Why does Selvidge call Sartin a fraud or something to that effect?

[Koko]

You'll have to pardon my ignorance. I know about Sartin and his story more or less. I recently got Selvidge's materials that I requested i.e. Truline.

What if anything has Sartin done that would be considered not above board?

Selvidge didn't strike me as someone with just a jealous streak who needs to attack a competitor, so anyone know the roots of this?

[46zilzal]

You'll have to pardon my ignorance. I know about Sartin and his story more or less. I recently got Selvidge's materials that I requested i.e. Truline.

What if anything has Sartin done that would be considered not above board?

Selvidge didn't strike me as someone with just a jealous streak who needs to attack a competitor, so anyone know the roots of this?
Most of his (Howard Sartin's) concepts were gleaned from other sources: he just brought it all together AND everyone knows Howard and not this fellow so a bit of the green monster is at hand. Davidowitz is of the same belief, BUT after 20 years PLUS that FRAUDULENT stuff still keeps working as it is doing RIGHT NOW.

[delayjf]

I've never known Davidowitz to call Sartin a Fraud, from reading his books I know he has some serious reservation as to velocity figures and their attempts to measure pace when so many inaccuracies I.E. (race timing and beaten lengths calculations), but I don't recall him calling Sartin a fraud. :confused:

[46zilzal]

I've never known Davidowitz to call Sartin a Fraud, from reading his books I know he has some serious reservation as to velocity figures and their attempts to measure pace when so many inaccuracies I.E. (race timing and beaten lengths calculations), but I don't recall him calling Sartin a fraud. :confused:
NOT the same word but read his book calling it PSEUDOSCIENCE and in private e-mails his expressed disdain

[GameTheory]

I've heard lots of people call him (essentially) a fraud -- not the methods themselves, but Howard the person. For instance, making things deliberately confusing so his customers would continue to need him to explain things, pay for new programs and seminars, etc...

[46zilzal]

I've heard lots of people call him (essentially) a fraud -- not the methods themselves, but Howard the person. For instance, making things deliberately confusing so his customers would continue to need him to explain things, pay for new programs and seminars, etc...
I have to agree there in principle but once you "get it" that support is no longer needed...problem was a NEW format would come out and people would rush to the new one thinking that the wheel had been re-invented. I was one of them for awhile and I know what you are talking about. LATER versions were much more user freindly

[kenwoodallpromos]

PA search will give you info on both of them.
IMHO it depends on what fraud is.
In horseracing seems much new in handicapping is popularized by someone who did not have the original idea, but there are only adaptations of other ideas and no ideas exist unless the stats are available.
I'm sure the ideas I base some of my methods on are original to me, but have benn tried and forgotten, or others are tweaking the same information I am somewhere else.
I like the idea that Sartin collaborated and improved on his ideas. As far as I know Ainslie just gathered common information and put it out in book form.
I would not buy any systems because the seller trashed another system maker; I would buy it because over a large number of tests it has proven out, it makes sense, and it does not try to claim that it can beat all races or all types of races.

[Dave Schwartz]

Most of his (Howard Sartin's) concepts were gleaned from other sources: he just brought it all together AND everyone knows Howard and not this fellow so a bit of the green monster is at hand. Davidowitz is of the same belief, BUT after 20 years PLUS that FRAUDULENT stuff still keeps working as it is doing RIGHT NOW.

Howard Sartin may well have been a fraud in terms of his degree and psychology experience; I cannot address that beyond regurgitating what I have heard before.

What I can comment on is the originality of Howard's work.

I first heard of incremental velocity in 1978 from Huey Mahl and I am reasonably sure he got it from someone else. So, from that standpoint, "incremental velocity" was certainly not an original idea of Howard's.

What was original was making incremental velocity work and Howard deserves full credit for that.

Back in the '80s I would cycle through one approach after another... speed, rudimentary pace, class, form, impact values - you name it, I tried it. Year after year. And when I had completed the cycle I would somehow come back to the top of the list and go through it all again.

September 2nd, 1987, I was involved in a minor car accident. (A whiplash - until then I used to laugh at people who claimed they had one.) I bumped into a guy in the racebook who showed me his readouts on a handheld (Sharp, I think), called Sartin and ordered Phase III.

It was God-awful software - but the application of the concept was pure genius. Got a couple of the early newsletters - one that described the Brohamer Model - and just knew that this was it!

Around the 17th of the month I began writing my own version of Phase III - LOL - it really didn't look much better than Doc's, but it was a heck of a lot easier to get the data in.

Anyway, I was testing by the 25th, and, on the 1st of October, when I was supposed to report back for work, I quit instead. Note that this was before I had made my first real wager! And it went famously for quite awhile, but that is my story and this is supposed to be about Howard.

So, I went from losing player to winning player in about four weeks and I must give the credit to Howard and his of those incremental pace concepts.

"Concepts" are just a starting point. Ultimately, someone must show you how to "apply" them. IMHO, Howard Sartin did that.


Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

[46zilzal]

It astounds me, TO THIS DAY, how many people get this software method and NEVER get the epiphany. They NEVER "get it." Once the bells go off, you never quite look at the method the same way again. Still works well after all these years.

I blieve the thing they miss is the HOLOSITIC nature of what it says since it is ostensibly an INCREMENTAL idea that most people miss the forest for the trees

[DJofSD]

This is to echo some of Dave's thoughts and is not meant to be taken as argumentative. Dave's a heck of a lot better 'capper.

I got involved with the method and PIRCO right after one of the Handicapping Expo's -- 1988, I think. Up to that point, I, too, had cycled through various approaches to handicapping though I'm sure not to the same level as Dave. I will never forget the overwhelming feeling I got sitting in the audience listening to the presentation. It was a gut level feeling of surity and it is made a heck of a lot more sense to my physics and mathematical background than anything else up to that point including Beyer's speed figures.

My ah-ha moment that turned me from losing to winning was when I acquired the Match Up. It all came together. Up to that point TPR was helping but I still was not "breaking through" as far as the mutuals were concerned. "Kicking it up a notch" happened on 4/1/1990 -- April fools day -- when I got T'mation and the confirmation that I really, really got it was during the DMR meeting that same year.

I attended practically all the Beaumont and Las Vegas seminars. I even had a few telephone conversations and one-on-one meetings with Doc. I never felt I was being taken for a ride. He put it out there and it was yours to take or leave as you saw fit. As I told Barry Meadows once, no one is putting a gun to your head. If you don't agree with the approach, you don't like the man or you think you're being scammed when there is a new approach and a new program then just go away!

For those that would not or could not get beyond whether or not Doc was a real Phd or not, that was their loss. They missed out not Doc. I would put it this way: some of the most important discoveries made in all different areas of both the arts and the sciences were made by those without any formal or rigorous training in the field. Often times, it's those on the outside looking in that do not have the preconceived notions or are locked into a "accepted" way of solving a problem are the ones that solve the problem. So what if he didn't have a formal degree in psychology? Don't take what is being offered -- it just means one less winner as far as I'm concerned.

As to the claim of huckster and fraud because new programs and new seminars were required for you to stay up to speed, what do you expect? If you can't adapt, learn what's new, adapt to a different approach then you're playing the wrong game. Your competition isn't sitting on their collective thumbs. They want your money and they'll change and adapt to get it.

Was the software the slickest? No. Could it have been better written, easier to use, more flexible -- sure thing. But if you let that get in your way then having the lastest GUI presentation with data base back ends and automatic model keeping would likely not have made you a winner either.

In closing, it was through Howard Sartin, PIRCO and the friends I made through those associations that allowed me to see the light and be able to profit at the windows.

[46zilzal]

Often times, it's those on the outside looking in that do not have the preconceived notions or are locked into a "accepted" way of solving a problem are the ones that solve the problem.
Pushing without dogma to weigh them down: Louis Pasteur, Sister Kenny, and that family doctor in Australia who had the audacity to say that most stomach ulcers were just bacterial infections

[Tom]

That danged Yellow Manual and my first seminar in Albany psissed me off so bad I made it work! :mad:

Yeah, it was confusing, but like 46 says, once you get it, it works.
I learned a lot from Doc, Brohammer, our own Dick Schmidt, Mikey, and Burt Mayne. I am a better player for knowing those guys.

I only wish K Gen was able to use downloads - that was the ultimate program, IMHO, And I still use to to this day for the triple crown and B Cup races. Manual entry is a drag, but the program is just awsome.

[Secretariat]

I'd also like to echo some of the sentiments on Sartin. I joined PIRCO as many others here. If I wrote him a letter or called, he always answered me about some point to clarify. I didn't find his examples hard to follow at all. Occasionally, an error, but people complained about what paceline to use. He then created rules for that for those that needed rules. When people complained he didn't have an odds line, he added that with the Bottom Line Betting Line. The Brohamer Model, profiles, all of these things were a part of Pirco.

But mostly, in my personal discussions with Doc, I got something out of it, and the bottom line, is that is all that counts.

Good post Dave.

[Suff]

Did'nt Selvidge screw up here last year? Made a promise he never fulfilled?


Pretty sure I'm right. Got all the juice but never squeezed an orange?


He owes us. It's twice the Fruit now,

[socantra]

People who use their sales material to trash someone else usually say more about themseles than the person they are trashing.

Howard Sartin is no longer inolved with racing, so he is no one's competitor. He has had a tremendous impact on handicapping and has been a very colorful character. I believe Dick Schmidt summed it up best when he said that most of the stories about Howard, good and bad, are true.

To me, Sartin's legacy will be the incredible number of people, myself included, who credit him with making them a winner.

socantra...

[scoots63]

This is my first post. Couldn't let this topic pass. Plase bare with me. I don't recall J. Selvidge ever slamming Doc Sartin. I'm pretty sure it was Berry Meadow, in his Meadows Racing Monthly, Oct. 1997. Sartin Methodology: Unraveling the Mystery. As I recall the article slams the Doc pretty hard concerning his Degree in Psychology and about the Method . Sour Grapes stuff from an ego maniac and jealous loser, in may humble opinion. I don't think Meadows could understand the concept (methodology) so he had to bash it. I don't care if Doc Sartin got his degree out of a Cracker Jack Box, he forgot more about the Psychology of Winning, than an other Psychologist may ever know. Good enough for me.

I became a member of Pirco shortly before the Oklahoma Seminar in 1992, and things have never the same, as far as having confidence in my handicapping and wagering. What hasn't been mentioned here yet is the great Monthly called The Follow Up . In it's 89 Issues is the total Sartin Methodolgy. It wasn't the same after Dick Schmidt left as Editor, because Dick is an excellent writer and teacher, I stiil use his wagering method. At any rate. Let me wrap this up by saying I spoke with the Doc many times and sent in reports on my 20 race Cycles, always recieved a reply. I own Thmation and other Programs, and was never obligated to purchase any of them. I bought them because I wanted to win (mission accomplished). Tom Ainslie (Said to be the Dean of Handicappers/Authors) gave the Keynote Address at the Nov. 1997 Las Vegas Seminar, giving high praise, for Doc and Pirco Group.
No complaints from here. One great side bar about the Method is you can make it your own. There are no rules. Happy to have all the Follow Ups and many audio's and video's.:)

[traynor]

Sartin based his apps on one premise; all the information necessary to pick (70%!!) winners was in the DRF. That is, the niceties of body language, physical inspection, trip handicapping, trainer maneuvers, etc. that most professionals consider at least as important as the running lines were dismissed as irrelevant.

Selvidge was a trainer at the old Longacres in Seattle, and focused mostly on the topics he knew best--trainers, and the actual performances and current condition of horses, by observation. He made buckets of money for a couple of seasons with a method based mainly on the use of tongue ties as an indication of trainer intention. Similarly, he also did very well with shoe boards on off tracks--any trainer who entered a horse with slicks instead of caulks was considered to be "less than serious about winning," regardless of what a pace rating from a race three weeks ago "predicted."

Selvidge argued that the win percentages, average mutuels, and "income" claimed by many methodologists were bogus; they claimed a lot of winners, but didn't have the money in hand to back up the claims. Even Mikey has tried to diplomatically escape the issue by saying he won a lot of races, but wasn't making any money at it. Sartin attracted a lot of uncritical true believers who handicapped primarily on paper.

(Please spare me the old, tired tale of how REAL winners keep it hidden--this is 2006 and anyone who attempts to avoid declaring winnings is either a rookie or a loser, in addition to being a tax cheat. The actual winners have no problem whatsoever giving the IRS their cut.)

Selvidge's biggest complaint was that the initial Sartin offerings (seemed to be) carbon copies of John Meyer's stuff (who put out the Railbird Review). Original Phase III used John's silly spin on Quirin's "insight" that adjacent class levels were usually one length apart in final times. Sartin's initial offerings used the same "class adjustments" to the pace figures. When more than a few people recognized it as being the work of Meyers, it was eliminated from subsequent versions. The AP figure was identical to Meyer's "0-Fin." Meyers advocated fps as being more decipherable than mph figures.
Good Luck

[kenwoodallpromos]

Another 1st poster bashing a member of PA; no profile; just a flamer until proven otherwise.
I have no agenda regarding Meadows, Selvidge, or Sartin's stuff- and I for 1 do not condem a person's handicapping life totally based on my opinion of 1 incident, unlike you. You are on my ignore list.

[Koko]

. Sour Grapes stuff from an ego maniac and jealous loser, in may humble opinion. I don't think Meadows could understand the concept (methodology) so he had to bash it.

Your humble opinion about Barry Meadow is based on something substantive?

[scoots63]

Your humble opinion about Barry Meadow is based on something substantive?Koko I think you meant. ( Is ). My opinion is based on reading Mr. Meadows Monthly form 1996 to 2003. And the fact that Doc Sartin always gave him high praise in his writtings in the Follow UP. Then he writes the aforemention article about the Doc. I just didn't think it was right. It is just one guys opinion thats all.

[Binder]

Thanks for the nice words Guys

He made a big impact on me
he is a friend

[Lefty]

Most if the guys that knock Sartin and put out their own material seem to get some of his concepts worked into THEIR material.
Sartin came up with concepts that others copied.
Tom, loved that K-Gen too.
46, agree with everything you said about Sartin.

[skate]

Huey and Sartin:

as far as i can tell, Sartin got his pace concept from Huey and Sartin made no secret of this fact.
i can say that Huey had no bad thoughts about Sartin, or the way he handled "pace makes the race".

Sartin came up a little short with his delivery, minor.

[Lefty]

Yes, Huey handed doc the "ball" and told him to run with it. He scored a td as far as i'm concerned.

[skate]

Lefty;


sent you an email.

did you ever run into Huey (vegas), before he left for good.?

[Lefty]

Got your e-mail and replied. Yes, I met Huey in 76 and he once interviewed me for a column he was doing in Gaming Today. Also met Doc Sartin several times.

[Tom]

Lefty,

Where did Dan "the feet per second man" fit in? Sedgwick, was it?
Was he associated with Huey at all, or a Sartin guy?

[Lefty]

Tom, don't know if Sedgewick ever met Huey but Doc said he(Sartin) got a lot of his fps ideas from Sam. I think Huey gave Doc the basic pace concept as he saw it.

[highnote]

Lefty,
The more I learn about you, the more I realize how interesting you are.

What was the nature of the interview Mahl did with you?

Regards,

John

[Lefty]

swety, I was doing a swap newsletter at the time called THE HANDICAPPER's EXCHANGE. We would swap and sell used systemsm books and software prgms. This was back in the 90's.