Peoples Thoughts, Formulator 4.0

[TravisVOX]

As many I’m sure know Daily Racing Form is building up the suspense at the soon to be released Formulator 4.0. They haven’t given away many details on the website, but their monthly newsletter has provided ample information as to what the new version is going to entail. After reading two of the most recent updates and having some time to think about it, I’ve reached a crossroads as to what I feel about the product, allow me to explain…

First off DRF is upping the price of their product significantly. A very high amount in fact. In certain annual plans as much as $0.63 per card, that’s a lot. Daily single card plans go from $2.50 to $3.75. Wow. That’s number one.

But number two is what gets me, and it’s actually left me at a slight loss for words. I don’t know what to think or expect, or whether or not I’m thinking illogically and too far outside the box…

According to these newsletters, the formulator software gives the user the opportunity to click any running line to read and review the result chart, click and view the past performances of those horses in that result chart and to do some pace analysis.

Secondly, they’re also stating that you’ll be able to look up detailed trainer statistics. How does Linda Rice do with a second-time starter, coming off a four-week layoff going seven furlongs do? You can get that stat, and then view the past performances of all relevant horses within the stat.

Cool, right? Sure. There is no denying that. But I can’t help but think beyond that initial thought of, “Wow, they’re doing the work for me!” For one, just that…what is there left to handicap? Sure race-day situations, but all the dirty-work that wets the chops when you’ve uncovered a gem is now computerized…you just use the tool. And so is everyone else. You’re 8-1 juicy angle might knock itself down to 3-1, or 2-1? Is such a setup going to revolutionize the sport to a point where it becomes unplayable? Are the last few remaining angles that exist, that require hard work going down the tubes?

I know I might be overreacting, but these are the thoughts/feelings that are running through my head. What does everyone think?

[JackS]

Travis- Good points. But the situation you describe could also be of benefit. My point is- If you understand what is happening and other program users don't, huge openings for fabulous overlays might exist. Your hit % could easily drop and at the same time your ROI could increase dramatically. What was once an overlay becomes an unreasonable underlay due to the predictive power of the new Formulator. The old saying "when one door closes another one is opened "could apply.

[B. Comin']

I wouldn't sweat it. Horses still don't run their expected race, trainers still misplace horses in races, and jockeys still blow a given ride.

[JimG]

You can throw enough information at the horse race player and he will likely become confused. In essence, he can make a case for each horse in the race. Not the end of the world as we know it.

Jim

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally posted by JackS
Travis- Good points. ... What was once an overlay becomes an unreasonable underlay due to the predictive power of the new Formulator. The old saying "when one door closes another one is opened "could apply.

Formulator is describing the program i have (almost)- it does NOT predict, just makes data available at a click. The user has to choose to access the data, then has to decide on its value. Lots of handicapping left.

Fleww

[Dave Schwartz]

Travis,

To be succinct: "All the winners are in the Form."

More data, more contenders, more confusion.

The secret is to find a method/system that works using a relatively small amount of data(in comparison to what is available).


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[karlskorner]

I like "There is a winner in "every" race".

We have lived through Beyer, Davidowitz, Brohamer, Forlio, Scott etal, with all their systems and methods. We have seen dozens and dozens of programs come and go.

My thoughts, Bring it on.

[Tom]

My hope is that it will confuse everyone.

[LOU M.]

As Marc at DRF has stated none of the pertinenet data will be exportable so you can forget about quantifying it. Beyond that how many races can you manually look at and handicap looking up one instance at a time.You could spend hours on one race!I was excited at this prospect at first glance but upon further review it's losing its' luster.Can't fault DRF though, they're in the info selling business . They can't or won't create new and informative data so they just slice and dice what they have and repackage it.Todays corned beef is tomorrows hash. Just an observation.Maybe I'll be wrong.
Lou M.

[raybo]

RE:<Cool, right? Sure. There is no denying that. But I can’t help but think beyond that initial thought of, “Wow, they’re doing the work for me!” For one, just that…what is there left to handicap?>

CONDITION, CONDITION, CONDITION !!!!!!!!!


PS: Daily racecard costs of $2.50 to $3.75 aren't bad, when you figure that the "Racing Form" costs what? $4 -$5 ? Track programs run $2 where I'm from, and the files I use, Bris' "Multicaps" (no I don't use the MultiCaps software, it stinks) are $2 if I am a silver member and $5 if I'm not. "AllWays", (it stinks too) data, costs $7 for a silver member and $10, I think, if you're not. So, if the program is worth something, as far as making you real money at the track, this small daily expense is just a minor "cost of doing business".

[wolsons]

Have you considered using TSN's Procaps files instead of BRIS Multicaps? They have their Advantage Plan, which for $59.95 per month gives you UNLIMITED datafile downloads at ALL tracks, UNLIMITED Exotic Results downloads, and other stuff. You'd have to check their file structure for any differences from the BRIS product that might affect any software you may be using, but I believe that the differences are minor.

Steve

[raybo]

<Have you considered using TSN's Procaps files instead of BRIS Multicaps? They have their Advantage Plan, which for $59.95 per month gives you UNLIMITED datafile downloads at ALL tracks, UNLIMITED Exotic Results downloads, and other stuff. You'd have to check their file structure for any differences from the BRIS product that might affect any software you may be using, but I believe that the differences are minor.>

I looked at TSN's data before deciding on Bris' data. In my opinion, Bris' data is the best available to the public. I would not switch even if I were given free data. I wager on 2 tracks per day, 3 days per week, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and then recuperate for 4 days. so I download 6 cards per week, 24 or so cards per month. So my costs are around $48 per month. Very reasonable and one would spend that much or more just going to the track and paying parking and entrance fees and a program. I don't go to the track except on rare occasions, just to get out of the house, so I come out ahead anyway. I wager online exclusively. No way I could concentrate as much as is required, at the track.

[Marc At DRF]

Interesting comments. A few long-winded thoughts from here, both as a player and as the guy at DRF who is helping to coordinate a lot of our Formulator efforts right now.

1) Pricing: I think it's kind of a pain in the butt to spend the extra $1.25 for a single card. But this gets into our whole M.O for pricing-- we discount for the longterm plans, because this is healthy for our overall business to sell these, but we price our daily plans less enticingly, because they are effectively in competition with the print product (and it gets into issues like print runs, etc, where the cannibalization isn't always healthy). My main point is that we WILL be offering substantial discounting on our annual plans that include F4. The single card plans are generally including a %50 surcharge for F4 access, but the annual plans range from 25-40%. Meaning an annual unlimited with us, currently $799 a year, will "only" be $999 with Formulator.

2) If the product doesn't wow you, doesn't make you money, doesn't improve your game, it's worth ZERO. I fully expect a nice chunk of our audience to sample F4 during the trial period in which there is NO additional charges for the F4 files (they'll be the same cost as our current files) and decide it's not worth it for them. Both because of the cost and because they don't think it's helping them. Nothing works for everyone.

3) I appreciate TravisVox's concerns but let me urge Travis to try thing out during the trial period before he gives up or gives in. You haven't even seen it yet, Travis! Hang in there.

4) There is a bit of a whiff in this thread of my least favorite part of the PA board and my least favorite part of the discussion and marketing of handicapping products in general-- the sentiment that there is some sort of product out there-- either in one's homebrewed software, or in a speed figure or a product on the market, that will somehow completely solve the game. The magic product/number. And since it's DRF (wide distribution), the odds will plummet dramatically. This is fantasy-- no such magic number exists, and no such product exists. We think F4 will change the way some of you play, we think it's a major breakthrough, and that it give you an edge. But it's NOT magic. Like anything else, it's up to you to use it to find overlays, to wager smartly, to make it work for you. Travis, don't worry about this product making the odds plummet, turning longshots into underlays. Ultimately, handicapping/wagering just doesn't work that way, IMO.

5) Dave wrotes:
"More data, more contenders, more confusion. The secret is to find a method/system that works using a relatively small amount of data(in comparison to what is available)."

I'm with Dave.

I've been using F4 in beta version(s) as long as anybody has. The first time I used it was last fall, in November, and I was looking at a cheap claiming race at Aqueduct. Pletcher had the favorite and I thought the whole thing reeked of false favoritism. Somewhere in my years of following NYRA and Pletcher I had gotten it into my mind that he wasn't nearly as good with cheap claimers, particularly at Aqueduct, as he was in other situations. So I looked it up on F4-- I clicked on Pletcher's name, quickly selected the last two years, Aqueduct, sprints, cheap claimers, and spacing of 14-21 days. All relevant to the favorite I was hoping to beat. What I found was that Pletcher was 2 for 9 in this situation-- the same damn 2 for 9 he is in every other situation!! In this way, F4 helped me to back off from betting this race at all. But it was the beginning of a discovery I've made over the last few months-- the trainers with the biggest, most successful barns-- the supertrainers, as Beyer calls them, are the ones who are the least interesting on F4. They all seem to click at between 20-30% in just about every category! Yes, there are exceptions, of course, but I'm finding the software is far more helpful in uncovering gems regarding trainers who don't run "factories" such as Pletcher or Asmussen or whoever. More relevant to what Dave said, It's really easy with F4 to get *too* specific-- show me how Mott does in the last 3 years at GP with fillies and mares 4&up with spacing between 60-90 days going 10-12 furlongs on the turf with Day riding. Answer: He doesn't have any horses who fit the profile. The key to using this software USUALLY is to just select a couple of relevant choices, view the results, then maybe drill one layer deeper to see if you can hone it in. In that way, I'm finding it works in the way Dave suggests.

6) I appreciate the work everyone else is doing on their own programs, but one key difference that I haven't heard anyone else tell me they've got is our "view TP PPs" function. With F4, you'll click on the trainer's name within the PPs to access all of the stats. Cool. Many of you homebrew guys are already working in a similar fashion. With F4, though, after you cull whatever stat you're interested in, you can click this "View TP PPs" button and the relevant PPs of the horses who make up the stat will pop up on the screen. This really lets the user get behind the numbers, to see if there were, say, subtle wide-trip 4th place finishes that aren't showing up in the win% of the hard numbers. Etc, etc. Moreover we're offering a nice workout functionality (being finished as we speak) that will allow you to compare the workouts of today's starter with the workouts of a given horse in the "View TP PPs" functionality. This is all good stuff, but frankly, yeah, I expect some less sophisticated players to be confused by F4. It's a very easy to use interface, but as many suggested in this thread, it won't be difficult for someone to just keep drilling and drilling and spend way too much time on a given race, and then what good is it? The smarter players, though, who focus on trainer angles, I really think they're gonna love this.

[B. Comin']

Good Post Marc.

You'll be saving alot of younger players alot of time with the trainer data and alot of older players from re-inventing the wheel as regards trnr. data.

And time is money.

As far as pricing, I understand that you have a specialized market in horseplayers, and any sound business has to cover their overhead, salaries, etc..

[andicap]

On the mass of stats you can consider from something like F4 and the "confusion" factor.

Mark Cramer called it something like opposing dialetics in handicapping.
How many races have you seen where a trainer is 2% in one category and 25% with great ROI in another?
How many horses have you seen where a horse was 3 for 4 at the track, but 1 for 10 at the distance?

With F4, handicappers will see this in spades. Myself, i'd love it if the public went off a horse because of some poor trainer pattern. I learned the hard way that trainers who are something like 1-20 or 0-9 in a certain stat will bite you in the butt.

What this DOES do is make the idea of false overlays even more confusing because you're not sure exactly what the public is looking at. A false overlay is defined by Pizzolla as a horse that's
too good to be true -- he's 7-1 with the best Beyer in the race.
Bankroll killers. Best overlays are those with horses who look
bad to the public, who's attributes are nicely hidden or
overlooked because the horse has some huge negative factors sitting right in front of the public's face (0-50 trainer or jockey for example, or rising steeply in class or bad recent form.)

With the public having access to more sophisticated info, it makes
it harder to discern what handicapping factors are actually driving the betting (or lack of) on a specific horse. While most bettors may not be using F4, many BIG gamblers might be and that
could affect the odds.