Handicapping Method

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by windoor

Yes, it is time to put up or shut up.

Don't know if I will post for all of it, but I will for the 1st month or so.

I just hope I don't hit one of my many losing streaks to start. The racing Gods have a way of punishing me, when I start to brag on how well I am doing.

Regards,

Windoor

Windoor
I post my selections on the selection thread as many other people do and there is always a Mountineer thread up with great bunch guys every night it is very confortable place to post .That said it took me while to get used posting but i only post the races that i bet on which may be 1 to 4 races night and and yes the all have tanked on any given night. I like to post one selection or two max per race on a fast track only .
Mac

[EMD4ME]

Sorry I am late to this party. My answer is everything.

If you are solely pp's with no replays/pace figs/intuitive knowledge of a circuit/in depth breeding analysis/people trend etc. you IMHO, are at an extreme disadvantage.

[pandy]

I fall into the category of using both paper and pen and computer. But, you don't need a computer handicapping system to show a profit betting horses.

A more interesting part of this thread was the back and forth between Dave S and Cincy, which I understood as Spot Play vs Handicap Each Race and Bet The Overlays.

Both are viable approaches. A good spot play approach can certainly produce a consistent profit, especially if it includes some sort of way to evaluate the odds, or some sort of minimum odds acceptance.

Handicapping every race and every horse and analyzing the odds a few minutes to post time is certainly a viable approach. But so is a good spot play approach.

In regards to Dave's theory, I have found that the more difficult the race, or the card, or even the meet, the more sense it makes to use Dave's approach.

For instance, let's take a difficult meet like the Saratoga meet. A Spot Play approach tends to work best when you can find races where you can eliminate at least half of the field. These are prime betting situations, because if you like a horse, and the odds are right, you only have a few horses that can beat you.

This type of situation is difficult to find on a highly competitive card, and certainly most Saratoga cards fall into this category. This can be frustrating for a Spot Play bettor. But, on competitive cards, there are many good overlays for someone who takes the "look for value" approach.

I use this approach when I bet some of the harness races at the Meadowlands. The track only races two nights a week and some of the races are wide open, 10 horse fields and a long stretch. The best approach in these races is to narrow the field down to horses that you think are legit contenders and then look for juicy overlays. (Or you can use my odds line on the usta website).

But in defense of a Spot Play approach, the beauty of a sound Spot Play method is that it doesn't necessarily take much time and you're not limited to one circuit. I've been testing a new method I developed (Power Pace), which I tested live on my website.

I can spend less than 10 minutes looking over a card and find the plays. Because it's easy to implement, I can use the method at all the different tracks. If the races are highly competitive on Saturday at Gulfstream and it doesn't have any plays, I may find a few plays I like at Parx, or Aqueduct, or Oaklawn, etc. No one is forcing you to play races where every horse has a good chance of winning.

[classhandicapper]

My handicapping is getting more or more computerized by the month. I still look at replays, charts, etc... to create personalized bias and trip notes, but a lot of what I used to do manually or intuitively is now automatically generated on a spreadsheet for that day's races. So basically, I have a set of PPs, my personalized notes, and a series of self created ratings in a spreadsheet that I have tested and know have value and are not publicly available. Not only is doing it this way saving me time, it's building both confidence and consistency into my play. Nothing makes it to the spreadsheet until it's been tested thoroughly and there is less variance in my thinking because the ratings themselves are systematically generated instead of intuitive. I haven't removed intuition from the process totally, but it's where it belongs.

[pandy]

Many paper and pen handicappers are actually using computer handicapping. If, for instance, you use the Brisnet Summary, or something like Timeform's Condensed sheet, or some of the DRF Formulator stuff....these past performances show things like pace or speed "averages" based on several of a horse's recent races. This is computer handicapping. If you use these ratings, you are actually utilizing a computer handicapping method. It's much faster to let a computer do the averages than to get out the old calculator.

[raybo]

Glad this thread was bumped, it's a good one!

IMO, "pencil and paper" handicapping means using a pencil and paper, in some sort of process. It can also be buying or printing out the PPs, and then making calculations manually or with a calculator, then "markup" those PPs using pen or pencil, black or colored. That is the way I started out and I suspect the majority of older, long time, players.

Computer handicapping, IMO, means using a computer to do some, or all, of that previous manual "marking-up" of the PPs. I started using spreadsheets as a time multiplier and error prevention, both using manually entered data and later using data files. This automation process has come full circle now, everything I do is done via computer, regarding handicapping, in mere seconds per race, compared to several minutes per race, back in the day. And with no stupid math/logic errors!

[ultracapper]

EMD, better late than never. They say you have to wait for the good stuff. Good post.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Sorry I am late to this party. My answer is everything.

If you are solely pp's with no replays/pace figs/intuitive knowledge of a circuit/in depth breeding analysis/people trend etc. you IMHO, are at an extreme disadvantage.

I can't disagree or agree with you. If you need all that, and you show a profit, then I agree with you. But, not everyone does. You can show a profit betting without watching a single replay, without doing any breeding analysis, without analyzing people trends.

Many so-called handicapping factors have catch-22 consequences. I watch replays, but I would hesitate to say that watching replays adds to my bottom line. I find that the numbers (pace and speed figures especially) are much more reliable than trips. Yes, when you see a horse get a rough trip and race gamely, and bet the horse next time, and it wins, you feel like a real wiseguy. But of course the next 10 horses you bet off trips lose.

Same with pedigree handicapping. For most handicappers, pedigree analysis will do nothing to actually improve your bottom line. The problem with pedigree handicapping, say you bet a horse in its turf debut because it has a good turf pedigree and it wins. You feel great, boy are you smart. But most horses with strong turf pedigrees lose their turf debut and most don't even turn out to be good turf horses. Betting horses off what I called "unknown variables" is not a good approach. And I've hit a lot of longshot winners off these angles, such as well bred first time starters or horses making their turf debut. But, in the long run, it's fool's gold.

Speed and pace figures, when used properly by someone who knows how to interpret them, give you the greatest insight into a horse's ability and capability of winning against the horse's it is matched up against today. If you have a horse that matches up well and is a price, you have a good bet that will prove profitable over the long run. Nothing else is as reliable.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by pandy

I can't disagree or agree with you. If you need all that, and you show a profit, then I agree with you. But, not everyone does. You can show a profit betting without watching a single replay, without doing any breeding analysis, without analyzing people trends.

Many so-called handicapping factors have catch-22 consequences. I watch replays, but I would hesitate to say that watching replays adds to my bottom line. I find that the numbers (pace and speed figures especially) are much more reliable than trips. Yes, when you see a horse get a rough trip and race gamely, and bet the horse next time, and it wins, you feel like a real wiseguy. But of course the next 10 horses you bet off trips lose.

Same with pedigree handicapping. For most handicappers, pedigree analysis will do nothing to actually improve your bottom line. The problem with pedigree handicapping, say you bet a horse in its turf debut because it has a good turf pedigree and it wins. You feel great, boy are you smart. But most horses with strong turf pedigrees lose their turf debut and most don't even turn out to be good turf horses. Betting horses off what I called "unknown variables" is not a good approach. And I've hit a lot of longshot winners off these angles, such as well bred first time starters or horses making their turf debut. But, in the long run, it's fool's gold.

Speed and pace figures, when used properly by someone who knows how to interpret them, give you the greatest insight into a horse's ability and capability of winning against the horse's it is matched up against today. If you have a horse that matches up well and is a price, you have a good bet that will prove profitable over the long run. Nothing else is as reliable.

For me I know watching replays goes much deeper than just looking for 'trips' I'm really evaluating the talent of the horse, tendencies and overall sharpness. Video tells you a horse who stunk with a perfect trip, the PP line will look competitive in many cases but video tells a different tale.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

For me I know watching replays goes much deeper than just looking for 'trips' I'm really evaluating the talent of the horse, tendencies and overall sharpness. Video tells you a horse who stunk with a perfect trip, the PP line will look competitive in many cases but video tells a different tale.

I don't disagree. I certainly watch replays for NYRA because I handicap it everyday. But, replays are a lot more helpful with lightly race horses, especially first time starters. Once a horse has been around for a while, if you follow that circuit, you know the horse's tendencies and talent, which is well established. And I still think the "numbers" tell most of the story.

[raybo]

I can't ever remember letting a replay change what my "numbers" analysis and my own form determinations has told me. When I see a result that looks odd I will watch the replay, sometimes multiple times, to see what I can see. But, that replay analysis only tells me something about that race, not what horses will do whenever they run back. The past is the past, and today's race is today's race, a unique event that has never been run, exactly the same way, in the past. I rarely even remember what happened in a race a month ago and what my viewing a replay of it exposed or didn't expose.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by raybo

I can't ever remember letting a replay change what my "numbers" analysis and my own form determinations has told me. When I see a result that looks odd I will watch the replay, sometimes multiple times, to see what I can see. But, that replay analysis only tells me something about that race, not what horses will do whenever they run back. The past is the past, and today's race is today's race, a unique event that has never been run, exactly the same way, in the past. I rarely even remember what happened in a race a month ago and what my viewing a replay of it exposed or didn't expose.

Congrats on 10000 posts

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Congrats on 10000 posts

Hmmm - that many? I must find something else to do with my free time!

10k seems like way too many, for some unknown reason.

[Tom]

Congrats on 10001 posts

[raybo]

Thanks Tom!