HANDICAPPING MAGICIANS

[First_Place]

I'm curious to hear from Michael's students whether or not they have tweaked some of his original concepts, e.g., Fulcrum, PBS, etc., as presented by him in his landmark book Handicapping Magic--and what they are. I know I have. Here's one of a few that I use:

I will not use a shipper's second call time to set the Fulcrum pace in today's race. Period. Especially if the horse is coming from a fast track like Monmouth Park to a slower track like Suffolk Downs, for example, a recent race that I handicapped. You probably could make the adjustment using pars but I haven't (yet) and I'd rather not. In my view, the Fulcrum has to be based upon a paceline from today's track.

Any other tweaks, i.e., improvements that have worked for you, Handicapping Magicians?

FP

[kgonzales]

I use BRIS pace and speed figures to calculate the fulcrum, PBS & PPF numbers. While I know many on the board will argue that there are better numbers, they are much more consistent and interchangeable track to track than the raw times. They've worked very well for me over the last couple of years.

One personal wrinkle: I don't use PPF ratings from slow fulcrum pace races (paceline fulcrum is more than one second slower than today's fulcrum or 10 BRIS pace pts.). Those are often inflated, especially for early & presser types. I think you can do the same with raw times too.
A good example was the BC Turf last week. [REDBOARD ALERT:D ] Kitten's Joy and Magistretti had huge PPF's from their last race, +15 and +12, but that pace was 22 pts (11lengths) slower than today's fulcrum (plus w/ yielding turf who really knows anything), so I just skipped right by it. The top useable numbers were Better Talk Know (+8), Magistretti (+7) and KJ (+5). This was the only race I wanted to bet on all day and thankfully they didn't take him down. Even with a good number and good bet, racing luck still has to fall your way. I had the win bet and exacta, plus the double with the top PBS and PPF horse in the Classic.

Hope that's useful,
kg

[kingfin66]

It's interesting how two different people can come up with totally different calls on a race when using the same program. I passed the 8th race at Lone Star. I agree with everything you say about the ratings for the race Kristian. The problem I had was that there weren't ratings for some of the horses, so I passed...and missed.

Here are a few "nuances" I use.

- As stated above, I also do not use the PPF from races with slow 2nd call times. I also beware of high PBS ratings from extremely fast paced races.

- High PPF ratings earned on sloppy tracks should be very closely scrutinized.

- I try to use PBS ratings for 6.5 furlong races when they are neutral or pressured as long as there aren't too many track-to-track adjustment issues.

- I do not like to use 5f ratings as I think they are unreliable. The exception is when there are several horses with 5f ratings. 4.5f ratings are even worse. Similarly, I am wary of using ratings for races more than 9f.

- I try to use ratings only up to 1 year old as Pizzolla advocates, but I try to exercise good judgment.

- I never, I repeat NEVER, use turf lines for dirt races.

- I try not to add or elimate many pacelines due to slow paces, off tracks, 1 year timeframes, etc. If I need to work the mouse too much, then I need to pass the race.

- I don't like to play maiden sprints unless I can use the PBS rating. I will make exceptions in exchange for large prices.

- I don't really like to play turf races unless contention is clearly defined (i.e. big gaps) and there is price to be had.

- I try to understand TMM in regard to the track that I am playing. For example, at a track like SA, where speed and chalk rule, I have to look at E or EP horses in all races, including Heavy Pressure races. At a track like Hollywood that tends to play more fairly, I am more willing to look at P or S horses in such a race.

- I don't override the fulcrum unless it ridiculously slow. I have probably overrode (did I invent a word or just butcher the English language) a fulcrum twice in the last 1 1/2 years.

- For Santa Anita 6.5f downhill turf races, I look for horses that have run on the course before, have good ratings and are E or EP. That is if I play this race at all. For any other SoCal turf race, I exclude any turf line that came from a SA turf race.

That's all for now. I will post more as they come to me. None of these are really revolutionary nuances, but they make intuitive sense to me and work pretty well.

[Blackgold]

I rarely change anything or over ride anything.

I simply open the program, see what pops up.

If I see a price, I click on the runner and look at all his lines.

If I see the Fulcrum is going off at a price I look at all his lines also.

If the runner(s) and the Fulcrum's contention prices are high, I consider their numbers to be correct.

I then look at the rest of the runners, one by one, and decide whether or not to use them on an exotic ticket that already has Value Tech selections and the Fulcrum.

If the exotic ticket gets too big, I pass the race.

If the board odds show heavy play that I'm not expecting, can't explain or I can't construct the runner in my already bludging exotic ticket, I pass the race.

Often I will get up, walk away from the computer and one of the races of the several I'm considering. . .well one race just won't leave me alone. . .I then set aside the other races and concentrate on the one that came to me. . .I call it Zendicapping.

[robert99]

Hi,

We do not yet have the advantage of sectional timing in UK.
Could anyone explain what the terms "fulcrum", PBS and PPF mean and what is the logic behind them?

Robert

[kgonzales]

Originally posted by kingfin66
It's interesting how two different people can come up with totally different calls on a race when using the same program.

Just to clarify kingfin66, I do own the Master Magician Software , but I rarely use it anymore. I do apply all the HM numbers and concepts in my handicapping, but use my own software to calculate numbers based on BRIS pace and speed figs. I find my numbers to be much more consistent and accurate, especially PBS in sprints and any dirt race without a fulcrum. Plus I am able to get pretty reliable PPF's from turf marathons (10f +), although they still require a fair amount of judgment and healthy odds. The BRIS pace figs also make it pretty easy to shape races (compared toTMM). Since I have a lot more confidence in my numbers, it makes it much easier to PASS races now. I don't try to make a lot of fine distinctions in my handicapping anymore. If I have 3 short priced horse gapped above a moderate longshot, I usually won't bother. I look for no-brainer bets (like the top turf PPF at 27-1 or really underlaid favorites). I really don't try to force bets anymore (most of the time). Patience is key.
Addressing some other points:
-I set all my fulcrums and windows by hand (numbers are calculated automatically). I actually prefer this as I get a better feel for the race. I can scan the lines pretty quickly to determine if the race is worth looking at more closely.
-I use any 1 LASST excuse (except trouble) or any two of the remaining excuses (except equipment) as reasons to go past a line. I also use 2nd off a layoff bounce and a win in a slow paced race as 2 excuses each (I think Pizzolla talked about these at a seminar)
-The BRIS files have a speed figure par in each paceline which helps in making distinctions in class level excuses when it's not obvious.
-I actually love using PBS from fast pace races, especially if accompanied by a poor finish as long as the number is not completely aberrent.
-I agree on the off track numbers, but I will use them if they're not completely out of whack and I have price. BRIS EP numbers seem very unreliable (inflated) on off tracks.
-I will use lines up to about 1 1/2 yrs old or previous calendar year depending where a big layoff falls.
-I use 42 days as my layoff line (sometimes a little less if there are other reasons to go past). I think 30 days is too generous in form cycle windows
- I rarely even look at turf sprints excepting 7 1/2f (usually only contests or tournaments where I have no choice).
-I try to avoid betting against the pace matchup or shape of the race unless I have a huge price. I love routers cutting back to sprints with good PBS numbers.
- As blackgold mentioned, it's imperative that you understand the betting action in the race. Why is your top number 27-1? Why are they hammering that pig to 3-5? This is not always so easy, but it's usually based on speed figs, perceived class, finish position, trainer/jockey, recency or perceived pace advantage.

Don't know if any of that's news to anyone, but it's served me well.
kg

[First_Place]

No fractional times? Sorry to hear that. I'm sure it's being timed sectionally by teams of clockers just like it was done (profitably) in the U.S. prior to the publishing of the various call times in the Racing Form.

As to your questions regarding the Fulcrum, PBS & PPF ratings, here it goes:

Fulcrum Pace:

"The Fulcrum Pace is the fastest second call time of all the contestants in the race taken from their last race, provided that the race is competitive and not atypically fast for the horse."

"What we're accomplishing with the Fulcrum pace is to get an idea of what second call pace, at a minimum, the horses will need to compete against today."

PBS = Pace Balanced Speed figure (also known as the Pizzolla Balanced Speed figure):

"It is the Speed Rating of the past performance line you are examining, modified by the second call time of that line. The modification is made by comparing the second call time of the race to the Fulcrum Pace of today's race."

PPF = (Projected Power Fraction):

The PPF measures the final fraction of the race taking into account the horse's position at the second call; unlike the more common method of subtracting the second call time from the final time and then adding or subtracting 1/5 of a second for each length gained or lost between these calls. It does more than measure the third fraction, it takes "into account a horse's velocity potential and positional tendencies."

FP

[First_Place]

Gentlemen,

I appreciate reading your responses very much. Thanks for taking the time to write. It has stimulated further thought on this subject.

Here's another thing I do when faced with shippers. Instead of basing my PBS figures on Speed Ratings in that particular race, I use Speed Figures instead to avoid track-to-track SR differences. Sweet and simple, something all you "Magicians" probably figured out before I did. I know Michael doesn't recommend using Speed Figures (because of his contrarian nature) to create his PBS numbers but when faced with this type of scenario, I think it's appropriate.

FP

[Blackgold]

TMM has provided a profitable way for me to take money out of the races.

Others make profits with BRIS, and I download the Ultimate PPs for every card I'm considering.

Others make a living with the Sheets.

And on and on.

The reason we look at all this stuff is, to find Value and when you find Value to have the nerve to pound the windows with both fists and walk away, ticket in hand, and not give it a 2nd thought.

I think I mentioned in another post once in this forum, about another Advantage Play I'm involved in- Blackjack.

One of the leading authors and pros in that arena who has written two excellent books- "Turning the Tables on Las Vegas", in the '70s and more recently "Burning The Tables In Las Vegas,- well he often posts in a blackjack forum something to the tune. . .

And I'm paraphrasing,

"People spend too much time worrying about will this counting system give you a tenth of a percent more edge or will that index play be the correct move in plus whatever count, etc.. . . where the biggest mistakes are made are- when one has the advantage and does not send in the big bet."

That's the thing to do, wait, watch, then pounce and if it doesn't go your way. . .wait, watch and pounce another time. If you have the advantage you will grind upward your bankroll.

[cj]

I don't use the software, but I use a modified version of the LASST method with my own numbers.

I believe La was for Layoff, S for surface, S for structure (distance,) and T for trouble. If any of those were present, he goes to the next line. I believe Layoff is defined as a race immediately before or after a layoff.

I add a second T for positive trainer change, ie, first race for one of the "super" trainers, in which case I'll find the horses best line showing and assume the horse will run better than that one. I also throw in an extra S for "slow paced race" on dirt only, which can make horses figures look lower than they would be normally, especially for PS and S type runners.

So, for me, its LaSSSTT.

[robert99]

First_Place,

Kind of you to provide those explanations.

Some people in UK try to time races from video recordings (very difficult to judge with telephoto camera distortions and close up shots of leading horses only) but there are no obvious teams of people clocking at the actual meetings. Many UK meetings last only one day so it might not be very attractive to be constantly travelling throughout the season. We have been trialling a transponder timing method which measures the times and distances run of individual horses. Also, the TV channels have been superimposing an angled line across the screen to mark each half furlong from the finish in the major races.

I can understand the reasons for the Fulcrum Pace and PBS statistics. We do not understand why USA uses 1/5 seconds per length when your horses run much faster throughout. You lost me on the PPF. Why measure a "potential" when the final section plus lengths behind leader can give the actual accurate average finish velocity of each horse. Why does "positional" data matter - if the horse has excess energy over the others it can win if it can get past the other horses and can handle the last bend at speed? For UK's straight grass tracks then the "old" lengths behind way would seem more logical. Does the method not take all the best bits of past performances which might aggregate to a faster overall time than the horse has ever actually run? (On the basis that a horse can only run at peak speed for 2.5 furlongs in any part of a race).

My interest stimulated, I looked at MP's predictions article for the Breeders Cup - not too good with 0/9. Still, I have ordered to book to be shipped over to find out more.

Robert

[Tom]

For me, it is:
Layoff
Bad jock
Bad trainer
Atypical pace
Turf switch

Labbbats.:rolleyes:

[IRISHLADSTABLE]

Bug Boy

Under A mile

Distance

Lasix

Intent

Turf

Early Speed


B U D L I T E

Jimmy



:D :rolleyes: :D

[headhawg]

Originally posted by Tom
For me, it is:
Layoff
Bad jock
Bad trainer
Atypical pace
Turf switch

Labbbats.:rolleyes:

Were you drinking Canadian beer when you thought of that, eh? :)

[Tom]

I was having breakfast, so I must have been...I had corn flakes.

[JimL]

I am a firm believer in the theory of PBS numbers and to make them more meaningful to me I do my own Quirin, type pace and speed figs. I adjust my own speed rating. I follow four tracks at this time.

I never ever use a turf line in a dirt race

I usually use the last pace line mode. I will use two excuse if it passes a strict PNP test and it offers value.

I use the full variant on some eastern tracks I do not have figures for.

Having said all of the above if you used TMM as MP says you would have had the following winners at MNR, Friday night
2. Foxboat 8.60
3.Hillbilly Bandit 32.00
4.Bexley 8.20
6.Look Who 13.60

Not red boarding I did not play MNR last night. JimL

[First_Place]

First_Place,

Kind of you to provide those explanations.

You're welcome, Robert.

Some people in UK try to time races from video recordings (very difficult to judge with telephoto camera distortions and close up shots of leading horses only) but there are no obvious teams of people clocking at the actual meetings. Many UK meetings last only one day so it might not be very attractive to be constantly travelling throughout the season. We have been trialling a transponder timing method which measures the times and distances run of individual horses. Also, the TV channels have been superimposing an angled line across the screen to mark each half furlong from the finish in the major races.

Thanks for filling me in.

I can understand the reasons for the Fulcrum Pace and PBS statistics. We do not understand why USA uses 1/5 seconds per length when your horses run much faster throughout.

From what I understand it goes back to the old days when they used stop watches with 1/5 of a second graduations to time horse races. Someone figured one length equals approximately 1/5 of a second and is close enough. Why they still use this antiquated measurement to calculate horses' times behind the leader is beyond me. It's something that we have to deal with until the racing industry finally begins timing horses in a manner more in tune with the 21st century, i.e., individually; something that they experimented with at the recently completed Keeneland meet in Kentucky (btw, does anyone know how it went?).

You lost me on the PPF. Why measure a "potential" when the final section plus lengths behind leader can give the actual accurate average finish velocity of each horse. Why does "positional" data matter - if the horse has excess energy over the others it can win if it can get past the other horses and can handle the last bend at speed? For UK's straight grass tracks then the "old" lengths behind way would seem more logical.

According to Michael, and I agree, simply calculating the final fraction the regular way can greatly exaggerate a horse's performance. For example, a horse is 15 lengths behind at the second call and narrows down the margin to 5 lengths at the finish line and gets an impressive final fraction or velocity number. The horse was not even involved with the pace of the race nor did it have to fight traffic in making this substantial final fraction gain. However, many times such a huge gain does signify improving form, especially if deep closing is not the horse's normal running style, so I do take note. Btw, the PPF rating works especially well in Turf races.

Does the method not take all the best bits of past performances which might aggregate to a faster overall time than the horse has ever actually run? (On the basis that a horse can only run at peak speed for 2.5 furlongs in any part of a race).

No, it does not.

My interest stimulated, I looked at MP's predictions article for the Breeders Cup - not too good with 0/9.

Oh well, that's racing. Goes to prove that even experts like Michael Pizzolla are mere mortals and have bad days too. Like he says: SW * SW * SW = N! (You'll understand when you read his book)

Still, I have ordered to book to be shipped over to find out more.

Robert

I don't think you'll be disappointed. Personally Michael's book has helped me turn my game around. It has taught me how to look at races from a contrarian point of view which in turn has led me to new insights regarding this $port.

FP

[First_Place]

"I will use two excuse if it passes a strict PNP test and it offers value."

PNP test? Not sure what you mean, Jim.

FP

[robert99]

First_Place,

Thanks once again for the further enlightenment.
I may come back for a discussion on all this once the book has been read by myself. We have ony 3 "dirt" tracks in UK but the use of HM for turf racing sounds promising.

Robert

[mhrussell]

First Place

This stands for "Pig or No Pig" test. I think this idea was given and discussed at the 2002 Seminar and is not referenced in the book.

We usually will only accept going past either of the first two past performance lines if the horse is , as we say, "Not a pig". If the horse is a "pig" then we will not go past either of the most recent two races no matter what the standared Form Cycle Window, LASST or 2 Excuse criteria may tell us.

The definition of a "pig" horse is one who is worse than 4th at EVERY point of call, greater than 4 lengths (I use 4.25) behind the leader at EVERY point of call and of course, finishes the race worse than 4th (I recall this is Bob Harris's "rule of 4" in regards to the PNP test).

So if the two most recent running lines match this criteria, the horse is said to be (in a kind, loving way <grin>) a PIG and I usually will just use the last race to "rate" the horse for todays race.

You should really enjoy the book. It transformed my game as well.

[First_Place]

Thanks once again for the further enlightenment. I may come back for a discussion on all this once the book has been read by myself.

You're welcome. However all the thanks belong to Michael P.

Happy reading!

FP

[First_Place]

It stands for "Pig or No Pig"? Ah...I should've figured. :-) Thanks for explaining.

Btw does anyone have any shortcut method for locating the highest PPF rating--short of manually calculating all ten p.p. lines--when handicapping Turf races? If so, please let me know.

Thanks.

FP

[Faster]

Fulcrum, ehm...we used to call it good ol' turn time, no?:)

[First_Place]

Nope. That's not it. Read some of the earlier posts in this thread to get a better idea of what it is.

FP

[gene]

ppf rating

take the horses last fraction rating and subteact 2 pts for each leangth the horse is behiond at the second call. This works with dbris or tsn as eachpoint in the rating equals half a length.
using this method youi can very quickly see the highest rating.

hope this helps

gene

[Faster]

Originally posted by First_Place

"The Fulcrum Pace is the fastest second call time of all the contestants in the race taken from their last race, provided that the race is competitive and not atypically fast for the horse."

Ok, it's not a turn time. My interest is aroused..

"What we're accomplishing with the Fulcrum pace is to get an idea of what second call pace, at a minimum, the horses will need to compete against today."

I see. Is there more, i.e. last race at distance and surface? Is it just a raw second call time like 44.3 in 6F sprint for example?
Would be hard to find more than couple entries in a 8 horse field that has raced at the same distance and surface in the last race.

[kingfin66]

The PPF (Projected Power Fraction) can be used to make both track-to-track and distance adjustments. Let's say your fulcrum horse has a last running line of 45.0 71.0 and won the race. The PPF comes from the pace line of the Fulcrum horse, thus, the PPF is 26.0 (71.0-45.0 with nothing added for BL at the finish since the horse won). Now, you extrapolate the ratings for other distances adding 6 3/5 seconds for sprints and 6 4/5 for routes. The PPFs for various distances based on the 26.0 PPF would be:

5.0 - 12 4/5
5.5 - 19 2/5
6.0 - 26
6.5 - 32 3/5
7.0 - 39 1/5


Hope this helps.

[Lou G]

kgonzales,

I also use Bris pace/speed figures and have developed a spreadsheet-based version of the ideas in HM. Actually, I have both a raw time version (per the book) and a Bris version. The Bris version works much better, attesting to the value of the Bris numbers. As has been mentioned on the forum more than once, they may not be the best figures out there but it's hard to beat the price.

Thanks for sharing your tips re: the use of HM. I haven't quite gotten around to mixing surfaces and distance structures yet, but that's in the works. I'd appreciate any further insights you have in this area.

Best,
Lou

[First_Place]

ppf rating

take the horses last fraction rating and subteact 2 pts for each leangth the horse is behiond at the second call. This works with dbris or tsn as eachpoint in the rating equals half a length.
using this method youi can very quickly see the highest rating.

hope this helps

gene

Last fraction rating like the one in Pace Makes the Race? Or, just plain old final fraction time? Either way, what you suggest is not a PPF rating as per Michael Pizzolla's method.

FP

[First_Place]

I see. Is there more, i.e. last race at distance and surface?

If handicapping dirt race then last paceline has to be from same surface as today's race.

Is it just a raw second call time like 44.3 in 6F sprint for example?

Yep.

Would be hard to find more than couple entries in a 8 horse field that has raced at the same distance and surface in the last race.

It would be if the requirement were that the Fulcrum Pace has to be extracted from the exact distance as today's race but it doesn't. Just as long as it's a sprint race, if today's race is a sprint, and vice versa if today's race is a route. As well as the same surface, i.e., dirt/dirt, turf/turf.

FP

[First_Place]

kingfin66,

I understand how to make distance-to-distance adjustments but how do you make track-to-track adjustments using the Projected Power Fraction?

FP

[John]

First-place
----------------

I just got through reading the chapter on PPf. I looked at Mr. Pizzolla'example on page 317. He looked at each past performance line for a PPF rating and never considering what track the horse ran at. I assume that tracks don't matter when figureing PPF ratings

[Blackgold]

That's my favorite thing about the PPF, it is uncanny in comparing runners from different tracks.

It blows away the Beyers, if numerous runners are from different tracks.

I look for those type of races.

[John]

Blackgold
__________

Would you explain how you generate your PPF figures,

thank you

[Blackgold]

I use the software.

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, you need to get away from the nuts and bolts, after you understand it, an on to finding value.

For example, tonite's 4th at MNR.

Key boxed the gapped PPF runners, the 2 and 9 with the 20-1 Fulcrum, the 4- with the Heavy Play (another function of the program) runners, the 1,5, and 8.

Invested $192 in the race and just collected the $276 exacta 3 times and had the $731.20, $1 tri- twice. . . $2,098.40 was the net.

[Zaf]

Blackgold,

Could you explain what gapped PPF runners are ?

ZAFONIC

[Faster]

Originally posted by kingfin66

The PPF (Projected Power Fraction) can be used to make both track-to-track and distance adjustments. Let's say your fulcrum horse has a last running line of 45.0 71.0 and won the race. The PPF comes from the pace line of the Fulcrum horse, thus, the PPF is 26.0 (71.0-45.0 with nothing added for BL at the finish since the horse won). Now, you extrapolate the ratings for other distances adding 6 3/5 seconds for sprints and 6 4/5 for routes.

First_Place said before:

PPF = (Projected Power Fraction):

The PPF measures the final fraction of the race taking into account the horse's position at the second call; unlike the more common method of subtracting the second call time from the final time and then adding or subtracting 1/5 of a second for each length gained or lost between these calls. It does more than measure the third fraction, it takes "into account a horse's velocity potential and positional tendencies."

Not quite the same definition, but at this time I am not so concerned about the technicalities but rather wanted to understand the concept.

Appreciate both of you.

[kgonzales]

Originally posted by Lou G
kgonzales,

I also use Bris pace/speed figures and have developed a spreadsheet-based version of the ideas in HM. Actually, I have both a raw time version (per the book) and a Bris version. The Bris version works much better, attesting to the value of the Bris numbers. As has been mentioned on the forum more than once, they may not be the best figures out there but it's hard to beat the price.

Lou G,
Glad you found my comments helpful.
I also am capable of using the raw time numbers in my program, but don't bother anymore as I've had much better success with my BRIS derived numbers. I don't want to give the wrong impression that I believe my numbers are superior or infallible; or that the minutiae of constructing them is what's important. There are plenty of people that do just fine with the raw times/Master Magician ratings, as anyone who's seen Pizzolla in action can probably attest to. To each his own. These numbers are just what I'm comfortable with.
I think beyond the numbers that the art of judgment in opening form cycle windows, shaping the pace scenario, understanding the betting action and making good bets are all more important than what numbers you use or what adjustments you make.

As far as distance/surface issues go i rarely use a rating from a different surface (dirt/turf), however I will use off-track same surface unless aberrent. The only exceptions are horses who have never tried the surface in question, i.e. only dirt lines in a turf race or vice-versa (less common). I wil use those numbers with a big "?" next to them If they are competitive and the horse has ok breeding to handle the surface AND the odds warrant, I will include those horses in my part wheels with my key horse(s). I know Michael Pizzolla has advocated using turf ratings in long dirt sprints and routes, but I still cannot wrap my head around it. It just wasn't fruitful for me when I tried.

For route to sprint (dirt mainly) you may have already noticed that the PPF's generated from the E1 and E2 internal calls of a route can be hugely inflated and unreliable, most of the time. I've stopped trying to adjust them and just try to use good judgment. There are instances though where I will use those if the horse has a validating sprint PPF (even beyond the window), say within 5-7 points AND the E1 pace of the route rating is competitive with today's fulcrum or it's top PBS is competitive. Again it's best if this a pressured race and/or longer sprint 6.5f - 7.5f. The PBS numbers adjusted by 1 length per 1/2 furlong, do seem accurate enough that I just use them without too much stress in neutral races and the shorter sprints. For sprint to route I just use the standard adjustments as outlined in the book.
Sorry to go on, but I can talk about this crap all day. Hope all that makes "sense". BTW my dad is a Lou G also.

Good luck,
kg

[First_Place]

"I assume that tracks don't matter when figureing PPF ratings."

You're correct, John. They don't. Perhaps that was kingfin66's original point as far as "track-to-track" adjustments go.

FP

[First_Place]

Congrats Blackgold. Don't spend it all in one place. :-) I wish I could structure exotic bets like that. Looks to me that your style is a la Michael Pizzolla. My way of putting together Trifecta and Superfecta wagers are different, i.e., more mechanical. At least my thought process is.

As far as gapped PPF (or PBS) numbers are concerned, zafonic, here's what is meant by that:

# PPF Rating

1) 90
2) 89
3) 83
4) 80
5) 79
6) 77

There's a numerical "gap" in the PPF ratings of horses #1 and #2 with their 90 and 89 numbers respectively, compared to the next closest horse (or group of horses), in this case horse #3, with his 83 rating followed by the rest of the field with their closely matched numbers.

I'm not 100% sure of what Michael Pizzolla considers a "gap" since it was not mentioned in his book. But I can tell if I see one. :-)

Is it correct for me to presume that a "gapped" PPF rating is something on the order of at least a four point difference between the top rated horse(s) and the rest of the field's numbers?

FP

[kingfin66]

Originally posted by First_Place
"I assume that tracks don't matter when figureing PPF ratings."

You're correct, John. They don't. Perhaps that was kingfin66's original point as far as "track-to-track" adjustments go.

FP

That's right FP - there are no track-to-track adjustments. That's really the beauty of the PPF.

[kingfin66]

First Place,

One small point, the numbers you presented are actually Pace Balanced Speed (PBS) numbers. I'm sure that you know this & just made a transference. The principal remains the same.

Pizzolla started talking gaps at the 2002 seminar. A gap of 3 would be significant when comparing horses and structuring exotic wagers. If you had something along the lines of these PPF's:

9
6
5
4

you would structure around the 9 (3 gapped to the next highest PPF) unless the 9 was a short price.

Hope that helps. BTW, this is a great thread.

[First_Place]

kingfin66

Thanks for pointing that out. It's way past my bedtime. :-) Sorry for the mix-up.

FP

p.s. Great thread indeed. I've got more to add and more questions to ask. I don't want to overload everyone all at once. Stay tuned...

[socantra]

Originally posted by First_Place
Great thread indeed. I've got more to add and more questions to ask. I don't want to overload everyone all at once. Stay tuned...

Yes, many thanks to everyone. I've read Handicapping Magician , and utilize bits of it, like paceline selection, but I'm pasting most of this thread into Word to print out and fold into the back of the book as an addendum/tutorial. I'm getting excited about a fresh read with enhanced understanding. Not only fun, but illuminating.


socantra

[Zaf]

Thanks Kingfin & First Place.

And Congrats to Blackgold on a nice score. Any other thoughts on gapped PPF's Blackgold ???

Thanks,

ZAFONIC

[Lou G]

The only thing that really bothers me about the PPF as explained in HM is the 6-and-3/6-and-4 adjustment for varying distances. It seems like kind of a blunt tool for the job. Has anyone experimeneted successfully with using an algorithm rather than a one-size-fits-all adjustment?

Lou

[gene]

first place

re ppf calculations
bris final fraction ratingforthe horse(number not raw data)- minus 2x beaten leangths at the pace position = a ppf rating based on bris.

This is what i was trying to say. I arrived at this formula quite awhile back.. You say this is not ppf according pissola method. you are probaly correct.

I have lost the book and have ordered another copy and will check this when I get the book. It seems to work for me when I use it.

I normally use the program to get my ratings, only use this when i don't have a computer available.

[Blackgold]

Anytime the Fulcrum (that often finishes 2nd as in the MNR 4 last nite and just as often finishes in the tri and super). . . well, ANYTIME the Fulcrum is going off at odds higher than random, I can GUARANTEE I will be structuring an exotic ticket.

Also about the PPF (and you guys that know more technically than me, feel free to correct me). . .but, as I understand the PPF, it has some built in "fudge" factors, such as penalizing the closers.
So when you see a gapped number of a couple of points, it's really a HUGE gap and again, odds being your guide, you can bet confidently.

[First_Place]

You're welcome, Zafonic. Glad to help.

Lou G, six and 3/5ths and six and 4/5ths adjustments for sprints and routes (respectively) are based on the average difference in times between the various final fraction distances and work pretty good as prescribed by Mssr. Pizzolla in his book. These adjustments are what Dick Schmidt calls "good enough" numbers.

However, if "good enough" is not "good enough" for you, and you don't mind doing the required work, you can compile a large sample of races, separate the group into sprints and routes and the different sprint and route distances within each respective structure; compute the last fraction times for however big your sample of races, discarding the abnormally slow and fast times (i.e., "freak") from each individual group; then compute the average final fraction times for the various final fraction distances and use that as your guide to make adjustments when calculating PPF numbers.

And if the above numbers still aren't "good enough" for you, greater accuracy can be had by breaking it down by different tracks that you play. And even more accurate final fraction averages at a given race track can be had if you break it down by class. Ditto for Turf races.

Still not "good enough"? Then you could calculate a daily final fraction variant and re-check and make any necessary adjustments to your numbers on a regular basis just to make sure that they're at their utmost accuracy.

For me that's way too much work in exchange for greater accuracy. Whew! Just typing all the above was too much work! :-)

In my book "good enough" is "good enough."

It pays to keep things in perspective, Lou G. We're dealing with horse races here, not trying to launch a space shuttle into outer space.

However, having said that, if the aforementioned accuracy were available at my fingertips via a computer program you bet your #$@ I'd use 'em!

FP

[First_Place]

Gene,

Thanks for clarifying things. I'll experiment with what you presented.

FP

[First_Place]

" ANYTIME the Fulcrum is going off at odds higher than random, I can GUARANTEE I will be structuring an exotic ticket."

One advantage I don't have (at the moment). Without the software there's no way I can figure if the odds on a respective horse are going off higher than random. Or can I? Any pen and paper formula that can enable one to do so?

FP

[Blackgold]

If there are 10 horses in the field and one of your contenders is going off at 11-1, that's above random.

[socantra]

Originally posted by First_Place
" ANYTIME the Fulcrum is going off at odds higher than random, I can GUARANTEE I will be structuring an exotic ticket."

One advantage I don't have (at the moment). Without the software there's no way I can figure if the odds on a respective horse are going off higher than random. Or can I? Any pen and paper formula that can enable one to do so?

FP

Random odds are simply number of contenders minus one to one. If your horse is part of a ten horse field, each one has one chance of winning. Your horse has one chance and nine other horses have one chance. Random odds = 9/1. In a six horse field, random odds = 5/1, etc.

socantra...

[Lou G]

re: PPF adjustments

First_Place - you're absolutely correct, I could do those things (or at least some of them) but I do agree with the "close enough" concept. It's working quite well for me but I feel there's always room for improvement.

I was thinking more of an algorithm on the order if a percentage, e.g. if I knew what average time MP bases his 6/3 6/4 numbers on it might be possible to modify the adjustments just a hair for faster or slower final fraction times. I'm also aware that MP was trying (and succeeding) to keep the presentation in HM to something that could be done quickly on paper or pocket calculator rather than in a spreadsheet or computer program.

I'm a retired computer programmer and love tinkering with this stuff almost as much as I like cashing tickets...

Thanks for your response,

Lou

[cato]

what's the latest version of TMM? I have 1.5 on my computr but think a newer version may have been passed out at a seminar and it never made it to my computer

Cato

[kingfin66]

Just check my disc. It doesn't say...just says 2002.

[First_Place]

Blackgold, Socantra:

Thanks for enlightening me.

FP

[First_Place]

Lou G,

I don't know what average time Michael bases his PPF adjustments on. I can only suggest that you send him an e-mail via his web site and ask him.

http://itsdata.com/Contact.php

FP

[First_Place]

Here's another question for you Handicapping Magicians:

When do you not use a horse as a Fulcrum horse even if it meets the Fulcrum Pace qualification rules? I already mentioned one reason I don't earlier in this thread, i.e., if the horse is a shipper and his last line is from another race track (I know, it's redundant).

Here's another reason why I won't use a horse as a Fulcrum horse (even though I may use him to set the Fulcrum Pace of the race): If he's a "reversal winner." Yes, that's right, a reversal winner.

It has been my observation that even if the horse is the Fulcrum horse in a race, he is not too reliable to use as your key horse in exotic wagers if he's also a reversal winner, especially if he won the last race.

These types of horses, once again, based upon my experiences, usually "bounce" the next time out and therefore in my view, are not a very reliable key horse to use for exotic wagering purposes.

Anyone know if Michael has ever touched on this topic in one of his seminars?

FP

[Blackgold]

If the Fulcrum is going off at a high price, I structure most of the exotic tickets using the Fulcrum.

If the Fulcrum is going off at a low price, I sometimes just put in the 2nd hole, as long has I have long priced runners on top and bottom.

Let price be your guide.

If a contender is going off at a low price, I assume; there will be a bounce OR can't run off the layoff OR is out classed OR is not suited to the distance OR has bad trainer, ETC., ETC., ETC.

If a contender is going off a a high price, I assume the opposite of all of the above, ETC., ETC., ETC.

Pace Advantage Pals and Gals, you are spending far too much time on 1/5's of a second, length of the stretch or run up, track to track adjustments and on and on.

Your MONEY is going to come from finding your edge and applying that edge over and over, like WalMart does.

Your MONEY is not likely to come from some brilliant insight that if you make some minute adjustment to a runner's line that is coming from FL to BEL and use that runner as your long shot single in a monster Pick 6 that gets you on the cover of the DRF and a limo ride to Charles Schwab.

What's a couple lengths or seconds or class or trainers, etc- what does it matter if you have identified a CONTENDER and you are getting a price.

If you enjoy making thousands of minute decisions, then do what I do- play video poker.

Pizzola quoted the late Ray Talbot who said, "you must wait until everything is right AND you are getting a price."

[JimL]

First Place, In the Quantum Leap, seminar Pizzolla, said the reversal winner is the most likely horse to place. I understand your reasoning about the reversal winner. If it was not a big win they usually do bounce. JimL

[kingfin66]

Originally posted by First_Place
Here's another question for you Handicapping Magicians:

When do you not use a horse as a Fulcrum horse even if it meets the Fulcrum Pace qualification rules? I already mentioned one reason I don't earlier in this thread, i.e., if the horse is a shipper and his last line is from another race track (I know, it's redundant).

Here's another reason why I won't use a horse as a Fulcrum horse (even though I may use him to set the Fulcrum Pace of the race): If he's a "reversal winner." Yes, that's right, a reversal winner.

It has been my observation that even if the horse is the Fulcrum horse in a race, he is not too reliable to use as your key horse in exotic wagers if he's also a reversal winner, especially if he won the last race.

These types of horses, once again, based upon my experiences, usually "bounce" the next time out and therefore in my view, are not a very reliable key horse to use for exotic wagering purposes.

Anyone know if Michael has ever touched on this topic in one of his seminars?

FP

Getting back to FP's actual question, I will rarely if ever, not use a fulcrum horse that was set via the fundamentals. The only exception I really make is when the fulcrum pace selected is way too low (ex: 1:13 1/2 mi for 3+ colts & geldings at a SoCal track). You have to remember that the fulcrum concept isn't trying to predict who will be on the lead at the 2nd call, but what horses can run to that number so as to be included or excluded as win contenders.

As far as horses used in the 2nd spot in exotics, Michael has said that good patterns are Reversal Winners, the Fulcrum horse, the best horse with the wrong style for the race, etc. These are the so-called "pattern" horses. This has always been a part of Pizzolla's methods that I don't care for. Whenever things like this are put forth, I like to see numbers to support the theory. For a time I was tracking this matter of the F horse finishing 2nd, but it just got to be too cumbersome. Same thing for Rev. Winners. My exotics play is probably much more limited than most players. I look for tri boxes with lots of price and where the top four ratings are also the top four Value Tech odds horse. There are times when a Rerverser will run a big race and I will same "DAMN," but those times seem to be few and far between.

[Faster]

Unless I misunderstand the whole Pizzola affair, The PPF factor looks to the uninitiated a bit like an effort to quantify energy expenditure using speed and pace figs.
Not a bad idea, since there may be no other way to physically 'see', and measure expended energy.
Would the Pizzola disciples tell us if this is so, and if not, than how does Pizzola deal with energy expenditure, if at all.
I went to the its site and didn't find anything.

[First_Place]

First Place, In the Quantum Leap, seminar Pizzolla, said the reversal winner is the most likely horse to place. I understand your reasoning about the reversal winner.

I'm glad you understand. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have the utmost respect for Michael Pizzolla and admire him very much. My purpose in starting this thread was not to question or contradict the Master Magician's teachings, only to share my observations as well as read yours. You'll never become a true master of this game (business to me) if you are not able to think on your own and let your observations and first hand experiences be your guide. I have no doubt that Mr. Pizzolla would agree.

As with all handicapping methods, systems, and angles, where you play can be as important as how you play. Not all methods work as well at all tracks as they do at some. I would like to believe that everyone knows that by now. It's an irrefutable fact.

I prefer to 'invest' in cheap tracks like Thistledown, Beulah, etc. where you'll find two kinds of horses competing, cheap and cheaper. Many people find it difficult to handicap such horses. I specialize in them. To me that's where the value is. Mastering something that the general public can't or has difficulty is to one's advantage, needless to say. And this one is mine.

These cheap tracks feature bottom of the barrel horses that are prone to going off form a lot easier after a win or an "up-close" finish as well as their generally not being as consistent as their counterparts competing in the better circuits. That's why I'm leery to use the Fulcrum horse--if the horse is also the "reversal winner" horse--as a key horse because of the aforementioned reasons. I should've made this clear from the start.

I don't know what tracks Michael prefers to play but whatever they are he has found that reversal winners are the most likely horses to place--based upon his experience--and was generous enough to share that discovery with his students. And for that I'm very grateful.

FP

[First_Place]

The PPF factor looks to the uninitiated a bit like an effort to quantify energy expenditure using speed and pace figs.

Really? I don't see it that way. Please elaborate.

Would the Pizzola disciples tell us if this is so, and if not, than how does Pizzola deal with energy expenditure, if at all.

Michael doesn't, in spite of his past association with Doc Sartin and Co. who were the originators of measuring energy expenditure.

FP

[RXB]

I'm not a Pizzolla disciple by any means but I did read the book.

The PPF was a way of trying to get a handle on how a handicapper could rate a horse's actual ability to finish, since Pizzolla says that a closer's final fraction time or velocity tends to overrate the effort. So instead of calculating the horse's closing fraction in time or velocity, he simply takes the difference between the leader's pace call and the winner's final time from the race, adds 1/5 of a second for every length that the horse was beaten at the finish line, and creates an artificial number to compare horses' finishing ability.

It has nothing to do with energy expenditure.

[First_Place]

Another question for Handicapping Magicians:

When there's no last paceline from each horse's past performances that meets the Fulcrum Pace qualification rules, what do you do? Pass the race? If not, do you use a representative (i.e., par) second call time to calculate your PBS ratings? If so, then who do you use as the Key horse for exotic wagering purposes, a role usually assumed by the Fulcrum Pace horse?

FP

[kingfin66]

When there is no fulcrum horse, TMM will calculate a constant as a substitute fulcrum line. This is derived from one of the horse's pacelines. I'm not sure how the algorithm works for this in TMM, but my observation has been that it usually makes sense. I definitely do not pass races just because there is no fulcrum.

As for keying the fulcrum in the exotics (2nd position), I am not a big believer in this in and of itself. I like to see the fulcrum backed up by 1 or 2 other good place horse factors (long shot, reversal winner, good ratings/wrong style, back class, etc.).

Gotta go night, night now.

[Big Bill]

I've copied the following from a posting on a newsgroup. If this subject has been discussed on our board, I missed it:

The Estate of Eric Langjahr just recently became aware
of the post by Skidder von Cleese dated 9/12-13/04, in
reply to the Estate's post dated 8/31/04. Potential
purchasers of Eric's stock should know that the Estate
STANDS BEHIND EVERY WORD of its original post.

Mr. von Cleese, holding himself out in his post as
agent on behalf of ITS and Michael Pizzolla, tried to
sabotage my brother's estate's ability to sell Eric's
stock for fair value. Mr. von Cleese did that by
actively spreading false and misleading legal,
technical and other information, at my late brother's
expense.

As a result, my brother's estate is duty-bound a) to
try to mitigate the damages caused by Mr. von Cleese
and b) to set the record straight in DEFENSE against
Mr. Von Cleese's ATTACKS on my brother's legal interests.
For those reasons, the Estate will try to correct Mr.
von Cleese's misleading descriptions of the applicable
law and facts.

Mr. von Cleese's post contended, rather fantastically,
that ITS is not a largely automated, turnkey business.
Mr. von Cleese also misspeaks aspects of ITS's
technical project requirements. The Estate disagrees
with Mr. von Cleese. Further, based on his words in
the past, so does Michael Pizzolla.

According to Eric, no one at ITS (besides him)
possessed any programming skills.

If, as therefore appears to be the case, Mr. von
Cleese is not a professional programmer with
substantial experience programming commercial-quality
software systems, Mr. von Cleese is not qualified to
comment on anyone's programming skills or the
technical skillsets required for any proposed project.

But, in contrast to what Mr. von Cleese said in his
post, in the past, Eric's little sister has herself,
personally spec'd out, designed AND developed
commercial-quality, object-oriented, multi-tiered, SQL-
compliant, database-driven, commercial software
applications which were successfully sold to
businesses by software development and software
consulting companies. Further, I have been a paid,
professional developer-consultant on object-oriented,
database-driven, commercial software systems in
legitimate high tech cities.

Like my big brother, I have diverse interests. And
Eric and I had many, many long conversations about
programming theory and practice. So, contrary to Mr.
von Cleese's post, a little Langjahr Family consulting
may actually go quite a long way - IF desired by the
buyers of Eric's stock.

If, as Mr. von Cleese contends, ITS is not a largely
automated, turnkey business, then, since Eric's death,
would Mr. von Cleese have us believe that ITS sends
employees out to observe every race at every track, to
manually collect information about all of those races;
to manually document all of that information; to
manually code all of that information; to manually
index all of that information; to manually store all
of that information; to manually retrieve all of that
information; to manually deliver all of that
information to every customer on demand; to manually
display (and re-display, ad infinitum) all of that
information for each and every customer, in any
desired format, at will; to manually bill each customer
for that information; to manually track each
customer's account, etc.? Surely not.

Mr. von Cleese should take a look at the legend at the
bottom of the ITS website:

"Handicapper's Daily®, the original online form, was
formerly known as the Handicappers Daily Racing Form
and the Electronic Daily Racing Form. ITS, Inc. is an
Authorized Dealer of Equibase Company. The
Thoroughbred Industry's Official Database of Racing
Information."

Online … Electronic … Database … Racing Information.
Since the beginning of ITS, day in and day out, my
brother's software has collected raw horse-racing data
from the source; processed the data into meaningful
information; indexed and stored the data in a database
for on-demand retrieval; output the data into a file
on demand; uploaded the file to a server; enabled the
file to be downloaded by ITS customers; then displayed
(and re-displayed, ad infinitum) the data on
customers' computers, in the user's choice of user-
friendly formats that help customers do their
handicapping.

Eric's software still does all of that today, without
any significant manual labor. The Estate thinks it's
fair to call that automation. That automation
generates the core of ITS' revenues. Other software of
my brother's, called infrastructure, automates various
internal business processes of ITS for the various
phases of managing customer accounts. So, yes, of
course, the bulk of ITS' revenues are generated via a
mostly AUTOMATED operation that is virtually TURNKEY!

The one thing that Mr. von Cleese and I can agree on
is that my brother was truly in a technical class by
himself and made an irreplaceable contribution to ITS -
and the world. But, truthfully, Eric was grossly
under-challenged by his technical work at ITS for a
very, very long time. He continued to do all the
boring technical work himself solely to increase ITS'
profits.

No one could ever replace Eric - but someone will
eventually have to succeed Eric - IF ITS ever wants to
have any new or improved products or infrastructure.
If it does, the Estate agrees that, FROM THE COMPANY'S
STANDPOINT, a programmer would be the optimal
successor to Eric's stock, because only a programmer
could enhance and extend the code base that Eric built.


But that is strictly optional. For the PASSIVE
investor, ITS continues to generate substantial
revenues from its pre-existing products and
infrastructure. All the passive investor must do is
deposit the checks. That's pretty turnkey.

For the more active investor, a successor programmer
needn't be anywhere near Eric's programming league to
do the work that may, by ITS's choice, lie ahead. Any
professional programmer today with solid, quality
experience should be versed in object-oriented
programming. As long as he is hard-working and
motivated, like Eric, and blessed with the good health
that my brother was not, there is no reason why Eric's
work at ITS may not be carried on by newcomers.

In fact, from the time that Eric entered the hospital
until a few days after Eric's death, Michael Pizzolla
repeatedly informed my family how he had told Eric
time and again that Mr. Pizzolla was willing to go out
and hire someone off the street to do the programming
work Eric was too sick to do. So, unlike Mr. von
Cleese, the current operator of ITS obviously didn't
think it would be difficult at all for someone to
replace Eric as programmer at ITS.

Further, from the time that Eric entered the hospital
until a few days after Eric's death, Mr. Pizzolla also
repeatedly told my family that Mr. Pizzolla's
marketing strategies were the primary reason for ITS's
success. So, contrary to Mr. von Cleese's post, the
words of the current operator of ITS confirm that, at
least for the buyer of Eric's stock, ITS is indeed a
turnkey operation.

DISCLAIMER: THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF ERIC
LANGJAHR DO NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE ANY CLAIMS MADE
BY THE CURRENT OPERATOR OF ITS AND ANY RELIANCE ON SAME
IS AT YOUR OWN RISK.

It will be a while before it is seen whether a court
will judicially award the other alleged shareholder of
ITS any stock in the company. But the Estate has all
the legally valid proof it could want that Eric owned
AT LEAST fifty percent of ITS.

As a matter of law, company control follows ownership,
not the object of Mr. von Cleese's loyalty or Mr. von
Cleese's assessment of ITS personnel. Is it possible
that Mr. von Cleese doth protest too much?

Contrary to what Mr. von Cleese said in his post, I
KNOW in my heart that my big brother is applauding his
biological family's defense of his interests - against
people like Mr. von Cleese, who appear to have turned
so quickly on his memory.

This reply to Mr. von Cleese is posted on behalf of
Eric's father, Charles Langjahr, in his capacity as co-
administrator of Eric's estate.

Janet Langjahr, as agent on behalf of Charles
Langjahr, Co-Administrator, Estate of Eric Langjahr
its_stock@yahoo.com


Big Bill

[First_Place]

As for keying the fulcrum in the exotics (2nd position), I am not a big believer in this in and of itself. I like to see the fulcrum backed up by 1 or 2 other good place horse factors (long shot, reversal winner, good ratings/wrong style, back class, etc.).

Same here, kingfin66. In my view, it's always a plus to have additional factor(s) backing up your choice.

FP

[First_Place]

But, truthfully, Eric was grossly under-challenged by his technical work at ITS for a very, very long time. He continued to do all the boring technical work himself solely to increase ITS' profits.

Invariably, whenever someone passes who has any sort of a$$ets, out come the vultures (i.e., $$$ greedy relatives$$$) and things start to get nasty.

I read this post in one of the newsgroups a while back. If Eric was "so grossly under-challenged by his technical work at ITS" who was holding him back? I'm sure if Eric said to Michael, "Mike, it's been fun but it's time now for me to move on," I'm sure Michael would accept his very good friend and business partner's decision, wish him good luck and bid adieu--after trying to do everything in his power to convince Eric not to leave.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Now back to handicapping.

FP

[Tom]

What do mean by a "reversal horse?"

[John]

Yeah Tom, I want to know too.

I PM "first place" and asked him to explain to me what a Reversal
Horses is and so far no answer. It is not in Handicapping Magic book that I reading now.

John

[Blackgold]

A reversal is what happened when Funny Cide came in 2nd to Empire Maker in the Wood and then beat him in the Derby.

There is more to it, from last year's seminar update package.

Reverse winners as with the Fulcrum, often finish 2nd and ITM enough times to warrant a key, under, in the exotics.

Also a quick comment on Eric. . . one of the most overlooked aspects of TMM is the Value Tech module. It is uncanny in it's prediction of how the public is likely to back a runner. I use it often to include a runner on my tickets that I may have not used otherwise, because the program displayed Heavy Play after entering the board odds.

I like that first tick of the odds as they come up. I find it shows me where the AC Avila's of the world (if you play S CA) are betting their entry.

Good luck all!

[JimL]

Tom a reversal horse is the same thing as a tandem race. Michael, just believes the tandem will be reversed. The place horse will win. The winning horse will probably place. He says the public over bets tandem race winners. JimL

[Tom]

Thanks for the info.
Sartin had two methods of dealing with the tandem horses:

1. Give all the horses in the tandem the same beaten lengths
2. Rate the tandem winner off the tandem race and pick other races for other horses, in other words, a tandem was a reason to go back further for a paceline.

I like #2 the best. Does Michael use either of these, or just mentally use the info to make his bet?

[First_Place]

I PM "first place" and asked him to explain to me what a Reversal Horses is and so far no answer.

John, I didn't mean to nix you off but I had no idea you sent me a private message. Btw, how the heck do I access my PM box in the first place (no pun intended)? I don't see anything that tells me I have a new message waiting for me once I sign in to this site.

FP

[First_Place]

"...a tandem was a reason to go back further for a paceline."

That's what I used to do before I became aware of the tandem aka reversal concept. Those pacelines never made sense to me. So I just skipped past them. It never dawned on me that the horses (most of the time) finished in opposite order, not that I spent any time pondering the issue.

I don't know Michael Pizzolla's exact rules for reversal races. Only what I read on this messageboard awhile back regarding this subject. Here's the link to the thread:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7589&perpage=15&highlight=reversal%20race&pagenumber=2

FP

[JimL]

Tom, Michael, uses tandem procedure #2 JimL

[Blackgold]

A reverse winner for today's race, did not have to win his last race.

A reverser, including the reverse winner, is not rated only off his last line for today's race.

The whole concept is to identify runners that may move forward in today's race, vs. their last race(s).

And yes, the public overbets the reverse winner and underbets the potential reversers, again the example of Funny Cide and Empire Maker in the Derby of '03.

[Blackgold]

Did you see CD race 1 today.

The 1 and 8 were Value Tech runners.

The 8's PPF was coming from a turf race- and you know how some people feel about using a PPF from a turf race. I find it especially useful in pressured races as today's.

Anyway, with the fav on top the exacta paid over $500 and the buck tri paid over $1,500 and someone took the whole super pool for over $20K.

I did not cash on the race, as I didn't figure an E horse on top.

But I did have a win bet on the 8 and was temporarilary paralyzed as they turned for home with the 8, @80-1, was closing on the winner.

I didn't cash because I was trying to be too smart. Sometimes the best thing to do is box the heavily overlaid runners with every contender.

It's a learning process, and sometimes you get paid and very well.

But this lesson illustrates the power of the PPF and the reason to bet runners going off at above random.

[Zaf]

Blackgold,

Aren't the ppf ratings very inflated in turf races. Have you had success in using them on turf - dirt switches?

I am not using Pizzollas method but I have a database and can produce PPF type numbers for a race card using access & excel.

I was playing the 10th at Calder today. I liked Mr. Samsom as his pace/speed figs were very competative with the other horses. At 8-1 he looked attractive. I put in a last 60 day ppf query, dirt races only in my database and he came up with a 7 point gap !
Sold. He won the race pretty easily.

I was wondering if any of the MM program users who were playing Calder today came up with this.

Thanks to the guys earlier in the thread who explained to me what a ppf gap was, I think Blackgold, First Place & KingFin. I may start to look for these more now.

ZAFONIC

[First_Place]

"Aren't the ppf ratings very inflated in turf races."

Zafonic, I've found that to be the case. I have in the past added a second to the turf PPF times--the times I've had no choice but to use a turf paceline in a dirt race, e.g., today's race is a route with only dirt sprint races and turf route races in the past performances of a certain horse--in order to 'equalize' it somewhat with the dirt PPF numbers from the other entries. It's a "quick and dirty" adjustment that needs more refining, something I'll have to devote further study to one of these days.

Does anyone out there have a more accurate adjustment?

FP

p.s. Congrats on the winner! As Michael Pizzolla says, it's "Magic on the Grass."

[Blackgold]

It's simple, if the runner has a competitive PPF for today's event and is going off at 80-to-1, I assume the PPF is the right number.

I find the turf PPFs to be most useful if today's race on the dirt is pressured, heavy pressure or on an off track (which I rarely play).

ALSO, today HOL race 5 was a good example of a reversal going on. The 5 and 10 ran almost the identical number last race and both were gapped vs. other runners today. The 5 beat the 10 last out and went off today at 6/5, while the 10 returned 7/2, just a simple win bet was all that was needed to score on this race.

Off to MNR.

[Zaf]

Thanks, First Place & Blackgold.

I like when you site examples of races to learn from. Please if you see anything interesting , ex. tandem races, or gapped races, please post the examples. They are very educational.

Excellent thread !!!

ZAFONIC

[kingfin66]

Some people have inquired about EXACTLY what a Reversal Horse is:

Reversal Protocol

·Two or more horses in today’s race have run; and

·It is the last race in the past performances; and

·The race was run within 45 days of today’s race (allow more for higher class races).

·The Reversal Winner (RW) is the horse coming out with the best finish position in that race.

·The Reversal Horse must have run within 5-6 lengths of the RW in the reversal race and must have an “excuse” or positive form cycle magic pattern to be considered a reversal horse.

·A Reversal Horse with a positive form cycle pattern (i.e. layoff pattern) should, in most cases, be rated off its best race.

·The Reversal Winner is almost always a strong place candidate.

·In races with multiple reversal races, favor the reversal race that has the horses with the best ratings in today’s race.

I hope this helps.

[lwinston67]

Great discussion everyone. Sometimes I wish there was forum dedicated soley to Master Magician and it's conepts. I really like the MM program and am getting more comfortable with it all the time. I think the sooner you get away from looking for a black box, and instead use it the way it's suggested in the seminar, the better off you'll be. I keep learning more all the time, and am beginning to gain confidence that I can identify the races that are worthy of investing in. Passing races is so important and identifying races worth of play is what it's all about. Good luck to all the Master Magicians out there.

LW

[First_Place]

"I like when you site examples of races to learn from. Please if you see anything interesting , ex. tandem races, or gapped races, please post the examples. They are very educational."

Yes indeed, Zafonic. I've learned some things too, which was my reason in starting this thread.

"Some people have inquired about EXACTLY what a Reversal Horse is:"

Thanks for the explanation, Kingfin66.

"Sometimes I wish there was forum dedicated soley to Master Magician and it's conepts.

Until ITS launches one on their website, you've got one here, lwinston67. Feel free to ask or share your experiences.

"I keep learning more all the time...."

You can say that again!

FP

[First_Place]

Here's another question for you Handicapping Magicians:

We're all familiar with the LAAST and Dirty Dozen reasons to go past the last paceline from the Form Cycle Windows chapter in Michael's book. I'd like to know if you've added any of your own to the "Dirty Dozen" list and what they are.

Kgonzales added a couple:

"I also use 2nd off a layoff bounce and a win in a slow paced race as 2 excuses each..."

"I use 42 days as my layoff line (sometimes a little less if there are other reasons to go past). I think 30 days is too generous in form cycle windows."

CJ added:

"I don't use the software, but I use a modified version of the LASST method with my own numbers.

I believe La was for Layoff, S for surface, S for structure (distance,) and T for trouble. If any of those were present, he goes to the next line. I believe Layoff is defined as a race immediately before or after a layoff.

I add a second T for positive trainer change, ie, first race for one of the "super" trainers, in which case I'll find the horses best line showing and assume the horse will run better than that one. I also throw in an extra S for "slow paced race" on dirt only, which can make horses figures look lower than they would be normally, especially for PS and S type runners.

So, for me, its LaSSSTT"

(Hey CJ, please explain your definition of a "slow paced race." Thank you.)

Tom added a few:

"For me, it is:
Layoff
Bad jock
Bad trainer
Atypical pace
Turf switch"

(Atypical pace? Not exactly sure what you mean, Tom. Please elaborate.)

IRISHLADSTABLE chimed in:

"Bug Boy

Under A mile

Distance

Lasix

Intent

Turf

Early Speed"

(IRISHLADSTABLE, what do you mean by "Under A mile"? By intent presumeably you mean trainer intent. Can you give us an example? By Early Speed do you mean up-close then a smooth drop back as in a workout in a race? Please explain.)

Anyone else have any other reasons to add to the "Dirty" list"?

First Place

[First_Place]

I'd like to backtrack for a moment and ask a question regarding Reversal races as the thought just occurred to me. Have you ever seen examples of the following:

Horse A today is coming off a layoff of 30 days or so. Both Horse A and Horse B raced each other in Horse A's last race. But Horse B himself has had one race since he last raced Horse A. And both qualify as Reversal Winner and Reversal Horse in Horse A's last race.

I fully understand that these two horses are not coming out of the same race but today is the 'next' time out for Horse A who is facing Horse B, as per the Reversal Protocol.

I recently handicapped a race like that (on paper) but I can't recall what the outcome was. As soon as I find the race I'll post the details and results.

Any thoughts?

First Place

[cj]

Originally posted by First_Place
Here's another question for you Handicapping Magicians:

CJ added:

"I don't use the software, but I use a modified version of the LASST method with my own numbers.

I believe La was for Layoff, S for surface, S for structure (distance,) and T for trouble. If any of those were present, he goes to the next line. I believe Layoff is defined as a race immediately before or after a layoff.

I add a second T for positive trainer change, ie, first race for one of the "super" trainers, in which case I'll find the horses best line showing and assume the horse will run better than that one. I also throw in an extra S for "slow paced race" on dirt only, which can make horses figures look lower than they would be normally, especially for PS and S type runners.

So, for me, its LaSSSTT"

(Hey CJ, please explain your definition of a "slow paced race." Thank you.)



For me, a slow paced race is any race where the pace figure for the leader is 10 points or more lower than the speed figure of the winner.

I make my own figures, I'm not sure how you would do it with HM numbers.

If you read ILS and Tom's posts again, they were just making jokes, not meant to be serious.

[Blackgold]

Let the odds be your guide whether to make adjustments or not.

If you have a runner that appears competitive for today's race, use any excuse you can to use that runner on your tickets IF you are getting paid well.

If the runner is going off at low odds, use any excuse you can to keep him off your tickets, or only on saver tickets.

The best use of the program is to quickly identify investment opportunities, then take a close look at those opportunities and IF you determine you will get paid well for your risk- head to the windows.

IF you are going to key a runner or runners that everyone else will have and the exacta's are coming back less than $50, then you have a race where you aren't getting paid enough for the risk.

To make MONEY you've got to beat the track take- 15%-17% straight wagers, 20%-25% on exotics AND THEN for all your work your Uncle Sam reaches into your pocket and takes another 20%-30% (unless you live in in the U.K.)

So you really have to get paid WELL to beat this game. A fraction here, a bounce/no bounce there, etc.- let the odds be your guide.

[lwinston67]

Originally posted by Blackgold


To make MONEY you've got to beat the track take- 15%-17% straight wagers, 20%-25% on exotics AND THEN for all your work your Uncle Sam reaches into your pocket and takes another 20%-30% (unless you live in in the U.K.)

So you really have to get paid WELL to beat this game. A fraction here, a bounce/no bounce there, etc.- let the odds be your guide.

I'm definitely coming around to this way of thinking. I like the idea of letting the odds determine if the number is right or not. And as far as refinement goes, I'm in agreement with Michael that the numbers aren't perfect, and that there is no perfect number that you can put on a horse and go to the window with. I think you can attempt to refine a number to the point where it becomes useless. Let the numbers be your guide, use them wisely and they will pay off for you in the end.

LW

[robert99]

UK Tax Position

The UK Tax Position is even better than stated on UK betting exchanges such as Betfair. There you only pay a maximum of 5% on your winnings. Other exchanges are down to 1% take. You know exactly what price you are getting, whether you back the horse to win, place or lay it to lose for money you decide. The UK Revenue do not further tax your winnings at all.

Snag one (for MP's methods) is that we do not have official sectional timing, as yet. It may be coming but not on all courses. Other snag is that your "free trade", "high tax" politicians will not let its citizens use the new technology. So move to Canada or UK?

Robert

[kgonzales]

Originally posted by First_Place
I'd like to backtrack for a moment and ask a question regarding Reversal races as the thought just occurred to me. Have you ever seen examples of the following:

Horse A today is coming off a layoff of 30 days or so. Both Horse A and Horse B raced each other in Horse A's last race. But Horse B himself has had one race since he last raced Horse A. And both qualify as Reversal Winner and Reversal Horse in Horse A's last race.

I fully understand that these two horses are not coming out of the same race but today is the 'next' time out for Horse A who is facing Horse B, as per the Reversal Protocol.

I recently handicapped a race like that (on paper) but I can't recall what the outcome was. As soon as I find the race I'll post the details and results.

Any thoughts?

First Place
First_Place,
An immediate example that pops to mind is Perfect Drift in the BC Classic. He finished within a length of Pleasantly Perfect in the Pacific Classic and then hung (again) and finished 2nd in the Hwthorne Gold Cup in his next race. Pleasantly Perfect was laid off until the Classic. This was my main reason for keying Perfect Drift although I was hoping he'd be closer to 20-1 and not 12-1. Compared to Pleasantly Perfect's 5-2 odds, it was a bonanza. I also made the call that the pace would be more tasking on the front-runners. Oh well: (SW*SW*SW)N! He didn't win the reversal either, again finishing 1 length behind Pleasantly Perfect.
- Kristian

[First_Place]

"For me, a slow paced race is any race where the pace figure for the leader is 10 points or more lower than the speed figure of the winner.

Thanks CJ.

"If you read ILS and Tom's posts again, they were just making jokes, not meant to be serious."

Naw...no way! You're shittin' me! Really?? Well then, let me let out a hearty laugh...ah-ha-ha-ha-ha. We're smack in the middle of a serious handicapping discussion and lo and behold, a couple of jesters pull a fast one on me and I didn't even catch it. Well, I'll be damned!

I'd like to ask these gentlemen if they also wear the multi-colored outfit with tiny bells attached all over it, tights, like ballerinas wear, and that most funny pointy hat with the tiny bells hanging off the ends of them and pointy shoes with their tips turned-up?
http://www.streetentertainers.co.uk/artists/sylvest/the%20minstrel%20jester.jpg

I knew it all along, CJ. I was just playing their game. I included their nonsense in my post hoping someone would point out that these two jokers were only foolin' around. Thanks my friend.

Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha...

First Place :-)

[First_Place]

"This was my main reason for keying Perfect Drift..."

I knew there was something to this pattern. I'll have to make further study of this. Thanks Kristian.

First Place

[Zaf]

There are times when the Fulcrum horse is an excellent play and other times when it should be disgarded. My question to the handicapping magicians is:

Which positive factors do you look for in the fulcrum horse that would further increase his chances of running 1st or 2nd.

On the other hand what negative factors downgrade his chances.

ZAFONIC

[kingfin66]

That's an easy one for me Z. To play the Fulcrum to win, it needs to have a good rating, the appropriate running style for the race, value, and price. In other words, it's just like any other horse to me. If I'm using it in an exotic play - a tri box for example - I won't be as stringent about the running style, but would still like it to have a good number. I won't ever include a fulcrum with a terrible number just because it is the fulcrum.

The thing with the fulcrum is that he know it should usually be a competitive horse in the race. It had to have finished within 5 lengths in its last race, and we know that it should be competitive at today's pace. This is why, in theory at least, it should have a good chance to hit the board. Despite this, I never consider it an automatic inclusion.

[Zaf]

Kingfin,

Does it make a difference to you how many other runners in the race are competetive against the fulcrum pace ???

ZAFONIC

[kingfin66]

Most horses will be competitive against the fulcrum pace. The horses that aren't should be disregarded as win contenders. The two exceptions to this are young lightly raced maidens and races with heavy pressure. I have found that in races for older horses, there is almost never a fulcrum issue.

[Zaf]

How about a situation where it was hard to pick the fulcrum horse. Lets say 3 horses were very close. Would you just assign a constant ? Do you require the fulcrum horse to have at least some advantage in pace call time ( eg. 2/5 sec ) over the others to become the fulcrum horse ? Does the question make sense :confused: ?

ZAFONIC

[First_Place]

Kingfin66, you make some very good points and Zafonic you raise some very good questions. Personally, I've noticed if a horse misses setting the Fulcrum pace, usually within .20 of a second, that horse many times too is a very good contender to finish in the money, or at the least, in the top four slots. This is what I call a dual Fulcrum.

I, as yet, haven't really taken into consideration the other factors Kingfin66 mentioned when selecting a Fulcrum Pace horse and its chances of being a good Key horse candidate. I just presumed that its chances of finishing in the money were good based on Pizzolla's Fulcrum Pace qualification rules. As well what factors may have contributed to the runner-up Fulcrum horse's strong performance (outside of this horse almost setting the Fulcrum Pace) but will keep this in mind from now on.

Thanks.

First Place

[Blackgold]

If the Fulcrum runner is going off at a high price, it's a good bet.

It the Fulcrum runner is going off at a low price, it's a good bet to include in exotics as long as your other competitive runners on the ticket are going off at a high price.

[Tom]

Originally posted by zafonic
How about a situation where it was hard to pick the fulcrum horse. Lets say 3 horses were very close. Would you just assign a constant ? Do you require the fulcrum horse to have at least some advantage in pace call time ( eg. 2/5 sec ) over the others to become the fulcrum horse ? Does the question make sense :confused: ?

ZAFONIC

I generally use the slowest fulcrum I can so that the most horses are included as contenders.

[John]

By the way,speaking of Mike Pizzolla, a few months ago on ebay there was a book authored by MP called "Speed Demon" I was outbid for it.. Anybody ever read it. If you have it can I read it or buy it.......Thanks

John

[First_Place]

Tom sayeth:

"I generally use the slowest fulcrum I can so that the most horses are included as contenders.

Now how am I supposed to interpret that? More tomfoolery?? Or not?

First Place

[shanta]

any users have any thoughts on opening night at Sam Houston? My good friend who uses the magician called me with a few races tonight that he thought might offer some value. The track is sloppy there.

race 3) #2 4/1 ml

race7) #1 12/1 ml and # 2 8/1 ml

Race8) # 6 5/1 ml

I know he sticks pretty much with the VTR horses so these guys probably are.


Richie

[Blackgold]

I just watched that first race at Sammy H., looks worse than sloppy. . .may be a good nite for the mud experts.

The $12 winner of the 1st did have one of the top off track numbers in the HD.

Good luck to anyone venturing into the surf there tonite.

[Tom]

Originally posted by First_Place
Tom sayeth:

"I generally use the slowest fulcrum I can so that the most horses are included as contenders.

Now how am I supposed to interpret that? More tomfoolery?? Or not?

First Place

That is how I set the fulcrum on Michael's advice. Chose the slower pace of several possible lines.

[shanta]

Originally posted by shanta
any users have any thoughts on opening night at Sam Houston? My good friend who uses the magician called me with a few races tonight that he thought might offer some value. The track is sloppy there.

race 3) #2 4/1 ml

race7) #1 12/1 ml and # 2 8/1 ml

Race8) # 6 5/1 ml

I know he sticks pretty much with the VTR horses so these guys probably are.


Richie

Results:

Race3- win $11.20

Race 7- win $7.20 ex 1-2- $59.00

Race 8- win $6.80

I see the ml did not mean too much there tonight. Thanx for the phone call Trickey!

Richie:)

[Zaf]

WOW , 3 for 3 !!! Excellent. Tell your friend to send more pix :D

ZAFONIC

[First_Place]

"That is how I set the fulcrum on Michael's advice. Chose the slower pace of several possible lines.

Okay Tom, I take your word for it. I wasn't sure if you were kidding around or not. You know the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on me...."

I appreciate your contribution.

First Place

[First_Place]

Guys, I'd like to share an e-mail exchange that I recently had with Michael Pizzolla. I informed him about this ongoing thread with the hope that he would join in. Instead, he politely declined and addressed a few of the questions posed here in his return e-mail to me. I hope you don't mind me sharing your thoughts with the group, Michael, if by chance you happen to be reading this. If you do mind, please forgive me.

Michael:

Hello. First, thanks so very much for sharing your methodology (no pun intended) with us. I've learned so much about this game (business to me) ever since buying, reading and constantly referring to and reviewing the concepts presented in your monumental book, which in my opinion, will go down as one of the most influential in horse race handicapping history.

Each time I refer to your most excellent tome in order to review your concepts, something I constantly have to do as my memory is not the best, I pick up something new, which in turn stimulates some original thought and leads to further insights into this most challenging pursuit. For example, I've added more reasons to your Form Cycle Windows' "Dirty Dozen" list as a direct result of this 'stimulation.'

I don't know if it was your intent or not when writing Handicapping Magic, but it has taught me how to think for myself, really think, and of course, how to approach the races in a contrarian way. That and more. That's why I'm so grateful.

I still handicap the races the old way, via pen, Racing Form and calculator. I look forward to automating the (at times) very tiring process of manually computing the Fulcrum, PBS, PPF and other calculations in the near future via the software your company sells.

Anyway, why I'm writing is to let you know there's a long thread going on at the Pace Advantage messageboard entitled Handicapping Magicians, started by yours truly:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16021 .

It begins like this, "I'm curious to hear from Michael's students whether or not they have tweaked some of his original concepts, e.g., Fulcrum, PBS, etc., as presented by him in his landmark book Handicapping Magic--and what they are. I know I have. Here's one of a few that I use:"

I realize you're a very busy man, but in case there's a break in the action, I'd really appreciate you joining in and answering/correcting some of our questions/answers if you'd be so kind. I don't know if you've ever been to the PA messageboard but in case you haven't, it's the largest one of its type on the web.

Whether you choose to join in or not, it's your decision and I respect it. However, I'd really appreciate a response to my email. Needless for me to say, it would really make my day. :-)

My very best regards.

Frank


Dear Frank,

Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful email. Most of all, thank you for your observations on Handicapping Magic. To answer your question, YES! one of the main purposes of the book was to get handicappers to think for themselves, to think in an intelligent yet contrarian fashion, and to develop a method that was flexible enough to incorporate the handicapper's own style of handicapping.

I've read the postings on the forum, and I have some general observations. Firstly, I don't usually participate in those discussions because of time constraints, and, frankly, there sometimes develops on these venues a contentious atmosphere--not surprising, after all, it is a subject on which people have very different opinions, and one that they feel passionate about. So, no criticism intended, it's just that I'd rather be handicapping. I don't have any axe to grind--I've never claimed that the Handicapping Magic principles are the only way to take a race apart, just the way I've developed over the years that works for me. And, as you've discovered, one that is flexible enough to incorporate your own style of handicapping--something which I encourage, not discourage.

Now, having said that, let me address one or two points on the postings. First, the more excuses you incorporate, the more you move toward one end of the running line selection spectrum. On one end is the last line only, on the other is the entire past performance. So, the more excuses, the wider the window--enough excuses, and you're winding up with the horse's best line. Nothing wrong with that--Ray Talbout advocated just such an approach, with a very keen analysis of the horse's current form to determine whether it would run back to it or not. So, the more you add--poor trainer, trainer change, low tides, wrong color tie worn by owner, etc., the wider the window. Not right or wrong, just be aware.

The fellow who suggested the 3rd start layoff pattern, with a performance bounce--I believe I alluded to that in the book, and certainly at the seminars, of course, go past those--that's a great pattern! In my own work, when I find one of those, I usually will see if the horse has any lines that make it a strong contender in the race, and go from there.

On reversals, as I've explained in the seminar, it's a price thing. There's no special reason why a horse should reverse the other horse it ran against in the last race--other than it happens. Oh, sure, the connections may try a different training regimen, or different riding tactics, or perhaps the pace scenario in the race may favor the loser of the reversal this time, but ultimately it is a price consideration. In the old days, I was instructed to change the final beaten lengths of the reversal line to make the reverser look better. What I think that was all about was an attempt to make the software program look better--see, it got this one, even though the other horse beat this one. Whatever. It's a price thing. Think Funny Cide, Empire Maker.

Perhaps the best observation was made by the poster who suggested that all of these decisions are to be made in the context of price. If you're going back on a horse, be certain that you are being adequately compensated for making that call. Turf line in dirt races--in some cases they're very good, other cases they can muddle up the picture. It's judgment, but if you come down on the side of making an unorthodox call, be sure you're getting paid.

You are so clearly on the right track, and now it's a matter of practice, and developing the feel for the approach, and most importantly waiting for when the bet makes you. Keep up the good work, and keep me posted!

With my sincere thanks again for your kind words,

All the best,

Michael

[Blackgold]

Over and above everything else, MP is truly a class act.

A breath of fresh air in today's shill filled world.

[Zaf]

Pretty Cool. " be sure your getting paid " thats what the game is all about, Value.

ZAFONIC

[First_Place]

"Perhaps the best observation was made by the poster who suggested that all of these decisions are to be made in the context of price."

Mikey P.'s talking about you, Blackgold. Kudos to you, my friend.

A class act indeed, Mr. Pizzolla is.

First Place

[kingfin66]

Wow Bro Ham,

I don't know what woudl compel some random person to come into an informative thread (to us at least) and make a comment like that. Could it be that you are a classless jerk? Just a possibility. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here since it is remotely possible that you are just an effin' a-hole. Please stay out of our little thread if you can offer any insight.

Sincerely,
Kingfin66

[kingfin66]

I don't know if that was your first e-mail to Michael. One thing about him that is very, very consistent is his graciousness. He truly appreciates his customers. Thanks for sharing.

[First_Place]

Yes, Kingfin66, this was my first e-mail to Mr. Pizzolla. He's a first-class gentleman--unlike this most detestable turd that floated up from the sewer. This is a perfect example of why Michael doesn't waste his time posting to forums such as this.

First Place

[Bro Ham]

Up from the sewer, F_P? Yeah - I followed the shining glow of your enlightenment:

They're into aping blacks via cRap music, ghetto garb, ridiculous gang-type hand signals and unintelligible jive talk; encouraged to miscegenate, especially black males with white females...

First_Place
LOL - miscegenation, First_Place? You say that like it's a bad thing!

Wikipedia:
The word miscegenation entered the language in the Southern USA. For a century, it was common for white southern advocates of the social status-quo to accuse advocates of the elimination of slavery, and later the advocates of civil rights for African Americans, of actually having the goal of miscegenation and the "destruction of the white race." One important strategy intended to discourage the practice was the promulgation of the one drop theory, which held that any person with so much as "one drop" of African "blood" must be regarded as "black." After World War II, many white southerners accused the US civil rights movement of Martin Luther King of being a Communist plot funded by the U.S.S.R. in order to destroy the United States through miscegenation.

An example of how miscegenation laws were enacted can be seen during the 1930s, when the racist and Anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws enacted by the Nazis in Germany against the large German Jewish community, forbidding marriages between the Jews (deemed as Untermenschen - "lower people") and German Aryans (deemed the Übermenschen - "higher people"). Many interfaith and intermarried couples committed suicide when these laws came into effect.

Miscegenation is a term invented in 1863 to describe people of different human races (usually one European and one African) producing offspring; the use of this term is invariably restricted to those who believe that the category race is meaningful when applied to human beings.
(Wikipedia)

Being called a "detestable turd" by the likes of you is a badge of honor I'll proudly wear.

[JimL]

First Place, I cant thank you enough for posting Michael Pizzollas reply. He is one class act! JimL

[Zaf]

Yes, First Place , Thank You. MP is a stand up guy !

ZAFONIC

[PaceAdvantage]

Any further posts in this thread that are off-topic (including personal attacks) will be promptly deleted....plus it will go down on your permanent record, and you don't want that....trust me....

[kingfin66]

I hear you PA. I'm sure you mean people who respond to such remarks as well. That would be me. I won't argue or try to make excuses, but will abide by your wishes as I truly do enjoy your forum and have respect for about 99% of the members who post here even if I don't always agree with them.

[First_Place]

"Up from the sewer, F_P?"

That's your home sweet home, not mine.

Since the pseudo-intellectual Turdman from the Sewer insists on stirring things up and the moderator does not see fit to remove said turd, I have no choice but to defend myself. For reasons unbeknownst to me, Turdman has a hard-on for Michael Pizzolla and anyone praising the man and his methodology.

That Turdman would spend time doing a search of this messageboard, digging through past posts made by yours truly, clearly shows we're dealing with someone who is a) absolutely devoid of a life and/or b) who is mentally imbalanced.

Just to set the record straight, I'll repost my comments made in another thread some time ago in its entirety, and in the proper context--unlike Turdman who posted only part of my statement in his lame attempt to somehow marginalize me.

"If you get cable in your home you might want to turn on MTV and see what the kids are into today"

I'll save you the trouble and tell ya. They're into aping blacks via cRap music, ghetto garb, ridiculous gang-type hand signals and unintelligible jive talk; encouraged to miscegenate, especially black males with white females; homosexuality, lesbianism and other deviant lifestyles are presented as normal and cool and those that oppose all of the above are ridiculed and portrayed as intolerant, close-minded, bigots, racists (...BIG YAWN...) etc.

Today's MTV is truly an abomination (and for some time now) and any parent that allows this shit into their home instead of blocking out this station is allowing their child's mind to be perverted and corrupted and is highly irresponsible and is guilty of child abuse.

Yes indeed, MTV is not the music video channel as was originally created back in the very early 1980s. It's been subverted and perverted big time.

I still stand behind what I said 100%. And I challenge anyone to point out one thing I said that was not factually correct. It's obvious I hit a raw nerve. Turdman evidently condones what I don't.

Internet troll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:

A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to provoke responses from others, or to cause annoyance or offense.

A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)

For many, the term has negative connotations and is often applied as an insult, while simultaneously being claimed as a badge of honour by troll organizations or individuals. Sincere but controversial or naive posters are often mislabeled as trolls.

The response of someone accused of trolling can vary widely from hurt indignation to verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser.

Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies or culture jammers, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are trolling in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors who value etiquette claim that true Devil's Advocates generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette, whereas trolls often consider etiquette to be something worth trolling in order to fight groupthink.

Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially inept. This is often due to fundamental attribution error, as it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal.

"LOL - miscegenation, First_Place? You say that like it's a bad thing!"

LOL? You say that like it's a good thing! (Btw, have you renewed your membership over at the Blacks and Blondes web site?)

That a dimwit like Turdman--a politically correct by-product of our times--would be surprised and/or somehow offended by my statements clearly reveals his leftist, Marxist, politically correct mindset. Good is bad. Left is right. Moral is immoral. Etc., etc. Typical of his ilk. A reflection of their "enlightenment." And besides, Turdman is still sore because his boy John Kerry lost. LOL!


Main Entry: mis·ce·ge·na·tion

Pronunciation: (")mi-"se-j&-'nA-sh&n, "mi-si-j&-'nA-
Function: noun

Etymology: irregular from Latin miscEre to mix + genus race -- more at MIX, KIN

: a mixture of races; especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race
- mis·ce·ge·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

"Being called a "detestable turd" by the likes of you is a badge of honor I'll proudly wear.

Very good! At least we agree on one thing. Wear it well.

First Place

p.s. Like I said, no wonder Michael Pizzolla doesn't waste his time participating in discussion forums like this.

[First_Place]

Glad to share the e-mail with decent folks like you, JimL.

First Place

[PaceAdvantage]

You know what, if you guys can' t follow my advice (ie. no off topic posts) then I guess I'll have to close the thread.....

All you have to do is leave well enough alone, and things will die on their own. Keep provoking and you're bound to get action. Not on my watch.