Post Mortem

[porchy44]

Do most serious handicappers do a Post Mortem after a day of racing ?

Post Mortem defined as "reviewing all the races you bet for the day".

I have been doing it for years. I could not look at tomorrows races without reviewing the races I bet for the day.

[CBedo]

Absolutely. Record keeping and review is an integral part of the feedback/learning cycle.

[thaskalos]

I don't find it necessary...or even beneficial.

If a review of the bets is to be made, it should be done BEFORE we place them...to make sure that no mistakes were made.

I know players who obsess over the day's losing races...spending much time investigating if, maybe, something could have been done to turn those losing wagers into winners.

As long as I know that every wager was justified...nothing more can be learned from an end-of-day "wrap-up", as far as I am concerned.

Record the day's events...and on to tomorrow.

[Edward DeVere]

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are condemned to repeat them.

On the other hand, sometimes shit happens.

The winning bettor is able to distinguish between the two. The losing bettor is not.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by Edward DeVere

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are condemned to repeat them.

This is what I believe, but a case could be made for Thask's approach of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[windoor]

My answer is Yes and No.

I am a spot/angle player and am always looking for new types of plays.

Each play/angle I have, has it's own bank and sinks or swims on it's own merits.

I never look back at the plays I am making from an established process that has it's own bank. These are plays that are already developed and have proven there worth over time.

As I test new ideas, I always look back to see if a rule change would benefit the play. If I change a rule that would give me the winner (back-fitting), I must go back to the beginning of my data and see how the change affects the overall outcome.

If I do not make a change in the selection process, I may make a change in the pass or play process base on where my horse finished against the competition of today's race.

This is how I do it and it works for me.

As I start my journey into database handicapping I am finding what used to take days and even weeks, I can now accomplish in a few minutes. Neat!


Regards,

Windoor

[DJofSD]

Do I review my wagers -- what type of bets I made, how much, etc.? No. If I made a mistake in this area, I generally known right away.

Do I review my handicapping analysis? Only if I am way off: either when my selections do not do well, or, I've missed the winner completely, i.e. I don't have any indication the winner is even a contender let alone on my list of runners to consider using for a wager.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Do I review my wagers -- what type of bets I made, how much, etc.? No. If I made a mistake in this area, I generally known right away.

Do I review my handicapping analysis? Only if I am way off: either when my selections do not do well, or, I've missed the winner completely, i.e. I don't have any indication the winner is even a contender let alone on my list of runners to consider using for a wager.

yea, I generally have a strong opinion going in... and while watching the race develop get a strong opinion as to what happened.

I probably review more when I win than when I lose.

[KidCapper]

Whenever I lose, I can predict which horse is going to beat me. It's the horse I threw out of my pick4 to cheapen the ticket. I make that horse a lock at least 7 times a week!! I should make that an automatic straight wager!!

KidCapper

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Post Mortem defined as "reviewing all the races you bet for the day".

I think your definition is flawed if you are only reviewing the races you bet. The proper function of the post mortem is to fine tune your handicapping skills, and you also need to look at the races you passed to do that.

I did post mortems every day for the first 15 years or so, but now only do them when I feel I am going off form, although I still think I should do them every day, but I am not disciplined enough.

[Elliott Sidewater]

I tend to review losing races to see if there is something to learn or file for future reference such as a trainer angle or something of note about a shipper. Even on overall winning days. This is not to see whether I can rearrange reality to win the race on paper (totally conterproductive) or to see whether I missed something, that doesn't happen much anymore because I spend a lot of time per race handicapping, and won't play unless I've prepared in advance. If I was an everyday player likes Thaskalos I would probably not have time for reviewing losing races, but I am a hobbyist and occasional player, and just can't find the time to play as much as I used to. It's also habit; back when I was one of Sartin's teaching members I reviewed lots and lots of losing races from clients. That process may not have made me a better handicapper, but it certainly improved my sense of humor

Before I got married I played a lot, my records show that I spent 70 live days at the track at the peak of obsession in 1982. My current schedule gives me time (or forces me, take your pick) to play at a more relaxed pace and I find that looking at some recent losing races helps sharpen me up mentally for the next time......

[Tom]

I go back and write down the decision I made to not use the winner (or exotic finisher) and every so often look at my notes to see if anything repeats. One of the biggies was a layoff - I am far more tolerant of layoffs now. Bad fig in a slow paced race was a huge one - I never throw them out now just look at other races. If a horse ran well against a 94 and then poorly against an 80, that was a throw out for me. No more - I just use slow paced races as an excuse, and that was a hard one to accept.

I figure the losing bet as the price of a lesson, so I better make sure I get one.

[Dave Schwartz]

I really like this thread. Lots of potential.

Wrote a blog post. Another one coming on in a few days.
http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...-at-the-races/

This came up in a thread on the Pace Advantage board and I thought it would make a great topic for a blog post.

So what’s the answer? Yes and no.

If you are in system development mode very little will develop your system as quickly as doing a postmortem on every race. However, the post-race analysis should be done immediately following the race, while it is still fresh in your mind.

The best way to do this is to get yourself what I call a “decision notebook.” That notebook is used to record each race’s results and commentary. The commentary should be divided into two columns: positive and negative. If you prefer you could call these columns right and wrong.

What you write in each column is a simple, one sentence description of what you got right and/or what you got wrong. You should emphasize only those right or wrong points that resulted in either winning or losing the race.

The strength of the decision notebook lies in formulating your potential answers ahead of time. You do this by forming good questions. For example, suppose you want to know if you’re top early speed horse is really getting to the front. You might formulate a question like this: “ES went to the front?”

Then, as you go through each race, all of your answers should relate directly to this question. For example, if your ES horse went to the front immediately and won, paying $16.80, your comment might be “ES1 w2w.”

If your ES horse did not go to the front but the first call leader won the race in wire to wire fashion, your comment might read “Wrong ES1.”

If the winner of the race was not the horse that took the lead at the first call, then it does not matter which course you pick to be ES1. Therefore, there should be no comment relating to ES.

At some point in your study you will be capable of going back and tallying up all your answers:

ES1 w2w 12
Wrong ES1 8

In this way, you are ultimately able to say, “My early speed process works 60% of the time.”

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[thaskalos]

Please allow me to elaborate a little on my initial post here...lest I be perceived as someone who downplays the importance of learning from our mistakes.

I found it noteworthy that the person who originated this thread chose to direct his inquiry towards not just handicappers at large...but at the "serious" handicappers in particular.

Which begs the question...what IS a "serious" player -- and how does (or should) he conduct himself in this game?

IMO...the handicapper does NOT have to wager significant amounts of money in order to be considered a "serious" player...nor does he need to play the game on a frequent basis. Our wagering amounts are all relative...and the frequency of our play is dictated by the circumstances of our lives.

He may refuse to set up a bankroll...he may avoid handicapping books like the plague...and he may even elect to stay clear of this forum (God forbid ) -- but, IMO, there are two things he MUST do...otherwise he reveals himself to be nothing more than a "dreamer" -- living in a handicapping fantacy which is sure to disappoint in the end:

1.) He must have an orderly and clearly defined "battle" plan, which he follows for the handicapping of the races...and for the structuring of his bets.

If he doesn't...then his handicapping and betting opinions will be scattered all over the place by the violent winds of chance -- and he will make no progress at ALL in this game...no matter HOW many years he plays it.

2.) He must keep accurate records of his play.

The serious player recognises the need to not only handicap the horses...but also to handicap HIMSELF.

He endeavors to find out as much about HIMSELF - and his strengths and weaknesses - as he can...and he works to add to the strengths, while eliminating the weaknesses.

And, if he is very observant, he may discover that a large percentage of his losses can be attributed NOT to the performance of his horses...but to the performance of HIMSELF.

We often blame the inconsistency of our horses...without noticing the inconsistencies in our own handicapping and betting methods.

By noticing his OWN performance over time...the player comes to the realization that HE is his own worst enemy, and not the game...or the horsemen. And this realization goes a long way towards establishing in him the discipline and self-control he so desparately needs, in order to accomplish his goals in this game.

Once discipline and self-control have taken hold of him...he no longer has to second-guess himself after placing his bets -- nor does he need to agonize over his losing wagers at day's end...for fear that he might have missed something.

He is confident that he has made the best bets possible given the circumstances...and he accepts the violent swings of fortune so inherent in our game.

He stops looking at his losses as..."mistakes".

He has become a "serious" player...

[therussmeister]

Now allow me to elaborate. I don't consider doing a post mortem as second guessing my losing wagers. I do it to critique my own performance on all races; my winners, my losers, and the races I passed. I occasionally consider some of my winning bets to be mistakes, and consider the overwhelming majority of losing bets to be solid wagers.

I consider post mortems to be the equivalent of a professional athlete seeking the advice of a coach; even the best still need occasional input from a coach, as they might find themselves straying from optimal performance. Only difference is I need to be my own coach, which can be difficult.