Part 2: SPEED

[thaskalos]

SPEED

It may surprise the younger breed of horseplayers to find out that speed was not always the important handicapping factor it is considered to be today. There was a time, not too long ago, when speed handicapping was practically laughed at...and its few practitioners were regarded as the least sophisticated members of the betting crowd.

But it only took one man to change all that...

Andy Beyer did not invent the concept of speed handicapping -- nor were the speed figures that now bare his name his own creation -- but it was he who brought this methodology to the people...and he presented it in a flamboyant yet sophisticated way, which made speed figures the talk of the grandstand...and Beyer, the leading voice in the game.

The reasoning was simple...and powerful:

The fastest horse in the race is the one most likely to win; and the primary measure of speed is the final time of the race.

This was hardly news, of course...but, before Beyer, the crowd lacked an accurate way of determining who the fastest horses in the race were. The only figures at their disposal were the speed figures and variants already displayed in the Racing Form...which were so riddled with inaccuracies, they were practically useless to the serious player.

The Beyer figures -- and the other professional-type figures that followed -- allowed the player to be able to assess, at a glance, the general quality of a horse's performance...and this horse's pecking order among the rest of the field. It was a great time to be a horseplayer...

Or was it?

IMO...these speed figures were both a blessing and a curse for the horseplayer.

They were a blessing because they were the professional tool that the horseplayer longed to have in his possession, in order to better understand this confounding game.

But they were not "the way, the truth and the light" that they were initially advertised to be...and those who regarded them as such, and considered speed handicapping to be the "shortcut" they were always looking for, paid a heavy price at the betting windows.

Before these figures became part of the public domain, serious profits could be generated just by blindly betting on the horses who had run the fastest figures in their most recent races...without any further "interpretation" needed from the player.

Horses who were beaten by 4-5 lengths in their most recent starts sometimes towered over the rest of the field, speed figure-wise...while the other, slower but sharper-looking horses in the race received most of the betting support. It was as if the speed handicappers had a licence to steal.

But with the figures now in the hands of every player on the grandstand, these "fast balls down the middle of the plate" were gone...and the speed handicapper had to be more creative if he hoped to survive. The figures, while still pointing to the winners of the race a respectable percentage of the time, could no longer be entirely depended upon to produce a profit.

The game was undergoing one of its many changes, and the speed handicapper would have to change as well...in order to keep a step or two ahead of the crowd.

Enter the all-important art of "figure interpretation".

As Andy Beyer himself later proclaimed...the most important handicapping question to ask no longer was "how fast did the horse run?"; the main question now became..."how did the horse run fast?"

When a horse is favored by the circumstances of the race -- either by setting a comfortable pace, or by running a few lengths behind the dueling leaders -- then this horse will deliver the best performance that it is capable of putting forth. But the same cannot be said about all the other horses in the race. While the "dynamics" of the race often promote the chances of some of the horses in the field, a careful review of the circumstances of the race often reveals that these same "dynamics" work against certain other horses...thus depriving them of the chance to put forth the best performance that they are capable of.

Are the speed figure standouts going to repeat their lofty figures today...or will the "dynamics" of the race be so different now, that they are likely to work AGAINST these "standouts"...and for the benefit of some other horses, who were on the wrong side of these "dynamics" last time out?

And what exactly are these "dynamics" of the race, which often play such a pivotal role in determining who the winner of the race will be?

Well...PACE is one of these key determining factors...and this will be the subject of our next discussion.

[raybo]

Nice synopsis of speed figures. :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Yes. Very well presented indeed.

However, perhaps Thaskalos maybe you or anyone else would care to comment about why Speed figures are better than final times. Or are they?

After all when I watch a marathon and one runner comes in 2 hours and 10 minutes and another runner is 2 hours and 15 minutes I know who is the fastest.
Also when I see a kid has ran a 100 yard dash in 11 seconds I know he's not as fast as a kid who just ran it in 10.5 seconds without actually seeing them run.

We don't put "Speed Figures" on any other type of racing except horses?
Why aren't raw times good enough?

[TrifectaMike]

Yes. Very well presented indeed.

However, perhaps Thaskalos maybe you or anyone else would care to comment about why Speed figures are better than final times. Or are they?

After all when I watch a marathon and one runner comes in 2 hours and 10 minutes and another runner is 2 hours and 15 minutes I know who is the fastest.
Also when I see a kid has ran a 100 yard dash in 11 seconds I know he's not as fast as a kid who just ran it in 10.5 seconds without actually seeing them run.

We don't put "Speed Figures" on any other type of racing except horses?
Why aren't raw times good enough?

Greyfox,

Go to tullyrunners.com. You'll see a Beyers version for runners.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Greyfox]

Greyfox,

Go to tullyrunners.com. You'll see a Beyers version for runners.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Thank you. Having coached Track and Field years ago, Speed Ratings for human athletes is a new one for me.

[Tom]

Yes. Very well presented indeed.

However, perhaps Thaskalos maybe you or anyone else would care to comment about why Speed figures are better than final times. Or are they?

After all when I watch a marathon and one runner comes in 2 hours and 10 minutes and another runner is 2 hours and 15 minutes I know who is the fastest.
Also when I see a kid has ran a 100 yard dash in 11 seconds I know he's not as fast as a kid who just ran it in 10.5 seconds without actually seeing them run.

We don't put "Speed Figures" on any other type of racing except horses?
Why aren't raw times good enough?

Because of different distances and tracks and surfaces.

Which is faster, a mile in 1:34 at Aqueduct or on in 1:35 at Turfway?

[Greyfox]

Because of different distances and tracks and surfaces.

Which is faster, a mile in 1:34 at Aqueduct or on in 1:35 at Turfway?


Horse A earns a Beyer of 85 at Aqueduct.
Horse B earns a Beyer of 85 at Turfway.
Supposedly those Beyers are equivalent and transportable. But are they?

Perhaps that's unfair as Aqueduct is dirt and Turfway is poly.
Horse C earns a Beyer of 85 at Aqueduct.
Horse D earns a Beyer of 85 at Churchill.
Both are on dirt. Are they equivalent?

[Robert Goren]

Yes. Very well presented indeed.

However, perhaps Thaskalos maybe you or anyone else would care to comment about why Speed figures are better than final times. Or are they?

After all when I watch a marathon and one runner comes in 2 hours and 10 minutes and another runner is 2 hours and 15 minutes I know who is the fastest.
Also when I see a kid has ran a 100 yard dash in 11 seconds I know he's not as fast as a kid who just ran it in 10.5 seconds without actually seeing them run.

We don't put "Speed Figures" on any other type of racing except horses?
Why aren't raw times good enough? Try betting raw times sometime and compare them to well you do when you bet speed figures. It won't take long for you to have the answer. We have speed figures because they are an improvement over raw times.

[Tom]

Horse A earns a Beyer of 85 at Aqueduct.
Horse B earns a Beyer of 85 at Turfway.
Supposedly those Beyers are equivalent and transportable. But are they?

Perhaps that's unfair as Aqueduct is dirt and Turfway is poly.
Horse C earns a Beyer of 85 at Aqueduct.
Horse D earns a Beyer of 85 at Churchill.
Both are on dirt. Are they equivalent?

Far more so than looking at the times. Remember, all the fig tells you how fast the ran that race that day.

[thaskalos]

Horse A earns a Beyer of 85 at Aqueduct.
Horse B earns a Beyer of 85 at Turfway.
Supposedly those Beyers are equivalent and transportable. But are they?

Perhaps that's unfair as Aqueduct is dirt and Turfway is poly.
Horse C earns a Beyer of 85 at Aqueduct.
Horse D earns a Beyer of 85 at Churchill.
Both are on dirt. Are they equivalent?

If you really wanted to prove your point, you would ask if an 85 at Aqueduct was the same as an 85 at Delta Downs. :)

Look...there is no denying that Beyer made a few mistakes in initially assessing the accuracy of his speed figures...and he also underestimated some of the weaknesses inherent in the method of speed handicapping itself.

Both he, and William Quirin who came on the scene afterwards, operated under the assumption that the abilities of the $10,000 claimers were the same regardless of race track...and that, of course, was later proven to be wrong. Improvements were made to the figure-making process...and the figures are more "track transferable" now than they had been in the past.

That's what makes Andy Beyer so popular in this game...IMO. He is "fallible"...like the rest of us.

He may be quick with an opinion, even if it's a controversial one, but he is just as quick in admitting his mistake once his opinion is proven wrong.

The notion that the raw running times can be compared to the Beyer figures (or to CJ's PaceFigures, whch I consider superior to Beyer's), cannot be taken seriously...IMO.

The fact that speed handicapping was ridiculed for so many years was a direct result of the inaccuracy of these raw running times in determining the quality of the performance of these horses.

What do you think the saying..."Time only matters if you are in jail"...was referring to?

[Greyfox]

The fact that speed handicapping was ridiculed for so many years was a direct result of the inaccuracy of these raw running times in determining the quality of the performance of these horses.

What do you think the saying..."Time only matters if you are in jail"...was referring to?

Don't get me wrong. I use Speed figures as well.
But surely the starting point of the construction of Beyer Speed figures or whoever's Speed figures has to be time.

[thaskalos]

I believe the first commercially published speed figs were not Beyers or the DRF. They were speed figs published by the old Racing Times. In 1992 The DRF bought the Racing Times and as a result started commercially publishing Beyer speed ratings that same year. This was obviously done to combat the popularity that the Racing Times had with their speed figures. My point is that the move by Beyer to have his speed figures commercially published came about due to the competition from the Racing Times.It was a business move, not a handicapping God saving horse players as you portray him.

IMO,the Racing Times did much more for the everyday average handicapper than Beyer ever did.It forced the hand of the DRF to make major changes and additions sorely needed for the survival of the horse player.

You are wrong, my friend,

The speed figures that the Racing Times published were the very same Beyer figures later published by the DRF.

And nowhere do I portray Beyer as "The handicapping God who came to save the horseplayers".

I am just giving the man his due...which is something that you, yourself, are incapable of doing...under ANY circumstance...

[illinoisbred]

I still have all the issues from the very 1st week The Racing Times was published. I do believe the figures presented within were Beyer figures.

[Light]

Teach

The point was that the Racing Times forced the DRF to make major changes in their data such as including speed figs.

I believe the Racing times also forced the DRF to eventually publish classes within classes,such as $10Kn2L as opposed to just $10k.

[thaskalos]

Teach

The point was that the Racing Times forced the DRF to make major changes in their data such as including speed figs.

I believe the Racing times also forced the DRF to eventually publish classes within classes,such as $10Kn2L as opposed to just $10k.
No...

I think the point was that you underestimated the role that Beyer himself played in these "major changes"...

[turninforhome10]

Could it not be argued the the Beyer Speed Fig and Andy Beyer were the first speed figure to be a marketable name outside of everyday players? Unless introduced to another figure early in players career, I would think the Beyer fig is \has been part of most players evolution.

[Tom]

Beyers were initially sold through BRIS.
I used to buy them and clean up! Literally.

[bob60566]

]Beyers were initially sold through BRIS.[/b]
I used to buy them and clean up! Literally.

Excellent handicapping information, I will use this to build on my angles.

Mac :confused: :confused: :confused:

[cj]

Beyers were initially sold through BRIS.
I used to buy them and clean up! Literally.

Shouldn't this be figuratively?

[Tom]

:lol: Yes, I guess it should!

[Light]

No...

I think the point was that you underestimated the role that Beyer himself played in these "major changes"...


Like what?

[thaskalos]

Like what?
Ok...here's the deal...

I have written plenty of stuff here, and I plan on writing a lot more.

Pick anything that I have written which you disagree with...and I am willing to debate it with you for as long as you want. Just don't try to aggravate me by pretending that you don't know what Andy Beyer has meant to the horseplayers...both as an author and as a journalist.

You didn't know that those were Beyer figures in the Racing Times...and that's fine. Everybody's knowledge has limits.

But to downplay Beyer's contribution to this game is just plain absurd.

He has been the KING of American horseplayers, in more ways than one, and we owe him a debt of gratitude.

He brought dignity and sophistication to the art/science of handicapping, at a time when these qualities were needed the most.

And there is no horse racing journalism without him.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thaskalos,

First, welcome to my world. :lol:

Second, you are right. There have been so many giants in this industry - contributors of good ideas. Andrew Beyer is definitely in the first tier of those.

All this said, onward, my friend.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[lamboguy]

when most people ask "what number did the horse get", its the BEYER number that they are asking about 90% of the time. the other 10% of the time it is a sheet number.

[bob60566]

when most people ask "what number did the horse get", its the BEYER number that they are asking about 90% of the time. the other 10% of the time it is a sheet number.

Is this not what this thread is about we all know about Andy in the eighties myself included, We have to move on in this decade in horse racing do i have to mention them and it is not numbers.
I have read every book that Andy wrote and use the information today.

Mac:)

[Light]

Just don't try to aggravate me by pretending that you don't know what Andy Beyer has meant to the horseplayers.

That isn't the issue. We were talking about the Racing times as creating major changes in the DRF. You said I was underestimating Beyer's role in that. I said "like what?", because I knew you had no answer except to claim that I'm aggravating you. Please.

I have read everything Beyer wrote. I never saw anything he wrote where he was for a cause to change the nuts and bolts of the way the form is presented. If those were his figs in the Racing Times, it wasn't him who made the changes to the DRF. It was still the product of the Racing Times. They bought the rights and they forced the hand of the DRF, not Beyer.

I have nothing against Beyer, so stop trying to play the "Light hates Beyer" game so you can blackmail me as a "bad guy". Is this how insecure you are?

[Greyfox]

Thaskalos,

First, welcome to my world. :lol:

Second, you are right. There have been so many giants in this industry - contributors of good ideas. Andrew Beyer is definitely in the first tier of those.

All this said, onward, my friend.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Agreed.:ThmbUp:

Thaskalos, you seem very sensitive to Light's comments, and I'm not sure why.
But relevant to this thread:

First of all, I don't see Andy as "The King of American Horseplayers,"
(your attribution). I luv his books and articles!!

Dave Schwartz called it right about the fact that Andy is in the first tier
re: Speed and his Washington Post contributions.
Handicapper Hall of Famer!

More Importantly, to this thread ,if I look at a Daily Racing Form today, AND more pertinent to debating whether or not people like Andy or not, or which publication put out the figures...Who cares...?

1.Of what value are the Speed figures?
a. On dirt
b. On turf

2. How should we use them?

[Dave Schwartz]

Light,

His point was that the thread was going off topic. This was supposed to be about Thaskalos' take on racing but he couldn't get to that part because of so much conversation about a paragraph or two that were not central to his message.

IMHO, not worthy of dispute when there are things to be learned.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj]

That isn't the issue. We were talking about the Racing times as creating major changes in the DRF. You said I was underestimating Beyer's role in that. I said "like what?", because I knew you had no answer except to claim that I'm aggravating you. Please.

I have read everything Beyer wrote. I never saw anything he wrote where he was for a cause to change the nuts and bolts of the way the form is presented. If those were his figs in the Racing Times, it wasn't him who made the changes to the DRF. It was still the product of the Racing Times. They bought the rights and they forced the hand of the DRF, not Beyer.

I have nothing against Beyer, so stop trying to play the "Light hates Beyer" game so you can blackmail me as a "bad guy". Is this how insecure you are?

Lets not turn this into another "Light hates name people" pissing contest.

Beyer decided to go public with his figures. He did that, not the Racing Times. He could have declined. He was the start of publishing quality speed figures and making them widely available to the public. Eventually they wound up in the DRF. Clearly, he had a big hand in it, even if it wasn't direct involvement. Lets move on.

[cj]

Agreed.:ThmbUp:

Thaskalos, you seem very sensitive to Light's comments, and I'm not sure why.
But relevant to this thread:

First of all, I don't see Andy as "The King of American Horseplayers,"
(your attribution). I luv his books and articles!!

Dave Schwartz called it right about the fact that Andy is in the first tier
re: Speed and his Washington Post contributions.
Handicapper Hall of Famer!

More Importantly, to this thread ,if I look at a Daily Racing Form today, AND more pertinent to debating whether or not people like Andy or not, or which publication put out the figures...Who cares...?

1.Of what value are the Speed figures?
a. On dirt
b. On turf

2. How should we use them?

1) The value of them now is knowing they are the #1 influence on betting in North America.

2) That will take many paragraphs that I will leave to thaskalos. Probably ten people could give ten different answers, and they might all be correct.

[Greyfox]

1) The value of them now is knowing they are the #1 influence on betting in North America.

2) That will take many paragraphs that I will leave to thaskalos. Probably ten people could give ten different answers, and they might all be correct.

Agreed.:ThmbUp:
My questions still stand.
There is no reason for us to get side tracked on the value of Andy's contributions, which I bow down to.

Thaskalos opened the discussion on Speed Figures.
Perhaps, as PA suggested, this could be a thread in itself.

I asked:


1.Of what value are the Speed figures?
a. On dirt
b. On turf

2. How should we use them?

Those are the questions.

[thaskalos]

I believe the first commercially published speed figs were not Beyers or the DRF. They were speed figs published by the old Racing Times. In 1992 The DRF bought the Racing Times and as a result started commercially publishing Beyer speed ratings that same year. This was obviously done to combat the popularity that the Racing Times had with their speed figures. My point is that the move by Beyer to have his speed figures commercially published came about due to the competition from the Racing Times.It was a business move, not a handicapping God saving horse players as you portray him.

IMO,the Racing Times did much more for the everyday average handicapper than Beyer ever did.It forced the hand of the DRF to make major changes and additions sorely needed for the survival of the horse player.

I wrote a short essay about speed and speed figures...and the post quoted above was your reply. There isn't a shred of truth in the entire post.

The only reason you even mentioned the Racing Times was because you thought that it featured different figures than Beyer's...so you could propose the ridiculous theory that Beyer rushed to publish his own figures because of the competition that the Racing Times presented with their own brand of figures.

This is why I stated that you "underestimated" the role that Beyer played in the improvement of the past performances.

I know you don't remember -- because if you did, then you would know that the figures in the Racing Times were Beyer's -- but when the Racing Times first came out...it was the BEYER figures that were the most advertised part of the publication. It was their most prized feature.

So, how can you give credit to the Racing Times...while denying the same credit to BEYER?

I repeat:

There were no other figures...it was Beyer all along.

HE brought professional-type speed figures to the public...which was my original statement, and the cause for you to post the reply highlighted above.

[cj]

Well said.

[thaskalos]

My questions still stand.

Thaskalos opened the discussion on Speed Figures.
Perhaps, as PA suggested, this could be a thread in itself.

I asked:

1.Of what value are the Speed figures?
a. On dirt
b. On turf

2. How should we use them?

Those are the questions.

These are exactly the sort of questions I was looking forward to when I started this project...and I will answer as best I can.

1. Of what value are speed figures...on dirt and on turf?

The speed figures tell us how fast a horse ran in the past...given the circumstances it faced, in the particular races it found itself in. If the question is..."How fast did the horse run to the wire in its prior races?"...then the speed figures tell us that at a glance.

But if our question becomes..."Will we be able to make a long-term profit by just betting on these high-figure horses in their subsequent races?"...then the answer to that is...NO! Since these horses are overbet as a group...they can no longer be relied upon for long-term profits.

It has been widely reported -- even by Beyer himself -- that these speed figures are not at their best when handicapping races on the turf. The way these turf races are usually run brings certain pace-related factors into the equation, which the speed figures alone cannot account for.

2. How should we use them?

It depends on what your objective is...

If you are looking to profit from the game...then you can't just use these speed figures in isolation. You have to augment them with other, less obvious handicapping factors...in order to get an advantage over the betting public.

But this all comes with a considerable pricetag.

I use speed and pace figures in combination, in order to get a better understanding of the race...but that forces me to stay up handicapping races until 4 o'clock in the morning.

There is no free lunch...

[Fastracehorse]

The Beyer published in the form measures the time it took to go from start to finish. But, not all horses get the luxury of having an unimpeded trip in the 1 path. I'm not teaching you anything here :)

So, how does it affect the Beyer if the horse takes the 2,3, or, 4 path from start to finish? I have a measure for these.

The Beyer can also be adjusted for surface and distance switches. Eg., dirt sprint to turf route - with remarkable accuracy.

Alas, the Beyer can be adjusted with effectiveness for improving youngsters.

And of paramount importance - it can measure class discrepancies.

My point is not to say that I can adjust the Beyer; but to underscore that the nature of horse racing transcends the 'highest adjusted Beyer' in the race.

What the adjusted Beyer taught me is that horse racing is 'Universal'! Meaning that horseman everywhere go about their business of racing horses in very similar manners - with variations on themes - and that these themes are over 100 years old.

An example of a theme is firing third time off the lay-off.

So, while the Beyer is an amazing tool if used properly; it's ineffectiveness is ALSO an excellent teacher for the intangible substance called 'form'!

Form for me, while much harder to quantify than speed figures, is the most important aspect of the game. And while I'm sure you were planning on going there; I wanted to make the point that my immersion in Beyers (speed) was important for a deeper understanding of the game.

Thanx,

fffastt

[Robert Goren]

I believe that speed figures get a bad rap on turf races. It is true that they are not as useful a tool as on they are on the dirt, they are not totally worthless as some would have you believe.

[Light]

I don't mean to belabor the point, so rest assured this will be my last interruption with the Beyer point.

A little historical perspective:

Until recently we did not have speed figures,nor Lasix information nor specific class designations information among other things that we take for granted today. Before 1992, most "advanced" handicappers bought Beyer's books on how to make your own speed figs since they were not available in the DRF. We made track variants and did well with these. Armed with home made speed figs,the prices we got back then were huge overlays and we had a double advantage over users using a form with no speed figs. I thank Beyer for that valuable tool.

I still remember talking to my fellow cronies at the track back in the late 80's and early 90's. When I mentioned Beyer,most looked at me with a blank stare.
Today most handicappers know who Beyer is. He could probably be called the "father of speed figures".

But IMO,Beyer has his place in what he contributed to the sport. The DRF, owned By Rupert Murdoch at the time had a monopoly on racing information. Not good. There was no incentive for a Murdoch to change when he knows you need him. The same is true when anyone in power has a monopoly on a resource.

So give credit where credit is due. The Racing times was a catalyst for the DRF to change. The DRF was losing business to the Racing Times and it was hitting the DRF where it hurts. Today we have a horse players association to try to make changes. But there has never been a catalyst like the Racing Times to get important changes to the average horse player,taking him out of the dark ages and into the age of information.

Attributing the changes in the DRf to Beyer is nonsense. Beyer has his place but Beyer is a sub contractor to whatever paper wants to use his figures. He doesn't run the organization. BTW, Steven Crist also worked for the Racing times as editor-in-chief.

Today the DRF uses Beyers figures. You think he tells the DRF how to run their business? I wish he did,we'd probably have a better product. But that's not his business nor his place and the same was true when he made the figs for the Racing Times.

[bob60566]

I don't mean to belabor the point, so rest assured this will be my last interruption with the Beyer point.

A little historical perspective:

Until recently we did not have speed figures,nor Lasix information nor specific class designations information among other things that we take for granted today. Before 1992, most "advanced" handicappers bought Beyer's books on how to make your own speed figs since they were not available in the DRF. We made track variants and did well with these. Armed with home made speed figs,the prices we got back then were huge overlays and we had a double advantage over users using a form with no speed figs. I thank Beyer for that valuable tool.

I still remember talking to my fellow cronies at the track back in the late 80's and early 90's. When I mentioned Beyer,most looked at me with a blank stare.
Today most handicappers know who Beyer is. He could probably be called the "father of speed figures".

But IMO,Beyer has his place in what he contributed to the sport. The DRF, owned By Rupert Murdoch at the time had a monopoly on racing information. Not good. There was no incentive for a Murdoch to change when he knows you need him. The same is true when anyone in power has a monopoly on a resource.

So give credit where credit is due. The Racing times was a catalyst for the DRF to change. The DRF was losing business to the Racing Times and it was hitting the DRF where it hurts. Today we have a horse players association to try to make changes. But there has never been a catalyst like the Racing Times to get important changes to the average horse player,taking him out of the dark ages and into the age of information.

Attributing the changes in the DRf to Beyer is nonsense. Beyer has his place but Beyer is a sub contractor to whatever paper wants to use his figures. He doesn't run the organization. BTW, Steven Crist also worked for the Racing times as editor-in-chief.

Today the DRF uses Beyers figures. You think he tells the DRF how to run their business? I wish he did,we'd probably have a better product. But that's not his business nor his place and the same was true when he made the figs for the Racing Times.

Time to let sleeping dogs die
Mac:)
Mac

[Light]

Time to let sleeping dogs die
Mac:)
Mac

That's what they do at the dog pound. The correct term is "Time to let sleeping dogs lie"

Sheesh.You can't even get that straight.

[bob60566]

:)That's what they do at the dog pound. The correct term is "Time to let sleeping dogs lie"

Sheesh.You can't even get that straight.

You get the meaning i hope .
You cant teach a old dog new tricks.

Mac:)

[Light]

:)

You get the meaning i hope .
You cant teach a old dog new tricks.

Mac:)

Yeah I get the meaning. You are calling me a dog. I bet you're a real nice guy too. :rolleyes:

[cj]

That's what they do at the dog pound. The correct term is "Time to let sleeping dogs lie"

Sheesh.You can't even get that straight.

Funny, you criticize a grammatical error, but it was okay for you to completely butcher your initial post about Beyer figures and the Racing Times. Apparently you read a Wiki page or something and think you are now an expert on a subject you were clueless about 24 hours ago. Any more posts off topic will be deleted.

[Pell Mell]

1) The value of them now is knowing they are the #1 influence on betting in North America.

2) That will take many paragraphs that I will leave to thaskalos. Probably ten people could give ten different answers, and they might all be correct.

I think things may be changing ever so slightly..In the past couple months I have seen a few horses with the highest Beyer in their last race and dropping in class win at 10/1 odds...When trying to figure out why I concluded it was because there were 2-3 red hot trainers in the race...seems like a lot of these trainers are taking all the money regardless of the Beyers...I know that betting hot trainers is nothing new and most of the horses from these trainers have high figures but I do see a lot of these stables getting all the action even on horses that don't look so good on form...sometimes the ML will have a horse listed as the favorite and I ask myself why and then notice it's a horse from a super trainer...so how much are these trainers changing the game? will it continue?

[cj]

I agree, people are betting the super trainers more and more, but probably not as much as they should the horse doesn't have the best Beyers. That is why many of them still show a flat bet positive ROI.

[Johnny V]

I agree, people are betting the super trainers more and more, but probably not as much as they should the horse doesn't have the best Beyers. That is why many of them still show a flat bet positive ROI.
Could you please clarify that statement for me. I don't quite get what you mean. Thanks.

[cj]

Could you please clarify that statement for me. I don't quite get what you mean. Thanks.

Sure, think I left a word out while posting in a painkiller induced trance.

While people naturally begin to bet the supertrainers more and more, they still don't bet them heavily enough, particularly in cases where the horses don't have the best speed figures. If they did, those trainers wouldn't show positive flat bet ROIs.

I would bet if you looked at supertrainers with those profitable flat bet ROIs, they are even higher for horses that don't have the best last race Beyer.

[castaway01]

Sure, think I left a word out while posting in a painkiller induced trance.

While people naturally begin to bet the supertrainers more and more, they still don't bet them heavily enough, particularly in cases where the horses don't have the best speed figures. If they did, those trainers wouldn't show positive flat bet ROIs.

I would bet if you looked at supertrainers with those profitable flat bet ROIs, they are even higher for horses that don't have the best last race Beyer.

The best situation when betting a supertrainer is if the horse has Beyers (or CJ figures) capable of winning the race but hasn't run them in the past few starts. Whether there is a claim or layoff involved, or a trainer change, or other angle the supertrainer excels in, that gives you reason to believe there will be a change in form, then you can make some money.

So, in other words, I agree with you.

[Johnny V]

Sure, think I left a word out while posting in a painkiller induced trance.

While people naturally begin to bet the supertrainers more and more, they still don't bet them heavily enough, particularly in cases where the horses don't have the best speed figures. If they did, those trainers wouldn't show positive flat bet ROIs.

I would bet if you looked at supertrainers with those profitable flat bet ROIs, they are even higher for horses that don't have the best last race Beyer.
Thanks, CJ.

[Blenheim]

Who does the figurin' for the Beyer figures and how are the figures calculated? What role does the racing surface play in the calculations? Do Beyer figures incorporate pace? If so, how and if not, why not?

How reliable are Beyer figures? How many horses with the last highest Beyer won next out? How reliable are Beyers when compared to BRIS, Equibase, PFs, Timeform and Race Ratings?

Are Beyer figures transferable from 6f to 7f? From 7f to 8f? From 8f to 10f? From AWS to dirt / dirt to AWS? From dirt to turf / turf to dirt? From AWS to turf / turf to AWS? From sloppy to fast / fast to sloppy? From fast to good / good to fast.

What good are speed figures if it rains before or during the race? If it is more humid than the day before? More windy than the day before? If track maintenance changes from the day before . . . etc. etc. etc.

[lamboguy]

Who does the figurin' for the Beyer figures and how are the figures calculated? What role does the racing surface play in the calculations? Do Beyer figures incorporate pace? If so, how and if not, why not?

How reliable are Beyer figures? How many horses with the last highest Beyer won next out? How reliable are Beyers when compared to BRIS, Equibase, PFs, Timeform and Race Ratings?

Are Beyer figures transferable from 6f to 7f? From 7f to 8f? From 8f to 10f? From AWS to dirt / dirt to AWS? From dirt to turf / turf to dirt? From AWS to turf / turf to AWS? From sloppy to fast / fast to sloppy? From fast to good / good to fast.

What good are speed figures if it rains before or during the race? If it is more humid than the day before? More windy than the day before? If track maintenance changes from the day before . . . etc. etc. etc.i think that you are going to find that in horse racing, just like everything else in life, there are variables that throw things off kilt. some days you will find that using speed figures will bring you to the promised land, other days you will be scratching your head. it all comes down to the very most important factor in anything you do concerning risk management, ITS RISK REWARD. if you are not able to compute a good risk reward platform, you can never win at anything that you do.

i don't use speed numbers, but i do practice risk reward at all times. sometimes when i bet a horse that pays $3.00 is a good risk, sometimes its not. a good handicapper will find winners, but must always have this in place.

[cj]

Who does the figurin' for the Beyer figures and how are the figures calculated? What role does the racing surface play in the calculations? Do Beyer figures incorporate pace? If so, how and if not, why not?

How reliable are Beyer figures? How many horses with the last highest Beyer won next out? How reliable are Beyers when compared to BRIS, Equibase, PFs, Timeform and Race Ratings?

Are Beyer figures transferable from 6f to 7f? From 7f to 8f? From 8f to 10f? From AWS to dirt / dirt to AWS? From dirt to turf / turf to dirt? From AWS to turf / turf to AWS? From sloppy to fast / fast to sloppy? From fast to good / good to fast.

What good are speed figures if it rains before or during the race? If it is more humid than the day before? More windy than the day before? If track maintenance changes from the day before . . . etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, you need to read some books on making Speed Figures. Those will answer most of your questions, and after reading them, you can probably answer the others.


Picking Winners, Andy Beyer
Figure Handicapping, James Quinn
Thoroughbred Handicapping: State of the Art, William Quirin

[duncan04]

Seriously, you need to read some books on making Speed Figures. Those will answer most of your questions, and after reading them, you can probably answer the others.


Picking Winners, Andy Beyer
Figure Handicapping, James Quinn
Thoroughbred Handicapping: State of the Art, William Quirin



So what is the point of the handicappers corner if someone can't get their questions answered? :ThmbDown: Instead of sharing insights, its go read books? If that's the case then the handicappers corner is pointless

[PhantomOnTour]

So what is the point of the handicappers corner if someone can't get their questions answered? :ThmbDown: Instead of sharing insights, its go read books? If that's the case then the handicappers corner is pointless
To be fair, the guy asked 17 questions.
You want all of them answered?

[duncan04]

To be fair, the guy asked 17 questions.
You want all of them answered?

I am aware he asked a lot of questions and no I don't expect them all to be answered. Just not sure where these threads are going, if anywhere.

[Viruss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IITxWbq0phY&list=UUA7ZtzZQ_V1HR0kOY9F9RYQ&index=5&feature=plcp


Earl J

[Greyfox]

So what is the point of the handicappers corner if someone can't get their questions answered? :ThmbDown: Instead of sharing insights, its go read books? If that's the case then the handicappers corner is pointless

I agree with cj here.
The thread should not get bogged down teaching the basics of how to make speed figures (Beyers or otherwise), when the questions can be answered readily by books like Picking Winners which should be available in most public libraries.

[duncan04]

Sorry guess I'm wrong. Never mind. I know I haven't been here long enough to be in the good ol boys clique. :rolleyes:

[cj]

So what is the point of the handicappers corner if someone can't get their questions answered? :ThmbDown: Instead of sharing insights, its go read books? If that's the case then the handicappers corner is pointless

The guy basically asked for the entire process of making speed figures. I don't think that is the purpose of this section. If I'm wrong, somebody else can answer.

[thaskalos]

I am aware he asked a lot of questions and no I don't expect them all to be answered. Just not sure where these threads are going, if anywhere.
The man asked..."Do the Beyer figures incorporate pace? Is so, how...and if not, why not?"

These are the sort of questions you want me to answer?

I already apologised for not having enough time at my disposal to keep things moving at a faster pace...and I also explained why.

I asked for a separate forum thinking that I could go at my own pace without interfering with the rest of the site...and my intention was to present my own handicapping and betting approach, after offering my opinion on some of the game's fundamentals.

This guy has asked 100 questions over the span of the last 3 days...and you think I should be obligated to play his little game?

Forgive me my friend...but I can't. This is not what I had in mind when I decided to do this.

My 13-year old son has no mother...and my extra time is in short supply.

I am afraid I am going to have to resign my position here...because I obviously underestimated the task at hand...and the complexity of my own life.

So you can go back to that other site now -- you know, the one where you went and said that this thread is a train wreck -- and tell them that it is now officially derailed.

[raybo]

Who does the figurin' for the Beyer figures and how are the figures calculated? What role does the racing surface play in the calculations? Do Beyer figures incorporate pace? If so, how and if not, why not?

How reliable are Beyer figures? How many horses with the last highest Beyer won next out? How reliable are Beyers when compared to BRIS, Equibase, PFs, Timeform and Race Ratings?

Are Beyer figures transferable from 6f to 7f? From 7f to 8f? From 8f to 10f? From AWS to dirt / dirt to AWS? From dirt to turf / turf to dirt? From AWS to turf / turf to AWS? From sloppy to fast / fast to sloppy? From fast to good / good to fast.

What good are speed figures if it rains before or during the race? If it is more humid than the day before? More windy than the day before? If track maintenance changes from the day before . . . etc. etc. etc.

Are you asking these questions for your own information, or do you already know all the answers? If you already know the answers, why do you ask?

If you don't know the answers, then you might do some searches of the archives on this website. They've all been answered many times over.

[bob60566]

Who does the figurin' for the Beyer figures and how are the figures calculated? What role does the racing surface play in the calculations? Do Beyer figures incorporate pace? If so, how and if not, why not?

How reliable are Beyer figures? How many horses with the last highest Beyer won next out? How reliable are Beyers when compared to BRIS, Equibase, PFs, Timeform and Race Ratings?

Are Beyer figures transferable from 6f to 7f? From 7f to 8f? From 8f to 10f? From AWS to dirt / dirt to AWS? From dirt to turf / turf to dirt? From AWS to turf / turf to AWS? From sloppy to fast / fast to sloppy? From fast to good / good to fast.

What good are speed figures if it rains before or during the race? If it is more humid than the day before? More windy than the day before? If track maintenance changes from the day before . . . etc. etc. etc.

To reply to your four questions who cares on all of the above,If you have that many concerns stop using them now and save yourself a lot of grief there is more to handicapping than Beyer numbers wake up and smell the roses in May.
Mac:)

[duncan04]

The man asked..."Do the Beyer figures incorporate pace? Is so, how...and if not, why not?"

These are the sort of questions you want me to answer?

I already apologised for not having enough time at my disposal to keep things moving at a faster pace...and I also explained why.


This guy has asked 100 questions over the span of the last 3 days...and you think I should be obligated to play his little game?

Forgive me my friend...but I can't. This is not what I had in mind when I decided to do this.

My 13-year old son has no mother...and my extra time is in short supply.

I am afraid I am going to have to resign my position here...because I obviously underestimated the task at hand...and the complexity of my own life.

So you can go back to that other site now -- you know, the one where you went and said that this thread is a train wreck -- and tell them that it is now officially derailed.

Whatever Thaskalos! I never said you had to play any little game. I know the guy was asking an insane number of questions. And if you want to quit over what I said, go ahead. All i did was say i dont know where this handicappers corner was going. I knew you were busy! Wasn't knocking you but if you thought so I apologize. Hope you keep going. Like I said I'm not part of the good ol gang so I guess I shouldn't be asking questions.

And I guess you visit that other site to see what I said. Lol :rolleyes: And what I meant was all the off topic stuff clogging the threads which CJ ended up deleting

[Grits]

No Thask, this isn't what you want to do. No, please. You have too much knowledge and much to offer--you also have the ability to, as you say, "not get bogged down" and anyone that doesn't like the format, that doesn't like your progression can take a hike. This was not planned for the benefit, or I don't think it was, to educate one person at a time, as in becoming the mentor for ONE.

If one hasn't any handicapping skill or knowledge base, whatsoever, they may want to PURCHASE some books and inform themselves--its never up to one person to enlighten everyone on a messageboard and the sooner those that do not understand this--DO UNDERSTAND--the better off they will be. And you will be able to continue.

To put it in only a few short words . . . . don't sweat the small stuff. ;)

And whatever you do--don't sweat the smart mouths. ;)

The man asked..."Do the Beyer figures incorporate pace? Is so, how...and if not, why not?"

These are the sort of questions you want me to answer?

I already apologised for not having enough time at my disposal to keep things moving at a faster pace...and I also explained why.

I asked for a separate forum thinking that I could go at my own pace without interfering with the rest of the site...and my intention was to present my own handicapping and betting approach, after offering my opinion on some of the game's fundamentals.

This guy has asked 100 questions over the span of the last 3 days...and you think I should be obligated to play his little game?

Forgive me my friend...but I can't. This is not what I had in mind when I decided to do this.

My 13-year old son has no mother...and my extra time is in short supply.

I am afraid I am going to have to resign my position here...because I obviously underestimated the task at hand...and the complexity of my own life.

So you can go back to that other site now -- you know, the one where you went and said that this thread is a train wreck -- and tell them that it is now officially derailed.

[Greyfox]

Like I said I'm not part of the good ol gang so I guess I shouldn't be asking questions.

And I guess you visit that other site to see what I said. Lol :rolleyes:

duncan04 - Who is part of "the good ol gang" here? You are coming across as a pouter.

Thaskalos - I hope that you don't quit, but I can appreciate the enormous undertaking in starting such a project. For sure, your personal life comes first and anything on this thread is secondary at best. Maybe redefining the parameters of what you can and cannot do for Handicappers Corner might be something to reflect on. For example, I don't feel that you have to defend every major topic that you present. In the 21 st Century Speed figures are an integral part of the game, albeit nothing in horse racing is written in stone.
At any rate, thank you for your contributions here to this point.
They've been well thought out and well presented. :ThmbUp:

[Grits]

Duncan, its never a good idea to go to other sites and speak of anyone here, or of this site. It doesn't read well, and, surely, you can't expect those you're speaking of to be pleased about it. Too, there's no "good old boys" thing going here, that's just your imagination, sweetie. Let go of that, you'll enjoy your time here at PA much more. :ThmbUp:

[duncan04]

Duncan, its never a good idea to go to other sites and speak of anyone here, or of this site. It doesn't read well, and, surely, you can't expect those you're speaking of to be pleased about it. Too, there's no "good old boys" thing going here, that's just your imagination, sweetie. Let go of that, you'll enjoy your time here at PA much more. :ThmbUp:


Ahh Grits I never mentioned this site or anyone by name. And I hope Thaskalos doesnt quit!

[Grits]

Ahh Grits I never mentioned this site or anyone by name. And I hope Thaskalos doesnt quit!

Me too, Duncan. I think this is a nice thing for the site. ;)

[duncan04]

duncan04 - Who is part of "the good ol gang" here? You are coming across as a pouter.

:


All I'm going to say about this is it appears if you question something around here and aren't a long time poster, you get attacked or questioned like I did. Just something I've observed a while.

[turninforhome10]

Who does the figurin' for the Beyer figures and how are the figures calculated? What role does the racing surface play in the calculations? Do Beyer figures incorporate pace? If so, how and if not, why not?
Google search return
http://books.google.com/books?id=nH403wHU7KIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beyer+on+speed&hl=en#v=onepage&q=beyer%20on%20speed&f=false

How reliable are Beyer figures? How many horses with the last highest Beyer won next out? How reliable are Beyers when compared to BRIS, Equibase, PFs, Timeform and Race Ratings?
http://books.google.com/books?id=0ulkXLmBB6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beyer+on+speed&hl=en#v=onepage&q=beyer%20on%20speed&f=false

Are Beyer figures transferable from 6f to 7f? From 7f to 8f? From 8f to 10f? From AWS to dirt / dirt to AWS? From dirt to turf / turf to dirt? From AWS to turf / turf to AWS? From sloppy to fast / fast to sloppy? From fast to good / good to fast.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0ulkXLmBB6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beyer+on+speed&hl=en#v=onepage&q=beyer%20on%20speed&f=false

What good are speed figures if it rains before or during the race? If it is more humid than the day before? More windy than the day before? If track maintenance changes from the day before . . . etc. etc. etc.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0ulkXLmBB6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beyer+on+speed&hl=en#v=onepage&q=beyer%20on%20speed&f=false.[/QUOTE]



Questions that can be answered by the above references and found with a google search.

[bob60566]

http://books.google.com/books?id=0ulkXLmBB6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beyer+on+speed&hl=en#v=onepage&q=beyer%20on%20speed&f=false.



Questions that can be answered by the above references and found with a google search.[/QUOTE]

Any chance the outcome of the ninth race at Charles Town tonight.

Mac:) :) :)

[nijinski]

Thas,
Please continue. You write so well and you have much knowledge to share . You add that extra touch of class and dignity that this sport needs right now .
It would all be wasted . Please give it some thought and take as long a you need .
Everone here understands that your family matters are a priority. That's how it should be.

[Blenheim]

Are you asking these questions for your own information, or do you already know all the answers? If you already know the answers, why do you ask?

If you don't know the answers, then you might do some searches of the archives on this website. They've all been answered many times over.

Thanks for asking and good question.

First, Mr. Thaskalos did write, " Nothing pleases me more than good questions."

I believe my questions were good questions and questions one might expect to be asked given the subject matter. Quite frankly, I did know the answers to some of the questions . . . maybe others didn't. The questions posed were not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those that may not know enough about the subject matter to frame the question. The questions posed were not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those interested in knowing more about handicapping. Not only would I benefit from asking the question and receiving an answer, others would likely benefit also.

[bob60566]

Thanks for asking and good question.

First, Mr. Thaskalos did write, " Nothing pleases me more than good questions."

I believe my questions were good questions and questions one might expect to be asked given the subject matter. Quite frankly, I did know the answers to some of the questions . . . maybe others didn't. The questions posed were not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those that may not know enough about the subject matter to frame the question. The questions posed were not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those interested in knowing more about handicapping. Not only would I benefit from asking the question and receiving an answer, others would likely benefit also.

Good reply
So how does Beyer figures help in your handicapping. win bets , exactors or other with your questions.
There is nothing to beat human instinct in Handicapping.

Mac:) :) :)

[raybo]

Thanks for asking and good question.

First, Mr. Thaskalos did write, " Nothing pleases me more than good questions."

I believe my questions were good questions and questions one might expect to be asked given the subject matter. Quite frankly, I did know the answers to some of the questions . . . maybe others didn't. The questions posed were not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those that may not know enough about the subject matter to frame the question. The questions posed were not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those interested in knowing more about handicapping. Not only would I benefit from asking the question and receiving an answer, others would likely benefit also.

Then if you already knew the answers to some of your questions, you didn't need to ask them. Ask questions that you, yourself, do not know the answer to, takes a lot less space and time.

If any other readers of these threads doesn't understand the subject matter, then let them ask their own questions. After all, if they don't have the ability to ask questions, then they're unlikely to understand the answers anyway.

Please, let's move on!!

[Handiman]

How about this. Instead of people asking questions they know the answers too, why not pose the question and then answer it. Then you provide info for those that don't have the knowledge and for those that disagree with you, they have a point from which to start a discussion.

Handi:)

[bob60566]

This might be of use

What type of Bettor are you and how do you handicap to this.

I am win only and dutch with odd w/p

Mac:)

[maddog42]

A 13 year old son is a lot more important than a bunch of wise-ass handicappers
like me. I was definitely a wise-ass in the other thread, but my intention was to take some pressure off Thaskalos and discourage some people from complaining and bitching and arguing. The superfecta thread that Thaskalos did was really good and I was looking forward to this one. Lets give Thask some space and maybe he can come back to this thread down the road.

[Tom]

Yes, let the man do his thing.

This is getting a dis-joined and cluttered up as Horse Player Now's Night School - a good idea presented very badly.

If you are not interested, why even come into the thread?

[turninforhome10]

When I was first getting started back in the 90's I read every book get my hands on. Beyer Ainsile, all the basics. From there I learned the game by going in with both hands first working in a test barn, then as a stall mucker and eventually up to assistant farm manager\trainer. It was not easy and very hard work, but I learned.
My point this and maybe I will get crucified for it, but some of the knowledge is already available and if you want to play this game you can't expect Thaskalos to provide info that should be your responsibility to find on your own. If your question can be answered by a google search, then should you not try that first.

I am more interested in his opinions, rather than have him teach horse racing101.
Maybe we need a beginners thread so people can get up to snuff.
I would be happy to gather links.

[duncan04]

When I was first getting started back in the 90's I read every book get my hands on. Beyer Ainsile, all the basics. From there I learned the game by going in with both hands first working in a test barn, then as a stall mucker and eventually up to assistant farm manager\trainer. It was not easy and very hard work, but I learned.
My point this and maybe I will get crucified for it, but some of the knowledge is already available and if you want to play this game you can't expect Thaskalos to provide info that should be your responsibility to find on your own. If your question can be answered by a google search, then should you not try that first.

I am more interested in his opinions, rather than have him teach horse racing101.
Maybe we need a beginners thread so people can get up to snuff.
I would be happy to gather links.


That sounds like a great idea, and would help Thaskalos out. Hoping this all continues!!

[PaceAdvantage]

All I'm going to say about this is it appears if you question something around here and aren't a long time poster, you get attacked or questioned like I did. Just something I've observed a while.What a crock of bullshit. And yeah, you can count that as an attack.

People count as "attacks" when you simply question them. More bullshit.

Dude, you haven't been attacked, until now...because now, you deserve it.

If you don't like how this site operates, you have plenty of other options.

[lamboguy]

This might be of use

What type of Bettor are you and how do you handicap to this.

I am win only and dutch with odd w/p

Mac:)that is probably the best way to bet, but i will say something where speed and pace do come into play, that is when you play horses in more than one position, if a horse neeeds to get to the lead and doesn't make it, i don't know why someone would want to increase his exposure to the race betting place and show along with win

[stuball]

To PA I want to know if you have the capabilty to limit the number of posts
by a member(not delete them)...maybe just maybe that's what is needed here..
if you are limited to say 4 posts--questions whatever per subject it would
take a huge load off Thas if he comes back. like timeouts in a sports game
you have to use them more wisely...I was afraid this would end up as it has...
Some just don't want to learn.
Please consider this if it is possible...I don't post often but when I do I post
on Pace Advantage....

Stuball

[Jay Trotter]

I believe this post properly belongs in the Welcome to Handicapper's Corner (http://showthread.php?t=92454) sub-thread, but I see the topic I wish to discuss has boiled over to this thread.

First, and most importantly, thaskalos, like cream, has risen to the top and been identified as someone with wisdom, substance and style. He has a voice we trust and wish to hear on the very subject we hold dear -- handicapping. Gus stands out from most of the rest because of his even tempered, knowledgable and succint way of responding to any given question.

Second, why do those from the "bright side" always seem to filter over here to the "dark side" to poke with their sticks. Why not just stay over on your side and discuss amongst the six or seven of you! You continually come over here, acuse us of stealing your ideas and generally bash us.

From what I can see, we just need to get this Corner started in the right direction and it will blossom into something great. What I would suggest is that Gus display his lessons and thoughts more as a Blog than a thread. As a "moderator", Gus can open and close his thread as a tool. Gus has wisdom to impart and a way of speaking that commands attention.

I suggest that Gus run a thread where only he speaks and at his own pace. A parallel thread could be opened for commentary, feedback and general input. Gus can choose to speak to some of that input or let it lay as he moves his lessons forward.

The way I look at this project, is that it will become a collection of lessons that eventually could be turned into a book. The book would take us through some basic principals, some strategic angles, some truths, as well as the odd real life examples and interesting side stories.

People need to step back and listen and not just "wait for their turn to talk". Handicappers, quite often, want only to show how smart they are, rather than be quiet and learn something new.

I say, let's step back, be quiet and listen to someone who has illustrated they truly have something of value to share. I eagerly await these lessons and the book to follow.

Trotter:ThmbUp:

[JimG]

I suggest that Gus run a thread where only he speaks and at his own pace. A parallel thread could be opened for commentary, feedback and general input. Gus can choose to speak to some of that input or let it lay as he moves his lessons forward.



Jay,

I was thinking the same thing as you stated above. I hope thask decides to go that route. It would keep it more organized and allow one to easily find his thoughts on various subjects.

Jim

[pondman]

The fact that speed handicapping was ridiculed for so many years was a direct result of the inaccuracy of these raw running times in determining the quality of the performance of these horses.


Speed handicapping is still laughable. What improvements?

If your methodology ranks horses primarily by speed. which I'd advise against, it's going to be important to pick and choose your races. A player needs to break down racing under conditions, and play only the conditions favorable to speed ratings.

You've already picked the biggest of the flaws. Speed handicappers need to forget about shippers. They'll never get shippers with rating systems. You'll get wiped out trying to rate out-of-towners based on speed or pace. If you have a shipper in a race, and you play as a speed handicapper your probably better off skipping the race, because shippers require an entirely different thought process.

It's a routine of mine to sit and listen to the geezers boxing the 3 top beyers horses for $12. Beyers this, beyers that. I don't know if they've every made any money. And it stuns them when I sit all day, play one race, and walk out with a bag of money from a shipper (And I mean a fairly large bag-- bigger than a McDonald Big Mac Bag.)

[Greyfox]

You've already picked the biggest of the flaws. Speed handicappers need to forget about shippers. They'll never get shippers with rating systems. You'll get wiped out trying to rate out-of-towners based on speed or pace. If you have a shipper in a race, and you play as a speed handicapper your probably better off skipping the race, because shippers require an entirely different thought process.

.)

So would you advise that one should ignore Speed figures in handicapping the
Kentucky Derby? or Should we skip betting The Kentucky Derby?
(Alternately can you pick first or second in the Kentucky Derby paying no attention to Speed figures?)

[cj]

Speed handicapping is still laughable. What improvements?

If your methodology ranks horses primarily by speed. which I'd advise against, it's going to be important to pick and choose your races. A player needs to break down racing under conditions, and play only the conditions favorable to speed ratings.

You've already picked the biggest of the flaws. Speed handicappers need to forget about shippers. They'll never get shippers with rating systems. You'll get wiped out trying to rate out-of-towners based on speed or pace. If you have a shipper in a race, and you play as a speed handicapper your probably better off skipping the race, because shippers require an entirely different thought process.

It's a routine of mine to sit and listen to the geezers boxing the 3 top beyers horses for $12. Beyers this, beyers that. I don't know if they've every made any money. And it stuns them when I sit all day, play one race, and walk out with a bag of money from a shipper (And I mean a fairly large bag-- bigger than a McDonald Big Mac Bag.)

Really? Are you really this dense? This isn't the place for this type of BS. This place is for Thaskolos to give his thoughts for people to learn. It isn't for you to brag how smart you are while demeaning him, with nothing to back it up I might add.

Maybe someday you'll have the kind of reputation where you can get your own section, but until then, post stuff like in a new thread that you start in the regular sections of the board.

[raybo]

Really? Are you really this dense? This isn't the place for this type of BS. This place is for Thaskolos to give his thoughts for people to learn. It isn't for you to brag how smart you are while demeaning him, with nothing to back it up I might add.

Maybe someday you'll have the kind of reputation where you can get your own section, but until then, post stuff like in a new thread that you start in the regular sections of the board.

Agreed! That was rather "obtuse". Anyone that comes out and flat says that speed handicapping approaches won't work, is well, revealing a lot about his/her knowledge of handicapping.

I dare to say that there are a few players out there that have a killer speed figure, that handles track to track, distance to distance, pace, etc., the whole ball of wax, but if they're smart, they'll keep it under wraps!

Actually, I could probably use speed figures in my latest spreadsheet and do just fine. It's a matter of how you use it, not just what you use.

[bob60566]

I struggle two days ago it was Beyer numbers now it is speed figures what is next class figures or maybe form figures to finish the week off.
My thought is handicappers are using the above and are entrenched in a all of those figures which are out there for eveyrone to see which the general public uses, How many time have you seen four selections posted per race on the whole card.

Mac:)

[raybo]

I struggle two days ago it was Beyer numbers now it is speed figures what is next class figures or maybe form figures to finish the week off.
My thought is handicappers are using the above and are entrenched in a all of those figures which are out there for eveyrone to see which the general public uses, How many time have you seen four selections posted per race on the whole card.

Mac:)

Beyers are speed figures. This thread is about speed figures, not just Beyers.

[bob60566]

Beyers are speed figures. This thread is about speed figures, not just Beyers.

That is correct

Mac:confused:

[mistergee]

has anyone tried to use the beyer pace figures that he alluded to in one of his books over a good sample period?

[cj]

I tried them for a while, but wasn't impressed. I imagine he wasn't either since they never made it to print.

[thaskalos]

Speed handicapping is still laughable. What improvements?

If your methodology ranks horses primarily by speed. which I'd advise against, it's going to be important to pick and choose your races. A player needs to break down racing under conditions, and play only the conditions favorable to speed ratings.

You've already picked the biggest of the flaws. Speed handicappers need to forget about shippers. They'll never get shippers with rating systems. You'll get wiped out trying to rate out-of-towners based on speed or pace. If you have a shipper in a race, and you play as a speed handicapper your probably better off skipping the race, because shippers require an entirely different thought process.

It's a routine of mine to sit and listen to the geezers boxing the 3 top beyers horses for $12. Beyers this, beyers that. I don't know if they've every made any money. And it stuns them when I sit all day, play one race, and walk out with a bag of money from a shipper (And I mean a fairly large bag-- bigger than a McDonald Big Mac Bag.)

I don't understand your point.

You say..."If your methodology ranks horses primarily by speed, which I'd advise against, it's going to be important to pick and choose your races."

Ok...you are going to have to pick and choose your races. Is that a surpising development to you?

Is speed handicapping the ONLY handicapping method where the players are forced to "pick and choose their races"?

YOU don't even look at speed figures AT ALL...and yet have stated on this site that you only make 200 bets a year. I dare say that YOUR method of play is more restrictive than any speed/pace handicapping method could EVER be.

Passing races is a MUST, my friend...for ALL players -- not just the figure handicappers.

Learn something about us, before you start criticizing our methods...

I assure you...all speed handicappers are not like those $2-betting "geezers" that you have become accustomed to...

And we don't just..."box the 3 top Beyers"...whatever the term "top Beyer" may mean to you.

[098poi]

I have a question. My basic understanding of Beyers is that they start not with final times but conditions. A winner of a 20K open claimer at track x should get a par time. Then how far up or down from par is noted and so are all the races for the day and adjustments are made accordingly. I am not sure if the actual unfolding of the race, pace trouble etc. are taken into account. Just talking about Beyers here. Then the winner is assigned it's number and then the others are assigned based on that one extrapolated back by their beaten lengths. (Did I word that properly?) So if the winner gets an 85 then a horse 2 lenths back in a sprint would get an 81 or there about with 1 length equaling 2 points. My numbers may be off.

So now to my question. Let's ay you have a race with 6 horses

1. Beyer = 85 won race
2. Beyer = 85 beaten 2 lengths
3. Beyer = 85 beaten 8 lengths
4. Beyer = 82 won race
5. Beyer = 82 beaten 6 lengths
6 Beyer = 81 beaten 1 length

(the beaten lengths or won means how they did in their respective races)

Do we really say that an 85 is an 85 or an 82 is an 82? Because of the way the horses who don't win are "back figured" it seems to me the numbers may have less credibility the further back they finish. Hope this makes sense.

[HUSKER55]

My understanding of Beyers is that it is a method of projecting time based on the track pars.

for example if the 6f par is 72 and it equals 80 then if the horse is running today at a mile you look up 80 and find that the time is you can expect is 98 based on par times at the track, for example.

My understanding is that they are conversion rates and not speed rates. Suppose that in the above example, at 8f the time for 80 was 90 seconds. That would mean some really fast horses run the mile but not 6f

Each fifth of a second is weighed per race per distance.

hope I explained that right.

JMHO

[cj]

My understanding of Beyers is that it is a method of projecting time based on the track pars.

for example if the 6f par is 72 and it equals 80 then if the horse is running today at a mile you look up 80 and find that the time is you can expect is 98 based on par times at the track, for example.

My understanding is that they are conversion rates and not speed rates. Suppose that in the above example, at 8f the time for 80 was 90 seconds. That would mean some really fast horses run the mile but not 6f

Each fifth of a second is weighed per race per distance.

hope I explained that right.

JMHO

Pars aren't really used any longer. I imagine they were in the beginning, whenever the beginning was. Today, it is more about projecting a figure instead of using a rigid par number. You derive this projection from the figures the horses in a race have run in the past.

Of course, for races for 2yos and maidens and lightly raced horses, this isn't always possible and a par might be used. However, races with solid projections will be given more credibility when making a variant.

[Robert Goren]

I have a question. My basic understanding of Beyers is that they start not with final times but conditions. A winner of a 20K open claimer at track x should get a par time. Then how far up or down from par is noted and so are all the races for the day and adjustments are made accordingly. I am not sure if the actual unfolding of the race, pace trouble etc. are taken into account. Just talking about Beyers here. Then the winner is assigned it's number and then the others are assigned based on that one extrapolated back by their beaten lengths. (Did I word that properly?) So if the winner gets an 85 then a horse 2 lenths back in a sprint would get an 81 or there about with 1 length equaling 2 points. My numbers may be off.

So now to my question. Let's ay you have a race with 6 horses

1. Beyer = 85 won race
2. Beyer = 85 beaten 2 lengths
3. Beyer = 85 beaten 8 lengths
4. Beyer = 82 won race
5. Beyer = 82 beaten 6 lengths
6 Beyer = 81 beaten 1 length

(the beaten lengths or won means how they did in their respective races)

Do we really say that an 85 is an 85 or an 82 is an 82? Because of the way the horses who don't win are "back figured" it seems to me the numbers may have less credibility the further back they finish. Hope this makes sense.Strictly for the purpose of getting a speed rating that measures a horse potential, in a race the further back a horse the more likely its speed rating is too low. A horse 10 lengths back is not going all out the wire like the horse within a length. in your example the horse who ran an 85 8 lengths back might have run 86 or 87 if it had been pushed in the stretch.

[cj]

Strictly for the purpose of getting a speed rating that measures a horse potential, in a race the further back a horse the more likely its speed rating is too low. A horse 10 lengths back is not going all out the wire like the horse within a length. in your example the horse who ran an 85 8 lengths back might have run 86 or 87 if it had been pushed in the stretch.

It really depends how he got to be farther back now, doesn't it?

That said, I agree that the less competitive a horse is, the less meaning his speed figure will have overall.

[raybo]

It really depends how he got to be farther back now, doesn't it?

That said, I agree that the less competitive a horse is, the less meaning his speed figure will have overall.

And, thus the need to analyze the pace of the race, among other things, both as a figure creator and a handicapper.

[Tom]

The horse who ran 8 behind and earned an 85 ran against a much faster horse who that the one who won and got an 85.

[JohnGalt1]

You've already picked the biggest of the flaws. Speed handicappers need to forget about shippers. They'll never get shippers with rating systems. You'll get wiped out trying to rate out-of-towners based on speed or pace. If you have a shipper in a race, and you play as a speed handicapper your probably better off skipping the race, because shippers require an entirely different thought process.

I make Hambleton pace figures from Sartin's book.

I also purchase Cynthia's Par figures every year.

That aids me in track to track and distance to distance comparisons.

[JohnGalt1]

Before Beyer, others made figures based on final time.

In the 60's Bob McKnight in his book "Eliminate the Losers" offfered this.

Fast------------1:12.0
Good/Sloppy---- 1:13.1
Slow------------1:14.2
Muddy----------1:15.3
Heavy-----------1:16.4

No adjustments for Suf or SA.

Most sloppy tracks are not 6 ticks slower than fast tracks.

A horse on a heavy or muddy track would always have a faster rating than a horse on a fast track.

Maybe tracks were different in the 50's and 60's (it's before my time) and muddy tracks were 3 3/5 slower then.

I did make thse figures until i knew better.

At least it was an effort at making a speed rating.

[Greyfox]

Maybe tracks were different in the 50's and 60's (it's before my time) and muddy tracks were 3 3/5 slower then.

.

Most 1950's tracks had a higher clay to sand ratio than today's ovals.

[cj]

You've already picked the biggest of the flaws. Speed handicappers need to forget about shippers. They'll never get shippers with rating systems. You'll get wiped out trying to rate out-of-towners based on speed or pace. If you have a shipper in a race, and you play as a speed handicapper your probably better off skipping the race, because shippers require an entirely different thought process.

I make Hambleton pace figures from Sartin's book.

I also purchase Cynthia's Par figures every year.

That aids me in track to track and distance to distance comparisons.

With today's computer power and potent databases, making ratings that transport across different circuits isn't nearly as tough as it was 20 years ago.

[bob60566]

This is one of my pet peaves how does one use and then rate speed figures, in the whole concept in any given race.

Mac:confused:

[raybo]

This is one of my pet peaves how does one use and then rate speed figures, in the whole concept in any given race.

Mac:confused:

Mine too!

In the distant past, I tried to use speed figures. However, the figures I used were decidedly poor. The old saying "It's not how fast the horse ran, but how the horse ran fast", points you in the right direction.

Today, speed figures have progressed to the point that some very good ones may answer "how the horse ran fast" pretty well. In the past, "an 85 wasn't an 85, wasn't an 85", due to all the other factors that existed during the running of races. Today, the really good speed figures come closer to solving that problem and come closer to saying "an 85 is an 85 is an 85".

In my opinion, these really good speed figures are no longer speed figures but rather, they are performance/ability figures, because they include pace/class conversion, surface condition conversion, distance to distance conversion, track to track conversion, weather, trouble, trip, etc.. Very good speed figures also help determine form cycle, which if not answered, will many times "trump" whatever figure ratings you use.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if you don't have very good speed figures, then you still have lots of additional work ahead of you.

[cj]

This is one of my pet peaves how does one use and then rate speed figures, in the whole concept in any given race.

Mac:confused:

The same as you should use any other handicapping factor. You use it to try to help assess the horse and assign it a fair value on the tote board.

[TrifectaMike]

In the distant past, I tried to use speed figures. However, the figures I used were decidedly poor. The old saying "It's not how fast the horse ran, but how the horse ran fast", points you in the right direction.

Today, speed figures have progressed to the point that some very good ones may answer "how the horse ran fast" pretty well. In the past, "an 85 wasn't an 85, wasn't an 85", due to all the other factors that existed during the running of races. Today, the really good speed figures come closer to solving that problem and come closer to saying "an 85 is an 85 is an 85".

In my opinion, the majority of commercially available speed figures are adequate for the purpose of measuring a performance. What is not readily known is the impact of that particular measured performance on the horse.

Each event (race) impacts a horse's fitness and fatigue. There is a biphasic relationship between a predicted a speed rating and a past speed ratings...fitness and fatigue.

An extreme example of this is "bounce". However, in reality there is a bounce of some sort after each race run by a horse. The projected speed rating calibrated according to the horse's recent history can be inferred as to the effect a race impacts on the horse's ftness-fatigue curve.

In effect, what I am saying is that an 85 can project to an 90 or an 80 or worse. So, to me, it is more important to determine if a race helps or hinders a horse's future performance.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[thaskalos]

In my opinion, the majority of commercially available speed figures are adequate for the purpose of measuring a performance. What is not readily known is the impact of that particular measured performance on the horse.

Each event (race) impacts a horse's fitness and fatigue. There is a biphasic relationship between a predicted a speed rating and a past speed ratings...fitness and fatigue.

An extreme example of this is "bounce". However, in reality there is a bounce of some sort after each race run by a horse. The projected speed rating calibrated according to the horse's recent history can be inferred as to the effect a race impacts on the horse's ftness-fatigue curve.

In effect, what I am saying is that an 85 can project to an 90 or an 80 or worse. So, to me, it is more important to determine if a race helps or hinders a horse's future performance.

Mike (Dr Beav)

I agree...and that's why I believe it helps enormously if the speed handicapper is also well-rounded in the other handicapping aspects of this game.

Too many players are preoccupied with identifying which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...without giving enough consideration to whether or not these horses are likely to repeat these fast performances TODAY.

Is the horse's past 85 rating a "real" 85...or was it helped in some way by favorable circumstances which are not likely to be repeated?

Does the horse show the ability to string these fast races together? Some horses (or should I say, trainers) have the tendency of throwing "tune-up" races in-between.

And finally...where does this fast race fit, as far as the overall form cycle of the horse is concerned?

These questions fall under the heading "figure interpretation"...and I consider this to be the "artistic" side of the handicapping process.

That's why I smile when I hear people say that, if we all use the same figures...then we will all invariably land on the same horses.

[bob60566]

I agree...and that's why I believe it helps enormously if the speed handicapper is also well-rounded in the other handicapping aspects of this game.

Too many players are preoccupied with identifying which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...without giving enough consideration to whether or not these horses are likely to repeat these fast performances TODAY.

Is the horse's past 85 rating a "real" 85...or was it helped in some way by favorable circumstances which are not likely to be repeated?

Does the horse show the ability to string these fast races together? Some horses (or should I say, trainers) have the tendency of throwing "tune-up" races in-between.

And finally...where does this fast race fit, as far as the overall form cycle of the horse is concerned?

These questions fall under the heading "figure interpretation"...and I consider this to be the "artistic" side of the handicapping process.

That's why I smile when I hear people say that if we all use the same figures...then we will all invariably land on the same horses.

Very infomative post I have one query at what age can we assume that the horse has reached the pinnacle of it speed rating and will be unlikely to improve on it.

[thaskalos]

Very infomative post I have one query at what age can we assume that the horse has reached the pinnacle of it speed rating and will be unlikely to improve on it.
It used to be that a 5-year old was considered at the peak of its racing career...but, with the rapid improvement in the training skills of some of today's trainers...that may no longer be the case... :)

[Dave Schwartz]

Sheets players like to say that a horse can only improve 10 points from its 2-yr old best.

(10 "Sheet" Points is maybe 30 lengths or so, but perhaps someone else could chime in with more precision.)

[bob60566]

It used to be that a 5-year old was considered at the peak of its racing career...but, with the rapid improvement in the training skills of some of today's trainers...that may no longer be the case... :)

How true;) ;) ;)

Mac:ThmbDown:

[illinoisbred]

Sheets players like to say that a horse can only improve 10 points from its 2-yr old best.

(10 "Sheet" Points is maybe 30 lengths or so, but perhaps someone else could chime in with more precision.)
Len Friedman in one of the early day seminar tapes states that generally a horse develops no more than 7-10 points from the 1st number it suffers a serious setback or regression.

[TrifectaMike]

I agree...and that's why I believe it helps enormously if the speed handicapper is also well-rounded in the other handicapping aspects of this game.

Too many players are preoccupied with identifying which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...without giving enough consideration to whether or not these horses are likely to repeat these fast performances TODAY.

Is the horse's past 85 rating a "real" 85...or was it helped in some way by favorable circumstances which are not likely to be repeated?

Does the horse show the ability to string these fast races together? Some horses (or should I say, trainers) have the tendency of throwing "tune-up" races in-between.

And finally...where does this fast race fit, as far as the overall form cycle of the horse is concerned?

These questions fall under the heading "figure interpretation"...and I consider this to be the "artistic" side of the handicapping process.

That's why I smile when I hear people say that, if we all use the same figures...then we will all invariably land on the same horses.

Although, I don't necassarily disgree with your post, it is not the point I am making.

Let me try an analogy. Most people can have a drink and it makes them feel better. So, the thinking is that more drinks will cause them to feel even better. Now, we know that's not true. A few drinks make make one feel "better", "more" will make them feel worse.

There is a critical point between feeling better and "more" drinks will make them feel worse. This is defined as a biphasic (two part) effect.

In the instance of a horse earning an 85 rating may make the horse "fitter" (there are other time factors involved) or it might return to a race fatigued. The threshold is horse particular.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[thaskalos]

Although, I don't necassarily disgree with your post, it is not the point I am making.

Let me try an analogy. Most people can have a drink and it makes them feel better. So, the thinking is that more drinks will cause them to feel even better. Now, we know that's not true. A few drinks make make one feel "better", "more" will make them feel worse.

There is a critical point between feeling better and "more" drinks will make them feel worse. This is defined as a biphasic (two part) effect.

In the instance of a horse earning an 85 rating may make the horse "fitter" (there are other time factors involved) or it might return to a race fatigued. The threshold is horse particular.

Mike (Dr Beav)

I don't think you understood the point that I was making either, Mike...

IMO...the size of the figure, in and of itself...does not tell us enough about the "fatigue" effect it might produce in the horse.

A much lesser number earned under extreme duress may result in the same thing...

[raybo]

In my opinion, the majority of commercially available speed figures are adequate for the purpose of measuring a performance. What is not readily known is the impact of that particular measured performance on the horse.

Each event (race) impacts a horse's fitness and fatigue. There is a biphasic relationship between a predicted a speed rating and a past speed ratings...fitness and fatigue.

An extreme example of this is "bounce". However, in reality there is a bounce of some sort after each race run by a horse. The projected speed rating calibrated according to the horse's recent history can be inferred as to the effect a race impacts on the horse's ftness-fatigue curve.

In effect, what I am saying is that an 85 can project to an 90 or an 80 or worse. So, to me, it is more important to determine if a race helps or hinders a horse's future performance.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Uh, that's kinda what I meant when I said "form" can trump figure ratings. Was that not clear? My apologies if that is the case.

[cj]

Uh, that's kinda what I meant when I said "form" can trump figure ratings. Was that not clear? My apologies if that is the case.

I can't think of a better way to assess form than looking at the a horse's lifetime ratings, or at the least its last 10.

[raybo]

I can't think of a better way to assess form than looking at the a horse's lifetime ratings, or at the least its last 10.

Pace ratings, speed ratings, or both? I prefer fractional adjusted times/velocities, over both pace and speed figures, for determining form cycle. Unless, of course I was using your pace figures! ;)

[bob60566]

I can't think of a better way to assess form than looking at the a horse's lifetime ratings, or at the least its last 10.

Is this at the major tracks with stakes and grade class horses or all racehorses??

Mac

[TrifectaMike]

I can't think of a better way to assess form than looking at the a horse's lifetime ratings, or at the least its last 10.

CJ,

Try thinking a little harder!

On a more serious note, "assess form by looking at a horse's lifetime ratings"?

Without giving away any secrets, can you provide an example or a general description?

This I need to know.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[cj]

Sure, usually horses establish how good they are fairly early in their career. Horses move in and out of form, and I use the best figure as a baseline. As they run, if the figures are moving back towards that baseline, form is probably improving. Horses that reach or beat an old top are usually set to decline. The above is not for lightly raced horses needless to say.

Figures can also show you if a horse performs good first off a layoff, or prefers to race into shape. Of course there are lots of reasons figures fluctuate besides form, so you have to account for those as well.

I just looked at the FG Friday card because there were 18 races. Here are a few I found.A : indicates a 90-179 day layoff, while a | indicates 180 or more. Most recent races are on the left.

3 Ellens Tap 12-1 46 35 : 21 40 42 51 55 | 6

She had previously run int the 50s. She was 3rd off the layoff, and with a 35 followed by a 46, I fully expected a figure in the 50s today which would make her a solid contender. She won and paid $54, figure of 54

8 Sultry Gentleman 20-1 61 47 : 46 71 75 52 73 74 : 85 61

Another layoff horse that had run as high as an 85 in the past, certainly good enough to win here. Returned with a 47, then a 61, and more room to improve. He got a suicidal pace in front of him, rallied late, and got up paying $100, figure of 85!

Every horse that indicates it is on the form improve doesn't always improve. However, that is where the prices are, anticipating improvement before the public does. They like to bet the last race, which is why these horses paid so much.

[bob60566]

Sure, usually horses establish how good they are fairly early in their career. Horses move in and out of form, and I use the best figure as a baseline. As they run, if the figures are moving back towards that baseline, form is probably improving. Horses that reach or beat an old top are usually set to decline. The above is not for lightly raced horses needless to say.

Figures can also show you if a horse performs good first off a layoff, or prefers to race into shape. Of course there are lots of reasons figures fluctuate besides form, so you have to account for those as well.

I just looked at the FG Friday card because there were 18 races. Here are a few I found.A : indicates a 90-179 day layoff, while a | indicates 180 or more. Most recent races are on the left.

3 Ellens Tap 12-1 46 35 : 21 40 42 51 55 | 6


She had previously run int the 50s. She was 3rd off the layoff, and with a 35 followed by a 46, I fully expected a figure in the 50s today which would make her a solid contender. She won and paid $54, figure of 54

8 Sultry Gentleman 20-1 61 47 : 46 71 75 52 73 74 : 85 61

Another layoff horse that had run as high as an 85 in the past, certainly good enough to win here. Returned with a 47, then a 61, and more room to improve. He got a suicidal pace in front of him, rallied late, and got up paying $100, figure of 85!

Every horse that indicates it is on the form improve doesn't always improve. However, that is where the prices are, anticipating improvement before the public does. They like to bet the last race, which is why these horses paid so much.

C j
Your first statement is a excellent reply to my post on the use last ten running lines and hope handicappers can see this on advance and decline.

Mac:ThmbUp:

[TrifectaMike]

Sure, usually horses establish how good they are fairly early in their career. Horses move in and out of form, and I use the best figure as a baseline. As they run, if the figures are moving back towards that baseline, form is probably improving. Horses that reach or beat an old top are usually set to decline. The above is not for lightly raced horses needless to say.

Figures can also show you if a horse performs good first off a layoff, or prefers to race into shape. Of course there are lots of reasons figures fluctuate besides form, so you have to account for those as well.

I just looked at the FG Friday card because there were 18 races. Here are a few I found.A : indicates a 90-179 day layoff, while a | indicates 180 or more. Most recent races are on the left.

3 Ellens Tap 12-1 46 35 : 21 40 42 51 55 | 6

She had previously run int the 50s. She was 3rd off the layoff, and with a 35 followed by a 46, I fully expected a figure in the 50s today which would make her a solid contender. She won and paid $54, figure of 54

8 Sultry Gentleman 20-1 61 47 : 46 71 75 52 73 74 : 85 61

Another layoff horse that had run as high as an 85 in the past, certainly good enough to win here. Returned with a 47, then a 61, and more room to improve. He got a suicidal pace in front of him, rallied late, and got up paying $100, figure of 85!

Every horse that indicates it is on the form improve doesn't always improve. However, that is where the prices are, anticipating improvement before the public does. They like to bet the last race, which is why these horses paid so much.

CJ,

A very nice post. Thanks for the examples.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[raybo]

That ought to help a few players who don't already analyze form, in some manner. You might be surprised how many don't.

[jpren37]

CJ,

If you've determined that a horse is declining in form based on recent lower numbers, how do you evaluate that horse for today's race if he is dropping in class (e.g. the horse is running for considerably less purse money). If he's going off form do you project a number that it would take to win this race and
,despite his form, play him if he's hit this number in his recent past?

[rubicon55]

If I may offer my limited perspective, I think what CJ (apologies if I am off the mark) might possibly be referring to is that having 10 races offers a better opportunity at spotting developing form and patterns since each horse’s pattern is unique to that horse as opposed to a horse with less races to analyze. A smart trainer will recognize and understand each horse’s potential running form (plus running style) and tries to find races that suit’s their rise or decline in form always in the hopes of winning (i.e. dropping in class, finding an easier bunch to beat, race will all early speed, etc.) As you know some horses who reach their peak form and win may hold that form for a race or two while others can bounce immediately after reaching a new top speed figure. Obviously finding this out in advance is the whole point of identifying form patterns. When you have 10 races to look at you have a better chance at potentially finding a form pattern/cycle (more the better). Most horses running styles are cyclical thus allows a capper to profit if they can spot the pattern when a horse’s form is rising and also when the public misses these horses when being offered at good prices/value. I know that some cappers even won't cap a race if there are not enough races for doing a form analysis. Sorry if you knew this already.

[cj]

I like to mark all horses with a +, =, or - indicating where I think the horse is headed form wise. I don't bet those with a -, class drop or not.

[raybo]

If I may offer my limited perspective, I think what CJ (apologies if I am off the mark) might possibly be referring to is that having 10 races offers a better opportunity at spotting developing form and patterns since each horse’s pattern is unique to that horse as opposed to a horse with less races to analyze. A smart trainer will recognize and understand each horse’s potential running form (plus running style) and tries to find races that suit’s their rise or decline in form always in the hopes of winning (i.e. dropping in class, finding an easier bunch to beat, race will all early speed, etc.) As you know some horses who reach their peak form and win may hold that form for a race or two while others can bounce immediately after reaching a new top speed figure. Obviously finding this out in advance is the whole point of identifying form patterns. When you have 10 races to look at you have a better chance at potentially finding a form pattern/cycle (more the better). Most horses running styles are cyclical thus allows a capper to profit if they can spot the pattern when a horse’s form is rising and also when the public misses these horses when being offered at good prices/value. I know that some cappers even won't cap a race if there are not enough races for doing a form analysis. Sorry if you knew this already.

I think you hit it on the mark! Form analysis is probably the toughest thing a good player/wagerer will do. There are many players out there who may have, at one time, tried form analysis, but found it tougher than they were willing to put the effort into.

IMO, this is one of the major reasons there are not more winning players than there are. I've said many times that form determines everything else. If any horse is not ready and able to run his best, he will not run his best. Now, I'm not saying that all those horses lose, because a horse that isn't in top form may well be able to win in a race full of lesser animals, or because other things happened during the running of the race that advantaged that horse.

I am one of those players, when I am playing superfectas (which is what I do most of the time, despite having recently created a black box for win, exacta trifecta players) that will not play a race if I can't get a good handle on most, if not all, of the horses' current form cycles. I feel that not having a decent idea of what each horse should be able to do today, at least the contenders for finishing in the money, including 4th place for superfecta wagering, puts me "behind the 8 ball", and takes away my edge, putting me on a par with the public. Being on par with the public means you will probably fail, just like the public as a whole does.

Having many pacelines to analyze makes the task of current form determination much easier to accomplish.

CJ's "+,=,-" form method is really all that is needed, when added to the other factor analysis most of us do. It may be simple, but it is of extreme importance, if your goal is to be profitable.

As Thas stated earlier, as superfecta players, we have to look at each horse in a race, no matter how bad their recent performances may look. It doesn't take much for these horses to finish 3rd or 4th, and often these poor looking animals make all the difference in whether a wager should be made, or not. They offer much better prices than when better "looking" horses fill out your ticket. If horses "look" good, everyone sees it, and everyone bets it.

[jpren37]

CJ and Rubicon- Thanks for your responses. CJ- I noticed in your respnose to "trifectamike" that both of your examples referenced horses coming off layoffs. I remember listening to handicapper Lee Russo during "Handicapping Expo 84" at the Meadowlands. He had just won a Vegas handicapping tournament for $90,000. He indicated that ALL of his winners had come from horses either 1st, 2nd or 3rd off of a layoff.

I guess, for me, I struggle when trying to use numbers (Bris, Beyers) to determine form; especially when there is no lay-off involved. If I see declining #'s, perhaps it is because the horse was not properly placed, had a few consecutive bad trips, trainer not trying etc.

Since I'm not fortunate enough to use your numbers, do you have any thoughts you could share in interpretation of form vis a vis numbers?

Ps. Thaskalos/PA, I think these can be wonderful threads... good enough to make the Pros nervous.

[cj]

I guess, for me, I struggle when trying to use numbers (Bris, Beyers) to determine form; especially when there is no lay-off involved. If I see declining #'s, perhaps it is because the horse was not properly placed, had a few consecutive bad trips, trainer not trying etc.

Just to be clear, I do think you should look into how the number was earned and see if there are other reasons that might have caused it. I usually ignore, or even mark out, numbers that are probably not representative.

[maddog42]

I like to mark all horses with a +, =, or - indicating where I think the horse is headed form wise. I don't bet those with a -, class drop or not.
Probably the best thing I learned from the Sartin seminars I attended, were the X's and O's and the form cycle analysis. It seems you and other handicappers use similar markings. I mentioned this in another thread and had a couple of people PM that they were curious. The Sartin guys had another designation:
An X inside an O. This was to indicate a race within a race. A horse that was
up close and then faded badly after the second call. It doesn't matter if the horse finished 15 lengths back, if he was up close for 2/3 of the race. These horses are rounding into form.
Brohamer mentioned that he would cover up a horses last race or 2. The seminar attendees had to pick contenders in a couple of races, and we kicked out a horse that was beaten 20 lengths in its last race. Brohamer said cover up the horses last race or even the last couple and then see if he was a contender.
Probably sounds silly to people now, but in 1991 to me this was a revelation.

In cheaper claiming races, you are better off kicking out a horse for win consideration if he WON his last race and concentrating on horses that are "due", especially if they are a O+O+O+O+ type.

Sorry for the handicapping 101 , but a lot of people need to know this stuff.

[Kevroc]

There is no free lunch...

and here I was looking for a turnkey sandwich! :lol:

Carry on.. loving the subforum btw.


The use of speed figs in other methods of handicapping is also invaluable.

When cappers try to discern "form", the peaks and valleys of speed figures and time off are key components.

[Dave Schwartz]

Probably the best thing I learned from the Sartin seminars I attended, were the X's and O's and the form cycle analysis. It seems you and other handicappers use similar markings. I mentioned this in another thread and had a couple of people PM that they were curious. The Sartin guys had another designation:

Maddog,

I LOVE this!

The concept is wonderful!

Read between the lines and consider what Brohamer was really saying... He was staying that when you use the last 2 lines you are (effectively) handicapping recent form (not to be confused with "form cycle") like everyone else. By skipping those two lines you are looking back at how good the horse really is.

I am going to incorporate this!

Thanks for the great idea, Maddog.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[thaskalos]

IMO..."ability" and "form" are two different things...and need to be addressed separately.

In my own handicapping...I ask myself two questions whenever I look at a horse's past performances:

How good is this horse at its best? (ability)

Will it perform to its best TODAY? (form...and other variables)

I compare a horse's ability to those of the other horses in the race...but I assess a horse's "form" by comparing it to itself.

I don't ask the question that I often hear horseplayers ask: "who's in the best "form"?

[raybo]

IMO..."ability" and "form" are two different things...and need to be addressed separately.

In my own handicapping...I ask myself two questions whenever I look at a horse's past performances:

How good is this horse at its best? (ability)

Will it perform to its best TODAY? (form...and other variables)

I compare a horse's ability to those of the other horses in the race...but I assess a horse's "form" by comparing it to itself.

I don't ask the question that I often hear horseplayers ask: "who's in the best "form"?

I totally agree with your take on "ability" and "form", they are 2 totally different things.

Current "form" will determine current "ability", most of the time.

[Tom]

I actually draw line through the PP lines that do not apply to today's race - ie, wrong surface, distance, class, etc, then I am only looking at relevant races and figures.

[JohnGalt1]

I actually draw line through the PP lines that do not apply to today's race - ie, wrong surface, distance, class, etc, then I am only looking at relevant races and figures.

Tom, I do the same.

I've sat with people who grab my arm and point to their form and say "look at this race race 4 months ago. He destroyed 'em by 5 lengths."

Unfortunately, that race was a 1 1/8 turf race and today's race is a 6f dirt race.

[raybo]

Tom, I do the same.

I've sat with people who grab my arm and point to their form and say "look at this race race 4 months ago. He destroyed 'em by 5 lengths."

Unfortunately, that race was a 1 1/8 turf race and today's race is a 6f dirt race.

Yeah, for ratings/grading purposes, you really have to be looking at apple vs apples, not apples vs oranges. :ThmbUp:

[TrifectaMike]

To me the value of a speed rating (most are comparable) is not in its relative value as a rating per se (for example a 75 is better than a 70). The value of a speed ratings lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race (for example an 80 is an intense effort for horse A).

After each race, a horse can regress (bounce) or recover a past performance level. The underlying model which can be used to define is not based on the intensity of the race, but in the ability of a particular horse to recover from a performance. If the time is too short, you will have a horse that is bound to regress. If the time is within a time window, the horse will return to peak performance (barring any injuries).

As an example the Sheets and Thorograph attempt to define this as a "top". This is an extremely crude attempt, which in sense makes it a guessing game.

"You know something will happen, but you are not sure of the direction; regress or not".

There is a time, t (recovery) to recover from a race and a time t (for a peak performance).

To model this behaviour is not trivial. Each horse has specific parameters, in a nonlinear multivariate function. The model parameters have to be determined for each horse and recalibrated to the most recent races.

The model has to be updated after each race for each horse.

To be a bit more specific, let's take a horse with the following history of speed ratings:

(90, 80, 78, 84, 79, 87, 83, 79, 69, 81) and 90 is their best rating and their last race rating. Will this horse bounce? Repeat 90 performnce? Or will run a race prior to their 90. The answer is not determined by their 90 performnce, but instead by a complex realtionship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on that particular horse.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[thaskalos]

To me the value of a speed rating (most are comparable) is not in its relative value as a rating per se (for example a 75 is better than a 70). The value of a speed rating lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race (for example an 80 is an intense effort for horse A).

After each race, a horse can regress (bounce) or recover a past performance level. The underlying model which can be used to define is not based on the intensity of the race, but in the ability of a particular horse to recover from a performance. If the time is too short, you will have a horse that is bound to regress. If the time is within a time window, the horse will return to peak performance (barring any injuries).

As an example the Sheets and Thorograph attempt to define this as a "top". This is an extremely crude attempt, which in sense makes it a guessing game.

"You know something will happen, but you are not sure of the direction; regress or not".

There is a time, t (recovery) to recover from a race and a time t (for a peak performance).

To model this behaviour is not trivial. Each horse has specific parameters, in a nonlinear multivariate function. The model parameters have to be determined for each horse and recalibrated to the most recent races.

The model has to be updated after each race for each horse.

To be a bit more specific, let's take a horse with the following history of speed ratings:

(90, 80, 78, 84, 79, 87, 83, 79, 69, 81) and 90 is their best rating and their last race rating. Will this horse bounce? Repeat 90 performnce? Or will run a race prior to their 90. The answer is not determined by their 90 performnce, but instead by a complex realtionship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on that particular horse.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Mike,

Is a speed rating ALONE enough of a measure to determine the "intensity" of a race?

In my own handicapping, I find that the levels of intensity vary...even among races of similar speed ratings.

Not all "85s" are the same, intensity-wise, for example...and they cannot all be expected to have the same effect on the conditioning of a horse.

Some 85s are recorded while frontrunners are cutting out easy fractions, as the rest of the horses are being "put to sleep" in the early going...while other 85s are gruelling contests, where frontrunners have to battle every step of the way.

Do you consider this when you look at a horse's "history of speed ratings"?

[raybo]

To me the value of a speed rating (most are comparable) is not in its relative value as a rating per se (for example a 75 is better than a 70). The value of a speed ratings lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race (for example an 80 is an intense effort for horse A).

After each race, a horse can regress (bounce) or recover a past performance level. The underlying model which can be used to define is not based on the intensity of the race, but in the ability of a particular horse to recover from a performance. If the time is too short, you will have a horse that is bound to regress. If the time is within a time window, the horse will return to peak performance (barring any injuries).

As an example the Sheets and Thorograph attempt to define this as a "top". This is an extremely crude attempt, which in sense makes it a guessing game.

"You know something will happen, but you are not sure of the direction; regress or not".

There is a time, t (recovery) to recover from a race and a time t (for a peak performance).

To model this behaviour is not trivial. Each horse has specific parameters, in a nonlinear multivariate function. The model parameters have to be determined for each horse and recalibrated to the most recent races.

The model has to be updated after each race for each horse.

To be a bit more specific, let's take a horse with the following history of speed ratings:

(90, 80, 78, 84, 79, 87, 83, 79, 69, 81) and 90 is their best rating and their last race rating. Will this horse bounce? Repeat 90 performnce? Or will run a race prior to their 90. The answer is not determined by their 90 performnce, but instead by a complex realtionship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on that particular horse.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Yeah, I think that's what we were saying earlier, albeit in more layman's language.

[raybo]

Mike,

Is a speed rating ALONE enough of a measure to determine the "intensity" of a race?

In my own handicapping, I find that the levels of intensity vary...even among races of similar speed ratings.

Not all "85s" are the same, intensity-wise, for example...and they cannot all be expected to have the same effect on the conditioning of a horse.

Some 85s are recorded while frontrunners are cutting out easy fractions, as the rest of the horses are being "put to sleep" in the early going...while other 85s are gruelling contests, where frontrunners have to battle every step of the way.

Do you consider this when you look at a horse's "history of speed ratings"?

I saw that too in Mike's post, and assumed that he doesn't consider the speed rating alone as the "intensity" indicator. One must look at other factors, pace, etc., etc., to evaluate the actual "intensity" of the individual efforts.

[Dave Schwartz]

PMFJI, but I think that the differences between the two points of view displayed here (i.e. Mike & Thask) is that you are coming from two different points of view.

Thaskalos, you appear (by nature) to be quite happy using verbal quantifications. That is, you seem to be content to say that a horse has "a lot" or "a little" of something - like speed, early speed or form. You are a "methodical" handicapper.

I think Mike is more like me. I want/need everything to be turned into a number. I would say, "If you cannot express something in a numeric value, then how can I use it?" We are "systematic" handicappers.

These two points of view can be very polarized in the sense that a systematic player cannot imagine adding artfulness to the system, while a methodical player does not wish to be hemmed in by self-imposed requirements.

I think the "systematic" guys like Mike and I need to restrict our comments in this thread because - especially if Thask agrees - we will, by our nature, try to bring the conversation back to our style of play; our viewpoint. Namely: systematic and statistical.

That would be counter-productive to Thaskalos' point of view and, ultimately, hamper everyone's learning.


Just how I see things.

Dave
Who is going to try to be
a better listener now.

[windoor]

I am usually happy when I learn something new.

Not today.

After reading all of these posts, with great interest, I have learned, and am absolutely positive, I will never be a world class handicapper.

So I will give up my hopes of one day being profitable with the exotics as I am also sure, one needs to be a great handicapper to have long term success with them.

I think I will go walk my dog.

Regards,

Windoor

[thaskalos]

PMFJI, but I think that the differences between the two points of view displayed here (i.e. Mike & Thask) is that you are coming from two different points of view.

Thaskalos, you appear (by nature) to be quite happy using verbal quantifications. That is, you seem to be content to say that a horse has "a lot" or "a little" of something - like speed, early speed or form. You are a "methodical" handicapper.

I think Mike is more like me. I want/need everything to be turned into a number. I would say, "If you cannot express something in a numeric value, then how can I use it?" We are "systematic" handicappers.

These two points of view can be very polarized in the sense that a systematic player cannot imagine adding artfulness to the system, while a methodical player does not wish to be hemmed in by self-imposed requirements.

I think the "systematic" guys like Mike and I need to restrict our comments in this thread because - especially if Thask agrees - we will, by our nature, try to bring the conversation back to our style of play; our viewpoint. Namely: systematic and statistical.

That would be counter-productive to Thaskalos' point of view and, ultimately, hamper everyone's learning.


Just how I see things.

Dave
Who is going to try to be
a better listener now.

I think you are making a mistake here, Dave...

I am not a "methodical" handicapper; I am a very numbers-oriented player who believes in filling the Racing Form with speed and pace ratings, in order to understand the circumstances present in the given races.

I disagree with Mike because he is quick to label the opinions of others as "extremely oversimplistic"...but is very slow in explaining his OWN opinions.

He presents a series of speed ratings ALONE...and then proceeds to talk about what the expected effect of these speed ratings would be on the horses' conditioning.

Is this not "extremely oversimplistic"?

Can we really determine the "intensity" of these races by just looking at their corresponding speed figures?

If you really feel that I am trying to exclude you and Mike from the conversation here...then I am failing badly in what I am attempting to do with this forum...

[Dave Schwartz]

If you really feel that I am trying to exclude you and Mike from the conversation here...then I am failing badly in what I am attempting to do with this forum..

Thask,

I did not take that at all from what you said! Not at all.

Rather, I was afraid I was intruding.

I am one of those guys who mistakenly forgets that it is not always necessary to put forth an opinion.

That being said, my opinion (stop laughing!) is that for me everything must ultimately boil down to one number per horse. That number should represent a probability or confidence number.

Okay, I am done. Really. For awhile.

Please, proceed.


Dave

[TrifectaMike]

I think you are making a mistake here, Dave...

I am not a "methodical" handicapper; I am a very numbers-oriented player who believes in filling the Racing Form with speed and pace ratings, in order to understand the circumstances present in the given races.

I disagree with Mike because he is quick to label the opinions of others as "extremely oversimplistic"...but is very slow in explaining his OWN opinions.

He presents a series of speed ratings ALONE...and then proceeds to talk about what the expected effect of these speed ratings would be on the horses' conditioning.

Is this not "extremely oversimplistic"?

Can we really determine the "intensity" of these races by just looking at their corresponding speed figures?

If you really feel that I am trying to exclude you and Mike from the conversation here...then I am failing badly in what I am attempting to do with this forum...

Thask,

You need to re-read my post carefully.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[bob60566]

Thask,

I did not take that at all from what you said! Not at all.

Rather, I was afraid I was intruding.

I am one of those guys who mistakenly forgets that it is not always necessary to put forth an opinion.

That being said, my opinion (stop laughing!) is that for me everything must ultimately boil down to one number per horse. That number should represent a probability or confidence number.

Okay, I am done. Really. For awhile.

Please, proceed.


Dave
Dave
Is that the same as paint by numbers
Mac:) :) :)

[shoelessjoe]

CJ,

How do you determine +, =, or -?

[cj]

CJ,

How do you determine +, =, or -?

Just my own subjective opinion.

[thaskalos]

To me the value of a speed rating (most are comparable) is not in its relative value as a rating per se (for example a 75 is better than a 70). The value of a speed ratings lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race (for example an 80 is an intense effort for horse A).

After each race, a horse can regress (bounce) or recover a past performance level. The underlying model which can be used to define is not based on the intensity of the race, but in the ability of a particular horse to recover from a performance. If the time is too short, you will have a horse that is bound to regress. If the time is within a time window, the horse will return to peak performance (barring any injuries).

As an example the Sheets and Thorograph attempt to define this as a "top". This is an extremely crude attempt, which in sense makes it a guessing game.

"You know something will happen, but you are not sure of the direction; regress or not".

There is a time, t (recovery) to recover from a race and a time t (for a peak performance).

To model this behaviour is not trivial. Each horse has specific parameters, in a nonlinear multivariate function. The model parameters have to be determined for each horse and recalibrated to the most recent races.

The model has to be updated after each race for each horse.

To be a bit more specific, let's take a horse with the following history of speed ratings:

(90, 80, 78, 84, 79, 87, 83, 79, 69, 81) and 90 is their best rating and their last race rating. Will this horse bounce? Repeat 90 performnce? Or will run a race prior to their 90. The answer is not determined by their 90 performnce, but instead by a complex realtionship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on that particular horse.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Mike...I agree with the crux of what you say here.

That's why I have often stated that the object of the game is not to identify which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...but rather, which horses will run the fastest TODAY!

YES...a horse's performance is determined "by a complex relationship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on the particular horse."

My disagreement with you lies in your statement that "the value of a speed rating lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race."

You then proceed to list the speed ratings of a particular horse...and you ask the questions: "Will this horse bounce? Repeat its last rating? Or run one of its prior ratings?"

Here is my opinion...in a nutshell:

The speed rating does NOT accurately measure the intensity of the race...nor does it always reflect the quality of the horse's performance.

The horse's figures often fluctuate wildly race-to-race....but these fluctuations are not always the result of sudden changes in the horse's condition...caused by the effects that certain strenuous efforts have on its level of conditioning.

In many cases...the horse's speed figures fluctuate as a result of the "pace"..."trip"...and "track bias" obstacles that the horse is forced to face during the running of the race.

The horse can run a bad speed figure while still at the peak of its form cycle...just because the "dynamics" of the race have conspired against it.

It takes more than just a speed rating to determine the intensity of a race...or the effect that a strenuous effort will have on the horse's subsequent performances.

That's my whole point...I have no other disagreement with you here.

[raybo]

Mike...I agree with what you say here.

That's why I have often stated that the object of the game is not to identify which horses have run the fastest in the PAST...but rather, which horses will run the fastest TODAY!

YES...a horse's performance is determined "by a complex relationship between race time intervals and the effect imposed on the particular horse."

My disagreement with you lies in your statement that "the value of a speed rating lies in its ability to measure an intensity of a race."

You then proceed to list the speed ratings of a particular horse...and you ask the questions: "Will this horse bounce? Repeat its last rating? Or run one of its prior ratings?"

Here is my opinion...in a nutshell:

The speed rating does NOT accurately measure the intensity of the race...nor does it always reflect the quality of the horse's performance.

The horse's figures often fluctuate wildly race-to-race....but these fluctuations are not always the result of sudden changes in the horse's condition...caused by the effects that certain strenuous efforts have on its level of conditioning.

In many cases...the horse's speed figures fluctuate as a result of the "pace"..."trip"...and "track bias" obstacles that the horse is forced to face during the running of the race.

The horse can run a bad speed figure while still at the peak of its form cycle...just because the "dynamics" of the race have conspired against it.

It takes more than just a speed rating to determine the intensity of a race...or the effect that a strenuous effort will have on the horse's subsequent performances.

That's my whole point...I have no other disagreement with you here.

That's one of the reasons I abandoned the use of speed figures a few years ago. First of all, to have confidence in any "figure", I have to know how that figure was calculated. Since I don't have the time to track individual horses, track bias, daily variant, etc., and create speed figures myself, I would be at the mercy of the figure maker.

Secondly, even if I had confidence in the speed figure, it would still only tell me how fast the horse ran the race (a representation of the final time, beaten lengths, and daily track variant), supposedly equalized over distances, surfaces, and tracks. The only thing that would really mean anything to me would be the track to track, distance to distance, and surface to surface equalizations, and I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of all these.

The speed itself means nothing to me regarding what kind of performance the horse actually displayed because it only measures the final time the horse achieved, adjusted by beaten lengths and, for most figure makers, a flawed time per length calculation. Meaning that the figure is based off of an inaccurate adjusted final time. So, all I have is an inaccurate speed figure, of which it is only a poor representation of the finishing time of the horse. It doesn't tell me anything else, so a horse that runs a 90 should be equal to any other horse that runs a 90. That's absurd!

Speed figures can be used for form cycle analysis, but very loosely, as they don't tell you "how the horse ran fast", or "slow", which means you have no idea how demanding, or undemanding, the effort was on the horse's form.

If on the other hand, someone was able to accurately combine speed figures, pace figures, trip, track bias, etc., etc., etc., then that would be a meaningful figure, a true "performance figure".

By the way, if you have such a figure, protect it with your life because as soon as you let it out of the bag, most of it's value will be gone.

[thaskalos]

Raybo,

I am shocked that it took me this long to realize that we agreed on so many handicapping-related things...

I am very happy to see you contributing as often, and as comprehensively, as you are...and I encourage others to contribute their views to this forum as well...even if they disagree with my own.

I love lively discussions.

Why should the guys in the off-topic threads have all the fun? :)

[raybo]

Raybo,

I am shocked that it took me this long to realize that we agreed on so many handicapping-related things...

I am very happy to see you contributing as often, and as comprehensively, as you are...and I encourage others to contribute their views to this forum as well...even if they disagree with my own.

I love lively discussions.

Why should the guys in the off-topic threads have all the fun? :)

Good gamblers/investors will always have many things in common.

As I stated when you decided to start this project; I'm glad it's you and not me. I would never "put myself out there", by myself, in a project as broad as this one, because I would not put up with all the "bs" that will, unfortunately, surface frequently. Which explains why I don't hang out in the "Off Topic" forum. :bang:

[bob60566]

That's one of the reasons I abandoned the use of speed figures a few years ago. First of all, to have confidence in any "figure", I have to know how that figure was calculated. Since I don't have the time to track individual horses, track bias, daily variant, etc., and create speed figures myself, I would be at the mercy of the figure maker.

Secondly, even if I had confidence in the speed figure, it would still only tell me how fast the horse ran the race (a representation of the final time, beaten lengths, and daily track variant), supposedly equalized over distances, surfaces, and tracks. The only thing that would really mean anything to me would be the track to track, distance to distance, and surface to surface equalizations, and I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of all these.

The speed itself means nothing to me regarding what kind of performance the horse actually displayed because it only measures the final time the horse achieved, adjusted by beaten lengths and, for most figure makers, a flawed time per length calculation. Meaning that the figure is based off of an inaccurate adjusted final time. So, all I have is an inaccurate speed figure, of which it is only a poor representation of the finishing time of the horse. It doesn't tell me anything else, so a horse that runs a 90 should be equal to any other horse that runs a 90. That's absurd!

Speed figures can be used for form cycle analysis, but very loosely, as they don't tell you "how the horse ran fast", or "slow", which means you have no idea how demanding, or undemanding, the effort was on the horse's form.

If on the other hand, someone was able to accurately combine speed figures, pace figures, trip, track bias, etc., etc., etc., then that would be a meaningful figure, a true "performance figure".

By the way, if you have such a figure, protect it with your life because as soon as you let it out of the bag, most of it's value will be gone.

I have to agree on the above on speed figures and I do not use them but for those that do it is there way of handicapping over the years. If all horses ran every race if they intended to win or give there best effort maybe the figures would be of use,But most people are fixed on speed, early, late. and running styles and how the race will be run and computers to me have enhanced this style over last two decades.

[rubicon55]

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.

[raybo]

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.

With young horses I use resent races and workouts for form determination. Form, with young horses is very important as they improve and decline rapidly due to their physical immaturity.

After a win or good performance, it is vital to assess how much physical stress the horse endured in the previous race. If the horse had an easy trip, his physical condition will probably improve in the next race. However, you must still look at what kind of stress he will likely endure in the higher class, which means you will have to analyze the horses entered in that race to see what the probable pace will be, and how the race is likely to run, as regards this horse's running style, if he/she has established a preferred running style.

Also, look at how long it has been since the horse's previous race and if it has had published works during that period. If the horse is coming back rather soon, 3 weeks or so, and he has not worked I would be disinclined to wager on him, unless it is clear that the horse had an easy trip in the previous race. A short workout or 2 between races is usually enough to work out any kinks in his physical condition, unless the horse had a very stressful previous race. In the case of a stressful previous race, more time off and/or several light to medium workouts is usually needed for the horse to be ready to advance in class, assuming the rise in class is really a rise. As you know, man-made classes can be very deceiving and taking them at face value can put you on the wrong horses in the new "class".

I look at fractional velocities and fractional running positions to determine stress levels of previous races. I also look at the trainer and how he places his horses. Good trainers know if their horse is ready to compete and against what level of competition, what distance and what surface. Of course these good trainers get looked at by many players and when the situation is a prime trainer move, the odds will probably not be as good as they might otherwise be.

I don't have to tell you that 2 and 3 year olds can and will surprise. As a matter of fact, in races for only 2 year olds, or only 3 year olds, every horse in the race could surprise. These horses can get very good, or very bad, very quickly, without warning. But, they also offer very good returns when you pick the right ones, and they perform as you think they will.

I'm sure Thaskalos and others will have differing opinions on the treatment of young horses, regarding moving up and down in class, distance, etc., but this is pretty much my method of handling younger horses.

[thaskalos]

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.

I promised at the very start of this project that I would be completely honest here...and that I would offer my opinions without reservation, and without fear of criticism from those who think differently than I do.

I know full-well what most players want to hear when it comes to this game -- and how to play it -- but I'm not interested in telling people what they want to hear.

I want to tell them what I consider to be the TRUTH...as I see it.

The crux of your question here seems to be: "How do I handle class rises in races where the past performance information is scarce...and there isn't enough of it to come to a well-thought-out opinion?"

You specifically mention 3-year olds going up in class...but it could just as easily be class rises EVERYWHERE, where "we don't have a lot of back history in the PPs..."

I too have noticed these minor class rises taking place...and I see these rising horses losing races -- some even losing badly -- eventhough their speed and pace ratings say that these horses should have given a much better account of themselves.

Are these class-rising horses losing because they are now facing better horses, and differing circumstances, than they did when they ran one level lower?

Why do they win impressively when running in $10,000 claimers...lose convincingly when they are next asked to compete in $12,500 claimers...and then triumph again when they return to the $10,000 level?

Every speed and pace chart I have ever seen shows that the difference, speed and pace-wise, is very insignificant between these two class categories. And yet...a minor class rise such as this seems to make a world of difference in the performance of the horses themselves.

I think that this is due primarily to trainer intent.

The trainer is not "trying to win" when he enters the horse in the higher class level -- perhaps because he thinks that the horse CAN'T win -- and instructs the jockey not to "persevere" with the horse...because there is a "better spot" for him next time out.

Am I sure of this?

Of course not...but I am allowed to have this opinion, because I have noticed that most horses are incapable of reproducing their speed and pace numbers, even when they make seemingly insignificant rises in class.

How do we assess trainer intent...and what do we do when there isn't adequate information in the PPs to form an intelligent opinion?

Remember...I can only speak from my own point of view...

I don't play the game in order to satisfy my curiosity; I play it to win money.

The first thing I do when I start marking up my Form, is note the questions I have about the abilities of the horses in a given race. I mark those down with red question marks.

Distance limitations...long layoffs...class rises...suspicious class drops...supertrainers...fast-developing 3-year olds...inadequate PPs...these are the types of things I don't particularly like to see when I handicap a race, because they take away from my understanding of it.

I am primarily a speed/pace handicapper...so the information that I see in the PPs has to be BELIEVABLE to me, otherwise I will make the wrong decision.

But I have a powerful weapon in my arsenal when it comes to these "questionable" races...and I use it quite often.

If I have too many questions about the abilities of the horses in the race...or, if I find myself in the position of having to "read" the trainer's mind about things...then I PASS the race -- and keep the money in my pocket.

I have said this before...and have gotten into arguments wih the "Lights" of the world about it...but I believe it absolutely -- and I will say it again. In fact...I will SCREAM it out!

WE HAVE MANY, MANY RACES AVAILABLE TO US EVERY DAY!

THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO BET ON ANY RACE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE IN!

Why even consider betting on a race where there is insufficient printed information with which to form an intelligent opinion?

The biggest edge that we can have as players is available to us ALL...because it is freely given to us by today's game.

We can bet only on the races that we have complete confidence in...and still have all the action that we can handle.


Please forgive the tone of my post...I don't like to be too "forceful" with any advice I might give.

But some things are very important...and need to be pointed out forcefully.

[raybo]

I'm in complete agreement with Thaskalos' post regarding the need for passing races where we have not enough information for a confident opinion in the race.

My post did not include that, but it should have. I was simply trying to answer the question posed. Personally, I prefer 3 year old and up races, where all horses have several pacelines to analyze.

[thaskalos]

I'm in complete agreement with Thaskalos' post regarding the need for passing races where we have not enough information for a confident opinion in the race.

My post did not include that, but it should have. I was simply trying to answer the question posed. Personally, I prefer 3 year old and up races, where all horses have several pacelines to analyze.

There is no right and wrong answer here, Raybo...as far as I am concerned.

Different players will do different things...that has always been the case, and will continue to be so.

Some players LOVE 3-year olds...and I fully respect that.

I, personally, do not.

Give me a full field of older $10,000 claiming sprinters...and I will work up more enthusiasm for it than I will for the Kentucky Derby.

And if that means that I am just a hardcore gambler...so be it.

Different strokes for different folks...:)

[cj]

There is something to be said for being comprehensive and realizing when there are questions that you can't answer with confidence. However, I would say this isn't always a good reason to pass a race.

There is another way to make money. If you have insights into a single horse that you know the public will undervalue, that is often all you need. You don't have to know everything about every horse. Sometimes those ?s will beat you, but more often, they won't.

The same can be applied to low priced horses in a negative manner. As you say, there are hundreds of races in a week and focusing on horses rather than races isn't a bad alternative.

[raybo]

There is no right and wrong answer here, Raybo...as far as I am concerned.

Different players will do different things...that has always been the case, and will continue to be so.

Some players LOVE 3-year olds...and I fully respect that.

I, personally, do not.

Give me a full field of older $10,000 claiming sprinters...and I will work up more enthusiasm for it than I will for the Kentucky Derby.

And if that means that I am just a hardcore gambler...so be it.

Different strokes for different folks...:)

Yeah, cheaper claimers from 5.5f to 1 1/16m are my sweet spot.

[thaskalos]

There is something to be said for being comprehensive and realizing when there are questions that you can't answer with confidence. However, I would say this isn't always a good reason to pass a race.

There is another way to make money. If you have insights into a single horse that you know the public will undervalue, that is often all you need. You don't have to know everything about every horse. Sometimes those ?s will beat you, but more often, they won't.

The same can be applied to low priced horses in a negative manner. As you say, there are hundreds of races in a week and focusing on horses rather than races isn't a bad alternative.

Absolutely.

There isn't a "right" way to play this game...and we all bring our own particular talents to it.

As long as we are all aware of our strengths and weaknesses as players...we can make our own rules, as far as methods of play are concerned.

[maddog42]

There is something to be said for being comprehensive and realizing when there are questions that you can't answer with confidence. However, I would say this isn't always a good reason to pass a race.

There is another way to make money. If you have insights into a single horse that you know the public will undervalue, that is often all you need. You don't have to know everything about every horse. Sometimes those ?s will beat you, but more often, they won't.

The same can be applied to low priced horses in a negative manner. As you say, there are hundreds of races in a week and focusing on horses rather than races isn't a bad alternative.

I agree with both of you. No contradiction here. With races with more unknowns I demand higher payouts. You had better. You will lose more of those races with unknowns. It may be only 5% more losses or 40% more losses. This brings us to the subject of line making. Do either of you 3:CJ
Raybo or Thask make a line?

[bob60566]

Raybo & Bob & Gus, every day I see trainer’s raising a horse up one level after a win or a very good performance. For this conversation I am not talking about claimers being raised up against allowance levels or optional claiming/allowance races running at stakes level- just within it normal competitive ranges (claiming to claiming, allowance to allowance, etc.). In your opinion what is the best way to determine a trainer’s intent when he raises a three year old (which is not fully developed yet) up only one class level? Do we totally rely on the trainer’s winning angle percentages for these moves or are there other considerations or factors worth considering (i.e. video review, trip handicapping notes, etc.)? Since we do not have a lot of back history in the PP I am interested on how others manage with this lack of information. If a horse is promising then how much ability must the 3 yr old have on paper before considering a wager against horses of a slightly higher level or possibly older horses (typically tougher for a 3yr old)? I say only one class level since the expectation of succeeding seems more likely than say jumping 2 levels. Many horses are raised up in one class level so this situation comes up often and would be helpful for other cappers as well to see other perspectives. I am expecting the first response to be "it depends" LOL. Handicapping 101 raisers versus droppers revisited. Thanks for your reply in advance.
For me your question would require what track you play and you did not mention maidens who do rise before winning. I will state I never bet on horse that won its last race and that may negate your questions.But with class three year olds which i never see at Mountineer I agree with the previous posts on this subject.As for information i use the last three PP in 45 days or sixty in four only.

Mac:)

[TrifectaMike]

For me your question would require what track you play and you did not mention maidens who do rise before winning. I will state I never bet on horse that won its last race and that may negate your questions.But with class three year olds which i never see at Mountineer I agree with the previous posts on this subject.As for information i use the last three PP in 45 days or sixty in four only.

Mac:)

This is my last post on PA.

Playing last time winners is to play at a loss... if there is only ONE last time winner in the race. However, in races with more than ONE last time winner is a TOTALLY different situation and leads to a different dynamic.

Mike (Dr Beav)

P.S. I'll still take PM's and provide answers (when I can) via PM's

[bob60566]

This is my last post on PA.

Playing last time winners is to play at a loss... if there is only ONE last time winner in the race. However, in races with more than ONE last time winner is a TOTALLY different situation and leads to a different dynamic.

Mike (Dr Beav)

P.S. I'll still take PM's and provide answers (when I can) via PM's

That is correct and I pass the race very simple each to his own.

Mac:)

[cj]

I agree with both of you. No contradiction here. With races with more unknowns I demand higher payouts. You had better. You will lose more of those races with unknowns. It may be only 5% more losses or 40% more losses. This brings us to the subject of line making. Do either of you 3:CJ
Raybo or Thask make a line?

I go through streaks...sometimes I do, but usually I have a pretty good feel for what I'll except on the horses that interest me without making a line for the whole race.

[cj]

Absolutely.

There isn't a "right" way to play this game...and we all bring our own particular talents to it.

As long as we are all aware of our strengths and weaknesses as players...we can make our own rules, as far as methods of play are concerned.

I agree, and I use both depending on the race. Since this is in the speed section, I thought it appropriate. The reason is nothing drives the odds more than speed figures most of the time. Occasionally a super trainer will be the biggest factor, but mostly, it is speed figures.

So, with that in mind, spotting a faulty speed figure can be enough to beat the races. It doesn't have to be faulty for that matter. It can simply be a matter of correctly interpreting the conditions it was earned under, be they positive or negative. Knowing about a bias or an extreme pace scenario that makes the speed figure misleading is enough to overcome the takeout in the long run.

This isn't set in stone of course, because betting habits change, but right now (and for at least a decade, probably more) speed is king when it comes to the odds.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This is my last post on PA.

Playing last time winners is to play at a loss... if there is only ONE last time winner in the race. However, in races with more than ONE last time winner is a TOTALLY different situation and leads to a different dynamic.

Mike (Dr Beav)

P.S. I'll still take PM's and provide answers (when I can) via PM's

Your ability to articulate arcane topics in easy to understand examples will be truly missed.

[Maximillion]

There is something to be said for being comprehensive and realizing when there are questions that you can't answer with confidence. However, I would say this isn't always a good reason to pass a race.

There is another way to make money. If you have insights into a single horse that you know the public will undervalue, that is often all you need. You don't have to know everything about every horse. Sometimes those ?s will beat you, but more often, they won't.

The same can be applied to low priced horses in a negative manner. As you say, there are hundreds of races in a week and focusing on horses rather than races isn't a bad alternative.


I totally agree with Thaskalos as far as passing those races where you find yourself putting "question marks" on your form or monitor by many horses.....but i think CJs statement is also key.....if you have insights into a single undervalued horse(not two or three) you cant let the "question marks" scare you away from the race...especially if those "question marks" are horses that figure to draw support and drive the price of your overlay up even more.....


Then again im a win bettor ,not a superfecta player but im thinking of changing that....

[rubicon55]

Thanks to all for your various takes, I gleamed some good info. from you guys.

[bob60566]

THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO BET ON ANY RACE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE IN!

No comment and does not need one

Mac:) :) :)

[raybo]

I agree with both of you. No contradiction here. With races with more unknowns I demand higher payouts. You had better. You will lose more of those races with unknowns. It may be only 5% more losses or 40% more losses. This brings us to the subject of line making. Do either of you 3:CJ
Raybo or Thask make a line?

No, as a superfecta player making a line doesn't tell me value, even if the line was a good one, which I suspect most lines probably aren't.

[bob60566]

Never have played superfecta but was told always look for chaos races makes sense??.

Mac

[raybo]

Never have played superfecta but was told always look for chaos races makes sense??.

Mac

You would have to first define "chaos races", I suppose.

[bob60566]

You would have to first define "chaos races", I suppose.
Where the chalk is toast in first two places or better and chaos prevails.
Depends how deep you want to go $360 race.
Mac:)

[Maximillion]

Never have played superfecta but was told always look for chaos races makes sense??.

Mac

I cant speak for thaskalos but i think his very point in his previous post was he was probably avoiding these type of races(chaos by his style of handicapping)

[bob60566]

I cant speak for thaskalos but i think his very point in his previous post was he was probably avoiding these type of races(chaos by his style of handicapping)

Well in superfecta you need large payouts if you box.

[barn32]

If I have too many questions about the abilities of the horses in the race...or, if I find myself in the position of having to "read" the trainer's mind about things...then I PASS the race -- and keep the money in my pocket.

WE HAVE MANY, MANY RACES AVAILABLE TO US EVERY DAY!

THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO BET ON ANY RACE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE IN!

Why even consider betting on a race where there is insufficient printed information with which to form an intelligent opinion?

We can bet only on the races that we have complete confidence in...and still have all the action that we can handle.
In other words...since you don't have to ante, you can sit and wait for the nuts.

[Tom]

If you post it, the nuts will come!

[thaskalos]

In other words...since you don't have to ante, you can sit and wait for the nuts.

IMO...the biggest benefit offered to the player by the current full-card simulcasting format of wagering is NOT that the diligent player can come up with 30+ "sound" bets a day.

It's the fact that he can come up with 5-10 "great" bets a day...if he is willing to work hard enough.

We seem to have forgotten that there was a time in the not too distant past when 2 serious bets in a day's play was considered a "busy" day for the profit-minded player.

All the skill in the world is not enough to compensate for the serious flaw of betting too many races...or playing too many hands at the poker table.

[JimG]

IMO...the biggest benefit offered to the player by the current full-card simulcasting format of wagering is NOT that the diligent player can come up with 30+ "sound" bets a day.

It's the fact that he can come up with 5-10 "great" bets a day...if he is willing to work hard enough.

We seem to have forgotten that there was a time in the not too distant past when 2 serious bets in a day's play was considered a "busy" day for the profit-minded player.

All the skill in the world is not enough to compensate for the serious flaw of betting too many races...or playing too many hands at the poker table.

In the era of simulcasting, I think this is a fascinating and important topic. In fact two "name" people that I have great respect for, Michael Pizzolla and Dave Schwartz advocate very different strategies regarding betting in today's environment.

Both advocate multi-track wagering with Dave S. betting (dutching) all races except those with many FTS and very short fields. On the other hand, Pizzolla scours the available tracks for 3-5 races total involving overlays that he keys and plays to win and in exotics. Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum!

I am interested in hearing how thaskalos and other successful players approach wagering in today's environment.

Jim

[Dave Schwartz]

I like my way better. <G>

[raybo]

In the era of simulcasting, I think this is a fascinating and important topic. In fact two "name" people that I have great respect for, Michael Pizzolla and Dave Schwartz advocate very different strategies regarding betting in today's environment.

Both advocate multi-track wagering with Dave S. betting (dutching) all races except those with many FTS and very short fields. On the other hand, Pizzolla scours the available tracks for 3-5 races total involving overlays that he keys and plays to win and in exotics. Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum!

I am interested in hearing how thaskalos and other successful players approach wagering in today's environment.

Jim

Personally, in my superfecta play, I wait until I find a race that has past data for all horses (I don't play 2 yo races at all), and when my minimum estimated payout for that race is at least approximately $300 for a $1 ticket ($30 for a dime ticket, etc.) I'll usually play the race. I find that the smaller payouts produce enough profit to build the bankroll, allowing me to buy a larger ticket in races where the minimum expected payout is much larger than $300 for $1 ticket. The larger payouts produce a generous long term profit. So, the smaller ones keep me in the game while the profit comes from the larger ones.

I usually play no more than 2 tracks per day, 3-4 days per week, and take frequent breaks from the game.