Is Ainslie still relevant?

[Irish Boy]

I'm fairly well read when it comes to the basics of handicapping, but I've never hunted down a copy of anything written by Tom Ainslie. I know that he's often recommended as a good place to start, but for someone who can at the very least be described as an intermediate to advanced player, is there anything in Ainslie that's still worth reading? I don't mean that as an insult, just as an acknowledgement that times change.

[jonnielu]

I'm fairly well read when it comes to the basics of handicapping, but I've never hunted down a copy of anything written by Tom Ainslie. I know that he's often recommended as a good place to start, but for someone who can at the very least be described as an intermediate to advanced player, is there anything in Ainslie that's still worth reading? I don't mean that as an insult, just as an acknowledgement that times change.

Ainslie, perhaps the most prolific and most widely read, did it make any difference? Check it yourself, compare the average win mutuel paid in N. America for 1970, the the average for 2007.

That will tell you how advanced the players have become from absorbing the plethora of books from the 70's and 80's. Some consideration of these points may have you changing your question around some.

jdl

[Bill Cullen]

I'm fairly well read when it comes to the basics of handicapping, but I've never hunted down a copy of anything written by Tom Ainslie. I know that he's often recommended as a good place to start, but for someone who can at the very least be described as an intermediate to advanced player, is there anything in Ainslie that's still worth reading? I don't mean that as an insult, just as an acknowledgement that times change.

Knowing the intellectual history of one's discipline is considered basic to the mastery of any other subject area (biology, physics, psychology, etc). In grad school these courses often go by the names of 'the history of psychology," the "philosophy of physics," the "problems of biology," etc.

It's not just a question of acknowledgement of one's intellectual predecessors; it's knowing the pattern of growth of how the thinking, theorizing, experimentation, and validation of handicapping truths evolved over time. One can not properly research a handicapping question without having a good contextual framework against which to place the question in the proper perspective. A well-integrated and rigorously tested body of knowledge, informed by occasionally brilliant leaps of the imagination, is basic to good handicapping. That includes awareness of the history of the tradition as well.

IMHO,

Bill C

[098poi]

Mr. Bill,

I couldn't have said it better myself! And I mean that literally. In fact I couldn't have said it as well by fifty percent. Excellent response! :ThmbUp:

[HEY DUDE]

Mr. Bill,

Much like the above post, well said indeed sir.
Ainsle was the first book I read on horse racing. I recomend it to new players as well. Just gave my copy to a freind who has shown interest in racing. It is number one read on my list.

[Bill Cullen]

O98poi and Hey Dude,

Thanks for your kind words, guys. I take them as a tribute to Tom Ainslie.

Bill C

[Irish Boy]

Knowing the intellectual history of one's discipline is considered basic to the mastery of any other subject area (biology, physics, psychology, etc). In grad school these courses often go by the names of 'the history of psychology," the "philosophy of physics," the "problems of biology," etc.

It's not just a question of acknowledgement of one's intellectual predecessors; it's knowing the pattern of growth of how the thinking, theorizing, experimentation, and validation of handicapping truths evolved over time. One can not properly research a handicapping question without having a good contextual framework against which to place the question in the proper perspective. A well-integrated and rigorously tested body of knowledge, informed by occasionally brilliant leaps of the imagination, is basic to good handicapping. That includes awareness of the history of the tradition as well.

IMHO,

Bill C

Well put. You've convinced me!

[Bill Cullen]

Thanks.

By the way, your point is well taken: one also has to move along with the times.

Best,

Bill C

[Irish Boy]

Yeah, I didn't mean that any any sort of insult to Ainslie. I just mean, there's so much information available, is it worth the time to read stuff from the 60s and 70s. But the historical point is well put, and I'm sure there's still much to learn from the older books as well, if only because of the different vantage point.

[MarquisMark]

I don't think there could be a more thorough and well written introduction to the sport than Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing.

I knew almost nothing about the horse racing before I read this book and after I did, I could read and decipher the DRF, notice form cycles and had good understanding of trainer intent. I went from knowing zero to being able to separate the contenders and pick a few winners on a card. That in itself with worth the price of the book many times over. Sure, it is a little dated in parts (before the time of Beyer figs), but the main aspects are very well covered.

The chapter on condition has been very useful to me and has helped me pick a few nice priced winners. Maybe advanced players already know this stuff but I'm sure intermediate players might find some useful things in there that they hadn't considered. Same goes for his list of 58 plus factors and 60 angles on building a system.

[Bill Cullen]

The great value of his appendix of the systems, in my opinion, is that his comments on the systems tie-in very nicely with what he has to say about handicapping the horses in the main part of the book.

Bill C

[BIG49010]

His original work, I can't remember the name exactly, "Complete Horseplayer?"
was very good, and you can find used copies at GBC. His other works I thought were just o.k.

[Bill Cullen]

Ainslie was also a much better writer than the typical turf author. He was a well-established author in other fields before turning to write about the Thoroughbreds. It was (and is) a real pleasure to his work.

Bill C

[rufus999]

Ainslie's 'Guide' was the first book on thoroughbred racing and handicapping I ever read. This was in 1966. I didn't understand any of it. I have a 1986 update which I thumb through from time to time. It's worth having around if for nothing else but the wealth of information and experience contained within. As for me, I still don't grasp it entirely. I probably never will. When I handicap I'm using my own angles and not borrowing from others as much anymore.:) Which is, no doubt, the reason why I have a fair to middling win %.

rufus:9::9::9:

[Bill Cullen]

It's a great book that gives one the broad brush strokes of the thoroughbred industry from 40 years ago. It's just as important to understand the constants of the game as it is to know what has changed. The most important thing in handicapping is still basically the same : the predictability of human psychology and human behavior.

Bill C

[jonnielu]

Well put. You've convinced me!

Well there you go, follow the follower for another forty. I'm sure that it will start clicking any decade now.

jdl

[ryesteve]

Well there you go, follow the follower for another forty. I'm sure that it will start clicking any decade nowInstead of smartass comments that contribute nothing, why not explain to us point-by-point where Ainslie had it wrong?

Oh yeah, and since you think Ainslie and Beyer are both hacks, has anyone ever written a book on handicapping that you think has any value?

[jonnielu]

Instead of smartass comments that contribute nothing, why not explain to us point-by-point where Ainslie had it wrong?

Oh yeah, and since you think Ainslie and Beyer are both hacks, has anyone ever written a book on handicapping that you think has any value?

Hey Steve, glad you could make it.

I think that my pointing out the fact that all of the handicapping books written haven't put a dent in the average payoff contributes quite a bit. If anyone wanted to apply thought, there is something to learn.

In all fields of endeavor, following the known, directs us to know the unknown.

Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean that there isn't another bright-eyed fella out there that can appreciate reality. After all of that key-pecking, Ainslie stated himself that he didn't understand how anybody could make a living doing this.

I haven't said either of the authors mentioned were hacks, they both write quite well. I question the value of the material offered, and I do that because the longest standing consistency in horse racing is that the favorite loses 67% of the time.

We are 40 years past Ainsle, and 30 years past Beyer, two authors that have at least influenced every handicapper out there. What is the effect? 95% lose, 5% win. It's 2008, the handicapper's motto is still, "you can't beat the races."

The only value I have gotten from any book on handicapping, is in gaining an understanding that handicapping is not a good way to learn about horse racing.

jdl

[ryesteve]

I didn't ask you to regurgitate your circuitous logic that "proves" those books are worthless. It's not necessary to attempt such an indirect proof that relies on data you don't have and makes assumptions which may or may not be true. Just take one of the damn books and point out the stuff that's wrong, like I suggested. Refute the specific content, rather than just deduce that it must be wrong.

I haven't said either of the authors mentioned were hacks, they both write quite well.Calling them "hacks" says nothing about how well they write. The gist of the definition of 'hack', "a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work" sounds like something cut & pasted from one of your Beyer rants.

The only value I have gotten from any book on handicapping, is in gaining an understanding that handicapping is not a good way to learn about horse racing.Best quote ever. Please make it your tagline.

[HEY DUDE]

The first time I went to the track with my father-in-law (May2004), he handed me a stack of PP's. It was all greek to me. That night he gave me his copy of Ainslie. After reading the book the PP's were no longer greek. Ainslie even pointed out spots for me to look for. One I still use today is horse with-in 1/2 length or better last race in route cutting to a sprint. I know a lot of people might say you will loose at this angle in the long run, but I'm a random player and I have made money on that one. Overall I still say that if you are new to this game and want a decent understanding then read Ainslie.

[jonnielu]

I didn't ask you to regurgitate your circuitous logic that "proves" those books are worthless. It's not necessary to attempt such an indirect proof that relies on data you don't have and makes assumptions which may or may not be true. Just take one of the damn books and point out the stuff that's wrong, like I suggested. Refute the specific content, rather than just deduce that it must be wrong.

Calling them "hacks" says nothing about how well they write. The gist of the definition of 'hack', "a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work" sounds like something cut & pasted from one of your Beyer rants.

Best quote ever. Please make it your tagline.

I didn't say they were worthless, I said they have had little to no effect, this is how I gauge the value for my purposes. You or anyone else might measure value differently according to your purposes. If someone wanted to learn about what PP's are supposed to mean, I suppose reading Ainslie could be worthwhile.

Back when I read it, I was trying to learn why the horse that is not supposed to win was out front by 6 and paying $27.60. It seemed to me that it had more to do with what the handicapper's didn't know, then what the handicapper's found in the Ainslie book. I discovered that to be correct.

I also discovered that there is something to everything you or I, or anybody else, have ever read in a handicapping book. But, the reader will never know this until he/she goes beyond the face value of the material and discovers what exactly underlies all of the angles of handicapping. Enough that it couldn't be called wrong, but it is neither 2 + 2 = 4.

So, it seems that it all depends on the goal. Whether it is to learn about handicapping, or to reach an understanding of horse racing.

Back when I was reading the books, I took note that all of the authors recommended doing something that the public is not doing, or in other words, do something different. That is the single worthwhile thing that I got out of the books. So I chose to learn about horse racing instead of handicapping. Different is one of my natural tendencies anyway, and I've always found success with it.

Can't really say that the handicapper is wrong, it is just the same as everybody else is doing, it is a roadmap to success, when you just do the opposite.

So it could be said that Ainslie and Beyer have printed the roadmap to success at the track, you just need to hit the right exit.

jdl

[jonnielu]

The first time I went to the track with my father-in-law (May2004), he handed me a stack of PP's. It was all greek to me. That night he gave me his copy of Ainslie. After reading the book the PP's were no longer greek. Ainslie even pointed out spots for me to look for. One I still use today is horse with-in 1/2 length or better last race in route cutting to a sprint. I know a lot of people might say you will loose at this angle in the long run, but I'm a random player and I have made money on that one. Overall I still say that if you are new to this game and want a decent understanding then read Ainslie.

What happens when there are 2 or 3 like that, do you pass?

jdl

[ryesteve]

I didn't say they were worthless

So it could be said that Ainslie and Beyer have printed the roadmap to success at the track, you just need to hit the right exit.
Well said...

[HEY DUDE]

What happens when there are 2 or 3 like that, do you pass?

jdl

jonnielu,
Yes. I pass the angle. It usally works best for me when the horse is the speed in the race based on pars. Plus I pass if last race was weak pace, slow 1st.

[jonnielu]

jonnielu,
Yes. I pass the angle. It usally works best for me when the horse is the speed in the race based on pars. Plus I pass if last race was weak pace, slow 1st.

Sounds like it could be tough to sneak one by at a good price, seems like most would see that criteria as very positive.

Angles are fine, some are very productive, and others are consistent truisms that are seen as angles. The problem that the angle player encounters is that anytime the angle is not productive, he doesn't know why unless he completely understands everything that underlies the angle. This comes more from experience and thought then it does from books.

jdl

[dav4463]

Ainslee was the first book I read (about horseracing anyway!, my first real book was The Cat in the Hat!.....followed by my first grade reader Jack and Janet....then Tip and Mitten!).

When I first started out, I was clueless. The book really helped me learn just how this game is played. It is definitely worth reading.

Next I read Davidowitz and Beyer followed by Scott and Helm..... Then, everything I could find. You can learn something that fits in the puzzle from just about all of the handicapping books.

[jonnielu]

Ainslee was the first book I read (about horseracing anyway!, my first real book was The Cat in the Hat!.....followed by my first grade reader Jack and Janet....then Tip and Mitten!).

When I first started out, I was clueless. The book really helped me learn just how this game is played. It is definitely worth reading.

Next I read Davidowitz and Beyer followed by Scott and Helm..... Then, everything I could find. You can learn something that fits in the puzzle from just about all of the handicapping books.

Hey Dave,

Which one would you say that you are following most now?

jdl

[dav4463]

It's a combination of everything I've ever read. I took something about trainer moves from a little booklet that I can't even remember the name. Sullivan and Adams maybe?

Olmstead's little green book about trainer moves helped me catch one of my first big winners. I learned a lot about maiden races from a book by Cramer and Olmstead called the best of the C&O report.

I learned a lot about looking at the entire field from Overlay Handicapping. That book put me back on track when I was making some dumb bets.

Barry Meadow's book "Money Secrets at the Racetrack" helped me to understand which bets were best for each race.

Ainslee's book helped me understand how the game is played. I came in, not even knowing what a claiming race or an Allowance race meant.

Brohamer stuck with me because of the negative class moves. A book about Beyer speed patterns helped me out by recognizing improving and declining horses. (I don't remember the author).

American Turf Monthly had quite a few articles that made me stop and think and add things to my handicapping. There was also an old book with a bunch of angles in it that they put out and I looked at all of them and tried them all! I took some of it and used it so it was worth the read.

Mike Helm had a book that had one story in it about a professional bettor that stuck with me. He said the patterns are there, you just have to recognize them. I think the book is called "A Breed Apart".

Fierro has a great book about investing. I learned a lot about discipline from that book. Also, when he said the contenders should jump out at you in just a few minutes, it saved a lot of time for me.



My own way of picking horses is mine, but has a ton of influences. I know I've left some out. This is just off the top of my head.

It's hard to say, but something will come up in a race, and I will remember something I read way back that gives me an idea of how to play today's race.

[jonnielu]

It's a combination of everything I've ever read. I took something about trainer moves from a little booklet that I can't even remember the name. Sullivan and Adams maybe?

Olmstead's little green book about trainer moves helped me catch one of my first big winners. I learned a lot about maiden races from a book by Cramer and Olmstead called the best of the C&O report.

I learned a lot about looking at the entire field from Overlay Handicapping. That book put me back on track when I was making some dumb bets.

Barry Meadow's book "Money Secrets at the Racetrack" helped me to understand which bets were best for each race.

Ainslee's book helped me understand how the game is played. I came in, not even knowing what a claiming race or an Allowance race meant.

Brohamer stuck with me because of the negative class moves. A book about Beyer speed patterns helped me out by recognizing improving and declining horses. (I don't remember the author).

American Turf Monthly had quite a few articles that made me stop and think and add things to my handicapping. There was also an old book with a bunch of angles in it that they put out and I looked at all of them and tried them all! I took some of it and used it so it was worth the read.

Mike Helm had a book that had one story in it about a professional bettor that stuck with me. He said the patterns are there, you just have to recognize them. I think the book is called "A Breed Apart".

Fierro has a great book about investing. I learned a lot about discipline from that book. Also, when he said the contenders should jump out at you in just a few minutes, it saved a lot of time for me.



My own way of picking horses is mine, but has a ton of influences. I know I've left some out. This is just off the top of my head.

It's hard to say, but something will come up in a race, and I will remember something I read way back that gives me an idea of how to play today's race.

So it seems that you have taken parts that make sense to you and aggregated them into your own way of picking horses. Are there still any missing pieces?

If you were going to go for one more book, which would it be?

"The final drop dead answer to horse racing." ..... or

"How you can discover the final drop dead answer to horse racing."

jdl

[dav4463]

There will always be missing pieces or I will forget one that I should have remembered!

I'm always looking for one more book. I like to read about handicapping whether I use the information or not. Something will stick with me.

The next one I plan to read is "Six Secrets from Successful Bettors" or whatever I run across at the used bookstore.

[BlueShoe]

Just because something was written 40 years ago does not always make it outdated.Ainslee's "big win" type of horses that had the lead in the stretch and then gained ground and won is still today my favorite play.They do,of course,have to pass additional analysis,but love these types,often they step way up,but come right back and repeat.

[bobphilo]

Yeah, I didn't mean that any any sort of insult to Ainslie. I just mean, there's so much information available, is it worth the time to read stuff from the 60s and 70s. But the historical point is well put, and I'm sure there's still much to learn from the older books as well, if only because of the different vantage point.

Absolutely. Ainslie came before the time of the Beyers and Sheets (TG and Rags) before the power of speed ratings was known so that his methodology may no longer be ideal taken verbatim. However, his thoughts on form evaluation are still worthwhile. In his chapters on pace and class one can see the beginning of the principles that led to today’s more sophisticated ratings. If not for Ainslie, these developments might never have come about.


When I studied philosophy I found the same was true of Socrates and his student Plato. He was the first to ask the important questions which all philosophers through the ages still struggle with. Just as it has been said that the history of philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Socrates and Plato, it is not too great an exaggeration to say that modern handicapping methods are footnotes to the works of Ainslie.


Bob

[FUGITIVE77]

Ainslee is like the Dick and Jane of Racing. Personally I think if you want to get a good concept of the game then get the Steve Davidowitz's bible and the William Quirin stat book and then maybe the Beyer books. If I had to choose one I would take Steve's book. Also go back and put together a book out of ALL Scott Mcmannis's articles for Horseplayer Magazine. Those will give you a great primer for the basics.

[Secretariat]

Ainslie, aka Richard Carter, is legendary for his time, but I preferred Taulbot, then Beyer and Jones, and eventually Mitchell and Brohamer. There's also Jim Quinn and many others.

Personally, my advice today is take everything written with a grain of salt, and do your own research. If you're just starting horseracing today, I'd start with Mitchell and Beyer, and move on from there.

Back in Ainslie's day recency played more of a factor, there weren't synthetic tracks, and form seemed to hold longer. There were also generally more uninformed players in regards to speed and pace until the 70's and 80's ,and class handicapping played a more significant aspect.

Today, everyone seems to have their own speed and pace approaches, and par times are easily accessible and race pars and pace pars. We even have access to trip notes, and connections specialties.

It'll be interesting to see where the new forefront of handicapping comes from.

[saevena]

Interestingly, I recently came across several books written by Rigel Spica( another of Richard Carter's pseudonym's) with the following titles: Astrology and Horse Racing, and Numerology and Horse Racing. Here are a few pearls of wisdom from the 1969 edition of Astrology and Horse Racing: "The value to the racing fan of the astrological information contained in . . . the book is beyond price. I believe that the selection method is now presented with greater clarity and that the . . . charts are much easier on the eye. After a few minutes of practice, any racing fan should be able to make excellent selections with virtually no effort." Also: "The method will be presented step by step, with thorough explanations. In not more than two hours of pleasant study, any racing fan will have learned how to check his selections against the powerful realities of nature, as disclosed by astrological tables . . . and the decisive portions of the jockey's horoscope." Anybody need a drink?

[Overlay]

I don't begrudge anyone's attempt to make a dollar, but that information (of which I was not previously aware) knocks him down a peg or two in my estimation.

[quetzalchess]

Hello my friend, I am looking for books from rigel spica, do you happen to have any on sale?


Regards

[llegend39]

Hello my friend, I am looking for books from rigel spica, do you happen to have any on sale?


Regards

http://www.deuceofclubs.com/books/018astro.htm

[Robert Goren]

In a word, no. The computer has made his works out of date. The use of the daily variant in everything from speed ratings to fractional times changed the game to much for the old handicapping methods to be profitable. Plus some of his theories such as stretch gain are just plain wrong.

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

Speaking of old and outdated, anyone want to buy a well used Kelco Calculator?

[Irish Boy]

I have no memory whatsoever of starting this thread.

In any event, three years older and perhaps wiser, I'd answer my question by saying: 1.) yes, you should read Ainslie, and 2.) you shouldn't take anything he says too seriously. It's interesting historically, there are some avenues he provides that at least gives reason for thought, and he's a good writer.

[Blenheim]

I've read the book a couple of times and find the principles therein still apply today.
~
I think one of the the posters on this thread got it backwards: You can never hope to win a particular race, but with an understanding of the game one can beat the races. And it would be interesting to see where in the text Ainslie said he wouldn't recommend playing the horses for a living.
~
What Ainslie could not cover is how the evolution of the breed has changed a particular part of handicapping. Back in the day horses ran every week and it was common for Derby horses to have a prep four days before the race, not including works. One could handicap based on current past performances. Now we have a horse racing once every month or once very six weeks - it is common to see the note: Has not raced for 59 days or Has not raced for three months. Difficult to handicap horses that haven't been running for quite some time - no current past performances. Without current past performances, how can one know their current condition? How can one know if the "freshening" has worked? Will the horse need a few races before it reaches peak form or will the horse fire first time out? Difficult to know . . .