Handicapping Method

[Dave Schwartz]

Seems we still have a problem. How will our system ever find overlays at anything except higher-priced horses?

I mean, even if Able is "excellent" all the way across...



... he isn't good enough for us to find him as an overlay at (say) 4/5.

But the solution is an easy one because we have total control of our handicapping system.



What I have done here is 2 changes.

1. I opened the 1-5 scale to go higher in 3 categories, so that a speed, pace, and class are now 1-8. Just imagine Winning Colors entered in an NW4 race after winning the Ky Derby. Such a horse might easily be an "8" - far above "excellent." Maybe even a "9."

2. I have tinkered with the weights for the factors. Who says that they even have to be 0-100?


The point is coming next.

[Dave Schwartz]

The point is that this very simple "grading system" now has been turned into a powerful "grading machine," that can determine value for any horse in any race.

Why would anyone want to limit themselves to looking at (say) just Charlie, or even just Able, when they can make an assessment of the entire field?


One horse does not value make. everything must be taken into context in order to be profitable.

So, Cincy, you are profitable with your approach. Again, I congratulate you. However, I contend that your way is not the best way for most horse players to do things in this modern age. IMHO, the competition is just too high.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: Questions next.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, how do you give a grade for pace in your fuzzy approach. Is it is as simple as ranking best early speed or some kind of Randy Giles type estimate of which horse has the best running style fit for the race?

How you determine the grading process for each factor, and for that matter, what the factors actually are in a given race, could fill an entire volume. Oh wait... I just built such a volume: Percentages & Probabilitites, 2012


For those interested, that spreadsheet (as well as the graphics) can be found at this link:
http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/FuzzyHcp/

A more direct answer to your question would be to say that probably one needs more columns, and better names would help. for example, names like "ES Edge," "Late Edge" and "Class Advantage" would make more sense. Also, to make a factor have less value, one simply lowers the weight. Lowering the weight to "0" completely ignores the factor.

If wanted to get really crazy, each factor could actually have its own spreadsheet. for example, the "Pace" factor might consider how the horse fit a particular model.

So, imagine a spreadsheet for each race, and you have free-form control over how you rate each factor. That is, each factor can be rated differently if you so choose. You can also say, "In this race I need to ignore one column and accentuate another."

BTW, the is basically how our software works internally.


Dave

[HUSKER55]

THANK YOU DAVE FOR THE INFO!

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Of course, this race worked out a little simplistic. Let's shift the ratings around to create a couple of stand-outs.

BTW, at the start of the handicapping, every horse begins as "average" and we then change the horses up or down to suit our handicapping:



Notice that not every category has to have an "excellent."

Also notice that if the field were really this average all the way through that there are 7 horses and "fair odds" are 6/1.




Now we have a more realistic looking race.

Let's take that top horse and make him a world beater:



Okay, so not to world-beater like if he has to be 3/1 to be even. Not a problem. We just need to exaggerate the weights a little.



What I have done here is added an intermediate column where each horse's score is raised to a power of "2.00." This "exaggerates" the differences between the horses.

more to come...

Dave, interesting!

How does one arrive at what the exaggeration factor should be? Does it require exhaustive testing including comparisons of different race types, classes, distances, surfaces, race shape/running style makeups, etc., etc.?

[Dave Schwartz]

Raybo,

Sure. Like all of it, there is a lot of tweaking necessary.

[Capper Al]

Didn't Cincy say that he decided first if the race was playable? Isn't this right out of Tom Ainslie's books? It's good advise if Cincy said it or not.

[Dave Schwartz]

Al, I totally disagree.

A races playability is dependent upon the relative values of the horses in the race AND the way the public perceives it at post time.

Maybe this is actually most of my point. You cannot determine the night before which races will provide value and certainly not which single horses are going to be value.

[HuggingTheRail]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Al, I totally disagree.

A races playability is dependent upon the relative values of the horses in the race AND the way the public perceives it at post time.

Maybe this is actually most of my point. You cannot determine the night before which races will provide value and certainly not which single horses are going to be value.

This, and sometimes playing more than one horse to win per race, are the two biggest changes I have made in the last 12-18 months - with some encouraging results

[raybo]

I think this race "playability" issue is totally dependent on each players' chosen handicapping method and his/her goals. For example, my superfecta play includes looking at the races, on the card, and selecting "playable" races from that. I only handicap the races I deem "playable".

If I were a win/exacta/quinella player I would still look at the races on a card and disqualify certain race types as being "unplayable" and therefore ignoring those races.

It's not a matter of whether my, or anyone's, method is correct or not, it's a matter of strengths and weaknesses in one's ability, and one's goals. Again, in my opinion.

[Dave Schwartz]

Raybo,

Remember that this started because I criticized Cincy for giving advice like his was the best way to play.

My problem is not with limiting the races one handicaps. Even I don't handicap every race.

My problem is with "falling in love" with a horse and that is the only horse you consider. That is, IMHO, bad advice.

It is so limiting as to take not only much of the profit from the game but also most of the fun.



Dave

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Raybo,

It is so limiting as to take not only much of the profit from the game but also most of the fun.Dave

This, of course, is your opinion, and not necessarily fact. How much profit one achieves does not necessarily depend on the number of wagers he/she places in a given period of time, or the prices he/she gets. It is a combination of hit rate, average price, and number of plays.

While it's probably true that most players would like to make a profit, and a large one at that, this is not true for many players. The fact is that, regardless, of the approach most players utilize, whether it's mine , or yours, or someone else's, or their own, they will not be profitable. So for most players the "profit" does not even enter the picture.

Likewise, for most players, the "fun" is determined by how many winners they hit, not whether or not they made "value" wagers. For most, getting a price is not their goal, getting the winner is. So, for most players, betting horses that, in one's opinion, is offered at a higher price than one's own determination of the horses' probabilities of winning, is secondary to a horses' probability of winning, regardless of it's price. So, for those players, finding a horse that he "falls in love with", because the horse looks like the probable winner, is of great importance.

"Teaching" or suggesting that a player employ a certain method may or may not "work" for that player, because the player's goal does not coincide with the one teaching or suggesting a particular method.

[windoor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Al, I totally disagree.

A races playability is dependent upon the relative values of the horses in the race AND the way the public perceives it at post time.

Maybe this is actually most of my point. You cannot determine the night before which races will provide value and certainly not which single horses are going to be value.

I commend you on your efforts, sound logic and principles.

If I were looking for a way to play every race, I would indeed like to have something like this, to rate every horse in the race. It only makes sense, and it could very well be the answer for me to have success in the exotics.

And you knew this was coming:

BUT: (In my humble opinion)The weights would need to be adjusted for each "TYPE" of race you are looking at, (the numbers have hinges) and be further adjusted for today's track conditions and competition.

Of all of the race lines available to you, which one do you use to get your numbers?

Averaging them, I do not believe is an option. Short odds await that selection.

There are numbers and there are patterns. I use patterns, as it has proven to work for me over time, and I can get on some very long odd horses with it. A 38 long losing streak (my longest to date) was wiped out with a 40 to 1 shot that won for me in the fall of 2009. I seriously doubt a grading system would have picked this horse.

At Pen last week, 1/28/12, R_3, H_6, I had this horse (red-boarding alert!) at $45.40.

Again, I seriously doubt any grading system could have picked this horse, but the pattern was correct and my UDM spit it out for me to play. A bottom maiden claimer, changing distance. A CDL horse. If I looked at the record before playing, I am not sure I could have pulled the trigger. It really was that bad.

In this context, value is nothing more than a horse you think has an edge in today's race.

If you have to play a lot of races to be "Satisfied" then a grading system would serve you well, I would think. Most "successful handicappers" (profit before rebate) that I have heard of, are very selective on which races they will play. If your goal was to create a lot of churn, and use rebates as the profit margin, then that would be something else.

I just think you were a bit harsh in your initial reply.

All in all, to each his own, and there are certainly more than one way to play successfully.


Regards,

Windoor.

[Dave Schwartz]

While it's probably true that most players would like to make a profit, and a large one at that, this is not true for many players. The fact is that, regardless, of the approach most players utilize, whether it's mine , or yours, or someone else's, or their own, they will not be profitable. So for most players the "profit" does not even enter the picture.

I absolutely agree that it is just my opinion and not fact. There are very few if any, true "facts" when it comes to handicapping approaches. I believe that I made it clear from the beginning that it was all "just my opinion."

I would say that if one subscribes to the belief from your quote above, it really doesn't matter how they handicap. Certainly the only thing that matters is that they have a good time.

One could certainly argue that "having a good time" is paramount to being involved in racing anyway.

I think we can give it a rest at this point - we certainly understand each other's view and seem to disagree.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Maybe this is actually most of my point. You cannot determine the night before which races will provide value and certainly not which single horses are going to be value.

Yes Dave...but we live in an "exotics" world...

Your detailed examples in this thread -- along with others' obsession with creating an odds line -- assumes that we are all grinding win-bettors...and most of us aren't!

I agree that we should not love these "single horses", when we are betting to win...but can't we love them when we are betting the super-exotics...and create value around them?

In a super-exotic like the pick-5 (or even the pick-4...or the superfecta) isn't the "key" horse that we "love" alot more valuable than the 10-1 shot that we believe should really be 6-1?

I submit that, in these super-exotics, the horseplayer can still prosper by "loving" these key horses...and creating value AROUND them. It doesn't really matter where the value comes from...as long as it is there!


PS...

In the event that you disagree with me...please don't call this the WORST way to play the super-exotics. At this stage of my life...rejection of this sort can devastate me...