How much is too much?

[asudevil]

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...

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by asudevil

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.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

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.

[pba1817]

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

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pba1817

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

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

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by asudevil

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

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.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

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)

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

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by asudevil

It's the processing that has me in a quandary. Would love to hear some comments...

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.