Starting Over

[shoeless]

After 35 years of handicapping Im starting to realize I have to start over.Looking back I never really have had any consistancy in either winning or having a set way of attacking a race.I have even contemplated just to stop playing altogether maybe Im just fooling myself thinking I can win.But I enjoy it so I try to pursue forward.If any body knows any FU'S or manuals where they address this starting from scratch I would appreciate it.Sorry to take up space here with this problem Im having.Jeff

[JimG]

Hi Shoeless,

Some free advice. Find a program and a betting method you really like and have had success with in the past. Use nothing but that program and betting method for 1 month. Do not try or read any other methods/programs during this period of time. Use the time to completely learn the program you are using and to dissect your betting records regarding the races you are playing and how you are performing. I think you will come out of the month feeling much more confident in your success.

Please forgive me for saying so, but it appears from reading your posts here and at PA that you are always looking for something new to dabble with, either a Sartin manual or an old/new program. All this dabbling may be leading to your feeling that you need to start over.

I wish you nothing but the best.

Jim

[shoeless]

Jim,First of all your right in what your saying and I dont mind because you are being helpful.The problem is what if you feel you dont have the proper software and dont have any type of betting method.Jeff

[JimG]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Jim,First of all your right in what your saying and I dont mind because you are being helpful.The problem is what if you feel you dont have the proper software and dont have any type of betting method.Jeff

Jeff,

I am certainly trying to be helpful. After 35 years of playing the races, I would be surprised if you did not have a betting method you were comfortable with. one horse to win or winplace, 2 horses to win, etc.

As far as software goes, I know you have tried a lot of software. Why do you feel none of it is the right software for you? You've posted success with several different software on this board. What are you looking for in software? What do you want the software to emphasize?

I know from your posts you have the ability but seem to not stay focused on the same method/software long enough to fully understand its strengths/weaknesses. No matter what software or method you decide on, you will suffer through losing streaks. The important thing is to gain confidence in what you are doing to the extent that you play through the losing streaks using the same method because you are confident in long-term success. My earlier post in this thread was intended as a method you could try in order to gain confidence for long term play.

Jim

[NWearner]

Shoeless,

I think JimG said it well. As much as I hate to admit it, the pompous guy over at PA actually said the same thing and is right. From what I have seen of you here at Pace and Cap' you are really focusing on using TPR numbers for your handicapping.

Why not, instead of starting over, just do what others have suggested. Adopt one single methodology and master it. I recommend a pace handicapping methodology. Next, don't get quite so caught up in the numbers. Make pace #1, then numbers, then other stuff. Synergism is a great program; the data entry or automated type. Remember, what really drives TPR numbers is pace handicapping and the track profiles. To try to use the numbers alone is taking a shortcut.

Also, remember that you are not required to bet. Why not just handicap for awhile without betting. Track your play in a mock 100 or 200 race cycle to see how you do.

If you decide that you prefer numbers then I am going to recommend one program that may work well for you: Speed Handicapper. It is a departure from the Sartin Methodology, but it really generates some nice speed figures. I still think handicapping is needed, but the numbers really hold up well, especially when you are playing a fairly closed circuit like Philly. The downside of this software is that using it will continue to take you down the same road you have already been taking.

This little exercise we are going to be undertaking in another thread may be useful to you for reasons other than just comparing the various pace software programs out there. It may help you see a different way to use the information at hand.

[shoeless]

Jim and NWearner,Thanks to you both for your honest opinions that's what I was looking for and both of you made very valid points.I guess what I was looking for in a software was something to help me match up the horses.Im not great with numbers so that's why I started to look at TPR.I was using them as my sole handicapping but like you and others have said they are not meant for that.So then I tried looking for another program where I could take my top contenders and run them through.I was trying to corrolate the TPR numbers with the match up screen on Syn 4 but I dont like those fractional times[maybe I shouldnt be doing this].I guess Im driving myself nuts doing this which isnt good either.Believe it or not I have NEVER had a betting plan which I know is dumb.If anybody else is having the same trouble as me please feel free to post or maybe Im the the only one in this mess.Jeff

[NWearner]

When it comes to pace numbers can be very misleading as you have found out. RichieP has done some excellent explanations of positional pace vs. pace ratings. I recall such as discussion being posted at PA, although I am sure he has posted a lot of the discussion here as well. It sounds like you could you benefit from a very old, but still reliable pace concept - Quirin Speed Points. This rudimentary pace tool can show you things that pace ratings never will. You may want to consider using either TPR pace numbers or positional pace handicapping, but not both. Or you could use the QSP/positional pace to get an idea of the amount of speed in a race, then use your pace ratings to determine which horses will be close enough to the lead to win based on your track profiles.

From everything I have seen you post, you have a lot more insight than you're giving yourself credit for. All of the things you have studied have given you a lot of knowledge. Now it's a matter of whittling away the stuff you don't need, mastering the few things you do need, and start winning (or losing less is okay to).

As for a betting plan, you have been using the bet two horses approach. That actually is a betting plan. The trick is to get value and price. Those two things vary among horse players, but are crucial to making long term profit.

[shoeless]

NWearner,You have a lot of great insight and also willing to share it Im glad you came on board here.How do you suggest using QSP\postional pace with the pace ratings?I get confused using QSP to see if race setsup early or late.It sounds like an interesting idea.Also for 2 horse betting what value should you be looking for?Let's say Im starting with a 200 bank and goint to invest 10% of it a race.Jeff

[Turbulator]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Also for 2 horse betting what value should you be looking for?Let's say Im starting with a 200 bank and goint to invest 10% of it a race.Jeff

Are you trying to win, or are you trying to make a score? It looks to me like you're trying to do a little of both. In my opinion, you have to make a commitment one way or the other.

I would suggest starting with a $400 bank and betting $4 per race--$2 to win on each horse. Bet win only. No exactas, no trifectas, no nothing else. Prove you can grind out the money betting to win first.

You'll never be risking more than 1% of bank. Too conservative for you? If you can't win betting $4, you're certainly not going to win betting $100. Prove you're a winner, and then you can raise the bet.

If you double that $400 to $800, you can then raise your bet to $8 per race, and now you can either bet $4 and $4, $5 and $3 or $6 and $2--more money on the shorter price horse.

As far as prices are concerned, as a general rule of thumb, don't bet unless you're getting at least a minimum of 3-1 on each horse. 5-2 and 4-1, and 2-1, and 5-1, is OK. (I'll go into more detail on this later.)

10% is way too much. If you can't win betting $4 per race, then bet on paper for 100 races until you figure something out.

Just so you know, I'm basically in the same boat. I don't think I'm a good enough handicapper at this point in time, so I don't bet. I haven't made a real money bet in three months. Still researching, still testing, and making lots and lots of paper bets. My testing is slightly profitable, and I could make money, but I want to improve even more before I get fully committed. If I don't think I can make enough money to justify the time commitment, while at the same time not incurring inordinate risks, then I'll give up the game.

I don't gamble. No edge--no bet.

[chris]

One of the constants - in a game punctuated with so many variables - is that when we go to the races, we're required to bring ourselves along. Our missgivings, our sucesses, our failures, our confidence, our doubts, and of course our hopes and expectations. They're always with us. This is the grist and mill of who we are! To deny them is silly. And as is the case with most of us, some have more of one than the other.

Since Howard stepped aside for health concerns, no one has stepped in to assume the mantle of psychological shepard. And this is probably how it should be. However he did leave a voluminous legacy of articles and writings in the follow-ups that are as relevant today as when he wrote them. It's up to us, individually, to step through the door he opened. Make no mistake about this, it's not a group activity. No one else can isolate, remove or manage, those characteristics, or predilections of personality, that can be such a hindrance to our success.

For some a catastrophy is required, for others a quiet and personal ephiphany is the trigger. What ever it takes is what it takes. Be grateful when it happens and move onto the remedy; it's in the follow-ups.

Regards,
Chris