Race selection
 

What is the minimum comparable distance/conditions do you require per race?? For example I did a 6 F sprint race over the weekend that had 11 horses entered. Out of the 11 only 6 had a comparable distance and ran 90 days or less. The other 5 were either over 90 days or only ran route races 8f.

I don't worry about a comparable distance so much because RDSS will extract from longer lines chosen and project from shorter lines chosen. If I make a horse a contender comparable is unimportant to me. You have to use what you have.

Now when choosing pace lines I attempt to stay within 1/2 F of todays distance and no more than 1 F.

I don't automatically throw out horses that haven't raced within 90 days. Like anything these horses are not all equal just because they haven't raced within 90 days. While the stat for 90 day horses is poor it must be put into context because their all not created equal or the same and you'll go broke playing them all. That can be said of any stat such as 14 day horses, favorites, last out winners in that they are not all created equal or the same. Its up to the player to decide, the problem with stats is that they consider all or throw them all into the same basket. They are not all the same. Or within any stat are they all the same. Races are a similar example, in that all 6 F races are not the same. I.e. If 6F races were additionally broken down by Surface, class track etc. the overall stat for 6 F races change. Ditto or same with favorites, Gr 1 horses win more that the average stat of say 33 % for favorites. That 33% lump in the best with the worst or all those Never won 2 lifetime etc. Like all favorites percentages and stats tend to lump the worst in with the best and create unreliable stats. Its up to the player to do research in order to garner the nuggets that the public doesn't have and whom believe in basic plain stats that the racing game has been spewing out for years.

Sartin once said that after a horse is off 30 days it makes no difference if he was off 90 days. He is correct in that the form cycle is within a 30 day cycle.
Mitch44

Glad
 

hello stugots

If you can remember the track and race I can put up the PP's
I can then go thru the horses and show you my criteria.

Basically, my blanket start point for contenders ( win only )
I look for horses with Plus + pace lines ( color-coded in RDSS)
Some other positives are the horses with + pacelines further down in their PP's
particularly from a
Comparable distance,
Comparable surface
If a horse is coming in with a
20/1 ML
or a very bad win to race percentage
I always marked them as a not for win contender.

Layoffs can be an eliminator.

If off >60 days, It must have good workouts and has shown at least a (+)
at the distance after a 60-day or longer layoff.

If a horse is coming in after a 90-day long layoff.
at any of my 3 main tracks*, I mark them as non-win contenders
but I will watch the tote board and the morning line.

* = SoCal, Parx, NYRA

Here are two horses coming out of the same race
It is race 9 today at Parx

This is a contender

Attachment 46317


This is a noncontender

Attachment 46316

Bill, It was the 10th race at Santa Anita on Sunday, June 17th, 2018.
6.5 Furlongs

Thanks
 

Thanks I will check in after Parx and Doc appointment

Attachment 46319

I agree with Mitch. I do not automatically throw out a horse because it hasn't raced in 90 days or has a morning line of 20-1 etc. I am aware of all the percentages against these types of horses winning, however, to me each race is different and must be approached that way. If one of these types survives
my initial contender selection process it stays and I will evaluate it further. Doc only had 1 thing that he would call a "rule" and that was not to rate a horse off of a zero race. Anything else is fair game. If I don't have a comparable line for a contender I will project or extract as needed keeping in mind that projecting is far more dangerous then extracting. As Doc said on his 1998 1 on 1 videos, when he went away from the visual matchup and strongly endorsed the best of the last 3 concept, the reality of racing had changed. It continues to change today and we must adjust accordingly.
Tim

Hello Tim
 

I have mostly races from Parx NYRA and Socal

I will look and see if i can get some kind of a percentage or horses that
still won the race even though they were 20/1 on the morning line
and had a + paceline or non zero as you call them
At Socal and NYRA i figure this to be a very low number

Am I reading your post correctly ?

Thanks

Best skill
Bill

PS I agree with Doc's views about trainer stats and man made tout services. I ignore them, I may view them after each meet but I never base a wager decision on them ' "the horse runs the race" The competent trainer places his stock in the best positions for it to succeed.

The horses pace lines are what I use to compare and judge racehorses

Bill I'm aware of the stats which generally make these types of horses poor win bets, however,
I take each race as it comes. I don't automatically toss a horse. I have my contender selection process and if 1 of these types survives the initial round it stays until I toss it for other handicapping reasons. This doesn't mean the horse will be a win bet but it could fill the underneath positions. I'm also aware of other approaches used by members but I prefer mine which have served me well over the years.
Tim

So
 

Hi Tim

Thanks for clearing that up
I would gather this for the opening poster John,

20/1 M /L horses are poor win prospects ,
But they very well can place or show.

Also any rule or guideline is 100 percent track / distance/ surface / class specific

A tidbit from Doc`s One on One video seminar,Know Thy Track

Bill the reason I don't automatically throw out a horse is due to the fact that in my 28yrs with the group and my many dealings with Doc,Jimmy, and numerous other teaching members I don't recall ever hearing about an automatic toss. Maybe I missed it. I will point out that more horses off 90 days or more make my initial cut then do the 20-1 group which makes sense since horses today are coddled so much. Even the cheaper horses don't run as many times a year as they use to.
Tim

HI Tim, Do you have a cutoff for a layoff and how far down will you go to select a line? Have you done well selecting layoff horses? Thanks

I’m a little confused by your question.
It seems your concern is that not enough horses were contenders. Well, the easiest way to find a winner is to eliminate the losers.

Bill V recently posted a race. You can find it here. http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11676
Below is how I looked at the race.
As you will see, I had just ONE CONTENDER, which also happened to be a lone early horse.
It won at odds of 3/1.

Trust me when I tell you that this is a real oddity. Seldom will you find a race where you can get the field down to just one contender, but it certainly doesn’t hurt to eliminate as many non-contenders as possible.


Here are the “FTL Guidelines”

#3 has not raced in 225 days, OUT
#2 and #6 both have a ML of 20/1 or greater, OUT

#1 – LINE 2 (a + line), line one was wrong surface (turf)
#4 – NO LINE – last race was the same class, distance and surface and was a “0” race.
#5 – NO LINE – horse only shows turf races(wrong surface)
#7 – NO LINE – only race in the last 90 days is a sprint(wrong distance)
#8 – NO LINE – last race is a “0” race with no excuse
#9 – NO LINE – last race is at same distance, surface and class and is a “0” race


For more information on picking lines and contenders just click on this link.
http://http://paceandcap.com/forums/...ad.php?t=10373

Thanks FTL I appreciate it. The only question I have is the #8 horse. Would't you select the 2nd line which was a + race at 8.5 F at the same track 69 days ago??

No. As I said in my above post, in the horses last race at the same distance, surface and class the horse ran a "0" race with no excuse for the poor showing. Following the guidelines this means you do not go back any further and the horse is eliminated as a contender, therefore, it does not get a line.

Hi John. I don't have a line drawn in the sand when it comes to looking at lay off horses. In general I have found that the majority of the lay off horses that survive my analysis have last raced within 180 days of todays race. As usual there are always some exceptions [usually very high class animals]. As far as what line I use it depends on the horse I'm dealing with. The better the horse the more flexible I am. This is especially true with turf horses that take the winter off and don't return until the Spring. As far as a success rate goes most of these types generally win around 10% but can and do complete some very nice ex and tri pay offs. Just keep in I'm only talking about a relatively small amount of lay off horses. Most lay off horses don't survive my initial analysis. The point I was making is I don't toss any horse without giving it at least a cursory look especially if playing exotic wagers.
Tim

I myself would have considered the # 8 as a contender stugots119, whether I would have played it or not I can't honestly say after the fact.


This #8 would have been a contender for the master "Jim Bradshaw" and if it would be a contender than it would be for me. Coincidentally while helping a Canadian friend I specifically made this point.


According to Bradshaw (the match up expert) anytime you have a race of all S type horses the advantage goes to early horses. In this race that's the # 1 & # 8. The master wins another with the # 1 , just another reason not to throw out the # 8. Additionally the 8 is highly ranked on RX 1, 2,& 3. Ranked high on EPR which meets Bradshaw's criteria.

Another recent race similar to this was the 1st race on Belmont day 9 Jun 18 made up of all late horses or OTE , same outcome which I brought this to the attention as a teaching point to my Canadian friend.


As far as contenders each individual has to find what works for them and has the winner in the top 4 at least 85% of the time. I can do that in less than a minute or two and than proceed from there.


The # 8 in this race definitely would have been a contender for me. I don't have all the information to make a decision to bet it or not. I do see he was recently claimed and perhaps that's the reason for his last race declined or had a problem during the race but he definitely was and would be a contender for me.



I might add that just by the nature of the game when it comes to payoffs both to the player and the connections many horses have to have so called zero races, after all these races aren't limited to 4 starters etc. Zero races can be caused by many factors besides form itself.


Mitch44

Actually here is something to note on the winner of this race, the #1 .


He ran an ugly race or 0 race in his 5th race and after a layoff of 49 days won his next race (Line four) HMM? How does that happen after an ugly 0 last race? And at a whopping $ 48 dollars or so. So much for hard and fast inflexible rules.


To me this is just another example of cherry picking after the fact. I'm always 100% after the race but never seem to get paid for that. Where the money is earned is the decisions made before post time and the betting of one's analysis.

Best of luck,
Mitch44

I would also have made the 8 a contender in the race. Although the last line is a 0 race it came after a 49 day lay off and at what appears to have been at a level above todays race.That makes 2 excuses for me to excuse the last and keep the horse. This is in no way implying that the horse would have been a bet when all was said and done. We must also remember that horses are not machines and even the best will throw a clunker in with no apparent excuse. This is why Doc went to the best of the last 3 over riding the older last line except for valid reason practice.
Tim

Lay offs
 

In Follow up 81 page 34-35 Doc addresses the issue regarding Layoffs.

In one or more other Issues he talked about long odds horses.
Basically what he said was that if a horse ends up in your top 3 or 4 final contenders ( regardless of ML odds OR days off ) and if the Odds are acceptable then make a bet.

I agree with Tim and Mitch that if you eliminate a horse too early in your handicapping process you are going to miss out on a lot of very nice priced horses.
Rmath

Well, the first thing is, I did not cherry pick the race. Bill V posted it, not me.

This is in line with you deciding to look at this horse going from a "0" race in line 5 to a winning race in line 4. I didn't pick it, you did. But since you did pick it, I'll respond.

It certainly helps to be able to read the Racing Form and intepret what it is telling you and since you seem puzzled by what happened, I'll help you out.

I have attached the PP's for the #1 horse (the horse in question here).
In red, I have circled races from DMR.
In black, I have circled races from SA.
It is clear to any astute reader that races from DMR can be thrown out. It appears for whatever the reason the horse doesn't like the track.
On the other hand, the horse appears to like SA.
So, when looking at the horse's race at SA in line 7 for $25,000 and showing its' customary early speed and then looking at its' next race at SA in line 4 for $12,500 (half the previous value at SA)it is little wonder that the horse won off by almost 5 lengths. Naturally, one would have to see the rest of the field in the race on line 4, but this reading of the Racing Form answers the question for today's #1 horse on that day.
Its' winning race in line 4 is just NOT the mystery you make it out to be!

FTL

Glad to see you posting again

Shoeless

Yes
FTL :1:
Welcome back

FTL:


First of all I call it cherry picking when you constantly and always come up with an ideal solution to a race after the fact. Fact of the matter also is that not once have I ever seen you put up a pick before a race goes off. I call that cherry picking and a classic definition of such. They don't pay off for after the fact and only prior to the gates opening.


Ah another perfect solution to why the # 1 horse won his 4th race. Bravo!! It caught my eye in briefly looking at the PP of this race. And based on your guidelines the horse would be a toss. There are many reasons why that race could be a toss besides the few you mention.
"Its' winning race in line 4 is just NOT the mystery you make it out to be!" Its absolutely no mystery to me however to anyone following you're guidelines it would be a mystery and winners they would never get. Your rules / guidelines probably give up at least 25% winners of a race going into without ever laying eyes on it.


"Bill V posted it, not me." Perhaps he did but I recall in the last 2 weeks or so you specifically asked Bill Lister to find a race that meets your guidelines for posting which he did . Naturally it payed well. Now if that not a classic definition of cherry picking than I don't know what is. Sartin was accused of cherry picking races, his answer was to do the whole card. Any single race in Follow Ups were sent in by followers or deemed problem races by followers. Now that may be going a little far . I and other followers would like to see some before the race goes off. Heck we can even pick a race ,track and date a week out for fairness to all and another as an alternate just in case it happens to be a MSW.


In fact your guidelines were mostly previously published by Sartin before and they were meant to get contenders for those that couldn't. That advise goes way back to the old Yellow Manual page # 12, prior to 1990. He specifically said that those that can get the winner 94% of the time in their contenders can ignore the guidelines. What he expounded on was to put 5 contenders into the program ,pick appropriate pace lines and let the program sort them out.


Also on pg. 13 he states in reference to 90 day horses that " Look to see if the horse has ever run well first time out after a long layoff." Even back then he didn't automatically throw out long layoff horses. Even in later writing he paid less attention to the layoff factor.



I also don't need help to read past performance. I consider myself pretty good in analyzing PP which is why I get winners and many at good prices which I have posted here numerous times. All I can say is its no coincidence and their before the gates open.
Would I have had the #1 horse in that 4th race , well in all honesty I can't say without all the other data of that race but there is no doubt long layoff horses win. Judging by the payoff it fooled many bettors on that day. I do know and say one thing and that is you would not have had it as its an automatic toss for you're guidelines. Myself it would not be an automatic toss, whether it survived the rest of my scrutiny is unknown after the fact.


Have a great day FTL and let me know when your interesting in doing some races before the gates open.
Mitch44

Hope
 

Hello Mitch

Can you clarify which race you are referring too

The race I posted, which FTL replied to was race 7 from Santa Anita on 6/14 I posted after the fact. But FTL was only responding to a question I asked everybody in the group.

Attachment 46321

The race was, I thought good for group teaching/discussion

Anyway, I marked horse 1 as a lone early.
and Pual "Sureshot Link" Lefty, and then FTL replied, Just like I asked everybody to.

A few of the members including you posted comments about the 8 horse which I appreciate, There was some discussion about the #8 as to why some of us marked it as a noncontender.
I marked it as such because to me there was no excuse for that zero effort following the claim and layoff and then drop.

Also, I recall another teaching post by FTL call Horses don't run in a straight line". Whenever I have a true early horse like horse 1 way inside posts
to an off-form early horse. I discount the outside early as having to use more energy to clear the pack and crossover or get caught too wide

Surely I would like to see races presented both before and after the fact
Especially the way FTL goes into detail about why he uses strict guidelines.
I doubt anybody would take the time to post races just for their ego's
We are a close group here, I believe in folks honesty. The posting are not only for themselves but they keep the spirit of Pace and Cap and Doc's work alive.

Friends helping friends Win


Thank you and Best Skill always
Bill

Hi Bill,
The race in question and the 4th race of the # 1 horse that won after a big layoff and in reference to inflexible stick contender selections.
They count before the fact if your always cherry picking and posting after the fact. Your example is an excellent discussion and members know your objective of posting after the fact. You also post many before the fact, so your intentions are admirable. I can't say the same for others.


Have a Dr. apt. so must run for now.
Mitch44

Thanks, Mitch
Best health to you at the doc appointment

I am sorry but I still am not sure which race you are referring to
The 4th race? but I don't know the track or day

Thanks
Bill

Hello Bill,


I'm talking about the race in this post the 4th @ SA. I made a point in reference to horse #1 line 5 being an ugly race and winning its next race (Line #4) after a long layoff. I believe that's where your confused.


Under Sartin concepts he expounded on 5 horses for contenders. The 5th horse was there for record keeping purposes and for those wanting to play EX.'s etc. He also does not throw a horse out for a bad last race line. he used the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance and surface.


His latest teachings were for those that could not get contenders to give every horse a line ( using best of last 3 . . . ) and scratch from the worse to the top 5. Using TPR/ Tot. En etc. He didn't care how one got their contenders if they had the winner in those five 94% of the time. He then allowed the computer and program to sort out which were the best and employ two horse betting.

Anytime you asked for opinions on races I feel as through I'm free to express them. And with so many new members and some old ones I believe its important to stay within Sartin's main tenants for them to succeed. How they separate those final 4 or 5 is a horse of another color.


I don't ask people to put up races that specifically meet my criteria to demonstrate my expertise. Each race has a different makeup and presents different challenges therefore they shouldn't be cherry picked. I also don't want members or those who visit this site to think we're cherry picking races to put up. While they may provide some teaching points they can and some do not look well to visitors or those learning. I stated a specific post where this happen in my last post.


There are only a very small % of races that a reason can't be found for the winner.
Nobody wins money after the fact with idealism.


Mitch44

In Dave Schwartz’s Percentages and Probabilities 2012 with a sample of 39,000 races and looking at days off data he found that horses off 30-60 days off had the highest IV 1.07 and the highest dollar net 1.59 and horses in the 62-90 days off had an IV 0.96 and dollar net of 1.55. This data simply supports the comments made by others here, don’t automatically throw out a horse until all factors are considered,
Pat

You are not the first person on this board to feel the way you do. It is a sign that what you, and others like you, just don’t understand is what I have tried to accomplish. My postings have never been about my personal handicapping prowess. I have never posted a race and bragged that I had the winner. That was never my goal. My goal was to help others and you don’t do that by posting losing races. That’s the reason you only find winning races in the follow ups or in any book ever written that illustrates how to follow the authors instructions on how to win races. In addition to posting races using the guidelines I set forth, many of those races included commentary that would help educate the reader further with regard to horse racing as well as handicapping.

How to pick contenders and pacelines are the questions asked most frequently. It’s what people want to know and are looking for guidance. “FTL’s” Guidelines was not a name I gave to the guidelines I posted. In fact, I made it clear that the guidelines I posted were “Doc’s” original guidelines. I simply added two additional guidelines based on statistics I got from data base queries that eliminate horses that rarely win. I simply gave people guidelines they could apply to every race they encountered that would get them the best contenders and pacelines based on “Doc’s” original concepts. You may not agree with the use of his original guidelines, but I don’t care. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Likewise, I have my own opinion.

The best part about using the guidelines I set forth is that if you apply them before, during or after a race, it all works out the same way. There is no finding the perfect solution after the race. Every race is worked the same way. I did every race on a card at PARX one day, after the fact. If the winner of any race was not a contender by the guidelines I used, that was noted. I never said using the guidelines I set forth would get you the winner of every race. Neither did “Doc” by the way. The guideline concept was just a means of applying a consistent method to contender and line selection, since most people are all over the place when it comes to that.

Many of the races I reviewed were races someone else posted. I simply applied “Doc’s” and my guidelines to those races. Originally, I would post these races using ENERGY, just so I was using a Sartin program. There came a point in time when Ted and I reached an agreement that allowed me to use RDSS. ENERGY actually “picks” the horses that should be bet. RDSS does not. When I started posting races using RDSS I simply asked the question, “could the winner have been one of your two win bets?” Of course this question was only asked when there were more than 2 contenders.

The idea that one would miss winners using the guidelines I set forth is ludicrous. You seem to imply that these are winners that otherwise would have been had. Winners will be missed no matter what you do. I have posted many, many races that show VERY good priced winners applying the guidelines I set forth.

As far as the race Bill Lyster posted is concerned, you’re wrong, again.
I didn’t ask Bill to post anything. With all the races I’ve posted on this site, I certainly don’t need someone else to do it for me. I haven’t downloaded races or played races for a few years now. After 17 years of playing every day I retired a few years ago, so I have no idea about any race at any track, but Bill and I do keep in touch. He and I were discussing a race and I gave him my opinion. He asked me if I cared whether or not he posted it. Of course I didn’t mind as it presented an learning opportunity for those reading his post, which has always been my goal. Of course it is impossible for someone with your mindset to understand that.

I agree.

I don't outright eliminate horses in those categories either.

I and the others that you allude to that are like me understand quite well. Sartin if alive today would not condone the misleading rules you apply in the guise of being his. Apparently you didn.t read pg. 12 & 13 of the original Yellow Manual. Sartin even back then didn't eliminate 90 day horses and his were guidelines not rules.

Your posts completely misdirect Sartin teachings and the uninformed get sucked into and down a path of destruction believing it somehow is his teaching and words. I agree that your a sophisticated individual that can fool those that lack knowledge or experience with Sartin teachings.
Here's an example of sophisticated manipulation; " Having noticed the nice winning price he asked me if I could find the contenders and make a case for the winner." That is a quote from a Bill Lister on 5 Jun.18 for Parx Tuesday, reference you're so called rules , procedures etc.. If that is not cherry picking to fit a specific narrative than I'm just a lost soul. " I didn't ask Bill to post anything." Houston we have a problem!!

I don't blame Bill Lister as I believe he thought his post would be helpful. I believe him to be a very honest individual that generally cares and likes to help others. Is this going on with others that think their doing good? I do know one thing and that is cherry picking races to fit a specific narrative with "with a nice price . . . " is not conductive to Sartin teachings, or to the betterment of members to learn by following his recommendations such as the best of the last 3 @ a comparable dis. & surface.

There is an easy solution and that is put up some picks and quit Monday morning quarterbacking with ideal situations that fit a specific narrative. Your correct in that we all have losers however for clarification some have a tremendous amount of more losers than others. Giving up 25 % winners going into a race is insane and is not a winning formula.

It can't be stressed enough that your rules etc. have nothing to do with Sartin recommendations and teachings even going back as far as the Yellow Manual which was printed well before 1990.


Mitch44

Although I had temporarily Closed this Thread, removed Mitch's post #31 above and edited FTL's post #29, I have re-opened it and reinstated all original posts: with a few caveats (i.e. WARNINGS!) --

1. While anyone is free to disagree with anyone else (including me), as a Member here at PaceandCap, you are NOT permitted to write disrespectfully about another Member. Who judges 'disrespectfully' -- why, ME! I pay the bills, I stand at the door and greet people who apply, and regretfully (or sometimes not so much) show them the door if that's what's needed to keep this a friendly community.

2. I encourage everyone to re-read the Code of Conduct post, particularly the part about no name-calling or negative energy, and particularly the part about how many warnings you get (one).

Here's an example of what you can't say: 'Your posts completely misdirect Sartin teachings and the uninformed get sucked into and down a path of destruction'. 'I agree that your a sophisticated individual that can fool those that lack knowledge or experience with Sartin teachings.' 'Of course it is impossible for someone with your mindset to understand that.' This is not respectful language, and would not be regardless of who it was addressed to. These also qualify well in the 'negative-energy' department. (See edited footnotes in posts above which mention violations of the 'Terms of Service').

3. Regarding the "For The Lead" Approach to Handicapping - from Brohamer to Sartin and Beyond" (aka For The Lead's Guidelines) - this is NOT represented as Sartin's own guidelines, or 'sacred law', or 'you are advised to do this'. Perhaps it is accepted as such by some, and many have written that they find these Guidelines to be helpful. But, they are Guidelines created by the gentleman posting as For the Lead (FTL), not by Sartin, and they have their own riffs and recommendations based on statistics and his own observations over many years. Sartin didn't write the FTL Guidelines, but he sure influenced their writing, as did others. The credit/blame must finally go to For The Lead.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM! Newcomers should consider reading them for potential Guidance - THEN, work with RDSS software (or whatever else turns you on) and apply them (or not) and devise your own strategy. To my knowledge, NO ONE ever succeeded at ANYTHING by following someone else's dictates without experimenting, researching, failing, succeeding, conducting intellectually and emotionally honest enquiry - making it their own: in this case in handicapping and betting the races, but I believe the foregoing incremental approach applies universally to all human endeavor.

FTL has stated he is not interested in posting races before the fact, rather in conducting teaching exercises à la the Follow Up 'Problem Races' articles, according to his own approach. He has stated this so many times, he doesn't have to state it any more if he doesn't want to. Just look it up. In general at PaceandCap - you CAN post useful information about races you say you worked after the fact if it appears they have genuine value as handicapping examples (and we've been over this issue MANY time before too). You can even brag a little after the fact if you hit a nice one - this is permitted - within reason and we're all happy for you! Too much, and it gets boring though.

4. There have been many Phases of the Sartin Methodology over 30 years. If you don't like any of them, or find them outdated or liable to be confusing or superseded by newer developments - feel free to say so -- BUT you must be respectful (and try to be helpful by offering reasons why other stuff is better). Don't 'trash' someone who uses a particular 'flavour' or Methodology Phase which you disagree with. EVERYONE disagrees or has affinity or antipathy with something or other. If everyone always bashes others who do things differently, in Canada we have an expression for this: 'a circular firing squad'.

If you don't like Phase III or Brohamer Modern Pace Handicapping figs, or TPR figs, or the Fulcrum, or The Matchup - or if you think that Rx figures in RDSS or BRIS ProfitLine or Prime Power, or NewPace or Tote board analysis or 'FTL Guidelines' or 'Rmath Guidelines' are abominations or wastes of time - then simply DON'T USE THEM. EVERY one of the foregoing aspects of what is included in the Big Tent of the Sartin Methodology are thought of as useless by SOMEONE - believe me I have heard it all, privately and publicly. On the other hand, EVERY one of these are also practiced by some to profitable result, some spectacularly so. And believe me, there are other applications of what you can actually find in RDSS that are so strange - and profitable - that I never would have thought of them, nor recommended them, to others. But yet they exist, created by individuals' deep work and experimentation.

5. Re 'FTL Guidelines' specifically: they exist, they are compiled (thanks Bill Lyster), some folks like them, some pay no attention. For myself, I neither use them nor am critical of them though I DO recommend folks try to understand the timeless and functional aspects of them. I personally don't automatically toss horses > 20-1 Morning Line or Laid-off > 90 days: instead I use my analysis skills and also respect statistics while knowing how they can sometimes mislead. (And FWIW, neither do I use The Matchup, TPR, MPH, the Fulcrum or NewPace. For myself, I use mainly what was found in Validator 3/4, knowledge of velocity and deceleration enhanced by factors I put in Rx and particularly guided by tote board moves. That's MY usage of the tools.) If you don't like them, just look away. Perhaps some will recall, as reiterated by FTL in a post above, that he has stepped back from handicapping and betting the past few years and has recently been suffering some serious physical health problems. I believe he is not here for fame and glory, rather only posts because some folks have asked him to. I personally find it ungracious to bash him if he responds to such requests, given the overall context of his current circumstances.

NO ONE here (yet) has been appointed 'Hall Monitor' to prevent anyone else from veering to the 'Dark Side'. I urge Members to refrain from feeling they need to adopt this role.

6. Lastly, please see Point #1. No sniping, no throw-away critical remarks (I have deleted some of those in this Thread), no 'negative energy'. If this Thread continues with any incivility, I will close it again. However, discussion of the pros and cons of any aspects of the Methodology are always welcomed (though consider keeping Threads relevant to their Opening Topic - you can always start a New Thread). It is TRUE that some aspects of what Sartin and friends created over the years are just not as powerful anymore as they were when they were new and not yet mainstream. And, some other aspects are timeless. And if I say so myself, some of the new stuff in RDSS is quite good (and stay tuned).

If anyone feels compelled to respond in a way which you suspect may earn you a 'speeding ticket' -- the simple solution is to say your piece by Private Message to the relevant Member (though no harassment).

That's the way it is. Posting here is a privileged, not a right.

I wish everyone fast horses and great mutuels, much enjoyment of each other's company, and all other blessings.

Ted

FTL

You have greatly improved my way of handicapping and I am sure
others as well,it is greatly appreciated

Thanks

Shoeless

Feel better
 

Dear FTL and Mitch

Feel better guys, Thank you for all that you have done to help us here at Pace and Cap. I have taken a few of your well researched teaching guidelines and it has helped me very much.

Best Skills
Bill

I would like to chime in here saying that after a number of years of trial and error, I am now a successful and profitable practitioner of the Matchup. Probably not as successful as most of the old hands on this board, but well enough for now.

I have learned to do it my way which includes learning things from both FTL and Mitch amongst others, and working them in with The Hats teachings. I have learned from postings after the race and before the race. This site has value for those interested in finding an edge using pace for handicapping.

Be cool guys. You are both assets to this community.

Pook

I would like to paraphrase some comments from a Peak Performance Motivator Guru, Anthony Robbins. If one reads an entire book which seems boring, immaterial, and a waste of time, But if there is one sentence that is relevant to you. Then the book was worth reading…..

In Huey Mahl’s book, “The Race is Pace”; Mahl talks about how the early pace has a “telescopic effect” on the rest of the race. One sentence, so short, yet of great importance if one wants to understand how the early pace of the race affects the final time. This one short sentence can give one great inspiration and guidance in incorporating one’s idea about measuring the “energy performance” of a race. The “tunnel vison” focus on final time is archaic and not a true representation of energy expenditures.

Lastly, it “behooves” one to keep an “Open Mind”………..D Wayne Lukas trained a Champion Filly named Open Mind. Lukas saw the filly at a pre-auction inspection and the filly did not fit Lukas’s preset profiles and conformation requirements… But fortunately, he kept an “Open Mind.”

May we all continue to share our ideas and thoughts……We might not know where the next “Ahhh Haa!!!” breakthrough comes from. We should keep in mind that Howard “Doc” Sartin was an Psychiatrist who had no previous exposure to handicapping and horse racing when he was assigned to treat a group of problem gamblers. The rest is history and the foundation of our Methodology. The Sartin Methodology……….

Since Ted re-opened the thread I would like to add my 2 cents. I seems to me that there is a basic division between what I would call "database" handicapping and "race-by-race" handicapping. The database handicappers prefer to use their database to glean statistically significant "facts" by which they choose eliminate horses, choose contenders, choose pacelines, and make their bets. Race-by-race cappers believe that each race is a unique match-up of speed, pace, class, jockey strategy, form cycle, etc., and view each race as a puzzle to be solved. Each has their supporters and merits, and what is most important is that the approach fits the temperament of the individual.

Richard

Much appreciated
 

I for one greatly appreciate the work and time invested by FTL in posting his research and methods. Whether races posted before or after they ran made no difference as he applied his criteria exactly the same. That is the message: Consistency and Discipline!
Always his posts were well written and well thought out. There was no condescension or ego driven statements and I found that very refreshing as compared to some folks who post here.
That said, I don't use any of it because I Match with RAW data today, although i have been handicapping for over 50 years.
My hat is off to you, FTL! Thank You!

Foundation of our Methodology
 

Hey there
Here is my take on results from RDSS
Take what you need and Build From It
dlivery

In light of the discussion in this very Thread, the comments highlighted above are inappropriate.


This Thread is Closed.


Ted