Trainer Intent and Graded Races

[FortuneHunter]

I would like to here some opinions, techniques, angles regarding "trainer intent".

It would seem logical to me that Graded Stake Races would be easier to handicap with regard to trainer intent. I suggest that trainer intent is more obvious with stakes horses.

[GR1@HTR]

FH, I would think that stakes races would be the most difficult to track since they are much less of a sample of stakes races to chart/query vs regular claiming races.

:confused: :eek: :rolleyes: :p

Where did all these goofy little fockers come from???

[karlskorner]

Fourtunehunter;

You are starting on the wrong end. Graded Stakes etc, require an entry fee, the better the race, the greater the fee. Very few owners are putting up bucks, so the trainer can figure out what to do with the horse. The trainer may spot him in an Allw. race to prep him for a big race, but for all intent and purpose, if the animal is entered in a stakes race, they are looking for purse money.

It's the other end that you should be looking at, the lowly claimer, NW1 allowance, etc.here is where you ask "why" is this horse in this race. The last 3 lines of the PP's should provide some answers. Changing distance, up or down in Claiming Price, change of jockey, dirt to turf, back to dir, etc. . Here's is where the SOB'S are trying to hide and test the animal.

Karl

[Tom]

I have a couple of simple rules for Grade 1 or 2 stakes.
Bet only horses that have won a grade 1 or 2 previously (except 3yos early in the spring).
Form is what is what it is for there previous winners. I might allow 1 bad race, last time, if there is an excuse, but I never forgive two in a row, ever. There are no excuses for two in a row.
I assume every qualified horse is well meant and bet according to
speed figs first, then pace analysis. This is where I get the best results from my speed fig/form cycle analysis.
Any other stake races, I only look at purse value-100K is the dividing line. Under 100K and allowances I rate equal. Over 100K is class. This is where I lookfor trainers trying to steal races. The better grade 1 or 2 horses usually aren't well meant in these races (exception-Bobby Frankel) and they get beat a lot by lesser horses at big prices. I am not afraid to go way way back for pacelines in these races - you have very good horses running for above average purses and you have young, developing horses climbing the class ladder - lots of opportunity for trainer manuvers in these guys. biggest sucke bet I find is the horse fiinishing close up in the grade 1 or 2 races dropping to a grade 3 of open stake today - overbet because of the company line showing, but under performers in real life. Love to look at Allowance horses that are moving up after running better than par and showing sharp form.
I think theses lower stakes and claiming races are the best places to find trainer moves.

Tom

[sq764]

I agree with Karlskorner, the trainer intent is rampant in the lower claiming races. I would guess that the simple reason is that with some of the lower purses, they can make more with a wager on their horse than the purse share.

I started wagering based on trainer intent about 6 months ago, and there is no better feeling than watching your 12-1 shot who looks like crap on paper cruise home, while others are scratching their heads. (I used to be the head scratcher).

[Observer]

When in comes to graded stakes races, there are some trainers who will use one to prep for another of greater significance. Consider the road to the 2001 Kentucky Derby. After a huge score in Florida, Monarchos came into New York with a fairly dull Wood Memorial, in comparison to his stunning Florida victory. However, notice the way he turned his game around on the day it mattered most .. Derby day. All indications from trainer Ward going into the Wood Memorial were that they were looking for a useful effort out of Monarchos. And understandably so ... you don't want to leave the best race on the wrong track. In recent times, it has become acceptable for a horse to lose his final prep into the Kentucky Derby, as long as he doesn't get demolished. Of course, there are those horses who are just peaking at the right time and get the job done, regardless ... like Fusaichi Pegasus and Charismatic.

But definitely the claiming game can be a tricky one. Normally, I don't like to see a horse drop in price after a win, but with some trainers, it's acceptable. These are the guys, who I believe, are looking to collect another win, and don't care if the horse gets claimed away .. since it just adds more money into their pockets. But, usually the guys making these kind of maneuvers are the guys people are afraid to claim from anyway. So they get the win, probably cash some tickets, and get to play another game for another day .. most likely next time at a higher tag.

:D

[andicap]

Originally posted by sq764
I agree with Karlskorner, the trainer intent is rampant in the lower claiming races. I would guess that the simple reason is that with some of the lower purses, they can make more with a wager on their horse than the purse share.

I started wagering based on trainer intent about 6 months ago, and there is no better feeling than watching your 12-1 shot who looks like crap on paper cruise home, while others are scratching their heads. (I used to be the head scratcher).

Are you keeping your own trainer stats? Using others? just looking at the pacelines? I'm into form cycles and trainer intent to my mind is a key element in how the horse will run today.

[sq764]

Andicap, I use the last line of a horse's PP's to see if there are any specific angles that are visible. There are probably 4 or 5 angles I look for, and any of these combined with a good work, or specifically 2 good works I have found to be lucrative.

[ranchwest]

sq764,

What prompted your change in the basis of your handicapping? Was it a book or someone's suggestion or what? If a book, if I might ask, which one?

[sq764]

Ranchwest, although I think you know my answer, I'll bite anyway.. It was the 'Secrets of Handicapping' E-book I bought.
I never purchased the Propace software, just the book. To be honest, the software doesn't appeal to me, its the book. I learned a whole new perspective on trainer intent. I started to notice horses that I previously thought were immediate throwouts were actually juicy bombs just being prepped for this race.

Scott

[andicap]

I've been on Jerry's email list for a while -- not reading the book or anything, but I know his lingo...WIR horses, et al.
They really work?????

Jim Lehane has another angle like that, the Wide-Out. Not quite trainer intent, but he posits that a horse who raced three-wide uncovered and finished OK (i.e., not 9th by 20 lengths) should race better than the line indicates.

[sq764]

I have read everything on the web on horses, love to read all angles, insights, etc.. I have never purchased any software, as I know that most software is just plain crap. And although I am always apprehensive to listen to a handicapper's 'spiel', I must say that Jerry Stokes has explained how to handicap better than anyone I have come across..

I have seen Jim Lehane's newsletters, and I think he has a great grasp of handicapping as well. What I like about these 2 guys is that they not only explain their angles, they teach people how to handicap and to wager. Most angles are just that, angles.. They leave you with a horse that has an angle, but they don't suggest how to use the horse or when the time to load up is..

Scott

[GR1@HTR]

Scott, it is funny how opinions vary. I too have read just about everything on the net plus 15 or so books on horse racing. Of all the stuff I read, I thought that Stokes book was the biggest crap on the net. But that is what makes this whole thing fun....All of our different opinions and views...

[sq764]

Gr1, I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.. I am curious why you find his thoughts to be 'crap'? For me anyway, it opened up a new way of thinking about handicapping. I had never put too much emphasis on what a trainer is thinking..

But I am curious to hear your opinion.

Scott

[GR1@HTR]

Scott,

I no longer have his book. Had it saved on an old laptop that blew up so I can't give you specifics. Just a couple things going by memory. I had tested a couple of his ideas on my dB and it didn't quite pan out. But I only tested a couple, not all of them. I think he has some good to go w/ the bad.

Also a while back when Hallowed Dreams lost her first race, he had gone on a posting rampage here. He indicated that his software program had projected HD to lose the next race at EVG against a bunch of spare horses. Which I have no doubt that his SW program did. But any software program that picks against HD to win against those EVG pigs must have some quirks in it. No matter how one was to slice and dice HD against those horses from a mechanical standpoint, there is no reason not to have HD on top.

I will say that J Stokes does provide some different and creative views. I also have his twin brothers book (Lehane) which is much better written.
It just wasn't something for me. That doesn't mean it won't work for someone else though. Best of luck.

[sq764]

Lehane's methods seemed much more focused on internal fractions. I believe they have their place too, that is if you have time to break them down and convert them for different distances (which I do not).

I just think there are very few people I would put much merit in, Jerry and Jim being 2 of them, all of Taulbot's articles, enjoy the Joe Takach articles on physicality..

Not a big fan of Ellis Star or James Quinn.. Not sure why, just not.


Scott

[andicap]

Glen,
I have to respectfully disagree with your reliance on databases to test stuff like Jerry's angles. Handicapping is more art than science and it's almost impossible to put in writing all the rules you need to set up a valid db test. There are always so many exceptions or judgement calls to make.
Jerry never says that you'll become rich blindly following his angles. What they do is get you thinking about the races in a different way and if a horse meets some of his criteria and has an angle or two going for it at a good price it's a go.
(I'm not endorsing or refuting his work. I do know when Lehane started charging for his picks, he lost a couple of years back at Aqueduct. Anyone know if she's still doing that?)
I've never been fond of db handicapping -- although different strokes I guess, if it works for you, more power. And I know it does work for some of those on the HTR board.
I'm working on a method now that I'm struggling to put into writing for someone to test but there are so many exceptions and contingencies, I'm finding it tough (layoffs, 3rd off layoffs, 3rd year olds vs older horses. Maidens vs. winners.)
And I find I don't handicap the horses the same way in December that I do in June. In December I'm looking for fresh horses to bet against nags who've been running themselves ragged.
In June, I want horses who have been competing regularly and not on the sidelines.
Databases don't take those things into account.
A lot of db also test just the ML odds rather than the final odds. Big difference!

[GR1@HTR]

Andy, I agree that horse stuff is more of an art vs dB. In matter of fact I don't use a dB to creat spot plays any more. Have not for almost a year. Too much work for me, not as much fun as it used to be. But I do use the dB to educate myself on certain factors that may be significant. For example, what does the effect of 1st time Lasix have on maiden w/ the best first fraction or perhaps the same w/ blinkers off. XYZ w/ ABC at MLO or Off odds...-->all as a study guide or as reading my own book.

But one specific thing I do somewhat recall in Stokes book is that he firmly states that the majority of horse win after coming back w/ less than X amount of days off. That is absolutely false. Also something that Lehane (and maybe stokes) feels strongly about is the wide out horse. Nunamaker tested this factor in Modern IMpact Values a while back and found it to only have an IV of 1.06 and ROI of 1.58 (2.00 breakeven). Those are just a couple of the general ideas that I looked at that don't work out as well as they sound in print. As I have said before, some of these authors print stuff that sounds good and makes sense....But in real life their ideas are not so nice...I'm not saying it's all bad, but just some to most of it. The problem that a lot of the public has w/ horse racing is they they are fed redunt ideas over and over again. When they see something happen once and cash a ticket....they think they found the key to the mint and will play the angle over and over again....Next thing they know-->GAME OVER

[sq764]

G1, I am a firm believer in considering DSLR.. I think a horse who has not raced in 25 or so days with no works (unless a top claimer or stakes horse) is not worth my money. Of course I think you have to give a little leway along the way, you cannot say "throw everyone out that raced more than 25 days ago". Sure, you will get beat by a horse that raced 25 or more days ago with no works, but over time, I think you make out better by throwing them out of your win spot. Just my opinion..

I do have a question though, involving eliminating horses - If you had a beginner that asked you for 5 rules to eliminate horses in a race (let's say a $15,000 claimer), what would you offer? Of course you couldn't give concrete rules to ALWAYS use, but if they insisted on 5 rules to always follow in eliminating, what would they be??


Scott

[GR1@HTR]

I will give Stokes tremendous credit for having a satisfaction guarantee for his book. He was kind enough to give me a refund. Now how many vendors out there in this business are willing to do that? So I?m sure he is a solid in that area.

Scott, it is getting late and I still have 2 more races to card for tomorrow, have to take the dog out for a #1 and #2 in this 20 degree weather, and I might have to do the same for me. Without giving it much thought, here are a quick 5. I would not call them absolutes but I would use them as major red flags for dirt racing.

1) MLO>=21
2) Not w/ in 5 lengths of leader at 1st call or finish in each of last 2 races.
3) Jocks w/ real bad records?There are a handful of stiffs at your local track that might only win about 5%.
4) R running style
5) Non maidens w/ >180 day layoff=about .50 ROI.

Good nite fellas.

[ranchwest]

In my database, layoffs have an IV of .98. Of course, some of those are races for non-winners in time-frame, so it is a bit skewed, but layoffs do win. I'm not able to whip them into the winners circle very often, but they do win.

[sq764]

20 degrees in Dallas?? Sheesh, I am in Delaware and its not even that cold..

[FortuneHunter]

Originally posted by sq764
20 degrees in Dallas?? Sheesh, I am in Delaware and its not even that cold..

Scott,
I have some interest in Deleware Park. Are you familiar with this racetrack? What do you think of the management? facility? are they fan friendly? quality of racing? slots? is it "on the way up" or on the way down"? What would you consider the "circuit of tracks" that Del Park is in.

All I know is they open on 4/6/2002.

Everyone's responses are greatly appreciated,

Thanks, FH

[sq764]

I have seen Delaware Park go from dump to what it is now.. Its definitely on the up, the management has done a lot to improve every aspect of the track (and the slots sure helped).

Comparatively speaking, as far as quality of horses and purses, I would say DP is right there with Monmouth, and just a few years away from the NYRA circuit (Saratoga excluded)

The only thing that concerns me is that New York is now getting slots and Pennsylvania is apparently on the brink of getting them. That would definitely be a major blow to all Delaware tracks.


By the way, the simulcast section at DP is top notch.. We make it there once or twice a week.

[FortuneHunter]

Andicap,

I submit that if handicapping rules can be written down that are based on PP information, they can be programmed into a computer.

Granted, the programming logic can get complex, but it is still very simple compared to programming defensive electronics on the B2 bomber. The key is the PP data files and the computer horsepower is now available on your desk to do it. I have not seen or heard of any handicapping rule that can't be programmed. Even changing the rules based on season, track etc. is easy.

Honestly, the genius is in the rules not the programming of the rules. Computers are stupid, honest, consistent, and fast as hell, but only do what you tell them to do.

This is all true for database queries also. If you know what you want to look for, "programming" the query is not a problem. It is knowing if results is rational, coherent, statistically relevant, or related at all to the question you asked.

One example of a perfect computer application in handicapping is Jim Lehane's "internal fraction" calculations. To me, it is insane to do these calculations by hand. It would be very simple to “read” the electronic PP’s into MS Excel or better yet, into MS Access, do the calculations and put them on a spreadsheet to be used with the PP’s. I could develop a “Jim Lehane Internal Fraction” Worksheet in 8 hours, so could other programmer on this board. In the year 2002, there is absolutely no reason for someone to “calculate” figures by hand; it is a waste of time. There is no value add. To go one step further, I submit again that any handicapping rules that Jim has regarding using the internal fraction figs are also “easily” programmed in MS Access. But it is important to distinguish between calculations and logic programming.

Anyway, I kind of got off on a tangent, it must be Friday, my apologies.

BTW, did you find the query I posted on your previous thread on Final Odds Rank Win%, ROI useful?

FH

[sq764]

Actually, if you just manually entered in the fractions of the race and lengths behind, you could make an internal fractions spreadsheet in about 5 minutes. I have one I played around with but don't use anymore.. Took about 5 minutes per race to have the internal fractions broken down for each horse, doing it manually.


Scott

[ranchwest]

I do hundreds of calculations on multiple cards in less than 5 minutes.

[smf]

FH,

You were asking for opinions about del park...

Last year was the first for me to play tracks outside of TX & LA (with any decent amount of cash riding on wagers). If I had one and only one track to bet on in the "summer" months, it w/b Delaware (quality of lone star park has gone wayyyy down). Del park is a good track for the claiming business and has carved a niche for themselves in claiming races on the east coast.

Like Scott posted, it's getting better but imho the quality of racing isn't equal to Mth. I've watched the mid-atlantic tracks on TRN for the past 3 summers and I think you'll like del park for wagering. The track seems to play fair most of the time, but can have a speed bias from time to time.

The "circuit" is one big mess -for the lack of a better word. Runners ship in and out of there to pha, mjc, mth/med, ct and even pen and nyra. It's a great situation for trainers w/ mid level claiming stock in that they can ship at will with a lot of condition books to pick from. I have to invest a good penny to BRIS for pp's to track claims b/c of all the shipping. Well worth it tho.

good luck

[John]

Scott, you mention Jim LeHane, He has been on fire the last week pick 3's and all.Free race for today . Lets see how he does

Free Selections



Free Picks for Friday 1/4/02 at Aqueduct
Race 6 - Post 2:47 EST

6. Bing Girl (3-1) (2-1)
5. Lady Adare (4-1) (5-2)
7. Catalita (7-2) (3-1)

#6 Bing Girl looks ready for the stretchout to today's mile and a 16th distance off her first 2 lifetime efforts, both at 6F, on November 22nd and December 9th. She made good moves in both, including a strong finish in her last and looks like a top candidate for the win here.

#5 Lady Adare goes back with Maiden Special Weights off a very good closing effort in her last against $60K claimers when she finished 12 lengths in front of the show horse. That was off a 2 month break and she should be ready for a big effort in this match up going 40 yards longer.

#7 Catalita missed by a head in 2nd after getting to the front at the 8th pole when going a 1-turn mile back on November 18th on the main track. Migliore will likely gun her to the top and she has an in-the-money shot going 2-turns for the first time. The Pick 4 and Pick 3 are wagering options in today's selections for the final 4 and last 3 races on the Aqueduct program.


In addition to the free picks listed on this page, I also have a paid subscription service for those who would like more plays and detailed analysis that includes a closer look at: the pace shape, listed contenders and on occasion suggested wagering strategies. This service will include spot play selections from the N.Y. track in session each day of racing for one full month at the low fee of $20.
At times there will be additional selections from other tracks included.

The subscription is for one full month, after which time you can make a decision to renew or not renew for the next or any subsequent month. In other words, as a subscriber you are not locked in for any extended period of time.

There are 3 subscription payment options available, including credit/debit cards via IBill's (www.Ibill.com) secure server, CheckMan electronic check-writing service, and regular mail.

To subscribe to this selections service, Click Here.

To view the previous day's selections and analysis, Click Here.


To learn about the all-important "moves" horses make that set them up for top next-out performances, check out my book, "Calibration Handicapping." Click Here

[GR1@HTR]

Think he is underestimating the Mott turfer trying dirt for the first time coming of 65 day layoff. The little horsey has a nice daddy by the name of AP Indy who wins 24% at the dist/surface. I had the #4,#6 and #7 all ranked equally w/ 5,8 and 1 bringing up the rear.

[PaceAdvantage]

I love the 7 horse (Catalita) in that race.....small field...odds will suck....

[GR1@HTR]

Nice ride by the Miglet. Fought back in the final furlong to win!

[FortuneHunter]

Rocajack wrote

"To learn about the all-important "moves" horses make that set them up for top next-out performances, check out my book, "Calibration Handicapping." Click Here"

Rocajack,

Do you know if the calculations in Calibration Handicapping have been put into a program such that you load in the electronic PP file and have the program spit out the internal fraction calculations on a spreadsheet? If not, why not? Am I missing something?

Kind of like Pace Advantage, right PA?

[FortuneHunter]

GR1,
About time for the Miglet, I bet him last week at Saratoga simulcast and he couldn't find the finish line.

[PaceAdvantage]

FH,

Except that PA also has pace line selection logic built in, as well as some other stuff.....


==PA

[GR1@HTR]

Don't think Lehane likes using computers. He is from the old...old school. Before there were hills and dirt. Prefers an Abacus to calcuate hidden internal fractions.

BTW, I bet a bag of chips that the #1 romps in race 7 AQU.

[GR1@HTR]

According to BRISnet Handicapping newsletter, The Miglet was 0-20 last week. He just hired a new jockey agent. A Gryders old agent. About time he got his sh*t together and put the Miglet on a real horse. I hear the Miglet is good on P horses?

[FortuneHunter]

I am riding with you, Aqu R7 #1, certainly is the pace of the race and has the best Speed/Pace Fig according to my ( www.handicappers-datamine.com ) Figs . Instead of a "wide out" we got ourselves an "inside trip" horse here, lol

[John]

Kind of hard to put MEG down .He is staying here for the wnter. Don.t know if that injury has taken a little edge away.....

[GR1@HTR]

Lost a bag of chips and then some. #4 won by 10 lengths. Ok, back to the salt mines for now...

[PaceAdvantage]

I also loved the #1 in the 7th at Aqu....funny how we're all using computers and we all come up with the same false top pick....LOL

[ranchwest]

So, you're not using that false top pick software?

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by FortuneHunter
Andicap,

I submit that if handicapping rules can be written down that are based on PP information, they can be programmed into a computer.

Granted, the programming logic can get complex, but it is still very simple compared to programming defensive electronics on the B2 bomber. The key is the PP data files and the computer horsepower is now available on your desk to do it. I have not seen or heard of any handicapping rule that can't be programmed. Even changing the rules based on season, track etc. is easy.

Honestly, the genius is in the rules not the programming of the rules. Computers are stupid, honest, consistent, and fast as hell, but only do what you tell them to do.

This is all true for database queries also. If you know what you want to look for, "programming" the query is not a problem. It is knowing if results is rational, coherent, statistically relevant, or related at all to the question you asked.

One example of a perfect computer application in handicapping is Jim Lehane's "internal fraction" calculations. To me, it is insane to do these calculations by hand. It would be very simple to “read” the electronic PP’s into MS Excel or better yet, into MS Access, do the calculations and put them on a spreadsheet to be used with the PP’s. I could develop a “Jim Lehane Internal Fraction” Worksheet in 8 hours, so could other programmer on this board. In the year 2002, there is absolutely no reason for someone to “calculate” figures by hand; it is a waste of time. There is no value add. To go one step further, I submit again that any handicapping rules that Jim has regarding using the internal fraction figs are also “easily” programmed in MS Access. But it is important to distinguish between calculations and logic programming.



FH

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Handicapper/programmers "cut/paste/print" and glue this gem on your bathroom mirror. Read it every morning - Live it! FH, nicely done. -NDJ

[BillW]

A comment on the comments from FH. Most negative posts re. computers in handicapping are from non-programmers who are slaves to what is available commercially (very expensive and usually constraining i.e. only as flexable as the creator has allowed). I write my own stuff and therefore don't have that opinion, because of course, I can do anything with the computer (as FH says) that I can manually. But I can certainly understand the commercial program users view.

If computers were viewed as "stupid, honest, consistant, and fast as hell" as opposed to a substitute for conscious thought, they could be made to be a much more effective handicapping tool.

Bill W.

[Tom]

FH,
I was there only once a few years back, but I loved the place.
Iwas there in the summer and it was like being at a mini Saratoga, except it was comfortable, too. TV's in the trees, beatiful simulcasting areas, just a nice place to be.
I was unaware of the Arabian breed running at race tracks, and I was quite confused watching the horse saddle for the 7th race - they were the size of deers! And the times in the pr0gram-these were damn slow horses! On of the locals clued me in and several of them had a chuckle at my ignorance.
But the track was beautiful, and the racing formful. I still play Del and in fact, it was where some of my best scores have come from in 2001.
I plan to go back this year. My annual Satatoga trips are a thing of the past- from now on, its WO, CT, PENN, MNR, DEL, PHA, and FE.

Tom

[FortuneHunter]

Originally posted by BillW
A comment on the comments from FH. Most negative posts re. computers in handicapping are from non-programmers who are slaves to what is available commercially (very expensive and usually constraining i.e. only as flexable as the creator has allowed). I write my own stuff and therefore don't have that opinion, because of course, I can do anything with the computer (as FH says) that I can manually. But I can certainly understand the commercial program users view.

If computers were viewed as "stupid, honest, consistant, and fast as hell" as opposed to a substitute for conscious thought, they could be made to be a much more effective handicapping tool.

Bill W.

Bill, I see your point. My perspective was off. I forget that everyone isn't a programmer. I appreciate how difficult it is for people who are not in to it. They are not able to take advantage of the technology. I hope to develop a system, a user interface that opens the technology up to everyone. It is a stretch but I think there is potential. I mean here we are making posts on the internet. Who would have thought 7 years ago that we would be here?

[John]

FH,
When you are ready to show me how I can take all these paper and pencil methods and convert them to push and go and in minuites I have the figures. I am ready when you are.......
Rocajack

[BillW]

FH,

Best of luck on your system (mine is for in-house consumption only :-) so no grand plan, just incremental refinement).

I think the way I would consider a commercial package is the engine approach with an easy to use script language. (If you are familiar with EMACS ... a very strong engine for editing and a scripting language to make it do anything, the only problem is that LISP isn't a simple scripting language). But this type of approach would allow the captive user to customize it in any fashion. Possibly even in ways the author didn't imagine.

What was the subject of this thread anyway? I could talk all day on computer application to handicapping :-)

Again, good luck,

Bill W.

[FortuneHunter]

Originally posted by rocajack
FH,
When you are ready to show me how I can take all these paper and pencil methods and convert them to push and go and in minuites I have the figures. I am ready when you are.......
Rocajack

Right now I am working on a program for internal figures using the BRISnet E1, E2, LP, SP figs. Reference "Turn Times" thread here, last post on 12/22. My post on 12/21 @ 4:31 am.

When that is done I have a layout for whatever calculations are needed with internal times and lengths.

I would like to think that by the Saratoga Meet, I could give you the basic calculations for each entry in each race in a report. Hopefully save you a few hours a day.

We could also collaborate with another one of the programmers on this board. Once you define the information that is needed to make your calculations I can design the database table(s) and a import program to read the information in. The other guy can write the equations in VBA and generate the report.

FH

[Jerry]

I don't know why I bother to post here but I will one more time. Some people are so damned sure they have all the answers that they refuse to open their minds to something different. So be it. Jim Lehane and I are old friends and have written a book together once. But I use much more trainer intent and angles than he does. Yes Jim is the better author, but I believe I have taught many more handicappers to make money, than Jim. Yes I have a software and yes you can write trainer patterns into one. Has anyone on this board ever made a living playing the horses? I have. And I usually only play longshots. No I don't play many races, and don't need to. Why do so? 90% of the winners are 10/1 or less, proven fact. But trainer intent is the machine that drives the longshot winner, and that is what my whole method is about. One more thing, "if what you're doing is not leading you to your desired goal in life; what in the hell are you doing it for?" Cya

Jerry Stokes

[smf]

Jerry,

I guess you really don't read the board much anymore. There are at least 2 people here that wager for a living. I'm one of them. I've "earned my daily bread" at wagering for only the past 20 months. Karlscorner has done it for 20 years.

Also, a guy from Tulsa that posted here in the past has played for a living, but not sure if he still does.

I don't have all the answers either. Just "know what I do know" and play accordingly.

Best of luck, Jerry.

[smf]

Jerry, one other thing..

Your final sentence--I think most people (99.9%, perhaps) play the races for fun, not to make it a life's work. There are many more safe & secure ways to make a living than wagering on horses. I know 10 years ago I wouldn't even give handicapping as a profession a thought.

Cya 2.

[sq764]

SMF, I for one will say that I have used Jerry's methods on trainer intent and if used properly and patiently, you can do quite well. I think with any quality program or angle or method, its profitability depends on patience and smart wagering.

I have caught some huge double digit horses with trainer intent that I never would have before reading Jerry's SOH book. I haven't bought his software, nor do I know Jerry, nor do I endorse his book or software. I am just telling you that it opened a new idea to me that has worked well.


Scott

[FortuneHunter]

Jerry you wrote:

"I don't know why I bother to post here but I will one more time. Some people are so damned sure they have all the answers that they refuse to open their minds to something different."

Just curious as to what parcipitated that statement? If posting here gets your knickers all twisted, you probably don't need the aggravation.

For me, I do not make a living playing horses. IMO, it does not pay enough for the hours of labor required. I believe it is a tough life to live and is not conducive to family life. My day job is secure, 40 hours a week, weekends off, 5 weeks vacation a year. Right now, my goal is to make a few $K a year to pay for vacations. No way I can make 3 figures at the track at this point, to live in the style to which I am accustomed. I don't the nerve to invest at that level right now.

Like many, when I retire, kids are off to college, and my future is secure in a few years (and they go by quick) I would like to spend my time going to the track.

FG / Gulf in the Winter, Sar and Dmr in the summer. Driving around the country in that big motor home. Someday..I hope.

Good Luck to all, especially those who grind it out each day to make a living. I salute you.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Jerry
I don't know why I bother to post here but I will one more time. Some people are so damned sure they have all the answers that they refuse to open their minds to something different. So be it. Jim Lehane and I are old friends and have written a book together once. But I use much more trainer intent and angles than he does. Yes Jim is the better author, but I believe I have taught many more handicappers to make money, than Jim. Yes I have a software and yes you can write trainer patterns into one. Has anyone on this board ever made a living playing the horses? I have. And I usually only play longshots. No I don't play many races, and don't need to. Why do so? 90% of the winners are 10/1 or less, proven fact. But trainer intent is the machine that drives the longshot winner, and that is what my whole method is about. One more thing, "if what you're doing is not leading you to your desired goal in life; what in the hell are you doing it for?" Cya

Jerry Stokes
Sounds like Jerry is upset that no one heralds his way of handicapping.
Jerry should be thankful cause if this came to be "in fashion" his longshots would not be longshots anymore.No one discounts trainer intent,but it so hard to quantify,its an art not a science.

[Jerry]

No the fact that no one hearlds my methods is not the point. It's when someone throws shit in my face not knowing what in hell they are talking about that gets my goat. I only came to see something someone had emailed me about. 95% of punters go home in the red and there is no reason for it.

If what you're doing isn't profitable, why in hell keep pouring money down a rat hole? But you have to clear your mind of the "old tapes" before you can accept something different. That was something difficult for Jim to do; now he spot plays and makes good money. It is said that patience is a virtue; that statement was never more true than when pursing horse racing as a living. Is my method the best in the world? I don't know and don't care. I only have to look at 3 or 4 horses in any given race to see if I'll play it or not. This is where software comes in; as it shortcuts the process. Nothing can replace the brain as the ultimate tool in horse racing. I play many races other handicappers wouldn't touch with a "ten foot pole," and I'm glad they don't. Someone do :o) and I thank them!

About 7 years ago when a stroke and heart problems left me unable to go to La Downs much, I decided to turn to teaching at a very nominal fee, to help the struggling punters to learn to handicap, as I saw no one else seemed to want to. I, like eveyone had been taken to the cleaners in my early years of playing the ponies. It seemed that around each corner was a shyster willing to sell me crap. I'm talking from big names who write books every six months or so, etc. There are a million books, videos, systems, etc. out there that only cost you money and don't teach you anything to speak of. I just wanted to turn that situation around for once.

I don't worry about someone killing my odds as there are too many players, playing too many tracks, that will never chage what they are doing to ever cause that too happen. They'll just keep on doing what they are doing, and when they lose "it's fixed" or "that <expletive> horse just didn't figure." Sorry but it did!

It just grinds my teeth and makes my butt burn when someone runs me down, when I've tried so hard to give this business something besides the black eye we horse players have had as long as I can remember.

Well I've got to get this next weeks lesson finished for my class. You guys and gals have a great upcoming week. Take care and God bless. Cya

Jerry

[GR1@HTR]

Jerry.

Don't think anybody was trashing your stuff besides me...I just said I didn't like it and I complimented you on giving me my money back w/ no questions asked. Thats is all. Not everyone will like your stuff and that should be expected. Besides, just because you like pineapple on your pizza doesn't mean that everybody else has to like it and vise versa. Best of luck.

[karlskorner]

Jerry Stokes;

2 lenghty post to prove your point, I don't think it was necessary. Although your points were well taken, I don't believe this is the first time someone had doubts about your method, the fact that your returned his money certainly speaks well of you and I am quite certain more clients kept your book than returned them. When a new viewpoint is brought upon the scene there will always be a group who will bad mouth it, living with their old ways.

I still see people on a daily basis, walk into the track, buy the Form and proceed to add together the S/R and Variant, something they learned 40 years ago and there is no way you are going to change their habits. It happened to me today at GP, I was standing by the rail in the paddock, when the person next to me looked over at my notes on the printed BRIS PP's and questioned what everything meant, when I started to explain, his eyes just rolled back in his head and he sunk back into his Form, I looked at his Form, blank, nada, zip, not one notation one it, he just kept glancing at it like something was going to jump out and bite him. I am quite sure he is part of the 95% group you speak of.

Don't take it seriously Jerry, the beauty of it all is that tomorrow is another day and we get to do it all over again.

Karl

[superfecta]

Jerry,
Do you really teach basics to the punters at the track?That would be so cool,I'd do it for free.
I don't know if anyone would learn,but I think it's neat to talk horses with someone,and have them miss some of the bad experiences I had.Course,without some of the bad bets,handicapping would be pretty boring stuff.
I would also teach handicapping etiquette,so going to the track would be more fun.
You know what I'm talking about,the guys who had the winner but did'nt bet it,and tell everyone around them so(after the race)or the guys who call the winning horse every four letter word (at the top of their lungs)when it beats their 4/5 shot.Or complain the races are fixed,yet they stay and bet.Or people that stand in front of the line,get to the teller and then start to pick their horses to bet on.
I could go on,but you know what I mean.

[Jerry]

Yes Superfecta I have walked a mile or two in those shoes you speak of. The damn shame is the tracks don't teach any of that. They're too busy worring about comps for the "Big Hitters." Yes I answer any question truthfully as I know how or no matter how trivial it sounds. Do I do it for nothing? Usually I'll answer an email or two from anyone. Beyond that I invite them to join my classes. Have a god one "Super."

Jerry