Sartin Methodology today

[Profiler8]

Hi everyone,

who is using the Sartin Method today ? I think they method is still the best method for racing. The method is now over 20 years old and is still up to date. I was never a member of the group, because it was before my time. Some months ago, I have read some materials and used some software and I get more winners than ever before. I am still learning.

What are your comments about it !

Thanks...

Greetings
Tim

[46zilzal]

Two forums follow it as it has evolved.

Pace and Cap http://scott.asmallorange.com/~binder/forums/
Sartin Alums Yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/

Concepts, once learned, are as germane today as ever.

[Dave Schwartz]

Check out this link... good forum for Sartin Methodologists.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/index.php

[46zilzal]

The biggest change has been the advent of the latter two programs (Speculator and RDSS) both of which evolved after PIRCO (Doc's company) threw in the towel.

[richrosa]

Two forums follow it as it has evolved.

Pace and Cap http://scott.asmallorange.com/~binder/forums/
Sartin Alums Yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/

Concepts, once learned, are as germane today as ever.


The only qualified people to to call anything Sartin are the Pace and Cap people as they have told others when they've kicked them off that board. There's a lot of "attaboys" and "backslapping", and "hugs" on that board, but for tangible, useful information, I wouldn't stray past here.

[Ted Craven]

Tim (Profiler8),

Well, I also think the Sartin Methodology is as relevant as ever, or more so :). I know you yourself (and others) managed to place a small wager on the Belmont winner. There's lots of things (too many things) to consider in racing, but focus on incremental energy disbursement, the Match Up, good record-keeping, good variants, multi-horse (or multi-pool) wagering where appropriate, seeing oneself as a winner then growing into that vision, good record-keeping, persistence, is what you need to achieve long-term, ongoing profit.

Whatever method you end up with, stick with it, become an expert, write the book (seriously, at least your own book); focus, focus, focus...

Best wishes to you.

Ted

[46zilzal]

The only qualified people to to call anything Sartin are the Pace and Cap people as they have told others when they've kicked them off that board. There's a lot of "attaboys" and "backslapping", and "hugs" on that board, but for tangible, useful information, I wouldn't stray past here.
Funny. There are many many people who are not even at these sites who are great at it.

I would put TK (Minnesota) and H.StJ up against anyone used the methodology today and both are at Alums and the other site. They really know what they are talking about, are progressive, great record keeping and wager construction.

BOTH groups have good contributors who know what they are talking about.

[RichieP]

Hi everyone,

who is using the Sartin Method today? I am still learning.

What are your comments about it !
Greetings
Tim

The Pace and Cap group are planning a day at Saratoga on August 17th to be hosted by:
Bill Varone
Ted Craven
Charles Bedard

Reserved tables,power for laptops etc are taken care of. If you are interested in coming contact Ted or Bill over at P&C and they will take care of you Tim.

Stay cool and glad you are finding success and enjoyment.

[Ted Craven]

... they will take care of you Tim.

Stay cool and glad you are finding success and enjoyment.

And if you make it over from Germany for this, I will personally buy you a beer!

Ted

P.S. We've got 3 picnic tables, so far.

[Capper Al]

Sartin, still to this day, does have a lot to offer. Sartin methodology struggles with polyturf, but their comprehensive applications that models what's winning at your track makes up for a lot of the slack where they fell behind. The strength of their methodology is also their weakness. They explain a lot of what happens, but their focus is limited to pace and energy (not to underestimate the importance of these two components.) There's a whole circus of competing factors going on around a race. If one's not attuned to them, Sartin's methods won't save your bankroll.

[46zilzal]

What is polyturf? some new product?

If you think the method suffers on POLYTRACK, then don't play Woodbine like I do every day....IT makes a killing there.

Polytrack is no more uniform than dirt: make an energy model at each track and you understand how it runs, plain and simple.

[Capper Al]

Does anyone know if any of the NTRA world champions play strictly Sartin? I doubt, but I'm sure they evaluate pace and energy similarly.

[46zilzal]

Does anyone know if any of the NTRA world champions play strictly Sartin? I doubt, but I'm sure they evaluate pace and energy similarly.
Heavens NO....many use various cloned ideas of the same basic concepts.

[TheGhost]

Sartin method is based on what? energy?

[46zilzal]

Sartin method is based on what? energy?
DISTRIBUTION of same to defined styles in reaction to pace pressure, broken down in three incremental, sectional velocities.

[TheGhost]

DISTRIBUTION of same to defined styles in reaction to pace pressure, broken down in three incremental, sectional velocities.

Geez that's very detailed handicapping. If it works,it works.

[Ted Craven]

Sartin method is based on what? energy?

Doc would probably say that his work underwent several evolutions as his research continued and as new minds contributed new ideas (sometimes through the revolving door...), but at least I think there was a general phase as described in Tom Brohamer's Modern Pace Handicapping and subsequently (and somewhat differently in Pace Makes the Race) circa 1990-1991 - so-called Phase 3 and Phase 1 respectively, followed by another phase (or phases) which pursued incremental energy distribution and deceleration.

Underlying it all, and probably the foundational notion, is The Match Up - the herd in motion, and what happens to horses when they vie against each other in their typical running styles; how they give up their quota of 'energy' (gas in the tank), section by section, while responding to the pressure of other horses' typical running styles and energy exertions.

As a general statement, the Methodology pays little attention to trainers, jockeys and breeding, and attempts to give some latitude to recency and apparent form while shining the light on less apparent contenders (and thus longer prices).

Sartin focused heavily on the psychology of handicapping, and in that vein recommended multi-horse wagers (in helping to keep one's equanimity) and exercises in positive self-visualization (the 'psychology crap').

Part analysis tools, part wagering approach, part psychological skills - a three legged stool perhaps. It is still evolving...

Ted

[Tom]

..... Sartin methodology struggles with polyturf (Says who?), but their comprehensive applications that models what's winning at your track makes up for a lot of the slack where they fell behind (fell behind what?). The strength of their methodology is also their weakness (Not to those who know how to use it....obviously not you!). They explain a lot of what happens, but their focus is limited to pace and energy (not to underestimate the importance of these two components.) There's a whole circus of competing factors going on around a race. If one's not attuned to them, Sartin's methods won't save your bankroll (And you know this how?) .


Where on earth do you get these ideas??????? Art Bell?

[DJofSD]

Where on earth do you get these ideas??????? Art Bell?

Earth to Tom. Earth to Tom, come in please.

Art Bell is hardly ever around any more and he's offically handed off Coast to Coast to the current contingent of hosts. :)

[Tom]

He still calls every week! :eek:

[46zilzal]

Where on earth do you get these ideas??????? Art Bell?
Folks on the outside, looking in, and who have never "got it," come up with these wild delusions. Just look at Davidowitz: he dedicated an entire chapter of his book to what he calls "PSEUDO-SCIENCE," having not a clue how the principles are actually applied.

I wrote him once about it and the gist of his response was: "That old Sartin guy just rubbed me the wrong way." VERY objective, disliking the process based upon a personality difference

[delayjf]

he dedicated an entire chapter of his book to what he calls "PSEUDO-SCIENCE," having not a clue how the principles are actually applied.
As I recall, his problems with the Sartin Methodology dealt more the imperfection of race data that the Sartin methodology was based on. The fact that the Sartin Methodology was attempting a level of precision that Davidowitz felt was impossible given the inherent imperfections with regards to fractional times, beaten lengths etc.

Wasn't Polyturf an earlier version of Astro turf.

[levinmpa]

I read Pace Makes the Race in the early 90's and proceeded to hit the first 5 in a Santa Anita Pick 6 on a $24 ticket. I had the favorite in the finale, but ran 2nd all the way around. I missed out on $50K plus, but collected a $1600 consolation. I used the method in the book for a long time, but I think discipline got in the way of me doing better. It's been many years since I read the book, but it's probably worth a reread. I never got into any of the software applications, but the premise behind the method seemed to make sense to me. The most trouble I had was with shippers and the adjustments that needed to be made.

[thelyingthief]

handicapping remains the same, and its ingredients remain the same no matter what approach you use:

discipline, method, study, preparation, talent.

the methodology is not "the" methodology, as it is so often styled. if a handicapper places responsibility for his success (failure) beyond or outside himself and his work, he will lose, and it is inconsequential which approach he takes.

in the early days of its evolution, the sartin method could make up for a lot of failings on the part of its practitioners: the mutuels were generous, the horses brought into focus by pace analysis, especially numerically based pace analysis, not obvious to the uneducated, and the general level of sophistication of the competition much, much lower than today.

now, the method--any method--requires the user to develop a more comprehensive approach to the game. i have used the tools for 20 years; and i can say, and say it categorically with respect to my own game, that these tools will not now stand alone. if they ever could. those who eschew altogether data on trainers, jockeys and the like are leaving money on the table. again and again research shows me that, without appreciating the competency of those in immediate charge of the animals, their modus operandi, in what areas they are accomplished, and in which they are benighted, i will lose money. and this applies to other facets of the game, such as tote action, and the like. which is not to say that knowledge does not interfere with the process, either: knowing what not to know is as important as its opposite. this, too, is a function of experience. the development of "feel" for a venue, which sartin used to lump under the catch-all dictum "know thy track" is essential for me--and this is not a consequence of velocity figures or energy profiles. now my money is produced OUTSIDE the tools developed by the methodology, although i could not profit ANY money without those or similar tools.

i am not going to say that a different approach is not better than the pace method i depend on: i am going to say that, since i have made this method my own, through research, experience and the like, i am unwilling to look elsewhere for a new, primary tool--because my use of the implements at my disposal is holistic and idiosyncratic. i strongly suspect this is true of all users of this, and any other, method. to own a piano does not make one a virtuoso.

zilzal and myself, to make this concrete, play woodbine, and we each use some variant of the method--yet we are consistently in disagreement about the model which best describes the winners there. i know i make money at woodbine. i assume, on the basis of his posts, zilzal does as well. and yet our profits are not precluded by the contradiction in our perceptions, and it would appear that the tools we use do not determine how or what we see, either.

i guess i'm saying that, whatever method you elect, the work you do and the success you have is not a function of that method, but the other way around.

tlt

oh, and it also is a function of the goals you set. that is the sine qua non upon which success is built.

[jasperson]

In todays racing I don't know how you can base a selection strictly on pace. In this period of 30 and 40 percent trainers this is an important factor that must be considered. I couldn't handicap without considering class drop downs, trouble, equipment changes and trainer stat and a whole lot of other things. If somebody can do it with pace and energy than more power to them.

[46zilzal]

In todays racing I don't know how you can base a selection strictly on pace. In this period of 30 and 40 percent trainers this is an important factor that must be considered. I couldn't handicap without considering class drop downs, trouble, equipment changes and trainer stat and a whole lot of other things. If somebody can do it with pace and energy than more power to them.
You have just said thank you to about 500 I KNOW OF advocates of the methodology.

[DJofSD]

The repeat of the pro vs. anti (and ante) Sartin methodology arguments reminds me of an article Doc wrote in the Follow Up many years ago. Basic premise was "both-and" will get you further down the road than "either-or".

[cj]

I find it very hard to believe 500 people are using the same thing and are winning.

[bettheoverlay]

In this period of 30 and 40 percent trainers

How many of these trainers are there? A quick scan of tomorrows PPs for Belmont, Arlington, Woodbine, Hollywood and Churchill I could find only two trainers year to date who were at 30+ - Amoss at 33% and Calhoun 30%.

[DJofSD]

Do they still call it handicapping when your selection is either one of two horses using the 30% trainer win method?

[RichieP]

I find it very hard to believe 500 people are using the same thing and are winning.

So do I. That number is grossly exagerrated if one refers to people who are consistent winners.

500 using yes.
500 winning consistently no way

[thelyingthief]

500 is a relatively low per centage of the total winning players. additionally, a player can be a winner, and play very small sums.

personally, i find the argument that using a pace adjusted final figure, coupled or uncoupled with a pace figure, little better than a final time figure for getting winners. doesn't mean it isn't so, just strikes me as highly, highly unlikely.

i'm glad to hear you're the exception.

tlt

[46zilzal]

The repeat of the pro vs. anti (and ante) Sartin methodology arguments reminds me of an article Doc wrote in the Follow Up many years ago. Basic premise was "both-and" will get you further down the road than "either-or".
The concept of yin/yang, the same ideas are in The Tao of Physics a great book and the methodology reflects the same idea that one part of a whole is made up from all sides of the spectrum: holisitic

[Jeff P]

I'm not what anyone could call a Sartin follower.

Yet there are certain things I do that are Sartin based... like maintaining track profiles/decision models using my own factors. I do it not to follow a method but because I've found the extra work pays off. Knowing things like distance X at track Y is predominantly early when dry but predominantly late when wet (the demands of the track) is knowledge a large chunk of my competition is clueless about. Used the right way it helps the bottom line.

Why doesn't everyone have that type of information? Because they don't do the extra work.

If there's one thing I've discovered about the game it's this:

Success in this game comes from discipline and hard work.

i guess i'm saying that, whatever method you elect, the work you do and the success you have is not a function of that method, but the other way around.

tlttlt, sharp post! IMHO you nailed it!


-jp

.

[ranchwest]

Back in the mid-80's or late 80's I was toying with fractional mph and the relationships between the fractions. I was giving my numbers to a friend. He kept asking me what the numbers meant. I kept saying I didn't know because I didn't have time to evaluate enough races (no data downloads). He kept asking. lol

I really didn't much understand except that it did eventually lead me to understand a lot about certain types of races. I didn't know until many years later that anyone was looking at anything similar.

[proffdw]

hi.back in the middle 1980's i went to a seminar by dr howard sartin.he had
dick mitchell,and tom hambleton there to talk about the method,and at the end dick,and tom each gave their picks for that day at longacres which was
right across the street.i got 3 winners out of 5 races with dick,and 4 of 5
races with tom.i sure wish they were still doing that,as my age ,and health
is not,as good,as it was then,so i don't do much handicapping anymore only
the derby,and maybe the breeder's cup races.i use a spreadsheet program i
made from a book i got at the library 20 years ago,and it picked the derby winner 4 of the last 6 derby races.back when dr sartin had hi company called pirco.i made some spreadsheets using his method,and i did alright,but then i started using other methods mostly toteboard methods the last 15 years at longacres,and yakima meadows.when they opened EMERALD DOWNS the ..toteboard methods didn't seem to work very well i don't know why,so i gave up on them,as emerald races were the only ones we could bet on at the time.i'll try,and find the disks with sartin pirco method on
them,and see how the do now,and let you know.i also have the match up
program by jimmy"the hat"bradshaw,but i never could understand that one.
you can email me at proffdw@yahoo.com if you want to.
decil stevens

[cj]

500 is a relatively low per centage of the total winning players. additionally, a player can be a winner, and play very small sums.


I'm not so sure about that, and there certainly isn't any way to know how many winners are out there. I guess it is possible consistent winners are around betting very small sums, but then again they are pretty irrelevant to the overall totals.

As for your other comments, I wasn't knocking the Sartin method at all. I learned a lot from it and I'm sure I'm doing a lot of the same things, albeit in a different format.

[46zilzal]

It takes awhile to "get it" with Sartin. Many advocates fight their old horsey ideas (trainer and rider manipulation, class shifts, etc.) and never just let them all go. Once you simplify and just look at the numbers, it gets very clear: excessive information clouds the reality that you are simply looking at HORSES (not the trainer, rider, condition book, starter etc.).

Horses repeat their inherent ability. Find what that is and you have a better comparison tool than anything else. It often takes a few races to find these contests where one or two stand out.

[njcurveball]

I find it very hard to believe 500 people are using the same thing and are winning.


Daily Racing Form use to have many more than using it and winning. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Probably, but the game has changed a lot.

[Capper Al]

The problem with the Sartin group is that they believe they are it. It's their attitude that's wrong. The Sartin group contributed a lot to handicapping but not everything, and polytracks have proven some of their theory to be wrong. I believe all factors of handicapping (such as trainer or days off) need to be considered when placing a bet.

[46zilzal]

The problem with the Sartin group is that they believe they are it. It's their attitude that's wrong. The Sartin group contributed a lot to handicapping but not everything, and polytracks have proven some of their theory to be wrong. I believe all factors of handicapping (such as trainer or days off) need to be considered when placing a bet.
You keep HARPING on something about which you HAVEN'T a clue. I do very well at Woodbine (TK and HStJ) do very well over the Keeneland surface using the same software I do. You make a model by distance and cap to the model. People do it all the time.

Get back to me when you have a SHREAD of substantiation

[Tom]

The problem with the Sartin group is that they believe they are it. It's their attitude that's wrong. The Sartin group contributed a lot to handicapping but not everything, and polytracks have proven some of their theory to be wrong. I believe all factors of handicapping (such as trainer or days off) need to be considered when placing a bet.

Don't take this the wrong way, but the problem is YOU, not the Sartin stuff. YOU think you know everything when in fact, you know very little about anyting outside your own methods. You continually tell people that are doing thinkgs successfully that they are wrong because YOU don't agree. Your comments about trainers, and days off, and poly are plain ignorance of how other people do it. What Sartin program do you use, and have you used? What seminars did you attend? Did you get the Follow Up?
Why do you suppose you are qualified to make any statements about hwat workd and what doesn't? If you ain't been there, don't recommend hotels!:rolleyes:

The attitude you find offensive is a winning one - and poly tracks have proven the theory CORRECT, not wrong. And, they aren't theories when people have been using them successfully for decades. thay are proven handicapping tools. No one ever said Sartin stuff was all there was...you just keep imaginging this stuff, for some reason. Did Sartin shoot your dog?
And jsut what is this attidtude that is wrong? Surely you can share that with us all?




:bang:

[DJofSD]

Did Sartin shoot your dog?

:lol:

[socantra]

The problem with the Sartin group is that they believe they are it. It's their attitude that's wrong.

Sorry about your dog. We thought we'd stopped Doc from doing that, especially after the stroke, but sometimes he just can't help himself. Its usually those little damn yip yip dogs that he can't keep from killing..

The entire methodology extends its apologies.

[jasperson]

You have just said thank you to about 500 I KNOW OF advocates of the methodology.
I meant what I said anybody that finds his niche and can make money using it is worthy of praise. Yes Brohamer's calculations had that winner of the Belmont and my program that implemented his calculations had it also,but it just doesn't come up with the right horse enough to suite my needs.
Jack:)

[46zilzal]

$79.00 winners aren't enough....my goodness.

[FormalGold1]

The problem I had with the Sartin methodology was class droppers. Using paceline selection, these droppers did not fare very well on the Thoromation and other screens.
The explanation: Oh, these horses had a higher A.P.V. { Average Purse Value} !

[46zilzal]

The problem I had with the Sartin methodology was class droppers. Using paceline selection, these droppers did not fare very well on the Thoromation and other screens.

You need to evaluate on multiple lines to circumvent sample error.

[Cratos]

It takes awhile to "get it" with Sartin. Many advocates fight their old horsey ideas (trainer and rider manipulation, class shifts, etc.) and never just let them all go. Once you simplify and just look at the numbers, it gets very clear: excessive information clouds the reality that you are simply looking at HORSES (not the trainer, rider, condition book, starter etc.).

Horses repeat their inherent ability. Find what that is and you have a better comparison tool than anything else. It often takes a few races to find these contests where one or two stand out.

Sartin’s methodology might add some excitement to those who believe that they have found the “holy grail” in handicapping thoroughbred racehorses, but the basic premise of the Sartin Methodology which assumes that kinetic energy or the energy of the horse in motion is proportional to velocity is incorrect.

Kinetic energy is energy of motion. The kinetic energy of an object is the energy it possesses because of its motion. The kinetic energy of a point mass, m is given by

Kinetic Energy = ½ mv squared

In other words, energy in motion is mass times velocity squared divided by 2. If I were to use the energy philosophy in handicapping I would first try determining each horse’s potential energy and then add it to its energy in motion to estimate its theoretical total energy and make a comparison before the race of each horse’s total energy before the race as to which horse has the greatest amount of energy with respect to pace, distance, and load.

However for me this is too tedious and not reliable enough in my opinion to work.

[46zilzal]

They NEVER meant it to be the physics definition. not once

[Cratos]

They NEVER meant it to be the physics definition. not once

Then don't use physics as its premise becuse in my opinion it all hapstance at best

[cj]

I don't think I ever recall anyone referring to it as kinetic energy.

[cj]

Then don't use physics as its premise becuse in my opinion it all hapstance at best

Perhaps you should have spent more time in English class.

[46zilzal]

Then don't use physics as its premise becuse in my opinion it all hapstance at best
Then, our of happenstance, I hit two out of three wagers today in Toronto with it. Imagine that?

5th race - Woodbine - June 19, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
5 It's Ridiculous 10.90 5.70 4.00
9 Souper Vex 4.10 3.60
11 Giant Gambit 4.50

$2 Triactor 5-9-11 446.60
$2 Exactor 5-9 60.00
$2 Superfecta 5-9-11-10 4,342.60

[cj]

And I knew it would eventually lead to 46 redboarding.

[46zilzal]

And I knew it would eventually lead to 46 redboarding.
To prove a point in HANDICAPPING one has to use an example.

[cj]

To prove a point in HANDICAPPING one has to use an example.

Yeah, that proved a lot. :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

Yeah, that proved a lot.
YOU were not the target of that proof. I could list dozens more.

Like improving early speed in the 6th at Woodbine.

[cj]

YOU were not the target of that proof. I could list dozens more.

As could anyone with any software program.

[46zilzal]

As could anyone with any software program.
I am sure there are MANY out there that could, just having a joker with no direct experience telling me different was what this is all about.

[Cratos]

I don't think I ever recall anyone referring to it as kinetic energy.

They don't have too, because any object in motion is kinetic energy. By the way in the gate a standing horse has potential energy and once the gate is sprung open that energy becomes kinetic. This is not about terminology, but about the facts with respect to motion.

The use of terms like velocity and energy and for those terms to have any meaning in their use, they should me consistent with their application and definitions in physics or we are just using smoke and mirrors.

[46zilzal]

Redboard: what a stupid concept.
I can just hear one of my internal medicine professors now.

Here we have a patient who presented with grade three jaundice for the past ten days. History of the present illness, allergies, medications, injuries, familial and social history, general health, surgeries, hospitalizations, immunizations cannot be discussed since it is not proper etiquette.

You learn and make points from EXAMPLES of what you are tying to show.

[cj]

They don't have too, because any object in motion is kinetic energy. By the way in the gate a standing horse has potential energy and once the gate is sprung open that energy becomes kinetic. This is not about terminology, but about the facts with respect to motion.

The use of terms like velocity and energy and for those terms to have any meaning in their use, they should me consistent with their application and definitions in physics or we are just using smoke and mirrors.

Ok. Does that mean the people making money with them have to give it back?

[cj]

Redboard: what a stupid concept.
I can just hear one of my internal medicine professors now.

Here we have a patient who presented with grade three jaundice for the past ten days. History of the present illness, allergies, medications, injuries, familial and social history, general health, surgeries, hospitalizations, immunizations cannot be discussed since it is not proper etiquette.

You learn and make points from EXAMPLES of what you are tying to show.

As usual though, you made no point. You posted a screenshot that means nothing to 99% of the people here.

I do congratulate you on never having a losing day.

[46zilzal]

As usual though, you made no point. You posted a screenshot that means nothing to 99% of the people here.

I do congratulate you on never having a losing day.
Poppycock.....I have many a losing day but it is made up for by the good ones and staying at tracks I know inside and out.

And if someone cannot see improving early speed in that last one, then they are fairly dumb.

[Cratos]

Redboard: what a stupid concept.
I can just hear one of my internal medicine professors now.

Here we have a patient who presented with grade three jaundice for the past ten days. History of the present illness, allergies, medications, injuries, familial and social history, general health, surgeries, hospitalizations, immunizations cannot be discussed since it is not proper etiquette.

You learn and make points from EXAMPLES of what you are tying to show.

You have me because I am not a doctor and wouldn't have any idea about what you are inferring, but I do know that energy is proportional to velocity squared and not just velocity.

[Tom]

Ok. Does that mean the people making money with them have to give it back?

Send the cash to:

Tom ..........
..............
Canandaigua, NY 14424

I will make sure it is returned to the proper tracks. :rolleyes:;)

[46zilzal]

You have me because I am not a doctor and wouldn't have any idea about what you are inferring, but I do know that energy is proportional to velocity squared and not just velocity.
NO ONE, repeat NO ONE ever accepted those "labels" as being equivalent to the physics descriptions.. Never

Total energy could just as well be called grape yogurt and it would still be used the same way.

[BillW]

As usual though, you made no point. You posted a screenshot that means nothing to 99% of the people here.

I do congratulate you on never having a losing day.

Bored today eh? This retirement stuff can be hell. :lol:

[Tom]

You have me because I am not a doctor and wouldn't have any idea about what you are inferring, but I do know that energy is proportional to velocity squared and not just velocity.

What part of "it is not that kind of energy" do you not understand?
Have you ever heard of a "bear," as in when you drive up to the mountains to go hunting, and see a sign that says BEAR LEFT, it doesn't mean you can't still hunt there. :lol:

I can't "bear" it any longer. Oh no! Three "Bears", now!
Ahhhh, Goldilocks must be out hunting.

This post was "just right!"





:bang:

[46zilzal]

Why is it that the majority of people knocking this discipline actually have little to no idea what it is all about?

I think Scientology is strange but held off comments until I investigated it.

[cj]

Bored today eh? This retirement stuff can be hell. :lol:

Not at all. Just calling them like I see them when I check in.

[Capper Al]

You keep HARPING on something about which you HAVEN'T a clue. I do very well at Woodbine (TK and HStJ) do very well over the Keeneland surface using the same software I do. You make a model by distance and cap to the model. People do it all the time.

Get back to me when you have a SHREAD of substantiation


If you are not BSing us then it is the your effort of making a model that is saving your behind. The extra effort payoffs for other systems as well as the Sartin group. I agree with Brad Free in handicapping 101. The other of handicapping is Form - Class - Speed and finally Pace.

[Cratos]

What part of "it is not that kind of energy" do you not understand?
Have you ever heard of a "bear," as in when you drive up to the mountains to go hunting, and see a sign that says BEAR LEFT, it doesn't mean you can't still hunt there. :lol:

I can't "bear" it any longer. Oh no! Three "Bears", now!
Ahhhh, Goldilocks must be out hunting.

This post was "just right!"





:bang:

This stuff is too complicated for me, I quit

[46zilzal]

If you are not BSing us then it is the your effort of making a model that is saving your behind. The extra effort payoffs for other systems as well as the Sartin group. I agree with Brad Free in handicapping 101. The other of handicapping is Form - Class - Speed and finally Pace.
Another one who doesn't know CRAP telling others how faulty it is...........Modeling and record keeping are a part of any good handicapping system.

In a parimutuel system being a CLONE of some traditional way of evaluating leaves out many a good one. That truly is handicapping ONE o ONE, not an advanced look.

[Capper Al]

Don't take this the wrong way, but the problem is YOU, not the Sartin stuff. YOU think you know everything when in fact, you know very little about anyting outside your own methods. You continually tell people that are doing thinkgs successfully that they are wrong because YOU don't agree. Your comments about trainers, and days off, and poly are plain ignorance of how other people do it. What Sartin program do you use, and have you used? What seminars did you attend? Did you get the Follow Up?
Why do you suppose you are qualified to make any statements about hwat workd and what doesn't? If you ain't been there, don't recommend hotels!:rolleyes:

The attitude you find offensive is a winning one - and poly tracks have proven the theory CORRECT, not wrong. And, they aren't theories when people have been using them successfully for decades. thay are proven handicapping tools. No one ever said Sartin stuff was all there was...you just keep imaginging this stuff, for some reason. Did Sartin shoot your dog?
And jsut what is this attidtude that is wrong? Surely you can share that with us all?




:bang:


The views you find offensive come from spending hours reading the books, crunching the numbers and looking at the outcomes. The truth is that so few players win that it is safe to call a person on it, especially players hanging around a web forum. Don't get me wrong, the racing hype is fun and I like it. It's fun to attend seminars and talk horses all weekend. The fun is in the fantasizing. And by the way, I gave the Sartin group their due. They added to the game. They've rightfully earned their 15 minutes of fame. They just haven't found the Holy Grail of racing.

[Capper Al]

Sorry about your dog. We thought we'd stopped Doc from doing that, especially after the stroke, but sometimes he just can't help himself. Its usually those little damn yip yip dogs that he can't keep from killing..

The entire methodology extends its apologies.
I don't have a dog. I do have a cat. Nothing against the Doc is meant. Pace is a factor in my capping. So many like to speak on behalf of the methodology, why not apology from one of them?

[Capper Al]

Another one who doesn't know CRAP telling others how faulty it is...........Modeling and record keeping are a part of any good handicapping system.

In a parimutuel system being a CLONE of some traditional way of evaluating leaves out many a good one. That truly is handicapping ONE o ONE, not an advanced look.

I supported modeling and, yes, record keeping also. They are a part of ANY good handicapping system. The 'ANY' means not only Sartin's. The CRAP is coming from you. Handicapping 101 may not be an advanced book but it covers the basics. One can't move up to advance without apprecating the basics.

[Capper Al]

I meant what I said anybody that finds his niche and can make money using it is worthy of praise. Yes Brohamer's calculations had that winner of the Belmont and my program that implemented his calculations had it also,but it just doesn't come up with the right horse enough to suite my needs.
Jack:)

I agree.

[RichieP]

I supported modeling and, yes, record keeping also. They are a part of ANY good handicapping system. The 'ANY' means not only Sartin's.

OK then let me turn you on to something that might help you win some money in the short term (if you haven't determined this yet by YOUR work)

For the past 10 days 6 amd 7f turf sprints run at Belmont are a goldmine for overlaid win prices. Why? Don't know. But it's fact and there is no end in sight.

I'm not gonna get into energy/positioning/what to do/what not to do. That's what personal exploration uncovers.

Consider this a "heads up" from us who follow the "Boogety-Boo" Methodology

Enjoy and happy hunting :)

[DRIVEWAY]

Today's winners
8.30
24.40
3.40

Tommorrow the 4th and 9th are in play. (9th a maiden).
Saturday has none.
Rain Fri., Sun

Maybe next wednesday.

[cj]

Today's winners
8.30
24.40
3.40

Tommorrow the 4th and 9th are in play. (9th a maiden).
Saturday has none.
Rain Fri., Sun

Maybe next wednesday.

What is the point of this? We all know you can get entries and results at Equibase.

[46zilzal]

And by the way, I gave the Sartin group their due. They added to the game. They've rightfully earned their 15 minutes of fame. They just haven't found the Holy Grail of racing.
No other contributor moved it so far so fast and has been copied more often.

[Tom]

The views you find offensive come from spending hours reading the books, crunching the numbers and looking at the outcomes. The truth is that so few players win that it is safe to call a person on it, especially players hanging around a web forum. Don't get me wrong, the racing hype is fun and I like it. It's fun to attend seminars and talk horses all weekend. The fun is in the fantasizing. And by the way, I gave the Sartin group their due. They added to the game. They've rightfully earned their 15 minutes of fame. They just haven't found the Holy Grail of racing.

Sounds like you haven't found it. How can you possibly speak for the contless people that you do not know, have never met, and do not know what they
do? You read a book, huh. Gee, I guess you are an expert. The basics? When I learned the basics, I was wearing a tie-died tee short and had long hair, and used words like groovy. I'll tell you what the basics do for your -they get you the favorite. The basics are there to lure you off you longshot by making you judge horses on irrelevant factors.

I don't know what seminars you attended (any?), but you didn't follow the agenda I did. And you keep talking about "them" as if the Sartin group funcitons as one. Shows your ignorance of it all. It is the ideas, the methodologies (yes, Sartin is not one methodology - there are 9 of them.)
Can you name them?

[46zilzal]

The views you find offensive come from spending hours reading the books, crunching the numbers and looking at the outcomes.
You've been reading outdated stuff.

[Capper Al]

Sounds like you haven't found it. How can you possibly speak for the contless people that you do not know, have never met, and do not know what they
do? You read a book, huh. Gee, I guess you are an expert. The basics? When I learned the basics, I was wearing a tie-died tee short and had long hair, and used words like groovy. I'll tell you what the basics do for your -they get you the favorite. The basics are there to lure you off you longshot by making you judge horses on irrelevant factors.

I don't know what seminars you attended (any?), but you didn't follow the agenda I did. And you keep talking about "them" as if the Sartin group funcitons as one. Shows your ignorance of it all. It is the ideas, the methodologies (yes, Sartin is not one methodology - there are 9 of them.)
Can you name them?

What's your point? I said Sartin had his good points but wasn't the ALL of handicapping. Do you disagree with this?

[njcurveball]

What's your point? I said Sartin had his good points but wasn't the ALL of handicapping. Do you disagree with this?


Ted Williams wrote a book called the Science of Hitting. Many young hitters grew up reading it and did pretty well. Other kids read it and quit baseball.

Another guy named Chalie Lau came along and wrote "How to Hit 300". Lots of young hitters read that one and did pretty well. Other kids read it and quit baseball.

The point being that Sartin gave young (and old) handicappers direction and some thrived, some didn't.

Judging by the "students", Sartin did pretty well. The three best HDW programs were written by guys influenced by the Sartin Methodology (Massa, Schwartz, and Purdy).

This game will never be about picking winners. It is about a contrarian approach that makes money. I would prefer people like yourself scream very loud and very often the Sartin stuff is crap and hopefully you can convince many people using it to stop. :ThmbUp:

[BCOURTNEY]

I find it very hard to believe 500 people are using the same thing and are winning.

I like method followers, it improves my handicapping and wagering strategies, and shows me another area to draw useful information from.

[Capper Al]

Ted Williams wrote a book called the Science of Hitting. Many young hitters grew up reading it and did pretty well. Other kids read it and quit baseball.

Another guy named Chalie Lau came along and wrote "How to Hit 300". Lots of young hitters read that one and did pretty well. Other kids read it and quit baseball.

The point being that Sartin gave young (and old) handicappers direction and some thrived, some didn't.

Judging by the "students", Sartin did pretty well. The three best HDW programs were written by guys influenced by the Sartin Methodology (Massa, Schwartz, and Purdy).

This game will never be about picking winners. It is about a contrarian approach that makes money. I would prefer people like yourself scream very loud and very often the Sartin stuff is crap and hopefully you can convince many people using it to stop. :ThmbUp:

You and others on this board don't have it right about me. I said Sartin has good stuff but not all good stuff and believe there is more to handicapping than Sartin. Unless you believe it's only Sartin's way 100%, you are just letting off steam.

[richrosa]

Sartin is a hammer in a toolbox. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. What's interesting is that Sartin can be a screwdriver too. However, sometimes I need a Phillips screwdriver.

[thelyingthief]

..but I do know that energy is proportional to velocity squared and not just velocity.


since we are talking percentage of energy dispensed by fraction, it is immaterial what the formula is, or what the quantity we are measuring may be--simply that we are consistent in deriving the quantities we are measuring. we are not concerned with how much energy an animal HAS, but how he distributes his energy, and how that distribution is enhanced or retarded in competition. obviously, we can do this in complete ignorance of an animals precise kinetic energy, just as we can ascertain it without knowing how sugar is metabolized into motion, or how toxicity retards it. velocity relationships will provide sufficiently precise numericalization of the event to permit manipulating it as proportions thereof.

or, do you just want us to know how clever you are by pedantically confusing the issue with high school science, and insisting on YOUR rhetoric? if that's it, then god knows, i'm star struck.

tlt

[juanepstein]

someone needs to give a sartin demo in the picks thread for hollywood tonight.

wanna see how great this stuff is.

[Wickel]

someone needs to give a sartin demo in the picks thread for hollywood tonight.

wanna see how great this stuff is.

I have a better idea. How about a demo featuring Sartin vs. Pizzolla. What a treat for the fans!!!

[46zilzal]

I have a better idea. How about a demo featuring Sartin vs. Pizzolla. What a treat for the fans!!!
Really there is not much qualitative difference in those two.

[Cratos]

since we are talking percentage of energy dispensed by fraction, it is immaterial what the formula is, or what the quantity we are measuring may be--simply that we are consistent in deriving the quantities we are measuring. we are not concerned with how much energy an animal HAS, but how he distributes his energy, and how that distribution is enhanced or retarded in competition. obviously, we can do this in complete ignorance of an animals precise kinetic energy, just as we can ascertain it without knowing how sugar is metabolized into motion, or how toxicity retards it. velocity relationships will provide sufficiently precise numericalization of the event to permit manipulating it as proportions thereof.

or, do you just want us to know how clever you are by pedantically confusing the issue with high school science, and insisting on YOUR rhetoric? if that's it, then god knows, i'm star struck.

tlt

It is clear to me that you don’t understand what you are saying. To say “we are not concerned with how much energy an animal HAS, but how he distributes his energy, and how that distribution is enhanced or retarded in competition” is utterly ridiculous.

A horse can only distribute what it has and since kinetic energy of a horse is distributed (the word should be expended) over distance with respect to time then the more energy a horse has, the distribution might not be better, but the expenditure can be longer even if inefficient.

By the way I don’t post enough to impress anyone and if you were taking quantum physics in high school I am very proud of you.

[Greyfox]

Horse A and Horse B distribute their energy in the same pattern.

Horse A runs in Handicap races and wins.
Horse B runs in $10,000 claimers and wins.

Guess which one has the MOST energy to distribute?

[Wickel]

OK then let me turn you on to something that might help you win some money in the short term (if you haven't determined this yet by YOUR work)

For the past 10 days 6 amd 7f turf sprints run at Belmont are a goldmine for overlaid win prices. Why? Don't know. But it's fact and there is no end in sight.

I'm not gonna get into energy/positioning/what to do/what not to do. That's what personal exploration uncovers.

Consider this a "heads up" from us who follow the "Boogety-Boo" Methodology

Enjoy and happy hunting :)


Richie, how elaborating a little and sharing the wealth with your fellow Pacesters. Spring an angle or two on us.

[Ted Craven]

someone needs to give a sartin demo in the picks thread for hollywood tonight.

wanna see how great this stuff is.

Sorry, couldn't make it for Hollywood, but I did manage to handicap and make a sucecssful win wager (#12 and #13) on the Queens Plate today at Woodbine. Here is the final analysis screen:

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/images/qplate2008.gif

The result was 13-10-12, with the winner paying $11.30

I made a video (in 2 parts) of my handicapping process using Methodology principles and tools provided in RDSS. Here they are, for anyone who is interested:

www.SartinMethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-1.wmv (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-1.wmv)

www.SartinMethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-2.wmv (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-2.wmv)

I approach most races the same way (with contextual zigging and zagging), but I never really know which individual race I'm going to win and which I will not. I am very confident, however, of winning about 12 or 13 out of every 20 races (usually betting 2 horses to win) and almost always a positive ROI (sometimes a very good one). Financial success lies in waiting for good opportunities to wager, sometimes letting favourites beat you if they do, but always aiming for overlays compared to one's odds-line.

If anyone has more questions about the application of the modern Sartin Methodology, (i.e. as opposed to the earlier stages), I'd be happy to help further.

Ted

[richrosa]

I am very confident, however, of winning about 12 or 13 out of every 20 races (usually betting 2 horses to win) and almost always a positive ROI (sometimes a very good one). Financial success lies in waiting for good opportunities to wager, sometimes letting favourites beat you if they do, but always aiming for overlays compared to one's odds-line.


Is that a warranty for RDSS? A positive ROI?

[Capper Al]

Nice demo. Looks like an interesting product.

Sorry, couldn't make it for Hollywood, but I did manage to handicap and make a sucecssful win wager (#12 and #13) on the Queens Plate today at Woodbine. Here is the final analysis screen:

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/images/qplate2008.gif

The result was 13-10-12, with the winner paying $11.30

I made a video (in 2 parts) of my handicapping process using Methodology principles and tools provided in RDSS. Here they are, for anyone who is interested:

www.SartinMethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-1.wmv (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-1.wmv)

www.SartinMethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-2.wmv (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-2.wmv)

I approach most races the same way (with contextual zigging and zagging), but I never really know which individual race I'm going to win and which I will not. I am very confident, however, of winning about 12 or 13 out of every 20 races (usually betting 2 horses to win) and almost always a positive ROI (sometimes a very good one). Financial success lies in waiting for good opportunities to wager, sometimes letting favourites beat you if they do, but always aiming for overlays compared to one's odds-line.

If anyone has more questions about the application of the modern Sartin Methodology, (i.e. as opposed to the earlier stages), I'd be happy to help further.

Ted

[dylbert]

Congratulations to all who cashed on today's Queen's Plate from Woodbine.

I guess Sartin Methodology, Thorograph, and general public (top three based on final odds) are now "natural-born world-shaker" thoroughbred pickers as all three entities selected top three finishers. :lol:

[Cratos]

Sartin is a hammer in a toolbox. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. What's interesting is that Sartin can be a screwdriver too. However, sometimes I need a Phillips screwdriver.

The concept of energy expended by a horse is an interesting one and after thinking about it I came up with a simplified calculation that the user could use to estimate the amount of energy a horse would use to travel x-distance at y-velocity.

I say "estimate" because energy has two variables, mass and velocity and the velocity of a horse is typically given in its past performance, its weight (mass) is not. However that variable can be estimated well enough to provide a reasonable calculation for handicapping.

What is good about this calculation is that it becomes “plug and play” by using a software program like MS Excel and the user don’t have to be technically knowledgeable of the science concepts at all.

Also you can easily convert the results into “heat energy” and estimate the number calories a horse spent traveling a certain distance at a certain speed.

[Ted Craven]

Is that a warranty for RDSS? A positive ROI?
A warranty...:) As far as I know, nothing is warranted to occur save death, taxes and the law of attraction. For myself, I hold the expectations I noted above. I have no control and only modest influence over the personal expectations and degree of committment by others to master tools and apply a learning feedback loop, much less over how they view themselves internally. I believe that with any reasonably competent (let alone excellent) handicapping tool such as your HOS, or HTR or HSH or Jcapper or CJ's tools, etc - including RDSS, combined with money management skills and tools described all over the place here, AND a calmly confident mindset and expectation of success - anyone can produce a profit if they wish. However, whether all these ingedients come together in the life of a given individual, well as they say, that's why they run the race...

If you refer to a money-back guarantee if you don't make a profit with RDSS, well...you have to pay TrackMaster for the data (either $2.00 a card or unlimited use, or various stages in between), but you only pay me for the software if you make money, or if you otherwise find my tools valuable. So there's nothing to refund (and I don't refund my share of what you pay for data). But it seems unlikely that an intelligent person would continue to buy data if they weren't enjoying or profiting by the experience, over the long-run.

This is my pay-what-it's-worth funding scheme for RDSS: here (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3287). Perhaps it's naive - check back with me in a year...

Other people tell me they make consistent profits using RDSS and the Sartin Methodology. Some have been quietly doing so for a long time now.

I can't guarantee that the people I love the most will be happy or do anything at all that I want them to. I can only guarantee what I can seek to do for myself.

Ted

[Tom]

Dang, Ted, nice offer! :ThmbUp:

[richrosa]

Dang, Ted, nice offer! :ThmbUp:

Its the same offer nearly everyone else has. FREE SOFTWARE - you pay for data while the software vendor benefits from a partnership with the data provider.

[njcurveball]

Its the same offer nearly everyone else has. FREE SOFTWARE - you pay for data while the software vendor benefits from a partnership with the data provider.

Kind of, but in this case if you read it through you could potentially pay for this software for the rest of your life.

That is great if you win every month, but I doubt he is sending money back during the losing months.

I prefer the price be stated up front, this is a kind of "passive/agressive" pricing scheme and I would be curious if there are records to make sure the long term users continually "put something in the collection plate".

It also appears if you lose you "still owe something". Certainly not FREE SOFTWARE by any stretch.

If you are not yet making consistent profits using RDSS but continue to use it, perhaps buying race card data one-at-a-time while learning how to be successful; or if you do use it successfully from time to time as your schedule permits, but on an irregular basis; or if you otherwise are having trouble deciding what-it’s-worth to you, then an annual payment of $100 is suggested.




Jim

[socantra]

Its the same offer nearly everyone else has. FREE SOFTWARE - you pay for data while the software vendor benefits from a partnership with the data provider.

And your point is????

[Ted Craven]

Its the same offer nearly everyone else has. FREE SOFTWARE - you pay for data while the software vendor benefits from a partnership with the data provider.
Almost correct. You can't buy 1 or 20 cards per month from HDW - unlimited only. You can from TrackMaster, but I make so little from that that I ask for a self-determined amount per annum for the software. If a vendor's software uses BRIS data, for example, the software vendor makes no money from data (that I am aware of), so they must charge something for the software. You'd be surprised what some people will pay voluntarily if you provide something useful and the right atmosphere.

Allowing a low entry point was exactly the plan to encourage folks to step their toe in the water. Low impediments to entry encourages experimentation, and if success follows, so do more data sales. I don't want to sell a software upgrade every 6 months - I'm seeking slow, steady and perhaps increasing participation for years. Anyway, data and software fees are the smallest price you'll pay for mastery in this game.

Ted

[jasperson]

Sorry, couldn't make it for Hollywood, but I did manage to handicap and make a sucecssful win wager (#12 and #13) on the Queens Plate today at Woodbine. Here is the final analysis screen:

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/images/qplate2008.gif

The result was 13-10-12, with the winner paying $11.30

I made a video (in 2 parts) of my handicapping process using Methodology principles and tools provided in RDSS. Here they are, for anyone who is interested:

www.SartinMethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-1.wmv (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-1.wmv)

www.SartinMethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-2.wmv (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/media/QPlate2008-2.wmv)

I approach most races the same way (with contextual zigging and zagging), but I never really know which individual race I'm going to win and which I will not. I am very confident, however, of winning about 12 or 13 out of every 20 races (usually betting 2 horses to win) and almost always a positive ROI (sometimes a very good one). Financial success lies in waiting for good opportunities to wager, sometimes letting favourites beat you if they do, but always aiming for overlays compared to one's odds-line.

If anyone has more questions about the application of the modern Sartin Methodology, (i.e. as opposed to the earlier stages), I'd be happy to help further.

Ted
SR had the exacta. That has been my problem with the pace calculations that I have done speed rating of the race selected beats ap sp and ep most of the time.

[Tom]

Its the same offer nearly everyone else has. FREE SOFTWARE - you pay for data while the software vendor benefits from a partnership with the data provider.

Not the terms like these - use it as little as you like, no long term committment. This is not the same class as BRIS software. I think it is a good offer. $8 a month out of my profits....people pay more than that for parking at the track. So I play 8 days a month ( weekends)...a buck a day.

[richrosa]

Not the terms like these - use it as little as you like, no long term committment. This is not the same class as BRIS software. I think it is a good offer. $8 a month out of my profits....people pay more than that for parking at the track. So I play 8 days a month ( weekends)...a buck a day.

This is really for a different thread, however, this does beg for some comment.

I feel bad for Ted, and all software guys for that matter. At those rates, what's his incentive to develop software, maintain support, fix bugs, and improve the product? Never mind the fact that he supports the operation of this Forum by buying ads that aren't free.

As we strive to get FREE data, and we're being offered free PP's all over the place, at the same time we're killing any innovation or incentive for anyone to SELL a product.

Keep in mind that there's only about 2,500 guys tops (80% of them are on this board) that use commercially produced software on a regular basis, and that market isn't getting bigger.

$8 is not a lot of money to pay anyone for anything. I understand and can relate to your position, but the future of all of this leaves me puzzled and not optimistic. Something will have to change economically or operationally for this to continue the way it is now.

[socantra]

I feel bad for Ted, and all software guys for that matter. At those rates, what's his incentive to develop software, maintain support, fix bugs, and improve the product? Never mind the fact that he supports the operation of this Forum by buying ads that aren't free.

As we strive to get FREE data, and we're being offered free PP's all over the place, at the same time we're killing any innovation or incentive for anyone to SELL a product.



It is certainly not a market that a programmer would enter with dreams of great profits and I would suspect that is not the reason that most get into it.

Ted already has several years invested in this project and I would think the odds of his ever turning a significant profit on his investment of time and energy are pretty small, but then, I believe he was aware of that going in.

He does hope to make enough out of the software that it will eventually become a sustainable enterprise, but obviously the motivation must come from somewhere else.

[Tom]

I think Ted is doing a smart thing. Once the software is developed, there is a segment that will NEVER commit to a monthly subscription, no matter what the price. This way, he will still get those that will and tap the otherwise not interested folks, many of which, once the profits are realized, may well upgrade.

[Binder]

Howard Sartin wanted Guy Wadsworth to build him a tool
This became his program Synthesis. Next came the Validator programs

Guy Wadsworth wanted his own program
This became Speculator

Synthesis, Validator and Speculator were Dos programs

Ted wanted a windows program based on these Sartin programs
He made RDSS. He is a very good handicapper. He uses a very
consistent contender paceline selection method Most of it I can see
is from what he learned as a client of the Sartin Methodology
He built a tool that he uses and wins with. Now anyone who wants to
work with The Modern Sartin Methodology has a windows version
I am very happy for Ted and that Doc Sartin supports Teds work

GS
Bill