position or lengths

[socantra]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Gentlemen,

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

You real Canadians are so polite.......

Point made. I will atempt to tug my civility mask back into place.

Dick

[Tim Y]

The old expression is germane here:"not being able to see the forest for the trees," as the reductionists of the world (the "databasers") truly believe that looking at PARTS in ISOLATION, somehow allows the concept of the WHOLE to slither through. The first fraction of MOST races is so polluted with all manor of poor/abnormally fast breaks, poor horses (remember who lead the 1996 Breeder's Cup Turf to the first call?: Rick's Natural Star), experiments in jockey's trying to alter the running style of an animal, or just dumb luck, to be evaluated as a stand alone factor. It is not until the pollution falls by the wayside, the 2nd call, that animals are in a position to make the remainder of the race (the whole) come to light, and of course, this varies by the energy requirements of the specific courses.

Imagine trying to understand the concept of an internal combustion engine just looking at an exhaust manifold or piston ring. Imagine a physician (or the popular con artists of today i.e. reflexologists, some chiropractors, etc.) trying to understand human body health by only looking at liver or respiratory function to the exclusion of the sum of pathologies. A concept must rest upon the whole, taken as a whole.

This concept of factors in isolation has been debunked through the centuries in cultural equivalents akin to the Aesop fable about the 8 blind men who, for the first time, confront an elephant. Each man only responds to a PART of the whole, and as such, make wildly inaccurate conclusions as to the whole: the one who just touched the trunk thinks the animal to be "snake-like," the one touching a leg thinks the animal is "tree-like," and another touching only the skin thinks it to be much like an alligator and so on.

I continue to get a kick out of "databasers" and their grandstand approach to a sport that demands a more up close evaluation of the realities of it's nature rather than the "arm's length" conjectures and conclusions of pure data.

[Charlie D]

This concept of factors in isolation has been debunked through the centuries

Maybe this why Doc used Fr1+Fr2+Fr3 - the WHOLE of the race

[xtb]

With all due respect Tim, you truly have no clue how people are using databases in the 21st century. What you describe may have been your method 20 or so years ago but things are much different now.

[VoodooFan]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

I continue to get a kick out of "databasers" and their grandstand approach to a sport that demands a more up close evaluation of the realities of it's nature rather than the "arm's length" conjectures and conclusions of pure data.

Multiple 20 race cycles, documented factors used and $2 wagered is the Methodology way.

If the RESULTS documented prove either:

a) Return on Investment is same as other Sartin Methods and software, but far less work in multiple 20 race cycles

b) Return on Investment is 1 to 3 more winners, consistantly, in multiple 20 race cycle than all previous Sartin Methods and software

c) Return on Investment exceeds previous Sartin Methods and software in multiple 20 race cycles

.....or any combination of the above is useful hard results.

In court, the defense can have 20 certified expert witnesses, while the prosectution can have 20 certified expert witnesses with the OPPOSITE opinion of the previous 20.

Knowledge and Science can be applied or mis-applied , interpreted or
mis-interpreted. Magic with numbers, make them say what we want.

Geometry has a process of theorems to come to a conclusion.

The problem is, though, that something , on paper, can be mathematically sound and proven correct, ON PAPER, but when applied in the REAL, PHYSICAL world and interacting with natural forces , shows not to work and fails.

Which means some Factor in the natural world has not been accounted for, used properly or used improperly in combination of other known factors, etc.

Debate, conjecture, disagreements, arguement, postures, Academic fencing, philosophical superiority, agendas, beliefs, opinions, observations of weakness, perceptions, isolated analysis, interpretations, saber rattling of theories, measurements of intellectual acuity, critiques, etc., ....will evaporate and clear once hard data and cash is in hand, and done so repeatedly.

Check the Factor Analysis manual and the Brohamer Manual to see how it's done.

The Sartin Methodology came to pass with hard data, proven over and over BEFORE Doc came to confidently state his conclusions.

And when hard, physical data and money thru the windows proved otherwise, he CHANGED or at least, cut away the un-essential to less tedious work and time consuming handicapping, and winning more races and money.

VoodooFan

[shoeless]

Richie,Thanks for being the only one responding to my ORIGINAL question,If I knew all this other BS would come up I wouldnt have bothered.Jeff


Charlie,I wont be able to sleep tonight knowing Im on your ignore list.

[gl45]

Jeff,
do you remember the forum early days......what a pleasure to partcipate.....

**Editted** (see post #38)

[Bill V.]

Originally Posted by alydar_David

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

Hello David

It sure is Hey David look at this.
This is a 20 race cycle I sent to Doc he put it in
Follow Up #79 I was so proud of the cycle I remember
showing Richie all the circled boxes= win bets -

"Send it to Doc"

any way look at the highlighted FX readout
Look at how many winners at good prices were FX 1 and 2

Just like I still do today These readouts are based on races with
5 or back then 6 contenders on BLBL

Thanks
Bill

[Tim Y]

FX, the sum of the velocities to the SECOND call: the crux of the race. Pizzolla didn't call it the fulcrum for nothing.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

FX, the sum of the velocities to the SECOND call: the crux of the race.

Correction: FX = (F1 + F3) / 2. Second Call (and 2nd fraction) is not involved. High ranked FX shows a horse that can get out early and close well.

Ted