To Bill Lyster
 

Although I have already done so privately, I want to publicly thank Bill Lyster for all the hard work, time and effort he put into this project. I can only say that I was taken aback by what he has done. I never expected anyone to embark on such a time consuming project. I can only hope that Bill’s efforts will not be in vain and that having all this information in one place will make it easy for those wishing to learn. My posts were never meant to be anything other than what they are, information to help others improve their game.

So Bill, a tip of my hat to you and “THANK YOU” for all of your work.

Further CLARIFICATION
 

Actually, as a further point of clarity for all who may be reading this, the guidelines I use are the ORIGINAL SARTIN GUIDELINES with two additions of my own. Those two additions are the ML guideline and the 90 day guideline.

The “Original Sartin Guidelines” are the guidelines he used with his original group of truck drivers.
They are the guidelines he used when he originally intended to “contract” with just 1,000 clients and guaranteed those clients would get 63% winners using them and following his teachings.
Here is a post by Bill V.
Attachment 45313

As many readers already know, the two guidelines I added are as a result of research done on my database of millions and millions of horses and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of races. That research showed horses that fall within my two additional guidelines win at such a small frequency as to render them insignificant.

So the guidelines I use ARE SARTIN TEACHINGS.

You are most welcome FTL. It has been a continuing and enlightening pleasure.

I seriously doubt many could achieve 63% using Sartin techniques that date back to the original pace line manual. Exceptions sure but for the average member like you its doubtful at best His evolution of concepts such as pace line selection and factors far surpass anything from 1986 or so and with them many more reach that goal.

As part of that revolution he also abandoned man made class structure as they appear in PP's and eliminated it as an aide in selection of the proper pace line. His class evolved to what we now know as CR which was improved by Ted to CR+.

Additionally he abandoned any number of days to the selecting of pace lines. This is on tape in the library where Ted asked the question about layoff horses and "Doc's" reply was to "Treat them as if they ran last week."

I would say only use his latest concepts if you want to win and achieve 63% with two horses. This game is tough enough and ignoring his proven and later concepts is a recipe for disaster. Only use them if you want to win or perish.

As far as the race posted here I deem it as not winnable, part of that 37% we don't get. Sure we can all get the winner after the fact. The fact of the matter is this game only pays off for foresight not hindsight. Theory and where the leather meets the road are totally different.



Mitch44

Mitch the tape you refer to is the 1993 Las Vegas Seminar. Teds' question was in respect to Woodbine and the fact that most of the horses were returning from long layoffs between meets and how to handle that. Doc gave the answer you posted. When I joined the group in 1990 the Doc was teaching the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance,surface, and class level. I never heard the Doc or any other teacher state to toss any horse based on days since last race, or morning line odds. I also never heard not to use sprint lines in routes or route lines in sprints. I did learn that projecting was risky and extraction was safer. I also learned that fast sprinters can and do beat slow routers and that fast routers can beat slow sprinters. This what I call situational handicapping based on the race in front of the user. I also saw Doc move away from the visual matchup and projecting the pace of race to embrace chaos math and compounded ratings[see his 1 on 1 videos in the library]. I think all would benefit from a review of FTLS' race conditions section. In short, although FTLS' guidelines serve him well, I don't believe newer members should be lead to past teachings and programs but rather they should be referred to the newer teachings of the Doc and RDSS Older more experienced members can determine for themselves [based on their success] what they want to use.
Tim

FTL

Thanks very much for sharing your knowledge with us

Shoeless

Bill

Just took a look it at great job

Thanks again

days
 

Hello Mitch and Tim

I will find the exact follow up and posted the article reference,
But Doc's PERSONAL cut off point was no longer than 189 days

Yet in one of the seminar tapes everybody is kidding around with Doc because
he used a line over 1 year old


I feel Doc offered 'His" guidelines , That is he had his own way of doing things such as hiding any horse that would pay less than 5/2

He suggest to us that he had success using his guidelines
they were just guidelines They work very well.

I agree with the feeling that a new user should use RDSS as to the instructions in follow ups between #70 and 88

However at some point we all want to improve.
For me my biggest improvement came when I started using while picking paceline and contenders and eliminating within my to rated horses on RDSS some of FTL's guidelines

Blessing and Skilll to All
Bill

Would like to express my thanks to Bill Lyster and FTL.
Great resource

Changing Surface or Distance
 

A little more on the conundrum of horses changing distance or surface. Below is a summary of all DMR races from the summer meet that won by changing distance or surface. It happens on average about once a day!

The position at each call data comes from the race charts. At the bottom of the column the data represent numbers and percentages of time the winner was in the top 3. LO is layoff days; ML is morning line and ML# is ML odds rank. The % are number of ML > 20/1 and top 4 and ties in the ML.

In keeping with FTL's guidelines these horses are ALL non contenders (NQ), yet when you pick a representative line their 1F and 2C ranks on the SEGMENT screen show consistently that many are top 3 at 1F and 2C.

I classified the kind of change so DSPT/DRTE = dirt sprint to dirt route; TSPT/TRTE = turf sprint to turf route.

I looked at other factors from the RDSS printouts. Note that there are only two winners that went from a route back to a sprint[brown]. The other 27 are stretch outs or surface changes within the same distance structure.

The only modestly compelling observation that I could make is that in 17 of the 27 the winner was top 3 EPR. Also several of the sprint to route horses appear to be top five ranked in both EPR and LPR!


Attachment 45315
Attachment 45314