any winners

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by boxcar

GT, Methinks you'd farther by reasoning with that simple brick outhouse.

Meanwhile, I do have a question fer ya: Of what does the other 75% of the game consist?

Well, since I gave credit to Steve Fierro for pinning down handicapping to 25% of the equation, we'll follow his lead on the other 3 quarters as well:

-- Attaching value (after you identify your contenders you must determine at what odds you will play them), i.e. what are they "worth"?

-- Performing while investing, i.e. actually betting. Managing your time, keeping your nerve, sticking with the plan, etc.

-- Record keeping. If you don't keep books, you're not a real pro. You won't know where you've been, so you won't know where you are going.


Fierro's point was that you'd spend about 25% of your effort on each thing. I'd have minor quibbles with some of what Steve writes, but basically he's on the money...

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Well, since I gave credit to Steve Fierro for pinning down handicapping to 25% of the equation, we'll follow his lead on the other 3 quarters as well:

-- Attaching value (after you identify your contenders you must determine at what odds you will play them), i.e. what are they "worth"?

-- Performing while investing, i.e. actually betting. Managing your time, keeping your nerve, sticking with the plan, etc.

-- Record keeping. If you don't keep books, you're not a real pro. You won't know where you've been, so you won't know where you are going.


Fierro's point was that you'd spend about 25% of your effort on each thing. I'd have minor quibbles with some of what Steve writes, but basically he's on the money...

I feel for you guys that spend 25% of your time counting your money, I would think your missing a lot things when it comes to handicapping and your not watching many races that closly or enjoying them. I start with a bankroll and end with one, not a lot figuring going on there. I don't need a computer to tell me Im not making money on one type of wager or another, that would be very obvious to me.

When it comes to time that's another story, to me that's most difficult part of the game because the lack of it makes the game even tougher, ESP if you have to share a lot time with others or on more pressing things. When it comes to people that play 100 races or more taking advantage of rebates aren't handicappers in my opinion, we need another name for them, I'm talking the ones that make money. Pari-mutuel Investors is fitting because even in the building trades today most that work in it are considered mechanics, not craftsmen, they are a thing of the past with the exception of a few that specialize in one craft.

I spend more time handicaping to find races that are playable, looking for those contenders and puting together a wager to make money than I do anything else.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Overlay]

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Overlay

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.

Any numbers you care to share with us..

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by Overlay

For me, a statistically-based fair-odds line for each race rolls all four "quarters" together nicely. Using the probabilities associated with a well-distributed mix of fundamental factors simultaneously ranks the horses; produces fair odds through the ratio of the final product generated for each horse to the sum of products for the field; provides a greater degree of both confidence and discipline in wagering than would be the case if decisions were based only on opinion or guess; and facilitates both record-keeping of results, and isolating the cause of any significant variations or changes in performance.

Your a Pari-mutuel Investor, not a handicapper if you don't have your own opinion on a race. Granted the data and formulas are yours and may produce a profit but that's a far cry from being a handicapper. The heart of the game is doing what I do. That's just the way I feel about it. Sorry about that Overlay.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Any numbers you care to share with us..

Not at the moment. I'll post later tonight.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by twindouble

Your a Pari-mutuel Investor, not a handicapper if you don't have your own opinion on a race. Granted the data and formulas are yours and may produce a profit but that's a far cry from being a handicapper. The heart of the game is doing what I do. That's just the way I feel about it. Sorry about that Overlay.

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.

[mauvais]

Originally Posted by twindouble

I feel for you guys that spend 25% of your time counting your money

I'm guessing here but I would suspect that someone who thinks 25% is an appropriate time to spend on the menial task of record keeping is easily confused by numbers?

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by Overlay

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.

Looking for overlays or what I and others call value is as old as the game. What your saying is you have a program that will do it and is more refined than my plain old handicapping, evaluating the potential to make money based on how I see the race bet or pass. If your wagers are based on the what the program produces and not all the factors of handicapping then you may fall into being a pari-mutuel investor, on the latter I was refering to those that play many tracks and a mulitude of races getting rebates.

T.D.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by mauvais

I'm guessing here but I would suspect that someone who thinks 25% is an appropriate time to spend on the menial task of record keeping is easily confused by numbers?

Not at all, unless you can memorize every wager you make, and you know your exact performance on every subset (like sprint maiden claimers, turf routes, etc.). There is a lot more to keeping good records then adding or subtracting the bottom line. The idea is to run it like a business -- you can see where you made good decisions and bad ones, what factors you may be overvaluing/undervaluing, and how to improve.

Also, when we talk about 25% this and that, most people who now spend 90% of their time handicapping think, "I'm supposed to spend THAT amount of time EACH on three other things?!" No, the point is that you are probably spending way too much time handicapping IF your goal is to make as much money as possible, and you should be allocating some of that same time to the other things...

[RaceIsClosed]

Originally Posted by Overlay

To me, "handicapping" means assigning a probability of winning to each horse in a race, just like the public does through the pari-mutuel system. I do have an opinion as to which horse is the likeliest to win, but that doesn't mean that I think it is the only horse that can win. The odds on the horse have to offer me a sufficient rate of return to justify the risk I am taking by betting it before I consider it to be worth a wager. I'm not sure how that differs from the meaning that you assign to the term "pari-mutuel investor". I do think that seeking only to find the one horse that is most likely to win, and then betting it without regard to the odds the horse is being held at, is not "handicapping", as I define the term.

ANY horse can win ANY race, pretty much. We always see those $95.60 puzzlers come down the pike once in a while to remind us that we're not always going to be right. I know I didn't need an odds line when my $117.00 winner at Laurel hit the day after Thanksgiving!!

I understand what value handicappers do. I also understand it when they don't explain how they assign probabilities to horses. By definition, they have to be using a formula, one that can be easily summarized, explained, and executed. If they say they are selling it, then it goes back to "buy my stuff" rather than sharing any handicapping.

I also think value handicappers often don't take into account that a horse who has a superior chance of winning often will get the best trip, or have the trainer who is best motivated to win, thus causing it to be stronger than it appears, or what you might call an overlay.

"Find overlays" is not handicapping advice. It doesn't tell the horseplayer anything he doesn't already know. Telling him which horses are overlays, and why, does.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by RaceIsClosed

I also think value handicappers often don't take into account that a horse who has a superior chance of winning often will get the best trip, or have the trainer who is best motivated to win, thus causing it to be stronger than it appears, or what you might call an overlay.

A value handicapper worth his salt would have incorporated all that into his line.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Well, since I gave credit to Steve Fierro for pinning down handicapping to 25% of the equation, we'll follow his lead on the other 3 quarters as well:

-- Attaching value (after you identify your contenders you must determine at what odds you will play them), i.e. what are they "worth"?

-- Performing while investing, i.e. actually betting. Managing your time, keeping your nerve, sticking with the plan, etc.

-- Record keeping. If you don't keep books, you're not a real pro. You won't know where you've been, so you won't know where you are going.


Fierro's point was that you'd spend about 25% of your effort on each thing. I'd have minor quibbles with some of what Steve writes, but basically he's on the money...

Thanks, GT, for the reply.

In principle, I have no quibble with any of this. But one hardly needs to devote an equal amount of time or even effort to each. For example, once I developed a money management plan that covered all the contingencies that I would entertain for betting purposes, that plan became etched in stone, as it were. Why in the world would I need to devote more time and effort to it each and every day? Even you say that once you develop a plan, stick with it.

Ditto for the bookkeeping work. Depending on many tracks I played in a day, my book work would take me anywhere from 10 to 30 minutues of time, at the most. (But maybe that was because I was spot player.)

As far as the "value" part, I discussed whose price line I used on another thread, why, etc. Time spent on this factor prior prior to the race was zero up until several minutes before post time of the actual race.

So, this allowed me to devote the most time and effort to the most fundamentally important aspect to turf specuation, i.e. handicapping. As important as all these other things are, the inescapable fact remains that unless one has the ability to at the very least consistently isolate the likely contenders in playable races from the rest of the field, this player's efforts in these other areas will be for nought. Bookkeeping or record keeping isn't going to put you on the winner. Even money management will not put you on the winner. All this aspect will do is tell the player how to bet the race -- not who to bet. The "value" aspect will only tell a player if the race is investment-worthy or not, and in many cases help the player to further whittle his final contenders on the basis of their tote board prices.

Anyhooo...that's my 2.5 cents worth. Maybe someday when I write a book, I'll explain all this in more detail.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Let's just say all 4 areas are of importance. None can make you a winner by themselves, but being deficient in any can prevent you from winning. Handicapping goes for naught if you can't bet sensibly. You can't make a plan for improvement if you have no idea what your weaknesses are, etc. No one is saying handicapping is not important. But since 99% of horse racing talk is handicapping-centered, as if it were the be all and end all of being a winner, the point is the balance is seriously skewed. Most losers, especially marginal losers who are on the bubble of becoming winners, think that if they just pick a few more winners they'll be there, when in fact most them are probably excellent handicappers and simply need to streamline their betting, bet only when value is offered, keep records to eliminate race types they are not good at, etc. Handicapping comes first, but there are several opportunites to falter after that. And no matter what your handicapping level of expertise, the other areas can improve your bottom line if you are currently ignoring them...

[twindouble]

Anyhooo...that's my 2.5 cents worth. Maybe someday when I write a book, I'll explain all this in more detail.

Boxcar, I agree, so that adds another 2.5 cents, keep it up and we'll have $2.00 to wager.