True Financial Security

[thelyingthief]

What might be of interest to the rest of you is my experience with the methodology:

Ignorant entirely of the game before being introduced to it via some friends, I was without prejudice as to what one could do. I spent nearly two years equipping myself to play the game, betting only during one two month period about mid-way through my learning period. I read only Sartin and his materials, listened to what tapes I could acquire, and attempted to unify my reading with my research. In those days, there were only paper forms available, and I actually fell asleep with them spread all over the bed, my hands begrimed and ink-darkened, graph paper and notebooks under my pillows, only to wake up and go at it again.

When I went to Las Vegas to try my methods, I proceeded to hit 70% winners over the next 4 months (Santa Anita), with an average mutuel over 12 dollars. In one sequence, I hit 21 races in succession. I won. This has not significantly changed since: last year, I handicapped 162 races at Woodbine, of which I passed 22 (neither of my horses, considered as a combined odds pair) went off at odds great enough to warrant a bet: my prime selection in this group won every race. In the remaining 140 races, I hit 60% winners. FOR EVERY DOLLAR I WAGERED IN THESE RACES, I RECEIVED 1.90 BACK. This is the win end. I don't regularly play exactas, although I religiously box my top three candidates when they are over 10 to 1. (I hit two that paid 392 and 336 alone). During one two week stretch, I failed to cash in 1 race.

When I lived in Las Vegas, I chanced to meet Barry Meadows, who was gathering material for a book he was writing, mostly about LV racebooks, but also about computer methodologies. I had my laptop spread, and was crunching some numbers, which he inquired about, asking what programs I used etc. After some discussion, I showed him my wager record book, to which, with some astonishment, he responded: you must be the best handicapper in America. I looked back in equal astonishment, for that had never been my intent or interest. What had been my interest, was to do what Sartin said others were doing. Now, I can't say about them, but I do know about me, and it is a bald faced fact that hard work, the tools supplied by PIRCO, a LOT of independent research, and a refusal to accept the word "CAN'T" as any part of your working hypothesis, will prove that it can be done.

IT CAN BE DONE, AND DON'T LET A SINGLE SOUL EVER TELL YOU OTHERWISE.

I have used these methods to annihilate races, and you can too. I had Keeper Hill, a Frankel filly, when it paid 114 to win, 454 for the exacta, and 1100 for the tri: and for a 400 dollar investment, walked out of that racebook with 50,000 in return. And I absolutely could not have done this, thinking "IT CAN'T BE DONE". And I thank Sartin for publicly stating exactly the same philosophy time and again. I do it, and so can you.

tlt.

[lsosa54]

Very interesting post, tlt. What has proven most critical to your success in addition to your strong belief? Narrowing the contention to 3 or 4? Picking pacelines? A particular software program? Using the match up concept? Avoiding certain races?

Thanks for your post and thoughts.

[shoeless]

Well since Barry Meadow said you are the best handicapper in America why not pick out a race BEFORE it's run and explain to us how you go about doing it.

[thelyingthief]

There are several:

1) Knowing what I don't know is among the most important. Thinking I know, rather than implementing a strategy has lost me more big-priced horses than any other single thing.

2) I realize that Sartin in his later years advocated a black box approach, but this has never worked for me. I address each track I play with the same questions, some of which are: what is the recency factor? which horses ship and from where? who pops off LO? which races are most likely to result in larger than average, if not downright stellar, payoffs? how reliable are the figures? what is the inter-relationship of the drf figures and the Beyers, FOR THAT TRACK. Answering any questions which arise to me, questions that, when I lose a race, will resurface, is imperative. I have to know the answer to my uncertainty, or it impairs my creativity.

3) Watching the races. I don't much believe in trip handicapping, but the subconscious sees things and imposes them on the form.

4) Knowing what I do not know.

5) Determine a contender selection technique that WORKS. Test it. I use a method that, with relatively minor modifications, works at every N. Am. venue I've tested it. Although, I play the better tracks. I want to wager on good horses.

6) Likewise, determine a paceline method. I have never been able to implement a matchup approach, though I don't doubt that some are capable of it; but I have developed a method that works. Test it. Understand when and why it fails to work. Strategize from the failures.

7) Knowing what I do not know.

8) Allowing myself to think I am smarter than everybody else. Whether it's true is immaterial: confidence goes a long way, even the artificial variety .

tlt

hey, Clueless? You know what I think about you? Yeah, that's it, you hit the nail on the head.

[froggy]

tlt,

It is hard to do what you have done.
You have the confidence to do what others won't do

I too know what it is like to feel the confidence in myself.

Froggy

[froggy]

Shoe,

As far as someone showing how they do a particular race.
That is not the real answer.
Look at my post in the Energy forum today.
Would you have included the winner?
Not many people would have.
He doesn't fit in with they think a winner looks like.
Would I include a horse like him in every race? No.
In that race he just loomed up off of the page at me.
One has to take the principles of the methodology and apply it for themselves to prove in their mind and heart the power that is there.
When I play poker sometimes horse racing comes up and I might say I had a $33 horse.
Usually its one that they wouldn't have bet if it was the only horse in the race.
Thats when people want me to prove myself.
If anybody wants me to prove myself to them I simply tell them to come to the Riverside casino race book when New York is running and look for me in the non smoking section.
I'm not hard to find. They can sit with me and watch how I do it.
Otherwise I don't have time for skeptics.
I don't have to prove myself to anyone other than myself.
And the same is true for tlt.
I don't win every race I bet but I win enough to know that I can make a living with the tools we have here.

SO CAN YOU.

Froggy

[shoeless]

Figures you come up with an answer like that instead of showing us how you do a race beforehand.Interesting how much you were bugging me to copy Brohammer's Seminar on paceline selection and how upset you got when I could not do it.You would wonder why somebody who claims he has won 50 G's on a race and was called the best handicapper in America by Barry Meadows would need them.Instead you should be doing your own seminar you can call it TO TELL THE TRUTH.

[VoodooFan]

Originally Posted by thelyingthief

There are several:


2) I realize that Sartin in his later years advocated a black box approach, but this has never worked for me. I address each track I play with the same questions, some of which are: what is the recency factor? which horses ship and from where? who pops off LO? which races are most likely to result in larger than average, if not downright stellar, payoffs? how reliable are the figures? what is the inter-relationship of the drf figures and the Beyers, FOR THAT TRACK. Answering any questions which arise to me, questions that, when I lose a race, will resurface, is imperative. I have to know the answer to my uncertainty, or it impairs my creativity.

3) Watching the races. I don't much believe in trip handicapping, but the subconscious sees things and imposes them on the form.

Test it. Understand when and why it fails to work. Strategize from the failures.

Thats one of the chief reasons I gravitated toward the MatchUp. For me, at least, computer programs and adjustments of any kind usually gives me a excuse for losing, so I would get deeper into numbers and not reality, the what and why of whats really happening.

I would'nt mind making computers work, but I would have to do it Jimmy Bradshaw style, whenever he used the computer: Already picking the winner and putting the 2 or 3 horses in to make sure I did'nt miss something.

I think you found your OWN method of the MatchUp.

Thats what Doc wanted anyway, to make the tools and the methodology your OWN, good show.

He said he did'nt care how you win , just win.

Some of the above quoted behavior is why THE HAT continued to elevate and evolve the methodology of The MatchUp, a very high keen sense of observation and relevancy to reality. Richie said in a post how he told him he just watch horses and their behavior.


VoodooFan

[shoeless]

Froggy,First of all you dont know what kind of dude this TLT is and what trouble I had with him because I couldnt tape for him something I didnt have.

Secondly you dont have to prove yourself to anybody but if everybody took that point of view nobody would be learning anything around here.Years ago at Charles Town I had 100 win and place on a 40-1 shot that was coming from Tampa and had jockey George Manus on him and the horse won.By me telling this who is it helping nobody.I still believe if you are going to post that you won this race or hit so many races on a day's card at least show how you did it so everybody can learn from it.

[VoodooFan]

Tom Brohamer, once you get past his talk of barns, trainers and class pretty much does his version of the MatchUp, which is one of the reasons I like reading and listening to his stuff.

His core reasons, whether he mentions trainers and barns, is pace(MatchUp) related. I've read too much of his stuff to believe otherwise.

For instance, when he discounts a horse because of track class or class, he usually knows that a 21.4 at Blue Ribbon Downs is a not the same as a 21.4 at Santa Anita, for the most part.

So I think, which I may be wrong, Thelyingthief has MatchUp elements in his handicapping, like Brohamer, just applies them differently and may use terms like "class" as a word to define what he did when it was really a pace reason, mostly.

I think there should be 2 PowWow Pirco groups :

1) DonP, RichieP and others with MatchUp like results and disciples of the man himself, Jim "THE HAT" Bradshaw should get together once or twice ,with RichieP as MC, to recognize TRUE Jim "THE HAT" Bradshaw elements in their handicapping that is parallel to the MatchUp, Bradshaw style, and /or unique observations and application of those observations relevant to the MatchUp, whether or not the handicapper realizes and/or recognizes he or she is using elements and observations Mr. Bradshaw would've used or elevate his premise of the MatchUp.

2) Elevating and introducing new tools and observations of said Sartin Methodology. Sometimes, people are doing successful things and don't know or recognize they are doing it, because it became so natural.

Case in point, Doc reminded THE HAT he was a track coach, hence, the light came on and the birth of The MatchUp began.

Because thats how Doc did it. He took unique elements and observations of primier handicappers that worked day in , and day out, and put what was unique to that particular handicapper, as best he could, into a program and added it to the Methodology.

Rdss is an example of that.

By the way, if the MatchUp elements of that program , along with its other qualities exceed previous Pirco programs, AND is close to duplicating Bradshaw type handicapping and prices, it should not be sold as a program to the potential vultures out there. The creators of the program should have the exclusive choice as to who gets the program, proven trustworthy individuals you can be your life on, not some sneaky sell-out.

It should be a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly service to plug into to use, that way, no vultures can steal from Pirco again.

Try to steal the logarithms of the service, you vultures.

Also, the money can be split to help Doc, this forums admin, Bradshaw foundation or whatever is fair to the helpers of this project.

Just a thought.

VoodooFan