A New Look at William Scott's "Investing At The Racetrack"

[Calif_Eagle]

I don't have my copy of "Investing At The Racetrack" available to me as I type this. Doing this strictly from memory, I recall that the numbers that "Mr. Scott" (Joe Finley) based his system on were an historical pattern of 33% winning favorites, 21% winning 2nd public choices, and 14% winning 3rd public choices for all races. (I believe he mentioned in passing that the numbers on 4th and 5th public choices for all races were 10% and 7% respectively.)

I have seen in some recent threads that these numbers are no longer accurate and that due to the massive use of computers (and whales betting huge amounts of money) that the figures for at least the top 3 are much higher now.

I am curious as to what the numbers are for recent samples of all races and breakouts of the percentages as well by field sizes 3 thru 12.

In the *past* it seemed that 1/3 of races were won by public favorites with each succeeding number being about 2/3 of the starting 33% as one moved down the scale from second public choice on down. It seems that if such a relationship is constant / consistent one actually COULD come up with some sort of system that would accomplish what Mr. Scott set out to do with his comparison of the 3 top public choices. Perhaps one could use the top 5 choices to try and include more winners as well as more prices.

I know that in many threads in the handicapping and library sections of this forum that Scott's attempts to do this have been found wanting by people that have worked it out themselves using Scott's systems / methods of determining Form and calculating "Ability Times".

My main intent here is to provoke comment and debate on Scott's BASIC idea. (Not his two methods (Form analysis & ability times) or even his PCR ratings from Total Victory At The Track to try and do this.) The basic idea of capitalizing on the consistent performances of the top 3 (or 5) is what I am interested in hearing perspectives on.

Does anyone here think that via using different or alternate means of separating the top 3 or top 5 public choices has merit, in light of the consistent relationship of these numbers over time for top choices on down through say the 5th of 7th spot? A database finding once published here on a thread said that public choices 2 thru 7 ALL have a positive betting expectancy in races not won by the favorite.)

[MJC922]

I wouldn't discourage anyone's exploration of a method or a framework but one thing about today's game that's a bit different from the book (when it was written) is odds volatility. To think anyone can peg who is going to be the favorite, co-fav and on down the line to fourth or fifth choice, logistical problems abound with that. This is one of those methods which can probably be made to work somehow on paper but not real-world betting. Still things should be investigated as something else may come out of it. There isn't much I see as a complete waste of time when it comes to handicapping research but odds cutoffs these days are one of the most troublesome.

[Calif_Eagle]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I wouldn't discourage anyone's exploration of a method or a framework but one thing about today's game that's a bit different from the book (when it was written) is odds volatility. To think anyone can peg who is going to be the favorite, co-fav and on down the line to fourth or fifth choice, logistical problems abound with that. This is one of those methods which can probably be made to work somehow on paper but not real-world betting. Still things should be investigated as something else may come out of it. There isn't much I see as a complete waste of time when it comes to handicapping research but odds cutoffs these days are one of the most troublesome.

I was anticipating just such a concern being raised and agree this would be more of a problem for todays handicapper than it was in 1980 when Mr. Scott wrote his book. I know that Dave Schwartz has a product out called the "Renegade Handicapper" that purports to work around this problem and allow the user to make or estimate a priceline as we are close to post.

(Disclaimer: I don't own this product (as yet) and am not affiliated with Mr. Schwartz. I have read about this item here on the Forums and think it may have the answer or a satisfactory substitute to the actual tote odds that Mr Scott was able to get an estimate on in 1980 that todays handicapper would find difficult or impossible to do.)

The thing that fascinates me about what Mr. Scott tried to do, is that the numbers were so constant for so many years and may even be more favorable today. Also that the 2/3 relationship between each succeeding number as you go down the scale was a constant for decades. It seems with such enduring consistency that SOME sort of system or effective separation method should be possible. That there is, or at least should be, something out there that hasn't been hit on or discovered as yet in regard to these enduring relationships.

[thaskalos]

IMO...the basic premise of confining our wagers to the top 3 betting choices is misguided at best. It's tough to be right a large percentage of the time in this game...and the only way to survive in this game is to latch on to the occasional price horse. We trade money with the track the vast majority of the time...and look to the occasional score to put us over the top.

More important than the determination to reduce our list of contenders is the quality of our rating method. Nothing can help us if our handicapping method isn't up to the task of properly rating these horses.

[Calif_Eagle]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the basic premise of confining our wagers to the top 3 betting choices is misguided at best. It's tough to be right a large percentage of the time in this game...and the only way to survive in this game is to latch on to the occasional price horse. We trade money with the track the vast majority of the time...and look to the occasional score to put us over the top.

More important than the determination to reduce our list of contenders is the quality of our rating method. Nothing can help us if our handicapping method isn't up to the task of properly rating these horses.

I hate to digress from my own thread, but I have to ask you a question about your contender selection method. Is it based on concepts you read about in a book you had sitting on your shelf ignored for years before finally reading it, that was written by a 30 year veteran trackside Blacksmith?

You discussed this book on an old (2014) thread I was perusing about Warren Buffett and whether or not someone had discussed the "true secret to racing" and put it out there only to have it go totally unnoticed by all. You indicated the concepts in the book had incredible power and declined to name the title or author.

I'd love to know both (of course) but am reluctantly not asking you to divulge your secrets. I am merely curious if you are still making use of these book concepts in your contender identifications and separations?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Calif_Eagle

I hate to digress from my own thread, but I have to ask you a question about your contender selection method. Is it based on concepts you read about in a book you had sitting on your shelf ignored for years before finally reading it, that was written by a 30 year veteran trackside Blacksmith?

You discussed this book on an old (2014) thread I was perusing about Warren Buffett and whether or not someone had discussed the "true secret to racing" and put it out there only to have it go totally unnoticed by all. You indicated the concepts in the book had incredible power and declined to name the title or author.

I'd love to know both (of course) but am reluctantly not asking you to divulge your secrets. I am merely curious if you are still making use of these book concepts in your contender identifications and separations?

My rating system is strictly home-made...and most of the components are my own creation. But I have also borrowed liberally from other sources that I've encountered on the path, including from the book that you've mentioned above...which, by the way, remains the most eye-opening handicapping text that I've ever seen.

I use speed and pace figures in combination, to create performance ratings for the horses' races that I deem representative of the upcoming race conditions. I am not a slave to the numbers, of course...and I don't always favor the highest ratings. Experience plays a vital roll too.

After I submit this post...I will send you a private message with the title and the author of the book that you inquired about.

[Calif_Eagle]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My rating system is strictly home-made...and most of the components are my own creation. But I have also borrowed liberally from other sources that I've encountered on the path, including from the book that you've mentioned above...which, by the way, remains the most eye-opening handicapping text that I've ever seen.

I use speed and pace figures in combination, to create performance ratings for the horses' races that I deem representative of the upcoming race conditions. I am not a slave to the numbers, of course...and I don't always favor the highest ratings. Experience plays a vital roll too.

After I submit this post...I will send you a private message with the title and the author of the book that you inquired about.

Mr. Thaskalos, I received your PM and have responded to it, and would like to openly thank you publically here for the information, which I never expected or intended that you would share with me. Very much of a classy gesture by you in my book, to be sure and I am very grateful for it. You can be assured I accept this info in the spirit that you stated in the 2014 Buffett thread post, and wont be passing it on at all. I see that as solely being for you to do, or not do, as you see fit. should anyone else be interested in what was YOUR discovery.

Now... digression aside... does anyone out there think William Scott's basic idea of focusing on the top 3 (or possibly more, say 5?) public choices has any merit to it if pursued by a different contender separation method than what Scott used back in 1980? (Form and Ability Times, that which many have indicated they don't feel works well in trying to duplicate / obtain the impressive results Mr. Scott claimed he got in the book.)

I find it hard to believe that numbers with such a long standing and recurring relationship cant be somehow inserted into some sort of a system or method and massaged into a profitable system. If anything, the percentage numbers Mr. Scott quoted are even stronger / larger today for at least the 1st 3 public choices. A product offered by Dave Schwartz (The Renegade Handicapper) is apparently a way around the last minute money dump by the whales at post time.

Anyone out there with any novel or fresh takes on this basic idea?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thaskalos,

Now you went and piqued my interest in the mysterious book with the undisclosed title and author... May I please have the information also?
I don't know how to privately communicate on this site and you really don't know me from Adam but...

Regards,
Vigors

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Thaskalos,

Now you went and piqued my interest in the mysterious book with the undisclosed title and author... May I please have the information also?
I don't know how to privately communicate on this site and you really don't know me from Adam but...

Regards,
Vigors

Vigors...the book's title is SEE HOW THEY RUN; A Guide to Financial Freedom at the Racetrack...and the author's name is Thomas McCormick. I bought my copy many years ago, and I have recommended the book to several of my friends...but it is virtually impossible to find a copy anywhere, no matter HOW hard you look. Every time I run a google search on it...I never get even a single bite. It must the the rarest somewhat-recent handicapping book in existence.

As I said, the book is eye-opening in many ways...and proves that Mr. McCormick was a horseplayer who was WAY ahead of his time. The only negative that could be said about this book is that the author lacked the needed literary skill to make this book a little easier to read. As it stands...it has a certain complexity about it which might turn off the beginner-type player. McCormick also insists on sharing some of his personal stories in this book...and this storytelling doesn't mix well with the handicapping instructions...IMO.

That aside...this is strictly 5-star reading material...as far as I am concerned.

[Johnny V]

I think that Scott's method of using the top 3-4 public choices should still have some merit to it. I don't think the idea that the odds volatility rampant in todays racing will nullify it very much. You may not know the actual favorite or whom the second public choice may be and so on but it should be fairly easy to determine the top 4 or 5 or so regardless of their ranking as public choices. In case of ties I would think you could use the M/L or the Bris Prime number or some such thing.
Then you could use whatever preferred handicapping you choose to narrow down your final choice/choices. As Thask mentioned the only way to stay ahead in this game is with the occasional price horse. When you latch on to that 4th or 5th choice or even 3rd sometimes you may get that price horse.

That book See How They Run sounds familiar although I am pretty sure I never read it. It may have been one of those titles that were available by RPM systems published in Ca. I don't know if they are still in business or not.

[Light]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Vigors...the book's title is SEE HOW THEY RUN; A Guide to Financial Freedom at the Racetrack...and the author's name is Thomas McCormick. I bought my copy many years ago, and I have recommended the book to several of my friends...but it is virtually impossible to find a copy anywhere, no matter HOW hard you look. Every time I run a google search on it...I never get even a single bite. It must the the rarest somewhat-recent handicapping book in existence.

As I said, the book is eye-opening in many ways...and proves that Mr. McCormick was a horseplayer who was WAY ahead of his time. The only negative that could be said about this book is that the author lacked the needed literary skill to make this book a little easier to read. As it stands...it has a certain complexity about it which might turn off the beginner-type player. McCormick also insists on sharing some of his personal stories in this book...and this storytelling doesn't mix well with the handicapping instructions...IMO.

That aside...this is strictly 5-star reading material...as far as I am concerned.

I understand from a previous thread of this RPM book that the author uses "feet per second". Is this the same FPS as Brohamer detailed in Modern Pace Handicapping? If so, what would make McCormick's use of FPS unique or better than Brohamer's.?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

I understand from a previous thread of this RPM book that the author uses "feet per second". Is this the same FPS as Brohamer detailed in Modern Pace Handicapping? If so, what would make McCormick's use of FPS unique or better than Brohamer's.?

FPS is a just a time-measuring device...same as fifths-per-second. Just because we use the same measuring device doesn't mean that we'll all use it in the same way. How many handicappers use the fifths-per-second rating methodology today? Do they all use it in the same manner?

McCormick's method is different than Brohamer's...because he uses his velocity ratings to give concrete definitions to subtle concepts like "class" and "form". What also makes this man's work unique is that he doesn't just compare the one particular horse to the other horses in the race. He also compares that one particular horse to the horse ITSELF...by observing the relationship between the different ratings of the SAME particular horse. He says..."Thoughtful handicapping isn't just about concerning ourselves with the SIZE of a horse's ratings...and how these ratings compare to those of its competition. As careful handicappers, we should also concern ourselves with how the horse's OWN ratings relate to one ANOTHER."

We often talk about "unique ideas" found in handicapping books. Well...this was a unique idea that I had never heard before, or since...even though I try to read ALL the handicapping books out there. Compare a horse not only to its competition...but also to the particular horse ITSELF.

Two handicapping questions beg to be answered in every race, IMO: Who are the best horses in the race...and will these horses run their best TODAY, when it matters MOST? We answer the first question by comparing the horses to one another. But we answer the second question, by comparing each horse to ITSELF. McCormick does that...and he uses velocity ratings to do it.

This is REAL insight, folks, that we can use in our OWN preferred ways. We don't have to stick to McCormick's guidelines here; we can supplement our OWN thinking onto his, and chart our OWN course. That's what I've done. But McCormick gave me the idea...and he deserves the recognition for it, along with my thanks.

Gee...you guys got me excited all over again about this book. Maybe later, when I have more time...I'll start a thread here about this particular book. If William L. Scott deserves several threads of his own here...then it occurs to me that Thomas McCormick should have at least ONE. No?

[tlinetrader]

Would be interested in obtaining a copy of McCormicks book. No luck on ebay or amazon. Anyone have any thoughts on where it might be available? Thanks.

[Tom]

Gus, would you say his methods was like using speed figures to describe a horse's from cycle to predict improvement or decline?

I have to look in my archives - I would like to read that book, too.

[raybo]

I, many years ago, decided that I needed to get back to the "real" numbers (at least as "real" as they are anyway), so I decided to totally ignore pace ratings and speed ratings completely, and went back to the raw times in the PPs. Of course, I knew that raw times alone would not help me. I needed the variants, and not just the total variant for the whole race, I needed fractional variants in order to get closer to the actual times run during the fractional segments of races. The segmental times needed to reflect, as close as possible, "universal" times, just to be able to compare races run at the same track and on the same surface. Track to track adjustments are another hurdle that one must jump. Recently I added the run up distances to the equation, regarding the calculation of fractional velocities and total velocities, because earlier I was using Brisnet data files which do not include the run up distances.

The question is: Do my velocities do a better job than published pace and speed ratings? IMO, yes they do, because I know every calculation that goes into them, I don't need to "trust" someone else's adjustments to the raw times, I adjust them myself. So, I only have myself to blame if errors have been made (and because of my thorough automation of all my calculations, no errors are made within my method, other than those inherent in my doing them myself in the first place). At least I know what the possible errors could include, and can make allowances for them. If I used someone else's ratings, I would have no idea of what and where those possible errors would be.

As Gus said, all velocities are not the same, and all velocities are not used in the same ways, by all people. The key, for me, is knowing what they are, and how to use them. The only restrictions on mine, and what I do with them, are that they are based on published raw data, and that raw data can contain errors from time to time.