2019 Software Poll!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For you info I have it done just that with multiple "TOMORROW'S horses" in the relatively recent past on the Selections forum. Just do a search on threads started by yours truly.

I looked those threads up...but they weren't about what I was referring to. I wasn't talking about handing out a bunch of unexplained selections...I was talking about the sort of analysis that you were conducting in this thread...whereby you were building a case for or against particular horses in a race. The analysis of the race is the instructive aspect of the equation, IMO...not just the final selection that it leads to. You stated earlier in this thread that a certain was a standout in a past race, and you proved your point with a wonderfully detailed analysis ...and I was wondering if it wouldn't be more meaningful if you made such a comment about a future race.

I'm not looking for an argument, Boxcar...and I must say that I enjoyed reading what you've written here. It's a breath of fresh air to see you "talking horses"...and I want to read even more of what you have to say.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Of course.

Completely programmable by the user. (But nobody uses it. Pretty worthless these days.)

We also generate a projected odds for each horse. I doubt if any of our users still use the tote board for more than scratches and the occasional double check for strong horses going off at crazy-high odds.

We don't use price lines or impact values. And we do rely on the collective opinion of the public to find our overlays. Call us old fashioned.

Talking about overlays, would the 8 horse in yesterday's 4th at DMR, have been on your program's radar, and if so how would it have rated the winner -- a 5 star must bet, a weak 1 star or something in between?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by boxcar

We don't use price lines or impact values. And we do rely on the collective opinion of the public to find our overlays. Call us old fashioned.

Talking about overlays, would the 8 horse in yesterday's 4th at DMR, have been on your program's radar, and if so how would it have rated the winner -- a 5 star must bet, a weak 1 star or something in between?

No, it would not point to that horse. Pretty rare to have a $70 horse stand out like that.

What WAS obvious was that #6 was a clear cut play against horse. That turned the race into a "chaos" race for me. It would have been Win Bets only, spreading across the 1,3,4,5,7,8.

The play would have been a 57-unit bet - i.e. a highly playable race. (Below $40 is no play.) The return would have been 245 units.

The exotics were only playable from a single back-key on #6 (the play-against), for small money. A total of 12 units lost on that exacta.

My approach to handicapping & betting these days is probably close to the exact opposite of what 99% of people are doing.

Handiman adopted this approach a few weeks ago, as have many of our users. Of course, after they get it mastered, most everyone puts their own spin on it. We're all horse players, after all. LOL

It all starts with decisions about what to do with what we call, "The 1st Tier" according to our tote projections. (These would be low-odds horses.)

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Do you wager on horses when you think they are well placed? I do, too. I also wager on horses when their connections (specifically trainers and jockeys) are "well placed", i.e. in their comfort zone, in familiar charted waters, well within their element. Trainer and jockey stats can often tells us when these connections are in their element.

We humans are creatures of habit. Good thing trainers are human, too.

There very well might be some subjective arguments to determine the intentions of the connections based on a horse’s past performances and its current entry in a future race. The assumption of course is that the horse will actually be trying to win and is suitably physically fit to re-produce some of its better prior racing efforts.

Unfortunately, this sort of speculation does not always lead to finding a contender in a race. Yes, I would agree 100% that people in general are creatures of habit. When they find something that works well, especially if they’re rewarded as an end result, they tend to repeat those efforts.

That’s why I believe that the betting habits of those who are in control of these horses can objectively reveal their actual intentions. When they believe that their horse has the proper conditioning to enable them to potentially win a race, they very often will reveal their intentions through their betting habits.

Players have to stop kidding themselves into believing that the overall betting population consists only of those like themselves: Who more often than not have nothing more than some numerical PP data to rely on for determining their betting ventures.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

No, it would not point to that horse. Pretty rare to have a $70 horse stand out like that.

What WAS obvious was that #6 was a clear cut play against horse. That turned the race into a "chaos" race for me. It would have been Win Bets only, spreading across the 1,3,4,5,7,8.

The play would have been a 57-unit bet - i.e. a highly playable race. (Below $40 is no play.) The return would have been 245 units.

The exotics were only playable from a single back-key on #6 (the play-against), for small money. A total of 12 units lost on that exacta.

My approach to handicapping & betting these days is probably close to the exact opposite of what 99% of people are doing.

Handiman adopted this approach a few weeks ago, as have many of our users. Of course, after they get it mastered, most everyone puts their own spin on it. We're all horse players, after all. LOL

It all starts with decisions about what to do with what we call, "The 1st Tier" according to our tote projections. (These would be low-odds horses.)

HUH!? Don't you guys ever select one horse to win!? I guess BC and I are really OLD school!

While I didn't play this race, I think I would have rated the 8 at least a four-star horse. He didn't possess great pace numbers (forgivable for a lightly raced horses like this) but his current form was quite good off the great array of workout angles he had (5 of them), as well as very solid workout speed ratings, being in the top tier of 6 of our 7 ratings. The TI factor was quite strong just off this horse's workouts.

And we can know the horse was coming to hand by the way he ran his second race back. The trainer probably thought that the horse needed an easy tightener after that good effort, so that's why the horse ran as he did in his last outing.

Also, with respect to this horse's form, there was one very important consideration. The form cycle mode this horse was in (a classical in-and-outer in terms of speed ratings), suggested that if he runs true to that pattern today, he should improve further today. And of course, he did just that.

The TI factor was also strengthened by the choice of jockeys today since the jock's numbers for routes were appreciably better than for sprints. And then finally, the trainer dropped the horse in class last start, which is very often a price-enhancing class maneuver and is also a high percentage play.

And the horse wasn't totally deficient in the pace department either, as he ranked 4 in an important composite rating of ours, as well as 4 in our consensus rating, and ranked 2 in another composite pace rating.

And there was one other very interesting little "factoid" about this pony that my partner pointed out to me this morning: This horse was bought at auction for 200K, which was the second highest auction price behind the 1 horse, who interestingly took the place slot well behind the 8. So...someone thought highly of this winner in the recent past.

Anyhow...there's lots of ways to skin a cat. I'm sure glad that while we share a lot in philosophy, we still differ enough to not encroach too often on each others betting pools turf.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Nitro

There very well might be some subjective arguments to determine the intentions of the connections based on a horse’s past performances and its current entry in a future race. The assumption of course is that the horse will actually be trying to win and is suitably physically fit to re-produce some of its better prior racing efforts.

Unfortunately, this sort of speculation does not always lead to finding a contender in a race. Yes, I would agree 100% that people in general are creatures of habit. When they find something that works well, especially if they’re rewarded as an end result, they tend to repeat those efforts.

That’s why I believe that the betting habits of those who are in control of these horses can objectively reveal their actual intentions. When they believe that their horse has the proper conditioning to enable them to potentially win a race, they very often will reveal their intentions through their betting habits.

Players have to stop kidding themselves into believing that the overall betting population consists only of those like themselves: Who more often than not have nothing more than some numerical PP data to rely on for determining their betting ventures.

"Betting habits" -- that's quite subjective. How do you distinguish between inside/smart money from dumb money in betting pools? Also, you would to operate on assumption that every stable is a betting stable, which is very likely untrue. And even if that were true, you'd have to know how much the connections usually wager. This is not to say that I don't have any tote board angles, but the angles do not rely on determining betting habits.

And my goal is not to try to find a contender in every race -- an impossible task to begin with, as far as I'm concerned. I'm strictly a spot player who waits for a "sufficient number of stars to align themselves" with a horse or two in a race. When that happens and the price is right, I bet. As stated earlier, for me the finest wagers are on those horses who are sharp, likely to improve further today and whose trainers are sending them out to win if they can. Over the long term this is an unbeatable combination.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxcar
HUH!? Don't you guys ever select one horse to win!? I guess BC and I are really OLD school!

All we are interested in is winning.
Whatever that takes.

I best define the challenge of racing as, "Being able to make good EXPLOITATION decisions, and the INCREASE of dollars in my account is the way I keep SCORE.

Sure, sometimes there are singles, but most people would not be interested in a 4/5 horse that wins by 12 lengths, as it was supposed to. LOL

Even then, the question is, are such horses long-term profitable? Often they are not, but so close to break even

For us this is purely a value proposition.

We've got one player - a winning player, btw - who plays for fun. He's really only interested in big tickets because that's where the gratification is for him.

Ira's contributory research has fine-tuned many aspects of the "somewhat standard" approach we're using these days, specifically in the area of prices.

He's changed my approach to handicapping as well.

I'm a grinder. As I said above, it's all about winning for me and I don't care if it is on 3/5 horses or 18/1. I only care if the entire strategy is long-term profitable.

As Ira's handicapping coach, I am always mindful that whatever I design, it must include a component for the price horses. If it doesn't, the game will not be gratifying for him.

While he will still "handicap longshots to the top," many of his biggest hits are in chaos races. Those are races where we believe that the handicapping won't matter, so we swing for the fence with lots of horses.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Betting habits" -- that's quite subjective. How do you distinguish between inside/smart money from dumb money in betting pools? Also, you would to operate on assumption that every stable is a betting stable, which is very likely untrue. And even if that were true, you'd have to know how much the connections usually wager. This is not to say that I don't have any tote board angles, but the angles do not rely on determining betting habits.

And my goal is not to try to find a contender in every race -- an impossible task to begin with, as far as I'm concerned. I'm strictly a spot player who waits for a "sufficient number of stars to align themselves" with a horse or two in a race. When that happens and the price is right, I bet. As stated earlier, for me the finest wagers are on those horses who are sharp, likely to improve further today and whose trainers are sending them out to win if they can. Over the long term this is an unbeatable combination.

Betting habits are really just the end result of attempts to make financial gains. It’s the actual betting in terms of the Where, When, and How Much is being wagered that becomes the objective revelation. If you consider that people making larger wagers take the game a bit more seriously and perhaps even value their venture a bit more than the average player. After all isn’t the ultimate goal to make money?

There’s no need to distinguish between any type of money because it becomes fairly obvious when diligently following the tote board activities through a sophisticated analysis of money movement which entries are getting the most positive action. That doesn’t necessarily translate to those with the lowest odds either. These are the entries which I consider “contenders”.

I certainly don’t look for a single horse to play because I’m not looking to pick Winners. I’m looking to make Winning plays.
Horses may appear to look sharp. However, assuming that they’ll be attempting to win is a purely subjective assessment when relying on just PP data, and I believe it becomes a purely objective assessment when relying on what people value most when playing this game.

Besides, the very nature of the game presents itself with many variables that can affect the even best intentioned animal and impact the final result.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Betting habits are really just the end result of attempts to make financial gains. It’s the actual betting in terms of the Where, When, and How Much is being wagered that becomes the objective revelation. If you consider that people making larger wagers take the game a bit more seriously and perhaps even value their venture a bit more than the average player. After all isn’t the ultimate goal to make money?

There’s no need to distinguish between any type of money because it becomes fairly obvious when diligently following the tote board activities through a sophisticated analysis of money movement which entries are getting the most positive action. That doesn’t necessarily translate to those with the lowest odds either. These are the entries which I consider “contenders”.

I certainly don’t look for a single horse to play because I’m not looking to pick Winners. I’m looking to make Winning plays.
Horses may appear to look sharp. However, assuming that they’ll be attempting to win is a purely subjective assessment when relying on just PP data, and I believe it becomes a purely objective assessment when relying on what people value most when playing this game.

Besides, the very nature of the game presents itself with many variables that can affect the even best intentioned animal and impact the final result.

There's a few hard and fast and true and tried and tested principles (I like calling them this rather "rules) that are axiomatic in this game, as far as I'm concerned. One of these is to never accept anything at face value. So...just because a horse appears to be sharp, deeper investigation into the PP data could well reveal that he's not likely to improve that much today, if any. I'm looking for more than "sharp" horses. I look for horses that have good chart evidence that suggests they are very likely to demonstrate further improvement today off their current form cycle.

The second principle that is equally as important to me is that trainers have reasons for everything they do. Racing angles and even quantitative-based data can tell me not only what the trainer is doing but why since I make logical inferences from the evidence. In other words, I know how trainers play the game. I know most of the "tricks" they employ in running or working their horses into top condition.

Another principle that is extremely important is that smart trainers don't waste sharp horses who are likely to improve today.. In other words, they won''t squander away a nice pay day! And this brings me to the point of the false dichotomy of investing in race outcomes and selecting winners. I do not see these as mutually exclusive endeavors because I can restrict my investments to likely winners that the public is selling short in the wagering. (A great example of this was discussed earlier today with the 8 horse in the yesterday's 4th at DMR.) After all, isn't this what the essence of parimutuel wagering is all about for the serious player: Beating the public at its own game by consistently betting sharp, live horses?

Furthermore, limiting my wagers to likely winners being sent off at acceptably high prices also limits my action (which is fine with me) and also limits my risk exposure in a high risk game. I'm a strong believer in betting a little to make a lot. My reward must be commensurate with the risk.

Finally, what you said in your final paragraph applies with equal force to any selection methodology. Those "variables" are always operative. I thought Draft Pick in the Pacific at DMR stood a good shot at making it to the winner's circle, especially at his price. But he came up short and couldn't beat the 6 horse (whose name escapes me at the moment). But even so...I do well for myself in the long run waiting for those kinds of race situations -- even though I don't win 'em all, and never will. Neither will sharp, experienced tote board watchers either.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Betting habits" -- that's quite subjective. How do you distinguish between inside/smart money from dumb money in betting pools? Also, you would to operate on assumption that every stable is a betting stable, which is very likely untrue. And even if that were true, you'd have to know how much the connections usually wager. This is not to say that I don't have any tote board angles, but the angles do not rely on determining betting habits.

And my goal is not to try to find a contender in every race -- an impossible task to begin with, as far as I'm concerned.

Why I look for more than 1 contender!

Tote Analysis
for Del Mar Thurs 8/22 Race # 7 – 3-6 W/ 8-5-2 @ 3 mins to post
(Entries closest to PAR are of primary interest)

3min	7min	12min	Ent #
456	468	437	1
122	211	218	2
163	187	210	3
226	221	204	4
228	211	243	5
133	200	219	6
203	154	139	7
161	172	146	8
00	00	00	9
00	00	00	10
173	203	207	PAR

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...53220&page=195

Results:

Race # 7 = 3-5-6-2 – WIN – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

POS # Horse ……................………Win …....………Place …...………Show
1st: 3 Concise Advice ………………$9.40 ………….$5.00 …..……….$3.60
2nd: 5 Darling Demon ……....................……..$6.60 ……..……..$4.20
3rd: 6 .Radish ………............................................... ...……$3.60
4th: 2 Miss Indefatigable
5th: 7 Live It Well

• $2.00 QUINELLA ................3-5 ..............$22.80
• $2.00 EXACTA ...................3-5 .............$45.20
• $2.00 TRIFECTA ................3-5-6 ..........$194.80
• $2.00 SUPERFECTA ............3-5-6-2 .......$778.20
.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Why I look for more than 1 contender!

Tote Analysis
for Del Mar Thurs 8/22 Race # 7 – 3-6 W/ 8-5-2 @ 3 mins to post
(Entries closest to PAR are of primary interest)

3min	7min	12min	Ent #
456	468	437	1
122	211	218	2
163	187	210	3
226	221	204	4
228	211	243	5
133	200	219	6
203	154	139	7
161	172	146	8
00	00	00	9
00	00	00	10
173	203	207	PAR

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...53220&page=195

Results:

Race # 7 = 3-5-6-2 – WIN – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

POS # Horse ……................………Win …....………Place …...………Show
1st: 3 Concise Advice ………………$9.40 ………….$5.00 …..……….$3.60
2nd: 5 Darling Demon ……....................……..$6.60 ……..……..$4.20
3rd: 6 .Radish ………............................................... ...……$3.60
4th: 2 Miss Indefatigable
5th: 7 Live It Well

• $2.00 QUINELLA ................3-5 ..............$22.80
• $2.00 EXACTA ...................3-5 .............$45.20
• $2.00 TRIFECTA ................3-5-6 ..........$194.80
• $2.00 SUPERFECTA ............3-5-6-2 .......$778.20
.

I agree in principle that if you can "follow the money", you should be able to do well. But I'm a conservative bettor. I don't like making multiple bets if I don't have to.

There was a race yesterday at SAR, that if I had played, I'm pretty sure I would have bet both horses to win and boxed them both in the Xacta. The issue was really close between the two, and they were both sent off at big enough odds to warrant two win bets, so that no matter who won I would have made a decent profit. I'm alluding to the 1 and 4 horses in the 8th. These two finished noses apart, literally.

I will bet Xactas in race situations when I think two horses are so evenly matched that I can't comfortably separate the two.

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

[Dave Schwartz]

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

Personally, I am not a fan either.

However, I respect anyone who has the diligence to create and fine tune a tool to turn it into "factors."

My current software has around 4,000 factors for every horse. Most are worthless, some have value, and a few are gold when looked at from the right POV.

When you consider the entire Wisdom of the Crowd theory, why would it not have potential merit?

The fact that it isn't "our cup of tea," doesn't mean it can't/doesn't work. Same with physicality and probably a couple of other approaches I've seen people succeed with over the years.

Of course, the real point is, THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I agree in principle that if you can "follow the money", you should be able to do well. But I'm a conservative bettor. I don't like making multiple bets if I don't have to.

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

There in lies the difference between those who rely on simply the PP data and those (the connections) who not only have that information, but also have the current information about their own horse’s actual condition. More often than not this information does not just lead to subjective opinions.

Sure, they might be overestimating their chances of winning the race, but at least if the betting is right its almost a guarantee that they’ll be trying. That’s what I mean when I describe a potential "contender". I find that this single factor alone can very often out-weigh all other factors combined.

I believe that many players think in terms of ALL races being like a Stakes race where the majority of the entries will of course be attempting to win. Unfortunately, these type of races make up only a small percentage of the races run. A horse may be entered in a typical race for any number of reasons and will not necessarily make an attempt to win.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Nitro

There in lies the difference between those who rely on simply the PP data and those (the connections) who not only have that information, but also have the current information about their own horse’s actual condition. More often than not this information does not just lead to subjective opinions.

Sure, they might be overestimating their chances of winning the race, but at least if the betting is right its almost a guarantee that they’ll be trying. That’s what I mean when I describe a potential "contender". I find that this single factor alone can very often out-weigh all other factors combined.

I believe that many players think in terms of ALL races being like a Stakes race where the majority of the entries will of course be attempting to win. Unfortunately, these type of races make up only a small percentage of the races run. A horse may be entered in a typical race for any number of reasons and will not necessarily make an attempt to win.

PP Data is like a big diamond. The reason I've done so well over the years is that I look at that data from different perspectives -- as being multi-faceted. This is why all our major handicapping factors are measured with multiple ratings. Between these ratings and all the qualitative-based data we use in conjunction, we can often make reasonable, logical inferences to tell us who the likely live horses are and who is likely to improve significantly today off its current form cycle.

Now, whether you consider the data or not to be purely subjective or objective, that's a matter for debate. For example, if a horse finished 3rd in in its last race, is that finish subjective or objective in terms of whether or not he finished in the money? Or if a horse in his last outing improved his EP rating by 10 points, is that improvement subjective or objective? Granted, depending on the numbers being used, one may have the horse improving 2 pts., someone else 5 pts. and someone else again at 12 pts. But you see, this is precisely why we employ multiple ratings. In essence, all our major handicapping factors subject to a consensus.

Moreover, we have ratings wherein one of the top 3 rated horses consistently will win about 70% of the time. The top four at 80%+ of the time, etc. Not too shabby for homegrown, "subjective" ratings.

But I do agree with you about how very many, if not most people, approach the game. I think very many believe all the entrants are going to do their level best to win. I certainly do not believe that way and never have, which is why I think the TI factor is the literally the Achilles heel of the public. This is why I consider this factor to be virtually on par with Current Form. In fact, with the latest changes we've made within the last year or so to the program, I personally begin my handicapping with this factor and work my way to Pace factor which is where I've always begun for decades! I start with quantitative-based mods -- trainers, jocks and workouts, then work my way through the qualitative data searching for TI and Form evidence-- then finally to the pace mods. As stated previously, in my book there is no better investment opportunity than to wager on horses who are likely to improve today and are being sent out to run a big race. I truly covet those twin inducements.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I agree in principle that if you can "follow the money", you should be able to do well. But I'm a conservative bettor. I don't like making multiple bets if I don't have to.

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

We certainly play this game differently, but I also like idea of turning a toothpick bet (even with multiple selections) into log return (If and Only If the Value is there)!

The contenders are those entries with values closest to PAR.
Tote Analysis - Del Mar Fri 8/23
Race # 5 – 5-9 W/ 7-8-1 @ 3 mins to post
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...53220&page=199

3min	7min	12min	Ent#
256	228	168	1
342	343	268	2
351	419	429	3
388	379	359	4
110	100	74	5
404	432	328	6
220	223	167	7
252	248	234	8
209	195	175	9
242	246	185	PAR

Results:

Race # 5 = 8-9-7-5 – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

•	POS	#	Horse	                  Win	Place	Show
•	1st:	8	Nothing But Heat	$10.00	$5.60	$4.00
•	2nd:	9	Y Not Sizzle		       $5.40	$3.40
•	3rd:	7	Our Romance			       $10.20
•	4th:	5	Too Hot For Curlin	
•			
•	•	$2.00 QUINELLA 8-9 $20.20
•	•	$2.00 EXACTA 8-9 $39.80
•	•	$2.00 TRIFECTA 8-9-7 $394.80
•	•	$2.00 SUPERFECTA 8-9-7-5 $1,341.60