Making your own handicapping system.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by keenang

I remember years ago at a Dr.Sartin seminar he said no 2 races are never.never,ever run exactly the same. So I said to myself why keep a data base and to this day I think he was right.

Gene K.

This is a nice way of thinking...

[Fingal]

Originally Posted by keenang

I remember years ago at a Dr.Sartin seminar he said no 2 races are never.never,ever run exactly the same. So I said to myself why keep a data base and to this day I think he was right.

Gene K.

I would modify this. I keep an early energy profile for various distances & then see if my contenders fall within an acceptable deviation from that number. Close does count in more than horse shoes & handgrenades.

True no 2 races are ever the same, but they can have similarities that carry over to future ones. I'm just not going to become Capt. Ahab chasing that great white whale of the elusive exact best number.

[shouldacoulda]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The difference relies on the methodology and not on the
mechanisms used.

Truer words were never spoken. I'm no computer programmer but I would think you would need a winning "system" (and I hate to use that word in relation to horse racing) first and then translate it into a program the computer can interpret. There is so much that remains a judgment call in my eyes I don't know if I would trust a computer to make all my selection decisions. There are so many variables that can influence the outcome of a race. I think it would be hard to compensate for all or even most in a program.

One of the posters on this board once said "each race is an entity unto itself, never to be repeated again". You could have the same horses on the same track with the same jockeys on another day and get a different outcome the majority of the time. I like using angles with race shape and class the most over all indicators. Some people like pace and/or speed figures. It's whatever works for you is the right way.

There are some good programs on the market already. I would think it would be easier to find one that works for you and exploit it to its fullest extent. I wish you luck with your endeavor. It is a noble and colossal undertaking.

[BIG HIT]

Just decision in approach is never ending.How many pp line's to go back what you read is really true or partial truth or if true just dozen't fit angle which my self favor right or wrong then which one's work for you connection owner trainer and thier stats by the time you sort threw what works your right back two where you started is today the day since most hdcper's pick more loser than winners can be just never ending.
And this board has some top hdcper's on it with know how and data base insight i don't think there is a approach that has not been mention.In my opinion hope can find the holy grail by putting more effort in class trainer good luck in your effort's

[Capper Al]

There are many systems out there for sale. Races are more similar than dissimilar when grouped together by race type than not. If racing was hopelessly dissimilar then no ones system would work.

[raybo]

I find that databases are best used for eliminations, not for selections. Eliminate the non-contenders using the database, then compare the contenders against each other, and the synthesis of the field as a whole. Value is the final answer for betting selections.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

There are many systems out there for sale. Races are more similar than dissimilar when grouped together by race type than not. If racing was hopelessly dissimilar then no ones system would work.

I disagree. The profile of the type of horse is consistent, not the race itself.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I disagree. The profile of the type of horse is consistent, not the race itself.

How are you meaning this? How does one know the value of a horse in a race without knowing the field?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

How are you meaning this? How does one know the value of a horse in a race without knowing the field?

I don't understand your meaning of value without knowing the field.

What I mean by the profile of the type of horse is just that. It depends on the class levels of the circuit snd the eligibility conditions of the race. As an extreme example the profile of a claiming 12.5k nw2l winner is not a winner of a recent MSW race.

[Show Me the Wire]

Capper Al:

After reading my initial response, I believe it is inadequate. A better answer would be is the winner's profile the type of animal that is moving up in class, dropping down in class or remaining at the same class level for the race conditions. That is the basic profile. The basic profile is not dependent on running style, pace, energy distribution, distance, etc.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Capper Al:

After reading my initial response, I believe it is inadequate. A better answer would be is the winner's profile the type of animal that is moving up in class, dropping down in class or remaining at the same class level for the race conditions. That is the basic profile. The basic profile is not dependent on running style, pace, energy distribution, distance, etc.

I'm with you on this.

[jasperson]

Al, I know you are using a program now, so how is the new one goinging to be different?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by jasperson

Al, I know you are using a program now, so how is the new one goinging to be different?

The orginal system was based on my reading and handicapping expertise at the time I started to code. As I learned more I could modify a lot, but some basic structures would not lend themself to easily be updated. A lot of these modification are do with pace and class. These are the building of many a system as they are for me.

[Dave Schwartz]

PMFJI, but I have an opinion about "building a handicapping system."

Many of us have databases of some significance. If we take a strictly statistical view of horse handicapping, we are in direct competition with the best handicapping engines on the planet (i.e. whales). This includes the Deltas and Tifecta Mike's of our forum.

IMHO, we cannot compete head-to-head with them, using approaches that are highly similar to theirs. IOW, if what we want to do is duplicate their approaches (i.e. Benter, Wagner, etc.) it is highly likely that we will come up short. They have more expertise and more man-power.

So, what is the answer?

Obviously, the answer is different for everyone. It will be a combination of one's desires, skill set and limitations.

I think one must see themselves as being in the same boat as a Mom and Pop business trying to compete in the age of mega chain stores: you have to find a niche that the big guys either cannot or will not exploit.

How do you do this?

I believe there are a variety of ways. The famous baseball quote from Wee Willie Keeler, "Hit it where they ain't" is a good start.

And where ain't they? Well, they're not on price horses, for one place. If they were, these horses would not pay big prices.

Note: While value is certainly the key for whales, their modeling techniques are primarily global in nature. Therefore, their systems push winners to the top. Their very model suggests that the horses must be reasonably low-to-mid-priced, otherwise significant money could not be wagered on them.

("Significant money" is based upon whale-scale.)


Think of this as guerilla warfare. Hit them and run. Be a small target, because you are outnumbered. (Think of dollars as soldiers; we have much smaller armies.)

Ask yourself, "What can we, the small wagering company do that the mega-conglomerate cannot?" One answer is, "Know thy track." This means, allow LOCAL MODELS to drive your handicapping. Go for the smaller, more precise model rather than the giant GLOBAL model. Allow yourself to uncover things that cannot easily be seen with the naked eye from the 50,000 foot level.

Another is "know the trainers." Another is, "Know this race shape." Still another could be "know this tote board." The list of potential factors and angles goes on and on.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DeltaLover]

I completely agree with what Dave calls local models. “Localization” can be viewed as an additional layer of specification where grouping by several attributes can have significant impact to the behavior of a model. This concept fits well within a global model as far as it implements a mechanism to discover this type of a cluster.

To be more specific, the track where the race is run, can be seen as another race-level attribute (similar to classification or average recency for example) and be treated as such applying the same methodogy and approach. We can go a step further, allowing subgrouping of the attributes, in the case of track, we can for example conclude that short meeting, top level tracks (like Saratoga, Del Mar and Keenland) are behaving similar and the same might apply for another cluster of low quality tracks (like Phily, Pen and Finger Lakes for example) but we can also verify that a specific track (for example Monmouth) stands alone and need its own, specialized model.