What is REAL Handicapping and So what?

[Nitro]

I would’ve enjoyed getting involved in this conversation. However, because of the double standards around here and the fact that CJ has been censoring my posts by deleting anything which offers a contradictory opinion to the run of the mill handicapping approaches, it’s just not worth the effort.
(Talk about polarization! It’s no wonder that so many refuse to post their opinions on this forum).

PA I’m surprised at your stand regarding the “Truth” considering how the majority of players using the methods you’ve supported and are still losing. After all isn’t Ron’s entire theme based on “How do I take money out of this race?”
PA with regard to “hilariously sad”, you know the old saying “Read it and Weep”? Well, that I’m afraid that any comments I could have offered would probably have had that affect. LOL

As a side note of interest: In world of Physics, I’m sure Einstein could have handled the undisputed rebuttal of his Quantum theory (A so-called truth) considering that his long time associate, Erwin Schrodinger’s Quantum Entanglement theory has now been proven beyond a doubt to be true on so many levels.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I would’ve enjoyed getting involved in this conversation. However, because of the double standards around here and the fact that CJ has been censoring my posts by deleting anything which offers a contradictory opinion to the run of the mill handicapping approaches, it’s just not worth the effort.
(Talk about polarization! It’s no wonder that so many refuse to post their opinions on this forum).

PA I’m surprised at your stand regarding the “Truth” considering how the majority of players using the methods you’ve supported and are still losing. After all isn’t Ron’s entire theme based on “How do I take money out of this race?”
PA with regard to “hilariously sad”, you know the old saying “Read it and Weep”? Well, that I’m afraid that any comments I could have offered would probably have had that affect. LOL

As a side note of interest: In world of Physics, I’m sure Einstein could have handled the undisputed rebuttal of his Quantum theory (A so-called truth) considering that his long time associate, Erwin Schrodinger’s Quantum Entanglement theory has now been proven beyond a doubt to be true on so many levels.

As a side note of interest? To whom?

This is comedy gold, though, so thanks for that.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I would’ve enjoyed getting involved in this conversation. However, because of the double standards around here and the fact that CJ has been censoring my posts by deleting anything which offers a contradictory opinion to the run of the mill handicapping approaches, it’s just not worth the effort.
(Talk about polarization! It’s no wonder that so many refuse to post their opinions on this forum).

PA I’m surprised at your stand regarding the “Truth” considering how the majority of players using the methods you’ve supported and are still losing. After all isn’t Ron’s entire theme based on “How do I take money out of this race?”
PA with regard to “hilariously sad”, you know the old saying “Read it and Weep”? Well, that I’m afraid that any comments I could have offered would probably have had that affect. LOL

As a side note of interest: In world of Physics, I’m sure Einstein could have handled the undisputed rebuttal of his Quantum theory (A so-called truth) considering that his long time associate, Erwin Schrodinger’s Quantum Entanglement theory has now been proven beyond a doubt to be true on so many levels.

You see yourself as Erwin Schrodinger?

[mountainman]

Great thread. While I consider myself an old school "intuitive," or "comprehensive," handicapper in the ancient mold of Ainslie, my intensive use of formulator and personally undertaken track-profiling somewhat belie those labels.


I do avoid advanced tools on the show, choosing instead to either stress approaches available to weekend players, or to dole out local knowledge and brief tutorials, from an official's perspective, on how things really work behind the scenes. (If I offend some trainer or agent with that last part, then it's probably been a good show.)

In my personal wagers (Mahoning when Mountaineer is down), I actually incorporate more tools. Sometimes, though, in certain races, as smarter (and presumably higher-tech) money continues to creep into Austintown pools, I do get a sense I am potentially outgunned. So I abstain and wait for "automated" money to make a mistake, which BELIEVE me, it does.


As a side-note, while I focus more on things like race-flow, track bias, and trainer strengths on the show, I do liken hosting to teaching 6th grade math. The subject matter may not transcend long division, exponents, or common denominators, but shouldn't the instructor be versed far beyond those basics??


In other words, if you cant explain projection variants, velocity measures, or even energy distribution models, you probably shouldn't be doing on-air analysis.


Just my take and ,again, love the thread.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Great thread. While I consider myself an old school "intuitive," or "comprehensive," handicapper in the ancient mold of Ainslie, my intensive use of formulator and personally undertaken track-profiling somewhat belie those labels.


I do avoid advanced tools on the show, choosing instead to either stress approaches available to weekend players, or to dole out local knowledge and brief tutorials, from an official's perspective, on how things really work behind the scenes. (If I offend some trainer or agent with that last part, then it's probably been a good show.)

In my personal wagers (Mahoning when Mountaineer is down), I actually incorporate more tools. Sometimes, though, in certain races, as smarter (and presumably higher-tech) money continues to creep into Austintown pools, I do get a sense I am potentially outgunned. So I abstain and wait for "automated" money to make a mistake, which BELIEVE me, it does.


As a side-note, while I focus more on things like race-flow, track bias, and trainer strengths on the show, I do liken hosting to teaching 6th grade math. The subject matter may not transcend long division, exponents, or common denominators, but shouldn't the instructor be versed far beyond those basics??


In other words, if you cant explain projection variants, velocity measures, or even energy distribution models, you probably shouldn't be doing on-air analysis.


Just my take and ,again, love the thread.

That's a fact that makes the game still playable for the rest of us.

[Dave Schwartz]

So I abstain and wait for "automated" money to make a mistake, which BELIEVE me, it does.

How do you do that when the money does not show on the tote board before the gate opens?

Although I agree with your principle, for me that means predicting what the odds will be in time to exploit the mistakes.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

How do you do that when the money does not show on the tote board before the gate opens?

Although I agree with your principle, for me that means predicting what the odds will be in time to exploit the mistakes.

G0D knows I have certain weaknesses as a racing analyst, but any fair and objective observer would confirm my knack for predicting final odds as the real-time tote fluctuates. I am bold and accurate at this on air, and consider it a service to viewers far more valuable than any pontificating or talking head prattle.


Having immersed myself in racing at this level, and of this region, for a half century, I often know when, why, how much, and in what direction Mahoning's and Mountaineer's respective tote boards will move, as well as where they will wind up.

I should add that I am primarily a win bettor, a shameless dinosaur and grinder (occasional dd and exacta wagers aside), focused intently on the win pool. And I've done, maybe, 35 or 40 thousand races as a track odds-maker.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by mountainman

G0D knows I have certain weaknesses as a racing analyst, but any fair and objective observer would confirm my knack for predicting final odds as the real-time tote fluctuates. I am bold and accurate at this on air, and consider it a service to viewers far more valuable than any pontificating or talking head prattle.


Having immersed myself in racing at this level, and of this region, for a half century, I often know when, why, how much, and in what direction Mahoning's and Mountaineer's respective tote boards will move, as well as where they will wind up.

I should add that I am primarily a win bettor, a shameless dinosaur and grinder (occasional dd and exacta wagers aside), focused intently on the win pool. And I've done, maybe, 35 or 40 thousand races as a track odds-maker.

That's a great and believable answer.


And precisely what I do - except with rigid, number-based analysis.

And they are often wrong. Way wrong. Interestingly enough, when I have a horse at (say) 12/1 and he is 6/5, they beat the crap out of me in terms of win percentage but over the long haul they lose a ton.

Therefore, I am better off without them anyway.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by mountainman

G0D knows I have certain weaknesses as a racing analyst, but any fair and objective observer would confirm my knack for predicting final odds as the real-time tote fluctuates. I am bold and accurate at this on air, and consider it a service to viewers far more valuable than any pontificating or talking head prattle.


Having immersed myself in racing at this level, and of this region, for a half century, I often know when, why, how much, and in what direction Mahoning's and Mountaineer's respective tote boards will move, as well as where they will wind up.

You do a great job of speaking for the bettor.


Save the rare last-second betting coups, the odds are generally predictable within a conservative range. It can be circuit specific.

When the odds don't behave as expected (excluding obvious pool manipulation), then a can of worms is opened.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Nitro

(Talk about polarization! It’s no wonder that so many refuse to post their opinions on this forum).

Really? How many? Because by all accounts, PA is the most active racing forum on the planet.

But I guess I'm doing it all wrong.

And have been for 20 years.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by mountainman

G0D knows I have certain weaknesses as a racing analyst, but any fair and objective observer would confirm my knack for predicting final odds as the real-time tote fluctuates. I am bold and accurate at this on air, and consider it a service to viewers far more valuable than any pontificating or talking head prattle.


Having immersed myself in racing at this level, and of this region, for a half century, I often know when, why, how much, and in what direction Mahoning's and Mountaineer's respective tote boards will move, as well as where they will wind up.

I should add that I am primarily a win bettor, a shameless dinosaur and grinder (occasional dd and exacta wagers aside), focused intently on the win pool. And I've done, maybe, 35 or 40 thousand races as a track odds-maker.

How often do you Dutch in the win pool and what is your criteria for doing so...?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by mountainman

G0D knows I have certain weaknesses as a racing analyst, but any fair and objective observer would confirm my knack for predicting final odds as the real-time tote fluctuates. I am bold and accurate at this on air, and consider it a service to viewers far more valuable than any pontificating or talking head prattle.

with the Mountain on the exchange, people just need look at the exchange to see what the actual price is during betting. Exchange prices are extremely accurate during the betting and not subject to odds manipulation. If I see 3/5 on a horse 5 minutes to post on the tote and yet the exchange price is 3 (2-1). I know which way the odds are headed. Likewise a horse is 5-1 and the exchange price is 4 (3-1). I know the way the odds are headed.


I say if you added the exchange price to your arsenal you would be a monster.



Allan

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

That's a great and believable answer.


And precisely what I do - except with rigid, number-based analysis.

And they are often wrong. Way wrong. Interestingly enough, when I have a horse at (say) 12/1 and he is 6/5, they beat the crap out of me in terms of win percentage but over the long haul they lose a ton.

Therefore, I am better off without them anyway.

Dave, what percentage of late money arrives after the bell...I know that you can’t give me precise answer but it does raise some questions...

1. I guess that machines are doing what you are doing in projecting (predicting) which wagers will ultimately receive action...otherwise, the data they are basing the predictions on is very incomplete, in the sense that most of the large wagers haven’t come in yet.

2. Is there a human gatekeeper keeping an eye on races when the gate opens past post-time, like at Gulfstream, waiting to execute the machine calculations and wagers...or are most machine wagers put in, say 30seconds prior to stated post time for each race regardless of when they actually go off...

3. What is the impact of late scratches on the automated process...?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Dave, what percentage of late money arrives after the bell...I know that you can’t give me precise answer but it does raise some questions...

1. I guess that machines are doing what you are doing in projecting (predicting) which wagers will ultimately receive action...otherwise, the data they are basing the predictions on is very incomplete, in the sense that most of the large wagers haven’t come in yet.

2. Is there a human gatekeeper keeping an eye on races when the gate opens past post-time, like at Gulfstream, waiting to execute the machine calculations and wagers...or are most machine wagers put in, say 30seconds prior to stated post time for each race regardless of when they actually go off...

3. What is the impact of late scratches on the automated process...?

I do not have that answer. I did track after the first flash of zero mtp. That varied by track, of course, and some (like CT) were an absolute joke. But I would estimate that it ranges from something like 45% to almost 70%.


1. I guess that machines are doing...
If by "machines" you mean "computers," yes.


2. Is there a human gatekeeper...
I am assuming that you are asking "Is it completely automated?" In my limited interactions with whale-volume players, nobody uses truly automated betting.

Generally, the bets are fired about the time the 1st horse enters the gate. Turn around time for all the bets they wish to make is less than 2.5 seconds.

Even my own wagering times are only around 5 seconds.


3. What is the impact of late scratches...
Pretty much the same as you and I would face.

Is there enough delay to allow us to cancel? If so, they cancel faster.

Is there enough time to actually re-handicap? Recovery time would (logically) be seconds. Even I can recover and re-handicap on non-pace-sensitive scratches (i.e. not a front runner or presser) inside of 30 seconds.

And, if they back out of the gate and give me 2 minutes, I can likely re-handicap the entire race from scratch.

[classhandicapper]

It's hard for me to imagine a traditional handicapper outperforming someone with years of racing data using advanced mathematics, models, AI etc.. to handicap a broad range of races.

There are AI models these days that can look at a database of chess games and in less than a few days they are better than Kasparov and Carlsen...and it's not even close. If that kind of power is being applied to racing it's going to be tough to compete.

However, even with all the data, stats, and AI in the world, there's sometimes a subjective element to the interpretation, a pool too small for them, or a pool so large with dumb public money you can get an edge. That's probably where you want to focus. You have to go where they ain't.