The Logical Choice -- Tote Board Handicapping made easy

[Capper Al]

The Logical Choice -- Tote Board Handicapping Made Easy by G. W. Cohail (http://www.amazon.com/The-Logical-Choice-Toteboard-Handicapping/dp/1484141822/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1406925903&sr=8-2&keywords=the+logical+choice)

Has anyone read this book?

[Harmonicaslim]

Yeah, I have it. Mostly about betting horses going off above their ML.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Kind of an odd book. The author is all over the place talking about value, variants, due-column betting, etc. Steps through a "workout" of his approach with races at Santa Anita, betting $5 to win, $20 to place.

Pros: some good nuggets of info, examples, and provides a basis for "tote board system", if that's your goal.

Cons: not well organized, short chapters and skips around a bit.

Overall, worth the money if you're wanting a few ideas on how to look at racing in a bit different way.

[Capper Al]

Thanks guys. I bought the book. I will post my opinion too after reading it.

[timtam]

I bought this book when it came out last April 2013 but I think it was an addendum because the book goes over a style of play recording dates in 2006 where he was looking for value in his Quickcapper picks which I guess at the time he was selling.
The last chapter is strictly for play tote board values only and dismisses the drop down with a week at Santa Anita in 2013. Some of his examples are vague because he uses certain horses with the same odds rises and other times he lets out a horse he otherwise should be playing and never gives an explanation.
Never tells you how much your "bank" should be in reserve but in a readers
review in Amazon ( where I bought the book ) the outlay would have been quite a bit between hits. Anyway it's food for thought but pretty hard to just use this
as a method of making enough money to ' lock his office door and play the horses' unless his office is in his home.

[thaskalos]

This book isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I was going to say this at the beginning of this thread...but I was embarrassed to admit that I paid money to get it.

Just terrible. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

After Thask's post, I had to go back and reread the book. If you're looking for insight on how the author thinks to about determining his selections, then yes it's a disappointment.

I believe I initially liked it due to the numerous examples provided, though I must admit the selection process "made easy" is not always clear.

Upon rereading it though, I did get a bit more insight on his approach to wagering off the tote, which in my mind is similar to technical analysis in stocks. The system he employs could have probably summed up in a single page of "rules", and I got a chuckle how several times he mentions how his wagers broke his rules. One major flaw in his approach, IMHO, is the reliance on an accurate morning line.

I can't write very well, there's not much literature in tote board analysis, and I'm inclined to give most authors the benefit of the doubt. I have books that are a lot worse. I hope Capper Al doesn't think I gave him a bum steer....

[Capper Al]

After Thask's post, I had to go back and reread the book. If you're looking for insight on how the author thinks to about determining his selections, then yes it's a disappointment.

I believe I initially liked it due to the numerous examples provided, though I must admit the selection process "made easy" is not always clear.

Upon rereading it though, I did get a bit more insight on his approach to wagering off the tote, which in my mind is similar to technical analysis in stocks. The system he employs could have probably summed up in a single page of "rules", and I got a chuckle how several times he mentions how his wagers broke his rules. One major flaw in his approach, IMHO, is the reliance on an accurate morning line.

I can't write very well, there's not much literature in tote board analysis, and I'm inclined to give most authors the benefit of the doubt. I have books that are a lot worse. I hope Capper Al doesn't think I gave him a bum steer....

I bought the book and read it. I whole heartily agree with your analysis. I wouldn't dismiss him as totally worthless. His tote-boards moves are important, but one might want to reinterpret how to play them.

[Inglewood Flamingo]

http://amgona.wordpress.com/the-loical-choice/

If you read his last post it appears the author is in poor health. I communicated with him a few times and summed up his approach up as just looking for overlays off the ML. IMO, a better odds line would greatly improve the approach.

[Capper Al]

http://amgona.wordpress.com/the-loical-choice/

If you read his last post it appears the author is in poor health. I communicated with him a few times and summed up his approach up as just looking for overlays off the ML. IMO, a better odds line would greatly improve the approach.

Thanks. The tote-board play is part of the equation to profit.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

http://amgona.wordpress.com/the-loical-choice/

If you read his last post it appears the author is in poor health. I communicated with him a few times and summed up his approach up as just looking for overlays off the ML. IMO, a better odds line would greatly improve the approach.

Tough break to hear about the author's health.

I agree that a decent odds line would probably outperform the morning line at many tracks, and certainly would help zero in on the better plays. I'm a bit skeptical over his $5 win, $20 place wagering strategy, but didn't back and rechurn the numbers to see how he would have done with straight $25 win bets. This approach does remind me of a place bettor I met in Vegas one time, who said after 30 years of playing he found the only profitable approach for him were place bets on what determined were overlays.

The tote, in theory, contains all the known info related to a race, and monitoring the patterns in wagering can certainly lead to picking winners - excepting of course the late "steam" coming in from insiders. I believe the book only had one example for odds tracking, and all the others were just final odds versus M/L.

[Inglewood Flamingo]

If you go to his website and read his archived posts, not only do they make for some good reading but he also tells the week long story about how he learned this method by stalking another bettor. Not sure if it's true or not but good reading nonetheless.

[timtam]

This is my second post on this book and I didn't even know about the website

and the archives section which I immediately read. So after all the replys from

other readers does anyone in the forum find his method in Logical Approach a

satisfactory and successful method by the way the author explains it?

I did some paper tests and had mixed results so is there something he explains

in his archives or emails to other members that clarifies any of his " rules"

that would make his approach successful? It's an easy method to follow in

between races but he violates the 9/1 odds rule at BC&D tracks that I don't

know if he wins or loses. Any body make any clarity from the additional info or

is still mishmash and bend the rules to hit a winner? Also sorry about his

health and wish him well.

[Capper Al]

This is my second post on this book and I didn't even know about the website

and the archives section which I immediately read. So after all the replys from

other readers does anyone in the forum find his method in Logical Approach a

satisfactory and successful method by the way the author explains it?

I did some paper tests and had mixed results so is there something he explains

in his archives or emails to other members that clarifies any of his " rules"

that would make his approach successful? It's an easy method to follow in

between races but he violates the 9/1 odds rule at BC&D tracks that I don't

know if he wins or loses. Any body make any clarity from the additional info or

is still mishmash and bend the rules to hit a winner? Also sorry about his

health and wish him well.

No one is all right or all wrong in their handicapping. His tote-board method has some merit in my testing, but I haven't been able to make a profit by it. His method will lead us to which horses are getting action and which horses are being neglected by public. This itself is enough to incorporate into your handicapping or wagering.

[barn32]

If we could look at the tote board manipulations to determine profitability, this would imply there are those who know the outcome of races before they are run. Assuming these people exist we must further assume they are leaving elephant tracks across the tote.

Come on people it just doesn't work that way.



Tote board manipulations are just that--the workings of the betting public as they heave to and fro trying to decide which way to go.

If there was anything to the up, down and sideways of the tote, Anderon and his brother would be rich by now, and we all know how they end up doing--[i]five horse exacta boxes to try and get even.

[Capper Al]

Tote action doesn't have to be on a favorite.

[Tape Reader]

Tote action doesn't have to be on a favorite.

IMO, they rarely are. Again IMO, it is not a “conspiracy” or a “Fixed” race. Someone just feels that this horse may come alive today and makes a sizable bet. He/she most often loses on these bets. When they hit it is for a big price.

[Capper Al]

IMO, they rarely are. Again IMO, it is not a “conspiracy” or a “Fixed” race. Someone just feels that this horse may come alive today and makes a sizable bet. He/she most often loses on these bets. When they hit it is for a big price.

Yeap!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

If we could look at the tote board manipulations to determine profitability, this would imply there are those who know the outcome of races before they are run. Assuming these people exist we must further assume they are leaving elephant tracks across the tote.

Come on people it just doesn't work that way.



Tote board manipulations are just that--the workings of the betting public as they heave to and fro trying to decide which way to go.

If there was anything to the up, down and sideways of the tote, Anderon and his brother would be rich by now, and we all know how they end up doing--[i]five horse exacta boxes to try and get even.

The author's book doesn't mention tote board manipulation, though it's part of the patterns on display.

I would be SHOCKED if tote board analysis (and exotic pool analysis) is not incorporated into many of the betting syndicate's methods. If they're monitoring the pools looking for overlays, it's certainly logical that they would look for wagering "patterns" as well, trying to isolate the horses bet with "smart" or inside money versus the general betting public.

This does not imply that the outcome of the race is known beforehand. Obviously, many things can happen during a race that affect the outcome, and one can only model the likelihood of those events. Nor does it imply that any one pattern is always 100 percent foolproof - like any other handicapping factor, there's a hit rate and ROI associated with each pattern.

Patterns such as early money, late money, cold on the board, reoccuring "hits" on a pool for a Z display, wagers intended solely for price manipulation, etc., are common enough that it's worthwhile to track. The key is to determine if the wagers are just the random plays from the crowd or the smart money on the hotter horses.

Out of curiousity, how would you make your 17-1 shot stay at that price? If he opened at 21-1 and you wagered enough to drive him down to 17-1, don't you think that might alert the tote watchers? What if he gets bet down to 12-1? Do you start making wagers on other horses to drive his price up?

[thaskalos]

The author's book doesn't mention tote board manipulation, though it's part of the patterns on display.

I would be SHOCKED if tote board analysis (and exotic pool analysis) is not incorporated into many of the betting syndicate's methods. If they're monitoring the pools looking for overlays, it's certainly logical that they would look for wagering "patterns" as well, trying to isolate the horses bet with "smart" or inside money versus the general betting public.

This does not imply that the outcome of the race is known beforehand. Obviously, many things can happen during a race that affect the outcome, and one can only model the likelihood of those events. Nor does it imply that any one pattern is always 100 percent foolproof - like any other handicapping factor, there's a hit rate and ROI associated with each pattern.

Patterns such as early money, late money, cold on the board, reoccuring "hits" on a pool for a Z display, wagers intended solely for price manipulation, etc., are common enough that it's worthwhile to track. The key is to determine if the wagers are just the random plays from the crowd or the smart money on the hotter horses.

Out of curiousity, how would you make your 17-1 shot stay at that price? If he opened at 21-1 and you wagered enough to drive him down to 17-1, don't you think that might alert the tote watchers? What if he gets bet down to 12-1? Do you start making wagers on other horses to drive his price up?

In the pre-simulacasting era...one COULD have attached some significance to the "timing" of these odds fluctuations. Today...what appears to be "late money", could just as easily be a batch of early wagers that an out-of-town betting facility has transferred late into the host track's wagering pool.

[Capper Al]

In the pre-simulacasting era...one COULD have attached some significance to the "timing" of these odds fluctuations. Today...what appears to be "late money", could just as easily be a batch of early wagers that an out-of-town betting facility has transferred late into the host track's wagering pool.

There are other ways than watch for money dumps to follow the board that still work today.

[marksinger]

I wanted to read his archives. What is his website? Thank you.

[thaskalos]

There are other ways than watch for money dumps to follow the board that still work today.
I'd like to see one...

[Robert Goren]

In the pre-simulacasting era...one COULD have attached some significance to the "timing" of these odds fluctuations. Today...what appears to be "late money", could just as easily be a batch of early wagers that an out-of-town betting facility has transferred late into the host track's wagering pool.I looked at Fonner Park one year when in state simulcasting was allowed. I keep track of very time I thought a horse took and when it took it. Then I tried to break it down by trainers. I had numbers for the entire meet. There was only about 5 trainers who anything close to consistent as when the betting took place for winners. I did find out when a lot of "bad" money came in. The next year out state simulcasting came in and I stopped betting Fonner Park. I really have my doubts that anything very useful can be found by studying the timing of money.

[Ed Keenan]

There is likely no such thing as 'easy' or rapidly when uncovering any truths re horserace handicapping. So forewarned you should acquire and absorb Glendon Jones' "Horse Racing Logic". This 128pg. book will describe what the Horseplayer has to do in order to win. The project of consistently winning is not meant for the weak of heart. In my opininion, after 47 yrs in the game, you must identify contenders accurately & quickly and then bet these 1, 2 or 3 favorable opportunities. Much easier said than done. I suspect the largest current obstacle to succeeding is the "get rich or be a success" by winning a tournament dream. You will need to consistently go against the crowd by betting on overlays (such a simple concept but it is likely the single way to do it). There is no Black Boxx that contains the secrets for being a Winner at the Track, it will take hard work with no certainty of eventual $$ reward.
At NYRA tracks you will need to be v/v/v sharp to identify any "undiscovered" value on the tote board (but good luck with that, you will need to devote a large portion of your business hours to id'ing these tote values, especially those advertised as the 'easy ones'). Good luck

[thaskalos]

There is likely no such thing as 'easy' or rapidly when uncovering any truths re horserace handicapping. So forewarned you should acquire and absorb Glendon Jones' "Horse Racing Logic". This 128pg. book will describe what the Horseplayer has to do in order to win. The project of consistently winning is not meant for the weak of heart. In my opininion, after 47 yrs in the game, you must identify contenders accurately & quickly and then bet these 1, 2 or 3 favorable opportunities. Much easier said than done. I suspect the largest current obstacle to succeeding is the "get rich or be a success" by winning a tournament dream. You will need to consistently go against the crowd by betting on overlays (such a simple concept but it is likely the single way to do it). There is no Black Boxx that contains the secrets for being a Winner at the Track, it will take hard work with no certainty of eventual $$ reward.
At NYRA tracks you will need to be v/v/v sharp to identify any "undiscovered" value on the tote board (but good luck with that, you will need to devote a large portion of your business hours to id'ing these tote values, especially those advertised as the 'easy ones'). Good luck

Many books "describe" what the handicapper has to do in order to win...but the handicapper is still losing. The game is a lot tougher than the handicapping authors make it seem.

[Robert Goren]

Many books "describe" what the handicapper has to do in order to win...but the handicapper is still losing. The game is a lot tougher than the handicapping authors make it seem.Yes it is. But is not all that tough for the hobbyist handicapper to show a small profit. What is tough is making enough money to earn a living from today's game.

[Ed Keenan]

You are absolutely correct, the hcpg authors DO make it seem like it the game can be beaten and fairly consistently. However, the authors may or may not be professional players but they ARE authors so their motivation is to sell books. This is v/v/v difficult to do [sell more books] if the game is portrayed as an uphill struggle.

[Ed Keenan]

You may be accurate with that 'shoppiong mall' forecast, I don't know. It has happened in some areas (Aksarben [near you], Beulah, Golden Gate -partially, Hollywood Pk and now NYRA management is discussing selling off parking lots (Bel) and reconfiguring Aqueduct in an effort to combine Aqu with Bel). Be careful what you ask for, eh?

[thaskalos]

Yes it is. But is not all that tough for the hobbyist handicapper to show a small profit. What is tough is making enough money to earn a living from today's game.

I don't buy this premise, Robert. To me...it's very difficult to show ANY kind of profit in this game. This "small profit" and "big profit" talk has always been very confusing to me.

Can the $2 bettor come up with a way to average a $2 daily profit at the track? If he can...then financial security is there for the taking for him. All he has to do is move up his betting unit to what he considers to be a good day's pay. If you can make $2 a day by making $2 bets...then you should make $300 a day, if you make $300 bets. That's where horse racing compares favorably to poker; you don't face tougher competition when you move up in stakes.

And if the low-betting "hobbyist" is not psychologically prepared for bets of this magnitude...then I am here to help. Let him send his picks to me...and I'll wager $500 on each, and we'll split the profits. That way...it'll be worthwhile for both of us.

IMO...it's a myth that there is a great number of "small-betting" winners out there. It's very tough to be a "winner"...PERIOD.

[Light]

Can the $2 bettor come up with a way to average a $2 daily profit at the track?

That is "the secret" to horse racing.

[NorCalGreg]

This book isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I was going to say this at the beginning of this thread...but I was embarrassed to admit that I paid money to get it.

Just terrible. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Was just now at Cohail's site (it's still up)......somehow googled my way to it. I liked his take on what's worthwhile in handicapping--and what's useless. I believe the author has since passed, but his site is well-worth the read.

He wasn't afraid to go against the grain of modern handicapping:

"The following aspects are borderline worthless:

Speed Numbers: I once believed in speed numbers, but wisdom comes with age, and I now wonder how anyone can believe a manipulated number is somehow more accurate than the actual time of a race is beyond my grasp.

Track Variants: Impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.

Beyer Speed Figures: The worst hoax ever perpetuated upon the race-going public.

Par times: The dynamics of every race are different, and profiles based on average times for a given distance are highly flawed. They have no bearing on what will happen in the race under scrutiny.

Class: An elusive element. Worrying about which horse is the “class” in a race is daunting, time consuming, and mostly a waist of time.

Post Position: The post position a horse will break from has little, if any, influence on the outcome of the race.

Jockey: A competent trainer will employ a competent jockey. Issue closed.

Weight: Probably the most overemphasized factor in horse racing.

Track Condition: Another factor that gets far more attention than it deserves."


https://amgona.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/worthwhile-and-worthless-handicapping-aspects/

I googled his book for a review, and it brought me to this older thread.
NCG

[DeltaLover]

Was just now at Cohail's site (it's still up)......somehow googled my way to it. I liked his take on what's worthwhile in handicapping--and what's useless. I believe the author has since passed, but his site is well-worth the read.

He wasn't afraid to go against the grain of modern handicapping:

"The following aspects are borderline worthless:

Speed Numbers: I once believed in speed numbers, but wisdom comes with age, and I now wonder how anyone can believe a manipulated number is somehow more accurate than the actual time of a race is beyond my grasp.

Track Variants: Impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.

Beyer Speed Figures: The worst hoax ever perpetuated upon the race-going public.

Par times: The dynamics of every race are different, and profiles based on average times for a given distance are highly flawed. They have no bearing on what will happen in the race under scrutiny.

Class: An elusive element. Worrying about which horse is the “class” in a race is daunting, time consuming, and mostly a waist of time.

Post Position: The post position a horse will break from has little, if any, influence on the outcome of the race.

Jockey: A competent trainer will employ a competent jockey. Issue closed.

Weight: Probably the most overemphasized factor in horse racing.

Track Condition: Another factor that gets far more attention than it deserves."


https://amgona.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/worthwhile-and-worthless-handicapping-aspects/

I googled his book for a review, and it brought me to this older thread.
NCG

Almost all of these points are completely wrong.

[NorCalGreg]

Almost all of these points are completely wrong.


Agreed, Delta. I said he "wasn't afraid to go against the grain of modern handicapping" --Didn't say he wasn't a wack-job, and most of this was probably said for effect, as much as anything.

Was surprised he didn't also include something like

"TURF--IT'S JUST GRASS"


I do agree with his assessment of Par Times, Jockeys, and Weight.

[Capper Al]

The tote-board has its place. Nowadays, it might be better at eliminate horses. For example, a ML horse at 2/1 opens at 10/1 and only drops down to 5/1 by post time. The barn might be broadcasting that they aren't going for a win today.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The tote-board has its place. Nowadays, it might be better at eliminate horses. For example, a ML horse at 2/1 opens at 10/1 and only drops down to 5/1 by post time. The barn might be broadcasting that they aren't going for a win today.

Yes it does. It gives you a direct view into the mind of the crowd.

I sure as hell ain't chasin em around though!

[acorn54]

This book isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I was going to say this at the beginning of this thread...but I was embarrassed to admit that I paid money to get it.

Just terrible. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

as always not afraid to be frank and candid.

[ultracapper]

I looked at Fonner Park one year when in state simulcasting was allowed. I keep track of very time I thought a horse took and when it took it. Then I tried to break it down by trainers. I had numbers for the entire meet. There was only about 5 trainers who anything close to consistent as when the betting took place for winners. I did find out when a lot of "bad" money came in. The next year out state simulcasting came in and I stopped betting Fonner Park. I really have my doubts that anything very useful can be found by studying the timing of money.

Combine this with an owner, and it can be quite accurate. In the 80s at Longacres, you could tell with absolute certainty when a Mike Chambers trained, John Roche owned horse was the nuts. Mr. Roche would put significant money on the horse before the live betting started. 3/1 morning line would start at 2/5, and you knew Mr. Roche was confident of his runner that day. During a 6 month meet, there would be a half a dozen no brainer Chambers/Roche plays. Seldom would you get even money, as all the wise guys knew what was up, but I do remember getting 3/1 on a FTS filly once. She was 5/2 ML if I remember correctly, was 3/5 when betting opened, and floated. It made no sense that it floated as it was just another of Mr. Roche's Knight's Choice babies. I have no idea how that one slipped by. My father-in-law pointed this out to me the same time he pointed out jockeys ditching one mount for another by pointing out Gary Baze getting off the ML favorite to take the mount on Hilco Scamper in his debut. Scamper opened at 1/5 and somehow we got 7/5 if I remember correctly. He beat the 2nd time starter Baze ditched by 15 in 56 and small change.

In the 15 years I've been playing SoCal, I haven't been able to identify a combination like this, though I've looked for it as that lesson was never lost on me.

[ultracapper]

To expand on my above post, I think the owner is more significant than the trainer in this equation. You can get an owner like Gary Barber that just bets on all his starters, and his money tells you nothing. However, Mr. Roche lived in Yakima, a solid 2 hour drive to Seattle, and for him to come across the Cascade mountain passes in order to place a bet on his horse would have been an entire day committed to this for a very busy man who did not have any method of off-track betting available to him. Barber likes betting for the sake of the rush, Mr. Roche only filled up the gas tank and pulled out his wallet when he knew he was getting his money back.

At that time handle at Longacres was respectable, not Santa Anita by any sense of the imagination, but $3000 on a horse at even money at post time was no guarantee to even tick it down 20 cents. $3000 on a horse at Emerald at post time would make a 5/1 3rd choice the 4/5 chalk. Things have changed around here, that's for sure.

[ultracapper]

Was just now at Cohail's site (it's still up)......somehow googled my way to it. I liked his take on what's worthwhile in handicapping--and what's useless. I believe the author has since passed, but his site is well-worth the read.

He wasn't afraid to go against the grain of modern handicapping:

"The following aspects are borderline worthless:

Speed Numbers: I once believed in speed numbers, but wisdom comes with age, and I now wonder how anyone can believe a manipulated number is somehow more accurate than the actual time of a race is beyond my grasp.

Track Variants: Impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.

Beyer Speed Figures: The worst hoax ever perpetuated upon the race-going public.

Par times: The dynamics of every race are different, and profiles based on average times for a given distance are highly flawed. They have no bearing on what will happen in the race under scrutiny.

Class: An elusive element. Worrying about which horse is the “class” in a race is daunting, time consuming, and mostly a waist of time.

Post Position: The post position a horse will break from has little, if any, influence on the outcome of the race.

Jockey: A competent trainer will employ a competent jockey. Issue closed.

Weight: Probably the most overemphasized factor in horse racing.

Track Condition: Another factor that gets far more attention than it deserves."


https://amgona.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/worthwhile-and-worthless-handicapping-aspects/

I googled his book for a review, and it brought me to this older thread.
NCG

I believe Nitro would be more in agreement with this post than not. Many ways to skin a cat. Many ways indeed.

[NorCalGreg]

I believe Nitro would be more in agreement with this post than not. Many ways to skin a cat. Many ways indeed.

LOL....saw a review that said:

"If you only read ONE handicapping book your entire life---make it THIS ONE!"

[barn32]

Combine this with an owner, and it can be quite accurate. In the 80s at Longacres, you could tell with absolute certainty when a Mike Chambers trained, John Roche owned horse was the nuts. Funny you should mention Mike. It reminds me of the time I saw him leaving the paddock, and I walked up to him and said, "Mike, I really like your horse in here today, would you advise me against betting him?" He said, "I don't know if he'll win or not, but I do know one thing...he's the only goddamn speed!"

And he was the only speed.

In a six horse race he was five to one and wired the field.

That was the only time I can ever remember approaching a trainer with a question about his horse.

[ultracapper]

Good story. He's a damn solid trainer.

[Nitro]

Was just now at Cohail's site (it's still up)......somehow googled my way to it. I liked his take on what's worthwhile in handicapping--and what's useless. I believe the author has since passed, but his site is well-worth the read.

He wasn't afraid to go against the grain of modern handicapping:

"The following aspects are borderline worthless:

Speed Numbers: I once believed in speed numbers, but wisdom comes with age, and I now wonder how anyone can believe a manipulated number is somehow more accurate than the actual time of a race is beyond my grasp.

Track Variants: Impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy.

Beyer Speed Figures: The worst hoax ever perpetuated upon the race-going public.

Par times: The dynamics of every race are different, and profiles based on average times for a given distance are highly flawed. They have no bearing on what will happen in the race under scrutiny.

Class: An elusive element. Worrying about which horse is the “class” in a race is daunting, time consuming, and mostly a waist of time.

Post Position: The post position a horse will break from has little, if any, influence on the outcome of the race.

Jockey: A competent trainer will employ a competent jockey. Issue closed.

Weight: Probably the most overemphasized factor in horse racing.

Track Condition: Another factor that gets far more attention than it deserves."


https://amgona.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/worthwhile-and-worthless-handicapping-aspects/

I googled his book for a review, and it brought me to this older thread.
NCG I believe Nitro would be more in agreement with this post than not. Many ways to skin a cat. Many ways indeed. It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with any of the items mentioned (above), because a true tote analysis measures intentions based on the overall well being and condition of the horse (or horses). Nothing you will find in any traditional handicapping methodology will provide that information. That’s because all that printed information is based on the PAST. Anything derived from it is pure unadulterated subjective conjecture!
I don’t go against the grain of modern handicapping: I completely IGNORE it!

Every post/comment on this thread related to using the tote board is really a ridiculously over-simplification. Probably because no one realizes that the analysis I use goes well beyond looking at just the odds (which is simply a reflection of the Win pool ONLY!)

Listen, you guys. Believe what you want.
I don’t look for Winners. I look for Winning plays!
When ANY of you can duplicate post selections like this let me know:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=10&pp=15
Post #138
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=11&pp=15
Post #156 & #162
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=12&pp=15
Post #171
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129855&page=3&pp=15
Post #35 & #38
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129855&page=4&pp=15
Post #58

You can still pat each other on the back and all agree to besmirch a method that is obviously beyond your grasp. But just because the majority of players can’t do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
As my tote mentor always reminds me, “You can’t argue with ignorance”. So I’ll leave it at that, and let those doubters and cynics continue to struggle trying to make ends meet.
.
.

[NorCalGreg]

Instead of being so defensive--couldn't you have maturely, reasonably explained your opinion? The "modern handicapping" term was mine--not the author's.

The wack-jobs (again--my term) that go back and find thread after thread to validate themselves, only proves you care deeply about what others think of you.

Relax, get down off your cosmic handicapping box--and join us.

[CincyHorseplayer]

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with any of the items mentioned (above), because a true tote analysis measures intentions based on the overall well being and condition of the horse (or horses). Nothing you will find in any traditional handicapping methodology will provide that information. That’s because all that printed information is based on the PAST. Anything derived from it is pure unadulterated subjective conjecture!
I don’t go against the grain of modern handicapping: I completely IGNORE it!

Every post/comment on this thread related to using the tote board is really a ridiculously over-simplification. Probably because no one realizes that the analysis I use goes well beyond looking at just the odds (which is simply a reflection of the Win pool ONLY!)

Listen, you guys. Believe what you want.
I don’t look for Winners. I look for Winning plays!
When ANY of you can duplicate post selections like this let me know:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=10&pp=15
Post #138
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=11&pp=15
Post #156 & #162
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=12&pp=15
Post #171
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129855&page=3&pp=15
Post #35 & #38
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129855&page=4&pp=15
Post #58

You can still pat each other on the back and all agree to besmirch a method that is obviously beyond your grasp. But just because the majority of players can’t do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
As my tote mentor always reminds me, “You can’t argue with ignorance”. So I’ll leave it at that, and let those doubters and cynics continue to struggle trying to make ends meet.
.
.

Not getting the self congratulatory behavior here. You do things differently and it works for you. That's awesome! Isn't that and the $ satisfaction enough? I think this is the wrong crowd to be putting out the above blanket criticism simply because there is more variety of styles of play here than anywhere I've read or seen. I do pretty solid and my approach is the polar opposite of yours. I don't think trainers are complete orchestrators of outcomes, nor are jockeys, and the crowd following them around as if they were does not spell I have a good thing going. In fact using this to validate your opinion makes you more of a sheep than anybody. There are 2 things I trust:the horse and myself. Both perform in ways that are understandable and I can create a game around. All the rest are for opportunities for me to bet against. Anywhere in the country.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with any of the items mentioned (above), because a true tote analysis measures intentions based on the overall well being and condition of the horse (or horses). Nothing you will find in any traditional handicapping methodology will provide that information. That’s because all that printed information is based on the PAST. Anything derived from it is pure unadulterated subjective conjecture!
I don’t go against the grain of modern handicapping: I completely IGNORE it!

Every post/comment on this thread related to using the tote board is really a ridiculously over-simplification. Probably because no one realizes that the analysis I use goes well beyond looking at just the odds (which is simply a reflection of the Win pool ONLY!)

Listen, you guys. Believe what you want.
I don’t look for Winners. I look for Winning plays!
When ANY of you can duplicate post selections like this let me know:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=10&pp=15
Post #138
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=11&pp=15
Post #156 & #162
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129764&page=12&pp=15
Post #171
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129855&page=3&pp=15
Post #35 & #38
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129855&page=4&pp=15
Post #58

You can still pat each other on the back and all agree to besmirch a method that is obviously beyond your grasp. But just because the majority of players can’t do it, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
As my tote mentor always reminds me, “You can’t argue with ignorance”. So I’ll leave it at that, and let those doubters and cynics continue to struggle trying to make ends meet.
.
.

Nitro claims he makes a 40% ROI and his goal is to bet $200 Qs, yet his five horse keys at Sha Tin almost always include the 3-4 of the lowest priced horses. $3.40 to win and $9 Qs aren't gonna get it done, even with the formful runners of Sha Tin.

Nitro's posts often contain overtones that "most horseplayers think tote handicapping doesn't work" and/or "I win with tote handicapping, so it must be the ONLY way to handicap" - when in fact neither of these views are true. Ironically, the "besmirching" is done by Nitro himself as he poo poos traditional methods of playing the ponies.

Nitro's method of only using the tote ensure he's always betting underlays. That's okay if the goal is to win, and you still win, but perhaps combining another method or two in the mix might avoid those "no clue on that longshot placer" posts when a bomb blows up the keys.

Nitro's posts often conclude the rest of us are ignorant, and he'll leave it at that - yet he cannot resist returning to post about his triumphs, and is back posting his selections when he declared he was "taking his ball and going home" - calling into question his motives and maturity.

By restricting himself to tote "handicapping", he's not maximizing his return. Nitro should be trading bonds or blue chip stocks, as an equal amount of effort in those markets would return much more profit.....and save the rest of us his tiresome repetition about how great his method is, and how misguided the rest of us must be.....

[NorCalGreg]

Kinda chuckled @ that "my tote mentor" line---

I have a "bankroll mentor"....my wife.

[Nitro]

Not getting the self congratulatory behavior here. You do things differently and it works for you. That's awesome! Isn't that and the $ satisfaction enough? I think this is the wrong crowd to be putting out the above blanket criticism simply because there is more variety of styles of play here than anywhere I've read or seen. I do pretty solid and my approach is the polar opposite of yours. I don't think trainers are complete orchestrators of outcomes, nor are jockeys, and the crowd following them around as if they were does not spell I have a good thing going. In fact using this to validate your opinion makes you more of a sheep than anybody. There are 2 things I trust:the horse and myself. Both perform in ways that are understandable and I can create a game around. All the rest are for opportunities for me to bet against. Anywhere in the country.
Hey look when those who don’t have a clue about using the tote board stop their incessant ridicule of something they know nothing about, then I will also refrain from posting comments that support my game. It’s unfortunate that so many like yourself don’t see the forest from the trees when it comes to those who are in control every aspect of the horses under their care.
Surely you don’t believe
A) The horses put themselves into various racing events.
B) Search for food and water themselves when its time to eat
C) Decide on when its time to get some exercise in preparation for the next race
D) The horses know how to administer therapeutic treatment for any ailment they might have.
E) That they bet on themselves because they know they’re in top condition.
Etc., Etc....
My posted opinions are based on facts and actual results (some that I’ve posted). If that seems sheepish in your eyes then I’m afraid you probably also believe that the betting population is composed of everyone except the connections. I know differently.
.

[Nitro]

Nitro claims he makes a 40% ROI and his goal is to bet $200 Qs, yet his five horse keys at Sha Tin almost always include the 3-4 of the lowest priced horses. $3.40 to win and $9 Qs aren't gonna get it done, even with the formful runners of Sha Tin. Funny how things are taken out of context, but I’ll just say that if your making plays that double and triple your investment then I would say its not only “gonna to get it done”, its going to allow for a few losses along the way too. (By the way apparently you haven’t been following Sha Tin very much, but I don’t blame you for wanting to sleep)

Nitro's posts often contain overtones that "most horseplayers think tote handicapping doesn't work" and/or "I win with tote handicapping, so it must be the ONLY way to handicap" - when in fact neither of these views are true. Ironically, the "besmirching" is done by Nitro himself as he poo poos traditional methods of playing the ponies. Generally the only time I’ll convey that message is when I feel its high time to offer a second opinion. It’s unfortunate that I step on so many toes when doing it. I guess it’s because I know their game inside and out, but they know very little about mine.

Nitro's method of only using the tote ensure he's always betting underlays. That's okay if the goal is to win, and you still win, but perhaps combining another method or two in the mix might avoid those "no clue on that longshot placer" posts when a bomb blows up the keys. Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, of course the GOAL is to win, and occasionally a long shot off the radar will spoil things, but it’s only because the long shot among my selections didn’t fire.

Nitro's posts often conclude the rest of us are ignorant, and he'll leave it at that - yet he cannot resist returning to post about his triumphs, and is back posting his selections when he declared he was "taking his ball and going home" - calling into question his motives and maturity. Again taking things out of context! I used the term “ignorant” as it pertains to tote board utilization. If you take it personally to mean more then that then what can I say?
I might also ask you sir your motive for even questioning me about returning to PA. I’m here to have some fun and spending most of my time sharing information in the Selection forum. It’s funny how few of the detractors show up over there. It might be interesting to see them back up their claims.

By restricting himself to tote "handicapping", he's not maximizing his return. Nitro should be trading bonds or blue chip stocks, as an equal amount of effort in those markets would return much more profit.....and save the rest of us his tiresome repetition about how great his method is, and how misguided the rest of us must be...... Friend, take it for whatever its worth. I didn’t start this thread, and I’m not going to sit idly by while some try to discuss something they know absolutely nothing about. Using the tote analysis is the EXACT OPPOSITE of being restricted. In fact, not only does it provide excellent results, but it takes me all of about 10 minutes to determine if a race is playable and which entries to play. I call that dam efficient.
.
.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Funny how things are taken out of context, but I’ll just say that if your making plays that double and triple your investment then I would say its not only “gonna to get it done”, its going to allow for a few losses along the way too. (By the way apparently you haven’t been following Sha Tin very much, but I don’t blame you for wanting to sleep)
What's out of context? The results you post often have $4.00 winners, and $12 Qs. Considering you're tossing in $18 minimum to cover your nine bets and sometimes don't cash, a 40% ROI seems to be a stretch. I do stay up and follow Hong Kong closely, and don't recall you posting a summary of your entire evening's balance - not that it's required, of course. I'm not saying you're lying, but the results aren't obvious.

Generally the only time I’ll convey that message is when I feel its high time to offer a second opinion. It’s unfortunate that I step on so many toes when doing it. I guess it’s because I know their game inside and out, but they know very little about mine.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, of course the GOAL is to win, and occasionally a long shot off the radar will spoil things, but it’s only because the long shot among my selections didn’t fire.
You're opinion and approach are well known, and I think you're imagining that there's this overwhelming disagreement from other players that using only the tote and analyzing action is ineffective. Your posts come across as "You handicappers are idiots - just use the tote!" whether that's truly your view or not.

Again taking things out of context! I used the term “ignorant” as it pertains to tote board utilization. If you take it personally to mean more then that then what can I say? I might also ask you sir your motive for even questioning me about returning to PA. I’m here to have some fun and spending most of my time sharing information in the Selection forum. It’s funny how few of the detractors show up over there. It might be interesting to see them back up their claims.
There's nothing out of context here. Post 44 in this thread was quite clearly your expressed opinion of the ignorance of players who can't win they way you claim to win, and it's a stretch to think that most non-tote players wouldn't find it insulting. My motive for questioning your return to PA is rather simple - pointing out that it's your ego on display here, and not love for educating your fellow players.

Friend, take it for whatever its worth. I didn’t start this thread, and I’m not going to sit idly by while some try to discuss something they know absolutely nothing about. Using the tote analysis is the EXACT OPPOSITE of being restricted. In fact, not only does it provide excellent results, but it takes me all of about 10 minutes to determine if a race is playable and which entries to play. I call that dam efficient.

More bragging, which is another way of saying that ironically it's you doing the back-slapping - to yourself. Again, this persecution of tote analysis doesn't exist, and you're jumping to conclusions thinking that the rest of us "know absolutely nothing" about it. The parallel to technical analysis in the markets is very clear. And if you think about that for a moment, the most successful traders don't restrict themselves to just TA - they also look at fundamentals, news flow, and many other factors when making trades.

Rendering opinions is one thing, but when they are extremely condescending , then it shouldn't surprise you to receive some backlash.

[PaceAdvantage]

Instead of being so defensive--couldn't you have maturely, reasonably explained your opinion? The "modern handicapping" term was mine--not the author's.

The wack-jobs (again--my term) that go back and find thread after thread to validate themselves, only proves you care deeply about what others think of you.

Relax, get down off your cosmic handicapping box--and join us.It's this kind of shit (calling someone a whack job) that results in perceived "defensive" behavior.

Nitro has every right to shoot back at those who have taken shots at him.

I will never understand why people here attack others that claim to be successful, especially when using methods they are unfamiliar with.

[Bill Cullen]

What usually preempts the effectiveness of any tote board strategy these days is that some wise guy can drop $10,000 on a horse just as it's going into the gate.

[thaskalos]

It's this kind of shit (calling someone a whack job) that results in perceived "defensive" behavior.

Nitro has every right to shoot back at those who have taken shots at him.

I will never understand why people here attack others that claim to be successful, especially when using methods they are unfamiliar with.

When a poster here claims to be wildly successful as a bettor, it's quite reasonable for us to doubt his claims...especially when he doesn't provide any substantiation for his "success", or any details about the methods that he uses. This doesn't apply just to Nitro...but to all the rest of us as well. To "doubt" isn't to ATTACK.

In Nitro's particular case...he doesn't believe that "modern handicapping" is an effective way of making money in this game...and we "modern handicappers" feel the same about "tote-board analysis". Turnabout is fair play...IMO.

[soonboomer]

When a poster here claims to be wildly successful as a bettor, it's quite reasonable for us to doubt his claims...especially when he doesn't provide any substantiation for his "success", or any details about the methods that he uses. This doesn't apply just to Nitro...but to all the rest of us as well. To "doubt" isn't to ATTACK.

In Nitro's particular case...he doesn't believe that "modern handicapping" is an effective way of making money in this game...and we "modern handicappers" feel the same about "tote-board analysis". Turnabout is fair play...IMO.

When you list as many as 8 horses in a race and provide absolutely no input as to how you are playing them (or how anyone else should play them), you're going to attract skepticism. I know he's under no obligation to do so, but patting yourself on the back when the 5th or 6th horse you list along with some "tote board watch horse) lands in a superfecta, you are going to be a target for criticism.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The only way Nitro can prove his effectiveness is for him to post his actual bets and amounts and then tally for an accurate roi....THIS he refuses to do....his approach can pretty much be duplicated by using the top 2 public choices near post time, along with other contenders as they advance up the odds line....because his method involve at least one the keys hitting the board in conjunction with any of the other top 4 public choices THIS is a common and regular occurrence...

I post alongside of him and do pretty much what he does without his sophisticated software and get much the same results, sometimes better results...At $2 wagers, the total amount to cover the combos implied in his method is $462 per race with an K1K2/ABC format....yet he also suggests that he doesn't bet every race or only when he perceives there is value in the race....and yet without informing us of his actual bets, he will post the extremely annoying "All of that one" as if to imply that he bet and scored on all the exotics.

I offereed a challenge awhile ago for some of us to post our K1K2/ABC selections along side his under his "hit the board" conditions and post the results...you will see that you achieve similar results as well.....but again without recording your actual bets, all this is fantasy....

[NorCalGreg]

It's this kind of shit (calling someone a whack job) that results in perceived "defensive" behavior.

Nitro has every right to shoot back at those who have taken shots at him.

I will never understand why people here attack others that claim to be successful, especially when using methods they are unfamiliar with.

Damn....I didn't see this--that was pretty rough Mike :lol:

[CincyHorseplayer]

I have noticed I have a habit on here. 90% of the time when I argue with someone about betting it's because we are polar opposites in approach. But because we are polar opposites I pay attention to what they say and how they bet. Since our clash on this thread I have come to know and like Nitro and have learned more than a few things from him. I don't have his program either but apply his logic to looking at odds and action and have adopted some of the way he bets. My hit % and returns are all up. Includes now that I would have normally been dismissed pop up in exactas all the time, eliminating a lot of frustration. Anyway that's my 2 cents.

I'm not as demanding as some of you are. I don't need to know the exactitude of everything about how a person plays nor be able to add up their ROI to the cent. We all have things we don't want to share. And for me posting up every bet in real time in the midst of a busy play day is quite a task. So I don't bust another player's balls unmercifully about this!

And 1 more thing. I always do a playbook from the previous year in the winter. Usually in the dead of night. Nice to be able to chit chat about the races at 3 am because Nitro is playing Hong Kong!:D

[whodoyoulike]

When a poster here claims to be wildly successful as a bettor, it's quite reasonable for us to doubt his claims...especially when he doesn't provide any substantiation for his "success", or any details about the methods that he uses. This doesn't apply just to Nitro...but to all the rest of us as well. To "doubt" isn't to ATTACK.

In Nitro's particular case...he doesn't believe that "modern handicapping" is an effective way of making money in this game...and we "modern handicappers" feel the same about "tote-board analysis". Turnabout is fair play...IMO.

Do you really feel one needs to do this?

It doesn't do anything for the individual unless he wants to do it. Kind of reminds me of when Traynor wanted any of the whales to divulge their algorithms.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by thaskalos
In Nitro's particular case...he doesn't believe that "modern handicapping" is an effective way of making money in this game...and we "modern handicappers" feel the same about "tote-board analysis". Turnabout is fair play...IMO.

Do you really feel one needs to do this?

It doesn't do anything for the individual unless he wants to do it. Kind of reminds me of when Traynor wanted any of the whales to divulge their algorithms.

My thinking is that Nitro has used modern handicapping and his method of winning at the races has evolved to another method, that is profitable for him. I think this is true in almost every endeavor, imagine the scorn that Dick Fosbury was experiencing before the '68 Olympics when he shows the world how to high jump head first over the bar and sets a world and Olympic record. The old coaches didn't want to change their ways before that happened.

I remember the early days of televised poker tournaments when the old school players looked down on the 20 year-old players who became very good playing online poker. Chris Moneymaker literally took ol' Sammy Farha to school on national television with his bluffs.

Back to horse racing, I think if you persist at "your" method it can work for you with some degree of success. Whether your method is Speed, Form, Class, PACE, Fractional times, etc, OR Tote Board Analysis.
My only problem with this thread as it applies to me is, it should read: The Illogical Choice-Tote Board Handicapping... I say that because when some horse is getting unusual action and his/her PP's don't appear logical. When the "action" horse wins, it can be a head scratcher.

[whodoyoulike]

...
My thinking is that Nitro has used modern handicapping and his method of winning at the races has evolved to another method, that is profitable for him. ...

By including my posted response as such, you've taken my post out of context with my original intent.

[FakeNameChanged]

By including my posted response as such, you've taken my post out of context with my original intent.

Whodo, My apologies, that was not my intent. I actually agreed with your statement, even if I didn't say that.

[AltonKelsey]

What's the purpose of posting 6 picks, then claiming some other horse that wins or places was a 'tote' play after the fact , and thus you've scored once again? There are often 3 or 4 tote action horses, so claiming only one horse was live is usually a misrepresentation.

If you're not selling anything, and won't discuss any aspect of the method, what exactly is the purpose of the exercise.

I'm more than conversant with the benefits and limitations of the tote as a handicapping tool. Hong Kong may be unique in that there are large advance wagering pools to analyze. There are also lots of 75-1 shots that can be tossed in many races.