Just follow the guidelines

[For The Lead]

The Sartin Methodology provides guidelines that cover just about any situation you will encounter.
Every race I post is done in the same way and following those guidelines. I also add a couple of guidelines of my own that I have learned from my database. Here they are:
1 - eliminate any horse that has a ML of 20/1 or higher. You'll get high price winners without searching for a needle in the haystack.
2 - eliminate any horse that has not run in the last 90 days. 95% of all winners have had a race in the last 90 days.
3 - eliminate any horse that does not have a "+" or "(+)" line at a similar distance and surface in the last 90 days.
CONSISTENCY is the key.

There were only 7 horses in this race. Here is my rundown of the field.


#1 – Line 2, 62 days ago. Last line, 26 days ago, was on the turf. Not the same surface as today. Today’s condition is for NW2L. Following the guidelines, you can use the horses maiden win, which is line 2 and a “+” race.
#2 – NO LINE. This horse has one race, a maiden win, however, it was not at today’s distance.
#3 – Last line. It was at the same distance and surface, therefore there is no reason to go back any further. The last line was a “+” race.
#4 – NO LINE. This horse has no form since its’ maiden win 327 days ago. Is there anything in the horses 7 races since then that encourages you to think it is ready to run back to that performance?
#5 – Line 2. Last line was not at a similar distance. Line 2 was at a similar distance. It was a “+” line. There is no reason to go back further.
#6 - No LINE. This horse hasn’t run in 124 days. It is not a contender.
#7 - Last line. The last line was at the same distance and surface. In fact, it was at the same track and condition. The race is a “+” race (it ran 3rd) and it was just 14 days ago.

Here are the horses.

[For The Lead]

Horses 5,6,7

[For The Lead]

Screen shot and chart

[Appy]

Good thread.
Bad race.
I would have passed. I hate when there are multiple entries with little to no info. Been burnt too many times on that account.
This was a good exercise for me, lead. I've been struggling with line and contender selection. But last few days I've seen improvement as I'm gaining familiarity with the abbreviations, thanks to re-reading Follow Ups and you guys posting the screenshots.
I DID take note of the tandems involved in this race! Baby steps are small, but progress is progress.
Thanks for the thread.

[For The Lead]

Good thread.
Bad race.
I would have passed. I hate when there are multiple entries with little to no info. Been burnt too many times on that account.
This was a good exercise for me, lead. I've been struggling with line and contender selection. But last few days I've seen improvement as I'm gaining familiarity with the abbreviations, thanks to re-reading Follow Ups and you guys posting the screenshots.
I DID take note of the tandems involved in this race! Baby steps are small, but progress is progress.
Thanks for the thread.

As I frequently do, my suggestion is in 2 parts;
1 - read the Paceline Manual
2 - read everything at this link
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8784

Sooner or later everyone has to come up with a consistant strategy for picking contenders and pacelines, otherwise be hopelessly lost.

I see no better place to start than with the guidelines setforth by Howard Sartin at the outset of his methodology.

It doesn't matter what you do, you will not pick the winner of every race or even every race you bet should you pass some races. You will lose races. The idea is to win as many of them as you can. Using one strategy this race and another strategy the next race can only get you and your bankroll in trouble.

[Speed Figure]

I really could ever follow any of things because I would ever eliminate a horse because it's 20/1 on the ML and can't eliminate a horse just because it's been off for 90+ days.

[For The Lead]

I really could ever follow any of things because I would ever eliminate a horse because it's 20/1 on the ML and can't eliminate a horse just because it's been off for 90+ days.

Best of luck to you then.

Just so you know, I didn't wake up one morning and decide this was the best course of action.

I dislike doing this every time I do it, but you are new here, so here goes. I learned those two things as a result of hundreds of thousands of races and millions of horses in a database I keep.

I choose to work with the horses that are most likely to win 19 out of 20 races, not 1 out of 20 races. You don't have to work with horses that are 20/1 ML or greater in order to get a big price, which is what the race I posted here shows. In fact, there are MANY races posted in this teaching area using these same guidelines that paid the kind of prices one is looking for by working with ML 20/1 or greater horses. Statistically, they just had a better chance of actually winning the race.

The same is true by eliminating horses off more than 90 days. As I said when I posted this race, 95% of ALL WINNERS have raced in the last 90 days. One can either work with the horses most likely to win, or search for that needle in the haystack.

In the end, I think it is hard to sell something new, short, before actually trying it and keeping records for yourself. You never know, you might learn something new. I know I did. I didn't always follow these extra guidelines. I learned from keeping a database. I let that teach me what things are statistically better to follow than others. In 15 years of accumulating races and horses, it just never changes.

Just a suggestion here, it might be a good idea to read through this thread http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8784 as well as many of ther other threads in this area. I think you will find them informative.

[Speed Figure]

I wouldn't say I'm new here, I just don't post. I loving playing cheap claiming races where almost all of the horses are 1 or 2 for whatever their record is. I became a better player when I stopped saying must have a race in last 90 days, must be this & that. For me every race is different! a 20/1 shot in a grade 1 is not the same as a 20/1 in a $4000 claiming race. I'm not a RDSS user, but do respect the program and the work Ted does.

[For The Lead]

I wouldn't say I'm new here, I just don't post. I loving playing cheap claiming races where almost all of the horses are 1 or 2 for whatever their record is. I became a better player when I stopped saying must have a race in last 90 days, must be this & that. For me every race is different! a 20/1 shot in a grade 1 is not the same as a 20/1 in a $4000 claiming race. I'm not a RDSS user, but do respect the program and the work Ted does.

Well, that's great news!

I happen to focus on the lower level tracks myself. Tracks such as DEL, TP, PEN, PRX, MNR, PIM and LRL with a little MTH thrown in. So I can tell you this.

So far in 2013 at those lower level tracks, horses with a ML of 20/1 or higher have won 2% of all the races there, far below the average of 5%.

The good news is, at those same tracks, horses that have not run in the last 90 days have won 6% of all races at those tracks, which is 1% higher than the average.

I agree with you. Ted has done a very nice job with RDSS, however, it doesn't make ML 20/1 horses or horses that haven't raced in the last 90 days, win. You still have to pick good contenders and good pacelines.

[Bill V.]

Hello Speed Figures

I consider Parx to be a middle of the road track, Parx is the only track I keep records from.
Parx offers a great mix of low, average high and stakes races
so I feel my records are useful to this subject.

My database, which consist of every race on every card run at Parx
I will focus on the last 180 races.and just on the winner of those races. These 180 races are from all cards from 8/11
to yesterday 8/14.

In these 180 races the winner had a ML of 20/1 or above just 1 time
that's 1 for 180 !

7 times in those 180 race the winner had a ML of 15/1.

How good is the Parx morning line maker ?
I would say excellent look at these figures.

The average morning line for all 180 winners was 5/1 (5.28)

The average off odds for all 180 winners was also 5/1 (5.39)

Next I checked the races were the winner paid over 20/1.
There were 7 winners in this group.
Here are the results of those races - Off odds and the morning lines

1. 39.60/1 ML 15
2. 29.20/1 ML 12
3. 32.60/1 ML 15
4. 28.20/1 ML 15
5. 24.80/1 ML 10
6. 34.40/1 ML 12
7. 33.90/1 ML 15

By the way the lone winner with a ML of 20/1 or higher?
The crowd bet it down to 10.80/1 and it paid $23.60

This is why I follow the guidelines FTL suggest. the horses at 20/1 ML
just don't win, Yet horse that have run within 90 days and have plus or plus within a zero pace lines win at good prices.

[DontSayDont]

From FTL's original post: "3 - eliminate any horse that does not have a "+" or "(+)" line at a similar distance and surface in the last 90 days."

What is a similar distance? Within 1 furlong, 1/2 furlong or more? With 4 distances covering a mile to 1 1/16th would you use any one of the distances as being similar. If the last line was 8.5 and a -0- type race but todays race is 8.2 and the 2nd line back was a 8.2f race with a (+) both at the same class, would you pass the horse because of the -0- race or go back to a race at the exact distance and a (+) race?

When I last played Finger Lakes they only had 1 mile, 1.70 and 1 1/16 races. Few of them were 1 1/16th. Now they have added 1.40 and from all races run this year, every distance is slightly different in "my" profiles.

Mile races are seldom run (only 8 races before yesterday) and show 1Call and FX to have the highest win %. 1.40 races, Turn Time and EP. At 1.70 there are 4 categories tied for top honors, final time, average pace, sustained pace and FX slightly higher. Finally 1 1/16 is still not raced often and all but 2 categories are tied for top honors. What is a bit surprising is at all these distances, last fraction is not among the best categories.

This comes from using the winning horse and his ranking in the various categories. I have his winning %'s for ranking #1, #2 and #3 separately and then 1 + 2 and 1+2+3. I try to rank 5 horses per race and any horse not ranked would still be entered as a 6 in each category so every race run gets recorded.

[Appy]

FTL and Bill, now you guys are in my wheelhouse!
Do you have a source for those odds based stats, or just from your own database?

I've been charting results for about a year for a number of tracks, but the process is extremely time consuming. Worth it, but man it takes a LOT of manual spreadsheet time due to password and encryption of pdf charts.

[Bill V.]

Hi DSD ( I hate screen names )

As far as your question about distances,In your example above
I would need to know something.
Is the race a zero / than why?

1. Is the only reason the 8.5 race was a zero race because of the 8.5 distance.
What I mean is, lets say in your example the horse shows wins at the 8.5 distance down in its past performance races.

One of the valid excuses from the pace line manual is
Wrong Distance. But I would need to look at the horses history

Every race is different. That is why there is nothing in the valid excuses
list from the pace line manual about more or less than 1 furlong

The question is best answered by " is this race comparable?"

Has the horse won or ran a + race at this distance in the past ?

In FTL's example race a big key to the good price for the winner.
is that the 1.6/1 ML favorite has no comparable pace line

Bill

[Bill V.]

FTL and Bill, now you guys are in my wheelhouse!
Do you have a source for those odds based stats, or just from your own database?

I've been charting results for about a year for a number of tracks, but the process is extremely time consuming. Worth it, but man it takes a LOT of manual spreadsheet time due to password and encryption of pdf charts.

Hi sir

I do my database the old pen and paper way in a $1.00 notebook
It takes me just a few minutes as soon as the results charts appear

When I have some spare time, usually in the AM before the races start,
I then enter the data into excel, by typing in the numbers
I find the kinetic chore of doing the work more rewarding then
automatically downloading. but then again I'm not everybody
and I only do 1 track.

[Segwin]

In these 180 races the winner had a ML of 20/1 or above just 1 time
that's 1 for 180 !



Good morning Bill.

Do you have any stats on when a 20/1 places or shows & what the average payout & odds were?

Thanks!

[Bill V.]

Good morning Bill.

Do you have any stats on when a 20/1 places or shows & what the average payout & odds were?

Thanks!

Hi No Sorry
I don't pay any attention to place or show stats so I just look at the winners. I do make place and show bets but just like Doc says
I look for horses who have all the characteristics of a win horse but just happen to place or show.

Bill

[Segwin]

Thanks Bill.

[For The Lead]

From FTL's original post: "3 - eliminate any horse that does not have a "+" or "(+)" line at a similar distance and surface in the last 90 days."

The purpose here is two fold. (1) to remind us that if today's distance is a sprint...use sprint races or (2) if today's distance is a route...use route races.

What is a similar distance? Within 1 furlong, 1/2 furlong or more? With 4 distances covering a mile to 1 1/16th would you use any one of the distances as being similar. If the last line was 8.5 and a -0- type race but todays race is 8.2 and the 2nd line back was a 8.2f race with a (+) both at the same class, would you pass the horse because of the -0- race or go back to a race at the exact distance and a (+) race?

"Doc's" guideline was to use races that were within 1 furlong of today's distance. This could open a can of worms for some people. Suppose today's race is 1 mile, can you use a 7 furlong race? NO. 7 furlongs is a sprint, not a route! So where today's distance is 1 mile, any race up to 9 furlongs is appropriate.
To answer your question, no, you would not bypass a "0" race that is 8.5 furlongs and go back to the second line back because it is 8.2 furlongs and the exact distance of today's race.
It is important to remember "acceptable" excuses for going back a line. They are all in the Paceline Manual.

When I last played Finger Lakes they only had 1 mile, 1.70 and 1 1/16 races. Few of them were 1 1/16th. Now they have added 1.40 and from all races run this year, every distance is slightly different in "my" profiles.

My first question here is, do you mean "profile" or do you mean "model"?
In either case, that is a good job of separating the distances so you can see the difference. Many people just put all route races together. They would never see the differences you are talking about.

Mile races are seldom run (only 8 races before yesterday) and show 1Call and FX to have the highest win %. 1.40 races, Turn Time and EP. At 1.70 there are 4 categories tied for top honors, final time, average pace, sustained pace and FX slightly higher. Finally 1 1/16 is still not raced often and all but 2 categories are tied for top honors. What is a bit surprising is at all these distances, last fraction is not among the best categories.

Actually, I don't find that surprising. In my experience, seldom is the 3rd fraction the dominant category. That is not to say it never happens that way, it's just not as common as other factors. Different tracks can play differently, so it pays to keep "models" and/or "profiles" for each track you play.

I have been considering writing a thread on "models", so I'll just touch on that for a moment here. When keeping "models" you should break them down as much as possible. This is not my idea, although I'd like to take credit for it. (lol) These are the words of the model's father, Tom Brohamer. That was his suggestion to me. The idea is to not only keep a model by distance and surface, but also, by sex, class. Personally, I also break my models down by "condition" as well. Why go to this trouble? Well, CLM 5,000 NW2L horses don't run the same as CLM 25,000 "OPEN" horses. If you don't separate them, you will never see if there is a difference or not.

This comes from using the winning horse and his ranking in the various categories. I have his winning %'s for ranking #1, #2 and #3 separately and then 1 + 2 and 1+2+3. I try to rank 5 horses per race and any horse not ranked would still be entered as a 6 in each category so every race run gets recorded.

Thanks for the questions and for the information you provided.

[Lt1]

I believe that all of the points being mentioned are valid. Myself I don't lock myself into a time cut off. For example yesterday at Parx r1 the winner was off more than 90 but was my #1 pick and won paying $28. Although I can see FTLs point even if you decide to eliminate the horse for win you shouldn't throw him out all together if you are an exacta or tri player. Also I've noticed that turf horses tend to win or place more then dirt horses off of 90 or more day layoffs. I do agree with the 20-1 ml guideline. Oh and I'm in the best of the last 3 dist & surface camp.

[Appy]

:)
For a horse running early (is that his history?) he gave up an unusual amount of ground between 1st and 2nd call to put himself in the position of heading the other early to win.

[atkinsrr]

Hi FTL just read your commentary and I'm a little confused about one thing...I've read in the follow ups. i.e. (FU #84 page 38) that we should not use pacelines where a horse was beaten by 7.5 lengths or more...yet you used a pace line on #3 Lucky River where he lost 6 lengths in the stretch and was beaten by 13 lengths. I don't understand how this can be called a "+" race. Can you please direct me to the follow up issues that "Doc" talks about pace line selection only using a "+" race. I have looked thru all of my follow ups and can't find anything on that subject....am I missing something here??
please help...Thx

[atkinsrr]

Would also like to comment on layoffs...please read follow up #81 page 35..."Doc" discusses layoffs from 79 to 195 days...if you use the proper P/L and the horse is in your top 3 BLBL then it's a contender...it's actually a matter of record keeping and from my own experience the higher class horses are more likely to win off a long layoff than the "cheapies"...of course follow up #81 was published in 2000 and a lot of things have changed in racing...so record keeping is very vital..actually I had a Chad Brown horse at Belmont beat me saturday with a 111 day layoff (9th race).......good skills to all!!!!!!

[For The Lead]

Would also like to comment on layoffs...please read follow up #81 page 35..."Doc" discusses layoffs from 79 to 195 days...if you use the proper P/L and the horse is in your top 3 BLBL then it's a contender...it's actually a matter of record keeping and from my own experience the higher class horses are more likely to win off a long layoff than the "cheapies"...of course follow up #81 was published in 2000 and a lot of things have changed in racing...so record keeping is very vital..actually I had a Chad Brown horse at Belmont beat me saturday with a 111 day layoff (9th race).......good skills to all!!!!!!

Although I did not research it before answering you, "I TEND" to agree with you that it is more likely for a high class horse to win off a layoff of more than 90 days than it is for cheap horses to win off a layoff of more than 90 days. Nevertheless, when taken in an overall pictutre, horses off more than 90 days win just 5% of the time.

Let me make myself clear, since horses off more than 90 days win 5% of the time, they obviously do win....sometimes... so one can find a race where they either won with a horse that was off more than 90 days or got beat by a horse that was off more than 90 days. But that is only one side of the coin. The question becomes, how many horses have you bet that were off more than 90 days that lost? Or, how many races were you NOT beat by a horse off more than 90 days?
When I did the research, I "stretched" the number of days off to give myself the greatest number of horses to choose from without including every horse. At some point you have to conclude that some horses are just not primary contenders based on recency. Here's how it breaks down:
A race in the past 30 days = 77%
A race in 31-45 days = 11%
A race in 46-60 days = 4%
A race in 61-90 days = 3%

More than racing changing since 2000, is the fact that "Doc" never had as many races as I do for his research. I mean, the internet didn't come along until 1994, which doesn't mean that everybody was immediately on line with a PC and downloading race cards everyday. I started in 1997, so I am in my 16th year.

Taking the parimeters you mentioned above, 79 to 195 days, possibly takes a horse away from racing for more than 6 months. My first question would be "WHY"? The owner can't make any money when their horse is in the barn or on the farm, yet they have to pay the bills. My first thought would be an injury and that isn't a good thing, especially where an older horse is concerned.

You mention a "proper paceline". What is a "proper paceline" for a horse that has been off that long? If the horse has been off 195 days, how much further back are you going to go for a paceline? How old is THAT LINE? What would make one think a horse off 195 days is ready to run back to a paceline that is, perhaps, 240 days old?
You will win more races by ignoring horses off more than 90 days than you will betting ON them. And including them as contenders with a very old line will just muddy the water for you.

With regard to the #3 horse you asked about, let me first say this.

+ = any race where the horse ran, 1st, 2nd or 3rd
(+) = any race where the horse shows one of the following
A – showed good early form by being 1st or 2nd at the first and/or 2nd calls, even if it faded down the stretch
B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch
0 = any other line

What is a useable line?
Any line where the horse had an impact on the outcome of the race.
The "+" and "(+)" notations above are the types of horses that have an impact on the race.
If this appears in a follow up, I can't point you to it. I don't have the follow ups commited to memory. However, you can also find paceline information in the Paceline Manual.

If you are using RDSS, the next time you choose contenders and lines, look at your "original" screen. Do the horses show they had an impact on the race?

The #3 horse finished second in its' last race, which makes the race a "+" race and also in that race it was 2nd at the first call and although losing one position to the second call it gained 1 length between the first and second calls, putting it within 2 lengths of the leader, which would be a "(+)" by itself.

Lastly regarding the #3 horse, there is no other line to use for this horse. All its' other races are sprints with the exception of one route race on the turf, which doesn't qualify and is too old anyway. For this horse, the last line is the line! I would also say that this is not as much a case of the #3 horse losing all this ground in the stretch as it is a superior horse just running away from the field. Here's the horse.

39708

[For The Lead]

Well, this thread is going so well I decided to post another race.This one is from Sunday at PARX, the 5th race.

I don't think I have to spell out the guidelines again. It seems everyone pretty much understands them. Whether they agree or not is another matter. :)

There is one thing I want to cover regarding this race. Where the conditions appear, the full condition for some Starter Allowances (SA) race are not shown. Where the race is a NW2L or NW3L that does appear. Where the condition is NW1X, that does not appear.This also happens to be the condition for today's race.

Here's the rundown:

#1 - last line. There is no reason to choose any other line. The race was 22 days ago on the same surface, at a similar distance and same class.
#2 - NO LINE. The last race is 126 days ago.
#3 - last line. There is no reason to choose any other line. The race was 22 days ago on the same surface, at a similar distance and same class.
#4 - SCR
#5 - NO LINE. All its' races are route races with the exception of a 7.5 furlong race which was on the turf and is too old anyway.
#6 - Line 2. YLast race 14 days ago. Second race back 62 days ago. You can't use the last line at 4 furlongs from Timonium. Line 2 qualifies as a "(+)" race because although it lost 1 position from the first call to the second call, it gained almost 1.5 lengths to be within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call.
#7 - Last line. The race was 14 days ago, same distance, same surface. It is moving up in class.

Before I post the horses and screen shots, take note of the #1, #3 and #7 horses that all have a recent race at today's class level. Make your own judgements.

[For The Lead]

Horse #7 and screen shots

[For The Lead]

The chart of the race

[Bill V.]

Hello FTL

Yes thanks for posting this race and the reminder of the 10/1 winner today
at Parx .

FTL The conditions of today's race is a SA 16 N1X/4-L
Besides the 2 main conditions of having started in a claiming race of $16000
or less Or other than there also is a "OR" that adds non winners of 4 lifetime

Horse 1 and 3 come out of the same race, same conditions on 8/24
The 7 horse's SA16 race in line 2 is also this same condition

Today condition

39724

Result chart for race on 8/22

39725

[Bill V.]

Hi Akinsrr


I would like to to answer your question to FTL about horses beaten 7.5 lengths because I don't think FTL used Validator
Doc from Follow up 84 that means Doc was using and promoting a specific program .. Validator and the Validator algorithms are based on
a weighing were horses beaten by over 7.5 lengths are overly adjusted

Doc does say never use a paceline were a horse was beaten over 7.5 lengths for validator but NEVER says
never use over 7.5 BL for all his programs.
The guidelines at one time when lines were hand entered statetd,
If you use a paceline were a horse was beaten by over 9 lengths change the beaten lengths to 9. So as FTL points out
yes the horse was beaten by 13 but it finished second That means the winner was outstanding and could have draw off to a discouraged horse
maybe? If this was a race being hand entered in one of the old programs
wouldn't the line be used but the final beaten lengths be changed to 9 ?

Thanks for your question
Bill

[DontSayDont]

Hi DSD ( I hate screen names )

As far as your question about distances,In your example above
I would need to know something.
Is the race a zero / than why?

1. Is the only reason the 8.5 race was a zero race because of the 8.5 distance.
What I mean is, lets say in your example the horse shows wins at the 8.5 distance down in its past performance races.

One of the valid excuses from the pace line manual is
Wrong Distance. But I would need to look at the horses history

Every race is different. That is why there is nothing in the valid excuses
list from the pace line manual about more or less than 1 furlong

The question is best answered by " is this race comparable?"

Has the horse won or ran a + race at this distance in the past ?

In FTL's example race a big key to the good price for the winner.
is that the 1.6/1 ML favorite has no comparable pace line

Bill


The race in question was the 6th race at Finger Lakes on 9/14, the JackBettaBeRite Hcp. I realize not many on this board play there so didn't think anyone would have the race in RDSS.

I need to clear one thing up. I am not using RDSS but a homegrown program started about 10 -12 years ago. Why? Do I think it is better? "Absolutely not!" I sometimes wonder if I like playing or the time spent on trying to put it together on my own. I do like the fact that I understand where my numbers come from and what they mean. I would have to learn all that by going with RDSS. And there are just so many screens to look at that I am sure I'd be confused for a long time. That is a reason I would never use AllWays software, too much information for me. But it is because of not using RDSS that I can't post screen shots and make my posts clearer. I do try to ask questions that would be askable (if that is a word) by users of RDSS.

Thanks for your time Bill and, ok, the name is Ray.

[DontSayDont]

My first question here is, do you mean "profile" or do you mean "model"? I believe it would be a model. Will have to look up that up in Brohamer's Book.

You have gone a long way to clearing up my question. It was just one of those days at the races where horses defying the qualifying rules were winning. I guess the reason it was so disappointing was it was a Hcping Challenge day and 200+ day layoffs won along with horses that I thought should get no line etc. were knocking off my picks. It is easier when I am home but driving 2 hours to get to the track and finding only 1 playable race (losing that one) was frustrating.

The question itself was not stemmed out of pent up aggravation.

Thanks for the questions and for the information you provided
You and Bill have been very helpful in any question I have asked.

Now one more question on the last race you just posted. I #2 horse you gave no line because of layoff time. That horse was laid off before the exact amount of days and came back with a powerful win. Would you ever consider that and give the horse the winning line? The difference in the 2 races were, one was a win in NW2 and one a NW3.

Thanks again.
Ray

[atkinsrr]

FTL...thx for the quick response...I never fully understood what a "+" race was until you explained it that way.....Thanks a lot...always looking to improve on P/L selection

[atkinsrr]

also thx Bill for the explanation on the 7.5 B/L...I always thought that the 7.5 B/L was for all programs....you and FTL have kinda cleared up my view of P/L selecting....always looking for ways to improve....Thx again

[Bill V.]

The race in question was the 6th race at Finger Lakes on 9/14, the JackBettaBeRite Hcp. I realize not many on this board play there so didn't think anyone would have the race in RDSS.

I need to clear one thing up. I am not using RDSS but a homegrown program started about 10 -12 years ago. Why? Do I think it is better? "Absolutely not!" I sometimes wonder if I like playing or the time spent on trying to put it together on my own. I do like the fact that I understand where my numbers come from and what they mean. I would have to learn all that by going with RDSS. And there are just so many screens to look at that I am sure I'd be confused for a long time. That is a reason I would never use AllWays software, too much information for me. But it is because of not using RDSS that I can't post screen shots and make my posts clearer. I do try to ask questions that would be askable (if that is a word) by users of RDSS.

Thanks for your time Bill and, ok, the name is Ray.

Hi Ray

I have the Finger lakes card. Here is the winner, I myself can not see a
valid excuse for line 1. I do see a 15/1 Ml and a + race within 90 days and
almost 2 + races since line 4 is 92 days old. I see 6 non claiming + races including a stakes win at FL last year.

Now the distance ? I do see good success at 8.5 furlongs in its past
but other than the mud win not so much at 8.33

This is a handicap race, The 2 was not a high weight.

Would I go to line 2 without a valid excuse ? I probably would use line 2
but because of the past success

Bill

39726

[Bill V.]

Here is the chart

Not that this has anything to do with the methodology but
The Jockey switch back to J. Flores, could be a positive
since this jockey won on Moms Law in the past


39728


39730

[Lt1]

Hi Bill. Just thought I add my two cents if I may. Those of us that use the best of the last 3 comparable would have no problem using line 2. As Doc stated in his publishers column in FU #81 the last line is less predictive than lines 2 &3 and in many races no more predictive than line 4. With this horse I noticed that his last 4 races she exhibits a good race, bad race pattern. The switch back to a jockey who had won with her before was another positive. As an aside this last Sundays race 1 at Parx was similar. I went back to l4 although it was 125 days old. The horse won and paid $28.20 and keyed an $112.60 ex. I guess what I'm trying to point out is although you and FTL prefer not to go in most cases there is more than 1 way to use the methodology with none being right or wrong. Keep up the good work.

Tim

[For The Lead]

Hello FTL

Yes thanks for posting this race and the reminder of the 10/1 winner today
at Parx .

FTL The conditions of today's race is a SA 16 N1X/4-L
Besides the 2 main conditions of having started in a claiming race of $16000
or less Or other than there also is a "OR" that adds non winners of 4 lifetime

Horse 1 and 3 come out of the same race, same conditions on 8/24
The 7 horse's SA16 race in line 2 is also this same condition

Today condition

35675

Result chart for race on 8/22

35676

Hi Bill,

I stand corrected and thanks for making the correction!
The "entire" condition includes the "OR NW4L", which brings up an interesting point and what handicapping is about.

The "OR NW4L" is an add on condition in an effort to fill the race so the race can "go". If a race does not fill, naturally it can't go, so the racing secretary does what he has to do to insure that doesn't happen.

So lets' investigate this further and I'll start with the "OR NW4L" part of the condition.

How many horses qualify for this race on the "OR NW4L" part of the condition?
ANSWER: ALL, except one. In fact, one of these horses has just 2 wins.

How many horses in this race "qualify" on the basic condition, "NW1X"?
ANSWER: JUST ONE

Who is the one horse that gets into the race on the basic condition?
ANSWER: The WINNER! it is the only horse in the race with more than 3 wins.

[Bill V.]

Hi Tim

Can you check the race your referring to
I don't see any $28.00 dollar winners in my DB for race 1 on a Sunday for awhile

I wonder if you mean this winner from Saturday 9/14 race 1

39732

Thanks

Bill

[For The Lead]

My first question here is, do you mean "profile" or do you mean "model"? I believe it would be a model. Will have to look up that up in Brohamer's Book.

You have gone a long way to clearing up my question. It was just one of those days at the races where horses defying the qualifying rules were winning. I guess the reason it was so disappointing was it was a Hcping Challenge day and 200+ day layoffs won along with horses that I thought should get no line etc. were knocking off my picks. It is easier when I am home but driving 2 hours to get to the track and finding only 1 playable race (losing that one) was frustrating.

The question itself was not stemmed out of pent up aggravation.


You and Bill have been very helpful in any question I have asked.

Now one more question on the last race you just posted. I #2 horse you gave no line because of layoff time. That horse was laid off before the exact amount of days and came back with a powerful win. Would you ever consider that and give the horse the winning line? The difference in the 2 races were, one was a win in NW2 and one a NW3.

Thanks again.
Ray

Take heart. I don't have the long drive you have. There is a racebook close to me in any direction, here in Las Vegas. There is never a day when I play a lot of races. And, naturally, I don't win all the races I play, so I understand what you are saying.

As to your question, no, I never look back to see if there has been a similar situation for a horse. I would NOT have given the horse a line THEN and, as you can see, I did NOT give the horse a line now. And I especially would not consider going back to that old line and giving it to the horse today. That was then...this is now. I have no way to determine that I can safely assume the horse is ready to run back to that old line. Statisically, the horse has a 5% chance of winning. I prefer to stay with the 95%'ers.

Here's the thing. The worst that can happen is, I lose a race to a horse that has been off more than 90 days, IF I happen to be in that particular race.

On the other hand, I DON'T lose a lot of races betting ON horses that have been off for more than 90 days.

And better than that, I don't miss winners that I should have by playing a horse off more than 90 days.

I also don't have horses off more than 90 days among my contenders, muddying the water.

For those who may have missed the race being discussed, go back to page 3.

[rmath]

FTL, was looking at MNR tonight in the 4th race. The 1/5 favorite was off 338 days. He failed to hit the board.
Thought you would appreciate the prices across the board on the win place & show horse.
My read outs are included.
rmath

39733

39735


I bet the 4 & 5 to win

[Bill V.]

Kind of reminds me of "if I use line 4"

Hi Tim

Ok I see what is going on here. As Doc says the conditions of the race and your records will often help with decisions
The conditions of the race from Parx
were you went back to line 4 are...
Claiming $7,500 but for non winners of a race in 6 months
However horses who have won for less than $5000 are eligible.
Anyway these races are for not the cream of the crop
$7500 is just 1 step up from the few $5000 claimers they run at Parx

Lets look at the lines. Line 1 and 3 are from 7 furlongs. Today's distance is 8.5
I have no problem skipping over them as they are non comparable-
although line 1 is a + race.
Line 2 is interesting, Line 2 is a CL$7500 but for non winners of 2 races
in 6 months, These races are much harder than the CL7500 N1-6M
because horses have won recently, were as in the non 1 in 6 months a horse
has not unless it won for under $5000.

The Laurels was 2.40/1 in the tougher non winner of 2 condition.
It was second choice in the betting in that race.
So besides the distance of 7 furlongs the race in line two could be excused for class too high. Lastly as far as the days of 124 Well these are non winners
in 6 months, I would rather see a horse like this if I was to go back 124 days
with valid excuse, then a race that is not time eligibility restricted

Bill

39736

[For The Lead]

Here is race 7 from MNR on 9.16.13.
This is the type of winner that is hard for most people. WHY?
Well, there appears to be a lot of early types, so most people would be looking for a closer, figuring the early types would burn each other out leaving the race open for a closer to win. It doesn't always work out that way.

What happens to the early types, in a race with a lot of early types, when they can't make the lead? They back up and are of no consequence in the outcome of the race. This is true even when there is a dominant early type that outruns the other early types. They back up, while the dominant early type goes on with it. Now it is a matter of whether or not the closers can catch the dominant early. Many times they don't. Most races with a lot of early types are won by one of theose early types. Let's get on to the rundown of the horses.

#1 - NO LINE. ML is 30/1.
#2 - Last line. The last line was 27 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. It was a win (a "+" race) vs. NW3L. The horse is moving up in condition.
#3 - Last line. The last line was 20 days ago at the same distance and same surface.The race was a 2nd (a "+" race) vs NW4L. This is the same condition as today.
#4 - Last line. The last line was 9 days ago, at a similar distance and on the same surface. The horse finished 3rd (a "+" race) vs NW4L, the same as today's race.
#5 - NO LINE. The last line was 9 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. The horse ran a poor race vs the same class and condition as today's race. There is no apparent excuse for the race, therefore, going back a line is not appropriate.
#6 - Last line. The last line was 9 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. It is a "(+)" race vs the same class and condition as today's race. it is a "(+)" race because it had the lead at the first two calls. The fade down the stretch does not matter. In the Paceline Manual, Doc said this is the most positive sign of approaching good form.
#7 - Last line. The last line was 14 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. It was a win (a "+" race) vs NW3L. Today it is moving up in condition.
#8 - SCR
#9 - Line 2. The last line is not usuable because it was run at 4.5 furlongs at CT, a bullring track. Line 2 was a 2nd place finish 55 days ago, so it is a "+" race. It was run at a similar distance and on the same surface. That race was against the same class and same condition as today's race.

Here are the horses.

[For The Lead]

Here are the rest of the horses.

[For The Lead]

Here are the screen shots and the chart.

Take note of the items I have marked in red.

[For The Lead]

I know there are many that don't like and would not use the last line for #6.
So here is what I did. I used the line 4 back, a win vs NW3L from 71 days ago. Now let's take a look at the segments screen and compare it to the segments screen using the last line. I'll show the original segments scrren first, followed by the one using line 4 for the winner.

39760

39758

I will suggest to you, that using the last line is the better choice. WHY? Because it shows the horse being very close up at the first call (F1) and then being able to make the strongest second fraction time of any other horse in the race. So as the horses are entering the stretch, the #6 horse is moving away from the field.

Just because a horse backs up in the stretch in its' last race, does not mean it will back up again today!

[Lt1]

Sorry Bill it was Sat, The Laurels. My bad thanks for catching it Wasn'tL4 for 16k n1 6m.

[Lt1]

Hey Rich hit that 5 race cold. Had it posted on another site and needless to say they loved it. I love this place.

[Lt1]

Hi FTL. I used line 4 but I can see your point for l1. It stands to reason the going 5/12 today it would not decelerate as much as it did at 6f. Also my model for 5.5 has the top ep horses winning

[Bill V.]

I would like to show this 20/1 Morning Line winner.

I ask you, If you follow FTL's guidelines of a + race at the same distance
/surface in the last 90 days, how often do you see the 20/1 horse as 1 of only 2 horses to consider.

Here is the winner of race 8 at Parx on 7/28. Its the Crowd Pleaser Handicap
Its a state bred stakes race on the turf at 8.5 furlongs.

First off we need to realize its a strong possibility that any turf race
at Parx has a very strong chance of being taken off the turf. There is only
1 turf course at Parx, so if its wet they take the race off the turf.
The morning line maker must take into consideration the horses in
this handicap race who are dirt horses,These dirt horses are looking for a gift stakes win if the race goes on the dirt. Yet they do need a morning line.

That said the race did go on the turf so the 5 7 9 and 11 all scratched.

Now that I have the surface question answered yet the morning line maker did not. Here is my work up of the race.

I didn't post the pp's for all the horses here but I can if its needed.
Following the guidelines FTL posted in the first post of this thread,
I only have a line for 1 horse = Horse # 8. There is another horse who fits the guidelines but its 20/1 on the morning line, horse #4

20/1 Morning line horses hardly ever win and how often does a race come down to just 2 horses, one of which is 20/1 ML.

Here is the winner and my thoughts as I went through the race.

39764

39761


39763

[For The Lead]

Hi FTL. I used line 4 but I can see your point for l1. It stands to reason the going 5/12 today it would not decelerate as much as it did at 6f. Also my model for 5.5 has the top ep horses winning

I have a question for you.

In another post you said you use the "best of last 3 distance/surface", so I'm curious how you landed on line 4 for this horse.

I've drawn a black line under the third race back. The last three races are all at either the same or similar distance and all are on the same surface. In addition, all of the last three races are at the same class level and the same condition. I have also noted, in red, the best adjusted speed rating of the last three races.

Isn't line 2 the line you should have used on the basis of "best of last 3 distance/surface"?

[Appy]

Really enjoyed that post Bill! Did you dutch the 4/8?

[Lt1]

You are correct FTL. Since I prefer not to use a line where the horse is beaten by more than 71/2 line 2 is a good line to use. An oversight on my part. Still would be in top 2 ep and a bet.Thanks for your insight.

[Earl J]

FTL Great post!

I love reading every thing you post its very informative.

Thank you Earl J

[dlivery]

Thank-You for the early

Will not go into detail the result was the same

Winner

Lawrence

[Bill V.]

Really enjoyed that post Bill! Did you dutch the 4/8?

Just a small win - place and show bet on the 4

The 8 was under 5/2. I have been betting just 1 horse in cases like this
because I was missing too many of my longer odds horses. because both
of my bets were not 5/2 or higher.

Bill

[dlivery]

You are quite the responder to the answers.

Well said keep up the good work.

Selecting the right pace line has improved my game.

Would hardly move on line selection unless there was reason.

Again for bringing the line selection condition selection to a new level.

Thank You

Lawrence

[For The Lead]

Ok, let's go to PARX for race 6. A field of 8 with no scratches. It's a 6f claiming race for 3 year olds and up with a claiming price of $16,000 and a NW2L condition.

Here's the rundown:

#1 - Last line. It is a "(+)" race since the horse was on the lead at the first two calls and faded down the stretch. The race was 27 days ago at DMR, a poly surface,, at today's distance. Yep, it got claimed out of its' lasat race for $8,000 and got shipped all the way across the country. Take not it has only had two races since it was off for 354 days. Also take note that it broke its' maiden for a claiming price of $20,000. When a horse breaks their maiden in a maiden claiming race, they are generally competitive at half of that price when moving into a claiming race. That makes the last race for $8,000 look pretty bad for this horse.
#2 - Last line. The last line was 27 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. It is a "+" race since the horse ran 2nd. Prior to the last race the horse had 5 route races.
#3 - Last line. The last line was 24 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. It ran 3rd making it a "+" race.
#4 - Last line. The last line was17 days ago at a similar distance and on the same surface. In the race the horse was fighting for and had the lead at the 1st call and was fighting for the lead at the 2nd call, making this a "(+)" race. The race was also at the same claiming price and condition as today's race.
#5 - Last line. In its' last race the horse broke its' maiden at a similar distance and on the same surface. Since today's condition is NW2L it is acceptable, by the guidelines, to use its' maiden win. Because the horse won the race, it is a "+" race.
#6 - NO LINE. The last race for this horse, 22 days ago, came after being off for 194 days. The last race was a route on the turf so it is unacceptable.
#7 - Last line. In its' last race the horse broke its' maiden at a similar distance and on the same surface. Since today's condition is NW2L it is acceptable, by the guidelines, to use its' maiden win. Because the horse won the race, it is a "+" race.
#8 - Line 2. The last line was on the turf, so we move down to line 2, which was 72 days ago and within the 90 day cutoff. In that race the horse broke its' maiden at a similar distance and on the same surface. Since the horse won the race, it is a "+" race.

Here is the field.

[For The Lead]

Here's the rest of the field.

[For The Lead]

Before I go on, take a look at every horse in the race and see how many have had EXTENDED periods of time away from the races. It was something that caught my eye. This leads me to believe many of these horses have physical problems. The #4 horse, however, has had 10 races in the last 174 days, approximately one race very 17 days. Horses with problems don't keep that kind of racing scedule. The #4 horse is a sound horse.

Ok, let's look at the screen shots.

Looking at the original screen, it appears this race is very much like the race I posted yesterday, that is to say, there appears there will be a lot of activity up front early. Let's see how it plays out.

39777

In yesterday's race I mentioned that when there is a lot of early horses, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be a battle up front. If one early horse can dominate the others, the other early horses will fade and be of no consequence in the outcome of the race. We can see here on the TPR screen that the #4 is the fastest horse to the second call.

39778

Moving on to the segments screen, we can also see that the #4 horse is much the fastest horse at the first call. This doesn't bode well for the other early types. Look at the computed beaten lengths at the first call.

39779

Now we come to the BL/BL screen. It should be obvious that any horse that backs up through the stretch is not going to show well on the Bl/BL screen. This is because it will, in most cases, have the worst thrid fraction. But consider this...is the third fraction where early types win? No. They win in the early part of the race.

39780

WHAT DO YOU KNOW? WE GOT LUCKY!!
But we already knew the #6 wasn't going to win. Right? Not unless it cheated. (lol) And it obviously DID...and got caught!!

Just remember this when you win a race and get taken down.

Although the race wasn't run cleanly, we can still learn from the lesson. We were able to identify who the best early horse was in todays match up. And although we caught a break, we were on the money in that respect.

Aside from winning a race, the best we can hope for as handicappers, is that we can determine how the race will play out and hope that we are correct more often than not.

39781

[Blackrose]

Thanks for doing that race. I noticed you treated the 7f races as good sprint races for horses 2 an 5 even though the race was for 6f. Is this generally the case. I know 1 length plus or minus is the guideline. Oh I got the winner at MNR Race 5 using the guidelines only 2 horses had lines seemed too easy. Thanks for all your help!! :D The light is starting to come on. More like the switch went on.
Thanks Jim

[dirty moose]

Hey Blackrose. I think the furlong guideline is fine. Usually plus or minus is ok. One of the things (among many) I've learned from Bill V, LT and FTL is that not every distance is the same at every track. For example, 8F at Parx is a two turn race, while 8f at Belmont is only one. Another example (Bill's fav) the 7.5F at Parx is also two turns. (correct Bill?)
Just a little something to keep in mind. If you listen to these guys and have the patience for the game, you'll be a winner. Patience is the hard part for me

Goodluck!

[dlivery]

FTL.

Some times we get lucky and that was one of those times where the other horses struggled and we were lucky enough to pick-up the pieces.

Thank -You for the Early.

Lawrence

[For The Lead]

Ok, no "DQ's" tonight.
Everybody is going to like this one. It's easy! Just pick the lines and bet the horse on top of the BL/BL and you get an $11.00 winner! If you treat RDSS like a black box, that's the way this race works out, but that isn't story behind this winner. And it isn't the story behind many winners.

Here's the rundown:

#1 - NO LINE. ML is 20/1
#2 - Last line is a "+" race. This horse just ran 2nd 14 days ago after having the lead at the first two calls vs the same condition and one class level higher, so it is dropping down 1 class level today.
#3 - Last line is a "(+)" race. This horse just had the lead at the first two calls and faded down the stretch 33 days ago vs the same condition and is dropping down one class level today.
#4 - NO LINE. There is just no qualifying line for this horse.
#5 - SCR.
#6 - NO LINE. There is just no qualifying line for this horse.
#7 - Line 3. Line 3 is a "+" race OR you could say it is a "(+)" race. It is a "+" race since the horse finished 3rd, in the money. It is a "(+)" race because the horse had the lead at the first two calls and faded down the stretch to finish 3rd beaten 6 lengths. Line 1 and line 2 are not acceptable lines since they were both route races. One was on the turf, further disqualifying it from consideration. More on this horse later.
#8 - Last line is a "+" race where the horse ran 2nd vs the same class level and the same condition as today. The race was just 18 days ago.
#9 - Last line is a "+" race. Some may see the race as a "(+)" race. Why? Because the horse had the lead at the first two calls and faded down the stretch to finish 3rd beaten 4.8 lengths. However. because it finished in the money, it is a "+" race. The race was at the same class level and with the same condition as today.

Here are the horses.

[For The Lead]

Here's the rest of the field.

[For The Lead]

I just want everybody to take note of the lines for the contenders and the class level the horses ran for in those lines. You can see that the #7 horse ran its' qualifying race at a much higher level than any of the other horses.

39802

Notice on the TPR screen that the #7 ranks next to last on the EPR portion of the readout.

39796

Notice that there are two horses with the "0.0" at the first call. One of these horse shows it edges away at the second call to be the only "0.0" horse. If there is anyone that reads this as a speed duel, I don't blame you.
If you look at the Computed Beaten Lengths for "SC" you can see the field starts to bunch up at the top of the stretch. This certainly appears to be a perfect race for an "ote" (closer) to win.
In the "TS+F3" panel, we can see exactly what you thought was going to happen. The #7 horse sweeps by the field and wins by a comfortable margin. But that isn't how it played out!
39798


39799
I'm going to post the result chart, but before I do I want to explain this winner.
Is there anyone who really believes the #7 is going to close to win this race as the readouts indicate? No chance. I mean, in horse racing AHYTHING is possible, but if the race runs as it should the #7 WILL NOT CLOSE! WHY?

Simply put, the #7 is an early horse. Early horses don't close!

The last couple of races I posted showed how a dominant early type can outrun other early types and go on to win. This is very similar, but the readouts don't show it on the basis of time. No, the determining factor here is class. I hear some of you out there saying this horse displays what is called a "negative" drop in class. That is not the case here and I will explain.

This is a NW2L condition. It is acceptable to use the horses maiden win for that reason, but there is no reason to use that race since there is nothing wrong with the horses last line, but let's go back to that maiden win anyway.

After running three races vs Maiden Special Weights (and showing no form) the horse was dropped down to a Maiden Claimer with a tag of $25,000. In the past couple of days I have mentioned this before. Where a horse breaks its' maiden in a maiden claiming race, the horse will probably be most competitive at half of that price. In this case, about the $12,500 level.

Instead of taking that avenue of approach, the horses connections ran the horse back for $16,000, not just once, but twice! This is way over the horses head. It is then that they drop the horse to the $12,500 level in a route race, where the horse shows some early speed and falls way out of it, getting beat by 23 lengths in the end.

Don't ever think that trainers are dumb and have no idea what they are doing. (I do sometimes, but that is another story) The fact is, the trainer ran the horse over its' head for two races after it broke its' maiden before dropping it down to an appropriate level, but at the wrong distance. Remember, "we" get to line three because the last two races were at the wrong distance for us. But the public just sees the last race where the horse was soundly beaten by 23 lengths. This affords the trainer an opportunity to drop the horse down to a level where it will most certainly run well.

The thing to remember is this. Early speed horses dropping down will show even more speed. As you will see in the chart below, this is how the #7 won the race, in an early fashion NOT as a closer!

39803

[Appy]

Great stuff FTL. Even though I got this winner and the place (that's a 47.80 exacta) but it just doesn't feel right if I can't spend the money! :) Fortunately there are more ways to profit than merely by dollar signs.
Line selection can be a tricky deal. Since coming here I'm realizing the truth in that more than ever before. However, I continue in the belief it is foolish to ignore the body of work in the focus on a chosen line. That said, I'm now learning what a difference single line choice makes to software readouts. It can completely change the picture!

[For The Lead]

Today I'm going to Delaware Park, the 3rd race. It is a Claiming race with a tag of $7,500 and a NW3L condition. There are 9 horses, including 2 entries and there is one scratch, so the field is down to 8 horses. I have a lot to say, so let's get started with the rundown:

#1 - Last line. The last line was 68 days ago at the same distance, same surface, same distance and same condition. It is a "(+)" race because the horse made a good middle move going from 4th at the first call to 2nd at the second call. In addition, it went from 2.6 beaten lengths at the first call to beaten by a "hd" at the second call. This is about as "textbook" as it gets as far as a description of a "(+)" race is concerned based on a "good middle move".
#1A - SCR
#2 - NO LINE. The horse had a race 17 days ago at today's, distance and surface. The race was also the same class and condition as today's race and the horse showed nothing, therefore there is no going back a race.
#2B - NO LINE. The horse has a race 14 days ago, but it was a route race. In fact, the horses last four races were route races. I could go back to line 5 where it showed some early speed at 7 furlongs that was 82 days a go, but I won't. Route races tend to dull a sprinters speed, so after four consecutive route races, I don't know how sharp this horse will be on the front end.
#3 - Last line. The race was 12 days ago at the same distance and on the same surface as today's race. It was a "+" race. The thing to take note of here is, although the last race was at today's claiming price, it is not at the same condition, in fact, there is no condition for the last race. This means that the last race was an "open" race. Horses in that race could have any number of wins, 5,10,20, whatever. It is a much tougher race than a NW3L like today.
#4 - Last line. The last line is 10 days ago at the same distance and on the same surface. The claiming tag was $12,500, so the horse is dropping down. The condition of the race was the same as today's, NW3L. Here is a horse that is searching for a class level where it can win. In addition to the Starter Allowance races (SA) it has run in, it has also run for a claiming price as high as $25,000 and as far down as $10,000. There are 10 races in the horses PP's and there is NOT one win among them. This horse falls into the category of "always a bridesmaid, never a bride"!
#5 - NO LINE. Yesterday I talked about "negative" drop downs. This is one of them. This horse has raced in several Allowance races, an Optional Claiming race and all the rest were claiming races, none of which were lower than $25,000. In the 10 PP's showing, the horse has won or been in the money in 6 of those 10 races. It also just ran second for $30,000 in line 2. So why is the horse "for sale" today for $7,500?
#6 - NO LINE. The horse has had one race in the last 90 days...the last line. It was a poor race, therefore the horse gets no line. Also, having just read what I wrote about the #5 horse, do you see anything similar here?
#7 - Last line. The last line was 17 days ago at the same distance and on the same surface as today's race. The horse finished in the money, so it is a "+" race. Like the #3 horse, the last race was against "open" company. In other words, there was no condition.

Here are the horses.

[For The Lead]

Here are the rest of the horses.

[For The Lead]

I have marked these up a little, so I don't think anyone will have a problem seeing important factors.

[For The Lead]

For the last six days I have posted a race from 4 different race tracks.
Here are the winning prices:
$38.20
$22.00
$17.00
$35.80
$11.00
$28.00

I think we can agree that my approach to contender and line selection was consistant throughout.
I think we can also agree that except for a very few instances, the line chosen for each contender was the last line.

This leads me to ask a couple of questions.
Why do people think they have to "go back" in the PP's for a line?
Is there some "secret ninja" trick to picking old lines, with no idea whether or not a horse is capable of running back to that line?
Is it only possible to get "prices" by going back down the PP's for a line?
Was "Doc" wrong when he said the last line is the line? (of course the last line has to be a "+" or a "(+)" line)
I think the prices listed above pretty much answer all those questions.

The other thing is, if you really weren't paying attention, did you notice that these 6 winners were either "ON" or "VERY CLOSE" to the lead at the first call?
I don't know how many times I have advocated playing early horses since I joined this site 5 years ago. Many times I have posted that 70%+ of the winning horses were running 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call. It doesn't matter if the race is a sprint or a route.

Naturally, with only 70%+ of the winning horses being 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call, there are horses that win from further back, but they are in the minority and don't pay prices that are any bigger than those winners running on the front end. It's just a matter of winning more races.

As I have written many times, Jim Bradshaw use to say that when the gates open, one horse goes for the lead. If no other horse can pass it, it wins.
I agree. There is no easier way to win a horse race than to have a horse that comes out of the gate, gets the lead, and then improves its' position from there!

I hope that everyone reading these posts this week has learned something that helps them in the future.

[Bill V.]

What a perfect teaching race!

We have a good example of a plus
within a zero race for horse 1

We have a serious negative form
issue in line 1 for horse 2

The 3 has a plus race against open company for 7500 and now its going against condition non
winners 3 life

A big neg dropper in horse 5 and 6

Thanks for this one all the rest of your work

Bill

[lone speed]

For the last six days I have posted a race from 4 different race tracks.
Here are the winning prices:
$38.20
$22.00
$17.00
$35.80
$11.00
$28.00

I think we can agree that my approach to contender and line selection was consistant throughout.
I think we can also agree that except for a very few instances, the line chosen for each contender was the last line.

This leads me to ask a couple of questions.
Why do people think they have to "go back" in the PP's for a line?
Is there some "secret ninja" trick to picking old lines, with no idea whether or not a horse is capable of running back to that line?
Is it only possible to get "prices" by going back down the PP's for a line?
Was "Doc" wrong when he said the last line is the line? (of course the last line has to be a "+" or a "(+)" line)
I think the prices listed above pretty much answer all those questions.

The other thing is, if you really weren't paying attention, did you notice that these 6 winners were either "ON" or "VERY CLOSE" to the lead at the first call?
I don't know how many times I have advocated playing early horses since I joined this site 5 years ago. Many times I have posted that 70%+ of the winning horses were running 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call. It doesn't matter if the race is a sprint or a route.

Naturally, with only 70%+ of the winning horses being 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call, there are horses that win from further back, but they are in the minority and don't pay prices that are any bigger than those winners running on the front end. It's just a matter of winning more races.

As I have written many times, Jim Bradshaw use to say that when the gates open, one horse goes for the lead. If no other horse can pass it, it wins.
I agree. There is no easier way to win a horse race than to have a horse that comes out of the gate, gets the lead, and then improves its' position from there!

I hope that everyone reading these posts this week has learned something that helps them in the future.

FTL...

Your contributions to this forum are gigantic but the guidelines that you have set out are simple.

If there is one thread that stands out in this website, it is this thread!

It is one thread where a Rdss user can learn to adapt quickly and to profit from if one adheres the guidelines that you have set forth.

I have stated quite a few times that your open teaching contributions are genuine that resonates with the spirit of past teaching members of the Sartin Methodology!!!:)

Best thread!!! hands down ;)

[For The Lead]

FTL...

Your contributions to this forum are gigantic but the guidelines that you have set out are simple.

If there is one thread that stands out in this website, it is this thread!

It is one thread where a Rdss user can learn to adapt quickly and to profit from if one adheres the guidelines that you have set forth.

I have stated quite a few times that your open teaching contributions are genuine that resonates with the spirit of past teaching members of the Sartin Methodology!!!:)

Best thread!!! hands down ;)

Thank you...very much!

It was my pleasure.

[dlivery]

FTL...

Your contributions to this forum are gigantic but the guidelines that you have set out are simple.

If there is one thread that stands out in this website, it is this thread!

It is one thread where a Rdss user can learn to adapt quickly and to profit from if one adheres the guidelines that you have set forth.

I have stated quite a few times that your open teaching contributions are genuine that resonates with the spirit of past teaching members of the Sartin Methodology!!!:)

Best thread!!! hands down ;)

I'm going to 2nd this and say ....

Reading the Conditions of The Race Pays Very Good Dividends

Thank-You

[Speed Figure]

FTL...

Your contributions to this forum are gigantic but the guidelines that you have set out are simple.

If there is one thread that stands out in this website, it is this thread!

It is one thread where a Rdss user can learn to adapt quickly and to profit from if one adheres the guidelines that you have set forth.

I have stated quite a few times that your open teaching contributions are genuine that resonates with the spirit of past teaching members of the Sartin Methodology!!!:)

Best thread!!! hands down ;)
I'm just asking, but were any of these races done before they were ran? could you do a race before you have the results?

[Bill V.]

I'm just asking, but were any of these races done before they were ran? could you do a race before you have the results?

Hello Speed figures

Can I ask you?, Do you fully understand the concept of the guidelines
FTL outlines and demonstrates in this thread?

If you do, then why not find a race your self and post it. You can post the race
before or after the race.

If you don't understand the concept. Why not try to do a race, and If you happen to miss it, then why not ask FTL to show you where you made a error
if things don't work out.

thanks
Bill

[Appy]

Count me among those who really appreciates this thread and the effort of ForTheLead.

I'm not a newbie to "the concept" as much as a fledgling to the application and especially the software. As a database system builder I think I understand what Speed Figures is getting at. It is relatively easy to prove profitable method from result charts, but an entirely different matter to consistently make those winning selections from the entry list and PP info.
I know my strike rate playing along with FTL's posts was frustratingly lower than I would like, mirroring what I accomplished doing the Parx apr 15 card of example races (I'm only on the second day of RDSS evaluation). Looking at the result chart I can clearly see everything FTL said played out perfectly, but in making the selections prior to consulting the results I missed far too many of the winners (I went 3/9), sometimes didn't even have the winner in top 2. So I redid the process looking for line changes, anything that would make me select the winning combo. That didn't work either. However, I'm sure greater familiarity with the software, definitions, practice, and RE-READING the FollowUps will steadily improve my performance.
It is threads like this one from FTL and Bill and others from the gang here that can make the difference by embedding the processes that will make "the concept" work...just not every time.

[Bill V.]

Hi Appy

The question I have to you is you say you only hit 3 of 9 races using
FTL's guidelines. Would I be correct in assuming that in some of the other races
that you missed, could you have made a mistake? What I mean is without
us seeing exactly how you interpret a race even with the intention of following the guide lines,
perhaps you have not mastered the total handicapping
procedure yet, I know I often make mistakes and loose a race, because I
don't have the many many years experience that FTL has.

The only thing that is going to change this problem for me is to learn
and practice. I can't pass up the gift that FTL provides to us.
He is teaching us in lessons what it took him years of hard work to learn himself.

[Ted Craven]

I'm just asking, but were any of these races done before they were ran? could you do a race before you have the results?

Hi Speed Figure,

Your question is a fair one - and one which has been asked and responded to a few times. I'll let FTL address the specific question, but I want to say that the concept of this particular RDSS Teaching forum is sort of like a text book, where tried and true and repeatable concepts of the Methodology can be stated, illustrated and questions about them asked and answered interactively.

We're not actually debating whether or not these ideas work, or are reproducible, or whether FTL is or is not the worlds greatest handicapper - the ideas DO WORK and the whole point is that they ARE REPRODUCIBLE and if applied consistently, albeit in a variety of race scenarios - should result in a fair share of hits, regardless of the mutuel. As to how great a handicapper he is - it's a moot point, but obviously we believe he knows stuff worth teaching and is pretty literate about it and spends a considerable amount of time sharing what he knows, and in a context of RDSS tools.

I think a point worth making though, is that is doesn't really even matter if the races chosen to illustrate various reusable concepts were won or lost. We all (should) expect that losing races is a part of the game - depending on how you wager, you could expect to lose 50-70% of your races wagered. The important point is how you make your decisions - are you able to actually employ the various concepts about contender identification, paceline selection, identification of valid (and invalid) Early horses, observe the effects of deceleration in the various readouts. As one first sees the ideas presented, then eventually masters them, then applies them consistently (including choosing which races to work and which to avoid, which bets to make and which to pass) - then whether a given race results in a winning bet is less important than how you arrived at your decision and did you do it consistent with your usual approach.

So for these reasons - and because this is sort of an online text book - it doesn't matter whether the race was worked and bet before the fact, or whether the detailed discussion and illustrative screen shots were posted before the race went off. Or whether the race was won or lost.

I can see how some people would tend to discount the lesson presented if the handicapping and betting decisions resulted in a loss (as if they forgot that they don't actually expect to win every single race ...) - and so, as a teaching device, it's not unreasonable, IMO, that example races presented here are winning ones, and done after the fact. It would add no more credibility to the lessons if the race was done before the fact, all the same analysis presented, all the screenshots, updated after scratches, etc.

I think you will find that Bill V does a fair number of before the fact analyses in this and other forums. I accept that For The Lead is conducting a teaching exercise - not a bragging exercise - and so wants to maximize his time spent in the teaching by doing concise write ups of races run and principles we all can re-use over and over again.

That said, anyone can put up a candidate race in the Selections Forum, give as detailed pre-race analysis as they want, invite commentary, modify decisions post Scratches, given bet-time odds, etc. It's another way to do it, but one which many serious handicappers will have difficulty repeating too often given how time consuming it is.

Whether presented before the fact or after the fact - it matters whether the ideas can be applied consistently going forward. Some posters will choose to work the race, bet it, put up a detailed analysis post-race and also show their bet ticket as proof of their pre-race decision. That's their decision, but not required. I think we can tell if someone is taking the time to explain themselves well, and not simply boasting 'I had that'. The former is of use to everyone, and for a long time to come, while the latter often tends to be forgotten even before you're finished reading it.

Bill's idea is a good one - suggest a difficult race or one which you think might lend itself to further analysis. Suggest your analysis (no worries that you don't use RDSS), invite commentary. This whole website is here for learning.

Looking forward to it!

cheers,

Ted

[Appy]

Perfect post Ted!

Bill, I think your question, "how you interpret a race even with the intention of following the guide lines, "...perhaps you have not mastered the total handicapping
procedure yet", is very much what I was trying to point out for me personally, along with the notion that Speed Figures wasn't making an attack on FTL.
Key to this whole thing is what you ended with.
"He (FTL) is teaching us in lessons that it took him years of hard work to learn himself."

I've only been working on official Sartinism for a few weeks! :) But I am truly grateful to have found a great crew here to work at it with.

[Appy]

Hi Appy

The question I have to you is you say you only hit 3 of 9 races using
FTL's guidelines. Would I be correct in assuming that in some of the other races
that you missed, could you have made a mistake?

First I would have to admit I did not follow FTL's criteria to focus entirely on early horse selections. Second, 2 PASS races were included in the non-win column of the 9 race card. I guess my result was more accurately 3/7, but that still isn't as good as I expect to do.

Bill's Penn Derby thread is sitting there waiting...

[Bill V.]

Hi Appy

I think you will come to the conclusion that a win percentage is one thing.
but when and if you decide that you have the confidence to start making
real bets with these lessons is another, I would not be so hard on your self

Yes I know but there are still 1635 minutes to post time for the PA Derby

[Appy]

There is confidence...and there is over confidence!
Race #9 (Parx) was one of the wins.
I got 9-10-2 from the segs.
I got 9-2-10 from the BL.
I got 9-3-8 from POR/POH.
Contemplated that and wrote down my selections as 9W-9/2ex-9/2/10 Tri.
Then checked the result chart:
9 W- $2.40
9-2 Ex= $13.40
9-2-10 Tri= $64.00
Flat stakes = $10.00 (don't play tri's cold, $6)
Profit on Race #9 = $69.80

Passed 2 races. If I played the other 7 at same bets/stakes my total outlay would have been $70. I won 2 additional races...
Over confidence is EASY! :)

[For The Lead]

I'm just asking, but were any of these races done before they were ran? could you do a race before you have the results?


All the races were handicapped before they were run. As I stated to you in a previous post, these are the low level tracks I play every day. They are the same type of low level races, where the horses are "1 fors" or "2 fors", that you indicated you like to play. If you played these races and weren't able to come up with the winners using your methodology, perhaps you should re-read my posts, compare what I said to your methodology and see where you went wrong.

I would also encourage you to read EVERY RACE I have posted, not just in this thread, but in all the threads in the teaching section, and see for yourself, that I follow the same procedures in every race I post. So if you think any of these races were "manipulated" in order to get the winners, which seems to be what you are suggesting, then you are dead wrong! Every race was approached using the same exact guidelines and that is the reason the races were posted in the first place. To teach people a consistant approach to picking contenders and lines. CONSISTENCY is the "KEY".

If you are not familiar with the adiitonal comments I make on certain horses from time to time, that are outside the realm of the Sartin Methodology, perhaps you should "study up" so they make sense to you.

Aside from the above, and since I take a personal afront to your post, I'll let Ted's response serve as my response. Ted has said all the right things in a much better way than I would have.

[Ted Craven]

More proof that For The Lead does not work for me - LOL (as if any were required). Otherwise he might not have been quite so harsh in his reply.

It is possible that the question put was perfectly innocent ...

Ted

[Segwin]

Perhaps if FTL could hc a race card a day in advance with his picks it, and post it here a day in advance it would calm the nay sayers?

[DaveEdwards]

I've posted similar before, but will again now as this subject seems to reappear from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with the posting of any race after the fact whatsoever if it demonstrates a principle that is likely to recur again and everyone can benefit. It is exactly the same as a race printed in the Follow Up. The aim is for people to learn to win, not claim bragging rights about anything.

It is exactly in line with the regression analysis that Howard encouraged. Just because something is posted after the race & just because the race may not have been worked by readers prior to the race doesn't make the lessons to be learned any less valuable, in my opinion at least.

[For The Lead]

More proof that For The Lead does not work for me - LOL (as if any were required). Otherwise he might not have been quite so harsh in his reply.

It is possible that the question put was perfectly innocent ...

Ted


And that was my “diplomatic” reply. You should have seen my original draft!

It absolutely may have been a innocent request, but that is the “heads” side of the coin.
The “tails” side of the coin says it may NOT have been.
Haven’t we been down this road before?

[For The Lead]

I've posted similar before, but will again now as this subject seems to reappear from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with the posting of any race after the fact whatsoever if it demonstrates a principle that is likely to recur again and everyone can benefit. It is exactly the same as a race printed in the Follow Up. The aim is for people to learn to win, not claim bragging rights about anything.

It is exactly in line with the regression analysis that Howard encouraged. Just because something is posted after the race & just because the race may not have been worked by readers prior to the race doesn't make the lessons to be learned any less valuable, in my opinion at least.

Thank you for your post.

[Appy]

We have a thread for discussing selections on impending races, don't we?

Given time, everyone will realize skepticism is a small thing and unimportant in the grander scheme, which is the concept, and so long as the content furthers that quest it is a success.
If I weren't naturally skeptical I would have lost a TON of money betting on my unproven systems! :)
Lead on For The concept. Your work will make me a better bettor.

[For The Lead]

More proof that For The Lead does not work for me - LOL (as if any were required). Otherwise he might not have been quite so harsh in his reply.

It is possible that the question put was perfectly innocent ...

Ted

Take Segwin’s post for an example. It seems innocent enough, but now there are “terms” to what I should do. He suggests that I post my “picks” for an entire race card a day in advance. So what is he really asking for? What is the underlying reason for that request? Can we make an educated guess that we already know the answer? You bet we can!

See, Segwin, Speed Figure and the others, all think the same. They think I have “picks” (hate that terminology) for every race…because that is the way they do it.

The fact that Segwin, Speed Fgure or any other “naysayer” would suggest that I should post race cards, with picks, a day in advance, tells you what their mindset is. They are frustrated because every race I post is a winning race. They “think” I am building a case for me being the “World’s Greatest Handicapper”. They are wrong.

And what would they expect in the way of “picks”? Well, judging from what I see from time to time, “picks” come in a “4 pack”. Well, I don’t have a “4 pack of picks”! I either have “1 pick” or I have “0 picks”. And a “1 pick” just doesn’t come along in every race. On average, I may actually bet one race in a nine or ten race card. So, posting my “picks” a day in advance just isn’t going to happen!

Does it ever occur to these people, that what they should do is, take some old races where they know who the winner is and follow the guidelines I use? They would quickly learn that whether they know the winner or not, they are going to be getting the same contenders and pacelines. Then, if they have any horse racing knowledge and/or handicapping knowledge, they can apply that to the contenders they are left with and see if they can pick the winner, even when the winner is already known to them. It’s called “learning”. And that is what the winners I post are there for…TO LEARN FROM! What would be the purpose of posting losing races?

Now, Ted, you brought up the question of my working for you. WelI, just so everyone knows, I don’t! I haven’t worked for ANYBODY in 15 years!

To try and clear this matter up further, here is a post I made many months ago.
39832
So what can be learned from this post?
1 – in my day to day handicapping, I use my own software.
2 – does anybody really think Ted wants me to post LOSING RACES??
In fact, does ANYBODY use losing races as encouragement to play horse races?

So here’s what happens. When I win a race using my own software, I look at that race in RDSS to see if there are similarities with what I saw in my own software. If there are, then I post the race. This is the way I create a learning experience, by FIRST handicapping the race using my own software and then, AFTER the race, explaining it using RDSS software so it is clear to RDSS users.
So again, posting a “4 pack of picks” is out of the question.

So there is the best explanation you “naysayers” are going to get from me, because I’m not in the habit of explaining myself.
I know Ted doesn’t like rough or abrasive tone when posting, but this time I’m going to use it anyway. In the event my explanation isn’t good enough for you people, and you know who “you” are, it’s just “TS” and the “T” stands for TOUGH, so I’m sure you can figure out the rest!
I’m sick and tired of this question coming up. Get over it!

[Bill V.]

Right on FTL

One thing as far as

2
In fact, does ANYBODY use losing races as encouragement to play horse races?

I do !!!!! MY Losing races because I know you may take a time out of your own handicapping time to guide me to mistakes I am making.
Without posting races and screenshots and then finding out my mistakes
I would continue to make those mistakes.

Instead of depending on somebody to do races for you why not do races for the FTL and learn from doing. To do is true. Saying you will try is a lie.

[Pat C.]

FTL,
I for one, want to thank you for your teaching posts. I hope you don't get discouraged by the the critics. This forum is obviously not a contest between players to see who caps the best. It is for teaching!!!

I used RDSS and the Matchup for years with spurts of success and failure before becoming disappointed in my abilities to be consistent. So I quit. Your posts, the videos by Bill V and Because I can Jim, have provided the guidance to help me be consistent in my selection of contenders and pace lines.

I had a sucessful 30 year career in law enforcement and am in my late 60's. But I recently realized that I have always had Attention Defecit Disorder. Now I know why I could never get that "Quiet Mind" that is so necessary to handicap like the 'Hat'. With your knowledge and procedures and a return to using RDSS, I am again enjoying my horse racing hobby. Thank You and please don't stop with the teaching threads!
Pat C.

[Because I Can Jim]

Thank you for that Pat.

And.....In My Humble Opinion......

I have said it before, I appreciate what FTL does.

What I think some of us forget (me included at times) is just how valuable of an asset FTL is. I know Ted (sorry to name drop Ted - but I did it on purpose anyway :) ) finds him to be a valuable asset too and I know that many of us don't realize just how good of a handicapper FTL really is. I know I certainly didn't know/realize until I had conversations with a couple of other people whose opinions I respect enlightened me and now I think somewhat differently.

One last thought....as it is now 2:14am as I write this.....

How many races in the Follow Ups or manuals were done by Howard Sartin before post time?
How many were done by Jimmy Bradshaw?
Why should it be any different for FTL?

In My Humble Opinion.....

Jim

[For The Lead]

Thank you for that Pat.

And.....In My Humble Opinion......

I have said it before, I appreciate what FTL does.

What I think some of us forget (me included at times) is just how valuable of an asset FTL is. I know Ted (sorry to name drop Ted - but I did it on purpose anyway :) ) finds him to be a valuable asset too and I know that many of us don't realize just how good of a handicapper FTL really is. I know I certainly didn't know/realize until I had conversations with a couple of other people whose opinions I respect enlightened me and now I think somewhat differently.

One last thought....as it is now 2:14am as I write this.....

How many races in the Follow Ups or manuals were done by Howard Sartin before post time?
How many were done by Jimmy Bradshaw?
Why should it be any different for FTL?

In My Humble Opinion.....

Jim

Thank you for your post.

[For The Lead]

This is the 2nd race at MTH on 9.21.13. This type of race is commonly called an "Optional Claiming" race. However, if you read the conditions, it says it is an "Allowance Optional Claiming" race. Why? Because the race IS an allowance race, run under allowance conditions (i.e.-NW1X), but with an "option" for a horse to be entered for the stated claiming price. And, that makes any horse entered with that option, eligible to be claimed from the race. Horses NOT entered with the option are NOT eligible to be claimed.

Some race conditions can appear to be very confusing because there are multiple parts to the condition. The best approach is to take them one at a time. Here are the conditions for this race.

39834

The very first thing you see is that this is a race for "state bred" fillies and mares 3 years old an up. Since this race is being run in New Jersy, that means all entries were bred in New Jesey.

Then it tells you the race is for horses that "have never won two state bred races other than maiden, claiming or starter". (So a horse may have won many state bred claiming or starter races and still be eligible for this race.)

OR...

horses that have not won one state bred race in 2013 are eligible to be claimed for $16,000.

The claiming price is re-stated
The weights are stated, and finally..
it states that races won for a claiming price of $12,500 or less ARE NOT considered in either eligibilty or weight allowances.

Now, just so everyone is aware, and I'm not going to write this every time I post a race, my guidelines for selecting contenders are for the "win" position only!
I am an "old school" player. When I started in racing there was a "daily double" and win, place or show. That was it! So you quickly learned that picking the winner of the race was of the utmost importance. I'm not saying you can't win money with exotic wagering, I just don't do it.

[For The Lead]

As an afterthought, it would be good practice to look at each horse, keeping the conditions in mind, to see how the horse fits the condition.

Ok, there were originally 7 entries, but one scratch left 6 betting interests.

Here's the rundown:

#1 - Last line. This is straight forward. The last line was 27 days ago. It was a win and therefore a "+" race. It was at the same distance and on the same surface.
#2 - SCR
#3 - Last line. This is another straight forward line selection. The last race was 14 days ago and a win, which makes it a "+" race. The race was at the same distance and on the same surface.
#4 - Line 2. The last line was run at PARX and was a "0" race, however, the guidelines say that a horse can be excused for a bad race when it was the first race over the track at the current meeting. This applies here. So since the second race back was 55 days ago, that line also qualifies. It was on the same surface and at the same distance. Since it was a win, it is a "+" race.
#5 - Last line. This is the favorite in the race and the favorite always deserves a closer look. You have to be able to beat this horse. What is interesting about this horse is, it is a perfect example of a two year old that had an injury.It took 9 months off to heal from the injury and it appears the condition has been corrected as the horse came back to the races with a fine race, running 2nd. Another sign that the horse is physically back, is the fact that it is coming back in just 34 days after that intial return to the races. The last line was at the same distance and on the same surface. It was a 2nd place finish after fighting for the early lead, so it is a "+" race.
#6 - Last line. The last line was a 3rd place finish, so it is a "+" race. The race was also at the same distance and on the same surface.
#7 - NO LINE. The horse has a ML of 20/1 and that is good enough for me. However, since there was a scratch, let's consider that scratched horse. That horse had a ML of 10/1 and it certainly doesn't look formidable to me. And its 2 for 30 lifetime leaves much to be desired. So scratched horse or not, a revised ML line or not, the #7 is still out as a win contender.


Here are the horses.

[For The Lead]

Here is the rest of the field.

39841
39844
39845

[For The Lead]

As you have seen from most of my posts, early horses play a big part in them. This race is no different.

Another thing I try to do, is show alternate ways to make selections from RDSS, rather than just look at the horses at the top of the BL/BL. This race won't be one of them.

I apologize for not changing the "RS" designations on each horse. it was late and I just forgot.

Let's take a look at the screen shots.

39847
39849
39851
39853
39856

[Appy]

Atta boy FTL, back in the saddle!
And I got this one. :)

Why does RDSS have it 5-1-6?

[Because I Can Jim]

FTL,

You wrote in a previuos post, " I either have “1 pick” or I have “0 picks”. And a “1 pick” just doesn’t come along in every race. On average, I may actually bet one race in a nine or ten race card."

Please don't take this question out of context.....

It has nothing to do with posting races before or after the fact.

I am aware of some successful handicappers who wager on only one horse to win, you being one of them.

Imagine with me if you will, you are sitting there having handicapping a card. How do you determine that you will pass a race or more importantly, what goes through your mind/thought process that you will decide to wager on this one horse in this one race?

Before you answer, please think about my (and others) paradigm.

First, pass a race with too many FTS.

Second, confused about a race - pass.

Third, the Doc inundated me with two horse wagering (while I know of others such as yourself who wager on only one horse to win). There is a win% and average mutuel and in doing the math would determine whther or not to pass or play a race.

Fourth, I am almost robotic. I handicap a race. Decide upon two and if the odds warrant based upon my wagering critieria, I either make the wager or I pass. What is different with this from the third point is that I've done the handicapping and almost "take it for granted" that this race will be wagered on given the odds just because I did the work and have horses. (I hope that wasn't confusing because it is a mental aspect I'm trying to convey.)

With these as my paradigm, I am "looking to" wager on a lot more races than you and not just because I am wagering on two horse instead of one. If that was the case, with my mindset, I would be wagering on every race (with odds criteria) just because I did the work and can point to a horse.

So, this brings me back to my original question if you can answer it "what goes through your mind/thought process that you will decide to wager on this one horse in this one race?" You have done the work. You see the odds. What is it that you think about that causes you to wager on race 4 as opposed to race 5?

I hope I am making myself clear in the question. I know it is a grey area, but, if you can. I sit a feeling of confidence due to experience? Is it something that shows up in your handicapping the would cause you to say I don't like this race? Hopefully you see what I am getting at.

Thanks in advance :)
Jim

[dlivery]

Atta boy FTL, back in the saddle!
And I got this one. :)

Why does RDSS have it 5-1-6?

Hi

RDSS has it rated

5-1-6

APV

Class

Red,Green,Yellow

[Bill V.]

Thanks for your help Lawrence


Appy, This is why its so important to ask questions.

The way BLBL works is the best or highest rate horse is listed first
then each horse rated a notch below will be listed in descending order.

The Sartin methodology uses a low is best ranking system for some factors
and high is best for others, so don't get discouraged. Once you learn which
is which you will be fine.

As Lawrence says the top 3 on BLBL are not the same as the top 3 APV
the top 3 on BLBL in this race was 3 1 6

39857

[Appy]

Would those ratings/selections differ depending on chosen line?

Looking at the screenshot shown right above there is a blue line under BL. That blue line appears above other ratings depending on screen selected. Is that blue line the indicator of selection order FOR THAT SCREEN, or are the selections indicated by order under program#?

[Appy]

Also, looking at the segments screen I notice a difference sometimes between the colored rankings/program # and the added scores for each horse in the panels. What's up with that?

[Bill V.]

Appy


I will take these last two questions up in the RDSS area
Lets stay focused on the topic of contenders pacelines and winning
guidelines

Bill

[Dorianmode]

Enjoy so much reading these posts. Another member and I also have been thinking of starting a thread about models, and the use of Excel stats and tools in doing that, if there is any interest in the subject. It can get very involved, but doesn't have to be, necessarily. You can do the export, and manipulate and do a search, or just keep/have everything together and do sorts, (or even automate them with macros and pivot tables). Any interest ? We would be especially interested in having the long-time vets, and members weigh in about how and what sorts of models they keep. We need to talk to Ted again, before we do this, but PM me please if anyone is interested, or has ideas about how to get this thread up and running. Thanks.

Dorianmode

[For The Lead]

Would those ratings/selections differ depending on chosen line?

Looking at the screenshot shown right above there is a blue line under BL. That blue line appears above other ratings depending on screen selected. Is that blue line the indicator of selection order FOR THAT SCREEN, or are the selections indicated by order under program#?

Appy, I see where you incated you just started your 30 day trial of RDSS.

In reading your posts, it seems you have already determined RDSS to be a "black box". That is to say, it seems you are relying on RDSS and the horses at the top of the BL/BL screen as "selections". Before I go on, here is a quote from the "software's father's mouth".

39860

I'm not trying to put Ted on the spot here. This post was already posted and discussed in another thread. I'm just trying to bring to your attention, that fact that RDSS was not written to be a black box and, therefore, should not be used as one. Aside from certain adjustments made by the RDSS program, the main purpose is to take the information (times) from the line "you" provide to it, and simply put the resulting information "in order". RDSS or any other software that is simillar, meaning based on a single line selection, does the same thing. How do I know? I have my own software and the same thing is done there.

Software, residing on your computer, is as dumb as dirt...until it is given a command to carry out. When it is given a command, it then performs the functions it was programmed to carry out. In order for us to read the information it provides, it has to be ordered in one fashion or another, making it easy for us to read.

Again, I will direct you to review the races posted in the teaching area. In many of the races posted there, attention is provided to other ways of determining the winner of a race, other than the BL/BL screen.

Good luck! And as Bill V has already said, the best thing to do is ask questions.

[Appy]

I would have exactly zero interest in a "black box" type program. However, it does seem RDSS is making something on the order of overall composite rankings. I never rely on those as my selections seem rarely to agree (I've always done my handicapping manually with form and a pencil). When I DO agree though it is kind of a confidence builder in my own selections. In fact, my own selections are far outperforming the software overall ratings, but I'm still not winning at a satisfactory rate.
My question was directed toward each different screen. One section of ratings on each screen will have a little blue line at the top. I wanted to know what that little blue line indicates.

For the past several weeks I've been reading Follow Ups, the manuals, and the teaching threads on this forum until my eyes are bleary! In fact it's kind of getting to be something of an obsession. :) :) But I am determined to improve my skill at selecting the best paceline to use for better effect, as well as a more complete understanding of the methodology.
My understanding, and hope, is that the software will be a computation time saver. Handicapping by doing everything manually takes me way too much time.

[For The Lead]

This is a great question. Not easy to answer, but a great question.

FTL,

You wrote in a previuos post, " I either have “1 pick” or I have “0 picks”. And a “1 pick” just doesn’t come along in every race. On average, I may actually bet one race in a nine or ten race card."

Please don't take this question out of context.....

It has nothing to do with posting races before or after the fact.

I am aware of some successful handicappers who wager on only one horse to win, you being one of them.

Imagine with me if you will, you are sitting there having handicapping a card. How do you determine that you will pass a race or more importantly, what goes through your mind/thought process that you will decide to wager on this one horse in this one race?

Before you answer, please think about my (and others) paradigm.

First, pass a race with too many FTS.

Second, confused about a race - pass.

Although I do play maiden races, when appropriate for me, even with FTS, I would add to your short list, "maidens on the turf". If the reasoning is not intially clear, I'll be happy to have a more detailed discussion about it.

Third, the Doc inundated me with two horse wagering (while I know of others such as yourself who wager on only one horse to win). There is a win% and average mutuel and in doing the math would determine whther or not to pass or play a race.
LIke you and others, when I started with the Sartin Methodology I, too, played two horses per race. How can you hope to effectively grasp the full concept of a methodoloogy if you don't follow it's structure?
Having been a handicapper for many years before finding the methodology, I was already a one horse win bettor and found it difficult to play two horses per race. Nevertheless, I followed the betting guidelines.
Instead of going on with the story, I'll just say that if playing two horses per race fits your mindset, then that is the right approach for you.

Fourth, I am almost robotic. I handicap a race. Decide upon two and if the odds warrant based upon my wagering critieria, I either make the wager or I pass. What is different with this from the third point is that I've done the handicapping and almost "take it for granted" that this race will be wagered on given the odds just because I did the work and have horses. (I hope that wasn't confusing because it is a mental aspect I'm trying to convey.)
Nope. That was perfect. As I have mentioned many times, I am an "old timer". I started in the days when there was a "daily double" and after that it was strictly WIN, PLACE or SHOW.
Also in those days, there was no such thing as a computer, interenet, downloading, on line betting and etc. You went to whichever track was closest for you and bet the 9 race card being offered. It didn't matter what the races were like, what were you goinbg to do, travel a couple of hours in either direction and then pass every race?? (lol) NO! You dug in to each and every race, trying as best as you could to find the winner. Or, at least, some horse to bet on. Sounds like what you are doing, yeah?
Now here is one of the things that makes your question difficult to answer.
"WHY" are you betting the horses you end up betting?
"HOW" are you making the determination to bet those horses?
"HOW" confident are you that one of your two horses will win the race, and..
"WHY" are you confident?
I apologize in adavance here, but I have also read your post on "hides", but have yet to post any answer there.
So, are you "hiding" low priced horses just for the sake of hiding them because they are short priced and then "wagercapping" what is left?
I'm sorry. I'm getting off the subject. I'll get back to that later.

With these as my paradigm, I am "looking to" wager on a lot more races than you and not just because I am wagering on two horse instead of one. If that was the case, with my mindset, I would be wagering on every race (with odds criteria) just because I did the work and can point to a horse.

Like I said above. :)

So, this brings me back to my original question if you can answer it "what goes through your mind/thought process that you will decide to wager on this one horse in this one race?" You have done the work. You see the odds. What is it that you think about that causes you to wager on race 4 as opposed to race 5?

As I'm sure you are already aware, the next race we look at will be unique unto itself. There has never been one like it and there will never be another like it. So although every race will end up with top rankings, top total energy and all the rest, and may look the same by the numbers, they are not. So, in short, that is the reason there is a difference between race 4 and race 5.

I hope I am making myself clear in the question. I know it is a grey area, but, if you can. I sit a feeling of confidence due to experience? Is it something that shows up in your handicapping the would cause you to say I don't like this race? Hopefully you see what I am getting at.

Naturally experience plays a large part in what I do. How could it not? I've been at it for over 47 years! Here's an example.

I "print" my own racing form. It is "ordered" in a particular way, not by post position as the racing form would have it. Like Ted's program, lines are also colored for certain factors. I don't think it is any secret that I favor early type horses. I mean, come on, my screen name is For The Lead! That was not accidental. My print program prints a vertical line between the 2nd call and stretch call. By doing this, it is easy to look right down the first two calls for every horse, and like I said, my lines are colored, so it is real easy for me to see which are the early types and which are not. If I don't see any early types, I know that probably isn't a race in which I would have an interest. Some might say,"hey, I picked lines for that race and there is an early horse in F1 on the segments screen!" Yep, they sure are correct. There would be. In fact, you could fill a race with stone cold, come from dead last closers, and after you pick lines for the horses, you would have what appears to be an early horse on the F1 panel of the segments screen. Well, hey, some horse has to go to the lead. Isn't that good enough? Not exactly, but good luck with that anyway. Moving on...

I guess I would say that betting odds is one of the major reasons for betting or passing a race. I really don't mean to pick at a wound here, but, I think one of the reasons there are people who don't like the fact that I post races after they have been run, is the fact that the winners always pay good prices. That is not by accident. If I don't get a minimum of 4//1 on a horse I want to play...I pass. WHY? Like everybody else, I lose races, so I want 4/1 as my minimum in order to keep a productive ROI.

Let's take 20 races, just because that is a Sartin cycle. "ON AVERAGE", can we expect 6 to 7 of those races to be won by the favorite? YES. How about the 2nd choices, which are usually 5/2 or less, especially in this time of short fields? Would you say they account for another 4 or 5 winners? Then there is the gap between 3/1 and 7/2. Thery're going to account for a few more winners. So what do I have left, 6 races? And I still have to pick the right horse. It's not easy.

You mentioned "confidence". That plays a big part in the bet or pass decision. The best I can give you here is, being able to see the race play out ahead of time. There was one member here that sought my advice. I use to tell him all the time,"READ THE PP's", from the bottom up! Learn how the horse got here today. I understand this is not part of the methodology, but I liken it to Tom Brohamer when he joined P.I.R.C.O. Did he for get all that he learned and knew from previous experience? I don't think so. I think it is in the Paceline Manual that they say he picked the greatest number of winners of all the teaching members.
Ok, an example. Let's take a 1 mile race at a track with a 1 mile oval (which is most of the tracks in the country). We have a field of 10. You enter the lines for your contenders or the entire field or however you do it. You find that the two best horses on F1 are the #2 and #10 horses, and they appear to be equal in ability. Are they? No! With the race being 1 mile on a 1 mile oval, the #10 horse better be considerably faster so it can get out of the gate and get over to the rail. Remember, in order to do that it must cross over in front of all the horses inside it, WITHOUT interfering with any of them. Meanwhile, the #2 horse just has to come out of the gate and scoot right along the rail. There are advantages and disadvantages based on distance and post position and on the track where the race is being run. Thoroughbreds are not quarter horses. They do not run in a straight line down the home stretch. They run around turns, so in some cases, their post position can be the difference between winning and losing.
There is just too much to say and too many possible circumstances to possibly articulate here. I posted a thread in the teaching area called "Bill V goes the extra mile". Bill did a very good job on that race. He looked up the previous race on a horse to see how that field fit together, to see the match up of that race and its' effect on the horses in the race. Once knowing that, Bill was then able to look at a particular horse in today's race and see if today's match up was similar or different in a way that would benefit his horse of interest. It did benefit his horse and Bill got a winner as a result of his work. This was great work on Bill's part. Look, what I'm trying to say is, there are many reason to pass or play. Many times, the reasons are more than just the numbers. This may not seem to be an answer to your question, but it is. Work like Bill's was the determining factor in playing or passing the race. Armed with additional information, Bill was "confident" in his choice of horse to play.

Determining whether or not the favorite is valid or not is another reason to play or pass. If I think I can't beat the favorite, why play? I pass instead.

You mentioned "confusion". I'm not sure what your definition of confusion is, but if you are confused aboout a race, how can you play it? There are times when I can't make heads or tails of a field. For me, that is a good enough reason to pass. I want to be able to have a clear vision of how the race will run.

I guess another way to put it is, most people look for a reason "to bet" a race. I look for reasons "NOT TO BET". If I can't find any reason not to bet the race, then I bet it, as long as I am getting the odds I want. What that means is, I have found a horse I believe will win the race and I can't find a reason for any other horse in the race to beat my horse.

I hope you can put together what I have said here, make heads or tails of it, and hopefully somewhere in there find at least some part of an answer to your question.


Thanks in advance :)
Jim

[rmath]

FTL, thanks for answering Jims questions.
I have been following along with this thread and have enjoyed your help in teaching others, myself included, to improve their handicapping skills.
Please keep up the good work.

I for one always enjoy learning how to improve my own handicapping skills.
Good luck.

Rmath

[Because I Can Jim]

I know it took you a considerable amount of time to respond to my question(s). Simply put...Thank you.

I was easily able to make heads and tails of what you wrote. It is also something that lends itself to further thoughts and development.

For example, in discussing the #2 and #10 horse. I will admit that I look at the past performances, pick pacelines, select contenders and look at the readouts. Never would I have considered the 10 horse to be faster than the 2 horse as you have explained it. I would have seen the 0.0 for both horses in the 1F and considered them to be the same at the 1F just because of the number. And this brings me into the area of your experience. It seems to me that if you don't have the prior knowledge, you can't bring it to the table when you are looking at the next race. In my case, there was only the numbers which leads to an erroneous conclusion. Now, having that one additional bit of insight, it changes the way I would look at a race - an additonal factor to consider. The more I know, the more insights I have, the better decisions I can make. The question becomes "How to gain the most amount of insight (experience) in as little time as possible?" And just as importantly, how to know if it is right/correct? I know, I know... Pace & Cap and individuals such as yourself, Bill and others. :)

It is interesting to read about your frequency of wagering and how you look for reasons "not to bet" a race. I too, wait for 4-1 or better but, on two (both) horses to win. Therefore, I pass quite a few races also. Yet, my mind keeps wandering back to "What opportunities am I missing in the race?" This appears to be a sympton of as you put it "looking for a reason to bet a race." I am looking to win (be right) in a race as opposed to seeking profit.

As you wrote:
"Let's take 20 races, just because that is a Sartin cycle. "ON AVERAGE", can we expect 6 to 7 of those races to be won by the favorite? YES. How about the 2nd choices, which are usually 5/2 or less, especially in this time of short fields? Would you say they account for another 4 or 5 winners? Then there is the gap between 3/1 and 7/2. Thery're going to account for a few more winners. So what do I have left, 6 races? And I still have to pick the right horse. It's not easy."

It is good to confirm that what I am doing is not too far off base, especially for still having to pick the right horse for the 6 races that are left.

Once again, a heartfelt thanks for taking a considerable amount of time not only for posting a reply to me, but, also posting as frequently as you do. I know others will agree that while it is not readily seen by you, what you do does have an effect on everyone who reads your words.

Thanks again and take care,
Jim

[rmath]

I ran race 9 at Prx today looking for a good priced contender.
While I did not use FTLs guidelines. Which I feel are great for finding the winner in a race.
I approach each race just as methodically as he does.In this race I bet the #7 to win but also bet the #6 at 79/1 to place & show.
The 6 horse was off 121 days and was also 20/1 ML.
The last race was a + race.
This is an example of what Ted was saying about looking past the ML on a horse.39861

39864

[
ATTACH]35795[/ATTACH]

[For The Lead]

I know it took you a considerable amount of time to respond to my question(s). Simply put...Thank you.

I was easily able to make heads and tails of what you wrote. It is also something that lends itself to further thoughts and development.

For example, in discussing the #2 and #10 horse. I will admit that I look at the past performances, pick pacelines, select contenders and look at the readouts. Never would I have considered the 10 horse to be faster than the 2 horse as you have explained it. I would have seen the 0.0 for both horses in the 1F and considered them to be the same at the 1F just because of the number. And this brings me into the area of your experience. It seems to me that if you don't have the prior knowledge, you can't bring it to the table when you are looking at the next race. In my case, there was only the numbers which leads to an erroneous conclusion. Now, having that one additional bit of insight, it changes the way I would look at a race - an additonal factor to consider. The more I know, the more insights I have, the better decisions I can make. The question becomes "How to gain the most amount of insight (experience) in as little time as possible?" And just as importantly, how to know if it is right/correct? I know, I know... Pace & Cap and individuals such as yourself, Bill and others. :)

It is interesting to read about your frequency of wagering and how you look for reasons "not to bet" a race. I too, wait for 4-1 or better but, on two (both) horses to win. Therefore, I pass quite a few races also. Yet, my mind keeps wandering back to "What opportunities am I missing in the race?" This appears to be a sympton of as you put it "looking for a reason to bet a race." I am looking to win (be right) in a race as opposed to seeking profit.

As you wrote:
"Let's take 20 races, just because that is a Sartin cycle. "ON AVERAGE", can we expect 6 to 7 of those races to be won by the favorite? YES. How about the 2nd choices, which are usually 5/2 or less, especially in this time of short fields? Would you say they account for another 4 or 5 winners? Then there is the gap between 3/1 and 7/2. Thery're going to account for a few more winners. So what do I have left, 6 races? And I still have to pick the right horse. It's not easy."

It is good to confirm that what I am doing is not too far off base, especially for still having to pick the right horse for the 6 races that are left.

Once again, a heartfelt thanks for taking a considerable amount of time not only for posting a reply to me, but, also posting as frequently as you do. I know others will agree that while it is not readily seen by you, what you do does have an effect on everyone who reads your words.

Thanks again and take care,
Jim

Thank you, and trust me, that didn't even begin to come close to a "tell all".

What takes the human mind just seconds to process, takes that same human mind hours to put down in words in an orderly fashion. For an example...

When I wrote about the #2 and #10 horses, I forgot the main reason for the example. Yes, I talked about the #10 having to get out of the gate and over to the rail without interfering with any horses inside of it. I even talked about the 1 mile race being on a 1 mile oval. What I failed to write was this.

In a 1 mile race on a 1 mile oval, the run to the first turn is SHORT!
The #10 horse, if not fast enough, doesn't have enough time to clear the field before the turn and therefore gets hung out wide around that first turn causing it to lose a lot of ground. Even if that horse eventually makes the lead or gets close enough to challange for the lead, that will be after going around the first turn and onto the backstretch. That effort will cost the horse. The amount of energy expended to accomplish that will leave the horse flat as they come to the second call. That horse will be done at that point. Most people will dismiss the horse as a "quitter" without ever examining the circumstances.
I can't possibly recount the number of times I have seen where a horse shows some early effort only to start backing up at the second call. I mean, in my lifetime, there have just been too many. And like I said at the outset, the human mind processes information FAST. When I see this type of race from a horse, at the distance I'm talking about, the first thing that happens is, I immediately look to see what post position the horse broke from in the race. If I find that the horse has been breaking from extreme outside positions, it quickly answers the question of why the horse has been going backwards approaching the seconnd call (or thereabout). Or, maybe never recovering from being wide on the first turn. Just close your eyes and see a visual picture of this. It's not that hard to do. Pay attention to what happens while the race is run. Watch the replay if you didn't see something in the original running of the race. This is how you can learn things.
Now, one of the shortcomings I have seen in RDSS is, the post positions ARE NOT on the same line as the horses races! You have to open the "trip" tab in order to see them. It's not impossible to work with them this way, just awkward after seeing the post positions where they SHOULD BE for more than 47 years, just to the left of "the break"! It's much easier to read the horses running line as "PP, Break, 1st call". Because I am so use to reading it this way, it just "flows" better for me.

When you said, "The question becomes "How to gain the most amount of insight (experience) in as little time as possible?"" you asked the $64 question. It has taken me all my life. Now I don't expect you, or anyone else, to wait that long for the answers you seek. I can only say, that when I post up races, not only do I post screen shots of horses and various screens from the software, but I also, if not always, I most times will talk about the conditions of the race, which are important. In my "rundown" of the horses, I will, where I feel it is appropriate, talk about more than just which line I have chosen. I know that what I say is just a very small part of what I actually do, but it does serve as some insight into more than just picking a line. You have to understand, this site is about the Sartin Methodology. Whenever I stray away from that, I feel I am not "staying within the bounds", so to speak, even though I know what I have to say is important. I can go on and on for days at a time talking about horse racing or answering questions (where I can) about horse racing, but that isn't what the site is about, so I limit myself. I'm sure that in my 5 years at this site, I have from time to time, posted some things here or there and if you gathered it all up into one place you would find a lot of information.

My suggestion to try and shorten the learning curve is, read the horses PP's from the bottom up. Take notice of everything, distance, class, condition, surface. It all matters. When it comes to cheap horses, take notice of the "life" conditions...NW2L, NW3L, NW4L. See how they move from winning one condition and moving to the next.

When I suggest reading PP's from the bottom up, what I am saying is this. Why wait for tomorows card to learn. There is a lot in today's races to learn from. It's called "observation". You're not picking lines or looking at a complete race. You're just looking at how a horse reacts to being placed in certain types of races, at different distances. As with my #2, #10 example, pay attention to the mile races the horse may have run in. What track did it run at? How did it run? If it was an early horse, what was it's post position? If it was an extreme outside post, how did the horse react to that outside post? How did the horse run the next time in a mile race at the same class level? What post did it break from on that day? If it broke from an inside post, did it run better as a result? "OBSERVATION" can teach you a lot.

I have noticed that you will play MNR. So do I. It's a tough track to play, so personally, I take an even greater approach to the "looking for a reason not to play" there than I would consider to be normal for me. But you always have to look. You never know when you might find something.

[Bill V.]

That is a super bet on a 79/1 horse to place and show

I whiffed on the race because I could not see Fire alarm in a 6.5 furlong sprint
I liked the 7 but a third consecutive win bothered me


Here is an example from race 8 of how the ML maker has it tough and
once conditions change a horse can drop dramatically.

Here is the winner of race 8 its morning line was 15/1 it won and paid
1.10 to 1 for a $4.20 win

Now if the morning line maker knew it would became a 6 horse field and the race would be run at 1 mile over the main track do you think it would have a ML of 15/1?
The race was scheduled for the wild distance of 7.5 on the turf and as we see there were many scratches

When 7.5 turf races come off the turf they change the distance to 1 mile on the main track

39867

39869

39872

[rmath]

Thanks Bill, I agree with you when a race comes off the turf and half of the horses scratch any ML ratings go right out the window.
I have found that for me whenever a race changes surfaces like that it is best to just move on to the next race.
Why make things harder than they are already.
Good Luck,
rmath

[Bill V.]

While doing some research on running styles I came across these facts
about 6.5 furlong races at Parx for females

Using what FTL posted .


******

Just follow the guidelines
The Sartin Methodology provides guidelines that cover just about any situation you will encounter.
Every race I post is done in the same way and following those guidelines. I also add a couple of guidelines of my own that I have learned from my database. Here they are:
1 - eliminate any horse that has a ML of 20/1 or higher. You'll get high price winners without searching for a needle in the haystack.
2 - eliminate any horse that has not run in the last 90 days. 95% of all winners have had a race in the last 90 days.
3 - eliminate any horse that does not have a "+" or "(+)" line at a similar distance and surface in the last 90 days.
CONSISTENCY is the key.


Here is what I have. So far in 2013, there have been 53 6.5 furlong races run at Parx restricted to females

1. There were No 20/1 ML winners. There were 2 @ 15/1.
The average ML of all 53 winners was 4.5/1 The average win price of the 53 races was $10.72

2 There were 6 winners who had not run within 90 days
The average win price of these 6 races was $7.63
The winner has run within 90 days 47 out of 53 races

3 The winner had a + race withing 90 days at a comperable distance and surface 41 of the 53 races But also 6 of those races the winner was off
over 90 days so really the winner had a + race withing 90 days 41 of 47 races
The average win price of those 41 wins was $10.42

The winner had a + or (+) pace line at a comparable distance and surface
in the last line or with a valid excuse as outlined in the pace line manual
in 38 of the 47 race - The 6 winners off over 90 days are excluded

Interesting to see

Bill

[Appy]

Gawd I love that stuff Bill. Beauty of a post.

[dirty moose]

I was just reading through this post again. I decided to just pick a random card in my database and cap it using just the guidelines. I have some questions. I'm looking @ Parx Oct. 27 race 6. CL16K three and up N2-L

What line do you give here? Do you go back to L3?
39874

[dirty moose]

And here in R7, SA 16K

Do you go back to L2?
39875

What line here as well?
39877

Stick with the last or go back?
39879

More of the same. Back to L3?
39882

[dirty moose]

Thanks for the help guys.

[Bill V.]

Some of the races I agree with and some I don't

The problem is If I say which line I would use, your just going to get others
to come on and tell you that they would use other lines, then you will get lots of
" there are more than one way to win " comments, and then you will be right back were you started from

What I'm trying to say is, Its up to you to decide what you want to do.
with your pace line selections,
Now some of the races I would chose the line you did for a reason of class
other races I would disagree with your choice based on form,
other races I would either agree or disagree based on statistic evidence.
What I'm trying to say is, I would say reread the pace line manual and all the post in this thread, then make your decisions based on if your winning or not.
and being consistent.

Hope this helps

Bill

[Appy]

My view of the first example is that horse broke maiden in the slowest paced race of his life, must have been in a herd of snails. His last 2 races the nearest he got to the lead was in the gate. Drop him from W contention.

Too much to remember on the others, but the one called Silk Lace I like line 1 because IMO it more nearly fits today's conditions (I feel the other parts of the race are more important than difference between SA or O-Cl designation), is more recent, and because it is from PRX instead of Mth. I always view last out on this same track a positive for the entry.

[Alice0607]

After several months of following the guide lines. The most important factor to consider is consistency of picking pace lines. I have notice in lot of my handicapping in the past has not been consisted in my approach to picking pace lines.

[thealexangroup]

the "guidelines" is good to follow if you are looking strictly for "winners" only, regardless of the 'class' type of the race. i would however, be interested if anyone has done an "ITM" stats study on this? cheerz

[Alice0607]

Yes, I have. approximately 500 plus races from the following tracks, Bel, Aqu, Sar, Sa, Hol, Dmr, Gg, Gp, Fg, Cd, Kne. The win and exacta percentage for each pace line selection method of RDSS program.

[Segwin]

After several months of following the guide lines. The most important factor to consider is consistency of picking pace lines. I have notice in lot of my handicapping in the past has not been consisted in my approach to picking pace lines.

What is your approach to picking pace lines (if that is OK to ask)?

[MikeB]

What is your approach to picking pace lines (if that is OK to ask)?

Before using RDSS, I used the methodology from Michael Pizzolla's book, Handicapping Magic. This is a non-computerized method based on pace line selection. I found his methods to transfer well to RDSS.

Pizzolla's basic rule for pace line selection is to always use the most recent race unless there is a good reason not to. The major reasons include:

1. a negative layoff pattern

2. negative surface (e.g., turf vs. dirt, off track, etc.)

3. negative structure (e.g., sprint vs. route, 1 turn vs. 2 turn, etc.)

4. trouble line in last race

5. last race was at too high a class level, dropping back today

If there is a good reason not to use the most recent race, use the 2nd most recent. If there is a good reason not to use that race, go back another race. If there is a good reason not to use that race, the horse is probably a non-contender, unless it shows some class and is returning to conditions where it has won in the past.

[gfnut]

Looks a lot like the paceline manual.

39883

39885

[MikeB]

Same stuff. As I remember, Pizzolla was involved in writing that manual.

[Bill V.]

Thanks GFNut and MikeB
I think if you follow these guidelines and this thread pace line selection becomes very simple and effective.

I have RDSS set to pick the last . I then change the line if I have to.
When I use best of last 3 preceptor auto select
I often glanced up and said yeah but ...
and then use the last line anyway.

Either way is good but I find the last line and pace line manual guidelines to
be easy to follow and stay consistent. You must be consistent. It is critical if you have a profile and model

[Dallas4lr]

I was just reading through this post again. I decided to just pick a random card in my database and cap it using just the guidelines. I have some questions. I'm looking @ Parx Oct. 27 race 6. CL16K three and up N2-L

What line do you give here? Do you go back to L3?
36455

I know this is 8 months after you have asked your question. Most of the respected paceline selection methods have one thing in common. They all point back to the last race. The last race is the line that should be used unless you can find a valid excuse for it.

For us to really be able to assess this in RDSS you would need to have the Trip tab posted instead of the TPR E/L tab. That way we can see the post position the horse broke from and the comments. That way we can determine if the last line was a troubled trip, or did the horse just run poorly for no reason at all.


Carl

[Bill V.]

Hi Carl

I have the screen shots with the trip notes If Matt wants I can post them for you guys .

Bill

[Dallas4lr]

Bill,


That would be great! I'd like to take a look at them.



Thanks
Carl

[Bill V.]

Here they are

39888

39890

39892

[Bill V.]

Pace lines

39893

39895

[CEW]

Hi All -

I've been reading through some of the posts here on paceline selection. One suggestion (which may have been offered somewhere in the last 14 pages of posts) is to listen to the first few tapes of Tom Brohamer's lecture series in the Audio Collection.

My feeling is that he describes his procedure for picking pacelines in a way that can be easily duplicated. Basically, the last line is critical in evaluating current form, but if there is a solid reason to discard the last line, then a window is opened to allow you to go back a line. And same for that line and so on until there is a point where you can't make a valid excuse. You're selection should be among those lines.

I've read here that paceline selection needs to be done in a way that can be duplicated each time you handicap, to which I agree completely.

Best of luck!

Chuck

[MikeB]

Hi All -

I've been reading through some of the posts here on paceline selection. One suggestion (which may have been offered somewhere in the last 14 pages of posts) is to listen to the first few tapes of Tom Brohamer's lecture series in the Audio Collection.

At the end of the first tape, Tom appears to be discussing some handouts from the seminar. Does anyone know if that material is in the "Manual" section here under any of the seminar documentation? Thanks.

[CEW]

Mike -

Excellent question. I've wondered about that as well. As Tom goes through his material on those tapes, it appears he handed out an outline with about 5 or 6 sections....current profile (preferred running style), contender guidelines, negative drops, paceline selection, etc. It seems it would almost summarize his book into one outline.

Those recordings are tremendous. Echoing Mike's question - Does anybody know the whereabouts of a copy of that handout ?

Regards,

Chuck

[shoeless]

The manual came with the tapes