Elimination rules vs Pace figs

[cj]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Using days since last raced in certain combinations still works in contrast to its being touted as not working anymore.

I consider things more like qualification rules than elimination rules. For example, betting top last race speed figure at certain odds works great for me...if the race is within a certain amount of days. Just different terminology I guess.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by DRIVEWAY

An activity indicator which includes DSLR, Workouts and DSLR for race two/three back, will help identify horses in condition/contention. The greater the number of activities within 30/45/60 days versus the competition, the stronger a horse will contend. Splash a little value on top and you'll be resurrecting DSLR.

Thank you, DRIVEWAY. That was easy, wasn't it? We can make handicapping the most complex, complicated, mind-boggling exercise in futility, if we choose.
Of course no one uses hard and fast rules...amazing how every race is different, every track, every class, on and on.
I've been playing different angles for a long time...some loosely written down--some exist only in my head.
One day I got the brilliant idea of paying a programmer to put some of my best angles into a program--mainly to save me hours of scanning PP's for these various angles.

What I quickly found out was----programmers need rules! I thought I HAD rules...but when it came down to programming it--I found I had more "nuances" than rules.
For example...I play low-level claiming races...and MUST see recent activity (as Driveway noted) Now there's a myriad of activity than can be described as "activity"....races, works, races and works, a flurry of works--but not a flurry of bad races, unless there's unusual early speed, etc.
And this is just ONE PART of my Main Method. I hadn't really thought this out before contacting the soon-to-be-frustrated programmer (God Bless 'em)

So we can't be pinned down to any "rule" I think Capper Al wisely avoided this trap question.

[mrroyboy]

My opinion is simple. If you eliminate the losers all you have left are the winners.
Of course, which one is another ball game.

[DRIVEWAY]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

What I quickly found out was----programmers need rules! I thought I HAD rules...but when it came down to programming it--I found I had more "nuances" than rules.
For example...I play low-level claiming races...and MUST see recent activity (as Driveway noted) Now there's a myriad of activity than can be described as "activity"....races, works, races and works, a flurry of works--but not a flurry of bad races, unless there's unusual early speed, etc.
And this is just ONE PART of my Main Method. I hadn't really thought this out before contacting the soon-to-be-frustrated programmer (God Bless 'em)

You present a good example of the need to think things out. In order to communicate to a programmer, you need to relate your ideas (rules, nuances, selection criteria etc.) in an orderly manner.

Did you ever define your term "Activity" successfully to the programmer?

[cj]

The same thing goes for databases. I always tell people when building a database to include everything you can get your hands on, not everything you think you will need. You will always wind up wanting and needing information you left out originally. Storage isn't an issue any longer so just throw in every last thing you can get at the outset.

[Tom]

I don't know how many times I have had to go back and re-create a db to add couple of items I found out I needed later on.

[jasperson]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Thank you, DRIVEWAY. That was easy, wasn't it? We can make handicapping the most complex, complicated, mind-boggling exercise in futility, if we choose.
Of course no one uses hard and fast rules...amazing how every race is different, every track, every class, on and on.
I've been playing different angles for a long time...some loosely written down--some exist only in my head.
One day I got the brilliant idea of paying a programmer to put some of my best angles into a program--mainly to save me hours of scanning PP's for these various angles.

What I quickly found out was----programmers need rules! I thought I HAD rules...but when it came down to programming it--I found I had more "nuances" than rules.
For example...I play low-level claiming races...and MUST see recent activity (as Driveway noted) Now there's a myriad of activity than can be described as "activity"....races, works, races and works, a flurry of works--but not a flurry of bad races, unless there's unusual early speed, etc.
And this is just ONE PART of my Main Method. I hadn't really thought this out before contacting the soon-to-be-frustrated programmer (God Bless 'em)

So we can't be pinned down to any "rule" I think Capper Al wisely avoided this trap question.

I have written my ow n program to handicap the horses.but it can't handle everything. Like a horse dropping from c20k to c6k ? I compensate for a maximum of 2 notches shift in claiming prices,but no more. I think a big drop is a trainer trying to sell the horse. My program can't handle this and never can I. Sometimes the horse wins. Maidens winner jumping up to stake races is another programming problem, and there are lots of others. Still my program is very good and helps me a lot in my handicapping. Also I know its weak points and that help too.

[Robert Goren]

Elimination rules do not work very well because in a race everything is relative. It is not uncommon in the spring to find races in which every entrant has been off for at least 120 days. If eliminated horses that been off over 90 days as you might in the fall, you would have none left . I have seen races where no entrant has been in the money or been 5/1 or less for 6 starts. There are races that only have bad jockeys and bad trainers. Even worse, rules can produce what looks like a standout horse when in reality, the horse is no better than the rest of the field. This phenomenon happens quite often when you use speed ratings to get rid of horses. I have seen races where the top horse will have a number that is generally competitive in this type of race and no other horse has a SR within 10-15 points. How many times have you been sucked in on this type of horse at mid level or small tracks? Pace can suck you in too, but that is for a later post.

[Capper Al]

Robert,

I rarely use absolute values like hasn't raced in 90 days. And I demand two elimination rules to make a horse not to win. Using relative values and demanding 2 red flags has worked well for me.

[mrroyboy]

They are guidelines not rules. You still must use your commensense

[whodoyoulike]

I've been getting the impression you don't like pace or you don't really appreciate the value of pace handicapping. I think your thread premise is incorrect. Seems you either want to first use elimination rules or pace for determining your contenders.

I think your handicapping sequencing is incorrect since most people use some elimination rules or angles whether they realize it or not. I actually do subconsciously and never thought about it except for this thread. Several mentioned that using elimination rules up front will most likely eliminate legit contenders. You should IMO identify the contenders first then use your rules. If every horse in the race is a contender in your opinion then pass the race.

[thaskalos]

If you bet the vertical exotics...then, how many horses can you afford to "eliminate" at the start of the handicapping process?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you bet the vertical exotics...then, how many horses can you afford to "eliminate" at the start of the handicapping process?

That's why the are labeled 'not to win' leaving place and show open for them.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you bet the vertical exotics...then, how many horses can you afford to "eliminate" at the start of the handicapping process?

I agree. Verticals are a completely different ballgame.

[ultracapper]

I agree with the 3 or 4 most recent posts. The handicapper has to first ask the question "What am I trying to accomplish in this race?" before s/he can answer your question. Am I trying to find the isolated winner? Am I putting together a deep vertical ticket? Am I trying to put together a horizontal ticket? This will determine just how much elimination you'll want to do up front. I'm always looking for the winner. If I find a horse that I figure will be 4 lengths back at the 3/8ths pole and hasn't shown a lot of kick in the lane, I can drop that horse right now because I don't care if that horse some how sucks up for the bottom slots of the exotics. The horse can't win in my eyes, so the only use I have for it now is "will it's running in this race effect the way any of my win contenders will perform?" I'm now handicapping horses in this race in 2 ways. The contenders, "Can this horse win? The non-contenders, "How will this horse's running here effect the outcome?

I have no "open the form, eliminate the horse" rules. I also don't crunch numbers in any way. I put together the pace by watching replays and determining the intent of the horse in the first 20 seconds, and coupling that with the class it's been keeping, tells me where the horses will shuffle out by the 3/8ths pole.