Just my 2 cents…. I don't have actual HSH PSR's, but something very similar.

In reviewing the last three years in my database, I show the top 3 PSR’s (includes any ties for 3rd) captures 67.5% of all winners; however, this does not include the 2 point “gap” requirement separating 3rd and 4th place…this is the top 3 ranks only. At present, I don’t have PSR set up to properly perform gap analysis so I really can’t comment on the “statistical” viability of Dave’s approach….

In my opinion, I would want at least 80% potential winners in any contender methodology and I am skeptical that Dave’s approach would accomplish this goal; however, using a “gap” approach has given me several ideas to pursue….

Although, I am not an HSH subscriber, I do own most all of Dave’s other products from which many golden “nuggets” have been gleaned…. Dave, thanks for sharing your work…. I personally appreciate all that you do for your fellow horseplayers!

No problem.

Don’t mean to “redboard” but when I looked back at the AQU8 race I noticed the Pace Pressure was “zero”…. That can sometimes cause chaotic results as jockeys and trainers think about stealing on the front end and can consequently, go to fast (setting up for the closers)… For me, Pace Pressure = Zero is always an alert for careful handicapping.

Ranch, the attachment is a basic overview of my pre-handicapping process (the “science”)…. I really prefer not to give you my secret sauce regarding "grading system"; however, using the tote board favorite to “slice and dice” is a major clue (see page 2 of the attachment for win% results for the “off” time race favorite).

BOL!

Ranch... I think he held on... Great Call!!!

Art verse Science
I’ve also done a lot of research in preparing statistical models for pre-handicapping… Particularly, to pre-classify a race based on expected volatility… I use an A,B,C,D, and F grading system with Grd A being highly predictable and Grd F being the most volatile. The example race (Aqu8) has a Grd C which denotes “normal” predictability which is subject to change during the actual (manual) handicapping of the race… I have no interest in handicapping this race; however, at a glance, it doesn’t appear to be total chaos… I would not endorse the #3 as the top choice as suggested by my modeling (due to Philly Park form not normally transferring to AQU)… But, I have a hard time making a case for the #7 based on what appears to be very little early pace pressure… Anyway, I would never talk anyone off a longshot so the very best of luck!

Thank you Dave and Tony!

Love listening to these types of interviews...very enlightening and inspirational!