Handicapping systems

[raybo]

I spend less than 15 minutes, per race, in actual handicapping time, evaluating "conditionally formatted" data in my spreadsheet program, over-riding computer selected pacelines, etc..

The remainder of the time I spend, per race, is involving tote board analysis and ticket structure, if the tote analysis results in a "go" for a wager.

[saevena]

There is very little written information about Jule Fink. The only quotation from him that I ever read spoke disparagingly of the "Johnny-come-latelies who think you can't be successful using the Daily Racing Form speed ratings and track variants." To the best of my knowledge, Fink and his compadres were the only handicappers who legally incorporated their betting enterprise.

[Johno]

All of the above times in the poll is what I use. As trite as this appears, handicapping has so many situational environments that it is impossible to answer. Generally however, the longer times to handicap may be needed if one was to play in a contest where a race must be played. For me, outside of constest considerations, if I spend a relatively long time handicapping, such as the 3rd and 4th choice in the poll, the race in unplayable. The situations go on ad infinitum.Johno

[ernie simons]

I for one, would like to hear from valupix. I'm curios as to how he comes up with those long shots.
And I wish he would post em more often.

[Overlay]

I'm somewhat comforted by the results of this poll. I was under the impression that in this automated age, most handicappers would be using programs to generate selections and/or odds lines in a matter of just a few minutes per race. It's nice to know that a paper-and-pencil method using a hard-copy Form can still compare favorably time-wise with the responses given here.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I'm somewhat comforted by the results of this poll. I was under the impression that in this automated age, most handicappers would be using programs to generate selections and/or odds lines in a matter of just a few minutes per race. It's nice to know that a paper-and-pencil method using a hard-copy Form can still compare favorably time-wise with the responses given here.

I believe that many of the handicappers who spend an hour or more handicapping a race actually use programs, not pen and pencil methods. Many of these program users use more than one program and even the ones that use only one program have many "views" to wade through. Very few programs produce a wagering result without user input, in one form or another. All this requires time. The most basic difference between pen and paper handicappers and program handicappers is the lack of mathematical errors. Another is the ability of program users to "see the whole picture", while many pen and pencil players are somewhat forced to narrow their "view" to their particular method as individual parts, thus, disengaging them from "the whole picture". I, like most here, was a pen and pencil player for years and suffered, from time to time, all the negatives I have listed. Since switching to an automated program, most, if not all of these negatives, have been removed from my play.

I chose, for many reasons, to spend the time to incorporate my previous pen and pencil methods into my own automated program. This program enabled me to find better methods in much less time than would have been necessary using pen and pencil.

My program generates it's outputs immediately, upon isolating a race from it's racecard, less than a second. However, I have over-ride abilities built into the program which allows me to look at the whole picture and make adjustments when needed, then rerun the race, less than a second again.

From start to finish usually means less than 15 minutes per race, and many times less than 5 minutes.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by raybo

The most basic difference between pen and paper handicappers and program handicappers is the lack of mathematical errors. Another is the ability of program users to "see the whole picture", while many pen and pencil players are somewhat forced to narrow their "view" to their particular method as individual parts, thus, disengaging them from "the whole picture".

I understand your points, but I believe that it's possible to have a pencil-and-paper method that simultaneously achieves the objectives of comprehensiveness (both in terms of the range of factors covered, and of a full-field perspective); component visibility (to permit analysis of how each part of the model is performing); and workability/ comparability from a time requirement standpoint (especially in light of the amounts of time being mentioned in the survey, whether involving automated systems or not). I grant the increased possibility of math errors, but limiting the number and complexity of calculations required to a "significant few" variables and operations helps me in that regard.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I understand your points, but I believe that it's possible to have a pencil-and-paper method that simultaneously achieves the objectives of comprehensiveness (both in terms of the range of factors covered, and of a full-field perspective); component visibility (to permit analysis of how each part of the model is performing); and workability/ comparability from a time requirement standpoint (especially in light of the amounts of time being mentioned in the survey, whether involving automated systems or not). I grant the increased possibility of math errors, but limiting the number and complexity of calculations required to a "significant few" variables and operations helps me in that regard.

By your including the last sentence of your reply, I agree that it is possible, albeit unlikely, that a pen and paper method could be used as accurately, as comprehensively, or as efficiently analytical as a well designed program or automated application.