Might as well put everything in the crapper

[shoelessjoe]

IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO

1) know when to pass or play a race

2) know if your going to play how to bet that race


You might as well throw class,form.pacelines,software etc
in the crapper because you wont consistantly win at this
game.

[Dave Schwartz]

This is absolutely true and part of the topic of conversation on Wednesday's Derek Simon Podcast (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twinspires/2012/11/07/twinspires-horse-racing-podcast-wderek-simon).

Join in if you can.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[shoelessjoe]

Dave,

How would you go about trying to achieve these goals?

[Dave Schwartz]

From my point of view, it takes metrics.

That is, you must have a NUMBER that ultimately represents whether a race is a good bet or not; whether a horse is a good bet or not.

I think guys like Thaskalos disagree. Guys like him feel that a race or horse is playable. They seem to be able to quantify free-form information into viable decisions without a near-total reliance on numbers.

I actually envy the handful of people I know of who seem to be able to do that. Not too many of them that I know seem to really succeed at racing. Not saying it can't be done; just saying I don't know how to do it (and rarely run across people who can).

My belief is that metrics are easier. You have something to measure and measure against.

[thaskalos]

I have numbers too, Dave...and they guide me when I make these decisions.

I don't just go by "feel"...

[MightBeSosa]

Maybe it's just a personal tic, but if I can't figure out who to put second, many times I already have the winner.

[shoelessjoe]

Dave,

OK lets say you have a bank of 1000 and come across one of these
good plays how much would you risk betting on it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Joe,

My numbers tell me that. That is part of the use of metrics.


Thaskalos,

I did not say that you didn't use ANY numbers. As I understand from your past writings, your numbers do not directly translate into who you wager and how much.

My numbers and system do precisely that.


Dave

[Overlay]

How would you go about trying to achieve these goals?

For me, through the making of a quantitatively-based full-field fair-odds line.

The play/pass judgment would be based on whether the horse's actual odds are higher than the fair odds that my line has assigned to it.

The bet-sizing/allocation judgment would be based on the size of the disparity between an overlaid horse's actual odds and my line's fair odds for the horse.

[davew]

For me, through the making of a quantitatively-based full-field fair-odds line.

The play/pass judgment would be based on whether the horse's actual odds are higher than the fair odds that my line has assigned to it.

The bet-sizing/allocation judgment would be based on the size of the disparity between an overlaid horse's actual odds and my line's fair odds for the horse.



This reminds me of a 3 sentence summary of the racing classic by Mark Cramer, The Odds on your Side

[Overlay]

This reminds me of a 3 sentence summary of the racing classic by Mark Cramer, The Odds on your Side
The flaw that I found with Cramer (as with most other references on odds-making that I'm familiar with) was that his lines were based on intuition and subjective judgment, rather than objective data or statistics, and thus were lacking in assurance that they could be consistently and accurately replicated from one race to the next.

(I realize that each race is a unique, never-to-be-exactly-repeated set of circumstances, but there are still performance patterns and attributes that can be validly and productively applied across a wide spectrum of races, as long as they are viewed in terms of their associated probabilities, rather than as absolute guarantees of how a horse will perform, or as "go/no-go" criteria for completely eliminating horses from consideration one by one until a race field has been narrowed down to the one most likely winner.)

[shoelessjoe]

Dave,

Wondering if you would share how you go about making
your numbers.

[raybo]

When to pass and how to wager the races you don't pass, is indeed, the road to profitability, IMO.

I'm a "numbers" guy and my program tells me both of those, which races are not "playable" and what odds you must require in order to play the playable races. This info comes from a small database of track specific races, and the track testing method within the program. You test a track decide what you want, hit rate, lots of plays, ROI, or profit. Whatever tested method/minimum odds requirement fits that preference is the method you use, the rest is done by the program, just bet the picks the program tells you to bet.

Yes, I started as a pen and pencil handicapper, and did that until I learned to handicap effectively. After that I just started putting all that knowledge into programs, which left me with much more time to actual playing. I've gone through many, many iterations of my programs, refined and honed them, in order to get what I want from them, long term profit. Nothing more nothing less. It's mostly black or white, for me, very little gray.

[Dave Schwartz]

Wondering if you would share how you go about making
your numbers.

My "numbers" are not so much numbers as "metrics."

What makes our approach work is that all the metrics are addressing a question like "Which factors are most important in a race like this one?" and are expressed as an IV (impact value) or PIV (pool impact value). Another possibility would be that the best factors using those metrics would be placed into an "object" to handicap with.

The point is, while most players look at speed, pace or class ratings, we look at the value of those ratings instead.

[Stillriledup]

Maybe it's just a personal tic, but if I can't figure out who to put second, many times I already have the winner.

If the exacta takeout is 3 pts higher than the win takeout, that means with all things being equal, the win bettor will do 3 percent better in the long run. BUT, if you have ANY edge on the 'other runners' you can cut into that 3 percent. If you're truly good enough to 'have the winner' that sort of means you have to really be an expert on all the other runners in the race, you have to really know all the horses in your race like the back of your hand and if that's true, you should be able to eat away at that extra few points you're paying in takeout rate.

[MightBeSosa]

Actually, no. You might be able to do some 'work' underneath, but what I was really saying is:

When the field behind the top selection is so nondescript or unfathomable, that you can't come up with a reasonable second finisher, that in itself can highlight the strength of the selection.

[thaskalos]

Actually, no. You might be able to do some 'work' underneath, but what I was really saying is:

When the field behind the top selection is so nondescript or unfathomable, that you can't come up with a reasonable second finisher, that in itself can highlight the strength of the selection.

It can in some cases...but it all depends on how much handicapping "distance" there is between your top selection and the second-tier horses.

The inability to come up with a clear second finisher may also mean that there are too many contenders in the race...in which case, confidence in the top selection may decrease.