Just follow the guidelines
 

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

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


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

Here are the horses.

The rest of the field
 

Horses 5,6,7

Screen shots & race chart
 

Screen shot and chart

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

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

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

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

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

Best of luck to you then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's great news!

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

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

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

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

20/1 ml
 

Hello Speed Figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if
 

Hi DSD ( I hate screen names )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

Do
 

Hi sir

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

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

Good morning Bill.

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

Thanks!

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

Bill

Thanks Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment 35662

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

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

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

Here's the rundown:

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

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

Horse #7 and screen shots

The chart of the race

Conditions
 

Hello FTL

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

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

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

Today condition

Attachment 35675

Result chart for race on 8/22

Attachment 35676

7.5
 

Hi Akinsrr


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

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

Thanks for your question
Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Thanks for the questions and for the information you provided

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

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

Thanks again.
Ray

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

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

Hi Ray

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

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

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

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

Bill

Attachment 35677

Results
 

Here is the chart

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


Attachment 35678


Attachment 35679

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

Tim

Hi Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim
 

Hi Tim

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

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

Attachment 35680

Thanks

Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guidelines
 

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

Attachment 35681

Attachment 35682


I bet the 4 & 5 to win

Days
 

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

Hi Tim

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

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

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

Bill

Attachment 35683