HANDICAPPING IS RANDOM

[PIC6SIX]

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

[Some_One]

Well first the market is generally efficient, the 3-1 shots win more than the 30-1 shots, and the show ROI's on 3-1's horses are much higher then 30-1 horses so the 3-1's will finish in front of the 30-1's more often.

So it's not random.

Now as to profitability, well most handicappers use similar logic on similar information and handicap the long shots the same as favorites. So many think they have an edge, but are no better then randomness in the long run, it's all in their head.

[Track Collector]

I don't think picking winners (or rather achieving a positive ROI) is random, but the game has become increasingly more difficult with each passing year. The collective wisdom of the handicapping pool has become sharper, takeouts are very high to overcome before one can get to the black side of the ledger, and the uncertainty of drugs/cheating make for a very difficult challenge.

[thaskalos]

The appearance that winning is random is due to the fact that the game does not abide by the laws of "logic" to the extent that we would like it to. As horseplayers, our short-term results are determined largely by luck, and we need the internal fortitude to persevere until our skill level can override the substantial variance inherent in the game...which can only happen in the LONG-RUN.

The unfortunate thing is that most of us greatly overestimate our skill level as players...and we think that we are "well above average"...even though the evidence does not support this assertion.

[Dahoss2002]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The unfortunate thing is that most of us greatly overestimate our skill level as players...and we think that we are "well above average"...even though the evidence does not support this assertion.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

Why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries?

Methodology is the key to success, after the model is validated by positive results over a length of time with sufficient sample size. If you build a tournament model, and for every $2500 worth of entries as a starting point(small buy-ins of $10-$50) and you are collecting $3000 worth of returns, you have a +ROI of 20%. Does this mean you have to win 1 out of 5 tourneys to achieve this? Of course not, as finishing in the top 3 will get you to your goal.

What is a sufficient amount of time and sample size to know your results are not random? My records indicate an average of 80 tourneys a month and over the course of 3 years, for a total of about 2900 tourneys played. Droughts of 10 days each month are common for not cashing at all, but by the preponderance of the numbers, the end result is a +ROI.

Handicapping is only a process that leads to various methodologies, verified by records/data that shows continual progress to the goal of net profitability. Once your model is built and implemented, stay the course and don't deviate. BTW, most tourney sites such as Horsetourneys, Derby Wars and Racetrack Warriors only take a 10% vig........Beats the live takeout at whatever track you play by almost 50%! This post is only of my experiences, your results may vary.

[ultracapper]

You have to pick your spots, whether you want to hear it or not.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

You have to pick your spots, whether you want to hear it or not.

100% Agree.

[EMD4ME]

And....by sticking to 1 track, watching all races with a fine tooth comb, taking notes on ALL horses, know every day's biases, know the trainers, jockeys and owners.....You can reduce the variables to a minimum AND when you pick your spots, you will do much better.

I hate to say it but people who rely on a computer and look for a model to give them the most likely winner are way more likely to have randomness occur.

Regardless of your style of play, if your seasoned and can smell a rat, you know when randomness is about to occur.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random...

You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory...

It only stays just a theory unless you know how to apply them.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

And....by sticking to 1 track, watching all races with a fine tooth comb, taking notes on ALL horses, know every day's biases, know the trainers, jockeys and owners.....You can reduce the variables to a minimum AND when you pick your spots, you will do much better.

I hate to say it but people who rely on a computer and look for a model to give them the most likely winner are way more likely to have randomness occur.

Regardless of your style of play, if your seasoned and can smell a rat, you know when randomness is about to occur.

There's a rat in almost every race, some big, some small. The key is to not let the big rats take a large bite out of your ass...

[Fingal]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The appearance that winning is random is due to the fact that the game does not abide by the laws of "logic" to the extent that we would like it to. As horseplayers, our short-term results are determined largely by luck, and we need the internal fortitude to persevere until our skill level can override the substantial variance inherent in the game...which can only happen in the LONG-RUN.

The unfortunate thing is that most of us greatly overestimate our skill level as players...and we think that we are "well above average"...even though the evidence does not support this assertion.

And does one really want everything to follow the rules of "logic" ? Then everything would pay $4 or less, that would be a waste of time. To use the opening from the old Wide World Of Sports, it's the thrill of victory & the agony of defeat. It would be like every race being 6 furlongs; that would result in very predictable outcomes but it would also be very boring.

To quote Dick Mitchell-

"You don't want to play fair games, you always want to play in unfair games & you always want the advantage in an unfair games. And you always want the advantage in an unfair game. No advantage, no bet."

[ultracapper]

Logic does rear it's head in a horse race now and then however.

[Helles]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The appearance that winning is random is due to the fact that the game does not abide by the laws of "logic" to the extent that we would like it to. As horseplayers, our short-term results are determined largely by luck, and we need the internal fortitude to persevere until our skill level can override the substantial variance inherent in the game...which can only happen in the LONG-RUN.

Well-stated.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

I have come to the conclusion that picking winners is random. There are too many NW-2/3 LT, ST BREDS, MCs, MSW, Cheap Claimers and racing variables that work against the handicapper. You can read all the books on handicapping and know trainer angles, body language, pace and speed figures but all is just theory. If picking winners is an art and science that can be mastered then why did BEL have a pick-6 carryover of $321,000 C/O today, why don't the same cappers always win the daily online contests and why do they falter even when they play multiple entries, and why don't hcp software developers win consistently and YADDAYADDAYADDA???? Any takers for this thread and I don/t need to hear "You have to pick your spots".

Yes you must pick your "spots", (contrary to what you want to believe) because this game is about being risk-preferred and all "spots" are not equal.

Therefore the game becomes one of resources which are and not limited too having sufficient funding, hard work, discipline, patience, and serendipity.