The Mind's Eye - Part 3

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

I have no problems with the actual matching of lines in this race, but I have trouble accepting the last line because it appears so non-typical.

Yes, I can see that in its last four races the horse has gotten progressively closer to the lead and clearly, in this field, the horse does not have to equal the pace of the last race, but we are going to use this pace against all others in the matchup. I think this line 1 is the only one that makes the three the winner. I do not see any indication in the PPs to indicate that the horse has run so well back to back and I'm thinking that the horse will BOUNCE from the last race effort.

What is the Hat's position on horses repeating or running well after one time races (best of their life) just before the race in question. Or do we uniformly use the last line in all cases and live with the results?

Thanks,

Bill

Morning Bill
I looked through ALL the notes I wrote when Jim was teaching me.

There is only ONE situation where he would consider a last race WIN a negative and this is it.

In normal everyday racing and races (non KD,Breeders Cup etc) he considered a horse who has WON 3 races in a row to be a NEGATIVE factor. When playing live with him I can remember 4 or 5 times this happening and in all but 1 case he threw the horse out.

That's it

[RichieP]

Whether you won or lost this particular race I will tell ALL of you this:

EVERYONE is looking LEFT on the pp line (1st c and 1st fraction in routes) on a REGULAR basis. I have NOT asked any of you to do anything regarding the 2c and sc. This is by DESIGN and mirrors the exercises Jim did with me.

The fact that so many of you are getting the winner in YOUR look at the race from a 1c glance is tremendous! Hat has GOT to be smiling on all of this and loving it. As you all will see the following "Mind's Eye - Part 4" race will be different and expanded.

"Rich work on getting the importance of the FIRST CALL in people's minds. Get them away from the "pace is 2c bull****". When you think you have done enough in this area do some MORE ok? This is the matchup" - Jim Bradshaw (notes to me on 11/11/2007)

[VoodooFan]

Originally Posted by kiltman

Richie all I can say man is you have it!! The Hat has passed it on and it is in good hands. Keep up the good works.
Russ

Yep. Bears repeating.

VoodooFan

[VoodooFan]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

I have no problems with the actual matching of lines in this race, but I have trouble accepting the last line because it appears so non-typical.

Yes, I can see that in its last four races the horse has gotten progressively closer to the lead and clearly, in this field, the horse does not have to equal the pace of the last race, but we are going to use this pace against all others in the matchup. I think this line 1 is the only one that makes the three the winner. I do not see any indication in the PPs to indicate that the horse has run so well back to back and I'm thinking that the horse will BOUNCE from the last race effort.

What is the Hat's position on horses repeating or running well after one time races (best of their life) just before the race in question. Or do we uniformly use the last line in all cases and live with the results?

Thanks,

Bill

I think thats what the "Minds Eye" and other "Spot Plays/Pattern Recognition" exercises are here for.

If the mind/eye see's/detects a pattern that wins 6-9 times out of 10 all the time, once you KNOW that and HAVE that ability, we are taught to bet the same way and make the same choice, and not worry about the 3 or 4 times it doesn't work, because we would bet that pattern, even if we lose and still have a shot to bet THAT EXACT SAME race, we would bet it, again, the SAME way, without hesitation.

This is if and when we master the patterns.

Richie and THE HAT alluded to that there are guidelines, but NO RULES.

VoodooFan

[VoodooFan]

That endorsement letter of Dr. Howard G. Sartin had me thinking of something he and THE HAT repeated in the past.

The possible reasons how the MatchUp was created and continued to evolve and probably would have continued if he was still here.

1) His natural talent and unique methodology as a track coach, setting up his runners at different splits to defeat other teams.

2) He always said he drew hundreds of graphs to "see" the horses.

3) Writting programs based on his and Doc's algorithms as to how races are won, in addition to putting in thousands of races in these different programs.

4) His "sherlock holmes" like keen observation and hobby of simply watching horses and how they react in "reality". TRUE trip handicapping beyond whats been taught in the past.

Put all this together, and the constant streamlining, confirming whats important and works, and what does not have enough points of confirmation and cross checking of other known facts to justify using it in the real world, in other words, what to also completely throw out and not worry about. If point A wins only 1 or 2 extra races out of 20 but also loses 17 for every 2 won, at a profit not worth considering ,it is not a point worth considering.

For instance, his brain was the ultimate program, and why a program could never compete with him.

A horse , he observes, is a fighter, watches how horses look at each other in the eye and either fight and back down,

** coupled with how this mathematically equates to computer generated total energy and "reserve" pockets of energy(uXr),the WHY of algorithms IN MOTION and why and how they breathe in real life on the track,

**coupled with his track coach experience with what a runner needs at different splits in the race,

**coupled with learning and/or solidifying Huey Mahls 1 for 2 energy exertion, coupled with understanding and " seeing" why certain algorithms of a formula they came up with worked in real life and why the computer can't account for certain "other" realities ,trip patterns,and other horse "behavioral " intricities.......how do you put "fear" ,"heart" or getting "STARED DOWN in the EYE" by another horse into a mathematical formula and consistant algorithm? ......Hence, the term "FIGHTER". Exclusive Jim "THE HAT" Bradshaw proprietary brand , product name and formulation, and ANY who use it and OTHER MatchUp terms and SARTINESE terms without paying TRUE and PROPER respect to it's creators should be taken behind a shed and horsewhipped with a wet towel until their whole body looks sun-burned.

**coupled with seeing all this on his hand drawn graphs and getting the winner and results before the race is run

**all this being mixed ,cross referenced , streamlined and simplified with his cherokee philosphy and watching "Match Races" as a kid.

Which is why he automatically knew who the program was going to pick as the winner before he put them in the computer.

And besides all that, becoming a greater and more giving human being.

A theory.

VoodooFan

[Bill Lyster]

Richie:

That grinding sound that you are hearing is me making the adjustment in my head. Needed some "Lock tite" and even some WD-40 to make things move.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill