2019 Software Poll!

[Speed Figure]

Which Software do you use? why do you use it and what do you like about it!

[ldiatone]

All in One, Cynthia publishing

[lefty359]

I find it fascinating that of the software listed most votes are for ValueCapper. I tried it and just couldn't win with it. Depleted my BR plenty which I've now built back up. My hat's off to those that can win with it.

[Speed Figure]

I find it fascinating that of the software listed most votes are for ValueCapper. I tried it and just couldn't win with it. Depleted my BR plenty which I've now built back up. My hat's off to those that can win with it.
That's pretty interesting! I wonder why you couldn't get the hang of it. A lot of votes for not listed, but no one is replying to what there using that's not listed.

[lefty359]

I have used all the software listed except Handifast and All DataFree. Righ now my 2 favs are BetMix and RDSS.

[JimG]

I have used all the software listed except Handifast and All DataFree. Righ now my 2 favs are BetMix and RDSS.


As I recall, Handifast is a pretty good program, and the price is right. You may want to give it a shot some time.


Jim

[hyipro]

MULTI (BRIS)
MPH
PRO HANDI WIZARD
WORKHORSE
TRULINE-2012
LIGHTING PROFITS
FAST FRED

[Speed Figure]

Very interesting results! Please if your voting other list the programs your using. Seeing that Value Capper is tops right now with a $1797 price for non Black Magic users that didn’t have an original license is pretty impressive..:eek:

[Zaf]

I still use Equisim, great program.

Z

[Appy]

Ditto, Zaf. But I'm worried how much longer we can keep it up.

[Zaf]

Ditto, Zaf. But I'm worried how much longer we can keep it up.

I am hoping for a long time. As long as the data files are available (Comma-Delimited Past Performances (single file format) and do not change drastically we should be OK. I have the program installed on my old Windows 7 and 8 machines as well as my new Windows 10 laptop. It works fine on all of them so I expect to be OK for a while :headbanger:

Z

[Zaf]

Ditto, Zaf. But I'm worried how much longer we can keep it up.

My only regret is that I never purchased the DB direct add on. I basically use it to run numerous calculations in the FV, export the .csv file and import it into Excel. This gives me info that I am interested rapidly and that goes into my handicapping process.

Z

[donmat]

RPG Optimum Custom Plays

[Vinnie]

I have been a customer of Nathan M.'s since the inception of the program and the software is top notch in every respect. Honestly, my wife handicaps with it exclusively and can be very deadly with it using several FV's.... :headbanger:

[tucker]

Horsewin.ca-----Bill White out of Canada puts the Program out----Nothing to buy---$60 Monthly-----Most Major Tracks-----Wednesday thru Sunday------

[Dave Schwartz]

I've got to say that I am very pleased with the numbers in this poll.

Considering how few of these programs cost more than a few dollars (and many pretty good ones are free), I am gladdened by the fact that HSH is holding its own considering the $1,597 price tag.

BTW, HSH is on sale for $797 until July 31st. (https://store.pacemakestherace.com/horsestreet-handicapper/)

[46zilzal]

HSH I have used it regularly EVERYDAY since 2013 and am still finding out new things about it...Marvelous

[Handiman]

I have written quite a few programs for people around the country. And I also wrote Handifast with help from several people. Dave Schwartz is a dear friend of mine and we always joke around about getting him to use Handifast. He has insisted I pull me head out and try HsH. Well, as I'm getting old as hell, I figured why the hell not. So I am looking at it and learning it. I'm brand new at it, but extremely impressed with all that it can do. It is so deep and multi functional. I have tried many of the popular softwares around over the last 40 years. But this is definitely the most intense piece of software I have ever seen. I have spoken to a few users and they are winning on a consistent basis. Some betting larger than others. Anyway it looks like it's going to be a wild ride. I will report back after I get up to speed and have some results to speak about. I am really liking the path it is taking me down.

Handi:)

[headhawg]

I'm not interested in the numbers, so I was hoping more people would say what things they liked about the program(s) they used.

[Speed Figure]

I'm not interested in the numbers, so I was hoping more people would say what things they liked about the program(s) they used.I was hoping the same thing! :bang:

[plainolebill]

I have written quite a few programs for people around the country. And I also wrote Handifast with help from several people. Dave Schwartz is a dear friend of mine and we always joke around about getting him to use Handifast. He has insisted I pull me head out and try HsH. Well, as I'm getting old as hell, I figured why the hell not. So I am looking at it and learning it. I'm brand new at it, but extremely impressed with all that it can do. It is so deep and multi functional. I have tried many of the popular softwares around over the last 40 years. But this is definitely the most intense piece of software I have ever seen. I have spoken to a few users and they are winning on a consistent basis. Some betting larger than others. Anyway it looks like it's going to be a wild ride. I will report back after I get up to speed and have some results to speak about. I am really liking the path it is taking me down.

Handi:)

I just signed on with Dave too and I may be older than you.

For Speed - so far I like it because it is the most comprehensive tool I've ever laid eyes on, Dave has put up an unbelievable number of tutorials, I have had to put up a second monitor so I can watch the videos and follow along with the program. A number of members on the FB group have generously offered their help and I'll be taking them up on it after I've gotten comfortable enough with the software to really take advantage of the help. Another thing I like are the Cramer figs. *I hadn't gotten the program when I voted 'other' in the poll.

Bill

[andicap]

I'd like to know how many people use CJ's TimeForm ratings and NO software.

I wonder if that is a majority of those who said "none of the above."

[Sea Hero]

I use RDSS for the pace figures, HTR for many of its features, and my own Excel program for a certain spot play, which I then check in the other two programs.

[Partsnut]

I am a BetMix user. This application, in my opinion, is the best value in horse racing.
You have many ways to handicap within this very intuitive software.
I've used many others and nothing can come close to Bet Mix.

[lefty359]

HSH I have used it regularly EVERYDAY since 2013 and am still finding out new things about it...Marvelous


46, just curious: about how many races a day do you play a day with HSH?
Curious because Dave wrote an article on his website that pros play around 80 races a day. Wow!
I used to have HSH yrs ago, liked it, but afraid it and the data out of my price range. I do think Dave is a genius. And a good guy.

[Sparky13]

Saturday I decided to use an old software program I have had for years. I think I purchased it in 1996. The program is called "George Clutch's Private Method". For the Saturday Saratoga card I handicapped 8 races (#2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 , 10 & 11). The program selected 5 winners on top (Races #2-$9.00, #4-$13.20, #8-$8.50, #9-$3.70 and #10-$6.40). Bet $16.00 and won $40.80. The only draw back to the program, you have to enter the last 3 races from DRF manually. So it does take awhile. I will give it a test for a few weeks and see how it performs on today's races of 2019.

[shoelessjoe]

I used to use CJ when numbers were on his own website they were very good but since moving to Timeform no get confused

[green80]

[QUOTE=Sparky13;2501321]Saturday I decided to use an old software program I have had for years. I think I purchased it in 1996. The program is called "George Clutch's Private Method". For the Saturday Saratoga card I handicapped 8 races (#2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 , 10 & 11). The program selected 5 winners on top (Races #2-$9.00, #4-$13.20, #8-$8.50, #9-$3.70 and #10-$6.40). Bet $16.00 and won $40.80. The only draw back to the program, you have to enter the last 3 races from DRF manually. So it does take awhile. I will give it a test for a few weeks and see how it performs on today's races of 2019.[/QUOT



Report back to us when you have 100-200 races handicapped

[Binder]

I have used RDSS since its very early development

For Sartin Methodology clients and users, RDSS is a dream piece of software.
Every phase of Doctor Howard Sartins teachings is available. Everything including Phase 1 TPR to Brohamers Modern Pace Handicapping, to Bradshaws, match up and Doc's final phase Velocity Relative to Deceleration or rather VDC.
Ted has also gone a step farther with an RX readout

[boxcar]

I use a program, in which I had the privilege of having a hand in developing over the course of these last several years, called Race Tracker created by a long time online friend and very talented programmer who I'll simply identify by his initials BC.


It's really tough to say what I like the most about RT because it has so many great features. Its comprehensiveness and module layout designs, I think would rival any program out there. Layout design, to my mind, counts for much, especially when trying to digest a great deal of data on one screen.

The second thing I love about the program is that none of the major handicapping categories, such as Current Form, Class, Pace, Consistency, etc. rely upon only one rating. Multiple ratings, created from different perspectives, are used for all the major categories. The program doesn't put all the eggs in one basket for any major handicapping category.

Finally, RT is very well balanced between quantitative and qualitative data. The hundreds of racing angles in RT's output are only rivaled by probably as many quantitative-based ratings.

I'm not quite sure just how many modules there are in RT -- my educated guess is probably around 150 or so, so over the years we have learned to focus on and work with what we consider to be "key" modules in our handicapping , which number about 2 dozen or so.

The greatest breakthroughs were realized in the last year or so when we were able to add considerable depth to the important TI (Trainer's Intention) factor by quantifying certain key data. The discoveries we made in this one area alone, we think are quite significant.

Happy Punting to All!

[Dave Schwartz]

I use a program, in which I had the privilege of having a hand in developing over the course of these last several years, called Race Tracker created by a long time online friend and very talented programmer who I'll simply identify by his initials BC.


It's really tough to say what I like the most about RT because it has so many great features. Its comprehensiveness and module layout designs, I think would rival any program out there. Layout design, to my mind, counts for much, especially when trying to digest a great deal of data on one screen.

The second thing I love about the program is that none of the major handicapping categories, such as Current Form, Class, Pace, Consistency, etc. rely upon only one rating. Multiple ratings, created from different perspectives, are used for all the major categories. The program doesn't put all the eggs in one basket for any major handicapping category.

Finally, RT is very well balanced between quantitative and qualitative data. The hundreds of racing angles in RT's output are only rivaled by probably as many quantitative-based ratings.

I'm not quite sure just how many modules there are in RT -- my educated guess is probably around 150 or so, so over the years we have learned to focus on and work with what we consider to be "key" modules in our handicapping , which number about 2 dozen or so.

The greatest breakthroughs were realized in the last year or so when we were able to add considerable depth to the important TI (Trainer's Intention) factor by quantifying certain key data. The discoveries we made in this one area alone, we think are quite significant.

Happy Punting to All!

Boxcar,

Those are wonderful ways to approach handicapping.

Kudos to you both.


Dave

[JimG]

Boxcar,


I think trainer intention is very important and one reason I soured on the game and most programs I used. I am amazed at the number of older programs (many of which I own) that do not even display trainer or jockey name in their main printouts, much less meaningful data or analysis beyond what is displayed in the pp's. Kudos to you and continued success.


Jim


PS: Are you sure BC does not stand for BoxCar? LOL

[Speed Figure]

I use a program, in which I had the privilege of having a hand in developing over the course of these last several years, called Race Tracker created by a long time online friend and very talented programmer who I'll simply identify by his initials BC.


It's really tough to say what I like the most about RT because it has so many great features. Its comprehensiveness and module layout designs, I think would rival any program out there. Layout design, to my mind, counts for much, especially when trying to digest a great deal of data on one screen.

The second thing I love about the program is that none of the major handicapping categories, such as Current Form, Class, Pace, Consistency, etc. rely upon only one rating. Multiple ratings, created from different perspectives, are used for all the major categories. The program doesn't put all the eggs in one basket for any major handicapping category.

Finally, RT is very well balanced between quantitative and qualitative data. The hundreds of racing angles in RT's output are only rivaled by probably as many quantitative-based ratings.

I'm not quite sure just how many modules there are in RT -- my educated guess is probably around 150 or so, so over the years we have learned to focus on and work with what we consider to be "key" modules in our handicapping , which number about 2 dozen or so.

The greatest breakthroughs were realized in the last year or so when we were able to add considerable depth to the important TI (Trainer's Intention) factor by quantifying certain key data. The discoveries we made in this one area alone, we think are quite significant. Happy Punting to All!Is that the same software you would post on that other forum? was it ever available for purchase?

[green80]

Boxcar,


I think trainer intention is very important and one reason I soured on the game and most programs I used. I am amazed at the number of older programs (many of which I own) that do not even display trainer or jockey name in their main printouts, much less meaningful data or analysis beyond what is displayed in the pp's. Kudos to you and continued success.


Jim


PS: Are you sure BC does not stand for BoxCar? LOL




I disagree, I think that in most races 90% of the trainers think that they can win or at least have a shot to win and are giving it 100% effort. For the average guy it is expensive to run a horse and most owners/trainers are not going through the effort and expense when they think they have no shot or not going to try to win.

[Dave Schwartz]

I disagree, I think that in most races 90% of the trainers think that they can win or at least have a shot to win and are giving it 100% effort. For the average guy it is expensive to run a horse and most owners/trainers are not going through the effort and expense when they think they have no shot or not going to try to win.

I've gotta go with JimG & Boxcar on this one, and would present the following evidence:

Back in the '80s (in the days of large fields and also eligible lists), if you picked up a SoCal "Condition book," you would have seen a section that said:

If there are also eligibles in the race, trainers will be asked to indicate whether or not they are "trying" today.

Whether there were also eligibles or not, the fact that some trainers were not always trying was a well-known fact.

This has not changed just because the fields have gotten smaller.

[boxcar]

Is that the same software you would post on that other forum? was it ever available for purchase?

No, RT is a much later and more powerful program and its owner is not interested in selling it.

[46zilzal]

I have used RDSS since its very early development

For Sartin Methodology clients and users, RDSS is a dream piece of software.
Every phase of Doctor Howard Sartins teachings is available. Everything including Phase 1 TPR to Brohamers Modern Pace Handicapping, to Bradshaws, match up and Doc's final phase Velocity Relative to Deceleration or rather VDC.
Ted has also gone a step farther with an RX readout

Good but some basic flaws.....Great place to learn however...Good stepping stone as I still use the basic teachings just tempered now by a much superior software in HSH,

[Speed Figure]

I can't say that I’m into the whole trainer intention stuff either.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,


I think trainer intention is very important and one reason I soured on the game and most programs I used. I am amazed at the number of older programs (many of which I own) that do not even display trainer or jockey name in their main printouts, much less meaningful data or analysis beyond what is displayed in the pp's. Kudos to you and continued success.


Jim


PS: Are you sure BC does not stand for BoxCar? LOL

No, BC does not stand for Boxcar. I'm not the developer or programmer. BC invited me to use the software for testing purposes, consultation and advice. I'm probably one of the last Ray Taulbot students alive on the planet :D

The TI factor, in my opinion, is darn near as important as the Current Form factor in terms of a pure handicapping factor. But in terms of the wagering factor, I consider it to be the most import because I believe it is the public's Achilles heel!

I know the TI factor is alive and well because I have a sizeable arsenal of racing angles, many of which are entirely TI-related (such as price-class maneuvers,distance or surface maneuvers, etc.), and an even larger arsenal of combination angles (performance + TI, such workouts). The vast majority of these angles I have been using for over 40 years in this game. I can assure you that trainers today still play the game pretty much the same way as their predecessors. This is so because most of our beloved equine athletes need to be raced into condition. They simply won't extend themselves on the training track in many cases because after a while they get to know the difference between an exercise workout and a real race. In a race, their natural competitive juices flow, whereas on the training track, not so much. So...trainers often need to trick their horses into believing that today's race is the real deal -- even though the trainer knows that his horse is still a race or two away from being in peak condition.

Additionally, from recent discoveries the programmer and I have made, and all the quantitative muscle we have added to various trainer and jockey data in the program, we now have hard, empirical evidence that the TI factor is alive and well and kicking.

Moreover, there is another very important matter to consider -- an inescapable fact of barn life: Many stables are betting stables, most especially the small to medium sized operations. This means a horse's connections are often participating with the rank and file, outside-the-fishbowl bettors in the betting pools -- in other words the insiders are competing against us. As much as we might not like the implications to this hard-boiled fact, these kinds of stables would not find it in their own best financial interests to send a horse out on the training track to run a 5f workout in :59 flat, let's say. Obviously, such a recent workout would catch the eyes of and attract money from more than a few bettors. Therefore, a betting barn's interests would be better served by concealing such a workout within the confines of a race. Of course, workouts or a series of workouts can be used in other ways by a shrewd trainer that would allow him to assess whether the horse is improving or regressing in form -- but that's a whole 'nother subject until itself.

Finally, a highly important partner in the circle of connections is the jockey. He's the two-legged athlete who is grossly underpaid when compared to athletes in other major sports venues. There are very few jocks pulling down 7 figures annually! Most riders make well under that in their dangerous profession. Jockeys get 10% of the purse money they win, but they have to give a fair percentage of that (10 to 15%) to their agent and then their personal valet gets a share, etc. While, technically, it's against Jockey Club Rules for a jock to bet on a race in which he has a mount, who says the trainer or the jock's agent or someone else can't get a bet down on behalf of a rider?

The bottom line is this from all my experience: The single most important handicapping factor is Current Form, and the most important factor in terms of wagering is the TI factor. Become an expert in assessing current form, and learn how to get inside a trainer's head, and one can make a killing in this game.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxcar,

Anything like these?

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/BoxCar's%20Angles.jpg

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

Anything like these?

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/BoxCar's%20Angles.jpg

Yup, they look vaguely unfamiliar. :coffee:

By the way, Dave, since you seem to be more in tune with the TI factor than some others here, there's an excellent example to be seen on yesterday's DMR card (if you have it) in the 5th from the perspectives of qualitative-based angles and quantitative-based jockey and trainer ratings. The 8 horse was a standout in that race at 7/2.

[Dave Schwartz]

Yup, they look vaguely unfamiliar. :coffee:

By the way, Dave, since you seem to be more in tune with the TI factor than some others here, there's an excellent example to be seen on yesterday's DMR card (if you have it) in the 5th from the perspectives of qualitative-based angles and quantitative-based jockey and trainer ratings. The 8 horse was a standout in that race at 7/2.

I completely agree.

Here's a look at that race using what we call Control Factors.

That is, things that the trainer has control over, such as class changes, workout patterns, etc.

Look in the $net column. This guy was $1.96, which is huge. The only horse close was the obvious trainer horse (#7).



https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/DMR05-2019-08-18.jpg

[boxcar]

I completely agree.

Here's a look at that race using what we call Control Factors.

That is, things that the trainer has control over, such as class changes, workout patterns, etc.

Look in the $net column. This guy was $1.96, which is huge. The only horse close was the obvious trainer horse (#7).



https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/DMR05-2019-08-18.jpg

How far back do you go to get those $net numbers? Do those numbers represent positive returns on $1. or $2. bets? I ask because neither the 7 or 8's trainers show any positive returns in our data -- not even in any of the trainer sub-categories.

At this time of the year, we can go back roughly 20 months (all last year + all this year to date). But we usually restrict the output to one year's data (in this case the last 6 months of last year + all this year to date). We feel that about year's worth of data is recent enough to be relevant and also a fair representation of trainers' and jockeys' talents.

In a little while the granite people will be arriving to install my kitchen counter tops, so I can't tarry here for long. But If I get a chance later, I'll try to post a copy of one version of a trainer mod that I use consistently. Interestingly, in that mod the 8 ranks 1 and the 7 ranks 2 when sorted by the number of top tier trainer ratings. But the 8, in my book, was the much stronger trainer under today's race conditions because his win percentages in the four sub-categories relevant to today's race conditions appreciably exceed his 11% generic (overall) win percentage. This tells us that the trainer himself was "well placed" under today's race conditions -- that he was in an environment in which he is very comfortable.

And I don't know if you're familiar with any of Ed Bain's works or theories on trainers or not, but this trainer excelled by 6 percentage points over his generic rating in a Bain category, which in this trainer's case was "1st off clm".

Also, the TI factor was greatly strengthened by the trainer's change of jockeys today. The switch was definitely for the better, even though on the surface it appears the change was a wash -- switching from one 20% rider to another 20 per center today. But that was the farthest thing from the truth.

Gotta run. More later.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxcar,

How far back do you go to get those $net numbers?
3.5 years, circuit specific, seems to be optimum.

Do those numbers represent positive returns on $1. or $2
$2.00.

IOW, those two horses were close to break even.

Remember that those factors are the 18 selected as 'under trainer control."

But the 8, in my book, was the much stronger trainer under today's race conditions because his win percentages in the four sub-categories relevant to today's race conditions appreciably exceed his 11% generic (overall) win percentage. This tells us that the trainer himself was "well placed" under today's race conditions -- that he was in an environment in which he is very comfortable.

I would say that the #7 looked stronger

And I don't know if you're familiar with any of Ed Bain's works or theories on trainers or not, but this trainer excelled by 6 percentage points over his generic rating in a Bain category, which in this trainer's case was "1st off clm".

I am very familiar.

There was only 1 "4+30" angle in the race (#7) and that is insignificant.


In the graphic below, we focus on factors that have a pseudo-win rating of 25% or higher.

The #7 screamed "Bet me as a false favorite" with so many positives. We've found that the best way to use this is to take the normalized win% x number of factors to produce a "Best Trainer" score. It is labeled as "FX%" in this screenshot.

What we've found is horses with FX% that are inordinately high (over 10%) are trainers that look so good that they will be extremely overbet. They will be huge long-term losers.

BTW, that is how we use Ed Bain's 4+30!



https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/DMR05-2019-08-18-Rtg25.jpg

[lefty359]

BoxCar, you're not the last, I was a Ray Taulbot follower in the 50's and 60's.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

How far back do you go to get those $net numbers?
3.5 years, circuit specific, seems to be optimum.

Do those numbers represent positive returns on $1. or $2
$2.00.

IOW, those two horses were close to break even.

Remember that those factors are the 18 selected as 'under trainer control."

Very interesting. Even though our philosophies differ some, both our approaches put us on the same horse. And both showed the same two horses as having strong trainer numbers, even though our ratings are very different from one another.

We emphasize recency in just about all our major handicapping categories because we feel that if we go back too far, that could skew the ratings. Much could have happened in the last year or so to diminish the value of good but older ratings. For example, just going by the four categories that displayed in the module I mentioned earlier, I show a 1.82 return v. your 1.92 for the 8 horse. Or in another trainer mod that deals strictly with today's track surface, today's distance and today's class, the sum of those three ROIs was a -0.62. and the 7 didn't fare that much better coming away with a -0.59.

But the 8, in my book, was the much stronger trainer under today's race conditions because his win percentages in the four sub-categories relevant to today's race conditions appreciably exceed his 11% generic (overall) win percentage. This tells us that the trainer himself was "well placed" under today's race conditions -- that he was in an environment in which he is very comfortable.

I would say that the #7 looked stronger.

As they say in car commercials, "mileage may vary." :) When the rest of 8's attributes and ratings are considered, he was really the logical play just based on pure handicapping factors. For example, the 8 dropped in class last start, which generally is a much higher percentage play than are drops in class today.

In fact, the runner-up in this race (the 5 horse) also dropped last start and had very much going for him in terms of the TI factor -- just not in any of the jockey or trainer mods per se. But qualitatively speaking, he had a great array of workout angles, his rider excelled in sprint races compared to his numbers in routes, and the horse had very decent back class. Doubtlessly the trainer was counting on that back class for the horse to get to winner's circle, but unfortunately those class numbers were dated and his recent pace numbers in various pace mods were sorely deficient. A horse like this is precisely why we don't like to go too far back for any of our numbers. An obvously well-meant horse like this represents a great example of a trainer misjudging his horse's current ability.

And I don't know if you're familiar with any of Ed Bain's works or theories on trainers or not, but this trainer excelled by 6 percentage points over his generic rating in a Bain category, which in this trainer's case was "1st off clm".

I am very familiar.

There was only 1 "4+30" angle in the race (#7) and that is insignificant.

Again, this is another very interesting difference in our philosophies. While we have a great deal of respect for Bain's categories, we don't subscribe to his approach for how to use his numbers. We roll our own, i.e. make our own ratings. And, of course, we don't go as far back as you do. Therefore, in the case of the 8 and 7, in a module that is dedicated to Bain categories, the former also ranked on top in that particular module, as well, by a very large margin.

In the graphic below, we focus on factors that have a pseudo-win rating of 25% or higher.

The #7 screamed "Bet me as a false favorite" with so many positives. We've found that the best way to use this is to take the normalized win% x number of factors to produce a "Best Trainer" score. It is labeled as "FX%" in this screenshot.

What we've found is horses with FX% that are inordinately high (over 10%) are trainers that look so good that they will be extremely overbet. They will be huge long-term losers.

BTW, that is how we use Ed Bain's 4+30

https://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/package/PublicImages/PA/DMR05-2019-08-18-Rtg25.jpg

As hard as this may be to believe, I use price as a selection factor only as a last resort because price, strictly speaking, is not a handicapping factor, per se. Price is a race investment factor. When I can, I try to separate the wheat from the chaff using factors that actually influence the outcomes of races. For example, the 5 would have been an easy toss out for me just based on poor pace numbers, etc.

Here's how the trainers shaped up in one of our key trainer mods, which is sorted by the sum of three rankings of different trainer ratings:

[thaskalos]

Wouldn't it be a lot more fun to handicap a race yet to be run?

[Dave Schwartz]

As they say in car commercials, "mileage may vary." When the rest of 8's attributes and ratings are considered, he was really the logical play just based on pure handicapping factors. For example, the 8 dropped in class last start, which generally is a much higher percentage play than are drops in class today.

I was in agreement... The I feel #7 was the BETTER HORSE, but #8 was the BETTER PLAY. In fact, #7 was PLAY AGAINST.

I NEVER look at individual angles. Everything must be looked at from the 5,000-foot level.

My belief is that it must boil down to A NUMBER.

That's why I like your Trainer Intent number. "CONTROL" is my equivalent to that.

We have these general categories of trainer stats.
** Control
Things the trainer controls such as class, surface and distance changes; days off, work patterns, etc.
** Characteristics
Things such as age and/or sex, race type (i.e. clm, mdn, graded, etc.), Morning Line range or rank, etc.
** Performance
Things like rank for speed in the last race, avg of last 2, best ever, earnings per start, etc.

Of these, the most powerful is, of course "Performance," because very few people have the ability to track that.

[ReplayRandall]

Wouldn't it be a lot more fun to handicap a race yet to be run?
Never going to happen....What did you expect?...Fun?...:pound::pound:

[thaskalos]

Never going to happen....What did you expect?...Fun?...:pound::pound:

Maybe I should have said, "...a lot more INSTRUCTIVE". I mean...how meaningful is it to say and prove that one of yesterday's horses was a "standout", or a "play against"...at odds of 7-2? But when you do this with one of TOMORROW'S horses...now you are saying something. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

I was in agreement... The I feel #7 was the BETTER HORSE, but #8 was the BETTER PLAY. In fact, #7 was PLAY AGAINST.

Yeah, but I was saying that the 8's trainer was positioned better than the 7's under today's race conditons. This made the 8's TI factor, quantitatively speaking, stronger than 7s. And the 8's TI factor was also stronger qualitatively because he was dropped last start which is a higher perentage play than horses dropping today.

I NEVER look at individual angles. Everything must be looked at from the 5,000-foot level.

My belief is that it must boil down to A NUMBER.

Now...there's a real, bona fide difference in phliosophies :D Your approach seems to say that the game is all science, whereas my philosophy says that the game is art and science-- and in some cases, more art than science. I do assess each angle in the overall context of other angles the horse might possess. Many individual angles are stronger when found in conjunction with others. Or a recent performance angle is often strengthened with there is improvement in the speed rating or an early pace rating, etc. A great example of this was with that 5 horse I talked about earlier, who had several racing angles in his chart that said he was definitely well meant, even though he lacked the pace numbers to get the job done. The fact that he placed affirmed the presence of the several TI-related angles he had.

That's why I like your Trainer Intent number. "CONTROL" is my equivalent to that.

We have these general categories of trainer stats.
** Control
Things the trainer controls such as class, surface and distance changes; days off, work patterns, etc.
** Characteristics
Things such as age and/or sex, race type (i.e. clm, mdn, graded, etc.), Morning Line range or rank, etc.
** Performance
Things like rank for speed in the last race, avg of last 2, best ever, earnings per start, etc.

Of these, the most powerful is, of course "Performance," because very few people have the ability to track that.

I use numbers as guides. The one thing I don't do is split hairs with numbers. The game is complex and my only goal is to try to answer two questions for every race puzzle: Which horse is most likely to improve the most today off his current form cycle? And why has the trainer chosen to enter his horse under today's race conditions? These are the only two questions I seek answers for, and both questions fit together like hand-in- glove. Current Form and Trainer's Intentions are inexplicably connected. Two sides of the same coin, really... There's no better race investment than betting a sharp horse who is likely to improve further today, and the trainer knows it, and the PP data has the trainer numbers, jockey numbers and/or racing angles that also affirms the trainer is sending his horse out today to run a big race.

If by "Performance" you mean recent performances, I agree totally. By "tracking", I'm not sure what you mean unless you track a horse's form cycle the way Sheeters do and go back a gazillion races. :) This is something I don't do. In the vast majority of cases, I don't have to go beyond the third race back. But occasionally I go four back to assess current form cycles. What I have found with the general public, generally, is that they are weak in assessing current form, most especially as this pertains to workouts. The crowd doesn't know how to dig into the PP data, and get below the surface to connect important dots. But even so...I still have to wait patiently for the kinds of spots I like.

By the way, do you have your own forum?

[Speed Figure]

These are trainer stats! what's the trainers intentions?

[boxcar]

These are trainer stats! what's the trainers intentions?

Do you wager on horses when you think they are well placed? I do, too. I also wager on horses when their connections (specifically trainers and jockeys) are "well placed", i.e. in their comfort zone, in familiar charted waters, well within their element. Trainer and jockey stats can often tells us when these connections are in their element.

We humans are creatures of habit. Good thing trainers are human, too. :)

Here is another excellent example of how stats can reveal intentions, providing of course, we know how to interpret them.

Here is a screenshot of my my number 1 key trainer module, which again is sorted by rankings of multiple homegrown trainer ratings. The race is the 1st at WO0811-01, and we're going to be looking at the 3 horse.

We see that the 3 is the 3rd ranked horse in this mod. What would have jumped off the screen at me immediately about this trainer is that he sported huge +ROIs in all 6 pertinent categories to today's race conditions. And the 20/1 ML on his horse would have energized my dot-connecting, detective-sleuthing, deductive abilities. :)

Then I would have gone to the "big 3" generic trainer categories' mod to see what the trainer looked like in it.

In this mod, he ranked 2, as this mod is sorted by the sum of the categories' win percentages. But even more importantly, in the CUM (cumulative ROI), column, this guy sported a whopping +10.60

Then I would I would have migrated over to another trainer mod to see what the average win mutuels are for this clever trainer. (This is in the 3rd snapshot.) Large double digit odds in all the categories! This guy is a long shot specialist with a horse today whose ML is 20/1.

There's also more quantitative evidence in some of my jockey mods that this trainer meant business today. I would have known that the trainer voluntarily made a jock switch today to a rider who is appreciably more skillful in sprint races than he is in routes. And marginally more skillful in sprints than the previous rider.

So much for the quantitative evidence. But it gets even much stronger when we examine the qualitative data of racing angles. This horse's form on the surface looked pretty dismal. Yet, the form-related mods in the program would have told me that the horse improved in certain key areas and at minimum suggested that this filly should improve further today off her current form cycle. She improved 9 pts. in her LR speed rating and 11 pts. in her EP rating. Moreover, her 2nd workout back (2WOB) at 5f, which was at a relatively recent date was a good one, earning her the 3rd best recent workout rating at 5f+.

Finally, we have evidence that the trainer thinks his filly is ready to run a big race because he dropped her in class last start, in which she improved those two earlier mentioned ratings, and he's dropping her again today -- qualifying her on highest percentage price-class maneuver in the game -- the DD or Double Drop angle. And the icing on the cake was that the DD angle itself was enhanced (made even stronger) because her class level today was lower than it was in her 2RB and 3RB! And...she was in at the lowest class level today in her budding career. No question what was on this trainer's mind today.

And let's not forget, this is what this trainer does!!!. He has a knack at scoring when his horse is making its debut in a maiden claimer. AND he has a knack for scoring big when he makes his move from turf to AW! And he has a knack for scoring coming off a layoff.

Therefore, the horse appears to be well meant and well placed, and the trainer himself is certainly in his comfort zone. He, too, has situated himself nicely under today's race conditions!

Quantitative and Qualitative data complement each other very nicely. The one does not preclude the use of the other.

His little filly paid $31.30 romping home easily, and the connections laughed all the way to the bank.

For some reason, I'm not able to load the 3rd thumbnail.

[boxcar]

Here's the 3rd one.

[shoelessjoe]

Boxcar

Glad to see you posting.

[boxcar]

Boxcar

Glad to see you posting.

Thanks. Glad to be here and post when I can.

[boxcar]

Maybe I should have said, "...a lot more INSTRUCTIVE". I mean...how meaningful is it to say and prove that one of yesterday's horses was a "standout", or a "play against"...at odds of 7-2? But when you do this with one of TOMORROW'S horses...now you are saying something. :ThmbUp:

For you info I have it done just that with multiple "TOMORROW'S horses" in the relatively recent past on the Selections forum. Just do a search on threads started by yours truly. :coffee:

[Dave Schwartz]

If by "Performance" you mean recent performances, I agree totally.

No. Imagine you are using IV Tables from some key handicapping factors. Now imagine that I've built IV Tables for each factor but individualized for each trainer.

Imagine an IV Table for BRIS Prime Power for each trainer.



By the way, do you have your own forum?
No. Just Facebook groups.
Talking Handicapping With Dave Schwartz (https://www.facebook.com/groups/605708732808780/)

[boxcar]

If by "Performance" you mean recent performances, I agree totally.

No. Imagine you are using IV Tables from some key handicapping factors. Now imagine that I've built IV Tables for each factor but individualized for each trainer.

Imagine an IV Table for BRIS Prime Power for each trainer.



By the way, do you have your own forum?
No. Just Facebook groups.
Talking Handicapping With Dave Schwartz (https://www.facebook.com/groups/605708732808780/)

Dave, does your program generate an odds line?

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, does your program generate an odds line?

Of course.

Completely programmable by the user. (But nobody uses it. Pretty worthless these days.)

We also generate a projected odds for each horse. I doubt if any of our users still use the tote board for more than scratches and the occasional double check for strong horses going off at crazy-high odds.

[thaskalos]

For you info I have it done just that with multiple "TOMORROW'S horses" in the relatively recent past on the Selections forum. Just do a search on threads started by yours truly. :coffee:

I looked those threads up...but they weren't about what I was referring to. I wasn't talking about handing out a bunch of unexplained selections...I was talking about the sort of analysis that you were conducting in this thread...whereby you were building a case for or against particular horses in a race. The analysis of the race is the instructive aspect of the equation, IMO...not just the final selection that it leads to. You stated earlier in this thread that a certain :8: was a standout in a past race, and you proved your point with a wonderfully detailed analysis ...and I was wondering if it wouldn't be more meaningful if you made such a comment about a future race.

I'm not looking for an argument, Boxcar...and I must say that I enjoyed reading what you've written here. It's a breath of fresh air to see you "talking horses"...and I want to read even more of what you have to say. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Of course.

Completely programmable by the user. (But nobody uses it. Pretty worthless these days.)

We also generate a projected odds for each horse. I doubt if any of our users still use the tote board for more than scratches and the occasional double check for strong horses going off at crazy-high odds.

We don't use price lines or impact values. And we do rely on the collective opinion of the public to find our overlays. Call us old fashioned. :)

Talking about overlays, would the 8 horse in yesterday's 4th at DMR, have been on your program's radar, and if so how would it have rated the winner -- a 5 star must bet, a weak 1 star or something in between?

[Dave Schwartz]

We don't use price lines or impact values. And we do rely on the collective opinion of the public to find our overlays. Call us old fashioned. :)

Talking about overlays, would the 8 horse in yesterday's 4th at DMR, have been on your program's radar, and if so how would it have rated the winner -- a 5 star must bet, a weak 1 star or something in between?

No, it would not point to that horse. Pretty rare to have a $70 horse stand out like that.

What WAS obvious was that #6 was a clear cut play against horse. That turned the race into a "chaos" race for me. It would have been Win Bets only, spreading across the 1,3,4,5,7,8.

The play would have been a 57-unit bet - i.e. a highly playable race. (Below $40 is no play.) The return would have been 245 units.

The exotics were only playable from a single back-key on #6 (the play-against), for small money. A total of 12 units lost on that exacta.



My approach to handicapping & betting these days is probably close to the exact opposite of what 99% of people are doing.

Handiman adopted this approach a few weeks ago, as have many of our users. Of course, after they get it mastered, most everyone puts their own spin on it. We're all horse players, after all. LOL

It all starts with decisions about what to do with what we call, "The 1st Tier" according to our tote projections. (These would be low-odds horses.)

[Nitro]

Do you wager on horses when you think they are well placed? I do, too. I also wager on horses when their connections (specifically trainers and jockeys) are "well placed", i.e. in their comfort zone, in familiar charted waters, well within their element. Trainer and jockey stats can often tells us when these connections are in their element.

We humans are creatures of habit. Good thing trainers are human, too. :)


There very well might be some subjective arguments to determine the intentions of the connections based on a horse’s past performances and its current entry in a future race. The assumption of course is that the horse will actually be trying to win and is suitably physically fit to re-produce some of its better prior racing efforts.

Unfortunately, this sort of speculation does not always lead to finding a contender in a race. Yes, I would agree 100% that people in general are creatures of habit. When they find something that works well, especially if they’re rewarded as an end result, they tend to repeat those efforts.

That’s why I believe that the betting habits of those who are in control of these horses can objectively reveal their actual intentions. When they believe that their horse has the proper conditioning to enable them to potentially win a race, they very often will reveal their intentions through their betting habits.

Players have to stop kidding themselves into believing that the overall betting population consists only of those like themselves: Who more often than not have nothing more than some numerical PP data to rely on for determining their betting ventures.

[boxcar]

No, it would not point to that horse. Pretty rare to have a $70 horse stand out like that.

What WAS obvious was that #6 was a clear cut play against horse. That turned the race into a "chaos" race for me. It would have been Win Bets only, spreading across the 1,3,4,5,7,8.

The play would have been a 57-unit bet - i.e. a highly playable race. (Below $40 is no play.) The return would have been 245 units.

The exotics were only playable from a single back-key on #6 (the play-against), for small money. A total of 12 units lost on that exacta.



My approach to handicapping & betting these days is probably close to the exact opposite of what 99% of people are doing.

Handiman adopted this approach a few weeks ago, as have many of our users. Of course, after they get it mastered, most everyone puts their own spin on it. We're all horse players, after all. LOL

It all starts with decisions about what to do with what we call, "The 1st Tier" according to our tote projections. (These would be low-odds horses.)

HUH!? Don't you guys ever select one horse to win!? I guess BC and I are really OLD school! :lol::lol:

While I didn't play this race, I think I would have rated the 8 at least a four-star horse. He didn't possess great pace numbers (forgivable for a lightly raced horses like this) but his current form was quite good off the great array of workout angles he had (5 of them), as well as very solid workout speed ratings, being in the top tier of 6 of our 7 ratings. The TI factor was quite strong just off this horse's workouts.

And we can know the horse was coming to hand by the way he ran his second race back. The trainer probably thought that the horse needed an easy tightener after that good effort, so that's why the horse ran as he did in his last outing.

Also, with respect to this horse's form, there was one very important consideration. The form cycle mode this horse was in (a classical in-and-outer in terms of speed ratings), suggested that if he runs true to that pattern today, he should improve further today. And of course, he did just that.

The TI factor was also strengthened by the choice of jockeys today since the jock's numbers for routes were appreciably better than for sprints. And then finally, the trainer dropped the horse in class last start, which is very often a price-enhancing class maneuver and is also a high percentage play.

And the horse wasn't totally deficient in the pace department either, as he ranked 4 in an important composite rating of ours, as well as 4 in our consensus rating, and ranked 2 in another composite pace rating.

And there was one other very interesting little "factoid" about this pony that my partner pointed out to me this morning: This horse was bought at auction for 200K, which was the second highest auction price behind the 1 horse, who interestingly took the place slot well behind the 8. So...someone thought highly of this winner in the recent past.

Anyhow...there's lots of ways to skin a cat. I'm sure glad that while we share a lot in philosophy, we still differ enough to not encroach too often on each others betting pools turf. :)

[boxcar]

There very well might be some subjective arguments to determine the intentions of the connections based on a horse’s past performances and its current entry in a future race. The assumption of course is that the horse will actually be trying to win and is suitably physically fit to re-produce some of its better prior racing efforts.

Unfortunately, this sort of speculation does not always lead to finding a contender in a race. Yes, I would agree 100% that people in general are creatures of habit. When they find something that works well, especially if they’re rewarded as an end result, they tend to repeat those efforts.

That’s why I believe that the betting habits of those who are in control of these horses can objectively reveal their actual intentions. When they believe that their horse has the proper conditioning to enable them to potentially win a race, they very often will reveal their intentions through their betting habits.

Players have to stop kidding themselves into believing that the overall betting population consists only of those like themselves: Who more often than not have nothing more than some numerical PP data to rely on for determining their betting ventures.

"Betting habits" -- that's quite subjective. How do you distinguish between inside/smart money from dumb money in betting pools? Also, you would to operate on assumption that every stable is a betting stable, which is very likely untrue. And even if that were true, you'd have to know how much the connections usually wager. This is not to say that I don't have any tote board angles, but the angles do not rely on determining betting habits.

And my goal is not to try to find a contender in every race -- an impossible task to begin with, as far as I'm concerned. I'm strictly a spot player who waits for a "sufficient number of stars to align themselves" with a horse or two in a race. When that happens and the price is right, I bet. As stated earlier, for me the finest wagers are on those horses who are sharp, likely to improve further today and whose trainers are sending them out to win if they can. Over the long term this is an unbeatable combination.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxcar
HUH!? Don't you guys ever select one horse to win!? I guess BC and I are really OLD school!

All we are interested in is winning.
Whatever that takes.

I best define the challenge of racing as, "Being able to make good EXPLOITATION decisions, and the INCREASE of dollars in my account is the way I keep SCORE.

Sure, sometimes there are singles, but most people would not be interested in a 4/5 horse that wins by 12 lengths, as it was supposed to. LOL

Even then, the question is, are such horses long-term profitable? Often they are not, but so close to break even

For us this is purely a value proposition.

We've got one player - a winning player, btw - who plays for fun. He's really only interested in big tickets because that's where the gratification is for him.

Ira's contributory research has fine-tuned many aspects of the "somewhat standard" approach we're using these days, specifically in the area of prices.

He's changed my approach to handicapping as well.

I'm a grinder. As I said above, it's all about winning for me and I don't care if it is on 3/5 horses or 18/1. I only care if the entire strategy is long-term profitable.

As Ira's handicapping coach, I am always mindful that whatever I design, it must include a component for the price horses. If it doesn't, the game will not be gratifying for him.

While he will still "handicap longshots to the top," many of his biggest hits are in chaos races. Those are races where we believe that the handicapping won't matter, so we swing for the fence with lots of horses.

[Nitro]

"Betting habits" -- that's quite subjective. How do you distinguish between inside/smart money from dumb money in betting pools? Also, you would to operate on assumption that every stable is a betting stable, which is very likely untrue. And even if that were true, you'd have to know how much the connections usually wager. This is not to say that I don't have any tote board angles, but the angles do not rely on determining betting habits.

And my goal is not to try to find a contender in every race -- an impossible task to begin with, as far as I'm concerned. I'm strictly a spot player who waits for a "sufficient number of stars to align themselves" with a horse or two in a race. When that happens and the price is right, I bet. As stated earlier, for me the finest wagers are on those horses who are sharp, likely to improve further today and whose trainers are sending them out to win if they can. Over the long term this is an unbeatable combination.
Betting habits are really just the end result of attempts to make financial gains. It’s the actual betting in terms of the Where, When, and How Much is being wagered that becomes the objective revelation. If you consider that people making larger wagers take the game a bit more seriously and perhaps even value their venture a bit more than the average player. After all isn’t the ultimate goal to make money?

There’s no need to distinguish between any type of money because it becomes fairly obvious when diligently following the tote board activities through a sophisticated analysis of money movement which entries are getting the most positive action. That doesn’t necessarily translate to those with the lowest odds either. These are the entries which I consider “contenders”.

I certainly don’t look for a single horse to play because I’m not looking to pick Winners. I’m looking to make Winning plays.
Horses may appear to look sharp. However, assuming that they’ll be attempting to win is a purely subjective assessment when relying on just PP data, and I believe it becomes a purely objective assessment when relying on what people value most when playing this game.

Besides, the very nature of the game presents itself with many variables that can affect the even best intentioned animal and impact the final result.

[boxcar]

Betting habits are really just the end result of attempts to make financial gains. It’s the actual betting in terms of the Where, When, and How Much is being wagered that becomes the objective revelation. If you consider that people making larger wagers take the game a bit more seriously and perhaps even value their venture a bit more than the average player. After all isn’t the ultimate goal to make money?

There’s no need to distinguish between any type of money because it becomes fairly obvious when diligently following the tote board activities through a sophisticated analysis of money movement which entries are getting the most positive action. That doesn’t necessarily translate to those with the lowest odds either. These are the entries which I consider “contenders”.

I certainly don’t look for a single horse to play because I’m not looking to pick Winners. I’m looking to make Winning plays.
Horses may appear to look sharp. However, assuming that they’ll be attempting to win is a purely subjective assessment when relying on just PP data, and I believe it becomes a purely objective assessment when relying on what people value most when playing this game.

Besides, the very nature of the game presents itself with many variables that can affect the even best intentioned animal and impact the final result.

There's a few hard and fast and true and tried and tested principles (I like calling them this rather "rules) that are axiomatic in this game, as far as I'm concerned. One of these is to never accept anything at face value. So...just because a horse appears to be sharp, deeper investigation into the PP data could well reveal that he's not likely to improve that much today, if any. I'm looking for more than "sharp" horses. I look for horses that have good chart evidence that suggests they are very likely to demonstrate further improvement today off their current form cycle.

The second principle that is equally as important to me is that trainers have reasons for everything they do. Racing angles and even quantitative-based data can tell me not only what the trainer is doing but why since I make logical inferences from the evidence. In other words, I know how trainers play the game. I know most of the "tricks" they employ in running or working their horses into top condition.

Another principle that is extremely important is that smart trainers don't waste sharp horses who are likely to improve today.. In other words, they won''t squander away a nice pay day! And this brings me to the point of the false dichotomy of investing in race outcomes and selecting winners. I do not see these as mutually exclusive endeavors because I can restrict my investments to likely winners that the public is selling short in the wagering. (A great example of this was discussed earlier today with the 8 horse in the yesterday's 4th at DMR.) After all, isn't this what the essence of parimutuel wagering is all about for the serious player: Beating the public at its own game by consistently betting sharp, live horses?

Furthermore, limiting my wagers to likely winners being sent off at acceptably high prices also limits my action (which is fine with me) and also limits my risk exposure in a high risk game. I'm a strong believer in betting a little to make a lot. My reward must be commensurate with the risk.

Finally, what you said in your final paragraph applies with equal force to any selection methodology. Those "variables" are always operative. I thought Draft Pick in the Pacific at DMR stood a good shot at making it to the winner's circle, especially at his price. But he came up short and couldn't beat the 6 horse (whose name escapes me at the moment). But even so...I do well for myself in the long run waiting for those kinds of race situations -- even though I don't win 'em all, and never will. Neither will sharp, experienced tote board watchers either.

[Nitro]

"Betting habits" -- that's quite subjective. How do you distinguish between inside/smart money from dumb money in betting pools? Also, you would to operate on assumption that every stable is a betting stable, which is very likely untrue. And even if that were true, you'd have to know how much the connections usually wager. This is not to say that I don't have any tote board angles, but the angles do not rely on determining betting habits.

And my goal is not to try to find a contender in every race -- an impossible task to begin with, as far as I'm concerned.

Why I look for more than 1 contender!

Tote Analysis
for Del Mar Thurs 8/22 Race # 7 – 3-6 W/ 8-5-2 @ 3 mins to post
(Entries closest to PAR are of primary interest)

3min 7min 12min Ent #
456 468 437 1
122 211 218 2
163 187 210 3
226 221 204 4
228 211 243 5
133 200 219 6
203 154 139 7
161 172 146 8
00 00 00 9
00 00 00 10
173 203 207 PAR

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153220&page=195

Results:

Race # 7 = 3-5-6-2 – WIN – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

POS # Horse ……................………Win …....………Place …...………Show
1st: 3 Concise Advice ………………$9.40 ………….$5.00 …..……….$3.60
2nd: 5 Darling Demon ……....................……..$6.60 ……..……..$4.20
3rd: 6 .Radish ………............................................... ...……$3.60
4th: 2 Miss Indefatigable
5th: 7 Live It Well

• $2.00 QUINELLA ................3-5 ..............$22.80
• $2.00 EXACTA ...................3-5 .............$45.20
• $2.00 TRIFECTA ................3-5-6 ..........$194.80
• $2.00 SUPERFECTA ............3-5-6-2 .......$778.20
.

[boxcar]

Why I look for more than 1 contender!

Tote Analysis
for Del Mar Thurs 8/22 Race # 7 – 3-6 W/ 8-5-2 @ 3 mins to post
(Entries closest to PAR are of primary interest)

3min 7min 12min Ent #
456 468 437 1
122 211 218 2
163 187 210 3
226 221 204 4
228 211 243 5
133 200 219 6
203 154 139 7
161 172 146 8
00 00 00 9
00 00 00 10
173 203 207 PAR

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153220&page=195

Results:

Race # 7 = 3-5-6-2 – WIN – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

POS # Horse ……................………Win …....………Place …...………Show
1st: 3 Concise Advice ………………$9.40 ………….$5.00 …..……….$3.60
2nd: 5 Darling Demon ……....................……..$6.60 ……..……..$4.20
3rd: 6 .Radish ………............................................... ...……$3.60
4th: 2 Miss Indefatigable
5th: 7 Live It Well

• $2.00 QUINELLA ................3-5 ..............$22.80
• $2.00 EXACTA ...................3-5 .............$45.20
• $2.00 TRIFECTA ................3-5-6 ..........$194.80
• $2.00 SUPERFECTA ............3-5-6-2 .......$778.20
.


I agree in principle that if you can "follow the money", you should be able to do well. But I'm a conservative bettor. I don't like making multiple bets if I don't have to.

There was a race yesterday at SAR, that if I had played, I'm pretty sure I would have bet both horses to win and boxed them both in the Xacta. The issue was really close between the two, and they were both sent off at big enough odds to warrant two win bets, so that no matter who won I would have made a decent profit. I'm alluding to the 1 and 4 horses in the 8th. These two finished noses apart, literally.

I will bet Xactas in race situations when I think two horses are so evenly matched that I can't comfortably separate the two.

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

[Dave Schwartz]

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

Personally, I am not a fan either.

However, I respect anyone who has the diligence to create and fine tune a tool to turn it into "factors."

My current software has around 4,000 factors for every horse. Most are worthless, some have value, and a few are gold when looked at from the right POV.

When you consider the entire Wisdom of the Crowd theory, why would it not have potential merit?

The fact that it isn't "our cup of tea," doesn't mean it can't/doesn't work. Same with physicality and probably a couple of other approaches I've seen people succeed with over the years.

Of course, the real point is, THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH.

[Nitro]

I agree in principle that if you can "follow the money", you should be able to do well. But I'm a conservative bettor. I don't like making multiple bets if I don't have to.

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.

There in lies the difference between those who rely on simply the PP data and those (the connections) who not only have that information, but also have the current information about their own horse’s actual condition. More often than not this information does not just lead to subjective opinions.

Sure, they might be overestimating their chances of winning the race, but at least if the betting is right its almost a guarantee that they’ll be trying. That’s what I mean when I describe a potential "contender". I find that this single factor alone can very often out-weigh all other factors combined.

I believe that many players think in terms of ALL races being like a Stakes race where the majority of the entries will of course be attempting to win. Unfortunately, these type of races make up only a small percentage of the races run. A horse may be entered in a typical race for any number of reasons and will not necessarily make an attempt to win.

[boxcar]

There in lies the difference between those who rely on simply the PP data and those (the connections) who not only have that information, but also have the current information about their own horse’s actual condition. More often than not this information does not just lead to subjective opinions.

Sure, they might be overestimating their chances of winning the race, but at least if the betting is right its almost a guarantee that they’ll be trying. That’s what I mean when I describe a potential "contender". I find that this single factor alone can very often out-weigh all other factors combined.

I believe that many players think in terms of ALL races being like a Stakes race where the majority of the entries will of course be attempting to win. Unfortunately, these type of races make up only a small percentage of the races run. A horse may be entered in a typical race for any number of reasons and will not necessarily make an attempt to win.

PP Data is like a big diamond. The reason I've done so well over the years is that I look at that data from different perspectives -- as being multi-faceted. This is why all our major handicapping factors are measured with multiple ratings. Between these ratings and all the qualitative-based data we use in conjunction, we can often make reasonable, logical inferences to tell us who the likely live horses are and who is likely to improve significantly today off its current form cycle.

Now, whether you consider the data or not to be purely subjective or objective, that's a matter for debate. For example, if a horse finished 3rd in in its last race, is that finish subjective or objective in terms of whether or not he finished in the money? Or if a horse in his last outing improved his EP rating by 10 points, is that improvement subjective or objective? Granted, depending on the numbers being used, one may have the horse improving 2 pts., someone else 5 pts. and someone else again at 12 pts. But you see, this is precisely why we employ multiple ratings. In essence, all our major handicapping factors subject to a consensus.

Moreover, we have ratings wherein one of the top 3 rated horses consistently will win about 70% of the time. The top four at 80%+ of the time, etc. Not too shabby for homegrown, "subjective" ratings.

But I do agree with you about how very many, if not most people, approach the game. I think very many believe all the entrants are going to do their level best to win. I certainly do not believe that way and never have, which is why I think the TI factor is the literally the Achilles heel of the public. This is why I consider this factor to be virtually on par with Current Form. In fact, with the latest changes we've made within the last year or so to the program, I personally begin my handicapping with this factor and work my way to Pace factor which is where I've always begun for decades! I start with quantitative-based mods -- trainers, jocks and workouts, then work my way through the qualitative data searching for TI and Form evidence-- then finally to the pace mods. As stated previously, in my book there is no better investment opportunity than to wager on horses who are likely to improve today and are being sent out to run a big race. I truly covet those twin inducements.

[Nitro]

I agree in principle that if you can "follow the money", you should be able to do well. But I'm a conservative bettor. I don't like making multiple bets if I don't have to.

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of charting betting patterns is that sometimes connections get too high on their own stock and overestimate their chances. This is why I prefer doing the handicpping analysis on each contender instead of following someone else's opinions.
We certainly play this game differently, but I also like idea of turning a toothpick bet (even with multiple selections) into log return (If and Only If the Value is there)!

The contenders are those entries with values closest to PAR.
Tote Analysis - Del Mar Fri 8/23
Race # 5 – 5-9 W/ 7-8-1 @ 3 mins to post
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153220&page=199

3min 7min 12min Ent#
256 228 168 1
342 343 268 2
351 419 429 3
388 379 359 4
110 100 74 5
404 432 328 6
220 223 167 7
252 248 234 8
209 195 175 9
242 246 185 PAR

Results:

Race # 5 = 8-9-7-5 – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

• POS # Horse Win Place Show
• 1st: 8 Nothing But Heat $10.00 $5.60 $4.00
• 2nd: 9 Y Not Sizzle $5.40 $3.40
• 3rd: 7 Our Romance $10.20
• 4th: 5 Too Hot For Curlin
•
• • $2.00 QUINELLA 8-9 $20.20
• • $2.00 EXACTA 8-9 $39.80
• • $2.00 TRIFECTA 8-9-7 $394.80
• • $2.00 SUPERFECTA 8-9-7-5 $1,341.60

[boxcar]

We certainly play this game differently, but I also like idea of turning a toothpick bet (even with multiple selections) into log return (If and Only If the Value is there)!

The contenders are those entries with values closest to PAR.
Tote Analysis - Del Mar Fri 8/23
Race # 5 – 5-9 W/ 7-8-1 @ 3 mins to post
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153220&page=199

3min 7min 12min Ent#
256 228 168 1
342 343 268 2
351 419 429 3
388 379 359 4
110 100 74 5
404 432 328 6
220 223 167 7
252 248 234 8
209 195 175 9
242 246 185 PAR

Results:

Race # 5 = 8-9-7-5 – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

• POS # Horse Win Place Show
• 1st: 8 Nothing But Heat $10.00 $5.60 $4.00
• 2nd: 9 Y Not Sizzle $5.40 $3.40
• 3rd: 7 Our Romance $10.20
• 4th: 5 Too Hot For Curlin
•
• • $2.00 QUINELLA 8-9 $20.20
• • $2.00 EXACTA 8-9 $39.80
• • $2.00 TRIFECTA 8-9-7 $394.80
• • $2.00 SUPERFECTA 8-9-7-5 $1,341.60





LOL! Yeah, we do play this game differently. And it's obvious that there are way to arrive at Rome by more than one road. :). The winner you cite above would have been an incredibly good overlay play on the basis of several of her ratings in my number one, uno, go-to Everything Module. Do you like bagels? I do. I love 'em. And my favorite is the Everything Bagel...for real. Well, this particular module is bursting at the seams with very important data. I can look at this one module and usually size up the preliminary contenders in the race and one of those contenders will cross the finish line first. What would have made this winner such a standout in this mod is that she ranked 1 in all the most important ratings.

The PV and CR headers are background highlighted because the mod is sorted by the sum of these two ratings. There simply was no room to insert a third column to display it, so it's hidden in the background. Here's the rundown on the important columnsL

ELP = the sum of the sum of the EP and LP rankings. She ranked 1.

CS = consensus score, 50% of which is weighted with various pace ratings. The other 50% with class, consistency and trainer ratings. She ranked 1.

The PV = the late Ray Taulbot's Angles Percentage Values, which consists of various performance and class-related attributes. She ranked 1 here,too.

The CR = pace + speed rating composite rating that is distance and surface-sensitive. She ranked 1 here, too.

The CP = a complex rating. :D It consists of the Sum of EP and LP ratings viewed 3 ways: best, current and median. Ranked 1.

The TR = Bob Pandolfo's Diamond Pace Rating taken from his Diamond Formula Racing System and is his proprietary rating which we have imported into our program . Ranked 1 here, too.

Finally, the SR = Sum of Rankings which consists of the CP, TR and 2 other ratings not shown in this module. Since her sum was the smallest, she ranked 1 here too.

To see a horse like this in this particular mod is rare, and when I do the horse is almost always sent off as the prohibitive favorite. Such a horse for me would be a DBA -- Don't Bet Against. LOL! If I had been playing yesterday, I would have gotten down on this little filly in a heart beat with no second thoughts. As you can see, the 5 was an outright false favorite when compared to the horses ranked above her.

As far TI-related stuff, the trainer had a Bain category and he was the minimum 3 pts. better than his generic rating (16% v. 13%).

Also, there was excellent synergy between between today's jock and the trainer -- as a team the jock had a 25% hit rate with a + 0.32 ROI compared to a modest 7% generic/overall rating.

The horse's current form cycle was excellent, as she has improved her SR in her last three outings, and she certainly was not overtaxed in her last race, as she lost ground steadily from the 2C to the FL. It was reasonable and logical to project further improvement today off this well rested filly.

[Speed Figure]

I can post this horse on top too! not very hard to do. A 7/2 ML that went off at the same price that the SVP recommended. It's a pretty easy winner to have.

[boxcar]

I can post this horse on top too! not very hard to do. A 7/2 ML that went off at the same price that the SVP recommended. It's a pretty easy winner to have.

It's really cool when once in a while, the racing gods offer us a no-brainer. :D

And when the no-brainer is going off at very nice odds, that's icing+ on the cake. :coffee:

[boxcar]

Personally, I am not a fan either.

However, I respect anyone who has the diligence to create and fine tune a tool to turn it into "factors."

As I said earlier, what is parimutuel wagering if not a money game? If someone can follow the money successfully, more power to him or her. However, when I "follow the money", which I can do with two very good but relatively infrequent occurring tote board angles, I want to know that the money I'm following is very likely the real deal, i.e. looked at from the right POV[/U].[/b]

I have found over the years that in this game More is actually Less. I try to stick with the handful of core, fundamental factors and master those. And even with that, I often have my job cut out for me.

When you consider the entire [I]Wisdom of the Crowd theory, why would it not have potential merit?.

The collective wisdom of the crowd is pretty impressive, but of course the great paradox to this game is that the crowd is still wrong more often than it is right. All a serious player has to do to beat this game is find a factor or an angle that is ignored or at at least undervalued or misunderstood by the crowd and exploit that weakness.

The fact that it isn't "our cup of tea," doesn't mean it can't/doesn't work. Same with physicality and probably a couple of other approaches I've seen people succeed with over the years.

No, it doesn't but it does mean that I must be psychologically comfortable with an approach before I adopt it for my own.

Of course, the real point is, THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH.

Got that right! Gotta pay your dues in this game!

[thaskalos]

No, it doesn't but it does mean that I must be psychologically comfortable with an approach before I adopt it for my own.


This is exactly right...IMO. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

We sometimes say that "this game is all about winning"...but this isn't true, from a horseplayer perspective. Along with "winning"...the horseplayer must also satisfy his own psychological and temperamental makeup. If our handicapping and betting style does not correspond with our particular psychological and temperamental idiosyncrasies...then an internal struggle is created within us, which makes long-term "winning" virtually impossible.

[incoming]

This is exactly right...IMO. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

We sometimes say that "this game is all about winning"...but this isn't true, from a horseplayer perspective. Along with "winning"...the horseplayer must also satisfy his own psychological and temperamental makeup. If our handicapping and betting style does not correspond with our particular psychological and temperamental idiosyncrasies...then an internal struggle is created within us, which makes long-term "winning" virtually impossible.

I think you and boxcar have nailed it......for myself, it was living well within my tolerance for RISK. When I step over the boundaries things start to get fuzzy and bad decisions are made. Daily records are a must for me and made the boundaries very easy to spot. I'm a risk addict.....I was lucky and discovered it very early in life.

[thaskalos]

I don't understand the poll in this thread. The poll question is Which Software do you use? I totaled up the replies and it comes out to 1,038 votes posted by 341 voters. That's over 3 votes per voter. Can that be true? The average computer handicapper is using at least 3 separate sets of handicapping software?

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand the poll in this thread. The poll question is Which Software do you use? I totaled up the replies and it comes out to 1,038 votes posted by 341 voters. That's over 3 votes per voter. Can that be true? The average computer handicapper is using at least 3 separate sets of handicapping software?The Voter count is only counting registered users. Guests (non-registered users) can also vote in the poll.

That's why you see a discrepancy in the numbers.

Interesting how all the "named" software almost all has the same number of votes.

[thaskalos]

The Voter count is only counting registered users. Guests (non-registered users) can also vote in the poll.

That's why you see a discrepancy in the numbers.

Interesting how all the "named" software almost all has the same number of votes.

Oh...okay. I knew that non-members could vote in these polls...but I didn't know that only the registered members were counted.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh...okay. I knew that non-members could vote in these polls...but I didn't know that only the registered members were counted.Not correct. All votes are counted, whether registered or not.

[thaskalos]

Not correct. All votes are counted, whether registered or not.

The VOTES are all counted...but not the VOTERS. That's why there are 1272 listed votes in the above poll...but only 383 listed VOTERS.

[MONEY]

The VOTES are all counted...but not the VOTERS. That's why there are 1272 listed votes in the above poll...but only 383 listed VOTERS.
I never voted in this poll, but I just checked without voting.
If I want to, I can check every box and then vote.
If I did the above, the poll would get 1 more voter and 13 votes.

[thaskalos]

I don't understand the poll in this thread. The poll question is Which Software do you use? I totaled up the replies and it comes out to 1,038 votes posted by 341 voters. That's over 3 votes per voter. Can that be true? The average computer handicapper is using at least 3 separate sets of handicapping software?

I wondered about this myself, earlier.

[PaceAdvantage]

The VOTES are all counted...but not the VOTERS. That's why there are 1272 listed votes in the above poll...but only 383 listed VOTERS.That's because, as Money pointed out, it was set up as a MULTIPLE CHOICE poll...so 383 voters made on average about 3 choices each...

[lefty359]

I for one, do at times, use more han one piece of software.

[46zilzal]

This is an unsolicited recommendation.

I have been using HSH since 2013 and overall had been using one of the advanced Sartin products (one in which I had a role as tester of the various beta versions) for years.

After being frustrated at my results, AND the dissatisfaction with many aspects of Sartin (don't get me wrong as it was a great point of genesis for computer aided handicapping) I sought an alternative.

I reviewed many software packages available, heard good things about two of them HSH and HTR (one of the executives at Woodbine uses this latter as does the public handicapper at Hastings Park in Vancouver).

HSH won the day and I am still amazed at how it can predict NOT only the contenders but often the top 4...My wagering changed dramatically with this last discovery and anyone who would have told me 5 years ago that I would be looking for supers each race, I would have laughed out loud. But there it is.

I haven't even scratched the surface of this multi-phasing program package either...I make new discoveries with it all the time and the software support is unparalleled.

[Speed Figure]

I haven't had a chance to try HSH as the software does not come with one old past performance. Not even one from 10 years ago.

[TonyK@HSH]

I haven't had a chance to try HSH as the software does not come with one old past performance. Not even one from 10 years ago.

Hey Speed Figure-

Not sure what you are asking for there. Are you looking for a past performance from HSH similar to BRIS or DRF? I just want to be sure I am understanding your question.

TonyK

[Speed Figure]

I'm saying that the software doesn't come with any old past performances. In order to use HSH a user has to pay for a month of downloads even though it's a program you'll never used before. There's no old past performances in there to help get you up to speed with what's going on.

[TonyK@HSH]

I'm saying that the software doesn't come with any old past performances. In order to use HSH a user has to pay for a month of downloads even though it's a program you'll never used before. There's no old past performances in there to help get you up to speed with what's going on.

I believe that is true. When you purchase the month of downloads I think includes the most recent 45 past days as well. Dave please correct me if I misspoke here. That extra 45 days does give you a starting point.

Good luck

[mikesal57]

I'm saying that the software doesn't come with any old past performances. In order to use HSH a user has to pay for a month of downloads even though it's a program you'll never used before. There's no old past performances in there to help get you up to speed with what's going on.

if you are a "current" HDW DATA customer , something can be worked out...

[Speed Figure]

If I were a current HDW customer I wouldn’t be talking about old pp's not coming with the software. if you are a "current" HDW DATA customer , something can be worked out...

[mikesal57]

If I were a current HDW customer I wouldn’t be talking about old pp's not coming with the software.

What software do you know of that comes with back data?

[Speed Figure]

What software do you know of that comes with back data?
Black Magic, Value Capper, HTR to name a few. I'm only talking about a few old pp's. Having a couple of race cards that are 5 or 10 years old wouldn't hurt anything. This is why a lot of software users like programs that use bris files because they can load old files and get up to speed with the software before going all in.

[mikesal57]

Black Magic, Value Capper, HTR to name a few. I'm only talking about a few old pp's. Having a couple of race cards that are 5 or 10 years old wouldn't hurt anything. This is why a lot of software users like programs that use bris files because they can load old files and get up to speed with the software before going all in.

I see...

I have HSH and had JCapper and both programs need a decent database to produce acceptable plays....

[Dave Schwartz]

Black Magic, Value Capper, HTR to name a few. I'm only talking about a few old pp's. Having a couple of race cards that are 5 or 10 years old wouldn't hurt anything. This is why a lot of software users like programs that use bris files because they can load old files and get up to speed with the software before going all in.

How about this... You purchase the product and I will pay your first month of data.

[Speed Figure]

How about this... You purchase the product and I will pay your first month of data.I've already had the software for awhile now.

[Dave Schwartz]

I've already had the software for awhile now.

And you have never downloaded?

[Speed Figure]

And you have never downloaded? I've had it since April 2018. My plan was to get a feel using old data trying to learn the basic things it does. That never happened so it's unusable.

[mikesal57]

I've had it since April 2018. My plan was to get a feel using old data trying to learn the basic things it does. That never happened so it's unusable.

So , you gave up after 6 months?

I know commercial software , like this , is difficult at first...
But watching many of his videos , I was able to piece things together
and it started to click...granted it took 3-6 months ....but Dave is very
determined to have all his people win and he gives his time and answer
emails whenever asked.

[Dave Schwartz]

I've had it since April 2018. My plan was to get a feel using old data trying to learn the basic things it does. That never happened so it's unusable.


HSH is, by far, the most powerful product available to a handicapper without building his own stuff.

That's because it is extremely flexible.

With flexibility, comes complexity.

With complexity, comes a bit of a learning curve.

You got HSH in April 2018 on an almost-free deal and you are complaining that we didn't throw in a bunch of free data as well.

Several times we have offered HSH at very low prices as a test to see what would happen if we almost gave the product away. The test showed us that dropping the price drastically gets us customers who are simply not willing to invest time or money in learning the product.

That is just not a business model that works for us.

I'm sorry, but our business model and your needs are simply not a good fit.

[JimG]

Dave,


I know you had the old horse street forum where users conversed about the software back in the "good ole days". Do you have a forum that fits that purpose now?


Jim

[46zilzal]

So , you gave up after 6 months?

I know commercial software , like this , is difficult at first...
But watching many of his videos , I was able to piece things together
and it started to click...granted it took 3-6 months ....but Dave is very
determined to have all his people win and he gives his time and answer
emails whenever asked.

I takes MUCH longer than that (if you are a self taught computer used like yours truly) to get in the groove of making it work HOW YOU DISCOVER it..

I found at several tracks it worked VERY well, at others marginally, and at some not at all (possibly because I had not worked hard enough to find the correlates to that course...THAT is what the pickmaster is supposed to do and it does that WELL from all the feedback I get from other users).

I JUST have not been able to get that aspect of the software to work (pickmaster) for me yet, but other aspects are killing certain tracks

[Speed Figure]

HSH is, by far, the most powerful product available to a handicapper without building his own stuff.

That's because it is extremely flexible.

With flexibility, comes complexity.

With complexity, comes a bit of a learning curve.

You got HSH in April 2018 on an almost-free deal and you are complaining that we didn't throw in a bunch of free data as well.

Several times we have offered HSH at very low prices as a test to see what would happen if we almost gave the product away. The test showed us that dropping the price drastically gets us customers who are simply not willing to invest time or money in learning the product.

That is just not a business model that works for us.

I'm sorry, but our business model and your needs are simply not a good fit.I'm not complaining! I simply said I thought it would have came with one or a few old races! I'm a software developer myself so I really have no need for it anyway.

[mikesal57]

Dave,


I know you had the old horse street forum where users conversed about the software back in the "good ole days". Do you have a forum that fits that purpose now?


Jim

Jim....

Dave tried a new forum but it fizzled out.....

The thing is , when something is new and everyone is in on the ground level
people collaborate better with each other...no one has something over the next guy...till a break thru is made.....then the silence comes
I've seen it at the JCapper forum and with the HSH group....

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave,
I know you had the old horse street forum where users conversed about the software back in the "good ole days". Do you have a forum that fits that purpose now?
Jim

We have a private Facebook group.

It blows hot and cold.

My experience is that horseplayers rarely want to collaborate, despite the fact that I've offered many incentives over the years.

More and more I see that when players cross over to winning, their conversation almost completely stops. The only time they post is when they've got a specific question that they need answered.

[traveler]

HSH is, by far, the most powerful product available to a handicapper without building his own stuff.


Tough to prove or disprove.

[headhawg]

Tough to prove or disprove.Tough to understand why you bothered to post that comment.

[traveler]

Tough to understand why you bothered to post that comment.

To wake up crusty old guys like you :)

[mikesal57]

To wake up crusty old guys like you :)

HH...If I were you , I'd shit all over and mess this guys lawn up...OINK OINK

[traveler]

HH...If I were you , I'd shit all over and mess this guys lawn up...OINK OINK

Just a fair response to unsubstantiated claims that no other major vendor makes.

Same old hokem, "We pick the best contenders". We being I as there is no we.

[Speed Figure]

Just a fair response to unsubstantiated claims that no other major vendor makes.

Same old hokem, "We pick the best contenders". We being I as there is no we.I often wondered who was "WE"! so we is he and he is we... got it!

[headhawg]

Just a fair response to unsubstantiated claims that no other major vendor makes.

Same old hokem, "We pick the best contenders". We being I as there is no we.So, you've tried all the software from major vendors, diligently used the programs for at least six months, and have fairly and objectively evaluated them, yes? NO????? Well, what makes you qualified to make your comments then? You have some agenda concerning Dave/HSH and his alleged "hokem"?

You're right. You woke me up. You probably should have let me continue with my naps. I get crankier and crustier without them.

[Tom]

To wake up crusty old guys like you :)

Maybe you should know something about a person before you try to question their credibility.

Fist off, have you ever USED the program?
If not, I suggest your opinion is of NO value here.

[lefty359]

I hate it when people denigrate people like Dave. Not many good guys left in this game, so don't denigrate one of the good ones when you don't know what you're talking about!

[traveler]

So, you've tried all the software from major vendors, diligently used the programs for at least six months, and have fairly and objectively evaluated them, yes? NO????? Well, what makes you qualified to make your comments then? You have some agenda concerning Dave/HSH and his alleged "hokem"?

You're right. You woke me up. You probably should have let me continue with my naps. I get crankier and crustier without them.
Mission accomplished.
Agenda - no- just pointed out his claim of most powerful software is just that, a claim.

[traveler]

Maybe you should know something about a person before you try to question their credibility.

Fist off, have you ever USED the program?
If not, I suggest your opinion is of NO value here.

Yep, used it extensively. Powerful program - yep, lots of features - yep, most powerful - who knows.

[traveler]

I hate it when people denigrate people like Dave. Not many good guys left in this game, so don't denigrate one of the good ones when you don't know what you're talking about!
Agree, not good to attack when uninformed.

[headhawg]

Mission accomplished.
Agenda - no- just pointed out his claim of most powerful software is just that, a claim.Do you actually use software or is it just a claim? Do you travel a lot or is it just a claim? Do you contribute anything of use here or is it just a claim? I'm done with you. Troll away...

[46zilzal]

I hate it when people denigrate people like Dave. Not many good guys left in this game, so don't denigrate one of the good ones when you don't know what you're talking about!


Jealousy comes in many flavors doesn't it?

[traveler]

Do you actually use software or is it just a claim? Do you travel a lot or is it just a claim? Do you contribute anything of use here or is it just a claim? I'm done with you. Troll away...

There you go, anybody can claim anything. You finally hit it but don't see it - grab the digitalis, you'll be ok.

[Speed Figure]

There you go, anybody can claim anything. You finally hit it but don't see it - grab the digitalis, you'll be ok.
Have you ever used the software?

[traveler]

Have you ever used the software?

Post #122

[FastCharlie]

Have been using Bill Whites info for about 4 months.....excellent

[PaceAdvantage]

Tough to prove or disprove.I've proven it multiple times over the past couple of years.

PS. Including today...where I did a public run of Dave's latest way to handicap with HSH...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155078

My posted wagers made just about $400 in profit. ROI was somewhere between 30-40%

[mikesal57]

In the year I had HSH , I can finally say that I got my play down to where I want it.....It took many hours of testing and bombarding Dave with questions.

The proof came today Breeders Cup Day Nov 2.....

Of the 12 race card , I played 11 .....( I didn't play the 4 horse field)

Of the 11 , I hit 8 winning bets ( 2 races I came in 2nd )

HSH :headbanger:

Mike

P.S.- All the races were posted on Daves FaceBook page

[hracingplyr]

Job mike. May have to investigate HSH

[mikesal57]

Job mike. May have to investigate HSH

Thxs Bob


To further this....things climbed to a higher level when I found that HSH was capable to produce Excel Reports ...that is where I got to tweak things.
The program is 20 years old, there are so many facets to it...even Dave forgot.
I worked on stuff that was forgotten and got it to work from all my testing.
Recently , before my daily play like from BC, I developed what I call is my Maiden Report.....Its Excel driven and it gives me all Firsters and 1 time starters that have a chance to win.....to do this in the program was to run every race ....you can guess how long that must take....but my report gets you all the plays in less than 10 mins...every one of them.....over the past 2 weeks , I would say the ROI is in the 10-20% range with minimal effort...
I still have ideas rolling around in my head...I just hope I dont drop dead

Mike

[Dave Schwartz]

Mike is the epitome of the successful HSH user because he takes my advice but ultimately does what he is comfortable with.

Most players come to us with a long history of losing. What they want is a simple-, profitable, turn-key approach.

I give them that, but rarely do they use it as-is. They insist on tweaking it beyond recognition in just a matter of days.

What Mike has done that is so remarkable, is to hang on to enough of my highly-vetted approach, and then mix his own stuff.

With HSH, you get to become MORE OF YOU.

Initially, he would go so far afield that it was like 95% Salony and it wouldn't work for him. Oh, I am sure it would have eventually, but, instead, he'd move back in my direction a bit.

He went through this streak, posting public plays, that was pretty fantastic. As he said, lots of FTS and (I think) 2nd-time starters. He'd post like a dozen of them every day and then report the results the next day.

Every single day he'd be slightly profitable. Not hugely, but like bet $40 get back $45, or bet $25 get back $35.

A bad day would look like bet $35, get back $32.

I knew he was headed for success like that because every single day he was posting horses that ran "live."

Now, it is far more him and a bit of my stuff.


Like all that Excel stuff. That's too much work for me. But Mike thrives on it.

[traveler]

I've proven it multiple times over the past couple of years.

PS. Including today...where I did a public run of Dave's latest way to handicap with HSH...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155078

My posted wagers made just about $400 in profit. ROI was somewhere between 30-40%
Very nicely done. Congrats.

[Dave Schwartz]

I've proven it multiple times over the past couple of years.

PS. Including today...where I did a public run of Dave's latest way to handicap with HSH...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155078

My posted wagers made just about $400 in profit. ROI was somewhere between 30-40%

I didn't realize that you actually used my system.

I never tested it against graded races. In fact, I assumed that it might not work.

How did it do with the play-against favorites?

[46zilzal]

On races where there was DATA (NA lines and not babies with few lines), HSH performed very well. as per usual.

It is unique in its approach to racing...Have seen NOTHING like it over the last 50 years of playing the game.

[lefty359]

Anybody using HSH with NewPace with Renegade Handicapper? If so, how are you doing?

[46zilzal]

Anybody using HSH with NewPace with Renegade Handicapper? If so, how are you doing?

where ii works, it works well....Like any tool it is not universally effective, but then it offers SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS to use it, I am of the belief that using the analyst PICKMASTER, you can fashion it (through the database) to work at almost any track.

[lefty359]

Thanks, 46. I was watching him explain it in his insider vids and was intrigued.

[coacht]

Has any one used an older program , Pace Plus enhanced with their handicapping?

If so, any comments and best ways to use the data when handicapping

thx

[coacht]

Does anyone know how to take a 32 bit program and run it on a 64 bit windows 7 computer?

Thanks

[mikesal57]

Does anyone know how to take a 32 bit program and run it on a 64 bit windows 7 computer?

Thanks

it should run with out an issue.....what do you get ?

[coacht]

Thanks for responding

When I try to open Ray Taulbot ‘s program, the error message says that the program is a 32 bit and to look at my computer , which is 64, may not be compatible.

[mikesal57]

Thanks for responding

When I try to open Ray Taulbot ‘s program, the error message says that the program is a 32 bit and to look at my computer , which is 64, may not be compatible.

An old 32 bit program is not likely to run on a newer 64 bit PC...


All I can think of is to right click the .exe file and try to change the Compatibility to an older Windows version....its in the properties

[coacht]

Thanks I just tried that and it doesn’t let me change other than deleting the setup exe in the general section.

Looks like I’m out of luck unless you have any other ideas.

Thanks again

[mikesal57]

Thanks I just tried that and it doesn’t let me change other than deleting the setup exe in the general section.

Looks like I’m out of luck unless you have any other ideas.

Thanks again

Go to Folder on C: Drive.....

Right Click the .EXE File that starts the program..

On the Bottom Click Properties


Click "Compatibility"

Put Check make in Box


Go Down the line to say...Windows 8....or whatever...hit apply

If doesnt work...need older windows

[coacht]

Darn

I have windows 7 and the top bar has General, Security, Details and Previous Versions.

The snap shot you sent has Compatibility.

Thanks again. Looks like I’m out of luck unless I can get a second server that is compatible.

[mikesal57]

Darn

I have windows 7 and the top bar has General, Security, Details and Previous Versions.

The snap shot you sent has Compatibility.

Thanks again. Looks like I’m out of luck unless I can get a second server that is compatible.

Sorry bro...

This is a little techy but...you can partition your harddrive and maybe get a windows 98 install disk and it might work...

[coacht]

Thanks again for trying to help

Hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

[plainolebill]

Try right clicking on the program icon and choosing run as administrator. That has worked for me.

[Appy]

Windows 7 will definitely run 32 bit programs. I have 2 laptops that are Win7 I keep and use for just that reason.
You sure that old Taulbot program isn't 16 bit? That could be problematic. I don't know.
I also run a 32 bit on Win10, but you must allow changes to your computer, partitions, etc in order for my program to work. And like plainolebill said first order of business is to click 'run as administrator'.

[Dave Schwartz]

Windows 7 will definitely run 32 bit programs. I have 2 laptops that are Win7 I keep and use for just that reason.
You sure that old Taulbot program isn't 16 bit? That could be problematic. I don't know.
I also run a 32 bit on Win10, but you must allow changes to your computer, partitions, etc in order for my program to work. And like plainolebill said first order of business is to click 'run as administrator'.

Appy,

It really doesn't matter which OS you are running.

If the program is 16-bit, it just needs to be a 32-bit exe.

There actually are 32-bit versions of Win10 & Win8 but you really don't want them.

One of the limitations of 32-bit Windows is that they will only see about 3GB of RAM, no matter how much is actually in the machine.

Since Win10 & Win8 are a bit portly in the memory needs department, 3GB is really not enough to get good performance.

[coacht]

Thanks plainolebill, appy and Dave,

I'm going to try all your ideas and see what happens.

coacht

[Appy]

Appy,

It really doesn't matter which OS you are running.

If the program is 16-bit, it just needs to be a 32-bit exe.

There actually are 32-bit versions of Win10 & Win8 but you really don't want them.

One of the limitations of 32-bit Windows is that they will only see about 3GB of RAM, no matter how much is actually in the machine.

Since Win10 & Win8 are a bit portly in the memory needs department, 3GB is really not enough to get good performance.

I know you're a busy guy Dave, but sometime if you have time shoot me a message about what is involved in changing a 32 bit program to 64 bit. Everything I've heard so far has been very discouraging (not to mention expensive). Your comment above about just needing a 32 bit exe made it sound less complicated than I've heard.

[headhawg]

...what is involved in changing a 32 bit program to 64 bit. Everything I've heard so far has been very discouraging (not to mention expensive). Your comment above about just needing a 32 bit exe made it sound less complicated than I've heard.The source code needs to be recompiled with a 64-bit compiler. Some languages are limited to 32 bits because of the compiler; others will compile to either. To my knowledge there is no conversion program to take a 32-bit exe and make it 64-bit. For now, Windows supports 32-bit. M$ has mentioned in the past that future versions may support 64+ and not 32. So far M$ is still playing nice and not breaking all 32-bit apps that people/companies use. If a program doesn't work it is probably missing a critical file from the OS(es) that met the specs of the program, so now it won't run on a later version of Windows because it doesn't find that file.

[JimG]

The setup file for Electronic Pace Calculator is 16-bit. You would need a 32-bit setup file for it, then it would install and run fine on a windows 64-bit machine. The programmer Randy Kovach is a heck of a nice guy and may be able to help you out. Hopefully he will see this.


Jim

[coacht]

Thanks Jim

I’m running out of options.

Hive Ray Taulbots Pace evaluator

Hope the programmer you mentioned can help.

Gene.

[Dave Schwartz]

I know you're a busy guy Dave, but sometime if you have time shoot me a message about what is involved in changing a 32 bit program to 64 bit. Everything I've heard so far has been very discouraging (not to mention expensive). Your comment above about just needing a 32 bit exe made it sound less complicated than I've heard.

To my knowledge the only way is to get the source code (which I doubt you can do), upgrade the language to the level where it has a "compiler" that can compile it into 32-bit.

Depending upon which language it was written in, this can be anything from relatively simplistic to easier to rewrite the entire program.


JimG The setup file for Electronic Pace Calculator is 16-bit. You would need a 32-bit setup file for it, then it would install and run fine on a windows 64-bit machine. The programmer Randy Kovach is a heck of a nice guy and may be able to help you out. Hopefully he will see this.

Best guess would be that this would not do it as the .exe file itself would still be 16-bit.

But I am more than willing to be educated because I have an old Tiger Woods 2003 golf game that I'd love to get installed even on my Win7-32 machine.

I tried the online fixes and the program installed but will not run even in compatibility mode.

[Red Knave]

I'm not surprised that no one has mentioned using a virtual machine, it's pretty techy stuff, but it may be your only option.
If you have an installation CD or an iso file of an older Windows version, say like Win95, you could use a VM like VirtualBox to install and run that and then hopefully install and run your program.
There is a lifehacker post here (https://lifehacker.com/how-to-set-up-a-virtual-machine-for-free-1828969527) that gives a good overview of how to go about this. I'm sure there are other online references too.

[coacht]

Thanks Red

Very interesting. I will need to look closer at this and probably have someone help me since I’m not very techy

Coacht

[Ted Craven]

Coach, maybe also make this request on PaceandCap. I know several discussions have been had on this topic there, and likely a few will rise to the ocassion with their experiences (I think maybe Bill V?) I've not done this myself.

BTW, Randy Kovach (aka The Programmer at P&C) has told me several times he is not into programming racing stuff any longer, and doesn't even posses older source code for the stuff he wrote for various folks back in the day. But you could always PM him and ask (and say hi).

However, it's true, with a virtual OS environment and an older copy of Windows capable of 16 bit, you can get that old Windows stuff running if it's not copy protected.


Ted

[coacht]

Thanks Ted,

I’m still out of town visiting grandkids. When I get home I’m going to first see
if my old XP will successfully download the program. If so, then hopefully I can find my old disc and then try the virtual .

I will take your suggestion and reach out to Bill V and Randy as well. I’m a member on your site.

My son tried to install it on my 64 bit and the error said it was 32 bit.

Gene

[Hanger]

So people are paying for anywhere from 1-3 programs monthly.

Doesn’t include if they use workouts or sheets or anything to supplement it. Pretty big nut every month before the races even start. I’ve been using HTR. Been debating HSH or Valuecapper but hard to find realistic comparisons. People seem to either like one or the other strongly and biased.

Big leap of faith with the costs of the two to try it. If I had seen the sale most of you took advantage of perhaps I would have tried it by now. Maybe there will be another sale in 2020 soon, maybe I missed my chance.

[Speed Figure]

I've only seen a sale for HSH! never seen any sale for ValueCapper.

[Hanger]

I've only seen a sale for HSH! never seen any sale for ValueCapper.

True, I was responding from my phone and should have clarified. Although I thought Value Capper was cheaper now than 18 months ago, but could be wrong.

[Speed Figure]

Same price!

[storyline]

for me the finest wagers are on those horses who are sharp, likely to improve further today and whose trainers are sending them out to win if they can. Over the long term this is an unbeatable combination.




Until this thread I didn't know you played the ponies.


My handicapping is centered around projecting numbers based on today's field. Then move to pedigree, connections and lastly to price.


You express this as "likely to improve further today". Projecting figures (accurately) is an art form and requires a huge skill set.


Congratulations to someone that I thought was only interested in discussing religion. Not many players think this way or have the skills needed!:ThmbUp:

[KyRacer]

Thanks Ted,

I’m still out of town visiting grandkids. When I get home I’m going to first see
if my old XP will successfully download the program. If so, then hopefully I can find my old disc and then try the virtual .

I will take your suggestion and reach out to Bill V and Randy as well. I’m a member on your site.

My son tried to install it on my 64 bit and the error said it was 32 bit.

Gene

Hi coacht,

Maybe this will help.

I have run the Taulbot Pace Calculator software on the Windows 7 and Windows 10 64 bit operating systems. I think the problems occurs when trying to install off the original cd's unto a 64 bit system. That didn't work for me.

This worked for me. Install it from the original discs on to your old Windows XP 32 bit system first. Then copy the folder you installed it in to a USB drive and move it over to your Windows 10 or 7 64 bit system. You can just copy the whole folder with the program in it and then move it or you can zip it up first, move it and then unzip it on your 64 bit system. Make a short cut from the main program in the folder to your desktop for easy access. It runs just fine for me.


As far as the Help file, I found this link on answers.microsoft.com. About the 7th reply down is a reply by Alan Copp, that has instructions and links on how to get the Help file to work on Windows 10. It's been a while since I did it , but it worked for me on both Windows 7 and Windows 10 64 bit systems. Every time there's a major upgrade to Windows 10 (twice a year), I have to redo the help file.


Help File Info (https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp-insider_install/winhlp32-do-we-have-to-go-through-this-again/ddcc2f40-e4f3-407b-9672-ee8a2b08a71e?auth=1)

[KyRacer]

As far as the Help file, I found this link on answers.microsoft.com. About the 7th reply down is a reply by Alan Copp, that has instructions and links on how to get the Help file to work on Windows 10. It's been a while since I did it , but it worked for me on both Windows 7 and Windows 10 64 bit systems. Every time there's a major upgrade to Windows 10 (twice a year), I have to redo the help file.


Help File Info (https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp-insider_install/winhlp32-do-we-have-to-go-through-this-again/ddcc2f40-e4f3-407b-9672-ee8a2b08a71e?auth=1)


It looks like some of the links in the Help File Info link are outdated and don't work.

[jamalka]

In response to the survey, I have been using a 'other not listed' program for several years. Prior to that, in the 90's, I used a program called Darkhorse, which I thought was quite good. Recently I have been searching for this program without success.

Does anyone have the setup files for the Darkhorse program or know where to find them?

[KyRacer]

In response to the survey, I have been using a 'other not listed' program for several years. Prior to that, in the 90's, I used a program called Darkhorse, which I thought was quite good. Recently I have been searching for this program without success.

Does anyone have the setup files for the Darkhorse program or know where to find them?

Hi jamalka,

I remember the program you were talking about. It was interesing but cost more than I wanted to spend at that time. I had the demo version at one time and had a few screenshots. Looked around on my computer but haven't been able to find them. I believe you had to buy the data from them. I don't know if it had manual entry. I used the wayback machine and found a link to the program. Looks like there is a download link on the site. Link below:

DH99 (https://web.archive.org/web/20030711171618/http://darkhorsenet.com/index.htm)

[jamalka]

Hi KyRacer,

Thanks for your quick reply and the link to DH99. I've been able to download a DOS version, the Windows version has no active link. I haven't loaded the DOS version yet, hopefully it will run OK in DOSBox. Very much appreciate your effort.

[ChartingHorseValue]

I've been playing the horse's for over 30 years and have my own program I've used that entire time with great success. Now that I'm retired, I've got more time to work on it and am giving it to everyone for free. It gives you a fair odds line for every horse and helps you quickly identify the best value horse in a race. I'll post 1 or 2 tracks a day and I will post all my results on daily basis.

Check it out and let me know if there is a specific track you want me to post. Today I posted Lone Star and Santa Anita.

https://www.chartinghorsevalue.com/

[mikesal57]

I've been playing the horse's for over 30 years and have my own program I've used that entire time with great success. Now that I'm retired, I've got more time to work on it and am giving it to everyone for free. It gives you a fair odds line for every horse and helps you quickly identify the best value horse in a race. I'll post 1 or 2 tracks a day and I will post all my results on daily basis.

Check it out and let me know if there is a specific track you want me to post. Today I posted Lone Star and Santa Anita.

https://www.chartinghorsevalue.com/

Awesome CHV...

Just do top tracks...Like TAM GP CD SA...

I would like the program to check it out..

Mike

[ChartingHorseValue]

I'll go ahead and run GP as well today. Yesterday was awful "off the turf" with ton of scratches. Hard to get a free odds line for every horse, hope you enjoy it.

[mikesal57]

I'll go ahead and run GP as well today. Yesterday was awful "off the turf" with ton of scratches. Hard to get a free odds line for every horse, hope you enjoy it.

GP lost some turf..I usually go else where

[ChartingHorseValue]

Top two horses in my program run 1-2, 7-1 over 6-1 and $2 exacta pays $156. that was a wide open race but their was tremendous value on the tote. Can see the picks for free here.

https://www.chartinghorsevalue.com/todays-selections/

[mikesal57]

Top two horses in my program run 1-2, 7-1 over 6-1 and $2 exacta pays $156. that was a wide open race but their was tremendous value on the tote. Can see the picks for free here.

https://www.chartinghorsevalue.com/todays-selections/

Are you giving your picks or the program for free?

[ChartingHorseValue]

Just the picks, the program is too valuable to give away. I'll sell it!

[ChartingHorseValue]

I tweeted this out in advance. SA Race 5 - #7 winner. Said it was my best bet and to play it at anything north of 3-1. Paid $14.20

https://twitter.com/infochartingho1

[ChartingHorseValue]

Just to clarify my website does not give picks per say. It gives extremely valuable information particularly on fair odds for every horse which you can monitor the tote to determine value. It also estimates value assuming the morning line is accurate and also provides other assessments on workouts, jockey, trainer, ABC score and overall rank. You get to pick the horse but my favorite pick is a horse with a letter grade that has the best value with no big negatives.

[Partsnut]

Just to clarify my website does not give picks per say. It gives extremely valuable information particularly on fair odds for every horse which you can monitor the tote to determine value. It also estimates value assuming the morning line is accurate and also provides other assessments on workouts, jockey, trainer, ABC score and overall rank. You get to pick the horse but my favorite pick is a horse with a letter grade that has the best value with no big negatives.


I have visited your web page and appreciate the files you are willing to share.
I believe you have done some nice work here. Thanks for sharing.


Using your files for todays CDX card I came up with the following possible value plays.

[ChartingHorseValue]

I'll check your picks. Here is what I tweeted this AM.
R2-10
R4-6
R5-8 or 13
R6-6
R10-6
R11-13

Thanks for the compliment & good luck!

[ChartingHorseValue]

CD4 - the 7 ran 2nd at 17-1 (no threat to winner) and paid $15.80 to place

[46zilzal]

Every few months they show up

[Ucf2000]

Relatively new to using handicapping programs. I wanted to know if those that are using all data excel model find that some Brisnet data is missing. I am not all that great with Macros but the spreadsheet that was put together is real nice and I can play with the numbers how I like it. Anyone update the spreadsheet on their own? It doesn’t look like the site has had any changes in a while.

Trying to play around with things

Thanks

[mikesal57]

Relatively new to using handicapping programs. I wanted to know if those that are using all data excel model find that some Brisnet data is missing. I am not all that great with Macros but the spreadsheet that was put together is real nice and I can play with the numbers how I like it. Anyone update the spreadsheet on their own? It doesn’t look like the site has had any changes in a while.

Trying to play around with things

Thanks
What you see is what you get....

The developer has died about 3 years ago...

I have noticed some data missing at times too....

Can you post a picture of your issue...maybe theres a work around...

Mike

[Ucf2000]

Thank you for the update. I will see what I can post later today. I like the idea of information being excel. Do you use it? I have read up on Sartin, Beyer, Pizzolla and just want to mess around with some formulas. I guess I can do by hand lol

[mikesal57]

Thank you for the update. I will see what I can post later today. I like the idea of information being excel. Do you use it? I have read up on Sartin, Beyer, Pizzolla and just want to mess around with some formulas. I guess I can do by hand lol

yes...I very familiar with Alldata

I even developed my own programs...

I'm no Excel expert but I can manage

Mike

[Ucf2000]

I figured out the problem. Thank you

[mikesal57]

:ThmbUp:

I figured out the problem. Thank you