Why is Handicapping Software so Expensive, or Is It?

[Handle]

Why is Handicapping Software so Expensive, or Is It?

This post was prompted by MyHorse1’s recent commentary that “These individuals [who develop “real” handicapping software] have to charge a reasonable fee for their software in order to bring their product to market while the shills sell their software for next to nothing. “

While I don’t believe MyHorse1’s comments were directed at my program, I don’t think that the comment can encompass all software, and I think it is a detriment that most probably hold this opinion. I don’t have anything against MyHorse1’s comment, personally, or those that hold this belief. In fact, I think that many people hold this belief than those who do not – but I’ll try to explain where I think the assumption that less expensive software is “shill” errs. And, yes, I currently sell EquiSim for a reasonable 59$, which is well below the norm as far as I can tell, and I do hope that it is a very “UnShill-ish” program.

I believe that most handicapping software is quite expensive. I'll get into why I think someone might consider it inexpensive below, but that's my main point.

I think that there are two reasons why handicapping software costs so much. First, as Beyer pointed out in a recent article (see PA board general discussion for link), the market for handicapping software isn't so enormous that a good product is a sure thing. There is great risk in spending the money to produce and market it was the gist of what he said. MyHorse1 alluded to this in his post as well. I don’t know if there is much of a difference in cost between producing a “Shill” program and an “UnShill” program, but I can say it is expensive just to produce let alone market. If you were to hire me to create EquiSim from scratch (design/develop/test) and bring it to where it is today it would cost you at minimum 50K. This doesn’t include support or marketing. If a company were to hire people to develop the same application, it would probably cost them 150K + benefits, equipment, etc.. I suppose I could produce some trash in 2-4 weeks that would be somewhat sellable, and this would only cost you 5 to 10K if done “from scratch”. It wouldn’t do much either.

This reason alone "forces" folks who want to recoup their investment in time/money developing and publishing handicapping software to charge high prices. But, as I will argue below, it could be these high prices that keeps the popularity of the sport, and the popularity of handicapping software, from taking off.

Secondly, I think most handicapping software attempts to justify a high cost on the premise that you will make money using it and, thus, it will essentially "pay for itself". I think that this is, in some ways, a fallacious way to market the software. In other ways, it is dead on accurate. It depends on how you look at handicapping software. And that is my bone of contention.

Is handicapping software a professional tool that will help Worker Bee A do his/her job more productively for ACME? Is it "business software"?

If so, great -- my software development application costs 500$ or so. Without this tool I couldn't work as a software engineer, nor could I have created EquiSim. Hence, it "pays for itself." And this software boasts of having "productivity enhancing" features -- some of them are, some of them are not. There are other tools, such as 3D Studio Max which is used for creating 3D graphics, that cost 4000. Other applications cost over 50,000.

But, personally, I don't think that handicapping software should be considered and marketed as "business" software.

Handicapping software in general is more akin to entertainment software than it is to business software -- at least, that's the way the market should treat it. I want my software to make your participation in this sport more enjoyable. When I buy a new CD-ROM burner, a power tool, or some new fishing equipment, I do so both to get a job done and as something that adds to the enjoyment I get out of doing what I do in life. That's the sort of thing that I want to sell. Yes, I also want you to be successful monetarily using my software - often that's what this game is about and the tool is designed to help you do just that. But I'm not selling it to you so you can become a millionaire over night. I’m also not selling it to you so you can master it and get a job as an “EquiSim User”, either.

Instead of this take, the industry imposes a gigantic price barrier for these "professional tools" and data cards, barring most of the public from ever getting involved with the sport. The industry, *including the software publishers and data providers*, could
do a lot more to gain popularity for the sport instead of imposing these cost barriers. A typical popular video game, when first released, will sell for 50-60$. And that's where the initial price charged for EquiSim comes from.

Contrary to my own arguments, I’m feeling heavy pressure to raise the price of EquiSim to be more in-line with what other handicapping software costs when the new version comes out – still, I’d be very interested to know what others think of these thoughts and of the cost for handicapping software in general.

-Handle

[PaceAdvantage]

I think the high price of handicapping software is mainly due to simple economics.

A professionally programmed and produced handicapping program, like you say, will take many, many hours to produce, and many more to market. The same goes for a video game.

The differences end in potential size of market. The market for a video game is ENORMOUS compared to that of a professionally done handicapping program.

You're talking about marketing to horseplayers (a small audience to begin with)--with computers (a smaller niche)--who are WILLING to HANDICAP using their computers (further slicing your potential pie). On the contrary, that video game can be sold to ANYONE with the computer/console capable of running the thing.

That's why you can charge $40-50 for a video game and make a return on your investment, but you'll have to charge $200-$500 to make any sort of profit on your handicapping program.


At least that's the way I look at it....


==PA

[BillW]

PA and Handle,

I think it is simple economics also, but buyer side economics ... people are willing to pay what the programs are going for (usually, I would assume out of unrealistic expectations, thus causing bitterness as we have seen demonstrated)

If no one was willing to pay more than $50 for a program, I would assume that the authors would price them accordingly.

Value is in the eye of the buyer.


Bill W.

[Myhorse1_X]

My comments by no means include your program. It is seldom that a programmer is also a Horse Player. And further, wants to spend a lot of time programming to sell a program at such a low price. I don't think your program is well represented by the $59 price, it is worth much more.

I spent about 1.5 years with a programmer to program my software. In this, I spent about $15,000 in programming fees plus untold time trying to figure out how to present my knowledge so the programmer would understand what I wanted.
I can't tell you how many times certain parts of my program were reprogrammed over and over again to get it correct.

I charge $320.00 for my program which will go un-named at this point. That means that I have to sell about 50 programs just to cover my costs(which include a CD burner, Mailing/Postage etc.).
Why not sell my program cheaper and thus sell more. There are not that many buyers out there. If I could be assured that I could sell 1000 programs, I would price it accordingly.

I have been Handicapping for over 40 years and in my "declining" years, I thought that someone might be interested in my method of Handicapping so I put it into a program. The profit was really not a factor, I think it was mostly my ego that prompted me to pursue the project.

Computer software is a "Tool", and I tried to place the many "Tools" in my program. If the user fails to follow the manual, or does'nt use the proper tools that can't be helped. But the satisfaction of having someone that purchased the program e-mail you back and tell or his/her success tells me that some of my users to do it properly.
It is no "black box", I feel that my program gets it down to 3 horses, and from then on the "tools" in the program narrow it down to the one horse that has a chance to win the race.

Thanks for all the comments from everyone. BUT it seems that the system sellers ruin it for the programs that really try to do what they are supposed to do.

MyHorse1

[Myhorse1_X]

I offer a no questions asked money back guarantee up to 30 days with my program. I think anyone that has a worthwhile program should offer this same guarantee.
The shills won't do this, as a matter of fact, most do not even give a return address other than the one on their return envelope!

MyHorse1

Please do not ask me what the name of my program is, I refuse to use someone else's site to tout my program.

[BIG HIT]

Hi I am not a programer but think your program is very good.And would like to say here you and a few others on the net have good products.Used your on trial and was pleased and will probably buy at later date.Yours fits my style and budget and as Iam a weekend player.And like the way you conduct your business.HTR and HDW are way out of my price for the time i have to spend at track seem more for the pro hdcpr but all of you do a great job.For this i want to thankyou all.Yes those system sellers did give everybody a bad name.But more and more people are buying computers and buying on line.I bought to things on line for horse one was not all that and i was burned the other was propace software which paid for it self.You guys are really putting Integerty in a market that has very bad rep.And i do belive you can make money with all of the software i spoke of above It is all like a hammer some find it difficult to use but a carppender bulids a house easly.If the rest of the world corperation would follow you guys the world would be a beautifull thing thanks you all for what you do.

[sq764]

There must be some demand for these ridiculously priced software programs. I know several people who have paid $800-$1,000 for software, sometimes on multiple programs.

I guess if people will pay that, we will continue to see the programs priced that high.


Scott

[Handle]

Thanks for all the replies thus far.

MyHorse1 -- again, I think your opinion about price is a valid one. I think a lot of people equate low prices with "shill" software, and that worries me. I also never thought you were targeting my program as "shill". I also believe that there is a lot of "Shill" software in general, not just in regards to horse racing, and a lot of "shill" products in the world too. It does make it tough for an individual/small business to win customers in a market flooded with junk. The consumer first has to find your product, and then the consumer has to overcome mistrust of the "small" guy if the consumer has had experience with a "shill" before. But the truth is that there's a really good chance that the small guy is producing better software, and offering better support for it, than the mega-microsoft-like company. But then there's the "shills" that produce junk creating a quagmire of products for the consumer to wade through. The internet is a beautiful, but sometimes swampy, thing.

I think that the issue of supply/demand is a valid one as well. But, unfortunately, I don't have real good numbers to indicate the
size of the market that would be interested in handicapping software. What I'm trying to figure out is whether anyone does, or if most are throwing darts in the dark to find the price they charge. It's difficult to use the "big" names to guage the price of quality handicapping software because those big names are also data providers and their business is thus different.

This leads back to my original argument. If you had a market of 200K people in a month, what percentage of those people, per month, would likely buy a 150-500$ product? What percentage of those people would be interested in buying a quality product to help their game that cost 20-30$? If enough of these less expensive products were bought, used, and liked, then word would probably spread about their usefulness, adding to the volume of sales in the next months. Perhaps this means that the tools being sold need to be smaller in scope and more numerous (Separate tools for 3D Simulations, "Pace Profiling", Key Races, etc., rather than one big tool with a big price tag).

What prompts my thoughts here is a suspicion that there are a lot of people who could/would make use of handicapping software both to increase their productivity and to increase the
enjoyment they get out of the game, but who face a price barrier that they do not want to leap. What keeps me from tackling this issue full on is my lack of time (and gumption) to market my own products properly, and the fact that, if I did, it would necessitate a price increase to pay for the marketing! As I mentioned in a post a week or so back, I have some plans to create a few smaller applications apart from EquiSim and to try selling them at an affordable price. We'll see what happens with that.


-Handle

[GameTheory]

Trackmaster, ITS, and probably others openly advertise a "software development" arrangement whereby if you create a program that uses their data files, they will market it, etc., and possibily pay you a royalty on data sales.

Has anybody around here inquired, or worked with any of these companies in such a capacity before?

[Handle]

GameTheory -

I wrote to them some time ago and said I have a program that currently uses BRIS/TSN data files. I said that I noticed that they mentioned having some sort of program to reward people who developed software that used their data files. I asked them what they might do for me if I added support for their data files and never got a reply.

-Handle

[NoDayJob]

Anyone who spent $15k for programming fees certainly didn't talk to Matt Thomas in Silver Springs Md. He used to advertise at http://www.itsdata.com
Don't know if he still does. NDJ

[Myhorse1_X]

As a matter of fact Matt Thomas wrote a program for me to test most of my theories prior to programming them into my software. If you are familiar with his programming, he uses a platform similar to Excel or other spreadsheets. It would be difficult to program a complete handicapping software with this type of platform. He does do a good job for a reasonable price. The results would be more of "Yes" it does or "No" it doesn't, or it would give you a number following your instructions, but it would be difficult to present to the market as a fully functional program. Matt is a real nice guy, and if you ever wanted to have him program something for you I believe his price starts at $150.00

MyHorse1

[Myhorse1_X]

I don't want anyone to take this personally, but reason along with me.
How much cash do you take to the track when you go?. Don't you risk that amount each time you go?. If you purchase a $500 software program that offers a money back guarantee, doesn't this offer less risk that each time you go to the track?

The question is---If you use the Racing Form and are making money now, then you don't need any software. Just keep doing what you are doing and forget any other way.
If you are not making money at the track, try the software and if it makes you money, keep it. If it doesn't, send it back and get your money back. It's that simple.
Added this thought, some people lack the discipline to gamble. For those individuals, no method or software will ever get them to win consistantly. They must learn what bets to make and what races to play. But that is another story.

MyHorse1

[Handle]

MH -

Would you say that you favored looking at handicapping software as "business" software? I think that one of the primary purposes of handicapping software is to help you become more profitable. Still, that's not the reason why I would buy handicapping software. Profitability is important, but so is saving time, finding new ways to enjoy the sport (via new tools), and finding new ways to make other investments (that computer sitting on your desk) work more for you. That's really the heart of my argument that started this thread. Do you buy 60 dollar team jersey's because it will increase your team's ability to win a football game? Or is it because you get more out of the game by doing so? (or is it because all the marketing hype makes up your mind for you....).

While I'm the first to say that making money at this game is why I play it, I also think that there's a lot more to the game than making money. The entire process of finding the winners, of handicapping the races, is full of interests and intrigues. Any software that simply spits out winners doesn't really float my boat. I want something that allows me to interface more with the game, that helps me get to the hows, whys, and maybes, and that works well enough in what it does that I can base a wagering strategy around it if I choose to.

But, because the wagering portion of the sport looms so large in people's minds, and in their reason for playing the game, it is difficult to sell this idea. People want something that will help them win more, or, for that matter, lose less. I believe that most (though probably few on this board) don't care how or why, they just want the winner. This leaves the door wide open for the "shills" out there. Still -- think about the amount of time serious punters spend handicapping. Isn't there something in that activity-- during the pursuit of the almighty dollar at the track -- that constitutes entertainment and enjoyment in the practice of handicapping? Since so many people lose at this game, going after the "win more" angle is hard to pass up. Perhaps this idea of a "room for handicapping software because it adds enjoyment to the practice of handicapping" that I have is just something that I want to see rather than something that is. But I don't think every handicapper is a thrill seeker waiting for, and addicted to, the next hit. For that matter, I don't think it needs to be true that "if you win money you don't need software." I would say that you need software if you enjoy finding new ways to handicap races, and if you find a particular product that you like and that fits what you want to spend.

-Handle



Originally posted by Myhorse1
I don't want anyone to take this personally, but reason along with me.

MyHorse1

[Myhorse1_X]

Handle:

Maybe I am wrong, but I take handicapping very seriously. It is not a game or entertainment to me. I bet the horses for one reason alone, to make money. I treat it as I do playing the stock market, which I do also, and play any angle that can give me an edge over the crowd at the track. I have been playing the horses for 40 years and handicapping about 15 of those years. I know what it is to lose, and I know what it takes to win.

Maybe I am wrong, but I have been doing it for many years, had my ups and downs, and a lot of hard knocks learning but I have found when it comes to money you had better be serious.
I am serious about my job, my religion, my politics and my gambling. When I have fun, I do other things, like fish, fly my airplane, and play with my grandchildren.

I guess it all the way you look at it.

MyHorse1

[Dick Schmidt]

In a world increasingly dominated by information technology, I find it strange that so many people are unwilling to pay for information. When I was investing almost daily in the stock market, I subscribed to a newsletter that cost $600 a month. It was only one or at most two sheets of paper. Many friends who saw it were amazed that I would pay $7,200 a year for nothing more than another person's informed opinion. I felt it was a bargain. It got me in to good things in '97 and '98, and got me out in the spring of 2000, an even better thing. Put a lot of money down on the 'ol bottom line.

In handicapping, this is how you judge software. Not by how much it costs to buy or use, but how much it wins for you. If you could buy a software program that costs $1000 a month to use, yet won $2,000, would you do it? Of course, and why not? the cost is irrelevant, it is the profit that matters. Forget the costs. Information, especially good information, is always expensive. Focus on the bottom line and let that be your guide as to which program to use.

Dick

[Handle]

Dick,

This is how *you* judge handicapping software. Which is fine. But I'm argueing that I think there are a number of different ways to do so, and they don't have to be mutuelly exclusive. I'm certainly not saying that one should not take wagering seriously, or that making money is not a big portion of this game. I am saying that if all you are concerned about with software is whether it tells you the right answer, then you are missing out. Further, you say that you pay lots of cash for useful information. That's fine -- but you need to mention that you need to know what to do with this information or all is for nought. Also mention that there are LOTS and LOTS of organizations which will happily invest your money for you, and lots and lots of newsletters you can pay a fortune for -- and LOTS and LOTS of people have lost LOTS and LOTS of money through them in the last year or so. So you end up needing META information, and META-META informatoin, and META-META-META information just to find out who's screwing you and who's reliable. You talk of "information" as if it is a magic elixir -- you need to focus on the fact that you yourself have to be an expert regarding the information before you can make use of it.

Lets set the record straight - handicapping software won't win money for you. And that's what you said here -- judge it by "how much money it wins for you". Sorry -- there are no silver bullets in this game, no magical elixirs. Handicapping software can certainly help you win money -- mine has helped me. But I'm the one who steps up to the window, and I'm the one who makes the critical decisions of whether to pass a selection or not to. The software is a tool, a slave, and nothing more. Since Sunday my software has hit one 351$ exacta and a 2200+ trifecta at houston, and hit 3 exactas at Fairgrounds today. I would never try to sell you on the repeatability of this, on the notion that you should go out and bet every single pick that it hits. Even when it has gone entire meets and produce positive flat bet ROI's, I wouldn't tell you to do this or try to sell you on this. I will tell you that if you familiarize yourself with the software you will notice what it does well at; that you be able to integrate it into your game to your benefit. BUt I will never, never tell you that this software will "win money for you". That is what gets "mike"'s to post crass statements to the effect of "none of this software works".


-Handle






Originally posted by Dick Schmidt


In handicapping, this is how you judge software. Not by how much it costs to buy or use, but how much it wins for you.

Dick

[Dick Schmidt]

Handle,

Damn right this is how "I" judge software. And I use software that makes money, even though you think it can't be done. Maybe it can't be done by "you", but it can, and has been done. Several times. If your software doesn't perform, why bother unless you're a hobbyist who plays for fun? I don't see any reason to use any product that can't show a flat bet profit using a simple, repeatable procedure. "Information managers" are boring and mostly useless. If I wanted to work hard at the races, I'd go back to Total Pace Ratings and a red pen.

As for the price of information, you are correct, the good stuff costs and you have to know how to use it. Hundreds of people pay $30 a day, per track, for the Sheets. You have to assume there is something there for people to go into their pockets to the tune of several hundred dollars a week. I would guess they make money so the cost is irrelevant. Same with any information. If it pays its way, it is worth it.


The Lone Ranger (you know, the guy with the silver bullets)

[Handle]

Dick,

When I read this sort of stuff I immediately ask myself, "What's this guy trying to sell?" Because that's where you're take on how handicapping software should, and according to you, does work comes from. Are you selling something Dick? Sure sounds like you're trying too. Just press the key and, when the bunny pops out of the hat, he'll have a couple hundred bucks in his mouth. So simple, your Grand Ma could do it. How gullible to you suppose the people reading this are? Do you think its believable that there's someone selling all the correct answers to the toughest questions you have? Whenever you get stumped on a toughie, just open up your wallet and Super Dick, the guy with the silver bull-shit, will be there?

If there were some software out there that you could just follow a "simple procedure" and then you'd be making big bucks, it would not be sold. It would be kept locked away on some cloud by a giant like the golden goose was. You should be very familiar with fairy tales, as it appears you live in one.

Rather than try to con people with Golden Goose software, I would much prefer to create software that you can intregrate into your game that will enhance your ability to discern good plays while also enhancing the enjoyment you get from playing the game in the first place.

So, no back peddling on this one Dick - what is this great software that you, by following a "simple procedure", have een using to make all that heavy mullah? HSH -- ok, what's the "simple procedure"? Secret password or magic spell that you learned from Gandolf?

Sorry to be antagonisitic here, but your commentary from up atop that lofty high horse of yours just sounds like a con game -- and that ticks me off.

-Handle

[Handle]

Here are some numbers from an EquiSim database of
1113 races, taken from DED, FG, GG, GP, HOU, and TUP -- most races come from FG.

Flat bets to win on the Simulation Winner:
All Races: ROI -11% 1113 races
Odds >= 1: ROI : -7% 1029 races
Odds >= 2: ROI: +1.2% 812 races
Odds >= 3: ROI: +16% 554 races
Odds>= 4: ROI: +21% 414 races
odds >= 5: ROI: +29% 317 races
Odds >= 6: ROI: + 30% 260 races

I could easily say that this is a silver bullet -- that this solves all the riddles. Come one, come all - it will only cost you 1000$ a month. +30% ROI! Woah! Awesome.

So, why am I not touting this as the magic bullet of horse racing? Because these are past results from one set of races. The software will continue to work the same (even if it "tunes" itself, its still doing the same type of tuning) but that doesn't mean that the horses will. Here's the same statistics for 234 races from Churchill, 2000:
Flat bets to win on the Simulation Winner:
All Races: ROI: -35% 234 races
Odds >=1 : ROI: - 33% 213 races
Odds >=2: ROI: -30% 165 races
Odds >= 3: ROI: -23% 133 races
Odds >= 4: ROI: -22% 101 races
Odds >= 5: ROI: -7% 79 races
Odds >= 6: ROI: +3% 66 races

A dramatic difference. Does this mean the software is junk? I don't think so. I think it means that you have to work to familiarize yourself with what the software does well in order to trust its "picks". And you have to stay on top of it -- that's not a "simple procedure" in my book. It's the same thing with the "Sheets". They cost a lot, and not everyone is going to win with them. Those who *work* to integrate them into their handicapping may do well with them. But there's no free lunch or we'd all be rich.

But, again, I think there is, and should be, a lot more to handicapping software than the picks it produces. Whether you are a hobbyist or consider yourself a "professional", if you spend a lot of time doing something you should have the tools that make it more enjoyable. In handicapping, there are a lot of things that can be made entertaining through the use of quality tools and the industry tends to ignore this.


-Handle

[GameTheory]

Handle --

Interesting numbers. If you happen to have a way to calculate the average size of the field for each of the two data sets (& for each of the odds categories, if possible), I would be curious to see that....

[Handle]

Unfortunately I don't have the size of the field stored in the database. It's not too difficult to add it and re-build the DB in ES, but I won't be able to reproduce the first set because it happened to be the current database I was using and I don't know exactly which race cards are in it (I could look them up one by one, but that would be painful). I'll see what I can do tonight (another excuse to put off writing documentation...) and get back to you with the figures.

-Handle


Originally posted by GameTheory
Handle --

Interesting numbers. If you happen to have a way to calculate the average size of the field for each of the two data sets (& for each of the odds categories, if possible), I would be curious to see that....

[GameTheory]

I'm just wondering if there is a significant difference -- I have noticed when comparing sets of data like these that field size can be quite important and possibly account for the differences in results you noted, but maybe not.

Odds are a reflection of the opinion of the crowd, and I think the crowd has a lower opinion of a 6-1 horse in a 6 horse field than a 6-1 horse in a 12 horse field. If one or the other tends to have smaller fields, then I would say the two data sets are not quite comparable and need some equalization...

[Dick Schmidt]

Handle,

Bit cynical aren't we? I have nothing for sale directly. I still supply a few outlets with a book I helped write 10 years ago, but that's all. No connection to any software program other than as a user. No kickbacks, no commissions, no nothing. How about you? You sure are pushing your program hard here on this board. Post after post extolling the virtues of your own software. Are you winning with it? If so, why are YOU selling it?

As for detailing how I do it; grow up. That's not going to happen for obvious reasons. However, I did publish a review of Synergism 6 in which I ran a 45 day test at Hollywood Park. I played almost every race, skipping only those shorter than 5 furlongs or with all FTS. As long as a race was 5 f. or longer and had at least one horse with a previous start, I used it. Turf, dirt, sprints, routes, off tracks, they all went in the pot. I let the program choose pacelines, analyze the race and then suggest three picks. The top pick showed a +23% ROI (second pick +13%, third lost about 5%) with no input from me.

I'm sure glad you hate to be antagonistic, or you'd really let me have it. I tell you that I can win using a simple procedure with software that I purchased (and do not sell, nor have any financial interest in) and you call me a liar and a con man with absolutely no basis for the charges other than you don't like or believe what I am reporting. Since I am selling nothing, asking no one to send me a dime and merely reporting on my experience with commercial software, I assume an apology will be forthcoming.

Dick

[schacht]

your all so right their tools ,their will allways be a human factor involved.even 500 years from now no software will predict exactly how they run,no one can make me believe that .even hsh software with its ever evolving new add ons like ants etc will never predict a super 1-2-3-4.my software hits $10,000 supers on a regular basis but im still learning how to use it after 7 years:cool: :) ;) :p :D

[rafael]

Come on Dick...this is a free country. It seems to me that no one but you is allowed to disagree. Especially with you. You can sing the virtues of your latest "guru" but if someone else may criticize your "guru" of the year...they have commited a crime. Whether or not you are getting paid to promote the product is not the point. There are other perks besides getting paid (eg free software, download, inside information). No one owes anyone an apology for expressing their view...however they may express it. Polite or not. I have seen you be very critical of others yet, I suppose, that was ok because it was you. The great Dick Schmidt who isn't content to just live off all the money you make, but need to let everyone know who great you are. How come you need so much attention? How come you waste so much time writing tomes on these boards? Those that are the most successful are content within themselves and don't need others to validate them. They don't need anymore validation than that which comes from within.

[Handle]

Dick,

You're right -- I owe you an apology for being as antagonistic and sarcastic as I was. I am sorry.

The fact is, I disagree strongly with what you have to say regarding the premises upon which to judge handicapping software. Some poor sucker might actually believe what you are saying. 45 days at one track isn't enough of a test to tell the world that you have a silver bullet. I think that my earlier post with the numbers prove that.

But I was never argueing that you haven't had this success -- just that you are a bit daft in your assessment of what that success means. If, indeed, the software consistently produces a 23% ROI everyone that used it would be rich. I don't understand why someone would sell it if this were so. It would ruin the advantage they had. If you're saying that you had some success with some software for 1 1/2 months, that's great. So have I. But don't try to tell people that this means you have found, or that there has been created, the be all and end all of handicapping software -- there hasn't. Your 45 day test at one track does not change this. People have used my software to do the same, and when they tell me about it, I say -- Great-- but beware because the bear is always around the corner.

And sorry for asking you to tell people just what "simple procedure" you used -- I didn't know this was confidential. Especially after you write, in your "review" of Synergism,
"My procedure is simple: go to the Adj Lines screen, use TPR to make any changes to the program’s selection of pacelines and then bet what the model tells me to. Like coming back home for Christmas."

I betcha gotta a different procedure you use to get that 23% ROI that you don't want to talk about. Lets say that you do -- GREAT! But you've just defeated your initial argument. To recap, you said to "judge the handicapping software by how much IT wins for you." I said, IT doesn't win any money for you. Thanks for making my point - if you came up with the "secret" procedure to use with the software, then you're the one who performed the "magic", not the software. And that means that you're doing the crucial work. This isn't what you've been saying here.

As far as "extolling the virtues" of my software in post after post -- I haven't done that. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm playing down the "handicapping software as magical money machine" angle, despite the numbers I could produce without telling the world about those "other 45 days". I'm argueing that people should look for a tool that they enjoy working with, and concentrate on that. I said that I believe making money with the tool is part of the enjoyment. But there are other things to look for as well. I'm also argueing that I think that a lot of software, and data providers, are over priced because people fall prey to the "magical money machine" scam. That's why I'm up in arms that you should come on as an authority to say that this is the criteria by which to judge handicapping software without even considering other aspects of the argument.

Again, I'm sorry for being rude here. But I really do find your point of view, and the way you present it as THE point of view, rather offensive at minimum. In the worst case, it is possibly misleading to many who already are fed enough BS about things that will make them money with no effort on their part (the "Elliot Wave" comes to mind...).

-Handle

[ranchwest]

Hey, that biorhythm guy is hitting those big bucks and I bet he doesn't even need the data.


Sorry, thought this thread could use a little levity. I know, very little here.

[BIG HIT]

Hey guy got a idea why dont you have a contest for all software open to anybody with the software they designed and that way everybody will benifit one thing for sure it would be very very interesting.

[Lefty]

Isn't making a profit with software a partnership between the software and the guy using it? There's software where 10 guys couldvbe using it 10 diff. ways, with some making a profit and some not. HSH, and HTR come to mind. Then again, there's software out there that has such bad formulae that noone could make a profit with it.

[GR1@HTR]

Handle,

Your program looks like an excellent value...Increase price to $149 to $199, create a bbs (you might already have one), provide weekend plays/reason behind selections to educate your users, and reap the benefits.

Good luck.

[Myhorse1_X]

If anyone is interested, there is some "inexpensive" software on e-Bay up for bid.

Finish Line Handicapping

Rex Point Handicapping

Joe Zambuto's Handicapping software.

Anyone use any of these?

Notice I used the word "inexpensive" as opposed to "Cheap". The word "Cheap" denotes quality not value.

If anyone on this board would like a real value I would jump on the EquiSim program. I have viewed his update and am presently beta testing it. I think that it is a VERY WORTHWHILE program especially for those that like a Data Base to work with.

I am one of his competitor's for your handicapping money and I recommend it! I do not have any financial interest in the program at all, in case you are wondering.

MyHorse1

[ranchwest]

What data does it use?

[Myhorse1_X]

Ranch:

It uses both the TSN and the BRIS PP single-file data files.

MyHorse1

[ranchwest]

I've been using Track Master files, which apparently aren't very popular. Is there any way to convert those for use with EquiSim?

[GameTheory]

Why aren't Trackmaster files more popular anyway? They're the least expensive, at $80-$90 (I forget exactly) for monthy unlimited.

And come to think of it, I think they do have a converter to make DRF single format files...

[GR1@HTR]

RW,

I think you might have this info...If so, can you tell me what the win% an ROI is for the top rated track master speed fig horse from last race (dirt and non maiden races only). Thanks.

[Handle]

Do Track Master files contain pace figures?

A converter is a really good idea. It could even be worth some money to people who have one set of files but want to try other software. It would definitely be worth some money to people who sell software that uses only one type of data file. You might even be able to convert to Pace Maker/All Ways, etc.. -- the stuff that costs 7-14$ a card (oh yeah, but the software is free...). They're just comma delimited files. You'd have to figure out which fields were which, and they might have "special" data that other data files don't have.

At BRIS I saw a utility for converting comma delimited files to "text" (they are already "text", but, that's a different argument....), but none to convert different data file formats. Has anyone seen such an animal? I'd love to get hold of one that will convert between ITS/BRIS/TSN/TrackMaster data files. Would save me from having to write one.

-Handle

[BillW]

Handle,

Writing a converter would be easy. Including all of the fields proprietary to each format would be another question. For instance, the All Ways files are just Bris comma delimited files in a different order with "value added" fields included (class, race and ACL ratings etc.)

You would probably have to synthesise these to make the All-Ways software happy when it imported the data.

Also I'm sure you will never see a utility posted on the Bris site to convert their files to another format. I find them to be nice people, but not that nice. :)

Bill W.

[GameTheory]

Trackmaster PP's come in a variety of forms -- their own format, which has the most info, and then the comma-delimited "A" & "B" types which emulate things the DRF format -- any/all of which you can download (or convert with their program) for $80 something a month. You probably don't want to "mix & match" with actual DRF files though, because the speed figs are different (although adjusted to the same scale, I think.) At least thats what my memory tells me -- it should be on their site...

[Handle]

Yep -- it would be easy -- provided the format is published (as you point out -- figuring out which fields are which without a spec would be a nightmare). I haven't looked into TM files that much.
Converting ITS comma delimited files to BRIS/TSN format should be a snap (or just writing an importer that reads these files into ES). I just haven't got around to doing it for ES yet.



Originally posted by BillW
Handle,

Writing a converter would be easy.
Bill W.

[ranchwest]

GR1,

I'll try to remember to run that query this weekend for you.

[ranchwest]

I use the Track Master PP files, which don't have pace figures.

My database is of modest size, so there were 562 races that were dirt, non-maiden races. The TM speed figure leader from the last race won 157 of those 562 races, returning on average $1.89 (.945 ROI), for a 27.93% win percentage. The average payoff of winners was $6.78.

GR1, I suspicion you're going somewhere with this. What?

[BillW]

ranchwest,

Just outta curiosity, do have an IV (or total number of starters).

Bill W.

[Handle]

RW,

Those are pretty good numbers. But are you considering the Speed Figure leader when its a tie? That happens more often than not in BRIS data files. Here's an example.
438 dirt races of all types, sizes, shapes and colors taken from Hou and FG.
BRIS best Speed Figure:
# races appearing
438
# of entries that had this "ability"
493
The Win/Place/Show % BASED ON NUMBER OF ENTRIES:
29.21/47.67/60.24
ROI Of Winner based on # of Entries:
-23.86%

So, it could be said that 12.5% of the races, on average, had more than one horse with the best speed (493/438 = 1.125). In this example, the Win % would be 32.87% if done by race alone (ignoring ties). Or, 3.66% higher.

The ROI would be 9.57% higher if ties were ignored.
ROI = Total Won / Total Bet
ROI considering all entries as a bet
-23.86% = WON / 986
WON = 750.75
ROI considering all races as a bet with only one horse having Best Speed:
ROI = 750.75/876
ROI = .857, or -14.29%

-Handle

Originally posted by ranchwest
I use the Track Master PP files, which don't have pace figures.

My database is of modest size, so there were 562 races that were dirt, non-maiden races. The TM speed figure leader from the last race won 157 of those 562 races, returning on average $1.89 (.945 ROI), for a 27.93% win percentage. The average payoff of winners was $6.78.

GR1, I suspicion you're going somewhere with this. What?

[BillW]

Handle,

That;s where I was going ... you explained it much more eloquently :)

Bill W.

[GR1@HTR]

Originally posted by ranchwest

GR1, I suspicion you're going somewhere with this. What?

Thanks RW. Excellent figures. Was just curious about the performance of speed figures from various outlets. And I have never seen any stats on Track Master till now. Those stats are about as good as it gets. Dat is all.

[ranchwest]

Handle,

You are right. I don't have my data set up in such a way that it would be easy to determine ties for speed leader and I didn't include ties. That definitely skews the results set.

BillW,

The total horses, dirt, non-maiden, was 5,281 with 643 winners. That makes the IV of the speed leaders, not including ties, 2.29.

This probably includes a few dead heats, probably 2.

[HTRFGuy]

Originally posted by Handle
Do Track Master files contain pace figures?

At BRIS I saw a utility for converting comma delimited files to "text" (they are already "text", but, that's a different argument....), but none to convert different data file formats. Has anyone seen such an animal? I'd love to get hold of one that will convert between ITS/BRIS/TSN/TrackMaster data files. Would save me from having to write one.

-Handle

The short answer about Trackmaster files containing pace figures is no, they do not.
The converter for Trackmaster simply converts
their native file format to the same CDF
standard of the DRF files distributed by
BRIS and TSN. Fields in BRIS and TSN files
that contain pace figures are simply not
populated when you use Trackmaster files.

ITS is the only major provider whose files
are significantly different from the DRF
standard.

I have versions of my HTRF Pace Handicapper for
all major providers including BRIS, TSN,
Trackmaster and ITS. All the files have their
advantages and disadvantages.