Balmoral Spot Play

[traynor]

BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 727 15.68 % ROI 1.17
BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 77 19.48 % IV 1.24

BmlP Trot Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 155 15.48 % ROI 0.98
BmlP Trot Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 17 29.41 % IV 1.90

Translation: Look for a pacer that improved in either running position or lengths behind the leader from the half-mile position to the finish in its last race AND registered a final quarter time that was better than its final quarter time in the preceding race.

Of course, these are clean numbers. No outliers, no anomalies. Mutuels have been truncated to 1.5 times the mean of the interquartile range. Because I actually bet on this stuff, the models are conservative. The results are usually pleasantly surprising and better than the models indicate. The "actual" ROI is better, but I don't want to make exaggerated claims of profitability. I think it is better to show people how do it themselves.

As I said some months ago, I think the best thing for horse racing is to show people that it ain't rocket science to make a profit betting.

[thaskalos]

BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 727 15.68 % ROI 1.17
BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 77 19.48 % IV 1.24

BmlP Trot Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 155 15.48 % ROI 0.98
BmlP Trot Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 17 29.41 % IV 1.90

Translation: Look for a pacer that improved in either running position or lengths behind the leader from the half-mile position to the finish in its last race AND registered a final quarter time that was better than its final quarter time in the preceding race.

Of course, these are clean numbers. No outliers, no anomalies. Mutuels have been truncated to 1.5 times the mean of the interquartile range. Because I actually bet on this stuff, the models are conservative. The results are usually pleasantly surprising and better than the models indicate. The "actual" ROI is better, but I don't want to make exaggerated claims of profitability. I think it is better to show people how do it themselves.

As I said some months ago, I think the best thing for horse racing is to show people that it ain't rocket science to make a profit betting.
Is there a tie-breaking rule...or should we wait for races with only one qualifier?

[traynor]

Is there a tie-breaking rule...or should we wait for races with only one qualifier?

No tie-breakers. If more than one entry meets the criteria, I bet both. Or whatever. Discretion should be exercised if odds are too low to warrant multiple bets, but more than one entry qualifies.

As I have mentioned before, I don't pay much attention to odds, because I usually bet all races as soon as the windows open. I realize that is not how most people bet, but it is the reason I have never paid much attention to tie-breakers or further refinements in individual races. The application I use prints out a list, and I bet them. If there is more than one entry that qualifies, I bet any that qualify.

The stats are based on wagering on all qualified entries, with no distinction made for post time odds.

[andicap]

As I said some months ago, I think the best thing for horse racing is to show people that it ain't rocket science to make a profit betting.

I agree. I was going to call my book, "The Lazy Horseplayer's Guide to Winning at the Races." Of course, I never got around to writing it.

(And yes, I need to be a winning player, too)

[traynor]

I agree. I was going to call my book, "The Lazy Horseplayer's Guide to Winning at the Races." Of course, I never got around to writing it.

(And yes, I need to be a winning player, too)

One of the most interesting parts of social psychology is that of "learned helplessness." People try to do something a few times, fail, and assume forever thereafter that the reason they failed is because it is impossible. Because it is impossible, it no longer makes sense to try, because they will only continue to fail.

The interesting part is the interaction of cognitive dissonance and learned helplessness. To avoid the discomfort of discovering the world is not at they perceive it to be, those who have learned helplessness adapt their cognitive processing and behavioral processes to assure they continue to be as they perceive themselves to be--helpless.

That applies very much to those who bet on horse races. The least useful belief is that it is some incredibly complex process that takes endless years of struggle and effort to accomplish almost nothing. That is utter nonsense. As Jim Bradshaw so eloquently pointed out, "It ain't nothin' but a dang horse race!"

To which I would add, "It ain't rocket science to make a profit betting."

[thaskalos]

One of the most interesting parts of social psychology is that of "learned helplessness." People try to do something a few times, fail, and assume forever thereafter that the reason they failed is because it is impossible. Because it is impossible, it no longer makes sense to try, because they will only continue to fail.

The interesting part is the interaction of cognitive dissonance and learned helplessness. To avoid the discomfort of discovering the world is not at they perceive it to be, those who have learned helplessness adapt their cognitive processing and behavioral processes to assure they continue to be as they perceive themselves to be--helpless.

That applies very much to those who bet on horse races. The least useful belief is that it is some incredibly complex process that takes endless years of struggle and effort to accomplish almost nothing. That is utter nonsense. As Jim Bradshaw so eloquently pointed out, "It ain't nothin' but a dang horse race!"

To which I would add, "It ain't rocket science to make a profit betting."

Traynor, I don't know about you...but the horseplayers I know NEVER stop trying to beat this game...and only quit playing when they no longer have anything to play with. IMO, most horseplayers BELIEVE that the game can be beaten...but they don't realize that they don't have what it takes to accomplish this themselves.

And when you keep on saying that it doesn't take years to beat this game, you do realize that neither you, nor anybody else, has ever presented any evidence to support this opinion...right?

[traynor]

Traynor, I don't know about you...but the horseplayers I know NEVER stop trying to beat this game...and only quit playing when they no longer have anything to play with. IMO, most horseplayers BELIEVE that the game can be beaten...but they don't realize that they don't have what it takes to accomplish this themselves.

And when you keep on saying that it doesn't take years to beat this game, you do realize that neither you, nor anybody else, has ever presented any evidence to support this opinion...right?

I think it is significant to realize that it takes a lot of people losing to provide the overhead and excess funds necessary for the few to win. That is the way the system is structured--there have to be more losers than winners. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the few who are winning to assure that the majority keep losing. That is pretty simple stuff, not rocket science.

One would then have to ask, how does one keep the majority (that great faceless mass of losers) coming back to deposit their money for those few winners to withdraw? And simultaneously to deposit enough additional money to cover the "onerous takeout" and peripheral costs associated with the industry functioning?

By playing on the Calvinistic illusion that hard work over long periods of time will ultimately result in positive outcomes, of course. And that immediate rewards, or rewards from less than hard work over long periods of time are somehow "unjust." The Calvinists lied. That entire beleif framework is pure poppycock.

What possible motivation could I (or anyone else) have to "prove" something is relatively easy that most want (with all their hearts) to believe is extremely difficult? That would be the equivalent of strangling the golden goose because someone in the crowd shouted, "PROVE that goose is not immortal! Strangle it!" No thanks. I have way too much fun depositing those golden eggs. And spending them.

[traynor]

I think it is far more informative to say, "Here, try this. It might work" than to say "Look at this wonderful thing I did, and if you work hard and keep losing for many, many years, you might be able to do it, too." That the horse racing industry fails to interest a younger crowd of new bettors is not surprising.

That younger crowd does not buy into the Calvinist myth of hard work for many years being necessary before one can even hope for reward. It is not simply because they are wired to seek "immediate gratification." It is because they see way too many examples of hard work for many years resulting in little more than hard work for many years--that could have been better spent looking for new and better ways to do the same old same old.

I have no interest in "proving" to the average bettor that he or she can turn what may now be a hobby into a profit opportunity. My interest is solely in pointing out a pathway or direction to those willing to walk that pathway or proceed in that direction themselves. Specifically, NOT to offer "proof" that the average person--unable or unwilling to exert effort himself or herself--can use to kill the golden goose for everyone else, including me.

My ego does not require bolstering by "proving" the obvious to those unwilling to accept that their view of reality may be less than 100% accurate. That seems an incredible waste of time and effort with little or no reward for me. I try to avoid such pointless exercises in futility. My response is, "Of course the golden goose is immortal! You have never seen proof of a dead golden goose, have you?"

[thaskalos]

I think it is significant to realize that it takes a lot of people losing to provide the overhead and excess funds necessary for the few to win. That is the way the system is structured--there have to be more losers than winners. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the few who are winning to assure that the majority keep losing. That is pretty simple stuff, not rocket science.

One would then have to ask, how does one keep the majority (that great faceless mass of losers) coming back to deposit their money for those few winners to withdraw? And simultaneously to deposit enough additional money to cover the "onerous takeout" and peripheral costs associated with the industry functioning?

By playing on the Calvinistic illusion that hard work over long periods of time will ultimately result in positive outcomes, of course. And that immediate rewards, or rewards from less than hard work over long periods of time are somehow "unjust." The Calvinists lied. That entire beleif framework is pure poppycock.

What possible motivation could I (or anyone else) have to "prove" something is relatively easy that most want (with all their hearts) to believe is extremely difficult? That would be the equivalent of strangling the golden goose because someone in the crowd shouted, "PROVE that goose is not immortal! Strangle it!" No thanks. I have way too much fun depositing those golden eggs. And spending them.

Naw...I have to disagree with you here.

No sinister force needs to convince this "great faceless mass of losers" that success in this game is something that can only be achieved thru "hard work over long periods of time"; I think that this great mass of losers have been able to discover this all by themselves.

They have, thru the years, used every shortcut and cookie-cutter method that they have thought of or read...and have fallen on their face each time.

No...I fear that it isn't those who make this game appear too difficult to beat who are to blame for trying to encourage these "faceless losers" to continue depositing their money in this game. I think the fault lies with those who claim that it's possible to possess a "golden goose".

It's the sharpies with the exaggerated claims who endeavor to keep this "great mass of faceless losers" chasing their tails year after year.

[traynor]

Naw...I have to disagree with you here.

No sinister force needs to convince this "great faceless mass of losers" that success in this game is something that can only be achieved thru "hard work over long periods of time"; I think that this great mass of losers have been able to discover this all by themselves.

They have, thru the years, used every shortcut and cookie-cutter method that they have thought of or read...and have fallen on their face each time.

No...I fear that it isn't those who make this game appear too difficult to beat who are to blame for trying to encourage these "faceless losers" to continue depositing their money in this game. I think the fault lies with those who claim that it's possible to possess a "golden goose".

It's the sharpies with the exaggerated claims who endeavor to keep this "great mass of faceless losers" chasing their tails year after year.

Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

[mrroyboy]

There are a number of people on this site that beat the races consistantly. Books like Pandy's and research from Tray and others helps alot too. The average better doesn't follow this stuff because he wants to tell himself how much smarter he is than they are.Think about this. Most books and casino gift shops have basic blackjack strategy books and cards etc. Some casinos let you play with the card on the table. Yet more than 80% casino blackjack players don't use basic strartegy at all or all the time. This info comes from the casino's themselves.

[Robert Goren]

It doesn't necessarily take long years of hard work to beat this game. I won the first time I went to the track. I had winning years for first 15 years or so. Then I had a bad year because some crazy idea. The next year I went back to winning. I started betting 1965 and have had only 2 losing years( because of another crazy idea). I don't bet much and never have. Horse racing betting as job never appealed to me and still doesn't. I am retired now and I still bet as often as I did when I was working. Now I have time to play with the numbers of the game and that is entertaining and I working on an entirely idea that I have never seen broached here or any place else, but I am a long way from changing the way bet.
It is my opinion that hard work will only take you so far in this game. You need to be very smart or at least have a talent for picking winners. There are very few universal truths in this game. Every track plays different and most play different as the seasons change. Once you figure that out, you are well on road to winning. My ROI took a big jump back in 1968 when I figured that out when dealing with shippers to Aksarben. The last losing year I had was when I tried to ignore that fact. Good Luck and I hope you enjoy this game as much as I have whether you win or lose if this a hobby to you. If you are trying to be a pro, I think you should reconsider because of the state of the game is in now. Things are changing rapidly and not clear how it going shake out when the shaking is done.

[traynor]

There are a number of people on this site that beat the races consistantly. Books like Pandy's and research from Tray and others helps alot too. The average better doesn't follow this stuff because he wants to tell himself how much smarter he is than they are.Think about this. Most books and casino gift shops have basic blackjack strategy books and cards etc. Some casinos let you play with the card on the table. Yet more than 80% casino blackjack players don't use basic strartegy at all or all the time. This info comes from the casino's themselves.

I agree that a number of people on this site (and more than a few others) are beating the races consistently. Not all had to work hard for years to do it, although that hard work for years has the advantage of enabling one to realize that most of what people say about working hard for years to do it is to keep them working hard for years to do it--NOT to show them that it is possible to make a profit. I prefer the latter as the more reasonable view.

[traynor]

It doesn't necessarily take long years of hard work to beat this game. I won the first time I went to the track. I had winning years for first 15 years or so. Then I had a bad year because some crazy idea. The next year I went back to winning. I started betting 1965 and have had only 2 losing years( because of another crazy idea). I don't bet much and never have. Horse racing betting as job never appealed to me and still doesn't. I am retired now and I still bet as often as I did when I was working. Now I have time to play with the numbers of the game and that is entertaining and I working on an entirely idea that I have never seen broached here or any place else, but I am a long way from changing the way bet.
It is my opinion that hard work will only take you so far in this game. You need to be very smart or at least have a talent for picking winners. There are very few universal truths in this game. Every track plays different and most play different as the seasons change. Once you figure that out, you are well on road to winning. My ROI took a big jump back in 1968 when I figured that out when dealing with shippers to Aksarben. The last losing year I had was when I tried to ignore that fact. Good Luck and I hope you enjoy this game as much as I have whether you win or lose if this a hobby to you. If you are trying to be a pro, I think you should reconsider because of the state of the game is in now. Things are changing rapidly and not clear how it going shake out when the shaking is done.

I am not suggesting that one can immediately jump into full-time betting as a profession and be successful. I am suggesting that it is (fairly easily) possible to learn enough to turn a profit from betting within a reasonable period of time. Just as with your first time at the track wins, winning tends to be a FAR better teacher than losing.

[Robert Goren]

I am not suggesting that one can immediately jump into full-time betting as a profession and be successful. I am suggesting that it is (fairly easily) possible to learn enough to turn a profit from betting within a reasonable period of time. Just as with your first time at the track wins, winning tends to be a FAR better teacher than losing.On that we agree.

[traynor]

For those who would like to see an example in the real world of how to apply the spot play mentioned above, the 11th race at Balmoral last night provided the following example:

Dec262012,BmlP,R11,Pace,5280,Fast,4500,5, Peace, 28.30,57.39,86.29,114.78,7,7,7Z,4,1,9.25,6.25,5.5, 3.5,0, 14.78,27.50,4.40,DaveMagee,MikeBrink,31.60,238.40,
4.40 (odds) 10.80 (mutuel)

Dec22 BmlP 7500 6 8 9 7 3 2 115.40 28.00 28.40 56.80 86.20 115.00
Dec12 BmlP 4500 7 8 7 5 3 7 116.99 30.50 28.30 57.59 85.49 115.19
Dec05 BmlP 4500 9 9 9 8 7 4 115.85 28.76 27.96 57.13 85.49 115.25

[DeltaLover]

It is my strong impression that in our (endless!) conversations we tend to overestimate the merit of skill, knowledge and talent while on the other hand underestimate the stochasticity that governs to a very large extend the game.

Please don't take me wrong!

By no means I am suggesting that the game is pure luck.. What I am trying to say is that it consists of a combination of luck and skill...

Note that even if skill is a tiny fraction leaving the rest to pure luck, again it is very possible that in the 'long run' the more skillful will outperform the less skillful to a large extend.

Besides this fact though the variance of this game is so huge making statements such as 'beating the game consistently' sound (at least a bid) naive.

Leaving behind a fictitious deterministic view of the game allows us to arrive to a much more realistic realization of its chaotic characteristics that impose a very critical and skeptic stance against measurements like ROI figures, impact values or anything similar.

The existence of several 'winners' does not prove much.. Even if they are honest about their performance as bettors, this does not necessary negates the silent evidence of multiple losers who could have not been inferior in skill or talent but they simply were not lucky enough to find themselves among the (mythic) 2% ....

The mutual nature of the game multiplies its complexity since its unfathomable handicapping difficulty is amplified by the sophistication of the handicappers participating in it and of course by the brutal take out which makes the target even more difficult.

I recall that Beyer is writing in one of his books that this is about creative imagination (or something similar) and not about numbers crunching...

This could be truth although not a comprehensive enough view to describe the whole situation... Something is still missing....

[traynor]

It is my strong impression that in our (endless!) conversations we tend to overestimate the merit of skill, knowledge and talent while on the other hand underestimate the stochasticity that governs to a very large extend the game.

Please don't take me wrong!

By no means I am suggesting that the game is pure luck.. What I am trying to say is that it consists of a combination of luck and skill...

Note that even if skill is a tiny fraction leaving the rest to pure luck, again it is very possible that in the 'long run' the more skillful will outperform the less skillful to a large extend.

Besides this fact though the variance of this game is so huge making statements such as 'beating the game consistently' sound (at least a bid) naive.

Leaving behind a fictitious deterministic view of the game allows us to arrive to a much more realistic realization of its chaotic characteristics that impose a very critical and skeptic stance against measurements like ROI figures, impact values or anything similar.

The existence of several 'winners' does not prove much.. Even if they are honest about their performance as bettors, this does not necessary negates the silent evidence of multiple losers who could have not been inferior in skill or talent but they simply were not lucky enough to find themselves among the (mythic) 2% ....

The mutual nature of the game multiplies its complexity since its unfathomable handicapping difficulty is amplified by the sophistication of the handicappers participating in it and of course by the brutal take out which makes the target even more difficult.

I recall that Beyer is writing in one of his books that this is about creative imagination (or something similar) and not about numbers crunching...

This could be truth although not a comprehensive enough view to describe the whole situation... Something is still missing....

Indeed. And a database of 100,000 races can generate nonsense when used to build models which are then applied to the results of 1,000,000 races. The only certainty is that there is no certainty--ALL views are finite and conceptually limited. I don't think anyone is going to argue that point. Similarly, I am as skeptical of making models based on very large databases as I am of making models based on very small (relatively speaking) databases. In fact, one might even say that I am increasingly skeptical of the use of databases to do anything more than suggest interesting areas for further exploration, rather than to discover the carved-in-stone certainties that some seem to seek.

Some of the most "serious bettors" I know tend to view number-crunching of databases and agonizing over trends from last year and the year before as irrelevant distractions. Others have the complete opposite view. Again, I think the pursuit of Ultimate Truth-With-a-Big-T is an activity fit only for those who admire don Quixote's jousting with windmills as a heroic endeavor. There may be ultimate truth about horse racing out there somewhere, but I seriously doubt it will be discovered on someone's computer monitor.

[traynor]

Similarly, the strike rate at Balmoral was nearly identical--the ROI dropped like a rock:

BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 576 15.80 % ROI 0.72


BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 727 15.68 % ROI 1.17
BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 77 19.48 % IV 1.24

BmlP Trot Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 155 15.48 % ROI 0.98
BmlP Trot Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 17 29.41 % IV 1.90

Translation: Look for a pacer that improved in either running position or lengths behind the leader from the half-mile position to the finish in its last race AND registered a final quarter time that was better than its final quarter time in the preceding race.

Of course, these are clean numbers. No outliers, no anomalies. Mutuels have been truncated to 1.5 times the mean of the interquartile range. Because I actually bet on this stuff, the models are conservative. The results are usually pleasantly surprising and better than the models indicate. The "actual" ROI is better, but I don't want to make exaggerated claims of profitability. I think it is better to show people how do it themselves.

As I said some months ago, I think the best thing for horse racing is to show people that it ain't rocket science to make a profit betting.

[imofe]

I understand your frustration and what you are saying Traynor. However, from my experience most horse players that think they are knowledgeable but either unlucky, have bad money management ( convenient exuse) or not playing the correct pools will continue to handicap things their way regardless of what data or ideas you put in front of them. How many of them are there. A lot!

The funny thing is when I was going to the track for all my betting ( I play online now) I knew of two people who were winning at this game. One was a win bettor who occasionally parlayed his winners and the other played just gimmicks with long shots keyed for second and third. But they had one thing in common. They always listened to new ideas by the other players. Instead of just ignoring it , they would look into the validity of what the person was saying. Sometimes it was useless. Other times they used it in their capping. Imagine the winning player taking bits and pieces from losing players to continue to grow in this game.

So I hope people that have something to say post it. We need to get ideas from each other. Many things you have posted have helped me see something I did not see before. Hopefully someone else will post something that helps you.

[mrroyboy]

You have come to the right place. The posters on this site are amoung the smartest harness betters. You can learn alot.

[traynor]

One of the things the sample illustrates is that information has value in direct proportion to the number of bettors who have that information. Cleaned data (corrected for outliers, etc.) should smooth such spikes and valleys to a greater degree than seems evident in the results.

There is a whole, long boring process used to establish such, that runs through a bootstrapping algorithm (random sampling with replacement to build numerous subgroupings) to determine what kind of future results can be expected from modeling past results. In general, eliminating outliers to 1.5 times the mean of the interquartile range of mutuel prices of winners in that particular category also eliminates a lot of anxiety and potential losses in applying the model by eliminating the possibility that the "ROI" is based on a few unusual outliers that are not replicated in future samplings. The ROI in the original posting was based on cleaned data--not anomalies

I bet on these models. It is dismaying to post details of a model that I have used to earn a decent profit for weeks or months and then see it promptly tank into red ink. That is why I would rather discuss generalities than specifics.

[traynor]

In fact, the number of winners exhibiting that specific combination of attributes increased in the additional races, as did the impact value (the relationship of winners exhibiting the attribute to entries exhibiting the attribute). The reduced ROI can be attributed to additional wagers being placed on that specific combination of attributes.

First sample grouping:
BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QAll 727 15.68 % ROI 1.17
BmlP Pace Gain2CToFin+Improved4QWinners 77 19.48 % IV 1.24

Second sample grouping:
BmlP Pace GainStrToFin+Improved4QAll 576 15.45 % ROI 0.73
BmlP Pace GainStrToFin+Improved4QWinners 65 14 21.54 % IV 1.39

There is an upside of course. The newbies will lose a few races, give up in dismay, and avoid betting on such combinations for awhile. Monitoring results in conjunction with mutuels can open some great insights into profitability. Most importantly, it indicates clearly when to stop and start betting on particular attribute patterns.

[imofe]

Isn't it possible that more people having these winners had something to do with what they saw and nothing to do with the post? Remember, you posted about the repeat winners at Maywood and there was no change in how many people were betting it. It would be easier to blindly bet repeat winners at Maywood than bet what you explained at Balmoral. I'm sure you have seen results with similar declines at tracks where you have not posted your thoughts.

[traynor]

Isn't it possible that more people having these winners had something to do with what they saw and nothing to do with the post? Remember, you posted about the repeat winners at Maywood and there was no change in how many people were betting it. It would be easier to blindly bet repeat winners at Maywood than bet what you explained at Balmoral. I'm sure you have seen results with similar declines at tracks where you have not posted your thoughts.

Yes and no. Again, it is very track specific. Or--more correctly--circuit specific. Betting tendencies are quite different in the Chicago area than in New York, and both are consistent between tracks on the same circuit. The same is true of the Ontario tracks.

I don't claim to manipulate the track payoffs according to whether or not I post something. It could be as easily caused by a number of other bettors developing similar models. Not too likely, but possible. Lots of people bet on last race winners repeating. Relatively fewer would be expected to bet on a specific pattern such as the one posted for Balmoral.

Specific race selections tend to be ignored unless there are a cluster of wins (that starts people betting those selections) and are usually followed by a cluster of losses. Models are a bit different, because the wagers are spread over a number of races. Unfortunately, models tend to be seriously overbet when posted publicly.

All-Ways track profiles are a good example. I don't know if they still do it, but a couple of years ago they had many user-created track profiles available, essentially ways to filter race selections according to specific profiles. The modeling process was fairly good (for a readily available software app) but they failed to clean data or correct for outliers. One or two large mutuels in a 400-500 race sample seriously tweaked the results to make the ROI look better than those who used the models were able to replicate. I learned a lot about creating profitable models from their mistakes.

[mrroyboy]

Hey Tray
You are famous. Pandy wrote about you in his latest column.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us "Mere Mortals" LOL

Just kidding Tray. Your stuff is very good. Please keep posting.