why record keeping is a farce

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't think that's a "problem"; I think that's reality...

indeed it is.

[thaskalos]

Proper record-keeping also offers another useful advantage...which doesn't usually get mentioned.

Many players sustain the mistaken belief that their "method" is solid...but they lack the necessary discipline to follow it to the letter. They think that they win when they "follow their method"...and that they lose only when they deviate from their pre-established plans.

Keeping detailed records dispels silly notions like that.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

Both need to be recorded. Otherwise you would never know if the method's winning expectation and winning percentage were aligned.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

Why do you assume it isn't?

[classhandicapper]

I learned a few things keeping meticulous records years ago, but to be honest I don't do nearly as good a job as I used to. I don't even review them much anymore other than the profit/loss for the year. I think I'm at the point where I just sort of know what I am good at and what I'm bad at. So I focus on the former and avoid the latter all while continuing to learn. If I add something new to my game I create a separate spreadsheet for it. For example, this year I am betting on mule racing. Those results are not combined with my horse results. They are in a separate spreadsheet. I don't bet on 2yo maiden races with lots of first time starters, but I am learning some things about those races. If I ever start playing them it will be lightly and I'll put it in a separate spreadsheet.

[raybo]

People who don't keep consistent, adequate records of their betting have no idea where their strengths and weaknesses lie. People who say record keeping is not necessary, or even "a farce", either can't handle the truth, or are just too lazy to do it correctly.

If your method requires subjective decision making then that subjective data, of course, must be included in the record keeping. If your method doesn't require subjective decision making, there are still many things that need to be included in your record keeping. So, either way it means some extra "work" must be done, unless your detailed record keeping is automated of course, and many people just don't want to be bothered with that extra work.

It's always a good idea to look in the mirror, often. You might just see what your real problem is.

[Capper Al]

That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses. For example, let's say I think my method works well with claimers. There are too many confounded variables for me to accurately say that it worked or didn't. Now on the other hand if my INPUTTED data was BRIS speed figures, I could more accurately measure that. Our methods are a mixture like a soup. A soup that we cannot taste. If our soup is selling or not, we have no way to confirm why. Blindly adding salt or pepper or anything else is just foolish. Let alone making statistics on it.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses. For example, let's say I think my method works well with claimers. There are too many confounded variables for me to accurately say that it worked or didn't. Now on the other hand if my INPUTTED data was BRIS speed figures, I could more accurately measure that. Our methods are a mixture like a soup. A soup that we cannot taste. If our soup is selling or not, we have no way to confirm why. Blindly adding salt or pepper or anything else is just foolish. Let alone making statistics on it.

My opinion is you have been given some pretty solid advice in this thread (and others) and I kinda get the feeling you are ignoring it.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

My opinion is you have been given some pretty solid advice in this thread (and others) and I kinda get the feeling you are ignoring it.

Devil with the blue silks on. Are all you yeah sayers rich since you were able to apply the logic of corrective action? If this advise works then all that anyone must do is adjust their ways to fit their profitable outcomes. If not, I'm right.

[Tom]

No, you are only right about you.
You have no clue what records other people keep or how they use them.
Rich?

If that is your criteria, you are in the wrong game.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses.

Nobody here said anything about "short period of time" did they? No they didn't. The fact is, if you don't keep track of "all" your racing related expenditures and "all" your racing related income, you don't even know if you're profitable long term. And that's just the money part. You also wouldn't know which tracks you should play or avoid, which bet types to play or avoid, etc., etc., etc..

The more you post, the more you damage your claim of winning over the last few years. Without good records you have no idea whether you're winning or losing, much less any of the other stuff that good record keeping can shed light on.

[airsick]

I completely agree. Who cares if every horse you selected this week is fading at the 16th? or if your wager wasn't appropriate for the odds being offered. Oh wait... that stuff doesn't show when trying to sort through your twinspires account does it?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

Nobody here said anything about "short period of time" did they? No they didn't. The fact is, if you don't keep track of "all" your racing related expenditures and "all" your racing related income, you don't even know if you're profitable long term. And that's just the money part. You also wouldn't know which tracks you should play or avoid, which bet types to play or avoid, etc., etc., etc..

The more you post, the more you damage your claim of winning over the last few years. Without good records you have no idea whether you're winning or losing, much less any of the other stuff that good record keeping can shed light on.

Raybo,

I should have approached this topic a little differently. Yes, I keep records. What I'm trying to assert is that for handicapping, not wagering, one must look at the value of the data given upfront- not after it has been formulated by our own processes. By the way, moving up from a mini roller to a low roller hasn't been good. This might be my first year in six years that I've lost money. It's a learning process every bit of the way.

[Dave Schwartz]

My focus is on improving one's handicapping.

That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses.

Al,

If I were coaching someone who felt this way, I would say that they needed a complete makeover.

How do you know what will improve your handicapping without keeping records?


Anthony Robbins says that the secret to being good at anything is asking good questions.

Perhaps a better way is to ask a meaningful question: "What's wrong with your handicapping now?"

Looking just at the total result of betting records, about the best answer that you can come up with is, "It isn't working."

Instead, how about questions like these:

"How well do my combined contenders do when compared to the horses I make non-contenders?"

If my non-contenders are not losing big money then I am simply not very good at contender selection.

It would be helpful if my contenders would produce a combined $net in at least the low $1.80s.


"When I compare my contenders to my non-contenders at low odds, do my contenders outperform?"

If my low-odds non-contenders are not performing poorly (i.e. losing 30% or more of each wagered dollar) then I cannot have confidence in the low-odds horses I toss.

Conversely, if those low-odds non-contenders ARE losing 40% or more, then I could simply concentrate on the races where I have a low-odds toss. I could probably throw darts and almost break even in those races because the pool is being supplemented by those stupid players wagering on my throw outs.


"Are the contenders I actually bet returning significantly more money than the contenders I do not bet?"

If not, then I would be better off flipping a coin to decide who I ahould bet among my contenders.


My point is that if you are armed with knowledge like this then you at least know where to start to "improve your handicapping."

[Capper Al]

Time to go back to the soup analogy. (Please don't forget that I have kept records and always refer to my Twinspires for actual wagering information.)

Here's why those of us who keep records aren't rich. The process is similar to making soup from your old grandmother's recipe. You can make the soup but you can't taste is an analogy to making a formula or handicapping method and really not knowing why or why not it's working.

You are given a hot corner in New York city to sell your soup. Sometimes sales are up and sometimes sales are down. You wonder if something is wrong on the off weeks. Maybe my meat is off or maybe the salt varies and is not an exact science but really needs tasting, but like handicapping you'll never really know why you won or lost, so it is you can't taste your soup to know. When sales are off you wonder maybe it's the salt? Do I need more salt or less salt? You really don't know because you can't taste your soup. You can experiment with an endless amount of ingredients and adjustments but you really don't know. That's the farce that one really doesn't know.