Match Up ?

[Mitch44]

I received this PM which I thought may be interesting to the masses along with my reply.


http://paceandcap.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif Match up??
<hr size="1" style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225); background-color: rgb(209, 209, 225);"><!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message -->
Hello again Galen!
Hope all is well for you and yours.
I know you and Ted told me not to go the way of the marchers and for the most part I have listened. But some ideas are pretty sound like giving esp to all horses.
So what parts of the match up process do you feel the so called marchers fail at??
Thanks again my friend.


My reply:


Yes ESP is sound but not the one that matchers use. They use the visual ESP which is just not accurate and are fooled by what the human eye sees. A horse that goes wire to wire may not be an E horse. It could very well be a SP etc. Horses tend to just do what they have to do. If not pressed on the lead they'll slow down and only do what they have to do. The % Med which is determined by a mathematical formula and is much more accurate as to how a horse truly runs. % Med ESP designations are a much more accurate depiction of how a horse truly runs.

Matchers can't match the power of the program itself. Such as being able to carry the match up into or to compute the 3rd Fraction. Essentially their just early speed handicappers. Everyone see's ES and the prices are low.

2nd they fail to adjust for track to track adjustments, sure you can win some races without adjustments but your going to lose far more. A must today, especially with weather changes, track maintenance, run up distances etc. Bradshaw explained at a seminar how he does this, rather simple but effective. In reading through the Match UP I don't recall seeing this. For me it would be pencil and paper time but Bradshaw did all this in his head and made these adjustments.

3rd they don't adjust to the track variant which changes from day to day, even more so with severe changes such as sloppy or muddy tracks. I suppose Bradshaw avoided these lines which made his results more accurate, I also refuse to use off track lines even when the track is sloppy etc. Believe it or not the track variant varies even on fast tracks. That's right!! There are different degrees of fast and a good variant is a must.

Their essentially speed handicappers that look for horses that can go wire to wire , many horses decelerate in the 3rd FR and fail to win, especially early speed types.

Bradshaw taught the match up to those that could grasp it, and only to those that asked, he gave them only what they could handle with it. So everyone was taught different based on their capabilities and limitations. There's no sense teaching rocket science to a moron when they can only handle ABC's and 2 + 2 equals 4. Sartin had a very high IQ and he couldn't do it as well as Bradshaw and he taught it to Bradshaw. Yes it wasn't originated by Bradshaw but Bradshaw took it to a level that Sartin couldn't accomplish without the use of the computer.

Sartin use to caution users also about carrying the match up into the 3rd FR because the 2 for 1 beaten length and more like 3 to 1 for routes is just not accurate. The reason is every horse decelerates at a different rate therefore there is not a nice little 2 for 1 beaten length rule that works. Its nothing more than an inaccurate ball park guesstimate. And their deceleration is also effective by the match up or Early pace of the race which varies from race to race therefore they don't decelerate the same in each race which makes it all even more difficult.

A person needs to know their capabilities and limitations to be successful, unless you have a genius I.Q. and think you know as much about this stuff as Sartin and Bradshaw than forget about it. Even Sartin use to say in reference to Bradshaw, "Unless your from Oklahoma and wear a cowboy hat for get about it." Bradshaw is the exception not the rule.

Bottom line is if you can't make RDSS work your not going to make the Match Up work. The Match UP is within the program and in the program's best readouts. Let the RDSS program do the heavy lifting.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

Great response Mitch. I should be noted that the Doc did go away from the visual matchup deferring instead to the compounded ratings of the computer programs.
Tim

[The Pook]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the Matchup. It works quite well. It works quite well using Visual ESP.

I don’t possess any special high degree of IQ but decided a few years ago to try to progress through the levels of the Matchup as taught in the forum on this site, from the 5 steps to Voodoo.

I do most of what is explained in the forum. I do visual ESP. I use raw times but also adjusted times as Voodoo. I use tandems when they help. I use BPP and Pl for contenders. I never use just one pace line and use all the pacelines I need. I keep no models and know nothing of trainers or jockeys. I bet only when I figure one or two horses have an advantage. I have no minimum odds. I have no maximum odds.

Matchers aren’t just looking for wire to wires. They also need OTE’s. Wherever an advantage might pay.

I get my share of low odds horses. I get my share of high odds horses that pure Sartinistas would never see. And that is the crux of it. You get your own particular set of results to make what you do, work.

I do a modern version of it with much help from RDSS. If you put in the time, it works. Maybe not the same as decades ago but it works. As Richie P said somewhere else on here lately, ones interpretation of it is subjective. I have honed my own interpretation and would not share exact specifics because I prefer to preserve profit.

The parts are all here. There is no need to fail at it when you put all the parts together..

Pook

[MJS6916]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the Matchup. It works quite well. It works quite well using Visual ESP.



Matchers aren’t just looking for wire to wires.



Pook

Pook,

and matchers shouldn't just look for Lone Earlys. I agree.

We should also be looking for cheap/outclassed/phony Earlys who figure to be less than 9/2.

When you're real good at that.........those are the races worth digging into more.

:D

[shoeless]

Good response Pook

[Mitch44]

Matchers are entitled to their own opinions. I was asked and gave my best advice and would not recommend it. I evenly occasionally use in certain situations but would never use it as a stand alone verses other concepts.


I'm well aware of my capabilities and limitations and stay within bounds of that. I would not recommend it. I concur with Sartin on his advice who was much more intelligent than me. Whenever he spoke I listened.


The concepts of Sartin are a difficult hurtle to overcome let alone the Match UP. Most fail even after years, it took me many years to conceptualize or understand the principles of Sartin or get it.

I would say that Cigar is a very good Matcher and one I would say is the exception.


Then again there are some who like to chime in that I doubt can even match up a pair of socks.


Mitch44

[Mitch44]

Pook I believe your; "modern version" has increased your capability in the last year or so. This was evidenced by your good showing in the contest. Glad to see you tweaked it so that your better able to adapt and overcome. Best of luck in the future.


Mitch44

[cigar]

Matchers are entitled to their own opinions. I was asked and gave my best advice and would not recommend it. I evenly occasionally use in certain situations but would never use it as a stand alone verses other concepts.


I'm well aware of my capabilities and limitations and stay within bounds of that. I would not recommend it. I concur with Sartin on his advice who was much more intelligent than me. Whenever he spoke I listened.


The concepts of Sartin are a difficult hurtle to overcome let alone the Match UP. Most fail even after years, it took me many years to conceptualize or understand the principles of Sartin or get it.

I would say that Cigar is a very good Matcher and one I would say is the exception.


Then again there are some who like to chime in that I doubt can even match up a pair of socks.


Mitch44

I was reading your post and found it hilarious, not for the obvious reason. "I doubt can even match up a pair of socks".

l left the house this morning in rush and grab a pair of socks not checking if they match. See pic - LOL.

Thank you for the complement, I am a matcher who also incorporate RDSS readouts into my process. Once you find your comfort level in whatever process you use, stick with it. Like Pook, I do not keep records.

Cigar

[Mitch44]

Vish: I'm ROTFLMAO. Truly a great photo. Hope your well up there in Canada and cashing tickets. BTW at least you got the shoes on correct. :) Ha ha ha


Mitch44

[raceman5]

Read the 2 words that cigar mentioned. Comfort level. My personal comfort levels with the match up are.

1. Tandem Races.
2. OTE Races.
3. Lone Sprinter in a race going long for the first time that meets the Hat's Parameters in the hat file.
4. The speed of the speed.

Bob

[Mitch44]

Here are my 3 top tips for Matchers to succeed.


1. Use Bris Prime or Profit to select your contenders. The winner is in the top five 90%. Besides this it'll reduce your work load at least 50 % and reducing the chance or lessening the probability of making a mistake by looking at all horses. Ditto for non matchers as the RDSS program is more efficient with true contenders in it. Forget the stubbornness to change whereas one Matcher told me; "I won't do that because I want to do it like Bradshaw did." Well you ain't no Jimmy "The Hat" Bradshaw.

2. The key really is to use the best of both worlds. Around a year ago I recommended that a matcher use the RDSS program to enhance the Match Up. From what I can determine his game has profoundly gotten better. Here's a quote from another very good Matcher by the screen name of cigar;" I am a matcher who also incorporate RDSS readouts into my process." Smart choice cigar.

By supplementing with the program you can duplicate what Bradshaw did as far as making all adjustments in his head. In other words the information or data within RDSS contains; track to track adjustments, daily variant adjustments, beaten lengths etc. Remember Bradshaw wrote much of Sartin programs, so its all there and Jimmy was a very good programmer. This process again reduces or greatly lessening the chance of error by attempting to do all this in one's head or God forbid use a pencil or pen and mark up the Racing Form, a real no no for Bradshaw. If still around today I doubt Bradshaw would still be using the Daily Racing form at today's cost for each daily edition.

Finally the program adjust the 3rd Fraction where most fail. Its adjusted using the concepts of Bradshaw's brain and more efficient than one can perform on their own, with Beaten Lengths included etc.

3. Another fatal mistake by Matchers is the one horse bet. They all want to be like Bradshaw. They say;" well Jimmy was a one horse better." Well you are not Jimmy, get rid of the ego stuff and accept your capabilities and limitations.

Follow Sartin's advice and become a two horse bettor. With the program your 5 contenders can easily be reduced to 4 and many times 3 true contenders. Match them up and if your a two horse better your game should improve dramatically. Don't be like one Matcher I know who has been doing it for 5 years unsuccessfully.


Best of luck,


Mitch44

[The Pook]

For sure Cigar is one of our better Matchup artists at Pace and Cap. At least as evidenced in the BVMC contest. He had another gear over the rest of us. He has developed well over the years.

I see Raceman chimed in (a guy who is really comfortable with the Tandem specialty)...a previous champ in a Matchup contest. Dogkatcher and Mowens are also top Matchers..(I believe Mowens is also a previous champ). So a few of us had good or reasonable showings in the confines of the BVMC.

Matching is viable is my point. If you can stick with it and grasp it I think the rewards are greater simply because it is harder and you get better prices.

Pook

[The Pook]

Here are my 3 top tips for Matchers to succeed.


1. Use Bris Prime or Profit to select your contenders. The winner is in the top five 90%. Besides this it'll reduce your work load at least 50 % and reducing the chance or lessening the probability of making a mistake by looking at all horses. Ditto for non matchers as the RDSS program is more efficient with true contenders in it. Forget the stubbornness to change whereas one Matcher told me; "I won't do that because I want to do it like Bradshaw did." Well you ain't no Jimmy "The Hat" Bradshaw.

2. The key really is to use the best of both worlds. Around a year ago I recommended that a matcher use the RDSS program to enhance the Match Up. From what I can determine his game has profoundly gotten better. Here's a quote from another very good Matcher by the screen name of cigar;" I am a matcher who also incorporate RDSS readouts into my process." Smart choice cigar.

By supplementing with the program you can duplicate what Bradshaw did as far as making all adjustments in his head. In other words the information or data within RDSS contains; track to track adjustments, daily variant adjustments, beaten lengths etc. Remember Bradshaw wrote much of Sartin programs, so its all there and Jimmy was a very good programmer. This process again reduces or greatly lessening the chance of error by attempting to do all this in one's head or God forbid use a pencil or pen and mark up the Racing Form, a real no no for Bradshaw. If still around today I doubt Bradshaw would still be using the Daily Racing form at today's cost for each daily edition.

Finally the program adjust the 3rd Fraction where most fail. Its adjusted using the concepts of Bradshaw's brain and more efficient than one can perform on their own, with Beaten Lengths included etc.

3. Another fatal mistake by Matchers is the one horse bet. They all want to be like Bradshaw. They say;" well Jimmy was a one horse better." Well you are not Jimmy, get rid of the ego stuff and accept your capabilities and limitations.

Follow Sartin's advice and become a two horse bettor. With the program your 5 contenders can easily be reduced to 4 and many times 3 true contenders. Match them up and if your a two horse better your game should improve dramatically. Don't be like one Matcher I know who has been doing it for 5 years unsuccessfully.


Best of luck,


Mitch44

I agree completely with everything above. I, for one could not do it without the help of RDSS. Actually I noticed one thing. I wouldn't completely ignore non contenders. They may have an affect on pace.

Pook

[The Pook]

I am looking forward to a rematch with 10 top players of whatever discipline next May in the 2nd annual BVMC! We can give Cigar a run for his money when he hopefully tries to defend his title. I hope you guys will be up for it.

Pook

[shoeless]

Their essentially speed handicappers that look for horses that can go wire to wire

Apparently you cant match a pair of socks either as Bradshaw writes about looking for other then early horses

[Mitch44]

Pook glad to see you agree with my tips and have adapted to become a much better matcher in the last year or so.

I agree that a non contender could have an effect on the pace of the race and is easily checked in non contenders. I also peruse non contenders for certain criteria, as that 10 % or so that Prime or Profit dosen't get normally pay huge. Their not found often but can lead to big payoffs, even if they just Place or Show when bet correctly.

It was a terrific challenge and I made very good money from it. Looking forward to the next one. You did a wonderful job in running it and I loved the difficultity of the races chosen for a real challange.

Mitch44

[Mitch44]

Quote from shoeless:

"Their essentially speed handicappers that look for horses that can go wire to wire"

Yes they are essentially speed handicappers shoeless because they can not effectively adjust the 3rd Fr. I have never seen anyone able to do that or match the ability of Bradshaw do that on anykind of consistent basis.

Sartin also wrote about looking for OTE and stated they pay much better. The reason they pay better is that handicappers are speed oriented and place too much emphais on speed. They also don't see the hidden moves within a race such as HE.


""Apparently you cant match a pair of socks either as Bradshaw writes about looking for other then early horses"

You know shoeless you should stop the personel attacks and stick to the topic at hand. Its really unbecoming to you and esipecially to someone that can't effectively even use Phase 1 or TPR. The sock comment was a tactiful way to address your animosity statement of;"Good response Pook" It had nothing at all to do with telling me and nothing more than a give and take of ideas, not about dissing people.
Even after attempting to help you this is what I get. I wish Sartin was still around to give you some professional help. Try using a PM, its more polite and less enbarrising.WE could do without the pot being stirred.

Mitch44

[DaveEdwards]

I agree 100% with Mitch on the issue of it being impossible to quantify the actual impact of increased effort by a horse early in a race.

I have thought long and hard about the 2:1 concept.
Firstly, all horse are different. The actual impact on any given horse will be different to another. Couple this with the fact that a horse rarely puts in the same performance twice running and the problems multiply.

Even if they did, what if the jockey decides to easy off a horse? You could have a P dragged along 1 length faster than comfortable. Once they enter the stretch and the horse is struggling with no chance of winning any decent jockey would ease the horse off to lose by more than the 2L expected.

Track profile and %M.... the list of variables is endless.

I believe that the concept of energy used early not being available late is 100% valid. Quantifying it is impossible.

Race A:
Two matching E horses due to burn out followed round by a P of similar ability. Fine, back the P.

Race B:
Two matching E horses due to burn out followed round by a P who under normal circumstances is 4L inferior. This is where having a crystal ball is handy!

[Mark]

So why would anyone ask a highly opinionated NON-Matcher about the Match Up? So many of your comments illustrate your ignorance of the subject. I have spent the last 7 years learning the Match Up and how to implement it on RDSS. I have been Handicapping for over 55 years. I used most of the Sartin programs up to Pace Launcher and paid Doc Sartin $1,500 for Thoromation. I worked with Tom Hambleton and Michael Perry in 1993 on his database driven TPR program before Perry unfortunately died taking his compiler with him. I used Aodds SuperGold 98 and know Ken Massa. I just turned 70.
I'm not going to list all your criticisms that are totally incorrect as the response is too long. I would say the one correct statement you made that is correct, The Match Up is difficult to learn! If it was easy I wouldn't get the prices I do and I am thankful for that.
Jim Bradshaw specifically dealt with 3rd fraction adjustments via his 2 for 1 principle which you can find in the Hat Check thread. But more importantly, it is the effect of the 1st fraction and 1st call and the contention of the early runners that bring Ps, SPs and S horses into play and his concept of variegation, Early vs OTE that is the gold mine.

[Mitch44]

"I believe that the concept of energy used early not being available late is 100% valid. Quantifying it is impossible."

Dave I totally agree with your statement. Each horse decelerates differently and any one that undertakes a study of this will learn that generalizations and a fixed rule of 2 to 1 is just invalid.

How horses decelerate or in other words how fast or slow it decelerates and where that deceleration takes place is very different among different horses. No one rule is appropriate, more important is the horse's typical pattern. There differences are what make racing itself unpredictable.

Typically Total Energy, better 3rd FR.'s and ability to carry speed over a distance of ground are ingredients of better horses. However two horses with identical Energy are not necessary equel depending on how it earned that Tot. En., one could be decelerating sharply while the other was increasing speed in the 3rd FR. Additionally the distance it achieved that Tot. En. at is very important, they are not equal if earned at different distances.

The Match Up has been incorporated into the program of RDSS and is employed in a consistent manner to capture the winner as much as humanly possible. Its consistent procedure takes care of numerous judgments that are error prone except to a Bradshaw. Even within the program results can be enhanced by not accepting blindly any readout with putting it into context. Context would be Dis., surface, deceleration, proper contenders and lines chosen etc.

There are many tools within the program that can aide such as % Med., FPS FR's that shows deceleration where deceleration takes place and how rapidly it takes place.

"So why would anyone ask a highly opinionated NON-Matcher about the Match Up?" Not sure who this refers to but I'll answer it. First of all I'm quite familiar with the Match Up, I employ it all the time but within the program by my interpretation of the screens, tools and other stuff in the program. Sartin honed the program to duplicate as near as possible to get the same results that Bradshaw could using his computer brain. The Match UP is within the program. I take highly opinionated as a compliment as its a result of many years of experience and knowledge. Again thanks.

All I'm doing is helping Matchers to advance by giving tips that will definitely increase their proficiently.Users are free to do whatever they like. I do know one thing reducing the workload reduces mistakes, having the correct horses to match done by a highly proficient procedure produces better results along with employing a two horse betting procedure. I guess one could call it common sense handicapping and bringing together the best of both world. Yes a Synergism of both that produces better results.

Mitch44

[shoeless]

Thanks for the help Mitch

BTW I am stirring chili in the pot

[Mitch44]

I thought you were shoeless as your not a Matcher. Your welcome.


Mitch44

[Mitch44]

"The Match Up is difficult to learn!" Your absolutely correct on that Mark. Glad to see your back posting. If I recall correctly prior to your absence you stated in a post that you had been Matching for over 5 years and still hadn't mastered the Match UP.

All those adjustments and stubborn resistance to change is what defeat most attempting to match. Also if I recall you refuse to make adjustments for track to track or daily track variants. Oh by the way I forgot to mention a few other adjustments such as stretch outs and cutbacks. A hap hazard approach will never beat a consistent procedure which the program provides.

I'm still waiting the day for some one that can duplicate "The Hat." Thankfully the Match Up was able to all be incorporated within the program. Jimmy would never tell anyone not to use the program.

It really comes down to understanding concept. Even within the program much of the Match Up remains hidden however there are many clues that enhance it and it is a problem solver for all those pesky adjustments. How many Matchers can make or do Track to Track adjustments? I never saw Jimmy put that in writing but he did explain it at a seminar, just one reason no one can match "The Hat. Part of his Voodoo magic. All that Voodoo is in the program. The combination of concept of the Match Up combined the program will tremendously make any Matcher much more proficient. Matching the top 3 or perhaps 4 in some cases after all adjustments and being a two horse bettor will make any Matcher much more proficient when applying the concept.

Trolls and naysayers be dammed as there is more then one route to get home.

Mitch44

[DaveEdwards]

As Jimmy said, he learned using the POR/POH program and put in thousands of hours. And as Howard said, there is no substitute (paraphrasing) for a learned instinct.

I believe a lot of the Hat's analysis was done at a subliminal level only achievable after a similar apprenticeship.

Just to confirm, I absolutely believe the concept, but not the ability to calculate the 3rd fraction impact of energy used in the first two calls.

If it was so you could take a single horse and post it's PPs where the 3F could be mapped throughout based on it's established capability over the 1st two fractions.

If this was possible the secret would be out far and wide. It wouldn't just be us talking about it.

[Mitch44]

Ponder this one. If the concept of the Match Up is legit, which it is, than it should be obvious that a 2 to 1 ratio rule for the 3rd FR. is inaccurate because a horses deceleration will vary from race to race depending on the Match Up. Sartin didn't warn about carrying the match up into the 3rd Fr without a good reason.

A horse may decelerate 2 to 1 in one match up and 4 to 1 in another. Particularity Pressers who have more adaptability than E or S and L types. And one that goes unnoticed or taken into consideration is the distance factor and its profound effect on deceleration. Or in other words a horse may decelerate at 2 to 1 at 5.5 F but may decelerate at 4 to 1 at 6 F, having been gutted. Note the 4 to 1 is just used for demonstrated purposes as it could be less or more. Every horse has a distance of defeat at which they can not win caused by deceleration. And in most cases (at least 80%) caused by both deceleration and the Match Up combined.

Mitch44

[Old Arkie Gal]

A good and interesting discussion. All I can do is listen, learn, and incorporate that which I find to be useful and applicable to my process. I have had many and also valuable conversations with Galen (Mitch 44). I can assure you that he does use the Match Up maybe not exactly used and popularized by some of you but he does use it every time he does a race. I will continue to listen and be open to all suggestions and approaches discussed here.
Good Skill!

[Old Arkie Gal]

Once a wise person advised me that the person with the most options has the most power and from my point of view that applies to handicapping too.

[papajohn3times]

In response to this thread,I was the one teaching out to Galen about matching. Someone wrote why would someone seem advice from a non-matcher? Why?? Because Mitch44 and Timlt1 along with Ted of course,ALWAYS take the time to help me,either via pm and many times on the phone! Bill V also helped me before his passing.
It seems that so many others here, just like to argue and see their name in print. I tried to reach others early when I first came aboard a few years ago. I have studied since the late 80's with Doc,attended at least 6 seminars. I quit horse racing for about 10 years. One reason was I had very little success with understanding repairs like USE MUV VARIANTS AND WHEN TO ADJUST. 1or 2??
Well When Ted introduced me to RDSS, the oceans parted and now I can say I have finally have arrived!
And thanks to the 3 gentlemen I have already mentioned, most of May questions have been answered

To newcomers,believe me this is not a black box, magic number program! You gotta do your own work, read and study and if a question pops up,, these guys go now what they are doing, trust me.

Thanks again and again for all the help, Galen, Tim and Ted!
Papa John

[papajohn3times]

I was too rushed and didn't spell check but I hop all get the message!!
Papa John's

[Mitch44]

The reason I don't recommend new users to use the Match Up is because its like a 3rd grader going off to collage. This is just not going to end well. In fact many do not succeed using the program because they expect a black box procedure and instant gratification. The program itself has tremendously been simplified as compared to years past. They still lack basic understanding of Sartin concepts, readout interpretation or make use of various screens. Walk before you try to run. They are both learned disciplines and a person should not attempt to be both a doctor and a lawyer at the same time.

One of the real problems with the Match Up is imitation. Those that get involved in it all want to duplicate "The Hat", an impossible task. Professionals in any endeavor advance on their own skill and ability. An athlete becoming a professional baseball player doesn't get there by imitation of Babe Ruth but on their own inherit ability. Luckily Sartin principles and the Match Up can both be learned disciplines.

Their imitation of duplicating and achieving Bradshaw results of one horse betting is a perfect example. They lose far too many races being a one horse bettor and could be more successful using Sartin recommendation of two horse betting. Try winning a horizonal bet, like a P6 using just one horse in each race sequence. They say ;"well Bradshaw was a one horse bettor. You are not Bradshaw.

I have put emphasis on all the adjustments that must be made in a race, Bradshaw had a genius I.Q. and could do all this in his head. All that knowledge is within the program. The Match Up is in there along with all the adjustments. Bradshaw programmed most of Sartin programs and was his closest and trusted friend. He learned the Match Up from Sartin and it was all placed into his later programs along with more refined adjustments.

Even if a Matcher took the best top 4 horses with the program's best readouts,(which the Match Up are within those factors.) and only matched those horses their work would be reduced by 2/3 and betting two horses their results would greatly be improved.


They should be able to do the Match Up off just the analysis screen using just the Velocity -POH. All those pesky adjustments that the individual can't do will be done for them increasing their results by providing more winners with less chances of making mistakes. These Fr's in FPS contain all adjustments and are the Match UP.

Of course you may want to confirm your analysis with other Factors. It is a fact that compounded factors such as HE ,SC etc. have proven more productive than just the three Fr.'s. But the Match Up is within those FPS Fractions on that Velocity-POH screen. Note: Those same Velocity FPS FR's are also used for all compounded Factors such as in the Primary Factors, obtaining BLBL and even V/DC. They are the foundation for all other factors. Once learned you'll be surprised at how many times you can come up with the same result as the Primary Line score, BLBL etc.


Too many take this or make this personnel, I'm a firm believer in the Match Up. I just employ it different, letting the program make all those pesky and highly error prone
adjustments for me.

Mitch44

[DaveEdwards]

The more I read the last post, the more I like it.

Plenty for people to ponder there. It has certainly got me thinking.

[MJS6916]

The more I read the last post, the more I like it.

Plenty for people to ponder there. It has certainly got me thinking.


Agreed. I personally think (if a handicapper has the time) it's worth learning: how to distinguish between runners
who are either chasing, pressing, or stalking in the 1st half of the field......
......and answer: does this horse really need to be in this position by or before the 1c, 2c, or midstretch?
(whatever that position is in the field: setting the pace, just hanging out with the frontrunners, the NEED TO BE clear of others....,etc, etc)

Anyone who gets good at this will, no doubt, do well as a handicapper.

I don't believe we have to be as good at it as the Bradshaws of the world at "matching".
However, if you're less skilled at it than you need to be AND you are convinced otherwise......it will cost a handicapper BIG.

"Matching" is something, for almost all of us, which takes many PPs and result charts to read to get competent at.

Use RDSS until that day comes.

Mike

[Mitch44]

I agree that ESP is an important part of the Match Up. Just that I believe and can demonstrate that the visual is just not as accurate as the % Med ESP designations.

Each horse has a particular running style that to a large extent is inherited and also is influenced by its early training as a young horses prior to racing. The E types are easy as their habitual whereas Pressers, both EP and SP adapt more to the match of the race. But they'll run and adjust to be in a comfortable position. Take them out of that comfort zone and they spit the bit or just can't win when forced out of that comfort zone or level. The reason I add level is the higher the class the faster races tend to be run forcing them from their comfort zone.

Learn one discipline at a time, if you learn the RDSS program first and the tools plus screens within, it'll provide a better foundation for the match up. And the RDSS program isn't a cake walk. While its about as much automatic that's possible its still about understanding the tools, and screens within. Understanding what your looking at is the key. Looking at FPS one user just sees a bunch of numbers while another see's moves, deceleration which can be gradual or a sharp decline. Understanding concept of any discipline allows for innovation and problem solving.


Mitch44