'For the Lead' Guidelines - NEW Compilation

[For The Lead]

Reply

Originally Posted by Mitch44

I seriously doubt many could achieve 63% using Sartin techniques that date back to the original pace line manual.

Well, normally I would tell you to take it up with the person who said it, but in this case that is not possible. Regardless of what you might “think”, Sartin GUARANTEED 63% or MORE. And that was using the ORIGINAL GUIDELINES.

Exceptions sure but for the average member like you its doubtful at best His evolution of concepts such as pace line selection and factors far surpass anything from 1986 or so and with them many more reach that goal.

The interesting thing is, when the Methodology “evolved” beyond the original 1,000 client concept and after the Methodology Guidelines “evolved” to whatever they became, I don’t recall having ever read or heard of any “GUARANTEE of WIN PERCENTAGE”.

As part of that revolution he also abandoned man made class structure as they appear in PP's and eliminated it as an aide in selection of the proper pace line. His class evolved to what we now know as CR which was improved by Ted to CR+.

I have no input one way or the other on this subject. It is likely this was happening at the same time that I was busy getting my own programs and database together.


Additionally he abandoned any number of days to the selecting of pace lines. This is on tape in the library where Ted asked the question about layoff horses and "Doc's" reply was to "Treat them as if they ran last week."

Fortunately, Lt1 took care of this misrepresentation of fact. In post #15 of this thread he said, “Teds' question was in respect to Woodbine and the fact that most of the horses were returning from long layoffs between meets and how to handle that.”
Well, that’s one way to handle it. Woodbine has a long meet and my advice would be not to jump in at the outset where using old information can be “sketchy” at best. An alternative method would be to let the horses run over the track a couple of times and then begin play. There is no rush. Like I said, Woodbine has a long meet.


I would say only use his latest concepts if you want to win and achieve 63% with two horses. This game is tough enough and ignoring his proven and later concepts is a recipe for disaster. Only use them if you want to win or perish.

To my knowledge, this was never GUARANTEED beyond the GUARANTEE using the ORIGINAL GUIDELINES, which is where the 63% came from.


As far as the race posted here I deem it as not winnable, part of that 37% we don't get.

Well, it certainly appears it falls within your losing percentage, whatever that may be.
For some others, it might fall into their win percentage column.

Sure we can all get the winner after the fact. The fact of the matter is this game only pays off for foresight not hindsight. Theory and where the leather meets the road are totally different.

This is the one that always cracks me up. It’s my favorite. When all else fails, this is the go to argument.
So, all the races in the follow ups and all the races that were illustrated in every handicapping book ever written, were all done PRE- RACE so that by the time the consumer got the follow up or book, we could all watch the illustrated races so we could see how they turned out. NOT HARDLY. All of these illustrated races were used as “teaching tools”, just as the races I posted were.
In post #4 of this thread, Bill Lyster wrote, “EVERY race uses the same methodology of line and contender selection”. THAT is the important thing.


Mitch44