one of the greatest things OUTSIDE of the methodology is how to wager, WHEN to wager......Something woefully left out over time.

As a handicapper the ideas of the methodology are without PEER, but that is just 50% of the challenge. There are few avenues of improvement offered on that side of the equation, always has been. Handicapping is not wagering and vice versa.

The entire concept of probability, the tricks of wagering options, betting points, take, tracking biases, etc etc, are homeless in the methodology, sadly enough. It takes evaluations OUTSIDE the boundaries of the taught basics to find out just WHEN and HOW to use the contenders outlined by segmental velocity evaluation.

Another, more subtle aspect of DECISIONS, are the inborn biases that dictate and bias truly OBJECTIVE evaluations of the same data by any two individuals. These are subtle, below consciousness and one must guard against them all the time.

One only has to read BLINK ( M. Gladwell) Thinking Fast Thinking Slow (Khaneman, Nobel prize winning economist), The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, by Leonard Mlodinow) or Strangers to Ourselves (Wilson) or The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to witness the subtle, yet domineering internal psychological blocks to our open decision making process.

One of the MOST egregious mistakes we all make to some degree is the Narrative Fallacy: weaving stories of cause and effect over FACTLESS observations and then accepting them a true when we just make up a story to fit what we THOUGHT happened.

A good one in this last category just happened last week. I was told that ARROGATE "exploded" by Chrome to which it noted that a gain of 3 lengths is merely a gain of 3 lenghts and showed several similar closing moves, just in claiming races. Interesting how the same move in a claiming race garners far less value than the same amount of ground made up in a grade one race. Same effect, but psychologically bolstered out of reality by the emotion of the situation at hand.

Money management and wagering is an important part of being a successful handicapper. However I don't know how one can put a specific % to it because if you don't have the correct horses its all for naught, game over and on to the next race.

The methodology has addressed this with the two horse bet and created an odds line. The Doc was addressing this as things evolved. Had he remained with us, who can say what else may have came about. He also discussed betting overlays, hiding horses etc.

The Bottom Line betting odds next to the BL Score is a tremendous tool for the handicapper to use. Of course if you put in a bad horse or non- contender than it will provide false readings. Another reason why contender selection is so important to master.

Theory verses experience are entirely two different things. Take a welder with 10 years experience verses someone that read a book on welding, well the book reader is going to lose to the experienced welder. Experience trumps theory. This is also similar to a college grad such as a West Pointer who upon entering the Army thinks he know more that some NCO's that have years of experience or a new cop verses one that's been one for years.

Betting and money management are critical to success however if you don't have the correct horses forget about it. Record keeping will help give a player the experience to evolve in both disciplines.

Mitch44

I agree with both Tim and Mitch on the money management part of the game. Tim is imo also correct that each of us tends to reach different conclusions as to the information we review in the pps. We all also have our quirks as to paceline selection such as using off track lines on a fast track or dirt or turf lines on the opposite surface today. Once one masters the basics of the Methodology they are free to use whatever approach they like. Additionally record keeping and experience figure in the equation. And like any other profession one must continue to be flexible and keep up with the changes in the game.
Tim G

Horses Horses Horses: ONCE you pass over to the wagering side, FORGET about horses...look for mismatched probabilities. THAT is the heart of the wager. The TWO sides of the EQUATION require different disciplines:Handicapping requires innovation, insight, original approaches while the wagering side can, or should be, almost as rigidly RULE based as an accountant.

DON'T LOOK for THE WINNER, only probabilities that several could be the winner or hit the board. Wait, watch the wagering, get an idea where to go ONLY if the crowd allows your selection(s) to be underbet.

Look for races that will soak up and distribute "rookie money" over a wider base so that your odds increase. That would mean staying away from fields of 7 or less. Remember YOUR payout only comes from backed money that did not hit the board. The more horses, the wider is the distribution of monies wagered.

Find races that YOUR data supports that the crowd does not, i.e. finding a track where sustained horses win sprints for example: (Assiniboia for one).

IF the logical favorite is the best, it is a good idea to just watch, OR, if you must wager, let that choice be the KEY to exotics and ride the coat-tails of that favorite. It is often amazing the exotic payoffs when an "odds on" horse runs third.

You have to change thinking when you move over to the wagering side of the equation.

Here's what I have stared to do in the last few days.
Print out and start to read the yellow manual.
Start listening to Tom Brohamer audio series.
Pick a track and build a track profile.
Start to apply what I have read and listened to.
Assess results, repeat steps 1 and 2, make adjustments!!

May I suggest you also start a track model in conjunction with your track profile. They are 2 distinct tools to use. The model is based on your hanicapping from pps while the profile is based on result charts. I would also recommend reading the later issues of the followups that Ted has outlined. Take your time.
Tim G

Thanks Tim
Yep, I am also going to start a model and i would appreciate your ideas as to what to include.
When I first started with rdss Ted advised me what to read, and I did read the follow ups and parts of the yellow manual. When I first started to use the software I think I was overwhelmed with all the data and did not have any structure to my capping. this is my attempt to simplify things and get back to basics.
The other thing I haven't done is ask enough questions, because I know there are a lot of great people on this site that are willing to help.

Thanks again for your help!!

Tom

Tom models usually consist of the factors that the person keeping them feels is important for them to monitor. I myself limit my models to the rankings of the winner in EP,LP,CPR,VDC.and %MED. Others will track TPR ranking, some will add TE and still others will add TT and BL/BL rankings. I would suggest listening to the tape on the Brohamer model. In other words you determine what to model but I believe making it complicated with too many factors is counterproductive. Hope this helps. Feel free to send me a PM anytime you want.

Tim

Hi Tim
What if the winner is not one of my top contenders, do I still put it in the model?

Tom