What is your Favorite Software for handicapping?

[Flysofree]

My other thread is closed...so be careful not to offend. Peace Love happiness and may all your tickets cash :cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

My favorite software is whatever eponies is selling. Are they selling any?

[Flysofree]

Their software is called one click pony....I'm not a big fan. But I will say this. The owner was one of the first that I saw put out his figures for free on what he called the digital chalk line, initially. Why the name change to e-ponies..not sure.

[fight]

pa do you get defalt sheet or something else? and is there a factor you really like?

[PaceAdvantage]

pa do you get defalt sheet or something else? and is there a factor you really like?Sorry...my reply was meant to be sarcastic.

I'm a dick like that sometimes...

[raybo]

Easy to answer, my favorite software is my software - LOL.

[Chachie]

Easy to answer, my favorite software is my software - LOL.

It would be mine too if I could wrap my thick head around it. :bang:

[Buckeye]

If anybody knew they'd know and it would be game over.

[turninforhome10]

Quickhorse. 95 dollars and PPS for every track FREE. Was a sharp learning curve, but making your own methods is the only way to go. Love it and it has changed my game dramatically. The customer service rocks and Mike will work with you if you have ideas to make the product better.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is that a yearly subscription price of $95?

I wonder how they are able to offer up PPs for free without violating some sort of Equibase clause (I can't imagine they are swallowing all the cost of being able to license the data from Equibase or one of their partners).

And their software is also able to use BrisNet files...this doesn't quite sound kosher to me...maybe someone can explain.

[lsosa54]

Is that a yearly subscription price of $95?

I wonder how they are able to offer up PPs for free without violating some sort of Equibase clause (I can't imagine they are swallowing all the cost of being able to license the data from Equibase or one of their partners).

And their software is also able to use BrisNet files...this doesn't quite sound kosher to me...maybe someone can explain.

Looks like they might get their "free" data from charts, which I guess are free, and then they calculate their own speed and other ratings:

QuickHorse's FREE Data Description We have named all data using the same names we use for the Brisnet Pay Data so that you can find information on this data in the Library at Brisnet.

However, it is important to note, so that there is no confusion regarding our Free Data, that although it is named the same as the Brisnet Data, for those items of data we calculate, our calculations are different, and therefore our data is different from that of the Brisnet Pay Data. QuickReckoning, makers of QuickHorse software, can not emphasize this enough to the experienced PAY DATA user and Handicapper.

As an example, consider one data item which is called "OUTING_BRISSR" which is described by QuickHorse as "Calculated Data - Bris Speed Rating (FC)". If you are using PAY DATA, then the definition of this data item can be found on the Brisnet Library Web Site using the link above (Pay Data item is called BrisSR). A Bris Speed Rating Calculation is unknown to our programmers here at QuickReckoning, and, therefore, we calculate our own Speed Ratings using our own ideas on statistics. The bottom line is, you can choose our free data or Brisnet's data which you pay to use, but you should understand the differences and that is what this User's Guide Section attempts to explain.

Even though calculated data is different, much of the data is the same. As examples of data which are the same consider: the various position calls, and lengths beaten, along with fractional times. These measured parameters have the same source for both Brisnet and QuickHorse - the track from which the race results are reported.

Regardless of which data you use, you may find some or all of our pre-programmed methods useful at the tracks you play. We recommend always having a history of at least 100 races for a particular track and track profile

[bgbootha]

I am another one who can answer.....my favorite software is my own! Love it because I made it.

[Ocala Mike]

My favorite software for handicapping is my recliner, a felt-tip pen, the PP's, and one of my fuzzy cats curled up in my lap trying to help me pick a winner.

[Eddie W]

My Favorite Software is.....Prof-Jones Level 6
period.....TCB

[Flysofree]

I don't have a favorite, but do like BetMix... I'm still looking at it in the 2nd week of a month's subscription. It is a little pricy for me at $50/ month; but offers quite a bit in the way of handicapping with numbers. I'm a pure novice in the game.

[BettinBilly]

My favorite software for handicapping is my recliner, a felt-tip pen, the PP's, and one of my fuzzy cats curled up in my lap trying to help me pick a winner.

Sounds High Tech. How much is the Subscription? Lemme guess... 30 cans of "Little Friskies" per month? ;)

[ldiatone]

Sounds High Tech. How much is the Subscription? Lemme guess... 30 cans of "Little Friskies" per month? ;)
now the question...."shreds" "Pate" "bits" "Morsels"

[Ocala Mike]

Mine only eat Fancy Feast at around $.70 a can, and those damn Temptation pellets, about $1.79 a package. If I try to give them anything else, they call PETA on me. I never bet the cat food money, either.

[BettinBilly]

:p:ThmbUp:

Well, although I'm more of a Dog person, the S.O. loves her cats, so there are a few Siamese floating about. The older male likes to log lap time. Unfortunately, he's too old, fat and lazy to help me with Handicapping.

My dog is better at it. I roll up some PP's that I printed out, I play tug of war with her with the PP's, and wherever the tear happens, that's who I bet on.
So far, I've only lost 89 percent of my wagers!

[ldiatone]

Mine only eat Fancy Feast at around $.70 a can, and those damn Temptation pellets, about $1.79 a package. If I try to give them anything else, they call PETA on me. I never bet the cat food money, either.
:lol: Temptation pellets! i get home from work around 3.30 and my cats stalk me until i sit down and give them the "catnip bliss" temps!

[Ocala Mike]

Yes, idiatone, now that this thread has been completely hijacked, I have to agree with you that the catnip flavored ones are like crack for them.

Seriously, though, in honor of the spirit of this thread, I have to admit that I never got beyond the Kelco Class Calculator of the 70's, and I use no software for handicapping.

Probably why my ROI is in the crapper.

[Appy]

I'm a tad concerned about a lack of system updates for yours.
:D

[HUSKER55]

our cat gets up on the desk and walks around and then sits in the window. She like being around people.

The other day the horses were racing and she tried to catch the leader with he paw on the monitor. :D

talk about fighting for air time... :lol:

[Ocala Mike]

Probably TMI, but one of my cats watches porn with me (the female!). I could even post a picture I took proving it!

[ldiatone]

Probably TMI, but one of my cats watches porn with me (the female!). I could even post a picture I took proving it!
a little to much info Ocala..... :rolleyes: :faint:

[Ocala Mike]

What I said! The picture is SFW (safe for work), and kind of cute. I'll hold it in abeyance, however.

[BettinBilly]

Mike:

The fact that you admit that you watch Porn is as rare as a Handicapper admitting that he loses races. ;)

[WATT Wizard]

For 30+ years publishers of most independent stand-alone computer programs, and now the first web-based handicapping website, just introduced recently, expect their customers to use the Bris (Bloodstock Research, owned by Churchill Downs) DRF comma-deliniated files in their software. The accuracy of those files is not guaranteed by Bris and that data is licensed from Equibase, the industry consortium. So, as you would imagine, customers using those files are expected to be buying them directly from Bris (the DRF files are $1 for each race card).

Personally, I doubt that anyone can merely give those files away free in order to promote another product. Clearly, everything would depend on where that data came from.

[Robert Goren]

For 30+ years publishers of most independent stand-alone computer programs, and now the first web-based handicapping website, just introduced recently, expect their customers to use the Bris (Bloodstock Research, owned by Churchill Downs) DRF comma-deliniated files in their software. The accuracy of those files is not guaranteed by Bris and that data is licensed from Equibase, the industry consortium. So, as you would imagine, customers using those files are expected to be buying them directly from Bris (the DRF files are $1 for each race card).

Personally, I doubt that anyone can merely give those files away free in order to promote another product. Clearly, everything would depend on where that data came from.They can until BRIS finds out about it. :rolleyes:

[Flysofree]

They can until BRIS finds out about it. :rolleyes:

What program is giving the data files away?

[turninforhome10]

They can until BRIS finds out about it. :rolleyes:
Really, a company that produces software for schools and government organizations is going to risk their livelihood to make software for horse players that is going around copyright and usage laws? And then they are going to go out of their way to advertise for Bris while stealing from them. You guys make no sense. I understand that you have paid advertisers in here, so making a non payers software seem less desirable is a way to make business for your vendors, but suggesting that a software company that has had a program that has been available for 10+ years is circumventing the law is slanderous. Read about it and then bash it you think there is an impropriety http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/index.htm

I love the software and have had real success with it by making my own methods and pace figures. I also very much like the fact that I only pay $85.00 a year for unlimited PPS and historical charts for my DB and customer service that is second to none.

Call me out for promoting the product, I am only a very satisfied user that was asked the question " what software I was using" and then all kinds of negative comments came out.
Do you want our opinions when it won't sell products that you promote, PA.
If not delete any competing threads. If you do then have substantiated claims to make your case regarding the makers and their subversive natures.
Kirk

[PaceAdvantage]

Really, a company that produces software for schools and government organizations is going to risk their livelihood to make software for horse players that is going around copyright and usage laws? And then they are going to go out of their way to advertise for Bris while stealing from them. You guys make no sense. I understand that you have paid advertisers in here, so making a non payers software seem less desirable is a way to make business for your vendors, but suggesting that a software company that has had a program that has been available for 10+ years is circumventing the law is slanderous. Read about it and then bash it you think there is an impropriety http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/index.htm

I love the software and have had real success with it by making my own methods and pace figures. I also very much like the fact that I only pay $85.00 a year for unlimited PPS and historical charts for my DB and customer service that is second to none.

Call me out for promoting the product, I am only a very satisfied user that was asked the question " what software I was using" and then all kinds of negative comments came out.
Do you want our opinions when it won't sell products that you promote, PA.
If not delete any competing threads. If you do then have substantiated claims to make your case regarding the makers and their subversive natures.
KirkWhat the hell are you talking about? Read my comments again:

"Is that a yearly subscription price of $95?

I wonder how they are able to offer up PPs for free without violating some sort of Equibase clause (I can't imagine they are swallowing all the cost of being able to license the data from Equibase or one of their partners).

And their software is also able to use BrisNet files...this doesn't quite sound kosher to me...maybe someone can explain."

Hardly the conspiratorial "bash any non-advertiser product" comment you make it out to be.

It was an honest inquiry. And to date, I don't think anyone has been able to answer the question that I posed.

If you, or anyone else has answered the question, then I apologize in advance.

And nowhere in my above quote did I libel anyone or any product. I did not accuse anyone of anything. I asked a question. I did not proclaim anything to be fact. I did not state that they are violating any copyright laws or anything else.

I simply wondered how they could provide 365 days worth of PP data for every track in the country for only $95 per year. Nobody else comes anywhere close to that kind of price.

[Pensacola Pete]

"Is that a yearly subscription price of $95?



$90 for horses, $88 for dogs, each annually. Mike Groves runs it.

For thoroughbreds, they have two modes: free and BRIS. The free mode is made from the charts. They store many years of data online for customers to download. All ratings in free mode are imitations of what BRIS has.
The BRIS mode processes the user's BRIS 'single' files and uses the BRIS ratings. They don't store those online. The user has to supply the files. I did the 30 day trial. Nothing close to a profit in free mode and not much better in BRIS. I'm surprised Equibase hasn't complained about the free mode.

The greyhound version gets its information from the free programs and charts online. It makes its own daily track variants. They keep a year of data for those tracks.

[raybo]

It does sound like something is going on that may not be exactly on the up and up, not saying it is but seems a bit strange. To my knowledge there are NO free data files available. There are free charts available from several sources but one would have to either hand enter the data, or use some conversion program to read those charts and parse the data, in order to create PPs data from them. Both of those options seem remote, to me. They do not mention entering into a contractual agreement with Equibase, or any other provider, for the use of the PP data or the chart data. My experience is that all legitimate users of Equibase raw data always have a disclaimer on their site stating such.

Obviously their software does accept the $1 Brisnet single file format (.drf) data file and the $0.25 Brisnet Exotic Results file, as they mention the cost of PP and results data of $1 and $0.25 respectively. How they are getting the data for use in their own "free" data files is not mentioned, but, it has to be either free text format or PDF format charts. And, then the 2 earlier problems that I mentioned, with manually entering or converting/parsing that data comes onto play.

As far as I know, there is no PDF conversion software that works accurately, and consistently, enough for general data parsing operations.

Even if the $95 yearly fee were enough to purchase raw data and distribute it, there should still be a disclaimer on the site stating where the data is being obtained, IMO.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm fairly certain that if I were to start parsing Equibase charts and providing free PPs here on PaceAdvantage, Equibase's lawyers would be all over me like white on rice...if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me...

[Speed Figure]

I'm fairly certain that if I were to start parsing Equibase charts and providing free PPs here on PaceAdvantage, Equibase's lawyers would be all over me like white on rice...if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me...
That's the main reason why they stopped putting the full html charts online and made them PDF's because they were reading on this board how many users were parsing the charts for FREE!! after that the charts became PDF's!

[Moto Pete]

Pete, did you set your factors and play what the program spit out? Did you look at the form at all or use any other capping tools?

[plainolebill]

Mike Grove of Quickhorse? They did have a chart parser with that program.

[Pensacola Pete]

Pete, did you set your factors and play what the program spit out? Did you look at the form at all or use any other capping tools?

There's no "form" to speak of in Quickhorse. It's a very abbreviated version. Its use is to find mechanical plays. Noting I found in 30-40 hours of the free version could get higher than 0.90.

Don't know why Equibase hasn't done something about it. There probably aren't many users of Quickhorse. The forum almost never gets a new post. Groves's flagship product is Quickdog. It's just about a monopoly on good handicapping software for dogs.

[Moto Pete]

It sounds like HTR's Robot. It's not hard to formulate a profitable spot play but having it continue profitable over the long term is another thing entirely. They almost always regress.

[FocusWiz]

It appears to me that QuickReckoning has done as much as they can to ensure that they are not infringing on BRIS. They openly share the fact that "Paid Data" from Brisnet is very different from their "Free Data" especially in terms of the computed fields that BRIS supplies. They say they obtain some of the data directly from the track programs and race call information provided from the track and compute their own speed ratings using their own formulas. A program capable of using two sets of data will need to combine them into a single compatible format to use each of them. Hence, they do use the same internal names for the field regardless of its source. You have a choice with them to either use their data or the data that is available from BRIS. It is a one-way street, though if you choose to use the BRIS data. You cannot go back to using the QuickHorse data once you have chosen to use "Paid Data" (I believe you could uninstall/reinstall if you really wanted to).

The key reason I like this tool is its flexibility. It provides me with the ability to define a methodology to use to evaluate contenders and to then backtest this against a database of prior races as far back as my data (or theirs) will allow (I can limit it to more recent races to emphasize more current track biases). That sentence is far easier to state than to put into practice. As indicated earlier, the learning curve is huge. Defining a parameter (they call it a "column") is not easy unless it is something straightforward like the last outing speed rating. Computations and comparisons use Reverse Polish Notation (commonly used in desk adding machines and Hewlett Packard calculators) which takes quite a bit of getting used to, and there is no easy way to debug these calculations which can easily become quite large. A group of up to 8 of these parameters defines the "Method" you are using to evaluate contenders.

The ability to backtest this methodology by track against a large database and then to tune (either manually or via their automatic process) the weighting of the parameters, gives you a nearly infinite level of "tweaking" of the methodology which can be differentiated based on surface, distance or what might pass for the class of a race. For an automated process, I find it does a good job of performing a first-pass review of the horses.

The real power of this tool comes in its scripting language which I believe is not duplicated elsewhere. For example, I have a script that downloads their latest "Free Data" for selected tracks (which generally includes entries for tomorrow's races), backtests and tunes the parameters by track based on three different wager types, and creates exported files (referred to as "TipSheets") of the results. I import these files into Excel files (not as easy as I make this sound) to extract scenarios where the number of races used, Win % and ROI % from the backtesting approaches certain levels. Since that will often select the favorites, I then import these results into my spreadsheets that monitor track odds in real-time to look for opportunities where the odds are favorable.

For example, my current methodology likes the second ML favorite, NEEDADRINK, in the third race at Penn National tonight and the 1-6-5 boxed exacta for the first race. If I am rushed or lazy, I may just watch the odds for those races and consider playing them if the odds are right. If I have more time/initiative, I will look into the Quickhorse past performances or The Racing Form (which is much easier on the eyes) to see if I would actually pick those contenders.

As noted, Mike Groves provides exceptional customer support for this product. However, they do not offer assistance in building the columns or methods except in their help files and videos. Their most recent build allows an interface between your local (PC-based) copy of their software and an Android smartphone. I have not tested that, but it sounds like a novel approach to portability.

I started looking at this product last summer but did not consider buying a subscription until late last year since it was difficult to envision how I would integrate this tool into my normal handicapping process.

YMMV

[FocusWiz]

Even if the $95 yearly fee were enough to purchase raw data and distribute it, there should still be a disclaimer on the site stating where the data is being obtained, IMO.Ray,

They claim to create it using their own tools from track information and there is a statement on their site saying this. I have no way to ascertain if this is true or not, but they have been around for over a dozen years providing this service so I would hope they are not violating any laws or infringing on any copyrights as has been hinted in this thread.

I tell them that the data is not "free" but included in the cost of the subscription but they insist that the subscription is for the use of the software and that the data is "free" (in my mind, this is just semantics).

I believe the annual subscription is now $90 even though this page references $85:

http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/index.htm

They seem to have the ability to rebuild this data as needed from its source files (which was necessary to standardize their exotic results on a $2 wager last year). This brings up a (perhaps minor) concern which is that you are depending on them to have accurate information in their past performance and result data. Having an ROI based on a $1 bet rather than a $2 bet could certainly skew the backtesting results if you based it on trying to achieve the highest ROI. On the other hand, I have heard complaints from some developers that their software fails because BRIS does not follow their own specifications. I would not think that would happen with QuickHorse-provided data since the product is built to use their data.

[FocusWiz]

What the hell are you talking about? Read my comments again:

"Is that a yearly subscription price of $95?

I wonder how they are able to offer up PPs for free without violating some sort of Equibase clause (I can't imagine they are swallowing all the cost of being able to license the data from Equibase or one of their partners).

And their software is also able to use BrisNet files...this doesn't quite sound kosher to me...maybe someone can explain."

Hardly the conspiratorial "bash any non-advertiser product" comment you make it out to be.

It was an honest inquiry. And to date, I don't think anyone has been able to answer the question that I posed.

If you, or anyone else has answered the question, then I apologize in advance.

And nowhere in my above quote did I libel anyone or any product. I did not accuse anyone of anything. I asked a question. I did not proclaim anything to be fact. I did not state that they are violating any copyright laws or anything else.

I simply wondered how they could provide 365 days worth of PP data for every track in the country for only $95 per year. Nobody else comes anywhere close to that kind of price.PA,

I think your comments are appropriate, though I think some other comments may have implied something less than legal is going on.

In answer to your comments, the yearly subscription is $90, but there are two additional levels that can be purchased. One level allows a graphical representation of completed (i.e., yesterday's or earlier) races showing a horse's relative position in the field at the various calls. The other gives you access to their pre-built tipsheets based on their standard methods.

I have also wondered why they are the only vendor who has built their own charts and past performance data if the information is so readily available. I have suspected that much of the code to parse and store data was already built for their QuickDog product and that the change to support thoroughbreds was incremental rather than an effort from the ground up. You can access (quite readable) charts of past race results from within their software and I believe this is the sourced from the same data that they use to build their past performance data.

I am not sure why their ability to use Brisnet files is in any way not "Kosher" in how that sounds. If I am not mistaken, there are quite a few products which are able to use Brisnet files. Perhaps this is the comment that irked Turninforhome10. Should this be a concern for any product that uses Brisnet files? There are other products that can use multiple file formats as their data sources. I am probably over-analyzing this comment. What is the explanation you are looking for?

As far as detailed answers, most users cannot give detailed answers on how their software computes something, stores something, or obtains something. I think the comments in this thread are about as much detail as users can provide. I know Mike himself commented here some years back, but I do not think that he was asked how he can access Brisnet files that a user has purchased.

[FocusWiz]

I'm fairly certain that if I were to start parsing Equibase charts and providing free PPs here on PaceAdvantage, Equibase's lawyers would be all over me like white on rice...if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me...I certainly think if you (or anyone else) did that and whether you provided it for free or for a fee, you would likely be in violation of certain copyright laws. There is some leniency for doing this for your own use (despite the current digital rights laws), but certainly distributing it would be a bigger problem.

As an aside (and totally unrelated to your post since it was not about QuickHorse), the result charts that Quickhorse provides are similar to what both Equibase and Brisnet provide. None of them contains identical information, so I am not saying that either of them copied from QuickReckoning nor from each other, but I would think that if anyone were to start parsing the data from Equibase, or Brisnet, or QuickHorse, you would likely be violating the same laws (though I doubt QuickReckoning would be all over you like white on rice...it would probably take them a while to realize you were stealing their information).

[Moto Pete]

I have a couple of issues. One is there doesn't seem to be any trainer info or if trainers are even considered in the methods. There also doesn't seem to be a Glossary of Terms. I can guess at a lot of them but I want to know for sure. The running lines are inadequate. It's a good buy at $90 a year just because it gives me daily access to any track or horse I want to look at whether I bet it or not, but as currently constructed I will always need another source. That would be which one that gave me the best trainer info. Right now BRIS is ahead of TFUS.

I'm not going to attempt to build my own custom method but I would like to make small adjustments if I feel they are needed.

[FocusWiz]

I have a couple of issues. One is there doesn't seem to be any trainer info or if trainers are even considered in the methods. There also doesn't seem to be a Glossary of Terms. I can guess at a lot of them but I want to know for sure. The running lines are inadequate. It's a good buy at $90 a year just because it gives me daily access to any track or horse I want to look at whether I bet it or not, but as currently constructed I will always need another source. That would be which one that gave me the best trainer info. Right now BRIS is ahead of TFUS.

I'm not going to attempt to build my own custom method but I would like to make small adjustments if I feel they are needed.I have very little detailed knowledge of this product, but I will try to share what I know if your point was to learn.

I agree, that this is the only information available to be used for trainers:ANIMAL_TRAINERMEETSTARTS - TRAINER Starts this Meet

ANIMAL_TRAINERMEETWINS - TRAINER Wins this Meet

ANIMAL_TRAINERMEETPLACES - TRAINER Places this Meet

ANIMAL_TRAINERMEETSHOWS - TRAINER Shows this Meet

ANIMAL_TRAINERTHISYEARSTARTS - TRAINER Starts this Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERTHISYEARWINS - TRAINER Wins this Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERTHISYEARPLACES - TRAINER Places this Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERTHISYEARSHOWS - TRAINER Shows this Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERLASTYEARSTARTS - TRAINER Starts last Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERLASTYEARWINS - TRAINER Wins last Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERLASTYEARPLACES - TRAINER Places last Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERLASTYEARSHOWS - TRAINER Shows last Year

ANIMAL_TRAINERTHISYEARROI - Important!! This is the Trainer Rating Value at the time of this race; for the current year. This Free Data Value has nothing to do with Return on Investment. This is entirely a different piece of data compared to the Pay Data Value.

ANIMAL_TRAINERLASTYEARROI - Important!! This is the Trainer Rating Value for all of last year. This Free Data Value has nothing to do with Return on Investment. This is entirely a different piece of data compared to the Pay Data Value.

ANIMAL_TRAINER - Name of the horse's TrainerI extracted this from their nonexistent glossary of terms. I have no idea why the running lines are inadequate, but I will accept your word for it.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the BRIS (or even DRF data) might overall be superior. This is hardly the ultimate handicapping tool.

[turninforhome10]

I have a couple of issues. One is there doesn't seem to be any trainer info or if trainers are even considered in the methods. There also doesn't seem to be a Glossary of Terms. I can guess at a lot of them but I want to know for sure. The running lines are inadequate. It's a good buy at $90 a year just because it gives me daily access to any track or horse I want to look at whether I bet it or not, but as currently constructed I will always need another source. That would be which one that gave me the best trainer info. Right now BRIS is ahead of TFUS.

I'm not going to attempt to build my own custom method but I would like to make small adjustments if I feel they are needed.
The only way I ever became profitable with it is making my own methods. Nothing I use even resembles the methods included. I had no luck with the built in methods. Right now I have built 17 methods that are specific to the conditions of the race. One thing I do with pace is to use 7 different methods and then run them against each other to detemine which is best for the type of race. Sometimes my "sheets" methods works better than a Brohamer model and sometimes pace is not even relative as class and speed figures are better at prediction. My favorite part of building methods is using the logic steps to better filter data. I must agree that the RPN part is tough and took me a year to learn how to use it efficiently. It is stack theory. Pop in, pop out as my logic professor used to say. My biggest breakthrough came in keeping all "objective" data completely separate from "subjective" data. In the last year Mike added a feature to build methods using other methods and this allows for a better way of comparing efficiency of methods. I have been using QH for 5 years and still learn something every day to make my capping better. I must say that I am a DD and P3 and 4 player, so I tune for win. Someday I will finally cross over to using it for exotics within the race, but there are not enough hours in the day. I also like the fact that after building scripts for the last 6 months all my capping is done while at work or sleeping. Very handy.
Sorry for coming unglued on PA, but just want this product to get a fair shake.
Most users try the enclosed methods, and have no or limited success. I am in this club. It was only when I spent 4 months building and testing methods did I truly find success in this product. A disclaimer though, I still use Ultimates to verify data and hve found it hard to use the running lines efficiently, but I do use the Display form feature to check where the horse is in form cycle and I really like the quickmaps feature to look at a past race.
Nothing is easy, but when you hit a pick 3 for over 4 hundred on a horse that you would have never bet using conventional means, it is truly an eye-opening experience at what our eyes and looking at the form can do to bias a pick.

[turninforhome10]

An afterthought.
If you look at the program as "template" to build your own system, then it becomes a very powerful to to customize your own style of play. I can say that while the program belongs to QH, the methods that I use and how I use them is an exclusive to me only, as the odds that anyone else would have made them the exact same way are null, for good or for bad. This has been very empowering for me
YTD for DD
# of Bets Win % $1 ROI
29 41.38% +0.58
YTD for P3-Still working to better refine this one.
# of Bets Win % $1 ROI
37 24.32% +0.18
Since a 3/1/14 refinement- A little better
# of Bets Win % $1 ROI
34 26.47% +0.22
YTD for P4( Still kind of chicken)
# of Bets Win % $1 ROI
6 16.67% +0.69
While these numbers are ok, I must admit the hardest part has been knowing when to play. The program has a culling feature in the backtesting portion, but have not come to using much.

I could babble on about QH, but I think the more improtant thing here in this thread would be to ask the users what features would you really like to have in your software to help those developers here to get some input. Also what could be said is what features you have in the software that you using that you deem "your edge".
This thread has a lot of potential to address topics and I wave the white flag to any further trips to my soapbox. What I feel is that the actual visual presentation of the data, is directly responsible for the interpretation in the brain to make a decision. To put all the data together in form that is concise and makes sense to the user is goal. I am person that does well with graphs and objective data so I made a way for the data to be presented to me this way. Does the software that you are using allow for a presentation that can be digested and used efficiently? A man is only as good as the tool he uses for the job but the ability to define the job and what data (tool) must be used has to come from experience. Yes? There is no black box.

"Science is not dealing with absolutes, only limited approximations of reality"
Sir Issac Newton

[dannyhill]

Out of curiosity i took a look at their pace numbers, i get the feeling they use raw times with no variants. Is this correct?

[Moto Pete]

A little snarky Focus but whatever. I'm only a few days into QH and I've clicked on every Help button and scrolled through them all and can't find a glossary. Maybe your post would have been helpful if instead of the sarcastic "nonexistent glossary of terms", you could have pointed me to its location.

Those trainer stats don't even begin to scratch the surface.

[Moto Pete]

Correct me if I'm wrong Turn, but it appears you need knowledge of programming to build your own custom method to get the most out of QH. It sounds intriguing, exciting, to be able to build your own model. While I'm more computer literate than I've exhibited here, it is obviously above my capabilities. Too bad. Oh, to be young again,, LOL.

[FocusWiz]

A little snarky Focus but whatever. I'm only a few days into QH and I've clicked on every Help button and scrolled through them all and can't find a glossary. Maybe your post would have been helpful if instead of the sarcastic "nonexistent glossary of terms", you could have pointed me to its location.

Those trainer stats don't even begin to scratch the surface.I apologize for reacting negatively to your comments. It was inappropriate.

I mistakenly assumed that the "nonexistent" comment you made was intended to inform others of a deficiency as opposed to asking for help. As I indicated, if you are looking for help, I would be glad to share what little I know.

I find their documentation to be less than easy to follow but that may be due to the complexity of the product. I also find that finding specific information is not so easy to find (since I do not think precisely in the order as their developers think). I am not promoting this product as good for anyone but me (and I am not so far along the learning curve as Kirk), so please understand that I have no belief that their information is perfect nor that it will be useful for every purposes.

Here are some of there data definitions:

http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/Race_Data.htm

http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/Horse_Data.htm

http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/Outing_Data.htm

http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/Efficiency_Data.htm

http://qhoug.quickreckoning.com/Data_Library/Track_Data.htm

[FocusWiz]

...it appears you need knowledge of programming to build your own custom method to get the most out of QH. It sounds intriguing, exciting, to be able to build your own model. While I'm more computer literate than I've exhibited here, it is obviously above my capabilities. Too bad. Oh, to be young again,, LOL.I think that is a fair statement, although superficially, it may not be indicated by their documentation.

There are quite a few pieces of information in their data which are useful alone and without modification. However, if you want something based on multiple parameters or over time (like the highest speed rating of the last three outings), it would require you to learn how to "talk" to this product.

For example, this would be one way of computing a speed rating with a higher emphasis on the most recent rating:

STEP 1 SELECT_1ST_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_BRISSR) ENT
STEP 2 SELECT_2ND_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_BRISSR) ENT
STEP 3 VALUE_OF(.95) MUL ADD ENT
STEP 4 SELECT_3RD_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_BRISSR) ENT
STEP 5 VALUE_OF(.90) MUL ADD ENT
STEP 6 VALUE_OF(3) DIV ENT

As overwhelming as this must look, it is not particularly complex. You tell it what each step is and must know that operations are done after the value is entered. The software lets you choose the value (in this case, OUTING_BRISSR) and then lets you select a modifier such "Select the Xth Most Race" or "Select the Xth Most Recent GOOD Race" and then store it (which adds the "ENT"). The MUL and ADD comments are based on you telling the product to Multiply the previously entered value by the just entered value. The ADD is the result of you telling it to add that to the existing accumulated amounts.

The last step is to take the accumulated results and divide it by the 3 value to get some kind of average.

There are two big learning curves here:Learning what data is and is not available Learning what operations or modifiers are available for each kind of dataThe other hurdle, as mentioned earlier is the Reverse Polish Notation. If you cannot get that straight, you will not know which item is being subtracted from which and/or which is the dividend and which is the divisor.

The column approaches programming when using conditions in a statement like this:
SELECT_1ST_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_FINISHCALLBTN) IF LE 5 ELSE 5

This is where I wish there were a way to "see" what it does with my instructions and what the before/after versions are.

[Moto Pete]

Thanks for taking the time to help me out Focus. :ThmbUp:

My youngest daughters guy is a software engineer. Too bad they are in Atlanta and I'm not.

[turninforhome10]

I think that is a fair statement, although superficially, it may not be indicated by their documentation.

There are quite a few pieces of information in their data which are useful alone and without modification. However, if you want something based on multiple parameters or over time (like the highest speed rating of the last three outings), it would require you to learn how to "talk" to this product.

For example, this would be one way of computing a speed rating with a higher emphasis on the most recent rating:

STEP 1 SELECT_1ST_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_BRISSR) ENT
STEP 2 SELECT_2ND_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_BRISSR) ENT
STEP 3 VALUE_OF(.95) MUL ADD ENT
STEP 4 SELECT_3RD_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_BRISSR) ENT
STEP 5 VALUE_OF(.90) MUL ADD ENT
STEP 6 VALUE_OF(3) DIV ENT

As overwhelming as this must look, it is not particularly complex. You tell it what each step is and must know that operations are done after the value is entered. The software lets you choose the value (in this case, OUTING_BRISSR) and then lets you select a modifier such "Select the Xth Most Race" or "Select the Xth Most Recent GOOD Race" and then store it (which adds the "ENT"). The MUL and ADD comments are based on you telling the product to Multiply the previously entered value by the just entered value. The ADD is the result of you telling it to add that to the existing accumulated amounts.

The last step is to take the accumulated results and divide it by the 3 value to get some kind of average.

There are two big learning curves here:Learning what data is and is not available Learning what operations or modifiers are available for each kind of dataThe other hurdle, as mentioned earlier is the Reverse Polish Notation. If you cannot get that straight, you will not know which item is being subtracted from which and/or which is the dividend and which is the divisor.

The column approaches programming when using conditions in a statement like this:
SELECT_1ST_MOSTRECENT(OUTING_FINISHCALLBTN) IF LE 5 ELSE 5

This is where I wish there were a way to "see" what it does with my instructions and what the before/after versions are.
Backtest it or build both columns and run them against each other in a test method.

[FocusWiz]

Backtest it or build both columns and run them against each other in a test method.
Thanks.

I did not do that in the beginning and made quite a mess.

Now I create a test method if I want to create a complex column. The first column or two being somewhat simple and the later ones combining or deriving from them.

(Part of the adventure in using this tool.)

[FocusWiz]

In the last year Mike added a feature to build methods using other methods and this allows for a better way of comparing efficiency of methods.If you get some time, could you elaborate a litltle. It wasn't until I saw this that I noticed the reference in the help(a "Column" can be an entire Method)andAn important note about using METHODS as a COLUMN - Do not create a Method that uses itself as a Method. For instance, if you create a Method called "METHOD1", do not add that method "METHOD1" as a column of METHOD1.Do the underlying weights in that method get tuned when using their tuning options or are they static? Either way, I agree that this would be a very good way to compare or combine methods.

Thanks.

[dannyhill]

It appears these pace figures are made from raw times with no DTV, how are they useful?

[Tom]

I'm fairly certain that if I were to start parsing Equibase charts and providing free PPs here on PaceAdvantage, Equibase's lawyers would be all over me like white on rice...if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me...

I'm game - give it a sot, we'll see what happens! ;)

[turninforhome10]

It appears these pace figures are made from raw times with no DTV, how are they useful?
If you are using the Pay data the variant is available to use in building your own speed figures. I don't use variants and never have. I built 8 different pace modules, 1 for Distance, 1 for form, 1 for Average Pace, I for Modeling that eliminates PP by criteria, 1 that use a "sheets"type, 1 for the Best using the Good race filter in the column building, 1 for Track Pars, and 1 for the last race.
I then run a backtest on this method and it will let me know which Pace has a better predictive value. I have enclosed an example for the Derby Trial. Notice that the Column DPACE is weighted highest. This is the column for Pace at distance. It only uses races at a mile. Notice that there are still numbers in the columns for those that have not run a mile. The method keeps the Brohamer Pace energy as a valid number regardless of distance. Looking for sprinters stretching out that might get an easy lead.

[dannyhill]

If you are using the Pay data the variant is available to use in building your own speed figures. I don't use variants and never have. I built 8 different pace modules, 1 for Distance, 1 for form, 1 for Average Pace, I for Modeling that eliminates PP by criteria, 1 that use a "sheets"type, 1 for the Best using the Good race filter in the column building, 1 for Track Pars, and 1 for the last race.
I then run a backtest on this method and it will let me know which Pace has a better predictive value. I have enclosed an example for the Derby Trial. Notice that the Column DPACE is weighted highest. This is the column for Pace at distance. It only uses races at a mile. Notice that there are still numbers in the columns for those that have not run a mile. The method keeps the Brohamer Pace energy as a valid number regardless of distance. Looking for sprinters stretching out that might get an easy lead.

I had emailed quick horse the same question and they never mentioned pay data had a variant. Actually their responses to me were comical. I have a friend that wanted to sign up and asked me to check it out. When i received the answers i did from them i told him to look elsewhere.
Thank You for the detailed response.

[turninforhome10]

I had emailed quick horse the same question and they never mentioned pay data had a variant. Actually their responses to me were comical. I have a friend that wanted to sign up and asked me to check it out. When i received the answers i did from them i told him to look elsewhere.
Thank You for the detailed response.
So then you are saying that you want Pace figures made for you with variants built in. You can build it in QH, but I don't think you are looking to do the work. If you want ready made pace charts with variants built in, look elsewhere but be ready to pay. To each, their own. I sometimes feel that I know more about their product then they do, strictly because they are programmers and not handicappers.They know what it can do, but applying it is a different fish.

[timtam]

Based on Nick Borg's system 2000 with the win generate horse, hidden par

feature, form feature and running device line which leans toward speed

favoring track. I spent lots of hours pouring over the numbers the system

puts out and the learning curve is different for each player because some

handicappers use different pieces of info. I just know when I go to play the

races armed with my Win Generate data I stand a chance to break even.

:)