Looking for advice

[jfurgie]

Before I go any deeper with questions, I was wondering if anyone is using Horizon2000.

The tell a good story, but is it worth a $77 investment?

I use Quick Horse now, but even though the downloads are free, the statistical data gets corrupted sometimes which effects the selections.

I'm looking to try something new to compare it.

Bear in mind that I'm an old guy & somewhat technically challenged.

[jfurgie]

I'm an idiot! I meant FOCUS2000

[JustRalph]

The tell a good story, but is it worth a $77 investment?


no, at $77 , none of them are............

[Doug3312]

No, I wasted money on it and so will you if you believe the hype!

[garyoz]

The program hasn't evolved since 1993 except to migrate from DOS to a Windows Shell. Many better options and don't believe the marketing.

[Sea Biscuit]

All I can tell you is well worth the money

[Lefty]

I had lots of trble with Focus as I coudn't keep it running; it managed to corrupt itself quite regularly and I had to call for new codes. I had the temerity to ask the guy what he said one time and he asked me if I had a hearing problem. I always had to call on my own dime. Last time it corrupted i didn't bother. I pd over $300 for it a few yrs ago. Is it now only $77?

[headhawg]

Yes it's on sale until today (10/15) for $77 according to the website.

[Lefty]

When I could keep it running i used it in conjunction with other prgms and found it did have some value. I just e-mailed and asked if it was more stable now. I got mine on a 3.5 floppy and it took an install off the disk and was just a crappy way to copy protect. Anyway looks like he e-mails it now. I'll prob put it on my new laptop. My view is it certainly is worth a paltry $77.
And you have a 30 day refund policy so don't see how you can get hurt.

[wes]

The program (FOCUS2000) will produce about the same results as other programs using the Bris or TSN files. It just takes a lot of grunt work to learn what and how to bet the selections. If you are a win player only. The program will do a good job for you. Providing you are willing to sit on your hands and select your spots (races) to bet.

wes

[dutchboy]

Used for over 5 years. Never had a technical problems. Yesterday 10-14-07 at santa anita these are the results using the main (ustd) speed figure. No maiden races considered. Printouts in front of me.

R1. not a winner
R3. 3rd choice Won paid 3.60
R5. Top choice Won paid 17.60
R7. 2nd choice Won paid 48.60
R8. top choice Won paid 11.20

Not to bad I guess.

[punteray]

Hown does it do on Exactas,tri's, etc..

[Lefty]

I contacted the guy at focus and he has gotten me up and running again> gave me an activation code that should solve the prob of messing with a two install diskette>

[Tom Barrister]

I used the trial about 7 years ago, and it cost some nominal and reasonable amount to try it. When the floppies arrived in the mail, I had to phone the programmer to get three unlock codes and activate the software. To continue to use the software after the trial cost (I believe) $500 then, although it might have been $300. Whatever ADPA wanted for it was too much.

The program modelled about a dozen factors, many of which were similar to the Pirco/Sartin pace ratings. It used the most current 15 races (this was configurable), broken down by track, distance/surface, class, etc (also configurable), much the same as Powerline and Blaskower's Zap (a collection of his longshot methods sold by RPM) do. The recommendation was to play the top two horses in whatever factor was doing the best, with the implied idea being that the chosen factor that was currently working or "hot". That was a wonferful idea in theory, and of course it landed square on its butt in practice (as did/do Zap and Powerline), since it was essentially backfitting the results.

Naturally, continuous modeling would continue to show one or another of the factors to work and show a profit. The problem was that this factor changed constantly. It would have been easy enough to reason that the sample size was too large or too small, the model was being broken down too much or not enough, the user was unlucky to get in right when the track supposedly changed to make the new factor more effective, etc. Also, with two horses going in every race (ala Sartin), there was usually one in contention at some point, which could cause the user to believe that the bad result was a matter of bad luck. I could understand somebody being stubborn enough to stick with this program for a long time, let alone past the 30 day trial (and subsequent purchase), trying to figure out a way to make it work. Of course, there's nothing as simple as an automatic one-rating miracle that's available to the public.

If it's worth $77 for you to play around with a program and probably find out that it doesn't work, then go for it. My suggestion would be to build the model with 30 days (more if you have the time and patience) worth of racecards and results from several tracks, excluding the last 7 calendar days. Then use it "forwardly" with the last 7 days of charts from Equibase/BRIS/TSN to see how it works. I doubt you'll be pleased with the results.

[Lefty]

They have done aaway with those awful diskettes. Should be better now. I have it up and running and must say that betting 2 horses a race(where I thght odds good enough)made a nice little profit today with virtually no work just using the Summary.

[dutchboy]

I only keep the top 2 results in an excel worksheet. Focus suggests playing 3 horses over 5 for the exacta which would have given you 2 exacta's but a loss for last sunday at santa anita. Not close to a win on any trifecta. Since there are so many ways to bet ex's and tri's not sure how an excel sheet could be set up to track the results so I cannot give you a good answer.
It appears to work best for me to bet 2h or 3h to win only and when the horses are at least 3-1. 3 and 4 race parlays on paper look good if you can pick the right time to bet.


Hown does it do on Exactas,tri's, etc..

[Hosshead]

I think Tom Barrister hit it right on with the (backfitting model) problem with Powerline and other sw's. There are so many methods within the sw, that one of them will always be winning "today". But which one? And which one tomorrow?
I had the same results (Powerline), but haven't tried Focus.

Dutchboy - What about straight win betting with Focus? Any advice on how you use it, either with or without the models?
I was looking at the demo, and one thing I like, is that it will go through all the horses for all the tracks you've downloaded, and select only the ones with the parameters you've chosen. A device that could be used (as one crosshair) in conjuction with another method.

By the way, Focus 2000 sale price has been extended to the end of this month.

[dutchboy]

This is what I do and I spend most of my time on So Cal tracks and graded stake races across the country.
1. U-Std catagory.
2. Top 2 horses to win of there is a seperation of at least .75 between the 2nd and 3rd horses.
3. Bet equal amounts to win on both horses if the bet will create a 50% profit.
4. IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE the softwares suggestions on how to bet based on sort models. Too many good bets are missed and there are limits on how the software can be configured. The sort models can be useful if maintained to show win % and the running styles of previous winners but they cannot eliminate races with low odds or low seperation.
5. Previous comments in this thread explains sunday's results at Santa Anita
6. The following is what happened today at SA. No maiden races considered.

R1. pass low odds and small field
R3. odds ok and 2nd choice won as part of a dead heat and paid 6.20
R4 pass only .2 lgs seperation between the 2nd and 3rd horse. Would have lost if the race was bet.
R6. odds/sep good. 2nd choice paid 14.40
R7. odds/sep good. Top choice paid 10.00

I think Tom Barrister hit it right on with the (backfitting model) problem with Powerline and other sw's. There are so many methods within the sw, that one of them will always be winning "today". But which one? And which one tomorrow?
I had the same results (Powerline), but haven't tried Focus.

Dutchboy - What about straight win betting with Focus? Any advice on how you use it, either with or without the models?
I was looking at the demo, and one thing I like, is that it will go through all the horses for all the tracks you've downloaded, and select only the ones with the parameters you've chosen. A device that could be used (as one crosshair) in conjuction with another method.

By the way, Focus 2000 sale price has been extended to the end of this month.

[garyoz]

Best of luck with Focus 2000. I do have fond memories of using it as it was my first software program, back in 1994. There used to be an advertisement in the DRF every weekend for a few years. The marketing hype was always over the top, and except for migrating to windows (as mentioned in my earlier post) there has been no major change to the program. Personally I believe that applications require evolution--

Remember, the U-Std and U-chk variables are static--they don't change based upon models, nor can you change them. The pace figures (fps) were always flakey to me, only considered the top-8 contenders, so any horse who might effect the pace scenerio but was not in the top-8 contenders were left off. Also, the default is best 2 of last 3 races, so the results aren't much different than any other program where the default is best 2 of last 3. One reason I think you can get prices is it doesn't control for recency.

Personally, if I were looking for a figure-based system that was relatively transparent, and was very low maintenance & low cost, I'd use a web based system. I think dailyracingsheets.com provides reasonable figs plus an oddsline to identify overlays. Also woodsideassociates.com provide numbers that seem credible--although I have never used them (so judging by posts). Anyone else want to chime in on services?

A software approach that is non-HDW (doesn't require a monthly subscription) would be Jcapper. That has modeling capabilities--but I'm really not familiar with it.

Personally, I'm an HDW fan, and think that Jim Cramer's PSR (projected speed rating) will far outperform Focus' ratings.

[Lefty]

dutchboy, nice post. The sort 3rd choice, 6th race Bel today, pd $115.
I just chkd and I pd $245 for Focus 5 yrs ago. It's certainly worth the $77 he's asking this month.
Another good feature: It will use Bris, TSN, TSN Procaps and Trackmaster files.

[Hosshead]

Dutchboy - Thanks for the ideas on how to go about using this sw.

[Hosshead]

...
Remember, the U-Std and U-chk variables are static--they don't change based upon models, nor can you change them.
... Also, the default is best 2 of last 3 races, so the results aren't much different than any other program where the default is best 2 of last 3. One reason I think you can get prices is it doesn't control for recency.

Garyoz - I appreciate your (contrary) opinion in looking at both sides of this coin.
When looking at the demo, and the U-Std and U-chk variables you mention, it looks like there is a way to set them other than the default. So it doesn't look like they're "static", unless you click the default button. Same with best 2 of last 3 races, which can be set to last race only, etc..
Same with days since raced.
That's the way it appears, but maybe I'm not understanding the demo correctly.

[garyoz]

Garyoz - I appreciate your (contrary) opinion in looking at both sides of this coin.
When looking at the demo, and the U-Std and U-chk variables you mention, it looks like there is a way to set them other than the default. So it doesn't look like they're "static", unless you click the default button. Same with best 2 of last 3 races, which can be set to last race only, etc..
Same with days since raced.

You are correct, been a while since I used the program. But, changing the paceline does not make a model dynamic (as opposed to static), it just changes the data input line. The weightings don't change. In terms of days since raced, I believe that you are correct in that you can eliminate horses from consideration. I believe the default is 180 days (??). My point in calling it static was that the weightings of creating the measures don't change.

As I said, I have fond memories of using Focus, but that was more than 10 years ago and I think that there are better alternatives.

[dutchboy]

Default is 400 days but can be changed to between 30 and 420 or it can be turned off and all horses will be considered. If you knew that "X" % of all races were won by horses that had raced within the past "X" number of days you could the default and the horses that don't qualify are not considered.