Handicapping WITHOUT Beyers or Speed/Pace Figures

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'd like to learn more from those of you who do NOT use Beyers or any type of speed/pace figures in your handicapping process. So here's my idea/request: if you fall into the "enough with Beyer" camp, please handicap Race 8 (The Stymie) at AQU tomorrow (Sunday, March 8, 2010) and then post your selections AND the thinking behind your selections here. The THINKING behind your selections is the most important, as I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race. If you're a Beyer user and would like to post your thoughts on the race, just please indicate you're a Beyer user at the beginning of your post. Thanks.

[Relwob Owner]

I'd like to learn more from those of you who do NOT use Beyers or any type of speed/pace figures in your handicapping process. So here's my idea/request: if you fall into the "enough with Beyer" camp, please handicap Race 8 (The Stymie) at AQU tomorrow (Sunday, March 8, 2010) and then post your selections AND the thinking behind your selections here. The THINKING behind your selections is the most important, as I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race. If you're a Beyer user and would like to post your thoughts on the race, just please indicate you're a Beyer user at the beginning of your post. Thanks.



Nice thread......it is easy to sit and bash Beyer but harder to describe your own handicapping and give that race a go....I would Johnnie Lu will be contributing, as he seems to be a huge Beyer basher....

[cj]

It appears that somehow my earlier post was deleted.
I'll make this one briefer.
Check William Scott's Total Victory at the Track.
I once built a system with it that worked, but it was laborious.

I'm trying to keep this on topic. It was off topic after one other post. The original poster made a simple request and nobody followed it. Not only that, it was already way, way off track.

[Relwob Owner]

Doesnt seem like the thread was started to get anyone's take on the Beyers....it was to get people who dont use the Beyers to pick a race and by doing so, explain their stategy......I would think this would be a perect opportunity for you who has expressed hsi distaste for Beyers many, many times to select a race and let others in on how you select horses.

[46zilzal]

Doesnt seem like the thread was started to get anyone's take on the Beyers....it was to get people who dont use the Beyers to pick a race and by doing so, explain their stategy......I would think this would be a perect opportunity for you who has expressed hsi distaste for Beyers many, many times to select a race and let others in on how you select horses.
back in a few minutes

on first evaluation it is a two horse contest :5: :6: as these two ran versus the fastest pace pace and still performed well. Possible earlier ones they may have to chase are the :1: and :8: as energy balance has the out ahead of them.

Scratches could change this.

[cj]

back in a few minutes

on first evaluation it is a two horse contest :5: :6: as these two ran versus the fastest pace pace and still performed well. Possible earlier ones they may have to chase are the :1: and :8: as energy balance has the out ahead of them.

Scratches could change this.

If the 8 is out ahead of the 6 early it means the 6 fell down.

[Relwob Owner]

back in a few minutes

on first evaluation it is a two horse contest :5: :6: as these two ran versus the fastest pace pace and still performed well. Possible earlier ones they may have to chase are the :1: and :8: as energy balance has the out ahead of them.

Scratches could change this.



Terrific....I will have my selections out later and they will provide a nice comparison, as I am a lifelong Beyer guy....we will face off and the loser has to read 1000 Moyers Pond posts in a row:)....couldnt resist Moyers-messin with ya

[Tom]

I thought we couldn't use pace figures?

[Relwob Owner]

I thought we couldn't use pace figures?



I think you can use whatever you want and if you are a Beyer believer, then you are supposed to indicate it at the beginning of the post

[46zilzal]

I thought we couldn't use pace figures?
QUOTE:I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race.

[Charlie D]

Zil

Thread title is Handicapping WITHOUT Beyers or Speed/Pace Figures

[Charlie D]

Although Energy is dervied from Pace figs, Zilly is not really using Pace figs, so i suppose his methodology could maybe qualify.

[lamboguy]

this is paramutal racing. almost everyone has pace figures or black boxes. they can do everything for you including sending you home with less money than you start out with more times than not.

the $64,000 question is what do i do? every horse that i bet on, i know the condioning of the horse and if there was something wrong with the horse the prior race and if the conditioner improved the horse.

i know about 600 horses per year as yearlings and then 2 yo. from there once in awhile i find out about other horses in the races that i have the horses that i know about. even with what i know, i lose aproximately 4% of what i wager over the last 5 years. i doubt if many out there are that good in thoroughbreds.

i think its great that people use pace figures and computers to handicap their horses. it creates a challenge and keeps the game alive.

[Charlie D]

this is paramutal racing. almost everyone has pace figures or black boxes. they can do everything for you including sending you home with less money than you start out with more times than not.



:) Like it lamboguy

[Pell Mell]

I don't use Beyers or any othe figs but just a glance at that race tells me it's a pass for me.

[46zilzal]

I don't use Beyers or any othe figs but just a glance at that race tells me it's a pass for me.
why is that?

[Pell Mell]

why is that?

Because I don't see anybody beating the 2 choices and I don't bet anything I can't get at least 5/1 or better.

[Show Me the Wire]

Okay, I meant his limiting the discussion to two AQU races probably would not have garnered the hoped for input.

I did not mean to take the thread off topic. Only pointed out that the East Coast is the bastion of figure makers, ie. Rags,TG, Beyer and their usage.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Okay, I meant his limiting the discussion to two AQU races probably would not have garnered the hoped for input.

I did not mean to take the thread off topic. Only pointed out that the East Coast is the bastion of figure makers, ie. Rags,TG, Beyer and their usage.

I'm trying to figure out how those who don't use speed/pace figures handicap a race. It's a genuine question. It shouldn't matter who dominates the betting pool. But if your assertion is correct, the East Coast should be the perfect place for non-Beyer users to bet - b/c the pools would be consistently skewed toward Beyer angles, not other non-speed/pace figure-oriented handicapping techniques. If you don't use Beyers or analogs thereof, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the race. Thanks.

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm trying to figure out how those who don't use speed/pace figures handicap a race. It's a genuine question. It shouldn't matter who dominates the betting pool. But if your assertion is correct, the East Coast should be the perfect place for non-Beyer users to bet - b/c the pools would be consistently skewed toward Beyer angles, not other non-speed/pace figure-oriented handicapping techniques. If you don't use Beyers or analogs thereof, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the race. Thanks.

I don't have the pp's and I don't follow East coast racing. However, in general, I basically follow time tested handicapping, knowing the horses in the circuit, the conditions of the race, the quality of the horses in the race, how the horse finishes, trainer patterns, etc.

Don't misunderstand me, speed figures often point out the contenders and point to the same horses as my method. I try to exploit the differences between my process and BSF or exploit weak BSF. By weak BSF, I mean specific days I know that the BSF's are faulty by either being too high or low.

[Show Me the Wire]

Saratoga Mike:

Let me add this. If I recall you own race horses, don't you? If so, how do you place them or decide where to run.

[Robert Fischer]

Because I don't see anybody beating the 2 choices and I don't bet anything I can't get at least 5/1 or better.

agreed.
The favorite looks strong to me from watching the evening attire. There's no reason to play against.
PASS

[Dahoss9698]

I use Beyers very little in my handicapping of individual races. I think they are one of the better tools for judging a performance, but when I handicap and bet, I use them very little.

The first thing I do when I look at a race is take a quick look at the PP's for all of the entrants. I use DRF Formulator and I think it has helped out my playing considerably. In looking at the PP's, I try and get a feel for how I think the race will be run. After that I'll review any notes I have on horses in the race, then I'll watch replays of the entrants last few races if I don't remember them. If it's a turf race, or a maiden race with a lot of firsters, I'll do some pedigree work.

After watching the replays and looking at pedigrees I go back to the PP's and finalize how I think the race will be run and separate the field into horses I think can win and those that cannot. Probably 90% of my bets are multirace exotics or win bets, so I pretty much focus on who I think can win. Then, I look at trainer stats and make my decision.

In The Stymie, obviously Understatement is going to be tough. The key to the race to me is what national Pride does. If the Mig decides to send, he could make it tough on Understatement. If not, the favorite will probably take them all the way. Nite Light is a little interesting to me cutting back and I figure he'll be sitting a good trip right behind the speed. I also think Giant Chieftan is a little interesting, although I'm not crazy about betting anything Fernando Jara is on.

If I was betting, which I doubt I will, I would bet Giant Chieftan to win and use him and Nite Light in doubles. If I was playing a pick 4, I would also use Understatement a little just in case.

[JustRalph]

I don't use Beyers....but my software uses Bris files so I guess I am using Bris numbers

Interesting race you chose......... 4 horses cutting back from 13F to 9

I would think that in itself would skew the numbers some
:6: and :4:

unless it falls apart ..........

[Greyfox]

I'm trying to figure out how those who don't use speed/pace figures handicap a race. It's a genuine question. It shouldn't matter who dominates the betting pool. But if your assertion is correct, the East Coast should be the perfect place for non-Beyer users to bet - b/c the pools would be consistently skewed toward Beyer angles, not other non-speed/pace figure-oriented handicapping techniques. If you don't use Beyers or analogs thereof, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the race. Thanks.

Yes. That's the very first question that you asked.
I answered it. Then you modified your very first post here.
cj deleted my answer as being off topic. It wasn't and was in line with your premodified first post. He obviously read in after you changed that first post.

What I said was several years ago I tossed pace and speed figures out the window for three months. I built a system using the principles laid out in
William Scott's Total Victory at the Track.
It involved summing up the positions at the second call and final call.
It also involved class changes.
To do this was very laborious but ultimately I found that it worked quite well.
But it was time consuming so I went back to Pace/ figure handicapping.
Several years later I noted that the Gamblers Book store in Vegas had several copies of Scott's book that had been returned. So it apparently wasn't everyone's cup of tea.
If you want to explore how to handicap without Pace and Speed figures I'd suggest William Scott's book. All the best.

[jonnielu]

I'd like to learn more from those of you who do NOT use Beyers or any type of speed/pace figures in your handicapping process. So here's my idea/request: if you fall into the "enough with Beyer" camp, please handicap Race 8 (The Stymie) at AQU tomorrow (Sunday, March 8, 2010) and then post your selections AND the thinking behind your selections here. The THINKING behind your selections is the most important, as I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race. If you're a Beyer user and would like to post your thoughts on the race, just please indicate you're a Beyer user at the beginning of your post. Thanks.

Sure, I can give you the horse that I would likely bet, but if you are actually curious as to the point of view, or any reasoning behind any betting activity, I would want to stick an official Ability-X chart up here to do that.

So an okay from CJ would probably be needed for that, since I don't want to be accused of pushing my "agenda", and certainly don't wish to offend the sensitivities of any innocent Beyer-lovers that may be standing on the side.

jdl

[ManeMediaMogul]

I often handicap foreign races when no speed figures are available.

My basic eliminations remain the same:

Horses that haven't run a good race in their last three starts and horses who haven't won a race in their last 10 starts are tossed. Horses who haven't earned 10% of the purse per start, maiden races excepted, are eliminated to a maximum of $10,000 ($100,000 races and above). Then, judgements are made on the horses coming off layoffs. They are evaluated by trainer (if I have some local knowledge) and/or form (Have they run well fresh in the past?) to determine whether they are in or out.

It is surprising how many horses are eliminated by these few rules.

The next step is to evaluate distance and surface suitability and then form cycles, weight, jockeys and trainers - just basic handicapping.

Speed and pace figures are magnificent tools but they are not the only way to win. I make much more money from my "horses to watch" list than I do from pace and speed figure standouts, as the former are often ignored and the latter are often hammered.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes. That's the very first question that you asked.
I answered it. Then you modified your very first post here.
cj deleted my answer as being off topic. It wasn't and was in line with your premodified first post. He obviously read in after you changed that first post.

What I said was several years ago I tossed pace and speed figures out the window for three months. I built a system using the principles laid out in
William Scott's Total Victory at the Track.
It involved summing up the positions at the second call and final call.
It also involved class changes.
To do this was very laborious but ultimately I found that it worked quite well.
But it was time consuming so I went back to Pace/ figure handicapping.
Several years later I noted that the Gamblers Book store in Vegas had several copies of Scott's book that had been returned. So it apparently wasn't everyone's cup of tea.
If you want to explore how to handicap without Pace and Speed figures I'd suggest William Scott's book. All the best.

I've never heard of William Scott, but your answer is exactly what I was trying to get at - a method without speed or pace figs. Thanks for the answer. I don't think I changed my first post substantively (after I first hit "submit reply"). I merely combined two sentences into one, adding an "as" and a comma. That was just for your reading pleasure! :)

[cj]

Sure, I can give you the horse that I would likely bet, but if you are actually curious as to the point of view, or any reasoning behind any betting activity, I would want to stick an official Ability-X chart up here to do that.

So an okay from CJ would probably be needed for that, since I don't want to be accused of pushing my "agenda", and certainly don't wish to offend the sensitivities of any innocent Beyer-lovers that may be standing on the side.

jdl

It is ok by me. Just please explain the chart.

[cj]

Yes. That's the very first question that you asked.
I answered it. Then you modified your very first post here.
cj deleted my answer as being off topic. It wasn't and was in line with your premodified first post. He obviously read in after you changed that first post.



The original post asked people to handicap the 8th at Aqueduct. Your post did nothing of the sort, but just gave a vague description of a method that could be used to do so. I guess it was slightly on topic, but lets not act like I was just deleting your post for no reason. It had the potential to turn the thread in a totally different direction, and with 46s response, it was even more likely, thus the deletions. Make sense?

[Robert Goren]

Basically there are 3 horses that are classy enough to win right now:3: :4: :6:. The others have beaten by these horses by multiple lengths. It looks to be too short for the :3: and :4: so I end up with :6: although if I were get something like 10-1 on either :3: or :4: , I might take a small flier. The odds on the :6: will probably make it hard to bet. I always take along look at the other horse in a uncoupled trainer entry. I might bet the :4: even if I don't get anything close to 10-1. It would be a race time decision. In all a pretty simple race to handicap.

[Greyfox]

The original post asked people to handicap the 8th at Aqueduct. Your post did nothing of the sort, but just gave a vague description of a method that could be used to do so. I guess it was slightly on topic, but lets not act like I was just deleting your post for no reason. It had the potential to turn the thread in a totally different direction, and with 46s response, it was even more likely, thus the deletions. Make sense?

The penny still hasn't dropped yet.
The original post before you saw it asked for ideas for handicapping without Beyers and Pace figures independent of picking the 8 th Race at Aqueduct. In effect it had two questions. I answered one of them as per called for in the post.
While I was answering that one, SM was busy editing his own post.
You came in after that post was edited. I understand how the subtle changes of combining two sentences into one made my first post look less relevant.
At any rate, let's move on.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The penny still hasn't dropped yet.
The original post before you saw it asked for ideas for handicapping without Beyers and Pace figures independent of picking the 8 th Race at Aqueduct. In effect it had two questions. I answered one of them as per called for in the post.
While I was answering that one, SM was busy editing his own post.
You came in after that post was edited. I understand how the subtle changes of combining two sentences into one made my first post look less relevant.
At any rate, let's move on.

If you are referring to my first post on this thread, it always contained the AQU race 8 request. Here's what I edited: "The THINKING behind your selections is the most important, as I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race. " Prior to my edit, the dependent clause starting with "as I'd like" was a standalone sentence (without the "as" of course). Maybe you read my post too quickly. I know I do that a lot myself.

[Greyfox]

If you are referring to my first post on this thread, it always contained the AQU race 8 request. Here's what I edited: "The THINKING behind your selections is the most important, as I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race. " Prior to my edit, the dependent clause starting with "as I'd like" was a standalone sentence (without the "as" of course). Maybe you read my post too quickly. I know I do that a lot myself.

As I don't have your original first post in front of me I have to accept what you are saying. I thought that there was a specific sentence requesting info on picking without Beyers and Pace figures. Then there was the request after.
You have since posted that you wanted to sincerely learn about handicapping without Pace or Beyer figures. Somehow I thought that stood alone in your first original thread as well. Doesn't matter. Let's move on. Maybe I misread it.

[Robert Goren]

It is in the title of the thread. Give me a break.

[KidCapper]

You can't mention Beyer in any thread without it going straight off-topic.

[DeanT]

Mike,

It's a cool topic. I think the speed figs are directly correlated to the top 4 most of the time, so it is built into the prices. (imo)

Some ways to possibly cap without any figs?

* I read an article with Ed Bain recently, and it is no secret that he does not care much about figs at all. As most know, he uses strike rates based on situation and trainer stats. It seems to serve him well.

* I know of, and have read several bettors who play the tote a little bit and fade drifters in betfair. No DRF needed.

* How about Formulator? Could you not just use that. Who cares what the speed figs are. The tote board tells you already who the fastest horse is; why not use that as a guide and move from there?

* Do power ratings count? They use figs of some sort, so probably not. But Bris Prime Power as a starting point is not too bad. It beats the ROI of chalk and ML.

* How about using trainer stats and paddock and Post parade inspection? If a trainer in this situation sends out 35% winners at a 0.87 roi, perhaps using on track inspection ups that to $1+?

* Using track bias. If a track is dead to speed you can probably use the board and a running line to determine a play. I do this quite often with severe bias's which pop up from time to time.

For this race at AQU, we can probably learn quite a bit without the use of a fig.

Imo,

The top fig is probably Understatement because he is a ML chalk (heavy one).

the next best fig is probably the 2nd choice. Looking more at Nite Light without the use of figs, we can see (in my software) he has a very good set of form numbers and his class rating is tops.

So, without looking at anything else, I can easily settle on the 4 horse. In fact, even looking at everything now, I do like this horse and will probably bet him if the chalk is bet off the board.

Thanks for the interesting topic!

[menifee]

I like the 4 on pure class. The horse has placed in a number of graded stakes and seems to enjoy the inner track. The 8 is an interesting horse. He always seems to finish in the money regardless of the race he is running in (either second or third). So using that combination of class handicapping and trip handicapping, the way I would play this race:

I'm a vertical wagerer so...

$1 tri 4-ALL-8
$1 tri ALL-4-8
$1 tri 4-8-ALL

$18

[dansan]

3-7-8 exacta box no beyer handicapping

[BIG HIT]

#4 is definly one to beat.#5 would be my play he won G3 run's better at same dist as lr sec off layoff last race easy tatical spd.And good connection's and jky

[jonnielu]

You can't mention Beyer in any thread without it going straight off-topic.

That's because the BSR is all about irrelavent minutia on the side, sliced up to half-hair widths. I prefer to get to the crux quickly, with respect to the fact that it is a horse race. An event that has proved resistant to the mathematical gymnastics of many an Einstein since when even Einstein was working his pencil and paper.

Besides, what good could a number possibly be, if it just invokes more questions & handicapping as opposed to possibly resolving some of the questions that arise from handicapping. The handicapping is already done, why complicate a betting decision with more handicapping?

What I do is spend 10 minutes making a number that is reflective of a horses ability to run, and then I spend another fifteen minutes on the decision to win bet any particular horse in a race or not. If I am betting exotics I will spend 5 minutes instead of 15 on a betting decision. My ability number is the only "form" information I want or need. The rest is picked up in the 15 minutes before post, mostly from pre-race warmups.

So this is how I would get a take on the form information on this race:

9fD - Par 80/90

# POST EarlySpd ML Composite
25 1 97 5 122
29 6 93 1.6 122
44 7 91 15 135
51 4 88 3 139
44 5 87 6 131
59 3 87 10 146
79 2 86 12 165
55 8 86 15 141

The folks at Keeneland told me that I should make it real simple, so #5 is the "key" horse, and #1 is the "simple" pick. I'm told that most people don't want to do any thinking, so the reasoning is usually left out to allow the user to think, or not.

The basic reasoning is this, the "key" is always the lowest number on the bottom half of the chart, double simple, but the key will often turn out to be the most even runner today, while it provides some basis in ability to make the "simple" pick just as simply, but with sound reasoning behind it. The simple pick is the lowest rating at the highest early speed, #1. In comparison to the favorite, a reasonable bet for any that wished to bet on a few meaningful factors when getting decent odds.

For myself, I would want to see some things pre-race that would tell me that the stable has done some thinking here, and will likely run with this favorite early as opposed to trying to bury it by 6 early. If I got some good signals I'd bet #1 to win. If I wanted to play a vertical exotic, I would use - #1,#5,#7,#2,#8, #6 because the favorite is always the favorite in NY.

jdl

[Dahoss9698]

Thanks a lot CJ.

[Foolish Pleasure]

When a country goes to war do they leave the Air Force at home?

So why on all planet earth wouldn't everyone use all information available to bet?

[cj]

When a country goes to war do they leave the Air Force at home?


Only if they want to lose.

[Show Me the Wire]

or if the air force is in disrepair.

[Tom]

I wanted to play a vertical exotic, I would use - #1,#5,#7,#2,#8, #6 because the favorite is always the favorite in NY.

Very informative.
Care to share how you would use 6 out of 8 and make a profit?

[Tom]

I like Reflect Times, sans sped/pace figs.
He looks like he like the normal dirt routes - not one turn, not a marathon, and has late kick in a race with a lot of speed. At the odds, worth a bet.

Nite Light looks like a logical winner, on class, pace, distance, surface.

Those are my two horses.

[Relwob Owner]

back in a few minutes

on first evaluation it is a two horse contest :5: :6: as these two ran versus the fastest pace pace and still performed well. Possible earlier ones they may have to chase are the :1: and :8: as energy balance has the out ahead of them.

Scratches could change this.



Per request of the thread starter, I will disclose I use the Beyers, but as Andy himself says, they are only a piece of the puzzle....I would box the 2,4, 6....the 6 looks like a nice bet against because he had his lifetime best last out and is trying to do something he, I believe, hasnt done before(I committed to picking to Zil but got backed up and had to rush a bit)....I like the two as a longshot play with the idea that the last was a huge route with little pace and today will be a better pace to close into from what I see....seems to like the Lobo barn a bit better than Sheriffs....plus, I like the jock-good luck to all

[Tom]

:6: :1:

Now, those who hate Polytrack because they all bunch up tell how this was a better race - two horses run merry-go-round the track.
This is why I quit even looking at Aqu a long time ago.
Bore-ing.

[jonnielu]

:6: :1:

Now, those who hate Polytrack because they all bunch up tell how this was a better race - two horses run merry-go-round the track.
This is why I quit even looking at Aqu a long time ago.
Bore-ing.

Can't be that boring, you didn't have the right two.

jdl

[Dahoss9698]

The race ran to form. It wasn't exciting, but hard to complain a lot when a race runs to form.

[DeanT]

Let this be a lesson: Always bet the top last out Beyer

:)

[DeanT]

I don't know Jonnie. All I know is that for Saratoga Mike's race the score is Beyer 1, everything else, nothing.

If this keeps up, this Beyer kid is going to be big news.

[cj]

Your picks didn't exactly have people rolling in the dough johnnie.

[Dahoss9698]

So what was the Beyer for Alykela in the 9th. Is there going to be some discussion about how the 8th would look more like the results with the Beyers?

Or, how about some discussion about how the results were accurately described by the Beyers going in?

jdl

How about a discussion on the virtues of 6 horse exotic boxes?

[Charlie D]

Andy Beyer does not need a marketing man or any publicity does he when Jonnie is around :D

[jonnielu]

Your picks didn't exactly have people rolling in the dough johnnie.

And the Beyers did? #6 paid $4.70, care to look at the rest of the card? What was the Beyer for #1?

jdl

[Tom]

Can't tell you the Beyers, but the 1 had a 101 on CJ, but the winner had a 116.

Yes, I realize I did not have the winner in my two.
I picked them not using speed or pace. I only looked at class, distance, form....I lost not using my normal tools. Boo Hoo.

YOU lost using your best stuff. Woo Hoo.


:lol:

[Charlie D]

And the Beyers did? #6 paid $4.70, care to look at the rest of the card? What was the Beyer for #1?

jdl

Stop it Jonnie, your just giving Andy free publicity :)

[cj]

And the Beyers did? #6 paid $4.70, care to look at the rest of the card? What was the Beyer for #1?

jdl

It made no sense for you to give Tom's picks a mention (he does use figures when he bets) when your opinion was terrible, that is all. This was about race #8. Why do you keep bringing up other races? Start a new thread and post your graph there.

[jonnielu]

Can't tell you the Beyers, but the 1 had a 101 on CJ, but the winner had a 116.

Yes, I realize I did not have the winner in my two.
I picked them not using speed or pace. I only looked at class, distance, form....I lost not using my normal tools. Boo Hoo.

YOU lost using your best stuff. Woo Hoo.


:lol:

And, the #1 paid more to show then #6 did to win. It wasn't a terrible exacta proposition since the favorite is always the favorite in NY, so how do you figure a loss? I'm sure that you wouldn't want to look at the rest of the card.

jdl

[Charlie D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dyson


Sir James Dyson (born Cromer (http:///wiki/Cromer), Norfolk (http:///wiki/Norfolk), England (http:///wiki/England), 2 May 1947), is an English (http:///wiki/England) industrial designer (http:///wiki/Industrial_designer).

He is best known as the inventor of the Dual Cyclone (http:///wiki/DC01) bagless vacuum cleaner (http:///wiki/Vacuum_cleaner), which works on cyclonic separation (http:///wiki/Cyclonic_separation). His net worth (http:///wiki/Net_worth) in 2008 was said to be £1.1 billion (http:///wiki/Billion).[1] (http://#cite_note-0)




This fella spent his time telling everyone who'd listen how much better his new product was compared to the competitions.


Maybe, just maybe Jonnie, you should try doing the same instead of slagging off the competition at every opportunity.


No charge btw for this advice :)

[jonnielu]

It made no sense for you to give Tom's picks a mention (he does use figures when he bets) when your opinion was terrible, that is all. This was about race #8. Why do you keep bringing up other races? Start a new thread and post your graph there.

It makes at least as much sense, as you offering that my opinion was terrible. But, I guess you can't step away from your agenda for a post or two.

jdl

[Tom]

And, the #1 paid more to show then #6 did to win. It wasn't a terrible exacta proposition since the favorite is always the favorite in NY, so how do you figure a loss? I'm sure that you wouldn't want to look at the rest of the card.

jdl

Ok, this is a simple one.
You said the 1 to win. It lost.
You said 6 of the 8 horses in the exotics, but never gave out a play, so you lose there, or a best get credit for no bet.

Therefore, my conclusion is, you lost.

[Charlie D]

:confused:

Apologies. No idea why my last post has turned out llike it has.


And why Mike's interesting thread has turned out like it has i have no idea either.

Signed

:confused:

Gods County, UK

[Robert Goren]

When I started, the form didn't have Beyers and did not print fractional times. It had a speed rating based on the track record. I still think a lot of pace numbers are voodoo because the numbers you get in the form are wrong so much. All have do is watch a replay of a race and compare it to the race's chart and it won't take you to realize that any resemblance between two is purely coincidental. JMO

[Charlie D]

CJ


If i may be so bold.

Remove ALL unrelated posts (including mine) and maybe Mike will select a couple of Claimers from a couple of cards for the NON Beyer/ Pace fig cappers to have a crack at.

Lets get this thread back on track for gawds sake.

[jonnielu]

Ok, this is a simple one.
You said the 1 to win. It lost.
You said 6 of the 8 horses in the exotics, but never gave out a play, so you lose there, or a best get credit for no bet.

Therefore, my conclusion is, you lost.

So then, 1 race is significant if it reinforces you, insignificant if it reinforces me. Got it.

jdl

[cj]

It was one race, and one race doesn't mean much in the long run. But please, there is no way you can claim this as a win. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, so maybe I interpreted this wrong.


...The folks at Keeneland told me that I should make it real simple, so #5 is the "key" horse, and #1 is the "simple" pick. I'm told that most people don't want to do any thinking, so the reasoning is usually left out to allow the user to think, or not...

...If I got some good signals I'd bet #1 to win. If I wanted to play a vertical exotic, I would use - #1,#5,#7,#2,#8, #6 because the favorite is always the favorite in NY.

jdl

Now, you didn't define vertical exotics so I don't know if you meant the trifecta which you would not have had. I can't imagine using six horses in the exacta, but maybe you did and didn't lose any tri bets. You would lose the win bet, at least 9 exacta bets, and cash a $26 exacta. A $10 win bet and $2 exactas would have cost $30 if you only keyed the 1 first and second, and that is being generous. Who knows what you did with the key horse? I sure don't from the above posts. I don't think anyone could interpret the stuff you post. But, I'll give it another shot.

[Tom]

Jon,
You are the one who made it a significant event.
:lol:

[jefftune]

Well, I'm a Brisnet guy and not a Beyer guy. Btw, I haven't looked at the results yet. The first thing I notice is that UNDERSTATEMENT ran a big 112 Brisnet number last out. Add to the fact that he is 3 for 3 on the inner AQU track, Cohen stays aboard after that first-time-Cohen big win, and Pletcher is winning at 36% for the meet. No doubt the horse will be a big fave, I would most likely pass the race.

[jefftune]

Just looked at the chart and saw he won easily as expected.

[jonnielu]

It was one race, and one race doesn't mean much in the long run. But please, there is no way you can claim this as a win. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, so maybe I interpreted this wrong.



Now, you didn't define vertical exotics so I don't know if you meant the trifecta which you would not have had. I can't imagine using six horses in the exacta, but maybe you did and didn't lose any tri bets. You would lose the win bet, at least 9 exacta bets, and cash a $26 exacta. A $10 win bet and $2 exactas would have cost $30 if you only keyed the 1 first and second, and that is being generous. Who knows what you did with the key horse? I sure don't from the above posts. I don't think anyone could interpret the stuff you post. But, I'll give it another shot.

The Ability-X ratings "key" is not a betting key as you may understand that concept. The key is chosen on a strictly mechanical basis, and it is primarily "key" to making the simple pick with a minimum of thinking or analysis, and zero handicapping. I didn't win bet because I didn't see what I wanted to see pre-race. You forgot to quote that. If I'm confident on beating a favorite, I will go up to 6 horses in a superfecta, but I'd rather cut to 5 as a general rule.

With short fields, and the NY effect, 3 horse exactas is about as wild as I get outside of Saratoga. "Simple", "Key", and fav. I lost 5 exactas today, and one only paid $10. I'm thinking of switching to the top 2 BSR's instead.

jdl

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Jonnielu tipped the 1 and the 5

The 1 started 3rd fave and ran 2nd

The 5 started 7th fave and ran 6th

So the 1 and 5 ran better than their odds suggested

[Dahoss9698]

Oh boy

[Dave Schwartz]

Jonnie,

Okay, we've been hearing about your Ability-X ratings for quite awhile here. Especially from you. As I recall nobody seems to be able to figure out how to use them but you swear by them.

I am always open to learning new concepts and ideas. Would you consider spending a little time with me as your guinea pig? We could go over a few races live and you could explain what the ratings mean and how to use them.

Then I could share my experience with the people here on PA. I absolutely promise that I have no bias against you. In fact, I'd really like to learn something new.

What say you?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Robert Fischer]

the winner was one of several who figured, and , the exacta was nothing special for a biased race


honestly the late runner bias did not hold strong.

[Greyfox]

The ghost of Runyon, who had no access to Beyers, looks at this thread and offers the following admonition using his knowledge of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

http://www.nndb.com/people/406/000048262/damon-runyon-179x217.jpg.

Damon Runyon 1880 - 1946

[46zilzal]

Always felt an association with Runyon as his ashes were spread over New York city the day I was born.

[headhawg]

Always felt an association with Runyon as his ashes were spread over New York city the day I was born.The offer that I made previously about some therapy still stands.

[cj]

The offer that I made previously about some therapy still stands.

I was speechless, but you did a nice job.

I imagine the Runyon heirs will be all over Manhattan today trying to recover those ashes.

[Robert Fischer]

the winner was one of several who figured, and , the exacta was nothing special for a biased race


honestly the late runner bias did not hold strong.

wrong thread

[46zilzal]

The offer that I made previously about some therapy still stands.
IF and WHEN I would ever need that phase of my life evaluated, it would be from an MD with board certification.

[overthehill]

i would always look at beyers if only to determine how low the favorites are apt to be, and how much a horse im interested in using to be the favorites are likely to need to improve to win. I want to know going whether the favorite is likely to be 5/2 or more likely to be no better than 6/5 and beyer differential seems to be the best determinant of that. I didnt look at the particular but my own sense from what people have said is that the winner was the only horse who could have been the favorite in the race and that usually means no better than 6/5. now given the fact that the favorite has winning punch and early speed would make me even less likely to try to bet against him. but i would not bet on him either because of predictably low odds.

[Dahoss9698]

IF and WHEN I would ever need that phase of my life evaluated, it would be from an MD with board certification.

The time is now

[Cardus]

Always felt an association with Runyon as his ashes were spread over New York city the day I was born.

It's funny you mention this.

I had a seance with few others who felt similar associations with Runyon recently, told him that I joined Pace Advantage, and he asked for you.

When I next speak to him, I'll relay your feelings to him.

[HUSKER55]

as long as you are in the neighborhood, find out who is going to win the pick 6 this saturday

[jasperson]

Mike, in an effort to expand my handicapping here are couple of things I have tried.
First and the most promising is I took the trainers stats and averaged them then added the trainer,jockey combined averages. Then I added in a number for class as follows 5 for top class 4 for 2nd 3 for 3rd, 2 for front half of field 1 of last half of the field. This will usually get the top contenders. I also averaged the beaten lengths of all the horse's listed starts. I excluded maiden races with this because they usually don't have enough starts I have lots of things I would like to investigate like the average finish position and others.
Jack

[jonnielu]

Jonnie,

Okay, we've been hearing about your Ability-X ratings for quite awhile here. Especially from you. As I recall nobody seems to be able to figure out how to use them but you swear by them.

I am always open to learning new concepts and ideas. Would you consider spending a little time with me as your guinea pig? We could go over a few races live and you could explain what the ratings mean and how to use them.

Then I could share my experience with the people here on PA. I absolutely promise that I have no bias against you. In fact, I'd really like to learn something new.

What say you?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,

That could be an excellent idea, and perhaps I could take you up on it next month when time should be easier to come by.

My question has always been, what can people do with ability-x ratings with little instruction from me. And, there are a few reasons for that, one being that anything I have to say is suspect and subject to discount because I am selling them. Perhaps a product of internet culture, but there it is.

Another reason is because I believe that the ratings will not only fit my perspective on racing, but yours also. I expect that you would follow your own perspective much more willingly then you would mine. Especially when mine is different then yours.

I believe that everyone would be more receptive to what they could learn from the ratings, than what I might tell them from my own perspective, at least from a decent start. For the past six months, I have added the "Key" and the "Simple" pick in the hope that the consistency of these two horses would spur the user to further thought and analysis of the numbers themselves.

In pursuit of that, I would like to start posting the ratings for AQU in selections starting tomorrow.

jdl

[Greyfox]

Dave,

In pursuit of that, I would like to start posting the ratings for AQU in selections starting tomorrow.

jdl

Sounds like a good idea. But I'm one of those readers of your numbers who doesn't have a clue what I'm looking at when you post them.
I'm not sure what each figure is supposed to mean. Am I supposed to look for a high rating or a low one? If you've a number posted in red, does that mean something else.
If you post them for Aqueduct, please provide a preliminary explanation as to what the numbers mean. How would I determine what the top three picks are?
What odds should I consider them a realistic play? A rough idea of how the ratings were derived? That sort of thing would be helpful.
In the meanwhile, when I see them I am addled.

[PaceAdvantage]

In pursuit of that, I would like to start posting the ratings for AQU in selections starting tomorrow.

jdlNot only post the ratings, but give us your expert opinion on who and what the play should be, in as easy and as straight forward a manner as possible, such that any idiot (and I include myself in that category) can readily conclude which horse should be bet based on your ratings.

[cj]

Not only post the ratings, but give us your expert opinion on who and what the play should be, in as easy and as straight forward a manner as possible, such that any idiot (and I include myself in that category) can readily conclude which horse should be bet based on your ratings.

Good luck with that. He hasn't done it yet, I doubt he will start now.

[Tom]

You mean we shouldn't just use the last out number like you suggest we do with Beyers?

Funny, your numbers require investigation and analysis, but we can't do that with Beyers.

Oh yes, and we should be more receptive.

Uh huh.

[HUSKER55]

I went online to pha today and recorded the times of the race posted by the track and then I compared those figures to the ones the DRF posted.

there were differences of half length to 2 second in the speeds that happened just today at this one track.

there may be a genuine pount here, as speed figs might not be as dependable as one would think.

[freeneasy]

I'd like to learn more from those of you who do NOT use Beyers or any type of speed/pace figures in your handicapping process. So here's my idea/request: if you fall into the "enough with Beyer" camp, please handicap Race 8 (The Stymie) at AQU tomorrow (Sunday, March 8, 2010) and then post your selections AND the thinking behind your selections here. The THINKING behind your selections is the most important, as I'd like to learn more about how non-Beyer users approach handicapping an actual race. If you're a Beyer user and would like to post your thoughts on the race, just please indicate you're a Beyer user at the beginning of your post. Thanks.

i use the beyer. no pace, fractional times or points of call except for the finish call and my thinking is left up to how the numbers point.

aqu 8th

the first number is the rating for the track and eligibility conditions for the race that i selected to handicap.
the 1 horse ran at aqu in a $100 oc which makes the rating for that track and for that class a rating of 46. the higher the rating the better.
the second number is the rating for that horses particular finish in that race. he ran first in a field of 6 which makes his finish rating a 12. the lower the better
the third number, 98, is the beyer. the higher the better

1) 46 / 12 / 98......

2) 44 / 7 / 92.......

3) 48/ 20 / 88......

4) 48 / 13 / 89.....

5)48 / 17 / 85......

6) 48 / 12 / 115...

7) 22 / 8 / 96

8) 46 / 14 / 96

[cj]

I went online to pha today and recorded the times of the race posted by the track and then I compared those figures to the ones the DRF posted.

there were differences of half length to 2 second in the speeds that happened just today at this one track.

there may be a genuine pount here, as speed figs might not be as dependable as one would think.

You are saying the official teletimer times are not the ones reported in DRF? I find that very hard to believe.

[46zilzal]

You are saying the official teletimer times are not the ones reported in DRF? I find that very hard to believe.
When they differ, or there is a malfunction, there is a notation that it was hand timed

[cj]

When they differ, or there is a malfunction, there is a notation that it was hand timed

Right, and I don't think that was the case here.

[Robert Goren]

I just checked the first two races. They were spot on.

[HUSKER55]

sorry I went to show you my point and realized I was on the wrong line



senior moment :confused: :D

[BombsAway Bob]

as Comic Book Guy would say if he handicapped Racing sites,
"Worst 100 Reply Thread... EVER!" :blush:

[ranchwest]

Yeah, there are a lot of other ways to handicap.

Physicality

Form

Change

On and on.

While I do strongly consider speed and pace, in chaos races the winner is often among the worst speed figures.

[Track Phantom]

I don't use Beyers or any othe figs but just a glance at that race tells me it's a pass for me.

Great insight

[PaceAdvantage]

Great insightHow so?

[Greyfox]

How so?

And so how??

[Robert Goren]

I know some you are too young, but for the old timers, How did you handicap before Beyers and Pace numbers?

[classhandicapper]

If you want to handicap without using numeric measurements like pace and speed figures you can use various forms of comparative handicapping to estimate ability and pace.

To do that you sort of need an objective measurement of how various classes stack up against each other. Winning PAR times broken down by class, age, sex, seasonal issues etc... serve the purpose fairly well.

You can then take that a step further by identifying strong and weak fields within a specific classes.

A basic example might be that both the Wood Memorial and Kentucky Derby are Grade 1 races for 3YOs in the spring. However, the Derby usually contains several sharp Grade 1 winners from around the country while the Wood is more regional and usually contains horses that have won less prestigious races and are trying to get to the Derby. The kind of same thing occurs at every class level even though the official class designations are the same.

You can do the same thing at the pace level by seeing how many speed horses were in a race, whether some very fast horses were outrun by even faster ones, seeing if the speed horses opened up on the rest of the field or if the field was closely bunched, seeing how those on or near the lead finished relative to each other and expectations etc...

[Robert Goren]

If you want to handicap without using numeric measurements like pace and speed figures you can use various forms of comparative handicapping to estimate ability and pace.

To do that you sort of need an objective measurement of how various classes stack up against each other. Winning PAR times broken down by class, age, sex, seasonal issues etc... serve the purpose fairly well.

You can then take that a step further by identifying strong and weak fields within a specific classes.

A basic example might be that both the Wood Memorial and Kentucky Derby are Grade 1 races for 3YOs in the spring. However, the Derby usually contains several sharp Grade 1 winners from around the country while the Wood is more regional and usually contains horses that have won less prestigious races and are trying to get to the Derby. The kind of same thing occurs at every class level even though the official class designations are the same.

You can do the same thing at the pace level by seeing how many speed horses were in a race, whether some very fast horses were outrun by even faster ones, seeing if the speed horses opened up on the rest of the field or if the field was closely bunched, seeing how those on or near the lead finished relative to each other and expectations etc...We did not aways have winning Par Times. What did you do before them?

[Charlie D]

Remove speed figs, Pace figs from the equation and your probably left with Race Class and collateral form handicapping.

[Tom]

I don't remember ever being without pace and speed numbers and seriously handicapping. Oh sure, I used jockeys and trainers and looked for fast closing horses or class drops when I started, but not long after I was making variants and using the speed and pace tables in Ainsle's Complete Guide and Complete Horseplayer books. Then I factored in some Ray Talbout stuff. A far cry what what I have nowadays, but still, I was pretty much lways a pace/speed handciapper.

[ranchwest]

I know some you are too young, but for the old timers, How did you handicap before Beyers and Pace numbers?

It was mostly class, speed and observation:

1) Find the BMW's -- big money winners
2) Best 2 of 3 speed
3) Last win class and speed
4) What we'd today call finding the paceline
5) Figured jockeys and horses take turns
6) Observed, observed, observed

[Show Me the Wire]

Class was not blurred like it is today. There were real lines of demarcation between claiming, allowance and stake types.

It wasn't common to claim a horse for 20k or 40k and win a graded or stake race, which happens now, especially in So.Cal.

Additionally, purses weren't skewed by slot or state bred funding.

[Tom]

Today....what is the difference between a stakes horse and nickle claimer?
About three weeks.

[Johnny V]

Class was not blurred like it is today. There were real lines of demarcation between claiming, allowance and stake types.

It wasn't common to claim a horse for 20k or 40k and win a graded or stake race, which happens now, especially in So.Cal.

Additionally, purses weren't skewed by slot or state bred funding.
So true. I also really don't remember having all these conditioned claimers back then.

[BIG HIT]

I used drf class no pace top five trainer at meet and top five jky's at meet.Plus couple angel's.Was playing flat's and harnness then got most all my info from[american turf monthly and turf guide] much more info now i'am more infourmed now don't know how much better lol

[bisket]

If you want to handicap without using numeric measurements like pace and speed figures you can use various forms of comparative handicapping to estimate ability and pace.

To do that you sort of need an objective measurement of how various classes stack up against each other. Winning PAR times broken down by class, age, sex, seasonal issues etc... serve the purpose fairly well.

You can then take that a step further by identifying strong and weak fields within a specific classes.

A basic example might be that both the Wood Memorial and Kentucky Derby are Grade 1 races for 3YOs in the spring. However, the Derby usually contains several sharp Grade 1 winners from around the country while the Wood is more regional and usually contains horses that have won less prestigious races and are trying to get to the Derby. The kind of same thing occurs at every class level even though the official class designations are the same.

You can do the same thing at the pace level by seeing how many speed horses were in a race, whether some very fast horses were outrun by even faster ones, seeing if the speed horses opened up on the rest of the field or if the field was closely bunched, seeing how those on or near the lead finished relative to each other and expectations etc...
as far as looking inside each class level for particulars in strengths of races along with beyers and also referancing beyers with the age old drf speed fig/track variant are the keys to my handicapping.

[ranchwest]

Class was not blurred like it is today. There were real lines of demarcation between claiming, allowance and stake types.

It wasn't common to claim a horse for 20k or 40k and win a graded or stake race, which happens now, especially in So.Cal.

Additionally, purses weren't skewed by slot or state bred funding.

Good post. We also gave a lot of consideration to the state bred condition.

[Robert Goren]

So true. I also really don't remember having all these conditioned claimers back then.Condition claimers are fairly new thing for 4yo and up.

[classhandicapper]

We did not aways have winning Par Times. What did you do before them?

I looked at purse sizes and tried to mentally track how horses did when they made various class moves. Of course there weren't many state bred races with inflated purses back them.

I also made some bad speed figures. :lol:

[Tom]

Condition claimers are fairly new thing for 4yo and up.

Of course there weren't many state bred races with inflated purses back them.

Youse guys must not have been betting Finger Lakes. We have a history of conditioned races and bad state breds. Steve Crist once whined in the NY Times ( when he worked there) about the NY Breds at Aqueduct running 30 lengths behind a 1:15 pace in a route race on the inner track.
We were all excited here that one of them might ship in and run! :D

[WinterTriangle]

For the record, I can honestly say I have rarely looked at a beyer figure.

I am slowly finding my strengths, and mine is seeing a horse live in the paddock, seeing longshots to win, and looking at histories and seeing possibilities.

My worst handicapping is big stakes races, esp. on Saturdays. I'm finally gonna give those up.

I did bad at Oaklawn on Sat, but I did fantastic today (sunday). One horse I was trying to talk everyone into was one that had trouble in every race. I thought what is the chance he will have trouble today...stumbled start, etc. I was hanging out with friends from another forum where we handicap oaklawn. Anyway, the horse won and paid >$28
Then I hit a straight tri just watching the post parade. And it went that way all day.

There's another woman I handicap with there.... she is almost astounding in her ability to pick the longshots who will win. They seem to jump off the track into her lap LOL
And she can ONLY do it if she sees the horses.

I've always been a fan of physicality handicapping.

With computer betting, and less people going to the track, I guess this is a dying thing.......the camera angles on the video just aren't the same as my own eyes.

[jonnielu]

For the record, I can honestly say I have rarely looked at a beyer figure.

I am slowly finding my strengths, and mine is seeing a horse live in the paddock, seeing longshots to win, and looking at histories and seeing possibilities.

My worst handicapping is big stakes races, esp. on Saturdays. I'm finally gonna give those up.

I did bad at Oaklawn on Sat, but I did fantastic today (sunday). One horse I was trying to talk everyone into was one that had trouble in every race. I thought what is the chance he will have trouble today...stumbled start, etc. I was hanging out with friends from another forum where we handicap oaklawn. Anyway, the horse won and paid >$28
Then I hit a straight tri just watching the post parade. And it went that way all day.

There's another woman I handicap with there.... she is almost astounding in her ability to pick the longshots who will win. They seem to jump off the track into her lap LOL
And she can ONLY do it if she sees the horses.

I've always been a fan of physicality handicapping.

With computer betting, and less people going to the track, I guess this is a dying thing.......the camera angles on the video just aren't the same as my own eyes.

Not really a dying thing, physicality has never caught a great deal of traction. It may be the most telling factor in consideration of how a horse will perform today, but, it is a discipline that sells nary a newspaper.

The other thing is that anybody can do it well, if they are open/receptive/perceptive to the spirit of the animal. Usually, this is not a numbers person.

jdl

[ranchwest]

Not really a dying thing, physicality has never caught a great deal of traction. It may be the most telling factor in consideration of how a horse will perform today, but, it is a discipline that sells nary a newspaper.

The other thing is that anybody can do it well, if they are open/receptive/perceptive to the spirit of the animal. Usually, this is not a numbers person.

jdl

In my own case, I'm very much a number cruncher (programmer with an accounting major and write my own handicapping software), but I'm a very good physicality handicapper. As with Winter Triangle, I find it difficult to get an adequate view online.

So, I suspect that anyone can learn physicality handicapping if, as you say, they are open/receptive/perceptive.

[jonnielu]

In my own case, I'm very much a number cruncher (programmer with an accounting major and write my own handicapping software), but I'm a very good physicality handicapper. As with Winter Triangle, I find it difficult to get an adequate view online.

So, I suspect that anyone can learn physicality handicapping if, as you say, they are open/receptive/perceptive.

Very few tracks have any appreciation of the idea that the video stream is another publication of information that players can use to play the game. Some do a decent job and actually make an effort to show all of the horses. Maybe if they understood that most bettors that use physicality in their considerations, use it in a bet/ no bet mode... they might produce some quality, or at least consider it.

I absolutely believe that anyone that appreciates horses as more then dumb animals can do well with physicality as an adjunct to all other methods.

jdl

[WinterTriangle]

It may be the most telling factor in consideration of how a horse will perform today

today, being the important word.

Look at the Oaklawn prices for Sunday. spectacular exotics. That's all I gotta say. The data guys didn't have 'em.

An interesting example was precepts ten. Nobody who physicality handicaps would have missed that one being on the ticket. I was standing around with another physicality hanidcapper, looking at the data, it wasnt' there. But after the post parade, we rushed inside to put that horse in the trifecta. The #9 Tiger's-something....another one.

There were about 5-6 other ones like that on Sunday....all day. You had to see them out next to the other horses, on the track, and in the paddock.

But you're right......you can't sell that.:)

[cj]

today, being the important word.

Look at the Oaklawn prices for Sunday. spectacular exotics. That's all I gotta say. The data guys didn't have 'em.

An interesting example was precepts ten. Nobody who physicality handicaps would have missed that one being on the ticket. I was standing around with another physicality hanidcapper, looking at the data, it wasnt' there. But after the post parade, we rushed inside to put that horse in the trifecta. The #9 Tiger's-something....another one.

There were about 5-6 other ones like that on Sunday....all day. You had to see them out next to the other horses, on the track, and in the paddock.

But you're right......you can't sell that.:)

Completely untrue. I know that several of the longer prices were easy to see on numbers alone, at least the ones I make. You really believe Precepts Ten wasn't "have-able" for third on figures?

[McSock]

Atleast 50% of my wagers are non=beyer races. I watch a lot of replays and look for horses that make a BIG effort or I feel should have been in the money without large amounts of trouble.
I dont bet that many races a day either, just not that many on my watch list.

[ranchwest]

Very few tracks have any appreciation of the idea that the video stream is another publication of information that players can use to play the game. Some do a decent job and actually make an effort to show all of the horses. Maybe if they understood that most bettors that use physicality in their considerations, use it in a bet/ no bet mode... they might produce some quality, or at least consider it.

I absolutely believe that anyone that appreciates horses as more then dumb animals can do well with physicality as an adjunct to all other methods.

jdl

Tracks are basically clueless. Anyone see Undercover Boss last night? The COO of CD was on. He had no idea. Fortunately, he did seem open-minded and learned a lot. Unfortunately, he didn't go undercover as a customer -- I guess that's not part of the premise of the show. I'd have liked to have seen him try going in with about $20 and see what the accomodations and employees were like from that guy's perspective. Not saying anything about CD in particular, just about tracks in general.

[Tom]

Look at the Oaklawn prices for Sunday. spectacular exotics. That's all I gotta say. The data guys didn't have 'em.



Which data guys did you interview?
Which data did you use and find empty? Ability ratings? :lol:

[jonnielu]

Completely untrue. I know that several of the longer prices were easy to see on numbers alone, at least the ones I make. You really believe Precepts Ten wasn't "have-able" for third on figures?

Virtually nothing in horse racing is completely untrue, everything you have read, seen, heard, and experienced is right to a degree. A horse can look great on paper, or it might just look bettable on paper, but whoever said bet THE horse with a sound edge on the rest of the field was right to a significant degree.

A reasonable edge on paper can become a huge advantage when the horse comes out on the track and gives you everything you want to see, and this is the only one that does. This situation can tell you reliably and consistently that this is a time to bet with both hands. It's also there to be had everyday.

jdl

[Saratoga_Mike]

Virtually nothing in horse racing is completely untrue, everything you have read, seen, heard, and experienced is right to a degree. A horse can look great on paper, or it might just look bettable on paper, but whoever said bet THE horse with a sound edge on the rest of the field was right to a significant degree.

A reasonable edge on paper can become a huge advantage when the horse comes out on the track and gives you everything you want to see, and this is the only one that does. This situation can tell you reliably and consistently that this is a time to bet with both hands. It's also there to be had everyday.

jdl

I think appearance can be used to eliminate certain horses (e.g., horse comes out all washy), but rarely will looks lead you to the winner.

[Tom]

Virtually nothing in horse racing is completely untrue, everything you have read, seen, heard, and experienced is right to a degree. A horse can look great on paper, or it might just look bettable on paper, but whoever said bet THE horse with a sound edge on the rest of the field was right to a significant degree.

A reasonable edge on paper can become a huge advantage when the horse comes out on the track and gives you everything you want to see, and this is the only one that does. This situation can tell you reliably and consistently that this is a time to bet with both hands. It's also there to be had everyday.

jdl

You missed the point of the post. Not surprising.

[jonnielu]

I think appearance can be used to eliminate certain horses (e.g., horse comes out all washy), but rarely will looks lead you to the winner.

There is more to it then looks, and people that do use it well are usually much more concerned with positives then negatives. At first, your final statement reeks with ignorance, but looking beyond face value, I can also say that it is quite correct.

Those that I know to use physicality well are most often looking at on horse in the post parade. So, you are right, there will usually be several factors that have put the focus now on that horse. The physicality perspective is more used to green light or red light, and size the bet.

jdl

[jonnielu]

You missed the point of the post. Not surprising.

No, I didn't miss the point of the post, I did sieze on that one statement in my response, but my response is not devoid of recognition for the concept that a horse can show an appreciable edge on paper.

jdl

[ranchwest]

I think appearance can be used to eliminate certain horses (e.g., horse comes out all washy), but rarely will looks lead you to the winner.

I've had stronger confidence in physicality than in paper handicapping. When you see the horse well, there's nothing to hide -- he's there and there's a lot that can be seen.

Physicality does require patience. Many races have a lot of uninteresting horses, none of which stand out.

[cj]

No, I didn't miss the point of the post, I did sieze on that one statement in my response, but my response is not devoid of recognition for the concept that a horse can show an appreciable edge on paper.

jdl

I have no problem with people that look at horses and can spot one ready to run. I am skeptical at best to think that alone is going to lead one to long term profits, but I certainly think there are times it can be used as an additional tool to a bettor. However, just looking at horses without knowing how they looked in prior starts isn't going to help much.

As Tom noted, WT's post implied there was no way many of the horses could be found without seeing them in person and that just wasn't true.

[lamboguy]

if you use pace numbers, sheets, speed figures, black box handicapping or the racing form, you are guaranteed to lose money betting on horses.

if you use those as guides to your plays you will have some sort of a fighting chance as long as you are have other tools at your disposal.

personally i have UBET and they have a feature where i can write myself notes after every race that i chose to note. the next time the horse runs its now in my stable mail. i can go from there. i do other things that mean alot more than my notes, but not everyone has those particular tools at their disposal.

even with my out of the normal handicapping i still lose at a small rate.

[Greyfox]

if you use pace numbers, sheets, speed figures, black box handicapping or the racing form, you are guaranteed to lose money betting on horses.

.

You are speaking from your experience, not necessarily ours.
If you truly believe that, become a bookie.

[lamboguy]

You are speaking from your experience, not necessarily ours.
If you truly believe that, become a bookie.i don't think bookies can win either if they book horses. the point underneath my post is that you are betting horses, but it is paramutual gambling with a fairly large takeout. in the year 2010, 90% of the people that are betting horses derive their picks from racing forms, byer number's sheet number's, pace and speed figures. i know that when you have 50 different people looking at the same information you can have 50 different conclusions. the game is still parimutual, that part never changes as long as you are betting legal.

[horses4courses]

i don't think bookies can win either if they book horses. the point underneath my post is that you are betting horses, but it is paramutual gambling with a fairly large takeout. in the year 2010, 90% of the people that are betting horses derive their picks from racing forms, byer number's sheet number's, pace and speed figures. i know that when you have 50 different people looking at the same information you can have 50 different conclusions. the game is still parimutual, that part never changes as long as you are betting legal.

Of course, bookies win booking horses.
Theoretically around 15%.
Depending on volume, and who they are taking the bets from, they win a slightly higher, or lower, percentage.

[Tom]

No, I didn't miss the point of the post, I did sieze on that one statement in my response, but my response is not devoid of recognition for the concept that a horse can show an appreciable edge on paper.

jdl

Still missed it.

[ranchwest]

I have no problem with people that look at horses and can spot one ready to run. I am skeptical at best to think that alone is going to lead one to long term profits, but I certainly think there are times it can be used as an additional tool to a bettor. However, just looking at horses without knowing how they looked in prior starts isn't going to help much.



Stick to what you know.

I believe the reverse of what others here seem to believe.

Looking at the PP's can give a clue as to whether there might be something internal that can't be seen that might be holding a horse back. It also helps to have an idea of the class of the horse.

Still, it is VERY possible to make a long-term profit off of physicality being over 50% of the arsenal. If a person is patient, it is possible to make a long-term profit off of 100% physicality.

[Tom]

And it is just as true that you can 100% ignore the horse's appearance and make money. Just as you can ignore figures. Or class.
Whatever works for you....

[ranchwest]

And it is just as true that you can 100% ignore the horse's appearance and make money. Just as you can ignore figures. Or class.
Whatever works for you....

Absotively.

No matter how you make your selections, keep something for a headache handy. Just in case.

[cj]

Stick to what you know.

I believe the reverse of what others here seem to believe.

Looking at the PP's can give a clue as to whether there might be something internal that can't be seen that might be holding a horse back. It also helps to have an idea of the class of the horse.

Still, it is VERY possible to make a long-term profit off of physicality being over 50% of the arsenal. If a person is patient, it is possible to make a long-term profit off of 100% physicality.

I wasn't saying that it isn't possible, but there is a lot more to it than looking at horses one time at the track. I think you need to know how they have looked in the past as well and learned that lesson the hard way a few times.

[lamboguy]

Stick to what you know.

I believe the reverse of what others here seem to believe.

Looking at the PP's can give a clue as to whether there might be something internal that can't be seen that might be holding a horse back. It also helps to have an idea of the class of the horse.

Still, it is VERY possible to make a long-term profit off of physicality being over 50% of the arsenal. If a person is patient, it is possible to make a long-term profit off of 100% physicality.i have to agree with that statement.

[WinterTriangle]

As Tom noted, WT's post implied there was no way many of the horses could be found without seeing them in person and that just wasn't true.

CJ, I have to say I find this annoying. I went back and re-read my post. I don't see where I claimed that.

ANY time I make a post, I'm speaking for myself. That's the only person I can speak for. The idea here of making some kind of earth-shattering UNIVERSAL PRONOUNCEMENTS that should apply to everyone.........that's not what I'm doing. Anyone who is so "sure" of anything doesn't need to discuss it then LOL it would be a universal truth.

Either I didn't write what I was thinking, or I also can't re-read my own posts very well. Nowhere did I say what Tom thinks I said.:) Maybe you can point me to that part?

Anyway, just for the record, when I say something, I am talking about my own opinion and experience. I'm not asking you, or anyone else here, to accept it as true for you. I don't claim to be right......but I claim to be right for "me".

Half the arguments here wouldn't happen if everyone just accepted that. When somebody says "beyers are the major way to handicap a race", I add {in my mind} "for you."

It's like vegetarians who shun people who eat meat.....you know the type I mean. Only their way is the way, the light. Not just for them, but for everyone.

[Tom]

See post 129 - that is what you said.

[ranchwest]

I wasn't saying that it isn't possible, but there is a lot more to it than looking at horses one time at the track. I think you need to know how they have looked in the past as well and learned that lesson the hard way a few times.

While I'm sure that seeing what the horse previously looked like helps, I haven't found that to be a requirement.

One time I was near Vinton and hadn't been to DED since it went casino. I decided to pop in to look around, with no intention of betting since I didn't have much time and didn't even have any PPs. I walked in and saw a horse at LAD. I knew instantly that horse was a winner. I put a small win bet on that horse, collected my money and left. I never even looked at the other horses in the race. Not common, not advisable, but it worked just fine.

In my opinion, physicality handicapping requires that you know what you're looking for and you zone out everything else until you have a pretty good fix on what you've seen.

I can't do it the other way. Once I've seen the PPs, I'm prejudiced and can't make an objective evaluation of physicality.

[Greyfox]

In my opinion, physicality handicapping requires that you know what you're looking for and you zone out everything else until you have a pretty good fix on what you've seen.

I can't do it the other way. Once I've seen the PPs, I'm prejudiced and can't make an objective evaluation of physicality.

I think that you are making a very good point here.
Certainly seeing the PP figures is going to prejudice what one sees.
It is my understanding that Joe Takach , the Physicality Guru, does a preliminary screen using numbers and then looks at the physicality of the contenders that he has determined.
But looking at the physicality first and then the numbers might lead to a more objective evaluation of each runner today. Good point.:ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

i don't think bookies can win either if they book horses..

You don't think that you can win using past performances, pace and speed figures and so on.
You don't think that bookies can win either.
So betting or booking one can't make money?
Give your head a shake.:D

[maxwell]

Bookies?

With OTB's, phone wagering, and internet wagering I thought bookies went the way of the dinosaurs.

[bobphilo]

If you want to handicap without using numeric measurements like pace and speed figures you can use various forms of comparative handicapping to estimate ability and pace.

To do that you sort of need an objective measurement of how various classes stack up against each other. Winning PAR times broken down by class, age, sex, seasonal issues etc... serve the purpose fairly well.

You can then take that a step further by identifying strong and weak fields within a specific classes.

A basic example might be that both the Wood Memorial and Kentucky Derby are Grade 1 races for 3YOs in the spring. However, the Derby usually contains several sharp Grade 1 winners from around the country while the Wood is more regional and usually contains horses that have won less prestigious races and are trying to get to the Derby. The kind of same thing occurs at every class level even though the official class designations are the same.

You can do the same thing at the pace level by seeing how many speed horses were in a race, whether some very fast horses were outrun by even faster ones, seeing if the speed horses opened up on the rest of the field or if the field was closely bunched, seeing how those on or near the lead finished relative to each other and expectations etc...

Class,

Feel free to correct me if I’m reading you wrong but I think you're making an excellent point regarding the foundation of both speed and class ratings and how the introduction of modern speed figures really represent a difference in methodology rather than philosophy. The essence of both really lies in determining how well a horse ran relative to other horses.

Critics of speed figures often miss the point that they do not primarily reflect just how fast a horse ran, but that how fast it ran is only important IN RELATION to how fast other horses ran considering their class or ability levels. The main difference between these and class ratings is that in class handicapping the main comparison is with the horses that the horse in question faced in a particular race – in other words, who did it beat and who beat it. The fundamental similarity is that a horse’s performance is still rated in relation to that of other horses.

The main differences lies in the fact that speed figures are more quantitative and are expressed on an interval scale while class ratings are more qualitative and are typically based on an ordinal scale.

With modern speed figures the emphasis lies in determining precise numerical pars and using advanced mathematical methods to evaluate the differences between a horse’s time and those of other horses to arrive at a precise numerical rating. In more sophisticated methods, projections are used instead of pars but the principle remains the same.

In the “old days”, before the emphasis on quantitative methods, both pars and individual performances were still differentiated, but on a qualitative basis on an ordinal scale.

This should answer Robert Goren’s question of what people did before there were winning pars. This also explains why there is no contradiction in you using the name “classhandicapper” and using still speed figures to express a horse’s class, in the broader sense of the word, as a measure of a horse’s ability in relation to that of other horse’s. I hope I expressed your position correctly.

Bob

[bobphilo]

I've had stronger confidence in physicality than in paper handicapping. When you see the horse well, there's nothing to hide -- he's there and there's a lot that can be seen.

Physicality does require patience. Many races have a lot of uninteresting horses, none of which stand out.

I'd say that just the opposite is closer to the truth. Some of the most important factors effecting a horse's stamina and ability to go the distance such as heart size, stroke volume, cardiac output and cardio-vascular fitness are just not visible on the outside. You may be able to see a horse's muscularity but won't know what percentage are fast twitch versus slow twitch fibers - one favors sprint ability, the other stamina - unless you can perform a biopsy during the post parade. That's just a small sample of what's not visible on the outside. A horse's PP's are a much better source of a horses distance ability, among other things.

And that's just the easier physical traits. For example, you can't get into a horses mind to see if his competitive drive will overcome his body's instinct to react to the pain of fatigue by slowing down. How can you tell how a horse will react to the pressure of being challenged when really tired? An animal’s behavior when it is rested and ready to go in the post parade or warm-up is a totally different situation. Again the PPs of how he reacts in an actual race are better indicators of that.

The fact that horses are individuals is the best reason not to depend on just the way a horse you're not familiar with looks or behaves on race day. Good runners come in a variety of shapes and sizes with their own unique personalities. I'd rather depend on what is normal for this particular horse on a day when it runs well, which takes a lot of previous observation and comparing to the charts and PPs, than going by some general traits which may or may not be meaningful in this particular horse.

I'm not saying that physicality does not have its place in handicapping, but one must be aware of how much important information is just not visible to even the most trained eye. The best way to use physicality is to become familiar with this horses basic abilities from its PPs and then inspect it at the post to see if it seems ready to deliver on that promise today. Especially important is to familiarize yourself with how this horse looks and act when it runs well (remember, as individuals they vary in this) and check to see if the horse shows the these traits today.

Bob

[nalley0710]

You should read Chuck Badone's books Winning Horseracing Handicapping and Class In Thoroughbred Racing.

[WinterTriangle]

The fact that horses are individuals is the best reason not to depend on just the way a horse you're not familiar with looks or behaves on race day.

disagree.

A horse you ARE familiar with, looking and acting a certain way on race day is infinitely more pertinent to "today's race" than PPs that show what he "was" a few weeks or months ago.

Why are you, and others, assuming that physicality handicapping is only being applied to horses you have never seen?

I will counter with the idea that those who only handicap on paper can't really say they are familiar with a horse, can they?

Do they see that today, he is tucked up. Or that his mane is wet from just walking from the barn to the paddock?

One like that this week...... went off as the favorite, based on his PPs. Once I saw him, I found one of my very best "bet against" wagers of the weekend. :jump: And, he did lose. :jump:

[ranchwest]

I'd say that just the opposite is closer to the truth. Some of the most important factors effecting a horse's stamina and ability to go the distance such as heart size, stroke volume, cardiac output and cardio-vascular fitness are just not visible on the outside. You may be able to see a horse's muscularity but won't know what percentage are fast twitch versus slow twitch fibers - one favors sprint ability, the other stamina - unless you can perform a biopsy during the post parade. That's just a small sample of what's not visible on the outside. A horse's PP's are a much better source of a horses distance ability, among other things.

And that's just the easier physical traits. For example, you can't get into a horses mind to see if his competitive drive will overcome his body's instinct to react to the pain of fatigue by slowing down. How can you tell how a horse will react to the pressure of being challenged when really tired? An animal’s behavior when it is rested and ready to go in the post parade or warm-up is a totally different situation. Again the PPs of how he reacts in an actual race are better indicators of that.

The fact that horses are individuals is the best reason not to depend on just the way a horse you're not familiar with looks or behaves on race day. Good runners come in a variety of shapes and sizes with their own unique personalities. I'd rather depend on what is normal for this particular horse on a day when it runs well, which takes a lot of previous observation and comparing to the charts and PPs, than going by some general traits which may or may not be meaningful in this particular horse.

I'm not saying that physicality does not have its place in handicapping, but one must be aware of how much important information is just not visible to even the most trained eye. The best way to use physicality is to become familiar with this horses basic abilities from its PPs and then inspect it at the post to see if it seems ready to deliver on that promise today. Especially important is to familiarize yourself with how this horse looks and act when it runs well (remember, as individuals they vary in this) and check to see if the horse shows the these traits today.

Bob

While you do make some significant points and I certainly don't want to diminish the possibilities in paper handicapping, I still feel that there are a lot of converse points to be made.

There is a lot that can be seen with a horse that cannot be seen on paper.

Among the things I've seen on horses that caused concern:

1) I got off a horse because of a scratch on a hip. After the race I found out the scratch was the result of a gate incident and the horse was not liking being at the track.

2) Patches

3) Horses not putting full weight on one or more legs

4) Runny poop

5) On and on, you don't find this stuff on paper

I've found that a lot of good looking horses are in the right race because the trainer of nice looking horses often has the horse in the right race. When the horse is feeling best, that's when the trainer is most likely to enter the horse in a race in which the horse has a real shot at winning.

You say you can't get into a horse's mind, but I suggest that you can get into a horse's mind more looking at it than reading about what it did days or weeks or months ago. Watching a horse's demeanor and actions tells a lot about what's likely on his mind. A good physicality handicapper can definitely tell whether a horse is likely happy or not.

While physicality is not perfect, in the context of handicapping it can be very effective. Just as with paper handicapping, you don't have to hit every one to do well.

[Tom]

4) Runny poop




Thanks, really.
Made my breakfast!

:D

[ranchwest]

Thanks, really.
Made my breakfast!

:D

Don't read about physicality on a full stomach. At least you can appreciate why this is a toss out.

[Greyfox]

While physicality is not perfect, in the context of handicapping it can be very effective. Just as with paper handicapping, you don't have to hit every one to do well.

True. However, physicality, is of no use beyond the first race of horizontal exotics such as the Pick 3 and Pick 4.

[ranchwest]

True. However, physicality, is of no use beyond the first race of horizontal exotics such as the Pick 3 and Pick 4.

Yeah, what's up with that, eh? :lol:

[Overlay]

Just now chiming in. Without speed or pace figures, I'd go back to my old pre-Beyer mode, and use the probabilities associated with the other factors in my handicapping model, such as running style, form, class, and connections. I was satisfied with their comprehensiveness and accuracy before figures became widely available. Blending figures in merely increased accuracy without having to sacrifice value, since (as before) I was operating from a full-field, fair-odds perspective, and using the figures as just one weighted part of the process, rather than trying solely to narrow a race field down to the one most likely winner through a process of elimination, or by relying totally on any one factor/figure as a selection criterion.

[Greyfox]

Yeah, what's up with that, eh? :lol:

But there is another side to that coin.
If you get to the last leg of a horizontal exotic and still "alive," physicality might be a clue as to whether or not a cover insurance bet should be made elsewhere. ;)

[bobphilo]

While you do make some significant points and I certainly don't want to diminish the possibilities in paper handicapping, I still feel that there are a lot of converse points to be made.

There is a lot that can be seen with a horse that cannot be seen on paper.

Among the things I've seen on horses that caused concern:

1) I got off a horse because of a scratch on a hip. After the race I found out the scratch was the result of a gate incident and the horse was not liking being at the track.

2) Patches

3) Horses not putting full weight on one or more legs

4) Runny poop

5) On and on, you don't find this stuff on paper

I've found that a lot of good looking horses are in the right race because the trainer of nice looking horses often has the horse in the right race. When the horse is feeling best, that's when the trainer is most likely to enter the horse in a race in which the horse has a real shot at winning.

You say you can't get into a horse's mind, but I suggest that you can get into a horse's mind more looking at it than reading about what it did days or weeks or months ago. Watching a horse's demeanor and actions tells a lot about what's likely on his mind. A good physicality handicapper can definitely tell whether a horse is likely happy or not.

While physicality is not perfect, in the context of handicapping it can be very effective. Just as with paper handicapping, you don't have to hit every one to do well.

Ranch,

You too make some good points, the principle one being that physicality handicapping can give some clues as to the horse's condition today, on race day. As I said in my post, if one combines pre-race inspection with the information on the horse's basic ability in the PPs, one has a powerful one-two punch combination. Each one fills in information that the other one can't.

I agree with your statement that " While physicality is not perfect, in the context of handicapping it can be very effective." as well as most of your current post. The only thing I was objecting to was the previous statement that with physicality 'everything is all there to see'. Many, if not most, of the important organs and structures that affect performance are not visible to the naked eye. I gave just a few examples in my previous post. That's why doctors use Cat-Scans, MRIs, EKGs, EEGs and ultrasound and blood tests to make diagnoses. Even the best physicality handicapper does not have X-ray or microscopic vision.

Personally, I can fully understand for a handicapper to be very enthusiatic about a method that works well for them, as physicality obviously does for you, and seeing it as something that shows all. That's why Andy Beyer refered to speed handicapping as "the way, the truth and the light". I just wanted to show that physicality, like any other method cannot show all, though it does have its merits.

I personally, am a speed handicapper who relies mainly on pace and trip adjusted speed and class figures to predict current form patterns, but I am aware that speed figures are not absolute measurements of even a horse's past performances (merely a good figure maker's best estimate) and even less absolute predictors of exact future performances. Believing so is just as incorrect as assuming that physicality alone is all one needs to best access a horse's ability.

It's also important to understand that the 2 methods are not mutually exclusive. In fact to get the best effect, they should not be done at the same time. PP analysis is best done in what is the best place for any thoughtful analysis, in a quiet undisturbed place like home, the day or night before the race. Pre-race analysis is done as close to post time as possible and should include how the horse warms-up and not just how it looks in the post parade. There is no time conflict in using both methodologies. If I were able to get to the track in person, I would probably supplement my pre-race PP handicapping with physical inspection too.

Another point that bears repeating is that horses are individuals and may differ in how they signal a good performance to come. That's why it is far preferable to familiarize yourself with how the the particular horse looks and acts before both good and bad races and see which applies today. There have been many great champions with conformation faults that would make them toss-outs on physicality grounds. Knowing how the horse runs despite this fault can rescue many winning bets.

For example; I recall a time when I was very keen on a horse from my previous PP study, but when I got to the track I noticed a very stange way of going in one of its forelegs, and based on my education and knowledge of equine anatomy and gait mechanics, knew this made for a very inefficient way of going. there were no other visible physical or behavioral signs that might make up for this fairly serious flaw. It was possible that this could be due to a minor injury or just its usual charecteristic inefficient way of going. In any case regardless of the cause, this was a throw-out on pure physicality grounds, so I changed my bet, and to my dismay, saw my original choice cross the finish line a winner, inefficient gait and all. The horse simply had other charecterisics, including physical (probably great cardio-vascular fitness) and mental (including a powerful will to win) that compensated for its physical flaws that were just not visible on naked eye inspectiion. This was reflected in its PP record and the reason it was my original choice. There are a lot of good runners that don't look like winners until they cross the finish line and a blind adherence to physicality will cause you to miss them. This is also true with releying totally on PPs and past speed figures earned with no regard for the horses current condition which could be estimated by physical inspection and/or form pattern analysis.

The best strategy is to use whatever source of complementary information available to you, including PPs and how the horse usually looks, in addition to what its form pattern predicts and how it looks today. These are not competing, mutually exclusive methodologies, as some seem to be debating, but actually are complementary and work best when combined, much like pace and trip analysis improves speed figures.

Finally, whatever methodology the handicapper employs, he/she must not be blind to it limitations as well as its strengths, and thus be open to how these can be minimized with information from a different methodology that is strong where your method is weak.

Bob

[Greyfox]

Another point that bears repeating is that horses are individuals and may differ in how they signal a good performance to come.

If Zenyatta doesn't do her pre race war dance, I'd be wondering about how she'll do today.

[gm10]

While you do make some significant points and I certainly don't want to diminish the possibilities in paper handicapping, I still feel that there are a lot of converse points to be made.

There is a lot that can be seen with a horse that cannot be seen on paper.

Among the things I've seen on horses that caused concern:

1) I got off a horse because of a scratch on a hip. After the race I found out the scratch was the result of a gate incident and the horse was not liking being at the track.

2) Patches

3) Horses not putting full weight on one or more legs

4) Runny poop

5) On and on, you don't find this stuff on paper

I've found that a lot of good looking horses are in the right race because the trainer of nice looking horses often has the horse in the right race. When the horse is feeling best, that's when the trainer is most likely to enter the horse in a race in which the horse has a real shot at winning.

You say you can't get into a horse's mind, but I suggest that you can get into a horse's mind more looking at it than reading about what it did days or weeks or months ago. Watching a horse's demeanor and actions tells a lot about what's likely on his mind. A good physicality handicapper can definitely tell whether a horse is likely happy or not.

While physicality is not perfect, in the context of handicapping it can be very effective. Just as with paper handicapping, you don't have to hit every one to do well.

Good post. I think there is definitely value to be had this way. You might be interested in a book called "Watching Race horses". It builds a model around variables that can be visually detected in the paddock or parade ring, and the model does surprisingly well. It's an Australian book but 99% is applicable to racing anywhere in the world.

[bobphilo]

If Zenyatta doesn't do her pre race war dance, I'd be wondering about how she'll do today.

That was one of the cases I was thinking of when I wrote that. Good pick-up.
Someone relying on pure physicality based only what he sees today without having observed her previous pre-race dances and noted the winning race that follows, might throw her out on grounds of a gait abnormality. One is always on dangerous grounds when drawing conclusions strictly on how a horse he is unfamiliar with looks or behaves.

Bob

[bobphilo]

You should read Chuck Badone's books Winning Horseracing Handicapping and Class In Thoroughbred Racing.

Thanks, I hadn't heard about it, but I'm always open to new ideas. What are his basic theories with regards to class in handicapping?

Bob

[bobphilo]

[/size][/font][/color]

disagree.

A horse you ARE familiar with, looking and acting a certain way on race day is infinitely more pertinent to "today's race" than PPs that show what he "was" a few weeks or months ago.

Why are you, and others, assuming that physicality handicapping is only being applied to horses you have never seen?

I will counter with the idea that those who only handicap on paper can't really say they are familiar with a horse, can they?

Do they see that today, he is tucked up. Or that his mane is wet from just walking from the barn to the paddock?

One like that this week...... went off as the favorite, based on his PPs. Once I saw him, I found one of my very best "bet against" wagers of the weekend. :jump: And, he did lose. :jump:

Winter,

You misunderstand my position. If you read the posts I am reacting to and my answers you will see that my main objection is to the idea that one can look at a field of horses for the first time and be able to predict everything you need to know about their abilities by using phyisicality. While PP reading offers other advantages I have also made very clear tha I also feel that one of the strengths of physicality is that it is one of the best ways to determine the horse's current condition.

I am in no way taking part in a debate as to whether physicality or PP handicapping alone give all the information needed. This is an artificial debate since they are really complementary and work best in combination.

In fact, I have come out rather strongly regarding the use of physicality both when used along with PP handicapping and as a way to compare how a horse looks today compared to previous races.

Bob

[Capper Al]

I have been scanning through this thread so excuse me if this has been mentioned. The tradition handicapping methods, as in Handicapping 101 and Ainslie's books, recommend handicapping in the following order:

Form(eliminations) - class - speed - pace

Since speed is the third factor, would you consider this handicapping without Beyers? Or do you look at Speed as still the main factor here? Maybe Speed cappers play it Speed - form - class - pace?

[nalley0710]

Thanks, I hadn't heard about it, but I'm always open to new ideas. What are his basic theories with regards to class in handicapping?

Bob

Badone believed in being able to use the condition book to interpret class (This is what Class In Thoroughbred Racing is about) and by knowing the competition the horse has been running against. He says in Winning Horseracing Handicapping "In general,however, I pay little attention to speed ratings or track variants. I am much more concerned with answering the questions of fitness and class ...". His two books would give you a solid starting point on developing a method devoid of pace and speed analysis.

"Show me the man who can class horses correctly and I will show you the man who can win all the money he wants...." Mike Dwyer

[jonnielu]

One is always on dangerous grounds when drawing conclusions strictly on how a horse he is unfamiliar with looks or behaves.

Bob

That is a ridiculous statement. One could make many more accurate conclusions based on how a horse looks and behaves today compared to conclusions drawn from the PP's.

There is only one conclusion that can be safely drawn from PP's and that is that the horse ran like this on such and such a date.

Every question that you come out of the PP's with, can be answered by physicality, the most important of those questions is..... should I bet this horse?

jdl

[Overlay]

I have been scanning through this thread so excuse me if this has been mentioned. The tradition handicapping methods, as in Handicapping 101 and Ainslie's books, recommend handicapping in the following order:

Form(eliminations) - class - speed - pace

Since speed is the third factor, would you consider this handicapping without Beyers? Or do you look at Speed as still the main factor here? Maybe Speed cappers play it Speed - form - class - pace?

Whether considered earlier in the handicapping process (as a criterion for separating contenders from non-contenders), or later (as a means of differentiating contenders that you've arrived at through examination of other factors), the models you presented are still considering or using speed and pace (presumably through figures of some type). It would just be a question of when in the process that would occur, and how many horses in the field you would evaluate using those elements.

[Capper Al]

Whether considered earlier in the handicapping process (as a criterion for separating contenders from non-contenders), or later (as a means of differentiating contenders that you've arrived at through examination of other factors), the models you presented are still considering or using speed and pace (presumably through figures of some type). It would just be a question of when in the process that would occur, and how many horses in the field you would evaluate using those elements.

Some systems use speed only as a criteria for elimination. Basically they say, does this horse's speed hang in with this field? If no, they are out. If yes, they are handicapped using other factors.

The nice thing about these methods is the relevance of speed is diminished greatly. If the Par time is 90, anything under a certain number(like 80 or 85) is eliminated. it's a shot gun approach to speed. They are not recognizing speed figures as precise figures like speed cappers would by using the top speed figure, dropping a 94 because it is two points less than a 96. This logic sounds reasonable since they are acknowledging speed has some value in general but isn't absolute in handicapping.

[gm10]

Some systems use speed only as a criteria for elimination. Basically they say, does this horse's speed hang in with this field? If no, they are out. If yes, they are handicapped using other factors.

The nice thing about these methods is the relevance of speed is diminished greatly. If the Par time is 90, anything under a certain number(like 80 or 85) is eliminated. it's a shot gun approach to speed. They are not recognizing speed figures as precise figures like speed cappers would by using the top speed figure, dropping a 94 because it is two points less than a 96. This logic sounds reasonable since they are acknowledging speed has some value in general but isn't absolute in handicapping.

Reminds of what Phill Bull, the man behind Timeform, says: "speed figures can't tell you how good a horse is, but they tell you how bad he isn't".

[ranchwest]

Reminds of what Phill Bull, the man behind Timeform, says: "speed figures can't tell you how good a horse is, but they tell you how bad he isn't".

wasn't

[Overlay]

This logic sounds reasonable since they are acknowledging speed has some value in general but isn't absolute in handicapping.

But by totally eliminating at least some horses on the basis of one factor such as speed, aren't you granting that factor a degree of absolute power? I prefer to consider mutiple factors in evaluating a field, but, rather than use them as sequential elimination criteria to narrow a field down to one most likely winner, I weight them to reflect each element's influence on a horse's overall winning chances, and consider them simultaneously to produce an aggregate picture of those chances for each horse in the race, so that I can detect the presence of wagering value, wherever in the field it might occur.

[gm10]

wasn't

From what I've read, he said "isn't".

[bobphilo]

That is a ridiculous statement. One could make many more accurate conclusions based on how a horse looks and behaves today compared to conclusions drawn from the PP's.

There is only one conclusion that can be safely drawn from PP's and that is that the horse ran like this on such and such a date.

Every question that you come out of the PP's with, can be answered by physicality, the most important of those questions is..... should I bet this horse?

jdl

Actually I made a typo in that statement which caused a misunderstanding of my point. What I meant to say is that in using physicality one is on dangerous grounds when one only considers what the horse looks and acts like today rather than comparing today with what it looked and acted like in previous races. While there is a norm, good runners come in a varity of shapes and sizes as well as behaviors. While one can do well with generalizations, you can do much better if you are familiar with the norm for particular horses. CHANGES in appearance or behaviour can be all important. I was merely reacting to a statement made that a look before todays race tells you all you need to do. Furthermore, even a through physical inspection misses a lot that is going on under the skin as I posted earlier. These issues were also cleared up in more detail in my posts with Ranchwest.

I actually made no reference to comparisons to PP handicapping in that post, but as long as you mention it, If your merely saying that physicality deals with all the handicapping issues that PP handicapping does, I have no argument with that.

Yes, one can answer several questions regarding whether a horse is worth a bet with physicality, though that does not mean that they can ALL be answered as well as they can with the PPs. Similarly, one cannot answer all handicapping questions as well with PPs as one can with physicality.

Every method has their strengths and weaknesses. In simple terms, the main strength of the PPs is that nothing measures how well a horse can perform under specific race conditions better than an actual race. The main strength of physicality is that nothing can tell you how a horse is feeling today better than inspecting him today. The two are not mutually exclusive. My point is that the two can be used together for better results than either alone.

Bob

[Capper Al]

Reminds of what Phill Bull, the man behind Timeform, says: "speed figures can't tell you how good a horse is, but they tell you how bad he isn't".

These systems using the broad Speed elimination approach will get some longshots. Speed still is the top handicapping factor that correlates to the winner- at least, in what I have read and tested. Yet, there are times when you can watch a horse with 20 points under the Top Speed win by 6 lengths. Go figure. The broad approach to using Speed coupled with Form analysis might be the way to go as for setting up your contender list.

[WinterTriangle]

I also feel that one of the strengths of physicality is that it is one of the best ways to determine the horse's current condition.

I am in no way taking part in a debate as to whether physicality or PP handicapping alone give all the information needed. This is an artificial debate since they are really complementary and work best in combination.

:ThmbUp:

The commentary before the Fla derby from the talking heads, when they asked each one who looked the best in the parade, the lady at GS (dunno her name) said Ice Box was looking really good. The other guy said Pleasant Prince.

So, if you were already leaning toward any of them, and saw them looking so nice on the track, that would have helped right? :)

I thought that was interesting.

[ranchwest]

From what I've read, he said "isn't".


From what I've seen, he should have said "wasn't".

[Capper Al]

Okay, I get this thread now -- No Beyers. Consider where I was going with only using Speed as a broad eliminator as a compromise to no Beyers. How well have we done here with picking them without absolutely no Beyers? The only serious piece of work, that I can think of, that absolutely didn't use Speed was Quinn's Class of the Field. I had always wanted to test a system like this but found implementing it too subjective and manual.

[Greyfox]

The only serious piece of work, that I can think of, that absolutely didn't use Speed was Quinn's Class of the Field. I had always wanted to test a system like this but found implementing it too subjective and manual.

In one of the very first posts on this thread I mentioned William Scott's "Total Victory at the Track" as a book that doesn't use Beyers.
(cj in his wisdom said it was off topic because we are supposed to be handicapping a particular race posed by the thread originator and deleted my post. :rolleyes: I could see the thread was more expansive than that.)

[Overlay]

The only serious piece of work, that I can think of, that absolutely didn't use Speed was Quinn's Class of the Field. I had always wanted to test a system like this but found implementing it too subjective and manual.

Why not build your own system by using statistical data from books/studies (such as by Quirin or Nunamaker) that encompass multiple handicapping factors besides speed, and that are also totally objective? (Or would working with raw data like that be more "manual" than you had in mind?)

[Capper Al]

Why not build your own system by using statistical data from books/studies (such as by Quirin or Nunamaker) that encompass multiple handicapping factors besides speed, and that are also totally objective? (Or would working with raw data like that be more "manual" than you had in mind?)

I should have expanded on what I meant by manual. In Class of the Field, Quinn has the capper interpreting PP lines to determine their value. One can't automated this or, at least, it would be very difficult to do so. The real question here is can other factors (put together) equal or surpass Speed for a picking the winner? My studies so far so no. The next question becomes if not could they return greater value? I haven't found a way to do so.

If memory serves, doesn't ability time use some speed factors? Is it just Beyer that we seek a work around, or is it all Speed figures?

[Overlay]

The real question here is can other factors (put together) equal or surpass Speed for picking the winner? My studies so far say no.
The next question becomes if not could they return greater value? I haven't found a way to do so.

I agree that speed is a powerful "stand-alone" factor for indicating the one specific horse that is most likely to win a race. But properly distributed and weighted combinations of factors (whether including speed or not) can do a better job of determining any given horse's overall likelihood of winning. That makes value betting possible, and also frees the handicapper from having to worry about a particular factor being bet into unprofitability from a "pick-the-winner" standpoint, as invariably happens with top "figure" horses, or other similar one-dimensional "angles".

[ranchwest]

I should have expanded on what I meant by manual. In Class of the Field, Quinn has the capper interpreting PP lines to determine their value. One can't automated this or, at least, it would be very difficult to do so. The real question here is can other factors (put together) equal or surpass Speed for a picking the winner? My studies so far so no. The next question becomes if not could they return greater value? I haven't found a way to do so.

If memory serves, doesn't ability time use some speed factors? Is it just Beyer that we seek a work around, or is it all Speed figures?

While Scott does use ability time, that is not all he uses. The ability time is, to give the "Reader's Digest" version, an adjusted 1/2 mile time.

Scott also presents PCR, based on position and class.

And, Scott offers form factors, which I find to be useful.

Here are a few more tools that don't use Beyers (or other speed figures) or pace (Brohammer or Sartin type numbers):

1) Quirin speed points (positional points)
2) Taulbot box (positional points with class factor)
3) Hambleton form points
4) Fast (Is it Fast? The open source program that has FM) form points
5) BRIS power rating
6) Physicality

There could be a lot of others, especially positional ratings. I do several others of my own.

[bobphilo]

:ThmbUp:

The commentary before the Fla derby from the talking heads, when they asked each one who looked the best in the parade, the lady at GS (dunno her name) said Ice Box was looking really good. The other guy said Pleasant Prince.

So, if you were already leaning toward any of them, and saw them looking so nice on the track, that would have helped right? :)

I thought that was interesting.

Interesting indeed, and very relevant here. Another factor pointing to the longshot winners was pace - which I sadly ignored. Rule knocked himself out with the early pace and did well to finish 3rd. All the others that figured on speed ratings in the PPs that went with him tired even more badly. The top 2 were both deep closers and bargains considering the pace scenario and their appearance.

This shows that there can be a number of factors that point to winners. In this case it was physicality and pace handicapping.

Bob

[46zilzal]

Weighting the factors..

Too many handicappers bring in too much erroneous content in their racing decisions for, with each extra factor, one has to fight its relevance to all the other factors and confusion reigns supreme. Keep It Simple Stupid is a time honored statement which works in almost ANY evaluation

Gladwell was correct: "Don't THINK, BLINK!" Let your implicit logic circuits work with your adaptive unconscious.

Physicality for one, as I see, ALL THE TIME, horses with a huge fetlock or knee, sweating profusely, run off and hide because that is NORMAL for them

[Tom]

A lot of handicapper's aren't as simple as you are.
The proof is in the results, not some dime store novel you found.

[Capper Al]

I agree that speed is a powerful "stand-alone" factor for indicating the one specific horse that is most likely to win a race. But properly distributed and weighted combinations of factors (whether including speed or not) can do a better job of determining any given horse's overall likelihood of winning. That makes value betting possible, and also frees the handicapper from having to worry about a particular factor being bet into unprofitability from a "pick-the-winner" standpoint, as invariably happens with top "figure" horses, or other similar one-dimensional "angles".

Properly distributed and weighted combinations of factors have performed well for me. They give added value over Speed alone, but they would fail with the absence of Speed from the formula.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't use speed figures at all in my handicapping.

The primary things i use are video, charts, and an attempt to understand the racetrack.

[Capper Al]

While Scott does use ability time, that is not all he uses. The ability time is, to give the "Reader's Digest" version, an adjusted 1/2 mile time.

Scott also presents PCR, based on position and class.

And, Scott offers form factors, which I find to be useful.

Here are a few more tools that don't use Beyers (or other speed figures) or pace (Brohammer or Sartin type numbers):

1) Quirin speed points (positional points)
2) Taulbot box (positional points with class factor)
3) Hambleton form points
4) Fast (Is it Fast? The open source program that has FM) form points
5) BRIS power rating
6) Physicality

There could be a lot of others, especially positional ratings. I do several others of my own.

Thanks for the list. I know of Taulbot's pace calculator but not his positional points. Don't know of Hambleton's form points or whatever is #4 on your list. BRIS power ratings do include speed. Physicality, I'm a simulcaster. Rarely at the track.

This is a good topic. One that most serious handicappers come to challenge. In the end, there just doesn't seem to be getting around speed and all it's variants such as pace.

[Capper Al]

I don't use speed figures at all in my handicapping.

The primary things i use are video, charts, and an attempt to understand the racetrack.

Do you keep records as to how you do verse say top speed? Good for you that you can do so.

[Robert Fischer]

Do you keep records as to how you do verse say top speed? Good for you that you can do so.

No, but I do keep records.

I also will look at pace figures in some cases. Example as a secondary factor to see how they agree or disagree with my observations, or as a primary factor for horses that I can't get video on or don't need to get video on, particularly if there is a strong opinion about one of the horses in the race.

In general I do pretty well, but there are bad streaks as well. Also my time consuming approach is not going to yield a great per/hour reward, even on a good streak.

It's probably true that whatever approach you take, that it "pays" to have it be stimulating.

[bobphilo]

Physicality for one, as I see, ALL THE TIME, horses with a huge fetlock or knee, sweating profusely, run off and hide because that is NORMAL for them

This is preciesely why I stated earlier that, as good runners come in all shapes and sizes, in using physicality one is on dangerous grounds if one just goes by what the horse looks like on race day instead of being familiar with what that horse normally looks like and and noting any significant change. Of course, this requires a lot more work and every handicapper has to decide for him/herself if it's worth it.

Because of this, and the fact that physical inspection tells me nothing about heart size, cardiac output, proportion of slow to fast twitch muscle fibers and dozens of other physical factors that influence performance, personally I prefer to spend my time with speed ratings, adjusted for pace and trip and using this information with form analysis to predict how a horse will run on a given day.

Of course, If I happen to be familar with how my horse normally looks or acts and I notice some important change on race day, I give that due importance.

Bob

[Capper Al]

No, but I do keep records.

I also will look at pace figures in some cases. Example as a secondary factor to see how they agree or disagree with my observations, or as a primary factor for horses that I can't get video on or don't need to get video on, particularly if there is a strong opinion about one of the horses in the race.

In general I do pretty well, but there are bad streaks as well. Also my time consuming approach is not going to yield a great per/hour reward, even on a good streak.

It's probably true that whatever approach you take, that it "pays" to have it be stimulating.

That's a good outlook. It isn't worth it if it ain't fun.

[jonnielu]

This is preciesely why I stated earlier that, as good runners come in all shapes and sizes, in using physicality one is on dangerous grounds if one just goes by what the horse looks like on race day instead of being familiar with what that horse normally looks like and and noting any significant change. Of course, this requires a lot more work and every handicapper has to decide for him/herself if it's worth it.

Because of this, and the fact that physical inspection tells me nothing about heart size, cardiac output, proportion of slow to fast twitch muscle fibers and dozens of other physical factors that influence performance, personally I prefer to spend my time with speed ratings, adjusted for pace and trip and using this information with form analysis to predict how a horse will run on a given day.

Of course, If I happen to be familar with how my horse normally looks or acts and I notice some important change on race day, I give that due importance.

Bob

Well, if you insist on complicating everything beyond reason, you probably should stick with those things that you most enjoy complicating beyond reason.

jdl

[ranchwest]

Thanks for the list. I know of Taulbot's pace calculator but not his positional points. Don't know of Hambleton's form points or whatever is #4 on your list. BRIS power ratings do include speed. Physicality, I'm a simulcaster. Rarely at the track.

This is a good topic. One that most serious handicappers come to challenge. In the end, there just doesn't seem to be getting around speed and all it's variants such as pace.

For me, pace is not at all a variant of speed. Sometimes I end up on a horse that has rotten speed ratings and those tend to be the ones at a high price because speed is the big handicapping factor.

[ranchwest]

I need to clarify that speed is the big handicapping factor for the public.

[Capper Al]

For me, pace is not at all a variant of speed. Sometimes I end up on a horse that has rotten speed ratings and those tend to be the ones at a high price because speed is the big handicapping factor.

Most likely pace without final speed translates to an inside move indicative of hidden form and speed capability. For me this is a variant of speed and, like you mentioned, it can pay well.

[bobphilo]

Well, if you insist on complicating everything beyond reason, you probably should stick with those things that you most enjoy complicating beyond reason.

jdl

Jonnielu,

Handicapping happens to be a very complex subject but nonetheless, you find my post too complicated. Fine, I guess that’s still a bit better than your previous shot at me where you called my statements “ridiculous” because you misunderstood them.

From your usual style it would seem that your post has more to do with the fact that it was your remarks that ended up being ridiculous than anything relating to this thread. If you have anything to say about your position on the issues involved it would be a lot more relevant than this “literary criticism”.

[WinterTriangle]

Handicapping happens to be a very complex subject

Actually bob, I think that way myself, but don't kid yourself that there are horsemen who can't look at a horse and handicap 'em.

Watched it done live yesterday on a forum, guy gave his picks the day before, logged in at 4 MTP and said "it's gonna be Icebox and Pleasant!" He has an eye.

I have a friend who does accupuncture on horses. She doesn't gamble. Took her to OP one day and she picked 8 out of 10. She thinks it's funny. :)

[ranchwest]

Most likely pace without final speed translates to an inside move indicative of hidden form and speed capability. For me this is a variant of speed and, like you mentioned, it can pay well.

IMHO, hidden form often translates to a syringe. That's not what I'm looking to find.

[bobphilo]

bobphilo says "Handicapping happens to be a very complex subject"

Actually bob, I think that way myself, but don't kid yourself that there are horsemen who can't look at a horse and handicap 'em.

Watched it done live yesterday on a forum, guy gave his picks the day before, logged in at 4 MTP and said "it's gonna be Icebox and Pleasant!" He has an eye.

I have a friend who does accupuncture on horses. She doesn't gamble. Took her to OP one day and she picked 8 out of 10. She thinks it's funny. :)

Winter,

I actually have no doubt that there is a lot to be known from looking at a horse, especially if one knows what to look for. I have said so several times on this thread, including my post on the Fla Derby. I have also tried to look at this issue objectively, and as you well know, every method has its strengths and weaknesses and physicality is no exception.

I have also personally learned from respectful exchanges with posters like yourself and Ranchwest who have slightly differing opinions on just how effective physicality, especially when combined with the PPs, can be. We still have been able to reach common ground on this.

My only problem is when people think that this is a debating contest where one never admits any weakness of their method, and even worse, resort to insults when reason fails or carry vendettas for other posters and wait for some trivial criticism they can jump on. - there are just too many egos involved. I am not here to insult anyone nor be insulted just because of a difference of opinion. I personally am here to share what I know and learn from others, not to win some debating contest, nor a lawyer in a trial who is only concerned with winning their case and the truth becomes irrelevant.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now and give my congrats to your accupuncturist friend.

Bob

[jonnielu]

Jonnielu,

Handicapping happens to be a very complex subject but nonetheless, you find my post too complicated. Fine, I guess that’s still a bit better than your previous shot at me where you called my statements “ridiculous” because you misunderstood them.

From your usual style it would seem that your post has more to do with the fact that it was your remarks that ended up being ridiculous than anything relating to this thread. If you have anything to say about your position on the issues involved it would be a lot more relevant than this “literary criticism”.

Bob,

I don't find your post to be complicated, and I didn't call your statements in regard to physicality "ridiculous" due to any mis-understanding. I called them ridiculous because they are painfully inaccurate.

Handicapping does not "happen" to be a complex subject, you go out of your way to pour a bunch of extraneous complication into it in an attempt to satisfy your own need to be smarter than other people. Good, knock yourself out, when you have a winner, it can be because you are smarter than everybody else and the only guy in the world that completely understands the complexities of horse racing.

But, while you are excercising your own high intellectual capacity, don't deny the fellow that prefers simplicity when he is cashing on the grey 4th choice that looked sharp in the post parade, and went off at its 6-1 ML.

Because complication makes its home on just one end of the stick, while simplicity takes the other end. Like fast and slow, they often arrive in the vicinity of the wire together.

jdl

[ranchwest]

Bob,

I don't find your post to be complicated, and I didn't call your statements in regard to physicality "ridiculous" due to any mis-understanding. I called them ridiculous because they are painfully inaccurate.

Handicapping does not "happen" to be a complex subject, you go out of your way to pour a bunch of extraneous complication into it in an attempt to satisfy your own need to be smarter than other people. Good, knock yourself out, when you have a winner, it can be because you are smarter than everybody else and the only guy in the world that completely understands the complexities of horse racing.

But, while you are excercising your own high intellectual capacity, don't deny the fellow that prefers simplicity when he is cashing on the grey 4th choice that looked sharp in the post parade, and went off at its 6-1 ML.

Because complication makes its home on just one end of the stick, while simplicity takes the other end. Like fast and slow, they often arrive in the vicinity of the wire together.

jdl

Dial it back a notch, bro.

[bobphilo]

Bob,

I don't find your post to be complicated, and I didn't call your statements in regard to physicality "ridiculous" due to any mis-understanding. I called them ridiculous because they are painfully inaccurate.

Handicapping does not "happen" to be a complex subject, you go out of your way to pour a bunch of extraneous complication into it in an attempt to satisfy your own need to be smarter than other people. Good, knock yourself out, when you have a winner, it can be because you are smarter than everybody else and the only guy in the world that completely understands the complexities of horse racing.

But, while you are excercising your own high intellectual capacity, don't deny the fellow that prefers simplicity when he is cashing on the grey 4th choice that looked sharp in the post parade, and went off at its 6-1 ML.

Because complication makes its home on just one end of the stick, while simplicity takes the other end. Like fast and slow, they often arrive in the vicinity of the wire together.

jdl

Jonnielu,

You would do well to examine statements more carefully before ridiculing them. As you did not understand it the first time, I made it very clear that when using physicality one would do well to be familiar with how the horse normally looks and note any changes on race day. I did not say a word about comparing it to PP handicapping but you chose to assume I did and took off on criticizing using the PPs and on how my statement was “ridiculous”.

As you were unable to come up with a reasonable response, you chose another post to accuse me of trying to overcomplicate matters to make myself look smarter than you or others. I had no such intention and I resent you accusing me of such action. You could not be more wrong on this.

When answering a post I always response in context to both the specific post and the understanding of the poster. In my so-called overcomplicated post I was actually responding to the issue of how horses can look terrible and still run well, which again raises the issue that one can do better with physicality if one is familiar with how a horse normally looks and acts. I was also responding to someone who has an intensive veterinary science education who could well appreciate and understand the anatomical and physiological issues I raised. I also said that one can choose a simpler approach and this is an individual matter.

Actually, while my post was complex, I do not believe it was beyond the capacity of the average poster here to understand. It is you who are insulting the intelligence of our posters if you think I was trying to make myself look smarter by posting something too complex for them.

This is supposed to be a forum for sharing and learning and not a war where we insult statements or people we either don’t understand or don’t agree with. I know from PMs I’ve received that I’m not the only one whose sick of it.

Just cool off and stop assuming the worst and going negative so fast. Like Ranchwest said, “Just dial it back a bit, bro”

Bob

[ranchwest]

Think of horses being like women. Not many women are street walkers and not many horses look the part of sure winners.

But when you've seen a few, you know what is going to happen in the next few minutes just based on the way they look. Even if you've never seen them before.

[bobphilo]

Think of horses being like women. Not many women are street walkers and not many horses look the part of sure winners.

But when you've seen a few, you know what is going to happen in the next few minutes just based on the way they look. Even if you've never seen them before.

LOL. Yes, but the consequences of mistaking one for the other can be disasterous. :blush:

Now if winning horses would just wear mini-skirts and fishnets it would be a cinch. :D

Bob

[ranchwest]

LOL. Yes, but the consequences of mistaking one for the other can be disasterous. :blush:

Now if winning horses would just wear mini-skirts and fishnets it would be a cinch. :D

Bob

When they strut and act like they're coming out of their skin, you're probably seeing the real deal. There's more room for error with horses.

BTW, you don't have to ride either one to understand what they're doing.

[bobphilo]

When they strut and act like they're coming out of their skin, you're probably seeing the real deal. There's more room for error with horses.

BTW, you don't have to ride either one to understand what they're doing.

Yes but nothing takes the place of actual experience. Like the song said "Aint Nothing Like the Real Thing". I might be able to determine that one, or several horses are ready to go. Whether they have what it takes is something I'd rather confirm with their PPs.

Even if they appear to have a great engine, we can't tell how efficiently it burns fuel under race conditions. The fact that there's so much going on inside the horse makes it like a car where you can't see under the hood. Yes, horses are not cars, nor women, but this anolgy applies.

To be fair, someone who is good at physicality can do very well if he/she uses this knowledge to see if the horse looks as good as it did when it proved it had ability. Why wouldn't someone use whatever info is available that the horse can do?

Bob

[Capper Al]

IMHO, hidden form often translates to a syringe. That's not what I'm looking to find.

No doubt the syringes are out there, but showing a good move in the previous race can be indicative of coming into form. Then the syringe would make it a lock!

[ranchwest]

Yes but nothing takes the place of actual experience. Like the song said "Aint Nothing Like the Real Thing". I might be able to determine that one, or several horses are ready to go. Whether they have what it takes is something I'd rather confirm with their PPs.

Even if they appear to have a great engine, we can't tell how efficiently it burns fuel under race conditions. The fact that there's so much going on inside the horse makes it like a car where you can't see under the hood. Yes, horses are not cars, nor women, but this anolgy applies.

To be fair, someone who is good at physicality can do very well if he/she uses this knowledge to see if the horse looks as good as it did when it proved it had ability. Why wouldn't someone use whatever info is available that the horse can do?

Bob

Ever heard the legal term "best evidence"?

[ranchwest]

No doubt the syringes are out there, but showing a good move in the previous race can be indicative of coming into form. Then the syringe would make it a lock!

My best pace plays are on the race, not the horse.

[bobphilo]

Ever heard the legal term "best evidence"?

Best evidence. I’m glad you brought that up. A highly respected legal tradition. For years speed figures have evidenced their predictive value in huge studies over long periods of time going back to Quirins research, even with the old crude DRF figures, to modern studies with Beyer figures. All I’ve heard on this thread about physicality is about someone having a great day at the track.

Perhaps there are studies showing the value of physicality, you know I have never doubted that, but I’ve never seen any evidence that someone can do better with physicality alone and ignoring the PPs than they can by including them.

At one point you correctly amended your position that “with physicality there is nothing to hide” when confronted with all the internal things the naked eye cannot see. I also recall you saying, “Both physicality and paper handicapping have value”. You also previously stated you “strongly consider speed and pace figures”.

I frankly don’t understand then, this sudden need to debunk the fact that I gain additional useful information from the PPs as well?

Bob

[WinterTriangle]

we can't tell how efficiently it burns fuel under race conditions. Bob

Why I kinda like Dr. Roman's TE and % of E, where he measures energy in his pace parameters section. I thought they were especially interesting in a race like the Tampa Derby...the top 3 horses expended a lot of energy getting to the wire on that deep track, but SY expended the least.

Most pedigree and physicality handicappers I know also use other stuff in conjunction with----even suspected large heart (X factor) and Rasmussen, , both of which I feel are helpful.

In Rachel Alexandra's case, 30% of ancestors in her first four generations are RF matings. Street Sense similar story.

which reminds me, I didn't sluice my derby list thru those factors yet. Aw, too much work, not enough time!

[ranchwest]

Best evidence. I’m glad you brought that up. A highly respected legal tradition. For years speed figures have evidenced their predictive value in huge studies over long periods of time going back to Quirins research, even with the old crude DRF figures, to modern studies with Beyer figures. All I’ve heard on this thread about physicality is about someone having a great day at the track.

Perhaps there are studies showing the value of physicality, you know I have never doubted that, but I’ve never seen any evidence that someone can do better with physicality alone and ignoring the PPs than they can by including them.

At one point you correctly amended your position that “with physicality there is nothing to hide” when confronted with all the internal things the naked eye cannot see. I also recall you saying, “Both physicality and paper handicapping have value”. You also previously stated you “strongly consider speed and pace figures”.

I frankly don’t understand then, this sudden need to debunk the fact that I gain additional useful information from the PPs as well?

Bob

To a very large extent, physicality requires that you trust what you see.

Paper (or computer) handicapping is pretty much the same way. You have to trust what you see.

The trouble is that what is being seen is not at all the same view.

To blend the two well is an advanced skill. When the two views don't agree, which do you trust? How do you know when to trust that the two views do agree? There's no numerical verification.

I don't know of a way to reliably measure physicality. Any measurement would be less precise than using a stopwatch. So, I don't anticipate any reliable studies of physicality handicapping, especially a study that could be compared with a speed handicapping study.

[bobphilo]

Why I kinda like Dr. Roman's TE and % of E, where he measures energy in his pace parameters section. I thought they were especially interesting in a race like the Tampa Derby...the top 3 horses expended a lot of energy getting to the wire on that deep track, but SY expended the least.

Most pedigree and physicality handicappers I know also use other stuff in conjunction with----even suspected large heart (X factor) and Rasmussen, , both of which I feel are helpful.

In Rachel Alexandra's case, 30% of ancestors in her first four generations are RF matings. Street Sense similar story.

which reminds me, I didn't sluice my derby list thru those factors yet. Aw, too much work, not enough time!

Tell me about it. What you're saying about the effects of the pace scenario in the Tampa Bay Derby is all too true, especially for Uptowncharlybrown who is owned by some friends of mine and members of my Yahoo racing forum. Charly, usually a deep closer, went out of his comfort zone and was one of the 3 that went fast early. While still finishing within about 3 lengths off the winner, he failed to show his usual late kick and finished off the board for the 1st time. Probably took him off the Derby Trail.

I'm glad to hear that about the physicality handicappers being comprehensive and using other info. While I personally don't agree with all the methods you mention, I applaud anyone who realizes that all methods have their strengths and weaknesses and tries to compensate for the weakness in one with the strength of another. Just like planning a breeding.

Bob

[WinterTriangle]

I don't anticipate any reliable studies of physicality handicapping.

Actually, it has been studied. Geoffrey Hutson and Mark Haskell, " Pre-race behaviour of horses as a predictor of race finishing order " in the animal science journal Appied Animal Behavior Science.

You could study it yourself though. Spend a year at the track with one of each flavor. There have always been guys who work the paddock, without PPs data in their hands.

And yes, it is inexact, but that doesn't mean it's not dependable.

BTW, to me, physicality implies using one's eyes to access something. I've noticed most of you seem to limit that to just looking at the horses. I believe physicality handicapping is seeing everything physically available to you.

Watching Larry and Cindy Jones show up in the paddock to saddle No Such Word for the Honeybee, (despite the fact there were stable hands in the paddock as well that day), is an example of physicality handicapping (you use your eyes not just for the horses, but you watch everything that goes on). Made some nice $$ on that huge upset over Beautician and Decelerator, simply using that "paddock handicapping" angle, a $15 win to be exact. ;) :jump:

I like to use my brain, but I don't discount my other faculties, which are valuable. I trust my other senses, and use them all in tandem. I feel I have to have an edge when possible, over those all using the PPs and the same data and figures.

[ranchwest]

Actually, it has been studied. Geoffrey Hutson and Mark Haskell, " Pre-race behaviour of horses as a predictor of race finishing order " in the animal science journal Appied Animal Behavior Science.

You could study it yourself though. Spend a year at the track with one of each flavor. There have always been guys who work the paddock, without PPs data in their hands.

And yes, it is inexact, but that doesn't mean it's not dependable.

BTW, to me, physicality implies using one's eyes to access something. I've noticed most of you seem to limit that to just looking at the horses. I believe physicality handicapping is seeing everything physically available to you.

Watching Larry and Cindy Jones show up in the paddock to saddle No Such Word for the Honeybee, (despite the fact there were stable hands in the paddock as well that day), is an example of physicality handicapping (you use your eyes not just for the horses, but you watch everything that goes on). Made some nice $$ on that huge upset over Beautician and Decelerator, simply using that "paddock handicapping" angle, a $15 win to be exact. ;) :jump:

I like to use my brain, but I don't discount my other faculties, which are valuable. I trust my other senses, and use them all in tandem. I feel I have to have an edge when possible, over those all using the PPs and the same data and figures.

I'm not familiar with that study, but it sounds like it is a scientific study of performance and might be an evaluation of specific characteristics. Handicapping (seems to me) would include more than finish position and individual characteristics, it would include profit/loss and the whole of all characteristics.

You're right about watching everything. There used to be a jockey who I'd watch to see when he tossed his cigarette. If he stomped it out immediately when he came out of the jock's room, he was serious. Otherwise, he would continue to smoke after getting up on the horse and would toss the cigarette as he went through the gate onto the track (that was apparently a requirement by rule). It was a fairly good predictor of the horse's performance because it showed what the jock knew about the horse and also whether the jock had the intent of putting in a solid ride.

[bobphilo]

Why I kinda like Dr. Roman's TE and % of E, where he measures energy in his pace parameters section. I thought they were especially interesting in a race like the Tampa Derby...the top 3 horses expended a lot of energy getting to the wire on that deep track, but SY expended the least.

Most pedigree and physicality handicappers I know also use other stuff in conjunction with----even suspected large heart (X factor) and Rasmussen, , both of which I feel are helpful.

In Rachel Alexandra's case, 30% of ancestors in her first four generations are RF matings. Street Sense similar story.

which reminds me, I didn't sluice my derby list thru those factors yet. Aw, too much work, not enough time!

WT,

I recall you mentioned a method (possibly by Roman) that predicts a horse's time at the Ky Derby distance from its race times and closing fractions.
I thought you'd enjoy this article where the author predicts Derby success for Ice Box and Perfect Prince, and a poor race for Rule, based on their closing fractions in the Fla Derby. I thought that you'd especially like this as you thought they were the top picks on physicality as well.

http://tinyurl.com/ydxxt88

In general, I feel that its easy for a horse to finish fast if he gets to loaf early, well off a fast pace that later collapses. I also usually upgrade performances like Rules who hang in fairly well late despite battling through fast early fractions on the basis that they will likely get a more favorable pace in future races.

On the other hand, The author makes a good point that the Ky Derby typically has a fast, sometimes suicidal, pace, and Rule has not shown he can rate enough off of it to avoid burnout. Ice Box and Perfect Prince have found their comfort zone in such a race and are more likely to get the pace scenario they need. In a sense, the Fla Derby may have been a good preview of the Ky Derby. Of course, I expect that you will be giving them the physicality test too on Derby day. :)

Bob

[gm10]

Actually, it has been studied. Geoffrey Hutson and Mark Haskell, " Pre-race behaviour of horses as a predictor of race finishing order " in the animal science journal Appied Animal Behavior Science.

You could study it yourself though. Spend a year at the track with one of each flavor. There have always been guys who work the paddock, without PPs data in their hands.

And yes, it is inexact, but that doesn't mean it's not dependable.

BTW, to me, physicality implies using one's eyes to access something. I've noticed most of you seem to limit that to just looking at the horses. I believe physicality handicapping is seeing everything physically available to you.

Watching Larry and Cindy Jones show up in the paddock to saddle No Such Word for the Honeybee, (despite the fact there were stable hands in the paddock as well that day), is an example of physicality handicapping (you use your eyes not just for the horses, but you watch everything that goes on). Made some nice $$ on that huge upset over Beautician and Decelerator, simply using that "paddock handicapping" angle, a $15 win to be exact. ;) :jump:

I like to use my brain, but I don't discount my other faculties, which are valuable. I trust my other senses, and use them all in tandem. I feel I have to have an edge when possible, over those all using the PPs and the same data and figures.

One of those authors that you mention wrote a book on it. Well worth a read in my opinion. He aggregates the most amazing collection of variables ("Is the stable boy swearing at the horse?", etc) and produces a working model.

http://www.amazon.com/Watching-Racehorses-Geoffrey-Hutson/dp/0958124507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269465542&sr=1-1