position or lengths

[alydar_ David]

My memory is rusty, but wasn't Factor X 1F+3F?

[tom]

Some stats on F1 and EP.....

This is using my HTR velocity database, but it should not differ that much from TM based variants, and be close enough for government work.

From 48,800 races, there were 10,293 winners ( 21%) ranked 1 on first fractions and they returned .88

There were 11,248 winners ranked #1 on EP (23%) and they returned .88

Pretty close.....F1 and EP are very close in predicting the winner.

Not to say use either alone, but both are very potent factors. This included all sprints, wet or fast, dirt or poly, under one mile. All classes, all tracks, and the only filter I used was last race within 60 days.

[VoodooFan]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

the ENTIRE methodology is dependent upon TWO major factors: the 2nd call and the final fraction. THAT'S it!

Everything hinges on those two things and one just DISMISSES THE REST.

If that's your opinion, that's fine, but it is not a true statement. It MUST be corrected, that is the job of this forum, at the least.

I don't claim to know everything about the Methodology, but I KNOW that is an inaccurate statement.

Check Doc's comments "after the fact" when he commented on why he semi-endorsed "TPR" book and concepts. He really did not believe in it, but if it helps some people put dollars in their pocket, he was for THAT. He also says this on some seminar tapes.

Also, if this is your opinion, you should bring evidence, like 2 or 3 multiple 20 race cycles showing your ROI on $2 bets using SOLELY this opinion, and/or tools that uses the basis for this opinion ONLY.

That's one of the ways Doc tested his theories before proving them OR dis-proving to be profitable and including them in the Methodology.

Also, The HAT was on tape saying that the gates and the race DON'T start at the 2nd call, it starts at the 1st call with the other others.

The starting gate is not at the 2nd call.

You should study and apply/experiment with TPR, if this is your direction, and maybe, to prove your opinion, use it to enhance your opinion/method of play, backed by a few 20 race cycles.

The methodology, if you check Doc's opinion in the Follow-Up archives, is not based on this, but he supports anything that shows a consistant profit per 20 race cycle, whether he endorse's it or not, Doc always let us know whats out there to use....he just wanted us to win.

And winning is defined by a positive Return on Investment per 20 race cycle.

Check the 1st signature quote below, I have that one on tape, both are by THE HAT.

VoodooFan

[VoodooFan]

edit:

Also, The HAT was on tape saying that the gates and the race DON'T start at the 2nd call, it starts at the 1st call with the other HORSES.


VoodooFan

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Doc wouldn't be happy about someone writing this Tim would he???

What Howard or ANYONE else would say about an independent interpretation of the use of the methodology means ZIP to me. Once an idea leave one's mind and moves to another, it is subject to new scrutiny with objective eyes. If subsequent evaluations don't see the same things, that's just the way it is, period.

There is NO ONE WAY to look at a bar of soap, a photograph or the methodology. If people don't press the boundaries and look for new things, it becomes MORE dogmatic, influenced more and more, by what the authors of the Banana Republicans call "incestuous amplification." First used in the military terms, when one surrounds oneself with only those in lock step agreement with a point of view, those ideas become so intensely molded into to a strict DOGMATIC position, that objectivity goes out the window and alternatives never reach a threshold of evaluation, closed off before even being evaluated.

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

What Howard or ANYONE else would say about an independent interpretation of the use of the methodology means ZIP to me. .

I could be wrong, but I think that shows you've no respect for Doc's Methodology, also what Bill, Ted and Richie is trying to do.



Bottom line is, your interpretation of Sartin's Methodology is wrong

Fr1+Fr2+Fr3 is THE Sartin Methodology


This is THE Tim Y Methodology

ENTIRE methodology is dependent upon TWO major factors: the 2nd call and the final fraction. THAT'S it!

Don't get em mixed up imo

[socantra]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

What Howard or ANYONE else would say about an independent interpretation of the use of the methodology means ZIP to me. Once an idea leave one's mind and moves to another, it is subject to new scrutiny with objective eyes. If subsequent evaluations don't see the same things, that's just the way it is, period.

an interesting quote, considering that you were the one with the silly remark about Huey Mahl being ashamed of someone.

Once again, in your desire to be the brilliant contrarian, you have started with one off the wall, silly statement. Then, your stubbornness and arrogance forces you to keep backing yourself further and further into a corner.

I suspect that no one really cares whether you use the 1st fraction or not, even though you have said in the past that you use elements of it in the E/EP and other readouts. The only thing that upsets people is that you set yourself up as an expert on the Sartin methodology.

Doc Sartin believed strongly in the 1st fraction. Jimmy Bradshaw believed strongly in the use of the 1st fraction. That means it is a pretty basic item within the methodology.

I know you are on the cutting edge of knowledge and everyone here is just stuck in the mud. You have certainly said it often enough. Why not become the guru of your own methodology. Then you won't be bothered with those stodgy ideas that exist in the Sartin methodology.

Or, do whatever the hell you want to. Just quit claiming that your way is the only right way to do things. Your pompous, dogmatic raving gets a bit thick at times.

Dick

[Ted Craven]

Gentlemen,

Switching hats here for a moment from discussion participant to member of civility patrol. Just a friendly reminder: debate and disagreement are certainly permitted - disrespect is NOT.

If you've made your point (courteously or discourteously), consider leaving it stand as is. Otherwise, all respectfully stated points of view (including dissenting) are welcomed. Tone of voice not suited to this community will be editted or deleted.

Ted

[shoeless]

Charlie,I have no problem with you and if you want to leave the board then your the one being childish.Im not saying I agree with Tim but I do feel right or wrong that he does have a right to his opinion and should not get hammered because of it.

[Charlie D]

Jeff

You have singled out my replies to Tim when there have been numerous others stating similar, i see this as you having a problem with me.

You have used my tags in your replies which have absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed and i see this as childish behavoir.

To stop your silly game i was going to stop posting as not only does this cause me hassle, it also spoils the discussion for others, however, another suggestion has been put forward, which you will probably also think childish, but i am now going to put it into action

You are the first ever person to be put on my first ever ignore list


Goodbye