How do you measure your handicapping?

[Capper Al]

Many times we modify our approaches to the royal game and actually wonder if we improved our game or not. There are many ways to measure our approach. Here are a few ways to score ourselves with some comments.

(1) Return on Investment (ROI):
-- Money returned/money invested on a $2.00 win wager.
This is the measure of all measures with a direct application to the real world. All other measures would just be considered BS.

(2) Strike or Hit Ratio:
-- wins/attempts
One can't help that the public does so well. What really counts is how well am I doing by comparing my current handicapping to my own past.

(3) Universal Driver Rating (UDR) method from harness racing:
-- (9*wins+5*places+3*shows)/(9*amount of races)
The nice thing about this system is that it gives a kind of like baseball batting average score. A score here of 300 is similar to a batting average of 300. We have a feel for these numbers.

(4) Quirin style modification on the UDR:
-- (6*wins+3*places+shows)/(6*amount of races)
Quirin established that the true value in thoroughbred racing is 6-3-1 not 9-5-3.

(5) Fred Davis is credited with this method:
-- If any of your top three score 1 / amount of races. 60% is considered good.

(6) TTC (I forgot what this stands for, but these TTC contests are popular.)
-- 40 points for a win, 20 points for a place, 10 points for a show. Double points on your best bet of the day horse. This score is typically used over 8 races on the same card. To make this a measure, one would have to take the total points divided by the amount of races plus one (because of the double points on best bet). The challenge of the best bet adds an interesting complexity- Do you really know what a winner looks like?

What's your take on these or any other method of measure?

[Greyfox]

By the thickness of my wallet on a weekly basis or the changes in my betting account on a monthly basis.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Many times we modify our approaches to the royal game and actually wonder if we improved our game or not. There are many ways to measure our approach. Here are a few ways to score ourselves with some comments.

(1) Return on Investment (ROI):
-- Money returned/money invested on a $2.00 win wager.
This is the measure of all measures with a direct application to the real world. All other measures would just be considered BS.

Al, I do not agree with your statement.

The most significant metric is P&L in absolute value. A low ROI can very well be way better than a very high one, assuming that the former is suggesting way more bets than the latter.

[BlueChip@DRF]

By the existence of the moths in my wallet.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Many times we modify our approaches to the royal game and actually wonder if we improved our game or not. There are many ways to measure our approach. Here are a few ways to score ourselves with some comments.

(1) Return on Investment (ROI):
-- Money returned/money invested on a $2.00 win wager.
This is the measure of all measures with a direct application to the real world. All other measures would just be considered BS.

(2) Strike or Hit Ratio:
-- wins/attempts
One can't help that the public does so well. What really counts is how well am I doing by comparing my current handicapping to my own past.

(3) Universal Driver Rating (UDR) method from harness racing:
-- (9*wins+5*places+3*shows)/(9*amount of races)
The nice thing about this system is that it gives a kind of like baseball batting average score. A score here of 300 is similar to a batting average of 300. We have a feel for these numbers.

(4) Quirin style modification on the UDR:
-- (6*wins+3*places+shows)/(6*amount of races)
Quirin established that the true value in thoroughbred racing is 6-3-1 not 9-5-3.

(5) Fred Davis is credited with this method:
-- If any of your top three score 1 / amount of races. 60% is considered good.

(6) TTC (I forgot what this stands for, but these TTC contests are popular.)
-- 40 points for a win, 20 points for a place, 10 points for a show. Double points on your best bet of the day horse. This score is typically used over 8 races on the same card. To make this a measure, one would have to take the total points divided by the amount of races plus one (because of the double points on best bet). The challenge of the best bet adds an interesting complexity- Do you really know what a winner looks like?

What's your take on these or any other method of measure?

A typical way for me to keep track of my daily betting results is to record all my bets in a spreadsheet, having a running ROI, hit rate and PNL.. The following is an example of my approach (note that this is my main model, which only spawns to win bets, for other bets I keep a less detailed sheet)

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Al, I do not agree with your statement.

The most significant metric is P&L in absolute value. A low ROI can very well be way better than a very high one, assuming that the former is suggesting way more bets than the latter.

All I'm suggesting is that we need a method to measure our changes. There are many ways to measure. P&L is the ROI with maybe other wagers than win to considered.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by BlueChip@DRF

By the existence of the moths in my wallet.

A realist,ROI.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

By the thickness of my wallet on a weekly basis or the changes in my betting account on a monthly basis.

ROI

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

All I'm suggesting is that we need a method to measure our changes. There are many ways to measure. P&L is the ROI with maybe other wagers than win to considered.

PNL is not the ROI..

You remember like a year ago, when somebody posted about a (silly) handicapping approach that was finding extremely sparse bets (in the range of a few of them every half a year, if memory serves) using Bris PP claiming a very high ROI? This approach is next to useless, as the objective of the game is not to show some theoretical positive return based on your betting action but to maximize your absolute income, which is not necessary the same as maximizing your ROI

[Capper Al]

Of course, in the end it will always be ROI. Can anyone see this like tuning a piano? (Increase my hit rate here, improve my Quirin style UDR there, improve my overall TTC score, and hopefully eventually my ROI will go up.)

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Of course, in the end it will always be ROI. Can anyone see this like tuning a piano? (Increase my hit rate here, improve my Quirin style UDR there, improve my overall TTC score, and hopefully eventually my ROI will go up.)

Al, Please try to think it a little more..

HIGHER ROI DOES NOT NECESSARY MEAN HIGER PROFITS

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

PNL is not the ROI..

You remember like a year ago, when somebody posted about a (silly) handicapping approach that was finding extremely sparse bets (in the range of a few of them every half a year, if memory serves) using Bris PP claiming a very high ROI? This approach is next to useless, as the objective of the game is not to show some theoretical positive return based on your betting action but to maximize your absolute income, which is not necessary the same as maximizing your ROI

P&L doesn't directly correlate to ROI? One can be positive while the other negative? I don't think so.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

P&L doesn't directly correlate to ROI? One can be positive while the other negative? I don't think so.

I am not referring to positive vs negative here.

BUT

a model with a 1.10 ROI will be WAY more profitable from a model with a 1.20 ROI if it is able to find three times more frequent bets.

The key point is that we measure profits in conjunction to time and not as an abstract concept.

[Robert Goren]

Being a small bettor, I measure myself by two things. Reloads and Withdrawals. A good year is marked by no reloads and several withdraws. If I need to reload, then I know it is time to re-evaluate what I have been doing. I used to keep a journal, but with he advent of ADWs, it is no longer necessary. If I bet more money, I would do a better job of keeping track.
ROIs are only a way to keep track of how well certain types of bets are doing. Certainly you don't want to make any negative ROI bets, so you should keep that kind of record. I have one bet that pops up maybe once a month with a very high ROI, It is nice when I see it, but it is not worth hunting for on days when I have other things to do other than scour the PPs.

[traynor]

I think that depends on whether ROI is used as a "real" value (actual money earned in the real world) or a fantasy value ("paper profit"). It is an interesting point, because most seem to think "ROI" means whatever they think it means (or want it to mean). That may be why many bettors (to their dismay) find that the strategies they discover by studying the past do not function (as well) in the present or future. It might help to understand that "return" does not mean "woulda coulda shoulda"--it means "money that came back as a result of money that went out."

Perhaps a more realistic term than "return on investment" should be used in regard to horse races. I have never really thought about it, but the term "ROI" seems to be used in a different context by serious bettors (who tend to consider it only in "real" terms of actual money won) and by more casual bettors (who consider "paper profit" and "actual money won" as essentially equivalent).

This issue was discussed on another thread, with the overall impression that some (or most, unfortunately) believe a "paper profit ROI" of 1.2 is equivalent to a guarantee of exponential growth on future wagers (each and every one of which operates with a 20% advantage--"POI").