The importance of workouts

[mudnturf]

This subject has most likely been hashed and re-hashed, but since I recently had a discussion about it, I thought I'd get other points of view.

I've always maintained that final times in PUBLISHED workouts only tell part of the story, and that while fast times are often quite valuable, slow times may not always be as bad as they seem.
The example I used in my recent discussion was a first time starter in a 6f race who showed a recent work of 5/8ths in 1:03. My friend said "slow horse, can't use". Whereupon I asked his opinion of two hypothetical cases.
1. The 1:03 time consisted of 1/8ths in 12,12,12,12,15.
2. The 1:03 time consisted of 1/8ths in 13,13,13,12,12.
I argued that workout #2 was more positive in that it showed a horse with the ability to finish. He, on the other hand, felt the early speed demonstrated in workout #1 might be a more important factor in a 6f sprint.

I guess my point in this example is that by not knowing the fractions of a published workout, especially where first timers are concerned, the everyday handicapper is being deprived of information that is privy to a trainer and/or a clocker on the scene. I personally believe that publishing the fractions of workouts 4f or more would be helpful, even if it's done for first time starters only.
In the words of Bill O'Reilly, "am I wrong here?" :-)

[Show Me the Wire]

Depends on whether the trainer wants the horse to run early or late. Neither work is really better.

Anyway, you probably know this, most works start well before the poll in some sort of running start and finish after the wire. So usually any work is at least a furlong longer.

What I believe is important that a horse show at least one turn of foot work top 20% at 4 furlongs or better.

[1st time lasix]

Lee....I use the workouts for first time starters in this way;....if I like the breeding/the trainer stats are acceptible AND there are two works with 12 second per furlong works {ex:48 for 3, ...1:00 for 4, ...1:12 for 5} I generally include the entry in my exotics. That method helped me nail a long shot firster in the first leg of a Pick Four in NY on Thanksgiving day for $8 k! Otherwise I really don't look at the time as much as the weekly schedule of the works. Like to see a consistent pattern. I love it when i see a couple of speed works early in the pattern and then longer slower works later. Makes me think the horse has natural speed and the trainer knows it. He is just prepping the horse to get the distance, I think Bailey mentioned that in his dvd tapes. Of course i also use the Tomlinsons! :ThmbUp: Be well.

[Show Me the Wire]

Lee....I use the workouts for first time starters in this way;....if I like the breeding/the trainer stats are acceptible AND there are two works with 12 second per furlong works {ex:48 for 3, ...1:00 for 4, ...1:12 for 5} I generally include the entry in my exotics. That method helped me nail a long shot firster in the first leg of a Pick Four in NY on Thanksgiving day for $8 k! Otherwise I really don't look at the time as much as the weekly schedule of the works. Like to see a consistent pattern. I love it when i see a couple of speed works early in the pattern and then longer slower works later. Makes me think the horse has natural speed and the trainer knows it. He is just prepping the horse to get the distance, I think Bailey mentioned that in his dvd tapes. Of course i also use the Tomlinsons! :ThmbUp: Be well.


Yes, the quick early works, especially from an early speed sire, and longer slow ones is a nice pattern in the hands of decent trainer. Never viewed the dvd but that is a good piece they disclosed.

[Ron]

We had a horse trained by Lynn Whiting who never corrected the clockers about the workout distance, if they missed our horse or if they had the horse name wrong.

[46zilzal]

There are many more variables in any one workout than just that: the exercise rider may or may not have worked in company (and in company may have been a prompter for a young horse to learn a lesson), the rider can weigh easily 160 or more, they can work 4 to 5 off the rail or right down on it, their can be a myriad of equipment changes not listed, there are NO DRUG TESTS after workouts, they may have reported to the horse identifier one distance and actually worked another etc. etc. etc. These are only a very few.

The fact they work regularly is much much more important than any time.

[RaceBookJoe]

I agree with 46 on that one. I feel that it is more important that the horse is out there and working. At least it shows he can run, as opposed to being lame. I dont get put off by slow works, but sometimes a fast work will open my eyes...especially if the horse has not previously shown speed.

[46zilzal]

Go to most other venues around the world, only in North America are workouts slavishly followed as the Holy Grail. In Europe the entire barn is taken out together on long gallops (in a group,,,,,,odd, just like in nature!).

[Robert Fischer]

I want to see a work where the horse shows a response. Fractional splits can help tell a better story. You may see a 5f work go in 1:02 but his final furlong was 11 seconds and he "galloped" another in 12...
Ideally to use a workout you want to see it. You can see where the horse shows a response, you can see the jockey. Sometimes a horse can put up a fast workout time but he is physically showing very bad signs.

Workouts aren't a big part of my game , but I could see how they would be for a maiden race handicapper. I do watch all the video and read all the fractional splits that I can get my hands on.

[TEJAS KIDD]

This subject has most likely been hashed and re-hashed, but since I recently had a discussion about it, I thought I'd get other points of view.

I've always maintained that final times in PUBLISHED workouts only tell part of the story, and that while fast times are often quite valuable, slow times may not always be as bad as they seem.
The example I used in my recent discussion was a first time starter in a 6f race who showed a recent work of 5/8ths in 1:03. My friend said "slow horse, can't use". Whereupon I asked his opinion of two hypothetical cases.
1. The 1:03 time consisted of 1/8ths in 12,12,12,12,15.
2. The 1:03 time consisted of 1/8ths in 13,13,13,12,12.
I argued that workout #2 was more positive in that it showed a horse with the ability to finish. He, on the other hand, felt the early speed demonstrated in workout #1 might be a more important factor in a 6f sprint.

I guess my point in this example is that by not knowing the fractions of a published workout, especially where first timers are concerned, the everyday handicapper is being deprived of information that is privy to a trainer and/or a clocker on the scene. I personally believe that publishing the fractions of workouts 4f or more would be helpful, even if it's done for first time starters only.
In the words of Bill O'Reilly, "am I wrong here?" :-)

I've been clocking horses for myself since the early 90's. There is a huge edge by being able to see these works. In the two cases above, I would much rather play the second work. In case 1. the runner went 4 solid 12's then faltered to a 15 late (many runners can go at least 3/8s in 12,12,12) It really would depend on what the jockey was doing that final 1/8. If he was in an all out drive, I certainly would downplay the drill. If he just coasted out with the rider standing up in the saddle, that would be a different story. The reason I like the 2nd drill is that there are very few runners that can finish the final 1/4 of a 5/8s drill in 24-. Again, I would have to see what the jock is doing that final 1/4.
The morning workouts are CHAOS. After the renovation break you may have 100 horses on the track at the same time. Many jogging the wrong way, many galloping the right way and many setting down to work. There are few clockers, so it is very hard to catch every single worker. Times are inaccurate many times during this rush. Horses are missed and left of the tab. Some horses are missed and times are still given.
Some names are miscalled and the works never make the tab sheet. Some horses don't even make a required time (this happens often)
In regards to regularity in works. It's really hard to say that a horse isn't training regularly because his works aren't published. Some trainers don't believe in working horses on a weekly basis. Some trainers, when they believe their horses are fit, will just gallop or jog between races. Some trainers have training centers where there are no clockers.
I suggest if you're playing a circuit, try and understand each trainers methods of training by keeping a winners book. If TRAINER A wins a race with a horse coming off 30 days without a published work, then log that in a book. You can refer to it later, if the same situation were to arise. IF TRAINER B wins with a 1st timer who has slow 6f works, log that in the book. Continue to do this until you're comfortable with every trainer on your circuit.

[magwell]

finally some one that knows the how the game really is played. you really cant pay too much attention to the works unless you see them yourself and know what your looking at.....

[Show Me the Wire]

TEJAS KIDD:

Now assume both works are equal in that both horses were in a full out run to the wire for the last 1/8 and both horses were full out after breaking off at the 5/8 pole. Would you still prefer the 2nd horse or over the first horse that could throttle back from the 12 per panel to 13 per panel?

[TEJAS KIDD]

TEJAS KIDD:

Now assume both works are equal in that both horses were in a full out run to the wire for the last 1/8 and both horses were full out after breaking off at the 5/8 pole. Would you still prefer the 2nd horse or over the first horse that could throttle back from the 12 per panel to 13 per panel?

You kind of lost me there. Could you re explain your question?

[mudnturf]

As I read the responses, most of which are very informative, it becomes more apparent that final times of published workouts leave a lot to the imagination.
Fast workouts are good, but slow workouts need not be bad......too many unknowns!!!

[TEJAS KIDD]

As I read the responses, most of which are very informative, it becomes more apparent that final times of published workouts leave a lot to the imagination.
Fast workouts are good, but slow workouts need not be bad......too many unknowns!!!

There are a few workout reports you can buy via the internet. Brisnet ,Horseplayerdaily and National Turf are sites that sell reports.

Keeping a log on trainers is important. A fast work in the Bob Baffert or Bruce Headley barn isnt as good as a fast work in the Richard Mandella or Ron Mcanally barn. Trainers all have their own training methods.
I clocked Del Mar this summer, I learned that fast workouts in maiden claiming races are a risky proposition. These guys don't give away anything so if a horse is in a maiden claiming race there usually is a reason. Beware when playing those type of runners they tend to be overbet and often let you down.

[the_fat_man]

You know what I get a particular kick out of? All those well bred (or otherwise) 1st time turfers that are hammered at the windows (or not) and win for fun WITHOUT a single turf workout on their records. Now, how would a trainer know that a horse is going to take to the turf unless he/she has exercised the horse on the weeds? (Of course, the trainer could also be a European podiatrist and be able to tell just from the hoof.) Maybe, they ship 'em over from AQU to Prospect Park, for example, and get in some behind the scenes training time.:lol:

So, let's devote YET ANOTHER 25 pages to this topic, with no regard to the fact that workout info is partial/unrepresentative at best and an outright fraud in the worst case.

[mudnturf]

[QUOTE=the_fat_man]You know what I get a particular kick out of? All those well bred (or otherwise) 1st time turfers that are hammered at the windows (or not) and win for fun WITHOUT a single turf workout on their records. Now, how would a trainer know that a horse is going to take to the turf unless he/she has exercised the horse on the weeds?

Some tracks will not allow a horse to work on the turf unless said horse is nominated to a turf stake.
I'm not sure but I believe that's the case at Belmont and Aqueduct. It might be a different story at Saratoga.
Anybody know the facts?

[the_fat_man]

[QUOTE=the_fat_man]You know what I get a particular kick out of? All those well bred (or otherwise) 1st time turfers that are hammered at the windows (or not) and win for fun WITHOUT a single turf workout on their records. Now, how would a trainer know that a horse is going to take to the turf unless he/she has exercised the horse on the weeds?

Some tracks will not allow a horse to work on the turf unless said horse is nominated to a turf stake.
I'm not sure but I believe that's the case at Belmont and Aqueduct. It might be a different story at Saratoga.
Anybody know the facts?

I don't believe that's the case in NY; plenty of turf workouts, for stakes horses or otherwise. My point, here, is that while the powers that be are quick to punish Dutrow, for example, for switching horses during a workout, they really could give a shit about horses trying a new surface for the first time without a workout on that surface. When's the last time you saw a 1st time dirt starter without a single workout? I realize that bad data is better than no data but the turn some of these threads take, the overly zealous focus on workouts by some, can't be a representative thing.

[john del riccio]

There are a few workout reports you can buy via the internet. Brisnet ,Horseplayerdaily and National Turf are sites that sell reports.

Keeping a log on trainers is important. A fast work in the Bob Baffert or Bruce Headley barn isnt as good as a fast work in the Richard Mandella or Ron Mcanally barn. Trainers all have their own training methods.
I clocked Del Mar this summer, I learned that fast workouts in maiden claiming races are a risky proposition. These guys don't give away anything so if a horse is in a maiden claiming race there usually is a reason. Beware when playing those type of runners they tend to be overbet and often let you down.

I would add that a fast workout for a horses entered in almost any claiming
race (obviously, not so much so in a 75k claimer as opposed to a 5k). Its lik eputting a shine on a bad apple.

John

[Tom]

So, let's devote YET ANOTHER 25 pages to this topic, with no regard to the fact that workout info is partial/unrepresentative at best and an outright fraud in the worst case.

And yet people out there use if successfully day in day out. The WO rating in HTR is one of the most powerful add in factors that points to winners.
But then, you will have to wait for the "movie."





24 to go.

[njcurveball]

Is there ever a time when you actually get the point of a post?

Ok, I think the point of YOUR post was that workout times are unreliable and not useful to you.

However, the point of his post was that there is a program that uses workout information and comes up with a rating that has shown to be profitable in many situations.

I understand that you have found the "one and true" way to handicap and until you write your tell all book, perhaps the "less noble" here will be allowed to share?

[Tom]

46_Fat_Man - don't blame ME for your rather limited abilities as a handicapper - just because YOU cannot understand things doesn't mean they don't work.

You want a replay on that?

[Robert Fischer]

i thought TFM had a good comment about FTS on the turf.

[46zilzal]

46_Fat_Man - don't blame ME for your rather limited abilities as a handicapper - just because YOU cannot understand things doesn't mean they don't work.

You want a replay on that?
Having worked at the track on the backside for many years, I have an excellent frame of reference for what work outs predict.

[Tom]

Having worked at the track on the backside for many years, I have an excellent frame of reference for what work outs predict.

And I have data.

[plainolebill]

Sometimes a fast work by a MCL is a good thing. A few years ago a lower level MCL, trained by Henry Moreno I think, worked 1:11 and change which was faster than the race would predictably run. Won for fun and paid ok too. I didn't bet the horse...

In the past I've subscribed to Handicapper's Report workout service and have also tried Bruno De Julio but there just wasn't much value for me.

[stuball]

Why don't the tracks number the workouts and set up a web cam to
let us watch the workouts ?

Stuball

[Tom]

Why don't the tracks number the workouts and set up a web cam to
let us watch the workouts ?

Stuball

No money in it. We don't count, only cash.:bang:


Here is my data on WO the last two full seasons on the inner dirt track - all races

The WO rating is a proprietary HTR rating, so I don't want to really spent time on it, but just to show that those so-called worthless workouts are a wee bit better than they seem. This include every WO=1, no matter the layoff, class, form, anything. The data for all horses is presented as a baseline for comparisons.

This is why I keep saying, no one knows what other people are doing out there. If you have something that works for you, fine, but don't have the audacity to tell someone what he is using won't work. Unless you have the data to back it up.

[mudnturf]

I don't believe that's the case in NY; plenty of turf workouts, for stakes horses or otherwise. My point, here, is that while the powers that be are quick to punish Dutrow, for example, for switching horses during a workout, they really could give a shit about horses trying a new surface for the first time without a workout on that surface. When's the last time you saw a 1st time dirt starter without a single workout? I realize that bad data is better than no data but the turn some of these threads take, the overly zealous focus on workouts by some, can't be a representative thing.

Your response aroused my curiosity so I called the NYRA Racing Office for some info. The answer is that there's no simple answer.
Here is what I was told:

SARATOGA - ANY horse can work on the Oklahoma training track on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday.
BELMONT - No Maidens at any time! Turf works on Sunday for all others.
AQUEDUCT - No Maidens at any time! Turf works only on Thursday for others.

Also, "There are times when special permission must be obtained from the Racing Office, much of that related to weather and condition of the turf course".

[Tom]

Thanks, mudnturf....good to know. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[TEJAS KIDD]

Why don't the tracks number the workouts and set up a web cam to
let us watch the workouts ?

Stuball

Do you watch race replays?
If your answer is no, then why ask your question.


I believe if a track video taped works and put them up for all to see, the trainers would throw a "BIG FUSS" and the track management would back down like they always do (except for Los Alamitos). They're always protecting the horseman and never the horseplayer.

On a side note, Santa Anita actually has a web cam but you really can't see anything.
Los Alamitos does video tape 2yo gate works and shows them on their website.

I proposed the idea to E J (of TUP) when he was at Lone Star Park. I even offered to man the camera or pay for someone to man the camera. Never really got a response.
I actually ended up doing it myself and payed someone to help me. I watched conventional works and he video taped the gate works for me on a little handicam (it didnt quite work that well)

[Donnie]

Hey Dennis-
What is your opinion of Work Out Services? Have you used any? I started looking thru the one that Bris offers last night. Seems if the service is credible, this could be a huge benefit! Just wondering your opinion.

[TEJAS KIDD]

Hey Dennis-
What is your opinion of Work Out Services? Have you used any? I started looking thru the one that Bris offers last night. Seems if the service is credible, this could be a huge benefit! Just wondering your opinion.

Donnie,
Im sending you a PM. I really dont want to go on record as to which ones I like or dislike. If anyone else wants my opinion, please send me a PM.

[spilparc]

No money in it. We don't count, only cash.:bang:


Here is my data on WO the last two full seasons on the inner dirt track - all races

The WO rating is a proprietary HTR rating, so I don't want to really spent time on it, but just to show that those so-called worthless workouts are a wee bit better than they seem. This include every WO=1, no matter the layoff, class, form, anything. The data for all horses is presented as a baseline for comparisons.

This is why I keep saying, no one knows what other people are doing out there. If you have something that works for you, fine, but don't have the audacity to tell someone what he is using won't work. Unless you have the data to back it up.

If I'm reading your data right, for the sample size the workout rating lost .02 cents on the dollar. How do you make money with that information? Does it hold up over time? Is it just that one track, or does it work across all tracks? It's still a loss. (Not assuming rebates.) Plus it's very doubtful that it will hold to that number going forward. Why? Because they rarely do.

Now that you're armed with this data how do you exploit it for a profit?

[classhandicapper]

No money in it. We don't count, only cash.:bang:


Here is my data on WO the last two full seasons on the inner dirt track - all races

The WO rating is a proprietary HTR rating, so I don't want to really spent time on it, but just to show that those so-called worthless workouts are a wee bit better than they seem. This include every WO=1, no matter the layoff, class, form, anything. The data for all horses is presented as a baseline for comparisons.

This is why I keep saying, no one knows what other people are doing out there. If you have something that works for you, fine, but don't have the audacity to tell someone what he is using won't work. Unless you have the data to back it up.

I hate to contribute to another 25 page mess, but you are obviously correct on this issue. The data verifies what the rest of us are saying.

The issues of WO accuracy, rider weight, paths out from rail, actually seeing the WO etc... are all legitimate points about the problems with WO information in the DRF.

However, wind, run up length, pace, track maintenance between races, weather changes, moisture changes etc... are all problems with pace and speed figures. Yet no one (other than maybe Fat Man) has suggested that we stop using this information or that it can't be used in ways that lead to profits.

There is a difference between saying that information is 100% complete and accurate and saying it is useful. WOs and WO time is useful. It's not perfect, but that doesn't matter as long as it remains useful.

[Tom]

If I'm reading your data right, for the sample size the workout rating lost .02 cents on the dollar. How do you make money with that information? Does it hold up over time? Is it just that one track, or does it work across all tracks? It's still a loss. (Not assuming rebates.) Plus it's very doubtful that it will hold to that number going forward. Why? Because they rarely do.

Now that you're armed with this data how do you exploit it for a profit?

Just using the WO rating, you beat the take and almost break even - no handicappng at all. The point of it is that the factor is of significant value in spite of the flaws, lack of data, and mis-reported times. It is not meant to be a stand alone figure, but it outperforms speed figs and pace figs. I combine it with other factors, say like 3rd off a layoff, top 3 rider, and WO #1. As far as holding on, it has lasted over two season at AQU and continues to perform well at all tracks. The nice thinkg about having data to back up yourt opinons is you can monitor it and know when stops being effective.

[nobeyerspls]

I chose that convoluted title to this post in order to mediate among you, 46, and TFM thus advancing my campaign for Miss Congenialty on the forum (a 2nd part involves a very painful sex change operation which I may not be able to endure).

The proper evaluation of workouts is a money maker for me and it does not involve using a service. When I owned and raced my trainer advised me to ignore raw times as thay often did not accurately describe a work. In one case I had a filly who worked 5f two seconds slower and was told that it was a better work than the prior one because of the way she finished up. That, plus all of the pertinent items cited by 46 and FTM put raw times in perspective. Since we can't see workouts, it becomes a matter of knowing the trainer.

Having said that, workouts are an important part of my handicapping, especially at Woodbine. Horses there workout at the track and on a non-poly training track. I tend to ignore the latter as horses that work well on poly will often run well on it. Work sequences are especially important. Three slow works leading to a poor race followed by a time gap and then three strong works predict a much better race. On a different thread I mentioned that workouts on the Calder main track will leg a horse up for a turf race or a race on the main track at Gulfstream. Since the GP meet is getting close, I'll post some in real-time to support that claim.

[the_fat_man]

I chose that convoluted title to this post in order to mediate among you, 46, and TFM thus advancing my campaign for Miss Congenialty on the forum (a 2nd part involves a very painful sex change operation which I may not be able to endure).

The proper evaluation of workouts is a money maker for me and it does not involve using a service. When I owned and raced my trainer advised me to ignore raw times as thay often did not accurately describe a work. In one case I had a filly who worked 5f two seconds slower and was told that it was a better work than the prior one because of the way she finished up. That, plus all of the pertinent items cited by 46 and FTM put raw times in perspective. Since we can't see workouts, it becomes a matter of knowing the trainer.

Having said that, workouts are an important part of my handicapping, especially at Woodbine. Horses there workout at the track and on a non-poly training track. I tend to ignore the latter as horses that work well on poly will often run well on it. Work sequences are especially important. Three slow works leading to a poor race followed by a time gap and then three strong works predict a much better race. On a different thread I mentioned that workouts on the Calder main track will leg a horse up for a turf race or a race on the main track at Gulfstream. Since the GP meet is getting close, I'll post some in real-time to support that claim.

I think you've hit the nail on the head by emphasizing that workouts are more valuable when used in context. And while I certainly look at workouts when handicapping a race, I'm more interested in the uncharacteristic: a fast work when they've been slower in the past, a longer or shorter work than normal, a change of surface work, etc. But I would never consider workouts (at least in their presently flawed state) a key component of my handicapping. Similarly, I wouldn't consider trainer angles as a key component: nothing funnier than a horse that I know how ZERO shot getting a ton of money because the trainer has shown he's won with this angle in the past. But this all stems from getting my information 1st hand ---by WATCHING RACES. The trainer can angle all he wants, the numbers can tell me whatever BUT if I watch races closely, and learn the characteristics of the horses I'm betting, then, I probably have a leg up on just about anyone/anything when it comes to the ability/condition of a given horse.

Those not getting their info 1st hand can certainly resort to data, angles, etc. and get a representative, though not as comprehensive, perspective.


This has always been my point. You can observe an event OR you can look at a model of the event. You can appreciate the grace/skill of an athlete or you can look at the boxscore (or statistical analysis of his game). The latter doesn't really lend itself to interesting exchange about the thing itself --which is where we're at here at PA and the rest of the forums.

To say that there are people making money doing a particular thing doesn't really make much of a point, as, since there are many people using a particular program/database, it would mean that they're all making money. But we know that in reality, not PA lalaLAND, not too many are successful at this very difficult game. And, those that are, are not on PA bragging about it or doing METAhandicapping fulltime. So, we really need to let this one go, as, after a few years here, I have very clear ideas as to who knows his shit and who doesn't on this forum.



As for you, NBP
There are a couple of interesting turf races this Saturday at CRC. We should kick them around.

[PaceAdvantage]

To say that there are people making money doing a particular thing doesn't really make much of a point, as, since there are many people using a particular program/database, it would mean that they're all making money.This is so not true, that I can't believe someone like you, who thinks so much of themselves, would utter such nonsense.

[njcurveball]

To say that there are people making money doing a particular thing doesn't really make much of a point, as, since there are many people using a particular program/database, it would mean that they're all making money. .


I believe you are just trying to stir the pot here. I can tell you from real life experience that of about 40 entries in the Gold Coast tourney using HTR, one of them won $80,000.

A few more took home a few thousand and the rest of us took home empty pockets.

This statement would be similar to saying that if one carpenter can build you a quality house, ANY OTHER carpenter can do the SAME job with the SAME tool kit.

Or perhaps you are of the belief, every program is a black box and spits out "marching orders" to all users?

[the_fat_man]

This is so not true, that I can't believe someone like you, who thinks so much of themselves, would utter such nonsense.

Not getting your meaning. This was misinterpreted.

The comment at issue was directed at Tom's of't used argument that many are making money by using a certain angle ---be it workouts a particular bit of data that many have access to on some service or whatever.

'thinks so much of themselves'. You have the wrong idea. This game is HARD, incredibly hard and it's about as UNfair as it can be. Excuse me for taking exception when it's portrayed as being as easy as following some method or subscribing to some service.

P.S. congrats on some fine picking on the inner today.

[judd]

This is so not true, that I can't believe someone like you, who thinks so much of themselves, would utter such nonsense.
its not nonsense, its the facts

[Pace Cap'n]

its not nonsense, its the facts

See post #40, paragraph #3.

[chickenhead]

Excuse me for taking exception when it's portrayed as being as easy as following some method or subscribing to some service.

I think that is what you read into it, not how it is portrayed. Using "models" as you call them is very difficult. If I looked at your method the same way you looked at others, I'd scoff at you claiming it was as easy as "watching the horsees" to make money. Of course what you do is a lot more complex than that. There are a lot of people that do nothing but "watch the horsees" that couldn't pick a winner to save their lives.

Why you can't see that, I don't know. It's not really any different.

[bigmack]

If I looked at your method the same way you looked at others, I'd scoff at you claiming it was as easy as "watching the horsees" to make money. Of course what you do is a lot more complex than that. There are a lot of people that do nothing but "watch the horsees" that couldn't pick a winner to save their lives.

Why you can't see that, I don't know. It's not really any different.
Not as if I give a rats ass what Tubs gets or doesn't, I figure that he can't be dumb enough to not get what you're saying by now. I think he just wishes there were more like him so he could have snappy repartee with likeminded thugs.

[chickenhead]

sure, and I agree with him. This:

The latter doesn't really lend itself to interesting exchange about the thing itself --which is where we're at here at PA and the rest of the forums.

I agree, 100%.

[bigmack]

I agree, 100%.
As do I.

As a relative newcomer compared with many, I am stupefied that certain topics generate as much discourse as they do given the amount of tread they've run through over the years. After a while...:sleeping::sleeping:

[BlueShoe]

Will concede that works are often not recorded for one reason or another,and that trainers have their own routines as to works or lack therof.That being so,have always thought that the date was more important than the time or distance,first starters excepted.The mere fact that a runner has had a work or works of any distence or time is a plus factor.Tend to take take a very cautious view on playing any horse that raced over 21 days ago and does not show at least one published work since.In the 28-42 days away runners want to see at least two works,and preferably more.Again will concede that these rules will eliminate many winners,but it also sure passes a heck of a lot of otherwise playable losers.At minor tracks,where most of the animals are too sore to work,the plays are cut down sharply,compared to the major and intermediate tracks.

[Shemp Howard]

Time only matters to a man in jail. More importantly is, absent any trainer idiosincracies" is recency and ferquency.

[Tom]

I agree with PA's first comment - TFM has no clue what I or others are doing - it is his GUESS that we are all blindly following some method or black box - he is flat out wrong. I think the basic assumption TFM makes is that his is the only way. It is not.

The comment at issue was directed at Tom's of't used argument that many are making money by using a certain angle ---be it workouts a particular bit of data that many have access to on some service or whatever.


Many of us are doing a lot of good handicapping using various methods that are beyond TFM's sphere of knowledge - obviously. He is exactly like 46 - think he knows it all. I can tell you not everyone looks at replay - ever - and win just the same. I do not doubt TFM is good at what he does, but to suggest what he does is mandatory, or even better than other method is just not true.

As for interesting dicussions, some of us were enjoying the thread until TFM showed up. The topic was about workouts, not TFM's entertainment. I make a comment and as his usual, he takes it personally and blows up, starts name calling his other defense mechanisms whenver anyone dares talk to him or God forbid, not agree with him. It is an old act.
Douche Bags, mofo's - talking like a pig about other posters is somehow theraputic I guess.

[the_fat_man]

Tom, with all due respect, you're ridiculously clueless.

You're a boor and boring. You're argued with just about EVERYONE on this forum. Sooner or later it just might sink in that you're not really much of an expert in ALL the areas in which you profess expertise. ANd then, it just might follow for you that there are others that actually know more than you do. Then again, following someone else's method and using someone else's program would give just about anyone a BIG HEAD. Please, TOM, ENLIGHTEN ME :bang::bang: Teach me database theory, Tom. :lol:

In the meantime, I'll be waiting eagerly for your classic picks next year. How did Xchanger work out for you in the Preakness? :lol::lol:

You'll never live that one down, DOOFUS.

What else is there to say? It's beyond comical here.

[Tom]

Thank you for proving my point.


Live down XChanger? Man, you are really pathetic. Grow up. Are you really that desperate to convince people you somehow "matter?":lol:

[magwell]

Why don't the tracks number the workouts and set up a web cam to
let us watch the workouts ?

Stuball come on that makes too much sense.....tracks cant do THAT......

[Robert Fischer]

a lot of egos , and that can be expected in this game

in relation to what Fat Man and Tom have been saying -

- What does the database say about FTS on the TURF?
Is the correllation for WO rating as strong as on the Dirt ?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by stuball
Why don't the tracks number the workouts and set up a web cam to
let us watch the workouts ?

Stuball



come on that makes too much sense.....tracks cant do THAT......

lol

the truth. The people who run racing think about the present move, and never even 1 step ahead. Therefore there is no such thing as an investment - They see an investment as a loss!

[PaceAdvantage]

Not getting your meaning. This was misinterpreted.

The comment at issue was directed at Tom's of't used argument that many are making money by using a certain angle ---be it workouts a particular bit of data that many have access to on some service or whatever.

'thinks so much of themselves'. You have the wrong idea. This game is HARD, incredibly hard and it's about as UNfair as it can be. Excuse me for taking exception when it's portrayed as being as easy as following some method or subscribing to some service.

P.S. congrats on some fine picking on the inner today.Thanks for the props.

I think most of us who are clear headed and rational know DAMN WELL how HARD this game is...I certainly do....

Who here (except someone with an agenda and 3 posts to their name) is going around claiming the game is as easy as following "some method" or subscribing to "some service?" A handicapper needs tools, and there are many available, both commercially and homegrown. If someone like Tom states that a certain handicapping tool works with his method of play, why is that something to be dismissed?

As an example, I am currently using HandicappingOS as my main data provider and handicapping software. I am very confident that the way I utilized the data and the software to arrive at those picks Thursday is DIFFERENT than probably anyone else in this world who is currently using HandicappingOS. It's not a black box, but a set of tools. Like it's been said before, it's not the program, but the handicapper using the program, that makes the money.

Sometimes I really don't get you....on the one hand, you seek vibrant and deep discussions on upcoming races, which you bemoan that you can't get here....yet on the other hand, you continue to alienate the very folks who might want to dissect a race along with you.....odd....

[classhandicapper]

IMO, it's all really sort of simple.

Some people are numbers and statistics oriented and some people are visual, subjective, and experience oriented. In many cases they are measuring the exact same things, just in different ways.

I'm not going to claim any expertise beyond one basic notion.

"IMO THERE ARE NO PERFECT METHODS FOR MEASURING JUST ABOUT ANY OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN RACING"

That's why I have often recommended looking at things from a variety of perspectives. The weaknesses of one method are sometimes the strengths of another. It's my very strong opinion that using visual/subjective and numeric tools in combination provides the best possible understanding available when in the hands of someone with some expertise at each.

We seem to have a couple of people in each camp that are very familiar with the weaknesses on the other side, but that don't have enough of an appreciation of the strengths of the other side and/or the weaknesses of their own methods.

I believe that's what leads to all this silliness.

I wish everyone would just chill a little and try to appreciate the value of what other people are doing and possibly even attempt to incorporate some of it into their own game rather than dwelling on the problems and limitations. I can assure you, no one has a monopoly on a perfect method.

[GaryG]

This thread is deja vu all over again. The only thing missing is zilly and his trainer interviews. Data says they are valuable, so they are valuable.

[sammy the sage]

Funny...I call a spade a spade...but no name calling per se...just pointing out red-boarding ect...my post's get deleted...

yet these guys go at it tooth/nail...and allowed to stay...and continue...please enlighten me on what is and is not allowed...cause this discussion does not fit the fine print...

you can pm me! :lol:

[onefast99]

I have watched my horses workout when they are up in NJ or I am at Palm Meadows but as someone said before it is so chaotic on the training track that things get missed all the time. I did want to know why certain trainers work their horses fast all the time, makes no sense to me.