The DaVinci of Handicapping

[Handiman]

Dave S. ....I must first say your are to my way of thinking the Leonardo DaVinci of programming. I've started watching your workshop videos and other than my head starts to hurt from processing all the info, HSH is the Mona Lisa of Programs. I can not fathom the amount of work that went into building that program.

I mentally sat HSH and handifast side by side and it was like comparing an Atom Bomb to a Firecracker. But yesterday a handicapper asked for my help at Portland Meadows. I did and hit 5 winners using Handifast. I played a silly little 6 man contest at mountaineer last night and using handifast I finished first.

While I'm have some success with Doug's little program, what type of success are users of HSH having? I ask this because I am trying to determine how far to take Handifast in the form of development. There is no way in hell that it could ever come close to HSH in sophistication.

I'm really trying to get a bead on this, because there are several programs in between ours in scale. Such as CJ's, HTR, The Sartin guys and a few others. I guess what I'm trying to find out is what is enough and what is too much in a handicapping program.

I would like to hear from you Dave and any others that would like to chime in.

Handi :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Handi,

Thank you for the fine opinion.


First, HSH is a very mature program. Literally, it is the result of over 12,000 programming hours spread over the past 10 years. To say that it has not produced a cost-effective result should come as no surprise, especially to a developer.

My attitude towards development has always been one of "build what people need to win" rather than "build what people want." LOL - Alas, it is easy to tell that I am more developer than marketer.

See, most people do not want a giant program that does almost everything they might want it to do. They simply want to win. If you can win with an "easy" program, so much the better but most people don't.

The problem is that, especially in today's highly competitive environment, the "simple" program rarely produces a professional-level winner, unless it is truly written to focus "just on what matters."

That is really the goal of any program, even ours: to figure out what matters. When all is said and done, the winning player will generally have a relatively simple solution. Finding the solution that works for them is rarely a simple process.


I guess what I'm trying to find out is what is enough and what is too much in a handicapping program.

Not sure that I actually addressed your question so I will take another shot.

We all want a simple approach that gets us 40% winners with a $9 mutuel. That's all. <G>

Oh, and 40 bets a day.


Okay... I'd be happy with 35% winners and a $7 mutuel.


So, "enough" is whatever it takes to win. "Too much" is anything beyond that. The problem is that the "enough" is a subset of "too much" and, someone has to winnow done the "all" to find the "important."


If one can discover how to make that happen with a simple program, then they have all they need. If a developer produces such a program, and altruistically decides to sell or give that program away, then it will work for the first dozen or so people that get it. After that the pie is being cut too many ways for anyone to get a full slice.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: I always welcome calls from developers that include a sharing of knowledge. You just don't know what you might learn from someone else.

[Dave Schwartz]

See this thread for a very special deal:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=796484&postcount=16