Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Members List
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Mark Mark is offline

Grade 1

Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 4 of 4
  1. Mark
    12-14-2015 01:28 PM
    Mark
    It only has been recently that I have begun really to appreciate the thoughtfulness with which Ted designed RDSS2. Initially, I thought it was just a bunch of screens packaged together in sort of a helter skelter fashion. However, as you handicap a race, questions arise about each horse that you need answers to, in order to arrive at an opinion about him. Most of the adjusted screens help you reach a decision. When I finally figured this out I emailed Ted and thanked him for all the patient work he has done to create such an insightful program.
    I have been an admirer of Jim Bradshaw going back probably 20 years. But for the life of me I could not interpret or implement his methods. I studied the old Sartin Red Match Up manual, attended a number of seminars but it wasn't until I found the Pace and Cap website that I found the Hat Check Blog and Richie P. For the last 2 years this has been my bible and although I still consider myself a Beginning Matcher, the qualities of RDSS2 have allowed me to implement much of what I now understand about the Match Up. Stacking pacelines by Running Style is easily accomplished with RDSS2. So I am thankful to Ted, Richie P. and of course, Jim Bradshaw for making handicapping such a worthwhile and enjoyable hobby.
  2. Mark
    12-14-2015 01:27 PM
    Mark
    It only has been recently that I have begun really to appreciate the thoughtfulness with which Ted designed RDSS2. Initially, I thought it was just a bunch of screens packaged together in sort of a helter skelter fashion. However, as you handicap a race, questions arise about each horse that you need answers to, in order to arrive at an opinion about him. Most of the adjusted screens help you reach a decision. When I finally figured this out I emailed Ted and thanked him for all the patient work he has done to create such an insightful program.
    I have been an admirer of Jim Bradshaw going back probably 20 years. But for the life of me I could not interpret or implement his methods. I studied the old Sartin Red Match Up manual, attended a number of seminars but it wasn't until I found the Pace and Cap website that I found the Hat Check Blog and Richie P. For the last 2 years this has been my bible and although I still consider myself a Beginning Matcher, the qualities of RDSS2 have allowed me to implement much of what I now understand about the Match Up. Stacking pacelines by Running Style is easily accomplished with RDSS2. So I am thankful to Ted, Richie P. and of course, Jim Bradshaw for making handicapping such a worthwhile and enjoyable hobby.
  3. Mark
    12-02-2013 06:48 PM
    Mark
    Bill,

    I just could possibly be that his use of VDC and the archaic DFR+TV based CSR give him an edge in that few of the big betting syndicates are using either. There was only one other programmer that I know of that could do anything with Deceleration and that was Michael Perry who programmer for Tom Hambleton and Bill Burns.
    VDC may well be the greatest factor achievement of the Sartin/Bradshaw confab.
    However, it really makes no difference to me what Richard and followers do but I sometimes get confused and in my attempts to help create controversy I have done here.
    Basically I am not a fan of Ted's Track-to-Track adjustments. They are Par chart based and subject to all the problems associated with them. He often makes a mess of first calls/first fractions. Other than run up distances the only differences in first fractions is the speed of the runners in the race and the jockey riding tactics. Especially in sprints, unless they plow the ground in front of the gate or pave it, final time variant has very little to do with it. In Bradshaw's view and what is becoming mine, that is the race. It sets up everything else that will happen subsequently. I realize you prefer the 2nd call or Fulcrum and I understand. It is much more stable than and more meaningful in apportioning the final time and track-to-track variants to. The other thing I have always had difficulties with is feet per beaten length calculations. I had a par program that the Doc gave me that I was able to re-engineer Thoromation with and work out and predict all the energy running styles. I was all on a computer I gave away year's ago. They used several different values in that program for beaten length gain and loss. The number of feet per length was determined by the number of 1/16 of a mile in a pace segment. So you had different values for beaten lengths in each final fraction. 4ft for 6f, 5f for 6.5f etc. But I don't know if Ted ever figured that out or knows. I just don't have confidence in his adjusted numbers and since all the screen calculations are based on the adjusted pacelines, there is just too much error in them for me. You have made them work for you but I would rather work in the RAW so I can calculate from the pace of the race of each horses paceline. I do it in my head. At least I still have enough memory for that. It is the ability of Pressers to overcome the pace of the race in the 2nd fraction that makes them viable. If they can't make up the lost ground from the first fraction they can't catch and pass the battling leaders. There was a time when TT was a hot subject in the Methodology, I think more for detecting efforts by trainers to sharpen their horses than identifying the best Pressers in the race today.
    Anyway, I am rambling but I still am under the opinion that the use of publicly available factors today leads to overbet horses and I just don't see how someone can wagering profitably on those kinds of horses. They are a much better handicapper than me.
  4. Mark
    11-20-2013 12:00 PM
    Mark
    Bill, I am in complete agreement with the implications of your questions. The CSR is highly flawed and to handicap a race by using it as your contender selection method as we did in the old days with APV is a very questionable approach. What it rewards is high adjusted speed ratings from the last 4 "usable" races. That is not handicapping and what you will get is heavily bet horses. At least with APV you have the influence of historical purse values that the horse competed and won purse money.
    Here's the perfect example: today is a 8.2 mile route. Horse A has two races since returning from a 250 day layoff. His last two races are sprints in which he ran close to the lead before fading beaten 12 lengths and another in which he showed a 5 length stretch gain but finished beaten 8 lengths. His two races prior to the layoff where poor route races, indicating the horse was hurting and needed time away to recover. This horse has been classically prepped for a top effort yet his CSR is in the dumpster. He wins easily at 10/1.
    We can't check our brain at the door when we open the handicapping program or racing form. Prices on obvious horses today are hammered down. In the early 90s I played the entire Santa Anita winter meet and can count on my fingers and toes the number of horses at 6/5. I remember FArma Way shipping out for the Santa Anita Handicap when he was at the top of his game and he only went to post at 6/5.
    Look at the Beulah and Finger Lakes cards yesterday in some of the worst races carded in North America, absolute plow horses. 3/5, 4/5, even money and I am sure all these horses had top CSR #s. These type of standout horses in cheap races so skew the statistics that it makes them unusable in my opinion.
    Each horse has a set of past performances, examine them top to bottom and bottom to top. Find the good races, see how the horse likes to run, what early pace can he succeed against? Look at his pattern of activity and the efforts of his trainer to coax an improved performance previously and today. No esoteric factor can do what your eyes and brain can.
    Don't use questionable factors because they are there. You are competing against big money syndicates that spare no software programming expense. Most of us don't get the 7% - 9% rebates on every dollar they wager. You have to find horses that computer algorithms can't.
    One Man's Opinion

Statistics

Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: 07-06-2018 07:04 PM
  • Join Date: 01-21-2013
  • Referrals: 0

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:19 PM.