Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...)
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) Interactive Teaching & Learning - Race Conditions, Contenders, Pacelines, Advanced Concepts, Betting ...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2018, 10:35 PM   #21
shoeless
Grade 1
 
shoeless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,149
FTL

Glad to see you posting again

Shoeless
shoeless is online now  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:18 AM   #22
dlivery
Grade 1
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Thornhill ON
Posts: 437
Yes
FTL
Welcome back
__________________
May all wagers be Winners...
dlivery is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:47 AM   #23
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
FTL:


First of all I call it cherry picking when you constantly and always come up with an ideal solution to a race after the fact. Fact of the matter also is that not once have I ever seen you put up a pick before a race goes off. I call that cherry picking and a classic definition of such. They don't pay off for after the fact and only prior to the gates opening.


Ah another perfect solution to why the # 1 horse won his 4th race. Bravo!! It caught my eye in briefly looking at the PP of this race. And based on your guidelines the horse would be a toss. There are many reasons why that race could be a toss besides the few you mention.
"Its' winning race in line 4 is just NOT the mystery you make it out to be!" Its absolutely no mystery to me however to anyone following you're guidelines it would be a mystery and winners they would never get. Your rules / guidelines probably give up at least 25% winners of a race going into without ever laying eyes on it.


"Bill V posted it, not me." Perhaps he did but I recall in the last 2 weeks or so you specifically asked Bill Lister to find a race that meets your guidelines for posting which he did . Naturally it payed well. Now if that not a classic definition of cherry picking than I don't know what is. Sartin was accused of cherry picking races, his answer was to do the whole card. Any single race in Follow Ups were sent in by followers or deemed problem races by followers. Now that may be going a little far . I and other followers would like to see some before the race goes off. Heck we can even pick a race ,track and date a week out for fairness to all and another as an alternate just in case it happens to be a MSW.


In fact your guidelines were mostly previously published by Sartin before and they were meant to get contenders for those that couldn't. That advise goes way back to the old Yellow Manual page # 12, prior to 1990. He specifically said that those that can get the winner 94% of the time in their contenders can ignore the guidelines. What he expounded on was to put 5 contenders into the program ,pick appropriate pace lines and let the program sort them out.


Also on pg. 13 he states in reference to 90 day horses that " Look to see if the horse has ever run well first time out after a long layoff." Even back then he didn't automatically throw out long layoff horses. Even in later writing he paid less attention to the layoff factor.



I also don't need help to read past performance. I consider myself pretty good in analyzing PP which is why I get winners and many at good prices which I have posted here numerous times. All I can say is its no coincidence and their before the gates open.
Would I have had the #1 horse in that 4th race , well in all honesty I can't say without all the other data of that race but there is no doubt long layoff horses win. Judging by the payoff it fooled many bettors on that day. I do know and say one thing and that is you would not have had it as its an automatic toss for you're guidelines. Myself it would not be an automatic toss, whether it survived the rest of my scrutiny is unknown after the fact.


Have a great day FTL and let me know when your interesting in doing some races before the gates open.
Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 06-21-2018 at 08:57 AM.
Mitch44 is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:57 AM   #24
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
Hope

Hello Mitch

Can you clarify which race you are referring too

Quote:
Would I have had the #1 horse in that 4th race , well in all honesty I can't say without all the other data of that race but there is no doubt long layoff horses win. Judging by the payoff it fooled many bettors on that day. I do know and say one thing and that is you would not have had it as its an automatic toss for you're guidelines. Myself it would not be an automatic toss, whether it survived the rest of my scrutiny is unknown after the fact.
The race I posted, which FTL replied to was race 7 from Santa Anita on 6/14 I posted after the fact. But FTL was only responding to a question I asked everybody in the group.

Name:  what did I see.PNG
Views: 359
Size:  25.7 KB

The race was, I thought good for group teaching/discussion

Anyway, I marked horse 1 as a lone early.
and Pual "Sureshot Link" Lefty, and then FTL replied, Just like I asked everybody to.

A few of the members including you posted comments about the 8 horse which I appreciate, There was some discussion about the #8 as to why some of us marked it as a noncontender.
I marked it as such because to me there was no excuse for that zero effort following the claim and layoff and then drop.

Also, I recall another teaching post by FTL call Horses don't run in a straight line". Whenever I have a true early horse like horse 1 way inside posts
to an off-form early horse. I discount the outside early as having to use more energy to clear the pack and crossover or get caught too wide

Surely I would like to see races presented both before and after the fact
Especially the way FTL goes into detail about why he uses strict guidelines.
I doubt anybody would take the time to post races just for their ego's
We are a close group here, I believe in folks honesty. The posting are not only for themselves but they keep the spirit of Pace and Cap and Doc's work alive.

Friends helping friends Win


Thank you and Best Skill always
Bill
Bill V. is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:14 AM   #25
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Hi Bill,
The race in question and the 4th race of the # 1 horse that won after a big layoff and in reference to inflexible stick contender selections.
They count before the fact if your always cherry picking and posting after the fact. Your example is an excellent discussion and members know your objective of posting after the fact. You also post many before the fact, so your intentions are admirable. I can't say the same for others.


Have a Dr. apt. so must run for now.
Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:00 PM   #26
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch44 View Post
Hi Bill,
The race in question and the 4th race of the # 1 horse that won after a big layoff and in reference to inflexible stick contender selections.
They count before the fact if your always cherry picking and posting after the fact. Your example is an excellent discussion and members know your objective of posting after the fact. You also post many before the fact, so your intentions are admirable. I can't say the same for others.


Have a Dr. apt. so must run for now.
Mitch44
Thanks, Mitch
Best health to you at the doc appointment

I am sorry but I still am not sure which race you are referring to
The 4th race? but I don't know the track or day

Thanks
Bill
Bill V. is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 01:32 PM   #27
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Hello Bill,


I'm talking about the race in this post the 4th @ SA. I made a point in reference to horse #1 line 5 being an ugly race and winning its next race (Line #4) after a long layoff. I believe that's where your confused.


Under Sartin concepts he expounded on 5 horses for contenders. The 5th horse was there for record keeping purposes and for those wanting to play EX.'s etc. He also does not throw a horse out for a bad last race line. he used the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance and surface.


His latest teachings were for those that could not get contenders to give every horse a line ( using best of last 3 . . . ) and scratch from the worse to the top 5. Using TPR/ Tot. En etc. He didn't care how one got their contenders if they had the winner in those five 94% of the time. He then allowed the computer and program to sort out which were the best and employ two horse betting.

Anytime you asked for opinions on races I feel as through I'm free to express them. And with so many new members and some old ones I believe its important to stay within Sartin's main tenants for them to succeed. How they separate those final 4 or 5 is a horse of another color.


I don't ask people to put up races that specifically meet my criteria to demonstrate my expertise. Each race has a different makeup and presents different challenges therefore they shouldn't be cherry picked. I also don't want members or those who visit this site to think we're cherry picking races to put up. While they may provide some teaching points they can and some do not look well to visitors or those learning. I stated a specific post where this happen in my last post.


There are only a very small % of races that a reason can't be found for the winner.
Nobody wins money after the fact with idealism.


Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 06-21-2018 at 01:43 PM.
Mitch44 is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:53 PM   #28
Old Arkie Gal
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 153
In Dave Schwartz’s Percentages and Probabilities 2012 with a sample of 39,000 races and looking at days off data he found that horses off 30-60 days off had the highest IV 1.07 and the highest dollar net 1.59 and horses in the 62-90 days off had an IV 0.96 and dollar net of 1.55. This data simply supports the comments made by others here, don’t automatically throw out a horse until all factors are considered,
Pat
Old Arkie Gal is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:01 PM   #29
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch44 View Post
FTL:


First of all I call it cherry picking when you constantly and always come up with an ideal solution to a race after the fact. Fact of the matter also is that not once have I ever seen you put up a pick before a race goes off. I call that cherry picking and a classic definition of such. They don't pay off for after the fact and only prior to the gates opening.


Ah another perfect solution to why the # 1 horse won his 4th race. Bravo!! It caught my eye in briefly looking at the PP of this race. And based on your guidelines the horse would be a toss. There are many reasons why that race could be a toss besides the few you mention.
"Its' winning race in line 4 is just NOT the mystery you make it out to be!" Its absolutely no mystery to me however to anyone following you're guidelines it would be a mystery and winners they would never get. Your rules / guidelines probably give up at least 25% winners of a race going into without ever laying eyes on it.


"Bill V posted it, not me." Perhaps he did but I recall in the last 2 weeks or so you specifically asked Bill Lister to find a race that meets your guidelines for posting which he did . Naturally it payed well. Now if that not a classic definition of cherry picking than I don't know what is. Sartin was accused of cherry picking races, his answer was to do the whole card. Any single race in Follow Ups were sent in by followers or deemed problem races by followers. Now that may be going a little far . I and other followers would like to see some before the race goes off. Heck we can even pick a race ,track and date a week out for fairness to all and another as an alternate just in case it happens to be a MSW.


In fact your guidelines were mostly previously published by Sartin before and they were meant to get contenders for those that couldn't. That advise goes way back to the old Yellow Manual page # 12, prior to 1990. He specifically said that those that can get the winner 94% of the time in their contenders can ignore the guidelines. What he expounded on was to put 5 contenders into the program ,pick appropriate pace lines and let the program sort them out.


Also on pg. 13 he states in reference to 90 day horses that " Look to see if the horse has ever run well first time out after a long layoff." Even back then he didn't automatically throw out long layoff horses. Even in later writing he paid less attention to the layoff factor.



I also don't need help to read past performance. I consider myself pretty good in analyzing PP which is why I get winners and many at good prices which I have posted here numerous times. All I can say is its no coincidence and their before the gates open.
Would I have had the #1 horse in that 4th race , well in all honesty I can't say without all the other data of that race but there is no doubt long layoff horses win. Judging by the payoff it fooled many bettors on that day. I do know and say one thing and that is you would not have had it as its an automatic toss for you're guidelines. Myself it would not be an automatic toss, whether it survived the rest of my scrutiny is unknown after the fact.


Have a great day FTL and let me know when your interesting in doing some races before the gates open.
Mitch44
You are not the first person on this board to feel the way you do. It is a sign that what you, and others like you, just don’t understand is what I have tried to accomplish. My postings have never been about my personal handicapping prowess. I have never posted a race and bragged that I had the winner. That was never my goal. My goal was to help others and you don’t do that by posting losing races. That’s the reason you only find winning races in the follow ups or in any book ever written that illustrates how to follow the authors instructions on how to win races. In addition to posting races using the guidelines I set forth, many of those races included commentary that would help educate the reader further with regard to horse racing as well as handicapping.

How to pick contenders and pacelines are the questions asked most frequently. It’s what people want to know and are looking for guidance. “FTL’s” Guidelines was not a name I gave to the guidelines I posted. In fact, I made it clear that the guidelines I posted were “Doc’s” original guidelines. I simply added two additional guidelines based on statistics I got from data base queries that eliminate horses that rarely win. I simply gave people guidelines they could apply to every race they encountered that would get them the best contenders and pacelines based on “Doc’s” original concepts. You may not agree with the use of his original guidelines, but I don’t care. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Likewise, I have my own opinion.

The best part about using the guidelines I set forth is that if you apply them before, during or after a race, it all works out the same way. There is no finding the perfect solution after the race. Every race is worked the same way. I did every race on a card at PARX one day, after the fact. If the winner of any race was not a contender by the guidelines I used, that was noted. I never said using the guidelines I set forth would get you the winner of every race. Neither did “Doc” by the way. The guideline concept was just a means of applying a consistent method to contender and line selection, since most people are all over the place when it comes to that.

Many of the races I reviewed were races someone else posted. I simply applied “Doc’s” and my guidelines to those races. Originally, I would post these races using ENERGY, just so I was using a Sartin program. There came a point in time when Ted and I reached an agreement that allowed me to use RDSS. ENERGY actually “picks” the horses that should be bet. RDSS does not. When I started posting races using RDSS I simply asked the question, “could the winner have been one of your two win bets?” Of course this question was only asked when there were more than 2 contenders.

The idea that one would miss winners using the guidelines I set forth is ludicrous. You seem to imply that these are winners that otherwise would have been had. Winners will be missed no matter what you do. I have posted many, many races that show VERY good priced winners applying the guidelines I set forth.

As far as the race Bill Lyster posted is concerned, you’re wrong, again.
I didn’t ask Bill to post anything. With all the races I’ve posted on this site, I certainly don’t need someone else to do it for me. I haven’t downloaded races or played races for a few years now. After 17 years of playing every day I retired a few years ago, so I have no idea about any race at any track, but Bill and I do keep in touch. He and I were discussing a race and I gave him my opinion. He asked me if I cared whether or not he posted it. Of course I didn’t mind as it presented an learning opportunity for those reading his post, which has always been my goal. Of course it is impossible for someone with your mindset to understand that.
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own

Last edited by Ted Craven; 06-23-2018 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Contains language which violates the Terms of Service, see Ted Craven post below
For The Lead is offline  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:03 PM   #30
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Arkie Gal View Post
In Dave Schwartz’s Percentages and Probabilities 2012 with a sample of 39,000 races and looking at days off data he found that horses off 30-60 days off had the highest IV 1.07 and the highest dollar net 1.59 and horses in the 62-90 days off had an IV 0.96 and dollar net of 1.55. This data simply supports the comments made by others here, don’t automatically throw out a horse until all factors are considered,
Pat
I agree.

I don't outright eliminate horses in those categories either.
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own
For The Lead is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Handicapping Blind - Using Velocity PoH/TPR/Primary screens Jeebs Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) 24 05-31-2017 09:56 AM
Question on Paceline Selection - DMR0828 R2 kpmats10 Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) 5 09-09-2016 08:29 AM
Posting Races Bill V. August Contest 0 08-07-2012 07:11 AM
MatchUP intuition is "Primary", MatchUP mathematics is "Corollary"/Secondary VoodooFan Matchup Discussion 41 02-27-2011 03:05 PM
Paceline Selection Ted Craven RDSS 4 01-27-2011 01:41 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:37 PM.