Modern Pace Handicapping vs Handicapping Magic

[shoelessjoe]

I want to read about handicapping the shape of the race by looking at the 2nd call.Which one of these books would be more beneficial on this subject?If you have any others in mind I would like to know as well.You guys on here really come up with some helpful suggestions. Shoeless

[Dick Schmidt]

Modern Pace Handicapping is a far better book, with a complete handicapping methodology that anyone can apply, no "soft focus" voodoo required.


Dick

If everything seems to go right, check your zipper.

[Buckeye]

That's good to know, because I'm after Hard cash.

Psycho babble bio-computer change the name of site nonsense.

If I want to freelance I can and I will, if you have a better idea that you're willing and able to sell to me, I seriously doubt it.

Case closed.

[shoelessjoe]

I love the honesty around here. Shoeless

[mhrussell]

..I really enjoyed both books. The HM techniques are the foundation of my play, but MPH is the 'classic' on the subject of pace. You really should and need to read both and then form your own conclusions.


There are a lot of strange and mysterious things in this world; the fulcrum horse finishing second and soft focus voodoo ... well, just try it for yourself and see.

[hurrikane]

For some reason I agree 100% with Dick.

better check my zipper.

[Tom]

HM ha some good stuf in it, but I agree MPH is the better tool. You can augment it with some HM ideas. the revised edition of MPH has a lot about Quirin style pace/speed figs that is good too.

[kingfin66]

I love the honesty around here. Shoeless


Schmidt co-wrote the book with Hambleton and Pizzolla. He is qualified to comment albeit with a biased opinion toward his own book. Buckeye, on the other hand, is a troll who's opinion should be discounted accordingly.

The honest answer is that you should read both books and decide for yourself which is the better of the two. You will likely find that you will gain insight from both books.

[Zaf]

I enjoyed reading both books. They both contain very useful information on the art of handicapping.

ZAFONIC

[highnote]

I agree with Dick. MPH is much better than HM. But go ahead and read both. I find that I still use MPH as a reference book. There is so much good stuff in it that I can't remember it all.

On the other hand, I learned very little new from HM. However, a lot of people like, so who am I to say it wouldn't be useful for you.

But do yourself a big favor and read Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw's book "The Matchup". It is the most useful of any handicapping book I have ever read. The strange paradox is that it is also just about the most poorly written and edited book ever published. Jim could've used an editor. Whenever I read MPH I always get the feeling that Jim Quinn edited the book for Brohammer. The writing style often reminds me of Quinn. I have no doubt no one but Bradshaw edited Bradshaw's book. But I'll be damned if it is not the book that taught me the best way to handicap a race.

The other books make things so complicated. Bradshaw shows you how simple it actually is. All you do is find out who is going to get the lead and then decide if he can't get the lead in a pace time that he can handle. If he has to run too fast to get the lead he'll probably lose.

His distance adjustments are brain dead simple. So simple in fact, I just used the idea for handicapping quarter horse races during my first ever visit to Ruidoso. I only had time to see three races, but I had the winner in all three. OK, I'll admit they were chalk, but I had them all, plus a nice exacta.

Good luck.

John

[cato]

You need to read both HM and MPH--two of the better books in handicapping.

IMO, avoid the book called the Match Up as its damn near unintelligible. The writing is poor and the editing is non-existent. BUT, if you can find a copy of the Match Up manual, that's worth reviewing and studying.

Cheers, Cato

[highnote]

IMO, avoid the book called the Match Up as its damn near unintelligible. The writing is poor and the editing is non-existent. BUT, if you can find a copy of the Match Up manual, that's worth reviewing and studying.

Cheers, Cato

Cato,

I agree that Match Up is difficult to read because of the poor spelling and poorly executed examples. However, if you sit and study it you can get the gist of what The Hat is saying. Once you understand what he is trying to illustrate it will give you a tool to use in almost every horse race -- I even use it for harness racing. Probably works for dogs, too, if they give pace times in the pps.

By the way, what is the Match Up manual? I've never seen that.

[shoelessjoe]

The match up manual was put out by Doc Sartins group way back when.It's much easier to understand than the book by Bradshaw.If you want go to bindfold.com/forums/index.php.The guy who runs it Binder is a great guy who runs this site devoted to the Sartin Methodology.He would help you get a copy at NO CHARGE I might add. Shoeless

[creatureman]

that is a oxymoron

[shoelessjoe]

Sorry I kind of screwed up I thought Binder had that manual but he doesnt.He has only has the Bradshaw book as well.Shoeless

[highnote]

that is a oxymoron

HAHAHA. You're right!

I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that I used an idea I got from the Match Up to equalize the final times from different distances. It worked well on the three races I handicapped. Who knows how it would work over a larger sample?

Quarter horses and pace! :lol:

[andicap]

Schmidt co-wrote the book with Hambleton and Pizzolla. He is qualified to comment albeit with a biased opinion toward his own book. Buckeye, on the other hand, is a troll who's opinion should be discounted accordingly.

The honest answer is that you should read both books and decide for yourself which is the better of the two. You will likely find that you will gain insight from both books.


Youre thinking about Pace Makes the Race, not Modern Pace Handicapping, which Brohamer wrote all by his lonesome.

MPH is the best book to start with to learn about pace handicapping.
But truthfully the way I really learned was to get a decent software program to crunch and organize the numbers and play a s__tload of races. (For me it was HTR, but I'm not saying it's the only one.)
And reading this board helped a lot too.

I would also check out paceappraiser.com and read all of what Randy Giles has to write about pace. I'll take his stuff over almost any of the so-called "expert" published authors.

[shoelessjoe]

Just to clarify myself and so Binder doesnt get any requests he doesnt own the match up at all.Sorry for the misinformation. Shoeless

[modred]

If I remember correctly, Dick Schimdt edited the MatchUp Manual for Howard/Bradshaw way back when and that is what made it readable and useful.

I pull it out every so often. It's good. It shows, sort of, Jimmy's mindset when he was thinking about a race. If you can get it it's a good read. It, also, has Howard's input on his version of the matchup.

The Matchup book by Bradhaw needs to be rewritten and would be a good exercise for someone to do for themselves. Might be the start of a writing career.

[turfbar]

Can anyone explain this match up and what he meant?
For years I used the MPH software and always found when either
the Quirins (number/speed and pace) matched up or when the thier was a velocity number match up (similar as 55.00- 55.00{just an example}) those horses won or were competitive. Just a thought.
thanx Turfbar

[ldiatone]

mph #1 i still pick it up and reread

[OTM Al]

I liked MPH and learned a lot from it, but I found it a very poorly edited book. There are math mistakes, so be sure to work out calculations on your own as you read through it. Just think a little better editing job would have made it a much more readible book, but overall well worth the read.

[xfile]

I want to read about handicapping the shape of the race by looking at the 2nd call.Which one of these books would be more beneficial on this subject?If you have any others in mind I would like to know as well.You guys on here really come up with some helpful suggestions. Shoeless

The 'shape' of the race is not only the 2nd call. Are you sure you meant the 'pace shape'?. Because that would be the run style matchups at all 3 calls and pace numbers at all 3 calls...or 2 calls in a sprint (prior stretch calls)...in route races i look at 2f, 4f and 6f calls...in sprints 2f and 4f :cool:

[Tom]

Race shapes were coined by William Quirin - it was how a race came out at the pace fig and speed fig. Average-Average, Fast-Fast, Fast-Slow, etc. Each one favors different types of running styles.

I believe it was his second book - definately not Winnig at the Races - Computer discoveries. I think Jim Quinn might have covered this in Recreational Handicapping as well.

[delayjf]

His distance adjustments are brain dead simple.

Just what are the distance adjustments???

I read the book, and got nothing out of it, glad to hear somebody did.

[Tor Ekman]

I am new to making a more serious effort to handicap. I am presently reading MPH, and it an absolute revelation. True, there are some errors in some math calculations, but in picking up on these it confirms that I am understanding the concepts and becoming capable of applying them in practice. Looking at the race through FPS measurements and "turn time" has been an eye opening experience for me - my trouble now seems to be correctly assessing whether the pace setter can survive the effort to run on the lead through the second call. Right now I am limiting my attempts to apply the principles to sprints, since I think Brohamer's pace analysis has more utility in sprints than in routes.

[Houndog]

Tor as you work more races with MPH you will get a better feel of pace match-ups, and the Velocity Readouts. You may find pace match-ups where the only thing a horse has going for him is a dominant first fraction. This may be the only thing he needs, and they do pay good prices. I made the mistake when I first started with the Sartin Methodology of running the program (It was Synergism II at the time and not being able to correctly interpret the velocity read-outs.) Tom Brohamer's book had not yet published at the time.
We did have the "Old Yeller" manual as it was called, but things never really clicked until reading MPH and re-reading it until things began to make sense.

Do as many races as you can and you will get a better feel of the pace match-ups. This method also works very well with route races, so I don't think you need to restrict yourself to sprints. Turf racing may on the other hand may be a different matter. Best of luck on your journey.

[Tor Ekman]

Thanks Houndog. I've already decided that the first thing I am going to do when I finish reading MPH (I'm about midway thru), is to turn back to page one and read it again.