A no-cost software method

[Shacopate]

A certain software program offers a free saturday analysis. I just got through going through tomorrows AQU card.

From the 6 prime factors I gave horses points as follows: 3 for 1st rank, 2 for 2nd rank and 1 for third.

From there, I added up the totals for each race and looked at the highest ranked contender at the longest odds.

The picks will be posted in the selections section under the post "NCSM."

Good luck.

[Shacopate]

Not that this means anything,

But the highest ranked contender with the biggest gap is

Co Co Heart

in the fifth at ML odds of 10-1.

Good luck.

[Shacopate]

Not a good day for Fast Fred Professional.

Nothing was close, highest rated performed no better than value plays.

Maybe next saturday will be better?

[paulc]

I'd certainly never recommend that anyone use the numbers that way... and since I wrote the program, I have some understanding of the methodology.

First, as the website notes, the software is not primarily designed to predict winners, it's designed to do a bunch of calculations that handicappers use... I certainly don't use all of them and doubt that others do either, but all of us have some favorite calculations we like to use as part of our handicapping process.

And we all vary the weightings of those calculations based on a number of factors not included in your list of factors. For instance, the horse mentioned in the 5th, Co Co Heart, was off for 226 days and trying to come back at a mile... not a promising scenario for most handicappers despite a pace and back class advantage.

Despite writing software used by handicappers, I would argue that software alone will never create a winner. But I'd also argue that calculating key stats and using them as an integral part of our process is both beneficial and even necessary... understanding when a pace advantage is significant and when it isn't, for instance.

As for Saturday, I'd also argue that the numbers clearly pointed to backing Lord Angus in the 2nd for an $11.70 payoff (after Hay Mr. Brass didn't draw in) and Double Lock in the 6th for a $7.20 payoff... still creates a slight profit on a $2 win bet per race. I'd further argue, though it's not as obvious, that Balto Star was the clear play to win in the 8th... in a race this long, form, class, and Performance Class far outweigh other numbers. That's another $11.80 payoff... and probably a decent day, not for Fast Fred, but for players who weigh their decisions heavily on numbers.

And for those believe in the importance of closing fractions in turf races, plus strong class ratings, adding Macaw and Cetawayo to Balto in exactas and trifectas would be a strong consideration if not an obvious play.

[headhawg]

I've been monitoring the Fast Fred "selections" for a few weeks as I was considering purchasing the software, mostly for the Scott PCR ratings. As PaulC suggested, doesn't appear to be a black box program. What program is?

However, I've noticed that a good portion of the winners are in the top three in at least two of the six summary categories.

If we use the black box inside our heads we might have made money.

Head Hawg

[Shacopate]

I didn't say it was a bad program.

I said it had a bad day.

I'm not sure if any program would have faired well against the11/22 AQU card.

[Shacopate]

Actually, I should have said the method in which I used the program had a bad day.

[Alc]

Recently purchased FFPro. Realize that its primary purpose is not for selections. However, last week at MNR it had a $30+ and a $40+ winner. With the $30 winner,it had the exacta cold for over $250.

[Shacopate]

PaulC,

I'd like to pick your brain a bit.

Since you wrote the program, I can think of no better person to explain the best way to use the program. I'm actually considering buying it. Cha-ching.

I used the one page print-out which gave the top three horses in each of the six categories. You made an excellent point about Co Co Heart, I didn't get saturdays form and would have tossed that selection If I has known about the layoff.

I chose the highest rated horse (using the above mentioned method) at the longest odds because I was looking for value.

The first winner that you stated the numbers "clearly pointed to" was Laird Angus, which was on top in PCR and Power number. The horse I posted (Dixie Bourbon) finished second and completed a 90.00 exacta. Dixie Bourbon was on top in avg pace, early pace and second for turn time.

I was wondering if you weight the factors or use them to create a handicapping picture?

[Shacopate]

ALC,

Great job!

You said "it had the winner".

How did you use the program to come up with your selections?

[Alc]

Shacopate Did have 1/2 of the $250 exacta but it was a real fluke.(long story). The real value of the software to me is that it provides calculations that I would never take the time and effort to develop. Have only used FFPro for about 3 weeks but have found that the summary report most often points to the real contenders and eventual winner. Al

[headhawg]

Originally posted by Alc
... The real value of the software to me is that it provides calculations that I would never take the time and effort to develop. Have only used FFPro for about 3 weeks but have found that the summary report most often points to the real contenders and eventual winner. Al

I was thinking buying FF Pro for the same reason. My only problem is that I use the $.50 TSN files and am thinking about going for the ProCaps unlimited plan. These files do not include track variants which Paul wrote FF uses to adjust the pace values that are generated. He mentioned that the program would work but no adjustments based on the variant would be made.

Just wondering if the file type makes a big difference. Any opinions?

Brian

[LOU M.]

Ordered the program yesterday. If you have a chance read the manual from the web sight www.kangagold.com it offers some insight into it's ideas. I particularly like the detail of the class rating, it's not based on time.As for Sat top 2 in class 4 wins for a profit of 4.30, Filter with top 2 turn time 2/3 for 15.30 profit. Have e-mailed Paul several times and he has always promptly responded even before I purchased. Lou.

[Shacopate]

Not trying to bust anyones chops here, just trying to understand the program since I'm thinking about buying it.

Paulc,

How did the numbers "clearly point" to the winners in your previous post?

Alc,

How did you use the program to get those $30 and $40 dollar winners at Mnr?

Thanks in advance.

Good luck.

[paulc]

Sorry about the time I took to answer - getting ready for Thanksgiving took a lot of time... but in order

<<< I was wondering if you weight the factors or use them to create a handicapping picture? >>>

The Power Number is a weighting of several of the factors. In my own handicapping, I use the numbers listed in the One-Pager and others calculated by the software to create a handicapping picture. Sound contradictory? It is!

When I first wrote the program some years ago, the purpose was to take advantage of the newly available downloadable PP's from ITS and others... and use them to calculate numbers I was already calculating as part of my own handicapping process. The program replaced hand-entering data into a spreadsheet. As such, the program was to help me and others develop the numbers end of the handicapping picture.

Inevitably, there were users who wanted the magic elixir... "just give me the winner, don't ask me to work at it." So, I ran a study using the program, checking it against results, then ran regression analysis to find a formula for creating a Power Number that people could use for quick-and-easy betting... it's for the $2 win bettor or the $12 exacta box bettor that wants action, not caring about a deeper understanding of the handicapping game.

Having said that, I still use the Power Number myself... whenever a horse has a higher Power Number, I make sure I don't overlook it in the rest of my analysis.

Why Laird Angus on the 22nd at Aqueduct (2nd race)? Some of it the numbers, some of it my personal handicapping principles. When I look at MSW races, a couple of pretty-close-to-absolutes for me are: (1) no more than 1 or 2 firsters in a large field - in this case, no firsters although Clever Cowboy basically was one... (2) never believe a horse can win unless you believe he can be reasonably close at the first two calls - this eliminated over half the field... and (3) never believe a low-priced horse can do something he's never done before, whether it's a distance change or a pace profile change or whatever - I was down to Machine Gun, Dixie Bourbon, Laird Angus, and Scags as horses who could be near the lead after 4 furlongs and threw out Bourbon and Scags based on the time off (Bourbon) and the wall hit (Scags). That left me asking if I believed in Machine Gun after he'd lost 8 lengths in stretch last out and was 3-1 morning line (went off at 2-1). I thought Laird at 9-2 was easily even money if he ran his race... and no worse than 3-1 when you factor in the probability that he would run his race.

So, obviously a lot of this transcends the numbers themselves, but so does a lot of handicapping.

On the issue of how I use the numbers overall (forgetting that race), I use them to do a couple of things... first, I try and determine those horses with no chance to win so I can focus my handicapping. Second, I look for factors that give a horse a clear advantage... a huge pace advantage, a performance class well over 100 and well above the others, the right running style along with enough class to compete, things like that.

Let's face it, there is no such thing as a mortal lock, no matter what the numbers say. So, no matter what the numbers say, it's only a start. More important, as we all know, the availability of numbers today has eliminated some of the advantages of the past. That said, I find Bill Scott's Performance Class, when combined with form cycle and condition factors, to be one of the most powerful numeric calculations available... and that's a major reason I included it in the software. It's nigh onto impossible to calculate manually... and a lot of data input to create it in a spreadsheet. More important, it's not available too many places, so I feel it's giving me a nice leg up.

[Alc]

Shacopate------Had the $30 horse not the $40. I liked the 10 horse in the 1st race and decided to bet the DD. Couldnt decipher the 2nd race so I keyed the 10 in the first race with the 3 top picks from FFPro. For the heck of it I Boxed the 3 horses in the 2nd race. Of course the 10 in the first race ran 2nd but the 2 top FFPro picks ran 1-2 and the exacta paid $256. Pure good fortune using a bet I very rarely make. I have continued to use FFPro(primarily the summary report) and find that it does a really good job of identifying contenders. The winner normally appears prominently in the summary categories. Al

[Shacopate]

Thanks Alc,

It's a good program. I was only using the one pager and missed the fact that it incorporates some pretty good numbers such as
the Sartin Methodology, trainer moves and turn time form.

Good luck.

[Shacopate]

PaulC,

I completely missed your post because I clicked on page two. (some time had passed).

Thanks for your reply.

I think you've created an exceptional tool for the modern handicapper.

After learning more about the program, I agree with your first post. When I'm wrong, I admit it.


Good luck.

[jackad]

Any response to Brian's question above, about the effect of using the TN Procaps files with the FFPro program?

Jack

[paulc]

Re. the ProCaps files...

Brian sent me the file structure for the ProCaps... and without a line-by-line comparison, the structure appears the same as the TSN files, at least for the data FFPro uses.

FFPro supports that file structure, but the program is looking for a .ZIP file with naming like TRKmmddI.ZIP. I don't believe ProCaps follows that naming convention. If someone wants to send me an actual ProCaps file (exactly as you download it), I'd be happy to run a test... and perhaps it is an easy update to add the ProCaps format. Email is paulc@kangagold.com.

In any case, neither the TSN $.50 files nor the ProCaps files include a variant fig for the PP's. I'm sure many people are not concerned by that - I am only noting that the program adjusts for the variant if it is included, as some of the other data sources do.

[paulc]

Chuck S sent me a ProCaps file (thanks, Chuck!) and it is compatible and on the surface appears to work just like the $.50 files. However, some manipulation is necessary prior to using them:

1. Unzip the ProCaps file using WinZip.
2. Rename the resulting file from the .PCS extension to the standard TSN extension of .EG.
3. Rezip the .EG file (using WinZip) to a file with the same track name and date, but adding an "I" to the name and with the extension .ZIP. You create a file TRKmmddI.ZIP.

FFPro will then use this pseudo-EG file in its processing. It looks for the TRKmmddI.ZIP file in your designated TSN directory.

Be sure to keep your original ProCaps ZIP file intact for use with ProCaps.

I would assume that similar unzip/rename/zip steps would work with the Thoronet and Pace Selector files, but do not know for sure.

I may automate the 3 steps above in future releases, but would want to do a lot more testing before I was comfortable. In the meantime, do your own "due diligence" on the shortcut above. Specifically, I HAVE NOT compared the results obtained from an EG file with those obtained from the PCS file.

Typically, the data vendors (Bris does a lot of this too) do not change the basic data when they create these surcharged files, but they may add some fields.

[headhawg]

Originally posted by paulc
Re. the ProCaps files...

...In any case, neither the TSN $.50 files nor the ProCaps files include a variant fig for the PP's. I'm sure many people are not concerned by that - I am only noting that the program adjusts for the variant if it is included, as some of the other data sources do.

I should have been a little more specific about my question to users of FF Pro out there. Without starting a whole new thread about track variants -- specifically the DRF version -- does FF perform better when it makes the variant adjustment? If not, then the datafile problem is moot.

The program does a lot of other things I like, so this variant question is not really a deal breaker. I am just curious.

Brian