PDA

View Full Version : Pace @ AQU


jasperson
03-04-2010, 09:37 AM
I reread Brohamer's book and tried to handicap AQU as best I could. He are my results. The numbers after the selection are EP,SP,AP respectively. I eliminated the maiden races. Yesterday AQU seemed to favor early speed at the rail. That is why I selected that track to try.
1 :7: 1,1,1
2 :4: 3,1,1
4 :3: 2,1,1
5 :3: 3,1,1
7 :2: 2,1,1
8 :8: 1,1,1

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:19 AM
. Yesterday AQU seemed to favor early speed at the rail. That is why I selected that track to try.

With rare exception, inner AQU favors speed ALL the time and it is NOT just the horse in front either.

You will KNOW you have a good handle on a track when you can turn your back to the broadcast and call the race from your calculations, and then be somewhat close to what the caller AT the track calls them. Of course there are things out of your control (bumps., mis-steps, traffic) but until you can say, like in the first, that the :5: and :6: and possibly the :3: and most likely to run up front by the second call, you are just guessing.

Learn to visualize around the second call: Who can lead or be close to it, and then who can move versus that projected 2nd call in today's match up. NEVER think of a race as having a single outcome as the realities of sensitive dependence on initial conditions (the basis of chaos) will rear it's ugly head often. THINK of a race as having different outcomes and then assign a prospective probability (odds line) to each and then decide which offers the best return on that probability.

I would re-evaluate the seven as its best line is 4 back and each successive run, save the last one, has gotten worse.

cj
03-04-2010, 11:23 AM
With rare exception, inner AQU favors speed ALL the time and it is NOT just the horse in front either.


False. It certainly has some days where it is strongly biased, but it is not even a majority of days, let alone all the time.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:26 AM
False. It certainly has some days where it is strongly biased, but it is not even a majority of days, let alone all the time.
How many times do I have to have the "little boy" following me around at every post making sure not to poison the minds of people by admitted alternative approaches that are NOT CARBON COPIES OF YOURS?

Remember you speak handicapping English and I speak handicapping Norwegian.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:34 AM
There are two major definitions of racing style

Brohamer's POSITIONAL definitions which have no relationship to pace of race

Sartin's energy distribution which are defined by reaction to pace of race.

CJ uses the former and I use the latter. BOTH work

the little guy
03-04-2010, 11:44 AM
False. It certainly has some days where it is strongly biased, but it is not even a majority of days, let alone all the time.

When you quote that guy it defeats the purpose of having him on ignore.

On the other hand, in cases like this, it just reinforces my position.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:50 AM
When you quote that guy it defeats the purpose of having him on ignore.

On the other hand, in cases like this, it just reinforces my position.

I wear that as a badge of honor as deleting those not open minded enough to investigate different views of a race versus the same tired old look that abounds here.

Tom
03-04-2010, 11:55 AM
How many times do I have to have the "little boy" following me around at every post making sure not to poison the minds of people by admitted alternative approaches that are NOT CARBON COPIES OF YOURS?

Remember you speak handicapping English and I speak handicapping Norwegian.

And the thread starter is handicapping in English.
Leaving you, once again, irrelevant. The key word here was Brohamer.

Ted Craven
03-04-2010, 01:34 PM
Winner (#7) disbursed his E/L energy most late of all ranked.. Perhaps one of those rare occurrences... And the most opposite to that one (i.e. the most Early, #5), placed. Top 2 Total Energy. Among other things, speed does matter.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6649

cheers,

Ted

Ted Craven
03-04-2010, 02:56 PM
Jasperson, Race #5 your #1 and #3 got scratched. Here's what I see: #2 has credentials but has been trying for a long time, and no value. #4 and #6 have value and are top 3 Total Energy (~AP). #8 is top 2 TE and not too bad early, but give it a chance off such a long layoff - maybe ITM.

Who knows what these lightly raced dogs (er, horses) will do? I thought you were skipping maiden races.

:)

Ted

cj
03-04-2010, 03:42 PM
CJ uses the former and I use the latter. BOTH work

I, unlike you, can speak both.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 03:54 PM
I, unlike you, can speak both.
All evidence to the contrary, but live in that belief.

cj
03-04-2010, 03:59 PM
All evidence to the contrary, but live in that belief.

You always come on and try to give information, but you don't give anything that could actually help the person asking the question. Perhaps if you actually explained how you conclude a track "favors speed all the time" to the person that asked the question it would be beneficial.

However, you would just rather post the same repetitive bits with which offer no usefulness to anyone without some clarification. From now on they will be promptly deleted. They just wind up derailing threads.

Charlie D
03-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Can't remember title, but Steve Crist wrote a good article( in my humble opinion ) about why speed dominates.


A search of DRF using Aqueduct Inner as keywords may find it.

pandy
03-04-2010, 05:00 PM
The inner track does not favor inside speed anymore, it did years ago. There are some speed favoring days but there are also many days that favor closers.

PaceAdvantage
03-04-2010, 06:48 PM
However, you would just rather post the same repetitive bits with which offer no usefulness to anyone without some clarification. From now on they will be promptly deleted. They just wind up derailing threads.Works for me....

Trotman
03-04-2010, 07:24 PM
CJ your post keep me thinking keep it up :ThmbUp: , on the other hand 46 you want me to get sleeping :bang: . In my life time it's better to listen and learn.

Robert Goren
03-04-2010, 07:29 PM
It is more likely to get a rail bias than a early speed bias. But the only thing sure is that what ever worked yesterday won't work today. They have tractors and they know how to use them. JMO;)

jasperson
03-04-2010, 07:37 PM
Accordding to Brohamer to be successful you must construct a track profile and that is what I going to try to do at AQU. How many listers think this is really important and do it?

Charlie D
03-04-2010, 08:09 PM
Jasperson

Tom Brohamer is a Professional bettor, PA members are mostly losers :) trying to become winners ;) so who should you listen to??



Here http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=529&page=1&highlight=track+profiles is an old thread on topic that you may or may not find useful.

Ted Craven
03-04-2010, 08:20 PM
According to Bradshaw, and latterly according to Sartin, you don't really need a track profile, or a decision model: everything you need (more or less) is contained in the matchup of the horses' PPs entered against each other in today's race.

Myself I would suspect that both decision models and track profiles re pertinent factors might add a number of ROI points ongoing (e.g. by downgrading an otherwise apparent contender, or encouraging you to go deeper in your horse rankings for a 3rd best horse if it better fits the models, etc). But I don't know - I don't do it, though I tell others to do it...:)

I only did 2 races at AQU today (posted here) and without models the winner (@ not great odds) landed on top according to the way Sartin's later approach would have you matchup contenders by fractional analysis, using daily and inter-track variants. Perhaps those were the only 2 races that worked out that way.

It's still Brohamer-era Sartin, perhaps with 20 years of added bells and whistles.

Ted

Charlie D
03-04-2010, 08:25 PM
According to Bradshaw, and latterly according to Sartin, you don't really need a track profile, or a decision model: everything you need (more or less) is contained in the matchup of the horses' PPs entered against each other in today's race.


Ted


"The Match Up supercedes everything" eh!! Ted ;)

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 08:27 PM
"The Match Up supersedes everything" eh!! Ted ;)
yeah but you fellows continually MISS form cycles

Charlie D
03-04-2010, 08:37 PM
yeah but you fellows continually MISS form cycles


You have no idea what "us fellows" miss or don't miss so please don't suggest you do.

Tom
03-04-2010, 09:25 PM
Wow!
An all-star thread.
Que, Rick, Hurrikane, ridersup
(Charlie's link)

Ted Craven
03-04-2010, 10:03 PM
yeah but you fellows continually MISS form cycles
opener the :5: :6: to fight it out, :7: is going off form miserably , but then most of the field is too, and the :3: from too far back will try to move too late.

A confusing contest best left to watch.

Hmmm...

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 10:06 PM
line three.......put in the last three for horse 7 and the form cycle is obvious just not enough in this race, as I described it, a CRAMER lesser of evils as the field was going backwards.

in today's selection area:
"opener the 5 6 to fight it out, 7 is going off form miserably, but then most of the field is too, and the 3 from too far back will try to move too late.

A confusing contest best left to watch."

ALL the contenders came in, and yours truly watched it

kingfin66
03-04-2010, 10:07 PM
Whatever happened to Hurrikane?

jasperson
03-04-2010, 10:27 PM
I ment to but this one had horses with a lot data so I put it in. You have much more data in your printout, but in this case my oddsline program had Illegal Search as its top pick.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:04 PM
I ment to but this one had horses with a lot data so I put it in. You have much more data in your printout, but in this case my oddsline program had Illegal Search as its top pick.
Don't get caught up in finding the WINNER all the time. I have worked the photo finish camera long enough and have over 40 years observing that the best horses often get beat and just need be on the board and the logical gambler finds ways to make money with COMBINATIONS of logic.

TOO much can happen between "There off" until the wire to keep thinking in absolutes so you have to think in scenarios or this game will frustrate you to death.

Accept the fact that you are going to lose a lot but know that if play the odds correctly that you only have to hit around 25 to 30% to do well.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:28 PM
Form cycle..... rather than use recent form lines, your choice was a line 104 days ago (third line back) yet in looking at this animals last three there are definite signs of going off form since its latest pace or race have not been close to the older ones. Going off but not quite enough for this motley group.

ranchwest
03-04-2010, 11:45 PM
Form cycle..... rather than use recent form lines, your choice was a line 104 days ago (third line back) yet in looking at this animals last three there are definite signs of going off form since its latest pace or race have not been close to the older ones. Going off but not quite enough for this motley group.

The Scott Form Factors are N + -. That's a very good set of form factors.

46zilzal
03-04-2010, 11:47 PM
The Scott Form Factors are N + -. That's a very good set of form factors.
This is just based on pace as his definitions would not work here.

ranchwest
03-05-2010, 12:02 AM
This is just based on pace as his definitions would not work here.

His definitions worked better than yours.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 12:07 AM
His definitions worked better than yours.
within the framework of YOUR understanding they might.

I read How Will Your Horse Run Today? twice and got a single practical thing from it: the 5 furlong work.

In Sartin methodology when a horse cannot contend with a second call time over a period of three races, losing in total energy and/or climbing in %median against the same of slower 2nd call challenges, it is going off form. First found this on a good one too, Pico Central right before they retired him and Street Sense showed the same pattern right before Monmouth.

ranchwest
03-05-2010, 12:55 AM
within the framework of YOUR understanding they might.

I read How Will Your Horse Run Today? twice and got a single practical thing from it: the 5 furlong work.

In Sartin methodology when a horse cannot contend with a second call time over a period of three races, losing in total energy and/or climbing in %median against the same of slower 2nd call challenges, it is going off form. First found this on a good one too, Pico Central right before they retired him and Street Sense showed the same pattern right before Monmouth.

So, you read one Scott book and dismissed everything except the 5 furlong work? What if you'd have done that with Sartin? You missed the meat and only smelled the potatoes.

I'm sitting here watching All the President's Men. Woodward and Bernstein had to have two sources. I'm thinking that might be a good idea for my handicapping -- at least two sources, more when possible. So, I'm learning Sartin. But, I won't toss my Scott.

Ted Craven
03-05-2010, 09:14 AM
Form cycle..... rather than use recent form lines, your choice was a line 104 days ago (third line back) yet in looking at this animals last three there are definite signs of going off form since its latest pace of race have not been close to the older ones. Going off but not quite enough for this motley group.
Huh? In your readout, left-hand column Pace of Race 2nd Call, bottom 3 entries for Half A Note - this shows the adjusted time for the pace setter (POR), not for this horse, and this horse (excepting the last line) is not a natural front runner or even pace-setter type. The fact that the paces of those past races were generally getting slower is not a reflection of any form deterioration of this horse. In each of his last several races he either set the pace or made a demonstrable run against that pace, finishing mostly in the money. It's not his fault that in races 2-4 back the 2nd call leader was running slower - the horse didn't have anything to do with that. It's merely an artifact of this collection of data.

Re using the 3rd line back to rate him - he'd rank even better on top using the last line, whatever. It's an automatable paceline selection strategy (best of the last 3 comparable, erring in favour of better Total Energy / AP) - a common Sartin strategy (despite what I hear about Sartin's 'stick to the last 2 pacelines dictums' on some websites).

Of course we want to know about a horse's form-cycle changes, but in this race, with respect, your chart did not show that for this horse.

Ted

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 09:54 AM
So, you read one Scott book and dismissed everything except the 5 furlong work? What if you'd have done that with Sartin? You missed the meat and only smelled the potatoes.

I'm sitting here watching All the President's Men. Woodward and Bernstein had to have two sources. I'm thinking that might be a good idea for my handicapping -- at least two sources, more when possible. So, I'm learning Sartin. But, I won't toss my Scott.
the two concepts mixed like alcohol and vegetable oil, Protestants and Catholics.

When two ideas are diametrically opposed to one another, you evaluate them and decide which camp, if either, you want to belong to.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 09:56 AM
Huh? In your readout, left-hand column Pace of Race 2nd Call, bottom 3 entries for Half A Note - this shows the adjusted time for the pace setter (POR), not for this horse, and this horse (excepting the last line) is not a natural front runner or even pace-setter type. The fact that the paces of those past races were generally getting slower is not a reflection of any form deterioration of this horse. In each of his last several races he either set the pace or made a demonstrable run against that pace, finishing mostly in the money. It's not his fault that in races 2-4 back the 2nd call leader was running slower - the horse didn't have anything to do with that. It's merely an artifact of this collection of data.

Re using the 3rd line back to rate him - he'd rank even better on top using the last line, whatever. It's an automatable paceline selection strategy (best of the last 3 comparable, erring in favour of better Total Energy / AP) - a common Sartin strategy (despite what I hear about Sartin's 'stick to the last 2 pacelines dictums' on some websites).

Of course we want to know about a horse's form-cycle changes, but in this race, with respect, your chart did not show that for this horse.

Ted
raw data without relevance just is WITHOUT relevance. Go back to post 31, RELEVANCE......looking at an animal in isolation allows for no relevance at all

AUTOMATIC???? paceline selection, that is where the dogmatists put their brains to sleep

As it was, and as pointed out yesterday on the selections section, MOST of the field was going backwards so much more leeway was used in consideration of the three horses predicted, that in fact, ran 1 2 3

ranchwest
03-05-2010, 10:07 AM
the two concepts mixed like alcohol and vegetable oil, Protestants and Catholics.

When two ideas are diametrically opposed to one another, you evaluate them and decide which camp, if either, you want to belong to.

My thought is that the two can either validate one another or suggest that there might need to be further evaluation or there might be ambiguity.

IMHO, there is nothing more undeniable than physicality of a horse. I certainly don't suggest, though, that physicality should always entirely stand on its own. A good looking slow horse is just going to run his best slow race. OTOH, an ugly fast horse is probably not going to run as fast today.

To each his own, but when it comes to handicapping I'm non-denominational.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 10:56 AM
My thought is that the two can either validate one another or suggest that there might need to be further evaluation or there might be ambiguity.

IMHO, there is nothing more undeniable than physicality of a horse. I certainly don't suggest, though, that physicality should always entirely stand on its own. A good looking slow horse is just going to run his best slow race. OTOH, an ugly fast horse is probably not going to run as fast today.

To each his own, but when it comes to handicapping I'm non-denominational.
Yes and THAT, in a nutshell, is what each animals' REACTION to pace pressure tells me. THE CLASSIC SITUATION is a horse that is progressively using a greater percentage of its early energy to keep up with similar early pace pressure it handled easily before over at least three successive contests. Not some bogus reaction to man made class shifts which, in horse terms, mean NOTHING.

There is no hint of form cycle here? these are the last nine races of horse 7. The long layoff spotty nature of the runs and drop in claiming price by the connections of 50% would add to that possibility as well. These lines compare Pace or Race contended to Pace of Horse......good evidence of a down swing but not enough in a field of down swings. The ONLY factor that kept this one a possibility at all was improving 2nd fractions.

The Ted selects the line of softest early pace to evaluate this horse (line three). THAT will bite you in the butt big time if you keep it up

jasperson
03-05-2010, 11:12 AM
Since there is confusion among the pace handicappers on this list I am definitely confused. When I did aqu I picked the last race because Brohamer stated "Unless there is some reason not to." and in most cases that is what I did. I think all of them ran well except Karakorum On Black who just faded. In the case of Cajun Jet I did select his first race instead of his last because his last was so bad after a lay off. Even if I would have selected his last race then the selection would have been the 7 horse who wasn't the winner either. Cajun Jet did finish 2nd. In the case of Raynick's Jet I might have chosen his last race which was at 1+70 instead of his 6f race. I just don't remember. That is the confusing part of pace handicapping and then when you talk about looking races 4 back it is really confusing to me.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 11:18 AM
jasperson.....using a single line is fraught with sample error.

Imagine you are going to a play with some esteemed actor and you find the play horrid and his display completely amateurish. Upon closer evaluation, you discover that the actor's son died that morning. Are you going to evaluate the actors entire career (much like a set of past performances) on a single, one time view? NOT RATIONAL.

Look at that last race, but take it is context of the PERFORMER as simply a PERFORMANCE not a hard and fast understanding of the entire animals abilities potential etc.

Get a copy of Cramer's great book Thoroughbred Cycles to understand what I mean.

SAMPLE error abounds in single sampling. See what the horse has done against let's say a 44.3 45.2 or 46.3 early pace rather than base your entire evaluation off a single sampling. What has this horse shown and what has this horse shown as a potential of pace pressure not yet challenged?

Don't get hung up on beaten lengths either. A horse at Philly the other week won after having his return race showing him far far behind, YET, his performance that day, against that pace, made him a strong contender (especially after a single race following a layoff) and the horse paid over 50/1. PHA 02/02 seventh race.

Partsnut
03-05-2010, 11:33 AM
jasperson:


Confused
Since there is confusion among the pace handicappers on this list I am definitely confused. When I did aqu I picked the last race because Brohamer stated "Unless there is some reason not to." and in most cases that is what I did. I think all of them ran well except Karakorum On Black who just faded. In the case of Cajun Jet I did select his first race instead of his last because his last was so bad after a lay off. Even if I would have selected his last race then the selection would have been the 7 horse who wasn't the winner either. Cajun Jet did finish 2nd. In the case of Raynick's Jet I might have chosen his last race which was at 1+70 instead of his 6f race. I just don't remember. That is the confusing part of pace handicapping and then when you talk about looking races 4 back it is really confusing to me.

I personally believe you're on the right track. The Brohammer method and factors are very effective. They are readily available in the older software such as " The Synergistic Match Up, MPH version 1.4 and Synergism".
These programs gives you the ability to "profile" as opposed to modeling a specific distance at any given track.
To me and IMHO, there is no need for anything else. It's all been done before.

Tom
03-05-2010, 12:43 PM
Yes, 46 is muddying the waters by giving you examples from a program you are not using. If you decide to go that way, then listen to him. But if you are talking Brohamer, forget him. Loosen up a bit on your pacelines, perhaps. Learn to pay attention to slow paced races and avoid using them.
How are you calculating the velocity numbers?

jasperson
03-05-2010, 12:55 PM
jasperson.....using a single line is fraught with sample error.

Imagine you are going to a play with some esteemed actor and you find the play horrid and his display completely amateurish. Upon closer evaluation, you discover that the actor's son died that morning. Are you going to evaluate the actors entire career (much like a set of past performances) on a single, one time view? NOT RATIONAL.

Look at that last race, but take it is context of the PERFORMER as simply a PERFORMANCE not a hard and fast understanding of the entire animals abilities potential etc.

Get a copy of Cramer's great book Thoroughbred Cycles to understand what I mean.

SAMPLE error abounds in single sampling. See what the horse has done against let's say a 44.3 45.2 or 46.3 early pace rather than base your entire evaluation off a single sampling. What has this horse shown and what has this horse shown as a potential of pace pressure not yet challenged?

Don't get hung up on beaten lengths either. A horse at Philly the other week won after having his return race showing him far far behind, YET, his performance that day, against that pace, made him a strong contender (especially after a single race following a layoff) and the horse paid over 50/1. PHA 02/02 seventh race.
I believe you can if you have several races to look at for example.
Half"s last four races speed rating are 91, 88,90,92 all at 6f and 4f times were 46.6,46.4,46.6 and 46.6. So I selected his last race because it seemed be within has represent his capabilities at 6f. I don't think I should overcomplicate the handicapping process I look at a horse's record and it is what it is and I don't try to find some hidden meaning in it. Take Pewter(the horse that finished 2nd) his speed ratings were 91,90,97,72. I thought has last race represented his present form and ability why look any farther than his last race. I know you are not a speed handicapper but sometimes it does help.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 12:59 PM
I believe you can if you have several races to look at for example.
Half"s last four races speed rating are 91, 88,90,92 all at 6f and 4f times were 46.6,46.4,46.6 and 46.6. So I selected his last race because it seemed be within has represent his capabilities at 6f. I don't think I should overcomplicate the handicapping process I look at a horse's record and it is what it is and I don't try to find some hidden meaning in it. Take Pewter(the horse that finished 2nd) his speed ratings were 91,90,97,72. I thought has last race represented his present form and ability why look any farther than his last race. I know you are not a speed handicapper but sometimes it does help.
To each his own but I have discovered very very few things in this life other than possibly the devotion of one of my pets or the love of my wife, that is consistent enough day in and day out, to accept without comparisons.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 01:29 PM
Take Pewter(the horse that finished 2nd) his speed ratings were 91,90,97,72. I thought has last race represented his present form and ability why look any farther than his last race. I know you are not a speed handicapper but sometimes it does help.
FINAL TIME is the over-simplification that will, in the long term, CONFUSE the heck out of you.

jasperson
03-05-2010, 02:57 PM
Yes, 46 is muddying the waters by giving you examples from a program you are not using. If you decide to go that way, then listen to him. But if you are talking Brohamer, forget him. Loosen up a bit on your pacelines, perhaps. Learn to pay attention to slow paced races and avoid using them.
How are you calculating the velocity numbers?
I programmed it to do exactly like does in his examples in the book. I used his examples and came up with the same velocity numbers that he had in the book. I agree with you a man cannot serve 2 masters or have more than 1 mentor.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 03:06 PM
I programmed it to do exactly like does in his examples in the book. I used his examples and came up with the same velocity numbers that he had in the book. I agree with you a man cannot serve 2 masters or have more than 1 mentor.
Brohamer is not a bad choice, seriously flawed for may taste but a good place to start.

Charlie D
03-05-2010, 03:13 PM
Jasperson


If i may be so bold. Close MPH and go and get access to the Paceandcap library via Ted Craven. There are loads of tapes and articles on this subject in there from Tom Brohamer, Howard Sartin, Jim Bradshaw, Dick Schmidt (spelling?) s and many more.


There is nothing wrong with MPH by the way, but you will receive a lot better education via the the information provided in the Paceandcap library in my humble opinion.


Hope this helps.

jasperson
03-05-2010, 06:24 PM
Jasperson


If i may be so bold. Close MPH and go and get access to the Paceandcap library via Ted Craven. There are loads of tapes and articles on this subject in there from Tom Brohamer, Howard Sartin, Jim Bradshaw, Dick Schmidt (spelling?) s and many more.


There is nothing wrong with MPH by the way, but you will receive a lot better education via the the information provided in the Paceandcap library in my humble opinion.


Hope this helps.
I don't think handicapping horses is that complicated. I have been doing it since 1946. There is a lot of advice on this list but not much substance. Nobody that claims to have all of this wonderful knowledge has the courage to step up and handicap some races to show us novices how it is done.:bang:

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 06:33 PM
I don't think handicapping horses is that complicated. I have been doing it since 1946. There is a lot of advice on this list but not much substance. Nobody that claims to have all of this wonderful knowledge has the courage to step up and handicap some races to show us novices how it is done.:bang:
If you go to the selection area almost any day of the week the logic of the selections is right there for you to peruse

Saratoga_Mike
03-05-2010, 06:48 PM
If you go to the selection area almost any day of the week the logic of the selections is right there for you to peruse

I don't find this to be the case at all. The vast majority of posters just post their picks with no rhyme or reason for the selection, and you're no exception (e.g., your Oaklawn picks). The majority of your selections, at least recently, don't explain the reasoning behind your picks. I'd love to hear WHY you or others like this horse or that horse, but it very rarely happens.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 06:50 PM
I don't find this to be the case at all. The vast majority of posters just post their picks with no rhyme or reason for the selection, and you're no exception (e.g., your Oaklawn picks). The majority of your selections, at least recently, don't explain the reasoning behind your picks. I'd love to hear WHY you or others like this horse or that horse, but it very rarely happens.
Every time I actually put the graphic reasoning UP, my little "corrector" comes by and removes them.

Saratoga_Mike
03-05-2010, 06:51 PM
Every time I actually put the graphic reasoning UP, my little "corrector" comes by and removes them.

Sorry, but I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 06:52 PM
Sorry, but I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
well I certainly do

Saratoga_Mike
03-05-2010, 06:58 PM
well I certainly do

I thought the point of the message board was to convey an idea, message or thought to others, not to yourself. I guess I was mistaken, so carry on talking to yourself.

Charlie D
03-05-2010, 07:01 PM
I don't think handicapping horses is that complicated. I have been doing it since 1946. There is a lot of advice on this list but not much substance. Nobody that claims to have all of this wonderful knowledge has the courage to step up and handicap some races to show us novices how it is done.:bang:




When you were at school did teachers give you answers to problems first or did you have to find the answers by yourself after being given some tuition??

cj
03-05-2010, 07:02 PM
I don't find this to be the case at all. The vast majority of posters just post their picks with no rhyme or reason for the selection, and you're no exception (e.g., your Oaklawn picks). The majority of your selections, at least recently, don't explain the reasoning behind your picks. I'd love to hear WHY you or others like this horse or that horse, but it very rarely happens.

The only thing funnier than 46's picks are the ones he claims as winners. My personal favorite is when he lists 4 or 5 horses then claims to have hit the splitzacta. A close second is the 2-3-4 trifecta because a 1ster, not mentioned, MUST be used.

46zilzal
03-05-2010, 07:07 PM
The only thing funnier than 46's picks are the ones he claims as winners.
For the 900th time, selections are contenders and a wager often encompass some horses that are there out of randomness, i.e. fts with no past performances.

Anyone knows that

cj
03-05-2010, 07:10 PM
For the 900th time, selections are contenders and a wager often encompass some horses that are there out of randomness, i.e. fts with no past performances.

Anyone knows that

Oh, and his reasoning is pretty damn funny too.

Charlie D
03-05-2010, 07:12 PM
Jasperson, i have given you best source of tutition i know for this topic, it is now up to you to go and get an education.


If there are any questions, post on the Paceandcap forum. Ted Craven and other members will try to help answer those questions.

Saratoga_Mike
03-05-2010, 07:15 PM
For the 900th time, selections are contenders and a wager often encompass some horses that are there out of randomness, i.e. fts with no past performances.Anyone knows that

And you don't post the random portion of your bets because? ....CJ stops you from doing it? You forget?

46zilzal
03-06-2010, 02:32 AM
And you don't post the random portion of your bets because? ....CJ stops you from doing it? You forget?
because those bets are created away from the selections pure and simple.

That area says selections NOT wagers, and it never did nor does.

My selections are closer than most

shoelessjoe
03-06-2010, 10:10 AM
If there are any questions, post on the Paceandcap forum. Ted Craven and other members will try to help answer those questions.[/QUOTE]



Jasperson, If your lucky while your visiting pace and cap they will show you how RDSS got the winner after the race has been run.

Charlie D
03-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Have you been banned again Jeff???

Charlie D
03-06-2010, 10:50 AM
It will probably be a pass race for me so i don't mind putting up these now.

Gotham

2-3- 10


Methodology used - Jim Bradshaws Match Up.

PaceAdvantage
03-06-2010, 11:08 AM
Jasperson, If your lucky while your visiting pace and cap they will show you how RDSS got the winner after the race has been run.Going over a race after it has been run is often a valuable learning experience for next time...

46zilzal
03-06-2010, 11:27 AM
Going over a race after it has been run is often a valuable learning experience for next time...
How else does one learn but from situations where the logic worked?

Charlie D
03-06-2010, 11:37 AM
Analyse results of races lost and your errors in judgement will jump up at you from the page most of the time.

shoelessjoe
03-06-2010, 11:42 AM
Hey Charlie, Yep as soon as Bill V stepped down they gave me the heave ho.I dont think my comments on how they would post how certain people were winning races after the fact to promote their software were appreciated.Anyway water under the bridge take care and happy matching to you.Jeff

headhawg
03-06-2010, 11:54 AM
How else does one learn but from situations where the logic worked?Well, according to your many redundant posts this can't work because every race is unique. So as each situation is unique the logic can only be applied after the fact. Also as each situation is unique what was learned cannot then be applied to future races as that race situation will never happen again. Now I don't know about you, but I cannot make a bet after the race is finished.

So, take a stand without all of your gobbledegook phraseology -- either you can learn from previous situations and thus races aren't as unique as you insist, or they are and you use numerology/blind luck for your selections. If you choose the former then I don't ever want to read another post by you about the uniqueness of the race when it suits your argument. Ever.

Charlie D
03-06-2010, 11:54 AM
I thought so. :)


Good skill to you bud.

46zilzal
03-06-2010, 01:10 PM
Well, according to your many redundant posts this can't work because every race is unique. So as each situation is unique the logic can only be applied after the fact. Also as each situation is unique what was learned cannot then be applied to future races as that race situation will never happen again. Now I don't know about you, but I cannot make a bet after the race is finished.

So, take a stand without all of your gobbledegook phraseology -- either you can learn from previous situations and thus races aren't as unique as you insist, or they are and you use numerology/blind luck for your selections. If you choose the former then I don't ever want to read another post by you about the uniqueness of the race when it suits your argument. Ever.
Why should I incorporate things that have no relevance into the way I evaluate a horse race? Different is different and the philosophy behind many aspects of it have been around for CENTURIES and were introduced to the many who would try to understand it, by Dr. Howard Sartin who opened the door to how opposites come together just like Yin and Yang...

Sartin used to give the example of the SAME ten horses racing each other every 21-25 days and saying because EACH changed in form cycle, weather, jockeys health, track surface etc etc. each race was in fact unique unto itself even having the same participants who of course would have different racing luck each time they got together. He utilized one aspect of this in creating the concept of the tandem, a widely accepted angle that works very well today as it did when he first wrote about it.

Don't read if it gets you all in a snit

Saratoga_Mike
03-06-2010, 01:12 PM
because those bets are created away from the selections pure and simple.

That area says selections NOT wagers, and it never did nor does.

My selections are closer than most

Come on, that's a convenient excuse. I've seen enough of your posts to know you often go off-topic (just like the rest of us).

CJ, would you remove ZZ's posts on the selection section if he included his actual wagers vs. his selections? Would it constitute an off-topic violation?

46zilzal
03-06-2010, 01:14 PM
Come on, that's a convenient excuse. I've seen enough of your posts to know you often go off-topic (just like the rest of us).

CJ, would you remove ZZ's posts on the selection section if he included his actual wagers vs. his selections? Would it constitute an off-topic violation?
Off topic, handicapping and selection areas are UNIQUE and one should have nothing to do with the other.

Ted Craven
03-06-2010, 01:20 PM
Jasperson,

I regret that my posts in this thread may have attracted others' comments which have caused a drift away from your original (and repeated) objective to understand pace at Aqueduct (or elsewhere), related to your study of MPH. I'm not sure how to help that...

If you are interested, you could suggest a race next week from any track, and I'd be happy to comment in detail, with pictures, how a Sartin-style analysis might proceed. I could post a PP set from TrackMaster for common reference. I use RDSS, but as best I am able, I'll try to relate to methods described in MPH.

Looking forward,

Ted

Saratoga_Mike
03-06-2010, 01:22 PM
Off topic, handicapping and selection areas are UNIQUE and one should have nothing to do with the other.

Your explaination is weak. Here's a theory: you don't post your wagers because then we could easily track your outcomes. In any case, I've got a bet with myself that you were an ER doctor.