Thxs Charlie..You just woke up my brain on this..in his book ..Hat threw out horses that had a few races after the maiden win and didn't show much...but i believe that was the extent on class..not sure but positive about the maiden win

mike

I thought I head Jim say on one of the tapes he doesn't look at Jockey,Trainer, or Class.

I must have misunderstood him then if I heard it wrong.


Mike, I am basically the boss lol. Not really lol, but I can bet at work during breaks, because the company policy is as long as you're off the clock, it is your free time. I just can't use the company computer to do it.

I will post up another race, for today.

The HAT using Class

Not much running today. I really hate Penn National sometimes, but I guess its where we have to go for todays post.

PENN NATIONAL 12/22
RACE 3

1: Go 2 back, that race was at todays distance.
2: Last out, that race was at todays distance.
3: Last Out, that race was at todays distance.
4: Go 2 back, that race was at todays distance.
5: Go 3 back, that race was at todays distance.
6: No race at todays distance. Use best beyer.
7: Go 3 back, that race was at todays distance.
8: No race at todays distance. Use best beyer.
9: No race at todays distance. Use best beyer.
10: No race at todays distance. Use best beyer.
11: Go 4 back, that race was at todays distance.



Going to try something new today. My method using 4F-6F calls have worked excellent for routes, but not so much for sprints. What I am noticing, is using the method using 2F and 4F calls for 5.5 furlong races and under work better. So I will attempt that today. So we will use the 2F and 4F calls for all horses. If we get down to 2 or 3 horses, then the 5 Furlong call can be brought in.


1---22.15---45.31----Lost 10
2---22.47---46.68----Gained 4
3---22.34---46.07----Lost 17
4---23.12---46.08----Lost 3, but was 17 lenghts back at 2nd call.
5---23.30---47.70----Lost 4
6---22.92---47.76----Lost 2
7---22.96---47.25----Lost 5
8---22.07---46.56----Gained 3
9---22.84---45.95----Lost 4
10--22.94---47.26----Gained 3
11--22.19---45.33----Even


I would eliminate 5-6-7 off the bat for losing ground at the slowest 4F calls. I would then eliminate the 3, for losing so much ground. Also, eliminate the 4, with a slow 1st 1/4, the horse was 17 lengths back.

Now down to 1-2-8-9-10-11. Still needing to eliminate 2 more horses. The 10 gained lengths, but against VERY slow 4F call, and is now eliminated.

Out of the 5 horses left, the 1 and 9 are the only horses to lose ground. The issue is both were the fastest calls of the field. I will eliminate the worst of those 2 horses now though. The fractions were almost the same, with the 1 racing against the faster of the 2 horses by about 3/5 of a second. Problem is the 1 lost 6 more lengths than the 9. Thats roughly over a second. The 1 is eliminated.

Top 4 horses are 2-8-9-11. The 9 horse will be scratched, as the horse raced yesterday. Leaves 2-8-11 as the top 3.

In the selected race, the 2's race went 5F in 100.42. The 8's selected race went 5F in 59.28. The 11's race went in 57.67.

My selection for this race would be 8 With 2-11.

If I ran the race using my old method, I would have had 8 With 7-11. So both picked up solid horses....


Good Luck

But is that eliminating a horse for the class the horse has won or lost at?? Thats what I mean about class. In the excerpt you sent, it looks like Jim is saying look at the TRACKS the horse has ran at, not so much whether horse is dropping from 40 claimer to 10 claimer...

justin..tweak it baby, you never know

mike

be in here later

mike

Class is ability, hence the correct statement here.

His capping of thousands of races told him which horses from which races transfered and which did not and knowing that is how you eliminate horses and identify TRUE contenders.


From using the WHOLE PP you create a Picture of a horse and this Picture tells you what it is capable of. This Picture is then atched Up to other Pictures and one or the other is eliminated until your left with the TRUE contenders in todays race.



The Hat.

CLASS IS ABILITY.
Ok, then ability equals time, since it stands to reason that the horse with the most ability runs the fastest time.
So then;
Class = ability
Ability = time
Best time = classiest horse with the most ability
Best time = best speed rating, since speed ratings are based on time
Therefore, we are looking for the horse with the best speed rating, since that represents the horse with the best time, best ability and best class.
True?

I do not use “the match up”, but from reading various posts I have understood it to mean that one is suppose to be matching one horse against another based on how each horse runs against a preset time at each call. In the end, the horse that runs the best against those times is the fastest horse and therefore the winner of the race. If this is incorrect, then I misunderstood.

However, now I read what you posted and you say that you look at the “whole” past performances for each horse and create a picture of what each horse is capable of. Further, that you do this for each horse in the race. You then compare one horses’ “picture” to another horses’ “picture” and eliminate horses based on their individual “pictures” until you narrow the race down to one horse, which should then be the winner of the race. That sounds very reasonable, however, I am left with a question. The old saying is, “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Perhaps in fewer words than that, could explain what we are looking for in each picture?

Not really, as the best speed rating was in all probability achieved in a Match Up that will not be repeated or even come close to being repeated except maybe with high class/ability horses.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...t=64732&page=5


Hat


Seems to me Dave Schwartz and The Hat are saying the same thing.

And, of course, there is the end of that quote you used by Dave:

"Of course, Howard also said that 90% of the time you should use one of the last two lines, and I totally disagree with that. That is not really "pace" handicapping; that's "recent form" handicapping because the big recent race will almost always be your play(s)."

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

So, in order to win, we start with:

1. Pick the right contenders.
2. Pick the right pacelines.
3. Interpret the readouts (i.e. model) correctly.

Followed by:

1. choose one of the last two lines 90% of the time (Doc)
2. choose some other line further back (Dave)
3. the same old problem of, which is correct?

In the library you can find Doc's guidelines to line selection in the Paceline Manual in the Follow Up section. I find it to be a fairly straight forward approach. They are NOT "best of last three distance/surface". What they are is: "last line unless there is a 'valid' reason to go back farther". Since Doc appeared to be a stickler for using the last line, I can only assume that his use of the word "farther" means the second line back, not 9 lines back!

In addition, it also does not say to use a sprint line in a route race or a route line in a sprint race. In fact, "wrong distance" is a "valid" reason for going back. Although Doc does not say it, I can only assume that if he did not find a pace line using the guidelines he set forth, the horse was eliminated. I did not see in these guidelines where he suggests the manufacturing of a pace line.

It is a matter of record that the first and second choices win approximately 58% of all races every year. It doesn't matter if you choose line-1 or line-10, that is the way it is going to end up at the end of the year. And yet everybody, including Dave, is going back for lines in order to "catch" a price horse. Believe it or not, using Doc's guidelines, the prices will come to you! You can't make a price horse win just because you chased after it! They win, when they win, not when you want them to win! If you don't believe it, why not give "Doc" a shot? Follow his guidelines for a while ( not a day or week) and see what happens. You might be pleasantly surprised!

I'm quite happy using Hat concepts thanks FTL and so was Doc i believe.

While I am quite sure YOU are happy using "Hat's" concepts, I'm not that sure that "Doc" was. In fact, somebody recently posted, that although Doc and Hat worked together, Hat did his thing and Doc did his thing, separately and apart from each other. I can't say that for sure, I wasn't there.

I was not there either FTL, so i use stuff posted on here and generously donated to the library from which to draw conclusions.

Stuff like this from our former leader and teacher of Sartin Methodology concepts.

FTL,

Neither was I. But I think therein lies the beauty of the Methodology. For some it is gospel. For others, it is a foundation from which to build from. The important thing. in my opinon, is to fully learn the concepts and then decide what tweaks, if any, you want to apply to your own way of betting in order to be profitable.

From what I have seen, Doc was forever changing (improving) the Methodology to go with the times. He left us a legacy which has been put together by Bill, Ted, Richie and many members of this site. This legacy provides a solid foundation to build our pari-mutuel house.

Jim

Nice post Jim imho.

Charlie D and JimG
 

Thanks for the responses and good luck to both of you.

Charlie,

Back to my idea to ignore class, and FTL, back to my idea on ignoring layoffs. Look in the Hat Check.

Post By Richie....

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1628


Here is the EXACT POST.

I have been learning the matchup from Jim for appx 5 months. Learning it from the CREATOR only. I will say there are 2 key things that MUST be done to have ANY chance to actually become a successful " Matcher".

1) Completely IGNORE trainer/jockey/class/layoffs/trackbias. PERIOD.



Now, can somebody shed some light on this topic. The whole class, and layoff issue is really making things a little foggy?? How do some of you other matchers use these??

Well, I wrote a post thanking other posters for their responses and wishing them good luck. I had no idea in doing so that I would create a fire storm.

So, I will begin by thanking you for posting Richie’s EXACT POST and also for providing a link to the post. The problem seems to be, that in showing the EXACT POST which indicates there are “2 key things”, you went on to show only one of the keys. Perhaps this was an over site on your part or perhaps it is because it fit with that part of your approach to the match up that says to ignore “layoffs” and “class” among other items.

However, in the interest of “full disclosure”, I feel compelled to show the “second key thing” from that post.

“2) MUST use the horse's ENTIRE past performances shown REGARDLESS of how long ago some of the pacelines might be. This enables us to:
a) match lines and overcome any track variant and shipper/ track to track issues.
b) identify strongly WINNING running styles and the POSITION at the FIRST call a horse can WIN from.”

I can understand that you missed this “second key thing” since it is in opposition to your approach of selecting a single line, using the most recent line at today’s distance or if not available the best Beyer number from the last 4 races, none of which is a part of Jim Bradshaw’s “match up”.

Personally, I don’t care if you follow Jim Bradshaw’s match up “to the letter” or not. If what you do, works for you, then best of luck to you. However, I feel it is disingenuous to point out ONLY that part of his match up that coincides with your procedures, while you flagrantly dismiss other areas of his match up.

I am not, nor do I profess to be, “a matcher”. I am not an “angle” player. I do not play “jockeys” although I prefer to have a jockey who shows he is getting winning horses to ride. I do not play trainers, although I prefer to have a trainer who shows he is capable of sending out winning horses. I do pay attention to class, which is one area where I differ from Jim Bradshaw. I do pay attention to “layoffs”, since 13 years, plus thousands of dollars in download expense and countless hours of work tells me, among many other things, what time frame since a horses last race, the majority of winners come from. Naturally, there are isolated instances where the “average” horse (not a top of the line horse) wins in spite of being off for extended periods of time. I do consider what is characterized here as “track biases” and I will offer just one illustration. For years PEN was an early speed favoring track. Every year PEN closed for two weeks in September in order to winterize the track, without any change in how the track played. However, in September of 2008, PEN shut down for 5 weeks and completely re-surfaced their track. Since that time, it no longer is an early speed favoring track. Seldom do you find two tracks that play exactly alike. So I contend that there are differences in how tracks play and that must be taken into consideration. So I suppose Jim Bradshaw and I are on opposite sides of that issue. I agree that each horse should be evaluate from its’ total past performances. In other words, I am a handicapper and I find the Sartin Methodology to be a useful toll in my arsenal, although I may not agree with it in totality.

In closing, the nice thing about this site, is that people can come here and post their ideas. I believe that for the most part, this is done in the spirit of helping others. It doesn’t mean they are right and it doesn’t mean they are wrong.

So, again, I wish you well in your endeavors.

FTL,

No firstorm. lol. We here just all share our ideas, as it makes us all better. I wasn't posting what I do. Somewhere in this thread, it was said Jim used Class and Layoffs. I dont know where, but I remember seeing it. I was just posting what JIM used, as shown by Richie.

There is no issues. Again, just all here to share ideas. I wish you luck, and have a Merry Christmas!!!!

Justin i think we may be confusiing using race conditions/title and ability
or Class

The former is ignored, that latter is not,, Hat also advised Matchers to use speedfigures to help identify if a horse might be competitive or not too.


The Match Up is pattern recognition and to identify patterns you need to use ALL the lines contained in the PP, not just last 2,3 or 4 or the best recent line.