having a terrible year, thinking of giving it up

[geroge.burns99]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

The way I look at it is you aren't going to beat the CAWs with 7 MIT grads crunching numbers and putting forth 1,000 factors into each and every wager they make. They will dilute the pools and hammer any possible overlay out there from a shear numbers standpoint.

I have to use my 30+ years of handicapping experience and draw from things that aren't easily recognizable from a pure numbers standpoint. Speed ratings, jockeys, trainers, and easily identifiable figs are readily available on any search engine that pushes out numbers. They already know Graham Motion is 5 for 12 on turf at KEE when off a 90+ day layoff. I have to be better than that.

I need to concentrate more on the intangibles that can't be easily described.

Been saying that for years.......

They are already subscribers to HTR, ValueCapper , HSH etc etc

So they know what works !!!!

I feel we have to find the value plays and hope Joe Public doesn't

Whales don't just bet the 3/5 shots , they have the value horses too at a proportional size bet scheme....

I just have to hope that that my horse at 7-1 isn't pick by public and accept what the whales do to it..

Mike

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

Odds boards are just a factor you have to deal with.

Yesterday, playing the 1st at KEE, I liked the 5. I bet him at 7/1, and I made that bet with 0 MTP thinking I may well get 9/2. 9/2 was fair odds to me. He eventually paid 5/1, but that is the part of the game you have to anticipate anymore when making any wager.

Obviously, that change in odds drove the other prices higher. The question is, does that type of bet down horses sum to a profit.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Obviously, that change in odds drove the other prices higher. The question is, does that type of bet down horses sum to a profit.

Therein lies the rub of the game and the complexity of playing.

15 years ago it was easier. It is extremely hard now. Guys like CJ and TimeFormUS put forth great numbers that evens the playing field like never before. CAWs are killing overlays, exotics, doubles, P3s/4s/5s.

You have to analyze it all, watch pools, watch odds, and still try to find winners at rightful odds.

If I had started handicapping 5 years ago, I'd have quit.

[PIC6SIX]

My advice: 1. Control emotions, 2. No short fields, 3. No action bets, 4. Pre-study two hours in isolation, 5. Select the appropriate pool based on you race projected contenders//winners, 6. No short prices. 7. No savers (with exception i.e., DD, P-3 backup bets). All that is easier said than done since we all CRAVE JUICE!!!! Hope this helps

[ranchwest]

The whales don't wrap up every good wager.

This week at Keeneland the talking heads were talking about a clocker special horse. Very impressive work tab, even by just looking at regular workout data. Horse wins at a really nice price.

Sometimes extra study pays extra premiums.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

The whales don't wrap up every good wager.

This week at Keeneland the talking heads were talking about a clocker special horse. Very impressive work tab, even by just looking at regular workout data. Horse wins at a really nice price.

Sometimes extra study pays extra premiums.

You bring up a really good point: Welcome to the ERA of ARTFULNESS.

Since the whales are purely data-driven, one of the best ways to win is to NOT be so dependent upon statistics.

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

You bring up a really good point: Welcome to the ERA of ARTFULNESS.

Since the whales are purely data-driven, one of the best ways to win is to NOT be so dependent upon statistics.

Funny you say that because I remember the question in the computing form about HTR paceline selection and thinking too bad the data isn't more reasonable to test so I could choose every paceline except the 3 most recent races because surely those lines are overused there surely can be no value in them, so just ignore them.

[geroge.burns99]

Originally Posted by Onesome

Funny you say that because I remember the question in the computing form about HTR paceline selection and thinking too bad the data isn't more reasonable to test so I could choose every paceline except the 3 most recent races because surely those lines are overused there surely can be no value in them, so just ignore them.

You can do that but its manual........

Choose PL-7 to get every line marked then double click the first 3 line to eliminate them...

The thing about HTR is that you can ask Ken to add it to the program

If its feasible , he'll do it in his one of his bi-yearly updates

at no charge

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

You bring up a really good point: Welcome to the ERA of ARTFULNESS.

Since the whales are purely data-driven, one of the best ways to win is to NOT be so dependent upon statistics.

Yes. Or, find statistics that other people don't follow or calculate.

[Bustin Stones]

It is not about data yes or data no. It's about discovering what data yields overlays and how to reconfigure that data so it means something that others do not see. My preference is to study the most recent lines to uncover possible recent conditioning that is subtle. That, in itself, is only a starting point. But, what good is evaluating horses out of shape?

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

It is not about data yes or data no. It's about discovering what data yields overlays and how to reconfigure that data so it means something that others do not see. My preference is to study the most recent lines to uncover possible recent conditioning that is subtle. That, in itself, is only a starting point. But, what good is evaluating horses out of shape?

Actually, it is about the probabilities of your data and anticipating the odds available.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

It is not about data yes or data no. It's about discovering what data yields overlays and how to reconfigure that data so it means something that others do not see. My preference is to study the most recent lines to uncover possible recent conditioning that is subtle. That, in itself, is only a starting point. But, what good is evaluating horses out of shape?

I agree that it is desirable to find a fit horse. But, exactly how VALUABLE is it? You probably have some guidelines and look for horses that fall within those guidelines. But, when do those guidelines succeed and when do they fail? Do they apply across all ages of horses? For both males and distaffs? For various distances, surfaces, tracks? How does the form cycle fit in? Do works fit in? What about jocks and trainers? And, that's before we consider the rest of the field.

There's a lot of variables and knowing when those variables work and when they don't has real VALUE.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

Yes. Or, find statistics that other people don't follow or calculate.

Good luck with that - oh, wait. That's what I do.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

I agree that it is desirable to find a fit horse. But, exactly how VALUABLE is it? You probably have some guidelines and look for horses that fall within those guidelines. But, when do those guidelines succeed and when do they fail? Do they apply across all ages of horses? For both males and distaffs? For various distances, surfaces, tracks? How does the form cycle fit in? Do works fit in? What about jocks and trainers? And, that's before we consider the rest of the field.

There's a lot of variables and knowing when those variables work and when they don't has real VALUE.

I did say that fitness is only a starting point. But, it's the crucial one. All of those other factors don't amount to much if the horse is racing himself into shape and treating today's run as a faux workout. And yes, sometimes a workout race entry wins anyway. Our goal is not to win every race. Only to win enough of them at the right price to earn a profit.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

You bring up a really good point: Welcome to the ERA of ARTFULNESS.

Since the whales are purely data-driven, one of the best ways to win is to NOT be so dependent upon statistics.

That's it, Dave.

My "artfulness" is attempting to incorporate "luck" as Ken Pomeroy describes it, " a measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies".

My "luck" description capturing inefficiencies that elude data, is mostly the potential for a horse's trip and jockey decisions to be different from the linear way in which I anticipate. Or, the horse I subjectively prefer is only going to win roughly 20/35% of the time. Within that 65+ % uncaptured by my interpretation of data, is certainly and significantly a trip I did not foresee but was within the realm of possibility.

In other words, I consistently downgrade the horses I initially and superficially preferred, tying to be as objective as possible, because I'm usually wrong about them, and upgrade previous discounted horses. I replot their anticipated trip to incorporate a possible trip I ruled out. Then I mesh my odds with the public ala Benter.

Sort of the Monty Hall problem, without insisting on the initially equal chance of the "doors".