Black Box?

[Larry Hamilton]

It has been said on this forum that software is not a Black Box, it is a tool to help you play.

I say, "Bunk..."

Why do you buy software? Don't you buy it because it does this thing or the other and spits out an ORDER of horses in various categories. You then look at your 3 or 4 contenders and say, "Now the real handicapping starts!" What handicapping is left? Hasn't your software already considered everything of importance, except, maybe the tote board?

You have a list of some contending horses in front of you...now what?

Say, if you use Nathan's you see a horse winning the predicted simulation and the same horse have good profiler stuff, are you now going to bet on a different horse?

Or if you look at Dave's and you see a horse at the top of most matrices and all but him elminated by one button or another, are you then going to bet on a different one?

In a real life, let's say that both men have a spread of tops, simulation winners and good profilers. Are you calling your method of separating them handicapping. Are you going to today call winning the simulation more important than trainer with a 21% win rate? I really doubt you have a table somewhere that rates all possible variables with respect to each other, and that you use that matrix as a final filter for the software you bought.

Conclusion: We do indeed buy software for the answer. If a single answer is not there, we are willing to fudge. When we fudge it is more like guessing and less like the analysis done by the software.

Additionally, if you do own such a matrix (one that rates all possible variables) you probably don't need to buy software.

[acorn54]

i could never understand how people say computer software isn't a black box also
all horse racing software if it's worth anything will narrow down the field of horses. then what do you do? all you have left to do is judge if you want to bet based on the odds of the horse or bet the top selection automatically if betting the top selection shows a profit in your research.-guy

[Hosshead]

A toast to the Black Box! I've always wondered why the term Black Box is spoken of, in such high disdain on this forum. Most posts I read on this are resentful of the Black Box because it supposedly leaves out the human factor. But didn't it take a human to invent the black box? I'd love to have a black box. I'm not too proud to own a black box. Trouble is, mine is still gray!

[PaceAdvantage]

Good post Hosshead, I agree with your sentiments! I've been forever working on my black box!

[JimG]

While we work on our black boxes, a select few are making serious coin at the track.

Is it thought that those that win at the track long term have already found their black box or are they just better at seeing things in the past performances in advance of the races that others (including me) may not see until after the races are run?

Jim

[Hosshead]

I don't think that all long term winners use the same method. Some use a mechanical system (black box), some use a freestyle approach based on their experience, and some use a hybrid approach using both. That's what's great about racing. There is a path for everyone. You keep trying (learning) new paths until you get on the +ROI Path .

[Tom]

Larry, sloppy logic. Your "conclusion" is based on your perception of what our answers to your limited questions would be. Hardly a scientific approach. It never ceases to amaze me how often people do not understand someone else's methodology conclude it is wrong, cannot work, etc, etc.
I do not use ANY program as a black box. I select my own pacelines, I run different scenarios, I look at how HTR and ES rate horses, and I love it when something is ranked on top across the board. Yes, Larry, I do bet against these kind, and frequently. I love seeing a horse who looks strong in only one or two areas and is 13-1 going against a 3-2 shot ranked 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-3.
If what you are doing works for you fine, but that is no indication that what I am doing is not working for me. I prefer to use a program as a tool and concede that it could ever be smarter than me.

[kitts]

I still like the "old fashioned" pick contenders first. By doing that, you have made the software un-black-boxed. You have measured form, condition, class and angles by reducing the race to contention.

[acorn54]

kitt
what do you do when you pick contenders first then use software that comes up with the same contenders. seems like there is only the "value" you are getting to separate the horse(s) to bet.-guy

[GameTheory]

Black boxes can and do win. However, a really sharp human who knows his particular track really well will probably do better (maybe much better) than a black box on the subset of races the human is expert at analyzing. But the black box can probably play 10x as many races, so makes up for it in volume.

Not everyone is in this game purely for the money; for many (who may use software), using a black box takes all the interest out of the game for them, even if it is profitable. Many of the functions of handicapping software are just doing the heavy-lifting for the user, e.g. take these pacelines and then calculate these ratings based on mechanical (but known) formulas. A black box needs to have some (predictive) functions where the user essentially has no input into how they are calculated on a race by race basis, e.g. take each horse's record, and you (the black box) figure out what data is relevant and why, weigh it all in some mysterious fashion, and spit out the results. The term black box really has to do with mystery, lack of user interaction in the decision making, and usually involves a process that could not or would not ever be attempted "manually".

No commericial piece of software available (that I know of) is a total black box (that works, I can think of a couple failed black boxes), but I do know of some home-grown private total or near-total black boxes that are quite successful. (I actually don't think there is a market for a total black box.) Still, much commercial software has black box functions.

So, it is all on a continuum -- some software are more black-boxish than others. I think the conflict occurs with people who think that making a black box is not a worthy goal (maybe it isn't, for them) or that it can't be done. But it has been done, and many people are quite happy to profit without thinking too much about it...

[Light]

If you want to see black boxes in action,check out the PK4 contest.My $7400 bankroll(5th place) is all black box. I believe Binder(3rd place) is also black boxing. I wonder who else?I've come to the conclusion that the black box is a better handicapper than me and most handicappers. (I am acttually participating in the PK4 contest as an experiment,mainly to see how the black box performs against more traditional handicappers)

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
Larry, sloppy logic. Your "conclusion" is based on your perception of what our answers to your limited questions would be. Hardly a scientific approach. It never ceases to amaze me how often people do not understand someone else's methodology conclude it is wrong, cannot work, etc, etc.
I do not use ANY program as a black box. I select my own pacelines, I run different scenarios, I look at how HTR and ES rate horses, and I love it when something is ranked on top across the board. Yes, Larry, I do bet against these kind, and frequently. I love seeing a horse who looks strong in only one or two areas and is 13-1 going against a 3-2 shot ranked 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-3.
If what you are doing works for you fine, but that is no indication that what I am doing is not working for me. I prefer to use a program as a tool and concede that it could ever be smarter than me.
Great post tom! Right on Target. Larry, I use Equisim almost exclusively. But I often bet against the Sim and profiler top contender. Especially in two scenarios. One is the high end stakes races. Often these horses are seperated by very little in the sim and prof. But there are reasons to go against them. Like pace scenarios etc......that are outside what I can select in the program. This also applies in two year old races. Sometimes you can only make your best guess on how much a horse is going to improve. You don't have the data to use in ES, but you can compare what your thoughts are based on what the program comes up with. These are often times the best pay days.....
Equisim had War Emblem winning the Derby or right there depending on what paceline you chose. I thought he had one more improvement in him. Not much, but one more. I also thought the Balto Starr effect would be on in that Derby (don't go too fast) and the Jocks would do one of two things, go slow or really slow. There wasn't a button or check box for how the Jocks were feeling or whether the horse would improve. Enough said...we all know what happen. So if you are using the program as a black box.........you might miss some big ones..........

[Tom]

A play I like with ES is when a horse is all alone on the lead well into the stretch and then is caught by several horses. If the track is favoring early speed, and the front end runner did so off his last paceline, I get on these guys.

[kitts]

acorn-
I pick the contenders then eliminate them from the race for the software to measure them. I don't involve the software in picking contenders.

[Jake]

Having been lucky enough to see multiple days of output from Larry's black box, I would say he's found something very powerful. Not only was his hit rate extraordinary, but the ROI was generous, to say the least. As far as I'm concerned, when the payoffs are there, the argument quickly becomes moot. The black box approach certainly doesn't fit the handicapping style of everyone here, but that's fine. But when you see a really nicely programmed one, it's persuasive as hell.

[Larry Hamilton]

Jake is strokin' me, must need a loan

=========================

I made this statement (conclusion) and apparently it raised some hackles. I will rewrite it ....

Conclusion: I do indeed buy software for the answer. If a single answer is not there, I am willing to fudge. When I fudge it is more like guessing and less like the analysis done by the software.

[jackad]

Larry.
Did you program your black box yourself or have someone custom program it for you according to your specifications, or is it some modification of a commercially available program?

[alysheba88]

Do you make money on a regular basis? That is the only real importance in the end. Am probably more suspect of the "black box" or "Magic bullet" then anyone. If someone makes money most years, whatever they do, thats good enough for me. If you lose money and don't change what you are doing, whatever strategy you follow, then something is wrong.

[Larry Hamilton]

In the last ten days, I have had 6 winning days, 2 losing days and 2 bowling days. My losing days are marginal, my winning days can be huge as somedays I get every bet right.

I designed it myself. It is in every sense of the word a black box--so much so that what I do no longer looks like handicapping. The fact that a horse race is being bet on is incidental.

If you really love the yacking, comparing, digging out stuff part of this game, you dont want a black box approach. I find that I could give a shit less if the trainer has a 35% win rate, and the jocket is on new highs and this horse has the fastest quarter in history. What I care about is if my computerized analysis (black box) put him at the top, by how much, what is the proper bet pool, and how much. I have lost the part of the game that drew me in in the first place.

I am no longer playing horses, I am betting on numbers.

When my pick comes up, I know exactly what my likelyhood of winning is, what is the expected ROI, what is the expeted average return per bet and a number of other things. What I do not know is the trainers name, the jocks name and most of the time, I dont even notice the horses name.


Is winning worth not playing the game with all the jargon--jury is still out on that one.

I am not sure what this info will do for your own career, but good luck anyway. I should also state, I am not trying to convince anyone this is THE WAY, it is MyWay.

[JimG]

Larry,

After reading your post, I'm not sure if congratulations or condolences is warranted.

Obviously, if your results hold up long term, you've done something very few have been able to. You've also lost the thrill of the chase for the "perfect black box". You'll already have it. Most reading your post would say..."Damn, that Larry has it made"....me, I'm not so sure. Thanks for sharing.

Jim

[John]

JimG

I believe Larry, You see, we all are really lazy . There are days when I don't feel like Handicapping and just want to run a program that I know will generate figures and I will go with the numbers. Why not ,I have seen some good days with the figures. Only thing not enough of them to make me a steady winner.

Often I have said, if only I knew when the figures were to have a big day....What a black box I would have.

[Zaf]

I find myself playing more by numbers now than ever before.

Like Larry I rarely look or care who the jockey or trainer is. I don't know if this is good or bad.

In the old days I would buy the Print Version of the DRF and mull over a card for about an hour. Now I mull over 4 or 5 cards in about an hour.

As for the results , I am doing no worse than I did before.

ZAFONIC

[DJofSD]

Obviously, for Larry, the destination is the thing. For others, it is the journey.

Another way of stating it is: Larry likes to win money. Others possibly have more ego on the line.

Why do I make such a provacative statement? Because I had an insight into my own reasons for playing the game. Then I moved on to another level.

DJofSD

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by rocajack
JimG

I believe Larry, You see, we all are really lazy . There are days when I don't feel like Handicapping and just want to run a program that I know will generate figures and I will go with the numbers. Why not ,I have seen some good days with the figures. Only thing not enough of them to make me a steady winner.

Often I have said, if only I knew when the figures were to have a big day....What a black box I would have.

I find that I lose on those kind of days....or I miss a big longshot that I would have never let go had I been "in the game"

I still think that half the fun is the chase............I use that same philosophy........with the wife.....been working pretty well so far...

[ranchwest]

Larry, does your program utilize past performances alone or do you utilize data you've retained (a database with data not found directly in today's past performances)?

[lousycapperII]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton

I am no longer playing horses, I am betting on numbers.

When my pick comes up, I know exactly what my likelyhood of winning is, what is the expected ROI, what is the expeted average return per bet and a number of other things. What I do not know is the trainers name, the jocks name and most of the time, I dont even notice the horses name.

I am not trying to convince anyone this is THE WAY, it is MyWay.

:) AT LAST SOMEONE WHO HAS FIGURED OUT WHAT THIS BUSINESS IS ALL ABOUT...AND IT AIN'T ABOUT HORSES! :)

-LCII

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by lousycapperII
:) AT LAST SOMEONE WHO HAS FIGURED OUT WHAT THIS BUSINESS IS ALL ABOUT...AND IT AIN'T ABOUT HORSES! :)

-LCII

Yeah, if we all would have had computers when Ruffian ran, she wouldn't have hit that horse shoe.

[nomadpat]

Something I read from Pace Makes the Race applies to this thread about software usage:
Michael Pizzolla "you must use all of these tools together in a comprehensive, yet non-mechanical, manner."
I consider software a tool to this end. :)

[VetScratch]

Originally posted by nomadpat
Something I read from Pace Makes the Race applies to this thread about software usage:
Michael Pizzolla "you must use all of these tools together in a comprehensive, yet non-mechanical, manner."
I consider software a tool to this end. :) I disagree, and I totally agree with Larry. In fact, successful black boxes require "mechanical" adherance in order to work profitably. Your focus becomes execution rather then handicapping. By execution, I mean precisely sticking with the decision hierarchy and rules dictated by the black box with respect to passing or executing wagering tactics... this can become hectic when multiple post times get compressed... and like Larry said... all the stuff that makes for communal fun among players is sacrificed... you actually find yourself going back to find out "who" made your day with respect to horses, trainers, jockeys, etc.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by VetScratch
I disagree, and I totally agree with Larry. In fact, successful black boxes require "mechanical" adherance in order to work profitably. Your focus becomes execution rather then handicapping. By execution, I mean precisely sticking with the decision hierarchy and rules dictated by the black box with respect to passing or executing wagering tactics... this can become hectic when multiple post times get compressed... and like Larry said... all the stuff that makes for communal fun among players is sacrificed... you actually find yourself going back to find out "who" made your day with respect to horses, trainers, jockeys, etc.

Ok...Vettie.....send your money to Larry .......let him take care of it for you. I am sure a small cut would be all he asks.

No it is not about Horses...........the truth is it is more about people than friggin horses........and if you don't understand that....you are missing the great part of the game..........

[VetScratch]

JustRalph,

In the past I have said that worshipping profit can take the fun out of playing the horses.

I know several black-box value-play purists who produce a very positive ROI with rules such as:
(1) No bets if any program scratches after your last chance to re-handicap race.
(2) No bets if toteboard favorite is under some pre-defined floor.
(3) Flat-bet/dutch handicapped contenders going off above fair-value odds projection.

The main drawbacks are:
(1) Downloading/handicapping all tracks requires daily time management discipline.
(2) Very little recreational value is derived from tediously (and sometimes frantically) monitoring toteboards for numerous tracks at the same time.
(3) Problems getting wagers down as late as possible, which is actually easier at a mutuel window than via the Internet if you play any/all the exotics.

Very few semi-sociable horseplayers can religiously stick with a black-box regimen of play.

Thus, while you can profit with such a system, it is best accomplished by a network (team) of online players in order to successfully execute the system for all North American tracks and none of them really enjoy the work (glued to their PCs for hours on end). This is why approaches such as Formula_2002's new program fascinate so many folks.

I can't wait until later this spring when I can get back to live racing with all the friends I miss. All the distractions dilute system profits, but one or two bits of "good" information per month are all that you need to compensate. Many board members cherish the fun they have had together at the track... but cliques of trainers and agents have just as much fun, especially when it comes to "pimping" each other around in a good-natured manner.

My mom says some of the guys actually miss me! :)

[sjk]

I find lots of recreational value in watching the races and yelling at the horses my black box program has instructed me to bet. At home I can yell as loud as I want without disturbing anyone else. Unfortunately, the horses do not always respond to the extra decibels.

I find it much easier to follow a large number of tracks at home since the computer can track the odds instead of having to do it visually. Also at the track if I am interested in the 2 & x exactas, I often have to wait for those combinations to come up on the screen (with the post parade often getting in the way) whereas the toteboards at home are of the matrix variety with all payouts available. Getting up and walking to the window is also time-consuming.

Many of the tracks I have visited recently have a limited number of monitors making it difficult to follow all the tracks from where I am sitting; This results in a lot of walking around. (Quite possibly if I were a regular at these tracks, I would find a better place to sit as I have at my normal home track.)

As to late scratches, the computer can rehandicap in 20 seconds. There have been a number of times when a horse was scratched at the gate and I benefited from a lucrative opportunity.

[JimL]

I wish LC2, had told me before that it is not about horses, I could have avoided anxiety attacks with the stretch drives of Affirmed, and Alydar! I could have just put them in my D-Base, for use later. John Henry, Who is he? Oh just another horse. JimL

[VetScratch]

Sjk,

Everything you say has merit... it does boil down to personal taste and temperment!

I have never felt comfortable taking a laptop to the track, so you lose the advantages of being online at home. I just format as many odds-lines as possible on the least amount of paper and seldom handicap simulcast tracks that don't have a 48-hour scratch rule when I am going to be hanging out, but I like it better that way.

Someone always has a Form if you want to look beyond just program numbers and odds.

[JimG]

Have any of you folks that use black boxes developed a winning black box that does not take into account (current or final) track odds?

Jim

[lousycapperII]

Originally posted by JimG
Have any of you folks that use black boxes developed a winning black box that does not take into account (current or final) track odds?

Jim

I think a true "black box" would not need the current odds to be profitable. The "value plays" would be an integral part of the software. Perhaps using the pricemaker's line as a starting point. The data wonks could answer this.

-LCII

[VetScratch]

I think the data miners definitely find black-box "value" plays with the distinct advantage that they are identified well in advance and then hold up as winning propositions overlooked by the betting public.

As I see it, however, such systems depend on utmost discretion to ensure that they remain winning propositions since word can spread in the same manner that good barn plays get compromised. The grind-it-out approach of monitoring toteboards against good handicapped odds-lines doesn't seem to propagate as rapidly as value opportunities that can be predicted with "confidence" well in advance of post time.

[formula_2002]

FABRICAND'S HORSE SENSE ON E-BAY NOW
BIDDING WILL END ABOUT 11 AM TODAY.. i JUST BID IT UP TO $50.00.
sOME GUY MUST HAVE A PROGRAM THAT PLACES HIS BId $1.00 ABOVE, MINE.


I developed a similar program a few days ago, but i'll use it for on line betting!!


__________________

[John]

Formula-2002

Don't fret over Fabricand, Horse sense. I have a copy.

John

[formula_2002]

John.. somewhere in this house there are two copies that I put into a special place.. So special I can't find them..

Are you interested in selling your copy?..

Joe M

[Jeff P]

Have any of you folks that use black boxes developed a winning black box that does not take into account (current or final) track odds?

Jim



Jim-

I have been developing a black box of my own (Visual Basic/SQL Tables/Bris datafiles) for a number of years now. The numbers based selections that it generates are profitable overall. But I have found that the results can be improved upon significantly when its low odds selections are passed rather than played.

I have also found, at some tracks, I can use the morning line in place of the actual odds and improve the results significantly by passing those selections with a ML of 9-2 or less.

But- and here's where I think the real opportunity for watershed discovery and improvement lies- I have found that incorporating physicality into my selection process helps quite a bit. I find myself passing almost all of my own black box selections because of the way the horses look or act while stepping out onto the track on race day. That said, I find that those that I actually do end up playing tend to perform very well- very often competing and making a bid to win their races.

That's really too bad because what I really am searching for is a way to successfully play horses passively- say make all of my bets for the day and then go do something else- like go to the beach with friends, etc.

You see playing the horses has a cost. No. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about family and friends. Go to the track or OTB every day, focus intently on what you are doing, even though you make good money doing it, and your friends start thinking of you as a recluse. Go to the beach or go skiing for the weekend, and have great fun, but you do so knowing that you are missing opportunities for profit. (By the way, I find that most of my best overlays happen on Saturdays and/or Sundays. Anyone else?) Even if you do manage to call in a handful of bets before going off somewhere with your friends, you do so knowing ahead of time that you won't make anywhere near the profit you would have made had you known about races taken off the turf, scratches that change the pace composition of races, passed on a selection because it was bet down to nothing and offered no value, or gotten up and cancelled a ticket or two because the assistant starters had to grab your selection by the ear and practically carry him to the starting gate, etc.

For me it's all one big paradox. I want to do both. Give me skiing trips or weekends at the beach AND let me play horses successfully- That's not asking too much is it?

[formula_2002]

JEFF P
That's really too bad because what I really am searching for is a way to successfully play horses passively- say make all of my bets for the day and then go do something else- like go to the beach with friends, etc.



Jeff, your wish is but a few key stokes and about 30 days away.
take a look at the "programed betting" post".

[JimG]

Jeff P,

Thanks a lot for the reply. Very informtive. I was wondering if those of you using "black boxes" were still a slave to the oddsboard looking for "value".

JimG

[sjk]

As I indicated above, I watch the toteboards (using macros, not eyes). I think it would be much more difficult to be successful without access to that valuable information.

[First_Place]

My lifelong fantasy. At least as long as I've been handicapping horse races. Sorry my friend, no such thing.

Handicapping is an 'art' not a science. I know, I know, you've heard that a thousand times. Okay, so you really wanna 'black box' system? Listen very closely and I'm gonna let ya in on a li'l secret on how to get ahold of your very own copy. Here's how ya do it:

First off, start by reading everything you can find that applies to this hobby/business. In short, you gotta read, read, read. And when you're done reading, you gotta read some more!

Step number 2: Now comes the fun part: Practice, practice, practice handicapping races on paper (or using your favorite software program). And when you're done practicing, practice some more!

Then after hundreds of hours (if not thousands) of the aforementioned mental exercises use can now begin to apply your newly acquired skills and attempt to master the psychological/emotional aspect of horse race handicapping using real money in real time. Take it from me, a LOT easier said than done. Personally, I'm still workin' on it. Once you master that, you will have your very own proprietary 'black box' system imbedded inside the gray matter inside your noggin.

Finally, once you (think) you've mastered this hobby/business, I highly recommend that you start at the beginning to keep sharp and to remain humble.

Good luck.

FP

[trying2win]

First Place,

You make some good points. Playing the horse races is a continuous education. I'm still learning and doing some fine-tuning after all these years. Handicapping the horses certainly is challenging, but an enjoyable pastime for me.

T2W

[Larry Hamilton]

I had some trouble with this post. on a number of levels

My lifelong fantasy. At least as long as I've been handicapping horse races. Sorry my friend, no such thing.

Handicapping is an 'art' not a science.

NO such thing? Prove it. Only one black box is necessary to chunk your claim. I have one. Your claim is chunked.

Handicapping is art not science. Define art.

And come to think about it, I am not sure the advice to READ, READ, READ is valid either. Afterall, once you learn to read the data, if you go in the same direction as everyone else, you are learning to lose (in good company). If you want to win, it makes sense to go in new directions not old ones.

[Jeff P]

First_Place,

On the surface, what you said about reading and practicing makes sense. They guy who studies and practices should beat out his competition in the long run. Right? But study and practice what? There are plenty of handicapping books out there. And plenty of software programs based on the concepts found therein. The problem is, the books get read by all of us. And many of us end up buying the programs. As a result, the concepts put forth in these books and programs tend to get reflected in the pools. So we all end up trying to grab for the same piece of meat. And genuine overlays become somewhat of a rarity.

I honestly believe that a good database can be one of the best tools you can have when learning to beat this game- if you use it right. Some of the best ideas I've come up with are a direct result of running queries against my own database to discover what the crowd isn't betting vs what they are betting. Find scenarios where the crowd repeatedly looks the other way and you are well on your way to becoming a winner.