Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up - View Single Post

Dorianmode · 08-08-2011, 10:52 AM

A couple things bugged me about the original email embedded in Ted's first posting in this thread, (well actually a lot more than 2, but I will confine myself to two..for now).

a. The idea that in two months one would be able to come up with sufficient sample of races to use for a statistically significant representation of any of the segments, ( and YES, every race exists in a SEGMENT of horse racing), is rather preposterous, (unless one had an almost perfect record), and even then it would be a stretch, getting them ALL done. I won't here go in to the statistical computations, necessary for EACH of the segment cohorts. Did he actually do ANY record keeping ? Or did he just do the "Wilbur" thing, and try it out, and not keep detailed searchable records ? And BTW, ANY of the data series would theoretically be made profitable if one ONLY bet on the appropriate odds for that series. Seems his problem is his race and contender SCREENING process, which again, I am not going to go into here. But those problems have been SOLVED, even if he is unaware of the solutions.

b. I resent the implication that those of us who don't use racing to "make a living" are any less serious about it than those who choose to. I am VERY serious about EVERYTHING I do, including my "hobbies".

Those who have worked hard to develop this methodology in the past had a great time doing so, but they were VERY serious about doing it, maybe MORE serious than he ?

Anyone who did the seventh race at Saratoga yesterday, I need to ask whether you used the turf line, (most recent), (which would have put him in the picks for BL/BL), and going back one line to the same surface would have left him out, with considerably less TE. Fortunately my screening process flagged him, and make me look again and I left him in, but a cursory exam might have left out the winner. any ideas ?

Thanks.

08-08-2011, 10:52 AM	#58
Dorianmode always learning Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Minneapolis / Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 277	A couple things bugged me about the original email embedded in Ted's first posting in this thread, (well actually a lot more than 2, but I will confine myself to two..for now). a. The idea that in two months one would be able to come up with sufficient sample of races to use for a statistically significant representation of any of the segments, ( and YES, every race exists in a SEGMENT of horse racing), is rather preposterous, (unless one had an almost perfect record), and even then it would be a stretch, getting them ALL done. I won't here go in to the statistical computations, necessary for EACH of the segment cohorts. Did he actually do ANY record keeping ? Or did he just do the "Wilbur" thing, and try it out, and not keep detailed searchable records ? And BTW, ANY of the data series would theoretically be made profitable if one ONLY bet on the appropriate odds for that series. Seems his problem is his race and contender SCREENING process, which again, I am not going to go into here. But those problems have been SOLVED, even if he is unaware of the solutions. b. I resent the implication that those of us who don't use racing to "make a living" are any less serious about it than those who choose to. I am VERY serious about EVERYTHING I do, including my "hobbies". Those who have worked hard to develop this methodology in the past had a great time doing so, but they were VERY serious about doing it, maybe MORE serious than he ? Anyone who did the seventh race at Saratoga yesterday, I need to ask whether you used the turf line, (most recent), (which would have put him in the picks for BL/BL), and going back one line to the same surface would have left him out, with considerably less TE. Fortunately my screening process flagged him, and make me look again and I left him in, but a cursory exam might have left out the winner. any ideas ? Thanks.