TOTAL VICTORY AT THE TRACK: The Promise and the Performance

[mickey_arnold]

Anyone have test results of the full methodology of this book or individual elements comprising the methodology, i.e. Performance Class Ratings(PCR), Ability Times (as revised in this book), Form Factors, Adjusted Variants, Class Adjustments etc.) ?

Calculation and rating of the key data manually is no simple task .:bang:

I wonder if any software exists for the whole system or key elements shown in the book.

According to the author, interpretation of the data produced for each horse individually and in comparison to the rest of the field is necessary (Gee, what a surprise!) . :rolleyes:

Does the book meet the expectations of its subtitle or come anywhere close?

Comments please on any or all of the above.

[thaskalos]

The book is a work of FICTION...especially the system in the book which the author saw fit to call "Social Security"...or something similar. A better name for it would have been, "Prelude to a Bankruptcy".

As a handicapping author...the late Mr. Scott, was a very good lawyer.

[lamboguy]

up until lately, i have never read a book about horse race handicapping. recently i bought how to handicap longshots from Pandy and thought it was pretty good. i haven't put it into practice though.

i also bought the complete series from Overlay publications and found it very useful.

basically i am not a reader or a listener to anyone as far as horse race handicapping goes. i do my own type of unique work to come up with my larger plays. the way the game is structured, i have to bet a lot to get a top rebate these days so i am constantly looking to improve upon the plays that i am making strictly on guesses, meaning handicapping. i am learning that i am one of the very worst handicapper's known to man. don't feel sorry for me, i do pretty well with first time starters, layoff horses and horses that work in between races.

another thing i want to get out of the way, i watch TVG constantly and i can honestly admit that they do something that nobody else does. they will tell you when a horse doesn't look good in the paddock or on the track. yesterday i heard them say in the 4th race at Santa Anita that AUTUMN TWILIGHT was all washed up. i had already bet $1000 to win on the horse, so i saw the horse going to the gate and saw the filly looked washy. i cancelled my bet, she happened to have run second and i saved $1000. that's what i like about Hong Kong racing as well where Jenny looks at the horses in the paddock, on the track and going into the gate, she has saved me a lot of money as well. i swear TVG must have saved me over 100 times on bets that i have made on horses that didn't look right.

[Greyfox]

The book is a work of FICTION...especially the system in the book which the author saw fit to call "Social Security"...or something similar. A better name for it would have been, "Prelude to a Bankruptcy".

As a handicapping author...the late Mr. Scott, was a very good lawyer.

I used Scott's methodology for several months as an alternative to Pace handicapping.
For me it worked just fine and was particularly helpful in playing 3x4x5 triacta plays.
However, I was doing all of the work manually with a paper and pencil.
It was a very tedious process for sure.
I was taking at least 45 minutes a race to do all of the additions and calculations suggested by Scott.
Certainly, I can't knock the book.
Some years later I was in the Gamblers Book Store in Las Vegas.
On one table were about 12 copies that had been returned that were for sale at reduced prices.
From that I concluded that other players must have found his system to tedious as well.

[thaskalos]

I used Scott's methodology for several months as an alternative to Pace handicapping.
For me it worked just fine and was particularly helpful in playing 3x4x5 triacta plays.
However, I was doing all of the work manually with a paper and pencil.
It was a very tedious process for sure.
I was taking at least 45 minutes a race to do all of the additions and calculations suggested by Scott.
Certainly, I can't knock the book.
Some years later I was in the Gamblers Book Store in Las Vegas.
On one table were about 12 copies that had been returned that were for sale at reduced prices.
From that I concluded that other players must have found his system to tedious as well.
That's why I titled my initial post here "In my opinion"; I wanted it known that what I said was based strictly on my OWN experience. I am not one of those who gets turned off by tedious handicapping. I enjoy handicapping...whether it's tedious or not. I tested extensively the systems of BOTH of Mr. Scott's books -- this, and also the system in "Investing at the Racetrack" -- and my results were nothing like the results that the author had reported in his books.

Can William L. Scott's work be successfully improved upon...or, can parts of it play an important role in a horseplayer's EXISTING handicapping method?

Of course!

But Mr. Scott does not present his work as a non-systematic array of handicapping ideas, which could be picked apart and reassembled by the reader; he presents his work as ready-made and profitable handicapping SYSTEMS.

And as such...his work does not withstand intense scrutiny.

[mickey_arnold]

That's why I titled my initial post here "In my opinion"; I wanted it known that what I said was based strictly on my OWN experience. I am not one of those who gets turned off by tedious handicapping. I enjoy handicapping...whether it's tedious or not. I tested extensively the systems of BOTH of Mr. Scott's books -- this, and also the system in "Investing at the Racetrack" -- and my results were nothing like the results that the author had reported in his books.

Can William L. Scott's work be successfully improved upon...or, can parts of it play an important role in a horseplayer's EXISTING handicapping method?

Of course!

But Mr. Scott does not present his work as a non-systematic array of handicapping ideas, which could be picked apart and reassembled by the reader; he presents his work as ready-made and profitable handicapping SYSTEMS.

And as such...his work does not withstand intense scrutiny.

What failed to withstand testing, the handicapping factors he presents or the interpretation of them or both (assuming one can be separated from the other in theory or practice?)

And wasn't Mr. William Scott (a pseudonym) the father of a fairly well-known figure in the horserace handicapping field?

[upthecreek]

Anyone have test results of the full methodology of this book or individual elements comprising the methodology, i.e. Performance Class Ratings(PCR), Ability Times (as revised in this book), Form Factors, Adjusted Variants, Class Adjustments etc.) ?

Calculation and rating of the key data manually is no simple task .:bang:

I wonder if any software exists for the whole system or key elements shown in the book.

According to the author, interpretation of the data produced for each horse individually and in comparison to the rest of the field is necessary (Gee, what a surprise!) . :rolleyes:

Does the book meet the expectations of its subtitle or come anywhere close?

Comments please on any or all of the above.

Thomas Racing System employs the ratings

[KyRacer]

Mickey,

There is a program called Fast Fred Pro that will give you some or most of the numbers from Scott's books. Link below. Also there was a manual entry dos shareware program called Victory that helped in the calculations of the numbers.


Fast Fred Pro (http://www.kangagold.com/fastfred_main.htm)

[Hoofless_Wonder]

After I got out of the Air Force, I had some "free" time to try out Scott's ability times and other concepts back in 1987. Since it was before full-card simulcasts, I had a limited experiment involving mostly Fairmount, Sportsmen's, Hawthorne, and later on The Birmingham Turf Club after I moved to Alabama later in the year.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 190 races wagered, and an overall return of $1.70 for every $2 wagered, which pretty much reflected the takeout. I came to the conclusion that it was an awful lot of work for a little bit of loss. I also came to the conclusion, that the main premise of his "ability" times, must have been reflected more in the odds than his book would leave you to believe, and I simply thought maybe the harness crowd (with their focus on last 1/4 times) was betting these "superior" animals. I was also disappointed in the short prices, as I don't recall a winner over 8-1 from the sample. YMMV. After reviewing the "workout" of the method, I finally concluded that he cherry-picked his week at Belmont in 1980, showing profits every day.

It's interesting that out on Amazon, his first two books "Investing at the Racetrack" and "How will your horse run Today?" can be purchased used for under a dollar, but the "Total Victory at the Track" will cost you $15. Though it has some updates, I'm not inclined to invest in it....

[reckless]

What failed to withstand testing, the handicapping factors he presents or the interpretation of them or both (assuming one can be separated from the other in theory or practice?)/

One of the Sartin Methodology's teaching members once wrote of a conversation he had with William Scott at a Handicapper's seminar. Scott told this member that 'Nothing works all the time', or words to that effect. I can't say for certain what he meant by that in toto, but I took it to mean that he was talking about his methods in the books he wrote.

While I enjoyed and learned alot from Scott and Sartin, I agree that for some reason or other, all these handicapping methods just don't work 'all the time'.

And wasn't Mr. William Scott (a pseudonym) the father of a fairly well-known figure in the horserace handicapping field?

Author Finley's sons are William and Scott :)... Scott was apart of the original staff at the late, great The Racing Times, and Bill is a long-time turf writer who probably could be found at both The Blood Horse magazine and The New York Times.

Not exactly sure what Scott Finley is doing currently but was told he's still in 'the business'.

[tlinetrader]

a stumbled across a selection service based on "total victory at the track" on the trackmaster sight in their winners circle package. They have previous days reports for free if you want to check it out.

[Oracle]

I used the method for a few years in the late 80's when I was learning the game. It did fine as a selection method with plenty of ticket cashing on favorites and low odds contenders, but really no way to make money long term with it. I believe he recommended only rating the three favorites in the race and betting one of those.

It teaches discipline and system play which has value.

[upthecreek]

I used the successfully in the mid 1980's when the new Garden State open Horses the had a "0" last race running line and a "0" for recency simply didnt win. I rated the whole field , not just the 1st 3 public choices. Then i found as the years went on and the game /training/trainers changed they werent as effective

[Racey]

Pace shape spot play method from Pace Handicapping Longshots when it arises and you can zone in on the pace horse is a source of some nice overlays..... good stuff

[Actor]

I tested extensively the systems of BOTH of Mr. Scott's books -- this, and also the system in "Investing at the Racetrack" -- There's a third: How Will Your Horse Run Today.

[Actor]

I wonder if any software exists for the whole system or key elements shown in the book.I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. Computer code must be precise, but I find myself guessing as to what he means. :bang:

Scott was a terrible mathematician. He'd take a whole page (or pages) to describe something that could be written down in one simple equation. In one book he began by saying "take a blank sheet of paper and write down something-or-other in the upper right corner." Maddening. :bang:

Another book has a whole chapter on how to add columns of numbers in your head. Maybe a good skill if you're doing it manually. Useless if you are writing code. :rolleyes:

Most methods are hard to program regardless of author but Scott was the worst.

[acorn54]

I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. Computer code must be precise, but I find myself guessing as to what he means. :bang:

Scott was a terrible mathematician. He'd take a whole page (or pages) to describe something that could be written down in one simple equation. In one book he began by saying "take a blank sheet of paper and write down something-or-other in the upper right corner." Maddening. :bang:

Another book has a whole chapter on how to add columns of numbers in your head. Maybe a good skill if you're doing it manually. Useless if you are writing code. :rolleyes:

Most methods are hard to program regardless of author but Scott was the worst.


scott was a WRITER OF BOOKS; just because he chose to write about handicapping horses from the data in the past performances of thoroughbred race horses, does not an "expert" make him.
he did have a way with words, i'll give him that.

[upthecreek]

I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. Computer code must be precise, but I find myself guessing as to what he means. :bang:

Scott was a terrible mathematician. He'd take a whole page (or pages) to describe something that could be written down in one simple equation. In one book he began by saying "take a blank sheet of paper and write down something-or-other in the upper right corner." Maddening. :bang:

Another book has a whole chapter on how to add columns of numbers in your head. Maybe a good skill if you're doing it manually. Useless if you are writing code. :rolleyes:

Most methods are hard to program regardless of author but Scott was the worst.

The Thomas Racing System calculates both the PCR & form factor ratings

[thaskalos]

scott was a WRITER OF BOOKS; just because he chose to write about handicapping horses from the data in the past performances of thoroughbred race horses, does not an "expert" make him.
he did have a way with words, i'll give him that.
He was a lawyer...so, a way with words was to be expected.

What Scott's work DID do, although unintentionally, was expose the "good ole boy" network that the popular handicapping authors of that time period had become.

Scott's "Investing at the Racetrack" came out first, embracing the faulty premise of completely neglecting the longer-priced horses in the field, and focusing only on the top three betting choices for wagering purposes. And if that weren't enough...the book's featured handicapping method presented a slightly modified form of "stretch handicapping"...which had been proven to be the least effective form of figure handicapping to employ on the dirt course. But even so...the popular handicapping authors of that time period heaped a mountain of praise upon that book, calling it a "monumental achievement".

Only later, in his last book, did Scott finally reveal that his reasoning in Investing at the Racetrack was flawed.

[Actor]

The book is a work of FICTION...I love his Big Week at Belmont in Investing at the Racetrack. It's entertaining. They should make it into a movie. Wait a minute. I think they did, only they called it Let It Ride.

[JohnGalt1]

Actor, I hope this will answer some of your questions from my perspective.

I have read all three books.

I have had success using Scott's methods. With modifications.

One--First I rank horses in their running styles. E, EP, P and S.

Two--I make my Performance Class Ratings only using the finish. I know he wrote it wasn't as effective for him since he used two numbers, 2nd call and finish, to determine running style. I ignore any finish if horse lost by 40+ lengths or in the comments state horse was eased, or severe trouble and didn't recover.

Three--For class I created a chart for quick comparison of class levels. I used 20% as a level one up or down. So 16 on my chart ranks Stakes $8k equal to open Alw $10k, and $12k Op Claim or normal Starter Alw, and $20k open Claimer, and $32k Mdn Sp Wght, and $100k Mdn Claimer.

Adjustments--State bred down 2 levels, NW3 down one level, NW2 down 2 levels, fillie/mare in race for males down 2 levels. So the level 16 open $20k claiming race is equal to $50k state bred NW2 claiming race.

Scott adjusts 1, 2, or 3 points. One level is one point adjustment in the class adjustment. 2-7 levels is 2 points and 8 levels and more is 3. I decided 8+ is 3 points.

But since I only use the final call, I adjust by half. My PCR line looks like this 69/45-4=41 168. Another horse from that race looks like 43/15+1.5=16.5 261.

Being a baseball fan like that they look like betting averages.

Some complaints are his method is it's too time consuming. With my chart and not using the second call I save many minutes per race, plus with experience I'm faster now.

Four--I DO NOT USE HIS MATHOD OF COMPUTING ABILITY TIMES! It's inaccurate, when he converts routes to sprints and especially sprints to routes. As you know his sprint to route conversions are almost always TOO FAST.

I use Hambleton pace figures from the book "Pace Makes the Race" by Sartin.

So the complete lines for the two horses above look like.

69/45-4=41--168 NNNrh(returning horse after lay off)--77--102--179

43/15+1.5=16.5--261--N+Nrh--89--82--171

Five--to make my figure making faster I have a 3 page chart of $10k par times for each track.

Because I pass so many races I need a quick but effective method.

In summary, this method can be done in a less time consuming manner and can be less complicated.

I try to use all factors, including breeding and trainers, after deciding what priority to give each factor depending on the race.

[jk3521]

https://archive.org/details/VictoryThoroughbredHandicapper_1020

[raybo]

One of our AllData users modified the "AllData J1" Excel workbook to include much of Scott's work. This modified workbook was named "AllData_J1_CUSTOM_PRINTSHEETS_v5.xls".

The workbook is free and downloadable here, down at the bottom of the page: http://alldataexcel.weebly.com/alldata-ni-batch---download.html

The "AllData" workbooks accept the Brisnet ".drf" and ".mcp" files, and the JCapper/HDW ".jcp" files, as well as both of those sources' ".xrd" results files.

Look at the "FORM" and "ODDS" worksheets for those ratings.

[upthecreek]

There a supposedly "rare" Scott booklet selling on EBay called Improvement Factor

[thaskalos]

There a supposedly "rare" Scott booklet selling on EBay called Improvement Factor
How much is it? I have some money to burn...

[upthecreek]

How much is it? I have some money to burn...
Currently $21.69 with 3 bids so far

[Tom]

If it the one I have, he co-wrote it with himself - Joseph Finley.
The book looks at improvement by comparing the last couple of races.

I met The author at a Sartin Seminar in Baltimore. He was a guest speaker and he gave us a method for getting contenders in a race. This was not long after the Beyers came out in the Racing Times.

1. Look at the last two races for all the horses, and circle the top 3 Beyers of them all.
2. Ignore the top tow races and look at all the older ones, and again circle the top 3 Beyers of those races.
3. You now have 3 to 6 horses, and these are your contenders.
4. Find pace lines for each and evaluate the horses.


I used that method at FL for a couple of years, and did alright with it.
I got a few long shots from the second group, that I would not have had normally. A lot of them placed or showed, so the method had it's good points.

[JohnGalt1]

Scott's PCR ratings are my prime handicapping factor for today's NY's version of the claiming crown.

Some make the mistake of treating the races like stakes races, but they are in reality starter allowances.

Race one is not a $80k stakes race, but a $25k starter allowance. So the 3 horse Joking, whose last race was a $25k starter is not going up in class from that race, IMO, but is running at the same class. The previous race, a $67k Allowance is 5 levels higher in class than this "stakes race" as I made my PCR's.

I advise handicapping all these, and GP's Claiming Crown races as if they were starter allowances, because that is the main condition of the races.

I made a good profit doing this betting 2014's claiming crown, thanks to the stewards leaving all my winners up. :)

[DeltaLover]

Scott's PCR ratings are my prime handicapping factor for today's NY's version of the claiming crown.

Some make the mistake of treating the races like stakes races, but they are in reality starter allowances.

Race one is not a $80k stakes race, but a $25k starter allowance. So the 3 horse Joking, whose last race was a $25k starter is not going up in class from that race, IMO, but is running at the same class. The previous race, a $67k Allowance is 5 levels higher in class than this "stakes race" as I made my PCR's.

I advise handicapping all these, and GP's Claiming Crown races as if they were starter allowances, because that is the main condition of the races.

I made a good profit doing this betting 2014's claiming crown, thanks to the stewards leaving all my winners up. :)


:ThmbUp:
nice posting

[Tom]

I treat all starter races the same - poison.
I never bet them.

[JohnGalt1]

I want to correct my post.

The race I was referring to was the 7th. The Bris pp's for race 7 were on top of my stack. The example was for Joking the 3 horse.

[JohnGalt1]

I wanted to follow up with Saturday's starter allowance stakes races at Aqueduct.

In Scott's first book, he bet the horse with the best ability from only the top 3 betting choices, since about 67% of winners come from the 3 favorites.

In Total Victory he replaced limiting selections to the 3 favorites to using the top 3 Performance Class Ratings. Some exceptions were fasted horse in a sprint with no form defects, or higher class races in in past races.

As I mentioned I believe PCR's work the best in starter allowance races.

I only bet 4 races, with one win. The day was mostly chalky, thus limiting my bets

I want to review only PCR's for the 10 race card. When races have 6 or fewer starters I limit to the top 2 PCR. Scott used a 7.5% spread to include a 4th horse (or 5th or more).

I will list the how many PCR horses, and if one of them won.

1--2 yes
2--3 yes

[JohnGalt1]

I don't know what happened.

I did not hit submit reply, then I tried to edit and it didn't take :bang:

I should've done what I'm going to do now.

To continue--

3--2 yes
4--3 yes
5--4 yes
6--3 yes
7--8 yes 2nd through 8 top too close to separate
8--3 NO
9--4 yes
10 3 NO

I believe PCR's are best in starter allowance races since class is of prime importance.

I don't see the top 3 PCR horses do this well for a whole card all the time, but since I usually play only 2-5 races per track, and sometimes none, I can wait for the "right' race to play.

I did not play pick 3's, 4's, or 5, because I don't play them if too many odds on horses look like winners, but if one played the pick 5 with all top PCR horses, the bet would've cost $20 and returned $127.

I wish I remembered what else I wrote, I'm sure it was insightful.

[Pensacola Pete]

I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. .

There's a reason for that. Scott wrote a general system that had some logic, found a set of races that it worked fairly well on, then added a bunch of odd rules to backfit the races used to get more winners. He then wrote his book and used the example races. Sometimes, he'd even explain that he was making an exception to his rules when choosing a horse.

For an example, make the year 1980, before the internet existed for more than 1% of the population). I want to write a book about handicapping. I find a race card in which 6 of the 8 winners had the best last-race speed rating. As it happened, the two races that didn't have the best speed rating were also the two MSW races on that card. In those two races, the horse with the best workout in the past 30 days won. I now publish a book with the "Making a Good Living at the Track" by "Wilhelm Scoot". It has these two rules, which are expounded on to no end in flowery prose and discussed at length as to why they work so well.

1) Play the horse with the best last race speed rating, except in MSW races.

2) In MSW races, play the horse with the best workout in the last 30 days.

Then, I spend 40 pages, using the given race card, reassure the reader that the system is infallible, as proven by winning every race, and pat myself on the back until I have to visit a clinic to be treated for an injured wrist.

Since both "rules" are based, to some degree, on logic, and since the internet isn't in use for the vast majority of people yet, and I can't be quickly debunked, I can get away with this fabrication. Some of my readers are going do do very well with that system for a while. It will pick mostly short-priced horses, and it will get its share of winners. It will also lose money in the long run, but in the meanwhile, it will also get some nice word-of-mouth praise from those who were lucky enough to hit a lot of winners with it.

[upthecreek]

Looking to make a trade for a copy.preferably the paperback version Anybody interested send me a PM or post here
Thanks