Just follow the guidelines

[Because I Can Jim]

I know it took you a considerable amount of time to respond to my question(s). Simply put...Thank you.

I was easily able to make heads and tails of what you wrote. It is also something that lends itself to further thoughts and development.

For example, in discussing the #2 and #10 horse. I will admit that I look at the past performances, pick pacelines, select contenders and look at the readouts. Never would I have considered the 10 horse to be faster than the 2 horse as you have explained it. I would have seen the 0.0 for both horses in the 1F and considered them to be the same at the 1F just because of the number. And this brings me into the area of your experience. It seems to me that if you don't have the prior knowledge, you can't bring it to the table when you are looking at the next race. In my case, there was only the numbers which leads to an erroneous conclusion. Now, having that one additional bit of insight, it changes the way I would look at a race - an additonal factor to consider. The more I know, the more insights I have, the better decisions I can make. The question becomes "How to gain the most amount of insight (experience) in as little time as possible?" And just as importantly, how to know if it is right/correct? I know, I know... Pace & Cap and individuals such as yourself, Bill and others.

It is interesting to read about your frequency of wagering and how you look for reasons "not to bet" a race. I too, wait for 4-1 or better but, on two (both) horses to win. Therefore, I pass quite a few races also. Yet, my mind keeps wandering back to "What opportunities am I missing in the race?" This appears to be a sympton of as you put it "looking for a reason to bet a race." I am looking to win (be right) in a race as opposed to seeking profit.

As you wrote:
"Let's take 20 races, just because that is a Sartin cycle. "ON AVERAGE", can we expect 6 to 7 of those races to be won by the favorite? YES. How about the 2nd choices, which are usually 5/2 or less, especially in this time of short fields? Would you say they account for another 4 or 5 winners? Then there is the gap between 3/1 and 7/2. Thery're going to account for a few more winners. So what do I have left, 6 races? And I still have to pick the right horse. It's not easy."

It is good to confirm that what I am doing is not too far off base, especially for still having to pick the right horse for the 6 races that are left.

Once again, a heartfelt thanks for taking a considerable amount of time not only for posting a reply to me, but, also posting as frequently as you do. I know others will agree that while it is not readily seen by you, what you do does have an effect on everyone who reads your words.

Thanks again and take care,
Jim

[rmath]

I ran race 9 at Prx today looking for a good priced contender.
While I did not use FTLs guidelines. Which I feel are great for finding the winner in a race.
I approach each race just as methodically as he does.In this race I bet the #7 to win but also bet the #6 at 79/1 to place & show.
The 6 horse was off 121 days and was also 20/1 ML.
The last race was a + race.
This is an example of what Ted was saying about looking past the ML on a horse.



[
ATTACH]35795[/ATTACH]

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Because I Can Jim

I know it took you a considerable amount of time to respond to my question(s). Simply put...Thank you.

I was easily able to make heads and tails of what you wrote. It is also something that lends itself to further thoughts and development.

For example, in discussing the #2 and #10 horse. I will admit that I look at the past performances, pick pacelines, select contenders and look at the readouts. Never would I have considered the 10 horse to be faster than the 2 horse as you have explained it. I would have seen the 0.0 for both horses in the 1F and considered them to be the same at the 1F just because of the number. And this brings me into the area of your experience. It seems to me that if you don't have the prior knowledge, you can't bring it to the table when you are looking at the next race. In my case, there was only the numbers which leads to an erroneous conclusion. Now, having that one additional bit of insight, it changes the way I would look at a race - an additonal factor to consider. The more I know, the more insights I have, the better decisions I can make. The question becomes "How to gain the most amount of insight (experience) in as little time as possible?" And just as importantly, how to know if it is right/correct? I know, I know... Pace & Cap and individuals such as yourself, Bill and others.

It is interesting to read about your frequency of wagering and how you look for reasons "not to bet" a race. I too, wait for 4-1 or better but, on two (both) horses to win. Therefore, I pass quite a few races also. Yet, my mind keeps wandering back to "What opportunities am I missing in the race?" This appears to be a sympton of as you put it "looking for a reason to bet a race." I am looking to win (be right) in a race as opposed to seeking profit.

As you wrote:
"Let's take 20 races, just because that is a Sartin cycle. "ON AVERAGE", can we expect 6 to 7 of those races to be won by the favorite? YES. How about the 2nd choices, which are usually 5/2 or less, especially in this time of short fields? Would you say they account for another 4 or 5 winners? Then there is the gap between 3/1 and 7/2. Thery're going to account for a few more winners. So what do I have left, 6 races? And I still have to pick the right horse. It's not easy."

It is good to confirm that what I am doing is not too far off base, especially for still having to pick the right horse for the 6 races that are left.

Once again, a heartfelt thanks for taking a considerable amount of time not only for posting a reply to me, but, also posting as frequently as you do. I know others will agree that while it is not readily seen by you, what you do does have an effect on everyone who reads your words.

Thanks again and take care,
Jim

Thank you, and trust me, that didn't even begin to come close to a "tell all".

What takes the human mind just seconds to process, takes that same human mind hours to put down in words in an orderly fashion. For an example...

When I wrote about the #2 and #10 horses, I forgot the main reason for the example. Yes, I talked about the #10 having to get out of the gate and over to the rail without interfering with any horses inside of it. I even talked about the 1 mile race being on a 1 mile oval. What I failed to write was this.

In a 1 mile race on a 1 mile oval, the run to the first turn is SHORT!
The #10 horse, if not fast enough, doesn't have enough time to clear the field before the turn and therefore gets hung out wide around that first turn causing it to lose a lot of ground. Even if that horse eventually makes the lead or gets close enough to challange for the lead, that will be after going around the first turn and onto the backstretch. That effort will cost the horse. The amount of energy expended to accomplish that will leave the horse flat as they come to the second call. That horse will be done at that point. Most people will dismiss the horse as a "quitter" without ever examining the circumstances.
I can't possibly recount the number of times I have seen where a horse shows some early effort only to start backing up at the second call. I mean, in my lifetime, there have just been too many. And like I said at the outset, the human mind processes information FAST. When I see this type of race from a horse, at the distance I'm talking about, the first thing that happens is, I immediately look to see what post position the horse broke from in the race. If I find that the horse has been breaking from extreme outside positions, it quickly answers the question of why the horse has been going backwards approaching the seconnd call (or thereabout). Or, maybe never recovering from being wide on the first turn. Just close your eyes and see a visual picture of this. It's not that hard to do. Pay attention to what happens while the race is run. Watch the replay if you didn't see something in the original running of the race. This is how you can learn things.
Now, one of the shortcomings I have seen in RDSS is, the post positions ARE NOT on the same line as the horses races! You have to open the "trip" tab in order to see them. It's not impossible to work with them this way, just awkward after seeing the post positions where they SHOULD BE for more than 47 years, just to the left of "the break"! It's much easier to read the horses running line as "PP, Break, 1st call". Because I am so use to reading it this way, it just "flows" better for me.

When you said, "The question becomes "How to gain the most amount of insight (experience) in as little time as possible?"" you asked the $64 question. It has taken me all my life. Now I don't expect you, or anyone else, to wait that long for the answers you seek. I can only say, that when I post up races, not only do I post screen shots of horses and various screens from the software, but I also, if not always, I most times will talk about the conditions of the race, which are important. In my "rundown" of the horses, I will, where I feel it is appropriate, talk about more than just which line I have chosen. I know that what I say is just a very small part of what I actually do, but it does serve as some insight into more than just picking a line. You have to understand, this site is about the Sartin Methodology. Whenever I stray away from that, I feel I am not "staying within the bounds", so to speak, even though I know what I have to say is important. I can go on and on for days at a time talking about horse racing or answering questions (where I can) about horse racing, but that isn't what the site is about, so I limit myself. I'm sure that in my 5 years at this site, I have from time to time, posted some things here or there and if you gathered it all up into one place you would find a lot of information.

My suggestion to try and shorten the learning curve is, read the horses PP's from the bottom up. Take notice of everything, distance, class, condition, surface. It all matters. When it comes to cheap horses, take notice of the "life" conditions...NW2L, NW3L, NW4L. See how they move from winning one condition and moving to the next.

When I suggest reading PP's from the bottom up, what I am saying is this. Why wait for tomorows card to learn. There is a lot in today's races to learn from. It's called "observation". You're not picking lines or looking at a complete race. You're just looking at how a horse reacts to being placed in certain types of races, at different distances. As with my #2, #10 example, pay attention to the mile races the horse may have run in. What track did it run at? How did it run? If it was an early horse, what was it's post position? If it was an extreme outside post, how did the horse react to that outside post? How did the horse run the next time in a mile race at the same class level? What post did it break from on that day? If it broke from an inside post, did it run better as a result? "OBSERVATION" can teach you a lot.

I have noticed that you will play MNR. So do I. It's a tough track to play, so personally, I take an even greater approach to the "looking for a reason not to play" there than I would consider to be normal for me. But you always have to look. You never know when you might find something.

[Bill V.]

That is a super bet on a 79/1 horse to place and show

I whiffed on the race because I could not see Fire alarm in a 6.5 furlong sprint
I liked the 7 but a third consecutive win bothered me


Here is an example from race 8 of how the ML maker has it tough and
once conditions change a horse can drop dramatically.

Here is the winner of race 8 its morning line was 15/1 it won and paid
1.10 to 1 for a $4.20 win

Now if the morning line maker knew it would became a 6 horse field and the race would be run at 1 mile over the main track do you think it would have a ML of 15/1?
The race was scheduled for the wild distance of 7.5 on the turf and as we see there were many scratches

When 7.5 turf races come off the turf they change the distance to 1 mile on the main track

[rmath]

Thanks Bill, I agree with you when a race comes off the turf and half of the horses scratch any ML ratings go right out the window.
I have found that for me whenever a race changes surfaces like that it is best to just move on to the next race.
Why make things harder than they are already.
Good Luck,
rmath

[Bill V.]

While doing some research on running styles I came across these facts
about 6.5 furlong races at Parx for females

Using what FTL posted .


******

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.


Here is what I have. So far in 2013, there have been 53 6.5 furlong races run at Parx restricted to females

1. There were No 20/1 ML winners. There were 2 @ 15/1.
The average ML of all 53 winners was 4.5/1 The average win price of the 53 races was $10.72

2 There were 6 winners who had not run within 90 days
The average win price of these 6 races was $7.63
The winner has run within 90 days 47 out of 53 races

3 The winner had a + race withing 90 days at a comperable distance and surface 41 of the 53 races But also 6 of those races the winner was off
over 90 days so really the winner had a + race withing 90 days 41 of 47 races
The average win price of those 41 wins was $10.42

The winner had a + or (+) pace line at a comparable distance and surface
in the last line or with a valid excuse as outlined in the pace line manual
in 38 of the 47 race - The 6 winners off over 90 days are excluded

Interesting to see

Bill

[Appy]

Gawd I love that stuff Bill. Beauty of a post.

[dirty moose]

I was just reading through this post again. I decided to just pick a random card in my database and cap it using just the guidelines. I have some questions. I'm looking @ Parx Oct. 27 race 6. CL16K three and up N2-L

What line do you give here? Do you go back to L3?

[dirty moose]

And here in R7, SA 16K

Do you go back to L2?


What line here as well?


Stick with the last or go back?


More of the same. Back to L3?

[dirty moose]

Thanks for the help guys.