Horseplayers EXPO 2014?

[Longshot6977]

Sorry to grab your attention this way, but the last expo was in 2007 in Vegas. I have the DVD collection and really enjoyed them. Has anyone heard anything further on this expo? Did it just die out? I was hoping one was planned for 2014 if they still exist.

[thaskalos]

It just died out.

Dave Schwartz is our last hope when it comes to orchestrating something like this again in the future. :)

[Dave Schwartz]

I tried to get something going last year. Just didn't happen.

In-person is just sooo expensive.

Over the web might work, but not too many people seem excited about paying $300-$500 for a couple of days of lectures.

And the big boys get big money to show up.

[thaskalos]

I tried to get something going last year. Just didn't happen.

In-person is just sooo expensive.

Over the web might work, but not too many people seem excited about paying $300-$500 for a couple of days of lectures.

And the big boys get big money to show up.

What if it was more than just "lectures" that they got in return?

[Stillriledup]

I tried to get something going last year. Just didn't happen.

In-person is just sooo expensive.

Over the web might work, but not too many people seem excited about paying $300-$500 for a couple of days of lectures.

And the big boys get big money to show up.

You would have to find people who would do it for the love of the game and to try and "give back" to the sport that's been so good to them.

[thaskalos]

You would have to find people who would do it for the love of the game and to try and "give back" to the sport that's been so good to them.
Do you mean the trainers and the jockeys?

I thought we were talking about horseplayers here. :)

[Stillriledup]

Do you mean the trainers and the jockeys?

I thought we were talking about horseplayers here. :)

I'm talking about anyone who's "somebody" within the sport who would want to give a lecture for free. Maybe there are a few pro bettors who have supported themselves their entire lives thru the windows and would like to "give back" to a game that afforded them the lifestyle of the rich and anonymous. :D

[PaceAdvantage]

And the big boys get big money to show up.Basic supply and demand tells you they won't be able to command big money if not as many are interested as before...

[letswastemoney]

You need at least one big name to catch the attention of people in ads for a hypothetical convention, like Andy Beyer or Andy Serling.

[Tom]

To heck with the big names.
I want to hear from the new "young Turks," some of whom post here and elsewhere on the internet.

[Robert Goren]

I demand really big money. My going rate is 10 bucks a hour more than of thaskalos. :rolleyes:

[1st time lasix]

i flew out to Vega from Florida to attend the previous one. Seemed like alot of people there. Enjoyed it.

[antigeekess]

Sounds interesting. What was the price of admission, if you don't mind me asking?

Any other old broads there, or was it a total polefest?

[Dave Schwartz]

Beyer gets $15k for an appearance.

End of story.

And nobody is doing it for free.

[Capper Al]

Dave,

Would you teaming up with the Night School folks on the Internet work?

[JimG]

Beyer gets $15k for an appearance.

End of story.

And nobody is doing it for free.

Although I love reading Beyer in print, I doubt he is handicapping differently from how he was in the last expo. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he spent an inordinate amount of time hawking formulator. It was a DRF seminar so no surprise there. Same with many of the other presenters.

I would guess TLG, CJ, and Jeff P. would charge much less and have a world of information to offer about today's game, handicapping and otherwise.

Jim

[1st time lasix]

****I believe the cost to attend any or all seminars over two day period at WYNN was around $600....give or take 200. Seems like a similar cost at MGM Ballys too. I just don't recall the exact figure. In addition to to the 20 different lectures/sessions...there was a grab bag of door prize goodies, and a cocktail hour with a sit down dinner. {They might have had a lunch but i don't remember.}Each speaker was around for the cocktail hour and they had a OTB set up from the racebook right in the conference room with screens. Seems to me DRF and ExpressBET were the main sponsors. It was all well done. i had the opportunity to chat with Dan Ilman, and Steve Christ, At dinner table with and Steve Davidowitz and the gentleman who did the Tomlinson Figures. {since passed away} Numerous authors and handicappers present including Beyer, Quinn, Free and Meadow......as one can see from the EXPO tapes.

[baconswitchfarm]

Beyer gets $15k for an appearance.

End of story.

And nobody is doing it for free.


I would think you could get real professionals for that price. Not just guys looking to pimp a product.

[thaskalos]

****I believe the cost to attend any or all seminars over two day period at WYNN was around $600....give or take 200. Seems like a similar cost at MGM Ballys too. I just don't recall the exact figure. In addition to to the 20 different lectures/sessions...there was a grab bag of door prize goodies, and a cocktail hour with a sit down dinner. {They might have had a lunch but i don't remember.}Each speaker was around for the cocktail hour and they had a OTB set up from the racebook right in the conference room with screens. Seems to me DRF and ExpressBET were the main sponsors. It was all well done. i had the opportunity to chat with Dan Ilman, and Steve Christ, At dinner table with and Steve Davidowitz and the gentleman who did the Tomlinson Figures. {since passed away} Numerous authors and handicappers present including Beyer, Quinn, Free and Meadow......as one can see from the EXPO tapes.
I bought those seminars on tape...and I don't remember hearing any lecturer reveal anything that he hadn't already written about in his book(s).

A poor return on a $600 investment...IMO.

[Dave Schwartz]

Baconswitch,

Who would you PAY to see?

How much would you pay?

(Yeah, that's what I thought.)

[banacek]

I have a couple of sets of DRF Expo material. They were enjoyable - I got a couple of things out of them, but I wouldn't pay to go to one in person.

I think this is a wider problem. Honestly I can't think of any handicapping book or product in the last 10+ years that has taught me anything significant in that period of time. We get rehashes of old stuff (Quinn's latest, Davidowitz's new editions). The game certainly has changed in that period of time, but I don't really see anything substantial available.

Where are the writers? If we asked horseplayers what most books are most important, it certainly wouldn't be 'Handicapping the Wall Street" way. It would be ones by Beyer, Davidowitz, Mahl, Cramer, Brohammer, Mitchell, etc. (Beyer is still active - but his last book was in 1993 I think....hey you aren't dead..and you are a great writer!)

For me (others will disagree): I don't want new software. I don't want videos. I don't want generalized data which means something at one track and nothing at others. I want information with back-up. I'd love to see a new book that truly captures what is happening now. And if it was good, I'd pay for it..a whole lot more than a typical book. There is a new generation of people who could do this. I'd love to see it.

[baconswitchfarm]

Baconswitch,

Who would you PAY to see?

How much would you pay?

(Yeah, that's what I thought.)


I don't know who I would pay to see. But the problem is, in this business the people speaking are not the people most successful in the business. I will give you an example. I have taken money from gambling and done real estate investing with it. I have went to conferences and looked at the schedule for many more on real estate. I knew nothing when I started so they were helpful. The problem is many are loaded with speakers who are hucksters , speaking in general terms and pushing a system they sell. Most of these people are not rich in real estate. A multi millionaire does not need to beg me to buy his software on evaluating property for $599 while staying at a Red Roof Inn conference center. If you could find a vetting process for speakers that would include long term successful players, it will fly. A half hour talk and a half hour Q and A would have my interest. Eight guys a day who make their money self publishing books , or writing about how you might win if you buy their systems is a tough sell. Mixing in product salesmen with pro players would make it less like a timeshare pitch.The people who would pay to come to this are not novices or the wouldn't be paying to come.They have to leave entertained and feeling like they spent their money well to want to come back.

If I could make one suggestion it would be to scrap the two day Vegas trip. It is a large expense for some people. Maybe a one day traveling operation during meet high points. Keenland in the fall , Saratoga , Delmar, or places where a good number of players could make it to for a one day seminar. Just a thought.

[Robert Fischer]

It's a business.

Either represent products, and information, and tracks
-
In which case the specific experts are less important, and are not working for appearance fees - they are working to advertise their products and perhaps cover travel expense,

and reach out to major track circuits and convenient metropolitan locales at a low cost to attendees.

Or do what 1st time lasix describes in post #17 (VIP, guaranteed popular names).


No one wants to give away their edge for even $5-10 grand.

If you feel you are already an expert, you can not expect to be amazed by the content. About the best you can hope for is to see some of the big names in person, and/or stimulate some ideas.

[PhantomOnTour]

those that can; do, and....

[Stillriledup]

those that can; do, and....

So wait, Bill Belichick can't play football...but a lot of people would be pretty interested to have him coach them on HOW to play.

[Dave Schwartz]

And Charlie Lau wasn't much of a hitter, but was possibly the greatest batting coach in the history of baseball.

[PhantomOnTour]

So wait, Bill Belichick can't play football...but a lot of people would be pretty interested to have him coach them on HOW to play.
Sigh - the full quote is:

those that can - do
those that can't - teach


thx for making my point - Belichick is the latter

[Stillriledup]

Sigh - the full quote is:

those that can - do
those that can't - teach


thx for making my point - Belichick is the latter

So if i can't beat the races are you going to listen to me teach you? Or, are you going to require me to be able to beat the races for a living in order for you to want to listen?

[ManU918]

I also have this on dvd and I honestly don't think I ever got through a segment without falling asleep (being serious). That being said if they ran something like this again... I think I would go... It's a legit excuse to go to Vegas without actually having to come up with a bullshit story. Especially if I have proof of payment for the seminars that I may or may not attend...

If they do this, it would be cool to see the NTRA run a contest for all of the people who attend the seminars.... Something like the top 3 get a spot into the NHC.... I think that alone would help the attendance.

[baconswitchfarm]

So if i can't beat the races are you going to listen to me teach you? Or, are you going to require me to be able to beat the races for a living in order for you to want to listen?


No and then yes.

[thaskalos]

So if i can't beat the races are you going to listen to me teach you? Or, are you going to require me to be able to beat the races for a living in order for you to want to listen?
Here is how I see it, SRU:

You can teach me some things about the handicapping or the betting process even if you are not a winner yourself...but you can't teach me "how to beat the game". You can be a losing player but a great handicapper...in which case you can teach me plenty about handicapping; or you can be an average handicapper but an intelligent, creative bettor...in which case you can advise me on how to structure my wagers. But being a winning player encompasses everything...and you can not claim that you can teach me to be a "winning player", unless you have managed to accomplish this feat for yourself.

Yes...Charlie Lau was a great hitting coach even though he was a below-average hitter himself...but that's not a good analogy, IMO...because athletics are different. To make it as a professional athlete requires a great deal of natural talent...and you are either born with this talent -- or you are not. A baseball player might have all the knowledge in the world about the mechanics of hitting a baseball...but this knowledge won't do him much good if he lacks the natural talent that the professional baseball players share. The most any of us can do is cultivate our natural talents to the highest level that we can take them...and if that isn't good enough to make us "winners" in our chosen craft -- then we can at least say that we did the best we could.

If I am an athlete who has taken my athleticism to the highest level that my natural ability will allow...then I can seek a job as a coach...where I can say that -- since I have gotten the most out of my own natural talent -- I might be able to get the most out of some other athlete's natural talents, who might start out a lot more talented than I was. I developed my own talents to the utmost...and failed to made it in the pros. But I might be able to turn YOU into a pro by fully developing your OWN talents...assuming that you are more talented to begin with than I was.

But horseplaying isn't an athletic activity, it's an INTELLECTUAL activity...and I cannot explain my own failure as a horseplayer as easily as an athlete can explain his. How can I presume to teach you how to beat the horses...if I am unable to accomplish this feat myself? If I have the knowledge that I need to beat this game...then what is it that prohibits me from putting this knowledge to work in my own game? And if I DON'T possess the knowledge that the winning player needs...then why do I pretend that I do -- by declaring that I can transform YOU into a winning player?

This is my major gripe with today's popular handicapping authors; they are not honest with their readers.

They don't say "Hey, guys...I may not be a winning player, because I haven't put all the pieces of the puzzle together yet...but I am a heck of a handicapper -- and I am convinced that I can improve your own handicapping to the point where you will consider purchasing my book to be a great bargain."

That's what I would say...because there are plenty of intelligent but losing players out there, whose experience in this game is well-rounded...and whose exploits and ideas can easily be worth the price of a book.

But no...today's popular handicapping authors lack the moral fiber to deal honorably with their readers. "You too can beat this game! Read this book, and learn how it's done!"...is printed in bold letters on the front cover. Even if the author hasn't had a winning meet in years.

And that's just wrong...IMO.

[Stillriledup]

Great writeup Gus, i really enjoyed reading that.

You are right when you say that horse racing authors and or touts who sell selections and information are not really discussing that they themselves can't win.

If i were to play devils advocate with what you wrote, i would ask this. Is it possible that someone who can't win themselves can know why they don't win and dispense this information to someone in a book or seminar?

If you know, you know...and it doesnt really matter if you are actually a winner or not.....what if, for example, you have everything it takes to win in your brain, but you can't handle the stress and have a health issue that prevents you from betting? So, you don't bet or don't win, but you have the innate ability to win, but extenuating circumstances due to health prevents you from getting in the gambling "arena" and battling it out. Would a person like that be 'exempt' from your rules?

As people who are fighting the good fight and trying to make money through the windows, our pride might prevent us from putting money in the pocket of someone who can't win or someone who we think we know more than, but if that person possesses some info that might help us improve our game and that info is for sale, why not buy it?

[antigeekess]

****I believe the cost to attend any or all seminars over two day period at WYNN was around $600....give or take 200. Seems like a similar cost at MGM Ballys too. I just don't recall the exact figure. In addition to to the 20 different lectures/sessions...there was a grab bag of door prize goodies, and a cocktail hour with a sit down dinner. {They might have had a lunch but i don't remember.}Each speaker was around for the cocktail hour and they had a OTB set up from the racebook right in the conference room with screens. Seems to me DRF and ExpressBET were the main sponsors. It was all well done. i had the opportunity to chat with Dan Ilman, and Steve Christ, At dinner table with and Steve Davidowitz and the gentleman who did the Tomlinson Figures. {since passed away} Numerous authors and handicappers present including Beyer, Quinn, Free and Meadow......as one can see from the EXPO tapes.

Sounds like quite an event and a lot of fun. At $600, I'd do it as long as it was in Vegas or SoCal. One good insight is worth that much.

[thaskalos]

Great writeup Gus, i really enjoyed reading that.

You are right when you say that horse racing authors and or touts who sell selections and information are not really discussing that they themselves can't win.

If i were to play devils advocate with what you wrote, i would ask this. Is it possible that someone who can't win themselves can know why they don't win and dispense this information to someone in a book or seminar?

If you know, you know...and it doesnt really matter if you are actually a winner or not.....what if, for example, you have everything it takes to win in your brain, but you can't handle the stress and have a health issue that prevents you from betting? So, you don't bet or don't win, but you have the innate ability to win, but extenuating circumstances due to health prevents you from getting in the gambling "arena" and battling it out. Would a person like that be 'exempt' from your rules?

As people who are fighting the good fight and trying to make money through the windows, our pride might prevent us from putting money in the pocket of someone who can't win or someone who we think we know more than, but if that person possesses some info that might help us improve our game and that info is for sale, why not buy it?

A losing player can easily fool himself into thinking that he knows why he loses...but he can never be sure that his assessment is correct. IMO...only when you finally transform yourself into a winning player will you finally know for sure what it was that prevented you from winning before.

[Stillriledup]

A losing player can easily fool himself into thinking that he knows why he loses...but he can never be sure that his assessment is correct. IMO...only when you finally transform yourself into a winning player will you finally know for sure what it was that prevented you from winning before.

I think the reason people who lose lose, is that they don't bet on enough winners or the winners they DO bet on, don't pay enough.

The worst players in America pick winners on occasion and they bet on winners on occasion....so, the only difference between the winners and losers is that the winners bet on more winners than the losers do (or, they bet on less winners that pay more).

Most of what makes a loser a loser is the inability to NOT bet on losers. That's a handicapping problem for the most part.

I think where losers fool themselves is in the area that they think they're 'great handicappers' but bad money managers when in reality, they're just not good enough handicappers to be winning players.

[Robert Goren]

Handicapping these days for a lot of bettors is all about databases and how to manage them. What those bettors are looking for is something new to feed into their databases which will help them find a way to profitability. They also are looking for an easy source for that something. They don't seem to be too interested in a new way of looking at the same data they already have. When they say there hasn't been anything new in print about handicapping in 20 years they are correct. The market(pools) is too small and too easily accessed to share. When Beyer wrote his speed rating book, the pools were bigger compared to the average wage and if you live in Nebraska, you bet Nebraska races because it was not easy to bet a NY race. Even then Beyer hurt himself financially at least in the short term by writing the book. If a professional bettor did today what Beyer did back then, he would put himself out of business.
Occasionally on a site such as this one, some up and comer will let something slip out. He is generally safe because he met by a ton of hostility or is ignored because what doesn't fit easily into most posters's models or it require doing a lot of work because the info they use is not already neatly packaged. There have been some really bright posters who have come and gone in the last few years here. They have dropped some really useful tips. There will be more. All you have to do is pay attention to what is being said here and do the work to incorporate into your methods. I have noticed from their posts a few have done exactly that, but most haven't.

[traynor]

A losing player can easily fool himself into thinking that he knows why he loses...but he can never be sure that his assessment is correct. IMO...only when you finally transform yourself into a winning player will you finally know for sure what it was that prevented you from winning before.

And a winning player may be so through no more than a small aberration in a small sample of races in which he or she got lucky and tricked themselves into believing she or he had discovered the secret to milking the pari-mutuel cash cow. Until they wake up one morning and find it all gone, like a puff of smoke in a gentle breeze, with no idea why or how such a thing could happen.

That is one of the things I love about pari-mutuel racing. It is Darwinism in action, with a very effective winnowing process to filter out the pretenders and the wannabes.

[antigeekess]

Handicapping these days for a lot of bettors is all about databases and how to manage them. What those bettors are looking for is something new to feed into their databases which will help them find a way to profitability. They also are looking for an easy source for that something. They don't seem to be too interested in a new way of looking at the same data they already have. When they say there hasn't been anything new in print about handicapping in 20 years they are correct. The market(pools) is too small and too easily accessed to share. When Beyer wrote his speed rating book, the pools were bigger compared to the average wage and if you live in Nebraska, you bet Nebraska races because it was not easy to bet a NY race. Even then Beyer hurt himself financially at least in the short term by writing the book. If a professional bettor did today what Beyer did back then, he would put himself out of business.
Occasionally on a site such as this one, some up and comer will let something slip out. He is generally safe because he met by a ton of hostility or is ignored because what doesn't fit easily into most posters's models or it require doing a lot of work because the info they use is not already neatly packaged. There have been some really bright posters who have come and gone in the last few years here. They have dropped some really useful tips. There will be more. All you have to do is pay attention to what is being said here and do the work to incorporate into your methods. I have noticed from their posts a few have done exactly that, but most haven't.

Care to post a "greatest hits" list? ;)

[Longshot6977]

Actually, the Expo cost (pretty sure) $395 which included a dinner and meet/greet with the guest speakers. My wife bought me tickets and plane fare to Vegas for it,:) but I had to cancel the trip for business reasons.:confused: I did get the DVD collection which was well worth it.

Today, I think it would be real difficult to get popular 'book author' speakers anymore since they don't want to give away the candy store and think they can charge a premium. Beyer was unique in his days with some of his books and sharing some of his secrets.

Today, we need current players to share in some of their personal insights into the game. I'm talking about guys we all know like DeltaLover, Traynor, Raybo, Thaskalos, CJ, The Little Guy, Pandy, Dave Schwartz, Robert Fischer and a few trainers (and maybe a few jocks) etc. (sorry if I left off anyone's name who felt they should be on this list). These guys all have their expertise in particular areas that keep the interest of other posters. Yes, that includes harness also.

Today's players don't have access to great information (not just raw data, but real information, there is a big difference). The books we all read and loved are just info that keeps getting churned over by the same authors so they can just sell books. That is why the older players feel no new info is forthcoming since we have read/bought all the stuff and are still spinning our wheels so to speak. We need new information from different perspectives and eagerly await info that is 'outside the box'. I hope it comes soon from someone. I know if I possessed it, I would share it with everyone via a book or lectures/Expo. And at very minimal cost if anything at all to keep this great game alive for the horseplayer/bettors.

[jennywilsonhrs]

As we eagerly await either another Horseplayers EXPO or a “lecture” series on the internet, we can pass the time with online horse games where we can choose to become a horse breeder, owner, trainer or jockey. :)

[cj]

I just found the DVD sets from 2006 and 2007 in my attic while fixing my heater. I may have to check them out again just to see how much racing has changed since then.

[Grits]

I just found the DVD sets from 2006 and 2007 in my attic while fixing my heater. I may have to check them out again just to see how much racing has changed since then.

Former "heat and air(man)" on the job in the attic, and finding bonuses to boot. LOLOL

[jballscalls]

We've used the Google Hangout model to do handicapping shows and chats and I think it could be something that could be used to keep an panel or groups of panels inexpensive. Essentially you can have up to ten people in the hangout, but as many people as you want can watch live, and interact with questions in the chat feature. So you could have a moderator and panel doing the discussion and features while others tune in and can ask questions. Plus it gets recorded and goes on youtube minutes after you finish.

Here's one of a series we did leading up to the Kentucky Derby for the Gotham Stakes with myself, Maggie W. from Aqueduct, Peter Lurie from HRTV and others just to give you an idea of what it could look and sound like (although you guys would have to get a better moderator than me!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znLfkiXZK7o

[Robert Goren]

Care to post a "greatest hits" list? ;)You start by going over the posts by Pondman with a fine tooth comb.

[antigeekess]

I just found the DVD sets from 2006 and 2007 in my attic while fixing my heater. I may have to check them out again just to see how much racing has changed since then.

I just got this set in the mail last week and am loving it. Googled it up on Craigslist in New Hampshire & the guy sent it to me for $10 + shipping. :)

I'm only on the 2nd DVD, but am learning a LOT from these. The info from the trainers (particularly Tapeta inventor Michael Dickinson) is worth its weight in gold to me. The info on what's going on with the artificial surfaces, however, is certainly a little out of date at this point.

Gibson Carothers vs. Steve Crist regarding Pick 6 strategies was really interesting. As thaskalos observed earlier in this thread:

You can be a losing player but a great handicapper...in which case you can teach me plenty about handicapping; or you can be an average handicapper but an intelligent, creative bettor...in which case you can advise me on how to structure my wagers. But being a winning player encompasses everything...and you can not claim that you can teach me to be a "winning player", unless you have managed to accomplish this feat for yourself.

I'm kinda wondering at this point if "King of the Pick 6" Crist is actually the most brilliant handicapper, or if he's just a great mathematician/tactician with regard to structuring wagers, hedging, etc. He called Carothers "insane" for singling 12-1 or 15-1 shots in a Pick 6, but Carothers claims he can do it and take a Pick 6 down for way less money than Crist typically spends.

Based on what he wrote in "Exotic Betting," Crist can spend thousands a day a the track, while Carothers says he's taken Pick 6's down for $72 up to $360 or so and that his strategy is "either singles or covers" without much in between. I've been thinking this is the way to go for us minnows.

Hone those sharpshooting skills, spread where everybody else has that can't lose, sure thing, dead lock, odds-on favorite single (IOW, the kiss of death), and single those "insane" longshots nobody else seems to be able to see coming.

Or maybe it's the pink sunglasses. Could be that.

[antigeekess]

You start by going over the posts by Pondman with a fine tooth comb.

So he's Yoda around here, huh? Thanks. Been trying to figure out which one of you guys that was. ;)

Will put on my to-do list.

[mistergee]

Actually, the Expo cost (pretty sure) $395 which included a dinner and meet/greet with the guest speakers. My wife bought me tickets and plane fare to Vegas for it,:) but I had to cancel the trip for business reasons.:confused: I did get the DVD collection which was well worth it.

Today, I think it would be real difficult to get popular 'book author' speakers anymore since they don't want to give away the candy store and think they can charge a premium. Beyer was unique in his days with some of his books and sharing some of his secrets.

Today, we need current players to share in some of their personal insights into the game. I'm talking about guys we all know like DeltaLover, Traynor, Raybo, Thaskalos, CJ, The Little Guy, Pandy, Dave Schwartz, Robert Fischer and a few trainers (and maybe a few jocks) etc. (sorry if I left off anyone's name who felt they should be on this list). These guys all have their expertise in particular areas that keep the interest of other posters. Yes, that includes harness also.

Today's players don't have access to great information (not just raw data, but real information, there is a big difference). The books we all read and loved are just info that keeps getting churned over by the same authors so they can just sell books. That is why the older players feel no new info is forthcoming since we have read/bought all the stuff and are still spinning our wheels so to speak. We need new information from different perspectives and eagerly await info that is 'outside the box'. I hope it comes soon from someone. I know if I possessed it, I would share it with everyone via a book or lectures/Expo. And at very minimal cost if anything at all to keep this great game alive for the horseplayer/bettors.
even though Im married I feel I should ask you if your wife has a sister

[mistergee]

We've used the Google Hangout model to do handicapping shows and chats and I think it could be something that could be used to keep an panel or groups of panels inexpensive. Essentially you can have up to ten people in the hangout, but as many people as you want can watch live, and interact with questions in the chat feature. So you could have a moderator and panel doing the discussion and features while others tune in and can ask questions. Plus it gets recorded and goes on youtube minutes after you finish.

Here's one of a series we did leading up to the Kentucky Derby for the Gotham Stakes with myself, Maggie W. from Aqueduct, Peter Lurie from HRTV and others just to give you an idea of what it could look and sound like (although you guys would have to get a better moderator than me!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znLfkiXZK7o
very well done, and a great idea---but just curious have you done any since that one

[jballscalls]

very well done, and a great idea---but just curious have you done any since that one

yeah we do them every week. Instead of a pre-race show at the track, our track handicapper and myself do it each Friday talking about the races for Sunday. Sometimes we'll have a trainer or jockey on as well.

That particular one was part of a series we did leading up to the Derby. For Oaklawn races we'd have Rolly Hoyt on, For the Spiral Stakes we had Mike Battaglia and each race we'd have someone local as well as our regular guests.

I actually think it could be a great tool and I've spoken with folks about Gulfstream about them doing it during the winter. Because we're a track people don't really follow, obviously there isn't going to be a ton of interest. But working with the folks at Gulfstream, if you had a couple handicappers, a host and a jockey or trainer who talk about all their mounts for a given card, I think it could be really fun and useful and there would be demand for it.

Time and cost is minimal too, all you need is a webcam and a gmail email address. With the jockeys and trainers, we just set up a laptop for them so all they have to do is walk in and sit down and talk.

[Track Collector]

Common sense would suggest to us one of two things regarding seminars of this nature. Either "the expert" does not make it in real life with handicapping and thus has no concern about your future ability to impact their profitability, or they have near 100% confidence that the information they plan to share still protects those "nuggets" which make them profitable.

Consider too that improvements to handicapping performance are IMO exponential rather than linear. The further away you are from profitability, the greater the chances you are missing some "basics" that you could benefit from that will improve your results. The closer you are to profitability, the more likely you already understand these basics, and thus potential improvements will be smaller in nature percentage-wise and only come from more specialized knowledge and/or handicapping tools, and hard work.

With that in mind, these types of handicapping seminars may be fun and helpful for particular type of handicapper. Perhaps those who might be in 0.80 to 0.85 ROI level today might, by information and knowledge that they receive, potentially be able to improve their profitability by something like 5% to 10%. (I am just making up numbers here. :)). This is not to say that any others do not have the potential to benefit in some way, but IMO the odds are against you as those nuggets and knowledge that lead to profitability are extremely hard to come by, and one would find it natural that those who possess them are highly protective of that edge.

[Capper Al]

How about a tribute webinar like tribute bands do. For those who are wondering what a tribute band is, it is a band that imitates the original band. Lots of these floating around like for the Beatles, or even Elvis impersonators. It would be a hoot. Someone who has read Beyer could do Beyer. Another who has studied Quinn could do him, and we could even bring Sartin and Ainsle back to life. The itinerary could be as follows:


Introduction
the basic elements
recency
form
class
speed
pace
connections
pedigree
Euros
Putting the handicapping factors all together
wagering and the tote-board
closing remarks


Give it some thought. It could be fun. It would several volunteers.

[MJC922]

The various schools of handicapping aren't quite as disparate as they once were. Published data inputs haven't changed much and unfortunately the inputs still have plenty of integrity issues limiting their upside. I don't think anyone will bring bold and new concepts to the table anytime soon.

With that said, there does appear to be a decades-long pent-up demand for the ability of people to do their own research, for people to have access to databases and all manner of things surrounding data processsing, data mining and so on. The areas people need help with today aren't even necessarily anything a handicapper would be able to help them with, it's more about custom programming and data processing to discover ways to leverage their own concepts, greater automation, things of that nature.

We're squarely in the computer age now. Quinn's book on high-tech handicapping touched on it many years ago but that was at a time when I had a Commodore 64 and data was so brutal to come by that it had to be keyed in manually. Since then, the 'provider' has not always been kind to the handicapper who is willing to work, who is willing to research. The situation has improved a great deal since those days of result charts on microfiche, but still the over protection of data has been a constant source of frustration for many people. Things like Formulator might help some people (I haven't used it) but I suspect there's still plenty of frustration even with tools like that.

There's a lot of potential out there for what I'm going to call bot betting. First we have traditional research needs such as, people want to sit in front of a database and maybe put together a set of par times on their own, not read it in a book and take it on faith or purchase it from someone else.

For example I might put together a set of fractional to final time relationships which can be used to anchor the development of several bots. A bot might be wildly complex, something like, hey Siri whenever you see a horse that ran a last quarter faster than par by more than a second and is stretching out a half furlong or more in distance bet it for me at 1% of my balance, or, bet it for me but only if it's over 5-1, or bet it for me only if the trainer happens to be 30% over the last 30 days or if the sire is on my own personal list of sires that I have tagged as stamina sires and on and on. Racing has all of this rich complexity, no other sport you can legally bet on comes close, and yet there's still almost no way for most of the general public to research and invest in it creatively.

[antigeekess]

A bot might be wildly complex, something like, hey Siri whenever you see a horse that ran a last quarter faster than par by more than a second and is stretching out a half furlong or more in distance bet it for me at 1% of my balance, or, bet it for me but only if it's over 5-1, or bet it for me only if the trainer happens to be 30% over the last 30 days or if the sire is on my own personal list of sires that I have tagged as stamina sires and on and on.


Likey. :jump: Be sure to become an approved advertiser on PaceAdvantage.com when you get that thing developed. ;)

You know, considering what's already available, like the Stable Alert from Brisnet, the fact that bets can be placed in advance online, and all the cool stuff Formulator apparently already does (though I'm no expert there, don't use it), you better hurry before somebody else puts 2 and 2 together with a little coding and beats you to it.

[traynor]

The various schools of handicapping aren't quite as disparate as they once were. Published data inputs haven't changed much and unfortunately the inputs still have plenty of integrity issues limiting their upside. I don't think anyone will bring bold and new concepts to the table anytime soon.

With that said, there does appear to be a decades-long pent-up demand for the ability of people to do their own research, for people to have access to databases and all manner of things surrounding data processsing, data mining and so on.

We're squarely in the computer age now. Quinn's book on high-tech handicapping touched on it many years ago but that was at a time when I had a Commodore 64 and data was so brutal to come by that it had to be keyed in manually. Since then, the 'provider' has not always been kind to the handicapper who is willing to work, who is willing to research. The situation has improved a great deal since those days of result charts on microfiche, but still the over protection of data has been a constant source of frustration for many people. Things like Formulator might help some people (I haven't used it) but I suspect there's still plenty of frustration even with tools like that.

There's a lot of potential out there for what I'm going to call bot betting. First we have traditional research needs such as, people want to sit in front of a database and maybe put together a set of par times on their own, not read it in a book and take it on faith or purchase it from someone else.

For example I might put together a set of fractional to final time relationships which can be used to anchor the development of several bots. The areas people need help with today aren't even necessarily anything a handicapper would be able to help them with, it's more about custom programming and data processing to discover ways to leverage their own concepts, greater automation, things of that nature.A bot might be wildly complex, something like, hey Siri whenever you see a horse that ran a last quarter faster than par by more than a second and is stretching out a half furlong or more in distance bet it for me at 1% of my balance, or, bet it for me but only if it's over 5-1, or bet it for me only if the trainer happens to be 30% over the last 30 days or if the sire is on my own personal list of sires that I have tagged as stamina sires and on and on. Racing has all of this rich complexity, no other sport you can legally bet on comes close, and yet there's still almost no way for most of the general public to research and invest in it creatively.

I think that might attract a lot more support than re-hashing the same old same old that everyone has pretty much concluded are losing propositions.

[traynor]

A bot might be wildly complex, something like, hey Siri whenever you see a horse that ran a last quarter faster than par by more than a second and is stretching out a half furlong or more in distance bet it for me at 1% of my balance, or, bet it for me but only if it's over 5-1, or bet it for me only if the trainer happens to be 30% over the last 30 days or if the sire is on my own personal list of sires that I have tagged as stamina sires and on and on.


Likey. :jump: Be sure to become an approved advertiser on PaceAdvantage.com when you get that thing developed. ;)

You know, considering what's already available, like the Stable Alert from Brisnet, the fact that bets can be placed in advance online, and all the cool stuff Formulator apparently already does (though I'm no expert there, don't use it), you better hurry before somebody else puts 2 and 2 together with a little coding and beats you to it.

I think they may have already done that. And are doing it. And will continue to do it ... always three steps ahead. Four, on a good day.

[MJC922]

I think they may have already done that. And are doing it. And will continue to do it ... always three steps ahead. Four, on a good day.

:) Ah yes these mystery men that are four steps ahead. The illuminati of horseplayers.

[Maximillion]

Common sense would suggest to us one of two things regarding seminars of this nature. Either "the expert" does not make it in real life with handicapping and thus has no concern about your future ability to impact their profitability, or they have near 100% confidence that the information they plan to share still protects those "nuggets" which make them profitable.

Consider too that improvements to handicapping performance are IMO exponential rather than linear. The further away you are from profitability, the greater the chances you are missing some "basics" that you could benefit from that will improve your results. The closer you are to profitability, the more likely you already understand these basics, and thus potential improvements will be smaller in nature percentage-wise and only come from more specialized knowledge and/or handicapping tools, and hard work.

With that in mind, these types of handicapping seminars may be fun and helpful for particular type of handicapper. Perhaps those who might be in 0.80 to 0.85 ROI level today might, by information and knowledge that they receive, potentially be able to improve their profitability by something like 5% to 10%. (I am just making up numbers here. :)). This is not to say that any others do not have the potential to benefit in some way, but IMO the odds are against you as those nuggets and knowledge that lead to profitability are extremely hard to come by, and one would find it natural that those who possess them are highly protective of that edge.

Very well said.....still think that there are plenty of knowledgable posters here on this site, willing to contribute.....think the key is to listen,with a capitol L,the point they are trying to get across.

[antigeekess]

I think they may have already done that. And are doing it. And will continue to do it ... always three steps ahead. Four, on a good day.

But is anyone selling it?

[Dave Schwartz]

I love the continuing logic: If it is any good, nobody would sell it. However, they might give it away.

[thaskalos]

Faulty logic is the bane of the horseplayer. He has bought every handicapping product known to man...and yet he continues to lose. So, he continues searching--in vain--for the next "magical" product...thinking that "success" is something that can be bought from another.

He thinks that all he needs is a new "tool"...when, in most cases, what he really needs is a new brain.

[traynor]

Faulty logic is the bane of the horseplayer. He has bought every handicapping product known to man...and yet he continues to lose. So, he continues searching--in vain--for the next "magical" product...thinking that "success" is something that can be bought from another.

He thinks that all he needs is a new "tool"...when, in most cases, what he really needs is a new brain.

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I think the average bettor--rather than wasting endless hours re-hashing old ideas--could at least learn the basics of programming, data mining, and data analysis. It isn't that complex, it isn't that difficult, and it isn't that intimidating. Most college freshmen learn enough in the first semester or two to be substantially ahead of the "state of the art" in race analysis and software applications for race analysis.

No one is going to sell them a software application or process that is going to make them "consistent winners" while they drift along in the meandering currents of lala land. They either have to do it themselves, or go without. I think it is great.

I especially agree with the comment about needing a new brain. Or, perhaps more specifically, a new way of thinking about and looking at the old information, and the old ways of doing things--which don't seem to be working too well for most bettors.

[traynor]

But is anyone selling it?

Selling things is a business, driven by the profits of commerce. If one cannot make more money using his or her application or methodology than by selling it, it can't be very good. I think if one is waiting to be offered such a software application or methodology, she or he is going to be in for a very long wait.

[antigeekess]

Faulty logic is the bane of the horseplayer. He has bought every handicapping product known to man...and yet he continues to lose. So, he continues searching--in vain--for the next "magical" product...thinking that "success" is something that can be bought from another.

He thinks that all he needs is a new "tool"...when, in most cases, what he really needs is a new brain.

I'm all about timesavers. If this guy wants to give me a bot that can "red scan qualify" (a la Lehane) a half dozen race cards in a matter of seconds, for example, I'm all over it. To me, that's just efficiency. If we're the ones using our own brains to set the parameters and specify what we're looking for, what's the difference except the speed of the operation?

Siri, smell this. Siri... Sic 'em. :)

[thaskalos]

I'm all about timesavers. If this guy wants to give me a bot that can "red scan qualify" (a la Lehane) a half dozen race cards in a matter of seconds, for example, I'm all over it. To me, that's just efficiency. If we're the ones using our own brains to set the parameters and specify what we're looking for, what's the difference except the speed of the operation?

Siri, smell this. Siri... Sic 'em. :)

You mention Lehane.

Has his work impressed you personally...or have you just been impressed by the publicity his book has received?

[antigeekess]

You mention Lehane.

Has his work impressed you personally...or have you just been impressed by the publicity his book has received?

It's open on my desk right now. I started it last week and got sidetracked, but so far his suggestions regarding lengths gained (on the turn, in particular) do make sense to me and do seem to have merit when I look at PPs and race results in that context.

But like I said, I haven't even finished the thing yet. We'll see if I'm in love with it 6 months from now.

[thaskalos]

It's open on my desk right now. I started it last week and got sidetracked, but so far his suggestions regarding lengths gained (on the turn, in particular) do make sense to me and do seem to have merit when I look at PPs and race results in that context.

But like I said, I haven't even finished the thing yet. We'll see if I'm in love with it 6 months from now.

Jim Lehane's book has gotten plenty of publicity on this site...and the comments that it has elicited have always been complimentary to the highest degree. I can't even recall reading one negative comment made about this book.

So mine will be the first one.

For all I know, Mr. Lehane may be a member of this site...so, in the event that he is, I would like to preface this by saying that I have bought both versions of his book...and I never sent either back for a refund. So, I think the fact that I paid for his book twice entitles me to ask him a couple of questions about the book...so I could better understand a couple of the points that he tried to made.

Now...it's been a few years since I read the second version of this book, and my recollections won't be 100% accurate...but I trust that I'll be accurate enough to prove my point.

At the very beginning of the book, he lists a set of unique contender-selection rules that he employs in his method of play...and he gives credit to these selection rules for the inclusion of a horse who eventually won its race and paid $70 to win. This particular horse was beaten by double-digit lengths in its last race -- which was at the same class level as its subsequent winning race -- while finishing 7th, I believe. Now...I see nothing wrong with including a horse with a bad last race in our list of contenders; in fact...I do the very same thing quite often in my own handicapping. There is more to contender selection than just eyeballing the horse's last race.

But, in my review of Lehane's contender-selection rules -- and the PPs of the race that he provided -- I made a startling discovery. There were two other horses in the same field who had also run in the same last race as our $70 winner...and both these horses had run much more impressively than our $70 horse had run. One of these horses had finished a close second -- I believe -- after running close throughout...while the other had also run a solid race -- much better than the race that the $70 horse had run. Not surprisingly, both these horses had gone to the post at relatively short odds in their subsequent race...and here is the peculiar thing: both these impressive-looking horses were deemed non-contenders by Lehane's "unique" contender-selection rules, and were eliminated right at the start of the handicapping process...while the dull-looking $70 eventual winner was declared a serious win-contender -- and eventually became Lehane's pick in the race.

Now, I repeat -- lest I give the wrong impression: There is nothing wrong with betting on a horse who has run a bad last race...and there is nothing wrong with selecting a particular horse, over two other horses who had run much better races while all competing in the same last race. But I submit that you can't, in good conscience, eliminate the other two sharp horses from your list of contenders right at the beginning of the handicapping process...while you accept the horse who was soundly beaten in the same race.

How do you consider the second-place finisher of the last race as a non-contender...while accepting as a contender the horse who finished 7th by double-digit lengths, in the same race?

In another section of the book...Lehane instructs his readers on how to pick the "speed of the speed" in the race.

He takes the four-furlong timing of the particular horse...and then modifies that rating by adding the entire DRF variant onto it; a big mistake...IMO. You don't use the entire DRF variant to modify a four-furlong rating -- all serious pace handicappers know that. The four-furlong marker is only PART of the race...so we should only adjust it by a PART of the variant. To adjust it by the FULL variant would mean that our pace ratings would be out of whack when compared with the other speed horses in the race who might be coming off of races with different variants. Such imprecision cannot be tolerated in serious pace handicapping.

As I said before...more than a few people have commented on Lehane's book...and everyone has showered the book with the highest accolades. No one has said anything negative about it...and that places me in the awkward position of sounding like an overly-critical know-it-all...which is not at all what I consider myself to be.

I am just a serious player who has a passion for this game...and I like to speak up when there is something that I disagree with.

[Capper Al]

I love the continuing logic: If it is any good, nobody would sell it. However, they might give it away.

Generally speaking, logic is not the problem. Most people deduce well enough from a premise. The problem is in the premise that we believe contains the truth. Given garbage data or misinformation we still can deduce and deduce in a correct manner, but our results will be wrong based off our faulty premise. The information outside of the past performance lines about a horse would be mind boggling and defies any formulated processing that a handicapper is able to do with or without a computer.

[Tom]

How do you consider the second-place finisher of the last race as a non-contender...while accepting as a contender the horse who finished 7th by double-digit lengths, in the same race?

I make that all all the time. If the 35-1 shot is similar to the 2-1 shot, why not? I'll have to look at the race tonight, but was the lower odds horse a proven loser at the class?

More later....

[Longshot6977]

even though Im married I feel I should ask you if your wife has a sister

Yes she does, but she's taken already.

I think that much more empathis should be spent on programming/spreadsheet creation/wager structuring/record keeping etc to really help horseplayers. These are the things that are most often overlooked since many just concentrate on the same rehash of handicapping elements; which really haven't got most people ahead in this game. The old timers shy away from these technical elements and would most likely improve their game if they found out (via a good lecture/instructor) how easy it could be. Just my 2 cents.

[MJC922]

I'm all about timesavers. If this guy wants to give me a bot that can "red scan qualify" (a la Lehane) a half dozen race cards in a matter of seconds, for example, I'm all over it. To me, that's just efficiency. If we're the ones using our own brains to set the parameters and specify what we're looking for, what's the difference except the speed of the operation?

Siri, smell this. Siri... Sic 'em. :)

This would be an ADW project IMO, the driving force would be to capture increasing market share, bring in new customers. It's well beyond my programming abilities to wrap a user interface around a live db that would have even one tenth the flexibility we're discussing here. I've done some cool stuff which comes close to this but it's fragmented components and there's no UI, it's all held together with duct tape and bubble gum. Plus I'm too tired to go down this road, have to leave this stuff for the younger guys who don't have a wife and kids yet. :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Selling things is a business, driven by the profits of commerce. If one cannot make more money using his or her application or methodology than by selling it, it can't be very good. I think if one is waiting to be offered such a software application or methodology, she or he is going to be in for a very long wait.

Traynor,

If one buys into the logic that NOTHING for sale has any value, then why would anyone ever read a book?

To extend that argument further, why should anyone listen to anyone else about anything?

If something purchased has no value, why would something given away have more value?

Why should anyone listen to you? After all, anything you might have to offer must have no value or else you would keep it to yourself.

[traynor]

Traynor,

If one buys into the logic that NOTHING for sale has any value, then why would anyone ever read a book?

That is your logic--not mine. That is your assumption, not mine. That is your (implied conclusion framed as a rhetorical question), not mine.

To extend that argument further, why should anyone listen to anyone else about anything?

Repeat of above.

If something purchased has no value, why would something given away have more value?

Repeat of above.

Why should anyone listen to you? After all, anything you might have to offer must have no value or else you would keep it to yourself.

Repeat of above.


My comment was in regard to a specific type of software application/process, not sweeping generalities. Specifically, to situations in which the application of a given software application/process would result in diminished profits from the use of that software application/process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_game

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally (see marginal utility). In contrast, non–zero sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses are either less than or more than zero. A zero-sum game is also called a strictly competitive game while non–zero-sum games can be either competitive or non-competitive. Zero-sum games are most often solved with the minimax theorem which is closely related to linear programming duality, or with Nash equilibrium."


Pari-mutuel wagering is a zero-sum game in which every dollar won by a bettor requires that a dollar (plus track takeout) must be lost by another bettor. There is no way around that fact.

[thaskalos]

I make that all all the time. If the 35-1 shot is similar to the 2-1 shot, why not? I'll have to look at the race tonight, but was the lower odds horse a proven loser at the class?

More later....
They were not similar, Tom. One horse had run a sharp last race, finishing a close second...while the other had finished 7th beaten by double-digit lengths...while running in the SAME last race.

And nothing was mentioned about the lower-priced horse being a "proven loser" at the class level.

[thaskalos]

Traynor,

If one buys into the logic that NOTHING for sale has any value, then why would anyone ever read a book?

To extend that argument further, why should anyone listen to anyone else about anything?

If something purchased has no value, why would something given away have more value?

Why should anyone listen to you? After all, anything you might have to offer must have no value or else you would keep it to yourself.
Well...if you give someone something for FREE...then he can hardly accuse you of trying to take advantage of him.

[Tom]

They were not similar, Tom. One horse had run a sharp last race, finishing a close second...while the other had finished 7th beaten by double-digit lengths...while running in the SAME last race.

And nothing was mentioned about the lower-priced horse being a "proven loser" at the class level.

What I mean by similar is not based on the last race. I mean in term of basic class, fitness, ability.......horse go in an out of from all the time. If you play Finger Lakes, you will learn to call a good last race a negative!~:rolleyes:

What Jim is looking at is a sing that the horse has been energized by something in that race. Or another thing he looks for is speed, fade......then you want the horse who won who figures to improve off the poor race.

[antigeekess]

At the very beginning of the book, he lists a set of unique contender-selection rules that he employs in his method of play...and he gives credit to these selection rules for the inclusion of a horse who eventually won its race and paid $70 to win. This particular horse was beaten by double-digit lengths in its last race -- which was at the same class level as its subsequent winning race -- while finishing 7th, I believe. Now...I see nothing wrong with including a horse with a bad last race in our list of contenders; in fact...I do the very same thing quite often in my own handicapping. There is more to contender selection than just eyeballing the horse's last race.

But, in my review of Lehane's contender-selection rules -- and the PPs of the race that he provided -- I made a startling discovery. There were two other horses in the same field who had also run in the same last race as our $70 winner...and both these horses had run much more impressively than our $70 horse had run. One of these horses had finished a close second -- I believe -- after running close throughout...while the other had also run a solid race -- much better than the race that the $70 horse had run. Not surprisingly, both these horses had gone to the post at relatively short odds in their subsequent race...and here is the peculiar thing: both these impressive-looking horses were deemed non-contenders by Lehane's "unique" contender-selection rules, and were eliminated right at the start of the handicapping process...while the dull-looking $70 eventual winner was declared a serious win-contender -- and eventually became Lehane's pick in the race.

Now, I repeat -- lest I give the wrong impression: There is nothing wrong with betting on a horse who has run a bad last race...and there is nothing wrong with selecting a particular horse, over two other horses who had run much better races while all competing in the same last race. But I submit that you can't, in good conscience, eliminate the other two sharp horses from your list of contenders right at the beginning of the handicapping process...while you accept the horse who was soundly beaten in the same race.

How do you consider the second-place finisher of the last race as a non-contender...while accepting as a contender the horse who finished 7th by double-digit lengths, in the same race?

Well, I'm not that far into the book yet -- and should probably be reading it instead of messing around on here, actually -- but the first race covered in the edition I have is the 9th at Aqueduct (7f) on Friday, April 12, 2002. His pick's name and the eventual winner is #4 Romancer, who was 15-1 on the ML and paid $58.50, chosen due to a strong 3-length move on the turn in the previous 6f race on March 22. Romancer finished 8th by 9-1/2 lengths.

The second finisher in the March 22 race by half a length was this race's #1, Diablo's Caper. I would have thrown him out too because he was a speed horse that led until he got run down in the stretch in a 6f, and today we're going 7. (Also, Romancer had since had a bullet work, running best of 18 going 3f in :35.4, but I don't think this is mentioned as a factor.)

So I think we may be looking at different editions?

[thaskalos]

Well, I'm not that far into the book yet -- and should probably be reading it instead of messing around on here, actually -- but the first race covered in the edition I have is the 9th at Aqueduct (7f) on Friday, April 12, 2002. His pick's name and the eventual winner is #4 Romancer, who was 15-1 on the ML and paid $58.50, chosen due to a strong 3-length move on the turn in the previous 6f race on March 22. Romancer finished 8th by 9-1/2 lengths.

The second finisher in the March 22 race by half a length was this race's #1, Diablo's Caper. I would have thrown him out too because he was a speed horse that led until he got run down in the stretch in a 6f, and today we're going 7. (Also, Romancer had since had a bullet work, running best of 18 going 3f in :35.4, but I don't think this is mentioned as a factor.)

So I think we may be looking at different editions?
You say that YOU would have thrown out Diablo's Caper...for having gotten "run down" in a 6f race last out, while going 7f today. Is that the reason why LEHANE threw Diablo's Caper out?

[Maximillion]

They were not similar, Tom. One horse had run a sharp last race, finishing a close second...while the other had finished 7th beaten by double-digit lengths...while running in the SAME last race.

And nothing was mentioned about the lower-priced horse being a "proven loser" at the class level.

I thought there were some good ideas in the book,but I agree it was a strange example.

I think in most cases, going from 6th beaten 9 lengths to 7th beaten 6 lengths (on the turn) could hardly be construed as a move.The horse was dull plain and simple.

[thaskalos]

I thought there were some good ideas in the book,but I agree it was a strange example.

I think in most cases, going from 6th beaten 9 lengths to 7th beaten 6 lengths (on the turn) could hardly be construed as a move.The horse was dull plain and simple.
Exactly! Especially when the horse loses 3.5 lengths during the rest of the race...after making that "strong move".

We are going to call the speed horse who lost the race by only half a length a NON-CONTENDER...and toss him out right from the start...while accepting as a contender the horse who happened to gain three lengths during the middle stages of the race...while this horse was NO-WHERE near the lead when he made his move...and when he wasn't even able to sustain that move during the latter stages of the race?

Call BOTH horses contenders in the race...and then separate them later on in the handicapping process, when you put the horses under the microscope. Don't throw out the obviously better horse right from the start, because of some peculiar contender-selection rule...while keeping the dull horse as a serious contender in the race.

This isn't "handicapping"...IMO.

[Tom]

OK, I looked at the book again.
He states that he is explaining the red scan method, not full dress handicapping. And the horse was a quitter with more than a few races at the level. Now, I do not speak for Jim, but MOHO is that it was the kind of lower odds horse I would not touch for win betting. The winner had some positives - lightly races, second time in a MC, second race over the track, a bullet work, and the red scan move. That is what "angle" is all about - finding horses with hidden energized form at good value. Tied for second best Beyer in the field, showed early speed in the higher MSW class.........

I call that good handicapping.

[thaskalos]

OK, I looked at the book again.
He states that he is explaining the red scan method, not full dress handicapping. And the horse was a quitter with more than a few races at the level. Now, I do not speak for Jim, but MOHO is that it was the kind of lower odds horse I would not touch for win betting. The winner had some positives - lightly races, second time in a MC, second race over the track, a bullet work, and the red scan move. That is what "angle" is all about - finding horses with hidden energized form at good value. Tied for second best Beyer in the field, showed early speed in the higher MSW class.........

I call that good handicapping.

The horse who lost by half a length is a quitter, who should be eliminated from the very start...but the horse who lost 3.5 lengths in the late going of the SAME race, where he was no-where near the lead at any point...and who ended up finishing 8th by 10 lengths...is a legitimate contender -- and the eventual pick.

Ok, Tom...

[antigeekess]

You say that YOU would have thrown out Diablo's Caper...for having gotten "run down" in a 6f race last out, while going 7f today. Is that the reason why LEHANE threw Diablo's Caper out?

It doesn't look like he mentions Diablo's Caper at all. He doesn't fit the criteria set out in the "red scan qualifying technique." I think it's implied (if not stated outright) that he's using an unconventional method. Let's see... stuff that's "invisible to our competition." "Gains of 1 length or more on the turn and in the final furlong."

So no, that's not Diablo's Caper.

[antigeekess]

OK, I looked at the book again.
He states that he is explaining the red scan method, not full dress handicapping. And the horse was a quitter with more than a few races at the level. Now, I do not speak for Jim, but MOHO is that it was the kind of lower odds horse I would not touch for win betting. The winner had some positives - lightly races, second time in a MC, second race over the track, a bullet work, and the red scan move. That is what "angle" is all about - finding horses with hidden energized form at good value. Tied for second best Beyer in the field, showed early speed in the higher MSW class.........

I call that good handicapping.

It's definitely thinking outside the box, whether it works or not. Just about every multirace sequence has at least one crazy longshot winner that supposedly "nobody" could see coming. When I have time, I think I'll go back over some of those and see if they fit Lehane's profile.

[thaskalos]

It doesn't look like he mentions Diablo's Caper at all. He doesn't fit the criteria set out in the "red scan qualifying technique." I think it's implied (if not stated outright) that he's using an unconventional method. Let's see... stuff that's "invisible to our competition." "Gains of 1 length or more on the turn and in the final furlong[B]."

So no, that's not Diablo's Caper.

That pretty much eliminates all wire-to-wire winners -- or close finishers -- from any further consideration in subsequent races, right?

Great idea! :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

That pretty much eliminates all wire-to-wire winners -- or close finishers -- from any further consideration in subsequent races, right?

Great idea! :ThmbUp:

That would depend on the track. At many smaller tracks (as Tom indicated earlier) expecting a horse to run back to its last race, or to improve off its last race, is not useful. The only thing that can be guaranteed about such a performance is that it will be overbet.

The tendency of most bettors to overemphasize "current form" was the reasoning behind Sartin's continual admonitions to "find the most predictive paceline" rather than the obvious choice of the last race.

[Dave Schwartz]

Traynor,

Actually, Howard said that 80-90% of the time you should use one of the last two pacelines.

Note: This is not something I have ever agreed with.

[cj]

That pretty much eliminates all wire-to-wire winners -- or close finishers -- from any further consideration in subsequent races, right?

Great idea! :ThmbUp:

I'll have to dig the book out, but I don't think that is true at all.

[Ted Craven]

Traynor,

Actually, Howard said that 80-90% of the time you should use one of the last two pacelines.

Note: This is not something I have ever agreed with.

Dave, I know you keep saying that (mostly last 2 lines) and I don't doubt that earlier in his career he made this case. You yourself likely espoused things earlier in your career that you have subsequently evolved beyond.

I like to think I have studied Sartin's teachings from the beginning to the end of his work, and RDSS certainly represents that latter stage work. If anything could be said (as a 'headline') of what he came to teach re paceline selection, it's what I refer to as BLT/C - 'best of last 3 comparable distance and surface'. The 'comparable' part leaves some room for the individual analyst to interpret, but where possible it leaves you using sprint lines for sprint races, route lines for routes, Turf for Turf, etc. We have an automated lie selection routine which applies the rules consistently, so you can omit subjectivity if you want, or embellish it with consistent choices you make which the software does not.

Regardless - sometimes the comparable line (effort) is 4 races back (skip over recent different surface effort, different distance), but most often it is within the last 3, with the average being between 2 and 3 (all dependent on how you choose to use the software - nothing is forced, and there's LOTS of other ways to choose lines and rate the contenders). It's important to choose a 'comparable line' where possible, and to check if that line is duplicatable or aberrant. Of course, all the PP lines have been equalized and adjusted (DTV & ITV) to today's distance, to help compare apples to apples.

The above will be quite familiar to anyone who used Sartin's software in the late 1990's and early 2000's (Validator, Synthesis, etc), or who read the later Follow Ups.

Also FWIW, RDSS includes many of Jim Lehanes moves and markups (with Jim's kind permission). I don't defend or promote them, just use them when they seem appropriate or to help assess potential form, in concert with numerous other tools.

Ted

[thaskalos]

That would depend on the track. At many smaller tracks (as Tom indicated earlier) expecting a horse to run back to its last race, or to improve off its last race, is not useful. The only thing that can be guaranteed about such a performance is that it will be overbet.

The tendency of most bettors to overemphasize "current form" was the reasoning behind Sartin's continual admonitions to "find the most predictive paceline" rather than the obvious choice of the last race.

I don't expect a horse to run back to its last race...nor do I expect it to improve off it's last start. And I never embraced the early-Sartin approach...because I don't agree with the concept of using a single paceline to define a horse.

This is my point, in a nutshell...which is strictly my opinion, of course, and it could easily be wrong.

When a horse has run a sharp last race, under the same conditions as the conditions it is asked to face today...then the horse is a CONTENDER in today's race...and it cannot be cavalierly tossed aside at the very start of the handicapping process -- simply because it does not comply with some peculiar contender-selection rule that we have chosen to implement.

Now, don't get me wrong...there may be many reasons why this horse might indeed end up being someone whom we end up betting against...but that decision is best left for the latter stages of the handicapping process -- when the separation of the contenders and the eventual betting decision takes place.

When I make a peculiar demand of the horses before I select them as contenders in a race...like "a horse must gain two lengths in-between calls in his last start in order to be considered a contender in today's race"...then such a strict and uncompromising rule is sure to exclude some very sharp horses from my list of contenders -- and that's not what competent handicapping is supposed to be...IMO.

A contender is a CONTENDER...and it should take a valid reason to eventually eliminate him.

[Tom]

That pretty much eliminates all wire-to-wire winners -- or close finishers -- from any further consideration in subsequent races, right?

Great idea! :ThmbUp:

Now you're just being thick headed.
I see why you don't get much out anyone's books. :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

Now you're just being thick headed.
I see why you don't get much out anyone's books. :rolleyes:

You have Lehane's book, Tom.

Could you tell me what Lehane's reason was for excluding Diablo's Caper from his list of contenders in that example race?

I don't want to hear YOUR reasoning...I want to hear what LEHANE had to say.

[traynor]

Dave, I know you keep saying that (mostly last 2 lines) and I don't doubt that earlier in his career he made this case. You yourself likely espoused things earlier in your career that you have subsequently evolved beyond.

I like to think I have studied Sartin's teachings from the beginning to the end of his work, and RDSS certainly represents that latter stage work. If anything could be said (as a 'headline') of what he came to teach re paceline selection, it's what I refer to as BLT/C - 'best of last 3 comparable distance and surface'. The 'comparable' part leaves some room for the individual analyst to interpret, but where possible it leaves you using sprint lines for sprint races, route lines for routes, Turf for Turf, etc. We have an automated lie selection routine which applies the rules consistently, so you can omit subjectivity if you want, or embellish it with consistent choices you make which the software does not.

Regardless - sometimes the comparable line (effort) is 4 races back (skip over recent different surface effort, different distance), but most often it is within the last 3, with the average being between 2 and 3 (all dependent on how you choose to use the software - nothing is forced, and there's LOTS of other ways to choose lines and rate the contenders). It's important to choose a 'comparable line' where possible, and to check if that line is duplicatable or aberrant. Of course, all the PP lines have been equalized and adjusted (DTV & ITV) to today's distance, to help compare apples to apples.

The above will be quite familiar to anyone who used Sartin's software in the late 1990's and early 2000's (Validator, Synthesis, etc), or who read the later Follow Ups.

Also FWIW, RDSS includes many of Jim Lehanes moves and markups (with Jim's kind permission). I don't defend or promote them, just use them when they seem appropriate or to help assess potential form, in concert with numerous other tools.

Ted

Great explanation! Thanks.

[Dave Schwartz]

That is not as I recall it, but I was not around much after the Energy days.

[cj]

You have Lehane's book, Tom.

Could you tell me what Lehane's reason was for excluding Diablo's Caper from his list of contenders in that example race?

I don't want to hear YOUR reasoning...I want to hear what LEHANE had to say.

What is with this contender stuff anyway? A horse is worth a bet, or it isn't, right? They all have some chance to win.

[thaskalos]

What is with this contender stuff anyway? A horse is worth a bet, or it isn't, right? They all have some chance to win.
Are you asking me to explain what a "contender" is?

[Tom]

You have Lehane's book, Tom.

Could you tell me what Lehane's reason was for excluding Diablo's Caper from his list of contenders in that example race?

I don't want to hear YOUR reasoning...I want to hear what LEHANE had to say.
Then read the book - he explained it right there. He laid out his conditions for including horses - that one did not meet them. What more do want?

[Cheap Speed]

Fwiw I looked at the book. His method of choosing contenders is horses that made a move of 1 length on turn or final furlong in last two races. Diablo's didnt do that so he didnt make contender list. Pretty sure if a horse was on lead and improved lead by 1 L on turn of final F they would be given a red scan mark and considered a contender.

[Maximillion]

If the red-scan is what is used to Identify your contenders (the horses you would consider betting on), In my humble opinion your method is bad.

[cj]

Are you asking me to explain what a "contender" is?

Sure, why not? For me, I see too much separation between "contender selection" and "bet selection". I like to do it all together as one process, not two.

[antigeekess]

That pretty much eliminates all wire-to-wire winners -- or close finishers -- from any further consideration in subsequent races, right?

Great idea! :ThmbUp:

Well no, not if that leader/winner really opened up on the rest of the field at some point just for grins. But if the objective is to find decent odds, you probably wouldn't want him next time out. Lehane's just looking for value and subtle indications of a possible winner and hopefully a longshot, which as we all know is what make those multirace payoffs skyrocket.

[classhandicapper]

I don't like the idea of even trying to pick a single running line to use. I think of horses kind of like I think of other athletes. They have a range of performances around a certain level and are typically moving either forward or backward in form.

For example, some 200 bowler might have days where he averages 225 and others where he averages 175 over several games. The idea is not to find a representative single game, it's to figure out he's a 200 bowler.

If he's 50 years old and he used to average 210, I'd want to know that.

If he's 21 and averaged 175 last year, I'd want to know that.

If he just switched coaches and improved sharply, I'd want to know that.

If he's not as good on oily conditions I'd want to know that.

What I'm saying is that each horse's PPs are kind of like a short story to read and interpret to figure out where this horse is now (average) and where he's going. You can almost never know how good a horse is off 1 race.

[Capper Al]

I don't like the idea of even trying to pick a single running line to use. I think of horses kind of like I think of other athletes. They have a range of performances around a certain level and are typically moving either forward or backward in form.

For example, some 200 bowler might have days where he averages 225 and others where he averages 175 over several games. The idea is not to find a representative single game, it's to figure out he's a 200 bowler.

If he's 50 years old and he used to average 210, I'd want to know that.

If he's 21 and averaged 175 last year, I'd want to know that.

If he just switched coaches and improved sharply, I'd want to know that.

If he's not as good on oily conditions I'd want to know that.

What I'm saying is that each horse's PPs are kind of like a short story to read and interpret to figure out where this horse is now (average) and where he's going. You can almost never know how good a horse is off 1 race.

Agree. Even applying averages, one never know if the horse or bowler is going to perform over average or under average.

[thaskalos]

Sure, why not? For me, I see too much separation between "contender selection" and "bet selection". I like to do it all together as one process, not two.

It all depends on what kind of bet you are looking to make, Cj.

The player who is interested in making a win-bet may indeed be able to do it all as "one process". But the player who is looking to make a vertical exotics bet is faced with the challenge of having to somehow separate the contenders, so he can properly structure his wagers.

[cj]

It all depends on what kind of bet you are looking to make, Cj.

The player who is interested in making a win-bet may indeed be able to do it all as "one process". But the player who is looking to make a vertical exotics bet is faced with the challenge of having to somehow separate the contenders, so he can properly structure his wagers.

I won't argue with that much, other than to say a "contender" list should be different for each spot in vertical bets. One "all encompassing" contender list for all positions is not the way I think one should go.

And, in the end, the book you mention where you brought this up wasn't talking about trifectas, right? (I could be wrong about that)

[thaskalos]

I won't argue with that much, other than to say a "contender" list should be different for each spot in vertical bets. One "all encompassing" contender list for all positions is not the way I think one should go.

And, in the end, the book you mention where you brought this up wasn't talking about trifectas, right? (I could be wrong about that)

Where did I say that the contenders should all be the same in every spot of the vertical bets? It was you who stated that you thought all this "contender talk" was excessive...and that you like to make the contender and the wagering decisions in one step. And I presented a case where doing that would be pretty difficult to accomplish...that's all. The fact that the contenders would vary depending on the particular leg of the vertical wager is a given...and every player fully realizes that.

And, in the end, do you HAVE the book I mentioned?

If you do...then take a look at the very first example race that is featured in the book...and tell me if you agree with the author's pre-race analysis.

Tell me if you consider his "contender-selection" method to be a sound one...and if his pick in the race (which paid $60) is a play that you would ever consider making.

I find major faults with the man's handicapping philosophy...and I decided to comment on the matter.

Have I done something wrong?

[cj]

Where did I say that the contenders should all be the same in every spot of the vertical bets? It was you who stated that you thought all this "contender talk" was excessive...and that you like to make the contender and the wagering decisions in one step. And I presented a case where doing that would be pretty difficult to accomplish...that's all. The fact that the contenders would vary depending on the particular leg of the vertical wager is a given...and every player fully realizes that.

I guess I got caught by the thread detouring. I assumed the original post about the book was for "win" contenders. I didn't see any mention of vertical bets, just a win price. Am I wrong there?

The fact that the contenders would vary depending on the particular leg of the vertical wager is a given...and every player fully realizes that.

Every player? Really? You must hang out with a much smarter crowd than the majority I've seen betting over the last 30 years. Because the majority of the ones I see do not make this kind of distinction.

And, in the end, do you HAVE the book I mentioned?

If you do...then take a look at the very first example race that is featured in the book...and tell me if you agree with the author's pre-race analysis.

Tell me if you consider his "contender-selection" method to be a sound one...and if his pick in the race (which paid $60) is a play that you would ever consider making.

I find major faults with the man's handicapping philosophy...and I decided to comment on the matter.

Have I done something wrong?

I have the book, it was given to me by the author, but I'm not digging it out on Thanksgiving weekend. It really doesn't matter if I think it is sound or not. What matters is if it works, long term, over a large sample of races. Just as the 5% scratch thing was totally debunked, this could be tested, obviously with a little more work.

I personally doubt the "red scan" method alone would lead to profits. But I don't know that for a fact. I haven't tested it. It is certainly possible that it would have a low percentage/+ROI combination. Almost every combination of factors that I have ever found to be profitable do so that way...low win percentage because they toss low priced horses, but a positive ROI.


Have I done something wrong?

Of course not. Are we not having a discussion about handicapping? Did I write something that makes you think I was offended somehow? Gotta be honest, I just re-read what I've posted, and I don't have the slightest idea why you asked the above question.

[Tom]

My last words on this dead-horse.
The red-scan is a tool. Not a betting decision.
As with Jim's other angles, I use it as sign of hidden fitness. In this case, I did not play the race, but if I had, it would have been the reason for me to go back in his record. In other words, It looked like he was in better form than his last races appears on paper.

[cj]

I guess I'm never getting an answer as to why that question was asked of me, "Did I do something wrong?"

So, I'll move on. I dug out the book, and the red scan method is the first part of a five part contender selection procedure. He then does give an example using ONLY the red scan technique, but not before mentioning it is only part of his process.

Now, it was mentioned that a horse was dismissed off of a close finish the time prior in the same race as the winner. Was this horse a true contender? I don't know, because this is where I meld betting value and ability into one process. The horse mentioned was an 0-10 maiden, beaten favorite in 2 of his last 3, and had led 5 times after 1/4, 4 times after 1/2, and twice at the stretch call...and he is still a maiden.

This is exactly the type of horse I dismiss too, even if it has nothing to do with the red scan method. I, of course, realize these types win now and then, but I also know throwing them out is a net positive long term.

Would this horse have been a contender using the other "moves" defined in the book? I'll be honest, I only skimmed over them, and I don't think the horse would have been. I could be wrong. But not meeting the red scan method was not an automatic elimination.

I wish I could post more specifics, but I'm not going to give away the info for free as I think the book is still for sale. If I find out differently, I'll add more. It looks to me like all of the stuff in the book could be easily programmed for anyone so inclined.

[Bullet Plane]

I've admired Jim Lehane's book for a long time. There is no formula in the method. You must consider speed figures, moves, par times, races shapes, and value. Basically, the same methods anyone who handicaps uses, but with a few of his unique insights.

The man is quite an expert in my opinion. I've been playing the horses for over 20 years.
Lots of good ideas. I think his main idea is Value.

Picking the horse who last ran second, running at short odds, is what the crowd is doing. You will lose your money that way.

I think thaskalos is gun shy of any and all books, etc. on the subject. Perhaps he is just trying to generate a discussion. Or maybe he got burned with some of the mail systems. Not quite sure...

I do agree that no matter what tools that you use, be it TimeformUS, Beyers, Sheets, Pizzola, or Jim Lehance... that it basically boils down to gut instinct.

Having a sense of what horses will be overbet, and may be extremely vulnerable. And also a sense of what horses may have an outstanding shot, but will go off at a reasonable price.

Being able to assign "value" to a horse in a race...

I "know" when I come up with an outstanding play. It doesn't happen very often.

The main struggle is always to avoid playing the races where you have no real insight. Which will probably be around 99% of the ones I handicap.

[aaron]

I've admired Jim Lehane's book for a long time. There is no formula in the method. You must consider speed figures, moves, par times, races shapes, and value. Basically, the same methods anyone who handicaps uses, but with a few of his unique insights.

The man is quite an expert in my opinion. I've been playing the horses for over 20 years.
Lots of good ideas. I think his main idea is Value.

Picking the horse who last ran second, running at short odds, is what the crowd is doing. You will lose your money that way.

I think thaskalos is gun shy of any and all books, etc. on the subject. Perhaps he is just trying to generate a discussion. Or maybe he got burned with some of the mail systems. Not quite sure...

I do agree that no matter what tools that you use, be it TimeformUS, Beyers, Sheets, Pizzola, or Jim Lehance... that it basically boils down to gut instinct.

Having a sense of what horses will be overbet, and may be extremely vulnerable. And also a sense of what horses may have an outstanding shot, but will go off at a reasonable price.

Being able to assign "value" to a horse in a race...

I "know" when I come up with an outstanding play. It doesn't happen very often.

The main struggle is always to avoid playing the races where you have no real insight. Which will probably be around 99% of the ones I handicap.
I think the key is is what you said-it boils down to gut instinct. I would say that you have to know horses and sometimes be able to just know what is a good bet.I believe,that many players,no matter what they are using as their main tool have become winning players because of this. I have seen players not be able to explain how they knew a horse was a good bet,but with their overall knowledge they knew,even though there is not one thing they could point to.

[highnote]

I attended the Expo in Vegas in 1994. Everybody was there -- Sartin, Beyer, Dick Mitchell, Quinn, Cramer, Brohammer, Steve Roman. It was great for me because I was new to the game.

Nick Mordin and I put on a Breeders' Cup seminar in 1997 near Hollywood Park. We had some good speakers -- Dr. Z, Steve Unite, a clocker friend of Steve's and professional from Vegas who was an associate of Cary Fotias. Plus Nick spoke. I think I have videotapes of that somewhere.

When I was with HANA we must have discussed putting on an Expo. I know I brought up the idea of a Horseplayer Hall of Fame induction ceremony. A Handicapping Expo would be the perfect time and place to induct members into a Hall of Fame.

If HANA would help, I would volunteer my time to stage the event. I would guess you could charge $300 or more per head. The hotel would probably offer discounted rooms. I'd be happy to help videotape the events and make the videos available for sale on the HANA website. Proceeds could benefit HANA and maybe 10% of the proceeds could go to retired racehorses.

Given that all the proceeds would go to non-profits some well-known speakers might be willing to donate their time to speak. Plus the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony could be a fantastic event.

What say you, HANA Board Members?

[Stillriledup]

I attended the Expo in Vegas in 1994. Everybody was there -- Sartin, Beyer, Dick Mitchell, Quinn, Cramer, Brohammer, Steve Roman. It was great for me because I was new to the game.

Nick Mordin and I put on a Breeders' Cup seminar in 1997 near Hollywood Park. We had some good speakers -- Dr. Z, Steve Unite, a clocker friend of Steve's and professional from Vegas who was an associate of Cary Fotias. Plus Nick spoke. I think I have videotapes of that somewhere.

When I was with HANA we must have discussed putting on an Expo. I know I brought up the idea of a Horseplayer Hall of Fame induction ceremony. A Handicapping Expo would be the perfect time and place to induct members into a Hall of Fame.

If HANA would help, I would volunteer my time to stage the event. I would guess you could charge $300 or more per head. The hotel would probably offer discounted rooms. I'd be happy to help videotape the events and make the videos available for sale on the HANA website. Proceeds could benefit HANA and maybe 10% of the proceeds could go to retired racehorses.

Given that all the proceeds would go to non-profits some well-known speakers might be willing to donate their time to speak. Plus the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony could be a fantastic event.

What say you, HANA Board Members?

Here's a long thread on horseplayers HOF.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74078&highlight=bettors+hall+fame

[highnote]

Here's a long thread on horseplayers HOF.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74078&highlight=bettors+hall+fame


I see I posted in that thread back in 2010 -- #33.

Guess I won't hold my breath for HANA to take the bull by the horns. :D

Maybe Paceadvantage.com would be willing to sponsor an Expo. The key is NOT to lose money. So you would need to try to collect fees up front to cover most of the costs. The rest you would make from the last minute attendees -- hopefully!

[antigeekess]

I attended the Expo in Vegas in 1994. Everybody was there -- Sartin, Beyer, Dick Mitchell, Quinn, Cramer, Brohammer, Steve Roman. It was great for me because I was new to the game.

Nick Mordin and I put on a Breeders' Cup seminar in 1997 near Hollywood Park. We had some good speakers -- Dr. Z, Steve Unite, a clocker friend of Steve's and professional from Vegas who was an associate of Cary Fotias. Plus Nick spoke. I think I have videotapes of that somewhere.

When I was with HANA we must have discussed putting on an Expo. I know I brought up the idea of a Horseplayer Hall of Fame induction ceremony. A Handicapping Expo would be the perfect time and place to induct members into a Hall of Fame.

Do most horseplayers want fame? Why? Haven't they seen "The Life of Brian?" I mean, I would think the only people who would want fame less would be card counters. ;)

If HANA would help, I would volunteer my time to stage the event. I would guess you could charge $300 or more per head. The hotel would probably offer discounted rooms. I'd be happy to help videotape the events and make the videos available for sale on the HANA website. Proceeds could benefit HANA and maybe 10% of the proceeds could go to retired racehorses.

:jump: Always said when/if I hit that big one, 10% goes back to the horses, so I like your thinking. :jump:

Given that all the proceeds would go to non-profits some well-known speakers might be willing to donate their time to speak. Plus the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony could be a fantastic event.

What say you, HANA Board Members?

Come on now, don't be hard-hearted, HANA...

[highnote]

Do most horseplayers want fame? Why? Haven't they seen "The Life of Brian?" I mean, I would think the only people who would want fame less would be card counters. ;)



Bill Benter, Andy Beyer, James Quinn, Mark Cramer, Dr. Z., etc., are already well-known and have published a lot of useful resources.

Dick Mitchell, Howard Sartin, Cary Fotias and Pittsburgh Phil are deceased. So probably no problem there.

That's a pretty good ballot of first-time nominees.

I'm sure I'm leaving off a lot of names. That's why horseplayers need their own HOF.

I think it would be great to have a website with the biographies of all the HOF members and also downloadable documents of some of their work.

[antigeekess]

I think it would be great to have a website with the biographies of all the HOF members and also downloadable documents of some of their work.

So get busy, already. That little project shouldn't take long, right? ;)

[thaskalos]

Bill Benter, Andy Beyer, James Quinn, Mark Cramer, Dr. Z., etc., are already well-known and have published a lot of useful resources.

Dick Mitchell, Howard Sartin, Cary Fotias and Pittsburgh Phil are deceased. So probably no problem there.

That's a pretty good ballot of first-time nominees.

I'm sure I'm leaving off a lot of names. That's why horseplayers need their own HOF.

I think it would be great to have a website with the biographies of all the HOF members and also downloadable documents of some of their work.

No Tom Ainslie...the "Dean of American handicappers"?

Major oversight...IMO.

[Dave Schwartz]

... I have decided to try to make this happen.

Lots of details to work out, but (basically) this is what the plan is:

1. We (I have a partner) will gather presenters from people who have something to say.

2. We will work with them to produce a high quality 30, 60 or 90 minute visual presentation.

3. These presentations will be made available for viewing online or downloaded at very low cost, either individually or as a package.

4. The presenters will be compensated in direct proportion to the revenue received.

5. Anyone who wishes to produce a presentation needs to contact me via email for more specifics (of which there aren't many yet).

6. All presenters must serve the common goal which is to produce something the handicapper can use without purchasing a 3rd-party product. The only exception to this is that a presentation may use a 3rd party product (such as DRF, BRIS reports, etc.) providing the presentation is geared towards using multiple products.

In other words, if you want to do a presentation about how to use a particular BRIS report, that is fine, providing the presentation is generic enough that a similar report could be found elsewhere.

There will be no "Buy my stuff because it is so great" or "this is how you use my stuff" presentations.

7. There will be "back of the room sales" available for vendors via "sales presentation" demos. Any products sold via the "back of the room" will come with a 30-day, no questions asked, full money-back guarantee.

Anyone wishing to do a "sales" presentation may do so, but the resulting presentation will be labeled as such and no money will be charged for the presentation nor revenues paid.

The idea for a vendor would be to produce a presentation that helps the handicapper without being about their own product. Then the vendor could produce a second presentation which would be a sales demo.



I am hoping this can get some traction. Target date for release is April 4th, 2014.


Special Notes: If you are considering a presentation but are not sure how to get it started (or finished), let it be known that we will be available to help you with the actual production. This includes everything from storyboard advice to the actual production of the video. There will be NO CHARGE for these services!

I welcome all of my competitors in the horse racing market to contact me to discuss this. We are totally committed to the following:


Producing a positive experience for the handicapper.
Producing a positive experience for the vendor.



I welcome comments, opinions, questions or suggestions on this topic.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

Thanks for running with the ball, Dave! Good luck!!

You might also consider having vendors rent tables in a ball room where they can demo their products and talk to customers. That is what they did at the 1994 Expo and is where I got to meet Dick Mitchell. We developed a nice relationship as a result.

There was also an awards banquet. It was a very nice meal and Tom Ainslie was the keynote speaker.

The banquet cost extra. You could make it a Hall of Fame Awards banquet.

I'm sure you can get a lot of people to volunteer to help.

John

[Dave Schwartz]

Let me make this clear: This will be a totally online experience. The cost of doing in-person is just too prohibitive.

The cost for putting on such an event starts with a COMMITMENT OF around $75,000. I simply cannot do that.

In addition, the cost to the attendees winds up being around $500-$600 per person, not counting travel, hotel, time off from work, etc.

This will be a an online event, with the presentations recorded ahead of time. However, many of the presenters will also be part of online panels, taking questions live and giving responses.

My intention is to keep the cost of the presentations to the end users at not much more than the cost of a couple of movie tickets (or less).

If this thing is to work, it will do so because enough people came forward as presenters and the resulting presentations are good enough for the public to get something from it.

We need 25-30 presentations. Absolute minimum would be about 15 or so.

BTW, when I said, "Video" I do not mean shot with a live camera. I mean audio with presentation materials. It could actually be an audio presentation that follows a PDF of screens. However, I would likely produce that ultimately as a video.

[highnote]

That's a good approach and you should be able to find enough interested horseplayers to make it worthwhile.

I hope you can get some good names to sign on!

Good luck!



Let me make this clear: This will be a totally online experience. The cost of doing in-person is just too prohibitive.

The cost for putting on such an event starts with a COMMITMENT OF around $75,000. I simply cannot do that.

In addition, the cost to the attendees winds up being around $500-$600 per person, not counting travel, hotel, time off from work, etc.

This will be a an online event, with the presentations recorded ahead of time. However, many of the presenters will also be part of online panels, taking questions live and giving responses.

My intention is to keep the cost of the presentations to the end users at not much more than the cost of a couple of movie tickets (or less).

If this thing is to work, it will do so because enough people came forward as presenters and the resulting presentations are good enough for the public to get something from it.

We need 25-30 presentations. Absolute minimum would be about 15 or so.

BTW, when I said, "Video" I do not mean shot with a live camera. I mean audio with presentation materials. It could actually be an audio presentation that follows a PDF of screens. However, I would likely produce that ultimately as a video.

[infrontby1]

I attended the Expo in Vegas in 1994. Everybody was there -- Sartin, Beyer, Dick Mitchell, Quinn, Cramer, Brohammer, Steve Roman. It was great for me because I was new to the game.

Nick Mordin and I put on a Breeders' Cup seminar in 1997 near Hollywood Park. We had some good speakers -- Dr. Z, Steve Unite, a clocker friend of Steve's and professional from Vegas who was an associate of Cary Fotias. Plus Nick spoke. I think I have videotapes of that somewhere.

When I was with HANA we must have discussed putting on an Expo. I know I brought up the idea of a Horseplayer Hall of Fame induction ceremony. A Handicapping Expo would be the perfect time and place to induct members into a Hall of Fame.

If HANA would help, I would volunteer my time to stage the event. I would guess you could charge $300 or more per head. The hotel would probably offer discounted rooms. I'd be happy to help videotape the events and make the videos available for sale on the HANA website. Proceeds could benefit HANA and maybe 10% of the proceeds could go to retired racehorses.

Given that all the proceeds would go to non-profits some well-known speakers might be willing to donate their time to speak. Plus the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony could be a fantastic event.

What say you, HANA Board Members?
Was that the expo where Beyer, Ragozin and Brown duked it out showing who made the superior figures and when Beyer talked about the super feed trainers? (i.e. Mark Shuman's horse broke down and put the sleep only to have the veterinarian see it the next day with only three legs)

[Longshot6977]

... I have decided to try to make this happen.

Lots of details to work out, but (basically) this is what the plan is:

1. We (I have a partner) will gather presenters from people who have something to say.

2. We will work with them to produce a high quality 30, 60 or 90 minute visual presentation.

3. These presentations will be made available for viewing online or downloaded at very low cost, either individually or as a package.

4. The presenters will be compensated in direct proportion to the revenue received.

5. Anyone who wishes to produce a presentation needs to contact me via email for more specifics (of which there aren't many yet).

6. All presenters must serve the common goal which is to produce something the handicapper can use without purchasing a 3rd-party product. The only exception to this is that a presentation may use a 3rd party product (such as DRF, BRIS reports, etc.) providing the presentation is geared towards using multiple products.

In other words, if you want to do a presentation about how to use a particular BRIS report, that is fine, providing the presentation is generic enough that a similar report could be found elsewhere.

There will be no "Buy my stuff because it is so great" or "this is how you use my stuff" presentations.

7. There will be "back of the room sales" available for vendors via "sales presentation" demos. Any products sold via the "back of the room" will come with a 30-day, no questions asked, full money-back guarantee.

Anyone wishing to do a "sales" presentation may do so, but the resulting presentation will be labeled as such and no money will be charged for the presentation nor revenues paid.

The idea for a vendor would be to produce a presentation that helps the handicapper without being about their own product. Then the vendor could produce a second presentation which would be a sales demo.



I am hoping this can get some traction. Target date for release is April 4th, 2014.


Special Notes: If you are considering a presentation but are not sure how to get it started (or finished), let it be known that we will be available to help you with the actual production. This includes everything from storyboard advice to the actual production of the video. There will be NO CHARGE for these services!

I welcome all of my competitors in the horse racing market to contact me to discuss this. We are totally committed to the following:

Producing a positive experience for the handicapper.
Producing a positive experience for the vendor.


I welcome comments, opinions, questions or suggestions on this topic.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

As the OP of this thread, I'd like to thank you in advance for stepping up and putting forth all the anticipated efforts this will most likely require. Keeping it all online is great. I hope you succeed in getting all the presentations you need. All the groundwork rules look good. Best of luck. Can't wait until April arrives.:)