Phased history

[jsfisher]

Can anyone outline what each of the phases of the Methodology entailed?

As near as I can determine from wading through the remarkable library this forum offers:

Phase I:
Similar to what was described in Pace Makes the Race. Pace rating at two points of call. Fulcrum concept(?) No EPS designations, yet(?)

Phase II:
?

Phase III:
Similar to what was described in Modern Pace Handicapping. Velocity figures at three points of call. Energy distribution. EPS running style designations. Brohamer modeling. Tandem and Match-up concepts.

Phase IV and beyond:
?

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Can anyone outline what each of the phases of the Methodology entailed?

A MARKETING Ploy was used to promote the first program as Phase III to make the user think it was in the third iteration when IN FACT that was the first program and Phase I was then a rouse to promote the TPR programs after the fact.

[Bill V.]

Hello

The Follow Ups will fill in many of the questions

Edited ... never mind

[Ted Craven]

The history and 'phases' go something like this: Phase III and its variants in the mid to late 80's (Yellow Manual), Synergism (and Synergism II and IV by Bob Purdy later), Brohamer's Modern Pace Handicapping book, Pace Makes the Race book by Hambleton, Schmidt, Pizzolla, Sartin and related Phase I TPR software, Energy (Phase IV), Kgen, Thoromation, Entropy, Fractals, QuadRater, PaceLauncher, Synthesis, Validator (various versions). Somewhere through the succession of Kgen, Thoromation and Entropy came the 'Phases' V, VI (never heard of Phase VII and I think that naming convention dropped when Doc employed Guy Wadsworth to develop software for him). Doc 'retired' in 2001 due to catastrophic health problems, coinciding with the release of Validator 3c, and that was the end of his work. Guy Wadsworth continued on with Speculator (several versions), an evolution from Validator. In 2005 I started working on RDSS, a successor to Speculator and Validator.

Parallel to much of this, Jim Bradshaw (who also wrote much of the software prior to Entropy, I think) was teaching his take on a largely visual approach to matching runners against each other - The Match Up - some of it represented in his software, but much of it never replicated in software of any kind (Richie P can clarify this, perhaps).

But, except for the the post 2001 era, the blow by blow of the evolution of Sartin Methodology concepts is documented quite clearly in the semi-monthly Follow Ups and makes for fascinating history!

The thing which I am only starting to grasp clearly, by reading some people's posts on other Forums, is how many people still think the 'Sartin Methodology' is ONLY what was described in Brohamers book in 1991 or Pace Makes the Race in 1992. Doc stated many times that by the time Modern Pace Handicapping was published, he had already moved on to incremental energy and deceleration concepts embodied in Energy, then Kgen, and the notion of Early/Late Differential (all described, or perhaps, alluded to in the Advanced Concepts Chapter of PMTR, Edition 1). He said that those 2 books represented a bit of obfuscation ('red herrings') - presenting yesterday's compounded velocity concepts to fascinated readers, while energy and deceleration occupied the new high ground in his research. Maybe it was marketing - those on the inside would know. Certainly the Methodology of 1991 identified winners at decreasing mutuel payout rates, while Doc's new research uncovered longer prices than ever before ('hidden from the crowds and pirates').

But MPH and PMTR were widely published, while the Follow Ups and seminars reached a fairly small audience. Relatively speaking, very few were exposed to concepts such as energy, deceleration, Early/Late and the weighted line score which became Bottom Line/Betting Line, then V/DC (velocity relative to deceleration) which Doc considered the epitome of his work. Epitome, that is because it got cut short in 2001. Doc had been doing a lot of work on wagering strategies and record keeping ('wagercapping', the Wager Decision Form) and intended to further integrate record keeping and wagering procedures into his work. Guy showed me some of that work which never really saw the light of day. In the end, Doc thought that (with a few intriguing exceptions...) the analysis tools were fine as they were, or perhaps could be made simpler or more graphical in a Windows environment, but that the full cycle of good analysis based on good records married with understanding of good wagering strategies was the next 'phase' of the Methodology in the new Millennium.

Which is, I think, what we're working on now.

Ted