Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > Handicapping Software


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-11-2006, 07:06 PM   #46
Binder
VDC Messenger
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In and around PHA MED.& MTH
Posts: 739
opps

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
what does "why tell me what see" mean?
Sorry It means I'm tired. I just got home
from fighting the evil drivers and packed roads of New Jersey
My fingers were moving at a different speed then my brain
Bill,
Binder is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-11-2006, 10:49 PM   #47
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
Things stand up or fail based upon the science, not faith. One believes out of evidence not some blind adherence to the theoretical.
There is an almost overwhelming drive in people to support their existing views, despite strong, convincing, and "scientific" proof to the contrary. Generally referred to as "bias," it is the human tendency to discriminate--to only consider valid that which supports their beliefs, and to ignore disconfirming evidence.

That is not my personal opinion. It is the opinion of most scholars, academics, and specialists in the fields of decision theory and information management. It also happens to be the basis for most advertising, sales, and marketing campaigns; not because it is theory, but because it is reality.

For examples from sources that most would consider "credible," you might be interested in Stiff and Mongeau's critique of Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model. That model is more commonly referred to as the Yale Model of Persuasion. For other examples, particularly on the value of preliminary anchoring, you might consider some of Robert Cialdini's work, especially "Influence."

The idea that people are convinced by the "irresistible force of logic" is pretty much a myth. The issue can be encapsulated in the old saying, "Don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up."
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-12-2006, 02:31 AM   #48
bigmack
Registered User
 
bigmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bird Rock
Posts: 16,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt
paranoia, greed and ill health killed what was once the strongest organization in handicapping
I recall hearing of the "Sartin Gang" way back when me and my clan would be in a recording studio, handicapping on the side from the form and one of our guys Tommy came in and told us of a bunch of brainiacs in CA that were more than dialed in on the boardhitters and were crushing the circuit with unabashed vigor.

It must have been a hell of a time knowing intricate things that others didn't and walking into a venue like SA, DMR and the like and thinking "I strongly feel that I know more about the outcome of every race on the card than almost every other person here"

Must have been headytimes for all
bigmack is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-12-2006, 05:01 AM   #49
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmack
I recall hearing of the "Sartin Gang" way back when me and my clan would be in a recording studio, handicapping on the side from the form and one of our guys Tommy came in and told us of a bunch of brainiacs in CA that were more than dialed in on the boardhitters and were crushing the circuit with unabashed vigor.

It must have been a hell of a time knowing intricate things that others didn't and walking into a venue like SA, DMR and the like and thinking "I strongly feel that I know more about the outcome of every race on the card than almost every other person here"

Must have been headytimes for all
It would have been nice if the profits had matched the organizational strength.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-12-2006, 02:03 PM   #50
46zilzal
velocitician
 
46zilzal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 25,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmack

Must have been headytimes for all

Still is when the intracacies of the program are working on a biased day. Case in point is KNOWING when a horse (like Bob and John) is going to crash, or another is SO bolstered up by a bias can be written OFF.
46zilzal is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-12-2006, 08:03 PM   #51
Binder
VDC Messenger
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In and around PHA MED.& MTH
Posts: 739
Yet

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
V/DC (in the program Validator) was a "gimmick" (called probabily convergence) to draw horses of greater probability closer to those with lesser probability by assigning smaller mathematical differences between them.
In the users maunual, actually it is just a small pamphlet, with an
audio cassette. Doc clearly states that Val 2 and Val 1 were made for clients that could not win with Synthesis. With Probability Convergance
and The VDC readout clients who could not win with earier programs
were given a PI or Paceline Indicator The pamplet and audio tape
consist of Doc doing a step by step instuction of 4 races
He says over and over Just let the PI select the best paceline
and forget about trying to handicapp
His gimmick of bringing horses closer together from 4th on the
betting line to first on the VDC readout was clearly explained
and he told the users to look for this as its going to happen lots
of times.

Thats the power of this program which I use today
Binder is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 02:37 AM   #52
46zilzal
velocitician
 
46zilzal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 25,462
anyone who couldn't win with any of the more advanced programs was either MENTALLY CHALLENGED or just lazy and kept NO records whatsoever.
46zilzal is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 06:46 AM   #53
Binder
VDC Messenger
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In and around PHA MED.& MTH
Posts: 739
wow

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
anyone who couldn't win with any of the more advanced programs was either MENTALLY CHALLENGED or just lazy and kept NO records whatsoever.
Gee...

actually your kind of correct. maybe a bit extreme, I think his words were
and I can only do this from memory because its only on the audio tape..
This program (Val 2) is for those who could not win optiminitly
with Synthesis ,and who could not understand the muliplisity? spell check of readouts or felt it took too long to do a race,With probability convergance and VDC we feel we've solved that problem.....
He made Synthesis
sales stopped, People wanted something better or easier. He made them a program and made money and helped people and the company. So what?

Gee I never considered myself
that bad. I did quite well with Synthesis.
and I keep very good records Those records consist
of 20 race cycles and modeling just one readout
The Early/late readout Which was all
Doc said he did and suggested his clients to do
Many of my wager discision forms
from my synthesis days were used in the follow up
What can I tell you? I do better with Val then Synthesis
or Ted Craven's new program Speculator
The methodology worked for me
I'm sorry that it may not have worked that well for you.
I hope you make your profit your way and have fun
Bill

Last edited by Binder; 08-13-2006 at 06:55 AM.
Binder is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 12:51 PM   #54
46zilzal
velocitician
 
46zilzal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 25,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binder
I'm sorry that it may not have worked that well for you.
I hope you make your profit your way and have fun
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

Last edited by 46zilzal; 08-13-2006 at 12:55 PM.
46zilzal is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 05:29 PM   #55
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
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."
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 05:44 PM   #56
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Sartin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binder
<snip>Gee I never considered myself that bad. I did quite well with Synthesis. and I keep very good records Those records consist of 20 race cycles and modeling just one readout The Early/late readout Which was all
Doc said he did and suggested his clients to do
Many of my wager discision forms
from my synthesis days were used in the follow up
What can I tell you? I do better with Val then Synthesis
or Ted Craven's new program Speculator The methodology worked for me
It worked for a lot of people, and still does. As you point out, Sartin himself was minimally concerned with "advanced programs," other than because they generated money and provided crutches for insecure clients. One of his most basic ideas was that if he emphasized the applications, his clients would learn decent analytical skills without realizing what they were doing.

Having watched Sartin pick races on a number of occasions, the entire idea of a computer application "selecting the winner" is almost comical. In Sartin's view, the "proper pace lines" (meaning "the pace lines that will rate Horse A higher than Horse B in whatever application the user is using") "loomed up off the page." That scared a LOT of people, who avoided the fact that it was necessary for THEM to pick the winner, not the application (many still avoid that fact).

Given Sartin's training as a psychologist, it is small wonder that he routinely used psychological techniques, not to trick and deceive, but rather to ease the realization in his clients that THEY had to do the analysis, using the programs as tools, rather than using them as crutches to avoid taking responsibility for the decisions.
Good Luck
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 08:24 PM   #57
shanta
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
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."

I might be wrong but I always believed the best software was the one that offered the best "TOOL KIT" to the person using it. Enabling one to make decisions for themselves.

Which one presented data and other important factors in a layout that was easily absorbed and applied by the user.

In that regard the "new" software being developed will EASILY surpass anything offered by the Methodology to this date. When folks see it for themselves in the coming months there will be NO doubt that from a "tool kit"
standpoint it has few if any rivals. I will stop here as I am NOT the programmer and don't want to create and ad that isn't paid for. I AM involved in testing and other areas of it so I know of what I speak.

Not one pro I know relies on a software for "picks". They make decisions, use intuition and wager based on a gathering of information which comes together to create a bet.

Someone looking for something to tell them what or whom to bet should subscribe to a service or go " raise guppies" as Jim B. used to tell them.

Best part of all this is that it will be done NOT by demeaning and putting down others to make this look better or important. Seems to be quite in fashion today reading a lot of posts by some. "Put down others and I look better". Horsehockey.

Rather a FREE demo for an EXTENDED period of time to users to let THEM figure out it's worth to them. NOT relying on heresay or other bullcrap. Hands on experience in a one on one environment.

The name of the software is tentatively RDSS. Ted Craven ( Museful) is the programmer and creator.

Richie

Last edited by shanta; 08-13-2006 at 08:33 PM. Reason: spelling counts
shanta is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-13-2006, 08:51 PM   #58
Binder
VDC Messenger
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In and around PHA MED.& MTH
Posts: 739
Thanks

Thank you Traynor and Shanta
Binder is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2006, 11:38 PM   #59
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanta
I might be wrong but I always believed the best software was the one that offered the best "TOOL KIT" to the person using it. Enabling one to make decisions for themselves. <snip> Richie
On that point we agree completely. Ultimately, it is the individual using the software that must make the selections, rather than the software. The software can provide metrics, but the relevance and importance of those metrics is a matter of subjective interpretation based on the experience, knowledge, and skill level of the user.

In short, if you can't do fairly well using App A, don't expect that App B is going to make you an instant winner. Or, following Sartin principles to activate consistency and commitment, make you a winner after a long, hard struggle to understand and interpret the various readouts.

With the amount of work that seems to have gone in to the effort, it may provide what you call the best "tool kit." Personally, I hope it does something entirely new, or interprets things in different ways, or provides new and interesting insights into how individual races may unfold. In any event, I wish you and Mr. Craven the best of luck in your endeavor, and look forward to the release.
Good Luck
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2006, 11:46 PM   #60
Lefty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 12,075
Me too, Shanta, but I sure wish there would be a big push to using TSN Procaps data. If that ever happens, before I get too old to see my moniter, i'll buy.
Lefty is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2022 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.