Tom Brohamer's book

[redeye007]

I've never read Tom Brohamers book "Modern Pace Handicapping" and was wondering if it would be good reading. I am very familiar with track decision models and brohamer rankings. I probabably should pick up his book. any feedback appreciated.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'd recommend reading it.That book changed my life bigtime.Tom is an expert on analyzing how a race will be run.The Sartin concepts all have value,but his insights on form,class,and probable pace are top notch.I just reread it Wednesday.

PS-I wish the Sartinites at Pace and Cap would respond to my requests for an outline as to how to follow the methodology after this book.There is a gap between this book and RDSS and getting an answer is like pulling teeth.

[Greyfox]

Excellent read if you are getting into computerized handicapping. :ThmbUp:

[Trotman]

Greyfox is absolutely right. IMO it is a must read, when I read it I didn't put it down so just to be sure I digested it all I read section by section again,it will open a whole new
door in handicapping. :ThmbUp:

[Charlie D]

PS-I wish the Sartinites at Pace and Cap would respond to my requests for an outline as to how to follow the methodology after this book.There is a gap between this book and RDSS and getting an answer is like pulling teeth.


Cincy. There is no gap.

The essence of the entire Methodology is the Match Up or to give it it's fancy name, The Dynamics of Incremental Velocity and Energy Exertion.

[Houndog]

Modern Pace Handicapping is a classic. Tom Brohamer is well respected in the handicapping industry.

I had the opportunity to speak with him a couple of times and I came away totally impressed. He is not ego driven and was always willing to listen to other people's opinions. As everyone on this board probably knows Tom Brohamer was one of the original teaching members of the "Sartin Methodology". Doc Sartin gave credit to Tom Brohamer for translating his original yellow book "Old Yeller" into something that captured the essence of the Sartin Methodology.

Along with Andy Beyer; Ray Taulbot; and Tom Ainslie all have impacted my handicapping to this day.

[Partsnut]

CincyHorseplayer:

PS-I wish the Sartinites at-------would respond to my requests for an outline as to how to follow the methodology after this book.There is a gap between this book and ----- and getting an answer is like pulling teeth.


For those using the afformentioned software, it is possible that it may work for you and I'm not trying to take anything away from it. It's just something that I would not choose to use. If it works for you, then by all means, keep using it. For those that are curious, you might even want to take the trial.

Modern Pace Handicapping is Brohamers revised methodology.
Nothing has been added since this book was published, because no one has anything to be added.


IMHO: There is nothing that can be added with the exception of a solid contender selection method. The newer Sartin software does not compare
to MPH ver. 1.4 which was written for and by Brohamer. Synergism (older versions) was written with the same concepts as MPH 1.4 and is comparable.. Synergism 6.0 is possibly the only newer software that might fill in the Gap because of the superior data files that it uses and because IMHO, Bob Purdy is a very talented programmer and a knowlegeable player as well.

[Houndog]

I'd recommend reading it.That book changed my life bigtime.Tom is an expert on analyzing how a race will be run.The Sartin concepts all have value,but his insights on form,class,and probable pace are top notch.I just reread it Wednesday.

PS-I wish the Sartinites at Pace and Cap would respond to my requests for an outline as to how to follow the methodology after this book.There is a gap between this book and RDSS and getting an answer is like pulling teeth.

Cincy you are already on the right path. The Sartin Methodology has always had it's roots in Velocity (FPS) handicapping. Contenders and Pretenders and proper paceline selection has always been a cornerstone for this Methodology.

In my own experience I have found my success and failures are a direct result of wrong paceline and contender selection. I have gone to Sartin seminars where people were going into 20 minute discussions on which paceline to give a horse. Multiply that by your other contenders makes for a long day.

There are no shortcuts to get around this. Contrary to beliefs the Sartin Methodology is not about "CULTS"; "VODOO HANDICAPPING"; or other things I have heard said.

[bigmack]

Synergism (older versions) was written with the same concepts as MPH 1.4 and is comparable.. Synergism 6.0 is possibly the only newer software that might fill in the Gap because of the superior data files that it uses and because IMHO, Bob Purdy is a very talented programmer and a knowlegeable player as well.
Then again, HTR is like Synergism on steroids with a robust community.

[Charlie D]

Cincy you are already on the right path. The Sartin Methodology has always had it's roots in Velocity (FPS) handicapping. Contenders and Pretenders and proper paceline selection has always been a cornerstone for this Methodology.
.




As the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

[Partsnut]

bigmack: Then again, HTR is like Synergism on steroids with a robust community

You make a very good point. I neglected to include HTR with uses superior data files.. Ken Massa is also a very talented programmer and a knowledgeable player. I believe he programmed MPH Ver. 1.4 for Brohamer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Houndog]

Then again, HTR is like Synergism on steroids with a robust community.

Good points. Ken Massa is always making improvements to an already very good velocity based program. In addition he is addressing trainer; breeding; and form factors in a unique way.

[Houndog]

As the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

Charlie; correct me if I'm wrong. But as they say in Gods County; UK you are spot on.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm a member of P & C and Ted gave me access to the library there.

I just don't know where to start!!

Just a simple chronology would work.The guy that runs the Tampa website is always sending me stuff(thank you) and I have no idea of what I'm looking at.It's RDSS printouts.So connecting the dots from Brohamer's book to there isn't just a hop,skip,and a jump.There's an abyss there.I believe in the concepts and have utilized them as I know them with success.But in crossing the threshold of possibly being a full blown practioner and advocate of the priciples I have not met with any resistance,but negligence.

Sorry if I'm semi-ranting on a book review thread.

[GaryG]

There are no shortcuts to get around this. Contrary to beliefs the Sartin Methodology is not about "CULTS"; "VODOO HANDICAPPING"; or other things I have heard said.I heard Tom say once that it really ticked him off that Beyer referred to him as a Sartin disciple.

[Charlie D]

Cincy

Not sure if this is what you looking for.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5017&highlight=glossary+terms


BTW, MPH is an excellent book, but if you want a better education, get access to Pacceand cap library

Tom, Dick, Dave, Howard, Hat etc etc are wating to help you :)

[Tom]

I still use MPH myself.
Can't be beat, IMHO.

[OTM Al]

It's a good book and gives some basic insights. Could have used a better proofreader though as the copy I have has a few errors, but no big deal.

[Ted Craven]

I've never read Tom Brohamers book "Modern Pace Handicapping" and was wondering if it would be good reading. I am very familiar with track decision models and brohamer rankings. I probabably should pick up his book. any feedback appreciated.

Yes, it's an excellent book, I would recommend it. It is an introduction to the Sartin Methodology as it was up to about 1990 and Tom's important contribution and evolution of it. I'd suggest you also owe it to yourself to investigate what those thinkers produced after that point.

I'd recommend reading it.That book changed my life bigtime.Tom is an expert on analyzing how a race will be run.The Sartin concepts all have value,but his insights on form,class,and probable pace are top notch.I just reread it Wednesday.

PS-I wish the Sartinites at Pace and Cap would respond to my requests for an outline as to how to follow the methodology after this book.There is a gap between this book and RDSS and getting an answer is like pulling teeth.

Cincy, I believe you asked this question at PaceandCap.com in December 2008 (http://www.paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4896) and several folks replied including myself, with some initial comments. Certainly there was a lot more that could have followed, but there were no more questions... Perhaps you could take up that thread again at P&C, with reference to some of the specific responses given, and your further questions. I know a number of others have asked and found answers to this same question since then (i.e. Sartin Methodology subsequent to MPH, and today).

The answer is a big answer, and there were several stages up through 2001 ending with Sartin's Validator program, followed by Wadsworth's Speculator and my RDSS. Charlie D said it earlier: since MPH Sartin went into incremental energy disbursement, deceleration relative to acceleration, the matchup of horses's racing styles and their effect on deceleration. He came up with a weighted line score and betting line which Mark Cramer studied and reported on. He studied a value approach to analysis and wager decision making which he called 'wagercapping' which relaxed its focus on top ranked horses even as he recommended paceline selection guidelines which relaxed focus on last line(s).

He said he did this because MPH (and also Pace Makes the Race and TPR numbers) became very public and very popular and consequently top ranked horses were paying less and less. Maybe he also wanted to sell more software and seminars, that's not for me to judge. The fact is, with his subsequent efforts, software and newer methodologies, users (me included) were able to get more obscure looking horses to look better in our readouts. If we were sharp enough (or confident enough) we also got some bets from them too.

That's the bottom line then: with the more modern Sartin Methodology, you still get the horses everyone else gets with MPH, Phase III, TPRs plus you also get some more better paying mutuels using numbers and concepts that aren't so readily obvious using MPH (IMO). Maybe I'm wrong - maybe MPH gets all the same (or different) horses: I never used MPH.

Perhaps if you were to ask Ken Massa what was the evolution between MPH/HTR of the mid-1990s and HTR of today, you could get a travelogue and an itemization of differences and surely lots of detailed approach. Same with Dave Schwartz' HSH efforts over 20 years. I'm sure they (and others) would also invite you to just jump in, start using, learn as you go, ask questions, get answers.

And I invite you likewise. Pace and Cap forums could be a good place to do that.

Here are the above mentioned Cramer/Sartin articles:

Mark Cramer Research Report on Bottom Line Betting Line (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/library/Miscellaneous_Articles/Mark_Cramer_BLBL_Research.pdf)

Follow Up #69, letter from Mark and research setup conditions (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/library/Miscellaneous_Articles/FU69_Mark_Cramer_BLBL_Research.pdf)

Follow Up #70, article by Doc discussing research, and Q&A with Mark (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/library/Miscellaneous_Articles/FU70_Mark_Cramer_BLBL_Research.pdf)


Cheers,

Ted

[Partsnut]

Ted Craven: That's the bottom line then: with the more modern Sartin Methodology, you still get the horses everyone else gets with MPH, Phase III, TPRs plus you also get some more better paying mutuels using numbers and concepts that aren't so readily obvious using MPH (IMO). Maybe I'm wrong - maybe MPH gets all the same (or different) horses: I never used MPH.


Great post, Ted. I would still have to disagree with your afformentioned statement. You honestly admitted that you have not tried MPH.
Have you tried Synergism (any version)?

I think the best way for those interested in the more modern Sartin Methodology should post some of their races before the fact and then those using the original Sartin concepts as well as the revised Brohamer concepts, can post their conceptual views for specific races.

If you wish to partake in this experiment, I would suggest you post your concepts for todays Race-1 TUP (before the fact). I would be happy to post mine after you post yours.


For those that want to try your software, I'm sure there's a free trial available for them. Then they can see if this software is right for them.

[Charlie D]

Put me behind the wheel of Patricks truck and your goods are not arriving this week, month or year, but put Patrick beind the wheel and your goods will be delivered in a few days

It's the driver and his/her knowledge and experience that are the key, not the friggin vehicle.

[Partsnut]

Charlie:

It's the driver and his/her knowledge and experience that are the key, not the friggin vehicle.



Good response, which validates what I'm saying.
If The older vehicle works well, why buy a new one?
If the driver lacks experience, he shouldn't be driving.
He should be practicing how to drive before he passes his driving test.

[Charlie D]

Charlie:


Good response, which validates what I'm saying.
If The older vehicle works well, why buy a new one?
If the driver lacks experience, he shouldn't be driving.
He should be practicing how to drive before he passes his driving test.



It does not validate anything your saying and how the hell does one practice driving without using a vehicle???

[Partsnut]

Partsnut:

Good response, which validates what I'm saying.
If The older vehicle works well, why buy a new one?
If the driver lacks experience, he shouldn't be driving.
He should be practicing how to drive before he passes his driving test.


Charlie D.

It does not validate anything your saying and how the hell does one practice driving without using a vehicle???


Charlie, you might want to re-read what I posted and you responded to:
I don't think you quite understood what I wrote and I don't have the foggiest idea of what your response means. :confused:

[Charlie D]

If the driver lacks experience, he shouldn't be driving.



I understand this and again i ask. How the hell does one practice driving RDSS, HTR, Paceappraiser, HSH, BLAM or any product without the product????

[Partsnut]

Charlie D:


I understand this and again i ask. How the hell does one practice driving RDSS, HTR, Paceappraiser, HSH, BLAM or any product without the product????


Charlie, if it suits you or anyone else, buy all of them.
Let's move on. :bang:

[Charlie D]

Not answering then.


OK

Next question


How does one learn to dirive these products, do we read the instructions, watch the demo's etc provided and practice or ask the creators/ authors to put up or shut the **** up??

[Charlie D]

I still use MPH myself.
Can't be beat, IMHO.


Tom


A question if i may, did you ask Tom Brohamer to put up or read the instructions and example races given in the book and then practice the methodology ??

In other words Tom, have you learnt how to drive??

[Tom]

Naw, I was driving before he bought the car. :D
I was already using Phase III, so it was nothing new, other than how to run the software to pick pacelines, enter data in the models, etc.

[Charlie D]

:)




Did you go to some of the Pirco seminars, read thier Manuals etc so you could learn how to drive Phase III??

[46zilzal]

MPH is a good place to start understanding pace, but it is significantly flawed in practical applications once incremental velocity is understood which trumps the positional definitions big time.

[Tom]

:)
Did you go to some of the Pirco seminars, read thier Manuals etc so you could learn how to drive Phase III??

Yes, I went every year to Albany or Baltimore, and few workshops by Pizzola and Mayne during the off seasons. Bought Brohamer's tape series, too.
The flaws it has are mostly found in the user's of it, not the program. The positional ideas work well.

[Charlie D]

Thanks Tom


Good Skill

(above stolen from posters at P&C btw) :)

[fmolf]

Hello cincy i have not been posting for awhile...taking a bit of a freshening but i have read brohamers book and found it to be excellent.I do not use any capping software and i use an old fashioned calculator to figure out velocity and the likes of what is outlined in his book....660 ft per furlong minus beaten lengths etc... etc... i have found that this pace method works best for lower & mid level claimers as the races get classier there are more contenders and the picture for me anyhow becomes more muddled.His chapter on making a track profile is excellent and i also keep one for the second place finishers whenever i am going to wager seriously. I have found that by doing all the calculations by hand it helps me to understand pace and race shapes better, even when i am just looking over the pp's or watching races on tv.

[redeye007]

after reading the book will I be presented with the knowledge to
1. create my own track decision models
2. calculate velocity ratings
3. calculate brohamer rankings for EP, AP,SP, FX, Total ?

[lsosa54]

after reading the book will I be presented with the knowledge to
1. create my own track decision models
2. calculate velocity ratings
3. calculate brohamer rankings for EP, AP,SP, FX, Total ?

Absolutely, but having done thousand of races by hand in the late 80's using velocity concepts, it's not a heck of a lot of fun and very time consuming. Once you understand the concepts, I suggest a software tool for calculations.

Raybo's All Data PP's will do everything other than keeping the track decision model and it could probably be made to do that as well. And, it's free.

[redeye007]

I would think that a lot of the calculations are done using result charts. Is that true?

[gm10]

I've never read Tom Brohamers book "Modern Pace Handicapping" and was wondering if it would be good reading. I am very familiar with track decision models and brohamer rankings. I probabably should pick up his book. any feedback appreciated.

I've recently re-read it, and it's got plenty of valid ideas, but the writing style is perhaps not as fluent as Beyer's, and some of terminology was rather misleading. (the way he uses the term 'Energy' for example).

But, it does give original insights and is definitely worth a read if you're look to specialize in this area.

[lsosa54]

I would think that a lot of the calculations are done using result charts. Is that true?

Not really. The bulk comes from the PP's so you can analyze your contenders and how the race sets up. Results charts will tell you what"s happening at the specific track.

[CincyHorseplayer]

What's the best software out there to use that is somewhere in the middle between Brohamer's book and the RDSS stuff?

The transition isn't going to happen overnight,I just need something I can use now.

Also does the software keep track of variants,profiles,and energy distribution.Does that have to be programmed into it??And do track pars have to be programmed into it??

[Partsnut]

CincyHorseplayer: What's the best software out there to use that is somewhere in the middle between Brohamer's book and the RDSS stuff?


I've been doing some testing lately and IMHO, Synergism Ver.4 is by far and away the best. It's a manual input program but if you can narrow down your contenders to 3-5 horses you will find the effort well worth your time.
This program will accurately give you all the Brohamer read-outs necessary to be
successful.
I posted this race yesterday and my choice finished second and was beaten in the stretch. I didn't bet this race because the odds on my choice were far to low for me.

[Partsnut]

For those that are still following this thread, I just posted my selection and read-outs for todays 3rd race at TUP on the selections thread..
The race can we easily viewed (before the fact) on the TUP web page.
Trip handicapping is as well a very strong tool. Additionally, one should also watch the replays.
I believe this is the best way to learn. Sure, I make mistakes, but hopefully, not too many.:) One of the best ways to learn is from ones mistakes.
You're never too old to stop learning.

[Charlie D]

Cincy

Have a look at Raybo's Alldata

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65749&page=1



edit to add


Light posted RaceProphet on a similar thread to this, so you could give that a whirl too.

[Partsnut]

Getting back to the Brohamer read-outs and back on topic, I've posted my before the fact analysis of the 5th Race at todays TUP in the selections thread and included screen shots which display the Brohamer factors.

You can view this race live on the TUP webpage.
Your opinions for this race are always welcomed and should be posted in selections thread.
As I so stated, I could very well be wrong. We all make mistakes and miscalculate races on a daily basis. However, I make the effort because I have nothing to prove or sell. We can all learn from my mistakes.:)

[Houndog]

Charlie D I think this program is no longer available. The website points to something else now.


Light posted RaceProphet on a similar thread to this, so you could give that a whirl too.[/QUOTE]

[Jingle]

Parts & Tom

I agree 100% with you guys on MPH but I'm a little confused. I have been using ver 1.3 (1995) with the Bris download 2.0 (1995) which is the last and best version that Ken programmed. Shortly after that, MPH went to Trackmaster ver 1.04 but it did not include the automatic paceline(s) selection. I'm not sure either if Trackmaster's MPH includes a track profiler, a modeler and Quirin Pace & Speed numbers which is an add-on module. (Ver 1.3)

Hope you guys had the $151. horse in the 8th at Aqu on Sun. It was the #1 pick and fit the Model to a tee. I didn't have it as I'm fighting a bout with pneumonia. Also, I'm not sure I would have had the balls to bet more than a couple of bucks on it. (Its a disease called chicken-Little or Just Plain Stupid.)

[Partsnut]

Jingle:

Parts & Tom

I agree 100% with you guys on MPH but I'm a little confused. I have been using ver 1.3 (1995) with the Bris download 2.0 (1995) which is the last and best version that Ken programmed. Shortly after that, MPH went to Trackmaster ver 1.04 but it did not include the automatic paceline(s) selection. I'm not sure either if Trackmaster's MPH includes a track profiler, a modeler and Quirin Pace & Speed numbers which is an add-on module. (Ver 1.3)

Hope you guys had the $151. horse in the 8th at Aqu on Sun. It was the #1 pick and fit the Model to a tee. I didn't have it as I'm fighting a bout with pneumonia. Also, I'm not sure I would have had the balls to bet more than a couple of bucks on it. (Its a disease called chicken-Little or Just Plain Stupid.)


Jingle, the first thing you have to do is:
Get better and feel well. I wish you a fast recovery from your illness.

MPH 1.3 and MPH 1.4 are both decent Brohamer programs.
I personally use Synergism 2. It's a lot faster for me to do a full card. I also find it to be more accurate.
I try and apply the appropriate Brohamer factors to the way the race sets up and the use of the prior charts (last 2 days) to see how the track is running.
I don't model or profile because it has never worked for me.

[redeye007]

I found it interesting that the last 6 races at sax 0n 3/27/10 were won by the 1st or 2nd ranked brohamer SP horse.

[lsosa54]

I found it interesting that the last 6 races at sax 0n 3/27/10 were won by the 1st or 2nd ranked brohamer SP horse.

It does depend a bit on the specific pace composition of each race, but SAX favors SP on the poly, esp. in routes. On the turf, it has been favoring EP and early positioning, esp. at 8F. I even had an EP winner at 1 1/8 m, which typically favors SP.

Just keep track of it by distance and patterns will develop for you. BTW, the above is based on my handicapping and my paceline choices - yours may vary.

[First_Place]

Parts & Tom

I agree 100% with you guys on MPH but I'm a little confused. I have been using ver 1.3 (1995) with the Bris download 2.0 (1995) which is the last and best version that Ken programmed. Shortly after that, MPH went to Trackmaster ver 1.04 but it did not include the automatic paceline(s) selection. I'm not sure either if Trackmaster's MPH includes a track profiler, a modeler and Quirin Pace & Speed numbers which is an add-on module. (Ver 1.3)

Hope you guys had the $151. horse in the 8th at Aqu on Sun. It was the #1 pick and fit the Model to a tee. I didn't have it as I'm fighting a bout with pneumonia. Also, I'm not sure I would have had the balls to bet more than a couple of bucks on it. (Its a disease called chicken-Little or Just Plain Stupid.)

Aqueduct was closed on Sunday (2/28). Are you talking about Saturday's 8th race where the winner paid $105.00?

FP

[First_Place]

I meant 3/28.

FP

[Jingle]

Sorry, my error. It was the 8th race on 3-27-2010--Brendans's Warrior and it paid $105.00

[Ted Craven]

Sorry, my error. It was the 8th race on 3-27-2010--Brendans's Warrior and it paid $105.00
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6697

Looks like Brohamer, Match Up, various Sartin flavours had a handle on it.

Ted

[Tom]

Right out of the Yellow Manual - watch those 3-3-3 horses.

[First_Place]

Sorry, my error. It was the 8th race on 3-27-2010--Brendans's Warrior and it paid $105.00

No problem. :)

FP

[First_Place]

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6697

Looks like Brohamer, Match Up, various Sartin flavours had a handle on it.

Ted

Black Magic had it too, Ted, using default paceline selections in conservative LASST and positional mode (a la The Master Magician), respectively. However, ya just don't play the top rated (lowest odds) horse in the BLAM oddsline--unlike some misguided users. You still need to look at other screens and do some good ol' fashioned handicapping and double check the program's paceline selection before you lays yer money down. :)

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7351/aqu0327108.th.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/aqu0327108.jpg/) http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8474/aqu0327108b.th.jpg (http://img209.imageshack.us/i/aqu0327108b.jpg/) http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7633/aqu0327108c.th.jpg (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/aqu0327108c.jpg/)

FP

[Donnie]

From the past 20 6 F Races at SA:

Factor Plays Top1 Top2 Top3 Top4 Rtng

PER 17 47% 88% 88% 94% 65
A/P 17 41% 71% 82% 94% 55
VEL 17 35% 65% 82% 82% 50
(K) 20 40% 65% 80% 85% 50
HTR 20 25% 60% 75% 85% 45
FR2 17 18% 53% 76% 88% 40
PAC 17 29% 47% 65% 94% 40
E/P 17 29% 41% 59% 88% 37
S/P 17 24% 47% 53% 76% 36
TRN 20 15% 55% 60% 75% 36
JKY 20 20% 40% 70% 80% 36
F/X 17 24% 41% 59% 65% 35
L/P 17 24% 24% 59% 82% 29
FR3 17 18% 29% 47% 65% 27
PED 20 15% 30% 40% 70% 25
WK 20 20% 35% 40% 50% 25
FR1 17 12% 29% 35% 71% 22


Looks like it would be a smart move to play A/P with a smattering of PER numbers from HTR.

[Donnie]

At 8.0F @ SA:

Factor Plays Top1 Top2 Top3 Top4 Rtng

PER 15 47% 67% 73% 80% 51
(K) 15 40% 67% 80% 87% 47
TRN 15 47% 53% 67% 67% 39
PAC 15 33% 53% 67% 87% 37
F/X 15 27% 40% 60% 80% 36
E/P 15 40% 53% 53% 73% 35
A/P 15 27% 47% 73% 73% 35
VEL 15 27% 53% 60% 73% 35
S/P 15 27% 40% 60% 67% 34
HTR 15 33% 47% 67% 80% 33
FR3 15 20% 33% 53% 67% 31
JKY 15 20% 47% 53% 73% 31
FR1 15 33% 40% 60% 60% 30
L/P 15 13% 40% 53% 60% 27
PED 15 13% 40% 53% 67% 27
FR2 15 13% 47% 53% 53% 25
WK 15 7% 20% 40% 73% 18

PER is kicking tail = the last 8 races were won by the #1 or #2 rated per, with an ave mutuel of $8.50.

[Granite]

At 8.0F @ SA:

Factor Plays Top1 Top2 Top3 Top4 Rtng

PER 15 47% 67% 73% 80% 51
(K) 15 40% 67% 80% 87% 47
TRN 15 47% 53% 67% 67% 39
PAC 15 33% 53% 67% 87% 37
F/X 15 27% 40% 60% 80% 36
E/P 15 40% 53% 53% 73% 35
A/P 15 27% 47% 73% 73% 35
VEL 15 27% 53% 60% 73% 35
S/P 15 27% 40% 60% 67% 34
HTR 15 33% 47% 67% 80% 33
FR3 15 20% 33% 53% 67% 31
JKY 15 20% 47% 53% 73% 31
FR1 15 33% 40% 60% 60% 30
L/P 15 13% 40% 53% 60% 27
PED 15 13% 40% 53% 67% 27
FR2 15 13% 47% 53% 53% 25
WK 15 7% 20% 40% 73% 18

PER is kicking tail = the last 8 races were won by the #1 or #2 rated per, with an ave mutuel of $8.50.

Interesting hit rates. What do you consider a no play? A race with first timers?

[Donnie]

Yeah....those are races where the winner was a FTS or they didn't have pace numbers (overseas shippers is a possibility).

[upset]

But all of your methodology still comes down to how good is your track variant and distance variations(ie c10 6furlongs=22.2 where the same horses run 5 1/2 furlongs in 22.4) and track to track conversions. All that talk about using the correct paceline is for recreational handicappers. If you want to use Tom's book like a pro then you have FPS numbers for every race in the horses past proformaces. Imagine if the racing form just gave you one race that it thought was best suited for todays race for you to analize.

[Tom]

Like this....

[Ted Craven]

Or this?

[46zilzal]

But all of your methodology still comes down to how good is your track variant and distance variations(ie c10 6furlongs=22.2 where the same horses run 5 1/2 furlongs in 22.4) and track to track conversions. All that talk about using the correct paceline is for recreational handicappers. If you want to use Tom's book like a pro then you have FPS numbers for every race in the horses past performances. Imagine if the racing form just gave you one race that it thought was best suited for todays race for you to analize.
funny stuff

[ranchwest]

But all of your methodology still comes down to how good is your track variant and distance variations(ie c10 6furlongs=22.2 where the same horses run 5 1/2 furlongs in 22.4) and track to track conversions. All that talk about using the correct paceline is for recreational handicappers. If you want to use Tom's book like a pro then you have FPS numbers for every race in the horses past proformaces. Imagine if the racing form just gave you one race that it thought was best suited for todays race for you to analize.

It is generally recommend that you confine your posts to something you know. It's not mandatory, though.

[redeye007]

I finally got Tom's book and have been reading it. This information is amazing to me and I'm learning how to do the fps calculations. although I get them in my bris reports now I have an even better idea as to how to use the data. this book in my opinion is a must read for anyone who doesn't have a complete understanding as to how to apply the brohamer calculated figures to determine the probable winner of the race. this will definitely elevate your game to a new level. :)

[DJofSD]

Wow! a good thread about Doc's method but without the usual acrimonious distractions that usually follow.

But, on the down side, barely a mention of Jimmy. "A horse goes out and gets the lead and the others try to catch it" or words to that effect.

[upset]

It is generally recommend that you confine your posts to something you know. It's not mandatory, though.
i read his book at least twice and have made my own numbers and formulas without the aid of packaged software. I also figured out how to load brisnet charts into a spreadsheet from Comma-delimited data files that are meant to be used with brisnet software. so i can minipulate the data anyway i choose. So you kinda hurt my feelings. So i guess because i'm new what i should have worded in a more intelligible way is your numbers are only as good as the guy making the variant and if you're making your own FPS # you have to adjust for the run up distance that varies(at Fingerlakes at least) from 5 1/2 to 6f or 1 1/16 to 1 70. Otherwise the 6f races always look faster

[gl45]

tom, Ted,
why the fractionals FPS for Zen are not the same. Which one is the correct one.

[hansend]

While I would definitely wait for Ted's confirmation this is why I believe they are different.

Tom uses a static 10 feet for a length in his multiplier in calculations of beaten lengths. An extremely useful way of doing things (Phase III? of doing things I believe) it has been modified a little bit to use a varying beaten lengths multiplier formula. This is why you may see a little bit of a difference.

Neither are "wrong" numbers because they value for lengths is different. You could see a different set of numbers from someone else if they believed that 9 feet was the right measurement for a length.

More importantly it's how you use the numbers you get, not necessarily if they match with someone elses.

[ranchwest]

i read his book at least twice and have made my own numbers and formulas without the aid of packaged software. I also figured out how to load brisnet charts into a spreadsheet from Comma-delimited data files that are meant to be used with brisnet software. so i can minipulate the data anyway i choose. So you kinda hurt my feelings. So i guess because i'm new what i should have worded in a more intelligible way is your numbers are only as good as the guy making the variant and if you're making your own FPS # you have to adjust for the run up distance that varies(at Fingerlakes at least) from 5 1/2 to 6f or 1 1/16 to 1 70. Otherwise the 6f races always look faster

I'm just wondering what you were saying about paceline selection. While it is good if every line can be examined as a possible paceline, I think the selection of a specific paceline is important. A lot of programs do allow looking at all of the running lines to select a line.

Congratulations on your programming. I've been down a similar road and I know it is quite a task.

[DRIVEWAY]

i read his book at least twice and have made my own numbers and formulas without the aid of packaged software. I also figured out how to load brisnet charts into a spreadsheet from Comma-delimited data files that are meant to be used with brisnet software. so i can minipulate the data anyway i choose. So you kinda hurt my feelings. So i guess because i'm new what i should have worded in a more intelligible way is your numbers are only as good as the guy making the variant and if you're making your own FPS # you have to adjust for the run up distance that varies(at Fingerlakes at least) from 5 1/2 to 6f or 1 1/16 to 1 70. Otherwise the 6f races always look faster

I agree. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your adjustment procedure.

[Tom]

tom, Ted,
why the fractionals FPS for Zen are not the same. Which one is the correct one.

Different variants and track adjustments. HTR uses Jim Cramer's and Ted used TrackMaster. If I use MPH and CJ variant,s I get a third set. No matter, as long you don't mix them together. It's the relationships within the race that count.

[upset]

I'm just wondering what you were saying about paceline selection. While it is good if every line can be examined as a possible paceline, I think the selection of a specific paceline is important. A lot of programs do allow looking at all of the running lines to select a line.

Congratulations on your programming. I've been down a similar road and I know it is quite a task.
I just meant you wouldn't just take one raceline out of the DRF and use that to sum up the horses ability

[upset]

[/b]

I agree. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your adjustment procedure.
I make a par chart for the track say c4000 5 1/2=22.1 45.2 66.6 c4000 6f=22.3 45.7 71.4 i subtract .2 off the first1/4 and subtract.5 off the half across the board on all 6f races to try make them equal. The other problem is the jocks rate the horses according to the distance

[Ted Craven]

tom, Ted,
why the fractionals FPS for Zen are not the same. Which one is the correct one.
Pino,

What Tom said.

Different variants and track adjustments. HTR uses Jim Cramer's and Ted used TrackMaster. If I use MPH and CJ variant,s I get a third set. No matter, as long you don't mix them together. It's the relationships within the race that count.
And hansend, in the above display I'm just using a fixed BL multiplier (my preference). You could also use the Val4 setting for variable values by fraction. It strikes me that the optimal approach should be dynamic BL values (i.e. based on the rate of speed of the leader in any given fraction) and Sartin certainly advanced that proposition in his 'Dynamics of Incremental Energy Disbursement' paper in the early 90's. I don't know if he ever implemented it that way, though. The concept is described eloquently here at PA recently, by raybo. But your most important point is that the compounding of velocities, by whatever consistent means derived, into factors like EP, LP, AP, Total Energy, Early/Late balance, deceleration, etc is among the true value-added stuff which gives insight past what the public has access to.

I think if you spot compare some of the above fractional velocities, and, say A/P versus Total Energy, you find they mostly vary in step with each other.

Ted

[DRIVEWAY]

I make a par chart for the track say c4000 5 1/2=22.1 45.2 66.6 c4000 6f=22.3 45.7 71.4 i subtract .2 off the first1/4 and subtract.5 off the half across the board on all 6f races to try make them equal. The other problem is the jocks rate the horses according to the distance

It sounds like that approach will handle distance anamolies, as well as, track to track differences.

Do you make changes by each class or to you have a general adjustment for all classes? This could get real complicated as horses move up and down the class latter.

As an example.
A shipper dropping from 12,500 claimer to 8,000 claimer and changing distance from 6fl to a 1.70mi. Is your adjustment sequence track, class and then distance? or is it distance at original track, class at original track and then track to track?

One of the reasons I concentrate on a track like Finger Lakes is the lack of shippers, I treat every horse at FL as a $4000clm and there are relatively easy adjustments for the 4 main distances 5.1/2, 6.0, 1.70m, 1.1/16m.

Other homogenious tracks are Woodbine, Arlington, GoldenGate, Suffolk. Give them 6 weeks of running at the start and then jump on board for the remainder of the meet. Class is more of a factor at Woodbine and Arlington. Suffolk and Golden Gate are similar to Finger Lakes.

Tracks like Pim, Lrl, Del, Pha, Pen and Mth pass horses back and forth and will drive you crazy trying to equate their performances.

Looking forward to more of your insight. What tracks do you concentrate on?

[Ted Craven]

But, on the down side, barely a mention of Jimmy. "A horse goes out and gets the lead and the others try to catch it" or words to that effect.

If Doc was the right-brain, Tom is the left-brain (and translator into English!) and Jimmy the whole brain and shaman. :)

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/images/4amigos.gif

(Not forgetting Tom Ainslie, 'the dean' in Sartin's words).

[upset]

It sounds like that approach will handle distance anamolies, as well as, track to track differences.

Do you make changes by each class or to you have a general adjustment for all classes? This could get real complicated as horses move up and down the class latter.

As an example.
A shipper dropping from 12,500 claimer to 8,000 claimer and changing distance from 6fl to a 1.70mi. Is your adjustment sequence track, class and then distance? or is it distance at original track, class at original track and then track to track?

One of the reasons I concentrate on a track like Finger Lakes is the lack of shippers, I treat every horse at FL as a $4000clm and there are relatively easy adjustments for the 4 main distances 5.1/2, 6.0, 1.70m, 1.1/16m.

Other homogenious tracks are Woodbine, Arlington, GoldenGate, Suffolk. Give them 6 weeks of running at the start and then jump on board for the remainder of the meet. Class is more of a factor at Woodbine and Arlington. Suffolk and Golden Gate are similar to Finger Lakes.

Tracks like Pim, Lrl, Del, Pha, Pen and Mth pass horses back and forth and will drive you crazy trying to equate their performances.

Looking forward to more of your insight. What tracks do you concentrate on?
I only play Finger Lakes and didn't make pace #s last year because of the Chris Englehart factor. He has that maggie moss and all she cares about is winning so he drops till he wins. Its really screwed up the racing. It seems like every other race was paying $2.70 2.40 2.10. But when I did make #s I started out with a years worth of races to make pars. Even with that many races it was still difficult to get an accurate chart with all the state bred and nw2 in 6m or nw2 in 2 years and so on.an interesting fact about FL is statebred alw nw1 is a higher class than open nw1 alw. I started with pars to make the variant then moved on to projected which proved to be more accurate. i only adjusted by distance not class and i didn't try to convert a sprint to route. As for shippers i used cynthia publishing pars and would spend hours investigating the horse. It worked well not many people do that kind of work at FL. or the small circuit tracks.

[46zilzal]

This book is probably one of the most basic that one need to read before moving on to the Sartin method, which changed considerably since this was written.

Basic but not current

[DRIVEWAY]

I only play Finger Lakes and didn't make pace #s last year because of the Chris Englehart factor. He has that maggie moss and all she cares about is winning so he drops till he wins. Its really screwed up the racing. It seems like every other race was paying $2.70 2.40 2.10. But when I did make #s I started out with a years worth of races to make pars. Even with that many races it was still difficult to get an accurate chart with all the state bred and nw2 in 6m or nw2 in 2 years and so on.an interesting fact about FL is statebred alw nw1 is a higher class than open nw1 alw. I started with pars to make the variant then moved on to projected which proved to be more accurate. i only adjusted by distance not class and i didn't try to convert a sprint to route. As for shippers i used cynthia publishing pars and would spend hours investigating the horse. It worked well not many people do that kind of work at FL. or the small circuit tracks.

Great insights.
Thanks

Some thoughts about shippers.
The downstate shippers seem to suck all the oxygen out of the air. My best scenerio is downstate shipper, no works at FL and Grabowski. It creates bridgejumper scenarios and these combo's frequently run out.

The next scenario is downstate shipper 2nd over the track after a dull/poor effort in first race over the track. It becomes enhanced when they additionally work over the track. Very respectable prices.

The third scenario is downstate shipper in below average form with works at FL and a minimum 5-1 odds. These are nice enhancers in the pick 4's especially when there's another downstate horse or an Englehart can't lose special in the field.

The final scenario I'll throw out is the golden rail. The locals pick up on it very quickly, so you'll have to be nimble. Look for high temperatures and high humidity between june 15th and Sept 15th. If there's been no rain for 3 days, then simple assume golden rail. Catching $20+ winners in race 1 and 2 with $200+ DD will make your month. Remember it's the first one to grab the rail and control of the race. Prefer inside speed as the outside horses will be hung on the worse part of the track.

Good Handicapping

[llegend39]

I read the first edition Is there any reason to purchase the updated version? Is there any improvements or new info? thanks

[Tom]

He goes much deeper into Quirin style pace and speed figure in the second edition.

[Charlie D]

Different variants and track adjustments. HTR uses Jim Cramer's and Ted used TrackMaster. If I use MPH and CJ variant,s I get a third set. No matter, as long you don't mix them together. It's the relationships within the race that count.


:ThmbUp: Tom


Compare apples to apples.

[Charlie D]

I just meant you wouldn't just take one raceline out of the DRF and use that to sum up the horses ability


Correct.

[Passthehat]

Or this?

I've spent years with the Brohammer and Sartin methodology -- taught me tons about pace, etc.

But surely, I have found much easier ways to figure pace and better than all the fancy dancy computer printouts and %E's you can muster.

It's overkill if you ask me. the simpler method I have devised and successfully used takes a fraction of the time, makes more sense, and is profitable. Now, many kudos to Brohammer, for if it wasnt for spending years with his method, I might not be able to so easily determine the pace of the race. My only comment is there are much Easier ways to do this.

[fast4522]

This book is probably one of the most basic that one need to read before moving on to the Sartin method, which changed considerably since this was written.

I just read this and again have to find much fault with the statement, what was sold after this book was a repackaged set of multipliers to disguise how it is really done. There is nothing basic about Modern Pace Handicapping, it is the real deal. Sure Wadsworth went back to before Phase 3 for some routines used in older programs. How many know the chicken and the egg with percent M & E. Percent M did not catch on when it was called LEX which was before % E. Its just percent M was sold better than E because they said its better than E. There are no assholes here except those who fall in love with old codgers. Everything works and then it doesn't, nothing works all the time. At least in Modern Pace Handicapping there is a process to follow if you are sharp enough. The problem is most are only willing to take the shortcuts and not what is in the text. Few programs other than HTR can live up to Modern Pace Handicapping.

[First_Place]

Not-so-fast4522 said:

"I just read this and again have to find much fault with the statement, what was sold after this book was a repackaged set of multipliers to disguise how it is really done"

Yes, sure, nothing more than a "repackaged set of multipliers," in effect making PHASE III on par with Validator, Speculator and RDSS. And the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are alive and well, too, and Doc Sartin was only out there to make a buck.

and

"Its just percent M was sold better than E because they said its better than E."

Wrong.

and

"Modern Pace Handicapping there is a process to follow if you are sharp enough."

Gee, really, mister? Maybe if I study hard enough, one day I'll be almost as 'sharp' as you.

and

"There are no assholes here except those who fall in love with old codgers."

I take that as a direct insult, and in turn, I say: F*CK-YOU!

Honoring these senior citizens because of their accomplishments is NOT falling in love with "old codgers."

People like YOU are the reason I hardly ever check into this forum.

If you want to see "assholes", you and that other guy ought to go take a long look in the same mirror.

FP

[fast4522]

I am just fast enough having clipped the Tri & super at SAX race 6. Everything you can do, Modern Pace Handicapping can do better. I stand behind everything and expect to stirr the pot for the hell of it. All the works are from the Perco group. Zero what is sold today is new, the formulations have been around for decades and if you were to ask me who does it best I would say Bob Purdy & Ken Massa. Its nice to see the fangs come out FP, has the sun set?

[upset]

Look at how serious you are with the computer printouts that make you nada.

haha. You do take that crap seriously, doncha? You bethca!! :lol:
This kid's like school on Saturday

[Charlie D]

I've spent years with the Brohammer and Sartin methodology -- taught me tons about pace, etc.

But surely, I have found much easier ways to figure pace and better than all the fancy dancy computer printouts and %E's you can muster.

It's overkill if you ask me. the simpler method I have devised and successfully used takes a fraction of the time, makes more sense, and is profitable. Now, many kudos to Brohammer, for if it wasnt for spending years with his method, I might not be able to so easily determine the pace of the race. My only comment is there are much Easier ways to do this.



Can you tell us this methodology.

Thanks in advance

[PaceAdvantage]

All the works are from the Perco group.Perco?

[Trotman]

Right on PA I questioned just how much Fast knows.
PIRCO

[Trotman]

Ted great picture The Mount Rushmore of Handicapping :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Pirco gone and the following company bit the dust as well.

TOO BAD

[Trotman]

46 you have no class what so ever, a lot of companies that are winding down their operation use the same route. How can anyone with sound mine get their jollies off at the expense of others. Bit the dust, Bite Me You Lowlife :ThmbDown:

[DJofSD]

46 you have no class what so ever, a lot of companies that are winding down their operation use the same route. How can anyone with sound mine get their jollies off at the expense of others. Bit the dust, Bite Me You Lowlife :ThmbDown:
From your response, I'd assume you do not know the history of PIRCO or o'Henry House.

I really don't think zz was attempting to denegrate Howard Sartin or his two businesses.

[PaceAdvantage]

46 you have no class what so ever, a lot of companies that are winding down their operation use the same route. How can anyone with sound mine get their jollies off at the expense of others. Bit the dust, Bite Me You Lowlife :ThmbDown:This kind of response was totally uncalled for...I would plead for people to THINK before they hit that SUBMIT REPLY button from now on...I can't take much more of this nastiness...it's become way too pervasive lately.

[Trotman]

PA duly noted

[upset]

You pace cappers are as high strung as the horses you're trying to figure out. When you hotwalk a horse or just shedrow for whatever reason you have to be careful to not get to close to certain horses when you walk by their stall. Usually the studs. I remember this one horse "Winlocks Rabbit" his main goal in life was to hurt you. He wouldn't make a move unless he knew you were in range. To the centimeter. And if you hit that mark he'd lash out and bite your shoulder and not gentle either. He bite off one of the grooms ears

[46zilzal]

I walked hots a few years and there are a few who want a piece of your arm each time you walk by them.

[fast4522]

OK folks, I admit to not spelling correctly and sometimes without my glasses. You have corrected my spelling. There was no magic in shutting down the poor sick old man. In effect everyone could use the groups information for programs for sale like so many are doing now, without any of it as a new. The book Modern Pace Handicapping is certainly not a basic work, it is the core. And while people will tell you advanced this or that, its just a attempt to garner standing from something that once was. The old programs never stopped working, the effort to operate them does not allow for shortcuts and is why the $1 files are just so so unless operated as they were intended.

[46zilzal]

OK folks, I admit to not spelling correctly and sometimes without my glasses. You have corrected my spelling. There was no magic in shutting down the poor sick old man. In effect everyone could use the groups information for programs for sale like so many are doing now, without any of it as a new.

That belief is only held by those who have not kept up the idea of cooperative interaction from the on line Sartin groups. In the hands of many accomplished handicappers, specifics in the experiences of each, become new standards heretofore unknown to all. Only those weak in intuition and imagination EVER think all has been discovered...Reminds me of the clowns that wanted to close the U.S. Patent office in the late 1890's with the comment, "Well everything has been invented hasn't it?"

The DAMON RUNYON angle, style over substance angle, classical going off form approach, numerical correlates to three year olds telling you they have reached their distance limits, better use of the long shot detector to eliminate false late movers, Triple Crown profiles, e/l track profiles, e/l relativity, tracks that transfer too fast or too slow (Philly to Aqueduct is a classic one amongst many)...the list is growing all the time as the many using the programs inform others what they are finding........

Even a study that is limited, like anatomy for example,, ALWAYS has new ways of seeing things.

A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[fast4522]

The point I made is that the book is not a basic work, your psycho babel is nothing new, if it be politics or horses. Your logic is that your way is the only way. Why has PA had to ask those who cut you well in words to think first before submit reply? Or ask you to chill, could it be obsessive compulsive disorder looking for conflict? Go ahead, now your good for another 600 words.

[46zilzal]

The point was, and is, that when people of differing backgrounds and experience continue to communicate on a common locus, there is no limit to the new things they can discover and impart to one another keeping alive the spirit of discover and revolution that Howard Sartin started many years ago....

Ideas are only put out to pasture when one's mind closes down and never challenges the status quo.

[fast4522]

The ideas are sound, if you want to see how it is done correctly check out the programs where the original folks are still alive and playing golf and active at the races. Brohamer's book is much much more than basic work, as you have stated and are very wrong about. On the one side RIP to the two who were bankrupt and could not make a living at it, and on the other side people alive and making money with kick ass programs that have the same sale price $0.00.

[upset]

I applied the method to a mid to low level circuit for 2 years and those were my only winning years out of 22 years. I made my own program and my own varients. And i'm gonna tell you (and I know I'm right about this)#1 there are no pace numbers in the DRF so you have an edge right there to the general public #2 the subtle distance changes are key. If you can line up the distances 5f, 5 1/2f, 6f 6 1/2 7f you're way ahead of the game because it's very difficult to do. But just by spending the time and doing the work you're gonna be sitting at the track with your numbers and you're gonna say"why is this horse 12/1 when He should be 5/1 or why is this horse 8/5 when he should be 8/1? And that's how you win! By having a better understanding of the horse population than the other 95% of betters. Because realisticly only 3 to 5% of the people involved in the pools win long term.

[wes]

http://sports-bet-advantage.com/



Sartin Method Modeler Extends Sartin Pro capabilities to include Sartin/Brohamer Models


Program to use with the book Modern Pace Handicapping by Tom Brohamer.


wes

[Trotman]

Wes I've used the Sartin method Modeler with the Rating Workouts V2.5 and I like it a lot. The Rating Workouts was an original by the late Dick Mitchell and I've found it points to fitness which is what you want a fit horse. :ThmbUp:

[redeye007]

after computing my own velocity figures I'm seeing a pattern of sorts. by sorting the velocity figures for 1FR,2FR,3FR for fastest to slowest and applying a ranking number and adding the ranking positions together for each runner there appears to be a pattern. most sprints are won by horses with a total of 11-13 except for 7f which is in the 20-22 range, routes are won in the range of 14-16. I wonder if there's something to this. I don't have a very large sample but I'll continue my study.

[DJofSD]

after computing my own velocity figures I'm seeing a pattern of sorts. by sorting the velocity figures for 1FR,2FR,3FR for fastest to slowest and applying a ranking number and adding the ranking positions together for each runner there appears to be a pattern. most sprints are won by horses with a total of 11-13 except for 7f which is in the 20-22 range, routes are won in the range of 14-16. I wonder if there's something to this. I don't have a very large sample but I'll continue my study.
Congrats. Whether you know it or not, you have discovered on your own, the very things that Doc taught in his seminars.

Finding patterns is an essential.

Using rankings and totalling them is another.

Keeping records and modeling what is winning is yet another.

Keep it up!

Some may bad-mouth use of velocity. It's a good place to start. Don't worry about the more advanced approaches right now. You can adapt those as you progress.

Don't go hog wild on the modeling. Simpler is better. If you try to model the world you'll only end up with paralysis by analysis.

[Jingle]

Redeye

I suggest you limit your contenders to 5-6 horses and do the modeling on these horses. Including the entire field adds too much smoke and will cloud your model. If you are using or have a copy of MPH I would be glad to send you the model for the recent Aqu & Kee meets (not including the Aqu Inner Track stats--seperate Model). Factors include AP EP SP FX HE and Score.

One other suggestion is to use about the last 6-7 races for your model and play. For some reason I use to think that more was better and used 12-15 races for each distance. Results much better with fewer and more recent races.

Keep up the good work.

[redeye007]

I notice that the models are varying from track to track. for example , at turf paradise horses with the best rank, or lowest number are dominating there, compared to hollywood park where more mid ranged ranks are winning. apparently each track must be modeled separately for best results. :)

[Jingle]

Redeye

Absolutely. Do it by Track, Surface, and Distance. Do not mix 5, 5 1/2, 6, or 6 1/2 furlongs. Just do actual distance at that Track.

[redeye007]

wow! top turn time in top 3 ranked wins for $360 double at tup. great stuff :jump:

[clore1030]

wow! top turn time in top 3 ranked wins for $360 double at tup. great stuff :jump:

It gets better. I had top FX horse winning 71% of AQU one-mile races. While many of these were chalk, it gave me a 51 dollar winner on Saturday and a 15 dollar winner earlier in the week.

I wait for the right spots, even though I handicap and model every dry track day. That's also important - don't mix wet/good/fast tracks.

I made only six bets at the whole AQU spring meet. I cashed in on three of them at $7.50, $15.50 and $51.00. That is like spending 12 bucks and getting back 74.

Learn to use your models to your best advantage. Don't wager, invest. Use your time to massage the data, stay away from anything with less than a 40% edge.

You'll find that you will be able to invest larger as opposed to grinding it out.

[redeye007]

top 4 ranked just came in for $671 tri box at mnr race 9. too bad it wasn't a super cause all 4 were there :jump:

[Jingle]

Nice hit Redeye.

Are you using a program or doing the calculations manually to get your models?

[redeye007]

Nice hit Redeye.

Are you using a program or doing the calculations manually to get your models?

I was doing them manually til I realized that I had a program that automatically does them using $1 bris files. no more tedious math calculations for me. :bang:

[fast4522]

That is great but, you have to remember the dated stuff must be used as it was originally intended for best result, which does include the need for some work and just watching sometimes instead of jumping in.