Modern Pace Handicapping figures

[BigJake]

Is there anyplace I can buy fps figures or a program that will make it easier to get the data I want out of the formulator files? I was entering by hand but it takes way too long. Any help would be appreciated.

BigJake

[Speed Figure]

Maybe this can help. It does use formulator files.

http://www.kangagold.com/fastfred_main.htm

[BigJake]

Has anybody used this Fast Fred software?

BigJake

[sq764]

Jake, there are several that can help you.

Email me..

[socantra]

Originally posted by BigJake
Has anybody used this Fast Fred software?


Fast Fred is a nice little program, but it does not use Brohammer figures from "Modern Pace Handicapping.

Fast Fred's Average Pace is based on the leader's time at the 1st and 2d call and the horse's time at the finish.

Fast Fred's Sustained Pace is the average of the velocity to the 2nd call and the 3rd fraction.

I believe the only thing that is from Brohammer is the Early Pace calculation and the %Early figure.

socantra...

[paulc]

Actually, the only pace fig in Fast Fred that is not Brohamer-based is average pace... it does use the leader time for the 1st and 2nd call... based on an algorithm developed by Danny Holmes many years earlier and explained in his book "Ten Steps to Winning"... probably no longer in print.

[socantra]

Originally posted by paulc
Actually, the only pace fig in Fast Fred that is not Brohamer-based is average pace... it does use the leader time for the 1st and 2nd call... based on an algorithm developed by Danny Holmes many years earlier and explained in his book "Ten Steps to Winning"... probably no longer in print.

Ten Steps to Winning is available at www.gamblersbook.com for $19.95. You're right about the other figures being Brohammer based, but the only ones there are Early Pace, Sustained Pace and %Early energy distribution. The other problem is that auto paceline selection (which is the only option) is based on the Holmes average pace rather than any of the Brohammer figures.

The ESP running style designations are quantitative, which is obviously necessary to computerize the process. Brohammer and Sartin used qualitative designations, and Sartin wrote a great deal complaining that the numeric limits people put on ESP designations changed the whole concept. I'm not saying they are bad figures, just that they are not Brohammer's.

I think Fast Fred is good software if you are willing to take the time to set it up to meet your needs. I think someone who is just looking for Brohammer figures would be disappointed.

socantra...

[Big Bill]

Hi paulc,

Welcome to this great board.

I am interested in finding out more about the average pace you indicated was developed by Tommy Holmes. If you have his old book, could you explain how he uses the first and second calls of the leaders combined with the horse's final time, i.e., is it just the average of the three or does he weight them in some manner?

While the book is available (Ten Steps to Winning is available at www.gamblersbook.com for $19.95), the publication date is noted as 2004. Sounds like this is a revision of the book which you may have, in which case the algorithm you mentioned may not be in the newer version.

Big Bill

[cato]

MPH software is for sale although it is possible you have to download pps from Trackmaster.

Go to the trackmaster website and look around

Cato

[First_Place]

"The ESP running style designations are quantitative, which is obviously necessary to computerize the process. Brohammer and Sartin used qualitative designations... "

Huh? It's not clear to me what you mean by "quantitative" (numerical?) and "qualitative" (intrinsic?).

Thanks.

FP

[socantra]

I mean the designations early, sustained and presser were intended to be somewhat subjective and situational rather than conforming to specific rules about lengths back at various points of call.

socantra...

[socantra]

Originally posted by Big Bill

I am interested in finding out more about the average pace you indicated was developed by Tommy Holmes. If you have his old book, could you explain how he uses the first and second calls of the leaders combined with the horse's final time, i.e., is it just the average of the three or does he weight them in some manner?

While the book is available (Ten Steps to Winning is available at www.gamblersbook.com for $19.95), the publication date is noted as 2004. Sounds like this is a revision of the book which you may have, in which case the algorithm you mentioned may not be in the newer version.

Big Bill

I suspact the algorithm itself is Paul's. He presents it in feet per second format in Fast Fred Pro.

In the 1987 edition of "Ten Steps to Winning", Holmes presents a very simplified manual pace calculation for a race which merely adds the 1st call of the race, 2nd call of the race and horse's final time in seconds and fifths. He then suggests the use of either "Ray Taulbot's Pace Calculator" or "Winning At The Track" software.

The book was published by Liberty Publishing, who also Does "Winning at the Track" books and software. It's still listed on their website (www.horseracingusa.com) for $9,95, but they don't mention publication date.

socantra...

[First_Place]

"I mean the designations early, sustained and presser were intended to be somewhat subjective and situational rather than conforming to specific rules about lengths back at various points of call."

Indeed they are.

FP

[Big Bill]

socantra...

Thanks for your reply to my inquiry regarding Holmes' average pace calculation as well as the link to the seller of his original publication.

I just browsed the Fast Fred Pro web site and read about the calculation's inclusion, in FPS, in their program.

For those who use BRIS pace/speed rating figures and might be interested in experimenting with Holmes' average pace formula in that format, add the following:

E1 + 2 times the lengths behind at the first call
E2 + 2 times the lengths behind at the second call
SR (the BRIS speed rating)

Then divide the the total by three.

Since adjustments (daily variant, class, track-to-track) are supposedly included in BRIS figures, this should be a rating worthy of evaluating.

Big Bill

[Tom]

That formula sounds like it pace of race for the pace calls combined with the pace of horse final fig. It would be a variation of the PDQ paace ratings by Jim Quinn. It tempers a speed figure with the pace the horse faced while earning it. I hve used similar pace-modified speed figs before with good success.

[midnight]

Doesn't HTR's FPS screen stay pretty close to Brohammer's ideas (especially since Ken Massa was the co author of the original MPH software)? HTR adusts the times, and there's a modeler and an export utility to Access or Excel to set up profiles, so it would appear that MPH is pretty well covered.

[socantra]

Originally posted by Big Bill

For those who use BRIS pace/speed rating figures and might be interested in experimenting with Holmes' average pace formula in that format, add the following:

E1 + 2 times the lengths behind at the first call
E2 + 2 times the lengths behind at the second call
SR (the BRIS speed rating)

Then divide the the total by three.

Big Bill

Both your figure and the one used in FFP appear to me to give to much emphasis to the pace of race for an effective pace modified speed rating. Ray Taulbot's and Danny holmes' manual calculations had pace of race affecting the final ratung to a much smaller degree.

For example, using Holmes' manual, a race that was run in 22, 45,1:12 would produce a total of 179, and the pace component would be around 38% of the total. Its been a while since I've seen one, but I believe Taulnot's Pace Calculator was similar.

If you convert the numbers to feet per second and divide by three, your pace of race component jumps up to around 70% of the total. Your Bris figures would seem similar. When your modifier becomes larger than what you are modifying, I think it becomes questionable what you are measuring.

I only ran one race using your Bris numbers, but it seemed to advantahe late running horses. I believe if I were trying to use the Bris figures to modify the speed rating, I would at least limit myself to the use of 2nd call, or E2 only, like Quinn's PDQ numbers. It would be less drastic.

socantra...

[socantra]

Originally posted by midnight
Doesn't HTR's FPS screen stay pretty close to Brohammer's ideas (especially since Ken Massa was the co author of the original MPH software)? HTR adusts the times, and there's a modeler and an export utility to Access or Excel to set up profiles, so it would appear that MPH is pretty well covered.

HTR and MPH from Trackmaster are the only two I know of for sure, but niether one solves Big Jake's original problem of getting the data from DRF Formulator files.

socantra...

[socantra]

I response to my own post, there would seem to be a demand out there for your aspiring programmer/author.

There are lots of folks out there who would like to be able to import data files and crunch a few numbers, many of us reasonably computer literate. How about Excel For Handicappers or Access For Handicappers .

I have no desire to become a full scale database handicapper, but I would like to be able to run my Trackmaster files into Excel to get some information I've been doing for years by calculator or pocket computer. Unfortunately, my programming skills are pretty much limited to old and prety primitive basic. I also did some dbase II work on cp/m many years ago, and that was enough to scare me off of major database projects forever.

Unfortunately, it appears the parsing and handling of large data files is pretty esoteric knowledge among computer book writers. Everyone says there is little money in writing handicapping programs. Maybe the information market would be more lucrative.

socantra...

[paulc]

<<< I am interested in finding out more about the average pace you indicated was developed by Tommy Holmes. If you have his old book, could you explain how he uses the first and second calls of the leaders combined with the horse's final time, i.e., is it just the average of the three or does he weight them in some manner? >>>

There are really two differences between the Holmes formula and MPH. First, Brohamer uses the horse's actual fractions whereas Holmes uses the leader's time for the first and second call and the specific horse's final time. Second, Brohamer uses fractions only, whereas Holmes used elapsed time to that point.

In his book, Holmes suggested a simpler calculation method than feet per second... something easy to do using the racing form at the track. But since I was using Brohamer's fps for the other calculations, I did use fps for Holmes' approach to average pace.

I certainly don't want to start any arguments with proponents of Brohamer's methods, but here's always been the conundrum for me: pick any fractions for any 6f race... and if the final time is the same, then so is the average pace using the formula in MPH.

Using Holmes formula, the horse gets a better pace rating if the first and second fractions are faster... and regardless how he got there, I like a horse who can put up a 1:10 when the pace was fast better than a horse who can run the 1:10 when the pace was tepid.

[socantra]

Originally posted by paulc

There are really two differences between the Holmes formula and MPH. First, Brohamer uses the horse's actual fractions whereas Holmes uses the leader's time for the first and second call and the specific horse's final time. Second, Brohamer uses fractions only, whereas Holmes used elapsed time to that point.

In his book, Holmes suggested a simpler calculation method than feet per second... something easy to do using the racing form at the track. But since I was using Brohamer's fps for the other calculations, I did use fps for Holmes' approach to average pace.

I certainly don't want to start any arguments with proponents of Brohamer's methods, but here's always been the conundrum for me: pick any fractions for any 6f race... and if the final time is the same, then so is the average pace using the formula in MPH.

Using Holmes formula, the horse gets a better pace rating if the first and second fractions are faster... and regardless how he got there, I like a horse who can put up a 1:10 when the pace was fast better than a horse who can run the 1:10 when the pace was tepid.

It's great to have you weigh in on this Paul. I also do not wish to argue the merits of Brohammer/Sartin style figures and those based on Pace of Race. I think both have merits and problems. I do wish you had called it "Holmes' Pace" or something else because I think many see "Average Pace" in feet per second as a Brohammer figure.

My other problems come out of the use of both the 1st and 2nd fraction in your feet per second calculation. I think that badly skews the figure by having nearly 70% of the figure be about the race instead of the horse in question. Unless a horse coming out of a fast paced race turns in an absolutely abysmal final time, he's going to get a pretty good final rating, even if he was loafing around in the back of the pack at the 1st call.

If you used only the 2nd call for the pace of the race, I think you'd have a much more balanced figure.

My other problem is that you then use this skewed figure to select the pace line for your other figures, which makes them less useful.

socantra...

[paulc]

<<< I do wish you had called it "Holmes' Pace" or something else because I think many see "Average Pace" in feet per second as a Brohammer figure. >>>

I understand your point... I can only say that I hope anyone contemplating the software would read the FAQ on it before they buy... I particularly took care there to show the calculation used to avoid just what you are mentioning.

<<< Unless a horse coming out of a fast paced race turns in an absolutely abysmal final time, he's going to get a pretty good final rating, even if he was loafing around in the back of the pack at the 1st call. >>>

I'm not really disputing that. However, two things... (1) see my comment below regarding only using the second call and my view of what I intended the software to do... and (2) I must confess that I really only think pace is a dominant handicapping factor in races that are relatively fast paced and so that's what I'm interested in... who puts up the best pace figs in a race that has pace.

I chose to use the Holmes calc rather than the Brohamer calc because I think it does a better job,especially on sprints.

What is probably reasonable, given some people's preference for the Brohamer calc, is to add a check box in the preference settings, allowing the user to choose which pace calculation they would want. Guess I'll add that to the never-ending list!

<<< If you used only the 2nd call for the pace of the race, I think you'd have a much more balanced figure. >>>

As much as possible, I tried to make this software a calculator, not a reflection of my personal preferences. This all started as a collection of calculations I like... typically calcs designed and published by others I regarded as wiser than me! And over the years, the included calculations have been augmented by user requests, but only for calculations I thought made sense.

In particular, I never wanted it to be labelled "a black box"... personally, I think anyone who claims they have such in a package that costs only tens or hundreds of dollars is a first-class BS artist. Lemme put it this way... if I ever had a black box that I was convinced was invincible, I wouldn't sell it, I'd use it... selling it would only make the overlays disappear cuz everyone knew about them!

If I want anything claimed about this software, it's that it "saved me a bunch of time calculating some numbers I find useful, so I can concentrate my energy on the other subjective influences, nuances, and track-trainer-trend specific factors that go into my handicapping.

<<< My other problem is that you then use this skewed figure to select the pace line for your other figures, which makes them less useful. >>>

Actually, when the next major revision comes out, users will be able to select the paceline they want to use. However, since this is neither a full-time job nor a colossal money maker, that will happen as it can happen - one thing I hate is what I call the "Microsoft Method"... dumping it out there and letting the users find all the bugs. I prefer making sure I find most of the bugs.

Earlier in the thread, someone claimed that the software averaged past performances... actually, it currently allows the user to select from four choices... best, average best two, trend, and counter-trend. The weakness, of course, is that it applies the preference to all horses in all races on the analyzed card. User selection by horse will counter that.

[First_Place]

"For example, using Holmes' manual, a race that was run in 22, 45,1:12 would produce a total of 179..."

A "total of 179" what? It wouldn't be a fps velocity total of the first and second fractions + final time would it?

FP

[paulc]

When Holmes first developed the measure, we didn't have Excel and notebook computers, etc. We had to do things with paper and pencil. So, you just added the leader's first call + leader's second call + runner's final time and a time like 1:12 was used as 112. Thus, a 22,45,1:12 profile equaled 22+45+112 for 179.

The number was artificial and difficult to compare to other runners when you wanted to use another runner's line at a different distance. And the lower the number, the better the pace line.

[First_Place]

Thanks for explaining.

FP

[First_Place]

Can you please explain the reasoning for using the pace of race first and second call times--and not the actual horse's beaten length times--and why they're added to the horse's actual finish time? Is this some type of crude total pace number?

Thanks.

FP

[socantra]

Originally posted by First_Place
Can you please explain the reasoning for using the pace of race first and second call times--and not the actual horse's beaten length times--and why they're added to the horse's actual finish time? Is this some type of crude total pace number?

Thanks.

FP

I disagree with Paul about the use of the 1st call, but the Pace of Race, combined with final time is what is traditionally known as Pace handicapping. Ray Taulbot used Pace of Race at 2nd call with final time of the horse. Many others use Pace of Race at 2nd call in one form or another combined with final time or speed rating. They basically want to know how fast paced a race that horse's final time came out of.

Sartin/Brohammer figures analyze individual segments of the horse's performance and don't use total time as a stand alone st all. Different ways of looking at a race. Both have their advantages and shortcomings.

socantra...

[First_Place]

Including the first fraction in the calculations threw me off. Yes, I'm very familiar with using the second call time to adjust the final time, i.e., speed rating. That's the very essence of Michael Pizzolla's PBS numbers.

FP

[BigJake]

Hell, I posted this and got the MPH software and never checked it again. I am suprised it caused such a large strand. The MPH is exactly what I was looking for, but I am interested to know how y'all select a paceline to use this software? I am interested if anyone has tried (I know they have) multiple pacelines and how to use that info, or if there is just a superior way of selecting pacelines.

Big Jake

[andicap]

For what it's worth -- this and $3 will get you over-priced coffee at Starbucks:

I use HTR, the successor to MPH and haven't found the Nirvana yet for ultimate PL selection (because I haven't been able to test any one method in 1,000 races since I like to do this stuff by hand, not a DB), but here's what I'm doing. Then I try and eliminate horses who have no shot on pace and then bet the overlays.
Several alternatives

1. SINGLE PACELINE METHOD

Bet best race at today's distance structure/surface (fast track only -- although I might use a 'good" track race if I'm certain the horse doesn't move up in the wet) in last six months PROVIDING you don't go back more than 5 or 6 races overall AND more than 3 races at today's distance/surface. Allowances are made for horses off a layoff or 2nd/3rd race off a layoff but I want odds if I'm going to use a line that's ancient history.

I'm always wary of excellent final time (AP) efforts based on strong finishes from horses who ran on or close to the lead in slow-paced races.

Exception -- I find that at certain tracks I can use 8.5 and 8.0f races at 7f and vice versa, generally tracks where all those races are around one turn. Much trickier comparing two turn pacelines to one-turn efforts.


PACELINE METHOD NUMBER 2
-- allows for multiple pacelines, but not necessarily.

Use only "good" races -- definitions vary I know, but I use Ken Massa's "live" race designations in HTR defined in one of his newsletters at htr2.com. (Ken programmed the MPH software for Tom, which morphed into HTR.)

Try to avoid races from slow-paced races -- almost impossible on turf.

I believe in MPH's Quirin mode you can estimate what the pace of the race was by using a formula for beaten lengths at the pace and final time. Any race where the pace figure was considerably less than the final time counts as a slow-paced race.


Stay recent as possible and use two pacelines if you feel recent ones are aberrant. On occasion I'll use three if I feel it gives me the best feel on a horse.


PACELINE METHOD NUMBER 3.
-- multiple pacelines if necessary, but very cautiously.

I suspect this is the most accurate but if I'm playing several cards I don't always have time for more sophisticated PL picking.

-- estimate in very general terms today's pace and use pacelines from good races (see above) that are in line with that pace.

HTR gives me a good vehicle to do this --- I'll look at several of its automatic PL methods and focus on the E and E/P types and come to some sort of conclusion on a pace. I'll adjust it upward or downward by a tick or two depending on whether I expect a pace battle. If the fastest E and EP types are pointing to a 102-103 pace and there are a handful of them I will likely look for pacelines from races where they did a 104.

The good thing about doing it this way is even if you're a little wrong you'll still get a good indication on what the horses can do against a certain pace in their best races.

I'll try and find the highest pace figure I can without unduly penalizing horses that could still win. So if I'm not sure if the pace will be 95 or 98 say, I'll split the difference.

What this really does is help me zero in on E ad EP horses who probably won't win because they've never run effectively against today's pace. (I give allowances for improving, lightly raced horses who you never know if they can handle a faster pace or not. If they have never showed they CAN'T handle the pace -- are unproven -- and have good odds today I might bite if they have a classic young horse improving form cycle.)

In this method I'll use a slow-paced race if its pretty close to what today's field is capable of.

[keilan]

Andy

Like your comments in regard to pace projections and selection of contenders. :)

Comment – young horses that haven’t yet run that projected pace number yet -- but whom posses low energy numbers and competitive final time ratings are also worthy contenders.

Good stuff

[socantra]

Originally posted by BigJake
Hell, I posted this and got the MPH software and never checked it again. I am suprised it caused such a large strand. The MPH is exactly what I was looking for, but I am interested to know how y'all select a paceline to use this software? I am interested if anyone has tried (I know they have) multiple pacelines and how to use that info, or if there is just a superior way of selecting pacelines.

Big Jake

Glad MPH is working out for you. Does MPH use only the Trackmaster download?

Doc Sartin's latter Paceline selection guidelines were "best of the last 3 comparable" which works out pretty close to andicap's method number one. "Best" was to be determined by DRF speed rating modified by variant.

socantra...

[topgun]

Hello,

Has anyone read Danny Holmes new book,as I have his old book.I want to know what is the difference between to two books.

Topgun

[JimL]

Top Gun, What is the name of the book? JimL

[topgun]

Jim L

The new book has the same title as his first book>


Topgun

[andicap]

As a coda to my PL selections, I am finding that going back 5 races is often problematic. I am finding I better have a damn good reason to go back that far. I used to accept any number of lines within 90 days but found too many losers from taking the old lines. Of course if you're horse is 30-1 and I have good reasons I'll take a flyer, but it ain't no prime bet, that's for sure.

Exceptions are horses off a layoff, or better yet, 2nd and 3rd off a layoff who look like they are rounding back into form and maybe dropping a class.

As always I give extra leeway to horses with improving form cycles and pace/energy that fits today's field.

[BigJake]

When chosing pacelines, does anyone put 5 or 10 pacelines per horse, or every line in the last 90 days? I like the print out I get with MPH so it is not sensible for the way I use the program, but I wonder if that doesn't give you a better look at what the horse does consistantly.

Big Jake

[grahors]

What is HTR and where can I find out more?:

[sq764]

Originally posted by BigJake
When chosing pacelines, does anyone put 5 or 10 pacelines per horse, or every line in the last 90 days? I like the print out I get with MPH so it is not sensible for the way I use the program, but I wonder if that doesn't give you a better look at what the horse does consistantly.

Big Jake

Jake, I only use 1 paceline for each horse.. I like to use the last line, unless there is a reason not too. I don't like going back past 3 lines, but there are exceptions..

[socantra]

Originally posted by grahors
What is HTR and where can I find out more?:

Ken Massa was the programmer for Brohammer's Modern Pace Handicapping program. HTR is Ken's later programming effort.

http://www.homebased2.com/km/

socantra...

[andicap]

Originally posted by grahors
What is HTR and where can I find out more?:

It's an excellent program but it won't make you into a winner unless you can handicap. Lots of people use the database capabilities with MS Access, but I don't. The program includes a more basic "robot tester" as well for research on what's winning at your track(s).

Free, but $119 a month for unlimited downloads from HDW.
Ken will also do custom software for you at a decent price if there is some report you want on your version tailored to the way you handicap.

[grahors]

Hey...compared to the "Always" downloads, that's a bargain. Always has been OK but not the flexibilty I would like...Maybe in the Pro version but I don't really think so....plus it is expensive.
Thanks so much for the info.
Went to the HTR site....man, there is some fine reading. It will keep me out of my wife's hair for quite awhile.

[nomadpat]

Grahors,

I've been a user of All Ways pro version, and recently starting using HTR. HTR is more flexible especially with paceline selection, easy to choose your own although I start out every race with PL-5 mode. To test, I even chose the same pacelines from HTR and ran them through ALW and got different numbers between the two programs, with HTR being better in the ones I tried.
In my opinion, everything you can do with ALW you can do more efficiently (and cheaper!) with HTR. A quick lbut not comprehensive ist:
Model or profile picks = using the K or HTR consensus ratings.
Pace PP report = use the PPQ screen.
Brohamer plus report = VEL screen.
Don't know what you used from ALW, but if you have any questions since I've used both, send me an email.

[Donnie]

A quick website addy for HTR is www.HTR2.com

Grahors---

I have been with HTR for 5-6 years. If you email him, Ken will give you a free weekend to try it out. I would suggest you play with the sample files that come with the free download, which is a fully functional version of the program. Once you have played with it a bit and you see everything that is in the program, email Ken and he'll let you try live data for a weekend or so. The support is second to none, and every year Ken holds a seminar in Vegas where users get together to discuss new features and ideas. It is a great learning experience for all. No sales pitches from Ken at all! He updates the program on a regular basis and the upgrades are always free of charge. We teach you in Vegas how to use the exporter to move the data from HTR into Access. ( that's the only cost to you at the seminar...we pass a hat for donations for the presenters, of which I am one, but the Access seminars are optional anyway. I teach Computer Instruction for New Horizons Computer Learning Center in Iowa. What you receive that afternoon is very compatiable to one of our classes that retail for $245. Only it is geared toward HTR and horseracing)

If you have any questions about the program, don't be afraid to post questions over on the HTR board. Like this board, a great group of people!

BOL
-Donnie

[GR1@HTR]

Thanks to Donnie, a few years ago I took the New Horizons Access Class to learn how to better cap the horses. I can honestly say it was one of the best things I ever did. It allows you to find out anything you want...

[andicap]

I use PL-4 almost exclusively on HTR-2, (with a quick look at PL-2 to see if anything else pops to the surface) and am doing well as long as I check the pacelines and change them if they are too far back (generallly I'll look at the horse's last 3 races on a fast track, same distance structure/same surface up to 6 months ago, but preferably within 4 months)

I'll also kick out a PL if it's obviously aberrant.

I focus on the overlays using a mix of pace analysis and form cycle (using FIG 1 or 2) -- along with other HTR stats like the WO and TRN numbers -- and demand value.

Short-term modeling works at times. For example on Travers Day 2003 horses with strong F1 figs were winning everything at very good prices. I'll model by ranking best horses in various categories in two ways;

-- best last 90 days
-- best last 180 days

(again USUALLY no more than 3 races back same dis/surf/fast)

[Tom]

The access training I got from Donnie was invaluable. I was able to learn so much in a few hours it was unbelievable.
I even found some uses for it in my job!:rolleyes:

[GR1@HTR]

For those interested in learning Access, this is the manual I used to learn Access from New Horizons training center. I need extra money for my next P3 wager so any contributions would be greatly appreciated. Plus my dog needs a bone this month...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=2228&item=4513321959&rd=1