Best & Worst Books

[Dave Schwartz]

I want to make sure I have not missed any REALLY good books. Therefore, I have a question:

If you could recommend 3 handicapping books to an advanced player as "must reads," what would they be?

Conversely, if you were to name the single book which you feel was the biggest waste of your time, would would that be?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[anotherdave]

Well I'll list the three that had the most impact on me - they may not be the best, but they taught me the most about winning - not necessarily handicapping alone.

Winning Horseplayer - Andrew Beyer
Horse racing Logic - Glendon Jones
New Expert Handicappers - James Quinn

There are too many books to list that were a waste of time. (The Dot System anyone??)

Instead of "waste of time" I'll mention my biggest disappointment: I may cause some irritation with some of you but my biggest dissappointment (I certainly wouldn't call it a waste of time!) of "name" handicapping volumes was "Kinky Handicapping" by Mark Cramer. There is some good stuff in there, I suppose, but I found it didn't really live up to its acclaim. Maybe that's because it didn't fit my handicapping. And although the style of writing was interesting, I found it hard to put it all together when written in that fashion. Some of you will likely swear by it.

AD

[cj]

For me, must reads:

1. Picking Winners-Beyer
2. Thoroughbred Handicapping-State of the Art-Quirin
3. Thoroughbred Cycles-Cramer

The biggest waste of time:

1. Bet with the Best-Compilation
(Handicapping Magic a very close second)

CJ

[Tom]

My best three are:

Modern Pace Handicapping-Brohamer
Beyer on Speed-Beyer
Betting Thoroughbreds-Davidowitz

Honorable Mention -
Pace Makes the Race - Schmidt et al
Handicapper's Conditon Book - Quinn

Worst Book - Got to think about this....

[Doug]

BEST TWO FOR ME WOULD BE:

HOLD YOUR HORSES JAMES SELVIDGE

IN DEPTH HANDICAPPING - ANGLES- A GREAT BETTING METHODOLOGY IN BASE BET + SQUARE ROOT OF PROFIT.

WINNING HORSE RACE HANDICAPPING: SECRETS OF A SUCCESSFUL HORSERACE HANDICAPPER.

THE LOWDOWN ON CLASS DROPPERS.

BOTH ARE VERY OLD BOOKS AND CHEAP AT AMAZON.

WORST:

BET WITH THE BEST. (EXCEPT FOR BEYERS ARTICLE ON SIMULCAST BETTING.
BASICALLY WASN'T A BAD BOOK, BUT OVERHYPED LIKE A BIG DOG.

DOUG

[David McKenzie]

I began with Ainsle's books and recommend them to anyone starting out; they cover the basics better than just about anything I've ever read.

Davidowitz's is one of the best for intermediates and up.

I still have my Dot System book, as well as an old classic from the 1950s which states as it's first rule, "Always copper the public's play." [copper = bet against]

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Tom
My best three are:

Modern Pace Handicapping-Brohamer
Beyer on Speed-Beyer
Betting Thoroughbreds-Davidowitz

Honorable Mention -
Pace Makes the Race - Schmidt et al
Handicapper's Conditon Book - Quinn

Worst Book - Got to think about this.... Funny,your best are some of my worst to an advanced horseplayer.Brohamer book struck me as alot of work to get short priced horses.Beyer book exposed how much his numbers are flawed,stories are good tho.Davidowitz book is a primer and not much on advanced concepts,and will pretty much point to favorites and alot of his evaluations of horses(trainers,drugs and breeding)can't be quantified,it's subjective.
Dick's book is great,but it's too honest,says alot of handicapping prowess comes from practice.Not a message most want to hear.They want winners ,now.But it's the book I got the most out of.
Worst book in memory-The Match Up by Jimmy Bradshaw.Jim may be a good guy and a good handicapper,but I didn't get that from the book at all.Gave the book away after one read.

[Slider]

The three most dog eared books in my collection are:
1. FIGURE HANDICAPPING-QUINN - that taught me to use pace and final speed figures in combination and their relationship to each other.
2. RECREATIONAL HANDICAPPING-QUINN - that taught the total handicapping picture. Excellent handicapping primer for the beginner and the advanced player.
3. MODERN PACE HANDICAPPING-BROHAMER - that teaches lots of complicated pace figures along with track modeling.
The biggest wastes of time and money were:
1. MONEY SECRETS AT THE RACE TRACK-MEADOWS
2. INVESTING AT THE RACE TRACK- SCOTT
3. PROFESSIONAL METHOD OF WINNER SELECTION-LAWRENCE VOEGELE

[karlskorner]

The best book I ever read on handicapping "A thinking mans guide to handicapping" 1978 by Westcliff publications.

No outdated PP's, no redboarding, no programs or systems devised by people with backgrounds in engineering, mathematics or hustling all based on the common factor of "constancy of performance". 91 pages about the business of horseracing. If anyone still has a copy, reread it, mine is held together with scotch tape.

Karl

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by karlskorner
The best book I ever read on handicapping "A thinking mans guide to handicapping" 1978 by Westcliff publications.


Karl,

Is that the one by Katcha Goodwon? I've never read it (maybe because of the author's penname). I'll have to check that one out. I think he wrote a second one too (Thinking Mans Guide to Handicapping II?). Have you read that one?

AD

[so.cal.fan]

Katcha Goodwon was a surgeon from Orange County by the name of Di Fiore. His daughter was a trainer of sorts for a while.
I read both of these books, someone gave them to me, and I have since given them away.
Dr. Di Fiore used to own and race horses in So. Calif.
I haven't seen him in years, don't know if he is still alive.
I believe the book was heavily advertised for a while.
Don't know if he made any money out of it or not.

[karlskorner]

Anotherdave;

Funny. I never paid much attention to the authors name until you printed it, always thought it was Goodwin. Never saw his 2nd book. Stopped buying books a long time ago. I usually go to Barnes and Noble, browse through whats on the shelf and put it back. As I said above, most are based on constancy of performance.

Karl

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
I want to make sure I have not missed any REALLY good books. Therefore, I have a question:

If you could recommend 3 handicapping books to an advanced player as "must reads," what would they be?

Conversely, if you were to name the single book which you feel was the biggest waste of your time, would would that be?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

David, I think it's high time *you* wrote a book!! The only book I can think of that you might not have read is "Getting the Best of It" by David Sklansky....general gambling theory and probability...I think you would find it interesting.

Bob

[Aussieplayer]

Dave,

Don't know if you've read Carroll's book - may enjoy it, but you might not get heaps out of it.

Hmmmm.....let's see - have you read any of those "efficiency" type books? Those ones the teams base their ideas on? You may (or may not) get something out of those, rather than a general handicapping text.

I personally prefer a handicapping text, so I don't really read them to heavily. But a friend of mine is involved with a 'puter team in HK & would be happy to mail you/fax you a short report (only 16 pages - & you've prob. already read it/something similar). At least it's got an extensive bibliography which might give you some books to seek out.

Cheers
AP

[Dave Schwartz]

Steve,

I am always interested in what winners have to say works. Send it along.

And thanks.

Dave

[turfspec]

My favorite books aren't the "how-to's" or those I necessarily agree with, but rather those that inform while making you THINK. Not a speed guy but Carroll's "Handicapping Speed" fits the above criteria, as does "The Odds Must Be Crazy" by Len Ragozin. His ego is monumental and his claims of accuracy for his figs laughable for their pure hyperbole but a must read nonetheless. Finally, "Training The Thoroughbred Horse" by Preston M. Burch.

Rob

[andicap]

I've read so many books and enjoyed most of them just for the fun of it, but it's hard to say what's been the most influential on my handicapping.

--Brohamer was for a while, but pace is so trendy it's lost much of its value. I also feel many of his teachers were better suited to southern California and other climes where the weather is more consistent.

--Cramer's an entertaining writer although kinky's not my style:)

--Beyer's fun, but feel his ideas are a bit dated now since everyone has Beyer figs. (As an aside, I saw Beyer in the press box on Breeders Cup day last year and interestingly he didn't talk to many people. Kept mainly to himself. I was going to introduce myself and say hi, but he looked like he didn't want to be bothered.) I still use Beyers on occasion for contender selection.

-- Davidowitz is the most well-rounded and surely influenced me the most 20 years ago. I wish I had the time to do the trainer and other research/record keeping he advocates.

-- More recently, Ragozin and his writing on form cycles has had huge influence on me. I don't use the sheets but the book has helped me evaluate current form.

-- Handicapping Magic. I don't use his numbers, but I reread this book every 6 months anyway. I like Pizzolla's attitude on wagering, on overlays, his fulcrum system for choosing contenders, and his overall philosophy. If my current method goes south, I would give his a try next because it suits me.

-- I've read a lot of Quinn and he's a very helpful person via email, and has certainly been a strong advocate of having the tracks educate more patrons about handicapping. Figure Handicapping was a fun book although I don't use the method.

[tanda]

In reply to Bob Harris's post:

Many of the works by David Sklansky are helpful regarding handicapping.

"Getting The Best Of It" is excellent as well as his colleague's (Mason Malmuth) "Gambling Theory And Other Topics".

The former discusses bankroll management and contains many formulas needed to determine what your edge is and how much you can bet at given risk levels.

"Getting The Best Of It" contains a small section on horse racing that has some interesting ideas.

One is an apparent contradiction.

Assume that there is a ten horse field. Horse A runs a 100 speed figures every time he races. No exceptions. Each other horse runs a 100+ speed figure 25% of the time and a 90 the other 75% of the time. Assume that the speed figures will not fluctuate due to field size (as they may because of different pace scenarios, post positions, running wide, etc. as other horses are added to the field).

In a match race, Horse A is a 1:3 (75% v. 25%) favorite against any horse in the field.

Against the whole field, Horse A is the LEAST LIKELY winner.

A horse who is a huge favorite against any horse in the field is the least likely winner against them all. Why? Because if any of the field pops their occasional 110, he loses. The chances that none will run a 110 is 0.75 ^ 9 = 7.5% The rest of the field averages about a 10.3% chances to win.

This concept applies to many areas including poker. In fact, Sklansky uses it primarily in discussions of poker and refers to it as the "horse race concept". It has great relevance to that game but can be used in horse racing as well.

Sklansky also notes that any bet where you are getting the best of it is a good bet and vice versa and regardless if the bet wins or loses. If you keep risking money when you have an edge, you must win in the long-run.

In fact, he understands a very important concept that many on this board do not: Any time you invest money with an edge, you are getting paid, even when you lose. At the end of your life, the profits you make are determined by the amount invested with an edge and the amount of the edge. Every time you bet with an edge, you are increasing the first part of that equation and, therefore, increasing the amount that you will be paid before you are done with this world.

[Dave Schwartz]

Tanda,

Your post might be the most valuable concept ever presented on this bbs. Thanks!


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[rrbauer]

I have to agree that "Kinky Handicapping" is #1 in the "waste of time" category. My only salvation is that it was a "used" copy that only cost me a few bucks!

The "Thinking Man's Guide.....", paperback was a good read. Favorite concept from that one: "Horses are animals--not motorcycles."

The Sklansky, "Getting the Best of It", is filled with good gambling sense.

You might try, "The Nature of RISK", by Justin Mamis. Its main ties are to the stock market but the lessons and applications extend to other forms of "investing".

The Beyer, Davidowitz, Quirin, Quinn, etc., books are all good foundation books, but I wouldn't call them "advanced".

[Lefty]

GORDON JONES TO WIN was very influential into getting me started in figure handicapping and then Sartin and Brohamer came along and Modern Pace Handicapping was the English translation of "Sartinese" Thoroughbred Handicapping as an Investment turned me on to Mitchell and his concepts. Also Quirin's Winning at The Races. All of these were very influential.
Sadly, and I am in the minority, Davidowitz and Carrol's book didn't help me any.

[Lefty]

Ooops, I Forgot Pace Makes The Race by sartin group. One of my favorites.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by tanda
In reply to Bob Harris's post:




Assume that there is a ten horse field. Horse A runs a 100 speed figures every time he races. No exceptions. Each other horse runs a 100+ speed figure 25% of the time and a 90 the other 75% of the time. Assume that the speed figures will not fluctuate due to field size (as they may because of different pace scenarios, post positions, running wide, etc. as other horses are added to the field).

In a match race, Horse A is a 1:3 (75% v. 25%) favorite against any horse in the field.

Against the whole field, Horse A is the LEAST LIKELY winner.

A horse who is a huge favorite against any horse in the field is the least likely winner against them all. Why? Because if any of the field pops their occasional 110, he loses. The chances that none will run a 110 is 0.75 ^ 9 = 7.5% The rest of the field averages about a 10.3% chances to win.



In fact, he understands a very important concept that many on this board do not: Any time you invest money with an edge, you are getting paid, even when you lose. At the end of your life, the profits you make are determined by the amount invested with an edge and the amount of the edge. Every time you bet with an edge, you are increasing the first part of that equation and, therefore, increasing the amount that you will be paid before you are done with this world.

Tanda:

First, I do not understand your position, because you said there is a contradiction. Do you agree or disagree with with the 1:3 probability match race theory?

Secondly, you are right, I also do not understand how I win by losing. If probilities are at play here I may lose all my capital due to symmetry and its affects.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire


Tanda:

First, I do not understand your position, because you said there is a contradiction. Do you agree or disagree with with the 1:3 probability match race theory?

Secondly, you are right, I also do not understand how I win by losing. If probilities are at play here I may lose all my capital due to symmetry and its affects.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

I believe we're in agreement here.

Known probably is the known probability, regardless of past results. Losing in the past does not increase the likelihood of winning in the future. If you had a 25% chance, you still do. It is possible to continue to lose, despite any edge, real or perceived, because you continue with the same probabilities as before the previous plays. Losing is losing, it is bad, it is bad.

[karlskorner]

Tanda;

Yours " Any time you invest money with an edge, you are getting paid, even when you lose"

Reminds me of a book someone gave me awhile back written by a Life Ins. saleman "How I became a Millionaire" (or something to that effect) written back in the 50's. His theory was everytime he knocked on a door and was turned away, he made $7.50, because sooner or later he sold a policy. He divided his commission on the sale by the times he was turned down to get that amount. The book was a best seller and he actually became a millionaire ..... after it was published.

Yours " At the end of your life, the profits you make are determined by the amount invested with an edge and the amount of the edge"

Scary....scary....scary. If I die tomorrow I go out a winner

Karl

[ranchwest]

Once a race is run, two things can happen to a ticket and one of those two is always bad. I'll never understand how maintaining a piece of paper that cost money but is now merely a tax record can ever be good.

[tanda]

"Apparent contradiction"

What I meant by that phrase is that a favorite against each individual member of a field may be the least likely winner when the field competes as a whole.

Thus, it is theoritically possible to be the "best", yet be the least likely winner. This can be demonstrated to be true with poker where the odds are fixed and ascertainable. It may be true in regard to horse racing.

What it actually means is that the definition of "best" changes as the number of competitors changes. Most importantly, the value of a consistent type with little chance of improving goes down and the value of an inconsistent type with the ability to improve/fluctuate increases as the number of competitors increases. In poker, it is well known, and provable, that drawing hands increases in value against large fields and high cards and pairs decline in value against large fields. The question for exploration is if there are ascertainable attributes of horses which increase/decrease in relative value as the field size changes.

[karlskorner]

I had to dig out the book Thinking mans guide to handicapping because you left out a part of your quote. It reads:

"The common factor in all systems that I've read is that they are based on "constant performance" which leads to one of my favorite sayings ""Horses are not motorcycles"".

Which means to me that you can draw up all the statistics you want on a pice of machinery (or whatever) because they are constant performers, but a horse is flesh and blood and he don't do today what he did last week.

Karl

[tanda]

Ranchwest,

Because success and failure is not measured in the short-term. Both winners and losers in all fields have ups and downs. The value of a decision must be determined in view of all of the related decisions made by that person. So, if you tell me that you made a winning bet, I caanoty evaluate if it was a good decision or not without reviewing your entire methodology and a statistically significant sample of your bets.

Many people deride the long-term focus. But remember, everybody wins in the short-term on occasion. But only winners can win in the long-term. Performance over that periosd is what separates the successful from the less successful. If I know that a player has had short-term success and another has had success for 30 years, then I know it is much more likely that the second player is the better player.

I am not directing this comment to anybody in particular, but it seems that the more successful people in life are more long-term oriented and the less successful are quite concerned with short-term results. One explantion for this is that successful people have great confidence in their abilities and are not concerned with short-term failures since they have faith that eventually things will go their way. Additionally, less successful people need the validation (due to lack of confidence) that short-term results give them.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by tanda
Ranchwest,

Because success and failure is not measured in the short-term. Both winners and losers in all fields have ups and downs. The value of a decision must be determined in view of all of the related decisions made by that person. So, if you tell me that you made a winning bet, I caanoty evaluate if it was a good decision or not without reviewing your entire methodology and a statistically significant sample of your bets.

Many people deride the long-term focus. But remember, everybody wins in the short-term on occasion. But only winners can win in the long-term. Performance over that periosd is what separates the successful from the less successful. If I know that a player has had short-term success and another has had success for 30 years, then I know it is much more likely that the second player is the better player.

I am not directing this comment to anybody in particular, but it seems that the more successful people in life are more long-term oriented and the less successful are quite concerned with short-term results. One explantion for this is that successful people have great confidence in their abilities and are not concerned with short-term failures since they have faith that eventually things will go their way. Additionally, less successful people need the validation (due to lack of confidence) that short-term results give them.

I'm not sure what this has to do with something I posted.

Past failure does not ensure future success, regardless of probabilities. Probabilities are estimates of the future, not self-adjusting actions based on the past.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Tanda,

Your post might be the most valuable concept ever presented on this bbs. Thanks!

Dave:

Could you clarify for me which concept mentioned by Tanda is the most valuable?

I understood the post to contain at least two different concepts and I do not know which one I should pay more attention to. Is it the probabilities idea about wagering against the favorite or the concept of being a winner when I lose.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Aussieplayer]

Little bro (& all),

Don't know how much it will go into the technical detail etc. but you should at least enjoy it. It's about to be released.

"Gambling Wizards" by Richard W. Munchkin

All about the HK 'puter teams.

Have a read of the article:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.03/betting_pr.html

I don't know who will be publishing or stocking it. Keep an eye out - first one to find its availability, let us all know.

Cheers
AP

[GR1@HTR]

Whata name: Richard "Dick" Munchkin

[Aussieplayer]

Lol at GR1
As an aside: Bill Benter & Peter Bent (what is it with these bent people?) would reverse my signature at the end of my posts. They firmly believe that it's about getting close to exact probabilities & betting optimally, with lots of capital at hand to handle the standard deviations.

As a fellow former card counter, any who have card counted etc. should at least enjoy having a read.

It could maybe really be a way to get new fans in: go for the former day traders. Benefit for us: increased handles.

Cheers
AP

[rrbauer]

From RanchWest:
"Probabilities are estimates of the future, not self-adjusting actions based on the past."

Sorry ol chap. Probabilities as used in 99% of the posts on this board are, in essence, Probability Estimates, and as such are based upon historical samples of data and subject to a variety of errors. Indeed, if they were true probabilities that were representative of the entire population that they represented they would be absolute only at the point in time when the statistic was computed.

Estimates of the future are simply that. Whether you derive the estimate from a Probability Estimate; from a True Probability of the population; or, from rolling around on the floor until something strikes you, it remains an estimate subject to tests of validity and variance.

The use of the term, "probability", by the majority of horseplayers and related literature (and, I mean nothing derogatory here) could be replaced by the term "SWAG" without losing much effect. It is used as a matter of convenience; not as a matter of scientific rigor.

[PaceAdvantage]

Aussieplayer,


Great link, and a great read. I love this kind of stuff!!


==PA

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by rrbauer
From RanchWest:
"Probabilities are estimates of the future, not self-adjusting actions based on the past."

Sorry ol chap. Probabilities as used in 99% of the posts on this board are, in essence, Probability Estimates, and as such are based upon historical samples of data and subject to a variety of errors. Indeed, if they were true probabilities that were representative of the entire population that they represented they would be absolute only at the point in time when the statistic was computed.

Estimates of the future are simply that. Whether you derive the estimate from a Probability Estimate; from a True Probability of the population; or, from rolling around on the floor until something strikes you, it remains an estimate subject to tests of validity and variance.

The use of the term, "probability", by the majority of horseplayers and related literature (and, I mean nothing derogatory here) could be replaced by the term "SWAG" without losing much effect. It is used as a matter of convenience; not as a matter of scientific rigor.

I don't have a problem with your assessment.

My primary point was that the SWAG is not self-correcting. A loss does not ensure a future win.

[tanda]

Ranchwest,

My point was that focusing on whether a bet was good or bad based on the result is much too short-term oriented of a view.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by tanda
Ranchwest,

My point was that focusing on whether a bet was good or bad based on the result is much too short-term oriented of a view.

IMHO, winning is the ONLY point of view. Winning long-term is comprised of a series of short-term wins.

[Topcat]

Best and Worst books:

Well I think I've read 90% of all the books on horse race handicapping in gambler's book club or Power's catalog. Some were entertaining, e.g. Quinn’s New Winning Handicappers, some were OK but most were regurgitation of old maximums and as far as fattening my bottom line were a waste of time.

The best or most influential for me were:
1) Huey Mahl’s booklet’s, The Race is Pace and more importantly Frontline-a collection of his newsletter. Just outstanding stuff that holds up even today-he even had a few monographs on dutching place bets
2) William’ Quirin’s first book –jeez I forget the name of his second book but his first was a defining book. People still use speed points today.
3) Dick Mitchell’s books-some started to rehash but his early out of print books self published were good and his Common Sense Money Mgt I will take over Money Secrets at the Race track

The other one(s) I’m sure you’ve probably read and is not an easy read is/are is Michael Pascual’s Bankroll Controll and his PROBABILITY –as well as his ODDS LINE & OPTIMAL DUTCHING PROGRAMS booklet. This is for the advanced player only

Honorable mentions:

Brohammer’s Modern Pace Handicapping

Hambleton and Schmidt’s Pace Makes the Race

Gordon Jones small book: Smart Money-his money mgt book which was a companion to Gordon Jones to Win-I almost put these in my best three but these are more booklets than true books

Bob Heyburn’s book: Fast And Fit-way ahead of it’s time

Handicapper’s Condition book by Quinn-most of his other books I would put in the waste of time category or rehash category

Andy Beyer’s My $50,00 Year At the races

Handicapping Trainers by Whitaker

Handicapping Logic by Glendon Jones

Robert Bacon Secrets of Professional Turf Betting

Robert Rowe’s books: e.g. How To Win at Horse Racing

Training Thoroughbred Horses by Burch-gives you an insight to the backstretch

Let’s see here’s some that aren’t exactly books:

Brain Waves Newsletters by you, Dave Schwartz (I know they are not a book but they are good)

Paul Peterson’s Morning Liner newsletter and “book that he put out when he was doing the newsletter-his elaier booklet is just a sytems booklet-.

Hickman’s Guide to Racing-more a booklet than a book but it delved into impact values well before many looked into it.

Gambler’s Book Club booklet:
RACING MAXIMS & METHODS OF "PITTSBURGH PHIL as Well as DOWST REVISTED


The biggest waste of time: (most would fit in this bucket)

1) How to Pick Winners by Sam, the genius, Lewin that’s how the actual byline was written - suffice it to say this one was an underlay-I’m using this as my protytpe for a slew of books that spoke in generalities, books by McKnight , Conklin, Heller, Reo, Dash,Victor etc etc

2) Recreational Handicapping by Quinn

3) Cramer’s Kinky Handicapping along with his Scared money-not exactly a handicapping book to be fair


Other overrated books or books I really expected more from:

Cramer’s latest Value book-a rehash of an earlier book.

Exacta Expose by Riley and another exacta book by
Morgan and Morgan: Exacta’s book-an oldie that says bet consecutive post positions in quarter horse races and one horse will pull along the one next to it and bingo a profit-creative idea but a waste


Selvidge’s money Mgt book Base Bet plus square root-I would’ve put it on the worst list except he was at least trying to give a different approach-at least he didn’t suggest you needed a slide rule.

Tom Ainslies’ Complete Guide book-sorry but they never helped me-it was all too vague-

All of Quinn’s other books –other than the two mentioned above-really didn’t add anything

A Thinking Man’s Guide I and A Thinking Man’s Guide II By Katcha Goodwin

The Match Up by Jim Bradshaw-

Nunamker’s Impact Value Books or booklets

Wining by Computer by Dr. Sullivan

Barry Meadow’s Money Secret’s and Special Reports –not too secret and not too special.


OK Dave
You’ve asked the question now how about yours? I’m sure you’ve read just about all that is out there.

[ranchwest]

William Scott's books helped me a lot. Investing at the Race Track was pretty good. Total Victory at the Track The Promise and the Performance was better. These books got me to thinking and really sent me in the right direction, though I'm certainly not completely devoted to the Scott Methodology, more just aids to help the handicapping process. There are a lot of rules to follow. I got the impression that if Scott were around to write a book today, it might be even better. I liked Scott's notion of wagering being investing, not highly speculative, being selective.

My other favorite was Quirin's Winning at the Races. It was so far ahead of its time that it really helped a lot back then.

Of course, back before Quirin there was Ainslie.

If anyone is interested in unmasking Katcha Goodwon, I think I recall in the book that he talked about training Needles. If you can find out who trained Needles, you'll know who Katcha Goodwon was (is?).

[JoeH]

Hello all, new member, first post.

Favorites,

Forecasting Methods for Horseracing, Peter May, (U.K.)
Handicapping Speed, Carroll
Scientific Handicapping, Cohen & Stephens
Mathematics of Horse Racing, Fogel
The Race is Pace, Mahl
How to Pick Winners, Illich
Horse Racing Logic, Jones

Worst,

21st Century Handicapping, Mitchell

Clearly, I like the computer-math approach, not yet quite
good enough at it, but love learning from the people on
this forum.

[Dave Schwartz]

Okay, so I never gave my opinions. (You knew I had those, huh?)

First, my favorite horseracing book of all time is Beyer's $50,000 Year. I didn't learn anything about handicapping but it is just such a great read. (Somebody came over to my house and borrowed it and I never got it back. I always thought it was Dick Schmidt, but he denies it and my memory isn't so good. Just last week he commented that he had two in his library. Coincidence? <G>)

The book I have gotten the most out of was without a doubt, Bill Quirin's Winning at the Races. If you haven't read this one, you need to get it as soon as possible. It can still be found in a search of abe.com (but I am quickly cornering the market, so the price will be going up this week).

A close second was Frederick Davis' Percentages and Probabilities. (Actually a "paper" rather than a "book," but certainly longer than the two-pager mentioned recently elsewhere on PA.)

I think Pace Makes the Race was a great read as well, but by the time it came out I had moved beyond pace so did not get that much out of it. I think Hambleton and the Dickster did a great job of simplifying what gad previously been mostly smoke and mirrors. Brohamer's Modern Pace Handicapping was also excellent for pace handicappers.

Now I move to non-handicapping materials.

Alan Wilson's Casino Gambler's Guide had some really great math in it and is well worth the the time, but at $100 or so it is a little expensive. (Again, I am looking to corner that market real soon.)

Dick Mitchell's Common Sense Betting also had some great math, although the concept that anyone could REALLY tell the difference between 7/2 and 3/1 boggles my mind. (Is it possible that there is a market in used books? Check out the price of THIS one, IF you can find it.)

Ah, and not to forget a quick list of excellent technical texts -

Genetic Algorithms by Mark Goldberg.
Hidden Order by John Holland.
Complexity by Mitchell Waldrop
Complexity by Roger Lewan (Did you know you cannot copyright a title?)

The Predictors - A great (true) story about some guys after the markets.

Bart Kosko's Fuzzy Logic is pretty good; but "fuzziness" is a "short story." You've got all you need in the first chapter. The rest of the book is just the same stuff over and over. (So, go to Barnes & Noble and read the first chapter; save the $20.)

If you are REALLY interested in an explanation of fuzzy logic that is understandable, try "Fuzzy Logic for Just Plain Folks" by Thomas Sowell. (It's a 62-page mauscript priced at about $12.

Physics anyone? There are a whole bunch of cartoon-oriented books that do a great job of teaching physics. Buy one and put it into your bathroom reading collection. You'll enjoy it.

As for the "wastes of time," I suppose they are too numerous to mention. There are just so many books that don't say anything. Or maybe I am just not smart enough to hear what they are saying.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Rick]

I'll take a different approach and mention three sources with approaches not usually mentioned elsewhere.

1. "Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets" for showing how to properly create an odds line and giving practical advice from those who have actually used them to win large amounts of money.

2. "Complete Guide to Claiming Thoroughbreds", by Tom Ivers, for showing the trainer/owner side of looking at things and some interesting opinions about the best way to prepare horses for a race.

3. Any of the books by James Jasper: "Basic Betting", "More Basic Betting", and even "Sports Betting" for creative ways to analyze horse racing (and sports betting) and advice on money management and gambling in general.


Other books with interesting information include "Trackfacts" by Dan DiPleco, "Gambling for a Living" by Sklansky, and "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Epstein. "Class of the Field" by Quinn is a very interesting book, but I haven't figured out exactly how to apply the theory yet.

[Rick]

Two more that aren't available any more:

1. "200 Good Gambling, Racing, and Wagering Systems" by Louis G. Holloway. Contain many good ideas that can be used in spot play systems. I noticed that they recently republished his book "Full Time Gambler" but this is more useful than that one.

2. Anything published by John Meyer, "The National Railbird Review" being the most memorable. Way ahead of his time as far as pace handicapping goes and a lot more careful about sticking to facts rather than subjective opinion than any of the Sartin type books to follow.

[David McKenzie]

// 2. Anything published by John Meyer, "The National Railbird Review" being the most memorable. Way ahead of his time as far as pace handicapping goes and a lot more careful about sticking to facts rather than subjective opinion than any of the Sartin type books to follow. //

Point of Interest: He based all calculations on a horse running eleven feet per second, not ten.

[cj]

Point of Interest: He based all calculations on a horse running eleven feet per second, not ten.

11 feet per second, that would be some VERY slow horses!

CJ

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski


11 feet per second, that would be some VERY slow horses!

CJ

CJ, I had one run that slow on Wednesday. I'm not sure he's finished the race yet.

AD

[Figman]

As one that has been following the handicapping treatises from the 1950's to this day, I have to agree with TOMCAT. The legendary HUEY MAHL out of Vegas has been my most influential guide. He came out with things related to handicapping and betting that I've never heard of or seen before....Length Variant, his FRONTLINE articles, his booklet PACE MAKES THE RACE, his method of assessing probable pays for exactas using WIN ODDS and DEGREE OF FAVORITISM, PLACE NOMOGRAPHS, making daily track variants with the LV CLASS GRID, various wagering programs that were computer programmed by GEORGE GREEN and all his wriitings on relating pace to SUPERHORSE. I'll also wager that LEFTY might have some good things to say about HUEY MAHL!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
Two more that aren't available any more:


2. Anything published by John Meyer, "The National Railbird Review" being the most memorable. Way ahead of his time as far as pace handicapping goes and a lot more careful about sticking to facts rather than subjective opinion than any of the Sartin type books to follow.

What ever happened to him? He seemed to just disappear from the scene. I have a lot of his old stuff. I was even using computer programs by him back in the dark ages of "save to Tape" programs. Took his handicapping class via mail and really learned a lot doing the homework of so many races.

[Rick]

Dave M,

I think you probably meant 11 feet per length. That's a subject that's still being debated. The thing I liked about Meyer was that he would test things a lot of different ways and present the results instead of making a statement like "if you choose the right pace line you'll have 70% winners in the top two selections" without any proof. I suggested to someone with an interesting method lately that he provide some kind of results for testable scenarios as a way to get a feel for what the potential of his method was and he accused me of being simple-minded about my thinking. This is something I've encountered over and over and it nearly always means that the method, when tested objectively, does very poorly. A good current counter-example is Ken Massa in his HTR newsletter. He's not afraid to show examples of factors that are significant but less than break-even on their own and provides adequate samples to back up his claims. I don't own the software, but I'd guess that it's pretty good just based on his honesty.

[David McKenzie]

// 11 feet per second, that would be some VERY slow horses! //

Oops! I'm sure you know what I meant, but nice catch.

:>)

I wrote a program for his old T.I.S. II method. Does anyone remember that method?

What stood out in my mind was that he assigned different weights for the various factors in the system to points (probability of winning) than he did to fair odds based of the exact same factors (which of course are based on the probability of winning); a paradox.
-----

RE: Huey Mahl -- I remember reading somewhere (perhaps his column) that he'd been to the racebooks with Howard Sartin, and that he'd never seen Sartin have a losing day. I found that hard to believe. Subtract one for credibility. Everyone has losing days, don't they?

Mahl also said that the effect of variants on incremental pace velocities was too negligible to be of much concern, something else I found hard to swallow. Ever compare The Meadowlands to Belmont?

Still, all in all, Mr. Mahl was one smart cookie.

[Rick]

Dave M,

If I remember correctly, I think he used multiple regression for two different predictions, one for odds and one for finish position. I think that explains the difference. I wouldn't expect the two to produce the same weightings. Speaking of Huel Mahl, I enjoyed reading all of his stuff and was generally impressed but his method of evaluating pace (tested by John Meyer), didn't fare too well in actual testing. Still, you have to give him a lot of credit for creative thinking about a lot of different areas related to horse racing (and sports betting too).

[Topcat]

<I wrote a program for his< old T.I.S. II method. Does anyone remember that method? >

Nice job-i still have it and most of John's TIS stuff somewhere. He was goiod and just seemed to abruptly stop putting out anything. i never heard from him again. It was like Cat Stevens who suddenly became a monk. What did happento him? John Meyer that is?

TC

[Rick]

The last thing I heard about John Meyer (and it was a long time ago) was that he'd had some kind of breakdown from working too hard (pretty much every waking hour) and had to quit for a while. But I think he went back to a more reasonable schedule after that and continued publishing at least for a while.

[Figman]

To David McKenzie
I don't know where you read that "Huey Mahl frequented the racebooks with Howard Sartin and never saw Sartin have a losing day". I certainly wouldn't trust that source.
Huey had a hard time getting around to go anywhere with his ever present oxygen tank at his side!

[Dave Schwartz]

Huey was a fine man. I liked him to the very end. I don't think he ever gave up those cigars.

What was that guy's name that he used to work with? Sneaker? Squeaker? Speaker? Snaker? WHatever. As I recall he was a bit strange but I liked him as well.

Just recently someone mentioned him to me but I cannot recall his name.

And talk about creative! Huey and the other guy once called me to tell me that they were using ThoroBrain 2 or 3 to handicap football. They'd create each race with two "horses" with names like Bears and Rams. Then they'd put data into the user-defined fields and let the neural net do its thing. Said they were getting like 60% winners witha whole bunch of plays.

LOL


Dave

[Rick]

Dave S,

Great story. Like I said, I think Huey was an extremely creative guy. Not all of his ideas were right, but it was always worth reading his stuff (or listening to him you lucky guy). You have my vote for being the best connected with smart guys. I wish I'd had your experience, but I'm not complaining 'cause I was lucky too.

Of course, I consider myself connected with you, at least a little, and you're a pretty smart guy too; so that moves me up a notch.

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

Thanks. However, our taste in books is vastly different. James Jasper? <G>

And JB just sent me the other guy's name - Spider!

Dave

[Lefty]

Well, Huey did speak at a Sartin seminar way back when and he also spoke at at least one of the Expo things. Doc and Huey were friends so i imagine they did attend a few racebooks together.
Doc liked to back up his selections place and show and everytime I saw him he managed to pull out some profit, but imagine he had some losing days, as do we all.

[Topcat]

<Well, Huey did speak at a Sartin seminar way back when and he also spoke at at least one of the Expo things. Doc and Huey were friends so i imagine they did attend a few racebooks together.
Doc liked to back up his selections place and show and everytime I saw him he managed to pull out some profit, but imagine he had some losing days, as do we all.>

Doc would occassional buy a small win ticket on every horse in the race, with 8 horses he woudl have eight tickets in his pocket-after the race hew would pull the winning ticket out of his pcket to show how he had him-part motivational-part con-

I think Huey may have been taken in by this or maybe just apreciated the legit part of Sartin-I'm pretty sure Huey didn't know that he wasn't a real Doc though.-(its's a mail order degree and he is not licensed to practice psychology or psychotherapy) many people don't know that today so if Huey said things that seemed to be out of touch-well let's just look at ourselves!

[Dick Schmidt]

TC,

The trick is to have lots of pockets. Horse #1 and #2 went in one pocket, #3 and #4 went in another and so on. Then he could pull out winning tickets without having to fish through a wad of losers. Ta-da! Here is the winner, right here! Everyone should have had it, unless you hate your mother. He also loved to find some client who was down in the mouth about losing the race and give them a winning ticket. Quite the showman.

I can guarantee that Huey never spent much time in a racebook with Sartin, because Howard avoided them like the plague. Even it you dragged him into one, he soon disappeared. The idea of picking horses before a race gave him the willies. Huey was the real deal and developed at least half of the Sartin Methodology, especially the early stuff (you know, the stuff that actually worked).

Dick

[Rick]

If I recall correctly, I think Mahl's approach was to add first and last fractions for a rating and that doesn't test out too well on its own. However, in actual practice he may have taken other factors such as class into account. I know he did do some of the best work on evaluating class levels.

[Rick]

Dave S,

You don't think Jasper's books were interesting? Or just never read them? His idea of getting a basic rating based on lengths and then adjusting it up or down for subjective factors was interesting to me. And he developed the only lengths-to-odds and odds-to-lengths conversions I've ever seen.

[Rick]

Hey, how come the Incredible E-Book isn't on anyone's list?

[Lefty]

Dick, the last seminar in Vegas that I attended at the Riviera the Doc spent the whole day in the racebook. I don't think he made many bets but his son, Shane bet a lot of races. Don't know how he came out cause I was involved in my own betting. I do remember him hitting a Tri though.

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

It's probably because I have been a programmer so long. I looked at Jasper's work (perhaps unfairly) as such a poor programming job.

I do recall he had a cool idea about simulating baseball games... very Bill James-ish and well ahead of his time.

Dave

[Rick]

Dave,

Yeah, he wasn't much of a programmer, but there are some interesting nuggets in there about the practical aspects of gambling and weighting of different factors. Of course, a lot of it is outdated now since we have all kinds of sophisticated ratings to look at and his work was done in a time when recency was more important. The same approach, with different factors would probably work today though. He used odds of last race as a major factor, and I think if you want to predict public money in today's race, that and a speed or class rating for the last race would get you pretty close. Might be a very simple way to compute a "dumb money" line to bet against. Maybe I'll try that.

[Rick]

Also, if anyone's interested Jasper was better at sports betting than horse racing. I use a modified version of his football method to predict NFL games now that gets about 70% straight-up winners and 60% against the spread. I've used it to win money on office pools and also betting against the bookies since about 1988. My version (which is a lot better structured) is written in C. When I first developed it on an 8088 based computer it took about 10 minutes to run toward the end of the season. Now, it runs in the blink of an eye.

BTW, if any of you out there is interested in sports betting, I'd be interested in discussing it (in another forum of course). It takes pretty much the same kind of talent to win, so you guys would probably be pretty good at it. My main interest would be baseball right now. Since I've never been able to show more than 5% profit at it, I haven't bet it too seriously. But I'll be moving to Reno later this year and enjoy hanging around sports books (and race books of course).

[Rick]

While I'm on the subject, I think the idea of comparing beaten lengths to odds would be a great way of rating jockeys and trainers and I'd do it myself if it didn't involve so much work. If someone else wants to try it, I'd probably buy the ratings though.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Rick
If I recall correctly, I think Mahl's approach was to add first and last fractions for a rating and that doesn't test out too well on its own. However, in actual practice he may have taken other factors such as class into account. I know he did do some of the best work on evaluating class levels. Rick,
The beauty of pace ratings is you get the contenders that can complete the tris and supers,even though they aren't contenders for the win.The dog with good late pace is a good bet for ITM or 4th,even though his overall rating is bad.The early Sartin stuff Dick talked about ,that came from Mahl,does work but not enough on the win end.Its amazing how well it does work,for as simple as it is.What happens is other factors are added by each handicapper and alot of times this throws out contenders instead of narrowing them down.Which is horseracing I guess.

[Rick]

superfecta,

Yeah, I think if you're going to use a rating like that you have to give a higher weight to the early part and also be careful that the horse isn't outclassed.

I have a friend who's awesome at trifectas and superfectas, which obviously must be your specialty and I'll go with his opinion over mine. I'm better at exactas though. It's interesting how many ways there are to beat the game and an idea that's not useful for one purpose may be invaluable for another. My guess is that most people would be better off finding what tracks, types of races, and types of bets their current method is good at than continually trying to search for the perfect method that works for everything.

[Dick Schmidt]

Lefty,

I never said he couldn't pick horses. The few times I saw him really try he was very good. He just felt that a losing day, or even a losing race, would destroy the myth and expose the feet of clay. Surprisingly enough, he particularly liked to pick horses by eye, not using a computer or even pencil and paper at all. He used to challenge others to match him when we were in a small group of insiders. When I asked him why he didn't teach his "eyeball scan" techniques, he told me that you can't sell eyeballs. His early pace ideas were excellent. I used them, filtered thorugh Tom Brohamer, to make a living for years. And you've got to admit that for a man who never made 10 bets a year in all the time I knew him, he put on a hell of a show.


Rick,

I think your observation is correct. The better a method is at picking winners, the poorer it tends to be at place and show. Right now, I'm using mostly HSH, and I almost never run first and second or even first and third. Win a lot of races, but not much exotic performance. The sharper your focus, the more you tend to overlook horse who have not much chance of winning, but have a great chance of hitting the board.

Dick

[Rick]

Dick,

That seems to be a common attribute of early pace oriented methods. The all-or-nothing type horse that runs inconsistently but wins a ton of money. But I found that by adding class as a factor I was able to improve my place results. Thus, I'm good at exactas now which I think is the most profitable way to play SoCal tracks now. Hey, whatever makes the most money, right?

I have to admit, I really love Santa Anita no matter what because Arcadia is my home town.

[Rick]

One more booklet that I forgot to mention that's unavailable now.

"Thoroughbred Racing Report on Tested Winning Patterns" by Dac Publishing Company, 1986. The best information on toteboard patterns ever!

[Dave Mark]

Dave,
Having read many of the books posted, and agreeing most of them are very good, the best book I ever read was written about Harness Racing, however the concepts are among the best today.
Huey Mahl "Pace Makes the Race".
My vote for the best of them all.
His methods are for thoroughbred as well as standardbreds.

[Rick]

Dave M,

Are you saying that "Pace Makes the Race" was written about harness racing or did you have something else in mind? Are you saying that the methods apply to harness racing better than thoroughbreds?

Hey, there's too many Daves here. Can't you guys change your names or something so we can sort you out?

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

The Pace Makes the Race he is talking about was written about 20 years earlier and was a small booklet only. Some innovative stuff, however.


Regards,
"Fred" Schwartz

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Rick
Dave M,

Are you saying that "Pace Makes the Race" was written about harness racing or did you have something else in mind? Are you saying that the methods apply to harness racing better than thoroughbreds?

Hey, there's too many Daves here. Can't you guys change your names or something so we can sort you out? I'm not a Dave(Daves not here)but I seem to remember Mahls book"the race is pace" did mention harness,but not much.But I found the method in Sartins book "pace makes the race"does have useful application(different scale for times of course)for standardbreds.

[Rick]

So, the method works really well for harness races? Is that first fraction plus last fraction?

[Dave Mark]

Rick, good question.
Huey Mahls book was written about Harness Racing, and what was very instrumental to me:
When I started playing Harness Races years ago, and used Hueys concept of finding the horse which can run the 2 best quarters(remember 99% of Harness Race distances run are 1 mile).
Therefore when you have a horse that has the 2 best quarters out of the 4, you have a strong contender.
This concept. while more difficult in Flat racing, where distances are varied, also has led in my education, and improvement in understanding how races are run and won.(Both Race Groups).
Please keep in mind, that Dave Schwartz was asking for the best books "WE" have read, and that I will only say this book has been most helpful to me and how I went about using the principles.
I am not going to judge anyone and tell them the same book will have any impact on them.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Rick
So, the method works really well for harness races? Is that first fraction plus last fraction? Yes,just like phase one of the sartin stuff.If you want my scale here it is-

First fraction=3/4 time + beaten lengths(if any)
100= 124.0
so for example a horse that runs to the 3/4 in 126.3 gets a rating of 87.
Final fraction=from the 3/4 to finish line.
100=27.0
Its really easy to get these,they are figured for you in the PP.After the positions ,next to that horses finish time is the time for the last quarter.If it was say 29.0,the rating would be 90.

Add the two together ,but my advice is pay more attention to the pacers that can run good late.When you have two contenders that are close in overall rating,I usually go with the one that has late run.But don't be afraid of a frontrunner that can get the lead and slow the pace down.Maywood seems to favor this type.Balmoral seems to favor those with late run.

[Dave Mark]

The correct tile is "The Race Is Pace".
Must be all those cobwebs that I had the right book, but the wrong name.

Incidentally, it is available for around $6.95 at some internet book stores.

[Rick]

Thanks for the advice everyone!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dave Mark


Therefore when you have a horse that has the 2 best quarters out of the 4, you have a strong contender.
This concept. while more difficult in Flat racing, where distances are varied, also has led in my education, and improvement in understanding how races are run and won


I like to look at the fractional rankings for the race and metally add the F1 and F2 rankngs together for an early total and then do the same with the F2 and F3 rankings. I like races where all the early or all the late are close and there is an opposite runner that has relatively low total, like this:
E L
1-5-6 = 6 / 11
2-4-3 = 6 / 7
3-3-1 = 6 / 4 >>> I like this guy in the exotics
4-2-4 = 6 / 6
5-6-2 =11/ 8
6-1-5 = 7/ 6

[Lefty]

Dick, I wasn't doubting you(you spent more time with him than I ever did) just stating what happened that day at the Riv. Yes, he put on quite a show.

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by Rick
Hey, there's too many Daves here. Can't you guys change your names or something so we can sort you out?

I knew that would happen when I joined this board. Hence my nickname.

AD

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Tom



I like to look at the fractional rankings for the race and metally add the F1 and F2 rankngs together for an early total and then do the same with the F2 and F3 rankings. I like races where all the early or all the late are close and there is an opposite runner that has relatively low total, like this:
E L
1-5-6 = 6 / 11
2-4-3 = 6 / 7
3-3-1 = 6 / 4 >>> I like this guy in the exotics
4-2-4 = 6 / 6
5-6-2 =11/ 8
6-1-5 = 7/ 6 When you see this type of race,do you put that low# horse on top or just allow for him to be in the money?

[Rick]

AD,

Thanks for being so considerate. Do more Dave's play horses? I'd think it would be John or something more common in the general population.

[GR1@HTR]

Best thing about Mauls book is that you can get it for something like $2.99 at GBC. An incredible deal.

[JimG]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
I want to make sure I have not missed any REALLY good books. Therefore, I have a question:

If you could recommend 3 handicapping books to an advanced player as "must reads," what would they be?

Conversely, if you were to name the single book which you feel was the biggest waste of your time, would would that be?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave:

My recommendations for advanced players would be:

1)4+30 Trainer plays sold by Ed Bain.
2)Exotic Wagering Formulas by Thomas Walters
3)Inside the Claiming Game by Steve Collison

My favorite horse racing books for pure reading are:

1)My 50,000 Year at the Races...Beyer
2)Scared Money....Cramer

Jim

[Tom]

The 3-3-1 horse is one I look at closely - nothing automatic, but this kind run into exotics a lot, and they don't always look so hot on paper. Might be going up in class, might have dull looking lines recently, etc. I look hard for other reasons to like the horse, such as some kind of recent change, some back class, something to use as a corollary. Sometime I just blindly put them on the ticket if the odds are good. the other day at Finge Lakes, there was a horse who was 9-9-1 in a field whrere the speed all looked bad. I put him in the second hole in a few exactas. He won and paid $167!!!! And I had in in the two-hole only, and not with the place horse. D'oh!!!!!!

[Rick]

Another book I should mention is "A Breed Apart" by Mike Helm. It really describes what goes on at a racetrack and is a thoroughly enjoyable read. I lent my copy to a Turf Paradise jockey here a couple of years ago and he thought it was great too. Also, if you have a disinterested spouse (not mine, can't go without her), it probably would help stir up interest if you can get them to read it.

[Richard]

For me,these "enduring" classics:
Beyer: PICKING WINNERS
Quinn: THE HANDICAPPERS' CONDITION BOOK
THE NEW EXPERT HANDICAPPERS
Honorable Mention:
Mitchell: THOROUGHBRED HANDICAPPING AS
AN INVESTMENT
WINNING THOROUGHBRED STRATEGIES
As previously posted the"waste of time"books are too numerous to mention.Hope this post helps.

[Aussieplayer]

Well, as you can imagine, it's actually quite hard to relate a "foreign" text to your own countries racing, however you can still get something out of one (albeit usually not the actual handicapping method itself).

I've enjoyed (and ask for help on a couple of questions):

Handicapping Magic: I like his ideas on the public (relates well to the puter teams ideas). I like his ideas on overlays. I like the "mental" side of the game that he talks about too.
Also, though we don't have internal times like you do, we do have a final 3 furlong time, so his PPF numbers might be workable, as long as I stick to races with lots of early horses (if I've got that right) - Bob H. whaddya think?

Handicapping Speed: I like it as a "thinking" person's book and I've reviewed it here. I consider the icapper articles as an extension of the book.
The Carroll fig I like, 'cept I'd need to find an Aussie version of the baseline times, which can't be record times or anything like that as I've tested that and they don't make "sense." The average times (using all tracks) make "sense" from a distance to distance perspective, but does using all tracks make it "meaningless" data?

One thing I found a little disappointing, is that he didn't deal with variants or track constants, other than to say he ignores them. You can't ignore them here what with our different tracks etc.

Handicapping Trainers: I enjoyed very much (thanks smf). The book is actually a great story, and along the way you see that there is a VAST difference between trainer patterns and trainer stats.

The New Pace Makes the Race: (still has a PA board special of half-off I think, hey Dick?) - LOVED it. It just combined so many good aspects of a handicapping book: the mind game, the numbers, "looking" at a race, form & good stories. Get it!
Sadly can't use the numbers, but had some good rare discussion on variants.

Mordin On Time: Good (but reasonably basic) text on speed handicapping.

Picking Winners: Didn't go much on this one....SORRY!! Actually, the Beyer numbers would prob work okay here, BUT - (same prob. with Carroll) - HOW does a Beyer player deal with shippers????? Can somebody PLEASE tell me that, as all of our races have horses from different tracks come together all the time. How do you rate a horse coming from a low class track to a high class track etc? What is the best text that deals with this?

Kinky Handicapping: enjoyed it. Cool stuff. Apealled to "that" side of me, lol

Value Handicapping: hey, I'm a Cramer fan! Enjoyed the race category idea, and the underlying way he deals with the mind game of handicapping. Hard to use the race category idea unless you're a comprehensive handicapper.

Four Quarters: Loved it. To be honest, this is THE book that I wish I had read 6 years ago when starting out at the age of 21. The perfect book for a beginner to read, and the perfect book for a long time player who wants to unlearn his stuff due to dissatisfaction of current methods. A profitable player doesn't "need" the book, but would prob. enjoy it anyway.
Okay, to find one fault in it if I had to: if he went into record keeping WITHOUT Bettor keep track just a bit more would have been good. But the principles remain.

Of the Aussie books that you've never heard of, lol

Don Scott's winning more (our version of picking winners - this changed aussie racing).

Malcolm Knowles little stat. booklets that look at stats. of favs. won at distance, place percentage ranking etc.

But I like your books better, lol

Cheers
AP

PS. I don't know if any of you guys are into those hefty, beefy & juicy stock market books, but, in comparison - have there been any equivalents about horse racing??????

[rrbauer]

Aussieplayer wrote:

Picking Winners: Didn't go much on this one....SORRY!! Actually, the Beyer numbers would prob work okay here, BUT - (same prob. with Carroll) - HOW does a Beyer player deal with shippers????? Can somebody PLEASE tell me that, as all of our races have horses from different tracks come together all the time. How do you rate a horse coming from a low class track to a high class track etc? What is the best text that deals with this?


Ideally you would have class pars established for each track that would enable you to develop a "Beyer" fig for races that shippers ran at other venues. This fig might be a little off due to lack of good variant info for tracks that you weren't following regularly.

I haven't seen one for awhile, but there used to be parallel time charts available here in the US, that could be used to evaluate races from different tracks in relation to how much faster/slower one track's times were versus another. For example, if a horse ran a mile in 1:38 at track A, that would be equivilant to running a mile in 1:39 at track B.

Maybe there is an opportunity there for you to break some new ground.

[pic6vic]

I know of an author who has written a few books. He is a player
and does not derive his income from the books. I do not remember the names of the books. However, if you are looking for books for the advanced player these are for you. One word of caution, these books deal mainly with superfecta;s pick4's, trifecta's etc. The author's name is Jerry Samovitz. The store in Vegas carries his books. If you need more info I can get it for you as Jerry is my partner. In the portion about pic6's I was his partner when we made those plays. We put in lots of hours on the methods of betting.

[Topcat]

I've read some of Jerry's booklets-they're not bad-available through Dave Powers, aka Clint Tracy's publishing site.

One of his booklets is a money mangaement piece called
"Out of the Red into the Black" Do you or Jerry use it?
Results?

TC

[Dick Schmidt]

Aussie Guy,

Glad you enjoyed the book; sorry you can't use it much. I warned you that the numbers were built for the U.S..

As for Beyer numbers, they can be used very well with multiple tracks shipping in. That is the strength of Beyer's numbers in my opinion. Re-read the section where he starts out with a big sheet of paper and a quart of bourbon. By the time the paper is full and the bottle is empty, he has built a set of good par times.

Dick

P.S. Ya, I'll sell anyone on PA a copy of Pace Makes the Race for $15. I'll even pay the postage, but no more copies to Australia.

[Bob Harris]

AP,

Actually you can use the PPF rating for all races. Because the beaten lengths at the 2nd call get thrown back into the 3rd fraction time, you will often find the best rating in the field coming from a forward running horse (ala WE's Illinois Derby rating). The key, as always, is to make sure the running style of your horse is favorable with the pace scenario you have projected for that race.

I know less than zero about Aussie racing but if you have a final 3f time which can be equalized for different distances, I don't know why you couldn't come up with a workable number. If you decide to mess around with it, please let me know what kind of results you end up with.

Best,

Bob

[Aussieplayer]

Thanks rrbauer & Dick. I hear what you guys are saying - ie. no problemo making class/distance pars, or using paralell time to make class pars for a particular track.
BUT - tracks have a different "classiness" to them. It's okay if you have a class that exists at every track (I think you have $10 000 claimers at every track), however, we don't. Not to mention each state has a different quality of animal.
Okay (doesn't matter if you don't know the places): I handicap a Sydney race. Open handicap (fairly high quality).
A horse in there has had it's last few starts at the "provincial tracks" (lower class - further away from the city) of that state (new south wales). The tracks just don't have a class that is comparable. So a "100" or whatever you make the standard number at a "provincial" track is simply not the same thing as a 100 on a "city" track!

Hope this explains the problem further & more clearly - and thanks for you help, what a great place to be!!

Cheers
AP

PS. Dick - I owe you one. If you can think of anything.....

[MikeH]

The books that have been most beneficial to me are:

1) Quinn's "Recreational Handicapper." This book had more influence on my handicapping that any other book.

2) Brohamer's "Modern Pace Handicapping." I use the concepts in this book extensively.

3) Quinn's "Figure Handicapping." Same explanation as 2).

4) Dr. Bill Quirin's book (I loaned my copy to someone and can't recall the exact title.)


As far as "Waste of time" books, I've bought several from RPM Information Services in Carlsbad, California (about 15 miles up Interstate 5 from DelMar.)

[Dick Schmidt]

Aussieplayer,

We face the same problem of track class here too. For instance Turf Paradise in Arizona ships some very low class horses over to Santa Anita once in a while. Their times look OK, as TuP is a very fast track, and Santa Anita has slowed down some in the past few years.

What we (by we, I mean Tom Hambleton) would do is make a prediction on how the horse would run using comparative times and a class adjustment. If it ran better or worse than we predicted, then we would raise or lower the class adjustment. Pay particular attention to the more reliable horses, such as older geldings. After 8 or 10 tries, you usually have a good handle on the relationship between the tracks. On paper we calculated that the adjustment should be a -7; however in real life, we found a -11 to be more accurate. Don't forget that if you predict a horse to run 6th and he runs 4th, that is just as big a failure as if he ran 8th.

Dick

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
Aussieplayer,

Don't forget that if you predict a horse to run 6th and he runs 4th, that is just as big a failure as if he ran 8th.

Dick But Dick what if he runs a similiar pace #?Ive found that happens regularly.You predict a horse will press the pace,but instead he leads and slows the pace.Or horses you predict to duel,don't,but they have comparable overall ratings..And what if he finishes within a neck or half length of where you predict he will finish?To me,thats not a failure of the method,its just trying to be too precise.

[Dick Schmidt]

Super-Guy,

Well, yeah, you gotta use some common sense. I figure if you can come within a head or a neck, your adjustments are right on. Don't try to do this with just one horse, or even one dozen. You need to see a pattern. Go back through the past performances and find every shipper from that track you can, then check charts to see how they did and how you predicted they would do. When the two match (more or less), then you have a track-to-track adjustment you can bet real money on. Doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough.

Dick

[socalsportsbook]

I've read most of the handicapping/horse playing theory books and the absolute best is "Meadows Racing Monthly". This is not technically a book but a monthly newsletter and I read it cover-to-cover the same evening I get it in the mail. It's packed full of information that is useful and current.

[Tom]

Aussieplayer,
I don't know howmuch access you have to race time data - is there anywhere you can download data like we can here? If so, you can probably set up some kind of track-to-track adjsutments
without too much trouble. In the days before TPR and published pars, I used to use the DRF SR+TV numbers for the shippers to get a line on them. Say the average Tam horse ran 90 at Tam and ran 83 at FL, then my adjustment was -7. Good luck, becasue you end up with something no one else has access to - reliable speed figures (Ah, for the good ole days. I was making numbers for FL in the late 70's and it was not at all uncommon to get $10 on a fig standout - alas, no more!).

Bob Harris,

Do you know why Mike never used his pace numbers (from HDRF) in his Magic formulas?

Dick Schmidt,

You had a Track Class chart in PMTR that is outdated now.
Have you seen the one Barry published this month? If so, any thoughts on it? All the tracks are not there, but
I think they could be fit into it good enough.

Tom

[Dave Schwartz]

Tom,

I believe that track class chart was mine. An updated one is available. Do you need it?

Dave

[Lindsay]

Best books:

1: The Odds Must Be Crazy
2: Betting Thoroughbreds
3: Dave Litfin's Expert Handicapping
4: The Winning Horseplayer
5: Tie: A Breed Apart (fascinating interviews of Kaenal and Cox) and Beyer On Speed

Worst Books:

1: Gordon Jones To Win (disgraceful)
2: Exotic Overlays
3: Gordon Jones To Win (despicable)
4: Overlay Overlay
5: Gordon Jones To Win (an overpriced piece of garbage)

Most overrated author: James Quinn.

Most underrated author: Helm

Worst handicapping writer who ever lived: Gordon Jones

Most idiotic closing sentence in a book: Gordon Jones To Win

[socalsportsbook]

Dick,

I'd love a copy of Pace Makes the Race. Where should I send the check?

e-mail me @ morgan@socalsportsbook.com

[Dave Schwartz]

Lindsay,

Okay, now don't sugar coat this: You wouldn't recommend that I read Gordon Jones to Win, huh?

LOL

Thanks for the candid feedback.


Dave Schwartz

[Rick]

Lindsay,

There might be other reasons to dislike Gordon Jones, but I don't see why his first book would be one of them. It's just speed handicapping with more details thrown in. What's the beef?

[Lefty]

Gordon Jones toWin is out of print but when it came out it cost $14.95 and was one of the first books to outline a cogent method of Speed Handicapping and up to that time Huey Mahl who was editing Systems and Methods gave it the highest rating ever given by that publication.
So what didn't you like?

[Lindsay]

Dave : You're welcome.

Rick: Speed handicapping? That is quite generous. Jones tells us that daily track variants are unnecessary because tracks have a "basic resiliency." He includes a chart for comparing times from different tracks, but he doesn't tell his readers how to adjust for changing day-to-day speeds at the same track.

The funny thing is, later, Jones sent me a notice about a kit he was selling: how to make your own daily track variants. I have also read stuff from this guy about the winning percentage of his sports selections: 90 percent winners in hockey, something like that.

Gordon Jones is a terrible writer, and "Gordon Jones To Win" is a disgraceful book. I could go on all night about it. If you want, I will. But for now, please keep in mind that the book eschews daily variants, and that the last line of the book contains these words: "...you now have all the knowledge you need to beat the races wherever you go."

Yeah, sure.

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by Lefty
Gordon Jones toWin is out of print but when it came out it cost $14.95 and was one of the first books to outline a cogent method of Speed Handicapping and up to that time Huey Mahl who was editing Systems and Methods gave it the highest rating ever given by that publication.
So what didn't you like?

I agree. I like that book. $14.95 wasn't bad either. (Voegele charged $20 five years earlier and that had little merit) Probably in my top 15 books. Mine is held together with elastic bands. Basically the same concepts as Beyer. And it didn't have variants, but look at Ainslie parallel speed charts. Now those were useless. Jones at least moved forward. I also bought Smart Money from him for a similar price which had some good money management advice.

(Hey we just set a new record a couple minutes ago for number of people on the site at once- 56!)

AD

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Lindsay
Best books:

1: The Odds Must Be Crazy
2: Betting Thoroughbreds
3: Dave Litfin's Expert Handicapping
4: The Winning Horseplayer
5: Tie: A Breed Apart (fascinating interviews of Kaenal and Cox) and Beyer On Speed

I have never thought much of Dave Litfin as a columnist,much less as an Expert Handicapper.Maybe I can find his book at the library.I forgot about Mike Helms book(but its good).I like books like that,more stories and profiles than handicapping theory.(maybe thats why I still read Beyer columns and books ,even tho I don't think much of his speed figs).William Murray wrote a couple of books like that,the first was real good,the second was okay.Can't remember the titles tho.

[Topcat]

<Dave : You're welcome.

Rick: Speed handicapping? That is quite generous. Jones tells us that daily track variants are unnecessary because tracks have a "basic resiliency." He includes a chart for comparing times from different tracks, but he doesn't tell his readers how to adjust for changing day-to-day speeds at the same track.

The funny thing is, later, Jones sent me a notice about a kit he was selling: how to make your own daily track variants. I have also read stuff from this guy about the winning percentage of his sports selections: 90 percent winners in hockey, something like that.

Gordon Jones is a terrible writer, and "Gordon Jones To Win" is a disgraceful book. I could go on all night about it. If you want, I will. But for now, please keep in mind that the book eschews daily variants, and that the last line of the book contains these words: "...you now have all the knowledge you need to beat the races wherever you go." >


Lindsay-

Wow-I haven't seen anyone condem a book so strongly since Kohemini. <g>

You must have lost a alot of money or had a bad experience with Jones? A terrible writer? One of the reasons Huey Mahl 9not a bad writer himself) gave him such a high rating was because as Huey put it-Jones was an understandable, literate writer--as an actual former college professors he was one of the few clear writers out there.

The book was written in a sort of work book style where you there was a little review at the end where you had to fill in the blanks-definitely different.

When he origanlly wrote his book he would primarily play S. CA circuit which was resilent. i tested using variants and not using variants on in and foudn i made more money not using them-

At any of his seminars he did advocate using variants for track to track and even handed out his free of charge-w

I actually made more money using Jones approach than Beyer's but that was my experience. Yours must ahve been a more interesting story.

TC

[Dick Schmidt]

Tom,

Haven't seen a Track Class chart in years. If the one in Barry's mag is from Schwartz, it will be good. If you plan to use one, I'd get Dave's newest if you can. His class stuff and pars are the best to be had.

Dick

[Ignatius]

I'm a newbie and I'll probably be hooted out of here for saying it, but I still get the Cynthia pars version every year. Gack!

I have compared the past several versions (ones put out in 2000 by Pine, 2001 by Schwartz and this year's 2002 put out by whomever) and I'd have to say that this year's Cynthia edition is probably the best they've put out. The numbers are more solid and believable and the supplemental material makes for very nice reference stuff - elegant thoughts.

Pine and Schwartz did good work, but in comparison to what Cynthia has now, I see now that those two guys could have done more. No-names over the "big" names?

[Lindsay]

"Gordon Jones To Win" is a paperback book that cost 14.95. It came out in 1976, a year AFTER "Picking Winners" (which was longer, cheaper, I believe, and infinitely better) and the bulk of the book is made up of charts and condescending summaries of what we just read. The book can be read in 23 minutes, provided you don't pause to laugh at Jones's ludicrous ego.

His first sentence:

"There are those who mourn the closing of the frontier and wail that life has lost its meaning or challenge."

We know where he's going with this:

"Armed with Daily Racing Form, binoculars, sporty outfit, a week's pay and this book, modern man is amply prepared to do battle with his fellows and the pari mutuels."

One can't make this up. Well, one could, but if one does, one should be shot.

This book makes no demand on the reader other than that he read sentence after sentence of this drivel, buy the DRF, and go to the track.

Early in the book, Jones tells us that he is a mathematical genius. Then he tells us to add a fifth of a second per beaten length--at all distances. Then he tells us that we should adjust a horse's time if he raced three-wide, but not if he raced two-wide. His reasoning: "Racing outside one horse is not unusual."

Jones was using and selling daily variants at the same time he was promoting this wretched book, which doesn't include them. The book is subtitled: "The Professional Method of Speed Handicapping." But it's not the method this "professional" was using in his own handicapping. He was using daily variants.

Jones's approach, in one paragraph: Take the raw final time, adjust for weight, post position, trouble (though he later says this isn't really necessary), and pace ( he's terminally silly here, I think), and then bet on the horse with the fastest time. Forget biases. Forget trainers. Forget form cycles.

Len Ragozin was making speed figures well before Jones wrote this book. I defy anyone to read "The Odds Must Be Crazy," and then read "Gordon Jones To Win," and then tell me this book isn't a damn joke, and a dishonest one, too.

[David McKenzie]

// Tom,

I believe that track class chart was mine. An updated one is available. Do you need it?

Dave //

I'd appreciate getting one too, please.

Pretty please with lasix on top.

[Rick]

Lindsay,

But the book was written in 1976, and was ahead of it's time for that time period. He even pointed out the value of early speed by using equivalent ratings for early fractions. I agree with you that Jones had (and probably still does have) a huge ego, but he's pretty smart nevertheless. I think he still does seminars in Las Vegas and having sat in one one of them where he and I both had the same longshot, I'd say he's still winning. But there is a lot more to his current methods than is outlined in any of his books.

A few years ago he was working on a concept called "easy pickings" which involved trying to identify which tracks were easier to beat than others. His preliminary list was a pretty good one. At that time he was planning to write another book about it, but I haven't seen anything.

One other thing about Jones though. I don't know if it's true or not, but some highly respected people claim that he stiffed them on a Pick 6 syndicate by not including a horse they had all agreed upon. I'm not sure if that's true but it wouldn't be inconsistent with his personality to throw a horse out if he thought it couldn't win.

[Lefty]

Lindsay, Gordon Jones put his speed chart in the book and I used it for a long time on CA trks with great success. Picking Winners you had to sit down and make all your own Par charts to make the Beyer nos. Jones was a lot easier.
If you go through Jones' examples in his book you'll notice he always used last 2 pacelines which implies form. We can disagree but I think for the times it was a great book and got the BEST rating ever given up to that time by Systems and Methods.
Yes, Ragozen was making numbers then but not affordable by most.
Jones a bad writer. That's funny. The Prof comes from the fact that he was a Prof of Journalism.

[anotherdave]

One other thing that I also liked about the Jones book was the talk about Routers can sprint and sprinters can route, I never saw that talked about much in earlier books.

AD

[Lindsay]

Anotherdave: In "Picking Winners," Beyer discussed routers sprinting and sprinters routing. It came out the year before, and it employs variants.

Lefty: Jones was a lot easier than Beyer. Too much easier. Beyer made winning seem hard and hence possible. Jones made it seem easy and hence impossible. It was a lazy book. If Jones had the par times to make accurate speed charts for tracks across the country, why didn't he print them so that we could use them to make variants? Smell something fishy? He might say the par times would become obsolete shortly, but the same goes for the chart he printed. He left his readers hung out to dry--unless they went on to pay for his variants. As for form cycles, using raw final times from the last two pacelines is not what I had in mind.

An endorsement from Systems and Methods means nothing to me. I have read the book. If I hadn't, it might.

As for his writing, many professors are terrible writers. Many journalists are bad writers. Gordon Jones is embarrassing. Please read the sentences I quoted. I could have gone on. The entire book is like that. Wasn't he bounced from his teaching job because he refused to publish? That doesn't prove anything either.

Rick: Equivalent ratings on unadjusted fractions.

I heard the syndicate story, but I don't know if it's true.

[so.cal.fan]

The story about the pick six is true, and then some.
Jones would tout an impossible long shot, on a big ticket, hense, doubling the sheet. Allegedly he would then put half the ticket in, many people thought he was pocketing the other half of the money.
The day he "hit" it at Santa Anita, I was in the box section when two elderly men jumped up after the last race and yelled, "we had It" then they said "NO ONE HAD SIX WINNERS" I thought one of the men was going to have a heart attack!
The next day, Jones got up in front of his "Pick 6 seminar" crowd and cried. True.....I know people who were there. Claimed he put in the wrong ticket, had his daughter backing up his story.
He soon left Santa Anita after Jane Goldstein refused to give him a press box credential. Too many complaints. Bad for racing I guess.
I think his book was okay, the money management was sound enough, however, Jones as a credible guy..................
He subsituted as a teacher one day at a college, according to other teachers.
He should have been a professor of economics, him being an expert with being economical with the truth and all. LOL

[Rick]

OK, I didn't list "Gordon Jones to Win" on my list of best books because it wasn't that influential on my handicapping. But if you want to talk about speed handicapping I can go even farther back to the 60's when Bob Hebert published a book, I think it was called "Secrets of Handicapping" or something like that. That's the first I ever heard of speed handicapping and I was using it when I was in high school. Of course, I grew up in Arcadia, California so there was always plenty of information on horse racing available, even in the public library. I got my racing forms for research from the Santa Anita parking lot.

[Lindsay]

More Jones:

He was arrested at one of his seminars. It was something minor, I believe. (so. cal. fan might remember the charge.) But he didn't come back to the Herald Examiner after that.

He had a bit part in the movie "Fever Pitch." Horrible movie. Figures.

He once wrote a column bragging about a longshot he won thousands of dollars on. I was very young, but I believe the horse was named something like Wakuna. It beat the favored Pahashka. After the fact, Jones gave many reasons why the horse was a great bet, and I think he said he was prepared to fly to San Francisco if that's what it would take to bet this horse. The problem was that in his daily handicap, he hadn't listed Wakuna in his top three. Bragging about his huge score was totally bush, totally Gordon Jones.

[Topcat]

Herbert's book-oh yeah-that is a good one. I read it in the library.

On Jones arrest-he was arrested while putting in pick six tickets for his seminar group-if you put in $20 and it was one % you got one % of the winnings-talked to someone who did it and he said he made out pretty good-the group ran a nice positive roi for 2 years.

What got Jones arrested was that he was collecting the money at the restaraunt ACROSS from the track-no can do. A friend of mine found out about this the hard way too-he was running in bets from friends prior to phone betting and jokingly said he ought to charge a service for it and said that to a few people and the next thing you know he had someone at his door investigating him.

Back to Jones-Jones was at his seminar-an off duty cop walked by and saw him writing the wagers on the chalk board and then collecting the money and next week he was arrested-so he moved the seminar inside the track but the Examiner didn't care-as far as they were concerned he was arrested for illegal bookmaking-and that was that-even though he was putting the money through the parimutuels. The Examinar was under increasing pressure and declining revenue and they were afraid of losing advertisers (they later went underafter killing one of it's strong points the sports page) at the time the the LA Times (also known as Pravada West) to be politically correct was removing all line making and betting references from it's sports page and for a while dropped any and all reference to horeses including a handicap. Bottom line was Jones didn't need the job and said the heck with it.

[Topcat]

More Jones:

I attended about 25-30 of his seminars-back inthe 70s. The reason I kept going even though it cost $15 becase I was making money. I only once put money in his group pick 6 tickets because it was a confusing mess -you had a dozen people suggesting horse and Gordon trying to construct multiple betting tickets that offered value ala Barry Meadows-you had people shouting out horses. Jones and his daughter writing some done-on chalk board-missing others-rejecting some -Some people would suggest a hores and then leave before seeing if it was included.

A buddy and I used to stay to watch this part just because it was such a funny scene-that and to talk and flirt with his attractive daughter who was supposed to be keeping records of all bets.

My friend and and I repeatedly said there is no way anyone can keep track of this-and what Jones would do is photo-copy the tickets after he bet it at the track in the press box but you had to be at certain spot at a certain time to get a copy.

I never saw Jones stiff anybody-but I wasn't there on that particular day. This is not to say that Jones didn't have an ego but he was and is very persanable and his ego would place a distance second to Len Ragozin -methinks ego I think comes with the territory-

My friend and I used to specualte about why Jones would bother with the group pick 6 since it was such a mess to administer. The first answer was because his seminar attendees (or at least some of them) wanted it. The other more devious answer was because he put in all the tickets and the losers he used to offset his winning straight bets and he had a lot of those and he bet big. Think of it-if you are showing $75,000 in winning IRS tickets (I saw Jones with sme huge IRS winners one alone of $10,000) so if you have $65,000 in losing pick six tickets it reduces your tax liablity on the $75,000 and allows you to get back almost all of the money you withheld-that was the real angle on his pick 6 betting not stiffing the public-that was just a reflection of the way it was handled.

[Rick]

TC,

Great insights on Jones. The syndicate stiff thing may very well have been a misunderstanding; I don't know, only the way some feel about the result. But I do think that he was and probably is a winning player. I really can't understand why so many people defend the Sartin hucksters and at the same time hate a guy like Gordon Jones. Yeah, he has a different style and I personally don't like the guy that much, but I think he's a winner and I always thought Sartin was a fake from the very beginning. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. BTW, no offense to anyone who got sucked in by the Sartin "charisma". A lot of useful work was done by some of his associates. But, some of the material published by those same people is very misleading, so they do have to answer for that.

[Lindsay]

I've never met Gordon Jones, and I wouldn't say that I hate him. I hate his book. Another quote:

"It doesn't take a genius to apply the method with a high degree of success. But it took a ration of genius and a great deal of hard work to unlock the secrets contained in this work of a lifetime--secrets that anybody can now apply, just as you don't have to invent the electric light to turn it on with the flick of a switch."

[so.cal.fan]

Gorden Jones is a bit of a fraud, no question about it.
I have a great story about a big fib he told a girlfriend of mine in a Las Vegas bar. It was a hoot. Too long to post, but he "borrows" others material, at least to tell lies in bars to women! LOL;)

[Lefty]

Lindsay, Gordon's Speed chart was supposed to be Universal. I'm pretty sure he never sold variants. There is another Prof Jones who puts out software and stuff located somewhere in Kansas or someplace other than West Coast. We'll just have to disagree about the Jones boy. If you didn't like the book well. you didn't like it. I liked it a lot.

[Lindsay]

Lefty: Gordon Jones tried to sell me something called a "track kit." It was for making variants. I am completely certain about this. I've lived in Los Angeles my entire life, and I am quite familiar with Jones and his work. How could his "work of a lifetime" not include the variants that he uses in his daily handicapping? How could this "genius" sell a speed handicapping method that is utterly helpless when the track changes speed?

A speed chart that purports to be universal is a fraud. Jones's chart had adjustments for different distances at different tracks. He needed pars to make a good chart. He could have printed them--provided he had them.

The last thing I will ever do is tell you that you didn't like a book you say you liked. We disagree, which is fine. I appreciate your reply, and I respect your opinion.

[Dick Schmidt]

Topcat,

Actually his scam was even more devious and more profitable. He wasn't just using the losing tickets to offset winners, he was collecting a lot of money from Uncle Sam. When his group hit a Pick-6, which they did regularly with monster tickets, Jones would sign up and cash the ticket. At that time, the IRS took 20%. He then paid off everybody who had invested. Naturally, he had records to prove all this, and of course he owned a small part of the ticket as well. Comes tax time and he has a huge balance built up in his withholding account, but very little income. He can prove he didn't keep most of the winnings, so he got a huge refund. Once some people figured this out, a lot of Pick-6 breakfasts sprung up around SoCal, though none as successful as Prof. Jones at his peak.

I knew several of his regulars, and though they knew what was going on, they didn't mind. The alternative was for them to sigh up too, and pay more taxes, so they kept quiet, took their winnings in cash and everyone went home happy. Fun while it lasted.

Dick

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I'm a newbie and I'll probably be hooted out of here for saying it, but I still get the Cynthia pars version every year. Gack!

I have compared the past several versions (ones put out in 2000 by Pine, 2001 by Schwartz and this year's 2002 put out by whomever) and I'd have to say that this year's Cynthia edition is probably the best they've put out. The numbers are more solid and believable and the supplemental material makes for very nice reference stuff - elegant thoughts.

Pine and Schwartz did good work, but in comparison to what Cynthia has now, I see now that those two guys could have done more. No-names over the "big" names?

Ignatius,

Well, I am looking at buying one of the pars. I am leaning towards Cynthia because I basically do the California up to B.C. and they have a special California edition for $34.95, but I might spring for the whole thing still. A couple questions. I have the 2000 version done by Gordon Pine and wonder if they have made the improvements I am looking for. Can you tell me if they have the pars in hundreths rather than fifths. And also the version I have doesn't differentiate between different types of claimers. (e.g. 15000 open versus 15000nw2, 3yo versus 3yo and up, state breds etc) which is vital to me. Has that been done now by Cynthia?

Thanks

AD

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by anotherdave


Ignatius,

Well, I am looking at buying one of the pars. I am leaning towards Cynthia because I basically do the California up to B.C. and they have a special California edition for $34.95, but I might spring for the whole thing still. A couple questions. I have the 2000 version done by Gordon Pine and wonder if they have made the improvements I am looking for. Can you tell me if they have the pars in hundreths rather than fifths. And also the version I have doesn't differentiate between different types of claimers. (e.g. 15000 open versus 15000nw2, 3yo versus 3yo and up, state breds etc) which is vital to me. Has that been done now by Cynthia?

Thanks

AD

Does anyone out there know anything about whether the Cynthia (or other pars) handle the two questions I asked above? (other than just say things like add 3/5 if state bred or add 2/5 if mares race, something more precise)

thanks

AD

[Jake]

I suggest you purchase the Horsestreet Pars, which Dave Schwartz creates. They are the best set of pars out there, hands down. If you have any questions about how he prepares them, speak to him directly on the telephone. Very good numbers.

Originally posted by anotherdave


Does anyone out there know anything about whether the Cynthia (or other pars) handle the two questions I asked above? (other than just say things like add 3/5 if state bred or add 2/5 if mares race, something more precise)

thanks

AD

[socalsportsbook]

Jake

It's a long time since you asked the questions but I just received my hard copy of the Cynthia Publishing Pars. I love that stuff!

No, they do not break it down they way you asked but have a very interesting set of articles addressing this subject. Basically, it would be a very large book to include all that information.

I have been a subscriber to these pars since Gordon Pine used to do them. I think they are terrific. Very accurate. I subscribe to an expensive Pace service and the Cynthia pars are right on track with those published by the service. Remember the Pace Service only does on track and Cynthia does them all.

Somethin new this year--at least I think it's new--is the WMF or Winning Move Factor for every track. A quote from the book; "WMF is a number that incorporates moves at various stages of the race and allows for