The HANA get in the pool race for tomorrow is race 3, a 5k Claimer for non-winners of 2 lifetime. I think Mark Cramer would call this a lesser of evils race, but there could be some overlap into the contentious race category as the field certainly seems evenly matched. Remember the idea is to flood the exacta pool in this race so put your thinking caps on.
And speaking of my favorite authors. J. J. Tuttle continues to trash my review on Amazon while I continue to report positively on a handicapping angle he made a special effort to point out to me. Namely play the longest shot in the short field a short field defined as seven or fewer.
Now, forgive my tardiness in reporting this bomb, but as I said, I was distracted and under the weather last week and not really keeping up with the racing world. However, racing went on without me, and on April 9th at Gulfstream Park the 2nd race saw a 67.9 to 1 shot wire the field.
Having now updated my spreadsheet the tally is as follows. For the Gulfstream 2009 season to date there have been 176 races with 7 or fewer runners. 10 of those races were won by the longest shot in the field. 10/176 = a 5.68% hit rate and more importantly, a $2 investment on each wager totaling $352.00 would've yielded $537.80 or $0.53 for every $1 wagered. With, I think, 8 racing days left in the season it seems safe to declare this a winning angle for Gulfstream Park 2009.
I have begun tracking Woodbine, since I like watching the little chiclets run around and will follow my home track of Calder when it starts up to see if this continues to be a profitable angle. So far, after 13 qualifying races at Woodbine, there have been no winners, but it's still early.
"May the horse be with you."
Showing posts with label Joseph J. Tuttle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph J. Tuttle. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Handicapping Questions
Here's a poser for you. The first race Saturday at Gulfstream Park will pit 3 year old Maidens against their old brethren. Therefore the question, can 3 year olds compete with 4 year olds this time of year? Now, in case you're wondering, the older horses are spotting their juniors 8 pounds. But what to look for? Well this is going to be a time when saving all those results charts is going to help.
The first race today was at a mile and eighth for 3 and up fillies and mares. This race was won by a 3 yo with a 4yo finishing 2nd and another 3 yo up for the show.
The fifth race was a similar for the other gender. This time won by a 4 yo with a 3yo 2nd and a 5yo gelding 3rd. Hmmm. Does 8 or 9 pounds really mean that much? I may have to reexamine some of my beliefs here.
I should point out that in both of these races, the 3 year olds seemed to have the post position advantages with the inside posts being very advantageous at this distance on Gulfstreams dirt track. The fifth race was run by a horse coming out of the 7 hole which is the farthest out I will even consider for win contention at this distance, unless your name is Big Brown.
There was a 5.5 furlong sprint on the 11th for fillies and mares where the 4 yo's had their way with the younger crowd. Maybe distance is important. After all carrying all that extra weight would seem to take it's toll nearer the end than the beginning.
On March 6th a 7 furlong race for 3 and up claimers N2L was carded but there were no 3 year old takers, and the same again on March 4. So it seems that trainers will throw their 3 yo maidens out there against older maidens, but not against winners.
A limited sample, I admit. But I think I have to give the edge to the older horses on Saturday going a mile. Neither of the contending 4 year olds are breaking from an inside post, which has been a disadvantage for the GP mile.
Now for an update on the short field long price theory. Just to remind you, it has been suggested that playing the longest priced horse in a field of 7 or fewer can be a successful betting angle. In today's 4th race there was just such a winner as Storm Slew crossed the wire first paying a hefty $68.00 on a $2.00 wager for a 33-1 winner.
I have not been able to add to the count from my Calder charts due to a heavier than normal work load. I have been able to keep up with the progress at Gulfstream Park. To date for the meet this angle has won 6 times in 80 opportunities for a 7.5% hit rate. However, with an average winning mutual of 33.4-1 you would have gained a $1.15 for every dollar wagered. That's not too shabby so long as you have the patience to wait through the dry spells. The last winning wager using this angle at GP came on Feb. 22. Thirty-two wagers ago.
I still wonder if this angle would hold true for most tracks or are some tracks more amenable than others to this angle. That's why I'd really love to dig into the Calder charts, but I just haven't had the time to process the data.
Maybe I'll have to eat some crow and retract my assessment of Mr. J. J. Tuttle. But not yet.
The first race today was at a mile and eighth for 3 and up fillies and mares. This race was won by a 3 yo with a 4yo finishing 2nd and another 3 yo up for the show.
The fifth race was a similar for the other gender. This time won by a 4 yo with a 3yo 2nd and a 5yo gelding 3rd. Hmmm. Does 8 or 9 pounds really mean that much? I may have to reexamine some of my beliefs here.
I should point out that in both of these races, the 3 year olds seemed to have the post position advantages with the inside posts being very advantageous at this distance on Gulfstreams dirt track. The fifth race was run by a horse coming out of the 7 hole which is the farthest out I will even consider for win contention at this distance, unless your name is Big Brown.
There was a 5.5 furlong sprint on the 11th for fillies and mares where the 4 yo's had their way with the younger crowd. Maybe distance is important. After all carrying all that extra weight would seem to take it's toll nearer the end than the beginning.
On March 6th a 7 furlong race for 3 and up claimers N2L was carded but there were no 3 year old takers, and the same again on March 4. So it seems that trainers will throw their 3 yo maidens out there against older maidens, but not against winners.
A limited sample, I admit. But I think I have to give the edge to the older horses on Saturday going a mile. Neither of the contending 4 year olds are breaking from an inside post, which has been a disadvantage for the GP mile.
Now for an update on the short field long price theory. Just to remind you, it has been suggested that playing the longest priced horse in a field of 7 or fewer can be a successful betting angle. In today's 4th race there was just such a winner as Storm Slew crossed the wire first paying a hefty $68.00 on a $2.00 wager for a 33-1 winner.
I have not been able to add to the count from my Calder charts due to a heavier than normal work load. I have been able to keep up with the progress at Gulfstream Park. To date for the meet this angle has won 6 times in 80 opportunities for a 7.5% hit rate. However, with an average winning mutual of 33.4-1 you would have gained a $1.15 for every dollar wagered. That's not too shabby so long as you have the patience to wait through the dry spells. The last winning wager using this angle at GP came on Feb. 22. Thirty-two wagers ago.
I still wonder if this angle would hold true for most tracks or are some tracks more amenable than others to this angle. That's why I'd really love to dig into the Calder charts, but I just haven't had the time to process the data.
Maybe I'll have to eat some crow and retract my assessment of Mr. J. J. Tuttle. But not yet.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Equal Time
A post or two ago I posted a review of Joseph J. Tuttle's book,"The Tuttle Way: Applied Methodologies On "How To" Interpret The Racing Form From A Winning Horseplayer". I also posted the same review on Amazon.
Now I have no desire to get into an internet shouting match, but I would like for you to read the authors response to my review. I'll let you, dear reader, be the judge.
joseph tuttle says:
Sir,
Evidently, you don't very much care that you're my only 1-star review; you only feel this insatiable need to "be heard"!!! Even though the long-winded nature of your review absolutely screams "COMPETITOR", or at the very least a friend of one. This is still America, and you're entitled to your opinion. But, that good sir is pretty pathetic, in my humble opinion. Have you even tried to put my methodologies to work? There's a very old saying professor...."Don't knock it, until you try it!" I make quite the comfortable living wagering on horses and/or sports. And, I've done so for almost 17 years! Go to www.thetuttleway.com to see my immense 152IQ at work, or to see that my #1 strength is my accessibility.
Below, is my home phone number, I would be more than happy to help you understand any/all of my theorems.
One more thing..... YOUR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS ARE QUITE LACKING!!!!! I said that 90% of horses "switch leads" instinctively, OUT OF NECESSITY! The ones that are able to do it "on command" are the classy ones. You literally reworded my text, and on the basis of that alone I could have your review removed, but I won't.....BECAUSE, I HAVE CLASS!!!!!
Phone no. removed to protect Mr. Tuttle's privacy....Feel free to call me, if you dare, since you're also in Florida!
p.s. My Father was a harness horseman (primarilly), and died at age 83 in June of 2005. He wasn't famous, at all, and I certainly would hope that you might not be able to find anything on him, at google.
Signed,
Joseph J Tuttle
Now, the interesting thing is, I have twice spoken by telephone with Mr. Tuttle and he has since sent me about 5 of his books by PDF file. Actually, Mr. Tuttle was quite genial over the phone and it was a pleasure discussing his books and ideas. I look forward to many more meetings of mind with Mr. Tuttle.
Now I have no desire to get into an internet shouting match, but I would like for you to read the authors response to my review. I'll let you, dear reader, be the judge.
joseph tuttle says:
Sir,
Evidently, you don't very much care that you're my only 1-star review; you only feel this insatiable need to "be heard"!!! Even though the long-winded nature of your review absolutely screams "COMPETITOR", or at the very least a friend of one. This is still America, and you're entitled to your opinion. But, that good sir is pretty pathetic, in my humble opinion. Have you even tried to put my methodologies to work? There's a very old saying professor...."Don't knock it, until you try it!" I make quite the comfortable living wagering on horses and/or sports. And, I've done so for almost 17 years! Go to www.thetuttleway.com to see my immense 152IQ at work, or to see that my #1 strength is my accessibility.
Below, is my home phone number, I would be more than happy to help you understand any/all of my theorems.
One more thing..... YOUR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS ARE QUITE LACKING!!!!! I said that 90% of horses "switch leads" instinctively, OUT OF NECESSITY! The ones that are able to do it "on command" are the classy ones. You literally reworded my text, and on the basis of that alone I could have your review removed, but I won't.....BECAUSE, I HAVE CLASS!!!!!
Phone no. removed to protect Mr. Tuttle's privacy....Feel free to call me, if you dare, since you're also in Florida!
p.s. My Father was a harness horseman (primarilly), and died at age 83 in June of 2005. He wasn't famous, at all, and I certainly would hope that you might not be able to find anything on him, at google.
Signed,
Joseph J Tuttle
Now, the interesting thing is, I have twice spoken by telephone with Mr. Tuttle and he has since sent me about 5 of his books by PDF file. Actually, Mr. Tuttle was quite genial over the phone and it was a pleasure discussing his books and ideas. I look forward to many more meetings of mind with Mr. Tuttle.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Book Review!!!
Since I've finished with the Thursday past performances for Fair Grounds and Golden Gate Fields and the Saturday Gulfstream Park PP's are not yet available, I have a little time for another adventure into the world of book reviews.
But first, you will notice a little addition on the left side of the page. I occasionally offer opinions on the outcome of races and decided, in the interest of full disclosure, you the reader should know how much my opinion is worth.
Now, if I may toot my own horn, I told you I love to play the Fair Grounds and came through with two winners out of three races. Out at Santa Anita, I didn't fare so well. I, like many others I've come to learn, thought I could beat Cowboy Cal. Well, I didn't, so sue me. No wait a minute, don't do that!
Todd Pletcher is one of the more confounding big name trainers for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Todd. He even posed for my wife at Gulfstream a couple of weeks ago. That picture is in a previous edition. However, it seems I'm always on the wrong side of the bet when it comes to Mr. Pletcher. If I try to beat him, he wins. If I jump on his band wagon, he's up the track and out of the money. Do you have anyone like that? Of course you do.
Now on to the review.
Today I take a critical look at "The Tuttle Way: Applied Methodologies On "How To" Interpret The Racing Form From A Winning Horseplayer" by Joseph J. Tuttle
In the beginning of the book, Mr. Tuttle seeks to establish is bona fides as a horseman by informing us his father, Seymour Tuttle, was involved in the training of horses. Naturally, I promptly did a Google search which came up empty. It's not that I can't take Mr. Tuttle's word for it, but his credibility would be bolstered if I could have found some reference to a Seymour Tuttle within, say the first 5 or 6 pages of 19,900 results. No, I did not go through all 19,900 results, but you may feel free to, if you must.
The 172 page paper-back consists of mostly large type face, which is easy on the eyes. It's also easy on a writer that really doesn't have much to say.
He opens with a brief history of the Daily Racing Form and dwells a lot on the unreliability of Beyer's figures before finally admitting that he does use them. This in itself is not so bad. I agree that Beyer's figures sort of need to be taken in context of class and pace.
Then we come to something I find particularly off-putting as Mr. Tuttle makes the claim that 81% of all races are won by horses that have had 29 to 119 days off. Is this really true? It may well be, but I'm a scientist by profession, so my first question is "What is the source of this data and how was it derived?" Alas there is no answer to this query. The reader is supposed to simply accept this number on faith. He does allow for exceptions such as the Preakness about which he writes,” You can count the number of Preakness winners on one hand, which won that race after skipping the Kentucky Derby, over the past twenty-five years." Note the excessive use of commas in that sentence is the writers.
He tells us a main characteristic of a horse with "class" is the ability to switch leads and that 90% of all horses switch leads instinctively. I know. A wild statistic thrown about with no validation. However, the real issue is, if 90% of all horses do this instinctively, does this mean that 90% of all horses are classy? That's sort of like saying 90% of all people are extraordinary. If 90% of all people are extraordinary, then that is the norm. Rather ordinary I'd say.
Now this is where the writer really loses me as we move into what I refer to as the,"Old wives tales." section of the book. And we're only on page 22. Watch out for those horses with 4 white socks as they are more likely to turn up lame. More prevalent among younger horses according to the author. Horses with prominent,"Blazes and Stars" on their faces will show or have a lot of front-running speed. Mr. Tuttle tells us that many prominent horseman hold to this belief; however, he neglects to name names. I'll have to ask Mr. Pletcher about this the next time I see him at Gulfstream. Oh yeah, I should add this, and you get this for free, always bet grey horses on grey days. That's a sure winning angle...Puhleeze.
Ahem, excuse my sarcasm.
Now in a portion of the book headed as (The Comment Line), Mr. Tuttle says he puts high value on the comment line because it tells you much about the company the horse has been keeping. Then, tangentially, moves onto video tape analysis and some sort of esoteric calculation involving how many horses a horse passes on average per race. I'm telling you, the book is full these rambling sort of right angle turns with no rhyme or reason.
I asked my wife, a natural handicapper in her own right (if only we could merge my analytical nature with her intuitive sense of body language of both people and horses, we'd be unstoppable), to read the 4 page section on "The Comment Line" and tell me what she learned about "The Comment Line". "Nothing", was her answer.
Chapter 3
We learn about his "universal" number, 20. We learn how to use this magical universal number to make the flawed DRF speed figure and track variant better through the use of a seemingly arbitrary constant. Why not seven? Much luckier than 20. Or three? Holy Trinity and all that. I guess Pi would be out of the question since it’s a non-repeating number, how would we know where to stop? Then we take this number and add it to the Beyer's number and divide the sum by 2 and, voila!, we have a new and improved speed figure. I think not.
Enough of this. The remainder of the book is full of similar nonsense and non-validated percentages and general arbitrariness all written in a very disorganized manner. I cannot bear to go on. Suffice it to say I give Mr. Tuttle's effort a firm up the track and out of the money rating. Save your money and pass this book.
I buy these books because I can't help myself. Use my addiction to your benefit and stay as far away from this book.
FYI. In the Jan/Feb issue of the Horseplayer Magazine there is a nice article by Prentice Manetter on playing the pick four. Since I sort of panned his book in my last review, I thought I'd at least give credit where credit is due.
But first, you will notice a little addition on the left side of the page. I occasionally offer opinions on the outcome of races and decided, in the interest of full disclosure, you the reader should know how much my opinion is worth.
Now, if I may toot my own horn, I told you I love to play the Fair Grounds and came through with two winners out of three races. Out at Santa Anita, I didn't fare so well. I, like many others I've come to learn, thought I could beat Cowboy Cal. Well, I didn't, so sue me. No wait a minute, don't do that!
Todd Pletcher is one of the more confounding big name trainers for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Todd. He even posed for my wife at Gulfstream a couple of weeks ago. That picture is in a previous edition. However, it seems I'm always on the wrong side of the bet when it comes to Mr. Pletcher. If I try to beat him, he wins. If I jump on his band wagon, he's up the track and out of the money. Do you have anyone like that? Of course you do.
Now on to the review.
Today I take a critical look at "The Tuttle Way: Applied Methodologies On "How To" Interpret The Racing Form From A Winning Horseplayer" by Joseph J. Tuttle
In the beginning of the book, Mr. Tuttle seeks to establish is bona fides as a horseman by informing us his father, Seymour Tuttle, was involved in the training of horses. Naturally, I promptly did a Google search which came up empty. It's not that I can't take Mr. Tuttle's word for it, but his credibility would be bolstered if I could have found some reference to a Seymour Tuttle within, say the first 5 or 6 pages of 19,900 results. No, I did not go through all 19,900 results, but you may feel free to, if you must.
The 172 page paper-back consists of mostly large type face, which is easy on the eyes. It's also easy on a writer that really doesn't have much to say.
He opens with a brief history of the Daily Racing Form and dwells a lot on the unreliability of Beyer's figures before finally admitting that he does use them. This in itself is not so bad. I agree that Beyer's figures sort of need to be taken in context of class and pace.
Then we come to something I find particularly off-putting as Mr. Tuttle makes the claim that 81% of all races are won by horses that have had 29 to 119 days off. Is this really true? It may well be, but I'm a scientist by profession, so my first question is "What is the source of this data and how was it derived?" Alas there is no answer to this query. The reader is supposed to simply accept this number on faith. He does allow for exceptions such as the Preakness about which he writes,” You can count the number of Preakness winners on one hand, which won that race after skipping the Kentucky Derby, over the past twenty-five years." Note the excessive use of commas in that sentence is the writers.
He tells us a main characteristic of a horse with "class" is the ability to switch leads and that 90% of all horses switch leads instinctively. I know. A wild statistic thrown about with no validation. However, the real issue is, if 90% of all horses do this instinctively, does this mean that 90% of all horses are classy? That's sort of like saying 90% of all people are extraordinary. If 90% of all people are extraordinary, then that is the norm. Rather ordinary I'd say.
Now this is where the writer really loses me as we move into what I refer to as the,"Old wives tales." section of the book. And we're only on page 22. Watch out for those horses with 4 white socks as they are more likely to turn up lame. More prevalent among younger horses according to the author. Horses with prominent,"Blazes and Stars" on their faces will show or have a lot of front-running speed. Mr. Tuttle tells us that many prominent horseman hold to this belief; however, he neglects to name names. I'll have to ask Mr. Pletcher about this the next time I see him at Gulfstream. Oh yeah, I should add this, and you get this for free, always bet grey horses on grey days. That's a sure winning angle...Puhleeze.
Ahem, excuse my sarcasm.
Now in a portion of the book headed as (The Comment Line), Mr. Tuttle says he puts high value on the comment line because it tells you much about the company the horse has been keeping. Then, tangentially, moves onto video tape analysis and some sort of esoteric calculation involving how many horses a horse passes on average per race. I'm telling you, the book is full these rambling sort of right angle turns with no rhyme or reason.
I asked my wife, a natural handicapper in her own right (if only we could merge my analytical nature with her intuitive sense of body language of both people and horses, we'd be unstoppable), to read the 4 page section on "The Comment Line" and tell me what she learned about "The Comment Line". "Nothing", was her answer.
Chapter 3
We learn about his "universal" number, 20. We learn how to use this magical universal number to make the flawed DRF speed figure and track variant better through the use of a seemingly arbitrary constant. Why not seven? Much luckier than 20. Or three? Holy Trinity and all that. I guess Pi would be out of the question since it’s a non-repeating number, how would we know where to stop? Then we take this number and add it to the Beyer's number and divide the sum by 2 and, voila!, we have a new and improved speed figure. I think not.
Enough of this. The remainder of the book is full of similar nonsense and non-validated percentages and general arbitrariness all written in a very disorganized manner. I cannot bear to go on. Suffice it to say I give Mr. Tuttle's effort a firm up the track and out of the money rating. Save your money and pass this book.
I buy these books because I can't help myself. Use my addiction to your benefit and stay as far away from this book.
FYI. In the Jan/Feb issue of the Horseplayer Magazine there is a nice article by Prentice Manetter on playing the pick four. Since I sort of panned his book in my last review, I thought I'd at least give credit where credit is due.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
