Bet with the best

[superfecta]

I have just finished this book.And except for Shuebacks chapter on foreign races and the horses that ship here,the book is pretty worthless.Maybe if you are just starting out you can get some info from this book.Get it from the library,or find it in the bargain bin at a deep discount if you feel you must read it.

[aaron]

"Bet with the Best"-After reading this book I realized that all the contributors have not had an original idea in a least 10-15 years.All their doing is recycling methods from 10-15 years ago when they were able to come up with something orginal.
Also,while the formulator from DRF has some good things in it, they have barely scratched the surface with that product.The form should go by the name "Daily Recycled Form."Anyone with new idea's need not apply.

[andicap]

My opinion:
People with new ideas aren't sharing them. Why should they? Look what happened to pace analysis and speed handicapping when it became popular.

All the prices died. Brohamer wrote his book when he was nearing retirement, so had little to lose. Beyer lucked out by selling his figures to the DRF (although I suspect he did OK betting because he had a great mental attitude, and incorporated trip notes, a keen eye for track biases, and some trainer stats into his handicapping as well. He wasn't afraid to bet twin trifectas and lose 10 in a row before popping a big one.)

I'll tell you something: If I have a huge breakthough with a new idea and start winning a lot of money, enough to make a living at it (yeah, dream on), what's the incentive to tell anyone? I mean, do the real Vegas pros -- the ones who rely on racing to make a living-- share what they do? You think I'd publish it in "Bet with the Best?"

[delayjf]

For the most part, I'd agree that the book was not all that.
I did enjoy reading Davidowitz's section about bias and how they are formed. To me that was the most insightful chapter in the book.

[GR1@HTR]

Bet w/ the Best: If you look at it closely one will find that all the chapters in it pertain to how to use the DRF. As it should be since the publisher is the all mighty DRF. Just an advertisement for the once great publication.

[cj]

Schuback should write his own book on foreign racing, the rest is garbage IMO.

CJ

[Marc At DRF]

A couple quick points:

GR1 wrote:

"Just an advertisement for the once great publication."

When specifically was the DRF better than it is now? Please answer this question as directly as possible. Also: Have you looked at an old DRF lately, as compared to it currently?

I wouldn't expect the majority of players who contribute here to be big fans of this book-- it's geared more towards young, developing players who are just becoming more sohisticated. That said, it's interesting to read the scathing comments, given that "Bet With The Best" is the most successful book in DRF Press history, and probably the best selling handicapping book from anyone in several years. There are books we've put out that haven't resonated with the public. "Bet With The Best," though, has struck a chord.

[smf]

Originally posted by Marc At DRF
A couple quick points:

GR1 wrote:

"Just an advertisement for the once great publication."

When specifically was the DRF better than it is now? Please answer this question as directly as possible. Also: Have you looked at an old DRF lately, as compared to it currently?

I wouldn't expect the majority of players who contribute here to be big fans of this book-- it's geared more towards young, developing players who are just becoming more sohisticated. That said, it's interesting to read the scathing comments, given that "Bet With The Best" is the most successful book in DRF Press history, and probably the best selling handicapping book from anyone in several years. There are books we've put out that haven't resonated with the public. "Bet With The Best," though, has struck a chord.

I'm not GR1, but.....

When I first went to the races in the 1980s, the DRF was by far the most used, most popular and probably the best publication for a handicapper to have as far as preparing for a race card.

Today, it's not only *not* the only game in town, it's not the best, in the opinions of most posters here.

With the onslaught of S/W programs, and competition from BRIS, ITS, etc, DRF is no longer The Mighty Drf as it was back then. The competition has caught up to DRF, plain and simple, regardless of how the DRF has improved over the past 20 years. People are going to judge your pub by how it matches up to the competition, not some comparison to what it was 15-20 years ago.

I personally use BRIS b/c their product is better and the pricing plan is far more flexible than what DRF had offered. As for the book, anything w/ Davidowitz and Litfin contributing is bound to be useful to me. I like their styles of play.

[andicap]

I have to agree with SMF.
BRIS is the product I use now -- not because its more reliable, but the ability to plug its numbers into software programs and its flexibility.
With my figures, I can print out BRIS' condensed Form for $1 and travel lightly to the track with just a folder in my hand.
I like the DRF -- I suspect the Beyers are more accurate than BRIS (tho I don't know for sure) because I always believe human perspective is better than a computers -- but where are the par times?
Where's the flexibility to print out PPs on one sheet of people.
Sure, the Formulator is a good product, probably better than anything BRIS has -- I'll give you that. But I can't print out 40 pages of PPs. I don't like to handicap sitting in front a computer for hours.

[freeneasy]

first off the print on the lettering and numbering are so small you have to be a bat with sonic radar to read it. Its enough of a concentrated effort already to take in all the numbers, dates, distance, positioning, class, fractionns, call times, lengths and so on without adding to that the physical strain put on the eyes when trying to bring into focus such small mizerly print. Its physically exerting on the eyes, and to the point where Iam ready to stop buying the damn thing. 4 bucks, dont need it. The L.A. Times cost 50 cents, and they put out 10Xs the info and have 100xs the overhead Iam sure. I havent seen an Eastern form in years but I remember the first time I saw one, it was 1 1/2 times the size of the western form and I thought Oh they must have just increased the size of the eastern form and in a few days the westrn form will come the same. When the old FIGS form came out, it had lots of room, nice sized readable print, and some invovative ideas, I was so sick of you guys and your lethargic approach to customer satisfaction that it was to late to win me back. And I can tell you this, if they would have been able to just stay in bussiness they would have run you so far up a tree, youd be Ahcryn fo yo mama.

You guys want some ideas? I'll give some ideas. firstoff,

Lengthen out the paper at least an inch from top to bottom and from side to side.

Do, O do increase the size of the lettering and numbers

The names of the 3 finishers can remain at thier same size print if you think, but the lenghts that seperate their finishes need to be enlarged as well

Get the hell rid of that At A GLANCE section as nobody ever pays any attention to it as its a wothless waste of space that can certinley be better utilized for garnering more important information

Right there in between the date of each race and the race #, include the number of days since ran from race to next race

And heres my favorite, it could be a little trickey, but none the less a doable and a good idea. In between each listed "call time" put in the closing time for that horse running today. Exm. 22/45/1:10 -- Clm. 20000 -- 4th/5, 3rd/2, 1st/1

22 / 22.2/ 45 / 24.3/ 1:10 or it can look something like this
22 / 45 / 1:10/ 22.2/ 24.3 So for the horse running today you have its closing time in between each call or after the last call. Or if you want to further elaborate you can include the call times of the horse running today as well as with the closing times. Exm.

22 / 45 / 1:10/ 23 / 22.2/ 46 / 24.3/ 1:10

Nextly, Before each of the closing odds I'd like to see the morning line odds

Get rid of the race comments for at least the last 5 races and for those last 5 races, underneath Each of those last 5 races include one line dedicated to notes and reports covering the entire running of that race.

In the workouts, if a race took place after a certain workout put a notation after that workout with say an R and a circle around it as well as the date of the race next to it, so it can be immeadiately referred to.

Cause believe me gentlemen, I can do better then that. I mean you guys have done some pretty good things, lets all agree on that, and I realize theres cost involved here, but you cut out the At A Glance section, thats at least 2 inches, widen out each page at least 3/4s an inch, shit you got 3 working inches right there ( and dont say "thats what she said").

And Id like to say this, and that is Quite frankly Idont see why someone hasnt already figured out that with a healthy competitor your publication can be beaten and beaten quite handily, that is 'easily' to be more spacific. Because if anyone ever comes out with a competeing form, then Gentlemen of the Daily Racing Form, its Asta La Vista time from me to you. thanx for your ear.

[freeneasy]

oops that 46 half for the second exm. should be 45.2 and not 46

22 / 45 / 1:10 / 23 / 22.2/ 45.2/ 24.3/ 1:10

[so.cal.fan]

I always complain when they change something (I'm old), but I get over it.
I have no problem with it. In fact, I have tried to use others, but they don't seem to me to be as useful.
As for the book Bet with the Best, I think Marc gives a good review of it. It is very useful for new fans, and why shouldn't DRF tout their own pp's?
Hey, whatever you are comfortable using works best for YOU.

[Marc At DRF]

Quick comment-- I certainly agree that DRF is not as dominant as it once was (a near monopoly, back in the day), but I think any implication that DRF has gone down in quality ("once great") is erroneous. If, in the past, it was great in terms of quality of content, it's greater in the present.

If you want cheap condensed online PPs (as offered by many), DRF is not in that business, at least not yet, and I understand your desire for those. If you want single card access to more "premium" PPs, DRF offers that now ($2.50 a card).

It's funny, I'm a Sheets player and I couldn't imagine playing or handicapping a card without looking at DRF PPs. Besides utlizing the PP lines, I really want to know how Beyer (and the DRF 'cappers) has the race in comparison to Ragozin, as it gives me a better sense of what overlays I think I might see on a given card.

[so.cal.fan]

Marc:
I really appreciate DRF's new Del Mar Deal! $1 a card for online pp's.
I sure hope you continue that.
:)

[GR1@HTR]

Marc @ DRF,

Yes I would agree DRF has made improvements as of late. The Tomlinson numbers, the trainer data, Formulator and so on. However, they are no longer the leader and trendsetter. All of the recent changes have been re-active and not pro-active. They are all changes due to innovations created by the competition. As I said before, the DRF is in a tuff situation. You all have loyal customers who want the same old stuff. Any new changes can only upset/confuse the loyal long time customer. Whereas the new age capper wants more.

However, I do appreciate your response and the voice you bring to the table by representing DRF. Keep the post coming, as they are insightful. Now back to the salt mines for me...

[Marc At DRF]

Thanks for the comments, GR1.

Tomlinsons, Formulator, those things, I wouldn't call them reactive, especially some of the Formulator features that nobody else offers (with more coming in the next few months).

As for being the leader and trendsetter, I think the technology explosion of the last 20 years has made it unlikely that the biggest guys will ever play that role in the same way they did when they were the only game in town. We'll still innovate, but a lot of times, smaller companies with different business models will move more quickly to service niche markets. I think my complaint with this board, at times, is that it confuses the niche market with the mainstream market. Just because you guys don't like "Bet With The Best," doesn't mean the book is a disaster-- it's a great success, in many ways. Same goes for the publication (in print and online), in general. Just because some of you prefer to get your data elsewhere doesn't mean DRF is not serving the marketplace successfully-- in fact, we're having a great year.

I think we should still be trying to service the "new age" more, though. And we've taken some steps in that direction, and will take many more.

[aaron]

The Daily Racing Form has improved in many ways.It also has neglected to put information in the form that would be helpful.
For instance why not put a "k"next to any race that is a key race?Why not break down trainer patterns by sprints and routes?Why not put Beyer pars for each race?Why not show trainer statistics by race meet?Bris has reports that give information that is not available in the DRF.How can the DRF claim to be the premeire publication for the racing public and then not be able to compete in terms of information?
As for the book-it is what it is-mostly a rehash of old material,that could be useful to people new to horseracing.

[JimG]

Originally posted by Marc At DRF
Just because you guys don't like "Bet With The Best," doesn't mean the book is a disaster-- it's a great success, in many ways.

Alot of the folks on this board, myself included, have read alot of horse handicapping material over the years. Most of what was said in this book had been stated before by the same handicappers in different books.

However, I am sure the book was a good read for the newer handicapper. I hope DRF sold alot. The more newer handicappers, the better I like it.

Jim