I have a copy of Synergetic Match Up 2, but

[thaskalos]

[quote=Partsnut;2594305]

Originally Posted by lefty359

Sartin was a great marketer and businessman but in reality the Doc wasn't a Dr. of anything.
He found and preyed on a niche market and capitalized on it. Money talks and you know what walks.

As far as I'm concerned, his credibility, ethics and motives were very questionable.
To me the Sartin Methodology was and still is reminiscent of a cult following.


Lefty, If it works for you then keep with it.

I wish you the best.

Howard Sartin's ethics may well have been "questionable"...but I, myself, hold Ted Craven in the highest regard. So...I refuse to accept the notion that the Sartin Methodology is "still reminiscent of a cult following".

[Partsnut]

[quote=thaskalos;2594311]

Originally Posted by Partsnut

Howard Sartin's ethics may well have been "questionable"...but I, myself, hold Ted Craven in the highest regard. So...I refuse to accept the notion that the Sartin Methodology is "still reminiscent of a cult following".

With all due respect, that is your privilege.

[46zilzal]

Those who describe Sartinists as part of a cult usually fell into two categories whenever I mentioned that I used it: 1) Those who gave it a try (usually not long enough to understand it subtleties) and could not get it to work for them, and 2) those completely ignorant of what it was all about.

I had to laugh that in Betting Thoroughbreds: A Professional's Guide for the Horse player: Second Revised Edition,,,,Old Davidowitz, a rabid anti-Sartin voice, devoted an entire chapter to its criticism calling that "Pseudoscience." I got the impression that negative feedback was afoot since in the next edition that chapter MYSTERIOUSLY disappeared.

[Partsnut]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Those who describe Sartinists as part of a cult usually fell into two categories whenever I mentioned that I used it: 1) Those who gave it a try (usually not long enough to understand it subtleties) and could not get it to work for them, and 2) those completely ignorant of what it was all about.

I had to laugh that in Betting Thoroughbreds: A Professional's Guide for the Horse player: Second Revised Edition,,,,Old Davidowitz, a rabid anti-Sartin voice, devoted an entire chapter to its criticism calling that "Pseudoscience." I got the impression that negative feedback was afoot since in the next edition that chapter MYSTERIOUSLY disappeared.

I was a Sartin user for at about 25 years and did quite well with them.
I was occasionally conversed with Bob Purdy, Michael Perry, Jimmy Bradshaw, Elliot Sidewater and many others.

I was an Energy ,Thoromation and Synergism user and had a full understanding of these applications and their subtleties.



Davidowitz was not the only Sartin detractor. There were and still are others, myself included. Some were very formidable authors that were active and were very knowledgeable players who were published in book form and in magazine articles that compared and described the Sartin Methodology as being cult like.


Even though all of us may not agree on everything, I always appreciate and respect your input, opinion. and your right to express them. Please respect mine.

[46zilzal]

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

So you agreed to go by the rules when you bought the program?
If you are STUPID enough to follow rules you do not like, then you deserve to lose. What the heel does any of this "rules" crap have to do with the programs themselves? I use many of the old programs with TimeForm adjusted times and my own pacelines (yes, pacelines! I enter 2, 3 even 4 for a horse....DUH! You were under the assumsption that you could not do this?)

But even using the old rules, explain Bill Varone to me.......

My GAWD, that crap people whine about. A guy asks for help to use a program HE wants to use and it triggers a mob attack.
And one guy even blasts another for his ROI in a contest on another board - what LOSER he is!

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

Ever do a 100 race study, both ways, and compare the results, you know, the SCIENTIFIC method, or just your anecdotal opinion?

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Tom

Ever do a 100 race study, both ways, and compare the results, you know, the SCIENTIFIC method, or just your anecdotal opinion?

Don't need that sample size, but I kept result accumulative and did not come to any conclusions until the number of examples was up over 50...Further examples after that only substantiated my original idea.....Since there was no chance of a CONTROL group to compare this to, your ridiculous contention has no merit here....Single factor angle. In a drug test, level 3 clinical trail, experimental design accounts for the fact that everything in the testing group is exactly the same in the experimental group other than the active pharmacological agent...

Another good angle taught to me by a good handicapper at our group in Minnesota ( T.) was the Damon Runyon......When you find fields that are within a single foot per second TRUE SPEED (i.e 54.2, 54.6, 54,1, 54.7 etc) one used the Sartin based deceleration (ratio of final fraction over 2nd call velocity) to differentiate the contenders. This one got its name since we found it first in the stakes race of that name at NYRA. It was uncommonly found but had an amazing hit rate...

That same deceleration number proved to be a very effective model to see how well the closers did on the turf course at Woodbine where is was very effective. That LONG stretch on the big turf course did not promote itself to letting horses with decelerations above 115% (unless they were outstanding total energy toppers like the great Court Vision who closed the final fraction in a velocity most sprinters could barely touch in their 2nd fraction (> 62 feet/sec)) close enough to get to the wire on time. I never used it until much later to model shorter turf courses and it worked well at some, not so well at others

Other prominent angles that were created via that group: (ONE OF THE BEST) 2nd call maidens...Style over Substance (in some chaos races ONE particular racing style, or energy distribution, had no rival so often this horse, despite not having the fractional velocity behind it, FIT a style that was missing and moved up quite a bit, Two Lines Better than the Field...I was overjoyed when I discovered I had found what Dave Schwartz found in HSH with his "two best ever" analyst...This angle still today works far better on the lawn than the regular track.

Horses going off form via progressively increasing %median...We found that Sustained Pace was the best single evaluator of this (now along with the Power analyst of HSH, the two are even stronger)...A combination of decreasing total energy along with increasing % medial pointed out many a 'short' colt in the Triple Crown (Hard Spun is a classic example as was Bellamy Road figured to be a complete wash out and was).

Order within Chaos and many others......You are only limited by what you can prove effective using that program. I NEVER bought that hogwash (like the probably apocryphal story that in the 1890's they wanted to close the patent office because "Well everything had been invented hadn't it?) that one was limited by the initial instructions as there are too many innovative creative handicappers out there in the real worl.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Tom

So you agreed to go by the rules when you bought the program?

NO, NEVER did

[46zilzal]

You described the perfect loser there and one who has the innovative ability of a large rock

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

So you agreed to go by the rules when you bought the program?
If you are STUPID enough to follow rules you do not like, then you deserve to lose. What the heel does any of this "rules" crap have to do with the programs themselves? I use many of the old programs with TimeForm adjusted times and my own pacelines (yes, pacelines! I enter 2, 3 even 4 for a horse....DUH! You were under the assumsption that you could not do this?)

But even using the old rules, explain Bill Varone to me.......

My GAWD, that crap people whine about. A guy asks for help to use a program HE wants to use and it triggers a mob attack.
And one guy even blasts another for his ROI in a contest on another board - what LOSER he is!

Yeah...I found that surprising too. It seems to me that a person shouldn't attack another's ROI, without supplying an ROI of his own.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yeah...I found that surprising too. It seems to me that a person shouldn't attack another's ROI, without supplying an ROI of his own.

If it is not at least 1.10 to 1.15, said person should go back to the drawing board

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

If it is not at least 1.10 to 1.15, said person should go back to the drawing board

"At least an 1.15", with 1.00 being even? Will the possessor of such a long-term ROI please raise his hand?

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

My favorite "purist" idea to prove completely false was the basic instruction: "NEVER enter a line when a horse was beaten more than 7.5? lengths."

This one completely negated the discovery of improving early speed often hidden in a horse that did no finish up all that well but was improving early..
EVERY TIME I found another one that overwhelmed this rule I would post it to our newsgroup.

That old ding-dong was resolved 15 years ago and is not an issue in the main mode of RDSS. This is not the place for such minutiae. Every time it came up year after year, I explained why the original advice, and why now it was not an issue. Sorry if some people are just now discovering that the train moved on.

In Sartin's long, evolutionary and very public career, I'm sure there are dozens more 'gotchas' from the past (and current) Methodology which people can disparage in order to prove their superior ability. Its curious that some critical posters in this thread either never tried RDSS or barely did. Yet they trot out their 'credentials' whenever suitable.

As for my own current contest results, setting aside how well all the RDSS teams did over the years in the PAIHL Team contests here, I feel in good company with numerous previous NHC winners that I am not yet at the top of the leaderboard in this year's edition of a $2WP contest with reduced race pickings. Anyway, several of us contestants have already donated our future winnings to Covid-related charities.

Ted

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"At least an 1.15", with 1.00 being even? Will the possessor of such a long-term ROI please raise his hand?

Isn't that called profit using 1.0 as the break even point...For a very short time I was up to 1.32 (for about a week moons ago)..

I would take 1.0 for short periods but would stop if the bankroll were eroding. MOST people allow the betting side of the equation beat them

Have to follow this wonderful thought that I posted the other day to another group." All good fortune is a gift from the gods. And you don't win the favor of the ancient gods by being good, but by bring BOLD"...Anita Brookner