My personal favorite spot play which I use regularly

[Bill Cullen]

For any non-maiden races (dirt or turf):

1) For a horse to qualify as a system play, it must
show at least 10 races in its past performances.
2) The horse must have had the same trainer for the
last ten races as well as today's race.
3)The turn-around time between the last race and
today's race must be the quickest turn-around time for
any of the horse's last 10 races including today's race (no ties allowed).
4) The second quickest turn-around time in the horse's record must show the horse winning the race.
5) The trainer must have at least an 18% win percentage for the last year or a 20% win percentage for the current meet.

That's it.

I've used this spot play for twenty years and it is one of my personal favorites. I also consider other handicapping factors (the race pace, form, the jockey, etc) when using this method since no spot play should be used exclusively without reference to other valid handicapping factors.

Bill Cullen

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Simply hilarious. :D



Contrary to what some people have suggested through PM's.................I am not Bill Cullen!

[hurrikane]

unbelievable.

Tell me Bill, how many pennies are in the jar for this spot play after 10 yrs....1 buck?

[Equineer]

The hard part is calculating those turn-around periods in your head. Government and military calendars often include Julian Date numbers. That would sure help here.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by hurrikane@HTR
unbelievable.

Tell me Bill, how many pennies are in the jar for this spot play after 10 yrs....1 buck?

I distinguish between system testing and my own comprehensive approach to handicapping where I bet to win.

Using the above spot play while taking into account the probabale pace and form of the horse, and taking at least 4/1 or higher, I have wagered several thousand over 20 years or so and have been nicely rewarded on a consistent basis, thank you very much.

Bill C

[jk3521]

Another Bill Cullen "Spot Play Winner"!! Where does he get them all and who has the time to check them all out , also who cares?

I will never again read a Bill Cullen post.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by jk3521
Another Bill Cullen "Spot Play Winner"!! Where does he get them all and who has the time to check them all out , also who cares?

I will never again read a Bill Cullen post.

I've developed dozens of spot plays over the years in order to learn something new about the game. Horse racing is a dear education you pay for, one nugget of insight at a time.

Maybe the spots I've posted have no value for you; it doesn't mean they have no value for others. I've been rewarded by the suggestions others have made to my posts and have learned NEW THINGS I didn't know before. I'm also grateful for the tangential discussions that have evolved from my original posts. They have often proved fascinating on what the current concerns horse players have to approaching this game.

By the way, a fair number of folks in this forum have expressed appreciation for my posts.

I guess if you never read another post of mine, that's one less reply like this I have to make.

Sounds like an even proposition to me.

Have a good life, jk3521.

Bill Cullen

P.S. - Hey jk3521, with a moniker like yours, are you incarcerated in prison somewhere? (just kidding....peace...Bill)

[Light]

Rather than mocking Bill or anyone else(which is a waste of time anyrate),learn what you can from someone however stupid it may seem to you. Bill Pm'd me about this sysytem a few weeks ago and I also didn't think much of it at first.But I had never paid attention to an interesting angle he brings up which is being with the same trainer for the last 10 races. That is the angle I've been checking out.

A couple of weeks ago,I noticed 2 bombs at Monmouth in the early DD.First paid in the $30's and the other in the $40's.When I checked their PP's,they were the only 2 horses on the card who had the same trainer for the last 10 races.With no other rules or handicapping,you would have caught this $300 DD. To me,that gives this angle some validity. I do consider some of his other angles too limiting and only came up with 3 plays from 15 cards and none of those 3 hit the board using his entire rules.

Just like we have all spun off into our little systems from reading ideas from major authors, I am finding it promising to combine ideas from non-major authors such as Bill, with mine,to create something useful. Like Bill,I too enjoy building quick handicapping systems. Only thing is,I would never post the ones that work on this board.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Light
Rather than mocking Bill or anyone else(which is a waste of time anyrate),learn what you can from someone however stupid it may seem to you. Bill Pm'd me about this sysytem a few weeks ago and I also didn't think much of it at first.But I had never paid attention to an interesting angle he brings up which is being with the same trainer for the last 10 races. That is the angle I've been checking out.

A couple of weeks ago,I noticed 2 bombs at Monmouth in the early DD.First paid in the $30's and the other in the $40's.When I checked their PP's,they were the only 2 horses on the card who had the same trainer for the last 10 races.With no other rules or handicapping,you would have caught this $300 DD. To me,that gives this angle some validity. I do consider some of his other angles too limiting and only came up with 3 plays from 15 cards and none of those 3 hit the board using his entire rules.

Just like we have all spun off into our little systems from reading ideas from major authors, I am finding it promising to combine ideas from non-major authors such as Bill, with mine,to create something useful. Like Bill,I too enjoy building quick handicapping systems. Only thing is,I would never post the ones that work on this board.

The truth is, I've never found a purely mechanical system that generated both enough plays and enough confidence in its rate of return that would preclude me from posting it on this board. I am reasonably confident that some of the spots I've posted will show a positive ROI over the long run but the meager rate of plays for these spots limits their usefulness as purely mechanical systems. Their ultimate value lies, in my opinion, in helping 'spot' some horses that might otherwise not be noticed and to view those horses from a new or fresh perspective.

Light, thanks for your support.

Bill C

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
The truth is, I've never found a purely mechanical system that generated both enough plays and enough confidence in its rate of return that would preclude me from posting it on this board. I am reasonably confident that some of the spots I've posted will show a positive ROI over the long run but the meager rate of plays for these spots limits their usefulness as purely mechanical systems. Their ultimate value lies, in my opinion, in helping 'spot' some horses that might otherwise not be noticed and to view those horses from a new or fresh perspective.

Light, thanks for your support.

Bill C

Bill, I think you hit the nail on the head.

If you can't get enough plays-you're never going to make any money in this game, period.

The math is so simple-multiply your expected ROI times the amount bet per year and that is the most you can possibly make.

JM;)

[hurrikane]

Personally Bill,

I read all of your posts. I don't put much credence to anyone who says I have bet x dollars and been rewared handsomely. These are not stats, this is your best guess.

I have yet to see a system you have put up, that can be tested, that has shown a positive ROI.

You get an A for creativity though.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by hurrikane@HTR
Personally Bill,

I read all of your posts. I don't put much credence to anyone who says I have bet x dollars and been rewared handsomely. These are not stats, this is your best guess.

I have yet to see a system you have put up, that can be tested, that has shown a positive ROI.

You get an A for creativity though.

All right, Hurrikane, I like a good challenge.

Here's a system that does show a profit as much as I can determine that one can be shown. I had it tested once by the Sport Stat guy, Jim Bayle. It has also held up for me profitably. I don't remember all the stats, but you do need to go for odds at 4/1 or greater.

For maiden sprints on the dirt at 6f or shorter:

1) The horse's last workout must have occurred after its last race and must have occurred within the last 8 days.
2) The horse's last workout must have been at 5 furlongs.
3) The horse must have worked out with at least 9 other horses at 5f that day at today's track.
4) The horse must have finished within the top 20% of the horses working at that distance on that day (ie, 2/10, 4/20, 12/60, etc)
5) The horse must go off at 4/1 or greater.
6) ties in the same race are playable.

That's it, my friend. As good a mechanical system that I know.

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by hurrikane@HTR
Personally Bill,

I read all of your posts. I don't put much credence to anyone who says I have bet x dollars and been rewared handsomely. These are not stats, this is your best guess.

I have yet to see a system you have put up, that can be tested, that has shown a positive ROI.

You get an A for creativity though.


You can believe me or disbelieve as you wish, guy. I keep exact records on all my serious betting. The general summary I indicated above is correct. The specifics are my business and mine alone.

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

By the way, just because I am profitable in a few areas of my serious betting doesn't mean I've always beat the races; I haven't. In the last five years, I have been a little a head of even for four out of the five years and last year made enough to pay for my racing forms because of a few disproportionately large wins. Because I know I can't beat them seriously for real money, I classify myself as recreational handicapper and bet accordingly. Since I have a family to support including young children, I have no choice on that matter (as it should be). But that doesn't make me or any other recreational player any less of an enthusiast of the sport than those who live exclusively for the races. Some on this board have said to me that they seek constantly to refine and perfect their handicapping skills. That's fine. But for many of us, it will remain a passionate avocation.

As for cultivating perfection, I should rather for myself do it in the areas that most count on this earth: being a better person, a better father, a better husband, a better friend, etc.

As for being a better bettor, well....we all have our weaknesses.

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by hurrikane@HTR
I have yet to see a system you have put up, that can be tested, that has shown a positive ROI.
You get an A for creativity though.

How do you know that none of the systems I've posted has shown a positive ROI? Have you tested them? If so, you should state the statistics of your tests publically so we all can benefit from your research.

Thanks,

Bill C

[NoDayJob]

;) This is not a criticism of you, or your systems, merely an observation. You are in a no win situation simply because you have not provided sufficient data to prove your claims. Perhaps you should spend more time verifying them, and less time posting. That way you can present us with cold hard facts, rather than "seems like, feels like". Besides, if enough people start playing your methods they will lose their effectiveness. MTCW ;)

NDJ

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
All right, Hurrikane, I like a good challenge.

Here's a system that does show a profit as much as I can determine that one can be shown. I had it tested once by the Sport Stat guy, Jim Bayle. It has also held up for me profitably. I don't remember all the stats, but you do need to go for odds at 4/1 or greater.

For maiden sprints on the dirt at 6f or shorter:

1) The horse's last workout must have occurred after its last race and must have occurred within the last 8 days.
2) The horse's last workout must have been at 5 furlongs.
3) The horse must have worked out with at least 9 other horses at 5f that day at today's track.
4) The horse must have finished within the top 20% of the horses working at that distance on that day (ie, 2/10, 4/20, 12/60, etc)
5) The horse must go off at 4/1 or greater.
6) ties in the same race are playable.

That's it, my friend. As good a mechanical system that I know.

Bill C

OK, I'll bite. You say that you hav testes the system: I'd like to see details. Over the last (name your number of) years the system has produced (how many) plays, wins, $$/ROI at (what) tracks/circuits? Just fill in the parentheses. PM them if you would rather.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by NoDayJob
;) This is not a criticism of you, or your systems, merely an observation. You are in a no win situation simply because you have not provided sufficient data to prove your claims. Perhaps you should spend more time verifying them, and less time posting. That way you can present us with cold hard facts, rather than "seems like, feels like". Besides, if enough people start playing your methods they will lose their effectiveness. MTCW ;)

NDJ

Show me the claims I have made that I have not sufficiently qualified. I have stated the extent of any reserach I've done on the systems I've presented.

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by ceejay
OK, I'll bite. You say that you hav testes the system: I'd like to see details. Over the last (name your number of) years the system has produced (how many) plays, wins, $$/ROI at (what) tracks/circuits? Just fill in the parentheses. PM them if you would rather.

Re-read my post again and see if I mention something about the details.

Bill C

[Light]

In my restructuring of Bill's method, I am finding it quite interesting.

The first rule is that the horse be with the same trainer for the last 10 races as Bill states.

The second rule is that the horse be considered a contender. I have a 3 horse limit per race of qualifiers for "contenders". In other words the horse who is a qualifier on the Bill trainer angle must also be one of the top 3 qualifiers based on a criteria I have chosen for contenders.

So far this is working like magic. I only played Sacramento today. The results were:

3rd race: Sunny dawn:ran 2nd @ 2-1
5th race: Pensheil : won,paid $11.80
10th race: Brookside Drive:won,paid $6.40

Last week at Arlington,again there were 3 qualifiers on the card,and two of them won.One paid $15 and the other paid $17. I cannot reveal my criteria for contenders but you probably have your own criteria method that's as good or better than mine. So check it out and apply your selection criteria with Bill's same trainer angle and you may be pleasantly surprised. I think Bill has a good point with this trainer angle. So far I only have these 6 plays from my adaptation of Bill's method. Even though they are excellent results,I don't play this way. I apply my selection criteria in ALL races and get alot more plays. But the trainer angle may be more profitable as I put $700 through the windows last weekend and got back $700 playing alot of races with small bets with my selection system. Got alot of action but no profit.( Some photos could have gone another way,so I'm not complaining) And like Bill,this is all an experiment in one of my many systems.

[ceejay]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
Re-read my post again and see if I mention something about the details.

Bill C

Oh yes, you don't remember the stats. And, I presume that you deleted or trashed them. I understand.

Or, maybe the stats are copyright-protected.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by ceejay
Oh yes, you don't remember the stats. And, I presume that you deleted or trashed them. I understand.

Or, maybe the stats are copyright-protected.

Obviously, you think I'm trying to be deceitful. I paid Jim Bayle of Sport Stat money to test the system in the late eighties. I remember he said the system showed a profit (a slight one) when odds were 4/1 or greater. I have also used the method profitably myself in the context of using additional handicapping factors as well. I didn't keep all the stats that Jim originally sent me because I didn't think it was worthwhile to do so. I incorporated the angle into my comprehensive approach to handicapping and moved on. I do that with all the spots and angles I uncover (with the recognition that undoubtedly someone has thought of a particularly spot before I have).

That's all there is to to it, buddy. I wouldn't even format the spot plays as rigid systems except that some people like to empirically test these spots. For those folks you need an unambiguous and testable set of rules.

What I've been looking for is the type of commentary immediately above that Light has provided. Talking about a variation or re-interpretation or a new emphasis of my original posts. Those are the types of things we can all learn from.

I think there's been enough said on my part. If you need an additrional explanation, send me a private message.

Take care,

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Light
In my restructuring of Bill's method, I am finding it quite interesting.

The first rule is that the horse be with the same trainer for the last 10 races as Bill states.

The second rule is that the horse be considered a contender. I have a 3 horse limit per race of qualifiers for "contenders". In other words the horse who is a qualifier on the Bill trainer angle must also be one of the top 3 qualifiers based on a criteria I have chosen for contenders.


Light,

I always construed the same-trainer-for-the-last-ten-races rule as a necessary but secondary rule to the system, but your comments seem to indicate that maybe it's an angle in its own right. Something like that is easily testable just to initially see if it generates a greater than expected impact value, not even thinking about about ROI at this point of the initial research. Contender selection can be as simple as the highest SR last out where its the same trainer for the last 10 races. The impact value for the highest beyer last out is around 2.00 I believe. I will consult a few sources to confirm and get a baseline on this which we can use for comparison.

Tell you what: I will check out this out ( the highest SR last out where its the same trainer for the last 10 races) manually for two hundred non-maiden races on the dirt and will report back to this same thread within a week, hopefully.

Bill C

[Light]

Bill

Not sure I understand your criteria correctly,but if you are saying that the dual qualifier has to have the highest speed rating in the field based on last out,I don't think you would get many plays. But there's nothing wrong with checking that out too.

Since you told me about the trainer angle,I have been experimenting with different rules,and it is only recently that I find the strongest results seem to come from a horse who also qualifies as a contender,and is one of the 3 highest rated contenders.

Therfore,I am suggesting that you consider the horse a dual qualifier if he is not only the highest speed rated horse in the field,but one of the top 3 rated horses on speed.That would give you more plays. I would also suggest you try experimenting with pace lines other than the last as the top speed rated horse from its last race usually goes off as the favorite and many times bounces from such a high SR.

So far I am finding this trainer angle method useful in narrowing down my pick. For example yesterday at Saramento ,I wanted to single the last race for the Pk3. It was either the #8(dual qualifier) or #5 (not a dual qualifier). Results speak for itself.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Light
Bill

Not sure I understand your criteria correctly,but if you are saying that the dual qualifier has to have the highest speed rating in the field based on last out,I don't think you would get many plays. But there's nothing wrong with checking that out too.

Since you told me about the trainer angle,I have been experimenting with different rules,and it is only recently that I find the strongest results seem to come from a horse who also qualifies as a contender,and is one of the 3 highest rated contenders.

Therfore,I am suggesting that you consider the horse a dual qualifier if he is not only the highest speed rated horse in the field,but one of the top 3 rated horses on speed.That would give you more plays. I would also suggest you try experimenting with pace lines other than the last as the top speed rated horse from its last race usually goes off as the favorite and many times bounces from such a high SR.

So far I am finding this trainer angle method useful in narrowing down my pick. For example yesterday at Saramento ,I wanted to single the last race for the Pk3. It was either the #8(dual qualifier) or #5 (not a dual qualifier). Results speak for itself.

Light,

You have excellent suggestions but they would come later in the research in my opinion. My initial research goal is much more simple and focused: to quickly establish (if at all possible) whether the factor (same trainer for the last ten races) would show up in something as simple as the highest SR last out or maybe using the factor (same trainer for the last ten races) with the favorites. Testing single factors in isolation against favorites is an old and valid experimental design in horse racing research.

If I didn't see an appreciable increase in the impact value when using the factor in conjunction with favorites or highest beyer last out, then my scepticism would naturally tend to increase about how influential the factor really is. Now after that it could still well be the case that the factor works in conjunction with more subtle ands less obvious variables but those would have to be established too.

Bill C

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Light

Just like we have all spun off into our little systems from reading ideas from major authors, I am finding it promising to combine ideas from non-major authors such as Bill, with mine,to create something useful. Like Bill,I too enjoy building quick handicapping systems. Only thing is,I would never post the ones that work on this board.

What are the titles of Bill's books and where can we find them?

JM

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by JustMissed
What are the titles of Bill's books and where can we find them?

JM

I've read most of the same books everyone else has. I believe in Einstein's assertion: Imagination is more important than knowledge. I believe this is particularly so when trying to find new value in old knowledge and especially in an area as worked over as thoroughbred handicapping.

Bill C

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
I've read most of the same books everyone else has. I believe in Einstein's assertion: Imagination is more important than knowledge. I believe this is particularly so when trying to find new value in old knowledge and especially in an area as worked over as thoroughbred handicapping.

Bill C

Bill, Light said you were a non-major author.

I was asking what books you have WRITTEN, not what books you have READ.

Sorry if I wasn't clear with my question.

JM

[Light]

JM

The proffesional authors aren't necesarily more intelligent at handicapping than someone like Bill. They certainly know how to write books better. I'm after ideas,and I don't have a prerequisite about where they come from. As far as the major authors ability to pick winners,I have been pretty dissapointed when they have come to my local track and picked horses in their seminars. In fact one day,years ago,James Quinn came over and I boxed his picks with mine all day. His horses were nowhere to be seen in the exactas. And my picks lit up the toteboard.It was then I started realizing that these so called experts are overrated. But If these authors have something new to say,I'm still all ears.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Bill, Light said you were a non-major author.

I was asking what books you have WRITTEN, not what books you have READ.

Sorry if I wasn't clear with my question.

JM

Outside of poetry, I have not published in any books.

Bill C

[JustMissed]

Hey Light, In your post you said Bill Cullen was a non major author.

Bill says he doesn't have any handicapping books published.

What gives. Why would you refer to him as an author when he hasn't written any handicapping books?

Thanks,

JM

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Light
JM

The proffesional authors aren't necesarily more intelligent at handicapping than someone like Bill. They certainly know how to write books better. I'm after ideas,and I don't have a prerequisite about where they come from. As far as the major authors ability to pick winners,I have been pretty dissapointed when they have come to my local track and picked horses in their seminars. In fact one day,years ago,James Quinn came over and I boxed his picks with mine all day. His horses were nowhere to be seen in the exactas. And my picks lit up the toteboard.It was then I started realizing that these so called experts are overrated. But If these authors have something new to say,I'm still all ears.

I'm currently reading James Quinn's "The Handicapper's Condition Book." It's pretty good. I've been tinkering with the notion of using pars instead of wins when it comes to profiling horses against the conditions of eligibility. So, for example, if the conditions for a classified allowance at 8.5 furlongs on the dirt read something like

"For 3 years old and up, non-winners of $18,000 three times at a mile or over since March 15th...claiming races not considered"

Quinn says looks for horses have just one win less than the conditions state and/or horses showing 3 or more wins for the winner's share just under $18,000 and/or horses just excluded by one day or so by the cutoff date, etc. My idea is to focus on the par needed to win this particular race and look for horses running at par or better at this distance and surface within the cutoff date even if the horses didn't win and/or didn't win enough money, etc. I've just begun considering this idea so I don't have anything scoped out yet.

Bill C

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
Outside of poetry, I have not published in any books.

Bill C

I should qualify what I said earlier by mentioning that some folks have approached me a few times about publishing some of my systems, but with exception of one system that might, I say might, appear within a software package, that is the extent of my involvement with horse race publishing.

Bill C

[Buckeye]

Ok Bill, just give us some winners then. I don't care how you get them, system or "comprehensive" handicapping. The key point is, give them out before the race is run.

Just to get you "in the mood" I'll give everyone here the winner of the 8th race at Saratoga. Bet it and bet it heavily.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Ok Bill, just give us some winners then. I don't care how you get them, system or "comprehensive" handicapping. The key point is, give them out before the race is run.

Just to get you "in the mood" I'll give everyone here the winner of the 8th race at Saratoga. Bet it and bet it heavily.

About 5 minutes left before post for the 8th today at Saratroga. My pick is the #6 horse.

Bill C

[Buckeye]

Sar R8

3, 8

One of them WILL win.

[Buckeye]

Ok, so we were BOTH wrong. Care to tackle the 9th?

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Ok, so we were BOTH wrong. Care to tackle the 9th?

I had no past performances in front of me when i capped the 8th. I just went by the #6 having the highest weight in the field according to the track program on Brisnet.

I've got work to do.

Have a great holiday weekend.

Bill

[Buckeye]

bill,

Give up one your systems. There ain't no system in this game.

Saratoga 9th, show me what you can do!

[Buckeye]

What the blank were you using to justify your pick them?

Weight? come on now, that's not even part of any of your systems and you know it.

Go buy a form and quick give me a WINNER in the 9th at SAR.

Forget the long term, I want to win NOW !

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Buckeye
bill,

Give up one your systems. There ain't no system in this game.

Saratoga 9th, show me what you can do!

If you think I use systems mechanically to play the horses, you have not been a close reader of my posts.

Also, I work for a living. I don't have the luxury to be playing the horses on weekday afternoons typically.

Bill

[Buckeye]

Then what is your point in posting mechanical systems?

Not because of anything in The Form, but I am taking (and betting) the 1 and the 8 in the 9th at SAR.

You're working late? It's time to pick some winners.

Any more reasons why not?

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Buckeye
Then what is your point in posting mechanical systems?

Not because of anything in The Form, but I am taking (and betting) the 1 and the 8 in the 9th at SAR.

You're working late? It's time to pick some winners.

Any more reasons why not?

What follows is something I posted earlier in this same thread:

"I wouldn't even format the spot plays as rigid systems except that some people like to empirically test these spots. For those folks you need an unambiguous and testable set of rules."

Bill C

[Buckeye]

I admit it, I'm "reeling"

But that's why I want your help. :)

[Buckeye]

Look here Bill

Either they are systems or they are NOT systems.

If they're not, we can't possible "test" them.

If they are, please stop saying that they are not systems or alternatively, admit that they are NOT systems and just give us your picks. :)

[John]

Lighten up on Bill Guys, He has only been on the board for a month or so. Bill, will come around, He appears to be a nice guy.

Why should Bill, have to prove anything to anyone on this board. He has developed his own methods. Why would he want to share them so they could end up in someones software.

I have developed a hundred of my own methods.some good ,some stink, you are welcome to those if you wish to have them.

Give Bill, a break for now.

[Light]

JM asked

"Why would you refer to him as an author when he hasn't written any handicapping books?"

Don't get hung up on semanitics. I reffered to him as an author in regards to his own systems and ideas.

You don't have to write a book to be an author. You are the author of your own life everyday.

[John]

Nicely said, Light

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
Light,

Tell you what: I will check out this out ( the highest SR last out where its the same trainer for the last 10 races) manually for two hundred non-maiden races on the dirt and will report back to this same thread within a week, hopefully.

Bill C

I checked 30 claiming races in a row. I had one four dollar winner. This angle, by itself, doesn't look too promising.

I do, however, like the same trainer for the last ten races for other reasons. It gives you a decent sample of races against which you can judge how well one trainer is doing with one particular horse. When a trainer has done a distance switch with a particular horse previously and he was successful, and he's trying it again today, I sometimes give the horsre some extra credit on that basis.

Perhaps the same trainer is bringing the horse back in eleven days and the previous quickest turn-around time in the last ten races was 14 days. That quickest turn-around time plus the distance switch can be a sharp move on the trainer's part.

Bill C

[JackS]

I think Bill's spot play might work. The problem I have with most spot plays is the time it actually takes to look for them. When there are rules that can easily get into six or eight or even double digits, a night of 'capping can dredge on eternal.
All spot methods do work at times and some may even show a profit. The problem begins when one tries to authenticate an actual hit rate vs. an actual average mutual.
For me and maybe most of us, the spot play comes in the course of normal handicapping. I see a horse I like, I see a good possibility of a win at reasonable odds, I play.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by JackS
I think Bill's spot play might work. The problem I have with most spot plays is the time it actually takes to look for them. When there are rules that can easily get into six or eight or even double digits, a night of 'capping can dredge on eternal.
All spot methods do work at times and some may even show a profit. The problem begins when one tries to authenticate an actual hit rate vs. an actual average mutual.
For me and maybe most of us, the spot play comes in the course of normal handicapping. I see a horse I like, I see a good possibility of a win at reasonable odds, I play.

You're right on the money.

I use spot plays to 'spot' certain horses. I make my overall judgement in the context of considering other handicapping factors as well. When I see a contender going off at better odds that it should have in my opinion, I bet the horse.

Bill C

[rmania]

Originally posted by JackS
The problem I have with most spot plays is the time it actually takes to look for them. When there are rules that can easily get into six or eight or even double digits, a night of 'capping can dredge on eternal.
For me, finding a spot play takes very little time. In fact, it takes just a couple of minutes to scan over the entire card and find a longshot spot play.

If you’ve followed my posts on the Selections board then you know that the horses I post rarely run a bad race. They don’t always win, but they’re usually competitive and usually overlooked.

With any horse one bets there is always a degree a luck that enters the equation to get the horse home a winner. So the key IMO is finding that horse which should compete when the Form says no.

The horse I posted yesterday broke dead last from the inside post, was rushed up down the backstretch to get into contention and wound up finishing 3rd at 47-1 odds (paid $11.80 to show). That which he gave up at the start was the amount he was beaten by. So, with a little better luck (i.e., a better break) he might of had a shot at the win.

[Larry Hamilton]

Step back a moment from Bill's 7-point system by trying to boil the points down to a narrative. This is what I get:

Bet a horse, even a tie, who has worked well, long, recently, and that work is since his last race. If the hoss goes off at 4:1 or greater--he's da one.

Nothing wrong with that thinking. With the parameters he has given, it is easily tested.

[JackS]

Rather than rely on someone elses idea's which can be reasonable BTW, handycappers could possibly benifit by incorporating one or more of the rules of various "spot plays" into their regular handicapping duties. In these "systems" that truly make sense, there's almost always "rules" that are borderline meaningless or outright riduculous. Toss the rules that are estimated to have little effect on a race, and keep the rules that will have impact.
It does seem to me when reading the above paragraph that this is pretty general handicapping. We use the things we learn to believe in weather learned from systems, books or the old fashioned way- correcting mistakes from the past.

[andicap]

You guys who are criticizing Bill aren't reading him closely enough.

He also says that he handicaps his system plays to make sure they have some semblence to reality. He says he looks at pace. He didn't say how, but I would bet he wouldn't wager on a need to lead type that has no chance today of getting the lead or an "S" type in a paceless race. that never runs near the front even in slow fractions.

I don't play systems, but they are fun and in the grand tradition of this great game. If you are a traditionalist like I am -- I recall reading The Racing Weekly and its system of the week -- you'll look fondly on Bill's stuff and either root for him to succeed in his (IMHO) Quixotic venture -- as I do -- or just flip the "Ignore" switch.

[Tom]

CJ has posted befreo that he loves to fond horses that are in their thrid start after a layoff, showed som eimprovement secnod race back, and haven't hit their top yet.
I do the same thing-look at all races really quick for this and several other "canned plays" that I like. After that, I handiap each horse and then decide whether or not to bet it. Sonds like waht Bill doing wiht his own spot plays. Sure saves time and gets me to the horses that are likely to provide me with a play in the end.

[Bill Cullen]

Part of the value of a good spot play, whether it's used mechanically or in conjuntion with a wider handicapping approach, is that it helps cut through the wads of information to highlight a horse quickly. If the horse has some merit on other factors (pace, trainer, distance, surafce, conditions, etc) AND you get can the odds that your spot play/approach requires, then you might have a good bet.

In my experience, a good spot play doesn't turn up too many playable races, particularly getting the needed odds. The crowd as a whole is still remarkably efficient at fairly pricing the odds even on spot play selections at longer odds.

Sometimes I think a series of in-depth surveys with a representative number of bettors about how the crowd bets would teach handicappers more about overlay selections than studying the past performances of the horses.

Just my opinion

Bill C

[JackS]

Peculiar tote shanigans sometimes appear and possibly worth a little attention on our part. An example would be a ML top picks 1,2,3 and the actual top picks one minuite to post is 4,8, 2. If you can justify why the unmentioned 4 deserves his favoritism, then perhaps the ML maker has made a mistake that everyone else recognised or he was seriously in error when he chose the #1 as his suspected public top choice. The only other legitimate excuse when this happens is a complete misprint. ML makers at major tracks are often wrong in their win predictions but almost always close in predicting how the public will play. Lesson here is- when the tote seems to have a mind of its own you can probably safley predict that the winner won't be the ML favorite.

[Valuist]

Here's my spot play: a lone speed horse trained by Dutrow coming off a 10 length win going off at over 10-1. I guess Love of Money qualified. :eek:

[First_Place]

"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high, you'd laugh and say, 'nothing's that simple'." -- I'm Free by THE WHO

Don't knock it, sometimes simplest is THE BEST. Remember, it's a SPOT PLAY.

I for one, appreciate your posts, Bill. Please ignore the naysayers and ridiculers. I know, easier said than done.

FP

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by First_Place
"If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high, you'd laugh and say, 'nothing's that simple'." -- I'm Free by THE WHO

Don't knock it, sometimes simplest is THE BEST. Remember, it's a SPOT PLAY.

I for one, appreciate your posts, Bill. Please ignore the naysayers and ridiculers. I know, easier said than done.

FP

Thanks for the encouraging words.

Bill C

[First_Place]

You betcha. ;-)

FP

[Derek2U]

It's amazing isn't it. You share an idea & WHAM they batter your'e
head against some pillar. WEll .... idiots ... YOU CAN'T HURT US.
Spot Plays are so cool & they have a place that makes great $$.
Of corse, a true effective spot-player has a brain & that's the
thingy that works the magic. But since most of U have Zero grey
stuff whats the point? You would still bet Smarty in the Belmont.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Derek2U
It's amazing isn't it. You share an idea & WHAM they batter your'e
head against some pillar. WEll .... idiots ... YOU CAN'T HURT US.
Spot Plays are so cool & they have a place that makes great $$.
Of corse, a true effective spot-player has a brain & that's the
thingy that works the magic. But since most of U have Zero grey
stuff whats the point? You would still bet Smarty in the Belmont.

All for one, and One for All!!!! Ladies and Gentlemen.....Derek the Magnificent! You are a hoot Derek...........

[CapperLou]

Many of you who are acquainted with me know that I believe that "spot plays" are the only way to success in this game.

BUT---what are spot plays and how many do you play and what odds do you accept and what type of software or handicapping do you use??

That's where the experience comes in and where we are all different. What works for one does not work for another etc.

The most important factor is "knowing when to put your money down" and that takes years of experience and you have to have lady luck with you most of the time otherwise you are going to lose on the wire---heck I had one today that was 7-1 at LAD and finished in a dead heat!!! That's the lady luck part.

So my humble advice to others would be to WAIT for your Spots and then bet with one big hand or both hands---and when you are hot--increase your wagers a bit and when you are cold--decrease your wagers until you ride out a streak.

It's not much different than casino play where if you don't know how to take advantage of a hot table in "21" or craps--you will never have a chance to make big scores and keep ahead.

All the best,

CapperLou

P.S. Also remember to always look at play in "sessions". Dave Schwartz has an excellent book on this--I recently heard more about it, but with this darn hurricane situation lately--I have been out of sync in keeeping up with my voracious appetite for reading. IMO, if you do not learn to play in sessions in any type of gambling, you will never be a year to year winner

Oh Yes:: Thank you Just Ralph for making me the avatar of Affirmed--my favorite horse of all time--I saw him in all but two of his races in person--boy could he run and was he REGAL--he knew who he was--that's for sure--everyone who worked around him always said that about him!!!!

[CapperLou]

Well---it looked pretty good nearing the end of the backstretch in the 9th at Belmont today on my "spot play" Pierian Spring who I played at 95-1.

This one was bumped at the start--the lousy rider Fernandez had her racing wide throughout--then managed to get bumped again on the turn coming for home and "finished gamely" to wind up 3rd--beaten a head for second and a nose for 1st--all at 96.25-1.

Remember guys what I said about racing luck---you have to have it to win whether a horse is 5-1 or 96-1.

A terrible ride for a filly that was dropping way down and running for first time on turf by a trainer who is excellent with horses going from dirt to turf AND 1st time on turf horses!!!

I had everything going for me in this race at incredible odds and still managed to get beat on the wire!!!

I mention all of this to reinforce what I posted earlier about needing to have "lady luck" to be a consistent winner at this game.

All the best,

CapperLou

P.S. I'm sure a few of you bolder players were on this one also this afternoon!!!!

[dav4463]

Love The Who quote ! "You Better You Better....YOU BET !"

[First_Place]

CapperLou:

At those odds I'd of bet her across the board, i.e., win, place & show.

FP

[First_Place]

"Love The Who quote !"

Yeah, me too. I got it from Michael Pizzolla's book.

FP

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by hurrikane
Personally Bill,

I read all of your posts. I don't put much credence to anyone who says I have bet x dollars and been rewared handsomely. These are not stats, this is your best guess.

I have yet to see a system you have put up, that can be tested, that has shown a positive ROI.

You get an A for creativity though.

You haven't shown that you've tested one system I've posted. Perhaps you do not pocess the requisite intelligence equal to the task.

That's OK. Maybe where you went to school spelling 'hurrikane' with a 'k' was considered good form.

Bill C

[fmhealth]

Two "spots" that I've been using with some success.

1- Speed horse dropping AND shortening-up.

2- Bet EVERY horse trained by Tom Amoss.

[hurrikane]

Jeeze Bill,
you respond to something from 2 month ago. I thought we had worked this out.

tsk tsk.... the alzheimers must be kickin up...

[highnote]

3)The turn-around time between the last race and
today's race must be the quickest turn-around time for
any of the horse's last 10 races including today's race (no ties allowed).


Bill,
I think that's very smart. I never thought about it. Sounds like an angle where the trainer is trying to strike while the iron is hot.

Anyone ever read Nick Mordin's book "Winning Without Thinking"? It's his 4th book on handicapping. He's the U.K.'s all-time best selling racing author. It's a book filled with ideas for systems. The title is tongue in cheek. You actually do all your thinking upfront when you design a system, so that when you get to the track you can win without thinking.

It's worth a read.

[osophy_junkie]

Originally posted by fmhealth
Two "spots" that I've been using with some success.

1- Speed horse dropping AND shortening-up.

2- Bet EVERY horse trained by Tom Amoss.

"shortening-up" refers to race distance?


Ed

[fmhealth]

Yes, running today at a shorter distance than his last race.

[highnote]

Originally posted by fmhealth
Yes, running today at a shorter distance than his last race.

Good angle. What about a 9f speed horse shortening up to 6f? He might have a tougher time getting the lead. However, 7f to 6f or 6f to 5f sounds good.

js

[JackS]

The flip side- 6f speed horse who's continually clipped at the wire and finishes 2nd or 3rd and today will be running 6.5/7f. Don't worry about acceptible odds, they'll be there. Horses like this can benefit from the almost imprecetible decline in early pace and can win either by hanging on to the wire or win going away.

[hurrikane]

Fmhealth,

interest guy Mr Amoss. Very lucrative at times. At other you can save some money,


AMOSS, THOMAS
Class Dist/Surf # R #Wins Win % Total ROI

Alw Dirt Sprint 208 52 25.00% 298.4 0.72
Alw Dirt Route 72 13 18.06% 71 0.49
Alw Turf Sprint 87 27 31.03% 217.8 1.25
Alw Turf Route 138 24 17.39% 194.8 0.71
Clmg Dirt Sprint 166 68 40.96% 443 1.33
Clmg Dirt Route 73 22 30.14% 166.8 1.14
Clmg Turf Sprint 36 11 30.56% 59 0.82
Clmg Turf Route 35 5 14.29% 28.4 0.41
MSW Dirt Sprint 74 23 31.08% 207.2 1.40
MSW Dirt Route 14 3 21.43% 33.4 1.19
MSW Turf Sprint 25 4 16.00% 15.2 0.30
MSW Turf Route 35 10 28.57% 73.2 1.05
MCL Dirt Sprint 89 34 38.20% 152.2 0.86
MCL Dirt Route 18 6 33.33% 24.8 0.69
MCL Turf Sprint 3 1 33.33% 3 0.50
MCL Turf Route 1 1 100.00% 15.6 7.80


Obviously Dirt Sprints are his stregth.
Now if you take some of that and add a little shake and bake, ie jk up, blk on/off, clm, wet, track, how his barn has run in the last 30 days, 2 wks, etc.. ....he can be very friendly guy.

As for the shortening horse. I prefer to see them stretching out getting the front. They can many time hold on and at a very good price.

[CapperLou]

hurricane:

Thx for the breakdown on Amoss--very useful.

BTW---where is James Graham right now? Injured, suspended or what?
Am I getting blind or what?

All the best,

CapperLou

[hurrikane]

Lou,

I assume you mean the jky.

Last I saw him he was riding at CD

[fmhealth]

Hurricane, thanks for the very interesting data. Do you have stats for one of his best moves, first off a claim ??

[CapperLou]

Hurricane:

I thought Graham was in KY, but he is not getting many rides of late. I'm puzzled about Amoss not riding him lately--of course you know why--it's been a great combo!!

It seems Amoss has joined the I want Bejarano crowd. A post asked about Amoss and 1st after claim--interested to see how your stats(which are much larger than mine) look.

All the best,

CapperLou

[hurrikane]

Lou,
this it 1st Clm Amoss by Jky.

as with most good trns the 2nd after claim is even better but you don't always find a price.


#R $ W ROI #W Win % tJKY
32 69.8 1.09 10 31.25% Borel Calvin H.
20 33 0.83 5 25.00% Albarado Robby
13 25.8 0.99 3 23.08% Razo, Jr. Eusebio
8 25 1.56 4 50.00% Martin, Jr. Eddie M.
7 11 0.79 1 14.29% Meche Lonnie
6 44 3.67 4 66.67% Graham James
5 8.4 0.84 2 40.00% Bejarano Rafael
3 5 0.83 1 33.33% Whitney Dana G.
2 12 3.00 1 50.00% Melancon Gerard
2 0 0.00 0.00% McKee John
1 7.4 3.70 1 100.00% Martinez, Jr. Jose R.
1 0 0.00 0.00% Arguello, Jr. Fabio A.
1 0 0.00 0.00% Hernandez, Jr. Brian Jose
1 0 0.00 0.00% Lanerie Corey J.
1 0 0.00 0.00% Marquez, Jr. Carlos H.
1 0 0.00 0.00% Melancon Larry
1 0 0.00 0.00% Theriot Jamie
1 0 0.00 0.00% LeBlanc Kirk Paul

TOTALS
106 241.4 1.14 32 30.19%

[CapperLou]

Hurricane:

Thx for the informative post---confirms what I have too!!!
I rarely play MNR anymore, but Amoss has been having very good success with Dana Whitney there. My stuff overall shows 20 starts with 50% winners and ROI 1.22. Just another heads up!!!

Keep doing well with what you do best----it's a heck of a lot better than just handicapping horses--JMO---works for you and works for me, but I'll never convince some of my friends that this game is "all about money"---not past performance lines in the purest sense.

All the best,

CapperLou

[fmhealth]

Hurrikane, thanks for the data. If I may ask, how do you go about compiling this type of detailed information?

[jorge jaramillo]

I aggre with you. Same thing happened to me too when attending a seminar at the races like 7 years ago at Santa Anita. Quinn is and exellent author and i like the way he teaches his handicapping ideas and i loved his books but as a handicapper (with all his knowledge) he is not better than me. And i proved that to me over and over again at his Santa anita seminars...

[hurrikane]

compiled from a database. I keep detailed info of every horse in every race run in america. And hopefully HC and AUST soon.

And hopefully it will all come to you free....if I can ever get my friggin web site done.

oh, hey, was that a 'go to my website' ism.

I have asymilated! Damn!

[kingfin66]

Hurrikane,

If you are going to give people access to your db for free, you could probably post banners all over here and the rest of the internet and nobody would mind. Of course, I don't want to speak for everybody...

[hurrikane]

well King,

it will be free until it becomes a maintenance nightmare. Then there may be a small fee to pay someone to take care of it.

But as long as I can it will be free

I just hate the 'go to my website' bs .... as I have ranted about before

[kingfin66]

The website stuff is all relative. Nobody will ever complain about a handicapper offering up his diligent work to other. It's when the hucksters show up here that people take exception. Members of this board with useful handicapping info are always welcome.

As for the matter of a small maintenance fee, that's really only fair as a db of that size undoubtably requires a fair amount of time to keep running.

Regards.