Modern day angle players

[Capper Al]

Keep it simple. Picking contenders for most handicapping veterans isn't difficult. Connection stats aren't too helpful here. Ranking between the remaining contenders is difficult. Here the connection stats help and should be weigh like the other primary factors such as class and speed. When going for value think twice if the horse doesn't have good connections. I skip horses with high odds and poor connections as a value play.

[Shemp Howard]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

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.

I have a broker in our London office with a Timeform betting account and have been laying odds against a certain boastful outfit there that runs a lot of cheap horses.

Very profitable, so far.

[Dave Schwartz]

Picking contenders for most handicapping veterans isn't difficult.

If you mean, "I can pick any number of horses and call them contenders," I agree.

However, if you mean, "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders," well, I must respectfully differ from your opinion. That is far more difficult.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Keep it simple. Picking contenders for most handicapping veterans isn't difficult. Connection stats aren't too helpful here. Ranking between the remaining contenders is difficult. Here the connection stats help and should be weigh like the other primary factors such as class and speed. When going for value think twice if the horse doesn't have good connections. I skip horses with high odds and poor connections as a value play.

It is way more complex than that (but not hopelessly so). An example is to track the trainers/jockeys on your preferred circuit to learn their "behavioral patterns."

An example. Some jockeys excel as "second riders." They seem rarely to win, but more frequently to place--often on horses that "don't figure." Uncovering a few such can make life very worthwhile for an exacta bettor. Especially when one can correctly predict before the race when Horse A is likely to win and Horse B (that almost everyone views as an automatic tossout) is being ridden by a jockey who seems to be able to ride like Shoemaker on Ferdinand when the prices are right.

Not really too much work to find. Look for third-string jockeys with good place to win ratios (preferring the former) or second-string jockeys with win/place about even. It helps to take careful note of the human connections in races in which the winner is fairly predictable, but the place horse "didn't figure."

People are creatures of habit. The brighter ones tend to repeat their successes.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

If you mean, "I can pick any number of horses and call them contenders," I agree.

However, if you mean, "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders," well, I must respectfully differ from your opinion. That is far more difficult.

You doubt that veteran handicapper's contenders, in general, won't outperform their non-contenders if put to the test? I doubt it. Look at the tote-board. They are doing well.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

You doubt that veteran handicapper's contenders, in general, won't outperform their non-contenders if put to the test? I doubt it. Look at the tote-board. They are doing well.

I think that when Dave said "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders", he truly meant "significantly outperform", not just outperform. If your non-contenders do not underperform a very high percentage of the time, then that probably does not pass Dave's meaning of "significantly".(I'm thinking about 80-90% of the time)

[Poindexter]

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.

It is very hard for an angle to show a flat bet profit, since most horses racing are below fair value. The take is too high.That does not mean that the angle is not a strong indicator of a horse that might put forth a big or improved effort. Any angle that is losing 0 to say about 6 % over a large sample is certainly worth looking into. They are far exceeding the track take and with further filters can easily be made profitable. Also, just because a horse doesn't win, doesn't mean it is not useful for the bettor. Just Monday at Santa Anita, last race, I saw a horse that came off a layoff and had a running line of 3 nk and 3 nk 3rd by 4 4th by 9. I know that type of running line is an interesting angle(horse showing speed and faltering off of a layoff). Horse looked too slow so I keyed him in the super for 4th. He goes off at 70-1 and comes 3rd(nosing me out of the super) . But the point is that here was a 70-1 shot with an interesting angle, completing an $800+ trifecta, & part of a $450 super for a dime. But if you are calculating roi, he is just one more loser. You have to look a lot deeper than simple roi when analyzing whether an angle is useful or not I am not an angle player per se, but handicapping is all about angles. You cannot form an opinion about each horse without analyzing the importance of many angles on every card you handicap.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

I think that when Dave said "My contenders will significantly outperform my non-contenders", he truly meant "significantly outperform", not just outperform. If your non-contenders do not underperform a very high percentage of the time, then that probably does not pass Dave's meaning of "significantly".(I'm thinking about 80-90% of the time)

Who knows what Dave meant. The public hits about 70% with their top three. It isn't difficult to imagine that the veteran handicappers should do a little better.

[MJC922]

Figured I'd comment in this thread just because the direction of my own game is now exclusively spot plays, essentially 'angles' that are tied into a highly predictive class-based framework. I see this strategy as one of the best ways to mitigate against the odds volatility in US racing. Additionally the number tracks you can process makes angles a very attractive area of study vs the old days when you had one track in front of you. I don't know about you but I'm not interested in angles that have odds requirements... and if you don't have any odds requirements then it becomes mandatory to uncover the 'profit synergies' that existing between various factors as they relate to your own framework. Someone who is a pace handicapper or a trip handicapper may find very different 'profit synergies' that exist within their framework vs someone who is focused on speed figures for instance.

[Capper Al]

MJC,

You sound like a possible Scenario player. Good luck to you. The more understanding of the intricacies of the game, the better the results should be.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Shemp Howard

I have a broker in our London office with a Timeform betting account and have been laying odds against a certain boastful outfit there that runs a lot of cheap horses.

Very profitable, so far.

At least you're mixing it up a bit these days...but the obsession remains...

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Who knows what Dave meant. The public hits about 70% with their top three. It isn't difficult to imagine that the veteran handicappers should do a little better.

I don't believe that a veteran or excellent handicapper would be any better at picking contenders overall than the public. I will blindly take the top 3 betting choices in every race versus the top 3 selections of any handicapper and bet that my winning percentage would be better.

What separates the good players from the public is the ability to assess value amongst the contenders.

[Dave Schwartz]

You doubt that veteran handicapper's contenders, in general, won't outperform their non-contenders if put to the test? I doubt it. Look at the tote-board. They are doing well.

I precisely doubt that.

The issue is not JUST hit rate. It is also value.

Listen, you want lots of winners? Just pick the top 4 on the tote board. That will give you around 80% of all the winners.

People completely misunderstand what contender selection is. They think it is about picking winners when, in reality, it is about picking losers. (I think Traynor said something like that earlier in this thread.)



Here is the blueprint for as close to guaranteed success that I can get:

Handicap around 200-300 races and answer these questions:

1. "Do my non-contenders lose big money?"
The target should be losing at least 40% of every wager.

2. "Do my non-contenders below 7/2 lose big money?"
The target should be losing at least 35% of every wager.

3. "Considering just my contenders, do the ones I bet return far more money than the ones I don't bet?"


Strategy for Improvement
1. Start at the top with #1. If you cannot pass #1, then stop and figure out what is wrong with your contender process. BTW, in a 200-race sample, you can ignore that $160 horse that made the N/Cs profitable. May not see another one of those for 500 races.

2. If you get past #1, then your contender process is basically working. Next, you need to make sure that your contender process is not top-heavy with low-odds horses. If you can get past #2, then your contenders are a force to be reckoned with.

In fact, with a contender process this good, you could just about throw darts at the contenders and come pretty close to being even.

3. Next, it to check your "separation" process. That is, the process you use for making the final selection(s) from your contenders.

When you compare the contenders you bet to the contenders you pass, what good does if they all have about equal $Nets? Or worse, the horses you pass are actually better bets than the ones you bet?

There would logically be a 4th step: Deciding how much to bet in a race, but that is outside this conversation. Understand that "how much?" could be zero.

Finally, the majority of people will never get past step #1 because they are too busy playing and having a good time (and losing) to write down their C's and N/Cs for 200 races (along with the odds). Another reason they won't do it is because they really don't want to know the truth.

Shortcut for #1
In every race, write down the horses you tossed that went off at 3/1 and below. (You'll need to go back and look at the charts for this.) Even with just 50 races you'll be able to see a trend.

Be prepared. You probably won't like what you see.

[Capper Al]

Picking contenders has nothing to do with value. Either the winner is in the set of contenders or not in it. Value is a separate consideration from being able to win. Mixing the two is only folly. One can not wish his high odds horse to win. One can only strike when one of their contenders is going off at a price.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I don't believe that a veteran or excellent handicapper would be any better at picking contenders overall than the public. I will blindly take the top 3 betting choices in every race versus the top 3 selections of any handicapper and bet that my winning percentage would be better.

What separates the good players from the public is the ability to assess value amongst the contenders.

The top three public choices and veteran handicappers should mostly be one in the same. And yes, one assess value amongst the contenders.