'For the Lead' Guidelines - NEW Compilation

[Mitch44]

Just as a point of clarity for new members to RDSS and some old heads "you're guidelines" are your own and don't follow the guidelines of Sartin teachings.
Mitch44

[Ted Craven]

Folks - Bill Lyster has spend a LOT of time compiling many writings of member For the Lead posted here over the years. These are now presented in an organized format for your enjoyment and study in the Sartin Library / Discussion and Member Contributions section:

"For The Lead" Approach to Handicapping – from Brohamer to Sartin and beyond … (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11449)

Perhaps Bill has some comments about this work, and also FTL is welcomed to comment or elaborate on any points.

Thanks to BOTH of these gentlemen for their contributions to our enjoyment and mastery of the game!

Ted

[Jeebs]

The basis of my original post was meant for Pook, as he loves to predict races with matching early horses. This race so happened to catch my eye in that regard, so I felt that it would be of interest to him and other matchers to post it.

I did not bet the race (I was at work when the race was run), but was more interested in seeing if my Early/OTE analysis would pan out. In this case, it did not, as a couple of the "Early" horses I had predicted either took back or just were not fast enough to knock heads up front. As anyone with matching experience knows, if a NTL early can't get the lead, it usually won't run its best race.

Whatever selection guidelines you choose to use, if it works for you, keep doing it. As often as we may agree or disagree with some of the practices demonstrated on this forum, there will be races where some methods simply work better than others. So be it. The point being that we have to be comfortable with how we apply the Methodology. Besides, it is the wagering aspect of the game that really separates the men from the boys. You can be God's gift to handicapping winners yet it means zero if you're a terrible manager of the bankroll.

[Bill Lyster]

Over the last 5 or 6 years FTL has shared his rigorous contender selection guidelines with us. The more I read, the more it made sense, so I started copying his posts.

There are seven files in the library. The first four come primarily from FTL's threads and the three appendices apply across the board in every day racing analysis. I printed them all out and my binder totals 223 pages.

EVERY race uses the same methodology of line and contender selection.

Admittedly, FTL is not 100% Sartin, but he has used Sartin tools to explain his methods, all to our continued advantage if you pay attention.

FTL has focused on dirt races solely, does not entertain turf races and requires his bets to go to post at 4/1 or better. Obviously, his is a very disciplined and selective method that requires a high degree of discretion and perseverance on the part of the user.

I rehandicapped all of DMR this summer, dirt and turf races. In total 318 races of all kinds.

94% of all races were won by horses that had raced within 90 days; so we eliminate 6% of all races;

2% of all races (no overlap with the 90 day issue BTW) were won by horses whose ML was 20/1 or greater; so between these two elimination criteria we are down to 92% of all races.

Another 11.3% of all races were won by horses changing distance or surface. This is a foggy area for all of us because stretching out or cutting back in distance has always been a tough proposition to assess.

So now we are down to 80.7% of the races being "reasonably" playable.Dirt races were won by 64% of FTL's contenders; turf races were won by about the same %. So somewhere between 16-17% of all races are not covered by FTL's guidelines. About 10% of all races (31) were won by First Time Starters, so now the sample skinnies down to 6-7%.

Another thing to keep in mind. For the DMR meet 79.2% of all winners were TOP FOUR AND TIES IN MORNING LINE ODDS (81% DIRT, 78% TURF)

Where to find the missing winners? For sure YOU will find some that require use of a line more than 90 days old, or that did not finish first, second or third in their last race, or who raced up close early and faded badly or who were ML'd at 20/1. But in FTL's threads I only found two example races where he used a line more than 90 days, once at 92 days and another at either 93 or 94 days. (Co-incidentally, both happened on the same day, same track!)

By the way, in all races at DMR the average number of contenders was 3.67!

[Bill Lyster]

45312


File titles: (in case the attachment does not show up correctly)
Winning with Early
Why Not Maidens
Picking Contenders and Paceline Selection
Handicap Races
Appendix A, B and C

[Bill Lyster]

Just as a point of clarity for new members to RDSS and some old heads "you're guidelines" are your own and don't follow the guidelines of Sartin teachings.
Mitch44

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

[Mitch44]

Bill your absolutely correct about some elements could be improved upon. And Sartin while alive was constantly tweaking and seeking a better mousetrap. His selection of pace lines was just one area of evolution.

Any new member should be given every chance to succeed by profiting from Sartin mistakes and lessons learned through thousands of races. No new member should have to start in the 1980's to be successful. Sartin always allowed for freelancing however no one starts off playing jazz which comes after a foundation exists of proven concepts and basics. I myself play jazz and will go back pass line 5 under certain situations but I wouldn't recommend it for beginners.

RDSS is an culmination of his best factors from years of research and for it to function effectively proper pace line selection is an essential ingredient to the recipe.

Beginners should be given every opportunity for success and allowed to profit from tens of thousands of races of Sartin research. A successful mechanic should not have to start his trade by learning from Model T cars. His proven concepts are designed to capture the majority not the exception.



Mitch44

[shoeless]

Bill thanks very much for taking the time putting that together, since
using FTL's guidelines I have seen a drastic increase in getting the right
contenders.

Thanks Ted for providing a place on the site for this

Jeff

[Psychotic Parakeet]

This is amazing. Thank you for all the work involved.

[Neil S.]

Oaklawn has proved to be a profitable oasis for me thus far thanks mostly to following the Guidelines of FTL. Today's 6th race at Oaklawn was the source of another solid result:

1.Unidvided 6-1 - No line as only rateable line in 90 days was a 0.
2. Nucla 6-5 - Last line which was a Maiden win in the slop at FG
3. Cheponara 10-1 - Last line which was a mile win at CD
4. Caramel Cream 15-1 - No line as last line was a 0 against common opponent First Alternate.
5. Glamorized 6-1- Although you could excuse the last line as it was the first over the OP surface this meeting it was a 0 against First Alternate and Line 2 is more than 90 days old.
6. Memorial Drive 7-2 - Last line which was a Maiden win at FG
1a. Charmin Dixie 6-1 - Same situation as #5 as although last line was first over the OP surface it was a 0 against First Alternate and line 2 was too old.
7. First Alternate 5-1 - last line which was a 2nd earning it a + line.

Here are the 4 contenders and their TPR rankings:

Nucla 155.5 (3)
Cheponara 167.5 (1)
Memorial 150 (4)
First 154 (2)

As both of my top two TPR's were 4-1 or higher I bet both to win and boxed them in the exacta. Was delighted as Cheponara scored and paid $42.80 with First Alternate running second to complete the $278.80 exacta.
I bet 3 dollars on each to win boxed for 2 dollars to receive 343 dollars for a 10 dollar investment. Following the guidelines gets great results yet again!!

Neil

[For The Lead]

Although I have already done so privately, I want to publicly thank Bill Lyster for all the hard work, time and effort he put into this project. I can only say that I was taken aback by what he has done. I never expected anyone to embark on such a time consuming project. I can only hope that Bill’s efforts will not be in vain and that having all this information in one place will make it easy for those wishing to learn. My posts were never meant to be anything other than what they are, information to help others improve their game.

So Bill, a tip of my hat to you and “THANK YOU” for all of your work.

[For The Lead]

Just as a point of clarity for new members to RDSS and some old heads "you're guidelines" are your own and don't follow the guidelines of Sartin teachings.
Mitch44

Actually, as a further point of clarity for all who may be reading this, the guidelines I use are the ORIGINAL SARTIN GUIDELINES with two additions of my own. Those two additions are the ML guideline and the 90 day guideline.

The “Original Sartin Guidelines” are the guidelines he used with his original group of truck drivers.
They are the guidelines he used when he originally intended to “contract” with just 1,000 clients and guaranteed those clients would get 63% winners using them and following his teachings.
Here is a post by Bill V.
45313

As many readers already know, the two guidelines I added are as a result of research done on my database of millions and millions of horses and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of races. That research showed horses that fall within my two additional guidelines win at such a small frequency as to render them insignificant.

So the guidelines I use ARE SARTIN TEACHINGS.

[Bill Lyster]

You are most welcome FTL. It has been a continuing and enlightening pleasure.

[Mitch44]

I seriously doubt many could achieve 63% using Sartin techniques that date back to the original pace line manual. Exceptions sure but for the average member like you its doubtful at best His evolution of concepts such as pace line selection and factors far surpass anything from 1986 or so and with them many more reach that goal.

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

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

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

As far as the race posted here I deem it as not winnable, part of that 37% we don't get. Sure we can all get the winner after the fact. The fact of the matter is this game only pays off for foresight not hindsight. Theory and where the leather meets the road are totally different.



Mitch44

[Lt1]

Mitch the tape you refer to is the 1993 Las Vegas Seminar. Teds' question was in respect to Woodbine and the fact that most of the horses were returning from long layoffs between meets and how to handle that. Doc gave the answer you posted. When I joined the group in 1990 the Doc was teaching the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance,surface, and class level. I never heard the Doc or any other teacher state to toss any horse based on days since last race, or morning line odds. I also never heard not to use sprint lines in routes or route lines in sprints. I did learn that projecting was risky and extraction was safer. I also learned that fast sprinters can and do beat slow routers and that fast routers can beat slow sprinters. This what I call situational handicapping based on the race in front of the user. I also saw Doc move away from the visual matchup and projecting the pace of race to embrace chaos math and compounded ratings[see his 1 on 1 videos in the library]. I think all would benefit from a review of FTLS' race conditions section. In short, although FTLS' guidelines serve him well, I don't believe newer members should be lead to past teachings and programs but rather they should be referred to the newer teachings of the Doc and RDSS Older more experienced members can determine for themselves [based on their success] what they want to use.
Tim

[shoeless]

FTL

Thanks very much for sharing your knowledge with us

Shoeless

[shoeless]

Bill

Just took a look it at great job

Thanks again

[Bill V.]

Hello Mitch and Tim

I will find the exact follow up and posted the article reference,
But Doc's PERSONAL cut off point was no longer than 189 days

Yet in one of the seminar tapes everybody is kidding around with Doc because
he used a line over 1 year old


I feel Doc offered 'His" guidelines , That is he had his own way of doing things such as hiding any horse that would pay less than 5/2

He suggest to us that he had success using his guidelines
they were just guidelines They work very well.

I agree with the feeling that a new user should use RDSS as to the instructions in follow ups between #70 and 88

However at some point we all want to improve.
For me my biggest improvement came when I started using while picking paceline and contenders and eliminating within my to rated horses on RDSS some of FTL's guidelines

Blessing and Skilll to All
Bill

[lostandwon]

Would like to express my thanks to Bill Lyster and FTL.
Great resource

[Bill Lyster]

Another 11.3% of all races were won by horses changing distance or surface. This is a foggy area for all of us because stretching out or cutting back in distance has always been a tough proposition to assess.




A little more on the conundrum of horses changing distance or surface. Below is a summary of all DMR races from the summer meet that won by changing distance or surface. It happens on average about once a day!

The position at each call data comes from the race charts. At the bottom of the column the data represent numbers and percentages of time the winner was in the top 3. LO is layoff days; ML is morning line and ML# is ML odds rank. The % are number of ML > 20/1 and top 4 and ties in the ML.

In keeping with FTL's guidelines these horses are ALL non contenders (NQ), yet when you pick a representative line their 1F and 2C ranks on the SEGMENT screen show consistently that many are top 3 at 1F and 2C.

I classified the kind of change so DSPT/DRTE = dirt sprint to dirt route; TSPT/TRTE = turf sprint to turf route.

I looked at other factors from the RDSS printouts. Note that there are only two winners that went from a route back to a sprint[brown]. The other 27 are stretch outs or surface changes within the same distance structure.

The only modestly compelling observation that I could make is that in 17 of the 27 the winner was top 3 EPR. Also several of the sprint to route horses appear to be top five ranked in both EPR and LPR!


45315
45314

[Mitch44]

Hi Bill,
Personally I don't believe in giving up anything going into a race in reference to percentages to the game.

I believe also that until one can obtain a 63% with two horses they should stay clear of any freelancing and adhere to the guidelines that have proven their mettle. At that point one should always be trying to improve their game, be open minded to new ideas or concepts developed by their research and testing, to hone their skills to a fine art. At that point they can become a jazz player and play that funky music at the same time knowing what guidelines or other brain farts are useful. 63% is demonstrated performance as I've seen you do Bill V.


Mitch44

[tom]

Excellent thread and PDF presentations!
Thanks for the hard work - looks like Doc was paying it forward.
The Evolution continues.......

[DaveEdwards]

Awesome thread. I've really appreciated reading this. Thanks to everyone that has posted.

[Mitch44]

Bill Lister: I just reread your thread # 4 FTL Guidelines compilation. First of all you deserve great credit for this massive undertaking of that much data and in applying the principles. I'm sure many hours of work went into it to obtain the results.


Two things jumped out at me; 1. "Dirt races were won by 64% of FTL's contenders; turf races were won by about the same %." This is an extremely low % for contenders making it impossible for a member / player to achieve a 63% strike rate with two horses. 2. For the DMR meet 79.2% of all winners were "TOP FOUR AND TIES IN MORNING LINE ODDS (81% DIRT, 78% TURF). "One would be much better off to use the ML to select contenders as it would be faster and have a higher % of winners in the top 4. Approx .79.5% (averaged) as compared to 64%. Even this I consider low.


A better should strive for the winner to be in their contenders 85%. I'm not advocating the use of the ML for contenders as I consider the 79.5% low. Additionally there are better tools within RDSS to achieve a higher % of the winner within their contenders.


With Ted's new version of RDSS different factors can more readily be accessed and quantified to ascertain a better % to have the winner within one's contenders.


Again great job Bill L, for your hard work.
Mitch44.

[Bill V.]

Hi Bill

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

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

Good Skill
Bill

[Bill Lyster]

As you read through the various threads by FTL, you will come to the conclusion that the number of races that he BETs probably represents a very small subset of all races in which he finds contenders/qualifiers. He demands value, never bets favorites and plays multiple tracks, a quality, not quantity formula, involving patience proven over time.

At the summer DMR meet over one third of all races had more than two unknowns, either races with more than 2 first time or foreign starters, or races with two or more entrants changing surface or distance,or any horse that had not run in 90 days or whose ML was 20/1 or greater.

If you choose, you can integrate FTL's contenders with those in the top 4 and ties ML. These add backs can use best of 3 comparable or any other Sartin decision making tool, and many of them will not deserve to be put back.

One of the things FTL has said many times relative to modeling is that you need to break down races by sex, distance, surface and even class levels. I have done some of that.

I used FTL's contenders (some of which are not top 4 ML!!) and integrated (or gave a second look to) any top 4 and ties ML horse. Here are some of the best subset results:

Non maiden females (any age) on dirt were top 3 Seg 1F 78.6%, top 3 Seg 2C 85.7% (Segments screen)

Non maiden males (any age) on dirt were top 3 Seg 1F 74.2%, top 3 Seg 2C 81.8% (Segments screen); HOWEVER, they were top 2 Seg 2C 66.7%

I am sure that there are better subsets of data within these numbers, its just a matter of delving deeper to find them. The problem, as always, with such a small sample is that once you start slicing and dicing, the sample sizes get quite small

[Neil S.]

The beauty of FTL's guidelines is that they provide a framework for consistent, disciplined analysis of a race. One needs patience and discipline and must bypass races with short priced horses as well as those with multiple unknown factors in order to be successful. By playing multiple tracks one gets more opportunities to locate value and the types of profitable situations that makes the guidelines work best.
From a percentage standpoint there may be more winners with other selection methods, however I find that betting older or questionable pace lines does not guarantee any greater success in locating the actual winner if you are a two horse better. It may even cloud the readouts with lines and rankings that are perhaps better looking than they should be.

[Lt1]

Since contender and pace line selections are part of the guidelines I thought I would share some thoughts that were expressed by various teaching members both at seminars and in private conversations that have stuck with me over the years. The first was that if you are going to make a horse a contender you must give it every chance to win[ also expressed several times at the 1993 Vegas seminar available in the video section of the library] which to me supports going past the last even if it's a + line. Another from Marion Jones at the same seminar "don't put a horse in the computer that you aren't willing to put your money on". On a lighter side I remember several of us talking with Tom Brohamer at Saratoga and someone bringing up how he would be surprised when his 5th pick would win a race. Tom just smiled and said why are you surprised you made the horse a contender therefore you were saying it could win the race. And finally Docs' only rule that I remember "NEVER rate a horse off a 0 race".
Tim

[Mitch44]

I don't care how selective a person is of races or odds. Out of these 318 races you can eliminate 100 or even 218 races. The fact is that there are only 64% winners in the top 4 of the remaining 100 races. Playing two horses one would have to be just about perfect to hit 63% winners and also bathe with Ivory soap which is 99.9% pure.


As far as 81.8 and 85.7% at the Second Call on the segment is irrelevant because it doesn't consider the whole race, they don't pay off for the SC and do for who hits the finish line first. All that has nothing to due with the picking of contenders and pace lines. It is absolutely impossible to hit 63% winners betting two horses to win with only 64% winners in your top 4 contenders and that isn't even considering if we have the correct pace line. If they can I want to purchase their picks.


Mitch44

[For The Lead]

As far as 81.8 and 85.7% at the Second Call on the segment is irrelevant because it doesn't consider the whole race, they don't pay off for the SC and do for who hits the finish line first. All that has nothing to due with the picking of contenders and pace lines.

Mitch44

I think you’re missing the point. What Bill Lyster was showing is the result of modeling. Good contender selection and good line selection are the best ingredients for a good model. In this case the percentages are an indication of where a horse needs to be and how it ranks at that point in order to have the best chance of winning the race. If your contender selection and line selection in future races fitting the model is not consistent with the methods used in creating the model it is unlikely you will have the winner of the race.

This is what Bill Lyster said just prior to posting those percentages. “One of the things FTL has said many times relative to modeling is that you need to break down races by sex, distance, surface and even class levels. I have done some of that.”

[For The Lead]

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Mitch44

[For The Lead]

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

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

[For The Lead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mitch44]

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

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


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

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


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


Going forward good skill.
Mitch44

[Lt1]

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

[Lt1]

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

[Mitch44]

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


I'll leave you with one of my better picks (CRUSOE)with this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ugHBOKwu3M&feature=you.be


Mitch44




<hr size="1" style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225); background-color: rgb(209, 209, 225);">

[Bill Lyster]

Hi Bill

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

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

Good Skill
Bill

Let's say that you look at 100 races

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

[Bill V.]

Bill L

Thanks. Now I see what you meant

Bill

[fastcharlie55]

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

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

[shoeless]

FTL

No matter what anybody says thanks again for taking the time sharing your thoughts on contender and pace line selection.

You have helped me very much

Shoeless

[For The Lead]

FTL

No matter what anybody says thanks again for taking the time sharing your thoughts on contender and pace line selection.

You have helped me very much

Shoeless

Shoeless, you are certainly welcome.

[For The Lead]

While I’m at it, I would like to give Neil S the credit he is due and deserves.

Here is a guy that joined this site in September of 2007. In more than 10 years he has made just 65 postings. It appears that although he doesn’t post much himself, he certainly reads what others post. And when he reads something that sparks an interest, he follows through, giving what he decides to work on the time necessary for a full evaluation. This is apparent to me from what he wrote in a recent post. Here’s what he said in post #27 of this thread.

“The beauty of FTL's guidelines is that they provide a framework for consistent, disciplined analysis of a race. One needs patience and discipline and must bypass races with short priced horses as well as those with multiple unknown factors in order to be successful. By playing multiple tracks one gets more opportunities to locate value and the types of profitable situations that makes the guidelines work best.
From a percentage standpoint there may be more winners with other selection methods, however I find that betting older or questionable pace lines does not guarantee any greater success in locating the actual winner if you are a two horse better. It may even cloud the readouts with lines and rankings that are perhaps better looking than they should be.”

If you read this closely and compare it to what Bill Lyster has written here, you find find similarities.

Here are a couple of posts he made recently telling of how 2 $10 bets won him well over $1,500!

I have been a user of Phase I for most of the years I've been a Sartin disciple and over the last two years have used the line selection guidelines posted by For The Lead. In my results I have noticed that the bulk of the winners I've gotten in the #1 and #2 slots have been mostly low priced runners, however occasionally a beautiful long shot does come. I have been very patient targeting horses to win in either the #1 or #2 slots with morning line odds of 4-1 or higher. If both the #1 and #2 horses are 4-1 or higher I bet both to win and do a simple 2 dollar exacta box. It has been a bit of a slow start to the year, but my patience was rewarded today in the 8th race of the opening day card at Oaklawn when I registered a remarkable score to say the least.
Both of my top two contenders were clearly above 4-1 so I made 3 dollar win bets on both and boxed them in the exacta for 2 dollars. With both my win bets at 29-1 and 25-1 respectively I was already thrilled with the result but when the exacta popped at $1123.20 I was in Sartin Heaven to say the least!!! An amazing return for a 10 dollar wager netted a healthy profit of $1205.60.
As you can clearly see there was very little magic in my line selection but if one remains patient and disciplined in their line selection and wagering approach amazing things can truly happen.

Here is his rundown of the horses in the race:
#1 Far Right 15-1 - No line. Horse ran a 0 race in a similar spot last out at FG
#2 Futile 12-1. - Line 2. Last race was at 1 1/4 miles which is more than a furlong further than todays distance. Chose a line at today's distance which is a winning effort at Churchill.
#3 Sightforsoreeyes. 30-1- No line based upon FTL's guidelines
#4 Dan the Go to Man 12-1 - Line 1 a wire to wire win in a similar spot at RP
#5 Stcksstatelydude 5-1- Line 1 which is a (+) line in a similar spot at FG
#6 Goats Town 20-1. Out
#7 Royal Squeez 20-1. Out
#8 Shotgun Kowboy 6-1- Line1. Solid + race effort against similar
#9 Dazzling Gem 7-2 Line 1. Same race as #8
#10 Sonneteer 12-1 Line 1 which was a solid effort at LA. Usually don't trust LA lines but noticed some solid efforts last year at OP.
#11 Untrapped 3-1- Line 1 which was a solid effort in the Zia Park Derby
#12 Cheif Know it All 10-1- Line 1 same race as #11

Here are the TPR's for the horses getting a line and the top 4 contenders:

#2. 172.5 2
#4. 169.5
#5. 157.5
#8. 169.5
#9. 169.5
#10 177 1
#11. 171 3
#12. 170 4


Another Oaklawn Score Thanks to FTL

Oaklawn has proved to be a profitable oasis for me thus far thanks mostly to following the Guidelines of FTL. Today's 6th race at Oaklawn was the source of another solid result:

As both of my top two TPR's were 4-1 or higher I bet both to win and boxed them in the exacta. Was delighted as Cheponara scored and paid $42.80 with First Alternate running second to complete the $278.80 exacta.
I bet 3 dollars on each to win boxed for 2 dollars to receive 343 dollars for a 10 dollar investment. Following the guidelines gets great results yet again!!

Here is his rundown of the horses in this race.

1.Unidvided 6-1 - No line as only rateable line in 90 days was a 0.
2. Nucla 6-5 - Last line which was a Maiden win in the slop at FG
3. Cheponara 10-1 - Last line which was a mile win at CD
4. Caramel Cream 15-1 - No line as last line was a 0 against common opponent First Alternate.
5. Glamorized 6-1- Although you could excuse the last line as it was the first over the OP surface this meeting it was a 0 against First Alternate and Line 2 is more than 90 days old.
6. Memorial Drive 7-2 - Last line which was a Maiden win at FG
1a. Charmin Dixie 6-1 - Same situation as #5 as although last line was first over the OP surface it was a 0 against First Alternate and line 2 was too old.
7. First Alternate 5-1 - last line which was a 2nd earning it a + line.

Here are the 4 contenders and their TPR rankings:

Nucla 155.5 (3)
Cheponara 167.5 (1)
Memorial 150 (4)
First 154 (2)

Neil S., thank you for your input and I wish you continued success!

[zimal2]

I've followed with great interest FTL's postings and taken out many nuggets. Thank you Bill for amassing them all in one place, and FTL for your hard work and prescient observations in the first place.


I ran past 12 months numbers for equal to and greater than 20/1 MLO and and got 2% winners for all tracks, all race types and distances. Little variation whether turf, dirt or artificial. 37,519 horses involved. So even worse than FTL's 6%.


But with first after 90 day layoff I get something different. With 25,241 horses allburger there were 11% winners. And using any number of filters, I can push that up to 18 to 20% of 3500 horses or close to 700 winners with an average win price of about $7.60. So I'm tossing those high MLO odds, but looking much more cautiously at 1pL 90+


Zim

[Bill Lyster]

There are so many.

Perhaps one of the best are guidelines to identifying running styles. This is really the foundation of all race analysis IMHO. there are obvious early horses and not so obvious early horses and being able to see the 'not so obvious' will help eliminate a lot of chaos.

Perhaps one of the most underrated/misunderstood or misused screens in all of RDSS is the SEGMENTS screen. There are several races where FTL shows how this screen can be utilized to better your handicapping.

I've asked this question several times over the years, but the most common answer is 'some times they do and some times they don't'. And the question is, what happens to a presser who ran 2 back of a 44.8 when the pace is 45.4? Is he two back or leading by 1?

Well, this situation is often depicted on the SEGMENTS screen (on the right hand side), in the Incremental Matchup section where the little horses are, and invariably pressers who ran against faster paces than the early horses are shown leading or near leading at 1F. However, in most cases this graph is not depicting the reality of today's race!

In several examples backed up by race charts FTL teaches that EARLY horses are EARLY and they lead no matter what, until they cannot lead anymore. So what this does is force us to 'picture' the pace of race with the early, or best early horse leading at the 1F call. In my view this practically eliminates the graphic depiction of any non-early horses' 1F info.

Keeping in mind who is leading, you can then look at 2nd fractions of the field horses to see who has the best 2nd fraction and hope to determine who can be making up ground on the best early horse. First deal with the other early horses. If they are deficient in 1F and have 2F's that are equal to or slower than the lead early, you can discard them for win consideration and go on to assessing the rest of the runners. Even if these lagging early horses have monster 2F numbers, if they have not made it up close to a 0.0 lengths back at 2C, they will not compete because they NEED TO LEAD and cannot get there by the 1F Call. This is where line two of this post comes into play big time.

Winning pressers or sustained horses need strong 2F's to get into contention. If they are several lengths back at the 2C (left side where computed beaten lengths are shown) their win burden to overcome the early horse increases as the size of the lead at the 2C gets larger.

As I was writing this I had an idea for some research. It would be interesting to see how dedicated pressers reacted to strong first fractions by their race leaders, that is does their 2nd fraction POH get larger or smaller significantly when the pace changes. If their normal running position is 2 back, do they speed up to maintain 2 back or are they 3 or 4 back? or do they get closer to the lead? You could track the results from race charts or more current races in the PPs. This is just a note to self so I don't forget the idea.

[Bill V.]

I've followed with great interest FTL's postings and taken out many nuggets. Thank you Bill for amassing them all in one place, and FTL for your hard work and prescient observations in the first place.


I ran past 12 months numbers for equal to and greater than 20/1 MLO and and got 2% winners for all tracks, all race types and distances. Little variation whether turf, dirt or artificial. 37,519 horses involved. So even worse than FTL's 6%.


But with first after 90 day layoff I get something different. With 25,241 horses allburger there were 11% winners. And using any number of filters, I can push that up to 18 to 20% of 3500 horses or close to 700 winners with an average win price of about $7.60. So I'm tossing those high MLO odds, but looking much more cautiously at 1pL 90+


Zim

Hello Zim

First off I moved your post out of the matcher forum. I put it here in the
FLT Guidelines area

I would like to add my results from my model . It fairly current since my model only began in Oct of 2017

My model has a total of 1485 races
The number of horses in those races is 12252
Of those 12252 horses 891 ran after a layoff of over 90 days.
Of those 891 horses, 85 won
Of those 85 winners only 3 had a morning line over 20/1

Bless and Good Skill
Bill

[Bill Lyster]

I checked you out with the smaller version of data and your numbers are correct.

Interestingly, place horses maintain almost the same relationship. In your earlier (smaller - 544 races) version 21 winners (96.1%) ran within 90 days and four fewer place horses placed, meaning that even a higher number (97%) of place horses had run within 90 days. So by eliminating those horses from consideration (0.961 x 0.97) the probability of having the exacta in the remaining horses would be a little over 93%, which would mean the exacta horses would remain in about 13 out of every 14 races, not bad at all.

Of course, these number will vary depending on your sample size, but not materially in my experience.

nice work Bill V.

[Bill Lyster]

I've followed with great interest FTL's postings and taken out many nuggets. Thank you Bill for amassing them all in one place, and FTL for your hard work and prescient observations in the first place.


I ran past 12 months numbers for equal to and greater than 20/1 MLO and and got 2% winners for all tracks, all race types and distances. Little variation whether turf, dirt or artificial. 37,519 horses involved. So even worse than FTL's 6%.


But with first after 90 day layoff I get something different. With 25,241 horses allburger there were 11% winners. And using any number of filters, I can push that up to 18 to 20% of 3500 horses or close to 700 winners with an average win price of about $7.60. So I'm tossing those high MLO odds, but looking much more cautiously at 1pL 90+


Zim

Zim:
I don't mean to be picky here, but if you look at Bill V's numbers, the number of starters that ran with 90 day layoffs is about 7.3%, but the number of race WINNERS who ran with 90 day layoffs is 5.7%.

If the tracks you model actually produce those high percentage of winners with long layoffs, then yes, reconsider those horses through the rest of the handicapping process.

[Bill Lyster]

I've followed with great interest FTL's postings and taken out many nuggets. Thank you Bill for amassing them all in one place, and FTL for your hard work and prescient observations in the first place.


I ran past 12 months numbers for equal to and greater than 20/1 MLO and and got 2% winners for all tracks, all race types and distances. Little variation whether turf, dirt or artificial. 37,519 horses involved. So even worse than FTL's 6%.


But with first after 90 day layoff I get something different. With 25,241 horses allburger there were 11% winners. And using any number of filters, I can push that up to 18 to 20% of 3500 horses or close to 700 winners with an average win price of about $7.60. So I'm tossing those high MLO odds, but looking much more cautiously at 1pL 90+


Zim


Okay, I gotta ask, what do you mean by "With 25,241 horses allburger". Allburger? are these horses heading for Burger King/McDonalds or what?

[MJS6916]

Thank you to Bill Lyster and For the Lead for all the work you put in to these guidelines.

much appreciated,
Mike

[The Pook]

Okay, I gotta ask, what do you mean by "With 25,241 horses allburger". Allburger? are these horses heading for Burger King/McDonalds or what?

LOL! I read that earlier too and was going to let it pass as some killer spelling error but I am curious also. What could it be?

Pook

[For The Lead]

I've followed with great interest FTL's postings and taken out many nuggets. Thank you Bill for amassing them all in one place, and FTL for your hard work and prescient observations in the first place.


I ran past 12 months numbers for equal to and greater than 20/1 MLO and and got 2% winners for all tracks, all race types and distances. Little variation whether turf, dirt or artificial. 37,519 horses involved. So even worse than FTL's 6%.


But with first after 90 day layoff I get something different. With 25,241 horses allburger there were 11% winners. And using any number of filters, I can push that up to 18 to 20% of 3500 horses or close to 700 winners with an average win price of about $7.60. So I'm tossing those high MLO odds, but looking much more cautiously at 1pL 90+


Zim

Thank you for your post and I hope whatever you took away from my writings were beneficial to you.

With regard to your findings on horses OFF more than 90 days, I think you made an incorrect calculation, which has been done before, by the way.
Looking at the numbers you provided in your post, the two main ingredients for the correct calculation appear to be missing.

This really is an easy calculation and the number of total horses has nothing to do with it.

You simply take the total number of races in your sample and divide that into the number of winners from those sample races where the winner did not race in the last 90 days.

i.e.- 5 winners that did not run in the last 90 days / 100 races = 5%

[tom]

LOL! I read that earlier too and was going to let it pass as some killer spelling error but I am curious also. What could it be?

Pook

An "allburger" is a query without filters.
Say you look at horse who finished second last time, and you specify that it was withing 90 days. Without that filet, it would be an "allburger" - horse who finished second last out no matter when it occurred, what track, what surface, etc.

No race in 90 days, period, is an allburger, but no race in 90 days, Pletcher, at GP with 3yos might a totally different animal.

[Mitch44]

I'm traveling today and will be away until Monday. But I'll try to take a quick look at this before leaving..
Mitch44

[Ted Craven]

An "allburger" is a query without filters.
Say you look at horse who finished second last time, and you specify that it was withing 90 days. Without that filet, it would be an "allburger" - horse who finished second last out no matter when it occurred, what track, what surface, etc.

No race in 90 days, period, is an allburger, but no race in 90 days, Pletcher, at GP with 3yos might a totally different animal.

Haha! Some folks here also use HTR, and I recognize a few terms from Zim's post. Thanks Tom for the elaboration.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Just to be clear - the RDSS Paceline Selection tools are just that, for selecting consistent and relevant lines to represent a horse - and there are several automated strategies not just BLT/C, also your own manual decisions.

It does NOT automatically qualify/disqualify Contenders (except for those not running in less than 270 days, which it marks as Secondary). Contender qualification is yours to do manually, using whatever guidelines work best for you - and FTL's guidelines are among the best - though not the only ones. Eventually, the other half of the automation will get added (i.e. applying whatever Contender guidelines you adhere to). Right now, it takes (me) but a few seconds to demote usually all but 3 or 4 horses to either Secondary or non-Contender status, using recency, having run good races recently against same or stronger calibre competition, or good efforts after a layoff - and (for me) critically, how the horse is held close to post-time in the odds and various pool analysis factors.

Per some of Bill V and Bill L's writings and models - you can get 3 or 4 contenders pretty quickly, and rigorously, using these approaches. Then see what prices you are offered, compared to your recorded strike rate and average mutuel for the pools you bet in.

BLT/C or any line selection strategy is NOT meant to be the final word in who deserves your Win bet, or other vertical position contender bet (Place, Exacta, Tri, etc).

Ted

[For The Lead]

Ted makes good points.

Whether it is RDSS, FTL Guidelines or whatever, Paceline Selection tools are just that, a means of selecting consistent and relevant lines to represent a horse. In the case of FTL Guidelines, it also selects contenders or, if you prefer, eliminates non-contenders.

Also, I agree with Ted that be it FTL’s Guidelines, BLT/C or any line selection strategy, they are NOT meant to be the final word in who deserves your win bet. On a personal basis, I can tell you most of my work is done after the guidelines are applied. The guidelines are a starting point NOT a final analysis.

[Mitch44]

Ted's point is very valid and I've previously stated that the user must check to see if they agree with the automatic line selection. It's up to the user to confirm the line.
Mitch44

[Mitch44]

Jeebs On your race today: While a 4 & up race should be the bread & butter of type races to play even those are not created equal and contain tough decisions.

Once you look at a race you get a feel for a race. The problem with this race was too many contenders that could win. Some of these questions are easy to answer and others not till the race is over. I thought the 8 was the best horse but had problems separating the other 4 (1-2-5-6) I downgraded the 5 and decided it just had to beat me & same for the #1. The 2 & 6 gave me a problem and I settled on the 2.

As I said this was not a prime betting opportunity. Money management is an important aspect of this game, also knowing when to make larger bets or more on a race. Its stupid to bet the same amount on every race as their not all created equal.

This race was a pass or a small fun bet. I was going to key the 3 in the show slot for a .50 Tri but it scratched.
Good skill,
Mitch44

[MJS6916]

Its stupid to bet the same amount on every race as their not all created equal.

Good skill,
Mitch44


Very smart and it doesn't get said enough for my liking.


Knock'em dead,
Mike

[Lt1]

Well stated Ted and FTL. How many times did the Doc try to hammer home the point that it was not any programs' top 2 but your top 2 that were the bets. Nice to see it restated here.
Tim

[zimal2]

I was offline a few days, but wanted to reply to your response to my posting FTL. It is as Ted says an HTR spreadsheet, and it is formatted a little differently than you suggest, but I believe the info and my statement is correct:


For all races last 12 months:


Factor Plays Win W+P WPS . 02/08/2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play All 311261 13% 26% 39%


This means there were over 300,000 horses that raced, and since no filter was applied there were 13% winners or alternatively a little less than 8 horses per race on average since each race has a winner.


Now using the filter of first after layoff only---all races.


Play All 25262 11% 21% 33%
There were 25,000+ horses who were 1pL and of those there were 11% winners


There was little difference whatever the surface except for AR with smaller sample size:
Dirt Sprint 12789 10% 21% 33%
Dirt Route 02030 11% 22% 33%
Turf Sprint 02368 10% 21% 32%
Turf Route 02531 11% 21% 31%
Wet Sprint 02705 11% 21% 33%
Wet Route 00484 11% 25% 36%
Artf Sprint 01900 11% 22% 35%
Artf Route 00455 14% 25% 39%


Using a proprietary HTR algorithm called KAT with 1pL:
KAT 6 01206 16% 31% 43%
KAT 7 01284 21% 37% 51%
KAT 8 00549 18% 35% 48%
KAT 9 00464 28% 45% 61%
KAT= 10 00084 33% 50% 62%


There were 3587 horses in that cluster and roughly 717 winners or about 20% winners on average. So I would stick to my contention that throwing out these layoff horses is dicey. I didn't post the WROI because I don't know how to align the longer column lines. It is not profitable without further filtering, but my point has to do with the win% regardless of ROI.


I use both RDSS and HTR. They complement each other, because RDSS shows the pace picture much much easier than HTR, but HTR has many features that relate to form, et al that are easier to reference than RDSS. (It's ironic that HTR isn't easy to grab the pace picture from, since Ken Massa programmed Brohamer's ideas, but Ken has gone away from a pace approach over the years). In addition, HTR has the "ROBOT" which allows one to make complicated queries leading to spreadsheet data in anywhere from 60 seconds to 5 to 10 minutes.

[For The Lead]

I can come up with similar numbers.
I took two separate years and performed your calculation.

Year 1 – 348,121 total horses
Of those, 24,204 horses were off more than 90 days.
Of those, 2,296 horses won or 9.5%.

Year 2 – 327,172 total horses
Of those, 22,425 horses were off more than 90 days.
Of those, 2,210 horses won or 9.9%.

As you can see, the results I got (9.5% and 9.9%) are very comparable to the 11% you show.
And, as I just did above, you calculated the number of winners there were from the group of horses that were off more than 90 days.
But, that is NOT how the statistic is calculated.

The idea is to first find the number of winning horses. Then determine how many of those winning horses were off more than 90 days.

So, in my Year 1 – there were a total of 42,543 winners.
From that group of winners, the same 2,296 horses off more than 90 days (as shown above) were race winners, which comes to 5.4% of all race winners.

In my Year 2 – there were a total of 40,442 winners.
From that group of winners, the same 2,210 horses off more than 90 days (as shown above) were race winners, which comes to 5.5% of all race winners.

[dlivery]

bah your answer is with the question

yup

[dlivery]

B a h

[dlivery]

Butt


F T L your the best teacher

Im a student of the M E T H O

F T L YOUR Rock in Roll is good for me

Im all In For the results Rock And Roll just Blows My MIND

Your discussion has been a tribute to Who You Are A Teacher and wisdom of unbelieved circumstances until you open our Brains of just how too achieve success as in Looking at the P P 's

Im Just saying is W O W

[dlivery]

How about this $75.00 $49.00 $115.00

WoW last line

[shoeless]

I know I am late with this and kept meaning to do so

Neil S great job on hitting that

[fastcharlie55]

Decided to take the day and just follow races at Gulfstream and Tampa watching for early speed. Race# 2 at gpx a sprint on dirt #2@ 16/1 takes early lead and goes wire to wire and beats the 3/5 favorite by a length.
Race #2 @Tampa a route #2 @ 6/1 takes the lead and goes wire to wire.
Spending the day seeing how many early win at a good price.

[Lt1]

Hey Charlie I believe it was the 7 at Tampa r2 wtw.
Tim

[fastcharlie55]

You are correct..... I find I learn a lot by observing races without betting.

[Bill Lyster]

The high weights are the 8, 9, 3

45799

45800

And of course the Santa Anita Handicap with the high weights 7-8-4/5


45801

45802

[Bill Lyster]

The high weights are the 5-6-10

45803

45804

[Bill Lyster]

Finish 6-10-5, the top three high weights finished 1-2-3 with the 2nd hi wt winning. Very low prices.

[Bill Lyster]

AQU result is 5-6-3, the 9 scratched and the 5 was not top 3 hi wt

SA result 7-8-4, the 5 scratched. Result was 7-8 with the 4 coming in 4th.

Overall result was 2 wins out of three and low return mutuals, this time.

[Bill Lyster]

A friend pointed out to me that of the three Handicaps all were won by horses running in the top 3 all the way around the track, i.e., early.

The only winner that was not a high weight, at Aqueduct, ran a close 2nd early.
The two remaining hi weights ran 8-9 until they closed for 2nd and 3rd

Big Cap h/w ran 1-2 all the way

In the Tam 6 Hcap two of the h/wts ran 3-2 early and finished 1-2.

[papajohn3times]

Hello everyone!
I have a question for everyone here How do you look at a race to see if horses change leads? I never knew the answer to that question and how it can relate to past performances
Thanks
Papa John:)

[For The Lead]

Hello everyone!
I have a question for everyone here How do you look at a race to see if horses change leads? I never knew the answer to that question and how it can relate to past performances
Thanks
Papa John:)

When a horse is running there is a moment at the completion of each stride when all four feet are off the ground. If the horse is running on its’ right lead, the first foot to hit the ground will be the left hind foot. This will be followed by the right hind foot, then the left front foot and finally the right front foot (the lead foot). In North America, where horses race counter clockwise, horses generally run on their left lead on the turns and on the right lead on the straightaways. The reason for this, is that a horse is more on balance when they lead with the leg that corresponds with the turn.I have been told that many horses learn to change leads automatically. I have also learned that the jockey may initiate the changing of leads by shifting their weight or by some other motion. The easiest way to draw a comparison that is easy to understand, is to imagine yourself walking home from the store carrying a heavy bag of groceries. At some point you will tire of carrying the bag in the same arm and shift the weight to your other arm. Horses are doing the same thing. If they stay on the same lead for too long a period of time, they tire. Switching leads or changing leads performs the same function.

As far as past performances are concerned, it is possible that a horse did not change leads in a race, causing it to tire, but that is not published as a part of the past performances.

[gandalf380]

John Veitch always maintains that the reason that affirmed won the triple crown was that alydar did not change leads properly.