Record keeping
 

Record keeping

Record keeping is boring. However, it can both save you money and make you money.

For example, I had a good day yesterday, but wasn't sure exactly where the money came from. I bet 55 races at 16 tracks.

I'm mostly a win, daily double and multiple race bettor. However, yesterday I was in the mood for some exotics and took a shot.

Basing everything on $2 bets I was shocked to discover the results as I thought I was doing okay. I lost $84.75 on exactas and $82.00 on trifectas. I didn't hit one super so I didn't bother to add up the loss on that wager (I bet more than $2 and varied the size of the wagers on different races, which is why basing the results on $2 can be an eye opener).

I didn't have time for Pick3 and Pick4s, but I did play Daily Doubles. That's where all the exotic profit came from. I made $273.80 on Daily Doubles.

Every once in a while I like to confirm my areas of strength and weakness. For me win bets and serial wagers are the way to go.

Not being totally dim I think I'll skip exactas and tris today.

Do you know your own strengths? Keep records for the weekend and see how you do. You might, as I was, be surprised.

good post, so true

bud

Here are my numbers for the weekend, win bets only playing one or two horses $2.00 bets.

Attachment 29030

That's a nice return.

An ROI of 1.59 means a return of $3.18 for every $2.00 bet.

Keep up the good work, vderdak.

Thanks, just doing some testing but had a good two days.

Twinspires will of course automatically track my win % and ROI as long as I keep the bets the same for the test period.

You too but how do you do so many races...lol

Vince

To all,
You are the center of everything, never let that escape you. Do 1 month cycles it makes things easier, Lets face it who wants to figure out where you went wrong, Ok tounge in cheek Game plan, odds line accepted, bet if the bet makes you. Done, over, Next.

hi David:

Your record keeping per the post pertains to your betting--wagers, results, ROI, etc.

Do you do any handicapping record keeping as well? Do you keep records on the different tracks you may play? Distances? Class? General modeling?

If you do some sort of modeling, what do you model? And, if so, does your shorter term models (10-20 races, 10-20 days) consistently coincide or reflect with any longer term record keeping?

Thanks.

I used to keep models but I no longer do, with my brisnet past performance it gives me what's winning: ESP, lengths behind and positions behind, trackmaster has a spot to look up what's winning as well and I can look at instant charts for the last 4 or 5 days and it tells my how the races are being won and that's enough information for me to make decisions on what is winning at the track.

I also vary my tracks enough that it would be to much record keeping when it's all available online now in just a few minutes search.

Hello Reckless,

I used to use Bettor Keep Track which handled all of the record keeping nicely. The only problem was the DOS manual entry. And let's face it, the program is not very user friendly. Still, it's the best I've seen.

For the past few years I've used a spreadsheet which is more or less a copy of what Richie and Bill V. created.

I only model one track at a time. Typically that's NYRA except during the winter when I model Gulfstream Park -- my home away from home.

In terms of the model I only keep track of the last seven races, sometimes five if there's a lot of activity. For example, 6F on a dirt track where they run that distance daily. I toss the old races. Keeping them serves no purpose other than to mislead you. "What happened yesterday is more important than the sum total of last year." Database handicapping doesn't work, at least not for me. Been there, done that, lost more than enough money to make that a forgone conclusion. Case closed.

Years ago I would model with Dick Mitchell's programs. I found that breaking it down too much was counter productive. I no longer separate by age or sex or class except I make a distinction between Stakes and Non-Stakes races. No maidens. No off tracks. No races taken off the turf. No races where there was something obviously amiss, like a jockey falling off a horse.

With the exception of Median Energy I keep track by "1"s and "2"s. In other words I'm only interested in tracking the winner if he was first or second in that category. For example, if he wins and was third in FW he gets no credit for that in my model.

You can probably find Richie's Speculator model somewhere in the archives. Or maybe it was Bill's. Either one should do the trick. Or, maybe it was Energy. I forget.

Tip: don't make the mistake I did attempting to model several tracks. You'll lose interest, get tired of the whole process and eventually abandon it.

That's not to say you can't bet every track under the sun. I do. But I have the most confidence and increased bet size when I wager on the track I model.

I agree, if your playing one track it's good idea to do but with multiple track play it becomes a grind eventually. Like I said before I just need an understanding if it's lone speed winning, off the pace just a bit or the sustained horses winning.

There are so many variables involved, I'm just looking for reliable estimates to guide me and if you are not making your living off of racing there are time constraints as well.

I just like to look for good wagering races and let the program and odds guide me. I am more decision minded than selection minded when picking horses.

To me contender selection and paceline selection are keys to finding the winner along with playing races in which you have a good estimate of ability, staying away from those races which don't make sense.

Here is something to ponder. If in Harness racing going back beyond 2 lines where in most cases they race every 7 days, if the research has proven that they do not hold their form, with exceptions then why would you go back further in thoroughbreds. If the research says that the thoroughbred utilizes all of his energy in racing at a rate not possible in harness racing, how is it possible that they can hold their form for longer even when spaced out. If you look at modern day harness racing they are becoming more like their kin in thoroughbreds where speed or early forms the race yet in a pace scenario they unlike the thoroughbreds have less closing or sustained winners than the thoroughbreds. IMO going back beyond two lines unless their was trouble or the horse was racing in too high a class, or the surface or distance was off or different then stick the horse with either of the two last lines.

I agree I don't think going back to much tells you anything at all, it's guessing at that point if you do not use a recent line although the one exception is horses for courses. There are some horses who just love a certain track and you have to make allowances for this horse even though recent races may not be their best, again an educated guess based on experience.

You can't handicap mechanically, its both art and science, handicappers who try to fit everything into a neat little box have only average returns for the most part.

Vderdak many have tried to pick holes in Ray Taulbot's idea's but Ray made a statement back in the late 40's that IMO still bears fruit all these years later.
This was if a horse started 12 times throw out 4 of those starts as they were nothing more than a conditioning effort. But you take a look and don't take my or Ray's words as final. What Ray was saying or telling you was that if you looked at a horses form this way it will give you a clearer picture of the horses form cycle. Now back in Ray's day many horses ran like harness horses in every 7 days which now days we know is not the case, but you can easily see the race which made the trainer decide it was time to pull the horse out of training and have a freshener. So now you have two lines you can throw out the one that put him in the barn and the line when he came back to racing. Take a look, what Ray said back in the 40's still bears fruit today.

I think every race is unique on it's own and if you have hard rules that you never deviate from then your using a system and not a methodology.

Vderdak first off that was not a system it is more about the way it is, how you decipher it, to each his own. Most fail in this game because they haven't a clue about which is a proper pace line representitive of what a horse actually can do and add to that the match up trips some up. No two snowflakes are alike and neither is one race to the next.

I agree its all in the pace line and playing races which are playable without alot of unknowns.

i just played Evangeline Downs Race 4, a bunch of slow sustained horses verse two early types. Guess which ran one and two.... easy money.

Thank you very much David.

--Ralph

Yes, good information David!!!!!

trotman,

He also thought a handicapper would get skewed figures if he took into consideration all the horse's in-the-money finishes, i.e the number of wins, place and shows. By the same token, oftentimes a horse will miss winning by a narrow margin to finish second in some races. To eliminate the place stats would also skew the figures. Therefore, he thought it was best to include the horse's win and place stats in the formula, while omitting the number of shows.
According to Taulbot when a horse has a passing box score (consistency ratings) we should operate on the assumption that the horse is physically sound.

record keeping
 

I've been using the betting analyst for a month now. It's easy to use, automatic and inexpensive. http://www.cynthiapublishing.com/swcompare.html

To all this is a good posting. Let me put this out to you all. In your opinion what made the horse a winner or a loser, take some time don't just jump in and spout off something, this is a serious question and your answer will bring to the front if you have what it takes to win at this game. I will take this a step further is it about finding the winner or is it finding the value, two distinct scenarios with two distinct results.

Trotman

Which ever approach one uses if your selections are showing a profit over an extended period of time then it works for you. No two people will handicap alike and for some record keeping is minimal for others more detailed, for some not at all. In each race there are multiple outcomes, nothing is predetemined.

vderdak I will give you that, multiple outcomes, but for predetermined? So what you are saying going in the favorite is not predetermined I have to argue that. The Morning Line says there will be such or such as the favorite, is that not predetermined whether the horse ends up as the favorite is how the public feels about who was selected as the most probable winner. But my question was what you thought from your handicapping made this horse a winner and if it didn't win do you try and determine what might have happened. Or a better way to put it after a loss, how long do the losses mount up before you tweak your handicapping, if you do, or do you ride it out.

record keeping
 

For me keeping records for the first time in my life has been eye opening. Since the first of August fast dirt sprints i'm +1.45 roi. Turf routes 0/45 and I thought I was doing pretty well on turf bets. Also i'll make large show bets at times just for the casino comp pts. I thought that was breakeven at best, but it's +1.20 roi. A while back ritchie P. had a test going on fast dirt sprint claimers. Since that seems to be my strongest category would like to revisit that thread but can't seem to it.