PDA

View Full Version : Bob Pandolfo's pace handicapping book


andicap
12-19-2012, 10:10 AM
I went back through a year of posts and didn't see anything about this book, nor do I know when Bob put it on the market but here it is, a book about picking longshots at the t-breds.

I haven't bought it -- yet -- but Pandy is an astute handicapper and at $40, it's probably worth a read.

http://www.handicappingwinners.com/longshotbook.htm

pandy
12-19-2012, 10:49 AM
Thanks for the mention, I appreciate it. So far the book has one review on Amazon (see below).

*****5.0 out of 5 stars New pace ideas for pace handicappers! December 11, 2012
By Herman King

Really enjoyed reading "Pace Handicapping Longshots" it was filled with lots of current examples of horse racing. Along with in depth rules regarding the horse pace requirements and the longshot methods that picked the horse. The material is brand new and not rehashed theory from other handicapping books. If your looking for new ideas that the masses are not already using give this a serious workout. The method is based on sound handicapping principles and easy to locate the longshots horses. No matter what racing form you use from drf, brisnet, equibase, or any other source. With more handicappers focusing on speed figures. It makes sense to find horses with better prices that have hidden pace advantages.

plainolebill
12-19-2012, 11:08 PM
I bought it just now, looks good. I see there is a little more information - including your P3 betting strategy your website.

bkeefe
12-20-2012, 12:23 AM
Bob,

Will this book be available in kindle format as well? I love having trotpicks on my ipad whenever I need it.

Merry Christmas

Brian

Tom
12-20-2012, 07:36 AM
Guess I better buy myself a nice Christmas present.
Is this an E Book?

Thanks for the heads up, Andy!

andicap
12-20-2012, 10:10 AM
So, 20% of sales generated from this site, right, Bob? :p

pandy
12-20-2012, 01:19 PM
Bob,

Will this book be available in kindle format as well? I love having trotpicks on my ipad whenever I need it.

Merry Christmas

Brian


Merry Christmas. Thanks for your interest Brian. I had 500 copies printed so it could be a while before it goes to Kindle because I won't put it on Kindle or PDF until the book is sold out. I'm actually writing a fiction series that will be published for Kindle and the first mystery should be published in February. I'm having a lot of fun writing it, I've always wanted to write a novel.

I did get some sales from this post, thanks guys. Pace should email me his address, I'd like to mail him a free book.

Red Knave
12-20-2012, 05:42 PM
I did get some sales from this post, thanks guys. Pace should email me his address, I'd like to mail him a free book.
PA doesn't accept, um, payola, so send it to me first and I'll send it along. :)


I know, I know, I'm hilarious.
(and I forwarded the book URL address to my wife :cool: )


Actually, I would also like Andicap to write an ebook about horseracing. Maybe something like, "Summer Longshots -or- How I gave Justin the key to a $1000 P4 using the same horse I gave him last year at Saratoga". ;)

bkeefe
12-20-2012, 08:23 PM
Ordered mine! Thanks again Bob.

John
01-06-2013, 02:03 PM
I bought it just now, looks good. I see there is a little more information - including your P3 betting strategy your website.


Pandy's book, any good, anything new.

Thanks

nagwa
01-17-2013, 02:00 PM
any information on boxcars methods are they featured in this book

Dave Schwartz
01-18-2013, 12:52 PM
I really hate reviewing a new book in the month before I have a new product coming out. A good review always costs me sales. LOL

The bad news (for me) is that this book is pretty darn good, and worth the time it takes to read it.

In a nutshell, Pandy gives you some specific advice on longshot characteristics. Kind of like, "Here are some angles for finding good longshots," and then he proceeds to give you his precise rules. (My words, not his.)

The book is not a long read - just 45 8.5" x 11" pages, which is probably about 80 pages in a more "normal-sized" book. To reduce the size, Pandy chose to only show the horses used the the example as opposed to showing the entire field. Those extra graphics will not be missed at all. (My point here is that many books get inflated with lots of unnecessary graphics.)

After building his case for each angle in reasonable depth, Bob does a good job of summarizing the angles on a single page (pg. 26).

Of course, the real test will be the validity of his angles, a topic I am not prepared to discuss at this time.

As I understand, the angles are not meant as pure "systems." That is, the angles are pretty simple and designed to point to potential plays, rather than a system that says, "Play all the horses with these characteristics."

I would guess that some readers of this book will find the angles very enlightening, while another segment may say that they expect "finished and complete systems."

On page 27, is The Pace Shape Longshot Spot Play Method. This comes pretty close to a concrete, "Bet These Horses" kind of approach. In my opinion, it is based in reality and worthy of a look.

Personally, I cannot wait to throw some queries at these ideas and see where I am led. For me, that is the value of most books I purchase: "What starting points for research does the book provide?" All I can ask for is a book that provides a couple of good new concepts for me to follow through upon and this book does that surprisingly well considering its small size.


Review Ratings (out of 5 possible stars)
4.5 Beginning players looking for NEW longshot ideas.
4.0 Intermediate players looking for NEW longshot ideas.
3.0 Advanced players looking for NEW longshot ideas.
2.0 Players looking for a turnkey approach.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

thaskalos
01-18-2013, 01:09 PM
IMO...the authors owe it to their readers to supply the PPs of the entire field when using particular angles or handicapping theories to handicap an example race. Just showing the PPs of the winner doesn't do the trick.

How do we know that there weren't other horses in the field who fit the criteria even more solidly than the winner did?

Dave Schwartz
01-18-2013, 01:33 PM
IMO...the authors owe it to their readers to supply the PPs of the entire field when using particular angles or handicapping theories to handicap an example race. Just showing the PPs of the winner doesn't do the trick.

Thask,

Normally I would agree, when the author is handicapping the race, but in this case it really wasn't necessary. Think of William Qurin's chapter on ES Points: it was not about the RACES; it was about the horse's characteristics.

I picked up 5 angles from this book that I will check out with factor studies.



Dave

CincyHorseplayer
01-18-2013, 03:39 PM
I've always liked and related to what Bob has posted and looked up some older articles.This is on the get list.

delayjf
01-18-2013, 04:40 PM
The bad news (for me) is that this book is pretty darn good, and worth the time it takes to read it.

DAMN IT - just when I thought I knew everything.

Did I miss something, what does Boxcars method have to do with Pandy's?

pandy
01-18-2013, 07:34 PM
It's scary, isn't it? This may be the only game that you never stop learning.

pandy
01-19-2013, 07:06 AM
By the way, to address the pp illustrations that are used in the book. This book shows how to use spot play angles to pick longshots and has a unique spot play method for picking longshot winners. It is not a book on how to handicap a race.

In my harness racing book, Trotpicks: Modern Harness Handicapping, I have many full pages of full-race pps but that book shows how to handicap a race from start to finish. In Pace Handicapping Longshots it simply wasn't necessary to use full-race pps.

andicap
01-19-2013, 01:21 PM
Sounds like I'm going to have to buy the book.

Tom
01-19-2013, 04:46 PM
Me too.

delayjf
01-19-2013, 05:40 PM
No longer on my list - as I just bought it. Thanks Pandy, I'm looking forward to it.

shouldacoulda
01-23-2013, 07:11 PM
After reading who's buying this and the fact that Dave S picked up 5 angles from it, I have to get it. Those are some solid endorsements. Can you autograph my copy? Just kidding. My order's in.

shouldacoulda
01-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Pandy, you may want to put a link in the receipt page back to the home page. Just a thought.

shouldacoulda
01-28-2013, 11:26 PM
I got the book tonight. To be honest, I was too tired to really dive into it but I did read the first "longshot indicator a sprints" section and decided to pull up some past performances and put it to the test. I did Gulfstream, Charlestown and Aqueduct (one card each) from a week and change ago. I picked a $19.00 winner at Charlestown and a $29.00 at Gulfstream or Aqueduct. I was nodding off in front of the computer at that point. I did pick several shorter price horses and exactas using this method on each card. The key for me is, I haven't been able to do well on a regular basis at either of these tracks with the exception of Aqueduct, so for me this book is already a worthwhile investment. I feel it will pay for itself many times over. Thanks Pandy.

pandy
01-29-2013, 07:07 AM
Thank you!

Note: I just got this email from a customer on Monday, January 21, 2013:

Pandy, I wanted to drop you line and say I have been using the Pace Handicapping Longshots book for since January. I have hit winners here and there nothing huge, mostly in the $11.00 to $ 20.00 range with a lot of place horses. Well this last weekend on Saturday 1/19, I hit three; GP 3rd - Elmutahid $25.40, AQ - 6th - Maggiesfreuddnslip $66.00 and FG 10th - 4 Oxbow $11.20. While the first two were maidens the last one ran in a Grade 1 previously with huge numbers using your method, this race was a stakes for 3 yr olds. He wired the field by 11 lengths.

Just want to say thanks for publishing this book. It has given me a new perspective in handicapping. I used to rely on trainer angles and jockey/trainer combinations. Never gave a real thought about speed, but as I read the book it made me realize that being fast does matter. Along with your longshot indicators I can't wait till the end of the work week to begin handicapping the next card.

By the way, those three winners netted me $1346.00.

Thanks

George C.

hracingplyr
01-29-2013, 07:59 AM
Real bad review of the book given by Trotman over at the Sartin Site.

Bob

Ted Craven
01-29-2013, 09:35 AM
For the record, that 'review' is Trotman's own opinion, to which he is entitled. I prefer to form my own opinions. I ordered Pandy's book.

Ted

coachv30
01-29-2013, 11:23 AM
I just ordered it as well!! Sounds like good stuff.

Big Bill
01-29-2013, 01:09 PM
Pandy,

A poster on another forum says, "First off for a book that cost $40.00 it is a disgrace to call it a book as there are pages missing because he says it was because of the publishing program he was using and he has sent them with the book."

True or false? I'm ready to order, but that post unnerved me a bit!

Big Bill

John
01-29-2013, 01:22 PM
Pandy,

A poster on another forum says, "First off for a book that cost $40.00 it is a disgrace to call it a book as there are pages missing because he says it was because of the publishing program he was using and he has sent them with the book."

True or false? I'm ready to order, but that post unnerved me a bit!

Big Bill


Missing pages ??? Pandy, plase explain, Thank you.

pandy
01-29-2013, 02:50 PM
Okay, I'll explain. The last 2 pages of the book, which has nothing to do with the pace handicapping angles presented in the book, were inadvertently left out. So, I simply include those two pages. I also have them posted on my website, a way of betting the Pick 3 using the spot play method from the book.

And, keep in mind, everyone who orders the book gets another booklet called Exotic Longshots which has two more longshot angles. This booklet is a free bonus booklet. In fact, I never even mentioned that this was included until recently, so almost everyone who bought the book didn't even know that it was included and got a nice surprise free bonus booklet.

It's not a big deal. It was my fault because I was using a program to design that book that simply was difficult to work with and I made a mistake. Now I've switched to Serif Page Plus which allows me to work smoothly and efficiently with Word and PDF files, it's fantastic.

John
01-29-2013, 03:04 PM
Thanks Pandy, Good job explaining .

shouldacoulda
01-29-2013, 05:57 PM
Pandy,

A poster on another forum says, "First off for a book that cost $40.00 it is a disgrace to call it a book as there are pages missing because he says it was because of the publishing program he was using and he has sent them with the book."

True or false? I'm ready to order, but that post unnerved me a bit!

Big Bill

I bought the book too. The missing information is in the envelope and is addressed up front in a letter of explanation. I didn't think it a big deal at all.

Doug3312
01-29-2013, 06:57 PM
I'm not a pro, but I ordered it too from Amazon. Saves a buck in shipping that way. I'm already ahead by a dollar! Would like to hear how everyone does, good luck.

pandy
01-29-2013, 07:39 PM
I just changed my shipping so I'm now charging the same price as Amazon, $3.99, on my handicapingwinners.com website. I had been charging $4.95 and sending the books priority using the post office's priority envelope but I wanted to use a stronger envelope so I purchased my own envelopes last week and decided to ship first class instead. First class gets there fast enough and I ship the books quickly. I prefer the better quality envelope.

Tom
02-07-2013, 09:51 PM
OK, I just ordered a copy.
Talked me into it. :ThmbUp:

Tom
02-08-2013, 09:58 AM
Hmmmmm.
Looks like andicap has been good for sales!
He does have the trusting face....good thing he doesn't sell used cars! :eek:

John
02-08-2013, 12:10 PM
Hmmmmm.
Looks like andicap has been good for sales!
He does have the trusting face....good thing he doesn't sell used cars! :eek:


Yes Tom. Andicap has a way of reading in between the lines. That is why when the horse's are in the gate. Andy is still handicapping. I am waiting for Andy's review. Come on Pandy, Send Aandy, a promotional book, It will up your sales.

andicap
02-09-2013, 01:13 PM
Yes Tom. Andicap has a way of reading in between the lines. That is why when the horse's are in the gate. Andy is still handicapping. I am waiting for Andy's review. Come on Pandy, Send Andy, a promotional book, It will up your sales.

Yes, John, I avoid many losers by getting shut out a lot!:D

BTW, I went back to Ted's board and checked out the guy who hated the book. "Trotman" is kind of a crank, a hard-core Sartin purist who has also raved against Dave's "New Pace" and the use of any kind of adjustments in handicapping. I'm not condemning him for that approach -- Bradshaw advocated it -- but he's very vocal on that point.

Doug3312
02-22-2013, 08:29 AM
Does anyone have anything to say about this book? I'm beginning to think it's so good, everyone is wanting to keep it a secret. Am I right?

hracingplyr
02-22-2013, 08:42 AM
Another poster on the Sartin board disliked the book so much they sent it back for a refund.

pandy
02-22-2013, 09:22 AM
I can honestly say that I have had exactly one book returned and the sales have been good.

You're never going to please everyone. If you check out Amazon reviews for great books including masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn, Moby Dick, and Hemingway's A Farewell To Arms, you'll see quite a few bad reviews and even one star reviews. My two books, Pace Handicapping Longshots and Trotpicks: Modern Harness Handicapping have garnered a total of 13 reviews on Amazon and all are top rated 5 stars, which I'm proud of.

The basic longshot pace handicapping angle in the book,which I thoroughly tested for over a year and tested live on my website for many months, has been dynamite for me, tipping me off to many longshot winners that I would never have had if I had not discovered this unique way of analyzing pace and race shapes. Just yesterday on my Aqueduct picks my Best Bet was Hey Babe, who won and paid $24.20 and fit the system. Sunday I had $22 and $15 Best Bet winners on the service. I am very good at picking longshot winners and always have been, so there is a precedent for me to write a book on how to pick longshot winners.

Later on today on my handicappingwinners website I'm going to post a youtube video showing how I came up with Hey Babe ($24.80) and the cold $70 exacta at Aqueduct yesterday. I'm not going to give away the Pace Shape Spot Play Method, but I'm going to show the thought process that went into the pick, because there were a few other angles that came into play which made it an interesting handicapping situation.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 10:57 AM
Later on today on my handicappingwinners website I'm going to post a youtube video showing how I came up with Hey Babe ($24.80) and the cold $70 exacta at Aqueduct yesterday. I'm not going to give away the Pace Shape Spot Play Method, but I'm going to show the thought process that went into the pick, because there were a few other angles that came into play which made it an interesting handicapping situation.

Something like this would be very helpful when your analysis is done before the race; a posteriori analysis of a specific race is completely meaningless.

If you want to use past races to make your case you should provide a concrete algorithm that we can test using a data base to see if it is significant or not.

pandy
02-22-2013, 11:21 AM
Something like this would be very helpful when your analysis is done before the race; a posteriori analysis of a specific race is completely meaningless.

If you want to use past races to make your case you should provide a concrete algorithm that we can test using a data base to see if it is significant or not.


So according to your way of thinking, all handicapping books or videos are completely meaningless because they use examples of past races. Beyer's The Winning Horseplayer, for instance, gives numerous examples of horses he hit and the thought process that went into each score. It's a great book because it teaches you how to handicap and he is a very good teacher.

As for testing, many winners that a handicpapper picks and bets can be horses that he liked for various reasons. With Hey Babe yesterday, I liked her for several different reasons, which I explain in the video. It would be impossible to run everything through some sort of database. For instance, she was cutting back to a one turn race and her pps clearly show that she prefers one turn races. Now if you bet every horse who cuts back from two turns to one turn you will lose, but in this situation it was a key handicapping factor. Not everything can be quantified by databases. But, hey, don't watch the video if you feel it's meaningless.

pandy
02-22-2013, 11:26 AM
Here is the you tube link:

http://youtu.be/9EJOgmm3bZU

It can also be found a twitter --

twitter.com/pandywin

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 11:31 AM
So according to your way of thinking, all handicapping books or videos are completely meaningless because they use examples of past races.

Correct.

You can find an example for any angle you can imagine, without this proving absolutely nothing. If you want to be honest about a factor or a method in general you should run it through a data base of historical data and report its performance based on it.

Today's technology makes such an approach very easy to implement; old style books, filled with stories and examples of specific races are completely outdated and should be avoided.

offtrack
02-22-2013, 11:34 AM
Pandy,
I've used your handicapping products for a long time now -in my library are issues of the original speed-shape rating process- and have always received value for the money spent.
Your Meadowlands harness race selections on the USTA homepage are available for free every racing night, for anyone wanting to see your work prior to post time.
I was recently impressed also by the number of product reviews you have listed on Amazon. You have quite the coffee machine collection, I imagine.

pandy
02-22-2013, 11:42 AM
Thank you. Yeah, I get a little crazy about coffee makers. I just finished a double espresso that I made in the AeroPress.

pandy
02-22-2013, 11:47 AM
Correct.

You can find an example for any angle you can imagine, without this proving absolutely nothing. If you want to be honest about a factor or a method in general you should run it through a data base of historical data and report its performance based on it.

Today's technology makes such an approach very easy to implement; old style books, filled with stories and examples of specific races are completely outdated and should be avoided.

I could not disagree more. In fact some of the best handicapping books I've read, which are still pertinent today, were written by guys like Dowst and Voegele decades ago. Horse racing hasn't changed that much. They put horses on the track and they race against each other, same as they always did. The only change is that the horses don't race as often as they used to.

I looked at your blog and it looks like you've written some stuff that's hypocritical. You give your ideas on money management but offer no statistical evidence. Don't get me wrong, I like testing and I have had several of my methods run through huge computer databases so I could see how they did over the long run.

And by the way, with some of the products I've sold, I tested the systems live on my website for everyone who cared to see, before the horses raced. Some worked and some didn't. The methods that showed a profit I marketed and use myself. The most profitable methods all involved longshots and had win percentage in the 20% range.

Capper Al
02-22-2013, 11:51 AM
Hmmmmm.
Looks like andicap has been good for sales!
He does have the trusting face....good thing he doesn't sell used cars! :eek:

Agree.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 12:06 PM
I could not disagree more. In fact some of the best handicapping books I've read, which are still pertinent today, were written by guys like Dowst and Voegele decades ago. Horse racing hasn't changed that much. They put horses on the track and they race against each other, same as they always did. The only change is that the horses don't race as often as they used to.

I looked at your blog and it looks like you've written some stuff that's hypocritical. You give your ideas on money management but offer no statistical evidence. Don't get me wrong, I like testing and I have had several of my methods run through huge computer databases so I could see how they did over the long run.

And by the way, with some of the products I've sold, I tested the systems live on my website for everyone who cared to see, before the horses raced. Some worked and some didn't. The methods that showed a profit I marketed and use myself. The most profitable methods all involved longshots and had win percentage in the 20% range.

If horse racing has changed or not during the last years is not relative to my point. What I am saying that using today's technology (which I believe you agree it has changed dramatically) we can now follow a more objective and scientific method to justify the effectiveness of any handicapping factor that can be described analytically. We no longer need to rely to few races as case studies since we can apply statistics measurements to a large universe proving the effectiveness of neutrality of any conceivable angle.

Since you are jumping to the different topic of how racing has been changed, I want to ask you, aside from your subjective views are you aware of any objective metrics actually measuring this change? Do you have any data to support your opinion? If so please let us know, because I hold quite the opposite view that I can back with concrete data and statistical methodologies.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 12:12 PM
I've seen numerous posts on this forum since I recently joined stating that if you can take one angle from a source and apply it to your theories then the source is worth it. I've read 3 books mentioned on this forum (Pace make the Race, The Matrix System and Pandy's PAce book.) All three of these books fit that comment (IMHO). In fact, the Matrix System allows you to categorize different angles and rank them based on your preference. Pandy's Qualifying factors would be an example of a category.

pandy
02-22-2013, 12:24 PM
If horse racing has changed or not during the last years is not relative to my point. What I am saying that using today's technology (which I believe you agree it has changed dramatically) we can now follow a more objective and scientific method to justify the effectiveness of any handicapping factor that can be described analytically. We no longer need to rely to few races as case studies since we can apply statistics measurements to a large universe proving the effectiveness of neutrality of any conceivable angle.

Since you are jumping to the different topic of how racing has been changed, I want to ask you, aside from your subjective views are you aware of any objective metrics actually measuring this change? Do you have any data to support your opinion? If so please let us know, because I hold quite the opposite view that I can back with concrete data and statistical methodologies.


There's only so much you can do with data. I'll give you an example. Many handicappers use "key races" as a handicapping factor. Now, if you bet every horse that comes out of a key race, will you show a profit? No. But that doesn't mean that the key race angle isn't effective if used wisely in certain situations. To say that the classic writings of handicappers such as Beyer are meaningless is absurd. So you think that your blog is giving out better handicapping information that Andy Beyer's books? You have a pretty high opinion of yourself.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 12:25 PM
In fact, the Matrix System allows you to categorize different angles and rank them based on your preference.

I do not understand what you mean by ranking angles based on your preference.

I only know of one way of ranking an angle and this is if it creates clusters who are significant (profitable or not) or neutral.

An 'angle' has to be firstly defined, back tested, ranked and if proven significant its should be used for betting purposes.

To define an angle we can either use a manual process utilizing our experience or we can use some automated algorithmic mechanism (a computer procedure).

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 12:37 PM
So you think that your blog is giving out better handicapping information that Andy Beyer's books? You have a pretty high opinion of yourself.

I think this is a personal attack and I do not want to demote the conversation to this level.

I believe Andy Beyer is a monumental figure in horse racing and have the deepest respect for him. I have read his books many times so far and consider them to be among the best ever written in the subject. They are also outdated; even if you want to accept it or not, horse betting has progress a lot since the 70's without this to diminish Beyer's contribution to the industry.

There's only so much you can do with data. I'll give you an example. Many handicappers use "key races" as a handicapping factor. Now, if you bet every horse that comes out of a key race, will you show a profit? No.

Sorry, this is not how you judge a handicapping factor, if is going to show a profit or not is not the critical point, there are other methods used to reach a conclusion about a factor.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 12:44 PM
I don't want to change the topic of the thread. However, to answer your question about ranking based on preference I need to for a second. For Example purposes, let's say a person's handicapping method consists of the following:

1) Identifying the horse w/ the best jockey/trainer pct.
2) Identifying the horse with the best average Beyer over the past 4 races
3) Identifying the horse with the best average pace figure over the past four races.

Without writing a book, let's say that there are 4 more items that are evaluated. These are what I am referring to as angles.

What I'm saying is that Pandy's method could indeed qualify as one of these angles. When it's all done, look for repetition. Are there horses that are showing up in multiple categories? If so, maybe that's your key horse.

In a nut shell, I enjoyed reading his book and found ways to apply his methods.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 01:04 PM
I don't want to change the topic of the thread. However, to answer your question about ranking based on preference I need to for a second. For Example purposes, let's say a person's handicapping method consists of the following:

1) Identifying the horse w/ the best jockey/trainer pct.
2) Identifying the horse with the best average Beyer over the past 4 races
3) Identifying the horse with the best average pace figure over the past four races.

Without writing a book, let's say that there are 4 more items that are evaluated. These are what I am referring to as angles.

What I'm saying is that Pandy's method could indeed qualify as one of these angles. When it's all done, look for repetition. Are there horses that are showing up in multiple categories? If so, maybe that's your key horse.

In a nut shell, I enjoyed reading his book and found ways to apply his methods.

It is very easy to validate these angles and reach a conclusion about how they affect the outcome of a race. What is missing from your approach is the most significant aspect of horse betting though. As a bettor you do not care about how significant a factor is as a predictor of the winner. What is of paramount importance is to what degree a factor is misestimate by the betting public.

The essence of horse betting is to identify factors that tend to mislead the crowd to wrong decisions and capitalize on them. We do not need a static collection of factors to use, what we need is an analytical approach to classify any conceivable factor and a method to generate factors that might be used by the crowd. These crowd's angles can vary from race to race, based in recent events or circuit intricacies. To succeed as a bettor you should be able to detect and justify them before anyone else and be prompt to capitalize based on them before they become stale and inefficient.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 01:15 PM
It is very easy to validate these angles and reach a conclusion about how they affect the outcome of a race. What is missing from your approach is the most significant aspect of horse betting though. As a bettor you do not care about how significant a factor is as a predictor of the winner. What is of paramount importance is to what degree a factor is misestimate by the betting public.

The essence of horse betting is to identify factors that tend to mislead the crowd to wrong decisions and capitalize on them. We do not need a static collection of factors to use, what we need is an analytical approach to classify any conceivable factor and a method to generate factors that might be used by the crowd. These crowd's angles can vary from race to race, based in recent events or circuit intricacies. To succeed as a bettor you should be able to detect and justify them before anyone else and be prompt to capitalize based on them before they become stale and inefficient.



I hear what you're saying. However, I'm not sure I agree that it is all about disproving the public. I'm not so sure that having an eclectic approach like I mentioned in my last post is indeed jumping on the public band wagon. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

pandy
02-22-2013, 01:22 PM
I hear what you're saying. However, I'm not sure I agree that it is all about disproving the public. I'm not so sure that having an eclectic approach like I mentioned in my last post is indeed jumping on the public band wagon. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.


You approach makes sense. First of all, the more "angles" a horse has going for it the better. In my harness racing book I have a chapter on "multi qualifiers" where I focus on horses that have a lot of good angles going for it. It does make it a stronger play.

Hey Babe from Aqueduct yesterday had a lot of good angles, key drop, comes out of key race, ran best race of career fresh and was coming off a freshening, ran best race of her career at 6 furlongs and was cutting back to 6f, hates two turn races and runs her best in one turn races, fit my Pace Shape longshot method. In my opinion, the more angles the better.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 01:26 PM
I hear what you're saying. However, I'm not sure I agree that it is all about disproving the public. I'm not so sure that having an eclectic approach like I mentioned in my last post is indeed jumping on the public band wagon. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I have to agree, I always used multiple angles when reading the DRF. That's why I liked the Matrix System because it is very compatible with somebody who looks at multiple angles. I like your book because it's another angle that can be applied to the system.

pandy
02-22-2013, 01:33 PM
I think this is a personal attack and I do not want to demote the conversation to this level.

I believe Andy Beyer is a monumental figure in horse racing and have the deepest respect for him. I have read his books many times so far and consider them to be among the best ever written in the subject. They are also outdated; even if you want to accept it or not, horse betting has progress a lot since the 70's without this to diminish Beyer's contribution to the industry.



Sorry, this is not how you judge a handicapping factor, if is going to show a profit or not is not the critical point, there are other methods used to reach a conclusion about a factor.


When you say horse betting has progressed a lot, I guess you mean handicapping? Well, I do use a computer program to help me handicap, so yes I think you could make a case that computer handicapping is progress. But, to be realistic, there are top notch handicappers who don't use a computer program at all and don't need one. Traditional handicapping methodologies can be used quite effectively if you're a good handicapper who looks for overlays. Some of the best bets I've ever made were on horses that I just knew were the best horse and I didn't need any complex data charts, I just glanced at the pps and said, this horse totally outclasses these horses.

Many times, handicapping comes down to a comparison of two or three horses in the final analysis. If you've narrowed it down to three players, let's say comparing Peyton Manning in his prime to Phillip Rivers in his prime, and Tony Romo in his prime, you don't need stats, charts, data, etc. You need the two eyes that are in your head and anyone with half a brain knows that Manning is a much better player than either one of them. Horses, like football players, are flesh and blood, too.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 01:42 PM
I hear what you're saying. However, I'm not sure I agree that it is all about disproving the public. I'm not so sure that having an eclectic approach like I mentioned in my last post is indeed jumping on the public band wagon. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.


By definition you cannot make any profit when if are in agreement with the public.

To understand this concept, just think what it really means to agree with the public. It means that the offered price is correct, in other words the odds line represents the true probability of each starter to win the race; here you can make an objection, stating that due to the take out something like this cannot be possible, but for the purpose of this discussion let's concentrate to a single starter ignoring all the others, assuming that the error due to the take out exists somewhere among them.

So, let's say you agree with a 5-2 shot as offered by the crowd as been reflective of your opinion of it winning the race. Obviously if your assessment happens to be correct it is impossible to make any profit by betting on it. Since the 5-2 odds are correct your horse will loose 5 races for each 2 he wins resulting in a tie.

The only way to make money out of this horse is to be able to evaluate its win chances to be more than 5-2.

Of course in real world this is not as simple as it sounds, first of all we can never be sure about the final odds of any starter and in top of it we cannot be sure with a large precision about his realistic odds.

Overcoming these obstacles is one of the major challenges and in my opinion addressing this challenge is the most critical component needed for the winning horse bettor...

thaskalos
02-22-2013, 02:01 PM
The more knowledgeable and experienced a horseplayer is...the more likely it is that he will be disappointed by a new handicapping book coming out. Handicapping books are not written with the most knowledgeable players in mind.

I too used to be overly critical of handicapping books...until I realized that not everyone awaiting these books is the same type of player that I am. How many players out there would find it appealing to stay up half the night trying to handicap the races in the most thorough, most detailed manner possible?

There might be many players out there who are not as serious as some...and who are looking for "shortcut" methods to use, in the limited time that they have to dedicate to this game. If books like this serve that purpose...then there is nothing wrong with that. Whether a book is helpful or not is up to the reader to decide.

If a handicapping book had as its target audience the most knowledgeable players in the crowd...then it would sell mighty few copies indeed. Maybe that's why we don't see more of them...

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 02:21 PM
When you say horse betting has progressed a lot, I guess you mean handicapping?


Horse betting has progress a lot during the last years and some of the factors are among the following:

- Data access is extremely more easy than before. While in the past we had books and studies based in 3 - 4 hundred races today it is trivial for every one to maintain a database with hundreds of thousands of races.

- While old timers use to rely just in win percentages today there are bettors using advanced mathematical methods to create and evaluate metrics and figures

- Simulcast and rebates favored the creation of very large bettors (whales) who have a clear advantage over no (or small) rebate players since they can show profit even if they are marginal losers in absolute value


More than this contemporary handicapping should take in consideration factors that were not so dominant years ago, as for example the following:

- Gimmicks that did not exist in the past tend to deprive simpler betting pools from naive or uninformed money limiting their profit potential. It is a well documented fact that the crowd has become tougher during the last 10 years as it can be seen by the R-square of the winners using the probability as defined by their final odds.

- Modern training methods in conjunction with the influence of new types of medication and therapies have change the frequency of performances and the average layoff period plus they are responsible for many form changes that result in huge long shot winners.

- The number of race tracks have increased as the purses as well. The impact of casino's money on the game is hard to deny as today we frequently see very cheap horses competing for relatively high purses.

Well, I do use a computer program to help me handicap, so yes I think you could make a case that computer handicapping is progress. But, to be realistic, there are top notch handicappers who don't use a computer program at all and don't need one. Traditional handicapping methodologies can be used quite effectively if you're a good handicapper who looks for overlays. Some of the best bets I've ever made were on horses that I just knew were the best horse and I didn't need any complex data charts, I just glanced at the pps and said, this horse totally outclasses these horses.

Many times, handicapping comes down to a comparison of two or three horses in the final analysis. If you've narrowed it down to three players, let's say comparing Peyton Manning in his prime to Phillip Rivers in his prime, and Tony Romo in his prime, you don't need stats, charts, data, etc. You need the two eyes that are in your head and anyone with half a brain knows that Manning is a much better player than either one of them.

I agree that the direct use of a computer might not be a requirement for successful betting. Besides that, it is virtually impossible to success without some computerized aid which can be in the form of some indirect assistance. What I mean here is that all the 'numbers' we use today are generated by computers and databases so we all use computers in some way albeit not explicitly.

Of course the true is that although the computer itself might not be enough I think it offers tremendous help to the bettor since it abstract all the hard work providing the human with a well refined set of data simplifying greatly his decision making process. Especially applying modern data mining and pattern recognition methodologies represents a very interesting and potentially profitable approach. Again by this I do not necessary imply a completely automated method but a more hybrid solution where there is a cooperation between the machine and the bettor exercising the quality of the software and the talent of the human.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 02:40 PM
By definition you cannot make any profit when if are in agreement with the public.

To understand this concept, just think what it really means to agree with the public. It means that the offered price is correct, in other words the odds line represents the true probability of each starter to win the race; here you can make an objection, stating that due to the take out something like this cannot be possible, but for the purpose of this discussion let's concentrate to a single starter ignoring all the others, assuming that the error due to the take out exists somewhere among them.

So, let's say you agree with a 5-2 shot as offered by the crowd as been reflective of your opinion of it winning the race. Obviously if your assessment happens to be correct it is impossible to make any profit by betting on it. Since the 5-2 odds are correct your horse will loose 5 races for each 2 he wins resulting in a tie.

The only way to make money out of this horse is to be able to evaluate its win chances to be more than 5-2.

Of course in real world this is not as simple as it sounds, first of all we can never be sure about the final odds of any starter and in top of it we cannot be sure with a large precision about his realistic odds.

Overcoming these obstacles is one of the major challenges and in my opinion addressing this challenge is the most critical component needed for the winning horse bettor...


Would that same theory apply with exotic wagering? Even a pick three ticket with 3 favorites could produce a profit depending on the ticket price.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 03:35 PM
Would that same theory apply with exotic wagering? Even a pick three ticket with 3 favorites could produce a profit depending on the ticket price.

This is an interesting question. The complexity derives from the fact that we long exotics like p3 are even more blur than simple bets since they are completely missing tote information. To make things even more complicated we have no clue about late scratches, weather condition changes or tote movements that might later affect our final opinions. Participating in long horizontal gimmicks assumes early commitment which can not be changed as additional information is floating in.

In theory this is not so bad since exactly the same conditions apply to all the bettors although we can make a case that if complete lack of information does not benefit the skillful bettor who believes he can outperform the crowd.

I think that yes, there might be cases where a long pick can present value, although some (or all) of its winners might be favorites but I believe that this will happen just because of timing. With this I mean that since we need to pick our selections up front, exists the possibility the horse that will start as the favorite two or more races later to still be concealed to the crowd who will later realize it and jump to it.

A typical example of this, will be the case of a first time out who shows up at 6-1 ML odds. Sometimes this horse will expectingly become the heavy favorite of the race but long picks who started several races ago have no way to know it in advance. In this case we can very well have an overlaid (based in win odds) long pick. The question though, remains how can we realistically pick this horse as the most frequent winner, ahead of the time while having no access to the board....

To conclude I have to say that the presence of a single longshot in a pickX sequence even when combined with some underlaid horses (preferably in the later legs) indeed has the potential for a huge return. If there is not such a longshot I think that most of these bets represent negative propositions.

mountainman
02-22-2013, 04:39 PM
Both viewpoints have merit. Unlike when classics by Ainslie and Beyer, for instance, were written, formulated methodology can now be exhaustively tested. But it's also worth noting that those two men, who perhaps stand above all authors in terms of influencing our craft, conveyed their teachings through selected races and instructive anecdotes.

Doug3312
02-22-2013, 04:39 PM
Looks like I made a mistake buying this book. It is obvious that I don't have the skills necessary to use it just to have some fun.Now I am I have lost money without even betting.

pandy
02-22-2013, 05:00 PM
Many handicapping books, mine included, are actually written for the more experienced handicapper. I've been studying handicapping for over 40 years and I will still read handicapping books because you're always learning in this game. And, even if a book's information is redundant, there can be a reason for reading it. For instance, last year I was a little burned out from a handicapping perspective, so I took out my copy of Beyer's The Winning Horseplayer which gave me a lift because his anecdotes are so entertaining and provide a good refresher even for experienced 'cappers. Sometimes when you get into a slump it's not just bad luck, you could be cutting corners or falling back into bad habits, and reading a good handicapping book can get you revved up and on the right track again.

Most horseplayers are recreational players regardless of their handicapping expertise. Horseracing is a form of entertainment. Winning makes it more fun but evolving, improving and learning new things is also fun.

Greyfox
02-22-2013, 05:33 PM
Both viewpoints have merit. Unlike when classics by Ainslie and Beyer, for instance, were written, formulated methodology can now be exhaustively tested. But it's also worth noting that those two men, who perhaps stand above all authors in terms of influencing our craft, conveyed their teachings through selected races and instructive anecdotes.

Good points.:ThmbUp:

Today's technology can test a given angle and find out it has a low R.O.I. over 1000's of races.
But angles were usually never meant to be played every time they appear.
They appear within the context of today's race.
And that is where "The Art of Handicapping" comes into play.
Will the angle work in today's field?
I'm sure handicappers like Ainslie and Ray Taulbot had that sixth sense that is required to make the angle profitable. That is also why "Science" and Mathematics can only win so many races and longshots prevail in a couple of races at most tracks every day of the year.
I'm not so sure that when that sixth sense leaps in, that it is possible to adequately explain all that is involved in the contents of any book.

Red Knave
02-22-2013, 08:47 PM
By definition you cannot make any profit when if are in agreement with the public.
What a foolish statement!

What definition is that? It must be very narrow.

Are you saying that if I wait until my low odds selection and the public's low odds selection are in agreement, and I bet it, that I can't make a profit? Really? Even if my records indicate otherwise?

Did you mean to say something else?

coachv30
02-22-2013, 09:04 PM
What a foolish statement!

What definition is that? It must be very narrow.

Are you saying that if I wait until my low odds selection and the public's low odds selection are in agreement, and I bet it, that I can't make a profit? Really? Even if my records indicate otherwise?

Did you mean to say something else?
This is the statement that confused me as well. I mean let's face it, we all like to consider the public our enemy. Who doesn't feel proud of their handicapping when they see something they like in a 30-1 shot and it pays off? However, it doesn't mean you have to surround your methods around proving the public wrong. To each is own though.
Let's face it..sometimes you are part of the public. When I am, I bet exotics (exactas, tris, PK 3's). When I'm not, it's worth a win bet.

DeltaLover
02-22-2013, 09:07 PM
What a foolish statement!

What definition is that? It must be very narrow.

Are you saying that if I wait until my low odds selection and the public's low odds selection are in agreement, and I bet it, that I can't make a profit? Really? Even if my records indicate otherwise?

Did you mean to say something else?

No, I mean exactly what you are reading...

You also need to try to be a little more polite....

coachv30
02-22-2013, 09:49 PM
I would like to take this thread in a different direction if nobody minds. If so, please bombard me with profanities if you wish:) Anyways, my question is:

What qualifies a system as SUCCESSFUL? I've heard people say that 100, 200 even 1000 examples of success are no indication that a system is successful. Being that we all agree that no system is successful 100% of the time, then what is success?

I will answer first: In my opinion, success is based on what the individual is looking to get out of it. Not everybody is a full time handicapper. I bet once or twice per week. To me, success varies week by week. If I lose one week, then I was unsuccessful. If I win the following week, I consider it a success even if I did not cover last weeks losses. I don't have that much invested to worry about chasing losses from past weeks.

CincyHorseplayer
02-22-2013, 09:58 PM
I would like to take this thread in a different direction if nobody minds. If so, please bombard me with profanities if you wish:) Anyways, my question is:

What qualifies a system as SUCCESSFUL? I've heard people say that 100, 200 even 1000 examples of success are no indication that a system is successful. Being that we all agree that no system is successful 100% of the time, then what is success?

I will answer first: In my opinion, success is based on what the individual is looking to get out of it. Not everybody is a full time handicapper. I bet once or twice per week. To me, success varies week by week. If I lose one week, then I was unsuccessful. If I win the following week, I consider it a success even if I did not cover last weeks losses. I don't have that much invested to worry about chasing losses from past weeks.

If you make 100 plays a day,5 days a week,50 weeks a year for at least 40 years(or you die),1 million bets, then your method is successful.On the other hand if you want to be believed,you'll have to be reincarnated at least twice and do it again.But given that,it will take cryogenic reincarnation of the first subset of horseplayers and followers to live those lifetimes with you.Then it will be deemed a winning method,and embraced wholeheartedly:)

coachv30
02-22-2013, 10:02 PM
If you make 100 plays a day,5 days a week,50 weeks a year for at least 40 years(or you die),1 million bets, then your method is successful.On the other hand if you want to be believed,you'll have to be reincarnated at least twice and do it again.But given that,it will take cryogenic reincarnation of the first subset of horseplayers and followers to live those lifetimes with you.Then it will be deemed a winning method,and embraced wholeheartedly:)

Therefore, in your opinion this is and always will be a subjective argument. Because on any given day you can try to prove your system successful and fall flat on your face. However, on the next day you can look like a champ.

If that's the case, nobody should really bash anybody else's methods. When you think about it, your average Joe could go to the races every day for 5 years and play a 2 dollar superfecta ticket using his address and one day get lucky enough to win more than any of us will ever make in a lifetime.

Dave Schwartz
02-22-2013, 10:08 PM
I will answer first: In my opinion, success is based on what the individual is looking to get out of it. Not everybody is a full time handicapper. I bet once or twice per week. To me, success varies week by week. If I lose one week, then I was unsuccessful. If I win the following week, I consider it a success even if I did not cover last weeks losses. I don't have that much invested to worry about chasing losses from past weeks.

I must disagree.

That is kind of like saying, "All my winning bets were good ones and my losing bets were bad ones."

Simply not true. At least not in a reality-based environment.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 10:14 PM
I must disagree.

That is kind of like saying, "All my winning bets were good ones and my losing bets were bad ones."

Simply not true. At least not in a reality-based environment.

Our difference in opinions proves this to be a subjective argument. What makes it wrong for a part-time horse player to be more concerned with immediate gratification than long term profit/loss comparison? At least this approach allows for high times as well as low opposed to once again, chasing your losses.

Dave Schwartz
02-22-2013, 10:24 PM
Not "argument."

Nothing wrong with it. However, then your definition of "Success" is more like, "Have a good time at the races."

Nothing wrong with that either.

You can call "success" whatever you want it to be.

If I say, "Success is earning $300 per hour," and you say, "Success is any hour in which I earn $300," our definitions are different.

You may like yours and I prefer my own.

coachv30
02-22-2013, 10:34 PM
Not "argument."

Nothing wrong with it. However, then your definition of "Success" is more like, "Have a good time at the races."

Nothing wrong with that either.

You can call "success" whatever you want it to be.

If I say, "Success is earning $300 per hour," and you say, "Success is any hour in which I earn $300," our definitions are different.

You may like yours and I prefer my own.

I did not mean "argument" in a literal sense, by no means. I have the utmost respect in the time and effort you've put in to this field. In fact, I will probably be a customer in the near future. However, I consider myself an odd ball when it comes to playing the horses. Like I said, I play about twice a week because that is all my schedule allows. When I do play however, I handicap the night before using numerous angles and put a lot of time into it. One, because I enjoy it and two, I'm confident with my assessment going in.

What makes me an odd ball is that each time I play I consider it a separate entity, in a sense, not worrying how I did last time out. Down the road, when I reach retirement I plan on playing more often. I'm sure my tune will change when that time comes.

pandy
02-22-2013, 10:38 PM
Our difference in opinions proves this to be a subjective argument. What makes it wrong for a part-time horse player to be more concerned with immediate gratification that long term profit/loss comparison?


As I've said, horseracing and betting horses is a form of entertainment. Many players go to the OTB or track once a week because they enjoy it.

As far as this idea that you can test systems and prove that they are successful, not really. You can test a method and prove that it is successful for a certain period of time. You have no idea if it will be successful long term. And testing is also overrated because as I've pointed out, selecting and betting a winner can involve various different handicapping methods.

When you put several angles or methods together, they form their own entity. I can show you hundreds of longshot winners I've bet on over the years that I picked because of so many different variables that came together that it would literally be impossible to test because there would dozens of different patterns. It could go on forever, testing all these variables.

Delta Lover's initial complaint to me was that how I picked a longshot winner is meaningless because I didn't contact him before the race and tell him how I picked this horse so he could run the angle through a data base. But I picked the horse because if fit a several different angles that I felt were favorable for this particular race, on this particular day. And, I was right because in a 6 horse field the horse won as the longshot shot in the race and paid $24.80. You can't possibly test everything, there's too many variables.

A good example is "blinkers on." If you test this you will find that is is a losing angle. But, who in their right mind would be every blinkers on? I personally have done incredibly well betting blinkers on, it's one of my favorite angles, and it's in those old handicapping books that are outdated. But, in almost every case the horse had other things that I liked about it, not just that it was adding blinkers. There are some horses that if you 're good at watching young horses, you can spot horses that look like they need blinkers. Jockeys do this all the time after the ride a horse, they come back and tell the trainer to add blinkers next time, or vice versa, take the blinkers off because the horse is pulling, or whatever.

thaskalos
02-22-2013, 10:43 PM
I would like to take this thread in a different direction if nobody minds. If so, please bombard me with profanities if you wish:) Anyways, my question is:

What qualifies a system as SUCCESSFUL? I've heard people say that 100, 200 even 1000 examples of success are no indication that a system is successful. Being that we all agree that no system is successful 100% of the time, then what is success?

I will answer first: In my opinion, success is based on what the individual is looking to get out of it. Not everybody is a full time handicapper. I bet once or twice per week. To me, success varies week by week. If I lose one week, then I was unsuccessful. If I win the following week, I consider it a success even if I did not cover last weeks losses. I don't have that much invested to worry about chasing losses from past weeks.
You cannot be considered a "successful" gambler if you are losing money overall...nor can a system be considered successful, just because it records the occasional winning week.

Winners win more than they lose, over time.

If you are a losing player overall, you may feel that you are content with your losses...but you cannot call yourself a successful player.

CincyHorseplayer
02-22-2013, 11:19 PM
Therefore, in your opinion this is and always will be a subjective argument. Because on any given day you can try to prove your system successful and fall flat on your face. However, on the next day you can look like a champ.

If that's the case, nobody should really bash anybody else's methods. When you think about it, your average Joe could go to the races every day for 5 years and play a 2 dollar superfecta ticket using his address and one day get lucky enough to win more than any of us will ever make in a lifetime.

I was just being "cheeky" and sarcastic!Sometimes I see the incessant need of proof reach levels of magnitude that are wow inspiring.And players whose contributions have altered the game forever,for the good,get bashed habitually.Often enough anyway,to just take the "Yeah whateva" attitude.Just dropping my 2 cents!

CincyHorseplayer
02-22-2013, 11:28 PM
As I've said, horseracing and betting horses is a form of entertainment. Many players go to the OTB or track once a week because they enjoy it.

As far as this idea that you can test systems and prove that they are successful, not really. You can test a method and prove that it is successful for a certain period of time. You have no idea if it will be successful long term. And testing is also overrated because as I've pointed out, selecting and betting a winner can involve various different handicapping methods.

When you put several angles or methods together, they form their own entity. I can show you hundreds of longshot winners I've bet on over the years that I picked because of so many different variables that came together that it would literally be impossible to test because there would dozens of different patterns. It could go on forever, testing all these variables.

Delta Lover's initial complaint to me was that how I picked a longshot winner is meaningless because I didn't contact him before the race and tell him how I picked this horse so he could run the angle through a data base. But I picked the horse because if fit a several different angles that I felt were favorable for this particular race, on this particular day. And, I was right because in a 6 horse field the horse won as the longshot shot in the race and paid $24.80. You can't possibly test everything, there's too many variables.

A good example is "blinkers on." If you test this you will find that is is a losing angle. But, who in their right mind would be every blinkers on? I personally have done incredibly well betting blinkers on, it's one of my favorite angles, and it's in those old handicapping books that are outdated. But, in almost every case the horse had other things that I liked about it, not just that it was adding blinkers. There are some horses that if you 're good at watching young horses, you can spot horses that look like they need blinkers. Jockeys do this all the time after the ride a horse, they come back and tell the trainer to add blinkers next time, or vice versa, take the blinkers off because the horse is pulling, or whatever.

Liked the whole post,but what you said in the last paragraph hit home.That you use a factor from old "Outdated" handicapping books.I have only been around this game since 96,but I think all these factors are cyclical,not completely in themselves,but in the consciousness of the crowd.They will rotate in and out of value.Deciding what is relevant specifically and generally will never happen by the crowd collectively.And there is no further proof IMO than the fact that crowd standards remain in relative place after enduring a complete "Enlightenment" period of handicapping information.To me it's reason for optimism.I like your perspective Pandy.When I get through these last 3 books on my winter read list,you're on deck!

pandy
02-23-2013, 06:25 AM
Thanks Cincy. I'll say one more thing about Delta Lover's remarks. First, here is what he posted (below in italics) after I said that I was going to post a video showing how I picked this horse, Hey Babe.

Something like this would be very helpful when your analysis is done before the race; a posteriori analysis of a specific race is completely meaningless.

If you want to use past races to make your case you should provide a concrete algorithm that we can test using a data base to see if it is significant or not.

Now I appreciate Delta Lover's input, and I agree with several other things he said. But this comment he made is 100% incorrect. First of all, I have no idea why an analysis of a race that has been run is meaningless. That literally makes no sense.

But his idea that I should provide a complete algorithm so he can test using a data base also makes no sense. This is not a personal attack, I'm debating him. I can prove that he is wrong. For instance, the horse in question, Hey Babe. One of the main reasons why I bet her was because she was cutting back to a sprint. If you study her past performances, you can see that she runs her best in one-turn races. She is a classic sprinter-miler. She runs poorly in two turn races, either because the races are too long for her, or she simply doesn't like two turns, or a combination of these two.

This is basic handicapping. Many horses only run their best in certain types of races. For example, some horses only run well on turf, some horses only run well in routes but don't sprint well, etc.

Can you test this? No you can't. Even if you set up a database to test every horse that never won going two turns to see if betting them around one turn would produce a profit, it would be utterly meaningless. The only thing that mattered is that Hey Babe was coming off a dull race around two turns, cutting back to her best distance of 6 furlongs and that's one of the main reasons why she won.

If it sounded like I was a little ticked off at Delta Lover, I was, because, first of all, what he said was condescending. Secondly, he was wrong. And third, he never came back to admit that he was wrong.

You can't "test" everything. Handicapping is not always that cut and dry.

DeltaLover
02-23-2013, 07:56 AM
Can you test this? No you can't. Even if you set up a database to test every horse that never won going two turns to see if betting them around one turn would produce a profit, it would be utterly meaningless. The only thing that mattered is that Hey Babe was coming off a dull race around two turns, cutting back to her best distance of 6 furlongs and that's one of the main reasons why she won.
If it sounded like I was a little ticked off at Delta Lover, I was, because, first of all, what he said was condescending. Secondly, he was wrong. And third, he never came back to admit that he was wrong.

You can't "test" everything. Handicapping is not always that cut and dry.

Can you test this? No you can't.
Sure you can. I will be glad to show you how this can be done with the use of a middle size database and some simple statistical calculations

Secondly, he was wrong
I really do not see how I can be proven wrong or correct in the statements you are referring to. I say that (1) I do not pay attention to any handicapping analysis that is done when the result of the race is already known and (2) I am weighting the validity of a handicapping factor only when applied to a large enough universe of data so my conclusions can be statistically significant. I cannot see how you prove me wrong in any of my two positions.

And third, he never came back to admit that he was wrong.
As much I am addicted to PACE ADVANTAGE I admit that I do not spend the whole day on it, I find it difficult to follow it in a continuous base, especially when I am sleeping.


Now, I suggest we leave personal confrontations aside and concentrate instead on the scenario you are describing here, using it as a case study to see if we can find something useful out of it.


But his idea that I should provide a complete algorithm so he can test using a data base also makes no sense. This is not a personal attack, I'm debating him. I can prove that he is wrong. For instance, the horse in question, Hey Babe. One of the main reasons why I bet her was because she was cutting back to a sprint. If you study her past performances, you can see that she runs her best in one-turn races. She is a classic sprinter-miler. She runs poorly in two turn races, either because the races are too long for her, or she simply doesn't like two turns, or a combination of these two.


If you define the following I will give you an objective opinion about the validity of your handicapping opinion:

1) she was cutting back to a sprint

2) she runs her best in one-turn races

3) She is a classic sprinter-miler

4) She runs poorly in two turn races

Please provide a concrete scenario for each case. For example 'cutting back to a sprint' means a horse running in a distance less than 1 mile today while her two last where at a mile or more.

Once you do that I will be able to back test your angle against my data base and see if it has some handicapping value of not.

pandy
02-23-2013, 08:18 AM
Thanks for responding. I like testing and thoroughly tested some of my systems "live" on my website, but, this particular scenario cannot be tested. It doesn't make any difference how several or all horses cutting back from two turns to one do over how many races are in your database.

The only thing that's pertinent is how one particular horse did, in this case, Hey Babe. And you really don't need to test because the data is in the pps. For example, if you see a horse that is 0 for 6 and never hit the board in routes but has 4 wins in 12 starts and is 50% in the money in sprint races, that's all the data you need to know that your chances of cashing a bet on this horse improve greatly in sprints. The angle is only significant in an isolated instance pertaining to a particular horse, not every horse in a database. Not only is testing a waste of time in this instance, it's literally impossible. Testing all turnbacks or any such scenario would prove nothing.

dkithore
02-23-2013, 08:43 AM
Again by this I do not necessary imply a completely automated method but a more hybrid solution where there is a cooperation between the machine and the bettor exercising the quality of the software and the talent of the human.

I viewed the video Pandy has posted. And I must say that he has applied your last statement to a T. Pandy refers to the Diamond software and cleverly combines his pattern recognition and specific knowledge of a horse's preference for one turn, class drop etc. to create a legitimate contender that was missed by many as demonstrated in price.

Rigorous testing of any angle is a worthy cause. agreed. But for rest of us how are we to find such scenarios thousand time and feed into a database system to validate whether it is worthy angle or not? Such info. perhaps if available to a select few such as yourself. I say this respectfully. Because your intent is to guard against slick sales pitch and outlandish claims. I admire your intent. I can not help admire Pandy's artful way of coming up with a live contender. (In absence of a independent validation by some authority) I suppose it is an individual's decision to buy his approach or not.

Frankly, the discussions of large samples, back testing of various angles and need to create and maintain a large database are fairly controversial and need sophistication that some of us lack. does that mean one can never become a winning horse player? I hope not.

DK

DeltaLover
02-23-2013, 09:37 AM
Frankly, the discussions of large samples, back testing of various angles and need to create and maintain a large database are fairly controversial and need sophistication that some of us lack. does that mean one can never become a winning horse player? I hope not.

DK

Pandy's comments about blinker's off gave me the topic of a posting where I analyze this nagle. You can read it here:

http://alogatas.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/blinkers-on-and-off/

Greyfox
02-23-2013, 09:53 AM
Pandy's comments about blinker's off gave me the topic of a posting where I analyze this nagle. You can read it here:

http://alogatas.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/blinkers-on-and-off/

DeltaLover - Thank you for that link. That's an interesting article on what appears to be an interesting website. :ThmbUp:

Greyfox

pandy
02-23-2013, 10:02 AM
I could be wrong, but with "blinkers on" I would think that the ROI would go up in certain situations. For instance, horses that have used blinkers before, or older horses that are well established are generally not good blinkers on candidates. But blinkers on in maiden races may be more potent.

Furthermore, a more precise test could be done eliminating horses in certain odds ranges. For instance, I would think that if you tested maiden races only, blinkers on, odds 4-1 or higher that the ROI would be higher than all blinkers on all races. But, to be accurate you'd have to run tests with several different odds ranges. It could be that 5-2 or higher would yield the best results, or 6-1 or higher, or a range between 5-2 and 25-1, etc. That's the thing with testing. If you really want the best results, you have to run a ton of tests with different scenarios.

But, that being said, I like your blinkers on/off test results that you show. Nothing wrong with looking at the bare essentials.

Blinkers off I would think that blinkers off coupled with a turn back in distance would yield better results than all blinkers off.

DeltaLover
02-23-2013, 10:54 AM
I could be wrong, but with "blinkers on" I would think that the ROI would go up in certain situations. For instance, horses that have used blinkers before, or older horses that are well established are generally not good blinkers on candidates. But blinkers on in maiden races may be more potent.

Furthermore, a more precise test could be done eliminating horses in certain odds ranges. For instance, I would think that if you tested maiden races only, blinkers on, odds 4-1 or higher that the ROI would be higher than all blinkers on all races. But, to be accurate you'd have to run tests with several different odds ranges. It could be that 5-2 or higher would yield the best results, or 6-1 or higher, or a range between 5-2 and 25-1, etc. That's the thing with testing. If you really want the best results, you have to run a ton of tests with different scenarios.

But, that being said, I like your blinkers on/off test results that you show. Nothing wrong with looking at the bare essentials.

Blinkers off I would think that blinkers off coupled with a turn back in distance would yield better results than all blinkers off.

I updated my posting adding a special case for maidens vs non maidens...

http://alogatas.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/blinkers-on-and-off/

Tom
02-23-2013, 11:57 AM
Excellent site - added it to my bookmarks. :ThmbUp:

Now, the problem I see it we have subcategories:

Blinkers on, and:
-layoff
-jockey change
-who is the trainer?
-class drop
-medication
-distance change
-track change
-horse' running style - do blinker help front runners more than closers?

I agree the basic testing of the blinkers is valid, but even if it hows a very bad result, you may find cases where it is profitable.
fortunately, the HTR robot allows me to test near infinite combinations of things.

As far as Pandy's book, I bought it, likes it, and got a few ideas that I am now incorporating into my play - without testing, only because I cannot really test it. I will use it differently than Pandy does, and I won't use it system-like, but as part of the "soft focus" review of the race. It may help me pick a pace line, it may help me separate close contenders. At some point, the computer stops and I start handicapping.

dkithore
02-23-2013, 12:11 PM
Delta,

That was nice of you to post your findings. Isn't this similar to Dave's study of Percentages and Probabilities (IVs)? The key is how a handicapper applies consistently and keeps record of each factor analyzed.

Thanks.

DeltaLover
02-23-2013, 01:03 PM
I will continue the conversation tonight, currently I am in the battle field (aqu)

thaskalos
02-23-2013, 01:32 PM
Now I appreciate Delta Lover's input, and I agree with several other things he said. But this comment he made is 100% incorrect. First of all, I have no idea why an analysis of a race that has been run is meaningless. That literally makes no sense.



Pandy, here's what I think DeltaLover meant when he said that he considers it meaningless when someone analyzes a race AFTER it's been run:

When we know who the winner of the race is, then it's relatively easy to make a case for this horse winning...because we can always find clues, AFTER the fact, which we think contributed to the horse's victory. Combine this with the fact that the person who does this "post-race" handicapping never shows what the rest of the field looked like...and the post race analysis does indeed become meaningless to a large extent.

Let's say that we focus exclusively on the winner of a given race, who paid $24 to win...and we say that we liked the horse because he was cutting back to a distance that he had always liked in the past. How meaningful is such an analysis...if we don't show what the REST of the field looked like? What if there were OTHER horses in the race...who had performed a lot better at today's distance than our cutting-back horse had done? What if there were OTHER horses in the race who were ALSO cutting back to a more favorable distance...and they had better ability overall than the horse in question?

Some of the old-time system sellers of the past were doing this sort of thing when they were advertising their systems to the gullible public. They would put together a few simplistic handicapping rules...and then they would show us the PPs of a few winners who happened to share these characteristics, as proof that their systems had merit.

But where were the PPs of the REST of the field? How did we know that the winner was the only horse who fit these particular guidelines?

This is why post-race analysis can never be as meaningful as doing it BEFORE the race is run.

This is not a criticism of you or your products; it's just a general comment on the "meaninglessness" of post-race analysis. Although I have not bought this particular book of yours...I've bought your harness handicapping book...and I liked it.

I would also like to add something about DeltaLover as a person...even though I know that he wouldn't appreciate my doing so:

I have gotten to know this guy pretty well in the past few months...and I can assure you there is no pretense or big-headedness in him. He tells it just like he thinks it is..and never tries to deceive anyone about anything. And you will never see him verbally attack someone, even when he is provoked.

DeltaLover has started a blog...and I have agreed to supply the occasional article there too, when I find the time. It is strictly a labor of love...by two guys who, combined, have over 60 years experience in betting serious money at the racetrack...and other gambling venues.

Nowhere on that blog does DeltaLover pretend that his opinions are better or more helpful than Beyer's...nor is there any indication on that blog that Deltalover is "full of himself". And yet...that's what you said.

So, when you see fit to describe where DeltaLover was "wrong" in his exchange with you...perhaps you should also consider that you've been wrong is some ways here yourself.

jhilden
02-23-2013, 04:26 PM
My $0.02 on the Pandy and Delta debate is that I agree with both to a certain degree. I respect Pandy and learned a lot from his work. I also respect the work Delta does in statistical research with databases. I tend to fall into the data mining category and have a database that contains 9+ years of races. I see the positives and negatives of having such a wealth of information available to use for handicapping. I believe using a database can be used for positive returns in the future. I also believe Pandy in that not all case can be studied via a database.

Presenting a race already ran to prove a systems validity will always be a point of contention among handicappers and be the basis for debate for years to come. In the same light, I also see presenting data derived from a database to be questionable and subject to ridicule; especially plays that are heavily backfitted using gapped factors. The conflict I see in this thread is the battle between science and art. Us scientific mind folks like hard data backed by solid data and apply that data through implementation. It dosen't exist unless you can prove repeated results 1000 times. The artistic side dosen't see it this way. Yes, they may grab into the science bag once in awhile, and when going forward, apply an artists finishing touch; even in play. The issue being, they have a way of implementing the play that cannot be explicitly followed with a hard set of rules. Yes, there are rules that are developed, but how do they apply to each and every race going forward?

Science guys fall into the trap of adhering strictly to the rules. In horse racing, I try to detract from following hard rules because the rules are static and the racing dynamic. An artist may detract from there own rules race to race or even skip a race(s). Some say a few handicappers poses a sixth sense and always seem to know when to bet a play - situations that can be very tough to explain pre race but easy to explain post race. I think the sixth sense is actually an artistic attribute, one that is very hard to teach, learn, and most importantly, explain. Hence, why some get it, some don't. Why Delta believes every method can be tested and why Pandy believes his method can't.

I am not saying being purely scientific is a negative, many in the pools are making lots of money on pure statistics and the only art in their lives hangs on walls. The same can be said of the artists. Neither is perfect, neither is completely wrong, but there will always be a disconnect when the two meet in the debate room.

Tom
02-23-2013, 04:32 PM
The difference is he is demonstrating how to use an angle or idea,not how to handicap a race. If seeing the other horses is part of the angle, fine, but otherwise, not needed.

thaskalos
02-23-2013, 04:58 PM
The difference is he is demonstrating how to use an angle or idea,not how to handicap a race. If seeing the other horses is part of the angle, fine, but otherwise, not needed.
I don't agree.

You can't say that a given angle picked the winner of a race, unless you show the PPs of the other horses in the field.

That particular angle could have been shared by half the horses in the field...in which case, the accomplishment is a lot less significant than it's made out to be.

Tom
02-23-2013, 05:01 PM
You are free to try the angle on as many races as you want to. If his point is to show you what the angle is, the result of the race do not even matter. He is teaching you something that you will use or not later on.

thaskalos
02-23-2013, 05:13 PM
You are free to try the angle on as many races as you want to. If his point is to show you what the angle is, the result of the race do not even matter. He is teaching you something that you will use or not later on.
If all you are doing is describing the angle, without emphasizing the outcome of the race...then I agree.

But if you use only the winning horses in your examples, and you are giving the angle credit for selecting these winners...then you owe it to the reader to provide the PPs of the rest of the field as well.

Tom
02-23-2013, 06:57 PM
He owes someone who watches a free video on YouTube?
Ok.

pandy
02-23-2013, 07:00 PM
Pandy, here's what I think DeltaLover meant when he said that he considers it meaningless when someone analyzes a race AFTER it's been run:

When we know who the winner of the race is, then it's relatively easy to make a case for this horse winning...because we can always find clues, AFTER the fact, which we think contributed to the horse's victory. Combine this with the fact that the person who does this "post-race" handicapping never shows what the rest of the field looked like...and the post race analysis does indeed become meaningless to a large extent.

Let's say that we focus exclusively on the winner of a given race, who paid $24 to win...and we say that we liked the horse because he was cutting back to a distance that he had always liked in the past. How meaningful is such an analysis...if we don't show what the REST of the field looked like? What if there were OTHER horses in the race...who had performed a lot better at today's distance than our cutting-back horse had done? What if there were OTHER horses in the race who were ALSO cutting back to a more favorable distance...and they had better ability overall than the horse in question?

Some of the old-time system sellers of the past were doing this sort of thing when they were advertising their systems to the gullible public. They would put together a few simplistic handicapping rules...and then they would show us the PPs of a few winners who happened to share these characteristics, as proof that their systems had merit.

But where were the PPs of the REST of the field? How did we know that the winner was the only horse who fit these particular guidelines?

This is why post-race analysis can never be as meaningful as doing it BEFORE the race is run.

This is not a criticism of you or your products; it's just a general comment on the "meaninglessness" of post-race analysis. Although I have not bought this particular book of yours...I've bought your harness handicapping book...and I liked it.

I would also like to add something about DeltaLover as a person...even though I know that he wouldn't appreciate my doing so:

I have gotten to know this guy pretty well in the past few months...and I can assure you there is no pretense or big-headedness in him. He tells it just like he thinks it is..and never tries to deceive anyone about anything. And you will never see him verbally attack someone, even when he is provoked.

DeltaLover has started a blog...and I have agreed to supply the occasional article there too, when I find the time. It is strictly a labor of love...by two guys who, combined, have over 60 years experience in betting serious money at the racetrack...and other gambling venues.

Nowhere on that blog does DeltaLover pretend that his opinions are better or more helpful than Beyer's...nor is there any indication on that blog that Deltalover is "full of himself". And yet...that's what you said.

So, when you see fit to describe where DeltaLover was "wrong" in his exchange with you...perhaps you should also consider that you've been wrong is some ways here yourself.

I think it's great that you are collaborating with Delta Love and I think the fact that he is posting stats on his blog is terrific. And I agree that if someone sees a horse win and then says, okay, let me show you how you could have had this horse, that is bogus.

But, I gave this horse out my service as my Best Bet, so it is documented. If you want I can have my customers contact you and verify it. I felt that this was a very interesting handicapping situation and others might find it valuable to see how I came up with this horse. Delta L's comment that my analysis of this was meaningless may be true for him but so far the youtube video has 56 views and eventually will have hundred of views. Maybe some of those people will pick up something that will help them enjoy the sport more because they will use the info to cash a nice ticket somewhere along the line.

Thanks for the comment about my Harness book, I appreciate it.

dkithore
02-23-2013, 09:11 PM
Thask,

Please see his video again. You missed the part where he states that there were only three horses that he considered based on their figs. Long shot was one of them.

I also completely agree with Jhilden and Tom about the content of their post. Delta's integrity is not in question. Esp. when he backs up his claim by example. I wish more posters could do that.

DK

pandy
02-23-2013, 09:38 PM
My $0.02 on the Pandy and Delta debate is that I agree with both to a certain degree. I respect Pandy and learned a lot from his work. I also respect the work Delta does in statistical research with databases. I tend to fall into the data mining category and have a database that contains 9+ years of races. I see the positives and negatives of having such a wealth of information available to use for handicapping. I believe using a database can be used for positive returns in the future. I also believe Pandy in that not all case can be studied via a database.

Presenting a race already ran to prove a systems validity will always be a point of contention among handicappers and be the basis for debate for years to come. In the same light, I also see presenting data derived from a database to be questionable and subject to ridicule; especially plays that are heavily backfitted using gapped factors. The conflict I see in this thread is the battle between science and art. Us scientific mind folks like hard data backed by solid data and apply that data through implementation. It dosen't exist unless you can prove repeated results 1000 times. The artistic side dosen't see it this way. Yes, they may grab into the science bag once in awhile, and when going forward, apply an artists finishing touch; even in play. The issue being, they have a way of implementing the play that cannot be explicitly followed with a hard set of rules. Yes, there are rules that are developed, but how do they apply to each and every race going forward?

Science guys fall into the trap of adhering strictly to the rules. In horse racing, I try to detract from following hard rules because the rules are static and the racing dynamic. An artist may detract from there own rules race to race or even skip a race(s). Some say a few handicappers poses a sixth sense and always seem to know when to bet a play - situations that can be very tough to explain pre race but easy to explain post race. I think the sixth sense is actually an artistic attribute, one that is very hard to teach, learn, and most importantly, explain. Hence, why some get it, some don't. Why Delta believes every method can be tested and why Pandy believes his method can't.

I am not saying being purely scientific is a negative, many in the pools are making lots of money on pure statistics and the only art in their lives hangs on walls. The same can be said of the artists. Neither is perfect, neither is completely wrong, but there will always be a disconnect when the two meet in the debate room.

Great post. I agree totally.

Quite honestly, most of the best bets I've made have been times when the "little grey cells" all came together. You're handicapping and of all sudden a light bulb goes off because you realize that you've found the right horse (before the race). Nothing beats intuition. But of course our brains are the ultimate computer.

aaron
02-24-2013, 09:09 AM
Testing methods is like testing trainer patterns or new pace tops. I don't think each has to be tested and back fitted.In my opinion,a player has certain things they look for whether it be a cutback or stretch-out in distance with a blinker change. I don't believe every method is an automatic bet,because many races can have several patterns a player is looking for.What has to happen is you must handicap the race and then make your decision to play the pattern or not.For instance,your method comes up with a play that is 5-1,but the trainer is on a cold streak and there is a negative jockey change.What would you do ?The same play with a hot trainer and positive jockey change at 3-1 would probably be a play.What I am saying in most cases one method is not a stand alone.There of course are exceptions. One that comes to mind is a Bruce Levine 2nd time starter who showed nothing first time.In my opinion since he is not a trainer who wins with 1st time starters,it is not a big deal that the horse showed nothing first time.

pandy
02-24-2013, 01:46 PM
Here's what I posted on pace advantage today in another thread (see below, not reboarding I listed this earlier). This horse won wire to wire easily and paid $19. Again, several angles, this really couldn't be tested.

I picked Pencil Papers on my Sharphorses Selection Service and on the Clocker Lawton sheet that's sold at Aqueduct. 7-2-1

Pencil Papers showed nothing in first two starts but gets blinkers, rider change, first time tag, and stretches out for the first time with suitable pedigree for the distance.

Pensacola Pete
02-24-2013, 02:18 PM
What do you want? A perfectly made, handsomely bound book that's full of blah or a home-made loose-bound (stapled?) book that's full of good content?

I don't expect it to give me a magic money system. All a book needs to do is give me one good idea, and its paid for itself many times. The reviews so far make me curious enough to pay $40.

pandy
02-24-2013, 02:23 PM
Just a mention, if you're referring to my Pace Handicapping Longshots book, it is a paperback with "perfect binding" which is traditional binding, 8 1/2 x 11.

Pensacola Pete
02-24-2013, 02:52 PM
It was an analogy. Now I'm sorry I ever posted.

pandy
02-24-2013, 03:04 PM
By the way, my Best Bet at Aqueduct today was Corybant $24.60 and I used the principle Spot Play Method that's in the book to pick the horse.

Here is an email I just got from a customer just a few minutes ago.



Hi Pandy,

I just saw your post when you picked Pencil and Papers on the Pace Advantage website in race 3 at Aqueduct, paid $19.00. I am still digesting your book, and I just opened the past performances to take a look at today's races at Aqueduct. Of course, I was a race too late. In race 4, #4 - Corybant, was the pick using your Pace Shape Spot Play method plus had two other longshot angles that you mention in the book and 11-1 odds. He won $24.60, $7.40, I was busy earlier in the day, and could not check out the pp's. Hopefully I will see some of these horses before they run.

Thanks, your book looks very good,

Mike

andicap
02-24-2013, 03:38 PM
It was an analogy. Now I'm sorry I ever posted.

I kind of know what you mean.

CincyHorseplayer
02-24-2013, 09:21 PM
Once you know somebody is "Not" a scam artist,is it really necessary to Salem Witch Trial them?It happens so often to good players on here,like Pandy,that it's sick.I've read his stuff elsewhere and he knows the game.If it's not your cup of tea,take the lump of sugar out of it and put it in your own.

Some_One
02-24-2013, 10:56 PM
Is there a pdf or Kindle version of the book available?

pandy
02-24-2013, 11:12 PM
Thank you for your interest. The book is only available in paperback.

DeltaLover
02-25-2013, 12:26 PM
My $0.02 on the Pandy and Delta debate is that I agree with both to a certain degree. I respect Pandy and learned a lot from his work. I also respect the work Delta does in statistical research with databases. I tend to fall into the data mining category and have a database that contains 9+ years of races. I see the positives and negatives of having such a wealth of information available to use for handicapping. I believe using a database can be used for positive returns in the future. I also believe Pandy in that not all case can be studied via a database.

Presenting a race already ran to prove a systems validity will always be a point of contention among handicappers and be the basis for debate for years to come. In the same light, I also see presenting data derived from a database to be questionable and subject to ridicule; especially plays that are heavily backfitted using gapped factors. The conflict I see in this thread is the battle between science and art. Us scientific mind folks like hard data backed by solid data and apply that data through implementation. It dosen't exist unless you can prove repeated results 1000 times. The artistic side dosen't see it this way. Yes, they may grab into the science bag once in awhile, and when going forward, apply an artists finishing touch; even in play. The issue being, they have a way of implementing the play that cannot be explicitly followed with a hard set of rules. Yes, there are rules that are developed, but how do they apply to each and every race going forward?

Science guys fall into the trap of adhering strictly to the rules. In horse racing, I try to detract from following hard rules because the rules are static and the racing dynamic. An artist may detract from there own rules race to race or even skip a race(s). Some say a few handicappers poses a sixth sense and always seem to know when to bet a play - situations that can be very tough to explain pre race but easy to explain post race. I think the sixth sense is actually an artistic attribute, one that is very hard to teach, learn, and most importantly, explain. Hence, why some get it, some don't. Why Delta believes every method can be tested and why Pandy believes his method can't.

I am not saying being purely scientific is a negative, many in the pools are making lots of money on pure statistics and the only art in their lives hangs on walls. The same can be said of the artists. Neither is perfect, neither is completely wrong, but there will always be a disconnect when the two meet in the debate room.

Very nice posting.. My opinion is that both science and art are needed to shape a winning approach when it comes to horse betting. I also think that the focal point when it comes to the scientific part of handicapping is to establish a valid approach eliminated guesswork only relying to hard facts for validation of handicapping angles and metrics.

My related views can be seen in more detail in this posting:

http://alogatas.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/art-of-science/

Laplace
02-27-2013, 12:39 PM
Excellent review. Honest.

Pensacola Pete
02-27-2013, 08:55 PM
I read the booklet. It gave me a few ideas, so it was well worth the cost.

mrroyboy
02-27-2013, 10:44 PM
Pandy I am confused. It looks like Trackmaster Platinum PP's DO NOT have pace shapes? If so they can't be used for your book.Am I wrong about this?

pandy
02-27-2013, 11:16 PM
There are several elements to my book including every longshot angle I've ever used, but the prime spot play system utilizes the race shapes that are part of the Bris pps and the Moss pace figures in DRF, which are also available in Formulator. Trackmaster does not have race shapes.

mrroyboy
02-28-2013, 01:08 PM
Got it Pandy Thank you

Racey
03-12-2013, 12:26 AM
And i gave a review on Amazon.. the best aspect of the book for me is that Bob is an honest guy who reveals his longshot angles many of which we already know. He explains that the book is not a system of absolutes but simply a Spot Play Method . It for me is all about the speed ratings and the Pace Shapes!! in Brisnet PP's. This book opened up my approach on pace and just how powerful racing up close against Plus race shapes really is. Bob has a nice product here and all you guys should give it a close look. On a side note have any of you purchased Bob's Pro Simulcast System i have interest in this as well was curious what the board thought of this older spot play system.

offtrack
03-12-2013, 03:37 AM
I've used the Pro Simulcast System for years now, and recommend it. It was printed in 1998, and is a 33 page paper/pencil system for t-breds.
The user will pass more races than play, so it is a spot play with multiple rules.
With pp's now available via the net the user can review any tracks running that day quite easily.
It's cover color is Orange!

pandy
03-15-2013, 06:07 PM
Real bad review of the book given by Trotman over at the Sartin Site.

Bob

Is Trotman's real name Frank? Those of you who've read my book will get a laugh at this. In the feedback section of Amazon someone named Frank commented that my book "there was no pace handicapping in the book". First of all, the feedback section is supposed to be mainly for customer service type of feedback, i.e., how the item was packaged, shipping time, item as described, etc.

I've had a 100% feedback rating on Amazon (and ebay) for years but because of that one "neutral" comment in feedback my rating dropped to 95%. What bothers me is, to say that there's no pace handicapping in my book is ludicrous. The main system shows how to use Bris (or Moss) pace figures as part of the method, and any pace figures could be used. And the race shapes are used, also pace based. Unbelievable.

thaskalos
03-15-2013, 10:34 PM
Is Trotman's real name Frank? Those of you who've read my book will get a laugh at this. In the feedback section of Amazon someone named Frank commented that my book "there was no pace handicapping in the book". First of all, the feedback section is supposed to be mainly for customer service type of feedback, i.e., how the item was packaged, shipping time, item as described, etc.

I've had a 100% feedback rating on Amazon (and ebay) for years but because of that one "neutral" comment in feedback my rating dropped to 95%. What bothers me is, to say that there's no pace handicapping in my book is ludicrous. The main system shows how to use Bris (or Moss) pace figures as part of the method, and any pace figures could be used. And the race shapes are used, also pace based. Unbelievable.
You can't please everybody, Pandy...no matter what you do.

Beyer's book "The Winning Horseplayer" has garnered only a 3.5 star rating at Amazon...even though it represents what I consider to be his finest work.

pandy
03-15-2013, 10:52 PM
The Winning Horseplayer is one of the best handicapping books ever written, in my opinion.

I wouldn't mind if he said that he didn't like my book. But this guy put it in the feedback that there wasn't any pace handicapping in the book, which is an absurd comment. Oh well.

Racey
03-17-2013, 12:54 AM
And it's methods using Brisnet PP's are most effective. Bob deserves 5 stars for this effort check my review ( Mark ) on Amazon. I have cashed over 600$ in tix the last 2 Saturdays.

Charlie
03-17-2013, 11:44 AM
I am mostly a harness racing fan, so I haven't purchased Pandy's newest thoroughbred book, but nevertheless, still may. I have purchased his latest harness racing book "Trotpicks" and although a fan of harness racing for some 50 years, still found this book very informative and well written. I can certainly understand why Pandy would be upset about his rating dropping from 100 to 95% on Amazon. He works very hard and his informative writings throughout the years just proves this point. In fact, how many free articles has he given us over the years? And really, how many other writers are there to answer questions when the need arises? This poster just wants Pandy to realize that I'd bet most out there appreciate all the informative work he has given us over the years. Pandy, keep up the good work ....

pandy
03-17-2013, 05:15 PM
Thanks Charlie, that's kind of you to say.

RaceBookJoe
03-17-2013, 05:53 PM
I've used the Pro Simulcast System for years now, and recommend it. It was printed in 1998, and is a 33 page paper/pencil system for t-breds.
The user will pass more races than play, so it is a spot play with multiple rules.
With pp's now available via the net the user can review any tracks running that day quite easily.
It's cover color is Orange!

I actually really liked the Pro Simulcast System. Sometimes if i am in the casino and happen to go to racebooks, if a race is going off in a couple of minutes I will usually check to see if any horse fits one of the angles. Horse is even better if it fits an angle AND you have time to do some quick pace/speed handicapping. TrotPicks is a good book also, havent read the latest book...yet :)

Racey
03-19-2013, 12:34 AM
to see good feedback on the Pro Simulcast system i may give it a shot. I tried Pandy's Wire to Window system it was to be frank just ok. I really like the new book and look forward to his next effort.

pandy
03-19-2013, 07:14 AM
The Pro Simulast System tested better than any system when run through a large computer data base and that was with only the basic steps.

I'm working on a thoroughbred book using class and late speed. Late speed is the most overlooked handicapping factor. The focus on pace handicapping and early speed was certainly an advancement in handicapping. But incremental speed itself is a strong indicator of class and form, and late pace is a strong pace figure in turf races and route races, and in any sprint races that has a contested pace.

Racey
03-19-2013, 11:33 PM
I will send you an Email about Pro Simulcast

Thanks...

Racey
03-20-2013, 05:47 PM
Of Pro Simulcast System...THANKS BOB !!!

Pensacola Pete
03-26-2013, 12:53 PM
The Pro Simulast System tested better than any system when run through a large computer data base and that was with only the basic steps.

I ordered that book and this new book. Seemed like the Pro Simulcast System idea was the basis for some of the new book.

Like a lot of other people, I don't buy handicapping books looking for systems. I buy them hoping to find something I can use. I got something out of the Pro Simulcasting Book and I got a couple of things out of this one. Those pay for the cost several times over.

pandy
03-26-2013, 01:30 PM
Thanks Pete. I do the same when I buy a handicapping book or system.

Racey
04-03-2013, 12:46 AM
Hey bob will be joining the service on thursaday thru June will be in touch.

jjflan
04-07-2013, 01:59 PM
The Pro Simulast System tested better than any system when run through a large computer data base and that was with only the basic steps.

I'm working on a thoroughbred book using class and late speed. Late speed is the most overlooked handicapping factor. The focus on pace handicapping and early speed was certainly an advancement in handicapping. But incremental speed itself is a strong indicator of class and form, and late pace is a strong pace figure in turf races and route races, and in any sprint races that has a contested pace.

I've been handicapping using the principles of the Pro Simulcast System for about two weeks and I must say Pandolfo's simple method is the real deal. Hit the first race at Keenland this morning for $18.20 and it's one of five double digit winners I've hit since I started and my ROI has been excellent. Thanks so much, Bob, for being not only being an insightful handicapper, but being willing to share your knowledge at very reasonable prices. If I'd known about this method when you released it back in 1998 I'd have saved myself a lot of grief and money! (BTW: I'm the brother of Rich Flanagan who used to assist you with your research years ago.):)

pandy
04-07-2013, 02:55 PM
Hi, thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. Your brother was very detailed and it was interesting working with him. That $18 Pro Simulcast winner at Keeneland today also had the top ESR (early speed rating), which is a rating I created that greatly improves on Speed Points.

Gapfire
04-07-2013, 03:56 PM
Hi, thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. Your brother was very detailed and it was interesting working with him. That $18 Pro Simulcast winner at Keeneland today also had the top ESR (early speed rating), which is a rating I created that greatly improves on Speed Points.

Did you bet that horse? And, how often do you use that ESR rating as a stand-alone when handicapping your races?

That horse showed up strong in all of my early pace algorithms. I do think the drop to maiden claiming had quite a bit to do with the win as well.

pandy
04-07-2013, 04:56 PM
I thought the race set up for a closer and the favorite looked like the best closer by far so I boxed three horses in the exacta and hit it but I did not love the winner because of all the speed. But he was the speed of the speed for sure.

I only use ESR as a stand alone rating when the horse is a longhot. With the ESR I'm looking to use it in correlation with other things but if I see a horse with a high ESR that is over 9-1 it's hard to resist, especially in maiden races or lower class claimers.

jjflan
04-12-2013, 03:06 AM
Started March 28th...after 15 days I've made 48 bets and won 12 of them for a hit rate of 25%. (3.2 bets per day average) My average win price was $10.53 (4-1) providing an ROI of +32%. I'm using Pandy's system as a method not a black box so a more skilled handicapper than me may have done better. I handicap pretty much every north American track looking at maiden claimers, NW2/3L claimers and allowances, and non-graded stakes on dirt. I use the Brisnet Quick Play PPs and they're very useful because of the connections info. I'm an artist and I don't want to be distracted from my painting so I place my bets in advance early in the morning. Some of these bets end up being chalk or dead on the board at post, unprofitable bets in the long run I never would have placed if I was watching the tote but I don't want watching live races to interfere with my work. I watch the replays on Twin Spires at night. Today (Thursday) I hit the 8th race at Lone Star: Martys Wimbledon was 12-1 ML and went off @ almost 6-1 and paid $13.80. Half of my wins so far have been double-digit payoffs for the simple reason I'm usually betting horses on their early speed and they haven't demonstrated their finishing ability yet. I'll provide an update every 15 days for anyone who's interested.

P.S. Thanks again, Pandy!:) I'm curious...what percentage of those who bought your system returned it for a refund?

pandy
04-12-2013, 06:59 AM
I've been selling the Pro Simulcast method for 15 years. There were a few refunds during that time, not many. I wouldn't suggest that you continue to update on here, we don't want some big bettor to get involved and start pounding the horses. I originally sold the system for a higher price but after several years, when sales slowed, I lowered the price. If the sales pick up too much I'll be forced to raise the price by at least $10.

One thing about the Pro Simulcast method, and I think this applies to my Pace Handicapping Longshots book as well, regardless of the strike rate, ROI, etc. of these methods, the handicapping insight is valuable in itself. Pro Simulcast is also a pace-based system, but it illustrates the importance of positional speed in its relation to class. When I was developing the system, which took a lot of testing to find the right variables, I was amazed at what I found. Before Pro Simulcast I felt that pace handicapping was all about incremental speed, i.e, the actual fractional times, or pace figures. But Pro Simulcast does not use time at all, only position and class, yet it works.

The success of this method proves that the actual pace of the race is somewhat disguised by the class of the horses in the race. I believe that this is because of what I referred to as "pace pressure", which isn't necessarily the actual time, but more the "bunching" of horses in a more competitive race. I learned this from running track in high school.

The reason why the horses still pay good prices is because of the over emphasis on final time and speed figures. Several of my handicapping theories prove that you can show a positive ROI without looking at final time at all.

jjflan
04-12-2013, 12:36 PM
It's interesting that figures (internal and final times adjusted by track condition, trip, even the wind velocity) dominate handicapping today but there aren't many winning bettors out there. Being a painter didn't do well with the math (I was sucked in to the Sartin Methodology for some years and got nowhere.) and had the most success with trainer intentions which I inferred from what he was doing with his horse to get ready for a big effort. Years ago, Dan Pope's assertion that sometimes a trainer is in not to try for the win but to get him on the muscle for his next race by running two moves (early speed, fall back on the turn, then run at the pace again) is just one of the clues concerning trainer intentions that I learned from him and Tom Worth's "tips". We've all heard the expression that if you want to really want to know what's going on just "follow the money" and that, I think, is the strength of your ideas, Pandy. I promise I'll do what you asked...no more updates. But I hope you won't mind me expressing my admiration for you in the way you've codified a way to build success on the intangibles of "class".

pandy
04-12-2013, 01:11 PM
No that's fine, thanks again.

thaskalos
04-12-2013, 02:21 PM
I've been selling the Pro Simulcast method for 15 years. There were a few refunds during that time, not many. I wouldn't suggest that you continue to update on here, we don't want some big bettor to get involved and start pounding the horses. I originally sold the system for a higher price but after several years, when sales slowed, I lowered the price. If the sales pick up too much I'll be forced to raise the price by at least $10.

One thing about the Pro Simulcast method, and I think this applies to my Pace Handicapping Longshots book as well, regardless of the strike rate, ROI, etc. of these methods, the handicapping insight is valuable in itself. Pro Simulcast is also a pace-based system, but it illustrates the importance of positional speed in its relation to class. When I was developing the system, which took a lot of testing to find the right variables, I was amazed at what I found. Before Pro Simulcast I felt that pace handicapping was all about incremental speed, i.e, the actual fractional times, or pace figures. But Pro Simulcast does not use time at all, only position and class, yet it works.

The success of this method proves that the actual pace of the race is somewhat disguised by the class of the horses in the race. I believe that this is because of what I referred to as "pace pressure", which isn't necessarily the actual time, but more the "bunching" of horses in a more competitive race. I learned this from running track in high school.

The reason why the horses still pay good prices is because of the over emphasis on final time and speed figures. Several of my handicapping theories prove that you can show a positive ROI without looking at final time at all.

Pandy...would you please explain something to me?

The poster jjflan, in post #142 of this thread, indicated that he is using your Pro Simulcast System..."as a method not a black box". This leads one to believe that it is not the restrictive sort of system that we often see...where there is only one way of using it...and every user invariably ends up on the same horse(s).

But you replied to him by dissuading him from supplying any additional "updates" on the progress of this system...citing concerns that a "big bettor" might hop aboard -- "and start pounding these horses". So, it now seems as if this is a conventional-type system after all...where there is only one way of playing while following it -- and where the bettors invariably end up wagering on the same horses.

Is this a "black box-type" system -- where there is no need for any subjective opinion to be infused by the user -- or is it an abstract set of handicapping ideas...where the user can bring some "individuality" into the process of putting them to use?

I am of the belief that "black box-type" systems eventually end up losing their effectiveness -- assuming they had any to lose to begin with -- once they are released to the public at large...especially if they have been selling for many years.

As you alluded in your post...it doesn't take many bettors before these horses are "pounded" into deep unprofitability.

pandy
04-12-2013, 07:44 PM
It's a real system with rigid rules, but you can use also it as a handicapping tool, which may be what he's referring too. I've noticed that you've said that a few times, about systems becoming ineffective if they get popular. But my systems are geared towards longshots and you're always going to get good payoffs on horses that don't have good speed recent speed figures. You're not going to convince most people to bet horses that lost their last start by 15 lengths, or to totally ignore final time.

jjflan
04-13-2013, 02:04 PM
Pandy, what's your view on horses taking a significant drop in class and managed to show some early foot in last but his PPs show that he's raced poorly against the level of horses he's facing today before the class rise. Besides that his connections are the same as back then.

pandy
04-13-2013, 02:19 PM
Although it's easy to dismiss these types, because they've already been beaten at this level, they often do win at big prices. The key is the odds. If the odds are big enough I still may take the shot if the horse fits the guidelines. If I'm playing a Pick 3 or that type of bet I'll include the horse at a price.

blackspot88
04-18-2013, 04:44 PM
hi pandy.ordered your longshot book last week and received it monday morning.excellent service considering i live in canada.tried your middle t turf angle yesterday at aqueduct and came up with the following winner ....................aqueduct 9th wednesday april 17 2013 ............................Fantastic Eyes $87.60 33.20 11.70 thanks.

pandy
04-18-2013, 05:06 PM
Glad you had it! I almost missed it. A friend of mine who does my programming for the Diamond System was creating a screen for it and he called me to tell me about the horse in the afternoon and we both bet it. The Middle-T Longshot angle is a great conditioning factor and the trainer wheeled the horse back in 10 days, perfect.

jjflan
05-04-2013, 12:33 PM
TO PANDY: When trying to determine class in handicapping I'm lost when trying to compare claiming and allowance NWL horses with entries coming out of starter handicaps and optional claimers. Help, please, Bob!:confused: Also, is there any way to get purse values for races that have been run too long ago to get the PPs from Brisnet? Is there anyplace online where this information is available? Thanks!

Tom
05-04-2013, 04:26 PM
All charts are free online at both Equibase and BRIS.
At BRIS, go to Chart Archives and select track, yer, month, then you get a calendar - click on the day you want.

jjflan
05-05-2013, 04:04 PM
Thanks, Tom! It didn't occur to me to look up the charts for the purses and conditions (DUH!) It's a wonder I can tie my shoes.:bang:

cordep17
05-11-2013, 10:43 PM
What an incredible thread. I just read through it all, and I must say, it is very insightful. That was a true clash between art and science, and I think it is 50-50. Science can be used to determine horses that should be considered, but to bet them purely because a database spits em out seems silly. It should be used in the context of art and understanding what you are looking at.

I always look at those horse who have lost by 14 and 25 lengths in their last two and throw em out. Too often they bite me in the butt. It is these that I too often can't even conjure a reason to bet on them post race. This often occurence is what too often drives me crazy with this game. Your book is definately on my watchlist. I'm currently re-reading Beyer's Betting in the 21st Century.

For example...I still can't find anything attractive about the eight in Race 2 tonight at FP.
http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=FPK&race=2&date=2013-05-11

Would you have even thought a second place effort was possible with this one? to me, he has been off of form for a while with a trainer who can't be trusted to randomly turn him around. he was a horse that used to flash some speed, but has lost a lot of it. The jock riding him was the same guy who rode him to an uncompetitive race last out at the same level. the trainer shows little with third off layoffs.

With the reviews I'm seeing, I'll probably read it this summer. The longest shots that I really get are between 9 and 15 to 1.

pandy
05-11-2013, 11:05 PM
Thanks. That 8 horse was tough to come up with.

cordep17
05-11-2013, 11:44 PM
hahah. As I was frustrated, I had already planned my bets for today last night.
Just a bit ago, the 7--M/L at 10/1--went off at 16-1 or about that. I had the :4: :6: :7: :8: Exacta Box.

Unfortunately, the seven got bet down a lot in the last few minutes, or I would have gotten a lot more.

Shoulda Coulda woulda, but I should have had the 2 instead of the 6. I thought he would get sucked into the pace and fade, but the odds and the idea of missing a long shot because I took him out made me reconsider.

rereading...this might be confusing ^^...I was going to use the 2 but I wanted to cash some tickets so I used the 6, who I didn't like all that much. Went against the grain/ my gut and paid the price.

Also missed my tri with the same numbers ^^

Confidence boost most definately...tri would have been sweet at over 1800.

cordep17
05-12-2013, 02:14 PM
How can a computerized program quantify form changes? I understand that it can do the others to a certain degree, but because they all center around current form, that is the kind of study that I would be most interested in.

For example:
a horse drops two classes after a strong third place effort at a higher level. My intuition is that these horse have a pathetic ROI because they get bet down so much. Trainers don't waste horses on races that are run for less money than they could get. Very few races are as easy as they seem, but these horses are constantly the favorites, and offer the best opportunities for players like myself.

Wouldn't a system spit the above horse out every time?

pandy
05-12-2013, 02:22 PM
Are you referring to my Diamond System? If so, the idea with any computer handicapping system is to look for the horse that are well rated contenders or top ranked but are not the favorite. Regardless of what system you use, you have to look for the value plays. My system picks a lot of longshots because it does not focus on final time.

Stillriledup
05-13-2013, 05:31 PM
Interesting thread.

While i believe 'angles' can point you to a winning horse at a nice price, there's really no proof that the angle was the reason the horse won. For example, lets say you bet on a horse changing distances and getting a blinker change and the horse wins. You might convince yourself the horse won because of the combination of those changes, or, maybe it won because of just the blinker change and NOT the distance change. Or, maybe the Blinkers had nothing to do with it and it was all the distance change.

Or, it might have been the chiropractor who came in the day before and massaged the horse's back. Or, it could have been that the horse received some other type of therapy that it had never received before and a perfect storm created a situation where the horse improved a few lengths and also just happened, by coincidence, gotten a blinker change too.

We don't see what goes on behind the scenes of different types of vet work and different ways to train these horses, so we just say 'the blinkers did the trick' and stick this in our brains while all along, the blinkers might have had zero to do with the horse improving.

Horses win because on that day, they were the one who was able to get from point A to point B the fastest. They physically had the talent to get the job done on that day. There could be a dozen 'angles' that you could convince yourself were the reason the horse won, but because most horses have more than one angle, we can never know for sure which angle was the most important and how much any of them mattered.

If we were sitting together on my couch watching the summer olympics and i asked you who you thought was going to win the Mens sprint and you said "Usain Bolt is my selection" and i asked you why, would you tell me that you pick Usain because you heard that he has a new personal trainer? No, you would say "i like him because i think he's the fastest one in the race". With humans, we just pick the fastest guy....with horses, we seem to need angles instead. Not sure why that is the case but you wouldnt make a selection of a human being in the olympics because of some 'equipment' change, you would just try to pick the fastest person based on what you saw with your eyes in previous races.

pandy
05-13-2013, 06:37 PM
Interesting thread.

While i believe 'angles' can point you to a winning horse at a nice price, there's really no proof that the angle was the reason the horse won. For example, lets say you bet on a horse changing distances and getting a blinker change and the horse wins. You might convince yourself the horse won because of the combination of those changes, or, maybe it won because of just the blinker change and NOT the distance change. Or, maybe the Blinkers had nothing to do with it and it was all the distance change.

Or, it might have been the chiropractor who came in the day before and massaged the horse's back. Or, it could have been that the horse received some other type of therapy that it had never received before and a perfect storm created a situation where the horse improved a few lengths and also just happened, by coincidence, gotten a blinker change too.

We don't see what goes on behind the scenes of different types of vet work and different ways to train these horses, so we just say 'the blinkers did the trick' and stick this in our brains while all along, the blinkers might have had zero to do with the horse improving.

Horses win because on that day, they were the one who was able to get from point A to point B the fastest. They physically had the talent to get the job done on that day. There could be a dozen 'angles' that you could convince yourself were the reason the horse won, but because most horses have more than one angle, we can never know for sure which angle was the most important and how much any of them mattered.

If we were sitting together on my couch watching the summer olympics and i asked you who you thought was going to win the Mens sprint and you said "Usain Bolt is my selection" and i asked you why, would you tell me that you pick Usain because you heard that he has a new personal trainer? No, you would say "i like him because i think he's the fastest one in the race". With humans, we just pick the fastest guy....with horses, we seem to need angles instead. Not sure why that is the case but you wouldnt make a selection of a human being in the olympics because of some 'equipment' change, you would just try to pick the fastest person based on what you saw with your eyes in previous races.

The reason why some angles work is because of conditioning. That's why so many turn backs win, the horse gets conditioning going long and finishes better going short. Many times you can be sure that the angle worked. For instance, I've bet hundreds of horses first time blinkers and many of the horses improved so sharply over their last race that it's highly likely it was the blinkers that did it.

Some handicappers do bet on the horse that they think is the fastest. I've known many "sheet" handicappers who don't give a damn about angles, workouts, trainers, etc. The thing is, even if all of the horses in a race get good trips, the fastest horse won't always win because it will be beaten by a horse that is in better condition that day, or better prepared to win (by the trainer).

Many pace handicappers are looking for the horse that they feel has some sort of pace advantage (i.e. lone speed). Nothing wrong with that, good handicapping. But pace handicapping can also point to horses that have gained conditioning in their last start because of the way they attended the pace.

Stillriledup
05-13-2013, 08:34 PM
The reason why some angles work is because of conditioning. That's why so many turn backs win, the horse gets conditioning going long and finishes better going short. Many times you can be sure that the angle worked. For instance, I've bet hundreds of horses first time blinkers and many of the horses improved so sharply over their last race that it's highly likely it was the blinkers that did it.

Some handicappers do bet on the horse that they think is the fastest. I've known many "sheet" handicappers who don't give a damn about angles, workouts, trainers, etc. The thing is, even if all of the horses in a race get good trips, the fastest horse won't always win because it will be beaten by a horse that is in better condition that day, or better prepared to win (by the trainer).

Many pace handicappers are looking for the horse that they feel has some sort of pace advantage (i.e. lone speed). Nothing wrong with that, good handicapping. But pace handicapping can also point to horses that have gained conditioning in their last start because of the way they attended the pace.

I'm not a big fan of long to short, i like it the other way around.

traynor
05-13-2013, 10:44 PM
The reason why some angles work is because of conditioning. That's why so many turn backs win, the horse gets conditioning going long and finishes better going short. Many times you can be sure that the angle worked. For instance, I've bet hundreds of horses first time blinkers and many of the horses improved so sharply over their last race that it's highly likely it was the blinkers that did it.

Some handicappers do bet on the horse that they think is the fastest. I've known many "sheet" handicappers who don't give a damn about angles, workouts, trainers, etc. The thing is, even if all of the horses in a race get good trips, the fastest horse won't always win because it will be beaten by a horse that is in better condition that day, or better prepared to win (by the trainer).

Many pace handicappers are looking for the horse that they feel has some sort of pace advantage (i.e. lone speed). Nothing wrong with that, good handicapping. But pace handicapping can also point to horses that have gained conditioning in their last start because of the way they attended the pace.

It may just be that the criteria used to establish one's opinion about which horse is "the fastest horse" is at fault--not that the fastest horse doesn't win. The fastest horse is usually the horse that wins the race--it got from Point A to Point B before the others, making it "the fastest horse."

Opinions vary widely about the criteria used to establish before the race which horse will be the fastest. It is those criteria that are deficient in failing to predict accurately which horse was--in fact, in the real world--the fastest horse in the race.

pandy
05-13-2013, 11:02 PM
I don't think so. I do think that final time speed is a handicapping factor, which is more important in harness racing than thoroughbred racing (contrary to popular opinion). But even if all of the horses were well conditioned, in peak form, the fastest horse still won't win many times because it got a trip that forced it to run slower than it can, while the winner got a trip that was beneficial. So between current conditioning and trips, the fastest horse in the race has many different ways to lose.

I remember when they first started using precise quarter splits, many people seemed to think this was some sort of great advancement in handicapping but it means nothing. There are so many ways a horse can lose ground, which equals lengths, which equals time, that increments in time are meaningless.

aaron
05-14-2013, 09:45 AM
I don't think so. I do think that final time speed is a handicapping factor, which is more important in harness racing than thoroughbred racing (contrary to popular opinion). But even if all of the horses were well conditioned, in peak form, the fastest horse still won't win many times because it got a trip that forced it to run slower than it can, while the winner got a trip that was beneficial. So between current conditioning and trips, the fastest horse in the race has many different ways to lose.

I remember when they first started using precise quarter splits, many people seemed to think this was some sort of great advancement in handicapping but it means nothing. There are so many ways a horse can lose ground, which equals lengths, which equals time, that increments in time are meaningless.
If you watch races carefully,you will see many races, the fastest horse doesn't win. Most races are competitive and a bad trip or track bias has doomed many horses considered best.Before he got hurt Ramon Dominguez won many races where his horse wasn't the best. Sometimes saving energy and being patient will win you a race. Speed numbers are important,but they are only one factor.Sometimes a change in distance,jockey,or trainer will do more to determine the outcome of a race than which horse has the fastest numbers.

thaskalos
05-14-2013, 01:19 PM
If you watch races carefully,you will see many races, the fastest horse doesn't win. Most races are competitive and a bad trip or track bias has doomed many horses considered best.Before he got hurt Ramon Dominguez won many races where his horse wasn't the best. Sometimes saving energy and being patient will win you a race. Speed numbers are important,but they are only one factor.Sometimes a change in distance,jockey,or trainer will do more to determine the outcome of a race than which horse has the fastest numbers.

The fastest numbers only show what the horse has done in the past...and the past is not always indicative of what will occur in the future. Past performances are used to PREDICT the future...not to GUARANTEE it.

The horse who looks fastest on paper loses for a variety of reasons...some predictable beforehand, and some not. Such is the risk that we accept when we play this game.

It's also the reason why we demand a decent return before we place our wagers...

cordep17
05-14-2013, 04:23 PM
I don't think so. I do think that final time speed is a handicapping factor, which is more important in harness racing than thoroughbred racing (contrary to popular opinion). But even if all of the horses were well conditioned, in peak form, the fastest horse still won't win many times because it got a trip that forced it to run slower than it can, while the winner got a trip that was beneficial. So between current conditioning and trips, the fastest horse in the race has many different ways to lose.

I remember when they first started using precise quarter splits, many people seemed to think this was some sort of great advancement in handicapping but it means nothing. There are so many ways a horse can lose ground, which equals lengths, which equals time, that increments in time are meaningless.

:ThmbUp:

traynor
05-14-2013, 04:32 PM
I don't think so. I do think that final time speed is a handicapping factor, which is more important in harness racing than thoroughbred racing (contrary to popular opinion). But even if all of the horses were well conditioned, in peak form, the fastest horse still won't win many times because it got a trip that forced it to run slower than it can, while the winner got a trip that was beneficial. So between current conditioning and trips, the fastest horse in the race has many different ways to lose.

I remember when they first started using precise quarter splits, many people seemed to think this was some sort of great advancement in handicapping but it means nothing. There are so many ways a horse can lose ground, which equals lengths, which equals time, that increments in time are meaningless.

And therein lies the tale. Which one(s), how many, how recent, how are they evaluated?

traynor
05-14-2013, 04:34 PM
If you watch races carefully,you will see many races, the fastest horse doesn't win. Most races are competitive and a bad trip or track bias has doomed many horses considered best.Before he got hurt Ramon Dominguez won many races where his horse wasn't the best. Sometimes saving energy and being patient will win you a race. Speed numbers are important,but they are only one factor.Sometimes a change in distance,jockey,or trainer will do more to determine the outcome of a race than which horse has the fastest numbers.

Again, there is what is technically referred to in semantics as a "deleted referential index." In plain English, it means the "fastest horse" that doesn't win is usually because the person who defined that entry as the "fastest horse" was wrong.

traynor
05-14-2013, 04:39 PM
There is a world of difference between selecting "the fastest horse in the race" and selecting a horse that one believes--perhaps incorrectly--to be "the fastest horse in the race" based on some subjective criteria that may or may not be predictive, and that may be only secondarily correlated with actual performance today.

traynor
05-14-2013, 05:09 PM
Basically, I think it is difficult to define (before the race) which horse will be the fastest horse in that race. It is not rocket science to locate a few numbers in the past performances and declare a specific horse to be the fastest in the race. However, that is little more than a subjective opinion based on historical references that may or may not be interpreted correctly, and that may not even be accurate (for predictive purposes).

If finding the fastest horse in the race (before the race) were as simple as some make it seem, we would all be making seven-figure-incomes from churning the rebate shops. Or, at least, the ones who had figured it out would be, and they would be keeping the information to themselves.

pandy
05-14-2013, 07:17 PM
It depends on how competitive the race is. On the half mile harness tracks it's often pretty easy to know before hand who the fastest horse is, that's why the favorite wins 44%. But the fastest horse doesn't always win. Secretariat was always the fastest horse yet he lost 3 times, proof that the fastest horse doesn't always win.

Tom
05-14-2013, 08:44 PM
Alydar beat Affirmed twice.

traynor
05-14-2013, 09:54 PM
It depends on how competitive the race is. On the half mile harness tracks it's often pretty easy to know before hand who the fastest horse is, that's why the favorite wins 44%. But the fastest horse doesn't always win. Secretariat was always the fastest horse yet he lost 3 times, proof that the fastest horse doesn't always win.

Then perhaps the methods used by bettors to determine which is the fastest horse are deficient. It is not that the fastest horse doesn't win. It is that the horse predicted to be the fastest horse in that specific race failed to win. That is a deficiency in the methods used to predict the fastest horse, not in the performance of the horse.

I think we have a semantic disconnect here. I don't think the quickie, obvious, everbody-knows-how-to-do-it methods for selecting the fastest horse in the race are all that useful, for the simple reason that those methods fail so often to accurately predict what they supposedly predict. And when they do succeed, it is in situations obvious to most bettors, making them relatively worthless for wagering purposes.

pandy
05-15-2013, 06:31 AM
Gee I don't know Traynor, I think handicapping, particularly in the thoroughbred game, has evolved into something that is pretty sophisticated. With my computer handicapping program I can, at a glance, see which horses have the best energy, best early speed, best late speed, best overall speed, best incremental speed (early-middle-late), best form cycle, best turn time, and on an on. Then we have video replays and lots of other information available like track bias, wind direction, trainer stats, etc. What could we be missing? The tough thing to analyze is class but anyone who follows a circuit closely and is a good handicapper usually knows where each horse fits on class just by watching them run.

pandy
05-15-2013, 07:42 AM
Another factor is, even if we are good at identifying the fastest horse, that may not be the horse that's the best bet. Yesterday I liked a horse in the 1st at Parx who appeard to have a pace advantage and I wanted to play doubles. In the 2nd, a 2-5 shot was the obvious fastest horse but for various reasons I thought he was way too short a price so I used him and two others who were 2nd and 3rd fastest and caught the overlaid $61 double (4-1 and 5-2). The fastest horse blew a 4 length lead and finished 2nd, beaten by the 2nd fastest horse, who was much better value.

traynor
05-15-2013, 10:23 AM
Gee I don't know Traynor, I think handicapping, particularly in the thoroughbred game, has evolved into something that is pretty sophisticated. With my computer handicapping program I can, at a glance, see which horses have the best energy, best early speed, best late speed, best overall speed, best incremental speed (early-middle-late), best form cycle, best turn time, and on an on. Then we have video replays and lots of other information available like track bias, wind direction, trainer stats, etc. What could we be missing? The tough thing to analyze is class but anyone who follows a circuit closely and is a good handicapper usually knows where each horse fits on class just by watching them run.

That is what I mean by a semantic disconnect. Your comments are all in regard to the past--things that happened--as if there is some mandate that particular events be isolated and repeated.

Basically, there are a number of processes that handicappers use because they believe those processes are predictive. They are not predictive--they are only descriptive. That being the case, it seems more useful to do some serious study of just how predictive each of those descriptive factors or processes are. That is what seems to be lacking. Having a set of numbers that one believes are predictive when those numbers only describe past events that took place under circumstances that may or may not be replicated today (the "confounding variables" that often dramatically affect the outcome of races) may create the illusion of control and certainty, but is seriously lacking when it comes to making money by wagering.

I am not suggesting that the topics you specified are not important to some degree. I am suggesting that the labeling of Horse A as "fastest" or "best turn time" or "best early speed" or whatever is misguided because it creates an impression of certainty that does not exist. I think anyone who has done a bit of data mining or data analysis of a large number of races has probably reached the same conclusion--whether they want to admit it or not.

Each of the topics you mention above is predicated on the (largely unproven) premise that the technique used to determine "the best overall speed" (or whatever) is correct, accurate, and predictive. It may seem so, but parsing 100,000 or so races might prove otherwise.

pandy
05-15-2013, 10:45 AM
But it doesn't have to be that accurate, that's the key. All the numbers really have to do is pinpoint the horses in each race that are 'fast enough" to win, not "the fastest." Then you can look over those horses and decide which one may or may not be a good bet based on the odds.

Very often the horse that is actually the 4th fastest in the race wins and pays a good price because it either was better conditioned for today's race or got a better trip, or some combination of both.

I don't think the reason why people don't win is because they can't figure out who the best horse is. I think it's because they don't bet on horses offering good value.

LottaKash
05-15-2013, 11:25 AM
Yesterday, I "described" 3-nifty winners, out of 3-attempts to do so...

Talk about "semantic-disconnect"....I think I have that very problem too....

traynor
05-15-2013, 11:41 AM
But it doesn't have to be that accurate, that's the key. All the numbers really have to do is pinpoint the horses in each race that are 'fast enough" to win, not "the fastest." Then you can look over those horses and decide which one may or may not be a good bet based on the odds.

Very often the horse that is actually the 4th fastest in the race wins and pays a good price because it either was better conditioned for today's race or got a better trip, or some combination of both.

I don't think the reason why people don't win is because they can't figure out who the best horse is. I think it's because they don't bet on horses offering good value.

That is the key. Do the numbers really "do" what the software users believe they are doing? "Good enough" is never, ever good enough when one is betting on the outcome. There is only correct, and incorrect. One either wins or loses. I suggest that in many cases, the computer-selected "best horse" or "fastest horse" or whatever is little more than the result of a calculation someone believed important based on a relatively small number of races. ROI figures over thousands of races show a totally different perspective on the efficacy of those calculations.

Stillriledup
05-15-2013, 04:25 PM
I believe the 'fastest horse' idea is not necessarily to figure out who the fastest horse is but rather its a reminder to always remember that you're betting on the physical talent of the horse and not some 'angle'. Your angle might land you on the fastest horse....or, not, but you need to remember that no matter what method you use to select that runner, it won because it was physically talented enough to get from point A to point B faster than anyone else. You didnt win because the horse added or subtracted blinkers. That's not why the horse won, but it might be why you bet on that horse. You just were fortunate enough to have bet on a horse who got a blinker change who also was fast enough to win in real life.

traynor
05-15-2013, 04:41 PM
I think the average bettor--after spending a few weeks/months/years critically studying past performance records--can pretty well parse out the early speed, late speed, overall speed, frontrunners, higher class, etc., by eyeballing. There is nothing magical, mystical, or even especially impressive about having a computer replicate the same basic insights by massaging the same basic set of numbers--and then to present those (essentially the same) numbers in a different format.

There are literally hundreds of software applications--many or most freeware or shareware, or available for prices from minimal to comical--that all do basically the same thing. My premise is that a detailed analysis over time of the processes used will point out their deficiencies, and that the deficiencies are in the simplistic notion that making a few basic calculations on essentially the same set of numbers that are available to the eyeball race analysts will somehow generate new information--unavailable to those NOT using a computer.

I think that there is a great potential in computer race analysis, but that most of it is being ignored in favor of making simple calculations and correlations that an eyeball race analyst can do just as easily by looking at the same set of numbers that go into the computer apps.

traynor
05-15-2013, 04:46 PM
I believe the 'fastest horse' idea is not necessarily to figure out who the fastest horse is but rather its a reminder to always remember that you're betting on the physical talent of the horse and not some 'angle'. Your angle might land you on the fastest horse....or, not, but you need to remember that no matter what method you use to select that runner, it won because it was physically talented enough to get from point A to point B faster than anyone else. You didnt win because the horse added or subtracted blinkers. That's not why the horse won, but it might be why you bet on that horse. You just were fortunate enough to have bet on a horse who got a blinker change who also was fast enough to win in real life.

Exactly. As Michael Pizzola was (is) so fond of saying, "The costliest error a handicapper can make is attributing causality where it doesn't exist."

Or--stated differently, it is unwise to believe a cause-and-effect relationship exists between data points which may only be correlated--and then only on a good day when the sun is shining and the birds are singing.

pandy
05-15-2013, 05:09 PM
I believe the 'fastest horse' idea is not necessarily to figure out who the fastest horse is but rather its a reminder to always remember that you're betting on the physical talent of the horse and not some 'angle'. Your angle might land you on the fastest horse....or, not, but you need to remember that no matter what method you use to select that runner, it won because it was physically talented enough to get from point A to point B faster than anyone else. You didnt win because the horse added or subtracted blinkers. That's not why the horse won, but it might be why you bet on that horse. You just were fortunate enough to have bet on a horse who got a blinker change who also was fast enough to win in real life.

You keep saying this but sometimes some angles do effect the performance of a horse. You must think that all trainers are morons. They put blinkers on, take blinkers off, change distances, surface, all a waste of time according to you. Sure, sometimes the angle had nothing to do with it, but sometimes it does. Believe me, I've been studying this stuff for over 40 years. I've worked with some of the best handicappers in the country, including quite a few professional horseplayers both harness and thoroughbreds, and they all use these same traditional handling methods, including angles. The main difference between these pros and most people is that the pros know how to bet and they are not afraid of losing.

thaskalos
05-16-2013, 01:27 AM
You keep saying this but sometimes some angles do effect the performance of a horse. You must think that all trainers are morons. They put blinkers on, take blinkers off, change distances, surface, all a waste of time according to you. Sure, sometimes the angle had nothing to do with it, but sometimes it does. Believe me, I've been studying this stuff for over 40 years. I've worked with some of the best handicappers in the country, including quite a few professional horseplayers both harness and thoroughbreds, and they all use these same traditional handling methods, including angles.The main difference between these pros and most people is that the pros know how to bet and they are not afraid of losing.

As we've said many times...it doesn't matter what a player does, as long as he is successful doing it.

All serious players have developed their own individual handicapping styles through the years...and it makes sense that they would use different handicapping techniques to get their work done. We should not expect serious players to agree when it comes to handicapping theory...because none of us know all there is to know about this game.

My own particular style does not rely on handicapping angles...because I am not sure how an angle-handicapping style would fare in vertical exotics betting -- which is my preferred style of betting. I wager mainly in sprints, and I carefully rate each individual horse in the race...in an attempt to assign each of them a combination speed/pace rating for several of their races that I consider "representative"...from a distance/class point of view.

I then use these ratings to construct a "power rating" for each of the horses...which I use to compare and rank the horses, for the purposes of constructing my vertical wagers.

I do all this by hand, and it takes a very long time...but I hope to eventually computerize at least part of it...so I can free us some of my time for other things. :)

If I could give a piece of advice to all the players out there who are still trying to find their way in this fascinating but also frustrating game...I would tell them to avoid the temptation of trying to be a jack of all trades and a master of none. We all have our "sweet spots"...and it behooves us to concentrate on what our handicapping talents are best suited for.

In today's full-card simulcasting landscape...the player can be as selective as he wants to be...and he can still find all the action that he can handle.

IMO...the best thing about full-card simulcasting is not that we can find 25+ solid plays a day to wager on. It's that we can find 8-10 outstanding plays a day...which we can bet on with utmost confidence.

When playing the most difficult gambling game in existence, the player cannot afford to be careless...and only by playing his very best can he hope to survive, with his bankroll and his sanity intact.

Unfortunately, I was the stubborn type...and it took me a lot longer than it should have to become aware of this...

CincyHorseplayer
05-16-2013, 02:24 AM
As we've said many times...it doesn't matter what a player does, as long as he is successful doing it.

All serious players have developed their own individual handicapping styles through the years...and it makes sense that they would use different handicapping techniques to get their work done. We should not expect serious players to agree when it comes to handicapping theory...because none of us know all there is to know about this game.

My own particular style does not rely on handicapping angles...because I am not sure how an angle-handicapping style would fare in vertical exotics betting -- which is my preferred style of betting. I wager mainly in sprints, and I carefully rate each individual horse in the race...in an attempt to assign each of them a combination speed/pace rating for several of their races that I consider "representative"...from a distance/class point of view.

I then use these ratings to construct a "power rating" for each of the horses...which I use to compare and rank the horses, for the purposes of constructing my vertical wagers.

I do all this by hand, and it takes a very long time...but I hope to eventually computerize at least part of it...so I can free us some of my time for other things. :)

If I could give a piece of advice to all the players out there who are still trying to find their way in this fascinating but also frustrating game...I would tell them to avoid the temptation of trying to be a jack of all trades and a master of none. We all have our "sweet spots"...and it behooves us to concentrate on what our handicapping talents are best suited for.

In today's full-card simulcasting landscape...the player can be as selective as he wants to be...and he can still find all the action that he can handle.

IMO...the best thing about full-card simulcasting is not that we can find 25+ solid plays a day to wager on. It's that we can find 8-10 outstanding plays a day...which we can bet on with utmost confidence.

When playing the most difficult gambling game in existence, the player cannot afford to be careless...and only by playing his very best can he hope to survive, with his bankroll and his sanity intact.

Unfortunately, I was the stubborn type...and it took me a lot longer than it should have to become aware of this...

I always look forward to and love reading your posts Thask.All the conclusions ring out through every player's existence.In regards to handicapping theory,you could put us all in 1 building and arrive at success in totally foreign fashions.The handicapping revolution has changed the level of winning favorites less than 5%.Opportunity from every aspect exists as much as it ever did.I think the mental fortitude of some of our handicapping heroes has worn out and their lack of due diligence shows in what they print.The tools that float around on here are top notch and they rarely reach the level of public consciousness.We could eat breakfast together and argue 5 cards,eat dinner together and have a universal 40% ROI.Landing on single factor races.

I still love to have my hands on past performances with multi colored pens!I have to look at them to have any sense of reality.Form and class are evident visually from PP's.In my mind if anybody thinks they are irrelevant,I think they are full of it.A fresh and able mind is the deadliest weapon.

Regarding specialties.They choose you don't they?I know I have no choice anymore!I have absolutely over time become infatuated with turf races.And maiden races have been the focal point on some of my best scores.Turf,stakes,and maidens are all I look at seriously.From a sentimental standpoint I bet my Ohio races and I do well.Betting $20 on $12 exactas and hitting 40% winners at 5/2 avg mutual getting 2 bets a day anyway!I live for the turf.Anyway,as you said isolating outstanding bets and cashing at a high rate IMO is far better than volume.Every computer involved methodology I have been close to suggests you give up thinking anf bet what it spits out.In my opinion it's bullshit.Somebody can waste me with volume and numbers but I'm always going to feel better betting my hand selected races where I can shine and revel in it.And do it again tomorrow.

Everybody has their stubbornness.I think at bottom it's all the same.We don't take No for an answer.Even from ourselves at times!I haven't ascended to your level of play,but I recognize your truths in my own experience.I'll be right at the heels sooner than later though my man!I hope to have a good dinner and yack about it sometime!

Rod

thaskalos
05-16-2013, 02:59 AM
I always look forward to and love reading your posts Thask.All the conclusions ring out through every player's existence.In regards to handicapping theory,you could put us all in 1 building and arrive at success in totally foreign fashions.The handicapping revolution has changed the level of winning favorites less than 5%.Opportunity from every aspect exists as much as it ever did.I think the mental fortitude of some of our handicapping heroes has worn out and their lack of due diligence shows in what they print.The tools that float around on here are top notch and they rarely reach the level of public consciousness.We could eat breakfast together and argue 5 cards,eat dinner together and have a universal 40% ROI.Landing on single factor races.

I still love to have my hands on past performances with multi colored pens!I have to look at them to have any sense of reality.Form and class are evident visually from PP's.In my mind if anybody thinks they are irrelevant,I think they are full of it.A fresh and able mind is the deadliest weapon.

Regarding specialties.They choose you don't they?I know I have no choice anymore!I have absolutely over time become infatuated with turf races.And maiden races have been the focal point on some of my best scores.Turf,stakes,and maidens are all I look at seriously.From a sentimental standpoint I bet my Ohio races and I do well.Betting $20 on $12 exactas and hitting 40% winners at 5/2 avg mutual getting 2 bets a day anyway!I live for the turf.Anyway,as you said isolating outstanding bets and cashing at a high rate IMO is far better than volume.Every computer involved methodology I have been close to suggests you give up thinking anf bet what it spits out.In my opinion it's bullshit.Somebody can waste me with volume and numbers but I'm always going to feel better betting my hand selected races where I can shine and revel in it.And do it again tomorrow.

Everybody has their stubbornness.I think at bottom it's all the same.We don't take No for an answer.Even from ourselves at times!I haven't ascended to your level of play,but I recognize your truths in my own experience.I'll be right at the heels sooner than later though my man!I hope to have a good dinner and yack about it sometime!

Rod

Thanks for the kind words, Rod...and I want you to know that I enjoy reading your posts as well.

I marvel at your enthusiasm for this game...and I hope to see you ride that enthusiasm to the very top of the horseplaying world.

Don't look at the masses, and get discouraged by their collective failure. Do your best...and, if you eventually get into the habit of doing your best ALL THE TIME...then I dare say that you will be shocked at what you can accomplish in this game.

And remember...this game doesn't beat us; it just gives us the opportunity to beat ourselves. And we dutifully comply.

Learn to discipline yourself...and you will have overcome the biggest obstacle standing in your way.

Look at the few exceptions -- the outliers -- who have battled and have overcome the odds...and use them as inspiration.

If those few could do it, then we could do it too...if only we are willing to pay the (considerable) price.

Good luck to you...

And if we should ever meet...dinner is on me! :)

Stillriledup
05-16-2013, 05:47 AM
You keep saying this but sometimes some angles do effect the performance of a horse. You must think that all trainers are morons. They put blinkers on, take blinkers off, change distances, surface, all a waste of time according to you. Sure, sometimes the angle had nothing to do with it, but sometimes it does. Believe me, I've been studying this stuff for over 40 years. I've worked with some of the best handicappers in the country, including quite a few professional horseplayers both harness and thoroughbreds, and they all use these same traditional handling methods, including angles. The main difference between these pros and most people is that the pros know how to bet and they are not afraid of losing.

Trainers experiment. They gamble on whether or not the horse needs blinkers. Do you know how many of those trainers decide the horse needs blinkers? Because the jock gets off the horse and says "he needs blinkers". Jocks use the 'add or subtract blinkers' as an excuse for why they didnt get the job done. Blame the horse. Sure, once in a while, that blinker change will make the difference....but, the point i was trying to make was that the horse has to actually be good enough to win anyway. Blinkers arent going to make a slow horse fast.

I won't ever trust a trainer or jock to make the correct call on some kind of equipment change....if i'm investing my money, its all on me and my ability to properly rate each racehorse as an individual athlete. If i do my job, i won't have to worry about trainers experimenting with my money as i'll have a horse good enough to win whether blinkers are added or not.

Lets say a first time starter who has a bunch of talent gets some dirt kicked in his face and gets beat 10 lengths but levels off nicely right at the end of the race and starts to figure out the game when its too late. That horse might get blinkers added for his 2nd lifetime start and jog, showing 'improvement' but who's to say the he wasnt going to jog anyway if he was blinkerless? We don't know the answer. Maybe the blinkers woke the horse up and he was able to show his true talent...or, he was going to break thru anyway and the blinkers added was just a coincidence.

pandy
05-16-2013, 07:19 AM
Analyzing the ability of horses comes down to talent, which is speed and class, and current conditioning level. One without the other usually equals a losing performance.

And certain angles do help condition a horse. One winter at Gulfstream years ago a customer of mine told me that he was killing them betting turnbacks and sustained types in sprints because the track was favoring sustained style horses and bettors were over betting the speed. I had not been following GP but I started betting it every day and the two of us had one of the most amazing hot streaks for the last month or so of the meeting. Many of our winners were turnback horses who were "legged up" going a mile and a sixteenth and won cutting back to 7 furlongs. These types of conditioning moves by a trainer, whether he did it intentionally or not, do work often enough to make them worth while handicapping angles. Naturally the horse has to have the ability to win the race in the first place, as you point out. But in many races there are several horses with similar ability and the one that is better conditioned for that race wins.

It's not just a matter of who is faster from A to B, as we see all the time in certain types of races the same horses race against each other every week or two and a different horse wins each time.

traynor
05-16-2013, 10:40 AM
Analyzing the ability of horses comes down to talent, which is speed and class, and current conditioning level. One without the other usually equals a losing performance.

And certain angles do help condition a horse. One winter at Gulfstream years ago a customer of mine told me that he was killing them betting turnbacks and sustained types in sprints because the track was favoring sustained style horses and bettors were over betting the speed. I had not been following GP but I started betting it every day and the two of us had one of the most amazing hot streaks for the last month or so of the meeting. Many of our winners were turnback horses who were "legged up" going a mile and a sixteenth and won cutting back to 7 furlongs. These types of conditioning moves by a trainer, whether he did it intentionally or not, do work often enough to make them worth while handicapping angles. Naturally the horse has to have the ability to win the race in the first place, as you point out. But in many races there are several horses with similar ability and the one that is better conditioned for that race wins.

It's not just a matter of who is faster from A to B, as we see all the time in certain types of races the same horses race against each other every week or two and a different horse wins each time.

That is a key point--that handicapping races is a continual process of analyzing and evaluating situations that may not be obvious to the average bettor. And "success" (as measured in dollars) is often the result of such focused activity.

As an adjunct or supplement to such analysis and evaluation, computer applications can be quite useful. It is the mistaken belief that computer applications are replacements for critical thought and reasoning processes in handicapping that causes many bettors to lose when they could be winning. That is, they believe that no thought beyond seeing a few sets of numbers sorted and ranked on a computer screen is necessary--all they need do to win is wager on the entry that the computer algorithms define as "best" in whatever category. Those sets of numbers are perhaps best viewed as the start of the process of race analysis--not as the final word. To do otherwise could be a very serious (and costly) error.

RaceBookJoe
05-16-2013, 12:34 PM
Some interesting thoughts in this thread. I guess for me, unless you only look and bet off of a "rating #" solely, that all handicapping is filled with a bunch of angles and all angles are integrated with handicapping. To me, the following example can be handicapping or an angle..thoughts :

Spring race where a front runner battles for the lead all the way around the turn 3 wide. Next race, he is moving in closer to rail with no other speed...do you guys call that handicapping or an angle, to me its a touch of both. TIA for any thoughts.

thaskalos
05-16-2013, 12:58 PM
Some interesting thoughts in this thread. I guess for me, unless you only look and bet off of a "rating #" solely, that all handicapping is filled with a bunch of angles and all angles are integrated with handicapping. To me, the following example can be handicapping or an angle..thoughts :

Spring race where a front runner battles for the lead all the way around the turn 3 wide. Next race, he is moving in closer to rail with no other speed...do you guys call that handicapping or an angle, to me its a touch of both. TIA for any thoughts.
To me it's an angle...because no thought is given to the pace of the race during which this 3-wide move was made.

IMO..."bad" trips can only be properly evaluated when they are viewed in the context of the pace of the race in which they occur.

A 3-wide move can be either grueling or routine...depending on the pace.

RaceBookJoe
05-16-2013, 01:16 PM
To me it's an angle...because no thought is given to the pace of the race during which this 3-wide move was made.

IMO..."bad" trips can only be properly evaluated when they are viewed in the context of the pace of the race in which they occur.

A 3-wide move can be either grueling or routine...depending on the pace.

Thanks and tend to agree..its just that for me, and i assume others that we blend it all together into the overall handicapping process. I wouldnt bet the above example blindly as a "system", but it would be a factor in my decision process.

ps: Thaskolos, i have been re-reading your post from a couple years back on your 10-cent Superfecta thoughts. I had printed it out and usually re--read it every spring as i gear up for the late-spring and summer meets..good stuff.

thaskalos
05-16-2013, 01:49 PM
Thanks and tend to agree..its just that for me, and i assume others that we blend it all together into the overall handicapping process. I wouldnt bet the above example blindly as a "system", but it would be a factor in my decision process.

ps: Thaskolos, i have been re-reading your post from a couple years back on your 10-cent Superfecta thoughts. I had printed it out and usually re--read it every spring as i gear up for the late-spring and summer meets..good stuff.

Thanks.

I started the thread because I really believed (and still believe) that the 10-cent superfecta provides the casual player with the only chance at a decent "score" for a relatively small investment.

At the risk of being accused of red-boarding, allow me to tell you what happened to me last night at my local OTB.

I was down slightly going into the last race at Evangeline...where I proceeded to wager $70 on the race...keying the :3: (at odds of 6/5)...with the :1: , :2: , :4: , :12: , :13: , in trifectas and 10-cent supers. The trifecta for a dollar costed $20...and the 10-cent superfecta combinations costed $6 each.

The race came 3-12-4-1...and the superfecta paid $400 for a dime.

Can you find me another way where a player can invest $6 and get a chance at a $400 return...while getting plenty of coverage in the race?

The 10-cent superfecta is the only bet that allows the small bettor to swing-for-the-fences, so to speak...without taking an excessive risk while doing so.

RaceBookJoe
05-16-2013, 02:10 PM
Thanks.

I started the thread because I really believed (and still believe) that the 10-cent superfecta provides the casual player with the only chance at a decent "score" for a relatively small investment.

At the risk of being accused of red-boarding, allow me to tell you what happened to me last night at my local OTB.

I was down slightly going into the last race at Evangeline...where I proceeded to wager $70 on the race...keying the :3: (at odds of 6/5)...with the :1: , :2: , :4: , :12: , :13: , in trifectas and 10-cent supers. The trifecta for a dollar costed $20...and the 10-cent superfecta combinations costed $6 each.

The race came 3-12-4-1...and the superfecta paid $400 for a dime.

Can you find me another way where a player can invest $6 and get a chance at a $400 return...while getting plenty of coverage in the race?

The 10-cent superfecta is the only bet that allows the small bettor to swing-for-the-fences, so to speak...without taking an excessive risk while doing so.

Nice, i like the 10-cent Super also, especially when i have a few longshots in my contenders list ( 1-6 ). When that happens i go for the 4x4x5x6 super with a 2x4x6 $1tri..then usually do 2 small backup exactas ie 1,2 w 5,6 and 3,4 w 1,2. total cost of those bets are $42.50 depending on how many times i play the exactas and tri.

dogkatcher
05-16-2013, 03:16 PM
thaskalos, is that a signer on the ten cent super?

mrroyboy
05-16-2013, 05:27 PM
Guys
We are all saying the same thing but in different ways.

FiveWide
05-16-2013, 09:47 PM
thaskalos, is that a signer on the ten cent super?


I believe it is. If you had played a $1 super and the payout was $300 for a dollar that would be a signer. So here you're getting $400 for a dime or $4000 for a dollar. Definitely a signer if I understand the rules correctly. 300-1 payouts = signer however you slice and dice it.


-Five

FiveWide
05-16-2013, 10:12 PM
I believe it is. If you had played a $1 super and the payout was $300 for a dollar that would be a signer. So here you're getting $400 for a dime or $4000 for a dollar. Definitely a signer if I understand the rules correctly. 300-1 payouts = signer however you slice and dice it.


-Five

I think I forgot 1 crucial part of the rule. 300-1 payout and $600 or more. So now I don't believe his ten center is a signer. In other words, I don't really know :lol:

-Five

thaskalos
05-16-2013, 10:30 PM
It wasn't a signer.

jdhanover
05-17-2013, 01:56 PM
Thanks.

I started the thread because I really believed (and still believe) that the 10-cent superfecta provides the casual player with the only chance at a decent "score" for a relatively small investment.

At the risk of being accused of red-boarding, allow me to tell you what happened to me last night at my local OTB.

I was down slightly going into the last race at Evangeline...where I proceeded to wager $70 on the race...keying the :3: (at odds of 6/5)...with the :1: , :2: , :4: , :12: , :13: , in trifectas and 10-cent supers. The trifecta for a dollar costed $20...and the 10-cent superfecta combinations costed $6 each.

The race came 3-12-4-1...and the superfecta paid $400 for a dime.

Can you find me another way where a player can invest $6 and get a chance at a $400 return...while getting plenty of coverage in the race?

The 10-cent superfecta is the only bet that allows the small bettor to swing-for-the-fences, so to speak...without taking an excessive risk while doing so.

Nice hit! I assume thought the 12 (and probably 1,4) were long prices? $400 on a 10 cent super with a 6/5 on top menas usually that the three underneath were long. Finidng thme is the key to success with this type of bet.

Robert Fischer
05-18-2013, 07:56 PM
Bob Pandolfo (Pandy) correctly picked longshot Preakness winner Oxbow. His method is explained in the book. Very nice Job. :ThmbUp:


http://www.handicappingwinners.com/free_picks.htm


I do not agree with many who feel that ORB is a standout here. I actually think this is a wide open race.

OXBOW was close to the wicked pace in the Kentucky Derby, actually took the lead briefly and finished 6th, the only horse in the race that was close to the pace and didn't finished up the track; this horse fits one of my best Longshot angles (an angle that is explained in my Pace Handicapping Longshots book, which seems to condition a horse for its next start); upset call...

pandy
05-18-2013, 08:28 PM
Thanks again Robert. The Pace Shape Method from the book did indeed pick Oxbow, as I did. Oxbow's race in the Derby was just as good if not better than Orb's.

thaskalos
05-18-2013, 08:55 PM
Thanks again Robert. The Pace Shape Method from the book did indeed pick Oxbow, as I did. Oxbow's race in the Derby was just as good if not better than Orb's.
Pandy, I congratulate you for picking Oxbow in this race...but I must disagree with your final assessment in the above post.

Orb was obviously best in the Derby...and just because he didn't fire today doesn't mean that we should deprive him of the credit that he deserves for his Derby victory.

Orb was best in the Derby, and Oxbow was best today.

That's horse racing...

wiffleball whizz
05-18-2013, 09:25 PM
I believe it is. If you had played a $1 super and the payout was $300 for a dollar that would be a signer. So here you're getting $400 for a dime or $4000 for a dollar. Definitely a signer if I understand the rules correctly. 300-1 payouts = signer however you slice and dice it.


-Five

No signer....unless your cashing for 600 u never have to worry about signing......always loved signing my life away at Foxwoods for $640 when a bet cost $124 while 300 feet away guys are betting 15000 not having to sign anything :bang: :bang: :bang:

pandy
05-18-2013, 10:46 PM
Pandy, I congratulate you for picking Oxbow in this race...but I must disagree with your final assessment in the above post.

Orb was obviously best in the Derby...and just because he didn't fire today doesn't mean that we should deprive him of the credit that he deserves for his Derby victory.

Orb was best in the Derby, and Oxbow was best today.

That's horse racing...

I don't want to take anything away from Orb, he is a good horse, but you have to knock horses so you can hit the 15-1 shots. I'm a professional handicapper. If I don't like a 3-5 favorite you'd better believe I'm going to knock him. The way I evaluate pace showed me that Oxbow raced just as well as Orb in the Derby, but had a much tougher trip.

The lesson to be learned from this is that handicappers shouldn't get too excited over ordinary wins. Orbs win in the Derby was a nice race but not exceptional. I did speed figures for many years and I learned that time is relative to pace and some horses jump up to a bigger figure when the pace sets up the final time, as it did in the Derby.

To bet Orb to .70 cents to a dollar in this field was absurd. I still don't understand what everyone saw in this horse to make him such a decisive favorite. I am not exaggerating when I say that I was shocked that most people including the pros not only picked Orb but felt he was almost unbeatable. I told my wife several times today, I can't understand what everyone's so excited about, he came home slowly and passed exhausted horses.

Jingle
05-19-2013, 07:51 AM
Great Pick Pandy. Congratulations.

Vinnie
05-19-2013, 10:08 AM
Nice selection Pandy.!!! :)

You are right, I misunderstood Oxbow's big effort off of the Derby Race. He did run HUGE for being so close to everything up front. It was a super effort in retrospect.

pandy
05-19-2013, 10:12 AM
Thanks Vinny and Jingle. Last Monday Rich Perloff was nice enough to read my email on his TVG show in which I pointed out how well Oxbow had raced in the Derby and that he was a horse I was looking to bet back. I didn't know at that time the Oxbow would fit the system from my Pace Handicapping Longshots book.

pandy
06-08-2013, 10:04 PM
Palace Malice was the Pace Shape Method pick in the Belmont. I had him on my list of horses to watch but I was hoping he'd be "blinkers off" and going in a shorter race, not longer, so I did not back him today. But the speed was holding up well as the track dried out and I felt that helped him. People who just used the method from the book would have had it, Palace Malice was the clear cut play in the race according to the method.

Revolutionary made another strong middle-move, nice colt. There are some nice colts in this crop but none of them have brilliance.

Jingle
06-09-2013, 09:54 AM
Pandy--Palice did take blinkers off.

pandy
06-09-2013, 10:18 AM
Pandy--Palice did take blinkers off.


I know, but I was looking for blinkers off and a shorter race, not a longer one.

mmdorn
06-09-2013, 12:58 PM
Palace Malice was the Pace Shape Method pick in the Belmont. I had him on my list of horses to watch but I was hoping he'd be "blinkers off" and going in a shorter race, not longer, so I did not back him today. But the speed was holding up well as the track dried out and I felt that helped him. People who just used the method from the book would have had it, Palace Malice was the clear cut play in the race according to the method.

Revolutionary made another strong middle-move, nice colt. There are some nice colts in this crop but none of them have brilliance.

H Pandy,

I do have your book, and I am just starting to understand all of the material, so I did have Palace Malice. I should have had Oxbow in the Preakness, but I missed the big e2 rating. I know that they don't always come in, but I can't wait for the next one that does.

Mike

pandy
06-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Thanks Mike.

cutchemist42
06-11-2014, 04:56 PM
Just ordered a copy off Ebay, excited to read it.