How much is too much?
 

Fellow DT'ers:

Recently on Steve's ATR there were some terrific segments regarding bankroll and money management. I would like to extend this conversation about handicapping/wagering experiences from a personal perspective.

Like many folks in this venue, I play quite often. Some of you totally rely and trust your own handicapping, feeling that the onus is on you. I get it. I respect it. Others, like me, have come to rely on the litany of information that has been made possible with the latest technology. But here is my dilemma....how much information is too much? What I mean is you are sitting there with all this data and now you have some folks that provide incredible opinions.....the synthesis of it all can often become a "hodge podge."

1. Derby Trail...primarily Steve's selections. This has been an invaluable benchmark for value plays and ticket structure. Kudos to others like Gus, Hooves, Hoss, occasionally Calzone (when he offers up some). I also like what the Tampa regulars do.

2. Andy Serling with NYRA "Talking Horses" I have never seen someone continually beat chalk like Andy. Tremendous insight and understanding of trips.

3. Clocker Reports. Harrington, DeJulio, etc. Information that would never be evident in the DRF.

4. An occasional gander at Davidowitz's Grade One Racing. An awesome site with great contributors.

5. Just started with Twitter. Andy has had some "beauties." And recently, I found Tom Quigley identifying horses in the SoCal paddocks.

I come back to the question....how much information is too much? For me it's not black and white. I would never ditch it all as I'm not foolish or egotistical enough to say it hasn't helped. It's the processing that has me in a quandary. Would love to hear some comments...

At some point you have to trust your own handicapping judgment, once you find out what works for you. I want to handicap a race before I hear another's opinion about it. Once I have determined the horse(s) that I want to bet (I usually bet to win), I then check what folks like Byk, Serling, and Calzone may think about the race. I do this to either validate my original opinion about a horse, or to see if there is something obvious that I'm missing. Having access to tons of racing information is all fine and dandy, but you eventually have to pull the trigger.

But if "experts" are more consistent, one must not be stubborn enough to continue to go at it alone.

Is there some data printed/posted someplace of winning %, ITM %, and ROI for the experts selections?

To me, there is far more joy when I'm right than when I have copied some expert who was. That said, I have found it worthwhile to listen to the reasons behind someone's selections, especially if it is information regarding a horse who ran with or against a bias because I don't have the time to keep those kind of records.

I agree with Sighty (but you could cut down on the gym time:p)

But when I'm rushed and in need a gambling fix..it's the Byk p4 for me.

The processing and conclusion are the toughest part of the game because ultimately you are the one making the final decision after taking in all of the information, whether it is someone elses opinion or your own.

If one is simply copying another persons ticket all of the info in the world is irrelevant.

The more information you have makes your conclusion more difficult to digest because cases could be made for almost every horse in the race.

There is never "too much" information. Your experience of weighing and filtering all of the factors is what the game is all about. If a conclusion becomes too difficult no one is putting a gun to your head to wager. There will always be another race.

If I posted mine for 2012 you would probably kill yourself.

Good or bad?

As to the original question, I would say to measure the inputs that one uses in terms of their past effectiveness and order them in decreasing percentage of advantage. At some point, given that list, you can deem the lower contributors to be giving "diminishing returns" (unless their yield is VERY consistent and higher than the rest), and even then you might want to split it into a separate approach weighing different factors that only are used when enough price horses are present.

In other words - apply some empirical measurand to it. That will give you confidence and a consistent measuring stick by which to evaluate your effectiveness versus the length and difficulty of the approach.

Obviously his is super good, or we would want to kill him not ourselves.

I listen to only a very few people--the signal to noise ratio just gets to be too much. Serling and Drugs are probably my top two.

I think the question is how you define information. There are millions of people who will sell you selections. Some very sharp people like Steve generously give them away free. But by blindly following someone else, you get no real information.

What makes the NYRA work that Andy is a part of special is that he doesn't just tell you who he thinks will win a race but also explains the reasoning so that you can learn and apply that logic yourself in the future. Andy's analysis gives you information that can make you a better handicapper by learning how to watch a race, what to look for when you do, and when statistics are meaningful.

Doug's posts here similarly offer great insight (as did his one episode handicapping show that I am eagerly waiting for the next installment of). He doesn't come on and just say "I like X." Rather, he breaks the race down and explains why he came to the opinion he did. By learning from people such as this, you can use information to make your own selections going forward.

I am not even sure that ROI is the way to evaluate information. Andy, for example, will often put long shots on top that he will say is not the most likely winner of a given race. It is not the selection that you should focus on. It is the information as to why he made the selection that should be filed away and used in your everyday handicapper.

Bottom line--you will never become a good handicapper by following someone else's picks. You can improve greatly by applying the methods used by someone you respect and follow.

Paul

Outstanding Paul, could not agree with you more.:tro:

Who wants to become a good handicapper? The hours are long the opportunities are few and others like BTW do it for you.. Why buy when you can lease?

Great points, Paul. As one very astute handicapper told me once..."the Racing Form is my favorite publication, because it's full of winners."

I'm of the belief that the best analyst is the one who doesn't tell you what anyone else could obviously read in the PP line. I don't need anyone to read for me - the added value comes from bringing the PP line, and the logic of a selection, to life.

I too use many inputs.

This winter and spring I would have saved a lot of time and effort by just listening and reading Steve. He's locked in at the moment.

I tend to complete my own analysis first and then modify based on other inputs. I can say I have learned to add to my tickets not take my selections off. More expensive but nothing worse than not trusting your own interpretation and having that horse win for fun.

The key is going back to the pp and figuring out what Steve or someone else saw that you did not. That's one of the best ways to learn.

I am grateful to the guys that work so hard to help us become a successful. It is very much appreciated.

That is exactly why ROI is the way to evaluate information. It should be obvious that the most likely winner is very often not the best bet. The best bet is the one whose odds of winning show the biggest positive discrepancy from the betting odds. A 10-1 shot (in the betting) with a 15% chance of winning the race is a much better bet than an even money fav with a 50% chance of winning the race. ROI is a way of measuring that kind of betting skill.

That's true. But people may have different goals. If your primary goal is to make money at the track, then being a good handicapper yourself might not be very important to you.

I completely agree with the idea that it's a lot more satisfying if you can do it yourself, though. And having at least some skills should make it easier to tell whose ROI is a fluke and whose is more likely for real.

--Dunbar

However, a public handicapper's ROI is a terribly unfair way to measure their handicapping acumen, as their picks must be in well in advance ( I rarely send mine in later than 48 hours before raceday ) and thus they can't make adjustments for value. A perfect example would be yesterday's 1st race at Aqueduct. I picked the race 1-2, but when the 2 was, what I felt was, a big overlay at over 4:1, I bet him to win ( I also Tweeted about this before the race ). My ROI reflects a loser, and according to what you wrote it theoretically shouldn't....but it does.

The bottom line is that, for the most part, 1-2-3 picks are for people that don't really want to hear the handicapping discussion, or the haters that are happy that no puiblic handicapper can realistically show a positive ROI over time ( though, I have been disproving that, miraculously, for a while ). We don't even really want to offer them at NYRA, as we feel they detract from what we are trying to do, which is engage people in the handicapping discussion, which inevitably will create many more fans than 1-2-3 picks, but too many people want them for us to not give them out.

Well my ROI has improved dramatically with the information that is now provided. Was I an extremely average handicapper/bettor before? Sure feels like it now. I still may be one given the company I keep.

The point of my initial post was to gather information and share experiences so that I can become better given all the information available. I find it very intriguing that some, for example, may wager the exact tickets that a Steve or Gus provide. Or others may take Andy's 3, 4, or 5 selections per race and bet pick 3's and 4's or box them in the various exotics. I have found myself, especially at Saratoga, blending Steve and Andy's picks. That has worked both positively and negatively. This is not to say that I haven't been succussful selecting on my own. At times I most certainly have. Look, to me it's gray. There's no right or wrong, it's just refinement.