Handicapping Method

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Forgive me Ultracapper for answering this post.


Formulator's value is visible in the questions you ask. I use it for 1 reason. To record every single trip note for every horse I see run. I also use it to remind me of every card's track bias and specific notes of every race I watch. (4h duel, collapse, boat race, fastest fractions of day, etc etc etc).

Without it, all my work would be wasted.

Again, sorry Ultra. I had to chime in as I love that function of formulator.

No worries. Learning more and more how you play is one of the more interesting things discussed here.

To the main question, I have what I call my Method Notes. They are things I have noticed over the years that if they show up, I can expect the horse to make a real run in their next race. There are 16 particulars that I look for in replays, 3 that I identify in the PPs, and 1 that I call the Ultimate Selection, and of course, that's the one we all look for, lone speed. There are a couple other things I look for on that one, but the general principle is the idea we all recognize.

When I see one of the 19 particulars I'm looking for, then the real replay work begins. One of these 19 must apply for me to move forward because they are particulars that I am confident I can reliably recognize while watching replays. When I see one of them, I know I'm seeing it right. An example is that for a long time, I was having real trouble identifying cutback contenders. Then, after watching literally dozens of cutback winners, I started recognizing a particular aspect of a significant number of the immediately previous route efforts. Now, that's what I'm looking for initially in the last race replay of a cutback entrant.

I keep very few notes on horses themselves. I keep zero notes post race other than financial results. I keep notes on what I was thinking before the race was run. What was I thinking before my selection won? What was I thinking when my selection lost? Are there common threads in my thought process when my horse wins? When it loses? Those are the things I have control of, so those are the things I record. I've never been very successful with post race notes of any kind. I've found that the results influence my thoughts too much. Once they open the gates, my thoughts are now compromised, and what I can learn from them is minimized, and very likely prejudiced. Any notes I have ever kept that I have found much value in have been written and recorded before the gate opens.

It's funny Raybo that you asked this question, because there was a time I was considering broaching the subject with you about exploring any way to quantify my Method Notes. Obviously you'd have to see them, but I put that aside because I really don't think there is. I don't see a way to computerize what I do, which is a shame, because the biggest challenge I have is consistency of data collection. When things are going well and my confidence is high, I'm spotting these particulars like I'm being hit in the face. When I'm going bad, I question my belief in what I'm looking at. The only thing that gets me out of it is keeping those pre-race thought notes, and recognizing the common threads again. A computer is much more consistent, and totally immune to compromise of process, than the human brain.

Edit: Spelling

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

No worries. Learning more and more how you play is one of the more interesting things discussed here.

To the main question, I have what I call my Method Notes. They are things I have noticed over the years that if they show up, I can expect the horse to make a real run in their next race. There are 16 particulars that I look for in replays, 3 that I identify in the PPs, and 1 that I call the Ultimate Selection, and of course, that's the one we all look for, lone speed. There are a couple other things I look for on that one, but the general principle is the idea we all recognize.

When I see one of the 19 particulars I'm looking for, then the real replay work begins. One of these 19 must apply for me to move forward because they are particulars that I am confident I can reliably recognize while watching replays. When I see one of them, I know I'm seeing it right. An example is that for a long time, I was having real trouble identifying cutback contenders. Then, after watching literally dozens of cutback winners, I started recognizing a particular aspect of a significant number of the immediately previous route efforts. Now, that's what I'm looking for initially in the last race replay of a cutback entrant.

I keep very few notes on horses themselves. I keep zero notes post race other than financial results. I keep notes on what I was thinking before the race was run. What was I thinking before my selection won? What was I thinking when my selection lost? Are there common threads in my thought process when my horse wins? When it loses? Those are the things I have control of, so those are the things I record. I've never been very successful with post race notes of any kind. I've found that the results influence my thoughts too much. Once they open the gates, my thoughts are now compromised, and what I can learn from them is minimized, and very likely prejudiced. Any notes I have ever kept that I have found much value in have been written and recorded before the gate opens.

It's funny Raybo that you asked this question, because there was a time I was considering broaching the subject with you about exploring any way to quantify my Method Notes. Obviously you'd have to see them, but I put that aside because I really don't think there is. I don't see a way to computerize what I do, which is a shame, because the biggest challenge I have is consistency of data collection. When things are going well and my confidence is high, I'm spotting these particulars like I'm being hit in the face. When I'm going bad, I question my belief in what I'm looking at. The only thing that gets me out of it is keeping those pre-race thought notes, and recognizing the common threads again. A computer is much more consistent, and totally immune to compromise of process, than the human brain.

Edit: Spelling

Thank you , I liked reading all this. Care to expand on the bold?

Also, I like to handicap a race, before watching a replay (if possible). If you know what should happen, what could happen before the gate opens, it makes the replay all the more informative. I hate watching a replay not knowing who every horse is and what they could/should do. That's why I can't follow more than 1, maybe 2 circuits at a time. I'm a sick puppy who wants to know as much as I can. Any hasty work is sloppy work.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Thank you , I liked reading all this. Care to expand on the bold?

Also, I like to handicap a race, before watching a replay (if possible). If you know what should happen, what could happen before the gate opens, it makes the replay all the more informative. I hate watching a replay not knowing who every horse is and what they could/should do. That's why I can't follow more than 1, maybe 2 circuits at a time. I'm a sick puppy who wants to know as much as I can. Any hasty work is sloppy work.

I watch the replay of each horse's last race before I open the form. That way, there's nothing in the form that will prejudice what I'm looking for in the replays, those 16 little nuggets that seem to indicate the next race is live.

The little joke I used to have with the guys up at the OTB who gave me a hard time about my use of the DRF, was "I watch replays because we're betting on horses running around a track. When we start betting on numbers and letters running circles on a piece of paper, I'll start digging into the DRF."

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I watch the replay of each horse's last race before I open the form. That way, there's nothing in the form that will prejudice what I'm looking for in the replays, those 16 little nuggets that seem to indicate the next race is live.

The little joke I used to have with the guys up at the OTB who gave me a hard time about my use of the DRF, was "I watch replays because we're betting on horses running around a track. When we start betting on numbers and letters running circles on a piece of paper, I'll start digging into the DRF."

I Ducking LOVE IT !!!

That's an awesome way of looking at it.

I'm EXTREMELY visual and descriptive. If I can't imagin it all, it's just a blank line to me. I need TO SEE all aspects of a running line. It's a disease !

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I watch the replay of each horse's last race before I open the form. That way, there's nothing in the form that will prejudice what I'm looking for in the replays, those 16 little nuggets that seem to indicate the next race is live.

The little joke I used to have with the guys up at the OTB who gave me a hard time about my use of the DRF, was "I watch replays because we're betting on horses running around a track. When we start betting on numbers and letters running circles on a piece of paper, I'll start digging into the DRF."

Great stuff UC, really enjoyed post 211.

I used to do what you do but I changed my approach because I wanted to be more efficient in my replay watching, I only wanted to watch replays to answer specific questions I had vs trying to formulate a better opinion on a horse I already have SOME opinion on.

I handicap on drf PPs and glance at the race while telling myself 'if I had to bet this race but only was allowed to look at paper, what would I bet' that forces me to really dig into the PPs and get good at that part of handicapping so when I add a replay (or 3) to the mix, the replay to me has much more context because I'm essentially handicapping the race using two separate methods. If I feel strong about a few paper opinions ill use the tape to validate what I think I already know.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Great stuff UC, really enjoyed post 211.

I used to do what you do but I changed my approach because I wanted to be more efficient in my replay watching, I only wanted to watch replays to answer specific questions I had vs trying to formulate a better opinion on a horse I already have SOME opinion on.

I handicap on drf PPs and glance at the race while telling myself 'if I had to bet this race but only was allowed to look at paper, what would I bet' that forces me to really dig into the PPs and get good at that part of handicapping so when I add a replay (or 3) to the mix, the replay to me has much more context because I'm essentially handicapping the race using two separate methods. If I feel strong about a few paper opinions ill use the tape to validate what I think I already know.

My mentor, (Only person I actually respect at the track-not because of my ego but because the rest suck at this game & because he is awesome at this game) has always told me. Kid: Anyone can watch all the replays, study all the charts, have all the true pace figs/sheets/figs etc. But in order to win at this game, you need to have 3 things on your side:

The Juice
The track bias/right distance/minimal variables
The right money following your horse

Man makes 1-3 bets a week. Pounds it in for $10,000 a race, 90% bets to win, 10% to place.

Man makes a few hundred thousand a year on the horses. I know, I've seen his account.


Few other rules: No slow horses. No multirace bets. No exotics. Never bet the first dirt race (know the bias). Never bet when there are question marks.

Point is, I would feel stupid, following a horse solely off their prior races (visually). Every sharpie can see that stuff. The entire picture must be seen.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

No worries. Learning more and more how you play is one of the more interesting things discussed here.

To the main question, I have what I call my Method Notes. They are things I have noticed over the years that if they show up, I can expect the horse to make a real run in their next race. There are 16 particulars that I look for in replays, 3 that I identify in the PPs, and 1 that I call the Ultimate Selection, and of course, that's the one we all look for, lone speed. There are a couple other things I look for on that one, but the general principle is the idea we all recognize.

When I see one of the 19 particulars I'm looking for, then the real replay work begins. One of these 19 must apply for me to move forward because they are particulars that I am confident I can reliably recognize while watching replays. When I see one of them, I know I'm seeing it right. An example is that for a long time, I was having real trouble identifying cutback contenders. Then, after watching literally dozens of cutback winners, I started recognizing a particular aspect of a significant number of the immediately previous route efforts. Now, that's what I'm looking for initially in the last race replay of a cutback entrant.

I keep very few notes on horses themselves. I keep zero notes post race other than financial results. I keep notes on what I was thinking before the race was run. What was I thinking before my selection won? What was I thinking when my selection lost? Are there common threads in my thought process when my horse wins? When it loses? Those are the things I have control of, so those are the things I record. I've never been very successful with post race notes of any kind. I've found that the results influence my thoughts too much. Once they open the gates, my thoughts are now compromised, and what I can learn from them is minimized, and very likely prejudiced. Any notes I have ever kept that I have found much value in have been written and recorded before the gate opens.

It's funny Raybo that you asked this question, because there was a time I was considering broaching the subject with you about exploring any way to quantify my Method Notes. Obviously you'd have to see them, but I put that aside because I really don't think there is. I don't see a way to computerize what I do, which is a shame, because the biggest challenge I have is consistency of data collection. When things are going well and my confidence is high, I'm spotting these particulars like I'm being hit in the face. When I'm going bad, I question my belief in what I'm looking at. The only thing that gets me out of it is keeping those pre-race thought notes, and recognizing the common threads again. A computer is much more consistent, and totally immune to compromise of process, than the human brain.

Edit: Spelling

I hope anyone that was interested in this post realizes it wasn't meant to be an all-inclusive statement on how I approach handicapping a race. I know sooner or later I'll see the "you have to do this" and "don't ignore that" posts, which I'm fine with. However, I do a lot of "this" and don't ignore most of "that". It was more a response to what most horse players view as a traditional replay/note taking regimen, which I believe Raybo was alluding to, and one that I don't follow. As unique as I believe my process is, I don't think it is genius, nor the be all, end all. It just gets me to where I want to be. I really can only address 12-15 races a week this way, and I have always striven to be that guy that EMD knows, find a couple plays a week, and pound the pudding out of them.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

My mentor, (Only person I actually respect at the track-not because of my ego but because the rest suck at this game & because he is awesome at this game) has always told me. Kid: Anyone can watch all the replays, study all the charts, have all the true pace figs/sheets/figs etc. But in order to win at this game, you need to have 3 things on your side:

The Juice
The track bias/right distance/minimal variables
The right money following your horse

Man makes 1-3 bets a week. Pounds it in for $10,000 a race, 90% bets to win, 10% to place.

Man makes a few hundred thousand a year on the horses. I know, I've seen his account.


Few other rules: No slow horses. No multirace bets. No exotics. Never bet the first dirt race (know the bias). Never bet when there are question marks.

Point is, I would feel stupid, following a horse solely off their prior races (visually). Every sharpie can see that stuff. The entire picture must be seen.

Some of his rules are similar to my own (though I bet on a much smaller scale).

I make very few bets because it's tough to outsmart very smart people looking at the same information. I need to know something special.

I avoid betting the early races on the card if possible because I want to observe how the track is playing.

I mostly bet to win (though I do play exotcis when I have multiple opinions inside the same or consecutive races and there is better value in that other pool)

I try to have some kind of trainer "move up" angle going for me.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Some of his rules are similar to my own (though I bet on a much smaller scale).

I make very few bets because it's tough to outsmart very smart people looking at the same information. I need to know something special.

I avoid betting the early races on the card if possible because I want to observe how the track is playing.

I mostly bet to win (though I do play exotcis when I have multiple opinions inside the same or consecutive races and there is better value in that other pool)

I try to have some kind of trainer "move up" angle going for me.

He will go days, weeks without a play sometimes. Has no problem just taking notes all day.

[no breathalyzer]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

My mentor, (Only person I actually respect at the track-not because of my ego but because the rest suck at this game & because he is awesome at this game) has always told me. Kid: Anyone can watch all the replays, study all the charts, have all the true pace figs/sheets/figs etc. But in order to win at this game, you need to have 3 things on your side:

The Juice
The track bias/right distance/minimal variables
The right money following your horse

Man makes 1-3 bets a week. Pounds it in for $10,000 a race, 90% bets to win, 10% to place.

Man makes a few hundred thousand a year on the horses. I know, I've seen his account.


Few other rules: No slow horses. No multirace bets. No exotics. Never bet the first dirt race (know the bias). Never bet when there are question marks.

Point is, I would feel stupid, following a horse solely off their prior races (visually). Every sharpie can see that stuff. The entire picture must be seen.

The guy sounds like a legend.. i want to be this guy someday.. Just one question why only 10% place?.. do you mean 10% of the time?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I keep very few notes on horses themselves. I keep zero notes post race other than financial results. I keep notes on what I was thinking before the race was run. What was I thinking before my selection won? What was I thinking when my selection lost? Are there common threads in my thought process when my horse wins? When it loses? Those are the things I have control of, so those are the things I record. I've never been very successful with post race notes of any kind. I've found that the results influence my thoughts too much. Once they open the gates, my thoughts are now compromised, and what I can learn from them is minimized, and very likely prejudiced. Any notes I have ever kept that I have found much value in have been written and recorded before the gate opens.

I keep repeating the axiom "Player, Know Thyself"...because I feel it's such sound advice. It behooves us to know what kind of PLAYERS we are...and I don't just mean defining ourselves by the methods that we use (class handicapper, speed handicapper, etc.) What is our mental state after losing a serious bet? Do we feel that we've made some sort of "mistake", and we are eager to re-examine the race winner...to see what we "missed"? Or can we review the race with an objective and unbiased look...so we could gather some useful information for the NEXT time the horses run?

If we need an excuse for our losing bet, then post race notes are a bad idea, IMO...because they do more harm than good. The human brain is great at spotting "patterns"...even when those patterns aren't there.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I keep repeating the axiom "Player, Know Thyself"...because I feel it's such sound advice. It behooves us to know what kind of PLAYERS we are...and I don't just mean defining ourselves by the methods that we use (class handicapper, speed handicapper, etc.) What is our mental state after losing a serious bet? Do we feel that we've made some sort of "mistake", and we are eager to re-examine the race winner...to see what we "missed"? Or can we review the race with an objective and unbiased look...so we could gather some useful information for the NEXT time the horses run?

If we need an excuse for our losing bet, then post race notes are a bad idea, IMO...because they do more harm than good. The human brain is great at spotting "patterns"...even when those patterns aren't there.

Great thoughts. When I place a losing bet, instead of examining the winner and wondering what I missed (which after 33 years of handicapping, shouldn't be anything enlightening), I look at myself, and what I was thinking in choosing the losing horse. 90% of the people on this board can look at the PPs of a winner and come up with a reason it won in about 3 seconds. My question to myself is, why did I bet this loser? Are the reasons I bet this loser the same reason I've bet other losers? Why am I continually betting horses with the reason that the horse had a sub 36 blowout 3 days before the race, when the last 4 I've bet on lost? That's the vein of my post race evaluation. To find common things in my evaluation of the race before it's been run that have lead to winners, and embrace those "angles", and find the common things in my evaluation that have lead to losers, and quit emphasizing those "angles".

I'm not trying to win every race I handicap, I'm just trying to win as many bets that I place as I can. If an "angle" (I really hate that word in handicapping. It's so restricting.) has lead to 4 straight losers, and then a 5th one comes along and wins at anything under $10, it doesn't bother me one bit that I tossed it. If I've won 4 straight with another "angle", and the 5th one I bet loses, at just about any price, so be it. Live with it. Move on, next race. (Hopefully nobody will take the numbers I've used here literally and I have to hear a sermon on sample size, or whatever. Hopefully anybody interested in this understands it's an example to make a point. (Another thing you have to do here. Lots of posters ready to shoot you down and will find the little things to grab hold of.))

[Cice]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

He will go days, weeks without a play sometimes. Has no problem just taking notes all day.

I want to be this guy! Ever since I started playing, I've always said this, but I hate 'missing' out. Patience and discipline, i know, but it is hard!

Arnold Rothstien says it also, but one day he went crazy ruined my hopes of being this lol! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhbhExed-OE

How does your mentor do it?

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Cice

I want to be this guy! Ever since I started playing, I've always said this, but I hate 'missing' out. Patience and discipline, i know, but it is hard!

Arnold Rothstien says it also, but one day he went crazy ruined my hopes of being this lol! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhbhExed-OE

How does your mentor do it?

I enjoyed that link. Thank you Cice!

He is super patient. Hates to gamble. Hates risk. HATES TO LOSE. He looks for any way to NOT play a race.

Shit happens. Jock fell off a horse, lost $10,000.

Stays away from many turf races.

Sloppy track, NEVER.

Cheap races, NEVER.

He gets a "kick" just watching a race knowing it can help him indirectly. A race he passes helps him understand track bias, could help him know a horse has little talent the next time it runs. etc etc.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by no breathalyzer

The guy sounds like a legend.. i want to be this guy someday.. Just one question why only 10% place?.. do you mean 10% of the time?

Hey NB,

Sorry. I wasn't clear. My bad. He bets a ton of money to place 10% of the time. (Has to be a summer saturday with big pools for example).

90% of the time it's a big win bet with no covers.