Measuring -- How do you do?

[Capper Al]

Sartin or Ainslie said something like the average system last 2.2 days before a handicapper is off trying another method. Well, the question that I have is how does one judge how well they are picking them? This is not an ROI measure or how much profit analysis. Just simply, how well did that system or method of picking them do for you?

What the average handicapper needs is a quick method for measuring systems with only a few races. Most of us don't have the huge databases that Dave has available. With our tweaking every 2.2 days (as the joke goes), how can we tell?

'Win Percent' or 'In The Money' or 'Impact Value' or UDR (Universal Driver Rating as used in harness racing) might head the list. I find problems with them all especially when using a few races. Let's say for the discussion a few races is 30 races. (2.2 days might be 3 cards of ten races each.)

The problem with 'Win Percent' and 'Impact Value' with on a few races is that a system's second or third pick might radically out perform their top pick in a sample of 30 races. For instance, out of 30 races one might hit as follows: 3 wins, 9 places, and 6 shows. A 10% hit overlooks the point that the ITM hit was 60%. Is this system a keeper that just needs a little tweaking? This is why I favor ITM or UDR approaches for quick analysis.

I was tracking two systems on Million day. System A had a 30% win hit rate while system B had a 40%. Drawing any conclusions on 10 races is dangerous. But at the end of any racing day, I simply like to know how well did I pick them? And if I picked them this way or that way, how well would I have done? Before I post a method for measuring a day or two at the races, I'd like to hear what others do for a quick measure. And if one believes that a quick measure could have any value in it at all?

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Sartin or Ainslie said something like the average system last 2.2 days before a handicapper is off trying another method. Well, the question that I have is how does one judge how well they are picking them? This is not an ROI measure or how much profit analysis. Just simply, how well did that system or method of picking them do for you?

What the average handicapper needs is a quick method for measuring systems with only a few races. Most of us don't have the huge databases that Dave has available. With our tweaking every 2.2 days (as the joke goes), how can we tell?

'Win Percent' or 'In The Money' or 'Impact Value' or UDR (Universal Driver Rating as used in harness racing) might head the list. I find problems with them all especially when using a few races. Let's say for the discussion a few races is 30 races. (2.2 days might be 3 cards of ten races each.)

The problem with 'Win Percent' and 'Impact Value' with on a few races is that a system's second or third pick might radically out perform their top pick in a sample of 30 races. For instance, out of 30 races one might hit as follows: 3 wins, 9 places, and 6 shows. A 10% hit overlooks the point that the ITM hit was 60%. Is this system a keeper that just needs a little tweaking? This is why I favor ITM or UDR approaches for quick analysis.

I was tracking two systems on Million day. System A had a 30% win hit rate while system B had a 40%. Drawing any conclusions on 10 races is dangerous. But at the end of any racing day, I simply like to know how well did I pick them? And if I picked them this way or that way, how well would I have done? Before I post a method for measuring a day or two at the races, I'd like to hear what others do for a quick measure. And if one believes that a quick measure could have any value in it at all?

Did System A winners show up as System B winners also?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Sartin or Ainslie said something like the average system last 2.2 days before a handicapper is off trying another method. Well, the question that I have is how does one judge how well they are picking them? This is not an ROI measure or how much profit analysis. Just simply, how well did that system or method of picking them do for you?

What the average handicapper needs is a quick method for measuring systems with only a few races. Most of us don't have the huge databases that Dave has available. With our tweaking every 2.2 days (as the joke goes), how can we tell?

'Win Percent' or 'In The Money' or 'Impact Value' or UDR (Universal Driver Rating as used in harness racing) might head the list. I find problems with them all especially when using a few races. Let's say for the discussion a few races is 30 races. (2.2 days might be 3 cards of ten races each.)

The problem with 'Win Percent' and 'Impact Value' with on a few races is that a system's second or third pick might radically out perform their top pick in a sample of 30 races. For instance, out of 30 races one might hit as follows: 3 wins, 9 places, and 6 shows. A 10% hit overlooks the point that the ITM hit was 60%. Is this system a keeper that just needs a little tweaking? This is why I favor ITM or UDR approaches for quick analysis.

I was tracking two systems on Million day. System A had a 30% win hit rate while system B had a 40%. Drawing any conclusions on 10 races is dangerous. But at the end of any racing day, I simply like to know how well did I pick them? And if I picked them this way or that way, how well would I have done? Before I post a method for measuring a day or two at the races, I'd like to hear what others do for a quick measure. And if one believes that a quick measure could have any value in it at all?

Ainslie also provided us with another quote. He wrote: "After every race, another system is born."

What the average handicapper needs isn't a "quick way of measuring systems with only a few races". The average handicapper needs a little logic and common sense. He expects consistency from his picks...while having no consistency himself.

How can you judge anything in a mere 30 races, in a complicated game like horse racing?

The average handicapper is psychologically ill-equipped to play this game...in a serious OR a frolicking manner. He can't accept losing races...much less losing days. Even when he loses a single race, he expects his losing pick to be right there at the wire...otherwise his over-inflated ego is wounded. Why was he so wrong...and how could he have missed the eventual winner? Could he had played the race any differently...so he could have kept from throwing his ticket on the ground?

These are meaningless questions...which reveal the immaturity in the horseplayer. The game is what it is...and it will never change to suit our childish whims. It doesn't care how impatient we are...or how much we need the money.

The average handicapper doesn't play this game.

The game plays him.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I just love watching the process of technology being the excuse to quit thinking and bypass logic so human nature can descend once again back into the forest of degenerate gambling and systems peddling.

[SuitedAces]

I'm brand new to this game and need to track my results, so this looks like fun to compare...starting today. My strategy will be conservative...maybe handicap 2 or 3 races before betting. My first system is called Dave's Modified.

Thanks,
The Other Dave

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Did System A winners show up as System B winners also?

When comparing our own systems, there will always be a lot of overlap since at least 80-95% should be the same with only a factor or two being tweaked.

10 Races

System A:

3 winners
4 places
1 show

System B:

4 winners
1 place
3 shows

We obviously are not talking science here. We might be looking for a hint on which system to study more. Both systems have an 80% ITM and the same UDR, but I prefer B. System A does have a better win/place percentage.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ainslie also provided us with another quote. He wrote: "After every race, another system is born."

What the average handicapper needs isn't a "quick way of measuring systems with only a few races". The average handicapper needs a little logic and common sense. He expects consistency from his picks...while having no consistency himself.

How can you judge anything in a mere 30 races, in a complicated game like horse racing?

The average handicapper is psychologically ill-equipped to play this game...in a serious OR a frolicking manner. He can't accept losing races...much less losing days. Even when he loses a single race, he expects his losing pick to be right there at the wire...otherwise his over-inflated ego is wounded. Why was he so wrong...and how could he have missed the eventual winner? Could he had played the race any differently...so he could have kept from throwing his ticket on the ground?

These are meaningless questions...which reveal the immaturity in the horseplayer. The game is what it is...and it will never change to suit our childish whims. It doesn't care how impatient we are...or how much we need the money.

The average handicapper doesn't play this game.

The game plays him.

Gus,

I don't understand the harness in your tone, but there is nothing childish about looking back over a days races. What the discussion is about is to find a way to measure our day's picks in a consistent format.

Let me throw in a way another handicapper does it. He ranks his top pick by where it finished; 1 for winning, 2 for place, 3 for show, 5 for anything else. Next he adds them all and divides them by the number of races. For example, System A 3 wins, 4 places, 1 show, 2 out of the money --would equal 3 points + 8 points + 3 points + 10 = 24. Then 24/10 races yield 2.4 for the day. And then he has some sense of how he has been picking them over time.

By contrast here is system B 4 wins, 1 place, 3 shows, 2 out of the money yields 25/10 or 2.5. The lower score the better here so by his method system A did a little better 2.4 verse 2.5. What we are looking for is a measure of how are we seeing them.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

I just love watching the process of technology being the excuse to quit thinking and bypass logic so human nature can descend once again back into the forest of degenerate gambling and systems peddling.

I'm not understand your post.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by SuitedAces

I'm brand new to this game and need to track my results, so this looks like fun to compare...starting today. My strategy will be conservative...maybe handicap 2 or 3 races before betting. My first system is called Dave's Modified.

Thanks,
The Other Dave

The Other Dave,

How are you planning to measure your game? What I'm looking at is for an overall method of measuring my selections separate from wagers. Wagering would be a whole other study and another topic thread. How well did you pick them today verse last week?

[VastinMT]

Hasty generalization?

Fallacy of small numbers?

Ludic fallacy?

I think all these explain why systems last only 2.2 days, absent a test on a larger database.

Paging Traynor in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[SuitedAces]

My method is to first pick contenders. If any of my contenders look like a probable bet, then study tote board...at post time...then decide if I want to make a selection on any of my contenders...no bet...no selection. It's a pass and only counts as a pass on my system. That could well be important if the system has too many passes.

Thanks,
David

[JustRalph]

I measure my success with a button on the twinspires interface.

It's labeled "account balance"

Pretty easy really, all things considered.

There are 3-4 decent pieces of software out there for playing the ponies. They eclipse everything else. Are they systems? I would say you have to put them in that category.............just remember, you're only as good as the tools you have.

If the next guy has better tools.......you start from a deficit. In this game, you're competing directly with the guy next to you, not the horses or the track.

I tend to see so called "systems" as smaller less accurate faster black box type systems. To answer your question, "quick" evaluations aren't worth a damn in this game. Not when the guy next to you is using 30k races to analyze an angle, a trainer etc. I use a database of about 17k races, and then run the good stuff against another database that has even more. I then can break those down even more. At a certain point there are diminishing returns.

The long and short of it is that doing anything in this game based on a "quick" system is preposterous. Remember who you are playing against.

The quick part comes by punching a button on your software interface and coming back five minutes later to read the report it spits out on five or six tracks. In reality you've put in the time, but you did it learning your software "system" and now leveraging that knowledge and the time you are saving every day for the future. Instead of searching for a quick system. Just my .02

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by VastinMT

Hasty generalization?

Fallacy of small numbers?

Ludic fallacy?

I think all these explain why systems last only 2.2 days, absent a test on a larger database.

Paging Traynor in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

My guess is that most of us upon reflecting on our day something like I hit 3 winners out of .... I believe we all do it. Again this is not science. It's just how to quickly measure a day or two.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by SuitedAces

My method is to first pick contenders. If any of my contenders look like a probable bet, then study tote board...at post time...then decide if I want to make a selection on any of my contenders...no bet...no selection. It's a pass and only counts as a pass on my system. That could well be important if the system has too many passes.

Thanks,
David

Sounds like a plan. Good Luck.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I measure my success with a button on the twinspires interface.

It's labeled "account balance"

Pretty easy really, all things considered.

There are 3-4 decent pieces of software out there for playing the ponies. They eclipse everything else. Are they systems? I would say you have to put them in that category.............just remember, you're only as good as the tools you have.

If the next guy has better tools.......you start from a deficit. In this game, you're competing directly with the guy next to you, not the horses or the track.

I tend to see so called "systems" as smaller less accurate faster black box type systems. To answer your question, "quick" evaluations aren't worth a damn in this game. Not when the guy next to you is using 30k races to analyze an angle, a trainer etc. I use a database of about 17k races, and then run the good stuff against another database that has even more. I then can break those down even more. At a certain point there are diminishing returns.

The long and short of it is that doing anything in this game based on a "quick" system is preposterous. Remember who you are playing against.

The quick part comes by punching a button on your software interface and coming back five minutes later to read the report it spits out on five or six tracks. In reality you've put in the time, but you did it learning your software "system" and now leveraging that knowledge and the time you are saving every day for the future. Instead of searching for a quick system. Just my .02

I use Twinspires also to judge yearly profitability. This is our profit indicator. It's a great tool. And, in the end, it is what is it is all about.

But in the short run, we have another need to know how are we doing. Consider you have had four losing days in a row. The first question might be am I picking them well and just missing out, or am I wagering them wrong? You don't have a year or a quarter to figure out what's going on. Would a tripling of your top picks coming in second tell you that this is the case that you're still picking them well. A short run evaluation method could be valuable here.