why record keeping is a farce

[Capper Al]

The last major subject to be written about has been on record keeping one's wagers. The idea is that if you know your strengths and weaknesses one should be able to stir themself toward profitability. Sounds logical doesn't it? And that's the lure that the average punter can't resist. Give a horseplayer an idea, and they throw money at it. Why is this a farce? Think about it. We derive our handicapping based on assumptions that probably utilize imperfect numbers and we may not have or know of all the information we need to bring this idea to fruition. If we win we conclude we have a winning method or if we lose we conclude our method didn't work. Record keeping in this manner is off little value because our opinion of what we think is in the way of our research, that is our formula. It is actually no better than the old lady who bets a horse on the colors of the silks. Instead we guess on our opinion. Both the old lady and the handicapper at the end of the day can record how they did. And if the lady had a good day, she might believe that blue is her winning color similarly to our handicapper with his method. What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

[Overlay]

I would agree with you as long as you're basing your handicapping and wagering decisions on subjective criteria that change from one race to the next. However, if you're using a method or system that deals in objective data, and that is applied in a consistent or standardized manner race-in and race-out, then record-keeping of wagers and results can tell you which components of the method or system are failing to perform as expected, allowing you to make adjustments to improve your selection and wagering.

The other intrinsic values of record-keeping that I can see are as a means of aiding a fallible memory, and preventing selective recollection of successes while glossing over losses (not to mention having documentation of losses available in the event of taxable success).

[Tom]

No matter how you decide on your wagers, if you do not keep records, you have no idea how you are doing. Even if you are betting random numbers, you need to know how you are performing.

[traynor]

Keeping records is good--if you are keeping records, rather than validating your own preconceptions and predispositions, and supporting the validation with appropriate "records."

Horse racing is only difficult until one realizes that people want to be right more than they want to win. Foolish, but human nature. Translated, that means bettors are far more likely to "keep records" that make it seem they made a lot of right choices, rather than that they made a lot of wrong choices.

I can remember Sartin users so caught up in the "accentuate the positive" dogma that they ONLY kept records (including PPs, pace lines, etc.) of winning races. Their failures can be directly attributed, not to a LACK of records, but rather to an abundance of seriously skewed, ego-flattering records. It helps to understand the difference.

[Robert Goren]

My ADWs keep the records for me. When I screw arround too much, my account balance goes to $0.00 and I have to reload. That is all I need to know.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

My ADWs keep the records for me. When I screw arround too much, my account balance goes to $0.00 and I have to reload. That is all I need to know.

My focus is on improving one's handicapping.

[Capper Al]

Robert,

I use Twinspires also for following my wagers and managing my budget.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Overlay

if you're using a method or system that deals in objective data, and that is applied in a consistent or standardized manner race-in and race-out, then record-keeping of wagers and results can tell you which components of the method or system are failing to perform as expected, allowing you to make adjustments to improve your selection and wagering.

Or which applications of the method are more effective than others. A method might work with turf routes but not with turf sprints. Or with MSW but not with Mdn Cl. Even a growing ADW account will not give you that information.

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by traynor

Horse racing is only difficult until one realizes that people want to be right more than they want to win. Foolish, but human nature. Translated, that means bettors are far more likely to "keep records" that make it seem they made a lot of right choices, rather than that they made a lot of wrong choices.

I agree with this. I review wagers daily to determine where I went wrong. I will then make inferences based on groupings of "wrong" wagers. If the trend of "wrong" wagers is supported after further and exhaustive investigation, I make adjustments. It's all about the bottome line...how can I become more profitable in terms of more $$$, and can I increase ROI?

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The last major subject to be written about has been on record keeping one's wagers. The idea is that if you know your strengths and weaknesses one should be able to stir themself toward profitability. Sounds logical doesn't it? And that's the lure that the average punter can't resist. Give a horseplayer an idea, and they throw money at it. Why is this a farce? Think about it. We derive our handicapping based on assumptions that probably utilize imperfect numbers and we may not have or know of all the information we need to bring this idea to fruition. If we win we conclude we have a winning method or if we lose we conclude our method didn't work. Record keeping in this manner is off little value because our opinion of what we think is in the way of our research, that is our formula. It is actually no better than the old lady who bets a horse on the colors of the silks. Instead we guess on our opinion. Both the old lady and the handicapper at the end of the day can record how they did. And if the lady had a good day, she might believe that blue is her winning color similarly to our handicapper with his method. What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

There is some merit to thes comments, but I will add a different perspective.

Recordkeeping is not necessarily a farce, but it is often misguided.

First of all, from what I have seen, sample size is very important for making decisions but is hard to quantify. Suppose a method works well for one set of conditions but not for another in our sample. Do we decide to eliminate that method for the set it does not work for? More than once I have seen the nonworking method start kicking in positive results where it was previously useless (often with the formerly "working" set no longer working). Is 100 races enough? 1000? Many have an idea what makes sense, but once you start factoring in the decision process, you are reducing the sample considerably. You may have 1000 races, but perhaps you only won in races where there was a longshot after a long layoff who was good with a previous trainer and was recently claimed and is first time with Lasix. Does that mean that you have 1000 races with a longshot after a long layoff who was good with a previous trainer and was recently claimed and is first time with Lasix? Probably not.

Also, your comment, "What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions," could be leading you down the wrong path. Once you have some level of confidence in the selection process you have chosen (I believe that is what you are referring to "the inputted data to our decision"), you need to be concerned with the rules used to decide how you played based on those decisions. If you, for example, only use certain pace and speed figures for choosing a play and ignore other factors, recording these may not help you. Certainly post-time odds could be a factor in determining whether a bet is going to be lucrative long term. You may choose the best horse in the race and have a 50% chance of him winning when all is said and done. However, that is probably not a good wager going off at 1/9. This is only one of many factors that you may not be considering.

So, the conundrum is this: You need to track whatever you are capable of measuring and/or incorporating into the decision process whether or not you are currently using it, as long as you deem it reasonable to include it. Saddle cloth color may be one of the factors you can easily track, but may not be one you will ever use. The problem is knowing which things are relevant factors and which are not. Not every factor is easy to track and not every factor is as relevant or irrelevant as it may first seem. Once you have tracked this for several thousand races and realize something is missing, you may need to start over again.

I would be interested in how other do this. I have been wrestling with the same question.

[thaskalos]

How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

[PressThePace]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

Speaking only for myself, my results have repeated or actually improved over the last 4-5 years, but only as a result of my record keeping. I don't get involved to deeply into exotic wagers, so I obviously have fewer swings.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

Good thing for Quinn he had a day job.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

The only thing that keeps repeating for me is an avg. 4-1 win price.This holds up over many, many races....even broken up into smaller chunks.

The problem for me is the win % can be all over the map from month to month.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

The only thing that keeps repeating for me is an avg. 4-1 win price.This holds up over many, many races....even broken up into smaller chunks.

The problem for me is the win % can be all over the map from month to month.

I don't think that's a "problem"; I think that's reality...