The Art and Science of Picking Winning Horses

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

...I am in need for what to do with the final 2 or 3 contenders in my selection process.

If they don't have similar running styles, box them in an exacta.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

That's the rule of thumb, and it has seemed to work. I'm just wondering if I can understand these final few a little better.

What will that get you?
You have narrowed the filed down, now the idea is to make money, not understand things. Handicapping stops at some point and wagering kicks in. People go broke betting the best horses. You make money betting the best prices.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

This book, while aimed at beginners, does cover the essential methods for comparing horses on the form. It reminds me of the dot method, if you remember that one.

Of course I remember the Dot Method. It was endorsed by no less an authority than Don Adams, of GET SMART fame.

But the Dot Method didn't compare horses on form. In essense, what it did was handicap the public handicappers. You put the selections of a group of public handicappers together...and you put dots on the selections that each handicapper picked.

The horse with the most dots was the play...and, as I recall, the system was effective in the exotics as well...

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Of course I remember the Dot Method. It was endorsed by no less an authority than Don Adams, of GET SMART fame.

But the Dot Method didn't compare horses on form. In essense, what it did was handicap the public handicappers. You put the selections of a group of public handicappers together...and you put dots on the selections that each handicapper picked.

The horse with the most dots was the play...and, as I recall, the system was effective in the exotics as well...

The book recommends a check for top speed within 30 days and another for last 10 races, one for Earnings per start, etc. Then one adds up the checks. Nothing about consensus. What I liked about the book was it dealt with change of distances and other form indicating things. It fit a niche that I was looking for. I still have to go through what the book said and update it. I don't recommend the book except to an over committed handicapper that has a need for looking at past performances and wants to spend time re-interpreting the book.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

What will that get you?
You have narrowed the filed down, now the idea is to make money, not understand things. Handicapping stops at some point and wagering kicks in. People go broke betting the best horses. You make money betting the best prices.

Tom, you might have it. What I have noticed about my handicapping is that I can go both long and short. What's giving me gas is trying to play both at the same time. I'm looking for a way to organize my wagering.

[Tom]

There is a certain amount of info you will never know that can affect the race.

Case in point, who knew Spectacular Bid stepped on a safety pin that morning, and if you did, would you have bet Cordero instead?
(All these years later, and we STILL don't know if he really did or not! )

Good luck!

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

This book ought to stir the pot in this forum -- The Art and Science of Picking Winning Horses by James Hillis. It's probably a rewrite of an old Gamblers Book Club book. Why it should stir the pot here is because it is a Form Handicapper's method with a point of view from the old school of handicapping. No adding second call to final time and calling it Pace that makes the race stuff. It's hardcore Form handicapping. And in today's handicapping literature, it is quite refreshing. It will make real handicappers out of you computer types. (My weakness also. So I'll re-read later.)

The book can be read at many levels from beginner to advance. The advance reader will have to read between the lines and correlate their experience and knowledge to what is being said. The author stays focused and gives simple but sage advise.

Not having the book or even seen it before (one of the good things about brick and mortar stores), please tell us what is the authors definition of form handicapping?

As it has already been cited in this thread, is it strictly running styles, or, is it more than that?

Are form cycles a part of the discussion?

The "holy trinity" of racing is speed, pace and class? Where does the book fit in relation those parameters?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The book recommends a check for top speed within 30 days and another for last 10 races, one for Earnings per start, etc. Then one adds up the checks. Nothing about consensus. What I liked about the book was it dealt with change of distances and other form indicating things. It fit a niche that I was looking for. I still have to go through what the book said and update it. I don't recommend the book except to an over committed handicapper that has a need for looking at past performances and wants to spend time re-interpreting the book.

It turns out that we are both right.

The original "Dot System" was the one I described...with the consensus of public handicappers.

And then someone came up with a spin-off of that system, which was called "Dot System 2"...and that's the one that you are referring to.

Different method...same dots.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Not having the book or even seen it before (one of the good things about brick and mortar stores), please tell us what is the authors definition of form handicapping?

As it has already been cited in this thread, is it strictly running styles, or, is it more than that?

Are form cycles a part of the discussion?

The "holy trinity" of racing is speed, pace and class? Where does the book fit in relation those parameters?

Yes, he looks at the Holy Trinity. I'll by pass this for our modern era data. He talks about going long and going short, early speed and sprints, and closers and distances. It's not complex. It's not new. His view just might help at the end as a tie breaker. Most everyone else will be disappointed in this book.

[atlasaxis]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Of course I remember the Dot Method. It was endorsed by no less an authority than Don Adams, of GET SMART fame.

But the Dot Method didn't compare horses on form. In essense, what it did was handicap the public handicappers. You put the selections of a group of public handicappers together...and you put dots on the selections that each handicapper picked.

The horse with the most dots was the play...and, as I recall, the system was effective in the exotics as well...

Back in the early 80's I believe it was Mickey Rooney who was selling or promoting the Dot System. The NY Post was advertizing the heck out of it to the point, yes, I broke down and bought it..lol. Of course you were to use the Post's public handicappers and most of the time you ended up on the 1, 2 or 3rd pt favorite. I hated that, so I went the exact opposite way. I crossed out every selection mentioned more than once. Any race with only one or two horses mentioned once, was the bet. Needless to say when it came in, it was a double digit mutuel.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Yes, he looks at the Holy Trinity. I'll by pass this for our modern era data. He talks about going long and going short, early speed and sprints, and closers and distances. It's not complex. It's not new. His view just might help at the end as a tie breaker. Most everyone else will be disappointed in this book.

OK, that helps. THX.

[Capper Al]

Your application suggests 4 final contenders. The top two are most likely favorites. Is your third or fourth worth a bet at odds to beat the top 2? The idea was to dump the computer at this point and go back to old fashion Form handicapping between the last four contenders. There are other options as some have suggested like playing the longest odds or a horse with an exceptionally good single factor. The book toted handicapping from a by-gone era. Was this a way to sort the final contenders? I don't know. Need more R&D. But for the short run, I'm going with the single factor at odds.

[TrifectaMike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Your application suggests 4 final contenders. The top two are most likely favorites. Is your third or fourth worth a bet at odds to beat the top 2? The idea was to dump the computer at this point and go back to old fashion Form handicapping between the last four contenders. There are other options as some have suggested like playing the longest odds or a horse with an exceptionally good single factor. The book toted handicapping from a by-gone era. Was this a way to sort the final contenders? I don't know. Need more R&D. But for the short run, I'm going with the single factor at odds.

To dump your computer at this point would be a grave mistake. You do need to do some further analysis.

I'm going to make this very simple for you ( A step-by-step process).

STEP 1

Use your application and generate a sample (approximately 500 races) of your final four contenders.

Determine the win rate and ROI for each rank of your contenders. This will be
your baseline (Rank 1 -> top contender, etc).

STEP 2

Use only horses ranked 1 and 2.

Create a filter, which will be applied to horses ranked 1 for the sample of 500
races.

Determine the win rate and ROI for horses ranked 1 that pass filter and the
win rate for horse that are filtered.

Compare results for filtered and unfiltered horses ranked 1.

Determine profitability. If non exists try another filter or add a factor
to the filter (if close to profitability)

Filter = any single or combination of factors

Once you determine the conditions for profitability in horses ranked 1 or 2, and STOP!

STEP 3

Now, when analyzing a race...

Determine if Rank 1 or Rank 2 is profitable.
YES -> play Rank 1 or 2
NO -> play Rank 3 and/or 4 blindly

or

apply a similar process (STEP 1 and 2) for horses ranked 3 and 4 ( filter and determine profitability )

Mike (Dr Beav)

[eurocapper]

I'm not sure how you succeed with longshots, but if you do it must mean some intuitive talent. If that's your strength, then dumping the software might well be helpful to gain an edge. "Go with the force, Luke". Horses are not machines either, doubtful that they can be simulated by one.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by eurocapper

I'm not sure how you succeed with longshots, but if you do it must mean some intuitive talent. If that's your strength, then dumping the software might well be helpful to gain an edge. "Go with the force, Luke". Horses are not machines either, doubtful that they can be simulated by one.

As an handicapper that came up through Doc Sartin's methods, I have to ask: why is it either-or?

Why not both-and? Why not use both your intuition and software?