Trip Handicapping

[Smarty Cide]

can someone explain trip handicapping? What is someone looking for in the PP's to trip handicap?

[horses4courses]

The trip handicapper's biggest friend.

Hours of close scrutiny in an attempt to uncover information not found in PPs.

[Smarty Cide]

what about pace handicapping? what are you looking for in the pp's then?

[PhantomOnTour]

can someone explain trip handicapping? What is someone looking for in the PP's to trip handicap?
Basically, trip handicappers are looking for one of two things:
> horses with an easy trip they wish to bet against next time
> horses with a tough trip they wish to bet on next time

So what's an easy or a tough trip?

EASY: this can be a few things...
> alone on the lead thru soft fractions (the easiest trip of all)
> a perfect rail run from off the pace (a rare trip)
> a closer that sat behind a brutal 2 or 3 or 4 way pace war and simply waltzed by the tired runners

TOUGH: this can be many things because horses can find trouble anywhere
> left at the gate, lunged at start, etc... (terrible start-spotted the field many lengths)
> travelling wide (not always bad, but generally is)
> being checked or having progress halted
> dueling thru fast splits with 1,2 or more runners
...and on and on and on.

Easy trips are generally easy to recognize, but not always a tough trip (and certainly not by just looking at pp's).
The best trip handicappers aren't looking for the obvious bad trip (like being left at the gate or checking severely) because everyone has seen it. They focus on the subtle complications...stuff like a jockey not putting a willing runner in the right spot during a race, thereby stifling his move and causing defeat.
You can't find these subtle complications in the pp's - as the above poster said:
You have to watch replays (they are readily available on the net and are FREE).

[Clocker]

can someone explain trip handicapping? What is someone looking for in the PP's to trip handicap?

Trip handicapping is not about PPs, it is looking at video replays of the races to see if the horse had problems, if the horse was advantaged or disadvantage by the way the race was run, etc.

Start here. (http://www.americasbestracing.net/en/the-latest/blogs/2012/08/24/basics-of-trip-handicapping/)

[dnlgfnk]

After devoting 30-odd years of my handicapping life agreeing with all of the above, for the past few years I would now disagree for 2 reasons.

1) After seeing visible proof (in a printout published by, I think, Jeff P.) of the public's skill in selecting not only the highest pct. of winners race in-race out, but whose choices win in almost exact correspondence to their odds, down to the smallest increments (i.e., 8-5 =31.3%; 9-5 =28.8%; 2-1 = 25.8%; 9-2 =14.1%; 5-1 =12.3%, etc.).

2) They accomplish this using obvious data.

It is more the interpretation of the same data, whereby one can glean trip insights from published data. However, like any specialized approach, it must be undertaken within the boundaries of the game's percentages. That's the part I didn't get for a long time. If a 7-5 favorite is objectively going to lose 67% of time, I can confidently view his sexy speed figure(s) and finish as the product of an easy trip, while identifying what will potentially be more difficult for him today. Sometimes I can't make a case against him, based upon the competition, pace scenario, post position, etc. But often I can.

Yet, within the next group in the field consisting of, say, 3 horses whose collective percentages win the race over 50% of the time, I am less willing to downgrade their performances, while likely finding at least one of them I can also confidently downgrade, often the one with the better last race figure (the bigger the fig, the easier the trip, presumably--of course there must be reasonable explanatory factors).

Some of the obvious data that consistently represent what I used to see visually? Negatively, a succession of inside posts and trips with modestly better finishes or a narrow win(s), while drawing wide or widest today. Conversely, strong (or impossible) outside efforts while drawing the rail today. The worst last race speed figure among that 50%+ group (= objectively most difficult trip). Negatively, a better fig but greater lengths behind the winner (= "unearned", "outrun" fig. that was established by the leading horse at each call). Beaten lengths between two frontrunners who both weaken- the one may outfinish the other by more lengths than the winner vs. the runnerup--indicating "visually" subtle impressive speed otherwise disguised by his finish...and so on.

The possibilities are endless, but I would suggest to Smarty Cide that, even if he attempts this visually, the visual perceptions must be seen in the context of the game's percentages.

[LottaKash]

can someone explain trip handicapping? What is someone looking for in the PP's to trip handicap?

Trip handicapping to me is watching the race as it is run, and then the replays again if possible, while trying to detect whether the horses that had the best chances to win to begin with, had a troubled or ez trip, being able to do, or not able to do, what it does best in order to win a race....

I have watched many newbies and inexperienced players, watch a troubled horse as if, if it didn't have that trouble, it would have or may have won that race, despite that his original ability to do so was against it from the beginning....

A troubled contender may be a very good playback in another race scenario, especially if well spotted, and offering good value too, in the next outing or so..But not necessarily a horse that was never well meant to begin with...

[Robert Goren]

Trip handicapping is very tricky and it has a very long learning curve. If a person spends a lot time checking out what really hurts a runner and the runner shows improvement next out. You need to keep very good records as to exactly what happened and how the horse ran next out. Quite often something looks bad but really did not hurt the runner that much. You need to figure those instances out. Trip handicapping requires the patience of Job to learn well. I gave up after 6 months. I figured during those 6 months I learned about 10% of what I need to know and about 1% of what I could learn. Good luck to anyone who attempts to master it. If you succeed, you are a better man than me.

[Leparoux]

It is ALL about race replays. Be leery of the "comments" at the far right of PPs. Those can be misleading or just flat out wrong when compared to video.

[thaskalos]

IMO...trip handicapping must be augmented by a thorough analysis of pace if it's to be effective.

There is a world of difference between a horse making a 5-wide move as the leaders are tiring from their prior efforts...and one that tries to make a 5-wide move into the hottest part of the pace.

[cj]

Most underrated part of trip handicapping, in my opinion, is the start. A lot horses lose races before going even 30 feet. It doesn't take much to get out of position and shuffled.

[Robert Fischer]

Trip Handicapping is about going to the source to look for attributes that are unaccounted for in the abstracted data.

[traynor]

Trip Handicapping is about going to the source to look for attributes that are unaccounted for in the abstracted data.

Great description. The source is the actual, physical race, including appearance and behavior in the paddock, post parade, and warmup. Race replays are good supplements, but should not be considered a substitute for watching the entire race live.

I have never met, heard about, or read about any serious trip handicapper that limited his or her observations to race replays. Some might say the most profitable opportunities in trip handicapping derive from the events missed by the camera (and therefore unknown to the bettors who believe they are "trip handicapping" by watching videos).

[pondman]

After reviewing stewards minutes, I've come to the conclusion that many of these jockeys are really nasty and will do what it takes to shut another horse down. So if for example an inexperience rider is in the 1 hole, and M Pedroza is in the 2 hole, the horse won't run from the 1 hole. It will have a bad trip. At SA they get rough. You won't be able to see this in the PP. You have to watch the tapes. There are many things to watch, including whether a whip is thrown into the face of a horse in the stretch. I look for a horse that is moving without a noticeable signal. At the high end of racing the riders are able to do this-- make a horse run without a signal. They'll just take off. I also look for horses who are willing to run inside. They have a distinct advantage in large fields.

[traynor]

After reviewing stewards minutes, I've come to the conclusion that many of these jockeys are really nasty and will do what it takes to shut another horse down. So if for example an inexperience rider is in the 1 hole, and M Pedroza is in the 2 hole, the horse won't run from the 1 hole. It will have a bad trip. At SA they get rough. You won't be able to see this in the PP. You have to watch the tapes. There are many things to watch, including whether a whip is thrown into the face of a horse in the stretch. I look for a horse that is moving without a noticeable signal. At the high end of racing the riders are able to do this-- make a horse run without a signal. They'll just take off. I also look for horses who are willing to run inside. They have a distinct advantage in large fields.

Sounds like a description of Vicky Aragon's ill-fated "season" in SoCal. I don't think anyone who witnessed it could ever look at jockeys the same way again.

[EMD4ME]

Great description. The source is the actual, physical race, including appearance and behavior in the paddock, post parade, and warmup. Race replays are good supplements, but should not be considered a substitute for watching the entire race live.

I have never met, heard about, or read about any serious trip handicapper that limited his or her observations to race replays. Some might say the most profitable opportunities in trip handicapping derive from the events missed by the camera (and therefore unknown to the bettors who believe they are "trip handicapping" by watching videos).

Unfortunately, I miss the days of sitting on the 3rd floor at Aqueduct for those reasons. Plus, NYRA refuses to show gallop outs on replays. I used to mark a lot of good and bad gallop outs watching races live. To top it off, the grandstand will be shuttered at Belmont now. Thanks to NYRA, live racing does not exist. Everyone is a simulcast player now :bang:

[Tom]

What reason do they have for not showing the gallop outs?
Seems like something that would make sense to show.

[EMD4ME]

What reason do they have for not showing the gallop outs?
Seems like something that would make sense to show.

I don't know. Only thing I can guess is they just don't give a (dog poo poo). The horses hit the wire and all nyra shows is a zoom in on a pimple of the winning horse's nose for .7 seconds. Not enough time and not enough of a view of the field as they gallop out. To top it off, if you watch the head on, they cut the replay as the winner hits the wire.

Total Az Holes

[EMD4ME]

Frustrating part is, years ago, NYRA had excellent gallop out replays.... very annoying

[ultracapper]

Great description. The source is the actual, physical race, including appearance and behavior in the paddock, post parade, and warmup. Race replays are good supplements, but should not be considered a substitute for watching the entire race live.

I have never met, heard about, or read about any serious trip handicapper that limited his or her observations to race replays. Some might say the most profitable opportunities in trip handicapping derive from the events missed by the camera (and therefore unknown to the bettors who believe they are "trip handicapping" by watching videos).

I don't know if I'm considered a trip handicapper or not, and don't care, but I won't put more than $3 or $4 on a race if I haven't watched, at minimum, the replay of each horse's last race. I have been finding all my serious bets for years now leaning heavily on what I see in the replays. I don't even open the form until I've seen at minimum each horse's last race, and then after looking through the form, I look at more replays of pertinent races in each horse's PPs.

Living in Seattle, I haven't seen a live race in probably 3 or 4 years now. Emerald Downs, after experiencing Longacres, just doesn't cut it in any way. I have been much, much more successful since I started this handicapping process, and I don't feel I'm missing anything, as far as handicapping goes, by not seeing live races. I've played only SoCal for the past 14 years (except for a little goofing off at EMD now and then years ago), and other than a week at Del Mar last summer, I've never seen live racing in Southern California.

I'm not going to blah blah you all with my financials of the past 3 or 4 years, but I will say it's been a hell of a long time since I've had to make a deposit in my TVG account. I'm able to keep a cash flow going without viewing live races while relying heavily on race replays.

As to the poster that said this takes a long time to learn, he nailed that square on the head. I've viewed literally 5,000 to 8,000 race replays per year over the past 14 years, and it was truly only about 4 or 5 years ago when I started feeling real confident about what I was seeing and truly understanding the importance of it. I know, almost instinctively now, when I see something significant in a race replay. But man, I have put in my time. I always justified it by looking at the handle each day at the SoCal track I was playing, and saying to myself, "if I could only get 0.xxx% of that handle each day, it would make this more worthwhile than any investment or employment opportunity I've ever had".

This is a horrible thing to say considering the state of this sport that I love so much, but to be successful, you don't need to experience live racing at all. But always remember, the race is run on the track, not on paper. I am living proof that you just can't, or at least I can't, get a true picture of what the horses did on the track, unless you see it. A 3/4 of a mile race, and all you get are 4 measly points of call. In my opinion, that tells you very little.

[ultracapper]

I don't know. Only thing I can guess is they just don't give a (dog poo poo). The horses hit the wire and all nyra shows is a zoom in on a pimple of the winning horse's nose for .7 seconds. Not enough time and not enough of a view of the field as they gallop out. To top it off, if you watch the head on, they cut the replay as the winner hits the wire.

Total Az Holes

Mr. Serling, can't you help with this? That's ridiculous, and a serious disservice to the NYRA bettors. That's crazy. CalRacing.com sometimes shows them getting into the winner's circle in their replays. They always show it, at minimum, up to when the race is called official.

The head-on replay is a crime not showing them all at least crossing the finish line.

Is this the only source of NYRA replays?

[PaceAdvantage]

Mr. Serling, can't you help with this? That's ridiculous, and a serious disservice to the NYRA bettors. That's crazy. CalRacing.com sometimes shows them getting into the winner's circle in their replays. They always show it, at minimum, up to when the race is called official.

The head-on replay is a crime not showing them all at least crossing the finish line.

Is this the only source of NYRA replays?It constantly amazes me that people think Andy can do-all be-all at NYRA.

Let me clue you folks in. He's the public handicapper and on-air personality at NYRA. He doesn't work in simulcasting...he doesn't work in the CCTV division...he doesn't work for track maintenance, etc. etc. etc.

If you have a beef, call the track. You would be amazed how easy it is to get some people on the phone.

There is also a nice CONTACT US (http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/contact/) page on their website, where you can focus your inquiry at any of 12 listed areas of operation + the ubiquitous "Other" category.

If you had a problem with the way NBC was televising a certain sport, would you try and contact Bob Costas for help? Or would you contact someone in charge of their sports broadcast team?

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't know. Only thing I can guess is they just don't give a (dog poo poo). The horses hit the wire and all nyra shows is a zoom in on a pimple of the winning horse's nose for .7 seconds. Not enough time and not enough of a view of the field as they gallop out. To top it off, if you watch the head on, they cut the replay as the winner hits the wire.

Total Az HolesWay to stay classy.

[ultracapper]

It constantly amazes me that people think Andy can do-all be-all at NYRA.

Let me clue you folks in. He's the public handicapper and on-air personality at NYRA. He doesn't work in simulcasting...he doesn't work in the CCTV division...he doesn't work for track maintenance, etc. etc. etc.

If you have a beef, call the track. You would be amazed how easy it is to get some people on the phone.

There is also a nice CONTACT US (http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/contact/) page on their website, where you can focus your inquiry at any of 12 listed areas of operation + the ubiquitous "Other" category.

If you had a problem with the way NBC was televising a certain sport, would you try and contact Bob Costas for help? Or would you contact someone in charge of their sports broadcast team?

I know HE can't do anything about it. Maybe just say something to somebody, that's all. You know, get the ball rolling.

[ultracapper]

And yeah, if Bob Costas posted on this board, I'd ask him too.;)

[Stillriledup]

I don't know. Only thing I can guess is they just don't give a (dog poo poo). The horses hit the wire and all nyra shows is a zoom in on a pimple of the winning horse's nose for .7 seconds. Not enough time and not enough of a view of the field as they gallop out. To top it off, if you watch the head on, they cut the replay as the winner hits the wire.

Total Az Holes

Almost all tracks camera guys are clowns, they don't know what people want to see, they all "zoom in" and cut off gallop outs, you need to get "lucky" to see a gallop out if you are not there live.

[Stillriledup]

It constantly amazes me that people think Andy can do-all be-all at NYRA.

Let me clue you folks in. He's the public handicapper and on-air personality at NYRA. He doesn't work in simulcasting...he doesn't work in the CCTV division...he doesn't work for track maintenance, etc. etc. etc.

If you have a beef, call the track. You would be amazed how easy it is to get some people on the phone.

There is also a nice CONTACT US (http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/contact/) page on their website, where you can focus your inquiry at any of 12 listed areas of operation + the ubiquitous "Other" category.

If you had a problem with the way NBC was televising a certain sport, would you try and contact Bob Costas for help? Or would you contact someone in charge of their sports broadcast team?

Tracks arent likely to listen to Joe Blow calling anonymously to suggest they show the gallop outs....but if Andy Serling calls them, or even walks up to the TV room at the track, they might listen...so, i believe, that's why people might suggest for Andy to help them out. Sure, you can get someone on the phone, but why would that person listen and take action?


You're right that its not Andy's job to be a jack of all trades person, but the odds of an anonymous caller getting them to show gallop outs are about 0 percent. I would trust that Andy could get that done much easier than some random person calling and speaking to a random employee at NYRA which is why his name got brought up. Its a compliment to Andy that posters think he can do anything at NYRA.

[traynor]

I don't know if I'm considered a trip handicapper or not, and don't care, but I won't put more than $3 or $4 on a race if I haven't watched, at minimum, the replay of each horse's last race. I have been finding all my serious bets for years now leaning heavily on what I see in the replays. I don't even open the form until I've seen at minimum each horse's last race, and then after looking through the form, I look at more replays of pertinent races in each horse's PPs.

Living in Seattle, I haven't seen a live race in probably 3 or 4 years now. Emerald Downs, after experiencing Longacres, just doesn't cut it in any way. I have been much, much more successful since I started this handicapping process, and I don't feel I'm missing anything, as far as handicapping goes, by not seeing live races. I've played only SoCal for the past 14 years (except for a little goofing off at EMD now and then years ago), and other than a week at Del Mar last summer, I've never seen live racing in Southern California.

I'm not going to blah blah you all with my financials of the past 3 or 4 years, but I will say it's been a hell of a long time since I've had to make a deposit in my TVG account. I'm able to keep a cash flow going without viewing live races while relying heavily on race replays.

As to the poster that said this takes a long time to learn, he nailed that square on the head. I've viewed literally 5,000 to 8,000 race replays per year over the past 14 years, and it was truly only about 4 or 5 years ago when I started feeling real confident about what I was seeing and truly understanding the importance of it. I know, almost instinctively now, when I see something significant in a race replay. But man, I have put in my time. I always justified it by looking at the handle each day at the SoCal track I was playing, and saying to myself, "if I could only get 0.xxx% of that handle each day, it would make this more worthwhile than any investment or employment opportunity I've ever had".

This is a horrible thing to say considering the state of this sport that I love so much, but to be successful, you don't need to experience live racing at all. But always remember, the race is run on the track, not on paper. I am living proof that you just can't, or at least I can't, get a true picture of what the horses did on the track, unless you see it. A 3/4 of a mile race, and all you get are 4 measly points of call. In my opinion, that tells you very little.

Congratulations on your success. Cases like yours are why I prefaced "trip handicapper" with "serious." I would define the latter as being a full-time professional, earning the total (or at the very least the lion's share) of his or her income from wagering. That is a totally different scenario (and totally different mindset) than breaking even, making a few bucks from a pleasant, recreational activity, or making a modest profit from an activity at which most participants lose--including those with 20 or more years of practice.

I did not say one could not do well by only watching replays. The question is not how well you do, but how much better you (might be able to) do if you added watching live races to your activities. It sounds like you have a ton of skills at critically observing races. I am especially impressed by the idea that you watch races before reading PP's (that most use to frame their "observations" to match their preconceptions).

Seattle is a pleasant enough place to live, but I cannot imagine why anyone with your apparent skills and capabilities would live there full-time, in preference to spending (at least part of) the year on a major circuit. Australia and the Sha Tin/Happy Valley circuits are like candy stores for trip handicappers.

[Tom]

Doesn't NYRA have people on the payroll who should know this already?
The people complaining are they customers......don't they talk to these people?

[Robert Goren]

The one thing I have to say to people first starting looking at replays. Take the time to learn the camera angles for each distance at each track. Some them present a really distorted view for a few seconds of the race. And they change from track to track even in if the tracks are in the circuit and/or run by the same people.

[ultracapper]

Congratulations on your success. Cases like yours are why I prefaced "trip handicapper" with "serious." I would define the latter as being a full-time professional, earning the total (or at the very least the lion's share) of his or her income from wagering. That is a totally different scenario (and totally different mindset) than breaking even, making a few bucks from a pleasant, recreational activity, or making a modest profit from an activity at which most participants lose--including those with 20 or more years of practice.

I did not say one could not do well by only watching replays. The question is not how well you do, but how much better you (might be able to) do if you added watching live races to your activities. It sounds like you have a ton of skills at critically observing races. I am especially impressed by the idea that you watch races before reading PP's (that most use to frame their "observations" to match their preconceptions).

Seattle is a pleasant enough place to live, but I cannot imagine why anyone with your apparent skills and capabilities would live there full-time, in preference to spending (at least part of) the year on a major circuit. Australia and the Sha Tin/Happy Valley circuits are like candy stores for trip handicappers.

1st 2 paragraphs....Fair enough. Got it.

3rd paragraph....Been in Seattle all my life. Ain't going anywhere. It was like pulling teeth to get my wife, bro-in-law and sis-in-law to agree to spend one day at Del Mar, never mind the three that I secured. My wife isn't going to the outback to watch horse races, that I can guarantee you.

[Tom]

Moving half way around the world and limiting yourself to one race track doesn't interest you?

[Robert Fischer]

There is no requirement that you go to any specific geographic location, and there is no requirement that you handicap the horse beyond the race itself.

[Tom]

Although TLG made a virtual trip halfway around the world and came up with a nice pick yesterday.

[traynor]

1st 2 paragraphs....Fair enough. Got it.

3rd paragraph....Been in Seattle all my life. Ain't going anywhere. It was like pulling teeth to get my wife, bro-in-law and sis-in-law to agree to spend one day at Del Mar, never mind the three that I secured. My wife isn't going to the outback to watch horse races, that I can guarantee you.

Betting on horse races is a lot like hunting. I do much better at both by being flexible about location. I seek opportunities, rather than trying to make do with whatever is available at one specific location.

I lived in Arizona, hardcore desert dweller. When AZ made online betting illegal, I left. I never considered it a bad thing to do, nor have I ever regretted it.

[Tom]

If you have to be at the track to see the trips in person, why would you bet betting on line - why not bet at the track where you have to be?

[traynor]

If you have to be at the track to see the trips in person, why would you bet betting on line - why not bet at the track where you have to be?

I have two fundamentally different wagering strategies (explained at length previously). One is based on statistical models, and that involves many (smaller) wagers spread over many tracks. Mechanical, no-brainer, and much of that is online. The second involves much larger (but fewer) wagers, for which the statistical models are augmented with onsite observation, trip notes, and so on. I do much better not second-guessing myself for the smaller (and much more numerous) bets, and by not over-relying on computer number crunching for the larger bets.

In addition, because I bet both harness and thoroughbreds fairly seriously, there are not many places (in the US) at which the mix of bets is available. My current location has a thoroughbred track (that won't take harness) and a harness track (that won't take thoroughbred). I definitely need to relocate, and the sooner the better.

Finally, full-time onsite study is a lot of work. I can only do it well for fairly brief periods, usually four months or so max. Then I have to take an extended break.

[cutchemist42]

So does anyone here use trip handicapping on a regular basis? You're just using it to understand the speed number? How many race replays should one watch?

[dannyhill]

So does anyone here use trip handicapping on a regular basis? You're just using it to understand the speed number? How many race replays should one watch?
About 3 or 4 hours nightly for the 3 tracks i have to cover.
IMO the most under used and misused facet of handicapping.

[EMD4ME]

I watch every single replay of every horse in the race at the two tracks that I wager on. If I miss one replay, I feel naked.

[Sinner369]

So does anyone here use trip handicapping on a regular basis? You're just using it to understand the speed number? How many race replays should one watch?

I find that Trip Handicapping is more useful in harness handicapping than in thoroughbreds..........in harness with a sulky attached behind a horse....you can get into more troubles in one race than a whole thoroughbred card full of 12 races.

This is one of the main reason why I prefer to bet harness over thoroughbreds.

[Robert Fischer]

So does anyone here use trip handicapping on a regular basis? You're just using it to understand the speed number? How many race replays should one watch?

Yes. It is a part of the information that I use.

No, I'm not using it to understand the speed number, but I suppose that it could described that way depending on the philosophy of the handicapper.

I watch replays for most of the horses I've decided to wager on. I also have watch-list horses whose data indicated a possible trip, and then when they are entered, I will actually watch the replay. Some types of plays require that I watch 10 seconds of video, others require that I watch the full race and head-on angles a few times.

[ultracapper]

I watch the replay of the last race for each horse in the race I'm handicapping before I open the form. Then more replays after looking through the form. I hardly even look at the running lines in the form. I see the race on the track via replays. The past performance running lines tell you WHAT a horse did. The replays tell you HOW a horse did.

Races are run on the track, not on paper. There's lots of information in the form that I find very important and wouldn't bet without reviewing it first. The running lines aren't info I require. I've spent many years practicing blocking that info out so as not to allow it to influence my process, because it will if I allow it to. We've all been "raised" on DRF pps, and the running lines are one of the first things that were pointed out to us, and emphasized over and over.

[cutchemist42]

Ever since my last post, I have now taken to watching the last race of each horse, and I am loving the results so far. I feel like I'm slowing down the handicapping, and not simply jumping into the next race. I love it!

[ultracapper]

It really clears things up, doesn't it? The single greatest handicapping advancement I've ever made was when I started watching the last race of each horse before I opened the form. My results took a very noticeable positive move forward.

I'll watch a race replay, and then look at the running line, and quite often I see two entirely different stories. Sometimes the replay looks like a good run, but the running line on it's own looks so-so, and sometimes the replay looks so-so, and the running line looks very good. That has been the best advantage of it, right there. Running lines that previously would have led me to a horse, or made me afraid of it when I was backing another horse, all the sudden don't look so great, and I am able to bet with more confidence.

The next step for you will be recognizing a good run instinctively. All Place finishes aren't the same, even when the running lines look very similar.

What tracks do you play cutchemist42?

[cutchemist42]

It really clears things up, doesn't it? The single greatest handicapping advancement I've ever made was when I started watching the last race of each horse before I opened the form. My results took a very noticeable positive move forward.

I'll watch a race replay, and then look at the running line, and quite often I see two entirely different stories. Sometimes the replay looks like a good run, but the running line on it's own looks so-so, and sometimes the replay looks so-so, and the running line looks very good. That has been the best advantage of it, right there. Running lines that previously would have led me to a horse, or made me afraid of it when I was backing another horse, all the sudden don't look so great, and I am able to bet with more confidence.

The next step for you will be recognizing a good run instinctively. All Place finishes aren't the same, even when the running lines look very similar.

What tracks do you play cutchemist42?

ASD cause its local
Hst for DDs
WO- I like to have some cheap fun with the .20 P3s
Bel/Aqu

But yeah, just today I hit a $40 at WO and on Wednesday hit a $22.40, and they were horses I never would have considered based on the running lines/pace numbers/comments.

I mean, I had heard of trip handicapping, just thought the advantage gained would never be worth the time, but wow, so far I like it. (Might be a short sample size of the method so far though, so I'll try to remain neutral about it)

I have been doing what you do too, watch replay first then read the line. The only thing I look at is the running style of the horse before the replay.

[ultracapper]

Good hits. You'll sneak 3 or 4 of those in a month. Horses you never would have considered.

[cutchemist42]

Anyone ever watch the Trip Handicapping DVD by Dan Illman?

[Stillriledup]

I watch the replay of the last race for each horse in the race I'm handicapping before I open the form. Then more replays after looking through the form. I hardly even look at the running lines in the form. I see the race on the track via replays. The past performance running lines tell you WHAT a horse did. The replays tell you HOW a horse did.

Races are run on the track, not on paper. There's lots of information in the form that I find very important and wouldn't bet without reviewing it first. The running lines aren't info I require. I've spent many years practicing blocking that info out so as not to allow it to influence my process, because it will if I allow it to. We've all been "raised" on DRF pps, and the running lines are one of the first things that were pointed out to us, and emphasized over and over.

If you really think about it...the PP line doesn't tell you how a horse did, it tells you how all the horses around him did. This is why video work is vital.