The value of your post just reminded me of a low-end professional player I knew from years ago who said that he never read the conditions of the race - beyond track-surface-distance.

"Low End" means that he supported himself 100% from his horse racing but did not make a very good living.

(As an aside, the last time I spoke with "Jimmy" he was in a full-care dementia facility in Las Vegas. As we spoke on the phone he insisted that, looking out his window, he could see "the crashing waves at Delmar.")

(Jimmy taught me a lot about trainer handicapping - which was the backbone of his winning. He also gave me my Workout Speed Rating Chart, which, to this day, I have not been able to improve upon, despite the fact that some of it flies in the face of logic.)

Back on Topic
He said that he didn't want to bias his thinking process about what the race really was.

Now, this was not a guy whose handicapping approach would resonate with mine because, where I am purely 100% systematic, he was was probably 80% seat-of-the-pants.

He was what I like to call a Story Handicapper.
Jimmy would look at every horse's past races, starting back at race 10 and weave it into a story.

As he was weaving this story, he would give each horse a Speed Rating Range; something like "This horse is good for 85-89 today."

After he had done this for all the horses, ONLY THEN would he give the race a "class level," and it was always based upon these speed ratings alone. He would often find a race that (to use my previous example) LOOKS LIKE a $16,000 claimer, but is really a $12,500 claimer in disguise.

Then he would look at the horses that were actually capable of running with real $20k claimers. If he had one of those, he was ready to play. Now, this was "the good old days," but I was shocked at how often he'd pluck out these solid $16 winners.

BTW, he also did a lot of homework. Well, not really at home, but he'd keep a lot of records; lots of models - and would correct his mistakes. IOW, when he said that a horse was capable of 85 to 91 and the horse won while running a 94, he'd put a diamond around the number to indicate that the horse had run bigger than he expected.
(that was generally his style - plus/minus 3 points)


Come to think of it, Jimmy actually gave me quite a bit more than I've ever given him credit for.
I will do a show about him.
He was quite the character.

That's true. But horses dropping to their lowest claiming price and horses first time in for a tag have increased chances of winning, as a group. Of course, extreme claiming price drops can raise suspicion. So, I do think claiming prices are generally one means of measuring class. — RanchWest

Of course!

But even this is independent of the LABEL of the race - i.e. $16k claimer - because ultimately, it comes back to WHO is actually in the race.

Also in all of this we have to consider the races that are a mixed bag. A state-bred filly 10,000 claimer for non-winners of a race in a year is not the same as an open 10,000 claimer. — RanchWest

Yet it is conceivably possible that a particular NW 1y race MIGHT BE of a higher class than an Open Claimer.at the same $$ level.

(Not likely, but POSSIBLE.)

IMHO, it always comes down to the MAKE UP OF THE RACE and (literally) NEVER ABOUT THE WRITTEN CONDITIONS.

Remember how easily Easy Goer won against 3 yo after beating older two weeks prior? — RanchWest

No, I actually don't.
Of course, I recall Easy Goer.
But anecdotal handicapping examples - when not backed up by data - just rarely get ingrained in my thinking.

IOW, I am interested in the actual process of making meaningful decisions.

Thus, a "metaphorical lesson in handicapping" only has value to me when it can be turned into a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS.

Further, I must ACTUALLY TEST that hypothesis, and it must PROVE to be true.- to some USEFUL DEGREE.


Don't get me wrong. I DO have my own examples that I use to ILLUSTRATE my own beliefs, but they are just anecdotal illustrations and are worthless without having PROVEN their validity.

YOUR POINTS ARE VALID - There are many ways to JUSTIFY why races are different class levels. I just think - and have proven - that it is the actual MIX OF HORSES in a given race that creates the class level.

Interesting discussion. Dave it feels like you believe there is some value in considering time decay. Do you feel that time decay plays a role in all metrics or just specific ones. For example, you mentioned time decay as it relates to measuring class. Would you feel the same if you were considering a final time speed figure? — Tony Kofalt

Yes, and the stats bear that out.

Total Energy, Scott's PCR, Races where a speed rating was earned higher than today's par, races where the par was higher than today's par, races above BRIS CR or RR, Quirin "good races" at above today's par, wins at above today's par, APV, EPS, consecutive wins, claiming prices, Talbot box. There's a lot of ways to measure class. — RanchWest

I completely agree.

Most of them do not measure up statistically because they use a rigid class system and that is flawed.

IOW, not all $16,000 claiming races are populated with $16,000 horses.

When I was working with the AUS guys, I learned several new ideas about class approaches. I look forward to sharing them with you.

No.
I worked for some guys who worked for Bill back in HK.
Once had a copy of his program. Seems everyone who ever worked for him took a copy with them when they left. LOL

Yes.
APV is better when:

• It is expressed as a ratio of today's purse to the winner.
• It is time-decayed.

Google Benter's Time Decay and you may find something.

Same with EPS.
Express it as a percentage of the winner's purse today.
Make it a decayed value.

For both of these you need the data from individual races.

Can you share a little about what you look for?
Can you do it without be at the track? (That seems difficult).

Good work.
It does dominate.

BTW... Tried to straighten out your columns a little with code tags.
Will have to get some vids & screenshots going for how to use those.

Basically, write it in a text editor that lets you use COURIER (a fixed-width font), then paste it in. Finally, wrap that in "code tags." (The 5th icon from the left that looks like <>)

This looks like good work, Steven! :clap: :clap:

It was work like this that allowed me to turn everything right side up a couple of months ago.

Much of that development was the result of working with a couple of other guys. I just cannot emphasize enough how important collaboration is.

Aside from splitting the workload, it also provides a different POV; different ideas.

Of course, Steven, our paths have crossed before. I know your work is top notch.

(Could use an extra 500 columns, maybe. LOL)
(Dang, was that my BIG DATA outlook showing through?)

I look forward to hearing about it.

Thank you.

Maybe some column heading descriptions?

If I can't post the data here, I set up a link to it. — Tom

Sure.
What format do you want to post it in?

Worksheet or PDF file?
Click the Upload file button.
(Let me know if it doesn't appear on your toolbar.)

Graphics?
Just drag & drop.

Your story is almost the same as mine!

I was studying what this guy told me and thought I was getting pretty good at it. (It was 1983 and I was not yet a winner player.)

So, one day I am at HOL. I came to play Star Gem in the 9th race. Frank Olivares is the jockey. Of course, I showed up for the 1st race - and bet all the way. I had planned on betting a my BIG bet - $20 on this horse.

It was a cheap claiming sprint - $12,500 claimer, as I recall.
I visit the horses as they're being saddled and as they walk out to the track Star Gem looks like he is dragging his right rear foot.

Seriously... I thought the horse looked like Igor limping around. I said to myself, "He'll have to be a vet scratch!"

I left my $20 in my pocket.
Sat down to watch.
Star Gem is 20/1. (Well, that proves it. Nobody likes the horse.)

Olivares pops the gate and is just gone down the backstretch. Nobody ever got close to him.

That was the last time I ever used physicality. LOL

This sounds like a lot of work. As such, if one is good at putting it together, I'd assume it could be quite lucrative.

Back in the '80s, I had a guy in SoCal teaching me body language. He seemed to be a winning player - but who really knew back then?

What I was really interested in was his "warm up system." Never knew how it worked but I was astounded at how often he'd peg a chalk as "didn't warm up well" and be right.

As for the body language... well, let me be kind to myself and say I WAS TERRIBLE at it!

We should have a phone call soon because I've made some interesting improvements in the OPP as I use it. BTW, it is the OPP with my mods that I credit with making me so difficult to beat.

Our dear friend, Dick Schmidt, deeded me a strategy he used very successfully with Forex. I melded that with the OPP to make it extremely powerful. If you have a positive expectancy, it actually raises your $Net! (As does both HMI & the Opp.)

Maybe I should call it OppEx. LOL

They have huge barns but mostly focus on the cream. — Gregory Byrnes

I recall someone who worked in [name redacted] barn talking like that about him when it came to 2-year olds. The actual quote was that [name redacted] had a "churn 'em & burn 'em" approach.

He went on to explain in more detail: Let's get the horse on the track and see if he/she is precocious. If the horse gets hurt - oh, well. Wasn't going to amount to anything we can use anyway.

Love to hear stories about "First time at the track."

Over the years I've always asked guys the same question after hearing their "First Successful Day Story:"
Do you find that your handicapping is biased towards your remembrance of what caused you to win on that day?"

In all the years of asking this question, only a handful have said that they didn't still expect the winners to come from similar handicapping. (i.e. early speed, top jockeys, long prices, whatever.)

How about you?

Makes sense.
Thank you.