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

Mitch44 · 10-22-2016, 11:20 AM

I remember back when the Doc defended the beaten lengths of horses that were made by various chart makers, really critical to a pace handicapper, to which he said as long as their consistent in their methods.

I find the same thing with the timing of work outs and races themselves. Yes there are faulty timing of races also. As long as it's consistent and we're all on a even playing field, what difference does it make? Otherwise why play the game if you feel it can't be beaten? Hell quit now! We all have the same chance to both lose and profit from incorrect data etc.

Bill V. :
Your right about the 92 as it jumped out at me. Rather then a specific number, furlong worked or GW what data collectors should be looking for is something that will include the most of the sample. A parameter rather then a specific number. The 92 fits this perfectly. What makes yours and Bill Lister study so good is the finding of several different corollaries which strengthens the overall spot play of this. Most would reply on only one piece of date such as a trainer stat that this guy does 12 % with FTS. Its the combining of several different corollaries (synergism) that makes it powerful and giving you an edge over the public.

A 12% trainer with FTS becomes meaningless if the trainer is a poor turf or route trainer and that todays conditions. That 12% has to be put in context much as you did Bill with that $11.80 horse which was competing against trainers with very poor FTS records, except one.
Best of luck,

Mitch44

10-22-2016, 11:20 AM	#38
Mitch44 Grade 1 Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: The Villages, Fl. Posts: 3,705	I remember back when the Doc defended the beaten lengths of horses that were made by various chart makers, really critical to a pace handicapper, to which he said as long as their consistent in their methods. I find the same thing with the timing of work outs and races themselves. Yes there are faulty timing of races also. As long as it's consistent and we're all on a even playing field, what difference does it make? Otherwise why play the game if you feel it can't be beaten? Hell quit now! We all have the same chance to both lose and profit from incorrect data etc. Bill V. : Your right about the 92 as it jumped out at me. Rather then a specific number, furlong worked or GW what data collectors should be looking for is something that will include the most of the sample. A parameter rather then a specific number. The 92 fits this perfectly. What makes yours and Bill Lister study so good is the finding of several different corollaries which strengthens the overall spot play of this. Most would reply on only one piece of date such as a trainer stat that this guy does 12 % with FTS. Its the combining of several different corollaries (synergism) that makes it powerful and giving you an edge over the public. A 12% trainer with FTS becomes meaningless if the trainer is a poor turf or route trainer and that todays conditions. That 12% has to be put in context much as you did Bill with that $11.80 horse which was competing against trainers with very poor FTS records, except one. Best of luck, Mitch44 Last edited by Mitch44; 10-22-2016 at 11:26 AM.