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.

I construct my PP’s by importing data from Access to Excel — Jack Price

Well done, Jack!

I use Harbour to read BRIS data (Multicaps) into a dBase file, then use Harbour to write to an HTML file because I like the versatility of the output, though it is very labor intensive to write the code. I do end up with my key handicapping factors in one section. I can "quick handicap" entirely from there, but I have many sections that I can reference from a drop-down menu in case there's something I want to do a deep dive on. The downside is that it is not easy to hide or scratch horses, though I can accomplish it in a little bit of a cumbersome way. Right now the quick capping section is displayed in odds line sequence, but I am working on making each column sortable.

Wow!! Very nice. A lot of data there. Like the color coding. But I see the point of your original post. — Jim Pommier

Thanks. I didn't show the top portion because it is pretty standard, mostly the common data.

1. I use BRIS. From what I've read, horses with a +6, +10, etc Prime Power point advantage win at a very high percentage (of course many times at very low odds like 1-2). How to play? Many do not look vulnerable but still get beat.
2. How to play small 5 and 6 horse fields where you land on the 8-5 and 2-1. Always separate using jockey/trainer (and other factors), or Dutch? Also, happens in 7+ horse fields, then Dutch? — Jim Pommier

1. BRIS Prime Power is very strong for finding the best horses in the race. The key is that the best horse doesn't always win. We have to find vulnerable horses when they exist and recognize the real deal when it exists. The factors most people use for vulnerable are actually indicators of the best horse. So, the public stays on the best horse. Generally, the fastest path to a vulnerable horse is the pace scenario. Admittedly, sometimes I pick a little loosely, but I question horses too deep into their form cycle and horses that are not distance specialists. Sometimes those work for me, sometimes they don't.
2. Most of the winners I see have good speed and/or pace figures unless the pace falls apart. The fact that there is a good jockey or trainer is just a natural correlation, but it isn't a mandatory thing. You'll usually get a better price if there's not a leading jock and/or trainer. I'm not good enough at dutching to address that.

Maybe we can give this topic a thread of its own in a few days.

I don't know how to directly put in a screenshot, but here is a file that shows a portion of the running lines of today's 4th race at CD for the winner, #1, Hawk of War. Hopefully I've done this correctly.

I'm thinking time and money. To build a program to look at factors in multiple ways and to run data in something 3-dimensional versus one horse at a time would take a lot of time and money. I don't think individual horseplayers have either. If they did, do they want to commit to that kind of investment. Finally, can you build something that will work and is profitable? — Jim Pommier

I'm not suggesting that you have to roll your own. When I get a chance, I will start a thread on a more modern approach. For now, I'll just say that today there are several sophisticated programs out there. And, Dave is about to release a new program. And, no, this is not intended to be a commercial for Dave. Just for the concept of a modern approach. I do know that Dave understands a lot about the data and the process, but I will let him sell his stuff.

How do these pp's look? post a screenshot! — Mark

I'm not trying to sell my PP's. I'm trying to convey that no matter how good they are, they are not enough. They're still looking at one horse at a time.

Ranchwest
It sounds like you have crafted a wonderfully efficient system that works well for you. Personally, I prefer the traditional PPs. They're all I've known over the years and I find it quite easy to separate the relevant from the irrelevant information ( if anything,they provide too much info) . — William Zayonce

The proof is in the pudding. If you are successful with PP's, that's what is important.

I think you are right about too much info. My worksheet has 28 columns and that includes 3 columns of odds, horse name and program #. While I do sometimes look at other data, the 28 columns are pretty much what I need to handicap a race. But there's a lot of computations behind the columns.

Slim, this is sounding to me like it may be a really good deal. You may want to see how this unfolds before concluding that it does not have value.

Just to clarify, when I make the elimination to closers, I already have a calculation for that, so I look at it as more of a filter than handicapping because I don't have to calculate or evaluate on the spot.

Working.

I am getting the same error.