Handicapping Magician

[tanda]

I am interested in feedback to Handicapping Magician. More importantly, I am interested in any experience with the upgrades to it which were unveiled at a recent Michael Pizzolla seminar.

I used the software and had somewhat positive results with it. A short test threw decent win profits and identified several longshots.

However, I has problems with aspects of the software. For example, it uses unadjusted times/ DRF speed figues and I thought it would have been relatively simple to allow the option of using ITS Pace and Speed Figures. Also, the oddsline almost always added up to over 100% (107% or so). The oddsline also had the further problem of giving non-contenders 0% chance of winning. Obviously, non-contenders under any method sometime win.

The program is really quite simple and basic, yet it did help identify several longshots. For that reason, I remain interested in it and Pizzolla's methods. I am now using a comprehensive, pen and pencil metyhod that uses PBS ratings (derivied from adjusted pace and speed figures) and Pace Fulcrum as part of the contender selection process.

The upgrades relate to improved Pace Fulcrum capabilities and a Contention Finder that supposedly helps identify playable races. I am intrigued by both.

I am interested in feedback on 1) Handicapping Magician and the Handicapping Magic merthodology, 2) the upgrades and/or 3) the recent seminar. The tapes for the recent seminar and the upgrades are being offered for sal, along with the manuals and instructional material, for a little under $300. Any experience with any of these?

Thanks,

tanda313@aol.com

[tanda]

A couple of other thoughts. The first version does not allow you to select a Pace Fulcrum other than from a runner's most recent race. I saw on a related thread that a person liked to use the three most recent races. I also use a modified version that will go back to each runner's most recent good race. This allows a reduction in the number of no fulcrum races. However, the first version does not allow this type of override. Also, I noticed that it did not calculate PPF for races at 12 furlongs. This was troublesome since major turf races are run at 1 1/2 miles and PPF is very effective on the turf.

Anyway, random concerns before I purchase the upgrade.

Thanks,

tanda313@aol.com

[andicap]

Having purchased the book I got the same flyer. I never did buy the software although I did enjoy the book. I might tackle the HM system some day.

Eric Langjahr did return an email I sent him last year asking the same thing: wouldn't you guys do better using ITS speed figs instead of the DRF ones. Eric said it was immaterial, that it wasn't the figures that counted, but what you did with them -- the whole thing with false overlays you would have read in the book. He said identifying them was the most important aspect of the method.
Pizzolla's method is simple, but intriguing: use a crude, but decent method of coming up with numbers that no one else has (remember, key to winning is being unique), and utilize them in a way that no one else does.
he handicaps the crowd: If a horse is 15-1, but looks like on paper he SHOULD BE 5-1, Pizzolla discounts it. Too good to be true. Like buying a Rolex on 42nd Street for $5. You think you're getting a bargain, but it's damaged goods.
What he likes are horses that are 15-1 and there's an obvious reason why the public hates it: an 0-30 trainer or a long layoff or never won at this class, distance, etc.
That's why you have to handicap the crowd prior to the race: it's critical. You have to find something the crowd missed. The crowd is generally very smart and doesn't miss much (it wins 1/3 of the time! who wins that much?)
The numbers are almost immaterial as long as they're win reason.

Really, you could win using any set of numbers if you take the right mindset.

andicap

[Bob Harris]

Tanda,

I use the Handicapping Magician and also attended the recent Las Vegas seminar. I've been having excellent success with it and I'm always happy to help out new users...just e-mail me when something comes to mind.

The upgrade has two main features: an option to have the program eliminate horses which can't meet the fulcrum (a nice time saver which I use 90% of the time) and also a "contention finder" which helps users pinpoint races which look contentious and allow the handicapper to avoid wasting time on those races which have one or two standout horses with little wager value. I don't personally use this feature because I prefer to do it by eye...you will always catch the occasional race which the computer will miss. For those just beginning to use the concept of "expectation", the Contention Finder is a nice addition.

You're right about the PPF numbers being deadly in turf routes...you will begin to notice something though as you use the program more...as you get beyond 9 furlongs, the PPF numbers start to become aberrant...they will tend to be much higher in those races than in the more common distances. I usually avoid using PPF ratings from the longer races unless they are close to what the horse has run before.

Hope that helps some...good luck with the program!

[Bob Harris]

Andicap,

I must admit to reading your post on expectation in the wagering pools several times...each time feeling the grin on my face getting broader. Very few players understand what you just stated...an excellent, excellent post!!

Bob

[PaceAdvantage]

ME2 (Market Efficiency Exploitation Method)...appeared here many moons ago when I was providing my stuff for sale...Glenny also was doing something similar when I first started talking to him a couple of years ago....


==PA

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,
Oh, long lost PA! Haven't seen a post from you in ages!

Is that post you are referring to found in THIS bbs?

If so, I'll go looking.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've been posting here and there the last few days....perhaps my stealth mode is a bit too heavy...LOL

I talk about my ME2 method under the PA2000 link on the main page, and also here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/pa2000ug.htm

(item #6 in the table of contents)

This was the stuff I had out there in 2/2000...

[Dick Schmidt]

PA,

Tried to use the link above, but was asked my name and password. I thought I remembered my password (I use the same one for everything) and I'm almost sure I remember my name, but the guardian at the gates of knowledge wouldn't let me in. Could you e-mail me a way to get in?

Thanks,

Dick

[andicap]

Originally posted by andicap
?)
The numbers are almost immaterial as long as they're win reason.

andicap



(Sigh) as long as the numbers are "within" reason.

[andicap]

Thanks, Bob.
I'm just glad I didn't have to pay $295 to find that out. I enjoy reading Pizzolla's stuff but he's beginning to come across as another Dick Mitchell with everything he's shilling.
I must admit to always getting a little suspicious the more people scream from the treetops. After all, don't 99% of the professional bettors pretty much say absolutely nothing about their methods?

andicap

[Bob Harris]

Andicap,

I'm not really sure how many winning players are quiet about their methods...surely some of them are. Most of the winning players that I know have some sort of commercial aspect to their business...having a certain amount of "dependable" income certainly allows a player to lead a more normal lifestyle.

When I'm introduced to one of the "names" of the business I always try to answer 2 questions about them: Is this person a regular player (as opposed to someone who sells stuff but rarely makes a wager) and if they are a regular player, do they personally use the material they are selling.

If the answer is "no" to either of these questions, I usually just exchange handshakes and go about my business. If the questions can be answered "yes", I will do whatever I can to spend as much time as possible with them...as has been the case with Michael Pizzolla over the last 14 years.

Since I don't feel like taking on Yavapai Downs this afternoon, I officially declare it "nap time"!!

Bob

[Lefty]

Andicap you should have left it alone... I thought
win reason to be a marvelously original truncation of
within reason.

[cato]

Originally posted by andicap
Thanks, Bob.
I'm just glad I didn't have to pay $295 to find that out. I enjoy reading Pizzolla's stuff but he's beginning to come across as another Dick Mitchell with everything he's shilling.
I must admit to always getting a little suspicious the more people scream from the treetops. After all, don't 99% of the professional bettors pretty much say absolutely nothing about their methods?

andicap

Andicap: Great ananlysis earlier in this thread, but I disagree with your analogy of Pizzolla to Mitchell. I think Pizzilla and Langjahr are the two best minds in handiacapping today who are willing to share their ideas with the public. In the past 6-8 years, Pizzolla has sold two programs: The Master Handicaper (many years ago) and The Handicapping Magician and published one book. And he has put out two tape series: The Master key to Handicapping (many years ago) and The new tape series with his book.

When I was foolish enough to buy one of Mitchell's tape series or any of his books (other than Winning Thoroughbred Strategies--a good book), I felt unclean and like I had been screwed (a bad screw as opposed to a good one). When I work with Pizzolla's takes or books, I feel like I have learned something and that whatevere he charges (within reason is a bargain)

All of his stuff is fresh and intelligent--not the warmed over stuff you get with Mitchell and the other authors who generate a book every year or two, saying the same stuff over and over.

I hardly find him to be a shill. Instead I find him and Langjar to be the most astute handicappers who are in the public forum. And now, let me step down from my soapbox.

Now having said that, it is true that their advertising material appears to be written by someone on peyote, mushrooms and speed...not that there is anything wrong with that...

Take care, cato

[andicap]

I guess what I was objecting to was what I call "exclamation point marketing."
Everything is so breathless. "This is the greatest program since Visicalc!!"
I know they have to grab people's attention to make the sale, but all the hype puts me off. Plus what about all the people who buy the program without realizing you have to put a bit of work into it to succeed. You can say they should know better but aren't the software sellers duplicitious for encouraging the users to think that way?

andicap

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry about that. I put the wrong link in my post. Here is the corrected link:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/pa2000ug.htm




==PA

[Lefty]

The "fulcrum" is orig. to Pizzolla but it certainly isn't new.
He wrote about it way back in the first edition of Pace Makes The Race.
And Master Handicapper a slightly altered ver. of Total
Pace Ratings. He changed the 3rd fraction rating and added an oddsline but you still get most of the same
horses the old vanilla ver. of TPR.
I certainly don't think he's the most orig. thinker around.
But, that's just me.

[tedwin]

My favorite time of the year is when Calder opens in late May. This year, due to things going on in my life, I chose not to bet during the first two months of the meeting. But I decided to use the Handicapping Magician program every day and to see how the overlaid contenders did during the two month period.

In my opinion, the overall performance of the software was outstanding though there were two related groups of horses which did poorly and which I would eliminate from consideration in real betting unless I gain a better understanding of them.

The procedures followed were:

1. Races taken off the turf were not considered. Also, races with more than one frist time starter were not considered. I know this is not the best way to deal with first time starters; it would be much better to use one's knowledge of trainer tendencies to judge the likelihood of a FTS winner, but for an objective test I thought the one FTS limit would be fair.

2. Classified each playable type of race by whether it was likely to be won by an early speed horse or by a late speed horse. Although this was done to the best of my ability in accordance with the content of Chapter 8 of the book, it necessarily involves a good bit of judgment and others would reach a different decision for some races.

3. Determined the fulcrum horse and eliminated horses based on the material in Chapter 4 of the book.

4. I also eliminated horses coming from a minor track (usually Tampa) if they had never won or finished close at a track comparable to Calder. This was based on my experience and was not based on anything in the book.

5. I then opened the Form Cycle Window - using the "two reason" approach discussed on pages148-151 of the book. For those who have not read the book, this can be considered akin to the idea of selecting a representative paceline, but in my opinion is more effective.

6. I then entered the above information into the computer program (which uses past performance files downloaded from ITS) and printed out the program's odds line for each race. Again, for those not familiar with the program, the odds line is based on the type of race (early speed vs late speed referred to in step 2 above.

7. I considered all of the three top contenders (provided the program's odds were not more than 9-1) if their actual track odds were more than the program's odds line.

8. I want to stress that although the following analysis was done after the races were run, the race analysis and computer input and output were done prior to the running of the races. My review of these races revealed:

A. Except for bottom level maiden claiming races ($12,500 maiden claimers at Calder) and bottom level restricted claimers ($10,000 non winners of two or three races lifetime is the bottom level at Calder - this category will be discussed later or in a separate post):

I initially favored the horse going off at the highest percentage overlay from the top three computer horses. I also further considered all such contenders going off at 4-1 or more. The results for all these horses with no further eliminations were:

223 Races
311 horses (multiple horses in some races)
60 won (26% of the races)
$314.20 profit on $622 bet for a profit percentage of 50%
I then reviewed the results only using horses with odds of 4-1 or more (and using all of the qualified and overlaid top three condenders whose odds were 4-1 or above. The results of these horses alone were:

182 Races
257 horses
40 won (21.9% of the races)
$257.20 profit on $514 bet - again a profit percentage of 50%.

I stress these results were not actual bets and I do not think this approach is necessarily the optimal approach for implementing the program. For one thing, I think using the program and reviewing results can greatly increase one's knowledge of form cycles and improve one's overall handicapping. For another, the approach is a bit system-like, but I thought that appropriate for the kind of testing I wanted to do.

As said before, I achieved poor results in bottom level maiden claimers ($12,500 maiden claimers) and bottom level restricted claimers ($10,000 restricted claimers. The latter chesategory included races Calder has scheduled this year for three year olds (with no restiction on wins) and four year olds (who have a lifetime win restriction. Combined there were 72 races of this type with 98 "qualified" horses. Only seven won returning only $61.60. I have not completed my analysis of why this type of cheap no-win or few-wins races did so poorly. It is clear that many winners were among the top three contenders but also went off at lower than the program's odds line. It is also clear that several good priced longshots would have qualified if I had classified the race as likely to be won by late speed rather than the early speed decision which I made. In only one of those do I think my decision was faulty. I intend to review these types of horses more.

Two other notes: (1) The fact that good results were not obtained in these bottom level maiden and restricted claimers should not be transferred to other "cheap" races. The results in other "cheap" straight claiming races were good.

(2) Several people have noted the methodology's effectiveness in turf races. During the test period there were 35 turf races with qualified contenders, 49 horses qualified, 6 won returning $181.20 for a net "profit" of $83.20 on $98. All f the turf winners went off at 4-1 or more.

I know this has been a long post, but I would have appreciated seeing such a report if someone else had done it. And perhaps, someone else will replicate if for a different track and/or time period. In any event, I am satisfied that the Handicapping Magician program is a very powerful tool.

[PaceAdvantage]

tedwin,

Thanks so much for sharing the results of your paper test!


Regards,

==PA

[Tom]

Nice post. Shows a lot of work-that puts you ahead of 80% of the people you are betting against.

About Mikey P...
AT least he's consistent. What he said 10 years ago he still believes in, but updated somewhat.

I think the fulcrum method gets a lot of winners at good prices for two main reasons: (1) Not that many people are using it and (2) no offense to Beyer, TSN, et al, but it uses what the horse actually ran-raw numbers. No matter how good your adjusted figs are, they are not reality-only someone's attempt to make a more organized reality.
Tom

[Bob Harris]

Thanks for the info tedwin...nice work. Just a quick comment to the group on using PPF ratings in turf races:

Because Michael suggests using the best rating ever (provided it's within reason of the horse's other races) and current form is basically ignored, the win % will tend to be somewhat lower in these races but the ROI will be higher. Exotic players will be especially pleased as the top 3-5 rated horses will be together at the finish line more often than not. Even when a lower priced horse wins, the place and show horses will often trigger much larger than expected payoffs...they just look so damn ugly in the past performances.

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by Tom
Nice post. Shows a lot of work-that puts you ahead of 80% of the people you are betting against.

About Mikey P...
AT least he's consistent. What he said 10 years ago he still believes in, but updated somewhat.

I think the fulcrum method gets a lot of winners at good prices for two main reasons: (1) Not that many people are using it and (2) no offense to Beyer, TSN, et al, but it uses what the horse actually ran-raw numbers. No matter how good your adjusted figs are, they are not reality-only someone's attempt to make a more organized reality.
Tom

Couldn't agree more, Tom. Every recent study I've seen has provided the same results: Adjusted figures tend to pick more winners and raw times produce a higher ROI...handicappers as a group have become adjustment happy and raw numbers will often provide a "clear enough" picture of a race with better money potential.

[anotherdave]

I see on the ITS data web site that there is now a set of "Handicapping Magic Success Tapes". Anybody heard anything pro or con about them?

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by anotherdave
I see on the ITS data web site that there is now a set of "Handicapping Magic Success Tapes". Anybody heard anything pro or con about them?

Anotherdave,

The tapes are from the recent seminar held in Las Vegas at the beginning of April. There were 108 attendees and I think most, if not all, were thrilled with the experience.

The seminar was geared around constructing the PBS and PPF numbers by hand, ala the book, so those who don't have the Handicapping Magician software won't feel lost at all.

Michael was nice enough to send me a set and I thought the final product turned out great and captured the "live" experience really well.

[tedwin]

Thanks for the comments.

Tom, I agree with your comments about adjusted times though, honestly, I have never given them a real fair work. The only concern I have about this apprach and using actualk times is looking ahead when some horses will have times at Gulfstream and some at Calder - where there will be major time differences. And I'm sure there are other instances where there are major time differences on the same circuit. That is something I will have to look at before January when Gulfstream opens.

Bob, again thanks for your comments last week. They were helpful. I also appreciate your comments in your post about using the top rated horses in turf races in the exacta. I'll look at that tomorrow.

[andicap]

I agree that raw numbers are underused.
As for the track to track adjustments, could you just compare what a series horses normally run to the qtr and half on both tracks and get a rough idea on how to adjust them.
I mean, even the sophisticated par times adjustments are somewhat of an estimate and much less reliable than two times on the same track on the same day.
Also, does anyone who uses raw numbers make mental adjustments if the DRF variant seems way too high or low for a day. I know the limitations of the DRF variants but if they are out of a "range" of normal variants that would tell you the track was super fast that day.
The trouble is: how do you adjust fractional times? I don't think anyone has really solved that adequately.

In the end, it's all just an estimate which I is why I demand higher odds than ever.

[hurrikane]

well....fortunatly or...unfortunately..however you look at it...80% of the people are going to look for something that involves no work...buy it thinking that..realize they have to work..throw it away and go back to the thing they know best...losing. All these people are doing is helping them get to where they would be anyway except maybe one will be saved..maybe not...as long as you and I aren't buy there product..let them have a few suckers for a while.....what the heck

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by andicap
I agree that raw numbers are underused.
As for the track to track adjustments, could you just compare what a series horses normally run to the qtr and half on both tracks and get a rough idea on how to adjust them.
I mean, even the sophisticated par times adjustments are somewhat of an estimate and much less reliable than two times on the same track on the same day.
Also, does anyone who uses raw numbers make mental adjustments if the DRF variant seems way too high or low for a day. I know the limitations of the DRF variants but if they are out of a "range" of normal variants that would tell you the track was super fast that day.
The trouble is: how do you adjust fractional times? I don't think anyone has really solved that adequately.

In the end, it's all just an estimate which I is why I demand higher odds than ever.



Someone on the Yahoo Horseplayer's United board posted a variant adjustment chart. I recall it was somewhere near the beginning of the posts. Since I've been using my own variants for years I never checked it out. -NDJ

[Tom]

That Yahoo post is on the first or second page. Way back when it was a horseracing board.

andicap,
You get a few pacelines from the PP's and average them out to make a simple track-to-track adjustment.
Tthat is why I still like the old DRF SR+TV-you cacn average the TV with the times and get something to work with. OF course if have the Pars, you are all set,
an dif you don't have the pars, you might want to consider buying them now and not waiting too long.
~G~
Tom

[mhrussell]

I am a new member to this message board and I have enjoyed reading all of your comments. Special kudos to tedwin for his report on his 2month paper test of the Handicapping Magician software at Calder…
I am also a "Handicapping Magic" pracitioner and attended the Michael Pizzolla Seminar this past April.
I enjoyed the seminar very much and have read the book numerous times.
I am somewhat unconventional in that I am currently using my own "home grown" Excel based handicapping software that implements the HM methodology using BRIS pace and speed figures (Premium Plus PPs) in lieu of the raw times and DRF speed ratings. I took this approach for three reasons: 1) As others previously mentioned, I was also concerned that the approach of using raw times and the raw DRF speed rating rather than figures unnecessarily sacrificed accuracy; 2) I am a Macintosh user and ITS software is not available for Macs; and 3) I knew by developing my own software tool I would gain a thorough understanding of the fulcrum, PBS and PPF concepts (which I have!). Beginning in December 2000, I have done a series of comparision studies between my BRIS pace/speed fig. method and the "standard" raw time HM method that indicates significant advantages to my method in discriminating between contenders; particularly in the 9 furlong + turf races where the standard PPF ratings are often aberrant. These tests were done over the Gulfstream, Santa Anita and Oaklawn meets and included about 45 races of all kinds and flavors. I wanted to have some of these results available to discuss with Michael at the seminar (which I did). Michael explained that what I'm doing is closer to the TMH software approach and that this is something that he may discuss if/when he decides to write another follow-on book to Handicapping Magic. So I was convinced that I was not doing anything totally nonsensical and was even encouraged a bit that perhaps I was looking at things in a somewhat more advanced way. So since early April 2001, I have continued using my Excel based tool, with continued success. I really, really, like what I've come up with and am very reluctant to switch to the Magician software (I could get Connectix's Virtual PC emulator software and run the Magician on my Mac..). But I am not a "rat" who just wants to know that I'm going down the "correct" tunnel; I want "cheese" and tanda's and others results with the "standard" Magician approach clearly shows that this is a successful approach ROI-wise.

So my personal dilemma consists of the following:

1) What are the true long term advantages of using pace/speed figures in the Handicapping Magic approach over the "standard" raw times? Or is there no long term advantage and am I just seeing short term fluctuations? { I think there is another thread on this board which is beginning an experiment of "figs. vs. raw unadjusted times". I am very interested in following that!)

2) The big negative to my approach is that 40% of my total handicapping time is spent doing just raw data entry and "soft focus" race evaluation (I have a portion of my spreadsheet that does the soft focus public oddsline calculations). The "Magician" and the "Contention Finder" would eliminate all of this time. For my standard preparation for a "day" consisting of 3 tracks, 5 average races handicapped per track; this comes to about 3 hours of handicapping time (ugh!).

3) I have not come up with a viable alternative to "automate" my method using the Premium Plus PPs .pdf format BRIS data files and Excel Visual BASIC. And I do not want to have to buy the $14/card Multicaps data file to attempt this automation.

Can anyone recommend an alternative approach to automate my method?
Any thoughts related to the choice of continuing on or else switching to the Magician Software?

Thanks,
Matt Russell
mhrussell@earthlink.net

[tanda]

Matt,

I too have an Excel program in develpment using HM. I use DRF data files from BRIS which can be read by Excel, so I cut and paste the PPs into Excel to save data entry.

The only disadvantage to the DRF data files is there is no unlimited daily pricing, so if you use more than 4 a day, you pay more than you would with PDF.

Get PP Generator and go to TrackTout Online for a free program to convert files to form read by Excel. Actually, Excel may be able to read without the conversion.

My program uses the pace rating for Fulcrum purposes and PBS purposes. It still uses raw time for PPF purposes. You seem to indiacte that your are using LP ratings for PPF purposes. I like it because the converted files contain raw times in hundreds and the HM software does not rate turf horses at 1 1/2. Also, I make a different adjustment for distance than Pizzolla recommends. I use Excel filters to automate the Fulcrum Pace process some. Also, I import the ratings into my own oddsline generator.

Since BRIS PPs with brisbet discount of 20% cost 80 cents, it is another advantage over its price of $1.50.

Continue on.

[stuball]

I have been working on implementing Handicapping Magic for a while and I can say I
am optimistic that when I get my programs written to automate the monotonous calculations
that I will improve my bottom line significantly. I think it is very important to use the book to
learn all the calculations so you know what can be done by computer and what cannot, as
anything that requires judgement must be done using your God given computer..not your
man made one. I am showing a profit for the year but need to improve my ROI. I need
to study a little more on money management and need to refine my race selection(which
races to bet and which ones to pass). I use FoxPro as I have used that for 5 years to
set up my Kentucky database for Track,Trainer,Dist & Surface specific info...lots of work,
dedication, self control, and downright stubborness are required to be a success at this and
at times I question whether I will have the patience to be as successful as I would really
like to be (within reason). If there is any way that I can help or be helped I'M HERE CALL.

I don't know any way to win at this job (Yes I said job not a game) other that hard work.
If you find it let me know (I know you won't find it or won't tell me). HA HA !!!!!!

Stuball

[Tom]

Tanda,
Try TSN-same data file, basically, but only $0.50 a card.
Just don't mix them with BRIS if you ue the speed figs or pace numbers-they are different.
Tom

[Myhorse1]

I purchased the Handicapping Magician, the software only. I was dissappointed in its performance. Someone tells me of an update. I found that it picked the Fulcrum OK, but it didn't indicate the contenders in any way shape or form in the races I looked at.

As I said, I was dissapointed in the program.

Myhorse1

[tedwin]

Myhorse, what was it that most disappointed your about the program: the features of the program or the results you obtained with it? If you have studied the book, the selection of contenders should go pretty fast once you have the fulcrum. I have the update that eliminates non-contenders, but haven't used it as I'd rather have the additional feel of the race and it really doesn't take long.

If you are inclined to work with the software some more to see if you can produce winning results, perhaps you should study the book again - particularly the chapter dealing with non-contenders to grasp how fast it can be done and the chapter dealing with form cycle windows which you would pretty much need to understand in order to implement the methodology.

[hracingplyr]

heres a question for u, i have the magician software, and here is where the dilema comes in. lets say u have a fulcrum of 46. and u see a horse whose last race was a good race and even his second race back was good, but lets say in his last race and 2nd race back he ran against a 46.4 or 47 and he was within the beaten lths guidelines at the half and the fin. but if u look furthur down this horses pps u see he has successfully run real well against the 46 and even against 45 an change, would u go back and take those lines or stick to the last race?

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by hracingplyr
heres a question for u, i have the magician software, and here is where the dilema comes in. lets say u have a fulcrum of 46. and u see a horse whose last race was a good race and even his second race back was good, but lets say in his last race and 2nd race back he ran against a 46.4 or 47 and he was within the beaten lths guidelines at the half and the fin. but if u look furthur down this horses pps u see he has successfully run real well against the 46 and even against 45 an change, would u go back and take those lines or stick to the last race?


The purpose of the fulcrum is to eliminate horses from WIN consideration which have shown in their past performances that they can't finish well when encountering certain internal fractions. The fulcrum is a conservative estimate of the "slowest" 2nd call time which we feel will develop in today's race...it is not an attempt to predict the actual pace.

In your example, that particular race may end up going a few ticks faster but you've decided it won't likely go slower than the 46. Your example horse has shown on more than one occasion that it can run well against that pace scenario and therefore would not be thrown out as a contender based on the fulcrum analysis.

Your paceline selection would be based more on current form, class, distance and surface. You can certainly excuse races where the pace was much faster than today's fulcrum and in a few select cases, races where the pace was much slower...I would never advise skipping over recent performances solely to match up pace scenarios.

[mhrussell]

Just a note to thank Tanda for his suggestion for using the BRIS DRF comma delimited data files in automating the bulk of the data entry for my home grown "Handicapping Magician" Excel spreadsheet application.

Over the past week I have successfully written an Excel VBA routine that does just that. Now I can automatically download and transfer 90%+ of the required input data for three race cards to my Excel HM spreadsheet in around 3 minutes compared to 3 hours before!

My handicapping life just became a lot more enjoyable.

Regards to all.

[Tom]

Originally posted by mhrussell
Just a note to thank Tanda for his suggestion for using the BRIS DRF comma delimited data files in automating the bulk of the data entry for my home grown "Handicapping Magician" Excel spreadsheet application.

Over the past week I have successfully written an Excel VBA routine that does just that. Now I can automatically download and transfer 90%+ of the required input data for three race cards to my Excel HM spreadsheet in around 3 minutes compared to 3 hours before!

My handicapping life just became a lot more enjoyable.

Regards to all.


Can you recommend a good book that teaches VBA?
I would love to be able to do that. I used to write programs in plain dos vannila basic - is it at all like that or do I need a degree inn higher math to use VBA?
Tom

[mhrussell]

Tom-

Visual Basic for Excel is easy to learn if you have some programming experience in any higher level language (which you do). There are lots of good reference books out there; probably better than the ones I have been using:
"Developing Excel 5 Solutions" - Eric Wells

"Writing Excel Macros" - Steven Roman

These are older but will do the job. The Wells book is more for beginnners and I would start with that (or similar).

Regards,

Tom,

If you can write a dos basic program you can write vba programs. If you are thinking about VBA and a data base. Access has a vba module that you can use to write vba programs on the data in your access tables.

The book I would recommend is Beginning Access
____ VBA Programming by Robert Smith and David Sussman. (in the blank fill in the version of Access you have ie95, 2000, etc.). If you are thinking excell perhaps these authors havel a excell version of the book. I have 4 VBA books but in my opinion this is the best one.

[Jake]

The Sussman book is excellent, but uses the DAO model instead of the ADO model. That's important to know, especially if you're looking to other development down the road. But's it's a great book.


Originally posted by mrdezo
Tom,

If you can write a dos basic program you can write vba programs. If you are thinking about VBA and a data base. Access has a vba module that you can use to write vba programs on the data in your access tables.

The book I would recommend is Beginning Access
____ VBA Programming by Robert Smith and David Sussman. (in the blank fill in the version of Access you have ie95, 2000, etc.). If you are thinking excell perhaps these authors havel a excell version of the book. I have 4 VBA books but in my opinion this is the best one.

[Myhorse1]

In all fairness, I just purchased the software. I have since odered the book and the update and when I have read the book and added the update, I will re-assess the results that I am getting.

From all your postings, I have received a few ideas that probably will help.
I have gone to Michael Pizzolla's TMH seminar's and always found them interesting and informative. If any of you have had the oportunity to go to the Racebook with Michael you will see that he has one of the quickest minds in the Handicapping industry. For some strange reason, he wishes to convey his successes to the masses. I don't think it is for money for his handicapping profits are probably the highest of any of the "Professionals" in Las Vegas. Besides, he is friendly, helpful and generous with his time at his seminars.

Myhorse1