Win Percentage

[TomC]

I was just curious after reading a comment on another thread. What do most serious players consider good handicapping? A user said something like "There is no way to play almost every race and win 33% of your races"
Do most players feel this way? I learned my original hadicapping from a friend in Tucson. Now in his 70's, he has played the races since he was a teen. All is life he made a good living from racing. I set my goal to be as good as he is. He plays 90% of the races on a card. The only ones he passes are routes for 2 year olds...and even plays them if he has a price.
Anyway, he wins 40 to 50% of his wagers, depending on track/season. He has had complete race meets where he hit 60% wins! He hits $3 winners and $33 winners. Obviusly at about 45%, they cant all be favorites. He spends 30 minutes per race to handicap, and would not dare attemp to use a computer, as he does not want to give away his method. He only plays 1 horse per race to win. I have been to the track many times with him, and even spent entire seasons at Hollywood and Del Mar with him. I know his stats are fact.
Like I said, I set my goals to be that good. Thus far, although I can get his win %, I cannot do it playing almost every race. I play 1 to 3 races per day on a card. Some days none, other days 5. I also play legit longshots (10-1 and up), but of course that win % is about 10%.
I know for a FACT there are a lot of players doing as well and even a lot better than myself. But is my friend in Tucson a "rare" breed? Just curious on your thoughts. I know personally, even at his success, I dont have it in me to handicap the way he does....long tedious process, again, taking 30 minutes per race...and he is fast at it as he has been doing it so long.
Can I ask a favor. PLEASE only serious posts on this. I dont want this turned into another shouting match. Thanks!
TomC

[GameTheory]

The best players I've ever seen achieve similar -- just about 45% playing 90% of the races (or slightly less, skipping 1 - 2 races a card), and concentrating on just one or two tracks/circuits. A rare breed indeed. I think you have to be a comprehensive handicapper to get that good, looking at all pieces of the puzzle and being an expert of the local environment and people.

It could be that such a level in terms of percentage is easier to achieve in CA, Arizona, etc. where the weather isn't too much of a variable....

[JimG]

The winning players I have been around have a much lower hit rate and are their bread and butter horses pay $8-$15 to win.

I would guess your friend is a rare breed. You did not say but I presume he only plays 1 track/circuit. I think higher hit rates are more likely where you know a track inside and out, so to speak.

Simulcasting has brought an interesting delimma for me and I presume others. Is it best to concentrate on 1 track/circuit or is it best to cherrypick races from multiple tracks. I still wrestle at times with this.


Jim

[JustMissed]

There is suppose to be a lady who plays Tampa Bay Downs that can talk to the horses. The horses tell her which one is going to win, she bets them blindly and never loses.

I thought I spotted her at the paddock one day and followed her to the Amtote machine. She caught me looking over her shoulder and hit me in the head with her purse and threated to call security. That was the end of my "psychic" handicapping system.

JustMissed
;)

[cj]

Originally posted by JimG
The winning players I have been around have a much lower hit rate and are their bread and butter horses pay $8-$15 to win.

I would guess your friend is a rare breed. You did not say but I presume he only plays 1 track/circuit. I think higher hit rates are more likely where you know a track inside and out, so to speak.

Simulcasting has brought an interesting delimma for me and I presume others. Is it best to concentrate on 1 track/circuit or is it best to cherrypick races from multiple tracks. I still wrestle at times with this.


Jim

I never really paid much attention to win % until I started betting with BRIS and the stats are pretty easy. I hit around 15-20%, surprisingly low to me. But in the end, it really doesn't matter. My average payoff is over $14, so it all works out.

Jim,

I still wrestle with that dilemma, but I'm definitely leaning towards cherry picking. I used to stick to the one track at a time, but I am just getting too many unplayable races for my methods.

CJ

CJ

[Suff]

The mendoza line for Public handicappers is 20%........ Public Handicapper defined as a Handicapper who has to Post selections for every race on every card for at least one track.

Such as Local handicappers

Newspaper Handicappers

Tip sheets.

there's another board I post on that tracks winning % and compares you to the Local Handicapper at Meets end. The closer they get to 30% the better they're considered. If you can post selctions for every race on every card and hit at about 28%.... Your on.

[Dave Schwartz]

Just Missed,

The lady at Tampa... Are you serious? She really hit you with her purse?


Dave

[Doug]

SUFFERINDOWNS,

Does the board you mentioned above track the DRF Handicappers?

Thanks,

Doug

[Suff]

No they don't.... At Ny... the only track I follow real close.. I have a record of Dave Litfins selctions.



I did the Math myself... so you may want to check it... but this what i got


Dave Litfin

417-124 29% winners... 65% in the Money with Top selection

and thier Consenus Picks are

436-132........30% winners..............62% ITM

[rrbauer]

Just Missed wrote:
I thought I spotted her at the paddock one day and followed her to the Amtote machine. She caught me looking over her shoulder and hit me in the head with her purse and threated to call security. That was the end of my "psychic" handicapping system.


Comment:
Are you sure all you did was look over her shoulder?

:)

[JustMissed]

Actually she was quite a bit shorter than me and it was more of a glazing uppercut to the shoulder and chin.

She turned out to not be the psychic lady but a retired waitress from Yonkers with an alcohol problem.

The psychic lady is suppose to be for real but I can't find anyone to point her out to me.

There is always some strange and interesting things going on at the Tampa track as well as some pretty good payoffs.

JustMissed
;)

[hurrikane]

man...no shouting. Bummer.

50% sound Juicy but what's the ROI? I can hit 100% of the races across all tracks but I end up with about a -19% ROI. Win % isn't everything.

This guy sounds like he real deal though. If you can get even a quarter of what he knows you could likely make money.

[Derek2U]

I agree with the possibility of what your friend acheives.
And I agree with Game Theory that such a winning% is more
likely to come from knowing the track/circuit VERY WELL. Its
cool to think he spends 1/2 hr per race, so maybe what he does
would NOT even be practical for a computer ... apart from his
not wanting his system known. But didnt you get any idea of
what he does & how he does it? Maybe I could hypnotize him.

[TomC]

Just for an example, here are his results at AQU for the last 2 days. He e-mails his plays to me all the time. At the end of each is the amount bet, and profit based on $2 bets.

1. Hit $ 10.20
2. Miss
3. No bet
4. Hit $ 5.80
5. No bet
6. Hit $ 9.20
7. Miss
8. Hit $ 5.90
9. Hit $ 12.60
Bet 7 @ $14.00 Hit5 for $ 43.70 Net $ 29.70

1. Hit $ 3.90
2. Hit $ 2.40
3. Miss
4. Hit $ 3.50
5. Hit $ 6.20
6. Miss
7. Hit $ 3.40
8. Hit $ 8.40
9. Hit$ 4.30
Bet 9 @ 4 18.00 Hit 7 for $ 40.10 Net $ 22.10

The above are typical days for him. He plays NY, Fla, and CA. He sticks to major tracks as the size of his bets would clobber the odds at small tracks.
We went to the Breeders Cup (simulcasts) together the past 2 years. He was 6 for 8 both years....and I need to brag a bit. I gave him Volponi as my clear cut pick, making him cash 7 out of 8!
I guess you can see why I set my goal to be as good as he is! And obviously it can be done. But I dont know anyone that would put the time he puts into handicapping. Heck, I get frustrated waiting 90 seconds to handicap and print a full card...he takes 4 hours on a card!
TomC

[JustMissed]

Here are the psychic lady's results for Tampa Bay Downs on 2/20/2003:

1. Hit
2. Hit
3. Hit
4. Hit
5. Hit
6. Hit
7. Hit
8. Hit
9. Hit
10. Hit

She did not email me her results. They just kind of came to me as I was in my recliner watching Fox Cable news.

JustMissed

:D :p :) ;)

[TomC]

Once again, the sarcasm starts.

[TomC]

Derek:
I do know how he does it. He uses many factors. His main one being speed. He converts every race and every workout for every horse to his own speed chart. Then he averages them many different ways. Then he does class calcualtions. Then he does more speeds with class figures. On and on. The funniest part is he does not use ANY pace! He does not believe in it.
Someone mentioned about knowing the track real well. I bet you he could not name 10 jockeys at a track! And he wouldnt know a track bias from a Joan Biez. His "thing" is numbers. He bases everything on fact. He will see factors and research them...all by hand. For example, he may see a statistic that points to losers. Let me make up a wild fake example. All gray horses with blue eyes lose. Then he will look at thousands of races (he has forms older than Methusila). He will prove it to himself beyond the shadow of a doubt. Then he will eliminate the losers first. Based on a handfull of various eliminations, he will get rid of sure losers, and concentrate on the contenders. Then he works his magic on those horses. Again, his main factor being speed. But nothing availabe to the public. His own stuff.
My whole point of posting this was to give hope and proof that amazing results can be had. But like anything else, to get the amazing ones, it takes amzing dedication.
TomC

[formula_2002]

Tom C.

In my data base, the average winning odds is 5.26-1.

Calculating the profit for playing 90% of the races, and winning at 5.26-1 at a rate of 45%;

profit=5.26*.45-(1-.45)
= 181.70% profit.

say one bets $100. per race

$100 x 9 races x .9 X 1.817= $1471 profit per average day.

Betting 300 days a year and one could make $441,531.00.

How sweet it is....

Last time I made that amount of money betting, I woke up in a cold sweat.

Joe M

[TomC]

Lets just say he has no money troubles. In fact, he loves numbers so much, and loves to handicap, that he goes for months sometimes just handicapping everyday, usually 2 tracks, and doesnt even bet.
Oh yeah, your stats dont include all the pick 6's he has won!

[cj]

Originally posted by TomC
Lets just say he has no money troubles. In fact, he loves numbers so much, and loves to handicap, that he goes for months sometimes just handicapping everyday, usually 2 tracks, and doesnt even bet.
Oh yeah, your stats dont include all the pick 6's he has won!

I can understand that, why bother betting if you're hitting so many races so routinely? Who would actually want the money?

CJ

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by TomC
Lets just say he has no money troubles. In fact, he loves numbers so much, and loves to handicap, that he goes for months sometimes just handicapping everyday, usually 2 tracks, and doesnt even bet.
Oh yeah, your stats dont include all the pick 6's he has won!

Too bad the guy has not told you everything. You could put it on a software program to cut out the tedious manual calculations and sell the program to new handicappers for a bundle.

You know the guy is getting pretty old and may not be around too much longer so it would be real nice if you could get him tell you his secrets before he croakes.

You know, you could call the program SECRETS NEVER ANNOUNCED-KILLER EXACTAS-OVERLAY INVESTOR'S LIBRARY.
Or maybe just use the acronym: S.N.A.K.E. O.I.L..

Yeah, and maybe use a catchy slogan like "This program is so good you don't even want to bet".

Yeah, what a shame, the old guy will probably die and take all those secrets to grave with him. Shame, shame.

JustMissed
:rolleyes:

[tanda]

Just Missed:

No need to worry about him dying. Fictional characters live forever.

[David McKenzie]

Originally posted by TomC
I was just curious after reading a comment on another thread. What do most serious players consider good handicapping? A user said something like "There is no way to play almost every race and win 33% of your races"
Do most players feel this way?

The three most successful players I know bet thusly:

Izzy bets once a blue moon. He makes an enormous win bet (usually with a bookie) on one horse that he figures will go off between 3-1 and 6-1 (or maybe it's 9-1, I forget). If he thinks it will go off higher than that, he'll bet it to place only. He looks at every race at every track and rarely bets any of them. A "lot of action" for him is two bets a week. His only tools are today's The Daily Racing Form and charts he's physically cut out of that publication and sorted.

Dizzy is a Sheet player who bets every race, but only one circuit -- NYRA. He usually goes to the track instead of OTB. If he's at the track he'll make a physical paddock inspection prior to every race. He makes all kinds of exotic wagers including Pick 6 bets. He has so many angles covered it's not unusual for him to be clueless who he's rooting for. Sometimes I'll ask him after the race if hit and he won't know until he finished checking his trove of tickets.

Tizzy is like a gerbil on amphetamines. He endeavors to bet every race at every track in the world. He prefers to bet at simulcast centers and uses the individual track booklets published by TSN or Equibase. He handicaps very quickly, never taking more than two minutes per race. He's particularly good at track bias and what he does that I find most interesting is handicap every track differently. For example, something I'd never consider, like an overweight jockey, is something he'll swear by as a negative or positive factor for one particular track. For most other tracks it's meaningless. He'll do the same thing with bug boys. The list goes on and on. Most of this is "in his head" and he knows the trainers and jockey combos that work with the particular class of race, etc.

Each of these fellows has a distinctive and different style of handicapping, race selection and betting technique. Yet, they are all consistent winners. There's more than one way to slice the public pari-mutuel pie.

[formula_2002]

Tom C.
My comments are intended as a frame of reference.
Continued success to your friend.

Joe M

[Suff]

Originally posted by David McKenzie
The three most successful players I know bet thusly:



Dizzy is a Sheet player who bets every race, but only one circuit -- NYRA. He usually goes to the track instead of OTB. If he's at the track he'll make a physical paddock inspection prior to every race. He makes all kinds of exotic wagers including Pick 6 bets. He has so many angles covered it's not unusual for him to be clueless who he's rooting for. Sometimes I'll ask him after the race if hit and he won't know until he finished checking his trove of tickets.

Each of these fellows has a distinctive and different style of handicapping, race selection and betting technique. Yet, they are all consistent winners. There's more than one way to slice the public pari-mutuel pie.

Dave ,,, you nailed them all great... Funny way to explain the way it really is.

My favorite is DIZZY... Because he's the guy... after watching the 4 horse nose out the 6 horse... starts cursing the Jockey on the 6
and gets all worked up... Then He starts to walk away and stops abruptly and Proclaims!! Wait a minute... I had the 4 in the pik3.. I'm alive to 4 horses!!

[Derek2U]

That Tanda is baDD but I do beleive you. Whats interesting to
me is to eliminate eliminate eliminate ..... thats what saves my
$$ ... Examining 90% of the races, I would say I can "get" the
winner about 90% among the top 3. Now this "fact" + how I
rate the FAV plus any horse 5:2 or less, has lead me to finally
computerize just recently. So far, I'm just DL data, but I'll see
if I over-rated my ability.

[azmike]

Originally posted by Sufferindowns
Dave ,,, you nailed them all great... Funny way to explain the way it really is.

My favorite is DIZZY... Because he's the guy... after watching the 4 horse nose out the 6 horse... starts cursing the Jockey on the 6
and gets all worked up... Then He starts to walk away and stops abruptly and Proclaims!! Wait a minute... I had the 4 in the pik3.. I'm alive to 4 horses!!

I laughed when I read that, Sufferin', I know/knew guys like that!
Nailed it!

[TomC]

Ok, you boys have been busy again:

CJ: Money isnt everything. There comes a point when you have enough, and can live a comfortable lifestyle. GREED is what takes it all away. Plus he knows where his "ATM" is and can always make more.

JustMissed: I dont know where you assumed he did not tell me everything. He actually wrote out, HAND WRITTEN, all of his charts, rules,etc etc. This book is 100 pages of details. I have read it, it makes sense, and I have picked up pointers for myself from it. But I dont care if it could pick 90% winners, I am not going to spend 8 hours doing 2 race cards. Seems you know a lot about Snake Oil. I suppose its in your blood?

Tanda: Whatever

Dave M:Seems like a lot of guys on this board would disagree with your post. The only way to play is their (losing) ways. But I know there are many ways to make money at this game when it comes to wagering.

Derek: I am sure you will do well. Getting rid of false horses is a major key to winning. Especially when its a favorite! Best to you!

TomC

[cato]

Tom C
Let me get this straight. You have the method to hit 45% of the races played, playing 90% of the races run, and accoridng to formula2002 calculations above could make $441,000 by working 8 hrs a day for 300 days a year, leaving you two months off a year....but you decline to use that method because you'd have to "work" at handicapping 8 hours a day?

:cool:

Here are some ideas--just work 4 hours a day and pull in $220,500 a year (and still you get 2 months off)

Or bet, lets see 6 months a year, working 8 hrs a day and bring in that same $220,500 a year

or "work" 4 hours a day 6 months a year and pull in $110,250
etc.

or e-mail the method to me; and I'll if it works, I'll do an endorsement to help marketing.

Do you have another reason for not using the method other than its too much work?

Take care, Cato

[Aussieplayer]

Tom,

You wrote: "But I dont care if it could pick 90% winners, I am not going to spend 8 hours doing 2 race cards."

No problemo. Pay me to do it. I'll need some "good faith" money upfront of course. Other than that, I'll just need a decent salary and the permission to also bet those horses.

How's that sound? Then we can shut up all the doubters when you have me backing your claims.

I could really do with a piece of half a million US dollars, so you'd be kinda doing a nice thing too, which would have to give you a few warm fuzzies.

What d'ya say Tom? Tom? Tom? Where've you gone to?

Cheers
AP

[TomC]

You boys dont read very well, do you. Its not MY method. Its a close friend. I can have his picks for free each day if I wanted. I know this will drive you guys a little more nuts... I decline his selections. I get more satisfation making money on my own.
Also, you guys (not all, just the whiners) put money ahead of everything else. Do you have a life? I do. I do fine on my own, and dont need the extra work. Why would I spend 8 hours a day, when I am happy with my own results? Yes, his results blow me away. But I spend 10 minutes a day on mine, not 8 hours. I play less races, but I can bet more money to make up for it.

Sure, according to "formula" he can easily make $440,000 a year...and thats saying he only bet $100. So obviously, you should be able to put 2 & 2 together. Remember I said he plays major tracks as to not hammer the odds? Do you really think he was betting $100? Add another zero and you will be closer. Does that tell you why $440k a year is not too important to him? He has enough to last to live well, and thats all he needs. You obviously dont get that.

Well, I had enough of this thread....I tried to help and give hope to those trying. And I hope I have. The rest, well somehow they get jealous about every comment I make...and this one isnt even about me!

TomC

[cato]

First, I can read just fine, thank you.

Second, I never said it was YOUR METHOD, try reading the posts

Furthermore, you said in an earlier post:

"I dont know where you assumed he did not tell me everything. He actually wrote out, HAND WRITTEN, all of his charts, rules,etc etc. This book is 100 pages of details. I have read it, it makes sense, and I have picked up pointers for myself from it. But I dont care if it could pick 90% winners, I am not going to spend 8 hours doing 2 race cards."

So if you wanted to do it yourself you could but the sole reason you gave IN THAT POST was that it took 8 hours a day.

And now you say you could have the picks yourself for no work and no money, but you'd rather do it yourself (but certainly not for 8 hours).

Here's an idea, make your own bets and take the free picks to generate your retirement and/or use the money from the free picks to cure hunder or eliminate poverty?

Jeez, I'm done with this thread too.

Cato

[Derek2U]

I enjoyed your thread & if you don't mind I'll E you every so
often about my humble progress (if any)? Also, tell your friend
that I would enjoy seeing his picks for NY Tracks, GP and KY ...
just for the sheer enjoyment of seeing solid selections. It's
too bad that your posts drew such fire & sketicism --- but the
regulars here are toughened lads. Derek

[cato]

Derek: I've always enoyed your posts and your enthusiam for handicapping.

But I don't think that anyone has been unfair in their "fire & sketicism" of TomCs posts.

His unsubstantiated claims border on the ludicrous (others suggested fiction) by a systems seller that claims no responsibility or duty to the public (...Oh, I let Powers do all the marketing...I have no control of that...) and furthermore claims that he could have free picks that would generate a profit equalling the GNP of a small couuntry (or he could do them himself if he wanted) but its too much work and that he can achieve the same results (equalling the GNP of a small nation) in 10 minutes...

So, yep, I think those comments deserve some prodding and questioning (even if they are true ;) they would deserve some comment and questioning and discusssion)

And finally, sorry for jumping back in this thread...I really am out this time.

Take care, Cato

[Rick]

TomC,

I think you're taking heat here because of some apparent inconsistencies in what you've said. First, you said your goal was to be as good as your friend. But then you say you're not willing to work as hard as he is to get there.

I had the impression originally that you didn't know how he did it, but then you said you know everything that he does. So, what is he doing differently that would account for his greater success? If he has a much better way of doing speed ratings I'd like to know what the differences are. If he has a better way of selecting which races to use, I'd be interested in that too. Since you know exactly what he's doing maybe you could lend some credibility to your statements by explaining how his success could be so much better than others who have similar methods.

I wouldn't go so far as to say his claims are impossible, but it seems pretty close to the maximum possible. Most players use pretty much the same method of analysis for all dirt races or all turf races, maybe varying it a little for different distances or levels of races (maiden for example). That gets you to around the 30% level. But, if you stick to certain higher class tracks and get to know them well, you probably can apply different methods of analysis to each type of race and do much better than that. For example, I've thought for a long time that it probably would be better to apply different methods of analysis depending on whether a horse was going up or down in class.

Where's Karl? He's got to be the most qualified to comment on this subject.

[TomC]

Let me clarify. I read his book that he wrote out. What I mean when I say I know what he is doing is this. I read all the factors, I see he averages speeds and workouts various ways, I see he uses many factors, but I did not take the time to learn it. It is just too time consuming. So when I say I know what he is doing, its true. BUT, I couldnt open a racing form and do it as I didnt take time to learn it. I have access to his book when I visit him, but again, as much as no one can understand, I have no desire to spend 8 hours a day staring at fine print in a racing form.
Yes, he handicaps different races different ways. He does not handicap a maiden the same as a claimer. Or a Stakes the same as a claimer, etc. He handles dirt and turf differently. He has seperate speeds for turf. And one thing I am sure of....he probably did not put everything he does in writing. Not to hide it, but at times things pop up that need some type of adjustment that he only remembers when he sees it.
Yes, I set my goals to be as good as he is. Why would that mean I have to spend 8 hours a day on the form? Isnt that what computers are for? Unfortunatly, his method is too tedious to program, and it is his, not mine. He does not want it programmed, as he does not want to give it to anyone. His wife told me I am the only person in 50 years of him doing this that he has ever opened up to as much. SO I would not take advantage. But is it wrong to set my goals to be as good, but finding a better way to do it? If that wasnt human nature, we would all be out cranking our cars by hand to start them, and waitng for the iceman to come so we can keep the food in the icebox cool.
I have nothing to gain by telling you about this man. It was meant to inspire hope. But the fact is he pick more winners than most dream of, including myself, playing almost every race. And at many tracks. What else can I say? Thats the way it is, and if you believe it fine, if not, thats fine too. Like I said, I have nothing to gain or lose.
TomC

[keilan]

I have to believe that most winning players handicap different races with a separate or independent set of criteria (clmg vs. mdspwt). It might be of interest what some others think.

p.s. Tom stick around -- this board is made up of all types of individuals. It's like a melting pot.

[cato]

Thanks for the post time. Peace.

Cato

[hcap]

Tom

The myth of an older much wiser handicapper who has discovered the key to unending wealth has been around for a while.
There was even a system sold titled
"The Old Handicapper"
Probably over the years, I have seen a number of methods sold using this approach. Now, this doesn't automatically mean your story of your older friend is wrong or exaggerated but you realize that he could be, as Hyman Roth said in "Godfather II", bigger than US steel.

I bought your "True Tenders" software package from Dave Powers years ago. Gave it a fair and complete test after a glowing review from Phillips. I mean if you duplicated their results you too cold be bigger than US Steel. Entered all results in excel, manually with very very disapointing results. I even spoke to you on the phone to see if I was doing anything wrong.
I have no complaints about lack of followup and you were certainly courteous as was Dave Powers when I returned the software. But the fact remains, the claims of a lot of system sellers and "black box" programs don't pan out.

If you hype past systems that for whatever reason fall short of claims, your like the boy who cried wolf.

[andicap]

Originally posted by hcap
Tom
I bought your "True Tenders" software package from Dave Powers years ago. Gave it a fair and complete test after a glowing review from Phillips. I mean if you duplicated their results you too cold be bigger than US Steel. Entered all results in excel, manually with very very disapointing results. I even spoke to you on the phone to see if I was doing anything wrong.
I have no complaints about lack of followup and you were certainly courteous as was Dave Powers when I returned the software. But the fact remains, the claims of a lot of system sellers and "black box" programs don't pan out.

If you hype past systems that for whatever reason fall short of claims, your like the boy who cried wolf.

Absolutely true, hcap. I tested True Tenders as well and it was a disaster. (Someone gave me a copy to test.)
Dave Powers and those hypemeisters should be ashamed of themselves. In my book, they are one of the lowest forms of humanity, promising riches to gullible people -- yes, I know let the buyer beware and anyone who believes that junk deserves what they get. But two wrongs don't make a right, and c'mon, didn't all of us when we were young fall for 1 or 2 of those things?

I truly believe the government should regulate that area as false advertising. I mean if you make a toothpaste,you can't claim it will clean your dandruff. there are laws against false advertising. How come the system peddlers aren't immune from that?

Maybe the NY attorney general should look into this area.

[hcap]

Anybody ever hear of the "Old Handicapper system"? That is the actual name.

The premise sounded so enticing. the notion that someone older and wiser working most of his life in the trenches struggling and then finally succeeding, well you know why not? And why wouldn't he share?

Duh !

My brother, a pencil/paper sytem buyer/tester-yes that's pretty much all he did in terms of handicapping, for maybe 4 or 5 years, probably has most of the RPM catalouge systems (no computer systems). At least until he gave up about a year ago. He passed many on to me to test, and confirm his results. Although some had interesting ideas none showed a + roi. None.

Paraphrasing Andy Beyer,
" If I had a simple workable system I
wouldn't tell my own mother"

And yes, the "Old handicapper system" was one of the worst. (not one of RPM's)

[Fastracehorse]

Well,

That is mighty fine handicapping.

Considering the following:

Horses run sick or injured, or get injured.

They don't break.

They get poor trips.

They get beat.

They get bumped.

They get DQ'd ( my favorite ).

People cheat.

They don't handle the temperature or the track.

I'm too tired to think of more - just wanted you to know I'm back!

fffastt

[TomC]

One thing you guys are forgetting....There is NO system for sale. I told you about him to show it CAN be done. I CAN'T do it. I repeat I CANNOT DO IT! He can. I CANNOT. Did everyone read that? I PERSONALLY NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE A BLACK BOX. Did everyone read that? I CAN, YES CAN AND DO make consistent money at the races. But not with the win percentage he does. I do it with patience and sticking to it. I have losing weeks, but always am ahead. My biggest profits come from plays that hit 10%, and sometimes give me 20 to 30 race losing streaks. My smaller profits come from plays that I hit 45 to 60% of, but some days I get 3 or 4 plays, other days NONE, playing 2 or 3 tracks a day.
So I dont understand how you guys can get so defensive about my friend in Tucson. He will never sell his method. I will never sell his method. He does better than anyone I ever heard of. Thats the bottom line. As the man says...Believe it or not. And I know most of you choose the NOT in this sport.
I really dont understand why so many people ar negative, and have such negative attitudes. I dont mean in life in general, but in horse racing. I look at so many other sports, and people have fun and enjoy it. In horse racing, everyone accuses others of being a liar, cheater, etc. I know systems are hyped that dont pan out. I never do that. I am not saying others that sell my items dont promote them as well as they can, but that is what they are finding with it...not what I tell them. They are in business to make money. When I PERSONALLY sell my own methods (the sales letter come direct from me, orders go direct to me here in Scottsdale AZ), I am always honest and open about it. No crazy claims, just the FACTS.
Some of you guys HATE True Tenders. Well, thats fine. I use the ratings everyday. I have a STACK of letters from people that use them and love them. SOme people win with them, others dont. Its all up to your style. I used "The Sheets" long ago. Lost my a** with them. I know people that win big $$$$ with them. Does that mean they stink? NO! I cant make a dime with them, but they dont fit my style.
I have bought almost every sytem out there. Many of you guys did the same. However, our attitudes differ. I can buy a system claiming 80% wins playing 1 horse a race with 500% ROI. I know it will not be true. But I buy is anyway. Then I get it and it produces 20% wins at a $4.80 mutuel. BIG LOSS. You guys would be all over this board saying what a piece of garbage it is, the guy is a liar, they should sue him, etc. ME however, I look at the system and say, even though the method overall stinks, hmmm, this little tidbit may come in handy. It may be an elimination rule that I can tweak, it may be a tiny tiny bit of the system, but I learn from it. After you buy tons of methods, programs, etc., and you learn tiny bits of helpful hints from each one, you suddenly have a vast wealth of knowledge. That is how I got to the point of being able to make consistenmt money at the races. I wasn't born with it. I didnt have a"knack" to pick a winner. I studied and put my work into it.
So, instead of being so down on everything, why cant you just try to see what positives come out of it. Apply this to everything in life, and I guarantee you will be much happier.
Tom C

[Fastracehorse]

I wasn't calling you any names just making a comment that your friend's claim of a 60 % win clip is a little high if he's betting alot of races.

Now if you said, "Spot plays at 60 %", that is a little more reasonable.

But even 60 % spot plays is incredibly high - you don't need to win that high to eek out a profit.

Here's a stat - only aboout 70 % of 1:9's win their races - still a losing ROI.

Interesting, no??

fffastt

[canuck]

TomC

You say you have ordered almost every system out there---well sir,I am proud to offer mine at a very reasonable price.

I call it Canucks Consistent Cash Cow--I am letting it go for a one time price of $999.99 plus $100.00 shipping and handling (it comes in a big black box)

It is very selective--you may only get one or two plays a decade--but they return an astounding 7401% roi on my 3 race sample.

If interested I will send one of my associates to pick up the cash.

[Tom]

Originally posted by canuck
TomC

You say you have ordered almost every system out there---well sir,I am proud to offer mine at a very reasonable price.

I call it Canucks Consistent Cash Cow--I am letting it go for a one time price of $999.99 plus $100.00 shipping and handling (it comes in a big black box)

It is very selective--you may only get one or two plays a decade--but they return an astounding 7401% roi on my 3 race sample.

If interested I will send one of my associates to pick up the cash.

Does it use BRIS or TSN files?

[hcap]

Hey Tom

How do you and RPM test your systems.
I remember some hard to believe claim by RPM, that one of their systems was tested on something like 522,000 races!!
I just found it on Google--- System 17!

Who's databse? Do you use the same database or do you have your own?

The following is from
http://www.k-c-enterprises.com/products/system17.htm

The same copy was used in the RPM cataloque! I read it when I was still getting their catalogue. Even was tempted to give it a look, but then cooler minds prevailed

" Using a computer database combined with super-fast chips and top-notch programmers who love horseracing, have made it possible to design systems that make money. And as the programmers have become more efficient, the systems have become stronger and much more profitable. In fact, with the correct database to test on, millions upon million of "what if" scenarios can be run through the computer in just a matter of hours. Also, every conceivable factor that is important to picking winners can be combined in millions of different configurations until the desired results are found.
We first asked our programmer to test all of our systems and find the ones that had the greatest percentage of profit, with a +20% ROI on win bets. Seventeen methods fit that description. Then we asked him to find the most potent factors in each system, and then combine those factors into a single system of play. The Result: System 17!
We initially thought we might be looking at a rather cumbersome method of play, with as many as 17 or more rules. But after our analyst eliminated all the duplications, he came up with a tight, neat little system that had only five main rules and three eliminations.

system 17 was tested using a 522,000 race database. The test included win, place, show, exactas, trifectas, etc. And the results? Easily some of the best we've ever seen! Not only did the system return a nifty profit on win and place, but in the process our analyst actually came up with precise ways to bet exactas, trifectas and pick 3's to guarantee a long term profit."

Scenario #1 (Win) - 32.2% winners boasting a positive ROI of +36%!

Scenario #2 (Place) - top scorer finished 1st or 2nd 48.9% of the time!

Scenario #3 (Exacta) - Playing recommended way hits 36.7% of Exactas at a +41% ROI.

Scenario #4 (Trifecta) - Playing recommended way hits 23.1% of Trifectas at a +44% ROI!

Scenario #5 (Pick 3) - Playing recommended way hits 29.2% Pick 3's at a +28% ROI!

Scenario #6 (Daily Double) - Playing recommended way hits 39.3% Daily Doubles at a +22% ROI!

"System 17 is extremely easy to use - no complicated calculations, or toteboard watching involved. You won't get a lot of big prices since the system is "logic - based", but you will enjoy consistent trips to the cashier's windows! It shouldn't take you more than 6 or 7 minutes to figure a race and believe us, you'll be extremely satisfied with the results!"

You gotta be kidding.

[formula_2002]

I just saw some other products K_C is selling.

The dutch formula is $32.00

At that rate my work should be worth over 10 million bucks.

The dutch formula;

(1/(odds+1)) x the amount you want to collect.

if you want to collect $100 on a 3-1 shot you bet

$25.00.

And I'm sure they sell them

Joe M

[hcap]

I just downloaded the RPM catalogue
Yep, sure enough system 17 is there, with almost the same copy, in fact they embroided it!

And it is only
$95

If anybody is interested RPM is

http://www.handicappingedge.com/

Question
Is system 17 backfitted?

Well if you walk into RPM or KC enterprises backwards, they will backfit your wallet out of your back pocket.

[TomC]

Fast:
You need to re-read the post. (Thats not meant to sound sarcastic). I said he hits 45 to 60%. Not always at 60%. The funny part is this inner AQU meet he is close to 60%, and this AQU meet I read the most posts of people having trouble. But his stats vary from 45% up depending on the meet. Overall he is closer to 50%. Also like I originally said,he doesnt play ALL races, but does play most of them.
Canuck & to the rest of the wise (make that UN-wise) guys: From now on I only respond to adults.

TomC

[TomC]

System 17 is not mine.
I do not have a 522,000 race database.
I DO have the past 2 1/2 years of drf files from BRIS. Not all tracks, but most from SA, HOL, DMR, FPX, AQU, PHA, GPX, CRC, MNR, and a limited cards (and results I might add) from others. This is what I base my own claims on. I deleted older files as I dont believe races from 4 or 5 years ago matter. But I am not big on the theory of "current track bias". I dont believe in it. I personally feel "biases" are created by the horses that are running. I am not saying that tracks dont run fast or slow depending on weather and whatnot. But some biases are over rated, again in my opinion. That is why I base my bets on bigger models, not the past 3 or 4 days, or 3 or 4 races I heard some programs do. I am not saying that is right or wrong. It is what works FOR ME. In my new (almost completed) program, when I make bets using it, I usually put 6 to 12 months worth of stats if its a track like PHA that runs year round, or else I keep the current meet plus the last meet at tracks like HOL, SA, ect. I want to see at least 30 days as I do break it down to conditions as close to todays race as I can, and basing a bet on 8 or 10 past races means nothing to me.
So like I posted in earlier. When you see a sales letter coming directly from me, thats what it is based on. My own handicapping facts. By the way, I personally have not sold a handicapping product for some time now, except fopr some requests that come in here and there. RPM sells most of it. My new URTI program will be only available from me, and the sales letter will be from me. No hype, just the facts.
Tom C

[Fastracehorse]

I just think you have to understand that 60 % winners on most races is very, very ,very high.

Jerry Bailey wins alot of races - and he's very, very, very good.

But Bailey's win clip is less than 30% - and he gets many 1:9's.

Your friend must be: Very, very, very lucky.

fffastt

[TomC]

Fast:
I wouldnt say lucky...just skilled.
Even the public does better than Bailey!
And again, he is not at 60% most of the time...50% yes
Tom C

[hcap]

Tom

No matter my personal experience with True Tenders. The fact remains that it was hyped beyond reason like everything else in the RPM catalogue.
You evidently went along with this sales campaign.
And many of your "systems" before and after were advertised in the same way. I don't think you can claim innocence by disassociating yourself from RPM at this point.

I think many of us would be more likely to believe you if you weren' like the "boy who cried wolf"

Also I question a database of 522,000 races. I might be wrong but I think system 17 came out before 2000. My guess is that whoever has this database would have been downloading since before 1995. My math could be wrong.
Possible, but sounds fishy.
Does anybody know of anyone other than the data providers who have such a large collection?

[hurrikane]

formula,
I don't think you're going to get 10 million bucks for your system. several reasons

1. 6% ROI. no flash there buddy. need to add zeros

2. 25% win rate. no flash there buddy. need to add zeros

3. no flashy name.

now, if you said

The Magic Formula
60% ROI
250% win rate.

Now, with that, you might get some company interested that would do all the marketing and selling of your system offering you plausable deniability when everyone up here jumps in your face. :D :D

[formula_2002]

hurrikane

"plausable deniability"

I sall added that to my Lexicon of phrases..

Joe M

[TomC]

If I see results that I know are realistic, why would I balk at it?
I guess there is a difference from me to many on this board. I try to be honest and up front, and in return I TRUST people. Maybe in todays world trust is obsolete. But I wont give up on it.
Tom C

[Fastracehorse]

>And again, he is not at 60% most of the time...50% yes

OK, now you are slowly entering Earth's orbit - 50% is your present concession - do I hear 40??

Your friend must be very, very, very skilled.

fffastt

[TomC]

Fast:
Did I EVER say he ALWAYS hits 60%? If you read the original post I said 45 to 60%. And 50 is about his normal, although he does have meets where he does get 60%. If he averaged 40, he would quit.
Tom C

[BMeadow]

To try to add a little sanity to the various rants here:

In Meadow's Racing Monthly, we've tested approximately three dozen commercial systems on large databases. The tests have been conducted by Jim Bayle of SportStat, Jim Cramer of Handicappers Data Warehouse, and Bob Purdy of Synergism, among others. The results, good or bad, are posted in our Real System Workout column in Meadow's Racing Monthly.

Thus far, not a single system has come close to the claims. It doesn't matter whether the vendor is an outright crook, a sincere fellow who sends handwritten letters to his customers, a catalog vendor, a really really nice guy who worked for years on his system, a big fat liar, or whatever.

That's every single system. No exceptions.

If a system claims to hit 40% winners with a 1.40 ROI, it's more likely that it hits 22% winners with a 0.81 ROI.

A complete list of the systems checked so far is on our website www.trpublishing.com (click on Meadow's Racing Monthly, then Index To Articles, then Real System Workouts).

The government doesn't chase these people because the system-selling business is small and insignificant compared with other businesses.

A safe rule: Assume everyone in the handicapping business is lying, until proven otherwise.

[Dave Schwartz]

Barry,

How do the Master Win Ratings stack up?

Do you fall into the category of liar?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by TomC
Fast:
Did I EVER say he ALWAYS hits 60%? If you read the original post I said 45 to 60%. And 50 is about his normal, although he does have meets where he does get 60%. If he averaged 40, he would quit.
Tom C

If I averaged 40%, I'd quit too......my job.

AD

[TomC]

Barry:
Nice to see your positive outlook on life. Why stay in a business if you are so paranoid?
Instead of finding all the negatives, why dont you and Jim try and find positives that can help players?
Tom C

[azmike]

Yom C [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey, "Yom" you change your name :)

[TomC]

Dont know what you mean?;)

[hdcper]

Gee Tom, it appears Azmike posted his comments at 6:36 pm and you last edited your post at 6:57 pm. Didn't make a change to it did you!!!!

Anyway maybe those claims are sort of along the same lines.


On second thought, no way!!! Right?

Bill

[TomC]

Bill:
Damn, you shoulda been a detective with those talents!
What he was refering to was I put a Y in front of my name accidentally while typing. (Thats the letter next to T in case you are not up to that lesson yet). I corrected it and the post with the WINK WINK was a joke...get it... "What do you mean"? WINK
Say hi to Sherlock for me!
Tom C

[dav4463]

Barry's Master Win Ratings are not a method of selecting horses, they just point out the true contenders in a race. I have used them before and found them to be outstanding. I used them when I didn't have time to fully handicap a card and I won on 4 of the 5 days that I bought them. As for Tom C, I completely agree that you can learn something...right or wrong ...from just about any handicapping system or method. Most of the decent ones have some bit of logic in them. You just have to "tweak them" to fit your own handicapping style. For example, I ordered System 17. I don't follow it to the letter, but it helped form the basis of my own point system that I use every day. I don't have a large database of races to check my point system on, but I am winning right now, and have been for a while. I will continue to use it until the profits disappear. If and when my profits start to go south, hopefully a little "tweaking" here and there based on past results will keep me winning...

[Rick]

I think the reason that so many systems fail when tested on large databases is that they're developed based on data from one or a few tracks. Then when they're tested on all tracks they don't do so well. I know of at least one system that's been working at California tracks for at least 20 years. It probably wouldn't work as well at some other tracks and might only break even if tested at all tracks. But, I don't have to give back the money I've won anyway, do I? Trying to find something that works the same everywhere is the best way I can think of to be sure that you don't find anything worthwhile.

However, I don't think that most systems are effective in the long run. In the past, I tested hundreds if not thousands of different ideas and I'd say about one in every twenty had any potential whatsoever.

[formula_2002]

Rick, I also think it is important to analyze races not only across many different tracks, but also surface, surface condition, race type and most importantly incremental odds and odds line..

At the very outset, none of the above should be culled out. Its ok to look at different factors and combination of factors, but the essence of the analysis should be based on actual outcome verse expected outcomes against the above “GLOBAL” models.

Also, an effort must be made to review a sufficient number of races at EACH ODD range.

Confidence limits must be established.

I must mention that my web page is the only such complete demonstration of this effort.

Joe M

[Rick]

formula,

Absolutely correct and worthwhile IF you have enough races to get an adequate sample in each category. That's not usually possible for most of us. But, since you seem to have more races in your database than there are dollars in the national debt it may be possible for you.

[hurrikane]

formula,
I have to admire all your hard work.
I would only add

you have but one way to skin the cat. It is not by any means the only nor the best way.

IMHO all this hard work has done nothing but drag your ROI down to 5% which is really not enough to sustain LTG.


I must mention that my web page is the only such complete demonstration of this effort.


although you seem to think you 'must' mention your web site on every post you make...it really does not deserve a 'must' classification.

[formula_2002]

hurrikane
IMHO all this hard work has done nothing but drag your ROI down to 5% which is really not enough to sustain LTG.


If only it we so.

5% x $100 bet x 20 bets per day x 5 days per week X 50 weeks
= $25,000 per year.

ps: That would not cover the cost of the data!!!

[Fastracehorse]

I grew up on Vancouver Island - beautiful - re-located to Edmonton, it's -22 today and it's March 5th!!

Anyways, luv Hastings - post Hst on DRF pypc ( post your picks contest ) every day it runs - along with all the majors, fun contest.

Anyways, if only all my horses would break clean, get dream trips, and, never bleed - I'd hit 40% and quit too!!

LOL.

fffastt

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Rick
I think the reason that so many systems fail when tested on large databases is that they're developed based on data from one or a few tracks. Then when they're tested on all tracks they don't do so well. I know of at least one system that's been working at California tracks for at least 20 years. It probably wouldn't work as well at some other tracks and might only break even if tested at all tracks. But, I don't have to give back the money I've won anyway, do I? Trying to find something that works the same everywhere is the best way I can think of to be sure that you don't find anything worthwhile.

However, I don't think that most systems are effective in the long run. In the past, I tested hundreds if not thousands of different ideas and I'd say about one in every twenty had any potential whatsoever.

[JustMissed]

Rick, sorry about that, I hit the wrong key.

I meant to say Rick, are you testing systems or angles with your data base, and do you do this testing in order to improve the system you use or just for academic reasons?


JustMissed

[kenwoodall]

My elimination system for show produces a decent win and show % but only about break even. I actually have to subjectively examine PP's for current peak condition and fitting into current race. Subjective handicapping must be hard to test on a database but makes the difference in my selections.

[Rick]

JustMissed,

I don't normally play or test systems regularly now. The only database I have contains only fields related to my general handicapping method and is therefore not suitable for testing most systems. However, before about 5 years ago I played nothing but systems and some point count methods. From about 20 years ago up to 5 years ago I probably tested at least 1000 systems, mostly manually but occasionally by computer. So, I have a lot of experience with systems but most of it is not current. If I were to start playing systems again (highly unlikely), I'd probably have to upgrade recency requirements for most of them but I'd expect the best of them to still work reasonably well.

There is one system involving claimed horses that I play occasionally and generally keep track of to verify that it still works. There aren't many plays, so it's not a big money maker, but it's still fascinating to see it still working more than 20 years after it was developed. That's the main reason that I don't believe the line of thinking that says that all systems must fail. But I wouldn't expect that system to work at all tracks because the number of horses claimed varies so much from one track to another and some tracks no longer have "jail" rules. There are some other systems that work because they use information unavailable in past performances and some that work because they take advantage of unique situations like horses rising in class with certain characteristics that are not beneficial to other horses.

[JustMissed]

Rick, Thanks for the info.

I don't use any handicapping software but am interested in the results of the data base guys who post here.

JustMissed
:)