New Software

[Dave Schwartz]

Okay, here is your big chance... We are designing new software for release next year... and we are interested in what you would like to see in a handicapping product.

I just read an interesting book on software development and they suggested a new way to find out what the customer wants. They refer to it as "stories." Imagine that you are sitting in the room with a team of programmers that are about to write you some handicapping software. What features would you like to see in the software? Please right a short, descriptive paragraph about each feature.

For example:

1. The program should automatically update the odds if I am connected to the web and tell me if there are any overlays in the race.

2. The program should select pace lines automatically, but still let me select my own if I desire.

See? Short stories.

I am all ears and thanks in advance for taking the time.

[ridersup]

Dave:

I would like to see a program that prints the actual running time of races in the PP's followed by the adjusted times based on the track variant for the day.

Would also like to see a quick indicator of which horse faced the stiffest competition. l.e. best combination of early pace and final time.

Accurate trainer stats would be a help. Seems like all the existing providers have come up with different trainer stats for the same trainer.

[GR1@HTR]

Dave,

Not trying to bust your chops but just have a legitimate question...My first reaction to your question was why new software? What is wrong with the current software? Why not just include an upgrade to HSH so your current users can reap the benefits. Thank you in advance for your response.

[Dave Schwartz]

GR1,

Good question, and I take no offense from it.

HSH is a product that is not for everyone. I am trying to commit to building a "really simple" program, something a little more mainstream.

HSH is a powerful, winning program with a steep (though not as steep as you might think) learning curve. It is that way because of all the options open to the user.

Our limited research indicates that the most important features in a "main stream" program are centered around ease of use and having a good time. Having a product that wins is way down the list for most people (although I doubt that very many would admit that).

It is ironic that the public equates "simple" with "less user control." The more control the user has, the more flexible the program. Unfortunately, the more dials you have to twiddle, the more difficult people PERCEIVE a program to be.

At our upcoming seminar we will present 3 systematic approaches which have shown us solid profit in three months of testing and now almost one month of live plays. Of course, I fully expect that each person will put his or her own spin on these systems in order to make them "their own." (There may even be a 4th system: It depends upon whether or not it makes the cut during testing.)


Our ultimate goal with the new program is to marry up "what people want" with "what people need to win." HSH addresses the latter but is a little beyond the basic needs of most players.

Eventually, what is available in HSH will become add-on options in the new program. That is the plan, anyway.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ridersup,

Thanks for your input. Your ideas have been noted.

[JimG]

1. A true (100%) odds line based on user factors that are selected with floating percentages for each factor.

2. An oddsline on what the "crowd" should make the horses based on the classic factors that we can see which horses are being over/under bet.

3. Accurate jockey/trainer data including claims and layoffs that delve into more than just percentages..

ie: claimed from stats, with workout of xfurlongs, layoffs with blinkers added, front wraps off, etc.

4. Ability to print 1 page per race with user checking factors they wish to have printed and the order they appear in print.

5. Area for user to input handicapping notes on each horse.

6. A horse's to watch list.

7. Ability to track user betting with reports on various type bets.

8. Record keeping for IRS purposes.

9. Ability to place bets automatically thorugh an internet account as well as update results automatically.

In short a system to not only include the "usual stuff" but an ability to really exploit the crowd betting which would be done via an internet uplink to actual odds. Also, I want to know if the crowd is over/underbetting a horse based on classical factors or if the odds are about right given past performance information.

Hope this helps.

Jim

[Druther]

The one thing I always wanted in a program is what I call BYOSD (Build Your Own Static Data) which I pronounce as Boyds (as in Lloyd’s).

By ‘static data’ I mean a horse’s record at the distance, surface, class, etc. I prefer “build your own’ because there’s a limitless number of ways to display the options and you never know exactly what you want to see and are forever changing your mind. I think this could also be applied to a trainer and jockey.

Some sort of ‘drive down’ capability is probably ideal. For example, a screen – for the horses – you could click on for today’s distance/surface showing:

A. 10-0-1-2
B. 6-2-2-2

I like having all my ducks lined up in a row so that I can scan things. In the above example, you can immediately see that “A” has demonstrated a dislike for today’s distance/surface while it seems to fit “B” to a tee.

But suppose today’s race is an Allowance. Being able to click on “B” and get this would paint a different picture:

Clm 2-2-2-1
Alw 4-0-0-1

For me, one of the most important functions of a program is to provide data in the format I want to see – and the ability to decide how I want to slice-and-dice the data for this specific race is highly desirable. Crunching the data is what a computer does best.

[Dave Schwartz]

Jim,

Yes, that is exactly what I am looking for.!

Thanks for taking the time. And if you think of some more, please let me know.

[Dave Schwartz]

Druther,

Thanks for your input. Those are good ideas (and very doable).

[Druther]

Dave

Obviously, I didn’t stop to read what I wrote because I’ve never seen a horse yet that could compile a record in Claiming races of 2-2-2-1 (or any other type of race, for that matter). But you got the idea.

What I like is the ‘drill down’ concept. It could be applied to virtually any stat that the file contains. For example, suppose I’m looking at a potential Lone F – wouldn’t it be neat to push a button for this sorted according to how he won his races:

Alone on the lead 4-3-1-0
2EP in race 3-0-0-1

That sort of thing. It’s a better perspective of his chances to pull off the Lone F today. What this guy is telling me is that he can pull off a Lone F but he stinks royally if another horse can provide a little early pressure. Now I know to see if I can find that other horse.

[witchdoctor]

Dave,
I was wondering if you could program in a paceline selection algorithim that is along the lines of "Handicapping Magic."
P. S. It probably is a mute point if the new pace module in HSH beta version is as good as Druther is letting on.

Thanks
Rick

[Dick Schmidt]

How about a button that shows who is going to win the race? Well, I can hope. Actually, I'm going to suggest something like Druther: a layered look at the race.

First screen shows you the projected winner based on whatever internal handicapping you develope.

Next screen tells you why the choices were made.

Next screen lets you fool around with how the choices were made.

Maybe another screen that lets you see the raw data and decide what to use and what to forgive.

And of course a level that shows you the history of how the program performed over time; maybe using both your handicapping and the user's changes. It is my experience that if you have a complete enough model, you can find areas of profitability in almost anything.

One last point. You say it is going to be a simple handicapping program. Uh-huh. Dave, you just don't do simple. Excellent, yes; simple no. So here's a challenge: it must be so simple that you can explain it to me in under 10 minutes on the phone! (Now THERE is a real challange!)

Your "simple" friend Dick

[Dave Schwartz]

Schmidt,

What did you say, again?

I didn't quite get that. Need to turn up my hearing what?


This guy picks on me all the time. You should see what happens when he gets together with his old friend Dale. (I have already booked a week of shock treatment for after our upcoming seminar.)

<BG>

[Trackpro]

Well, I guess we go from an easy program to what now becomes complicated to the average race goer. Seems to me the more the program does the more complicated it becomes. This of course is unless the program does the work in the background and all the user sees is the output. If you can fiddle with this factor and fiddle with that factor the program no longer becomes easy per se. I think the "Master Handicapper" program was on the right track as far as ease of use. Sometimes less is more..just my two cents worth :-)

Re: Your item no 1. internet interface

I would be interested in an interface to one of the on-line internet odds boards and wager pools that could make available in real time the pool amounts and current odds when logged on.

I would like the output of this module to be a standard windows interface such that I could bring this into a software package like Access and use my access queries, odds line and filters in conjunction with the real time data to id my possible plays.

Not interested in a closed system that would require me to change my data provider or abandon my current access database in order to use.

thanks

[Lefty]

I would like to see at leasst 5 lines of PP's l;ooking
more like they do in the form and in a print mode that takes up no morew than 2 pages per race. Also the abilty to pick own PL by just placing * or some symbol
next to preferred PL.

[hdcper]

Dave and paceadvantage members,

I am glad to see someone like Dave asking for our suggestions and needs in a handicapping program.

I strongly believe Dave, that everyone who posts here has many great ideas of what a program needs and proven methods which are successful in showing a profit at the race track.

However, many of us probably hold back on sharing these successful methods because of the risk involved. I would like to suggest that by sharing each others ideas and being committed to a program all of us will benefit.

I would like to suggest, that everyone who is interested in such a handicapping program commit to meeting in person. This meeting would allow us to share our handicapping ideas, outline our program needs, and determine how we as a team can effectively cover the expense of Dave's programming parameters.

I would like to suggest that Las Vegas would be an excellent place for such a meeting and believe at least one of us may have contacts with a racebook manager to establish a weekend meeting place.

Further, I suggest that the meeting be held either in June or July because of available vacation time and in my case school vacation.

Again Dave, I think this is a wonderful idea and hope we can bring together all types of handicappers.

Hdcper

[Dave Schwartz]

Hdcper,

You pick the date, the place, and make the arrangements and I will certainly shw up.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Lefty]

I'm already here(Las Vegas) where is everybody?

[Dave Schwartz]

Lefty,

Yeah, but the problem is we can't get you to go anywhere else. <G>

[Lefty]

Yeah, I know and it's a bummer for me too. That's what
I get for volunteering; now i'm stuck.

[Jake]

Hdcper,

I'm surprised that Dave was too shy(?) to say that he's already has most of this covered.

I know this is on new software features, but the truth is that his current HSH software has evolve to incorporate a slew of factors and methods, both custom and public, as suggested by his user base. In the last few months, there has been an explosion of new methods and features. So, in one sense, any personal outline of programming requirements is likely to either be already currently in the HSH program or available through personal discussion with Dave. Secondly, Horsestreet has a seminar coming in May in Reno where additional methods and future enhancements to the program will be laid out. Sounds to me alot like what you're asking for here. School may not be out in May, but it's easy enough to fly in on Friday evening and leave Sunday night.

Hdcper, we have discussed the HSH program privately a number of times so I'm not trying to tout or push this program for the benefit of HSH or Dave Schwartz. I just honestly believe that what you're asking for here..."share our handicapping ideas, outline our program needs, and determine how we as a team can effectively cover the expense of Dave's programming parameters", is already in play here. That's probably the case with HTR and other software as well.

Everyone should realize that it's cheaper in the long run to buy the best software out there. If it doesn't have every feature you want, either ask to have it added in an upgrade or get it done with some custom programming. Waiting to find the perfect software or a low cost version create daily opportunity costs that are hard to recoup. Paramutuels pools are perfect example of this, where the handicapper with the best tools (access, knowledge, data, processing speed) has major advantage. Having a cannon like HSH in your arsenal, given its current pricing, is a no brainer.



Originally posted by hdcper
Dave and paceadvantage members,

I am glad to see someone like Dave asking for our suggestions and needs in a handicapping program.

I strongly believe Dave, that everyone who posts here has many great ideas of what a program needs and proven methods which are successful in showing a profit at the race track.

However, many of us probably hold back on sharing these successful methods because of the risk involved. I would like to suggest that by sharing each others ideas and being committed to a program all of us will benefit.

I would like to suggest, that everyone who is interested in such a handicapping program commit to meeting in person. This meeting would allow us to share our handicapping ideas, outline our program needs, and determine how we as a team can effectively cover the expense of Dave's programming parameters.

I would like to suggest that Las Vegas would be an excellent place for such a meeting and believe at least one of us may have contacts with a racebook manager to establish a weekend meeting place.

Further, I suggest that the meeting be held either in June or July because of available vacation time and in my case school vacation.

Again Dave, I think this is a wonderful idea and hope we can bring together all types of handicappers.

Hdcper

[Jake]

Hey, I didn't mean to kill the discussion here. Especially Hdcper's thoughtful comments. I did want to share that there are already some good solutions presently out there.

It's great to hear the kind of data everyone would love being able to view in a program as well as what they find useless in current programs. It's really pretty indicative of the variety of handicapping approaches and methods that are feasible with good data.

On the other hand, I think information overload is a critical problem with many programs. Just too much to look at...so I think that having user-defined screens, where you can choose what factors you prefer to see grouped together on one screen is a real advantage.





Originally posted by Jake
Hdcper,

I'm surprised that Dave was too shy(?) to say that he's already has most of this covered.

I know this is on new software features, but the truth is that his current HSH software has evolve to incorporate a slew of factors and methods, both custom and public, as suggested by his user base. In the last few months, there has been an explosion of new methods and features. So, in one sense, any personal outline of programming requirements is likely to either be already currently in the HSH program or available through personal discussion with Dave. Secondly, Horsestreet has a seminar coming in May in Reno where additional methods and future enhancements to the program will be laid out. Sounds to me alot like what you're asking for here. School may not be out in May, but it's easy enough to fly in on Friday evening and leave Sunday night.

Hdcper, we have discussed the HSH program privately a number of times so I'm not trying to tout or push this program for the benefit of HSH or Dave Schwartz. I just honestly believe that what you're asking for here..."share our handicapping ideas, outline our program needs, and determine how we as a team can effectively cover the expense of Dave's programming parameters", is already in play here. That's probably the case with HTR and other software as well.

Everyone should realize that it's cheaper in the long run to buy the best software out there. If it doesn't have every feature you want, either ask to have it added in an upgrade or get it done with some custom programming. Waiting to find the perfect software or a low cost version create daily opportunity costs that are hard to recoup. Paramutuels pools are perfect example of this, where the handicapper with the best tools (access, knowledge, data, processing speed) has major advantage. Having a cannon like HSH in your arsenal, given its current pricing, is a no brainer.

[Druther]

Jake

You'd better be careful with what your say - you're starting to sound like me.

[Dick Schmidt]

Here is an interesting question. We have all contributed what we would like to see in a new program that Dave may write. Now the question becomes: How much would you be willing to pay for such a program? How much to buy it and how much each month to use it (ie. download fees). A good programer (and Dave is among the best) can make between $50 and $100 dollars an hour, sometimes more in the right situation. So the question becomes: Are we willing to make it worth Dave's (or anyone's) time to write new software we want to use?

Dick

[Jake]

Dick,

That's the crux of the matter. My earlier point, without trying to beat this to death, is that the software has already been written. The community of handicappers are already there as well, with a chance to discuss methods and future upgrades with these handicappers at a seminar, if you want to make the trip.

Why pay Dave to reinvent a low entry version of his other software when you can get the complete package at his current pricing? It's just my opinion, but HSH tested out for me as the best handicapping software out there and, given what you can do with it, it's a bargain at the price. For the programming hours poured into it, it's dirt cheap.

And, now here we're discussing what's it worth to have Dave put more programming hours into a new product because the number of buyers for his high end software is limited. Hell, I understand the problem, but the market logic is so whacked out that it must be driving Dave completely nuts.

The problem is that everyone wants great software without paying the price for creating or supporting it. So, here is a strategy for giving those individuals software that has far less capabilities at a lower initial buy-in, in order for them to save a few dollars. Then, hopefully, they will see how good it is, wish to add additional add-on components, and perhaps even finally migrate to the full blown HSH software.

Great strategy for Dave, stupid as hell for anyone who doesn't have the wherewithall to understand what the actual total costs are for chosing that path. Again, in the paramutuel pools, the best software wins.

Admittedly, HSH still has a number of weaknesses, but even with those, it's hands down superior handicapping software. Which continues to improve month after month. That's a track record which indicates that whatever the initial buy-in costs are, you are hooking into a program or an upgrade series that will only get progressively stronger and more full featured.

So I'm sorry, but I just don't see the economy in trying to lowball this and then to expect the same quality of handicapping performance from a far more limited software series. I understand why Dave feels compelled to go there, just not why anyone serious about handicapping wouldn't prefer to support his top of the line work.

Finally, let me added that Hdcper is a friend with whom I often correspond privately. Anyone that follows this board knows he's sincere and serious in his comments, as well as in his pursuit of good handicapping knowledge. So I really appreciate his point of view on this, because I know it is shared by many others. I just wish I could get him to bite the bullet, try HSH, and see for himself where he could take this program with his own methods.

Jake



Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Here is an interesting question. We have all contributed what we would like to see in a new program that Dave may write. Now the question becomes: How much would you be willing to pay for such a program? How much to buy it and how much each month to use it (ie. download fees). A good programer (and Dave is among the best) can make between $50 and $100 dollars an hour, sometimes more in the right situation. So the question becomes: Are we willing to make it worth Dave's (or anyone's) time to write new software we want to use?

Dick

[Tom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
[B]Okay, here is your big chance... We are designing new software for release next year... and we are interested in what you would like to see in a handicapping product.

Dave,
There is a TV program on tonight on Nova on PBS
(Is that the PBS number from Pizzola/Sartin/Bradshaw??)
that supposedly gives a mathematical forumula for preditcting the market accurately. If you could incorporate this into a program, and maybe a module that automatically transfers money from your winners to the market??? This would be very helpful. I realize now that variants for 30 points of call was too ambitious, but this? Could work.
Tom <G>

[Dave Schwartz]

Taping it now for watching later. Thanks.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dave:

I do not use your program, so forgive me if this is already a feature. An important item I would like in a program is a specific track model. I have found this to be pertinent information and the programs I have seen do not address this specific area.

A great example is Sportsman's Park 2001 spring meet. I am willing to disclose this item as the meet has concluded.

General rule - early speed in sprints, as well as routes. But as always there is an exception to the general rule - route races for 4 year old and up males. The wining model illustrated the winner to be 4 to 9 lengths behind the leader at the 1/2 mile, within 4 lengths at the 1/4 pole and either pulling away or closing ground quickly at the 1/8 pole.

This was a little gold mine, due to the perceived speed bias (true for all other races).

For example April 29 race 6, I disclosed Technocat as the best bet of the day. He fit the model, was fast enough to win and in condition. All my acquaintances told me I may want to reconsider my choice prior to placing my wager, as Technocat had no chance because come from behind runners cannot win on this speed bias track. Needless to say Technocat won on the wire and paid nicely.

After the win I divulged my research to my friends.

I am not posting to redboard or to say what a great selection I made, but to give a specific example why track models should be included in your sw.

[JimG]

SMTW,

Unless your "friends" bet thousands in the win pool, it would have been a nice thing to tell them before the race.

With respect to the rest of your post, I agree.


Jim

[Show Me the Wire]

JimG:

They do and I did. Rember, I said they tried to talk me out of my wager. I told them at 12:30 pm on the day in question Technocat was the best play of the day. They just did not believe me.

[Dave Schwartz]

SMTW,

Duly noted. Thank you for the ideas.

I thought this thread was dead.

Come on, guys, more ideas!

Get creative.

Okay, I'll give you some to get you thinking...

How about a way for users to share their selections anonymously over the web within the program? Imagine you could become part of a "handicapping group" that (say) handicaps Bel everyday. Each player would have a "handle" and you could track anyone in your group so that you'd know who does well in claiming routes or msw or know who's hot or who's not. Does that have any appeal?

[PaceAdvantage]

SMTW.

One thing that has bugged me for a long time are the "minor discrepancies" you just illustrated with respect to models and bias. How could it be that a subset of races (older males going long) could defy the prevailing trend at Sportsman's in all other races (early speed ruled). How does one explain the reasoning behind the theory that only older males going long were immune to the prevailing model or bias?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big believer/supporter of the model/bias theory. It's just these little things that baffle me at times. Why weren't 3yos going long at Sportsman's not showing a come from behind bias as well? What was so special about older horses? Could it be that the sample size was just too small, such that it appeared that older males going long favored late speed when in reality, over a much larger sample, they too would have been seen to be biased towards speed.

Sorry for the rambling....LOL


==PA

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,

We have sees that in our database. Take 1 1/16 at Hol for example. The track has a tendancy to run somewhat early at that distance, but with very young horses the track is extremely early. Only front runners win.

I can easily imagine that the bias might shifted based upon age, although I would think that the "natural" bias would be towards older=later.

I would further suggest that is often a function of the animal's nature (at a given age and sex) rather than the configuration of the track.

[Tom]

PA,
I think you can't modle just the track-you have to account for the horses as well and each race has it's own bias built into the matchup. 3Yos many times tend to run early just because they aren't talented enough to run late. Same with maiden claimers. I see this a lot at Finger Lakes where they are pretty cheap-many races are packed with cheap speed and they all wnat the lead but don't want much over 4 furlongs.
If anything has cost me more money that trying to figure out a track bias I don't what it is.
that is what took me back to Quirin-style pace and speed figures and total pace rating-they can quantify
how the final figure was earned and why the leaders either quit or didn't.
I have reduced my reliance on models to the level of "someting to be aware of" when I seperate the contenders, much that way I handle jockeys, weight,
equipment, etc-a minor factor most of the time.
Tom

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
SMTW,

Duly noted. Thank you for the ideas.

I thought this thread was dead.

Come on, guys, more ideas!

Get creative.


I would like to see something along the lines of Quinn's Class of the Field ideas, where the class of the race, the speed compared to par, and the manner of victory are combined into a performance rating (unless you already do this in some manner?) I used to try to do this, but before computers and charts were available it was not easy. You always had shippers that you couldn't rate.
Tom

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
SMTW.

One thing that has bugged me for a long time are the "minor discrepancies" you just illustrated with respect to models and bias. How could it be that a subset of races (older males going long) could defy the prevailing trend at Sportsman's in all other races (early speed ruled). How does one explain the reasoning behind the theory that only older males going long were immune to the prevailing model or bias?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big believer/supporter of the model/bias theory. It's just these little things that baffle me at times. Why weren't 3yos going long at Sportsman's not showing a come from behind bias as well? What was so special about older horses? Could it be that the sample size was just too small, such that it appeared that older males going long favored late speed when in reality, over a much larger sample, they too would have been seen to be biased towards speed.

Sorry for the rambling....LOL


==PA

Crazy ain't it. It is especially out of whack, because older female route races were won with early speed. I do not have an explanation, I know it just happens.

Actually, the sample size was about the same as the rest of the subsets give or take one race, excluding maiden races. Sportsman's Park's oval energy distribution was high early, somewhere in the range of 50% to 53.69% for all subsets except for older males going long. Their energy percentage range was 49.2% to 52.59%. Still biased toward early energy expenditure. Deep closers or one run closers were at a severe disadvantage. The model highlighted the importance of being in contact with the leaders (approximately 4 lengths) at the 1/4 pole. The winner had to expend enough early energy to be in position to make its run at the 1/8 pole.

As an aside, a sprinter stretching out was also a solid play if the sprinter showed the ability to rate in a sprint. These animals had an easy time staying in contact with the early leaders at the 1/4 pole.