History of the Methodology

[kpmats10]

I'm feeling a bit reflective. Maybe I'm just licking my wounds from a brutal weekend at the BC. But can I get a history lesson?

I was first introduced to incremental breakdowns of a race and pace handicapping when I picked up the revised edition of Modern Pace Handicapping 10 years ago. I read it, studied it, and have been applying the concepts laid out within it since. Some successes have been reached that would've not been possible without the knowledge in the book. I actually paid a hefty sum to have a custom program written to apply the mathematical formulas and make various adjustments in the book.

Come to find this website and I signed up some time ago and never really took advantage of all the material laid out here. I'm here because I want to be a winning player. But where does one start? Come to find out reading all the material here there is much more to the Methodology and practice of pace handicapping than just Brohamer's book. When trying to read through the manuals and Follow Up's, there's a lot of info in there on systems, programs, etc that aren't clearly explained in previous issues; how to use the programs, what the readouts mean, etc and most of which are obsolete. Even paceline selection seems to have many different rules and applications that has changed over and over.

I'm trying to be a winning player. I want to improve my ROI. This year, I'm showing a flat bet profit on win and double wagers. I'm trying to learn self discipline to focus on only those wagers and focus on non maiden races.

My main question here is, if you are about to jump into this concept brand new, where would you recommend someone start? What is obsolete in terms of manual readings? What is relevant today and how do you find updated information?

I'm not afraid to do the work to get to where I want to be. But I feel lost in a big world, if that makes any sense.

[Mitch44]

I understand your dilemma completely. The present RDSS program and the new one that Ted is working on contain everything in one place. E.g. Pace Makes the Race, Brohamer's book , the Match Up, FPS calculations, % Median, calculations to consistently convert difference distances to today race distance etc. etc. etc.

Ted recommends reading only the later issues of the Follow Up to lessen the confusion. Only those that been around many years have the ability to sort through the old FU's and can determine what's relevant and what's isn't. It can help one to determine how something evolved to today concepts but probably confuses the hell out of most, because some of that stuff was incorporated into other programs and also improved on while some was just eliminated. The "Doc" always said that you don't really need to know a formula to make it work I.e. you don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car or a computer geek to operate a computer and there in lies the rub that people just can't get away from.

In a forum setting such as this there are a variety of opinions and a newcomer doesn't know what to believe or whom. Many have latched onto things and refuse to accept later concepts and teaching. All this has a negative effect on someone trying to learn and I'm sure contributes to a high number of failures. What to do?

Personally I'd like to see the teachers and most experience members comb through every Follow Up and blacken out any thing that has been superseded, outdated or has been replaced. I e. get rid of % Early and only leave the later improvement of % Median which used all 3 fractions and improved it greatly. I do however think TPR while only using SC and 3rd FR. is still a valid concept and a springboard for beginners to other later programs. As far as the site it needs to be cleaned up and erroneous comments and outdated ones need to be removed. Perhaps separate opinion stuff or Breeders Cup stuff from actual facts, formulas and current stuff. One hell of a monumental task.

To get you off on the right foot I would suggest you read any comment, post and stuff written by Ted. Ted is overwhelmed now with the new program but perhaps in the future can put all his posts etc. in one place and eliminate the old stuff from years ago that may not be current.

Conceptually it comes down to:1. picking contenders, 2.picking pace lines, 3.readout interpretation and 4.record keeping. Good luck kpmats10.
Mitch44

[kpmats10]

Thank you Mitch for your detailed thoughts

[Mark]

I have been at this game for over 50 years. I have tried just about everything. Going on 4 years ago I found the Hat Check blog. I read and reread, studied and practiced what was taught there by Jim through Richie P. Started with Jim's 5 step approach and moved on to the more sophisticated stuff gradually. The most important thing I learned was how horses win races. What is happening in the race that determines the outcome. This is not about number crunching or databases. It is a matter of finding the fastest horses or due to the pace contention in the race, who becomes the fastest horse at the wire. People will tell you all sorts of things but until you can watch a race and recognize what is happening and why the winner won, the best software in the world won't help. Pace makes the race, we know that. But how can I see what that will entail before the race? Will an Early horse get to the lead quickly and be unchallenged? There's your winner. Will the Early horse have to fight his way to the lead and repulse challenges, that is not your winner. If you can project the 1st and 2nd call times that will be run today you will know who will be in front and where the rest of the horses will be. Many times in the posts Richie put up there is the saying from Jim, "Bet the horse closest to the leader positionally, factoring in the pace of today's race"! So if you determine that the winner will not go gate to wire, because of the pace scenario, then look at the Pressers, if they are crappy and can't get to the lead and sustain their effort, then look at the S/Ps. Rarely will an S horse win unless everyone else in front of him is exhausted by the early pace. Forget about all this other stuff and determine where each horse will be at the 1st call. Understand that horses are creatures of habit just as we are and they want to be in certain positions at the 1st call to give their best efforts. That is there Running Style, they are comfortable there. Look at the form and find out what position the horse normally occupies at the 1st call when he wins or runs very close. Read Bradshaw's definitions of Running Styles and memorize them. Work the 5 step approach until you see it in your dreams. Only the few extremely dedicated handicappers will stick with it, so you have a huge challenge. It has taken me nearly 4 years to figure it out and then to use RDSS2 to implement it. But I'm a stubborn SOB and I like money! Good Luck!!

[Lt1]

I've been with the Methodology since 1990 and have seen the evolution take place. I would say to read the follow ups that Ted recommends then work on contender and paceline selection until you can get the winner in your top 5 around 90%of the time. Next decide which approach you feel the most comfortable with the matchup approach of Jimmy B or the compounded ratings that DOC recommended in the later years. If you decide to use RDSS you will able to see both. Both approaches work fine if you enter the true contenders and predictive pacelines. I suggest you keep records and/or track models and profiles. In short establish your comfort zone, and don't be afraid to ask question on this site. Good luck.
Tim G

[Bill V.]

I've been with the Methodology since 1990 and have seen the evolution take place. I would say to read the follow ups that Ted recommends then work on contender and paceline selection until you can get the winner in your top 5 around 90%of the time. Next decide which approach you feel the most comfortable with the matchup approach of Jimmy B or the compounded ratings that DOC recommended in the later years. If you decide to use RDSS you will able to see both. Both approaches work fine if you enter the true contenders and predictive pacelines. I suggest you keep records and/or track models and profiles. In short establish your comfort zone, and don't be afraid to ask question on this site. Good luck.
Tim G

Tim

I could not agree more,
Simple and to the point,

Good Skill
Bill

[Tim Y]

No amount of insight, practice or even LUCK can overcome the HISTORICAL difficulty of the closely matched and UNKNOWN qualities of the many potential champions on Breeder's Cup day.

To bet that card is to deny reality of how close EACH contest is.

[atkinsrr]

Tim Y you are so right....I treat the BC as I do any other day of the year...making money to me is more important than betting races...2 days of BC races and I only bet 2 races the whole BC and hit them both....Race 7 Downhill turf I had to bet 3 horses to win #2 Obviously #9 Alot #12 OM #2 Obviously was 5/1 when I made the bet and he got bet heavily near post time but still paid $9.60 Race 11 I had to bet 3 horses to win again #5 Tourist #8 Tepin #9 Ironicus.....Tourist is a horse that I have followed for a long time and has been in 9 G1 races out of his last 10 starts ...he;s the won that made my day couldn't find any other races that I wanted to bet so I just watched

[Ted Craven]

I'm feeling a bit reflective. Maybe I'm just licking my wounds from a brutal weekend at the BC. But can I get a history lesson?

...



The Sartin Methodology is a study of horse race analysis and betting practice which Doc Sartin conducted over 25+ years and which has been going on now for over 40 years. It is still going on today: RDSS is a part of the history of the Sartin Methodology. In 2001, at the end of Doc's work, RDSS was known as Validator - in other words, RDSS (a modern Windows-based program) completely and accurately includes Validator, the culmination of Doc's work (along with much else which is still highly congruent with Doc's approach).

Doc's work started with the 'legendary' group of truck drivers convicted of gambling offenses in the late 70s. By whatever poetic stroke of insight and phraseology, he came up with the thesis 'the cure to losing is winning'. It became the motto of the Methodology and lead to all subsequent fact-based enquiries, including the collaboration of many brilliant minds, to prove and elaborate on that idea. Line scores, track class levels, velocity ratings, The Matchup, track profiles and decision (Brohamer) models, point-based Early/Late ratings (TPR), incremental energy disbursement, deceleration, weighted line scores ...

Each subsequent line of enquiry created a foundation for the next enquiry. With each phase, Doc sought to make the process simpler and more straightforward for those interested in making money and checking their egos in the process - without ever succumbing to the simple easy system-seller rules approach of get-rich-quick artists and childish gamblers' fantasies. Anyone who knew Howard, knew ONE thing at least: he CARED about people; he cared about their experience and success in this particular domain, and he cared even more deeply about those who were serious about understanding and applying the ideas he and the group had uncovered. I think he cared more deeply about that than about making money selling software, subscriptions and seminars. Even if he sometimes doubted it in his final years, on that very basis of caring and love alone - he died a very rich man.

So -- it is inconceivable to me that his later works in the Methodology including his final efforts on Validator (and thus --> RDSS) would willfully EXCLUDE useful and valuable tools from earlier phases. He thought Validator was all you needed. Here is what he thought in 2007 about RDSS (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/sartin-review-of-RDSS).

Thus -- if anyone wants to simply dig in and start using the culmination of 40 years of Doc Sartin's thinking on horse racing analysis and betting -- they should simply pay a modest annual fee and start using RDSS. As mentioned, it includes the various flavours and phases of Doc's work. If anyone wants to try out RDSS 2.1 (under development, warts and all) just ask.

All the foregoing built in numbers and adjustments, plus good software tools, has permitted us to use a large measure of automation to select representative pacelines and make Contender choices (although: individual freedom of choice is ALWAYS permitted, for better or for worse). RDSS 2.1 has a new factor Rx, itself a weighted line score of other line scores and other factors like Class (a new and better Class rating), Consistency, public opinion, Early/Late bias. These alone help you get the winner in the Top 4 75-80% of the time (depending on race type and field size) and 80-90% Top 5 -- at better final odds by rank, than Morning Line odds, post time odds or any previous composite factor rank in Methodology history. Out of the box, you start with high level rankings of true contenders: then your work begins, finding good pools to wager in, assessing whether a given race or multi-race wager is priced to your advantage, given the unknowns.

I appreciate those who have favourite aspects of the various phases of the Methodology, and The Matchup. We all have history and affection for that history, and/or we all have particular and individual styles of learning or ways of seeing and understanding. We all have inherent biases towards what works, or at least what works best for us. I would not tell ANYONE that the way they apply the Methodology, using RDSS to do it or not, is inferior to another way. Thankfully, not much advice is necessary: our wager records tell the incontrovertible tale, if sometimes an uncomfortable one.

I got a new car last year, a sporty red Nissan Juke, goes fast (sometimes too fast ...) very fun to drive, very safe and functional in Canadian winters. It's not a Tesla or Humvee, but it is pretty much near the culmination of 120 years of automotive engineering. If the 'apocolypse' comes - I could not reproduce that car myself, I don't really understand combustion engines let alone petroleum exploration and refinement, nor do I understand modern medicine, nor jet airplanes, nor computer transistors and hard drives or how the internet and web servers are truly put together in a functional manner. I mean -- while I USE all these modern tools to live my life, and while I even have a passing interest in the HISTORY of these conveniences, really - what I want is to employ them to get a job done or to live a lifestyle.

I say -- forget about the past history of the Methodology and focus on the 'current history'. I agree, all the Follow Ups and manuals and audios and videos can be too much, except for long term study, understanding how we got here from there, and delving for nuggets of improvement (which ARE there to be found). There needs to be an Archive somewhere on the internet about what Doc did. But I suspect Doc would say that it could lead to too much confusion: start with and stick to current tools (and DID say precisely that in almost every later Follow Up).

We have GREAT analysis tools - better now than in Doc's day, and likely they will get even better. We really don't need many better factors and ratings. My focus in RDSS 2.1, and what will ultimately determine its release schedule sometime next year, is the following broad areas: 1) record keeping, 2) wager construction and submission, 3) deeper tote board and money flow analysis. Those, together with the existing superior and largely automated analysis tools, are how to profit at horse race betting.

You are warmly welcomed to make as much use of these as you wish!

Take care, good luck, good skill!

Ted

[Lt1]

Whether we are successful or not when playing BC races isn't really what this thread is about. KPM is asking for input about how to become a successful investor. We should stay on point since there are other members who maybe struggling like most of us did when we first joined the Methodology. Let those of us who have gained a level of success share how we were able to do so. In the past years a lot of us were fortune enough to attend seminars or to call teaching members and other members who were doing well and pick their brains to up our game. This forum and thread provides the opportunity to give something back. We have seen it in the past with folks like Ted, Bill V, Richie P, FTL and others sharing their knowledge. Let's do it again.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

one of the greatest things OUTSIDE of the methodology is how to wager, WHEN to wager......Something woefully left out over time.

As a handicapper the ideas of the methodology are without PEER, but that is just 50% of the challenge. There are few avenues of improvement offered on that side of the equation, always has been. Handicapping is not wagering and vice versa.

The entire concept of probability, the tricks of wagering options, betting points, take, tracking biases, etc etc, are homeless in the methodology, sadly enough. It takes evaluations OUTSIDE the boundaries of the taught basics to find out just WHEN and HOW to use the contenders outlined by segmental velocity evaluation.

[Tim Y]

Another, more subtle aspect of DECISIONS, are the inborn biases that dictate and bias truly OBJECTIVE evaluations of the same data by any two individuals. These are subtle, below consciousness and one must guard against them all the time.

One only has to read BLINK ( M. Gladwell) Thinking Fast Thinking Slow (Khaneman, Nobel prize winning economist), The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, by Leonard Mlodinow) or Strangers to Ourselves (Wilson) or The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to witness the subtle, yet domineering internal psychological blocks to our open decision making process.

One of the MOST egregious mistakes we all make to some degree is the Narrative Fallacy: weaving stories of cause and effect over FACTLESS observations and then accepting them a true when we just make up a story to fit what we THOUGHT happened.

A good one in this last category just happened last week. I was told that ARROGATE "exploded" by Chrome to which it noted that a gain of 3 lengths is merely a gain of 3 lenghts and showed several similar closing moves, just in claiming races. Interesting how the same move in a claiming race garners far less value than the same amount of ground made up in a grade one race. Same effect, but psychologically bolstered out of reality by the emotion of the situation at hand.

[Mitch44]

Money management and wagering is an important part of being a successful handicapper. However I don't know how one can put a specific % to it because if you don't have the correct horses its all for naught, game over and on to the next race.

The methodology has addressed this with the two horse bet and created an odds line. The Doc was addressing this as things evolved. Had he remained with us, who can say what else may have came about. He also discussed betting overlays, hiding horses etc.

The Bottom Line betting odds next to the BL Score is a tremendous tool for the handicapper to use. Of course if you put in a bad horse or non- contender than it will provide false readings. Another reason why contender selection is so important to master.

Theory verses experience are entirely two different things. Take a welder with 10 years experience verses someone that read a book on welding, well the book reader is going to lose to the experienced welder. Experience trumps theory. This is also similar to a college grad such as a West Pointer who upon entering the Army thinks he know more that some NCO's that have years of experience or a new cop verses one that's been one for years.

Betting and money management are critical to success however if you don't have the correct horses forget about it. Record keeping will help give a player the experience to evolve in both disciplines.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

I agree with both Tim and Mitch on the money management part of the game. Tim is imo also correct that each of us tends to reach different conclusions as to the information we review in the pps. We all also have our quirks as to paceline selection such as using off track lines on a fast track or dirt or turf lines on the opposite surface today. Once one masters the basics of the Methodology they are free to use whatever approach they like. Additionally record keeping and experience figure in the equation. And like any other profession one must continue to be flexible and keep up with the changes in the game.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

Horses Horses Horses: ONCE you pass over to the wagering side, FORGET about horses...look for mismatched probabilities. THAT is the heart of the wager. The TWO sides of the EQUATION require different disciplines:Handicapping requires innovation, insight, original approaches while the wagering side can, or should be, almost as rigidly RULE based as an accountant.

DON'T LOOK for THE WINNER, only probabilities that several could be the winner or hit the board. Wait, watch the wagering, get an idea where to go ONLY if the crowd allows your selection(s) to be underbet.

Look for races that will soak up and distribute "rookie money" over a wider base so that your odds increase. That would mean staying away from fields of 7 or less. Remember YOUR payout only comes from backed money that did not hit the board. The more horses, the wider is the distribution of monies wagered.

Find races that YOUR data supports that the crowd does not, i.e. finding a track where sustained horses win sprints for example: (Assiniboia for one).

IF the logical favorite is the best, it is a good idea to just watch, OR, if you must wager, let that choice be the KEY to exotics and ride the coat-tails of that favorite. It is often amazing the exotic payoffs when an "odds on" horse runs third.

You have to change thinking when you move over to the wagering side of the equation.

[turtleman]

Here's what I have stared to do in the last few days.
Print out and start to read the yellow manual.
Start listening to Tom Brohamer audio series.
Pick a track and build a track profile.
Start to apply what I have read and listened to.
Assess results, repeat steps 1 and 2, make adjustments!!

[Lt1]

May I suggest you also start a track model in conjunction with your track profile. They are 2 distinct tools to use. The model is based on your hanicapping from pps while the profile is based on result charts. I would also recommend reading the later issues of the followups that Ted has outlined. Take your time.
Tim G

[turtleman]

Thanks Tim
Yep, I am also going to start a model and i would appreciate your ideas as to what to include.
When I first started with rdss Ted advised me what to read, and I did read the follow ups and parts of the yellow manual. When I first started to use the software I think I was overwhelmed with all the data and did not have any structure to my capping. this is my attempt to simplify things and get back to basics.
The other thing I haven't done is ask enough questions, because I know there are a lot of great people on this site that are willing to help.

Thanks again for your help!!

Tom

[Lt1]

Tom models usually consist of the factors that the person keeping them feels is important for them to monitor. I myself limit my models to the rankings of the winner in EP,LP,CPR,VDC.and %MED. Others will track TPR ranking, some will add TE and still others will add TT and BL/BL rankings. I would suggest listening to the tape on the Brohamer model. In other words you determine what to model but I believe making it complicated with too many factors is counterproductive. Hope this helps. Feel free to send me a PM anytime you want.

Tim

[turtleman]

Hi Tim
What if the winner is not one of my top contenders, do I still put it in the model?

Tom

[Tim Y]

Hi Tim
What if the winner is not one of my top contenders, do I still put it in the model?


use the line you chose no matter if the one was a contender or not

[Lt1]

Good question. I don't but others will go back and pick a line and then enter it. I'll go back and look at the horse and see if I missed something. In your case you might want to consider marking an x in each factor to indicate you didn't have it as a contender and if you begin to see too many of these you should review you contender and paceline selection. Nothing gets the winner 100% of the time.
Tim

[Lt1]

Tom I also recommend that you keep 20 race cycle forms to let you see from what tier your winners are coming from. The goal is to have most of your winners in the top 3. Too many in tier 4 & 5 will also indicate a contender and paceline selection review.
Tim

[Bill V.]

Hi Tim
What if the winner is not one of my top contenders, do I still put it in the model?

Tom

Hey Tom

Tim G (LT1) is really giving you A1 help ..

I follow Tim's advice about record keeping
I also keep track of the race class , the actual RDSS notations and the TM RC
When I get a race were the winner is not one of my contenders I enter
NA or X
This is a tool I use when structuring my horizontal bets , doubles P3 P4 P5
Its good info to know which races tend to favor the ML favorites and the races that tend to come up with longer price winners.

Good Skill
Bill

[Tim Y]

Sample error. Two years ago I listened to a lecture on line about statistical analysis and it hit home. The lecturer pointed out that looking first at the BEST most outstanding effort (like Frosted, an known in and outer might get you to select), you are getting a skewed idea of what the animal is capable of since we all know the basic statistical principle of returning to the MEAN. One stand out performance is the OUTLIER, not the norm.

The best actuarials (the principle evaluations that insurance companies use to access liabilities) are based upon HUGE samples. The Theory of Large Numbers requires that a large database be evaluated before the results are representative of real life.

We do not have this luxury so we have to find a way around it.

In the Speculator program, there is an area called the Long Shot detector which evaluated the pace of race of each horse. I found it best for Match Up reasons to find similar paces of race (make the horse's be under similar pace pressures before evaluating them). Find several appropriate lines and use them, by themselves, to see how each horse handled that pace of race, particularly asking the question: DID any of these efforts push the horse out of it NORMAL ESP status? Then go back and you compare the other contenders to these lines.

I would try never to wager on horses that did not show at least two similar efforts coming into today's contest.

[Tim Y]

Further on that point, I discovered, INDEPENDENTLY of several other pace handicappers (i.e. Dave Schwartz calls this 2BE or two best ever), the idea I call Two Lines Better than the Field and wrote about it many years ago.

If you can find TWO pace lines and these point to it being the best this race, the chances of that horse doing very well are high. NO ONE GETS RICH on these horses as they are not secrets, but they are solid contenders that I usually use as KEYS in exotics.

Boiling it down, the only differences in one horse or another (and it has NOTHING to do with Man Made class levels) is the ability to handle a narrower (cheap stock) or wider (best stock) range of pace pressures. Horses don't know they are 12.5K or 30K level horses, but the pace of those races will differentiate the two animals.

[turtleman]

Thanks Lt1, TimY and Bill V
I really appreciate all of your input. I will have to reread your posts several times to digest everything. One thing I have realized in the last week is that it takes a lot of discipline to become a good capper.

Thanks again
Tom

[DontSayDont]

"The Theory of Large Numbers requires that a large database be evaluated before the results are representative of real life."

This theory is something I wonder about when it comes to handicapping. In order to have a large db it would have to go back to times when training was done different from today. There is a poster on here with a db with over 1 million entries that show horses that are off over 120 days to win only about 2% iirc. In fact I believe he won't use a horse off over 90 days as a win contender.

Today's training methods with regards to days off is very different from 15 - 25 years ago. Used to be a horse should be coming back in 14-21 days and even have a workout. This is the information that would be stored in the db. Fast forward to today and there are a lot more horses coming from much longer periods between races. It would require many thousands of races before the win % could be reflected in the db to change that 2% to a percentage usable in today's handicapping practice.

Therefore it is MY belief that it is not necessary to have a large amount of numbers to evaluate some profitable handicapping profiles. I don't have any mathematical proof to back my theory.

Ray

[Tim Y]

What do many statistics actually tell us?

I constantly hear conclusions reached on SKEWED inadequate data. Just recently I was discussing how trainer stats (because of their VERY limited and dynamic changes) are so full of holes when viewed objectively.

Trainer Smith is a 45% trainer of 3 year old fillies. He may have 8 3 y/o fillies but ONE of them accounted for just about all the wins. Is HE that great a trainer, or RATHER, does he not have a great FILLY in his barn? Also IF you look at these same data over a long period of time, with the changing nature of many a barn in the make up of their stock running, one season to the other this same trainer may hardly have ANY 3 y/o fillies in the barn.

Troy Taylor, a respected journeyman trainer in Vancouver had never been in the top ten trainers at Hastings since 1965. He was contacted by a generous, horse loving benefactor (Glenn Todd who was the force behind Mario Gutierrez's transition to greatness) who cares a lot for the game and was not afraid to spend money to get many low level stakes horses off the tracks at Pimlico, the Fair Grounds and Saratoga and bring them west. This influx of great stock gave this journeyman trainer a great edge on HIS competition and LO and BEHOLD, ever since the marriage of these two forces, TAYLOR has been leading trainer at Hastings. Did HE, all of a sudden, get to be a prodigy or, did the horses get better? Just like the pass receiving percentage for quarterbacks is too dependent upon their receivers rather than the thrower, statistics on the trainer are overly influenced by the level of stock one has in the barn. As such they should not be trusted.

BASIC statistical analysis has to be viewed in this light or we are lost at making the realistic conclusions.

Read THE DRUNKARD'S WALK: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, and it will make you have a completely new interpretation on the LIMITED conclusions we can take from poorly set up, but somehow trusted statistical evaluations.

[Mitch44]

DontSayDont; IMO you absolutely nailed this. An overly large data base isn't necessary to get good data and the larger it is the harder it is to change it by recent and better data.

Yes todays trainer methods have changed due to better equ.,feed and a host of other reasons that render a large and old database useless. In fact if one were to include class levels(@ least 20 or so levels) the whole study of days between races would change because better class horses can be trained up to a race and cheaper horses generally need to be raced into condition. If your not breaking this stuff down by the basics of horseracing such as conditions of races I.e.( sex, dis., class, surface etc.) your going to end up with a flawed study.

Those with overly large data bases spend little time playing and almost all their time managing their database. HUGE samples??? I don't think so as life actuaries are broken down by many different things, I.e., stress in a large city is a factor as compared to suburban dwellers and different races are subject to different diseases.

Now to each their own however this is how I do it and handle this problem. In the very early 90's I learned from the "Doc" at a seminar at Saratoga that the same thing will happen in a sample of 20 that will happen in a sample of 100 etc. If you want to round off or break ties the "Doc" suggested using 21. This is what I have always used and it has served me very well over the years. Survey a sample of 21 then make a decision to abandon it or confirm with a larger sample by adding to it. I add to it for a sample of 50 and absolutely no more than a sample of 100 for those promising ideas only. Ideas that aren't promising are abandon after 20 or 21 sample size. I can test many more ideas with this technique then obtaining a HUGE data base hoping it may turn into something after it has long proven not to be a worthwhile endeavor. As I said this is how I handle studies, samples, data, factors etc. As "The Hat" would say "Use what you have" whether a trainer stat that all came from one horse or not if that's all you have than use it; It shows that the trainer is capable, if the horse has the ability he'll get it out of the horse. Of course you can refine any trainer stat with your own take on it, if your aware the stat all came from one horse well that's a big edge over the public. Your own studies will always outperform someone else's data. Hope this nugget helps as it has served me well for many years.
Mitch44

[Bill V.]

A great big THANK YOU

I would suggest to Tom to build his record keeping SLOWLY
Try not to track too many factors at first but Slowly add additional factors, only after you are confident in what is happing with your beginning factors.


For me I only keep records for either Del Mar or Santa Anita*
I make my serious money betting into group tickets with sharp partners. at Socal .
When I got into making bets with big timers I realized I better know what I was bringing to the table, saying I like a horse because its tier 3 on blbl ...well :o, I would just get blank stares, I also notice the winners I was with all kept RECORDS

Now Ray and Mitch you are so right. I track many things now but I constantly try to hone down my database into smaller bits.
Mitch I agree about the most recent 20 races being what Doc recommends.

I save everything so my model and profile always includes the date race
and race number as well as the winner, what it paid and any scratches
This way I can go back and start to add more factors to races in my database
by going back into the race , Lets say I want to add a factor like trainers who
win off long layoffs, since my model shows me the race info I just reopen RDSS and grab the trainers info , Since I already have the DSLR infor factor
Its a snap to add the trainer name ,
I record every race each day onto the main worksheet I then copy and paste
races onto other work sheets for example
My main Del Mar work sheet has 412 races
but after each race I copy the race and paste it to a specific type worksheet,
For Del Mar Turf races I have 4 separate worksheets
Turf Sprints, Turf 1 Mile, Turf Long ( 8.5 or longer ) and Maiden Turf
After awhile, I will break these specialized work sheets down again into
male of female, then by age maybe someday into purse value or claiming , non claiming ect.

This system helps me keep my sample sizes not to over whelming
I can also feel confident to single horses In Tims example above he mentioned a 45% trainer with 3 year old fillies,
I have this type info and if I can spot this pattern in a race were yes the 45 percent guy is sharp but I also can see what the other trainers in the race are capable of doing with 3 year old fillies Trainer info is a tool but any database is only as good as the quality of the paceline selection method
used to generate the numbers.

In summary.
Keep records but focus on pacelines and contenders and build your work slowly,

Good Sill
Bill

ps

*I have year's worth of Parx but being mostly on the west cost I am now spoiled. Now I love fast tracks with little DTV crap so I only "play" Parx and Monmouth and NYRA for entertainment and to help my dad

[Tim Y]

I have found that modeling by RANKING does not work since they do not represent objective numbers that the horse created by challenging the pace of the race they were in.

Let's say total energies of a group are 160.5, 160.45, 160.42, 160.33. 160.21 as compare to rankings at the same relative level, are 160.9. 160.45. 160.01, 159.55, 159.21. The first group's rankings are skewed as directly compared to the second. Rankings are too dependent upon the range of the GROUP and cannot be compared directly.

% median, early/late balance, ESP range for the distance, etc, are OBJECTIVE

[Lt1]

Tim I have found rankings do work very well for me in factors such as EPR,LPR,CPR,AND VDC. When it comes to %med rather then ranking by number I establish an acceptable range for the distance and class concerned.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

Some factors are UNIVERSAL with only slight variances, i.e. early/late balance from the line USED to evaluate the animal COMING INTO the race.

No matter if you follow the earliest of the earlies (inner Aqu, Fort Erie, Parx) where the 6 furlong e/l is high +4 to +12, or a more presser track (Oaklawn) there are all within a close range of one another. The OUTLIER here would be the Fair Grounds with the inordinately LONG home stretch. As a reminder, the RANGE of e/l's on the grass is huge and the better thing to monitor is deceleration: Most grass races are won by horses in the 98.5 to 105 range. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, like Woodbine with its very long stretch.

Also, it is a good idea, at least twice a month, to search out a NEW venue that you have never tried before to see how your brand of selections work there. Laurel would be a good place to start (big fields classier than average horses). Canterbury has nice fields, works with the methodology except the prices are not great due to smaller than average field size. STAY away from fields of 6 or 7 horses.

[Mark]

I assume that the Segment Screen is based on the Dream race of Thoromation fame.
With adequate consistent contender selection the best fractions from the group of horses will be used to establish the rankings of each contender by racing segment and compounded factors on the Energy Screen.

Applied consistently this should overcome your objections. The program applies the same rules to all pacelines and beaten lengths whether you agree with this or not, that is the Sartin methodology. I, personally, am skeptical of the 3rd fraction calculations and the adjustment process used. It makes absolutely no sense to me to apply final time adjustments to the 1st fraction but that is the way it is. It just puts the responsibility upon the user to pick accurate pacelines and avoid aberrant ones.

[Tim Y]

I rarely ever use the third fraction evaluations except on TURF or marathons. The hidden energy is a better one. Deceleration standards are even better for turf lines.

My bone of contention with that 3rd fraction is that many a race is OVER midstretch and a winner does not persist with an all out effort. The "race" is early, always has been as those are the movers and shakers in the field.

The "passive" horses, (FAR OFF THE PACE OF THE RACE), content to just try and catch those actually "racing" are UNRELIABLE to put it mildly.

[kpmats10]

Thank you for all your pointers, some great reads here as well. I welcome the opportunity to speak to anyone willing to work with me collaboratively or individually. Like I said, I'm here to learn.

Here's where I'm at in my handicapping -

I started tracking myself in 20 race cycles. Mentally, that's been a big help and when I look at my cycle, it's not overwhelming if there's a bad day or two in there because I feel like I can pick myself up. Losing feels less, shall I say, demoralizing? That said, my contender selection is 90%. In my most recent cycle, it was 90% with one of the two horses I missed was a 30-1 longshot. Don't feel too bad about missing out on that. I'm not chasing bomb winners, I'm chasing winners, period, and profit.

My winning percentage though is around 40% betting two horses to win. And not showing a profit. Problem.

My homemade software automatically makes adjustments for distance, surface, track speed based off the DRF variant. It then calculates velocity for the incremental fractions, AP, EP, SP, FX for sprints and rankings for each. Also, creates %E. At the end of the day, the data is stored into a Brohamer model for all the rankings. I'm not currently tracking by class, but am tracking by distance and surface. It also makes TPR ratings and these also go into a model.

I also won a bunch of old Sartin programs as part of an ebay package several years ago and just recently discovered what I have and how to get them to open, but have no idea how to use them - Phase III with the Match Up, Pace Launcher 3 and Synergism 1A (I think)
I also make a track profile everyday.

I'm not presently an RDSS subscriber and am hesitant to become one solely because the money I spent on my own software was large (and it is customizable to add/subtract/change anything I've already created) and the data files I use work with two other programs I use. I can't justify the expense of more data files, especially to make a daily model means being a daily downloader. I wish RDSS was compatible with Brisnet or other data files.

Where I THINK I'm struggling -

PROPER paceline selection. What I mean by that is, I generally will use the last race unless there are reasons to go back (wrong surface, distance, trouble trip, etc). Generally my pacelines are in the last three races. But I have questions -

One thing I'd like to do much better on is projecting today's pace. I've read PMTR and started using the fulcrum method a bit. It's pretty good in getting you at least close to what the projected pace of today's race could be. So let's say you have your fulcrum horse. When looking for horses to rate against the probable pace, do you select + or (+) races against that pace? If you have a horse who's last race was a + and no excuse to go back other than a + race 2 back is at today's fulcrum EP fraction, what line would you use? Or is it better to use the most recent + line for each contender, regardless of what probable pace be and bet off your model rankings?

I've been reading the Match Up forum, and I can't seem to get the 5 steps down. Look at a horse's overall record and pacelines to guess it's projected pace? Does that mean looking at all 10 lines? Even if recently it's not running back to those numbers?

Self reflection says I may be leaning to heavy on my models to make my wagering decisions, but maybe the models are wrong because of my improper paceline selection.

Or I'm playing races where I think there's a vulnerable favorite and losing to a low priced chalk horse instead of taking the easy money.

Does anyone go over losing races anymore like they used to in the Follow Up?

I feel like I might be all over the place in this post and may not be expressing myself coherently. I want to learn to be better, that's the bottom line for me.

[Tim Y]

Here is some help: NEVER go on a single pace line or you WILL get the scourge of SAMPLE ERROR.

Find the fastest pace of race that each ran against: HOW did they do? Could that pace of race be the same today? If an entrant could not keep up to a 45.3 and the rest of the horses can, ELIMINATE that one.

ONLY wager on opportunities that are OVERLAID, or if none are available, PASS the contest. THE WAGERING SIDE IS THE MOST DIFFICULT THING TO LEARN, not the handicapping.

Dick Mitchell did a great article years ago that simple stated: "Even in the best of evaluation systems, the odds are that you have a good chance of going 7 races in a row without collecting. THAT is possible. Do not let that change your approach."

Try to ONLY bet in fields of 7 or more so as to spread out the monies enough so that HUGE favorites can be defused throughout the odds board. ANYTHING at 6 or under, is USUALLY, a waste of time even to bother with.

[Tim Y]

Another thing: we get paid from the monies that the crowd does NOT BET on the horses that hit the board. LEARN to know booking points and how much remains in the field after you have made selections. Don't think of odds as much as HOW much of the field does that entrant represent. Remember the field is represented as around 125% to account for the take out.

A very good article on that was printed for the American Quarter Horse Association in an article explaining how the morning line is written.

Here is that reference. It shows how to understand booking points.

https://aqha.com/racing/pages/racing-and-wagering/q-racing-aces-and-handicapping-information/the-morning-line/

[Mitch44]

kpmats10:

To solve any problem the first thing one must do is recognize that there is a problem.

Your own record keeping has shown your pace line selection is a huge problem and greatly contributes to that low 40% win rate. I follow the "Doc's" teachings of using the best of the last 3 at a similar distance and surface. There are several reasons why the last race may not be correct such as coming from off a layoff and needing that race and not performing to its true potential. Perhaps that race was just a conditioning race up in class to sit out the jail time off a claim etc. I try to stay within 1/2 F of todays distance and no more than 1 F max in selecting a pace line. The least you have to project the better off you are and races are just run different as distance increases.

In your own program using the DRF variant is basically ok in that your using a consistent procedure to do so. Anyone could argue for a better one but as long as you are consistent is a key. Where you may have a problem is how you proportion that variant among your fractions and figures. And that varies among different distances because at 6F the SC is 66.6666 % and at 8F its 75% so it depends weather your using SC & 3rd FR or all 3 FR's etc. I would investigate this with correct selected pace lines for a 20 race cycle to determine if that's the problem and whether your variant distribution can be improved upon. Getting from 40% to 60% + is more than just pace line selection. You can't just treat all race distances as 66.6666 % at the second call.

I still do post mortems, even knowing "The Hat" didn't believe in looking back. They can correct errors and really build your confidence knowing you made no mistake.

Not selecting correct pace lines and distributing a variant incorrectly will make your model useless because a model reflects your handicapping.

I understand when you say you invested much time and money into your own program. But I would recommend cutting your loses if your not winning and only getting 40% winners or making what you have better. The stuff in your program isn't the best of the Sartin stuff and was improved upon in later programs. RDSS contains all the latest programs up until the "Doc" passed and it can help you to pick better pace lines as just one example. Ted gives a free trial period so the cost is minimal or nothing if you just use the examples that come with it. With a free trial it won't cost you any further investment and you can determine if it ups your game or not.

I'm not a believer in the Fulcrum and stated some reasons as to why in another post, just 2 were mentioned above in using the last line. The Match Up is a valid concept and was the springboard for later programs and concepts.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

Hi KPM. If I read your post correctly it seems that you are trying to do to much at one time. If you are using Bris pps may I suggest that you consider what I do to get my contenders and that is to take the top 5 or 6 top prime power horses to rate. This will get the winner in the mix 85 to 90% of the time based on results of tests I conducted. At this point I go to RDSS to complete the job by checking the paceline lines it picks for each contender, changing the ones I feel need it, which most of the time is not necessary. I have the winner in the top 5 87% of the time and have a 68% win rate betting 2 horses. I keep a simple model for each track I play along with a track profile. I've used most of the Docs programs over my 26 yrs with the group and feel that RDSS is the easiest and best of them. It's up to you to decide whether or not to make the investment and what approach to use ie the visual matchup or accepting the compounded ratings approach. Until then continue to work on your contender and paceline selections. Keep the process simple. Do a post mortem after each race to see why you won or lost a race. Establish the races that you are the most successful at and concentrate on them. No one ever lost money passing races they don't feel they have a handle on.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

One thing is for sure RDSS made the methodology less of a mystery. So many of the earlier programs were poorly portrayed and even less well explained.

HINT: Don't overly discard the 5th or 6th ranked horse particularly when it will OWN the first fraction and a half. MANY Times, at odds, these never look back.

[shoeless]

Wow LT that is some hit rate 68%, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort
of workup how you achieve doing this

[Lt1]

Hi Shoeless. I don't know exactly what you are looking for but I will try to answer your question. First off I use Bris Ultimate pps and profit line to establish my contenders. I take the top 5 ranked of each and review the TM pps in RDSS. I then confirm whether or not the line chosen by the program is the one I want to use. I use the best of the last 3 comparable surface and dist.Most of the time it is. I don't use off track lines on fast trks nor lines not on todays surface unless nothing else is available nor do I use lifetime best races for horse 5 and up. I then employ other handicapping factors[not part of the methodology] to finish my evaluation of my contenders. I then refer to my model and trk profile to see how the contenders fit. I will move horses up or down the BL/BL tiers based on this. I then employ wagercapping. So far this yr I have made 847 w/p bets and have cashed 576 tickets or 68% Here is my record of how my selections do percentage wise.
#1pick #2 pick #3 pick #4 pick #5 pick other
34% 26% 13% 13% 7% 7%
I've also been fortunate enough to have a few of my reports to the Doc published in the followup most notably FU 54 pg53 [spot play form] and followup 70 pg 35 [a day at Belmont Park. Hope I helped a little.
Tim G

[shoeless]

LT,

Are you using BL\BL as your final decision who to bet on?

Thanks for the reply

[Lt1]

Yes I do use BL/BL for wagering purposes but as I mentioned I may have mentally adjusted the tier levels based on factors that have served me well. I should have mentioned that I confine most of my play to races for 3 & up on the dirt. My records show these are where I do best.
Tim G

[shoeless]

Thanks LT for sharing and great job with your win %

[Lt1]

No problem Sholess. I try to remember how when I first started they were folks besides the teaching members who were willing to exchange ideas and tried to help out those seeking to raise their game. As far as win % goes it really isn't that much above the original goal of 63% set way back when I started. It just has become consistent. I still have areas where I need to improve such as turf racing. This endeavor of ours is an ongoing process. We have a great forum here where we all can participate and exchange ideas and approaches. Most of us still have room to improve and we can help each other as we do.
Tim G

[Bill V.]

Thank you for your positive reports. Your post show that you are a hard working good Sartin Methodology student. I appreciate your positive exchanges.
With your attitude, you reflect that of a winner,
Bill

[Lt1]

Thanks for the kind words Bill. You, as well as Ted, deserve a lot of credit for your contributions to the forum. I truly believe that we have many talented people in the group and hope they will join the discussions. I'm sure Doc and Jimmy and all the early teaching members would be proud of the work done by both you and Ted and all those who have interacted on the forum. It does take work to accomplish ones goals but it is well worth it.
Tim G

[shoeless]

Just to let the folks out there know if you don't already Bill V is no
slouch either when it comes to getting the winners

I have seen him first hand hit over 60% winners on many occasions and
doing so with ALL of the Sartin programs

[The Pook]

I've also been fortunate enough to have a few of my reports to the Doc published in the followup most notably FU 54 pg53 [spot play form] and followup 70 pg 35 [a day at Belmont Park. Hope I helped a little.
Tim G

Hi Tim
This is so cool that we have amongst us a contributor to the Followup. I had no idea. Also a guy from the original group that has a strike rate above 60% which was an advertised goal from back then. I was beginning to think that this was a myth along with Jimmy B's 50% betting singles.

I see you restrict yourself to 3+ on dirt only. That would be a big part of it I think. Do you set yourself minimum odds?

I sit firmly and consistently at 30%. Which is pitiful next to your number. Yet I am profitable. I have tried to raise my strike rate without much success to smooth things out. My rate makes for a rollercoaster ride hitting bigger numbers here and there. As you probably know I am a Matchup guy mostly. I look for patterns in any races from two or three tracks a day. If I can't Match the race I try a more Sartin approach with models, fulcrum pace for contenders etc. This year out of 138 days I have found 2.2 races a day to do the Matchup on of which I have 1.4 contenders striking 30%. In the same 138 days I have 2.7 Sartin approaches per day which have 2.6 contenders striking at 29%. Between the two approaches I bet 1.5 horses per race at minimum 5-2. Place also if over 15-1. The odd exactor with odds-on favourites. I play anything but find only about 25% playable.

Both approaches are profitable but Matching yields more than 3 times what the Sartin approach does. This is over nearly a year. I attribute the disparity to using information farther down the PP's in Matching and that races that are more difficult with no obvious patterns are left to my Sartin method. Compared to you and many others I read on here my contender lists are much more focused. Leaning more toward Jimmy's single horse per race.

I read in another thread on here that TimY sees profit only in exotics. Not so from what you write and from my experience. I do profit from exactors but the vast majority of my betting is win.

I was surprised and enlightened to see you operating at the high levels prescribed by Sartin years ago. There must be more than a few of you. And I can see how you could do it really focusing on your best of the best. Doc gave the impression of achieving that number playing almost everything in linear fashion day to day. Impossible.

Originally in this thread KP was looking for guidance. I am jumping in here to let him know that my situation started much like his. Just a few years ago. You find your own way after keeping at it for years. It works for me but with different numbers than Lt1. or Bill V. who are incredible players with much more experience. I wish I had their consistency. Their losing streaks would be much more modified than mine. Still learning and marching forward.

Pook

[Lt1]

Hi Pook. I joined in 1990 so the group was already established. I attended my first seminar later that year at SAR where I met Doc and Jimmy B for the first time. I also met Mitch44 who was a newbie like me. We lived in adjoining states so we exchanged phone #s. We still speak several times a week although he has moved. Both of us used almost every program the Doc came out with. We struggled over the years. Most of our problem were with adjustments. Nothing like losing to make one strive harder. After a while we got up to win % of 53. We played every type of race plus exs and tris. One day Mitch called and stated he had done a survey of his bets and discovered that if he refrained from betting most mdn and turf races his % went up to 65%. I did same test and reach the same conclusions. If I stayed away from races with multiple unknowns and cut down on exotics I could indeed reach the desired 63% range while increasing profits. By staying mostly to races for older horses on the dirt I found very consistent results. I play Parx a lot along with other tracks that card the races I look for. I still play selected turf and mdn races ie those with minimum questions. I will also play daily doubles and selected exactas. I am not a matcher in the way Jimmy taught[he offered to teach me but I couldn't get the time to visit Okla]. I rely on proper contender and predictive paceline selections and record keeping and let RDSS do the rest. Like every one else I have my weak area and that's turf races. I've gotten better but still have work to do. I wouldn't be discourage if you are not at the level you wish to be. It took Mitch and myself a great deal of time, effort and loses to get to the level we now enjoy.I honestly don't know any winner who hasn't gone thru the University of Hard Knocks and didn't think about throwing in the towel. Fortunately I was dumb enough to be stubborn and finally broke thru. I wish you good skill and I believe you can do it with continued hard work.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

Best description of how to do this: You find your own way after keeping at it for years.

[The Pook]

TimY. You probably don't remember me but you were the guy that got me into RDSS back in 2012. I asked a question from the audience in the seminar you gave on the Sartin Methodology at Woodbine. I asked what your ROI was and you replied 30% over the past three years. You didn't say how you achieved that with win or exotic wagering or whatever, but I thought at the time that that would be good enough for me. That was when I met Ted also.

I didn't really immerse myself into this website etc. until a couple of years later. I had been aware of the Methodology for quite a while but didn't have the time. But it was your seminar that set me on this path.

Thought you'd like to know that. Thanks to you and all the others who share their insights and experiences in this forum. It all helps.

Pook

[Tim Y]

TimY. You probably don't remember me but you were the guy that got me into RDSS back in 2012.

Pook


Neat. I hope you find in this method, what FINALLY hit me after a few HARD conscientious years of practice.....

It keeps evolving for me and that is the greatest DRAW....BUT I still say that WAGER CREATION remains the toughest part of the game: THINKING like a gambler NOT a handicapper is key.

[mowens33]

Tim Y, wager creation is my Achilles heel, can you please elaborate on your last comment?

THINKING like a gambler NOT a handicapper is key.

Thanks, Mike

[Tim Y]

First of all is the realization than ONCE the handicapping has PRIORITIZED the horses, NEVER GO BACK THERE, in other words, once you move from the handicapping side of the equation over to the wagering side, NEVER let any old, new or reviewed handicapping drift over to ANY decision made on what I call the "accounting" side of that equation. The only time to revisit that side is in the case of a late scratch or severe weather change.

So often I hear players GO back to yet another handicapping factor (adding MORE confusion to the ultimate decision) RATHER than the odds board in making that decision. If one choice is 2/1 and other 7/1 there should be NO reason to bet the short price, long term, if your evaluation has found that these two are close to the same ability.

Think of the odds as probabilities. There is a great website that explains booking points. https://aqha.com/racing/pages/racing-and-wagering/q-racing-aces-and-handicapping-information/the-morning-line/

After your make a wager, think of HOW much of the pool (probability will tell you) remains IN THE POOL to repay your wager, once you have made a choice. If you wager a Dutch 9/5 and 2/1, that is taking out almost 70% of the pool right there. No wonder the payout will be anemic.

THINK of odds as PROBABILITY, not odds because ultimately that is what they are. i.e. 2/1 is 0.3333 probable. To get this, flip the 2/1 to 1/2 and add 1 to the denominator to get 1/3 or 0.33333. 4/1 becomes 1/4 and then add one to the denominator 1/4+1 is 1/5 or 0.20 probability.Realize that probabilities go from 1.0 (absolute certainty like death and taxes) 0.00 to absolute impossible (Elvis will land in your back yard in a UFO tomorrow).

Change your mindset: think of gambling as no different than wagering on a fight, a baseball or football game. All we use in wagering is the realm of the probabilities of any particular horse...NO different than a wager on any particular basketball team.

I researched this for about 3 years and all but suspended wagering during that time. It was a truly HUMBLING to discover how inept my TOTAL approach was.

NEVER consider any ONE horse as winning a race. Rather think of the possibilities (just like PROBABILITIES) of any one of a group of CONTENDERS could win this race. I have expanded this to only betting contenders in exotics because of my contention that once a contender gets into the race, the move from the 1/16th pole to the wire is unpredictable long term. Think of how the chances of the CONTENDERS are stacked up against the PROBABILITIES and look for overlays.

There is a old (now almost debunked) idea that we have left and right brain activities going on all the time. While separation of these two thought processes continue as distinct, further research showed that it is NOT physically limited to one side of the brain but traditionally it has been promoted that a LEFT brain activity is using logic, math and science skills (rigid rules to follow) while the right brain activity is more creative and innovative. Most study that gave root to this idea were from observations of "split brain" patients and the idea was then retrofitted to normal.

So, on that analogy, we handicapping (creatively, innovatively etc.) with one hemisphere and then turn right around to have to abandon that side to the rigid rule based right side......In theory

It is important to separate these functions DISTINCTLY when playing this game. Set up RULES for wagering and don't waver from them. Set up minimums that you will take from observations of the odds board. IF the crowd is following you choices, PASS...there is another contest coming up in a few minutes if you are at a simulcast outlet.

It takes a bit of personal re-education to keep on in line with this separation, but it is doable for all of us once we have the contenders and LEAVE the handicapping as finished, then only decide based upon odds (probabilities offered).

[Tim Y]

Now that wagering SET OF RULES I suggested, must be individual to the relative player based upon HIS known strengths. I do best with speed horses so my wagering hierarchy always includes a look at those contenders first over the others....I also know that up front horses win almost 6 out of every nine races nationally (Dr William Quirin, Winning at the Races: Computer Discoveries in Thoroughbred Handicapping).

Always keep in mind that the national average of favorites winning has moved up to around 36% these days. Expressed as probability that is around 1/2.75 or odds of 1.75 to one (between 8/5 and 9/5). So realize that in hitting to JUST BREAK EVEN, one has to get around 9/5 or higher. Very very hard to make money long term with payouts like that. Realize too that the MORE you can prove that the favorite is vulnerable, the more chance for a good payout when the favorite is odds on.

Brisnet "at a glance" helps you find the tracks where the favorites do not do too well. Here is how things went at the recently concluded meeting at Del Mar:
DEL MAR AT A GLANCE
Avg. Winning Odds: 5.02 – 1
Favorite Win%: 33%, Favorite Itm%: 66%

http://www.brisnet.com/content/2016/12/del-mar-glance-december-5-2016/

This will insure you to stay away from meetings like Finger Lakes where, at times, the winning favorites are over 43% and make you look more at Laurel where for long periods it was around 29%. Laurel had big competitive fields too and is in the middle of a big reconstruction effort in order to draw more support from the betting public: GOOD SIGNS.

Size of field: Stay away from races (unless you find very good value on a single) that have 7 or fewer horses. Exotics here do not return well versus the risk usually, NOT ALWAYS. Each should be approached with an open mind and with the knowledge of what does well at the course you are most familiar with. The larger the field (particular in "boutique" meets with few big monied interests in the pool, i.e. Oaklawn) spread out the wagering so that the favorite usually comes in with a higher than normal odds.

Dick Mitchell (Winning Thoroughbred Strategies) reported a study of long term betting at three tracks (believe they were all on the west coast). He found that through the program (from 1st to nightcap) the odds on the favorite usually ROSE. His explanation was that the crowd was "chasing" lost dollars later in the program and suggested that more effort be placed LATE than early. I have found this to be true in general.

For all those BOTTOM LINE folks all this boils down to is ONLY accepting value for your investment dollar. Look at other fields of investment: no realtor will pay 300K for a house worth 301K, nor would a stock analyst suggest buying a stock or commodity that will only get a 2% return (unless you are a REAL fat cat).

Some interesting tip I have gleaned and these come from The New Expert Handicappers by James Quinn.

p. 124 "If things have been going from bad to worse, go to the races but get in the betting lines late. The idea is to get shut out. If you get shut out and the horses lose, you'll feel buoyed up. It helps lift the spirits."

p. 110 " I found that may habits handicappers engage in REFLEXIVELY actually have deleterious effects lang haul." NEVER turn the mind off, be critical each step of the way consistently.

p. 58 Lee Rousso has one of my all time favorites; "Pretend the window is a mile away, suggests Rousso. If the horse looks good enough to walk a mile to bet, that's a strong opinion. That's the horse to load up on."

The chapter by George Kaywood is worth the entire book.

A true classic of course (and it works I must tell you) was the idea that Howard Sartin had about the rubber band around the wrist as negative feedback.

Think of this as OVERDEVELOPED muscles in one side of your game (handicapping) and UNDERDEVELOPED muscles on the other (Wagering) To do well we need symmetry of effort.

[Tim Y]

Two good primers on the wagering side of the coin are:

The Four Quarters of Thoroughbred Investing.
http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTractsArchive/TT020712.htm

Author uses templates to suggest wagers made, and IF at all. Good ideas, TIME consuming to implement. Overall a good book to get the general idea of what he is trying to relate. Practically? Jury is out on that. It could work logically.


The Odds on Your Side: The Logic of Racetrack Investing by the GURU Marc Cramer...THIS guy really has his act together, ALWAYS learned from his work.

https://www.amazon.ca/Odds-Your-Side-Racetrack-Investing/dp/096141684X

[mowens33]

First of all is the realization than ONCE the handicapping has PRIORITIZED the horses, NEVER GO BACK THERE, in other words, once you move from the handicapping side of the equation over to the wagering side, NEVER let any old, new or reviewed handicapping drift over to ANY decision made on what I call the "accounting" side of that equation. The only time to revisit that side is in the case of a late scratch or severe weather change.

So often I hear players GO back to yet another handicapping factor (adding MORE confusion to the ultimate decision) RATHER than the odds board in making that decision. If one choice is 2/1 and other 7/1 there should be NO reason to bet the short price, long term, if your evaluation has found that these two are close to the same ability.

Think of the odds as probabilities. There is a great website that explains booking points. https://aqha.com/racing/pages/racing-and-wagering/q-racing-aces-and-handicapping-information/the-morning-line/

After your make a wager, think of HOW much of the pool (probability will tell you) remains IN THE POOL to repay your wager, once you have made a choice. If you wager a Dutch 9/5 and 2/1, that is taking out almost 70% of the pool right there. No wonder the payout will be anemic.

THINK of odds as PROBABILITY, not odds because ultimately that is what they are. i.e. 2/1 is 0.3333 probable. To get this, flip the 2/1 to 1/2 and add 1 to the denominator to get 1/3 or 0.33333. 4/1 becomes 1/4 and then add one to the denominator 1/4+1 is 1/5 or 0.20 probability.Realize that probabilities go from 1.0 (absolute certainty like death and taxes) 0.00 to absolute impossible (Elvis will land in your back yard in a UFO tomorrow).

Change your mindset: think of gambling as no different than wagering on a fight, a baseball or football game. All we use in wagering is the realm of the probabilities of any particular horse...NO different than a wager on any particular basketball team.

I researched this for about 3 years and all but suspended wagering during that time. It was a truly HUMBLING to discover how inept my TOTAL approach was.

NEVER consider any ONE horse as winning a race. Rather think of the possibilities (just like PROBABILITIES) of any one of a group of CONTENDERS could win this race. I have expanded this to only betting contenders in exotics because of my contention that once a contender gets into the race, the move from the 1/16th pole to the wire is unpredictable long term. Think of how the chances of the CONTENDERS are stacked up against the PROBABILITIES and look for overlays.

There is a old (now almost debunked) idea that we have left and right brain activities going on all the time. While separation of these two thought processes continue as distinct, further research showed that it is NOT physically limited to one side of the brain but traditionally it has been promoted that a LEFT brain activity is using logic, math and science skills (rigid rules to follow) while the right brain activity is more creative and innovative. Most study that gave root to this idea were from observations of "split brain" patients and the idea was then retrofitted to normal.

So, on that analogy, we handicapping (creatively, innovatively etc.) with one hemisphere and then turn right around to have to abandon that side to the rigid rule based right side......In theory

It is important to separate these functions DISTINCTLY when playing this game. Set up RULES for wagering and don't waver from them. Set up minimums that you will take from observations of the odds board. IF the crowd is following you choices, PASS...there is another contest coming up in a few minutes if you are at a simulcast outlet.

It takes a bit of personal re-education to keep on in line with this separation, but it is doable for all of us once we have the contenders and LEAVE the handicapping as finished, then only decide based upon odds (probabilities offered).

Tim, first off I really appreciate you taking the time to go in such detail. I’ve have been to the booking points site and understand the concept of picking your contender and setting what you feel the true odds are.
What you have posted today (at least in my case) has hit the nail right on the head. Handicapping is not my problem, my problem is not being able to step away from that side and focus my energy completely on the wager end.
Your analogy (left brain, right brain) is right on, separation is key. I need to trust that the tools I use when handicapping, the Methodology, RDSS2, Matchup, and other factors have done their job so my total concentration will know be on the wagering end ONLY!
Good Stuff!!
Thanks again, Mike

[turtleman]

This is such a great topic. I believe one of the traps in hdcping is everything is focused on picking the winner. There was even a guy who wrote a book about it. In our metrology the talk is 63% winners picking 2 horses to win. When I starting doing a track profile for Hawthorne I did it for win,plc, show and forth, and what struck me was that not only was i looking for the running stile of winners, I was looking for anomalies, something that not everyone would pick up.
i sometimes try to change thought patterns by using little phrases that keep me focused . So I am going to print out this phrase and tape it beside my computer. " I AM NOT LOOKING FOR THE BEST HORSE, I AM LOOKING FOR THE BEST BET!!

Tom

[Tim Y]

So I am going to print out this phrase and tape it beside my computer. " I AM NOT LOOKING FOR THE BEST HORSE, I AM LOOKING FOR THE BEST BET!!

Tom

Perfect I went through about 5 packs of post it notes reminding myself about the use of the early/late balance that SAME WAY.

BRAVO as ultimately we are Wagering NOT JUST HANDICAPPING.

I am just these past weeks reviewing the entire Woodbine season: NO surprise that every year the last 5 or so programs have NO LOGIC at all....BUT November 18th was a day to remember. That worked out better overall than on a day, 4 years ago, I SWEPT THE ENTIRE CARD AT WOODBINE!




Did I forget to tell you that we cancelled due to high wind after 3 races? Hmmmm I still SWEPT THAT CARD!!!.

[Tim Y]

I had that same epiphany a few back when I realized I had gone as far as I could go on the handicapping side of the equation. What was missing? One of my true mentors (he does the Odds Professor choices at Hastings) enlightened me to what the deficiency was BUT, he warned (paraphrasing here):"That is path you have to find by yourself. I can help you get started, but ultimately YOU have to work our the approach."

His favorite bit of advice to all who will listen? "They teach this game completely BACKWARDS, You should become a proficient gambler FIRST before you ever try the handicapping game, NOT the other way around."

Marc Cramer, Dick Mitchell were on that was eye opening. list as well as Dave Schwartz with his balanced approach.

Always good to have solid minds see things just a tad differently than you do to help broaden your horizons, and in this case, broaden success as well.

[MikeB]

BRAVO as ultimately we are Wagering NOT JUST HANDICAPPING.



Seems to me I read somewhere, maybe in one of the Follow Ups, that you should not concentrate on which horse should win, but which horses could win. Anyone remember that?

[Tim Y]

Seems to me I read somewhere, maybe in one of the Follow Ups, that you should not concentrate on which horse should win, but which horses could win. Anyone remember that?

Same comment, but from about 5 different sources.

[Lt1]

I do believe it was in the Follow Ups regarding wager capping.
Tim G

[Tim Y]

In the realm of probability, almost NOTHING gets the mathematical expression of impossible (0.00 probable) or certain (1.0 probability). Everything in racing is in the middle spectrum.

Think of the possible probables we see in each race. The WIN ODDS out there flashing and changing on the board (delayed much like the ticker tape is at the old stock market scenes in movies) represent a STRAW vote of the crowd's belief in which horse they (collectively) believe CAN WIN,,,,,,not can come in second or third. Pierre Ollier first used this in Paris (so it became know as the PARI Mutuel way of wagering) with EACH of the players playing against ALL of the players rather than at the expense of bookies LIMITING the range of available odds.

In any race there are only so many ways one can separate these different opinions, and STATISTICALLY, the more runners one enters into the mix, the lower the probability of any ONE of the combatants becomes. That is why for MOST races, cutting off at a minimum or 7 horses is almost a mandatory starting point. Most not all as having a vulnerable big favorite will negate that limitation on field size.

The magic of the exotic bet has become that the MAJORITY of the crowd does not have the wherewithal to go DEEP enough into a wager to cover the marginal, though absolutely POSSIBLE situations that give the best payouts. The vast majority of "every man" exotics bets included usually the favorite and the 2nd choice but once even the odds on choice comes in THIRD, in a blanket run, MOST don't have the one covered as obvious as that is.

The less logical horses that hit the board come, usually, in one of two varieties) surprisingly effective early speed (most often) or 2) deep closer gets up in the mix after a pace collapse.

As I have noted there is a lot of "less sophisticated" money in each of these exotic pools that are devoted to the guileless, Pavlovian dogma on how to wager these contests. Leaving out a logical horse to run third is a MAJOR flaw in their approach.....ONE OF MANY.

Part of thinking like a gambler is understanding when the rather ignorant crowd gets it right, or completely MISSES the boat.

All of this exotic talk is EXCLUSIVE to vertical wagers, NOT the horizontal ones that suffer from their OWN unique troubles like late scratches heaped on a horse (the post time favorite) that you may have eliminated, or not being able to know both the odds nor the physical shape of the animal that you are investing in.

[Dorianmode]

I was looking to see if there were any recent posts about Money Management in racing ... and there well may be some here I have't seen. I agree with everything written here that invokes the work of the great Huey Mahl. The really nice thing for us is, he wrote a seriously great piece for the second Follow Up, (long time ago) and it's available here (thanks to Bill V. who uploaded all the Follow Up's I think ?)

If you can't answer : "What is my win rate for this type of race, on this type of surface, at this distance, and what is my Kelly Advantage (I'm sure most here knows what that is and where it came from, if not it's worth learning about), in this situation, you may not be ready to start seriously wagering, (if your goal is to make this a profitable hobby, ... or maybe more).

The nice thing is, it's all right there in Follow Up #2, starting on page 33. All the variables and equations may look a bit intimidating at first, but they are pure gold.

Not sure I ever mentioned this before, but if after reading the Mahl piece, anyone is interested in a working Excel sheet that does all the computations automatically, which Mahl talks about, I made one quite a while ago and am happy to share it.

Good skill to all.

[mowens33]

Hey, Doc I would love too have your Excel sheet!

Thanks, Mike

[Dorianmode]

Hey, Doc I would love too have your Excel sheet!

Thanks, Mike

Sure. Just PM me your email, and I'll send it to you. I'll clean it up a little and add a few directions ... then just ask me if you have questions when you see it.

[Dorianmode]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Larry_Kelly,_Jr.

One thing I meant to mention was, that the Kelly Criterion (number) that his formula will produce, (which he either discovered, or realized worked .... he was an engineer for the great, famous Bell Labs, ... he noticed that the formula for the most efficient way to transmit electricity in electrical lines was also a formula for the most efficient way to grow a pool of investment money). Anyway the number the formula kicks out is WAY to high to use on a practical basis for actual wagering ... and this has long been recognized. Huey says in his piece to bet some fraction of it. For example, if your 2 horse win rate is 60 %, and your payoff rate for those is 1.20, then the Kelly number is 0.27. No one in their right mind would bet 27 % of their bankroll. So it's a very useful number to tell you how (and if) a wagering line of data is profitable, and how much so, but just as a disclaimer ... use the numbers to see how profitable your race sets are, not to determine how much of a bankroll to actually bet ... as if you're good, the Kelly can be high (like 50 % or more, and that's not a way to wager).

[papajohn3times]

Hello again to all
Just wondering if anyone has ideas about judging a horses current form or even more confusing,is when he is ready to go off form
I do try to avoid high variants and a horses best line if it from a 5 year old or up
Doc said to see if his or her % median is increasing race to race and whether or not his total energy is lowering
Great advice but you have to look at the race and try to visualize if there was a reason for example decling total enrgy such as wrong surface,distance,track condition whatever.
So does anyone have any hints to look for when a horse has peaked and usually not run today's race as well as their last?
Thanks again guys and gals!
Papa John

[Mitch44]

Form is about the hardest thing of all to predict. As some said "its like trying to nail jelly to a tree" The best advise I can give you is to play two horses per race as it compensates for this somewhat along with other unknowns in racing.

Layoffs are easy as trainers records can be checked for their proficiency. Also the horses PP's, has he performed well after a layoff before? The higher class horses are a better bet than cheap claimers.

Lots of trainers will drop a horse in class to make up for its declining form, these are real tricky and normally don't win but can destroy ex., tri.'s etc. and can win also. Consider them an unknown factor and if you have two move on.

Form is also effected greatly by age and as horses maturity can effect form. Along with a trainers ability.
Good trainers claim horses from poor trainers and make a living at it. A trainers stats can be an indication of form as far as a horses placement and form cycle.A valid question always is,what is he doing and why? Also why is this horse in this race?


Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Form is about the hardest thing of all to predict. As some said "its like trying to nail jelly to a tree" The best advise I can give you is to play two horses per race as it compensates for this somewhat along with other unknowns in racing.

Layoffs are easy as trainers records can be checked for their proficiency. Also the horses PP's, has he performed well after a layoff before? The higher class horses are a better bet than cheap claimers.

Lots of trainers will drop a horse in class to make up for its declining form, these are real tricky and normally don't win but can destroy ex., tri.'s etc. and can win also. Consider them an unknown factor and if you have two move on.

Form is also effected greatly by age and as horses maturity can effect form. Along with a trainers ability.
Good trainers claim horses from poor trainers and make a living at it. A trainers stats can be an indication of form as far as a horses placement and form cycle.A valid question always is,what is he doing and why? Also why is this horse in this race?


Mitch44

Mitch Thank you. Your post is very helpful

Good Skill to you always
Bill