The secret to handicapping is.....

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by speculus

Is it really a heretic thought? I don't think so.

In fact, I think that could the WHOLE secret of beating this game LONG TERM!

No, it's not and btw, I didn't say that it was. In fact, it takes into consideration that the overwhelming majority of what handicappers do is done by other handicappers and therefore is already incorporated in the line. This reminds me of when I was a young handicapper in the early 1960's, playing at Saratoga. I became friendly with an older, distinguished gentleman from NYC who vacationed at the Spa every summer and played the races every day. He studied the form for hours both before and during the races and he invariably arrived at the conclusion that the favorite was the best horse in the race. He'd wind up playing the favorite $50 to win, which in those days was quite a significant wager, and he always lost, usually on a daily basis but certainly by the end of the meet. Even though he could well afford the losses and definitely enjoyed himself while losing, it was clear that he could have saved himself a lot of labor by letting the public do the handicapping for him, since they obviously were doing exactly what he was.

So you are correct in believing that the secret to success is finding angles that are not incorporated in the line so that you can attain wagering value.

Where I would disagree is that this is purely art. Why? Because the quest for finding such angles must begin with some anecdotal belief that your area of inquiry might be successful. That means that you have seen or think you have seen that such general situations produce profits (positive roi). This, in turn, pushes you to a more in-depth examination of the underlying principle.

Whereas this might seem or feel like pure intuition (art), it is actually factually based on an underlying mathematical calculation which might be expressed as % hit rate x average payoff. This is what your memory or experience has seen or thinks it has seen in the past and therefore, you have been making mathematical calculations all along without having realized it.

On the other hand, maybe you are investigating angles which you have zero intuitive belief have led to a positive mathematical result in the past. Isn't this at least artful? No, it isn't. Without any preconceived expectation of profit, you are randomly mixing factors which could just as easily be replicated by pulling factors out of a hat.

The ensuing dissection of an angle may involve tweaking by way of of adding or subtracting factors or restrictions but again, this all involves mathematical effects to a bottom line. On this point you seem to agree. (Your stage 2).

Now. None of this would be important in the least because it only involves semantic labelling if it did not cause so-called artful handicappers to reject sustained and logical mathematical testing of their processes.

Hopefully, we can help each other on this forum. My hope is that the artful handicappers, by realizing that they are already dealing with numbers in everything that they do, will subject their processes to some better numerical examination. And if they have been struggling with making their art successful, this alone may allow them to join the ranks of the profitable bettors.

[fmolf]

that is very well said and i agree with it totally... i think that with people who say they do not use numbers they really mean they do not do any calculations such as making an average pace number or calculating who has the faster turn time etc..etc... they do however look at numbers provided by others research and data bases as to trainer % blinkes on....first gelded...two classes down...etc etc... although they perceive themselves as not using numbers they are using them in a slightly different light than speed/pace handicappers.Unless picking your horses from a hat it is impossible to handicap without using statistics/numbers/calculations in some form or another.

[GameTheory]

Can't we also reject the notion that art is pure intuition -- you can use numbers and still be artful, eh?

Isn't some art involved when evaluating situations which have never occurred before and will never repeat? You are always bringing to bear in some way (subjective or otherwise) your knowledge about what has happened in the past, but does that automatically make it all science, no art?

For instance, let's say I am heavily into trainer stats, trainer/jockey combos, etc. One day I notice that small-time Trainer X, with a tiny stable of only four horses (all for the same owner), who averages only 1 start every 10 ten days; suddenly has all four of those horses entered on the same card (different races). Not only that, but they've all got the same jockey, who rarely wins, but actually has a reasonable record with this particular trainer. I look over their PPs and don't see anything special -- taken individually I've got only got one reason to bet on them --the half-decent Trainer/Jockey combo. But their record isn't THAT good, just reasonable, so really no reason at all. But then I've got the very unusual circumstance that all four of these horses are entered on the same day. I suspect the owner is around, but I'm not at the track and have no way of finding out.

So, I've got some stats that alerted me to this situation, but the only thing the stats are telling me is that the situation is weird -- I have no stats that actually indicate I should be betting in this situation. And obviously there is no data mining I can do -- this is a unique situation that hasn't occurred before, with this trainer anyway, and isn't likely to occur again. So I've got a hunch that Trainer X is up to something, and I feel he's a decent enough trainer that it is worth it to go along. So I "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning I've got no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe I get two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and I hit a good exacta). (Or maybe I lose them all, that's not really the point.)

Now, if you can't call what I just described as playing "artfully", then the word doesn't have any meaning and it really is all semantics...

[andymays]

Art/whatever


After the handicapping process is over the final decision (placing the bet) is based on instinct.

Your instinct is developed over a long period of time and is based on the total sum of your experiences as a Handicapper.

[Show Me the Wire]

The art is knowing what is behind the numbers i.e. if ground loss is an intergal part of the number and on that specific day being wide was advantageous. Another example a horse always runs a big number when it is on the outside of horses, but not when inside of horses.

How about blinkers and the improvement they produce. Will the horse improve off his improving win resulting from wearing blinkers the second time? The numbers quantify what is quantifiable and the art addresses the essence.

[illinoisbred]

Originally Posted by andymays

Art/whatever


After the handicapping process is over the final decision (placing the bet) is based on instinct.

Your instinct is developed over a long period of time and is based on the total sum of your experiences as a Handicapper.

Couldn't agree more but also agree with an above poster-Mark,I think, regarding the ability to consistently apply that instinct.We are vulnerable at times to what prove to be wayward influences.You may be better than me when it comes to foiling such"noise".I'm at the point that I quickly recognize it,fend it off before it becomes too costly

[Dave Schwartz]

After the handicapping process is over the final decision (placing the bet) is based on instinct.

Andy,

Doesn't have to be.

The same conversation we are having about the handicapping process could easily apply to the wagering process as well.


Dave

[dietant]

build a homemade risk seek multinomial logit model and U are done.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by illinoisbred

Couldn't agree more but also agree with an above poster-Mark,I think, regarding the ability to consistently apply that instinct.We are vulnerable at times to what prove to be wayward influences.You may be better than me when it comes to foiling such"noise".I'm at the point that I quickly recognize it,fend it off before it becomes too costly

I am on one end of the spectrum and I have had success in the past although I am inconsistent and lack discipline.

I find that those on the other end of the spectrum offer value in what they say and I would certainly admit that I should move at least a little in that direction.

[speculus]

One important point which I wanted to make but did not was this: I think there are many really excellent, brainy handicappers around trying to figure out this sport for profitability, and most of them, at some point in time in their pursuit of this game, place over reliance on the numbers. I have myself been one of them.

But what they don't realize is that their obsession with numbers has a side effect which goes unnoticed for a long time. Once you get lost in the labyrinth of numbers, a complete burnout of the handicapper is almost certain. Numbers, especially the quality of their occasional success, has a way of enticing the practitioner into a never-ending maize, and in 99 out of 100 cases, you will see a complete "burnout" of the numbers guy over the years. It's too late for him to realize that he has lost quality time with himself, family and friends--and hasn't really covered significant ground in his quest to master this game. When he looks back, most of the so-called great moments of victories along the way suddenly appear hollow when compared to the quality of the things lost due to obsessive involvement with numbers, and the time spent in producing them.

Even with computers today slaving for you, the intense thought that goes into designing new ways to work out more effective numbers is the main reason for burnout of this kind.

My precise thoughts on this subject I had expressed in a mail last year which you can read here.

I think the earlier a numbers guy understands and accepts this truth, better is his chance of picking up a technique with which to easily beat this game long term, because he has the knowledge, intelligence, insights and capability to accomplish that (or he wouldn't be a sworn numbers guy in the first place).

It happened in my case only when I allowed myself to come out of the dogmatic slumber of numbers, and the experience is so refreshing and enjoyable, it's difficult to express it with mere words. On the average, I now devote NOT more than 3 hours a month (per track) to my new style of handicapping and my bottom line had never been better.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Andy,

Doesn't have to be.

The same conversation we are having about the handicapping process could easily apply to the wagering process as well.


Dave

I know it doesn't have to be. Until someone can convince me of a better way to make a score then I will stick to what I do and attempt to be a little more disciplined when it comes to pulling the trigger on a play.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Can't we also reject the notion that art is pure intuition -- you can use numbers and still be artful, eh?

Isn't some art involved when evaluating situations which have never occurred before and will never repeat? You are always bringing to bear in some way (subjective or otherwise) your knowledge about what has happened in the past, but does that automatically make it all science, no art?

For instance, let's say I am heavily into trainer stats, trainer/jockey combos, etc. One day I notice that small-time Trainer X, with a tiny stable of only four horses (all for the same owner), who averages only 1 start every 10 ten days; suddenly has all four of those horses entered on the same card (different races). Not only that, but they've all got the same jockey, who rarely wins, but actually has a reasonable record with this particular trainer. I look over their PPs and don't see anything special -- taken individually I've got only got one reason to bet on them --the half-decent Trainer/Jockey combo. But their record isn't THAT good, just reasonable, so really no reason at all. But then I've got the very unusual circumstance that all four of these horses are entered on the same day. I suspect the owner is around, but I'm not at the track and have no way of finding out.

So, I've got some stats that alerted me to this situation, but the only thing the stats are telling me is that the situation is weird -- I have no stats that actually indicate I should be betting in this situation. And obviously there is no data mining I can do -- this is a unique situation that hasn't occurred before, with this trainer anyway, and isn't likely to occur again. So I've got a hunch that Trainer X is up to something, and I feel he's a decent enough trainer that it is worth it to go along. So I "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning I've got no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe I get two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and I hit a good exacta). (Or maybe I lose them all, that's not really the point.)

Now, if you can't call what I just described as playing "artfully", then the word doesn't have any meaning and it really is all semantics...

Actually, with your admitted non-experience in such situations and no facts and/or figures to go by, you are not playing artfully, you're shooting craps. And as you say, it may or may not work out but so too will pulling names out of a hat.

[Dave Schwartz]

I know it doesn't have to be. Until someone can convince me of a better way to make a score then I will stick to what I do and attempt to be a little more disciplined when it comes to pulling the trigger on a play.

And the same goes for many players.

I would never say that anyone must embrace a "systematic" approach, to be successful in the handicapping phase or the wagering phase.

For me, systematic is the only thing I can identify with. That certainly does not make it the only way to skin that cat.

Conversely, there seem to be many people who view it exactly the other way around.


Dave

[Jeff P]

GT,

That's a brilliant (and refreshing) example.

But let me play devil's advocate for a second...

A player - let's call him Chuck - happens to notice (for whatever reason) the very unusual set of circumstances you described that day. And Chuck reacts accordingly... in Chuck's own intuitive manner.

What if Chuck files away the outcome (good or bad it doesn't matter) of that one very unusual day in his mind's eye for future reference?

And suppose for the sake of argument that on some other day... at some other track... with some other trainer, rider, and owner... the same set of circumstances (event) arises again. The only thing different from the last time is the name of the trainer, rider, and owner... and the names of the horses involved.

Chuck has the event right in front of him...

Would he react the same way this time around? Or would Chuck not even notice this time around... or maybe choose to ignore the event even if he does notice it?

This is where the lines between art and science sometimes cross.

What if Chuck had reacted to the event the first time around by betting it?

What if he... to use your words... "blindly" bet all four horses (blindly meaning he had no real *handicapping* or science-based reason to bet them), and maybe he got two wins at around 8-1 and one place (to the favorite, most likely, and hit a good exacta.)

And what if afterwards he made it a point to look for that type of event in the future?

When he looks for that event going forward Chuck can express it in terms of numbers:

0 = Event does not exist today
1 = Event exists today

And from there he can map out how best to handle it...

Event = 0: Look elsewhere for plays
Event = 1: Tighten focus on the event's horses

What if Chuck notices that the event doesn't happen very often, but when it does happen, he usually has a pretty good day?

Chuck has just taken something that used to be intuitive... and made it into an automated process.




Is this all semantics? Maybe.

I tend to agree with Mark. Much of our thought processes and decisions in everyday life can be expressed in terms of numbers... even thought processes and decisions we'd rather not examine and often think of as "intuitive."

But they can be expressed as numbers if we want to do that...

But when we do that... depending on the thought proceess involved... we also run the risk of taking some (or all) of the "fun" out of whatever it is we are doing in the first place.


-jp

.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Actually, with your admitted non-experience in such situations and no facts and/or figures to go by, you are not playing artfully, you're shooting craps. And as you say, it may or may not work out but so too will pulling names out of a hat.

You're not shooting craps -- can't you play "artfully" and still lose? (Are losers who rely purely on numbers and science "shooting craps"? Most people lose.) My point was about my reasoning and intention. And as far as "non-experience", my point about that was that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have experience for certain situations because they never repeat but still possible to make a smart play, or at least a well-thought out one.