Modern Pace Handicapping vs Handicapping Magic - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

shoelessjoe · 08-02-2005, 05:25 AM

I want to read about handicapping the shape of the race by looking at the 2nd call.Which one of these books would be more beneficial on this subject?If you have any others in mind I would like to know as well.You guys on here really come up with some helpful suggestions. Shoeless

Dick Schmidt · 08-02-2005, 11:47 AM

Modern Pace Handicapping is a far better book, with a complete handicapping methodology that anyone can apply, no "soft focus" voodoo required.

Dick

If everything seems to go right, check your zipper.

Buckeye · 08-02-2005, 04:52 PM

That's good to know, because I'm after Hard cash.

Psycho babble bio-computer change the name of site nonsense.

If I want to freelance I can and I will, if you have a better idea that you're willing and able to sell to me, I seriously doubt it.

Case closed.

shoelessjoe · 08-02-2005, 05:24 PM

I love the honesty around here. Shoeless

mhrussell · 08-02-2005, 07:32 PM

..I really enjoyed both books. The HM techniques are the foundation of my play, but MPH is the 'classic' on the subject of pace. You really should and need to read both and then form your own conclusions.

There are a lot of strange and mysterious things in this world; the fulcrum horse finishing second and soft focus voodoo ... well, just try it for yourself and see.

hurrikane · 08-02-2005, 07:49 PM

For some reason I agree 100% with Dick.

better check my zipper.

Tom · 08-02-2005, 09:46 PM

HM ha some good stuf in it, but I agree MPH is the better tool. You can augment it with some HM ideas. the revised edition of MPH has a lot about Quirin style pace/speed figs that is good too.

kingfin66 · 08-02-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoelessjoe

I love the honesty around here. Shoeless

Schmidt co-wrote the book with Hambleton and Pizzolla. He is qualified to comment albeit with a biased opinion toward his own book. Buckeye, on the other hand, is a troll who's opinion should be discounted accordingly.

The honest answer is that you should read both books and decide for yourself which is the better of the two. You will likely find that you will gain insight from both books.

Zaf · 08-02-2005, 11:28 PM

I enjoyed reading both books. They both contain very useful information on the art of handicapping.

ZAFONIC

highnote · 08-02-2005, 11:51 PM

I agree with Dick. MPH is much better than HM. But go ahead and read both. I find that I still use MPH as a reference book. There is so much good stuff in it that I can't remember it all.

On the other hand, I learned very little new from HM. However, a lot of people like, so who am I to say it wouldn't be useful for you.

But do yourself a big favor and read Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw's book "The Matchup". It is the most useful of any handicapping book I have ever read. The strange paradox is that it is also just about the most poorly written and edited book ever published. Jim could've used an editor. Whenever I read MPH I always get the feeling that Jim Quinn edited the book for Brohammer. The writing style often reminds me of Quinn. I have no doubt no one but Bradshaw edited Bradshaw's book. But I'll be damned if it is not the book that taught me the best way to handicap a race.

The other books make things so complicated. Bradshaw shows you how simple it actually is. All you do is find out who is going to get the lead and then decide if he can't get the lead in a pace time that he can handle. If he has to run too fast to get the lead he'll probably lose.

His distance adjustments are brain dead simple. So simple in fact, I just used the idea for handicapping quarter horse races during my first ever visit to Ruidoso. I only had time to see three races, but I had the winner in all three. OK, I'll admit they were chalk, but I had them all, plus a nice exacta.

Good luck.

John

cato · 08-03-2005, 12:11 AM

You need to read both HM and MPH--two of the better books in handicapping.

IMO, avoid the book called the Match Up as its damn near unintelligible. The writing is poor and the editing is non-existent. BUT, if you can find a copy of the Match Up manual, that's worth reviewing and studying.

Cheers, Cato

highnote · 08-03-2005, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cato

IMO, avoid the book called the Match Up as its damn near unintelligible. The writing is poor and the editing is non-existent. BUT, if you can find a copy of the Match Up manual, that's worth reviewing and studying.

Cheers, Cato

Cato,

I agree that Match Up is difficult to read because of the poor spelling and poorly executed examples. However, if you sit and study it you can get the gist of what The Hat is saying. Once you understand what he is trying to illustrate it will give you a tool to use in almost every horse race -- I even use it for harness racing. Probably works for dogs, too, if they give pace times in the pps.

By the way, what is the Match Up manual? I've never seen that.

shoelessjoe · 08-03-2005, 01:10 AM

The match up manual was put out by Doc Sartins group way back when.It's much easier to understand than the book by Bradshaw.If you want go to bindfold.com/forums/index.php.The guy who runs it Binder is a great guy who runs this site devoted to the Sartin Methodology.He would help you get a copy at NO CHARGE I might add. Shoeless

creatureman · 08-03-2005, 03:07 AM

that is a oxymoron

shoelessjoe · 08-03-2005, 05:39 AM

Sorry I kind of screwed up I thought Binder had that manual but he doesnt.He has only has the Bradshaw book as well.Shoeless