William L. Scott

[Actor]

Maybe this topic should be in the Handicapping Library forum but I think it fits better here.

I'm reading Total Victory at the Track by William L. Scott. There are two chapters on computing "ability times," one for sprints and one for routes. He gets the "span time" for the lead horse between the 2nd call and the finish, adjusts for beaten lengths using his own table, and finally adjusts for track variant, again using his own table.

But it seems to me if you simply take the winner's time, adjust for the subject horse's beaten lengths and the track variant (again using Scott's tables) you get the same number in the end. I've done it this way with all Scott's examples and I've gotten the same number every time.

In other words, Scott's protestations notwithstanding, his ability times are simply final time with a couple of simple adjustments thrown in.

Or am I not doing it right?

[JohnGalt1]

I make and use Scott's Performance Class Ratings, but his pace figures are flawed for reasons you mentioned. For instance I don't make a sprint figure using the 6f furlong speed from a route, I use the whole race. I did make and use them, but even in the sample races in the book they don't reflect the outcomes of the races he highlights.

I create my pace figures from the book Pace Makes The Race by Howard Sartin and others.

I find it more accurate to adjust between routes and sprints. I adjust my pace figures by using Cynthia's par book and the DRF track variant.

There's no rule that says you have to use and follow one's book or method religiously.

I borrow(steal) from Scott, Sartin, Pizzolla, Serra(for turf breeding), and others. Plus I tweak and sometimes ignore some of their ideas. For instance I don't use the 2nd call to make my PCR's, since I first list all horses divided by their running styles-E, EP, P, and S.

If you concentrate on horses with the top 3 PCR's, and top 3 TPR's that have no form defects, and who's running style fits the track and race, it will put you on live horses.

My favorite reason for using PCR's is so few use them.

I hope this helps answer you question.

[Turkoman]

I'm not sure if it's the same book, but I have one I bought many years ago, titled Investing At The Racetrack. I tried using his ability times method, but didn't quite work for me. Also, he mentioned that the faster tracks didn't affect the ability times very much, but I doubt it. I think the book is from the year 1986.

Turkoman

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Turkoman

I'm not sure if it's the same book, but I have one I bought many years ago, titled Investing At The Racetrack.
Turkoman

No it's not the same book.
Total Victory at the Track....is a much more comprehensive book.
I built a program using his performance class ideas 10 or so years ago.
It was a very tedious process, but was producing positive results.
However, I was working out his numbers by hand and it was just taking too long.
When I was in the Gamblers Book store in 'Vegas, I noticed that quite a few of Scott's books had been returned. Others must have found them tedious too, however, I wouldn't knock anyone who is using his ideas. He was a very smart man.

[Turkoman]

Thanks for clearing that up about the book title. The book I have is very interesting, and it's obvious that Mr. Scott was a highly intelligent individual. I'm just saying I couldn't benefit from his method, using the ability times.

Turkoman

[schweitz]

Used his methods successfully in the early 90's, then everything changed when speed figures showed up everywhere and computer programs made their debut.
It was a lot of work but paid off because few were going to this much trouble.Ah, the good old days.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Actor

Maybe this topic should be in the Handicapping Library forum but I think it fits better here.

I'm reading Total Victory at the Track by William L. Scott. There are two chapters on computing "ability times," one for sprints and one for routes. He gets the "span time" for the lead horse between the 2nd call and the finish, adjusts for beaten lengths using his own table, and finally adjusts for track variant, again using his own table.

But it seems to me if you simply take the winner's time, adjust for the subject horse's beaten lengths and the track variant (again using Scott's tables) you get the same number in the end. I've done it this way with all Scott's examples and I've gotten the same number every time.

In other words, Scott's protestations notwithstanding, his ability times are simply final time with a couple of simple adjustments thrown in.

Or am I not doing it right?

Try the following two books together and you might get a better understanding of William L. Scott:

• Figure Handicapping: A Practical Guide to the Interpretation and Use of Speed and Pace Figures (Hardcover) by James Quinn, James Brian Quinn

• How Will Your Horse Run Today [Paperback], William L. Scott

[thaskalos]

I don't relish speaking ill of the dead...but William L. Scott's books epitomize the injustice that some handicapping authors have commited against the unsuspecting horse racing public, IMO.

When charlatans, operating out of Post Office boxes, offer to give us the "key to the mint" for $49.95...the "con" is easy to see.

But when this is perpetrated by people with impressive credentials after their names...and their work comes with "glowing" recommendations from other respected handicapping names...then a lot of players get taken in...

When I read Scott's book "Investing At The Race Track", when it first came out...I was struck by the authoritative voice with which he declared that he had managed to finally "systematize" the entire handicapping process, based on his extensive "empirical" evidence.

"We will finally be investors, instead of gamblers", he proudly exclaimed...and some of the most famous handicapping authors agreed with him...showering the book with accolades.

It was just another loser, of course, as was his subsequent book, "How Will Your Horse Run Today"...which was also favorably reviewed by the "experts".

Only when Scott released his next book, "Total Victory At The Track", did he finally acknowledge the shortcomings of his prior works...

[Tom]

When charlatans, operating out of Post Office boxes, offer to give us the "key to the mint" for $49.95...the "con" is easy to see.

Scott was a lawyer who argued in front of the Supreme Court. Hardly a charlatan. He was a guy who loved handicapping and shared his findings.
I met him and he was a genuinely nice guy who was not out to screw anyone.

It was just another loser, of course, as was his subsequent book, "How Will Your Horse Run Today"...which was also favorably reviewed by the "experts".

Gee, I seemed to make a lot of money using his ideas, from both books.
Maybe you missed a chapter. Or didn't understand a couple of them.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

Scott was a lawyer who argued in front of the Supreme Court. Hardly a charlatan. He was a guy who loved handicapping and shared his findings.
I met him and he was a genuinely nice guy who was not out to screw anyone.




Gee, I seemed to make a lot of money using his ideas, from both books.
Maybe you missed a chapter. Or didn't understand a couple of them.

I am well aware that he was a lawyer who argued in front of the Supreme Court, and I also met him...in a handicapping conference in Las Vegas.

Would you care to enlighten me as to the ideas that I might have missed...which have made you a lot of money?

If there is a poll taken on this board...I would wager heavily that your opinion on his first 2 works would be in the minority.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Tom

Gee, I seemed to make a lot of money using his ideas, from both books.

Me too. Some get' em and some don't.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Would you care to enlighten me as to the ideas that I might have missed...which have made you a lot of money?

If there is a poll taken on this board...I would wager heavily that your opinion on his first 2 works would be in the minority.

1. How could Tom mind read and tell you what you missed? A silly request.

2. A poll would mean nothing. Some handicappers got top value from those books. If 95 % didn't, that's their problem.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

1. How could Tom mind read and tell you what you missed? A silly request.

2. A poll would mean nothing. Some handicappers got top value from those books. If 95 % didn't, that's their problem.

I missed nothing Greyfox...I have read every single serious handicapping work that has been published in the last 30 years.

When I say that Scott's works were misrepresented, when they were ambitiously labeled as "Investing At The Race Track", and "Total Victory At The Track"...I believe that I am stating a fact, which would be backed up by the vast majority of the people who read them.

I never implied that 100% of the people would agree with me...heck, 100% of the people never agree on anything.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When I say that Scott's works were misrepresented, when they were ambitiously labeled as "Investing At The Race Track", and "Total Victory At The Track"...I believe that I am stating a fact,

The publisher might have put those titles on.
Scott probably did Invest at the Track.
Total Victory is a hyperbole. I think that when ever one buys a books we we those titles all the time. eg. "Build the Perfect Golf Swing" "30 days to fitness without exercising" and on they go. One shouldn't judge a book by it's title or it's cover. We all know that.

[Tom]

If there is a poll taken on this board...I would wager heavily that your opinion on his first 2 works would be in the minority.

So when it comes to racing, you follow the favorites?
When the majority agree with you........