Analyst Vs. Handicapper
I started betting horses in the 70's, so I tend to call myself an old-time horseplayer, even though I've always thought of myself as one that is constantly seeking and finding new ideas. I still hear a lot about the tremendous amount of work that is required to be successful in this sport as a bettor. Although I've never been one to agree with the amount of work some put into it, I do agree that 25 - 30 years ago even my "lazy ways" were quite a bit of work. Maybe it just never seemed that way while I was running up and down stairs at Gulfstream Park and Hialeah, but I do remember that at the end of the day, I was worn out. And, back then, I was just a kid in my twenties.
Now, I listen to some people talk about going to the track at the crack of dawn to watch workouts, or staying up all night crunching numbers on their computer and putting in 80 - 85 hours a week, and just chuckle to myself. At least I hit on one good idea in the 80's, and that was to let everbody else do the heavy lifting. You can only go so far with all of the work that can be involved, and for the most part, anybody can do it.
Let them, that is the first step to consistently take in order to consistently stay ahead. Its not that I don't have a good work ethic, I just realize that it is very easy to get so caught up in doing all of the everyday things that you get little opportunity to actually learn about what it is that you are trying to do, and the better ways to do it. There is no better example of this then those people that are known as "handicappers".
Although I have been called by that name by many for a long time, I answer much better to the description of "analyst". It may seem a subtle difference to most, but that may be due to the fact that they are too busy measuring and comparing to notice the huge differences.
I know a lot about handicapping, but, I have learned so much more from analysis of horse racing, that I would say now that the handicapper is severely limited in the opportunity to learn about horse racing. Many handicappers see this as an arrogant statement on my part, but it seems natural for them to defend something that they spend so much time on. Without being arrogant, I am simply pointing out that you can get so busy chasing after what should be, that you don't notice how things are. That seems true with life, not just the sport of horseracing.
It may take a few pages, but I would like to expand on the differences, because I feel that good groundwork is needed to understand the real goals of the bettor, and how the two disciplines, if you will, address those goals.
In its pure form, handicapping is the art of figuring out which of a group of race horses has the best chance of winning a race against the others in the group. The original idea was assign various weights to the contenders in order to theoretically have them all arrive at the finish line together. The art of handicapping was to determine what "handicap" each horse should carry in order to accomplish this.
After a hundred or so years of practice, the handicappers still have a lot of trouble actually doing this although they have gained many tools over the years. That is the first and foremost indication of the value of this pursuit, and its limits. Weight carried was the original handicap, although it may have never accomplished the goal of actually equalizing a horse race, it is still in use in pursuit of this original goal.
In the modern sense, a "handicapper" is anyone that may apply themselves to the same goal of figuring which horse, or horses have an advantage over the others within the parameters of a race. In this sense, you could call anyone that thinks they know which will win, a handicapper. And maybe, that would be correct in a general way. But, I prefer to indicate my separation from this group in general by describing myself as an analyst, and my methods as an analysis of the work that the handicappers have done.
To me, the analysis of the handicapping is the work that needs to be done, it may not be as hard, or as time-consuming, but it pays as well and better. What it requires is sound knowledge of the sport that the handicapper has little time to study.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that, generally speaking, the handicapper is always trying to justify his/her perception of horse racing with the results, or a reasonable explanation for them in accordance with that perception. While the analyst is constantly plugging the results into his head until they consistently verify his perception. In this way, the analyst learns from the results.
An example of how it works in practice would be the speed handicapper. This is someone that handicaps the races with the general idea that the fastest horse has more advantage, and applies himself to measuring the horses speed in an attempt to isolate the winner. If his fastest horse happens to lose, rather then question the whole philosophy that he has devoted so much time to, he simply assigns the loss to some other influence such as the track surface, or the jockey.
This habit backs up all of the thinking and work that precedes it, but if this handicapper never discovers why the fastest horse loses for sure, he learns nothing from the experience. He has done so much work trying to figure out which horse is the fastest, that he has little mental energy to consider that the fastest horse also consistently loses, and, that it is still a surprise to him when it happens.
The same results will tell an analyst that he is barking up the wrong tree with his thinking, and that he should keep looking for the real reason until he finds it. While most handicappers learn what they know from other handicappers, the analyst learns what he knows from horse racing. While any handicapper can only tell you what they know about horseracing, horseracing itself can tell you all that you need to know. If you are open-minded in observing it. The handicapper is usually very quickly tilted to some angle or the other.
While it can be said that handicapping may be a complete waste of time because of its limitations, it is also necessary that somebody does it, because, limited as it is, it has consistently pointed out the group of horses that are most likely to win the race with stunning accuracy. It may go back to the start of pari-mutuel betting in the 1930's, going by the top 4 Morning Line odds, that group consistently wins 75% of the races.
For anyone that proposes to bet on horse races with the intention of winning on purpose, it is vitally important to understand this one consistency that exists and runs equally true through racing itself and the art or science of handicapping. The thing to understand about it, is that while it is consistent and true over a great period of time, it is still a generality. The fact that one of the top 4 Morning Line odds choices will win roughly 75% of the races today is a consistent generality.
Consideration, and analysis of this fact reveals two other truths that are very powerful when used as a basis for betting money on the outcome of horse races, with the intention of winning on purpose.
Number one is that past performance handicapping, in general, and as a method for deciding which horse in particular to bet, is limited to providing you with 1 horse that has a 30% chance of winning, and 3 other horses that have a relatively equal 15% chance of winning.
The first horse is the favorite, and is consistently overbet by the public, the other three, as a group, have about the same chance of winning. And then, the rest of the horses entered, as a group, have about the same chance of winning. Roughly, about 25 - 33% chance for each category, favorite, other top choices, and then the outsiders, or long shots.
Truth number two is, that due to its limitations, past performance handicapping usually eliminates, in any particular race, an entire group of horses for consideration, when that group is consistently responsible for 25 - 33% of the wins on practically any given day. And, this group, the outsiders or long shots, is exactly the group that the bettor wants and needs to have an accurate assessment of. Even this casual analysis shows that past performance handicapping is not likely to provide that.
Consideration, and analysis of these two basic truths will reveal another. After 100+ years of past performance handicapping, the student of this general method has failed to learn much about assessing the ability of thoroughbred race horses within the scope of past performances. He is limited to a preference for "good" past performances while his methods can only measure "bad" past performances, as bad, when compared to "good" past performances.
When the effort involved in handicapping does not yield an accurate measure of ability, there is not much reason to spend a great deal of time on those methods, when there are so many others willing to spend their time doing it. There is not much point comparing the past performance records of horses, when those records, in the form that they are presented, do not give an accurate measure of ability. The four horses with the best past performance records are always, in general, the top 4 Morning Line odds choices.
Actually, most past performance handicappers are like real fast race horses running a mile and and eigth, they start quick and put everything they have into the early going, only to be spent when the real horse race starts. They are finished when the real runners are just getting going, and it is the last part of the race that pays the money. Like the patient stretch runner, the analyst goes to work when the past performance handicapper has gone as far as those methods will take him.