Using two handicapping methods

[pandy]

I could show you examples where using two computer systems, one system picked the winner on top in half of the races on the card and the other system picked the winner on top in the other races. Yes, I've seen this exact same scenario or close to it quite a few times. So a player using those two systems and using only two horses in each race in rolling doubles or pick 3's would have swept the card.

But even if you're a paper and pen handicapper who uses the Racing Form, having one or two good computer systems can alert you to something you've missed. For instance, you handicap a race and come up with the 7-2 as the two horses you want to use in your Pick 3 wager. But the system picks 5-7-2 and the 5 is 17-1. You look over the 5 more thoroughly, see that it had a bad post in last, and set the pace on a deal rail two back, so you decide to use it and it wins.

Some people are not that good at looking at the pps and thinking outside the box. They only see the obvious. Those players in particular might benefit from comparing their picks against a system.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm pretty sure I'm way beyond the point of trying to process too much information.

Forget about watches, I'm still researching the class factor trying to build a better sundial.

Class is an excellent example of my point.. looking at things more than one way. Do you look at the claiming price? Is the horse in for a tag for the first time? Is the horse running at the lowest claiming price of its career? Should I use earnings per start? How about a composite class rating? How about class ratings? At what level did the horse win? How did the winners against which the horse ran perform? How many next out winners did the horse face? How many prior races were at a higher level? If it is an optional claiming race, is the horse in for a tag?

There's no one class factor that tells the entire story of a horse's class.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

One of my favorite quotes is, "A man with a watch always knows what time it is, while a man with two watches is never sure."

Dave, I’m happy to say that you’ve picked the perfect quote for the theme of this entire thread!
I say that only after gaining a better understanding of it's intended meaning.

Segal's law is an adage that states:

A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.

The mood of the saying is ironic. While at a surface level it appears to be advocating the simplicity and self-consistency obtained by relying on information from only a single source, the underlying message is to gently question and make fun of such apparent certainty –
Hence, a man with one watch can't really be sure he knows the right time, he merely has no way to identify error or uncertainty.
Nevertheless, the saying is also used in its purely surface sense, to caution against the potential pitfalls of having too much potentially conflicting information when making a decision.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by pandy

I could show you examples where using two computer systems, one system picked the winner on top in half of the races on the card and the other system picked the winner on top in the other races. Yes, I've seen this exact same scenario or close to it quite a few times. So a player using those two systems and using only two horses in each race in rolling doubles or pick 3's would have swept the card.

I’m assuming that the race conditions of each of the example races were Not identical either. If true, I would recommend taking the whole scenario a few steps further to determine which of the computer systems is better suited for accuracy when specific race conditions exist.
You might also discover when neither system is very competent at certain types of races in order to pass them. But all in all, it appears that whatever systems you’re using could provide some very nice long term profits.
Good luck with it!

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am a long-term winner too...but my philosophy differs from his. I may "lose"...but that doesn't make me feel like a "loser". Nor would I ever tell another person that "I really, really, really hate to lose". When I "lose", I tell myself that coping with losing is the price that I have to pay in order to succeed in this game. Losing doesn't mean "failing"...unless we make it feel that way.

Some of us just see the world differently.

There are times when I can see that my approach simply isn't working. These last few years it happens almost every spring.

Because I hate to lose, I stop playing until I figure it out.

A couple of times I didn't play from April to September.

[Maximillion]

Using two,three or many more handicapping methods works very well after the race is over.

Using 6 selections in a race works even better.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Some of us just see the world differently.

There are times when I can see that my approach simply isn't working. These last few years it happens almost every spring.

Because I hate to lose, I stop playing until I figure it out.

A couple of times I didn't play from April to September.

This could be another thread entirely, why do we get hot and cold streaks?

A few years ago I was having a good year in NY but when the Belmont fall meet started and I hit a brick wall. But, one thing I've noticed when that happens, if I check the other handicappers who provide picks for that circuit, they were all having rough fall meets. Why? Because there were a lot of winners that made no sense.

So sometimes it's not our methodology that's failing, it's the way the races are playing out. I remember when Santa Anita first went to the Cushion Track (synthetic), all of a sudden nothing made sense. Then when they got rid of the Cushion Track and installed a new dirt track, it was just as bad. That was when ten claimers were going record-breaking times.

But I've also found that certain meets fit my strengths and vice versa. For instance, the Belmont spring meet fits my strengths more than the Belmont fall meet because, in the spring meet, a lot of young horses are coming off layoffs. Some of these horses were perfectly sound but were laid off because the turf season closed and the owners don't ship to Florida.

I handicap maiden races well and you need fresh horses to make the races enticing. Returning 3-year-olds are not only fresh but sound and still mentally eager to race, and many will improve sharply over their 2yo form.

In the fall meet, it's much different because there are a lot more tired horses and less fresh horses. For instance, horses that raced more than once at Saratoga or raced several hard races during the spring and summer often bounce badly at Belmont. The Belmont fall meet has a lot of false favorites like that, they look good on paper but they don't fire. But, I learned and I did adjust. You just have to know when to back off, as you suggest, or, make the necessary adjustments.

Years ago a professional horseplayer I know crushed Monmouth Park. He said to me, "I just won over $50,000 at Monmouth's meet, now I'll be betting the Belmont fall meet and I'll probably lose it all."

I said, "Don't bet Belmont, there are plenty of other tracks you could play, find one that fits your style the way Monmouth does."

[romankoz]

[QUOTE=thaskalos;2877468]Whether we consult speed figures, pace figures, class ratings, or psychics...we are guaranteed to lose at least 70% of our bets when we are betting on a single horse to win. At this rate, we better get comfortable with "losing", because that's what we will be doing the great majority of the time. And losing at this rate will also result in long losing streaks...and we will have to get comfortable with that too.

RKOZ replies: I agree 100% Thaskalos. The hardest beat to beat is the run of outs you experience when you zig when you should have zagged and when the photos do not go our way. For the first third of this year I have had an ordinary run to say the least and after 33 prime bets (11 winners but low prices) I am losing a tick over 3 units when I am broadly aiming to be 3.3 units ahead. The hardest part to overcome is believing in yourself and your form analysis methods and not changing the modus operandi. Boy, that's tough when you get 2 winners out of 12 bets, at one stage, on selections you have researched like Einstein studying for a relativity test.

[classhandicapper]

Losing streaks are an occupational hazard of this game, but imo they should be difficult to cope with.

If I was getting 5.5/5 on coin flips and was suffering from a down period (inevitable), it would have zero impact on me because the probability is fixed at 50% and the payoff has a positive expectation. I'm inevitably going to win.

Losing streaks are more difficult in racing because we have no way to make perfectly accurate odds lines and because the game is constantly changing.

When I was in my late teens and early 20s I had some very profitable years mostly using a few trainer patterns. Unfortunately some of those trainers left the game, the prices on some of the patterns fell dramatically as other people picked up on them, and I started losing. The losing didn't stop quickly because it wasn't random math. My edge was gone and I needed a new path.

Whenever you start losing, I think it SHOULD rattle you a little. It may not be some random distribution of bad luck. It may be that the things that were working well for you are no longer available or no longer profitable or because something else has changed and you haven't picked up on it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

Class is an excellent example of my point.. looking at things more than one way. Do you look at the claiming price? Is the horse in for a tag for the first time? Is the horse running at the lowest claiming price of its career? Should I use earnings per start? How about a composite class rating? How about class ratings? At what level did the horse win? How did the winners against which the horse ran perform? How many next out winners did the horse face? How many prior races were at a higher level? If it is an optional claiming race, is the horse in for a tag?

There's no one class factor that tells the entire story of a horse's class.

IMO, pace and speed figures are a very good method for measuring performance and ability but they are prone to error and incomplete.

IMO, "class" is just another approach for measuring performance and ability.

I think it's equally or maybe even more prone to error, but more comprehensive because some qualities of a horse's ability that are not captured by time based figures are captured by looking at who beats who with what trip, how a horse performs against higher quality competition in tougher circumstances, and how consistently it performs well.

What makes time based figures so much more popular is that they are easier to calculate, turn into a single number, and package to the masses. Classing is messier, requires much more work, and a really good book on the subject has never been written. Some applications and techniques have been addressed in different books, but no one has put it all together in one comprehensive book.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, pace and speed figures are a very good method for measuring performance and ability but they are prone to error and incomplete.

IMO, "class" is just another approach for measuring performance and ability.

I think it's equally or maybe even more prone to error, but more comprehensive because some qualities of a horse's ability that are not captured by time based figures are captured by looking at who beats who with what trip, how a horse performs against higher quality competition in tougher circumstances, and how consistently it performs well.

What makes time based figures so much more popular is that they are easier to calculate, turn into a single number, and package to the masses. Classing is messier, requires much more work, and a really good book on the subject has never been written. Some applications and techniques have been addressed in different books, but no one has put it all together in one comprehensive book.

there are plenty of books on class.
if any are any good is another topic.
the beyer book (picking winner/the winning horseplayer) won me over.
class IS speed
speed IS class
one and the same.
it's how you do it that matters.
anybody can do class/speed, but some do it better than others.
same as any endeavour.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by steveb

class IS speed
speed IS class
one and the same.

That is way too simplistic for handicapping in 2023, and probably for the last 10 years or so.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by headhawg

That is way too simplistic for handicapping in 2023, and probably for the last 10 years or so.

of course it is, but that is another topic entirely.
it's still true that they are one and the same.
knowing that fact(and how to prove it) made my entire racing life possible.

[thaskalos]

If class is speed, and speed is class...why do the horses run improving speed figures when dropping in class, and declining speed figures when rising in class?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Two methods? I consider myself a comprehensive handicapper, which I would at least describe as multi-faceted, if not a blend of multiple methods.

At the end of the day, I'd suggest any individual is only capable of using a single "method", since weighting the various handicapping factors for each race and horse is necessary.

Unless the OP meant something different by method.