proximity odds template for caveman....

[proximity]

proximity odds template for caveman handicappers.......

lately i've kinda gotten away from using my computer in assisting me in the odds making process and have gravitated towards the "template" idea featured in steve fierro's book (4 quarters of horse investing). when going through this process i usually find it rather easy to select my four contenders and rank them in order, but often times struggle when trying to select the proper line from mr fierro's templates. i noted that i could usually state my opinions on the differences between a-b, b-c and c-d without much trouble, but often struggled with mr fierro's first question: how strong do i feel about my top contender?

so i decided to de-emphasize that question and just concentrate on the comparisons between the contenders. it occurred to me that i could design my own template that could create a numerical odds line from these verbal opinions about the differences between the contenders. this is a work in progress and maybe (probably) you'll disagree with the numbers in my template, but perhaps you can steal the concept and create a template of your own.

for starters i decided to eliminate ties. i had to separate my four contenders. next i decided to begin with having only three possible gaps between any two contenders: close, medium (normal), and far. this would give me 27 template possibilities (similar to steve fierro). more ambitious pen and paper (caveman) handicappers may wish to inclued ties and/or more "gap" levels between their contenders. my 27 possibilities would range from ccc (each contender "close" to the one below it) to fff (each contender "far" ahead of the contender below it).

ccc........3--1...4--1...9--2...6--1
ccm.......3--1...7--2...9--2...7--1
ccf........5--2...7--2...9--2...8--1

cmc.......5--2...7--2...6--1...7--1
cmm......5--2...7--2...6--1...8--1
cmf.......5--2...7--2...5--1...9--1

cfc.......5--2...7--2...7--1...8--1
cfm.......5--2...3--1...7--1...9--1
cff........5--2...3--1...6--1...10--1

mcc.......5--2...9--2...5--1...6--1
mcm......5--2...9--2...5--1...7--1
mcf........2--1...4--1...5--1...8--1

mmc......2--1...4--1...6--1...7--1
mmm.....2--1...4--1...6--1...8--1
mmf......2--1...4--1...6--1...9--1

mfc......9--5...4--1...7--1...8--1
mfm.....9--5...4--1...7--1...9--1
mff......9--5...7--2...7--1...10--1

fcc......9--5...5--1...6--1...7--1
fcm......9--5...5--1...6--1...8--1
fcf.......9--5...5--1...6--1...9--1

fmc......9--5...9--2...7--1...8--1
fmm......9--5...9--2...6--1...8--1
fmf.......8--5...9--2...6--1...9--1

ffc.......8--5...9--2...7--1...8--1
ffm......8--5...9--2...7--1...9--1
fff.......8--5...9--2...7--1...10--1

using this template will usually give me a prett good "first draft" odds line on a race..... one that doesn't require too much adjusting to match my feelings about the race. just thought i'd post it to help anybody who liked mr fierro's book but is still uncomfortable in ultimately deciding which line on his template to select. ....

[Overlay]

You indicate that you've gotten away from using your computer to assist you in the odds-making process. I'm not disputing the utility of the type of templates that Steve Fierro suggests as far as making sure that assigned odds are in the right proportion. But don't you find that the more that you rely on subjective or qualitative odds-assignment criteria (even using the odds ranges contained in the template), the harder it becomes to maintain consistency and accuracy from one race to the next? Wouldn't it be preferable (whether you use a computer as an aid in calculation or not) to allow statistical probabilities associated with the handicapping characteristics that you examine to speak for themselves, and then let the odds for each horse (whether it's a "contender" or not) fall where they may based on that, rather than conforming to a pre-conceived pattern?

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Overlay

But don't you find that the more that you rely on subjective or qualitative odds-assignment criteria (even using the odds ranges contained in the template), the harder it becomes to maintain consistency and accuracy from one race to the next?

this certainly is a concern and to combat it i gradually have started to come up with "definitions" as to what kind of edges in my main handicapping criteria correspond with the close, middle, far "gaps" (making special note as to extreme edges that may cause me to stray further than normal from the templates).

right now i have no database of accurate pace and speed figures and this is primarily what has caused me to get away from using my computer program. i've been penciling the cj's onto my pps and using the above process have experienced very little (if any) fall off in the confidence i have in my odds lines.

[Dave Schwartz]

Several years ago, after reading Steve's book, I posted on how much I liked this idea. Immediately, I went about punching the templates into my own software.

Shortly thereafter I realized that I was better off just taking the odds I was generating from my software. However, clearly, the second best approach to that was taking my top choice, converting it to odds and then working out the remainder of the odds using the templates.

The one thing that I had a problem with was that the templates assume a certain hit rate for your top contenders. Who says that this hit rate is right in this race?

I think a slightly improved version would be to have several template sets, each designed with a specific contender hit rate in mind. I actually spent a little time on this and I believe the idea has merit.

Races with an overbet, odds-on horse has a tendancy to produce some great value in the next 3 or 4 horses. Unfortunately, the only way to get that to work in the templates is to seriously devalue that odds-on horse beyond the point of reason.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Races with an overbet, odds-on horse has a tendancy to produce some great value in the next 3 or 4 horses. Unfortunately, the only way to get that to work in the templates is to seriously devalue that odds-on horse beyond the point of reason.

in mr fierro's system such a situation would most likely constitute a legitimate or prohibitive favorite filter and would call for passing the race. personally i prefer to judge these situations on a case by case basis and find that this usually involves comparing the prospective overlay's rank order in my handicapping to his rank order in the betting as well as comparing my odds to the tote odds. of course i think this would probably be smart whether fred flintstone or george jetson made the betting line.

but this is getting away from the central thrust of my post which was to help "pencil and paper" (mr fierro calls it "blue collar", i call it "caveman")players who may often have a good feel for the relationship between their top contenders, but are having trouble expressing this numerically (even with the s.f. templates). caveman handicappers don't have to be slaves to a template any more than computer handicappers have to be slaves to their computer lines. in the end these things are just tools to help us expedite the process....

[Dave Schwartz]

in mr fierro's system such a situation would most likely constitute a legitimate or prohibitive favorite filter and would call for passing the race. personally i prefer to judge these situations on a case by case basis and find that this usually involves comparing the prospective overlay's rank order in my handicapping to his rank order in the betting as well as comparing my odds to the tote odds. of course i think this would probably be smart whether fred flintstone or george jetson made the betting line.

Precisely the problem.

[proximity]

in the 9th at ls last night?

did eventual winner waylay really handicap as a 9-5 shot on either of your computer programs? (not that my line was any better)

how many overlays were in the race?

should i have bet against waylay in this spot by dutching horses or should i have used my intuition here and passed the race?

[fmolf]

i prefer to take the short odds favorite if i feel they are solid and use them in the top of exactas....i have made some of my best and easiest scores this way with the logical horse or two running second...i also use these solid favorites in pick 3's so i can spread in the other legs...i do not play pick threes if i feel their is a sequence with two solid favorites that i feel cannot be beaten....i only pass races when there is perhaps 4 or 5 contenders with a legitimate shot to win...or i have no opinion on who might finish second...wide open races i guess you could call them