Handicapping Magic

[Derek2U]

That Book stinks; in fact, the author, MP, must be delusional.

I read Charles Carroll's Glowing review of the book, spent my
dollars buying it, & now wish to dispose of it down my garbage
chute.

Save your money & whats more important, don't clutter your
brain with more misleading info.

It's just my opinion. Any thoughts on this book?

[Dave Schwartz]

Derek,

Yes, I disagree with your opinion. I thought it was an excellent book.

It did nothing for my style of play or approach but for a pace handicapper I think it was a pretty good read.

As for the possibility that Michael is dillusional, we (that's me and the other guys that share Dave's head) can't come up with a decisive answer. It's a split decision. <G>


Regards,
Dave Schwartz, et al

[Rick]

Dave,

Is that the reason for betting two horses in one race, "split decisions"?

[Dick Schmidt]

Derek,

You need to quit being so wishy-washy and come right out and say what you think!

My opinion of the book is that it is a slight improvement on the system he copied it from.

Dick

[Jingle]

Dick,

Its been quite some time since I attended a seminar with you, the Doc, Mike P, The Hat and others at Saratoga. I recall the Seminar was held at the Desmond, correct.

One thing I came away with besides purchasing a new Sartin program was that you could start a fight in an empty lot.

As I read your response to Derek ie. "wishy-washy" and some others, it sounds like you haven't changed much!! You come across like you have the "official" and "last word" on some subjects. You don't. They're just your opinons for what there worth!! We don't need your criticism of others.

Jingle

[NormanTD]

derek, hit the seach button and the type in Handicapping Magic or type in Handicapping Magician or type in Handicapping and Magic or type in Handicapping and Magician and read what has been said and found in the past.

[Dick Schmidt]

Jingle,

Do you even understand the concept of humor? Telling someone not to be "wishy-washy" after he makes a strong, almost inflammatory statement is in many quarters considered an attempt at humor. Next time I'll put a little <G> in just for you.

As for my opinions, I never claimed them to be other than my opinions. I don't hide behind a false name (you know, like Jingle) nor do I expect them to be the final word on any subject. I state them for what they are worth for all the world to see because that is what people do on message boards, and I have the guts to sign my name to them.

Have a nice day.

Dick

[rrbauer]

Yeah Derek...why don't you say what you think?

:)

:)

[GameTheory]

I think it is a good book.

You have to consider the audience of course. If you are a master pace handicapper, then it probably isn't going to help you any. For me, who has not read MODERN PACE HANDICAPPING or any other work on pace, and who simply never "did" pace handicapping at all, it was quite helpful. It is also nice that he made a point of making all the methods simple enough that you can actually do all the calculations with a pen & your racing form.

I have not yet made a special effort to put all the ideas in play for a sustained period, but I picked 2 winners both over 10-1 at Laurel an hour after finishing the book, so I was pretty happy with it. I think his point about not being afraid to give away his "secrets" because most people aren't going to go through the trouble to understand and implement them correctly anyway is apt.

Even if it isn't the be all and end all of handicapping books, to call it outright trash is a bit extreme, especially considering the incredible amount of huckster, cheapo crap that is sold. We're talking about an intelligently written 400+ page book here....

[cj]

I agree that the book wasn't that bad, but 400+ pages, not really. At least 100 were there to advertise the PPs of the Handicapper's Daily...page after page after page of the same darn races over and over again and again...get my point!

CJ

[Dave Schwartz]

Eick,

SPlit decisions... good thinking. No, the reason is that for me it is a better way to play. In fact, I have races where I actually play THREE horses! And sometimes FOUR!

Dave

[Rick]

Dave,

Just kidding. In fact, I've been checking my method with two horses per race and so far the $ won is about the same. But of course the win % is higher, so it might be worthwhile if it allows much larger bets with the same risk. Another thing I've found lately is that it's more effective to try to eliminate the favorite than it is to find the biggest overlays. In other words, the lower my method rates the favorite (or morning line favorite), the more profitable my top selections are.

[GR1@HTR]

I liked the book but don't use his theories. IMO, a better measurement than PBS is FBS.

Final time of winner + Final time of Horse =FBS


That is kinda why I liked the book. Injects me with/different ideas to I can create my own BS to use...

Also using pace lines for final time measurement is very limited. What does a pace line selector do if you think the horse is going to run a new top? The PL selector has no place to go unless you make a mental adjustment...

[andicap]

GR1, I'm surprised you say that considering you use HTR which is incredibly paceline sensitive.

[GR1@HTR]

Yes, I use PL's out of the ying yang...but not for final time. I look PL fractions (in every race I handicap) in correlation as far as how horses will be positioned today. For example, the best pace play in the entire world is a Fr1 horse with poor speed figures and lots of beaten lenghts that will get a nice lead in todays race. That horse will always have bad final time numbers, speed figures and pacelines...

Confusing enough? In summary if I am going to truely "handicap" a race, dis is what I do: I use pace fractions, RS-POS, trainer data, form cycles to project a figure of how the horse will run today. ie Sheet stuff w/ more complex confusing, and mind boggling info...Works well for me...

HTR is somewhat PL sensitive but that there is so much other rubbish in it to come up with a conclusion. IMHO, the fractions within the PL are more important than the final PL time.

[Rick]

GR1,

Have you read "Blinkers Off"? There was an article about the author in Horseplayer magazine who claims to be successful at evaluating form by using pace figures.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Rick
GR1,

Have you read "Blinkers Off"? There was an article about the author in Horseplayer magazine who claims to be successful at evaluating form by using pace figures.

IMHO, the problem would be that while pace might indicate form positives, there are many indicators of positive form that cannot be derived from pace.

[Aussieplayer]

G'day GR1,

I'm a bit embarassed writing this, as I think you were joking around with the FBS thingy.

But it reminded me of something Dave S. was telling me about once.

Is Final time of winner + final time of horse any good as an improvement on using simple final time of horse?

ie. Reason for interest in this sort of method is due to our pp's not having internal fraction numbers that you do. Only position (with no lengths behind).

Cheers
AP

[GR1@HTR]

Rick,

No I haven't read Blinkers Off. Might have to look into it. Huey Mauls pace book was the best $3 investment I ever made when it comes to pace. His 20 some pages kinda cuts to the meat and bones of pace handicapping.

Aussieplayer,

Good question...A few things to think about...
What is better:
Horse A who earns a 80 Beyer in a stakes race where the winner earned a 100
or
Horse B who earned a 80 Beyer in a $16K claimer where the winner earned an 82?

Another....
Scratch golfer neibor friend shoots 72 at Pebble Creek against his fellow buddies
or
Pro golfer shoots 72 in a tournament with Tiger Woods, Earnie Els and others?

Just a matter of opinion but I feel that athletes who perform against greater competition have a greater chance to be better next time out. Kinda like weight training...If you lift 110 pounds every day for a year vs 100 pounds every day of the year...which will make you stronger?

[Aussieplayer]

GR1,

Thanks, I see what you're saying.

A few things:

(1) The way I read it (especially with your examples), it allows for a "class" factor. How does it account for "pace," if indeed it does?

(2) Why do we handicappers automatically add up? Should we use them seperately? Mutiply? Express as a %age? Or is adding up okay?

(3) Have you done (or read) anything to say that this type of fig "works," or is in fact better than PBS? (As you did say you thought it a better measurement). eg. a better IV or ROI?

I can't remember number 4, so I'll sign off for now :)

Cheers - I've missed you guys!!
Aussieplayer

[GR1@HTR]

A few things:

(1) The way I read it (especially with your examples), it allows for
a "class" factor. How does it account for "pace," if indeed it does?
>>>No it does not account for pace. The way I account for pace is by looking at the best early speed horse and where I think it will be positioned today in relation to the past.


(2) Why do we handicappers automatically add up? Should we use
them seperately? Mutiply? Express as a %age? Or is adding up
okay?
>>>I don't know the best way to utilize it. But the way I do is if I project 2 horses to run a 70 figure today, and one exits a race where one winner ran a 72 and the other ran a 85, I will favor the higher.

(3) Have you done (or read) anything to say that this type of fig
"works," or is in fact better than PBS? (As you did say you thought
it a better measurement). eg. a better IV or ROI?
>>>I have some home made stats on horses that exit fast races at home and it is significant.

[JustRalph]

I thought for a new handicapper, its a waste of time. If you have a little experience, you can sort the crap from the shinola and maybe get a few meaningful things from it. But if you are new at the game.........don't read it right out of the box.