could get them much cheaper.

Today, it seems to be defensive stats.

IMO, Zito, Mulder, and Hudson had nothing to do with Moneyball and to me, they were the reason for Oakland's success, and they still couldn't advance far in the playoffs. I'm not even sure Giambi, Chavez, and Tejada in their primes were Moneyball produced, but Giambi at least has always had a very good eye and thus OBP.

What is undervalued in racing today? Pedigree? Not sure.

[Valuist]

There are lots of them. For example, layoffs. The accepted notion is that a horse off more than 30 days is at a huge disadvantage despite the fact that statistics show a horse of in the 31-45 day range actually has a higher impact value that a horse back in 14 days.

When I tell someone that the most common response I get is something like, "Well, I still won't play a horse that is coming off a layoff."

There are more than a few others like that.

I think what actually constitutes a layoff has changed significantly over the years. 25 years ago, over 30 days was a layoff. Now it isn't. I'd say over 50 days is a layoff now.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think what actually constitutes a layoff has changed significantly over the years. 25 years ago, over 30 days was a layoff. Now it isn't. I'd say over 50 days is a layoff now.

Statistics (IV Tables) would agree with your assessment.

In addition, it is good to remember that statistically speaking, in some kinds of races, a horse off 30-45 days actually wins more races and returns more money than a horse off 8-14 days.

I really think that the interesting thing about this is that despite this being factual, people still resist "unlearning" what they know to be true.

While Thaskalos may have been joking with me in his earlier post, he actually validates the point I try to make constantly: people say that they know what it takes to win - despite the fact that it is often based on an untruth - and then wonder why they continue to lose.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[aaron]

I think the problem is that we are betting horses not statistics. If I have some good reasons to bet a horse and that horse is a decent price,I am not going off the horse because of a trainer statistic. Most of the statistics,in my opinion are factored in to the odds of a horse. For instance,last week at Belmont,there was a 1st time Rudy Rodriguez horse getting bet,based on the trainer change. It was a positive change and was factored in to the price. This type of scenario happens every day. It is up to you as a bettor to make decisions. In the above scenario,if I like another horse in the race,I will bet him. If I get beat by the statistic so be it.
My problem comes when I have no opinion,then the question is,bet the statistic,pass the race,use the statistic horse along with other horses in my exotic plays.
We encounter these situations and how we deal with them decides whether we are profitable or not.
Sometimes its just having a feel for the situation and doing the right thing based on your experience.

[OTM Al]

There are lots of them. For example, layoffs. The accepted notion is that a horse off more than 30 days is at a huge disadvantage despite the fact that statistics show a horse of in the 31-45 day range actually has a higher impact value that a horse back in 14 days.

When I tell someone that the most common response I get is something like, "Well, I still won't play a horse that is coming off a layoff."

There are more than a few others like that.

Hey Dave. I've always looked strongly at fillies coming off layoffs and never thought it bothered them at all but always felt the males were a little more "in need of one". Do you have stats distinguishing between the two or have I always been half in and half out on the conventional wisdom?

[Dave Schwartz]

I have run them in the past.

I believe that years ago females were more likely to lay off well because it was part of their normal behavior. (Don't get too tuned up here, Grits. Just speaking of a fact of life. <G>)

However, I believe that sex is no longer an issue in layoffs.

I think the statistical changes in layoffs is due to two factors:

1. Trainers read the same books as handicappers and learned that by taking a few extra days they could get healthy price increases.

2. The trend today is simply to race less often, whether that is because of less soundness in the stock, less racing or some other factor, I do not know.

[LottaKash]

I really think that the interesting thing about this is that despite this being factual, people still resist "unlearning" what they know to be true.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave, I don't think one can really begin to "unlearn" until he reaches a certain stage in "his way"....A "reality check", if you will....

In more recent times, I have found myself to be "unlearning", more and more...

best,

[OTM Al]

I have run them in the past.

I believe that years ago females were more likely to lay off well because it was part of their normal behavior. (Don't get too tuned up here, Grits. Just speaking of a fact of life. <G>)

However, I believe that sex is no longer an issue in layoffs.

I think the statistical changes in layoffs is due to two factors:

1. Trainers read the same books as handicappers and learned that by taking a few extra days they could get healthy price increases.

2. The trend today is simply to race less often, whether that is because of less soundness in the stock, less racing or some other factor, I do not know.

Interesting. I will say an angle I've played to success in the past was with maidens going into their second start. I didn't like at all to bet a second time starter that had less than 4 weeks off from an unsuccessful first start. A second time starter will only have an advantage fronm that experience if the trainer has taken some time to work on the problems he showed in the race. Felt the more seriously considered horse would get such extra work instead of being rushed back in 2-3 weeks as many seem to be.

[Dave Schwartz]

Truthfully, I think that the layoff is particular to the individual trainer. However, without doing the work of keeping up on that, a more general approach is necessary.

[OTM Al]

Truthfully, I think that the layoff is particular to the individual trainer. However, without doing the work of keeping up on that, a more general approach is necessary.

Fortunately there are readily available stats on that too.

I should have qualified the last statement a little more though. It is 2yos I generally apply that to. I think it matters less for the older more mature horses.

[Jeff P]

Interesting. I will say an angle I've played to success in the past was with maidens going into their second start. I didn't like at all to bet a second time starter that had less than 4 weeks off from an unsuccessful first start. A second time starter will only have an advantage fronm that experience if the trainer has taken some time to work on the problems he showed in the race. Felt the more seriously considered horse would get such extra work instead of being rushed back in 2-3 weeks as many seem to be.

I know you weren't addressing the question to me... but the "Moneyball" aspect of the stats related to the question you posed piqued my interest, so I ran it.

Here's a link to a text file showing results from a current database that I've been keeping:
http://www.jcapper.com/messageboard/reports/impact_study_2YO2ndLifetimeStart.txt

There is something to the parameters that you posted, Al.

Two year olds (whether male or female) with just one lifetime start fare much worse in their second start when they're brought back to race again within 13 days of that first start.

They fare much better in lifetime start number two when they've had at least 14 days off since their first start. And of those, the ones that have at least one published work fare better than those without a published work.

Note: The database itself spans all North American thoroughbred starters from 1/1/2011 through yesterday 6/3/2012 (a little over 66k races in all.)


-jp

.

[OTM Al]

I know you weren't addressing the question to me... but the "Moneyball" aspect of the stats related to the question you posed piqued my interest, so I ran it.

Here's a link to a text file showing results from a current database that I've been keeping:
http://www.jcapper.com/messageboard/reports/impact_study_2YO2ndLifetimeStart.txt

There is something to the parameters that you posted, Al. 2 year olds with just one lifetime start fare much worse in their second start when they're brought back to race again within 13 days of that first start.

They fare much better in lifetime start number two when they've had at least 14 days off since their first start. And of those, the ones that have at least one published work fare better than those without a published work.

Note: The database itself spans all North American thoroughbred starters from 1/1/2011 through yesterday 6/3/2012.


-jp

.

I love 2yo maiden races. Probably my favorite kind of race to bet. Glad to know I'm at least doing something right there!

[fmolf]

The reason why layoff horses are ggod bets is the odds are usually overlayed.Winners are at bigger prices.The same for my first on the turf angle or first going long.The old adage "never bet a horse doing something for the first time is hogwash!I look for it constantly!First lasixand first blinkers are overrated in my opinion unless accompanied by a trainer or jockey change as well.I like to look for change in a trainers routine for a horse.

[Tom]

Just the layoff stat by itself can be misleading.
You get that Trainer X is 30 for 500 coming back off a layoff of over 90 days for a lousy 6%.

But maybe after you factor out all those turf horses coming back on dirt, and all those routers coming back in sprints, and all those coming back without a 5 furlong work, you end with 19 wins out a 87, 22%, if they show a 5F work in the last week.

[OTM Al]

The reason why layoff horses are ggod bets is the odds are usually overlayed.Winners are at bigger prices.The same for my first on the turf angle or first going long.The old adage "never bet a horse doing something for the first time is hogwash!I look for it constantly!First lasixand first blinkers are overrated in my opinion unless accompanied by a trainer or jockey change as well.I like to look for change in a trainers routine for a horse.

The adage should properly be never bet one doing something for the first time at short odds. That last bit makes all the difference.

[fmolf]

The adage should properly be never bet one doing something for the first time at short odds. That last bit makes all the difference.
very true my friend very true......

[CincyHorseplayer]

Hey Dominant Dave,I believe in ya,what do your stats say about my 3's and 4's lightly raced and turf horses?These two layoffs have been bread and butter during the winter.I get chucked in the wind here brother with all the experts on deck.Layoffs to me cannot be generalized,it is definitely meet specific.But the one common thread is young horses and turf horses to me.

[VastinMT]

Moneyball says looking for value in statistical analysis is hunting a moving target.

Like handicapping.

[thaskalos]

While Thaskalos may have been joking with me in his earlier post, he actually validates the point I try to make constantly: people say that they know what it takes to win - despite the fact that it is often based on an untruth - and then wonder why they continue to lose.


I don't necessarily eliminate a horse that is coming off a layoff, Dave...but I also don't consider the layoff to be an insignificant factor...regardless of what the database stats say about this topic.

I like to look at what the trainer is trying to do with a given horse...and this decides whether or not a layoff is significant to me.

If I see that a trainer likes to race a particular horse every three weeks or so...then a 45-day layoff is significant to me...because the trainer is now trying to do something with this horse that he has been reluctant to do in the past. I don't care what this particular trainer's overall stats are with horses coming off 45-day layoffs; the fact that he is changing his operational method with this horse is of paramount importance to me...and I will look at this horse with a critical eye upon his return from such layoff.

If, on the other hand, the trainer has experimented with layoffs of this sort with this horse in the past...then the current layoff would be of no concern to me.

This "personalized" analysis works better for me than just relying on the results indicated by the overall layoff stats of a database.

[jerry-g]

Regarding layoffs, I like to figure what sent the horse to the barn in the first place. If he was good before the L/O and now has sparkling w/o's 5F or better, he is good for being in the money this out. If the horse had problems that needed to be worked out and his W/O's are not sparkling the condition may not have been corrected and I shy away from the horse being ITM. If the work outs are not evenly spaced after the layoff then there may have been an injury and they waited to w/o after healing.