Modern day angle players

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by RaceTrackDaddy

I use this angle in harness racing as much as I did in flat racing.

Every trainer has their go to jockey/driver. Whenever I see a change in class to the horse coupled with the change to their 'go to' jockey/driver, I head to the window.

You don't get many of these per week; but when you do, I tend to make money.

I have found that with my personal history of this over my lifetime, that trying to score on a horse/all/all trifecta ticket nets me less money than if I just spent the same amount on the Horse/all exacta. I have bet in small pool tracks so going to the Win pool is not a good idea as any heavy bets will show up fast on the tote.

Angles in harness racing are almost mandatory.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

I'm definitely a "formulas" player, with only one "angle", that I have used for years and years, when it arises (not too often). I have 11 primary rankings methods (one of which is a "variable" method with 6 optional ratings that can be tested and played according to how they do at specific tracks). Each rankings method is a different way of looking at the same race (via formulas and composites). The race type, distance, surface, class, age, etc., has a lot to do with which of those methods I use in individual races. My track testing of all those rankings methods also has a lot to do with how I play races at that track.

But, the rankings/ratings are only part of the picture, current form analysis can have a dramatic effect on my final selection(s). But, my form analysis has no set "angles" (except the lone angle I mentioned above), rather I try to "think like a trainer" to see if prior deficiencies/needs have been addressed via workouts and/or races and layoffs/rests, and assign horses one of 2 statuses regarding today's race: a "conditioning race" assignment or an "earnings race" assignment. If my assignment for a horse is a "conditioning race", then that horse will never be among my win contenders (unless he can win the race running backwards, and then I expect its odds to be much too low for win betting). If the horse is an "earnings race" and he is among my chosen method's win contenders, he will stay there and likely be bet, in some fashion, depending on his "potential" against this field.

My lone "angle" overrides almost all the above.

Funny Raybo, I guessed you wrong. I thought that you would be a modern day angle player because of your record keeping and value play methods. As in the OP, I saw you waiting in a claiming route for the right set of circumstances (class, speed, pace, whatever) and then value. The old style angle player waited for the general observation that could be read in the form like first time lasix. This differs from the modern day angle player who looks at his elements per race condition like class, speed, etc.

[acorn54]

a long while ago boxcar had angles that purportedly showed a positive r.o.i.
jeff platt incorporated them into his jcapper software program. it turned out they were not profitable.
jeff said he has coded alot of angles and has yet to find one that is profitable when tested over the long haul.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by acorn54

a long while ago boxcar had angles that purportedly showed a positive r.o.i.
jeff platt incorporated them into his jcapper software program. it turned out they were not profitable.
jeff said he has coded alot of angles and has yet to find one that is profitable when tested over the long haul.

98% of either method, formula or angles, are expected NOT to be profitable. This discussion is more on modern-day handicapping approaches. I like a word that DeltaLover used in a previous post- scenario player. This is what I called the modern day angle player contrasted to the formula player who tries to come up with their own universal point system similar to BRIS Prime.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

98% of either method, formula or angles, are expected NOT to be profitable. This discussion is more on modern-day handicapping approaches. I like a word that DeltaLover used in a previous post- scenario player. This is what I called the modern day angle player contrasted to the formula player who tries to come up with their own universal point system similar to BRIS Prime.

I think most of us try to come up with our own point system similar to BRIS Prime. Most of us bet the exotics, and the exotics demand a precise ranking system which a power rating is good at providing. But the game is complicated, and different circumstances often present themselves...which disturb the mathematical "certainties" upon which these power ratings are based. Visual evidence sometimes contradicts the validity of set numbers...and adjustments need to be made. The top-numbered choice is sometimes put aside...and a lesser horse is elevated to the top. The horseplayer may operate with rules...but he must also know when those rules need to be twisted...or even broken.

We may be "figure handicappers"...but we cannot remain enslaved by our numbers. Contrary to what some may think...this isn't just a math or physics problem waiting to be solved. Not in MY opinion, anyway...

[BlueChip@DRF]

I've been doing better when I handicap the connections/riders of the horse than just the horse itself.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Funny Raybo, I guessed you wrong. I thought that you would be a modern day angle player because of your record keeping and value play methods. As in the OP, I saw you waiting in a claiming route for the right set of circumstances (class, speed, pace, whatever) and then value. The old style angle player waited for the general observation that could be read in the form like first time lasix. This differs from the modern day angle player who looks at his elements per race condition like class, speed, etc.

My philosophy is that each horse in each race has performance "attributes" which must be weighed against the attributes of its competitors, and the mixture of those various attributes determining the "dynamics" of the race, with current condition/form playing a major role. "Value" for me, in win betting at least, is determined by the track and the people who play it, and my testing of that track and what minimum odds has produced the kind of hit rate and ROI mixture I require. In my Black Box program, that can vary according to each user's personal requirements and comfort level.

In my superfecta play, "value" is based on field size, expected pool size (by race type and its order on the card), and the assessment of what my expected minimum payout will be should I hit the ticket. My minimum expected payout requirement is $300 for a $1 base ticket.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I think most of us try to come up with our own point system similar to BRIS Prime. Most of us bet the exotics, and the exotics demand a precise ranking system which a power rating is good at providing. But the game is complicated, and different circumstances often present themselves...which disturb the mathematical "certainties" upon which these power ratings are based. Visual evidence sometimes contradicts the validity of set numbers...and adjustments need to be made. The top-numbered choice is sometimes put aside...and a lesser horse is elevated to the top. The horseplayer may operate with rules...but he must also know when those rules need to be twisted...or even broken.

We may be "figure handicappers"...but we cannot remain enslaved by our numbers. Contrary to what some may think...this isn't just a math or physics problem waiting to be solved. Not in MY opinion, anyway...

Absolutely!

[traynor]

Originally Posted by BlueChip@DRF

I've been doing better when I handicap the connections/riders of the horse than just the horse itself.

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

[whodoyoulike]

I've used the angle of the horse's last race and s(he) failed as the favorite. It depended on by how many beaten lengths, how soon the horse returned, next distance entered, class move, etc. Be aware there may be several which failed as the favorite last out and you will need to use your judgement whether to pass etc.

It was a pretty good angle which I still use sparingly.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

IMO...it is wrong to criticise these "evaluation methods" as a group...as if they all closely resemble each other. Evaluation methods differ from each other as much as horseplayers do...and some are much more successful than others. I, myself, would need to see more proof before I am convinced that handicapping the connections is a better contender separator than "figure handicapping" and general handicapping knowledge are. The humans may prepare the horse, but the horse still does the running. Yes...in today's game we can't afford to ignore the trainer factor...but what you are advocating here seems to be ignoring the HORSE. And we can't afford to do that either.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by traynor

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

My most heavily bet track the last 3 years is Penn National and i honestly couldnt name 3 jockeys or trainers there if you were to ask me right now...yet i have done ok there.This isnt to diminish the importance of the human element -I know its a huge factor in some races,and im sure there are plenty of members here who do well focusing on that part of the game.
There is no one way to do this imo.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

I did a reasearch project for a client (data mining) of every race run in Australia for five years. A LOT of races. Bottom line (after six months of some very serious number crunching) is that in almost every race, there are two, three, four, or more horses that can win. Numbers of various flavors are used by weak handicappers to "select the best" of that lot. They would do far better focusing on the jockeys, trainers, and (occasionally) owners for indicators of which horse will win a given race.

Obsessing over microscopic "evaluations" of speed, pace, class, or whatever else is nowhere near as productive as focusing on the human element. Horses are simply animals that do as they are directed (to the best of their current ability or willingness) in any given scenario.

Past performances of horses describe what happened--not what will happen. Past performances of the human elements are far more accurate indicators of what will happen.

Most speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" as used by most bettors are not far removed from the old time Ray Taulbot and crew or PRN "tie breakers." They work just often enough to make the users believe (on a good day) that they are predictive. That is, a race is broken down into "contenders" (or "true contenders" for Sartin advocates), and various methods applied to past performances of those contenders to determine which (according to the favored evaluation method) is "most likely" to win today.

Speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods" have a valid place in race analysis. That place is evaluating a group of entries to determine which are likely to be in or near the lead in the final yards. Extracting the winner from that group is far easier using "human analysis" than using speed, pace, class, and similar "evaluation methods."

This is my current method. The thing is if one is hunting for a surprise factor for value then the connections are where it's at.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

This is my current method. The thing is if one is hunting for a surprise factor for value then the connections are where it's at.

Since when are the horse's connections a "surprise"?

[BlueChip@DRF]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Since when are the horse's connections a "surprise"?

When no one else is paying attention.