track handicappers

[jasperson]

Should track handicappers have a better roi than computer generated picks like
bris and others? Has anyone did a study on that factor? I think the track handicapper should do better because of all the information he has available to him.

[MONEY]

1) There is no such thing as computer generated picks.
Computers make the picks that the software writer and/or the computer user makes them pick.
So computer generated picks are only as good at picking winners as the writer/user are.

2) To many players the ROI or win % of the 1st pick means little.
Look at the results of the RDSS Ridersup pick4 contest.
There have been 7 contest days.
Contestants have made between 1,300 & 1,400 picks & the leaders have hit only between 1 & 3 pick4s.

3) The tricks that profitable players that depend on their 1st pick have learned are,
A. Bet more on the winners & less on the losers.
B. Skip the picks with properties that show a long term loss.
C. Patience.

4) A track handicapper's job is not necessarily to have 1st pick winners, but to give the public a little information on the main contenders.

5) Somebody will say that I'm wrong & I'm not going to argue with Him/Her/It.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MONEY

1) There is no such thing as computer generated picks.
Computers make the picks that the software writer and/or the computer user makes them pick.
So computer generated picks are only as good at picking winners as the writer/user are.

2) To many players the ROI or win % of the 1st pick means little.
Look at the results of the RDSS Ridersup pick4 contest.
There have been 7 contest days.
Contestants have made between 1,300 & 1,400 picks & the leaders have hit only between 1 & 3 pick4s.

3) The tricks that profitable players that depend on their 1st pick have learned are,
A. Bet more on the winners & less on the losers.
B. Skip the picks with properties that show a long term loss.
C. Patience.

4) A track handicapper's job is not necessarily to have 1st pick winners, but to give the public a little information on the main contenders.

5) Somebody will say that I'm wrong & I'm not going to argue with Him/Her/It.

1) The term "computer generated picks" exists because the software writer often wishes to distance himself from the selections that his software makes.

2) Regardless of what the Pick-4 contest participants find "important", there are still a great many win-bettors out there...and the ROI and win % of their top pick still means plenty.

3) If it were possible to know in advance which our winning and losing picks would be...then the optimum play would be to bet NOTHING AT ALL on the losing selections.

4) The track handicapper's job is to do whatever his employers have instructed him to do.

5) I don't blame you.

[AltonKelsey]

Bit of a stretch to say computer generated picks is a misnomer.

If that's the case then there are no computer generated anything, since a human has to program it.

In markets , they talk of 'algo's' All programmed by humans, but considered computer generated trades.

[jasperson]

Also a human programmed a computer to play chess and it can beat the human that programmed it.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by jasperson

Should track handicappers have a better roi than computer generated picks like bris and others? Has anyone did a study on that factor? I think the track handicapper should do better because of all the information he has available to him.

It depends on who you mean by "track handicappers." It depends on what they do after they handicap the races. If it's the person who makes the morning line or goes on tv and makes picks, but doesn't watch the races, then no. But if he watches the races and makes notes and keeps a journal, then yes.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by jasperson

Should track handicappers have a better roi than computer generated picks like
bris and others? Has anyone did a study on that factor? I think the track handicapper should do better because of all the information he has available to him.

Track handicappers don't really have much of an information advantage, in my opinion. So it comes down to skill. As for computer generated picks, when you say bris, and others, which picks are you referring to?

I'm pretty sure I could set up a computer handicapping program that will, over the long run, produce a better ROI than most track handicappers, and probably most handicappers, in general. But it would probably only pick about 15% winners because the best way to design a computer handicapping system for maximum ROI is to program it to pick longshots that appear to have a chance and set a minimum odds requirement. But it wouldn't be fair to compare those picks to a track handicapper, because the track handicapper's job is to give people a good idea of which horses have a chance to win the race. Any track handicapper who picks a longshot in every race is probably not going to have a job long because he'll be picking too many losers.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

Track handicappers don't really have much of an information advantage, in my opinion. So it comes down to skill. As for computer generated picks, when you say bris, and others, which picks are you referring to?

I'm pretty sure I could set up a computer handicapping program that will, over the long run, produce a better ROI than most track handicappers, and probably most handicappers, in general. But it would probably only pick about 15% winners because the best way to design a computer handicapping system for maximum ROI is to program it to pick longshots that appear to have a chance and set a minimum odds requirement. But it wouldn't be fair to compare those picks to a track handicapper, because the track handicapper's job is to give people a good idea of which horses have a chance to win the race. Any track handicapper who picks a longshot in every race is probably not going to have a job long because he'll be picking too many losers.

If the track handicapper's main consideration is his win %...couldn't he solve his problem quite nicely by sticking with the race favorites in every race? If a low win % could mean dismissal from his job...then, why would the track handicapper ever release higher-priced horses as his picks?

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the track handicapper's main consideration is his win %...couldn't he solve his problem quite nicely by sticking with the race favorites in every race? If a low win % could mean dismissal from his job...then, why would the track handicapper ever release higher-priced horses as his picks?

What I meant by "give people a good idea of which horses have a chance to win the race," I didn't mean to infer that he only pick the most obvious horses. Certainly a good track handicapper should point out horses that he thinks have a chance at a price. But in my opinion, whether it's computer generated picks, or a handicapper's picks, if you're trying to produce the highest possible ROI on a single pick per race, then the pick should almost always be a longshot. And I think that you could make a case that few if any favorites should ever be picked on top, if the highest ROI is the main goal. This is particularly true at the top tracks.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

What I meant by "give people a good idea of which horses have a chance to win the race," I didn't mean to infer that he only pick the most obvious horses. Certainly a good track handicapper should point out horses that he thinks have a chance at a price. But in my opinion, whether it's computer generated picks, or a handicapper's picks, if you're trying to produce the highest possible ROI on a single pick per race, then the pick should almost always be a longshot. And I think that you could make a case that few if any favorites should ever be picked on top, if the highest ROI is the main goal. This is particularly true at the top tracks.

I am not sure what you mean by "longshot"...by I still disagree with your general assessment here. In my opinion...all the handicapper has to do is to pick contenders who appear to be "overlayed". They needn't be "longshots".

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am not sure what you mean by "longshot"...by I still disagree with your general assessment here. In my opinion...all the handicapper has to do is to pick contenders who appear to be "overlayed". They needn't be "longshots".

True....If I've got a horse figured at 3-2, and the board says 5-2, I'm IN...

[jasperson]

Originally Posted by Redboard

It depends on who you mean by "track handicappers." It depends on what they do after they handicap the races. If it's the person who makes the morning line or goes on tv and makes picks, but doesn't watch the races, then no. But if he watches the races and makes notes and keeps a journal, then yes.

I mean the track handicapper whose only job is to handicap the races at that track. If the handicapper is not at the track he does't have anymore information then I can get out the racing form. Ron Nicolett1 at Gulfstream is one. Saturday he had 2 winners. r3 $7.60 r10 $45.20. Also e-ponie and bris also had the same horse. These are the computer picks that I am talking about
because they make picks everyday. Think formulator does also but I don't know anything about it. Track announcers that double as handicappers don't count because they do not have the time to do the research.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am not sure what you mean by "longshot"...by I still disagree with your general assessment here. In my opinion...all the handicapper has to do is to pick contenders who appear to be "overlayed". They needn't be "longshots".

The original post referred to the track handicapper. So we're talking about someone who is providing his picks prior to seeing the odds. If he is a good handicapper and picks a horse that he is pretty sure will go off as longshot, say, 6-1 or higher, that is his best strategy.

By the way, I've seen proof of this over and over again. If you're using public handicappers as an example, the ones that pick the most winners on top almost never show a positive ROI for a meet. But someone like Steve Matthews (Newsday), who probably has the lowest win percentage of anyone, often has a positive ROI.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by jasperson

Should track handicappers have a better roi than computer generated picks like
bris and others? Has anyone did a study on that factor? I think the track handicapper should do better because of all the information he has available to him.

Someone that can take time to be track side, watch the races in person or review tapes,learn the local cliques trainers and jockey colonies and horses as well as sharp understanding of the track's surface and maintenance have a definite information advantages over someone that only has access to electronic data alone. Whether that person can convert that to an ROI advantage means they are able to figure out what information provides an edge over the electronic bettors and identify and play those edges when they appear.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Someone that can take time to be track side, watch the races in person or review tapes,learn the local cliques trainers and jockey colonies and horses as well as sharp understanding of the track's surface and maintenance have a definite information advantages over someone that only has access to electronic data alone. Whether that person can convert that to an ROI advantage means they are able to figure out what information provides an edge over the electronic bettors and identify and play those edges when they appear.

With the races being broadcast on TV and the internet and the replays available, I don't see that being at the track provides much of an advantage for someone who is making picks the day before the races. If you watch the race with binoculars, you can definitely see things that are not easy to spot on the telecast, but not that many handicappers use binoculars these days.