Handicappers Cond. Book: the only book you'll need

[Passthehat]

The Handicapper's Conditioning Book, by James Quinn may be the only book you'll ever need to read to be consistently successful at the track. After spending years hooked on Brohammer's Sartin system, I found that sticking strictly to the tenents of Quinn's book was all you needed. And a lot easier and tons more fun.

To be sure, spending literally years doing the Sartin method has taught me much about the pace of the race, so much that I can tell the pace at just a glance -- so, thank you to Brohammer. But knowing instinctively the pace, and strictly applying the conditions to each contender as taught by Quinn, my winning percentage and ROI are at a comfortably consistent and profitable level.

There are easier ways to figure the pace of the race without laboriously feeding tons of data into my computer program. I've got it down to just a couple of notations on lined paper -- again, thanks to Brohammer for leading me to this personal way of figuring pace. It only takes me about 10 minutes -- maybe a couple more -- to thoroughly cap a race.

The conditioning book is especially strong -- and I think most beneficial -- when capping cheap claimers.

I highly recommend reading this book -- especially if know how to rank the pace of a race, the tenents of this book will bring home a high percent of winners and put you in that elusive 5% class of winning horseplayers.

Good luck.

[Greyfox]

Sure it's a very good book. However, you were previously aware of Sartin's methodology. Had you not been, I suspect that Quinn's book would not be the only book one would ever need. IMO it's a good but not great text.

[GameTheory]

If I combine analysis of conditions (i.e. who fits in this race?) along with some trainer stats and common sense about trainer moves (class changes, layoffs, recent claims) I can do amazingly well without considering any "figure" data other than positions and beaten lengths.

This has been an ongoing tension in my handicapping life. In all my computer work, which involves sophisticated number crunching and AI stuff, I'm looking at lots of pace & speed numbers and can handicap a high volume of races. However, if I'm just playing one track using some PPs and my own brain, I hardly look at those numbers and just analyze if the horse fits the race and what I think the trainer is up to. On a race-by-race basis, there is no question I do far better with the latter method....

[Passthehat]

Sure it's a very good book. However, you were previously aware of Sartin's methodology. Had you not been, I suspect that Quinn's book would not be the only book one would ever need. IMO it's a good but not great text.

I agree, but I think I said as much.

If you enjoy capping via conditions, it is a great book. I have yet to run into another that covers it all so thoroughly. If you discount class and conditions then I guess one wouldnt find it great; but it's only relative to what you're into.

[Passthehat]

If I combine analysis of conditions (i.e. who fits in this race?) along with some trainer stats and common sense about trainer moves (class changes, layoffs, recent claims) I can do amazingly well without considering any "figure" data other than positions and beaten lengths.

This has been an ongoing tension in my handicapping life. In all my computer work, which involves sophisticated number crunching and AI stuff, I'm looking at lots of pace & speed numbers and can handicap a high volume of races. However, if I'm just playing one track using some PPs and my own brain, I hardly look at those numbers and just analyze if the horse fits the race and what I think the trainer is up to. On a race-by-race basis, there is no question I do far better with the latter method....

Exactly. I have gone through this evolultion -- and paid for it too. Crunching pace numbers day and night never really paid off -- I got to where I second and third guessed myself more than hitting on THE horse to bet. The traditional methods -- along with conjuring the expected pace -- keeps me profitable. Like you I guess, I have gone from betting 5 and 6 tracks at a time, to focusing on 2 or three tracks and stick with it. Guessing trainer intent is key -- and Quinn goes into that in detail in this book.
Also, I have thrown in the towel on the idea that I can cap anykind of race. that's ego. I find capping run of the mill cheap claimers is far easier for me than any other kind of race. So, the several tracks that I stick with are cheap claiming plants.

[fmolf]

Exactly. I have gone through this evolultion -- and paid for it too. Crunching pace numbers day and night never really paid off -- I got to where I second and third guessed myself more than hitting on THE horse to bet. The traditional methods -- along with conjuring the expected pace -- keeps me profitable. Like you I guess, I have gone from betting 5 and 6 tracks at a time, to focusing on 2 or three tracks and stick with it. Guessing trainer intent is key -- and Quinn goes into that in detail in this book.
Also, I have thrown in the towel on the idea that I can cap anykind of race. that's ego. I find capping run of the mill cheap claimers is far easier for me than any other kind of race. So, the several tracks that I stick with are cheap claiming plants.
my method has evolved as well and i play strictly nyra most of the time except on rare occasions.I will look at speed figures as a guide to help me eliminate horses only......then i will determine if a horse is sharp and on the improve..( i will not play any horse on the decline)i will usually pass these races. then i try to decipher trainer intent and whether the horse fitsthe race.Being an older handicapper i was taught this method by old timers at the nyra tracks in the 70's...Quinns book is excellent and reinforces what i learned from the oldtimers back then.I recommend it highly.

[Dick Schmidt]

I used to go to the races with both Tom Brohammer and Jim Quinn, and had a lot of fun listening to them analyze a race. Tom soon had Jim doing pace figs and keeping a model. However, the last time I saw Jim, he had reverted to his classic analysis and was doing well. He especially followed all the FTS and maidens on the track.

I discussed this with him a bit and he told me that when he first wrote the book (it was some time ago) it worked great. Then it stopped performing as well as more and more people used it. As pace analysis and computers took over, fewer people were doing classic handicapping and it was profitable again. Today, with the number crunching whales dominating so many pools and pace is everywhere; standout pace horses I used to get $10 on are now paying $2.80. Since classic handicapping is much harder to quantify, it is often overlooked by the number crunchers. An interest aside: the original whale from Hong Kong (I think his name was Benatar) had a team of about 30 people entering data for him and used a lot of "soft" analysis as well as numbers. He supposedly made millions and inspired many others, who forgot his methods and downloaded their data.

To make money at the track, it is not enough to be right; you must also be different. The majority is always wrong in racing.

Dick

"If my foresight was as good as my hindsight, I'd be better off by a damnsight" Charlie Whittingham

[Greyfox]

To make money at the track, it is not enough to be right; you must also be different. The majority is always wrong in racing.

Dick

"


:ThmbUp: Good advice, from a "Gruff.";)
Your comments here are essentially true.
However, the majority is not always wrong.
Lateral thinking "outside the box," while not being stupid ,goes a long ways in this game.

[46zilzal]

QUOTE: To make money at the track, it is not enough to be right; you must also be different. The majority is always wrong in racing.

EXACTLY

I hope more people read it and follow it.............Horses don't know who they are running against and never will.

[Tom]

I hope more people read it and follow it.............Horses don't know who they are running against and never will.


Why? Then the majority will always be right. :rolleyes:

[Robert Goren]

I hope more people read it and follow it.............Horses don't know who they are running against and never will. Once the gates open, they figure it out pretty quick.JMO

[delayjf]

Is their any difference between the old and the revised version?

[Tom]

Yes, he has updated the criterion and Beyer pars are incorporated to some degree. Different enough to be useful.

[fast4522]

Not to blow nice warm air for anyone, but I would like to thank Dick Schmidt for his post. I especially liked the quote from Charlie Whittingham RIP, other things this true gent said like that every horse after a few hard races the conditioner has to put something back. Maybe not exactly how the man said it but it stuck very well.