What really matters?

[Psychotic Parakeet]

I need some guidance from you gurus here. I have been using Sartin Methodology since 2003, following this forum for nearly 10 years, and even had the RDSS software installed on my old Windows laptop a while back. I know there are some discrepancies with the program for Apple users, which is what I use now, so I had to create my own "Sartin" program from scratch using the Numbers program.

Anyways, long story short, but what factors and/or formulas really matter in deducing down probable contenders? I obviously have the classic EP, AP, SP, TT, FX, TTL, and E%, but I would like to add more to it, if possible. Are there certain factors that matter more at specific distances and/or surfaces? I am just getting back into the game, ironically it happened on Breeders' Cup weekend, and I am itching to go forward again.

I appreciate any insight, suggestions, and help you can offer me. Thank you so much!

-Laura

[Bill V.]

I would say, Make sure you have viable true contenders first

then since you have a EP, AP, SP, TT, FX, rating make a line score of these
readouts then eliminate to your top 4 or 5 and the top 4 or 5 total energy (if you have it )



I would read a follow FTL's guidelines
for contenders

Good Skill
Bill

[Jeebs]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

I would say, Make sure you have viable true contenders first

then since you have a EP, AP, SP, TT, FX, rating make a line score of these
readouts then eliminate to your top 4 or 5 and the top 4 or 5 total energy (if you have it )



I would read a follow FTL's guidelines
for contenders

Good Skill
Bill

As Bill said, TRUE contenders come first. The horses that CAN win. You’re not necessarily handicapping the most likely winners, but the most likely losers before moving on to who is left (the likely winners) if that makes sense?

Once you have your “winning” horses, see where they rate in relation to odds. This is where a line score like BL/BL, the new RX or a traditional line score of factors is important.

Read FTL, but read other people’s posts too. The “LASST” technique (which FTL more or less uses in his guidelines plus the ML and layoff requirements) will often leave you with the last line and more obvious runners - some of which are overlooked prices due to other factors, while a BLT/C or Pizzolla “Two Excuse Form cycle window” strategy will open up a horse’s history, and increase your chance of finding horses with hidden merit.

Lastly, be consistent.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Thank you for the responses on where to look etc...

Now what line(s) do you use, and how far back do you go? Is going by the last two performances a better barometer of current form? Or do you stick strictly with the last line? Or do you find the last winning line? That is where it becomes tricky.

[Mitch44]

This is an area where you'll find great disagreement based on the individual user.


I would suggest you follow "Doc" Sartin guideline of using the best line of the last 3 at a similar distance and surface. The key word there is SIMILIAR which may take you to line 4,5 or further back. For distance stay preferably within 1/2 F and no more than 1 F. Surface should be obvious E.g. don't mix turf lines and dirt lines etc. Pick a line in which the surface & distance matches today's conditions of the race. Of those 3 qualified lines I use the best Preceptor to choose a line. Now this will cover most situations and for those exceptions to that guidance; experience, good judgement and treating all horses the same will serve you well.

A specific example or situation can be posted for further guidance.

Read the recommended Follow Ups for more basic guidance.

Good skill,
Mitch44

[For The Lead]

The “LAST” technique, as it was called above, is not a technique of FTL’s making. It is Dr. Howard Sartin’s original guidelines. FTL just added a ML elimination and a DAYS OFF elimination. The thing about the original guidelines is that they were never broken, so why fix them?

As it turns out someone just sent me a screen shot from RDSS. As you can see, it is a recent race from DMR on 11.2.17. You will notice there are only two contenders and the last line was used on both. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but a $75.80 winner right off the last line will always be alright as far as I am concerned.


If I posted 1,000 races showing very large mutuals from winners where the last line was the line used, there would still be those who would decry its’ worthiness. I find it amazing.

I want to make this as clear as I can. The original line selection guidelines DID NOT SAY “always use the last line no matter what”. THAT IS A MYTH.
Let me put what it said in its’ proper context. “AS LONG AS THE LAST LINE IS A “+” OR A “(+)” RACE... USE IT. IF IT IS NOT A “+” OR “(+)” AND THERE IS A LEGITIMATE EXCUSE FOR THE POOR RACE, THEN GO BACK ONE LINE AND START OVER AGAIN.”
If you are wondering what a “legitimate excuse” is, things such as wrong distance, wrong surface, class too high (to include wrong or too high condition) are among the most common legitimate excuses.
Now let me show you something Doc wrote after he switched to “best of last three distance/surface”.



Let me repeat that.
“THEY FAIL TO NOTE THE LINES USED FOR ALL CONTENDERS AND HOW TRULY RARE IT IS WHEN WE WENT BACK MORE THAN 3 LINES.”
For some reason, people fail to notice that using the original guidelines you will also get back to line 2 or line 3.

I will never understand the obsession with “opening up” the PP’s. The further back you go for a line the less reliable it is today.
In addition, how “consistent” will your line selection be when you are hunting all over the place for a line?
Will you follow the very same procedure in the next race you look at?

All I'll say is, choose the path you feel is best for you.

[Lt1]

I agree with what Mitch has posted. In most cases you will find that you will be within the top 3 lines. Doc suggested that you stay within the top 5 lines since going further back gets you in the realm of dealing with an entirely different animal. That's not to say there aren't certain times that going back more then 5 is justified but those are rare indeed. The more races you handicap the more your decision process will improve to the point when you will know when to go back more then 3. You can find the Docs, updated views on paceline selction in Followup #81 in the Editors section.
Tim

[Bill V.]

I prefer ( when of sound mind) not heavy medicated
to pick the best TPR rating from the last 3 comparable races starting with line 1
But now I am forced to use the best of last three speed ratings or now perceptor and not go back more than 4 lines

My ROi and hit rate is the same what ever way I use

Doc's advice is to use the best speed rating of the last 3 or 4 when a
non comparable line is one of the first 3 lines

He write in the very same follow up (81)
That he will go to the 3rd line when a horses last two races are not useable
because of bad efforts But he shows no example

What FTL is teaching is if the last line is not one of the horse best efforts
in perceptor, or high speed rating It should will always have a valid excuse
If it does not have a valid excuse than that horse is a non contender
(in most races )


from the Doc.

[Bill V.]

Here is a breakdown of which paceline of the last 3 my winners came from.
My sample is 542 races using the default settings and auto selecting the
best of the last 3 perceptor from RDSS2.1

I made absolutely zero changes to any paceline. These figures are
using RDSS in full automatic,

These 542 races are all distances, surfaces
track condition, and class. The lines selected can only be line 1,2 or 3
when using the auto selector.

I used races from from Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Delaware, Del Mar Including the BC, FingerLakes, Golden Gate, Keeneland, Laurel, Medowlands
Mohegan Valley, Mountaineer, Portland Meadows, Parx, Turf Paradise,
Thistle Downs, Retimaand Woodbine.
Everything race type from bottom of the barrel Maiden Claimers
to the Breeders Cup classic.

My findings are in the spreadsheet attached

The #2 paceline produced a incredible average payoff of over $19.00

Line 1 had the most winners (257 ) and a average of $11.00

Line 3 had the fewest winners and the lowest average of $7.60

Bills wins by paceline.xls

spreadsheet sample screen shot

[Mitch44]

Ah an area of controversy as I predicated. Sartin was a man of records and collection of data. Quirin may have led the way or blazed the path.By not accepting main stream data Sartin continually evolved in both his programs and in refining his techniques'.


His original concept was to use the last line unless there was a valid excuse to go back. This was circa 1986 or so. Through his evolution pace line selection also evolved to increase a players win percentage and greater payoffs. Not only did he evolve to the best of the last 3 at a comparable distance he changed his view on layoffs, class of the line and others that were in the original Pace Line manual.


By reading the recommended Follow Up's one will be more apt to succeed.


Of course there are many times the last line is correct and many times that it isn't. The most important factor in HCP is recent form. There are many reasons to go back such as the last line was before a layoff and the horses form was declining, ditto for first race after a layoff. A smart trainer will try a horse at longer distance because there is more purse money in longer races . Ditto for turf races as every horse has a specific preferences.

The handicapper that is flexible in their thinking, adaptable and excepts new ideas will more likely succeed that one who is rigid and fails to adapt and overcome.
I use the latest of Satin's recommendations for picking pace lines, ignore it at your own peril. Note Bill V. posted his latest recommendations above. Only use it if you want to win. Your choice, good luck.


Mitch44