Handicapping vrs Systems

[Robert Goren]

I switching from a handicapper to a system player because handicapping has just become to much work for me. I was doing my own version of John Sterling type of handicapping. I kept running into things I need to know but didn't. Most of it involved trainers, especially trainers that had stables at several tracks. I would liked to have known who the asst trainer was them at each track. Next to impossible to find out. I need to know how each trainer treated each type of horse. At the bottom level, did they normally WO a horse 0, 1, or 2 times between races. Did they work them fast or slow. Was no WOs a bad sign ? Is 2 fast WOs a good or bad sign. These things not only matter from trainer to trainer, but from asst trainer to asst trainer. Then there were Biases . At Belmont , there is 3 track to worry about change bias and do the biases hold in both sprint and route races. Then there was back biases to keep track of individual horses. And of course, the trips they had. And did the Jockey fit the horse's running style. Maybe I should have just moved to circuit that ran year around with very few turf races although I still would have to do a lot of work on the training methods of most of trainers. It became too much for me and having to do it a set time was also getting to be a problem. Maybe some day I will write a book about what I did since a lot of it hasn't been covered before.

Although I am not sure exactly what he does for sure, I am picking out one thing like shippers like pondman talks about. Currently I am looking shippers by trainer to NYRA especially those going off at 5/1 + and going from there. I have no data base, so it is going back over old charts and PPSs. At least I am able to choose the time when I do my research. That very important right now. This is foreign to me, so everything is a learning process. My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I switching from a handicapper to a system player because handicapping has just become to much work for me. I was doing my own version of John Sterling type of handicapping. I kept running into things I need to know but didn't. Most of it involved trainers, especially trainers that had stables at several tracks. I would liked to have known who the asst trainer was them at each track. Next to impossible to find out. I need to know how each trainer treated each type of horse. At the bottom level, did they normally WO a horse 0, 1, or 2 times between races. Did they work them fast or slow. Was no WOs a bad sign ? Is 2 fast WOs a good or bad sign. These things not only matter from trainer to trainer, but from asst trainer to asst trainer. Then there were Biases . At Belmont , there is 3 track to worry about change bias and do the biases hold in both sprint and route races. Then there was back biases to keep track of individual horses. And of course, the trips they had. And did the Jockey fit the horse's running style. Maybe I should have just moved to circuit that ran year around with very few turf races although I still would have to do a lot of work on the training methods of most of trainers. It became too much for me and having to do it a set time was also getting to be a problem. Maybe some day I will write a book about what I did since a lot of it hasn't been covered before.

Although I am not sure exactly what he does for sure, I am picking out one thing like shippers like pondman talks about. Currently I am looking shippers by trainer to NYRA especially those going off at 5/1 + and going from there. I have no data base, so it is going back over old charts and PPSs. At least I am able to choose the time when I do my research. That very important right now. This is foreign to me, so everything is a learning process. My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

"Chunk it down." That process is used in "shadowing"--a procedure for making the procedures used by an expert explicit. It involves analyzing the steps used by the expert to break them down into even smaller steps so that a non-expert can replicate (or exceed) the performance of the expert. It is called "shadowing" because many experts cannot describe what they do. The modeler "shadows" (observes closely) the expert at work, with minimal disturbance, and makes a list of questions to clarify issues during an after-process session.

If you expand on the idea of writing a book, you can get most of the benefit on your own. Start at the beginning, and write down each step of the process as if you were teaching it to someone else. Initially, the "why" part is not necessary. You can always add that later if you decide to write the book. For now, concentrate on the "what" part. What information you use and how you use it.

One of the things that some experts find surprising is that many complex procedures are no more than a series of small steps--often endlessly repetitive and overlapping. By chunking the process down, the exact steps used are made explicit, and can often be streamlined and improved with even better results. That is, the process of modeling and shadowing is as beneficial (or more so) to the expert as to those who want to emulate the expert's performance.

For example, in "comprehensive handicapping" (or any other complex process) an expert may believe he or she is juggling and evaluating hundreds of factors, while emphasis is really only being placed on a few key indicators. All the rest is just checking, re-checking, comparing, checking again, etc.--what modelers call "busywork." Finding those key indicators on which the real decision-making process of the expert are based is the driving motivation behind the procedures used.

[Dave Schwartz]

...John Sterling type of handicapping.

What does that mean, please?

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

What does that mean, please?

That means look at every race being run at a certain race track and looking over all the horses and trying to pick a winner with the use on the knowledge you have. It means the use of track bias both todays and past days. It means the use of trip notes. A look at how of the race sets up. It means looking at the odds. It means looking at hot and cold trainers and bunch of other stuff including the way jockeys ride. John and I don't entirely handicap alike from I can tell by his comments on his shows and we certainly don't end up the same horse all the time. A better term might be "old time handicapping" like that was done before simulcasting when you had only one track to deal with. It does not mean not using all the modern tools available like FORMULATOR. It means with some exceptions sticking to one circuit instead of cherry picking bets at a bunch tracks. I do not if John actually handicaps this way for his bets, but is the image of the way he bets that he projects on his shows. I am sure he looks at things I don't and I look at things he don't. He has some sort of advantage because he has some horseman connections at NYRA I don't have. I use to have some on the Nebraska circuit many years ago. You don't realize how valuable they are until you lose them. There is big difference between this style of handicapping and just crunch numbers even though some number crunching goes into it.
I wish I had never said I might write a book because it so unlikely happen for a number reasons not the least of which is I am a lousy wordsmith. It was late and could not sleep so I just set down and threw out some ideas.
I am however attempting to switching over to system betting as stated to before. I hope answered your question, Dave. I tried to as best I know how.

[Overlay]

I favor a combination of the two.

The weaknesses of handicapping (in my opinion) are the tendency to get too far down in the weeds with data, where the amount of time (and possibly money) expended in an attempt to gain an edge is not justified by the marginal value of the information obtained; and the largely qualitative, subjective nature of the decision-making process, which does not provide adequate assurance of consistency of application from one race to the next.

The weaknesses of systems are their tendency to be one-dimensional from a handicapping factor standpoint, and to operate on the principle of narrowing a field down through a process of elimination to the one most probable winner (regardless of odds), which leads to overbetting of the final choice to the point of loss of pari-mutuel value.

I prefer a hybrid approach that uses a workable amount of concrete, quantitative data to assign a reliable winning probability to each horse in a field, so that I can spot possible wagering value wherever it may occur, and also have a solid basis for determining which races to entirely play or pass, and which horses or combinations to bet (as well as how much to wager) in the races that I do play.

[ikeika]

Traynor, what you say is enormously true.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I switching from a handicapper to a system player because handicapping has just become to much work for me. I was doing my own version of John Sterling type of handicapping. I kept running into things I need to know but didn't. Most of it involved trainers, especially trainers that had stables at several tracks. I would liked to have known who the asst trainer was them at each track. Next to impossible to find out. I need to know how each trainer treated each type of horse. At the bottom level, did they normally WO a horse 0, 1, or 2 times between races. Did they work them fast or slow. Was no WOs a bad sign ? Is 2 fast WOs a good or bad sign. These things not only matter from trainer to trainer, but from asst trainer to asst trainer. Then there were Biases . At Belmont , there is 3 track to worry about change bias and do the biases hold in both sprint and route races. Then there was back biases to keep track of individual horses. And of course, the trips they had. And did the Jockey fit the horse's running style. Maybe I should have just moved to circuit that ran year around with very few turf races although I still would have to do a lot of work on the training methods of most of trainers. It became too much for me and having to do it a set time was also getting to be a problem. Maybe some day I will write a book about what I did since a lot of it hasn't been covered before.

Although I am not sure exactly what he does for sure, I am picking out one thing like shippers like pondman talks about. Currently I am looking shippers by trainer to NYRA especially those going off at 5/1 + and going from there. I have no data base, so it is going back over old charts and PPSs. At least I am able to choose the time when I do my research. That very important right now. This is foreign to me, so everything is a learning process. My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I've never heard of John Sterling; are you thinking of Andy Serling?

As to your original question...I doubt that you will find a profitable "shortcut" in this game. The workload comes with the territory...

[RaceBookJoe]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I've never heard of John Sterling; are you thinking of Andy Serling?

Or Rod Serling's " Handicapping in the Zone...the Twilight Zone "

[Ocala Mike]

I thought Robert was referring to the announcer for the NY Yankees, whose expertise as a handicapper was unknown to me. "Theeeeeeee Yankees win!"

Anyway, I think a hybrid approach is best for the casual player, supplemented by applying a few favorite "angles" as seasoning.

[Dave Schwartz]

Robert,

Yes, I get it now.

It sounds like you are trying to switch from what I call, "Seat of the pants" handicapping - where the handicapping attempts to discern everything from staring at data sheets, DRF, models, everything in front of him - to something more systematic.

I have always had great respect for the SotP guys - if they are successful.

It has always been just too much work for me.

[thaskalos]

IMO...it behooves the player to operate in a systematic manner, even if he is a "seat of the pants" handicapper.

What I think the detective is trying to do is adopt a one-dimensional handicapping approach...instead of the time-consuming "comprehensive" approach that he is using now.

"System handicapping" can be effective...provided it's not the simplistic type which was touted by the system sellers of yesteryear.

Things should be made as simple as possible...but no simpler.

[traynor]

Comprehensive handicapping may be no better (and could be worse) than a more systematic approach. Individual factors--whether studied in a comprehensive approach or systematic approach--are not cumulative. That myth has been pervasive since way, way back when Ray Taulbot was cranking out a new system every month for ATM. One cannot add a value for a jockey to a value for a trainer, adjust it by a pace figure, (or any number of other factors) and bet the biggest number. It doesn't matter whether one calls his or her approach comprehensive or systematic--both suffer the same defect when a (false) assumption is made that cumulative values perform better than individual or limited scope values.

A number of fairly serious studies (including studies of the performance of handicappers) argue that considering many factors ("comprehensive") tends to increase confidence, but reduce accuracy. Conversely, considering fewer (but more relevant) factors increased accuracy (usually associated with increased profits).

Comprehensive handicapping approaches are fairly easy to program. The trick is in weighting the various factors. One cannot simply add them together, because the effect of each component varies. The weighting--explicit or implicit--is what both comprehensive handicappers and systematic handicappers are doing--whether they know it or not. That is, at some point a subjective decision has to be made that Jockey A trumps Trainer B, and the horse's tendency to wilt in the stretch will be avoided by going a shorter distance today. The key point is that all the points considered in comprehensive handicapping are not cumulative--they are not simply added together. The weighting assigned to the individual points in comprehensive handicapping--explicitly or implicitly--is nearly identical to the process of assigning weights in more systematic approaches.

http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/s...n%20Making.pdf

[DeltaLover]

Handicapping is overvalued. It is impossible to make it big in this game simply by improving your handicapping.

When I see people trying to add as many factors possible, paddock inspection, very refined trainer and jockey stats etc, to their models, I am convinced they are trying to solve the problem following the wrong approach.

I came to believe that this is happening, because people refuse to accept the obvious truth, that the outcome of a race is not deterministic and that beyond a certain level, any additional handicapping effort is useless. Any horse can win, and more than this, it is not only impossible to make a distinction between a 7-2 and a 5-1 shot, it also does not even worth the effort.

The focal point is to handicap the crowd rather than the horses! To paraphrase a well known maxim of the poker word, horse betting is a people game that happens to use horses as a randomizer!.

In this game, it is way more important to understand how your opponents are acting than trying to predict the performance of a horse.

If you really want to excel in this game, you better spend your time analyzing how the crowd acts, understand what are the few angles used over and over forming the betting lines, get in to the psychology of the masses and look for holes that you can patch applying game theory and aggressive betting schemes.

A tight and passive approach will not help either.

As a bettor you need to be relatively loose and aggressive, if you want to give yourself the opportunity to hit it big.

In a 1-10 scale you should be close to 7 in both tightness and aggression.

BY tightness - looseness I refer on the number of races you decide to bet and by aggression - passiveness on the amount you are going to bet. (Again I am borrowing these terms from the poker literature).

If your handicapping does not allow you to bet around 70% or the races you you certainly need to improve on it.

Same thing with aggression. If you are managing a middle size bankroll ( 7K - 15K) and never make a bet more than $500 or your average bet is less than $200 (assuming large enough pools) you need to rethink your approach to the game. If you are betting with a very small bankroll (less than 2K) you should be ready to take big risks on your way of ramping it up. If your bankroll is large then almost all your bets should be as big as the pool proportions suggest.

Convince yourself that this is gambling and not some form of investing. Be prepared to take your chances with marginal calls that might create a long loosing streak. Don't kid yourself believing you can make it with a small bankroll and limited risk. It simply does not work like this.

[Robert Goren]

I have to apologize to the little guy. Of course I meant Andy Sterling, not the Yankee broadcaster with the same last name.

[Ocala Mike]

Robert, I know you have a true problem with words and such, but it's Andy Serling, not Sterling.

Carry on; we get your point.

Also, lots of great posts about the sometimes arcane truths about the "science" of handicapping in this thread.