Dick Mitchells Material

[ronestes]

What is anyones opinion on Dick Mitchells material, same as everyone elses, better Thanks, Ron

[Dave Schwartz]

As a general rule, Dick's stuff was excellent; based on sound mathematics.

[ldiatone]

most of the material holds up after 15 years or so. cynthia publishing has a fellow(steve) who did updates on all the mitchell "tapes" and put them on DVD. i bought them. also read his books, commonsense handicapping, winning throroughbred strategies. and the other(can't think of the title) bought "how to play the pick 3". a lot of math. mitchell seemed to use all the "players" creamer, meadows, tom b and even sartin in his works but gave them credit.
doc sartin told me that All-in-one V3-4 was his old phase 3. but since then its been upgraded. v7. i'm a fan of mitchell so i'll be a little bias.
steve also updated the message board at CYB.

[Overlay]

also read his books, commonsense handicapping, winning throroughbred strategies. and the other(can't think of the title)

Would the other title you're trying to recall be Commonsense Betting? (It's on my short list as far as best books on handicapping / money management.)

[broadreach]

I bought his Commonsense Handicapping(hardcover) and 21st Century Handicapping(paperback). The former is a great read, he also touches on non-racing themes at the end of the book e.g investing, life. The latter is also good, probably written quickly, still had some neat little system plays and good thought provoking advice.

[46zilzal]

As a general rule, Dick's stuff was excellent; based on sound mathematics.
2nd that ..he was the very first to write about what to do AFTER you have handicapped the race.........works well.

[ldiatone]

Would the other title you're trying to recall be Commonsense Betting? (It's on my short list as far as best books on handicapping / money management.)
yes thats the title

[kingfin66]

I really enjoyed his stuff, plus he had some great lines in his books. For example, in one book he wrote, "anyone who bets long shots to show is a walking brain donor." His mathematics are spot on, but he makes it easy for regular folks to understand.

[timtam]

I know I purchased Playing the Pick 3 years ago and he had a model where

you could wager $200 playing different combinations. Probably mathematically

sound but way over the beer and shirt sleeve crowd when it comes to amount

wagered per race. At the time the wager was $3 so with todays $1 pick

3's it might not be so cumbersome but just too rich for my blood on a wager

that could pay anything from $6-hundreds.

[fmolf]

the other book of his i want to read is "myths that destroy a players bankroll".......common sense handicapping and common sense betting were both excellent and easy to follow for the recreational handicapper

[AAcoolguy]

I really enjoyed his stuff, plus he had some great lines in his books. For example, in one book he wrote, "anyone who bets long shots to show is a walking brain donor." His mathematics are spot on, but he makes it easy for regular folks to understand.

In another of his books, can't recall which, he's talking about taking the plunge into being a full time horse bettor. He says, "There are no skeletons laying in the street", basically he's saying that even if things get too tough you'll still make it through.
One of my favorite quotes of all time. I love his books.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I have only read one book by Mitchell.

But what I gather from that,more than handicapping information is attitude.People fuss and fight about horses and handicapping and lose sight of the goal=win!!!!!!!!!!!

Dick Mitchell talks about winning.Not as a daydream or as an elusive goal.But as matter of fact,ie let's get down to business,see whats winning,and bet accordingly and smile while that uncomfortable lump of cash is in the pocket.

His approach is irrefutable=win at all costs.

Sounds good to me!!!

[Fingal]

Every so often I pull out my old Dick Mitchell VHS tapes, very easy to listen to, very insightful.

I forget which one it's in, but it's a great line-

" You don't want to play fair games, you always want to play in unfair games & you always want the advantage in an unfair game- No advantage, no bet "

Horseracing is the greatest gamble around. It's all about opportunities.

I love this game.

[Overlay]

I forget which one it's in, but it's a great line-

" You don't want to play fair games, you always want to play in unfair games & you always want the advantage in an unfair game- No advantage, no bet ".

And the reason he needed to say that is because players -- and the selection methods they use -- too often throw away the advantages that pari-mutuel betting offers over other forms of wagering. They view the "object of the game" as finding and betting the horse most likely to win (regardless of its odds), rather than the horse with odds that represent the best wagering value in comparison to its actual chance of winning.

[Turfway Ed]

I believe that Steve's full name is Steve Unite. He was helpful to me. Mitchell's work was/ is great.



most of the material holds up after 15 years or so. cynthia publishing has a fellow(steve) who did updates on all the mitchell "tapes" and put them on DVD. i bought them. also read his books, commonsense handicapping, winning throroughbred strategies. and the other(can't think of the title) bought "how to play the pick 3". a lot of math. mitchell seemed to use all the "players" creamer, meadows, tom b and even sartin in his works but gave them credit.
doc sartin told me that All-in-one V3-4 was his old phase 3. but since then its been upgraded. v7. i'm a fan of mitchell so i'll be a little bias.
steve also updated the message board at CYB.

[thaskalos]

And the reason he needed to say that is because players -- and the selection methods they use -- too often throw away the advantages that pari-mutuel betting offers over other forms of wagering. They view the "object of the game" as finding and betting the horse most likely to win (regardless of its odds), rather than the horse with odds that represent the best wagering value in comparison to its actual chance of winning. Overlay,

Like you, I too am interested in creating a betting line that reflects the true winning chances of the horses involved. It has become apparent to me though, that the game has changed from the Frederick Davis and William Quirin days. The "old" statistical models they used to project the "true odds" of the horses, have very limited use in today's, veterinarian driven racing landscape. Every day, I encounter obscure trainers with outlandish winning percentages in certain key situations. Last week I looked at a horse that was claimed from his last race. The horse's new trainer was completely unknown to me...but he had a record of 17/32 (53%!!) with his newly claimed horses. My handicapping came to a sudden stop. I knew that, in this case, all the other factors in the race were rendered obsolete.

How can we quantify situations like this with the precision needed in constructing an accurate odds line?

[Overlay]

Every day, I encounter obscure trainers with outlandish winning percentages in certain key situations. Last week I looked at a horse that was claimed from his last race. The horse's new trainer was completely unknown to me...but he had a record of 17/32 (53%!!) with his newly claimed horses. My handicapping came to a sudden stop. I knew that, in this case, all the other factors in the race were rendered obsolete.

Any idea what kind of mutuels/ROI these horses are winning at? Are the jockeys who ride these winners as obscure as the trainer? If the ROI is high enough, even with this trainer's training "regimen" (whatever it may entail), a full-field ranking of the horses using "traditional" factors might nevertheless rate the horse as an overlay. And if the public has caught on and is pounding the trainer's horses at the windows, long-term value could still lie elsewhere, despite the trainer's winning percentage. To me, it all depends on the mix of factors/weights you're using (which could also include trainers), and keeping the full field in view.

[trying2win]

One of my favorite quotes of Dick Mitchell's went something like this:

"If you can't prove you can make a longterm profit betting to win, then you have no business betting the gimmicks!"


T2W

[thaskalos]

I have heard more than a few people make this comment, but I just don't see the logic of it. What does win betting have to do with winning in the exotics? If a player is capable of rating the horses appropriately, and he is good at structuring his bets, he can beat the exotics.

I don't care if the take-out is less on the win end...my opinion is that the flexibility that the exotics give you, makes them a better bet. The trick is to maintain your discipline...which is no easy task with all the exotics choices we have now...

[Dave Schwartz]

:ThmbUp:

[Trotman]

Seeing this thread is on Dick Mitchell I thought I would bring up something in a book I read. The book is Horseplayers by Ted McClelland which is about his time at the track. He mentioned on page 76 that while trying to get a better handle on the game he spent $100.00 from a
California shyster for his par times which he said was worthless. When I read that the book went to the garbage.
If Dick's par times we're good enough for Andy Beyer when
he wrote Picking Winners and the whole movement at the time then who the F*** is this guy. I have a lot of Mitchell's work and I for one credit him to making me a
better handicapper.

[thaskalos]

Seeing this thread is on Dick Mitchell I thought I would bring up something in a book I read. The book is Horseplayers by Ted McClelland which is about his time at the track. He mentioned on page 76 that while trying to get a better handle on the game he spent $100.00 from a
California shyster for his par times which he said was worthless. When I read that the book went to the garbage.
If Dick's par times we're good enough for Andy Beyer when
he wrote Picking Winners and the whole movement at the time then who the F*** is this guy. I have a lot of Mitchell's work and I for one credit him to making me a
better handicapper. I bought Dick Mitchell's pars several times in the 90s, and I was satisfied with them because I had nothing to compare them to. When I found The Horsestreet Pars years later, I went with them because they were a better fit for me. In any case, you cannot call Mitchell's pars worthless.

Was he a "shyster"? No, but, unlike any other popular handicapping author, he became a sort of "high class" system peddler, pushing some products of dubious value, like expensive, hand held programable calculators, and "platinum strategies" that promised more than they could deliver.There is no denying that he published a lot of useful information. His books were sophisticated, and they appealled to many people.

What mainly bothered me about Mitchell, were his exaggerated claims of his success at the betting windows. Whereas Barry Meadow would say that a professional horseplayer is lucky to maintain a 10% ROI over time, Mitchell would claim a 40-80% ROI on his exotics and turf-course wagers. Meadow would state that, due to the chaotic nature of the game, it was possible - although unlikely, for a winning player to suffer a losing year, and Mitchell would brag that he had "bank accounts" in racetracks across the country, and all he needed to do was show up and make a withdraw...

I don't know...now that i think about it...maybe he was kidding...

[Trotman]

I was buying Mitchell's pars around the same time as Beyer
made it known in his book Picking Winners, and yes for me they we're what was there and they fit for me. As the game
changed so did all of our idea's. I just took offence to McClelland's statement, Mitchell was part of my initial exposure along with Taulbot, the Doc, Huey Maul, Bradshaw,Beyer, Brohammer,Quirin and Quinn. These we're
the people who impacted on my handicapping. :ThmbUp:

[ldiatone]

I believe that Steve's full name is Steve Unite. He was helpful to me. Mitchell's work was/ is great.

AKA 'boys in the back room' on the message board at cynb....maybe

[jamey1977]

Just because Barry says something one can not generalize and say well if he says it it must be true. In one of Dick's books he mentioned, he can bet the horses to win and arrive at 25 percent winners at a 10 dollar average. He can lose 7 in a row over a series of bets but still arrive at 25 percent winners at a 10 dollar average. This is attainable. If one bets to win, it is attainable. And it's common sense. Who the hell says we have to bet every race.? Strong Favorite , pass the race. Unhappy with your selection, you think the horse stinks. Pass the race. Don't bet. Barry is intelligent, but just because he says something. One must not generalize. The basic thing is money management. If you can not wait and be patient, you won't even get 30 percent winners at 6 dollars average. But being patient, betting on live overlays, from your own line. 25 percent winners at 10 dollars is attainable. Yes, over time. 1 year, 3 years- 10 years. Remember, we call the shots. We bet when we want. I'll pass any race if the bet doesn't feel right. Us, horseplayers , have final discretion. If you like the horse, the bet goes, don't feel good, pass.

[Fingal]

One of my favorite quotes of Dick Mitchell's went something like this:

"If you can't prove you can make a longterm profit betting to win, then you have no business betting the gimmicks!"


T2W

I have heard more than a few people make this comment, but I just don't see the logic of it. What does win betting have to do with winning in the exotics? If a player is capable of rating the horses appropriately, and he is good at structuring his bets, he can beat the exotics.



I'll take a swing at it- I believe what he was saying was that unless one could be a winning player finding horses that won, aka using a rifle to make selections & the corresponding bets, all that bettor was going to become was someone who used a shotgun in making their tickets & therefore using way too many horses ( increasing the cost of the ticket ) in the pursuit to cash a bet. What's the point of putting together say a P4 that pays $ 250 if the ticket used ended up at $ 300 ?

Discipline increases profits, that's why there are terms like gross & net. It's not what you make, it's what you keep.

[46zilzal]

I have heard more than a few people make this comment, but I just don't see the logic of it. What does win betting have to do with winning in the exotics? If a player is capable of rating the horses appropriately, and he is good at structuring his bets, he can beat the exotics.

I don't care if the take-out is less on the win end...my opinion is that the flexibility that the exotics give you, makes them a better bet. The trick is to maintain your discipline...which is no easy task with all the exotics choices we have now...

Each race presents a new parimutuel as well as a handicapping challenge.....

Often a race has no clear cut winner, but four standouts that will pay nicely in an exotic.

[jamey1977]

Some old guy, real hip told me. " If you can't get one across the wire. How the hell are you gonna get 2 or 3 for that matter ? ". I figured out, have a winner with 2 runners. 20 dollar exacta straight. The whole thing was silly. The runners I wanted wouldn't even come in second. I spent so much damn money with the exactas. All I had to do was put the money on my winner ticket. In fact, with the winner that I got across the wire first. I would have made more money. Exactas are just not viable if you want to make money every month or two without waiting months for that big score that will give you a 10 percent net. Wow. Big Deal. A lousy 10 percent net. Bet To Win and get a 40 percent net . Not a lousy 10 percent. If you're lucky.

[Trotman]

46 well put, for me I won't go looking for something not there. It's that black and white thing no grey, yeah sure I miss a few but in the end I come out on top.

[Sekrah]

I have heard more than a few people make this comment, but I just don't see the logic of it. What does win betting have to do with winning in the exotics? If a player is capable of rating the horses appropriately, and he is good at structuring his bets, he can beat the exotics.

I don't care if the take-out is less on the win end...my opinion is that the flexibility that the exotics give you, makes them a better bet. The trick is to maintain your discipline...which is no easy task with all the exotics choices we have now...

I also agree that Dick's statement on "if you cant hit win bets, don't bet exotics." is not very true.

I know a guy who would be completely busted if you restricted him to win bets, but is destroying the exotics, mostly pick 4s and trifectas.

[cnollfan]

I like Dick Mitchell's books quite a bit, but I want to defend Horseplayers by Ted McClelland. While his offhand remark about par times was unfortunate, it was merely an aside in a book that I thought was an excellent depiction of the characters one encounters at the track.

[Fingal]

What was the offhand remark he made about about par times ?

[cnollfan]

Yes, as per Trotman's post. I loaned my copy of Horseplayers and don't have it anymore but I did not recall that quote as being at all central to the book.