Just what is the Sartin Methodology? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Tom

08-10-2006, 10:57 AM

Actually, that is a good example, D.

The methodology evolved over 7 phases:

1 Baiscally, the TPR stuff
2 Harness
3 The fps velocity stuff aka Brohammer's stuff
4 Ultra Scan
5 Energy
6 Deceleration
7 Synthesis

There were multiple programs, even at the same step - entropy, Kgen, T-mation, etc.

Overall, it was a way to use various types of pace analysis, but the real thing was the pyscological approach - find a way for people to accept winning, or a prescription to win. Howard used the analogy of jugglers - some people were not comfortable having to many balls in the air so Phase I was for them. Others were very gifted and could keep many balls in the air, so they were apt to use Decel or Synthesis. Whatever the prescription, record keeping was a pre-requitsite to winning. To keep track of your progress, he also recommended 20 race cycles - this way, you had mileposts to review your approach.

So, I consider myself to be using the metodology even when using HTR velocity or CJ pace numbers because I still keep the records, the 20 race cycles, the form cycle analysis (+,0, N races)

(I only recently started to explore the Validator stuff - and I am very impressed with it. The early/ late examples 46 posts about frequently are very strong at some tracks.)

There are at least two sites devoted to the metodology - perhaps others will chime in here.

It is alive and well and living on the internet.

andicap

08-10-2006, 11:25 AM

Thanks tom.

OK, I don't need the whole history or mythology of Sartin. I KNOW all the stories of the alleged truck drivers and about his philosophy, etc. I do NOT want this to turn into an attack on Sartin or a debate on his methods.

I am honesting looking for what users consider to be the "Sartin Method."

There are so many branches of Sartin -- are you using Sartin if you use TPRs?
Pizzolla started with Sartin so he has roots there. Is his stuff Sartin-esque?

Again, no Pizzolla attacks, etc.

46zilzal

08-10-2006, 11:25 AM

Still amazes me that people won't investigate for themselves ideas that permeate many other software packages, but are in a big hurry to denegrate the fellow who has his name on the idea. The methodolgy borrowed from many other sources, but brought it all together into one systematic approach that is working still today (since about 1982) as well as ever. I began with it in 1986 with a program called Phase III and it does take a long study period to "get it," but once you do, it never stops amazing you. However one may characterize Howard Sartin, he revolutionized the way races are evaluated and he referred to his ideas as the Handicapping Revolution in his magazine The Folllow Up. Many in the original group of instructors (Brohamer, Purdy, Pizzola, Dick Schmidt) once away from the parent organization PIRCO, used the method as their base, and them imparted their FLAVOR to it. The origianal early TPR (called a "smoke screen) was released in the book Pace Makes the Race.

It is simply a incremental velocity/deceleration evaluation of a race with the idea that MOST horses are "stuck" in a certain style of running, or energy distribution (short or long) that cannot be changed that much by the rider or trainer and one looks for mis-matches: whenever a horse is forced to run in a energy distribution where it has NOT done well in the past, once can usually eliminate them. The cheaper the horse, the more they are locked into a single style (there are exceptions in classy sprinters, i.e. Groovy a need to lead monster).

I have discovered an idea that Tom refered to as early/late relativity and at some speed favoring tracks, one can refer to that energy distribution almost by itself to elucidate the winner.

I moderate a yahoo group called Sartin Alums and there is another called Pace and Cap and at BOTH, various people discuss ways that they use the software. Being a born iconoclast and "fidgeter" I experiment constantly and have found many new correlations, particularly in FORM CYCLES. (I have written here about a horse having a three race drop in total energy and an increasing % median as often going off form). The lastest version is called Speculator 160 and there is a Windows based one in the works. The original programmer (Guy Wadsworth) passed away early this year and another programmer is working on the next generation, so it is alive and well.

The message is far more important than the messenger.

The Judge

08-10-2006, 11:26 AM

Its a way off looking at a race as it unfolds. A final time of 1:10 for 6f is not the end all of the story. My favorite example is

Horse A: 21.4 44.4 1:10
Horse B: 22.2 45.1 1:10

Even with the same final times horse A would beat horse B in most situations. Horse B would need a track bias (a late running track , a turf track or some bias to aid his 3 fraction run). If A were a confirmed front runner B would need help from other horses.

So a 1:10 must be explained, how was the 1:10 earned

Off course this is a continuation of the work of Ray Talubot and Huey Mahl. There are more such as energy disturbtion, and two horse betting but A and B horse is the basic.

Donnie

08-10-2006, 11:31 AM

Tom-
Hopefully no one takes that post the wrong way. The Sartin stuff is heady stuff, and very effective for the person who can apply it properly. But much of his early stuff can be traced back to earlier works by other individuals. Much like one of the books I will be selling is EXACTLY what Pizolla touts in his Handicapping Magic book. The book I have is from I believe the early 1980's. And Pizolla DOES mention that what he is presenting is nothing new.

But the marketing of these concepts is the key to successfully taking this stuff to market. How many people woulda been interested in the Sartin stuff if we weren't fed the story of 100 degenerate truck drivers with a gambling problem? Kinda "glamourizes it, doesn't it? In no way am I saying the methodology doesn't work. I know it does....I used to tote a Radio Shack pocket computer to the track with the original Sartin stuff programmed in BASIC in it. If it were not for the Sartin stuff, I woulda never given a look at Massa's program.

My point is everyone who now employees velocity to ANY degree drop the name Sartin and they become part of the METHODOLOGY. Hence Andi's confusion over what is the Methodology and what is not. But your post shows that the true methodology has evolved, in some cases into just more convoluted permutations of the same concepts, while in other cases forward strides have been made. We all need to adapt what works for us. But I think for many newbies it is getting harder to seperate the sheaf from the wheat.

46zilzal

08-10-2006, 11:37 AM

a MAJOR part of the methodolgy which does not get much attention was Dr. Sartin's approach to (as the warden in Cool Hand Luke would say) "getting your mind right." The Follow Up contained many suggested readings OUTSIDE racing (many dealing with Eastern philosophy and how I got my start in studying the Tao and Buddhism by the way) books like Chaos by Gelick, the Chinese I Ching, Complexity by Waldrop, Silva Mind Control (he was big on meditative practices) ALL designed to work on the psychological aspects of wagering in what he referred to as Win Therapy. At one point he even suggested putting a rubber band around one's wrist and "popping" the band hard against the wrist everytime you won as feedback.

Donnie

08-10-2006, 11:37 AM

The message is far more important than the messenger.

Zilzal----exactly!

In no way am I demeaning Sartin or Pizolla or anyone else. If it helps who cares who brought you to the dance?

Tom

08-10-2006, 11:51 AM

Donnie, I knew Doc was a salesman - a darn good one.
I also know that using Aqua Velva will not bring scantly clad women rushing to rub my cheeks, but I still use it! :lol:

Lefty

08-10-2006, 11:51 AM

Donnie, Sartin CONSTANTLY gave credit to Ray Taulbot, Huey Mahl, Sam Sedgewick and others.
Sartin was the first guy I know who compounded pace ratings. First guy I know who talked about horses coming out of same race and often reversed. He called them Tandem races.
First guy I now who said the 2nd best win horse usually wasn't the place horse. etc, etc etc.
I know you weren't demeaning Sartin but lots do, and yet they steal from him.

46zilzal

08-10-2006, 01:57 PM

here is an example of the e/l relativity at it's best.

1st race - Ellis Park - August 10, 2006
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
4 Sweet One 51.00 13.20 4.80
6 Trick Shot Gal 2.40 2.10
1A Lady Luluann 5.20

In a sprint, one looks for those horses in the positive range (+10-16) which denotes they will be closer to the lead. TWO of the top three e/l ranked horses run 1-2.

classhandicapper

08-10-2006, 02:44 PM

I don't know much about the Sartin methodology, but I am happy Ray Talbot is getting some credit in this thread.

One of the first books I ever read about horseracing was by Ray Talbot. It was primarily about pace figures and form cycles. When I read it (in the 70s) it was already a pretty old book. So his ideas about pace had been out there for quite a long time already.

It's funny because in the 70s Beyer was telling us that pace doesn't matter at all and most TG/RAGs players still believe that it rarely matters.

Sure the charts have improved and the insights have been refined, but Ray T is one of the most underrated authors out there. He was way ahead of his time even if some of the charts and rules for systems seem dated now.

I wish I still had that original book, but unfortuantely it disappeared into a black hole somewhere. I'd love to read it again.

delayjf

08-10-2006, 03:16 PM

I also know that using Aqua Velva will not bring scantly clad women rushing to rub my cheeks, but I still use it!

Maybe your not putting it on the right cheeks. Myself, I've had good luck with HI - Karate. ;) :D

46zilzal

08-10-2006, 03:34 PM

I too followed Ray Talbout and it was the basis of my being able to understand Sartin the way I do. I used the old plastic pace calculator with Amer-Var to "break in" to the entire idea. It is such a simple idea that it is hard sometimes to not CONTAMINATE it with other things: trainer moves, jockey switches etc.

andicap

08-10-2006, 05:12 PM

If anyone has a copy of Barry Meadow's article on Sartin, I would love to see it....

Thanks.

Dick Schmidt

08-10-2006, 05:13 PM

The Sartin Methodology was always a moving target, intentionally so. I watched a lot of it develop and helped with the progress some. Here are some observations and thoughts from a guy who made most of the trip with Doc and the guys.

PACE: no, Sartin didn't invent pace. He got most of his ideas from Mahl, who adapted ideas from Talbot, who was following The Speed Boys, who learned from Matheson, who got ideas from some Englishman who invented the stopwatch. Likely some Roman was trying to time the chariot races using his pulse (lots of luck on that one with a big bet on). Sartin acknowledged his debt to all of those who went before him and was particularly quick to praise Huey Mahl.

EVOLUTION: The first method developed was Phase III. There never was a Phase I or II, Doc wanted people to think he had been in business a while when he started out. By the way, the truck drivers did exist, I met two of them. Both were still out of jail, so I guess some of it took.

Ultra Scan was the next program offered. Developed by Doc to shut up a client who was only interested in long shots, it turned out to be a surprisingly good program. The internal workings are very strange, as it adds a feet-per-second rating and a percentage figure together and divides by two, then multiplies by an arbitrary number I forget to "disguise" the ratings. Doc used to say that this was his most original idea.

Synergism - not officially a part of the Sartin Method, but sold by Doc. Written by Bob Purdy, it was an attempt to produce Phase III numbers with all the necessary adjustments built in. The current version of the program has very little to do with the original and works much better.

Energy came next. It was an attempt to completely automate the adjustment procedure. At it's heart was the old Ultra Scan formula. Doc used to laugh and say that if they wouldn't buy Ultra Scan for $79 he's sell it to them for $300.

After than came the "program of the year" period. K-Gen, Thrormation, and all that followed. This was about the time I left the Methodology. A thing to remember was that by this time, Doc had his whole family working for him, and needed to pay several full time salaries. If he ever told people that this or that program was the best, or the final one, he would have to close down. He needed constant sales to drive the whole operation, so continued to develop them. As far as I can tell, they were all based on the Energy/Ultra Scan code with visual displays and some sort of a deceleration formula attached.

A note on TPR. Though called Phase I sometimes, it came long after Energy and Throromation. Developed primarily by Tom Hambleton as the centerpiece of a book Sartin wanted to write, it was later repudiated by Sartin, but it was one of the most successful programs to come out of the Methodology (I MAY be a little prejudiced here). Doc came up with the "smoke screen" thing after he started throwing everyone out of PIRCO (of the 16 guys who started PIRCO, only one, Tom Brohamer, lasted and he was "on the outs" for a couple of years.) Michael Pizzolla was removed when he wanted to be paid for his efforts, Tom Hambleton quickly followed when he demonstrated that TPR could easily win a race that Energy couldn't in front of a group at Saratoga and I wasn't far behind when I questioned why these two friends of mine, and Sartin's most loyal follower Bob Purdy, were all so summarily dismissed after years of faithful, unpaid service. Chop!

Unfortunately paranoia, greed and ill health killed what was once the strongest organization in handicapping. Today Doc is mostly bedridden and refuses to see anyone. They all "betrayed" him at one time or another, me included. A sad end to what once was a great idea.

Dick

traynor

08-10-2006, 05:45 PM

Ultra Scan was the next program offered. Developed by Doc to shut up a client who was only interested in long shots, it turned out to be a surprisingly good program. The internal workings are very strange, as it adds a feet-per-second rating and a percentage figure together and divides by two, then multiplies by an arbitrary number I forget to "disguise" the ratings. Doc used to say that this was his most original idea.
Dick

It wasn't multiplication by an arbitrary number. The originals reversed the sort so the "US choices" were bottom to top, rather than top to bottom. Sartin referred to it somewhat obliquely as being "like discovering the atomic bomb by mistake."

howardjim

08-10-2006, 06:04 PM

Thanks Dick for a complete and lucid anthology.

Surly I doubt, a gentleman indeed.

Binder

08-10-2006, 06:40 PM

PlanB

08-10-2006, 07:59 PM

Binder, are you now a winning player?

Binder

08-10-2006, 08:31 PM

Binder, are you now a winning player?

Hi Plan B

Yes I am very happy and I'm a consistent winner
The methodology ask that we base our progress in 20 race cycles
Mine are slightly less but just about what Doc said are the average for his winning clients I win about 50% of my races, betting 2 horse, with an average price of $13.00 I can not come close to the 63%that was once the mark of a winning client.
However then the methodology was more about win percentage
when I became a client the focus was on wagercapping
or rather profit. This according to the guidelines of the methodology
means hiding any horse that will pay less than 5/2 then betting
2 horses of your remaining contenders. One that will pay over 5/2 and the second bet being the best higher odds horse
GS
Bill

Overlay

08-10-2006, 08:42 PM

If anyone has a copy of Barry Meadow's article on Sartin, I would love to see it....

Thanks.

Here's an excerpt from the first page (for what it's worth)(from the October, 1997 issue of Meadow's Racing Monthly):

http://www.trpublishing.com/p0000443.htm

Donnie

08-10-2006, 08:55 PM

Dick-
Appreciate the recap. Nice of you to do so!

andicap

08-10-2006, 10:11 PM

Dear Mr Schmidt
Thank you for you insight. I came into the methodology
very late. I was only a client for about two years, when I joined I was losing and very sad. I knew nothing at all about handicapping . I only learned what Doc told me in private phone calls and in a meeting with him in his office working on his program validator 2
I knew all the names you mentioned were at one time with Mr Sartin I recently for the first time ever have been able to read all Docs manuals and Follow Ups
I'm talking the very first ones The ones you edited When you guys were the great group Pirco seemed to be
Any way Its hurts It always hurts when you here things about a friend. I hate it
However the bottom line for me is. The methodology works I feel that it works and that is The Psychology of Winning
I just read on knowing that there is lots of positive stuff in all Doc's
work. That somehow got me to win. I am so honored that this man who helped me and others
still can go on
I thank 46 for mentioning my site
GS
Bill

Thank you Dick for the recap -- very helpful.

Now, Binder, I'm interested (in general terms I guess) of how the methodology is different than other forms of pace handicapping? Is is the energy usage that 46 referrs to? Is it a deceleration factor (adc is one I've seen somewhere). Is it all of the above and then some?
Again, not asking for the store just a bit of insight into what goes into the actual methodology as it is used by Sartinites today? (NOT the psychological or wagering stuff -- not minimizing its importance believe me!)

timtam

08-10-2006, 10:26 PM

Hi Binder

Glad to hear your a winning player How many tracks do you play

per day and what type of wagers do you make? I know that Philly Park

can get pretty tricky at times :)

46zilzal

08-10-2006, 10:33 PM

of how the methodology is different than other forms of pace handicapping? Is is the energy usage that 46 referrs to? Is it a deceleration factor (adc is one I've seen somewhere). Is it all of the above and then some?
Again, not asking for the store just a bit of insight into what goes into the actual methodology as it is used by Sartinites today? (NOT the psychological or wagering stuff -- not minimizing its importance believe me!)
energy distribution attributes the running style to horses NOT the positional aspects of the Brohammer version.

To understand it requires a lot of work and is beyond the scope of a definition here without a copy of the software in front of you.

andicap

08-11-2006, 01:38 AM

energy distribution attributes the running style to horses NOT the positional aspects of the Brohammer version.

To understand it requires a lot of work and is beyond the scope of a definition here without a copy of the software in front of you.

You missed my point. I KNOW all about energy -- I use it every day in my handicapping (tho not in the exact way you do, but energy is energy no matter how many times Sartin dressed it up in new clothing and reinvented it to sell software. You spend too much energy early you poop out in the stretch. You learn to relax early you spread out your energy usage and have more left at the end. Real complicated stuff.)

I KNOW all about Brohamer -- I practically memorized the book -- and positional handicapping. You think I'm going to consider doing this part-time for a living without understanding the basics of running styles and pace? Have you read ANYTHING I've posted in my time here? Further I've written long posts asking energy questions of YOU that show my sophistication on the subject. (Examples on demand.)

Do I know it all? Of course not, especially among very lightly raced horses, which I rarely bet seriously. (For example you have referred to "projected" performance by rapidly improving young horses, an interesting concept I am comfortable with in concept, but not in detail, like how much to project their pace progression.) That's why I have asked many questions about energy of you and Keilan.

But don't treat me paternalistically, like I'm a raw newbie too green to understand the intricacies of energy. And feel welcome to read a series I'm writing about energy on my blog -- part one is up now -- and post critiques, brickbats, etc.

So read my post. I mean actually look at the words. I never asked WHAT was energy, only how much a part of the Metholology as it exists TODAY does energy entail and what are the other factors (such as ADC, which I have rarely confused with AC/DC, BTW) involved in the software Sartinites are using.

46zilzal

08-11-2006, 01:43 AM

your reference to ADC is unknown to me. Advanced programs have gone far past energy and without BOTH of us having the program, leaves explaining things as an impossible task.

Paternally? wouldn't dream of it. Not trying to "talk down" to you.

Not lecturing just am not going to go through it here...takes having the program in front of one to explain it's nuts and bolts.

Binder

08-11-2006, 05:38 AM

Hi Andicap and TimTam
andicap:
Its a hard question for me to answer, In truth I just do't know,
There are men on the P and C who I know use other methods
with a bit of the methodology mixed in. There are men like 46
who take things from the programs and focus and develope
there own ways. I know that the methodology when Doc retired
was about profit wagercapping and looking at 1 powerful readout,,
on the validator program called V/DC. This was an all inclusive readout
based on Velocity / Deceleration, which produced many ties amoung
your 4 or 5 contenders readouts. It was then up to you to break those
ties using final odds and hideing the low odds horse
I was also asked to ingnore Jockeys, Trainers, Bias, modeling
except for the Late/Early Graph
I would say that these features made the methodology different than most pace methods

Timtam : I bet 2 horses to win
Sometimes I will make an Exacta box with those two win bets and a
third horse. I wager online at night MNR. Penn CT
If I can get home early I will try to do late races from any day track
I did every race everyday from Philly Park for years
yet I only modeled the L/E I wager there on the weekends
Thanks
Bill

shanta

08-11-2006, 08:18 AM

Hey hey the gang's all here ( Michael P wrote the intro)

Tom

08-11-2006, 10:21 AM

Andy,
As you and Kelien know from experience, %Energy has pretty eluded my understanding:rolleyes: but this E/L graph that 46 frequently mentions is really easy to understand and use. I find it to be the most reliable thing in the new prgrams, along with the Bottom Line Betting screen. Admittedly, I am an amature in this new stuff, but every time I use the prgram (Val3) I get good results from those screens.
I understand it is some kind of a relationship between EP and third fraction - just not sure what.

At Binder's site, there is a very good thread discussing Energy with lots of examples. I find his site very helpfull.

46zilzal

08-11-2006, 11:14 AM

There are men on the P and C who I know use other methods with a bit of the methodology mixed in. There are men like 46 who take things from the programs and focus and develope there own ways. I know that the methodology when Doc retired was about profit wagercapping
Sartin methodology is a tool not a religion. One interprets it to the style one learns. At the heart of it, IN THE PAGES OF THE FOLLOW UP, the magazine of the Sartin methodology, is the lesson that one uses this the WAY IT WORKS, not by some standard, and therefore OVERUSED method. The entire idea of the programs being ADAPTABLE stresses the idea that some readouts, at some courses will be MUCH STRONGER than others and that is the great thing about those programs. In a parimutuel game going along with the "crowd" leads to disaster.

That is true for Thromomation, Engen, Kgen, Synthesis, Energy, Val2, Val3, Spec, Spec NP, Spec EX, Spec PA, Spec 150, ValM, and SPec 160. IF you HAVE to go by rules rather than interpretations your imagination is not in gear.

46zilzal

08-11-2006, 11:32 AM

shanta

08-11-2006, 12:11 PM

V/DC (in the program Validator) was a "gimmick" (called probabily convergence) to draw horses of greater probability closer to those with lesser probability by assigning smaller mathematical differences between them.

one of the most ingenious ideas which helped quite a few folks get away from the old " top 2 itis" which was taught for years if you followed the method.

Those not quite up to the top appliers of the method regarding paceline and contender selection( ME for example) were finding they were losing a lot of long priced horses who would show up 3rd and 4th ranked. While a lot of the time the " better" users would be able to get a lot of those in the top 2.

By "seeing" the v/dc readout where LONGSHOTS ( $ 40.00, $ 60.00 etc etc) all of a sudden had a "3" ( sometimes 2) as a "ranking" more FOCUS was applied to looking for VALUE for the second of 2 win wagers.

Win % dropped noticeably ( my current 2 horse % is 40%) from the 60 -75 % levels BUT average win $ increased due to larger prices. There is always a tradeoff.

There are MANY more "recreational" users of software than so called "pros". In almost every case the profit from longer priced horses comes from horses NOT in the top 2 of readouts but rather from tiers ( ranks) THIRD and FOURTH.

This applies to MANY different software packages.

Howard just made it easier on the mind to " buy into" with the creation of the v/dc readout.

"Voodoo" readout NOT based in "absolute" reality? YES. Nothing wrong with a little "helping hand" especially when it involves LONGSHOTS.

My opinion anyway

Richie

DJofSD

08-11-2006, 12:12 PM

zz - you left out Entropy!

DJofSD

08-11-2006, 12:14 PM

By "seeing" the v/dc readout where LONGSHOTS ( $ 40.00, $ 60.00 etc etc) all of a sudden had a "3" ( sometimes 2) as a "ranking" more FOCUS was applied to looking for VALUE for the second of 2 win wagers.

Doc always cautioned -- make sure to consider the runner with rankings like 3-3-X or similar.

46zilzal

08-11-2006, 12:15 PM

zz - you left out Entropy!
never had that one as a STAND ALONE program: it was built into some of the others. Then I didn't have Pace Laucher or Quad Rater either.

DJofSD

08-11-2006, 12:30 PM

Doc did put the summary screen for Entropy into the later/last releases of T'mation. While having the complete program does offer some minor advantages, on the whole, Entropy was a different animal and in my experience would set up a scitoma if improperly used with any Energy! based program. But then I think there was a successful marriage of energy/velocity with deceleration in Validator and SPEC.

Dick Schmidt

08-11-2006, 03:56 PM

"Sartin methodology is a tool not a religion."

Believe me, that's not the way Doc saw it, and not the way he designed it. True believers were what he craved.

Dick

I went to a bookstore and asked the sales woman, "Where's the self-help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.

46zilzal

08-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Believe me, that's not the way Doc saw it, and not the way he designed it. True believers were what he craved.

Things stand up or fail based upon the science, not faith. One believes out of evidence not some blind adherence to the theoretical.

Binder

08-11-2006, 05:54 PM

Things stand up or fail based upon the science, not faith. One believes out of evidence not some blind adherence to the theoretical.

But I do believe I have a chance to win
He made it happen

I'm the one putting in the correct pace line ,thinking that Doc is watching me
I'm the one hideing the favorite
Hearing Doc say "Don't worry"
I'm the one who gets the rush when a 4th or 5th ranked horse on BLBL
that was moved closer to the top by Probability Convergance and the VDC readout wins and pays $31.00
I am the one that looks at the E/L and eliminates false contenders
Because thats what I was told would work, and it does
Of course its not a religion. But The man knew how to make some people "Get It"
Bill

P.S
Thank you very much Tom for the nice words on the site

46zilzal

08-11-2006, 05:58 PM

what does "why tell me what see" mean?

Binder

08-11-2006, 06:06 PM

what does "why tell me what see" mean?

Sorry It means I'm tired. I just got home
from fighting the evil drivers and packed roads of New Jersey
My fingers were moving at a different speed then my brain
Bill,

traynor

08-11-2006, 09:49 PM

Things stand up or fail based upon the science, not faith. One believes out of evidence not some blind adherence to the theoretical.

There is an almost overwhelming drive in people to support their existing views, despite strong, convincing, and "scientific" proof to the contrary. Generally referred to as "bias," it is the human tendency to discriminate--to only consider valid that which supports their beliefs, and to ignore disconfirming evidence.

That is not my personal opinion. It is the opinion of most scholars, academics, and specialists in the fields of decision theory and information management. It also happens to be the basis for most advertising, sales, and marketing campaigns; not because it is theory, but because it is reality.

For examples from sources that most would consider "credible," you might be interested in Stiff and Mongeau's critique of Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model. That model is more commonly referred to as the Yale Model of Persuasion. For other examples, particularly on the value of preliminary anchoring, you might consider some of Robert Cialdini's work, especially "Influence."

The idea that people are convinced by the "irresistible force of logic" is pretty much a myth. The issue can be encapsulated in the old saying, "Don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up."

bigmack

08-12-2006, 01:31 AM

paranoia, greed and ill health killed what was once the strongest organization in handicapping
I recall hearing of the "Sartin Gang" way back when me and my clan would be in a recording studio, handicapping on the side from the form and one of our guys Tommy came in and told us of a bunch of brainiacs in CA that were more than dialed in on the boardhitters and were crushing the circuit with unabashed vigor.

It must have been a hell of a time knowing intricate things that others didn't and walking into a venue like SA, DMR and the like and thinking "I strongly feel that I know more about the outcome of every race on the card than almost every other person here"

Must have been headytimes for all

traynor

08-12-2006, 04:01 AM

I recall hearing of the "Sartin Gang" way back when me and my clan would be in a recording studio, handicapping on the side from the form and one of our guys Tommy came in and told us of a bunch of brainiacs in CA that were more than dialed in on the boardhitters and were crushing the circuit with unabashed vigor.

It must have been a hell of a time knowing intricate things that others didn't and walking into a venue like SA, DMR and the like and thinking "I strongly feel that I know more about the outcome of every race on the card than almost every other person here"

Must have been headytimes for all

It would have been nice if the profits had matched the organizational strength.

46zilzal

08-12-2006, 01:03 PM

Must have been headytimes for all

Still is when the intracacies of the program are working on a biased day. Case in point is KNOWING when a horse (like Bob and John) is going to crash, or another is SO bolstered up by a bias can be written OFF.

Binder

08-12-2006, 07:03 PM

V/DC (in the program Validator) was a "gimmick" (called probabily convergence) to draw horses of greater probability closer to those with lesser probability by assigning smaller mathematical differences between them.

In the users maunual, actually it is just a small pamphlet, with an
audio cassette. Doc clearly states that Val 2 and Val 1 were made for clients that could not win with Synthesis. With Probability Convergance
and The VDC readout clients who could not win with earier programs
were given a PI or Paceline Indicator The pamplet and audio tape
consist of Doc doing a step by step instuction of 4 races
He says over and over Just let the PI select the best paceline
and forget about trying to handicapp
His gimmick of bringing horses closer together from 4th on the
betting line to first on the VDC readout was clearly explained
and he told the users to look for this as its going to happen lots
of times.

Thats the power of this program which I use today

46zilzal

08-13-2006, 01:37 AM

anyone who couldn't win with any of the more advanced programs was either MENTALLY CHALLENGED or just lazy and kept NO records whatsoever.

Binder

08-13-2006, 05:46 AM

anyone who couldn't win with any of the more advanced programs was either MENTALLY CHALLENGED or just lazy and kept NO records whatsoever.
Gee...

actually your kind of correct. maybe a bit extreme, I think his words were
and I can only do this from memory because its only on the audio tape..
This program (Val 2) is for those who could not win optiminitly
with Synthesis ,and who could not understand the muliplisity? spell check of readouts or felt it took too long to do a race,With probability convergance and VDC we feel we've solved that problem.....
He made Synthesis
sales stopped, People wanted something better or easier. He made them a program and made money and helped people and the company. So what?

Gee I never considered myself
that bad. I did quite well with Synthesis.
and I keep very good records Those records consist
of 20 race cycles and modeling just one readout
The Early/late readout Which was all
Doc said he did and suggested his clients to do
Many of my wager discision forms
from my synthesis days were used in the follow up
What can I tell you? I do better with Val then Synthesis
or Ted Craven's new program Speculator
The methodology worked for me
I'm sorry that it may not have worked that well for you.
I hope you make your profit your way and have fun
Bill

46zilzal

08-13-2006, 11:51 AM

I'm sorry that it may not have worked that well for you.
I hope you make your profit your way and have fun

you know what they say about assuming anything.

also there are few floating around who couldn't find water in the ocean even with the programs. CLUELESS

traynor

08-13-2006, 04:29 PM

you know what they say about assuming anything.

also there are few floating around who couldn't find water in the ocean even with the programs. CLUELESS

The attempt to make it seem that all the "true believers" were making money hand over fist because of the sophistication of the Sartin Methodology programs is somewhat misleading. "Winning" and "making a profit" are different; lots of people won lots of races, but not so many made a profit of substance. Even Pizzola, in his diplomatic "divorce" of his involvement with Sartin, left it by saying that he bet a lot of races, but failed to make a decent profit.

If the point is the marketing of some new generation "Sartin-type" application waiting in the wings for the right moment, you may have to do a better job of convincing people that the "advanced programs" did any more than the "basic programs."

Sartin's belief was that the programs were simply crutches for people too insecure, too tentative, and too lacking in self-confidence to make their own decisions. His intent was to develop handicappers--to force critical analysis of races and results to develop pattern recognition skills. That was his "contribution," not some spiffy little number-cruncher app that spewed out screens of "ratings."

To believe that the applications were the essence of the Sartin Methodology is to miss the point completely; the applications were a source of revenue and a crutch for the insecure. Which explains a lot of why Sartin was dismissive of those obsessed with selecting readout A over readout B, or those who wanted an application that would do all the work for them. His belief was that placing the emphasis on the applications crippled the prospective handicapper from ever gaining real insights into race analysis.

I was "immersed" in the Sartin Methodology for a number of years, and did well. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the "advanced programs," which were about as slick as sandpaper. Binder knows, whether he knows he knows or not; he was listening when Sartin said the person was more important than the application. Sartin trained people to analyze horse races, not to sit fixated in front of a monitor watching the readouts of the "latest, greatest, never-pick-another-pace-line-yourself" application.

I was one of those who realized what was important in the Sartin Methodology early on, and focused on learning pattern-recognition, rather than "interpreting readouts." (A view, FYI, that Sartin wholeheartedly agreed with--his view was that "computer-users" were insecure souls looking for excuses to lose). I was also one of those who realized that in order to properly use the Sartin Methodology, the user had to know which horse was most likely to win the race BEFORE calculating and comparing. That was the whole point of "finding the true contenders" and "picking the proper pace line."

The demise of the Sartin Methodology was related more to the increased dependence on computer readouts by his "clients" than any other factor. They were adept at accumulating piles of race printouts to "study," but failed to understand what that study was intended to accomplish. Extract the psychology from Sartin's methods and little is left except the same boring, number-crunching that a hundred other applications do as well or better.

So, I agree with you. Anyone who can't win is MENTALLY CHALLENGED, LAZY, and DOESN'T KEEP RECORDS. And anyone who depends on a computer application to use the Sartin Methodology misses the point entirely. As Jim Bradshaw was fond of asking, "Why do you need a computer? It's nothing but a dang horse race."

traynor

08-13-2006, 04:44 PM

<snip>Gee I never considered myself that bad. I did quite well with Synthesis. and I keep very good records Those records consist of 20 race cycles and modeling just one readout The Early/late readout Which was all
Doc said he did and suggested his clients to do
Many of my wager discision forms
from my synthesis days were used in the follow up
What can I tell you? I do better with Val then Synthesis
or Ted Craven's new program Speculator The methodology worked for me

It worked for a lot of people, and still does. As you point out, Sartin himself was minimally concerned with "advanced programs," other than because they generated money and provided crutches for insecure clients. One of his most basic ideas was that if he emphasized the applications, his clients would learn decent analytical skills without realizing what they were doing.

Having watched Sartin pick races on a number of occasions, the entire idea of a computer application "selecting the winner" is almost comical. In Sartin's view, the "proper pace lines" (meaning "the pace lines that will rate Horse A higher than Horse B in whatever application the user is using") "loomed up off the page." That scared a LOT of people, who avoided the fact that it was necessary for THEM to pick the winner, not the application (many still avoid that fact).

Given Sartin's training as a psychologist, it is small wonder that he routinely used psychological techniques, not to trick and deceive, but rather to ease the realization in his clients that THEY had to do the analysis, using the programs as tools, rather than using them as crutches to avoid taking responsibility for the decisions.
Good Luck

shanta

08-13-2006, 07:24 PM

If the point is the marketing of some new generation "Sartin-type" application waiting in the wings for the right moment, you may have to do a better job of convincing people that the "advanced programs" did any more than the "basic programs."

I might be wrong but I always believed the best software was the one that offered the best "TOOL KIT" to the person using it. Enabling one to make decisions for themselves.

Which one presented data and other important factors in a layout that was easily absorbed and applied by the user.

In that regard the "new" software being developed will EASILY surpass anything offered by the Methodology to this date. When folks see it for themselves in the coming months there will be NO doubt that from a "tool kit"
standpoint it has few if any rivals. I will stop here as I am NOT the programmer and don't want to create and ad that isn't paid for. I AM involved in testing and other areas of it so I know of what I speak.

Not one pro I know relies on a software for "picks". They make decisions, use intuition and wager based on a gathering of information which comes together to create a bet.

Someone looking for something to tell them what or whom to bet should subscribe to a service or go " raise guppies" as Jim B. used to tell them.

Best part of all this is that it will be done NOT by demeaning and putting down others to make this look better or important. Seems to be quite in fashion today reading a lot of posts by some. "Put down others and I look better". Horsehockey.

Rather a FREE demo for an EXTENDED period of time to users to let THEM figure out it's worth to them. NOT relying on heresay or other bullcrap. Hands on experience in a one on one environment.

The name of the software is tentatively RDSS. Ted Craven ( Museful) is the programmer and creator.

Richie

Binder

08-13-2006, 07:51 PM

Thank you Traynor and Shanta

traynor

08-14-2006, 10:38 PM

I might be wrong but I always believed the best software was the one that offered the best "TOOL KIT" to the person using it. Enabling one to make decisions for themselves. <snip> Richie

On that point we agree completely. Ultimately, it is the individual using the software that must make the selections, rather than the software. The software can provide metrics, but the relevance and importance of those metrics is a matter of subjective interpretation based on the experience, knowledge, and skill level of the user.

In short, if you can't do fairly well using App A, don't expect that App B is going to make you an instant winner. Or, following Sartin principles to activate consistency and commitment, make you a winner after a long, hard struggle to understand and interpret the various readouts.

With the amount of work that seems to have gone in to the effort, it may provide what you call the best "tool kit." Personally, I hope it does something entirely new, or interprets things in different ways, or provides new and interesting insights into how individual races may unfold. In any event, I wish you and Mr. Craven the best of luck in your endeavor, and look forward to the release.
Good Luck

Lefty

08-14-2006, 10:46 PM

Me too, Shanta, but I sure wish there would be a big push to using TSN Procaps data. If that ever happens, before I get too old to see my moniter, i'll buy.

morpheous

11-03-2022, 08:16 PM

so iv been trying for years to really learn & use this stuff and it really is just one man using all you great handicappers idears and when the pipper comes so dose the door you out and there really is not a methodology ok well
iv got some in put rule 1
What i find to work we only handicap up to 6f no matter dist MOST NA RACES OVER BY HAFE POLE TO 8TH POLE ANY WAY (some over at 1/4 pole lol)

rule # 2
only EP,TOTAL E,PR(PACE RATING),% MEDIAN,HID FF,

RULE # 3 PACE LINE
Select races that are for todays class & dist (follow rule 1 ) thought out horse that dont meet class&dist (but use horse if it meets 1 of 2 )

ill probley eat flak but after reading this post i had to comment

headhawg

11-03-2022, 11:10 PM

https://i3.cpcache.com/product_zoom/1269183406/grammar_police_tshirt.jpg?height=250&width=250&padToSquare=true

BroadwayJoe

11-04-2022, 03:59 PM

Renewed a 16 year old thread...

Gotta be a record

:confused:

Sartin stuff is way past it prime....

shoelessjoe

11-04-2022, 07:15 PM

Sartin stuff is way past it prime

Not true Ted Craven has done a excellent job with RDSS keeping
the methodology going.

BroadwayJoe

11-04-2022, 07:19 PM

Sartin stuff is way past it prime

Not true Ted Craven has done a excellent job with RDSS keeping
the methodology going.

thxs...maybe I'll stop by and check em out

ranchwest

11-05-2022, 01:07 AM

Renewed a 16 year old thread...

Gotta be a record

:confused:

Sartin stuff is way past it prime....

I submit that the racing world caught on that fractional times held a lot of significant information. Today, it is necessary to go beyond purely fractional times to be efficient in handicapping. But the basics of pace making the race are still relevant.

vegasone

11-05-2022, 09:40 PM

Brings back memories. I remember sitting in the casino with a friend and Brohammer as they were handicapping races. Friend had been doing well with Sartin for quite a while, as he put a lot of effort into the system. Sometimes though number’s don’t give you the whole story.
A downhill race at Santa Anita came up and we had a difference of opinion. I warned them that a certain horse had an affinity for the track but was ignored. The horse won at a decent price.
Seems a lot of stuff or all of it actually came from many sources and Sartin put a lot of it together in one package. I had already programmed many of the same concepts for someone on an Apple computer. I did meet Mahl before that time as he wanted me to do some programming for him. Didn’t really know who he was as I wasn’t really that into handicapping at the time. Should have taken his offer.

Anyway, as in everything, most things are built on the shoulders of those who came before and the more things change, the more they stay the same. The numbers are the numbers and there are not many ways they can be massaged to give a different story. It takes patience and experience to weed out the answers.

DanBoals

11-08-2022, 04:52 PM

Sartin stuff is way past it prime....

Gotta agree with ShoelessJoe, RDSS 2 is a very nice program. Give it a look if you haven't already.

Dan

fast4522

11-08-2022, 05:32 PM

Donnie, I knew Doc was a salesman - a darn good one.
I also know that using Aqua Velva will not bring scantly clad women rushing to rub my cheeks, but I still use it! :lol:

Tom, I so enjoy these old threads. You are still around, so I suggest rubbing somthing better than Aqua Velva on nice ladies feet. If you get good at it everything is possible. A nice enter point for me into the thread, Thanks Tom.

I had the pleasure of an afternoon betting races with Binder, I had a box of original Sartin Install disks gifted to me from a wife of a departed friend that I took with me to show to Binder that I was not slinging BS. To make a lomg story short Bill was very helpful to me with the old stuff. Also during the day of betting with him he often said this one is too good for me and passed many races and was correct. It is how one makes the tools work for you, I feel those old tools still work today if you can have the mindset to wait and understand races to the expert level like Binder possesed when he was with us.