I have a copy of Synergetic Match Up 2, but

[wallyheitz]

It's on disk. I saved a copy of some Sartin programs on disk. My new computer has no disk drive.(CD). I also saved them into my old yahoo e-mail account. However, I was without a computer for quite a while, and I forgot my e-mail username and password. So, I have them on disk, and I've been thinking about going to a computer guru and having him/her/it transfer these programs to my computer. I think it's very possible, but am concerned about price. How much $? approx.?
I should have written down my e mail stuff, but I didn't.

[wallyheitz]

BTW, does SMU ll even work on Windows 10? Using dosbox or some such?

[Stevecsd2]

You should be able to buy an external CD/DVD reader that plugs in to a USB port on your computer for about $30-$40. That should solve your problem. If the program will only run in DOS & not Windows, yes, DOSBOX should run it. I run several programs that only run in DOS inside DOSBOX. You do need to read the documentation to understand how it works.

[MooseDog]

If you trust sending that CD in the mail, I can pull the files if possible off the CD and put them on a USB flash drive for you or put them in the Cloud so you can download, whatever you prefer. I don't know if that program required an access code or install key, if it did it may still not work.

Stuck at home like everyone else so happy to have things to do.

DOSBOX should work to run in on Win10.

[davew]

do you need internet access for Synergy or is all data manually inputted?

I had a similar problem with an old poker simulation program, and just bought an old laptop on eBay that it would work on.

[Longshot6977]

It's on disk. I saved a copy of some Sartin programs on disk. My new computer has no disk drive.(CD). I also saved them into my old yahoo e-mail account. However, I was without a computer for quite a while, and I forgot my e-mail username and password. So, I have them on disk, and I've been thinking about going to a computer guru and having him/her/it transfer these programs to my computer. I think it's very possible, but am concerned about price. How much $? approx.?
I should have written down my e mail stuff, but I didn't.

You can resolve your problem for as little as about $20. Just get an external USB disc drive. Look here -- https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-External-Optical-Drives/zgbs/pc/1292112011

[delayjf]

I don't know if that program required an access code or install key, if it did it may still not work.

I had that program a way back, as I recall you could only install the program into a computer 4 or 5 times or just run it from disk. It was all manual entry, but they had a downloading program call Xtor that allowed downloading and imputing PP data electronically.

There are other options, ie HTR or RDSS

[Dave Schwartz]

It's on disk. I saved a copy of some Sartin programs on disk. My new computer has no disk drive.(CD). I also saved them into my old yahoo e-mail account. However, I was without a computer for quite a while, and I forgot my e-mail username and password. So, I have them on disk, and I've been thinking about going to a computer guru and having him/her/it transfer these programs to my computer. I think it's very possible, but am concerned about price. How much $? approx.?
I should have written down my e mail stuff, but I didn't.

I have no idea what this program is.

If you want to send it to me on "disk" - whether that means 3.5" or CD - I will be pleased to convert them to a file that you should be able to use.

A while back I did something similar for long-time PA guy, "Lefty," who had several programs that he needed converted. He sent them to me and I loaded them, then sent him a link where he could download them back to his computer.

Might have even put them on a USB drive and sent them that way as well. Don't recall.

Just email me if you'd like or just give me a call.
775.853.1234


Dave

[Red Knave]

I will be pleased to convert them to a file that you should be able to use.
Dave, as delayjf says, a number of the old Sartin programs were protected with software that prevented multiple copies being made. I remember buying software that could bypass this but it's long gone, both the physical media and in my memory. :)
Ted Craven may have better info on this than I do.

[46zilzal]

That program, being somewhat effective, was not even close to the Sartin best.

I am afraid you will be somewhat disappointed

[lefty359]

I bght external 3.5 drive, but it didn't work. Not getting enough power from USB drive I think. But Dave S. fixed me up. Good guy...

[delayjf]

I have no idea what this program is.

Dave,

Synergetic Matchup II was a intermediate program between Energy and Thromation. It had a lot of the features that Thromation had but did not include the thoromation movement screen with the horses moving across the screen. It was the first Sartin program I bought directly from Howard. He would not sell thromation to me at that time, as I was new to the club. He also threw in a free copy of Entrophy. I had good luck with it on the CA circuit. But it did have its limitations, for example, it was all manual entry. In my experience it was stronger on the turf than on the dirt. It was not good at adjusting a sprint pace line to a route pace line - using a sprint pace line in a route race - in these cases, the horse always looked like Secretariat.

[delayjf]

was not even close to the Sartin best.

Which program do you feel was his best?

[Tom]

I bght external 3.5 drive, but it didn't work. Not getting enough power from USB drive I think. But Dave S. fixed me up. Good guy...

Hey lefty, did you plug it directly into the computer or in to the keyboard, or a USB hub?

Mine only work with direct into the computer.
My keyboard slot is not powerful enough.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thanks to the people who added more info.

I admit not knowing about all those old Sartin programs.

I came in at Phase 3, wrote my own version, and only tried two others: Energy and the 2nd synergism.

Dave

[lefty359]

Tom, it was designed to plug into the usb port of the computer. Didn't work. That was over a year ago.

[delayjf]

Which program do you feel was his best?

[Partsnut]

The Sartin Software will work well on a Windows 10 computer but you will need two additional programs:
DosBox and Everload.

[Partsnut]

Which program do you feel was his best?


Back in the day and in my opinion, Energy and Thoromation were the best.
However, as far as I'm concerned, the Sartin Methodology and it's software, both past and present are technically inept and antiquated by today's horse racing standards.:bang:
If you follow their rules and misinformation, you will lose your proverbial butt.

[46zilzal]

the final two Validator and Speculator( the last released after Sartin closed shop by his programmer) were the best of them

[46zilzal]

Back in the day and in my opinion, Energy and Thoromation were the best.
However, as far as I'm concerned, the Sartin Methodology and it's software, both past and present are technically inept and antiquated by today's horse racing standards.
If you follow their rules and misinformation, you will lose your proverbial butt.

Agree 100%

To get the most out of them you had to break MANY of their hallowed rules

One of the DUMBEST ideas as to use a SINGLE pace line as representative of the breadth of a horse's ability

[Dave Schwartz]

Back in the day and in my opinion, Energy and Thoromation were the best.
However, as far as I'm concerned, the Sartin Methodology and it's software, both past and present are technically inept and antiquated by today's horse racing standards.:bang:
If you follow their rules and misinformation, you will lose your proverbial butt.

BRAVO Partsnut!

I applaud you saying this!

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

I had a conversation just yesterday with a fellow who started with how Howard Sartin was a fraud. I asked him why he said that. His response was that someone else invented it anyway.

When I asked who that guy was, he said, "I don't remember."

My response was, "Exactly. So, I guess whatever Howard did must have been an improvement because we certainly know HIS name."

Our world is full of discoveries built upon by someone else.

No matter what anyone says, Howard Sartin was a bigger thinker than those before him, and many who came after. But everybody's ideas get stale and, eventually lose their value.

Alas, that includes mine as well. That's why I work so hard to stay ahead of the curve.

[Ted Craven]

the final two Validator and Speculator( the last released after Sartin closed shop by his programmer) were the best of them

Validator + Speculator = RDSS. (Also, Phase III + MPH + Pace Makes the Race/TPR + Energy/Thoromation, etc also = RDSS).

Sartin did not regress from Energy or Thoromation or TPR of the early 1990's, did not advance to something less than those. What sense would that make to any forward thinker. He considered Validator his crowning achievement, and IMO Speculator advanced those ideas. Both those programs, and including their forebears Energy/Thoromation - are software representations of The Matchup, in a fashion that can actually be used by us 'mere mortals' and not just Jim 'The Hat' Bradshaw.

IMO, RDSS has advanced the Methodology thinking since the end of Sartin's time. Class Ratings, Matchup tools, synthesis of pacelines (not based on only 1 line), automated line selection, blend of non-correlated factors, workout analysis, integration with live tote odds, etc.

In all of that, betting strategy still trumps handicapping analysis. Bet 2 horses to Win, bet 1 horse, bet any horizontal or vertical you favour - find out what works for you. You still need live contenders other than those everyone else knows about (when they exist). Sticking with the practices of the past does not get you the results you need in the present. Do the work. Someone is still getting value from this stuff after all these years. This is the 15th year of RDSS, and not the last.

I know Partsnut is going to disagree with most of what I say. It is almost his patriotic duty :lol:, though I hope I don't have to respond to it.

To the Opening Poster - Wally H, you're a regular at P&C: if you're still interested in Synergetic MatchUp, drop me a line and I'll see if I can dig up EVERLOAD.COM to help you past the copy-protection.

Ted

[ReplayRandall]

In all of that, betting strategy still trumps handicapping analysis. Bet 2 horses to Win, bet 1 horse, bet any horizontal or vertical you favour - find out what works for you. You still need live contenders other than those everyone else knows about (when they exist). Sticking with the practices of the past does not get you the results you need in the present. Do the work.

TedIt's uncanny the words you've spoken here...Are we twins separated at birth? Have you been going through my posts?...Same exact advice I've been giving since first posting at PA....Maybe they'll listen to you..;)

[46zilzal]

The "purists", those so strongly adhering the rigid rules laid out in the many Follow Up magazines that they did not know what a powerful tool they had, wrote constantly about "Well Howard never said you could use it that way.!

The answer to that is "WHO cares as long as it works the new way I discovered?"

I once suggested to one of the DIE HARD purists an angle on turf evaluation that I found very effective. You could have knocked me over with his response: "I followed your suggestion and it worked as you say but I cannot use it because Howard Sartin did not teach things to us that way." Are you kidding? Passing up an effective new wrinkle because the late guru had never discovered it himself? Knowing the way Howard Sartin lectured the many times I heard him talk with his constant stating: THERE ARE NO RULES, I would suggest he would have welcomed input from those practitioners who discovered new angles from his basic good and effective work.

After Pirco closed it doors, a good friend (from the Baltimore area) and myself (long adherents of Sartin's work) started and "on line" version of the Follow Up hoping to learn and exchange the various differing points of view many Sartin followers. Based on Yahoo Groups, a one point we had over 500 members and just about all who were part of that group both learned and contributed things THEY FOUND EFFECTIVE.

In short time however, the purists began to complain that tired old mantra that Sartin didn't say it so it cannot be true in spite of example after example of various NEW angles that followers contributed over the 10 to 12 years we were on line. After a time, this group split into a separate Yahoo group and confined their comments to that narrow focus of what was ORIGINALLY taught by the "rules."

It was there that Sartin's programmer, out of work with the demise of PIRCO, was able to create, and then modify, based upon input from many of us who were testers of his new program SPECULATOR. We offered him also a market for his new program. I was a tester on many of the iterations of his program.

I was one of the moderators at this group and learned much about a program I THOUGHT I KNEW INSIDE AND OUT. Input from the various members opened my eyes to facets of its use (particularly as specific race tracks where it worked far better than at others) that had bothered me for a long time.

IN my experiences with programmable handicapping programs, most of his work was a great stepping stone in learning how to use energy distribution, defining race shape and styles, learning track models based upon a unique Sartin number (the early/late balance) which I have not seen reproduced elsewhere exactly that powerfully, and the influence of the Follow Up magazine helped that education tremendously......HOWEVER as I used it from 1986 into the 2000's I found aspects of it severely wanting. I looked around for several years before I found HSH which was a natural projection from those programs moving forward to a much greater, in depth understanding of how to use it far more efficient. HSH looked at the entire aspect of each competitor, had functions that you could TEST and create to specifically go after the specifics of a single oval, looked a unique aspects of a race that I thought were effective (like two pacelines best ever)...

I would never have matured to the level of understanding I have gleaned today without the fundamental creative and effective education I received with the Sartin Methodology......HOWEVER, like the comparative education you received in high school as compared to what you learn in graduate and professional school afterwards, it was a stepping stone that I bypassed long ago as so many aspects of it were a limitation for MY understanding of what was necessary to evaluate a horse race.

These programs, for what they are, WORK...It is just that HSH works far far more effectively and fills in the voids I discovered while using them

[Partsnut]

Ted Craven:

I know Partsnut is going to disagree with most of what I say. It is almost his patriotic duty :lol:, though I hope I don't have to respond to it.


Ted, I guess we agree to disagree.:)
The (ROI) results, including yours, from your multiple picks contest I've recently seen displayed on your site, and as far as I'm concerned, are far from impressive and speaks for itself.

The fixated attitude, and adherence to a 30-40 year old set of misleading rules added to implementation of antiquated software(s) and data in my humble opinion, will and can produces negative and costly results for it's users.The Simple Simon follow leader approach is not conducive to a game where one has to be able to think for themselves. As I see it, this would not be possible following and practicing the Sartin Methodology.:D

[46zilzal]

quote: The Simple Simon follow leader approach is not conducive to a game where one has to be able to think for themselves. As I see it, this would not be possible following and practicing the Sartin Methodology.

BRAVO

[46zilzal]

Most TRUE advances in the methodology while I was the moderator of the Yahoo group was from exploring the ideas put forth and discussed as a group at the Sartin group.

Someone would tell all of us about the successes/failures of a certain idea, construct the logic behind it, then most of the contributors would try that idea with varying rates of success, and I was often really blown away with some of the ideas.

When, and IF an idea did not pan out, we would try to make sure that it was being applied as the original author suggested, or (and most often) it was an angle that applied to very specific conditions or a limited track or circuit. (As an aside, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE every used it successful at Hawthorne). Upon reporting back with a new idea, I suggested at least 20 examples be tried on mostly fast surfaces before making any evaluation of its use.

The logical outcome of all this input was the the program was a TOOL and you were not required to follow any modus operandi other that what worked for YOU.

[lefty359]

46z said, "The logical outcome of all this input was the the program was a TOOL and you were not required to follow any modus operandi other that what worked for YOU. __________________"


And that, I think, should apply to all sofware prgms.


Sartin did say, many many times, "There are no rules!" We should not forget that...

[Partsnut]

46z said, "The logical outcome of all this input was the the program was a TOOL and you were not required to follow any modus operandi other that what worked for YOU. __________________"


And that, I think, should apply to all sofware prgms.

Lefty359:


[QUOTE]Sartin did say, many many times, "There are no rules!" We should not forget that...


Lefty, with all due respect to you and as a friend please tell me what all those thrown together booklets called the "follow ups" were all about.?
I seem to recall seeing some rules there.:bang:


Sartin may have said there aren't any rules that can't be changed.
As I recall, changes were made on a regular basis when something didn't work and this happened on quite a few occasions.



Sartin was a great marketer and businessman but in reality the Doc wasn't a Dr. of anything.
He found and preyed on a niche market and capitalized on it. Money talks and you know what walks.

As far as I'm concerned, his credibility, ethics and motives were very questionable.
To me the Sartin Methodology was and still is reminiscent of a cult following.


Lefty, If it works for you then keep with it.:)

I wish you the best.

[thaskalos]

[quote=lefty359;2594208]

Sartin was a great marketer and businessman but in reality the Doc wasn't a Dr. of anything.
He found and preyed on a niche market and capitalized on it. Money talks and you know what walks.

As far as I'm concerned, his credibility, ethics and motives were very questionable.
To me the Sartin Methodology was and still is reminiscent of a cult following.


Lefty, If it works for you then keep with it.:)

I wish you the best.

Howard Sartin's ethics may well have been "questionable"...but I, myself, hold Ted Craven in the highest regard. So...I refuse to accept the notion that the Sartin Methodology is "still reminiscent of a cult following".

[Partsnut]

[quote=Partsnut;2594305]

Howard Sartin's ethics may well have been "questionable"...but I, myself, hold Ted Craven in the highest regard. So...I refuse to accept the notion that the Sartin Methodology is "still reminiscent of a cult following".


With all due respect, that is your privilege.

[46zilzal]

Those who describe Sartinists as part of a cult usually fell into two categories whenever I mentioned that I used it: 1) Those who gave it a try (usually not long enough to understand it subtleties) and could not get it to work for them, and 2) those completely ignorant of what it was all about.

I had to laugh that in Betting Thoroughbreds: A Professional's Guide for the Horse player: Second Revised Edition,,,,Old Davidowitz, a rabid anti-Sartin voice, devoted an entire chapter to its criticism calling that "Pseudoscience." I got the impression that negative feedback was afoot since in the next edition that chapter MYSTERIOUSLY disappeared.

[Partsnut]

Those who describe Sartinists as part of a cult usually fell into two categories whenever I mentioned that I used it: 1) Those who gave it a try (usually not long enough to understand it subtleties) and could not get it to work for them, and 2) those completely ignorant of what it was all about.

I had to laugh that in Betting Thoroughbreds: A Professional's Guide for the Horse player: Second Revised Edition,,,,Old Davidowitz, a rabid anti-Sartin voice, devoted an entire chapter to its criticism calling that "Pseudoscience." I got the impression that negative feedback was afoot since in the next edition that chapter MYSTERIOUSLY disappeared.


I was a Sartin user for at about 25 years and did quite well with them.
I was occasionally conversed with Bob Purdy, Michael Perry, Jimmy Bradshaw, Elliot Sidewater and many others.

I was an Energy ,Thoromation and Synergism user and had a full understanding of these applications and their subtleties.



Davidowitz was not the only Sartin detractor. There were and still are others, myself included. Some were very formidable authors that were active and were very knowledgeable players who were published in book form and in magazine articles that compared and described the Sartin Methodology as being cult like.


Even though all of us may not agree on everything, I always appreciate and respect your input, opinion. and your right to express them. Please respect mine.

[46zilzal]

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

[Tom]

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

So you agreed to go by the rules when you bought the program?
If you are STUPID enough to follow rules you do not like, then you deserve to lose. What the heel does any of this "rules" crap have to do with the programs themselves? I use many of the old programs with TimeForm adjusted times and my own pacelines (yes, pacelines! I enter 2, 3 even 4 for a horse....DUH! You were under the assumsption that you could not do this?)

But even using the old rules, explain Bill Varone to me.......

My GAWD, that crap people whine about. A guy asks for help to use a program HE wants to use and it triggers a mob attack.
And one guy even blasts another for his ROI in a contest on another board - what LOSER he is!

[Tom]

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

Ever do a 100 race study, both ways, and compare the results, you know, the SCIENTIFIC method, or just your anecdotal opinion? :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

Ever do a 100 race study, both ways, and compare the results, you know, the SCIENTIFIC method, or just your anecdotal opinion?

Don't need that sample size, but I kept result accumulative and did not come to any conclusions until the number of examples was up over 50...Further examples after that only substantiated my original idea.....Since there was no chance of a CONTROL group to compare this to, your ridiculous contention has no merit here....Single factor angle. In a drug test, level 3 clinical trail, experimental design accounts for the fact that everything in the testing group is exactly the same in the experimental group other than the active pharmacological agent...

Another good angle taught to me by a good handicapper at our group in Minnesota ( T.) was the Damon Runyon......When you find fields that are within a single foot per second TRUE SPEED (i.e 54.2, 54.6, 54,1, 54.7 etc) one used the Sartin based deceleration (ratio of final fraction over 2nd call velocity) to differentiate the contenders. This one got its name since we found it first in the stakes race of that name at NYRA. It was uncommonly found but had an amazing hit rate...

That same deceleration number proved to be a very effective model to see how well the closers did on the turf course at Woodbine where is was very effective. That LONG stretch on the big turf course did not promote itself to letting horses with decelerations above 115% (unless they were outstanding total energy toppers like the great Court Vision who closed the final fraction in a velocity most sprinters could barely touch in their 2nd fraction (> 62 feet/sec)) close enough to get to the wire on time. I never used it until much later to model shorter turf courses and it worked well at some, not so well at others

Other prominent angles that were created via that group: (ONE OF THE BEST) 2nd call maidens...Style over Substance (in some chaos races ONE particular racing style, or energy distribution, had no rival so often this horse, despite not having the fractional velocity behind it, FIT a style that was missing and moved up quite a bit, Two Lines Better than the Field...I was overjoyed when I discovered I had found what Dave Schwartz found in HSH with his "two best ever" analyst...This angle still today works far better on the lawn than the regular track.

Horses going off form via progressively increasing %median...We found that Sustained Pace was the best single evaluator of this (now along with the Power analyst of HSH, the two are even stronger)...A combination of decreasing total energy along with increasing % medial pointed out many a 'short' colt in the Triple Crown (Hard Spun is a classic example as was Bellamy Road figured to be a complete wash out and was).

Order within Chaos and many others......You are only limited by what you can prove effective using that program. I NEVER bought that hogwash (like the probably apocryphal story that in the 1890's they wanted to close the patent office because "Well everything had been invented hadn't it?) that one was limited by the initial instructions as there are too many innovative creative handicappers out there in the real worl.

[46zilzal]

So you agreed to go by the rules when you bought the program?

NO, NEVER did

[46zilzal]

You described the perfect loser there and one who has the innovative ability of a large rock

[thaskalos]

So you agreed to go by the rules when you bought the program?
If you are STUPID enough to follow rules you do not like, then you deserve to lose. What the heel does any of this "rules" crap have to do with the programs themselves? I use many of the old programs with TimeForm adjusted times and my own pacelines (yes, pacelines! I enter 2, 3 even 4 for a horse....DUH! You were under the assumsption that you could not do this?)

But even using the old rules, explain Bill Varone to me.......

My GAWD, that crap people whine about. A guy asks for help to use a program HE wants to use and it triggers a mob attack.
And one guy even blasts another for his ROI in a contest on another board - what LOSER he is!

Yeah...I found that surprising too. It seems to me that a person shouldn't attack another's ROI, without supplying an ROI of his own.

[46zilzal]

Yeah...I found that surprising too. It seems to me that a person shouldn't attack another's ROI, without supplying an ROI of his own.

If it is not at least 1.10 to 1.15, said person should go back to the drawing board

[thaskalos]

If it is not at least 1.10 to 1.15, said person should go back to the drawing board

"At least an 1.15", with 1.00 being even? Will the possessor of such a long-term ROI please raise his hand?

[Ted Craven]

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

That old ding-dong was resolved 15 years ago and is not an issue in the main mode of RDSS. This is not the place for such minutiae. Every time it came up year after year, I explained why the original advice, and why now it was not an issue. Sorry if some people are just now discovering that the train moved on.

In Sartin's long, evolutionary and very public career, I'm sure there are dozens more 'gotchas' from the past (and current) Methodology which people can disparage in order to prove their superior ability. Its curious that some critical posters in this thread either never tried RDSS or barely did. Yet they trot out their 'credentials' whenever suitable.

As for my own current contest results, setting aside how well all the RDSS teams did over the years in the PAIHL Team contests here, I feel in good company with numerous previous NHC winners that I am not yet at the top of the leaderboard in this year's edition of a $2WP contest with reduced race pickings. Anyway, several of us contestants have already donated our future winnings to Covid-related charities.

Ted

[46zilzal]

"At least an 1.15", with 1.00 being even? Will the possessor of such a long-term ROI please raise his hand?

Isn't that called profit using 1.0 as the break even point...For a very short time I was up to 1.32 (for about a week moons ago)..

I would take 1.0 for short periods but would stop if the bankroll were eroding. MOST people allow the betting side of the equation beat them

Have to follow this wonderful thought that I posted the other day to another group." All good fortune is a gift from the gods. And you don't win the favor of the ancient gods by being good, but by bring BOLD"...Anita Brookner

[Tom]

NO, NEVER did

Then why do you find it necessary to whine about it?
YOU never could handle the advanced programs, so they are now no good?

Years after man's death, YOU see fit to come here and demean
him.

IS THAT how you justify yourself, attacking dead people on public forums?

Such a small person.

[46zilzal]

You are so Over Powered by an ridiculous ideology, you cannot READ

I never added that part about someone hook winking a dying man (HINT it was NOT Howard Sartin either)

[Tom]

You are so Over Powered by an ridiculous ideology, you cannot READ

I never added that part about someone hook winking a dying man (HINT it was NOT Howard Sartin either)

Post 21 and 25 - who were you talking about, Ray Talbot?
IT was SARTIN who made those rules and and he has been dead for years - so drop your cheap innocent act - you insulted him THIS WEEK - classless.

You then said your groups did its own research, so your entire contributions to this thread had zero to do with the OP question - only your ego.

[cratman]

While I am not personally knowledgeable concerning Howard Sartin's academic credentials, I am aware of examples of his understanding of psychology. He demonstrated his mastery repeatedly in my view, which is informed by my formal degree in psychology from a prominent university. The best example of this was when, in connection with a project I worked on, he contradicted the conclusion of a professor who, when presented with Howard's thinking, agreed with Howard Sartin. This professor was subsequently awarded a Nobel Prize.

Further, in my experience, he was always ethical and genuinely wanted his clients to win.

[Dave Schwartz]

While I am not personally knowledgeable concerning Howard Sartin's academic credentials, I am aware of examples of his understanding of psychology. He demonstrated his mastery repeatedly in my view, which is informed by my formal degree in psychology from a prominent university. The best example of this was when, in connection with a project I worked on, he contradicted the conclusion of a professor who, when presented with Howard's thinking, agreed with Howard Sartin. This professor was subsequently awarded a Nobel Prize.

Further, in my experience, he was always ethical and genuinely wanted his clients to win.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

Thank you for approaching this with an open mind.

From my understanding, MANY people hung out shingles in the '60s who were not necessarily properly papered (by today's standards) to do so. He was (apparently) never held accountable for any wrongdoing with regards to a psychology practice.

Many of those people were eventually grandfathered in when the licensing became more stringent.


Are there things that we can find to hold against him - especially if we look hard enough? Probably.

The real question that should be asked is, "Did Doctor Howard Sartin advance the position of horse players?"

Or, maybe, "Was Howard Sartin good for racing?"

My answer is YES.

[46zilzal]

I don't think ANYONE who successfully used the ideas that Sartin promoted every gave a damn if his "degree" was legitimate or not....

IF they found the ideas worked, SO what?