Introduction and a rookie question

[Mulerider]

Hello all, first post. I've been lurking for a few months and have been awed by the depth of knowledge here. I'm a fairly new handicapper. My betting being somewhat restricted living in Texas, I make the hour drive to LAD once a week to play, mainly the simulcast races. My method is to download the Brisnet pp's for two or perhaps three tracks the night before, go through them and pick the races I want to handicap, and then handicap them. Those are the only races I'll wager on the next day. (And regarding my screen name, my other hobby is trail riding, and, though I own horses as well, I usually saddle Claire the Wonder Mule!)

I'm slowly absorbing the concept of pace handicapping. In the meantime, what I use is a homebuilt Excel spreadsheet. I have several categories to assign points, each category weighted according to the importance I've assigned it. One of those categories is the "best speed at distance." This particular metric only accounts for 5% of a horse's total overall points when I'm done. If that career best has occurred very recently, I do keep that in mind.

I have been passing races in which more than one horse has never run the distance of today's race. If it's just one horse, then I use the best speed figure shown on the pp's for a previous race the horse has run that's closest to today's distance. But since I'm uncomfortable with this method to start with, if there's more than one horse I just pass the race. And that's a lot of races.

I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this issue, or if I'm just placing too much importance on "best speed at distance." Thanks!

[egreen]

No suggestions but I'm curious how you decided upon the 5% figure? Do you have a weighted formula or are you assigning the same value to all factors?

[Mulerider]

I'm sorry, I hate to start off by misstating something right off the bat, but I did. The actual number is 15%, not 5, and I apply the same % to the "best speed on surface type" category as well. I have two other speed categories which are assigned 25% weights: last race speed and average speed last four races. So speed is comprising 80% of my point totals. The remaining 20% is divided fairly equally between jockey and trainer win %, the horse's average earnings per start for current year, and the horse's in-the-money % for the current year.

It's a rudimentary system, for sure, and my top points horse is almost always the crowd favorite. It does seem to work pretty well for narrowing down contenders, though. That's why I really need to learn and understand pace.

[Stillriledup]

You say you give extra points to jock and trainer successes but that is stuff already factored into the price. If you are giving a horse extra credit for having a top trainer your program might lead you to bet on more top connections rather than steer you away from that.

You want to stay away from horses with 'overbet humans' and try and gravitate towards horses with competent humans who don't cause the horse you're betting to be overbet.

[thaskalos]

Mulerider, welcome to our board.

In my opinion, any method which depends on one solitary handicapping factor for 80% of the end result is doomed from the very start. Your objective at this stage of the horseplaying journey should be to acquire as much understanding as you can about these horses, and what makes them perform as they do. These speed figures are the result of other "race dynamics" which, although easily ignored, determine to a large extent if these speed figures will be repeated today or not.

When I hear you say that you are planning to tackle the concept of pace next, I am asking myself if the concept of "class" should be ignored by you for as long as you seem to be overlooking it. In my own research into this game, it has become apparent to me that horses seldom perform up to their speed and pace potential when they are asked to race above their class level.

These different handicapping factors interact with each other so often that you are, in my opinion, stymieing your education by studying and applying them separately.

[Mulerider]

SRU and thaskalos, thanks for your helpful replies. SRU, that makes sense. I guess I'd assumed that all my metrics, since there's nothing special about any of them, would be baked in the cake. Do you mean that the public puts an inordinate weighting on the human element?

thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?

As an aside, I just finished handicapping Monmouth 3 for tomorrow. My rankings, in order of point totals, was 2-5-4-6-7-3-1. The Brisnet Prime Power rankings are 2-5-7-4-6-1-3. As usual, my top pick is the M/L favorite at 5/2. The 5 is 3/1 and the 4 and 7 are 7/2.

My style of play, for better or worse, is to hedge. In the race above, my instinct tells me to wager a $2WP on the 6 at 10/1. He's very close in my point totals to the 4, and was sharp in his last race. Then I'd probably play a $1 Exacta with 2,5/2,4,5. Yes, I realize that at least one bet is a loser.

I warned you I was new at this!

Thanks again!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

SRU and thaskalos, thanks for your helpful replies. SRU, that makes sense. I guess I'd assumed that all my metrics, since there's nothing special about any of them, would be baked in the cake. Do you mean that the public puts an inordinate weighting on the human element?

thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?

As an aside, I just finished handicapping Monmouth 3 for tomorrow. My rankings, in order of point totals, was 2-5-4-6-7-3-1. The Brisnet Prime Power rankings are 2-5-7-4-6-1-3. As usual, my top pick is the M/L favorite at 5/2. The 5 is 3/1 and the 4 and 7 are 7/2.

My style of play, for better or worse, is to hedge. In the race above, my instinct tells me to wager a $2WP on the 6 at 10/1. He's very close in my point totals to the 4, and was sharp in his last race. Then I'd probably play a $1 Exacta with 2,5/2,4,5. Yes, I realize that at least one bet is a loser.

I warned you I was new at this!

Thanks again!

No, the horse's earnings cannot be expected to tell us enough about the horse's current level of class...no matter how we choose to calculate them.

[raybo]

I agree with Thaskalos, you're way too heavy on "speed". There are many other factors that must be considered, if you want to make money, rather than just picking some winners. As Michael Pizzola states, you should wait for horses that YOU like, that the public shouldn't. That means that speed is not going to be your main factor, although it must be considered of course. Speed is in most of the public's mind, and they bet it.

"Class" is a good place to start, as well as current form/condition. But, as you stated "class" is a tough one to figure, and most can't even determine the definition of class. Mine is: a horse that can set or handle the pace and still finish strongly. In other words, a horse that can handle whatever is thrown at it, and still be there at the wire.

Current form/condition is another big equalizer, as it can determine current class, current pace ability, current speed ability, current distance ability, etc., etc., etc.. But, current form is just as hard to figure as current class, if not harder, and is very difficult to "calculate", because it doesn't lend itself easily to being numerically defined.

My suggestion, after class and form, is to analyze "field dynamics", which horses, and how many horses, in the race will be on or vying for the early lead and subsequently which horses will be advantaged and disadvantaged by that "projected" early running of the race. In similar "class" and "form" scenarios, pace (and field dynamics) really does make the race.

And then, you have the wagering portion, which is a totally different game, and must be considered separately from the handicapping portion. Of course, the primary objective, if you are interested in profit solely, is to receive more than you have wagered. Which also means that, although you can bet some low priced horses, you must bet enough higher priced horses, that are true contenders, to increase your average return over the long run. You have to leverage your money effectively, by requiring a good "risk versus potential reward" ratio. Exotics can help with that, but I don't suggest too much of that be done by someone who is just starting their horse racing career. Get the win (and maybe exacta) stuff figured out first.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

... The remaining 20% is divided fairly equally between jockey and trainer win %, the horse's average earnings per start for current year, and the horse's in-the-money % for the current year.

It's a rudimentary system, for sure, and my top points horse is almost always the crowd favorite. It does seem to work pretty well for narrowing down contenders, though. That's why I really need to learn and understand pace.

I also consider J/T but ITM%.

Are you familiar with the Equibase website which provides stats on Jockey, Trainer, Owner and Horse stats for the current year and prior years?

It's especially helpful at the beginning of a meet when stats are limited.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/index.html

Originally Posted by raybo

... Current form/condition is another big equalizer, as it can determine current class, current pace ability, current speed ability, current distance ability, etc., etc., etc.. But, current form is just as hard to figure as current class, if not harder, and is very difficult to "calculate", because it doesn't lend itself easily to being numerically defined.

My suggestion, after class and form, is to analyze "field dynamics", which horses, and how many horses, in the race will be on or vying for the early lead and subsequently which horses will be advantaged and disadvantaged by that "projected" early running of the race. In similar "class" and "form" scenarios, pace (and field dynamics) really does make the race.

And then, you have the wagering portion, which is a totally different game, and must be considered separately from the handicapping portion. Of course, the primary objective, if you are interested in profit solely, is to receive more than you have wagered. Which also means that, although you can bet some low priced horses, you must bet enough higher priced horses, that are true contenders, to increase your average return over the long run. You have to leverage your money effectively, by requiring a good "risk versus potential reward" ratio. Exotics can help with that, but I don't suggest too much of that be done by someone who is just starting their horse racing career. Get the win (and maybe exacta) stuff figured out first.

.

I don't know who Raybo is but, I've noticed he's usually a straight shooter. This is some very good advice.

Good luck.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

SRU and thaskalos, thanks for your helpful replies. SRU, that makes sense. I guess I'd assumed that all my metrics, since there's nothing special about any of them, would be baked in the cake. Do you mean that the public puts an inordinate weighting on the human element?

thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?

As an aside, I just finished handicapping Monmouth 3 for tomorrow. My rankings, in order of point totals, was 2-5-4-6-7-3-1. The Brisnet Prime Power rankings are 2-5-7-4-6-1-3. As usual, my top pick is the M/L favorite at 5/2. The 5 is 3/1 and the 4 and 7 are 7/2.

My style of play, for better or worse, is to hedge. In the race above, my instinct tells me to wager a $2WP on the 6 at 10/1. He's very close in my point totals to the 4, and was sharp in his last race. Then I'd probably play a $1 Exacta with 2,5/2,4,5. Yes, I realize that at least one bet is a loser.

I warned you I was new at this!

Thanks again!

Yes, I believe high profile humans get overbet, there's enough players who don't know the horses who just defer to Pletcher or Baffert or the leading rider. The key to any chance at true success lies with knowing the talent, strengths, weaknesses and style of the equine athlete so well that when you get your horse in a great situation, you actually hope it's trained by Joe Blow and ridden by John Doe.

In reality though you're never really betting on horses OR humans, you're betting on bets. The odds are all that really matters, the rest if the stuff is just distractions from your main goal and that is betting on overlays.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I also consider J/T but ITM%.

Are you familiar with the Equibase website which provides stats on Jockey, Trainer, Owner and Horse stats for the current year and prior years?

It's especially helpful at the beginning of a meet when stats are limited.

Thanks. Yes, on the jockeys and trainers I use the ITM%. Actually, on the jockey I use the ITM% for the type horse he's on (E, E/P, etc.). With the trainer I tend to just use the overall ITM%, mainly because I don't know which of the listed subsets might be more important than another.

Appreciate the Equibase info; I had that issue at the beginning of a couple of meets, and just used the 2014 stats until enough current year stats became available to use.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

...
thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?...

I'm uncertain about average e/p/s relating to a horse's current class but, I do use total earnings to gauge the horse's class. But, it's use depends on a number of conditions i.e., age, # races last year, # races so far this year, types of races run, etc. I've been using it for so long, I probably subconsciously do a number of other things which I'm unaware I'm doing.

I think a better reply would be ----- what info does the ave. e/p/s provide to you?

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I think a better reply would be ----- what info does the ave. e/p/s provide to you?

I could be totally off base, but I'm thinking that it would provide an insight to the quality of the competition the horse had faced, assuming that the higher purse races attract higher quality entries. Or even if all the horses in a given race had consistently run in $10k purse races, it seems to me that the horse with the highest e/p/s would indicate a certain superiority over his peers.

And like the horse's ITM%, I try when possible to use current year e/ps, on the theory that old numbers, even if outstanding, may not reflect the horse's current condition.

My theories, of course, could well be worthless. I'm certainly willing to change and adapt.

whodoyoulike, when handicapping a race in which one or more horses had never run today's distance, how do you account for that?

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Yes, I believe high profile humans get overbet, there's enough players who don't know the horses who just defer to Pletcher or Baffert or the leading rider. The key to any chance at true success lies with knowing the talent, strengths, weaknesses and style of the equine athlete so well that when you get your horse in a great situation, you actually hope it's trained by Joe Blow and ridden by John Doe.

In reality though you're never really betting on horses OR humans, you're betting on bets. The odds are all that really matters, the rest if the stuff is just distractions from your main goal and that is betting on overlays.

Thank you. I understand on the overlays. Admittedly, I have no clue how to make my own odds line. In my limited experience, what I'm calling an overlay is when one of my high-scoring horses --if it's close in total points to my top pick -- goes off at 4/1 or higher.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

... whodoyoulike, when handicapping a race in which one or more horses had never run today's distance, how do you account for that?

I've learned over the years that I don't understand and can't handicap every type of race. And, I don't which now saves me a lot of time. I don't handicap 2yo races or 3yo's early in the year which makes the TC races very difficult for me because I have to over rely on replays. I try to evaluate the horse's ability or fitness to the distance being run e.g., a horse with several races run at 6f or less trying 8f is usually a pass on that horse. I've been beaten a few times but, I just can't bet them. Quite a few horses have a distance limitation. I guess I need to see how they adapt to the different distance pace. Now, one who has raced 8f or 8.5f trying 8.5f or 9f is a different situation.

Btw, I consider myself a pace handicapper.