Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up - View Single Post

JLSmith · 08-29-2008, 10:39 PM

I think the original question posed is very interesting. Before answering, however, another question immediately comes to mind. What is the Sartin Methodolgy? Bill could give the official definition, I am sure so I may be way off base.

I think the Methodology is, itself, a very broad and sweeping thing that covers a lot of ground. It grew and developed over the years and continues to grow and develop right on this forum. It had many branches and was used in a variety of ways by a variety of people.

My introduction to The Methodology was found in Brohammer's Modern Pace Handicapping, which I read in the early '90's. It spawned a twin, though a not an identical twin, in Hambleton, Schmidt, et. al.'s Pace Make the race. They were similar in concept yet very different.

Very important parts of the Methodology include %E and %M. Pizzola, from what I can tell, all but ignored these factors and focused primarily on things such as PBS and PPF. Much of the Methodolgy used FPS calculations at its core and all but required calculators and computers. Thus programmers such as Ken Massa and Bob Purdy. Massa's present day HTR is a very different animal from Purdy's Synergism VI which is very different from the original Synergism which is very different from Ted's RDSS which is very different from the older Sartin programs -- yet they are, I feel, all equally part of The Methodology, if not simply evolved from The Methodology.

The Hat just used the good old Racing Form.

Are any of these not part of The Methodology? I don't think so.

Are any of these all encompassing of The Methodology? I don't think so.

Could all of these contributors use all aspects of The Methodology equally well? Doubtful.

Did certain contributors excel in specific areas of The Methodology? Definitely.

The only common element to all of the various aspects and branches of the Methodology from what I can tell is the affect of pace on a race. Therefore, anyone that considers pace in any form or fashion when handicapping is using The Methodology -- whether they realize it or not.

So, to answer the original question: No one uses The Methodology in its entirety. But I consider pace when handicapping every race therefore I use The Methodology 100% (applied incorrectly most of the time to be sure but I use it nonetheless).

Just as Doc Sartin developed ideas and concepts, he acknowledges that he borrowed ideas and concepts (as did Tom Brohammer, Mike Pizzola, Dick Schmidt, Tom Hambleton and everyone else that was ever involved in The Methodology).

Just as they learned what they could from each other to improve their knowledge of handicapping I am attempting to learn from all the good folks that post on this forum.

So again, the answer is, yes. 100%.

(how's that for a long-winded way to say a simple three letter word, "yes?")

08-29-2008, 10:39 PM	#23
JLSmith Maiden Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3	I think the original question posed is very interesting. Before answering, however, another question immediately comes to mind. What is the Sartin Methodolgy? Bill could give the official definition, I am sure so I may be way off base. I think the Methodology is, itself, a very broad and sweeping thing that covers a lot of ground. It grew and developed over the years and continues to grow and develop right on this forum. It had many branches and was used in a variety of ways by a variety of people. My introduction to The Methodology was found in Brohammer's Modern Pace Handicapping, which I read in the early '90's. It spawned a twin, though a not an identical twin, in Hambleton, Schmidt, et. al.'s Pace Make the race. They were similar in concept yet very different. Very important parts of the Methodology include %E and %M. Pizzola, from what I can tell, all but ignored these factors and focused primarily on things such as PBS and PPF. Much of the Methodolgy used FPS calculations at its core and all but required calculators and computers. Thus programmers such as Ken Massa and Bob Purdy. Massa's present day HTR is a very different animal from Purdy's Synergism VI which is very different from the original Synergism which is very different from Ted's RDSS which is very different from the older Sartin programs -- yet they are, I feel, all equally part of The Methodology, if not simply evolved from The Methodology. The Hat just used the good old Racing Form. Are any of these not part of The Methodology? I don't think so. Are any of these all encompassing of The Methodology? I don't think so. Could all of these contributors use all aspects of The Methodology equally well? Doubtful. Did certain contributors excel in specific areas of The Methodology? Definitely. The only common element to all of the various aspects and branches of the Methodology from what I can tell is the affect of pace on a race. Therefore, anyone that considers pace in any form or fashion when handicapping is using The Methodology -- whether they realize it or not. So, to answer the original question: No one uses The Methodology in its entirety. But I consider pace when handicapping every race therefore I use The Methodology 100% (applied incorrectly most of the time to be sure but I use it nonetheless). Just as Doc Sartin developed ideas and concepts, he acknowledges that he borrowed ideas and concepts (as did Tom Brohammer, Mike Pizzola, Dick Schmidt, Tom Hambleton and everyone else that was ever involved in The Methodology). Just as they learned what they could from each other to improve their knowledge of handicapping I am attempting to learn from all the good folks that post on this forum. So again, the answer is, yes. 100%. (how's that for a long-winded way to say a simple three letter word, "yes?")