Pizzolla Video

[Mitch44]

Thanks Jeff. I wish you success in the future. I know you can succeed with the right tools.


Mitch44

[Lefty]

Mitch, a lot of people use other prgms with success. RDSS is a fine prgm, but so are many others. Telling Shoe he didn't want to succeed was very disrespectful. Glad you wished him success. I always say don't rain on other peoples parade. We all do things in different ways
because we are individuals. Some will have success with prgms other people can't and vice versa. I wish you and other RDSS users all the success in the world. I also wish success
to people using older Sartin prms and other prgms success too. They are out there; I know several of them.
Best,
Chuck

[Mitch44]

Lefty:

Some have phycological hang ups they must rid themselves of to be successful. Sartin wrote a whole manual on this subject. To become winners they must accept change, cuddling doesn't bring about the desired results all the time. Some need a dose of reality.

Your entitled to your opinion however it wasn't meant for disrespect. Also that's an opinion reserved for him and not you. And based on the PM he sent me, he did not take it that way.

The Methodology has changed, winners adapt and overcome. He's going back to a blueprint for success given to him that should provide the funds to afford RDSS and even greater success. Of course it still takes discipline and money management. All conscious
decisions every one must decide.

Achieving goals is always forward looking. I'm trying to make members winners and having used many of the old programs I'm well aware of the advantages of the new RDSS.

Mitch44

[tom]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

A speed rating will out perform the fulcrum hands down for both winners and for "Getting the right horses into the computer." I.e. contenders. Why?? Because a SR considers the 3rd FR which is incorporated into final time. Also a SR considers the variant which is incorporated into it. The fulcrum does none of that PERIOD

There frequently can be several horses very close or in contention at the SC. The question is who will survive or be there at the finish. Many horses can jump out there for a commanding lead as we see this often. Then they hit a brick wall of distance and fade. Tired and spent horses that stop in the stretch.

While a SR is far superior to the fulcrum, it is still inferior to other proven Factors for contenders and for winners.

Until some old heads cast away old concepts and old programs they'll never get past 1st grade and residing in a corner with a dunce cap on. Adapt or perish. Forget about the fulcrum as its trash and unworthy of even mentioning, let alone honorable mention.

Mitch44

At a seminar in Albany, The Hat said that taught Mike how to make PBS numbers, which are based on the fulcrum, as a contender s could either run hisd blazind early spped or his much slowed election process that he and Howard developed as a tool. Not so much as selecting contenders as weedingout those horses who likely cannot keep up. In his 2018 Derby rant video, which popped up when I went to this one, he does a pretty good job of showing and andvanved use of the fulcrum by positing that Justify could either show his blazing early speed, or the much slower pace he set in the SA Derby and how that could affect the other horses.

I use the fulcrum "idea" in my handicapping to this day and have found it very useful in evaluating a race.

[Mitch44]

The "Hat" and Sartin never incorporated PBS numbers in any of their programs. That pretty much tells you their thoughts on it, besides Bradshaw saying he did not believe in it.

Sartin taught the Match Up to Bradshaw who honed it and took it to the next level, It was incorporated into every program and also enhanced as computers became more faster with more memory. It's also within today's RDSS. PBS numbers and adjustments never made the cut, were and are strictly a Pizzola application. A very poor application as compared to the Match Up along with an inaccurate one at that.

Pizzola takes great credit for being a teacher member and in that era, not an easy accomplishment. He deserves credit for that. However I don't believe he ever cracked that inner circle of Sartin, Bradshaw and Brohammer. The real insiders that were loyal. Due to Sartin's chosen field he was a very good judge of character. Pizzola never measured up, which is why he was kicked to the curb.

A good horse like Justify only do what they have to.

Horses decelerate at different rates and a 2 to 1 adjustment rule is a fools errand. The Match Up is much more accurate and accounts for each horses deceleration, which is why its so effective. While it can't account for Unknown factors, it is very accurate for horses that have 3 races at todays distance and surface.

Most using the fulcrum are nothing more than early speed handicappers, unknowingly to most. Early speed is over rated, tend to be favorites and pay poorly. Not a recipe for profits or beating the take which is required to make profits. P and SP pay much better.

My great grand daughter asked me last night at dinner, if I believed in ghosts and the boogie man. A valid question for a 7 year old like her, but not a 30 year old. Some just never get it. Buts that's OK, the game needs them.


Mitch44

[Lefty]

Tom, you're right on.
Mich, If you don't like the fulcrum then don't use it but please don't
denigrate those that do.
Chuck

[Mitch44]

No I don't use, as I said its worthless. I don't stand still or follow the heard. I research things to verify their validity and I'm always looking to improve. Apparently I'm doing something right.
To each their own, like horses all you can do is lead them to water. Adjust and adapt or perish.

I'm traveling the next couple days and have other priorities. For those along for the ride, congrats and see you at the cashier window.

Mitch44

[shoeless]

Lefty and Tom thanks for the back up on the matter.

[tom]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Lefty and Tom thanks for the back up on the matter.

Hi Jeff.
Not trying to to start an arguement, just stating what I know happened because I was there and heard it.

Of course the methodology has evolved, and RDSS is the proof of that.

But of course the fulcrum and PBS were not part of a prgram - they are/were contender selection tools. In fact, in FU #16, Doc writes about the trackside seminars they did for a while, and the method they used as the basis for handicapping the races. PBS was one of four steps. Based on what he said, I guess he thought very highly of PBS, which is based on the fulcrum. He said to not use it was counter to the methodology!

Now I use the fulcrum idea, but not the same way. That was all I was saying.
It was once considered a very important tool, and by tweaking it ever so often, I never saw (in my records) any reason to stop.

As far as evolution goes, I once had a trial of RDSS, but I just didn't have the time to devote to it. Now that I am retired and have more time, I am spending more time on this board because I am considering taking it up again after the Saratoga meet is over. I suspect the fulcrum will come with me.

[Mitch44]

As far as selecting contenders there are much better tools than the fulcrum and much better tools than PBS adjustments. We have pretty much beaten contenders to death as far as recommendations. The fulcrum just won't beat some factors within RDSS for contenders, in fact just using the top 5 Morning Line will beat it however there are even better tools.

As I stated I don't use but I did take the free 90 day trial and found it lacking. I even did a test against it using one of my factors and beat it in getting longshots. There are other factors that can duplicate that. His above random and playing the highest odds horse for longshots with a few tweaks here and there to form is nothing more than taking the top Total Pace horses.(His Total Pace numbers) and playing the highest odds horses or an extreme wagering cap type approach. Conceptually that's it.

There are numerous reasons for longshots Total Energy is just one of many, and limited to only just that causes long losing streaks. As I always said, not all longshots are created equal. Just about any factor or angle catches longshots, it really comes down to how often and ability to separate winners from losers'.

If his stuff was that good they would be using his program and not Sartin products or remits thereof. Despite stealing from Sartin, him and Schmitt were kicked out for stealing, he does honor his free 90 day trial. I recommend any believers in him to give it a whirl. May I suggest they do paper bets or make fun $1.00 fun bets so not to lose their shirt or house. After trying that experiment try the present day RDSS for much better Factors and results.

I attempt to elevate members of this forum, but that's strictly up to them. Choice is a wonderful thing, which is why they make more than 30 flavors of ice cream.

Mitch44