Third race at Saratoga: A $35 claimer with a twelve horse field, obviously anything can happen. Ravaro(1)is stuck with post nine, and another \"6.5\" while running wide certainly will not get the job done. The rider change to Velazquez might make a difference however. I think JR might be a bit more aggressive in getting the horse into position, and just might have enough left at the end to close into a slow pace. The post and pace will work against him, but at 7-2 (morning line), I think a wager across the board makes sense.
If he\'s 7/2 morning line and he\'s switching to Velazquez you\'re almost guaranteed to go below 3-1, and at 3-1 or under the math is just so against you (unless you\'ve got some cold exactas). And you think the horse can run his race and lose. And you\'re going to bet across the board. You\'re chasing this angle off a cliff. I guess you\'re doing well with it if you keep going this way. Even at 7/2 that\'s a tough row to hoe. Good luck. HP
Nurey\'s Thunder gets Bailey
Delta Wheel to win. HP
That Carrero is probably the best jock out there. Prado is just lucky sometimes. Looks like Bailey and Velazquez are washed up. HP
HP,
The horses on the pace ran one through five; a terrible misjudgement of the pace scenario on my part. A horrible pick. JR was unable to make a dent in that slow pace.... I like Victor, I think he will be a star one day, but, HP, his .85 ROI this meet has not made anybody money. As for JR and JD being washed up, we will have plenty of time over the next three months to discuss that. In the end, you may have a good point, and the two may burn a lot of money, but I will stick with them for now.
What did the Velazquez horse go off at? I can\'t say how horrible your bet was unless I know. Maybe it wasn\'t that bad.
Some fun facts. Velazquez has ridden six winners that paid more than $10 at this meet. The last one was Aug. 4. You will either (1) find a new angle, (2) use this one more selectively, or (3) go broke. I\'m rooting for you. HP
This whole jock/ROI stat is ridiculous. It demonstrates only that if you bet ANY jockey every time out, you will lose money, since they ALL have ROI\'s under 2.00. Even the ones that have a slightly positive ROI aren\'t worth anything, since the 2.10 is not enough to make up for admission, racing forms or anything else you use/buy to play. It\'s the definition of a useless stat and a losing angle.
Plenty of trainers have ROI\'s over 3.00 in certain categories. Makes a lot more sense to follow this than Velazquez 1.85 vs. Carrero\'s 0.95. The stat only demonstrates that they are both LOSING MONEY for every 2.00 bet. You can pat yourself on the back and say that Velazquez is losing less than Carrero, but that\'s not much to brag about, is it? If this is how you\'re going about handicapping, I guess there\'s not much for me to add and I should give up on this. HP
You selected Delta Wheel. You really should just admit your angle was as loser, as I did. Post some winning angles this w/e, on particular races, BEFORE THE RACES ARE RUN, and I will be interested in your fun facts.
HP,
This conversation is gibberish. Get the last word in and let\'s end it. I have defeated you by large margins in our two handicapping contests, when you feel up to showing off your winning angles, BEFORE THE RACES ARE RUN, let me know, I will give you a third shot.
I see you\'re no longer up to discussing this subject, so now it\'s gibberish.
Of course I lost. I thought that was obvious. I didn\'t say anything about winning angles, I said the jock/ROI thing was a losing angle, which it is. If it\'s not, prove me wrong. Despite all your posts, you haven\'t demonstrated how this helps you win money even once. Actually, I vaguely remember you touting Voodoo. That\'s one and that\'s it.
As for contests, I was up against Patent, and won both. If you threw in and scored higher, more power to you. I didn\'t notice. I don\'t have an axe to grind against you, but if you want to have a heads-up contest just say when. If you win picking Bailey and Velazquez all day I\'ll be eating more than crow. I have a feeling if you win you\'ll have to find another way to do it, and it won\'t change anything that\'s been said on this subject. Let me know... HP
Oh, and two other things.
1) Speaking of before the race, who tried to help you with Tarnished Lady? That was before the race, right?
2) You\'ve lost your sense of humor. Bad day?
Regards, HP
OK, great..... This w/e. You seem to have the most interest in Sar, and there are some great stakes at Arl, how about full card Sar, and the Arl stakes races on Sat. We can decide tomorrow night; if the forecast becomes bad, we can agree to do it later in the Spa meet, or go with just Arl, up to you (a rained out Sar card is horrible horse racing). And since I trounced you in the two previous contests, I will give you a fourth shot if you are unable to beat me in this one. Actually, I will give you up to ten chances if you need them.
Boy you\'re really bent out of shape. Must have hit a nerve somewhere.
I don\'t feel trounced, since I\'m the only one who\'s made any money out of these contests, but okay. This weekend is no good. I\'ll probably be away next Sat. too. How\'s next Weds. or Fri. at Saratoga? I would actually be able to play those cards if something looks good. If they\'re lousy cards they\'re lousy cards for both of us, so it should serve our purpose. I like the format of the first contest, $1,000 bet however you want. I think the second format might have favored your style since you could win with those $4 Baileys.
I don\'t think I\'ll need ten tries, but thanks. Let me know on the day/format. HP
I\'ll be here.
Alright. I\'ve consulted my calendar. I figure Friday will shape up better. I\'ll go for Del Mar if you prefer. I\'m assuming the $1,000 bet any way works for you. All you have to do is pick the track.
Want to go for $100, Mr. Trounce? I\'m playing with Patent\'s money. Hopefully you live in NY so we can do this for cash. HP
There are major Breeder\'s Cup prep cards every w/e for the next two months. Pick any one of them, all of them, or any combination. The Friday before the Travers is bound to be filled with state bred maiden races.
and yet another thread degenerates into a \"my dick is bigger than your\'s\" competition
Hey it\'s not my fault. He went nuts with all this contest stuff.
Also, time and time again he comes up with this jockey stuff, which is available in the program, the newspaper and everyplace else. What does this have to do with TG? He can talk about whatever he wants, but yesterday he said, basically, \"this horse isn\'t really any better than the others but Velazquez is riding, so who cares about a short price.\" Has nothing to do with TG, and this is a bulletin board and not his newspaper, so I responded. Then he blows his top and says how he\'s defeated me by large margins.
I won\'t respond to his posts anymore, since he gets so pissed. I\'d be willing to drop the whole thing. If that\'s not good enough Michael you can let me know when you want to do it on one of those BC weekends (Sept. would be better), just for fun. HP
HP,
Facts my friend. Just post a winner before a race is run, or make some kind of reasonable showing in one of our contests. Until you do that, your rambling, blubbering posts will only make you look more and more foolish.
Wow. Okay I\'ll take your advice. Bring on that jockey insight. HP
HP,
Glad to see that you got the money.
I don\'t know why you want to bet into the hurricane that is Michael D. What with all the ROI info he has and the work he has been doing getting insights into how Jerry Bailey feels when he wakes up in the morning (probably a lot like sausage making -- we don\'t want to watch that happening), you are cooked before the party even starts. Quit while you are ahead. Buy some T-bills or airline stocks.
BTW, I killed them at the Western Montana Fair. I know my mules!
dp
David,
Thanks. Don\'t antagonize the \'hurricane\'. Congrats on the mules. Congrats also to Nunzio, who picked one-two in the Saratoga Breeders Cup. Some things never change. HP
HP wrote: \"This whole jock/ROI stat is ridiculous. It demonstrates only that if you bet ANY jockey every time out, you will lose money, since they ALL have ROI\'s under 2.00. Even the ones that have a slightly positive ROI aren\'t worth anything, since the 2.10 is not enough to make up for admission, racing forms or anything else you use/buy to play. It\'s the definition of a useless stat and a losing angle.\"
HP: This is utter nonsense. Please tell me you didn\'t mean it.
I\'ll try to clarify and respond Aly, since it\'s you and you must have been on vacation or something.
The jockeys cited with strong ROI\'s were Bailey and Velazquez. At the time Bailey was ahead in the jockey standings at the Spa and Velazquez was second. They both had better ROI\'s than the other jockeys mentioned. You could have easily drawn this conclusion from looking at the jockey standings. Prado is in the lead now and doubtless his ROI has improved. The jock/ROI numbers adds NOTHING to what you can see in the jockey standings in the Racing Form. The leading jockeys have the best ROI\'s mentioned. If it suits you and makes you feel good to put it into an ROI format so you know Bailey\'s ROI is $0.40 higher than Prado, great. Cash in my man!
I\'m sure you will have a lot of reasons why this jock/ROI stat is a priceless piece of info. It\'s included in the TG data and I\'m sure you\'ll do well by it. I\'ve already had this argument. Jockeys are a piece of the puzzle. You can add as much weight to it as you like. People have all kinds of crazy ideas. HP
HP: A stat doesn\'t become \"useless\" simply because everyone has it. Your inability to get ahead of the crowd is not a good reason to get left behind the crowd. A stat can be useful to have even though it\'s insufficient to make a profit with. ROI stats are useful because they tell us something about the quality of a rider\'s mounts. They are a step forward from winning percentage, which penalizes a rider who is getting bad horses. But you know all this.
You\'re right, Bailey\'s ROI tells you about the quality of his mounts. Otherwise you wouldn\'t know what was going on. HP
Tell me about the caliber of D. Montoya\'s mounts.
Alydar,
Please tell me how a serious better uses jockey ROI stats to improve his own ROI.
HP,
The guy who sits next to me when I bet is a big Maryland racing fan who has been watching Prado ride for years. He has been moving up the horses Prado rides in many of the races this meet. I did not start moving up Prado\'s mounts until recently, and thus missed much of the money to be made. The jockey angle is an important one. This guy was an expert on Prado\'s riding skills, I was not. He wins, I lose. (fortunately I am not that stubborn, and have been able to capitalize on some of Prado\'s turf wins over the last few days, although at lower prices)
David writes: \"Alydar,
Please tell me how a serious better uses jockey ROI stats to improve his own ROI.\"
Do you believe riders are fungible? If you don\'t, you can use ROI stats to point you toward riders who are competent and riders who are incompetent. That other people will have this information doesn\'t make it worthless. That is silly. If everyone knows that a particular horse will have a one-length head start, should we ignore the head start? I don\'t believe anyone can win with this alone. It is just one more thing to factor in. This was Michael D\'s position before he began to overstate his case.
I guess it\'s nice to have DPatent agree with me.
Michael, I recall saying (not on this thread) positive things about Prado a few weeks ago. Aly is better at searching these things than me. If Prado was riding a horse I liked I would bet the horse. Nothing\'s changed, except now the horses Prado is riding are often shorter than they should be, and there may be betting opportunities when the shorter price isn\'t justified.
Others will now call Prado (who might not have called him a few weeks ago) and he\'ll probably have more choices. This \'up\' cycle will last as long as it lasts. As betting angles go, you might be better off waiting for Prado to screw up, since then the public frontrunners will then go back to underestimating his choices and handicappers will go back to getting square prices on horses Prado rides that figure to win. This cycle goes with a changing cast of riders ad nauseum. A few seem to be close to the top all the time, and the \'second tier\' is always moving around.
Your friend wouldn\'t have made a dime if Prado wasn\'t riding horses that had a fair chance of winning. If you think they\'re winning because Prado\'s just so much better than the others, I\'d rather not have another argument. If Noel Wynter or some other .07 percent winning journeyman jock rides the fastest horse he will probably win, and I will make that bet every time. Good luck. HP
If Noel Wynter has the fastest horse, and Bailey and Velazquez have horses a length or so slower, your man will most likely lose the race (and you won\'t get compensated for the risk, as the ROI\'s will tell you). Let\'s just say we disagree.
Whew. I\'m just glad someone is going to keep betting on the slower ones. HP
ROI my friend. Using our example, simple math says I will be taking your money.
Alydar,
To answer your question, \'No.\' And I have never claimed we should ignore who the jockeys are. I asked you a simple question. Actually, it\'s a complex question and there\'s probably a book we could write about the following topics implicit and explicit in this discussion, including:
1) Information and how it is factored into markets (e.g., GE is a great company, but should I buy the stock?).
2) Hot streaks and whether you can predict when they will begin and when they will end -- on this point, an interesting study was done on so-called \'hot shooters\' in the NBA and whether the fact that a player had made his previous shot bore any relationship to his shooting percentage on the following shot -- btw, there was no correlation.
3) The past as prologue
4) So-called random factors that we might say are random only because we don\'t know the underlying causes.
I\'ll split the royalties with you 50/50 if you can find us a publisher.
Now, care to answer my original question?
David Patent wrote: \"Now, care to answer my original question?\"
I look at ROI stats, upgrade horses that have good riders, and downgrade horses that have bad riders. I can\'t quantify how I handle it, and I don\'t split hairs.
\"1) Information and how it is factored into markets (e.g., GE is a great company, but should I buy the stock?).\"
How it is factored into the market is meaningless. You\'re double counting, dude. The parts matter early. In the endgame, what matters is their sum versus the price. And it matters not a whit that some people will add incorrectly early in the game. What matters is the sum they come up with.
\"2) Hot streaks and whether you can predict when they will begin and when they will end -- on this point, an interesting study was done on so-called \'hot shooters\' in the NBA and whether the fact that a player had made his previous shot bore any relationship to his shooting percentage on the following shot -- btw, there was no correlation.\"
Don\'t go down this road unless you mean business, David. Bluffing is dangerous. I read Stephen Jay Gould\'s account of the study. The 76ers, right? Gould also argues that Joe DiMaggio\'s hitting streak is the most incredible record. For our purposes, this argument is unimportant. I\'m talking about established competence, not a brief hot streak.
\"3) The past as prologue.\"
Throw away your sheets.
\") So-called random factors that we might say are random only because we don\'t know the underlying causes.\"
This applies beautifully to your opinion that speed biases don\'t exist. If you can\'t figure out why, pretend that it doesn\'t exist. This is hubris, I tell you.
\"1) Information and how it is factored into markets (e.g., GE is a great company, but should I buy the stock?).\"
How it is factored into the market is meaningless. You\'re double counting, dude. The parts matter early. In the endgame, what matters is their sum versus the price. And it matters not a whit that some people will add incorrectly early in the game. What matters is the sum they come up with.
Aly,
Try to restrain yourself from expressing expertise on everything. This is total nonsense. Of course it matters that some people add \'incorrectly\' early in the game. If they add incorrectly early in the game, it makes it that much more likely that they will come up with a useless and misleading \'sum\'. If the sum is off (because of the bad early addition), how useful can the sum be when compared with the price? The skill you have in properly identifying and adding up the variables or figures is precisely what separates a useful sum/price analysis from nonsense, whether in the stock market or the racetrack.
You\'re getting carried away. HP
Before this deteriorates, I would like to say: the subjects are definitely worth discussing, and the discussers are ones I like tor ead. But it can be done without the personal cracks that raise the temperature, by all parties.
HP: You have misunderstood this so thoroughly that I\'m going to suggest that you go back to peppering \"Mr. Friedman\" with questions about when The Sheets will be available on-line. Your obsession with that subject was interesting, and if you don\'t explain it, conspiracy theorists will have a field day.
What you quote above pertains to double counting. Once you have a sum (your estimate of a horse\'s chances), the parts become meaningless. They have been accounted for. To go back to them is to double count. Let us say you\'re making an odds line for a Bailey horse. Taking everything into consideration, including his wonderful skills, you make the horse 4-1. At this point, the statement \"Bailey\'s skills don\'t matter because the crowd knows about them\" becomes idiotic. The crowd\'s tendency to bet Bailey is accounted for in the horse\'s tote odds, against which you will be comparing your personal line.
And if you are correct in making this horse 4-1, it matters not a whit how you got there.
HP wrote: \"Of course it matters that some people add \'incorrectly\' early in the game. If they add incorrectly early in the game, it makes it that much more likely that they will come up with a useless and misleading \'sum\'. If the sum is off (because of the bad early addition), how useful can the sum be when compared with the price?\"
Their errors are reflected in the sum. Once you\'ve made an assessment of their sum, their errors along the way become meaningless--unless your interest is in helping them to avoid the error in the future.
HP,
Your previous post was exactly incorrect. What matters is what is factored into the market AT THE CURRENT MOMENT. In the end, we are all dead. If the market knew that Prado was riding well today, and moved his horses up only 1 length each, there was a great chance to beat the market and make money by betting Prado. However, if the market knew that Prado was riding well today, and moved his horses up ten lengths, there were no opportunities. In any market, the value in the end is obviously the sum vs the price. I can guarantee you, however, that you will never make a cent knowing the value of the sum. You will only make money if you know if the market has priced that sum correctly AT THE CURRENT MOMENT, or if they have marked it too expensive or too cheap. The guy next to me continues to make money betting Prado, as while everyone knows he is riding well, they underestimated his value today.
Michael: \"IN THE LONG RUN we are all dead.\" We are all Keynesians now.
Please, a Keynesian???? Anything but that. My heroes are F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman. I have read \"The General Theory...\" a number of times though, so a few of the ideas have stuck with me. I will let HP get in the last word here, and move on to the next subject....................(I think I said that once before though)
Alydar,
I will have to compose some kind of response but it will be over the weekend. No personal attacks or anything. I just think you were a bit too glib in your response to not be called on it. Oh, and on #2 I do mean business -- no bluffs.
Michael D wrote: \"Please, a Keynesian????\"
It was Richard Nixon who said that we are all Keynesians now.
\"My heroes are F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman.\"
May God forgive you.
hahahhah.........next subject..... I think we have beat this one to death. Good luck everybody, I think the Travers day card is nearly impossible. Congrats to anyone who conquers it.
David Patent wrote:
\"I will have to compose some kind of response but it will be over the weekend. No personal attacks or anything. I just think you were a bit too glib in your response to not be called on it. Oh, and on #2 I do mean business -- no bluffs.\"
David: I thought it would be obvious that I adopted that tone in an effort to enliven things. If I was going to use it on Kevin and Bob, I thought it best to use it on you and JB, too. Take your time with your reply. I look forward to it.
Irrespective of when it\'s added in, a lot of what has been said about jockeys seems to me to be based on incomplete information. This started with the assertion that a rider switch to JR was meaningful to a horse\'s chances of winning a particular race. Howvever, JR\'s mounts are booked by hall of famer Angel Cordero, #1 in Mall\'s Jockey Hall of Fame. Angel did a great job of teaching JR to ride, particularly at the Spa. But ask the trainers who used & like Angel a great deal & they will tell you pretty much to a man that he is not a very good agent, & that JR would have a lot more wins if Angel did a better job. The reason, & this is educated speculation based on limited contact, is that Angel exhibits the same lack of concentration & memory problems that are not uncommon among those who suffer a terrible tragedy. It is entirely possible that the switch in question was due to mixup, & that reading too much into it was a mistake.
Edgar is one of the hardest working & most pleasant of the colony, but don\'t believe the drf articles about how his English is improving. I sat next to him on a flight for 2 hrs & it took that long just to find out who his mounts were that afternoon. The largest bet I ever lost, by the shortest of noses, was due, I later learned, to the fact that Edgar did not understand the instructions. After the race, the connections actually showed Edgar videos with a pointer to communicate what they wanted him to do, & the horse won a GR I at Sar in its next start. That option obviously isn\'t available for most races.
The saying for the last few yrs has been that Edgar is looking for a mount in every race, while JD is looking for the best mount in the races he decides to ride in. One of the reasons Edgar is liked so much is that he turned down many offers to come to NY because he didn\'t want to abandon his agent. Contrast that with JD\'s abrupt dismissal of his agent last yr, who is now Prado\'s agent, an irony many were quick to jump on when Edgar recently passed JD in the standings. The word on the backside at Sar was that a no. of trainers are not real happy that JD all but refuses to work any horses in the morning. In contrast, Prado is there pretty much every day. IMHO, again based on limited contact, JD\'s success is due in large part to the fact that he simply seems to be smarter than most of the others.
Leading money winner PDay, sometimes called \"Baby Jesus\", is another who will ride horses for reasons which are not necessarily related to the possibility of winning. If he takes a liking to a young trainer, he will ride the trainer\'s horses even when they have a marginal chance at best. The thing I have heard more than one trainer say about him is that it does not matter if the horse is trained to run a certain way, & that is communicated, PDay is going to ride the horse the way he thinks it should be ridden. Keep that in mind when you watch him try to rate a confirmed front runner for the 1st time.
In short, a lot of what\'s going on with the jocks is like many human activities, in that it cannot be measured entirely by statistics.
David: Let me give you a clear target at which to aim:
I believe that a good rider makes it a bit more likely that his horse will run its best number or win with an inferior number (save ground).
How do we determine who is a good rider and who is not? Winning percentage cheats riders who get bad mounts and overrates riders who get good mounts.
After allowances are made for popularity or lack of same, ROI, because it incorporates the crowd\'s assessment of horses\' chances, gives us a decent idea of who is good and who is not. There are better ways, to be sure, and we can talk about them if you like, but they take a lot more time.
Please note that I\'m only interested in what ROI tells us about competence. For the purposes of a particular bet, I couldn\'t care less whether a particular rider is overrated or underrated by the public, just as, for the purposes of a particular bet, I couldn\'t care less what the takeout is, and just as, for the purposes of a particular bet, I couldn\'t care less whether speed figures are overbet these days. Later on, there will be time for jeremiads about how there were more overlays before the public had speed figures, etc. For now, all I\'m interested in is how a horse\'s chances of winning compare to his odds.
The parts (read: the reasons why the public bets as it does) don\'t matter when we have the whole (read: the tote odds, against which we will put our estimate of the horses chances of winning) and confidence that our reasons are superior to the public\'s reasons. This is why I don\'t like analogies between handicapping and the stock market: A horse race gives us a result that has nothing to do with public perceptions. In the stock market, on the other hand, something like \"greater fool effect\" can reward a purchase that was wildly overpriced by any standard that excludes an expectation of irrational exuberance. It is as if bettors both handicapped horses and propelled them. I would have more fondness for an analogy between the stock market and a yearling sale.
If Bailey tends to improve his horses one point over a bad rider, that is important information. If the crowd knows this and bets Bailey\'s horses accordingly, I will have fewer overlays to look forward to, but the information retains its value, albeit more as a prerequisite for success than as any sort of guarantee of success. Before I bet a race, I look at figures, pace, riders, trainers, etc., and make an odds line in my head. Later, I will compare this odds line to the tote odds and bet on horses that I think are overlays.
If Bailey figures to move a horse up by one point, but the crowd bets Bailey as if he will move the horse up by two points, the horse can still be an overlay and a great bet, depending on whether other factors overpower the one-point-versus-two-points discrepancy.
Any talk that a handicapping factor, whether it\'s riders, TG figures, or anything else, is unimportant because the crowd will take it into consideration and bet accordingly, strikes me as epic, monumental, awe-inspiring sanguinary BS. The percentages that we give to individual horses--reflecting their chances of winning, one hopes--must add up to 100. This is a zero-sum game. To refuse to account for a rider\'s ability to move up his horses because the crowd bets his mounts accordingly is to guarantee an error elsewhere. It is to double count, one count being the expectation that Bailey\'s talent will be negated by lower odds and another count being the actualization of the negation on the tote board. (Sorry about the rhyme; Bulworth mode; great movie; Halle Berry at her most ravishing.) In short, it is to botch the operation all to hell.
I would only add that after Aly\'s lengthy and masterful explanantion of this subject he concludes, in part,
\"Any talk that a handicapping factor, whether it\'s riders, TG figures, or anything else, is unimportant because the crowd will take it into consideration and bet accordingly, strikes me as epic, monumental, awe-inspiring sanguinary BS.\"
I hope JB will take the tone of this sanguinary BS thing into account when he considers what a great guy Aly is after he asked him to tone down the personal attacks. I would point out that he pours this on based on his complete exaggeration of my comments.
I never said that riders were unimportant because the crowd will take it into consideration and bet accordingly... I said certain situations may lead the crowd to back a jockey\'s horses excessively. I said a bunch of other things too, but this is really stretching my point to suit Aly\'s need to let everyone know what a genius he is. Everybody has priorities when they bet. This isn\'t one of mine. That\'s my only, simple, point.
Again, I find it hard to believe that even you Aly, O great handicapping master, give more than say, 15% of your overall handicapping energy to a consideration of this particular subject. You have supplied precisely no examples of using this to such tremendous advantage (and have ducked Patent\'s rather simple question, \"tell us, O master, how you use this to such advantage?\"). You have spent A LOT of time on the theories of how you could do this. I guess there wasn\'t room for an example in this huge post, which we can refer back to as the \"zero sum\" jockey analysis post (Vol. III, No. 63).
Michael D, if I understand correctly, was unable to pick up on the much vaunted current market angle despite paying close attention to this factor every day (and doubtless giving it more than say, 15% of his handicapping energy) and also despite the fact that someone else was/is doing it right next to him.
Mall\'s contribution was nice. I guess that\'s it.
HP
Actually I have one more clever last word.
Michael D, who has posted quite wisely on the need for pre-race ideas, and the importance of ideas and men who have ideas versus those who don\'t, has also posted exactly zero examples of the use of this powerful angle pre-race as well. Interesting given his insistence on these high standards for judging...ideas. HP
HP
Remember our last handicapping contest? If I remember correctly, most people involved scored around 100, I was around 140....in % terms, a rather large victory (I think you finished last). Remember the other contest? I think you were once again around the bottom, and I was only defeated by two guys who picked one winner each. HP, you are foolish man, a very foolish man.
You must be very insecure to keep bringing up this contest stuff. I joked at the time that Patent and I finished last and next to last. Calling me foolish does not advance your point.
You actually have one example here at the beginning of this thread. You liked a horse that was slower than the other contenders, switching to a great jock at a short price. How did that go? Is that the only example you will provide, idea man? HP
The price was 6-1. Again, you are a man who is unable to make any intelligent comment (or prediction) BEFORE A RACE IS RUN. Until you do that (as I have done on several occasions), your posts will only make you look more and more foolish.
Up the track. Your choices were 3,4,5 and 7 in the Saratoga Breeders Cup. And Gander would have run well too! Easy on the capital letters. You haven\'t given one example of using this angle to your advantage, but I guess we\'ll have to take your word for it. Best of luck. HP
I just can\'t understand why you would want to compare your angles against mine, given the final results of our contests. For the life of me, I just can\'t understand. You will have to be a bit more clever with your BS my friend, as your handicapping skills leave you with a lot of work to be done.
I don\'t know Michael, dazzling rhetoric aside, this still does not seem to be a pre-race example of what you\'re talking about, and you have made a big deal about the importance of this. It seems to be another case of a man not being able to live up to his own impossibly high standards. We\'ll just have to muddle through another day. You did great in those contests. HP
Alydar,
I can add nothing to your latest exposition. I agree.
Some minor cleanup:
I was not trying to draw a direct analogy between handicapping and the stock market. I was simply picking up on one common thread between the two \'markets\' -- the digestion and incorporation of readily available information into the price of an asset.
You still have not answered my question (I note HP\'s concurrence), which is fine b/c I don\'t think there is a handicapper alive with a positive ROI where the use of jockey ROI (not jockey skill, but Jockey ROI) is any meaningful part of his/her success.
When we talk about ROI, so-called \"hot streaks\" are relevant (and when I say \'relevant\' I don\'t mean relevant in that I want to incorporate it into my morning line but relevant in that you should not have so easily dismissed my point about \'hot streaks\') for two reasons: 1) a recent hot or bad streak will cause ROI to deviate from the long-term trend based on what you call \'established competence\' and 2) the crowd may overvalue recent success, often in part because of a recent surge in ROI. My point, and I think we agree, is that once we have an opinion on the jockey, we factor that into the horses morning line. His ROI, however, is not something to factor in. I won\'t give horse \'A\' an addiitional 1% chance of winning on Thursday just because JD\'s ROI jumped from $1.60 to $1.85 in the last couple of days and neither would you. Over time, of course, as jockeys improve or decline, we need to factor that in, but this exercise is at the margins.
You should do more of this.
You guys could find a way to disagree about anything. And other than characterizing an argument once, in very broad terms, he didn\'t go after you. Didn\'t even mention you. Go to work on the Saratoga card. There\'s stuff there.
Okay, it was in broad terms and he didn\'t go after me. He seems like a very bright guy. HP
It\'s like being in a day care center sometimes. Let\'s talk about the PC at Del Mar on sunday.
HP: \"a man not being able to live up to his own impossibly high standards.\" hmmmmm... coming from a guy who goes on for days babbling about handicapping horse races, yet is unable to handicap even one horse race...
hmmmmm.... what are your standards????? Being able to handicap a horse race is certainly not one of them. Do yourself a favor, and live up to this standard: stop your rambling BS posts and talk about handicapping horse races, BEFORE THE RACES ARE RUN.
Kevin,
I plead guilty, but during these hot days of August, I need some good humor (so I turn to HP). I am not an expert on Del Mar, but the card looks great tomorrow. I will try to post a few opinions, see how much I can embarrass myself.
Try hard Michael. Give ONE example of how you will make money on your jock angle. Still waiting. Insulting me doesn\'t qualify as an example, does it? HP
You are a very foolish man. Comparing your angles against mine, when you finished at the bottom of our contests, and I finished at the top, is very foolish. 90% of the people lose at the track. Pointing out that another is not in the top 10%, while you are clearly in the bottom 10%, is just foolish. Find another guy to analyze my handicapping, one who is able to handicap a horse race himself. You clearly have no credibility, and I think everyone is aware of that.
90% on a given day and 10% walks away winners......but over the long run only 5% are winners and 95% are losers. Wonder how many players there are?? Cause 5% seems small but if there are say 1,000,000 that means there are 50,000 that wins over the long run. Anyways what is important is how many are winners over the long run on this site?? We have what maybe 20 reg\'s? So that means only one person is a winner over the long run uh???
Anybody ever tryed to step up and become a full-time player??
There are just under 1,000 active TG on-line accounts, plus a few comp accounts. I don\'t know what percentage win (or are pros), but the ones that do generally don\'t call attention to themselves. For the most part they play with rebates, which makes it a whole new ballgame--moderate losers turn into moderate winners, losers break even, break even players become pros.
I guess when you say rebates your meaning only in Las Vegas?? Or does OTB\'s have them too??
I think a lot of what\'s been posted in this string misses the point. What is it exactly that we are trying to \"predict\"? For all those that respond \"the winner\", do not pass go, do not collect $200.
What we are really trying to forecast (at least for all those that profess to be sheet handicappers) is the probability that a horse will run a given number, how his trip (i.e ground loss, pace, etc.) will factor into that number and what is the likelihood that a given # will translate into a 1st place finish, 2nd place finish, etc. based upon the expected figures and the trips of his competitors. When we upgrade a horse based upon a trainer switch to Baffert or Frankel, or a jockey switch to Prado or Velasquez all we are really saying is that the horse is MORE likely to run his \"good number\" (trainer) and LESS likely to waste energy (ground loss, pace duels, etc.) doing it (jockey), and that these factors (increased % of good numbers / less wasted energy) translate into an increased likelihood of a win.
Rather than opening a can of worms, let me just say that it would be a good idea to make sure we have your e-mail address.
Who??
Those interested in rebates.
toocool505@aol.com
Thanks
Catalin:
There is no disagreement here. We must look elsewhere. In the case of a turf horse again running on turf, do you adjust your percentages based on late speed? Why? If not, has something changed?
Alydar:
To me, R.O.I. as it is being employed here is a pretty meaningless concept in and of itself. It is a compound statistic dependent upon how the crowd bets a race (in addition to the win %). If you employ an odds line for each race you\'re capturing the effect of the crowd by passing any horse below your estimate of fair value.
To know that a particular jockey has a positive ROI in a given situation is only useful if you think that your estimate of fair value in that situation is no better than the public\'s, in which case you are really just second guessing the probablity estimates you\'ve previously assigned to the race. I hope that made sense.
Re final fraction adjustments to turf figures, the answer is no I do not. Nothing has changed in my mind. I just have not found a satisfcatory way to do it. I think I might have the math worked out, something along the lines of a sustained pace figure adjusted for trips and weight. The problem is that it\'s too time consuming to do it for every race (or at least the last ten races)on a horses sheet, something you need to do to discern the pattern.
Catalin wrote: \"To me, R.O.I. as it is being employed here is a pretty meaningless concept in and of itself. It is a compound statistic dependent upon how the crowd bets a race (in addition to the win %). If you employ an odds line for each race you\'re capturing the effect of the crowd by passing any horse below your estimate of fair value.\"
As I have written several times, I\'m interested in ROI to the extent that it tells us something about jockey competence. I could not care less how the crowd figures to bet a particular jockey in today\'s race. See my 8-24 \"David Patent\" post (it is about a foot above me as I write), and see my other posts on this subject, the ones that haven\'t been deleted, that is.
\"To know that a particular jockey has a positive ROI in a given situation is only useful if you think that your estimate of fair value in that situation is no better than the public\'s, in which case you are really just second guessing the probablity estimates you\'ve previously assigned to the race. I hope that made sense.\"
Not if, like me, you use ROI for nothing but what it can tell you about jockey competence. Let\'s say you have done all your handicapping (jockeys aside) and estimated the chances that each horse would run a particular figure. You have two horses at 2-1 on your line. Then you see that over a big sample, one rider has an ROI of 1.90 and the other has an ROI of 1.10. I consider this evidence that the first rider is more competent. Again, I could not care less about what ROI tells us about the crowd\'s tendency to bet a certain rider in today\'s race. That would amount to double counting. I discussed this at great length a foot above.
\"Re final fraction adjustments to turf figures, the answer is no I do not. Nothing has changed in my mind. I just have not found a satisfcatory way to do it. I think I might have the math worked out, something along the lines of a sustained pace figure adjusted for trips and weight. The problem is that it\'s too time consuming to do it for every race (or at least the last ten races)on a horses sheet, something you need to do to discern the pattern.\"
Here is where I wanted to go with this: A horse\'s late speed is accounted for in his figure. How does a figure cheat a horse who closes fast? I know how you can answer that from a Sartin angle, but I think it would be immensely complicated to combine this with what you\'re doing now. And the temporary rails are a huge pain in the ass.
Alydar wrote \"Then you see that over a big sample, one rider has an ROI of 1.90 and the other has an ROI of 1.10. I consider this evidence that the first rider is more competent.\"
Or that the second rider is dramatically overbet. There\'s almost no way to comb the errors from that stat. I think two more useful stats would be something like
A) How frequently a rider gets a horse to run it\'s effective top/2 pts from its top/4 pts from its top etc. and
B)Average ground loss by jockey by post by running style relative to a standard you set. (e.g. Horses that show an \"Early\" running style breaking from post 5 loss on average 2.10 paths. How many paths does a Jerry Bailey \"Early\" lose from post 5?)
I realize this is ridiculously cumbersome, I\'m just trying to make a point. I do think though that those stats if available would give you a better handle on who is a good rider (coaxes a top effort more frequently / loses less than expected amount of ground) from who is not (doesn\'t often get horses to run their best / loses more ground than PP and running style should dictate). Chris has some really good ideas on how to measure the effectiveness of jockeys (and trainers even more so) using things other than ROI.
Alydar wrote \"Here is where I wanted to go with this: A horse\'s late speed is accounted for in his figure. How does a figure cheat a horse who closes fast? I know how you can answer that from a Sartin angle, but I think it would be immensely complicated to combine this with what you\'re doing now. And the temporary rails are a huge pain in the ass.\"
What I\'m talking about doing is in effect recalculating a figure where some % of the figure is derived from early pace, and some from late speed where the mix is closer to 50/50 even though the last fraction might only account for 30% of the final time. Something along the lines of weight/ground adjusted sustained pace numbers expressed in sheet format. I agree that it is immensely difficult to combine pace, whether its dirt early pace or grass late pace with what we are using now. And the rails are a pain in the ass to deal with but since few people make such turf figures they would still have value even if they weren\'t as accurate as final time numbers.
Somebody please explain this \"double counting\" argument for me. It seems to me this line of reasoning assumes that all jockeys have the same ROI, which obviously is not correct. There is clearly an advantage betting jockeys with higher ROI\'s, even after the public has spoken. This is not double counting, it\'s simply telling the market that it has marked something incorrectly. Try betting Rojas twenty times at 20-1, think you will come out even in the end?........ nooooooooo, you will not (even if I give you a check equal to the takeout). Try betting Chavez or JR ten times in the mud at 10-1, I am pretty sure you will have better luck (yes, even after the public has factored their opinion into the odds).
Catalin said
\"I think a lot of what\'s been posted in this string misses the point. What is it exactly that we are trying to \"predict\"? For all those that respond \"the winner\", do not pass go, do not collect $200.
What we are really trying to forecast (at least for all those that profess to be sheet handicappers) is the probability that a horse will run a given number, how his trip (i.e ground loss, pace, etc.) will factor into that number and what is the likelihood that a given # will translate into a 1st place finish, 2nd place finish, etc. based upon the expected figures and the trips of his competitors. When we upgrade a horse based upon a trainer switch to Baffert or Frankel, or a jockey switch to Prado or Velasquez all we are really saying is that the horse is MORE likely to run his \"good number\" (trainer) and LESS likely to waste energy (ground loss, pace duels, etc.) doing it (jockey), and that these factors (increased % of good numbers / less wasted energy) translate into an increased likelihood of a win.\"
Well stated.
Chris
Michael D. writes: \"Somebody please explain this \'double counting\' argument for me.\"
When you place a bet, you\'re purchasing the horse and the rider, among others. Let\'s say a rider has an incredible ROI, 2.40. He (not to mention the trainers to whom he is linked) has been underrated in aggregate, as your enemy Keynes might have put it, but this doesn\'t mean that all of his horses were overlays. Some were surely underlays. They had terrible patterns, etc. The egotistical, comprehensive handicapping favored by Catalin, Chris, and me would lead us, or me, at least, to say: \"Screw Bailey\'s ROI (except to the extent, if any, that it tells us something about his competence). ROI is a HINT about how the crowd will rate one factor, Bailey\'s ability, but hints are eclipsed by facts (the tote board), and we will have the facts soon enough. And since we try to take every factor into consideration, we will be able to locate those instances where this underrated rider is on a horse that is being overrated so much that the package is an underlay.\"
In short, to count the hint (ROI) when you\'re going to be counting the fact (tote odds) is to double count.
You go about things differently, Michael, but what you do is perfectly logical. In fact, one could be so bold as to say that you may still call yourself a sheet handicapper.
Catalin wrote: \"Or that the second rider is dramatically overbet.\"
As I wrote earlier, that is why popularity and lack of same should be taken into consideration. (I believe this affects relatively few riders in a serious way, and I believe you believe the same.) That is also why I wrote \"evidence\" instead of \"proof.\"
\"There\'s almost no way to comb the errors from that stat.\"
It is desirable but not imperative to comb all the errors out of the stat. Le mieux est l\'ennemi du bien. But why not drain any jockey adjustments out of your personal line, substitute your line for the crowd\'s line, and calculate your own ROI? Call it a ROME (return on my investment), but don\'t expect to build it in a day.
\"A) How frequently a rider gets a horse to run it\'s effective top/2 pts from its top/4 pts from its top etc. and
B)Average ground loss by jockey by post by running style relative to a standard you set. (e.g. Horses that show an \"Early\" running style breaking from post 5 loss on average 2.10 paths. How many paths does a Jerry Bailey \"Early\" lose from post 5?)\"
In general, I am partial to this sort of thing. In specific, I think there are good things about this, and, in specific, I think Chris is brilliant. But please remember that riders try to WIN the race, or at least ought to be trying to win. And good riders are on good horses, horses who often OUGHT to be taken outside. The biggest problem with this sort of thing is that the trees obscure your view of the forest. Think of a method for judging pitchers that fails to give credit to pitchers who don\'t allow runners to cross home plate. In other words, Catalin, cross these ideas with ROI.
\"What I\'m talking about doing is in effect recalculating a figure where some % of the figure is derived from early pace, and some from late speed where the mix is closer to 50/50 even though the last fraction might only account for 30% of the final time. Something along the lines of weight/ground adjusted sustained pace numbers expressed in sheet format. I agree that it is immensely difficult to combine pace, whether its dirt early pace or grass late pace with what we are using now. And the rails are a pain in the ass to deal with but since few people make such turf figures they would still have value even if they weren\'t as accurate as final time numbers.\"
Please trust me. I was already extremely familiar with how this worked, but you did not answer my question.
Alydar,
First you call me a Keynesian, now a \"sheet handicapper.\" You are a cruel man. Very interesting points, but we do look at this differently. Busy morning here, check out my post later on if you are around. Cheers
Again with the pitcher thing.
The concept of performance figures is to measure ability, not accomplishment, with the idea that going forward it will lead to accomplishment. Otherwise we would just keep track of wins. Variables in baseball are even more complicated (for one, pitching with a 5 run lead is different than in a tie game) but the idea behind that baserunner per inning stat (which could be refined further, but it\'s a quick check easily made on stats when the pitcher comes into the game) is the same, and usually turns out to be a very good guide to accomplishment.
The Rome in a day thing was good.
JB wrote: \"The Rome in a day thing was good.\"
To be honest, I don\'t much remember writing it, but the rest of it looks pretty damn good, too.
\"The concept of performance figures is to measure ability, not accomplishment\"
This is captious and wrong. To go six furlongs in 110.00 while 2w is to go 6F + 8-9 feet in 110.00. Performance figures measure performance. When you start adjusting them, as opposed to marking them, for easy wins, you will be able to get away with what you just wrote.
\"Variables in baseball are even more complicated (for one, pitching with a 5 run lead is different than in a tie game) but the idea behind that baserunner per inning stat (which could be refined further, but it\'s a quick check easily made on stats when the pitcher comes into the game) is the same, and usually turns out to be a very good guide to accomplishment.\"
If your defense of this statistic is that it is a \"very good guide to accomplishment,\" then you have a way of measuring accomplishment, eliminating your need for this statistic, which only hints at accomplishment.
I really don\'t want to get bogged down in this. Accomplishment in racing (by horses) is in winning and earning money. We know that comparing previous accomplishments in those terms is not a reliable guide to predicting outcomes, hence making and using figures and looking for accomplishment/ability anomolies.
In the short term--a game, part of a season, sometimes a season--ability may not lead to accomplishment (ERA, wins, etc.). But things tend to even out--faster horses will beat slower, more accomplished horses, pitchers who get people out will end up with records that reflect it.
JB: Right. A horse who wins a Grade One by 30 lengths and runs a negative four but gets taken down to last has accomplished nothing. And Darryl Strawberry should be mentioned in the same breath as Babe Ruth. When Bob gets those stats, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do.
And JB, I have been KIDDING with YOU. Things needed to be stirred up. They no longer do, to make an understatement.