Thanks so much guys!! Some very interesting things to look in to. The depth of handicapping on this board amazes me. Pace is definitely a weakness in my game and has contributed to some 'dry' streaks. It may take me a few days to digest your suggestions while playing at the same time.
Jack, your work is impressive!
Tom thanks for your suggestions. Very logical approaches.
Ranch thank you as well.

I didn't get into it here because Tony indicated he is not into pace. but I can cover it however much interests everyone.

My interest is in % Median, a Sartin principle. It is based on the percentage of early pace versus late, early energy if you will.

So, I look at three factors: positional early (Quirin speed points), speed early (Sartin early pace, more or less early feet per second or else a comparison to early fractional par) and %Median (early energy).

The concept is that when a field of horses have a combined low %Median ( I actually take the combined median of each horse's median of its % Medians of all its shown races, obviously a computerized task) , then some of those horses are going to find themselves on the lead despite low early energy and are likely to exert more early energy than they are accustomed to and thus more than they can handle. This makes the situation ripe for a pace meltdown and a chaos race. Generally, my experience suggests that this is not a good way to bet against odds-on horses that don't seem to be bet against, though i have no data to back this up. In other words, I don't find this method to be stand-alone bet against on odd-on horses. Many of those are simply good enough to overcome the adversity.

People were very skeptical when I introduced this concept, but the next day I predicted a big longshot win. My memory suggests that it paid something like $47 to win, not sure. Granted, that was just one race, but I was 1 for 1 and I did it under the pressure of possibly looking like an idiot. :)

I am still studying this method. It doesn't work on turf because many of those horses have low % Medians -- their big run is late. The same is also likely for all-weather (Tapeta, etc), though I have little experience with all-weather. I am also studying the extent to which the energy requirement changes per distance or whether that is very relevant.

As most of you probably know, chaos races often have huge payouts, sometimes 20/1 and more. These races that fall into the range for my method are scarce. My GUESS is that you would be unlikely to find more than 1 per week per track, but there is nothing to say that it would be impossible to find a lot in one week or none in a week.

Another gotcha here is that the % Medians all need to be recalculated based on scratches. So, I am working on a new program that will provide for scratch changes much faster than my prior program, which wrote out HTML files for entire cards.

And, one last known caveat is that chaos seldom ensues in fields of less than 6 or 7 horses. So, 8 or more entrants are preferable. Sheesh, in today's racing, that alone narrows the opportunities.

I also know people who model %Median by track and distance and severely downgrade the chances of horses that fall outside the range of their model.

Tony, in order to give you a “feel” for a potential race set-up sorting on projected early speed, I’ve attached a PDF for tomorrow’s AQU races for your review….

When Dave introduced New Pace several years ago, I was intrigued with his “EARLY vs LATE” approach and spent some time developing my own algorithm to accomplish the same…the output is a percentage projection based on who is most likely to have the lead at the first call (using all available PP’s up to and including the last ten)…the corresponding percentages are marked in the column titled by the same name. If interested, I’m sure you could generate something similar.

Unique to my handicapping style, I like to sort the race by best projected early pace downward to get a quick picture of how the race might run…I use generic running styles (pending a final review); Quirin Early Speed Points; an alert for superior early speed; and corresponding 1st and 2nd call pace “ranks” based on best two of last three races. In addition, I use a projected pace pressure gage as shown in each race header…This is something mentioned earlier that Dave / Randy Giles has shared in the past and is based on Early Speed Points.

Again, the idea is to have an automated “projection” to facilitate races of potential interest (and of course, subject to a final handicapping review).

Something that should fit well with what you are doing is the Giles race speed points that Dave discussed on this board a few months ago. It looks at the horses with high Quirin points and you are already calculating those.

Early speed, imho, is they key factor in most races. Many races are over 10 seconds into the running.

No massive data studies, but some bought and paid for observations that have proven usefull:

1. Many E horses can run as EP horses if they need to. Be very cautious labeling one a need-t-lead.

2. An EP horse drawn inside may be forced to send early.

3. An E horse drawn outside the other early speed may well sit off the pace.

4. When 2 E horses are side by side,, re-examine the QSPs. An E4 may well show moe early speed than expected and challemge or even out-pace an E6 . QSPs, if limited to the lat 3 lines are as much form as speed. The E4 might well be an E7 or E8 when in good form. I use Dave's definition of an improving horse as good reason to look at back-speed.

5. Dave's New Pace idea for rating early is tedious by hand, but excellent in practice.

6. The Rs/Pos method by Jim Crammer iis excellent and structured enough to take out a lot of indecision.Much detailed iFREE nformation at HDW.

7. If you use BRIS or have access to pace figuures, try adding the QSPs to the E1 or the E2 pace rating. I use B2L4 pace figs at E1.

8. If you play NYRA, use the Track Trends column for rail bias, very good information.


Great topic.

Thanks William!! Appreciate your feedback. Very interesting suggestion and also very logical. Keep you posted as I give this one some thought.

Thanks William Tony and Dave!

Hopefully you enjoyed and will try to get on a few more times this year (pending approval :) )

Was very fortunate to be allowed onto the TTP Cocktail Lounge on Thursday and overall it was a very amazing experience! We handicapped the races from Charles Town.

Had some slight audio troubles right off the bat but didn’t let it get to me and actually managed to sneak out a profit on the night with all of our bets!

Link is below:

https://twitter.com/conleypicks/status/1613758449820618753?s=61&t=qySPLn4GSXZWGWZhC3kTcw

We've reached the point of diminishing returns here.

We see the wagering world far differently.

.that is the "chance" effect — William Zayonce

Always remember what Johnny Oates said...Luck is when preparation and opportunity meet. We just have to be prepared.

Although winning methods can exist , which counter balance the effects of "random chance ", the "Holy Grail" cannot exist unless "chance" is completely eliminated. — William Zayonce

As we discussed recently, a good strategy will counter chance. While perfection will never exist, a reasonable profit is possible. I think sometimes we can be greatly rewarded for finding strange stuff.

Maybe an owner has a much better win percentage on Tuesday. Maybe that's because the owner is only able to go to the track on Tuesday. We don't have to know that the owner goes to the track on Tuesday and tells the trainer to give the horse its best shot on Tuesday, just that the owner wins on Tuesday. I know this is an extreme example, but my point is that good data usage can really pay off.

Interesting, Dave. This is a topic I don't usually discuss. I don't discuss it because I don't really get jazzed about being called a liar when I am telling the truth. lol

Back around the turn of the century (sounding like an old codger here), I was having incredible success with the horses...from a win percentage and ROI perspective. I had a decent job, so I considered what I was doing to be long-term research (it would last forever, right?). So, I was not betting much money... very little. This was back when my state still allowed ADW's. This success went on for a few years, maybe 3 or so. I won't tell the level I was at because nobody would believe me. I will say that I was making at least 60 wagers per month, minimum, so it wasn't like I was just lucky on a few wagers.

Eventually my win percentage dropped about 25% from where it was and my ROI went from unbelievable to a small loss. So, I changed my approach without thinking it through and tanked. Instead of looking for tweaks or even significant tweaks, I leaped into vertical wagers and was not successful.

I believe I have learned a lot. Horse racing is very complex. Millions of factors and that's before cheating or manipulations are considered. I now believe it is good to look at enough factors to be able to ebb and flow, but not more factors than are manageable. But, as you suggest, I have also learned that the Holy Grail is migratory.

Indeed.
What he is doing is pretty fantastic.

Did you notice that his average mutuel is $3.57?

Thanks for sharing Dave. It's amazing that HSH is capable of so much more than meets the eye. I am so guilty of not taking advantage of these features.

Thought provoking Dave. I seem to recall you describing 'Whales' going through a similar process each year. — Tony Kofalt

Yes.
I understand that they begin working on it during the summer so that they're prepared to roll it out in January.

That's why things seem to change from year to year.

A famous full-time player I use to speak with often, said that for 4 straight years his ROI went down. When he saw it go negative 4 months in a row, he pulled the plug on his racing career.

He was a mini-whale himself - wagering just shy of $40m per year.
BTW, he was the only fully automated operation I ever heard of.

I was working with someone tonight on how to filter races in a study.

(HSH captures every race you bet, and every horse in the race. It tags contenders, probabilities, and a whole lot of stuff, so you can figure out what you're doing right or wrong.)

In this player's case, he wanted to learn how to do some basic filter so he could look at what his winners and losers looked like at different tracks, surfaces, distances, field sizes, etc.

Thought you guys might like to see what a winning amateur player can accomplish.

_________________
First, we're looking at his last 715 races.


Even though I have helped this player with strategy in the past, he is 100% responsible for his success. I have only a vague idea about what he does.

What I KNOW to be true.

• As many of our more successful players do, he bets every race he handicaps.
• He does not make an odds line and bet into it.
• He does some form of dynamic handicapping.
• That means HSH fetches races from the database that are "like this one."
• Then HSH uses those races as a "model" to build objects to handicap with.
• He plays an average of 2 horses per race, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Here's what I believe to be true:

• He uses a module known as "How the Whales Should Bet."
• This module is NOT used to predict the odds.
• It is generally used to determine who the good bets should be.
• (Ironically, these are typically the horses who will win a lot of races and wind up losing 3-6%.)

How he actually handicaps is completely out of my scope of knowledge.

As I said to him when I recorded this video, the results are phenomenal.
BTW, the video was to show him how to filter the bets he's made to see how well he is doing in some types of races as opposed to others.
___________________________________


In this graphic, we have "built a filter" (for teaching purposes) to isolate on races shorter than 1 mile.

As you can see, the results were highly similar, but the races played have dropped from 715 to 566. Obviously, distance is not an issue.

___________________________________

Our user's typically use what we call Object Odds - an Artificial Morning Line object (aML).

This graphic shows that he's pretty much beating every odds range, and the sample sizes are respectable.

BTW, Object Odds are only available when you handicap one race at a time.
IOW, this was not some kind of robotic handicapping where a system is thrown against a database.

___________________________________


In this image we see the Grades Breakdown.

In HSH, the grades are based upon the projected $net for each horse.
more specifically, $net is computed from:
Probability x Projected Odds

Although the actual grade levels are set by the user, generally A+ to A- are set to be profitable and everything below is projected to be losers, with F's being the absolute worst.

As you can see from looking at the table, the projected Best Bets were slight losers, but once again he did pretty well from top to bottom.

One thing worth noticing - Since he bets so many Grade F horses, there is obviously no Value Component in his approach.

I've taught a lot of players that in today's Era of the Whales value handicapping - making a line and betting into it - is pretty much dead.
___________________________________




In this last screenshot, we see how the horses ranked for probability. Again, he was quite successful from top to bottom.

And, again, we can see that he is clearly not using the "best horses" to make his bets.

___________________________________
FINALLY, I will share a little background about this player, who is very well-known in our community.

I recall a few years ago - maybe 6 years? - when he announced that after decades of losing, for the FIRST TIME IN HIS LIFE he did not have to refill his account at the end of the month.

Later he spoke of how it felt to have WON EIGHT MONTHS IN A ROW.

His win back then was nothing like this.
Oh, I've seen lots of guys with +20% ROIs over several thousand bets.
What I have never seen is $Nets like his across all spectrums.

He is not a professional player - not by a longshot - but what he has accomplished is damned impressive.

Interesting.. we'll need to discover "Which " components to use and "How" to combine them, perhaps tossing in some "negative enhancement" features ? — William Zayonce

That would be the idea.

Be forewarned: This is deep reading.
(But there is simplification at the bottom.)

Pretty provocative statement, right?

In my daily reading I ran across an interesting article The Truth about How Creativity Really Works
(This is not actually about creativity.)

>>>> If you don't care about the actual articles, just scroll down to CUT TO THE CHASE.

It begins as an article about John Boyd, a Military Strategist.
______________________________
Within that article, I found this:

Godel, Heisenberg and The Law of Shitty Clickthroughs.

Boyd saw that the act of defining reality changes reality.
...When you create a new conceptual system, then reality reacts to that system.
...In the startup world, one way this shows up is the Law of Shitty Clickthroughs:

Over time, all marketing strategies result in shitty clickthrough rates.

In 1994, a display ad might get a 70% clickthrough rate. Display ad clickthrough rates are now in the neighborhood of 0.05%. — Taylor Pearson

______________________________
That led to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle


CUT TO THE CHASE
>>>>>


WHY BACKFITS DON'T WORK

Any attempts to prove the system is consistent and matches up with reality actually generates even more disorder and uncertainty, and it makes the conceptual system less useful for increasing your capacity for independent action.

If you try to more accurately figure out the position of a particle, its velocity becomes less predictable (and vice versa).

Any increase in an attempt to get a more aligned match-up of concept with reality just increases the misalignment and creates unexplained occurrences.

When we try to force reality to fit our conceptual system, we create what Nassim Taleb has called “black swans”
— dramatic and impactful events not predicted by the prevailing conceptual system.

_________________________________
BUT DAVE, WHAT THE HELL DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
So, the original thesis was that you cannot know the precise position of a particle and know it's movement at the same time.
(Stick with me here.)

If you try to improve the location, the movement will become less predictable.
If you try to improve the movement, the location will become less predictable.

HUH?
What I said was that...

• you began with a system, method, or even your own seat-of-the-pants approach.
• Then you tried to improve it.
• Then you got it working (to whatever degree).
• And it WORKED (to whatever degree).

Think of "WORKED TO A DEGREE" as the "RESULT."
Now think of "RESULT" as a combination of Hit Rate & Price.
PROFIT is, of course, determined by Hit Rate & Price.

Then, some weeks/months/years later you noticed that it was no longer producing as well as it was before.

What comes next is
"I've got to fix this because it isn't working any more."

Heisenberg's work tells us that IT WILL GET WORSE when you try to improve it.

So, what do you do?

The answer can be found in two steps:
1. Deconstruct an idea to examine its parts.
2. Deconstruct it to see what it can be combined with.

HUH?
1. Deconstruct an idea to examine its parts.
Look at the components of the system.
("Well, I use mostly early speed, trainer, pace ratings... oh, and the tote board.")

2. Deconstruct it to see what it can be combined with.

• Look back at your old approaches, making a list of components.
• Do NOT try to use just the stuff that seemed to work best. (That will just lower the prices.)
• Try to add some components that are not supposed to be any good.
• Spread all these components out on the table (metaphorically).
• Combine them into a new approach.

Then go SNOWMOBILING.
(See link below.)





Want to Think Like Elon Musk?

Happy birthday, Dave! I hope you and Beth shared a special day.

Happy birthday Dave thanks for the help you have given me and others about your expertise in the world of horse racing! Cannot wait to share more ideas together in the near future

Happy Birthday Dave!!

Happy Birthday Dave! You're not getting older, you're getting better! (But you are getting older)

Ranch,
On Friday there is a similar horse in race 6 at Aqu. I projected a lot of progress for #5, East Coast Girl. He exits a pretty fast debut where the runnerup returned to win a $500k stake. In fact my raw projections give him a 4 lengths edge.

• Lone speed unless a first time starter shows speed.
• Smart class drop.
• Adds lasix
• Adds blinkers

There are a number of similarities to Basic Truth. He's an 'A' play, but probably not a single. The decision to single often comes down a gut feeling.

Hey Ranch, of course you can ask.
First let me say that singling a race in a P5 sequence is not unusual for me. I'm typically looking for a race where my top selection has a strong projected number compared to the field and a fair M/L. In this case I projected Basic Truth to win by 2+ lengths while improving about 9 lengths off his debut. The major factors I used were:

• Improved speed
• Class drop
• Sire average winning distance
• Positive jockey switch

I expect to lose more bets than I cash. While I don't enjoy losing bets that's simply reality. I employ some money management techniques and try to have confidence in my plan.
This was not an especially good day as the P5's returned less than I expected. But I trust that it will all work out in the end. Please feel free to ask if i didn't answer your question.

Ranch, you continue to make logical and solid points! Tha's why I love this game. There are often many ways to project a race.
I can't disagree with your analysis. I tend to be more forgiving with horses on the bottom. I estimate that his win possibility is around 30%, meaning I expect he would lose this race 7 of 10 times. All things considered I still feel a value P5 is available.
In Race 8 I thought that maybe we could beat the most logical horses in the 8 and 9. I made them B's. I ended up with the 3 and 7 as A's with one unknown in the 5 horse. The 5's last race was in 2021 but it was a tough event. 5 next winners including 2 horses that went on to win restricted stakes. I decided to add her back in as an A.
Thanks so much for you input Ranch. I always read your posts closely and give them a lot of consideration.

Thanks William! I do agree that there are some tricky races on this card. I did not handicap your selections on top BUT they will be on my tickets as B plays. My feeling is that 'open' races can pave the way to well paying horizontals.
I plan to single the 4th in both P5's. I'm betting that Basic Truth will find himself on the lead turning for home for the first time. 'Truth' may be forced to stalk the 7 early. Good luck if you watch Aqu!

I was doing some preliminary handicapping on the Aqu card for Thursday 1-5. I came across a horse in race 4, Basic Truth, who looks like he has a lot of reasons to improve. If my instincts are correct, we have a horse that can be singled in both P5's at M/L of 9-2.
Race 8 also presents some interesting options at double digit M/L odds .
If you look at Aqu please let me know what you think.

Good luck

Really glad you did well. It is really impressive how well you are able to evaluate both your professional and private life. Not many people are able to do that.

As you have found, for any solid handicapper who can bankroll the P5, it is a great wager because your expertise puts you ahead of so many in the pools. Most people can get one or two in a P5 sequence, but it takes a dedicated person to catch all 5. Granted that sometimes it takes a little luck, but as Johnny Oates stated, luck is when preparation and opportunity meet.

Happy New Year and best wishes for 2023.

Thank you Dave! I appreciate the feedback and good wishes

Thank you William!! I feel as if I'm heading in the right direction.

I think it's always a good idea to track your wagering results in horse racing. If you don't keep records and then review them from time to time it's easy for this game to slip away from you.
2022 was a very trying year for myself both personally and professionally. In January of 2022, I went through a personal issue that left me fighting depression and anxiety. It became difficult to focus on my wagering and the work that came with it.

2022 EOY results

• 2022 handle was down over 50% from prior year(s)
• Year end total ROI was exactly 20% and the $Net was 2.4.
• Highest $Net of 3.4 was achieved wagering on P5's
• Second highest $Net of 2.37 came from Win bets
• I was a loser in both P3 and P4 wagering pools with $Nets of 0.86 and 1.66 respectively.

Observations:

• Reduced handle was due my struggle with anxiety and depression.
• Low $Net in P3 and P4 wagers was a surprise. Appears to be due to poor decisions regarding value.
• Handle on Win bets was up significantly from prior years as was the profit!!
• P5's continue to be my most profitable plays

Please feel free to ask any questions or add to this conversation.

I'm working on the 2022 end of year results for myself. I'll share the numbers in a few days but there may be some lessons to be learned in them. Until then, I hope to end the year with a win in FG Race 10 with She's Lookin Lucky. I have pretty good coverage into her after the first legs.
Hope everyone has a happy new year!!!!

Happy Holidays to all on the forum

Here’s to a very successful, winning and GREEN 2023!