Everybody can win TrackSideEye - For the off-track bettor Ability-X - The rating with meaning. |
|||
Hi, I'm Jon Luman
"Obviously, with everyone still looking for answers, handicapping is not providing much. "I said that. |
|||
Physicality - The other half of the game.
|
My interest in horse racing started in 1977, and it took about 4 years for me to learn that much. Through the '80's, I learned how to consistently bet the right horse through discipline and conservatism. Although the root of my analysis method has changed in recent years, I still find that this is the way to apply it to betting situations. I had the opportunity, early on, to learn from a master horseplayer, Chuck Berndt, and his lessons still ring true today. Note;
I was schooled in S. Florida at Calder, Gulfstream Park, and Hialeah. Where I got experience in dealing with every possible situation that can arise in thoroughbred racing, and effectively analyzing the effects on the outcome. Keeping it simple, and being conservative was the cornerstone that Chuck pointed out to me, and I have built on that ever since. While Beyer and Sartin popularized the complexities of speed and pace, I kept winning by expanding an understanding of ability and physicality in my game. The two basics that simply provide consistent results in a game that is believed to have a tilt-a-whirl nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. I guess since the complexities of class, speed, and pace handicapping were so well spoken for, I became an ability analyst, figuring that was simply what everyone was after anyway. And, the thing that is the object of measurement anyway. It seemed kind of silly to me that everybody got so busy measuring everything else, with the assumption that ability could be quantified by measuring everthing else to within .5 of a micron. 30 years later, it only seems sillier, since the average win mutuel paid is still around 4 - 1. In 1978, I placed a small wager on Exceller to win the Jockey Club Gold Cup that year, as the 4-1 underdog, Exceller defeated two Triple Crown champions on that day. Affirmed and Seattle Slew. 29 years later, as I collected on another 4-1 underdog named Curlin, I thought for a moment about how far the art/science of past performance handicapping has come. I promoted simplicity with my 1982 book, "Racing Facts", but it never caught on, complexity seems to have a vast appeal to those who buy books. And, back then, speed and pace handicapping with a racing form and a red ink pen was very complex, when I could get just as much reliable data by watching the warm-ups for 5 minutes. My book was rated a 6 and 1/2 by Phillips Racing Newsletter, and that was back when nobody ever got a 9. I remained an ability analyst, expanding the simple ways to determine ability for many years. In doing that for so many years, I have recently discovered that ability can be measured and rated consistently without getting sidetracked into numerous complex and subjective variables. A move north to Tennessee, forced me to learn new tricks. For the most part, I became an off-track bettor, and many of my simply effective on-track methods became unavailable. I had to learn how to get ability out of past performances only, where it is hidden well, more often then not. The greatest thing I had learned from Chuck Berndt, was how to get the answers for two questions straight from the trainer, without ever talking to him or her. The two questions - "Does your horse have the ability to win today?", if answered with yes, followed by, "Will you make the maximum effort to win today?" The problem became, how to get a reliable answer to the first question, off-track. The second question can still be answered from the track video stream. Being denied the trainers report on his/her horses ability for today's race, I had to replace it with an accurate and reliable measurement from past performances. Seemingly, a daunting task, but my experience helped me, because I knew going in that class, speed, and pace are flawed as the basis of an accurate measurement of overall ability. That statement always gets me a lot of "how dare you's" from the crowd that says winning at the races takes a lot of hard work, and past performance handicapping. But, the past performance handicappers have been working awfully hard, just to come up with betting more on the already overbet favorite 7 out of 10 times. After all the hard work, they are out in left field the other 3 times. And the average win payoff is still around 4-1. Sorry, but horseracing just isn't that complicated. It never was, past performance handicapping complicates it beyond solution. Chuck Berndt knew that, and he inspired me with that fact. Just consider that in the 1880's, the top 3 morning line choices won over 80% of all races run. Then came 116 years of past performance handicapping, now that percentage is around 70%. Past performance handicapping has sold a lot of over-priced newspapers, and little else, while it is a total failure in teaching anyone the realities of horse racing. Anyone can win at this game, my Ability-X Ratings & TrackSideEye service proves it everyday, all over the country. It took a couple of years, but I find that Ability-X, is the most accurate measurement of overall ability that could be made. It is good enough that I will not tell anyone how the rating is made. But, it has taught me a great deal more about horse racing, and the ratings can do the same for you. That is in addition to giving you a clear picture of ability for any race on the card. Chuck Berndt was never welcomed into the club of media types that pitch you on over-priced newspapers in the guise of fan "education". But, his unselfish contributions to horse racing will long be remembered. He was also too kind to those book writers and newspaper salesmen that always withheld recognition of his genius, by just saying, "they just don't know." The truth is that they do know, at least that they would rather sell you information
than to teach you how to play the best game on the planet. Jon D. Luman |
||
