Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
The point I was making (and often make) is that when there are huge discrepancies in the figures between figure makers (and there was in this case) it's 100% certain "someone" has it wrong.
That's a fundamental problem if you use them as an objective starting point and then adjust them for prior trips, projected pace, form changes, distance changes etc. Sometimes you are going to be very wrong about the values because your figures are wrong.
In many of these cases I don't know WHO had it wrong after the race, let alone before the race.
Which brings me to the next question.
If there is a huge discrepancy is there a way to help determine who has it right for a specific horse before the race?
I can tell you with certainty after close to 30 years of trying, the answer is "you can do better than 50-50", but it will cause downsides in your betting on top of taking more time. It causes a kind of paralysis by analysis when you start looking at multiple sets and aren't sure who is right.
You can be better off looking at just one set. But you have to understand that no amount of handicapping arrogance means you are actually right all the time because all figure makers get some wrong. My own evolution has taken me to the point where I look at them and accept them when one horse is clearly a lot faster than another (all else being equal), but if the horses are even similar, I ignore them and use qualitative techniques to separate them.
In this case, I'm just trying to explain the odds a little. Maxfield looked way better on Thorograph than some other sets of figures.
|
As I’ve mentioned before it’s impossible to consider any subjective information gleaned from any interpretation of the past performances as being “objective”. There is however a way to make accurate determinations about not only a single entry but many entries in a race when using what I believe the
only pre-race "objective" information (that’s available for free in a public domain). That’s the fluid monetary activities during a typical betting cycle.
I realize that my style of play doesn’t conform to the majority of those posting on this forum because I rely completely on a sophisticated tote analysis. I also understand that because my method may demonstrate success when posting selections it probably seems counter-intuitive to those using the typical handicapping methodologies. I would’ve liked to explain the tote analysis for the Big Cap, but I believe at this point it would be like “talking to deaf ears”.
What I don’t quite fathom is why one of the illustrious Moderators here would delete a post that I made on this thread on Sat evening. It simply expressed the success I had when sharing my selections for Saturday’s card at Santa Anita that included the Big Cap. As proof and convenience I had also included the link to the SA thread in the Selection forum.
With respect to all of the other nonsense that’s being posted around here I didn’t realize that posting a positive and successful demonstration would be a problem. Believe me it won’t happen again. Not that it’s of any real consequence, but I also plan on selfishly curtailing my future activities in the Selection forum.
.
