@Biniak & @RanchWest - Make sure that you really understand what's on the videos. It contains a completely different way of looking at IV Tables.

Not like Dave where things change pending on which way the wind blows — HorseSense

Clearly you and I are on different pages.
I doubt that you will offer much of anything to anyone.

Hope you change that soon.

No argument from me.

Yes, they were.

If only you hadn't followed the script of a movie. LOL
I had to take it down so I didn't get beaten up by some lawyers.

When I eventually watched the movie - Seven Days in Utopia - I realized how brilliantly you had turned the lessons in the movie into horse racing lessons.

@Rich Val

Just so you guys know, a few years ago I was struggling to win. Rich valentine came out of the woodwork and offered to coach me. We did 7 sessions over a couple of weeks that put me back on track.

Remember that, Rich?

You guys gotta know that winning players never share their secrets.....

I just gave you the most important piece of the game....

Head it and go forward — HorseSense

My experience is that winning players - and especially professional players - absolutely do share what they do.

After all, if WINNING PLAYERS really are that smart (and we are), how would anyone know if information wasn't shared?

Ping @Tony Kofalt @Rich Val

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…. — Jack Price

I would contend (small pun coming) that the issue is not the win% on the top contenders.
The issue is figuring out which low odds horses to remove BEFORE selecting those contenders.

As you can imagine, the low odds horses will ALWAYS be at the top of the PSR list. If they aren't, then toss them as well.

Of course the low odds horses are the favorites I'm mentioning......
Does HSH have any proprietary factors to combat this? — HorseSense

Not so much proprietary , but of course.
We build OBJECTS - which are from 1 to 6 factors weighted together.

That was from Fraser Rawlinson.

Actually, you've described the basis of my handicapping - although for me it all begins with the low odds horses.

With this complicated software , your resorting to PSR with Early and Late? — HorseSense

The game is more difficult than ever and I have no interest in playing without long-term profitability.

I'm always ready to be taught something - simple or complicated - that allows me to continue to win.

Do you have anything to offer?

I don't know anything about Pickmaster, but, as Dave said, it takes a lot of factors to have consistent eliminations or inclusions. And, sometimes I use composite data. — RanchWest

Actually, ultimately, it boils down to a few meaningful objects with the right application.

Still the game isn't easy.

Have you tried searching for these scenarios through Pickmaster? If so, do you believe it would be a worthwhile endeavour? — Tony Kofalt

Yes, that is one of the tools.
We also have one called the OBJECT MASTER that allows you to turn on as many as 300 factors and optimize and object using a pretty cool approach.

Imagine 300^4 = 8.1 billion permutations - searching for the best object for (say) $net in the #1 rank. You can run something like that against 20,000 races in about 3 hours.

Well, let's get somebody else to start the thread and then we can tell them what we do.

Of course, I don't CURRENTLY use it because I don't "select pacelines," but my system is built into HSH where anyone can see it.

(HSH has a programmable paceline selection mechanism. Well, it has a couple of dozen, actually, and the users can create their own.)

And, I have my program select my pace lines. — RanchWest

"HOW TO SELECT PACE L;INES" would make for a great topic.
Would like to see someone else post it.

@Colty - How about you? Do you have any opinions?

I do have a spot play that has hit 9 of 45 (20%) and returning only 39 cents on the dollar. — RanchWest

Ironically, THAT is what I generally look for in a play-against horse: the overwhelmingly obvious.

Losing 17% is just not strong enough.

The bidding starts at -35%.
But it won't be a single factor that produces that. It would be a combination of factors.

I've done quite a bit of work on negative spots against low-odds horses, with quite a bit of success.

In this age - where the whales dominate our game - these NegSpots have become antithetical in nature.

Example: (Weekdays only) top jockey + top trainer + low odds = play against.

But it isn't because they don't win races. They win a carload of them. They just lose so much money that it creates a highly playable race.

@Jack Price

This is an awesome analysis.

What I find interesting about this thread is that everyone has gone about this in their own way.

This kind of INFORMAL COLLABORATION is what I've been hoping for with this site.

Good fortune with that!