Andy Beyer on Talking Horses, 09/02?

[Parkview_Pirate]

A couple of weeks ago while watching Talking Horses with Andy Serling and Anthony Stabile, I believe Serling mentioned that Andy Beyer was going to be on as the guest handicapper on Woodward Stakes day, to which Stabile replied, "You're bumping me for that guy?"

Poking around out on the DRF and NYRA sites and TLG's twitter feed, I can't see any reference to confirm or deny Beyer is still in the queue for tomorrow. Anyone know?

[GMB@BP]

pretty sure I saw someone ask him this and he said it was correct.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I hope this is true. I will make it to the track early for this.

[LemonSoupKid]

Does Beyer even 'cap anything anymore?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Beyer's selections for Saratoga today are out on the "Talking Horses" web site, along with Andy Serling's picks:

https://www.nyra.com/saratoga/racing/talking-horses

So, I'm assuming he'll be on the show today. Since another Saratoga meet has been missed (it's about 2500 miles away) this year, today's analysis and card will probably be the highlight for me anyway.

Good luck, everyone.

[Redboard]

FYI here are the results of last Saturday’s battle of the handicapping titans (using their first choice only, as a win bet):

Beyer
R1 :1: Won $3.40
R2 :10: Won $4.90
R3 :9: 5th
R4 :5: Won $7.40
R5 :8: last
R6 :9: 3rd
R7 :5: 5th
R8 :6: 2nd
R9 :4: 3rd
R10 :1: 3rd
R11 :2: Won $2.70
--------------------------------
Total won (on $2 win bets): $18.40
ROI(average return of $2 win bet): $1.67


Serling

R1 :7: last
R2 :12: scratched
R3 :9: 5th
R4 :7: 3rd
R5 :2: 8th
R6 :6: won $10.60
R7 :6: 6th
R8 :6: 2nd
R9 :1: 5th
R10 :1: 3rd
R11 :1: 3rd
-------------------------------
Total won (on $2 win bets): $10.60
ROI(average return of $2 win bet): $1.06

Beyer ate a lot more chalk than Serling. Beyer took the favorite 9 out of 11 times (I left out the 12th race, didn’t copy their picks for the 12th race, I know Serling had the :4: ,who finished 3rd, but didn’t record Beyer’s pick) . Here are the betting positions of their selections:

Serling: 3rd, scratch, 5th, 3rd, 5th , 3rd, 1st, 9th, 1st,3rd, 1st, 2rd
Beyer: 1st, 1st, 5th , 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

Makes me wonder if Beyer has every played Saratoga before. To pick that many favorites, in the graveyard of favorites, you may as well cut yourself and watch as you bleed to death.

[thaskalos]

Makes me wonder if Beyer has every played Saratoga before.

And I am left wondering if you've ever read a Beyer book. He has written at length about his Saratoga-betting experiences.

[Redboard]

And I am left wondering if you've ever read a Beyer book. He has written at length about his Saratoga-betting experiences.

So, these wonderful books recommend eating chalk at the SPA?

[PaceAdvantage]

So, these wonderful books recommend eating chalk at the SPA?Yes. exactly. you have it pegged wonderfully. :rolleyes:

[GMB@BP]

Yes. exactly. you have it pegged wonderfully. :rolleyes:

The funny thing was in this case he was exactly right!

People also seem to struggle with picks and bets

[classhandicapper]

One of many problems public handicappers have is deciding whether to give out the most probable winner, 2nd most probable winner etc... and allowing you to decide if there is value or telling you the horse they think will have value. The problem with doing the latter is that it means they are also trying to project the odds. If they try to project odds, they will often be wrong.

[thaskalos]

One of many problems public handicappers have is deciding whether to give out the most probable winner, 2nd most probable winner etc... and allowing you to decide if there is value or telling you the horse they think will have value. The problem with doing the latter is that it means they are also trying to project the odds. If they try to project odds, they will often be wrong.

In this game, you will often be wrong no matter WHAT you do. Is it the public handicapper's "decision" to pretend as if there is a possible play in every race...or is this something that he is instructed to do by his employer, who wants the public to bet as often as possible?

[cj]

In this game, you will often be wrong no matter WHAT you do. Is it the public handicapper's "decision" to pretend as if there is a possible play in every race...or is this something that he is instructed to do by his employer, who wants the public to bet as often as possible?

He did say one of the many problems. As it relates to Talking Horses, they discuss the races and I've heard many times the guys say a race isn't a good betting contest. I assume they are still required to give selections. In print it is a different story, if anyone even does that any longer. I really don't know. I know at TimeformUS David gives his logic and picks the races he wants to bet.

When I'm asked to do a segment, I struggle with the things classhandicapper mentioned. Trying to "guess the odds" is as hard or harder than trying to pick the winner. But I also don't want to recommend horses without talking about price.

[thaskalos]

He did say one of the many problems. As it relates to Talking Horses, they discuss the races and I've heard many times the guys say a race isn't a good betting contest. I assume they are still required to give selections. In print it is a different story, if anyone even does that any longer. I really don't know. I know at TimeformUS David gives his logic and picks the races he wants to bet.

When I'm asked to do a segment, I struggle with the things classhandicapper mentioned. Trying to "guess the odds" is as hard or harder than trying to pick the winner. But I also don't want to recommend horses without talking about price.

I wasn't disagreeing with Classhandicapper on this point...I honestly don't know how much "deciding" there is on the part of the public handicapper as he plies his trade. I wasn't talking about Talking Horses in particular...and I didn't think Classhandicapper was talking specifically about Talking Horses either.

I watch the hosts on TVG sometimes, as they try to analyze a totally unappetizing 5-horse field at some track, somewhere. "I know that I shouldn't say this...but this isn't the best race to bet on"...the host will occasionally tell the viewing audience, in an apologetic manner. And I always ask myself why it isn't "acceptable" that a host should say that...when the situation demands it? Isn't it a little short-sighted to encourage the public to wager on every crappy race that they see?

[dilanesp]

In this game, you will often be wrong no matter WHAT you do. Is it the public handicapper's "decision" to pretend as if there is a possible play in every race...or is this something that he is instructed to do by his employer, who wants the public to bet as often as possible?

I wouldn't even be that cynical. The PUBLIC wants a selection in every race, even though good handicappers pass some or make very small wagers.

And further, many of them don't want detailed instructions how to bet. They want 1-2-3.

It's really unfair to Beyer, Serling, or anyone else to just add up their picks and evaluate on the basis of a flat bet profit. For all we know Serling may have crushed the day because the 4 to 1 shot in the 6th was, perhaps, one of only two plays on the card he really loved, and he passed most of the races or made only token bets. But all we see on the report card is that he had one winner that played $10.

The opposite can be true too. It's totally possible to pick 5 winners on a card and lose money.

But you have a format that constrains handicappers to offer a very artificial form of betting advice.

[thaskalos]

I wouldn't even be that cynical. The PUBLIC wants a selection in every race, even though good handicappers pass some or make very small wagers.

And further, many of them don't want detailed instructions how to bet. They want 1-2-3.

It's really unfair to Beyer, Serling, or anyone else to just add up their picks and evaluate on the basis of a flat bet profit. For all we know Serling may have crushed the day because the 4 to 1 shot in the 6th was, perhaps, one of only two plays on the card he really loved, and he passed most of the races or made only token bets. But all we see on the report card is that he had one winner that played $10.

The opposite can be true too. It's totally possible to pick 5 winners on a card and lose money.

But you have a format that constrains handicappers to offer a very artificial form of betting advice.

IMO...the public handicapper must realize from the outset that he will forever be criticized by the dim-witted among his audience. He can't allow that to bother him...because it's an occupational hazard that he must deal with. Even if he is the best handicapper in the land, and is allowed to "cherry-pick" his selections as much as he wants...he will soon develop a following which is sure to plunge his bottom-line into the negative...and then his followers will call him just another "flash-in-the-pan".

If you want to win popularity contests...then, you don't become a public handicapper.

[AndyC]

Kudos to public handicapper John Lindo who had 96 winners out of 318 races returning $764.80 on $2 win bets ($636 total bet). His selections along with three other handicappers were posted each day in the San Diego Union.

[thaskalos]

Kudos to public handicapper John Lindo who had 96 winners out of 318 races returning $764.80 on $2 win bets ($636 total bet). His selections along with three other handicappers were posted each day in the San Diego Union.

How did the OTHER three handicappers do?

[AndyC]

How did the OTHER three handicappers do?

Jeff Siegel 75 wins for $505.20
Mike Superstein 71 wins for $436.00
Jeff Nahill 58 wins for $507.40

[thaskalos]

Jeff Siegel 75 wins for $505.20
Mike Superstein 71 wins for $436.00
Jeff Nahill 58 wins for $507.40

Then I echo your words. Kudos to Mr. Lindo! :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Track Phantom]

IMO...the public handicapper must realize from the outset that he will forever be criticized by the dim-witted among his audience. He can't allow that to bother him...because it's an occupational hazard that he must deal with. Even if he is the best handicapper in the land, and is allowed to "cherry-pick" his selections as much as he wants...he will soon develop a following which is sure to plunge his bottom-line into the negative...and then his followers will call him just another "flash-in-the-pan".

If you want to win popularity contests...then, you don't become a public handicapper.
This is so true.

[GMB@BP]

Andy has said he is required to post 4 picks per race.

Often times he has stated such and such is the most likely winner but at the odds I do not want them"

a lower percentage with more profit is better than the reverse and rather see that type of public handicapping then a most likely winner type selection.

[Fager Fan]

Andy has said he is required to post 4 picks per race.

Often times he has stated such and such is the most likely winner but at the odds I do not want them"

a lower percentage with more profit is better than the reverse and rather see that type of public handicapping then a most likely winner type selection.

Four? That's half the field or more in many races. This is why I look at public handicappers like I do those who write horoscopes - you can always find some truth in there somewhere.

[VigorsTheGrey]

How does one know if the selections of a handicapper are what they think will win or what they are betting, for value, for example...

Should public handicappers be required to select who they believe will win regardless of odds or what they prefer to play instead...?

Lots of guys say that I think X will win, but there's no value there, so I'm going to play Y, instead..

...I think it best for public handicappers to select who they think will win, regardless...

[GMB@BP]

Four? That's half the field or more in many races. This is why I look at public handicappers like I do those who write horoscopes - you can always find some truth in there somewhere.

I believe its for the superfecta reason, and you insinuate that if the fourth choice wins that he would take credit, of which I have never seen.

[Redboard]

How does one know if the selections of a handicapper are what they think will win or what they are betting, for value, for example...

Should public handicappers be required to select who they believe will win regardless of odds or what they prefer to play instead...?

Lots of guys say that I think X will win, but there's no value there, so I'm going to play Y, instead..

...I think it best for public handicappers to select who they think will win, regardless...

Serling does it correctly. He'll usually say A is the most likely winner but B is the best value.

[proximity]

If you want to win popularity contests...then, you don't become a public handicapper.

pen legend tonyk@hsh may be the only man who could do this?

excellent public handicapper and i think everyone likes him except michael gill! :D

[CincyHorseplayer]

Even if the public handicappers got specific about which races were or weren't worth betting and what price the horses in the races they deemed "good" needed to be, how many would actually listen? I know I will occasionally hear one tidbit of information in their handicapping and agree it is worth a bet but not often. It's so subjective. For example I think I could win every turf sprint they run at Gulfstream. But think I could lose every turf sprint at Belmont. Over this last month I felt more comfortable betting maidens on dirt or turf and at any distance loaded with first time starters than most dirt races with entrants having 10 PP's each to look at. Would I convince anybody even if my selections were winning or had I written a book? We see legends get the pinata treatment here so I hardly doubt anybody "Out There" will convince a jaded player to pay close attention to their selections!

[dilanesp]

Even if the public handicappers got specific about which races were or weren't worth betting and what price the horses in the races they deemed "good" needed to be, how many would actually listen? I know I will occasionally hear one tidbit of information in their handicapping and agree it is worth a bet but not often. It's so subjective. For example I think I could win every turf sprint they run at Gulfstream. But think I could lose every turf sprint at Belmont. Over this last month I felt more comfortable betting maidens on dirt or turf and at any distance loaded with first time starters than most dirt races with entrants having 10 PP's each to look at. Would I convince anybody even if my selections were winning or had I written a book? We see legends get the pinata treatment here so I hardly doubt anybody "Out There" will convince a jaded player to pay close attention to their selections!

In my experience the most useful function that public handicappers serve is to point out when you just totally miss something.

For instance, I have had the following scenario occur-- I handicap a race, identify the contenders, make an odds line, etc. Then I look back at the analysis of a public handicapper I respect and he or she likes some horse that I never even considered. And then I take another look and realize "how could I miss that-- her three bad races were all on grass and now she's switching back to the dirt where she had good form" or whatever it is I missed.

Or maybe you like a horse and the public handicapper points out that he's 0 for 6 at Del Mar or that his last two races were both dressed up perfect trips or something.

I don't find much use in actually following the selections of a public handicapper. But I do find they can be useful for this purpose.

[thaskalos]

The more "accomplished" the horseplayer is...the more "unnecessary" he considers the public handicapper to be. Just like the opening line. The more informed the horseplayer is, the more USELESS the opening line becomes to him...because he has more respect for his OWN opinion of what the final odds-line should be.

IMO...the horseplayer should always aim for continual improvement, to the point where he eventually relies on no-one but HIMSELF for his handicapping and betting decisions. Even the MINOR reliance on a public handicapper reveals that we still have work to do on our own game.

[classhandicapper]

There was a DRF handicapper at one time that did something I liked. I believe his name was Steve Klein. He would make selections for every race, but give minimum odds for making a wager for his best bets on the card. That way if his top pick went off at 4/5 and he wasn't interested at anything less that 2-1, you would know that.

If I was forced to make public selections I would probably list my top 3 selections in order of winning probability but also add a value line. That way you could track my win%, my ROI when my top selection went off at the required price, and any other overlays from among the top 3.

Scratches, changes in track condition, biases and stuff like that would still be problematical, but at least you'd be able to see my thinking clearly coming into the race about who was most likely to win, what kind of odds I needed, and whether I might be willing to take a shot against the most likely winner at a certain price.

[dilanesp]

The more "accomplished" the horseplayer is...the more "unnecessary" he considers the public handicapper to be. Just like the opening line. The more informed the horseplayer is, the more USELESS the opening line becomes to him...because he has more respect for his OWN opinion of what the final odds-line should be.

IMO...the horseplayer should always aim for continual improvement, to the point where he eventually relies on no-one but HIMSELF for his handicapping and betting decisions. Even the MINOR reliance on a public handicapper reveals that we still have work to do on our own game.

I think this is fundamentally wrong as a piece of gambling advice.

No gambler or game-player should ever think that he or she has mastered a complex game. Rather, a player should assume there are still leaks and constantly seek to get better. And while outside voices can sometimes mislead, they can also sometimes point out things you missed. In poker, for instance, having someone decent to review your sessions with is invaluable.

If you think you know it all, you almost certainly do not. And even if you do know it all, anyone can make a mistake or miss something. At least keeping an open ear to outside voices is ALWAYS necessary.

[classhandicapper]

I think this is fundamentally wrong as a piece of gambling advice.

No gambler or game-player should ever think that he or she has mastered a complex game. Rather, a player should assume there are still leaks and constantly seek to get better. And while outside voices can sometimes mislead, they can also sometimes point out things you missed. In poker, for instance, having someone decent to review your sessions with is invaluable.

If you think you know it all, you almost certainly do not. And even if you do know it all, anyone can make a mistake or miss something. At least keeping an open ear to outside voices is ALWAYS necessary.

I agree with this to a point.

You have to be able to discern which players have studied the game carefully and can share facts with you if they are generous enough to do so and which are coming to you with opinions. There are a lot of very confident bad opinions out there.

[thaskalos]

I think this is fundamentally wrong as a piece of gambling advice.

No gambler or game-player should ever think that he or she has mastered a complex game. Rather, a player should assume there are still leaks and constantly seek to get better. And while outside voices can sometimes mislead, they can also sometimes point out things you missed. In poker, for instance, having someone decent to review your sessions with is invaluable.

If you think you know it all, you almost certainly do not. And even if you do know it all, anyone can make a mistake or miss something. At least keeping an open ear to outside voices is ALWAYS necessary.

My post had nothing to do with "mastering a complex game"...or, "knowing it all". NO ONE "knows it all" in this game...and there are no "masters". But...if I need someone else to point out to me that "my selection's bad races were on the turf, and now the horse is switching to dirt"...or that "my horse is 0 for 6 on the Del Mar surface"...then I am either not INFORMED enough, or I am careless in my craft. And this isn't the sort of gambling game that rewards the "careless", or the "uninformed".

"Trust no one...but be thy own lamp"...the Buddha declared to his disciples some 2,500 years ago. He may as well have been referring to horseplayers...because this is sage advice...IMO.

[thaskalos]

In poker, for instance, having someone decent to review your sessions with is invaluable.


In poker, the opposing player spends many hours in front of you with his chips in plain view...and you can readily assess if he is really a better player than you. And if he is...you might solicit him for advice. Can you really trust anyone to be an "expert" in HORSERACING?

[AndyC]

In poker, the opposing player spends many hours in front of you with his chips in plain view...and you can readily assess if he is really a better player than you. And if he is...you might solicit him for advice. Can you really trust anyone to be an "expert" in HORSERACING?

They don't have to be an expert in horseracing, just accurate in the information they are providing me.

[thaskalos]

They don't have to be an expert in horseracing, just accurate in the information they are providing me.

Dilanesp was talking about having a competent player review our gambling sessions, so he could offer us "advice". That's what I quoted, and that's what I replied to. I wasn't talking about the purveyors of "information"...whether "accurate" or otherwise.

[Robert Fischer]

No gambler or game-player should ever think that he or she has mastered a complex game. Rather, a player should assume there are still leaks and constantly seek to get better. And while outside voices can sometimes mislead, they can also sometimes point out things you missed. In poker, for instance, having someone decent to review your sessions with is invaluable.

agree and disagree

You aren't supposed to master the game, you are supposed to master your little circle of competence.

When the game enters your circle, you make a valuation, and if it's highly favorable, you capitalize.

The morning line, or the odds themselves are simply an offer from the market. The market is often bipolar and irrational.

The catch is, that you should understand why the odds are about where they are. -The odds are part of the game. You have to be able to thoroughly argue/explain both sides of the coin, in order to have a strong opinion.

[Track Phantom]

I've given this scenario a lot of thought over the years as I do have a following I provide information to.

I believe the majority of people that get my stuff can handicap just fine on their own but may not have time to deep dive every race on a card. I try very hard to provide information that isn't patently obvious (backbreeding, trainer patterns, trip difficulties or even just pointing out the addition/removal of blinkers that resulted in a different effort, or a key race with how the also-rans came back to run).

I provide my top 4 selections, detailed commentary on my top selection and detailed commentary on a "value" play in the race (the horse at decent odds who has the best chance to crash the exotics). I separate the horses into A, B, C categories and then add a confidence rating 1-100 per race.

My hope is someone can "augment" their own handicapping by finding something of value in my information. I spend a lot of time digging for the info and should be an extension of what they might do if they had the time or tools to do so.

95% of the public handicappers fall into one or two categories; chalk-eater or hero. You'll have guys regurgitate what you already know and select all obvious contenders and you'll have guys that are constantly selecting bombs in the hope they connect once or twice and that is what people remember. My only real approach here is not to be predictable.

Sometimes this is a labor of love and sometimes it is simply laborious.

[AndyC]

Dilanesp was talking about having a competent player review our gambling sessions, so he could offer us "advice". That's what I quoted, and that's what I replied to. I wasn't talking about the purveyors of "information"...whether "accurate" or otherwise.

I was responding to the thread in general about being "informed". As for advice, you don't have to be an expert to give good advice.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The more "accomplished" the horseplayer is...the more "unnecessary" he considers the public handicapper to be. Just like the opening line. The more informed the horseplayer is, the more USELESS the opening line becomes to him...because he has more respect for his OWN opinion of what the final odds-line should be.

IMO...the horseplayer should always aim for continual improvement, to the point where he eventually relies on no-one but HIMSELF for his handicapping and betting decisions. Even the MINOR reliance on a public handicapper reveals that we still have work to do on our own game.

Absolutely without a doubt right. I remember the first year I played in 1996 I would read handicapping books but at the races I would think " so and so would love this horse but I don't" or "so and so would hate this horse but I love it". I think all these years later that has been my strength from the beginning. Definitely incremental improvements at all times. Good post Thask.

[dilanesp]

In poker, the opposing player spends many hours in front of you with his chips in plain view...and you can readily assess if he is really a better player than you. And if he is...you might solicit him for advice. Can you really trust anyone to be an "expert" in HORSERACING?

Well, thas, public handicappers are actually fairly easy to evaluate.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I would not want to present my picks on Talking Horses. The Spa is tough, and the Woodward card beat me senseless.

I do find some value in the show because I get a different slant on the races (replays, trips and level of competition by horse hierarchy), and every now and then a point comes up that I missed. I also get a feel for how the public might steer their money, and that helps when making selections for "pick and pray" handicapping contests.

Beyer and Serling took a couple of trips down memory lane during the show as well, which IMHO is a plus. Beyer's books are every bit a good read based on the entertainment factor, as well as the handicapping insights.

[thaskalos]

Well, thas, public handicappers are actually fairly easy to evaluate.

Would you care to "evaluate" some of them for us?

[dilanesp]

Would you care to "evaluate" some of them for us?

It won't help you too much if I say that Brad Free and Dave Litfin have noticed things that I consider relevant.

But what might help you is if I tell you that you can both track their selections and read their analyses of races, and you should be able to figure out which ones are worth paying attention to.

I know this- taking an egotistical "I never need to listen to anyone" attitude is leaving money on the table.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The more "accomplished" the horseplayer is...the more "unnecessary" he considers the public handicapper to be. Just like the opening line. The more informed the horseplayer is, the more USELESS the opening line becomes to him...because he has more respect for his OWN opinion of what the final odds-line should be.

IMO...the horseplayer should always aim for continual improvement, to the point where he eventually relies on no-one but HIMSELF for his handicapping and betting decisions. Even the MINOR reliance on a public handicapper reveals that we still have work to do on our own game.


Agree with this Thask...The more I follow the opinions and choices of others, the more I see how each of us are subjected to the same variables and vicissitudes (a change of circumstances or fortune, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant) of the racing world and they tend to even out over the long haul...I value my own insight into things more than I used to....

Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

Shakespeare

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think so many players are completely mesmerized by the connections in this game and the handicapping authorities that they live in a constant state of fear and paralysis. Once the realization takes hold that the only game that exists is your game and everything outside it exists only in your orbit can you begin to entertain thoughts of winning. The existential reality and isolation of you and your money is the only one.

[thaskalos]

It won't help you too much if I say that Brad Free and Dave Litfin have noticed things that I consider relevant.

But what might help you is if I tell you that you can both track their selections and read their analyses of races, and you should be able to figure out which ones are worth paying attention to.

I know this- taking an egotistical "I never need to listen to anyone" attitude is leaving money on the table.

I have nothing against Brad Free, Dave Liftin, or any other public handicapper...but I know for a fact that I have no chance at all in this game if I don't hold my OWN opinion in higher regard than I do theirs. It has nothing to do with me being "egotistical"...it has to do with me realizing the magnitude of the task that the "winning horseplayer" undertakes. If I am waiting for Free, Liftin, Beyer or Serling to bring things to my attention...then I might as well give up betting horses as a serious pursuit. I am an avid reader, and I've read all the serious handicapping works that have ever been published. But all this reading is just a "starting point"...and it can only whet the serious player's appetite, IMO. If he can't SURPASS the teachers whose books he reads...then there is no money left on the table for him in this game.

In poker...you can easily avoid the Iveys, the Galfonds, the Antoniuses, and the Brunsons. But in this game...you CAN'T. You can be a "good" poker player and make a "good" living...because you can be selective in the games that you sit in. But in horse-betting...the "good player" STARVES.

[dilanesp]

I have nothing against Brad Free, Dave Liftin, or any other public handicapper...but I know for a fact that I have no chance at all in this game if I don't hold my OWN opinion in higher regard than I do theirs. It has nothing to do with me being "egotistical"...it has to do with me realizing the magnitude of the task that the "winning horseplayer" undertakes. If I am waiting for Free, Liftin, Beyer or Serling to bring things to my attention...then I might as well give up betting horses as a serious pursuit. I am an avid reader, and I've read all the serious handicapping works that have ever been published. But all this reading is just a "starting point"...and it can only whet the serious player's appetite, IMO. If he can't SURPASS the teachers whose books he reads...then there is no money left on the table for him in this game.

In poker...you can easily avoid the Iveys, the Galfonds, the Antoniuses, and the Brunsons. But in this game...you CAN'T. You can be a "good" poker player and make a "good" living...because you can be selective in the games that you sit in. But in horse-betting...the "good player" STARVES.

Higher regard is one thing. Not ever listening or being open to another person's opinion is quite another.

Believe it or not, you can learn things from people who know LESS than you sometimes. Sometimes the junior associate in the conference room is the one who points out the flaw in the argument.

[Track Phantom]

There are two different things at play in this conversation.
1. Listening to others regarding their opinions
2. Listening to others regarding factual (or nearly factual) information

I agree that your opinion must be the only one that matters. However, when it comes to identifying information, nobody owns that, and it is well within bounds for a great handicapper to incorporate that into their own opinion.

If the 4th and 5th place finishers from a last race returned to win, and I feel that is valuable in the context of this race, it really doesn't matter where I learned this from. Having said that, I would need to improve my skills to the point that I'm the one pointing out the overlooked info, not waiting on others to do it for me.

Handicapping is the "art" of weighting massive amounts of data to draw hypothesis about how a race will unfold. The secret sauce is knowing how to weight the data vs knowing how to find the data.

[thaskalos]

Higher regard is one thing. Not ever listening or being open to another person's opinion is quite another.

Believe it or not, you can learn things from people who know LESS than you sometimes. Sometimes the junior associate in the conference room is the one who points out the flaw in the argument.

This is a game of "incomplete information"...and I'd be a fool if I said that there weren't "inside stuff" that I'd LOVE to be privy to. As Beyer once wrote...if someone took me to some remote corner, and conspiratorially whispered in my ear that he had genuine inside information from the "source", about the changed condition of one of the contenders in the race...then I might find such information IRRESISTIBLE. Alas...this isn't the sort of "news" that ever comes my way. What I hear from our racing personalities is the sort of information that I have no excuse for not gathering myself. And...when I discover something by myself...I don't have to suffer the consequences of having it widely dispersed.

It's how I choose to do things...and others are free to disagree with me on this all they want. We all do what we think is "right".

[VigorsTheGrey]

Has Andy Beyer ever released how Beyer numbers are arrived at...I guess I would follow them more closely if I knew how exactly they were put together...He must have a copyright on them and they are proprietary but what is the big deal now, so what if others know. Is the concern that some other "entrepreneurial types" might copy them and start a business in another country...? I guess I like to understand the HOW part more than others who probably could care less, as long as they work, right...

..Also, look at the DRF speed rating/ track variant figures...some here at Paceadvantage have suggested these are deeply flawed ratings, so why should I look at them or use them in the vain effort...?

Does the DRF even care that a portion of their product is not regarded very highly by horse players...can we trust that these ratings are even factually based...?

[Tom]

uh.......no, of course not.
Beyer keeps his work totally secret. No one is ever allowed to see how the numbers are made. He has historically been very tight lipped about them.








NOT.;)

Buy any of his books - you will not be disappointed.
I would read his first book first, get the detailed mechanics, and his views at the time. The $50,000 year book is good for hands on uses and projecting. His other books fold in trips, etc. The last one is very good and wrap it up nicely.

Also read, Joe Cardello's Speed To Spare. Excellent book on figs.

[cj]

Has Andy Beyer ever released how Beyer numbers are arrived at...I guess I would follow them more closely if I knew how exactly they were put together...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU

[castaway01]

Has Andy Beyer ever released how Beyer numbers are arrived at...I guess I would follow them more closely if I knew how exactly they were put together...He must have a copyright on them and they are proprietary but what is the big deal now, so what if others know. Is the concern that some other "entrepreneurial types" might copy them and start a business in another country...? I guess I like to understand the HOW part more than others who probably could care less, as long as they work, right...

..Also, look at the DRF speed rating/ track variant figures...some here at Paceadvantage have suggested these are deeply flawed ratings, so why should I look at them or use them in the vain effort...?

Does the DRF even care that a portion of their product is not regarded very highly by horse players...can we trust that these ratings are even factually based...?

You've made 3000 posts on a horse racing forum where Beyer speed figures are discussed and debated constanly and you're posting in a thread that started about Andrew Beyer...yet you've never heard of, much less read, any of his books?

You're a perplexing cat Vigors.

[jimmyb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU

Lol. Chalk flew up.

[VigorsTheGrey]

You've made 3000 posts on a horse racing forum where Beyer speed figures are discussed and debated constanly and you're posting in a thread that started about Andrew Beyer...yet you've never heard of, much less read, any of his books?

You're a perplexing cat Vigors.

Sorry everyone..I guess it was my misunderstanding that the exact formula for creating Beyer numbers was not public information and therefore not available...

[spiketoo]

I could LMGTFY, but how did the process of selecting horses become known as handicapping? I mean, based in the most common definition of the word.

Editorial comment on said word will be deferred to another reply.:bang:

[GMB@BP]

Lol. Chalk flew up.

lol.

I love how polite the official was.

[classhandicapper]

You aren't supposed to master the game, you are supposed to master your little circle of competence.

When the game enters your circle, you make a valuation, and if it's highly favorable, you capitalize.



This is should engraved somewhere.

There aren't enough hours in a day to compile and review all the information required to handicap every type of race at a very high level and to master it all. IMO, you are better off focusing your attention on specific areas. That could mean certain types of information, certain types of races, or both.

[classhandicapper]

Most handicappers (public or otherwise) read the same books, think about the game the same way, and look at the same or similar information. Outsmarting a bunch of other very smart people doing exactly what you do seems like a pretty tough task given there are a lot very smart and dedicated people playing this game.

I respect other opinions, but I have no real interest in what most have to say about a specific horse or race beyond hoping they have influence on the board and I think they are misunderstanding or missing something so I can get a better price on my horse.

One exception might be Maggie Wolfendale in NY. I don't have the time or skill to evaluate horse physicality and take notes every day like she does. If I am right on the fence and she has some especially strong comments one way or the other, I find that useful.

[Redboard]

....................

One exception might be Maggie Wolfendale in NY. I don't have the time or skill to evaluate horse physicality and take notes every day like she does. If I am right on the fence and she has some especially strong comments one way or the other, I find that useful.

Speaking of Maggie, is it me or has anybody else noticed that she not only give a "paddock pick" based upon how the horse looks in the paddock, but she often gives picks based upon odds and past performances.

I don't remember her doing this before but I almost always turn the sound off when I play and haven't listened to her in a while.

[cj]

Speaking of Maggie, is it me or has anybody else noticed that she not only give a "paddock pick" based upon how the horse looks in the paddock, but she often gives picks based upon odds and past performances.

I don't remember her doing this before but I almost always turn the sound off when I play and haven't listened to her in a while.

She's good at one of them. ;)

[AltonKelsey]

She's good at one of them. ;)

That's one more than most.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Most posters on here including myself haven't written books. But one strand of an idea or even just one simple phrase by someone has influenced my game profoundly. Some great and smart players. I trust many opinions on here. But when your money is on the line the only one you trust is #1! THat's a good thing!

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think Caton Bredar's paddock inspections are a must. She finds some live horses regularly.

[dilanesp]

I remember Andy Beyer coming out to California for the BC 30 years ago and doing some Q and A event at the track, and someone asked him the inevitable "what do you recommend to a young handicapper trying to make money at the races", and after the obligatory "don't"'s, he talked about sight handicapping, basically saying it's one of the few sorts of information that (1) can't really be bought and sold and (2) most horseplayers pay no or little attention to.

30 years on, I suspect that is still true. So yes, if there's someone with a detailed knowledge of horseflesh analyzing the horses in the paddock and post parade at your track, that's definitely worth listening to.

[classhandicapper]

I remember Andy Beyer coming out to California for the BC 30 years ago and doing some Q and A event at the track, and someone asked him the inevitable "what do you recommend to a young handicapper trying to make money at the races", and after the obligatory "don't"'s, he talked about sight handicapping, basically saying it's one of the few sorts of information that (1) can't really be bought and sold and (2) most horseplayers pay no or little attention to.

30 years on, I suspect that is still true. So yes, if there's someone with a detailed knowledge of horseflesh analyzing the horses in the paddock and post parade at your track, that's definitely worth listening to.

Aside from developing the knowledge/skill, another big problem is testing your insights. I've seen horses in the paddock I thought totally stood out from the others and watched them win. But I have no stats on my ability to do that (could be just random luck) and don't know if it would add to what I already know from the PPs.

When I retire maybe I'll go to Belmont every day and rate horses on a scale of 1-5 for each start and see if there are any patterns between the ratings and their performances.

[thaskalos]

I remember Andy Beyer coming out to California for the BC 30 years ago and doing some Q and A event at the track, and someone asked him the inevitable "what do you recommend to a young handicapper trying to make money at the races", and after the obligatory "don't"'s, he talked about sight handicapping, basically saying it's one of the few sorts of information that (1) can't really be bought and sold and (2) most horseplayers pay no or little attention to.

30 years on, I suspect that is still true. So yes, if there's someone with a detailed knowledge of horseflesh analyzing the horses in the paddock and post parade at your track, that's definitely worth listening to.

That's one thing that I always gave Beyer credit for...he never compromised his principles when he was asked for his opinion about the prospect of "beating this game". He was a refreshing change-of-pace from the other handicapping authors of that era...who advertised this game as a "personal ATM" (Mitchell)...or who called a 25% ROI "readily available" (Quinn).

[CincyHorseplayer]

No shocker Class and Thask respond to this thread. I have picked up so much from both of you. Better player here because of ya's!:cool:

[Parkview_Pirate]

Speaking of Maggie, is it me or has anybody else noticed that she not only give a "paddock pick" based upon how the horse looks in the paddock, but she often gives picks based upon odds and past performances.

I don't remember her doing this before but I almost always turn the sound off when I play and haven't listened to her in a while.

At least once during the Spa meet, she was on Talking Horses with Andy Serling - so she can certainly do the "classic" handicapping when necessary. I haven't noticed her comments so much about other aspects in the PPs while in the paddock, but I think her best "data" comes in two cases:

1. FTS or first time on turf or new distance - she often makes comments on whether or a horse is built for the type of race, or has the breeding to handle a surface switch - pretty handy when data is limited to a start or two - or none.

2. Her negative comments on a contender - sometimes you have to read between the lines, since of course she's in a position to stay on friendly terms with the connections, but if she makes a negative comment about a horse that should be a contender - my ears perk up. OTH, when she gushes the positives about a particular horse, it's not as telling - though if the horse is 20-1, it might be worth a last look.

More often than not, her opinions pan out during the race.

[cj]

At least once during the Spa meet, she was on Talking Horses with Andy Serling - so she can certainly do the "classic" handicapping when necessary. I haven't noticed her comments so much about other aspects in the PPs while in the paddock, but I think her best "data" comes in two cases:

1. FTS or first time on turf or new distance - she often makes comments on whether or a horse is built for the type of race, or has the breeding to handle a surface switch - pretty handy when data is limited to a start or two - or none.

2. Her negative comments on a contender - sometimes you have to read between the lines, since of course she's in a position to stay on friendly terms with the connections, but if she makes a negative comment about a horse that should be a contender - my ears perk up. OTH, when she gushes the positives about a particular horse, it's not as telling - though if the horse is 20-1, it might be worth a last look.

More often than not, her opinions pan out during the race.

Maggie did Talking Horses? You sure about that one?

[cj]

Maggie did Talking Horses? You sure about that one?

She did Talking Horses once, but it wasn't with Andy.

[sour grapes]

i beleive she and gabby did talking horses on fabulous filly day,andy just doesnt look good all decked out in pink.