What should I read next?

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by midnight

What you need to understand about learning from books is that they often have contradictory information. One book says speed is the way to go, another says pace is. A third says weight is meaningless, and a fourth says it's all important. The general strategy to reading handicapping books is to take everything with a grain of salt and learn from all the different viewpoints and perspectives, deciding for yourself what works for you.

Like you, I always filter written information through my own judgment and experience, and try to find something of value in any title, or to add my own improvised modifciations to them. But the contradiction and confusion you point out are the main reasons I prefer statistically-oriented books such as those by Quirin and Michael Nunamaker. Although it's surely possible for any author to quote isolated figures to support a given point of view, the comprehensive and largely consistent findings of these types of studies provide a firm basis for judging the validity of the general statments or claims made by other authors who don't have any supporting data for their opinions. And more importantly, in my view, they provide a means of determining the presence of value before wagering through the development of fair odds, rather than betting on individual angles that may have been profitable at one time (and which may even still be good at predicting performance, such as Beyer speed figures), but which no longer have a positive return due to overplay, or to being the only variable that many bettors look at.

[JustRalph]

The Equisim User's Guide!

[Hosshead]

Originally Posted by Overlay

... the contradiction and confusion you point out are the main reasons I prefer statistically-oriented books such as those by Quirin and Michael Nunamaker.... ... Although it's surely possible for any author to quote isolated figures to support a given point of view,.....

I like those type of books too, but they're few and far between.
And most (but not all) authors, as you say, use isolated stats to support their theory.
You can prove almost anything using just a few well selected stats.
Everybody (author) has an opinion or theory, but practically nobody can, or will, take the time to back it up with honest statistics.

If they were to do all the work (and thats a lot) to gather the right stats, they might find their view,angle, or theory just doesn't pan out. Then what? All that work for nothing ! They'd have to scrap their own ideas/angles/theorys/opinions. And worse yet...Money.... that (many) handicappers will pay for ANY Undocumented drivel .
What ? Never !! Just leave the stats (reality) to the poor buyer. And never let Truth get in the way of profits !! (Motto of RPM )

Meanwhile, we handicappers will leap to snap up anything that lands on the surface of that information river. Like hungry trout, as fall approaches.
Please pass me the salt and that bowl of worms. Thanks !!

[JackS]

You've read some of the weighty books, now might be the time for you to put pen to paper.
If you have grasped just a small amount of knowledge your early attempts at speed and pace figures that you make yourself might surprise you.
Buy the DRF and to the best of your ability, handicap all races for that day. Exclude all mdn races in which there are numerous first time starters.
You will eventually have to do this so might as well start now.
If your figures fail you miserably, re-read and make adjustments to your methods until you have the confidence to make a few bets.
Quinn or Quirin published a book named The ABC's of Thorobred habdicapping. The title sounds simplistic but contains many valuable lessons that any handicapper would appreciate. The book also contains Q&A's that will measure your comprehension of the basics and the not so basics. Good luck.

[Tote Master]

There have been a few threads that I might have commented on since I last posted on PA, but this one I just couldn’t resist!

As I’ve mentioned before, I no longer use the DRF or any other PP source. In fact I’ve given up on the traditional handicapping approach entirely. I think that using some of those methods can certainly provide some analytical and mental exercises that can be self-fulfilling and even boost one’s ego from time to time. It does not necessarily provide the consistent monetary rewards that you would expect for the amount time and effort spent. In fact, more often then not, most players using the traditional methods (derived from all that literature) do not reap any long-term benefits at all!

I know my next statement will probably seem like blasphemy to most (especially on this forum), but I’ve come to the overwhelming conclusion that ALL of the handicapping books and literature written over the years by the likes of Beyers, Brohammer, Quirnin, and all the others alike have basically brainwashed generations of the majority of horseplayers. (Myself nearly included)

So you’re saying to yourself, “Where does this guy get off talking like that about those so-called great handicapping gurus?” Well, I opened my first DRF or “tele” as they used to call it back in 1971 (the DRF was once named the Morning Telegraph). That was the year Canonero II shocked the racing world winning both the Derby and Preakness. It was during one of my 2 hour gaps between college classes, that a fellow student introduced me to the world of horse racing. He interpreted everything the Form had to offer based upon the lessons taught him by a seasoned player, his uncle. Since then and until a few years ago, I had read and used every type of seemingly valid approach to this game in order to reap "greater" rewards for all my efforts. I even wrote my first handicapping program in Basic back in the early 80’s on an Atari computer. Sure, I could make educated guesses with the best of them, but in the end that’s they really were.

There’s an awful lot of time and effort that goes into learning how to properly decipher the PP’s and becoming an astute handicapper, but even the best don’t know when they’re really trying. If they did they’d all be rich. Based on what I know now, I would have given up on the traditional handicapping a long time ago. But that’s what works for me.

I’ve come to understand and respect the fact that the foundation to this entire game is based on money, and money alone. The racetracks and their staff provide the facilities and the purses (from their takeout), the connections (owners, trainers and jockeys) put on the show, and the bettors pay for it all. Unfortunately the majority of players believe that they’re just betting against one another. Most of the sharp players know that those with the best, most current information will certainly have an edge. Little do they realize that very often they’re also betting against those who are putting on the show! So who really has the edge? Just picture yourself playing a serious game of poker. How would you feel knowing that one of the players knew everyone else’s hand? (their interpretations of the PP’s based on all that literature). In the meantime, this player knows exactly when to bet, because the intended results are already in place and literally put into motion. Its not “race fixing” by any means, its simply who’s trying to win today and who’s not. Ask any guru if they know that answer? No, they’ll typically tell you after the race, that the reason the fastest horse in the best condition didn’t win today was because it “bounced”. Now there’s one for the books!

Please don’t think that the “people putting on the show” are surviving in this game by winning just the purse monies! When the “sport of kings” first started, it was all about the connections (the royalty) betting against one another. Of course there must have been lots of side betting going on too.

So what’s changed? Well, today I believe there are basically ( 3 ) types of racing stables. I categorize these owners into the following “W” groups: the Wealthy, the Write-off and the Wagering.
The “Wealthy” run their expensively bred animals in all of the major stakes races as ego fulfilling social events. (Of course they enjoy the winning and prestige, but they may not even wager at all).
The “Write-off’s” are usually groups or syndicates that use their involvement in horse racing as just that: A tax write-off. Keep in mind that owning horses is considered farming by the government tax standards. So they could care less about whether or not they win or lose.
The “Wagering” are those that make up the majority of owners, who fill most of the race cards at every track. These people bet on their charges (and others) in order to survive in this game, and it’s no surprise considering the costs of keeping an animal in proper training and care.

Ever wonder why that long shot that looked so horrible on paper (and probably shouldn’t even be in the race according to the guru’s standards) beats out the supposedly best animals in the race? Well, I believe it all comes down to one thing: Intentions. How do we measure those intentions? In this game it’s with money, of course. My philosophy is now, that if those who are really in the know aren’t betting, then why should I?

So what do I use? You got it! The only up to the minute source of the actual betting information, the tote board. It speaks volumes, but much like the DRF it must be interpreted well beyond looking at just the odds. By the way, you won’t find much information about the tote board or its activities in any of that handicapping literature either. (I always wondered why?) So I say, let the books, the software, the databases and everything else related to the traditional approach to this game continue to flourish.

There is so-o-o-o much literature out there covering the horseracing game (that’s dedicated to the traditional handicapping approach) it’s just incredible. When your finished reading and absorbing even a portion of it, you’ll have covered every system under the sun and every angle for trying to select a winning horse. Unfortunately, there are times when the results of those methods will actually conflict with each other in the same race.

What I find really ironic is the fact that the tote board information is “free” and basically public domain. Yet the vast majority of players (who may or may not even look at the odds) are completely oblivious to its real worth. The problem is that the majority of players can’t differentiate between the connection’s money and everything else that’s being wagered, because if anything all they seeing are the odds. How convenient for those in the know! On the other hand the PP's remain a valued commodity from any source, because the guru's have brain-washed everyone into believing that the answers lie somewhere within all that information. All you have to do is buy the information and of course find the answers!

Thousands of horseplayers may enjoy dissecting the PP’s, and that’s fine. Good luck with it! I might take this game a bit more seriously then the next guy, but that’s my problem. My bottom line is no longer learning more about the horses. Its about who controls them and makes money doing it. Really I guess it just a question of what you want to get out of this game: Money or understanding the PP’s. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Best of Luck!

Originally Posted by Tote Master

(the DRF was once named the Morning Telegraph)

The Daily Racing Form and Morning Telegraph were once separate companies, both based out of New York. At one time, the MT served both racing and the theater. Moses Annenberg, who controlled the racing wires that most bookies subscribed to, bought the DRF in 1920 and the MT in 1929. From that point on, they were sister papers, run by Moses and later his son Walter. The MT served New York and a few other tracks in the East, and the DRF could be found at almost all tracks. The past performances of the MT were much more detailed than those of the DRF, as dictated by the preferences of the then more sophisticated and demanding New York crowds.

The MT ceased publication under that name in 1972 and took on the title of its sister publication, DRF.

[JackS]

Tote- See answer in Hcp Software under "master consenus". Don't want to re-type.

[Overlay]

Here's that response that JackS referred to that he mistakenly posted under the Handicapping Software thread:

Tote- An old friend of mine who is now deceased, Used what he called "The Millioniare Owner Trainer System. This method was his method and even though he understood speed and pace ,I don't beleive he ever used them but not sure.
His method was fairly simple- Play the horse from the largest most well to do stable that is also trained by a millionaire. The logic is simple. For him , earned money was the key.
I can only guess and would describe the size of his bets as well above average. In the couple of years that I knew him, I've seen him hit quite a few multi- thousand dollar tickets and also saw him take down an entire Super pool. On top of this Super hit, he also had a $10 exacta which paid more than $10K.
Do I think he was a winning horse player? I think he was but never had a thought of asking him and he never volunteered to inform me of anything he was doing.
The point being- any method if it works, who cares?

[Overlay]

My own take on Tote Master's post is that, even if one were to accept his contention that racing harbors collusion on the grand scale that he implies, the running of races also features recurring statistical patterns that have manifested themselves consistently enough and over a long enough period of time to demonstrate that they are not the product of accident or coincidence. If you use that information to assign an accurate fair probability of winning to every horse in a given race (rather than just concentrating on finding the one horse most likely to win today, regardless of its odds), you'll be able to spot when a horse or exotic combination is being allowed to go off at odds which are longer than its true winning chances call for. Betting on those overlays will assure that you catch your fair share of longshots (including those horses that may be the product of any behind-the-scenes darkening of form or toteboard manipulation in the anticipation of a big payoff), while not going against the fundamental realities of the game, and (most importantly, it seems to me) not driving yourself crazy or paranoid (or both) by trying to find the horse that "they" (whoever "they" are) have decided will win today.

The "One step get rich quick" ads play at the emotions of those who can't beat the horses by conventional means. Some players may want to believe that tote analysis (his/her own or that of some program) is the key to making money, because they're in denial that they can't win by handicapping. It's not much different than those who want to believe that one of RPM's many systems do indeed win a high of all plays with a healthy ROI. In reality it isn't that simple, but many gamblers aren't firmly rooted in reality or are grasping at straws in an attempt to win.

[Tom]

Midnight...I used to get the MT for $.35! It was a good paper. I remeber a lot of articles in it about handicapping as well. I think Tom Ainsle even had few in there. I remember looking a Belmont PPs and thinking, WOW! The've got $5,000 claimers running there! Class track! (FL had $1,500)
When they swtiched to DRF, I was disappointed becase the PPs lost a lot of
info.

[46zilzal]

The old Morning Telegraph would have news of the world and reviews of movies and plays on Broadway. I have one from Majestic Prince's time. It was a very large paper as well. We used to be pissed because the West coast form had no intermediate pace time (final time only) and we longed to have that better coverage from the east coast DRF or the MT.

[Tote Master]

Yes, the old “tele” certainly brings back lots fond memories!

Midnight
The "One step get rich quick" ads play at the emotions of those who can't beat the horses by conventional means. Some players may want to believe that tote analysis (his/her own or that of some program) is the key to making money, because they're in denial that they can't win by handicapping. It's not much different than those who want to believe that one of RPM's many systems do indeed win a high of all plays with a healthy ROI. In reality it isn't that simple, but many gamblers aren't firmly rooted in reality or are grasping at straws in an attempt to win.

It’s unfortunate that you and many others are so ingrained with your conventional so-called wisdom, that you can’t even interpret comments properly. Maybe my comments have hit a sore point with you by undermining everything you've been led to believe and perhaps they even play on your emotions. It’s not that I just believe the tote analysis is superior, I know it is! As I’ve mentioned before, just because you don’t believe something is true, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. But you’re right! I couldn't win all of the money I wanted to using the great traditional handicapping techniques (found in all that literature). Neither can you, or the other 95% of all the players out there! So lets just call an “Ace an Ace”!

You’re also correct in presuming that a thorough tote analysis is not a very simple undertaking, but properly developed and with the aid of technology, its results are easily discernable. I also find that not only is more efficient then laboring over the PP’s, it’s much more rewarding. Your reality must be based on the Horses. Mine is simply based on the Money. Let me know when the horses start doing the betting!

Until then to each his own.

I’ll just leave you with one final thought.
The following link illustrates a portion of an "actual" tote analysis for some recently run races at Delmar (On a Single race card). The last Interval is about 6-mins to post time. You’ll notice the relationship between Par and the adjacent Entry numbers in each case. This just happens to be what I call a “betting pattern” that is more prevalent at the larger tracks like Delmar. It's one of the most important aspects of the analysis. I hope its not too complex, and I’m not sure if you’d know what to do with all those numbers, but for whatever its worth you might want to check the actual results for those races, particularly the Supers. (As usual, I'm sure you'll have your doubts, but yes all of the analyses are well documented)

http://www.tote-works.com/PublicImag...6-8_9-1-05.jpg
(Note: Place the cursor on it and you can click on the image enlarge button and they will sharpen up)

Best of Luck!

[Suff]

Originally Posted by Tote Master

Yes, the old “tele” certainly brings back lots fond memories!

It’s unfortunate that you and many others are so ingrained with your conventional so-called wisdom, that you can’t even interpret comments properly.

You attempted to pontificate on your particular style of playing horses by diminishing another way.

I think that using some of those methods can certainly provide some analytical and mental exercises that can be self-fulfilling and even boost one’s ego from time to time.

When I read that I looked at the rest of your post through skeptical eyes. You start out by saying you prefer your way because the other way is mental gymnastics and emotional ta-ta.

Until then to each his own

Amen

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Tote Master

Your reality must be based on the Horses. Mine is simply based on the Money. Let me know when the horses start doing the betting!

I'll do that if you'll let me know when the horses start being aware of which one of them the smart money is being bet on today. You can stiff a good horse, but all the smart money in the world isn't going to guarantee that a horse that can't win a race based on form will jump up and finish first, unless every other horse's connections are in on the fix. And, to me, it flies in the face of self-interest that a trainer who had a fit and ready horse entered where it could win based on form would voluntarily forego that for an uncertain shot at a big mutuel payoff with a horse that he does not know as well as his own; which could win only if multiple parties similarly agreed to the fix (and then followed through on their stated intentions); and where the trainer would be placing his hopes (and his livelihood) in the actions of people who were known to be dishonest to begin with, rather than in his own ability as a conditioner (not to mention the disciplinary consequences when the whole arrangement came to light, as it surely would as soon as any of the parties to it felt that they didn't get their fair share of the pie, or if the unexpected happened, and the horse that the scheme was designed to benefit didn't win the race as anticipated).