Using two handicapping methods

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've been thinking about this for a very long time. I think each figure maker has his own ideas about the impact of pace, ground loss, bias, and changes in track speed during the day. They have slightly different time charts and sometimes they even have a circuit a little faster or slower than each other. When you net it all out, there's not much difference. I try to understand each's thinking. That helps me explain the differences. Then it's on me to decide who I agree with in each case. A lot of the time I simply don't know until after the fact.

Just to clarify this slightly, those differences in ideas are partly what leads to different interpretations of the results and many small and occasional large differences in figures.

[traveler]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Use one of something and it works however it works.

Look for two somethings to line up, and your prices go down.

Look for THREE somethings to line up, and you're on 4/5 most races.

Consider the reverse.
Build a consensus of somethings.
Toss anybody with a "1" and concentrate on horses that have at best, "2-2." (No better.)

Not saying this wins, but saying you add your handicapping to this.

So if I'm looking at speed and class and the top speed and class horse are out, I get a couple horses that are 2-3 and say 4-2. Now add "your handicapping" - it seems 99.9% of "our" handicapping is using somebody else's number - HSH, HTR, BRIS, whatever. So if I now use say trainer and eps to handicap - it's not my handicapping, I'm simply using another number for the final decision. And, if the trainer factor has it rated "1" it would have been eliminated to begin with if trainer was part of my first consensus.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by traveler

So if I'm looking at speed and class and the top speed and class horse are out, I get a couple horses that are 2-3 and say 4-2. Now add "your handicapping" - it seems 99.9% of "our" handicapping is using somebody else's number - HSH, HTR, BRIS, whatever. So if I now use say trainer and eps to handicap - it's not my handicapping, I'm simply using another number for the final decision. And, if the trainer factor has it rated "1" it would have been eliminated to begin with if trainer was part of my first consensus.

I'm sorry, but you lost me.

I'm simply saying that the more columns you use, the harder it is to get a price.

[pandy]

Using two systems makes perfect sense, especially if they DON'T usually come up with the same ranking of contenders.

It's better if at least one of the systems is more likely to 'think outside the box" and put longshots as contenders in more races.

Someone said it's confusing, I disagree. Say you have two systems that are pretty consistent and one picks the 8-5 favorite and the other picks a 10-1 shot. You could bet the higher odds horse and box the two horses in the exacta.

Let's say that you're playing the Double and system A picks the 1-2 in the first and the 2-4 in the second and System B picks the 1-3 in the first and the 2-5 in the second. Both systems picked the 1 in the first, you could key the 1 in Doubles with the 2, 4, 5.

[lefty359]

Okay, you're using 2 methods Ea comes up with different horses in top 3.
And that's how you get caught in the switches


At least I do...

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by pandy

Someone said it's confusing, I disagree.

I think it can be confusing because I'm typically thinking in terms of accuracy. If two different methods or sources of information conflict, at least one of them is wrong. If you start throwing in horses just on price, you will very often be betting underlays that only look like good bets because your info is wrong.

What I think using various figures or methods gives you is an opportunity to find the errors in each and at least try to eliminate them. What makes that process confusing is that it's often not clear which is right.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think it can be confusing because I'm typically thinking in terms of accuracy. If two different methods or sources of information conflict, at least one of them is wrong. If you start throwing in horses just on price, you will very often be betting underlays that only look like good bets because your info is wrong.

What I think using various figures or methods gives you is an opportunity to find the errors in each and at least try to eliminate them. What makes that process confusing is that it's often not clear which is right.

Sometimes the "best" horse is not the best bet. Not just because of the price. If he was really as good as he looks, he would be in a better race. Sometimes the third or fourth best horse is the better bet. Not just on price, but because there's not a lot separating the contenders anyway and it is sometimes better to pick the horse that suits the race.

[thaskalos]

IMO...discussions like this should come with some "practice" to go along with all this 'theory'. I propose we select some live races where we can put these ideas of ours to actual practice. This would be much more instructive to those who are watching us here.

[traveler]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...discussions like this should come with some "practice" to go along with all this 'theory'. I propose we select some live races where we can put these ideas of ours to actual practice. This would be much more instructive to those who are watching us here.

great idea

[traveler]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I'm sorry, but you lost me.

I'm simply saying that the more columns you use, the harder it is to get a price.

6 - 2- and even. You either pick more winners at a lower price or less winners at a higher price - either way you got a beat a 20% disadvantage in the win hole or your better off spending your time in the Legion drinking cheap biere and playing scratch off tickies.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by traveler

6 - 2- and even. You either pick more winners at a lower price or less winners at a higher price - either way you got a beat a 20% disadvantage in the win hole or your better off spending your time in the Legion drinking cheap biere and playing scratch off tickies.

In what way does this add to the topic, please?

[Nitro]

I can relate to what Pandy mentioned because back in the day when I first started using the tote analysis along with my speed handicapping methods, I very often found myself in a quandary. Each tool would sometimes point to different entries of interest in the same race, and more often than not the tote analysis would spot those with the longer prices. Now while the tote analysis may not fit the technical term of “handicapping”, it does provide the same means to an end (in a lot less time!).

My personal feelings about using 2 different methods simultaneously for the same race can only lead one to obviously second guessing themselves on a regular basis. Just as the tote analysis is designed to function with different size track handles, I would think that a single handicapping method should be employed to deal with specific race conditions. A 6F Claiming race for 3 yr olds at BEL Park is certainly a lot different than a Mile & 1/8th Stakes race for 4yr & Up F&M at SAR.
,
.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think it can be confusing because I'm typically thinking in terms of accuracy. If two different methods or sources of information conflict, at least one of them is wrong. If you start throwing in horses just on price, you will very often be betting underlays that only look like good bets because your info is wrong.

What I think using various figures or methods gives you is an opportunity to find the errors in each and at least try to eliminate them. What makes that process confusing is that it's often not clear which is right.

It depends on what kind of player you are. I like "accuracy" as much as anyone, because, sure, I want to cash my bet. But I also realize that I have to use fringe contenders if I'm going to have some big hits. Not that many longshot winners are obvious.

Fringe contenders, or horses that look like they have a shot but are far from locks, are where the profit is. We all know that there are many races where the obvious favorites fail and some horse that appears to be a little slower than the favorites or maybe is fast enough but his recent race wasn't that good (which makes him a fringe contender), wins.

The thing with systems, you have to have faith that your system is constructed with logical algorithms. If one of my systems puts a 20-1 shot on top, I don't dismiss it as an outlier because I know that if it put this horse on top, the horse has the ability to win the race if it fires today and gets the right trip.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by pandy

It depends on what kind of player you are. I like "accuracy" as much as anyone, because, sure, I want to cash my bet. But I also realize that I have to use fringe contenders if I'm going to have some big hits. Not that many longshot winners are obvious.

When I talk about accuracy I'm not just talking about picking winners.

All else being equal, let's say I have 2 horses.

Horse A has a figure of 95
Horse B has a figures of 85.

I look at the odds board. A is 8/5 and B is 8-1. I don't see anything to be excited about and pass the race.

Now let's say I have the same 2 horses, but a different set of figures.

A is a 95
B is a 94.

Suddenly 8-1 seems very attractive. So I make a win bet and box the exacta.

Here's the rub. If I have both sources I know for certain one of those sources is wrong. I just don't know which one.

My contention is that knowing there is a possible overlay is good. It gives you an opportunity to look closely at the race B is coming out of, check the quality of the field, the pace, determine if it was a tough day to make figures, possibly figure out why there is a discrepancy, and adjust your thinking accordingly.

If you are the 2nd guy without than double set of info and bet B because he's 8-1, it's likely you are making a mistake. It's way more likely the 2nd set of figures is wrong, otherwise he wouldn't be 8-1. All the players out there using all sort of methods are saying he's not that good.

However, this could be the rare time the consensus is wrong and 8-1 IS a great bargain.

I think this applies to multiple sets of speed figures, speed figures vs. class figures, running styles vs pace figures, figures vs watching races etc...

Looking at a race from multiple directions helps you weed out the false overlays, but it can also add confusion when you aren't sure which method or source best reflects reality.

[Johnny V]

I don't think there is really anything wrong with using two handicapping methods. They should probably not correlate very closely nor maybe should they not be so far apart that they never pick the same horses. One way could be to look at the the top two in each method and then maybe key in on the horse that is the only horse in the top two in each method. That might be the approach I would take a look at if I was considering something like this.