It isn't the Big Numbers that make a System

[Capper Al]

The big numbers are the ones like speed, pace, and class. Many of the software apps either use one form or another of the same base figs. Most of these numbers average out to about the same over the long run by category. For instance, speed figs will vary from race to race but will average out around 26 plus percent(Haven't looked at the stats for awhile.) But the small numbers and Boolean flags like good race at the distance, days off the track(worked or raced), stretch gain etc.. are the numbers that might make the difference. Here a computer is king. For in an instance several dozen of these factors can be checked and a conclusion made before the big numbers are consulted. I have played only the big numbers and have some good streaks. But found for consistency, it's better to check the small numbers first.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

So post position, owner, trainer, jockey, distance, track, trip, race structure, intent, works, work spacing, weight, blinkers, lasix, track condition, public wagering, and overall "feel" have no input in your lazy computer?

[JJMartin]

It doesn't matter much what you do with past performance data, the long term results are always disappointing. You may have a consistent predictive strike rate but the average pay out is always not enough.

[Nitro]

Al if you (or anyone else) haven’t done so already, please do yourself a favor and read and perhaps re-read (in its entirety) what Pittsburg Phil discussed over 100 years ago! I'll let you and anyone else who might have an interest decide on what the concept of this little excerpt might mean.

Originally Posted by Pittsburg Phil

Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburg Phil -- by Edward Cole (1908)
In this frame of mind I go to the track. Once I enter the gate it is all business with me, and my program of one day does not change. I get the names of the jockeys and the positions of the horses at the post, if it is a race in which I believe there is a fair speculative opportunity. I know, of course, the kind of day it is, and the condition of the track. I next go up into the grand stand and watch the horses warming up. This is of the utmost importance, for although my mind may be centered on two, or possibly three horses, at the same time it is important that I watch the others for fear there may be an unexpected display of form in any of them. If I do not see any of the horses, I had in mind, warm up, I immediately go to the paddock, after having my agent bring me the betting quotations. Arriving there I devote my time and attention entirely to the contenders, as I have picked them, and to nothing else.

It is impossible to overestimate the value of this ability to tell the condition of a thoroughbred. It is the twin sister of handicapping and more important. In that respect the ordinary "form" handicapper is, so to say, handicapped. What may appear to be right on paper, very, very often is wrong in the paddock. This ability to tell whether a horse is at its best before a race is acquired only after years of the closest kind of study. The merest tyro can tell in a race whether a horse is doing its best, but when it comes to getting a knowledge of what he can be expected to do before a race from a blanketed animal walking about the paddock or standing in his stall, special knowledge is necessary. It is not a talent. A man is not born with it: he must acquire it by hard work and close observation. He must be able to decide whether a horse is in good condition or not, whether he appears to feel like running a race or otherwise.

[Tom]

What matters in not that you use "big numbers", but which numbers and how you use them. All you ever know for use they don't work because of the ones you choose and how you chose to use them.

Why is it everyone thinks they know everything about how everyone else handicaps when all they know for certain is how THEY have figured out how to fail? I am happy to understand my way of doing it and don't pretend I know how others do it. Is it an escape mechanism to somehow justify their inherent lack of ability in this game?

I've been playing since 1964 and am never afraid to learn something new. I know I do not do well in race watching, but I don't tell TLG he is full of crap because he does. I am not good at paddock inspect, but does make Maggie wrong?

I know enough to pay attention to what either one of them says, even when my "big numbers" disagree.

Oh, and you really do not need a "system" to make money in this game. But I don't fault those who use one. Just when they try to tell me I need one.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Tom

What matters in not that you use "big numbers", but which numbers and how you use them. All you ever know for use they don't work because of the ones you choose and how you chose to use them.

Why is it everyone thinks they know everything about how everyone else handicaps when all they know for certain is how THEY have figured out how to fail? I am happy to understand my way of doing it and don't pretend I know how others do it. Is it an escape mechanism to somehow justify their inherent lack of ability in this game?

I've been playing since 1964 and am never afraid to learn something new. I know I do not do well in race watching, but I don't tell TLG he is full of crap because he does. I am not good at paddock inspect, but does make Maggie wrong?

I know enough to pay attention to what either one of them says, even when my "big numbers" disagree.

Oh, and you really do not need a "system" to make money in this game. But I don't fault those who use one. Just when they try to tell me I need one.

Here, here. Well said Tom. I make fun of people that strictly use numbers, but its up to every individual to decide what works best for them. If one is not comfortable with what they are doing....its a recipe for disaster.

I'm great with math and numbers because my studies were based on Accounting, Statistics and Economics. But for me the gist of handicapping is the odds vs. what I think the hoses chances are. That's how I hit those big exacta's. The overlays don't have to win, they just gotta be there.

During Saratoga I'm at the paddock every day I'm there. I'm no Maggie, but I can tell the difference between every type of horse, sprinter, grass, distance
and I can see when a horse is not doing well.....which is huge. I can read a "trip" but the ones that constantly get bad ones usually have bad habits that put them in that position. So it only helps so much. The one thing I absolutely believe in is betting only when you see a clear advantage or opportunity. In other words I try to take the "comprehensive approach" and have milked people for knowledge in every one of these faucets over the years. IMO that's how one becomes an expert handicapper. Blinkers on, closed minds, "one shot" systems are not for me. I've spent years trying to master all the angles and look at them as "tools". If it were just numbers, everyone would be doing it. No one would ever lose...my "system" is knowledge, information, math and constantly not falling into the "crowd mentality". Its like a really good musician, pick that phreaking thing up and improvise a little once you know what you are doing. Once its fine tuned, there are no regrets even on the days you lose but I guarantee the wins will be more numerous.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

So post position, owner, trainer, jockey, distance, track, trip, race structure, intent, works, work spacing, weight, blinkers, lasix, track condition, public wagering, and overall "feel" have no input in your lazy computer?

Just the opposite. All those small numbers before the major numbers. I'm still handicapping. I probably should have called the small numbers minor numbers.

[fiznow]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Al if you (or anyone else) haven’t done so already, please do yourself a favor and read and perhaps re-read (in its entirety) what Pittsburg Phil discussed over 100 years ago! I'll let you and anyone else who might have an interest decide on what the concept of this little excerpt might mean.

He was a very wise man and his words are still valid.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by JJMartin

It doesn't matter much what you do with past performance data, the long term results are always disappointing. You may have a consistent predictive strike rate but the average pay out is always not enough.

Not so. It's mostly about wagering. Most systems pick the same top horses, but maybe not in the same order. How these are played is the key.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Al if you (or anyone else) haven’t done so already, please do yourself a favor and read and perhaps re-read (in its entirety) what Pittsburg Phil discussed over 100 years ago! I'll let you and anyone else who might have an interest decide on what the concept of this little excerpt might mean.

Generally, I do agree with this. But remember in Philly's day they might have known horse flesh better, but they didn't have the data and the exotics which allow us to work around a horse or two that's not in shape. Again, it's how you wager.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

What matters in not that you use "big numbers", but which numbers and how you use them. All you ever know for use they don't work because of the ones you choose and how you chose to use them.

Why is it everyone thinks they know everything about how everyone else handicaps when all they know for certain is how THEY have figured out how to fail? I am happy to understand my way of doing it and don't pretend I know how others do it. Is it an escape mechanism to somehow justify their inherent lack of ability in this game?

I've been playing since 1964 and am never afraid to learn something new. I know I do not do well in race watching, but I don't tell TLG he is full of crap because he does. I am not good at paddock inspect, but does make Maggie wrong?

I know enough to pay attention to what either one of them says, even when my "big numbers" disagree.

Oh, and you really do not need a "system" to make money in this game. But I don't fault those who use one. Just when they try to tell me I need one.

Agree. All I'm saying here is pay attention to those other minor numbers and flags before using the big (major) numbers. Not even telling anyone how to do it. It's just my experience that the minor numbers are rarely discussed as if they are not important.

[Tom]

My experience is not that the numbers pick the wrong horse, but that winners is just a head scratcher that no number is ever going to get.

I suspect those small numbers are measured in cc's or volts.
Info not readily available.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

My experience is not that the numbers pick the wrong horse, but that winners is just a head scratcher that no number is ever going to get.

I suspect those small numbers are measured in cc's or volts.
Info not readily available.

There's more randomness to the game than we would like to admit to ourselves.

[Capper Al]

I like Pittsburg Philly especially about being in the zone. But some things have changed over a hundred years. The problem is that everyone benefits from these changes and negates these advantages.

[pandy]

Any number that tries to help define a horse's ability, such as a speed figure, can be used to win if you are extremely selective and only play overlays. However, a combination of numbers that define ability are better than just one number. But it all comes back to value. If you have a set of numbers that define ability, and you list all the horses that appear to have an edge in ability, and only play the ones that are attractive odds, you're going to do a lot better than the average horseplayer.