What info did Jeff use to to come to this conclusion??

Beginning in 1984 I began the extensive use of dBase II having both my wife and my reluctant secretary enter a mountain of data regarding my home track. The amount of time and effort was immense in relationship to the information gleaned. The same proved true with iterations through dBase 4 and Microsoft Acess. Having a set of sore finger tips and frustration, I attended a Sartin Methodology seminar in Vancovuer and listened intently to a Longacres based handicapper enlighten me to the realities of handicapping.

I will never forget his opening line: "What are we really looking at in handicapping a race? We are looking at the dichotomy of sameness (consistency) versus change. I vote that change is the overlooked aspect that will, in the long run, make you the most money." He then went on proposing a simple example:"Let's say that TEN horses race every 28 days through the year against one another. I contend that there would be mulitple winners since the form cycles would be changing, the condition of the horses would be changing (nagging injuries in some), training changes would occur (one or two young horses would suddenly "get it" and run to much improved speed), even things like the jockey might play into this (one might get hurt and another one might be going through a bad divorce).....He then reminded us of the tandem concept and how it would alter the maneuvering of the ride race to race.

This idea of understanding the holistic nature of a process as Sartin constantly reminded us with the "either or" concept (not sure if that is the exact espression of it, but close), fit right in with understanding that nothing occurs in isolation. Many of the suggested readings Sartin added to the Follow Up (the I Ching, Complexity, Chaos) substantiated the fact of the holisitc nature of life that were being discovered all the time. The Tao of Physics reiterates these associations of the specific to the whole.

So a database is looking for what? SIMILARITIES or SAMENESS and what is HALF the battle in handicapping a race? CHANGE. Stretched to the practical concepts in front of us, the MATCH UP is the only real thing to evaluate and it is as distinct, race to race, as anything we are going to encounter in our evaluations. The change and the requirements of horses needed TODAY in this SPECIFIC match up, are the only ones relevant, not any averaged database projection: DISTINCT, different each race and outside the evaluation of the sameness a database evokes.

Right on the money brother

Houndog

This is what this forum is for i believe, so no need to apologise or have your posts deleted imo

I thought it would be interesting to read Jeff's research, hence the query

forums are for discussions. The folks who get angry with interchanges need to reconsider their posts.

Information
 

[QUOTE=Charlie D;42788]What info did Jeff use to to come to this conclusion??[/QUOTE

Charlie here is the link in which Jeff responds. I knew Jeff's initial response to the DB question might have caused a problem and in retrospect I probably should not have posted it. Did not mean to ruffle any feathers and I also respect Jim Bradshaw's innovative work with the Match-Up.

http://www.jcapper.com/MessageBoard/...&forum=General

Thanks Houndog

funny stuff the Jcapper: arm's length handicapping....The classic reductionist.......Must work for some but fraught with potential error. Like learning dentistry from a distance.

Tim behave yourself, there is more than one path to the pot of gold

Funny
 

Tim I think he is actually making your point which you have been expounding on in numerous posts. This is getting fun.