what's wrong with reading the racing form?

[redeye007]

It seems that lately there are is a multitude of software programs that all use the bris or tsn $1 data file. Using prime power, pace figures, etc, they probably all come up with the same plays. Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together. Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.

[jonnielu]

It seems that lately there are is a multitude of software programs that all use the bris or tsn $1 data file. Using prime power, pace figures, etc, they probably all come up with the same plays. Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together. Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.

It is all attaching a positive/negative value to various factors. For racing form reading, you are trained to assign various values to various factors.

With software, it is programed with various values assigned to various factors, other softwares, you plug in the values and factors.

For either discipline, you need to know what values to assign to what factors. You can learn that from an open minded study of racing itself, anything else is tainted with some other individuals perspective as to the value of factors.

As with anything else, it is often found with horse racing that there are many ways to skin a cat, an examination of the successful will usually reveal that they built their own method from the same common components, but, with a design that suits and reflects their individual strengths.

jdl

[acorn54]

It seems that lately there are is a multitude of software programs that all use the bris or tsn $1 data file. Using prime power, pace figures, etc, they probably all come up with the same plays. Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together. Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.



i think alot of it is the fun of seeing a computer machine spit out a selection .
it's a toy.
and it's fun to play with. a computer is an invention in search of looking for a purpose in alot of cases. take the finances people do on a computer when just balancing a checkbook by hand is alot less involved.

[ryesteve]

Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.I don't think anyone ever said it didn't. If anything, there are more anti-software people here than there are anti-DRF people here.

[JustRalph]

It seems that lately there are is a multitude of software programs that all use the bris or tsn $1 data file. Using prime power, pace figures, etc, they probably all come up with the same plays. Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together. Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.

All you do with this post is show your ignorance of software. Nothing more.

Try this one............ I don't even read a form or pp's at all.......unless something weird comes up............I don't need it.

[Robert Fischer]

It is all attaching a positive/negative value to various factors. For racing form reading, you are trained to assign various values to various factors.
good way to put it

[cmoore]

All you do with this post is show your ignorance of software. Nothing more.

Try this one............ I don't even read a form or pp's at all.......unless something weird comes up............I don't need it.

or have you just gotten lazy!!!:eek:

[Tom Barrister]

All you do with this post is show your ignorance of software. Nothing more.

Try this one............ I don't even read a form or pp's at all.......unless something weird comes up............I don't need it.

The poster is entitled to an opinion, without you being rude to him/her.

I don't read the form OR use handicapping software at all, and I win.

There are many different paths to winning (and losing).

[ranchwest]

It seems that lately there are is a multitude of software programs that all use the bris or tsn $1 data file. Using prime power, pace figures, etc, they probably all come up with the same plays. Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together. Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.

It's all data and all the data has basically the same origin, Equibase charts. Whether the data is printed or viewed on a computer screen isn't really significant.

If you write your own software, you can view the data the way you want to view it rather than the way someone else wants you to view it.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does anyone print out the software results then take it to the track/OTB with you to adjust for last minute changes? What individual race considerations are taken in by the software, such as the mix of competitiors' numbers or expected pace? Pace is what seems like the TV pickers seem to comment on a lot.

[ranchwest]

Does anyone print out the software results then take it to the track/OTB with you to adjust for last minute changes? What individual race considerations are taken in by the software, such as the mix of competitiors' numbers or expected pace? Pace is what seems like the TV pickers seem to comment on a lot.

When I go to live races, I mostly depend on physicality. I definitely bring my printouts with me to give me clues as to the history of the horses. It is also essential to know what type of race I'm looking at.

I don't consider software output to ever be "gospel". It's a bit like going across town in a big city. There's a lot of ways to travel and you have to adapt to current situations to choose the best route.

[Tom]

Many people wouldn't looks at a form it was free ( which it ain't!)
The data in the form is basic - much of it useless.

I encourage everyone to use the form and nothing more.;)

[andymays]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bc0WjTT0Ps

I don’t always read the Past Performances but when I do I prefer the DRF! :ThmbUp:

[OverlayHunter]

what's wrong with reading the racing form?
It seems that lately there are is a multitude of software programs that all use the bris or tsn $1 data file. Using prime power, pace figures, etc, they probably all come up with the same plays. Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together. Handicapping the old fashioned way by studying the racing form may have it's benefits.

While I am very involved in the computer end of handicapping, I very much enjoy looking at PP's whether from DRF or TSN. Though I tend to look at the Form for recreational wagers, I still believe there is a lot of benefit to understanding PP's as one perspective towards understanding the output of at least some of the software that's available and valuable.

Computer 'capping can certainly uncover more opportunities with less time and effort but I still believe there's a place for the PP's - even if they are not part of my every day handicappping life.

[Robert Fischer]

Players come in all varieties and they have a variety of different goals and perspectives. Different players want to get different things out of the game. The approach you take for handicapping should be tailored to fulfill your interests and goals, and even that is a tough statement because it such a customization would imply a basic level of insight.

[broadreach]

I don't read the form OR use handicapping software at all, and I win.

Tom, without doing either, how would you know a 8/5 shot should really be say, 4/1? Knowing this would affect any form of investment on the race.

[markgoldie]

I'm a bit reluctant to chime in because we have been over this ground before in different threads. But anyway, to redeye007:

One of the main reasons players use software programs is to look at many different races quickly. It's a big time saver and if you have the proper filters, you can crunch over a hundred races in the blink of an eye which would take hours and hours by reading all the pp's.

The other key point, and maybe more importantly is that virtually EVERYTHING that you take into consideration when looking at the program can be reduced to numbers. In fact, it is HIGHLY beneficial to do so. Otherwise, you have these vague impressions of nuanced shadings in your head which are NEVER uniformly applied to the given race. Precise data mining can isolate these nuanced effects. For example (and there are literally hundreds of these), what's more important, a switch to a better jockey or the fact that the horse has been inactive for 50 days? Pace matchups? Sure. What's better? A favorable pace matchup or returning to a favorable distance or track surface? Do your "feelings" based on experience tell you the exact answer? I doubt it.

In fact, reducing many nuances to numbers gives the programmed bettor a clear and decided edge. Now. There ARE some things that cannot be programmed. The poster who talked about the appearance of horses in the paddock and on the track. A man sitting in front of his computer won't have that information. Also, if you chart odds' movement, that is not amenable to programming. However, that being said, wouldn't you like to have precise and accurate figures BEFORE you embark on physical examinations or charting?

There is nothing wrong with anyone's approach if it works for them. But hopefully this will give you some idea of what programmed handicappers are trying to do.

Mark

[GameTheory]

Now. There ARE some things that cannot be programmed. The poster who talked about the appearance of horses in the paddock and on the track. A man sitting in front of his computer won't have that information. Also, if you chart odds' movement, that is not amenable to programming. However, that being said, wouldn't you like to have precise and accurate figures BEFORE you embark on physical examinations or charting?
Let me take this a bit further, second one first. I would MUCH rather do tote board charting via computer than by hand -- why can't you? It is just numbers like the rest. Much less error-prone that eyeballing it.

And as far as physicality, you can do a hybrid approach, much like a manual tote board charter would work, except you're charting horses. If you have a list of particular characteristics that you can give a yes or no answer to (or even a fuzzy value on a scale from 1-5 say), then you can mark these as flags in your computer program which will plug in impact values for you. For instance -- arched tail, yes; alert ears, yes; washy appearance, no, etc.

I actually have a handicapping book with photos of such things and associated impact values from numerous observations. Obviously you've got to do a ton of observation, but you can at least partially computerize this, just as you could enter "subjective" trip handicapping info from race replays into your db for future use. As long as you break things down into categories and are consistent (as possible) with how you grade things, you can quantify many such variables. Years ago I remember talking on this forum about a program I made that gleaned hard handicapping data solely from running line comments and actually showed a profit. There are nuggets in those areas that are difficult to quantify (but not impossible) that will reward those that do the work...

[ranchwest]

Let me take this a bit further, second one first. I would MUCH rather do tote board charting via computer than by hand -- why can't you? It is just numbers like the rest. Much less error-prone that eyeballing it.

And as far as physicality, you can do a hybrid approach, much like a manual tote board charter would work, except you're charting horses. If you have a list of particular characteristics that you can give a yes or no answer to (or even a fuzzy value on a scale from 1-5 say), then you can mark these as flags in your computer program which will plug in impact values for you. For instance -- arched tail, yes; alert ears, yes; washy appearance, no, etc.

I actually have a handicapping book with photos of such things and associated impact values from numerous observations. Obviously you've got to do a ton of observation, but you can at least partially computerize this, just as you could enter "subjective" trip handicapping info from race replays into your db for future use. As long as you break things down into categories and are consistent (as possible) with how you grade things, you can quantify many such variables. Years ago I remember talking on this forum about a program I made that gleaned hard handicapping data solely from running line comments and actually showed a profit. There are nuggets in those areas that are difficult to quantify (but not impossible) that will reward those that do the work...

I won't say that charting physicality is impossible, but I can't imagine it being very effective unless it were used for future reference.

There's usually only a few things that catch my eye as to the physicality of a horse, but it runs the gamut from horse to horse. I'll never forget a horse that was making a peculiar sound. I never heard that sound before or since, but if I ever hear it again, I'll empty my pockets.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I like writing stuff in the form so I can get a visual of a horse's performance.

I also always have a notebook and 10x50's with me.For you chartists,try a notebook sometime.It can do wonders;)

[jonnielu]

Does anyone print out the software results then take it to the track/OTB with you to adjust for last minute changes? What individual race considerations are taken in by the software, such as the mix of competitiors' numbers or expected pace? Pace is what seems like the TV pickers seem to comment on a lot.

That is because it is the best excuse for the pick not winning. A public handicapper has to release a pick that is made on maybe 70% of the needed information, with no way to get it back. You get the clearest picture of condition and intent on the track before the race.

The big question for handicapping is how many factors are there that are totally meaningless except for excuse making?

Today in the 3rd at Saratoga Mythical Pegasus made all of the handicapping meaningless for which will win by showing great condition and a strong desire to get involved in a horse race.

But, the only things you will find in the PP's are negative because the horse has been gone a long time. So what can the public handicapper say? Obviously, the track was sped up, or the race collapsed.

jdl

[magwell]

[QUOTE=. I'll never forget a horse that was making a peculiar sound. I never heard that sound before or since, but if I ever hear it again, I'll empty my pockets. R.W. I've only heard two horses make that sound in the paddock both on the way to the post parade, it was a squeal and they both won big, that is great music to all trainers when they hear a horse squeal around the barn .....:) ..

[kenwoodallpromos]

[QUOTE=. I'll never forget a horse that was making a peculiar sound. I never heard that sound before or since, but if I ever hear it again, I'll empty my pockets. R.W. I've only heard two horses make that sound in the paddock both on the way to the post parade, it was a squeal and they both won big, that is great music to all trainers when they hear a horse squeal around the barn .....:) ..
"Horse - MSN Encarta
Stallions challenge one another by competing in lengthy squealing contests; often a horse that squeals the longest is able to claim the superior position without physical combat.

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562654/Horse.html · Cached page"
If true, maybe the other horses and even jockeys know what it means!!

[Pace Cap'n]

[QUOTE=magwell]
"Horse - MSN Encarta
Stallions challenge one another by competing in lengthy squealing contests; often a horse that squeals the longest is able to claim the superior position without physical combat.

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562654/Horse.html · Cached page"
If true, maybe the other horses and even jockeys know what it means!!

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562654/Horse.html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562654/Horse.html)

[JustRalph]

The poster is entitled to an opinion, without you being rude to him/her.

I don't read the form OR use handicapping software at all, and I win.

There are many different paths to winning (and losing).

I wasn't rude Tom? He is ignorant of the software that is out there

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge or education. We are all Ignorant about something, lots of things in fact.

He said this:

Being purely mechanical these software programs seem to be incapable of judgemental decisions regarding the manuevering of trainers, interpreting comments and determining the condition of horses which can provide clues to putting the puzzle together

It's not true at all. There is some damn good stuff out there. And they do some of the things he says they can't, see above.

Condition can easily be determined by software............ comments can be intrepretated........... and they are not just "Mechanical" Lots of software is tuned to be much more than mechanical. The fact that he thinks it is purely mechanical is way off base. This implies Ignorance of the facts when it comes to the latest Handicapping software. End of story.

[andymays]

That is because it is the best excuse for the pick not winning. A public handicapper has to release a pick that is made on maybe 70% of the needed information, with no way to get it back. You get the clearest picture of condition and intent on the track before the race.

The big question for handicapping is how many factors are there that are totally meaningless except for excuse making?

Today in the 3rd at Saratoga Mythical Pegasus made all of the handicapping meaningless for which will win by showing great condition and a strong desire to get involved in a horse race.

But, the only things you will find in the PP's are negative because the horse has been gone a long time. So what can the public handicapper say? Obviously, the track was sped up, or the race collapsed.

jdl


I didn't bet Mythical Pegasus to win in the race but he's one of two I used in P3's and P4's (and I missed all) and here's why..

If you read the Form from the bottom up you will see that..

Mythical Pegasus had two races at Saratoga finishing 1st and 2nd in each and one or both were key races.

He then ran in 3 graded races in a row battling for the lead in two of three of those races.

He then switched Trainers to an arguably better Trainer and had a surface switch.

Then a route race where he was competetive at the same level.

All things considered at 11-1 he had competetive figures (if you look at figures) and raced against the strongest fields! The only other Colt to run in a grade 2 race was BZ Warrior and he lost by 26 lengths.

What's not to like if you read the DRF pp's from the bottom up(running lines) like you're supposed to?

It's time consuming to do this in every race but it keeps you from focusing all your attention on the last two races which can be misleading at times.

[kenwoodallpromos]

MP's mama won the Miss Preakness, asmong other stakes, daddy FP the KY Derby.

[KidCapper]

This thread is the very reason why I love this game so much. Everyone has an opinion on how the get the winner. Whether you're a form guy.. a computer player..love the beyers... swear by brisnet... use "lucky numbers"...have you're own program...or call the psychic hotline. It's my way vs. you're way for the cash. And the best way to sum it all up.....THEY DON'T ASK YOU HOW YA GOT THE WINNER WHEN YA CASH!!!!


Just my 2 cents from the KidCapper!
Good luck n good racing!

[Bochall]

You are exactly right bro. There is more than one way to skin a cat (although this cat has been gettin skinned badly at the Spa this summer!) I use DRF past performances because my eye is tuned into their format. However, the Form alone just isn't enough for me today. There is too much important data,IMO, that isn't in any pp's. Such as; Trainer X is deadly second off the layoff and moving up in class. What about Trainer Y who repeatedly scores with his babies form such and such an outfit....etc...

[Tom Barrister]

Tom, without doing either, how would you know a 8/5 shot should really be say, 4/1? Knowing this would affect any form of investment on the race.

Without getting into details, I study the replays, although it's not trip handicapping, per se. I combine that with visual inspection (as well as can be had from simulcasting) of the horse in the paddock, parade, and warmups.

[46zilzal]

SIMPLE too much irrelevant information, after a few relevant factors, all that extra is all unnecessary

[Pell Mell]

SIMPLE too much irrelevant information, after a few relevant factors, all that extra is all unnecessary

Never thought I'd agree with 46:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[bisket]

I like writing stuff in the form so I can get a visual of a horse's performance.

I also always have a notebook and 10x50's with me.For you chartists,try a notebook sometime.It can do wonders;)
cincy do you use formulator. if not try it!!

[bisket]

a couple thoughts that came to mind while reading through the thread.
andy i always look back at pps after a race when a horse wins that i didn't think would be there, and i kicked myself for missing mythical pegusis' class

knowing what the odds should be for each horse after looking through pps is very helpful tool in deciding what to bet on a race. i just love it when i see something the public missed

[andymays]

a couple thoughts that came to mind while reading through the thread.
andy i always look back at pps after a race when a horse wins that i didn't think would be there, and i kicked myself for missing mythical pegusis' class

knowing what the odds should be for each horse after looking through pps is very helpful tool in deciding what to bet on a race. i just love it when i see something the public missed


It's a time consuming pain in the ass but you have to read the pp's from the bottom up and have a process for doing so while making notations and marks along the way. I use a red micro point pen the day before and the next day I use a blue micro point pen to note anything I missed the day before.

You are correct in looking back after a Horse wins to see what you missed but 20 years ago I decided that I needed a way to find the clues before the race was over! The reading of the running lines from the bottom up (process) and making notations is the only way to do it that I know of where you won't miss anything!

6-8 hours per card to do it right. That's with video replays and workout analysis on day 2!

[bisket]

i use formulator, but the first thing i do is print each race with actual times of the race.(the ones you always see in the form) i'll first look at these to see what horses stick out to me. this is what i analyze: what races were they running in and how they faired in those races. (class), look to see if theres a pattern to their beyers, recent workouts and their pattern. when looking at works i take particular attention to the amount of days it takes a horse to work after his last race. longer than 14 days raises a red flag that possibly the horse didn't come out of the race all that well. how the horse faired at this distance in the past. then i go back to the pps online to see what the horses split times are in each race. comparing them to the actual times of the race.

so basically at first look; i look for class, distance, current form: i use beyer patterns, workout schedule, and how the horse faired in his last two races to analyze current form. i do look at all of a horses races even from two years ago to see what a horse is capable of. this is what i missed with pegusis :bang:
then i use the formulator pps on the internet to analyze what the pace will most likely be by looking at all the horses opening 1/4 and 1/2 times. and of course i analyze the horse i'm looking at and how he fits into that pace. i get the formulator package with replays, and if its a race that has a few that are close in ability i use the replays to try and seperate them.

[andymays]

i use formulator, but the first thing i do is print each race with actual times of the race.(the ones you always see in the form) i'll first look at these to see what horses stick out to me. this is what i analyze: what races were they running in and how they faired in those races. (class), look to see if theres a pattern to their beyers, recent workouts and their pattern. when looking at works i take particular attention to the amount of days it takes a horse to work after his last race. longer than 14 days raises a red flag that possibly the horse didn't come out of the race all that well. how the horse faired at this distance in the past. then i go back to the pps online to see what the horses split times are in each race. comparing them to the actual times of the race.

so basically at first look; i look for class, distance, current form: i use beyer patterns, workout schedule, and how the horse faired in his last two races to analyze current form. i do look at all of a horses races even from two years ago to see what a horse is capable of. this is what i missed with pegusis :bang:
then i use the formulator pps on the internet to analyze what the pace will most likely be by looking at all the horses opening 1/4 and 1/2 times. and of course i analyze the horse i'm looking at and how he fits into that pace. i get the formulator package with replays, and if its a race that has a few that are close in ability i use the replays to try and seperate them.


Whatever process you use it's important that you don't take shortcuts.

I know when I rush through the processs I almost always miss something important.

But remember, the process needs to be efficient enough to gather all the clues before the race. Clues to a winner are useless after the race!

[bisket]

i've got a yellow highlighter, and red and blue marker. i've been capping for 30 years, and theres no way i'm replacing that experience and knowledge with a computer program!! i don't have time to cap races very frequently any more. mostly just weekends and big cards. what i enjoy most is trying to pick out the best three year old every year prior to the derby. i missed that one, but i hit a couple on sunday.

[Space Monkey]

Because I never seemed to have enough time to play, I made the mistake a short time ago to try to shorten the time it took to handicap. I tried different programs and wasn't satisfied. Then I subscribed to a pace program and found that if I incorporated it with the BRIS Ultimates it gave me a much better understanding of the race. I now get my contenders list from my pace program and then go to the BRIS form and u know what???? It takes me longer to handicap, but because of the upgrade in information, I'm doing much better lately. Bottom line:

THERE IS NO SHORTCUT TO SUCCESSFUL HANDICAPPING :)

[andymays]

One of the things I've noticed with people that rely too heavily on numbers(maybe sheet players) to come up with contenders is that it is more important to first know if the Horse is fit and ready to run to those numbers!

Going through the bottom up process is a way to determine if a contender is fit and ready to run his top number or thereabouts.

[bisket]

yes the most important question is not: is he/she the fastest horse?.... its: is he/she the fastest horse TODAY?

[andymays]

yes the most important question is not: is he/she the fastest horse?.... its: is he/she the fastest horse TODAY?



Will he/she be the fastest horse today given the distance, class, surface, post position, Jockey, Trainer, race shape, running style, and appearance on the track!

[Space Monkey]

One of the things I've noticed with people that rely too heavily on numbers(maybe sheet players) to come up with contenders is that it is more important to first know if the Horse is fit and ready to run to those numbers!
[QUOTE]

While I get my contenders list from my sheet, I still look at every horse in the form. While I am looking at my sheet, I always note a down or upward form cycle. 2nd or 3rd off layoff too. You can get a lot more than just pure speed #'s off a speed # sheet. Any handicapper that just relies on #'s is doomed.

[andymays]

One of the things I've noticed with people that rely too heavily on numbers(maybe sheet players) to come up with contenders is that it is more important to first know if the Horse is fit and ready to run to those numbers!
[QUOTE]

While I get my contenders list from my sheet, I still look at every horse in the form. While I am looking at my sheet, I always note a down or upward form cycle. 2nd or 3rd off layoff too. You can get a lot more than just pure speed #'s off a speed # sheet. Any handicapper that just relies on #'s is doomed.


I was referring to Ragozin sheets. I noticed sometimes Handicappers that use them will go with the best numbers without any consideration to any other handicapping factors.

[Space Monkey]

Agreed. Ragozin players are a different breed.

[jonnielu]

I didn't bet Mythical Pegasus to win in the race but he's one of two I used in P3's and P4's (and I missed all) and here's why..

If you read the Form from the bottom up you will see that..

Mythical Pegasus had two races at Saratoga finishing 1st and 2nd in each and one or both were key races.

He then ran in 3 graded races in a row battling for the lead in two of three of those races.

He then switched Trainers to an arguably better Trainer and had a surface switch.

Then a route race where he was competetive at the same level.

All things considered at 11-1 he had competetive figures (if you look at figures) and raced against the strongest fields! The only other Colt to run in a grade 2 race was BZ Warrior and he lost by 26 lengths.

What's not to like if you read the DRF pp's from the bottom up(running lines) like you're supposed to?

It's time consuming to do this in every race but it keeps you from focusing all your attention on the last two races which can be misleading at times.

That was my point in mentioning it, I don't like to consume all of that time, because in so doing I'll risk getting stuck on one horse instead of being able to openly evaluate the contenders for an edge, one on the other.

This is what I don't like about form handicapping, you do it for the sole purpose of evaluating the ability for todays conditions. But, in that effort, you have to take in a lot of other things, some of which may be extraneous or un-needed. When those things help to draw a positive picture, it is difficult to view the rest objectively.

I like to have my contenders, and still be open to other factors that I know have great impact. When a thorough handicapper mentions the horse, you know that there must be several positives in the PPs. As that handicapper states the negatives as being his questions as to current physical condition, I can turn to the horse. As the thorough handicapper says his question results from the horse being away for so long, one look tells me that he hasn't been hanging around a pasture for 3 months. A well muscled horse has been working. It is that simple.

Now the horse is added as a contender, and I still don't need the PP accolades because I can fairly assume that if the trainer has put in so much work to bring this horse back to this race today, he is probably not just indulging a hobby. As the horse causes a ruckus, it must be decided whether you are looking at a fractious horse, or one that is full of himself and impatient to get back to the job that he loves. As he settles in the post parade and takes off to warm up thoroughly, I still don't need to look at the PP's, but I might to check the other contenders one more time. If I find some edges there, it is just that much better.

You never can know what is extraneous until you start leaving it out of your considerations to find out. From doing that long enough, I find that the running line and the box, is pretty much all I'll want to see in the format of PP's.

jdl

[jonnielu]

One of the things I've noticed with people that rely too heavily on numbers(maybe sheet players) to come up with contenders is that it is more important to first know if the Horse is fit and ready to run to those numbers!
[QUOTE]

While I get my contenders list from my sheet, I still look at every horse in the form. While I am looking at my sheet, I always note a down or upward form cycle. 2nd or 3rd off layoff too. You can get a lot more than just pure speed #'s off a speed # sheet. Any handicapper that just relies on #'s is doomed.

As recently as 5 years ago, I believed that if anyone thought they could reduce a horses performance to a number, they would have to be the biggest lunatic to come down the pike. Today I totally rely on a number to describe a horses ability to run a given distance.

I also believed that it would be impossible to get an accurate picture of a horses physical condition unless you were within 15 feet at some point.

jdl

[illinoisbred]

[QUOTE=Space Monkey]One of the things I've noticed with people that rely too heavily on numbers(maybe sheet players) to come up with contenders is that it is more important to first know if the Horse is fit and ready to run to those numbers!



I was referring to Ragozin sheets. I noticed sometimes Handicappers that use them will go with the best numbers without any consideration to any other handicapping factors.
They consider themselves to be purists.Their constant refrain is the number is the number is the number.I make my own figures and have for nearly 30 years.You learn when and where to trust them and when to be circumspect.They are a history of races past and like many of you have already said the trick is .to determine who will be the fastest today.

[andymays]

They consider themselves to be purists.Their constant refrain is the number is the number is the number.I make my own figures and have for nearly 30 years.You learn when and where to trust them and when to be circumspect.They are a history of races past and like many of you have already said the trick is .to determine who will be the fastest today.


Betting a Horse solely on a number doesn't take quite a few things into account like layoffs. Horses are layed off for several reasons and as a Handicapper you have to make an educated guess as to whether or not the Horse will be in the same condition in todays race.

For example a 20k claimer wins by 2 lengths and earns a big number then comes back 2 or 3 months later at the same level and is 3-5. There are only 3 workouts, all short 3F workouts with gaps of 12 or more days. In all cases I would stay far far away because most claimers who run really well will come back as quickly as possible while they are still healthy and sharp. Not to mention the 3-5 misery!

[illinoisbred]

Horses are layed off for several reasons and as a Handicapper you have to make an educated guess as to whether or not the Horse will be in the same condition in todays race.

For example a 20k claimer wins by 2 lengths and earns a big number then comes back 2 or 3 months later at the same level and is 3-5. In all cases I would stay far far away because most claimers who run really well will come back as quickly as possible while they are still healthy and sharp. Not to mention the 3-5 misery!
Agree.I'd probably stay away from that claimer though on 3 weeks rest.The probability of another big race for me would have to be swayed by circumstances of today's race and he may still be 3-5.

[andymays]

Agree.I'd probably stay away from that claimer though on 3 weeks rest.The probability of another big race for me would have to be swayed by circumstances of today's race and he may still be 3-5.

On three weeks rest you would have to look at what they originally paid for the Horse and how much they've already made from the Horse during the year. Knowing the Trainers moves if your are familiar with that circuit would be very important. Most of the time if he were to bump the Horse up in class and run in three weeks it would be a positive sign.

[illinoisbred]

On three weeks rest you would have to look at what they originally paid for the Horse and how much they've already made from the Horse during the year. Knowing the Trainers moves if your are familiar with that circuit would be very important. Most of the time if he were to bump the Horse up in class and run in three weeks it would be a positive sign.
Again,totally agree.With some trainers a sharp horse off a big number on2-3 weeks rest is a serious threat.Here in the midwest,Tom Amoss and Frank Kirby do this often.

[illinoisbred]

Meant to add bumped up in class too.

[appistappis]

maybe some of us are showing our age, but I have tried allways, tried fullcard report but I am back to just using "the form"

[Fastracehorse]

While I am very involved in the computer end of handicapping, I very much enjoy looking at PP's whether from DRF or TSN. Though I tend to look at the Form for recreational wagers, I still believe there is a lot of benefit to understanding PP's as one perspective towards understanding the output of at least some of the software that's available and valuable.

Computer 'capping can certainly uncover more opportunities with less time and effort but I still believe there's a place for the PP's - even if they are not part of my every day handicappping life.

The form is a gold mine.

fffastt

[fmolf]

I have been using bris ultimate now but when i have a lot of time i have begun to explore the formulator pp's....I have found them at first to be cumbersome but as i have continued using them and experimenting with the different filters have found them to be a great source of trainer maneuver info and jockey info.It does take time to do all this research but so far has been worth it if i have the time.Moss pace figs are also good as well.

[BlueShoe]

For example a 20k claimer wins by 2 lengths and earns a big number then comes back 2 or 3 months later at the same level and is 3-5. There are only 3 workouts, all short 3F workouts with gaps of 12 or more days.
Instead of the above pattern,suppose this guy came back in 14 days or less,double jumped up to 32k and also had a breezing work 2 or 3 days ago.These are the kind I love.Always,of course,must consider distance,track condition and surface,pace scenario,and most importantly,the opposition before making the wager.

[andymays]

Instead of the above pattern,suppose this guy came back in 14 days or less,double jumped up to 32k and also had a breezing work 2 or 3 days ago.These are the kind I love.Always,of course,must consider distance,track condition and surface,pace scenario,and most importantly,the opposition before making the wager.


That definitely would be a sign of confidence on the part of the Trainer.

The best scores always come by betting a Horse before he has run a big race though. You have to look for clues that a Horse is ready to wake up to get the big prices!

[bisket]

Instead of the above pattern,suppose this guy came back in 14 days or less,double jumped up to 32k and also had a breezing work 2 or 3 days ago.These are the kind I love.Always,of course,must consider distance,track condition and surface,pace scenario,and most importantly,the opposition before making the wager.
if distance matches, and he's raced at the higher level sometime previously in his career i might take the plunge. or maybe if he's a developing three year or even a 4 year old who only has a few races to his credit. if this horse is a hard knocking claimer i wouldn't bet on him. more than likely the horse is in the higher price claimer so the trainer can keep him for the next race or get a good price on the horse off his win.