How to play top 3 selections...

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by AutumnLotus

Hey Everyone,

I'm certain this topic has more than likely been brought up throughout the years however I was unable to come up with any threads via the search option I think probably more than likely due to not knowing how to word it properly or use proper keywords, so please accept my apologies up front if this has been a repetitive topic.

My question is based around an observation I have made many years ago and it is certainly an obvious one;

For example, I'm sure you've all noticed let's say looking at pic services such as Racingdudes or Equinedge as well as pics that are handicapped and displayed at each track from the tracks resident handicapper(s), there is always three selections. No that's not to say of course that the handicappers displaying those three will not give you any direction on which to play or rather how to play i.e., they Their first selection out of the three for the win or two say some combination of an exotic wager as well as when Etcetera we've got my point.

In my opinion and observation this is how it goes across the board, even when I do my own handicapping I almost always end up with three selections. It is even common practice here on the board when people place their opinions it is almost always 3 horses.

I guess my question is, how do you play your selections when you have three because we know it is certainly is not going to be a trifecta play. This is something that I have been struggling with personally as I have repeatedly saw that in most cases one of the three Selections that I come up with will have one of them come in for the win and if not certainly 1 if not two of them will be in the money. I guess I'm trying to figure out what is the best way to go about playing these selections. I'm aware of course that that is a very wide open question obviously based on how one values each of the three selections. But I'm asking it more so to have this one go about it if those three selections all seem viable for the win?

I wasn’t going to bother responding to this obviously and totally ambiguous question, but I thought I might throw my 2 cents in anyway.
I mention the vagueness of this undeveloped question only because no mention is made by the OP about several critical factors:
1) Are the 3 selections of interest based on an order of handicapped preference?
2) Are the 3 selections of interest based on a sequential order of odds value (such as from low to high)?
3) Do any one of these 3 selections ever produce a Winner? If so, how often in terms of hit frequency %?

In terms of recommended playability without going into any detail my question would be, how could anyone possibly offer any type of decent betting strategy without knowing these basic factors? Sure, you could play at random and hope for the best, but that’s a sure way of going broke.
`
I’m not sure if you’ve maintained any sort of long-term history as to how your (or anyone else’s) selections have performed, but as far as I’m concerned that’s the only way you’re going to be able to develop any type of profitable betting strategy.
If you believe that your selection (or anyone else’s) process merits looking into, then I would recommend doing what I suggested on another thread:
Post # 26 http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...=180906&page=2

This is only viable if you can produce an honest history of success and failure using whatever handicapping techniques you’ve developed. The results will provide you with a clear picture of when and how to best apply your selections in a successful betting strategy. The idea is to create a visual bias of optimum performance that you can rely on.

If you happen to know at any given time if your 3 selections correspond to the actual 3 top tote betting choices, you may want to also consider the following: The top choice wins approximately 33 to 35% of the time. Either of the top 2 choices wins on average 55 to 57% of the time and any one of the top 3 choices wins on average 63 to 65% of the time. A basic betting strategy can be developed for any one of these scenarios if you can avoid relying on just the “averages” by gaining an awareness of specifically when these parameters are met more frequently. Likewise, you can avoid specific races that demonstrate a low occurrence win frequency.
.
.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

It's a weird phenomena imo but seen consistently enough that it's worth pondering. The thing of it is, the more predictive the model the worse third rank does, so much so that third becomes an increasingly negative trait. It's kind of like when you think of what Quirin did with one of his spot play 'systems' i.e. ranked one two in speed figures and then ranked one two in earnings figures, so the value is in being ranked top two in some model, maybe an entirely different type of model altogether, pace, physicality, connections, whatever, but just from a high level it seems as if something better than third is usually where the value seems to be concentrated. I see what you're getting at with regard to price, I mean such and such is ranked third on class and is 50-1, probably at least some value mixed in there even if third isn't really all that 'positive' in general, it's still probably good enough to win 5% of the time at that number and underneath in exotics might be worth looking at.

My guess is that if the any selection method has some value it will typically be concentrated at the top.

All the data we are working with (speed figures, pace figures, class ratings etc...) is flawed to some degree. Looking at 2 horses is better than 1 because if it's close, the 2nd ranked horse may actually be the better horse fairly often. But by the time you get to the 3rd ranked horse the figures are rarely flawed by that much.

However, if for example you use top 2 in speed and top 2 in class, the class ratings will tend to capture the speed figure errors and vice versa. So by combining factors you get more accuracy.

I know from my own database that when I combine my class/form rating with Beyer figures the combined figure outperforms either rating alone. I've been testing that for close to 10 years now. So it's not theory or trial and error. It's fact.

To me the most impressive thing about that is that the class/form rating is computer generated and not nearly as accurate as I could do with a more subjective analysis of field strength. So combining a speed figure with that subjective class analysis would crush just speed figures alone if done well.

What I haven't tested is just top 2 vs. top 3.

[P.Rosa]

Originally Posted by AutumnLotus

Thank you very much for taking the time to write out such a detailed response, truly I appreciate it and your suggestions will not go unnoticed.

Although I do want to say this, your suggestion of essentially assigning a percentage of probability between the three selections, essentially ranking them is a fine suggestion however one of the troubles that I have is doing exactly that; for the most part when I handicap a race and settle upon my three selections I honestly for the life of me cannot discern, or rather, I cannot see them as anything other than all three having the same chance of winning. I know that may come off as a bit odd or silly to say, but for the most part every time I attempt to assign a percentage of probability to separate them into rank and order I end up getting much too analytical, to the point where my line of confidence begins to muddy my decision making.
The problem I have is that I'll look at for example the first horse out of the 3 and I'll say something like this horse has the best speed figure by far, then I'll look at the second horse out of the three and I'll say something like but this worse has the best speed at distance today as well as the highest prime power number, then I'll look at the third horse and it'll be something like this horse today is being ridden by a high percentage winning jockey with a positive jockey and trainer combo.

I'm just throwing out super quick examples I'm sure you understand that I'm simply trying to say that I completely agree with your suggestion but I literally have a very hard time making solid decisions and assigning one has more value between the three in order to rank them appropriately.

Another very important point that I also want to make here is that At the end of the day I will always go back and look At the horses that have won and then I will look Over its past performance as well as my data to see if there is anything that stands out that I should have caught or that I know to look for next time and what I discover is that between the three selections the ones that I would think should have came in doesn't and the horse that did come in has Nothing of value that would suggest this horse over the other. I hope I am making sense. What I'm saying is when I go back and analyze what it is that made one horse out of my three come in for the win over the other two it seems to me that I would never have chose that horse to be the winner or to be the better of the other two.

What you're looking for is a way rank your selections no matter how you arrive at your picks,
IE: Darts, Ouija Board, Selection Service or Handicapping.

You have gotten lots of helpful information in this thread, but let me try to Keep it simple.
Ist of all, if you don't have a record of your picks with results there is nothing anyone here can help you with.

If you have a record of selections that you used the same process for, take a random sample of 100 races and add up all of the winners like if you bet $2 on each.
You would have bet $600.

If you have a profit or come close to breaking even (lose less than 15%), do it again with another sample.
If you get good results the second time, then you may be able to rank you picks in order of profit/loss.

From my experience with the order I put my picks,
my 1st pick is long term break even, my 2nd pick is a winner and my 3rd pick needs work.
I use different strategies to arrive at each pick. I need my 3rd pick to come in the money more often because I like betting exotics.

Here's what to try once you find a selection process that gives you satisfactory results for your three picks.

Put your picks in order of,
Odds, ML or Post Time
Days off, Most to Least and Vice Versa "you will eliminate lots of horses from your contenders doing this"
Money Earned
Number of Races
Last Race Finish
Whatever other order that you can think off.

If nothing works then maybe an Episode of Vertigo will solve your problem.

[AutumnLotus]

Originally Posted by MJC922

It's certainly good to review what came in each day that you handicap and try to discern what you may have done better. Really though you want to eventually reach a point where you actually know what you did was the right thing even when it loses. Otherwise you're going to be one of those people who has pretty much a new tweaked system/method with every new card that comes along based upon what 'worked' in those 8 or 9 races they ran yesterday. Everyone really should study the predictive value of the inputs that they use, so if you use prime power, know how often it wins, if you use Beyer speed figures have a very good idea of how often they hold up on all surfaces. Know how often these types of races are won wire to wire. Know when the rail is not a good post position for this type of horse etc. How often is this type of trip a winning one? We can go on and on but if you're going to be any good at separating horses these things need to be 'known' to you even if they're typically little details, little things are sometimes decisive and will go right under the radar both before and after the races.

VERY WELL SAID!

There is a ton of wisdom and avenues to traverse in your post, which I could spend hours meticulously responding to.

I'll say this though; I agree first off wholeheartedly with everything you said and I believe the things that you mentioned are the hallmarks of an avid handicapper one with many years of experimental Experience that is only acquired by years of one's own self exploration into this sport/ the art or mant signs if you prefer of handicapping. And it is folks like myself I believe that recognize by and large through experience the particular set of qualities and or skills in another player Such as yourself that is also a hallmark to be recognized as someone who has been through the struggles and breakthroughs of learning and crafting and honing our skills to the best of our ability this game and sport. Though I have been away completely for the greater part of a decade the immersion of it all within this recent year or less proved to me that knowledge I have learned in my initiation long ago and my journey into this world is similar to muscle memory that's it has come back to me. To say of course that I have not already learned a tremendous amount and I confidently say so in all the years prior combined I understand so much more of it now that I am older calmer and wiser. I'll use the example again like muscle the muscle you have when you were in your 20s was indeed muscle but the muscle now as a man it's so much more mature and thus my foray back into the world of horse racing Has been extremely enjoyable.

Going back to your reply I think a very important and wise comment you made should be a very stark warning to both amateurs and experts alike, a reminder, in reference to your comment, it is far too easy to fold in to the category of puzzle solver aka method tweaker. You are so right, Too often the pitfall of running back to the drawing board just because what worked yesterday for three races didn't work today at all. It is for sure a dangerous pitfall And possibility in this game therefore I am in complete ingredients with you to breaking down many races and really getting into the mechanics of what worked and why.