You've captured my meaning perfectly! And explained it in a much more erudite manner.
And, yes, it must be tested, but to remain effective(if it is) it must not become common knowledge...and if its faulty then we must continue to modify the approach. — William Zayonce

I've been doing this for so many years.
In my experience, the only people who jealously guard what they do are those who consistently lose.

Not saying that professionals will give away all their secrets, but, as a general rule, I have found that they are very willing to share their knowledge and much of what they do.

Historically, when I've shared my current strategy completely in a seminar, not 1 person in 20 will handicap more than a couple of dozen races before changing something.

My point is that short of publishing a book that sells (say) 10,000 copies - sharing what you do will simply not change your prices or ROI.

BTW, someone asked me recently why my system changes from year to year. The answer is because the GAME is changing year-to-year, and often quite drastically.

Whales, whales, whales.
They deserve what they have because they've earned it.
But they've ruined the game for the rest of us.

WE MUST FIND A WAY TO BE COMPETITIVE.
Working on it.

BTW: Ron Stabiles Figs Winning System doesn't have a copyright on it's cover — Conley

Doesn't make it not copyrighted.

Sharing how a system works is NOT a copyright infringement.
It is a patent infringement - assuming one has a patent.
(Which would be a pretty poor assumption.)

What you can't do is simply copy what the author wrote.
That IS a copyright infringement.

So, explain it in your own words and everything is fine.

I have heard so much about Whales over the last few years. Do they have access to different data than we normal guys have available to us? Or is it their computer programs are far superior to anything we might be able to get our hands on at present? For instance, if we were looking at a race where John Henry was going to run, what would Benter's people see that we couldn't? I chse J. H. cause I loved that horse...LOL — Handiman

The SEE what we see in terms of the data they get. And that includes the tote feeds.

The difference is their PERCEPTION because they simply have better models.

Question:
If you had (say)...

• 20 people doing studies for you
• 5 statistical analysts (Master's Degrees or PhDs)
• 2 quants
• 20 people to watch races and fire the bets
• 4 programmers

... Do you think your results might get better?

Thanks, I didn't mean to underestimate. If they weren't really good, they wouldn't be risking millions of dollars. On the other hand, it is not impossible to find plays to beat them. When you can beat them, the rewards can be great. — RanchWest

Agreed.

Didn't mean it as criticism.
People think there is just a small difference between them and the whales.

Here's some more.

To be competitive the whales must PLAY (roughly)...

• 85% of all tracks
• 85% of all races at those tracks
• 85% of all the pools in those races

Typically, whales lose in December & January - yet to keep their deals, they have to keep their handle up to their norms.

A whale - or even a large player - who is consistently betting $2.10 horses to place or show will have their account restricted or even canceled.

They just make huge bets, aiming to break even or make a small profit. They make their profit from rebates. Apparently their software is fairly good, but the problem is that they bet so much on the logical horses that it is difficult for everyone else to make money on the logical horses. If you don't get a rebate, you can do just as well as them and still make only a very small profit. If you're betting $10 a race, a 5% average return is not going to net much. If you bet thousands, get the 5% and get a rebate on top of that, you're doing pretty well. — RanchWest

I look forward to the opinions of others.

Apparently their software is fairly good
I will simply say that you have them severely underrated. Their software is way beyond fairly good.

Also, it encompasses tote board predictions, which include the current tote as well as the movement. They use this to predict what the winner circle odds will be.

the problem is that they bet so much on the logical horses that it is difficult for everyone else to make money on the logical horses.
Nailed this one. Perhaps impossible would be a better word.

The real problem for old-timers like us is that we spent decades using a paradigm best called, make a line and bet into it.
Because so much handle is concentrated within the hands of (essentially) 6 betting entities, the swing after the gate opens is wild.

Here are some important statistics.

• 1 out of every 6.5 dollars wagered in North America comes from one of those 6 entities.
• 74% of all winners will show as bet down between "gate odds" and "winner's cicrle."

That 2nd one is killing American racing even more than the takeout.
It means that when you're making a bet at the last minute, if you are betting "into the line"
THE ODDS WILL...

• Go down if you win
• Go up if you lose

The point I was feebly attempting to convey was that we have access to soft data that can help with our final selections but often neglect its importance in identifying contenders that might be overlooked in the betting because of shortcomings in the "hard" data ranking . For me, this is the "fun" and "satisfying" part of handicapping. As to "good odds", my threshold of enthusiasm is about 9/2 but I'll gladly take as low as 2/1 in some circumstances . Generally, I'm just looking for contenders that aren't in the top 3 in the betting but ought to be but I'm not detered from betting if my pick is second or third in the betting at 3/1 or better . — William Zayonce

You speak truth in what you say.

The point - which you actually made very subtly is one I agree with wholeheartedly with: There must be a non-data component or we are doomed to fail in today's era.

If we use pure data, we are, in effect, challenging the whales head on. Data-driven handicapping, by its nature, pushes the winners to the top. Said another way, it pushes the obviously good horses to the top - which is precisely what the whales do.

That will not likely work out well for us. We - and that includes me - WE simply do not have the horsepower to compete.
______________
I believe that it takes an intersection of artfulness and datafulness to win in this age.
(Yes, I invent words as needed. LOL)

Of course, I will never be artful myself.
Simply not in my nature.
Instead, I contrive SYSTEMATIC non-data processes to substitute for artfulness.

Like you, I will design them in such a manner that the whales would not ever consider using them in their own theater of operations. As such, we can be the guerilla warfare experts.

But, there is a catch.
Our non-data approach, must be verifiable.
That is, we must make an effort to track our approach - whether it is true art or systematic.

We must be willing to objectively test what we do - and, if something isn't working, we must be willing to admit that our idea, concept, angle, etc. is a failure and replace or modify it.

YOUR THOUGHTS?
(And anyone else, of course.)

I think that the most under utilized thing is our own minds, our imagination. We can often become lost in the data and miss opportunities that arise in the roughly 30% of races that lie "outside the numbers. "
Imagining alternative possible scenarios can be productive. Looking backward, I would guess that roughly 10% of all races would have been unhittable because the races were unplayable or the winners won only because of unpredictable events occurring during their running.That leaves 20% of winners at good odds that might have been playable given an alternative perspective to the data alone. We look at a 20% win percentage as very good for a horse,jockey or trainer so why would we want to omit this group from consideration?
One simple ,practical demonstration of what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data . Ignore the speed and pace figures and focus on the running lines and the human connections and "imagine" a scenario in which each horse could win. THEN consult the data and compare results. Often they'll be similar but sometimes you'll find a nice overlay that just doesn't "seem to fit the numbers profile". Perhaps what I'm getting at, is the need to think about the race in addition to "calculating " it. Therein may lie that "something new to discover". — William Zayonce

What is your definition of good price?
74% of races are won by the top 3 tote horses.


You said:
"One simple ,practical demonstration of what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data"
What are you using to handicap if not data?
I understand that you mean you are not looking at hard factors. but you are still using --- for lack of a better phrase --- SOFT DATA.

That is, the things you know/believe to be true.
Not questioning nor criticizing your beliefs, here. Just saying that if you consider internal questions/thoughts:
Such as

• Good race at the distance
• Recently claimed
• Top/Good Jockey
• Top/Good Trainer
• 2nd race after layoff
• Ranks in the top 3 for ______
• Running Style E
• Fits the profile

These are all DATA.

Respectfully, the fact that you don't see them in columns doesn't change what they are.

Do you disagree?

Which spreadsheet?

Winners on Top: 27/78 (34.6%) Bet: $156.00 Returned: $217.20 Profit/Loss: +61.20 — Conley

Wow!
If you have a systematic way of producing numbers that results in a flat bet profit, that makes you the only one that I am aware of.

@Tony Kofalt, my long-ago playing partner (who you met at Saratoga about 15 years ago with me) decided that we should test Ragozin's numbers. We got them every day for a year. They were magnificent. The challenge was that someone had to hand-enter them into a spreadsheet for tracking because there was no data file available.

A similar test with TG was (by comparison) very disappointing.
Those two companies are vastly different today, but those were our experiences.

The concepts behind 02X were quite solid, BTW.

I have and did for a short period of time due to the information being very expensive but then I created my own ThoroGraph "figure" and now I don't buy them since I do the figures myself — Conley

How good are those figs of yours?
Any stats?

And a special thanks for changing your mind about allowing us to add threads. — Rich Val

Well, when you're right, your right.

Dave, I can't say that I do like the plot approach. I just presented it as an alternative to RanchWest topic here. The position of the squares and circles are based on numeric ratings. The product suite also presents the numeric data in a spreadsheet. — Tony Kofalt

I agree.
While I could possibly get something out of viewing a graph in a more... conventional configuration, I just don't connect with this one.

How close is "The Studio" to being completed? — Biniak

Have to admit that this new "coding language" thing has tossed my timetable. Not sure but still probably within the next month.

The issue is that I'm hoping to drive almost everything with it so it may pay for itself in terms of hours spent vs. recovered. Should know more in a few day.

I prefer numbers, too. Especially if they are sorted or sortable or color coded or in some one get me to the top horses quickly. The graphical approach is slightly slow for me. I don't mind it as a bonus for replays, but I don't care for the concept for handicapping. — RanchWest

I prefer numbers. The plot is too much graphically. I know you didn't ask me. — Biniak

ANd I prefer numbers about the numbers.

Seriously, that is exactly what I do.

Yes, the horse's shortest previous rest was 22 days and his median rest was 33 days. So, passing on a shorter rest is completely reasonable to me — RanchWest

Interesting.
Do you find those numbers to have significance?

It doesn't matter how you did it. A gazillion people bet that race and very few had the winner obviously. If you walked up to the window and cashed a ticket on that race then Kudos to you. Doesn't matter if you got a tip from a drunk horse walker or you got a tip from Mr. Ed cashing a ticket is what counts in this game. And for those of you too young to get the reference, Mr. Ed was a talking horse on tv in the 60's I believe. — Handiman

After all, you were smart enough to listen to him, right?

Do you like the "plot" approach?

You're good to go.

Welcome, Milford!

I look forward to you keeping handicapping alive for years to come.
(And vice-versa.)

There is a private group set up and I will put you in it.

[edit]
Done. Just go to the categories and look for 10x Coders.