William L. Scott

[Actor]

Maybe this topic should be in the Handicapping Library forum but I think it fits better here.

I'm reading Total Victory at the Track by William L. Scott. There are two chapters on computing "ability times," one for sprints and one for routes. He gets the "span time" for the lead horse between the 2nd call and the finish, adjusts for beaten lengths using his own table, and finally adjusts for track variant, again using his own table.

But it seems to me if you simply take the winner's time, adjust for the subject horse's beaten lengths and the track variant (again using Scott's tables) you get the same number in the end. I've done it this way with all Scott's examples and I've gotten the same number every time.

In other words, Scott's protestations notwithstanding, his ability times are simply final time with a couple of simple adjustments thrown in.

Or am I not doing it right?

[JohnGalt1]

I make and use Scott's Performance Class Ratings, but his pace figures are flawed for reasons you mentioned. For instance I don't make a sprint figure using the 6f furlong speed from a route, I use the whole race. I did make and use them, but even in the sample races in the book they don't reflect the outcomes of the races he highlights.

I create my pace figures from the book Pace Makes The Race by Howard Sartin and others.

I find it more accurate to adjust between routes and sprints. I adjust my pace figures by using Cynthia's par book and the DRF track variant.

There's no rule that says you have to use and follow one's book or method religiously.

I borrow(steal) from Scott, Sartin, Pizzolla, Serra(for turf breeding), and others. Plus I tweak and sometimes ignore some of their ideas. For instance I don't use the 2nd call to make my PCR's, since I first list all horses divided by their running styles-E, EP, P, and S.

If you concentrate on horses with the top 3 PCR's, and top 3 TPR's that have no form defects, and who's running style fits the track and race, it will put you on live horses.

My favorite reason for using PCR's is so few use them.

I hope this helps answer you question.

[Turkoman]

I'm not sure if it's the same book, but I have one I bought many years ago, titled Investing At The Racetrack. I tried using his ability times method, but didn't quite work for me. Also, he mentioned that the faster tracks didn't affect the ability times very much, but I doubt it. I think the book is from the year 1986.

Turkoman

[Greyfox]

I'm not sure if it's the same book, but I have one I bought many years ago, titled Investing At The Racetrack.
Turkoman

No it's not the same book.
Total Victory at the Track....is a much more comprehensive book.
I built a program using his performance class ideas 10 or so years ago.
It was a very tedious process, but was producing positive results.
However, I was working out his numbers by hand and it was just taking too long.
When I was in the Gamblers Book store in 'Vegas, I noticed that quite a few of Scott's books had been returned. Others must have found them tedious too, however, I wouldn't knock anyone who is using his ideas. He was a very smart man.

[Turkoman]

Thanks for clearing that up about the book title. The book I have is very interesting, and it's obvious that Mr. Scott was a highly intelligent individual. I'm just saying I couldn't benefit from his method, using the ability times.

Turkoman

[schweitz]

Used his methods successfully in the early 90's, then everything changed when speed figures showed up everywhere and computer programs made their debut.
It was a lot of work but paid off because few were going to this much trouble.Ah, the good old days. :cool:

[Cratos]

Maybe this topic should be in the Handicapping Library forum but I think it fits better here.

I'm reading Total Victory at the Track by William L. Scott. There are two chapters on computing "ability times," one for sprints and one for routes. He gets the "span time" for the lead horse between the 2nd call and the finish, adjusts for beaten lengths using his own table, and finally adjusts for track variant, again using his own table.

But it seems to me if you simply take the winner's time, adjust for the subject horse's beaten lengths and the track variant (again using Scott's tables) you get the same number in the end. I've done it this way with all Scott's examples and I've gotten the same number every time.

In other words, Scott's protestations notwithstanding, his ability times are simply final time with a couple of simple adjustments thrown in.

Or am I not doing it right?

Try the following two books together and you might get a better understanding of William L. Scott:

• Figure Handicapping: A Practical Guide to the Interpretation and Use of Speed and Pace Figures (Hardcover) by James Quinn, James Brian Quinn

• How Will Your Horse Run Today [Paperback], William L. Scott

[thaskalos]

I don't relish speaking ill of the dead...but William L. Scott's books epitomize the injustice that some handicapping authors have commited against the unsuspecting horse racing public, IMO.

When charlatans, operating out of Post Office boxes, offer to give us the "key to the mint" for $49.95...the "con" is easy to see.

But when this is perpetrated by people with impressive credentials after their names...and their work comes with "glowing" recommendations from other respected handicapping names...then a lot of players get taken in...

When I read Scott's book "Investing At The Race Track", when it first came out...I was struck by the authoritative voice with which he declared that he had managed to finally "systematize" the entire handicapping process, based on his extensive "empirical" evidence.

"We will finally be investors, instead of gamblers", he proudly exclaimed...and some of the most famous handicapping authors agreed with him...showering the book with accolades.

It was just another loser, of course, as was his subsequent book, "How Will Your Horse Run Today"...which was also favorably reviewed by the "experts".

Only when Scott released his next book, "Total Victory At The Track", did he finally acknowledge the shortcomings of his prior works...

[Tom]

When charlatans, operating out of Post Office boxes, offer to give us the "key to the mint" for $49.95...the "con" is easy to see.

Scott was a lawyer who argued in front of the Supreme Court. Hardly a charlatan. He was a guy who loved handicapping and shared his findings.
I met him and he was a genuinely nice guy who was not out to screw anyone.


It was just another loser, of course, as was his subsequent book, "How Will Your Horse Run Today"...which was also favorably reviewed by the "experts".

Gee, I seemed to make a lot of money using his ideas, from both books.
Maybe you missed a chapter. Or didn't understand a couple of them.

[thaskalos]

Scott was a lawyer who argued in front of the Supreme Court. Hardly a charlatan. He was a guy who loved handicapping and shared his findings.
I met him and he was a genuinely nice guy who was not out to screw anyone.




Gee, I seemed to make a lot of money using his ideas, from both books.
Maybe you missed a chapter. Or didn't understand a couple of them.I am well aware that he was a lawyer who argued in front of the Supreme Court, and I also met him...in a handicapping conference in Las Vegas.

Would you care to enlighten me as to the ideas that I might have missed...which have made you a lot of money?

If there is a poll taken on this board...I would wager heavily that your opinion on his first 2 works would be in the minority.

[Greyfox]

Gee, I seemed to make a lot of money using his ideas, from both books.


:ThmbUp: Me too. Some get' em and some don't.

[Greyfox]

Would you care to enlighten me as to the ideas that I might have missed...which have made you a lot of money?

If there is a poll taken on this board...I would wager heavily that your opinion on his first 2 works would be in the minority.

1. How could Tom mind read and tell you what you missed? A silly request.

2. A poll would mean nothing. Some handicappers got top value from those books. If 95 % didn't, that's their problem.

[thaskalos]

1. How could Tom mind read and tell you what you missed? A silly request.

2. A poll would mean nothing. Some handicappers got top value from those books. If 95 % didn't, that's their problem.I missed nothing Greyfox...I have read every single serious handicapping work that has been published in the last 30 years.

When I say that Scott's works were misrepresented, when they were ambitiously labeled as "Investing At The Race Track", and "Total Victory At The Track"...I believe that I am stating a fact, which would be backed up by the vast majority of the people who read them.

I never implied that 100% of the people would agree with me...heck, 100% of the people never agree on anything.

[Greyfox]

When I say that Scott's works were misrepresented, when they were ambitiously labeled as "Investing At The Race Track", and "Total Victory At The Track"...I believe that I am stating a fact,

The publisher might have put those titles on.
Scott probably did Invest at the Track.
Total Victory is a hyperbole. I think that when ever one buys a books we we those titles all the time. eg. "Build the Perfect Golf Swing" "30 days to fitness without exercising" and on they go. One shouldn't judge a book by it's title or it's cover. We all know that.

[Tom]

If there is a poll taken on this board...I would wager heavily that your opinion on his first 2 works would be in the minority.

So when it comes to racing, you follow the favorites? :rolleyes:
When the majority agree with you........

[thaskalos]

So when it comes to racing, you follow the favorites? :rolleyes:
When the majority agree with you........Tom...hear me out on this one, please.

I agree that any handicapping book is useful, if only it presents to us some ideas that we can use to improve our play...but William Scott did not set out to present ideas. He created a system...and then bet on the highest rated horses. That was what separated him from the other "modern" authors. His books promised a complete handicapping "system", which would depend on little or no second-guessing by the user.

Even his second book was a rigid, "systematized" interpretation of form.

If 100 people faithfully followed his system...they would all end up betting on the same horse.

You say that you profited by his ideas...and I believe you. But I doubt that you profited by using the system as he set it out in his books...you probably incorporated some of his ideas into your existing methods.

In any case...this is not worthy of an argument.

And no...I seldom follow the crowd. My enthusiasm for a race increases, as my horses' odds get longer...

[Tom]

If 100 people faithfully followed his system...they would all end up betting on the same horse.

If all you got out of it was a system, then that explains it.

[thaskalos]

If all you got out of it was a system, then that explains it.I am starting to doubt that you remember his books.

[Greyfox]

Tom...hear me out on this one, please.

I agree that any handicapping book is useful, if only it presents to us some ideas that we can use to improve our play...but William Scott did not set out to present ideas. He created a system...and then bet on the highest rated horses. That was what separated him from the other "modern" authors. His books promised a complete handicapping "system", which would depend on little or no second-guessing by the user.

Even his second book was a rigid, "systematized" interpretation of form.

If 100 people faithfully followed his system...they would all end up betting on the same horse.

...

Yes. Your comments to Tom indicate that there is some commonality here.
First of all the Title was an Over promotion. Hard to disagree on that.
But, it was not an Under delivery, as your earlier comments seem to indicate.

As much as anything there was a systematic approach to his ideas.
However, there was an "interpretative" methodology inherent in them.
100 people could not do what he said and bet the same horse for starters.
For example, if I said to you :
"Pass the toast."
That would mean one thing to you and another thing to a person at a wedding and even another thing to a person arriving for breakfast in a restaurant.
Doing exactly what the author intends you to do, and what you think he said
can be somewhat different especially in horse racing.
Every one of his books are value buys, independent of their titles.
Applying his methodology will be interpreted different ways by different people. It may have appeared rigid, but that's probably the best he could tell us how.

Thank you William Scott. RIP

[BlueShoe]

Another player here that liked "How Will Your Horse Run Today". Not as a stand alone "system" per se, but for the handicapping angles and points. His placing emphasis on early speed close up races, spotting possible form defects, and sharp runners returning very quickly are some of the books features that have been very helpful to me since tha book came out in the early 80's.

[KingChas]

Try the following two books together and you might get a better understanding of William L. Scott:

• Figure Handicapping: A Practical Guide to the Interpretation and Use of Speed and Pace Figures (Hardcover) by James Quinn, James Brian Quinn

• How Will Your Horse Run Today [Paperback], William L. Scott

With a couple off tweaks and modernization,they are still very useful.

Something some must figure on their own combining a decent pace rating + ability time.
"Trial and Error"................ ;)

I do disagree and always have with Scott's early printings of not wanting to to do AT's on all the horses in the race.

[jamey1977]

I don't relish speaking ill of the dead...but William L. Scott's books epitomize the injustice that some handicapping authors have commited against the unsuspecting horse racing public, IMO.

When charlatans, operating out of Post Office boxes, offer to give us the "key to the mint" for $49.95...the "con" is easy to see.

But when this is perpetrated by people with impressive credentials after their names...and their work comes with "glowing" recommendations from other respected handicapping names...then a lot of players get taken in...

When I read Scott's book "Investing At The Race Track", when it first came out...I was struck by the authoritative voice with which he declared that he had managed to finally "systematize" the entire handicapping process, based on his extensive "empirical" evidence.

"We will finally be investors, instead of gamblers", he proudly exclaimed...and some of the most famous handicapping authors agreed with him...showering the book with accolades.

It was just another loser, of course, as was his subsequent book, "How Will Your Horse Run Today"...which was also favorably reviewed by the "experts".

Only when Scott released his next book, "Total Victory At The Track", did he finally acknowledge the shortcomings of his prior works... Jeepers creepers. No one could even understand the damn thing. He seems intelligent. But he becomes sort of like I was. Being lost in your figures and determinations which result in losses anyway. The only thing I got from that book. Is betting to Win And Place. I now bet 60 dollars to Win and Place on the best horses I can find. If a horse is disqualified through your D.Q. rules. I have 40 D.Q rules , don't play the damn horse. Pass the race. I'd rather win 1 out of 2 for the day with an $ 8.80 winner . Then go 1 for 7. No one can even understand the damn thing. I do bet Win And Place now because of it.

[KingChas]

Possibly Scott is the reverse of Sartin Methodology.

Pace makes the race- sans closing times.

Not too often these days does a track set up for closers.
When it does if you are able to recognize it ,double fig payouts abound.
Most handicappers are lost on days like this.
Pace is easy to see.But the closers are sometimes hidden.
(Not the Silkys or Zen's..lol)

This is were his ability times factor in,very useful for unders in exotics also when this bias doesn't exist.

Previously I said tweeks & modernization of his methods are the key...decent pace rating + ability time(which I consider closing time) is a start,forgot to mention a decent track variant and a good set of pars comes in handy also per previous races.
I won't even get into my deductions for chaos. :D :eek:

[RXB]

Maybe this topic should be in the Handicapping Library forum but I think it fits better here.

I'm reading Total Victory at the Track by William L. Scott. There are two chapters on computing "ability times," one for sprints and one for routes. He gets the "span time" for the lead horse between the 2nd call and the finish, adjusts for beaten lengths using his own table, and finally adjusts for track variant, again using his own table.

But it seems to me if you simply take the winner's time, adjust for the subject horse's beaten lengths and the track variant (again using Scott's tables) you get the same number in the end. I've done it this way with all Scott's examples and I've gotten the same number every time.

In other words, Scott's protestations notwithstanding, his ability times are simply final time with a couple of simple adjustments thrown in.

Or am I not doing it right?

I think you need to revisit that section.

Case in point: two horses finish a nose apart for the win. So they have the same nominal final time. But let's say the winner was leading at the second call while the runner-up came from 10 lengths back at the second call. The winner's ability time would be the same as his final time while the place horse's ability time-- if my memory serves me correctly regarding closing fraction adjustments-- would be four "ticks" slower because he came from so far back.

BTW, that book is about 25 years old now. There are better ways of going about things, although I do still think that a few of his ideas have validity. Some of the form rules, particularly, I think are not very relevant anymore. His ability times also tend to overrate dirt horses that set or pressed a soft pace.

[Indulto]

Scott’s contribution to my enjoyment of handicapping thoroughbred races was second only to that of Steve Davidowitz. They both taught me how do think creatively about the data contained in the Racing Form.

I enjoyed reading his books and never assumed that he was offering a working system. Rather he was presenting a model for systemizing one’s thoughts and observations regarding past performances. Like Beyer, he was enthusiastic about beating the game and it was infectious.

[thaskalos]

Scott’s contribution to my enjoyment of handicapping thoroughbred races was second only to that of Steve Davidowitz. They both taught me how do think creatively about the data contained in the Racing Form.

I enjoyed reading his books and never assumed that he was offering a working system. Rather he was presenting a model for systemizing one’s thoughts and observations regarding past performances. Like Beyer, he was enthusiastic about beating the game and it was infectious.I enjoyed reading his books also, and I too thought that his enthusiasm was infectious.

But I also thought that his books should have been placed in the "fiction" category...where they belonged.

[Indulto]

I enjoyed reading his books also, and I too thought that his enthusiasm was infectious.

But I also thought that his books should have been placed in the "fiction" category...where they belonged.Just curious as to what your thoughts were regarding Huey Mahl?

[thaskalos]

Just curious as to what your thoughts were regarding Huey Mahl?A true gambling expert...and very underrated, IMO.

[Indulto]

A true gambling expert...and very underrated, IMO.I've never read anything negative about him. I was just trying to find out if you were a contrarian.;)

[JohnGalt1]

I think you need to revisit that section.

Case in point: two horses finish a nose apart for the win. So they have the same nominal final time. But let's say the winner was leading at the second call while the runner-up came from 10 lengths back at the second call. The winner's ability time would be the same as his final time while the place horse's ability time-- if my memory serves me correctly regarding closing fraction adjustments-- would be four "ticks" slower because he came from so far back.

BTW, that book is about 25 years old now. There are better ways of going about things, although I do still think that a few of his ideas have validity. Some of the form rules, particularly, I think are not very relevant anymore. His ability times also tend to overrate dirt horses that set or pressed a soft pace.


That's how I create my Hambleton pace figures--making the adjustments that punish closers.

[46zilzal]

Just curious as to what your thoughts were regarding Huey Mahl?
the essence of simplicity and genius...Succinct too

[JohnGalt1]

One of the tweaks I do, is not to always use the most recent pace line. I follow the advice of Michael Pizzolla to always use the most racent pace line, unless I SHOULDN'T.

Some reasons not to use the most recent are higher class, major trouble, off track, wrong distance, lay off, etc. I want one two or three reasons, depending upon importance and severity, to move down to an older line.

I then make my pace line from that race.

I ignore turf lines in dirt races, and dirt lines in turf races when making my PCR and TPR ratings.

I consider all turf races for making pace lines.

I do it all using pen and paper.

Total Victory is a a comprehensive method. But I don't win if I bet races where there is no stand out.

Wednesday I only made win bets in two races at Belmont. One winner. I made win bets in four races at Hoosier, three won. Some times I bet 2 horses to win. Some days I don't make a bet or bet one or two races like at Belmont. I lose when I relax MY standards. I have losing days when do make the bets I should make, but at least I had objective reasons for making the plays I made.

One thing I'd like to add, when I bet a trifecta or super, horses not as fast as my win horse but have high PCR's are good bets for underneath.

I would not have nearly the results I've had if I used Total Victory as a stand alone handicapping method, but it's a great base upon which to build a comprehensive method.

Every book, or handicapping article I read (or something on here I can use), if I find even one new idea I can suppliment to what I do is a plus.

[Actor]

I think you need to revisit that section.

Case in point: two horses finish a nose apart for the win. So they have the same nominal final time. But let's say the winner was leading at the second call while the runner-up came from 10 lengths back at the second call. The winner's ability time would be the same as his final time while the place horse's ability time-- if my memory serves me correctly regarding closing fraction adjustments-- would be four "ticks" slower because he came from so far back.
It's too bad Scott wasn't a better mathematician, a shortcoming he seems to share with most authors of handicapping literature. At first readings (plural) the formula for ability times (TVATT version) seems to be

a = [(tf - t2) + k1(min(Lf - L2,8))] + [k2(L2) + t2]

where k2 is the old one length = one second rule. k1 is from his table if a gain is involved, otherwise it's the same as k2. This works if the horse is not too far back at the second call. However, on re-reading the formula is

a = [(tf - t2) + k1(min(Lf,8) - min(L2,8))] + [k2(L2) + t2]

which makes a difference if a big gain is involved. If Scott could have simply written down this equation instead of writing a whole chapter he would have been more clear. As is, I'm still not certain that the above equation is what he intended.
BTW, that book is about 25 years old now. There are better ways of going about things, although I do still think that a few of his ideas have validity. Some of the form rules, particularly, I think are not very relevant anymore. His ability times also tend to overrate dirt horses that set or pressed a soft pace.
Most handicapping books are old. The more recent ones don't seem to contribute anything really new. Old or new, I believe most need to be treated as sources of ideas rather than dogma.

[ranchwest]

One of the tweaks I do, is not to always use the most recent pace line. I follow the advice of Michael Pizzolla to always use the most racent pace line, unless I SHOULDN'T.

Some reasons not to use the most recent are higher class, major trouble, off track, wrong distance, lay off, etc. I want one two or three reasons, depending upon importance and severity, to move down to an older line.

I then make my pace line from that race.

I ignore turf lines in dirt races, and dirt lines in turf races when making my PCR and TPR ratings.

I consider all turf races for making pace lines.

I do it all using pen and paper.

Total Victory is a a comprehensive method. But I don't win if I bet races where there is no stand out.

Wednesday I only made win bets in two races at Belmont. One winner. I made win bets in four races at Hoosier, three won. Some times I bet 2 horses to win. Some days I don't make a bet or bet one or two races like at Belmont. I lose when I relax MY standards. I have losing days when do make the bets I should make, but at least I had objective reasons for making the plays I made.

One thing I'd like to add, when I bet a trifecta or super, horses not as fast as my win horse but have high PCR's are good bets for underneath.

I would not have nearly the results I've had if I used Total Victory as a stand alone handicapping method, but it's a great base upon which to build a comprehensive method.

Every book, or handicapping article I read (or something on here I can use), if I find even one new idea I can suppliment to what I do is a plus.

Great post.

Scott may not make you a millionaire, but I found his books among the tops in providing me with useful concepts. From that viewpoint, I sure can't knock his books.

[Greyfox]

One thing I'd like to add, when I bet a trifecta or super, horses not as fast as my win horse but have high PCR's are good bets for underneath.

I would not have nearly the results I've had if I used Total Victory as a stand alone handicapping method, but it's a great base upon which to build a comprehensive method.

Every book, or handicapping article I read (or something on here I can use), if I find even one new idea I can suppliment to what I do is a plus.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
1. Scott's High PCR's are great bets underneath, not that they can't win depending on pace and race.

2. If you get one idea from a handicapping book that forwards your game, it is like a golfer straightening out a slice. The book pays for itself many times over. (Most railbirds and OTB players have never read a book and never will. They keep playing the game. Thank God.)

[Robert Goren]

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
1. Scott's High PCR's are great bets underneath, not that they can't win depending on pace and race.

2. If you get one idea from a handicapping book that forwards your game, it is like a golfer straightening out a slice. The book pays for itself many times over. (Most railbirds and OTB players have never read a book and never will. They keep playing the game. Thank God.)I don't about OTB players, but most railbirds have read a book on handicapping, but I will give you this they haven't read very many.

[RaceBookJoe]

I don't about OTB players, but most railbirds have read a book on handicapping, but I will give you this they haven't read very many.

Thats because they just read the book and not actually study the book. You can sometimes read a book 10 times before it "clicks", while others you can grasp immediately. Other times you read something that confirms something else you either read or observed and the book enlightens you. rbj

[bettheoverlay]

most railbirds have read a book on handicapping, but I will give you this they haven't read very many.

When you make one of these many proclamations, are you taking polls, or do you, like, just know all these things?

[Robert Goren]

When you make one of these many proclamations, are you taking polls, or do you, like, just know all these things?Mostly because I have been going to and betting horse races for over forty years. I have talked to a lot of horse players over the years. Some of the methods they use and where they got the ideas for them can be quite interesting. Of the people I have talk to probably a fifth or so have read Gordon Jones. He is maybe the mostly widely read author among race track/ simulcast regulars out there although he seldom gets mentioned here.

[fmolf]

Mostly because I have been going to and betting horse races for over forty years. I have talked to a lot of horse players over the years. Some of the methods they use and where they got the ideas for them can be quite interesting. Of the people I have talk to probably a fifth or so have read Gordon Jones. He is maybe the mostly widely read author among race track/ simulcast regulars out there although he seldom gets mentioned here.
I am 52 been going to belmont/aqueduct for 36 yrs I haveread all thepopular books...Jones is an author most of the older cappers have read.First two booksiread were Ainslies guide to t bred racing and leadbetter/ainslies bodylanguage tome.both excellent books.Scotts books i have read all 3 are excellent in my opinion with good solid ideas .....I do not use his systems but rather incorporate some of his ideas.In the same manner that i use some of Quirins ideas as well as Beyers as well as Quinns,Cramers,Davidowitz and not to mention Ragozin,Taulbot,Litfin,Free,amongst many others too numerous to mention.What fun would handicapping be if one did not develop ones own system!How profitable could it be if one did not adapt to the changing times by altering ones system ,adding what may work now and deleting what has stopped working!

[JohnGalt1]

Thats because they just read the book and not actually study the book. You can sometimes read a book 10 times before it "clicks", while others you can grasp immediately. Other times you read something that confirms something else you either read or observed and the book enlightens you. rbj


An example for me is when I first read Handicapping Magic by Michael Pizzolla about 5 years ago, he advises to use all pp's for turf races. I ignored it and continued to usually use the most recent grass race for a pace figure.

And had the same moderate results in turf races.

About a year ago I reread the book and decided to use the best race and also make pace figures for the second fastest race (to see that the fastest wasn't abnormally fast.)

So, you are correct, you can read something, dismiss it out of hand, then realize that maybe there might be a better way.

[Force of One]

I have only read "How Will Your Horse Run Today" but I can easily say it moved me forward substantially on my form handicapping. I would also say it one of the top 5 books that has improved my handicapping AND increased my winnings. Ironically, I almost never checked it out based off less that glowing reviews (I think it might have been a combo here and Amazon, not sure). I guess the moral is one man's trash could be another man's treasure.

[Greyfox]

I have only read "How Will Your Horse Run Today" but I can easily say it moved me forward substantially on my form handicapping. I would also say it one of the top 5 books that has improved my handicapping AND increased my winnings..

:ThmbUp:
For you ( and me) that book has paid for itself many times over.
As I said above, if an author can give you one new idea, a book on horse racing can change your life at the track. It's just that simple.
To argue against that, as many do on this board, borders on moronic.

[samyn on the green]

I have been creating Scott's PCR figures, ability times and form ratings for over 7 years. The Scott philosophy creates proprietary information that is very much against the grain.

More from POWERCAP (http://gregcalabrese.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-power-cap.html)
The primary edge of the Powercap is that you are creating your own information. This is proprietary information that nobody else has, unless they steal your ledger. Most of your adversaries in the parimutuel pools are relying on commercial speed figures, sheets or computer picks. Few have the time or will to produce something unique. With commercial speed figures similar information leads to common answers. The Powercap picks originate from a unique point of view, which means a Powercapper is trampling an unworn path, which leads to uncommon answers to the handicapping puzzle. Uncommon answers are the key to parimutuel success. I urge you to heed the words of Robert Frost (http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.html) and find your own road to success in this game.