Generalist vs Specialist

[Capper Al]

The old saying goes that a specialist know more and more on less and less, while a generalist knows less and less about more and more. With gambling, specialist can hit longshots that no one else can see. But generalist are right more often. No one can do it all, be a generalist and a specialist in racing. There just isn't that much time with all the computing power in the world available to you. So, between the time we have available and our personal preferences, we have to choose which way to lean. I am a comprehensive handicapper and, therefore, lean to the generalist. A lot of cappers in the forum are Pace handicappers and lean toward being specialist. How does this play out for you?

What I have found is that I could have a bad Speed Rating and still predict a winner with a comprehensive approach. How this can be baffles me, but I do find this in my results. And then other times, my lowest comprehensive figured horse will have the best Speed Rating and hit as a longshot. Might need more than one lifetime to figure it out.

[Overlay]

What I have found is that I could have a bad Speed Rating and still predict a winner with a comprehensive approach. How this can be baffles me, but I do find this in my results. And then other times, my lowest comprehensive figured horse will have the best Speed Rating and hit as a longshot. Might need more than one lifetime to figure it out.
You can predict a winner with a comprehensive approach because no one factor stands alone. If your approach is structured properly, you can identify which of your handicapping factors allowed the horse that compared poorly on speed rating to compensate for that shortcoming. In my opinion, this can be done even more effectively if you are not just trying to find and bet the one most likely winner, but developing a projection of each horse's winning chances, and factoring wagering value into your considerations, whether you are a generalist or specialist. (I think that would be even more important if you are a specialist, since, the fewer the number of factors that you are concentrating on, the easier it would be for horses identified by those factors to be overbet.)

Considerations of value would also address situations where a horse that has a high speed rating, but that doesn't have much else going for it, would hit as a longshot. At lower odds, such a horse might not be worth a wager, but its speed superiority might make it an acceptable betting risk at a longer price.)

[HUSKER55]

I too, have come to basically the same conclusion. I have general figures to determine the "contenders" and then I have a set of figures I use to "find value". I suppose you could use the term specialist. I am finding out that speed and pace will not stand alone and more often than not my value plays are my 3rd or 4th speed figure. A punter has to blend both to make it. Handicappers that only use one factor are probably fishermen or have too much Irish in their coffee or they are really really lucky.

but,...that is JMHO

[traynor]

I don't understand why there should be any conflict, and why a bettor cannot be both. Specializing in particularly lucrative spot plays has nothing whatsoever to do with comprehensive handicapping of a specific race, especially if the bettor is using a software app designed for the job (rather than a one-app-does-everything-for-everybody approach).

Specifically, many (if not most) of the profitable spot plays are in races that do not lend themselves well to comprehensive analysis. Various labels are used to describe such races, but basically there are no standout favorites, and wagering is all over the place. Mutuels tend to be higher. Great opportunities for profit.

In the races that can actually be analyzed realistically, the payoffs are lower but the strike rate is higher.

They might be considered opposite ends of the wagering spectrum, but anyone seriously betting should consider the advantages of being more than a one-trick-pony as a bettor (or race analyst).

[castaway01]

I think you'd probably have to start out as a generalist to learn enough to understand the specialities you'd later be proficient in. I would argue specialist is the way most of us probably find success, but you need a general base.

For me personally, as someone who plays trainer angles a lot, if you gave me a list of 100 positive angles at 30 different tracks, I'm going to struggle at figuring out where to focus. Financially, I also can't play all 100 horses---exceeds my bankroll capabilities. Or maybe it's a track I just can't read, where this sort of play is trumped by a speed or rail bias or some other factor. However, if I could focus on, or specialize in, three tracks and really understand what works there and when certain trainers are the most dangerous, I have a much better chance of success.

Looking back at my betting records, I see that I focus on one trainer and sometimes even one move and bet it hard while it's hot. Those years are the ones where I end up well on the upside. The past couple years, I've tried branching out to lots of tracks and trainers I didn't know well, and I've ended up losing money for the year. That's just my experience, others may find different results.

So, I specialize even within a speciality.

[traynor]

I think you'd probably have to start out as a generalist to learn enough to understand the specialities you'd later be proficient in. I would argue specialist is the way most of us probably find success, but you need a general base.

For me personally, as someone who plays trainer angles a lot, if you gave me a list of 100 positive angles at 30 different tracks, I'm going to struggle at figuring out where to focus. Financially, I also can't play all 100 horses---exceeds my bankroll capabilities. Or maybe it's a track I just can't read, where this sort of play is trumped by a speed or rail bias or some other factor. However, if I could focus on, or specialize in, three tracks and really understand what works there and when certain trainers are the most dangerous, I have a much better chance of success.

Looking back at my betting records, I see that I focus on one trainer and sometimes even one move and bet it hard while it's hot. Those years are the ones where I end up well on the upside. The past couple years, I've tried branching out to lots of tracks and trainers I didn't know well, and I've ended up losing money for the year. That's just my experience, others may find different results.

So, I specialize even within a speciality.

Interesting observations. One of the strongest points in favor of spot plays is that the advantage often goes away with deeper analysis. The prices are higher because the entries "don't figure" (for one reason or another) and are avoided by bettors. From that standpoint, concentrating on deeper analysis of a limited range of plays may be a disadvantage.

[castaway01]

Interesting observations. One of the strongest points in favor of spot plays is that the advantage often goes away with deeper analysis. The prices are higher because the entries "don't figure" (for one reason or another) and are avoided by bettors. From that standpoint, concentrating on deeper analysis of a limited range of plays may be a disadvantage.

I concur. In my opinion, it's more of a streaky thing (not that you said that, but that's my experience).

[lamboguy]

i play strength of workouts and races only. but i can't disagree that with those that play numbers and trainer angles. the only problem i have with them are that everyone has access to those. strength of works and races can be more random and less black and white.

[traynor]

i play strength of workouts and races only. but i can't disagree that with those that play numbers and trainer angles. the only problem i have with them are that everyone has access to those. strength of works and races can be more random and less black and white.

It depends what it is. Some of the best spot plays are "counter-intuitive," meaning they are not readily available to the general public as positive indications of future wins.

An example would be something like a switch from a "lesser jockey" to a "better jockey." Many might consider that a positive indication of trainer intent to go for a win. It may be the complete opposite.

[lamboguy]

the other day in Santa Anita there was a horse that won a maiden race where his prior race produced 5 next out winners including the winner winning at the next level. everyone bet the horse and he paid less than even money. that is a very obvious key race. there are some races that unless you are watching them with your own 2 eyes can turn out to be great races. what happens when you are dealing with next race and have a horse coming out of the prior race and have no way of knowing on paper how good the race actually was? that is what is subjective about this.

of course there would be people that would love to line up to book my bets because they might think that i am crazy. i promise you i am only insane so far and have not graduated to absolute crazy yet!

[Capper Al]

You can predict a winner with a comprehensive approach because no one factor stands alone. If your approach is structured properly, you can identify which of your handicapping factors allowed the horse that compared poorly on speed rating to compensate for that shortcoming. In my opinion, this can be done even more effectively if you are not just trying to find and bet the one most likely winner, but developing a projection of each horse's winning chances, and factoring wagering value into your considerations, whether you are a generalist or specialist. (I think that would be even more important if you are a specialist, since, the fewer the number of factors that you are concentrating on, the easier it would be for horses identified by those factors to be overbet.)

Considerations of value would also address situations where a horse that has a high speed rating, but that doesn't have much else going for it, would hit as a longshot. At lower odds, such a horse might not be worth a wager, but its speed superiority might make it an acceptable betting risk at a longer price.)

Agree

[Capper Al]

I too, have come to basically the same conclusion. I have general figures to determine the "contenders" and then I have a set of figures I use to "find value". I suppose you could use the term specialist. I am finding out that speed and pace will not stand alone and more often than not my value plays are my 3rd or 4th speed figure. A punter has to blend both to make it. Handicappers that only use one factor are probably fishermen or have too much Irish in their coffee or they are really really lucky.

but,...that is JMHO

There is a system that goes through some elimination rules then uses a minimum speed to split the field into contender and non-contender. The final step is Jockey + Trainer win percentages. The selections are made in the order of the coneection's win percent. That's kind of like a general to a specific approach. It does get some interesting results.

[Capper Al]

I don't understand why there should be any conflict, and why a bettor cannot be both. Specializing in particularly lucrative spot plays has nothing whatsoever to do with comprehensive handicapping of a specific race, especially if the bettor is using a software app designed for the job (rather than a one-app-does-everything-for-everybody approach).

Specifically, many (if not most) of the profitable spot plays are in races that do not lend themselves well to comprehensive analysis. Various labels are used to describe such races, but basically there are no standout favorites, and wagering is all over the place. Mutuels tend to be higher. Great opportunities for profit.

In the races that can actually be analyzed realistically, the payoffs are lower but the strike rate is higher.

They might be considered opposite ends of the wagering spectrum, but anyone seriously betting should consider the advantages of being more than a one-trick-pony as a bettor (or race analyst).

I said that we have a tendency to lean one way or another. Figuring everything is impossible. There just isn't enough time in one lifetime to do it.

[Capper Al]

i play strength of workouts and races only. but i can't disagree that with those that play numbers and trainer angles. the only problem i have with them are that everyone has access to those. strength of works and races can be more random and less black and white.

Would you say that you are a niche player?

[Capper Al]

It depends what it is. Some of the best spot plays are "counter-intuitive," meaning they are not readily available to the general public as positive indications of future wins.

An example would be something like a switch from a "lesser jockey" to a "better jockey." Many might consider that a positive indication of trainer intent to go for a win. It may be the complete opposite.

I watch for jockey changes, but have a difficult time making a selection based on it. It might serve as a tie breaker for me.

[lamboguy]

Would you say that you are a niche player?`i think you have to do whatever works for you. i have battled this game from all different aspects of it. they all work at times.

years ago the racing form did not italicize winners out of prior races, today they do. so what that means is that one has to find a better way to use for analysis of race strengths. years ago i don't remember that many private clocker's on race tracks that describe works. today there are plenty of those guys that sell their reports or have clients.

in short what i have learned is that no matter what i used to do years ago, there are plenty of people that are doing the same thing as myself and doing a much better job of it.

[traynor]

I said that we have a tendency to lean one way or another. Figuring everything is impossible. There just isn't enough time in one lifetime to do it.

That is the overwhelming advantage offered by realistic interpretation of data--that many, many races are simply "non-profit." Rather than focusing entirely on the plus side, looking at the minus side has major advantages. It enables one to see reality rather than "wishin' and hopin'" and ignore race setups that promise to do little more than waste time. For a large percentage of races, the best profit may be in extracting spot plays that have a positive expectation, and otherwise ignoring them.

Conversely, it may be most useful to put the time and effort where the money is--the races you have determined, from your own experience, record keeping, and database that offer the highest probability of reward. Not the best "potential" or the best "value" but the highest probability of reward. Agonizing over California races with five entries to win a $3.00 mutuel or a $5-6 exacta is not my idea of rational behavior.

[traynor]

I watch for jockey changes, but have a difficult time making a selection based on it. It might serve as a tie breaker for me.

What I was alluding to in somewhat oblique fashion is that certain indicators are perceived by the average bettor as being positive, when in fact a careful analysis of available data might indicate it is best either ignored (as if it did not exist) or--in a number of cases--used as an elimination.

Some factors are overbet--entries displaying those factors are bet down to underlay status routinely. In the real world, that makes that particular factor a negative--entries displaying that factor should be discounted, because even if they win, they are--on a long-term basis--a losing bet. That is the kind of information your database and records should provide.

If you really start digging into the data, you can uncover numerous situations in which certain entries are overbet. You can call them "false favorites" or "underlays" or any other term you choose, but the bottom line is that wagering on entries that exhibit certain factors is not profitable. Every race that you can reasonably pass because you have a negative profit expectation on that particular race setup is just like picking 50% winners at even money. Not as much fun, possibly, but a lot less stress.

Without getting into an extended (and utterly pointless) discussion of the size of databases, the more data you have available, the better. If you have an automated analysis process for pre-race evaluations, it is fairly easy to dump the handicapped races into a file, then merge the data from the results with that file. The merged file can then be entered in a database for subsequent searching. That eliminates the "woulda coulda shoulda" syndrome of tweaking evaluations backfitted to a small (and usually irrelevant) data sample.

[shouldacoulda]

I watch for jockey changes, but have a difficult time making a selection based on it. It might serve as a tie breaker for me.

I like the jockey angle too but sometimes the horse is better than a bad jockey will take away from the effort. Sunday 2nd race is a perfect example at Aqueduct. I really am not confident playing a horse with Davis on it but in that case the horse was prime and had early speed. She usually only wins when she has a front running horse with a pace advantage. Davis, Studart and Cornelio Vasquez have a tendency to take their horses out front in too fast fractions and have nothing left for the stretch. Sometimes though, it works out when the race shape is right.

I have gotten away from just going by percentages alone. To me, there's more to it than that. If I have 2 standouts that are that close and the odds are right I will play an exacta and skip the flat bets or pass the race.

By being a generalist, it should lead you to specialties within your general approach.

[pondman]

I like the jockey angle too but sometimes the horse is better than a bad jockey will take away from the effort.

Part of my method is spotting ringers with jockeys unknown or little known by the regulars, and avoid the conventional wisdom of this rating or that rating. Anything to confuse the crowd. This time of year I focus on msw, mc, and all-- High end owners wanting a win. It's all class. That's were I make the money. Why should I change? I specialize, no doubt. Players need to focus on what wins for them and what suits their own lifestlye.

[thaskalos]

The old saying goes that a specialist know more and more on less and less, while a generalist knows less and less about more and more. With gambling, specialist can hit longshots that no one else can see. But generalist are right more often. No one can do it all, be a generalist and a specialist in racing. There just isn't that much time with all the computing power in the world available to you. So, between the time we have available and our personal preferences, we have to choose which way to lean. I am a comprehensive handicapper and, therefore, lean to the generalist. A lot of cappers in the forum are Pace handicappers and lean toward being specialist. How does this play out for you?

What I have found is that I could have a bad Speed Rating and still predict a winner with a comprehensive approach. How this can be baffles me, but I do find this in my results. And then other times, my lowest comprehensive figured horse will have the best Speed Rating and hit as a longshot. Might need more than one lifetime to figure it out.

I am a specialist...and I highly recommend this for others as well.

All of us have different handicapping styles, and unique sets of skills -- which attract us to different types of races -- so it's natural to feel more confident in some races than we do in others.

I see no reason for a player to wager even a single dollar in a race he doesn't really understand. Not in today's game...

[DeltaLover]

I am not sure about the difference between a specialist and a generalist. If the latter refers to someone who routinely finds a bet in every race then I believe no generalist can be a successful and there is little to debate about.

The interesting thing though, is what exactly we mean when we are referring to a specialist.
His specialization can be defined by many different ways. We can have for a example a specialist of a specific race classification, like maiden or stakes races, a specialist of a specific distance like 4.5f, a specialist of a specific track or even a more refined specialist of first time starters under maiden claimers. We can also have specialist focusing on specific bets like place or pick six and many more.

I think that any 'specialist' falling in any of these categories has not yet reached his fullest potential as a horse bettor. I see this categorization more as artificial than realistic. I does not hurt to start your career as a bettor keeping your scope narrow but if you want to become really good on it, the only specialization you really need to master, is to be able to handicap public's opinion. Handicapping the horses is the starting point, but by no means the end of the betting process. The bettor needs to specialize in his ability to recognize obvious and hidden handicapping factors and form an opinion about how good the public is using them.

The more I am thinking about the game, the more weight I am assigning to its psychological aspects and the less I am concerned about technicalities such as sophisticated methods for track variant calculations.

Based in these the sign of a real 'specialist' is to able to find a bet in a race where most of the 'number guys' prefer to stay out since it seems too open for them.

[Midnight Cruiser]

What are the boards thoughts on only playing p4s and becoming a p4 specialist at one track? I think its possible to get a feel for trends and isolate certain jockeys/owners/trainers in certain spots.

Here is an example. The late p4 at Santa Anita usually is carded with 2 turf and 2 dirt races and concludes with a wide open tilt. (usually maidens)

I have had good luck playing the jocks and trainers that do well on the grass. Gomez, Bejarano, Talamo, Leparoux and Canani, Motion, Proctor. The key then becomes finding a single or pair in the other dirt race to isolate then go deep in the finale. Anyone?

[thaskalos]

What are the boards thoughts on only playing p4s and becoming a p4 specialist at one track? I think its possible to get a feel for trends and isolate certain jockeys/owners/trainers in certain spots.

Here is an example. The late p4 at Santa Anita usually is carded with 2 turf and 2 dirt races and concludes with a wide open tilt. (usually maidens)

I have had good luck playing the jocks and trainers that do well on the grass. Gomez, Bejarano, Talamo, Leparoux and Canani, Motion, Proctor. The key then becomes finding a single or pair in the other dirt race to isolate then go deep in the finale. Anyone?

In theory, I've always loved the pick-4. It pays well...and it's a pretty economical wager -- when you consider that the initial upfront investment encompasses four races.

But in practice...I have gotten to hate it, because it doesn't sit well with my particular horseplaying philosophy.

Every pick-4 that I see contains at least one race that is a total mystery to me...and I feel uncomfortable having my entire wager dependent on such a race -- even if I spread out in it.

They say that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link...and I think the same can be said about a pick-4 wager.

[pondman]

I think that any 'specialist' falling in any of these categories has not yet reached his fullest potential as a horse bettor. I see this categorization more as artificial than realistic. I does not hurt to start your career as a bettor keeping your scope narrow but if you want to become really good on it, the .

Career?

Don't want to assign objectives for anyone else, but I want to make money. If a person can make money on singles, they should. My profits and my available bank rocketed when I stopped trying to horizontally beat lower level claiming races. I'm sticking with it. Fewer races, restricted by the conditions, and larger bets.

[raybo]

I've been keeping track of this thread and as far as I can tell, the 2 terms have not been defined.

Here's my take:

Generalist - Someone who plays every, or almost every, race on a card.

Specialist - Someone who only bets particular races, regardless of the reason, or his methods.

So, in my definition of the 2 terms, I am a specialist, because I rarely bet every race on a card. I have always thought that the ability to know when you are weak in a race, and can pass those easily, makes you a much more dangerous player. Even those players who try to exploit the tote find times when that is not possible. The traditional use of the term, "general", usually relates to less accuracy, less focus, and less confidence in the particulars. Good record keeping will quickly tell you that you will do much better when you sidestep poor situations.

[Robert Fischer]

xxvii Prize Intensity more than Extent.


"Excellence resides in quality not in quantity. The best is always few and rare: much lowers value. Even among men giants are commonly the real dwarfs. Some reckon books by the thickness, as if they were written to try the brawn more than the brain. Extent alone never rises above mediocrity: it is the misfortune of universal geniuses that in attempting to be at home everywhere, are so nowhere. Intensity gives eminence, and rises to the heroic in matters sublime."

- Balthasar Gracian

[raybo]

xxvii Prize Intensity more than Extent.


"Excellence resides in quality not in quantity. The best is always few and rare: much lowers value. Even among men giants are commonly the real dwarfs. Some reckon books by the thickness, as if they were written to try the brawn more than the brain. Extent alone never rises above mediocrity: it is the misfortune of universal geniuses that in attempting to be at home everywhere, are so nowhere. Intensity gives eminence, and rises to the heroic in matters sublime."

- Balthasar Gracian

Nice quote!!

[turninforhome10]

Could we define a specialist as someone who only bets certain race meets?

[Twenty Seven]

thaskalos, this is the biggest issue with pick 4s, the "problem" race. (If there are more than one of them in a series, I pass.) But the way I approach it is to use it as a bridge race, meaning I just want to get through it with even a small (to that isolated race) loss. I especially will emply this strategy if I absolutely love the other three races in the sequence: standout key in one, wide open with realistic bomb possibilities in another, and throwout fave or 2nd choice, with a few mid-range contenders and one intriguing longshot in another, as examples.

All that said, I agree with traynor earlier, I believe it was, who said, why choose between one or the other (specialist vs generalist)? Some races call for a comprehensive approach, other races point to one factor overriding all others (lone speed on a biased track; two contenders in a field of dogs, with one of them being handled by a terrible trainer with one inflated last-out fig, etc etc etc).

It's good, even necessary, to be a generalist, but usually the key to a particular puzzle can be unlocked with a few factors, even though those factors can often shift race to race.

[Twenty Seven]

Just caught up with the latest questions and answers on definitions of the two terms. My take is that 'specialist' refers to a certain angle or angles, or to one specific approach (speed OR pace OR trip OR trainer OR class handicapper), and that a 'generalist' will apply any and all approaches depending on the particularities of the race. But again, you can approach it globally but narrow things down the further into the handicapping process you go for that certain race.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think speciality chooses you.Dirt has taken a back seat.Older horses have taken a back seat.Stakes are good because the entrants are capable.But the young offer so much because their improvement is predictable and it happens every year,but nobody trusts it til its a fact.And it's spurious.So betting against is a problem for the crowd.But the real money is to be made on turf.The dumb and deliberate mentality about turf is where the money lies.Late pace wins on turf.Yes it does.But so does early uncontested pace with class credentials and it pays.This duality of understanding,which is clear in my mind,is becoming my specialty.Turf and youth.And I think that's ironic because I'm just reading Helm's book.It should get better!Bet when they don't know or suspect something wrongly.Two things the crowd does in the vagueness of these situations.Specialize on what the crowd hates.They'll bet token anyway and it's dumb money.Take it.

[dkithore]

....Bet when they don't know or suspect something wrongly.Two things the crowd does in the vagueness of these situations.Specialize on what the crowd hates.They'll bet token anyway and it's dumb money.Take it.

Cincy,

Sounds like a good strategy. Now I want to reflect on what area of handicapping does crowd hate (that I don't hate): pedigree analysis (Helms), physicality in handicapping, record keeping and...oh yes, how to find a false favorite (at least 75% of times). Seriously, this partial list is a tall order but I will try.

Dk

[CincyHorseplayer]

Cincy,

Sounds like a good strategy. Now I want to reflect on what area of handicapping does crowd hate (that I don't hate): pedigree analysis (Helms), physicality in handicapping, record keeping and...oh yes, how to find a false favorite (at least 75% of times). Seriously, this partial list is a tall order but I will try.

Dk

Everybody is entitled to fail.I said what I said because it irks the untrappable minds that be.That's why it is profitable.I think it's a stimulating and exciting place to be.That was my whole point.The things that everybody want to sink their teeth into and programs into escapes these two realities.Al asked what you specialize in and I've said too much.I bet turf and maidens.What do you bet?Answer his question not mine.What do you bet specifically?I gave my answer and reasons why.What's yours?

[Enigma]

To become a competent handicapper you have to wear both hats. One to generalize the other to specialize. Just as Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development progresses from the elementary to the complex, so do horse players and their methods of handicapping. Handicappers range from the very fundamental to the very intricate.
There is no easy way to "beat the races" There is no system in the market to "beat the races" and there may never be. The decision making process will either make or break you. Something will probably work sometimes, however nothing will work all of the time. The bottom line is getting the best value for your wagering dollar. Arm yourself with as much information as possible, do your homework, do some research. Remember in this tough game the harder you work the luckier you get.

[traynor]

Sometimes the best approach is to ignore all the accepted wisdom of how to solve a particular problem (with the emphasis on replicating the problem solving methods that others have developed--and that are inadequate to solve the problem) and focus directly on the problem. In KE, it is called "modeling."

"There are two main views to knowledge engineering:

Transfer View – This is the traditional view. In this view, the assumption is to apply conventional knowledge engineering techniques to transfer human knowledge into artificial intelligence systems.
Modeling View – This is the alternative view. In this view, the knowledge engineer attempts to model the knowledge and problem solving techniques of the domain expert into the artificial intelligence system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_engineering

Specifically, rather than using a computer application to do the same things a human expert would do--except faster--use the computer application to find new ways to solve the problems.

Handicapping a race with preconceived notions of what should and should not be may be limiting. It might be better to start over and build models that use the available data in new and different ways to predict the outcome. It is also way more interesting (for the developer) to program such applications.

[traynor]

If that sounds off topic, it is not. I think a generalist approach mandates that one does not accept any current "specialty" as being so superior that it is sufficient unto itself as a complete approach.

That generalist would also tend to seek new and different approaches to solve the problem of predicting which horse is going to win a given race, rather than tweaking and fine-tuning some specialty in the hope of gaining an edge. The efficient market hypothesis and a closed data system pretty much guarantees that approach will be less than optimal.

The only thing worth specializing in is winning.

[dkithore]

.Al asked what you specialize in and I've said too much.I bet turf and maidens.What do you bet?Answer his question not mine.What do you bet specifically?I gave my answer and reasons why.What's yours?

In Aussie land it is turf racing and some AW. You probably know they do not have claiming races like in US. Large fields and quality racing. The challenge is in getting getting good speed figures (internal fractions and all). So, I am working on getting handle on pace, running style, use of speed maps at the start) but nothing close to what you get in US. So, I can not afford to be a specialist.