Arlington - June 4th

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by benzer

Hi BJBennet,

I would have posted sooner but I had a once a year family reunion to attend. Family is always first.

I don't bet exactas. Only win and sometimes place and show, also doubles and pick 3's. Depends on how I feel the race is going to run and where I think I can justify my risk of investment.

In your post you said the Sartin methodology did not work at AP. All I did was point out that it does.

Recent:

AP 6/8: 6 of 10 top 2 BL/BL including 3 double digit winners.

AP 6/10: 5 of 9 top 2 BL/BL including a 69.20 winner and a daily double of $222, and $512 and a pick 3 for $870

I'm not a database handicapper, I check a couple of recent cards to see if the track is running good to my line selections and if so I go for it.

Background:

I realize there are many good experienced handicappers here, but I'm not new to the game. Been doing this since I was 18 and am about to turn 50. I have a Uncle that is 80 that owned and trained horses that taught me how to read the conditions, so I have a little bit of experience.

Supported myself for 2 years wagering only the daily double, driving 40 miles + to the Chicago circuit, Arlington, Hawthorn and Sportsmans.

When it comes to wagering a person has to find their comfort level. Which depends on what you're after. Myself I have a goal, earn XXX amount and then quit for the day. It does not matter when I reach my goal, if it is in race 1, I'm done.

Everybody has their own way of doing this, but once you find what works for you, that is where you have to be regardless of any book.

Hi benzer,

I hope your weren't offended by my comments. This is a forum for discussing and debating handicapping in general, and the Sartin Methodology in particular. You should realize that my posts are addressed less to you as an indivdual than to the community that reads this board. As I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me or change their game because of my posts - everyone will play as they think best.

For me, I normally use a sample of at least 300 races as a benchmark of what 'works' - and in many instances only a much larger sample. This is the context of my post, so even a handful of races wouldn't change my view.

BTW, this is not really relevant to the issue, but after looking at 6/10 (couldn't get 6/8 PPs) I agree with you about the results, but I would say that the performance level of the Sartin factors that day was probably not unrelated to the fact that the average-field-size was 7 horses - somewhat below the norm for AP.

After thinking more about AP, and looking at my records from a couple of years ago, it seems to me that the pattern I see there is a much wider variance in the performance of the basic Sartin factors than elsewhere - two or three days where they hit at a normal rate (for me Top-4 - 85%) and two or three days where it's way below that. And this kind of volatility in the way the track plays has been the same for me for many years. It seems to imply that either the track maintenance is sub-standard or that the track is highly affected by weather changes. You don't see this kind of variance in the hit-rate of the Sartin figures on the top circuits.

If you live in Chicago and this is part of your home circuit, but you're not having the same experience at AP, I guess there's really nothing to say. I play the same, methodical Sartin game here that I do elsewhere, but with results that are below par.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[benzer]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi benzer,

I hope your weren't offended by my comments. This is a forum for discussing and debating handicapping in general, and the Sartin Methodology in particular. You should realize that my posts are addressed less to you as an indivdual than to the community that reads this board. As I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me or change their game because of my posts - everyone will play as they think best.

For me, I normally use a sample of at least 300 races as a benchmark of what 'works' - and in many instances only a much larger sample. This is the context of my post, so even a handful of races wouldn't change my view.

BTW, this is not really relevant to the issue, but after looking at 6/10 (couldn't get 6/8 PPs) I agree with you about the results, but I would say that the performance level of the Sartin factors that day was probably not unrelated to the fact that the average-field-size was 7 horses - somewhat below the norm for AP.

After thinking more about AP, and looking at my records from a couple of years ago, it seems to me that the pattern I see there is a much wider variance in the performance of the basic Sartin factors than elsewhere - two or three days where they hit at a normal rate (for me Top-4 - 85%) and two or three days where it's way below that. And this kind of volatility in the way the track plays has been the same for me for many years. It seems to imply that either the track maintenance is sub-standard or that the track is highly affected by weather changes. You don't see this kind of variance in the hit-rate of the Sartin figures on the top circuits.

If you live in Chicago and this is part of your home circuit, but you're not having the same experience at AP, I guess there's really nothing to say. I play the same, methodical Sartin game here that I do elsewhere, but with results that are below par.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Hi BJennet

Not offended at all. I like the the lower level of races with a little bit of gray in them. Probably comes from my early days of only playing the daily double.

NW2 in one race and a MC in the next with a couple of first time starters, I had to learn to read between the lines.

[benzer]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi benzer,

After thinking more about AP, and looking at my records from a couple of years ago, it seems to me that the pattern I see there is a much wider variance in the performance of the basic Sartin factors than elsewhere - two or three days where they hit at a normal rate (for me Top-4 - 85%) and two or three days where it's way below that.

Cheers,

B Jennet

One of the things that has changed in the last few years at AP is the surface. The poly track there does not work well for some horses, some just don't run to their numbers on it.

Proven good poly horses seem to hold their own, untested poly runners is a gray area that is hard to put a handle on.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by benzer

One of the things that has changed in the last few years at AP is the surface. The poly track there does not work well for some horses, some just don't run to their numbers on it.

Proven good poly horses seem to hold their own, untested poly runners is a gray area that is hard to put a handle on.

Hi benzer,

I hear you about poly. I haven't had trouble with in most places, but I know these surfaces can vary greatly according to brand - that may be part of my problem, and I'll pay more attention to it. Thanks for the heads-up.

Cheers,

B Jennet