Biggest trap for Cappers

[Capper Al]

The biggest trap for handicappers is also their biggest ally, numbers. However most of us think, we usually add up some numbers and the horse with the most numbers is usually our selection. The assumption that horses add up is close enough about one third of the time, and it's just enough to keep us hanging in there. It seems that we're always one tweak away from getting it right. The winning method must be just down at the end of our formula's linear path. But the truth is a scatter graph where two thirds of the selections are not near our line and we never will get them staying on our path. The game is not linear to win. If there is a line it's squiggly if there's a line at all. How does one figure it without numbers or around numbers? Are numbers the dope and those of us who like numbers the additics?

[Stillriledup]

Numbers or not, the key is to bet on horses that are better than the public thinks they are.

And, a lot of times, these are going to be horses who look bad on paper.

The key isn't to be right, its to be right when the public is wrong.

[thaskalos]

The worst thing about using numbers to handicap is that the combining of these numbers often makes it appear as if there is an appreciable difference between some of these horses...when there really isn't.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The biggest trap for handicappers is also their biggest ally, numbers. However most of us think, we usually add up some numbers and the horse with the most numbers is usually our selection. The assumption that horses add up is close enough about one third of the time, and it's just enough to keep us hanging in there. It seems that we're always one tweak away from getting it right. The winning method must be just down at the end of our formula's linear path. But the truth is a scatter graph where two thirds of the selections are not near our line and we never will get them staying on our path. The game is not linear to win. If there is a line it's squiggly if there's a line at all. How does one figure it without numbers or around numbers? Are numbers the dope and those of us who like numbers the additics?

The antidote is trips and watching replays.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Valuist

The antidote is trips and watching replays.

Ditto... and knowing the track, the biases, trainer streaks, doing your own numbers.

[cj]

I think the biggest trap for most players I see is second guessing themselves when the public overbets a favorite or underbets one of their selections.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by cj

I think the biggest trap for most players I see is second guessing themselves when the public overbets a favorite or underbets one of their selections.

Bad News Bearers by Jay Cronley

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Bad News Bearers by Jay Cronley

Good article. Thanks

I'll remember the term "The Great Unseen" when betting from now on.

[Capper Al]

Here was a surprise found in another thread about Randy Giles' opinion of Steve Klein's Early speed posted in another thread:

Steve Klein's Early Pace (link)

After reading the above link, reread post #1 in this thread. Giles and I have a similar view. It's time now for a more concert example:

Let's take an allowance turf race for three year olds with a field of eight horses. Presumably one is a speed handicapper. One horse in this field has never raced on the turf and has good connections. The dirt speed figures won't work on our linear path for comparison(the figs may be okay for estimates). What to do? Those who play only races that fit their profiles might skip the race because of the unknown horse. Most, like myself, will make a guess if the outside horse can or cannot. This guess would take us off our linear path if we were a speed only handicapper.

Giles in his article above mentions the General System Theory (GST) that looks at relationships rather than constant attributes(our linear path). This is how one would make this decision to play the turf race off the linear path. It's interesting that Giles also looked at the problem as linear thinking as in post #1.

[Tom]

Pick a real race - theory only gets you so far.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

Pick a real race - theory only gets you so far.

I will find one over the weekend. But I'm sure that most every player has ran into the first time turfer before. And note that I used the word "guess" when I said that I jumped off the linear path in the example of the speed handicapper who didn't have a comparable speed fig.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I will find one over the weekend. But I'm sure that most every player has ran into the first time turfer before.

I usually turn the page unless I have a trainer angle.

It's not like I can't look up all the same pedigree information as everyone else. It's that I've never been able to convert that information into a fair price or profitable betting strategy. I may know that "so and so" is bred to move up the turf, but the fair odds in light of that information are a much tougher thing to get at.

[raybo]

Linear thinking has been the downfall of multitudes of players. They know who they are, if they are honest with themselves, and generally their excuse, and "justification", is that it allows them to "jump on it before it disappears", regarding short term anomalies like perceived bias. For all those who still believe this methodology, good luck to you.

As Giles said, it's the interaction between the participants that determines the most likely outcome of those events. The horses in the field interact during the running of races, and usually that interaction determines the result. Each event is unique, never happened before, and never to happen again, so we only have "right now", "this field of horses", "and "this race". Being able to see the interaction of horses, before the race, if done correctly often enough, will take you completely out of that linear thinking and put you on the road to long term success. Because, when you start treating individual races as unique, and get good at determining their uniqueness, when you stack them back to back over time, suddenly the results become much more "linear". Weird isn't it?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I usually turn the page unless I have a trainer angle.

It's not like I can't look up all the same pedigree information as everyone else. It's that I've never been able to convert that information into a fair price or profitable betting strategy. I may know that "so and so" is bred to move up the turf, but the fair odds in light of that information are a much tougher thing to get at.

Skipping the race was one of the options. If race doesn't line up to our linear path then don't play it.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

Linear thinking has been the downfall of multitudes of players. They know who they are, if they are honest with themselves, and generally their excuse, and "justification", is that it allows them to "jump on it before it disappears", regarding short term anomalies like perceived bias. For all those who still believe this methodology, good luck to you.

As Giles said, it's the interaction between the participants that determines the most likely outcome of those events. The horses in the field interact during the running of races, and usually that interaction determines the result. Each event is unique, never happened before, and never to happen again, so we only have "right now", "this field of horses", "and "this race". Being able to see the interaction of horses, before the race, if done correctly often enough, will take you completely out of that linear thinking and put you on the road to long term success. Because, when you start treating individual races as unique, and get good at determining their uniqueness, when you stack them back to back over time, suddenly the results become much more "linear". Weird isn't it?

Seeing the uniqueness in a race and dealing with is the other option. Here it is guessing, but can be rewarding. It's off the linear path.