Alternative methods of handicapping

[Gambleonclaimers]

At the local casino after talking to a gentlemen for a considerable amount of time about his handicapping and his 40+ year career as a ..... um, well what I would call a professional handicapper. After listening to what he had to say about capping I wonder how many people use different methods of handicapping besides, the drf form or any other form, speed,pace or software for that matter that relies on data. what i am looking for is people who cap by physicality, reading the toteboard, watching video replays,hunch plays or any other method not commonly used. happy holidays

[Overlay]

There have been any number of discussions on the board about the methods you mentioned, such as toteboard analysis, physicality, and trips. If you're looking for people (specifically board members) who use those approaches, you might do a search for previous threads on those topics.

And on the subject of alternative handicapping methods, what about just using numbers? Gambler's Book Club continues to carry Mozan's Racing Numerology, so they must be selling at least an occasional copy (although I don't personally know of any practitioners).

[riskman]

And on the subject of alternative handicapping methods, what about just using numbers? Gambler's Book Club continues to carry Mozan's Racing Numerology, so they must be selling at least an occasional copy (although I don't personally know of any practitioners).

I beleive I read about a similiar method in one of your publications. :rolleyes:

[kenwoodallpromos]

I sometimes bet multiple longshots when situations are most unpredictable (I.E. off-track). or when 1 horse is unrealistically low odds (I.E. less than 4-5).

[Bruddah]

can be viewed in a video from Trillis Parker and Chris McCarron. It can be obtained at the Gamblers book store in Las Vegas. Watching the physicality of a horse [only works if you are at the track. You can't observe enough on the video feeds.

When, I am at the track, I use it to help eliminate contenders. :)

[Partsnut]

Another interesting video would be "Trip Handicapping" by Andrew Beyer. However, it might be tough to find.

[njcurveball]

I have the Beyer "Trip Handicapping" video. I will entertain offers for it. If someone really wants it, they can get it before I put it on Ebay next year.

I thought it was fairly well done. Contact me privately if interested.

[Overlay]

I beleive I read about a similiar method in one of your publications. :rolleyes:

Having read my titles, then you know that where Mozan and I come to a parting of the ways is in which "numbers" we use, and what we do with them. (But I always appreciate customer feedback.) ;)

[ranchwest]

can be viewed in a video from Trillis Parker and Chris McCarron. It can be obtained at the Gamblers book store in Las Vegas. Watching the physicality of a horse [only works if you are at the track. You can't observe enough on the video feeds.

When, I am at the track, I use it to help eliminate contenders. :)

Physicality can be used to some extent off of video feeds. The biggest problem is that there is no control over the views and angles as opposed to being at the track, where the views are up to the handicapper.

Of course, there's some things that cannot be seen on a video feed, but I have picked up on some interesting views on internet feeds.

[sally]

I sometimes bet multiple longshots when situations are most unpredictable (I.E. off-track). or when 1 horse is unrealistically low odds (I.E. less than 4-5).

how often does that work for you? Are you ahead?

[sally]

Physicality can be used to some extent off of video feeds. The biggest problem is that there is no control over the views and angles as opposed to being at the track, where the views are up to the handicapper.

Of course, there's some things that cannot be seen on a video feed, but I have picked up on some interesting views on internet feeds.

Can you tell me EXACTLY what your looking for? I did a cursory search on physicality on the board and it's mentioned a lot but I didn't see anyone explaining just what they're looking for...I know the obvious stuff, sweatiness, nervousness , although I swear I've seen nervous horses win-- can you share what you look for?

[ranchwest]

Can you tell me EXACTLY what your looking for? I did a cursory search on physicality on the board and it's mentioned a lot but I didn't see anyone explaining just what they're looking for...I know the obvious stuff, sweatiness, nervousness , although I swear I've seen nervous horses win-- can you share what you look for?

Sometimes there's a fine line between a nervous horse and an eager horse. Nervous horses seldom win, eager horses do.

I look for a horse that looks confident. Ears erect and forward. Good muscle. Good coat tone. Not walking short and legs limber. Tail off rump. Good energy. Head not in the air. Not twitching tail side-to-side. Downgrade for patches and wraps that you know or don't think were there before.

When in doubt, I take the conservative approach. A few months ago I tossed a horse (live) because it had a cut about 2 inches long on its hip. I later asked the connections and the horse got the cut in a gate incident. The horse didn't get out of the gate and didn't run well. I think the horse was finding racing a bad experience.

I've even seen horses that couldn't put one or more feet down right. That's a very serious flaw if you're sure it is an infirmity.

You have to keep it all in perspective as to the level of horses you're looking at. You can't expect a 2k claimer at Portland Meadows to look like a Kentucky Derby contender.

A trainer can darken form all he wants, but when that horse steps on the track, he looks the way he looks.

You really need a book, video or mentor to learn to read physicality well.

Most of these things can be seen on a video feed, but it takes a lot of experience to pick up on a worthwhile view in 3 seconds of view.

[Tom Barrister]

Watching the physicality of a horse [only works if you are at the track. You can't observe enough on the video feeds.



That's news to me. Admittedly, you can't view as much on the video feeds as you can at the track, but I can see enough in the five or six seconds during the post parade to give me clues.

[njcurveball]

I can see enough in the five or six seconds during the post parade to give me clues.

I agree with you that this is possible IF the track feed shows every horse. Perhaps its just the night tracks I watch, but I find the camera stuck on one horse for 30 or 40 seconds or longer. Others you never see even clearly for 5 seconds the entire time.

In that 30 second span of time, other horses could break off in a full run and be easing up or walking slowly when the camera finds them.

Racing refuses to understand that people want to see horses NOT a big screen of odds on their Internet feeds. Someday Management will actually get some smarts and have an entirely different feed for the Internet. I picture 4 screens, with at least two of them tracking the horses from the paddock to the starting gate.

Have the in house announcers on the 3rd and the odds on the 4th. Even smarter put these screens on the tracks web page and allow the user to customize whatever views they want with web-cams set up around the track.

Someday, yes....some....day. :sleeping:

[Gambleonclaimers]

where my original intent was to go with this post was I wanted to find out what alternative methods people actually use with so many systems and offbeat handicapping methods. which ones seems to hold water because I have found recently after searching through data compiled since Aug. that I think software and sheet charting along with using the form puts alot of people on the same horses. which is fine because after all we are all pretty much given the same data we see the same past performances get same workouts just the interpretation is different. what i wanted to find is if some of these alternative methods also put the people on the same horses. Through the data I have gather if you take the top 5 post time odds horses regardless of track conditions, distance, surface, field size and race conditions one of those top 5 horses wins 93.8 % of the time which is pretty good so the general betting population is onto something. Oh, those other 6.2% of races are the ones that are rigged I have tried and succesfully converted my online poker is rigged meter and it is 1000% certain those races are rigged...just like online poker :lol: LOL Ok, back to being serious that data is from Aug 1 st to yesterday it covers all youbet and twinspires tracks some smaller tracks I couldn't get complete data so i didn't use them and sorry no standard breds aren't included. Basically what I wanted to do was try some methods that may point me to that 3-1 winner as opposed to that 5-1 loser

[magwell]

I agree with you that this is possible IF the track feed shows every horse. Perhaps its just the night tracks I watch, but I find the camera stuck on one horse for 30 or 40 seconds or longer. Others you never see even clearly for 5 seconds the entire time.

In that 30 second span of time, other horses could break off in a full run and be easing up or walking slowly when the camera finds them.

Racing refuses to understand that people want to see horses NOT a big screen of odds on their Internet feeds. Someday Management will actually get some smarts and have an entirely different feed for the Internet. I picture 4 screens, with at least two of them tracking the horses from the paddock to the starting gate.

Have the in house announcers on the 3rd and the odds on the 4th. Even smarter put these screens on the tracks web page and allow the user to customize whatever views they want with web-cams set up around the track.

Someday, yes....some....day. :sleeping:aww come on just seening the horses from the paddock and warming up, cant do THAT... makes way 2 much sense, we must see the talking heads talk about nonsense and act like clowns {redboard matt} but anything we get is much better than nothing . So we should dummy up and be glad 2 get what we get......

[Gambleonclaimers]

I would even like to see just a few different camera angles in the paddock man I would even take 3 or 4 of those $60 webcams. That could make the difference, i mean I probably give the track the 240 it would take to set up those kinds of cameras

[Bruddah]

but my post was made to inexperienced pysicality cappers. However, with the video feeds being shown today, with no clear views (mostly graphics and odds) it is an extremely risky venture. Certainly, I can't recommend video feeds to those just learning. They need to learn at the track before attempting to do it with video feeds. (JMHO)

You are correct however, the Post Parade is the best of the videos feeds to be seen, of the horses physicality, but the warm ups on the backside, suck. (JMHO)

Either way, good luck with your video feed physicality handicapping. :ThmbUp:

[kenwoodallpromos]

how often does that work for you? Are you ahead?
I stay ahead but it is really usable just once in a while, at my local track GGF a handful of times per week. Sometimes a big fav with no early speed has an outside post, and there are some longshots 8-1 to 25-1 have a lot of ITM's. Rubber track in Ca seems to get decent results.
The idea of this method is that if you bet 4 or 5 longshots in a race, 1 win in 3 or 4 races is enough to stay ahead.
Last week my 5 longshots included a last out winner from Turf Paradise that won and paid $23.+. Three contenders were all 5-2 or longer so the crowd did not like anybody.
The most longshots I hamdicapped for a relative in a race is stilll the KY Derby that included Giacomo and 14 others who were all 20-1 or higher odds.
More sart than science, the "science" being figuring which races are unpredictable for a low-odds horse to win that the bet is worthwhile. The worst weather conditions away from NYRA are worth a look!

[Norm]

Can you tell me EXACTLY what your looking for? I did a cursory search on physicality on the board and it's mentioned a lot but I didn't see anyone explaining just what they're looking for...I know the obvious stuff, sweatiness, nervousness , although I swear I've seen nervous horses win-- can you share what you look for?



You might want to read a book called "Talking With Horses" by Henry Blake. It's not about handicapping but can make you conversant in the language horses speak. Horses don't speak English, they speak body language and they can't understand why us insensitive humans don't pay attention to what they are saying so loud and clear.



Ever see a horse drop his head down to one side every time a certain foot touches the ground ? He is saying, "ouch", "ouch", "ouch". Watch him during the warm-ups to see if he shakes it off. If he is still doing it while galloping, you might want to consider betting on a hot dog and beer instead of the horse. :)

[banacek]

And, of course, there is RACECHING!


http://www.trafford.com/04-0763

[oddsmaven]

what i am looking for is people who cap by physicality, reading the toteboard, watching video replays,hunch plays or any other method not commonly used. happy holidays

I bet only the NYRA tracks and consider the tote to be full of clues...whether it be an unual amount of play or betting pattern...there are a number of typical patterns, for example class drops generally get bet down, and step ups usually take early money...a horse with dropping odds that is unexpected is often a good sign...final odds that are surprisingly low are often a signal that the horse is even more dangerous than it's "seemingly foolishly overbet" odds...but the morning line can not be assumed to be properly done - one has to make their own and be very good at it to really judge this, though I'll say even though he has weaknesses and I wouldn't really pay attention to his "selections", NYRA's Eric Donovan is head & shoulders above prior linemakers for often getting the contenders lined up reasonably close to the final order of odds.

[ranchwest]

but my post was made to inexperienced pysicality cappers. However, with the video feeds being shown today, with no clear views (mostly graphics and odds) it is an extremely risky venture. Certainly, I can't recommend video feeds to those just learning. They need to learn at the track before attempting to do it with video feeds. (JMHO)

You are correct however, the Post Parade is the best of the videos feeds to be seen, of the horses physicality, but the warm ups on the backside, suck. (JMHO)

Either way, good luck with your video feed physicality handicapping. :ThmbUp:

Good points.

[jonnielu]

At the local casino after talking to a gentlemen for a considerable amount of time about his handicapping and his 40+ year career as a ..... um, well what I would call a professional handicapper. After listening to what he had to say about capping I wonder how many people use different methods of handicapping besides, the drf form or any other form, speed,pace or software for that matter that relies on data. what i am looking for is people who cap by physicality, reading the toteboard, watching video replays,hunch plays or any other method not commonly used. happy holidays

Having last week's information ( the form ) is useful, but the usefulness of past performances pretty much ends at the point that you have the horse's ability in hand. Ability will come out of the form, condition and effort will not. The form contains only vague indications of condition and effort.

Consistent, quality information with regard to condition and effort for today's race is presented on-track in the 25 minutes before the horses enter the gate. This is the one best source for this. The tote-board is included here, but, it's information should be correlated to the other two sources for it's information to be considered useful.

A horse with "good form" will take money, that in itself does not mean anything in light of condition and effort today. It can mean something, but only if the positive physical signs are also present.

A horse with "bad form" can also take money, and that in itself may or may not mean anything. But, let me see all of the positive physical attributes in a "bad form" horse that is taking any money at all, and don't get between me and the window.

Each of the three indicators is important, but let me get the ability from the form, and I can drop it in the basket alongside the inbound turnstile. The on-track tools are that strong. You can assume equality in ability, if need be, and separate on these other factors, with success. Going the other way around is just poke and hope. It is proven every day.

Can you succeed with alternative methods? Absolutely. Am I willing to back that up? How about this:

Ability-X ratings and TrackSideEye are available for the entire Gulfstream meeting for $200. If Ability-X and TrackSideEye do not produce a profit of $50,000 during this meet, you get your money back!

jdl

[mrharness]

Can you succeed with alternative methods? Absolutely. Am I willing to back that up? How about this:

Ability-X ratings and TrackSideEye are available for the entire Gulfstream meeting for $200. If Ability-X and TrackSideEye do not produce a profit of $50,000 during this meet, you get your money back!

jdl

Nice offer! So I can make $2 bets and end up $50,000 richer!:confused:

[ranchwest]

Nice offer! So I can make $2 bets and end up $50,000 richer!:confused:

Hundreds of touts will make similar offers. Money is growing on trees.

[jonnielu]

Nice offer! So I can make $2 bets and end up $50,000 richer!:confused:

Sure, why not??

[jonnielu]

Hundreds of touts will make similar offers. Money is growing on trees.

Show me one, other then this one.

[judd]

ability x is an interesting program ( if you can figure the numbers out)

[GaryG]

There have certainly been a lot of big claims made around here lately. $50,000 on $2 bets? Holy mack'l Andy....:faint:

[Show Me the Wire]

Do any of you know where I can buy a bridge? :eek:

[jonnielu]

There have certainly been a lot of big claims made around here lately. $50,000 on $2 bets? Holy mack'l Andy....:faint:

Is there a reason why not in there some where?

[jonnielu]

Do any of you know where I can buy a bridge? :eek:

SMTW, if you are going to ridicule the offer, could you also point out how you could lose with this proposition? Do you ridicule Maytag and Craftsmen tools too?

[judd]

jon
show him results

[Show Me the Wire]

SMTW, if you are going to ridicule the offer, could you also point out how you could lose with this proposition? Do you ridicule Maytag and Craftsmen tools too?

The concept of $2. bet at a time.

[Show Me the Wire]

jon
show him results

If his ratings selected Massive Drama no thanks.

[GaryG]

Is there a reason why not in there some where?With an ROI of 25%, which is excellent by any standards, you would have to put $200K through the windows to net $50K. That is 100,000 $2 bets.

[jonnielu]

The concept of $2. bet at a time.

SMTW, You said you like the serial win wagers, didn't you? Even if you bet 2 horses per race, you are still allowed to do so with a $2 betting unit, aren't you?

Even if you wanted to bet some exotics, they let you do that with $2 betting units, don't they?

[jonnielu]

If his ratings selected Massive Drama no thanks.

Who's Massive Drama?

[eastie]

I have the Beyer "Trip Handicapping" video. I will entertain offers for it. If someone really wants it, they can get it before I put it on Ebay next year.

I thought it was fairly well done. Contact me privately if interested.

entertain offers...how generous of you. what about letting peeps who want to see it borrow it and pass it on instead of letting it gather dust or selling it. Pay it forward man.

[Show Me the Wire]

Who's Massive Drama?


A pick posted by Judd today. He sounds like he uses your ratings.

Turning to your other question read Gary G's post. Additionally I don't think I would be too successful playing pick 3s and 4s for a total cost of $2.

Good night to all.

[judd]

he only rates fla tracks smart ass

[jonnielu]

With an ROI of 25%, which is excellent by any standards, you would have to put $200K through the windows to net $50K. That is 100,000 $2 bets.

So, is it against the horseplayer rules to make the bet if there is a potential ROI over 25%???? Do you pass if the odds are higher then 3-5?

I invested 12 $2 ($24) betting units to box an exacta yesterday. It payed $571.60, is there something wrong with that ROI?

The figures that you are reckoning with seem to assume a lot of losing, how come?

Gary, what happens to ROI if we only bet horses at 5/1 - 10/1 when they are 50/50 to win? And, we also win 50% of those bets.

[jonnielu]

Good night to all.

Why didn't I see that coming?

Well, SMTW, it has been a lively and provocative discussion as usual, I will look forward to your next input with great anticipation.

[jonnielu]

jon
show him results

Well, I was hoping to get to the funny part. But, it is hard to get all the way to the funny part when fellas are so quick to bail once a little discussion gets going. Some people like to start them a lot more then finishing them.

jdl

[jonnielu]

To bring the thread back on track, there are many alternative methods that can be profitable. The drawback for the off-track bettor is that the off-track bettor needs input that just can not be consistently wrangled out of a racing form.

Physical condition today is that big a part of the outcome. If the off-track bettor has no way to reliably and consistently answer the questions of condition today, the only reasonable strategy for compensation of this shortcoming is to bet a group of horses in exotics. This may be the only viable alternative for the off-track bettor.

The on-track bettor has some advantages in useful and productive alternatives being more at his/her disposal.

Just to be able to pass two losers in a day can do wonders for anyone's win percentage and ROI. But, if the off-track bettor can not see the negatives that indicate passing to be the best move, he/she can not act on them.

jdl

[Tom]

Turning to your other question read Gary G's post. Additionally I don't think I would be too successful playing pick 3s and 4s for a total cost of $2.

Good night to all.


I suspect playing Pics would be out of the question, since physicality would only be possible on the first leg.

[jonnielu]

I suspect playing Pics would be out of the question, since physicality would only be possible on the first leg.

Yes Tom, that advantage would be lost for the picks. There, you would have to go multiple to compensate. Ability-X is most effective for cutting a field in half, and it does a lot of damage to pics with the top 3 - 4.

I'm going nighty- night too.

jdl

[ranchwest]

Show me one, other then this one.

I once went into a grocery store near Louisiana Downs. They must have had 20 tout sheets. Every one of them was guaranteed. Some for 3 wins, some 4, some 5, some 6, some 7. It's a can't lose proposition for the person selling the sheets. The same can't be said for the person making the bets.

[jonnielu]

I once went into a grocery store near Louisiana Downs. They must have had 20 tout sheets. Every one of them was guaranteed. Some for 3 wins, some 4, some 5, some 6, some 7. It's a can't lose proposition for the person selling the sheets. The same can't be said for the person making the bets.

I don't see where you were required to bet or lose a dime on any bets. I do see where you had a wonderful opportunity to find which of 20 sheets may be of high value without putting money at risk.

Ability-X is the most valuable rating ever offered. How many ways are there for me to effectively put that across when the average bettor is content with 2 winners out of 10, and fairly well convinced that the only way to find the 2 is to bet the 10. I can tell you how valuable Ability-X is all day long, but you already believe otherwise, so I'll have to change your beliefs first. My guarantee is the best way I can attempt to do that.

You have the opportunity to get Ability-X ratings and TrackSideEye together live every racing day for a full meeting that will produce similar results to this fall in Kentucky, by putting up a lousy, stinking, paltry, meager, hardly worth mentioning, $200. Charge it to your credit card, and figure in the guarantee, and you aren't really risking anything.

You can evaluate 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months of action without making a move to risk a $2 bill. You aren't even out the cash required to get through the turnstile. But, you have an opportunity to evaluate two services that you can not well gauge otherwise. I have an opportunity to demonstrate the value of those two services, I can earn the $200, you can't lose it. You've got the best end of the deal.

This opportunity only comes to you because of my emmense ego, Tom can back me up on that. This board is plastered with the top 6 for CD for most of the fall meet, I doubt that anyone paid much attention to the profit for boxing that top 6 for superfectas all day long.

Sure, it takes a few bucks to box 6 for a $2 betting unit, but winning 40%, or 50% of the superfectas can defray that. You get to where the $250 super's don't aggravate you that much too. And, when TrackSideEye allows you to safely kick one or two, the investment can get pretty reasonable.

And, those dollars and cents are not even the real value of Ability-X and TrackSideEye, the real value is what you can learn about the realities of thoroughbred racing. You will likely spend the most on that project for the next several years. Ability-X and TrackSideEye could have the job done by February.

jdl

[JohnGalt1]

At the local casino after talking to a gentlemen for a considerable amount of time about his handicapping and his 40+ year career as a ..... um, well what I would call a professional handicapper. After listening to what he had to say about capping I wonder how many people use different methods of handicapping besides, the drf form or any other form, speed,pace or software for that matter that relies on data. what i am looking for is people who cap by physicality, reading the toteboard, watching video replays,hunch plays or any other method not commonly used. happy holidays


To get back to your question.

There was a book OLMSTEAD'S COMPLETE HANDICAPPER by Bill Olmstead, published in 1995 that looks at and compares many types and styles of handicapping.

After chapters on speed and pace, trainers, form cycles, class, tote board, visual skills, and money management, chapter 10 compares 50 different styles of handicapping.

Is all this information confusing? If you've seen as many races as some here have you can see how some are silly and wrong either because the game has changed or the method's originator is a moron.

Just because it's written by an "expert" doesn't mean it's so.

I doubt it's still in print, but you may find a copy listed at Amazon. It was $95 when published.

[Capper Al]

So, is it against the horseplayer rules to make the bet if there is a potential ROI over 25%???? Do you pass if the odds are higher then 3-5?

I invested 12 $2 ($24) betting units to box an exacta yesterday. It payed $571.60, is there something wrong with that ROI?

The figures that you are reckoning with seem to assume a lot of losing, how come?

Gary, what happens to ROI if we only bet horses at 5/1 - 10/1 when they are 50/50 to win? And, we also win 50% of those bets.

I'll bet you won't do that often. That can't be your standard bet on exactas. Unless you skip a lot of races and are willing to put up with long spells of no action, one would tap out their bankroll betting 12X2 ($24) exactas frequently.

[jonnielu]

To get back to your question.

There was a book OLMSTEAD'S COMPLETE HANDICAPPER by Bill Olmstead, published in 1995 that looks at and compares many types and styles of handicapping.

After chapters on speed and pace, trainers, form cycles, class, tote board, visual skills, and money management, chapter 10 compares 50 different styles of handicapping.

Is all this information confusing? If you've seen as many races as some here have you can see how some are silly and wrong either because the game has changed or the method's originator is a moron.

Just because it's written by an "expert" doesn't mean it's so.

I doubt it's still in print, but you may find a copy listed at Amazon. It was $95 when published.

"seek and ye shall find", the book buyer always gets what he/she set out for. The truth or answers are always there also, whether they are contained within anyone's book or not. The books are written on the basis of what you are looking for, since that is what sells.

"My $50,000 year at the races", contained precious little on learning about horse racing, but that little dab was worth the price, if you got it. It wasn't bought however for this little dab of knowledge, it was bought because everyone thought that if they read this, $50,000 shows up on the doorstep.

With regard to this sport, what the book-buyers generally seek is a way to skip the work involved in learning the realities of the sport and get right to the success after reading 100 pages of one book.

The writers, without regard to what they do, or don't know about horseracing, become experts at supplying this want.

jdl

[Tom]

Ability-X is the most valuable rating ever offered. How many ways are there for me to effectively put that across when the average bettor is content with 2 winners out of 10, and fairly well convinced that the only way to find the 2 is to bet the 10. I can tell you how valuable Ability-X is all day long,


Ah, but on what do you base that....your opinion, test results, data?
You can tell me something all day long, but data speaks the universal languge.
Throw some stats our way. Frankly, from the samples you have posted I am not impressed with AX. I have numbers that perform far better, IMHO. But I'll be fair....let's see some data.

[jma]

Ah, but on what do you base that....your opinion, test results, data?
You can tell me something all day long, but data speaks the universal languge.
Throw some stats our way. Frankly, from the samples you have posted I am not impressed with AX. I have numbers that perform far better, IMHO. But I'll be fair....let's see some data.

Tom, the guy said he gets 50% winners with horses 5-1 to 10-1...what else do you need other than that? :lol:

[Pace Cap'n]

I'll bet you won't do that often. That can't be your standard bet on exactas. Unless you skip a lot of races and are willing to put up with long spells of no action, one would tap out their bankroll betting 12X2 ($24) exactas frequently.

Not to mention the $720 super boxes.

[jonnielu]

I'll bet you won't do that often. That can't be your standard bet on exactas. Unless you skip a lot of races and are willing to put up with long spells of no action, one would tap out their bankroll betting 12X2 ($24) exactas frequently.

CapperAl,

Either you are operating under an un-proven/unreal assumption, or you have no reasonably consistent method of reducing a field to 4 live contenders. Exacta Magic systematically gives you 3 - 4 contenders to box, yes, I said box for the exacta. If a fifth cannot be eliminated, it is recommended, that you pass. The favorite is very seldom left out, 1 pass a day, now and then, an average of 50 units profit on a per day basis. My favorite part, for the past 7-10 days, I've worked it with no handicapping at all. Is it a streak?

No

But, why take my word for it? Ability-X for Tampa Bay Fri and Sat are hanging on the board. If you've got an hour to kill, I'll send you Exacta Magic, and you can workout those two days, to see how much tapping out you do.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Ah, but on what do you base that....your opinion, test results, data?
You can tell me something all day long, but data speaks the universal languge.
Throw some stats our way. Frankly, from the samples you have posted I am not impressed with AX. I have numbers that perform far better, IMHO. But I'll be fair....let's see some data.

Lucky for me.... I'm not trying to impress you Tom, but, if you're game, let's take it outside.

Out of all the selection threads here that I have posted, pick the one you are least impressed with, and we'll take up some conversation in that thread.

What do you say?

jdl

[Tom]

No data, huh?

[banacek]

No data, huh?

I agree. I've seen the ebay ads and checked out the webiste and been intrigued, but I'd like to see some evidence. Otherwise this is going to turn into another "Value Betting at The Racetrack I'll be back in the spring with the results and never heard from him again" thread.

[njcurveball]

I have been getting questions on this video. I think it was actually well done. It is from 1988 and runs close to 60 minutes.

Beyer does all of the commentary and he actually mentions PACE! Can you believe it?

I hope the attached pictures can answer some questions for those interested.

[jonnielu]

No data, huh?

You don't want to use the data that is already on the board? Wouldn't that be better then anything I could "dummy up".

What would be wrong with getting the data live every race, everyday, everyweek, for a couple of months? What better way could there possibly be for you, Tom.... "the toughest monkey on the board" to evaluate Ability-X and TrackSideEye.

Hell, if I'm not there busting my hump to earn the $200, you can chargeback your credit card the next day. I'm the one taking the risk, not you. I can't get your $200, I can only earn it.

jdl

[GaryG]

No data, huh?Apparently not....pretty good hustle though. If I may speak for Tom: He doesn't mean dummied up data. Anyone that is serious about this business keeps meticulous records. Just the facts will be fine.

[Tom]

What he said. :)

[banacek]

I'd just like some clarification. How do we evaluate your numbers? You do post your data before the races, but I'm not sure what you want to do with it. Do you want 4 horse exactor boxes, like you show on your ebay auction? (In that one you hit 9 out of 10 and make 20%(?) on your money.)

And you say "Lower #'s are better ability for the distance,subject to the proper assessment of the impact of early speed." And what would the proper assessment be? If I am going to look your numbers and try to evaluate them with the results, I need to know how you are using them in your betting. Or instead of just posting the numbers, can you tell us how you would bet them beforehand? There is no point in looking at yesterday's and telling us how you would bet them.

As one of your auction winners (and a respected member of this board) says:"process needs to be clearer".

[Greyfox]

Hell, if I'm not there busting my hump to earn the $200, you can chargeback your credit card the next day. I'm the one taking the risk, not you. I can't get your $200, I can only earn it.

jdl

So we should expect the payouts to drop at GP this next semester as your class of wizards starts nailing scores ? ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

Why didn't I see that coming?

Well, SMTW, it has been a lively and provocative discussion as usual, I will look forward to your next input with great anticipation.


jonnielu, I always enjoy typing to you. I posted the good night so you would not think I ignored your reply, if any.

My next input is this regarding the $50K guarantee. I not a math wiz, but wouldn't the pools have to grow exponentially to cover your clients take and to cover the existing people that are currently taking from the pool. In other words if you have 100 clients, which is a reasonable number, taking down these superfectas ( of course not all at the same time) along with other non-clients significantly reduce the payouts, unless the pool proportionately increases. Wouldn't it be impossible for the pool to increase proportionately if the player invested in a total cost of $2. for every bet?

[jonnielu]

Apparently not....pretty good hustle though. If I may speak for Tom: He doesn't mean dummied up data. Anyone that is serious about this business keeps meticulous records. Just the facts will be fine.

Well, then put me down as a heretic too. I'm building up records on the website, but that will be the extent of it. I never have been a note taker, or diary keeper. I don't need any of this for my own consumption.

My style is a result of my own recognition of myself and how others percieve me, I won't work very hard to convince anyone of anything. Part of that is just my nature, most of it is a result of my own beliefs. I believe anyone will learn more, and learn faster if I can get them to think, as opposed to giving them the answers, as I have found them to be. You will always believe your own conclusions more then any of mine.

I am often accused of having a need to be right, I do have a belief that I am right, and like anyone that seeks knowledge, I like to know that I have found some. I believe that neither you nor I have as much opportunity to learn if I convince you as opposed to prompting you to use your own intelligence and thought process to discover for yourself. If you learn something that reinforces what I believe, then we both have knowledge.

I didn't think Tom wanted dummied up data, it seems that he is concerned about the possibility of it being dummied up.

Maybe, my offer isn't for you, or Tom. It is just an opportunity to prove or disprove something to yourself. I will just come out and tell you that I won't do all of the work, I'll only do it with you.

[Pace Cap'n]

jonnielu, I always enjoy typing to you. I posted the good night so you would not think I ignored your reply, if any.

My next input is this regarding the $50K guarantee. I not a math wiz, but wouldn't the pools have to grow exponentially to cover your clients take and to cover the existing people that are currently taking from the pool. In other words if you have 100 clients, which is a reasonable number, taking down these superfectas ( of course not all at the same time) along with other non-clients significantly reduce the payouts, unless the pool proportionately increases. Wouldn't it be impossible for the pool to increase proportionately if the player invested in a total cost of $2. for every bet?

Get these noobs tossing in $720 super boxes and the pools will grow at an atounding rate.

Post #50 in this thread: Sure, it takes a few bucks to box 6 for a $2 betting unit...

[jonnielu]

I'd just like some clarification. How do we evaluate your numbers? You do post your data before the races, but I'm not sure what you want to do with it. Do you want 4 horse exactor boxes, like you show on your ebay auction? (In that one you hit 9 out of 10 and make 20%(?) on your money.)

And you say "Lower #'s are better ability for the distance,subject to the proper assessment of the impact of early speed." And what would the proper assessment be?

I'm assuming that everyone here understands the basic's, early speed has a large impact on short distances, while it has much less impact (generally) at greater distances.

If I am going to look your numbers and try to evaluate them with the results, I need to know how you are using them in your betting. Or instead of just posting the numbers, can you tell us how you would bet them beforehand? There is no point in looking at yesterday's and telling us how you would bet them.

As one of your auction winners (and a respected member of this board) says:"process needs to be clearer".

His point was noted and well taken, all feedback is very valuable to me. And I have been working Ability-X and Exacta Magic without cracking the form so that I can better clarify "Using Ability-X Ratings". But, I also want to know how far handicappers can take it on their own too. I want to know how well Ability-X teaches. Is his initial take the same today?




I've put Ability-X on the board in the way that I have, to see what all of the various handicappers here would sniff out about them. Thinking that at least a few whiff's of consistency would be picked up.

I have been very clear that I believe that the ratings themselves can teach you better and faster then I can. I've got to break through the barriers. The ratings don't have to do that.

If I had an example where a 150-1 horse won as the third rated according to Ability-X, you would figure out how that could be wouldn't you?

[jonnielu]

So we should expect the payouts to drop at GP this next semester as your class of wizards starts nailing scores ? ;)

What kind of payouts would you be expecting? If a ML is at 8-1, at what point would you say it took money? 6 or 7 - 1, or would it need to get to 7-2?

[banacek]

I've put Ability-X on the board in the way that I have, to see what all of the various handicappers here would sniff out about them. Thinking that at least a few whiff's of consistency would be picked up.

If the people who have read the ebook say it needs more clarification, there's no way that someone who hasn't read it will figure it out based on what you have posted. Betting 4 horse exactor boxes on 6 horse races makes no sense to me. Your offer to Tom to go over races that have already been run is meaningless. I'll go over the Breeders' Cup races now and show you how my numbers picked the winners, but you'd just laugh.

How about posting a set before the races and then explaining what you are looking for before the races are run. You'd have a lot more interest in your product.

Your numbers may be valuable and if you can show that, you have a good product. But if you are expecting us to figure out how to bet your numbers, there is clearly a problem from the outset.

[mrharness]

If I had an example where a 150-1 horse won as the third rated according to Ability-X, you would figure out how that could be wouldn't you?
No, actually, if you are going to give more than one horse, I would expect you to state how and when to bet the "third rated." Or any combination of betting any of the 4 choices. I can choose 4 horses of my own if that is all I want out of the deal - I wouldn't need to pay for your choice of 4 horses.

[jonnielu]

jonnielu, I always enjoy typing to you. I posted the good night so you would not think I ignored your reply, if any.

My next input is this regarding the $50K guarantee. I not a math wiz, but wouldn't the pools have to grow exponentially to cover your clients take and to cover the existing people that are currently taking from the pool. In other words if you have 100 clients, which is a reasonable number, taking down these superfectas ( of course not all at the same time) along with other non-clients significantly reduce the payouts, unless the pool proportionately increases. Wouldn't it be impossible for the pool to increase proportionately if the player invested in a total cost of $2. for every bet?

Okay, sure if the pool were being split 100 additional ways, the payout would go down, but for that to actually start decreasing handle, quite a few supers would have to be going this route. But, if that were going on, it may actually spark more betting on supers. The question would be how would bettors respond in general, seeing that a large group is consistently winning supers.

Would they figure that they have more of a shot at supers, or less? hat pin mary may see it as more winnable as opposed to less.

The pari-mutuel chips will fall where they may. If that many supers were won, I think you could still scratch up $50k across 3 1/2 months time. And, you could always invest in tri's for a week or two.

[jonnielu]

If the people who have read the ebook say it needs more clarification, there's no way that someone who hasn't read it will figure it out based on what you have posted. Betting 4 horse exactor boxes on 6 horse races makes no sense to me. Your offer to Tom to go over races that have already been run is meaningless. I'll go over the Breeders' Cup races now and show you how my numbers picked the winners, but you'd just laugh.

How about posting a set before the races and then explaining what you are looking for before the races are run. You'd have a lot more interest in your product.

Your numbers may be valuable and if you can show that, you have a good product. But if you are expecting us to figure out how to bet your numbers, there is clearly a problem from the outset.

So then there is no sort of trial that would capture your interest?

[jonnielu]

No, actually, if you are going to give more than one horse, I would expect you to state how and when to bet the "third rated." Or any combination of betting any of the 4 choices. I can choose 4 horses of my own if that is all I want out of the deal - I wouldn't need to pay for your choice of 4 horses.

If the ratings were 100, 99, 98, you might want to bet the third rating simply because the ability suggests a much higher possibility of winning then the odds do. But the fact that any rating method would have a 150-1 horse at #3 rating would not send you at all, if the horse won paying $323.00?

[banacek]

So then there is no sort of trial that would capture your interest?

Not until there is some explanation. I'd like to figure out what your criteria are. On one of your auctions, you list the Exacta Magic 4 horse boxes. For example, the 6th ranked horse (out of 8) included to make the pay. How is the 7 horse in the 4 horse box? Is he there because he has middle early speed. Is he there because he is 3rd fav. on the ML? That's what you are posting. You need to clarify how he moves into the top 4.

5th - 6fD
# POST ErlSpd / ML

408 3 101 12
325 5 101 3
292 2 99 8
339 7 99 4
269 6 97 2.5
287 8 91 6
350 4 85 15
330 1 85 6


Exacta Magic - 2,5,6,7

$2 Exacta $144.60 2-7

[mrharness]

If the ratings were 100, 99, 98, you might want to bet the third rating simply because the ability suggests a much higher possibility of winning then the odds do. But the fact that any rating method would have a 150-1 horse at #3 rating would not send you at all, if the horse won paying $323.00?
The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, I would sit up and take notice. No because it could be a fluke just like you see from time to time.

While it may not have been 150/1 horse that I have chosen in the 3rd spot, often there are high odd horses that I have chosen. BUT most of the time there is no way that they win. And on top of that, nothing about them looks good in the PP. The few times they win would result in a negative ROI.

Are you suggesting that your 3rd choices, if the odds are high and the ratings are close, will win and show a profit? How high do the odds have to be? How close do the ratings have to be? In order to make that $50,000, could someone only bet your 3rd choice to win under those conditions?

I see many ways to lose, rather than make $50,000 without specific betting instructions from you. If you don't have rules that specify how and when to bet, then how is that different from looking at the morning line and trying to pick the winner from the 3 horses listed at the bottom of the program?

Just going to have to pass on your offer.

[jonnielu]

Not until there is some explanation. I'd like to figure out what your criteria are. On one of your auctions, you list the Exacta Magic 4 horse boxes. For example, the 6th ranked horse (out of 8) included to make the pay. How is the 7 horse in the 4 horse box? Is he there because he has middle early speed. Is he there because he is 3rd fav. on the ML? That's what you are posting. You need to clarify how he moves into the top 4.

Alright, but your still going to be mad at me me because I'm going to tell you that I didn't even crack the form for this. I can tell you are already ticked off because I had the audacity to box 4 with the favorite in just in case the public knows what they are doing this time.

I'll also state here that Exacta Magic is a systematic method that can flex to accommadate any level of sophistication that the user might add as he/she becomes better acquainted and/or skillful understanding and using the ratings. I employ some sophistication beyond the raw mechanics, but that is still based on what the ratings tell me. They will tell anyone else as much, dependent on the level they are at.

5th - 6fD - This means that early speed will likely dominate the outcome of this race. (It is just a fact of horseracing, don't be mad at me.)

# POST ErlSpd / ML

408 3 101 12
These two early speed figures bolster for us further that early speed will likely dominate the outcome of the race.
325 5 101 3
Both the #3 and the #5 are in our exacta already just on the basis of their early speed ability and post position advantage. (#5 is the farthest outside post that I will consider as any advantage at this distance)
On the ability side, we see that #5 has a clear advantage on #3, #3's post can handle that, I will expand after I get this exacta systematically.

292 2 99 8

Here we consider the next moving down the early speed ladder, #2, #2 is in on early speed and ability. The post pos. will benefit also. #7 is in also because of the tie with #2 on early speed. Post is not an advantage, but #7 can't be kicked because ability is in range of the top two early speed that will set the tone for this race. That is the systematic play. 2,3,5,7
339 7 99 4

Here is what I added to it:
#3 will only hold up here if he is not pushed to the folding point. The overall ratings are equalized on a par and that par tells me that #5 will run this 6f smoothly where #3 is going to run faster on the front and tire on the back. #2 has enough ability credit and a post position that will allow him to push #3 to the folding point if need be. #5 will have to push #3 because of post position. Whichever does the pushing, #3 will fold, if #5 does the pushing, #2 benefits in the stretch while #5 pays. All of this allows #7 to cruise early and look for a spot to slip through, no other strategy considering the post.

269 6 97 2.5
The favorite is slow here, and is getting nothing out of the post. But, the ability is there, and you just can't trust a favorite to run up the track unless they walk to the gate. #2 is the real value in the race, so I kicked the #3 for the sneaky bastard #6.
287 8 91 6
350 4 85 15 - These guys need speed.
330 1 85 6


Exacta Magic - 2,5,6,7

$2 Exacta $144.60 2-7



This one is from when I was taking the lowest rating to win with no handicapping also. Currently, I am taking best rating @ best ML value (still with no "form" handicapping), which would be #2 here.

[jonnielu]

The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, I would sit up and take notice. No because it could be a fluke just like you see from time to time.

Would you be able to call it a fluke when a top 3 longshot hits the board 70%, or would you start calling it an accurate rating?

While it may not have been 150/1 horse that I have chosen in the 3rd spot, often there are high odd horses that I have chosen. BUT most of the time there is no way that they win. And on top of that, nothing about them looks good in the PP. The few times they win would result in a negative ROI.

Are you suggesting that your 3rd choices, if the odds are high and the ratings are close, will win and show a profit? How high do the odds have to be? How close do the ratings have to be? In order to make that $50,000, could someone only bet your 3rd choice to win under those conditions?

Yes, but, bet them when they are going to win, and don't bet them when they are going to lose. That is where TrackSideEye comes in.

I see many ways to lose, rather than make $50,000 without specific betting instructions from you. If you don't have rules that specify how and when to bet, then how is that different from looking at the morning line and trying to pick the winner from the 3 horses listed at the bottom of the program?

Just going to have to pass on your offer.

Okay, for a minute, I was going to stay up and answer those questions.

[banacek]

This one is from when I was taking the lowest rating to win with no handicapping also. Currently, I am taking best rating @ best ML value (still with no "form" handicapping), which would be #2 here.

I appreciate your explanation. But the two is your third lowest rating at 8-1. Your 2nd rated horse (8) has a morning line of 6-1 and you've dropped him from the 4 horse box. 2nd choice at 6-1 or 3rd choice at 8-1? I might take the 8 (if I was doing "no form" handicapping and only going by the rating). That's why we are asking about betting criteria.

Whether I agree or disagree with your analysis is moot - you are doing a lot of handicapping and pace analysis to come up with a 4 horse box.

As I said an analysis like this before the race would be a lot more convincing, but I certainly appreciate your effort.

Thank you.

[banacek]

Sorry, one last thing. You said:


That is the systematic play. 2,3,5,7 (including neither of your top 2 rated horses) before you threw in the favourite. Those are just the top 4 early speed horses. What happened to your ratings? They seem to take a back seat to early speed in this example. In fact, post position seems to be more important in your explanation than the ratings. Or am I missing something?

[ranchwest]

I don't see where you were required to bet or lose a dime on any bets. I do see where you had a wonderful opportunity to find which of 20 sheets may be of high value without putting money at risk.

Ability-X is the most valuable rating ever offered. How many ways are there for me to effectively put that across when the average bettor is content with 2 winners out of 10, and fairly well convinced that the only way to find the 2 is to bet the 10. I can tell you how valuable Ability-X is all day long, but you already believe otherwise, so I'll have to change your beliefs first. My guarantee is the best way I can attempt to do that.

You have the opportunity to get Ability-X ratings and TrackSideEye together live every racing day for a full meeting that will produce similar results to this fall in Kentucky, by putting up a lousy, stinking, paltry, meager, hardly worth mentioning, $200. Charge it to your credit card, and figure in the guarantee, and you aren't really risking anything.

You can evaluate 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months of action without making a move to risk a $2 bill. You aren't even out the cash required to get through the turnstile. But, you have an opportunity to evaluate two services that you can not well gauge otherwise. I have an opportunity to demonstrate the value of those two services, I can earn the $200, you can't lose it. You've got the best end of the deal.

This opportunity only comes to you because of my emmense ego, Tom can back me up on that. This board is plastered with the top 6 for CD for most of the fall meet, I doubt that anyone paid much attention to the profit for boxing that top 6 for superfectas all day long.

Sure, it takes a few bucks to box 6 for a $2 betting unit, but winning 40%, or 50% of the superfectas can defray that. You get to where the $250 super's don't aggravate you that much too. And, when TrackSideEye allows you to safely kick one or two, the investment can get pretty reasonable.

And, those dollars and cents are not even the real value of Ability-X and TrackSideEye, the real value is what you can learn about the realities of thoroughbred racing. You will likely spend the most on that project for the next several years. Ability-X and TrackSideEye could have the job done by February.

jdl

I didn't just happen into that grocery store near the track. I was going to the track, so I was going to bet.

Those tip sheets were $3 to $10 each. I wouldn't say that's putting no money at risk. I'd say that's more like over $100 down the toilet without even betting.

As for your claim that I already assume Ability-X to not be valuable, I made no such statement. I don't really care whether it is valuable or not.

I don't consider $200 to be lousy, stinking, paltry, meager, hardly worth mentioning. $200 is certainly not something I want to give you. And, I won't, even if you pick 100% of every cold superfecta for the next ten years. I'm not interested.

[Light]

Why would a guy who can make $50k a meet with a method want to sell it for $200.

[bigmack]

I think you could still scratch up $50k across 3 1/2 months time. And, you could always invest in tri's for a week or two.
Are you from Georgia, jonni?

[jonnielu]

Are you from Georgia, jonni?

Why, have you been googleing for IRS propaganda?

[jonnielu]

Why would a guy who can make $50k a meet with a method want to sell it for $200.

I'm not, I am selling a subscription for two services, for about $35.00 per month each. For about $2 a day, you would have a guy on-track, supplying you with ability to run, and condition today. Less then the price of parking for a good spot.

[jonnielu]

I didn't just happen into that grocery store near the track. I was going to the track, so I was going to bet.

Those tip sheets were $3 to $10 each. I wouldn't say that's putting no money at risk. I'd say that's more like over $100 down the toilet without even betting.

As for your claim that I already assume Ability-X to not be valuable, I made no such statement. I don't really care whether it is valuable or not.

I don't consider $200 to be lousy, stinking, paltry, meager, hardly worth mentioning. $200 is certainly not something I want to give you. And, I won't, even if you pick 100% of every cold superfecta for the next ten years. I'm not interested.

A notable perspective, I wonder if it is general?

[jonnielu]

I appreciate your explanation.

I'll say that this is just some talk, that sounds nice, but, actually has no meaning.


But the two is your third lowest rating at 8-1. Your 2nd rated horse (8) has a morning line of 6-1 and you've dropped him from the 4 horse box. 2nd choice at 6-1 or 3rd choice at 8-1? I might take the 8 (if I was doing "no form" handicapping and only going by the rating).

I'll suppose that this is some sort of admonishment, due I suppose, because my underatanding of horseracing is different from yours. While I am giving you why, you aren't paying any attention because you are too busy counting the number of rules I am breaking. Apparently, some buzzer may have gone off because I am doing something outside the box of your training.

That's why we are asking about betting criteria.

Whether I agree or disagree with your analysis is moot - you are doing a lot of handicapping and pace analysis to come up with a 4 horse box.

Apparently still outside the box of your training, and your buzzer is drowning out my attempt at prompting thought on your part. The systematic play still delivered the exacta. My analysis guided me only in kicking the #3 for the #6.

My analysis of how the race will unfold, and how that will affect the entrants. Which is indicated by the relationship of the ratings to subfactors that are consistent within the realities of horseracing. My analysis guides my betting decisions.

The result of all races is a unique product of those entered.

Here is what I'm handing out today. Consider it, as you study the game.

As I said an analysis like this before the race would be a lot more convincing, but I certainly appreciate your effort.

Thank you.

Again, I am not attempting to convince anyone. Only your own ability for thought can break through your training.

[Tom]

I didn't think Tom wanted dummied up data, it seems that he is concerned about the possibility of it being dummied up.

Maybe, my offer isn't for you, or Tom. It is just an opportunity to prove or disprove something to yourself. I will just come out and tell you that I won't do all of the work, I'll only do it with you.

No,I just asked for some performance data on your figs. What percent of the best rated horses actually wins, what is the roi, what percent of the top three win, etc. Simple stats. You claimed that they were the best available, and I asked how you come to that conclusion. Opinion, comparison to other figs, things like that. A really simpel question, really. I am not accusing you of dummying data or lying, or anything - just an honest question when you make two bold statements like the best ever and $50,000 profit.

[Tom]

I'm not, I am selling a subscription for two services, for about $35.00 per month each. For about $2 a day, you would have a guy on-track, supplying you with ability to run, and condition today. Less then the price of parking for a good spot.

You have a guy go to the track with the customer?

[nobeyerspls]

Why would a guy who can make $50k a meet with a method want to sell it for $200.

You've seen the infomercials for stock picking software and real estate programs. The guy on the yacht with the bikini-clad girls is most impressive until you learn that the girls and the boat are rented and he has filed for bankruptcy. Why should thoroughbred wagering be any different? In a later thread he tells you that he sells two services for $35/month each. That's $840/year so a thousand subscribers will give him a nice business.

The worst type of service is one that does not take a stand on one or two entrants but rates them all under several categories. That way it always has the winner and you could have had it too if you knew the dominant category for that race. I don't know much about this guys method but The Sheets come to mind as an example of the multiple rating type. A trio of guys shows up from time to time at my local track and they handicap and wager off of The Sheets. After every race they point out that The Sheets had the winner but they missed it. You don't see them for awhile because they lose their bankroll but they eventually come back and repeat the process.

Instead of the $200 up front offer he should just demonstrate the viability of his rankings in real-time during the first two weeks of the meet. He needs to post wagers (not rankings) before the race goes off. When it becomes clear that he's on track to win $50k, the service will sell itself.

[banacek]

Again, I am not attempting to convince anyone.

Well, then, you are succeeding.


I'll suppose that this is some sort of admonishment, due I suppose, because my underatanding of horseracing is different from yours. While I am giving you why, you aren't paying any attention because you are too busy counting the number of rules I am breaking. Apparently, some buzzer may have gone off because I am doing something outside the box of your training.

Well, no need to get sarcastic. If you are running "horseplayeru" , you, as my professor, have to tell me how to go outside of the box. If only you know how to do it, it is useless to anyone. You have to explain why the ability ratings are not being used in this example. I have been handicapping for 40 years and, yes, your understanding is different from mine (although I actually have made money the last few years - not $50000 a meet, but money).

Your 3rd and 6th ranked horses in an 8 horse race come in for an exacta which you claim to have won. I ask for an explanation and you give me an analysis which ignores the Ability-X ratings. I do have enough knowledge to pick out the top 4 early speed horses (and your top 2 early speed horses actually got out 7th and 8th). If I am going to buy your ability ratings, I assume that I would use them. I simply wanted an explanation, not you telling me how stupid I was.

I thought I was being pretty respectful and asking a logical question, but as Roberto Duran would say "No mas".

[jonnielu]

No,I just asked for some performance data on your figs. What percent of the best rated horses actually wins, what is the roi, what percent of the top three win, etc. Simple stats. You claimed that they were the best available, and I asked how you come to that conclusion. Opinion, comparison to other figs, things like that. A really simpel question, really. I am not accusing you of dummying data or lying, or anything - just an honest question when you make two bold statements like the best ever and $50,000 profit.

I don't think that you are accusing me of anything Tom, I was just thinking that you are likely cognizant of the general ability to extract what is wanted from stats. I haven't been tracking these things because I don't see handicapping with Ability-X as very mechanical. However, it does seem that it can be.

jdl

[Light]

Why would a guy who can make $50k a meet with a method want to sell it for $200.

I'm not


If Ability-X and TrackSideEye do not produce a profit of $50,000 during this meet, you get your money back!
jdl

Liar

[ranchwest]

A notable perspective, I wonder if it is general?

Yes, right or wrong, I make my own selections.

[jonnielu]

Well, then, you are succeeding.




Well, no need to get sarcastic.

Sorry, I am a very sarcastic person that has never developed the habit of explaining myself, because it offers others nothing to think about.

If you are running "horseplayeru" , you, as my professor, have to tell me how to go outside of the box. If only you know how to do it, it is useless to anyone. You have to explain why the ability ratings are not being used in this example.

They are being used, not in the face-value manner that you are expecting.

I have been handicapping for 40 years and, yes, your understanding is different from mine (although I actually have made money the last few years - not $50000 a meet, but money).

Exactly, my point, you won't get out of the box, just because I am suggesting that it might be a good idea. I can only bring you to that conclusion over some time, the start is in getting you to engage the wonderful mind that you have.

Your 3rd and 6th ranked horses in an 8 horse race come in for an exacta which you claim to have won. I ask for an explanation and you give me an analysis which ignores the Ability-X ratings. I do have enough knowledge to pick out the top 4 early speed horses (and your top 2 early speed horses actually got out 7th and 8th). If I am going to buy your ability ratings, I assume that I would use them. I simply wanted an explanation, not you telling me how stupid I was.

I said no such thing.

I thought I was being pretty respectful and asking a logical question, but as Roberto Duran would say "No mas".


Hell, we're just getting started here. Why don't you read "Using Ability-X Ratings" and "Exact Magic With Ability-X Ratings" for some more explanation.

I have it up on the website so you can download it by ftp with your browser. This is the address:

ftp://HorsePlayerU.com (ftp://horseplayeru.com/)

you should get a popup window with the user name - getabilityx

Password is - a1234bcD

That will put you into a directory containing AbilityX.exe and ExactaMagic.exe

just copy them to a folder and they would open by going into that folder and double clicking on the file.

Merry Christmas - This is not a sarcastic offer.

jdl

[jonnielu]

You have a guy go to the track with the customer?

No, the guy is at the track for the subscriber.

[jonnielu]

You've seen the infomercials for stock picking software and real estate programs. The guy on the yacht with the bikini-clad girls is most impressive until you learn that the girls and the boat are rented and he has filed for bankruptcy. Why should thoroughbred wagering be any different? In a later thread he tells you that he sells two services for $35/month each. That's $840/year so a thousand subscribers will give him a nice business.

Providing two services valuable to the off-track bettor for less than the cost of parking,

Ability-X - alone - Most powerful feature - identifying that group of horses that have the ability to win today, accurately.

The worst type of service is one that does not take a stand on one or two entrants but rates them all under several categories. That way it always has the winner and you could have had it too if you knew the dominant category for that race. I don't know much about this guys method

Your idea on a live two week workout for free is an excellent one, the positive results from doing that will raise the price accordingly and significantly.

Let me put it this way:

TrackSideEye is the physical info that will finalize a betting decision. In most applications.

Using it with Ability-X, you would have the ratings as usual, lined up according to your handicapping. I would report negative and positive mostly on Ability-X contenders from 20 to 5 minutes to post, giving you the time to finalize a betting decision with the physical info.

If the 4th rated horse was in range on ability for the possibility to win, and I reported no physical negatives and a proper thorough warmup for that horse, and poor or no warmup for the others, you would have a high percentage win bet opportunity on that 4th rated horse, knowing that effort will be made.

Say the favorite is best rated in this same race, and I reported no physical negatives and an average warmup, neither positive or negative, you know that the elimination of this favorite might be unwise, but considering the odds on the solid contender, you may go to a place bet on that one, or an exotic with these two, and one or two other contenders, without negatives. Or you may decide to win bet the fav.

TrackSideEye enables you to make a sound betting decision from several sound options. Your action is determined always by your make up as a player. I am very conservative, I may pass everything until I have one able longshot that is the only thorough warmup horse in the bunch, since this will happen a couple of times a day at Gulf. But, I am much more comfortable betting groups with Ability-X then I was in the past without Ability-X. So, you will also now see me using the physical info to cut from the group that Ability-X gives me. All together, TrackSideEye & Ability-X may provide a reasonable bet on a tri or super with only 4 horses. TrackSideEye can also provide some keying opportunities also, while allowing you to save ground with conservative w/p/ bets.

You would have the possibilities already in mind from your analysis of the race with the ratings, TrackSideEye fills the "effort" hole and gives the go or no-go on the betting decisions.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Liar

I disagree, and I think you should re-read a little bit.

[Greyfox]

Hell, we're just getting started here. Why don't you read "Using Ability-X Ratings" and "Exact Magic With Ability-X Ratings" for some more explanation.


jdl

I'm from Missouri. The fact is, and I've seen it happen at the track that I play, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
And the same is true about horse players.
I can have a set of numbers that can make me a lot of money.
The same set of numbers might make another man even richer than me.
The same set of numbers might send 90 % of the people who have them towards the poor house.
You can tutor some people all you want, but ultimately they will make their own decisions. Indeed, you can give them an absolute "lock" of a winner and they won't play it. That's just human nature.
I'm not buying into the panty hose theory here that one size fits all. Sorry.

[jonnielu]

I'm from Missouri. .

That explains alot. Do you not notice my effort to not get in a position where I am telling people what number means what. The meaning is dependent on the race and the ratings of the other horses in the race.

Tell me what you are driving so that I can try to avoid you next time I'm on I70.

jdl

[Light]

I disagree, and I think you should re-read a little bit.


You flat out contradicted yourself. It is you who needs to clarify what you said. Not my job to figure out what you mean.

[judd]

Liar your out of line saying that

[banacek]

Well, I looked at Exacta Magic, since you were kind enough to let me see it. The 4 examples for the sprints, you did the following:

1. 3 horse box with the 1st, 2nd and 4th best early speed horses
2. 4 horse box with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best early speed horses
3. 5 horse box with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th best early speed horses, and a first-time starter
4. 5 horse box with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best early speed horses.

This is why I asked that why the Ability-X ratings have almost no input into your decision making (at least for sprints). You are going one at a time down the list by early speed, always keeping the top 2 in the exacta box (except in the one you analyzed on this thread where you tossed the top early speed horse and added the favourite because "you just can't trust a favorite to run up the track unless they walk to the gate." ?? )

Again I appreciate you letting me having a look.

[Greyfox]

That explains alot. Do you not notice my effort to not get in a position where I am telling people what number means what. The meaning is dependent on the race and the ratings of the other horses in the race.

Tell me what you are driving so that I can try to avoid you next time I'm on I70.

jdl

First you're sarcastic with banacek's sincere query.
Now your threatening me.
You must believe that negative publicity is better than no publicity at all.
But not too many people buy from that type of pitcher.:ThmbDown:

[PaceAdvantage]

your out of line saying thatI tend to agree, but then again, I probably missed something along the line....

[Tom]

First you're sarcastic with banacek's sincere query.
Now your threatening me.
You must believe that negative publicity is better than no publicity at all.
But not too many people buy from that type of pitcher.:ThmbDown:

I get the impression that questions are not received well. :rolleyes:

[jonnielu]

Well, I looked at Exacta Magic, since you were kind enough to let me see it. The 4 examples for the sprints, you did the following:

1. 3 horse box with the 1st, 2nd and 4th best early speed horses
2. 4 horse box with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best early speed horses
3. 5 horse box with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th best early speed horses, and a first-time starter
4. 5 horse box with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best early speed horses.

This is why I asked that why the Ability-X ratings have almost no input into your decision making (at least for sprints). You are going one at a time down the list by early speed, always keeping the top 2 in the exacta box (except in the one you analyzed on this thread where you tossed the top early speed horse and added the favourite because "you just can't trust a favorite to run up the track unless they walk to the gate." ?? )

Exacta Magic - Opening paragraph:

I am adding this exacta method to "Using Ability-X Ratings" because even though this method of playing exactas is strictly systematic, it does use the daily ratings, and some back ground on them would be helpful for any that might want to add some judgement.



Again I appreciate you letting me having a look.

Maybe you should have read "Using Ability-X Ratings" first, or Exacta magic from the front end:

Churchill Downs 11/24/07 - 3rd - 6fD

# POST ErlSpeed
355 5 104
324 8 101

Ability for early speed has the largest impact at short distances, with consideration for post position. That is a consideration to make if you want to add some handicapping criteria to this system. The systematic move with Exacta Magic is to include the top two for early speed. No judgement, no handicapping, #5 and #8 are in. You basically want 3 horses, the next is the lowest ability rating of the next two, and that rating must be lower then the top two.

329 9 97 #9, at 329, is out.
291 2 96

#2 is the next lowest ability in line, #2 is the 3rd and final horse and #2,#5,#8 would be the exacta bet.

310 1 95
278 7 95
335 4 95
295 6 89
159 3 0 First time starters above 150 should always be given some consideration. Adding them to your exacta will be up to you, I would consider their rating and how competitive the race looks according to the ratings for a judgement call here.

# Horse Win Place Show
8 American County 9.40 4.20 3.40
2 Syriana's Song 4.20 2.80
7 Grand Obsession 5.20 / 9 Anachini / $2 Exacta $37.20

The three horse exacta box is the most desirable bet with Exacta Magic. The $2 betting unit will offer good returns for a $12 cost. This one paid $37.20, so we can call the profit 12 units. The betting unit can be anything you are comfortable with, in this case, the return is 200%. Not bad for the amount of work.

In many races, you may need to take 4 horses, and here you may have, if you opted to take the first time starter for safety. But, as you can see from the ratings, this should be a race that would be tough for a 159 first timer to place. If he were 259, I would either include him or pass.

The usual cases where you would go to four horses would be due to ties in either early speed or ability. We will look at an example of this also:


jdl

[banacek]

Maybe you should have read "Using Ability-X Ratings" first, or Exacta magic from the front end:

Churchill Downs 11/24/07 - 3rd - 6fD

# POST ErlSpeed
355 5 104
324 8 101

Ability for early speed has the largest impact at short distances, with consideration for post position. That is a consideration to make if you want to add some handicapping criteria to this system. The systematic move with Exacta Magic is to include the top two for early speed. No judgement, no handicapping, #5 and #8 are in. You basically want 3 horses, the next is the lowest ability rating of the next two, and that rating must be lower then the top two.

329 9 97 #9, at 329, is out.
291 2 96

#2 is the next lowest ability in line, #2 is the 3rd and final horse and #2,#5,#8 would be the exacta bet.

As I said 1st, 2nd and 4th early speed

All of the other sprint examples in the ebook end up taking the top 4 or 5 early speed horses and boxing them. Again for the nth (and last) time, where are the ability-X ratings?

[jonnielu]

First you're sarcastic with banacek's sincere query.
Now your threatening me.
You must believe that negative publicity is better than no publicity at all.
But not too many people buy from that type of pitcher.:ThmbDown:

How is that???? I expressed that I, (that is me NOT you) would like to avoid you (that is you NOT me) on I70 next time I'm cruising through Miz.

That is a joking reference to the tremendously offensive driving habits of the folks primarily found in the St. Louis vicinity. Where the local sport seems to be blocking others from entering or exiting the Interstate.

I have been called many things, some of them not accurate at all. But, your assessment that I have a sarcastic nature is spot on, good job:ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Have a Merry Christmas Jonnielu

[jonnielu]

I get the impression that questions are not received well. :rolleyes:

C'mon Tom, you know I love a good question.:jump:

[jonnielu]

Have a Merry Christmas Jonnielu

And, a Merry Christmas to you and yours also.

[jonnielu]

[/color]

As I said 1st, 2nd and 4th early speed

All of the other sprint examples in the ebook end up taking the top 4 or 5 early speed horses and boxing them. Again for the nth (and last) time, where are the ability-X ratings?

Churchill Downs 11/24/07 - 3rd - 6fD

# POST ErlSpeed
355 5 104
324 8 101

Ability for early speed has the largest impact at short distances, with consideration for post position. That is a consideration to make if you want to add some handicapping criteria to this system. The systematic move with Exacta Magic is to include the top two for early speed. No judgement, no handicapping, #5 and #8 are in. You basically want 3 horses, the next is the lowest ability rating of the next two, and that rating must be lower then the top two.
Hey, when we get done with this one, can we do one of those two turn turf races from Tampa?:)

jdl

[banacek]

All of the other sprint examples in the ebook end up taking the top 4 or 5 early speed horses and boxing them.

I've read it. You look at early speed 1st and maybe ability later. Why, if ability-x is so powerful. That's the question. There apparently isn't any answer.


Hey, when we get done with this one, can we do one of those two turn turf races from Tampa?:)


We are done. No mas (for real this time).

And happy Xmas.

[jonnielu]

I've read it. You look at early speed 1st and maybe ability later. Why, if ability-x is so powerful. That's the question. There apparently isn't any answer.

Of course there is, but you know that the ability ratings are also indicative along with the early speed. You are asking what they do indicate, they indicate the possibility of a closer overtaking.

At a sprint distance, 10 - 20 points difference in ability doesn't amount to much as far as advantage/disadvantage.

At 6f, a 300/100 inside of a 260/96 is not likely to be closed on, (all other factors being equal) The early speed advantage is that great, and the ability advantage for the other - not great enough. If the other were 180/95 - 92, the ability advantage will be great enough for an overtaking run.

The ability rating is essential to measuring early speed accurately as advantage/dis-advantage.

And, what do I look at first for 2 turn distances?



We are done. No mas (for real this time).

You know I'm not believing that, I'm just getting my hat turned around backwards for the heavy action.

And happy Xmas.

And, to you - The Greatest Christmas on record for you and yours:jump:

[jonnielu]

And, to you - The Greatest Christmas on record for you and yours:jump:

And to further celebrate the joyous occasion, and since I've got my hat turned around backwards anyway, I'll explain further:

But, don't worry, I will be short, succinct..... and economical of both word, and sentence, and paragraph, page and chapter....;)

5th - 8fTurf Calder 12/24/07
# POST ErlSpd / ML

123 9 96 12
194 2 96 20
156 7 93 6
175 1 89 8
153 3 88 6
129 8 88 2.5
180 10 88 15
146 4 87 10
147 5 84 4
152 6 83 6
I generally take 8f as a middle distance, with middle distances, preference, as to early speed can lie anywhere on the chart, I prefer to let the ability ratings direct me to any preference. That is one of the things that the ability ratings are always doing.

The systematic method of Exacta magic will give you a systematic way of making the call on a middle distance for preference to early speed, or lack of early speed. And, he who has reached a level of sophistication with Ability-X ratings can make any call he wants from purely systematic to purely judgement and/or adding any other input that he/she finds indictative.

My preference is to allow Ability-X to guide me along the path as I check the direction against what I know about horseracing. Exacta Magic, in systematic mode, says that here I can take the bottom 3, and add any other based on speed that I want to. I can also, kick any of the bottom three to be replaced with any above, based on ability and/or speed if I feel like it. Because it is a middle distance.

The idea is that I can be an Ability-X dumbass playing it safe today, and still doing okay. While, this excercise and my consideration of results develops me into an expert analyst that does much better. Sure, Luman could give me data, but this way I can develop my own data as I learn within the scope of my skills and knowledge as it stands. He says that using Ability-X will expand my knowledge of horseracing and develop my analytical skills. (he might be a nut, but I wouldn't mind if those things happened) Besides, I don't have to bet on anything unless it makes sense to me anyway. It might be a cheaper way to learn something then making losing bets.

So, I look to the bottom three to take note of those ability ratings, and then scan upward to see if there is similar ability up and down the line, and to see what the average ability looks like for this 8f race. The racing fact involved is that a raw early speed advantage is negated at longer distances by similar or equal ability. ( Luman says this, could be a lucky guess, but it makes sense)

It looks to me like the average ability for this contest is around 150, considering that, two stick out a little bit on this factor. The favorite #8 (129), and a longshot #9 (123), have ability ratings in the 120's. With the #9 having the best early speed. #8 is in the middle. I wonder if early speed could be more a factor, as opposed to less in this race?? Well, let me see, out of the top 4 early speed, 3 are pretty much in the ability range, even the top half early speed, with the favorite (129) being the middle, is in the ability range. With the bottom half being on the outside of the ability range, or perhaps a little slow by comparison.

I think that this race, although a little longer, will have a speed component, to the extent that the speedier will have a little advantage. So, for Exacta Magic, I'm going to do the race as a sprint. ( Luman says I can do that, if the ratings send me in that direction ) But, the ratings will weigh heavier then early speed in general because of the longer distance.

123 9 96 12
194 2 96 20
Of this pair, #2 is way outside on ability, which negates the speed, he's kicked.
156 7 93 6
#7 is alone at this level of early speed, with ability in range, he's in.
175 1 89 8
Ditto, for #1, post can be a big benefit, and the ratings tell me that I can afford to be inclusive here with #1, #9, #7 likely to add value here.
153 3 88 6
129 8 88 2.5
Of this Pair, #8 breaks the early speed level tie with second ability rating.

Exacta Magic - 1,7,8,9
$2 Exacta $109.00 7-1
$1 Superfecta $8,904.10 7-1-9-6
$2 Trifecta 7-1-9 $2,935.80

Damn, I know Luman says something somewhere about the slow horse on the grass at distance, and #6 is in the ability range too. I'm gonna jot this down, he doesn't keep any data.

[Bruddah]

to those contributing to this thread. I have just finished reading the thread from start to last post and I have to admit, this thread is the biggest Ying and Yang, Horse Hooie, I have ever read. Please do Pace Advantage and it's members a favor and BURN IT!!

This thread has not accomplished one thing toward educating anyone. I thought it might lead to some MAGIC X FORMULA for handicapping horses. I leave this thread to go wash my hands and regain my sanity. :bang:

P.S. I must admit, I come away from this thread thinking Jonnilieu is either completely nuts, a Genius or a Legend in his own mind. Pick any of them and I'm still not buying a damn thing.

[phatbastard]

what bruddah said.....sounds good to me

[jonnielu]

what bruddah said.....sounds good to me

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting the results to be different.

jdl

[Tom]

And to further celebrate the joyous occasion, and since I've got my hat turned around backwards anyway, I'll explain further:



That is all we were asking for - an explanation. Thank you.

[judd]

ok guys
he posted tampa numbers today
what more could you ask for
go for it
try it out

[nobeyerspls]

Your idea on a live two week workout for free is an excellent one, the positive results from doing that will raise the price accordingly and significantly.

Let me put it this way:

TrackSideEye is the physical info that will finalize a betting decision. In most applications.
You would have the possibilities already in mind from your analysis of the race with the ratings, TrackSideEye fills the "effort" hole and gives the go or no-go on the betting decisions.
jdl

Are you saying that Ability X has no value without TrackSideEye? I rarely change my mind about a horse because of how he looks in the paddock or warms up. I owned a filly that looked half-dead going to post but once in the gate she was all business.
I have two un-digitized "rankings", horses that can win a race and those that can hit the board. When there are two from each category and neither of the first two are favorites, I'll be involved with both vertical and horizontal plays. I find these horses in the morning and I know that I'll play them in the afternoon unless there is a change in the surface (fast to sloppy or off the turf).
Are you unable to post plays in the morning in the selections section? If not, you will not convince me that your system has any value. I certainly don't want to hear after a race that your top ranked horses that did not run couldn't be played because they looked bad going to post.

[jonnielu]

That is all we were asking for - an explanation. Thank you.

Well, Tom, I did spend some time thinking lately about how I could address the concerns of the PA board, with an offer that may be more appropriately fitting.

Since my straight up guarantee cuts no mustard around here, and varoius PA members have chimed in with the idea that Ability-X may be without value, I will offer it to the PA members for free. If they can find a $1.00 per day value for TrackSideEye, which is offered with it's own, "never before done, PA specific, money-back guarantee."

Here is the deal:

Any PA member who buys my TrackSideEye service for the full GP2008 meeting at the special price available only to them of $100, will also recieve Ability-X ratings without charge, free, for zip, nada... zilch.

Without regard for who's rating and/or handicapping/selection method is used for any selection in any race, if I say bet this horse for the second time in a TrackSideEye report. The PA participant shall recieve a full refund. I only get one mistake in TrackSideEye reporting.

I call it the "PA deal", and it is only available on the website under the special secret code of "PA deal".

And, if it should be carved into the annals of Turf history that the members of PA destroyed this meeting with their finely tuned analytical acumen for less then the price of parking, and without parking.... so be it.

jdl

[nobeyerspls]

ok guys
he posted tampa numbers today
what more could you ask for
go for it
try it out

I asked for one thing more. I want him to post his plays, thus demonstrating how the Ability X ratings can be used to make money. He will do so in real-time, before the race. I expect him to explain the use of a lower-rated horse over a higher rated one.

[Greyfox]

Since my straight up guarantee cuts no mustard around here, and varoius PA members have chimed in with the idea that Ability-X may be without value, I will offer it to the PA members for free.
jdl


Free = $ 100 :lol: :lol:

[jonnielu]

Are you saying that Ability X has no value without TrackSideEye?

Not in the least, I am saying that TrackSideEye adds a great deal of value to Ability-X, along with another dimension of ability itself.


I rarely change my mind about a horse because of how he looks in the paddock or warms up. I owned a filly that looked half-dead going to post but once in the gate she was all business.

And, besides that now and again scenario, there is the one that trots 100 yards for a warmup and wins anyway too. It happens, but neither situations cause me to run over anybody to get to the windows. For me, physicality is not for mind changing as far as comparing horses, it is for green or red lighting a bet.

I have two un-digitized "rankings", horses that can win a race and those that can hit the board. When there are two from each category and neither of the first two are favorites, I'll be involved with both vertical and horizontal plays. I find these horses in the morning and I know that I'll play them in the afternoon unless there is a change in the surface (fast to sloppy or off the turf).

A fine method, so only the longshot you eliminated messes you up, and that is not a huge deal because the longshots you included show up frequently enough. A fine source of income for that player who can stay calm through some losses. While playing some consistent factors. I imagine that it well suits your make up as a player.

Are you unable to post plays in the morning in the selections section? If not, you will not convince me that your system has any value. I certainly don't want to hear after a race that your top ranked horses that did not run couldn't be played because they looked bad going to post.

Sure, I could do that, you could send me a stack of deposit slips too, and I could just put the money in the bank for you. If, convincing you, had any value to me.

jdl

[nobeyerspls]

Sure, I could do that, you could send me a stack of deposit slips too, and I could just put the money in the bank for you. If, convincing you, had any value to me.
jdl

You are selling a service. By demonstrating its viability in real-time you will attract subscribers. You said before that a two-week demonstration was a good idea. So, it is time for you to put up. I saw your Tampa posting in the Selections Section earlier and will now check to see if you updated it to include race by race wagers.
Oh, and I do not drop longshots. In the example I gave both would be used in the horizontals and both would be on top of tris.

[jonnielu]

You are selling a service. By demonstrating its viability in real-time you will attract subscribers. You said before that a two-week demonstration was a good idea. So, it is time for you to put up. I saw your Tampa posting in the Selections Section earlier and will now check to see if you updated it to include race by race wagers.
Oh, and I do not drop longshots. In the example I gave both would be used in the horizontals and both would be on top of tris.

Neither service, there are two, is a selection/tout service. Nor will either be represented or offered as such.

Good, and wouldn't you be even more covered up with money if you could consistently get the right 4-1 - 15-1 horse into your combos instead of dropping him on the basis of "form".

I will do a live workout of TrackSideEye within the next week.

[pandy]

If I want to try it, how do I sign up the for PA deal?

[jonnielu]

If I want to try it, how do I sign up the for PA deal?

There is a button on the website at this page:

http://horseplayeru.com/tracksideeye.htm

Just for those at PA.

jdl

[nobeyerspls]

Neither service, there are two, is a selection/tout service. Nor will either be represented or offered as such.
Good, and wouldn't you be even more covered up with money if you could consistently get the right 4-1 - 15-1 horse into your combos instead of dropping him on the basis of "form".
I will do a live workout of TrackSideEye within the next week.

What you offer is not a selection/tout service but I think any potential subscriber would want to see how it could make money for him. Since you created it, you are in the best position to demonstrate its viability. If you are unable to do that then just say so.

I do not need your service to find live longshots and a 4-1 entrant is not in that category. A 52-1 over a 7-1 over a 12-1 is more my style. The challenge in this game for me is to bet a little to win a lot. At its extreme, I want to cash for over $10k with a $20 bet. Your four horse exacta boxes are not something I am interested in. However, others with an interest in your service might pony up if you just demonstrate how to wager with it.

[pandy]

I think some of the people here are expecting too much from jonnielou. He's offering all PA members a special price of $100 to try his service for the entire Gulfstream meet, very reasonable. I don't see why he has to give out all types of free picks, analysis, etc. Try the service, if you don't like it don't renew. I'm giving it a try. I hope to combine the information with some of the other things I use, such as my own system, and make some money at Gulfstream this winter. I'm confident that I'll win at Santa Anita again this winter, so hopefully Gulfstream will provide some extra cash.

[jonnielu]

What you offer is not a selection/tout service but I think any potential subscriber would want to see how it could make money for him.

A spot on observation :ThmbUp:

For your style, you can consider the results of the fifth Tampa, and whether the #10 sticks out to you more on the Ability-X chart, or the PP's. There is something about those horses that stick out to you, unless you are just taking shots.

If there is some flag in the PP's that you recognize, I would bet that you learned it on your own as opposed to someone handing it to you, or, maybe someone handed it to you, and then you learned it some years later.

Prooving that the learned lessons are so much better then those given.

Since you created it, you are in the best position to demonstrate its viability. If you are unable to do that then just say so.

I didn't create anything, I just found something that has been there since the mongrel-bred Figure beat two thoroughbreds to demonstrate that Morgans like to run too. I didn't name it either, it has always been ability.

I do not need your service to find live longshots and a 4-1 entrant is not in that category.

Exceller, Jockey Club Gold Cup 1978, Curlin, Jockey Club Gold Cup, Breeder's Cup 2007. Call them gifts from an unknowing public if you want, for me they qualify as longshots because the public did not have a sound measure of ability. Whatever you may call it, this is the situation that every horseplayer seeks. This is what I sought since collecting the 4 - 1 on Exceller in 1978.

A 52-1 over a 7-1 over a 12-1 is more my style. The challenge in this game for me is to bet a little to win a lot. At its extreme, I want to cash for over $10k with a $20 bet.

An acheivable goal, perhaps not acheived with the same consistency as the results of horse races.

Your four horse exacta boxes are not something I am interested in. However, others with an interest in your service might pony up if you just demonstrate how to wager with it.

Now we are back to me putting the money in the bank for you. If you had just a little more interest then that, you might also examine the consistency with which that four horse exacta box also covers the tri, and wonder why that is. But, then if you did that, it would call on you to do some more thinking on how far is that four horse exacta box is from the super, and why that is.

If you are without the faith required to send your brilliant mind down that path on your own, why should I drag you down the road with me?

[GaryG]

If you are without the faith required to send your brilliant mind down that path on your own, why should I drag you down the road with me?:lol: :lol: :lol:

[nobeyerspls]

Now we are back to me putting the money in the bank for you. If you had just a little more interest then that, you might also examine the consistency with which that four horse exacta box also covers the tri, and wonder why that is. But, then if you did that, it would call on you to do some more thinking on how far is that four horse exacta box is from the super, and why that is.
If you are without the faith required to send your brilliant mind down that path on your own, why should I drag you down the road with me?

I responded in the Selections Section after seeing the failure of your ratings. Those who can do, those who cannot teach (or sell horse ratings services over the Internet). You'll do OK. The PT Barnum affect will get you some new subscribers.

[jonnielu]

I responded in the Selections Section after seeing the failure of your ratings. Those who can do, those who cannot teach (or sell horse ratings services over the Internet). You'll do OK. The PT Barnum affect will get you some new subscribers.

Calder turf
Look for #7 Wood Dale & #4 Roadtotheforest to run well in the 3rd at Calder. In the 5th I like #3 Cant Stop Me and #1 All Hail Stormy.




A brilliant and masterful job of identifying the #7 as a solid (run well) performer in this event. Perhaps, while working with the limitations of PP's, this is as good as it gets. I guess that the #4 was your tribute to the poke and hope strategy that you infrequently find to be rewarding.

Since you have pointed out to me so well that those who can, do, I will assume that you once again loaded up on this bold strike, obviously being secure in the knowledge that #7 would run second. Taking note that #4 was of the board, I am quite certain that a horseplayer of your lofty level, would have thrown several less units at the #4 to show. Thereby, assuring yourself of a tremendous profit, perhaps as much as several units.

Please sir, I beg of you, your pardon if I may, to compare these sound prognostications that you have made in your high wisdom, for all to see the failings of the digitized performance as it may compare to your deft moves made with the unfailing DRF PP data. So that I, and other poor souls like myself can benefit from this manifestation of your talent:

3rd - 8.5fTurf # POST ErlSpd / ML

133 4/3 91 20
115 8/9 87 2.5
In the contemplation of ability to run any distance of ground, the horse (a four legged combination of blood muscle and bone), not that fragile, but being a physical creature, is limited in physical ability. Once reaching maturity, and the limit of overall ability becomes known. Only two things effect it to any large degree. Physical condition, and Early Speed, or as I like to call it, giddyup.

As an example, we can consider the #8 here as compared with the #7, the obvious lowest ability rating. What is the difference?? 40 pnts. in ability? No, or, only at face value. 2 pnts. in Early Speed? Yes, and Early Speed is the largest impact on overall ability. The two are forever linked as two parts of a whole. For your use, they must be expressed separately, but they are linked together like the fullcrum of a seesaw. Within the range of giddyup for the race, the ability will go up and down accordingly.


96 1/6A 85 3
75 7 85 6
81 3/2 85 10

As an example, we can now take note that the lowest ability rating in this race shares a giddyup figure with two other entrants. Or, one third of the horses here have a giddyup figure of 85, including the lowest abililty rating. The other two are amongst the lower ability ratings for the field. This indicates that this race will likely have a giddyup of around 85. Why would any try to run faster?

151 2/1 83 6
108 5/4 83 8
98 6/5 78 4
Prg#'s/Pst#'s

The #2 and #5 are self-evident field filler. They can pick up the giddyup a little bit and even if their ratings are off by 20 pts., their ability is still out of range. The potential turn around horse is #6. He posts a 98, with no giddyup at all. This one can inherit first by picking it up early and running a very steady race. The kind that will always be rated around 100 at 8.5f on the grass. Ability-X will tell you that, if you listen, Ability-X will also tell you the real differences in surfaces too.

This brings us to the other, that is spotted as (running well) sorry, high Early Speed is a killer on the lawn in general, and specifically at distance. Why? I assume those that can will figure it out, a study of Ability-X ratings will give you the answer if your can do qualities have left you short thus far.

High Early Speed and a high ability rating at distance are also evidence of an uneven, erratic run. You know, the kind of run a blood, muscle, and bone athlete makes when not in good condition. Physical condition, the other large impact on ability. A trip to the paddock can easily back this up and eliminate a lot of poke and hope lotto-style play. But, your style is for you to choose.

This brings us to the favorite #8, doesn't it figure, as soon as the public get's tired of pounding favorites, or because they think grass and dirt have major differences, here he comes, bringing you a reward for having some actual knowledge. What was the knowledge?

Remember, what was the difference between the #8 and #7, and remember that giddyup is forever tied and permanently atttached to overall ability. Now equalize #8 with your core group at 85 giddyup by deducting 20 pnts. from ability for each 1 point in difference on giddyup. To find that @85 #8 is also 75. Or @87 #7 is 115. Now consider which can push these two?

Then consider the results.

Exacta Magic - 1,3,7,8
$2 Exacta $60.00 8-7


All of this is contained in "Using Ability-X Ratings", perhaps not in this same 2 + 2 fashion, because that it not generally my style, but it is there just the same. My style is that I don't like to give away a whole lot for free, but if any subscriber for Ability-X ever wants to ask me some questions, I can be equally long-winded.

This will be my last explanatory post on how Ability-X works, you all have "Using" and "Exacta Magic" for free, so I figure I will go back to my business as a horseplayer while I consider whether putting Ability-X back in the can might be my best move.

I hope 2008 rewards you with many 50-1 shots on top, pardon me if I am not betting on it.

jdl

[Tom]

So ability X is a constant, race to race?
What about surface changes?
I am guessing it is based on pedigree?

Hey, don't stop now...you're making sense.

(Slow week at work so I have time to contemplate the mysteries of handicapping!:cool: )

[proffdw]

hi. i know about mozan's numerology,as my brother thought it would be an easy to pick winning horses.HA! HA!.he couldn't figure it out,so he asked me to.well he's gone now.and i have the book around some place which he bought in reno back in the early 1980's,and believe me you'd be better off just picking a number from a hat,and it's a shame because by the examoles you get with the book it seems to pick nice win prices.well i had my
say. proffdw

[jonnielu]

I responded in the Selections Section after seeing the failure of your ratings. Those who can do, those who cannot teach (or sell horse ratings services over the Internet). You'll do OK. The PT Barnum affect will get you some new subscribers.

Here is what the subscribers get:

GP 2/24/08
8th - 6fD
# POST ErlSpd / ML

319 2 102 2
344 5 101 5
307 6 97 1.6
296 3 95 12
305 4 94 3
3 Make Me Zach 50.80 13.40 2.80
2 Snow Mon 4.20 2.20
6 Credit Only 2.10


$1 Exacta $69.20 3-2
$2 Trifecta $338.60 3-2-6

jdl

[njcurveball]

Here is what the subscribers get:

GP 2/24/08
8th - 6fD
# POST ErlSpd / ML

319 2 102 2
344 5 101 5
307 6 97 1.6
296 3 95 12
305 4 94 3
3 Make Me Zach 50.80 13.40 2.80
2 Snow Mon 4.20 2.20
6 Credit Only 2.10


$1 Exacta $69.20 3-2
$2 Trifecta $338.60 3-2-6

jdl

You had the winner picked 4th in a 5 horse field, congrats! :ThmbUp: