One Way To Evaluate Which Software To Buy

[Topcat]

In the past I've test and used many of the pieces of software out there (HSH, HTR, MPH, Aodds, A+, Thoromation, STK, Equisim ROI, JCapper, Morning Liner, BRIS programs,etc etc) and have used ROI from these test (using a default rating or setup) as to which one to stay with. Let me hast to say that using a default rating or setup to measure ROI is not the way most of these developers would advise using their software but it is way to try and get to an apples to apples comparison. I will also say that there are many good programs, and several of the better ones advertise here on PAs board.

OK, But let’s say you want to purchase just one and do not want to test. A simple criterion is to check the level of activity on a user's board. There are many well known pieces of software that little to no activity -or a question posted months ago and no answer. For me that is a strike. The level of activity indicates a commitment and interest by users and developers.

If you do this cuts the field to really just a couple of pieces of software.

The next filter is whether there is any customer service and if there is a wizard behind the screen. The program I have chosen to stay with, HSH, definitely does and he quickly responds to emails. I posted a message on his tech support forum yesterday and inside of an hour got a response. Now, you may not always get the answer you want but in this instance I did, and he came up with a fix inside of a 24 hours.

BTW: As evidence of the value of an active board: Recently there have been some interesting post by people making their living betting the races and there seem to be a number of professionals. The ones most of us can relate to http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001638.html

[shanta]

If activity and quick replies to tech problems are a gauge then Binder's site Pace and Cap ranks right up there with HTR.

200,000 visits to the site in little more than 2 years, ongoing contests with prizes that rival and surpass THIS "megaboard". multiple forums for various Sartin programs etc.

Followups
Manuals
Audio seminars
Gotomeetings
tech support
GOOD PEOPLE :)

Ted Craven is developing the first windows platform using Sartin "codes" and answers and helps everyone now beta testing the software.

Pace and Cap,Bill Varone(Binder) and Ted Craven are second to none.
http://bindfold.com/forums/

Richie

[richrosa]

I like this board better. A lot of real arguments go on here. Its not an "attaboy" crowd.

Mike has a policy that advertisers financially support this board, as does Pace N' Cap. Nevertheless, I feel good that I've supported both boards.

Ted can buy a sponsorship here too.

[Binder]

Hi Rich Rosa

At one time I did have ads on the site
However I now am only a reader supported
Sartin Methodolgy discussion board

Ted Craven, and Trackmaster are the exceptions
Ted pays for space on the site I allow this
because of his dedication to making a true
Sartin methodology window platform program, One that he
not only asks me to test but also I am in constant
conferences with him and then pass ideas and progress
notes right to Howard Sartin
I have a banner for Trackmaster on my site. This is
my thank you to them as they have given me
a break on the past performance exe files cost that all Sartin
program,and that Ted's RDSS will run on exclusivly on
Pace and Cap is a non profit readers supported
Sartin Methodolgy discussion board
There is a members only area but that is to get access to the priceless
(to us) manuals media files and follow ups area
Yes you can call it a attaboy site I'm very happy it is
The motto is friends helping friends win
My dream was to gather together and talk to other
winners about winning I feel I have done that


Thanks
and as Doc Sartin says
Good Skill

Bill V
admin

[richrosa]

yes, the whole world is non-profit, like the socialists in China.

What works over there, doesn't work here. Richie posted an ad. Since your board is so unfriendly to views that Richie disagrees with, I feel honest to mention that we don't have that problem here. This is better board, and more open minded. I like it better here. IMHOO people should post here.

Attaboy!!

[Binder]

Hi again

I do my best I have always had a good relationship
with Mike here at Paceadvantage he has helped me many times

Again your right. Pace and Cap is what it is
I have no problem with its content
Richie is my brother I stand by him 100%
he took me in and taught me about
racing first then about life and loyalty
and to stand up and be me

GS
Bill

[richrosa]

ok, but I still like it better on this board.

[Dave Schwartz]

Geez... I work hard to get people to shill up for me and you guys bicker about whose BBS is better. :lol:

(Yes, I am kidding.)


Dave Schwartz

[Topcat]

If activity and quick replies to tech problems are a gauge then Binder's site Pace and Cap ranks right up there with HTR.

200,000 visits to the site in little more than 2 years, ongoing contests with prizes that rival and surpass THIS "megaboard". multiple forums for various Sartin programs etc.

Followups
Manuals
Audio seminars
Gotomeetings
tech support
GOOD PEOPLE :)

Ted Craven is developing the first windows platform using Sartin "codes" and answers and helps everyone now beta testing the software.

Pace and Cap,Bill Varone(Binder) and Ted Craven are second to none.
http://bindfold.com/forums/

Richie

Well I can't say that I've ever evaluated a "Pace N Cap" program or anything from Ted Craven-(if I read it right he doesn’t actually have a program out yet so maybe the first filter should be “Actually have a program out” ). I will say had Sartin's first program when he first released it and subsequent ones. They were OK and nice early efforts, but didn't fare well in any large sample size test in comparison to most of the programs mentioned in my first post and pale in comparison to some of the newer programs like HSH.


I should also say I haven't evaluated Rich's web based handicapping site
HandicappingOS but it looks like an advanced and serious site.

And just for the record , Dave did not know I was going to post here nor did he solicit it. I just felt compelled to offer my POV after the great customer service. Take or leave it for what it is worth.

Glad to hear there are other boards that you are pleased with.
Good luck and good handicapping to you.

[richrosa]

Geez... I work hard to get people to shill up for me and you guys bicker about whose BBS is better. :lol:

(Yes, I am kidding.)


Dave Schwartz

Dave,

you know I'll shill for you anytime, and I know you would do the same for me. :lol:

If you try to "shill" at that other board, you get proclaimed a "heretic" by the guy who posted here and run out of town faster than Hard Spun ran 7f yesterday.

[JimG]

Back on topic, over the last 10 years I have tried many of the programs Topcat listed and a couple others and I have to say there are many programs that can help you perform better at the races. Not sure I agree that an active or inactive bbs makes a difference. There are good programs out there that do not have a bbs at all but are well supported by their author. What does make a difference is the user taking the time to learn the program fully and then deciding if it helps or hinders in the decision making process.

There is no one best program for all users. There is some really good software out there and we are lucky in that regard. Many of the programs provide unique ratings/information and using multiple programs is not out of the question if they compliment one another.

If anyone is looking just to play the top selection of a software and turn a profit without additional user intervention, they better create their own and not share it with anyone. Using any commercial software in that fashion, regardless of cost, will burn a lot of money at the windows.

Jim

[betchatoo]

There is no one best program for all users. There is some really good software out there and we are lucky in that regard.

Jim
What is also amazing to me is that we are blessed here at PA with some outstanding software developers. I have personally dealt, by phone, Email or both with Jeff Platt of JCapper, CJ of pace figures.com, Rich Rosa of Handicapping OS and Dave Shwartz of HSH and consistently received nothing but fast response and first class service, even in cases where I ended up not using the product. I have heard nothing but good things about Ken Massa at HTR and the developer of Equism. In an industry where people shout of incompetence and bad service this is a remarkable group of people.

[richrosa]

What is also amazing to me is that we are blessed here at PA with some outstanding software developers. I have personally dealt, by phone, Email or both with Jeff Platt of JCapper, CJ of pace figures.com, Rich Rosa of Handicapping OS and Dave Shwartz of HSH and consistently received nothing but fast response and first class service, even in cases where I ended up not using the product. I have heard nothing but good things about Ken Massa at HTR and the developer of Equism. In an industry where people shout of incompetence and bad service this is a remarkable group of people.
In my case I derive 99.9% of my income outside of horse racing. I do HOS to keep me sharp, both in programming and handicapping. Doing HOS has to be fun, because you cannot do it for the money. Most of all I enjoy talking with everyone who uses the program and to watch how they tinker with and extend my ideas. Its exactly what I hoped they would do.

I would suggest to you that many of the other developers have a similar perspective.

[Dave Schwartz]

In my case I derive 99.9% of my income outside of horse racing. I do HOS to keep me sharp, both in programming and handicapping. Doing HOS has to be fun, because you cannot do it for the money. Most of all I enjoy talking with everyone who uses the program and to watch how they tinker with and extend my ideas. Its exactly what I hoped they would do.

I would suggest to you that many of the other developers have a similar perspective.

Well, that would not be my perspective but it is the case for most involved in racing. Horse racing has been my full-time career for the last 17 years.

Funny thing, though, when times were hard a few years ago I recall thinking about quitting for another business endeavor. That was when I realized that I am a horse player first and a vendor second.


Dave Schwartz

[richrosa]

Dave,

this is imporant, and your post almost addresses it. Many on this board think that making softwate is lucrative, when in fact there is not a single vendor that I know of that can make the majority of their personal income making software. You need a 1000 subscribers paying you $100 a month before one can claim that.

[NoDayJob]

The best software will always give you a positive return on your investment, and the results will be the same for everyone using it. That's the rub. Too many users and the software looses its effectiveness. You're better off learning your craft then taking what works for you and either developing your own software or having a programmer do it for you. That way you'll always have a competitive edge, and you won't have to worry about your software becoming obsolete or your supplier going out of business.

[DanG]

The best software will always give you a positive return on your investment, and the results will be the same for everyone using it. That's the rub. Too many users and the software looses its effectiveness. You're better off learning your craft then taking what works for you and either developing your own software or having a programmer do it for you. That way you'll always have a competitive edge, and you won't have to worry about your software becoming obsolete or your supplier going out of business.
Do people really wind up on the same selections when using the same software? :confused: I haven’t found that to be the case at all to be honest.

[Dave Schwartz]

The best software will always give you a positive return on your investment, and the results will be the same for everyone using it.

NDJ,

This could not be farther from the truth.

And the more control the user has over the software the less true it is.

It is absolutely light years from the truth with HSH.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[NoDayJob]

Do people really wind up on the same selections when using the same software? :confused: I haven’t found that to be the case at all to be honest.

If that's the case, then you might as well use a pencil and paper to make your selections. To me, software means more than just number crunching. A program should be capable of making profitable selections day in and day out. Otherwise what's the purpose. Computers and software make complicated decisions, involving money, everyday. Horse racing should be no exception.

[DanG]

If that's the case, then you might as well use a pencil and paper to make your selections. To me, software means more than just number crunching. A program should be capable of making profitable selections day in and day out. Otherwise what's the purpose. Computers and software make complicated decisions, involving money, everyday. Horse racing should be no exception.
With all due respect, I don’t think you understand software’s role in the process. If you’re discussing “black boxes” / “selection services” OK, but your statement does not apply to the software mentioned in this thread at all IMO.

[JimG]

A program should be capable of making profitable selections day in and day out. Otherwise what's the purpose.

The purpose for me is to quickly be able to put my hands on proprietary information not used by the masses. Once I have developed a solid method, a good program allows me to quickly be able to get to contention and identify potential overlays so that I may take full advantage of simulcasting in a daily playing environment or to be able to peruse all tourney tracks (sometimes there are 6 or more tracks crunched into a 5 hour time frame) when playing in a tournament format.

If I used pencil/paper to handicap (ie daily racing form only), I would essentially be using the same information as everyone else; I would only be able to juggle at most a couple of tracks at a time; and I would increase my workload on numbers by doing things manually that I now can get to within seconds.

I'm not good enough to be a long-term winner with just a daily racing form. I do admire you guys that can win using just mainstream information.

Jim

[Dave Schwartz]

To me, software means more than just number crunching. A program should be capable of making profitable selections day in and day out. Otherwise what's the purpose. Computers and software make complicated decisions, involving money, everyday. Horse racing should be no exception.

NDJ,

I completely agree.

That is precisely our goal.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

this is imporant, and your post almost addresses it. Many on this board think that making softwate is lucrative, when in fact there is not a single vendor that I know of that can make the majority of their personal income making software. You need a 1000 subscribers paying you $100 a month before one can claim that.

Rich,

Well, this is certainly not a discussion I want to spend too much time on but it really does matter both how and who you service. Higher-level players demand more and in return are willing to pay more, just as the enterprise computer user (like Ford Motor Co.) needs more service than the single, end user (like my friend Ken).

We provide those extended services. Our pricing model works because of the high-end users/players/teams. Frankly, at HorseStreet, the high end players subsidize the entry level users.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


PS: No, Ford Motor Company is not "looking into a few good investments at Belmont Park."

[richrosa]

yes, your business model around the high-end player works. I'm starting to see those kind of players and requests too.

Like any other business, the best players will buy the best tools.

[Tom]

You guys gonna get a room? :lol:

[richrosa]

at least we haven't started another "why I hate TVG" thread.

[Tom]

That was basically a joke towards Dave, whom I respect and consider a friend.

[Dave Schwartz]

Tom,

Rich is a nice enough guy. He just likes to get the last word. ;)


Dave

[Gibbon]

... Many on this board think that making softwate is lucrative, when in fact there is not a single vendor that I know of that can make the majority of their personal income making software. You need a 1000 subscribers paying you $100 a month before one can claim that... 1000 times 100 = One Hunderd Thousand a month!

Of Course the above quote most certainly was hyperbole.

However,

Software authors may not make much of a living but data providers and information brokers make torrents of profits. The monopoly, Equibase and only a few select partners exercise Nikita Khrushchev like control over the gathering and dissemination of racing info. Equibase and their select partners exude extreme prejudice over their data.

The expense of “sheet players” may be justified due to the expert {?} nature of hand crafted figures. This cannot be said of software developers. Software manipulates data exactly the same in every case. Handicapper’s interpretation may change but not printouts. After an initial expense of purchasing software the data should be free as it is with all pro sports.

Contrast this with another game I play, Pro football. The NFL freely disseminates information of every conceivable kind. I have never paid for data so freely available from literally hundreds of sources on NFL games.

Naturally, those who run a business have a vested interest, so the beat goes on….. Racing has much to learn if it is to remain a viable entity within the next 100 years.






_____________________
For every sale you miss because you're too enthusiastic, you will miss a hundred because you're not enthusiastic enough. ~ Zig Ziglar

[midnight]

A program should be capable of making profitable selections day in and day out.

I've never known a commonly-available program that could do that for long. Eventually, any good program will be bought by enough players betting enough money to negate the value of any black-box effects it may have.

The purpose for me is to quickly be able to put my hands on proprietary information not used by the masses.

That's also hard to do, unless you're making your own. "The masses" don't need to be using something to negate its value. One or two high-rollers can do a good number on whatever value exists.

As an example (going by what's been posted here), the top CJ last-race performance figure finds the winner in about 30% of all races, which is impressive for a standalone figure. A few years ago (when the program had none or very few users), playing the highest last-race figure actually showed a profit, with the only restrictions being the race was over the same surface in the past 180 days. Today, it still hits 30%, but the ROI is reported to be about 0.90; this from a program with 100 users. Since the top-rating still hits the same percentage of winners, the conclusion that I draw is that roughly 15% more money is bet into the win pool on the top-rated horse than was bet a few years ago.

If you figure about $15 billion is bet on thoroughbred tracks over a year, and that about a fifth of the money is bet into the win pool, that's about $3 billion bet to win. 30% winners at an ROI of 1.00 would be a mean (average) mutuel of $6.67; an ROI of 1.05 would be $7.00, an ROI of 0.90 would be $6.00. Allowing for a mean takeout of 16%, the net win pool would be $2.52 billion. At 1.05 ROI (odds of 5-2), the amount bet on the winner would be $720 million. At 0.90 ROI (odds of 2-1), the amount would be $840 million. The conclusion from that would be that $120 million more per year is bet on the top-performance-figure horse in the win pool than would have been bet on that horse if this figure weren't available at all, or about $325,000 per day; that being only on the win pools, and only on the top performance figure horse. I realize that I'm making a lot of assumptions, but I'm also only analyzing one pool. The total effect of the program on all of the mutuel pools might be five times that or higher, and again, this is from a program with 100 users.

Now take the many other excellent programs (HSH, HTR, Jcapper, etc.), online services (HandicappingOS, Turfday, etc.), "figures" (Ragozin, Thorograph, Equiform, etc.) and such available today, most of which have no user restriction, and you can see why the game is so hard to beat and why a blackbox figure that's produced by any of them probably won't show a profit for very long. The bottom line is that the user still has to do the work, in order to get a positive ROI

[njcurveball]

The bottom line is that the user still has to do the work, in order to get a positive ROI

YES! I think you finally hit the nail on the head. And the way to evaluate software is not by checking the number of posts on their BBS or trying to compare which has the best "black box".

It is simply to figure out which factors influence your bets and find a program that accentuates those factors for you.

If there are 100 people using the same program and all of them are walking to window making the same bets on the same horses, than be afraid of any kool aid being sold by the group!

[CapperAl]

Good topic. I'm planning to convert my spreadsheets into a program using C++. I'm tried of typing in all the data. The hard part of analysis has been done in my spreadsheets. IMHO, too many programmers start the program writing first before they get to know horse racing.

[richrosa]

YES! I think you finally hit the nail on the head. And the way to evaluate software is not by checking the number of posts on their BBS or trying to compare which has the best "black box".

It is simply to figure out which factors influence your bets and find a program that accentuates those factors for you.

If there are 100 people using the same program and all of them are walking to window making the same bets on the same horses, than be afraid of any kool aid being sold by the group!

Agreed. There is no black box. As a player you should use the tool that best suits your style with the best possible data that influences that factors that are the most influential, hardest to reach without software, or the factors that you use the most.

[K9Pup]

Good topic. I'm planning to convert my spreadsheets into a program using C++. I'm tried of typing in all the data. The hard part of analysis has been done in my spreadsheets. IMHO, too many programmers start the program writing first before they get to know horse racing.

Not sure where you get the data you type in, but you can import data into excel. Or for more complex formats you can write VBA code to get the data from your source into your spreadsheet.

[midnight]

Agreed. There is no black box.

There are likely to be "black boxes" out there that have a positive ROI on a spot-play basis. What there aren't (that I know of) are positive-ROI black boxes that are available to the public.

As far as what Dave Schwartz said about keeping the best things for himself, I don't see a problem with that, as long as these "best things" are also available to anybody else who can figure out how to set up the program to produce them. I don't even see a problem with Mr. Schwartz keeping a more powerful version of HSH for his personal use (not that I'm saying that he does). I've never used HSH, although I've seen it on other computers. If the public version is capable of producing a profit, then he's done the players a service by offering it, and it's up to them to do the work and find out what makes it win.

[Topcat]

As far as what Dave Schwartz said about keeping the best things for himself.

Mid:
Just in the interest of clarity: I read the post in this thread and don't see where he said that.

[Dave Schwartz]

As far as what Dave Schwartz said about keeping the best things for himself, I don't see a problem with that, as long as these "best things" are also available to anybody else who can figure out how to set up the program to produce them. I don't even see a problem with Mr. Schwartz keeping a more powerful version of HSH for his personal use (not that I'm saying that he does). I've never used HSH, although I've seen it on other computers. If the public version is capable of producing a profit, then he's done the players a service by offering it, and it's up to them to do the work and find out what makes it win.

Perhaps a little clarification is in order from my previous post.

Does everyone get exactly the same software? Well, they all start with the same software but customization makes a difference. Many of our users can atest to features that have been added to private systems which ultimately wound up in the hands of the mainstream users (with the permission of the contractee, of course).

Do the "big players" handicap the same way? Yes and no. The majority of our biggest users "roll their own" to one extent or another. That is, they export from our software into their own. Often they have their own programmers to handle the actual handicapping and just use HSH for the ratings. (Sometimes I help in the design of their handicapping system... something else we do.)

Usually the "extras" are a matter of interface - like the user who has a real-time system that captures the output of HSH whenever he pulls the "trigger-button" to make bets. Those bets are then sent to a bet server and fired up to an ADW. (We did not write the bet server itself but did consult on the project.)

(For those who might be interested, I have been told that this could be accomplished with VB script relatively easily. We opted instead for a server solution because of the multi-user/multi-threading needs of the environment.)

Another area of customization is in study tools. There are several tools that have been unavailable to the base HSH user again, because they were bought and paid for by a professional user.

Other times there is a custom handicapping approach or screen. We have one user who has some additional buttons on one screen that look at the race "his way." (He came up with "that way" to handicap and paid to have it coded and nobody else gets that screen - as it should be.)

So don't get the idea that the base user gets a less powerful tool than the professional. Nothing could be further from the truth. The professional just gets what he thinks would make his life easier. Ironically, anyone who just exports the numbers from HSH is missing the best of HSH - how it handles the tote board.


As for our own play, we use absolutely vanilla HSH - everything we use to handicap is completely available to the general public. Historically, as we have improved our handicapping approach, the older version of the approach goes into our public domain as this one did several years ago.
http://www.horsestreet.com/Showcases/01PaceHcp/


As for "black boxes," that is the goal of most HSH players: to build their own, unique black box. That is exactly what HSH was designed to do.

While the program does do it all for a few players - we really do have users who make a significant profit with their own black box - most fall a little short of profit.

About two versions back we changed our thrust towards rebates because they were so readily available. As such, coming within 3% of even was a worthwhile goal.

Now, as rebates have become a little harder to find for the typical player (at least for now), so has our direction.

We have a significant number of mainstream players who are black-boxing 2-3 picks per race with a slightly negative result of 3%-8%. Remember that this is playing literally every race they handicap, with absolutely zero user intervention or decision making! (Note that we have many users who routinely handicap and bet 100-150 races per day.)

Logically, improvement could be assumed if one became slightly more selective in either race selection or horse selection within those races. When you are at only -3% and 200+ horse-bets per day with a black box you are certainly within striking distance of profit.

Up until now I have operated on the assumtion that the goal was to make the program do it all. That is changing with v5.

In version 5 we have added many new tools to allow the users to add their own input to the already powerful handicapping of HSH. We want to take to take advantage of the user's indivdual skill set. This ranges from some very nice race reports (custom-generated for each race) to the ability to actually change the program's output on indivdual horses. In other words, to meld the handicapper's opinions with the software's.




Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[JustRalph]

Dave, sometimes I think about "the pool" and who I am up against............

it's a damn miracle I ever make any money................

[Dave Schwartz]

it's a damn miracle I ever make any money................


The story of life.

[Reachout]

Positive ROI black boxes do exist, they just aren't for sale at any price.

Part of my own efforts at one point included tossing out the top selections from the heavily subscribed tipsheets...

I think the most important thing to consider in software is whether you understand the input/output, and if it suits your handicapping style. All of the major packages can be of use, but only if you feel comfortable at the controls.