Modern Pace Handicapping-Any Good?

[gregrph]

Hi Folks, I just received "Modern Pace Handicapping" Revised and Updated Edition by Tom Brohamer. I was excited to start reading this book but almost from the start, I've been put off. My intent was to read through the book first to get the basic gist of the material, THEN read through it again, slower, with calculator in hand to work the numbers, etc. Some problems that I've noticed throughout the first read:
First, the illustrations (ex. pg 11) and charts are hard to read. The type is too small and the ink seems to be applied too heavily.

Second, Mr. Brohamer will be explaining a topic, but then throw something else into the discussion say that he will discuss it later, sometimes many chapters later! This seems backwards to me. Don't start using a concept until it has been explained first. (pg 11, last paragraph).

Third, he uses abbreviations without explanations. (pg 12, bottom list of variables he mentions BL = beaten lengths but doesn't mention what "hd", "nk", "_" ((a typo?)) mean)

Fourth, Either his math is all wrong OR his editor does not know mathematical order of operations. Again, pg 13, first example middle of the page: he has 1320-(7*10)/22.6=55.30 fps . My calculation is 1316.90! The CORRECT way to evaluate that expression is: do the operation in parenthesis first: (7*10) = 70, then divide by 22.6=70/22.6=3.097 then subtract that from 1320: 1320-3.097=1316.903

Then, in his note he states that 22.1 and 22.3 must be converted to 22.2 and 22.6. The second sentance does not make sense: "Calculators work in tenths, not fiths of a second." Of course they work in tenths! That's what the decimal pont means: 22.1 means 22 + 1/10, 22.3 means 22 + 3/10, 22.2 means 22 + 2/10, etc. Nowhere does he show fiths of a second in the example.

Fifth- At the very top of the page, underneath the headline he has "First Fraction (1Fr) 1320 feet (also first call)" - Is the first fraction equal to 1320 feet? It doesn't seem right since I thought that the fractions were measurements of elapsed time and not distance but the example calculation a little further down the page gives an answer in fps which is velocity! So, does the 1Fr refer to the distance, the time or the veolcity?

Last for now- the table on page 21 does not have units of meaurement for the values, Is the 1Fr for horse A 54.89 seconds, feet per second, etc?

I REALLY want to study this materialand learn from it, however confusing writing incorrect math and lack of proper labels are making it much harder than need be, and this is only the first chapter that I'm trying to work on!

Thanks for any input anyone may have on this!!!
Sincerely,
Greg

[Overlay]

To address a few of your points:

"hd" = head, "nk" = neck (These are standard past-performance chart abbreviations for units of separation between horses that are too small to be described in terms of lengths.) (The "-" you refer to would mean that the horse was in front, and was thus not trailing the leader by any margin.)

In the example you gave, 1320 - (7*10)/22.6 was meant to be interpreted as (1320 - 70)/22.6, or 1250/22.6, yielding the 55.30 that you cite. Yes, the order of operations technically yields the answer you gave the way the equation was actually written, without brackets around the numerator. However, as long as the answer was given, I would think it would be possible to deduce what the expression was meant to convey, notwithstanding the error you cite.

In past performances, race times are normally presented in terms of fifths of seconds. (Thus you would not see a number after the decimal point that is higher than 4, since (for example) 22.4 would equal 22 and 4/5ths.) This requires conversion of the times to tenths of seconds in order to manipulate them on a calculator.

By "First Fraction 1320 feet" is meant that the first fractional time for the race represents the time it took to run the first quarter-mile. The 54.89 is the feet per second the horse covered that fraction in, obtained by dividing 1320 by the time (in whole seconds and fractional fifths of a second) that it took the horse to run the quarter-mile distance.

The Daily Racing Form features an excellent tutorial on its website (http://www.drf.com/flash/drf_pp_tutorial.html) on the reading and interpretation of past performances. Check it out for more information.

[Dick Schmidt]

Greg, First point: this is the best book on handicapping ever written. Second point: Tom is a better handicapper than a writer, and Wm. Morrow his publisher seems to know nothing about racing, though they publish lots of racing titles. A lot of the mistakes are from the ignorance of the editors. I know Tom spent a lot of time moaning about the first edition and how some of it was butchered. I'll try to answer some of your questions, though I don't have the book in front of me.



Hi Folks, I just received "Modern Pace Handicapping" Revised and Updated Edition by Tom Brohamer. I was excited to start reading this book but almost from the start, I've been put off. My intent was to read through the book first to get the basic gist of the material, THEN read through it again, slower, with calculator in hand to work the numbers, etc. Some problems that I've noticed throughout the first read:
First, the illustrations (ex. pg 11) and charts are hard to read. The type is too small and the ink seems to be applied too heavily.

Second, Mr. Brohamer will be explaining a topic, but then throw something else into the discussion say that he will discuss it later, sometimes many chapters later! This seems backwards to me. Don't start using a concept until it has been explained first. (pg 11, last paragraph).

It is always hard to put everything you need up front and still have a readable book. The truth is you need it all and it can't all be up front in the book. When you are editing a book, you want to explain everything at once, and you just can't do that. If he stopped and explained every item the book would be unreadable.


Third, he uses abbreviations without explanations. (pg 12, bottom list of variables he mentions BL = beaten lengths but doesn't mention what "hd", "nk", "_" ((a typo?)) mean)

This is not a book for beginners and Tom assumes that you are familiar with standard Racing Form notations. HD - head, nk= neck. A head is roughly a tenth of a length and a neck about a quarter of a length.


Fourth, Either his math is all wrong OR his editor does not know mathematical order of operations. Again, pg 13, first example middle of the page: he has 1320-(7*10)/22.6=55.30 fps . My calculation is 1316.90! The CORRECT way to evaluate that expression is: do the operation in parenthesis first: (7*10) = 70, then divide by 22.6=70/22.6=3.097 then subtract that from 1320: 1320-3.097=1316.903

Nothing more dangerous than someone who insists on doing things the "correct" way, not the sensible way. What he is doing is taking the distance for two furlongs (1320 feet) minus the 7 beaten lengths (70 feet) and dividing by the time of the race segment (22.3/5ths, or 22.6 tenths). Tom's numbers are correct, and if you can't figure them out and insist on being "mathematically correct" then you have little hope of figuring out pace handicapping. Normally Tom would use a computer program and just enter the time and number of beaten lengths. The computer would do the rest, in the correct order. You need to get a grasp on the basics here, your number makes no sense, so obviously you are doing things wrong. Tom's mathematical notation may be off, but his handicapping is solid.


Then, in his note he states that 22.1 and 22.3 must be converted to 22.2 and 22.6. The second sentance does not make sense: "Calculators work in tenths, not fiths of a second." Of course they work in tenths! That's what the decimal pont means: 22.1 means 22 + 1/10, 22.3 means 22 + 3/10, 22.2 means 22 + 2/10, etc. Nowhere does he show fiths of a second in the example.

Here he is being kind to the newbies. The Racing Form traditionally has printed all times in fifths of a second. Thus 22.1 is 22 and 1/5th. To use a calculator, you must convert to tenths. Again, extremely basic stuff and if you get lost here, you aren't ready for a professional level book.


Fifth- At the very top of the page, underneath the headline he has "First Fraction (1Fr) 1320 feet (also first call)" - Is the first fraction equal to 1320 feet? It doesn't seem right since I thought that the fractions were measurements of elapsed time and not distance but the example calculation a little further down the page gives an answer in fps which is velocity! So, does the 1Fr refer to the distance, the time or the veolcity?


Again, you aren't used to racing terminology. The Racing Form measures each race in three spots. In sprints that is at two furlongs, four furlongs and the finish. They also give beaten lengths at the top of the stretch, but no times. First fraction refers to the time of the first segment of the race, which is always 1320 feet in a sprint. You then convert to a FPS number to analyze the race. Everything Tom does is in feet per second.

Last for now- the table on page 21 does not have units of meaurement for the values, Is the 1Fr for horse A 54.89 seconds, feet per second, etc?

You really need to familiarize yourself with the basics of racing. No horse ever runs the first fraction in 54 seconds. It is, like most of the other measurements in the book expressed in FPS.

I REALLY want to study this materialand learn from it, however confusing writing incorrect math and lack of proper labels are making it much harder than need be, and this is only the first chapter that I'm trying to work on!

Thanks for any input anyone may have on this!!!
Sincerely,
Greg

Greg, I don't mean to be hard on you, but you just aren't ready for this book. It is in my opinion the finest book available on pace handicapping, but it is not written for the beginner. Tom is a professional player and assumes a certain level of basic knowledge on the part of his readers. I helped Tom edit the first edition of this book, and I can assure you that what you perceive as errors are for the most part lack of basic racing knowledge on your part. The Racing Form has a booklet on how to read the Form that I recommend you start with. Then some more basic books that introduce you to the standards that experienced handicappers take for granted.

Good luck and hang in there. You are on the right track, just need to master the basics of language and racing to be able to use this book.

Dick

[JustRalph]

I just happen to be re-reading this book this week. I find it a little tough to follow too. But, it is well worth it. I can't stand the minutiae, but it is very important. The FPS stuff got me at first too. Just because I didn't care for it. But once you get it figured out a little (It is really not that hard) it makes sense.

This book is calling out for someone to make a DVD of the same material. Get on that Dick!

[DanG]

Greg,

Ken Massa is the man who implemented Tom’s book in the original MPH program. Ken has since greatly expounded upon these concepts and greatly improved the calculations.

I highly recommend you take a look at HTR’s web site and the many informative newsletters Ken has written.

http://www.homebased2.com/km/netscapez9987.htm

Best of luck

[OTM Al]

Its a very good book, but it really could have used some editing. I too noticed things that didn't add up right and there were references to PPs that simply were not there. There are some very good things in there but it was a tough and often distracting read the first time through

[bigmack]

Sounds like you have the wherewithall to arthimatically grasp the numbers but DSchmidt is right - You need to bone up on some of the common vernacular of the game as in the standard DRF stats et al. to begin with before embarking on a read of this caliber.

As DanG points out, there are a couple of good programs on the market that may help you save alot of time in compiling data if you intend to play the game seriously.

All the best..

[The Judge]

When I first studied feet per second it didn't make any sense to my senses and it still doesn't ,not that it didn't work, I understood what it was trying to do and that it something good and innovative. The problem was I couldn't think in fps. I couldn't see it, I needed something else.

Comes now "Pace Makes The Race" by Tom Hambleton,Dick Schmidt,Michael Pizzolla and Howard Sartin now fps became a number 88 or a 95 I knew what those numbers meant. For the first time I could see what Tom Brohamer and others were seeing all along and it was like a vail being lifted. What they were seeing were hugh gaps that I couldn't see in fps. I started to win more often and win more money.

I still wouldn't quit fps until I understood it even though I was less then effective using it. I would just run it thru the New Phase One program and look at fps see that it was an 88

Not everyone can see in fps I know I couldn't. If you want to study pace handicapping you need "Modern Pace Handicapping" as a foundation no matter how unsmooth a read. You should have been there for the "Old" Phase 1 of the Sartin Methodology now there was as impossible read and the computer program that went with it made it no better. Yet people got through it.

That's what you are going to have to do, get though it.

[Tom]

Dick worite: You really need to familiarize yourself with the basics of racing. No horse ever runs the first fraction in 54 seconds

You don't play Finger Lakes I guess! :D

* * * * *

Gregg:

1320-(7*10)/22.6=55.30 fps

Should read (1320-(7*10)/22.6, but again, it's not the math that he is teaching; it is the concepts.

This is a very good book and it has a lot to offer - those side tracks you complain about often are keys to winning - pay attention.

Ralph, great minds think alike - I'm re-reading it , too. Great way to kill a couple hours at the lake on a sunny day.

Judge - PAce Makes the Race is next on my re-read list. BOTH books are well worht whatever trouble there is reading them.

[Dick Schmidt]

Tom wrote:

"PAce Makes the Race is next on my re-read list. BOTH books are well worht whatever trouble there is reading them."

Excuse me, but there is absolutely no problem reading PMTR. It is very well written and supremely well edited!!!!!!!!!!! Remember that whenever you write about it!

Dick

Here I am! What are your other two wishes?

[oddswizard]

Several people worked with Brohamer when the formula was invented. The key person was Ernie Logsdon. When Tom needed a computer expert Ernie recommended his friend Ken Massa
and the rest is history. Ernie & Ken were partners in HTR for several years. When you attend an HTR seminar Ernie is the guy who checks you in to the seminar. Ernie & Ken have remained friends over the years & both of them are great guys. James Quinn tells me that Tom Brohamer was the best handicapper in the business. He is now retired and is a great golfer.

[Tom]

Of course I meant the other guy's book!;)

[bigmack]

Nice post Judge.

[Vegas711]

The book is a good start, your success will depend on your skill level and how hard you work on developing your abilities to use pace handicapping to show you good bets to make.You will need many races to work on and latter the results. The game will never conform to you, it is up to you to conform to the game if you want to be good at it. Everyday when I go to the track I see people playing the game the same as they played it 10 years ago, they did not win then and they continue to lose today, they really believe that if they remain stubborn long enough that the Game will change to meet their way of playing.

Practice till your results meet the results of the races.

[Houndog]

I always thought MPH to be the best book on velocity handicapping out there. If familiar with the basic terminology this book offers the clearest explanation on how to make and interpret FPS ratings and figures.

This is not a knock on the yellow manual that Doc Sartin sent with the PhaseIII programs, but to me MPH by Brohamer was the yellow manual translated into a much more readable format. I am not familiar with the order of operations in mathematics, but I had no trouble with the examples that were given in the book. I would say most handicappers did not have problems with his examples.

Assuming you can get over some of these technicalities and go along with the intention of the book you will be better off. It is not an easy read and needs to be read several times to get the full value of the book.

[blind squirrel]

Several people worked with Brohamer when the formula was invented. The key person was Ernie Logsdon. When Tom needed a computer expert Ernie recommended his friend Ken Massa
and the rest is history. Ernie & Ken were partners in HTR for several years. When you attend an HTR seminar Ernie is the guy who checks you in to the seminar. Ernie & Ken have remained friends over the years & both of them are great guys. James Quinn tells me that Tom Brohamer was the best handicapper in the business. He is now retired and is a great golfer.

when i first read MPH and got the software i had several conversations
on the phone with ERNIE.he was always very helpful and i found out he was
a native of KENTUCKY.

[robert99]

In England, races are timed from when the starting stalls open.
In MPH, I could not tell from reading it whether the first fractions given were adjusted for when the race timing is started (a variable distance down the track) or from the starting gate.
Seemed to be an issue if you ever used time form from one track to another.
Likely, I have missed the point somewhere.

[Tom]

In England, races are timed from when the starting stalls open.
In MPH, I could not tell from reading it whether the first fractions given were adjusted for when the race timing is started (a variable distance down the track) or from the starting gate.
Seemed to be an issue if you ever used time form from one track to another.
Likely, I have missed the point somewhere.

Robert, he has a chapter in there dealing with making track to track and dialy variants using the form SR+TV. Somewhat outdated, but still workable today, although there are much better methods out there. HTR, which is the evolution of MPH adjusts running lines.

I wonder if there aren't private clockers in Europe gettting fractional time for themselves?

[Hosshead]

In England, races are timed from when the starting stalls open.
In MPH, I could not tell from reading it whether the first fractions given were adjusted for when the race timing is started (a variable distance down the track) or from the starting gate.
Seemed to be an issue if you ever used time form from one track to another.
Likely, I have missed the point somewhere.
In the U.S. the timing is started at the first pole, which is the "start" of the distance of the race.
The starting gate is placed at various distances from the "start" of the race, depending on track configuration.
If the clock were to start when the gates opened, there would be a big difference in the times.
Sometimes, as in turf racing, the gate can be placed at different distances from the "start", (even though their racing the same distance) depending on where the rails are placed that day.

[NEhandicapper]

Since I have a very solid background in math and physics, I may have been one of the few that totally understood all the math and velocity ratings the first time around. But when I first read the book, I was a beginning horseplayer and did grasp the whole system at first. It was not the books fault but my own. I did not have enough experience reading the past performances or understand all the subtleties of the game that is necessary to fully appreciate the books content.

As the book warns, MPH is for horseplayers who already have experience and a firm grasp about horses and the tracks they run on. I got the most out of MPH after a few years of horseplaying under my belt. Even today after many years of playing, I like to go back and read through the book to brush up on all the little nuances that make using the methodologies successful. Each time I read the book, I discover subjects that I misunderstood like turn time performance.

I’ve discovered that the best way to approach the methods in MPH is using HTR. Along with great velocity figures, the oddslines and other proprietary information provide great tools for handicapping.

[DanG]

I’ve discovered that the best way to approach the methods in MPH is using HTR. Along with great velocity figures, the oddslines and other proprietary information provide great tools for handicapping.

__________________________________________________

Well put, I second this recommendation completely. :ThmbUp:

[sealord]

After years of dog-earing the local library copy, I treated myself to a fresh copy of MPH for Father's Day. I love this book, and after reading (and re-reading) Brohmar's classic years ago, the light went on and I've done better at the track ever since.

[gregrph]

Overlay, Thank you very much for the information. That linkto the Daily Racing Form tutorial was a great help. I'll be refering to it often! My past reads were one of Andy Beyer's Speed Handicapping books (don't remember the exact title) before the Beyer speed figures were printed in the Daily Racing Form. Then it was "Dr. Z's Beat The Racetrack" and I still re-read it at least once a year. I consider myself a "casual" player only getting to Saratoga once a year or so since I don't live up there any longer. I found this great forum (thanks PA!) and have lurked quite a bit. I've enjoyed reading the thoughts, views on racing and have wanted to increase my knowledge of modern handicapping methods. I'm readin through the book again (almost done this time) to grasp the concepts, then will go through it again with paper, pencil, calculator and computer.

Like any new material, I expect to do a lot of work to learn it but once I get the grasp, it should make a lot more sense and easier to use the more I use it.

Thank you again, and good luck!
Greg

[gregrph]

Greg, First point: this is the best book on handicapping ever written. Second point: Tom is a better handicapper than a writer, and Wm. Morrow his publisher seems to know nothing about racing, though they publish lots of racing titles.

I'm not much of a writer (and have never tried to undertake the difficult task to publish anything) but tried to express my thoughts as a reader (user). I really do appreciate Mr. Brohammer's sharing his knowledge that must have taken a lot of effort to compile and put into a readable format.




I
T
This is not a book for beginners and Tom assumes that you are familiar with standard Racing Form notations. HD - head, nk= neck. A head is roughly a tenth of a length and a neck about a quarter of a length.

I wouldn't expect a complete tutorial on reading the Racing Form, but a quick explanation of standard abbreviations would have been useful before/with the first use is very common. Even in professional publications that I use on a daily basis, I can always find the meaning of an unfamiliar abbreviation when it is first used or in a chart or table either at the beginning or end of the book/article.



Nothing more dangerous than someone who insists on doing things the "correct" way, not the sensible way. What he is doing is taking the distance for two furlongs (1320 feet) minus the 7 beaten lengths (70 feet) and dividing by the time of the race segment (22.3/5ths, or 22.6 tenths). Tom's numbers are correct, and if you can't figure them out and insist on being "mathematically correct" then you have little hope of figuring out pace handicapping. Normally Tom would use a computer program and just enter the time and number of beaten lengths. The computer would do the rest, in the correct order. You need to get a grasp on the basics here, your number makes no sense, so obviously you are doing things wrong. Tom's mathematical notation may be off, but his handicapping is solid.

I would think that a basic understanding of mathematical order of operations would be followed. This is something my third grade children were learning this year. In this case, parenthesis first, multiplcation/division then addition/subtraction. I think that is more "common sense" if the information is presented as an equation. If he presented the material in a more wordy way, then yes, the order of operations wouldn't necessarily need to be followed. It was confusing, even for someone who likes math!



Here he is being kind to the newbies. The Racing Form traditionally has printed all times in fifths of a second. Thus 22.1 is 22 and 1/5th. To use a calculator, you must convert to tenths. Again, extremely basic stuff and if you get lost here, you aren't ready for a professional level book.
I understand the Racing form using fifths of a second. They use super-scripts instead of deciaml points. THAT'S where the confusion comes in! How do you know when Mr. Brohamer is referring to 22.1 as 22 + 1/5 or 22 + 1/10? Again, mathematical standards stipulate that the digit to the right of a decimal point indicate tenths, the second digit to the right as hundreths, etc. I find nothing wrong with using fifths of a second for measurement, but the notation should be different. I just looked at drf.com and they use superscripts in the past performances. I've seen them use fractions in the results but now they seem to use superscripts.




Again, you aren't used to racing terminology. The Racing Form measures each race in three spots. In sprints that is at two furlongs, four furlongs and the finish. They also give beaten lengths at the top of the stretch, but no times. First fraction refers to the time of the first segment of the race, which is always 1320 feet in a sprint. You then convert to a FPS number to analyze the race. Everything Tom does is in feet per second.

True, I am not used to a lot of racing terminology, but wanting to learn! Some of the discussions have been over my head here on the forum but I've read them. Some ideas I've grasped, one or two I absolutley could not figure out even after seeing them a few times!




Greg, I don't mean to be hard on you, but you just aren't ready for this book. It is in my opinion the finest book available on pace handicapping, but it is not written for the beginner. Tom is a professional player and assumes a certain level of basic knowledge on the part of his readers. I helped Tom edit the first edition of this book, and I can assure you that what you perceive as errors are for the most part lack of basic racing knowledge on your part. The Racing Form has a booklet on how to read the Form that I recommend you start with. Then some more basic books that introduce you to the standards that experienced handicappers take for granted.

Good luck and hang in there. You are on the right track, just need to master the basics of language and racing to be able to use this book.

Dick

Dick, No offense taken and I REALLY appreciate your input! I find your knowledge here on the forum to be very thorough. You've always been right on with your posts and I've yet to read any derogatory comments to anyone wether they be a newbie like myself or someone who has been around awhile. I very much appreciate your input. THANK YOU!
Greg

[gregrph]

[QUOTE=DanG]Greg,

Ken Massa is the man who implemented Tom’s book in the original MPH program. Ken has since greatly expounded upon these concepts and greatly improved the calculations.

I highly recommend you take a look at HTR’s web site and the many informative newsletters Ken has written.

http://www.homebased2.com/km/netscapez9987.htm

Dan, What a treasure trove of information! I will DEFINATLY be reading through it all! May have to get a new ink cartridge to print it all out! Thanks!

[gregrph]

That's what you are going to have to do, get though it.[/QUOTE]
That's my intention, to get through it! The fps concept makes sense after my first read, now to put the finger to the calculator, the pencil to the paper and learn the calculations to make it all work! Yes, I will work through it and eventually understand it!
Greg

[gregrph]

In the U.S. the timing is started at the first pole, which is the "start" of the distance of the race.
The starting gate is placed at various distances from the "start" of the race, depending on track configuration.
.
This is something I did not know! I always thought that when the bell rang, the gate opend and the timer started! So, there is actually a short period of time when the horses ar running, the clock isn't running?
Greg

[gregrph]

__________________________________________________

Well put, I second this recommendation completely. :ThmbUp:

Nethandicapper, DanG- I find the $119 monthly fee very high. I may be wrong, but before I spend that kind of money, I want to have a good grasp of the concepts first so that I can reasonably expect to win enough to cover the fee. I would like: Winners + HTR fee - bet amounts > $0.00, otherwise I'd be losing money!

Are you and others who use the programs (not necessarily HTR exclusivlely) winning enough money to cover the fees and bets? How often do folks place bets? Do you play one track or multiple tracks?
GReg

[DanG]

Nethandicapper, DanG- I find the $119 monthly fee very high. I may be wrong, but before I spend that kind of money, I want to have a good grasp of the concepts first so that I can reasonably expect to win enough to cover the fee. I would like: Winners + HTR fee - bet amounts > $0.00, otherwise I'd be losing money!

Are you and others who use the programs (not necessarily HTR exclusivlely) winning enough money to cover the fees and bets? How often do folks place bets? Do you play one track or multiple tracks?
GReg
___________________________________________
‘GReg,

I understand your initial reluctant’s on the $119.00.
If you play 1 track on weekends it makes no sense unless you’re betting significantly.

However, for $119.00 you get EVERY track in North America. This works out to less than $4.00 a day.

For that $3.93 cents a day I have HDW go over the Equibase data with a fine tooth comb. Jim Cramer produces state of the art variants and superior track to track adjustments. Ken Massa then produces his velocity numbers and proprietary ratings.

As a full time player who derives all of their income through my wagering, this has been heaven sent for me. I can’t tell you how much time I have gained by having professionals do the nuts and bolts calculations. Not to mention the edge I’ve gained through Ken’s unique methods.

Either way, you’ll find the HTR community will be a great asset to you if you subscribe or not. Don’t be bashful, write to Ken and enjoy all his informative newsletters.

BTW: I have no interest in the company other than that of a very satisfied customer. The software is free if you want to play around with it and Ken at different times offers a free weekend to prospective customers.

Best of Luck!

[DanG]

I want to have a good grasp of the concepts first so that I can reasonably expect to win enough to cover the fee.
GReg
_________________________________________

BTW #2…

I’m glad to hear you say that.

HTR has a very helpful member named Donnie (who is also a member of this board) who tells a story of his first HTR seminar in Las Vegas.

A potential customer came up to Ken and asked some very rudimentary questions and where could he sign up for the service. Ken respectful recommended the customer to NOT purchase a subscription until they became versed in the fundamentals of handicapping.

HTR is really not a program for the beginner horseplayer in my opinion. (I’m not saying that’s your level, I really don’t now how long you’ve been studying). But, that story Donnie tells goes a long way to highlight the integrity of the people involved.

Again,…you’re certainly on the right track in my opinion.

[witchdoctor]

Trackmster sells the original MPH software. I don't know how good the track to track and distance adjustments are.

http://www.trackmaster.com/retail/3rdparty.htm

[robert99]

In the U.S. the timing is started at the first pole, which is the "start" of the distance of the race.
The starting gate is placed at various distances from the "start" of the race, depending on track configuration.
If the clock were to start when the gates opened, there would be a big difference in the times.
Sometimes, as in turf racing, the gate can be placed at different distances from the "start", (even though their racing the same distance) depending on where the rails are placed that day.

Hosshead,

Thanks that is what I was getting at.
So on one track the early fraction actually run may be 1320 feet + 50 feet, say.
On another track it may be 1320 feet + 100 feet.
What is timed is only the last 1320 feet portion?
The horse will not be travelling so fast (at the beam) in the first example as the second so why does all this not get corrected if you are trying to compare performance at one track against another track? Or perhaps it does and I have missed the point again.

[robert99]

Robert, he has a chapter in there dealing with making track to track and dialy variants using the form SR+TV. Somewhat outdated, but still workable today, although there are much better methods out there. HTR, which is the evolution of MPH adjusts running lines.

I wonder if there aren't private clockers in Europe gettting fractional time for themselves?

Tom,

Thanks for your reply.
We have had accurate fractional times by saddle transponder for individual horses for several years but only at the main course of 58, Newmarket. That system can also give you information on the exact distance each horse travelled in the race - except they do not release the information (races are void if they have raced less than the advertised distance because the starting gate was in the wrong place etc).

For other courses there are a very few of us that sectionally time races from video recordings. Probably the most tedious job in the world. :sleeping:
This is a nightmare on wide courses and where the televideo lens distorts all distances. Also horses go out of shot at key moments and you have to use stride counting methods to fill in the gaps. Ironically, it is easier to sectionally time jump races as you can use the fences and hurdles as markers.

We do get timed intervals between finishers from the photofinish cameras and have been promised transponder timing at all courses this June - still waiting!

[Gary Geigercounter]

Greg, I don't mean to be hard on you, but you just aren't ready for this book. It is in my opinion the finest book available on pace handicapping, but it is not written for the beginner. Tom is a professional player and assumes a certain level of basic knowledge on the part of his readers. I helped Tom edit the first edition of this book, and I can assure you that what you perceive as errors are for the most part lack of basic racing knowledge on your part. The Racing Form has a booklet on how to read the Form that I recommend you start with. Then some more basic books that introduce you to the standards that experienced handicappers take for granted.

Good luck and hang in there. You are on the right track, just need to master the basics of language and racing to be able to use this book.

Dick

This begs the question, what book should a relative newcomer read and master first?

I have the Brohamer book, three of Andy Beyer's books, Davidowitz's book, Roman's book on Dosage, Dr' Z's book (not about handicapping per se, but I'm listing it) and one from Quirin (or Quinn. I get them confused) among others. Davidowitz's book seems like the best, but it seems like alot of different (sometimes conflicting) ideas to digest.

[thebeacondeacon]

This begs the question, what book should a relative newcomer read and master first?

I have the Brohamer book, three of Andy Beyer's books, Davidowitz's book, Roman's book on Dosage, Dr' Z's book (not about handicapping per se, but I'm listing it) and one from Quirin (or Quinn. I get them confused) among others. Davidowitz's book seems like the best, but it seems like alot of different (sometimes conflicting) ideas to digest.

Davidowitz, Beyer, Quirin and Quinn will all give you inspiration, a solid introduction to traditional handicapping, and good familiarity with the subject matter. Dick Schmidt is right about the depth of the Brohammer book. Save that one for later.

Mastery of the books is not important. Your skill will grow through practice, and mastery will arise out of that.

One of the contributors to the Brohammer book, Michael Pizzolla, offers, in my opinion, the clearest and most direct path to success in this field. You will do yourself a favor by adding his book, Handicapping Magic, to your short list, and following through with his software, The Master Magician, and its available training materials.



thebeacondeacon

[shanta]

Hi Greg,
Jim " the Hat" Bradshaw has finished his new Matchup book and will be going to printer soon. It is a much better read as far as clarity of thought and deals with strictly the horse and Racing Form data. No computer software or foot per second stuff of any kind. Just plain old raw data from the Form.

Might be something to consider in the NON software area when it's available.

Richie :)

[Free Bird]

that is one beautiful dog!!:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[shanta]

that is one beautiful dog!!:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Thanx "Free"!.

That's my dog Kianti's dad who was champion in the breed in his time. Mine is a spittin image of him man.

having no kids he is my baby. He is right next to me now- looking out the window at this hot chick going by in a "mini" :eek:

Bless her heart !

Richie

[46zilzal]

Everyone promotes capping books, but you have to have a good handle on the wagering: Dick Mitchell and Four Quarters of Horse Racing by Fiero are ones to consider.

[bigmack]

Everyone promotes capping books, but you have to have a good handle on the wagering: Dick Mitchell and Four Quarters of Horse Racing by Fiero are ones to consider.
Yeah get those then subscribe to Synergism and cash em large.