How much is too much?

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

At some point you have to trust your own handicapping judgment, once you find out what works for you. I want to handicap a race before I hear another's opinion about it. Once I have determined the horse(s) that I want to bet (I usually bet to win), I then check what folks like Byk, Serling, and Calzone may think about the race. I do this to either validate my original opinion about a horse, or to see if there is something obvious that I'm missing. Having access to tons of racing information is all fine and dandy, but you eventually have to pull the trigger.

But if "experts" are more consistent, one must not be stubborn enough to continue to go at it alone.

[pba1817]

Is there some data printed/posted someplace of winning %, ITM %, and ROI for the experts selections?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pba1817

Is there some data printed/posted someplace of winning %, ITM %, and ROI for the experts selections?

If I posted mine for 2012 you would probably kill yourself.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If I posted mine for 2012 you would probably kill yourself.

Good or bad?

As to the original question, I would say to measure the inputs that one uses in terms of their past effectiveness and order them in decreasing percentage of advantage. At some point, given that list, you can deem the lower contributors to be giving "diminishing returns" (unless their yield is VERY consistent and higher than the rest), and even then you might want to split it into a separate approach weighing different factors that only are used when enough price horses are present.

In other words - apply some empirical measurand to it. That will give you confidence and a consistent measuring stick by which to evaluate your effectiveness versus the length and difficulty of the approach.

[odbaxter]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Good or bad?

As to the original question, I would say to measure the inputs that one uses in terms of their past effectiveness and order them in decreasing percentage of advantage. At some point, given that list, you can deem the lower contributors to be giving "diminishing returns" (unless their yield is VERY consistent and higher than the rest), and even then you might want to split it into a separate approach weighing different factors that only are used when enough price horses are present.

In other words - apply some empirical measurand to it. That will give you confidence and a consistent measuring stick by which to evaluate your effectiveness versus the length and difficulty of the approach.

Obviously his is super good, or we would want to kill him not ourselves.

[tector]

I listen to only a very few people--the signal to noise ratio just gets to be too much. Serling and Drugs are probably my top two.

[pweizer]

I think the question is how you define information. There are millions of people who will sell you selections. Some very sharp people like Steve generously give them away free. But by blindly following someone else, you get no real information.

What makes the NYRA work that Andy is a part of special is that he doesn't just tell you who he thinks will win a race but also explains the reasoning so that you can learn and apply that logic yourself in the future. Andy's analysis gives you information that can make you a better handicapper by learning how to watch a race, what to look for when you do, and when statistics are meaningful.

Doug's posts here similarly offer great insight (as did his one episode handicapping show that I am eagerly waiting for the next installment of). He doesn't come on and just say "I like X." Rather, he breaks the race down and explains why he came to the opinion he did. By learning from people such as this, you can use information to make your own selections going forward.

I am not even sure that ROI is the way to evaluate information. Andy, for example, will often put long shots on top that he will say is not the most likely winner of a given race. It is not the selection that you should focus on. It is the information as to why he made the selection that should be filed away and used in your everyday handicapper.

Bottom line--you will never become a good handicapper by following someone else's picks. You can improve greatly by applying the methods used by someone you respect and follow.

Paul

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by asudevil

But if "experts" are more consistent, one must not be stubborn enough to continue to go at it alone.

To me, there is far more joy when I'm right than when I have copied some expert who was. That said, I have found it worthwhile to listen to the reasons behind someone's selections, especially if it is information regarding a horse who ran with or against a bias because I don't have the time to keep those kind of records.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

To me, there is far more joy when I'm right than when I have copied some expert who was. That said, I have found it worthwhile to listen to the reasons behind someone's selections, especially if it is information regarding a horse who ran with or against a bias because I don't have the time to keep those kind of records.

I agree with Sighty (but you could cut down on the gym time)

But when I'm rushed and in need a gambling fix..it's the Byk p4 for me.