Using two handicapping methods

[andicap]

Has anyone tried using two different handicapping methods as a form of verification? For example, a program like EquineEdge, HTR or HSH with say, Timeform US figures as verification.

Wondering if this might weed out some losers?
Or would it prove counterproductive?

[lefty359]

I know people who do, I've tried but for me it just leads to confusion and
getting caught in the switches...

[Harmonicaslim]

Lefty spoke for me. I don't need any help with confusion.

[headhawg]

I like this idea a lot and I think it has merit. I'm more of an eclectic handicapper anyway so looking at more than one approach seems to fit my style. I think the best way to implement it is to find a couple of methods that complement the strengths of each. And most important -- the player has to believe in each approach. Having confidence and comfort in the methods being used cannot be understated.

There is a chance of paralysis by analysis but the methods used don't need to be complex, just complementary.

[Dave Schwartz]

Use one of something and it works however it works.

Look for two somethings to line up, and your prices go down.

Look for THREE somethings to line up, and you're on 4/5 most races.

Consider the reverse.
Build a consensus of somethings.
Toss anybody with a "1" and concentrate on horses that have at best, "2-2." (No better.)

Not saying this wins, but saying you add your handicapping to this.

[Poindexter]

What I would suggest is that rather than look for a second method of verification, use the daily double will pays as that second method. Say our go to method/handicapping comes up 6-8-1-5 for race 2. Then when using the daily double will pays as a predictor the race comes up 6-5-9-8. That is giving us a lot of information. The six is obviously a solid top choice. But why is the 8 only 4th choice by the public? Why is the 1 not even in the public's top 4. What qualities does the 9 have that makes the public fancy him so much. If you use the doubles going into this coming race as the predictor, that gives you a lot of time to really go through these questions and make an intelligent analysis to where you may have gone wrong in your capping, where you may be right in your capping and figure out who you want to go with and who you want to take a stand against.

I guess what I am trying to say and I am speaking for myself more than anyone, so I will put it in first person. My ego has me believing that I am all knowing. That when I am handicapping and this horse who went from trainer A to trainer B should be a guesstimate of 6-1. This horse who has only raced once on the turf and raced poorly and now tries turf again should be 20-1. This other horse who hasn't raced in eight months but has a trainer that is fairly decent with layoff horses and fits number wise should be 6-1. Down the line I go. One guesstimate after another. To put it frankly it is just a comedy of errors. If the public ends up betting the first horse down to 5/2 favorite, my 6-1 was a horrible estimate (not because I am stupid, but because the public information is far superior than my limited information). If the second horse ends up at 6-1 obviously my assumption that the horse is probably terrible on the turf is probably a pretty bad assumption. Then the 3rd horse who hasn't been out in 8 months is going off at 24-1, like stealing right? More like the public is stealing from me because I made the assumption the horse is ready and he likely isn't. Moreover I am underestimating the chances of the rest of the field because I gave this horse to much chance of winning.

I guess the general gist of the message I am trying to convey is that we need to use the public's betting (and the daily double probables are just an intitial guide, and can be way off once in a while) as a tool to make OUR opinion better. This doesn't mean that if we hate the 4/5 favorite we aren't trying to beat him (we just know that he has a lot better chance than we think he does). This doesn't mean that if we still like a 22-1 shot quite a bit and we just think that the public is underestimating his chances we want to watch him win without our money on him (but we are cognizant of the fact that the public doesn't leave a lot of horses at 22-1 that are true 6-1 shots).

This is just a very wordy post saying that we have a great second opinion available to us in just about every race (obviously the first race or tracks without rolling doubles are excluded) but how many of us actually use it? Learning how to incorporate it properly is going to be work in progress for most of us. But I don't think we can ask for a better second opinion.

[thaskalos]

When we say "two different handicapping methods", do we mean two methods which usually come up with different final selections when handicapping the same group of races? If so...then how can using both of them not cause confusion? And if the two methods usually end up with the same final selections, then why employ both of them?

I guess we can use two different handicapping methods, and only bet when both methods give us the same horse as a final choice. But this seems to me to be a guaranteed way of ending up on the favorite...and we don't need a handicapping method for that.

Take early speed, for instance...which Bill Quirin called the "universal bias". Play the lone frontrunners indiscriminately, and you mighty prosper, at least for the short term, because of the long odds that some of these horses go off at. But insist that these lone frontrunners meet class or final time qualifications, and the long odds vanish...along with any profit expectations that you might have.

[headhawg]

I don't know how other people were interpreting what andicap meant by "method" so let me clarify my position. Let's say a player thinks that pace is the one of the most important factors in handicapping. He or she might choose the Randy Giles approach or the Sartin methodology -- but not both! As a second method the person likes some of the proprietary factors in HTR or HSH and uses those but ignores anything that is pace-related as that has already been covered by method one. The specific methods don't matter as long as the handicapper thinks they are important, and something that s/he can master. The pair could be Beyer figs and form ratings or physicality and tote watching but the methods should have little direct overlap.

[thaskalos]

As far as I am concerned, we are all using "different handicapping methods"...because our handicapping includes different handicapping components which often conflict with one another. I am mainly a "pace handicapper", but I would be -- for lack of a better term -- "handicapped" if I didn't also pay attention to class and form in my analysis of the races. When these different handicapping factors are analyzed independently, then the different horses that they isolate are finally looked upon in unison by the handicapper, and a final betting decision is made...with the odds board usually having the final say in the matter.

What I am saying is...our ultimate handicapping method is one and only...but it consists of several different and distinct factors which ultimately come together in the end.

[ranchwest]

I supplement pace with class, form and value.

But within each of those categories i try to verify that what i am seeing is valid. For instance, I have several class data categories that I review to see if one suggests something the others do not catch. Same with pace and form.

[classhandicapper]

I've been using multiple sets of speed figures for many many years.

On one level it helps. If two or more sources agree (within a 1/5th or 2/5ths), it's more likely you are in the ballpark about how fast the horse actually ran. If they disagree by a lot, then it requires some investigation to try to figure out why and who might be right. That can be time consuming and get confusing at times, but I don't really love the idea of just sticking with one. With only one you have the added risk that when you are getting a good price, it's not because you have good value. It's because your single source has the race wrong and other sources have it right.

I look at both speed figures and class figures also. I tested system generated class figures plus Beyer speed figures. The combination outperforms either rating alone. But again, when they disagree it can get confusing.

I don't think I'll ever resolve the upside of verifying figures vs. the extra confusion it generates. I keep doing it and keep trying to get better at it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've been using multiple sets of speed figures for many many years.

On one level it helps. If two or more sources agree (within a 1/5th or 2/5ths), it's more likely you are in the ballpark about how fast the horse actually ran. If they disagree by a lot, then it requires some investigation to try to figure out why and who might be right. That can be time consuming and get confusing at times, but I don't really love the idea of just sticking with one. With only one you have the added risk that when you are getting a good price, it's not because you have good value. It's because your single source has the race wrong and other sources have it right.

I look at both speed figures and class figures also. I tested system generated class figures plus Beyer speed figures. The combination outperforms either rating alone. But again, when they disagree it can get confusing.

I don't think I'll ever resolve the upside of verifying figures vs. the extra confusion it generates. I keep doing it and keep trying to get better at it.

When your "multiple sets of speed figures" disagree, and you try to "figure out why and who might be right", do you find that one set of figures is usually right...or are different figures right at different times?

[andicap]

When I say two different methods, I mean, for example

1) Using a handicapping software program that points you to three contenders, say the 1,2, and 3.

2) Employing something like Timeform figures to doublecheck those picks. If the Timeform figs on one or two of those horses dont measure up, maybe you eliminate him.

Much of your decision might depend on the odds/value.

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by andicap

When I say two different methods, I mean, for example

1) Using a handicapping software program that points you to three contenders, say the 1,2, and 3.

2) Employing something like Timeform figures to doublecheck those picks. If the Timeform figs on one or two of those horses dont measure up, maybe you eliminate him.

Much of your decision might depend on the odds/value.

If your going to eliminate the softwares contenders based on Timeform figures, you should might as well just use Timeform without the software.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When your "multiple sets of speed figures" disagree, and you try to "figure out why and who might be right", do you find that one set of figures is usually right...or are different figures right at different times?

I've been thinking about this for a very long time. I think each figure maker has his own ideas about the impact of pace, ground loss, bias, and changes in track speed during the day. They have slightly different time charts and sometimes they even have a circuit a little faster or slower than each other. When you net it all out, there's not much difference. I try to understand each's thinking. That helps me explain the differences. Then it's on me to decide who I agree with in each case. A lot of the time I simply don't know until after the fact.