Random Thoughts

[Dorianmode]

The thing is, this is the SARTIN Methodology. The early Follow Ups and manuals explain precisely why he ignored this stuff. For good reason. It's a question of correlation or causation. In the cases of jockeys, good horses get good jockeys, and the work of the trainer is embedded ALREADY in those pacelines, they achieved. Unless they have changed trainers, it's irrelevant.You already have all the info already in the past races you need. If you don't have enough information in the pacelines, no table is going to tell you if a horse can do something it hasn't done before. Pass the race.


However, there are some, well one or two, decent programs out there which calculate probability numbers if that's what you want, based on a number of factors. Trackmaster does not have the best one. Try a few. Keep records. I guarantee the Methodology will beat all of them, along with your active brain. I use one occasionally. In the end, in my records, any of the Sartin programs is far more productive in narrowing down the last 3 or 4 horses, but more and more, I also am going to 1 horse betting, as it's much more profitable, as was described above. So ignoring trainers and jockeys is no omission. Read the early Follow Ups. It was a deliberate decision of Sartin and the original group. They matter, but they are ALREADY accounted for in the paceline. Make sense ?
PM me if you wish to discuss other proprietary stuff. But you already have all the info there is out there right in front of you.
For example, yesterday at Santa Anita, in the 5th race. The winner, (#1) looked great, but how would you know it could run on the turf ? As Ted pointed out yesterday, it had a very fast turf workout, but even more thn that, having been to the early morning workout many times, one would know how trainers prepare these animals for a race like that. That turf course was not new to that horse, I guarantee it. The info was already there. It was just confirmed by the readout, for me anyway.

[vderdak]

Lone Speed

Nice story on Greatest Race, there have been some fantastic races in our life time, great horses, great competitors, it's a shame the general population has no interest in these epic battles anymore.

Here's a tragic story I experienced years ago, no greatest race....haha

I remember when I first started handicapping and bet like a fool, more money than brains back then about 25 years ago, I was down about $500.00 at the track over the course of the day, bet a enough to get even on the last race, my horse is coming down the stretch leading by about 10 lengths, I was already counting my money, and dang if he didn't break down at the 1/8 pole and poof it was all gone.........lol

[vderdak]

Dorianmode

I understand why the methodology doesn't use trainers or jockey but I respectively disagree it's all embedded in the horses past performance, I guess that's where we part ways.

Trainer statistics are solid numbers, as an example, if a trainer wins 10 out of 30 races in general at the sprint distance but at 6 furlongs wins 7 out of 10 and then on top of it wins 6 out of 8 at the track and the horse you are betting wins 4 out of 10 at a 6 furlong sprint and is 3 out of 5 at the tracks six furlong distance it's a heck of alot better than looking at 10 out of 30 in general which most people see alot of the time.

The numbers generated by any progam are not gospel truth, they are estimates only, good estimates but there is a ton of variation in lengths behind measured, gates are set at the wrong distance, varients estimated, times wrong, there are a host of inacurracies built into those numbers everyone takes as truth. I just don't put my whole faith and money into one set of numbers alone. I understand it's what we have to work with so I guess I'm probably not a true pure follower of the Sartin methodology, I've never won consistently based on the numbers alone, this is most likely my own personal handicapping defect but when combined with trainer and jockey stats, good betting intiuition and alot of experience I make money.

[atkinsrr]

Very interesting commentary and views on handicapping and wagering...if I may add my 2 cents worth...if one wishes to use trainer and jockey stats in addition to RDSS that info is available on BRIS. I handicap, bet, and keep records on GP FG SA KEE CD SAR DMR plus big stakes days at a few others. I have used RDSS for 3 years now and I have found that by keeping the records that I keep on certain tracks that (for me) RDSS seems to work better at some tracks than others...but that may not be true for those reading this. But the numbers for me are top priority..I also keep an eye on non numerical factors..which is priority #2. That would be trainers, jockeys etc. This is such a diverse endeavor that we are involved in you have to have every piece of info available that will help you win...but all of the info that you may use may not apply to all races that you handicap...at least that's how it works for me...keeping records other than wagering records has been very helpful to me. Speaking of trainers, there are some races that I don't use the trainer factor...especially when I'm in a Stakes race and all the trainers in that race are high level trainers???? BUT..yesterday at Santa Anita I had some indecision in a real tough race(race 8) and did use a trainer as a final decision on a win bet...Richard Mandella has been hot lately and RDSS had his horse second on BLBL...Smart Ellis with Gary Stevens aboard. #1 BLBL was Ivanho @ 3-1...Mike Mitchell also hot trainer. Then we had Fire with Fire at 5-2 with Drysdale who is at 8%..not doing well...I let Drysdales poor record hide this horse and bet the other 2 to win....Smart Ellis paid $18.20...gave me a winning day......but that type of situation doesn't come up that often...but it looks like we have to use whatever info will help us win that particular race...sometimes RDSS doesn't help me when I have a race with all the horses coming off different surfaces and distances...BUT WE CAN ALWAYS PASS...can't lose when you do that....good handicapping and decision making to all!!!!

[vderdak]

Atkinsrr

I will handicap many different ways based on how I perceive a race to be run, one factor primarly and other factors secondary and sometimes one factor only basesd on expericence. RDSS is my foundation for most races although like you if I am going to wager at a track I download the BRISnet file as well, it's free.

I looked at Gulfstream Race #11 yesterday, all confirmed losers on the turf for the most part where pace numbers are weak to use, I just sorted by who has won at the this specific track on the turf before, it left me three horses, I threw out one I didn't care much for, didn't like his post position also going into the first turn and bet the other two and it paid $11.00 to win, no RDSS numbers run, no trainer stats viewed, just the horses, it works well for me often on the turf where you have a bunch of confirmed losers. I wouldn't recommend this for new handicappers but for me it works more often than not and shows a nice return based on my records. There are lots of ways to handicap a race, some more conventional, some unconventional. I usually just stick to Pace and Cap talk on here for this site, it's not the forum for different handicapping methods.

[atkinsrr]

Vderdak...I handicapped the 11th at GP also using RDSS and the #3 came up first on BLBL but I normally don't bet races that bad....that horse was just claimed...which can be good or bad...but it had such horrible horses in it I didn't bet...but I handicap the bad ones and keep an eye out for the horses who did run well for possible future bets

[joefour]

Why not make the extra Trainer/Jockey stats available as an option that could be turned on or off? That way everyone could be satisfied (knock on wood) as to what they wanted to include in their handicapping. Whatever gets you THE HORSE. Isn't that the bottom line, the reason we are all here on this forum? Just my $0.02 worth.