What really matters?

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I need some guidance from you gurus here. I have been using Sartin Methodology since 2003, following this forum for nearly 10 years, and even had the RDSS software installed on my old Windows laptop a while back. I know there are some discrepancies with the program for Apple users, which is what I use now, so I had to create my own "Sartin" program from scratch using the Numbers program.

Anyways, long story short, but what factors and/or formulas really matter in deducing down probable contenders? I obviously have the classic EP, AP, SP, TT, FX, TTL, and E%, but I would like to add more to it, if possible. Are there certain factors that matter more at specific distances and/or surfaces? I am just getting back into the game, ironically it happened on Breeders' Cup weekend, and I am itching to go forward again.

I appreciate any insight, suggestions, and help you can offer me. Thank you so much!

-Laura

[Bill V.]

I would say, Make sure you have viable true contenders first

then since you have a EP, AP, SP, TT, FX, rating make a line score of these
readouts then eliminate to your top 4 or 5 and the top 4 or 5 total energy (if you have it )



I would read a follow FTL's guidelines
for contenders

Good Skill
Bill

[Jeebs]

I would say, Make sure you have viable true contenders first

then since you have a EP, AP, SP, TT, FX, rating make a line score of these
readouts then eliminate to your top 4 or 5 and the top 4 or 5 total energy (if you have it )



I would read a follow FTL's guidelines
for contenders

Good Skill
Bill

As Bill said, TRUE contenders come first. The horses that CAN win. You’re not necessarily handicapping the most likely winners, but the most likely losers before moving on to who is left (the likely winners) if that makes sense?

Once you have your “winning” horses, see where they rate in relation to odds. This is where a line score like BL/BL, the new RX or a traditional line score of factors is important.

Read FTL, but read other people’s posts too. The “LASST” technique (which FTL more or less uses in his guidelines plus the ML and layoff requirements) will often leave you with the last line and more obvious runners - some of which are overlooked prices due to other factors, while a BLT/C or Pizzolla “Two Excuse Form cycle window” strategy will open up a horse’s history, and increase your chance of finding horses with hidden merit.

Lastly, be consistent.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Thank you for the responses on where to look etc...

Now what line(s) do you use, and how far back do you go? Is going by the last two performances a better barometer of current form? Or do you stick strictly with the last line? Or do you find the last winning line? That is where it becomes tricky.

[Mitch44]

This is an area where you'll find great disagreement based on the individual user.


I would suggest you follow "Doc" Sartin guideline of using the best line of the last 3 at a similar distance and surface. The key word there is SIMILIAR which may take you to line 4,5 or further back. For distance stay preferably within 1/2 F and no more than 1 F. Surface should be obvious E.g. don't mix turf lines and dirt lines etc. Pick a line in which the surface & distance matches today's conditions of the race. Of those 3 qualified lines I use the best Preceptor to choose a line. Now this will cover most situations and for those exceptions to that guidance; experience, good judgement and treating all horses the same will serve you well.

A specific example or situation can be posted for further guidance.

Read the recommended Follow Ups for more basic guidance.

Good skill,
Mitch44

[For The Lead]

The “LAST” technique, as it was called above, is not a technique of FTL’s making. It is Dr. Howard Sartin’s original guidelines. FTL just added a ML elimination and a DAYS OFF elimination. The thing about the original guidelines is that they were never broken, so why fix them?

As it turns out someone just sent me a screen shot from RDSS. As you can see, it is a recent race from DMR on 11.2.17. You will notice there are only two contenders and the last line was used on both. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but a $75.80 winner right off the last line will always be alright as far as I am concerned.
44937

If I posted 1,000 races showing very large mutuals from winners where the last line was the line used, there would still be those who would decry its’ worthiness. I find it amazing.

I want to make this as clear as I can. The original line selection guidelines DID NOT SAY “always use the last line no matter what”. THAT IS A MYTH.
Let me put what it said in its’ proper context. “AS LONG AS THE LAST LINE IS A “+” OR A “(+)” RACE... USE IT. IF IT IS NOT A “+” OR “(+)” AND THERE IS A LEGITIMATE EXCUSE FOR THE POOR RACE, THEN GO BACK ONE LINE AND START OVER AGAIN.”
If you are wondering what a “legitimate excuse” is, things such as wrong distance, wrong surface, class too high (to include wrong or too high condition) are among the most common legitimate excuses.
Now let me show you something Doc wrote after he switched to “best of last three distance/surface”.
44938


Let me repeat that.
“THEY FAIL TO NOTE THE LINES USED FOR ALL CONTENDERS AND HOW TRULY RARE IT IS WHEN WE WENT BACK MORE THAN 3 LINES.”
For some reason, people fail to notice that using the original guidelines you will also get back to line 2 or line 3.

I will never understand the obsession with “opening up” the PP’s. The further back you go for a line the less reliable it is today.
In addition, how “consistent” will your line selection be when you are hunting all over the place for a line?
Will you follow the very same procedure in the next race you look at?

All I'll say is, choose the path you feel is best for you.

[Lt1]

I agree with what Mitch has posted. In most cases you will find that you will be within the top 3 lines. Doc suggested that you stay within the top 5 lines since going further back gets you in the realm of dealing with an entirely different animal. That's not to say there aren't certain times that going back more then 5 is justified but those are rare indeed. The more races you handicap the more your decision process will improve to the point when you will know when to go back more then 3. You can find the Docs, updated views on paceline selction in Followup #81 in the Editors section.
Tim

[Bill V.]

I prefer ( when of sound mind) not heavy medicated :)
to pick the best TPR rating from the last 3 comparable races starting with line 1
But now I am forced to use the best of last three speed ratings or now perceptor and not go back more than 4 lines

My ROi and hit rate is the same what ever way I use

Doc's advice is to use the best speed rating of the last 3 or 4 when a
non comparable line is one of the first 3 lines

He write in the very same follow up (81)
That he will go to the 3rd line when a horses last two races are not useable
because of bad efforts But he shows no example

What FTL is teaching is if the last line is not one of the horse best efforts
in perceptor, or high speed rating It should will always have a valid excuse
If it does not have a valid excuse than that horse is a non contender
(in most races )


from the Doc.

44939
44940
44942
44941
44943

[Bill V.]

Here is a breakdown of which paceline of the last 3 my winners came from.
My sample is 542 races using the default settings and auto selecting the
best of the last 3 perceptor from RDSS2.1

I made absolutely zero changes to any paceline. These figures are
using RDSS in full automatic,

These 542 races are all distances, surfaces
track condition, and class. The lines selected can only be line 1,2 or 3
when using the auto selector.

I used races from from Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Delaware, Del Mar Including the BC, FingerLakes, Golden Gate, Keeneland, Laurel, Medowlands
Mohegan Valley, Mountaineer, Portland Meadows, Parx, Turf Paradise,
Thistle Downs, Retimaand Woodbine.
Everything race type from bottom of the barrel Maiden Claimers
to the Breeders Cup classic.

My findings are in the spreadsheet attached

The #2 paceline produced a incredible average payoff of over $19.00

Line 1 had the most winners (257 ) and a average of $11.00

Line 3 had the fewest winners and the lowest average of $7.60

44945

spreadsheet sample screen shot

44944

[Mitch44]

Ah an area of controversy as I predicated. Sartin was a man of records and collection of data. Quirin may have led the way or blazed the path.By not accepting main stream data Sartin continually evolved in both his programs and in refining his techniques'.


His original concept was to use the last line unless there was a valid excuse to go back. This was circa 1986 or so. Through his evolution pace line selection also evolved to increase a players win percentage and greater payoffs. Not only did he evolve to the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance he changed his view on layoffs, class of the line and others that were in the original Pace Line manual.


By reading the recommended Follow Up's one will be more apt to succeed.


Of course there are many times the last line is correct and many times that it isn't. The most important factor in HCP is recent form. There are many reasons to go back such as the last line was before a layoff and the horses form was declining, ditto for first race after a layoff. A smart trainer will try a horse at longer distance because there is more purse money in longer races . Ditto for turf races as every horse has a specific preferences.

The handicapper that is flexible in their thinking, adaptable and excepts new ideas will more likely succeed that one who is rigid and fails to adapt and overcome.
I use the latest of Satin's recommendations for picking pace lines, ignore it at your own peril. Note Bill V. posted his latest recommendations above. Only use it if you want to win. Your choice, good luck.


Mitch44

[Lt1]

Bill thanks for posting the FU #81 article. Folks should also watch the Docs 1998 video seminar where he goes to the use of compounded ratings and basically 1 on 1 training. The 3 vids are available here on the site in the video sections
Tim

[Bill V.]

Yes indeed Doc`s 3 part videos are great, and mirror his most recent instructions
/ guidelines . This is how he wanted his clients to use his programs from about 1996 till his passing
I have just recently began to watch the videos again, I know them by heart . I must have watched those videos over 50 times , starting with the 3 vcr tapes .
and another 10 or so times right from the Sartin library here at Pace and Cap .
Good Skill
Bill

[Lt1]

Bill, like you, I have watch these videos numerous times. In fact I purchased them when they were first being sold by the Doc. In fact I wrote to Doc after viewing them He published that letter in the follow up. They completely changed my game. I believe that newcomers and those who are struggling should make every effort to watch them. You will hear directly from the guru and not be confused by conflicting info they may see no matter how well meant those posts are. Each of us form our own opinions differently on the info we hear. These vids are straight forward. The viewer can form their own opinion. The follow up containing my letter and report is #70 page 35.
Tim

[shoeless]

FTL

Thanks

[mowens33]

Thanks Gentlemen!

Mike

[For The Lead]

Here is a breakdown of which paceline of the last 3 my winners came from.
My sample is 542 races using the default settings and auto selecting the
best of the last 3 perceptor from RDSS2.1

I made absolutely zero changes to any paceline. These figures are
using RDSS in full automatic,

These 542 races are all distances, surfaces
track condition, and class. The lines selected can only be line 1,2 or 3
when using the auto selector.

I used races from from Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Delaware, Del Mar Including the BC, FingerLakes, Golden Gate, Keeneland, Laurel, Medowlands
Mohegan Valley, Mountaineer, Portland Meadows, Parx, Turf Paradise,
Thistle Downs, Retimaand Woodbine.
Everything race type from bottom of the barrel Maiden Claimers
to the Breeders Cup classic.

My findings are in the spreadsheet attached

The #2 paceline produced a incredible average payoff of over $19.00

Line 1 had the most winners (257 ) and a average of $11.00

Line 3 had the fewest winners and the lowest average of $7.60

44945

spreadsheet sample screen shot

44944
Bill, let me see if I have this right.
From your 542 races, almost 50% of the winners came off the last line.
From your 542 races, almost 80% of the winners came off of lines 1 or 2.
From your 542 races, approximately 20% of the winners came off of line 3.

In addition to line 3 generating the fewest winners (by far), it also generated the lowest (by far) average mutual.

You used the RDSS program on full automatic, so you did not pick any of these pacelines yourself.

On that basis, is there a reason you would want to go past line 2?

[Bill V.]

Bill, let me see if I have this right.
From your 542 races, almost 50% of the winners came off the last line.
From your 542 races, almost 80% of the winners came off of lines 1 or 2.
From your 542 races, approximately 20% of the winners came off of line 3.

In addition to line 3 generating the fewest winners (by far), it also generated the lowest (by far) average mutual.

You used the RDSS program on full automatic, so you did not pick any of these pacelines yourself.

On that basis, is there a reason you would want to go past line 2?

Hello FTL
The last line is being chosen for all horse far more than line 2 and line 3.
Since 10/29/17 I have been modeling the pace line for every horse in the race (its nice to have the time and the tools)

Since 10/29/17 till the present I have captured 1327 pace lines that RDSS2.1 as auto selected using the Best of last 3 preceptor comparable

In 1327 lines
Line 1 was selected 630 times
Line 2 was selected 339 times
Line 3 was selected 298 times

Since line 1 and line 2 are out performing line 3 so much in wins and average
mutual . I think its showing that in races were the best preceptor at a comparable distance surface is after 2 excused races happens very infrequently

I have not changed any of these 1327 pace lines I do look over the lines. I have noticed many times neither line 1 or 2 looks very good, These lines do not fit your guidelines.
However RDSS2.1 is selecting either line 1 2 or 3 by a set of parameters.
Ted explained them to me this past weekend,
My memory unfortunatly is not good these days but his parameters made a lot of sense as he explained them.
So I am very confident in the auto paceline tool.

Best to you
Bill

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I am astonished with the depth of help written here. If anything, it gives me many options of what to really look for and as starting points. This is just amazing work, and I appreciate every single one of you taking your time to respond.

-Laura

[Bill V.]

This horse just won race 5 at Penn National She paid $15.00
RDSS2.1 selected line 3. Line 1 is a win line against Alowance horses
but is a nice nearly wire to wire win at 5.5 furlongs from Parx She is a 3 year old filly.
Line 3 is a MS win for a 30000 purse and at the same distance and track as today race, Both the preceptor and speed rating are the best of last 3
and the line was only 69 days ago

44950

[For The Lead]

This horse just won race 5 at Penn National She paid $15.00
RDSS2.1 selected line 3. Line 1 is a win line against Alowance horses
but is a nice nearly wire to wire win at 5.5 furlongs from Parx She is a 3 year old filly.
Line 3 is a MS win for a 30000 purse and at the same distance and track as today race, Both the preceptor and speed rating are the best of last 3
and the line was only 69 days ago

44950

Good example, Bill.

You know I would have used the last line. ;)

[Mitch44]

I can't speak for Bill in reference to his 3rd line stats but as a player why would I go into a race automatically giving up 20% that win with 3rd line selection? (Bill stats)


I'll continue to follow the Sartin teachings of best of the last 3 at a comparable dis. & surface and go into the race with a 100% expectations and get many of those correct 3rd line choices as in Bill's example. Why give up any edge in a game that's already tough enough?
Mitch44

[Lt1]

The Pen race is a classic reason as to why we should not accept the program line blindly. The race is for OC25 n2x. That translates to nw of 3 races. The mdn line is not valid here since as Doc stated mdn lines are only good for n2l races and don't fit other conditions. Additionally look at the sr 88 which is 11 points above the other 2 races. I agree with FTL in this case line 1 is the correct line to use.
Tim

[Bill V.]

Hi Tim
When I get home I will rerun the race using line 1, but why ?
Line 3 is by far the " best of the last 3 preceptor at a comparable distance surface and competition level, it is also the best speed rating by 5 points I don't see where your getting 11
points ?
Sartin speed ratings, I see are 88 for line 3 and 83 for line 1

Yes it's a maiden win but , without really knowing the Penn condition book , where else but
In an oc 25 non 2 x is this horse suppose to go ?
Maybe a stakes race ? I know this condition is tough at Parx . So why not come back and take the class available, at Penn ?

This is a 3 year old filly A five point fluctuation for a young horse within 69 days seems normal. If this was a older horse In most cases I agree with Doc and would not go back to a maiden line In a non 3 life race but here I'm glad I used line 3 and took the 15 bucks
Besides a fail on the turf what has she done wrong ,

Thanks Tim
Good Skill always
Bill

[Mitch44]

I agree with Bill that L3 is the correct line.


The "Doc" did away with man made class structures and considered Total Pace as the class factor. He talks about that on the tapes from 1998.


The chaos math/ formulas within the Preceptor supersedes Speed Ratings, man made class structure and IMO Sartin's class of Total Pace for class because the Preceptor contains the compounded factors which propelled all this to a much higher level. None of those things supersedes the Preceptor for getting the correct line. In fact the Preceptor supersedes many previous earlier Phases of Sartin programs and many long standing factors also. There are some factors in RDSS that do and will outperform the Preceptor. However for getting the correct line it can move a novice's game to heights that for most of us took many years of trial and error.


Mitch44


Additionally this horses deceleration in L1 is pretty normal and the horse won again therefore it wasn't all out for its second win. Further proof that line 3 is correct is the fact this horse with today's win gives it 3 wins in 4 starts an exceptional horse indeed. Thousands of horses never win 1 race let alone 3 of 4 therefore the correct L3 was more indicated of what it did in today race.


Difference of opinions are good, particularity in horse racing or the game would be over.


Mitch44

[Lt1]

OK guys we agree to disagree. Mitch the man made class really doesn't apply here since the Doc recognized that mdn winners going against winners are not good propositions. Also Tom Brohamer pointer out at the Vegas seminar the most likely winner of this type of race is a horse that has won 2 races. I would also check the turn time of race 3. If it doesn't rank in the top 2 of the contenders it does not bode well for the horse. Also like I stated that 11 point difference between the other 2 concerns me. I usually accept a 5 point difference. I will be interested where the horse tiers on BL/BL or RX3 using both lines. A legit contender usually doesn't get hurt much if at all by using either. I've been using this approach successfully for years but if what you do works for you so be it. That's the beauty of the Methodology we are free to use it the way we see fit.
Tim

[Bill V.]

Hi Tim

On one hand you quoting Doc about not using a maiden win line.
You are also referring to Doc,s guideline about checking the turn time,
But you are comparing the trackmaster speed ratings which really have nothing to do with the
Follow Up guidelines in follow ups 70 to 77
ALMOST EVERY READOUT in RDSS is from the Sartin speed rating. You are looking at the trackmaster rating which Doc felt was interior, This is why he developed the adjusted speed rating. This change coinsides with when Doc began to deal with Travkmaster creating the download versions of synthsis and Val 1.
I now see where your getting a 11 point swing. However there is only a 5 point difference
In the adjusted speed ratings

Thanks for you view

Bill

[Lt1]

Hi Bill. I've used that turn time ranking in RDSS ever since I began using the program and it works well for me. As far as not using a mdn line in races for multi winners I got this right from Doc at a Meadowlands seminar when he invited me back to his room for a 1on1 session. Even if this were a race for n1x or n2l I would also check that turn time since Doc also told me that mdns tend to loaf around the turn in their mdn races and should therefore rank in the top 2 tt vs winners. Another thing I would check is this horse appeaars to be a ntl by the 2nd call in its' 2 wins. Was he projected to get it. Your right with the adj sr so I would have accepted it in a n1 race.. As always I think it's great that veteran members can have these types of discussions since all members can benefit from different viewpoints and shared knowledge. Anyway on a more important note I hope you are coming along with your health issues. Your valuable input on the site is always most welcomed.
Tim

[Mitch44]

The "Doc" guidelines for MD lines etc. were prior to his tapes in 1998.


TT regardless if in a maiden race or any race for that matter is only one fraction and can not compare to compounded fractions and factors which was Sartin whole thesis in the 1998 tapes. Actually he goes as far as to say all 3 fractions as used in the match-up can not compare to the compounded factors that evolved and he cast aside individual fractions (Phase 3) and even the match-up in favor of the compounded factors.
Just about any time Sartin talks about TT he degrades it as over hyped and not the
the magic bullet, factor or fraction many believe it to be.(Not a stand alone) He's correct about that but what he doesn't say is that's it's a very important fraction in compounded fractions because its a part of several different fractions such as HE, EP and important in V/DC. In layman terms as a stand alone it sucks and compounded its true worth shines like a piece of gold.

Sartin had a way of speaking and writing that confused the hell out of members and even after reading or listening to something most were still confused. I once was in that category also. Hopefully I have left the State of confusion forever.


One thing that struck me about Sartin was that in a private setting his manner of speaking changed according to the person he was talking to. Only a very intelligent person can do this based on my life experiences however many of the brightest can't do this. Generally those big IQ's can only be understood by having a conversation with themselves. "Doc" had big words for the brainiest and common language for the layman. Maybe that came from his chosen field that he earned his PHD in.

This horse also comes under "The Hats" rule of using what you have. Ponder this, what line would you have used for his second win race? If you say his maiden win than its good enough for the race in question.


Mitch44

[Lt1]

Apples and oranges Mitch. Line 2 was a turf race and line 1 was a dirt mdn win which qualified as the line to use since it was a n1 winner race. Todays race was against multiple winners and as I quoted above the Doc told me directly that mdn lines were not to be used in any race above n1l. Now let's assumed that there was no line 3 present then you would have only line 1 but you would or should have noted that the horse was skipping a condition for this race a difficult task indeed. It could indicate an extremely confident trainer or it just might be a public workout. I'll use the turn time to determine if this horse belongs in that type of situation. Using what Doc told me about turn time has served me very well in eliminating mdns against winners.
Tim

[Mitch44]

We'll have agree to disagree because I would have used line 3 in this situation following the "Doc" guidelines.
Sartin said many things and changed them later. He definitely evolved and of course this all stated around 1975 so it should have evolved over that long period of time. So should we evolve to accept new findings, techniques . . . While a turf live verses may be apples and oranges there is no way L1 & L3 are apples and oranges and could a lost in the race.
Mitch44
Mitch44

[Mitch44]

I decided to download this race and do it. These are the lines I would have used:


#1 L 5 Note: had two routes and a sly line in last 4
#2 L 3
#3 L 3
#4 L 6 Note: had two poly and a sly in last 3
#5 L 3
#6 L 3
#7 L 3
Now how about this, 5 of the 7 the correct line was Line 3. Not necessarily the norm
and strange considering the topic here.

The winner # 3 paying $ 15.80 was second on BLBL using L 3 and ranked / tiered 6th using L 3 . I concur with Bill V. that the only correct line way and to get this winner was to use L 3.



As a side the # 4 placed triggering a $ 103.20 EX. and was a greatly improved horse in last 3, even on the improvement I would not have had it for the EX.


Keep the money Bill.
Mitch44

[Lt1]

Ok but all I know I've been following what Doc told me over 20 yrs ago and it works very well for me. Just to be clear I wasn't inferring that turn time should be used as a stand alone. This is what I like to call situational handicapping and is not used to predict the winner but rather to see if a mdn going against winners should be downgraded no matter its tier rating. As usual nothing works 100% of the time but I'll make this move every time. I would suggest that those interested if it works do what Mitch and I do all the time do a 100 race survey. If it works consider keeping it if it doesn't chuck it.
Tim

[For The Lead]

Here is my look at the horse and race being discussed using ENERGY.

There are no horses with a ML of 20/1 or higher and there are no horses that haven’t raced in the last 90 days, so there are no eliminations there.

Except horse #1, who gets no line, all other horses do get a line.
Horses 4,5,6 and 7 all raced on either a sloppy or good track in their last race, therefore, the original guidelines indicate going back one line. I did.
All of these horses had a qualifying line in line 2, so that is the line chosen for them.
Horses 2 and 3 had a qualifying race on their last line, so that is the line used for those two horses.


I understand that when total energy shows a discrepancy of more than 2 points the #2 adjust should be used. I didn’t use it. All other horses are within 2 points of each other.
Actually, the #4 horse, with the very high total energy, disrupts the readouts as you will see.

The variegate indicates “EARLY” and every early factor points towards the winner, #3.

ENERGY does not look for the fastest final time horse, so speed ratings and total energy were not the determining factors for the program.
Instead, ENERGY looked at the match-ups of the contenders and determined which horse(s) were the most likely winners on that basis.

I always credited ENERGY as “Doc’s” best attempt at a program that actually “handicaps” a race.
Of course, all of his original guidelines were in effect at that time and they are still good more than 30 years later!!

Here are the readouts.

[Mitch44]

There is great value in doing your own surveys ,studies and by doing them their never forgotten.


Sartin didn't take things at face value and kept records and conducted research to find out for himself what was fact vs. fiction. Many times things aren't what they seem and then again things change. We both make moves based on known percentages from lessons learned and surveys conducted.

One lesson here is to be consistent in your approach, once found through research.
The odds of guessing a heads or tails on a coin is 50-50. But with pure guessing and a hap hazard approach you'll never hit 50% but if you were to always guess heads every time them you'll win every time heads comes up and win 50%. Works the same if decided to take tails every time. Consistency!


Consistency of approach to selecting pace lines is the same as flipping a coin., to get the maximum % a consistent procedure must be applied. I would suggest Sartin's recommended procedure that's been thoroughly tested. That is best of the last 3 at comparable SURFACE and DISTANCE.


Maybe Bill can post the PP from RDSS for this horse and race and you can determine what lines you would have chosen as compared to mine.


Take LT1 recommendation and watch the 1998 tapes of Sartin. It'll up your game, but only watch them if you want to win.


Mitch44

[shoeless]

Appreciate the workup of the race using Energy

Jeff

[Lt1]

Very interesting 2 different programs, different line selections and what do you know same winner. I wish I would have known this was going to spark such interest since I would have liked to work the race myself just to see what I would have come up with.
Tim

[Mitch44]

Parts of Energy are within the RDSS program however it was an earlier program that the "Doc" abandoned as he evolved and created better programs.


Having been a user of EXDC the problem with it was which adjustment to use. Picking the correct adjustment after the fact was always easy but prior to an actual bet not so easy, and a problem for too many users. Bottom line is it won't nor will any earlier programs outperform his later programs such as those that came later from about Val 4 and after. Even Valadator evolved from earlier versions.The problems of adjustments were solved and a more proficient product was developed.


Deceleration was also honed from its earliest concept to V/DC. What's in the present RDSS is the best he ever came up with and some things from all previous programs. IMO While any earlier program will produce winners they won't on the scale that the present RDSS does.


Sartin knew where the future was going in the early 90's and told some teachers to learn the new concepts and programs or they'll no longer be a teaching member and did it in front of all the attendees. Specifically Elliot Sidewinder. I believe that's the correct spelling of his name, if not its close enough. If corrected I can look it up. Brohammer was one another but did adapt while others faded.

Members are free to choose whatever program they want to use and any way they want to choose pace lines. They damn sure wouldn't receive Sartin's blessings if he were alive today.


Mitch44

[Mark]

This is not an avocation for the faint of heart, easily discouraged or those struggling to pay their bills and working a lot of hours to do so.
BE FOREWARNED!
1. You have to develop the skill to assess speed. Who has run the best(fastest) against the fastest early pace: An early pace that is likely to be encountered today. That is the benchmark. Doesn't matter what line in the horse's pps, whether last month or 2 years ago. Now you have the basis for comparison.
2. Learn to disqualify horses as follows: a) is the horse still a horse? b) Has he changed his Running style and become a slow horse? c) If Early, can he still get on top of his fractions? These are Jim Bradshaw's qualifying questions in accepting or rejecting deep pacelines.
Long Layoffs are a good thing! It shows that the connections think enough of the animal to turn him out at the farm or otherwise pay feed, board and vet bills to get the horse sound again. Generally, the 3rd race off a 200+ day layoff is the money run. If you limit your paceline selection to the best of the last comparable you will not get this horse until you look at his pps after the race and see that perfect line 5 or 6 deep. Horses other than youngsters very seldom improve linearly. When they get racing fit, they jump back to that old top or near it, given a similar pace scenario.

Good Luck

[shoeless]

Long Layoffs are a good thing

Good luck with this one especially at the cheaper tracks

[Bill V.]

Thanks FTL and Mitch
thank you for taking the time to show examples that support how you handicapped the race .

Here is what happens when If I had used line 1

44959

Tim Doc's guide lines (not rules) about looking at turn time in maiden wins is supported here
It ran a much better TT in line 3 (maiden win) than it did in line 1
All three of her lines are recent. Less than 70 days
Preceptor does a great job in showing that line 3 was superior to line 1
in many readouts .
To me I interpret Doc's guidelines as, Rate the maiden win line against the best lines of the winners. If the turn time is weak eliminate the maiden win.
Horse 3 clearly rates well in the maiden line. So It belongs in this contender mix.

Ted's has great advice, The horse runs as fast as it needs to win
Line 1 is a + line and a win It appears based on the RDSS readouts
that it was the # 2 EP horse and the #1 FX. It looks like it got a early lead and was unchallenged going nearly wire to wire

Line 3 shows a strong move in the 2nd and 3rd fraction with good readouts in LPR CPR TT and Hidden energy, and deceleration and total energy
So line 3 will rate better in ANY Sartin program

Thanks
Good Skill
Bill V.

[Bill V.]

Long Layoffs are a good thing

Good luck with this one especially at the cheaper tracks

I agree Jeff

Long layoff horses do win but very infrequently. Its nice to say after the race
when a long layoff horse win "see I told you they win"
But betting on them consistently is a losing wasted bet.

[Lt1]

Bill I know what he told me but you bring up another point. Would you consider this horse a ntl horse by the 2nd call since if I understand correctly line 1 doesn't project it be on the lead by that point. What was your feeling about that since we know that when most ntl types don't get it at the point they need they usually fold and finish off the board. The other point I was trying to make maybe not clearly enough was according to Doc mdn wins were not to be used after the horse wins a n1x and advances to this level of race since those lines are not comparable fot this conditions. I been using this approach ever since and have won far more then I lost since employing it. Again nothing works 100% of the time and it appears that based on yours and Mitchs contender paceline selections and readouts this may have been one of those times. Anyway congrats to both of you.
Tim

[Mitch44]

Thanks Tim, your correct nothing works all the time.


Ted made a good point that horses that win only do what they have to. I have learned that lesson well over the years. Its not uncommon to run into a horse that has won 4 or more races in a row, especially in better class races. For pace lines on those horses I always take the win that is the best even if L 4 or 5 back. That has served me very well over the years. The better horses only do what they have to do to win. Even smart jocks try to leave something in the tank.

I've accumulated some other quirks so to speak over the years in picking pace lines that others may think unconventional but they work for me. Also unconventional in picking some contenders too.


Regardless the foundation of my success with pace lines is in adhering to "The Doc's" guidelines for selecting pace lines which is the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance and surface. as designated by Preceptor. Preceptor far surpasses all other previous methods for picking the correct pace line. Those that fail to grasp and use it as intended ( pace line selection) , well there is absolutely no hope for you but thanks for your donation to the pools.


The tapes you recommended Tim, (LT1) (1998 by Sartin) will improve any members game both old heads and newbie's. Nothing better than getting it from the "Doc's" himself.


Good skill,
Mitch44


Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Well said Mitch in regards to pace line selections
Using a horses last 3 or 4 line to rate the last line, as the last line is the best indicator of current form is vital.

Tim, I'm glad we are on the same page
If a horse has failed 2 times at Alw N1x I can see where Doc's guidelines
would be in play.

However in this chase I hope you can, I think you would agree,
You can understand Mitch and my viewpoint that is ,Ask yourself, What else is the trainer suppose to do? Why punish the horse just because she not only won here NW1X condition,
She won without using close to the total energy she used as a FTS.
Again age sex and recency play a big part in advance pace line selections
BUT Preceptor and the adjusted speed rating and the match do too.
For Doc It was first a formost - the adjusted speed ratings.

Then when there was a question as to which of the last 3 races was best. Doc developed the F6 paceline indicator in Validator,

Ted drilled into this F6 key value and discovered it was the horse with the lower preceptor line score readout which highlighted to paceline ranked best.

So in theory Doc's guidelines were to use the best preceptor of the last 3 or 4 races at a comparable distance surface and competition lever
Compition level being total energy .


Bill

[RichieP]

Long Layoffs are a good thing

Good luck with this one especially at the cheaper tracks

If you read Mark's post it is the 3rd race back off the long layoff he focuses on as the trainer's "money race" and not the race back after the long break/

Richie

[Lt1]

Ok guys seem we all got a little different info from the Doc at different times.Like I've stated hr told me not to use the mdn line after the horse won its n1 condition which is what happen in the last race. However guys my other question about the horse was did you guys consider this horse a ntl by the 2nd call. If so did line 1 project him on the lead and if not did you worry he might fold as most ntl lead types do when they don't get it.
Tim

[shoeless]

Richie

Not that it matters but here is the complete quote

Long Layoffs are a good thing! It shows that the connections think enough of the animal to turn him out at the farm or otherwise pay feed, board and vet bills to get the horse sound again. Generally, the 3rd race off a 200+ day layoff is the money run.

While he does mention about the 3rd race it doesn't state anything
about not playing long layoff horses first asking.

Just a difference on interpretation

Jeff

[Bill V.]

Congratulations to those who say they win with longer than 90 day layoff horses, They win but very infrequently

Here is a workup of what is going on today

Not from ones recall of past sucsess These are recent results from races
I as a average user of the methodology actually handicapped
these are facts from my most recent 206 race

In the screen shot I have recorded every horsewho in those 206 races
ran coming off a layoff longer than 90 days.

There were a total of 1672 horses in those 206 races
of those 1672 horses only 79 ran after a layoff over 90 days
Of those 79 horses only 4 won the race
Here are the results of those horses who have run after a layoff of over 90 days
They sure did not get life changing win prices .

Here is the complete list of those 79 runners
in a spreadheet

44968

44969

[Mitch44]

Tim I never considered her as a NTL and if she is in this match up she had an advantage of more reserve energy which she could use early and still survive. All the horses in this race were E and EP. The only horses that could prove that were the 7 who ran poorly and probably out of form and the # 1 who broke poorly.


She'll have to step up again in her next race and the stronger competition may disadvantage her or her form cycle could decline. Its very hard to make a decision off just a couple races to designate a horse a NTL and even they win in the correct match up.


To be honest I never consider the part of the race or calls to determine a NTL, I know the Doc uses 1st or SC but I always have just looked at what they do when challenged. Do they fight or spit the bit. Sometimes they run good to the stretch and into the stretch before headed and then toss the bit. Myself I never use the calls but use their reaction when passed regardless of where that takes place to determine a NTL.


Mitch44

[Mitch44]

Bill V.:


Your correct about the last line as an indication of form and its cycle. Thankfully RDSS now rates every line so this saves a lot of work. All a member has to do is consult POH Tot. Energy and the Preceptor (on the original screen) as its already done but they still don't consider the cycle / last race and ask the question ; Is this horse improving or declining?


Tremendous tool and many times because of being up in class , wrong distance etc. that last race looks very ugly. Any horses whose last race is its best or its best of the last 5 or 6 better take notice, especially with what the trainer does with it next.


Mitch44

[Jeebs]

Great thread. Following along is like listening to a seminar. Lots of good ideas passing through.

[Whosonfirst]

Congratulations to those who say they win with longer than 90 day layoff horses, They win but very infrequently

Here is a workup of what is going on today

Not from ones recall of past sucsess These are recent results from races
I as a average user of the methodology actually handicapped
these are facts from my most recent 206 race

In the screen shot I have recorded every horsewho in those 206 races
ran coming off a layoff longer than 90 days.

There were a total of 1672 horses in those 206 races
of those 1672 horses only 79 ran after a layoff over 90 days
Of those 79 horses only 4 won the race
Here are the results of those horses who have run after a layoff of over 90 days
They sure did not get life changing win prices .

Here is the complete list of those 79 runners
in a spreadheet

44968

44969
Bill, this is a great study that you made, and reaffirms my own information. Having said that, about 10 years ago, I bet a 7 year old mare coming back from a 3-1/2 year layoff in a maiden race at Penn National. Her name was Lily "something" and she won paying either 7.20 or 7.60. That was the longest I'd seen at that point. and betting her had more to do with how her connections were giving away their intention vs. the morning line. And for the record I don't win playing 90+ day layoffs.

[For The Lead]

Congratulations to those who say they win with longer than 90 day layoff horses, They win but very infrequently

Here is a workup of what is going on today

Not from ones recall of past sucsess These are recent results from races
I as a average user of the methodology actually handicapped
these are facts from my most recent 206 race

In the screen shot I have recorded every horsewho in those 206 races
ran coming off a layoff longer than 90 days.

There were a total of 1672 horses in those 206 races
of those 1672 horses only 79 ran after a layoff over 90 days
Of those 79 horses only 4 won the race
Here are the results of those horses who have run after a layoff of over 90 days
They sure did not get life changing win prices .

Here is the complete list of those 79 runners
in a spreadheet

44968

44969

Thanks Bill.

With millions and millions of horses and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of races in my database, I have been cautioning people that horses off more than 90 days win less than 5% of races for the 9 years I’ve been at this site.

In your short sample, they won just under 2%.

I hope there are some folks out there that are listening.
It’s helpful information.

[Jeebs]

Long layoffs are a giant bugaboo IMO. Certain trainers are better in prepping a horse to fire off extended inactivity than others. However, none of it matters if they don't have the horse. A Linda Rice 3yo runner came back the other day at the Big A off a May layoff vs. a suspect field and won by daylight - at 5/2 odds in a 5 horse field nonetheless. The reliability of an older line is questionable when it comes to measuring ability of a comeback runner. I see why some here won't consider such lines. However, a 5% clip equates to natural odds of roughly 19-1. Tells me that one should demand an aggressive premium if they insist on taking lines off comebackers coming back from a long absence. However, if you choose to play recency and ignore the long layoff types, it simplifies the decision making prices that much more.

[Mitch44]

I never throw out a horse just because of a layoff. There is a lot more to success with layoff horses than just the time factor of the layoff. ( Length of the layoff)


Is it properly placed today as to its best distance and surface? Is it up or down in class? What is the trainers record with Layoffs? Has the horse responded well before from a layoff? What odds are you getting? Do the odds compensate me for the risk? That's a big ? If a horse is up in class after a layoff the trainer pretty much is tipping his hand that the horse isn't ready. What kind of workouts does the horse have?


Where does this horse fit in your analysis? A horse may not be fit to win but may be fit enough to be in your ex. or tri. You see this one often whether a layoff or not.


Trainers seem to be racing their horses less frequently now a days and also some horses actually run better fresh. Its not unusual to lay young horses off to allow them to mature.

Layoffs are just one of the situational handicapping problems that must be handled and encountered in the process. Finally if unsure then consider it an unknown factor and pass the race if there are two unknown factors.


I don't really have a problem with layoffs. There are answers to most handicapping problems and the same situations and problems seem to occur. Its the nature of the game.


Generally I downgrade horses with very long layoffs at least on grade to include even grade 1 types. If I make a horse # 1 I downgrade it to number 2 etc. within my top 5. My two horse betting compensates when I'm wrong, but I have to get the correct answers to all the questions above. Those questions carry much more weight with me that the time period of the layoff itself.


Mitch44

[shoeless]

Bill;

Nice job with your study of layoff horses

Jeff

[For The Lead]

Bill Would you consider this horse a ntl horse by the 2nd call since if I understand correctly line 1 doesn't project it be on the lead by that point. What was your feeling about that since we know that when most ntl types don't get it at the point they need they usually fold and finish off the board.
Tim

I wouldn’t characterize the horse as a “need to lead horse by the second call”. Instead, I would just say it is an EARLY horse. EARLY horses get the lead early in the race. The second call is not early. Let me offer an example.

Your watching your favorite football team. With just seconds left in the 3rd quarter they are trailing 14-10. On the very last play of the 3rd quarter they score a touchdown and take the lead 17-14. Does that mean they had the “early” lead in the game? I mean, the game is 75% over. If this is the early part of the game, what was the 1st quarter or the 1st half?

In a 6 furlong race the second call marks 67% of the race being completed.
In a 1 mile race the second call marks 75% of the race being completed.
So isn’t there an “earlier” call that marks the race in its’ early stage?
There sure is. It’s called the first call or first fraction.

Also, you asked Bill V if he would be concerned that the horse in question here might fade in the stretch.
Let me ask you a question.
Would you be concerned that betting against the horse in question here might find your choice chasing it home, not being able to catch it?

It works both ways, but you never hear anyone ask, “are you concerned that your choice of horse might not be able to catch the early horse?
It’s always the other way around….no matter how many times the early horse gets chased home a winner.

[Bill V.]

FTL Thanks Bill.

With millions and millions of horses and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of races in my database, I have been cautioning people that horses off more than 90 days win less than 5% of races for the 9 years I’ve been at this site.

In your short sample, they won just under 2%.

I hope there are some folks out there that are listening.
It’s helpful information.

Yes the numbers from your total database hold true today and now

Here is what I saw today, In the 35 races I handicapped
there were 309 horses. There were only 10 horses with a layoff of over 90 days
of those 10 horses there were 2 winners. They paid $9.60 and $3.80
1 horse place and 1 horse showed.

44972

[Mark]

edited by Bill V. If the 3rd race off a layoff is the "Money Run", then what are the 1st and 2nd races following the layoff? Not "Money Runs", get it?
Each horse is different as are their trainers. The only time you will see a horse win off a long layoff is at long odds. Believe it or not, these trainers and owners bet their horses and when better to get a big price but off a long layoff. Many times you will see what used to be nice horse on the huge class drop off these long layoffs because he is broken and the connections are trying to sell the horse. Horses that have been taken out of training due to injury need between 60 and 90 days of work to approach racing fitness.
The classic layoff return angle is sprint, sprint, route. I have been handicapping for over 50 years and that is something I learned early on reading books.
All i can say is "Do your own work", practice and when you start making a profit on paper then consider wagering for real. Otherwise you are just a gambler and looking for a quick fix.

[Bill V.]

I just watched the video seminar while handicapping today from home.
Today was the first time I have not been at Del Mar on a Saturday if I was in town since I moved here in 2009.

I had a great day betting in my room I copied a move Ted used while he visited . I set up my laptop on the back porch and while facing a beautiful view of the Pacific ocean worked about 10 of the 35 total races i looked at today.

Anyway about being a need The Lead horse. I interpret what Doc suggested as the using the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as fallows.
:1: being a Early horse :2: being a Early Presser or Presser :3: being a Sustained and :4: being a Late
So in this case I would have marked the 3 as a 1=Early horse but after only 3 races, one of which was a turf race which is a non comparable paceline.
2 races is too small a sample to call this horse a Need The Lead horse
Look at its break positions . It passes horses and fought for the lead in the first call in line 1 In line 3 it went wire to wire

Lets look at what RDSS calculated using line 3

Horse 3 will be in third position in F1.
Third position but with 10 computed beaten lengths, Now look what
happens in F2, It makes a big move on the turn ( this is based on its maiden win line)
To be 10 lengths behind in F1 but positioned 3rd, and then to now only be 2.4 computer beaten lengths behind at the second call. Shows a tremendous move. A move which begins in the first fraction and is carried thought the 2nd fraction. This is what Doc advised - Look for horses that make moves in 2 fractions. This is proof of the validity of using the maiden win line.

The 3 continues that move in the 3rd fraction and ends up rank 2nd

A solid job by RDSS for sure .

44973

[carlous21]

Thanks gentlemen

[Bill V.]

I edited your post, I do not think your opening comment was helpful
We all are here to help each other , If your agenda is to be negative
toward other members then you are in the wrong place.

I see now you did say "Long Layoffs are a good thing! It shows that the connections think enough of the animal to turn him out at the farm or otherwise pay feed, board and vet bills to get the horse sound again. Generally, the 3rd race off a 200+ day layoff is the money run."

You confused at least 3 of us, and we all speak and read English perfectly.

Anyway I respect your theory enough to do a little research

This is only 1 card , I will do cards going forward It does appear that
in this small sample, Horses 3rd race back after 200 days or even greater than 90 days layoff do run respectively , Often running in the money "Plus races " but today looking at every line for every horse in 11 races it only produced 1 winner. and it went 0/3 in races today


Also your quote The only time you will see a horse win off a long layoff is at long odds. Believe it or not, these trainers and owners bet their horses and when better to get a big price but off a long layoff.

This is not supported in races I have actually handicapped .
As Jeeps mentioned when getting bit the horse off a long layoff only paid 5/2

Unless you consider about 4.5/1 long odds it has not happen often or paid very well.
In the box below the resuts are what the horse did in the third race after a "long layoff"

44976

[Lt1]

The area of layoffs falls into the area of situational handicapping. Does the layoff appear to been for r&r or is of the length of time that indicates an injury. As has been pointed out certain trainers are very good at bringing horses and certain horses do well after a rest. It's up to us to know the tracks ,trainers, and horses we play. If one decides a play on a layoff horses is justified I would demand a price to compensate for the risk. Two horse bettors have a edge in this area since they have another chance to win the race should the layoff horse fail.
Tim

[Lt1]

Fair question FTL. Yes if I thought the horse in question was a threat to wire the field I would have to re evaluate my choices if indeed this horse was not one of my plays. I ask Bill that question since I didn't have the pps and didn't know if it would face any early opposition for the lead and therefore expend to much energy early and might not finish.
TIM

[Lt1]

Hi Bill. Thanks for your well thought out response. I myself would have made the horse a ntl by the 2nd call based on its 2 wins. As both you and FTL point out you would make it an early horse but reserve giving it ntl status based on its small racing record. I can see that point of view. I was talking with Mitch yesterday and was telling him that one other concern I had with line 1 was the ease with which the horse went wtw. I'm always leery of such wins especially with mdns. Anyway this has been a great thread with a lot of divergent ideas and thoughts being posted. Nice to see that you are able handicap and play the horses. I wish you continued improving health and good skill.
Tim

[shoeless]

Bill

That's great about you being able to handicap the races and look
out at the ocean.

Take care my friend and get well soon.

Jeff

[Mitch44]

Here's an interesting observation and dilemma for most. Under Bradshaw's matchup concept a NTL horse must have the lead at the 1st call and fights to get it. I agree with that and I expand that further in that it'll fight to keep it at any point in the race. This is why I look at its reaction when challenged regardless of where that challenge takes place. While normally it takes place in the 1st Fr it can occur at any point in the race if the horse is able to hold the lead. Some horses can hold the lead to deep stretch until confronted and challenged.


And then we have the two different types of ESP being the Visual and the computer driven % Median. % Med was an improvement over the old % Early because it considered all 3 Fr's. Sartin said; " any program that only considers two FR's ( Phase 1) can not be considered pace handicapping. "


With % Med track profiles became more accurate and all its forms of usage were more accurate. Examples such as parameters for stretch outs, parameters for first time turf starters and for the designation of a much more accurate accurate ESP.


The visual ESP is fine to employ the matchup principles but don't count on its accuracy for track profiles etc. There is and this has been proven that there is a distinct difference between the two. An a common one is that a horse can go wire to wire and visually look and appear to be an E type horse but its & Med can say otherwise to include even being sustain runner.


How can this be you ask? It goes back to our earlier discussion in that horses only do what they have to do in order to win. A hose will loaf on the lead and when finally challenged in the later part of the race uses that reserve energy.


Now back to our original discussion if you look at Bill V.'s screen shot in post # 40 of this thread you can observe the two different types of ESP displayed on the screen. The RS or visual says the # 3 horse is a E type which is consistent with a NTL and Bradshaw's definition of a visual NTL which is perfect for the matchup. And the %Med designation of P for presser.


I myself always use the % Med if I use it at all. I say that because I play many tracks and don't keep track profiles etc. But I do use for various things such as discounting horses with a % Med of or over 70%. In this case if you're doubtful of a horses true running style use the % Med for better decisions.


Hope this is helpful.


Mitch44
Sorry I can't post screen shots with my version. Bill has solved that problem but its just too complicated with my version and my small brain. Have it written down but a terrible waste of my time. But I do greatly appreciate Bil's help on it. Love cut and paste.

[Lt1]

Nicely done Mitch. I myself keep a track model for every dist and surface for each track I play and one of my key elements is %med. By keeping a accurate range of winning % meds one is well ahead of the crowd. Also helps id when track surface is changing after things like heavy rains, snow,thawing out etc. Additionally I use it as a gauge to judge horses stretching out in dist especially sprinters when there is no data available in the horses' pps.
Tim

[kpmats10]

Re: Layoff horses

Since Oct 1st, there have been 36,843 starters in the US.

There have been 3,783 starters who have not raced for 91+ days. 353 have won for a winning percentage of 9.3%

For the third quarter this year (July 1 - Sep 30), there were 94,393 starters in the US.

10,075 horses raced coming off a layoff of 91+ days, 1,066 won, for a win percentage of 10.58%. The only lower winning percentage was 10.06% for horses coming off an 81-86 day layoff.

[Mitch44]

Nice stats kpmats10, thanks for posting.


I don't believe in giving up layoff horses going into a race. While stats are good the better priced horses are exactly the ones we're looking for. Many of these exception's to the rule are very getable with the public making mistakes.


While the winner of the race posted here wasn't a layoff horse the public sure made a mistake here letting it pay $15.00 and being second on BLBL.


We can't just throw darts at them and be successful but a sound consistent approach has its rewards. Stats can be very deceiving if taken as a whole or accepted blindly. Incompetent trainers make the greatest contribution to many racing stats. How the horse and trainer performed in this situation before is much more important as they all have their specialties.


In the military leaders are taught to employ their men within their capabilities and limitations. That same leadership principle applies to horse racing.


A trainer may have an overall winning rate of 23% but only be 3% for turf . Situational stats are more important This is exactly why Sartin expressed so much when it came to picking pace line to use a comparable surface and distance. The distance and surface are situational to todays race and conditions.


Mitch44

[For The Lead]

Re: Layoff horses

Since Oct 1st, there have been 36,843 starters in the US.

There have been 3,783 starters who have not raced for 91+ days. 353 have won for a winning percentage of 9.3%

For the third quarter this year (July 1 - Sep 30), there were 94,393 starters in the US.

10,075 horses raced coming off a layoff of 91+ days, 1,066 won, for a win percentage of 10.58%. The only lower winning percentage was 10.06% for horses coming off an 81-86 day layoff.

Your stats look about right to me.

In any given year, roughly 10% of all starters have not had a race in the last 90 days.
Then,roughly 10% from that group win.
I think anyone reading this will understand that 10% from a group of 10% leaves a very small group. 10% times 10% equals 1%.

So, rather than try to figure out what percentage of horses off more than 90 days win, which is what you did, let’s find what percentage of all entries the winners off more than 90 days represent. This is especially important since we have to deal with all the entries when handicapping races.

In your larger sample there were 94393 starters and potential winners. From that group 1,066 horses off more than 90 days won.
Doing the math, 1066 winners that were off more than 90 days, divided by 94393 total entries and potential winners, equals .0113 or just a shade over 1% of horses off more than 90 days won when compared to all entries for that time period.

The same is true for your short sample as well.

[Mitch44]

Beware of stats because their basically an average. The worse dominate because there are more of them. Stats also tend to be general assertions and when broken down or further classified don't hold up.

There are more incompetent trainers than proficient ones. The higher the proficiency the less qualified there are. How many can become a successful pitcher in major league baseball or be a dominate Gr 1 winner. An average depth of a river may be 4 foot but if you can't swim are you going to trust that stat when the middle of the river can be 10 foot deep.

When it comes to horses, particularity layoff horses, stats are not equal to all trainers or horses. Use the information available to gather more information about that situation. Specific stats are much more important than general assumptions.

Within that assumed 1% are many nuggets of gold that defies general overall stats.
Lt1 and I have been handling layoff horses for years without a problem. Their only a problem if you perceive them to be a problem. This applies to any handicapping dilemma. Otherwise you might as well just bet every favorite and be done with it.

If stats were that good favorites would not lose 2/3rd of all races. Besides trainer stats don't trump the horse, the horse itself is the dominate factor.


Mitch44

[lone speed]

I just caught this thread:

Very valuable insights from many contributors. Several school of thought on pace line selections with both getting the winner from different chosen pace lines and two different programs.

Great stat from Kpmats10 and Mitch- you made a great analogy!!

Thanks to all who chimed in this thread.....

[Mitch44]

While much of this thread discussed the proper picking of pace lines one caveat we can't overlook is to not use a line where the horse was beaten by more than 7.5 beaten lengths.



At some point horses that are all out aren't punished when they have given their all and a point where reliability of the line as a true representative line becomes questionable.

For many years the "Doc" used 9 lengths and later settled on 7.5 which was his last know recommendation. That can be found on page # 38 of Follow Up # 84.
Have you been using that limit?


Mitch44

[lone speed]

While much of this thread discussed the proper picking of pace lines one caveat we can't overlook is to not use a line where the horse was beaten by more than 7.5 beaten lengths.



At some point horses that are all out aren't punished when they have given their all and a point where reliability of the line as a true representative line becomes questionable.

For many years the "Doc" used 9 lengths and later settled on 7.5 which was his last know recommendation. That can be found on page # 38 of Follow Up # 84.
Have you been using that limit?


Mitch44


I do not hesitate to use a pace line where the horse faded against a fast 3rd fraction. I have even entered pace lines where the horse was with the early pace runners and proceeded to lose by 11 lengths to the eventual winner. The pace line was put on top on Energy program due to the faster than normal 3rd fraction.

[Mitch44]

Early speed to the stretch has always been an indicator of a horse coming to form. POR is also a proven concept.

I may have used that line also lone speed depending what was there to choose from however I pretty much stick to the Doc's guidelines. There are exceptions to everything .

I pretty much stick to things that have proven their worth consistently over a broad range rather than exceptions.


Good skill,
Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Hello

FTL wrote

So, rather than try to figure out what percentage of horses off more than 90 days win, which is what you did, let’s find what percentage of all entries the winners off more than 90 days represent. This is especially important since we have to deal with all the entries when handicapping races.

I agree 100% FTL

Large stats from every track are saying 10 % That is nice , I would rather focus on the races I actually handicapped .

In an earlier thread I listed and attached a spread sheet of my recent races

Today I have updated my stats
Since Saturday 11/11/17 I have handicapped 78 races
The tracks were AQU., CD, DMR, GG, LRL, MNR, MVR, PEN, PARX, WO


In those 78 races there were 625 total horses .
of those 625 horses 5 were First Time Starters*

So lets say 620 horses
Of those 620 horses only 32 ran after a 90 day or longer layoff.
Of those 32 horses only 4 won
They paid $7.50, $3.80, $9.60, and $100.40
1 horse only placed and paid $4.60
2 horse only showed and paid $10.20 and $4.40

The $100.40 winner came in yesterdays (11/13/17) race 3 from LRL.

Here are her pace lines I did not consider this horse but RDSS auto selected line 1

Here are some other rankings produced by RDSS2.1
These rankings all have high win and ITM percentages based on my exported lines into RDSS's Modeling feature.

In a field of 8
APV 7th
CR 7Th
CSR 5th
CR+ 7th
VDC 6th
BLBL 6th
BLBL score 9.5
RX 1 7th
RX 2 7th
RX 3 7th
RX3 score 0 (15.5) is average
ML 20/1
Preceptor 6th
ERP 2nd
LPR 7th
CPR 7th

So it appears this is the type of horse Mitch refers to - Maybe the trainer
shows good stats with long layoff horses but Nobody was betting on here
Her ML was 20/1 and she went off at 49/1

This study and my earlier study of recent races shows horses off
over 90 days do win but at a very small percentage

Would we as Sartin and Match up bettors bet a horse like horse 7?
I would not,
Do people who add (throw in ) this type into horizontal and vertical bets
at a grand total of .50 cents or $1.00 more hit ?
Well they do I suppose :)

Thanks and Good Skill
Bill

44983

44982

[Bill V.]

Hi Mitch

For years I never used a paceline were a horse ran with over 7.5 beaten lengths
This was from Doc's very few rules.

When I started using TPR I may have selected a line with over
7.5 beaten lengths, but once I got to the readouts, usually these type horses have too low or high EPR's
and low LPS. or they just plotted around the track so their TPR
will be too low .

Oh belated Happy Veterans May Mitch
Thank You so much for your service Sir.

Bill

[Mitch44]

Thanks Bill for your kind words.


I believe most of the time if picking a line over 7,5 B L the Preceptor would rate it low and like you said it'll greatly effect its Tot. Energy or TPR which would come up low. I can see where one may be forced to if that's all that's there but a valid procedure using 7.5.


As a general rule I find the more successful lay off horses are of better class than the norm. Their generally not the type that will come up in the top 5 but they do come up. When they do I downgrade them at least one position of their capability because it really takes racing to get the overwhelming majority into top form. Few get into my top two but I do work them into my gimmicks as their not necessarily complete throw outs.



Handicapping always confronts us with the same problems such as form, layoffs, suspicious dropdowns, NTL, stretch outs and horses shorting up. They all require a consistent approach as to how we deal with them to beat the game.


Good to see you capping and posting Bill.


Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Long layoff horses always pay big prices,:confused: Really ?
Greater than 90 days layoff horses sin my handicapped races


44984

[Mitch44]

There's no doubt that recency isn't what it use to be and we as handicappers encounter more and more layoff horses.


As the length of the layoff increases the % of wins do drop and the number of horses also. The norm is that most layoff horses are in the 30 to 90 day range. I consider anything over 30 to be a layoff. My own definition.


I treat them all the same regardless of the time of the layoff and the way I treat them I outlined in post # 55. These 30 to 90 days horses do frequently or will come up in your readouts and must be dealt with.


Additionally if I'm betting serious money I evaluate all runners in the race and if a long layoff horse I treat it the same way as a 30 to 90 days horse. It either comes up or it doesn't.


My 30 to 90 day procedure has worked very well for me so I'm not about to abandon it. Hope this clarifies my position as far as layoff horses.


Mitch44

[The Pook]

""Doc" Sartin guideline of using the best line of the last 3 at a similar distance and surface. The key word there is SIMILIAR which may take you to line 4,5 or further back."

Here is a live one today from FL. Using the above guideline this puts you on the 9th line back. The 9th is the best preceptor of four available fast routes. Which puts this horse atop the BLBL.

Pook

[Mitch44]

Pook: I would use line 9 but Lt1 would probably use L 2 or L 4 with more recency. While not having all the readouts to make an informed decision based on the fact it came up
in the top 3 BLBL and its odds I would at least put a couple $ on it. It also may come up with one of the other lines.


Mitch44

[Mitch44]

After answering your question I went to see if the race went off yet and it had.. The # 4 finished 3rd and went off 7-5 so I probably may not have bet it at those odds. The winner went off at similar odds and today was obviously better.


I wouldn't punish the horse for running in sprints and its obvious by its charts that its a router. I use a consistent approach wherever that takes me is where I go. It works for me. As I said Lt1 may have used a more recent line and that works for him. Any of these 3 lines may have put him in the top 3 and sometimes a closer line doesn't.


The "Doc" tried to stay within 5 lines. It is a fact that the further back you go the least predicative the line. Normally going back happens more with turf horses than dirt because during in the winter their form gets darkened without turf racing if they remained up North. But as in this case it can be on dirt also.


Your free to stay within Sartin guidelines of within the last 5. I believe that most horses will have to run their best race to win and the competition most times force horses to do that. Horses with close finishes pretty much are all out. I go where it takes me and I've been successful and I'm not about to change. If your not comfortable with it stay within the top 5 lines This isn't a very frequent occurrence where I have to go back that far. But yes I would have used line 9.

Mitch44

[Bill V.]

hello Pook
I see you put quotes around Doc's quidlines
I don't recall where you got this or from where it came from .
I do recall in many folow ups " Use the best speed rating (adjusted)
of the last 3 or 4 races at a comperable distance surface and competition level.
By competition level we mean total energy,If there is 1 intervening paceline you go down to line 4 2 intervening, go to line 5, but never more than 5 lines, You will/could be looking at a horses in a completely different form cycle"

Doc used the Adjusted Speed Rating but broke ties and whenn 2 or more lines looked the best with the F6 Paceline indicator, which in reality is what the preceptor readout is.

In the 4th race doing nothing but hitting the automatic on RDSS2.1
Which uses Doc's actually paceline guidelines very well , we see

The low odds horse # 4 is downgraded off line 2 a similar distance and track
and competition level .

The winner # 6 is rated far and away #1 on RX3 and BLBL

44986

[Bill V.]

RDSS2.1 auto selected lines
RDSS2.1 never selects past line 3

44987

44988

44989

[Bill V.]

4 5 6

44990

44991

44992



blbl

44993

[The Pook]

hello Pook
I see you put quotes around Doc's quidlines
I don't recall where you got this or from where it came from .
I do recall in many folow ups " Use the best speed rating (adjusted)
of the last 3 or 4 races at a comperable distance surface and competition level.
By competition level we mean total energy,If there is 1 intervening paceline you go down to line 4 2 intervening, go to line 5, but never more than 5 lines, You will/could be looking at a horses in a completely different form cycle"

Doc used the Adjusted Speed Rating but broke ties and whenn 2 or more lines looked the best with the F6 Paceline indicator, which in reality is what the preceptor readout is.

In the 4th race doing nothing but hitting the automatic on RDSS2.1
Which uses Doc's actually paceline guidelines very well , we see

The low odds horse # 4 is downgraded off line 2 a similar distance and track
and competition level .

The winner # 6 is rated far and away #1 on RX3 and BLBL

44986

Hi Bill

It is quoted from Mitch's post #5 in this thread.

Pook

[Lt1]

Hi guys. I was out most of the day so miss this one. From what I see of the pps Mitch is correct in that I would have most likely have used l2 or 4. Another thing Mitch pointed out is that in my handicapping turf races are the races which contain the most chances of going back past line 5. This is true here in the East when turf races begin in the spring. Some horses have raced on the turf in GP, Tampa Bay,and the Fairgrounds while others have been racing over dirt tracks at Aqu, Parx etc, while others take the winter off. All of these scenarios present various problems for the handicapper. All of us are free to use whatever method we feel comfortable with to include or exclude horses as contenders. As we have already seen there exist are wide divergence in approaches. Only our success or failure will lead to the correct one. At one time the Doc and other teaching members recommended not going past line 4 but in his one on one tapes Doc expanded to 5. Let's keep this thread rolling and continue to exchange our ideas and ask questions. As someone once told me the only dumb question is the one that's not ask.
Tim

[Bill V.]

HI POOK Sometimes I think people are playing that game telephone ,
All Doc's guidelines are in the follow ups and video and audio tapes People read and hear the guidelines but along the way the original message gets altered
Not faulting anybody. Doc clearly says in follow ups 70 to 88 to use the best speed rating / Preceptor, and or paceline indicator feature, of the last 3 comparable
He does say you could go back to line 5 but only if line 5 is recent and there are 2 intervening
( excused ) lines in the last 3.

Tim now is being a little more flexible. In turf races it's been suggested. to go back and open the window for the reasons mentioned.

But I can see no reason to use line 9 in a dirt race from Finger Lakes. Line 2 or line 4 would be
My choice but since RDSS picked line 2 I would agree with it.

Bill

[For The Lead]

Thanks, Pook, for posting this horse. There are examples here that can be explored and that is what I intend to do.

1 – I didn’t write this, Doc did.
44995



The following is just a “guess” on my part, since I don’t pay attention to such things, but I’m sure Bill V could correct me if I am wrong.
At the time Doc wrote this I believe the “best” of last three meant the best speed rating. I’m not sure if that is RAW speed rating or ADJUSTED speed rating, but in this case it really doesn’t matter. Either way, line 2 would be Doc’s choice, which keeps in line with what he wrote.

2 - Ok, this for for the “matchers” out there.
Bradshaw said when you use a deep line (that means a real old line at the bottom) there are questions you should ask yourself.
1 – is the horse still a horse? Rather than write what I’m thinking, I’ll just say “yes”.
2 – has the horse changed its’ running style and become a slow horse? Since line 2 has a faster speed rating than the deep line and since line 2 shows the same running style as the deep line, my answer would be “no”.
3 – if it is an early horse, can it still get on top of its’ fractions? As I recall, Bradshaw used RAW time. Obviously, line 2 has faster fractions than the deep line, so my answer would be “yes”.


Here is what has always made me laugh about this.
If the answers to these questions are in the “negative” then you throw the horse out.
BUT, if the answers are in the positive, then you use the deep line?
That’s crazy. If the answers are in the “positive” then considering the deep line is considering the wrong line.
Obviously, the more recent line that allows you to answer these questions in the “positive” would be the line to use.


3 - DON’T GO ANYWHERE YET! There is one more.
Using Doc’s original guidelines, if the last line is a “+” or a “(+)” then use it, UNLESS it is the wrong distance, surface, class, etc. If the last line does not qualify, then go to line 2.
In this case line 1 does not qualify as it is a sprint race and today’s race is a route race, so we’ll look at line 2.
Line 2 is a route race and a winning effort and therefore a “+” race.
Therefore, using Doc’s original guidelines line 2 is the correct line.

3 for 3 !!

Here’s the horse.

44996

[Mitch44]

In this case L 2 or L 9 the horse comes up in the top rated horses. How you bet it or select your top 2 is an individual thing. At the odds I would not have made a win bet.
Either way its a subjective thing. I'm just saying what line I would have chosen. In looking at this race I also would have had the winner the # 6 and if the horse didn't run back to L9 I still would have had the winner. BTW I wouldn't bet it to win either as it also left the gate at. very low odds.

As I stated earlier wherever that takes me is where I go and don't believe the horse should be faulted for the trainers decisions. As with any line you win some and lose some, the two horse bet helps smooth out some decisions.


Even a lost wouldn't change my mind as this has worked very well for me. If your not sure on a line run them both, many times as in this case more than one line can get a horse. If you get it in your top 4 and bet two of them your in the game. Good analysis and corollaries gets the best two.
Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Thanks for the write up FTL
Yes Doc is referring to the Adjusted Speed Ratings
Those are the speed ratings to the far right off the PP's
In line 2 horse 4 earned a 77 and in line 9 horse 4 earned a 75
The other speed ratings are what non Sartin programs but trackmaster
costumers are using. The reason the trackmaster speed ratings are different
than Doc's adjusted speed rating is the adjusted speed ratings are made
with Doc's algorithms. Trackmaster uses their own. Non Satin trackmaster
users do not see the Sartin Adjusted Speed ratings they are private for
Sartin download programs.
They are what fuels most of the readouts, You can see this on many of the
various analysis tabs,
I have the Energy tab opened you can see only the Sartin speed ratings are
used under SR

44997

Mitch You are right line 4 or line 2 or line 9 makes no difference
The winner # 6 is still right on top
It is interesting how Line 9 is a -2 on the early/late readout
But on line 2 it is a 12.5 Early
Looking at the 2 lines on the energy readouts
The total energy is close but in line 2 It used much more energy
early

44998

[For The Lead]

It is interesting how Line 9 is a -2 on the early/late readout
But on line 2 it is a 12.5 Early
Looking at the 2 lines on the energy readouts
The total energy is close but in line 2 It used much more energy
early

44998

Naturally, Bill.

The fractions in line 9 are MORE THAN 2 full seconds slower.
Since the total energy on both lines are very close, as you said, the slower early fractions in line 9 have an effect on the early/late graph, however, it doesn’t change the fact that the horse is an EARLY horse.
And this is the reason line selection is important. It doesn’t matter if there are 3 lines that can be used. What matters is, which line represents the horse’s running style. Certainly NOT line 9.

[Mitch44]

In this case the horse is the same horse that it was in L 9 . Not always the case and something that has to be determined.


I only picked this line based on what Pook put up. My normal procedure is that I have 3 panes open on my screen : 1st is the original pane, 2nd the TPR screen and the BLBL screen. I always check the sticks to insure I'm picking a line that conforms to the horses running style. Never had a chance to see that or get into it and didn't download the race.

In watching the re-run it appears this horse was forced to run too fast early and didn't quite have it late or wasn't in peak condition.
Based on your screen shots Bill he appears to be a NTL horse who is more comfortable on the lead, all those E's & many % Med of 70% & +. I forget which horse went way out front but it did have an impact on the race. The 4 didn't give it up through and ran more like a presser but couldn't get it done based on the match up.The 4 is very consistent at a route distances.

This example shows the importance of using all the information available on various screens to analyze a race. Far too many only use the BLBL screen with no analysis.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

I thought I toss this in regarding lay off horses. On the 1993 Las Vegas seminar videos [believe it's tape 1 available in the video library] Ted ask the Doc and panel how the would treat horses coming back from long layoffs. It was in reference to Woodbine where they take a long break between meets. Doc, after having at little fun with Ted, stated to stop worrying about the layoffs and treat the horses like they ran last week. Now, before folks start posting lay off stats again, Doc was addressing a track specific situation. If I remember correctly I believe Dick Jorgesen and Vic Palermo also chimed in with a similar view of the seasonal tracks they dealt with. Just a little food for thought with your morning coffee.
Tim

[lostandwon]

FTL,

Thoughts from a matcher re: your point #2 for the matchers.

I of course can only speak for myself and solicit opinions and input from others. I also feel compelled to say I still got a day job.

I don’t think a matcher employing the matchup (as presented in the hat check forum) would go to L9 for precisely the reasons you stated.

My perception is that the object of going deep was to make the horse as fast as you can. Line 9 doesn’t do that with those painfully slow fractions.

[The Pook]

To the original poster of this thread as to what matters:

When I posted Pachama I was illustrating how interpreting pace line guidelines in a certain way could get you to line 9 on that horse. A rarity. But there is success doing it this way if you are consistent, as shown by some members. Bradshaw encouraged you to open up the entire PP's and even blend lines in certain circumstances from deep down. Difficult but doable by some members. Sartin used one of the last three lines almost always. Done by many.

These two approaches from polar opposite positions both work as do many interpretations in between. They all get there own winners and are passionately defended by their practitioners but can confuse the new.

A lot of these folks have decades of experience and were acquaintances of the founding fathers. One guy has been handicapping for over 50 years. It takes time to find your own comfort zone.

May you find yours,

Pook

[Lt1]

Well stated Mike. This is the main reason I recommended that folks watch the 1998 one on one videos done by the Doc. There is no confusion where the Doc stood at that time nor is one left to try to figure out what he meant on varying topics. You get it straight from the mans mouth. One is then free to pursue what ever approach they wish.
Tim

[Mitch44]

Very well said Pook and your correct. One can get in trouble going back too far but I always ask the question; Is this the same horse? In this case the answer was yes? Technically I could argue the horse may not be the same even from its last line or other more recent lines but I won't even go there.


I can see where a newbie could be confused, I would recommend they go no further than 5 lines back which was his (Sartin) latest guidelines. New people like rules or structure and that will get them off to a better start. Experience does matter in any endeavor.


All this talk of a slow pace is immaterial in reference to L 9. The preceptor supersedes that. A slow pace can be from the variant, a slower track or in this case a very fast 3rd FR. The horse wasn't challenged and did what he had to do, can't fault it for that. That 3rd FR was super for that line and 3rd FR's are incorporated into SP,FX HE and of course 3rd Fr etc. That's 4 of the 7 Primary factors and as Doc stated the compounded Fr. are what propelled things forward and really expounds on this in the 1998 tapes. Probably why that Preceptor is so good for that line. I'm not a speed handicapper and all Fr's are important for which the factors are derived. The Preceptor is extremely hard to beat as far as lines go and IMO supersedes the old SR + variant to get a pace line, which I learned in the early 90's.


Based on the information I had at the time L 9 was my choice and the correct choice. Would I have changed the line based on other information? YES!! I'm very attuned to running styles and some matchup techniques such as NTL ,% Med. fighters etc. While not a matcher per say I'm more eclectic and even use the old phase 1 or TPR, always trying to use the best of everything that's proven. In another case I may not have changed L 9. All anyone can do is use the information on hand at that time.


Mitch44

[lone speed]

To the original poster of this thread as to what matters:

When I posted Pachama I was illustrating how interpreting pace line guidelines in a certain way could get you to line 9 on that horse. A rarity. But there is success doing it this way if you are consistent, as shown by some members. Bradshaw encouraged you to open up the entire PP's and even blend lines in certain circumstances from deep down. Difficult but doable by some members. Sartin used one of the last three lines almost always. Done by many.

These two approaches from polar opposite positions both work as do many interpretations in between. They all get there own winners and are passionately defended by their practitioners but can confuse the new.

A lot of these folks have decades of experience and were acquaintances of the founding fathers. One guy has been handicapping for over 50 years. It takes time to find your own comfort zone.

May you find yours,

Pook
Pook....

Very well said!!!!

I salute you for addressing new interested parties...Yes, indeed, this game does take years to find one's niche and pathway unless one is able to latch onto a mentor and shorten one's learning curve time period .....

As D Wayne Lukas once named one precocious filly...."Open Mind"...It behooves one to keep an "open mind" in this game. Rules are good parameters to begin with and to keep one on the "golden path".

Good Skills :cool:

[Mitch44]

"Believe and your halfway there."

- Theodore Roosevelt

Mitch44