History of the Methodology

[shoeless]

Just to let the folks out there know if you don't already Bill V is no
slouch either when it comes to getting the winners

I have seen him first hand hit over 60% winners on many occasions and
doing so with ALL of the Sartin programs

[The Pook]

Originally Posted by Lt1

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

Hi Tim
This is so cool that we have amongst us a contributor to the Followup. I had no idea. Also a guy from the original group that has a strike rate above 60% which was an advertised goal from back then. I was beginning to think that this was a myth along with Jimmy B's 50% betting singles.

I see you restrict yourself to 3+ on dirt only. That would be a big part of it I think. Do you set yourself minimum odds?

I sit firmly and consistently at 30%. Which is pitiful next to your number. Yet I am profitable. I have tried to raise my strike rate without much success to smooth things out. My rate makes for a rollercoaster ride hitting bigger numbers here and there. As you probably know I am a Matchup guy mostly. I look for patterns in any races from two or three tracks a day. If I can't Match the race I try a more Sartin approach with models, fulcrum pace for contenders etc. This year out of 138 days I have found 2.2 races a day to do the Matchup on of which I have 1.4 contenders striking 30%. In the same 138 days I have 2.7 Sartin approaches per day which have 2.6 contenders striking at 29%. Between the two approaches I bet 1.5 horses per race at minimum 5-2. Place also if over 15-1. The odd exactor with odds-on favourites. I play anything but find only about 25% playable.

Both approaches are profitable but Matching yields more than 3 times what the Sartin approach does. This is over nearly a year. I attribute the disparity to using information farther down the PP's in Matching and that races that are more difficult with no obvious patterns are left to my Sartin method. Compared to you and many others I read on here my contender lists are much more focused. Leaning more toward Jimmy's single horse per race.

I read in another thread on here that TimY sees profit only in exotics. Not so from what you write and from my experience. I do profit from exactors but the vast majority of my betting is win.

I was surprised and enlightened to see you operating at the high levels prescribed by Sartin years ago. There must be more than a few of you. And I can see how you could do it really focusing on your best of the best. Doc gave the impression of achieving that number playing almost everything in linear fashion day to day. Impossible.

Originally in this thread KP was looking for guidance. I am jumping in here to let him know that my situation started much like his. Just a few years ago. You find your own way after keeping at it for years. It works for me but with different numbers than Lt1. or Bill V. who are incredible players with much more experience. I wish I had their consistency. Their losing streaks would be much more modified than mine. Still learning and marching forward.

Pook

[Lt1]

Hi Pook. I joined in 1990 so the group was already established. I attended my first seminar later that year at SAR where I met Doc and Jimmy B for the first time. I also met Mitch44 who was a newbie like me. We lived in adjoining states so we exchanged phone #s. We still speak several times a week although he has moved. Both of us used almost every program the Doc came out with. We struggled over the years. Most of our problem were with adjustments. Nothing like losing to make one strive harder. After a while we got up to win % of 53. We played every type of race plus exs and tris. One day Mitch called and stated he had done a survey of his bets and discovered that if he refrained from betting most mdn and turf races his % went up to 65%. I did same test and reach the same conclusions. If I stayed away from races with multiple unknowns and cut down on exotics I could indeed reach the desired 63% range while increasing profits. By staying mostly to races for older horses on the dirt I found very consistent results. I play Parx a lot along with other tracks that card the races I look for. I still play selected turf and mdn races ie those with minimum questions. I will also play daily doubles and selected exactas. I am not a matcher in the way Jimmy taught[he offered to teach me but I couldn't get the time to visit Okla]. I rely on proper contender and predictive paceline selections and record keeping and let RDSS do the rest. Like every one else I have my weak area and that's turf races. I've gotten better but still have work to do. I wouldn't be discourage if you are not at the level you wish to be. It took Mitch and myself a great deal of time, effort and loses to get to the level we now enjoy.I honestly don't know any winner who hasn't gone thru the University of Hard Knocks and didn't think about throwing in the towel. Fortunately I was dumb enough to be stubborn and finally broke thru. I wish you good skill and I believe you can do it with continued hard work.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

Best description of how to do this: You find your own way after keeping at it for years.

[The Pook]

TimY. You probably don't remember me but you were the guy that got me into RDSS back in 2012. I asked a question from the audience in the seminar you gave on the Sartin Methodology at Woodbine. I asked what your ROI was and you replied 30% over the past three years. You didn't say how you achieved that with win or exotic wagering or whatever, but I thought at the time that that would be good enough for me. That was when I met Ted also.

I didn't really immerse myself into this website etc. until a couple of years later. I had been aware of the Methodology for quite a while but didn't have the time. But it was your seminar that set me on this path.

Thought you'd like to know that. Thanks to you and all the others who share their insights and experiences in this forum. It all helps.

Pook

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by The Pook

TimY. You probably don't remember me but you were the guy that got me into RDSS back in 2012.

Pook

Neat. I hope you find in this method, what FINALLY hit me after a few HARD conscientious years of practice.....

It keeps evolving for me and that is the greatest DRAW....BUT I still say that WAGER CREATION remains the toughest part of the game: THINKING like a gambler NOT a handicapper is key.

[mowens33]

Tim Y, wager creation is my Achilles heel, can you please elaborate on your last comment?

THINKING like a gambler NOT a handicapper is key.

Thanks, Mike

[Tim Y]

First of all is the realization than ONCE the handicapping has PRIORITIZED the horses, NEVER GO BACK THERE, in other words, once you move from the handicapping side of the equation over to the wagering side, NEVER let any old, new or reviewed handicapping drift over to ANY decision made on what I call the "accounting" side of that equation. The only time to revisit that side is in the case of a late scratch or severe weather change.

So often I hear players GO back to yet another handicapping factor (adding MORE confusion to the ultimate decision) RATHER than the odds board in making that decision. If one choice is 2/1 and other 7/1 there should be NO reason to bet the short price, long term, if your evaluation has found that these two are close to the same ability.

Think of the odds as probabilities. There is a great website that explains booking points. https://aqha.com/racing/pages/racing...-morning-line/

After your make a wager, think of HOW much of the pool (probability will tell you) remains IN THE POOL to repay your wager, once you have made a choice. If you wager a Dutch 9/5 and 2/1, that is taking out almost 70% of the pool right there. No wonder the payout will be anemic.

THINK of odds as PROBABILITY, not odds because ultimately that is what they are. i.e. 2/1 is 0.3333 probable. To get this, flip the 2/1 to 1/2 and add 1 to the denominator to get 1/3 or 0.33333. 4/1 becomes 1/4 and then add one to the denominator 1/4+1 is 1/5 or 0.20 probability.Realize that probabilities go from 1.0 (absolute certainty like death and taxes) 0.00 to absolute impossible (Elvis will land in your back yard in a UFO tomorrow).

Change your mindset: think of gambling as no different than wagering on a fight, a baseball or football game. All we use in wagering is the realm of the probabilities of any particular horse...NO different than a wager on any particular basketball team.

I researched this for about 3 years and all but suspended wagering during that time. It was a truly HUMBLING to discover how inept my TOTAL approach was.

NEVER consider any ONE horse as winning a race. Rather think of the possibilities (just like PROBABILITIES) of any one of a group of CONTENDERS could win this race. I have expanded this to only betting contenders in exotics because of my contention that once a contender gets into the race, the move from the 1/16th pole to the wire is unpredictable long term. Think of how the chances of the CONTENDERS are stacked up against the PROBABILITIES and look for overlays.

There is a old (now almost debunked) idea that we have left and right brain activities going on all the time. While separation of these two thought processes continue as distinct, further research showed that it is NOT physically limited to one side of the brain but traditionally it has been promoted that a LEFT brain activity is using logic, math and science skills (rigid rules to follow) while the right brain activity is more creative and innovative. Most study that gave root to this idea were from observations of "split brain" patients and the idea was then retrofitted to normal.

So, on that analogy, we handicapping (creatively, innovatively etc.) with one hemisphere and then turn right around to have to abandon that side to the rigid rule based right side......In theory

It is important to separate these functions DISTINCTLY when playing this game. Set up RULES for wagering and don't waver from them. Set up minimums that you will take from observations of the odds board. IF the crowd is following you choices, PASS...there is another contest coming up in a few minutes if you are at a simulcast outlet.

It takes a bit of personal re-education to keep on in line with this separation, but it is doable for all of us once we have the contenders and LEAVE the handicapping as finished, then only decide based upon odds (probabilities offered).

[Tim Y]

Now that wagering SET OF RULES I suggested, must be individual to the relative player based upon HIS known strengths. I do best with speed horses so my wagering hierarchy always includes a look at those contenders first over the others....I also know that up front horses win almost 6 out of every nine races nationally (Dr William Quirin, Winning at the Races: Computer Discoveries in Thoroughbred Handicapping).

Always keep in mind that the national average of favorites winning has moved up to around 36% these days. Expressed as probability that is around 1/2.75 or odds of 1.75 to one (between 8/5 and 9/5). So realize that in hitting to JUST BREAK EVEN, one has to get around 9/5 or higher. Very very hard to make money long term with payouts like that. Realize too that the MORE you can prove that the favorite is vulnerable, the more chance for a good payout when the favorite is odds on.

Brisnet "at a glance" helps you find the tracks where the favorites do not do too well. Here is how things went at the recently concluded meeting at Del Mar:
DEL MAR AT A GLANCE
Avg. Winning Odds: 5.02 – 1
Favorite Win%: 33%, Favorite Itm%: 66%

http://www.brisnet.com/content/2016/...cember-5-2016/

This will insure you to stay away from meetings like Finger Lakes where, at times, the winning favorites are over 43% and make you look more at Laurel where for long periods it was around 29%. Laurel had big competitive fields too and is in the middle of a big reconstruction effort in order to draw more support from the betting public: GOOD SIGNS.

Size of field: Stay away from races (unless you find very good value on a single) that have 7 or fewer horses. Exotics here do not return well versus the risk usually, NOT ALWAYS. Each should be approached with an open mind and with the knowledge of what does well at the course you are most familiar with. The larger the field (particular in "boutique" meets with few big monied interests in the pool, i.e. Oaklawn) spread out the wagering so that the favorite usually comes in with a higher than normal odds.

Dick Mitchell (Winning Thoroughbred Strategies) reported a study of long term betting at three tracks (believe they were all on the west coast). He found that through the program (from 1st to nightcap) the odds on the favorite usually ROSE. His explanation was that the crowd was "chasing" lost dollars later in the program and suggested that more effort be placed LATE than early. I have found this to be true in general.

For all those BOTTOM LINE folks all this boils down to is ONLY accepting value for your investment dollar. Look at other fields of investment: no realtor will pay 300K for a house worth 301K, nor would a stock analyst suggest buying a stock or commodity that will only get a 2% return (unless you are a REAL fat cat).

Some interesting tip I have gleaned and these come from The New Expert Handicappers by James Quinn.

p. 124 "If things have been going from bad to worse, go to the races but get in the betting lines late. The idea is to get shut out. If you get shut out and the horses lose, you'll feel buoyed up. It helps lift the spirits."

p. 110 " I found that may habits handicappers engage in REFLEXIVELY actually have deleterious effects lang haul." NEVER turn the mind off, be critical each step of the way consistently.

p. 58 Lee Rousso has one of my all time favorites; "Pretend the window is a mile away, suggests Rousso. If the horse looks good enough to walk a mile to bet, that's a strong opinion. That's the horse to load up on."

The chapter by George Kaywood is worth the entire book.

A true classic of course (and it works I must tell you) was the idea that Howard Sartin had about the rubber band around the wrist as negative feedback.

Think of this as OVERDEVELOPED muscles in one side of your game (handicapping) and UNDERDEVELOPED muscles on the other (Wagering) To do well we need symmetry of effort.

[Tim Y]

Two good primers on the wagering side of the coin are:

The Four Quarters of Thoroughbred Investing.
http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTracts...e/TT020712.htm

Author uses templates to suggest wagers made, and IF at all. Good ideas, TIME consuming to implement. Overall a good book to get the general idea of what he is trying to relate. Practically? Jury is out on that. It could work logically.


The Odds on Your Side: The Logic of Racetrack Investing by the GURU Marc Cramer...THIS guy really has his act together, ALWAYS learned from his work.

https://www.amazon.ca/Odds-Your-Side.../dp/096141684X