Paceline selection II

[Show Me the Wire]

I tried discussing how fellow posters handicap and then I became side tracked, with my apologies to Storm Cadet for discontinuing, I would like to address the subject again. Reading the thread about paceline selection brought my thoughts back to this area,

Any method of handicapping requires a representative selection of a running line. It does not matter if you cal it pace, velocity, or final time, you need a representative running line for today’s race. An authority on the subject recommends the following:

“Learn to qualify contenders. Learn to pick pacelines.” *

“Within the framework of a few guidelines, picking pacelines is a highly intuitive skill best developed through constant repetition. Good handicappers have refined the skill to an instinctive level, and for them picking representative lines is automatic. It is “pattern recognition,” best cultivated by picking hundreds of pacelines”**

Guidelines for picking the right paceline:

1. Must reflect current form and the last race must be part of the analysis.
2. Should reflect today’s probable pace
3. Use more than one paceline

After you learn to identify contenders, you focus on the running line selection to distinguish between the contenders and how the contenders compare against the projected pace of the race.

I believe what holds back most handicappers is that the running line must reflect current form, but I would like to put this specific issue aside for now and focus on if mechanical selection is viable.

If Brohamer states in his excellent work that paceline selection is an intuitive and instinctive skill, why are mechanical selection processes used by programs to implement Brohamer’s guidelines? It seems to me letting a program automatically select a running line is contrary to Brohamer’s basic theory about paceline selection is intuitive and instinctive.

If mechanical methods are not used how many SW users identify the contenders first and only compare the running lines of the contenders to each other and then to the pace of the race?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

* Modern Pace Handicapping, Brohammer, page 120
** Modern Pace Handicapping, Brohammer, page 121

[delayjf]

I think for simulcast players, its a matter of time. If your automatic selection process can gain you a acceptable %of winners at an acceptable price than the workload can be reduced to pace / speed figure analysis. If you betting multiple tracks, you simply don't have time to dig into the PPs like you could if you were only betting one track.

Also, a mechanical process might be a good way for a beginner to learn to pick pacelines, because one can learn from ones mistakes in the post race analysis.

[Show Me the Wire]

Being there are lots of SW users on this board, I really wondered if the majority used mechanically selected running lines to select contenders or does the majority use SW for some other purpose.


CJ:

I did not respond to your reply in the other post, but I do you like your format. It seems to be an effective way to summarize your specific data. I like the pace figure and graph like speed figure representation. From your post I assume this is your starting point to select the representative running line.

PA:

I find it interesting that you use beaten lengths to build an odds line. Is this the basis of your whole program?

Nathan:

I think having a graphic representation of the running of the race is terrific option. One thing I try to do when I handicap is to visualize the running of the race and having a visual representation on the screen must be an immense advantage.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tom]

I first decide who the contenders are, based on their total performance, form cycle, class, distance capabilities, race conditions, etc.

Then, I pick pacelines that seem representative of today's match up. I use programs that pick pacelines, but I always look at what ones were picked and change them when I think they are wrong.
(This cost me a $100 horse when I disagreed with an Equisim paceline. ) I always look to see if there is more than one paceline to support the horse-if not, I get suspicious. Brohamer used to say cross out that one line and see if the horse still looks good.

Many times I will end up with a contender and no paceline to use to make him a numerical contender. Then I use the horse in exactas on faith. Brohamer told me once that you can't always find a paceline for a legit contender and to just play them off handicapping dope and forget the pace numbers. You can't run foreign races through your pace program, but many of them are legitimate contenders.

Sartin used the best of last three, similar distance and surface, but even he backed off sometimes if the third back was the best and the last two were horrible efforts.

For turf races, I like to average 2-3-4 pacelines within a half furlong of today's distance. This irons out odd ball fractions and gives a good picture of what each horse can do. This works on dirt, but you have to be carefull mixing too many distances.

[Handle]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Nathan:
I think having a graphic representation of the running of the race is terrific option. One thing I try to do when I handicap is to visualize the running of the race and having a visual representation on the screen must be an immense advantage.


That really is the exact reason I first created the program. An earlier version even had a way to plug in numbers for each horse - to override the values that are derived from the pace lines. This, however, was over kill and more pain than it was worth. Being able to select different pace lines, and then see the results, is enough.

In regards to those pace lines -- and I'm not making a challenge here -- but at some point I want to organize a group of EquiSim users to perform a manual pace line selection of their own to see if this improves the overall win % of the simulations versus the programatically selected pace lines. I would suspect that, overall, a good handicapper should be able to improve it -- but then there are the $100 horses that we can outwit ourselves from. Of course, having the winner on top isn't necessarily the most important part of the visualization -- knowing that the 20/1 shot can be right behind that winner in various portions of the race is also important.

-N

[GR1@HTR]

Tom,

Is that a pic of you in your early years? Whats up w/ the tan?

[Fastracehorse]

It's nice when this happens but what about most of the time when it doesn't.

<quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Nathan:
I think having a graphic representation of the running of the race is terrific option. One thing I try to do when I handicap is to visualize the running of the race and having a visual representation on the screen must be an immense advantage.

fffastt

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by Handle
That really is the exact reason I first created the program. An earlier version even had a way to plug in numbers for each horse - to override the values that are derived from the pace lines. This, however, was over kill and more pain than it was worth. Being able to select different pace lines, and then see the results, is enough.

-N

Reference is being made to a program that does what i have on my to-do list ... show the running of a race using my projected pace lines.

Can i get more info please!

Brian

[hurrikane]

Any method of handicapping requires a representative selection of a running line


SMTW...I know you didnt' mean 'Any' in your statement. I have one particular blind trainer play that doesn't give a hoot about a running line.

I do use PL when I am 'going live' but only from a form analysis pov deciding what a horse will run to today. (Maybe that is the point if PL selection in the first place..eh).

As for mechincal PL. If you are using a db it doesn't really matter, at least not to me. I build a db using some PL selection method. As long as the same criteria is used for every race I have a db of like data against which I test. I come up with results (keeping in mind that past performance is not an indication of future earnings) and I go forward. As long as I keep the same PL selection method I am hoping that the results are the same. If I use a differnt PL method I am betting apples and hoping to win oranges.

My point is that a mechanical method is useful if used in the correct context.

I am no pace guru (fooled you..eh) and when doing PL selection often find myself zigging instead of zagging and often just confused and not very confident when I"m done. Which by the way is a good way to throw out a race (or miss a good price..in retrospect).

This has been a great thread and hopefully will help me out in the future.

Thanks.

[hurrikane]

Just wanted to add one other observation.

There was a comment on the other thread about speed in paceless races.

In many so called 'paceless races' I have found closers are actually stronger bets. They typically run closer to the front and early speed in these types of races are way overbet opening up good overlays for many horses with trackable speed and a jockey that can at least sit on the horse without falling off.

I guess this doesn't have anything to do with PL selection does it?

[Handle]

Originally posted by Brian Flewwelling

Can i get more info please!


Brian -- EquiSim probably won't be able to use your very own projected pace lines - unless they match any of the previous 10 pace lines of a horse as given in the BRIS or TSN data files.

There's a free demo, more info, and a program specific discussion forum here:
http://www.thorotech.com

-N

[Rick]

If you can't pick a pace line by using a fixed set of rules programmed into software then you're just fooling yourself. This idea of handicapping being an artistic endeavor is total crap. Sorry, that's my opinion backed up by 25 years of profitable play. No, I didn't write a book about it. I've just been paying attention to the real world. But I'm sure the methods you're talking about would rate a 10 on the Phillips and Sartin scales.

[GameTheory]

Surely it *can be* an artistic endeavor? It just isn't mandatory for success...

[Fastracehorse]

< This idea of handicapping being an artistic endeavor is total crap.

Interesting!


:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

fffastt

[Tom]

Originally posted by GR1@HTR
Tom,

Is that a pic of you in your early years? Whats up w/ the tan?

It was Monday.
Too much sun this weekend.
BTW, do you think the shirt is too flashy to wear to the HTR seminar? I don't want to overdress!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Rick
If you can't pick a pace line by using a fixed set of rules programmed into software then you're just fooling yourself. This idea of handicapping being an artistic endeavor is total crap. Sorry, that's my opinion backed up by 25 years of profitable play. No, I didn't write a book about it. I've just been paying attention to the real world. But I'm sure the methods you're talking about would rate a 10 on the Phillips and Sartin scales.

Where does the fixed set of rules come from? Are they rules you set yourself or someone else's parameters? Did you form these rules from pattern recognition , based on your previous observations? I am curious.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Rick]

SMTW,

I don't really like the idea of using just one race for a rating so paceline selection as normally practiced doesn't seem very effective to me. I've seen some studies of various sets of rules for single paceline selection that showed a small increase in win % by but lower ROI than just always using the last race. I think you can find one in the articles at HTR.

I know there are a lot of books claiming that you can become a handicapping genius with practice and select pacelines better than any set of rules but I've never seen anyone actually do it. Of course, if you define it as some kind of artistic technique then it can't be tested properly and that's a real benefit for those making the outlandish claims since they can't be proved wrong.

But when someone says that they can't define a set of rules they're really saying that they don't handicap consistently under the same set of circumstances. I can't see how it would be an advantage to handicap according to emotions or inconsistently because that's what the rest of the crowd does and they aren't very successful. People I've known who handicap that way are the biggest losers of all and frequently don't even know it because they usually don't keep track of their losses either. Worst of all, if you don't know what you did when you're winning you probably can't repeat it.

There are sets of well defined rules that work pretty well for selecting multiple races from which to calculate a better rating but you'd still need to combine that with other methods in order to get anything useful. My main method combines three factors into a rating and uses a fourth as an filter. But I'm also experimenting with two other methods to use when a race is unplayable with the first method. Each of those uses only two factors and the results so far in a couple of hundred races are very good. I think if you have enough techniques available you can play just about every race by successively applying different approaches until you find one that generates an overlay. Of course if all of the approaches agree with one another, you probably have an underlay. It's like having your own consensus selectors. The guy who picks a different horse than the others has just about the same chance of winning but gets much better odds.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

Thank you for your response. Rick, actually,I do not believe Brohamer meant picking pacelines is "artistic" AS I understand what he meant by using the words intuitive and instinctive to describe recognition. If this is true then by definition you need more than one paceline to establish a pattern.

Additionally, Brohamer expreesed contender selection should be the first step. Contender selection can be very mechanical as it should be performed under a well defined set of rules. After narrowing down the field to the actual contenders, this is where the "pattern recognition" is needed to select representative pacelines.

I agree with you if a person can not establish a fixed set of rules to select contenders, in other words, narrow down the field to the few most likely winners this person has no idea how to handicap. However, I believe paceline selection is "pattern recognition", even blind trainer plays are based on patterns.

Rick and every one today's (June 18) 9th race (claiming 14K 3&up 6 1/2 f) a t AP is an interesting race. if anyone is interested let's just select our contenders and the reasoning in the appropriate board section.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality.

[Lefty]

Rick, the crack about Phillips and Sartin is just plain wrong. Over the last several yrs the Doc(and please no cracks about his title, heard em all)advocated a rule based paceline selection method.
Phillips? Alan over at Phillips Newsletter and his late father never used computer prgms or even paper pencil speed pace methods.
They put out systems which are extremely rule-based. All software programs they review are "farmed" out.
There ya go.

[Rick]

Lefty,

I haven't bothered keeping track of what Sartin and his following have been doing the last few years so I don't know about any rule based paceline selection method. I do know that they once claimed that with practice, the correct paceline would "loom off the page". That doesn't sound very objective to me and impossible to test for validity. The rule based paceline selection methods, some of them pretty sophisticated, that Ken Massa at HTR tested didn't do too well though. All of the testing that I've ever done suggests the same thing. TPR, another one of their highly touted techniques, has been studied in some very large samples and shown to be very disappointing for a pace rating method. It doesn't even use the best weightings for the various parts of a race. All of this was known about 1980, well before any of the famous pace advocates became so widely followed.

As far as Phillips goes, their credibility has been questioned by some reliable sources. If what has been said is true, their might have been some "incentive" for giving Sartin products a higher rating. I subscribed many years ago and found it to be an interesting way to find out about new products, but never took their ratings or claims about their own systems seriously.

It irritates me to see novice horseplayers believing in techniques that either don't work as claimed or are too hard for them to implement while rejecting good ideas that promise less. I've known people who wasted many years and a lot of money trying to accomplish the impossible because of these claims. As I've said before, I couldn't care less whether there's someone in the world who can get 60% winners or even 100% winners, it just shouldn't be a goal for most people. For all I know some of them might be psychic, but that doesn't mean they can teach other people to be psychic too. I think that's being more than generous when you consider the more likely alternatives.

[Lefty]

Rick, for about 5 yrs before his sickness Sartin advocated best of last 3 comparable dist and surface don't go back beyond 5. TPR, Dick Schmidt and others claimed to make quite a bit of money with it.
I've had every issue of Phillips since 76' can't remember even one of Sartin's software prgms that he reviewed. Sartin even said at one of his seminars he didn't want Phillips rating his stuff.
Ken Massa, HTR, hmm, without Sartin there is no HTR.

[Rick]

Lefty,

As for Phillips, I'm just going on what others have implied and have no first hand knowledge of whether vendors influence their ratings or not. I'd find it quite remarkable if they never mentioned Sartin material though since horseplayers seem to have an almost religious interest in it.

Obviously Massa is a pace handicapper so that's why I mentioned studies that he's done on paceline selection. Being a student of the Sartin approach, you'd think that he'd be able to verify their claims. In fact, he doesn't seem to be able to come anywhere close to what they've claimed when he looks at real data and a predefined set of rules.

As for TPR, I've never seen any set of data that showed it doing any better than about a 10% loss and the win % is miserable for any kind of race rating. You can just use BRIS pace ratings and come up with something better than that, and they're certainly not the most accurate in the world.

Every time someone actually tests these ideas they don't work as advertised. Then, someone says you need to do it a different way or you can't use a fixed set of rules or Mr. Genius Handicapper can do it even if you can't. Well, if you want people to believe you without any proof, start a religion. But don't tell me that I'm being unfair if I don't just blindly trust what you say.

[Lefty]

When you say you don't know much about Sartin or Phillips but then make statements denigrating them I just find that remarkable. And to say you're going on what others implied without checking; that's even more remarkable. I think it's called gossip, Rick.
Has any software prgm out there given proof they work? I really don't see how they could. Ask every purveyor of software on this board how much you can expect to make with their prgm and see what answers you get. All good software prgms are tools and that includes Sartin's; so what works for some may not work for all. I think Sartin has been surpassed(since he's out of the game far as I can tell)by
guys like Schwartz, Massa, et al. But most all use some of his ideas that you say don't work. Hmmm.

[Rick]

Lefty,

It's true that I don't know about what Phillips has been doing lately and was only going on "gossip" from what seemed to be reliable sources. But I have read many older Phillips newsletters and the negative statements don't seem out of the realm of possibility based on my comparing their previous claims with reality.

And I don't have anything against pace handicapping. If used properly it certainly has some real value. I'm only saying that I've never seen any proof that you can use it to get 60% or more winners playing two horses in every race (that's the low end of the claims of Sartin disciples, some claim as high as 80%). In fact, I've seen proof to the contrary by people employing exactly the same pace handicapping principles. And TPR is one of the least effective pace ratings according to controlled tests done using real data. And I still say that Sartin did not invent pace handicapping. He may have popularized it by his aggressive marketing of products but I don't think he had any new ideas. Others in the group made some advances in categorizing running styles and using track profiles but velocity based handicapping was researched and used successfully by others previously. They just didn't make any outlandish claims because their data didn't support it.

Suppose Beyer had written a book saying that if you only chose the right race to use, you could get 40% winners using speed ratings. Would you believe him? Probably not because everyone is so familiar with speed ratings and they've been tested in every conceivable way. But with pace ratings, people will believe anything.

Since there are so many here using pace handicapping software I'll just ask them. Does anyone here get 60% or more winners playing two horses in every race over a large sample?

And why would the same set of software work for some but not for all? Is there some secret about pace handicapping that only a few people know? And was the software written so as to carefully conceal this secret so that only a few could use it profitably? I don't think so. Users of pace handicapping software have all read the same two books, so if they were following the advice given in those books they should have similar results. Unless of course, the advice in those handicapping books was vague and impossible to be implemented consistently.

It still sounds like a religion to me and handicappers seem to have an unlimited amount of faith in the absence of any real evidence. Pace handicapping does work and you can use it to make a profit. But windfall profits and incredibly high win percentages playing two horses in every race are beyond the scope of what's been proven in real tests.

[Rick]

Another point about pace handicapping. If it worked as well as is claimed why haven't public handicappers adopted it in a big way and raised their win % by a huge amount. I guess you could assume that they're just incredibly stupid or lazy or don't know how to read. But, since I've known several who were bright, hard working, and more literate than most, I don't buy that theory. They're still struggling to stay above 50% winners on their top two horses while it is claimed that hundreds or thousands of others are getting 60-80% using the ideas available to anyone in a couple of books. Think about how ridiculous that is.

[Tom]

Dave Litfin makes and uses his own Qurin pace/speed figs.

[Tom]

Ken Massa has printed many studies showing results of his factors, theories, etc. Plus, HTR allows exporting of the data so that anyone can do thier own db studies. Check out Hurrikane's and Canucks posts.

[Lefty]

Rick, we stray. I was taking you to task about the paceline crack; that you intimated That Sartin and Phillips would agree about it being an artistic endeavor. Sartin came to adopt a mechanical paceline method and Alan at Phillips and the late Russ Dietrich didn't use methods that picked pacelines. So your statement was without merit. That's what i'm saying.
Yep, Sartin made clms but one thing I know, he NEVER said you could play 2 horses and get 60% winners over EVERY race.
Pizzolla and Schmidt have both said that when they were with Sartin they COULD pick 60% winners on selected races using 2 horses but both intimated that due to low prices they couldn't make much money.
Paceline handicapping is not the all end all and I never said that it was. And it's a lot of work, so that alone would keep public handicappers from adopting it.
I'm not here to defend Sartin's or Phillips' business practices but just wanted to set the record strght on the artistic paceline remark. And I have.

[Fastracehorse]

The Doc is a fraud.

I am not even 'this much' interested in reading anything that Doc SATIN had to say.

He had no PhD - what company do U want to keep??

Art and science meld IMO - you don't think Picasso's brush movements were mechanical?? His genius was facility of hand and exploiting new ideas.

fffastt

[Lefty]

Ffast, your opinion and you're welcome to it. Funny, that the "fraud's" ideas are exploited so widely and are imbedded one way or another in almost every software prgm on the market. And that's not even the subject I was addressing. Read carefully Rick's comments about artistic paceline sel. That's the point I was adddressing. But happy to address yours as well, and I did.
There ya go.

[Rick]

Lefty,

The only similarity between Phillips and Sartin is that they were both alleged to have misrepresented the effectiveness of horse racing methods. You say there was no connection between the two and I'm glad because in the past I really enjoyed reading the Phillips newsletters. If Phillips did misrepresent any of the methods then I don't think much damage was done anyway.

Sartin is another case though. Quinn says he claimed 45% winners (one horse) using early pace (2nd call) only and 64% winners on two horses at an average mutuel of $10.80. There are claims that are even more bizarre than that in "Pace Makes the Race". Nobody ever said "selected races" or anything like that in any of the books, so at the very least the statements are misleading. Now, it's true that the claims have become somewhat less outrageous over the years but it's still clear that what people understood them to be saying was not true. They certainly didn't try to correct any misconceptions about things when they were doing all those seminars. Fortunately, I never spent much money investigating any of that because I was forewarned by the psychobabble about "win therapy" and all that. I just simply checked the methods described in the books and reaffirmed my previous knowledge that early speed was helpful but that overall pace ratings based on a single race like TPR don't even perform as well as speed ratings.

Another question. Why is it that Sartin disciples don't win all of the handicapping tournaments? Probably not enough money to interest them I guess.

[Lefty]

Rick, as I said, not trying to defend Sartin. I really don't think he needs it. As I said everyone denigrates him and most every commercial purveyer of prgms uses his ideas.
On point: I just said you were wrong about him thinking paceline picking was an artistic endeavor. You were wrong about that.
BTW, call it pschyogobble if you wish but one's own psychology may well determine if they win or lose at racing.
I did well with TPR but he evolved from it and kinda destroyed it and never was a downloadable ver except Hambelton's and that used his own service which shortly went belly=up. As I said lots of guys took Sartin's ideas and ran further with them. Massa, Pizzolla, Shwartz and others. all have a leetle of the Doc in those prgms
.



_________________________________
I still often bet 2 horses per race

[Rick]

Pace handicapping, yes. Sartin, no. His followers, maybe. It's not my mission in life to educate horseplayers anyway. Let the buyer beware.

[David McKenzie]

Allow me to weigh in.

For many years my racing partner and I sent away for every book, system and computer program on the market.

We took the T.I.S. course in the 70s. I still have the original course material and Railbird issues (they are not for sale).

Then we learned about The Sheets. In those days you had to "sign for them" and the cost varied based on how heavy a hitter you were. As a matter of fact I did a "fourth out" statistical study for Ragozin (the results were statistically insignificant).

We bought all of Dick Mitchell's software, books and videos. We even got All-In-One before it was 3-In-1 (it was initially ESP which Dick glommed from Sartin). We also attended his seminars.

In addition to a drawer full of Sartin software there's an old Toshiba laptop with a DOS Synergy disk sitting in the corner.

All of Murray Kram's programs (including his $5,000 trifecta program) are installed on another computer sitting in front of me.

The scrap paper on my blotter is the back of an Equiform XTRA sheet.

We sent away and tested almost every program which Phillips gave a favorable review.

Here are some random musings about topics discussed here as well as other ideas that popped into my head germane to "it can't be done." (Note, it is not my intention to discredit anyone or endorse any product. Please don't take it as such.)

1) We won over 60% of the races played betting two horses to win and made a profit using pace. We did this for years.

2) We netted over eighty grand one GP winter meet using Kram's trifecta program betting appx. $400-$600 per race. This money was declared and we happily paid full taxes on it.

3) TPR worked better than most of our software programs and was profitable for years (it may still be profitable). I wrote a program for it myself and it's still in my trusty little Radio Shack PC-6.

4) The Sheets are a valuable tool and they always have been.

5) The Beyer numbers enabled us to make a lot of money when we downloaded them from BRIS before they were made available to the general public.

6) The Xtras "work." (I used the turf decline angle two days ago with success.)

7) The psychology of winning is not a joke. If you think you'll lose, you will lose. If you're afraid of winning, you won't win. If you project nothing but negativity, that's what you'll get in return.

8) I still use computer software and I still win with it.

So, what's the catch? The catch is all the above require MET -- money, effort and talent -- to make them successful.

"Don't sing the blues, if you won't pay the dues.”

[Rick]

David,

Hmmm. These things seem to work for some people but not for anyone else and mysteriously underperform when subjected to objective testing. 60% winners playing every race? Must be magic or something. TPR hasn't been profitable since at least 1994 according to my information. But you're not using it now are you? Positive thinking will not make you win more unless it affects the size of your bets. I'm not superstitious at all about betting so it has no effect on me.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dave M,

The stuff that worked....why did you stop using it? Or, put another way, how did you KNOW WHEN to stop using it before you gave all your profits back, and then some??

When people find something that works for them, why do they always invariably drop it and move onto something else? Did it stop working? If it DID stop working, did it every REALLY work in the first place???


==PA

[Big Bill]

==PA,

You posted a question that hits home:

"When people find something that works for them, why do they always invariably drop it and move onto something else?"

I wish I knew the answer to that question. I've developed a method that has, since 1998, delivered a healthy ROI, but I still keep reading books on handicapping and posts on your board, developing and experimenting with new methods, etc. I guess it is just the challange of finding something better that keeps me doing that! We are a strange lot, aren't we?

Big Bill

[sjk]

I am totally the opposite. I get ideas from reading the posts. I test them extensively (I burned up my computer last week and had to buy a new one), but unless I see significant upside, I don't change anything.

[David McKenzie]

Rick,

Who said anything about playing every race? I play almost every race, but even I have limits. <G>. And how does one empirically test something that’s subjective? Even extrapolating the sprint part of a route race in TPR is subject to individual interpretation. I remember that much. And as for selecting pacelines…I think Jim Cramer said selecting the last paceline loses the least of money overall. Well, that’s swell if your goal is to reduce your losses. However, if you want to make money you have to abandon that completely and take a different journey.

I’m in complete agreement with banning the con artists that are taking advantage of newcomers to the game. This forum sort of acts like a policing agency in some regards. Anyone is free to read the opinions of others and form their own conclusion.

PA,

The stuff that worked....why did you stop using it?

Well, I still use the The Racing Form (when I go to the track), The Sheets and a computer. I use different software programs now than I did then for a variety of reasons:

One, the field size and trifecta payoffs at GP are not what they used to be. Ergo, a trifecta program that selects many box bets is not as lucrative (or maybe not lucrative at all anymore) as it once was.

Two, manually performing data entry is unthinkable to me now that I’m spoiled rotten with electronic data. All the old programs require manual entry. At one point I was typing in the past performance lines for every horse for every race. Do that at NYRA when there are 15 horses listed in a race X 10 past performances for each horse and you can imagine how quickly that becomes tiresome.

Three, there have been and will continue to be advances in technology and research. This is not a static environment and it pays to keep up with the latest developments. What works well now may not perform as well next year, or work at all for that matter. I think you know that at least one racing software vendor seems to upgrade on a monthly basis! <G>

Or, put another way, how did you KNOW WHEN to stop using it before you gave all your profits back, and then some??

Some of it is obvious. The DRF’s publication of Beyer numbers and Tomlinson ratings have greatly diminished their value as money makers. I could say the same thing about pocket trainer manuals and/or a host of other information providers that you’re familiar with, but why bother? You know that as soon as the public gets hold of something the edge goes vamoose. The game is never ending and it’s a constant struggle to keep an edge.

When people find something that works for them, why do they always invariably drop it and move onto something else?

People get bored and want something new, even if the old gizmo still works. Also, no matter how well it works, is *it* the Penultimate? Who knows? I know you’re quite familiar with human psychology. So, I assume your question is somewhat rhetorical.

Did it stop working? If it DID stop working, did it every REALLY work in the first place???

Sure, it’s possible for lots of things to have worked and then stopped working. I could name a host of former moneymakers. How about second time lasix when people weren’t even aware of first time lasix? How about stickers when people didn’t pay attention to shoes? The list is endless.

[tcat]

I was a Sartin user for several years. He was exposed as fraud by Barry Meadow, I don't know who check on him. No one has ever seen him.

Sartin was smart enough to have a good programmer and great help from the likes of Bradshaw, Brohammer and others. As far as I know, no one paid any attention to the doc, it was others who did the teaching.

Lefty, just to set the record straight, Massa was a disciple of Brohammer besides being a very good handicapper in his own right.
Massa wrote the program for Brohammer (MPH). When Tom retired, Massa got the program and turned it into HTR. He has had (listened to) a lot of good advice from a lot of very good handicappers.

You'll find the HTR family at a lot of the handicapping tournaments and it is rare to not find one or several are collecting money at the end.
Good luck Lefty!

[Lefty]

Rick, as I said before, Sartin never ever said his methods worked playing every race. Please show me where he ever said it. He always said don't play any race with 2 or more unknowns, i.e. first time starters, foreign horses, stretchouts, and layoffs. That's a long way from every race.

Tcat, yes I know Massa programmed MPH for Brohamer and where do you think Brohamer got MPH from? It was based on feet per second numbers he got from Sartin. And before anyone says those weren't original to him, Sartin always gave credit to others, including Taulbot, Mahl and Sedgewick.


_______________________________________
I miss THE FOLLOW UP

[Fastracehorse]

<Funny, that the "fraud's" ideas are exploited so widely and are imbedded one way or another in almost every software prgm on the market.

Yes, that is funny - and Brittany Spears is more popular than the fraud - what 's your point??

fffastt

[Lefty]

Fast, the point is obvious but here it is spelled out: If Sartin is such a fraud why are his ideas imbedded in so many software prgms, hmmmm?

[tcat]

Let's give Sartin his due, he popularized pace handicapping! That was th real start of learning to handicap for many of us at that time, and it was fun! But when you went to the seminars, as I did, it was the others who did the teaching.
At one seminar weekend I met Bradshaw, Brohammer, Aiinslee, Mark Cramer, and others...what a lineup!

Meadow was brutal in his criticism of Sartin. But Meadow's claim to fame is his ability to criticize. I dislike him even more.

[Tom]

I agree. The whole seminar thing was a double deal:
1. Mental - hang around with winners, meet new winners, get that positive metal energy recharged.
2. Learning. From the "supporting cast"
That weekend with the group you mentioned was awesome.
Especially the "wrap-up" meeting at the bar that night!

And I agree about Barry, too. If you want to go out and be an
"ivestigative reporter" and blow the whislte on other people, maybe you shouldn't be in the same business andselling your own crap. Fink is a term I think of when his name is mentioned.

And old ideas, I sill use TPR, not exactly as the book outlines, but the spirit of it, within the context of other programs and pencil and paper handicapping. I bet two horses a race when the odds warrant it.
And as far as objective testing goes - bullcrap. You can't objectively test a method of play that involves personal judgement. No one ever said anythingabout playing every race, and that being the case, you CANNOT do an objective study. The only thing you can study is how bad YOUR interpretation of someone else's performs under YOUR criteria.
What good is a study that shows Factor X wins 32% of the time and returns a loss of 5% over 54,000 races?
I sure as heck am not betting those 54,000 races, so the point is moot. And I don't bet only factor X, so the point is less than moot.

[Rick]

A long time ago I worked with a guy who went to Las Vegas about once a month and played slot machines. According to him, he always won money. You'd be surprised at how many people actually believed him. Later, I heard people make the same claims about playing blackjack. Now, played properly, blackjack is at least a positive expectation game, but to say that you win every time is just contrary to the experience on anyone who's ever really played the game for profit. Again though, there are a vast number of people who think it's possible. Horseplayers have their own set of myths to believe in.

In my opinion, the only way you'll ever get 60% or more winners in your top two choices is by playing only races where the top two public choices do at least that well. If you're playing all of the races, or almost all of the races, you're going to be limited to somewhere in the low 50's, which is what the top two public choices do overall. Yes, you can still get overlays because there will be false favorites, but you're not going to win a higher percentage of the time. The party's been over for a long time as far as finding short priced overlays though. While favorites once lost only about 10%, that hasn't been the case for many years. Pace handicapping becoming so popular probably has a lot to do with that. My guess is that it was over with in about 1991, when the pace handicapping books started being published. The only reason to make the techniques widely available at that point would be that it became more profitable to sell things to others than it was to keep it to yourself. Simple economics.

During the 80's it was possible to make windfall profits using surprisingly simple techniques, especially at certain tracks. Santa Anita for example, was early speed heaven and you didn't need complex pace handicapping to take advantage of it. These days, there are so many people using that approach there that it's probably better to use something else. Another important change is that most tracks now are able to recognize biases and eliminate them quickly. Of course, it's still possible to win using pace handicapping but I think the glory days are over.

[Rick]

Another point. Most of the people who are against testing something according to a fixed set of rules either don't keep any records or constantly modify them to only include their "latest and greatest" ideas. So, even though they lost money last year they're winning now.

But, if you can show me something that will about break even playing every race I guarantee you that you can make a lot of money with it just playing 1/3 to 1/2 of the races. I think it's also possible to win money playing every race using several techniques at once. But 60% winners playing two horses just ain't possible.

[Rick]

Just to clarify further before anyone gets upset, I think good pace handicapping is really a combination of several techniques. So, in one race you might get a good overlay using early speed and in another you might be better off using some other measure of overall race speed. The whole idea is to stay away from what everyone else is betting on. But when you do that, your win % usually goes down a bit. There was a time in the past when the simple rule of only playing one of the top four favorites was helpful, but those times are gone.

[Lefty]

Rick, I agree can't make money or brk even betting every race. But Sartin never said bet every race. I know, I've read every Follow Up from 1st issue to last, been to 3 of his seminars and 3 workshops. He never said it. That's a fact.
And 60% betting 2 horses was the goal and not everyone's end result. A few achieved it, most of us did not.

[Rick]

Lefty,

OK, but everyone I've known who read the book "Pace Makes the Race" thought that they were saying that you could win better than 60% of all races using the methods outlined in the book. Maybe my copy of the book has different words in it than yours. I didn't go to any of the seminars so I don't know what was said there but I do have a typed-up manual from 1983 that claims "far in excess of 63%" and the only races not playable are said to be those with first time starters or foreign horses.

[Lefty]

A very few achieved that goal. So, that makes it possible. I never achieved it but made money with the prgm. Pizzolla made a few changes in the 3rd fraction, added an oddsline and sold TPR for over a $1000 and some people swear by it. Everything not for everyone.

[Rick]

Lefty,

From the 1983 manual: "None who have stayed with us are winning less" (referring to the 63% mentioned previously).

Also, in the Acknowledgment: "Our thanks also to Russ Dietrich of Phillips Racing Newsletter for his gracious recognition of our efforts in behalf of the handicapper".

I'm not making this stuff up or going on gossip. This is what was printed in the manual.

[GameTheory]

From The New Pace Makes the Race, copyright 1995, which has Hambleton & Schmidt listed as authors, but not Pizzolla, et al:

To date, we have found that in the hands of handicappers willing to work and learn, it will produce winners in 60 to 65% of the races handicapped in its two top choices.

Since this is the revised version of the book, it very well may have different words than Rick's copy.

That's from the first chapter, written by Schmidt. He credits the ideas of pace handicapping to Mahl, Taulbot, & Col. Bradley (1920's), and even speculates that the ancient Romans might have used pace to handicap chariot races.

Later, in the chapter on paceline selection they point out that their strategy had totally changed. They did not pick a paceline anymore and then make a rating for it. They made all the ratings first, and then looked at the pattern, noting that the most recent race was the usually the most important.

Any handicapping method that asks you to pick pacelines from the Racing Form before you start using ratings and numbers is begging the question. If you can pick contenders and pacelines, what do you need us for? Bet the top Beyer number or speed rating plus variant and make money. It is completely unfair to expect you to somehow develop an intuition about pacelines if you only look at enough of them. If that were true, all old handicapppers would be winners, for the paceline is truly the key to winning. Most systems and computer programs ask you to pick pacelines so their creators will have an excuse when you lose. Once they know the winner of the race, they can juggle the pacelines to make almost any horse look like a world beater. Out in the real world world, it is an unfair requirement of any method to ask you to pick line without help.

Then it goes into some straightforward (but not 100% mechanical) advice about how to judge the patterns of TPRs to determine the likely performance today.

All in all, everything in this book (this edition, anyway) is pretty reasonable.

[Rick]

GT,

Thanks for pointing that out to me. My copy is from 1991 and doesn't say anything like that. The second quote you mention is something I'd totally agree with and if that's the way it was presented in later years then I'd have no problem with it. The first quote, mentioning 60-65% winners, I'd still find hard to believe unless you limited yourself to carefully selected races. However, as I mentioned elsewhere, there was a time when low odds horses won more than their share and that would make it possible to increase your win % without sacrificing your profitability. But those days are gone now, so I'll still stick by my statement that today you can only get closer to 50% winners playing two horses than 60% and still show a profit.

Anyway, it's very interesting that the level of credibility of the statements made improved over the years as more of them were made by associates and less by Sartin himself.

[Lefty]

Rick, and that's why Pace Launcher was born. Sartin realized that TPR didn'r produce the big wins anymore so he created the Pace Launcher prgm. This prgm produced closer to 50% winners and better prices. Sartin stayed with the times until he got too sick to continue. Remember what started this thread? Sartin come to embrace a mechanical paceline selection method, strayed away from the art part and said the last line usually was not the best. Don't try to keep sticking him with what he said in the 80's because he evolved, like all good handicappers have to

[Rick]

Lefty,

Well, that's why I'm here ... to learn something. Now I understand better why there are such diametrically opposite opinions about him and his associates.

[Lefty]

Rick, ditto. This old dog always willing to learn. The Doc was nothing if not controversial. Seemed people hated or loved him. I respected him for his ideas. Now there are new "guys on the block" with many good ideas.

[tcat]

Looking back at some old stuff, wasn't the prediction 67%?

[Tom]

Originally posted by tcat
Looking back at some old stuff, wasn't the prediction 67%?
Yeah, 67 was it. I was stuck at 66% for 11 years and could never get there! :mad:

Maybe I should have bet more than one horse a race??:rolleyes:

[lousycapper]

Originally posted by Rick
This idea of handicapping being an artistic endeavor is total crap.

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

Sounds just like Grampa! And he's been doing it since the end of WWII.

-L.C.

[First_Place]

the outspoken Rick (who no longer posts here) said:

"I don't really like the idea of using just one race for a rating so paceline selection as normally practiced doesn't seem very effective to me."

Okay, fine. That's your prerogotive. Whatever works for you.

"But when someone says that they can't define a set of rules they're really saying that they don't handicap consistently under the same set of circumstances."

Makes sense...maybe. Now tell us peons about your definite "set of rules" that help you handicap more consistently.

"I can't see how it would be an advantage to handicap according to emotions or inconsistently because that's what the rest of the crowd does and they aren't very successful."

That we already know. Now let's hear about your non-emotional, non-subjective method of picking pacelines.

"People I've known who handicap that way are the biggest losers of all and frequently don't even know it because they usually don't keep track of their losses either. Worst of all, if you don't know what you did when you're winning you probably can't repeat it."

(yawn...)...we're still waiting for your answer, Rick.

"My main method combines three factors into a rating and uses a fourth as an filter. But I'm also experimenting with two other methods to use when a race is unplayable with the first method."

Never mind your experimental methods--I've got plenty of those in my notebook waiting to be tested. Right now the focus is on your "main method." Let's hear it!

"Each of those uses only two factors and the results so far in a couple of hundred races are very good."

Yeah, u-huh, okay...so what are they??

"I think if you have enough techniques available you can play just about every race by successively applying different approaches until you find one that generates an overlay."

That goes without saying. However, you still didn't tell us what scientific, non-subjective method that YOU use!

This is what I despise about this forum. The way people give roundabout, evasive answers and in effect, end up saying NOTHING worthwhile--just like a politician. The loathsome Bill Clinton quickly comes to mind as he was a master of this.

People on this board are very quick to belittle methods that do work for others but will not disclose--in part or in full--what works for them.

We don't want to hear about your super-duper, far superior method, angle, etc. if you're not willing to share with us its precise details. We want to hear what works for you, not evasive, indirect ramblings that do nothing but take up our time and end up telling us nothing!

Thanks a lot, Rick (wherever you are).

FP

[Rick]

FP,

Your post and others like it are exactly the reason I don't post much here any more. Of course I'm not going to give the exact rules for my method and have several hundred people start playing the same way. I'd have to be a total moron to do that. I know that people hold in high regard those who have disclosed their methods in books and seminars, but they only do that when they can make more money by selling the method to others than they can make by playing it themselves.

If you put the effort into it you can come up with something good on your own. Just start trying various combinations of two and three variables that are as independent as possible and see what works. You can do this a quick and dirty way just by looking at horses who are top ranked on two variables and going from there. In most cases, for example highest last race speed rating and highest average earnings, they will do worse than the average track takeout. When you find a pair that loses less than the takeout over a large sample, you're really on to something. Then you can go on to add a third variable. I've used this method many times to test variables that I thought would add something to the basic three factor method. None of them I've tested so far improved the results but I am looking at one approach that shows promise in a small sample.

Anyway, I do check back here from time to time, and may post on a couple of topics that I think may be of interest later on. Generally though, I don't have much to add to what I've already said and I'm not interested in getting involved in any pissing contests that some people enjoy so much because it just wastes so much of my time reponding.

[Tom]

Hey Rick,
Glad to see you alive and well. :jump:

[Rick]

Tom,

Yes, I'm alive and well and, by the way, you're one of those who is a pleasure to converse with. I really don't mind criticism at all but some of these people are just plain ignorant and mean. That's what happens on the "web" though. If you don't have the time to defend yourself, don't go there.

[keilan]

Hey Rick – like Tom I’m glad to see that your still around, hope all is well :)

[Rick]

Keilan,

Everything's fine except that the first two months of this year were disappointing for the horses, only about break even. But, that's not all that uncommon it turns out, and that's a subject that I'd like to elaborate on further when I get the time.

The other subject that interests me right now involves odds. I've also noticed, in a relatively small sample, that my selections that are bet down to half of their morning line odds are at least as profitable, and possibly better than the rest. So, if that is true in a larger sample, it would mean that what would usually be called an "underlay" might really be an "overlay". But my normal way of finding overlays doesn't involve using any odds at all, so the same idea might not work with other methods. The most interesting thing about the idea is that it may boost the win % up to the 40% range, and that would allow for bets that are a higher percent of bankroll. Another thing that seems to boost win %, but not as much, is lower weight this race than last. I'm too lazy to research these things adequately right now, but maybe someone else would be interested in trying them.

Nice talking with you and almost everyone else here too. I should have pointed out that there are only a handful of people that caused 99% of all of the bad experiences and most of them are probably gone by now.

[andicap]

Rick,
Good to see you posting here. I too miss your insights.

First Place, how can I say this in the nicest way possible?
You're full of it.
This forum is full of helpful hints to play the horses. Will we do your homework for you and GIVE YOU the Holy Grail (as if I had it)? Of course not.
People here who are consistent winners have worked too hard to do that, BUT I've found they are willing to give you some tools (re: CJ's new Excel spreadsheet), and directions to get there.

Would anyone of heard of CJ's figures if not for this site?

Keilan has giving several seminars on how to get started in using %E.

Tom Brown is always throwing out things he's used that have been helpful to him. As have lots of others.

That's not even to mention all the discussion about various software and and book reviews.

This place is great for giving you an excellent road map but you've got to get to your destination yourself. And of course it's up to you to figure out how much of the posts are gold and how many are dross. It's not dissimilar to what historians and scientists do. They get clues and then follow the trails to see where they lead.

[traynor]

Rick wrote <I've used this method many times to test variables that I thought would add something to the basic three factor method. None of them I've tested so far improved the results but I am looking at one approach that shows promise in a small sample.>

That replicates most studies of decision making, with an interesting flop; adding more factors increases the confidence level of the decision maker in making (the usually wrong) decisions. In a test of public handicappers, five factors produced as many correct predictions as ten and twenty factors produced. However, the more factors "studied" the more confident the predictors were in their predictions.

That little frailty of human decision making bias forms the basis for almost every software app out there; they present a mass of "information" that the user is supposed to tweak to "customize" it.
Thanks,
Traynor

[Rick]

Yeah, I've always felt that if I'd just known a couple of things like that when I started studying horse racing that I'd have been able to save myself years of trouble by not taking the wrong approach. So, I think knowing that you don't need to use a lot of factors and an approach to quickly eliminate the useless combinations, along with the idea that you should be looking for relatively independent factors, is very valuable information to help guide those who are willing to take the time to do the research.

And, I'm positive that my combination of factors is not the best that could be found since I've limited myself to only one information source (BRIS). The ultimate method would combine ratings from independent sources that don't agree with one another too often.

[First_Place]

Rick,

Hello. Longtime no see. I didn't mean to single you out and pick on you. The intent of my post was twofold:

#1)To vent my frustrations with this group, and

#2)To get you to respond to my post by wording things the way I did (in case you were still lurking on this forum) in an effort to get you to return to posting, as I've always appreciated your informative, atypical thoughts on handicapping.

And it worked!

I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you in any way.

Welcome back!

FP :-)

[First_Place]

andicap wrote:

"First Place, how can I say this in the nicest way possible?
You're full of it."

Sometimes. :D

"This forum is full of helpful hints to play the horses."

I know. I was only exaggerating in an effort to make my point. I've picked up plenty of hints here and I'm grateful to the folks who were unselfish enough to share their knowledge and experience.

"Will we do your homework for you and GIVE YOU the Holy Grail (as if I had it)? Of course not."

I don't expect that for one second. I was only venting my frustrations in general about the (at times) evasive, roundabout contributions to this forum, something I guess that has to be expected considering the subject that we're dealing with.

Peace.

FP :)

[Rick]

FP,

No problem. I was more amused than anything. People get pretty emotional in these discussions, including myself, and I don't blame them for that. I'm only irritated by those who repeatedly got off of the subject and into personal attacks. You can count on me to state my position honestly and, if you dislike it, go ahead and tell me so as long as it's only once, not 100 times.

Anyway, my whole point is that things that have saved me time are useful information. You might not want to do exactly what I am right now anyway, since I haven't made a dime yet this year. Like I said, no BS about what's really happening.

[cj]

Rick,

Are you getting rebates? If so, breaking even is pretty sweet!

[kingfin66]

I just started reading throught this thread and got very, very nervous. Thank goodness cooler heads have prevailed. Way to go guys!

[First_Place]

Sorry, didn't mean to make anyone nervous.

Rick's back in town. Hoorah!

FP :)

[First_Place]

The "outspoken" Rick.

:lol:

FP

[Rick]

CJ,

Yeah, I get 3% so I'm in the black anyway. These days I guess I could do better than that but they don't always take the track I like to play (Philadelphia).

While I think of it, another reason why knowing exactly what I do might not be that useful has to do with the fact that different combinations of factors and different weightings for them would probably be required at other tracks. I like to play at more or less "average" tracks because the original data that I used was proven in a large sample containing many tracks. I'm quite sure that it wouldn't do so well at some of the tracks with really unusual pace characteristics. I've heard that some do quite well though specializing in just those kinds of tracks.

[First_Place]

Rick,

Any thoughts on Michael Pizzolla's way of picking pace lines as per his LAAST and Form Cycle Windows method? I think this is about as close to a mechanical, i.e., rule-based, non-artistic way of doing so that there is.

FP

[Show Me the Wire]

Interesting to see my old thread resurrected. My original question was intended for SW vendors and their users. It was which came first question, the chicken or the egg. Use the paceline to select the contenders or select the contenders and then use the paceline.

Brohamer advocated using a selection method prior to paceline selection and then use paceline to rate the contender’s ability. My support for this contention is Brohamer’s statement about using methods learned from other distinguished authors, like Quirin, Beyer, Quinn, Davidowitz, Ainslie, and Selvidge to come up with a few contenders and analyze the representative pacelines for the few contenders.

First_Place:

Which brings us to your question about the fulcrum pace. Yes, the fulcrum pace seems to act as a filter to identify contenders based on pace. However, there are many other theories on how to choose contenders prior to paceline selection.

However, no vendors responded to my original question, which was disappointing. I chalk up the lack of vendor response to the belief the vendors disregard Brohamer’s concepts and use fps or final time as the primary method to identify contenders. :cool:

[Rick]

FP,

I haven't read his book yet, but probably should. Anything that's repeatable, so that it can be tested objectively, seems better than a subjective approach though. I don't deny that there are some who can handicap subjectively and do very well, but I think it's a pretty small percentage of horseplayers who have the "handicapping genius". I'm not one so I prefer a consistent set of rules. Of course, after a lot of experience with a good method, it does get to where you can select most of the same horses by just eyeballing a Racing Form. Both ways involve the same general priciples such as avoiding overbet horses, trying not to give double weight to highly correlated factors, and giving little or no weight to minor factors.

[46zilzal]

fulcrum is a nice idea: too bad it doesn't work all that well.