Recently I was playing an online version of Deal or No Deal because I had too much time on my hands. Basically, the premise of the game is that there are three doors and behind two are goats and behind one is a car. Statistically speaking, you would think that you have a 33% chance of winning, but I have beaten this game 61% of the time. I am not a good guesser I just understand statistical errors.

The part that I failed to tell you is that the host of the show allows you to switch doors after he eliminates the first door that you have not chosen, which essentially allows you to select two doors. This is a common statistical problem called the Monty Hall problem. You can and should wiki it.

So, why do I bring up the Monty Hall problem? It is because this problem illustrates the very principles behind handicapping most races.

When you handicap races it seems like your wins and losses were pretty random right? Well they are if you are a novice handicapper without any style of methodology.  The thing is that most races are won and lost based on a combination of chance and sound statistical principles. Let’s take a simple foundational principle and work from there.

Billy Bob the handicapper decides that reading complex past performances requires too much effort. He now decides that in races of six furlongs or less he will always pick the first of second horse projected to display the most early speed. His tie-breaker will be which horse has the higher TA Indicator.  You may very well lose more than you win, but your ROI would certainly go up hence making your investment worth it. What you would be doing essentially is playing the odds instead of going against them.

Another example of this methodology is what I call the longshot infatuation problem.  If you purely bet for the thrill of it-which I totally understand-please disregard what I am about to say.  The average handicapper tries to key a so called sure thing over a few longshots in order to score big. This is despite the fact that most studies done on betting show that playing the horse that you think has the best shot at winning across the board is a much smarter play. It makes sense. Imagine if you played 10 dollars to win, place and show on Zenyatta each time she ran. You would’ve probably earned a vacation to the Cayman Islands by now. Playing good horses across the board isn’t sexy, but it is the best way to beat the track, much better than the pick 6.

In order to have a realistic shot at winning the pick 6, you would have to select the three horses that you like the best and play all permutations of these three horses over 6 races.  That’s 729 tickets! Now, if you have the money to play 729 tickets and the pick 6 is big enough then be my guest and take down that pick 6, otherwise play solid horses across the board.

I try to pay as little attention to the odds and use my own handicapping methodologies as well as the TA Indicator to isolate the best horse. I then play that horse across the board. It’s not sexy but it works.

I know what you are thinking, handicapping contest winners don’t play across the board. You’re right-they don’t. Would you like to know what else handicapping contest winners don’t do; they don’t play more than two or three races at a particular track per day. The biggest key to being a good handicapper is knowing when to sit one out. I love the Kentucky Derby, but it was a crap shoot this year. Contrast this year to last year when everyone and their mother knew Orb was going to win. Some races are simply not meant for handicapping and some are.  Now with all of that said, I want you to occasionally ignore this sound advice because there are few things more fun than hitting a superfecta.

www.ThoroughbredAnalytics.com