Zoe

Hi all!
Followed this thread with interest, and have a qustion.
I have a very good understanding of the mathematics of dutching, but not the rationale behind it.
For arguments sake, we select four horses for a win (selection method not withstanding) and we win more often than not, ie. we are in profit.
Does this not mean, that one or two or all of our selections will provide a profit? If so, can we not sort out which selection(s) provides the greatest profit and put all the money on it (them)?
I am a 'one horse for the win in a race' man myself, and using my second etc. selections in the multiples.
Thank you

Chrome said :

Chrome, how about I find you two races where backing two horses to win will give you 9/1 each race or three races where backing three horses will give you 6/1 for each race?

You show me yours then I'll show you mine.

Chrome also said (some time ago) :

I take it you have experienced some sort of 'epiphany' since this post, Chrome?

Crash, my problem with my 2c worth was not "enough" words, I understood exactly what you said but can't believe you said it. My comments were much more fundamental than what's been picked up, i.e. a good handicapper like yourself can sort the race, and then rate say top 3, from them you probably have a good S/R overall,... so say over a year maybe the shortest priced of your top 3 will have say a 30% S/R, (showing a POT, cos you're a good judge) the next shortest price a S/R of say 18% (showing a POT again, cos youre still a good judge) and the longest priced of your top 3 , remember over a year or more is say 12% (again showing a POT)

I've just picked the figures out of the air to prove a point by the way.

So your 2nd and 3rd investments in all the races are NOT wasted at all cos they have all showed a POT. over a years investments!!!!!

Not backing to prices here just level stakes to win, if you sorted them by rating rather than price, then same scenario, though me thinks that the S/R will be closer matched. i.e Top Rated-v- 2nd Top-v- 3rd Top

BUT I agree that if one is SO GOOD that only betting on the Top Rater shows the gretaest profit OVER TIME every time then yes why bother backing anything else, just increase the bets to about a Mil or so, hee hee!

Chrome also said (some time ago) :

I take it you have experienced some sort of 'epiphany' since this post, Chrome?

As I stated, I take my top rated selection with a number of horses in the second leg to get average odds of OVER the actual win price alone.

This is cream when I collect, not the basis for profit.

I primarily bet the win component.


Crash,

Why isn't ratings handicapping?

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 402,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/05/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Hi!
I am confused!
I have done my own handicapping-rating for many years and I call it 'rating'.
I look at the past performances of horses and rate them accordingly.
Now, what is it, handicapping or rating?

Or is it all just semantics?
Cheers

Well Racing Victoria uses ratings based handicapping and there are sites that discuss using statistics to formulate ratings.

So aren't we all confused a little more now ???

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 402,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/05/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

hahah, yes, yet another bad choice of words, when I used the words "Ratings" I meant the horse that Crash had rated on top, 2nd 3rd etc.by his "Handicapping"

NOT Ratings in the accepted sense. Phew!!

PS. I've rated a few "women" akin to a sack of spuds, and definitly wern't worth 3 beers, so there you go! hee hee!

There seems to be some confusion about the difference between ratings and handicapping. Most ratings out there are mechanical, and mostly done by computer with some sort of excel program. Even simple personal ratings are pretty much mechanical, were points are allocated for certain exposed facts regarding each runner in a race. This is the science of ratings, not the art of handicapping.

There are many factors in handicapping a race that require subjective judgement which makes the task as much an art as a science, requiring many personal judgement calls that can't be quantified in numerical values.

One of the most important aspects of good handicapping and indeed the personal selection process is imagining how a race will pan out in the running for a particular track, distance, barrier and jockey combo. The selection your looking at has the science part well in his favour [won at track and in the condt., weight, class etc], however his running style is a back-marker [or swooper to some punters] and he has drawn barrier 3 in a 1600m race at Doomben in a field of 14 runners.

Now getting into the head of your jockey: Barrier 1 and 5 have natural leaders in them. The horse in 1 is going to easily go up on your inside, but the runner in five is going to go around you and there are 3 on-pacers in the race that are all going to try to move up with these two and then there are several mid-pacers and a couple more back-markers behind you that are going to make it highly likely that you end up boxed in the middle of the pack, at a pace that doesn't suit [at the big Eagle Farm track, it could be a different ball game].
You'll be riding for luck and your name is not Beadman .....No, I'll pass on that selection thank you and wait until an alley is drawn closer to the outside in a race that suits for that runner. Try and put that scenario into numbers you can add up into a rating.

Being able to read a race is where the money is [of course I often get it wrong to]. I painted the race picture for Ice Chariots 2 big group wins in Brisbane [before the race] during the carnival on the other forum page under the OLD Sat. section. He is a natural back-marker and had barrier 17 in both races where there was some good pace on from some quick leaders. My grandmother [long dead] could have brought him home to win from such an easy rider task and perfect situation. Nice odds too and many good handicappers collected easy money.

You can buy those canvases with hundreds of marked areas, each having a number that corresponds to a certain colour and when they are complete, at least from a distance they look OK. However, You wouldn't like to try to make a living from painting them. You'd starve. There is art in Handicapping, not just quantitative science.

Morning Crash, yes in the scenario that you depicted; only that personal touch will provide the winner, but not all races are like that are they, the plain fact is that the "mechanical ratings" can and do pick the winner like clockwork, some better than others, but around 60% or so in top 3. In fact just taking the pre-postfav & 2nd fav as you say chucks up the winner 50% of the time without any knowledge of racing whatso-ever, and pretty near breaks even when backing best tote, though pretty boring as well I admit.

Not taking anything away from your skill, the thrill of assessing a race and it turns out they way you predicted, certainly is a great feeling, and I suppose why we all into backing horses in the first place.

Have a good one.