History of the Methodology

[Lt1]

Hi KPM. If I read your post correctly it seems that you are trying to do to much at one time. If you are using Bris pps may I suggest that you consider what I do to get my contenders and that is to take the top 5 or 6 top prime power horses to rate. This will get the winner in the mix 85 to 90% of the time based on results of tests I conducted. At this point I go to RDSS to complete the job by checking the paceline lines it picks for each contender, changing the ones I feel need it, which most of the time is not necessary. I have the winner in the top 5 87% of the time and have a 68% win rate betting 2 horses. I keep a simple model for each track I play along with a track profile. I've used most of the Docs programs over my 26 yrs with the group and feel that RDSS is the easiest and best of them. It's up to you to decide whether or not to make the investment and what approach to use ie the visual matchup or accepting the compounded ratings approach. Until then continue to work on your contender and paceline selections. Keep the process simple. Do a post mortem after each race to see why you won or lost a race. Establish the races that you are the most successful at and concentrate on them. No one ever lost money passing races they don't feel they have a handle on.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

One thing is for sure RDSS made the methodology less of a mystery. So many of the earlier programs were poorly portrayed and even less well explained.

HINT: Don't overly discard the 5th or 6th ranked horse particularly when it will OWN the first fraction and a half. MANY Times, at odds, these never look back.

[shoeless]

Wow LT that is some hit rate 68%, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort
of workup how you achieve doing this

[Lt1]

Hi Shoeless. I don't know exactly what you are looking for but I will try to answer your question. First off I use Bris Ultimate pps and profit line to establish my contenders. I take the top 5 ranked of each and review the TM pps in RDSS. I then confirm whether or not the line chosen by the program is the one I want to use. I use the best of the last 3 comparable surface and dist.Most of the time it is. I don't use off track lines on fast trks nor lines not on todays surface unless nothing else is available nor do I use lifetime best races for horse 5 and up. I then employ other handicapping factors[not part of the methodology] to finish my evaluation of my contenders. I then refer to my model and trk profile to see how the contenders fit. I will move horses up or down the BL/BL tiers based on this. I then employ wagercapping. So far this yr I have made 847 w/p bets and have cashed 576 tickets or 68% Here is my record of how my selections do percentage wise.
#1pick #2 pick #3 pick #4 pick #5 pick other
34% 26% 13% 13% 7% 7%
I've also been fortunate enough to have a few of my reports to the Doc published in the followup most notably FU 54 pg53 [spot play form] and followup 70 pg 35 [a day at Belmont Park. Hope I helped a little.
Tim G

[shoeless]

LT,

Are you using BL\BL as your final decision who to bet on?

Thanks for the reply

[Lt1]

Yes I do use BL/BL for wagering purposes but as I mentioned I may have mentally adjusted the tier levels based on factors that have served me well. I should have mentioned that I confine most of my play to races for 3 & up on the dirt. My records show these are where I do best.
Tim G

[shoeless]

Thanks LT for sharing and great job with your win %

[Lt1]

No problem Sholess. I try to remember how when I first started they were folks besides the teaching members who were willing to exchange ideas and tried to help out those seeking to raise their game. As far as win % goes it really isn't that much above the original goal of 63% set way back when I started. It just has become consistent. I still have areas where I need to improve such as turf racing. This endeavor of ours is an ongoing process. We have a great forum here where we all can participate and exchange ideas and approaches. Most of us still have room to improve and we can help each other as we do.
Tim G

[Bill V.]

Thank you for your positive reports. Your post show that you are a hard working good Sartin Methodology student. I appreciate your positive exchanges.
With your attitude, you reflect that of a winner,
Bill

[Lt1]

Thanks for the kind words Bill. You, as well as Ted, deserve a lot of credit for your contributions to the forum. I truly believe that we have many talented people in the group and hope they will join the discussions. I'm sure Doc and Jimmy and all the early teaching members would be proud of the work done by both you and Ted and all those who have interacted on the forum. It does take work to accomplish ones goals but it is well worth it.
Tim G