[Dorianmode]

The thing is, this is the SARTIN Methodology. The early Follow Ups and manuals explain precisely why he ignored this stuff. For good reason. It's a question of correlation or causation. In the cases of jockeys, good horses get good jockeys, and the work of the trainer is embedded ALREADY in those pacelines, they achieved. Unless they have changed trainers, it's irrelevant.You already have all the info already in the past races you need. If you don't have enough information in the pacelines, no table is going to tell you if a horse can do something it hasn't done before. Pass the race.


However, there are some, well one or two, decent programs out there which calculate probability numbers if that's what you want, based on a number of factors. Trackmaster does not have the best one. Try a few. Keep records. I guarantee the Methodology will beat all of them, along with your active brain. I use one occasionally. In the end, in my records, any of the Sartin programs is far more productive in narrowing down the last 3 or 4 horses, but more and more, I also am going to 1 horse betting, as it's much more profitable, as was described above. So ignoring trainers and jockeys is no omission. Read the early Follow Ups. It was a deliberate decision of Sartin and the original group. They matter, but they are ALREADY accounted for in the paceline. Make sense ?
PM me if you wish to discuss other proprietary stuff. But you already have all the info there is out there right in front of you.
For example, yesterday at Santa Anita, in the 5th race. The winner, (#1) looked great, but how would you know it could run on the turf ? As Ted pointed out yesterday, it had a very fast turf workout, but even more thn that, having been to the early morning workout many times, one would know how trainers prepare these animals for a race like that. That turf course was not new to that horse, I guarantee it. The info was already there. It was just confirmed by the readout, for me anyway.