How much is too much?

[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

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by 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

Outstanding Paul, could not agree with you more.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by 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

Who wants to become a good handicapper? The hours are long the opportunities are few and others like BTW do it for you.. Why buy when you can lease?

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by 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

Great points, Paul. As one very astute handicapper told me once..."the Racing Form is my favorite publication, because it's full of winners."

I'm of the belief that the best analyst is the one who doesn't tell you what anyone else could obviously read in the PP line. I don't need anyone to read for me - the added value comes from bringing the PP line, and the logic of a selection, to life.

[tywizard]

I too use many inputs.

This winter and spring I would have saved a lot of time and effort by just listening and reading Steve. He's locked in at the moment.

I tend to complete my own analysis first and then modify based on other inputs. I can say I have learned to add to my tickets not take my selections off. More expensive but nothing worse than not trusting your own interpretation and having that horse win for fun.

The key is going back to the pp and figuring out what Steve or someone else saw that you did not. That's one of the best ways to learn.

[asudevil]

I am grateful to the guys that work so hard to help us become a successful. It is very much appreciated.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by pweizer

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.

That is exactly why ROI is the way to evaluate information. It should be obvious that the most likely winner is very often not the best bet. The best bet is the one whose odds of winning show the biggest positive discrepancy from the betting odds. A 10-1 shot (in the betting) with a 15% chance of winning the race is a much better bet than an even money fav with a 50% chance of winning the race. ROI is a way of measuring that kind of betting skill.

Originally Posted by pweizer

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.

That's true. But people may have different goals. If your primary goal is to make money at the track, then being a good handicapper yourself might not be very important to you.

I completely agree with the idea that it's a lot more satisfying if you can do it yourself, though. And having at least some skills should make it easier to tell whose ROI is a fluke and whose is more likely for real.

--Dunbar

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

That is exactly why ROI is the way to evaluate information. It should be obvious that the most likely winner is very often not the best bet. The best bet is the one whose odds of winning show the biggest positive discrepancy from the betting odds. A 10-1 shot (in the betting) with a 15% chance of winning the race is a much better bet than an even money fav with a 50% chance of winning the race. ROI is a way of measuring that kind of betting skill.

However, a public handicapper's ROI is a terribly unfair way to measure their handicapping acumen, as their picks must be in well in advance ( I rarely send mine in later than 48 hours before raceday ) and thus they can't make adjustments for value. A perfect example would be yesterday's 1st race at Aqueduct. I picked the race 1-2, but when the 2 was, what I felt was, a big overlay at over 4:1, I bet him to win ( I also Tweeted about this before the race ). My ROI reflects a loser, and according to what you wrote it theoretically shouldn't....but it does.

The bottom line is that, for the most part, 1-2-3 picks are for people that don't really want to hear the handicapping discussion, or the haters that are happy that no puiblic handicapper can realistically show a positive ROI over time ( though, I have been disproving that, miraculously, for a while ). We don't even really want to offer them at NYRA, as we feel they detract from what we are trying to do, which is engage people in the handicapping discussion, which inevitably will create many more fans than 1-2-3 picks, but too many people want them for us to not give them out.

[asudevil]

Well my ROI has improved dramatically with the information that is now provided. Was I an extremely average handicapper/bettor before? Sure feels like it now. I still may be one given the company I keep.

The point of my initial post was to gather information and share experiences so that I can become better given all the information available. I find it very intriguing that some, for example, may wager the exact tickets that a Steve or Gus provide. Or others may take Andy's 3, 4, or 5 selections per race and bet pick 3's and 4's or box them in the various exotics. I have found myself, especially at Saratoga, blending Steve and Andy's picks. That has worked both positively and negatively. This is not to say that I haven't been succussful selecting on my own. At times I most certainly have. Look, to me it's gray. There's no right or wrong, it's just refinement.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

However, a public handicapper's ROI is a terribly unfair way to measure their handicapping acumen, as their picks must be in well in advance ( I rarely send mine in later than 48 hours before raceday ) and thus they can't make adjustments for value. A perfect example would be yesterday's 1st race at Aqueduct. I picked the race 1-2, but when the 2 was, what I felt was, a big overlay at over 4:1, I bet him to win ( I also Tweeted about this before the race ). My ROI reflects a loser, and according to what you wrote it theoretically shouldn't....but it does.

The bottom line is that, for the most part, 1-2-3 picks are for people that don't really want to hear the handicapping discussion, or the haters that are happy that no puiblic handicapper can realistically show a positive ROI over time ( though, I have been disproving that, miraculously, for a while ). We don't even really want to offer them at NYRA, as we feel they detract from what we are trying to do, which is engage people in the handicapping discussion, which inevitably will create many more fans than 1-2-3 picks, but too many people want them for us to not give them out.

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.