Just a general observation

[karlskorner]

After 3 years on this board, I am of the opinon that there are a lot of software handicapping programs out there. Everytime a new one is mentioned on this thread or others, 3/4 or more members pop on and state that they have used it and give their opinion, thats not counting more members who have it and are not giving their opinion, add to this several hundred, maybe thousands, who are not members who have bought programs.

I bought one program in the past 25 years, which I don't use, and have never received mail or solicitations and yet there are members who state they receive 3/4 solicitations a week. I guess my name was never sold or traded.

What I am getting at, there has to be several if not more programmers out there who are making a "living" dangling carrots and upgrades to their clientel. Maybe, just maybe, I chose the wrong road to travel.

[hurrikane]

well, I can't say for certain. I've never sold any racing software I've developed. I believe PA, Nathan and others will tell you there's not a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.

It's a lot of work and a labor of love.

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Karl, while that may be true of some, I've yet to pay for an upgrade to HSH.

Sure, Dave gets a portion of my data costs. It's a small price to pay for constant upgrades, new features, and nearly instantaneous support, IMO.

It's a refreshing change from the "new $500 program per year" we saw with Sartin.

Maybe you did choose the wrong road. Write us a program! :D

MP

[Dave Schwartz]

And don't forget that the developer of HSH is clearly headed for sainthood. Could be any day now.


Regards,
Joe Smith

PS: Please ignore the user name; I am just using his account at the, uh, library.

[karlskorner]

Now look what you have done, you woke up Dave Schwartz from his nap. I didn't mention any names, of the 5 to 10 programers on this board, there are 100's of others out there trying to sell their programs to the masses, we have had a couple drop in under various names.

I went over to Nathan's site, since you mentioned it, looks like he has a 100 or more members signed on, that's not counting those who bought and never went further. At $169.00 a pop, that ain't bad. I am not knocking Nathan, from what I read most users are more than satisfied.

My point was, everytime somebody announces a new program, the masses jump.

[hurrikane]

you're almost right about one thing Karl,
when the programmers snap their fingers...the losers jump. The way they see it, anything to try and find the answer I guess.
It is usually not the software that is the problem in the first place.

Karl, 17kfor apiece of software is nothing. If that's the final number I'll bet Nathan has been paid about $10 bucks an hour for his effort.

Ok ...everyone quiet down so Dave will go back to sleep.

[andicap]

The real business is in subscriptions. If you have software that people have to pay $100-$120 a month to HDW that's recurring revenue. (HDW takes at least half as I recall.)
Still I don't think software developers are getting rich. Lots and lots of man-hours and upgrades are often free.

I don't think the "masses" run to new software. I think there is a general level of interest in new software but the masses run to the stuff that has a good name, like HSH, HTR, Equisim, Netcapper, Joe Zambuto's, maybe HorseSense and others.
Programs get hot and cold -- see All in One, all the rage in the 90s but that's in decline.

I have used A LOT of programs, started out thinking "Black Box," got disillusioned after a few years, abandoned software after Thorovision went under (the one program I really really liked -- a great tool, not a black box) after its developer Michael Perry died.

Now I only buy programs that are a) inexpensive and b) have tools that complement my overall handicapping plan rather than vice versa.

For example, I don't use Equisim the way others do. Nathan built me a cool feature that gives me the ability to manipulate my pace formulas in cool ways.
I bought Joe Zambuto's program, not for picking horses, but his feature that keeps track of biases by downloading FREE BRIS charts.
The amount of work these relatively inexpensive programs save me is worth it many times over.

I am kicking the tires on HTR to see if I can substitute its velocity and other figures for my BRIS formulas and do so in a user-friendly way that makes my handicapping easier.

[karlskorner]

I think you helped me make a point by saying you have bought LOTS of programs in the past. The other day somebody stated they have spent thousands on programs when answering one of the posts. Prior to not finding the "black box" you spent 100's maybe 1000's looking for an answer.

I have no qualm with people using "data" from HTR and HSH if it leads to a profit in their handicapping. It's the age old question of "why are you selling your program, if it's so good". How many times have you seen in the past on this board, people like Frank & Kit (remeber them) and probably others before and since then, leading everyone down the yellow brick road with all their wonderful "stats" and ROI's.

I think the question should be for everyone who receives a mailing or flyer to ask "why have I been choosen"

[JimG]

Originally posted by karlskorner
I bought one program in the past 25 years, which I don't use,

Karl:

Why did you buy that program? I would guess at the time you thought it may complement your approach at playing the races.

It's not so different for many of us that like to "try" different programs. I am always looking to improve my handicapping and betting skills. I look for new ideas in both arenas. As we know, racing methods can change with respect to profitability. I always try to keep an open mind.

To suggest that people who use handicapping software are an easy "mark" for advertisers and mindlessly float from program to program looking to bet the program's top pick is wrong in most cases from my experience.

Many "computer handicappers" are damn fine handicappers (see the recent PA contest) and were even before getting into computer programs. Some of us do work other jobs for a living and are looking for better ways to manage racing information due to time contraints in our lives.

Jim

[andicap]

Originally posted by karlskorner
I think you helped me make a point by saying you have bought LOTS of programs in the past. The other day somebody stated they have spent thousands on programs when answering one of the posts. Prior to not finding the "black box" you spent 100's maybe 1000's looking for an answer.


Yes, but I was young and naive. We spend a lot of time on this board telling people that no software will make the pics for you, but I still find a number of people looking for the elusive black box -- no matter what we say.

Also, some people on this board buy software just for fun -- they have time on their hands and like to tinker. It's more of a hobby, not necessarily a quest for the Holy Grail.

[Tom]

I use the HTR and Eqisim data to help me make my own decisions.
I dont just bet the sim winner or the K1 horse. The thing about both of these prgrams is that they can cover all tracks every day.
I can decide tonight to play Evangiline for the first time, and in in 30 munities, I can know all I need to know about the tracks and start handicapping. I can know what factors are important, what ones produce longshots, who is hot, who is not, what has the bias been...etc.

andicap,
The part of HTR you might find most useful with your formulas might be either Pratt or Impact - they both have numbers something along the lines of BRIS E1,E2, LP.

[karlskorner]

Just spent 1/2 hour on the phone with people in Miami. It's a GO. Your former residence in Miami will be groomed (pun), the sign painter has been alerted (former home of Saint Dave) sorry David has been used, something to do with a giant. Castro's unwashed will be taken there by the bus loads and as soon as "word comes down" the exiles (as they liked to be called) will have a candle light procession in the Orange Bowl. The stipend for reaching Sainthood ( which is usually very generous) will be placed in your checking account. Send those new computers back, your on the glory road.

[Diamond K]

I buy the various software programs because I am a lousy handicapper but have alot of money.

[cj]

I use my own self written program. I wouldn't sell it, but I know how many hours can go into it. I seriously doubt most of the people writing them are in it for the money. I do it because I love the game...period.

CJ

[Dave Schwartz]

Diamond K,

>>I buy the various software programs because I am a lousy handicapper but have alot of money.<<

Did you need my direct line? <G>

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: z-z-z-z-z-z-z

[karlskorner]

In your post, one sentance caught my eye:

"some of us do work other jobs for a living"

Now I have no problem with that, I estimate that 80% of the members hold down a job in order to support themselves and family and well they should, handicapping for living is a tough grind and a paycheck is welcome at the end of the week.

What has always puzzled me, if they are employed, how do they find so much time during the day to be on this board ? As a former employer I expected the time my empoyess spent in the office belonged to me, as I was paying a salary for work done. Again, I find no fault, if they can get away with it, more power to them.

[JimG]

Originally posted by karlskorner

What has always puzzled me, if they are employed, how do they find so much time during the day to be on this board ? As a former employer I expected the time my empoyess spent in the office belonged to me, as I was paying a salary for work done. Again, I find no fault, if they can get away with it, more power to them.

I can't speak for others, but being the boss helps.

Jim

[lousycapper]

available that use Markov numbers and/or logistical regression? Just curious.

-L.C.

[karlskorner]

Okay, I can live with that, BUT, what would your reaction be if you saw one of your employees staring at the PA board during the work day ?

[JimG]

To me its not any different than checking the stock market or weather or taking a personal call at work.

When you pay people a salary and they are professionals, you treat them as such. All I care about is performance. If they are meeting and exceeding my expectations...I do not worry about it. If they are goofing off to the point of not getting the job done, I handle accordingly, whether they are looking at the net or just daydreaming. Very few people that work for me work a 40 hour week or don't take work home at night or weekends. They are paid well and for the most part, act accordingly.

Fortunately, I manage "white collar" employees so I am not running a sweat shop.

Jim

[cj]

Jim,

Well said...I've learned, that type of management goes a long way towards productivity, even being the 18 year military man that I am. I have learned when to crack down and more importantly, on whom to crack down when needed. Most people will do a good job if you stay off their backs.

CJ

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
And don't forget that the developer of HSH is clearly headed for sainthood. Could be any day now.

I did wonder why he asked me to kiss his ring when we met....

MP

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by JimG
I can't speak for others, but being the boss helps.Jim

I was the 2nd in charge in my last job and my Boss let me play while at work. I bought toner and paper and he let me print out all the forms I wanted etc. As long as the work didn't suffer. He would even come over to my desk and watch a race via the net every once in a while. When you hit a nice 30-1 shot and jump up out of your seat.... it can be a little distracting.....but as long as the work got done......I was free to do whatever I wanted. It was a telephone support center for a computer company......

I think the bottom line is ........does it effect what is going on.....

:cool:

[lousycapper]

Originally posted by JimG
To me its not any different than checking the stock market or weather or taking a personal call at work.

Fortunately, I manage "white collar" employees so I am not running a sweat shop.

Jim

============================

:D I wish someone would talk to my Gramma about this! :D

-L.C.

[Handle]

Karl,

I had this whole woe is me tale written out, but the pathos was just too much. You'll have to excuse me, but its as if you assume that most of these programs spontaneously appeared - the way some people assume you just go to the track and spontaneously know how to turn a profit. It just ain't so. Its a ton, a real ton, of work. So, given your very, errr, general assumption about the number of members at ThoroTech.com and the amount that each paid for EquiSim, $16K is not a very large sum for three years of work. At least, not in the US.

There are probably only two ways to make money if handicapping software is your primary product:

A) Be a handicapping software warehouse that takes huge commissions to sell other people's work. Be good at the selling side of things.

B) Have a community of users willing to support your work through data purchases or other means. This is coincidental with the Sartin group thing, where the personality (good or bad) preceded the software (good or bad).

The "band wagon" software products you refer to, I'll just assume, probably don't amount to a whole lot of money for their developer. If anyone is making a bundle off of it, its the "warehouse" guy who's peddling it along with dozens of other things and taking 30-50% gross from the developer.

-Nathan

[lousycapper]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Handle
[B]

There are probably only two ways to make money if handicapping software is your primary product:

============================

Surely, there must some of you out there that have written your own non-commerical software that turns a consistant profit? If there isn't anyone, I'd like to know... because I may be barking up the wrong tree. If that be the case then I'm going to change my major from English to Business when I go to the university.

-L.C.

[Handle]

LousyCapper,

I think you misquoted me, or I'm confused as to why you quoted me. I wasn't talking about wagering and the aide of handicapping software, I was talking about a business model that had a handicapping software program as its primary product.

-N

[lousycapper]

Handle
Veteran:

Yes, I read it again. I missed the business model. No harm done, I hope?

-L.C.

[Holy Bull]

I would think most of even the most successful softwares out there don't really generate much revenue based on sales and data charges for their developers or were even started with this in mind. I'd guess they started as just a personal project like what Lousy's talking about and moved to having a few extra users and as more and more users suggested improvements/customizations, they grew into what they are.

[andicap]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Okay, I can live with that, BUT, what would your reaction be if you saw one of your employees staring at the PA board during the work day ?

I have my own office and probably spend about 20 minutes a day on the board.

Karl, if you were running things, you wouldn't let your employees take a coffee break? Or go outside and smoke a butt? You would chain them to their desk (except for a 30-minute, and ONLY 30 minutes) lunch break, make sure they were at their jobs right on time and didn't sneak out one minute early?

Well, fortunately my bosses are 3,000 miles away and treat me
like a grown-up. Yesterday I worked until 9 p.m. to finish my work -- an 11-hour day, so if I spend a few minutes on the board to relax, I don't think anyone would begrudge me.

I do find I don't have time to handicap the races --
I'll bring my stuff into work and then feel guilty as hell when i take 10 minutes to do a race. I try to handicap the night before, but I'm so tired after work,
it's tough to concentrate. My brain needs a break.

So yes, I'd love to do this full-time, but who wouldn't?

[karlskorner]

It's amazing how these posts can take off in another direction, all I started out to do was point out how many people rush to buy "a new program". which got Nathan upset. I can't imagine somebody spending "3 years of their life" developing a horseracing program, which he apparently has done and I totally agree with him 16K is hardly worth his time. But, on the other hand when I visited his site I found quite a few members of this board have purchsed the program.

The past 2 days are "dark" days at CRC, it rained so I couldn't go in the pool, spent some time here and noticed the 12-15 names on the bottom of the page who were on during the afternoon and wondered how they could be at work and still find time to participate. Wasn't my place to question in the first place.

Your statement "so yes, I'd love to do this full time, but who wouldn't ?" I am not going to question your desire, but from first hand experience I assure you, it's the toughest thing you will have ever undertaken. The paycheck at the end of the week can heal the wounds of mistakes, without it you can't make too many mistakes.

To add to my original "observation" about programs, somebody on another thread mentioned a new book and pop 1/2 doz. members have already sent away for it and "can't wait to read it".
Maybe a new book is the path to take, shouldn't take 3 years to write. Horseracing is a great testing ground for ideas and the answers come quickly.

[cj]

As far as being a "full time" player, I don't see why someone wouldn't hold down a secure job in addition to playing. I play a lot, but I think with today's technology, it isn't necessary to give up a regular job. I can easily play as many races as I want in most given weeks without it interfering with my work. It also is nice to know, win or lose, I have a nice paycheck waiting twice a month.

Here's my point...In the old days, you had to go to the track, maybe make your own figures, trip notes, and an array of other stuff. You just don't have to put that much time in now.

CJ

[lousycapper]

Originally posted by karlskorner
.
Maybe a new book is the path to take, shouldn't take 3 years to write. Horseracing is a great testing ground for ideas and the answers come quickly.

============================

Mr. Karl,

Thank you for the suggestion... If my software fails to turn a profit long-term then I won't change my major from English to Business. I'll write a book, no kidding. I might as well. That way how can I miss? If the program doesn't hit then the book will. Fits right in with my English major too. Move over Mr. Beyer! Mr. Karl, thanks again!

-L.C.

[karlskorner]

I don't want to prolong this and I certainly am not out to prove anything, haven't got the "stat's" to back it up.

In your mind you probably are a "full time" player, but you have a "firewall" to protect you at all times, it's that twice a month green check the gov't. hands you. Without it, would you (and others) be as free to place wagers knowing that this is your only source of income ? Be honest, it's a hobby with you (and others)
that sometimes can drive you to the wall, but at all times, whether you were right or wrong, the check is still there.

There is a difference CJ a big difference

[karlskorner]

My one time advice while you are in school. Learn, absorb and observe. When your schooling is over, should someone offer you employement TAKE IT and let handicapping be your hobby.

[cj]

Karl,

I realize there is a big difference. In the old days, you had one track, 5 days a week, 9 races a day. No simulcasting, no other options. I would guess you had to spend countless hours to get an edge on the competition.

I was just saying I don't see why anyone would give up a steady source of income to be a "pro". I can bet as much as working a full time job as any pro betting as a sole source of income can. I can come home on my lunch hour and bet plenty of races every day of the week. I can bet hundreds of races every weekend. And there is Lone Star at night, Hollywood on Friday nights, the oppurtunity is always there.

With today's technology (on line betting, downloadable PPs, video replays, etc), I just don't think you need to devote every waking hour to racing to make quite a nice profit. I would say I devote 4 hours per week to racing when I am not betting. The times I do spend betting, I'm working around the house between races, playing with my kids, whatever. I'd go crazy if all I did was bet horses, too slow fo a game. I have proven many times on this board, and the picks are there for all to see, that I win. I spend no more than 10 minutes looking at any given race. Why piss away all that other time?

You are retired, correct? Assuming you are getting some sort of retirement pay, does that mean you aren't a pro? Once I retire from the military in 2 years and receive my 2,000 per month, will I be ineligible for the title of "Professional Horseplayer". The whole thing just seems silly....if you win, you are a pro...period.

CJ

[karlskorner]

OK lets do it paragraph by paragraph.

You speak of the "old days", what old days, I choose to play one track, you choose to play many, is there a differance ? Maybe you feel you are not qualified to play only one track, I certainly am not qualified to play numerous tracks. I do not consider myself a professional handicapper, rather it's a means of earning an income.

You state " you can bet as much as working a full time time job
as any pro betting as a sole source of income can". Of course you can, the check is there 2 times a month to back you up, should you stumble.

You speak of today's technology and there being no reason to put all that time time into handicapping. I spend 5 hours a day at the track ( which I enjoy, fresh air, Boston Creme doughnuts, no one to tell me what to do, today I chose to leave early because it was raining, can you get up and leave your job because it's raining) I spend 2 hours in the evening getting ready for tomorrow and 1 hour in the morning by the pool (if it isn't raining) putting it all together. That's 8 hours, probably the same time you put in with the service.

You speak of your "retirement pay" of $2000.00 a month, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that ain't going far in todays world, especially if you have little ones to support and put through their schooling. When your retirement comes, you are going to think how that $2000.00 a month will be spread over your expenses, whats left over (if any) will carefully be wagered in your past time hobby. It's that or get another job.on the outside.

Your last statement "if you win, you are a pro...period" hardly, you are winning because you aren't carrying any baggage. As you know from our past writings my goal is to double my $400.00 walking in money 300 + days a year. I don't know from ROI's and money mangement and all the other "words" currently in use.

There are lot of "winners" on this Board, sometimes it appears everybody is a winner, nobody loses. I repeat being a "winner" with a full job is a lot easier that you think. As Jack Nicholson said:That's the truth, can you handle it ?

[cj]

I understand everything you say, though I don't agree with all of it. First off, I never said that 2k would be my only source of income, I am not that foolish. I will work another job for sure, but it will be my own business, and I don't mean handicapping. The part I don't agree with is being "easier" if capping isn't your full time job. Sure, you don't have income, but you also have more free time. Both have pluses and minuses.

The difference between today and the old days is there was no choice then. You played one track, period. If you choose to do so now, that's great, but I want no parts of endless $8k MCl at Crc or 32k MCl races at Hol. In 1980, in Maryland, I was stuck with whatever 9 races they served up that day. Now, I can pick my strengthes and play them, whatever track they may be. If a key horse I've been waiting for to run back at Laurel shows up in the Philly Park entries, I can bet him no problem.

And finally, if you think I'd lose without another source of income, I seriously doubt that. I have great confidence in my betting skills. Winners win, losers lose. That said, I just don't see a reason to abandon a real job. I love my job as much as betting horses, but I'd have to change my lifestyle considerably if I gave up either one. I'm off to Disney World with the family, courtesy of my "hobby" and my job.


CJ

[PaceAdvantage]

It sounds as if Karl is trying to say it takes a lot more balls to "bet like a pro" without a backup source of income. No kidding....

BUT, does having a second source of income hinder one in becoming a pro or betting like a pro, or WINNING like a pro?? CJ says no, it does not, and I don't think Karl disagrees with this statement....

Not exactly sure what Karl is trying to say, but I get the feeling it's something to the effect that those who "bet like a pro" and "win like a pro" but who have a backup income are wussies...


LOL

[GameTheory]

He's saying there is a difference between walking a wire one foot off the ground and 200 feet off the ground. If you think your safety net isn't helping you, you're kidding yourself...

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Originally posted by GameTheory
He's saying there is a difference between walking a wire one foot off the ground and 200 feet off the ground. If you think your safety net isn't helping you, you're kidding yourself...

That's a good analogy, but I'm not sure it applies, at least to those extremes.

We all have some level of security, whether it be a job, investments, money in the bank, or marketable skills. If you're out there playing with next month's mortgage, you're not brave, you're an idiot. ("You" meant, of course, in a general sense).

MP

[GameTheory]

If your only income is from betting, then it is *some* future month's mortgage you're playing with. Hopefully not as soon as next month's, but you've still got to make that money. You can't just "hopefully" be a winner -- you're required to be a winner.

But there are plenty of people in sales (commission-based) that are under the same pressure. Everybody's got to perform at something...

[hurrikane]

IMHO, I agree with part of what Karl says.

For one thing..if you have no other source of income..you also have no other way to replace your bankroll if you bust.
You bust...that's it. You are not only not making an income from racing..you can't even bet.

If you think playing sole source is the same as playing with your regular job backing you you're either not being honest or you have never done it.

I have done it both ways. I can tell you one thing. When it's sole source...it is a job. And you can burn out in no time at all if you are not carefull.

The pressure is real and intense.

However...if you have a job and you make money at this then I say you are a good handicapper and a successful investor in the parimutal funds. And that is the bottom line in the end.

One thing I'm curious about Karl. double your $400 bank 300 days a year. How close do you get to that? :eek:

[karlskorner]

If I implied that people who have a job and handicap horse races are wussies, gelded or gutless, than I am sorry they got that impression. It's just that the mind set of most on the Board is that if you don't play 27 tracks a day, have this huge data base that can spit forth the most minute piece of information, have at least 25 software programs and a bookcase that reaches the ceiling with handicapping books your "out of the loop" and something left over from the "old days" It's a psychological thing I guess, to those that are or intend to purse the "craft" of handicapping horseraces as a means of your primary income, you will understand what I am trying to say.

[karlskorner]

I know I am going to get flak over this, since I discussed it before, so I'll do it again. I have been doing this for 20 years. I paid off my morgage 10 years ago, the only other "nut" is the payment on 2 cars for wife and self. I am a $40.00 win player, I have played under that and way over that in the past, this is my comfort zone.
I go with the intent of playing the full card, I don't play off the turf or a race with more than 2 FTS. If I hit a $56.00 horse in the first race, I GO HOME, If I have won 4 out of the first 7 races and reached my goal, I GO HOME. I probably walk 5 miles a day looking for people who have information that I can use in the upcoming races. If I have a profit of $380.00 by the 8th race, I GO HOME, tomorrow is another day. If I really believe that a horse can win the next race, regardless of the odds, I play it, if it wins it adds to the bottom line for the day. With 4-6 $40.00 win wagers the goal can be reahed often

[Tom]

Your key point here is "comfort zone."
This is a mental game,not a numbers game. You will fail if you cannot handle the pressure no matter what program you use, what method you employ. If you are comfortable leaving after a big win, that is what you should do. I do the same thing. Sometines I miss wins later in the day, but sometimes I avoid losers as well. Whatever feels good is how you should play it.

[karlskorner]

I suppose I should clarify I GO HOME, it does not necessarily mean I don't stay for the balance of the day, I am just done for the day.

[keilan]

Good thread – both Karl and CJ make many valid points. When I was playing full-time everything was good until I began a losing streak. I then started to wager a little differently, trying to protect myself from losing any more. Very tough to win from that position but also very difficult to remain steadfast believing that horses will start coming your way again. It seems, at that point you start getting bad rides, lose the photos, sit out races that hit the board large.

I think for most players this is an easier game when cash flow is not an issue. You would think it shouldn’t matter as long as you’re able to pick winners consistently but somehow it does when you sit down for dinner with you’re family and you have dropped $600 or $700 that afternoon.

[Derek2U]

... good point --- and don't we all know that the birds sing
sweet when the cash flows big. hehe .... I can't even imagine
myself playing the horses that serious but as a hobby it does rock. Its seems almost 100% a guy thing. Any Annika cappers
out there? BTW --- 2 my NY pal Tom --- how could any guy not
admire Annika? She's real sweet & talented and played under
mucho mucho stress --- sorta like a capper who depends on
betting for a living might feel. My play is still just about OnlY on
weekends & I cap my limit to the penny.

[Tom]

I liked what Annika did...she has ba...er, courage!
I was rooting for her, actually. Good for golf.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by karlskorner
If I implied that people who have a job and handicap horse races are wussies, gelded or gutless, than I am sorry they got that impression. It's just that the mind set of most on the Board is that if you don't play 27 tracks a day, have this huge data base that can spit forth the most minute piece of information, have at least 25 software programs and a bookcase that reaches the ceiling with handicapping books your "out of the loop" and something left over from the "old days" It's a psychological thing I guess, to those that are or intend to purse the "craft" of handicapping horseraces as a means of your primary income, you will understand what I am trying to say.


Ah Karl, I was mainly just kidding around.....note the LOL at the end of that post.....

No harm no foul I say....

==PA

[mainardi]

One thing that I love about this board is that threads stick around for a loooooooooong time. My vocation is in software, my part-time side job is writing commercial handicapping software, and my AVOCATION is betting thoroughbreds. My point being... why do we have to be only one thing?

If you want to call yourself a pro, then go ahead. Just make sure that YOU believe it, because it's not like being a pro football player... heck, it's not even like being a pro golfer. We walk in with our own money, try to outsmart other people with the same goal -- or just the group from work or a bunch of college kids with nothing better to do -- and if we're ahead long-term then we must be doing something right.

As for the "if you're so good, why do you sell your program?" comments, I figure that if it works for me, and others are using it to win, then it's good for everyone involved. Besides, it's not like when the world went nutso over Beyer figures --I'd be RICH if I had convinced an audience of Andy's size to buy my program -- I don't sell enough software to do much more than keep my computer systems semi-current.

As for me, I'm already saving for my retirement life in Henderson... far enough to not be Vegas, but close enough to be there when I want to. Besides, "it's a DRY heat!" :cool:

[karlskorner]

I don't know what caused me to re-read this entire thread, didn't go to the track today, eye doctor put drops in my eyes and I was lucky to find my way home.

This tread is 2 1/2 years old and Joe M revived it, things have changed. For 1, message #14 from CJ Milkowski states " I use my own self-written program. I wouldn't sell it " Things have changed. I don't blame CJ one bit for putting his program up for sale, if I spent that much time writing it and somebody was willing to buy it, I would sell. My 40 years of buying and selling Real Estate had a simple formula, you want to buy it and you meet my price, it's yours. From his website CJ states that he is only going to sell 125 programs with a yearly renewal. He is not going to get rich with that formula, but it's his decision. Also from CJ's site he apparently has had numerous requests, but will only allow a new buyer if someone doesn't renew This is exactly why I strarted the thread,there are scores of people out there willing to buy.

[midnight]

Besides, "it's a DRY heat!" :cool:

And it's not even that dry anymore, what with all the lawns and trees around.

I'm focusing on poker more than horses nowadays, mostly online. There's just too much easy money there, though not as easy as six months ago---people learn, bad players go broke, etc. I do have a 'day job' of sorts that provides a reliable source of income. It helps keep the pressure off so that I have no worries about a bad run of luck putting me on the edge. I can pull back, reevaluate, wait until I'm ready again, and the bills will be paid by the income from work.

[traynor]

CJ wrote: <I use my own self written program. I wouldn't sell it, but I know how many hours can go into it. I seriously doubt most of the people writing them are in it for the money. I do it because I love the game...period.>

Echo. I think anyone who starts developing an app as a programmer is in for a long, hard trek, with very little reward at the end. A handicapper first, who develops his or her own app, has enough common sense to realize that the mindless number crunching that most programmers excel at is close to useless. That is, without the handicapping skill first, the programmer lacks the knowledge to create an application that selects going forward. It does not take a rocket scientist to write an application that analyzes the past, including neural networks. To understand what information should go in and what should be ignored is a skill that handicappers develop (pure survival--learn or stop betting) and that most programmers lack.

The sure sign of a programmer (rather than a handicapper) is a rack of ratings that "include" everything from Kramer to Quinn and everything in between, mixed with Beyer, Brohamer, and a dash of dosage index to create maximum confusion. Especially on a nice GUI that looks like it came straight from Redmond.

I know a number of full-time professional handicappers who do all or most of their calculations on portables--TI-83, TI-92, TI-89, and a laundry list of various Blackberries and other handhelds. They tend to think that if you generate more than 3 "ratings" in your output, you should go home and learn more before you bet. The proliferation of "ratings" on applications are more confusing (to the average handicapper) than they are illuminating. Unfortunately, most developers are selling data, not information.
Good luck

[john spencer]

by trade i tinker with all things mechanical and computerised. my up bringing however was at the track. being open minded i buy a lot of software for many applications including racing . to me its like buying a good book or a second hand truck to work on. given this, one of the better software apps i have bought was from racehorsedata.com (http://www.racehorsedata.com/) . it makes no promises or false claims which i figure is why they dont advertize to my knowkledge. for me it helps me simplify doing the form in a age where i thinks we tend to over complicate things. what i like however is taht teh developers have seemed to be able to link both handicapping skills and programming skills togeter. for me they have hit the jackpot in knowing what should go in and what should be ignored. anyway , no doubt i will still keep on tinkering , but for now its by far teh most unique app i have bought for a long while and recommended a look at what they have to offer.

John

[mainardi]

It's good to see this subject fired up again.

Regarding traynor's comment about programmers vs. handicappers, it really is rare to find someone (like me) that does both. I started my career as a programmer over 20 years ago -- I've since moved on to manage software projects -- and I actually started like "cj"... just looking to save a little time and effort. I still can't figure out why he'd limit his sales... that'd be like Ford saying that they would only sell so many cars, and then only allow someone to buy one if one of their customers bought some other make of car. Oh well, to each his own.

Back on subject. I can remember all of the complaints about other sellers that I used to hear from my customers about either [1] a handicapper that paid someone who knew nothing about the races to write a program for him, or [2] a programmer who coded up a bunch of formulas they pilfered from various sources.

From group #1, the problem was that the handicapper was (hopefully) well intentioned, but had no idea what a headache it would be to maintain the code... especially when the programmer bolted and left him with code that couldn't be deciphered by anyone else. I knew a guy that called the "support line" to report a bug, and he was told to call another number (for the programmer), who didn't know anything about the sport. So, the programmer sent him back to the handicapper... who -- of course -- knew nothing about programming. It turned out that these two guys had never met face-to-face, and as a result, there was no real customer service for anything but the easiest inquiries.

As for group #2, that's just about as bad as the old scam from the 1980's) where some lowlife fleeces a senior by telling them that they can cure the "cancer" in the bricks of their house for some stupid amount of money. If you ever talk to someone selling software, dig deep with your horse racing knowledge... if they can't explain the handicapping logic behind something they do, just walk away.

Well, I gotta go... the family is hovering around asking me how much longer I'm gonna be on the computer. Besides, I can program all I want after they all go to bed! ;)

[rokitman]

I expect that he limits his sales because if he doesn't the prices on his profitable horses will get crushed and make them worthless. The question to me is, why don't all the other software sellers limit their sales. If the software is supposed to do something meaningful in the way of money-making at the track, it has to be capped. The fact that CJ capped his is a symptom that he's gotten onto something real, unlike most.

[mainardi]

There is NO seller of handicapping software that should ever be overly concerned that too many people are using their software, and therefore that it would drive the price of their winning wagers down. Why? Because there is no way to know how much each person is betting. What if he sells it to 125 people that bet $1000 a race? Now what?

Of course, the caveat is that if the program only works at small tracks that don't get much money coming through the windows, then I suppose anything's possible. Of course, if a program only works at small tracks, then does it really have that much value? And then, any of those 125 customers can skew the odds with a big bet! Is what I'm saying making any sense yet?

To me, it looks like a case of false supply-and-demand. If everyone knows that only 125 copies are available, then it builds a false market for the product. Why do you think that certain high-end sports cars cost so much money? It's because the manufacturers only build so many! It's a great way to sell a Maserati, but the model is flawed for software!

I try to sell as many copies as possible, not only because I believe in my product, but because I know that there are SO MANY ways to bet on SO MANY horses in SO MANY races at SO MANY tracks on SO MANY days, that I'm not worried about who's taking a few bucks out of my pocket. If that was the case, I wouldn't want to sell any copies.

Let me drift off into a territory not related to cj's product... although it did inspire this mini-rant. So, I've probably stepped ever so slightly over the line on this one. But, as a reputable seller of handicapping software, it "burns my buns" when I think about people that steal other people's money with lousy software. Again, no accusations on cj, I just can't figure out how anybody can expect to stay in business for any length of time by ripping people off. BTW, I've been selling handicapping software continuously since 1988, so I DO have room to talk.

End of soap-box...

[keilan]

I expect that he limits his sales because if he doesn't the prices on his profitable horses will get crushed and make them worthless. The question to me is, why don't all the other software sellers limit their sales. If the software is supposed to do something meaningful in the way of money-making at the track, it has to be capped. The fact that CJ capped his is a symptom that he's gotten onto something real, unlike most.


Maybe he can't stand prosperity :lol: :lol:

[rokitman]

Maybe he has integrity. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[headhawg]

To me, it looks like a case of false supply-and-demand. If everyone knows that only 125 copies are available, then it builds a false market for the product. Why do you think that certain high-end sports cars cost so much money? It's because the manufacturers only build so many! It's a great way to sell a Maserati, but the model is flawed for software!

I try to sell as many copies as possible, not only because I believe in my product, but because I know that there are SO MANY ways to bet on SO MANY horses in SO MANY races at SO MANY tracks on SO MANY days, that I'm not worried about who's taking a few bucks out of my pocket. If that was the case, I wouldn't want to sell any copies.

Let me drift off into a territory not related to cj's product... although it did inspire this mini-rant. So, I've probably stepped ever so slightly over the line on this one. But, as a reputable seller of handicapping software, it "burns my buns" when I think about people that steal other people's money with lousy software. Again, no accusations on cj, I just can't figure out how anybody can expect to stay in business for any length of time by ripping people off. BTW, I've been selling handicapping software continuously since 1988, so I DO have room to talk.

End of soap-box...

Wow, this "mini-rant" leaves me a little troubled. Burns your buns? Why would you care what cj does? So he's got a different business model than you; that's his right. Plus, I never got the impression he was out to make this a business per se. And I really respect him for capping the number of units sold. Whether it's an absolute truth or not, I feel as if I can make more money with it knowing that there are only a certain number of people who have access to his numbers.

And Joe I'm just curious. Why would you revive a thread and then, as it seems to me, apparently slam cj, one of the most respected people on this very popular handicapping board?

Talk about your bad business model.

[cj]

This isn't selling sports cars. Its a competition, and if you are using the same information as your competition, you are in trouble.

As a bettor, of course its better if I sell some programs and start out on the positive side of the ledger. But, if I overdo it, I think it will be reflected in the prices I get at the window. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, but why chance it? I've already had many customers indicate they are willing to pay more to keep the number available down. So does it matter if I sell 200 copies at $100 each, or 100 copies at $200 each, as an example? Not in the bottom line, but it sure can't hurt at the window.

Also, my program cost is just for one year, so people can decide not to renew if they like. So far I've had one in a year, that's a pretty good batting average, and it was because the guy said he just didn't have time to play.

As to why you even mention me twice in the same rant about ripping people off, I have no idea. You could count the complaints I've had on one hand, probably zero hands if you don't count very, very minor ones.

[Tom]

CJ has three things going for him:


1. He is honest
2. His numbers are good
3. His numbers are good.

And it that weren't enough, his numbers are good.:jump:

[midnight]

There is NO seller of handicapping software that should ever be overly concerned that too many people are using their software, and therefore that it would drive the price of their winning wagers down.

I disagree. If the software is effective, selling too many copies of it is a disservice to the people who bought it in the beginning, before it was known to be good. Back when C.J. first started offering copies of his program, a lot of people weren't willing to spend $100 and take a chance on it. Now that the program is known to be solid, everybody wants on the bandwagon.

I just can't figure out how anybody can expect to stay in business for any length of time by ripping people off. BTW, I've been selling handicapping software continuously since 1988, so I DO have room to talk.

RPM has been in business for many years, offering various systems and software that allegedly have high win rates and outrageously good ROI's. They're good at marketing and hyping. Some people want to believe in magic boxes and get-rich-quick systems, and RPM caters to those people.

[mainardi]

To headhawg: Way to take my words out of context! :mad: You twice accuse me of slamming CJ, when in fact, I went out of my way THREE times to note that I wasn't slamming him. I have no beef with him. I was simply addressing the issue of limited sales; if it wasn't clear enough, and it came off that way, then my apologies to CJ.

To midnight: No beef with your comments. RPM is (hopefully) the exception to someone that's still in business and, yes, they are an example of what "burns my butt"!!!

To Tom: It's good to know that CJ is doing good work, and that you support him without any of the extra stuff.

To CJ: I'll explain myself to you in a private post. I only request that you keep it private.

[traynor]

mainardi wrote: <I try to sell as many copies as possible, not only because I believe in my product, but because I know that there are SO MANY ways to bet on SO MANY horses in SO MANY races at SO MANY tracks on SO MANY days, that I'm not worried about who's taking a few bucks out of my pocket. If that was the case, I wouldn't want to sell any copies.>

I disagree. That disagreement is from experience, rather than theory. If your clients are betting at Santa Anita or Belmont, it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on available mutuels. However, if they are betting at a smaller track or minor circuit, a few large bets can significantly reduce the mutuel pools.

I created exquisitely detailed data models that "told" me I had a significant statistical edge. However, when I started betting, the mutuels were never as high as expected. After a very frustrating period, I realized that the wagers I was making (along with other members of my group) were actually reducing the mutuels for those bets. Specifically, at minor tracks like Turf Paradise, Finger Lakes, AkSarBen, etc., it is often more profitable to make smaller wagers. Rather than $500 bets, we cut back to $200, and saw a comparative increase in average mutuels (multiple players betting same entry in same race).

That also led to the interesting conclusion that one or two "heavy hitters" could literally control the mutuel pools at smaller tracks. Because our approach worked (generated a profit) it was absolutely essential that the users of that approach strictly limit their wagers. Again, one or two bettors could dilute the mutuel pool so much that a positive expectation turned into a loser. That is the primary reason why we have no interest in "marketing" our approach; we would have no control of how much users of that approach would wager, and excessive wagers could turn a very generous rate of profit into a negative expectation. I agree completely with CJ, and applaud his decision to limit the number of people using his application; to do otherwise would be a disservice to those already using it.

While it is true that there are many different bets at many different tracks, that is an indication of scrambling; if 10 people use your software, all 10 should pick the same entries to win, or to win and place. If not, the app is just generating fields of numbers to be "interpreted" by the hapless user.

Finally, I don't accept for an instant that "everyone handicaps differently," so different people using the same software will select different entries in the same race. In that event, the app is seriously flawed, and indicative of either a lack of knowledge or poor programming on the part of the developer. To be called predictive (rather than simply churning out rows of "ratings," one or more of which is likely to "predict" the winner because every entry and several of the lead ponies are "projected" to win), two different users, in two different areas, with totally different backgrounds and skill levels, should select the same entry in the same race as the most probable winner. If they do not, it is the failure of the application to competently evaluate the relative merits of each entry.

With all due respect to the professional developers on this forum, the long and the short of it is that if we thought any of your applications were worth reverse engineering, we would do so without hesitation, and incorporate your algorithms in our own applications for our own use. So far, we have not found a commercially available application that a first year computer information systems or management information systems major with a basic Excel or SPSS spreadsheet and a few DRFs could not outperform in a week.
Good luck

[PaceAdvantage]

Well then....there you go. I guess we can shut this place down.

[Storm Cadet]

STICK A FORK IN THIS THREAD...IT'S DONE!!!

[karlskorner]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your last paragraph are you saying that you have purchased the 10 or 15 programs that have been offered on this forum over the past 5 or so years and they all are "useless" ?

[traynor]

PaceAdvantage wrote: <Well then....there you go. I guess we can shut this place down.>

I disagree. My reference was to indicate what many others also realize; whether professional or amateur, full-time, part-time, or recreational, your own methods are often better than those of others. The very attempt to create a "one-size-fits-all" generic application constrains the result.

We use our applications as the basis for making relatively large wagers at a limited number of tracks. For that purpose, they perform admirably. For the purpose of another user intent on making a large number of small wagers at a dozen or more tracks every day, our applications would be totally inappropriate. I am sure that for racing fans who prefer that type of wagering, a number of the applications mentioned on this forum would be far superior to those we use.

If you are offended by my comment about reverse engineering, you should not be; that is a reality of modern software development and is so prevalent that many developers don't even bother to obfuscate their code (which is as "readable" to a sophisticated reverse engineering application as straight code, anyway). Further, any time a developer releases an application, he or she should realize that if it can actually generate a profit, it will be reverse engineered, duplicated, and mass marketed in short order on any one of several dozen websites that appear and disappear almost hourly. That is reality in 2005.
Good luck

[traynor]

karlskorner wrote: <Correct me if I am wrong, but in your last paragraph are you saying that you have purchased the 10 or 15 programs that have been offered on this forum over the past 5 or so years and they all are "useless" ?>

Not at all, and I hope my last posting clarified that. I am not referring to "handicapping in general" or anything else as broad; I am referring to our own wagering activities. Because they are specific, we require specific applications that generate the information we need to make those wagers. That information is created with specific algorithms--often counterintuitive and completely at odds with "conventional wisdom"--created for the purpose, based on multiple regression analysis of our databases, updated on an almost continuous basis.

Unless the programs available are more accurate, more predictive, or more profitable than the applications we have developed ourselves, they are of very little value to us. As for the specifics of the applications we consider(ed) useless, the operant phrase is "for our purposes." I thought that would be clear.
Good luck

[karlskorner]

Excuse me, but I am getting that old feeling again, something like when Frank (and daughter Kit) was on the forum. If it walks like a duck, etc. etc. I know Traymor stated somewhere he had no intention of selling his program, but as I stated earlier, things change.

[headhawg]

To headhawg: Way to take my words out of context! :mad: You twice accuse me of slamming CJ, when in fact, I went out of my way THREE times to note that I wasn't slamming him. I have no beef with him. I was simply addressing the issue of limited sales; if it wasn't clear enough, and it came off that way, then my apologies to CJ.

Do you bother to read anyone's posts or do you make s*** up as you go along? Indicate to me where in my last post I wrote -- TWICE -- that I accused you of slamming cj. It was only ONCE and I did precede that with the word "apparently". I just tried to respond in a decent manner to what I thought was an undeserved attack on cj (or his "methods"; nitpick if you want), not that he needs any defense mind you. You may not have had that intention (or perhaps you were just trying to be subtle) but that's what I perceived from your post. How might I have perceived that? Oh I don't know, the fact that in the first three paragraphs you mentioned 125 [copies,people,customers] three times and cj, just coincidentally I'm sure, happened to cap his original sales at 125. And the fact that you wrote, and I quote, "To me, it looks like a case of false supply-and-demand." Yep, you'd have to be Columbo to draw the connection there. :rolleyes:

Here's another dandy from your post: "Let me drift off into a territory not related to cj's product... although it did inspire this mini-rant. So, I've probably stepped ever so slightly over the line on this one." You admit it, and I call you on it, and you're :mad: with me? That's fresh.

And the icing on the cake, the title of your last post: "I should have known...". Does that mean you were trying to bait someone??? :confused:

And if I was the only one to perceive your post in a negative fashion then why did cj -- the only person who this really may affect -- reply, "As to why you even mention me twice in the same rant about ripping people off, I have no idea."?

So you're right, I'm the idiot. I apologize.

[karlskorner]

The business of handicapping and racing horses, is just that, a business. Neither Art or Science (reverse engineering indeed) but a craft learned over a period of time.

[Tom Barrister]

So far, we have not found a commercially available application that a first year computer information systems or management information systems major with a basic Excel or SPSS spreadsheet and a few DRFs could not outperform in a week.

That statement is so laughably incorrect that it doesn't deserve elaboration.

if we thought any of your applications were worth reverse engineering, we would do so without hesitation, and incorporate your algorithms in our own applications for our own use.

That's illegal if the alogrithms are copyrighted, as Microsoft and many others will tell you. There are several court precedents.

many developers don't even bother to obfuscate their code (which is as "readable" to a sophisticated reverse engineering application as straight code, anyway

If the developer uses such as control flow, strong encryption, incremental, etc., no software is going to convert that to workable code. It has to be done manually.

Do you even program? I wonder about that, since you haven't figured out how to use the quote feature on this bulletin board, which in its raw form is a pair of simple tags.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm inclined to agree with Tom on this one. It is NOT easy to reverse engineer compiled code, even some of the most basic stuff....

Maybe we can put traynor to the test. Somebody write a small little program, and we'll see how long it takes traynor and his crew to reverse engineer it and post the source code here on the forum....

[Tom]

And then we will get some first year computer student with Excel and give him a week to out perform it! Post selections here! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[karlskorner]

And now we have an ad for " Reverse Engineering printed circuit boards "
It's starting to come together.

[midnight]

Karl: in fairness, the ad-daemon (if it works like daemons for other ad-services) scans the forum, finds words and phrases (such as 'reverse-engineering', 'handicapping', 'horse racing', 'system' etc.) and serves ads related to them on that web-page (which, in this case, would be this thread). It's the same principle that serves the ads you see when doing Google searches or when you see the "Ads by Goooooogle" on other websites. If we were to have discussions about different kinds of flowers, there'd likely be a banner for a florist in those threads.

[Jeff P]

In Traynor's defense, there are software products available that, among other things, CAN decompile an app and display source code to the user. However, understanding the logic behind said source code so that it can be reverse-engineered, well, that's another matter entirely. Even for an experienced developer, stepping through someone else's source code, especially if it's uncommented, has a way of eating up lots of dev hours. Dev hours are expensive. Many companies in other fields have tried the approach of "let's see how the other guy does it" by decompiling a competitor's app and hiring somebody to look at source code. Much of the time they discover that money spent on dev hours for such an undertaking could have been better spent on efforts to move forward with their own original ideas provided they had any to begin with.

He wrote: So far, we have not found a commercially available application that a first year computer information systems or management information systems major with a basic Excel or SPSS spreadsheet and a few DRFs could not outperform in a week. That statement brought a chuckle the first time I read it. Traynor, other than stroking your own ego by slamming the efforts of others, what is your true agenda here? What are you trying to accomplish by making such statements?

He also wrote: if we thought any of your applications were worth reverse engineering, we would do so without hesitation, and incorporate your algorithms in our own applications for our own use. Traynor, I'm curious, who is this WE you keep referring to?

-jp

.

[midnight]

Karl: in fairness, the ad-daemon (if it works like daemons for other ad-services) scans the forum, finds words and phrases (such as 'reverse-engineering', 'handicapping', 'horse racing', 'system' etc.) and serves ads related to them on that web-page (which, in this case, would be this thread). It's the same principle that serves the ads you see when doing Google searches or when you see the "Ads by Goooooogle" on other websites. If we were to have discussions about different kinds of flowers, there'd likely be a banner for a florist in those threads.

As an example of the above, check out this thread in Off-Topic

Gasoline Prices in Off-Topic (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22136)

The banners are related to gasoline, related gas-credit-cards, etc.

[traynor]

Tom Barrister wrote: <That's illegal if the alogrithms are copyrighted, as Microsoft and many others will tell you. There are several court precedents.>


On the contrary, it is perfectly legal, widely used, and the cause of great consternation for Redmond--particularly in the EU. The intellectual property legislation specifically excludes reverse engineering--it only covers exact duplication of code, as in cut-and-paste. Check your facts before you pontificate.


Reverse engineering does not generate spaghetti code; it generates nice UML and CASE diagrams along with it to cover the incompetencies of the original developers, so those incompetencies do not need to be replicated by those re-engineering it.
Good luck

[traynor]

PaceAdvantage wrote: <Maybe we can put traynor to the test. Somebody write a small little program, and we'll see how long it takes traynor and his crew to reverse engineer it and post the source code here on the forum....>

Sorry. I don't work for free.
Good luck

[traynor]

Jeff P wrote: <That statement brought a chuckle the first time I read it. Traynor, other than stroking your own ego by slamming the efforts of others, what is your true agenda here? What are you trying to accomplish by making such statements?>

I may be a bit slow, but I don't understand the relationship of your response to my statement. It would be far more appropriate to say something like, "my whizdingle app has generated a 20% profit over the past 12 months wagering on all races of a mile or less at Tracks A, B, C, and D--with no "adjustments" to the basic algorithms after the fact to "include" winners that could not otherwise have been selected."
Good luck

[sjk]

Traynor,

We have been interested to hear how your group has done over the past 12 months. I'm at 23% (no qualifiers as to track or distance; just the races bet).

[traynor]

Tom wrote: <And then we will get some first year computer student with Excel and give him a week to out perform it! Post selections here! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:>

I didn't say computer student. I said CIS or MIS majors. The point you overlook is that both CIS and MIS majors specialize in data modeling. In most cases, three semesters of calculus and differential equations are required to start, along with some serious database and programming experience. Programmers in general are relatively clueless about data modeling, and most handicappers seem to avoid it like the plague, preferring to believe that last week's results are somehow compelling reality to match them. My basic premise is that the logic underlying most, if not all, current commercial software applications for handicapping is seriously flawed. Those flaws would be apparent to a CIS or MIS major.

Further, that same CIS or MIS major would be able to replicate the applications using Excel because the applications are relatively simplistic arithmetical manipulation. Even when written using obscure, obfuscated code, the applications are not that complex. In most cases, the only "complexity" in the applications is in the database connectivity required. Which does very little to enable the user to select winners.

As for "Post selections here!", you should be so lucky. The idea that information of value should be posted in response to insults is a particularly silly one, and one to which I cannot imagine anyone responding.
Good luck

[GameTheory]

The idea that information of value should be posted in response to insults is a particularly silly one, and one to which I cannot imagine anyone responding.I guess we can all stop reponding to your posts, then.

Here's a question that to my knowledge has never been answered (although often asked) by "people like Traynor" who proudly refuse to offer "anything of value" and yet prolificly fill up the forum with posts insulting everyone else: WHY are you here? What is the purpose of your posts?

When you look in the mirror, is this what you see (link below)?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/jerk.htm

[traynor]

karkskorner wrote: <Excuse me, but I am getting that old feeling again, something like when Frank (and daughter Kit) was on the forum. If it walks like a duck, etc. etc. I know Traymor stated somewhere he had no intention of selling his program, but as I stated earlier, things change.>

There is nothing to sell. The application we use is dynamic, not static. It also requires input of a number of other variables that can only be obtained in the real world, rather than being downloaded from BRIS or some other source. Our "application" is only a part, not a stand-alone thing that could be marketed to anyone willing to part with a few bucks.

As I have stated repeatedly, unless it is used as we use it, as an adjunct to other activities (that includes trips, class, and physical appearance), our application is as wildly inaccurate as anyone else's--or as accurate as the most simplistic, depending on which side you are on.

What we have NOT found is any application that can achieve anything like the results we get using multiple components; they only crunch numbers. While interesting, those numbers alone are insufficient to earn what we consider a reasonable profit. We are not "hobby handicappers," nor are we particularly interested in the "drama and spectacle of horse racing." It may offend some, but our sole interest in horse racing is profit. If it were not for the profit, I would much rather spend my time playing blackjack in London, punto banco in Argentina, or Texas Hold'em in Las Vegas (my real passions).

Relax, folks. I have nothing to sell. I would think you could deduce that from lack of interest in schmoozing, parroting the party line, or stroking the Great Ones Who Have Gone Before. If I intended to market something here, I would be seriously obsequious. That is just good business.
Good luck

[traynor]

GameTheory wrote: <I guess we can all stop reponding to your posts, then.>

Nice touch. The imperial "we" presupposes that you speak for all, or that all should accept your dictate of how they should perform. Interesting use of imperative with downgrader--specifically, the "I guess" downgrader tends to disguise the embedded imperative "we can all stop responding." I would tend to prefer the downgrader as a tag line, particularly because it is often interpreted by the cognitively impoverished as "weak." That is, I personally prefer the construct, "Then we can all stop responding to your posts, I guess." The use of downgraders is particularly delicate, and the softening effect is often more appropriately used after the embed.

Again, congratulations on a nicely constructed comment.
Good luck

[sjk]

Even though I know nothing about my horses when I made my bets (their names, their PPs, what kind of race they're running in), I always make it my business to see who they are and root for them during the race.

It gets quite loud here at times even though I am at home and am pretty sure the horses cannot hear me. I hope you can learn to enjoy watching the races.

Most people enjoy gambling even though they have every reason to believe that over the long run they are likely to lose. Gambling is even that much more fun when you have a lot of confidence in your long term outcome.

[Tom]

PaceAdvantage wrote: <Maybe we can put traynor to the test. Somebody write a small little program, and we'll see how long it takes traynor and his crew to reverse engineer it and post the source code here on the forum....>

Sorry. I don't work for free.
Good luck

Put up or shut up.
Talk or walk.

Don't consider it work consider it....validation.

[traynor]

Jeff P wrote: <That statement brought a chuckle the first time I read it. Traynor, other than stroking your own ego by slamming the efforts of others, what is your true agenda here? What are you trying to accomplish by making such statements?>

Its called "shaking the trees to see what falls out." I would have thought that by now someone would make some kind of statement about how accurate his or her application is, how much profit the users are making, and perhaps I could even buy it and save myself some time that I now spend crunching numbers, running multiple regressions, and building data models.

The situation is similar to that seen in many martial arts schools; no one wants to "lower themselves" by actually using their "arts" in the real world. There are few things funnier than listening to a black belt who just got his clock cleaned prattle on about his "restraint" enabled him to "avoid hurting" the guy that just knocked the stuffing out of him (along with several teeth).

I have never claimed to be a hobbyist, historian, or recreational handicapper. I thought there were people on this board who earned a living wagering. Because I am in the same boat, those are the people I am interested in communicating with. If that is an agenda, then that is my agenda--to communicate with other professionals.
Good luck

[traynor]

Tom wrote: <Put up or shut up.
Talk or walk.

Don't consider it work consider it....validation.>

I rather think it might be more appropriate for you to provide some indication that you are other than a hobbyist. In short, that you are capable of actually turning a profit on your wagering, over an extended period of time. It seems you are simply using "indignation" as an excuse to gather some freebies. Bad strategy.

Again, I think that anyone who would provide useful information in response to insults is a fool.
Good luck

[traynor]

sjk wrote: <Most people enjoy gambling even though they have every reason to believe that over the long run they are likely to lose. Gambling is even that much more fun when you have a lot of confidence in your long term outcome.>

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I play blackjack and hold 'em; I have a long-term advantage in both. Although I have to admit that those activities are a bit more rigorous, and require a higher level of concentration, than handicapping horse races.

I'm curious--if you play mechanically from a database, have you ever considered harness races? Some of the best handicappers around started with harness races, but switched to thoroughbreds because of the higher mutuels. Some others regard harness races as bread-and-butter income because of the consistency. It seems perfectly suited to your style of database handicapping.

A friend of mine used to say, "When you have as much riding on the turn of a single card as the average man makes in a year, that is when you find out if your heart pumps blood or Kool-Aid." Nice to hear from someone who actually wagers for fun!
Good luck

[sjk]

Traynor,

I bet around 7,000 T-bred races in the last year and that is enough action for me. I spent a considerable amount of time 10 years ago figuring out how to handicap the T-breds and am too old and lazy to try to do the same for the harness races now with no assurance of success.

I would have thought the pools for most harness tracks are very small which is also nerve-wracking waiting until the last minute to bet.

I don't agree that one needs to be a professional bettor to be taken seriously. Some of us have other occupations that are satisfying and/or other income that allows us to be independent of our wagering results in spite of the fact that we might be doing just fine.


Still interested in your last 12 months ROI. Hope you see fit to respond.

[traynor]

sjk wrote: <We have been interested to hear how your group has done over the past 12 months. I'm at 23% (no qualifiers as to track or distance; just the races bet).>

That is the best news I have heard in weeks. If you can crank out a consistent profit using a mechanical system, considering only downloaded data, your approach is probably better than ours. Specifically, we cannot generate that much profit unless we combine direct observation with the data. Just crunching numbers, we could not equal that. Congratulations, and keep it up; it looks like you have discovered what many others seek.
Good luck

[sjk]

Traynor,

Kind of you to offer your congratulations.

Still interested to learn more about your results and how you have achieved them as all of us are here to learn.

[traynor]

sjk wrote: <Still interested in your last 12 months ROI. Hope you see fit to respond.>

As stated previously, I think your 23% return is better than we can achieve using only a standalone number-crunching application. We have never been able to get much over 17-18% using number crunching, so we went in an entirely different direction. We use number-crunching apps, but only in connection with other, more direct methods. To cite an "ROI" figure would be pointless, without explaining how we achieve it--and that is an area we consider privileged information.

In general, though, I applaud your methods, and defer to your superior skill in number crunching.
Good luck

[sjk]

Good luck to you

[rokitman]

Ya know, I was looking for that mysterious ignore button that I've read a lot about but you battlebots are a helluva lot more interesting to watch than that 4 horse $300,000 yawnfest that just went at Belmont.

[NoDayJob]

That information is created with specific algorithms--often counterintuitive and completely at odds with "conventional wisdom"--created for the purpose, based on multiple regression analysis of our databases, updated on an almost continuous basis. Good luck

Do you use logistical regression for any of your applications?

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

[Overlay]

As for the "if you're so good, why do you sell your program?" comments, I figure that if it works for me, and others are using it to win, then it's good for everyone involved. Besides, it's not like when the world went nutso over Beyer figures --I'd be RICH if I had convinced an audience of Andy's size to buy my program -- I don't sell enough software to do much more than keep my computer systems semi-current.

I've found that I can avoid worrying about the effect of increased public knowledge on mutuel prices by employing a properly-weighted variety of fundamental factors in my handicapping model (rather than relying on a single variable, no matter how initially powerful), and using them to develop fair odds for horses and combinations, so I can have a sound basis for finding betting value, and for sitting out on those occasions when the odds have been driven too low.

[sjk]

If the public ever gets very good we will all spend a lot more time sitting than betting. It's almost suprising that this has not happened yet with all of the data-analysis firepower and hard-working graduate students out there going after it.

[Overlay]

I figure that, no matter how many advances are achieved in handicapping knowledge and technology, the game will essentially remain one of probabilities, rather than certainties. As long as fallible human beings are doing the handicapping and wagering (even with the help of computers), there will inevitably be instances where some horses will be overbet in comparison to their true likelihood of winning and others will be underbet. Short of absolute perfection in odds-setting by the public (which I view as an impossibility), there will always be opportunities for profit available -- and if not in win bets, then in the exotic pools.

[sjk]

There is always the track cut to overcome. Also I would think that most would demand an additional overlay percentage to account for deficiencies in their handicapping.

I look for an 80% ovelay percentage and find bets to make in more races than not. It is not hard to imagine those opportunities becoming less frequent if a few sharp handicappers (and similar handicapping styles) appear with large bankrolls.

I'm having fun and profit for now and hope it continues for a long time. Don't know what I'll do with myself if it all goes away; don't think it will be blackjack and poker. That is too much work.

[Overlay]

I deal with the track take by using a 100% line for my fair odds, which allows me to compare my fair odds directly with the tote odds to find overlays. I find that this avoids the need to add any kind of premium to the tote odds, since the odds posted on the tote (representing the minimum guaranteed amount that a successful wager will pay) have already had the effects of the take and breakage figured in. It certainly wouldn't hurt from a security standpoint to demand an additional premium, but, for me, using the tote odds as posted allows greater action, which provides for increased return if confining wagers to horses and combinations with a positive expectation (i.e., overlays).

[karlskorner]

Someday I am going to explain to you my CHINESE DOUBLE ( was kicked around here couple years back ). You will love it.

[Tom]

Tom wrote: <Put up or shut up.
Talk or walk.

Don't consider it work consider it....validation.>

I rather think it might be more appropriate for you to provide some indication that you are other than a hobbyist. In short, that you are capable of actually turning a profit on your wagering, over an extended period of time. It seems you are simply using "indignation" as an excuse to gather some freebies. Bad strategy.

Again, I think that anyone who would provide useful information in response to insults is a fool.
Good luck

I've been making a profit for over 20 years. What's your point?
YOU made the RIDICULOUS claims, not me.
I asked you to prove it.
You won't/can't/
Freebies? PA suggsted someone write a dummy program and you crack it. Doesn't even have to be a handicaping program....could be anything. YOU arae the one back peddling now.
Freebies?
Ha!
The day I bet a horse I didn't pick will be the day I buy Crap Snapper Pro.
You write for RPM? I've heard the same general crap before.

I just got a letter the other day - seems I won the Spanish lottery - $853,000+ and all I have to do is give my bank account information to some phone number in Madrid.

So far, it is as a credibly an offer as your claims have beem.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.:sleeping:

[rokitman]

Tom, about this Crap Snapper Pro-very interested. Please PM me the details ASAP.

[Tom]

:lol:

[Jeff P]

Posted by PA: Maybe we can put traynor to the test. Somebody write a small little program, and we'll see how long it takes traynor and his crew to reverse engineer it and post the source code here on the forum....

I'll play along. Below is a link to a zip file that contains a compiled VB App. No, it's not a handicapping app. It tells you the current temperature based on the number of times a cricket chirps in a minute. <GR>

http://www.JCapper.com/CricketChirps.zip

Let's see if anyone wants to take the time to crack it and post the source code. Note: If you decide to download it, you'll need to have the VB6 runtime present on your machine to be able to run it.

-jp

.

[BillW]

Posted by PA:

I'll play along. Below is a link to a zip file that contains a compiled VB App. No, it's not a handicapping app. It tells you the current temperature based on the number of times a cricket chirps in a minute. <GR>

http://www.JCapper.com/CricketChirps.zip

Let's see if anyone wants to take the time to crack it and post the source code. Note: If you decide to download it, you'll need to have the VB6 runtime present on your machine to be able to run it.

-jp

.

He's a troll, guys. He must work around some developers and picked up the lingo. He's describing a source code analyzer common in hi-rel development environments. Doesn't have a clue that most shipping handicapping software is compiled.

PA you should bury this thread in Off Topics.

[midnight]

There are few things funnier than listening to a black belt who just got his clock cleaned prattle on about his "restraint" enabled him to "avoid hurting" the guy that just knocked the stuffing out of him (along with several teeth.


Okay, we now have the martial arts disciplines, copyright law, decompilation/obfuscation, statistical theory, neural cognition, and how to use the quote button, in an ever-growing list of things that you have no clue about.

What else are you ignorant of?

The only thing worse than an arrogant troll is a clueless arrogant troll.

[Vegas711]

:lol: The only question that I have is why did I spend 45 minutes reading this thread?
:lol:

[traynor]

NoDayJob wrote: <Do you use logistical regression for any of your applications?>

Not directly. We continually use regression analysis of the results, mainly with decision support sofware apps.
Good luck

[PaceAdvantage]

The few decompilers I've run across have not been able to spit out exact replicas of source code.

I've been out of the programming loop for a few years. You're saying these things readily exist? Able to decompile a compiled executable with exact source code, line by line?

[NoDayJob]

I just got a letter the other day - seems I won the Spanish lottery - $853,000+ and all I have to do is give my bank account information to some phone number in Madrid.

:lol: You got ripped--- so far I've won $2.5mm, 2mm Euros plus $750k in three separate English lotteries. Wanna compare checks? :lol:

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

[NoDayJob]

:lol: The only question that I have is why did I spend 45 minutes reading this thread? :lol:

:D Face it... it's more entertaining than what's on TV. :D

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

[NoDayJob]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]You're saying these things readily exist? Able to decompile a compiled executable with exact source code, line by line?[QUOTE]

:D This I gotta see. :D

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

[MichaelNunamaker]

Hi PA,

You wrote "It is NOT easy to reverse engineer compiled code,"

It depends on the language. If one has Java byte code, reverse compiling to something useful is trivial. Obviously, the resulting code has no comments and is no where near as useful as the original source code.

But for pretty much everything else, I agree with you. Modern optimizing compilers have become so advanced, that it has become difficult to understand the code that they produce. For example, if I take a complex C program and compile it with full optimizations, there is essentially no hope of determining anything like the original source code. Algorithms can still be determined, but it isn't easy. There are reverse compilers out there that can produce C code that is the functional equivalent of the program, but to say the resulting program is difficult to understand is an understatement.

Mike

[Jeff P]

Posted by PA: You're saying these things readily exist? The ones that I have seen won't spit out complete source code line by line. They will present the user with an Object Model - a listing of the headers with arguments for all of the public functions and public subs. It's been a while since I last dealt with a decompiler and the abilities of these things may have improved since then. But the last time I looked at decompilers, they did not have the ability to do the same thing for private functions and private subs. Public functions and subs are those the developer chooses to "expose" to other apps so that the app being developed can be used by others.

For the logon screen of an app, with a public function named ConnectToDataBase, and a public function named ValidateUserByID, the Object Model might look something like this:

ConnectToDataBase(sPath)
ValidateUserByID(sUserName, sPassWord)

It's then up to someone who would reverse engineer the app to provide a valid path variable when connecting the app to the database. But first they would need to have a database with the correct table structure sitting on the drive and path provided. Once they got that far, then they would have the task of getting the app to recognize the would be reverse engineerer/code cracker as a valid user by calling the ValidateUserByID and passing a valid user name and valid password.

After reading this, if you reached the conclusion that reverse engineering an app with the help of a decompiler might be a time consuming thing to do, you'd be right.

-jp

.

[traynor]

midnight wrote: <Okay, we now have the martial arts disciplines, copyright law, decompilation/obfuscation, statistical theory, neural cognition, and how to use the quote button, in an ever-growing list of things that you have no clue about.>


Sorry to disappoint you. My shodan was in Kyukushinkai, which I found more invigorating than Shotokan (too formal, and too full of holes in its defenses). Copyright law comes from an MBA class on the topic, although you may be more knowledgable than the PhD who taught the class, so I defer to your superior grasp of the topic.

Decompilation/obfuscation is an interesting topic. I sub for a shop that cannabilizes other apps like stealing candy from babes. In that area, I believe the effectiveness of their apps (and their procedures) are a bit too advanced for you.

Statistical theory is another interesting topic, if you are given to blindly accept theories. I am not. Because I construct data models, I continually suspect the researcher of tweaking some component of the sample to validate preconceptions. That is a typical approach for anyone above grunt level in any IA or KM environment. Just because old people do it does not mean it is worth anything. I am not impressed with "sophisticated analytical techniques" that essentially massage numbers to create the impression of "science." If you are interested, you might explore Stiff and Mongeau's critique of Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model, the latter of which is almost universally accepted uncritically by most business and marketing gurus, who perpetuate it.

"Neural cognition" is essentially a buzzword that I really don't think you are qualified to use. You sound like someone who stopped learning way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Andy Beyer was King.

The "quote button?" You are absolutely right. I do not use the quote button. I use more than a dozen bulletin boards and forums, written in about as many different scripting languages, about half of which are text based. I use exactly the same technique to quote and reply on each, complete with full colon, beginning tag, and ending tag.
Good luck

[traynor]

BillW wrote: <He's a troll, guys. He must work around some developers and picked up the lingo. He's describing a source code analyzer common in hi-rel development environments. Doesn't have a clue that most shipping handicapping software is compiled.>

Sorry. I design J2EE beans to wire the ERP backend to the poor souls on the frontend trying to use something their intellectual sluggishness prevents them from understanding.

"software is compiled?" Does that mean there are still apps floating around that are NOT compiled? I apologize if I misunderstood what some of the comments were saying. I think some of the obsolete versions of VB may have been raw, but I don't run across many employed coders who use such antiquated apps. Hobbyists, wannabes, and formers, but not many employed.

I know that Python is often considered a problem for distros because it is interpreted, but we routinely wrap it in a Java class ("Jython"), so even that is compiled.

As for reverse engineering, if you saw what some of the new stuff can do it would turn your head around. It would also make you have second thoughts about distributing an app. In combination with the lack of copyright protection (no one enforces, you get to sue, typical legal fees $1.5 million, good for Sun, Microsoft, and equivalent, but about as useful as shark repellent to the average developer), reverse engineering gives the average developer less than six months to milk the cash cow. As I said before, if the app is any good and has a profit potential it will be reverse engineered, tweaked, and distributed en masse from Bangalore or Hong Kong.

That is reality. The kitchen-model handicapping app using basic arithmetic calculations is not particularly profitable, hence is relatively safe from copying. Aside from Microsoft and a few other major players, many developers don't even bother with the copyright process; they distribute and keep developing new, improved, tweaked versions that are (hopefully) better than the distro the copiers are copying, and work frantically to get the new apps to market before it is saturated by the clones of the older apps. Where have you guys been hiding?
Good luck

[acorn54]

were you able to get the source code to jeff's program in post #112?
acorn

[midnight]

Sorry to disappoint you. My shodan was in Kyukushinkai which I found more invigorating than Shotokan (too formal, and too full of holes in its defenses).

Gee, is it possible you mean Kyokushinkai? :rolleyes:

P.S.: most forms of karate don't do well in such as street fights.

I sub for a shop that cannabilizes other apps like stealing candy from babes

So that means that in addition to being clueless about martial arts, programming, and copyright law, you're also a software pirate. Just the kind of person we need around here.

I'm starting to think Karl is right about you. I wouldn't be surprised if you were old Frankie himself. You're certainly as annoying as he was.

[karlskorner]

Two words: SNAKE OIL. I think we cut him off at the pass, pardner.

[Tom Barrister]

Sorry. I design J2EE beans to wire the ERP backend to the poor souls on the frontend trying to use something their intellectual sluggishness prevents them from understanding.

Now if you could just design yourself some people skills, you'd be all set.

As I said before, if the app is any good and has a profit potential it will be reverse engineered, tweaked, and distributed en masse from Bangalore or Hong Kong.

That is reality.

If the software is any good, the original title is redistributed for free over a P2P (Kazaa, E-Donkey, etc.), or several titles are burned to CD/DVD and sold for $25-60. As is with any protection removed.

Your information on software pirating is about a year old. Hong Kong is in the process of cracking down on it. It still exists there, but not like it used to. Bangalore traffics mostly music, not software.

[midnight]

Two words: SNAKE OIL. I think we cut him off at the pass, pardner.

Ha, I remember that phrase, Karl. Old Frankie had some magic factor that was supposed to produce winners. When he posted some plays here that had an ROI of 0.50, he then said it was actually a factor that produced losers. Funny stuff.

I'm done dealing with traynor. No matter what you say, he says "No it's the opposite", spreads a bunch of polysyllabic manure to "prove" it, and calls the other person names. It's obvious that he won't ever shut up as long as he can post here, and most of us have him pegged for what he is. No sense in feeding the troll anymore.

[Pace Cap'n]

I also came up with two words.

The first started with a "V", the second with an "S".

[Tom]

I thought that too, but didn't want to jepordize a week or two of fun. :D

[mainardi]

I shared my thoughts on traynor (in the bolded text below) with another member in private, but since I see that everyone else has been "so unfair" to traynor -- no really, we're laughing WITH you, not AT you :D -- I thought it was okay to re-post part of it...

"Even though there is the potential for something useful to be found in his posts, he has to be ignored, because it seems like every post has the same formula: equal parts ripping someone :( and straining to find a way to use the Oxford dictionary... :sleeping: "

I had a lot more to say, but I'm sure that this re-post alone will provide traynor with a witty comeback to anger the masses and derail the discussion once again. Of course, if we treated him like we do a child that just wants attention and ignored his posts... oh, but that'd be too easy, and not nearly as much fun. Hey, we can't talk about the horses ALL the time... can we?

BTW, I have worked in software for more than 20 years, and see traynors everywhere. Most often, I see them eventually wearing out their welcome and being shown the door... sometimes literally.

Besides, he DOES provide some entertainment value; otherwise, PA would have blocked his access a long time ago.

[karlskorner]

I got a couple of other old posts you might want to dig up. I always like the one on tractors,, Dick Schmidt called it "handicapping tractors". When they go "clockwise" everybody is in trouble, goodbye variant, bias, early speed, late speed amd all those other words authors make up.

[andicap]

This is officially the dullest thread in PA history.....

:sleeping: :sleeping:

[Vegas711]

I have read some of his posts in different threads and he has given out good information. Everyone has something to offer. I must admit I understand about 50% of what he writes about the rest just goes over my head.

My advice would be to concentrate more on being positive and helpful, write posts that everyone can understand, keep in mind that most of us our not I.T. grads.

At the end of ones life if you were not helpful to others what use did you serve?

[Pace Cap'n]

At the end of ones life if you were not helpful to others what use did you serve?

Or, as Groucho said:

"I firmly believe we were put here to help others. What the others are here for I have no idea."

[Vegas711]

Or, as Groucho said:

"I firmly believe we were put here to help others. What the others are here for I have no idea."

:lol:

[traynor]

Jeff P wrote: <Let's see if anyone wants to take the time to crack it and post the source code. Note: If you decide to download it, you'll need to have the VB6 runtime present on your machine to be able to run it.>

Sorry, I don't do VB6. I leave that for the old folks who can't wrap their minds around modern apps. VB6 is not only obsolete, the entire VB6 "community of developers" is being tossed to the wolves by Redmond, by releasing a free version of Visual Studio called "Visual Basic Express." If any of you actually make money with VB6, make it fast; in short order your "hard-earned skills" will be replaced by a gaggle of teenagers from Bangalore.

[traynor]

midnight wrote; <Gee, is it possible you mean Kyokushinkai? :rolleyes: >

Neither is correct. I prefer the original transliteration from Japanes favored by the founder, Masutatsu Oyama (or, as some spell it, "Ohyama"). If you check back to the original versions of works published in English on Kyukushinkai, you will find the spelling is correct.

As for the comment on karate not working well in street fights, I agree; in particular the styles advocated by dojo ballerinas and other "experts." Try Okinawa-te, or any of a half dozen styles based on that discipline, including (much as I hate to admit it) Shotokan. Wado-ryu is also nice in a street fight, and Wado advocates, particularly those at Waseda University, seem quite able to hold their own in any "street fight" scenarios.

[traynor]

Tom Barrister wrote: <Your information on software pirating is about a year old. Hong Kong is in the process of cracking down on it. It still exists there, but not like it used to. Bangalore traffics mostly music, not software.>

Lots of place are "in the process of cracking down." That ranks right on up with "your check is in the mail" and a number of other meaningless comments. What Bangalore "traffics mostly" is irrelevant; the relevant issue is that the current (not last year) crop of app programmers, developers, and engineers are very, very skilled. The same is true of Hong Kong, mainland China, and Russia. The primary reason more US developers don't outsource to Russia is fear of the competition. In their infinite wisdom, those same developers consider Indian or Chinese developers to be "inferior." That is really funny, and totally out of touch with reality.
Good luck

[karlskorner]

Your preaching to the choir, everybody left.