Question For Handicapping Magic Users [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

levinmpa

11-26-2003, 09:48 AM

I've been reading Pizzolla's Handicapping Magic and am finding it quite interesting. I've read many posts regarding this book, both positive and negative. It seems that people either love the guy or dispise him. Not much middle ground for whatever reason.

I know he has 2 different programs out that are companions to the book. The lesser priced Handicapping Magician, and the more expensive Master Magician. If anyone uses these programs on a regular basis, can you relate how well they perform the functions outlined in the book.

Calculating the Fulcrum Pace:

Creating the PBS figs:

Using the Form Cycle Windows:

Calculating the PPF figs:

I'm only about half way through the book, but I can see that even with experience, this process will be quite time consuming when done manually. I certainly wouldn't want to go through this process for multiple tracks. I'm just interested in knowing how well these programs actually perform the functions as compared to doing them manually. I'm not interested in how many winners it picks, only how well it finds the correct Fulcrum Pace horse, and how well it elimates horses that can't compete with the Fulcrum. Obviously there is no substitute for using your own brainpower and your own judgement when certain situations arise, but if the software is accurate performing the actual calculations, it would be a major timesaver.

Does anyone know of any other software that can find the Fulcrum Pace horse and eliminate noncontenders based on the Fulcrum Pace?

Thanks for any insight you can provide.

NormanTD

11-26-2003, 02:46 PM

Both software versions do an excellent job of crunching the numbers. The Master Magician is also a much "slicker" and more automatic program and is probably worth the price IF you want to follow and practice the HM methodology. It does everything mentioned in your message and does it very well. But, it's not a black box to bet the top numbers blindly as the betting decisions are still left up to the user and it's too expensive a program to use as the software de jour.

I would recommend that you spend some time actually calculating the numbers by hand as well as practicing the pace line selection method(s) recommended in the book. And if you're serious, then spend considerable time doing this and then play for real money. (Real money meaning a real bet not real big money :) ) . This more than anything else you could do will help you develop a feel for what exactly the numbers will do (and won't do). Then make your decision on whether to spring for the software.

headhawg

11-26-2003, 06:50 PM

I bought in to the concepts in Handicapping Magic and went whole hog and bought The Master Magician program and tapes for $500. It is a well done program and the tapes by Pizzolla are equally as good.

However, the program uses ITS files ($1.50 per) and the other software I use will take the $.50 TSN files, so I don't use TMM anymore. Two other problems: 1) To use the program effectively is to play the exotics which means a fairly hefty bankroll to get the coverage needed, and 2) You got to have the "cahones" (sp?) to play some of the picks.

As a recreational player I am more of a win/place bettor with a bankroll not significant enough to play in the recommended style. But if you can endure long runouts and look for value (as you should), you might do well with it.

To sum it up is to paraphrase Pizzolla from one of the tapes: "...And that Trifecta paid $55.00. Heck, I'm looking for horses that pay $55.00!"

I am probably going to auction my copy on Ebay soon, so you might watch for it.

HH

Zaf

11-26-2003, 10:01 PM

I only have the Handicapping Magician. There is a lot of input on the part of the user. Maybe this is a good thing, but it can take a long time to handicap one card with this program. The new one is probably more automatic and will save time doing the runt work. I had fair success using this methodology and made a few big scores. I no longer use it. It is not that I dislike it, I have just found other things that I prefer.

ZAFONIC

Blackgold

11-26-2003, 10:28 PM

I am very satisfied with Handicapping Magic.

I've been following the horses since '86.

Progressed thru pace methods. . .trainer ideas (Cramer/Olmsted). . and have read literally every book in print even the "Racing Maxims of Pittsburg Phil."

The very best thing about Handicapping Magic is it's simplicity.

This March will be the 2nd year I've been using it and downloading data from ITS.

In the beginning I did the typical "Americay Way". . .i.e., shove the software in the computer and start boxing off the top numbers. Surprisingly that was very successful at times.

This past June I stopped playing and reviewed all the tapes, mannuals and videos again. And this past July I put it all together and have been winning consistently.

I am more than a recreational player as I download 4-5 tracks daily and bet from $150-$200 per race and often find at least a couple a day to bet.

I've average a "signer" a week, including some terrific scores like a $700 quinella or a $72 mental health bet that returned $1900 and another $48 mental health bet that returned over $900 (a mental health bet is where the program shows some incredible overlays and you hate to pass and hate to make those $50 win bets, so you box them, at least that's the way I do it). And I had that longshot Pizzolla talks about in his latest seminar. A $40 winner that keyed a nice exacta, tri and super. Poor animal was shipping from TUP to DMR. . . the class boys totally ignored it.

I'd never before hit a superfecta before using this program, now I hit them all the time.

One of the things holding me back the first year and a half I had the program was I would try and take the Handicapping Magic numbers and hold them up to other habits I'd developed over the years. I don't rely so much on class, Beyers, trainers, etc. as I used to.

The key I've found is recognizing those overlays and then structering a wager around them so if the overlay comes in the 1-4 position, I can cash. And the fulcrum plays an important part in the structering of the wager.

Again, the most incredible thing about this program is it's simpilicity. . . just too simple for most folks. . . you have to ignore a lot of the stuff you learned before.

shanta

11-27-2003, 07:39 AM

A MAN I KNOW WENT TO A PIZZOLA SEMINAR COUPLE OF YEARS BACK AND SAT WITH MICHAEL FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS. HE SAID THAT HE DID ALL OF HIS WORK ON THE HANDICAPPERS DAILY PRINTOUTS HE HAD(THE FORM)BEFORE HE EVEN WENT INTO THE PROGRAM. LOOKING AT FORM CYCLES,HOW FAR TO OPEN THE "WINDOW" FOR LINES,"PRESSURE" IN THE RACE, ETC. SO THE ABOVE POST ABOUT STARTING OUT DOING THINGS BY HAND MAKES GOOD SENSE. RICHIE

LARRY GEORGE

11-28-2003, 08:39 PM

I USE THE MASTER MAGICIAN ON A REGULAR BASIS I'M JUST A WIN BETTER ONLY VERY SELDOM PLAY EXOTICS I JUST WAIT FOR THE RIGHT TIMES AND ODDS WHEN I SEE A BIG GAPS ON THE HORSES I'VE HAD PLENTY OF LONGSHOTS YOU JUST HAVE TO WAIT

cato

11-29-2003, 08:23 AM

Blackgold and Larry George: That's great news. Congratulations to both of you. It would eb more helpful if you would give us a better idea of how you use the program and/or some examples of recent scores.

Take care, Cato

Blackgold

11-29-2003, 08:56 AM

Here is a recent example from Sam Houston Race 8 on 11/13.

The 6,4,8 had gapped PPFs and were the Value Tech overlays.

The 8 was the Fulcrum.

I liked the 6 best because his number was the most recent, 3rd race back, and the previous 2 races had been taken off the turf, still the horse closed well for 2nd and 3rd in each of those races.

I invested a total of $240 in the race and netted $1,718.10.

I made the following wagers;

$50 win 6. (returned $260)

$20 Quinella 6 WITH 1,2,4,8 (returned $254)

$2 Tri 6 WITH 1,2,4,8 WITH 1,2,4,8 (returned $113.2)

$2 Tri 1,2,4,8 WITH 1,2,4,8 WITH 6

$1 Super 6 WITH 8 WITH 1,2,4 WITH ALL (returned $748.5)

$1 Super 6 WITH 1,2,4 WITH 8 WITH ALL (returned $582.40)

$1 Super 6 WITH 1,2,4 WITH ALL WITH 8

$1 Super 1,2,4 WITH 8 WITH ALL WITH 6

I got paid on the Super twice because the 4 AND 8 DH for place and I had the Quinella both ways, but didn't pay that much considering how much I invested in it.

Positioning the Fulcrum horse in 2nd, 3rd & 4th is key to my hitting the Supers when I have a solid key on top.

cato

11-29-2003, 11:22 AM

Thanks for the example. Keying the fulcrum makes a lot of sense.

Why did you ignore the 7, which was rated tied for 3rd PPF at 2? If that race was too old (the one that got the #7 a 2 PPF) then the race that got the 8 a 2PPF was also too old and then you have 2 other horses tied with the 8 at 0PPF?

Answering my own question, I assume you favored the 8 because it was the fulcrum, but not becasue it was gapped?

What do you do with MPs suggestion to use turf lines on dirt races? Do you use MPs default settings?

I've found the VTR rating sto be virtually worthless on W/P betting but have not yet run any #s on their use for exotics. I take it, based on the example, that you use them as a factor in betting exotics...if so, how do you use tem without getting on too many races?

Thanks in advance for your input on this stuff

Cato

Amazin

11-29-2003, 12:55 PM

Blackgold:

Your example gives credit to your betting technique rather than HM. I too key a $ horse in the 1,2,3, and 4 hole.But I don't use HM. And I have good scores too.But I wouldn't credit my method in that case as much as my betting strategy.

I would be more interested to hear HM's theory on selecting contenders rather than betting techniques(in this topic) unless that's part of HM's system

cato

11-29-2003, 06:17 PM

Amazin--

Betting is a great deal of any system. I think that's what makes the difference between a winning and a losing player.

It's very importanat to HM as espoused by its creator, Mr. Pizzzzzzooooooooolllllaa

What Blackgold was able to do in his example and apparently is able to do on a regular basis is pretty much use HM like Mike Pizzolla uses it..and I have not run into many people who are able to do that so I am very interested in what Blackgold has to say..but we can also talk about contenders.

Keep it up Blackgold!

Cheers, Cato

Blackgold

11-29-2003, 09:47 PM

I too keyed longshots in 1,2 & 3 positions and had good results over the years.

But what the Fulcrum brought to the picture was a another key. The Fulcrum often runs 2nd, sometimes wins, and often makes 3rd or 4th.

So even when pressing the ALL button in one position with a longie keyed and the Fulcrum positioned under, you can still get lots of logical, overlayed coverage for a little money. . . especially in the Super.

Here was a nice little hit tonight. Sam Houston Race 2.

Value Tech pointed to the 4 in Two Excuse mode and the 3,7 in LSST.

I boxed those with the Fav. . . a simple $2 exacta box, $1 Tri box and $1 Super box. Got the Ex for $146 and the Tri for $218.8 on a total investment of $72.

Handicapping Magic uncovers many, many longshots quickly and easily. Often you can structure a bet to take advantage of it.

But sometimes you can't. Like today. the 7th at HOL. The winner was one of the 3 Value Tech horses and won at $18. But I would have never figured the 2nd and 3rd horse. And I think that is why I passed the race, because I wan't going to bet 3 horses to win and couldn't clearly see an exotic opportunity.

However, did bet the 8th at HOL and he finished 3rd, was using the turf paceline off the last race. Mandella charge, turf to dirt, 1st blinks. (BTW the 1/4 was 22change, 1/2 46change, 6f 1:10change, Mile 135change and the race was still one by one of the pacesetters. They running on glass out there or what?)

In answer to a question, I have found the turf paceline, when used in dirt races, the most useful when it's from one of the top races. It pointed to that (Buddy?) Gill horse that won at Santa Anita this past spring.

I think this past spring there was a discussion about HM on this board and I reflected on my Win bet on Funnycide and many posters lambasted and said that "all the pace programs gave Funnycide a top number." Yeah, but how many of ya bet him.

kingfin66

11-30-2003, 12:34 AM

I spent three days at the Quantum Leap Seminar wishing I had TMM. I do have the companion software which helps with crunching the numbers only. The handicapper still has to make numerous calls whether using the LLAST or two excuse Form Cycle Window. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it helps you understand the process better.

Whichever program you use, MP stresses that it is not the information you get from the program, but what you do with it. Blackgold gave an excellent example of this.

MP also presented some other topics at the seminar that do not appear in the book or software (Reversal Protocal for example). There is also the fact that sometimes you will play a horse with lesser numbers because its running style is better suited for the race at hand.

If you (levinmpa) practice hand crunching the numbers for awhile and like the whole Pizzolla methodology, then I strongly recommend the deluxe package. Incidentally, for those who may be interested in making a purchase of the Handicapping Magic products, there is a big sale at Handicappersdaily.com.

levinmpa

11-30-2003, 08:00 AM

I appreciate all the feedback. Much more positive than I was expecting. I really think the Fulcrum Pace theory is well thought out and should be very useful. I'm looking forward to finishing the book and slowly putting everything into practice. If anyone else has any thoughts on the subject, I'd be interested in hearing them. Thanks again.

Blackgold

11-30-2003, 07:14 PM

You are likely to make back your investment in the software very quickly.

When I got my first package in spring of '01, I hit the long shot winner, quinella and tri at the San Juan Capistrano race in CA, got 3 times my investment in the software long before I got my credit card bill.

And today was quite satisfying.

I put a little more than $600 thru the windows today and netted $4,300, the biggest single score being the 6th at FG where the $1 super paid $3,293.40 with the FAV on top. . also got the tri for $748.8 while the exacta paid only $64.40. . . all from a $72 investment for boxing the 4 gapped horses, with 3 of them being Value Tech overlays.

Read the book, get the complete package on the website, listen to the tapes and watch the videos, then go to the office supply store and get a file folder to hold the incoming W2-Gs.

Niko

11-30-2003, 07:38 PM

I read the book but don't remember gapped PPF's. How much of a difference would qualify as a gap?

cato

11-30-2003, 08:47 PM

Blackgold. COngrats on yout hit! what a nice score.

Questions for you. What did you do about the #1 horse, which was the 4th rated PPF horse. #10, who showed was rated 5th by PPF. Plus I don't really see any gaps unless you treat the drop form -1 to -3 as a gap

Horse # PPF #
5 3
9 0
6 0
1 0
10 -1
7 -3

The result was 5-6-10-9 and a decent payoff on the tri and great payoff on the super

Since it was a 6 f neutral race, why did you sort/bet by PPF? Do you use PPF as your primary sort on all races? (I've talked to several folks who do)

Take care,

Cato

kingfin66

12-01-2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by cato

Since it was a 6 f neutral race, why did you sort/bet by PPF? Do you use PPF as your primary sort on all races? (I've talked to several folks who do)

Cato,

I prefer to use PPF as my sort when there are shippers from multiple tracks. I didn't handicap this race, but since FG is in its first weekend of the meet, it is likely that there are shippers from all over the place. MP even mentioned that at the seminar we both attended. He liked using the PPF in this type of situation because it compares apples to apples. Or, in his words, "It is what is."

Mike

kingfin66

12-01-2003, 12:49 AM

Blackgold,

Would you mind showing how you structured your betting for this race. One thing I still struggle with is how to structure exotics bets using the HM methodology. Thanks in advance if you're able to do this.

Mike

Blackgold

12-01-2003, 08:47 AM

Since the horses numbers were from multiple tracks, the more reliable rating to use is the PPF. So you sort by PPF, then go to race prefs and change the odds caculation to 100%ppf.

When you look at the race that way, the 6,5,10,9 were all gapped horses. The 1 was in there with 0 PPF, matching the Fulcrum, but since the number was from last March and not from recent races, I tossed him.

As for gaps, the -3 was the next best rating and as I understand, 3 pts on PPF is a much bigger difference than 3 points on the PBS.

Pizzolla says to look for gapped horses, or a group whose numbers seperate them from others.

As for the betting structure on this race, it was simple. . .$2 exacta box, $1 tri box, $1 super box- 5,6,9,10. Total invested-$72.

I should have bet the 10 to win, whose odds were 32-to-1 and finished 3rd. Pizzolla says when you get a horse with a top number and his odds are above random (there were only 10 horses in the race), that it's an automatic win bet.

Another interesting tidbit I got from the HM video tapes was, Pizzolla says using their extensive database they did a study and found if one simply bet every race at random the ROI would be minus 20%. . . and what is that number equal to? The track take.

I have my best results when I don't try and be so smart but simply take the overlays given and jump in if there aren't so many unknows to make the wager(s) far too many to make it profitable. I've found the more conbinations I'm considering means the less I understand the race and that is a signal to pass.

BTW, in the 10th at FG, keyed the FAV, the 11 with the FULCRUM, the 2 with the 1,3,9 the Value Tech selections. Exacta was only $19.40, Tri just $113 but Super was nice at $620. FULCRUM ran 2nd at 10-1 and the 1 ran 3rd at 47-to-one.

JimG

12-01-2003, 03:55 PM

Blackgold,

Interesting feedback regarding the Pizzola program. Out of curiosity, were you a winning player prior to using it? From the construction of your bets, I would guess you were. While the software may help, folks with poor betting habits will have poor betting habits.

It has been enjoyable reading about your success.

JimG

Niko

12-01-2003, 05:45 PM

Enjoyed seeing how you put your bets together blackgold>I believe it's one of the biggest differences between a big winner and an average winner.
I just started using ITS PP's recently at the end of the summer. I'm on a little break during the holidays but wonder if you or anyone else knows the following.
Do ITS speed or true pace ratings work better as a final figure for ROI and win percentage?
For the big races their speed ratings didn't do well for me but using PPF did.
Would you suggest using the speed OR true pace rating in conjunction with PPF?
Does it matter?

Blackgold

12-01-2003, 10:54 PM

I developed some of my betting techniques from my first stab at waiting for longshots and then going in all positions. . .I actually took what Cramer called the exacta as place bet and trifecta as show bet.

But now with the Fulcrum horse, you can often have a longshot and the Fulcrum in the tri and super and by being able to single in two positions, you can get some coverage in the others.

No I was not a winning player before understanding this program. I had some great scores, but found the wait between doping out longshots. . . sometimes only one a week. . .well the I compensated for the wait by forcing action and, well there was no compesnation there at all.

I have found the PPF to be a deadly accurate number. I rarely bet the 5-6f races where the PBS is the perferred method.

The PPF really gives you some non-public insight into a race, especially when several horses are coming from a different track, going from R-S or S-R or 1st time R.

But again, I must emphasize my biggest misses come from my trying to be too smart. Tonite was a perfect example. . . the 9th at MNR. It was 6f clm20K and set up as a Heavy Pressure race. The initial Fulcrum, the 7 was scratched and the now Fulcrum the 8 was 10-1 ML. The 9 & 10 were gapped PPF and the Value Tech selections. The 9 had the wrong running style for a Heavy Pressure race, but I used the 9 figuring to hang around for a piece. Used the 3 who was a closer with the Value Tech numbers 9,10 and the Fulcrum, the 8. I decided to throw out two other closers, the 6, who had the right running style but didn't look competitive from it's top couple races. And I threw out the 4 because it seemed would have trouble meeting the Fulcrum, as even the software pointed to that.

Well the 4 won and paid $43. With the other closer, the 10 coming 2nd, the exacta paid $378 and the tri paid several thousand with the Fulcrum finishing 3rd. A five horse box insted of a 4 horse box wouldn't have cost more than a hand of blackjack, but alas I was going to be smart and throw the 4 out.

Nevertheless, I still learned something from this race and something MP said on the HM tapes was. . . in Heavy Pressure races box the cloers, not matter what their numbers are. . .

What I am learning more than anything is which races to get involved with. I was involved in the right race tonight, just made a wrong decision. Ah, but they play the national anthem everyday somewhere and that signals new opportunities.

BTW, I invested some of this weekends proceeds into that Sprint Hitachi phone with the pocket PC.. . . I expect to have the web page www.racingchannel.com tabbed as a favorite and hope to be able to further my endeavors on the fly.

cato

12-01-2003, 11:08 PM

Blackgold: A few more questions and then I'll stop harassing you in this thread (probably)--

How many tracks do you look at in a day? While MP talk about doing 5-6-7-8, I don't see how you can do the type of analysis you are doing and looking at the individual pace lines and do that many races...but I could be wrong.

Please discuss how you determine to get in or stay out of a race. By betting $75--250 a race that can add up quickly if you miss more than a few in a row.

You've discussed a couple of Heavy Presure races, what importance do you place on the other categories, Lone Early, Neutral, Speed of Speed and Pressured?

Do you find the numbers work any better or worse at any particular track?

Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

Take care,
Cato

Zaf

12-01-2003, 11:13 PM

Does the Master Magician automatically select the fulcrum horse ?

ZAFONIC

Blackgold

12-02-2003, 07:52 AM

Mon. & Tuesday look mostly at MNR. . .Wed., thru Sun. I look at all the majors and 2nd tier. . .AQU, CD, FG, TP, HOL, LRL, HAW. I do avoid Calder, just never found much there.

After I reviewed the tapes, seminar materials, etc. in July and finally put everything together in late July with the opening of DMR, and until now. . . I've hit races (with longshots) with the following frequency
MNR- 14
LAD-5
SA-6
DMR-3
HOU-2
MON-2
BEL-2
and one race at LRL, HAW, DEL, MED, KEE and RET

I look at a lot of tracks and will probably add that one in New Mexico where they got slots now, read where Assmussen will be shipping in.

The beauty of HM is it let's you quickly find a couple of races to consider getting involved in and those races have horses going at long odds. . .better yet, above random.

I'm best at Pressured or Heavy Pressured races under 6f and any race longer than that where the PPF is used.

About half of the scores have come on the turf, again a PPF used. But I have no clue of what to do in turf sprints except to avoid them as a way of building my bankroll.

As MP says in his book, the PPF is the handicappers secret weapon.

More importantly than Speed of Speed, Heavy Presser, etc. . . I find some of the biggest opportunities come in non winners of 2 lifetime, especially claiming. You often have horses coming from different tracks and some going a route for the first time. The PPF gives you a view of the race the public doesn't have and that is how we capitalize on their mistakes.

Yes the program automatically caculates the fulcrum and all other caculations

Yes, losses can add up quickly. . .$500 down Thanksgiving Day, down $200 Fri and another $400 on Sat. . . ah, but the tote has no memory and Sun. was breakout day and then some.

Reviewing my big losses, not surprising it is the races where I bet the most. . . when I tried to pick which of 2 or more longshots to key and tried for moster payoffs like $20 exactas, etc.

But again, going back to MP teachings let the bet make you and the odds lead the way. . . if horse is going off above random and figures, that's the win bet. . . if several Value Tech horses, box them with everything with a pulse, however in my own experience I've found if I box, say, the 1,2,3 Value Tech horses with the 4, then 5, then 6, then only one of the Value numbers come in with the 4,5, or 6. . . again, when I see too many combinations it's a sign I don't get the race and too pass.

In fact, after those several losing days, I reviewed my hits and misses Sat. nite and came into Sun. more focused and quit trying to be so smart and simply stepped up to the window when the public was giving me an edge and bet that way instead of trying to figure out who the winner was going to be.

I can't wait to get the latest updates (tapes, manual, etc) from MP and company from their latest seminar. . . be very happy to hand them another $500 and will continue downloading ITS data with a tab going well over $100 every month.

It's sorta like Peter Lynch the great Mutual Fund guru once said. . . you spend more time looking for a good stocks than buying them.

JustMissed

12-02-2003, 11:01 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blackgold
[B]Mon. & Tuesday look mostly at MNR. . .Wed., thru Sun. I look at all the majors and 2nd tier. . .AQU, CD, FG, TP, HOL, LRL, HAW. I do avoid Calder, just never found much there.

After I reviewed the tapes, seminar materials, etc. in July and finally put everything together in late July with the opening of DMR, and until now. . . I've hit races (with longshots) with the following frequency
MNR- 14
LAD-5
SA-6
DMR-3
HOU-2
MON-2
BEL-2
and one race at LRL, HAW, DEL, MED, KEE and RET
[END QUOTE]

Blackgold, how does this figure. You have been looking at Mountaineer two days a week for 17 weeks. That's 20 races per week for a total of 340 races and you hit 14. A 4% strike rate seems a little low to me and I don't care what odds you hit.

The largest tri at the Mountain last night came in the 9th paying $3,798.00. If you would care to paste your printout for that race I would love to see how your software analyzed it

Good luck to you,

Justmissed
;)

headhawg

12-02-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by zafonic
Does the Master Magician automatically select the fulcrum horse ?

ZAFONIC

Yes, it does select the fulcrum for you but that can be overridden. The best feature from a time saving point of view is that it also lets you switch from LASST to Two Excuse mode and will update the calculations dynamically. Really difficult to do that manually for more than one track.

HH

Light

12-02-2003, 12:50 PM

Could someone shed some light on the terms thrown around here for those not familiar with HM.

Fulcrum
ppf
pbs
Value Tech

Bob Harris

12-02-2003, 07:39 PM

I don't know if he's mentioned it or not but the two types of horses Michael never eliminates from consideration because of the fulcrum are closers in highly pressured races and lightly raced maidens...both scenarios can bite you in the butt if you get too fine with it.

Best,

Bob

cato

12-02-2003, 10:36 PM

Light wrote: "Could someone shed some light on the terms thrown around here for those not familiar with HM.

Fulcrum
ppf
pbs
Value Tech"

There is a book that explains all of these (well at least the first three), Handicapping Magic, by Mike Pizzolla. But here are some very simplified explanations:

Fulcrum: Is an effort to determine a rough estimate as to what type of pace may be set in today's race. It is determined by looking at all of the horse's last races--and only those on the same surface and structure (i.e., sprint or route) qualify. You look for a last race (withing same surfafce and structure) where the horse was within 5 lengths of the lead at the 2d call and at the finish. You take the fastest of those 2d call times (looking at last race only) as the fulcrum pace and the horse that set it is called the fulcrum horse. The only other qualifier that comes to mind is that the pace you use cannot be "atypical" for that horse. So if the horse ran a 44 2d call in the last race but all its other 2d calls are a 46 +, the 44 would not be typical for the horse and you would not use that pace. You would look for the next fastest time (that was within 5 lenths of the lead at the 2d call and the finish and a time that was not atypical) and that would be your fulcrum pace and fulcrum horse.

It sounds kind of goofy but it almost always points you to a horse that plays a major role in the race. Mike P says they have a tendency to place (although shows no studies to back it up) and I have found that they certainly have a tendency to be a major player in the race and often end up somewhere in the top 3 or 4.

PBS---> "pace balanced speed" numbers. Is a number that is found by adjusting the simple and much maligned speed rating for the race by the lengths gained or lost between the 2d call and the final time.

PPF---> "projected power fraction. Is a number that is found by calculating the final fraction (2d call to finish and including beaten lengths) and comparing it to the target number for the same fraction taht was set by the fulcrum horse for today's race.

Value Tech Ratio. Was not in the book and was introduced in a later seminar and program. I believe it simply compares (i) the odds that the program assigns to the horse (i.e., its chance of winning) to (ii) the odds the program says the public will give the horse on the tote board. If the odds of the horse (to win, as assigned by the program) are less than what the program says the public will bet the horse at, then the Value Tech ratio is positive and it is a possible bet. In theory it would be an overlay, but Mike P prefers to call it a value bet.

I hope I did not butcher these too much. If anyone sees any errors, please jump in.

Take care,

Cato

JustMissed

12-02-2003, 11:35 PM

Cato, you did an excellant job explaining the questions asked.

My question to you is regarding the use of raw times. When I compare two or several horses coming out of the same race, raw time works great. But in most cases we have comparisons of horses out of different races and/or different tracks whereby raw times are not really reliable for comparison due to track variants.

I use the TSN products which have pace figs for E1, E2 & LP. Would not pace figs be a better measurement unit for Fulcum, than raw time? Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

JustMissed

cato

12-03-2003, 12:30 AM

I think that the fulcrum works for what it is intended to do, so I don't know that there would be any significant difference in performance or results on the fulcrum.

However, I thnk that the failure of the Handicapping Magic program to base the PBS #s and PPF #s on track to track adjusted numbers instead of raw times is a major flaw.

The folks who wrote the program, Langjahr and Pizzolla, claim that they have "run the numbers" and find that their numbers generate as good or better results than numbers that were track to track adjusted or otherwise adjusted based on par times,etc.

While I agree with Pizzolla and Langjahr that people are overly obsessed with numbers and complexity, and that most keys to horse races are found elsewhere, I'd still like to have some numbers in which I have some confidence.

Any other thoughts out there?

Amazin

12-03-2003, 01:14 AM

Cato

From your explanation of the fulcrum,this doesn't sound much different than traditional handicapping.I.E.finding the speed in the race. The PBS sounds like it's finding the best closer.-Sounds like a slight variation of Sartin's method which takes the early pace(fulcrum) and takes the late pace(pbs) to get a total pace rating. Actually Sartin's total pace ratings is my method with the computer,but I adjust them according to Brohamer's easy method with drf variants as outlined in "Modern Pace Handicapping". I've read Charles Carrol's book and he has endorsed Pizzola's work.Now I know why. Carrol also does not believe in adjusting times with variants. I find that method pretty flawed,especially when you have off tracks(now that we are in the rainy season) and you get incredibly slow times .Try comparing that to a horse coming off a vacation from a rock hard surface in the summer. Ridiculous.

cato

12-03-2003, 04:02 AM

(Can't sleep tonight....)
Amazin: Yes, Pizzolla's approach to much of the game is pretty traditional. He cut his teeth on Sartin's stuff and helped write the first edition of Pace Makes the Race, etc.

What is not so traditional is his emphasis on looking for horses that the public will not like (although among this group of sophisticated handicappers, that might be considered traditional!)

A couple of refinements to your comments. MP does not consider teh fulcrum to be the early speed of the race...its just the fulcrum that is found only by loking atthe last race and based on 2d call. He also says you need to take a look at the 1st fraction to determine early speed.

PBS is neither early or late. It is final time adjusted by the 2d call. MP clearly states in his book that this is old stuff and he gives credit to several handicappers in the past who have advocated this as a good measurement.

PPF is definitely a late number, although it, too, is tempered by the 2d call

And MP never really reaches a total pace rating--He does not add the two ratings together--they are to be viewed separately. And most of the people I've talked to recently emphasize the PPF numbers over the PBS numbers...and I tend to agree with that.

As to adjustments to the numbers, while MP takes the position that you do not need to make adjustements to the PBS numbers, you are freeto make adjustemnts to the PBS numbers based on the daily track variant by doing one of the following:

1, Adding the entire variant to the PBS #
2. Adding 1/2 of the variant tothe PBS #
3. Pick a constant variant for sprint and route (MP recommends 17 fo sprint and 23 for route) and adjust based on that. For example, if the line you used was a sprint run on a day with a 20 daily track variant, you would add +3 to the PBS number

The program defaults to no adjustment but gives you a choice of using the first two adjustments.

Blackgold, we have missed your daily installment! They have been very helpful and have obviously generated some interest. Keep those cards and letters coming!

Take care, Cato

shanta

12-03-2003, 08:26 AM

JUST MY 2 CENTS HERE. I BELIEVE THE PBS NUMBER IS BASED ON THE FULCRUM PACE OF THE RACE. IF SAY HORSE 2 IS THE FULCRUM IN TODAYS SPRINT AND HIS FULCRUM TIME IS 45. IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT SAY THE 3 HORSE AND HIS LAST RACE HE RACED A 75 SPEED RATING AND THE 2ND CALL OF THE RACE IS 44 YOU GET THE PBS NUMBER FOR HIM BY TAKING THE 75 SPEED RATING AND ADDING 1 POINT FOR EACH FIFTH OF A SECOND FASTER HIS 2ND CALL PACE OF RACE WAS THEN THE FULCRUM
75+5=80 PBS . IF THE 2ND CALL PACE OF RACE WAS 46 SAY THEN IT WOULD BE 75-5-70 PBS. MY BUDDY I SIT WITH LOVES THE PROGRAM!

12-03-2003, 09:23 AM

Lets say a horse A is in a three way duel for the lead in a race that goes 45 and 1:10. He fights before backing up at the 1/8 pole to lose by 2 lenghts. Horse B from the same race is 10 lengths behing the duel sitting all alone on the rail, then swings around the others late to get up and win. Horse B will get a PBS rating 2 points higher than horse A, who gets no credit for setting the pace or staying on gamely, while Horse B was in receipt of the perfect trip. Obviously Horse B will get the better PPF rating as well. I doubt anyone would argue Horse A ran the better race. How do users of the program account for things like this?

cato

12-03-2003, 10:07 AM

Shanta: You are correct. It was late and I was trying to generalize from memory. The PBS number is found as follows:

SR for the pace line + add a point for every 1/5 of a second that the 2d call of the pace line is faster than the 2d call of the fulcrum pace

or if the 2d call of the pace line is slower than the fulcrum, you subtract from the SR

+ then you have the option of adjusting by the track variant

and that's if you are doing sprint -- sprint or route to route
Its calculated differently for a sprint to route or route to sprint...to be handled (hopefully) by someone else or by me when I get back from work

CJ---You have a good point that one must consider. You must always look at how the horse ran the numbers--easy on the lead, speed dual, closer where the pace collapsed in front of them, etc., and take that into consideration.

And I don't mean to be a smart ass and I am the first to admit that I am still learning how to squeeze a profit out of this game, so my credibility is shaky, but really, we don't know who ran the best race. Its hard for me to saw that A ran a better race. I mean, really, B WON the race and did it with a 23 second final fraction. Those are both very positive things. Horse A was defeated by a 45 second 2d call...not so impressive. Maybe A always gets in speed duals and collapses, maybe A is a proven loser and this is a typical race, etc. etc. SO just looking at the numbers alone doesn't answer everything (at least for me).

Take care,

Cato

Amazin

12-03-2003, 12:39 PM

Re:Cj's pace point

It boils down to DOE(distribution of energy).Horse B should get the higher rating out of that race period.That he was beat by ten at the 1/4 pole does not mean he couldn't have gone 44.4 if his jock and trainer wanted.Rather they CHOSE to distribute the horse's energy in that manner in order to win the race. And wisely so because they probably would not have won if they spent the horse's energy early. Huey Mahl was right :Pace makes the race.(most of the time)

Re: Variant

In case Carroll is reading this(he's been on this board before),energy absorption of the playing field in any sport affects performance.

If anyone challenges that validity,I would challenge them to a foot race in any amusement park in America,even Carl Lewis..You run on the deep sand,and I'll
run on the boardwalk.Track surface don't matter?Give me a break.

headhawg

12-03-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Lets say a horse A is in a three way duel for the lead in a race that goes 45 and 1:10. He fights before backing up at the 1/8 pole to lose by 2 lenghts. Horse B from the same race is 10 lengths behing the duel sitting all alone on the rail, then swings around the others late to get up and win. Horse B will get a PBS rating 2 points higher than horse A, who gets no credit for setting the pace or staying on gamely, while Horse B was in receipt of the perfect trip. Obviously Horse B will get the better PPF rating as well. I doubt anyone would argue Horse A ran the better race. How do users of the program account for things like this?

CJ,

Are you saying that if they meet again B will have a higher rating so the program will "select" it over A even though A arguably ran the better race? Well, if it's the same pressured scenario again I would still bet B, wouldn't you? If the pace shape of their next race indicates Lone Early or Speed of the Speed a good handicapper would likely choose A regardless of the higher numbers for B; again, a favorable pace scenario but this time for A. TMM would advise the users of the pace shape and rank the horses on the preferred rating which still might favor B as you suggested. However, the program is just a tool and you can't bet the top numbers blindly.

I forget what author(s) said it but pace analysis beats pace ratings. I think that's true no matter what software is being used. So a smart and successful user would do just that --analyze.

HH

12-03-2003, 12:57 PM

I should have said so in the beginning, but I'm basing this on being a dirt race. Horses who come from behind are at a huge disadvantage. If you truly believe that horse could have gone much faster early, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. That horse is at the mercy of the pace/pressure set by the frontrunners. People think these animals are push button machines that go however fast the jockey wants them to go, but in real life, its the horse who decides. The jock can try to rate or gun a horse for the lead, but most times it is sure to defeat them. The best riders allow the horse to do what it wants to do. My point is this, if horse A was allowed to set a leisurely pace next time, horse B will still be behind him and probably not be able to catch him. If he tried to press A, he would most likely run very poorly. Frontrunners rule dirt races. What happens up front decides who wins 9 times out of 10. A rating that does not credit those who run too fast early is not a very good rating, in my opinion.

I have no doubt about analyzing the numbers being the best method. I do, however, doubt that people spending hundreds of dollars on software expect to have to do much analyzing. I would bet most set up some sort of parameters and bet what the output tells them they should bet. I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt it.

I am not trying to bash Pizzola, I just think his PBS numbers don't accomplish a whole bunch. They are, more or less, DRF speed ratings with a false pace adjustment added in.

Amazin

12-03-2003, 01:19 PM

CJ quote: People think these animals are push button machines that go however fast the jockey wants them to go, but in real life, its the horse who decides.

I disagree.These animals are athletes.Their conditioning and style are molded by their trainer.The animal doesn't decide he wants to be a speed horse or a closer. The trainer does. That B horse can go 44.4 if his trainer reconditions his style.In fact I caught a $65.00 horse @SA,noticing the change in the pp's of a horse being conditioned by his trainer from a speedball into a closer in his last 3 performances. Public thought she was still a speedball and had no chance in a race filled with speed.She came off the pace and won with authority.

Speed Figure

12-03-2003, 01:22 PM

12-03-2003, 01:39 PM

Maybe others have noticed this, so I'll throw it out there. Closers who get good trips behind fast paces run there best speed figures. If you try to combine the horses pace and speed numbers, it will come out way too high. I think off the pace types are best judged by looking at its final fig in conjunction with the shape of the race. No way to adjust that final number for pace. Also, nothing wrong with trying to predict pace and pressure, but it is very difficult to do. If anyone kept track of something as simple as saying the pace will be fast, average or slow, I'd be willing to bet they are right right around 1/3 of the time, maybe slightly higher. 50% would be very good indeed. Races don't play out the way they look on paper due to bad or surprisingly good breaks from the gate, jock tactics, traffic, post draws, etc. I want to know I'm betting on a horse with the ability to win, and I'll let the trip take care of itself.

12-03-2003, 01:58 PM

I'll offer up example 1 from today at Aqu...couldn't have worked out better to make my point, and increase my bankroll.

Race 3

6:JUDY-SODA-2yo-NY:6-1:NA
Aqu 11/15/2003 8.0 12 fst Md-Sp-Wt-42k Chased-4-wide--tired 64 56 64 41| 53

8:PRISCILLA'S-FLAG-2yo-NY:6-1:NA
Aqu 11/15/2003 8.0 8 fst Md-Sp-Wt-42k Rallied-for-place 64 56 63 45| 52

#6 was right on the pace while 4 wide, and earned an inferior speed figure to that of #8. The 8 came rolling up late to beat the 6 by 2 1/4 lengths for 2d. With Pizzola ratings, 8 would be best on both counts. By mine, the 6 had a slight advantage, and I knew it was even more due to the wide trip. Needless to say (why else would I post...LOL) the 6 won today and paid $24.20. These two had my top two figures and ran 1-3. (Really bad favorite in the race, but that's another story)

Had the race shape been the opposite, say 56-64 rather than reversed as it was ran, I surely would have favored the 8 today. My point is this, no way the 8 should get the same credit for the fast pace that the 6 gets. It just doesn't work that way on the track.

headhawg

12-03-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
...I do, however, doubt that people spending hundreds of dollars on software expect to have to do much analyzing. I would bet most set up some sort of parameters and bet what the output tells them they should bet...

Thank the horse gods that that's true!! The pools better have "stupid" money in them; if I have to compete only against the smart handicappers...well I'd rather not think about it. I'm having a hard enough time now!!! (LOL)

Regarding the Master Magician, while I am neither defending Pizzola nor speaking for him, even in a 6F race WITH Heavy Pressure you bet the closers. That's the philosophy -- $30 horses that go against conventional "wisdom".

And from your last post (Nice hit BTW),

Had the race shape been the opposite, say 56-64 rather than reversed as it was ran, I surely would have favored the 8 today.

So do you believe in the true accuracy of your numbers or only their relative accuracy as you're analyzing the race shape anyway? Devotees of MP would probably argue the latter, as would I.

HH

12-03-2003, 02:36 PM

I definitely know my numbers, or any others, are not totally accurate. The shape and general range of the numbers yes, but I wouldn't try to tell you a 53 is better than a 52. I wouldn't try to tell you its really better than a 46. Anything beyond that, I would have a hard time betting the lower numbered horse. I generally use 7 as a cutoff for contenders.

cato

12-03-2003, 05:23 PM

Good score, CJ!

HM would not have helped on race 3 at AQ today.
Its true that HM gave #6 a past race PBS of 46 and PPF of 0 while it gave #8 a 48 PBS and 2 PPF.

It ranked the horses, based on PPF as
5
7
3
8
2 (I manually told the program to not rate the Turf race. If I had not intervened the progran would have given you the place
horse
6

The program indicated that the pace scenario was neutral and there were no significant gaps so I would have passed the race.

I don't think anyone is a big fan of the PBS numbers. They are only helpful if there is a wide, wide gap.

As I've said before (I think...maybe I just thought it), while I like MP and the simplicity of the HM program and a lot of its features (pace scenario, value tech, etc.), I'm basically looking for something that creates better numbers but is not such a mess (complex) as to get in the way.

Take care, Cato

Aussieplayer

12-03-2003, 05:27 PM

Hi all,

CJ said:

[QUOTE]. Also, nothing wrong with trying to predict pace and pressure, but it is very difficult to do. If anyone kept track of something as simple as saying the pace will be fast, average or slow, I'd be willing to bet they are right right around 1/3 of the time, maybe slightly higher. 50% would be very good indeed. Races don't play out the way they look on paper due to bad or surprisingly good breaks from the gate, jock tactics, traffic, post draws, etc. I want to know I'm betting on a horse with the ability to win, and I'll let the trip take care of itself.

............I tend to go with that sentiment. Pace probably is really important, but nothing says you HAVE to have any consideration of pace.

It's funny, but down here, I know players who use pace analysis (some use numbers, others don't) and do well.
Caught up with a very successful player the other day that I hadn't talked to in a while (his record is extremely good) and discussed pace. To my surprise, he doesn't consider pace at all. 'Course he goes to the other extreme & knocks pace entirely (which is going too far), but I can see why: he knows a lot of the people "in" the game (trainers, vets etc.) - and he KNOWS that pace can be thrown out entirely when a trainer tells the jock some different instructions today.

Just goes to show, that you can win with almost anything in this game!

Out of interest, this fella's top priority is the fitness of the horse: that's 90% of his consideration. That the horse passes on some basic class/form considerations is an afterthought. So once again, his success is attributed (as far as I'm concerned) by his willingness to be a bit contrarian.

Good to be back.....

Cheers
AP

GR1@HTR

12-05-2003, 08:52 AM

Handicapping Magic the book does an good job of explaining pace. It is essentially Pace 101 and maybe Pace 102 explained in a different manner. I purchased the basic HM software when it first came out...IMHO, that this is a POS (piece of chit). Can't comment on the second version...I use a variation of his HM principles in HTR. After handicapping almost 1300 races (Maidens, turf, sprints, routes...) my top paceline selection (handicapping not betting)has an ROI of .96 and second choice of .92. Just mix in some filters and odds management and the numbers improve. Naturally the downfall of paceline selection is that you leave out multiple other factors (improvement, trainer, jockey...). But we can't be jack of all trades and masters of none...

andicap

12-05-2003, 12:24 PM

Here's my take on HM having read the book several times and exchanged an email with Eric a while back on his figures. I asked him that very question -- wouldn't the program be better with more accurate figures.

He said no as long as they were reasonably accurate so that they could spot a good overlay.

HM is a program for those who can stand winning 13% of their wagers and long losing streaks but have the balls to bet big on 30-1 shots that the program says should be 6-1. These horses lose A LOT. But when they win, its Brinks truck time.
I didn't buy the program because I don't have the cajones (proper spelling) for this style of play. Mike Pizzolla does.
Eric is an incredibly conservative bettor, maybe one or 2 a day, so he vets the overlays in a way Mike does not -- the way I understand it.

If you are looking for this type of longshot, you don't need undying accuracy. It's more a style of play than the numbers themselves and the PPF figures are good enough to point out when a longout has a decent shot to win.

ALSO (and most importantly), Mike talks about making the right bet -- when an overlay is Fools Gold. Not all overlays are created equal. He doesn't talk much about this in the book, but it's the main point of his Master Key tapes he was selling. (Mike is a master salesman as well as an excellent bettor).

Basically the best longshot overlays are horses that have figures the public does not see. That's why the PPF work even tho they may not be as accurate as others. If a horse has the top Beyer and is 20-1, would you bet that horse? In football betting it's called a trap. Let the buyer beward. Would you buy a Cadillac for $100? No. Obviously that 20-1 horse has problems.

Mike emphasizes looking for horses that don't look good to the public on the three factors they focus on -- Form, Class and Speed. He advocates taking a quick sweeping look -- without really thinking (can't recall his word for it) over all the PPs before you handicap and then write down what you think are the top horses in those categories based purely on what you see. Those are horses the public SHOULD make the favorite. If it doesn't -- raise an eyebrow, be critical. Why isn't the public betting a horse that it should like?

That's why the PPF's work for him. The public DOES NOT use them so when the PPF's uncover a top horse (that the Beyer's don't of course), it's hidden from the public. THAT HORSE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BET -- so that's why it's 20-1. But the PPF's are different so if they like the horse, it's legit.
The horse doesn't always run well, but it will enough times IF YOU BET CORRECTLY.

which brings me to the next point.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO BET TO WIN WITH PIZZOLLA.

He is not only a good handicapper, but an expert gambler, knowing how to play his horses, how to key the longshots to get the most out of them when they win.
Many of us see a decent 20-1 shot and we lighten up, a small win bet, a few exotics spread around, but we don't go for the moon. He unwinds the bankroll and goes for the kill. If he loses, he doesn't look book, no regrets. Next race.
(He has a great abbreviation/slogan for this I hope someone will help me with. Someone lilke....I lost, so what, next.) That's the psychological aspect of it that he has mastered and I presumed so have people on this board who have succeeded with it.

His theories are not for everyone -- not for me, although I do want to see if the fulcrum would work with adjusted figures. It seems like a sound idea.

Of course, I could be misinterpreting HM and Pizzolla as well.

JimL

12-05-2003, 03:48 PM

Andi, it is,"Some will, some wont, so what, Next!

JustRalph

12-05-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I'll offer up example 1 from today at Aqu...couldn't have worked out better to make my point, and increase my bankroll.
Race 3

6:JUDY-SODA-2yo-NY:6-1:NA
Aqu 11/15/2003 8.0 12 fst Md-Sp-Wt-42k Chased-4-wide--tired 64 56 64 41| 53

8:PRISCILLA'S-FLAG-2yo-NY:6-1:NA
Aqu 11/15/2003 8.0 8 fst Md-Sp-Wt-42k Rallied-for-place 64 56 63 45| 52
#

CJ, Question:

How do you track these horses, or are you viewing this from "todays form" or whatever. I am wondering about your method.....if you don't mind answering.

12-05-2003, 06:22 PM

That is the output from my homemade program that uses the Formulator exported files as well as my own track pars and variants. From that, it creates an overall rating based on the pace figure, speed figure, early position in the field, weight, and possibly for maturity, depending on the age of the horse. The exact formula is proprietary (sp?) of course...LOL.

12-05-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by andicap

...If a horse has the top Beyer and is 20-1, would you bet that horse? In football betting it's called a trap. Let the buyer beward. Would you buy a Cadillac for $100? No. Obviously that 20-1 horse has problems...

Not always true...War Emblem, Cajun Beat, Funny Cide. There of tons of examples of horses with big Beyers who pay huge prices. You have to look at why the horse isn't being bet. Usually some other horse is being way overbet. Or in the case of a big stakes, the Beyer was earned at a "lesser" track. Just because a horse with a big speed figure isn't being bet does not mean the horse has problems.

You never know what factors the public is going to bet from race to race until the odds start being displayed.

cato

12-06-2003, 10:19 AM

"Andi, it is,"Some will, some wont, so what, Next!"

The easy to remember formula is: SW3 = N!

(the 3 should actually be a cubed notation, but I can't make the computer do that)

(great post Andicap--great summary of how MP and EL justify and use their numbers, theory, betting etc.)

Cato

Larry Hamilton

12-06-2003, 11:04 AM

Above, someone pointed out that the key to the "picked" race win approximately 13%. Everything I say to follow is bs if I have misread that.

Guess what 13% is also approximately? It's random! This means there is a very simple test for this. In every race that is defined as "the picked race", compare a random selection of the long shots with the key picks. To be profitable, there would need be a significan difference between random ROI and key ROI. A positive answer to this comparison should net him a exponential increase in sales, a negative answer is just more hot air.

kingfin66

12-06-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by cato

You've discussed a couple of Heavy Presure races, what importance do you place on the other categories, Lone Early, Neutral, Speed of Speed and Pressured?

Cato,

I only have the basic software. TMM has different race profiles as you have indicated. My question to you is what differentiates the different types of races? What is the difference between pressured and heavy pressured. It's nice that the software does all of that (wish I had it!), but is there a manual way to determine these race shapes, or do I just need to follow the process in the book and compare fractional times line by line? Does the software come with a manual that discusses this? Any insight you can provide into this would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Mike

andicap

12-06-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Not always true...War Emblem, Cajun Beat, Funny Cide. There of tons of examples of horses with big Beyers who pay huge prices. You have to look at why the horse isn't being bet. Usually some other horse is being way overbet. Or in the case of a big stakes, the Beyer was earned at a "lesser" track. Just because a horse with a big speed figure isn't being bet does not mean the horse has problems.

You never know what factors the public is going to bet from race to race until the odds start being displayed.

Quite right, CJ. There are no absolutes here. I overlooked War Emblem even tho he had the best figures because of pace considerations. And I remember cashing a $45 horse at Saratoga years back because the line was from Ellis Park. (He had the best speed fig and early speed on a heavily biased track!). I remember some guy telling me, "You had that pig from Ellis Park."
Say no more.

kingfin66

12-06-2003, 03:44 PM

Along these same lines, Charismatic had a nice last race Beyer going into the KyDerby (maybe even the highest), but was overlooked because he had been a lowly claimer at one point in his career.

cato

12-07-2003, 11:20 AM

KIngfin:

Race shapes and HM

HM designates the following race shapes:
Neutral
Lone Early
Speed of Speed
Pressure
Heavy Pressure

ALl I know is that "they" have written some algorhythems that come up with these designaties based on the program reviewing the horses position in all of its races an, I think, the time it has run to be in that position.

Of course you can do it manuallyby using many different approaches: label all the horses with the E, EP, P PS and S style and come up with your own conclusions. Use Quirin speed point, which I know littel about but many people swear by, etc etc..

IF you use ITS data and its software (I assume Formulator does the same thing) you can click a button that will show only races where the horse was on the lead at the 1st two calls and another buutton that shows you horses that were within two lengths of the lead at the 1st twwo calls, etc., which is a very easy way to determine the early speed (from a positional standpoint) in the race.

The only HM shapes that are helpful to me are teh Lone E and the Heavy Pressure. The Lone E preetty consistently pulls in a winner or at least a horse that is in the exotics. The Heavy Presure designation says bet the closers whioch can lead to long run outs but also great payoffs when they roll in.

Take care,

Cato

kingfin66

12-07-2003, 02:13 PM

I was pretty sure that's what you would say regarding the algorithm, etc. That leaves me with the "traditional" book method of sorting by horses in the lead and horeses within 2-3 lengths of the lead.

Shacopate

12-09-2003, 03:11 AM

Some thoughts,

1. The PBS number, while considered weak by most, is designed for separation from the heavily bet Beyers by adjusting for "class."
For example, as class levels increase, pars of 1/2 mile times decrease. It's similar to the theory behind Ray Taulbots pace calculator. And Pizzola firmly believes there is no perfect number.

2. The only horses I would eliminate that cannot compete against the fulcrum pace are "E" types.

3. FAST; a rating that I came up with (inspired by MP) that sometimes has a "built-in reversal angle." I call it the Form Adjusted Speed Technique.

It is calculated by taking the Speed Rating, adjusting for variant, and is then adjusted by a form cycle formula.

It came up with Century City in the BC Mile this year. 3rd at long odds. A horse that beat him in their previous race was rated lower and finished up the track at short odds.

Blackgold

12-11-2003, 07:11 AM

Well Pace Advantage Pals. . .

Here's my best score to date using HM.

Sam Houston Race 9, last nite (12/10).

The Value Tech selections were the 2 and 8, with the 8 being the Fulcrum.

I boxed the 2,8 and Assmussen trained 5 WITH the 7, 9 and 3. $2 exacta boxes and $1 Tri and Super boxes- all totaled $216.

The 2 won at 26-to-1 and keyed a $652 Exacta, $1393.30 Tri and $13,013.20 Super (the Super pool was $17,351, so I assume I took the whole thing).

Nice to see Santa so early in the month. Now I'm going to see the Lexus dealer.

Happy Holidays!

JimG

12-11-2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Blackgold
Well Pace Advantage Pals. . .

Here's my best score to date using HM.

Sam Houston Race 9, last nite (12/10).

The Value Tech selections were the 2 and 8, with the 8 being the Fulcrum.

I boxed the 2,8 and Assmussen trained 5 WITH the 7, 9 and 3. $2 exacta boxes and $1 Tri and Super boxes- all totaled $216.

The 2 won at 26-to-1 and keyed a $652 Exacta, $1393.30 Tri and $13,013.20 Super (the Super pool was $17,351, so I assume I took the whole thing).

Nice to see Santa so early in the month. Now I'm going to see the Lexus dealer.

Happy Holidays!

Fantastic hit. Congrats. How did you decide to play that race? Was there something within the HM program that made you decide to play it or was it merely because the contenders the program was pointing out were at long odds?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Jim

kingfin66

12-12-2003, 12:41 AM

That is totally awesome. You should send an e-mail to the Master Magician himself to let him know. He would think it is awesome too.

When you say you boxed the 2-5-8 to the 3-7-9, did it look like this?

X 2-5-8/3-7-9
X 3-7-9/2-5-8

Or was it actually a six horse box on the X, T, and S? Just curious, because I'm trying to figure out bet structures so that I too can catch scores like that.

BTW, pick out a sweet Lexus and post a picture of the ride that HM bought.

Blackgold

12-12-2003, 06:36 AM

I did boxes as follows.

2,8,5,7 $2 exacta, $1 tri & super box = $72

2,8,5,9 $ exacta, $1 tri & super box = $72

2,8,5,3 $2 exacta, $1 tri & super box = $72

I decided on the race because the 2 and 8 were projected to go off at long odds and had a real chance. The 2 went off at 26-to-1, yet the 8 went off at a little more than 3-to-1, but was the fulcrum and ran in the picture as fulcrums often do. And I keyed the 5 because he figured and was Assmussen trained, yet would go off at low odds and in fact was the Fav at 2.4-to-one.

The 7, 9, and 3 were put in becasue of their PPFs. I sorted the race by PPF because the PBS were from different tracks and in that case the PPF is the more reliable number. The PPF is a deadly accurate number that gives you a big, big edge against the public that is using Beyers, Bris or any other type of speed figs.

Although the 7 was projected to have trouble meeting the Fulcrum pace, I threw him in figuring it possible to hang around for a piece which was not the case as finished 7th at 7-to-1.

Had I been awake, I would have bet the 2 to win at those odds, but I had bet the race several hours earlier and went to bed as the race went off at 10:28cst.

I have e-mailed MP before about scores, most recently a $700 quinella this Aug. that I had 2-and-a-half times and had the horse making 2nd finished 1st, would have been a monster tri and super score also.

The feedback MP provided me then was the horse that won had a high PPF when the aberrant checking was turned off, as I now do sometimes for 2 and 3yos that are lightly raced. I had used the top horse because the Value Tech betting module pointed to Heavy Play when the odds came up and I sometimes throw in a horse that I was considering when Heavy Play is indicated.

Just called in my order for the Quantam Leap Seminar tapes, mannual, etc. It's $377 and I consider it a bargin.