Reverse Engineering Handicapping

[classhandicapper]

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

[dlivery]

This will only confuse me and looking into why or how to get the winner finding a excuse why this race was won bring in a lot chaos into it.

What works for when I look into race is like reverse handicapping of reading the PP's from the bottom up.

[Grits]

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

You're beginning to wonder? Don't dwell there, maybe give up on the business of wondering, and go back to a time and a place that you were making money and most successful.

Don't tell others how you think or handicap. Just do it.

Why even ask? This is the one point that has always puzzled me. You, gentlemen, seem to need approval regarding how you approach this game. I've never, ever understood this.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Grits

You're beginning to wonder? Don't dwell there, maybe give up on the business of wondering, and go back to a time and a place that you were making money and most successful.

Don't tell others how you think or handicap. Just do it.

Why even ask? This is the one point that has always puzzled me. You, gentlemen, seem to need approval regarding how you approach this game. I've never, ever understood this.

Um, that's not exactly what I was getting at.

I make money both ways, but I'm beginning to think that there may be some advantages to looking at the odds first and THEN the PPs, which is the opposite of what people traditionally do.

It's not like I have the data that could confirm anything.

It's just interesting to ponder the possibly that most people start with the assumption that they will see all the relevant information and evaluate properly when it might be more effective to ponder what the public is thinking first and then draw conclusions.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

Many times, the first thing I do is look at who I presume to be the favorite(s)
in the race.Having a "target" sometimes helps bring the race into sharper focus for me.

[therussmeister]

I handicap virtually every race by looking at the favorites first and then trying to beat them, but I have no reason to think that I am more successful working this way than, for instance, handicapping in post position order. I think it may be a little quicker looking at favorites first, that's why I adopted it, (I do all my handicapping between races so speed is of the essence), but i'm not sure.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

this part sounds real good, but there obviously needs to be some kind of control to determine the place from where these rare strong disagreements come from. ie not allowing recent betting results to influence your judgements. you can't allow your discipline to be compromised.

[JustRalph]

you said you make money........ stop talking and wondering.........

you have 99% of the crowd beat already

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

I don't want you to misinterpret my response as being condescending...because that's not my intention at all. I am responding to you in this way simply because I too often engage in similar thinking...where it occurs to me that a "method" I was using some time in the past might have been "superior" to what I am using now.

My question to you is this:

If this different approach really led to "one of the hottest periods of your life", and the results you were getting were really "superior", as you say...then what possible reason could you have had for abandoning such a method -- and moving on to different things? Is is sensible behavior to abandon a method that leads us to "the hottest period of our life"? Of course not.

Here is what I think happened with your method...and I know this because it has happened to me as well:

Your method did indeed lead to some great results...and you got excited, thinking that you finally had it "all figured out". But the method soon started getting mixed results...and eventually ended up disappointing. That's why you abandoned it...and moved on to different things. That's why ALL of us abandon prior methods, and move on to different things. They stop working...and we abandon them. If they kept on working...then we would have continued using them.

In your case...a lot of time has passed, and, as you are again reminded of the "hot streak" that this new approach was responsible for...you are not as apt in recalling the disappointments which led you to eventually abandon the method in favor of something else. This is a normal function of the selective memory that operates in us all.

It is also the reason why we can easily recall those "hottest periods of our lives"...while we remain hazy in our recollection of what eventually happened to the money.

And here endeth the lesson.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

Class when I read your post I immediately knew what you meant.

My first thought is we do both anyway.And I'm more now convinced than ever to just burn through the whatever preliminary preparations you have.Then have a casual glance back at it for planning a betting approach for the card or cards you are playing.Then once the bell sounds it is reverse engineering time.That's how I handicap.Indifference.Love.Hate.Bet.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

In other words, focus on finding true value and not winners. I agree with you completely. The problem is you can't reverse engineer the odds after they break from the gate. The odds change so late in the game at all tracks that it is becoming more and more difficult to do. The whales and their computers pour money late into the pools that so you can watch that value disappear before your eyes.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by menifee

In other words, focus on finding true value and not winners. I agree with you completely. The problem is you can't reverse engineer the odds after they break from the gate. The odds change so late in the game at all tracks that it is becoming more and more difficult to do. The whales and their computers pour money late into the pools that so you can watch that value disappear before your eyes.

It's not that damn bad and dramatic though unless you are riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

Yesterday CD7,the 4 was a standout,had a few nocks about duplication but was 7/2 loading.Dropped to 7.40 win easy.Not earth shattering.

This is on a big stage with a bigger pool and some top stock.If what you mean is odds dropping on 5,000 clm at a minor league track and you are hitching your wagon to it.I just have the new age proverbial one word=seriously!

Why?

[menifee]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

It's not that damn bad and dramatic though unless you are riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

Yesterday CD7,the 4 was a standout,had a few nocks about duplication but was 7/2 loading.Dropped to 7.40 win easy.Not earth shattering.

This is on a big stage with a bigger pool and some top stock.If what you mean is odds dropping on 5,000 clm at a minor league track and you are hitching your wagon to it.I just have the new age proverbial one word=seriously!

Why?

You think taking 5/2 on that horse in that race is a good play? Are you serious? That wold be riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by menifee

You think taking 5/2 on that horse in that race is a good play? Are you serious? That wold be riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

Absolutely.The pace was not likely that hot.Was not an inveterate frontrunner.And was a 3yo coming into his own.Looking at CJ's figs he was an across the board domination candidate.I thought he would be 1-1 so when they were riding Scat Daddy I was like OK,let's go.The odds were all out of whack on that race to the good.I was only pissed off SD ran 2nd.I thought he was a total dud beforehand.

Looking at the figure arrays and light pace the winner looked towering.If it was a Beulah 3500 it would have been bet against all the way.

Anyway the odds dropping did not make me happy at all.I bet at 9/2.But if you read the cry me a river threads on here they are mainly of the drop to 1-1,3-5 variety.That happens to me every 100 bets.So I have to question what everyone else is betting to where they think they are constantly getting stroked on these odds drops.Nobody says you "HAVE" to bet.Nobody says you have to ride sub 2-1 chalk around like it's a magic carpet.I bet a 9/2 that drops to 5/2 and it happens very infrequently?So be it.I have horses on the NY circuit go from 5/2 to 4-1 with glee.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Absolutely.The pace was not likely that hot.Was not an inveterate frontrunner.And was a 3yo coming into his own.Looking at CJ's figs he was an across the board domination candidate.I thought he would be 1-1 so when they were riding Scat Daddy I was like OK,let's go.The odds were all out of whack on that race to the good.I was only pissed off SD ran 2nd.I thought he was a total dud beforehand.

Looking at the figure arrays and light pace the winner looked towering.If it was a Beulah 3500 it would have been bet against all the way.

Anyway the odds dropping did not make me happy at all.I bet at 9/2.But if you read the cry me a river threads on here they are mainly of the drop to 1-1,3-5 variety.That happens to me every 100 bets.So I have to question what everyone else is betting to where they think they are constantly getting stroked on these odds drops.Nobody says you "HAVE" to bet.Nobody says you have to ride sub 2-1 chalk around like it's a magic carpet.I bet a 9/2 that drops to 5/2 and it happens very infrequently?So be it.I have horses on the NY circuit go from 5/2 to 4-1 with glee.

I don't play chalk in straight win bets because there is no value in the long run so I could care less about an even money getting bet down to 3/5.

That horse was solid value at 9/2 - at 5/2 that horse becomes unplayable. I've seen many 6-1 or 5-1 get bet down to 3-1 or 5/2 at the last minute and that becomes frustrating. Happens a lot more at smaller tracks (because of smaller pools), but it does happen at the bigger tracks as well.