The only one absolute truth toward profitability

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Can he be contained? I can't explain why, but I believe this ritual practice of cooling it for a while and just observing is necessary for the gambler.

Wise move.

Pavlov's dictum: "Observe and Observe"

[shouldacoulda]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Another one that applies to horse racing:

"Ninety percent of this game is half-mental."

This could apply as well.
"I never said half the things I said"

[HUSKER55]

here is an absolute truth. if the morning line, the track handicapper and you have the identical picks and the odds on the favorite are 3/2 at post you are on the wrong horse.

...and I even liked the way he moved in the parade and warmup...damnit!

[Show Me the Wire]

Some ground rules. Foremost, my postings are not meant to be a lecture and I am not promising any esoteric knowledge. Second the assumptions are all horses are sound and in fit condition. I hope to reignite the spark regarding what root or single factor is the most determinate.

What do you see when looking at the PPs, for a race? Do you see the potential of winning and of losing in the same horse? If not, why not? A race is arbitrary imposed measurements, measurements that either promote or demote potential.

A race is a set of imposed measurements, measuring the bio-mechanics and the physiology of the competing animals. which either promote the potential of winning and losing. A win or lose is function of artificially imposed measurements.

There are only four essential measuring tools in a race, the distance, the configuration of the distance, the competition and the surface. I use the term essential, because each of the above-mentioned imposed measuring tools, standing alone, can be the reason the horse won or lost.
Without the measurement of distance there would be no race. Distance forces the horse to expend its energy in a particular way to reach the goal of being in front at the ending point.

Shorter distances require the horse to use its energy quicker, than a longer distance. Also, shorter distances do not require as much stamina.
You could run the same group of horses over and over again at varying distances and get different results, due solely to distance changes. If you changed distances enough there is a very good chance every animal would win a few races at certain related distances. Taking it to extremes, distance could be manipulated so that every horse would win.
The configuration is very important as results will change, by adding one turn instead of a straight run, adding two turns or more to any distance.
Surface does affect a horses performance, i.e. the revolt against synthetic race surfaces.

Competition, by itself, will impact the race.
Summing it up these four factors are the root factors contained in every race, and each one standing alone can be the determinate factor causing the horse to use its potential to win or lose.
any thoughts?


p.s. I know I promised to post some analysis for SA. The weather resulting in multiple changes in the race cards, for me, has precluded any analysis for SA.

[Johnny V]

Another Yogism applicable to racing:
"You can observe a lot by watching".

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Some ground rules. Foremost, my postings are not meant to be a lecture and I am not promising any esoteric knowledge. Second the assumptions are all horses are sound and in fit condition. I hope to reignite the spark regarding what root or single factor is the most determinate.

What do you see when looking at the PPs, for a race? Do you see the potential of winning and of losing in the same horse? If not, why not? A race is arbitrary imposed measurements, measurements that either promote or demote potential.

A race is a set of imposed measurements, measuring the bio-mechanics and the physiology of the competing animals. which either promote the potential of winning and losing. A win or lose is function of artificially imposed measurements.

There are only four essential measuring tools in a race, the distance, the configuration of the distance, the competition and the surface. I use the term essential, because each of the above-mentioned imposed measuring tools, standing alone, can be the reason the horse won or lost.
Without the measurement of distance there would be no race. Distance forces the horse to expend its energy in a particular way to reach the goal of being in front at the ending point.

Shorter distances require the horse to use its energy quicker, than a longer distance. Also, shorter distances do not require as much stamina.
You could run the same group of horses over and over again at varying distances and get different results, due solely to distance changes. If you changed distances enough there is a very good chance every animal would win a few races at certain related distances. Taking it to extremes, distance could be manipulated so that every horse would win.
The configuration is very important as results will change, by adding one turn instead of a straight run, adding two turns or more to any distance.
Surface does affect a horses performance, i.e. the revolt against synthetic race surfaces.

Competition, by itself, will impact the race.
Summing it up these four factors are the root factors contained in every race, and each one standing alone can be the determinate factor causing the horse to use its potential to win or lose.
any thoughts?


p.s. I know I promised to post some analysis for SA. The weather resulting in multiple changes in the race cards, for me, has precluded any analysis for SA.

A good post, but some corrections are needed and I say this in a complimentary manner. I agree that the surface can and should be measured, but not for speed, but for “resistance to speed.”

When a racehorse is moving over a surface it cannot be determined by just the horse’s movement whether it speed is enhanced by the track’s surface or the horse’s innate ability.

The speed is an issue of resistance which is caused by the coefficient of friction between the horse’s hooves and the track’s surface.

Without that resistance (coefficient of friction); the right force behind the horse would allow it to run at a speed approaching the speed of light. Also there cannot be a negative resistance because the horse’s speed would take it into the future.

[Show Me the Wire]

Cratos,

Good post, I have no disagreement with your assertion. At the time, I was trying to express the idea some horses have a higher potential to win or lose if competing, on turf, on dirt(main track) or synthetics.

[Capper Al]

Since I posted this in another thread and got support from Dave, I'll post it here:

"The shared truth was emphasizing picking contenders over winners and holding out for natural odds (random odds) horses while betting against one of the low odds favorites. That combination is profitable and is an absolute truth."

I agree... it is an absolute truth. (Dave)
__________________
http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/

[Capper Al]

Here we go again!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Since I posted this in another thread and got support from Dave, I'll post it here:

"The shared truth was emphasizing picking contenders over winners and holding out for natural odds (random odds) horses while betting against one of the low odds favorites. That combination is profitable and is an absolute truth."

I agree... it is an absolute truth. (Dave)
__________________
http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/

If I understand you correctly, is this what you mean?

8 horse field, natural odds are 1/8, which translates to 12.5 percent. So the absolute truth is to bet the contender with odds of 7 to 1?

[Dave Schwartz]

SMTW,

The issue that was left out was that you need to be able to do is to toss out one of the low-priced horses.

The presupposition here is also that you have a track record which supports the fact that when YOU toss a low-odds horse he significantly under-performs (i.e. returns very little monies to his backers).

[Show Me the Wire]

Dave,

I understand about tossing out one low price horse, even better if you can toss two. I guess the question, I am asking, do you wager only on the horse with matching natural odds, what do you do with the other top choice who is a contender, or other contenders who have less than their natural odds?

The way, I understand the capper al's statement you bet just the natural odds horse. I may be wrong in my interpretation and that is why, I asked the question.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Some ground rules. Foremost, my postings are not meant to be a lecture and I am not promising any esoteric knowledge. Second the assumptions are all horses are sound and in fit condition. I hope to reignite the spark regarding what root or single factor is the most determinate.

What do you see when looking at the PPs, for a race? Do you see the potential of winning and of losing in the same horse? If not, why not? A race is arbitrary imposed measurements, measurements that either promote or demote potential.

A race is a set of imposed measurements, measuring the bio-mechanics and the physiology of the competing animals. which either promote the potential of winning and losing. A win or lose is function of artificially imposed measurements.

There are only four essential measuring tools in a race, the distance, the configuration of the distance, the competition and the surface. I use the term essential, because each of the above-mentioned imposed measuring tools, standing alone, can be the reason the horse won or lost.
Without the measurement of distance there would be no race. Distance forces the horse to expend its energy in a particular way to reach the goal of being in front at the ending point.

Shorter distances require the horse to use its energy quicker, than a longer distance. Also, shorter distances do not require as much stamina.
You could run the same group of horses over and over again at varying distances and get different results, due solely to distance changes. If you changed distances enough there is a very good chance every animal would win a few races at certain related distances. Taking it to extremes, distance could be manipulated so that every horse would win.
The configuration is very important as results will change, by adding one turn instead of a straight run, adding two turns or more to any distance.
Surface does affect a horses performance, i.e. the revolt against synthetic race surfaces.

Competition, by itself, will impact the race.
Summing it up these four factors are the root factors contained in every race, and each one standing alone can be the determinate factor causing the horse to use its potential to win or lose.
any thoughts?


p.s. I know I promised to post some analysis for SA. The weather resulting in multiple changes in the race cards, for me, has precluded any analysis for SA.

You say that there are four essential measuring tools in a race...and that each of these measuring tools can, individually, determine whether a horse wins or loses a race. Does this mean that you regard these "measuring tools" to be equal in value and importance...or do they vary in significance?

If a 10-horse field runs at 10 different configurations of the same distance...is there a very good possibility that we will have 10 different winners?

[magwell]

After further review.... Nobody knows "the one absolute truth to profitability"......

[raybo]

Originally Posted by magwell

After further review.... Nobody knows "the one absolute truth to profitability"......

Correct! But then, not everyone needs one to be profitable. We need a few "truths" that are true, for us, and the way we play.