The best Handicapping Systems

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Going against the crowd is one thing, since people can be wrong, especially when they focus only on finding and betting the one horse that's most likely to win a race, to the total exclusion of every other entrant, and with no regard to the wagering value offered by their selection (or by any other horse in the race, for that matter).

However, ignoring (either intentionally or unintentionally) established percentages and probabilities associated with various performance factors when handicapping, or even purposely playing against those statistics, just for the sake of "not doing what everybody else is doing", would be making the task of winning consistently much more difficult. Books (at least some of them) can be useful in recognizing when the public has overlooked or undervalued specific factors or horses.

Just because people read the same books doesn't mean that they get the same use out of them.

Unlike the betting systems of yester-year...the better handicapping books out there today don't present ready-made selection methods. The ideas they offer are open to varied degrees of interpretation.

[stats725]

Mike , you are so right. the use of 6 simple mechanical rules helped A group i know that had 9
winning months A year , for 20 years . The less rules you have, the more obvious it is as to what is producing the winners, and more important the overlays. also with just a few rules there is less chance that over time they will deteriorate. and begin to fail or change. this group researched repeaters, males only in claiming races, and found an edge in 7 day horses .they researched 15,000 with no computer in from 1962 to 1964. they had an amazing 20 years of profits, then realized about 1984 , as computers became more popular, that the percentage of winners remained almost exactly the same for 20 years on all their systems, but the average odds they paid had dropped about 30% about a year or two after the popularity of computers began in the early 80's. you are right about the fading horses, here is a system you may like, i have not played, ; EARLY SPEED LONSHOT SYSTEM
RULES;
The horse must have at least 5 speed points;

look at the last 5 races, giving a point for any 1st or 2nd call where the horse was running 1st 2ND or within 3 lengths of the leader.

2- the horse must have at least 2 wins in the last 10 races. if he has at least 3 wins in the last 10 races , skip rule 3;



3- this horse must have been in the money at least 5 times in the last 10 races.




4- i minute odds must be 5-1 or up.




tested on 588 races in california over 288 days at the track. in 588 races there were 856 horses bet. on 2.00 bets the investment was 1712.00 and the return was 2294.00 , for a profit of 582.00 which is a 34% return on dollars bet. there were 147 wins - 21% , on races bet, and 17% wins for horses bet. the average mutual price was 15.60. this test was done in 1977, so is is ancient history, but food for thought. my 35 years of burning the midnight oil with a little bit of success, says bet only one hoses per race, and use a recency rule. mike... good luck!!! i like to talk , but hate to type, call me if you like 702 877 2468 , iam one mile from las vegas. best wishes, Stats

[joecam]

Originally Posted by Altair1

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter & Pace Indicator in the 70's. Used it with moderate success in the exacta pool. His theory is that hidden class shows up in the running lines using a simple mathematical model. It picked enough high priced horses in the place pool, which I keyed with the speed that figured. I can't find his system on the internet. Have most of it memorized, but lost the device over the years. I purchased some books recently, but there complicated. This system is simple, and when the concept is understood, the horses jump out of the pps in playable races. I'd recommend this system if you can find it, but your going to have to study old pps until you understand the concept.

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter in the early 70's, after about a year I started to make some nice hits after about two years I started making money, I started using class and a few other handicapping factors and after almost 40 years I have it down to a science, I play only what I call good races and only play 2 or 3 races a day per track, the cheaper the track the better, I play Calder, Finger lakes, and Parx, next month I'll start playing Monmouth also. I bet only exacta's and triples. With triples I play my top choice it has to be at least 10-1 and I wheel it with the whole field and over the years I have hit hundreds of them. If I lost this system I would never play again, I keep a copy in my safe deposit box.

[John]

Originally Posted by joecam

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter in the early 70's, after about a year I started to make some nice hits after about two years I started making money, I started using class and a few other handicapping factors and after almost 40 years I have it down to a science, I play only what I call good races and only play 2 or 3 races a day per track, the cheaper the track the better, I play Calder, Finger lakes, and Parx, next month I'll start playing Monmouth also. I bet only exacta's and triples. With triples I play my top choice it has to be at least 10-1 and I wheel it with the whole field and over the years I have hit hundreds of them. If I lost this system I would never play again, I keep a copy in my safe deposit box.

Last time i was on ebay.Cal Q Meter was for sale if anyone is intrested.

[so.cal.fan]

I knew Robert Elias back in the 70's. He has been late for many years.
From what I could gather, he was never much of a winner, but was always trying to improve.
He was a nice man and would have been very pleased to know people were using his systems.

My take on this thread, I just now read it......interesting comments.
I have always believed that if one can classify horses correctly, be on track, know all the habits of trainers, owners and jockeys, and had a good eye for horses in the paddock.......winning is absolutely possible, provided you manage bets consistent with your temperment and do not bet favorites.
That is my humble opinion, anyway.

[appistappis]

Originally Posted by joecam

I purchased Robert Elias Cal Q Meter in the early 70's, after about a year I started to make some nice hits after about two years I started making money, I started using class and a few other handicapping factors and after almost 40 years I have it down to a science, I play only what I call good races and only play 2 or 3 races a day per track, the cheaper the track the better, I play Calder, Finger lakes, and Parx, next month I'll start playing Monmouth also. I bet only exacta's and triples. With triples I play my top choice it has to be at least 10-1 and I wheel it with the whole field and over the years I have hit hundreds of them. If I lost this system I would never play again, I keep a copy in my safe deposit box.

you won't be able to play monmouth next month as they are done in early oct...as a fellow fan of the cheaper tracks may I recommend turf paradise and portland meadows for your fall and winter play.

[John]

Originally Posted by appistappis

you won't be able to play monmouth next month as they are done in early oct...as a fellow fan of the cheaper tracks may I recommend turf paradise and portland meadows for your fall and winter play.

appistappis, What about Suffolk Downs? another cheap track.

[acorn54]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Out of the myriad of systems out there...is there ONE that a player can count on for consistent profits at the windows? Is it lack of discipline that causes all the players who follow these systems to lose?

i'll chime in with my recent experience in research. i use the three most recent years of
racing in america as my datbase, never missing a day.
one of my recent data queries involved class description of the winners in one of my angles, to try to weed out some losers. the allowance classifications looked like very poor bets, losing with less return than if you had bet randomly, in two of the years, yet in the other year a profit of over 100% on money wagered!
play the devil's advocate all you want on my experience. but imo you need very large data samples and look to the very long run to come to any clear pattern.

[so.cal.fan]

Yes, Acorn, you are right about that.
Patterns change.
Here in So. California, we have three different types of racing surface.
Poly, Del Mar. Cushion, Hollywood, Dirt Santa Anita, and Fairplex dirt track is the closest thing to a turf course than a turf course.
Check out the horses running in the better races there, all turf runners.
It's been that way since I can remember and that would be back in the 1960's.

So.....every method of play is going to be different, different for every track, different for every season of the year, different for a dozen or more different changes, that are constant.

The only two constants in handicapping, again in my "opinion", are class and current condition.

[raybo]

Well, after reading this whole thread (except for a few posts that became too tedious and boring, regarding the same subject), it seems apparent that; almost everyone posting in the thread have it ingrained in their mind that there is no profitable "mechanical" method (the thread started about "systems" but that term was never defined versus "method", they are not the same, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there), available to the public, that is long term profitable.

In my opinion, that thinking is in error. There are mechanical methods out here that are long term profitable, and available to the public.

Then there are those that say that; if such a profitable mechanical method is available to the public, it will, always, eventually become overbet and the profits will go away. Again, in my opinion, this thinking is in error.

The reason I say that is:

Just because a method is "mechanical", and it is available to the public, doesn't mean that all it's users will end up on the same horses, in the same races. That negates the "will be overbet and the profits will go away" belief.

How is long term profit achievable, if all the users of such a "mechanical method" don't end up on the same horses? Simple, not all the horses bet by some users will win, meaning that other users landing on other horses in those races, will win, and vice versa. So, some users win some races and other users win other races.

The key is that both sets of users can be long term profitable, while using the same "mechanical method". So, public availability, and resultant overbetting, are both removed from the profit equation.

The old saying, "Never say never" smacks you right in the noggin --- again.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

Well, after reading this whole thread (except for a few posts that became too tedious and boring, regarding the same subject), it seems apparent that; almost everyone posting in the thread have it ingrained in their mind that there is no profitable "mechanical" method (the thread started about "systems" but that term was never defined versus "method", they are not the same, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there), available to the public, that is long term profitable.

In my opinion, that thinking is in error. There are mechanical methods out here that are long term profitable, and available to the public.

Then there are those that say that; if such a profitable mechanical method is available to the public, it will, always, eventually become overbet and the profits will go away. Again, in my opinion, this thinking is in error.

The reason I say that is:

Just because a method is "mechanical", and it is available to the public, doesn't mean that all it's users will end up on the same horses, in the same races. That negates the "will be overbet and the profits will go away" belief.

How is long term profit achievable, if all the users of such a "mechanical method" don't end up on the same horses? Simple, not all the horses bet by some users will win, meaning that other users landing on other horses in those races, will win, and vice versa. So, some users win some races and other users win other races.

The key is that both sets of users can be long term profitable, while using the same "mechanical method". So, public availability, and resultant overbetting, are both removed from the profit equation.

The old saying, "Never say never" smacks you right in the noggin --- again.

You say that these elusive "profitable mechanical systems" DO exist...and that they available to the public.

Could we please have a little more information about them...like where they are...how much they cost...and what kind of results we can expect using them?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You say that these elusive "profitable mechanical systems" DO exist...and that they available to the public.

Could we please have a little more information about them...like where they are...how much they cost...and what kind of results we can expect using them?

You trying to get me in trouble with Mike?

My answer is, if I can create it, there has to be others out there doing it also, wouldn't you think? I'm not the sharpest player in the world, by a long shot, so is it not logical to assume there are other long term profitable mechanical methods available to the public, that can remain profitable, out there? You can start with Dave, for one.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

You trying to get me in trouble with Mike?

My answer is, if I can create it, there has to be others out there doing it also, wouldn't you think? I'm not the sharpest player in the world, by a long shot, so is it not logical to assume there are other long term profitable mechanical methods available to the public, that can remain profitable, out there?

To be honest, Raybo...I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on how you define "mechanical".

If by that you mean a system that ANYBODY can use, without much effort, and without one's individual input needed in the analysis of the race...then my skepticism rises considerably.

Here is what you are forgetting, IMO.

You said that not EVERYBODY will necessarily bet on the same horses...so that means that a commercially available system can remain profitable.

If this is indeed a "mechanical system" that you are describing, then, even if ALL the users are not betting on the same horses...most of them probably will -- or, at least...you are not likely to have many users betting on different horses in the same race.

In this game, our edge is already pretty small and tenuous. It doesn't take much to make that edge go away.

[raybo]

In response to Thas' post above:

To be honest, Raybo...I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on how you define "mechanical".

I agree, but "mechanical, to me, means that the program tells you when to bet, when not to bet, what horses are contenders, and which ones you actually bet. Those things all apply to my program.

If by that you mean a system that ANYBODY can use, without much effort, and without one's individual input needed in the analysis of the race...then my skepticism rises considerably.

Change "ANYBODY" to "almost anybody" and take out the "without much effort" and that's what I'm saying. For instance, with my program, there are those who cannot stick it out and follow the program's rules, and, the user has maintenance activities that must be done, and that is on-going, so there is some user effort involved. I never said these programs did everything for you, but they are "mechanical" in that no subjective reasoning,by the user, is required.

Here is what you are forgetting, IMO.

You said that not EVERYBODY will necessarily bet on the same horses...so that means that a commercially available system can remain profitable.

If this is indeed a "mechanical system" that you are describing, then, even if ALL the users are not betting on the same horses...most of them probably will -- or, at least...you are not likely to have many users betting on different horses in the same race.

As I stated before, there are many users who will not or cannot follow the program's rules, and, in my program, for users to get exactly the same bets they would have to have identical cards and results in the database and they would have to use exactly the same rankings column setting and the same minimum odds setting. As you know, there are 2 different kinds of "profitability", high hit rate with lower ROI, and lower hit rate with higher ROI, some will choose one and some will choose the other. Some will choose a 1.02 ROI with many plays, while others will choose a 1.45 ROI with fewer plays, and everything in between (meaning they will come up with different contenders and different actual bets), using the same rankings column setting. Use a different rankings column setting and repeat the choices they have and you end up with many users betting different horses, in the same races.

In this game, our edge is already pretty small and tenuous. It doesn't take much to make that edge go away.

I guess that depends on where your edge lies, doesn't it? No offense meant.

[appistappis]

Originally Posted by John

appistappis, What about Suffolk Downs? another cheap track.

john, I love suffolk but it is another that will be done soon for the winter,