Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-13-2017, 11:20 AM   #1
Aerocraft67
Enthusiast
 
Aerocraft67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 267
Analyzing my SAR results

I've been a horseplayer about as long as I've been on this board. One consistent piece of advice is to keep records. I've played Saratoga pretty aggressively this meet, and broke down my 300 wagers over 18 race days thus far, several of which are small part wheels counted as one wager.

Total credits are 3% lower than total debits. I topped out at 154% ROI before falling to -29%, mostly on the weak cards last Thursday and Fridayóbet size went up and hit rate went down. Curious what you think of the results breakdown.

By race type, I was profitable in higher quality races: allowance (34%), optional claim (22%), and stakes (19%). Stakes account for a third of my handle. I fared poorly with maidens, especially claimers. This is kind of intuitive, although I felt more confident about MCL than my results show. Also aligns with my recent slide on those poor cards.

The most surprising result is that I have a 23% return with fillies & mares, but -24% on males. I didn't expect a substantial difference by sex. Is there a logical explanation, or just a consequence of small sample size?

By age, I was profitable with all 3 year olds at 39% and F&M 3+ at 59%. Maybe 3 year olds hit a sweet spot of limited but not scant information to project forward for improvement.

Another curious result is 63% return on the inner turf, but -37% on the firm main turf track (although I got a small profit on the brief run of "good" main turf bringing the total to -31%). I nearly broke even on a fast main track. In the mud, I went broke with dirt runners but only lost half my money on off-the-turf runners.

Distance is tough to assess. I'm 21% on routes, but mostly from the inner turf, which doesn't host sprints. I also scored 34% on the 9f dirt routes. I tanked at 8.5f, on both turf courses, -58%. Probably just an anomaly?

For dirt sprints, I did O.K. short at 5.5f and 6f, but poorly longer at 6.5f and 7f. I bet a lot of 5.5f main turf races, losing at a 20% clip. Oddly, I did well with claiming sprints on the main turf, as well as MSW dirt sprints and the cursed 8.5f on main turf, categories in which I otherwise fared poorly.

I mainly wager win, place, and exacta, with the rare trifecta. A classic would be 2x win (occasionally dutching two runners), 4x place, and a few 1x exactas. My exactas almost always include runners with complementary styles. I'll play savers with or without favorites, swings against the favorite, and chalk enhancers when I have opinions underneath. I limit the spread to six combos, usually less, and equalize the probable payouts. But those exactas are killing me at -36%. My place wagers prevail with 27% ROI, and win eked out 2%. I must be catching prices to place that aren't running with their exacta companions on top. The win dutches may be deflating the ROI vs. place.

My place and exacta handle is about the same, about a third more on win. I'm emphasizing win/place because I'm getting an ADW promotion that gives rebates equivalent to 10% takeout, so my net is a bit higher. That's good, because my inclination is to play exactas and trifectas, which apparently I don't do well at. Not sure I'd do better if I focused more on exotics rather than using them to enhance win/place. The latter seems the "correct" approach.

Just wanted to see if anyone had any insight about my results, especially how I might interpret my success with fillies and mares, the inner turf, place bets, and my failures with the main turf, long sprints (vs. short) on the dirt, and exactas. Or is it all just too small a sample to be meaningful? Also let me know if there's anything in particular I should cross tabulate.

Sorry for the long post, hard to make it short.
Aerocraft67 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 02:33 PM   #2
PressThePace
Registered User
 
PressThePace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 312
I guess my first question would be, is this Saratoga meet representative of past results as well? I know the phrase "sample size" dominates most conversations on this board, but I don't think much can be gleaned over data from one meet...just my two cents.
PressThePace is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 03:08 PM   #3
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 2,796
You might try adding a data point designed to capture why you made each bet in the first place.

I use a series of letter codes for this.

But a number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) would work as well.

I've found I need (at a minimum) several hundred tickets sitting in a database.

But once I have that -- I've found that (for me) analyzing the data in terms of why bets were made does a better job of pointing out strengths and weaknesses in my game than does other data points such as surface, dist, class level, etc.

I've given considerable thought as to why this is so.

In my own case the codes I use are data points that describe something subjective -- something unique to me as a player.

This falls into the category of thick data.

Which dovetails with the discussion that took place a while back in this thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=139762




-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 03:11 PM   #4
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,356
Good discussion!!

I cant add as I have taken off considerable time and dont have enough bets to make any analysis at Saratoga.

For me though its clear I am doing much better with dirt sprints.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 03:20 PM   #5
PressThePace
Registered User
 
PressThePace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 312
Jeff makes a great point. We all have certain preferences under specific circumstances. The data that you shared is absolutely necessary, but it means very little unless you can identify the conditions or circumstances that led to your decisions. I've played this game for nearly 40 years now, and I wish that I could tell you that it is possible to eliminate the qualitative components of this game. I was a consistent loser for years, until I started consciously taking note of my degree of emotional intelligence, or lack thereof.
PressThePace is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 07:03 PM   #6
PressThePace
Registered User
 
PressThePace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by PressThePace View Post
Jeff makes a great point. We all have certain preferences under specific circumstances. The data that you shared is absolutely necessary, but it means very little unless you can identify the conditions or circumstances that led to your decisions. I've played this game for nearly 40 years now, and I wish that I could tell you that it is possible to eliminate the qualitative components of this game. I was a consistent loser for years, until I started consciously taking note of my degree of emotional intelligence, or lack thereof.
Been thinking about my comments regarding the use of qualitative data. I want to be perfectly clear that it's not possible for ME to only use quantitative info when wagering. I know for a fact that some on this board use only numerical data to beat the game...it's just not for me.
PressThePace is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 07:30 PM   #7
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,482
When I work with players, we always begin by asking these questions (in this order):

1. How did your contenders do vs. your non-contenders?
In other words, are the horses you call non-contenders losing big money?

If not, then your contender selection needs work.


2. Are the non-contenders you select that ultimately go off at 3/1 and below losing big money? (target should be $net of $1.20 or below.)

If not, then you do not know the difference between a good favorite and a bad one. That means your assessment of low odds contenders needs work.


3. Are the contenders you bet returning significantly more money than the ones you don't bet?

If not, then your value assessment of the horses themselves needs work.


4. Are the races where you bet a lot returning more money than the races where you bet a little?

If not, then your race selection/race valuation method needs work.


IMHO, this is how you analyze your results.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 08:51 PM   #8
Aerocraft67
Enthusiast
 
Aerocraft67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 267
This advice makes sense, thank you. I've already alluded to different reasons I wager, so I think I can implement that fairly painlessly. Mr. Schwartz's questions take a bit more work to answer, but shouldn't be too arduous to chronicle the contender choices and results.

Seems a bit cheap in hindsight trying to make hay out of the data I had, never mind that it took considerable effort to tally. I was anticipating answers more like "well, the unique thing about the inner turf at Saratoga is X, and your handicapping must be picking up on that."

Good stuff here, though. Thanks again.
Aerocraft67 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2017, 11:40 PM   #9
highnote
Registered User
 
highnote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,680
It would be useful to look at the ROI on various types of bets.

When I first started out I made money on place, show, and exacta boxes.

I did not do well on win bets, straight exactas, keyed exactas, or trifectas.

I started boxing all my exacta wagers and my ROI went up. I was a good at picking contenders and the feedback helped me improve my betting style.
__________________
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one. -- Voltaire
highnote is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2017, 09:33 AM   #10
formula_2002
what an easy game.
 
formula_2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,692
Here is one of two methods Iím using to analyze my data.
My play requires a factor >=0.30. That factor is determine using a fixed formula
The play also requires but one such play per race.
Currently I have reviewed 451 races.
182 of those races contains a factor of 0.30.
77 of those races contain but one horse whose factor is >=0.30.
See the attachment for the $1 returns for the win and place bet for each of the indicated segments.
Note, most plays are often the favorite. The odds ranges are rather small.
If the play continues for be profitable after 500 races, I'll present a statistical analysis commonly use by Dr Burton P. Fabricand PH.D.

Attached Images
File Type: png factor ge30 08-13-2017.PNG (81.7 KB, 25 views)
__________________
A lot easier to get lucky when house takes 1.41% from the payout rather than 15% to 25%"

www.exactamatrix.com
formula_2002 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-15-2017, 09:47 AM   #11
formula_2002
what an easy game.
 
formula_2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,692
THIS CHART INDICATES THE HIGHER THE FACTOR THE GREATER THE WIN BET RETURN, WHILE THE LOWER THE FACTOR, THE GREATER THE PLACE BET RETURN

Attached Images
File Type: png factor ge30 08-14-2017 FACTOR H TO LOW sorted.PNG (102.4 KB, 8 views)
__________________
A lot easier to get lucky when house takes 1.41% from the payout rather than 15% to 25%"

www.exactamatrix.com
formula_2002 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-15-2017, 10:07 AM   #12
formula_2002
what an easy game.
 
formula_2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,692
THIS CHART INDICATES MUCH BETTER $1 RETURNS WHEN THE FACTOR SIZE FALLS WITHIN THE RANGE >=.30 AND <=.45
__________________
A lot easier to get lucky when house takes 1.41% from the payout rather than 15% to 25%"

www.exactamatrix.com
formula_2002 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-15-2017, 10:15 AM   #13
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula_2002 View Post
THIS CHART INDICATES MUCH BETTER $1 RETURNS WHEN THE FACTOR SIZE FALLS WITHIN THE RANGE >=.30 AND <=.45
What does ".30" mean, please?

0.30 what?
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-15-2017, 11:13 AM   #14
formula_2002
what an easy game.
 
formula_2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz View Post
What does ".30" mean, please?

0.30 what?
It represent a factor which is derived from my formula based on the live 1 minuet to 2 minute tote board data.
__________________
A lot easier to get lucky when house takes 1.41% from the payout rather than 15% to 25%"

www.exactamatrix.com
formula_2002 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-15-2017, 06:01 PM   #15
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 13,482
Have I missed an explanation of this factor?
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Would you support a Go Fund Me Campaign to fight the Keeneland Takeout Hike?
Yes, Absolutely I would contribute my $$$$$$$ - 13.85%
9 Votes
No - 86.15%
56 Votes
Total Votes: 65
Non-members may not vote on this poll.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2017 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.