Taking someone else's selections will not make you a better handicapper. It might improve your ROI. But that would only be the case because the people whose picks you take do the hard work, learn the game, and thus profit from it.

Handicapping is not playing Steve's picks (of those of Gus or Andy). Handicapping is learning from these people so you can intelligently make your own picks.

You started this thread asking for how much information one can use in handicapping. But, to quote Andre the Giant from the Princess Bride, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

There is a big difference between going to the track and betting (which is lots of fun even if you pick names or colors) and actual handicapping which is much more rewarding.

Paul

I think you're saying that there is very little value in betting anyone's 1-2-3 picks when they have to be submitted days before a race, and I certainly agree with that. One way to mitigate that would be to list the odds at which a pick would be attractive. If I post a pick, I always list a minimum odds requirement and often include a track condition requirement. But I get it that the people who insist on having 1-2-3 picks probably don't want to have to think any harder than that.

A public handicapper has an additional disadvantage in that if he/she has some success and develops a following, prices on any future selections that DO come in will be depressed by the additional bets, hurting the ROI.

I'm also not saying a good ROI is proof of a capper's skills. One lucky longshot can make a poor capper look good over a pretty large number of races.* I am saying that in general, ROI is a much better measure of a capper's skill than percentage of winners.

--Dunbar

*If I'm calculating ROI to evaluate trainers or jockeys or capping angles or whatever, I use a method that dampens out the effect of the longshot winner. It gives substantially more meaningful results than a flat bet ROI.

This thread deserves 5 stars just for producing a quote from Andre the Giant in Princess Bride. I smile thinking about that movie.

Inconceivable!!

--Dunbar

The only form of public handicapping I do is for a newspaper with 1-2-3 style selections.

Thus, the only true measure for the paper to judge you on is win percentage and ROI.

In theory, any handicapper isn't going to look good "picking" all 800 races a meet at a track 48 hours in advance. That's not how the game is played. The game is played by hunting for edge situations and value -- and betting when you think you have both.

However, PID is a synthetic. PID is a track that gets a great variety of shippers. PID is a track that doesn't get much attention from competent bettors. Most importantly, PID is a track that has had some sick runs of extended track bias in the racing surface. It's a perfect storm of factors that I think works tremendously to the advantage of someone who is forced to give 1-2-3 picks for all 800 races a meet.

I've had a profitable top-pick ROI and a top-pick win percentage of 25% or higher each of the last 3 racing seasons here.

I'm not sure how I would do at another track making 1-2-3 picks for every single race. You'd probably look pretty bad having to do that at a place like a Laurel Park.

anybody want a peanut?

You might want to try less thinking.

My point was fairly clear. And, I think, that wasn't it.

Paul,

I think (:D) that you thought that I only use experts opinions...I do in fact handicap on my own. My objective was to initiate a discussion on how one takes what is now an incredible amount of information, and formulate a winning strategy.

You're right, and I apologize for being flippant. Let me put it differently.

Because of the reason you gave (picks being made so early), as well as the reason I gave (having a following), plus the reason CL added (making picks on every race), I think there's very little value in betting anyone's picks that are made under those conditions.

With the possible exception of CL's picks at PID! That's an amazing record, CL--a positive ROI on 2400 races?!. That's Gehrig-esque.

--Dunbar

One Princess Bride quote that could be used more often here at DT: "As you wish"

And one that I'm (pleasantly) surprised isn't used more: "I'll explain and use small words to make sure you understand, you warthog-faced baboon."

http://www.retrojunk.com/movie/quote...rincess-bride/

--Dunbar

The problem with the Presque Isle picks is if you bet $100 to win on every one of them they wouldn't have shown a positive ROI. It's a small pool with very unsophisticated money in it. I don't dispute that DrugS has an excellent opinion, that's a given, but the Presque Isle numbers are not an accurate assessment of his talents ( which are significant ).

Junior Alvarado had ridden in over 3,700 career races and his mounts show a flat bet ROI profit... and he's pretty much stuck with whatever he gets to ride and doesn't have the kind of options a handicapper would.

Ramon Dominguez -- when he rode in the Mid Atlantic -- he went 9 out of 10 years with a flat-bet profit in turf races...and almost always a 10% or more. And jockeys are way down the list as far as handicapping factors go.

I don't fish very often for huge top-pick prices with the newspaper pics because win percentage is one of the two main goals...but each year I've been lucky to catch a mega bomb or two when I have.

The bias played a major factor in almost all of the big prices.

we use i am not left-handed fairly often.

For whatever reason, they handle better on Betfair than many mid-level tracks and almost as well as a few of the biggest tracks.

There's often over a thousand dollars available on both sides of a price for the shorter priced horses ... it's like their top Tuesday track.

I can't dispute anything you say...but there are a lot of small pool tracks where I think it would still be a brutal task to pick every race.