Are any systems, angles or methods any good?

[trying2win]

The Handicapping Library section of Pace Advantage has been kind of slow lately. There have been some excellent posts in this section earlier regarding handicapping books. Thanks to everyone who participated on that topic. I picked up some good pointers there.

To get some more thoughts, ideas, opinions and discussion going here, I thought I'd start a new thread here about systems, angles or methods.

I've purchased a few methods over the years and found most of them did not live up to their promises. Subscibing to Phillips Racing Newsletter didn't help either. The old "School of Hard Knocks" experiences.

I just recently bought an excellent system review book called " The Top 52" by Len Czyzniejewski. This book reviewed a lot of the highly touted systems of the last while, by authors like Charles Blaskower, Jon and Tom Worth, Clint Tracy, Ray Somma, Nick Borg, Bob Pandolfo, Barry Burkan, Steve Collision, Tom Console and Mark Cramer, to name a few. Most of the systems tested didn't merit praise from the reviewer, but there were a few he gave some positive comments on. Didn't I read somewhere that someone suspected that Clint Tracy and Dave Powers were possibly the same person?

I suspect most systems if tested out over a large database will wind up with a negative ROI on all straight bets. But aren't some of the weaknesses in testing a system over a large sample of races contained in some of these things?...i.e.... 1. All systems are tested at multiple tracks in the U.S. and Canada. 2. All systems are tested without regards to what odds each horse went off at.

What I'm getting at in the above paragraph, is that some systems, angles or methods have some logic and merit to them and if you tinker with some of the rules of them to fit what's happening at certain tracks, then certain methods will work okay. It's what I like to refer as, methods that are "track specific". In addition, by employing certain minimum morning line odds or certain minimum post time odds, some methods seem to work out just fine.

My hats go off to the pace advantage members who can make a long term profit by handicapping. I'm not in that category. I've found out by experience that betting angles, whether at the thoroughbred or harness, works out best for me. Of course, even when betting angles, I use some handicapping knowledge and logic in choosing my selections.

Any system, method or angle fans out there, thoroughbred or harness?

[trying2win]

I forgot to mention something in my first post on this topic. Sometimes I create some of my own angles to use at certain tracks, whether it's thoroughbred or harness tracks.

Ideas for racing angles, can come from such things as reading stats or past performances from data providers such as TSN or TRACKMASTER. Then you notice certain winning patterns at individual tracks. So you test your ideas on paper by checking past race results. It shows a nice profit for 50 races. Then to your disappointment in the next 50 races your new creative angle goes in the tank! Back to the drawing board. You either discard your newly created angle...OR...you test, retest, and tinker with your proposed guidelines and hope you finally have a track-specific angle that shows some good profit possibilities.

I've been a big fan of Mark Cramer's style of thoroughbred racing angle creation and testing for many years. Same goes for Al Stanley at the harness racing game. Both these authors have been a huge inspiration to me as an angle reseacher and bettor. Betting angles is what works best for me. How about you?

One of the mysteries is, why do certain angles work well at one track, yet are a complete dud at another? I'm guessing it has to do with some of the physical attributes of each track...i.e. soil composition, banked turns or not, sharpness of the turns, length of the homestretch to the wire etc. Anyone got any theories there?

[melman]

trying2win I owe this one to Tom who pointed it out to me on the Web. It is www.kimstarr.org (not a link) just type it in. Lots and lots of very good stuff under "handicapping" click under the archieves area. A lot of the "race shape" material comes direct from a book on Harness by Steve Chaplin called "Bettor's Guide to Harness Racing". Out of print but you can still get a used copy by doing a search at amazon.com. Well worth the time for a read of this material.

[trying2win]

Melman:

Thanks for the tip on the kimstarr.org site. I've read many of the harness handicapping articles by Steve M. at that site before.

Although I'm not a big fan of handicappers who seem to have an pompous style of writing like Steve M. or Dick Mitchell, even then I've learned some good handicapping techniques from both of them.

[hurrikane]

I've run and played a lot of different 'angles' and spot plays the last few years. Most of the time..eventually..things return to zero. At first maybe early speed it king..then one few things happen. You lose prices or you lose stock or maybe a track bias.. Not sure if the track changes, the stock changes or just the public catches on and you lose the prices. Probably I"ve seen all 3...and at the same time.

One thing that has given me good profits year in and year out regardless....trainers and connections.

[Jaguar]

Trying2win,

To shed a little light on this subject, over the past 22 years I have made an extensive academic- as well as a hands-on, betting in the trenches- assault on the horse racing puzzle.

While it is true that some of the 2 dozen tried and true angles listed in Dan Pope's compendium are still working, some are clearly not effective any more.

Racing has changed in the past 20 years, and markedly so. Many of the old handicapping tools and techniques are as obsolete as the biplane.

In order to understand why racing underwent this sea-change, we have to acknowledge the circumstances which now rule the racing environment.

For example, costs have risen exponentially. Whereas a pickup truck full of hay, years ago, cost $10-$12 , now that load might run $110-$120, or so.

Insurance fees are high. Veterinary bills are high. Transportsation costs are high. Every expense related to the care and training of a racehorse is over the moon.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon each and every horse on the grounds to earn their keep. Moreover, the trainer is compelled to win to keep his string and to attract new owners.

In short, the old casual "recreational" atmosphere which- to a certain degree- penetrated the backstretch years ago, has vanished like snow in April. It's all business now.

At the same time, trainers no longer have the luxury of taking their time with a horse, trying different things, and waiting for the horse to develop. Also, alot of owners- new to the game- want to see their horse run on Saturday, since they are bringing business clients to the track. These men don't want to hear any excuses, they want to see their animal perform, sound or not.

So, what we have now is the "push-button" racetrack. Somehow, the conditioner is expected to push a button, like starting a motorcycle, and "zoom" - the horse runs, regardless of the variables- the condition of the track, equipment changes, shoe changes, soreness or lameness, etc., workouts, etc.

Thus, due to the very different nature of today's game, trainers have gone whole hog for chemical enhancements. And these drugs have washed away the old angles, patterns, form cycles, etc. Today a horse can lay off for 15 months, show 3 workouts in the pp's, and go gate-to-wire on race day, resulting in the trash bins at Aqueduct over-flowing with DRF's and Today's Racing Program, by the 6th race, as disgusted bettors check their sock for the $5 bill they stashed after entering the grounds at noon.

Summing up, the pace and speed handicappers will always win their share of races- but they are always hoping.

Folks that track a race horse's connections know they are going to cash, and with what degree of statistical certainty. Today, more than ever before, the trainer is the key to this game.

All the best,

Jaguar

[BMeadow]

Over the past six years, we've tested dozens of commercial systems on large databases in Meadow's Racing Monthly. Most of the tests were done by Jim Bayle of SportStat or Jim Cramer of Handicappers Data Warehouse.

None has come close to living up to the claims in the sales letters.

This statement has thus far covered all vendors, no matter how sincere--or phony--the sales letters and catalog pitches sound.

That's not to say that some system COULDN'T work. Only that every one we've tested hasn't come close to doing so.

A complete list of systems tested is at our website (www.trpublishing.com, then Meadow's Racing Monthly, then Index to Articles).

[so.cal.fan]

Jag-
Interesting post. I agree with you.
Do you do your own trainer stats?
I would take it one step further.....
you need to be at the track often, you need to know people, not to get tips, but to garner information about what is currently going on.
You need to be able to accurately predict when a trainer is going to get hot or cold.
You need to know about owners as well.

[Jaguar]

So.Cal.fan,

appreciate your comment. Most handicappers are a little shy on information, which as you have indicated, is a vital aspect of this game.

Since, considering the 4 legs of the stool: (1. Horse 2. Trainer 3. Jockey 4. Owner) the horse's owner is the most problematic, alot of us struggling wanna-be millionaires focus on the most easily measured categories, which we meld into a data set we call the "trainer/jockey" combination.

Perusing the handicapping literature from the 1940's up to the present, we encounter a variety of schemes for estimating the impact of this crucial factor.

However, some of the trainer/jockey algorithms used by the better A. I. programs are quite powerful and- since those programs(I include "expert systems"- such as HorseSense, for example, in the A. I. category) are either already optimized, or, as in the case of "true" A. I. discs- such as TB5, AllWays, Joe Zambuto's program, and Multi-Strats, etc., have the capability of modifying themselves(learning), based on results entered.

Thus,resulting in track specific trainer/jockey ratings which- for the patient handicapper- can be very profitable.

Since there is no better handicapping info than track specific info, it is incumbent upon the "connections" handicapper(such as myself) to maintain track specific databases. Of course, since the computer does this automatically, there is very little expenditure of time and effort by the handicapper required, beyond entering the winner- as in the case of Multi-Strats- or, entering the race results and sometimes the mutuels, as is necessary in some of the really detailed and comprehensive discs, such as Thorobrain,
and this task is automated in several discs.

For a suggestion of how insightful some of the handicapping methods in use can be, I recommend taking a look at a few days predictions(under the "conn" heading) in Liam Durbin's program, which is on the web every morning at "e-ponies.com".

Bear in mind that Liam's method is an expert system approach to handicapping, meaning that the program is not optimized. All tracks are handicapped the same way. A handicapper who wanted to bet based on Liam's output, would have to maintain his own "conn" database, for each track and distance studied. A daunting task. But, just look how impressive Liam's raw "conn" ratings are. Imagine how much better those numbers would be if they were optimized.

In short, having the software track a horse's connections is what- to me- makes handicapping really rewarding today. We have so much power on our desktop, and thank Heaven BRIS only charges a buck for DRF files.

All the best,

Jaguar

[LOU M.]

Jaguar,
I know alot about trainers and jockeys but very little about computers. If I wanted to become a "connections handicapper"how would I go about it. What software and data base would you recommend.Remember I need to learn how to use the software and its application.Thanks for your time.LOU M.

[delayjf]

Would you be interested in talking about trainer handicapping off-line?? delayjf2002@yahoo.com

[Quinncom]

I would be very interested in any discussion of trainer handicapping on or offline.

[CapperLou]

Trainer Handicapping on or offline:

Jaguar knows that I have a keen interest in this topic--so; I certainly would be interested in any discussion that might be set up for this subject.

All the Best,

CapperLou

[Jaguar]

Lou M. ,

You don't have to be intimidated by the technology involved in handicapping, since- happily- in this day and age you don't need to be skilled at programming or conversant with SQL.

The whole world of handicapping has been opened up and made accessible to us mere mortals via brilliant and easy-to-use software from talented scientists such as Joe Mainardi, developer of HorseSense- and Joe Zambuto, who has done an extraordinary job in crafting a nicely designed, straightforward, yet extremely versatile and sophisticated handicapping disc.

The fact that these 2 programs are so affordable, and are backed by such reliable technical support, and use $1 files, should take the normally experienced anxiety out of the purchase.

Also, at the high end, programs such as TB5(Thorobrain updated and made easy to use) or All-Ways(free from BRIS but involves expensive pp files) are awesome in their power and comprehensiveness. In fact, Probability Research gives TB5 away in return for a commitment to buy their files- required to run TB5.

All of the above mentioned software tracks trainer/jockey stats very effectively. And, since trainer/jockey numbers have to be used in the context of a carefully and thoroughly handicapped race, the program literally tells you when a trainer's horse is not only "well meant for today", but also indicates the statistical chances for that horse to win that race, that day.

Who cares about angles that win 16% of the time? I want to cash today. Alot of intelligent, well-meaning handicappers waste a great deal of time investigating the effectiveness of antique angles which win once in a blue moon. I should know, I was once one of those handicappers.

Once you have first class handicapping coupled with first class trainer/jockey stats, you're in like Errol Flynn surrounded by a bunch of Hollywood starlets.

All the best,

Jaguar

[Jaguar]

CapperLou, Quinncom, Delayjf,

Guys, looking forward to any handicapping discussion on or off-line. Will be out of town- (even handicappers get a break once in a while) until December 1st.

Wishing all my friends and fellow posters on PA a Happy Thanksgiving, hope you can be with friends and family, and hope you have a wonderful time relaxing.

All the best,

Jaguar

P.S. E-Mail: JaguarXK140MC@AOL.COM

[Tom]

I have nothing against trainer handicapping, but the fact of the matter is that 90% of the time I don't even look to see who is training my horses. It is not vital information to me. I win, but with different horse than the trainer guys do. It's a big game and there are many windows to it.

[hurrikane]

you are correct Tom. I play trainers and love em. I also play other angles but trainers are my best. I know lots of guys that don't care. And they win.
Hey..if we all bet on the same horse we'd never make a dime.

:D

[trying2win]

Has anyone ever bought any systems, angles, or methods, from sources such as RPM, Worth Company, Sharphorses.com,
K & C Enterprises etc. and thought some of the items bought had some merit to them?

Sometimes if you tweak the rules of half decent systems to fit trends at certain tracks, then a handicapper might come up with a revised system that might work okay. That's been my experience on occasion.

A handicapper can also create some of his own systems without buying anything. I've done that as well.

Would be interested in what other pace advantage members'
thoughts might be on this subject.

[trying2win]

Some of the weaknesses of commercial horse racing systems I've seen over the years are:

1. Had too many rules. This made it too time-consuming to figure out the plays.

2. Too many plays became chalk, due to the fact that the rules used handicapping factors overused by the general public.

3. Didn't produce enough plays per day at one track. Sometimes none at all.

4. Some produced too many plays.

5. No minimum odds guidelines for the plays.

6. Not enough logic to the plays.

7. Self-trial paper bets, produced some losing streaks that were too long for comfort.


The few good systems I've come across over the years, usually had some positive attributes to them. These included:

A. A logical base to them.

B. Incorporated factors not so obvious to the general public.

C. Involved a horse finishing 4th or worse in the last race.
There is that tendency of some of the racing public to readily dismiss a horse finishing out of the money in its last race. That helps in obtaining possible plays that go off at decent odds.

D. Had too many rules at times, but reducing the number of rules to fit the winning profiles at certain tracks, could possibly bring about some postive ROI results.

E. Over a series of plays at one track, averaged only 2 or 3 bets per day.


So, whether a bettor modifies existing systems or creates his own, it's a good feeling when their bets can produce a reasonable profit over a race meet or a year.

Many pace advantage members are very generous in passing along some of their vast handicapping experience and knowledge, without giving away their personal winning systems. Sharing a winning system, quite possibly would end its profitability. I don't think too many bettors with winning systems are willing to do that.

[trying2win]

Just a few additional comments on systems, angles and methods:

---I had some success with "The Las Vegas Social Security Method" ...but drawbacks were:

1. Took too long to figure out the ratings for each horse.
2. Even after figuring out the ratings for each horse, a lot of the time there was no play in a race.

---I also had some success with the "Profits From Quitters Method" at the odd track ...but only after I tweaked some of the rules to come up with a lower number of plays. I haven't tried this method for awhile. Might have to give it a try again, since it's more of a timesaver compared to a lot of other methods. It probably won't work very well at some tracks though. Paper bet test first, right? Even then there are no guarantees, as we all know that paper bets always seem to work out better than betting with real money!

The "In the Black-- The Point System" and "Speed Demons System" seem very logical, but the drawback again is it takes too long to figure out the ratings for each horse.

So it appears there is the odd good paper and pencil method out there. Of course, one has to be like a good detective to find out the good ones, then figure out if the rules need to be adjusted or not, what minimum odds you need to make the system profitable and then there is the problem of finding out which tracks the various systems might work at.

I won't list the worthless systems I've bought or read in magazines or books over the years. That would take up too much space!

Trying2Win Disclaimer: Sorry, no PRN-type ratings on the systems and methods mentioned in this post. No guarantees, no wild claims. Just some general observations here. Do I sound like a good lawyer?

[trying2win]

I just noticed that TRACKMASTER has a new product called ULTRA ANGLES for thoroughbred and quarter horse racing. Checked out what it's all about, i.e. the list of angles and a sample report. Big selection of angles there, but can't see where it would benefit me by using this kind of report. Might appeal to some bettors though.

[trying2win]

I look at trainer angles at the bottom of the past performances. It's nice to know that individual trainers do well in certain categories and have nice win %'s and plus ROI'S sometimes.

Would be nice though, if some of those detailed trainer stats listed all individual trainers' win prices in some categories. That way you could tell if the plus ROI stats of one trainer, was for example, the result of one $42.00 winner and many $5.00 and $6.00 win payoffs...OR...a better scenario of multiple $12.00 to $16.00 winners, plus the odd smaller win payoff.

[formula_2002]

I use the bris data files for the All Ways software.
The files are expensive ($7.00 per racecard + .25cents for the results file.)

Over the past three years I have made a substancial investment buying the data. Nothing comes cheap.

The point is this. Angles plays are meaningless without the back up. And the amount of back up required to prove an "angle"
can be several thousand races.

An "angle" has to withstand the test in each odds range.
A good reference in determing the number of plays required for different confidence levels is Dick Mitchell's "Commonsense Betting"