Boxcar debate continued....

[PaceAdvantage]

OK. I'll continue it by addressing Keilan's comments to me:

]PA – I make no apologies for seeking the truth about angle players, I’ve seen many of them over the years and not a single one was a winning player to my knowledge. Playing angles alone without a foundation to work from is suicide; angles when NOT filtered are like rules –strict, unbending, and ridged in their application. Track surface change often enough plus “the field” dynamics (pace& race-shape) that anyone simply adhering to angles will get their teeth kicked in long before the late DD.I agree with you, from my own personal experience, that playing angles alone without a foundation is not going to work.

However, I must ask again, is this what Boxcar was promoting? Did you read the entire thread word for word? I didn't, which is why I am asking you.

But since you’re a “bottom line guy” let me ask you -- why did it take him 5 years to finally want to contribute to a horse racing discussion?It didn't take Boxcar 5 years to contribute to a horse racing discussion. When he first came here, he posted lots about horse racing. Then for whatever reason, he disappeared into off-topic, only to be heard from again recently.

Honestly Mike I’d love to see him effectively put together tons of winning tickets for all of us to witness. But the truth is he probably won’t post many selections before they run because the reward to him isn’t worth the risk. I'm not getting you here. What is this risk that you are talking about? What am I missing here? He isn't selling anything that I am aware of....by risk, do you mean a deflated ego or a smaller following? I think you're reaching for something that might not be there....

If I have been disrespectful to any member involved with this thread and you would like to remove my posts from this thread – go ahead, I have no problem with that.Not necessary to remove a thing....

__________________________________________________ _______

I see where you are coming from Keilan, but I have to ask again, does Boxcar's thread warrant such a "stirring of the pot?" I'm usually a pretty good judge of "online" character. I can usually smell the BS from a mile away, and I have to tell you, I just don't see it when it comes to Boxcar's thread.

In closing, and to be quite honest with you Keith, I saw Boxcar's post as a breath of fresh air around here....he has taken his time putting that thread together...AND, it was something I had asked for publicly a month ago....I was asking that some of the more successful players among us (particularly the NAME guys, like Meadow, Schwartz, Nunamaker, etc.) share a little bit about what goes on in their handicapping lives, and maybe a bit about their methods (not necessarily every nut and bolt, but you get my drift).

Keilan, I value your input very much when it comes to this board, but why is it that we don't see eye to eye on this subject? What am I missing here? I think this particular thread can be valuable in its own right, because I am doing a little "soul searching" myself as it pertains to this board in general....

Eagerly awaiting everyone's responses.....and thanks in advance for taking things to this thread, and out of the angle thread....

[BillW]

In closing, and to be quite honest with you Keith, I saw Boxcar's post as a breath of fresh air around here....he has taken his time putting that thread together...AND, it was something I had asked for publicly a month ago....

Agree 100%. At a time when Off topic has taken over as the most popular forum ( :faint: ) a much needed breath of fresh air.

[Tom]

A thread about handicapping.....and over 300 posts!
Boxcar has stirred some interest in our main purpose here.
If some don't like it, just don't read it. Yu'll notice I hardly ever engage in a thread about value, oddslines, probabilities, etc.....not my cup of tea. Not saying it isn't good stuff, but I had my fill of standard deviations at work today and back in college. And I don't even want to know what this Omar's hammer is or what he does with it(;) ).

Good ole horse talk......ya gotta love it.

[xtb]

Thanks for stepping in PA. Boxcar spent a lot of time putting together those posts and wasn't asking for anything in return. He stated up front he was retired from handicapping and wanted to share some of his ideas. He doesn't have any hidden agendas. What I simply cannot understand is this whole "show me, prove it to me, see I told you so" mentality coming from intelligent people. It's so childish. I don't know about everyone else but I am the judge of what handicapping advice is beneficial to me, and what isn't. I don't need and I don't care how many winners someone picks or doesn't pick with their methods. I don't decide to use the advice or not use it until I test it out for myself. I may use the information as is or adjust it to my liking or decide it doesn't fit in with my style. If someone disagrees with Boxcar or doesn't like his methods, Don't Read His Posts. Just please don't spoil this opportunity for the rest of us who are actually getting some good information.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just please don't spoil this opportunity for the rest of us who are actually getting some good information.

If I may play the other side for a moment....how do I KNOW it is good information? Having Boxcar actually handicap some races beforehand may go a long way towards telling me, Joe Q. Forum Reader, that this information might be something worth taking the time to digest....

What say you?

[schweitz]

Thanks PA for stepping in. I can tell you how I decided whether boxcar's methods were providing good info or not---I decided for myself by analyzing what he was saying and seeing if any of it will fit into my style of handicapping. SOME of it does and I am grateful for that. Of course I must be wrong about this because boxcar didn't handicap and pick a bunch of winners before discussing his methods and since every handicapping book ever written operates the same way there must be no useful information in any of them either. Damn, every thing I think I know about handicapping must be worthless. :rolleyes:

[xtb]

We don't know if it is good info. If it seems reasonable and worthwhile, IMO, I will pursue it and find out for myself. I'm surprised others feel handicapping information has to be proven to them before trying it themselves (and then is it actually proven?) If Boxcar handicaps a few races and doesn't produce, would you dismiss all his methods and consider him full of bs? Would you require proof before investigating for yourself and how much proof? I can see where it could be a no-win situation if he did handicap a few races beforehand. Strike out and you're a bum, win a few and it's "Oh you would have gotten the same horse my way". Sure, I think it would be interesting to see Boxcar demonstrate some of his work but I don't needhim to. I'm not sure what it would prove anyway, I'm in it for the long haul. As I think someone already mentioned here, when you buy a handicapping book you don't get demonstrations by the author. Information on this forum is free, why should we expect more?

[Pace Cap'n]

If I may play the other side for a moment....how do I KNOW it is good information? .

What say you?

A good start would be to actually read his posts.

[Overlay]

I don't see why anyone would have grounds to criticize Boxcar for what he's doing. I thought information-sharing was the goal of this forum. It's not like he's requiring anyone to pay for his insights, and he's not holding a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Use my information or else." He's putting it out there for us to read, and we can do so, and then separate the wheat from the chaff, as I would think any horseplayer would do with handicapping information, whether we would obtain it by buying it off the shelf or otherwise. The "line in the sand" that these critics are drawing seems to have started with, "Unless you're willing to lay bare your entire handicapping philosophy and post it on this board free of charge for others to share, you're just a huckster trying to sell a product, and you have no right to offer any insights at all." Then it progressed to, "Unless you can show us that your information works on actual races, you have no right to post it." And now it's gone to, "It's not enough that your data or angles may have worked in the past. Anyone can redboard. Unless you can show that they're effective in the handicapping of races yet to be run, they're worthless and you should be flamed for even daring to post them." If this kind of standard were applied to handicapping information across-the-board, nothing would ever be published, since any book that shows up on the shelves will by nature be addressing only past races or results. (And I also don't recall seeing any such book that was free for the asking, either. They all had a value (price) attached to their information.) I've always applied a standard of "Let the buyer beware" to handicapping information that I've purchased, and viewed it as my own responsibility to apply personal judgment to any offered information; to ask whether what was being said seemed logical or credible in view of my own judgment, experience, and common sense; to test it on actual races before risking any real money; to take what worked for me, and discard what didn't work; and then to MOVE ON. (And, mind you, I'm talking about information that I would have paid for, not the free insights available on this board, which I would regard myself as having even less of a "right" to complain about, or to criticize the poster for.)

[First_Place]

PA said:

"If I may play the other side for a moment....how do I KNOW it is good information?"

Simple. Just do what I (and many others) do. Give it a trial run with races in old racing forms, then apply those principles (if promising on paper) in real time. Same as you would do with every book and/or system ever published on horse race handicapping.

Regards,

FP

[JimG]

Eagerly awaiting everyone's responses.....and thanks in advance for taking things to this thread, and out of the angle thread....


Having been involved in horse racing boards since the old Prodigy days, it was always my thought that horse racing discussion is what this place should be all about. Boxcar started a thread for his horse racing thoughts he wanted to share...I think that is great and in line with this forum's purpose.

If Keilan, Tee, and some others want to question the validity of Boxcar's methods. That's fine too. That's what this place is all about. Such discussions should speak directly to the methods Boxcar has written about and would be appropriate in the same thread. However, I do think a discussion about making picks beforehand, etc. should be placed in another thread. Otherwise it deviates and/or detracts from Boxcar's thread. Personal insults (asking somebody if they are stupid, etc.) should not be on this board at all. There is always email or private messaging if you want to go that route with somebody else.

Also, any one person trying to establish parameters for a poster's "credibility" or horse racing credentials is unnecessary as that speaks for itself by observing posts here over time. We are all adults and can make up our own mind about that.

Jim

[melman]

I agree with BillW and JimG with my previous post mainly being that this whole area is General Handicapping Discussion. With the key word discussion, which quite correctly includes negative comments such as "I have never known a person who made a profit using angles as his base". Or as RRMania commented he finds flaws in the basic concept. To me that is what a discussion is all about. If someone finds the title of the thread silly or not of any use to them no problem with that either. Books and handicapping programs are looked at and commented upon many times here with both pro and con comments. What I do not understand is what purpose a list of some selections in advance is going to do. How large should the sample be?? 5, 10, 20, 50, until the method shows at profit?? We have plenty of "math" guys here that would be more than willing to tell us that such a listing means nothing. And I would agree with them. Several posters at this site including Keith, CJ, RRMania, SAL, and others have posted some nice winners?? Does that make me want to rush out and bet exactly the same horses as they do?? Of course not nor would I want to exactly follow any listing by Boxcar or any other poster. In closing let me say that the largest winning player I have ever known NEVER looked at a past performance program or looked at any software data program, did not check for "how the track was playing that day" or jockey/trainer data. I tried to learn from that person but being able to observe the horses as they come to the paddock and get saddled and then take there pre-race warm up and then know which one was feeling or looking ready for a big race was way beyond my ability.

[PaceAdvantage]

A good start would be to actually read his posts.

That was a low blow....lol But since I was playing devil's advocate, it's not necessary for me to read his posts (just for the record, I did read his posts, but I have not STUDIED his posts....big difference).

I like this thread so far. Intelligent replies....some good arguments to be made...nary a personal insult (although Pace Cap'n came darn close...lol just kidding Pace...I like your name by the way)

Keep 'em coming....

[rrbauer]

I didn't read the "original" boxcar thread until this morning; and, I still haven't read every post in it. But, boxcar's angles or methods remind me of the type of plays that "old timers" were making at the track many years ago....long before personal computers, speed figs, video replays, yada yada yada. My original introduction to "serious" pony play came at the racebook at the Caliente racetrack in Tijuana....circa late 50's and early 60's. No video. No live odds. No talking heads. Just a DRF and your own notes/charts for handicapping, sometimes an odds rundown with 8 MTP; and, for west coast races and some major races from other tracks a simulated call of the race by the PA guy from the back room who was reading from the results ticker tape. I was just a baby then, not even 21 when I started going there while working a night job, and I was all "ears" when it came to the relevance of handicapping info and playing strategies. I can distinctly recall players who tried to live in the trainers heads while others concentrated on finding the best horse available at odds of 8-1 or more (and many of these would groan when a 10-1 ML would win and the win price was announced at $9.00!). What I learned from all of that was that there were lots of ways to handicap/play the horses; and, most of the ways that involved cashing nice prices involved "contrarian" thinking.

I don't know if boxcar views himself (he is a he?) a contrarian, or not. I don't know if the methods he has advanced in his almost epic thread will stand up for the long haul, or not. But if the ideas that he has articulated in his "Longshots" thread bump you off of your log and get you thinking about other ways to make money from this game then his time (and yours) has been well spent.

[rmania]

If you spend any time on the Selections forum then you know that I occasionally post longshot possibilities.
So, of course, when I saw this thread entitled “Lonshots Are The Ticket To Success” it caught my attention,

Though I don’t consider myself to be an “angles” player I (like a lot of people) started following the thread.
At first the angles mentioned were simple and somewhat familiar. Soon they became more and more complicated. Then we learned about “angle rich” vs “angle poor” horses. The whole thing kept snowballing.

If you go back and read the thread you’ll find that I was the first poster to call Boxcar out. I tried to do it subtly thus giving Boxcar the option of ignoring it. My reason was that IMO the methods were becoming so complicated and apparently time consuming that I was not convinced that anyone (even Boxcar) could apply all of this while handicapping a “yet to be run” race. It had nothing to do with wanting to see if it could produce a winner.

As for my suggestion that some of his analysis is flawed, I still believe it is. The biggest flaw IMO is using “lengths behind” and “relative position” at face value. Using this information to “reconstruct a trip” (i.e., the horse faded, gained, etc.) is totally misleading. If there is anyone out there that disagrees with this, I would be happy to debate the subject.

Anyway, I'm sorry for causing so many problems. :confused:

[twindouble]

That was a low blow....lol But since I was playing devil's advocate, it's not necessary for me to read his posts (just for the record, I did read his posts, but I have not STUDIED his posts....big difference).

I like this thread so far. Intelligent replies....some good arguments to be made...nary a personal insult (although Pace Cap'n came darn close...lol just kidding Pace...I like your name by the way)

Keep 'em coming....


Monster fish in my back yard. Well it was to my nephew, brook ran through it cutting a nice hole under tree, he was 6 years old at the time when he first saw it, every day morning and evening he was out there trying to catch it. This went on for a couple MO or so, then a friend of mine Harry came through one morning, experienced fisherman, dropped the right fly on the water and caught it, 28" brown trout just as my nephew showed up. He was in tears crying out, "that's my fish, that's my fish". Harry feeling bad offered the fish, the kid refused and said he didn't catch it so Harry being the pro he was turned around and slid it back into the water, then showed my nephew what he caught it on and continued up stream.

I liken Boxcar to Harry, maybe he'll continue to fish here so others can catch a whopper here and there.

I'm going fishing at Mountaineer, theres more than one good fishing hole there. Ya, it's good feeling when you catch that big one, isn't it? :cool:

Good luck,

T.D.

[keilan]

Okay guys I’ll bite one last time.

Show me which post/s of mine that have offended you to this extent. What did you read that was so offensive? I’ve went back over my posts and quite frankly I need to hear from you what created such a furor.

Please quote my post and articulate what is offensive

[JackS]

Simple answer- Read the methods and if interested, check em out.
If someone told me that they could consistantly win pulling numbers from a hat and then proved it to me , I'd be buying a hat.

[anglemaster]

I basically agree with what your saying but I think some here are missing what Boxcar has been saying. First of all, he incorporate more that an "Angle", read it. He covers trainer intent, pace, conditions, weight shifts, movements in class, form cycles, charts, distance moves, reading between the lines and so on. That's handicapping to me, I don't know how others look at it but if you can't do that, just bring out the computer and bet the fastest horse with the highest speed rating and have some fun.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Twindouble!!!!!

You have put in one paragraph what I have been trying to convey (not very well I might add. :)) for the last couple of days. Well put

[Vegas711]

This is getting real stupid.There is a saying it is " Get a Life ".

[twindouble]

This is getting real stupid.There is a saying it is " Get a Life ".

My,My,My the brillance here just over whelming. :rolleyes:





T.D.

[schweitz]

Okay guys I’ll bite one last time.

Show me which post/s of mine that have offended you to this extent. What did you read that was so offensive? I’ve went back over my posts and quite frankly I need to hear from you what created such a furor.

Please quote my post and articulate what is offensive

Keilan, I have nothing against you and I'm sure you are a great guy but you asked so here goes:

Post # 309 you state that the way boxcar is wasting your time by the way he illustrating his methods--then you take a shot at his one selection.

Post # 310 Boxcar responds to your post the same way I would have.

Post # 312 You play the victim because you are insulted by boxcars response and try to turn this thread into a pissing contest.

Post # 331 In the last paragraph you insult everyone who is finding value in boxcars posts AFTER several people have told you that they do find value.

What I don't understand is why you think boxcar has to do anything the way you want it done and especially after the way you approached it.

If I felt that his methods were of no value to me I would have ignored them.

[gl45]

Keilan,
Post # 331
"Friggen newbies just wanna believe so badly". I found your remark to be somewhat offensive. I'm a newbie. I lurk because I want to learn. I don't have enough knoweledge to permit me to discuss or debate any handicapping methods.

[twindouble]

Keilan,
Post # 331
"Friggen newbies just wanna believe so badly". I found your remark to be somewhat offensive. I'm a newbie. I lurk because I want to learn. I don't have enough knoweledge to permit me to discuss or debate any handicapping methods.

Dig up my beginners thread, it's by no means advanced handicapping like Boxcars thread nore is it computer related. It lays dormant because the pro's here dominate this forum, not any newbies chimed in to speak of but there's some basic factors I think will get you off on the right foot, handicapping and wagering. Not blowing smoke here, just 45 years of loving this game.

Food for thought, a buddy of mine had over 30 years of building homes, he contracted a contemporary home, angles all over the place, he told the architect his angles in the prints wouldn't work in this one area, said one would have to bend over to get by. The architect insisted he was right and ordered him to build it or leave. Well he left, 3 weeks later he gets the call from an apologetic architect asking him to return and fix it. You can deduct the moral of the story.

Good luck,

T.D.






Good luck,

T.D.

[Pace Cap'n]

That remark was a bit caustic. I will try to expound a bit about the subject(s) at hand

It seems to me, especially of late, that the key to many of the disagreements can be found in the name of the forum--PACE ADVANTAGE. The name tells you right up front what the dominant subject of the board is to be...pace handicapping. Number crunching, chart analyzing, variant interpreting, running styles and race shapes. Any considerations of methodologies outside the "pace" parameters will be frowned upon at best (Boxcar) or viciously attacked at worst (Steve R.). The cognescenti (you know who they are) of the board have spoken, and the word is "pace rules".

Keilan wonders why anyone would look askance at his posts. This from someone whose concept of erudition encompasses the phrases "Are you stupid?" and "friggin' newbies". Some may consider it stupid to alienate "newbies", as they are the life blood of any continuing enterprise. But not to worry, Keilan, as PA has expressed his approval of your posts.

Some took great issue with the term "gimmie" for the 57/1 shot. To me, it is a matter of interpretation. No one would seriously argue a 57/1 is the "most likely" winner. But for a longshot bettor, the horse could very well be a "gimmie" from among the other longshots. If you were looking to pick a winner, he would likely be your first toss. If you're aiming at a smaller target with a bigger payoff, there's your horse. Which brings me to why I liked Boxcar's thread.

I'm not a professional horse player. I cannot bet legally from my home computer. When I do bet at Pinny, I am subject to limitations in the payoffs. That leave me with a two-hour round trip to the OTB twice a month, time and budget permitting.

I am not about to use my limited opportunities to bet chalk. I want the "life-changing" experience, but would gladly settle for the "week-changing" win. I am therefore interested in ANY angle that just MIGHT get that decent-priced winner. What could it possibly hurt to at least have the chance to read and consider other approaches?

It seems there are many do-gooders around to try and protect everyone from themselves. Most thinking people are perfectly capable of determining for themselves whether what they are reading is poppycock. Everyone should have the opportunity to make that determination.

Our gracious host asked for handicappers to expound on their methods. One did. I can only imagine that many others are warming their keyboards at this minute to share their successful approaches to the game. Not!

[Overlay]

It seems to me, especially of late, that the key to many of the disagreements can be found in the name of the forum--PACE ADVANTAGE. The name tells you right up front what the dominant subject of the board is to be...pace handicapping. Number crunching, chart analyzing, variant interpreting, running styles and race shapes. Any considerations of methodologies outside the "pace" parameters will be frowned upon at best (Boxcar) or viciously attacked at worst (Steve R.). The cognescenti (you know who they are) of the board have spoken, and the word is "pace rules".

Of course, it's obvious that the name of the forum is PaceAdvantage, and PA is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but I was never under the impression that discussions were to be limited only to aspects of pace handicapping. I admit that I wasn't "present at the creation", and pace handicapping may have been the intended focus of the board at the beginning. But from everything I read before I became a member, I don't recall detecting any written or unwritten rule or understanding that discussions were to be confined to pace handicapping. In fact, the wide-ranging scope of discussions that I noted covering the entire gamut of handicapping approaches was a major positive aspect of the board as far as I was concerned.

[keilan]

[QUOTE=schweitz]Keilan, I have nothing against you and I'm sure you are a great guy but you asked so here goes:

Post # 309 you state that the way boxcar is wasting your time by the way he illustrating his methods--then you take a shot at his one selection.

Lets try and be accurate okay -- here’s what I said “if you’re going to post selections then do everyone a favor and post them like you’d bet them, otherwise your wasting my time.” I preface my request by the word “if”. Clearing anyone making selections should imo post them as they bet them or what’s the point? I make no comment about how he illustrates his methods.

Next you state that I take a shot at him – I state “The only selection I have witnessed of yours was less than impressive, actually quite poor.” That is simply a statement of fact – period. I then finish off the post with Good Luck and a happy face.


Post # 310 Boxcar responds to your post the same way I would have.
No comment necessary

Post # 312 You play the victim because you are insulted by boxcars response and try to turn this thread into a pissing contest.

Pasted below is post #312 -- Anyone claiming that I’m playing the victim here needs to re-read the post because that claim isn’t in there.

Boxie – anyone that refuses to post them as they would bet them isn’t being entirely truthful. It’s too easy to come back after the race has run and state “I’d have bet it this way yada yada (see post 125 etc)”.

I‘ve got no beef with you at all but if you’re going to post selections then do so with credibility.

And if you wanna make it personal we can do that to -- heck we can go head-to-head for 10 consecutive days and I’ll let YOU choose one race/day from any track, any distance, any surface in the country. Hell I’ll even agree that the loser refrains from posting for the next 60 days.

I made a reasonable request of you and you wanna blow me off – not nice


Post # 331 In the last paragraph you insult everyone who is finding value in boxcars posts AFTER several people have told you that they do find value.

I copied the last two paragraphs - I suspect it's my "friggen newbies" comment that your refering to in part. Sorry newbies. Obviously the “gimme” comment refers to the 57-1 that boxcar stated as a "gimme" then later in another post defined what a “gimme” and “ a must bet” are to him.

For those that write stuff like – why not ignore the thread if I’m not getting anything outta it. Because something about all this doesn’t smell right, What would absolutely drive me crazy is watching anyone on this board throw up dozens of angles and every time a longshot hits the board he points to angle #37or #15 or #23 and state that was a “a gimme”.

Why would anyone spend countless hours studying this stuff when the “master “himself can’t win regularly. Understand one thing gentlemen no one walks away or retires from easy money – no one. Friggen newbies just wanna believe so badly.

What I don't understand is why you think boxcar has to do anything the way you want it done and especially after the way you approached it.

Because approaching it any other way would be dishonest.

Remember I only asked that IF he were to post selections that he post them the way he bets them or they really don’t mean much – this is not unreasonable.

If it’s his objective only to share angles then why is it necessary to then point to 57-1 horses after they race and state “that was a “gimme” Don’t you believe that borders on the absurd.

If I felt that his methods were of no value to me I would have ignored them.

I've never written one word about how I felt about his methods

[skate]

tis funny, i think that you can almost tell the age of the person writing, without any other info.

the older, 60 to 102, have a little more staying power, but man o war, when they go, they "lose it ". might be the booze?

i don't think that it is possible to judge "el Boxcar", unless one reads his post.
then after reading, follow the charts and use his info. this will give you an idea as to just how good his (boxcars) post stand up.

as he suggest, print his findings.

also, just because a point is given, this does not mean that you must eliminate whatever capping procerdures you have already established.
boxcar makes this point clear. his points are a consideration and are not ment to delimit anything.

[Indulto]

Kudos to PA for creating this thread before the original became another SteveRR debacle.

One of the strengths of this board is its emphasis on early B.S. detection. Another strength is that people feel free to express their opinion at any time. A weakness is that individuals also feel free to ridicule, denigrate, and dismiss other individuals under any circumstances. Often it occurs without any specified justification and sometimes it appears almost habitual.

There was a TV show recently where people got a chance to showcase any talent they thought they had until the audience lost patience and yanked their act. I think that’s the model for what happens on this board – there’s no premium on civility or patience.

Maybe there were handicapping nuggets for some, but the benefit to me was that Box stimulated my memory with regard to past observations of my own, and he provided insights and explanations I had never considered for familiar situations.

I don’t know if Box originally intended to share so much information, but he did get some positive feedback, originally, and having one’s ego stroked is not something one normally goes out of one’s way to avoid. (BTW, inappropriate posting agendas are not limited to those of an entrepreneurial nature.)

Given sufficient exposure, even articulate posters can lose their appeal, and knowledge and confidence can easily be interpreted as arrogance. As Box is always capable of a spirited retort to any perceived offence, it’s hardly surprising that things got out of hand.

In both debacles, it wasn’t that the players on the field were using an illegal defense, it’s that people were rushing onto the field from the stands to prevent the ball from being snapped. In addition to allowing more rope for suspects to hang themselves, perhaps parallel channels need to be provided for peanut galleries to criticize the debaters as well as the debate.

[exactaplayer]

I remember years back when KarlsKorner was posting methods for picking winners. He recieved many abusive replies telling him his methods didn't work. Not sure why but, it is the nature of the beast.

[xtb]

In both debacles, it wasn’t that the players on the field were using an illegal defense, it’s that people were rushing onto the field from the stands to prevent the ball from being snapped. In addition to allowing more rope for suspects to hang themselves, perhaps parallel channels need to be provided for peanut galleries to criticize the debaters as well as the debate.

Nicely put. Here's a crazy idea, would it be possible to create "read only" threads where only the originator (and PA) could write to. The number of views it receives would speak for itself. Distractors could be directed to another thread so the original wasn't disrupted.

[PaceAdvantage]

Can't make individual threads read only, but you can have read only sub forums where certain individuals can be authorized to post. I don't think that's necessary at this point....but it's something to keep in mind.

[Sean Rua]

Not wanting to get bogged down in pointless personal disagreements, I'd like to move on with some objective issues that require help from Boxcar, please.

I think Rmania has made some constructive criticism which can possibly aid us all here:

"As for my suggestion that some of his analysis is flawed, I still believe it is. The biggest flaw IMO is using “lengths behind” and “relative position” at face value. Using this information to “reconstruct a trip” (i.e., the horse faded, gained, etc.) is totally misleading. If there is anyone out there that disagrees with this, I would be happy to debate the subject."

That's what was said, and it's a subject I find intriguing. So, I'd very much like to hear Boxcar's views on this, as I think it's crucial to our understanding.

Btw, maybe I should be on the other thread, but with all the flak flying about, I'm a bit confused!

Come in, Boxcar, please.
I, for one, need some help on this.

Sean Rua.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sean, you're in the right thread....

[Sean Rua]

Thanks be to the God in heaven!

I thought I might get nuked for blundering into a place I shouldn't be.

No problem, really, I've always believed in taking chances. It's a great way to learn ( if you survive).

Sean Rua - gambler.

[bettheoverlay]

I love longshots, almost as much as I love Scarlett Johannson. But Box's posts for me were unreadable, due to the lengthy paragraphs, pedantic tone, and air of self congratulation. Since most horseplayers are cranky men with bruised egos who turn away when Humility stares them down, one can understand some of the hostile responses.

My favorite poster by far is Derby Trail, who writes well, and can actually make some races understandable for me. I wish there were more discussion and anaylsis of individual races, and how the pros on this board will bet them. Especially those who claim some success with their software output, something which I have not conquered yet.

[Indulto]

I don’t know who my favorite poster is, but I know his pseudonym begins with a “T” and an “O”. I never know which to expect, only that when it is Tom, there is a low probability that I will agree, but a high probability that I will be amused. When it is toetoe, there is also a high probability that I will be amused, but a low probability that I will understand why.

[46zilzal]

Most people have learned that to win in a parimutuel game you HAVE to have a unique perspective to beat the odds. Simple as that. There are no good or bad ideas, only different ones. On any given day, a little old lady can win picking the names of her gandchildren. Was it wrong? NOT THAT DAY, it was only different.

[keilan]

Keilan wonders why anyone would look askance at his posts. This from someone whose concept of erudition encompasses the phrases "Are you stupid?" and "friggin' newbies". Some may consider it stupid to alienate "newbies", as they are the life blood of any continuing enterprise. But not to worry, Keilan, as PA has expressed his approval of your posts.


grahors wrote -- Keilian, Killann, Killian, whatever.... (post #391)

I responded in (post #397) with -- couple of questions

Are you “Cecil” over at cj’s site?

Are you trying to be cute with me or are you just stupid?

I didn’t appreciate the Keilian, Killann, Killian, whatever…. This comment wasn’t necessary and not many people would appreciate that.

The questions of him are applicable since he is in fact a user of cj’s software. It’s not a secret that Craig and I have an association for a good many years and have worked together on that program. From here I’ll let you determine for yourself whether the question I posed to him “Are you trying to be cute with me or are you just stupid”? is a fair one.

Now for you Pace Cap’n -- It appears the two things I’m most guilty of are asking grahors if he was being cute with me or if he is just stupid. The other thing is using the term “friggen newbies” which isn’t directed at anyone specifically but something I’ve already apologized for.

I also didn't call him stupid but ask if was being cute or just stupid -- That's okay both you and JimG put your own slant on what I wrote.

Isn’t it strange that I have asked anyone to come forward and articulate what bothers them the most about what I posted and neither of the “stupid” or “friggen newbies” comments were directed at Boxie.

Come on boyz lets hear what I posted in regards to Boxie that was so offensive – get to it, I’m waiting.

[keilan]

Bump...........

[Handiman]

I'd like to weigh in on the thought that lengths behind and relative postion are insignificant on face value. I have been doing some research and while I can't post any tables or numbers to support my theory, common sense will hopefully be enough to make my point(s) clear.

Many people approach the game strictly from a mechanical point of view. Then there are those that say they don't, but at the same time, they look at horses as independant units, operating with no relation other than being flesh and blood vehicles travelling at about 30 MPH. It is my contention, that before the horses leave the paddock area there is, albeit invisible to us, to some extent, a race decision already made.

Horses are pack animals and live in hiearchy ridden units in the wild, as do most animals, mammals, insects, etc. There are alpha males and beta males and many other levels of strata. I believe that some horses give way to other more dominant ones. I think there are horses, such as ones deemed to have seconditis, that are happy just running with the crowd and want to hang with the guy in charge.

We have 4 dogs and they definitely have a heiarchy.....but the alpha male doesn't always win the tussels they get into. Sounds a bit like the overwhelming favorite getting beat on a particular day. So what does this have to do with lenghts behind and relative position.....I believe horses go through the same thing. There are dominant horses....subserviant horses and then those that are mostly unaffected. Depending on their inner makeup, physical traits and a few other intangibles, a horse will fit in, be that a need to lead the pack- or a who gives a crud I'm just going to go out and cruz, where they feel most comfortable and less intimidated. And that has alot to do with where they end up at differing calls in a particular race. And then the overall makeup of the horses entered in the race affects who will be where, thus importance of lengths behind and relative position.

A bit long winded, but a more important ingredient than I think alot of people give believe it to be in this tough game.

Handi

[twindouble]

Handiman;


Of course there's truth to what your saying but these horses don't run in the wild where they battle each other to get on top. Most are strangers when they meet in competition and like any other animal they can be trained to do one thing, that's run. That's why we put a lot weight on the trainers talent and his or hers ability to place horses in the right conditions. Likewise these horses are bred to run not with standing the fact they all have their own quirks, strengths, weaknesses and personalities. As a handicapper you do pick up on those things.

T.D.

[delayjf]

The biggest flaw IMO is using “lengths behind” and “relative position” at face value. Using this information to “reconstruct a trip” (i.e., the horse faded, gained, etc.) is totally misleading.

I would not disagree with you at all, BUT just because there are problems with the way beaten lengths are calculated, doesn't necessarily make them wrong all the time. I'm sure there are times when they are in fact dead on. The inherit inaccuracies built into calculating BL will affect the predictability on anything that depends upon them as a handicapping factor, to include pace handicapping.

I'm going to guess that Boxcar's win % was probably on the low side ( I don't know). Given that, I'm not sure a one day or even one week of pics is a accurate test of the angles he's presented. I recall reading that Mark Cramer, who's style is simular to Boxcar's, was a public handicapper for somebody, and managed to actually show a profit at the end of the meet dispite a very low win percentage.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sean, you're in the right thread....

Actually, I made a mistake....I thought we were in the other thread when I posted that reply....

[Handiman]

Twin,


You are right, as I was trained to run a Propane company. But when I met other district managers at area meetings, there were some that I liked and some I did not within minutes of meeting them. There were DM's that were very domineering and then other's that sat back and just remained part of the herd, barely participating. Some were very charismatic and had their lackeys from their part of the country circling around them, and there were other's that were extremely gifted when it came to the number's we dealt with, but couldn't get laid in a women's prison.

Question in general, are early pace horses trained to be early or is that their nature? Are dynamite late pace runners trained that way, or is it inherent in their makeup? I'm not meaning to be a smart ass, these are legitmate questions that we as horseplayers will be rewarded for, by figuring out the puzzle.

When beings of whatever ilk meet, there is a taditional ritual that goes on, and that is deciphering who is the more dominant...who is going to control any interactions that may occur. Is it as caustic in the world of the equine as it is many times in the human world......I don't know. Do horses talk to each other....I don't know that either. But I do know someone more knowledgable than I, wrote a book entitled 'Horses talk'(at least I think that was the title), and I suspect they do. Although the gist of the book, was they talked to us if we really watched them in the paddock area...At least I think I remember it that way.

Just some thoughts I believe to be important.

Handi

[keilan]

[B] Come on boyz lets hear what I posted in regards to Boxie that was so offensive – get to it, I’m waiting.


Bunch of Pussy’s........... :p

[twindouble]

Twin,


You are right, as I was trained to run a Propane company. But when I met other district managers at area meetings, there were some that I liked and some I did not within minutes of meeting them. There were DM's that were very domineering and then other's that sat back and just remained part of the herd, barely participating. Some were very charismatic and had their lackeys from their part of the country circling around them, and there were other's that were extremely gifted when it came to the number's we dealt with, but couldn't get laid in a women's prison.

Question in general, are early pace horses trained to be early or is that their nature? Are dynamite late pace runners trained that way, or is it inherent in their makeup? I'm not meaning to be a smart ass, these are legitmate questions that we as horseplayers will be rewarded for, by figuring out the puzzle.

When beings of whatever ilk meet, there is a taditional ritual that goes on, and that is deciphering who is the more dominant...who is going to control any interactions that may occur. Is it as caustic in the world of the equine as it is many times in the human world......I don't know. Do horses talk to each other....I don't know that either. But I do know someone more knowledgable than I, wrote a book entitled 'Horses talk'(at least I think that was the title), and I suspect they do. Although the gist of the book, was they talked to us if we really watched them in the paddock area...At least I think I remember it that way.

Just some thoughts I believe to be important.

Handi

I look at it this way, the gene pool can throw anything at you, just look at humanity or any other animal. Take Secretariat, huge heart they say but produced nothing that came near to him. My next door neighbor was monster of a guy, weight lifting champion here in New England but his son was frail and played the violin. Myself, short by todays standards but never got beat going 100 yards and I would venture to say my reflexes are better than most 20 yo's but age takes it's toll including horses.

There's not a spiecies alive that doesn't comunicate in some way, so yes there is something to what you say, also we can comunicate with them. That's what makes a race horse do what he inheritly may not want to do or the oppisite and yes the jock has some control over him as well.

My grandfather could get his draft horses to do things that no other could for example, plus he knew them so well, when they were hurting or not up to par he would pick up on it real quick. There's no question in his mind each horse had it's own personality, strengths and weaknesses but he got the best out of all them. The real mean ones, he knew how to approach them without taking unnecessary risks.

I think horses working or racing in company often do to some degree gets intimidated, as a result, blinkers, shadow roll and so on. Here again, as a handicapper PP's tell us who's hanging or quits when challenged so we are keen to pick up on equipment changes or shorter distances or jock changes.
Yes their is jocks that can improve a horse, out of the gate, keeping his mind on the task at hand, good at rating, free of trouble and a good sense of pace and knowing where the wire is. :lol:


T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

What started out as some healthy objective criticism, has turned into a semi-meltdown, just because a guy stated "Friggin Newbies Want To Believe So Badly?"

Well, you know what? It's TRUE! Friggin newbies DO want to believe so badly....and how do I know this? Cause I was a newbie once, and I wanted to believe so badly. I bought the fraud systems, and I read the fraud books that are out there, and I purchased the fraud software.

Am I saying Boxcar is a fraud? NO, I am not. Angles CAN be an integral part of the overall handicapping process. I just wish that Boxcar could have addressed the criticisms that were raised, instead of taking the rhetoric 10x more personal, and GUARANTEEING that things would start to lurch off the deep end.

When you author a post with hundreds of replies and TENS OF THOUSANDS of VIEWS, you have to expect some criticism to come your way. How you handle it will go a long way towards the ultimate perception of that thread.

There COULD have been a constructive conversation between Keilan and Boxcar and whoever else had issues with Boxcar's musings. Everyone is so quick to launch into ATTACK or DEFEND mode these days, that something that might benefit us all never transpires.

[twindouble]

There COULD have been a constructive conversation between Keilan and Boxcar and whoever else had issues with Boxcar's musings. Everyone is so quick to launch into ATTACK or DEFEND mode these days, that something that might benefit us all never transpires.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/report.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/report.php?p=250587)



Sorry if I contributed to the meltdown. Keilan can help me some by pointing out what didn't make any sense to him, other than putting Boxcar to the fire.

T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've been thinking more and more about why people think Boxcar should be immune from being put to the fire. He shouldn't be immune. If you come on this board, you open yourself up to what others have to say. That's the nature of an open board.

Everyone is free to express whatever it is that they want to express, as long as they follow very basic rules that are clearly stated upon registration.

It's GOOD that Boxcar took the time to generously give to us what HE THINKS is one of the keys to a more successful time at the windows. HOWEVER, he must also be open to the idea that there are OTHERS who are going to take ISSUE with what he is writing.

I for one am GLAD there is this "check and balance" of sorts. It keeps people on their toes, and it tends to keep away MOST of the BS artists. It also helps me in my duties as board policeman.

Now, does it also dissuade some of the more squeamish among us from sharing what THEY think they know about beating the races? You bet it does, and that is one of the downfalls of having an open board. It's my job to try and create an atmosphere that will work in regards to keeping a fairly open board, and at the same time, not making it so open as to invite turmoil at every corner.

In regards to that last sentence, I find myself struggling at this moment in time....

[BillW]

Now, does it also dissuade some of the more squeamish among us from sharing what THEY think they know about beating the races?

Unfortunately I think it disuades the more accomplished from posting and encourages the confrontational and egotistical (traits I don't necessarily find in common with accomplished handicappers). While most accomplished handicappers that I have met are more than happy to pass along their knowledge of the game, typically they don't seem to revel in getting into a battle of egos nor do they feel the burden to prove their methods. Why should they waste their time?

[twindouble]

In regards to that last sentence, I find myself struggling at this moment in time....


Understood, I intended on letting it rest anyway. The only thing I'm squeamish about is my writing skills, Boxcar and others here put me to shame but that don't mean I don't understand the game and I think it's foolish to challange anyone to a handicapping dual. Anyway, good luck and I don't envy your position. Like anything else nowadays controversy gets a lot of attention and rating hit the roof but it was good to see Boxcars thread roll on the way it did without it.

T.D.

[keilan]

Unfortunately I think it disuades the more accomplished from posting and encourages the confrontational and egotistical (traits I don't necessarily find in common with accomplished handicappers). While most accomplished handicappers that I have met are more than happy to pass along their knowledge of the game, typically they don't seem to revel in getting into a battle of egos nor do they feel the burden to prove their methods. Why should they waste their time?



That’s funny because the more accomplished players on this board have quietly supported my position on this particular thread.

You write about confrontational and egotistical but don’t provide any evidence – please quote what I have written that allows you be speak so boldly.

It’s also my understanding you are relatively new to playing the horses even somewhat seriously, I also understand that you play from home. You act like you know accomplished players by the boat load, do they come to your house, or did you meet them at Saratoga where by your own admission almost no one had a winning day/week. Further to that you are a regular in the WR and quite frankly I know of on one that selects more losing horses than you.

Take this as confrontational because that’s the way it’s intended……………….

[twindouble]

That’s funny because the more accomplished players on this board have quietly supported my position on this particular thread.

You write about confrontational and egotistical but don’t provide any evidence – please quote what I have written that allows you be speak so boldly.

It’s also my understanding you are relatively new to playing the horses even somewhat seriously, I also understand that you play from home. You act like you know accomplished players by the boat load, do they come to your house, or did you meet them at Saratoga where by your own admission almost no one had a winning day/week. Further to that you are a regular in the WR and quite frankly I know of on one that selects more losing horses than you.

Take this as confrontational because that’s the way it’s intended……………….

In your opinion who are the "more accomplished players on this board"? Not to be confrontational mind you, just courous. You can exclude me right off because I have no desire to reach those hights on any forum, I like it where I'm at, just discussing horses and making a buck here and there. To me that's what it's all about anyway.

T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

You write about confrontational and egotistical but don’t provide any evidence – please quote what I have written that allows you be speak so boldly.

I have no trouble defending both sides in this issue....let that be known...I'm an equal opportunity suck-up artist....with that said....

Are you asking for evidence where you were confrontational towards Boxcar? Even I have to say "Are you joking?" Just calling him "Boxie" is enough to set the confrontational ball rolling. I know you don't like it when people mess with your name....

Also, your comments towards BillW have floored me. So unbelievably unnecessary, it's mind boggling. A nicer guy you will NEVER meet in your life.

Also, I wasn't aware that Bill was new to playing the horses....where do you get your info?

Tact isn't your strong suit lately Keilan, I'll tell you that....

[PaceAdvantage]

Also Keilan, was BillW even addressing you in his post? I don't believe he was addressing you specifically, just addressing the general nature of things as they currently exist. As I said, people are way too quick to jump into ATTACK and DEFEND mode these days....

[Tee]

1 simple question for the group.

How many teachers, professors, instructors have u encountered that could not open a textbook or a problem brought in by a student & solve that problem at the drop of a hat?

They may think about it for a bit, but an answer should be forthcoming. I had a Calculus professor somewhat like this. Everyone would be stumped, including him for a brief period of time & then all of a sudden the wheels would turn, the pencil/pen would go to work & voila - the solution was on it's way.

Le'ts not forget that Boxcar has openly talked that he is out of the game. Is he still a handicapper? Is he one that predicts race winners? I'd say at this point & time he has resolved himself to be a teacher.

Now I'm not against him teaching his principles of thoroughbred handicapping. Nor am I opposed to anyone using his angles/methods with their own money, after all it's not my money. :D

It's great to learn by tried and true examples of the past, but every now and again shouldn't what has been learned be put into action? IMO there is no better way than to have the instructor lead the way. Perhaps Boxcar can enter this into his curriculum. My guess is he would get a better response not only from his students, but also from fellow "teachers." :)

[the little guy]

Enough of this silliness....who's the babe in your avatar?

[keilan]

Also Keilan, was BillW even addressing you in his post? I don't believe he was addressing you specifically, just addressing the general nature of things as they currently exist. As I said, people are way too quick to jump into ATTACK and DEFEND mode these days....


Of course he was and I'm tried of the passive aggression, it's starting to piss me off.

[Tee]

Enough of this silliness....who's the babe in your avatar?

Erin Ness - u like?

Obviously :)

[twindouble]

It's great to learn by tried and true examples of the past, but every now and again shouldn't what has been learned be put into action? IMO there is no better way than to have the instructor lead the way. Perhaps Boxcar can enter this into his curriculum. My guess is he would get a better response not only from his students, but also from fellow "teachers." :)

Tee;
Horse racing isn't just math, I struggle to get across what the game is all about. First and foremost winning at this game isn't just being a good handicapper, it has a lot to do with knowing how to handle the ups and downs and what your bankroll can handle. Your mind set determines how successful you'll be in the long run. Putting someone to the fire to come up with winners of value, never works out. Example, I've had people actually lose some confidence in me at times, they go back to their loosing ways and shortly after I'm rolling in the dough. I just stick to what I do and not get rattled in the process. I don't know if anyone understood when I said I've had loosing days but did some dam good handicapping. That's the nature of the game.

T.D.

[the little guy]

I wouldn't want to deviate from the gravity of this thread by discussing this any further.

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course he was and I'm tried of the passive aggression, it's starting to piss me off.

Whatever. It's not like the Boxcar/Keilan thing is the only incident he could be referencing. He has plenty of source material from which to draw....

I suggest that everyone take a very deep breath and relax. This is a horse racing message board. It's supposed to be fun, entertaining and informative...if it doesn't return to being fun, entertaining and informative, something drastic will need to be done.

Maybe the more accomplished players on this board can contact ME privately (for a change) and let me know what that something should be....

[twindouble]

I wouldn't want to deviate from the gravity of this thread by discussing this any further.

Well, I'm thinking about making another mistake by taking on SA and that pick 6. I can be foolish or stuborn. Take your pick.


T.D.

[the little guy]

I suggest that everyone take a very deep breath and relax. This is a horse racing message board. It's supposed to be fun, entertaining and informative...if it doesn't return to being fun, entertaining and informative, something drastic will need to be done.



So we can start a more extensive discussion of the " girl in the avatar "?

[PaceAdvantage]

So we can start a more extensive discussion of the " girl in the avatar "?

No doubt!

[the little guy]

Most excellent!

She is definitive proof of why poker is more popular than racing.

[xtb]

Poker Babes!

[Tee]

Tee;
Horse racing isn't just math, I struggle to get across what the game is all about. First and foremost winning at this game isn't just being a good handicapper, it has a lot to do with knowing how to handle the ups and downs and what your bankroll can handle. Your mind set determines how successful you'll be in the long run. Putting someone to the fire to come up with winners of value, never works out. Example, I've had people actually lose some confidence in me at times, they go back to their loosing ways and shortly after I'm rolling in the dough. I just stick to what I do and not get rattled in the process. I don't know if anyone understood when I said I've had loosing days but did some dam good handicapping. That's the nature of the game.

T.D.
Twin,

I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison. Obviously thoroughbred handicapping/wagering is not as cut and dried in finding an answer as is the case in mathematics and some other disciplines of science.

[Tom]

Of course he was and I'm tried of the passive aggression, it's starting to piss me off.


K - buddy.....

YOU asked for comments, didn't you?
Then called everyone who didn't reply a pussy?:)

I echo PA - BillW is one the nicest guys you'd ever want to know. I SERIOUSLY doubt he was trying to attack you.

[Tee]

Now I"ve gone and done it, perhaps a avatar of Kathy Liebert should have been used. :lol: :lol:

[keilan]

YOU asked for comments, didn't you?
Then called everyone who didn't reply a pussy?:)




Typing error I meant hussy ;)

[twindouble]

K - buddy.....

YOU asked for comments, didn't you?
Then called everyone who didn't reply a#!&^?:)

I echo PA - BillW is one the nicest guys you'd ever want to know. I SERIOUSLY doubt he was trying to attack you.

Remember, you and I are walking on this ice here, clean up your act. :)

[cj]

Enough of this silliness....who's the babe in your avatar?

She isn't very good in the sack. :cool:

[Tee]

She isn't very good in the sack. :cool:

You have to get her on the felt!! :lol:

[Tom]

Typing error I meant hussy ;)

Whew! :eek:

[BillW]

That’s funny because the more accomplished players on this board have quietly supported my position on this particular thread.

You write about confrontational and egotistical but don’t provide any evidence – please quote what I have written that allows you be speak so boldly.

It’s also my understanding you are relatively new to playing the horses even somewhat seriously, I also understand that you play from home. You act like you know accomplished players by the boat load, do they come to your house, or did you meet them at Saratoga where by your own admission almost no one had a winning day/week. Further to that you are a regular in the WR and quite frankly I know of on one that selects more losing horses than you.

Take this as confrontational because that’s the way it’s intended……………….

Keith,

WTF? where did you get the idea that I was talking directly to you? I was responding to a single statement in PA's post:

Now, does it also dissuade some of the more squeamish among us from sharing what THEY think they know about beating the races?


As a matter of fact I didn't even read your post(s) (sheesh, I guess I'll have to go back and read them now) no disrespect, I stopped reading all posts in this thread after the first couple of posts except for seeing PA's this morning- it posed what I thought was an important question that I'm sure he struggles with and I simply offered him an opinion and hopefully something to think about.

Bill

[GaryG]

This thread, like the one about Steve R, is bringing out the worst in what I am sure are some very nice people. I hope it doesn't end like the Steve thread. All we need now is for Santa Claus to reappear....:rolleyes:

[keilan]

Keith,

WTF? where did you get the idea that I was talking directly to you? I was responding to a single statement in PA's post:



As a matter of fact I didn't even read your post(s) (sheesh, I guess I'll have to go back and read them now) no disrespect, I stopped reading all posts in this thread after the first couple of posts except for seeing PA's this morning- it posed what I thought was an important question that I'm sure he struggles with and I simply offered him an opinion and hopefully something to think about.

Bill


Thanx Tee, tlg, cj, Tom et al for stepping in and adding some levity to the thread I could have sworn BillW was taking a shot at me, he told rmania to “get lost” in the (longshots for winner’s thread)I think? From that I deducted that he was in Boxcar’s camp, possibly another false assumption on my part.

Bill if you weren’t talking to me I apologize for the manner I spoke to you. It’s not right even if I was included in your description of the confrontational and egotistical.

But really Bill you gotta get better at picking runners. ;)

I’m gonna take a li’l vacation --- later guys

[Fastracehorse]

OK. I'll continue it by addressing Keilan's comments to me:

I agree with you, from my own personal experience, that playing angles alone without a foundation is not going to work.

However, I must ask again, is this what Boxcar was promoting? Did you read the entire thread word for word? I didn't, which is why I am asking you.

It didn't take Boxcar 5 years to contribute to a horse racing discussion. When he first came here, he posted lots about horse racing. Then for whatever reason, he disappeared into off-topic, only to be heard from again recently.

I'm not getting you here. What is this risk that you are talking about? What am I missing here? He isn't selling anything that I am aware of....by risk, do you mean a deflated ego or a smaller following? I think you're reaching for something that might not be there....

Not necessary to remove a thing....

__________________________________________________ _______

I see where you are coming from Keilan, but I have to ask again, does Boxcar's thread warrant such a "stirring of the pot?" I'm usually a pretty good judge of "online" character. I can usually smell the BS from a mile away, and I have to tell you, I just don't see it when it comes to Boxcar's thread.

In closing, and to be quite honest with you Keith, I saw Boxcar's post as a breath of fresh air around here....he has taken his time putting that thread together...AND, it was something I had asked for publicly a month ago....I was asking that some of the more successful players among us (particularly the NAME guys, like Meadow, Schwartz, Nunamaker, etc.) share a little bit about what goes on in their handicapping lives, and maybe a bit about their methods (not necessarily every nut and bolt, but you get my drift).

Keilan, I value your input very much when it comes to this board, but why is it that we don't see eye to eye on this subject? What am I missing here? I think this particular thread can be valuable in its own right, because I am doing a little "soul searching" myself as it pertains to this board in general....

Eagerly awaiting everyone's responses.....and thanks in advance for taking things to this thread, and out of the angle thread....

I just wanted to add that.

However, there is no way you could win betting every race with just one angle. That is fairly obvious - however, I am fairly certain some of the filter players would agree with me - that if they spot played they would show a profit.

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

If I may play the other side for a moment....how do I KNOW it is good information? Having Boxcar actually handicap some races beforehand may go a long way towards telling me, Joe Q. Forum Reader, that this information might be something worth taking the time to digest....

What say you?

But I think Boxy has stimulated alot of positive interest on this board. And again, IMhumblest of opinions I think he is a very intelligent player.

I have also suggested that he post - but he doesn't have interest in posting and that does not weigh in on my appreciation of his contributions. Not that it does you either PA.

Posting is tough - it can be a beast psychologically - especially when you have your retractors.

fffastt

[Richie]

Hi

Boxcar was on the derby list 6-7 years ago, he posted 12 straight days of wagers and did not have a losing day. I have no doubt he knows what he speaks of. I was there.

Richie

[Niko]

Boxcar is probably an excellent handicapper and found what works for him. I like to see all sides presented on handicapping. If you're going to put your ideas forward you should be prepared to defend them. Like any scientist or mathmatician that proposes and idea or paper. But handicapping isn't as cut and dried. There are different ways to solve the problem so no everyone will agree on the correct answer, who cares?? If a handicapping approach as merit in time it will be shown out. There are some sharp handicappers on this board that have a lot more time and experience than I do. I like to see there opinions expressed, even if it disagrees with my position.

What I'd love to see on a couple of boxcars angles are a couple of the database guys to do two quick runs.

FO: Good easy test, where it should be most effective. Mdns that were bet down for no apparent reason in 2nd or 3rd lifetime start. Play in next start. Then FBO, Beaten FO and didn't finish I/M last start. No apparent reason to be bet down: out of the money previous race, not a drop in class of greater than 20% to bet-down race, not a speed rating in previous race within a couple lengths of par--why don't we just use an in the money finish).

UFI: Hard one for me to grasp. Out of the universe of horses that show an out of the money finish last, what % improved their speed rating in their last race, what % declined and what % of each won. Then it will be easy to determine if this really matters on it's own. I'm not a database guy and don't have a lot of time with another baby on the way...but seems like an easy database test..and worthwhile.

Note: I don't expect a flat bet profit, only a decent advantage over random selections. If you put a couple of the right angles together you do get synergy. I'll do it the old-fashioned way over the next couple of months but man I'd love to get a database guy on a couple of these.

Why I'm skeptical, been down this path.....a la Cramer, Tom Worth Pop's which was based on odds in my early handicapping years. But, a few years later I figure maybe I missed a key point. Why I keep an open mind and believe. I can't win using straight figures, only angles in the right spots.

[rrbauer]

Hey Keith.........

You having a bad month?

[anglemaster]

Not to rehash , or redboard , I would like to bring the #3 in the last race at Gulfstream.(Wednesday)
As Niko has mentioned (sort of ) ,boxcar went throught in great detail about his FO betting angle.

Clearly the #3 on the grass in the last, fit the "angle" to a tee.

Wouldn't everybody agree (notwithstanding first turf in the last race) that how could this horse have been bet down.

I am aware that Johnnyv's father -in-law use to train this horse. And having Johnnyv ride sure did not hurt the Trainer's intention.

again not redboarding , but what is essential is that the "FO" angle worked.

[cj]

Not to rehash , or redboard ...

Actually, you are. Where are the redboarded losers? Or do they hit at 100%? Seriously, I could make up an angle tomorrow, no PPs, and go find plenty of horses that fit the angle after the fact at good prices. It doesn't mean a whole bunch more didn't lose and the ROI was bad.

I'm not saying these aren't profitable plays, but there really is no point to posting these "results" if you didn't at least mention the race earlier.

[JimG]

I'm not saying these aren't profitable plays, but there really is no point to posting these "results" if you didn't at least mention the race earlier.

Why is there no point to it CJ? Most of us early in our horse racing "career" learned to improve our game by studying missed races after the fact and trying to figure out what the winner had going for him. I imagine newcomers and intermediate players appreciate the horse racing discussion here at Pace Advantage, regardless if before or after the race. And even seasoned players as yourself may know a certain angle to be a loser when run through a database, however, using several angles in conjunction with one another can, under certain conditions, prove to be profitable.

Jim

[JimG]

Seriously, I could make up an angle tomorrow, no PPs, and go find plenty of horses that fit the angle after the fact at good prices.

CJ,

American Turf Monthly is looking for you.:lol::lol:

[anglemaster]

Thanks for your response CJ.

We have two camps here:

One is that any horse that is not posted before post time of that said ponies race means nothing. Using your statement IF said pony was posted before hand and won that it does not matter how that angle faired according to databases??? (CJ I am not trying to put words in your mouth not sure I understand).

The second camp is that there are certain "receipes" to horses that WIN over and over again.

I see this that some say "this is how you make the cake" and others who say let me taste the cake before I will confirm that the receipe works.

Again not to flog a dead horse, I am seeing that "former" camp is entrenched in their thoughts. I understand and respect that.

[chickenhead]

the thing that surprises me about Boxcars thread is that there has been so little feedback from database users. I know some of the guys said they were going to check them out, and I know a lot of the dbasers favor angle type plays. I expected to see someone post some results by now.

[Niko]

Redboarding isn't bad in itself unless it's done over and over again to explain a point. You can learn from the winners but you can learn a whole lot from the losers too! Like CJ said, we can all make up an angle or two and show examples of winners. Hell, that's what a lot of system sellers do...
Who hasn't backfitted angles trying to come up with a winning system...but eventually you have to cut the wheat from the chaffe...or something like that :)

Many have posted on here there's synergy with angles and the thread is causing me to re-visit or look at a couple things differently again which is a good thing. What I'll take away from it I'm not sure yet.

Maybe the database guys are keeping good results to themselves...or they know not to bother because they've already tested

[the little guy]

I have a question, and sorry if this has already been covered, and while I haven't read much of the thread being discussed here, I did read that Boxcar referred to himself as a retired horseplayer. So, I'm confused, he has these angles that he claims make money but he doesn't bet? Huh?

What am I missing?

[GameTheory]

He used the angles when he was playing. But he doesn't play anymore. No mystery.

[the little guy]

You don't think there's something strange about somebody that claims to have a way to win at the track, used to bet, but doesn't anymore?

[GameTheory]

You don't think there's something strange about somebody that claims to have a way to win at the track, used to bet, but doesn't anymore?No. What's the good of making money if you never take the time to enjoy it? "Having a way to win at the track" is nothing extraordinary -- it just lots of hard work, like any job. Do you find people in any career who at some point retire to be strange?

[the little guy]

You may think that having a way to win at the track is nothing extraordinay but you're wrong. It is in many ways the very definition of extraordinary.

However, while I understand people who work hard at being successful stepping away from the game, pardon me if I find using " angles " as your instrument of handicapping to be the opposite of hard work. They are, once again, by their very definition a shortcut. If they really worked it would require a bare minimum of work to achieve success.

[GameTheory]

You may think that having a way to win at the track is nothing extraordinay but you're wrong. It is in many ways the very definition of extraordinary.

However, while I understand people who work hard at being successful stepping away from the game, pardon me if I find using " angles " as your instrument of handicapping to be the opposite of hard work. They are, once again, by their very definition a shortcut. If they really worked it would require a bare minimum of work to achieve success.Read the thread. The guy has dozens of complex angles he uses in combination. If they in fact work, his approach is anything but a shortcut. Looks quite tedious.

And winning at the track is achievable by anyone of average intelligence using good business principles and lots of elbow grease. What is so extraordinary about it? Most people who try at it fail, naturally, but the vast majority of those were looking for a shortcut to easy riches in the first place. It is not any harder than starting your own "normal" small business and having it succeed. Most of those fail too...

[the little guy]

I get a headache just looking at that thread...sorry. But I will take your word for it that they are complicated.

I will end our semantics discussion with the definition of " extraordinary " ( unless you really want to keep it up which is, of course, fine ).

Extraordinary - beyond which is ordinary or usual.

[GameTheory]

Extraordinary implies to me that a person would have to have unusual talents or abilities that are beyond most people. Playing in the NBA is extraordinary. There is NOTHING I could do to play in the NBA. But success in horse racing requires a clear head and hard work, nothing more...

[the little guy]

It may not require extraordinary skills, in the same way professional sports do, but achieving consistant success playing the horses is, by definition, extraordinary.

[GameTheory]

Ok fine, but I think that is a misleading term.

[Niko]

Maybe extraordinary is too strong-but that's the way I feel for people doing it day in and day out- but it's certainly quite an accomplishment to beat a game with a "20%" take consistently...and how many people that try can truly enough to make a middle class living including benefits without doing something on the side.

Why give it up-other commitments...Boxcar addressed it but didn't say specifically what he was doing and nobody asked..I don't think..

It is hard to believe he'd totally give it up but?

[anglemaster]

Niko I was reading your posting about going back and retracing why a horse won. Even though this is a good practice, this is not what is happening say with that FO horse. Please bear with me while a repeat this.

Boxcar posted on the longshot thread , about certain things to look for, and many other posters responded about their experiences etc. Anyway this horse in the last race at GP fit the "pattern" perfectly.
Firstly I have always thought that redboarding was somebody that said that they had a horse after it won. In this case nobody is saying they had it, all I was posting that this "pattern" came to fruition.

I understand that it is very hard for people to think out of the box, but I truly believe that a lot of this "difference of opinion" on angles is a misunderstanding of what angles are.

[rmania]

.......
However, while I understand people who work hard at being successful stepping away from the game, pardon me if I find using " angles " as your instrument of handicapping to be the opposite of hard work. They are, once again, by their very definition a shortcut. If they really worked it would require a bare minimum of work to achieve success.
Well how about that! There's actually someone on this board that shares my opinion.

I totally agree that an "angle" refers to a shortcut. Something you can just go blindly with and cut out all of the handicapping. Kind of like my K.I.S.S. method (I like that name) which by the way pointed to another double-digit winner at SA today. :eek:

Funny though, if you read through all the angles in the "Longshot" (I hate that title) thread you'll find most identify methods that most experienced hanicappers have in their arsenal. The only difference is that they have been given a name, a strict set of rules, and labeled an "angle". Like this stuff comes from the mind of one individual. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

The only difference is that they have been given a name, a strict set of rules, and labeled an "angle". Like this stuff comes from the mind of one individual. :lol:

Putting on my devil's advocate hat once again.....did Boxcar attempt to claim otherwise? Does he claim all of the work presented in that thread as solely his own?

[Murph]

:D Why you no good, backfittin', redboardin', chalk eatin' offspring of a gelding! :D What a fine thread you have going here , gentlemen.

Murph

[twindouble]

Ok fine, but I think that is a misleading term.

A college education isn't required to win at the races as matter of fact some of the best handicapper "gamblers" I've met had less than a high school education because most come out of vocational studies. You know, the guys that fixed your car, built your home or welded your bridges. What's required is having that passion for the game wrapped around common sense and a bankroll to go with it.

Yes, when your passionate about something all that work some how don't seem like work. I would say it's because your enjoying it to no end. I don't think that's so extraordinary or is it?

I never had any unrealistic expectations playing the horses because I knew there was an element of gambling involved and you can't be right every race you bet or expect to win every day.

I have to say that passion has diminished for me, now I'm interested in other things so I can understand someone dropping out, even though he's good at what he does. Other priorities can take over or more important things that may be personal. I still think I'm as good as anyone here. :lol:


T.D.

[rmania]

Putting on my devil's advocate hat once again.....did Boxcar attempt to claim otherwise? Does he claim all of the work presented in that thread as solely his own?
Read the thread.....

[twindouble]

Read the thread.....

I think you have the wrong thread.

[Tom]

Boxcar said some of the stuff came from Ray Talbout.

[cj]

According to the other thread, all of the angles were programmed, so a minimum of work was required. This would seem to refute the hard work and elbow grease thing.

[anglemaster]

Good Morning all: CJ I was laying in bed thinking why I am not really understanding why you are not understanding, and likely you are thinking the same about me. In order for me to get a feel for where you ( and others) are coming from , might i suggest the following:

Could you post a race that you are thinking of betting today. It is not important what race, or even what the horses name is. What I am hoping is that you will post your reasons for betting this horse.
If there is a reason (which I assume there is), than how did you arrive at that reason(s)???

[Murph]

Good Morning all: CJ I was laying in bed thinking why I am not really understanding why you are not understanding, and likely you are thinking the same about me. In order for me to get a feel for where you ( and others) are coming from


The feeling I am getting as I follow this thread is that if a selection isn't made CJ's way ... then it probably isn't worth playing.
Murph

[anglemaster]

I have to say that passion has diminished for me, now I'm interested in other things so I can understand someone dropping out, even though he's good at what he does. Other priorities can take over or more important things that may be personal. I still think I'm as good as anyone here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I liken Boxie to a professional football player, they make good money during their career and when they are done they are done.(retired). Boxcar tells me he is "puttering" around the house and doing small projects. He has retired.

Boxcar was a personal student of Ray Taulbot. I was able to be a student of Boxcar near his retirement years. During his tutoring of me he was very busy studying "new" aspects of the game, he was always developing new ways to look at the PP. Believe me he is/was a PHD in handicapping.
Even though Boxcar and an associate of his developed a soft ware program that "spit" out all of the horses' "angles", one had to apply the angles to each horse and figure out how much weight to put on each. This is by no means a "black box" approach.

[cj]

Good Morning all: CJ I was laying in bed thinking why I am not really understanding why you are not understanding, and likely you are thinking the same about me. In order for me to get a feel for where you ( and others) are coming from , might i suggest the following:

Could you post a race that you are thinking of betting today. It is not important what race, or even what the horses name is. What I am hoping is that you will post your reasons for betting this horse.
If there is a reason (which I assume there is), than how did you arrive at that reason(s)???

I surely can post a race I am betting, I've done it here many times. Probably the last time was the Haw Gold Cup, when someone else called me out, so to speak. I did pick the winner, but that isn't really important as I pick many more losers than winners.

I will, however, refrain from doing this until you or boxcar post a race before it is run as well. I'll even do the same race.

Murph,

This is totally untrue. Boxcar pointed to a horse and then said the horse had no pace or speed figures that made him look close to the favorite. I posted that this wasn't true. If you'd rather I just ignore information that I know to be false, I can do that, but it doesn't make for a very good forum.

[anglemaster]

I surely can post a race I am betting, I've done it here many times. Probably the last time was the Haw Gold Cup, when someone else called me out, so to speak. I did pick the winner, but that isn't really important as I pick many more losers than winners.

I will, however, refrain from doing this until you or boxcar post a race before it is run as well. I'll even do the same race.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

CJ , please take a deep breath.
I wanted to understand where you are coming from. I am not saying you are not a good handicapper , I am trying to put myself in your shoes and get an understanding of where you are coming from.

I thought that I was asking a simple thing, and even said you do not have to mention a horse, just your logic.

Now please try to put yourself in my shoes for a minute: I ask a simple request(at least in my shoes I thought it was pretty simple), and I get a response that you picked the Gold cup winner etc. Again , in my shoes , I find you very aggressive and even defensive in your response to my post.
Honestly if we can not even get past this simple process I then let you have the last response to this.

[Murph]

Of course, YOU are right CJ. My apologoes to you sir. I was way out of line to post my thoughts on the matter, considering what a knowledgeable and prolific poster you are here on PA.


Sincerely, Murph

[Tom]

You're new here, Murph, so I'll pass on some friendly advice - you can learn a few things from CJ. He IS a prolific picker, but that's not the point. He has done a lot of cutting edge work in the pace handicapping arena - many here, including me, will swear CJ figs are superior to Beyer numbers. He never said Boxers stuff was no good, he is just being part of the discussion here - contributing to it, not sniping it.

HAND

[cj]

Angle,

I am not trying to bust anyone's chops here. What I am saying is I have posted my picks, and the reasons behind them, many times in the past. I don't do it much any more, and the Gold Cup is the last I remember. The reason I remember it was because it was a discussion similar to this. Someone asked, and I provided it. It doesn't even matter if the horse had won or lost.

Now, in this and the other boxcar thread, many people have asked for a race to be handicapped and posted before it actually is run. It isn't even so much about redboarding. Anyone can show you why a horse could be picked, but it is a lot better if you do it in the context of the whole field of horses.

So for you to turn around and ask me to post a race when you have yet to do so yourself seems a bit disingenous to me. You are asking me to do something neither you nor your mentor seems to want to do. Pick a race, post your handicapping thoughts, and I'll do the same race. How does that sound?

Murph,

What did I do that was so bad? Am I wrong about the horse having competitive figures or a totally incompetent trainer? I'll be happy to debate things like that. Feel free to question any opinion I may have, no problem. But don't question my right to have one and share it.

[the little guy]

Am I the only one that hates posts that begin with " take a deep breath "?

[anglemaster]

CJ: I asked a simply request:

I mentioned I wanted to know where you are coming from.

IF you would have posted something, I would have asked how you arrived at that decision . You would have explained that such and such has worked before.
I REALLY was trying to listen to you, REALLY trying to find out what was in your head.

And you, have totally switched around my intent into a P*ssing contest. CJ nobody is saying anything about your cappin. Nobody is trying to prove anything.

Again, in my mind we can not even get past the simpliest of engagement of conversation. It is like you think I am trying to enter your space. I am not.

[cj]

So why is it that you cannot post a race first, so I know where you are coming from?

Here is the last race I did:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22658

That is how I handicap. If you prefer, I could find a race where I picked the loser, there are plenty here. I would have to search though.


I don't need to take a deep breath, trust me. I'm a pretty laid back guy.

[lsbets]

I don't have any problem accepting when Boxcar says he's retired and doesn't play anymore. But angle, why don't you take CJ up on his offer, since you learned from Boxcar and while you might not think like he does, you're probably closer than anyone else reading his thread. Just put this silly argument to bed and pick a race and go through why you would play x, y, or z horse. I don't think anyone really cares whether the race wins or loses, just about everyone is smart enough to know that one race doesn't matter, but what folks would like to see is the thought process as it applies to handicapping, and how it might differ from some of the other approaches people use - like CJs approach with pace figs. Would it be so hard to say "In this race, I like this horse for this reason ......"

[anglemaster]

CJ I do not want to put words in your mouth:

But can I assume that my request to try to understand where you are coming from is denied until I post prerace.

CJ I do not think that we are going anywhere here and in the interest of not driving the board into total boredom I will refrain from posting further on this.

[cj]

CJ I do not want to put words in your mouth:

But can I assume that my request to try to understand where you are coming from is denied until I post prerace.

CJ I do not think that we are going anywhere here and in the interest of not driving the board into total boredom I will refrain from posting further on this.

See below, I added a link, you can see where I am coming from.

[anglemaster]

CJ thanks for posting that link. ( It did not work). When I posted last, your link was not there. I will look at your web site later today.

Isbet on Saturday I was going to post my pick prior to the last race at Oaklawn. My pick was "Unbridled Trick" I could not upload the file because it was a WPD. file???

Anyway If I would have posted I would have mentioned that this horse showed "good speed" for the first two calls on its second race back and then the trainer moved his charge up last race. This combo is called B/BX and is a very strong combo , along with the drop on Saturdays race.
I was trying to post before the race.

Unbridled Trick finished second last at 40-1. I still would have bet again today :))) on its "pattern".

[Murph]

You're new here, Murph, so I'll pass on some friendly advice - you can learn a few things from CJ. He IS a prolific picker, but that's not the point. He has done a lot of cutting edge work in the pace handicapping arena - many here, including me, will swear CJ figs are superior to Beyer numbers. He never said Boxers stuff was no good, he is just being part of the discussion here - contributing to it, not sniping it.

HAND

OH GEEZ. I knew I should have stayed out of this discussion. I posted MY feelings on the tone of this thread and that's ALL. It's too bad you cannot see some of the discussions here from the perspective of a "new guy."

I am no handicapping neophyte. I happen to think my figures are pretty good too. Superior to Beyer figs even. However, I do not stand on my methods as the "truth" and then pronounce another insight on the same matter as "false" or misconceived.
Murph,

This is totally untrue. Boxcar pointed to a horse and then said the horse had no pace or speed figures that made him look close to the favorite. I posted that this wasn't true. If you'd rather I just ignore information that I know to be false, I can do that, but it doesn't make for a very good forum.

Before I posted my thoughts, I felt there were posts made that were one rung above "name calling" over it. Definitely more than a simple disagreement over methods.
cjAccording to the other thread, all of the angles were programmed, so a minimum of work was required. This would seem to refute the hard work and elbow grease thing.

I doubt if I can learn much from insights such as these. But not to worry, I would never challenge the "alpha" posters here and attempt to lead the herd. It's nice to know my place in the pecking order really.

MY APOLOGIES to anyone I may have offended by posting my thoughts to this thread. I just wanted to get in on some of the fun you all were having. I knew when I disagreed with CJ that I would certainly recieve some flak about it.

I may enjoy the forum more in the future if I keep my thoughts to myself. I have had that feeling since I signed up to post here, Tom. Thanks for your support.

Murph

[cj]

Angle, that is the kind of stuff I mean, good stuff. It would be better if you showed if any of the other horses had things going for them, because I think that is where playing angles becomes tough.

Is there a ranking order of angles, where if maybe three horses are showing some, you know which one to bet? Does it matter how many angles each one shows? These are the reasons I'm asking. These things aren't clear when you just post one or two horses from a race.

As for the link, I don't know why it isn't working, it is fine on this machine, just checked it. Maybe PA can help. I'm sure you can use the search function and find it, it is a link to a thread here at PA. Links here open in a new window, maybe a pop-up blocker is stopping it.

[anglemaster]

Thanks CJ. I have to do some errands. (Do not forget it is Valentine's day soon). Will followup later.

Thanks again for your response.

John

[the little guy]

Thanks CJ. I have to do some errands. (Do not forget it is Valentine's day soon). Will followup later.

Thanks again for your response.

John

If you're going to get something for CJ I think it's only fair you share with the board.

[Tom]

Don't think you have to keep quiet - that's not why we're here.
I said "friendly advise" and meant it that way, not meant to be flak.

[exactaplayer]

Angle, that is the kind of stuff I mean, good stuff. It would be better if you showed if any of the other horses had things going for them, because I think that is where playing angles becomes tough.

Is there a ranking order of angles, where if maybe three horses are showing some, you know which one to bet? Does it matter how many angles each one shows? These are the reasons I'm asking. These things aren't clear when you just post one or two horses from a race.

As for the link, I don't know why it isn't working, it is fine on this machine, just checked it. Maybe PA can help. I'm sure you can use the search function and find it, it is a link to a thread here at PA. Links here open in a new window, maybe a pop-up blocker is stopping it.
I may regret getting involved here but, IMHO if you look at too many things in a race you tend to confuse yourself. I just try to find the winner using some of the tips offered by boxcar. I have replied in the other thread as to my process in one race. Since reading the link, I have caught about 5 or 6 good payoffs. Lowest being 10.8 and highest 46.??. I know this is redboarding but, I am not selling anything, just trying to show how boxcar's posts have helped me in my capping. I actually prefer this way as versus crunching numbers. To me the number crunching is too time consuming. But to each his own. Good luck to all, and thanks for the great board PA.
The link works for me.

[exactaplayer]

If you're going to get something for CJ I think it's only fair you share with the board.
:lol::lol::lol:

[twindouble]

What's an opinion worth when it comes to handicapping the horses? Well, only an open mind can answer that question. Here's an example that boils down to having respect for others that are good handicappers.

We were pretty much settled on what horses were using in the picks, three of us were kicking the races around on the way to the track, we were on the same page in the races except the 7th, we all had strong opinions on who we liked and threw out the reasons. We litterly ran the race over and over to support each others claim, then out of the blue another horse got into the picture, it was like a revelation and clear to all of us. We took down the whole pool that day as a result of that horse. The key was evaluating the race and level of compition the horses had competed agains't, that and the shorter distance on that day. (trainer intent). We always wondered if the trainer knew he was in such a sweet spot because the horse didn't get bet down. No, it wasn't me that put us on the horse. The fact that we agreed at the end is the important thing. "Why do you like the horse." Try it, you'll find it works, unless you have a hang up about others opinions.

Good luck,

T.D.

[GameTheory]

According to the other thread, all of the angles were programmed, so a minimum of work was required. This would seem to refute the hard work and elbow grease thing.Isn't that true of most any method anyone uses these days? Everyone is using a computer. Still gotta watch the odds and bet. I don't understand this line of reasoning. Several of you seem to be suggesting that the idea of someone retiring from betting horses when they could still be making money at it is an idea so outrageous that it must be a lie. Now it could be lie, but not because it is an outrageous idea. If I have a winning method, I am required to use it every day of my life until my dying breath? Is that it? Uhh...maybe there are other things in life, you know? How is retiring from betting horses different than retiring from anything else?

[schweitz]

I think one thing some are missing is that Boxcar has said that he will play multiple horses in a race if odds permit.

[the little guy]

Everyone is NOT using a computer. At least for handicapping.

[twindouble]

]Isn't that true of most any method anyone uses these days? Everyone is using a computer.[/b] Still gotta watch the odds and bet. I don't understand this line of reasoning. Several of you seem to be suggesting that the idea of someone retiring from betting horses when they could still be making money at it is an idea so outrageous that it must be a lie. Now it could be lie, but not because it is an outrageous idea. If I have a winning method, I am required to use it every day of my life until my dying breath? Is that it? Uhh...maybe there are other things in life, you know? How is retiring from betting horses different than retiring from anything else?

No not everyone is using the computer. I hope your not suggesting computers are the only way to make money playing the horses?

T.D.

[GameTheory]

No no, just a general statement. Take a deep breath.

[the little guy]

Whew, thanks, I mean I almost had cardiac arrest.

I can almost breath again.

I am just getting WAY too worked about over posts on the internet.

Thank god I had some valium close at hand.

[GameTheory]

Whew, thanks, I mean I almost had cardiac arrest.

I can almost breath again.

I am just getting WAY too worked about over posts on the internet.

Thank god I had some valium close at hand.You might try changing your handle to "the big guy". It'll change your whole outlook away from small, petty things to the big picture...

[schweitz]

Several of you seem to be suggesting that the idea of someone retiring from betting horses when they could still be making money at it is an idea so outrageous that it must be a lie. Now it could be lie, but not because it is an outrageous idea. If I have a winning method, I am required to use it every day of my life until my dying breath? Is that it? Uhh...maybe there are other things in life, you know? How is retiring from betting horses different than retiring from anything else?

I don't see why some are having a problem with this---I suspect they are much younger than I am. ;)

[the little guy]

And what small petty things are those? Snide internet comments that people seem to think they can get away with or posters who spout BS on the internet that they think they should be able to get away with.

It's all little shit, isn't it, as none of it REALLY matters.

[GameTheory]

And what small petty things are those? Snide internet comments that people seem to think they can get away with or posters who spout BS on the internet that they think they should be able to get away with.

It's all little shit, isn't it, as none of it REALLY matters.I thought we were having a playful banter? Are you really angry now? You really do need some valium, and you are going to die before your time if you are going to make it your personal crusade to stop people who post things on the internet from "getting away with" the crimes you see everywhere. Someone suggesting they have retired from using a winning method? They must be punished! Someone suggesting they win in the first place? They must be punished!

As far as snide comments, you really should be the last person to be lecturing anyone about that...

[Tom]

This is really hilarious!
This thread, talking about another thread has 39 post so far today, while the original thread has only 13 so far!
3-1, we are talking about the thread and not the ideas!
This one could overtake the orignal by the weekend!:jump:

[the little guy]

I don't understand how people read posts on the internet and actually think someone is " really angry ". I hardly get actually worked up about any exchanges that go on here, I may enjoy them or find them occasionally interesting, but I hardly get worked up over them. Do other people? I doubt it. That's why when people say, and I assumed you were just teasing me when YOU said it, " relax " or " take a deep breath " I find it so condescending. It's absurd.

As for calling people out...why is it not the right of anyone who posts on the internet to question people's claims? If someone makes one, they should be able to back them up in some respect, if not why make them. It's all just part of keeping it interesting anyway. If there was no back and forth why would we bother?

[anglemaster]

4. Desert Boom: Ran back to back 108s, culminating in a win in the Claiming Crown, which was likely the goal all along. He then ran a complete dud with no visible excuse. I'm betting he's over the top and needs some time off, out he goes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CJ I got to your post on the Gold Cup. I read your horse by horse selection. I am sort of laughing as your Desert Boom comment is a negative angle called "BE"(very strong negative angle) and I would likely have thrown the horse out.

You also mentioned that you felt that 105-110 would be a numbers necessary to be a contender in this race. In "angles" of course a horse must have the basic class of todays race to even be considerred.

Obviously you have done a lot of work (research) to arrive at your numbers and what they can do. Research I think you will agree means going back over race after race after race to find some common threads. How you reach your decision is based on what your numbers say. You quantify your bet by what number your database arrives at.

Believe me there are a lot ofsimiliarties to what you do and "Angles".

I will respond to your other questions a little later on.

[ryesteve]

the thing that surprises me about Boxcars thread is that there has been so little feedback from database users.
Maybe because the angle people will respond that you can't look at angle performance in a vaccuum... that it's all a matter a context. But since you're asking, here you go:

from mid-October to present...
Angle UFI: 7715 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle B: 5959 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle A: 715 qualifiers, ROI: -27%
Angle BB3: 3082 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle ES: 3537 qualifiers, ROI: -24%

[GameTheory]

I don't understand how people read posts on the internet and actually think someone is " really angry ". I hardly get actually worked up about any exchanges that go on here, I may enjoy them or find them occasionally interesting, but I hardly get worked up over them. Do other people? I doubt it. That's why when people say, and I assumed you were just teasing me when YOU said it, " relax " or " take a deep breath " I find it so condescending. It's absurd.Yes, I was teasing. I thought you got angry about the "big guy" thing.

As for calling people out...why is it not the right of anyone who posts on the internet to question people's claims? If someone makes one, they should be able to back them up in some respect, if not why make them. It's all just part of keeping it interesting anyway. If there was no back and forth why would we bother?I like to talk about ideas, not pointless back and forth about what someone "really" does or about their general character that does not relate to the ideas at hand.

Example:

PosterDave: Hello, I'm Dave, and I think a good way to uncover longshots is to look at factor X as it relates to factor Y. I've done quite well looking at these two factors.

PettyLou: Oh yeah? PROVE you've done quite well!

SmallmindedSteve: I know a guy who's met this clown, and his name ISN'T really Dave! Back to yahoo board with you, jerk!

DisbelievingDoug: Anybody who thinks ANYTHING useful can be discovered by using the ridiculously inaccurate factors X & Y is living in a dream-world!

MissouriMike: Show me some picks! If you can post a large sample of winning selections posted BEFORE the races, thank you, then maybe I'll be willing to consider talking about factor X & Y. Until then, you're just another huckster!

Etc etc.

Can't we just talk about factors X & Y without all the nonsense and pointless character attacks? They are not relevant to whether an idea has merit or not. A total idiot and liar could post something brilliant and a genius will often post utter hogwash. The only way to find out is by analyzing the idea itself and not examining the credentials of the poster or anything else.

[chickenhead]

Maybe because the angle people will respond that you can't look at angle performance in a vaccuum... that it's all a matter a context.

Don't you have control of context as well? I think Boxcar has explained (from what I've read) it as looking for "angle-rich" horses relative to the rest of the field, then filtering by some basic speed figure competetiveness, then filter by odds (looking only at "longshots"). I was just wondering if anyone had attempted to do this sort of construct, using all of his positive and negative angles. Too much work?

[anglemaster]

I posted or I should say I retyped something that Boxcar had sent to me many many years ago. You seem to be a pretty intelligent man and I have a feeling it might satisfy some of your thoughts.
Those postings are #357,#359,#360 in "longshots are the ticket"

Secondly, Boxcar has a table of percentages of certain angles (I have never seen it).


Thirdly most horses will have angles, after reading the posts that I put above this might clarify it ,in regards to who one picks. It really is about how each angle relates with each other angle.

[twindouble]

I'm just unloading a little flustration about the term, "Angles". Sense when did trainer intent, movements in class, shifts in weights, form cycles and other basic factors in handicapping become ANGLES?:bang:


T.D.

[anglemaster]

I think the sterotypical thoughts of what "angles" are certainly does not represent what angles are as shown on the longshot thread.

I had mentioned that "pattern recognition" or something like that might "open" people's minds. I do understand why people are negative on angles.

I had read Boxcar mentioning that this was not rocket science. I must admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I found my studying to be very difficult.

[the little guy]

Nah, I stopped crying about being little in about the third grade.

I actually chose " the little guy " because I came here when somebody was knocking me about the Siro's Seminars ( I believe the thread was called " Little Andy is a Clown " or something like that ) and Harvey refers to me, at the seminars, as " the little guy ".

[anglemaster]

I am going to give a very quick run down on the third at GP today. As not to reboard I am going to post very quick comments so that it will be done before the race.

A lot of these horse came out a troubled race last time out.

1-recent form not much
2-even though this is NW3 this horse is still moving up off not much
3-# 's do not seem to match up here. I do not see any improvement
4 Big drop, I see some negative angles. Could win, I will not bet
5- Has the BA angle, along with the recent sprint. Claimed back to back I will be including this horse.

6- Here is a rat of rats, but does have the "B" uffi angle I will include it inmy exactor bets.
7 Wake up possibitly, I am not betting
8 An "A" angle horse with decent numbers. Last was not that bad.

Depending on price I will be betting 5-8 and will be throwing in the 6.

[ryesteve]

Don't you have control of context as well? I think Boxcar has explained (from what I've read) it as looking for "angle-rich" horses relative to the rest of the field, then filtering by some basic speed figure competetiveness, then filter by odds (looking only at "longshots"). I was just wondering if anyone had attempted to do this sort of construct, using all of his positive and negative angles. Too much work?
If I'm looking at a bunch of factors that, when taken individually, all perform at about the same level as the takeout, the conclusion I would draw is that they don't have any predictive value. Looking to measure the effect of these seemingly random factors layered on top of each other, or in conjunction with other handicapping factors, doesn't seem like it'd be a constructive use of my time.

[GameTheory]

If I'm looking at a bunch of factors that, when taken individually, all perform at about the same level as the takeout, the conclusion I would draw is that they don't have any predictive value. Looking to measure the effect of these seemingly random factors layered on top of each other, or in conjunction with other handicapping factors, doesn't seem like it'd be a constructive use of my time.Looking only at the return rate will tell you little about predictive value, only about isolated actual value. Some factors will pick 30% winners and return -18%, and other factors will pick 12% winners and also return -18%, and yet the first factor is much more predictive (of winners) than the second...

[twindouble]

I am going to give a very quick run down on the third at GP today. As not to reboard I am going to post very quick comments so that it will be done before the race.

A lot of these horse came out a troubled race last time out.

1-recent form not much
2-even though this is NW3 this horse is still moving up off not much
3-# 's do not seem to match up here. I do not see any improvement
4 Big drop, I see some negative angles. Could win, I will not bet
5- Has the BA angle, along with the recent sprint. Claimed back to back I will be including this horse.

6- Here is a rat of rats, but does have the "B" uffi angle I will include it inmy exactor bets.
7 Wake up possibitly, I am not betting
8 An "A" angle horse with decent numbers. Last was not that bad.

Depending on price I will be betting 5-8 and will be throwing in the 6.

What's distance of the race? Who's going to set the pace? Is there any lone speed in the race that can control the pace? Is there anything in there that can press the pace? Can you predict the pace is likley to collapse? If so who would beifit from a fast pace? In other words, who's going to where in the race and why? Not withstanding others that may not belong in the race.

T.D.

[ryesteve]

Looking only at the return rate will tell you little about predictive value, only about isolated actual value. Some factors will pick 30% winners and return -18%, and other factors will pick 12% winners and also return -18%, and yet the first factor is much more predictive (of winners) than the second...
By "predictive", I meant predictive of profitability.

[Tom]

Looking only at the return rate will tell you little about predictive value, only about isolated actual value. Some factors will pick 30% winners and return -18%, and other factors will pick 12% winners and also return -18%, and yet the first factor is much more predictive (of winners) than the second...

Jeff posted a while ago about a method he uses to assign impact values based on not only win% but roi factored in. I found it interesting and have started to look at some factors with this idea.

[schweitz]

Maybe because the angle people will respond that you can't look at angle performance in a vaccuum... that it's all a matter a context. But since you're asking, here you go:

from mid-October to present...
Angle UFI: 7715 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle B: 5959 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle A: 715 qualifiers, ROI: -27%
Angle BB3: 3082 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle ES: 3537 qualifiers, ROI: -24%


Do you have any factors when run through your database by themselves that show a positive ROI?

[anglemaster]

Maybe because the angle people will respond that you can't look at angle performance in a vaccuum... that it's all a matter a context. But since you're asking, here you go:

from mid-October to present...
Angle UFI: 7715 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle B: 5959 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle A: 715 qualifiers, ROI: -27%
Angle BB3: 3082 qualifiers, ROI: -18%
Angle ES: 3537 qualifiers, ROI: -24%

You can tell that I am data base challenged :))) Would it be possible to see what the return would be if a horse has:

B/ES/ufi. ??? thanks

[ryesteve]

Do you have any factors when run through your database by themselves that show a positive ROI?

No, but there are plenty that can beat the takeout

[twindouble]

No, but there are plenty that can beat the takeout


How do you beat the takeout other than getting rebates for every dollar wagered? :confused:



T.D.

[ryesteve]

How do you beat the takeout other than getting rebates for every dollar wagered? :confused:

Ok, let me rephrase: they achieve an ROI that is less negative than what would be expected via random betting.

[ryesteve]

Would it be possible to see what the return would be if a horse has:

B/ES/ufi. ??? thanks
I only found 12 that had all 3, and none won

[Niko]

ryesteve; Thanks for the work, really appreciated!!! About what I realistically expected. Also gives you an idea of how many horses the angles apply to.

I also doubt there's a group of angles among these that you could combine to turn a positive ROI unless a couple beat the average take (but I'll still look for 2 of them Boxcar alluded to)

Twin: I don't think he means beat the takeout as in a positive ROI but instead losing less than the average take after breakage for each type of bet.

But then again I still don't totally discount the handicapping approach of using angles (I use it so it must be good :) ) I think if you ran queeries on horses that had 3 or more of the angles, have a 2 point angle advantage etc (# of angles) that it would differ too much. But a key group of 2-3 angles might? It may just come down to handicapping prowress and knowing when to bet on overlays that show poor form in their last race and have other factors going for it. Am I making any sense, I'm out of it today...

[Niko]

Forgot to mention...as far as running angles or methods through a database. CJ gave a 4 rule method using his numbers that many meets showed a flat bet profit and I believe overall beat the track take by about 1/2 overall.....CJ or Formulator probably has the data off hand.

Doesn't prove anything by itself but it's a damn good place to start...

I know there was a study on speed numbers and by (can't remember the name right now-dead brain) where taking the highest speed rating of last race going off at 6-1 showed a flat bet profit. Again some validity to their statements.

Doesn't mean angles don't work...the key is which ones do you concentrate on that are really responsible for the results

[ryesteve]

ryesteve; Thanks for the work, really appreciated!!!
I won't take credit for it... the real work was done by Jeff, putting them into the latest version of JCapper. All I did was push some buttons.

[anglemaster]

thanks Ryesteve.

[DrugSalvastore]

Wow...this is a lot of fun I missed out on. Like 600 posts between the two threads.

I was going to chime in and give my $.02 However, it took so long reading through all these posts, that by the time I got finished, I didn't have enough time to reply. FWIW, I had a date with my Star Wars bong and Margaret Hamilton that I couldn't miss...priorities people.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what Keilan said. Still, a lot of interesting dialogue in this thread.

Oh yea, regarding my date, it wasn't exactly 'the real' Margaret...I kind of had to blow into a tube like thingy to bring her to life. We had a great time.

[Jeff P]

Over the past couple of weeks, time permitting, I've studied and coded out (to the best that I can understand them) a handful of the angles presented by Boxcar. I've done A, B, BB3, BW2, ES, HC, and UFI when it appears in tandem with A, B, BB3, or BW2.

On my own message board I've posted what I have found after running the above angles through my 2005 database (20+ tracks approx 25k races and 200k horses) here's the link:

http://www.jcapper.ajthau.com/index.php?showtopic=460

-jp

.

[Indulto]

JP,
Thank you for sharing. I went to your link and I am very much in awe of this data base/query capability you’ve developed. It’s such a far cry from the tools available to me in the early ‘60s when my classmates and I would submit trays of punched cards containing questionably-coded PP data subsets for analysis by rudimentary FORTRAN II programs.

I was even more impressed by the seriousness and fairness with which you’ve treated Box’s material. Regardless of the results your interpretations produced, you’ve made it worthwhile for those of us who thought we spotted a glimmer of truth there and waded through the verbosity and negative tirades on all sides of the issues to find that truth such as it is.


PA,
Your instincts were excellent here. Nice going. After visiting JP’s site, it is now clearer to me than ever how valuable this forum is in its ability to collect and present so many diverse viewpoints and approaches.

[anglemaster]

Jeff I am amazed at your data base work. All I can say is cool.

The only problem with your study is that you are using the angles as standalone. If you read Boxcar's "longshot" thread he posts many times that no angle is standalone.
I personally would never bet an "A" angle or a "B" angle if that is all that the horse had.
I did ask RyeSteve about the b/es/ufi combo, I would likely bet this kind of horse (of course depending on competition)
I personally bet three angles no matter what: The VC(claim angle) FO (betting angle) and the BB3.
I think the misunderstanding is in regards to one angle. I know CJ querried about how one differenciates between all of the horses in a race because likely all of them would have some kind of angle(s) in their PP. The answer is simply, it is how all of the pony's angles interact with each other.

I can see all of the work that Jeff did, but I liken it to doing a study of a Cake ingredients.
One does a study of people and their likes for said ingredients of a chocalate cake:
10 per cent like salt
12 percent like flour
5 percent like eggs
60 percent like chocolate.
Alone the single ingredients are not that strong but put them together and 100 percent of the people like chocolate.

I understand that this might be a bad example but I am trying to make a point. Earllier yesterday I posted a message to CJ that had posts on the Longshot thread that are a must read. If you can not find it please post on this thread and I will repost the message.

[anglemaster]

Alone the single ingredients are not that strong but put them together and 100 percent of the people like chocolate.

Sorry that should read chocolate cake.

[anglemaster]

I posted or I should say I retyped something that Boxcar had sent to me many many years ago. You seem to be a pretty intelligent man and I have a feeling it might satisfy some of your thoughts.
Those postings are #357,#359,#360 in "longshots are the ticket"

Secondly, Boxcar has a table of percentages of certain angles (I have never seen it).


Thirdly most horses will have angles, after reading the posts that I put above this might clarify it ,in regards to who one picks. It really is about how each angle relates with each other angle.

Hope this helps

[rmania]

....
I think the misunderstanding is in regards to one angle. I know CJ querried about how one differenciates between all of the horses in a race because likely all of them would have some kind of angle(s) in their PP. The answer is simply, it is how all of the pony's angles interact with each other.

I can see all of the work that Jeff did, but I liken it to doing a study of a Cake ingredients.
One does a study of people and their likes for said ingredients of a chocalate cake:
10 per cent like salt
12 percent like flour
5 percent like eggs
60 percent like chocolate.
Alone the single ingredients are not that strong but put them together and 100 percent of the people like chocolate cake.
I think what CJ is trying to express is that those who have been following the "longshot" thread have been provided with a very extensive list of ingredients but NO RECIPE. :bang:

[anglemaster]

CJ and I were like two guys arm wrestling, we just could not get the right grip, but when we did , I posted where the book of receipes are. (at least the theory).

I find this is going on and on , at first I thought maybe the group was not understanding and therefore were very skeptical,( it is human nature). But now as we have gone on , I think that either

A: I am not communicating well and conveying the facts as they are ( this could be)


b: people just are not reading the facts as they are posted or understanding what is posted.

In either case this is getting to be time consuming.

[rmania]

CJ and I were like two guys arm wrestling, we just could not get the right grip, but when we did , I posted where the book of receipes are. (at least the theory).

I find this is going on and on , at first I thought maybe the group was not understanding and therefore were very skeptical,( it is human nature). But now as we have gone on , I think that either

A: I am not communicating well and conveying the facts as they are ( this could be)


b: people just are not reading the facts as they are posted or understanding what is posted.

In either case this is getting to be time consuming.
I vote for A

[anglemaster]

I agree.

[chickenhead]

Jeff and Rye, thanks for sharing your results.

[Buzz]

Anglemaster,



I originally voted for A. Then I went and reread the posts you suggested and now I vote overwhelmingly for B.



You are communicating very well and your analogy illustrates the point very clearly.



To understand the viability of the angles the handicapper needs to also understand their context. It is a simple thought. However using it as a fact rather than a theory can be challenging.



Buzz

[GameTheory]

I can see all of the work that Jeff did, but I liken it to doing a study of a Cake ingredients.
One does a study of people and their likes for said ingredients of a chocalate cake:
10 per cent like salt
12 percent like flour
5 percent like eggs
60 percent like chocolate.
Alone the single ingredients are not that strong but put them together and 100 percent of the people like chocolate.

I understand that this might be a bad example but I am trying to make a point. Brilliant example, actually. I think most have a very hard time believing each "ingredient" of a handicapping stew shouldn't have some merit in isolation. But no one should have trouble relating to the cake example.

These types of angles aren't that much different in practice from other factors like speed, except that a given angle is only likely to apply to one or two horses in a race. But that isn't really different from analyzing a horse's pace ratings and determining, "He's got no early speed" or "He's a frontrunner". "Being a frontrunner" is essentially an angle -- a trait -- derived from analyzing several different numbers. And just as Angle X might only apply to one horse, there may be only one frontrunner in the race. Is a frontrunner an automatic bet? No way, depends on the context...

[twindouble]

Brilliant example, actually. I think most have a very hard time believing each "ingredient" of a handicapping stew shouldn't have some merit in isolation. But no one should have trouble relating to the cake example.

These types of angles aren't that much different in practice from other factors like speed, except that a given angle is only likely to apply to one or two horses in a race. But that isn't really different from analyzing a horse's pace ratings and determining, "He's got no early speed" or "He's a frontrunner". "Being a frontrunner" is essentially an angle -- a trait -- derived from analyzing several different numbers. And just as Angle X might only apply to one horse, there may be only one frontrunner in the race. Is a frontrunner an automatic bet? No way, depends on the context...

Who's going to set the pace, that's the question I ask myself, don't matter to me who's got all the 1's in his PP's, that just means the horse got the lead in other fields, not necessary true today.


T.D.

[GameTheory]

Who's going to set the pace, that's the question I ask myself, don't matter to me who's got all the 1's in his PP's, that just means the horse got the lead in other fields, not necessary true today.You missed the point.

[twindouble]

You missed the point.


No I didn't. Just threw something in off the top of my head while I'm cutting a dood to fit here. Sorry about that. :cool:

[rrbauer]

Jeff-

Good work on evaluating the angles. How much trouble to do some subsets....the typical ones....by track....by sprint/route....by dirt/turf. I have no hunches here, but you have the data and have the "rules" setup. Stratifying the data shouldn't be too big a deal.

[Fastracehorse]

the thing that surprises me about Boxcars thread is that there has been so little feedback from database users. I know some of the guys said they were going to check them out, and I know a lot of the dbasers favor angle type plays. I expected to see someone post some results by now.

Boxie is a complicated man :)

Could be that it would be alot of work to run Boxie's ideas.

fffastt