Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch44
FTL:
First of all I call it cherry picking when you constantly and always come up with an ideal solution to a race after the fact. Fact of the matter also is that not once have I ever seen you put up a pick before a race goes off. I call that cherry picking and a classic definition of such. They don't pay off for after the fact and only prior to the gates opening.
Ah another perfect solution to why the # 1 horse won his 4th race. Bravo!! It caught my eye in briefly looking at the PP of this race. And based on your guidelines the horse would be a toss. There are many reasons why that race could be a toss besides the few you mention.
"Its' winning race in line 4 is just NOT the mystery you make it out to be!" Its absolutely no mystery to me however to anyone following you're guidelines it would be a mystery and winners they would never get. Your rules / guidelines probably give up at least 25% winners of a race going into without ever laying eyes on it.
"Bill V posted it, not me." Perhaps he did but I recall in the last 2 weeks or so you specifically asked Bill Lister to find a race that meets your guidelines for posting which he did . Naturally it payed well. Now if that not a classic definition of cherry picking than I don't know what is. Sartin was accused of cherry picking races, his answer was to do the whole card. Any single race in Follow Ups were sent in by followers or deemed problem races by followers. Now that may be going a little far . I and other followers would like to see some before the race goes off. Heck we can even pick a race ,track and date a week out for fairness to all and another as an alternate just in case it happens to be a MSW.
In fact your guidelines were mostly previously published by Sartin before and they were meant to get contenders for those that couldn't. That advise goes way back to the old Yellow Manual page # 12, prior to 1990. He specifically said that those that can get the winner 94% of the time in their contenders can ignore the guidelines. What he expounded on was to put 5 contenders into the program ,pick appropriate pace lines and let the program sort them out.
Also on pg. 13 he states in reference to 90 day horses that " Look to see if the horse has ever run well first time out after a long layoff." Even back then he didn't automatically throw out long layoff horses. Even in later writing he paid less attention to the layoff factor.
I also don't need help to read past performance. I consider myself pretty good in analyzing PP which is why I get winners and many at good prices which I have posted here numerous times. All I can say is its no coincidence and their before the gates open.
Would I have had the #1 horse in that 4th race , well in all honesty I can't say without all the other data of that race but there is no doubt long layoff horses win. Judging by the payoff it fooled many bettors on that day. I do know and say one thing and that is you would not have had it as its an automatic toss for you're guidelines. Myself it would not be an automatic toss, whether it survived the rest of my scrutiny is unknown after the fact.
Have a great day FTL and let me know when your interesting in doing some races before the gates open.
Mitch44
|
You are not the first person on this board to feel the way you do. It is a sign that what you, and others like you, just don’t understand is what I have tried to accomplish. My postings have never been about my personal handicapping prowess. I have never posted a race and bragged that I had the winner. That was never my goal. My goal was to help others and you don’t do that by posting losing races. That’s the reason you only find winning races in the follow ups or in any book ever written that illustrates how to follow the authors instructions on how to win races. In addition to posting races using the guidelines I set forth, many of those races included commentary that would help educate the reader further with regard to horse racing as well as handicapping.
How to pick contenders and pacelines are the questions asked most frequently. It’s what people want to know and are looking for guidance. “FTL’s” Guidelines was not a name I gave to the guidelines I posted. In fact, I made it clear that the guidelines I posted were “Doc’s” original guidelines. I simply added two additional guidelines based on statistics I got from data base queries that eliminate horses that rarely win. I simply gave people guidelines they could apply to every race they encountered that would get them the best contenders and pacelines based on “Doc’s” original concepts. You may not agree with the use of his original guidelines, but I don’t care. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Likewise, I have my own opinion.
The best part about using the guidelines I set forth is that if you apply them before, during or after a race, it all works out the same way. There is no finding the perfect solution after the race. Every race is worked the same way. I did every race on a card at PARX one day, after the fact. If the winner of any race was not a contender by the guidelines I used, that was noted. I never said using the guidelines I set forth would get you the winner of every race. Neither did “Doc” by the way. The guideline concept was just a means of applying a consistent method to contender and line selection, since most people are all over the place when it comes to that.
Many of the races I reviewed were races someone else posted. I simply applied “Doc’s” and my guidelines to those races. Originally, I would post these races using ENERGY, just so I was using a Sartin program. There came a point in time when Ted and I reached an agreement that allowed me to use RDSS. ENERGY actually “picks” the horses that should be bet. RDSS does not. When I started posting races using RDSS I simply asked the question, “could the winner have been one of your two win bets?” Of course this question was only asked when there were more than 2 contenders.
The idea that one would miss winners using the guidelines I set forth is ludicrous. You seem to imply that these are winners that otherwise would have been had. Winners will be missed no matter what you do. I have posted many, many races that show VERY good priced winners applying the guidelines I set forth.
As far as the race Bill Lyster posted is concerned, you’re wrong, again.
I didn’t ask Bill to post anything. With all the races I’ve posted on this site, I certainly don’t need someone else to do it for me. I haven’t downloaded races or played races for a few years now. After 17 years of playing every day I retired a few years ago, so I have no idea about any race at any track, but Bill and I do keep in touch. He and I were discussing a race and I gave him my opinion. He asked me if I cared whether or not he posted it.
Of course I didn’t mind as it presented an learning opportunity for those reading his post, which has always been my goal. Of course it is impossible for someone with your mindset to understand that.