Fulcrum-good or bad

[shoelessjoe]

I have been listening to Pizzolla's seminar tape The Master Key to Handicapping which is very good,he has on it a presentation of using the fulcrum.Over the years you keep hearing good and bad things about using it,from listening to him it sounds like quite a few people misuse it.He wants you to set a conservative time and not one that will eliminate a bunch of horses out of the race[even though if this can be accomplished that's one of his key plays].Any opinions out there on this.Shoeless

[JustRalph]

I read it, tried it........re-read it, tried it...........threw the book away

[GMV]

I tried using the fulcrum as an elimination factor, but found that too few horses were eliminated. Those that were, would have been eliminated as non-contenders by most standard handicapping methods. Although I used it for only a couple of weeks, I never found a ML favorite that it threw out.

[shoelessjoe]

Then you were doing it the way it was intended

[mjw]

Shoe,

It is my understanding that the Fulcrum concept is to figure out which horses can compete successfully against the upcoming pace of the race. Yes, you can eliminate horses with it but in some cases there will be no fulcrum in the race. Is it useful? To some people it is, and to some it is not worth a damn. It all depends on how you use the information.

[Niko]

After tracking it for a while I gave up on it, went back to it a couple years later and gave up again...didn't help me at all with win bets or exotic plays except for a very rare occasion

[kenwoodallpromos]

I have been listening to Pizzolla's seminar tape The Master Key to Handicapping which is very good,he has on it a presentation of using the fulcrum.Over the years you keep hearing good and bad things about using it,from listening to him it sounds like quite a few people misuse it.He wants you to set a conservative time and not one that will eliminate a bunch of horses out of the race[even though if this can be accomplished that's one of his key plays].Any opinions out there on this.Shoeless
I do not know the book, but if I want to use a conservative time I calculate the place horse's time.

[RichieP]

Good.

Anything that makes me look closer at the pps leaves open the possibility of seeing something I might have missed.

[JustRalph]

Good.

Anything that makes me look closer at the pps leaves open the possibility of seeing something I might have missed.


Richie........you gotta stop looking at pp's ........ :lol:

[turfbar]

I use the fulcrum daily, it is a good tool if you know how to use it,from what I read doesn't look like people know how to use it. A few years ago I suggested on another board that there should be a grading system to fulcrums ,long story short, MP said NO.I still use my grading fulcrum theory quite successfully.
Did you know that MTB was the fulcrum horse in the KD.:cool:

I told JOE this b4 somewhere else that the fulcrums derived with TMH sometimes differ than the fulcrums that BLAM presents, considering they come from the same source I find it a lil" befuddling. The fulcrum mmmmmmmmmmmm GOOD!


Turfbar

[Niko]

Guess it's like most things, works for some and not for others depending on how your brain works.

I couldn't make a profit from the fulcrum, total pace figs or just using speed figs alone so I'm probably a poor candidate to judge fulcrum.

I liked Pizzolla's book though; it got me thinking in and pointed me in a couple good directions.

[kingfin66]

Did you know that MTB was the fulcrum horse in the KD.:cool:




The Fulcrum in the Derby was most definitely not MTB, it was Papa Clem.

[kgonzales]

I told JOE this b4 somewhere else that the fulcrums derived with TMH sometimes differ than the fulcrums that BLAM presents, considering they come from the same source I find it a lil" befuddling. The fulcrum mmmmmmmmmmmm GOOD!


Turfbar
BLAM assigns the fulcrum based on approximate raw 2nd call time of the horse, which in this case was Papa Clem. I have never used TMH, but I'm guessing TMH does it based on adjusted 2nd call pace rating (PP rating ?) which would be Mine That Bird. In BLAM, he had the best last race PP rating (2nd call). I'm assuming the numbers are pretty similar between the two programs. Hope that explains something.

[shoelessjoe]

Now that I have gotten some respones I will take it one step further.Which of these methods do you prefer trying to find who can compete against today's projected pace


1) Pizzolla's fulcrum approach

2) Jim Bradshaw's match up looking at 1st and 2nd calls


Also if your looking at raw times will you consider the track variant.


I do take into account the track variant,as far as Pizzolla or Hat's approach Im really not sure if one way is better then the other.

[turfbar]

The Fulcrum in the Derby was most definitely not MTB, it was Papa Clem.


TMH - fulcrum MTB 110.2

BLAM- fulcrum Papa Clem 112.0

in hindsight (being 20-20) which fulcrum serves you better

Turfbar

[ryesteve]

Ok, I've gotta ask... if you're comparing horses coming out of races from oh, let's say Sunland, vs. horses coming out races on Polytrack, how is it at all sensible to look at the raw times for 6f splits?

[turfbar]

Ok, I've gotta ask... if you're comparing horses coming out of races from oh, let's say Sunland, vs. horses coming out races on Polytrack, how is it at all sensible to look at the raw times for 6f splits?

Why would I compare dirt tracks with syn tracks. Today's race is over traditional dirt(Kentucy Derby) why would I use a syn RAW TIME. I don't think you fully understand the "fulcrum" concept.

Now if the race is being run over syn track my approach would be different

I WOULDN'T BET.

Turfbar

[ryesteve]

I understand the concept... ok, forget the dirt vs. poly aspect... why would you look at the raw times if you're looking at a race where some horses have dirt races in the PPs run over tracks where the 6f splits are routinely run 2 seconds faster than the 6f splits at the tracks where some of the other horses may have been running?

[Niko]

Now that I have gotten some respones I will take it one step further.Which of these methods do you prefer trying to find who can compete against today's projected pace


1) Pizzolla's fulcrum approach

2) Jim Bradshaw's match up looking at 1st and 2nd calls


Also if your looking at raw times will you consider the track variant.


I do take into account the track variant,as far as Pizzolla or Hat's approach Im really not sure if one way is better then the other.

That's a good question shoeless. Bradshaw's match up seems like such an art form, it really depends on you being able to read which paceline to use and the condition of the horse..whether it's the last or 4th back etc..so for a beginner the fulcrum is definately easier to use.

Being your asking, what has your experience been?

As for raw times vs variants...I'll take variants any day. You might get lucky once in a while using raw numbers but unless you're comparing same track to same track under similar conditions, a good variant for pace and speed ratings will really up your game. But of course they're not perfect either.

[shoelessjoe]

I did try the match up somewhat from Richie P but could not really get a handle on it.I thought I would be able to because Im more adept using a racing form then a computer program and that was how Richie was taught by Hat.As far as the fulcrum goes I have read quite a bit but have never really tried it out.

I got an e mail from someone who said he doesnt like the match up because of low priced winners,then again I have seen Richie get bombs.

[LARRY GEORGE]

fyi the fulcrum in the preakness is RACHEL ALEXANDRA

[turfbar]

I understand the concept... ok, forget the dirt vs. poly aspect... why would you look at the raw times if you're looking at a race where some horses have dirt races in the PPs run over tracks where the 6f splits are routinely run 2 seconds faster than the 6f splits at the tracks where some of the other horses may have been running?

I'm not really grasping what you've said , the fulcrum is a raw time reality--please don't make me give the parameters of fulcrum--- if you run a 1: 10 for 6 fulongs in a 1 1/8 or 1 1/16 contest and that is the fastest time last race for any of the other combatants you are the fulcrum horse 1:10 is faster than 1:12 simple- as long as u meet the criteria of lengths behind at the begining and the end of said race.

Turfbar

[ryesteve]

I'm not really grasping what you've saidSo not only do you think that raw times are interchangeable from day to day and track to track, you can't even grasp why they might not be? Ok...

[turfbar]

So not only do you think that raw times are interchangeable from day to day and track to track, you can't even grasp why they might not be? Ok...

OK Steve u obviously don't believe in this so don't waste my time with your
gobbdegook bullshit.

T

[ryesteve]

OK Steve u obviously don't believe in this so don't waste my time with your
gobbdegook bullshit.
I see you can't grasp how to have a rational discussion either... but when a fulcrum defender refers to a question as "gobbdegook bullshit", I must give you props on your grasp of irony.

[BeatTheChalk]

TMH - fulcrum MTB 110.2

BLAM- fulcrum Papa Clem 112.0

in hindsight (being 20-20) which fulcrum serves you better

Turfbar

May I ask a question. What is BLAM .. and What is MTB ? Thanks.

I do recall that somewhere along the way .. The PBS method was
presented as the newest and the best. The initials stand for ..
Pizzola .. Bradshaw .. and Sartin. Again thanks for any help

[Speed Figure]

May I ask a question. What is BLAM .. and What is MTB ? Thanks.
I do recall .. at a seminar years ago .. that a New way of lookinig at the
pace was being presented The PBS Number.

It Stood for Pizzola Bradshaw Sartin. In fact I recall that the
concept was introduced at a Seminar In Vegas. This was a long
time ago. And there were many " New Things "
BLAM is Black Magic Ultimate Handicapping Software, MTB is Mine That Bird.

[cato]

Turfbar.

The other "rule" of the Fulcrum is that the number cannot be aberrant and the 110.1 that MTB faced in its last race before the Derby was almost a full second faster than anything MTB had previously faced in a route. That's probably why BLAM did not have MTB as the fulcrum.

Did TMM or TMH show MTB as the fulcrum?

FP

[turfbar]

Turfbar.

The other "rule" of the Fulcrum is that the number cannot be aberrant and the 110.1 that MTB faced in its last race before the Derby was almost a full second faster than anything MTB had previously faced in a route. That's probably why BLAM did not have MTB as the fulcrum.

Did TMM or TMH show MTB as the fulcrum?

FP
THE Master Hadicapper had MINE THAT BIRD as fulcrum

T

P.S. like I told Shoeless there are discrepencies in fulcrums between the two
BLAM & TMH
BLAM is more liberal
TMH more conservative


Turfbar

[Maxspa]

All,
Try placing the speed figure for the race next to the Fulcrum horses and you may be surprised at how this will validate whether to use the Fulcrum horse!
Maxspa

[shouldacoulda]

I am new to the concept of fulcrum horses. What exactly does it mean and how is it derived? I primarily look at conditions of the race, shape of the race, class, form, and speed but use the speed more for patterns to read condition cycles.

[JustRalph]

I am new to the concept of fulcrum horses. What exactly does it mean and how is it derived? I primarily look at conditions of the race, shape of the race, class, form, and speed but use the speed more for patterns to read condition cycles.


http://www.amazon.com/Handicapping-Magic-Michael-Pizzolla/dp/0967987024

It's a handicapping method found in the book above.

do a little Googling and you may find it cheaper........somebody I am sure will fill you in.......... I am sure somebody might be willing to part with their book cheaper too............

[Charlie D]

Fulcrum = no clue

Jim Bradshaws Match Up = :ThmbUp:

[dlgreg]

The Fulcrum horse by definition has to have been competitive at the 2nd call and the finish.
Several BLAM users have tracked the results of the Fulcrum horse finish position.
For all races looked at to date the Fulcrum horse wins ~ 20% of the races and places in ~ 16% of the races.

[46zilzal]

What is really funny is that Bradshaw's ideas and the fulcrum are the same idea coming from the two different directions.

BOTH involve matching up the same pace of race, the fastest pace of race and then seeing which of the contestants have shown an ability to match that pace.


The thing about BOTH these methods is the over-dependence on a single line which could, and often is, and aberration.

To really find a base Pace of Race to compare to the rest, that pace has to have been challenged successfully MORE than once in a horse's past performances

[46zilzal]

Ok, I've gotta ask... if you're comparing horses coming out of races from oh, let's say Sunland, vs. horses coming out races on Polytrack, how is it at all sensible to look at the raw times for 6f splits?
Is isn't sensible at all....Same with Philly Canterbury, Presque Island and a host of others...many transfer too fast or the inherent track profile at FG, KEE, AP and others favors the later......

Without some sort of intertrack variant you will be fooled often as I have learned the hard way.

[46zilzal]

Fulcrum = no clue

Jim Bradshaws Match Up = :ThmbUp:
Ah a man who never read the very BASIC book Pace Makes the Race.

[Charlie D]

.


The thing about BOTH these methods is the over-dependence on a single line which could, and often is, and aberration.



Before you comment on something you should do some research in my humble opinion.

[Greyfox]

Is isn't sensible at all....Same with Philly Canterbury, Presque Island and a host of others...many transfer too fast or the inherent track profile at FG, KEE, AP and others favors the later......

Without some sort of intertrack variant you will be fooled often as I have learned the hard way.

True. But making track to track gradient adjustments is not that hard.
Even just "eye-balling" running lines gives any math minded capper a rough idea.
Someone working a data base can be far more accurate.

[46zilzal]

Before you comment on something you should do some research in my humble opinion.
Since I have worked thousand of races each an every year since my first use of Phase III, I am very well versed in each and every aspect of the Sartin methodology.

I am often, by comments like this, reminded of the great German philosopher,Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: “Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.” (“There is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action.”)

[46zilzal]

True. But making track to track gradient adjustments is not that hard.
Even just "eye-balling" running lines gives any math minded capper a rough idea.
Someone working a data base can be far more accurate.
I have a friend who works at Trackmaster....He would disagree with you BIG time as they are always tweaking their equalized normalized adjusted lines.

[Charlie D]

Since I have worked thousand of races each an every year since my first use of Phase III, I am very well versed in each and every aspect of the Sartin methodology.

I am often, by comments like this, reminded of the great German philosopher,Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: “Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.” (“There is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action.”)



You are not very well versed in Jim Bradshaws MatchUp concepts. So if i were you i'd stick to German Philosophers.

[46zilzal]

I am new to the concept of fulcrum horses. What exactly does it mean and how is it derived? I primarily look at conditions of the race, shape of the race, class, form, and speed but use the speed more for patterns to read condition cycles.
Think of it as the BEST possible pace of all the horses that may be able to repeat it today....The YARDSTICK to compare to all other horses in the race.

Can they keep up to the second call?

Can they move and pass a horse making that second call time?

It is VERY important to try, as much as possible, to have all the proposed contenders come from race where the PACE OF RACE was close to the fulcrum as you can be fooled by horses coming from SLOW early paced races (by not having exerted too much energy early) looking BETTER than they should in the third fraction.

One of the huge errors I see all the time...WITHOUT using close to the same Pace of Race to compare the horses to, you are comparing apples and oranges...Now often the race participants are so varied, that a direct comparison to similar paces of race is difficult if not impossible and those are the ones to watch.

[Greyfox]

I have a friend who works at Trackmaster....He would disagree with you BIG time as they are always tweaking their equalized normalized adjusted lines.

Yes and he would be using Trackmaster's data base to make those tweaks.
So I don't see how he would disagree with me "Big Time."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Turf Paradise's surface plays faster than So Cals. Yet when their plugs arrive in So Cal they no longer set swift pace times. Five minutes of work on any program can give you a rough idea of what pace adjustments to make, even if they are out a "tad."
Personally I don't keep a data base. My "rough adjustments" to pace splits when shippers move from track to track seem to work reasonably well for the way I play the game. I typically use more than one runner per race in horizontal exotics.

[46zilzal]

You are not very well versed in Jim Bradshaws MatchUp concepts. So if i were you i'd stick to German Philosophers.
This from the same guy who did not realize that Bradshaw used variants on raw times in the Red Manual......

Please rookie,. go back and learn before you spout

[Charlie D]

This from the same guy who did not realize that Bradshaw used variants on raw times in the Red Manual......

Please rookie,. go back and learn before you spout

Which page are these instructions on please??

[Charlie D]

I'm sat here listening to Jim Bradshaw and :lol: at your comments 46 ( i think i know it all ) zilzal.

[Charlie D]

I do not believe in pars, i do not believe in track profiles....


Jim Bradshaw

[Charlie D]

Look at ALL lines

Jim Bradshaw

[The Judge]

Its true in some races using the fulcrum you can't elimnate any horses, in some only 1 or 2 in other races more can be elimated. In a few races the favorite can't run to the fulcrum. Normally it's horse that is dropping in class or a horse that has a potent jockey, trainer combo.

There alot of players out there that don't use pace.

[46zilzal]

In Pizzolla's own words from p. 103 PACE MAKES THE RACE...

First of all the fulcrum pace is not meant to pick the actual pace of that race.....it is designed to give you an idea what is the slowest pace that each horse in the race must be able to compete against successfully. It is important to keep in mind that I always err or the side of setting a slower, rather than a faster, fulcrum.I require each horse that I am considering seriously in a race to demonstrate that it can compete well against the fulcrum pace. Therefore if I set the fulcrum that is too fast, I will eliminate horses that may have a chance to win. This is even more important when you are considering exacta wagers, as very often the second horse is marginal on its pace ability. if you set a fulcrum carefully, however, you can bet with certainty that any horse that cannot "meet" the fulcrum pace is not a serious contender in the race. Also, if you find that after setting a conservative fulcrum that no other horse can "meet" that fulcrum, the fulcrum horse is one of the safest and most consistent win bets in all of handicapping.

THE FULCRUM pace is the fastest second call pace among the last pacelines of all horse in a race; provided that 1) the horse was competitive at both the second call and the finish and 2) the pace is not ATYPICALLY fast for that horse.


From the horse's mouth so to speak!

NOTICE NOT A WORD is said about man made class shifts or riders.....This ia ll about the horse and its performance.

[Greyfox]

In Pizzolla's own words from p. 103 PACE MAKES THE RACE...


From the horse's mouth so to speak!

Those are Pizzolla's words.
You were asked the question by Charlie D about Bradshaw's red manual book:

"Which page are these instructions on please??"

[Charlie D]

As stated 46" i think i know it all" Zilzal. Do some research before commenting on the Jim Bradshaws Match Up concepts.

Bye now.

[46zilzal]

Those are Pizzolla's words.
You were asked the question by Charlie D about Bradshaw's red manual book:

"Which page are these instructions on please??"
In the opening pages he compares horses from old Longacres and old Exhibition park and then goes on to explain because one track is considerably faster than the other, inter track adjustments have to be made for comparison.....

Having read the book over 50 times basic things like that are not easy to forget

Rookies constantly amaze me.....I used to go to the residents radiology sessions and here they were full of book LARNIN with next to zero experience and the conclusions they would draw were bordering on the laughable as we constantly shouted Keep It Simple Stupid . They tried to tell us once that an incidental finding of calcified arterial wall (linear and directly following the lines of a known artery in an individual over 70) was somehow a tumorous mass........It is par for the rookies of the world. Only problem was that the clinical picture of a tumorous mass would have symptoms....Like the German stated that there is nothing more dangerous than IGNORANCE (not the same as stupidity) in action.

[Greyfox]

In the opening pages he compares horses from old Longacres and old Exhibition park and then goes on to explain because one track is considerably faster than the other, inter track adjustments have to be made for comparison.....

Having read the book over 50 times basic things like that are not easy to forget

That's the answer to the question that Charlie D posed.

(I've read Bradshaw as well and could never see much value in reading it three times far less 50. I've never got as much out of him as DJofSD and others seem to feel they get. He wasn't the most articulate communicator in the game.)

[46zilzal]

That's the answer to the question that Charlie D posed.

(I've read Bradshaw as well and could never see much value in reading it three times far less 50. I've never got as much out of him as DJofSD and others seem to feel they get. He wasn't the most articulate communicator in the game.)
photo coming up....Like many works I have in my library, one gets more out of them when their basis of understanding is better able to assimilate what the author was trying to say....It often takes parallel experience before a reading of the material makes an impression....I was befuddled in the earlier readings and it was only after working hundreds of races, MOSTLY using the program Speculator, that what he was proposing made sense in application.


One of the things Pizzolla and other have eluded to was the idea that all the early Sartin works were intentionally kept vague in order to keep the users dependent upon the source and follow up works and, keeping them buying programs.....Pizz states that in Handicapping Magic

[Charlie D]

Jim Bradshaw when asked how he handles shippers

I ignore em

[Show Me the Wire]

Jim Bradshaw when asked how he handles shippers


There is a differnce between a shipper, being shipped in from a track off the circuit and making adjustments for circuit tracks. Two entirely different items.

[Charlie D]

Would you like more education 46" i think i know it all" zilzal.


46 likes to put his on spin on things, he once tried telling everyone Sartin Methology was ALL about the 2call, when in fact it's ALL about the "Match Up" that happens in Fr1, Fr2, and Fr3.

[46zilzal]

one of many

[Greyfox]

Jim Bradshaw when asked how he handles shippers

Try that in the Kentucky Derby and see where that gets you.

[46zilzal]

Try that in the Kentucky Derby and see where that gets you.
IGNORANCE in action personified....When you have only evaluated three or four you get that can or false confidence......like last year when a slew of late late running favorties were coming off that long stretch at the Fair Grounds or the turf which is called dirt at Anita...

[Charlie D]

I ignore em,






Match shipper against shipper

Cheap horse win at cheap tracks


Las Vegas seminar 1991 in Paceandcap library

Straight from the mouth of Mr Bradshaw

[Charlie D]

Try that in the Kentucky Derby and see where that gets you.



Seemed to work for Preakness Exacta.

[Charlie D]

There are people who spout about something with little knowledge and there people who spout from reading, listening and doing.

I'm one of the latter.

[46zilzal]

Las Vegas seminar 1991 in Paceandcap library

Straight from the mouth of Mr Bradshaw
I doubt you were old enough to have attended..

Ah hero worshipers and dogma...the two go together and you are in the right place for that dualism.

[Trotman]

CharlieD I don't think your going to win this one with 46, I too like you like the Hat's Matchup. That being said 46 is like the energizer bunny "He keeps going and going" mind you he hasn't the faintest where but he's going :lol:

[46zilzal]

Lost is the entire idea that Pizzolla expressed and he was at the heart of the methodology long before any of us knew about it.

How can someone enter into a knowledgeable debate on a subject they admit to knowing NOTHING about?

[Charlie D]

Trotman

:D

Your right, wasting my time and energy with 46 "i think i know it all" Zilzal and i think he is best put on ignore.

[Tom]

Actually, the PBS numbers which come from the fulcrum stood for Pizzola/Bradshaw/Sartin number before they stood for Pace Balanced Speed.
Doc called them SPB numbers;)

They were presented at an Albany Seminar - the last Pizzola appeared at in our area.

I use the fulcrum a lot, but I am a lot loser with it that I used to be. It is now an idea rather than a method with me. But very useful. CJs numbers make it very easy to use.

[shoelessjoe]

Charlie D, Why do you keep mentioning Bradshaw in this thread?The guy wanted to know about the fulcrum of a race not the match up.

[Charlie D]

Why not Jeff, there are no rules saying i can't talk about Jim Bradshaws Match Up on this thread


if PA and his mods think my comments are off topic then they are welcome to delete them.

[Charlie D]

Now that I have gotten some respones I will take it one step further.Which of these methods do you prefer trying to find who can compete against today's projected pace


1) Pizzolla's fulcrum approach

2) Jim Bradshaw's match up looking at 1st and 2nd calls


Also if your looking at raw times will you consider the track variant.


I do take into account the track variant,as far as Pizzolla or Hat's approach Im really not sure if one way is better then the other.


Ok for you to talk about Jim Bradshaws Match Up, but not ok for me??

[46zilzal]

One of the things Wadsworth wanted to show, by beaten lengths comparison, was how the dominant pace of race/pace of horse, could be shown graphically. He was the first to show calculated projected beaten lengths in a side by side comparison in screen four of his program Speculator........Now IT ALONE is not enough since it is a velocity based comparison. THAT had never been presented in his other creations that way.

Once you eliminated those from slower paced races, the combination of deceleration is added to the mix....but deceleration only becomes a dominant factor at 9 furlongs and above, on synthetics and turf....OR, in the Damon Runyon angle, when all the final time feet/sec of all the entrants are within one foot/sec of one another, the deceleration again is the dominant factor.

Ultimately then without some starting point, the fulcrum, one cannot make rational comparisons of the other entrants.

[shoelessjoe]

Charlie, That was a awhile back I originally asked,the person who posted recently did not.I dont care if you do so or not was just wondering .


Also I was wondering if United Kingdom is anywhere near Califorinia.(wink,wink)

[Charlie D]

I'm wondering, why you would signal me out for attention and not other posters.

[Charlie D]

There is a differnce between a shipper, being shipped in from a track off the circuit and making adjustments for circuit tracks. Two entirely different items.

As a man stated

"know thy track"

[Charlie D]

Or as another man stated on a Las Vegas seminar



The speedfigures will help you

[Partsnut]

shoelessjoe: A friendly suggestion. Let it go. It's not worth your time and effort.

No one really cares.
The only thing you can learn from a situation like this is to avoid it.

It pleasures me to block those responses I don't wish to see because blatant stupidity and meaningless banter from the peanut gallery is offensive to many as well as myself.

People are not stupid. Eventually, they will form there own conclusions and take the appropriate actions. Intent can be very obvious.

[Charlie D]

People are not stupid. Eventually, they will form there own conclusions and take the appropriate actions.


Could not agree more with the above comment.

[shoelessjoe]

Charlie, Your right sorry

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm wondering, why you would signal me out for attention and not other posters.


Hint look at the date of the original posts and the newer posts.

[The Judge]

to the fulcrum why would he be the favorite? Here is what I remember Pizzolla and Eric Langjahr saying " if you are sitting at a poker table and don't know who the sucker is, it's you." Meaning for our purposes, if a horse is the favorite and you don't know "why" then it's possible that you don't understand the race.

If you know a horse is the favorite and can't run to the fulcrum, then you must proceed to the 2nd question, why is this horse the favorite? A couple of reasons is the favorite is dropping in class or jockey trainer combo (other reason are highest Byer, the papers or T.V host pick him etc.). If you understand why he is the favorite then you are prepared to proceed if you don't understand why the horse is the favorite then maybe you don't understand the race.

Now I heard this from Pizzolla and Lanjahr at live siminars and on tape. Its "why are you so lucky", why is it that you know the favorite is going to lose (can't meet the fulcrum)and other handicappers have made the horse the favorite . You must know why the other hanidcappers made the horse the favorite. Remember I am only talking about getting rid of the favorites using the fulcrum. Now this I heard with my own two ears.

[turfbar]

Exhi was the (1.11/1) fulcrum horse in yesterday's Lexington Stks.(41.80)

[Tom]

if you are sitting at a poker table and don't know who the sucker is, it's you." :lol:

[thelyingthief]

Good.

Anything that makes me look closer at the pps leaves open the possibility of seeing something I might have missed.


It also gives you the chance to see something that isn't there at all.

tlt.

[thelyingthief]

People are not stupid.

OH, YES, THEY ARE!!!!

tlt

[Horsepicker]

Using Varients in The "Hat" styled MATCH UP....:


http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=875954&postcount=60


......was NOT written by Jim The Hat Bradshaw but solely by Dr. Howard G. Sartin Ph.d.

The "Introduction to Energy" which mentions fulcrums was also in the Red Match Up book and THAT part was WRITTEN by Pizzola, NOT Jim.

Dick Schmidt also had a article there.

Bradshaw's written part mentions no fulcrum, varients , pbs or anything else.

The Red Match Up manual was 75%-85% written by The Hat and the rest, other people Doc wanted in there, so anyone bringing up The Red manual talking about fulcrum and pbs no matter how many times they claimed to have read it is subconsciously or consciously being a brick about the subject of the Match Up and has selective tunnel vision in reading and listening about the Match UP and its creator, The Hat.

Doc Sartin uses "some" elements of The Hat's Match UP to help people win and see better with other parts of The Sartin Methodology, but it is NOT T-H-E-E Match Up, by The Hat, there is a distinction.

What Doc taught of The Match Up and what The Hat taught are 2 TOTALLY separate things, and is probably the ONLY part of the Sartin Methodology that is authorized to be exclusively taught in ISOLATION to the Methodology because The Hat has evolved it into its own entity, authorized by Doc and it is written numerous times somewhere by Doc.

Doc simply did not want people to imitate The Hat and fail and give up, because that is what would happen..., if The Hat either did not "hand-spoon fed" you as a personal tutor, or since he did not perfect its teaching method then.

Shows most are contributing their ego-tellectual about the Match UP or what it really, truly is, and since most have never heard The Hat go thru a race on tape and hear how absolutely brutal he destroys non-contenders, they probably never will and never improve.

If they are that obstinate about The Match UP, even when they personally have the BOOK in their possession and described by Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw, the creator himself , how much less do they know about The Sartin Methodology?

Look, theres the match up in general, there's Doc's use of the Match Up, THEN there's "The Hat" styled Match Up.

If you don't like either philosophy or have YOUR OWN version of The Match Up, fine, but make a distinction of whose match up you are talking about.

Doc did'nt care what or how you win or what you used to win, just wanted people to win consistently at a profit.

Which is why Doc got on the "psychology" crap, ego..., though Doc seem to need some of HIS own medicine toward the latter...,

...which is why he got into "The Psychology of Winning", what is it, why do YOU want to win, what prevents winning..?

Some or most don't care about winning and even if they do, they care more about bragging rights to their buds and having their name in lights rather than consistently profiting as often as possible.

If someone is considered to be "the man" when it comes to turf knowledge, jockeys, sires, horse shoes, etc., but don't profit consistently WITH that and other knowledge they possess, they can usually live with that and feel accomplished...being "known" for something just simply out edges actually winning and is MORE important..., ok, thats fine, I guess, everybody's got to have a hobby and there are worse ones out there.

The Hat's two other books, The Match Up(blue book) and The Match Up 2 has no varients and fulcrums and other stuff.

Jim The Hat Bradshaw's Match Up has no varients or fulcrums, sorry about that folks.

Horsepicker

[Trotman]

Horsepicker :ThmbUp: very good post and I couldn't have said it any better.

[Charlie D]

There are people who spout about something with little knowledge and there people who spout from reading, listening and doing.

.


Seems Horsepicker is one of the latter.

[Charlie D]

BTW

From what i can make out on this thread, the nearest thing to the Fulcrum from the Hat's Methodology would probably be Fastest Pace Last Race

More info on FPLR can be found at

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

In Hat Check Forum


Good Skill Matching

[turfbar]

Exhi was the (1.11/1) fulcrum horse in yesterday's Lexington Stks.(41.80)


In yesterday's Ben Ali at KEE@7 Exhi returns to KEE I use BLAM and it said the fulcrum horse was Dean's Kitten and the fulcrum was at 74.8, clearly if u look at the paceline's EXHI should have been the fulcrum horse with a 110.4 2nd fraction. A large difference in setting a fulcrum pace.

I have no idea what TMH's fulcrum horse was because they no longer
publish the data to use that program:( :( , NO i will not let it die

this thread was very entertaining and I read were Jim Bradshaw didn't use variants.

Turfbar

[Robert Goren]

If Fulcrum works, you should be very profitable in your selections because from what I have been able to gather, almost no one uses it and most think it is trash . Good luck with it.

[sevenall]

Exhi had the fastest "last" pace...which doesn't make it the fulcrum...unless that's what the fulcrum definition was for that long forgotten unsupported program that some people can't let go.

It has to be atypical for the horse (along with a good finish, etc).

[bob60566]

Exhi had the fastest "last" pace...which doesn't make it the fulcrum...unless that's what the fulcrum definition was for that long forgotten unsupported program that some people can't let go.

It has to be atypical for the horse (along with a good finish, etc).

When you find it use Kiss.
And use these three principles not mine but they work

Consistent
Patience
Disciplin
Mac:)

[Fastracehorse]

Think of it as the BEST possible pace of all the horses that may be able to repeat it today....The YARDSTICK to compare to all other horses in the race.

Can they keep up to the second call?

Can they move and pass a horse making that second call time?

It is VERY important to try, as much as possible, to have all the proposed contenders come from race where the PACE OF RACE was close to the fulcrum as you can be fooled by horses coming from SLOW early paced races (by not having exerted too much energy early) looking BETTER than they should in the third fraction.

One of the huge errors I see all the time...WITHOUT using close to the same Pace of Race to compare the horses to, you are comparing apples and oranges...Now often the race participants are so varied, that a direct comparison to similar paces of race is difficult if not impossible and those are the ones to watch.

.........on you per se 46; but if you are a student of the game you would know: That finding the 'fulcrum pace line' of a race to determine contenders is only ONE aspect of horse race handicapping.

So often, horses do not repeat their past performances ( good or bad ), for many reasons, not the least of which is current form.

What you guys are doing when using Pizzola's fulcrum theory, is exactly the same thing Beyer does. But you might think the Beyer is an inferior tool; so you guys are trying to find your 'Shangri La' in an attempt at precision.

But all you guys do is participate in an exercise of ATTEMPTING to measure the BEST pace line of the PAST for comparative purposes - which is a predictive factor, and more impactful with the greater the mutuel, but misses out on many pertinent handicapping factors.

Most of you probably know the above. Speed figs ( which I use emphatically - but acknowledge their limitations ), and pace figs ( akin to this thread's discussion ) are IN ESSENCE, the same thing.

Call 'fulcrum theory' a way to measure ability - call pace and speed figs an ability measurement. My point is: there is no need to obssess on the 'scientific notationess' of nth degrees - I know this may sound sloppy: but a speed fig/pace line of a +/- error of 15 % is more than good enough in horse racing.

Imagine you find a lone speed horse at 9/2 with an ability # of 100, and the best horse is a late runner assigned a # of 100. In this situation, you are going to make $ money over time - despite running into negative situations of the +/- error, because you will have positive ones too.

The just mentioned example is only true if the speed horse is formful.

My contention to this thread is that fulcrum theory is just another useful way to measure ability - but needs to be conjoined with handicapping theories like form analysis to be utilitarian - just like pace analysis or the Beyer would need to be conjoined.

fffastt

[Xman2]

I am very glad that almost nobody uses the fulcrum. I can assure you that it is the furthest thing from trash I can imagine. It is the source of many significant scores for me and an invaluable key in exotics.

Xman2