Meadow calls Sartin con man

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Light

Despite some ostentatious claims by Sartin, he does have some practical tools for the everyday handicapper that are still useful today. I find nothing useful from BM's works. So who is the real conman?

Not interested in Sartin, my eyes glazed over listening to him talk.



Anyone else think BM has NOTHING useful to say ? Kind of doubt that .

[46zilzal]

Not the first, no the last of the idiots who, without ever trying it, label it a con.

NOW the person, Howard Sartin was much akin to Phinneus T. Barnum but NOT his ideas

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by barn32

I wonder what Dick Schmidt, Tom Brohamer and Jim the Hat Bradshaw would have to say about Sartin's "con-man" legacy.

Just to name a few.

Micheal Pizzola as well and Dave Schwartz might disagree with this characterization

[46zilzal]

There remains either BEFORE Howard came along or after, THERE is no one way to do anything.

I was privy to testing many iterations of the Last program his programmer wrote ( at the Yahoo site Sartin alums where I was the moderator for over ten years), SPECULATOR and had great success with it when applying it to the tracks and the situation my record keeping told me where it worked, stayed away from those where it did not.

[AltonKelsey]

once again , we have a lot of claims of success, but nothing that can be proved or backtested.


some of these gimmicks, you put 1000 monkeys at the wheel, some will be NASCAR class , some will crash. Randomly.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Micheal Pizzola as well and Dave Schwartz might disagree with this characterization

Well, 46, now you did it.

Yep. I have an opinion as well as a lot of knowledge about what went on back in those "good old days."

Was Sartin a "real psychologist?" Well, if you mean, "Did he ever practice?" Yes, he did.

I know that because in 1986, the year before I ever heard of the Methodology, he delivered a paper to a convention of psychologists in, of all places, Reno. I actually had the paper at one time. (Howard used to hand them out.)

I also met a psychologist from Reno who attended that talk at Univ. Nevada, Reno. Now, the truth about that conference is not pretty.

The paper was titled (something like), If Alcoholism is One Side of the Coin, Abstinence is the Other.

The paper was not well-received. My old psychologist-friend told me how academics show their displeasure with a paper by leaving in the middle of the presentation. He told me that when he left, there were only 3 left in the auditorium.

Was Sartin a "real" doctor of psychology? Very doubtful. However, he DID have a "real" diploma.

Was he a CON MAN? I suppose he was a bit of a con, with the multi-ticket buys in the same race and stuff like that. ("I've got that winner!" as he reaches into his pocket. "No wait! It's in THIS pocket.")

But, IMHO, the most important question is...
DID HE HAVE GREAT IDEAS?
He absolutely did. Were all the ideas original? Of course not. Synthesizing the work of others is the way science and mankind in general moves forward.

I first heard of "incremental velocity" back in 1978 from Bob Baskett of the old Gambler's Book Club. Couldn't tell you who the author was, but it wasn't Howard. Personally, I couldn't make it work.

What Howard did for incremental velocity was to tune it and make it actually viable. The guy(s) who came before didn't do that.

IMHO, he is deserving of GREAT RESPECT for the ideas that he grew from small seedlings into great trees.

So, I will choose to address him as Doctor Howard Sartin if someone asks. Respect is not a costly thing to give.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

once again , we have a lot of claims of success, but nothing that can be proved or backtested.


some of these gimmicks, you put 1000 monkeys at the wheel, some will be NASCAR class , some will crash. Randomly.

What is to prove or backtest?
He DID NOT SELL systems.

YOU say your eyes glazed over, I say mine opened up, and I use a lot of his ideas to this day.

THAT pretty much "proves it"

[Tom]

And it was Tom Brohamer, at a Sartin seminar in Baltimore, that introduced me to Dave Schwartz. He talked about this guy who made good par times - and he was right!

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Tom

What is to prove or backtest?
He DID NOT SELL systems.

YOU say your eyes glazed over, I say mine opened up, and I use a lot of his ideas to this day.

THAT pretty much "proves it"

Then can we assume you're a profitable bettor ? Since I don't know , I have to ask .

[LemonSoupKid]

Interesting thread ... I'm about 1/4 of the way through Meadow's new book and I'm already thinking that Money Secrets was way better, and far more concise. I hope the remainder provides a few gems.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Then can we assume you're a profitable bettor ? Since I don't know , I have to ask .

Do you work for the IRS?

Yes, I am.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by barn32
I wonder what Dick Schmidt, Tom Brohamer and Jim the Hat Bradshaw would have to say about Sartin's "con-man" legacy.

Just to name a few.

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Micheal Pizzola as well and Dave Schwartz might disagree with this characterization

You're obviously mischaracterizing what I said, or your reading comprehension has gone askew.

So I'll posit this:

Doc Sartin and Jim Bradshaw were the best of friends. Does that clear things up for you?

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The con men only exist because people like to be lied to.

Alright, thask.
Please keep the political truisms out of the racing threads.

[keenang]

I am an old user of his stuff(not anymore) and attended his classes in the 1980s and as I have said many times the only people that made any since at that time were Tom B. and Micheal P. I sat with him at the old Marina hotel in Vegas, he was not a big bettor but he did bet Those were the good old days.
Maybe there are some guys in here that also attended some of the seminars. I hope so (if you are wondering I am 87 years young) and still betting.

Good racing luck
Geno

[cratman]

Howard Sartin understood a great deal about psychology. My view on this is informed not only by the formal degree I have in psychology, from the same university our president boasts of attending, but also on insights he provided in connection with a project I worked on. His insights were inconsistent with that of a well-known professor who when presented with Howard's thinking acknowledged Howard was correct. This professor was later awarded a Nobel prize, which only added to my appreciation for the quality of Howard's analysis.