Value that counts in theory

[Capper Al]

Going for value definitely is what being profitable is about. Two extremes come to mind making a good case for their stance-- chalk without the vulnerable favorites and going long for value. The chalk players correctly state that any ticket cashed is an overlay. And if one only gambles a few times a year for fun, I say go for it. The value players correctly state that if one gets the better of the odds over the horse's intrinsic value then mathematically they will have to come out ahead. And as Dave keeps hammering away in the forum that intrinsic value can be 3/5 at post.

Both schools also have major flaws. With margins so low on the chalk horse, miscalculating a few vulnerable favorites could tip one over into loses. While the value players, come on does anyone really know the intrinsic value of any horse? Gordon Pine wrote an excellent essay, 'Impact Value of Questionable Value: A/E is the Gold Standard' at NetCapper. Dave also has a similar method describe in his book, 'Percentages & Probabilities 2012' using what he calls PIV. Both methods work on the idea that the real impact value isn't how many hits occur compared to expected, but how will they pay (return money) compared to expected. I believe the only difference between the two is that Gordon Pine adjusts for take-out.

Both methods work in theory given that one knows the intrinsic value of a horse be it vulnerable favorite or an overlay. In other words, it isn't so much the math-- it is the intrinsic value of the horse. If anyone could figure this out on a consistent basis, they would be rich.

[cj]

While chalk players may state that any ticket cashed is an overlay, that is far from correct.

[CincyHorseplayer]

That's the fun part of this game Al.The self annointed value is what excites and implies meaning on the bottomline.Finding the holy grail of intrinsic value and absolute,objective,concrete reality is definitely a worthy ideal.But while I think the effectiveness is reached,it doesn't sound like much fun.If I wanted total disconnect I'd play another game.I think the best of subjective/objective is the solution.To me it seems like devoting all the effort to the automaton so I can be relieved of thinking beyond it.

[cj]

In the end, we can never know if we were right in assessing any single horses chances whether we cash a ticket or not. All we can know is if we are right often enough to overcome the takeout and show a profit. Still, we won't know which times we were right and which times we weren't.

[Capper Al]

While chalk players may state that any ticket cashed is an overlay, that is far from correct.

Over the long run this proves to be true, but can one argue with anyone cashing a ticket in the short run?

[cj]

Over the long run this proves to be true, but can one argue with anyone cashing a ticket in the short run?

I guess it depends on what they are arguing. Like I said, nobody knows if the result of a bet on any one race is actually "value" or not.

[Capper Al]

That's the fun part of this game Al.The self annointed value is what excites and implies meaning on the bottomline.Finding the holy grail of intrinsic value and absolute,objective,concrete reality is definitely a worthy ideal.But while I think the effectiveness is reached,it doesn't sound like much fun.If I wanted total disconnect I'd play another game.I think the best of subjective/objective is the solution.To me it seems like devoting all the effort to the automaton so I can be relieved of thinking beyond it.

Concur with the subjective/objective. It's more than on the horse. It falls on the handicapper to know when they are in fuzzy grey area of subjective/objective with both the horse and their capping abilities.

[Overlay]

When I first reviewed Mike Nunamaker's data, where IV's had been calculated taking individual field sizes into account, I was having trouble reconciling them with other available data where impact values were calculated by the original formula that Davis and Quirin used. I saw no way of converting the impact-value data that I already had to Nunamaker-style figures, because I only had aggregate numbers of starters and winners for the characteristics involved, rather than individual field sizes for each of the races that constituted the various samples. (The same handicap later applied to attempting to construct A/E ratios from aggregate figures.) I thus went back and used Nunamaker's raw data to convert his IV's back to Quirin-style IV's (so that I could be comparing apples to apples), and I have not found the results to vary to a degree significant enough to affect the accuracy of the use of the Quirin-style IV's, or the validity of the full-field fair-odds lines obtained with them.

[Capper Al]

I guess it depends on what they are arguing. Like I said, nobody knows if the result of a bet on any one race is actually "value" or not.

It's hard to be objective if nobody knows. A pattern (such a early pace) can be measured, but is difficult to apply with so many other attributes competing in with their calculations in any given race.

[Capper Al]

When I first reviewed Mike Nunamaker's data, where IV's had been calculated taking individual field sizes into account, I was having trouble reconciling them with other available data where impact values were calculated using the original approach that Davis and Quirin used. I saw no way of converting the impact-value data that I already had to Nunamaker-style figures, because I only had aggregate numbers of starters and winners for the characteristics involved, rather than individual field sizes for each of the races that constituted the various samples. (The same handicap later applied to attempting to construct A/E ratios from aggregate figures.) I thus went back and used Nunamaker's raw data to convert his IV's back to Quirin-style IV's (so that I could be comparing apples to apples), and I have not found the results to vary to a degree significant enough to affect the accuracy of the use of the Quirin IV's, or the validity of the full-field fair odds obtained with them.

I expected that but without research had no way to validate it. Thanks.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Concur with the subjective/objective. It's more than on the horse. It falls on the handicapper to know when they are in fuzzy grey area of subjective/objective with both the horse and their capping abilities.

It almost comes down to the age old contrast of art and science.This game embodies both on a level that rivals any game of chance.There should be concurrent pursuits on both sides of the equation.The one aspect can't be quantified by analysis though.That's why it ends up getting relegated to unbelief.Horse whisperer as handicapper.That's my ideal.I believe in it.

[Dave Schwartz]

In the end, we can never know if we were right in assessing any single horses chances whether we cash a ticket or not. All we can know is if we are right often enough to overcome the takeout and show a profit. Still, we won't know which times we were right and which times we weren't.

Absolutely right on the money, CJ.

When I first reviewed Mike Nunamaker's data, where IV's had been calculated taking individual field sizes into account, I was having trouble reconciling them with other available data where impact values were calculated by the original formula that Davis and Quirin used. I saw no way of converting the impact-value data that I already had to Nunamaker-style figures, because I only had aggregate numbers of starters and winners for the characteristics involved, rather than individual field sizes for each of the races that constituted the various samples. (The same handicap later applied to attempting to construct A/E ratios from aggregate figures.) I thus went back and used Nunamaker's raw data to convert his IV's back to Quirin-style IV's (so that I could be comparing apples to apples), and I have not found the results to vary to a degree significant enough to affect the accuracy of the use of the Quirin-style IV's, or the validity of the full-field fair-odds lines obtained with them.

Overlay,

Did you read the chapter in my Percentages and Probabilities book about that? (In the appendix.)

[Overlay]

Overlay,

Did you read the chapter in my Percentages and Probabilities book about that? (In the appendix.)
Yes, I did, and I understand your reasoning in Appendix C about the flaws with Davis/Quirin IV's, and how your various distinctive metrics address them.

[Valuist]

Over the long run this proves to be true, but can one argue with anyone cashing a ticket in the short run?

Yes, if it pays less than what you anticipated.

[Capper Al]

BRIS' PPs give average odds for the race type. For example, BRIS might say that with a 6 furlong race on the turf the average pay out might be $10.00. That would be 4/1 odds. Now what is the point if your odds line or the trackman has your horse going off at 3/1? Does one wait for 3/1 or 4/1. Let's keep it simple and say all other necessary markups have been included for this exampe.

[raybo]

While I'm no statistician, nor have I read any of the books/works mentioned, the only real way of determining "value" is in the long term results. Does your method perform well enough at high enough prices to produce long term, fairly consistent profits?

In short, the real answer happens in real life, over the entire life of the method. That's why one can NEVER stop evolving oneself and one's methods.

[Overlay]

BRIS' PPs give average odds for the race type. For example, BRIS might say that with a 6 furlong race on the turf the average pay out might be $10.00. That would be 4/1 odds. Now what is the point if your odds line or the trackman has your horse going off at 3/1? Does one wait for 3/1 or 4/1. Let's keep it simple and say all other necessary markups have been included for this exampe.
If (as you mentioned) you've made your own odds line (or if you trust the trackman to have made an accurate line, although I would hesitate to do that), the only question that would matter (at least for me) would be whether the horse's actual odds are higher than the fair odds assigned by the line. The average odds for the particular type of race wouldn't enter into it.

[Valuist]

BRIS' PPs give average odds for the race type. For example, BRIS might say that with a 6 furlong race on the turf the average pay out might be $10.00. That would be 4/1 odds. Now what is the point if your odds line or the trackman has your horse going off at 3/1? Does one wait for 3/1 or 4/1. Let's keep it simple and say all other necessary markups have been included for this exampe.

The problem with this thinking is that betting process is about specifics; not generalities. Every race is different. We cannot compare race A to race B just because they are at the same distance and over the same surface. Its all about the makeup of the individual runners in the given race.

[Dave Schwartz]

The problem with this thinking is that betting process is about specifics; not generalities. Every race is different. We cannot compare race A to race B just because they are at the same distance and over the same surface. Its all about the makeup of the individual runners in the given race.

I just had this conversation with a player the other day. The topic was looking at race conditions to predict longer payoffs - what some call a "chaos" race.

I said that when you do it that way you get races that are harder to predict (as well as longer payoffs). The prediction of longer payoffs may be accurate, but what you really want is a race that is very predictive to YOUR METHODOLOGY and still looks like a long payoff race.

IMHO, you do not find that from the race conditions, but from the horses you have chosen to eliminate (or almost eliminate) as contenders.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Greyfox]

IMHO, you do not find that from the race conditions, but from the horses you have chosen to eliminate (or almost eliminate) as contenders.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I'm not quite following you here Dave.

How do you get anything from horses that you've eliminated?

[DeltaLover]

In the end, we can never know if we were right in assessing any single horses chances whether we cash a ticket or not. All we can know is if we are right often enough to overcome the takeout and show a profit. Still, we won't know which times we were right and which times we weren't.


CJ, this is one of the most fundamental concepts to understand and one of the axiomatic truths in this game.

Although correct that a winning strategy consists from more overs than underlays, it is impossible to distinguish them.

A handicapper can spend years trying to create the perfect line that will compare it against the pools and make his decisions. He does not have much of a luck! In an individual base this is impossible to happen.


The best we can do is to create a profitable strategy model or whatever else you want to call it with a proven historical performance and hope that it will continue to show the same behavior in the future.

Of course a model can and should take in consideration the odds or their ranking of each starter but just for grouping and classification purposes never to compare them against what the 'proper' line should be!

[raybo]

I'm not quite following you here Dave.

How do you get anything from horses that you've eliminated?

I think he means that you get higher prices in races where lower priced horses have been eliminated from your contenders, thus raising the prices you receive on your contenders, above what they would be in other races against other horses. Being able to eliminate false favorites, and/or other low odds public choices, as contenders, is a good way to improve your average payout, while keeping your hit rate relatively intact.

[raybo]

CJ, this is one of the most fundamental concepts to understand and one of the axiomatic truths in this game.

Although correct that a winning strategy consists from more overs than underlays, it is impossible to distinguish them.

A handicapper can spend years trying to create the perfect line that will compare it against the pools and make his decisions. He does not have much of a luck! In an individual base this is impossible to happen.


The best we can do is to create a profitable strategy model or whatever else you want to call it with a proven historical performance and hope that it will continue to show the same behavior in the future.

Of course a model can and should take in consideration the odds or their ranking of each starter but just for grouping and classification purposes never to compare them against what the 'proper' line should be!

Don't you agree that the better player does a better job of assessing winning probability than the lesser player? If so, then why would that better player not compare the odds he will/might receive against his assessment of winning probability? Otherwise, you really aren't betting value are you?

While it might be true that one is never absolutely sure of the exact winning probability, the better player does a good enough job of that assessment to be able to make good value wagers.

[Greyfox]

I think he means that you get higher prices in races where lower priced horses have been eliminated from your contenders, thus raising the prices you receive on your contenders, above what they would be in other races against other horses. Being able to eliminate false favorites, and/or other low odds public choices, as contenders, is a good way to improve your average payout, while keeping your hit rate relatively intact.

Thank you. :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

Thank you. :ThmbUp:

Just my take on Dave's response. He may mean something else.

[DeltaLover]

Don't you agree that the better player does a better job of assessing winning probability than the lesser player? If so, then why would that better player not compare the odds he will/might receive against his assessment of winning probability? Otherwise, you really aren't betting value are you?

While it might be true that one is never absolutely sure of the exact winning probability, the better player does a good enough job of that assessment to be able to make good value wagers.

Ray,

by definition a better player is closer to the real odds than a more inferior. No one is going to argue about that.

Unfortunately though we do not bet against the inferior players only. Instead we are betting against a very tough consensus that might offer some value some times but the margins are really tiny!

Comparing your 4-1 against the 7-1 that is offered by the pool usually is not an overlay.. Most likely is an inefficiency in your line than anything else...

Your potential overlays will be fractions of the unit and as such very difficult to realize and confirm.

If you add to this the fact that we never know in advance what exactly the final price will be you can easily conclude that this is not the way to go!

[Dave Schwartz]

Fox,

Raybo pretty much nailed it.

If you've got low-priced horses as non-contenders, then it is logical that you can spread more horses. Is there more to it than that? Of course.

For example, I have found that races without an easily-definable pace scenario produce MUCH higher average mutuels.

Another scenario is a race where there is a stand-out low-priced horse that I have eliminated as a major contender. Doesn't happen very often but when it does, I am often faced with an entire field of also-rans (or maybe "also-may-runs" LOL). In such races I am not above betting 5 or 6 longshots and or hooking them up in exactas looking for a major hit.

Dave

[raybo]

Ray,

by definition a better player is closer to the real odds than a more inferior. No one is going to argue about that.

Unfortunately though we do not bet against the inferior players only. Instead we are betting against a very tough consensus that might offer some value some times but the margins are really tiny!

Comparing your 4-1 against the 7-1 that is offered by the pool usually is not an overlay.. Most likely is an inefficiency in your line than anything else...

Your potential overlays will be fractions of the unit and as such very difficult to realize and confirm.

If you add to this the fact that we never know in advance what exactly the final price will be you can easily conclude that this is not the way to go!

Sorry, but I can't conclude that, at all.

[Dave Schwartz]

by definition a better player is closer to the real odds than a more inferior. No one is going to argue about that.

I would say that is a reasonably accurate statement. Of course, in this age, with 70% of the pool showing up after the gate opens, my personal opinion is that looking at value THAT way does not work.

In a small study (small as in more like anecdotal), I found that 80% of winners at high rebate tracks show as bet down after the gate opens.

Conversely, at tracks with little or no rebate, it was about 40% up, 40% down and 20% unchanged.

IMHO, that means the entire concept of building a conventional odds line and applying it to the tote odds as the horses enter the gate is not worth playing. The exception to that is if you have a mechanism to actually PREDICT what the closing odds will be BASED upon current tote movement.

This is not a trivial feat.

[DeltaLover]

Of course, in this age, with 70% of the pool showing up after the gate opens, my personal opinion is that looking at value THAT way does not work.


I think this is exactly what I am saying in my posting above

[Dave Schwartz]

DL,

Yes, we must have a better way.

I have one. Do you? ;)

Dave

[Greyfox]

Fox,

Raybo pretty much nailed it.

If you've got low-priced horses as non-contenders, then it is logical that you can spread more horses. Is there more to it than that? Of course.

For example, I have found that races without an easily-definable pace scenario produce MUCH higher average mutuels.

Another scenario is a race where there is a stand-out low-priced horse that I have eliminated as a major contender. Doesn't happen very often but when it does, I am often faced with an entire field of also-rans (or maybe "also-may-runs" LOL). In such races I am not above betting 5 or 6 longshots and or hooking them up in exactas looking for a major hit.

Dave

Thank you for clarifying that. :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

Sorry, but I can't conclude that, at all.


Ray,

try the following and let us know how it went:

For each starter that you thought he was an overlay, just compare the implied probabilities log likelihood for you line against the final odds offered by the pools.

The largest one is the winner.. I will be very surprised if your line will be the one...

You can use your historical data as you have them in the data base...

[DeltaLover]

I have one.
Dave

Good for you Dave...



Do you? ;)
Dave

Not really...

I still throw my money in the pools, easy pray to people who know more...

I live with the hope one day I will get there and declare myself a handicapping authority ;)

[raybo]

I would say that is a reasonably accurate statement. Of course, in this age, with 70% of the pool showing up after the gate opens, my personal opinion is that looking at value THAT way does not work.

In a small study (small as in more like anecdotal), I found that 80% of winners at high rebate tracks show as bet down after the gate opens.

Conversely, at tracks with little or no rebate, it was about 40% up, 40% down and 20% unchanged.

IMHO, that means the entire concept of building a conventional odds line and applying it to the tote odds as the horses enter the gate is not worth playing. The exception to that is if you have a mechanism to actually PREDICT what the closing odds will be BASED upon current tote movement.

This is not a trivial feat.

You got it. We, as players, have the opportunity to make judgements regarding what the odds will do after we place our bets. If one disregards that opportunity, well then, he has no basis for complaining if he receives 6/5 rather than the 5/2 he saw as the horses entered the gate.

The ability to "see" what the public, in general, sees, is as valuable in our play as what we see in our own assessments of a horse's potential against the field he faces today. We have to assume that what happens to the odds, after the gate opens, will not necessarily fall in line with what we saw earlier. If your method is a traditional one, one that is readily available to the public, then your estimate of what will happen after the gate opens will probably be faulty. Conversely, if your method is not as traditional, you can expect the truly better horses, in this race, to decline in odds after the race starts. In this case, if you are on low priced horses, then your previous overlay will more than likely decrease to a lower level, or become an underlay, in which case you might want to reconsider wagering on that horse or those horses.

[Dave Schwartz]

handicapping authority

Alas, many are called and few are chosen. LOL

[raybo]

Ray,

try the following and let us know how it went:

For each starter that you thought he was an overlay, just compare the implied probabilities log likelihood for you line against the final odds offered by the pools.

The largest one is the winner.. I will be very surprised if your line will be the one...

You can use your historical data as you have them in the data base...

Have you seen the kinds of prices I bet on? I don't wager on low priced horses, in win betting. The vast majority of wagers I place would be considered an overlay by almost anyone who looks for them.

However,in my superfecta play, the horse(s) I place in the win position can be underlays and/or low priced, that doesn't scare me off. The odds rankings of the other horses under him determine whether or not I place the wager.

[Overlay]

I think he means that you get higher prices in races where lower priced horses have been eliminated from your contenders, thus raising the prices you receive on your contenders, above what they would be in other races against other horses. Being able to eliminate false favorites, and/or other low odds public choices, as contenders, is a good way to improve your average payout, while keeping your hit rate relatively intact.
But why is there a need to eliminate any horses at all totally from consideration? To me, it's possible for a horse at any odds level to be an overlay, depending on its attributes in comparison to the opposition that it's facing. Handicapping the entire field leaves those possibilities open. Eliminating horses out-of-hand (at whichever end of the odds spectrum) without even considering their potential wagering value gets one started down the road toward either low mutuels (on the one hand) or low hit rates (on the other) that won't cover inevitable losses.

[raybo]

But why is there a need to eliminate any horses at all totally from consideration? To me, it's possible for a horse at any odds level to be an overlay depending on its attributes in comparison to the opposition that it's facing. Handicapping the entire field leaves those possibilities open. Eliminating horses out-of-hand (at whichever end of the odds spectrum) without even considering their potential wagering value gets one started down the road toward either low mutuels (on the one hand) or low hit rates (on the other) that won't cover inevitable losses.

That's not what I said, sorry if that's what you thought. I never proposed eliminating horses "out of hand" nor did I propose that one should not evaluate every horse in the field, I always do that because that is something that most don't do and that means that those horses will porbably go off at odds higher than they should.

All I was saying was that if you can, by your own analysis, eliminate low priced horses from win contention, you will receive better prices on the horses you do bet. If you can't eliminate them from your contenders, then their prices are either acceptable to you, or they are not. If they are not then you don't have to wager on them.

[Capper Al]

Back on the point of race type odds verse odds line for a horse. The question is if a race type pay out is 4/1 and the horse you figure is worth 2/1 but the tote-board is offering 3/1, do you take it? Remember there are two collections of statistics here. One says yes bet (your odds line) while the other (race type) says no don't bet. Let's say either way our stats are built on 10,000 races. Which way do you go and why?

[Dave Schwartz]

Back on the point of race type odds verse odds line for a horse. The question is if a race type pay out is 4/1 and the horse you figure is worth 2/1 but the tote-board is offering 3/1, do you take it? Remember there are two collections of statistics here. One says yes bet (your odds line) while the other (race type) says no don't bet. Let's say either way our stats are built on 10,000 races. Which way do you go and why?

Al,

The first thing one must determine is whether or not the horses one makes 2/1 are profitable at 3/1, 4/1 or whatever.

Second, when you say "stats are built on 10,000 races," how many races are in the independent test of the method?

IOW, you build your system on "stats" from 10,000 races. Now, as you test forward, how many races have you tested against to verify that your system really can tell the difference between an overlay and an underlay?

[Overlay]

Back on the point of race type odds verse odds line for a horse. The question is if a race type pay out is 4/1 and the horse you figure is worth 2/1 but the tote-board is offering 3/1, do you take it? Remember there are two collections of statistics here. One says yes bet (your odds line) while the other (race type) says no don't bet. Let's say either way our stats are built on 10,000 races. Which way do you go and why?
The average payout for the particular type of race will reflect the full range of possible mutuels, including winners that went off as both underlays and overlays (whatever their individual odds may have been), and odds-on favorites as well as longshots. It says nothing about the chances of an individual horse against its competition under the unique circumstances of the specific race in question that has yet to be run, or about how those chances compare to the actual odds that are being offered on the horse in real time (not based on a historical figure or average).

It's the same fallacy as waiting to bet on a favorite until you get odds higher than 2-1 on it, since (assuming for the sake of argument) favorites historically win approximately 1/3 of the time, and thinking that you'll make a long-term profit that way. You won't.

[raybo]

The average payout for the particular type of race will reflect the full range of possible mutuels, including winners that went off as both underlays and overlays (whatever their individual odds may have been), and odds-on favorites as well as longshots. It says nothing about the chances of an individual horse against its competition under the unique circumstances of the specific race in question that has yet to be run, or about how those chances compare to the actual odds that are being offered on the horse in real time (not based on a historical figure or average).

It's the same fallacy as waiting to bet on a favorite until you get odds higher than 2-1 on it, since (assuming for the sake of argument) favorites historically win approximately 1/3 of the time, and thinking that you'll make a long-term profit that way. You won't.

That's correct, because as soon as you remove the favorites that were less than 2/1, you destroyed the original 33% historical hit rate for favorites.

[jpren37]

Anyone,

Would it be possible to find overlays in the win pools in exacta combinations? Back in 1984, I purchased a gauge created by Andy Anderson (I believe he was an accountant/statistician) which purported to be able to identify overlay exactas based on the tote board odds. Apparently he had done extensive research of California tracks covering many years/races evaluating exacta payoffs in relation to final odds. He further stated that his math and gauge were validated by Bill Ziemba.

He did very little handicapping; just watched the tote board. If an exacta combination was paying above 10% of what the gauge said it should pay, he would bet that exacta....e.g. if the potental winner's odds were 9-1 and the potential placer odds were 4-1, that combination should pay $130....if it paid less, it's an underlay and a bad bet.

Possibly back then, the tote board was more stable with just a few minutes to post so this might work? I experimented briefly with the gauge but found that it wasn't identifying enough overlays but perhaps I did not stick with it long enough.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience about the gauge or concept?

[Capper Al]

Okay let's try this from another way. Let's say your odds line on the type of race is 4/1. Your odds line on your top selection is 2/1. The horse is going off at 3/1. Your R&D of 10,000 races was two sets of 5,000 races with the second set verifying the conclusions from the first set. What would you do and why?

[Overlay]

Okay let's try this from another way. Let's say your odds line on the type of race is 4/1. Your odds line on your top selection is 2/1. The horse is going off at 3/1. Your R&D of 10,000 races was two sets of 5,000 races with the second set verifying the conclusions from the first set. What would you do and why?
I size my wager based on the degree of overlay that the actual odds are offering on the horse in comparison to my personal full-field odds line for that specific individual race. I ignore the fact that the horse's actual odds are lower than the historical overall average odds for winners of that type of race.

[Overlay]

Anyone,

Would it be possible to find overlays in the win pools in exacta combinations? Back in 1984, I purchased a gauge created by Andy Anderson (I believe he was an accountant/statistician) which purported to be able to identify overlay exactas based on the tote board odds. Apparently he had done extensive research of California tracks covering many years/races evaluating exacta payoffs in relation to final odds. He further stated that his math and gauge were validated by Bill Ziemba.

He did very little handicapping; just watched the tote board. If an exacta combination was paying above 10% of what the gauge said it should pay, he would bet that exacta....e.g. if the potental winner's odds were 9-1 and the potential placer odds were 4-1, that combination should pay $130....if it paid less, it's an underlay and a bad bet.

Possibly back then, the tote board was more stable with just a few minutes to post so this might work? I experimented briefly with the gauge but found that it wasn't identifying enough overlays but perhaps I did not stick with it long enough.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience about the gauge or concept?
I can't speak to the specific gauge you mentioned, although you might try doing a search for it on the board, using Andy Anderson's name, or some other appropriate term, such as exacta gauge (or calculator) or exacta payoff gauge (or calculator).

You seemed to start out asking about finding overlays in the win pool using exacta combinations, but then your discussion shifted to finding exacta combinations that are projected to pay more than they should, based on the win-pool odds of the horses involved. If you're interested in exacta betting rather than win-pool betting, there's been a fair amount of past discussion on the board concerning the use of formulas such as Harville and modified Harville for calculating the probabilities of exacta combinations. There have also been threads dealing with isolating place-horse "types" to fill out exactas, apart from considerations of the fair or actual odds of the horses involved.

Aside from the issue with the stability of the tote-board odds that you noted, I would think that there would also be the question of which exacta combinations to figure payoffs for (unless one were intending to calculate all possible payoffs). Do the instructions for the Anderson gauge prioritize or place a limit on that somehow?

[Capper Al]

I size my wager based on the degree of overlay that the actual odds are offering on the horse in comparison to my personal full-field odds line for that specific individual race. I ignore the fact that the horse's actual odds are lower than the historical overall average odds for winners of that type of race.

Why should one ignore the fact? Are we saying one set of facts is more valid than the other? Facts are facts either way.

[jorcus99]

Anyone,

Would it be possible to find overlays in the win pools in exacta combinations? Back in 1984, I purchased a gauge created by Andy Anderson (I believe he was an accountant/statistician) which purported to be able to identify overlay exactas based on the tote board odds. Apparently he had done extensive research of California tracks covering many years/races evaluating exacta payoffs in relation to final odds. He further stated that his math and gauge were validated by Bill Ziemba.

He did very little handicapping; just watched the tote board. If an exacta combination was paying above 10% of what the gauge said it should pay, he would bet that exacta....e.g. if the potental winner's odds were 9-1 and the potential placer odds were 4-1, that combination should pay $130....if it paid less, it's an underlay and a bad bet.

Possibly back then, the tote board was more stable with just a few minutes to post so this might work? I experimented briefly with the gauge but found that it wasn't identifying enough overlays but perhaps I did not stick with it long enough.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience about the gauge or concept?

I think the win pool vs the exacta pool has become much more efficient in the last decade. The win payouts may swing some at the last minute at the tracks I play but the exacta payouts often swing much more. A 10% swing is not much room for error and exacta payouts can swing 50% on the last flash.

The other issue you have to deal with is that if you are going to exploit a statistical advantage you have to look for it in every race on every day at the tracks you built your data base on. The day you miss might be the day you were waiting for to get that positive ROI.

[Capper Al]

Al,

The first thing one must determine is whether or not the horses one makes 2/1 are profitable at 3/1, 4/1 or whatever.

Second, when you say "stats are built on 10,000 races," how many races are in the independent test of the method?

IOW, you build your system on "stats" from 10,000 races. Now, as you test forward, how many races have you tested against to verify that your system really can tell the difference between an overlay and an underlay?

Let's assume all your test have been made by your standers. That testing your 2/1 at 3/1 should be profitable overall, but now you are aware this race type needs 4/1. What do you do and why?

[jpren37]

I can't speak to the specific gauge you mentioned, although you might try doing a search for it on the board, using Andy Anderson's name, or some other appropriate term, such as exacta gauge (or calculator) or exacta payoff gauge (or calculator).

You seemed to start out asking about finding overlays in the win pool using exacta combinations, but then your discussion shifted to finding exacta combinations that are projected to pay more than they should, based on the win-pool odds of the horses involved. If you're interested in exacta betting rather than win-pool betting, there's been a fair amount of past discussion on the board concerning the use of formulas such as Harville and modified Harville for calculating the probabilities of exacta combinations. There have also been threads dealing with isolating place-horse "types" to fill out exactas, apart from considerations of the fair or actual odds of the horses involved.

Aside from the issue with the stability of the tote-board odds that you noted, I would think that there would also be the question of which exacta combinations to figure payoffs for (unless one were intending to calculate all possible payoffs). Do the instructions for the Anderson gauge prioritize or place a limit on that somehow?

Overlay,

If I'm not mistaken, Anderson used the Harville formulas to create his gauge. Before a race he would write the initial exacta payouts quickly across the top and down the side on a blank paper (similarly to the way it appears on the monitors now). At that time (his presentation at the meadowlands,1984) he felt the exacta payouts were fairly stable a few minutes before post time.

He felt it reasonable to bet #'s of combinations based on field size e.g. 6 horse race you might reasonably bet 5 combinations, 6 horse fields-7 combinations etc. By sliding/manipulating his gauge, you could match-up the odds and payouts fairly quickly. The point was that you simply only played those combinations that were "overlays"- even if you decided to bet only one combination.

What intrigued me was the fact that there was no guess work. On a straight win pool bet, as I interpret comments in this thread, you never really know if you're betting an overlay. (I guess you can analyze a large sample of your win bet results to see if you have a positive roi but how large a sample would that require.) Using his gauge, you knew where the exacta overlays were in any race; add in handicapping factors and you might reduce playable combinations even further.

There was a tape that came with the gauge that's locked away on my bookshelf somewhere. If there's any interest, I can look for it and provide more information

[jorcus99]

Why should one ignore the fact? Are we saying one set of facts is more valid than the other? Facts are facts either way.

This fact is probably more general than the other facts and therefore less effective for a particular event.

[Overlay]

Why should one ignore the fact? Are we saying one set of facts is more valid than the other? Facts are facts either way.
I'm not disputing that it is a fact, or that it is valid. But I don't see it as having any relevance to the way I handicap a race. (In other words, I don't believe that my handicapping performance will be adversely affected if I disregard it.) If you find a way to incorporate it into your handicapping that makes it is useful to you, go for it.

[Overlay]

What intrigued me was the fact that there was no guess work. On a straight win pool bet, as I interpret comments in this thread, you never really know if you're betting an overlay. (I guess you can analyze a large sample of your win bet results to see if you have a positive roi but how large a sample would that require.) Using his gauge, you knew where the exacta overlays were in any race; add in handicapping factors and you might reduce playable combinations even further.

I agree that you can determine whether horses comprising an exacta combination are receiving disproportionately more play in the exacta pool than as a win bet based solely on the amounts wagered. But that says nothing about whether the odds or projected payoffs on the horses/combinations represent betting value to begin with. My handicapping approach is based on the assumption that it is in fact possible to both identify horses or combinations that are overlaid in the win or exotic pools, and also determine the degree to which they are overlaid.

[jpren37]

I agree that you can determine whether horses comprising an exacta combination are receiving disproportionately more play in the exacta pool than as a win bet based solely on the amounts wagered. But that says nothing about whether the odds or projected payoffs on the horses/combinations represent betting value to begin with. My handicapping approach is based on the assumption that it is in fact possible to both identify horses or combinations that are overlaid in the win or exotic pools, and also determine the degree to which they are overlaid.

Overlay,

I don't think Anderson is suggesting identifying exacta combinations that are receiving disproportionate play. He's simply saying that by noting the odds and projected payoffs, his gauge will precisely tell you whether or not a particular exacta bet has value. If it is paying above breakeven (according to the gauge) it is a value bet! He is just confirming your assumption that it is possible to find overlaid combinations in the exotic pools and to what degree...I think the point is that his gauge identifies such overlays based on extensive research backed by math formulas and not on handicapping factors.

[Capper Al]

I'm not disputing that it is a fact, or that it is valid. But I don't see it as having any relevance to the way I handicap a race. (In other words, I don't believe that my handicapping performance will be adversely affected if I disregard it.) If you find a way to incorporate it into your handicapping that makes it is useful to you, go for it.

The fact about race type predicts how effective handicappers are in general with this type of race. The only way to come to grips with this situation is to have statistics based only on this type of race. This would be the intersection of both sets of stats.

[Jeff P]

Let's assume all your test have been made by your standers. That testing your 2/1 at 3/1 should be profitable overall, but now you are aware this race type needs 4/1. What do you do and why?
Imho, an important objective would be the ability to test the performance of a model under a variety of conditions including (player defined) race type.

Hint: Think Bayes...

The first test "your 2/1 at 3/1"... that's A.

The second test "now you are aware this race type needs 4/1"... that's B.

I would develop a stand alone test for the intersection of A and B.



-jp

.

[Greyfox]

I've enjoyed following this thread.

Certainly I admire the amount of effort that some of you have put into horse racing and can appreciate the number of hours that it must take to come up with the data bases that you are developing.

I'm sure a number of neophytes can get ideas from this thread and perhaps push the boundaries of knowledge in this field even further.

Having said that, I do surgery with a very blunt scalpel and depending upon the race, I can fish with a very wide net. Other times, I can be much more precise and single a pick or not bet a race at all.
I trust the "computer" of my "gut," "mind," and previous experience as much as anything.
The only statistic, (aside from Past Performance lines and algorithms that I've developed) that I rely on is the growth or depreciation of my bank roll.

In my own floundering way, I've done okay for years at this sport, but it is not within my disposition to try and get rich at it. Large wagers on a continuous daily basis would take me out of my comfort level and I'm not so sure I'd enjoy the sport as much, even if I kept winning.

At any rate, gang - good discussion and good points that you are making.:ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

BRIS' PPs give average odds for the race type. For example, BRIS might say that with a 6 furlong race on the turf the average pay out might be $10.00. That would be 4/1 odds. Now what is the point if your odds line or the trackman has your horse going off at 3/1? Does one wait for 3/1 or 4/1. Let's keep it simple and say all other necessary markups have been included for this exampe.

That's like saying that the average PaceAdvantage member has an annual income of $50,000. While it appears to be useful information at first...it reveals absolutely nothing about the members individually.

[thaskalos]

Anyone,

Would it be possible to find overlays in the win pools in exacta combinations? Back in 1984, I purchased a gauge created by Andy Anderson (I believe he was an accountant/statistician) which purported to be able to identify overlay exactas based on the tote board odds. Apparently he had done extensive research of California tracks covering many years/races evaluating exacta payoffs in relation to final odds. He further stated that his math and gauge were validated by Bill Ziemba.

He did very little handicapping; just watched the tote board. If an exacta combination was paying above 10% of what the gauge said it should pay, he would bet that exacta....e.g. if the potental winner's odds were 9-1 and the potential placer odds were 4-1, that combination should pay $130....if it paid less, it's an underlay and a bad bet.

Possibly back then, the tote board was more stable with just a few minutes to post so this might work? I experimented briefly with the gauge but found that it wasn't identifying enough overlays but perhaps I did not stick with it long enough.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience about the gauge or concept?

I am not familiar with the Anderson gauge...but, IMO, the concept is flawed.

The tote board often reveals information that is not apparent in the past performances...and the exacta payoffs do as well. You cannot automatically assume that your 5/2 shot is an overlay just because it is offered at odds of 8/1...nor can you automatically assume that your $85 exacta payoff is an overlay, just because it figures to pay $40.

Assesing value in this game is a lot trickier than that.

That's why winning remains as elusive as ever...regardless of how many "competent" oddslines and exacta gauges we find available in the horse handicapping marketplace.

[jpren37]

I am not familiar with the Anderson gauge...but, IMO, the concept is flawed.

The tote board often reveals information that is not apparent in the past performances...and the exacta payoffs do as well. You cannot automatically assume that your 5/2 shot is an overlay just because it is offered at odds of 8/1...nor can you automatically assume that your $85 exacta payoff is an overlay, just because it figures to pay $40.

Assesing value in this game is a lot trickier than that.

That's why winning remains as elusive as ever...regardless of how many "competent" oddslines and exacta gauges we find available in the horse handicapping marketplace.

Thaskalos,

Some of this is Virgin territory for me so i'm not fully understanding of your post. I'm not sure how one identifies an overlay in the win pool so I certainly would not be able to disagree with your 5/2 shot example. I'll leave that to the other excellent handicappers who are posting their thoughts on win pool overlays.

My post is strictly related to finding over and under payments in the exacta pools. e.g. Anderson's gauge would say that a 5/2 shot over and 8/1 shot should pay $64. Why he feels it "should pay" that amount is beyond me other then to say that he has supposedly researched and confirmed with math experts (e.g. William Ziemba) the concept/math of the gauge.

I was curious to know if anyone on the board has done any kind of research
with exacta pools that my indicate whether or not it's even possible to evaluate risk/reward payouts via close to post time odds in the exacta pools.

[Capper Al]

Imho, an important objective would be the ability to test the performance of a model under a variety of conditions including (player defined) race type.

Hint: Think Bayes...

The first test "your 2/1 at 3/1"... that's A.

The second test "now you are aware this race type needs 4/1"... that's B.

I would develop a stand alone test for the intersection of A and B.



-jp

.

Agree. That's what I posted also.

[Capper Al]

That's like saying that the average PaceAdvantage member has an annual income of $50,000. While it appears to be useful information at first...it reveals absolutely nothing about the members individually.

This is true of all our handicapping facts- Pace, class, speed, etc. What gives them meaning is how we put them together. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss average payoff for a particular race type. What is being gauged by average payoff is not the horses, but the ability of handicappers to nail a certain type of race. We copy each other more than we like to admit. Therefore, if the average handicapper is having problems nailing- we are very likely to also have problems unless you use something other than speed, class, pace, and connections in your valuation.

Ainslie wrote to be warned about averaging. He tells a story of a man drowning trying to cross a river. His friend from the other side yelled across and told him on average the river was only 5 feet deep.

[thaskalos]

Ainslie wrote to be warned about averaging. He tells a story of a man drowning trying to cross a river. His friend from the other side yelled across and told him on average the river was only 5 feet deep.

I've always been very fond of Ainslie -- God rest his soul.

They didn't call him the "Dean of American handicappers" for nothing... :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

I've always been very fond of Ainslie -- God rest his soul.

They didn't call him the "Dean of American handicappers" for nothing... :ThmbUp:Actually they did. I read most of stuff when it came out and it didn't even work back them, let alone today.

[Tom]

Actually they did. I read most of stuff when it came out and it didn't even work back them, let alone today.

Do I have t give back the money?:D

I made out pretty well using his methods for years. I actually copied all of his rules and plus factors into a small notebook, pace and speed charts, the whole nine yards. I had a pretty good track record playing both Finger Lakes and NY.


Thasks, you know in his later years, Ainslie became a Sartinista, using the advanced programs. I sat next to him at an Albany seminar when he was just getting started, and he was like a kid in a candy store using the new stuff.

[thaskalos]

Do I have t give back the money?:D

I made out pretty well using his methods for years. I actually copied all of his rules and plus factors into a small notebook, pace and speed charts, the whole nine yards. I had a pretty good track record playing both Finger Lakes and NY.


Thasks, you know in his later years, Ainslie became a Sartinista, using the advanced programs. I sat next to him at an Albany seminar when he was just getting started, and he was like a kid in a candy store using the new stuff.
Funny you should mention this, Tom...

I too had taken extensive notes from his landmark book, and kept them with me in a notebook...because I didn't want to be ridiculed for carrying the entire book around with me.

Nothing but respect from me for Mr. Ainslie... :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

I liked Ainslie works also. I learned harness racing from him and was successful.

[raybo]

Do I have t give back the money?:D

I made out pretty well using his methods for years. I actually copied all of his rules and plus factors into a small notebook, pace and speed charts, the whole nine yards. I had a pretty good track record playing both Finger Lakes and NY.


Thasks, you know in his later years, Ainslie became a Sartinista, using the advanced programs. I sat next to him at an Albany seminar when he was just getting started, and he was like a kid in a candy store using the new stuff.

I guess you're the only one that it worked for.

[Greyfox]

I guess you're the only one that it worked for.

It's easy to knock Ainlie in the rear view mirror.

When his first book came out it contained "cutting edge" material for that era.

[raybo]

It's easy to knock Ainlie in the rear view mirror.

When his first book came out it contained "cutting edge" material for that era.

No, it's easy to knock any author/developer when it didn't work for you, maybe because you didn't reproduce the method correctly in the first place. As the old saying goes; "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

A certain amount of faith, and a whole lot of discipline is usually required.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ray,

In all fairness, he wrote it in the '60s. Tough to expect it to work even 20 years later. (It didn't for me.) However, it was a good basis for learning.

Same with Quirin, Davis, Beyer and everyone else in between.

BTW, I knew Richard Carter personally. He was a very nice guy who admitted he had no chance of winning when I spoke to him in 1991.


Dave

[Robert Goren]

Before my recent illness I was looking into what type of horse win at certain odds. That idea assumes that there is something in the odds that predict a winner better than I can without looking at the odds. It is some thing I hope to get back to soon. The idea being: Does a even money horse win more often when it highest Beyers or when it is 5 points below the top Beyers. Does it run better with 30 day lay off or with a 45 day lay off. How does it do if it won it last race. It starts with the odds and works from there. Different things matter at diffent odds. My sample was pretty small at the time I got sick, but it showed some promising results. Has anyone else look at this? It seems so logical to me that I can't believe no one else has looked at it.
I got the the idea from a old multi regression I ran in the early 70's. It showed the odds had by far the highest regression, but if you add a few points for a few things the regression got better. Most the time I ended up on the favorite or second choice. It showed a small profit when I got use it until the the middle eighties when train methods changed and things the number starts in the last two years stopped mattering.

[Robert Goren]

Ainslie or Carter certainly sold a lot of books for a while. At the time there were a lot of writers writing about handicapping. He was certain the most talented writer at the time, even though I did not have any luck using his methods. There was a guy whose name I can't remember who wrote a book on a horse who suddenly showed early and then backed off when their PPs read like telephone numbers was of more use to me. He called them breaks I believe. Henry Kuck's (0f Kuck SRs fame) book was also very useful for a while. When Beyer came out with his book on SRs, I made some money on the Nebraska curcuit because I was, maybe, the only making Beyers numbers here.

[raybo]

Ray,

In all fairness, he wrote it in the '60s. Tough to expect it to work even 20 years later. (It didn't for me.) However, it was a good basis for learning.

Same with Quirin, Davis, Beyer and everyone else in between.

BTW, I knew Richard Carter personally. He was a very nice guy who admitted he had no chance of winning when I spoke to him in 1991.


Dave

Of course, but that wasn't what the negative comment said, it said it didn't work at the time, it didn't say it didn't work today. I have doubts that any method produced 20-30 years ago would work satisfactorily today, without some significant tweaking and modification. Today's game is not yesterday's.

[Overlay]

There was a guy whose name I can't remember who wrote a book on a horse who suddenly showed early and then backed off when their PPs read like telephone numbers was of more use to me. He called them breaks I believe.
You're thinking of R. Randolph Reynolds, whose last publication (if I am not mistaken) was The Complete Handicapper's Manual: A Scientific Guide to Making Money at the Races, which came out in 1974. As you noted, his method emphasized what he called "breaks", where the horse had started one or more of its latest races close to the lead, but finished far back; and also "trials", which were workouts where the horse ran faster than time standards that Reynolds provided for the various possible distances that the workout could have covered, as indicators that the horse was ready to put in a winning effort today. He died in 1982, and mention of his passing was made on George Kaywood's website (http://www.handicapping.com/library/kaywood/rrr.htm), which I previously posted a reference to on the board.

[Dave Schwartz]

I just ordered 2 copies of that book. I will be interested to see what it is about.

[Greyfox]

I just ordered 2 copies of that book. I will be interested to see what it is about.

Yes. One for each eye, eh. :rolleyes:

[Overlay]

I just ordered 2 copies of that book. I will be interested to see what it is about.

I didn't mean to appear to be touting the book, Dave, just describing it. (I'm surprised that you hadn't run across it before.) Personally, I didn't find it very useful from a handicapping standpoint (but that's just me). I did find some humor in Mr. Reynolds' writing style (although perhaps not humor that Mr. Reynolds had intended). You can make your own judgments (as I know you will). :)

[thaskalos]

I just ordered 2 copies of that book. I will be interested to see what it is about.

He has written two handicapping books. You should have bought one of each. :)

[Capper Al]

I just bought one also. Why I keep buying these books anymore, I don't know. I'm an addict. Need to find a Handicapper's Anonymous group.

[Capper Al]

Before my recent illness I was looking into what type of horse win at certain odds. That idea assumes that there is something in the odds that predict a winner better than I can without looking at the odds. It is some thing I hope to get back to soon. The idea being: Does a even money horse win more often when it highest Beyers or when it is 5 points below the top Beyers. Does it run better with 30 day lay off or with a 45 day lay off. How does it do if it won it last race. It starts with the odds and works from there. Different things matter at different odds. My sample was pretty small at the time I got sick, but it showed some promising results. Has anyone else look at this? It seems so logical to me that I can't believe no one else has looked at it.
I got the the idea from a old multi regression I ran in the early 70's. It showed the odds had by far the highest regression, but if you add a few points for a few things the regression got better. Most the time I ended up on the favorite or second choice. It showed a small profit when I got use it until the the middle eighties when train methods changed and things the number starts in the last two years stopped mattering.

Get back to it. It sounds like a good study that might give you some good results. Another guy doing a similar sort of thing studied Beyer number cycles looking at peaks and valleys in SR. I had some luck with it, although its application is a bit hard to reproduce.

[Dave Schwartz]

When I am buying a book for $0.97 that is listed as "good," I usually buy a 2nd one just to make sure at least one of them is readable.

[Robert Goren]

You're thinking of R. Randolph Reynolds, whose last publication (if I am not mistaken) was The Complete Handicapper's Manual: A Scientific Guide to Making Money at the Races, which came out in 1974. As you noted, his method emphasized what he called "breaks", where the horse had started one or more of its latest races close to the lead, but finished far back; and also "trials", which were workouts where the horse ran faster than time standards that Reynolds provided for the various possible distances that the workout could have covered, as indicators that the horse was ready to put in a winning effort today. He died in 1982, and mention of his passing was made on George Kaywood's website (http://www.handicapping.com/library/kaywood/rrr.htm), which I previously posted a reference to on the board. That is the guy, I am almost certain. I have no idea which of his books I read back then and it was long ago lost. The "break" idea put me onto more than a few longshots over the years in races where I could not find any horse I liked. That was in days before simulcasting and you actually had to kill time if you skipped a race. Thanks for putting a name to the idea.

[Red Knave]

That is the guy, I am almost certain. ... The "break" idea put me onto more than a few longshots over the years in races where I could not find any horse I liked.
Me too. I loved that. I had never heard of anything like that before I read him.
He also had an idea about horses showing improvement (i.e. being closer to the lead) at each call in their last 3 races or so. Maybe that's part of the 'break' idea?
I just looked up his obit story on Kaywood's site and was surprised to find that he was a Canadian.

[Capper Al]

When I am buying a book for $0.97 that is listed as "good," I usually buy a 2nd one just to make sure at least one of them is readable.

Dave, I had to pay $3.99 for an accxeptable one. You cleaned out the "good" ones before I got there.

Thanks

[thaskalos]

Dave, I had to pay $3.99 for an accxeptable one. You cleaned out the "good" ones before I got there.

Thanks

I hope you guys are not disappointed...

[Dave Schwartz]

Yeah... Usually old books yield nothing, but every once in awhile you get a nugget.

[@HorseClockers]

Well just strictly speaking in terms of the fun, excitement, and rush of the horse playing game; I can tell you that when my handicapping uncovers what I consider to be a viable WIN contender in a race, and that contender is at 12-to-1 (or even better 20-to-1) on the morning line; I get much more excited than if it were at say 8-to-5 on the morning line.

[Arapola]

I read Reynolds many years ago.
The "Break" as he called it had the following Qualifiers as I remember.
1. The early speed must last only the 1st quarter.
2, The horse must not be a confirmed front runner.

[Robert Goren]

I read Reynolds many years ago.
The "Break" as he called it had the following Qualifiers as I remember.
1. The early speed must last only the 1st quarter.
2, The horse must not be a confirmed front runner.That is the way I used it. It is not for every race that is for sure. It is something to look at when you hate all the runners. I am not even sure it is valid anymore. When he wrote the book, he was trying expose a possible betting coup by the trainer and jockey. When he wrote the book, a lot more trainers, etc, survived by betting than today. The idea being that a trainer didn't want to win a race without a bet on his horse.

[raybo]

That is the way I used it. It is not for every race that is for sure. It is something to look at when you hate all the runners. I am not even sure it is valid anymore. When he wrote the book, he was trying expose a possible betting coup by the trainer and jockey. When he wrote the book, a lot more trainers, etc, survived by betting than today. The idea being that a trainer didn't want to win a race without a bet on his horse.

I'm sure the owners appreciated that, huh?

[thaskalos]

I read Reynolds many years ago.
The "Break" as he called it had the following Qualifiers as I remember.
1. The early speed must last only the 1st quarter.
2, The horse must not be a confirmed front runner.

I have both his books.

He also stipulated that the horse lose ground throughout the race...and not finish close to the winner at the wire. The idea being that the horse who finished close to the winner while being on or very close to the lead at the first call, could not be depended upon to duplicate his good effort...because he had already "run his race".

I never took his advice seriously...because it overlooked a big part of the picture of the race.

Not all horses are capable of being on or within a half-length of the lead at the first call...but they remain contenders nonetheless.

Cookie-cutter methods don't work in this game...

[Capper Al]

I read Reynolds many years ago.
The "Break" as he called it had the
following Qualifiers as I remember.
1. The early speed must last only the 1st
quarter.
2, The horse must not be a confirmed front runner.



I'm reading the book and finding it interesting. Maybe some of this stuff will work. Might need some updating.

[Dave Schwartz]

I read the book a couple of nights ago. Nothing earth-shattering but it did perturb my thinking enough to say that it was a worthwhile read for me.

The "breaks and trials" stuff doesn't hold too much interest for me... but it is relatively easy to to test. I like his idea of a hierarchy of angles (for lack of a better word).

I certainly got my $4 worth for the book.

:ThmbUp:


Dave
PS: I may have posted this in the wrong thread.

[Overlay]

Dave,

Did you see what I meant about some of his pieces of handicapping advice, such as (I'm quoting from long-ago memory), "Avoid thinking. More races have been lost by the thinking process than from any other reason," or "When you have thought too long, you have zigzagged yourself out of a winner. Just accept the mathematically calculated ratings and believe in them."

[Dave Schwartz]

Overlay,

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps you should explain further.


If you are saying, "Study long, study wrong," I have no validation for that because I do not "study" a race at all. I click buttons and do what my system dictates.

Technically, I do no handicapping beyond picking my contenders. Then I use the tote board (i.e. the public's opinion) to do the real "handicapping" (i.e. making of probabilities).


Dave

[Overlay]

Overlay,

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps you should explain further.


If you are saying, "Study long, study wrong," I have no validation for that because I do not "study" a race at all. I click buttons and do what my system dictates.

Technically, I do no handicapping beyond picking my contenders. Then I use the tote board (i.e. the public's opinion) to do the real "handicapping" (i.e. making of probabilities).


Dave
Dave,

I wasn't directing my post at you as a commentary on your handicapping at all. I was emphasizing the humor that I personally (and maybe it's just me) found in Mr. Reynolds' advocacy of handicappers putting their critical thinking processes on the shelf, and letting the various angles (such as "breaks") and ratings that Mr. Reynolds advocated (for which his reasoning was basically flawed to begin with, in my opinion) do all the work, however illogical the final result might seem to a disinterested observer, combined with what struck me as the exaggerated, somewhat pompous tone with which Mr. Reynolds expressed himself.

[Dave Schwartz]

Overlay,

I didn't take it as a comment about my handicapping at all. I simply didn't get it.

LOL

Dave