Class Handicapping

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

If you're just going to rant about others' approaches to handicapping, perhaps you can explain the impetus for this thread, then.

Maybe you wanted to see how the forum thought your 4th place finish in the Prospect Park Bike Race would stake up class wise in the Tour de France?

Now, that hurt.

Do you have any idea how much of a kick I get out of your KEE analysis? You're spending hours to get info that I generate in a matter of seconds. Why in the world would you spend all this time on ONE track, Phil? I can understand if your analysis was novel or advanced but you're at the most basic of levels when it comes to race analysis. Of course, that 9:2 winner has made it all worth while. And, that's all part of being 'special'.

Go away, will you. You simpleton doofus.

Thanks for the enternaiment, otherwise.

So much for attempting something useful here.

You're a bigger attention whore than I am. Kudos.

[blackthroatedwind]

Since I brought it up....

Basically, making money by evaluating horses using speed figures has obviously become very difficult due to the proliferation of viable numbers. So, while obviously part of the " secret " lies in understanding how a number was earned, either positively or negatively, you have to have a broader understanding of the game these days in order to have any real success. Now, while clearly effective trip handicapping is a major help, and this is all part of understanding how numbers are earned, you also need as broad an understanding of the relative talents of the horses as possible and one way to do this is through the umbrella of " class " handicapping or evaluating. I would say this is more useful in turf racing ( as opposed to dirt....I don't do much synthetic handicapping so I can't really have an opinion on this ) because speed figures are final time based and thus likely to be more applicable for dirt racing. Simply put, an accurate understanding of the relative talents of the different fields the competitors in a given race have faced will help you evaluate the relative chances of today's entrants. I suppose this would, in some way, be considered " class " handicapping.

It came up today in a discussion of the 8th at Aqueduct, where the first two finishers had basically been facing more hardened foes than, specifically, the 2 horse, who had just broken his maiden in his second start versus $35K maiden claimers at Gulfstream. However, to be fair, using speed figures also showed those two horses to be superior....though not significantly.

Overall I would say it is all part of having as well rounded a game as possible. The more you know, or understand, and use effectively, the better your results.

[the_fat_man]

I'm as big a critic of pace/speed figures as there is. However, I don't think that class handicapping, either individually or in combination with numbers, offers an advantage over numbers alone. This is not about whether class handicapping can result in more winners but, rather, about the extra time invested in producing those winners. A combined approach would pretty much limit one to a single circuit, as there are just so many hours in a day. On the other hand, a well developed (and thus automated) numbers system would allow one to play multiple tracks, allow one to pick out horses with clear advantages, and thus result in not significantly more plays but more plays where one has an advantage. This results in more plays, less chasing of plays where one doesn't have a strong advantage, and makes it easier to overcome tough beats (given the increased number of plays). It's about mismatches today: the more the better.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I'm as big a critic of pace/speed figures as there is. However, I don't think that class handicapping, either individually or in combination with numbers, offers an advantage over numbers alone. This is not about whether class handicapping can result in more winners but, rather, about the extra time invested in producing those winners. A combined approach would pretty much limit one to a single circuit, as there are just so many hours in a day. On the other hand, a well developed (and thus automated) numbers system would allow one to play multiple tracks, allow one to pick out horses with clear advantages, and thus result in not significantly more plays but more plays where one has an advantage. This results in more plays, less chasing of plays where one doesn't have a strong advantage, and makes it easier to overcome tough beats (given the increased number of plays). It's about mismatches today: the more the better.

Disagree. The only way is to pick your spots. Every race is not bettable. More races is a way to lose.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Disagree. The only way is to pick your spots. Every race is not bettable. More races is a way to lose.

It's taken me years to figure this out.. and even longer to actually practice it. If others can fire away at track after track and race after race with success.. more power to them.. it doesn't usually work out well for me though.

[booner]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

It's taken me years to figure this out.. and even longer to actually practice it. If others can fire away at track after track and race after race with success.. more power to them.. it doesn't usually work out well for me though.

Since I have focused more on turf races, I have been able to look at several tracks durning one day with minor success. But no way can I play 2,3 or 4 tracks at once. I turn out losing the majority of the time.

I do look at backclass when handicapping turf races, but don't always make it my top priority for finding winners. It is difficult to separate shippers from different tracks and comparing them, but sometimes it falls into place. I would rather strenghten my pedigree recognition skills then focus on class.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Since I brought it up....

Basically, making money by evaluating horses using speed figures has obviously become very difficult due to the proliferation of viable numbers. So, while obviously part of the " secret " lies in understanding how a number was earned, either positively or negatively, you have to have a broader understanding of the game these days in order to have any real success. Now, while clearly effective trip handicapping is a major help, and this is all part of understanding how numbers are earned, you also need as broad an understanding of the relative talents of the horses as possible and one way to do this is through the umbrella of " class " handicapping or evaluating. I would say this is more useful in turf racing ( as opposed to dirt....I don't do much synthetic handicapping so I can't really have an opinion on this ) because speed figures are final time based and thus likely to be more applicable for dirt racing. Simply put, an accurate understanding of the relative talents of the different fields the competitors in a given race have faced will help you evaluate the relative chances of today's entrants. I suppose this would, in some way, be considered " class " handicapping.

It came up today in a discussion of the 8th at Aqueduct, where the first two finishers had basically been facing more hardened foes than, specifically, the 2 horse, who had just broken his maiden in his second start versus $35K maiden claimers at Gulfstream. However, to be fair, using speed figures also showed those two horses to be superior....though not significantly.

Overall I would say it is all part of having as well rounded a game as possible. The more you know, or understand, and use effectively, the better your results.

Class seems to be much more important on synthetic than real dirt... which makes sense given the correlation to turf performance.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Now, that hurt.

Do you have any idea how much of a kick I get out of your KEE analysis? You're spending hours to get info that I generate in a matter of seconds. Why in the world would you spend all this time on ONE track, Phil? I can understand if your analysis was novel or advanced but you're at the most basic of levels when it comes to race analysis. Of course, that 9:2 winner has made it all worth while. And, that's all part of being 'special'.

Go away, will you. You simpleton doofus.

Thanks for the enternaiment, otherwise.

So much for attempting something useful here.

This is exactly why everyone here makes fun of you and brushes you aside as a useless piece of trash. I answered your question with my thoughts, and instead of actually discussing what I said, right or wrong, you attack me and others. I poke fun at your bike analyses because HORSES ARE NOT BIKES AND RACETRACKS ARE NOT VELODROMES. If you actually got on the back of a horse and rode it you would realize they don't operate like a piece of human operated machinery where you can pick and choose when or how fast they go.

Analyzing Keeneland this meet has nothing to do with one specific winner. That was the first one to run back. It has plenty to do with being able to refer back to my notes on how the track was playing- because if you haven't noticed your precious polytrack has a significant bias which changes daily. You still haven't responded to what you said was an incorrect analysis of a race a couple weeks ago- well guess what, one of the horses I suggested might be a good play against is the 5/2 favorite in tomorrow's 5th. Perhaps you could do everyone a favor and explain why she's a great play or not because clearly I'm not smart enough in your mind to do it.

I completely but respectfully disagree that your charts can determine what happened inside of a race because at the core they're no different than looking at a raw running line.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

This is exactly why everyone here makes fun of you and brushes you aside as a useless piece of trash. I answered your question with my thoughts, and instead of actually discussing what I said, right or wrong, you attack me and others. I poke fun at your bike analyses because HORSES ARE NOT BIKES AND RACETRACKS ARE NOT VELODROMES. If you actually got on the back of a horse and rode it you would realize they don't operate like a piece of human operated machinery where you can pick and choose when or how fast they go.

Analyzing Keeneland this meet has nothing to do with one specific winner. That was the first one to run back. It has plenty to do with being able to refer back to my notes on how the track was playing- because if you haven't noticed your precious polytrack has a significant bias which changes daily. You still haven't responded to what you said was an incorrect analysis of a race a couple weeks ago- well guess what, one of the horses I suggested might be a good play against is the 5/2 favorite in tomorrow's 5th. Perhaps you could do everyone a favor and explain why she's a great play or not because clearly I'm not smart enough in your mind to do it.

I completely but respectfully disagree that your charts can determine what happened inside of a race because at the core they're no different than looking at a raw running line.

Rather than fighting change and trying to get a reaction out of me, you might want to consider a suggestion:

Watching replays intently at KEE is pretty much a waste of valuable time. This is because with TRAKUS you get a more precise sense of how the race was run. The idea, is to GENERALIZE. I'm not so much concerned as to what happened in a particular race to a particular horse as much as I'm interested in how a particular angle/situation generalizes. Once I'm at this point, i.e., have formulated a method of identifying 'mismatches', I can then play multiple tracks. The idea behind winning today is to find these prime plays, and as many of them as you possibly can. It allows you to not force plays.

If I have an automated pace/speed system in place, I can easily spot mismatches at multiple tracks. Why in the world would I want to spend hours watching races when I can see from a chart who ran against the grain and who didn't?

As for how a track is playing, the charts instantly show this. I don't buy into all the modeling of tracks BS; if this was of any value, then all the Sartinistas would be counting their winnings rather than spending even more money on yet another program.

The idea, broadly, is to model in a way that allows you to play ANY track, without preparation, without specific modeling, without figures, etc. If I'm spending more than 5 minutes to handicap a race, then I'm wasting valuable time.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Rather than fighting change and trying to get a reaction out of me, you might want to consider a suggestion:

Watching replays intently at KEE is pretty much a waste of valuable time. This is because with TRAKUS you get a more precise sense of how the race was run. The idea, is to GENERALIZE. I'm not so much concerned as to what happened in a particular race to a particular horse as much as I'm interested in how a particular angle/situation generalizes. Once I'm at this point, i.e., have formulated a method of identifying 'mismatches', I can then play multiple tracks. The idea behind winning today is to find these prime plays, and as many of them as you possibly can. It allows you to not force plays.

If I have an automated pace/speed system in place, I can easily spot mismatches at multiple tracks. Why in the world would I want to spend hours watching races when I can see from a chart who ran against the grain and who didn't?

As for how a track is playing, the charts instantly show this. I don't buy into all the modeling of tracks BS; if this was of any value, then all the Sartinistas would be counting their winnings rather than spending even more money on yet another program.

The idea, broadly, is to model in a way that allows you to play ANY track, without preparation, without specific modeling, without figures, etc. If I'm spending more than 5 minutes to handicap a race, then I'm wasting valuable time.

Obviously that would be the truth, the light, an ideal situation- but I've in fact tried modeling and backtesting it and it doesn't work. It identifies too many false positives, especially on synthetic. For example, from today's 7th at KEE, Bigshot would have been identified by a computer model as an absolute gold PRIME play because of his closing performance against the strong speed bias on the 8th in the Alcomatch race- which a human analysis would conclude as skeptical at best because it fell so far outside of the rest of the day. Likewise, being able to toss his performance and reanalyzing without that he was an easy toss at 5/2.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

For example, from today's 7th at KEE, Bigshot would have been identified by a computer model as an absolute gold PRIME play because of his closing performance against the strong speed bias on the 8th in the Alcomatch race- which a human analysis would conclude as skeptical at best because it fell so far outside of the rest of the day. Likewise, being able to toss his performance and reanalyzing without that he was an easy toss at 5/2.

Bigshots' race, per the non Trakus charts, is not nearly against the grain enough to warrant a look; certainly not at 5:2. Moreover, he's never run a race in his history where he's run against the grain (or done anything of note in terms of his setups). This is key: I want horses that run well against the setup not those that plug along when they don't get one and run only when things go their way. A chart history, while flawed (as all data presently is) goes a long way towards pointing them out. (Another way would be to watch all their races and keep copious notes.)

And, it's become evident to me that even the strongest bias is not immune to pace/setup. Even if there were a speed bias on 4/08, race 6 was not run as such.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Bigshots' race, per the non Trakus charts, is not nearly against the grain enough to warrant a look; certainly not at 5:2. Moreover, he's never run a race in his history where he's run against the grain (or done anything of note in terms of his setups). This is key: I want horses that run well against the setup not those that plug along when they don't get one and run only when things go their way. A chart history, while flawed (as all data presently is) goes a long way towards pointing them out. (Another way would be to watch all their races and keep copious notes.)

And, it's become evident to me that even the strongest bias is not immune to pace/setup. Even if there were a speed bias on 4/08, race 6 was not run as such.

We agree on this. While the pace was moderately fast for the level, it still shouldn't have fallen apart like it did.

However, I don't know how you can say this horse wouldn't be identified on a computer-based system as a stickout; he's exactly what you're trying to find, closing from well back on a day where very little passing occurred. I can understand not wanting to get involved at 5/2 but then you are right back to square one- needing extensive human analysis to finalize your wagering decisions. There is no substitute for hard work in this game- be it making quality speed figures, watching races, creating customized charts, or building a database of troubled trips. It is a lot closer to poker than blackjack in that artificial intelligence can only do part of the work instead of all of it.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I think your first sentence is a bit harsh.

Oh please.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I think your first sentence is a bit harsh.

This ain't Sunday School if you haven't noticed.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

This ain't Sunday School if you haven't noticed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47bpOCTcaY