*Handicapping Methods-Spot Play Testing-Software Etc

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by headhawg

I agree that statistics can lie. But so do the eyes.

80-20...Stats lie more. Let me share this one tidbit that I've used for years...

I researched an "angle", for lack of a better term, that had about 30 plays a week for over 5 years. This angle always came in at about .91 ROi, give or take a percentage or two. I began treating this as a "stock", meaning if it was running at 70% or below, a third of the way thru the meet, I would then play this angle HEAVY, knowing it would have to perform above 120% for most of the remainder of the meet to settle into it's customary range of .91

I have 3 steady methodologies that perform like this....Always trying to add another here and there, even with a rebate, it's still tough.

In the long run, Horizontals and Tourneys are easier..

[sharkey11]

headhawg did you happen to know jim bayle ?

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

I researched an "angle", for lack of a better term, that had about 30 plays a week for over 5 years. This angle always came in at about .91 ROi, give or take a percentage or two. I began treating this as a "stock", meaning if it was running at 70% or below, a third of the way thru the meet, I would then play this angle HEAVY, knowing it would have to perform above 120% for most of the remainder of the meet to settle into it's customary range of .91

Randall...with all due respect- you just described the "GAMBLER'S FALLACY".
Nothing in wagering HAS to perform in any way based on past results.

But you know that

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Randall...with all due respect- you just described the "GAMBLER'S FALLACY".

I might of described something "Akin" to GF, but I assure you that it DOES work....Hope you're not a Jinx...

PS- Factor in the rebate, it helps make it work.

[sharkey11]

double up to catch up the rent is due and so im due NCG i wouldnt have posted anything but i had been reading this thread from the begining 5 years ago back then it seemed you were looking for systems an angles or such and i had been digging through my old books from back in the 90s an just droped here all the best an gl sir

[ReplayRandall]

No "replay" soup for you!....

[sharkey11]

took a shot an thanks any way gl sir

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by sharkey11

headhawg did you happen to know jim bayle ?

Only by his work. I want to say he was one of popular stats guys back in the day. I don't remember if I purchased anything from him, but I think he was mentioned in some handicapping literature.

[hracingplyr]

Is like a woman in a bikini, it reveals a lot but does not tell the whole story.


Bob

[NorCalGreg]

One good thing about Twinspires--they kept very good records of your wagering. Types of bets, dollar amount, win %, etc. You can even separate all your wagers, such as exactas only. Find out real quick how you're doing.

XB...not so much. You can go back years, but the info and records aren't exactly what I hoped for. If all you want to know is how much you bet-won-lost-refunded-and withdrew.

The only reason I bring this up is because I went back to when I started there, late in 2015, after leaving TS.

I swear I have a very hazy memory of this...but I ended up losing 30 wagers in a row, before finally breaking out.

Like I said, XB doesn't give much info--mainly won-loss.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Was going through some old files and programs...and found (at least the start of one) a program tentatively titled "Consistent Horse". I played the method on paper, until I was satisfied we had something.

I had grandeurs of the Consistent Horse Method being the basis for a new effective software program. Okay, so I had Steve make up a simple interface...and begin with the "Consistent Horse".

Suddenly, a small problem was apparent: after we got it programmed...we found the method was horrible . It was anything but "Consistent".

Just for giggles here is the CONSISTENT HORSE' selections for LAD this afternoon:





Don't even ask what these ratings include, or how they work--if I have them written down--no clue where they are.

Greg, your mention of a Consistent Horse reminded me of a pen and paper method an old OTW buddy used. He totally ignored the last race and only used 2nd and 3rd last races PP's. One of his requirements was a 2nd or 3rd in one of those two races, preferably in both. He also was very strict, wanting a 9-1 minimum odds in this race.

Eliminating LR usually got rid of lower odds, but not always. He had to skip a lot of races, which didn't bother him, being on disability and limited income. He'd occasionally hit some monster prices. I believe Thask said one time, that we'd probably all do better, if we didn't use LR to handicap, but I may be wrong.

[lefty359]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Only by his work. I want to say he was one of popular stats guys back in the day. I don't remember if I purchased anything from him, but I think he was mentioned in some handicapping literature.

Doc Sartin used to mention the jim Bayle study hat revealed that all the
speed nos out here including Beyer's were not as good as the DRF speed nos. with Variant.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by lefty359

Doc Sartin used to mention the jim Bayle study hat revealed that all the
speed nos out here including Beyer's were not as good as the DRF speed nos. with Variant.

I hope people are still relying on old studies; it's better for my bankroll. As I wrote before, the ONLY reason to use SR+TV now is that fewer people use it as a measure of speed and it's possible under certain circumstances that SR+TV is a better number. If that's all a handicapper has it's better than nothing. I would imagine that if someone had speed fig data from all data providers and tested them over tens of thousands of races, there would be be very little difference between them.

[NorCalGreg]

What do you say if today - we give Finger Lakes

THE FINGER?

That's funny because I heard a country song that went "She got the ring - and I got the finger"

"She got the gold mine - I got the shaft" ..or that may be two different songs

Good luck today, boys

-NCG

[NorCalGreg]

Looking at the Finger Lakes card, one horse @ 6/5 NUEVA YORK in the 7th--wasn't just a vulnerable favorite. In a 5.5F race in the slop - 'York has absolutely no early speed, an outer post, and obvious physical issues...yet there he was, the 6/5 favorite.

Something I learned, and it has served me well--is to look for these false favorites, then toss it from your sequence. Once in a while, a horizontal bet can pay very well with a big fav out of the picture.

The late 50 cent pick-4...with no big prices still paid $64.50.







Also, Best-Five had the pick-6 for a whopping

$0.20 Pick-6 (4/5/6/3,6/7/6) Paid $106.30 (6OF6)


You can see why I play $8 tickets @ FGX.