"The Past Performance Handicapper"

[Tee]

What exactly is the definition of a "past performance handicapper?"

Jonnielu, would you care to elaborate?

[xtb]

Handicappers who do not have access to a time machine or crystal ball.

[jonnielu]

What exactly is the definition of a "past performance handicapper?"

Jonnielu, would you care to elaborate?

That would be a bettor who is influenced primarily by past performances. One that believes he can accurately predict today's performance by assuming it will likely be similar to the last performance.

An individual who is not much dissuaded by the presentation of reality 9 or 10 times a day.

A person who, on one hand bets based on what he thinks is consistency of past performances, then insists that there is no consistency in the game. Without ever noticing that today's performance will likely differ from the last, consistently.

Someone that looks at past performances the same way year after year, and expects that someday it will yield something different.

A guy that thinks he is doing something different from the crowd by studying past performances until his eyes bleed, looking for what is not there in the first place. The whole while, not understanding that the ML favorite has the best past performances by most criteria often enough that he needn't look past the ML to have thoroughly analyzed the past performances as well as anyone can.

Where is the proof? The favorites losing percentage, and the average win payout over the past 50 years.

jdl

[Tee]

Somehow I don't believe this statement is anywhere close to being true.

The whole while, not understanding that the ML favorite has the best past performances by most criteria often enough that he needn't look past the ML to have thoroughly analyzed the past performances as well as anyone can.

jdl

[Tom]

It's not, Tee. But then, some people are happy with $3.40 horses, like ability figures get you. If you supplement them with early speed figures and paddock inspection. Seems like a lot of work to get Sweep's picks.

[jonnielu]

Somehow I don't believe this statement is anywhere close to being true.

Spend 20 more years with past performances as your primary influence. They've been used for over 100 years by millions of intelligent people. What were the payoffs at BEL today? How can that be? Is everyone missing something, are most people missing something? Or, is past performance criteria just not that indicative in the first place?

What does it mean when a past performance handicapper says, "he's been running pretty well lately...."

Do you disagree that the favorite usually has the best past performances?
jdl

[jonnielu]

It's not, Tee. But then, some people are happy with $3.40 horses, like ability figures get you. If you supplement them with early speed figures and paddock inspection. Seems like a lot of work to get Sweep's picks.

COMPLETED: 17025103570153 BEL #9 $2 Win 2 <none> $ 2.00 $ 19.20 + $ 17.20

One of two, I lost the other one.

I guess eliminating losing bets with physicality is pretty stupid too, when you can just bet 10 to see which two the favorite will actually win.

Why just look at a horse to see if he is in condition when you can wonder if 9 days is good or bad, or is it 17 days, or 23, 28, 36. What about the ones that haven't raced for two years, that's bad, right?

jdl

[Tee]

I have used past performances as a primary resource going on 14 years. Not going to change anytime soon.

Saying that the favorite usually has the best past performances does not in my opinion equate to a past performance handicapper's lack of understanding.

Who says what looks best at face value is best?

I do disagree in part that the favorite usually has the best past performances. That is of course if a handicapper has done his/her homework & can dig a little deeper.

[jonnielu]

I have used past performances as a primary resource going on 14 years. Not going to change anytime soon.

Saying that the favorite usually has the best past performances does not in my opinion equate to a past performance handicapper's lack of understanding.

Who says what looks best at face value is best?

I do disagree in part that the favorite usually has the best past performances. That is of course if a handicapper has done his/her homework & can dig a little deeper.

Usually, it is the past performance handicapper that says what looks best at face value is best. All that you have in past performances is face value. That is my point. The "best" that you seek, is not there. "Best" is the product that will be produced by the contest of today's conditions. It is a unique product that comes from today's contest.

In the same way as every line of past performance is a unique product.

The question of handicapping, is what product will be produced from this contest. It will more likely differ, in some way from the recent products.

If you answer the question of why first, the question of how can be answered correctly, more consistently. The ones that you get wrong should be questioned to tighten your analysis to the point that you at least understand why you are wrong.

P.S. The track handicapper gets fired if he can't identify the top 4 correctly on a daily basis. How much better then him/her do you think you can get with some homework??

jdl

[Tee]

Must be quite a few out of work track handicappers.

The "best" may not be in the past performances for you, but I'm all but sure it is for many others.

IMO face value is MOTO, it is not handicapping, prognosticating, best guess in predicting outcome.

There are always exceptions to the rule or the usual. Don't confuse what is commonly used by some with all.

[elockwood]

Usually, it is the past performance handicapper that says what looks best at face value is best. All that you have in past performances is face value. That is my point. The "best" that you seek, is not there. "Best" is the product that will be produced by the contest of today's conditions. It is a unique product that comes from today's contest.

In the same way as every line of past performance is a unique product.

The question of handicapping, is what product will be produced from this contest. It will more likely differ, in some way from the recent products.

If you answer the question of why first, the question of how can be answered correctly, more consistently. The ones that you get wrong should be questioned to tighten your analysis to the point that you at least understand why you are wrong.

P.S. The track handicapper gets fired if he can't identify the top 4 correctly on a daily basis. How much better then him/her do you think you can get with some homework??

jdl

I use past performances exclusively to isolate horses who are real standouts from otherwise weak fields. I don't know how much better I could do than the track handicapper on assessing every race, but I do know that I do a great job at finding which favorites will win at a clip high enough to gain a big profit over time. I do pick these horses at face value, and it works for me! :)

[asH]

9/12/20082:12 PM8C05E084F7285Belmont4$2.00P6 1,2/6/6,9/9/10/2ONLINE $8.00 $78.00

99.9% dont know how to unlock the info of the pp's...BTW I had the best horse in the 9th in All Verses, but I believe Maragh's inexperience with Belmonts slop caused him to stay back to far from the lead, and start his drive to early...but thats racing...5 of 6 into the 9th...just lucky I guess

[LottaKash]

What exactly is the definition of a "past performance handicapper?"?

When I first pondered this question, I just knew I wanted to add my voice to the mix, but after reading subsequent posts, I quickly became more unsure as to what I would say next.........

I especially agreed with Jonnielu's inital response....but later posts seemed to have headed to other more enlightened or perceived notions of what a past perfomance handicapper may well be.....

To begin with, aren't we all "past performance handicapers" ?......All the pertinent information relevant to the contestants are in the past performances, at least to begin with.......when we begin to take some or alll of that information and store it in a data-base of some sort, crunch some numbers and ideas, often we will have gained some greater meaning of the originally presented data, so now we can give the data that was originally presented, a newer or better interpretation when using the past performances, and this, by using more valid meanings and impact values ......But it all starts with the original past performances, doesn't it ??

I, for one, continue to use the past performances as is, and at face value, so I guess that this makes me a "past performance handicapper"...

I do not use any software to interpret any data, and I use a data base in only recording my plays and the results, as well as the running style bias' that have occured at each track I play......but that is it from a sofware point of view..

I have developed and use some speed and pace interpretations, and just by using electronic paper and pencil , I add to the mix, these numbers, which are just an added graphical presentation of the same numbers that are already there to begin with, a redundancy....

I think the difference with me, and just using the plain past perfomance's, lies in the fact that I have been at this for a very long time, and in the painful learning process I have found ways to implement the truth's about what factors are insignificant and those that work and work well, when I am doing my homework........

But more importantly, just recently I read a HANA article by someone, who's name I can't recall just now......In this article he described about going into in a Sphere when he was at his handicapping craft....And, I have found this to be so true in my own realm of horse pickin' as well, as my best days are, when I devote my undivided attention to the exclusion of everything but the race in question......I mean, when I am in this zone, and when I take each contender's running line and dissect it piece by piece and line by line, I usually have a good handle on a horse's present form and the Trainer's intentions on Race-day.....Often enough when I finally arrive at the horse I think the most likely to win , a certain feeling comes about, a certain confidence if you will, as I just know that this is the one......Opposed to a feeling that is something else, as it just doesn't have that aura of confidence about it...and my alarms go off, and I will usualy pass on a race at these times....When I am in touch with these feelings I usually do well for the day, even if playing nothing.....

There are two "past performance handicappers" in me, the "plain-vanilla one" , and the" Zone-one"........My best days and scores usually occur when the zone-guy is at work......I believe that rewarding handicapping is not that complex, and by just taking the raw information at face value and properly de-coding it, is the key....but the de-coding part , ah hah....

I know I am long winded at times, and I wish I could communicate my inner -feelings and opinions in a more concise and in some ways that are more like some of the others that I admire and respect in this forum, but I am stuck with my limitations.....Often I am struck by other opinions and say to myself, "yeah, I feel or felt that way myself".........well I just love this game so much, that's all.....

humbly,

[rufus999]

I use a scorecard at ballgames.
I use DRF at the track.
I'm just that kind of a guy.:)

rufus:9::9::9:

[cmoore]

Great post LottaKash...I love that Zone feeling. Especially when the Long Shots hit you had circled the night before.

[jonnielu]

Hey LottaCash,

No doubt, past performances are involved for most, for me, it is secondary. I made that change a long time ago when I realized that here was an endeavor where I could do everything my way and nobody could stop me.

Like everybody else, I was told how racing works by handicappers that wrote books to tell other handicappers how racing works. When I soon discovered that I couldn't just add up the past performances and come up with more winners then losers most of the time, I figured that the people that are telling me how racing works must be just giving me their understanding of how racing works, and I had no way of knowing how limited that understanding may be. Mostly, because I did not have an understanding of how racing works for myself that I could compare with theirs.

I did understand that if they were teaching me, and their understanding may be limited, my understanding would, in turn, be limited also. So, I decided to change teachers, and the first one I tried out taught me some of what he knew. Enough so that I now knew how to win at GP/HIA from Jan - Mar.

When that all fell to pieces at Calder in the summer, I realized that no one would be able to tell me why, once I studied everything available at the time looking for an answer. Beyer blamed it on the Tartan surface, but no one could tell me how the same set of factors can make me king of the world at one meet, and yesterdays tomatoes at the other. That is when I made my final selection for a teacher. I chose racing itself, it seemed to be the holder of the secrets, and the consistencies.

That taught me to continue looking at the consistent generalities first, and look at past performances second, as I had been doing, but with some change in perspective according to what the conditions today will demand of the eventual winner.

jdl

[nobeyerspls]

What exactly is the definition of a "past performance handicapper?"

Jonnielu, would you care to elaborate?

What am I missing here? A past performance handicapper looks at the recent history of races, usually ten, for each entrant. He also looks at lifetime stats on different surfaces and significant human element changes. Based on his own weighting of the various factors he predicts the winner. Often overlapping talent, or some unkown, does not allow him to do this so he skips the race.

I think that Jonnelieu"s definition implies that pp handicappers always go to the best last performance. That is far from reality for me. Give me a freshened filly coming off of several lousy performances, or a horse with ugly races on a surface he's not bred for getting a favorable surface change, or an older male with mediocre races at a distance cutting back to seven furlongs.

A "past performance handicapper" can find double digit winners and eliminate some odds on types.

[Tom]

COMPLETED: 17025103570153 BEL #9 $2 Win 2 <none> $ 2.00 $ 19.20 + $ 17.20

One of two, I lost the other one.

I guess eliminating losing bets with physicality is pretty stupid too, when you can just bet 10 to see which two the favorite will actually win.

Why just look at a horse to see if he is in condition when you can wonder if 9 days is good or bad, or is it 17 days, or 23, 28, 36. What about the ones that haven't raced for two years, that's bad, right?

jdl

You continue to make assumptions that fit your views but are not based in reality. I think they have a word for that in the mental health field. Why do you have to always the facts to make a point?

[LottaKash]

Hey LottaCash,

No doubt, past performances are involved for most, for me, it is secondary. I made that change a long time ago when I realized that here was an endeavor where I could do everything my way and nobody could stop me.

Like everybody else, I was told how racing works by handicappers that wrote books to tell other handicappers how racing works. When I soon discovered that I couldn't just add up the past performances and come up with more winners then losers most of the time, I figured that the people that are telling me how racing works must be just giving me their understanding of how racing works, and I had no way of knowing how limited that understanding may be. Mostly, because I did not have an understanding of how racing works for myself that I could compare with theirs.

I did understand that if they were teaching me, and their understanding may be limited, my understanding would, in turn, be limited also. So, I decided to change teachers, and the first one I tried out taught me some of what he knew. Enough so that I now knew how to win at GP/HIA from Jan - Mar.

When that all fell to pieces at Calder in the summer, I realized that no one would be able to tell me why, once I studied everything available at the time looking for an answer. Beyer blamed it on the Tartan surface, but no one could tell me how the same set of factors can make me king of the world at one meet, and yesterdays tomatoes at the other. That is when I made my final selection for a teacher. I chose racing itself, it seemed to be the holder of the secrets, and the consistencies.

That taught me to continue looking at the consistent generalities first, and look at past performances second, as I had been doing, but with some change in perspective according to what the conditions today will demand of the eventual winner.

jdl

Hey Jonnielu,

I re-read your above post a few times to be sure that I had gotten all that you may have wished to convey.....I must say I always enjoy your perspectives on racing, and I suspect that you practice what you preach and enjoy the fruits of your labors.....

For me, much of what I do these days, in order to find my way to short-line, is attuned to what you have just stated......I too have learned to go my own way in the quest for the truth, and while it is true that I rely on mostly what is printed in the past performances, I think that is where it ends a bit, as I have learned that much of what was taught to me early on, had carried me forward up until it had reached the limits of it's powers of prediction.....Unwillingly to accept this fact that, this may be all there is, I began to realize that much of what is in the printed pages is an illusion and certainly demanded a newer perspective.....It was like all the information was written in code and it was up to me to decode it.....I don't have it all deciphered as of yet, but I am leaps and bounds from where I was for so many years, and now I am enjoying the fruits of my labors too......I suspect that if I were to shake it out for all it is worth, it might even lessen the pleasure of winning, as sometimes the trip is more fun and interesting than what is at the end of the ride.......Perhaps what I have just said may have sounded silly in a sense, but I get the biggest charge when I nail a 30-dollar win number, and I understand why the crowd couldn't possibly, given their state of handicapping, have understood what I decoded, and yet I understand and symphasize with their love affair with one or several others in the same contest.....As you have already stated, understanding why we lose is just as important as why we may have won.....

I am not the compleat player that I aspire to be as of yet, because sometimes in un-guarded moments some of the old ways and the illusion belief system creaps back into the picture, but hey, letting go of old tried and true losing ways, especially after all these years, is a somewhat tricky affair.....haha......

I think I have an advantage over the t-breds, as I am almost strictly a harness guy, but to my way of thinking, racing-is-racing....It is just that harness racing has this 1-mile distance of racing, and it is consistent for all the tracks everywhere, and for me this fact alone is sheer and utter simplicity to me, and the reasons are obvious......Still they have different gaits and there are minor nuances between a trotter and a pacer, but for the most part they are pretty much the same....

And just as you had confessed about Calder, there too, are tracks that remain a quandry in my thoughts and actions, and as often has it, my record is not so great at certain venues , so I stick to the tracks that are rewarding me with the winners and prices that I get.....Still, like yourself I will never abandon hope, as I am sure there is an uncovered truth or two to be found somewhere, but probably not in the past perfromances.....hehe......

best,

[Stevie Belmont]

I wrote this for my website a few weeks ago, this seems like a good place for it..

Don't Get With The Program, Get With The DRF


If you are going to the track, or just staying home and wagering from your online account, there is one thing you should know about handicapping the races, which many so-called handicappers do not know. Using a track and or a simulcast program when playing the races is a mistake. People that use these types of past performances are selling themselves short by passing up valuable information that is available to them if they choose. The reasons they opt to use the track or simulcast program makes little sense when you sit down and really think about it.


There is one key element that one needs to be an informed handicapper. It’s called the Daily Racing Form. It’s Handicapping 101. If you consider yourself a serious player, or a weekend warrior type, or just someone who likes to make a wager on the big race days, such as the Kentucky Derby, Breeders Cup (http://www.bodoglife.com/horse-betting/breeders-cup/)and so on, there is one thing you should know. The track or simulcast program should not be your only source for past performances.


On a typical Saturday afternoon, if you go to the Meadowlands, you will see many people with a simulcast program. Actually almost everyone you will see will have a simulcast program either in his or her hand or on a table. When I see that, I know I have an edge over those players. Mind you, some of these handicappers have been playing the races for several years, and they still only use the track or simulcast program, it’s hard to believe.



Word to the wise, ditch that track or simulcast program, and grab a Daily Racing Form. The DRF is one of thee most important handicapping materials one can have when spending a day at the races, experienced and inexperienced players alike should always have a copy, or the printed pdf’s of the DRF while handicapping the races. I consider it a starting point in my handicapping, other variables will come into play, but it starts with the form.


As I start preparing for a day of handicapping, regardless of where I may be playing, either at home, Meadowlands, Monmouth Park, Belmont Park, or Aqueduct, buying or printing the DRF the day before, is the first thing I will do. It should be the first thing any handicapper should do. If you are going to spend a day at the races, it is simple, Get the Form. Some players will use Brisnet and/or other handicapping materials, such as Ragozin Sheets and Thoro-Graph sheets. These materials offer past performances in a different way.



Know and understand the DRF past performances first, before dabbling with other past performance materials. You will have a solid, fundamental foundation as a handicapper over someone who opts to use a track or simulcast program. You can use them, but know you will have much less information available to you. Less information means not knowing important things, and that will cause you to rip more tickets, opposed to cashing more of them. The goal is to cash, not rip.



When I see people using a track or simulcast program, I feel like just yelling at them, get the form!However, after realizing that these are the same people I am trying to beat in the pari-mutuel pools, I in fact have an edge over those individuals who opt not to use a DRF, which is readily available to them, for a dollar more or so no less, at the same place where they will pick up the track program. They sell them together. It makes no sense.



The one thing a serious handicapper will not do is just use a track or simulcast program for their past performances. Yet the majority of players do in fact only use the track program. If you are one of those people that solely depend on a track program when handicapping, there is one thing you should know, you are at a distinct disadvantage over players who do use the DRF.



There was a time when I was one of those individuals who used a track program only. I learned a lesson that stuck with me about 7 years ago at the Meadowlands, and it changed my thought process on what type of information I should arm myself when handicapping the races. I missed a $22 horse that popped on the turf. The track program, plain and simple does have enough important information that the DRF has.



After the last race that night, I picked up a discarded DRF that someone else was using. I looked at the race I came up empty in, after closer examination, I saw a nugget of information that certainly would have changed the way I saw the race and the horse I neglected to use. If I had only been aware of the trainer’s dirt to turf percentage, I would have at least considered the horse. I will not get into detail, but I realized that I am wasting my time and energy using a track program, when the DRF contains information that is a lot more useful. I asked myself a simple question, why am I selling myself short by not using the DRF? The days of using the track or simulcast program were history.



I decided the DRF was going to be my new source of past performances. Let me say that after a couple of years of only using the track program, it was a somewhat difficult task making that transition, but I did. I had to, or I might as well stop placing wagers on horses.



Yet, others continue not to use the DRF. Why? Well let us take a closer look and try to answer that question. One of the reasons is, the track program is cheaper then a Daily Racing Form. That alone is enough an incentive for someone to purchase the track or simulcast program instead. It often will contain several more tracks then the DRF.



Handicappers are creatures of habit. They will never make the change. They have been doing the same thing for several years. I say good for the more informed, or anyone who uses the DRF. Bad for those who don’t



Some handicappers rely on what selections are printed in the track or simulcast program, generated either by computer, or by the track handicapper. Solely depending on selections of others is not wise. It is never a bad idea to listen to someone else’s opinion on a race, in fact listening to the track handicappers opinion can enlighten one, but you still need to form your own opinion on a horserace. Pick a horse based on a computer generated number? That is just not a wise method. They figure they can save a dollar. See how smart I am? That is what they think



Why one would worry about saving an extra dollar or so going to the track anyway beats me, buying a track program may be cheaper, but can cost you more then a dollar in the long run. Yet, it is one of the main reasons they go for it over the DRF. You are going to spend that extra dollar either way at the track, and by spending that extra dollar, you will give yourself a better chance of having a successful afternoon at the races.



Some like the simulcast program because it will have several tracks to select from, but if you are a serious player, you should not be playing every track out there, or every race for that matter. In the summer, I play exclusively New York and New Jersey, and if there is big race out of state, I might look at that as well. Therefore, if I am going to buy a form, I will buy the $4.00 edition on track, $4.50 off track not the $5 edition, or print a single card out for a $2.50 or 3 cards for $3.75.



In this computer era, you can download the DRF pdf’s. It is fast, convenient and it’s usually available two or three days before the races. You can have all the information you need with in minutes in the comfort of your own home. I cannot see how so-called handicappers can consider themselves to have any type of edge using a track or simulcast program. Most horseplayers using this information are looking at that day’s races for the very first time, and sometimes 20 min before the first race. Seeing the past performances for the first time on race day is a no-no, for me anyway.



If you are using the DRF, you can see that day’s races in advance, and have an idea of how a race may shape up You will have a jump on figuring out what strategy you might decide to use. This alone is a good advantage to have. The only place to pick up a track or simulcast program is at the track. Some local stores may have them as well, but if you really want to get to see the next day’s races the night before, you will have to drive to the track and pick it up, and it is usually not available until after 9:00 pm the night before. It is a hassle.



Now for the real reasons you should be using the DRF at the track or home if you choose. It is simple. It has more pertinent information that will help you make a more informed choice when selecting a horse, regardless of what type of bet you are making. The benefits of using the DRF outweigh anything a track or a simulcast program can offer in the information department.



The DRF has statistics that are useful in selecting horses when handicapping a particular race, such as trainer and jockey statistics. The original purchase price of a horse and the form will list more workouts, they are simple, yet things that are important to know.



Examples include trainers’ success doing different things with horses. How does a particular trainer do with first time starters? How about stretching a horse out? How does a trainer do sending a horse out for the second time? How does a trainer fare when switching a horse from a route to a sprint, what about horses coming off a long layoff? How does a trainer do first off the claim? And the one that cost me that $22 horse, trainers win percentage going switching from dirt to turf with a horse. These are nice things to know if you consider yourself a serious handicapper.



If using the track or simulcast program, you will not find that information.
The edge goes to the player using the DRF. The track or simulcast program player is in the dark.



The past performances in the DRF are far more comprehensive then you know what. The DRF will list the last 10 running lines of a horse. Sometimes, depending on the race, a track or simulcast program will only give one or two running lines! That is just not an effective way to handicap a race, especially if you consider the form cycle of a horse. Is the horse cycling up or down? You will not have a clue as to how the horse has been running in his last few races.



And when it comes to maidens and maiden claimers you will have the original purchase price listed, if the horse is not a homebred, and this is information that can be helpful depending on the types of race you are handicapping.



The DRF also contains other handicapping information. I like to call them tools. One of the things that people use and like is the Beyer speed figure, now a track or simulcast program will usually offer some type of a speed figure, usually one generated by Equibase. In addition, the Tomlinson rating when it comes to handicapping races on an wet track, usually maidens, or the first time a horse will run on an off track. The higher the number, the more likely the horse based on his or her pedigree will run good on that type of track. By no means however, is it a guarantee the horse will like a wet track.



ThoroughbredZone wants to point out, in particular the Beyer Speed figure and the Tomlinson rating are just tools, and how you use them is up to you, some players don’t implement them into their handicapping, while other players will incorporate these tools into their handicapping. I do look at these statistics, but I do not depend on them. Speed figures are a different subject all together.



The DRF has other advantages as well. The DRF has many horseracing articles that a racing fan will appreciate, and each article is broken down into a particular region of the United States. Regardless of how you obtain the racing form, either purchase the hard copy at the track, or a store that carries it, or download the pdf’s from DRF.com, you are giving yourself an advantage in the handicapping department and an edge over those that prefer a track or simulcast program instead.



There are times when buying a track program might not be a bad idea, kind of like a supplement to the DRF. Here are some reasons. A track program will give the correct post position of each horse and his or her number. The early edition of the DRF might not have this. In addition, a track program will include morning line odds of each horse. If you like to see the morning line odds, you should buy a track program, but also make sure you have the DRF as well. Do not just buy a program. The morning lines are also available on the internet. You can always write this down on the DRF.



Another reason to buy a track program is for keepsakes. Moreover, you really do not even have to buy it. You can always find a discarded one as you leave the track. I have a stack of track programs from big races that I have attended over the years such as the Belmont Stakes, Haskells, Wood Memorials and so on. It is always nice to have a souvenir from a big race day to look back on.



However, from the handicapping perspective, the Daily Racing Form is what you should be absorbing. It should be the starting point in the handicapping process. The next time you see a person with a track or simulcast program in his hand, just remember, you have an edge over that individual, and they do not even know it.



The information contained in the Daily Racing Form is there to help you make an informed choice when selecting a horse. In closing, ThoroughbredZone wants to remind anyone who likes to make a bet on a horse, regardless if you are a seasoned veteran handicapper, a casual fan, or a newbie entering the world of thoroughbred racing, the Daily Racing Form is where you should start the handicapping process. Aside from making you a smarter, more informed handicapper, it will make you a more successful one as well. Don’t get with the program, Get with the DRF.

[cmoore]

I wager on maiden races 90% of the time. It's been a lot of trial and error over the years. But this is what I have figured out to use that works best for me.

Sire Information..................Mandatory in 2 year old racing
Custom printed pps.............Blending workouts between races helps a lot
Workout and key race data..Insider picks and power plays at TSN
Software.......................Procaps- helps me compare pace numbers easily

Maiden races are unique then all other races. A lot of information is hidden. It's in the breeding, workouts, trainers strengths and weaknesses, blinkers on, lasix, jockey changes. Most look at a race with 7 of 8 first time starters and just shake there head in confusion. Those are my favorite.

Think about it. Attack what most cannot. Because they lack the information, knowlege or know how to.

[Charlie D]

I wager on maiden races 90% of the time. It's been a lot of trial and error over the years. But this is what I have figured out to use that works best for me.

Sire Information..................Mandatory in 2 year old racing
Custom printed pps.............Blending workouts between races helps a lot
Workout and key race data..Insider picks and power plays at TSN
Software.......................Procaps- helps me compare pace numbers easily

Maiden races are unique then all other races. A lot of information is hidden. It's in the breeding, workouts, trainers strengths and weaknesses, blinkers on, lasix, jockey changes. Most look at a race with 7 of 8 first time starters and just shake there head in confusion. Those are my favorite.

Think about it. Attack what most cannot. Because they lack the information, knowlege or know how to.


Correct me if i'm wrong, but the majority of info your using is derived from Past Performance data is it not???

[cmoore]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the majority of info your using is derived from Past Performance data is it not???

I would say about half of the most important information I use is not on the pps. The past performances don't show much about sires. I use breedingwinners.com for my sire information. Clocker works and key race data is from the insider pick and power plays at tsnhorse.com. Workouts are listed in the pps, but how do they rank among others in thier age group. Procaps software just helps me compare class, race and pace figures much easier.

[Charlie D]

I would say about half of the most important information I use is not on the pps. The past performances don't show much about sires. I use breedingwinners.com for my sire information. Clocker works and key race data is from the insider pick and power plays at tsnhorse.com. Workouts are listed in the pps, but how do they rank among others in thier age group. Procaps software just helps me compare class, race and pace figures much easier.

The Sire info may not be contained in the actual PP, but the info your using at that site is derived from the Past Performances of the progeny, the trainer info is derived from Past Performances of the trainers horses and so on



The difference is, your probably using the info made available intelligently


This is what seperates the winning bettors from the losing bettors

[asH]

I believe we can all agree that the old line of handicapping thought is not the way to go..thinking outside the box will yield far better than 33%

[jonnielu]

You continue to make assumptions that fit your views but are not based in reality. I think they have a word for that in the mental health field. Why do you have to always the facts to make a point?

always "what" the facts?

jdl

[cj's dad]

Where is the proof? The favorites losing percentage, and the average win payout over the past 50 years.

jdl

Which is what ??

[jonnielu]

Which is what ??

Hell, I was hoping that you'd look it up, I haven't been motivated to look it up for 25 years. I was figuring that someone would have it in there pile of stuff since there are so many statisticians about. Besides, if I did it, that would make it suspect, because of my mental illness.

jdl

[jonnielu]

I believe we can all agree that the old line of handicapping thought is not the way to go..thinking outside the box will yield far better than 33%

What the hell kind of argument is that?


[YT=""]

[cj's dad]

Mine was a simple question that didn't require a bulls--t answer.

Hell, I was hoping that you'd look it up, I haven't been motivated to look it up for 25 years. I was figuring that someone would have it in there pile of stuff since there are so many statisticians about. Besides, if I did it, that would make it suspect, because of my mental illness.

jdl

[cj's dad]

While I staedfastly use CJ's figs, when at the track I always have a copy of the DRF to supplement his speed figs, looking at many factors other than raw #'s, although I have to say it usually boils down to speed and pace which is what his figs are all about.

BTW- what name do you write under at DRF.:D

[Greyfox]

At the race track, Past Performance is the best predictor of future performance. It is not the only predictor. It's a good starting point.

[dav4463]

Past performances show me who "can't do it", "who might do it", and "who should do it".

Can't- I can't bet at any odds.

Might- I will definitely take a look if odds are right (these are where my profit lies most of the time)

Should- I will use them if I have to



I also use the DRF. I couldn't bet any other way. I'm too used to the layout.

[raybo]

I don't believe I've ever heard of a successful player who didn't use past performances in their process. Name one.

[jonnielu]

Past performances show me who "can't do it", "who might do it", and "who should do it".

Can't- I can't bet at any odds.

Might- I will definitely take a look if odds are right (these are where my profit lies most of the time)

Should- I will use them if I have to



I also use the DRF. I couldn't bet any other way. I'm too used to the layout.

Hey Dave, You are a sharp guy,and it seems to me that you are hitting on what I am talking about.

I am saying that if it weren't for the training that you have experienced as a past performance handicapper in interpreting the meaning of PP's:

Your "can'ts" might only screw up a trifecta 10% of the time.

Your "mights" might become "probably's", giving you better prompts on what to look at, and for.

Your "shoulds" could comfortably become "probably not's" with an understanding of why they are only "shoulds" and not "probably's".

If PP criteria puts one in the "might" pile, is it further or deeper PP criteria that would move it to the "can't" or "should" pile, or other factors?

Or, are there other factors that allow you to consistently tighten up one or two from the "might" pile, to be bet over the "should" pile.

jdl

[jonnielu]

I don't believe I've ever heard of a successful player who didn't use past performances in their process. Name one.

Pittsburgh Phil, and just to hold to the centerline of conversation I'm talking about PP's being used as the mainline primary indication. Everyone uses or considers past performances in some form and to some extent.

jdl

[Tom]

Pittsburg Phil and the SPEED Boys.

[saevena]

Pittsburgh Phil created his own performance data, data which was unavailable to the public through any racing publication at the time. The Speed Boys depended upon the speed ratings/variants and times recorded in the Racing Form. Jule Fink called the speed gurus of our day who think you can't win with the speed ratings/variants and times in the Racing Form, "Johnny Come Latelies."

[dav4463]

Hey Dave, You are a sharp guy,and it seems to me that you are hitting on what I am talking about.

I am saying that if it weren't for the training that you have experienced as a past performance handicapper in interpreting the meaning of PP's:

Your "can'ts" might only screw up a trifecta 10% of the time.

Your "mights" might become "probably's", giving you better prompts on what to look at, and for.

Your "shoulds" could comfortably become "probably not's" with an understanding of why they are only "shoulds" and not "probably's".

If PP criteria puts one in the "might" pile, is it further or deeper PP criteria that would move it to the "can't" or "should" pile, or other factors?

Or, are there other factors that allow you to consistently tighten up one or two from the "might" pile, to be bet over the "should" pile.

jdl



Here is the very BASIC criteria:

Should-- high speed figures in recent races, acceptable form, solid trainer/jockey combo, running style fits the race, likes the distance, good class move

Might--fits most of the above factors but probably is deficient in one, two, or three of the categories....has some positives, but enough negatives to bring the odds up

Can't--obviously poor in most categories.


Some races have no "can't" horses.....I usually pass. If my "should" horses are way stronger than anyone else,....I usually pass.

I like races where the "might" types have a legitimate chance and the odds are up over 6-1, preferably much higher. They can be bet to win or win/place or in exotics with the "should" horses.

[TurfRuler]

What exactly is the definition of a "past performance handicapper?"

One who does not know the backend of a thoroughbred from the front and has never ridden a horse. One who has never met a jockey and does not care too. One who does not know what a trainer does. One who only has ink on their hands from reading and re-reading the form. One who has read almost every book on the art of handicapping from Ainslies to Beyer to Quinn. One who believes that he understands form and seven days away is the gold card of selection. One who believes that class is how far a thoroughbred can run under any condition under any amount of weight and goes faster than the proverbial speeding bullet. One who believes that stamina is related to the color of the thoroughbred, black preferably with a flowing mane and flaying nostril. One who plays and plays, gets excited time after time until the one he selects fades to the back of the pack. All the time wondering what went wrong when all the computing and his scribbles shows that he is wrong again in making his pick from reading the past performance charts.

[Tom]

Nope. Wrong answer.
You think the only people qualified to bet horses have shit on their boots?

[TurfRuler]

You think the only people qualified to bet horses have shit on their boots?

Sure Tom this qualifies as an answer also. I would add that they don't even know that thoroughbreds shit, you can't smell it on the form.

[asH]

all information is viable if you know how to use it...

[jonnielu]

Nope. Wrong answer.
You think the only people qualified to bet horses have shit on their boots?

Considering that they often know the ability of the horse much better then what the past performance handicapper can divine, they are often emmensely qualified to bet. If the past performance handicapper could learn to think and evaluate like a trainer, instead of a apprentice rocket scientist, the competition could be a bit more even.

jdl

[Charlie D]

Considering that they often know the ability of the horse much better then what the past performance handicapper can divine, they are often emmensely qualified to bet. If the past performance handicapper could learn to think and evaluate like a trainer, instead of a apprentice rocket scientist, the competition could be a bit more even.

jdl



If they know the ability of the horse why do so many enter them in races where they have not much chance of winning or placing???

[asH]

jd

some trainers make horrible decisions..I feel you have to think better than they do, or at least in sync..how bout Jerkins using that kid Turner to race his high priced horses, what nonsense, I passed on them every time.

[jonnielu]

If they know the ability of the horse why do so many enter them in races where they have not much chance of winning or placing???

There could be several reasons:

1. They may still be trying to determine the horses ability.

2. They may be training for another distance.

3. They may be working the horse in general, under these conditions for reasons that don't make sense to you today because you don't know what the goal is.

4. They may be obscuring the ability.

5. They may be an incompetent wanker.

6. They may be responding to the lunatic ravings of a maniacal owner.

If you had a handle on the ability of the horse, you might be able to get a clearer idea of which of these reasons are at play.

If, at face value, the trainer appears to be making a dumb move, I would double think it, if the trainer in question was not a known dumbass. The reason for the apparent stupid move may well be that the trainer knows his horse has great chances, when to you, it looks like a sure loser.

This is a situation that the competent, knowledgeable trainer enjoys. Not the bread and butter, but it is a heapin' helpin' of gravy.

[jonnielu]

jd

some trainers make horrible decisions..I feel you have to think better than they do, or at least in sync..how bout Jerkins using that kid Turner to race his high priced horses, what nonsense, I passed on them every time.

My old saying is "no matter the ability of the horse, if a known idiot climbs aboard, take a trip to the hot dog stand."

jdl

[Charlie D]

Jonnie

There seems to be plenty of "MAY" in your post


They do the stuff you state because they have no idea what they have, it is only by racing ability is proven


Go look at a PP and you'll see who belongs and who does not, no magic, no inside knowledge

The majority of races can be narrowed down to 3 or 4 in contenders in minutes

[Tom]

Considering that they often know the ability of the horse much better then what the past performance handicapper can divine, they are often emmensely qualified to bet. If the past performance handicapper could learn to think and evaluate like a trainer, instead of a apprentice rocket scientist, the competition could be a bit more even.

jdl

And many them couldn't train a fly to land on poop. Dream your little dreams, standing in poop and looking at horses is not required to be a winner. But if you need to convince yourself your are something special, have at it. Take all the $3.40 horses your need! :lol::lol::lol:

[Charlie D]

Jonnie, this is the result of Joe public being able to narrow races down in minutes



You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20

How is that going to get anyone excited about the game? 17 races over two days, and an average winner paying $5.69. That is little more than getting a blackjack in the casino!

This isn't to pick on Woodbine. It happens around the country. Of course it doesn't happen every day. It does happen often enough to think these racing secretaries need to put on some more competitive races.

[JohnGalt1]

Whatever one uses, it's how data is inerpreted.

Using the DRF--

Which paceline and/or how many pacelines do you use?

Make your own speed/pace figs?

Which races should the breeding take prcedence?

What trainer stat is msot relevent to this race?

I'm sure you can think of other information in the Form to add to this list.

The general public gets 33% winning favorites, but we will get higher odds because of the different ways of interpreting the data, and if we can find no other horse but the 6-5 favorite we can pass or use it in the pick 3s, 4s, and sixes, etc.

[jonnielu]

Jonnie, this is the result of Joe public being able to narrow races down in minutes

Oh yeah, Joe Public is all over it. Why doesn't he play AP online and knock the crap out of the prices there?

jdl

[Charlie D]

I presume you mean Arlington Park

May 2nd to Sept 14th

Post time fav 31%
3-1 or less 51%
7-2 - 9-1 35%
10-1 and up 12.9%


Looks to me like Joe is knocking crap out of it

[turfnsport]

Considering that they often know the ability of the horse much better then what the past performance handicapper can divine, they are often emmensely qualified to bet. If the past performance handicapper could learn to think and evaluate like a trainer, instead of a apprentice rocket scientist, the competition could be a bit more even.

jdl

In 15 years of interviewing a hundred or so trainers and employing several, I can't think of a group LESS "emmensely" qualified to bet. (with a few rare exceptions).

[raybo]

In 15 years of interviewing a hundred or so trainers and employing several, I can't think of a group LESS "emmensely" qualified to bet. (with a few rare exceptions).

I agree. I know or have known several over the years and what I've found is that they, almost universally, tend to over-value their own entries. Probably an ego thing, wanting to appear as though they have some sort of special talent other trainers lack. Several times I've handicapped races before chatting with them and upon hearing that I don't have any confidence in their entries in a race under discussion, they get very adamant about their predictions. Funny, after their horse doesn't perform, as they said, there seems to always be some reason for the bad performance, it's never a case of them being wrong.

Still, it is valuable to know their intent in such races, it helps to know that at least one entry is in the race to win.

[jonnielu]

I agree. I know or have known several over the years and what I've found is that they, almost universally, tend to over-value their own entries. Probably an ego thing, wanting to appear as though they have some sort of special talent other trainers lack. Several times I've handicapped races before chatting with them and upon hearing that I don't have any confidence in their entries in a race under discussion, they get very adamant about their predictions. Funny, after their horse doesn't perform, as they said, there seems to always be some reason for the bad performance, it's never a case of them being wrong.

Still, it is valuable to know their intent in such races, it helps to know that at least one entry is in the race to win.

It sounds like the percentage of competent to incompetent could be about the same for trainers and handicappers.

I don't believe that I ever said all trainers are competent, what I said was that they are more likely to have an upper hand in determining the ability of the horse as compared to the past performance handicapper. The competent trainer can often take advantage of that.

Underestimating the competition in the wagering arena can be a bad habit to develop, not understanding who the competition is can be worse.

An incompetent trainer may do just as poor a job of it as the incompetent handicapper does.

jdl

[jonnielu]

I presume you mean Arlington Park

May 2nd to Sept 14th

Post time fav 31%
3-1 or less 51%
7-2 - 9-1 35%
10-1 and up 12.9%


Looks to me like Joe is knocking crap out of it

Seems to me that Joe is only half right on the same chalky half as everybody else, as he overbets the short half and underbets the long half, as usual. This could suggest that Joe has started on a vast project, with half-vast ideas.

Looks like if he simply bet the opposite of his coleagues in futility, he would have a potential for 50% winners at an average of 5 - 1.

Of course, Joe likes the complex, since he fancies himself as smarter then everyone else while he does the same thing that the rest of the herd is doing.

P.S. While you are at it, let me know if that average payout comes out around 4-1. And then see if it is the same at Woodbine.

jdl

[turfnsport]

I don't believe that I ever said all trainers are competent, what I said was that they are more likely to have an upper hand in determining the ability of the horse as compared to the past performance handicapper. The competent trainer can often take advantage of that.

jdl

No, you said, "they are often emmensely qualified to bet."...That could not be farther from the truth.

[jonnielu]

No, you said, "they are often emmensely qualified to bet."...That could not be farther from the truth.

Maybe you are drawing conclusions from a poor group of 3 trainers.

jdl

[Greyfox]

Maybe you are drawing conclusions from a poor group of 3 trainers.

jdl

jonnielu, I don't know how you can read the DRF, when you can't even read the posts in this forum. The man said:
In 15 years of interviewing a hundred or so trainers and employing several, I can't think of a group LESS "emmensely" qualified to bet. (with a few rare exceptions).

[asH]

A trainer may know his horse, and conclude the horse should run well for a given day but, how many trainers handicap the competition with the same objectivity, first and foremost for trainers race conditions (NW1,Cl..)...for that mater how many jocks handicap their races with vigor... these days I believe very few...- jock/trainer connections offer value through shared objectives and familiarity

[Tom]

What happens when three trainers in the race are "going today?"

[ranchwest]

What happens when three trainers in the race are "going today?"

Gee, you get 33% winners? I wonder where I heard that number before.

[ranchwest]

What exactly is the definition of a "past performance handicapper?"

Jonnielu, would you care to elaborate?

5 pages and nobody really answered the question.

I think there's at least 5 types of handicpappers:

1) Past performance handicappers rely primarily on the printed past performances.

2) Derivative handicappers use the past performance data and enhance it to come up with a different view -- speed, pace, etc.

3) Developed data handicappers get data from books, databases, etc. to view data not in past performances.

4) Visual handicappers rely primarily on physicality handicapping.

5) Random "handicappers" pick horse colors, silks, jockey names, post numbers, whatever.

[turfnsport]

Maybe you are drawing conclusions from a poor group of 3 trainers.

jdl


jonnielu, I don't know how you can read the DRF, when you can't even read the posts in this forum. The man said:
In 15 years of interviewing a hundred or so trainers and employing several, I can't think of a group LESS "emmensely" qualified to bet. (with a few rare exceptions).

Apperantly, Jon is not much of a "figures" guy.

[jonnielu]

A trainer may know his horse, and conclude the horse should run well for a given day but, how many trainers handicap the competition with the same objectivity, first and foremost for trainers race conditions (NW1,Cl..)...for that mater how many jocks handicap their races with vigor... these days I believe very few...- jock/trainer connections offer value through shared objectives and familiarity

I thought I was supposed to be the arrogant one.

jdl

[Charlie D]

Seems to me that Joe is only half right on the same chalky half as everybody else, as he overbets the short half and underbets the long half, as usual. This could suggest that Joe has started on a vast project, with half-vast ideas.

Looks like if he simply bet the opposite of his coleagues in futility, he would have a potential for 50% winners at an average of 5 - 1.

Of course, Joe likes the complex, since he fancies himself as smarter then everyone else while he does the same thing that the rest of the herd is doing.

P.S. While you are at it, let me know if that average payout comes out around 4-1. And then see if it is the same at Woodbine.

jdl



Jonnie

Actually it's nearer 52% (48% other) and i think that shows you Joe ain't as dumb as your trying to make him/her to be


RE: average, why do you need that?? The stats posted are a better guide to what's what at AP than an average


Anyway, i think this is taking your thread of track a bit, so i'll leave you to it

[asH]

I thought I was supposed to be the arrogant one.

jdl

not arrogance, conclusions based on observations...if the observations are wrong my conclusions are wrong, and my handicapping analysis is wrong...checks and balances always

[Tom]

Gee, you get 33% winners? I wonder where I heard that number before.

:lol: :1: / :3:

[jonnielu]

not arrogance, conclusions based on observations...if the observations are wrong my conclusions are wrong, and my handicapping analysis is wrong...checks and balances always

What about the observation of the PP goat winning by 4 easily? Is that an accident everytime, orchestrated by a total dumbass that can't find his face in the mirror.

An individual that also often thinks you are an idiot trying to calculate a variable product. If they do know any tricks of the trade, do you actually expect that they would make sure that you are filled in? Especially when it is so much fun to throw wrenches in the gears of your calculations and laugh at you scratching your head.


jdl

[jonnielu]

Jonnie

Actually it's nearer 52% (48% other) and i think that shows you Joe ain't as dumb as your trying to make him/her to be


RE: average, why do you need that?? The stats posted are a better guide to what's what at AP than an average


Anyway, i think this is taking your thread of track a bit, so i'll leave you to it

What? You want to quit just because Joe is missing the larger group of longer prices?

P.S. If the average payout was 4-1 in 1970, and it is still 4-1, that would mean that the past performance handicapper has learned nary a thing.

jdl

[Charlie D]

What? You want to quit just because Joe is missing the larger group of longer prices?

P.S. If the average payout was 4-1 in 1970, and it is still 4-1, that would mean that the past performance handicapper has learned nary a thing.

jdl


Jonnie

Other 48%

35% of those less than 9-1 ok

Conclusion: just like in UK, the majority of winners come from first 3 or 4 in betting and you don't need a degree in rocket science to work it out

[jonnielu]

Jonnie

Other 48%

35% of those less than 9-1 ok

Conclusion: just like in UK, the majority of winners come from first 3 or 4 in betting and you don't need a degree in rocket science to work it out

A small change in perspective has you on the other consistency that pays better, that way you can make mistakes without losing your ass, because you are not a rocket scientist, not that they play the better odds either.

jdl

[Charlie D]

A small change in perspective has you on the other consistency that pays better, that way you can make mistakes without losing your ass, because you are not a rocket scientist, not that they play the better odds either.

jdl


Jonnie


4 X 3-1 pays exactly the same as 12-1

[Charlie D]

While your waiting for your longshots to come along Jonnie, those betting in all price ranges are coining it on the evens, 2-1, 4-1, 6-1 pokes etc



Keep waiting for the longshots imo

[jonnielu]

Jonnie


4 X 3-1 pays exactly the same as 12-1

Right, so you would rather chase 40% thinking that you are smarter then everybody else, one mistake, and the day is a loser, rather then just take the lazy man's 10%.

But, if you really want to play Joe's game, and beat Joe doing it, just take the one out of the top 4 that Joe let's go. That is the one that is higher then its ML.
At least that way you can still follow Joe mostly and pickup his mistakes, which are his underbets instead of his overbets. Then you can still come out at 25%.

jdl

[jonnielu]

While your waiting for your longshots to come along Jonnie, those betting in all price ranges are coining it on the evens, 2-1, 4-1, 6-1 pokes etc



Keep waiting for the longshots imo

They come along everyday, as your figures show.

I don't see the chalk lovers doing much above 4-1, above that, you are getting into negative PP's.

jdl

[Charlie D]

While your waiting for your big price hit, these guys are coining it in


Many successful horseplayers who I have met use multiple spot plays

[Charlie D]

Right, so you would rather chase 40% thinking that you are smarter then everybody else, one mistake, and the day is a loser, rather then just take the lazy man's 10%.

But, if you really want to play Joe's game, and beat Joe doing it, just take the one out of the top 4 that Joe let's go. That is the one that is higher then its ML.
At least that way you can still follow Joe mostly and pickup his mistakes, which are his underbets instead of his overbets. Then you can still come out at 25%.

jdl


What i do Jonnie is try to find horses whose probability of winning is higher than the odds offered


These exist in ALL price ranges

[Charlie D]

Here is a guy betting Jonnie, he bets when he thinks the odds offered are generous

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2350573/Findlay%27s-life-is-one-big-gamble.html

[jonnielu]

Here is a guy betting Jonnie, he bets when he thinks the odds offered are generous

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2350573/Findlay%27s-life-is-one-big-gamble.html

I find that most guys will build a method around their style and/or personality to a point that suits. I think everyone should.

The probability of winning is what it is all about, and that is what the difference of opinion is. Sometimes, I find 2-1 generous, and still turn up my nose. That's me. Sometimes the 10-1 does not reflect the actual probability of winning as one might expect, that is horse racing.

jdl

[Charlie D]

I find that most guys will build a method around their style and/or personality to a point that suits. I think everyone should.

The probability of winning is what it is all about, and that is what the difference of opinion is. Sometimes, I find 2-1 generous, and still turn up my nose. That's me. Sometimes the 10-1 does not reflect the actual probability of winning as one might expect, that is horse racing.

jdl


Don't understand why someone would do this tbh, these are probably good investments your identifying, but for some reason your not investing in them

[Tom]

P.S. If the average payout was 4-1 in 1970, and it is still 4-1, that would mean that the past performance handicapper has learned nary a thing.

jdl

Your incorrect assumption is that the PP handicappers account for that.
Most people at the track don't even have PPs. It also means you are talking about groups of people, not individuals, and we all know, or at least those us us who understand numbers, the average does not apply to any individual.

But don' t give up hope, your number aversion may be cured - I hear the y are coming out with digital numbers next year. That could help.

[asH]

What about the observation of the PP goat winning by 4 easily? Is that an accident everytime, orchestrated by a total dumbass that can't find his face in the mirror.

An individual that also often thinks you are an idiot trying to calculate a variable product. If they do know any tricks of the trade, do you actually expect that they would make sure that you are filled in? Especially when it is so much fun to throw wrenches in the gears of your calculations and laugh at you scratching your head.


jdl

the bigger the purse the less likely the possibility of your scenerio..there are situations to avoid, and situations where horses run better to form

[jonnielu]

Don't understand why someone would do this tbh, these are probably good investments your identifying, but for some reason your not investing in them

It is just the difference in fundamental beliefs between me and you. Not to say either is better or worse, but suitable to the individual that holds them. I understand the perspective, I have been around several players that I would call masters at betting what I call short-priced horses. I don't agree that I'd make it look as good if I were wearing it though. It suits them and they made it work for them, I say long may they run. I learned what I needed to to make my perspective work for me too.

Many believe that there is one best horse in the race, and that the best way to identify that horse is through past performance handicapping. I believe that there are three best horses in the race, and that the best way to identify them is through an accurate measurement of the ability to run.

In the old days, I would tell you that there are three best horses in the race and I could only tell you that two of them are amongst the 4 top ML. The other one is just out there, and most often completely obscured by negative past performances.

I was already regarded as some kind of a nut for saying that there are three best horses in the race, so I figured it couldn't damage my reputation to wrap my entire point of view around seeing the horse that is just out there. The idea was that the path to understanding why and how this horse wins consistently, would take me to the kind of horse racing education that I wanted. It fit me, like a glove.

But, you are right, to a great degree, it all comes out in the wash. If you are a unit ahead on a daily basis, you are a consistent winner, that is the significant victory, not so much how it is done.

jdl

[jonnielu]

the bigger the purse the less likely the possibility of your scenerio..there are situations to avoid, and situations where horses run better to form

You are talking about the difference between top class racing and what I call everyday racing. Yes, there are differences to the extent that the two should be looked at through differing spectacles. But, the other horse is always there too. Sometimes, the high-class events make the idiot trainer look not so stupid after all. And, maybe a drawing for the $5,000 claimers.


jdl

[jonnielu]

Your incorrect assumption is that the PP handicappers account for that.
Most people at the track don't even have PPs. It also means you are talking about groups of people, not individuals, and we all know, or at least those us us who understand numbers, the average does not apply to any individual.

But don' t give up hope, your number aversion may be cured - I hear the y are coming out with digital numbers next year. That could help.

Maybe it is just me Tom, but I don't see too many individuals out there. I keep my antennae out too.

jdl

[asH]

Can you give me an example of this happening in the last 4 days at Bel. If a race has me puzzled I will find the reason… This approach has led me away from conventional acceptance of "the outcome", and to a scientific/logical approach. In your scenario, if a PP goat does win by 4 easily, I can test my perceived view of how the others should have done against how they did do, seeking conformation. After confirming my analysis of the outcome of the field, I can then move to the goat, to see what I may or may not have missed. I used to also accept the unknown as the unknowable, until I realized (along with other things) someone built the Pyramids’ to an accuracy of less than 1%...handicapping has to be far easier than that:D

[Tom]

Maybe it is just me Tom, but I don't see too many individuals out there. I keep my antennae out too.

jdl

There's one attached to every cup of beer.

[asH]

should have been- Accuracy of better than .05%...I hate when I do that

[asH]

jd

Today at Belmont, 4 0f 6 in the PK6 4 of 4 in late pk 4 ..2nd in the 4th, 2nd and 3rd in the 6th , check the selections sections of PA for my picks and terse analysis...analysis of 4th was right on, 6th race Defereroftheheart ran beyond my perceived perception of his ability, I wasnt surprised, only because I didnt believe what I saw in my analysis of him..BTW Flash of Victory was my key with No more Green in the 6th..but I will go back and reevaluate what I wrongly perceived about that one, and the others.

[ranchwest]

There's one attached to every cup of beer.

Well, I like the spirit of your post, Tom, but when they're two-fisting it or playing stack the empty cups I'd say that the beer out numbers the individuals. But, I get what you're saying. :)

[jonnielu]

jd

Today at Belmont, 4 0f 6 in the PK6 4 of 4 in late pk 4 ..2nd in the 4th, 2nd and 3rd in the 6th , check the selections sections of PA for my picks and terse analysis...analysis of 4th was right on, 6th race Defereroftheheart ran beyond my perceived perception of his ability, I wasnt surprised, only because I didnt believe what I saw in my analysis of him..BTW Flash of Victory was my key with No more Green in the 6th..but I will go back and reevaluate what I wrongly perceived about that one, and the others.

Your analysis is good, I'd like to go over the whole card with you if you don't mind. Defereroftheheart, was my win bet in the 5th, and March to Victory in the 6th (2nd 11.20). Joppa Flat's was very obvious, but too low to win bet. The 4th is an excellent example of my point in this thread, no Tom, I didn't bet the $90.00 horse, it was my 4th contender and I am cutting off at three for a win/P3 bet.

But, that winner is a good example of why your perspective should be broadened, if you are the type of player that can work well with that much latitude. It shows why a player should attempt to develop skill at broadening and narrowing the point of view according to the race at hand.

jdl

[asH]

Your analysis is good, I'd like to go over the whole card with you if you don't mind. Defereroftheheart, was my win bet in the 5th, and March to Victory in the 6th (2nd 11.20). Joppa Flat's was very obvious, but too low to win bet. The 4th is an excellent example of my point in this thread, no Tom, I didn't bet the $90.00 horse, it was my 4th contender and I am cutting off at three for a win/P3 bet.

But, that winner is a good example of why your perspective should be broadened, if you are the type of player that can work well with that much latitude. It shows why a player should attempt to develop skill at broadening and narrowing the point of view according to the race at hand.

jdl


jd
that $90 winner figured too, the horse was entered twice on turf and both times was rained off the turf, BUT, saying all that, the race was Umbra's to lose, and he showed he was probably the best. If not for Umbra's mishap early very good chance he wins. I am willing to take a stance; bet the best horse I feel will win under the race scenario I feel will meet today's race, it just so happens Umbra had to run a damn near perfect race to win, because as I surmised; was a really really good turf MSW field... high chance a key race

I find value in cheap pk 3's and 4's single tickets at multiple bets..win bet as a saver, a big pk 3 single ticket would probably be $8 2 x 2 X 2...I love to find singles, and am proud of my 1X 1X 1 tickets...good card at Belmont today...

[jonnielu]

jd
that $90 winner figured too, the horse was entered twice on turf and both times was rained off the turf, BUT, saying all that, the race was Umbra's to lose, and he showed he was probably the best. If not for Umbra's mishap early very good chance he wins. I am willing to take a stance; bet the best horse I feel will win under the race scenario I feel will meet today's race, it just so happens Umbra had to run a damn near perfect race to win, because as I surmised; was a really really good turf MSW field... high chance a key race

I find value in cheap pk 3's and 4's single tickets at multiple bets..win bet as a saver, a big pk 3 single ticket would probably be $8 2 x 2 X 2...I love to find singles, and am proud of my 1X 1X 1 tickets...good card at Belmont today...

Well, it sounds like you have it down pretty well.

jdl

[cmoore]

Your analysis is good, I'd like to go over the whole card with you if you don't mind. Defereroftheheart, was my win bet in the 5th, and March to Victory in the 6th (2nd 11.20). Joppa Flat's was very obvious, but too low to win bet. The 4th is an excellent example of my point in this thread, no Tom, I didn't bet the $90.00 horse, it was my 4th contender and I am cutting off at three for a win/P3 bet.

But, that winner is a good example of why your perspective should be broadened, if you are the type of player that can work well with that much latitude. It shows why a player should attempt to develop skill at broadening and narrowing the point of view according to the race at hand.

jdl

I had that $90 winner and the exacta in the pick thread...

[JBmadera]

oops, wrong thread

[raybo]

One who does not know the backend of a thoroughbred from the front and has never ridden a horse. One who has never met a jockey and does not care too. One who does not know what a trainer does. One who only has ink on their hands from reading and re-reading the form. One who has read almost every book on the art of handicapping from Ainslies to Beyer to Quinn. One who believes that he understands form and seven days away is the gold card of selection. One who believes that class is how far a thoroughbred can run under any condition under any amount of weight and goes faster than the proverbial speeding bullet. One who believes that stamina is related to the color of the thoroughbred, black preferably with a flowing mane and flaying nostril. One who plays and plays, gets excited time after time until the one he selects fades to the back of the pack. All the time wondering what went wrong when all the computing and his scribbles shows that he is wrong again in making his pick from reading the past performance charts.

I beg to differ with your assessment of what a "past performance handicapper" is. Simply stated, a PP handicapper is one that uses, as his primary source of information, past performances of all horses under analysis. That said, being a PP handicapper doesn't mean that the Daily Racing Form is his Bible. PPs come in many forms. Many of the PP handicappers use data files containing the PPs and their uses of this data varies immensely. You seem to think that we look at only the last 10 races that a horse has run. Many here look at every race a horse has run in it's lifetime. A horse's ability and progress/maturity cannot be hidden from these handicappers. Simply walking out to the paddock and viewing the horses in a race yields no value in determining their ability to be successful in this race. It may yield an estimation of the race readiness of a horse or 2 in the race in question, but that doesn't mean that the viewer is, in any way, prepared to predict the outcome of the race. A horse or 2 that are truly ready to race may not be able to compete against others in the race who are not nearly as ready to race. Only through handicapping every horse in the race, by means of past performances which reveal each horse's ability against all the competition it has faced, can one truly determine their chances against the competition in the race under analysis.

[ranchwest]

5 pages and nobody really answered the question.

I think there's at least 5 types of handicpappers:

1) Past performance handicappers rely primarily on the printed past performances.

2) Derivative handicappers use the past performance data and enhance it to come up with a different view -- speed, pace, etc.

3) Developed data handicappers get data from books, databases, etc. to view data not in past performances.

4) Visual handicappers rely primarily on physicality handicapping.

5) Random "handicappers" pick horse colors, silks, jockey names, post numbers, whatever.

I left off

6) Tote board handicappers, who focus mostly on the money changes on the board