Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greyfox
I used Scott's methodology for several months as an alternative to Pace handicapping.
For me it worked just fine and was particularly helpful in playing 3x4x5 triacta plays.
However, I was doing all of the work manually with a paper and pencil.
It was a very tedious process for sure.
I was taking at least 45 minutes a race to do all of the additions and calculations suggested by Scott.
Certainly, I can't knock the book.
Some years later I was in the Gamblers Book Store in Las Vegas.
On one table were about 12 copies that had been returned that were for sale at reduced prices.
From that I concluded that other players must have found his system to tedious as well.
|
That's why I titled my initial post here "In my opinion"; I wanted it known that what I said was based strictly on my OWN experience. I am not one of those who gets turned off by tedious handicapping. I enjoy handicapping...whether it's tedious or not. I tested extensively the systems of BOTH of Mr. Scott's books -- this, and also the system in "Investing at the Racetrack" -- and my results were nothing like the results that the author had reported in his books.
Can William L. Scott's work be successfully improved upon...or, can parts of it play an important role in a horseplayer's EXISTING handicapping method?
Of course!
But Mr. Scott does not present his work as a non-systematic array of handicapping ideas, which could be picked apart and reassembled by the reader; he presents his work as ready-made and profitable handicapping SYSTEMS.
And as such...his work does not withstand intense scrutiny.
