How we operate…<\/p>\n
It’s not a black box, though frequently it appears so. Whereas all the other handicapping commentators must get paid by the word (spoken or written) to fill time and space, we rather approach it the way a magician (or any other performer of apparent grace and ease) would do it: beneath the rhythm and sound lies all the meaning.<\/p>\n
Yea, verily, the oracle guiding us is not some mystical divination. In truth, plenty of research, hard work, skill, experience and expertise are present — just because you can’t see the reasoning or hear the rationale does not mean it is nonexistent!<\/p>\n
Really, anyone can share their opinion on any race or horse. (For proof, simply turn on the TV, open the racing papers or shuffle over to the racetrack or racebook!) But what shapes all those opinions? Guesswork, hunches, “I think”, “I hope”?<\/p>\n
Most mopes (and that includes many of the self-proclaimed experts!) have to settle on a limited set of information. For example, they focus on “how the race will unfold” or “this horse gets the lead and that horse will close to win at the wire”. How quaint!<\/p>\n
You, sir or madam, are above all that. We will show you a better way. Seventeen distinct factors go into the distillation of handicapping the Cynthia Publishing Company way, the All-In-One V6<\/a> way. Pace-and-speed measures, of course! Plus proprietary combinations thereof. Already you’re ahead of the curve. <\/p>\n Then throw in meaningful class-consistency, form-and-condition, trainer-jockey, track-and-post-bias measures and you have a powerful, comprehensive overview of each horse in each race. You’re way past the chattering classes and their “these two horses duel on the front-end and so a closer has to win”. Congratulations!<\/p>\n But what gives you the ultimate edge is knowing how all these 17 factors combine to determine the type of race you’re dealing with. As we continue on our handicapping journey and gain more and more practical experience, we become further and further convinced that it’s not<\/em> about the horseys; rather, we find it much more productive to comprehend the degree of sameness or difference between all the runners. We don’t have to fragment factors or outlooks; we know how to prioritize a good speed figure over a solid trainer-jockey combo, or vice-versa. No meaningful information gets ignored.<\/p>\n As we continue on our handicapping journey and gain more and more practical experience, we become further and further convinced that it’s not<\/em> about the horseys; rather, we find it much more productive to comprehend the degree of sameness or difference between all the runners.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From this wonderful compilation of disparate and eclectic factors comes the extent to which the runners in a race are the same (read: involved in a contentious race) or different (read: one or two standouts towering above the rest). To us, knowing this (and not the name of any single horse or paradigm of runner) is far more rewarding than picking the winner or visualizing how a race will turn out. <\/p>\n (Speaking of visualizing a race, how often does that turn out precisely the way the visualizer “saw” it? Now, when reality unfolds and something goes awry with said visualization, how quickly does the commentator suddenly quote a theretofore unmentioned trainer stat or prevailing track bias?! Pretty quick! Where were all these genius observations before post-time?!)<\/p>\n Once you start doing that thing, that sort of Monday Morning Handicapping, you will be unlikely to win over the long haul. How come? Because you will be forever looking at the past, trying to see which set of information came up with the winner, even though the now, the present, the reality of the next race is staring you in the face! <\/p>\n All that after-the-fact handicapping is inefficient. It’s taxing mentally and psychologically. You might feel like you’re “thinking” and learning a lesson, but you’re really just scrambling. Mopes and commentators who look at a race and “feel” they know which information is valuable in a race and which information is meaningless are usually just flying by the seat of their pants.<\/p>\n Truly, they have it bass-ackwards. Instead of finding the information set that matters in any given race, they really should be consistent in applying a varied and far-reaching information set unfailingly to each race, then determining the degree of opportunity that information set provides.<\/p>\n Truly, they have it bass-ackwards. Instead of finding the information set that matters in any given race, they really should be consistent in applying a varied and far-reaching information set unfailingly to each race, then determining the degree of opportunity that information set provides.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some races will have a standout. That’s like picking the winner. Other races will be all over the place. That’s like selecting the best bangtail for the buck, the proverbial “best bet for the odds”.<\/p>\n So, that’s how we do it. No black box. No divine oracle. Just a consistent application of 17 varied factors that help us determine the proability dynamic of any give race. Sometimes that given race uncovers a standout, sometimes it’s a longshot.<\/p>\n We prefer longshots — it’s in our DNA! — so we have to use our consistent information set to find races in which we’re not trying to defeat Spectacular Bid or Zenyatta Mondatta. Sometimes we get it right; sometimes not. <\/p>\n But, win, lose or pass, every time in every race, we have no stunning after-the-fact revelations to make, no expedient adjustments or insights. We leave that to the so-called experts whose egos require them to be “smart”. It just doesn’t serve us. We don’t need to be geniuses to the viewing audience. We are happy to apply the same 17 factors to each and every race and find the opportunities that emerge. No need to force the winners; we simply prefer to let the proper races come to us.<\/p>\n Have you ever tried to approach the races this way? Or do you like trying to hit a moving and elusive and slippery target? <\/p>\n Add a little structure and consistency to your outlook now. Here it is: <\/p>\n All-In-One V6<\/a><\/p>\n Same process with the Saratoga & Del Mar trainers, though with less black box and more wit, wisdom and words. Yea, verily, we can be just as verbose as the commentators! But only before the race! Here’s the link…<\/p>\n