BREEDERS' CUP MOVIES

[v j stauffer]

Hopefully PA will keep this up now that it's after the fact. I sold these trip notes at $75.00 for the two days of BC.

Here's a free link to what was offered for the 2 days.

Would very much like to know what you on PA think.

Do you think it had value?

What could have been done better?

Click here www.vicstauffer.com to take a FREE look.

Any input would be VERY much appreciated.

Deciding on whether to offer the same service for the Triple Crown race days.

Maybe Pegasus day at GP too.

Thanks

VJS

[cj]

I don't see a problem with leaving it up after the fact. PA may vary.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't see a problem with leaving it up after the fact. PA may vary.

Thanks. You're exactly the kind of person that I'd be interested in what you think.

Didn't you once tell me YOU are in charge and PA can pound salt?

Maybe it was Thask.

[PaceAdvantage]

I feel dirty and used.

[cj]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Thanks. You're exactly the kind of person that I'd be interested in what you think.

Didn't you once tell me YOU are in charge and PA can pound salt?

Maybe it was Thask.

Ummm, no.

I'd think if the response is good being an advertiser next year should be required.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I feel dirty and used.

Welcome to my world.

[sour grapes]

snake oil too?

[metro]

just some suggestions...

Would summarize each race after you have gone thru it. Who is most likely winner? Who are the possible overlays and underlays? Which horses are your best bets on the card, etc.. While most of your target market knows how to incorporate your notes many probably don't, they are just looking for someone to tell them who to bet.

When going through the replays go back further than just the last race, there may be a race on the page that is more pertinent to today's race because of distance, surface, particular track, forecasted weather, etc.. I did see some examples of you going further back in the pps, just not enough imo.

You've mentioned that you don't believe in bias, why not? In watching, or listening, to all the different handicappers providing analysis on the Breeders Cup last week I can't recall many that didn't incorporate bias into their thoughts. You are already watching the races, why not note races where speed may have held or a closer was up against it? A horse that got a perfect outside stalking trip may need to be downgraded, those that struggled over a deep rail may need to be upgraded.

Your "movie" reviews were a good read though, even after the fact. Thanks for sharing.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by metro

just some suggestions...

Would summarize each race after you have gone thru it. Who is most likely winner? Who are the possible overlays and underlays? Which horses are your best bets on the card, etc.. While most of your target market knows how to incorporate your notes many probably don't, they are just looking for someone to tell them who to bet.

When going through the replays go back further than just the last race, there may be a race on the page that is more pertinent to today's race because of distance, surface, particular track, forecasted weather, etc.. I did see some examples of you going further back in the pps, just not enough imo.

You've mentioned that you don't believe in bias, why not? In watching, or listening, to all the different handicappers providing analysis on the Breeders Cup last week I can't recall many that didn't incorporate bias into their thoughts. You are already watching the races, why not note races where speed may have held or a closer was up against it? A horse that got a perfect outside stalking trip may need to be downgraded, those that struggled over a deep rail may need to be upgraded.

Your "movie" reviews were a good read though, even after the fact. Thanks for sharing.

Really appreciate your in depth well thought out suggestions. It is not my desire to try to pick winners or offer betting strategy. My notes are to hopefully serve as a tool while each player is doing their OWN handicapping. Opinions will drift into the analysis but I feel at this time there are plenty of "touts" who feel their selections are so valuable they must charge for them. At this time I don't want to be part of that crowd. BTW that may change in the near future as I've been offered the opportunity to make a significant amount of $$$ for publishing my selections. Haven't decided yet if I'm going to take that leap. It is very tempting. We all have our families to feed. More to come on that.

In a perfect world I'd like to look at and write about the last 5 starts for every horse. The bottom line is that would simply be too much work that takes far too long to do. Each race depending on the size of the field takes as little as an hour to as much as two hours. To increase that just wouldn't work. If I'm doing a race that has 8 horses I watch that particular film 8 times. I never try to watch one and keep an eye on others. Cutting corners like that inevitably cause me to miss very important things.

Of all the elite handicappers I've ever met. Most of whom I greatly respect. I am surely the one that believes the least in track biases. IMO they are the crutch of bad handicappers who are searching for a scapegoat for an incorrect selection rather than owning it and accepting the fact they were wrong. I also believe that during a race card a "bias" may appear that isn't real. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy from the jocks room. If the first & 2nd race winners lays in the three path, sits and circles to the win. The guy riding the best horse in the 3rd takes his horse to that position and scores with a horse that very well could have won if ridden differently. Suddenly we now have a bias that IMO doesn't exist. Are there occasionally biases? Sure. A track super may scrape the rail and for a day or two a track will carry speed. Things like that do exist. But they are very hard to predict. Even harder to quantify. Usually by the time the bias is noticeable the track crew will make adjustments.

Again, really appreciate you taking time to read the reports and share. Very cool of you.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by sour grapes

snake oil too?

Really great contribution. Your thoughts are new and provocative. Very vital. Excellent.

[bobphilo]

[QUOTE= Of all the elite handicappers I've ever met. Most of whom I greatly respect. I am surely the one that believes the least in track biases. IMO they are the crutch of bad handicappers who are searching for a scapegoat for an incorrect selection rather than owning it and accepting the fact they were wrong. I also believe that during a race card a "bias" may appear that isn't real. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy from the jocks room. If the first & 2nd race winners lays in the three path, sits and circles to the win. The guy riding the best horse in the 3rd takes his horse to that position and scores with a horse that very well could have won if ridden differently. Suddenly we now have a bias that IMO doesn't exist. Are there occasionally biases? Sure. A track super may scrape the rail and for a day or two a track will carry speed. Things like that do exist. But they are very hard to predict. Even harder to quantify. Usually by the time the bias is noticeable the track crew will make adjustments. [/QUOTE]

Vj, first of all, thanks for sharing your trip notes. Excellent work.

I'm glad There is someone around that feels that track speed biases are overrated. Lets say there are 8 out of ten races are won wire to wire. Everybody will exclaim, "A real early speed bias". What if 4 of these winners were the favorite and/or the best horse in the race? Lets say that in 2 others the closers got caught wide or were stuck in traffic. Lets say that in 2 others the front runner was able to set a slow early pace. Not very strange for these things to occur every day. So what is the need for a mysterious speed bias to account for these results?

At least these explanations do not defy common sense. To think that there is something about a track that it can detect the hooves of front runners and give them a boost while also detecting the hooves of closers and slowing them down is absurd. It's magical thinking.

Some will say that fast tracks are speed favoring but those that believe in speed biases sometimes proclaim a speed bias on slow tracks, Even if fast tracks are always speed favoring, how is it that the fast track do not give a boost to the closers as well? They are running on the same track.

It's true that some horse do not like mud splashed on their faces so on some days the front runners may have an advantage over these horses. That at least makes sense. a smaller number of horse don't like the dirt kickback but you as a race caller know that this does not affect all horses, especially good ones, and besides even these few horses can get a clear trip.

Yes there is such a thing as a rail bias in which the ground on the rail is faster and maybe on such days the front runners are more likely to get to the rail and get a better trip than closers who may have to go wide, but lets be honest and call it a rail bias not a speed bias. When jockeys think there is a speed bias they will go for the early lead, even if they have to go wide and therefore actually putting themselves at a disadvantage. Jockeys are very sensitive to the unfair accusation that they are not real athletes and mere passengers, so they will cling to anything that shows they make a contribution to the horse and spotting biases is one way to prove that. However, in their eagerness, they are liable to jump to conclusions about whether such a bias exists.

Bettors are also always looking for an angle to give them an advantage. Belief in speed biases is a case in which bettors see what they want to see to get an edge.

The ultimate criteria for any angle is does it make sense and can the results not be accounted for by other more logical explanations.

[BCOURTNEY]

Vic -

Lots of useful qualitative descriptions. Personally found it difficult to arrive at quantifying some of the upside or downside potential of the contenders if they weren't standouts. Maybe an A through F or numerical scale would help. Hope this helps.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Vic -

Lots of useful qualitative descriptions. Personally found it difficult to arrive at quantifying some of the upside or downside potential of the contenders if they weren't standouts. Maybe an A through F or numerical scale would help. Hope this helps.

It does help. Thanks for posting BC.

[ReplayRandall]

Vic, you might want to color-code your appraisals in each race: For example, red for contenders, green for price plays that include acceptable odds for a wager, and blue for throw-outs…...Visual stimulation helps with focus, giving your product more vibrancy....Best input I can muster for now.

[FakeNameChanged]

Vic to be honest, when I first read you wanted $75 for your notes, I thought that was a bit high. Knowing how much observation time and effort it takes me to make a few notes for my horse watch on DRF for just a few horses, and after reading your notes, I was wrong. They are excellent. I do like RR's suggestion of color coding them, although I might switch the red for non-contenders, minor switch. Good job.