William Scott's "Total Victory At the Track"

[DarkDream]

I'm new to handicapping, and I have been reading bits and pieces from "Total Victory At the Track."

Some of the comments that William Scott makes seems incredulous to me.

For example, in the chapter titled, "Advantages Across the Lines: Social Security," he goes on to state that he is compelled to call his method, "Social Security" because it is so reliable that by using the technique, "you should regularly and steadily win 50% and more of all the playable races of this kind."

He goes on in the chapter to talk about a study he did of 200 races at Laurel and Pimlico where he found a total of 106 plays, got 54 winning horses at a 51% win rate, and with a standard $2 be, he would have made a 66% return on investment.

This book was published in 1988 and is now over 15 years old.

My question to anyone out there, is that did this system ever really work as he promulgates it? Does anybody still use it?

Are any of his ratings (PCR, Ability Time and so on) been researched and shown to show respectable win rates and ROIs?

Any comments would be great?

--DarkDream

[kev]

I'll tell you what, I've used alot of different capping tools and method's and systems, and Scott's books are some of the best and I did very well with them. Also I got alot out of them to help out on my own little capping method I once had. I have two books of his, total victory at the track and Investing at the racetrack.

[DarkDream]

Kev,

Thanks for your input. If you don't mind me asking, could you qualify more on how well you did.

Kev, were you able to make a profit using his system over lets say 50-100 races? Did you have a win percentage of 50% or more?

I'm just curious whether or not William L. Scott was just inflating his figures or whether there was any basis to reality to his claims.

--DarkDream

[kev]

Well I never played by all of his rules, so I used little here and added a little of my own input into it. Sorry I couldn't help with that. I think someone from trackmaster had used the PCR where you could buy it already done for ya, only on certain tracks. I liked the PCR numbers and the class ratings he did, I never got into the form part of it. Out of all my racing books I have, there's three I would never get rid of the two books of Scott's and the odds must be crazy, by Len Ragozin and Len Friedman ( the ragozin sheets ) If I were you I would play around with the PCR method for a bit and see if it's working for you, and to see if it's for you. I still kept all of my spreadsheets that I had make when I was using the PCR somewhere in my office. I rem. I had to pick my spots when using it, I only played high class races, like maybe $40,000 and up when using it.

[hurrikane]

200 races is not enough to show anything consistant.
I think that is the agreement with scotts work. I don't think any of it has held up long term.

I'm curious. You have a db..why don't you test it and tell us what you find.

[Achilles]

If you go to www.kangagold.com (http://www.kangagold.com), they have a software package (Fast Fred Professional) that uses some of Scott's ideas and ratings. In particular it produces a PCR rating and also provides the current condition ratings from Scott's "How Will Your Horse Run Today?", which is the one of Scott's books that I see referenced most often in other handicapping books. On their site are some sample reports, and I think the developer provides a Saturday race or card for free. Why not monitor the freebies for a while and see how they work for you?

By the way William Scott was a pseudonym. He was actually Bill Finley's father. Bill writes on racing (for ESPN I think).

By the way, I don't have any connection with kangagold or the developer, but I have exchanged some e-mails with him when I had questions about the software. He may have posted on this site in the past.

Good luck.

[kev]

I don't have a DB, just alot of print out's and races I capped. That's my point about picking my spots using it, using DB's is a weird thing sometimes, I have to pick and choose.

[BillW]

I don't have a DB, just alot of print out's and races I capped. That's my point about picking my spots using it, using DB's is a weird thing sometimes, I have to pick and choose.

Kev,

A stack of races is a database - just one with extremely slow access :)

[kev]

This is so true, Bill my man. See now I'm going to have to dig them out and look over them, thanks alot guys,lol.

[DarkDream]

I'm curious. You have a db..why don't you test it and tell us what you find.

I guess I've got my homework project. ;)

I've been toying with the idea. There are a few complications, however, coming up with the PCR ratings. The Performance Class Rating has a class component to it where you have to add Higher and Lower "Class Points." You can obviously imagine there is some difficultly in programming this due to the different levels of class for shippers, optional claiming complications and so on; there is a lot of judgement calls made on this.

Scott devotes an entire chapter on dealing with complicated "class" situations. I may have to simplify it just so I can program it, but I can do it. What I come up with will have a cavaet attached to it.

Maybe this weekend I'll start on it. Should not take more than 3-4 hours at the most.

--DarkDream

[hurrikane]

good luck.

[BillW]

I guess I've got my homework project. ;)

I've been toying with the idea. There are a few complications, however, coming up with the PCR ratings. The Performance Class Rating has a class component to it where you have to add Higher and Lower "Class Points." You can obviously imagine there is some difficultly in programming this due to the different levels of class for shippers, optional claiming complications and so on; there is a lot of judgement calls made on this.

Scott devotes an entire chapter on dealing with complicated "class" situations. I may have to simplify it just so I can program it, but I can do it. What I come up with will have a cavaet attached to it.

Maybe this weekend I'll start on it. Should not take more than 3-4 hours at the most.

--DarkDream

DD,

Start out with something simple - maybe Quirin's MRCT as a class rating. Test it and refine as necessary (probably quite a bit will be necessary). Don't get into a brain freeze over the complication - a lot of this game is coming up with innovative methods for expressing commonly known ideas. Actually, I have found out that in a lot of cases the simple approach can be just as effective as a more complicated one.

Bill

[JackS]

Dark- Try this test. HC 200 races and bet $1.00 on each (real money). Since this is DB generated, all handicapping has gone into your program so the output has either won for you or it has lost.
Of a total $200 at risk and assume much if not all will be returned, so very little risk at all.
If you show a profit, another $200 at risk on 200 more races to strengthen your confidence or to disprove the first test run.
If you have the ability to handicap and bet 20 or more races a day, you shoud have a pretty good answer within two weeks.

[DarkDream]

DD,

Start out with something simple - maybe Quirin's MRCT as a class rating.
Bill

I've read all of Quirin's books. What is MRCT? Are you referring to MPCT (% horses that finished in the money?).

--DD

[kenwoodallpromos]

You may be able to get some books from an interlibrary loan to see if you want to buy.
When full capping I like to look at ability times- BRISBET may use Scott's.
You should always paper test angles yourself so they are current and at your tracks. And be ready to alter them to your liking.
Angles that are only for 1 win bet horse may be usable for something else also, and there may be an odds cutoff below which they do not produce a profit.

[The Judge]

I met Wm. Scott from the Handicapping Expo's I think his real name was Scott Finley he was a gentlemen and a scholar. Betting horses was his hobby he did his own research. There are those who would say his sample was to small so not valid. The last time I saw him was at a Handicapping Expo. He no longer use any of the methods in his books. He taught a class and the method went something like this. You take the horses last Beyer number no matter what, you then took highest last winning Beyer( or something like that)then you took his second highest Beyer after those two. Now you look at them and compare. He did one race and we hit a low price exacta. His last method was a Sartin computer program I'm not sure which one because he said they gave him lager mutuals. Scott was a wealthy Maryland lawyer who had done multi-million dollar cases though you would never know it by looking at him or talking to him. He was such a nice man I was sorry when he died.

[BillW]

I've read all of Quirin's books. What is MRCT? Are you referring to MPCT (% horses that finished in the money?).

--DD

Multiple Regression Consistancy Total

Basically using the last 10 races in a horses PP's, award 6 points for each 1st place finish, 3 for each 2nd and 1 for each 3rd.

See page 122 - Winning at the Races

Bill

[KingChas]

I'll tell you what, I've used alot of different capping tools and method's and systems, and Scott's books are some of the best and I did very well with them. Also I got alot out of them to help out on my own little capping method I once had. I have two books of his, total victory at the track and Investing at the racetrack.

Investing At The Racetrack is the only book in my large library on handicapping that I will never part with.Threw alot of his methods out but he set the groundwork for me.Revised to the point were I'm very confident with my own pace and speed figs..Don't like getting into the technical part of that conversation.I like the way his sons write on ESPN.Never talk tech, always the human emotion of cappers on a lucky streak or in an unlucky slump.I wish I could have met their dad.

[RXB]

I met Wm. Scott from the Handicapping Expo's I think his real name was Scott Finley he was a gentlemen and a scholar.

His name was Joe Finley. Scott Finley was his horseplaying son who was profiled in one of Quinn's books. Bill Finley, who covers racing for ESPN, is also his son.

His books and his reasoning were much better than what most of his contemporaries could muster. One main warning: neither version of his ability times were well-suited for grass routes.

[KingChas]

.

His books and his reasoning were much better than what most of his contemporaries could muster. One main warning: neither version of his ability times were well-suited for grass routes.

I have learned you can apply it to grass routes.Raw time,do not use track variant.Adjust raw time fig by pace 4f-up to 1mile. distance- adjust pace at 6f over 1 mile distance. Beware that turf course confirmation adjustment needs to be applied..Inner-Outer-1 turn-where they start set up.(size of course).What I'm saying is 5f to 1m look at 4f time(variants can be made ) & at over 1 mile look at 6f time(variants can be made) for your pace adjustment.This will adjust the raw time for final fig.

If I confused you sorry I can make the figs but don't like talkin how to make the figs-lol-kc

PS;Turf races have baffled pros for years.A simple approach can win on the turf.Many hidden longshots.

[grahors]

Whenever my capping goes haywire and my head starts spinning, I go to Scotts books to get back to the basics and regroup.
"Investing" was the first capping book I have ever read. I believe it had a point system for rating horses. First day I went to the races was at Canterbury park many years ago after reading the book. Second race I bet on was a cold straight $700 tri. I didn't even know about boxes! Do you think I was hooked at that point?
Any how, his books have a warm spot in my heart.
I do think his samples a very small and a DB run is in order. Unfortunately, I am a paper and pencil capper and when I try to test his stuff, I go off on other ideas and never get to the heart of the matter.
Oh well.....
Grahors

[Tom]

William Scott was a guest at a Sartin seminar in Baltimore in '93 or 94.

He gave us a contender selection method that worked pretty good:


Look at the last two lines for every horse.
Circle the highest Beyer of the two for each horse.
The top three are contenders.
Now ignore the top two lines and look at all the rest.
Do the same, cirlce the best Beyer of these lines.
The top three are contenders.
You now have from 3 to 6 contenders

[The Judge]

I remember that is the selection process Scott looked to the post-time odds. The final selection had to be 1st,2nd or 3rd in the post-time odds to be a bet.

[Overlay]

To expand on The Judge's comment: in Scott's other book, Investing at the Racetrack, Scott noted that the top three wagering choices account for two-thirds of all winners. From that, he reasoned that if you can find the one horse of those three that will beat the other two in two races out of every three (rather than in just one race out of every three, since selecting one of the three horses randomly would do that well), you'd average four winners on every nine-race card (2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9). Scott said this level of success would guarantee both short-term and long-term profitability. I've found this a useful concept to fall back on whenever I don't have the time or the inclination to handicap a whole field.

[mcikey01]

In the 20 or more years since Scott wrote Investing at the Racetrack, the betting wisdom of the handicapping public has increased the average win percentage for the top three betting favorites by several percentage points and decreased the ROI for top choices through lower average prices. This is especially true for the 1st and 2nd betting choices.

This would seem to make the Scott system users reliant on a average winning percentage among the top three choices of greater than 67% just to equal the theoretical ROI of two decades ago. Iff we were to accept his method's assumption of betting as many races on the day as possible, the law of averages would inevitably kick in to the detriment of the Scott system user.

You could try and spot play the higher odds horses of the 1st -3rd choices, but, again, if you mechanically bet every possible system spot play, the ROI gods will be unmerciful on your bankroll because of the inverse relationship between price and win percentage.Margin for error has decreased as has the margin for success.

Using the top three or four (or more) betting choices for contender selection is a good way to manage limited handicapping time. But it has to be approached very judiciously; you can't be betting 7, 8, 9, 10 etc. races per day. Your system has to be accurately detecting the select body of horses that are outperforming their odds, while detecting and ignoring the underlays.

It is my opinion that, inevitably, information that is external to Scott's method (or any "system") be weighed tnd brought to bear to help make those distinctions and achieve long-term profitability.

[Overlay]

Using the top three or four (or more) betting choices for contender selection is a good way to manage limited handicapping time. But it has to be approached very judiciously; you can't be betting 7, 8, 9, 10 etc. races per day. Your system has to be accurately detecting the select body of horses that are outperforming their odds, while detecting and ignoring the underlays.

I totally agree. When I employ Scott's approach, I take the top three as a starting point, and then use my fair-odds line both to rank them and to determine which horses/races to bet or pass, based on available wagering value.

[DarkDream]

Multiple Regression Consistancy Total

Basically using the last 10 races in a horses PP's, award 6 points for each 1st place finish, 3 for each 2nd and 1 for each 3rd.

See page 122 - Winning at the Races

Bill

Thanks!

--DD

[ultracapper]

Friend of mine was cleaning out his attic this weekend, and yesterday came over with Investing at the Racetrack. I'd never heard of the book or Scott. He just called me a few hours ago and said he found Total Victory at the Track.

I look forward to reading these. Never heard of either, or the author. Excited to get my hands on, what's for me, fresh material.

[thaskalos]

Friend of mine was cleaning out his attic this weekend, and yesterday came over with Investing at the Racetrack. I'd never heard of the book or Scott. He just called me a few hours ago and said he found Total Victory at the Track.

I look forward to reading these. Never heard of either, or the author. Excited to get my hands on, what's for me, fresh material.

I wouldn't bother, if I were you.

[ultracapper]

I wouldn't bother, if I were you.

Seriously? Damn Thask, I was excited. Haven't opened the one I have yet.

[thaskalos]

Seriously? Damn Thask, I was excited. Haven't opened the one I have yet.

Put those two books away...lest they confuse you, and mess up your game.

[ultracapper]

Haha!! I won't urge my buddy to break any land speed records getting the other one over here then.

[Capper Al]

The books may not have a sure formula to profit by, but they are thought-provoking. Scott has introduced several good ideas. You'll just have to figure out how and when to implement them.

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, it is the rare book that one cannot learn something from.

The concepts in that book, while not leading one to the holy Grail directly, may very well provide one with key ideas that improve their game immeasurably.

[The Judge]

Scott was a honest man and handicapper, he put a great deal of emphasis on lengths gain and last fractions if I remember correctly. He thought a great deal of the Sartin Method toward the end of his handicapping career. I would think that Scott's books would be needed to round off any serious handicapping library. He did his own research from the stats in the racing form.

He was a practicing Attorney ,and from what I could figure out he was very successful in that field. Got him to sign all of his books as we shared a Limo ride from the Vagas airport to the Mirage Hotel for Handicapping Expo 1990 (I think that was the correct year). Scott was his writing name "Finley" was his correct last name.

His son is very well know in Racing Circles and considered honest and on the side of the racing fan. His name is Bill Finley.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/pdf/magazine/Magazine-Drugs%20in%20Racing-Part%20III.pdf

[Light]

I actually ordered Scott's "Total Victory" book a couple of weeks ago even though I read it years ago and found it useless. However a friend of mine who created my home made software for horse racing, slipped in Scott's "form factors" as one output of the program. I have been ignoring that page of the software for years but recently noticed it came up with several winners. One paid $17. So I had to get the book to see the explanation of the form factors which are something like N or 0 or + etc. So I just looked at the horses with a + which meant an improving horse or a horse up close in all calls. The fallacy is that horses who go wire to wire in their last start will get a + because they were up close in all their calls. Of course they can repeat but mostly do not. So it's a poor rating system because the results are mixed with a negative ROI.

He starts out with his Performance Class Ratings where he takes all 10 past performances of a horse and gives the horse an overall number by combining all 10 pp's. I find it totally ludicrous. I searched and read old threads of the book on this site and someone mentioned that towards the end of his life, Scott did not use any of these two methods I described here from the book and as the Judge said he gravitated towards Sartin's methods.

I have been too busy to read the whole book but plan to do so. Personally I do see the next leap forward in horse racing as dealing with form factors in a way where the software will give you a "blackjack" sort of position on whether or not the percentages are in your favor on the favorite or your pick as far as form. Will the horse repeat his performance or bounce or whatever.

For example when a horse puts blinkers on for the first time and runs a huge race with a huge Beyer, I avoid these horse like the plague the next time. They really bounce second time blinkers after a huge performance. This is the kind of thing software really needs to tell me without me having to look at the form to find it. Everyone can read the figures and see the big name jocks but few can read between the lines.

[Speed Figure]

I find PCR to be a good contender selector and I use a modified version of the rating and find it very useful. I also love the fact that most here don't like it! you can see this horse was ranked 1st in PCR & 2nd last in Prime Power + the lone E horse. This was race 7 at Santa Anita yesterday.

[thaskalos]

Scott sought to totally "systematize" the handicapping process...which is a dubious proposition from its inception, given the complicated nature of the game. He claimed to have succeeded mightily and his achievements were hailed by some of the most respected handicapping authors of that time period...even though his research was fraught with error and misjudgement from the very beginning (the "good-ole-boys'" club was alive and well).

He emphasized the third quarter of the race in his analysis, the very portion of the race which had even then been proven to be the most insignificant and least dependable fraction of the horse's race; he erroneously concluded that the last fraction of a sprint neatly coincided with the second fraction of a route...even though no proof at all existed, or exists now, to form such a hypothesis; and he advised his readers to confine their wagering to the top three betting choices in the race...an idea which flatly contradicts the "overlay" concept, which is the very foundation of successful horseplay. Other than that...yes, a useful idea or two might be gleaned from that text. :rolleyes:

IMO...it is the books like Investing at the Racetrack that deserve the most blame, and do the most harm, in this game...because, through their apparent "simplicity", they target the least sophisticated players out there; the exact same players who have the biggest trouble distinguishing the few "good ideas" from the many BAD IDEAS found in these books.

I never thought much of the notion that "we could learn something new from every handicapping book". It gives the impression that every handicapping book deserves to be read, which I, having actually READ all the books out there, find to be a RIDICULOUS assertion. This notion also assumes that the readers will be able to distinguish the few golden nuggets which might be found there, from the mountains of DIRT found therein. Sadly...most of them can't.

William L. Scott declared that Winning at the Racetrack was more than a book of "ideas". He called it a "WINNING SYSTEM"...even though it was a "loser" from the very start. It wasn't until his book Total Victory at the Track was published that he admitted the mistakes in judgement that he had made in his prior works. The mistakes were corrected, he told us in his last book...and THAT book was advertised as a "winning system" too...as was his supplementary system, which he called Social Security. A better name for his systems would have been Imminent Bankruptcy.

As works of FICTION...his books were fine, though.

[thaskalos]

William Scott was a guest at a Sartin seminar in Baltimore in '93 or 94.

He gave us a contender selection method that worked pretty good:


Look at the last two lines for every horse.
Circle the highest Beyer of the two for each horse.
The top three are contenders.
Now ignore the top two lines and look at all the rest.
Do the same, cirlce the best Beyer of these lines.
The top three are contenders.
You now have from 3 to 6 contenders

I remember that. I believe he called this handicapping method, "playing the piano". No?

[cato]

I remember as a young inexperienced handicapper reading one of Scott's books, well written and brimming with optimism. I thought, "Eureka! I have found the promised land" It was fun, interesting reading and gave me a path to profits....at least I though that until I spent about 8 hours calculating the numbers and took them to the track (before computers and on-line betting). Oh the pain of reality... a good lesson for a novice handicapper.

Still I liked his books - but more as fictional efforts.

Cato

[thaskalos]

Scott sought to totally "systematize" the handicapping process...which is a dubious proposition from its inception, given the complicated nature of the game. He claimed to have succeeded mightily and his achievements were hailed by some of the most respected handicapping authors of that time period...even though his research was fraught with error and misjudgement from the very beginning (the "good-ole-boys'" club was alive and well).

He emphasized the third quarter of the race in his analysis, the very portion of the race which had even then been proven to be the most insignificant and least dependable fraction of the horse's race; he erroneously concluded that the last fraction of a sprint neatly coincided with the second fraction of a route...even though no proof at all existed, or exists now, to form such a hypothesis; and he advised his readers to confine their wagering to the top three betting choices in the race...an idea which flatly contradicts the "overlay" concept, which is the very foundation of successful horseplay. Other than that...yes, a useful idea or two might be gleaned from that text. :rolleyes:

IMO...it is the books like Investing at the Racetrack that deserve the most blame, and do the most harm, in this game...because, through their apparent "simplicity", they target the least sophisticated players out there; the exact same players who have the biggest trouble distinguishing the few "good ideas" from the many BAD IDEAS found in these books.

I never thought much of the notion that "we could learn something new from every handicapping book". It gives the impression that every handicapping book deserves to be read, which I, having actually READ all the books out there, find to be a RIDICULOUS assertion. This notion also assumes that the readers will be able to distinguish the few golden nuggets which might be found there, from the mountains of DIRT found therein. Sadly...most of them can't.

William L. Scott declared that Winning at the Racetrack was more than a book of "ideas". He called it a "WINNING SYSTEM"...even though it was a "loser" from the very start. It wasn't until his book Total Victory at the Track was published that he admitted the mistakes in judgement that he had made in his prior works. The mistakes were corrected, he told us in his last book...and THAT book was advertised as a "winning system" too...as was his supplementary system, which he called Social Security. A better name for his systems would have been Imminent Bankruptcy.

As works of FICTION...his books were fine, though.

Sorry...I should have said Investing at the Racetrack. That was my ONLY mistake in that post though...IMO. :)

[Capper Al]

Fair enough on the criticism on Scott. His methods are definitely not read-implement-win. Yet, at the time, he was a source of new ideas in a period when pace wasn't making the race.

The point on reading a book for ideas is not for expecting to find a get rich quick plan. Scott had many good ideas that deserved our consideration like ability time. I still track ability and use it every now and then. In the end, we all need information to understand the game. If we decide to play then it falls upon us to gather what information is available and give it our best shot in a system that we ourselves have pieced together.

[Dave Schwartz]

he point on reading a book for ideas is not for expecting to find a get rich quick plan. Scott had many good ideas that deserved our consideration like ability time.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Fair enough on the criticism on Scott. His methods are definitely not read-implement-win. Yet, at the time, he was a source of new ideas in a period when pace wasn't making the race.

The point on reading a book for ideas is not for expecting to find a get rich quick plan. Scott had many good ideas that deserved our consideration like ability time. I still track ability and use it every now and then. In the end, we all need information to understand the game. If we decide to play then it falls upon us to gather what information is available and give it our best shot in a system that we ourselves have pieced together.

You track ability time...and you use it "every now and then". If it is as good an idea as you say...why don't you use it more often?

[Tom]

I remember that. I believe he called this handicapping method, "playing the piano". No?

It was right around that time.

[Capper Al]

Ability time does fit every scenario. Off the top of my head and considering all the ideas out there, there are only 3 elements to the game that apply to every race: morning line, jockey, and trainer. All the other elements come and go as the scenario changes.

[thaskalos]

Ability time does fit every scenario. Off the top of my head and considering all the ideas out there, there are only 3 elements to the game that apply to every race: morning line, jockey, and trainer. All the other elements come and go as the scenario changes.
Al...I wish I understood you a little more often than I do.

[Capper Al]

Ability time does NOT fit every scenario. Off the top of my head and considering all the ideas out there, there are only 3 elements to the game that apply to every race: morning line, jockey, and trainer. All the other elements come and go as the scenario changes.

Gus,

Left an important word out. Does this help?

[ultracapper]

Read Investing...... . Umm, yea. I'm not sure what to say.

[jasperson]

I found my ability program and ran it on Sat. Aqu races. Attached is the printout for those who are interested.