Handicapping discussions made easy

[Tim Y]

There is NO right answer: only varying ways up the mountain top. Promote looking through a kaleidoscope to pick winners, that's fine, but just don't expect too much agreement with that method.

It has been my pathway, since I was told birds "only HOP" in the second grade and I took my teacher over to the window and pointed out that birds were walking, hopping and any number of other things,..... for me to choose to have been an iconoclast ever since. As a matter of fact when I first discovered that word in High School I was really excited that it was common enough to have a word designated for the idea.

That position rubs folks the wrong way. Ridiculous. Come up with a substantiated alternative.

There are no rights and wrongs but only what your frame of understanding can substantiate. Use them to do that or it is all opinion here. Opinions spark controversy (they shouldn't to rational people but they seem to do just that).

Discussions are the result of data, experiences and substantiated facts.......what works in your realm

[Tim Y]

Over the years (now over 25 and counting) you would not believe the outright resistance to the use of the computer in thoroughbred handicapping. Steve Davidowitz even has a full chapter in his second edition of Betting Thoroughbreds called "Pace as Science and Pseudoscience" all devoted to knocking his very limited understanding of the methodology.

I have run into the same rigidity. In 1986 I was invited as a guest to the Canadian news magazine show The Fifth Estate. In a segment called "computer in the stretch," I outlined for them how pace and the computer were superior to the very subjective analysis traditionally undertaken. You wouldn't believe the hemming and hawing on all the things the computer couldn't do by the traditionalist public handicapper who hadn't a clue to what he was talking about.

Move a few years ahead now and the job of public handicapper for HPI Toronto came open. Their previous capper, supposed to be some sort of national champion David Guttfruend (who was really predictable as he regularly choosing deep closing, recently claimed turfers and short priced stakes horses) did not have his contract renewed and the job was open. I sent in documentation for many a race and sent in daily evaluations of the cards HPI carried. I had some real good prices: a $35.00 turf winner at Turf Paradise among them. When the fellow there wanted to talk to me on the phone all he kept saying was "This is that CULT isn't it?" Not a thing about the end product, just the way the computer churned out the result. They hired another "contest winner" who continues to give out $4.00 horses day in and day out.

Dangerous stuff this computer analysis

[Tom Barrister]

It's considered a "cult thing" if it isn't generally usable by the masses. That, in and of itself, doesn't make it good or bad, and the word "cult" is misapplied here, but it conveys the general idea of the views of those who don't understand the whole Sartin-physics principles. Davidowitz is closer to the truth with the term "Pseudoscience", but that's not entirely correct, either, although many things that are now generally accepted by the scientific community were once termed pseudoscience. Just because something isn't accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean that it's incorrect or ineffctive.

I realize that this is an old thread. I'm posting here because I ran across it in my search to refresh my memory for a thread about Davidowitz's latest book over on PA.

While pace-handicapping in general isn't my cup of tea, I don't agree or disagree with the principles of RDSS and the whole Sartin/PIRCO-inspired way of thinking. Like every other form of handicapping, this has its advocates and detractors. Like anything else, it's good if it works for you.

[Vinnie]

Tom B:

I hope that you are doing well? Tell me Tom, is the new Davidowitz book that you are referring to titled "Betting Thoroughbreds for the 21st Century"? I am curious to find out if that is Steve D.'s newest book. Years ago I read the Betting Thoroughbreds "A Professional's Guide for the Horseplayers" and I thoroughly enjoyed the read. I Just wanted to check in with you to see if this is the new book that you were referring to in your prior posting.

Thanks Tom.

All the BEST!

Vinnie

[Tom Barrister]

The chapter refered to is in the 1997 version of his "Betting Thoroughbreds book". The latest (21st Century) is the third edition.

[Vinnie]

Tom:

I thought that I had read somewhere in the past where he had mentioned the Sartin Methodology as a "Pseudo science" of sorts. I might have to get the Betting Thoroughbreds (21st Century) third edition because it may be a pretty interesting read as well.

Appreciate the information Tom.

Warm Regards,

Vinnie

[shoeless]

Davidowitz new book is good and you realize just how many of his handicapping ideas in his original version were way ahead of others.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Davidowitz new book is good and you realize just how many of his handicapping ideas in his original version were way ahead of others.

hello Shoeless:

Yes, Davidowitz has had some ideas that were truly ahead of its time, such as saving results charts to monitor 'key' races, and the novel use of qualifying class-within-class claiming levels.

But, over the years I have found it hard to be on the Davidowitz bandwagon because in his first book, he never mention Secretariat's first race in 1972, if I recall correctly. But in each subsequent editions, not only does he mention Big Red, but also claimed that he was at the press box in New York that day, and that he was the lone person up there that called Secretariat 'next year's Derby winner'. This was b-shat as he was not there that afternoon, July 4, 1972 at Aqueduct.

Now, I understand this is a minor point, but his disengenous, arrogant behavior always stuck in my craw. Oh, one another thing : one two occasions, again in the infamous NY press box in the early 1980s, I was asked to throw in and contribute $5 or $10 -- the reason? Ol' Steve needed some money so he could take the train from Manhattan to Baltimore---evidently he tapped out and didn't have enough to get home. It bothered me because this genius needed a handout from peons like myself, even though he was a book author who was a self-proclaimed expert.

Now, boys, we've all have a rough day or two at the races, and I am sure that many times we've all had losing days but you must understand that on that day, and on many, many days prior, yours truly and others in the press box kept hearing Stevie D. drone on and on and on about how great a handicapper he is, much sharper than all you "New York know-it-alls".

If I bored anyone with this, I am sorry, but Stevie D. has gotten alot of miles out of so little ability.

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by reckless

If I bored anyone with this, I am sorry, but Stevie D. has gotten alot of miles out of so little ability.

I second that motion when I corresponded with him in the late 80's.