Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
you know what they say about assuming anything.
also there are few floating around who couldn't find water in the ocean even with the programs. CLUELESS
|
The attempt to make it seem that all the "true believers" were making money hand over fist because of the sophistication of the Sartin Methodology programs is somewhat misleading. "Winning" and "making a profit" are different; lots of people won lots of races, but not so many made a profit of substance. Even Pizzola, in his diplomatic "divorce" of his involvement with Sartin, left it by saying that he bet a lot of races, but failed to make a decent profit.
If the point is the marketing of some new generation "Sartin-type" application waiting in the wings for the right moment, you may have to do a better job of convincing people that the "advanced programs" did any more than the "basic programs."
Sartin's belief was that the programs were simply crutches for people too insecure, too tentative, and too lacking in self-confidence to make their own decisions. His intent was to develop handicappers--to force critical analysis of races and results to develop pattern recognition skills. That was his "contribution," not some spiffy little number-cruncher app that spewed out screens of "ratings."
To believe that the applications were the essence of the Sartin Methodology is to miss the point completely; the applications were a source of revenue and a crutch for the insecure. Which explains a lot of why Sartin was dismissive of those obsessed with selecting readout A over readout B, or those who wanted an application that would do all the work for them. His belief was that placing the emphasis on the applications crippled the prospective handicapper from ever gaining real insights into race analysis.
I was "immersed" in the Sartin Methodology for a number of years, and did well. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the "advanced programs," which were about as slick as sandpaper. Binder knows, whether he knows he knows or not; he was listening when Sartin said the person was more important than the application. Sartin trained people to analyze horse races, not to sit fixated in front of a monitor watching the readouts of the "latest, greatest, never-pick-another-pace-line-yourself" application.
I was one of those who realized what was important in the Sartin Methodology early on, and focused on learning pattern-recognition, rather than "interpreting readouts." (A view, FYI, that Sartin wholeheartedly agreed with--his view was that "computer-users" were insecure souls looking for excuses to lose). I was also one of those who realized that in order to properly use the Sartin Methodology, the user had to know which horse was most likely to win the race BEFORE calculating and comparing. That was the whole point of "finding the true contenders" and "picking the proper pace line."
The demise of the Sartin Methodology was related more to the increased dependence on computer readouts by his "clients" than any other factor. They were adept at accumulating piles of race printouts to "study," but failed to understand what that study was intended to accomplish. Extract the psychology from Sartin's methods and little is left except the same boring, number-crunching that a hundred other applications do as well or better.
So, I agree with you. Anyone who can't win is MENTALLY CHALLENGED, LAZY, and DOESN'T KEEP RECORDS. And anyone who depends on a computer application to use the Sartin Methodology misses the point entirely. As Jim Bradshaw was fond of asking, "Why do you need a computer? It's nothing but a dang horse race."
