Jim Lehane

[joeprunes]

Has any body bought Calibration Handicapping the Next Level? Is it worth getting? It sure looks interesting,any thoughts?

[Tom]

1. Yes
2. Do a search of this site for calibration handicapping - we have posted many threads about it a little while ago. should answer some questions about it for you. Do search on me - I wrote a summary of some it not too long ago, also.

[John]

Joe prunes

I have both Jim Lehane's books. the second book is about 40% defferent and very good . I like his chapter "Red scanning" it is simple but a good way to pick accurate contenders.

Jim is from the old school and reminds us that the pencil and paper methods are just as good as a computer program.

I am not sure what his win percentage rate is for Belmont with his FREE Selection page but I know he is doing very well. You can see his FREE selection page at........

.http://www.free-horseracing-info.com/

Hope this helps you.

[John]

Joeprunes

Jim lehane posted the last race trifecta cold $281.00 hoped you looked at his free page.

[joeprunes]

Im convinced. I followed him and had good winners,sent for his book Im sure it will pay for itself. I too am from the old school and can handicap as fast as some computers (well almost) I believe in good old fashion handicapping , as long as you know what your doing is as good as anything.Hopefullysome of his knowledge and anyone elses will broaden mine.

[Tom]

I went to his site and he offering a free weekly newsletter again - signed up Friday night and got the first issue Saturday morning. Very good read, god information. Plenty of races analyzed and pdf files for the PPs are available too.
I recommend it, especially if you play NYRA.

[Dick Schmidt]

Tom,

If I can get God information, I'm there!

Dick

[Lindsay]

So Tom writes his posts in 10 seconds. Big deal. They still beat the hell out of reading a whole book. Besides, everyone knows that Boxcar is fixing to give us "God information" when he (that would be Boxcar) returns to the off topic section.

[andicap]

I read the book and liked it. Does it work? I dunno. But lots of food for thought and probably is valuable as part of another methodology.

Do i agree with everything Jim writes? No. He uses lots of raw figures for figuring pace time/final figures. I don't see how you can compare Aqueduct main track sprints to Aqu inner dirt...or the routes for that matter. the fractions are much different.
But he's available for questions through email...and its a good read.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by andicap
I read the book and liked it. Does it work? I dunno. But lots of food for thought and probably is valuable as part of another methodology.

Do i agree with everything Jim writes? No. He uses lots of raw figures for figuring pace time/final figures. I don't see how you can compare Aqueduct main track sprints to Aqu inner dirt...or the routes for that matter. the fractions are much different.
But he's available for questions through email...and its a good read.

Andicap:

Just for clarification, when you say "lots of raw figures" you do mean the horse your capping's actual splits, which are the raw spits adjusted for beaten lengths.

I don't have the book with me at the office but I believe Jim shows how to adjust acutal splits for comparison with different tracks by adjusting with the DRF track variant.

I have been using the TSN pace ratings, especially the "LP" in lieu of final fraction. I have just started using this so I can't say how reliable it is, but I did a test on paper and it comes out pretty close. I think the track employees just eyeball the beaten lengths anyway so all your going to get is a S.W.A.G. calculation.

Because of several ideas I got from Jim's book I have been able to streamline my contender selection and have been devoting more time to making my odds line and betting selection. I don't have any hard facts to state as of yet but I believe I am going in a positive direction.

JustMissed
:)

[andicap]

Yes, he uses raw figures I'm pretty certain.

If you email him, he'll respond quickly with why.

I agree with your usage of Lehane. I too am looking at doing the same time. I have a great methodology to get down to 4 contenders (or so), but need to eliminate 1 more and then play the odds OR choose one or two of the four contenders to key on.


I was even thinking of trying Form Points since I'd only be calucating them on 4 or 5 horses. Any comments on this usage, Dick Schmidt?

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by andicap
Yes, he uses raw figures I'm pretty certain.

If you email him, he'll respond quickly with why.

I agree with your usage of Lehane. I too am looking at doing the same time. I have a great methodology to get down to 4 contenders (or so), but need to eliminate 1 more and then play the odds OR choose one or two of the four contenders to key on.


I was even thinking of trying Form Points since I'd only be calucating them on 4 or 5 horses. Any comments on this usage, Dick Schmidt?

Andicap:

Sounds like you and I are own the same page. I think Jim does an excellent job of explaining how he takes the contenders(either 3 or 4) and works up the bet from there, based on his value odds and ranking. At this point in time I think this may very well be the key to the 5% club. Jerry Stokes also does a good job at explaining this also.

Good luck eliminating the 4th horse. If all else fails use your fourth pick as a periphery horse in the exacta & trifecta if you play those.

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)

[Derek2U]

Just my 2 cents: Since I only play NY tracks (AQU/BEL/SAR) I
have refined my adjustments to Speed/Pace/Beyers. I almost
always discard shippers into these 3 tracks (almost always) and
so 90% of them lose anyway. So, if you play a particular circuit,
I think it's VERY DOABLE to make highly accurate adjustments.
BTW ... I'm not talking about wind or pp adjustments like the
Raggies do --- that only murkies the water more IMHO.

[Tom]

Andicap,
If you can consistently narrow the filed down to 4 horses, call me.
I will tell the best three of the four. Bet your house on the one I don't like! <G>

I once part wheeled a single horse wtih 7 outof 11 in the second half of the double. The top 4 finishers were the ones I threw out!
Never got a call withi 7 out 11 covered. :mad:

[Dick Schmidt]

Andy,



"I was even thinking of trying Form Points since I'd only be calculating them on 4 or 5 horses. Any comments on this usage, Dick Schmidt?"


The whole point to calculating Form Points (or FPS or anything else) is to find things that you can't see by eye. If you can do form with a glance, why bother with Form Points? If you can't, then you need to do them on every horse. It's that obscure horse with a few good Form Points, the third or fourth best speed rating and maybe a good trainer sitting there at 42/1 that makes it worth doing.

Computers, angles or systems are only valuable if they produce information that points to winners that you cannot see looking at past performances. That's why I tend to ignore 90% of what my computer produces for me.

Dick

[ranchwest]

Dick,

What is available for a person to see in PPs and what is available for a computer to see in PPs are the same. If the person OR the computer misses something, then the problem is in not being as thorough as possible.

[joeprunes]

I received Jims book and its very simular to what I do,but he filled my voids I think Im on my way(to what I don`t know).One thing I wasn`t a Beyers man but how he modifies it, it makes sense.Thorograph and Rags think Beyers are a waste,any thoughts on Beyers?.......Prunes

[andicap]

I'd go one step beyond what Lehane does with Beyers (which he doesn't do anymore BTW). He uses the winner's Beyer to judge the apparent speed of the race.
I would average the top 3 or 4 finishers -- what if the winner was much the best and beat a medicore field?
I also think using a pace and final time figure would be better since final time is often influenced by the pace.

[Dick Schmidt]

Ranch,

"What is available for a person to see in PPs and what is available for a computer to see in PPs are the same. If the person OR the computer misses something, then the problem is in not being as thorough as possible."



Though it is true that computers operate with the same basic information as the "eyeball" handicapper, they can obviously produce information that no human could do in a timely manor. Say for instance produce TPR numbers (all adjusted for daily variant and track-to-track) on all 10 races for each horse in a 12 horse field. Throw in Quirin early speed points, FPS ratings (including compound numbers like Factor W) and perhaps cumulative APV and class figs and you have a project no human could attempt on a regular basis, thus one that provides information that cannot be derived from the PP's. The numbers I use (in HSH) are orders of magnitude more complex, and produce "looks" into the race that no human could duplicate. Since this information is both very hard to get (without the same software) and points to enough winners to make lots of money, I treasure it far above such things printed in the PP's or easily derived from them. I won't even go into the information that can be gleaned from a database.


Mark Cramer told me years ago that "The harder an piece of information is to come by, the more valuable it becomes." I have never found any reason to doubt him.

Dick

[Aussieplayer]

Dick,

Well, you probably could calculate that list of factors by hand.

........But if you started in race 1 at track "y" in August, you'd be ready to bet it......hmmmmm......round about christmas!!! LOL
:D

[ranchwest]

Dick,

In re-reading your message, I see that your previous message was favoring computers. I misunderstood and thought you were suggesting an advantage to eye-balling the PPs. If a person can program or set up their own criteria, the computer is a huge advantage in the ways that you noted.