Fulcrum vs. Match Up

[Mark]

In the beginning all the pace handicappers used the last line. It wasn't until the mutuels went to hell because the Public picked up on it did the Doc start talking about Sports Stats ROI on the 2nd or 3rd line.
Times change and in a wagering sport like horse racing the syndicates and Public in general get wise.
When you quote a reference to Pizzolla and his Fulcrum in FU #8 or #10, what about #15 or #50 or #73? If you want to go back in time use the old Yellow manual and make all those track adjustments. Things change and evolve. Pizzolla quit or got thrown out of Pirco. His ideas and methods ceased to exist in all later publications. Let's not get wrapped around the axle about something that doesn't mean crap.
Bill likes the Fulcrum and has used it for years. Harrah for Bill!!! I personally think it is an oversimplification and omits a large portion of the race from analysis. So I don't necessarily recommend that new users start with it. I recommend they start with Bradshaw's 5 step approach and move forward over time as the skills and understanding progress. There are no Cliff notes in handicapping!
Tell me this: Why is the last race so important? Is it most important? Why do I care how fast the horse ran in that race. Don't I really want to know who has run the fastest of all the horses in the race? And how did they run fast: on the lead, Pressing or from further back? POWER LINE handicapping will show you in what line the horse ran his best against the fastest early fractions. Isn't that what I want to know? If he did it 7 races ago in a route and today is a sprint, I have to interpret that and make a handicapping decision. If he did it 8 races ago and 3 or 4 months ago returned from a year's layoff, why can't he run back to those figures given the proper conditioning? This obsession with recency is complete garbage but it allows all Matchers to earn double digit mutuels. You either find a way to make money at this sport or you help other people make money.

[shoeless]

Bill,

Thanks for clearing it up

Jeff

[shoeless]

Mitch,

You stated in a post

What Pizziola used (fulcrum) was never endorsed by him or the Sartin group.


FU 8 Par 6 Pizzolla writes

This is not new and by no means original with me. Doc Sartin presented just this approach during my first phone call with him 7 years ago

As I said before if Doc did not endorse this seems to me he would have mentioned it in writing not some I heard this point of view

Doesn't matter if you like Pizzolla or not but at one time was a important piece to the methodology

[Lt1]

I think that before we go too far astray we should remember that there have been many advances in the methodology in how to select contenders. . The fulcrum, TPR, sr+tv, total energy, even the Beyer numbers. Each of us is free to choose whichever we feel comfortable with and gets the winner in our top 4 or 5 on a consistent basis. We are also free to use the matchup or best of the last 3 comparable etc to choose our pacelines. If one takes the time to listen to some of the seminar audio tapes[Vegas 1992 is a good one] you will hear how teaching members arrived at contenders and pacelines. A lot of divergent methods to be sure but all part of the methodology. Keep records and you will know what works for you.
Tim G

[MikeB]

Originally Posted by Lt1

I think that before we go too far astray we should remember that there have been many advances in the methodology in how to select contenders. . The fulcrum, TPR, sr+tv, total energy, even the Beyer numbers. Each of us is free to choose whichever we feel comfortable with and gets the winner in our top 4 or 5 on a consistent basis.

I agree. Pizzolla was a PIRCO instructor at one time, and did teach the fulcrum in seminars. The Sartin Methodology moved on, probably with much prompting from The Hat, who didn't like the fulcrum.

It's all a buffet. Take what suits your preference. A lot of Sartin users don't use the Match Up. It's still all Sartin.

[Mitch44]

Some may be surprised to hear this but I don't use the match up. I know it, have used it and can also employ it. However I'm smart enough to know I can't outperform the computer and the match up is included in RDSS and Sartin later programs. At seminars "The Hat" never told anyone to give up computers. While I have a great understanding of entropy, the match up etc. I'm smart enough to know I can't compete with the computer. Most members don't realize the amount of math and calculations involved which if applied by hand is error prone and very slow.Your not going to get too many races done.

My reason for defending the Bradshaw match up are:1. While Pizzola mentions the match up at least 6 different times in FU #8 it is not the match up and as he states, it is his approach, it doesn't use the 1st FR, when the "Doc & or Bradshaw incorporated all 3 Fr's the results greatly improved and the "Doc"said that any pace method that did not include all 3 Fr's is not pace handicapping. 2. From the match up all the later programs evolved to what we now have in RDSS with the match up included in its readouts. The match up was one of a few big breakthroughs, another entropy and or deceleration that really propelled everything to what we have today. Today with RDSS its all very simple as compared to doing hand calculations years ago.

Nothing Pizzola ever did within Sartin was any great break through or propelled the group forward such as Brohammer , Bradshaw etc. Yes it is a buffet as MikeB stated so choose wisely, eat healthy and I'm sure everything will get sampled there. Let record keeping be your taste buds and you'll do well.
Mitch44

[shoeless]

Just to clear things up as Bill stated I never said the fulcrum and the match up were the same.

I was just commenting about your statement that the Sartin group never endorsed the fulcrum yet there it was in black and white that Doc had gone over this approach years before with Pizzolla

If I am not mistaken you tried Black Magic with not much success, seems strange why if you have this dislike for Pizzolla's teachings why would you try it in the first place.

[Mitch44]

Hi shoeless,
Just for clarity I don't recall you said the fulcrum and the match up were the same. Not sure where that comes from, my original post was to answer a question from a member who was confused about the two. Confusion about the two can happen to anyone about the two. All I did was clarity the two. That individual can choose any path he wants however he should get an answer to his original question. I have absolutely nothing at stake in what he chooses to do, I'm not selling anything etc.

As far as Sartin going over the fulcrum years before Pizzola I totally disagree as I said in a previous post that paragraph is vague and says absolutely nothing except the "Doc" got him started several years prior but he does not specifically say in which way but alludes to something in the pervious paragraph. Now you can read into that anything you want or so can anyone else but the facts aren't there.

You are absolutely correct that I have tried Black Magic in the past and found it to be a very poor product after giving a fair 90 day trial. That trial included record keeping, testing. I will say this about the product and that is he does honor his money back guarantee. Now that's not an endorsement just a fact. Now one of the reasons that I tried it is that I'm a progressive horse player who is open to new ideas, theories etc. I can read the worse book on racing and if I can garner one little nugget out of it I'm a happy camper. Those that are not opened minded are stuck in the pass and never will progress. Myself I'm happy to ride in a car with AC, power windows, disk brakes etc. And Sartin introduced me to computer and I've progressed as the programs have progressed. I have also used Aodds and when "The Hat" passed I went to Bris. You can knock me on that also. At that time Sartin was going through some growing pains and nothing like what RDSS is at present. Actually I use a combination of both. Oh yea before knocking me about it I think Ted is including some of their stuff in the new RDSS. While I'm good with stretch out and cutbacks etc. and can figure this stuff myself I fine that RDSS can do it more efficiently w/ out mistakes, plus some other nuggets which for me makes sense to use a combination of both.

IMO Pizzola's stuff; fulcrum, PBS#, BM and his method of picking contenders along with what he alludes to be the match up which it isn't, is crap and that is derived by my record keeping, testing and personnel experience. Everyone has the freedom to choose their own path. I wish all horse players the best with whatever they use however if its not working I would suggest change, if contented and it isn't broke leave it alone.
Mitch 44

[MJS6916]

I took a lot of good from reading Pizzola's Handicapping Magic.


I can see how the Fulcrum and his PPF can be used to help the handicapping process in many events.


The PBS number (whatever chapter that was in) I had to read 3 times
only for the sake of not laughing at it too soon.


Mike

[shoeless]

Mitch

How do you like living in the Villages?

A buddy of mine was telling me I should retire there