Using Pace

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

All my pace figures are mine or BRIS'. I have way too many figs of my own for speed, class, pace, timeform, jockey and trainer. So much so that I have totally confused myself as to which ones to use and when.

So...., your own personal opinion is worthless against the "numbers"?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

So...., your own personal opinion is worthless against the "numbers"?

I'm going to assume your question was made from good intent. Personal opinions may not be worthless. There are number crunchers, form readers who build a picture in their mind of today's race(a.k.a. personal opinions), and there are some that do both. I wouldn't say any of them are worthless.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Cratos

There shouldn't be information "overload" because if you have that problem, you are just collecting data and not analyzing it.

Using someone else's processed data is very risky; especially if you don't know and understand their assumptions.

Good advice.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

So...., your own personal opinion is worthless against the "numbers"?

Personal opinions are good. They are even better when viewed as starkly as the numbers. Unfortunately, those who form personal opinions about "probable pace of today's race" tend to only remember the races in which their opinions were (at least roughly) correct, while totally ignoring the (many, many more) races in which their opinion was wrong.

The advantage of using one's own (computer-assisted) pace analysis is consistency. To achieve that consistency means tracking the failures (of pre-race pace analysis) as well as the successes.

[cj]

Originally Posted by traynor

Personal opinions are good. They are even better when viewed as starkly as the numbers. Unfortunately, those who form personal opinions about "probable pace of today's race" tend to only remember the races in which their opinions were (at least roughly) correct, while totally ignoring the (many, many more) races in which their opinion was wrong.

The advantage of using one's own (computer-assisted) pace analysis is consistency. To achieve that consistency means tracking the failures (of pre-race pace analysis) as well as the successes.

All that really matters is if the times you are right provide more winnings than the times you are wrong cost in losses.

So for example, if three times I say a horse has a clear early pace advantage and is worth a bet, but two don't even make the lead and lose badly but one wins at 8-1, I'm more than happy with my opinions.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by cj

All that really matters is if the times you are right provide more winnings than the times you are wrong cost in losses.

So for example, if three times I say a horse has a clear early pace advantage and is worth a bet, but two don't even make the lead and lose badly but one wins at 8-1, I'm more than happy with my opinions.

Exactly, I bet a lot of horses 15-30 to win and in exacta's and other exotic bets. I don't have to be right that often. If you find lone speed horses at big odds who you think can get the distance,you will hit enough of them to make a profit. On the other hand,if you can find a horse who closed against pace advantage horses and are in a race which you perceive as favoring closers you will get even better prices than you would with a speed horse because of bettors preferring to bet the speed.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by cj

All that really matters is if the times you are right provide more winnings than the times you are wrong cost in losses.

So for example, if three times I say a horse has a clear early pace advantage and is worth a bet, but two don't even make the lead and lose badly but one wins at 8-1, I'm more than happy with my opinions.

That is pretty much the same thing I said. "Personal opinions are good. They are even better when viewed as starkly as the numbers."

Personal opinions are bad when the successes are celebrated, and the failures forgotten. That can be costly.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by cj

All that really matters is if the times you are right provide more winnings than the times you are wrong cost in losses.

So for example, if three times I say a horse has a clear early pace advantage and is worth a bet, but two don't even make the lead and lose badly but one wins at 8-1, I'm more than happy with my opinions.

Like when we all rented a house. You paid for your's and Elsie's entire weekend with the one bet I saw you make--all weekend.

Going off at 31-1, he won for fun.

Don't take too many of these, Traynor. What else ya got?

[Grits]

Originally Posted by traynor

That is pretty much the same thing I said. "Personal opinions are good. They are even better when viewed as starkly as the numbers."

Personal opinions are bad when the successes are celebrated, and the failures forgotten. That can be costly.

You've elaborated a bit. This is good!

[Capper Al]

Re-watched Dave's 'Understanding Early Speed' and enjoyed it again. Got my focus now, I just had to think about this for a while. Soon I'll have my death star going. It will be like the one in Star Wars at first, not 100% operational. But it should be better than the quick pick system I've been using while doing the re-write.

[classhandicapper]

Pace is kind of like everything else in handicapping. The more extreme the situation the more likely you are to be correct, but the more likely the public will see it also and adjust the odds.

I think the proper application is somewhat dependent on your style.

If you are trying to assign an approximate odds line you are shooting for situations with greater accuracy and certainty as to what is going to happen. Then you can allow the odds to dictate your betting decisions.

If you trying to find angles and situations that are overlooked, you may be less concerned with accuracy in all cases as long as some of the more marginal, hidden, and uncertain ones light up the board often enough to offset your greater errors.

In my personal gambling I've used both approaches and still don't have much of an opinion as to which works better. I guess my thinking is kind of an intuitive blend of both. I often start with an angle I think may be somewhat hidden or misunderstood and then if the board screams at me I let the moths out.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Pace is kind of like everything else in handicapping. The more extreme the situation the more likely you are to be correct, but the more likely the public will see it also and adjust the odds.

I think the proper application is somewhat dependent on your style.

If you are trying to assign an approximate odds line you are shooting for situations with greater accuracy and certainty as to what is going to happen. Then you can allow the odds to dictate your betting decisions.

If you trying to find angles and situations that are overlooked, you may be less concerned with accuracy in all cases as long as some of the more marginal, hidden, and uncertain ones light up the board often enough to offset your greater errors.

In my personal gambling I've used both approaches and still don't have much of an opinion as to which works better. I guess my thinking is kind of an intuitive blend of both. I often start with an angle I think may be somewhat hidden or misunderstood and then if the board screams at me I let the moths out.

Which way is most fun? Then specialize in it!