PDA

View Full Version : Klein Speed Calculator!


Maxspa
01-04-2006, 07:24 PM
All,
Bob Pitlak has developed a new software based upon Klein's book "The Power of Early Speed" The new program will list the Klein Speed points for all the horses on the card using both the BRIS and TSN single format files as well as calculate the Track Bias Number from the BRIS comma -delimited result charts.
His website is http://sports-bet-advantage.com
Maxspa

Speed Figure
01-04-2006, 07:51 PM
I love how his programs never have the horses program number.

Sly7449
01-06-2006, 10:57 PM
Greetings,

I sent in an Order for this tool however, I was notified that they were on hold due to a Claim Of Foul by DRF.

Negiotations are in the works. Hope that the price won't go up once the dust settles.

Why didn't Steve think of designing a Program to match the book?

L8R

Sly

cj
01-07-2006, 06:27 AM
I don't see how in the world DRF could stop him, that is total BS. The man published it in a book, it is free information. The bias rating is in my program already, if they want it out, I'd love to see them try to stop me.

cj
01-07-2006, 10:35 AM
I read this again to make sure, and I don't see any way the guy would be doing anything wrong. He provides a program, the user still has to have bought PPs or comma delimited charts to make it work. It would be different if he bought PPs, made the ratings, then turned around and sold those, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

The guy put mechanical systems in a book that people paid money for, how could he (or DRF) then possibly turn around and say you can't try to implement them?

Something doesn't seem right here, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Tom
01-07-2006, 11:04 AM
DRF probably counting on bullying people with thier size and unmlimited lawyer funds. But I agee - can't see how they hav ea leg to stand on. How many programs have Quirin speed points in them?

I would much rather see DRF do something constructive, like study the KSP and prove they are worth anything at all. I have serious doubts that they area worth the time it takes to caluclate them. If they were so damn good, why didn't DRF put out a study for the book? I suspect they ran one and found, after the book was written, that the KPS were nothing more than fun with numbers, like most of what DRF puts on the market aside from the PP's.

In this day and age, guys like Klein need to know that you can no longer get away with crap statements like " my numbers improve on the QPS....." without proof. More DRF snake oil! Do KSP cure gout as well? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lefty
01-07-2006, 12:04 PM
cj, cause it's in a book doesn't mean you can put them in another form and sell them. Sure, you can use book content for your own use but you're infringing on copyright when you sell to others. I saw this one coming.

headhawg
01-07-2006, 12:04 PM
The guy put mechanical systems in a book that people paid money for, how could he (or DRF) then possibly turn around and say you can't try to implement them?

Something doesn't seem right here, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Isn't the argument that the material is copyrighted -- not public domain -- and it would be ok for the individual person to automate the KSP process for personal use, but a commercial entity using the "system" to sell products for profit would be verboten based on intellectual property law?

I'm not a lawyer and I hope it's not true but that's what I'm thinking.

cj
01-07-2006, 12:23 PM
I don't even see why they would want to stop it. It can only help sell PPs or charts, if they are ever for sale. It certainly can't hurt.

People who read Andy Beyer's book started making speed figures and selling them, was this illegal? I doubt it, but like I said, I guess we'll find out the stance sooner or later.

socantra
01-07-2006, 03:17 PM
Probably a kneejerk reaction from the DRF, OR they plan on marketing the ratings themselves.

I don't really see how the technique could be copyrighted, but possibly the use of Klein's name and the DRF book in connection with the marketing of the program could be shaky.

socantra...

Overlay
01-07-2006, 03:27 PM
Probably a kneejerk reaction from the DRF, OR they plan on marketing the ratings themselves.

I don't really see how the technique could be copyrighted, but possibly the use of Klein's name and the DRF book in connection with the marketing of the program could be shaky.

socantra...

From a layman's standpoint, I would think that acknowledging that the information or program was based on Klein's methodology (that is, giving him due credit for it and not representing the basic method as one's own) would be a necessary condition for proper, authorized usage.

Dan Montilion
01-07-2006, 04:46 PM
Kind of hard to believe that all of this foolishness is really just about who has speed and who does'nt.

Dan Montilion

Sly7449
01-07-2006, 05:15 PM
Greetings,

This mentioned software indicated that it uses either BRIS or TSN files. I cannot recall seeing where it can use DRF Files, Hmmmm.

All that it may take is to include the option for the User to utilize DRF, BRIS or TSN Files and maybe others.

Currently, I know of the Tomlinson Figures are only available from DRF. Does DRF intend to manipulate Klein Figures as they have with the Tomlinson's?

Hmmmmm

L8R

Sly

Tom
01-07-2006, 06:19 PM
DRF says they have some kind of pace figures coming out...maybe they are incorporating the KSP into them????

Still, un-validated numbers. Quirin validated HIS points back in the seventies....DRF must still be in the sixties! :D

Vegas711
01-07-2006, 07:17 PM
DRF says they have some kind of pace figures coming out...! :D

Probably with a price increase, its been a while since they last increased their price.

Speed Figure
01-07-2006, 10:15 PM
He should not have used his name.

vtbob
01-08-2006, 03:23 PM
Just to clear the air. I did create a program which employed Steve Klein's work. Frankly, I loved the book and thought that if anything, the program would help book sales since nowhere in my website or in the program or documentation did I attempt to explain the calculation. I strongly recommended that the user buy the book.

Still, DRF did complain. Perhaps I was naive in using Steve's name in the title of the program. I can't see how providing a program that does the calculation is wrong, after all, how long has everyone been calculating Quirin Speed Points? In any case, I have stopped advertising or promoting the program until I resolve this with DRF.

Still, I have asked DRF what I need to do to satisfy them, even offered to let THEM sell the program. Haven't heard a word from them.

If I don't resolve this, I will modify the program, first to remove Klein's name from it, second to change some of the calculations. For example, I strongly distrust the idea of using some "penalty" calculations to adjust running in a turf route race so one can calculate points to be used in a sprint on dirt. While I like the idea of adding beaten lengths and the number of horses in the field into the calculation, I would ignore "dissimilar" races and find the best 3 of the last five races which were of the same "type." Also, after years of Quirin Speed Points, I'm uncomfortable with a speed point calculation in which lower numbers are better, I would also change that.

In any case, anyone who purchased this program before the "complaint" should not worry. I will (hopefully) ship the software this weed, or return the full purchase price.

I truly apologize for this absurd situation, and I take full blame for not considering DRF first. I hope everyone understands.

Regards,
Bob Pitlak

Tom
01-08-2006, 04:10 PM
Good luck, Bob....hope you "slay the dragon!" ;)

Vegas711
01-08-2006, 05:34 PM
The Question still remains are the Klein numbers any good in predicting who will get the lead? This should be a very easy thing to test, all you need is a couple of hundred races in a data base, if they pick less than 80 % of the time the leader at the first call then you will not get the ROI that the leader gets.


Randy at Paceappraiser in his latest newsletter basically said that they where no better than Quirin Speed Points and Running stlye.

46zilzal
01-08-2006, 07:09 PM
lead at the 2nd call is MUCH more predictive than first call leading

Lefty
01-08-2006, 08:44 PM
46 says: lead at the 2nd call is MUCH more predictive than first call leading
_________________________________________-
Oh my God, I agree!

Lefty
01-08-2006, 08:47 PM
vtbob, take off Kleins name, change the numbers slightl, rename your prgm and say something like inspired by The Power Of Early Speed.

Dan Montilion
01-08-2006, 08:55 PM
Leading at the finish call seems best to me.

Dan Montilion

Lefty
01-08-2006, 09:06 PM
Dan M said: Leading at the finish call seems best to me
_________________________________
But not as an indication of early speed.

JimG
01-08-2006, 09:07 PM
Leading at the finish call seems best to me.

Dan Montilion

Unless the stewards are awake.

Tom
01-08-2006, 09:42 PM
46 says: lead at the 2nd call is MUCH more predictive than first call leading
_________________________________________-
Oh my God, I agree!


That's three of us...

May - December, 2005
All tracks
All races
All surfaces

# Races = 69,190
#winners leading at first call = 20,519 / 30%
#winners leading at second call = 23,513 / 33%

BillW
01-08-2006, 09:47 PM
That's three of us...

May - December, 2005
All tracks
All races
All surfaces

# Races = 69,190
#winners leading at first call = 20,519 / 30%
#winners leading at second call = 23,513 / 33%

Sorry for pointing out the obvious Tom, but the closer you get to the finish line a higher pctg. of leaders at that point win the race including 100% at the finish line itself (barring DQ's etc.) :)

46zilzal
01-08-2006, 09:57 PM
Abandoned them years ago since they dilute the particular and give false confidence in the general...EACH race is distinct and throwing stats into a database dilutes what one learns from that distinctiveness.

ALSO early leaders PROJECTING into a contest do not need to be in front to win: a gross misconception about early horses which, I for one, am NOT going to try to change.

andicap
01-08-2006, 09:58 PM
yes, but wouldn't it be much more difficult in predicting who will be leading at the second call. I think if you found a good way of predicting the 1st call leader you would be in decent shape considering how hard it would be to predict the second call leader.

Has anyone done any recent research on Quirin's numbers? (If this was already mentioned in this thread, I apologize --the Giants loss today has me groggy, disoriented and depressed.)

46zilzal
01-08-2006, 10:04 PM
yes, but wouldn't it be much more difficult in predicting who will be leading at the second call. I think if you found a good way of predicting the 1st call leader you would be in decent shape considering how hard it would be to predict the second call leader.

Most OUT of shape, going off form plugs can run a quarter without falling apart. MANY MANY of them are not going to be around much after that. In a sprint the second call leader needs to have some formfulness to gain the lead after 60% of the contest is under it's belt.

Tom
01-08-2006, 10:22 PM
Make up your mind - you said the second call was more predictive than the first.:confused:

Tom
01-08-2006, 10:27 PM
Same sample races:

# winners leading at both 1st and 2nd call - 17,408
# winners leading at only 2nd call ( behind at 1st call) - 6,104

Different meaning this way.

46zilzal
01-08-2006, 10:36 PM
still what I am saying

DRIVEWAY
01-09-2006, 08:59 AM
Same sample races:

# winners leading at both 1st and 2nd call - 17,408
# winners leading at only 2nd call ( behind at 1st call) - 6,104

Different meaning this way.
Tom,

If you can add the following,
# Winners leading at 1st call and behind at 2nd Call
# Winners leading at 1st call
# Winners leading at 2nd call

This will shed more light on subject

The only thing left is ROI numbers

Thanks

ryesteve
01-09-2006, 09:59 AM
Tom,

If you can add the following,
# Winners leading at 1st call and behind at 2nd Call
# Winners leading at 1st call
# Winners leading at 2nd call

This will shed more light on subject

Not really... we all know early speed is good. Klein went to great lengths to take something we already knew and prove it a dozen ways. I'm more interested in seeing if Klein's speed points, or some other method, is actually a reliable way of knowing who will be leading. It really doesn't matter how many winners are leading at the nth call if there's no way of consistently knowing which horse that'll be ahead of time.

DRIVEWAY
01-09-2006, 10:57 AM
Not really... we all know early speed is good. Klein went to great lengths to take something we already knew and prove it a dozen ways. I'm more interested in seeing if Klein's speed points, or some other method, is actually a reliable way of knowing who will be leading. It really doesn't matter how many winners are leading at the nth call if there's no way of consistently knowing which horse that'll be ahead of time.

You point is well taken. After 100 races using the rules to develop KSP(Klein Speed Points), was only able to generate less than forty percent leaders at the first call. The ROI was negative. I'm sure better studies will produce stronger results.

Thus the interest in 2nd call results vs 1st call results. If they are similar in results and it is easier to predict 2nd call leaders then that would be a better focus than 1st call.

In the final analysis the ability to replicate the results of the Klein study are paramount to success. Klein's analysis was that the morning line favorite won 33% with a 1.84 ROI and the first call leader won 28% with an ROI of 3.12. Klein's main point was, why spend your time trying to improve on the 1.84 ROI, when you can work at predicting the first call leader and an ROI of 3.12.

However, finding a method to successfully predict the first call leader seems unlikely.

Handiman
01-09-2006, 03:08 PM
I'm about half way through building my time machine. It really took some doing getting copies of J. Verne's plans, but pretty sure I have it down. So when I'm done, I'll take bidds for rides into the future, one day ahead and then we can figure out who will be leading. Then, if all goes well we'll make it back in time to get some bets down.

Till then I believe it will remain just a crap shoot....with best guess estimates the best we can do.

Handi :cool: Yea that's right..I'm from California and I'm smoking some of that.:lol:

vtbob
01-10-2006, 12:48 PM
I admit that several people have mentioned the lack of program numbers in my programs, so here's why.

All of my programs are outgrowths of my own handicapping attempts. While it is a trivial effort to include program numbers for horses, I stopped doing that in my own work several years ago because I found them to be unreliable. Nothing is worse than making a losing bet because you used the wrong program number, and that has happened to me on occassion. My reasoning is, "If I have to double check the accuracy of the program number before wagering, why print it at all?"

Perhaps I should reconsider.

andicap
01-10-2006, 01:41 PM
Has anyone posted how well Quirin's speed points do in predicting the first call leader?
Klein never says how well Quirin did only it did "reasonably well," but "we can do better."

What's "reasonably well," and what's "better?"

How well did Quirin do in predicting early speed and has anyone tested yet how well Klein's do? I guess the best way is look at a bunch of races and compare the Quirin to the Klein rating.
You could approach the research from several angles.

1. Compare the top rating of QSP and KSP and calcuate which one predicts the 1st call leader more.

2. Look at the first call leader and compare his QSP and KSP figures. Who is in the top 2 more often? Top 3?

One problem is Klein calls for using the 2f figure even in routes and some programs don't give you that call in routes.

Quirin will likely have far more ties given the limited breadth of his 0-8 range.

Klein also made the calucations needlessly complicated. Lets say you end up with 4.75 lengths in a 7-horse field (before subtracing and/or adding for distance/turf).
He tells you to divide 4.75 by 7 and multiply by 100.
That's plain silly.
Why not just divide 475 by 7. 68 either way. It's an easier division -- some you can do instantly in your head -- and you don't have to take the extra step. Even Tom might be able to do it. ;)

Did he do this on purpose or was he too slow to figure out an easier way to calcuate the points?

garyoz
01-10-2006, 01:55 PM
I didn't read the Klein book and can think of no compelling reason to read it (based upon what I have read in this and other threads), but isn't this reinventing the wheel and giving it a new "branded" name? Are there really any ideas that haven't already been written about ad naseum concerning early speed? Or is this really a Eureka moment? I find that difficult to believe.

I'm curious, did Klein cite the earlier literature about speed handicapping in his book?

Overlay
01-10-2006, 07:44 PM
Has anyone posted how well Quirin's speed points do in predicting the first call leader?
Klein never says how well Quirin did only it did "reasonably well," but "we can do better."

What's "reasonably well," and what's "better?"

How well did Quirin do in predicting early speed and has anyone tested yet how well Klein's do?

Quirin included a section on "The Speed Points as Predictors" in Winning at the Races, based on the same (relatively small) sample that he used to develop his speed-point concept (400 sprints; 300 routes). Out of those 700 races, the chances of a horse with a given speed-point total running first, second, or third at the first call were as follows:

0 9.2%
1 19.8%
2 22.6%
3 31.6%
4 42.4%
5 56.7%
6 66.4%
7 70.4%
8 86.1%

He also figured in the early-speed tendencies of other horses in a given race by adding the percentages associated with each individual horse's speed-point total, dividing each horse's individual percentage by the total of the percentages for the whole field, and then multiplying the result by three (since speed points were automatically awarded to the top three runners at the first call). Out of a separate 1,549-race sample, there were 806 horses for which the results of this calculation were .75 or higher (indicating at least a 75% chance of being in the top three at the first call). 167 of those horses won, producing an impact value of 1.81, and an overall loss of 1.5% on $2.00 wagers.

In Quirin's original 700-race sample, the number of horses with each speed-point total that actually did run in the top three at the first call was as follows:

0 114 (with 24 winning)
1 129 (with 29 winning)
2 161 (with 38 winning)
3 256 (with 52 winning)
4 278 (with 56 winning)
5 416 (with 77 winning)
6 300 (with 54 winning)
7 174 (with 35 winning)
8 272 (with 57 winning)

The horses actually running first, second, or third at the first call all showed a flat-bet profit (except for those with 7 speed points, which had a 1% loss). However, the bulk of those profits resulted from horses that showed surprise early speed (those that had had 2 speed points or less).

Overlay
01-11-2006, 12:43 AM
Quirin included a section on "The Speed Points as Predictors" in Winning at the Races, based on the same (relatively small) sample that he used to develop his speed-point concept (400 sprints; 300 routes).

Clarification of my previous post: After developing his speed-point model, Quirin tested it on a 2,031-race sample. The role of the 700-race sample that I cited above was in his calculation of a horse's percentage chance of actually being in the top three at the first call, based on its individual speed-point total (from 0 to 8), and on how the rest of the field stacked up as far as early-speed potential. He also used this 700-race sample to measure the performance of horses that actually did show early speed in their races, compared with their speed-point totals calculated before the race was run.

46zilzal
01-11-2006, 01:11 AM
Horses IN FORM generally show the SAME relative early speed race to race, and to base THEIR speed abilities on some POSTION versus OTHER horses is, well, FLAWED. They are NOT meeting any of those same horses over and over again, but their inherent general ABILITIES to run are being determined upon their relationship to OTHERS, not them.

Imagine a Honda Civic going up against a Toyota Corolla, then that same Civic, later, going up against a rail dragster. Would the Civic go any faster or slower full out vs. either ? NO, but it would appear quite different POSITIONALLY. That of course is an extreme example, but accurate. The inhernet ability to run a certain speed is the horse's OWN, not relative to the competition.

That is the false sense that POSTION can often give. I try to relate this to early horses all the time: AN EARLY HORSE, projecting into today's contest, DOES NOT HAVE TO LEAD to win or even be competitive. I have seen entire fields run as early... ENTIRE FIELDS even those horses back in 5th and would project that when they next ran, meeting a subsequent field (with KNOWN pressers and sustained/pressers vs. it next out) and having the same velocity, they would be up in the front SAME realtive velocity: BIG difference in POSITION

cj
01-11-2006, 02:21 AM
Of course I believe in measuring velocity at the pace call, that is why I make pace figures. But, position is another important part of the equation. Many horses run the same velocity, but if they find themselves in an uncomfortable position while doing it they won't run well to the finish.

Overlay
01-11-2006, 04:55 AM
With regard to speed points as a predictor of position (apart from the speed or pace at which the race is being run), Quirin devised and tested several computer-generated spot-play methods based on a variety of key handicapping factors in Chapter 24 of Winning at the Races. He noted that (at least at the time the book was written), regardless of any other factors that might have been involved in a particular method, three conditions acted, in combination, as universal catalysts in improving any factor or combination of factors to which they were supplemented. Those conditions were: at least one win in the horse's last ten starts; at least one Quirin speed point; and last race within ten days. As Quirin put it, "The consistency requirement guarantees that the horse knows how to win, the early speed condition that it is still capable of getting in position to win, and the strong recent action restriction that the trainer has good intentions." Perhaps the recent action requirement might stand a slight amount of relaxation under today's conditions, but I think that the other two are still useful.

GameTheory
01-11-2006, 05:00 AM
I have found days since last race -- if low, like 7 - 10 days -- to be extremely powerful if the horse showed any signs of life in the last race. There is a huge dropoff in win percentage when you go farther out. So I think that layoffs don't mean as much as they used to, but quick turnaround is still a very good sign as long as it is coupled with some positive move in the last race...

Hosshead
01-11-2006, 06:21 AM
I have found days since last race -- if low, like 7 - 10 days -- to be extremely powerful if the horse showed any signs of life in the last race. There is a huge dropoff in win percentage when you go farther out. So I think that layoffs don't mean as much as they used to, but quick turnaround is still a very good sign as long as it is coupled with some positive move in the last race...GT, I wonder what you would find if you broke your "findings" down into sprints/routes.
Reason is, Quirin found that horses coming back fast, from a route to a route, didn't fair as well, as when they had a few more days to "recover" from the previous race. He thought that routes took more out of a horse.

Tom
01-11-2006, 08:27 AM
Of course I believe in measuring velocity at the pace call, that is why I make pace figures. But, position is another important part of the equation. Many horses run the same velocity, but if they find themselves in an uncomfortable position while doing it they won't run well to the finish.

And this is why many need the lead horses romp at 10-1 when they look pathetic on the form - they are more comfortable in today's pace match up and do not quit. Many horses lose by many lengths in final times that they have run or bettered in the past becasue they lost the pace match ups early on. The comparison to cars is flawed becasue the horses are living things with minds that control thier actions. Jim the Hat Bradshaw used positional match up as a major part of his time match ups.
Horses have no idea where the finish line is, many are done racing at the break. A horse with 8 QSP is likely to run as fast as it has to to get the lead and pay the price later on.

Overlay
01-11-2006, 08:37 AM
I'm not sure that Quirin concluded that a quick turnaround from one route to another route took more out of a horse, as much as he found that a quick turnaround was a definite benefit to a horse going from one sprint (especially one where the horse had run well) to another sprint, while a longer layoff for a sprinter acted to dull the sprinter's form. For routers, by contrast, there was less difference in next race performance depending on the length of the layoff. (A "good race" the last time out for a router showed roughly the same benefit whether the horse came back in another route within 1-14 days or within 15-30 days.)(Quirin's comment, as I recall, was something like, "Sprinters seem to require that razor-sharp edge. Routers do not.") However, just because routers hold their form longer, and a quick turnaround is more beneficial (and apparently necessary) for sprinters, that wouldn't necessarily lead me to conclude that a quick turnaround was a negative sign for a router, even though it might not be as strong a positive sign as for a sprinter. (I believe that the computer-generated systems where Quirin found the addition of a ten-day action requirement to be beneficial included at least some that encompassed routes as well as sprints.)

Hosshead
01-11-2006, 09:12 AM
I'm not sure that Quirin concluded that a quick turnaround from one route to another route took more out of a horse, ...

For routers, by contrast, there was less difference in next race performance depending on the length of the layoff. (A "good race" the last time out for a router showed roughly the same benefit whether the horse came back in another route within 1-14 days or within 15-30 days...

However, just because routers hold their form longer, and a quick turnaround is more beneficial (and apparently necessary) for sprinters, that wouldn't necessarily lead me to conclude that a quick turnaround was a negative sign for a router, ...Quirin..."Interestingly, 45 of the horses in the first catagory (1-30 days) were racing again within 5 days of their most recent race, which also was a route. None of them won. Clearly a horse needs a few days more rest after (before?) engaging in a route race."

Overlay
01-11-2006, 09:33 AM
Thanks for refreshing my memory on that. (I would imagine that the 45 routers coming back within five days of their last race were a relatively small percentage of the total sample.) Apparently, though, based on Quirin's findings concerning the wide-ranging benefit of a ten-day action requirement, I would gather that routers coming back within 6-10 days of their last route are not at a significant disadvantage (or, at least, were not at the the time of Quirin's research).

Tom
01-11-2006, 10:50 AM
Rule of thumb I always have gone by - a router shortening up to a sprint must have been leading or within a length at the frist call fo the route. This was from a study of distance changes published in the old Woodside Reports. It worked well for a long time, but I have been bitten a lot in recent months - memorably so (:mad: ) by horses I would otherwiae have liked.


I need to a new study based on current data.

So many questions, so little time......:(

GEM85
01-11-2006, 12:35 PM
CompuTrak has a Friction rating which as per manual the description is:

"A measure of a horse’s closing capability. The lower the number, the better its “come-from-behind” capability. It indicates the horse may race longer distances. A negative*number* normally means the horse sped up during the race."*

Therefore, by utilizing the opposite side would give you the speed balls in any race. Are Klein and Friction numbers similar?

In todays 5th race at SA (01-11-06) the frictions are from a low of 165 to a high of 393. The next lower number behind 393 (#1 horse) is 264 (#10 horse). Both horses are listed at 15 to 1, it might just make the winning pick six today :lol: :lol: :lol:

cj
01-11-2006, 12:44 PM
FYI, I have done all the tracks, every card, for 2005. For racecards with at least 3 rateable races, I have this for the ratings:


AVG 09/23/2005 148
MDN 09/23/2005 150
BT- 09/23/2005 72
BT< 09/23/2005 88
TP> 09/23/2005 200
TP+ 09/23/2005 222

They are average, median, bottom 5% cutoff, bottom 10% cutoff, top 10% cutoff, top 5% cutoff. I found 6 days with a 300, or every horse winning wire to wire, and 7 days with a 0, or no winners from the front half of the field at the first call.

Tom
01-11-2006, 03:22 PM
CJ...is that the bias rating?

cj
01-11-2006, 03:24 PM
Yes, bias rating, I think the speed points thing stinks.

Sly7449
01-13-2006, 08:51 PM
Check out the initial website for "Weighted Speed Calculator"

L8R

Sly

Wickel
02-07-2006, 05:26 PM
Maxspa:

Going back to your post that started this thread, I went to the Web site and didn't find anything on Steve Klein's program. Was it removed because of the DRF dispute?

Lefty
02-07-2006, 06:42 PM
It's called the Weighted Speed Calculator, now.

Maxspa
02-07-2006, 06:51 PM
Wickel,
The calculator has had a name change. The name is the "Weighted Speed Calculator" and Bob Pitlak came up with a more efficient scale that is similar. I received my order a few weeks ago but haven't had a chance to use it because I 'm in the process of moving and have had no time for handicapping. It's for sale on their website.
Maxspa

Wickel
02-07-2006, 07:06 PM
Thanks. I'll check it out.

Figman
02-07-2006, 08:09 PM
Max,
Moving back to Saratoga?

Maxspa
02-08-2006, 12:20 AM
Figman,
The real estate market here on the Florida west coast is as crazy as the Saratoga one. Many apartment complexes have turned into Condo's. Every scrap of available land is being bought by developers. Housing developments with $300,000 dollar homes and up are common place. I had the opportunity to buy the two bedroom apartment where I now reside for nearly $200,000. However, I said no thanks and am looking for another respectable one in a good part of town.
On a side note, Huey Mahl material is being aggressively sold on e-bay so his legend lives on. It was quite a few years ago that you made me aware of what a genius he was and I thank you for that overture!
Maxspa