New to site and an angle i thought up all on my own

[fellowmen]

Hello all yaw l ive been married to a degenerate horse player for almost 30 years. I first bought into it with the Sunday silence-Easy goer year. (I liked SS he was certain Easygoer was unbeatable ha) so ive passively gone along for the ride ever since. He was obsessed in like 94. He loaded and paid people to load info into i think quatropro. From some weekly chart paper. I would get up and go to work like normal people come home and there he was. Still sitting infront of the PC and still in his underwear. He was winning too. He said he bet shippers mostly and when ever he thought some guy was on the wrong horse. The crazy bomber or something. But i couldn't take it. I told him its me or the horses. So he got a real job, slowed way down and complains to this day he hasn't had a winning year since. So thats my story. Now its just Tvg in the background ALWAYS. Anyway heres my reason for joining (along with if you can't beat them join them) i would like all yawls opinion if this is valueable insight into a race. You average the odds of the last 4 races for each horse. Then you averag the number for each horse together with each horse in the race and get 1 number for that race. I feal it gives you insight on how competitive the race was. My husband has always told me its best to use info thats not used by others cause its not priced into the pools. Sooo what say yous?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by fellowmen

You average the odds of the last 4 races for each horse. Then you average the number for each horse together with each horse in the race and get 1 number for that race. I feal it gives you insight on how competitive the race was.

I get you average the odds. But I'm struggling with the meaning of "averaging the number of each horse together with each horse in the race..."

Why don't you do an example. Pick a race and do your method.

[whodoyoulike]

Welcome.

BTW, there are a few degenerate horseplayers on here which I've noticed from just reading some of their posts. So, you and your spouse will probably get along on here just fine.

... Anyway heres my reason for joining (along with if you can't beat them join them) i would like all yawls opinion if this is valueable insight into a race. You average the odds of the last 4 races for each horse. Then you averag the number for each horse together with each horse in the race and get 1 number for that race. I feal it gives you insight on how competitive the race was. My husband has always told me its best to use info thats not used by others cause its not priced into the pools. Sooo what say yous?

But, I think everyone should have several "angles" when handicapping horses. Yours has some merit but, before basing your selections on this one "angle", you should have a good understanding of what exactly or what the past ODDS really means.

It's really not a simple thing, IMO and has a number of meanings.

I think you're correct about it being an indication of how competitive the prior races were for that particular horse. But, it among other things for example also indicates the horse moving up or down in class, layoff, trainer, jockey, owner etc.

Good luck.

[fellowmen]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I get you average the odds. But I'm struggling with the meaning of "averaging the number of each horse together with each horse in the race..."

Why don't you do an example. Pick a race and do your method.

Lulu bee last 4 race odss 2/1 4/1 8/5 5/2=5/2..lord byron 6/1 8/1 12/1 7/1 =8/1 ..................Charity 30/1 37/1 24/1 19/1 =27/1 .................so this 3 horse race is 12/1 you add 2.5÷8+27 then.divide by 3

[fellowmen]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Welcome.

BTW, there are a few degenerate horseplayers on here which I've noticed from just reading some of their posts. So, you and your spouse will probably get along on here just fine.



But, I think everyone should have several "angles" when handicapping horses. Yours has some merit but, before basing your selections on this one "angle", you should have a good understanding of what exactly or what the past ODDS really means.

It's really not a simple thing, IMO and has a number of meanings.

I think you're correct about it being an indication of how competitive the prior races were for that particular horse. But, it among other things for example also indicates the horse moving up or down in class, layoff, trainer, jockey, owner etc.

Good luck.

Thank you Whodoyoulike i do use other tools the program or DRF. I use body language the horses and connections. And i am friends with the a few of the jockeys babysitters(valet) and they tell some good things to know. They are like 40/60 when they give me a tip but when they say not to bet a public choice they are usally right. except the bigest score of my life a pic 3 that paid 31 hundred the second leg i had a single and i iow the former groom. The horse was shipped to Aqu for the winter with Husion. Groom said the mare couldnt walk to the paddock. Mike only had her for 2 weeks. She won by 8

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by fellowmen

Lulu bee last 4 race odss 2/1 4/1 8/5 5/2=5/2..lord byron 6/1 8/1 12/1 7/1 =8/1 ..................Charity 30/1 37/1 24/1 19/1 =27/1 .................so this 3 horse race is 12/1 you add 2.5÷8+27 then.divide by 3

If you have been successful using your method; congratulations, but this method has little or no significant statistical value for handicapping horseracing.

It appears to be an attempt to use the CLT from probability statistics, but I could be wrong.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by fellowmen

Thank you Whodoyoulike i do use other tools the program or DRF. I use body language the horses and connections. ...

Well, if you're also doing this, it's different from your original post. I understood you were basing your selection strictly from the horses odds in the race which you're handicapping.

Either way, I think I know where you're coming from and I really hope you do well with your "odds angle" which I consider a combination of science and art in handicapping.

Again, good luck

[VigorsTheGrey]

So the lower the number, the more competitive the race is...? Then once you know the race is competitive OR noncompetitive.... Then what....?

Some of us racing degenerates are not really THAT deplorable.... I like to think of my interest in racing as a species of religion, and one that I definitely am a "true believer" in.....welcome....

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

So the lower the number, the more competitive the race is...? Then once you know the race is competitive OR noncompetitive.... Then what....?

Some of us racing degenerates are not really THAT deplorable.... I like to think of my interest in racing as a species of religion, and one that I definitely am a "true believer" in

Why not check result charts and see how "key" the race was?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Why not check result charts and see how "key" the race was?

Say a 4 horse race.. calcs 4, calcs 6, calcs 10, calcs 12.
Together equals 32....now divide by 4 renders 8....the race is an 8 level for competition....so what...? Other races are 4's, others 12's....does that tell you to spread in races with lower numbers.... More competive means more chaos....? Or pass the competitive races....the ones with low figures...?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The truest measure of the class of a horse is the ability to extend his speed over longer distances. That is the direct measure as opposed to indirect measures like the conditions of the race or the value of the purse.

Lots of horses can run a fast quarter. Not nearly as many can run a fast 3/4 after such an opening fraction. And far fewer still can run the last quarter of a mile in 23 seconds in a mile and a quarter race.

[showonly]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The truest measure of the class of a horse is the ability to extend his speed over longer distances. That is the direct measure as opposed to indirect measures like the conditions of the race or the value of the purse.

Lots of horses can run a fast quarter. Not nearly as many can run a fast 3/4 after such an opening fraction. And far fewer still can run the last quarter of a mile in 23 seconds in a mile and a quarter race.

"truest measure of class" If we are to use your parameters the horse that can run the farthest has the most "class" since he will have the only time at that distance and Usain Bolt lacks class since he can't go" two turns". Comparing significantly different distances is comparing apples and oranges. The inference that stamina is class is via personal definition. Class by definition means nothing more than division into sets.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by showonly

"truest measure of class" If we are to use your parameters the horse that can run the farthest has the most "class" since he will have the only time at that distance and Usain Bolt lacks class since he can't go" two turns". Comparing significantly different distances is comparing apples and oranges. The inference that stamina is class is via personal definition. Class by definition means nothing more than division into sets.

Are you speaking of “Class” as being quantitatively defined or qualitatively defined

[showonly]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Are you speaking of “Class” as being quantitatively defined or qualitatively defined

"The truest measure of the class of a horse is the ability to extend his speed over longer distances. That is the direct measure as opposed to indirect measures like the conditions of the race or the value of the purse.

Lots of horses can run a fast quarter. Not nearly as many can run a fast 3/4 after such an opening fraction. And far fewer still can run the last quarter of a mile in 23 seconds in a mile and a quarter race."


This is the statement to which I was referencing. IMO it would be defined as qualitative for this purpose. Your question implies that you could see how it could be quantitative. Would you mind explaining that implication.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by showonly

"The truest measure of the class of a horse is the ability to extend his speed over longer distances. That is the direct measure as opposed to indirect measures like the conditions of the race or the value of the purse.

Lots of horses can run a fast quarter. Not nearly as many can run a fast 3/4 after such an opening fraction. And far fewer still can run the last quarter of a mile in 23 seconds in a mile and a quarter race."


This is the statement to which I was referencing. IMO it would be defined as qualitative for this purpose. Your question implies that you could see how it could be quantitative. Would you mind explaining that implication.

I wasn’t implying anything; I was asking for an understanding because typically the “quantitative” route is what frequently is taken when discerning the class of a racehorse.

For instance, such variables as speed figures, most money won, fastest times, and other quantitative metrics are typically, but wrongly used as “proof” of class.

I agree that class is “qualitative” and cannot be measured; only demonstrated.