Book: Handicapping Magic

[rrbauer]

I have a copy of Pizzolla's book, Handicapping Magic, 2nd Edition. Bought it in April and read it on a trip. Perfect condition. $25 and I'll pay the shipping.

rrbauer@directvinternet.com

[rrbauer]

It's gone. Mailed it out today!

[Derek2U]

if i send u $50 would you promise to toss it in the nearest
garbage disposal? it would clog any sinK line so b careful.

[dav4463]

Is the book that bad? How about his software?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Derek2U
if i send u $50 would you promise to toss it in the nearest
garbage disposal? it would clog any sinK line so b careful.

It makes a nice doorstop. And you get much more use out of it in that manner than you ever will in Handicapping.

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by dav4463
Is the book that bad? How about his software?

I liked the book a lot Dave and I wouldn't be caught dead without the software. I use it 4-5 days a week as do my buddies Rick Brand and Gene Bothne...if it "didn't work", we would have all switched to another program long ago.

Some folks don't care for it because the ratings are simple and unsophisticated. If you had had an opportunity to see Pizzolla and Schmidt absolutely destroy the old Sport of Kings racebook in Vegas with those old, unsophisticated TPR numbers like I did, you would end your search for the *best* method/rating...find something which is compatible with your temperment and personality and stick with it!!

You need 2 things and 2 things only to win money at this game:

A) The ability to predict improvement in a horse's form cycle (if you use numerical ratings, they only have to be "good enough").

B) Some sense of when you're getting a good deal or not. All winning players, even those who don't consider themselves "value" bettors, pass races from time to time. The only reason they pass a race is because they don't feel the potential return is worth the risk.

There are all sorts of programs available with as many bells and whistles as you can handle...one of the best is Dave Schwartz's "Horse Street Handicapper". Even with all the different screens which Dick Schmidt can look at, why was I not surprised when he mentions in a post that he makes all his wagering decisions very quickly from 1 or 2 screens? Sometimes, simple is better.

I hope you find the program that's right for you, Dave!! Gotta run...there is a pizza in the oven with my name on it!

Bob

[ranchwest]

>The only reason they pass a race is because they don't feel the potential return is worth the risk.<

Sorry, I must disagree. For me, the potential return has nothing to do with it. It is all in the risk. I'm looking to invest, not risk. When there's not a horse who sets up very, very well in a race, I pass. That is my only criteria.

[Derek2U]

hehe since i work in money markets i sorta kinda agree with U.
I think i mostly try 2 minimize loss rather than Max Gains/ its
a little differnce to some but i just Hate losses it can be my real
energy source ... hehe my mother works in bonds so maybe its
genetic?

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by ranchwest
>The only reason they pass a race is because they don't feel the potential return is worth the risk.<

Sorry, I must disagree. For me, the potential return has nothing to do with it. It is all in the risk. I'm looking to invest, not risk. When there's not a horse who sets up very, very well in a race, I pass. That is my only criteria.

I'm not sure I understand your post, RW. Since we all know that "sure things" don't exist, all horse races involve risk. How can the profit potential not matter? Are your "A" selections showing profits in all price categories...no matter how far down the odds go?

I'm a trusting sort so if you tell me that you're profitable while never passing a race because of low odds, I'm just going to tip my hat.

Stock investors make their purchases based on getting a good price. Real estate investors purchase property based on getting a good price. Little old ladies put money into banks based on getting a good interest rate. Racing is just another money market and I don't understand why the same principles wouldn't apply.

Best,

Bob

[ranchwest]

I haven't been looking at the odds going in or coming out. I just make my selections, make the wager to win and place and I'm doing pretty well.

My job is such that I can't sit and watch the board. Even when I am not at work, I only look at the board out of curiosity, not to make a decision. So, I very often wager blind, knowing nothing about bias, odds, "value", appearance of the horse, track condition, shoes or any of those types of things. I make my picks before 8 am most days and I go with those picks.

It works for me, so I'm not making any significant changes until it doesn't work.

[Doug]

Bob Harris,


I liked the book a lot Dave and I wouldn't be caught dead without the software. I use it 4-5 days a week as do my buddies Rick Brand and Gene Bothne...if it "didn't work", we would have all switched to another program long ago.

Have been reading some of your posts about Michael Pizzolla, Handicapping Magic, and the Master Magician.

Seems like you think very highlyn of him and his products.

I loved the Handicapping Magic book. Am thinking very seriously about purchasing the Master Magician software.

If I may ask a few questions about how you use the software any ansears would be much appreciated.

1. Do you let the program do all the proceders and trust them enough to just make your betting decisions from the printout or do you check the ratings against the form or do your own calculating and compare against the printout ratings, or something else.

2. Do you use the public odds line as given or do you do your own soft focus and compare with the priontout.

3. Are the tapes (not neccesarily the program use tapes) very instructive. My feeling is they would be, but just trying to get a little feed back.

Thanks a bunch,

Doug

[Bob Harris]

Hi Doug,

I've known Michael for about 17 years now...he's been without a doubt the biggest influence in my handicapping. He's an excellent player and a good friend.

I don't care for some of the things ITS sells on their website but have always enjoyed using the software Michael and Eric personally are involved with.

As far as The Master Magician goes, I do make changes to it's paceline calls but they are few and far between. Once I open the race, I quickly glance at the top 3 horses to make sure the program didn't get too liberal, eliminate those with the wrong running style for today's projected pace scenario, and then shop for price.

In a nutshell, horses which I'm willing to bet have to meet two criteria:

A) Their last line doesn't look all that great (most of my wagers are on horses which finished out of the money last out for example)

B) There needs to be a reason why the horse might improve today. A horse coming back at the same distance, on the same surface, at the same class level, etc., won't interest me much. They do of course win sometimes, but the public tends to bet them correctly...not many bargains from that group.

I thought the tapes included with TMM were really great...race after race, going thru each horse step by step. The tapes from the seminar last year were ok but not nearly as helpful as these were.

Time for bed...good luck with whatever you decide to purchase!

Bob

[andicap]

Bob, a couple of things

1) I find good-priced winners among horses returning at the same class, distance, etc. because of form cycles. If a horse reaches a new top (but not by a lot) say 5 weeks ago and throws in a medicore race 2 weeks later because he's a bit sore and comes back today I'll bet him if the price is right. It often is because the public looks at that last race and doesn't realize the off race was just a normal part of his form cycle.

2) The idea of false overlays has been much discussed on this board and is found every day. One big example, when Richard Dutrow horses have good figures and go off at 8-1 I know something's wrong. It looks like an overlay but the public usually jumps all over Dutrow so some big bettors know something.

3) I thoroughly agree that the preciseness of the figures don't matter that much it's what you do with them. There's so much randomness anyway in racing and so many problems with chart-calling errors, etc, it's unbelievable people are making fine judgements over a point or two in their figs.

[Bob Harris]

Andicap,

You're absolutely correct on your form cycle comments...it's a subtle point which requires a large amount of handicapping experience, but a good one. I will, for example, play horses at the same class, distance, etc., if they are 2nd or 3rd start after a layoff. Changes in form cycle are certainly excellent reasons to expect big improvement.

The point I was trying to make to Doug was that when I look at my computer screen and see an oddsline of let's say,

Horse A: 2-1

Horse B: 5/2

Horse C: 9/2

I would be reluctant to bet Horse C (if it was the only overlay) without a good reason why I thought his performance would improve enough today to beat either Horses A and B.

The gap between A and B is small and just the randomness of each race could flip those results. There is a clear separation between the top 2 contenders and the 3rd one...I would want to see a solid reason (dropping to a lower level, switching to a preferred distance, etc.) that Horse C could improve enough to beat my other contenders.

Now players who make a manual oddsline will usually factor that improvement into their line. If Steve Fierro and I were handicapping this race together, he might very well see a big reason for C to improve today and actually make him his top contender. My computer, on the other hand, doesn't have that capacity for fuzzy logic and will deal with C only by his performance numbers.

Gotta run...get some nice winners this week!!

Bob