Mark Cramer's Short Form Software

[Secretariat]

Anyone tried Mark Cramer's Short Form Software?

[lsosa54]

Didn't know Mark Cramer had ever developed any software for any of his concepts. I'm hoping it's not an RPM production.

Edit: Well, I did a quick search and as I surmised, it's a Len Cz and RPM production. The marketing copy appears to be written by Mark Cramer but you never see his actual name or signature on it. I'm sure it includes his class drop/jockey switch play, etc.

I won't post the link since I'm not sure about PA's policy on that but just Google the thread title and it will come up as the 4th link on the page.

[duckhunter3]

In response to Isosa 54, here are some facts.

Mark Cramer is definitely involved in the design of this software and is glad it finally happened. He is the original reason it happened, but he needed computer programming assistance and marketing assistance.

Mark Cramer has been trying for sometime to computerize his very clever Short Form Analysis of races (a starting point but a great one). He wanted to eliminate the drudgery of manually using the Short Fortm concepts.

I don't know how many here were subscribers to his newsletter, but this Short Form analysis of races has been the subject of many of his newsletters. Last year, I worked closely with Mark trying to identify and crystallize the important elements of the Short Form analysis. Some things were just automatic and intuitive to his very imaginative and skilled approach to racing. We communicated almost every day for a few months. And he seemed grateful that someone questioned the reasons.

Mark has told me he was intimately involved in the structure and criteria for the software and I am sure he tweaked and tweaked it to be sure it was the best it could be. He is extremely protective of his reputation. I consider him to be one of the icons of handicapping. I have read virtually everything he has written and am so glad I did.

I have used the Short Form analysis for quite some time and it has proved to be a very effective and easy way to pick contenders, before any other analysis is done.

To conclude, I am trying to wipe away the idea that this is something he really didn't care about or didn't have control over. That is wrong. This is Mark's creation, but refined by a computer programmer and further and additional research.

duckhunter3

[duckhunter3]

Correction. The extensive dialogue with Mark about the Short Form was in 2010, not 2009.
duckhunter2

[duckhunter3]

To further clarify, it is my understanding Mark supplied the programmer with the basic concepts of the Short Form analysis, and I am sure the results of his own research. the programmer did additional work to refine some of these concepts to produce more profitable outcomes.

Mark is the creator of the Short Form criteria. The programmer designed software to use those criteria and refined some of them.

RPM is the marketer (and may have also been involved in additional database research.

duckhunter3

[lsosa54]

Thanks for the explanation and information. It sounds very legitimate then. I too have read all of Mark's books and have enjoyed his material. I also, however, will not purchase anything from RPM based on past experience and have no faith in any of their claims for any software.

When Dave Powers was putting out his power numbers for SoCal racing back in the early 90's, I was a satisfied customer. Once the nature of RPM changed, not so much.

It's a democracy and Dave is entitled to market anything he wants to. I wish Mark well with his endeavor.

[mabred]

Got the latest dec thoroughbred investor monthly from RPM says

mark will only sell 500 copies of his software and preorders

get 100.00 off so its 197.00. I passed on it.Maybe someone

here will review it.

Mabred

[lsosa54]

Typical marketing nonsense

[trying2win]

I was reading the promotion for this Mark Cramer software at the RPM website. I'm getting the impression that this software is a computerized form of some of the type of angles that Mark puts forth in his C & X Report, but I could be wrong.

T2W

[bobbyt62]

...."the programmer did additional work to refine some of these concepts to produce more profitable outcomes"........that makes it a collaboration, first of all. second, most of cramers' things are the EXACT opposite of refined, in the sense of rules/conditions. lastly, refining to produce more profitable outcomes, when it comes to cramer, is unnecessary data mining.

[shoelessjoe]

Hope it's better then the software he put out years ago with Bill Olmstead

[Longshot]

I got to look at the program this weekend. The following is taken directly from the user manual.

"An important note here! The key to this program is to find the best horse in fields where there are not a lot of great horses. Which means that "Short Form" will give you more plays with "Lesser" tracks such as Charles Town or Penn National. Since there are a lot of quality horses at tracks such as Keeneland, it is possible to go through a whole card without a play. So just letting you know, the "Cheaper" the track, as a whole the more plays you will get."

A check of the weekend cards at Aqueduct, Fair Grounds and Tampa Bay found no plays.

My first conclusion is if you mostly play lesser tracks this program might help but if most of your plays are at major tracks this program is not what you need.

[duckhunter3]

Longshot, I disagree. I own this software, and played Aqueduct and FG on Sunday, 12-19. There were 3 plays from the Cramer software at AQ- races, 1,2, &8. There were also 3 plays from the software at FG- races 2, 8, and 10.

For many years I have used the Cramer approach to identifying contenders because it is very effective. One of the big time savers here is this program instantly identifies those types of horses.

Likewise, I am not interested in races where I have more than 3 (possibly 4) real contenders, even in a full field.

duckhunter3

[duckhunter3]

So there were a total of 6 recommended plays at AQU and FG combined. The software had the winner in 5 of those races. At AQU, the software winners paid $23.60, $3.10, and $6.30.

At FG the two winners paid $4.60 and $12.

So, along with some chalk, you had a 5 to 1 winner and a 10.5 to 1 winner.
duckhunter3

[duckhunter3]

I should also mention I didn't check the cards for Friday or Saturday, because I didn't play those days.

Finally, AQU 8 was a stakes race, and the software had the winner.

duckhunter3

[duckhunter3]

Finally, I should mention that the software selections hit the exactas in AQU 1and 2, and had the trifecta cold in AQU 8.
duckhunter3

[mistergee]

Hope it's better then the software he put out years ago with Bill Olmstead
do you know if Olmstead is doing any public work and longer

[cloud9]

Longshot, I disagree. I own this software, and played Aqueduct and FG on Sunday, 12-19. There were 3 plays from the Cramer software at AQ- races, 1,2, &8. There were also 3 plays from the software at FG- races 2, 8, and 10.

For many years I have used the Cramer approach to identifying contenders because it is very effective. One of the big time savers here is this program instantly identifies those types of horses.

Likewise, I am not interested in races where I have more than 3 (possibly 4) real contenders, even in a full field.

duckhunter3Were those results the programs top picks or did you use some handicapping with it ?

[duckhunter3]

Those results were the picks of the program. HOWEVER, I am such an A+ personality that I have NEVER been able to surrender my total judgment to ANYTHING. So yes, I looked at those horses carefully, and agreed they were legitimate contenders.

Two more points. If this software keeps agreeing with me on contenders, I MAY be able to stop nit picking and worrying about small things (like is a 45 day layoff too long, etc.).

And the MOST IMPORTANT THING for me is I already trust it enough to just go quickly through a card and look at the races where the program says there are plays. That saves me a ton of time. I usually only find 2 or 3 races per track anyway, even though I used to look at all of them (at least for a few minutes).

Time saved is important to me.
duck

[cloud9]

Thanks Duckhunter3. I may look in to this software.

[raybo]

Those results were the picks of the program. HOWEVER, I am such an A+ personality that I have NEVER been able to surrender my total judgment to ANYTHING. So yes, I looked at those horses carefully, and agreed they were legitimate contenders.

Two more points. If this software keeps agreeing with me on contenders, I MAY be able to stop nit picking and worrying about small things (like is a 45 day layoff too long, etc.).

And the MOST IMPORTANT THING for me is I already trust it enough to just go quickly through a card and look at the races where the program says there are plays. That saves me a ton of time. I usually only find 2 or 3 races per track anyway, even though I used to look at all of them (at least for a few minutes).

Time saved is important to me.
duck

If verifying what a piece of software is telling you, is an indication of personality type, then I guess I have an A+ personality also.

I became so confident in my spreadsheet outputs, back when I was playing full time, that I stopped doing my "due diligence" and that mistake cost me the opportunity to make several thousands more than I did.

Although I have done some "black boxing" from time to time, I find that my results are much better when I verify that the program has made logical decisions.