6/6 (BEL): Gr. II Brooklyn; Gr. III Hill Prince

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It makes sense.....and it's also about as bad a piece of advice as one can give.

Think that depends on who you are giving the advice too. If it's someone fairly new, yeah, it's not the best advice. But I would never tell you that I think you need to see pp's first. I'm going to assume that you already know the horses and have seen the majority of their races.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Think that depends on who you are giving the advice too. If it's someone fairly new, yeah, it's not the best advice. But I would never tell you that I think you need to see pp's first. I'm going to assume that you already know the horses and have seen the majority of their races.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I specifically disagree with this. One of the biggest problems almost everyone faces is personal bias and preconceptions about horses. There is a certain purity to seeing the pps for any race laid out in front of you and the best way to understand a race clearly is to analyze it evenly by working off the pps.

Horse racing is mostly nuance and not often obvious. If you don't take apart the pps for any race you eliminate the opportunity to see the nuances and thus remove the possibility of truly understanding the race.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I specifically disagree with this. One of the biggest problems almost everyone faces is personal bias and preconceptions about horses. There is a certain purity to seeing the pps for any race laid out in front of you and the best way to understand a race clearly is to analyze it evenly by working off the pps.

Horse racing is mostly nuance and not often obvious. If you don't take apart the pps for any race you eliminate the opportunity to see the nuances and thus remove the possibility of truly understanding the race.

I couldn't agree more. It is a big reason why I laugh at these "horses to watch" lists and the such.

I purposely try to avoid remembering the names of horses. They are the 3, or the 5, or whatever, and I look at them fresh and compare them to the other horses running against said horse TODAY. Of course with the top horses, you'll remember some things, but even then it is best to avoid any preconceptions.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I couldn't agree more.

I purposely try to avoid remembering the names of horses. They are the 3, or the 5, or whatever, and I look at them fresh and compare them to the other horses running against said horse TODAY. Of course with the top horses, you'll remember some things, but even then it is best to avoid any preconceptions.

This actually gets me in trouble when I do shows about races....I honestly don't know a lot of horses' names. It's not a problem when it's a simple name but when it's the least bit complicated, and I haven't learned it, I end up embarrassing myself.

I have the same problem with jockeys, as I never know who's riding the horses I like and/or bet, as pretty much I consider them as important to my handicapping as the horses' names.

[the_fat_man]

PPs as presently presented are outdated. Is looking at each horse's races individually the best way to go? I mean, where's the important part, the CONTEXT of the race. And, as most handicappers are 'numbers' oriented, I don't expect things to change much in the near future. To me, they're basically useless.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

PPs as presently presented are outdated. Is looking at each horse's races individually the best way to go? I mean, where's the important part, the CONTEXT of the race. And, as most handicappers are 'numbers' oriented, I don't expect things to change much in the near future. To me, they're basically useless.

They're basically just a reference point. You use them to know where to go to disect a horse's races.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

They're basically just a reference point. You use them to know where to go to disect a horse's races.

Here's a suggestion for DRF (or any of the data providers); and this applies only for the ONLINE version:

combine a graphical history of each horse's races with other relevant textual data (workouts, breeding, etc.)

I know I'd buy something like this (assuming the data would be just a bit more accurate, of course)

This would, among other things, let us actually see the 'form cycle' of horses that all the numbers guys are constantly referring to.

This would go a long way towards 'revolutionizing' handicapping.