'For the Lead' Guidelines - NEW Compilation

[For The Lead]

Reply

Originally Posted by Mitch44

I seriously doubt many could achieve 63% using Sartin techniques that date back to the original pace line manual.

Well, normally I would tell you to take it up with the person who said it, but in this case that is not possible. Regardless of what you might “think”, Sartin GUARANTEED 63% or MORE. And that was using the ORIGINAL GUIDELINES.

Exceptions sure but for the average member like you its doubtful at best His evolution of concepts such as pace line selection and factors far surpass anything from 1986 or so and with them many more reach that goal.

The interesting thing is, when the Methodology “evolved” beyond the original 1,000 client concept and after the Methodology Guidelines “evolved” to whatever they became, I don’t recall having ever read or heard of any “GUARANTEE of WIN PERCENTAGE”.

As part of that revolution he also abandoned man made class structure as they appear in PP's and eliminated it as an aide in selection of the proper pace line. His class evolved to what we now know as CR which was improved by Ted to CR+.

I have no input one way or the other on this subject. It is likely this was happening at the same time that I was busy getting my own programs and database together.


Additionally he abandoned any number of days to the selecting of pace lines. This is on tape in the library where Ted asked the question about layoff horses and "Doc's" reply was to "Treat them as if they ran last week."

Fortunately, Lt1 took care of this misrepresentation of fact. In post #15 of this thread he said, “Teds' question was in respect to Woodbine and the fact that most of the horses were returning from long layoffs between meets and how to handle that.”
Well, that’s one way to handle it. Woodbine has a long meet and my advice would be not to jump in at the outset where using old information can be “sketchy” at best. An alternative method would be to let the horses run over the track a couple of times and then begin play. There is no rush. Like I said, Woodbine has a long meet.


I would say only use his latest concepts if you want to win and achieve 63% with two horses. This game is tough enough and ignoring his proven and later concepts is a recipe for disaster. Only use them if you want to win or perish.

To my knowledge, this was never GUARANTEED beyond the GUARANTEE using the ORIGINAL GUIDELINES, which is where the 63% came from.


As far as the race posted here I deem it as not winnable, part of that 37% we don't get.

Well, it certainly appears it falls within your losing percentage, whatever that may be.
For some others, it might fall into their win percentage column.

Sure we can all get the winner after the fact. The fact of the matter is this game only pays off for foresight not hindsight. Theory and where the leather meets the road are totally different.

This is the one that always cracks me up. It’s my favorite. When all else fails, this is the go to argument.
So, all the races in the follow ups and all the races that were illustrated in every handicapping book ever written, were all done PRE- RACE so that by the time the consumer got the follow up or book, we could all watch the illustrated races so we could see how they turned out. NOT HARDLY. All of these illustrated races were used as “teaching tools”, just as the races I posted were.
In post #4 of this thread, Bill Lyster wrote, “EVERY race uses the same methodology of line and contender selection”. THAT is the important thing.


Mitch44

[For The Lead]

I’m glad I gave Mitch44 a new weapon. Ever since I posted that “Doc” GUARANTEED, what was to be his original 1,000 clients a 63% or higher win percentage and he learned something new, he uses it in every post.

He just keeps re-affirming what I have said all long. Using the ORIGINAL GUIDELINES WORK!!

[For The Lead]

Something that was NOT pointed out in Bill Lyster’s post#4 of this thread was his final point.
“By the way, in all races at DMR the average number of contenders was 3.67!”

Let me illustrate what that means. First all of, it seems to be common practice that EVERY RACE must have 5 contenders, which is absolutely absurd. There are NOT 5 legitimate contenders in every race. The average field size is 8 horses. 5 Contenders equals 62.5% of the field. And then the talk is about how many winners are in the “top 4”. Well, I hope there are a significant number since you have 62.5% whittled down to 50%.
So, where everybody else is starting with 62.5% of the field, Bill Lyster, using my guidelines, was starting with an average of 45.8% of the field.

Now let’s look a little closer at what that starting number of contenders looks like in practice.

Here is a link to a day at PARX. I encourage everyone to read what I wrote before starting the races. It starts on PAGE #22.
http://www.sartinmethodology.com/lib....Selection.pdf

Let me explain what you will see, IF you look for it.
First, the contenders won 100% of the races. (9 for 9)
Next, here is the number of contenders in each race and the winning mutual.
Race 1 – 3 contenders, winner paid $4.60
Race 2 – 2 contenders, winner paid $4.00
Race 3 – 5 contenders, winner paid $5.20
Race 4 – 4 contenders, winner paid $39.60
Race 5 – 3 contenders, winner paid $7.00
Race 6 – 2 contenders, winner paid $10.20
Race 7 – 4 contenders, winner paid $27.60
Race 8 – 6 contenders, winner paid $5.20
Race 9 – 3 contenders, winner paid $6.60

More than half of the races had just 2 or 3 contenders.
Only 2 races had more than 4 contenders.

On this day there were a total of just 32 contenders. That is an average of 3.55 contenders per race, which is very close to the 3.67 average number of contenders Bill Lyster showed for the meet at DMR.
Now, compare this to what appears to be the normal for players today. They would have had a total of 45 contenders, 5 per race.

[Mitch44]

The fact is that when the original pace manual was written circa 1986 very few were achieving 63% winners and with his revised guidelines many more achieved that goal and level. He obviously revised the guidelines because it proved to be more effective and produced more 63% winners which was his goal. Additionally the same can be said for his later and much improved factors.

The keystone of Sartin is contenders and proper pace lines, anyone not following his later teachings is doubtful at best of achieving that goal of 63% from his earlier endeavor into this game. They were few then and now because proven concepts are ignored.


The independent study by Bill Lister proves that your guidelines only produced the winner in the top 4 64 % which makes it impossible by my 3rd grade math to achieve a goal of 63% unless they pick 100% winners. I also believe 318 races using your guidelines to be sufficient of a test for accurate results. BTW the 63 % was a Sartin standard not mine and I learned of it around 1990. I did not learn that from you or anything else for that matter. The "Doc" never guaranteed anyone 63% winners, he was too smart for that knowing some have a secret desire to lose and some would refuse to follow guidelines. No much too smart for that.

You are free to use and do whatever procedures that you deem appropriate. But members should be aware there are more efficient tools for getting the winner in the top 4 at a much higher % which places them on the path for greater success and also better tools for getting the correct pace line. That path is through Sartin's later guidelines and better tools that presently exists within RRDSS. Once given that information they also are free to choose their own path to travel.


As I said this game is about foresight and not hindsight or Monday morning quarter backing. Theories count for nothing. While Bradshaw never believed in post mortems others did and I also believe their good for finding problems and correcting issues but the fact is anybody can get a winner after the fact. The results of 318 races speaks for itself. There are tools within RDSS that will get the winner within 4 horses 80% and higher and those contender selection factors along with later guidelines and tools for pace line selection will place a member in the game to achieve 63%.Of course money management and experience count but their at or near the finish line with energy in reserve.
Mitch44


Going forward good skill.
Mitch44

[Lt1]

Ok since my post #15 was mentioned by FTL I would like to expand that answer. Doc was indeed answering Ted but other teaching members were quick to chime. Vic Palermo borught up the Fair Grounds, Bruce Jorgeson mentioned Yakima Downs, Finger Lakes and Oaklawn Parx were also mentioned with Jimmy B nodding at Oaklawn being mentioned. The point being none of them seemed concerned with layoffs at the initial point of selecting contenders. As FTL stated the safest way to approach those tracks would most likely be to take a wait and see. approach. I would also like to revisit my post #28 where it was hammered home by all the teachers present [both on tape and in private conversations] that if you make a horse a contender you must give it every chance to win. That in itself indicated to me that the last line would not necessarily be the correct line to use to achieve that goal. And recall this was 1993 where the best of the last 3 comparable dist and surface was being taught. To the best of my knowledge the 63% winners figure being tossed around was the desired goal of PIRCO in the beginning. I also believe that no one could become a teaching member unless and until they reached that level. While I'm at it I like to point out another way that Col. Bruce used in selecting his contenders and that is he kept any horse that beat half the field in its' last. As part of his approach he would examine all the entrants pps to see how many times they beat half the field. There were some laughs but he was serious. I ended up checking it out[I'll try to find my survey] but darn of it's not pretty effective. Points out consistent animals.
Tim

[Lt1]

I have to admit I'm confused as to what the segment screen has to do with the initial selection of contenders which is what I thought we were dealing with. I myself don't go to my model until after I've evaluated the contenders. I believe we all understand[or should] that contenders in todays race may render our model ineffective[ie a lone early or lone sustained horse being set up by makeup of our contenders]. That being said I w accept the fact that FTL and others use of the original concepts work when directions are followed. I also believe that the later teachings of the Doc should be high lighted more since they are what the Methodology evolved into. Each of us is free to practice whatever approach we know works for us. Now before I close I would like to point out that Mitch and I joined at the same time and met at a Sar seminar so what follows may sound biased but is true. I've been to numerous seminars and tracks with him as well as working live race cards with him via the phone. I can attest to the fact the he has indeed reached and exceeded the 63% winners level. Those of you who have follow races posted live on the site by various members have no doubt seen him win a lot of them. I guess what I'm trying to say is if we still had "teaching members" he would be extremely qualified to be one. So like that old ad use to say when he talks I listen. In any event rather then see a battle royal over approaches I would suggest that all of
us do their own test and see what works best for them.
Tim

[Mitch44]

The Sartin Methodology and RDSS isn't a black box. Even those with the same contenders and pace lines may select different horses to bet on. It allows choice to the user but does provide proven concepts, guidelines factors etc. from the master himself. These are well published. Those with stubborn resistance to change end up at the back of the pack.
As far as contenders and pace lines its all been said here so time to move on to another race. This thread and subject has been beaten to death. If you want to learn something than learn from winners.


I'll leave you with one of my better picks (CRUSOE)with this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ugHB...feature=you.be


Mitch44

---

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Hi Bill

I agree with Mitch, Unless I am reading this wrong,Using FTL's guidelines,64% seems low. When you compare it to using the top 4 ML horses
which for me stands at 77% in all races

For RDSS users, Just using the Tote Xray #2 which is 81% in the top 4

Good Skill
Bill

Let's say that you look at 100 races

I only reported that using FTL's guidelines, contenders appeared in 64% of the races worked. That 64% is FTL's entire universe! He does not participate in the 36% of the races that do not have his contenders. So his winners come from those 64 races alone after he determines if there is enough value to place a bet. I have no idea how many tracks or races he looks at per day, nor do i know how many races he actually deems bet worthy out of the 64 with contenders, but by demanding 4/1 or better you could surmise that the number of bets made in those 64 qualifying races is fairly low. You do not need a high win percentage in order to create a positive ROI when you only bet on horses going off at 4/1 or higher. Less than half of all races at DMR paid more than 4/1 so you can see that the criteria for a bet, if you handicapped DMR, are very rigid and ultimately result in a very small number of bets. A very conservative approach all in all.

[Bill V.]

Bill L

Thanks. Now I see what you meant

Bill

[fastcharlie55]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

There is the possibility that some elements of Sartin could be improved upon, just say'in.

To learn you need an open mind to new ideas.....thank you for your input