HANDICAPPING FACTORS ANALYSIS

[PIC6SIX]

In your opinion(s) what unknown or undiscernible handicapping factors (brake from gate, bad ride, race dynamics, track bias, trip, trainer intention, mdn 2-3 year olds lake of data, etc. make handicapping most difficult? Else should I just say it is GAMBLING!!!!!!!

[ultracapper]

Time commitment and retaining an efficient concentration level makes handicapping most difficult. To do it right, it takes time and focus.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

In your opinion(s) what unknown or undiscernible handicapping factors (brake from gate, bad ride, race dynamics, track bias, trip, trainer intention, mdn 2-3 year olds lake of data, etc. make handicapping most difficult? Else should I just say it is GAMBLING!!!!!!!

At least all of the above, but if you're trying to compile a list you can include today's fitness for the horse, today's fitness of the rider which people never mention. But, most likely every reason which has resulted in a loss.

[ultracapper]

I'm kind of surprised this thread didn't get some legs. Probably because it's such a broad question. I'll add something though which another thread lead me to think about over the past couple days.

I know this applied to me for years, and I know it is prevalent among handicappers. It is the tendency to theorize, and ultimately give more credence to theories at the expense of accepting reality. The thread I'm referring to had an entry where a very respected poster stated that he had played an angle for a couple years very unsuccessfully and couldn't understand when it made so much sense in his mind. This poster has written books on handicapping, yet, it took two years of hard data to convince him that the angle wasn't successful. And I'm not even sure he's entirely convinced. It almost feels like he's waiting for it to turn around, because, after all, it makes so much sense.

The most important alteration I've ever made to my game is when I decided to quit trying to out-smart it, and just begin accepting things for what they are. Too often I hear handicappers say I love this or that about a horse, and it's only because it's something that in their theory should mean something. Knowing what you're looking at, and knowing it's meaning, is the most valuable attribute a handicapper possesses, and an attribute that many handicappers don't even really consider developing. For instance, they give a meaning to a horse posting a 3f work 3 days before it races, and accept that meaning for the next 25 years without ever even questioning it again. I'd bet 90% to 95% of everything a handicapper thinks while handicapping a race goes unquestioned in their own mind. It's like adding 2+2 but giving one of the two's a value of 3. You're going to get the wrong answer.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I'm kind of surprised this thread didn't get some legs. Probably because it's such a broad question. I'll add something though which another thread lead me to think about over the past couple days.

I know this applied to me for years, and I know it is prevalent among handicappers. It is the tendency to theorize, and ultimately give more credence to theories at the expense of accepting reality. The thread I'm referring to had an entry where a very respected poster stated that he had played an angle for a couple years very unsuccessfully and couldn't understand when it made so much sense in his mind. This poster has written books on handicapping, yet, it took two years of hard data to convince him that the angle wasn't successful. And I'm not even sure he's entirely convinced. It almost feels like he's waiting for it to turn around, because, after all, it makes so much sense.

The most important alteration I've ever made to my game is when I decided to quit trying to out-smart it, and just begin accepting things for what they are. Too often I hear handicappers say I love this or that about a horse, and it's only because it's something that in their theory should mean something. Knowing what you're looking at, and knowing it's meaning, is the most valuable attribute a handicapper possesses, and an attribute that many handicappers don't even really consider developing. For instance, they give a meaning to a horse posting a 3f work 3 days before it races, and accept that meaning for the next 25 years without ever even questioning it again. I'd bet 90% to 95% of everything a handicapper thinks while handicapping a race goes unquestioned in their own mind. It's like adding 2+2 but giving one of the two's a value of 3. You're going to get the wrong answer.

I think that a horse player makes a huge step in the right direction when he realizes that "logic" does not necessarily translate to long-term success in this game. When you are betting in a mutuel pool against other people...then, being "logical" often means just being "conventional" in one's thinking...and that sort of thinking simply won't cut it.

In theory, we all sing the praises of being a "contrarian" in this game...but in practice, it seems that we are all constrained by certain "logical" perimeters, beyond which we find it extremely difficult to venture.

IMO...it behooves the horseplayer to ask himself if what he "knows" has been garnered by consulting the work or opinions of others...or if it is a direct result of one's OWN experimentation. So much of what we "know" are really thoughts that we have borrowed from others...because they appeared "logical" to us. But, in this game, "logical" and "broke" often go together.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by PIC6SIX

In your opinion(s) what unknown or undiscernible handicapping factors (brake from gate, bad ride, race dynamics, track bias, trip, trainer intention, mdn 2-3 year olds lake of data, etc. make handicapping most difficult? Else should I just say it is GAMBLING!!!!!!!

The most significant and challenging piece of handicapping is figure creation and track variant estimation. Everything else, like primitive handicapping factors, post position statistics, connection statistics etc are not only the easy part of the equation but also of secondary importance.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

But, in this game, "logical" and "broke" often go together.

Words of wisdom. If somebody does not understand what you are saying here, it is impossible for him to bet for profit. The objective of the game is not to identify things like trip trouble, track biases or the faster horse but to be able to know when any of these factors is over or under estimated by the betting public and then try to be contrarian.

[rsetup]

Contrarion and figures are at odds. No matter how contrarian the Jesuits were, they still couldn't make Aristotelian physics work.Paradigm shift. All those that have read the same books and are doing the same things need to try it on their own. Actually

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I think that a horse player makes a huge step in the right direction when he realizes that "logic" does not necessarily translate to long-term success in this game. When you are betting in a mutuel pool against other people...then, being "logical" often means just being "conventional" in one's thinking...and that sort of thinking simply won't cut it.

In theory, we all sing the praises of being a "contrarian" in this game...but in practice, it seems that we are all constrained by certain "logical" perimeters, beyond which we find it extremely difficult to venture.

IMO...it behooves the horseplayer to ask himself if what he "knows" has been garnered by consulting the work or opinions of others...or if it is a direct result of one's OWN experimentation. So much of what we "know" are really thoughts that we have borrowed from others...because they appeared "logical" to us. But, in this game, "logical" and "broke" often go together.

Could not agree more with what you're saying. Doing your own thing, is definitely more enjoyable than following a set of rules that someone else gave you. Thinking outside the (black) box will stimulate your brain to look for factors that you've never considered only six months ago. I do think some logic is useful, especially if you've h-capped a contender and then see that that the trainer is 0 for 54. Logic in that case tells me not to waste my money there.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I'm kind of surprised this thread didn't get some legs. Probably because it's such a broad question. I'll add something though which another thread lead me to think about over the past couple days.

I know this applied to me for years, and I know it is prevalent among handicappers. It is the tendency to theorize, and ultimately give more credence to theories at the expense of accepting reality. The thread I'm referring to had an entry where a very respected poster stated that he had played an angle for a couple years very unsuccessfully and couldn't understand when it made so much sense in his mind. This poster has written books on handicapping, yet, it took two years of hard data to convince him that the angle wasn't successful. And I'm not even sure he's entirely convinced. It almost feels like he's waiting for it to turn around, because, after all, it makes so much sense.

The most important alteration I've ever made to my game is when I decided to quit trying to out-smart it, and just begin accepting things for what they are. Too often I hear handicappers say I love this or that about a horse, and it's only because it's something that in their theory should mean something. Knowing what you're looking at, and knowing it's meaning, is the most valuable attribute a handicapper possesses, and an attribute that many handicappers don't even really consider developing. For instance, they give a meaning to a horse posting a 3f work 3 days before it races, and accept that meaning for the next 25 years without ever even questioning it again. I'd bet 90% to 95% of everything a handicapper thinks while handicapping a race goes unquestioned in their own mind. It's like adding 2+2 but giving one of the two's a value of 3. You're going to get the wrong answer.

I assume you're talking about the comment I made about a certain "trip" handicapping angle that doesn't seem to work for me, even though it appears logical that it should. That is, a maiden making one of its first two starts that made a big middle-move on the turn (sometimes after a slow start). You would think that the horse would improve in its next start, but even when the horse held well in the stretch, I found that these horses were usually overbet and for some reason did not improve that much or at all in their next start.

There are other "trips" that are often overbet, such as when a horse is bottled up in traffic, clears late and finishes well. Just because a horse gets in trouble doesn't mean it will win it's next start.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by rsetup

Contrarion and figures are at odds. No matter how contrarian the Jesuits were, they still couldn't make Aristotelian physics work.Paradigm shift. All those that have read the same books and are doing the same things need to try it on their own. Actually

Dead on. I like this. Doing it on your own is a great confidence builder.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Keeping it simple Huey Mahl stated (1) conditions of the race (2) Condition of the horse (3) Pace. These three factors have eliminated the things most of the crowd looks at: speed, beaten lengths, position, recency, weight, class ,money earned ,tote, variant etc, true horsemen, the boys with the backstretch moxie, the gambling stables mostly depend on the big three. Do you?

[Nitro]

If making money is the actual goal, then I would have to say that the most difficult thing for the majority of handicappers is staying in the black. I believe that a possible reason for this that too much emphasis is placed on the selection process: Picking Winners. This game is all about making Winning plays NOT just picking Winners!

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Originally Posted by Nitro

If making money is the actual goal, then I would have to say that the most difficult thing for the majority of handicappers is staying in the black. I believe that a possible reason for this that too much emphasis is placed on the selection process: Picking Winners. This game is all about making Winning plays NOT just picking Winners!

Absolutely and this has been explained in detail by a host of well versed and successful players on this fine forum kind enough to offer advice from their years of analysis and hard work.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Nitro

If making money is the actual goal, then I would have to say that the most difficult thing for the majority of handicappers is staying in the black. I believe that a possible reason for this that too much emphasis is placed on the selection process: Picking Winners. This game is all about making Winning plays NOT just picking Winners!

To prove I have nothing personal with you....

I agree.

I will add, this game is also about picking losers. If you're able to identify horses that are short odds, that will lose, you have opened the door to success.

Sorry to sound like a jerk but many people know me on track as the (I say this humbly) king of picking out bad chalk and betting against the dressed up chalk (weak chalk that is not always obvious to the crowd).