Handicapping Magic

[delayjf]

Has anybody read "Handicapping Magic" by Mike Pizzolla yet? If so I'd be interested in here your opinions on his book. Personally, I found some validity to his approach but I also found fault with some of it as well. Here's my synopsis:

The four aspects of his approach outlined in the book I agree with and found enlightning were
1. The "fulcrum pace" or his estimate of what the pace of the race would be and attempting to determine how a horse will run to the fulcrum pace.
2. Adjusting the speed figure of a horse by its ability to run at or above the fulcrum pace.
3. His concept of Position handicapping.
4. His approach to turf races is simplistic but I've had success with a simular approach.

Here is were I disagree with him:

I feel he is dead wrong in his assertion that the Hambleton total pace ratings are the equvilant of "final time". Hambleton's ratings are basically sustained pace expressed by numerical ratings vice velocity fps ratings. The premise is the same, half the rating is derived from the second call, the other half from the final fraction. His assertion that second call time plus the final fraction equals final time is true, But only as it relates to the timing of the race. Not the computation of the Hambleton speed rating.

I was bewildered by his treatment of the final fraction. In his book Pizzolla said he was perplexed because he felt a horse would get a disproportionally higher velocity ratings for the final fraction if that same horse made up the ground he was behind at the second call. I make no claim to being a math wiz, but it seems to me that a horse that is behind by three lengths after running 4 furlongs, makes up that same distance in the next 2 furlongs (half the distance that he lost the ground in) he should get a disproportionally higher velocity rating because 3 lengths in four furlongs is not the same (proportionally) as 3 lengths in 2 furlongs. In other words what he lost in 4 furlongs, he made up in 2 furlongs. In another example, Pizzolla credited a horse with a final fraction rating of 26 2/5 seconds, after that same horse made up several lengths into a final fraction (race) of 26 seconds. For the life of me I don't see the logic of this approach.

Thoughts anybody?

[tbrown]

Delyjf,
I use the idea of fulcrum with the pace/speed numbers in HTR with some good results.
Adjustting the speed or performance number like this weeds out some bad horses that ran against a slow pace and won't today.
Also, I like to throw out horse that have never run well against the fulcrum. At tracks like FL with limited distances and surfaces, you have a lot of info on a horse at 5.5 or 6 furlongs on dirt.
The idea behind the 3rd fraction was explianed to me (by Mike at a Sartin Seminar) as the HUEY-Horses Ultimate Energy Yield. Basically, if a horse is behind by two units at the second call, he needs an advantage of four units in the 3rd fractin to win. This is best expressed in fps, so the velocity screen is good for this. I think deductin the beaten lengths at the 2nd call tries to simplify this.
The pace/speed figures was the bottom line of why I bought into HTR.

Tom

[delayjf]

tbrown,
Thanks for the reply, Interesting to hear that you've adopted the fulcrum pace concept in your handicapping as well as the adjustments he makes to the speed figures. As I read the book I felt that these were all valid concepts. I'm encouraged to hear from somebody who is making it work. I too used to be a part of the Sartin Group.
I also agree that a late running horse would need, using your example, 4 units of speed to overcome the two units he is behind at the second call. After all, he will be attempting to overcome a 2 unit deficiency created over 4 furlongs in a distance of only 2 furlongs. But as I read or understand his book, (again, I may be an idiot), if a horse does overcome the deficit, he feels that his last fraction velocity is distorted. Again, citing the example in his book, how can you assign a final fraction rating that is 2/5 seconds slower than the race final fraction when the horse made up ground (In this case I believe it was 2 lengths.) into that same final fraction. I apologize if this sounds confusing but I don't have the book in front of me. Basically (in his example, I think) the horse was 4 lengths behind at the half, gained 2 lengths into a final fraction of 26.0, and received a final fraction rating of 26.2. This is the part of his book that doesn't make sence to me. On a different note, I don't have a problem with his lack of a daily track varient, I personally believe in Cal, you can get away with it. If somebody out there has experience with varients in Cal (I don't) and has a different opinion, I'd love to hear it.
delayjf

[Glen]

I read the book and liked it until I had to try and apply all those principles. It takes 15 minutes to cap a race using his methods. If I need to spend 15 minutes to figure out what is going to happen, then the reality is I don't know what is going to happen. To me, if something just doesn't jump out at me within the first 1 minute of capping a race then I should skip it instead of trying to "reach".

If your a downloader of mulitple tracks, no need to spend 10 to 15 min. trying to handicap a single race. Time is money....and in todays simulcast world seems best to find your spots of opportunity.

Couple additonal thoughts.
Fulcrum pace sounds great. I like the idea but how many times have you all seen it not hold up....

Paced Balanced Speed: Sounds like a good idea, but can it be better than just using a speed fig? I dunno...

I do like his form cycle windows though for PL selection. Seems to make some sense...

[Victor]

I own the book. I own the Handicapping Magic program. I own The Essential Handicapper. I own The Master Handicapper. I now own a positive ROI and a Membership in HTR. I think the Pizzolla programs really don't do enough of the work to justify using them.

[hurrikane]

I read the book recently. Found it to be interesting. I also found it interesting that all of the examples in the book were deep chalk. I know these are just his examples but the problem I have with his approach is that all of the info he uses is right there in front of the publics eyes. That doesn't appear to be an advantage to me. His approach seems solid...but I think it picks a lot of chalk. That was the short experience I had with it. I do consider a fulcrum pace if I can't seem to weed out any dead wood anouther way. I use the turf info but have done that before the book.

[MtKen]

After I check for spot plays, if I'm going to be playing other races I stick mainly to the TVG tracks & actually try to handicap. I haven't read Pizzolla but the 1st thing I try to establish is the probable EP of the race. Then I judge how each contender has run against today's pace. If nothing else this points out races where the frontrunners are vulnerable. I assume this is something like a 'fulcrum'. Maybe those F3 #1's are good bets when there is an EP rabbit to set things up for them.