Overlay's methods

[sligg]

Has anyone bought and used Overlay's method ($60)-any comment would be appreciated. He does write well and has an excellant command of the English language

[dav4463]

I have an older method of his that I use with only minor adjustments of my own. I didn't use it for a long time, but then after having a long slump in sprint races, I pulled it out and started playing around with it. I made some minor adjustments, but basically followed the book. I found that I had been ignoring some basic things that caused me to eliminate too many well-meant horses. I still find some longshots which is the key to my betting, but I now am able to keep those in that I may have ordinarily thrown out that should not be thrown out.

I still use my own method for route races. I have a different approach to routes than I do sprints.

All in all, the book I have was well worth the money. It improved my betting greatly.

[Handiman]

I bought his information, to add it to my library. I found it interesting. It reminded me of Paul Peterson's work on impact Values. One thing it did for me, was make me remember not to get all hung up on picking"THE" horse. Helped me move back into the value world.

Handi

[toetoe]

I promise, no Paul Peterson jokes. Now, can you tell me about the book, starting with title and author?

[Handiman]

Toe,


Are you asking me?

If so, Paul Peterson's book is called 'Morning-Liner Ultimate..Value Handicapping Process'.

If you are asking about Overlay info...'Overlay Handicapping- 9 to 5er approach..'


Handi

[toetoe]

Thanks, sounds worthy of a read.

[dav4463]

That's it. The book I have is the 1997 "Overlay Handicapping"...The 9-to-5ers approach to betting and winning like a pro! The author said he didn't come up with the name I remember!

[andicap]

I promise, no Paul Peterson jokes. Now, can you tell me about the book, starting with title and author?

Well, what about Shelley Fabares jokes?

:p

[toetoe]

That does it! Carl, all Betz are off. Eavesdropper Bob is Crane-ing his neck to hear.

[Tom]

I can't believe I'm (Donna) Reeding this stuff!

[Overlay]

Mr. Liggieri:

You should have a message from me in your Hotmail.

[timtam]

I bought the 2 manuals from a guy here on the board.

I have no idea how to construct the bet sizes because the math was way

over my head.

[Vigors]

...so when I read this post about MORNING-LINER & Paul Peterson, I listened
for the "Twilight Zone" music....then looked over my shoulder, as late last
night, I got a feeling that I HAD to go into the garage ( we're talking about
3 a.m. ) to find this handheld-pocket computer . I purchased it in 1996-97
for $395. This was how MORNING-LINER was sold at that time. It came with an owner's manual that contained OTHER programs (I think)on the computer.....also, it explained how to write you own program's and every
symbol for Handicapping...it has Basic and 32 Kb. Unfortunatly, I have yet to find the manual, hence my ignorance about the program's on it. Back then,
1996 'ish, it seemed too involved.....as I had ALL-WAY'S & TMH to deal with,
and being a novice with computers I was uncomfortable about the DOS
aspect's invoved and when I got through reading the part about changing the
program, I didn't know whether to shit or wind my wristwatch !
Every time ( and I mean EVERY time ) I've attempted ANY changing anything on my computers it's had me bringing it to the shop......again, I
could mess up a free lunch. I was going to "e-bay" it as just a pocket PC,
but I figured someone may be interested in it because of the program's
installed. It has about 15 minutes of use by a compleat idiot..."Mum'wah",
and in brand new condition.....and if you catch me before I dust myself off
from that turnuip truck, you wouldn't have to twist my arm for the ALL-WAY'S
Professinal "dongle". "nuff said

[saevena]

I tested this method some years ago. The concept was original and interesting (also very time consuming), but the test resulted in a loss of 7 cents per dollar wagered.

[Overlay]

Since I don’t know the specific parameters that saevena used in his testing, I'm not taking issue with his bottom-line results, and I do thank him for characterizing my approach as original and interesting.

Although saevena referred to my “method” (singular), I’ve developed multiple titles that are geared toward assigning fair odds in a number of differing racing scenarios (including full-race fields, selected spot-play situations, and exotic-wager combinations), and varying ranges of available handicapping time. I did this in order to (1) isolate situations where betting value is present (wherever they might fall within the odds spectrum); (2) permit the focused targeting of wagers to those occasions; and (3) allow the tailoring of play according to individual circumstances or preferences. My methods can thus be utilized in many possible ways in terms of play -- not just to narrow a field down by a process of elimination to the one horse that is most likely to win (and especially without taking its odds into account).

It would be useful to know whether saevena's stated results were in reference to the top-rated horse in a field, no matter what its fair odds might have been; the top-rated horse in a field, but only when it was an overlay; the highest-ranking horse in a field that was also an overlay (whether it was the top-rated horse or not); the horse in a field that was overlaid to the greatest degree, regardless of its odds or ranking; or one (or more) of the many other options for play that having visibility of fair odds for all horses in a race makes possible.

I apologize for the discussion of my own handicapping items, but since they’re the subject of this thread (which I neither started nor revived), I felt that my personal comments would not be inappropriate.