Or is it their computer programs are far superior to anything we might be able to get our hands on at present?

They just make huge bets, aiming to break even or make a small profit. They make their profit from rebates. Apparently their software is fairly good, but the problem is that they bet so much on the logical horses that it is difficult for everyone else to make money on the logical horses. If you don't get a rebate, you can do just as well as them and still make only a very small profit. If you're betting $10 a race, a 5% average return is not going to net much. If you bet thousands, get the 5% and get a rebate on top of that, you're doing pretty well.

Tony, I think the visual program I was thinking about was Equisim.

Raybo's AllData

what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data — William Zayonce

My view is pretty much opposite. I think most races can be solved from the data. Sometimes the data is not saying what most people think.

My knowledge is very minimal. Have you ever looked at the spreadsheet on PA? I looked at it a long time ago. Pretty impressive formatting at the time. I understand that guy passed away.

This basically tells me they know the derby was a fluke! No owner or trainer would stop there horse from possibly winning the triple crown unless the horse is hurt! — Mark

Conversely, the horse has only won a Maiden Claimer at less than 10 furlongs and has never raced on a quick turnaround. Why not set the horse up for potential success?

Good tournament players seem to be very good at high risk, high reward plays. I doubt if that mindset meshes with the typical handicapper. I think most of us are content with a grind and occasional score approach.

I am using Harbour.

I've used a few other languages, mostly various flavors of BASIC. I am also fairly adept with web programming... HTML, CSS and a bit of javascript.

Yes, I am willing to help others when I can.

I don't currently need help. Harbour uses extension libraries for Windows. I'm running into a few issues there, but that is something I need to work out.

I wrote my first handicapping program as a splits evaluation in the early 80's. I started on what I have now evolved to in the mid-90's.

Interesting.
Do you find those numbers to have significance? — Dave Schwartz

Well, I haven't nailed down anything highly significant in handicapping, but for a trainer with millions of dollars on the line, I can appreciate his decision.

Oh, Wilbur!

As Johnny Oates said, luck is when preparation and opportunity meet.

Boy, you are showing your age. — Biniak

Watch it! :lol:

Yes, the horse's shortest previous rest was 22 days and his median rest was 33 days. So, passing on a shorter rest is completely reasonable to me.

I prefer numbers. The plot is too much graphically. I know you didn't ask me. — Biniak

I prefer numbers, too. Especially if they are sorted or sortable or color coded or in some one get me to the top horses quickly. The graphical approach is slightly slow for me. I don't mind it as a bonus for replays, but I don't care for the concept for handicapping.

Is there anything new to discover?

I think there’s still a lot as to what is prioritized and what is used together. There’s also a lot that is under-utilized.

Also, I find that data such as pace can easily be misinterpreted if you don’t turn it every which way but loose.

Thanks, Rich!

Cool. Do we get our name on the big screen in the closing credits? — Steven

Yeah, but you got to use a pen name. :cool:

Sounds interesting, Dave. My mouth waters for a lot of screen "real estate". Ha!

I am interested in participating.

I came across a product named OpTix which is to present an alternative to traditional handicapping. I took a brief peek at it once but never really spent time researching it. If I recall it plots the projected positions of all runners in a graph of sorts. Looked like an alternative to traditional PP's — Tony Kofalt

I remember there being another program very similar to that, but I cannot remember the name of it. I am pretty sure it is no longer available.

Ranch merging workout lines in the PP"s has always intrigued me. This can be done in Formulator and probably other products. However, I've found my 'vision' when reading the PP's is interrupted so to say. — Tony Kofalt

Interesting viewpoint, Tony. I can understand it in the context of handicapping solely through the PP's. When I look at the PP's, I am usually looking for something specific, so I can usually scan to where I want to look and it isn't so much an issue for me. Mostly what I am looking for as regards works is the works since the last start or last two starts, especially the pattern for the last 40 days. But if I really want to take a deep dive, each race of the PP's includes a link directly to the chart of the race.

I also have a simpler form of PP's where there are no works and each race uses one line. I mostly look there to review for class, especially looking for stakes races and class drops. Again, I don't always refer to this section, either.

Once this thread runs its course, I plan to start a thread on the alternatives to handicapping exclusively through the traditional PP model.