You guys gotta know that winning players never share their secrets.....

I just gave you the most important piece of the game....

Head it and go forward — HorseSense

My experience is that winning players - and especially professional players - absolutely do share what they do.

After all, if WINNING PLAYERS really are that smart (and we are), how would anyone know if information wasn't shared?

Ping @Tony Kofalt @Rich Val

In my opinion, I would want at least 80% potential winners in any contender methodology and I am skeptical that Dave’s approach would accomplish this goal; however, using a “gap” approach has given me several ideas to pursue…. — Jack Price

I would contend (small pun coming) that the issue is not the win% on the top contenders.
The issue is figuring out which low odds horses to remove BEFORE selecting those contenders.

As you can imagine, the low odds horses will ALWAYS be at the top of the PSR list. If they aren't, then toss them as well.

Of course the low odds horses are the favorites I'm mentioning......
Does HSH have any proprietary factors to combat this? — HorseSense

Not so much proprietary , but of course.
We build OBJECTS - which are from 1 to 6 factors weighted together.

That was from Fraser Rawlinson.

Actually, you've described the basis of my handicapping - although for me it all begins with the low odds horses.

With this complicated software , your resorting to PSR with Early and Late? — HorseSense

The game is more difficult than ever and I have no interest in playing without long-term profitability.

I'm always ready to be taught something - simple or complicated - that allows me to continue to win.

Do you have anything to offer?

I don't know anything about Pickmaster, but, as Dave said, it takes a lot of factors to have consistent eliminations or inclusions. And, sometimes I use composite data. — RanchWest

Actually, ultimately, it boils down to a few meaningful objects with the right application.

Still the game isn't easy.

Have you tried searching for these scenarios through Pickmaster? If so, do you believe it would be a worthwhile endeavour? — Tony Kofalt

Yes, that is one of the tools.
We also have one called the OBJECT MASTER that allows you to turn on as many as 300 factors and optimize and object using a pretty cool approach.

Imagine 300^4 = 8.1 billion permutations - searching for the best object for (say) $net in the #1 rank. You can run something like that against 20,000 races in about 3 hours.

Well, let's get somebody else to start the thread and then we can tell them what we do.

Of course, I don't CURRENTLY use it because I don't "select pacelines," but my system is built into HSH where anyone can see it.

(HSH has a programmable paceline selection mechanism. Well, it has a couple of dozen, actually, and the users can create their own.)

And, I have my program select my pace lines. — RanchWest

"HOW TO SELECT PACE L;INES" would make for a great topic.
Would like to see someone else post it.

@Colty - How about you? Do you have any opinions?

I do have a spot play that has hit 9 of 45 (20%) and returning only 39 cents on the dollar. — RanchWest

Ironically, THAT is what I generally look for in a play-against horse: the overwhelmingly obvious.

Losing 17% is just not strong enough.

The bidding starts at -35%.
But it won't be a single factor that produces that. It would be a combination of factors.

I've done quite a bit of work on negative spots against low-odds horses, with quite a bit of success.

In this age - where the whales dominate our game - these NegSpots have become antithetical in nature.

Example: (Weekdays only) top jockey + top trainer + low odds = play against.

But it isn't because they don't win races. They win a carload of them. They just lose so much money that it creates a highly playable race.

@Jack Price

This is an awesome analysis.

What I find interesting about this thread is that everyone has gone about this in their own way.

This kind of INFORMAL COLLABORATION is what I've been hoping for with this site.

Good fortune with that!

So, you're saying that your bets are 7 & 8 only.

Tom, I love ALL of this!

Interesting topic. Ranch pushes the creative boundries! — Tom

Indeed he does!

He's been the driving force on getting this forum moving. I was ready to give up, and he beat me into continuing.

Suddenly, we're getting a little traction.

IMHO, the biggest challenge to racing's continuity is that there is no governing body to manage the rudder.

Racing is pretty much the only sport that does not have an industry-wide C-suite of people to make policy & direction.

Worse, the tracks are completely oblivious to WHAT'S GOOD FOR RACING. Instead, they are completely self-centered, with most concentrating on squeezing the turnip until it is dry as opposed to helping it grow.

However, the bottom line is the takeout structure MUST change to something competitive with sports betting. Since I do not ever see that happening, I see this as just one more indicator of the impending death of racing.

A few months back, I ran across a business & marketing expert who (coincidentally) also had knowledge of racing. He uttered a great truth: "The racing world exists for just one group: old, white guys. Considering how different that demographic thinks from the younger generations, it is pretty obvious that there will be no new generation of horse players.

Hated admitting that he was spot on.

Maybe have a rule that after a pre-race cutoff time, wagers would be limited to, say, $500. If an individual is found to have violated the provision, their wagers would be held and invalidated. Tracks need to take such a measure, but I seriously doubt they ever will. They probably like those last second huge wagers. — RanchWest

You're spot on with this.

The wagers came from an exclusive ADW and computer aided wagering was involved. Is this good for the sport? Is this type of wagering unfair? Does this type of betting affect the way you approach the game? — Tony Kofalt

Whales are bad for the game.
Period.

1. Because they draw out money on a regular basis, it is like playing Texas Hold 'em at a table with two dealers, each taking a rake.

2. It's also bad for the tracks because it makes it too hard for the other players to win, and, thereby they find other sports to gamble on.
________________________
3. The odds change drastically because the biggest wagerers (the whales) bet late and there are only a handful of them. It is much easier for (say) 4 of the big 6 to agree than if those same dollars were spread across (say) 200 players.
________________________
#3 is the CAUSE of the odds changes.

As for barring the whales, that's just not going to happen. And it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN anyway. They have every right to play!

The only real solution to the problem race mentioned by Paulick is to close the pools for 2 minutes BEFORE the horses enter the gate. While there would still be the exact same odds changes, and least the public's perception would not lead towards past posting.

As for limits on CAW, they'd just get around it by having multiple agents betting each race.

BTW, making a couple of win bets in a race are just not a big deal. It's the trifectas & supers that produce the big edge in CAW. So many tickets can be sent in the blink of an eye.