Penn Natl Race 5 12/18

[justin13892002]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Well, I wrote a post thanking other posters for their responses and wishing them good luck. I had no idea in doing so that I would create a fire storm.

So, I will begin by thanking you for posting Richie’s EXACT POST and also for providing a link to the post. The problem seems to be, that in showing the EXACT POST which indicates there are “2 key things”, you went on to show only one of the keys. Perhaps this was an over site on your part or perhaps it is because it fit with that part of your approach to the match up that says to ignore “layoffs” and “class” among other items.

However, in the interest of “full disclosure”, I feel compelled to show the “second key thing” from that post.

“2) MUST use the horse's ENTIRE past performances shown REGARDLESS of how long ago some of the pacelines might be. This enables us to:
a) match lines and overcome any track variant and shipper/ track to track issues.
b) identify strongly WINNING running styles and the POSITION at the FIRST call a horse can WIN from.”

I can understand that you missed this “second key thing” since it is in opposition to your approach of selecting a single line, using the most recent line at today’s distance or if not available the best Beyer number from the last 4 races, none of which is a part of Jim Bradshaw’s “match up”.

Personally, I don’t care if you follow Jim Bradshaw’s match up “to the letter” or not. If what you do, works for you, then best of luck to you. However, I feel it is disingenuous to point out ONLY that part of his match up that coincides with your procedures, while you flagrantly dismiss other areas of his match up.

I am not, nor do I profess to be, “a matcher”. I am not an “angle” player. I do not play “jockeys” although I prefer to have a jockey who shows he is getting winning horses to ride. I do not play trainers, although I prefer to have a trainer who shows he is capable of sending out winning horses. I do pay attention to class, which is one area where I differ from Jim Bradshaw. I do pay attention to “layoffs”, since 13 years, plus thousands of dollars in download expense and countless hours of work tells me, among many other things, what time frame since a horses last race, the majority of winners come from. Naturally, there are isolated instances where the “average” horse (not a top of the line horse) wins in spite of being off for extended periods of time. I do consider what is characterized here as “track biases” and I will offer just one illustration. For years PEN was an early speed favoring track. Every year PEN closed for two weeks in September in order to winterize the track, without any change in how the track played. However, in September of 2008, PEN shut down for 5 weeks and completely re-surfaced their track. Since that time, it no longer is an early speed favoring track. Seldom do you find two tracks that play exactly alike. So I contend that there are differences in how tracks play and that must be taken into consideration. So I suppose Jim Bradshaw and I are on opposite sides of that issue. I agree that each horse should be evaluate from its’ total past performances. In other words, I am a handicapper and I find the Sartin Methodology to be a useful toll in my arsenal, although I may not agree with it in totality.

In closing, the nice thing about this site, is that people can come here and post their ideas. I believe that for the most part, this is done in the spirit of helping others. It doesn’t mean they are right and it doesn’t mean they are wrong.

So, again, I wish you well in your endeavors.

FTL,

No firstorm. lol. We here just all share our ideas, as it makes us all better. I wasn't posting what I do. Somewhere in this thread, it was said Jim used Class and Layoffs. I dont know where, but I remember seeing it. I was just posting what JIM used, as shown by Richie.

There is no issues. Again, just all here to share ideas. I wish you luck, and have a Merry Christmas!!!!