Synergism VI

[speedking]

Is anybody currently using Synergism VI? I've been working with the demo for a couple weeks now and find it to be a comprehensive program with strong numbers. Wondering why this software doesn't receive much attention. Customer support from Bob Purdy has been prompt and excellent. Any opinions?

Speedking

[garyoz]

Speedking:

I used Synergism for almost 3 years. In my opinion it is the best software available. I have extensive experience with Allways, and modest experience with HTR. I also have used Multicaps, TrackJudge, Focus, A-Odds Gold, Nuerex Pro, Speed Handicapper and probably some others that I am forgetting to some extent or another. The key to me for Synergism was that I selected pacelines for each horse in every race. This was very time consuming and I eventually burned out and/or didn't have the time to do it right. I had very good results for 2 of the 3 years.

I have come to question the paceline selection approach to handicapping and the whole Sartin approach in general. If you like a paceline selection and comparison approach, I highly recommend Synergism. I think that the oddsline in Synergism is the best of any software program that I have used or seen. I also did some unorthodox things such as selecting pacelines from races many months prior to the race, and selected races that matched the projected pace of race and had good success. I like HDW alot, but one thing I am not sold on are the Cramer Speed figures. Thus, the PSRO (projected speed rating oddsline) was not as useful to me as the Synergism projected oddsline. But at least you have two oddslines to choose from.

I have moved back to my "roots" of form cycle handicapping and I'm using the Xtra's when I'm playing seriously and I also use C.J.'s numbers. However, I might move back to using Synergism in the future if I choose to use a Sartin approach. Customer service is top flight. I have been baffled too as to why more people haven't discussed Synergism.

[speedking]

Garyoz,

Thanks for your thoughts. Based on my limited knowledge, I'm almost in total agreement with your comments. I've worked with Cramer's numbers for a few months and while not dissatisfied, I'm not crazy about them either. I grew up with Rags numbers and switched to Colts Neck figures many years ago. I recently switched to CJ's figs and find them as good if not better than Colts Neck, plus I can obtain every track through CJ's software. In my study, I more or less brushed the PSR aside and concentrated on the TPR figures. I also selected my own pacelines according to the excellent trainer info available, race shape and form cycles. You don't have time to analyze every track, but many races don't need much tinkering. The Synergism odds line seems excellent. What I'm looking at right now are P3's right off the default setting. (3x3x3 ) Looks promising.

Speedking
BTW, the trainer/jockey info alone seems to make this software valuable, especially when used synergistically with CJ's numbers.:)

[sq764]

Maybe it was just personal preference, but I found Synergism to have TOO MUCH information..

I am sure it's all there for all the right reasons, and in the right hands it's useful, but not for me.

I am probably on the complete other end of the spectrum, as I like the simplicity of MPH.. And hardly anyone uses that anymore..

[traynor]

garyoz wrote: <I have come to question the paceline selection approach to handicapping and the whole Sartin approach in general. If you like a paceline selection and comparison approach, I highly recommend Synergism.>

Would you mind expanding on that? I understand that many handicappers focus too much on pace line selection; however, it forms the basis of just about every computer application (and many non-computer selection methods) out there, in one form or another. That is, at some point a decision is made, by the application or by the user, about what factor is going to be used as a basis of comparison. In a lot of cases, the comparison is limited to "this horse ran faster two weeks ago than that horse ran three weeks ago, therefore it is a faster horse" analysis. Have you found a better way?

My reason for asking is not as simplistic as it may appear on the surface. After handicapping an embarassingly large number of races, I have reached almost the same conclusion. That is, reliance on pace lines as a basis for comparison is not particularly useful, and often blinds the user to other alternatives. In particular, the use of a single pace line, or even an average of two or more pace lines, does not create much of an advantage.

I am very curious about alternatives to the generic pace line for comparing past performances, particularly of sprinters. William Quirin mentioned the fact that if a horse ran a big number in its last race, "that was time to have bet it." His point was well taken; the important thing in handicapping is the way the horse will run today, not how it ran two or three weeks ago. Unfortunately, pace lines, Beyer speed numbers, and final times are such simple approaches than almost everyone keeps beating on them, hoping to wring out a profit betting on (in many cases) the same horse everyone else is betting on.
Thanks

[garyoz]

Would you mind expanding on that? I understand that many handicappers focus too much on pace line selection; however, it forms the basis of just about every computer application (and many non-computer selection methods) out there, in one form or another.

This is a sacred cow, as there are true believers and some successful players using a paceline selection methodology. One objective of handicapping is to forecast how fast each horse in the race is likely to run today. In using a paceline or averaged pacelines for each horse you can run into problems due to a number of factors (IMO). It is highly unlikely that you'll select the "correct" paceline for each horse. After selection, the process in computer programs take on a life of its own, slicing and dicing and comparing the selected pacelines in any number of ways. For me, it is far too easy to accept the analysis as "fact" since it is so eloquently analyzed by many of the programs. The 83 variables (or is it 81) from Allways takes this to the extreme. It is easy to forget that this was just one paceline selected from the past preformances and has a high probability that it won't reflect how the horse will run today. Rules of thumb, such as taking best of last 3, best 2 of last 3, last race, best race last 90 days, will steer you to logical horses (probably underlays),

I didn't grow-up on Ragozin, but I matured as a horseplayer using them for several years. Thus, I developed a feel for the form cycle and capabilities of a horse. I had success with Synergism when I delved back into the form cycle and selected a race based upon a form cycle rationale. Often this was not based upon classic pace analysis logic (such as you would read in MPH), but rather a judgement based on the total past performances, trainer patterns, knee jerking, etc. So, I manually selected the pacelines which required a tremendous amount of time and intellectual capital leading to eventual burn-out for the 3 or 4 tracks I was playing.

Paceline selections also do not identify forward moves, new tops, internal improvements (like quarter or half point moves in The Sheets/Tgraph) or New Pace Tops, Cyclical Pace Tops (the Xtra's). I also think the numbers at The Sheets, Tgraph and the Xtra's are better than the computer generated numbers. I also spent alot of years using the sheets format and find them insightful and easy to use.

I've been using the Xtra's for several weeks with good results. So, I guess at this point, I think a sheet format is better for cycle analysis than a computer program, which is really good at comparing selected pacelines. I have a great deal of respect for Purdy, Massa and the others who have put so much work into their computer programs and certainly to the handicappers who successfully use them. Ultimately handicapping methodology is a personal decision.