TOTAL VICTORY AT THE TRACK: The Promise and the Performance

[Actor]

Originally Posted by mickey_arnold

I wonder if any software exists for the whole system or key elements shown in the book.

I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. Computer code must be precise, but I find myself guessing as to what he means.

Scott was a terrible mathematician. He'd take a whole page (or pages) to describe something that could be written down in one simple equation. In one book he began by saying "take a blank sheet of paper and write down something-or-other in the upper right corner." Maddening.

Another book has a whole chapter on how to add columns of numbers in your head. Maybe a good skill if you're doing it manually. Useless if you are writing code.

Most methods are hard to program regardless of author but Scott was the worst.

[acorn54]

Originally Posted by Actor

I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. Computer code must be precise, but I find myself guessing as to what he means.

Scott was a terrible mathematician. He'd take a whole page (or pages) to describe something that could be written down in one simple equation. In one book he began by saying "take a blank sheet of paper and write down something-or-other in the upper right corner." Maddening.

Another book has a whole chapter on how to add columns of numbers in your head. Maybe a good skill if you're doing it manually. Useless if you are writing code.

Most methods are hard to program regardless of author but Scott was the worst.

scott was a WRITER OF BOOKS; just because he chose to write about handicapping horses from the data in the past performances of thoroughbred race horses, does not an "expert" make him.
he did have a way with words, i'll give him that.

[upthecreek]

Originally Posted by Actor

I've tried writing software based on Scott's books and found his descriptions just too vague. Computer code must be precise, but I find myself guessing as to what he means.

Scott was a terrible mathematician. He'd take a whole page (or pages) to describe something that could be written down in one simple equation. In one book he began by saying "take a blank sheet of paper and write down something-or-other in the upper right corner." Maddening.

Another book has a whole chapter on how to add columns of numbers in your head. Maybe a good skill if you're doing it manually. Useless if you are writing code.

Most methods are hard to program regardless of author but Scott was the worst.

The Thomas Racing System calculates both the PCR & form factor ratings

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by acorn54

scott was a WRITER OF BOOKS; just because he chose to write about handicapping horses from the data in the past performances of thoroughbred race horses, does not an "expert" make him.
he did have a way with words, i'll give him that.

He was a lawyer...so, a way with words was to be expected.

What Scott's work DID do, although unintentionally, was expose the "good ole boy" network that the popular handicapping authors of that time period had become.

Scott's "Investing at the Racetrack" came out first, embracing the faulty premise of completely neglecting the longer-priced horses in the field, and focusing only on the top three betting choices for wagering purposes. And if that weren't enough...the book's featured handicapping method presented a slightly modified form of "stretch handicapping"...which had been proven to be the least effective form of figure handicapping to employ on the dirt course. But even so...the popular handicapping authors of that time period heaped a mountain of praise upon that book, calling it a "monumental achievement".

Only later, in his last book, did Scott finally reveal that his reasoning in Investing at the Racetrack was flawed.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The book is a work of FICTION...

I love his Big Week at Belmont in Investing at the Racetrack. It's entertaining. They should make it into a movie. Wait a minute. I think they did, only they called it Let It Ride.

[JohnGalt1]

Actor, I hope this will answer some of your questions from my perspective.

I have read all three books.

I have had success using Scott's methods. With modifications.

One--First I rank horses in their running styles. E, EP, P and S.

Two--I make my Performance Class Ratings only using the finish. I know he wrote it wasn't as effective for him since he used two numbers, 2nd call and finish, to determine running style. I ignore any finish if horse lost by 40+ lengths or in the comments state horse was eased, or severe trouble and didn't recover.

Three--For class I created a chart for quick comparison of class levels. I used 20% as a level one up or down. So 16 on my chart ranks Stakes $8k equal to open Alw $10k, and $12k Op Claim or normal Starter Alw, and $20k open Claimer, and $32k Mdn Sp Wght, and $100k Mdn Claimer.

Adjustments--State bred down 2 levels, NW3 down one level, NW2 down 2 levels, fillie/mare in race for males down 2 levels. So the level 16 open $20k claiming race is equal to $50k state bred NW2 claiming race.

Scott adjusts 1, 2, or 3 points. One level is one point adjustment in the class adjustment. 2-7 levels is 2 points and 8 levels and more is 3. I decided 8+ is 3 points.

But since I only use the final call, I adjust by half. My PCR line looks like this 69/45-4=41 168. Another horse from that race looks like 43/15+1.5=16.5 261.

Being a baseball fan like that they look like betting averages.

Some complaints are his method is it's too time consuming. With my chart and not using the second call I save many minutes per race, plus with experience I'm faster now.

Four--I DO NOT USE HIS MATHOD OF COMPUTING ABILITY TIMES! It's inaccurate, when he converts routes to sprints and especially sprints to routes. As you know his sprint to route conversions are almost always TOO FAST.

I use Hambleton pace figures from the book "Pace Makes the Race" by Sartin.

So the complete lines for the two horses above look like.

69/45-4=41--168 NNNrh(returning horse after lay off)--77--102--179

43/15+1.5=16.5--261--N+Nrh--89--82--171

Five--to make my figure making faster I have a 3 page chart of $10k par times for each track.

Because I pass so many races I need a quick but effective method.

In summary, this method can be done in a less time consuming manner and can be less complicated.

I try to use all factors, including breeding and trainers, after deciding what priority to give each factor depending on the race.

[jk3521]

https://archive.org/details/VictoryT...ndicapper_1020

[raybo]

One of our AllData users modified the "AllData J1" Excel workbook to include much of Scott's work. This modified workbook was named "AllData_J1_CUSTOM_PRINTSHEETS_v5.xls".

The workbook is free and downloadable here, down at the bottom of the page: http://alldataexcel.weebly.com/allda...-download.html

The "AllData" workbooks accept the Brisnet ".drf" and ".mcp" files, and the JCapper/HDW ".jcp" files, as well as both of those sources' ".xrd" results files.

Look at the "FORM" and "ODDS" worksheets for those ratings.

[upthecreek]

There a supposedly "rare" Scott booklet selling on EBay called Improvement Factor

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by upthecreek

There a supposedly "rare" Scott booklet selling on EBay called Improvement Factor

How much is it? I have some money to burn...

[upthecreek]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How much is it? I have some money to burn...

Currently $21.69 with 3 bids so far

[Tom]

If it the one I have, he co-wrote it with himself - Joseph Finley.
The book looks at improvement by comparing the last couple of races.

I met The author at a Sartin Seminar in Baltimore. He was a guest speaker and he gave us a method for getting contenders in a race. This was not long after the Beyers came out in the Racing Times.

1. Look at the last two races for all the horses, and circle the top 3 Beyers of them all.
2. Ignore the top tow races and look at all the older ones, and again circle the top 3 Beyers of those races.
3. You now have 3 to 6 horses, and these are your contenders.
4. Find pace lines for each and evaluate the horses.


I used that method at FL for a couple of years, and did alright with it.
I got a few long shots from the second group, that I would not have had normally. A lot of them placed or showed, so the method had it's good points.

[JohnGalt1]

Scott's PCR ratings are my prime handicapping factor for today's NY's version of the claiming crown.

Some make the mistake of treating the races like stakes races, but they are in reality starter allowances.

Race one is not a $80k stakes race, but a $25k starter allowance. So the 3 horse Joking, whose last race was a $25k starter is not going up in class from that race, IMO, but is running at the same class. The previous race, a $67k Allowance is 5 levels higher in class than this "stakes race" as I made my PCR's.

I advise handicapping all these, and GP's Claiming Crown races as if they were starter allowances, because that is the main condition of the races.

I made a good profit doing this betting 2014's claiming crown, thanks to the stewards leaving all my winners up.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Scott's PCR ratings are my prime handicapping factor for today's NY's version of the claiming crown.

Some make the mistake of treating the races like stakes races, but they are in reality starter allowances.

Race one is not a $80k stakes race, but a $25k starter allowance. So the 3 horse Joking, whose last race was a $25k starter is not going up in class from that race, IMO, but is running at the same class. The previous race, a $67k Allowance is 5 levels higher in class than this "stakes race" as I made my PCR's.

I advise handicapping all these, and GP's Claiming Crown races as if they were starter allowances, because that is the main condition of the races.

I made a good profit doing this betting 2014's claiming crown, thanks to the stewards leaving all my winners up.

nice posting

[Tom]

I treat all starter races the same - poison.
I never bet them.