The issue is information. Chess is a game of complete information. Everything about the immediate situation of the game is known to both players. Poker is a game of incomplete information. The object of the game is to gain as much information as possible while denying it to your opponents.

Horse racing is a game of incomplete information. Trainer patterns and tendencies and intentions are information. The precise condition of the horse is information. The ability of the jockey is information. No one can ever have complete information.

Unless it violates specific rules, trainers and owners concealing information is not cheating. You don't need to have all the information, you just need more than the betting public. Same as it ever was.

Probably because doing human handicapping to maintain the edge is a job and golfing is a passion. To be a good handicapper and bettor requires you to be all in. It requires a lot of time and energy. It's actually quite a selfish endeavor. I can understand why many choose to let go after keeping at it for a lifetime.

For a single person it's a massive undertaking. Much better suited to a team, but I suspect few do it that way or desire to.

I see my rep power is only 2. You guys with high ratings must really rock!

The amount of emphasis you put on "humans" can certainly have an effect on win percentage. For instance, if two horses look like the two main contenders in a race, both seem about equal talent and fitness, and one is trained by Pletcher and has Johnny V riding and the other is trained by a trainer who has a lifetime win percentage of 8% with an average jockey up, the Pletcher horse has a better chance of winning. But if the Pletcher horse is 6-5 and the other horse is 12-1, the 12-1 shot is still the better bet.

What if the Pletcher horse is 5-2 and the other horse is 4-1?

Pletcher horse at those odds.

I do think, however, based on my experience, that it's not necessary to look at the human factor at all. For instance, someone who only bets on longshots and uses some combination of pace handicapping and angles would probably be better off concentrating on that and ignoring the human factor. The human factor increases win probability but can lower ROI. However, I guess someone who is extremely patient could find overlays among high percentage trainers and jockeys.

And there are other ways to use the human factor. For instance, there are some small time owner/trainers who are particularly good at winning with longshots in certain situations. For instance, John Barile, The Tampa Bay Downs handicapper, keeps trainer stats and looks for those small barn boxcar longshot winners. And he doesn't need to hit that many each year because some pay huge prices. For a player who specializes like that, the human factor is important.

i will add my two cents. if you are factoring in people such as jockeys and trainers, you are dealing with dependent varialbles. if you are using handicapping factors, you are dealing with INDEPENDENT variables. it is not good practice if one is attempting to make a prediction model to mix both.

Please elaborate. A trainer stat is a handicapping factor, e.g. 0 for 100 with FTS 2 year olds. I am not sure what factors would be independent variables other than horse's age, color, height and length.

independent variables are completely isolated from INFLUENCE of other factors, such as recency is independent of the class factor.
however a jockey that is a leading rider or a go-to rider for the stable incorporates and is a reflection of a multitude of independent factors.
i hope that makes sense.

But is recency, just as an example, independent of the trainer? The same number of days or weeks since the last race means one thing with one trainer and it means something else with another.

Exactly, not to mention workouts between races or finish in last race, etc.

OK. You then beg the question, which independent variables can actually provide enough info to make a difference?

Review
 

Has anybody review his book yet? Just wondering what everybody's thoughts are?

Thanks

Boulder

Do you think many trainers intentionally "darken" their horses' form and subsequent racelines in order to bag betting windfalls down the road...if so, would that mean collaboration with the jockey to attain these ends...? If I remember correctly, the jockey is required to work for the best possible outcomes for each race they ride in...but what if the trainer is pointing for another race and just wants a nice 4 or 5 panel work from the current race, and not to exert the horse trying to win right now...there's nothing preventing the connections from doing this, right...?

I mean, it seems like this is pretty common, to be entered in a race with absolutely no intent to win it...and this is no doubt one angle trainers use....they have inside information here that the public is not aware of and that is huge especially if his horse is generally considered a true contender...it was, after all, the great Willie Shoemaker who remarked that his "job" was to "ride and STIFF horses"....!

i am not going to argue. i just thought i would add some intelligent thought to the conversation of how statistics are used in models of predictability, to avoid redundancy of the influence of variables.