Teach
12-21-2015, 05:45 PM
"Drafting". Charting. Timing. I've tried just about everything when it comes to handicapping the horses. Before I continue, I want to wish everyone on the Pace Advantage Forum, Happy Holidays: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Yes, over the years - some nearly sixty of them that I've played the horses - I've tried almost every conceivable approach to handicapping. Yet, over the last dozen or so years, I've tried a new approach. One that is hard to quantify.
Oh, I use the tried and true handicapping methods that I'm sure we all use; yet, I've added a wrinkle. Call my approach, if you will, a hybrid. An amalgam. I handicap: "By The Numbers".
Allow me to explain. As a high school history and social sciences teacher I taught courses in psychology. One of the units I taught was on parapsychology. ESP. Extra-sensory Perception. One of the activities I engaged in was to assign one student to be "a sender"; the other members of the class would be "receivers".
How did it work? Well, "the sender" would sit a my desk at the front of the class. The rest of the class, the "receivers" would be seated in the normal spots in the classroom. Well, "the sender" had ten slips of paper with numbers ranging from 1 to 10. One by one, randomly, he/she would look at the number and then, without any verbal or non-verbal cues, mentally (as if the number were on his forehead) "send" that number to his/her fellow-students who were seated in front of him. The students would record on a sheet of paper the number, between one and ten, that "the sender" was mentally communicating. After all ten numbers were sent, we compared notes. We were especially looking for matches.
Randomly, you would expect "the receivers," on average, to get one correct match out of ten. Yet, there were occasions where "receiving" students would get three matches, four or even five. Was this chance? Or, was there some type of mental communication - call it a wavelength - between some of the students. This always intrigued me. Personally, tangentially, I believe our brains have a greater capacity than we might believe.
Well, I've used this thought in my handicapping strategy. Oh, I employ the tried and true approaches, but I add this parapsychological approach.
What I do is to divide numerals into two categories: The "Round" and The "Crooked". This is arbitrary; yet, this is my approach. Numbers 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are round. Numbers 1 (hard to call it round), 4, and 7 are crooked. Number 5 is the hybrid number; it can be used as either a round or crooked number.
Before you say: pazzo, loco, meshuga, or anything else, let me explain this is a non-scientific (at least I believe it's non-scientific) approach. For that matter, any form of handicapping is more an art or skill than anything that resembles science.
Well, as I prepare to handicap, I'll darken the lights in my computer room (almost like I'm getting ready for a séance) and I'll try to put myself "in a zone". I close my eyes and try, as best as possible, to clear my mind. A blank tablet. I then picture numbers in four positions (I should mention here that I play a lot of superfectas). As I continue, I may well write down numbers in each of the four positions to see if a round or crooked would be most appropriate in that position. For example, I might settle on a round-crooked-round-crooked pattern. My numbers might look like this. .10 cent superfecta part-wheel: 2,3,5,6 with 1,4,7 with 2,3,5,6,8 with 1,4,5,7.
Again, I freely admit that there is nothing quantifiable about this approach. And, probably, more frequently than not, I'm proverbially "out in left field". Yet, there have been occasions that I have met with uncommon success. In fact. some of my biggest "hits" have come when I combine my tried and true handicapping approaches with "the numbers game".
Just like that high school ESP experiment from years past, the question remains: Did I hit the super because it was simply a lucky combo of round and crooked numbers, or was I on to something. Had I somehow communicated mentally with the events that were about to transpire? Was it ESP? Was it precognition? I suppose I'll never know. But it has worked and - until it doesn't - I'll keep experimenting with it. May The Horse Be With You!
Yes, over the years - some nearly sixty of them that I've played the horses - I've tried almost every conceivable approach to handicapping. Yet, over the last dozen or so years, I've tried a new approach. One that is hard to quantify.
Oh, I use the tried and true handicapping methods that I'm sure we all use; yet, I've added a wrinkle. Call my approach, if you will, a hybrid. An amalgam. I handicap: "By The Numbers".
Allow me to explain. As a high school history and social sciences teacher I taught courses in psychology. One of the units I taught was on parapsychology. ESP. Extra-sensory Perception. One of the activities I engaged in was to assign one student to be "a sender"; the other members of the class would be "receivers".
How did it work? Well, "the sender" would sit a my desk at the front of the class. The rest of the class, the "receivers" would be seated in the normal spots in the classroom. Well, "the sender" had ten slips of paper with numbers ranging from 1 to 10. One by one, randomly, he/she would look at the number and then, without any verbal or non-verbal cues, mentally (as if the number were on his forehead) "send" that number to his/her fellow-students who were seated in front of him. The students would record on a sheet of paper the number, between one and ten, that "the sender" was mentally communicating. After all ten numbers were sent, we compared notes. We were especially looking for matches.
Randomly, you would expect "the receivers," on average, to get one correct match out of ten. Yet, there were occasions where "receiving" students would get three matches, four or even five. Was this chance? Or, was there some type of mental communication - call it a wavelength - between some of the students. This always intrigued me. Personally, tangentially, I believe our brains have a greater capacity than we might believe.
Well, I've used this thought in my handicapping strategy. Oh, I employ the tried and true approaches, but I add this parapsychological approach.
What I do is to divide numerals into two categories: The "Round" and The "Crooked". This is arbitrary; yet, this is my approach. Numbers 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are round. Numbers 1 (hard to call it round), 4, and 7 are crooked. Number 5 is the hybrid number; it can be used as either a round or crooked number.
Before you say: pazzo, loco, meshuga, or anything else, let me explain this is a non-scientific (at least I believe it's non-scientific) approach. For that matter, any form of handicapping is more an art or skill than anything that resembles science.
Well, as I prepare to handicap, I'll darken the lights in my computer room (almost like I'm getting ready for a séance) and I'll try to put myself "in a zone". I close my eyes and try, as best as possible, to clear my mind. A blank tablet. I then picture numbers in four positions (I should mention here that I play a lot of superfectas). As I continue, I may well write down numbers in each of the four positions to see if a round or crooked would be most appropriate in that position. For example, I might settle on a round-crooked-round-crooked pattern. My numbers might look like this. .10 cent superfecta part-wheel: 2,3,5,6 with 1,4,7 with 2,3,5,6,8 with 1,4,5,7.
Again, I freely admit that there is nothing quantifiable about this approach. And, probably, more frequently than not, I'm proverbially "out in left field". Yet, there have been occasions that I have met with uncommon success. In fact. some of my biggest "hits" have come when I combine my tried and true handicapping approaches with "the numbers game".
Just like that high school ESP experiment from years past, the question remains: Did I hit the super because it was simply a lucky combo of round and crooked numbers, or was I on to something. Had I somehow communicated mentally with the events that were about to transpire? Was it ESP? Was it precognition? I suppose I'll never know. But it has worked and - until it doesn't - I'll keep experimenting with it. May The Horse Be With You!