HSH-Review-Part 1

[Maxspa]

All,
In 2002 I purchased HSH ! I unsuccessfully used the software in 2002+2003 and put the software on the shelf where it gathered dust! The software had me doing the zigzag phenomena. As soon as I had a losing day it seemed Dave came up with a new idea or approach. Without testing the procedure on my track, It immediately became my method for handicapping the races. This was a game plan for disaster!
When HSH 4 news hit the website, I thought I'd take another look at the HSH website. What I saw, was an active group discussing the many aspects of a handicapping program. There were also were many additions and improvements since I last utilized the software. I decided to further explore the PA board for articles related to HSH. Starting with PA's review and reading several others, I became seriously interested and decided to contact Dave Schwartz regarding the particulars for a former subscriber. He was extremely helpful and outlined a plan for me to catch up with the advancements that had been made. He sent me several Horse Street videos (17 or 18) plus the new program updates to download. If you wonder why I haven't participated on the board lately, now you know why! My time has been spent with factors, filters,objects, tables, operations,composites, and getting used to the procedures that are required to use them properly. At this point, I need to mention the positives that contributors make to a BBS board. One member on Dave's board (Buzz) posted a step by step procedure for creating filters,objects etc and in my opinion, his work was extremely helpful to me!
HSH is now a project of a vast magnitude. There is something for every type of handicapper beginner thru advanced. However, it is my opinion that the person who becomes familiar with the many aspects of the program and then includes his or her own preferences and tests those approaches, will rewarded. For example, I printed out the 17 pages of factors (From class to paceline selections) that can be used in the program. What you get from Dave S. is his life's work! Because he is an avid reader, Reynolds numbers and Fibonacci weighting are part of the total package. I mention this aspect of his work because he never seems satisfied. Dave is always looking for ways to improve his product.
In summary HSH is indeed a very complex program of handicapping and wagering developed by a person whose is as complex as the program. To my knowledge he has had some help along the way but for the most part the program is a result of his intense desire and dedication to create the best product possible and in my opinion he has accomplished his goal, well sort of. The unveiling of HSH 4 will happen soon!
Maxspa

[PlanB]

MaxSpa, what an honest opinion. Just reading How Dave S. posts, nitpick and his style, makes me know that he is seeking the answer because he firmly thinks rationality holds the key. I agree with him, but ----BUT-------racing prediction is rational & not rational at the same time. I have NOT seen any approach that makes sense to me. umm, okay, over the last ~20 days I have subscribed to a fig service that's been very good, but that's because I've filtered the real contenders & I refuse to consider the non-runners. This routine allows for scratches & I just pretend the non-contenders were scratched. CJ, can a user scratch horses from your program? Anyways, I just have NOT seen a program of figs that allow me to NOT have a DRF in hand. (PS: My ROI with this new proggy is about 22% SO FAR)

[Maxspa]

Plan B,
As sharp as Dave S is, he programmed many different approaches in HSH from its inception. I believe his plan was no accident! Will my selected direction using HSH lead me to a profit? At this stage of my study, I have no idea! One result of my work with this program is the admiration and respect I have for his product. I honestly don't know how he has time for any other of life's activities. He programs, answers questions, fixes bugs, solves BBS problems, devises videos, reads and keeps up to date with anything associated with his software. You've got to respect his work ethic!
I agree with your basic premise, the individual and the program have to be a good fit.
Maxspa

[Murph]

I agree with your basic premise, the individual and the program have to be a good fit.
MaxspaYou have invested four years in just getting this program off the shelf. That sounds like a very steep learning curve. I hope you can eventually make all of your hard work pay off.

Murph

[Maxspa]

Murph,
The program has changed dramatically since I put it on the shelf. There can be a learning curve if you take the direction I'm now pursuing. I have quite a software collection and haven't seen as many variables available for handicapping purposes as this program has at your fingertips.
Just so everyone on the board knows, I've paid for this program and the new update that's coming soon! I have no axe to grind here and am only giving credit where I think it belongs!
Maxspa

[cato]

How's that user manual coming along?

[Dave Schwartz]

How's that user manual coming along?

LOL - Another voice from the wilderness.

We don't do user manuals... we do user videos.

We decided to do this because the manual would be 1,000 pages and nobody would read it.


Instead, we teach it through videos.


Dave

[PlanB]

DS, does your proggy have Class ratings? In fact, I am very curious, does anyone know of any program that gives Class a tumble?

[DJofSD]

Dave,

How goes the testing with the new version?

Are you running under XP or Vista?

[Maxspa]

Plan B,
Several class ratings are available. Class level of last race, last good race, best good race, back class , earnings per start etc etc etc. The good news is you have a choice to use them or not in your handicapping. I particularly like earnings per start.
There are so many options in this program, that you are overwhelmed at first. It doesn't matter how many there are, the user can pick and choose which ones fit his or her plan of action.
Hope this helps!
Maxspa

[Dave Schwartz]

DJ,

I have not yet even set up a test machine with Vista, although that is a good idea. It runs better with XP than any other OS, but runs fine even with Win98.


Dave

[DJofSD]

Dave, what about the newer dual core and the newest duo 2 core (4 IPs): does you software develop tool of choice take advantage of the hardware, i.e. does it support multiple threads?

[Maxspa]

All,
Taking lots of notes while getting re-aquainted with HSH. It is truly is a work in progress and a challenge. Murphy's Law has visited me a few times but I'm determined not to let Ole Murph get the upper hand.
In a few days I'll be working with H4 and looking forward to the experience!
Without giving a lot of details now, I can honestly say that the HSH program is complex in many ways but the technical advances that have been made can help the user as well. I developed a file problem and because of the advanced methods that Dave uses, it was quickly fixed (ten minutes).
I'm immersed in creating filters, objects, events based upon my handicapping experience. Soon the operation of H4 will be a priority. So far I'm glad to have made the decision to get re-acquainted with HSH
and the specifics will be found in HSH Review Part 2.
Maxspa

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, what about the newer dual core and the newest duo 2 core (4 IPs): does you software develop tool of choice take advantage of the hardware, i.e. does it support multiple threads?

Historically, AMD processors have run non-SQL databases much faster than Intel's. I have never run on a duo core, although HSH runs blazing fast on the AMD 64-bit machines we have around here.

HSH does not take advantage of the multiple processor stuff. I understand that there is a free program available that binds Clarion programs to one processor which supposedly enhances the performance. (Clarion is the language HSH was written in.)


Dave

[Handiman]

Dave,


You are truly one of the good guys!!!


Handi :)

[Dave Schwartz]

For those who may be interested in The HorseStreet Handicapper, take a look at the new format our documentation is taking.

This is link will contain the lessons for our new upgrade (H4). We are adding to it day-by-day. After we finish the "upgrade" lessons (which are designed for the already-experienced user) we will begin a complete set of lessons for getting new users up to speed.

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000009.html


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: How about a pre-Christmas sale? Friday and Saturday, December 22 and 23. Anyone who orders HSH may take $172 off the regular price. That makes the price $427.

Just call to order. 775.825.0260

[traynor]

For those who may be interested in The HorseStreet Handicapper, take a look at the new format our documentation is taking.

This is link will contain the lessons for our new upgrade (H4). We are adding to it day-by-day. After we finish the "upgrade" lessons (which are designed for the already-experienced user) we will begin a complete set of lessons for getting new users up to speed.

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000009.html


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: How about a pre-Christmas sale? Friday and Saturday, December 22 and 23. Anyone who orders HSH may take $172 off the regular price. That makes the price $427.

Just call to order. 775.825.0260


BIG improvement. An important consideration is to create a cross-referenced key-word index as you go, using the terms most likely to be searched, rather than waiting until the end (it saves a lot of time). Many modern software apps use context-sensitive online help (the app figures out what you need to do, offers advice on how to do it, usually as a drop down list).

Most online help files take as much work to craft the index as to create the help files; the links should be as close to intuitive as possible, using probable search terms rather than descriptive terms (which may be radically different).
Good Luck

[Dave Schwartz]

Just in case any HSH users missed this announcement, tomorrow evening we will do a class on H4.

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000033.html

It will begin right after lesson 5 from our website.

The lessons will continue each Tuesday evening until the documentation catches up. (Probably 3 workshops.)


Dave Schwartz

[jacob]

Hi:

I'm a new kid on the block ... but, after 34 years of knocking my head against the wall, I truly discovered how overwelming and disasterous information overload can be.

As a result, I use a handicapping procedure that consolidates proven factors that are formulated to pinpoint the Probable Winner (The Key Horse) of a particular race.

As a matter of fact, the true keyy horse should jump off the past performance page ... even if it's an overlay.

And if I come up with more than one horse, I use generally use speed-pace-stamina based software to separate contenders.

I also have the option of using horse racing software that evaluates Competitive Class or Dosage if I chose ... but, I seldom do.

You see, I'm a spot bettor; therefore, if I can't separate the Probable Winner from a group of contenders, I pass the race.

In addition, I do a little programming. And over the years, I came to realize that the computer can never duplicate the creative capacity and flexibility of the human brain ... but, it can become a handy tool.

Jacob:)

[Dave Schwartz]

In addition, I do a little programming. And over the years, I came to realize that the computer can never duplicate the creative capacity and flexibility of the human brain ... but, it can become a handy tool.

First, the computer software does not need to be that creative. It just needs to be able to predict a few horse races.

However, I think what you are really saying is that you don't believe a computer can be used to make the entire decision.

Yet that is precisely what many of our users do each and every day. It is what I have demonstrated in my "live play" sessions (which I hope to start up again towards the end of January).

Now, this does not translate into "something for nothing." There is no free lunch. Our users have to put in the time and effort (i.e. research) to develop something that works for them but once they have it in place they can use that approach every day.


With all due respect, the fact that you haven't figured out how to do it does not mean it can't be done.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[njcurveball]

In addition, I do a little programming. And over the years, I came to realize that the computer can never duplicate the creative capacity and flexibility of the human brain ... but, it can become a handy tool.

Jacob:)



POOR POOR WORLD CHAMPION Vladimir Kramnik. Despite being hands down the best Chess Player in the World he was beaten by a machine that could never duplicate his creative capacity and flexibility.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3524

[jacob]

Hi:

Point of information: back in 1978, I began formulating flowcharts for handicapping thoroughbreds for use on a Sinclair micro computer. I intended to include every possible factor related to the school of thoroughbred handicapping.

Then, I upgraded to a Vic 20 by Commodore ... then to a Commodore 64 ... and finally to several PCs.

O. K., I must confess the fact that my early speed figure program played a hand in helping select Genuine Risk to in as the Probable Winner of the Kentucky Derby (At that time, she was the second and only filly to win the in 50 years).

But, I didn't need a computer program to tell me that after the removal of top contenders form the field of Experimental Free Handicap, Giacomo was one of it's top 10 contenders--qualifying him to win the Derby with high dosage and all.

In summation, I utilize my software to either confirm whether or not a horse is capable Competing at a certain level and Winning under the stipulated conditions of an up coming race ... Or, I use it as a tie breaker that pinpoints the Probable Winner form a group of Qualified Contends.

In other words, I cull money-losing pretenders and/or races with less than a 30 second glance at the past performances and/or with a choice of proven ... but, user friendly ... handicapping procedures before I use a computer.

Over the years, I've come to realize that only 10% of the races and horse are playable--and, all I want from any race is the horse with the edge (The Probable Winner).

I started the quest of implementing computerized software after losing my first bet against Seattle Slew in the Kentucky Derby and losing again, trying to beat Secretariat in the Following Derby.

In conclusion, over the years, I came to realize that computers are indeed limited, and that sound money management, proven handicapping techniques and common sense are at the top of the list to success.


You see, I'm not just handicapping horses, evaluating Physical Condition, Distance Conditioning, Class, Track Surfaces and Track Conditions gives me a clue of trainer intentions for the particular horse at hand—realizing that a trainer has a unique training regimen for each horse in the stable and has to suffer the economic consequences of losing business.

When you actually break it down, we're playing humans ... psychologically and economically ... and that means 90% of the people involved are in a business, as for the Rich Folks situated in remaining 10%, it's a Game of Prestige.

As for a that chess champion, Let's see the comptuer tackle the minds of the next Derby trainers.


I sincerely apologize stupidly trying onto regurgitate 34 years of experience in one reply.:) Thanks.

Jacob

[Dave Schwartz]

Jacob,

I did not mean to diminish your experience, but rather to enhance it.

I know successful artful players as well as successful systematic players. The artful guys generally are better at being able to find large ROIs while the systematic players are able to make more money. Perhaps one could better describe it as quality versus quantity.

I recall reading a thread from just a couple of days ago where a player said he had lost $2k this year and was pleased with his result. Ten years ago I could not have understood that; now I do.

Sure, we all want to win - at the very least it is how we keep score. But just "playing the game well" is a worthhile target for many players.


So, again, I hope I did not come across as attacking you or your approach. I did not mean to.

BTW, I started programming on the early Apples and Commodores myself. Specifically, I started with the Commodore - a 32k machine that came after the Pet and before the C-64.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[DJofSD]

Perhaps one could better describe it as quality versus quantity.


How about a stock market analogy: value v. growth?

[Dave Schwartz]

DJ,

How about a stock market analogy: value v. growth?

I don't quite think so. One gets an ROI of (say) +20% and 5 bets per day and the other gets an ROI of (say) +3% and 100 bets per day.

They both have "value" and they both produce "growth," but one does it with "churn" and the other with... "consistency?"


Dave

[jacob]

December 26, 2006


Well Dave, the Commore's Vic 20 was just 20K and the
British Sinclair possessed much less memory.

As for being satisfied with losing $2,000, I get more pleasure being up $500.00.

You see, I play probabilities ... not hunches. And, I'm not in this for bragging rights. I passed through that stage during the last century.


Now if You want a few pointers on installing data manipulation modules in Your software, I'm at Your service and it would be a pleasure to colaborate with You.

One would be surprised at how a few decision trees and mathematics could save tons of computer memory.

As I said before, the computer is actually a handicapping tool ... and, not the Rule.:)

Once again, thank You,


Jacob

[Dave Schwartz]

As for being satisfied with losing $2,000, I get more pleasure being up $500.00.

You see, I play probabilities ... not hunches. And, I'm not in this for bragging rights. I passed through that stage during the last century.

Congratulations and best of luck to you.


Dave

[traynor]

Interesting exchange. It seems a familiar view; the problem with software is that it is unable to make the fine distinctions non-computer handicappers make, particularly in regard to contender selection. One of the major issues with computer apps has always been that assuming every entry is a viable contender may not be the most useful approach.

It might be an interesting topic for discussion, and is at the core of the computer vs non-computer dichotomy; non-computer handicappers are most suspicious of non-contenders being overrated by an indiscriminate computer rating method.

If HSH has resolved the issue of contender selection, a brief explanation of how it was (is being) resolved might go a long way to diminish the skepticism of non-computer handicappers.
Good Luck

[wolsons]

"I started the quest of implementing computerized software after losing my first bet against Seattle Slew in the Kentucky Derby and losing again, trying to beat Secretariat in the Following Derby."

I believe Secretariat won in 1973, Seattle Slew not til '76?

[Red Knave]

"I started the quest of implementing computerized software after losing my first bet against Seattle Slew in the Kentucky Derby and losing again, trying to beat Secretariat in the Following Derby."

I believe Secretariat won in 1973, Seattle Slew not til '76?It was '77, Steve.
And I was just going to ask the guy about his time machine. :eek: ;)

[Cesario!]

"I started the quest of implementing computerized software after losing my first bet against Seattle Slew in the Kentucky Derby and losing again, trying to beat Secretariat in the Following Derby."

I believe Secretariat won in 1973, Seattle Slew not til '76?

Noticed that as well. Also noticed that he gave out what probably were his two KY Derby winners over a 34 year period. Personally, I'd like to know his overall ROI for the Derby...

[jacob]

Hi thehandicappinglife:


After the New York Racing Association dropped the ban on lasix, I haven't been seriously wagering on any of the Triple Crown events ... have You notice, we haven't had a Triple Crown winner since then?

First, Affirmed and Aydar were my first Triple Crown duets.

Why Alydar? Because he's the only horse that placed behind the winner in each of the Triple Crown events. Derby Winners Alysheba and Strike The Gold were his foals, proving that he was truly a Derby Sire.

Next was Genuine Risk in the Derby and the Preakness (Move up to Win after Angel Cordero, Codex's Rider, hit her in the face with the whip). However, that year, I hit a big one when Eddie Maple rode the race of his life ... winning the Belmont with Temperence Hill, paying approximately $102.00 to Win.

Then I hit my second fillie in 1998, Winning Colors.

Followed by Sunday Silence in 1989.

I also hit Coastal in the Belmont.

As for the Belmont, I really cleaned up on Wood Stephens' mounts ... Woody and Pincay were a great team.

But those were the days when the best of the breeder, owners, trainers and jockeys were in the business.

As I previous Stated, after lasix was allowed in New York, I haven't been taking the Triple Crown too seriously.

But, starting next month, I shall post a sequential procedure for handicapping the Kentucky Derby ... on a monthly basis.:)

Thank You,


Jacob

[jacob]

Correction:

Please excuse my typo ... I hit Winning Colors in 1988.:)

Thanks,

Jacob

[PaceAdvantage]

Try your best to keep (actually GET) this thread on topic....


Thanks.

[traveler]

[QUOTE=jacob]Hi thehandicappinglife:




As for the Belmont, I really cleaned up on Wood Stephens' mounts ...

What were you doing - mucking out the stables :) Is this just the Readers Digest condensed version of your life or are you going to keep going?

[Dave Schwartz]

Back on track...

Another class on HSH v4.0:

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000034.html


In January we will start our 2007 schedule of classes with a Beginner's class on January 23rd.
http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000035.html

Non-HSH users are welcome to attend. We will also schedule a "sales seminar" in February.

[raybo]

My problem with all the commercial software I've investigated or used has always been their methods for determining which running line to use for the ratings/grades.

For a piece of software to adequately handle this problem it would have to be very intuitive, and I've yet to find any software that accomplishes that.

The ability of software to adjust for differing distances in a horse's running lines has been poor, at best.

A software's ability to evaluate each horse's current form has been poor, as well.

IMO, these extremely important, subjective factors have never been adequately addressed by programmers/handicappers, if that is even possible.

However, software users contribute to the superfecta pools, so I'm happy that these extremely complicated programs are available to attract more of the general populace, who contribute to the industry, and the potential profits of those who use computers as tools for crunching numbers, allowing more time for our brains to do the actual decision making process.

[Tom]

>What makes you think all programs select a singe line?

Speaking for software users everywhere, what track do you play - we would like to be in those pools! ;)

You have obvioulsy not looked at enough programs.

[raybo]

>What makes you think all programs select a singe line?

Speaking for software users everywhere, what track do you play - we would like to be in those pools! ;)

You have obvioulsy not looked at enough programs.


Oh heck, here we go!

How does your particular program produce ratings or grades? Last race, last3, best, etc.?

I don't know of any program that analyzes all of a horse's running lines and then decides which one is most valid regarding today's race. This requires user input as in a manual running line selection option. If your program has that capability then that is a step forward, but then the program isn't doing it, is it?

I also don't know of any program that analyzes all running lines, works, trainer switches, return to distance after gaining from running a different distance, return to former successful jockey, etc., etc., etc., in order to assess current form. If yours does all that then that's another step forward.

Although I may not be able to attribute increased pool sizes to commercial software users, specifically, I would think that many new players hear of these wonderful pieces of software that will do all the handicapping for them that would not otherwise be in these pools. On the other hand, if software users aren't contributing to the pools then what's the point of buying the software in the first place? Do they just buy it and play around with it and then put it on the shelf? Must not be much of a product if that's the case.

If you can't accept my opinions concerning this or any other subject without feeling like you're being personally attacked then maybe this or any other forum isn't for you. These forums are places where discussions can take place between people who have opinions that may be different from others. I stated my opinion on this subject, and if it's not welcome by the members of this forum then so be it. I did just fine before joining PA and I would be just fine without it. I'm not the only one here who doesn't believe that commercial software is lacking in many areas, but if you think it's not then keep buying it, I'm sure the sellers of software appreciate your business.

[Dave Schwartz]

Raybo,

I don't think you need to be so defensive.

Tom brings up a good point... but I will change the question a little:

"What makes you think that picking a single paceline is the best or only way to play?"

Although a few HSH users still select one or more pacelines, most of them do not.

Most use a higher level approach that uses a combination of MANY factors. You mentioned "How does your particular program produce ratings or grades? Last race, last3, best, etc.?"

Yes, HSH can use any of those or all of those.


I realize that your question was actually rhetorical in nature so will not bore you with great detail.


Here is a link to a list of factors:
http://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/factorlist/index.htm

Of the factors it addresses, there are a series of 13 which apply to what you have asked:

BL1, BL2, BL3, BL4 - Best of last 1,2,3,4
B2L3, B2L4, B3L4 - best ? of last ?
AV2, AV3, AV4 - Avg of last 2,3,4
B1E, 2BE, B2E - Best ever, 2nd best ever, best 2 ever

Now, each of these 13 are available for each of 8 major pace factors:

F1, EP, SC, FT (1st Fraction, Early Pace, Str Call, Final Time)
FW, SP, Pw, LP (Early, Sustained, Energy, Late)

Thus, there are 13 x 8 or 108 "pace ratings."
Of course there are also the Stretch Run, Hidden Fraction, Factor X, etc. ratings.

So, by querying the system (through the use of a technology called the "PickMaster") we can ask which of these factors are "most important" for this race, effectively building a model and system on the fly automatically. In our newest release, this can literally be done with a single button click! (i.e. "Get races like this one, analyze those races, choose the best factors, create a handicapping object from those factors.")

In other words, an amazing amount of intuitive-like behavior is produced through our A.I. without ever actually selecting a paceline.


The backbone of HSH for many users is the "handicapping object," of which a good explanation can be found here:
http://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/hcpobjs/index.htm



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[raybo]

Dave,

Thanks for the explanation. But, as knowledgeable of racing as you must be, don't you agree that before any of those pace scenarios can be decided upon you must have analyzed a horse's form first? I certainly wouldn't want to use any of them without knowing where, in his/her form cycle, the animal is. Also, once you do decide which one to use, aren't all the horses in that particular race handicapped using the same scenario? If that's true, then you're basically saying all the horses are in the same form cycle.

BTW, I had the feeling he was the one being defensive and trying to make me look like a fool who knows nothing of commercial software. He has no idea what my background is and assumes that I haven't the knowledge to support what I believe.

I am familiar with artificial intelligence, as it pertains to handicapping software, and modeling based upon it. In my opinion, models just arrive at what happens most often and that seems much too broad an approach. Each animal is different and, IMO, must be handicapped that way.

[Tom]

BTW, I had the feeling he was the one being defensive and trying to make me look like a fool who knows nothing of commercial software. He has no idea what my background is and assumes that I haven't the knowledge to support what I believe.

Man, if you got that impression out of:

[quote]
>What makes you think all programs select a singe line?

Speaking for software users everywhere, what track do you play - we would like to be in those pools! ;)

You have obvioulsy not looked at enough programs.


If you got that from my post, then maybe this forum is not for YOU.

Why are YOU allowed to express your opinion and I am not?
Obviously you do ot know how my program works, so your opinion of it being poor is worthless.

BTW, how is trainer value paceline specific?

So, I say you are entiltled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine - but you cannot accept that, can you? My opinion is simple you don't know what you are talking about for all programs, yet you try to pass off this great insight you have based on ignorance of how all programs work.
By your own post, you don't know how mine works.

Fascinating.

BTW, when you see a ;) you should understand what it means. It is not the sign of an attack dog.

Good bye, IGGY.

[Dave Schwartz]

Raybo,

First, I accepted a long time ago that not everyone sees things my way. If what you are doing is working for you, then you should be applauded.

I am familiar with artificial intelligence, as it pertains to handicapping software, and modeling based upon it. In my opinion, models just arrive at what happens most often and that seems much too broad an approach. Each animal is different and, IMO, must be handicapped that way.

And I am familiar with golf but couldn't get within 40 strokes of par from the shortest tee with one Mulligan per hole. Being familiar clearly does not make one an expert.

As you clearly stated, this is your opinion and I took it as such.

What I can tell you with confidence is that your way is not the only way (I am sure you can accept that) and that the HSH way works, too. I can also tell you that the great majority of our users do not see "each animal as different" because we typically never look at the individual animal.

Most people spend 90% of their time handicapping and 5% of their time wagering. (The other 5% is for getting beer & chowder.) The typical HSH user is more likely to spend 10% of his time handicapping and 70% of his time wagering. (The other 30% is cashing tickets. <G> Okay, it's more beer.)



Now, Tom can certainly speak for himself, but what I saw Tom reacting to was something that sounded a lot like "only my way works," or "if you aren't doing it my way it can't be done." This may not have been your intention but we hear that so much around here that it gets old.


Personally, I welcome people who tell us how they handicap successfully. It is a great way to learn things.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[bigmack]

The other 5% is for getting beer & chowder
Mr Schwartz brings up some good points Raybo albeit he's now planted the thought of cold beer and some chowder alongwith some Oysters Rockafeller and perhaps another cold one to the extent that I now have to go to The Brigantine behind Del Mar to devour, more than likely missing several races of which I could be cashing some tasty tickets..but I digress.

Some of the programs that some of us use has been worked on by some very bright people and the data that spits out is a result of very sharp people working year after year to get that data down to a science. What works for you is fine but to poopoo those who use "programs" would be foolhardy.

Hey Mr. Schwartz whatever happened to a couple o' stories about a certain card counter from the old days? Brigantine here I come.

[Tom]

Most people spend 90% of their time handicapping and 5% of their time wagering. (The other 5% is for getting beer & chowder. HEY! ) The typical HSH user is more likely to spend 10% of his time handicapping and 70% of his time wagering. (The other 30% is cashing tickets. <G> Okay, it's more beer.)



Now, Tom can certainly speak for himself, but what I saw Tom reacting to was something that sounded a lot like "only my way works," or "if you aren't doing it my way it can't be done." This may not have been your intention but we hear that so much around here that it gets old.


Personally, I welcome people who tell us how they handicap successfully. It is a great way to learn things.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

1. You didn't push YOUR bowl away! :lol:
2. Yes I can...and do too often!:blush:
3. That's the way I read it
4. I agree 100% Never can learn too much.

Happy New Year, you old voice of reson, you!
(BTW, your wagering seminar made some significant differences in my bottom the last quarter of 2006.) TOTHTY!:ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

Tom & Mack,

Now I'm hungry for chowder!

And tonight is surf and turf night! (I'll specialize in the surf, thank you.) I have this beautiful pile of big Alaskan king crab legs awaiting me!

But, alas, now I realize I have no chowder!



Happy New Year to you both!


Dave

PS: Tom - Congrats on the improved bottom line. Will that earn me a complimentery chowder if I manage to get back there for Travers day? (Can we get crab?)

[Tom]

Dave, any time you come to Saratoga, I can get you crabs! :p

[raybo]

My problem with all the commercial software I've investigated or used has always been their methods for determining which running line to use for the ratings/grades.

For a piece of software to adequately handle this problem it would have to be very intuitive, and I've yet to find any software that accomplishes that.

The ability of software to adjust for differing distances in a horse's running lines has been poor, at best.

A software's ability to evaluate each horse's current form has been poor, as well.

IMO, these extremely important, subjective factors have never been adequately addressed by programmers/handicappers, if that is even possible.

However, software users contribute to the superfecta pools, so I'm happy that these extremely complicated programs are available to attract more of the general populace, who contribute to the industry, and the potential profits of those who use computers as tools for crunching numbers, allowing more time for our brains to do the actual decision making process.


I quoted my original post and highlighted some things that, it appears, were either not read or ignored.

I never said I was an expert. I never said my way is the only way. I never said if you aren't doing it my way it can't be done. As you can see, I clearly stated that it was my opinion. If I thought it was a universal fact, I would have stated that.

Just because you're tired of the way others have bashed you in the past doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is bashing you.

I am not a member of what is obviously a commercial software brotherhood here so I suppose I should have expected the treatment I received by not falling head over heels in love with some piece of software and proclaiming it king. I don't care what you guys use or don't use, you're adults and can decide for yourself. I'm not completely against handicapping software, as is evidenced by my being here in the first place. But until someone convinces me that their software accomplishes what I feel has always been lacking in such programs, I will not use it, at any price.

[raybo]

Mr Schwartz brings up some good points Raybo albeit he's now planted the thought of cold beer and some chowder alongwith some Oysters Rockafeller and perhaps another cold one to the extent that I now have to go to The Brigantine behind Del Mar to devour, more than likely missing several races of which I could be cashing some tasty tickets..but I digress.

Some of the programs that some of us use has been worked on by some very bright people and the data that spits out is a result of very sharp people working year after year to get that data down to a science. What works for you is fine but to poopoo those who use "programs" would be foolhardy.

Hey Mr. Schwartz whatever happened to a couple o' stories about a certain card counter from the old days? Brigantine here I come.

Thank you for not attacking me , too. I have never doubted that more intelligent people than I have put their intelligence to work in this field. And I appreciate that they are continually trying to solve it's shortcomings. I wish them well. However, I don't think "poopoo those who use programs" is the right phrase. I was critical of the software, not the users of it.

[banacek]

The typical HSH user is more likely to spend 10% of his time handicapping and 70% of his time wagering. (The other 30% is cashing tickets. <G> Okay, it's more beer.)

I hope HSH doesn't use that kind of arithmetic!;)

[bigmack]

until someone convinces me that their software accomplishes what I feel has always been lacking in such programs, I will not use it, at any price.
Well that was a nice diversion Oysters Rock was just what the Dr ordered.

raybo, don't expect anyone to convice you of anything. We're all free to choose the path that works for ourselves in a game that can be brutal. I rather suspect you've not "kicked the tires" of the most formidable programs of late but that's niether here nor there. All the best in your endeavors.

Since linking up with the hooligans on this board I've learned much. I thought I knew all I needed and in time found I knew little. The constant search for consistant profits through a mulititude of means and angles by many members is astounding.

My thanks to three members that continue to foster lively discussions even though their years of involvement ought to make them as stale as year old bread. CJ, Tom, DSchwartz. Happy NY

[Tom]

Happy New Year Big Mac.......old bread, eh? :eek:
I was thinking more along the lines of fine wine, but whatever!

[DJofSD]

Old bread can make great French toast or croutons for you salad!

Bon appitite!

[Dave Schwartz]

Raybo,

I quoted my original post and highlighted some things that, it appears, were either not read or ignored.

I read them. And you're right - I ignored them.

My problem with all the commercial software I've investigated or used has always been their methods for determining which running line to use for the ratings/grades.

See, this is why your comments draw fire... they are inflamatory in nature.

Seems we are back to paceline(s) must be selected or else it can't work.

Your problem is that whatever software you have looked it has caused you to make judgements about all software.

Sir, I invite you to keep doing what you are doing as successfully as you are doing it.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Banacek,


I hope HSH doesn't use that kind of arithmetic!


LOL - Wait! I've got it! HSH gives you 110%!


Dave

[raybo]

Raybo,



I read them. And you're right - I ignored them.



See, this is why your comments draw fire... they are inflamatory in nature.

Seems we are back to paceline(s) must be selected or else it can't work.

Your problem is that whatever software you have looked it has caused you to make judgements about all software.

Sir, I invite you to keep doing what you are doing as successfully as you are doing it.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz


How does "My problem has always been" appear inflammatory? Did I say "your problem has always been", or "your software has always been"? The "all" I referred to was "all the commercial software I have investigated or used", not "all" the software out there.

Have a nice life.

I'm outa here.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know you say you're out of here (did you get my PM?) but before you go, would you mind listing the software you've used?

[raybo]

I know you say you're out of here (did you get my PM?) but before you go, would you mind listing the software you've used?

PA,

Yes, I got your PM and answered it.

The last one I used was CompuTrak, prior to that I used ALLWays, MultiCaps, Neurax Pro, and several prior to using Bris data. I have investigated many others, including Dave's product but the most advanced seem to still be using models and modeling doesn't agree with me. IMO, to model a particular type of race and then apply that same model to every horse in the race seems far too broad to me. As Dave stated, most of his clients don't handicap individual horses in a race. That goes against what I believe. To say that ratings can be obtained from the same finite set of running lines for every horse in a race, like last 3 or last 4 or last 2 best or any other preset grouping, says that you are going to apply that same set to every horse in that race. What about that horse or 2 that you need to treat differently? Like I said, modeling just isn't the answer, in my opinion. So when I see that a piece of software involves preset models and filters, I am not interested.

I was merely stating my personal concerns with this type of approach in my posts in this thread, I clearly stated that what I was saying was my own opinion, trying not to induce an attack, but as you can see in the first reply to my original post, the trouble was already starting. And, I am one that, when attacked, will defend myself. If I'm wrong and you prove it, I will admit it.

[Tom]

Breaking News - no one attacked you.
Your posts were the most agressive.
You have an opinon, learn to accept that others might not agree with it.
We are here to discuss things, but you don't seem to agree with that.
Happy New Year.

[Dave Schwartz]

Raybo (and anyone else who might be interested),

There is still time to sign up for our webinar this evening and have a look at HSH.

Although this is not a "sales seminar" but rather an actual workshop, you should be able to get a feel for HSH.

Although you will likely come away not sure what you actually saw, you should get a feel for the power of the A.I. in HSH.

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000034.html

I will be checking new registrations (for approval) until 6:10.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Seems our workshop last night was a bit of a technical disaster - the conference call system did not work and we had to cancel!

I have rescheduled that webinar for next Tuesday evening. Read about it at the link below:

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000036.html

[Suff]

Seems our workshop last night was a bit of a technical disaster - the conference call system did not work and we had to cancel!

I have rescheduled that webinar for next Tuesday evening. Read about it at the link below:

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000036.html

I use these folks 3 to 4 times a month without a glitch....and its priced right.

Free!

http://www.freeconference.com/

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks for the link... I will check them out.

[Dave Schwartz]

Back on topic...

Here are a couple of recent posts from new users of HSH:

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000017.html

http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000013.html

Although we have not officially decided upon how much, HSH will be increasing in price significantly on February 1st. Anyone interested in purchasing should make their move sooner rather htan later.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

We have updated our HorseStreet Policies page. Some of you may find it interesting reading.


http://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/policy/index.htm

The highlights would be the Disabled Veteran's Discount and the Friends and Family Discount.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[JimG]

We have updated our HorseStreet Policies page. Some of you may find it interesting reading.


http://www.practicalhandicapping.com/desktop/policy/index.htm

The highlights would be the Disabled Veteran's Discount and the Friends and Family Discount.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

The disabled veteran's discount is a nice touch and speaks volumes for your character.

[Tatetytiffany]

I can be one to testify. You will not find better support than what Dave gives. My computer has given me fits and everytime I have contacted him he has helped me immediately. Thanks Dave

[facorsig]

While I recognize this thread is a little dated, the product, HSH, continues to evolve. The latest version of HSH is a few months old now and introduces some powerful new handicapping tools in addition to the earlier arsenal. Dave's support to the software has also introduced several new initiatives. Recently, I travelled a long distance to his workshop in Reno with about 8 other users. In addition to a couple of new approaches, he demonstrated his commitment to customer service by arranging a dentist on my arrival and ultimately....a root canal. I've never been so happy to have a root canal in my life! Speaking with the other users, it was interesting to note how many of us started with "7-button", an out-of-the-box approach, and had evolved to our distinct handicapping approaches. If you are considering a software purchase (or lease), I recommend you give HSH a refreshed look.

Also, I have been a regular user of Premier Turf Club since this thread was last active. HSH users can design their tools to suit their own tastes. I have found that the extra value of PTC rebates and customer service has been a rewarding experience.

Fred