No one way

[46zilzal]

I get a kick out of reading various strong attitudes on the evaluation of a horse race. If we were to seriously have a contest and required that EACH participant WRITE DOWN the various factors that allowed a particular choice beforehand, then reviewed those who picked the winner, I would wager there would be MANY DIFFERING reasons to select the same one. THERE IS NO ONE WAY, only variations, not correct nor incorrect, only different.

The parimutuels will separate the wheat from the chaff, but seeing how folks use differing logics is fun to review, AND differ with. I just like the "oldsters" I run into who actually get angry over a differing perspective and yell out: "I've been going to the track 30 yers and".... RESPONSE? "No you have gone to the track ONE year and simply repeated it 30 times." We have to stay aware of not getting stale handicapping ideas in light of refined knwowledge and these exchanges here do just that.

[andicap]

Is there a certain recent long-winded poster you have in mind here, 46?


I love people who say you "can't win" using Beyer figs.
You "can't win" without evaluating the trainer or his intent.
You "can't win" unless you study the tote board.
You "can't 'win" unless you endulge in "full-dress handicapping" looking at every facet of the race and evaluating each horse for form, speed, pace trainer, workout, class, biorhythms, and wax behind their ears.
You "can't win" unless you see the horses in person and watch them warming up. (Thank you Joe Takach.)
You "can't win" without using pace figures. (well that one is true.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by andicap

Is there a certain recent long-winded poster you have in mind here, 46?
You "can't win" without using pace figures. (well that one is true.

No one in particular but I love one of Joe Tacach's notes about remembering what the winning trainer WORE and checking for it for next time!!

Wholeheartedly agree about pace numbers whatever way you figure them

[Tote Master]

46zilzal
An excellent point! The title of your thread says it all! “No One Way”. Aside from players using different methods of traditional handicapping, they also interpret the results of those same methods differently. Each player applies a certain valued weight to each of the variables involved, especially if there’s a known track bias. Of course, if the selected horse wins, each will say that a certain factor was the main contributor. These remarks will also vary if the horse loses and doesn’t run its race.

I personally believe that the successful handicapper has to be as versatile with the methods used in order to be able to apply them to all of the different types of races run. I think that it’s impossible to use a just single approach to cover so many different race scenarios. This might also lead to what you describe as a technique “getting stale”. I mean if every race had (10) entries valued at 20K, all run at 6f over an “indoor” race track that never changed, you might be able to use one approach.

I also know that many look for this or that “angle” as a short cut to their handicapping. Unfortunately, if you list all of the available angles, many times more then one entry can fit a certain angle, or different angles will apply to a number of entries in the same. Then the "weight" of a certain angle has to be gauged. The selection process is only half the problem though. The other half involves looking for value and wagering accordingly to maximize that value.

46zilzal
The pari-mutuels will separate the wheat from the chaff

Your accurate correlation of the pari-mutuels should never be taken lightly, but even with this important factor everyone’s observation (or analysis) can vary. So will their interpretation of what they find. I have discovered the “money factor” to be the only constant that can be used discriminately for each and every race. Money is money. How it is used in the betting pools creates the bias that should be used for any valid interpretation. Fortunately, it never goes stale: Each race provides fresh a supply.

Best of Luck!

[traveler]

One could also say "tote master" that each of your posts creates a fresh supply

[toetoe]

I like to say: learn the rules and know when to break'em. Very important for me.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I agree since I use several systems or methods.
Totemaster: I copied your post and sent myself a copy so i will remember. Thank you!

[turfspec]

Rather than "no one way" it might be "no way one knows" why they won one particular race. It's not so much having the right method for a particular race as it is having a method that works over the long run. I would contend that no handicapper EVER knew why he or she won a certain race unless every other horse in the race fell down or was DQ'd. You just think you know. What you really know is that a certain method or factor wins X% of the time under similar conditions as today's race over the long haul - and this is a long haul game.

Like 46Z, I'm often amused by the examples given in handicapping texts, followed by a result chart, where the author claims success for his magic number. I say class, you say pace, another says speed - utter nonsense! All could be right or all wrong. Absolutely no way to tell in one discrete race. I use the same/different method for each type of race I handicap and hope to hit my known % for that method over the course of a season. Or two.

[Tote Master]

Turfspec
If I understand you correctly, I believe that you’ve oversimplified the word “method”. (Or maybe its just semantics?) Anyway, as I see it, any worthwhile method of traditional handicapping incorporates any number of factors (variables) (not methods) that include things like the number of days since last raced, recent speed and pace figures for similar distance as today’s race, class change as compared to where the horse has won (or performed well) previously, how the horse likes to win in terms of its preferred pace scenario, early speed, weight changes, jockey changes, trainer moves, current track conditions and bias, money won profile, etc., etc. The weight of each of these variables (as part of the overall method) can then be applied to each of the various types of races. Some factors will carry more weight then others based on the actual results of having handicapped many races. By applying a method that uses a specific combination of these weighted factors to a given race and comparing the predicted outcome with the actual results, these variables will change in dimension. Some might even be deleted and others added. The method, as I see it determines which combination should be used for a given race scenario. But still no one method will work in every case.

In my mind, the handicapping method just provides an overall profile of each entry and assumes that each one is “trying”. These profiles then must be applied to see how each animal fits the conditions of the actual race at hand. They should be further scrutinized by the betting activity before the race.

The reason that any decent handicapper WILL know why a horse wins (or loses) a race is simply by comparing “how he presumed the race to play out” versus “how it actually played out”. Keep in mind its racing and yes, they’re all running and rarely do they fall down. Every horse entered will be at a specific position on the racetrack during the course of the race. When the comparisons are complete for a number of similar type races, the handicapper is then and only then able to see what variables might have had the most impact. Including those that existed during the running of the race; particularly pace, and the track condition. Many comparisons become throw outs because sometimes the contenders in the race fail to run true to form. The handicapper has to decide whether it was the race itself and its conditions that caused this failure, was it just a poor performance due to lack of conditioning or was it something else that only the connections were aware of.

Using any single variable (or factor) to declare a winner completely ignores all the others that are part of the methods used. It also disregards the actual running of the race, as well as the intentions of the connections. 46zilzal's comment that there is “No One Way” of determining the outcome of a race is I feel a very true and accurate statement.

Best of Luck!

[rmania]

Originally Posted by turfspec

Rather than "no one way" it might be "no way one knows" why they won one particular race. It's not so much having the right method for a particular race as it is having a method that works over the long run. I would contend that no handicapper EVER knew why he or she won a certain race unless every other horse in the race fell down or was DQ'd.........

Like 46Z, I'm often amused by the examples given in handicapping texts, followed by a result chart, where the author claims success for his magic number......

I can recall a number of occasions when I went to the OTB with charts in hand BEFORE the race. Sometimes I’d share the “results” with other patrons before a race and sometimes immediately after.

Needless to say they were always somewhat amazed (which is uncommon for horse players) when the majority of horses finished just as the charts indicated.

So maybe, just maybe there is a way one knows.....

[turfspec]

rmania,

I was going to drop this point but your response was succinct and on point. After reading your posts over the last couple of years I respect your ability and knowledge of the game so I have no doubt that you've predicted the correct order of finish a number of times. I've managed to do it a few times myself over the last 4 decades. Last year in fields of 7, 7 and 8 runners they finished in exact rank order of my ratings and I would still contend that I have no proof or for that matter, a real idea of why. I'd like to think I do but I don't.

When you predict the outcome before the race you have to know afterwards that you're not the only one who was successful. Any number of others have predicted the winner, the exacta, the tri and the superfecta too, no doubt with a different approach from your own. You KNOW why you were right because the results followed your prediction based on your pace/speed figs? Same race handicapper B is convinced it was because of his trainer studies, handicapper C his pace scenario and class rating. Can every one KNOW why? Maybe so. Or maybe no one knows. The truth is that there is no way to be certain. The results don't necessarily prove the means.

Predicting a horse race is analogous to predicting the weather. When a meteorologist predicts a 70% chance of rain for tomorrow he's making a line that says that 70% of the time in the past when conditions were similar it rained. The fact that it does rain the next day doesn't mean that he knows WHY it rained only that this was one of the 7 out of 10 times that it did rain under these conditions. In fact, it may have rained for reasons completely unknown to the weatherman. The now famous butterfly effect of chaos theory.

The same goes for a horse race. A race presents us with an infinite & dynamic set of variables while we have only a static and decidedly finite amount of information available to us pre-race. Afterwards too. You use that information to correctly predict the order of finish but the real reason for that order may very well be unknown to you and everyone else. One horse was drugged, one had his stride corrected before the race by a farrier's adjustment, a momentary unseen misstep by another had a ripple effect on the order... all this unknown and unknowable to you and others and yet you correctly predicted the outcome prerace. You see my point?

Okay, so why is this important? Well in some an unfounded belief can lead to inflexibility and unwillingness to change or learn from others when warranted (see current "going off form" thread & others) and waste time and money chasing down unproductive paths. Most importantly though I'm convinced that handicapping is NOT the key to success it once may have been. As 46Z said at the beginning of this thread there is "no one way". In fact, there are any number of viable methods good enough to win with yet we spend an inordinate amount of time and money re-inventing the wheel and chasing after the latest magic number to put us over the top. I would say this part of the puzzle is more or less solved.

Every one of us loves the challenge and ego gratification inherent in being right and we all know we can be right a high % of the time and still lose money which, afterall, is the true measure of success. Though it's far less interesting, imho we need to focus more attention on money management and defining and identifying value plays based on what we can and do already know - our win %, avg. mutuel and roi under a variety of conditions. Why, in that context, is somewhat irrelevant.

Rob

[rmania]

Rob,

Excellent post!

However, I should point out that you originally stated that it might be "no way one knows" why.....

My response was in regards to that which appeared in quotes and was meant to suggest that there might be a way in which one can know though it’s not clear why.

Of course I realize that after a race there are any number of handicappers that correctly predicted the outcome (to a certain degree) using a variety of methods. And yet, how many of those “successful handicappers” do you think conducted a post-race analysis on EVERY horse to determine their rate of success?

Now that sounds like a stupid question, right? Well, not really, not to me.

Why, because my method was designed to predict final running times for each horse in a race. And, if based on those final time predictions a horse was supposed to win by 7 lengths yet only won by 4, I would consider that to be an unsuccessful prediction. Or if a horse was predicted to finish 10 lengths back and finished only 7 back that too would be an unsuccessful prediction.

I think that you would agree that this is a pretty high standard for measuring success. And yet if my failures exceeded my successes we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[pmd62ndst]

Originally Posted by turfspec

Predicting a horse race is analogous to predicting the weather.

A few years ago, I remember a local weatherman was interviewed because he won some award for getting the highest percentage for predicting the weather over the past year. He was saying how computer models are correct 70% of the time but it's the human factor of analyzing the data from years of experience that will push that percentage up to 80's, or in his case, the 90's.

I feel that for those that use computers to handicap races, it's the same way. Computers can give you a head start but it's the human factor that'll determine if you win or lose with that data.

PMD

[TurfRuler]

The 5th race at Santa Anita on Wednesday (2/9/05) brought to me a serious revelation. Not because the winner of the claiming race was a maiden before winning but because it was trained by Robert Frankel. In thoroughly handicapping the race using my set of factors I practically eliminated the horse because it was a maiden and was trained by Robert Frankel. The most important point is that I have a deep set aversion to betting horses trained by Mr. Frankel. I also used to have this aversion back in the early 70's against Chris McCarron. The aversion continues whenever Jerry Bailey rides in a race that I am betting. I also remember when I betted against Wild Again in the Breeders Cup Classic because Pat Day was riding. This aversion is sort of like a rush of adrenaline flowing through me and I can't stand the feeling. For sure I think it is a negative factor. It's almost like the hair starts standing on the back of my neck, so I reason that I should avoid betting these jockeys and this trainer. So the revelation came that maybe I have been wrong in what these feeling mean and that they are not so much a negative fractor but a positive one and I should evaluate more closely these feeling whenever I see an improbable winner ridden by Bailey or trained by Mr. Frankel, especially a filly or mare in a turf race.

[Tote Master]

You guys have hit one of the major setbacks that many traditional handicappers and players have in common. The human factor as you call it is really just human intuition. The intuitive process is very important. I think it goes to work as soon as we begin to assimilate all of the data generated by whatever handicapping method is used. Especially when we begin to set up the race in our minds. The results of this thought process gives us different signals about of how strong we feel about which animals will perform as anticipated. It also creates a certain bias that effects how we feel about any number of factors in the race. That’s all well and good, but next comes the real deal: So how comfortable do we feel about even playing the race? And how do we get the most value from our play?

Its at this point, when some start thinking about what type of wager to make and how much to bet, that their intuition begins to falter. When the fear factor comes into play, this emotion blocks our thought processes, and second-guessing ourselves begins. This is why I believe that a systematic (money management) approach must be used for any type of continual betting. It may not be the most colorful part of the game (except if you like the color green), but until its in place, a betting comfort zone can never be established. I believe that unless we can discipline ourselves to feel comfortable with the type and size bet we make based on a specific bankroll, the fear factor will always find a way to obscure our intuition and interrupt us from maximizing our play.

Best of Luck!