Wow some interesting ideas here!!! I believe that more posts can only lead to a better forum. Ranch and Dustin you guys are great

Exciting news Dave. Really appreciate the opportunity to participate!!

It was a bittersweet seminar as Dave was transitioning from ThoroBrain 4?? (which I loved as a product) to the Handicappers Notebook. 30 years later and I'm still whining about it. Lol

Great to hear from you Gerard!!! That seminar was great fun. Also got the opportunity to meet some wonderful ppl like yourself. I realize that economics and logistics make on-line seminars so much more practical in todays world, but I do miss the human interaction. Dave was so great on the fly at those seminars.
I hope you can stay active on this forum and contribute!!

Regarding ground loss I see both sides of this debate. But I do utilize Thorograph sheets at times and ground loss is a big component there. I've found the Thorograph performance figs to be the MOST accurate figs I've ever used and their presentation is very comfortable to my eye. So if I had to pick a side in the ground loss debate I'd have to conclude that ground loss does matter

Good idea Conley!! I know I have a copy of kinky handicapping but I cant find it.

Really enjoyed so far!! I too am looking forward to the remained

Steven, I looked for my copy of Kinky Handicapping and I can not locate it. Seems many things got misplaced as a result of a move.

I know this is a hot button issue for so many people. Not so much for me. I do understand the frustration of not getting the payout you expected due to late bets but you are correct that odds on other horses go up. Improvements in technology may display the odds changes sooner but won't change the outcome.

Welcome Zayonce!! Look forward to sharing ideas with you soon.

Dave, while I don't believe I ever used Reynolds number as described in your article the concept makes sense. I should look for a way to incorporate it into my handicapping. Did you use Reynolds numbers back in the old Thorobrain days? I felt that product was outstanding! At least I was getting good results. lol

Excellent approach

Dave, thanks for your response. And I see that we are approaching the race differently. I do believe there are 'factors' for which time decay should play a big part. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, just get your opinion on time decay regarding speed figs.
I really appreciate the discussion!!!

I'm a firm believer in form cycles. In fact when I project a figure for a horse I almost always project improvement or regression from the last effort. Past races, some fairly old, are the basis for my projections. I often give more credit for a race from 4-6 months than I might the last 2-3 races. That's why I'm having trouble agreeing to time decay when it comes to speed and pace ratings.

Great discussion guys. I’m at the track watching horses work right now but I have a follow up point or 2 I will add later. But loved this exchange

Interesting discussion. Dave it feels like you believe there is some value in considering time decay. Do you feel that time decay plays a role in all metrics or just specific ones. For example, you mentioned time decay as it relates to measuring class. Would you feel the same if you were considering a final time speed figure?

Thanks Tom- can't wait to dig into this

Steven- I read the book some 25 years ago. I enjoyed reading everything Mark Cramer wrote. Like the old Cramer-Olmstead reports!!!
But I'm sorry to say I cant recall the contents of the book clearly. I can say that I enjoyed all his stuff. I will look through my library to see if I still have a copy laying around

Ken- win betting is a solid way to play. It’s most important to do what feels comfortable to you. If you’re not comfortable with your methodology it affects your decisions.

Hi Ken- I'm sorry it took a few days to reply.
I found both publications very interesting reads with somewhat conflicting approaches. To me the most important item was the session play explanation found on both documents. The concept of session play made perfect sense to me and 'felt' like a good fit for my psyche. I attempted to implement this approach as described by Dave in each document. Through trial and error I made some modifications that raised my confidence. For example, the percent of bankroll that I dedicate to each session is 5%. So my bankroll is broken into 20 sessions. This change greatly reduces the chance of 'tapping out'. i will admit that I probably went overboard with this change but it made feel comfortable and less likely to feel pressure when making selections and constructing tickets.
Of the two publications I was most intrigued with the progression concept in the Opponent Method. While I do not use the Opponent Method per se I do use a progressive style betting strategy that evolved from it. In short, I increase the number of units I wager after a number of losing plays.
I hope this helped you Ken. Please let me know if this did not answer your question