Sartin Methodology still used?

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

Thanks, Ted. My use of the term "VDC" was intended to convey in a generic sense that the number was velocity-to-deceleration. I was unaware that you used a proprietary formula and extended that proprietary nature to the name.

I certainly want to have everyone understand that Quick Grid is a unique product with unique calculations, so in the future I will refer to my velocity-to-deceleration number as "QDC", knowing that Quick Grid users will continue to enjoy its use under the new name.

Thank you.

[lefty359]

I learned a lot from Doc Sartin and his methods.


His methods have to be the most copied in history of the game.
Charlatan? I think not.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Thank you.

Since I first copyrighted deceleration software in 1982, I guess it is past time to hang my own label to it.

[Lt1]

Hi folks. I just returned to this site several days ago and found this discussion. I
joined the Sartin group in 1990. I met Howard in 1990 at a Sar seminar. Also was fortunate enough to meet Jim the Hat Bradshaw and spend time with them at various seminars and by phone. I attended 13 seminars over the yrs from N.Y to Vegas. Over my first 8 yrs I struggle like most folks. I could only play on weekends. In 1998 I retired and had more time to devote to the Methodology. Unfortunately due to a family crisis I had to give up handicapping. In 2012 I discovered Pace & Cap and joined up. I purchased the RDSS software and read all the available info on the site. I began keeping records on the tracks I was playing and began to see that certain factors of the program were producing winners more frequently. There were several which worked everywhere while others were more track specific. I kept[and still do]my records by dist & surface. Since then I have been winning on a consistent basis yearly. As Ted Craven pointed out I post my selections 4 to 5 times a week in the selection section along with the days' recap. Also if I hit a good score I post those in the races of interests section along with copies of my actual ticket bet at Twin Spires along with screen shots an explanation showing how I arrived at my bet. As faith would have it I posted my picks for Parx 4-19 & Aqu 4-20 along with recaps in the selection section of this site[Lt1]. Feel free to check them out comment if you wish. As for the Doc he did bet every time I was with him and I am forever grateful for getting the chance to have met him. In my humble opinion there was no way he was a phony or ripping folks off. So yes the Sartin Methodology is alive and working well. Anyway I'm looking forward to spending more time here.
Tim

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Lt1

Hi folks. I just returned to this site several days ago and found this discussion. I
joined the Sartin group in 1990. I met Howard in 1990 at a Sar seminar. Also was fortunate enough to meet Jim the Hat Bradshaw and spend time with them at various seminars and by phone. I attended 13 seminars over the yrs from N.Y to Vegas. Over my first 8 yrs I struggle like most folks. I could only play on weekends. In 1998 I retired and had more time to devote to the Methodology. Unfortunately due to a family crisis I had to give up handicapping. In 2012 I discovered Pace & Cap and joined up. I purchased the RDSS software and read all the available info on the site. I began keeping records on the tracks I was playing and began to see that certain factors of the program were producing winners more frequently. There were several which worked everywhere while others were more track specific. I kept[and still do]my records by dist & surface. Since then I have been winning on a consistent basis yearly. As Ted Craven pointed out I post my selections 4 to 5 times a week in the selection section along with the days' recap. Also if I hit a good score I post those in the races of interests section along with copies of my actual ticket bet at Twin Spires along with screen shots an explanation showing how I arrived at my bet. As faith would have it I posted my picks for Parx 4-19 & Aqu 4-20 along with recaps in the selection section of this site[Lt1]. Feel free to check them out comment if you wish. As for the Doc he did bet every time I was with him and I am forever grateful for getting the chance to have met him. In my humble opinion there was no way he was a phony or ripping folks off. So yes the Sartin Methodology is alive and working well. Anyway I'm looking forward to spending more time here.
Tim

Welcome Lt1...and I look forward to more contributions from you here. It would be great to have some more stimulating handicapping conversations on this board.

[Lt1]

Thanks thaskalos. I 'll try to keep posting and join in some discussions.
Tim

[cratman]

Originally Posted by DanBoals

Barry Meadow was a nobody trying to be a somebody in the handicapping world and instead of making his bones by his own accomplishments, he did what a lot of people do, he attacked someone who was at the top. So of course he had a reason to lie.



Howard was a psychologist. The fact that Barry Meadow lied about this is reason enough to not believe Barry Meadow. I saw Howard's diploma on the wall behind his desk, we talked about when he worked at psych hospitals and about his work as a therapist. For anyone with any knowledge of the mental health industry to have talked with Howard and not understood not only was he a psychologist, but he was a pretty good one, is impossible.



I am reading Barry's book now after seeing the thread on it. It is a pretty good summary of other people's work. He rehashes Quinn's work on conditions, but doesn't give Quinn any credit for the ideas. He takes a LOT of the stuff Howard published in the 80's, like know your track, like review each race, etc. and pretends he came up with it. If Barry Meadow is your standard of excellence in an author and teacher, good luck with that.

Howard consulted with one of my clients in a matter which did not involve horse racing. Howard provided an insight which was contrary to that of a professor who subsequently won a Noble Prize. The professor acknowledged that Howard was correct.
My discussions with Howard demonstrated that he had a mastery of psychology. My view is informed by my own degree in psychology from what was, at that time, likely the leading program in the US.

[46zilzal]

Sartin: the BEST place to start to learn about pace, without a doubt

[classhandicapper]

I never met any of the people involved, but regardless of whether they were personally winners, grifters or whatever, I think the greater issue to us whether the methodology has any merit.

On that count I think it’s fairly clear it does.

1. Building profiles by track/surface/distance has some merit because on average different tracks/surfaces/distances play differently. IMO, you should probably have some idea of how certain races tend to develop wherever you are playing. That could come in extra handy when horses switch tracks. You can also keep track of recent trends.

2. We all know that pace matters. So anything that tries to incorporate pace into the ratings is probably heading in the right direction. What we are trying to do is optimize our understanding of the relationships, matchups etc..

I’m not familiar enough with Sartin methodology to know how well it works because I’ve always used a method that approximates what CJ and TimeformUS use and then eventually switched over to them entirely for my fraction related pace figures because CJ and his team are excellent. But I also see some merit in what the Sartin advocates do and thinks some of it, like an analysis of internal fractions, is something I’d like to see more data on.

[dlivery]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Sartin: the BEST place to start to learn about pace, without a doubt

Howard also liked when the race starts as soon as the Gate Pops!

[Dave Schwartz]

Whenever this stuff comes up I feel compelled to tell it like it is, or was. Or, at the very least as I understood it to be.

I knew Howard very well.

First, the topic of current conversation.

Did he ever practice psychology?
I believe he did, based upon what he told me.

Was he a psychologist?
Absolutely.

Did he have a degree in psychology?
Absolutely not.
He has admitted that he bought his original diploma.

My understanding is that therapists were not always required to have a PhD in psychology in California in order to diagnose. When the law was enacted, those with license to practice were grandfathered in.

Let's focus on horse racing.
Did Howard invent incremental velocity?
Certainly not.

I was first introduced to incremental velocity by Bob Baskett and Huey Mahl back in 1976, when they both touted me onto a paper written by somebody.

I was still playing Blackjack at the time and really had zero interest. A year later was a different story.

Although there were flashes of brilliance, I just couldn't get it to work for me.

Until I connected with Howard in 1987.

Before everybody convicts him of his failings, consider what he truly accomplished.

He built a methodology.

It started with the concept, then he added some modeling. Not the Brohamer stuff - that came later.

I'm talking about that EP-SP-W stuff that was in the Yellow Manual (Phase 3).

I mean the stuff where he banged in races and came up with a solid hit rate for:

1-1-1
1-1-2
1-1-3
1-2-2
1-2-3
1-3-3
2-2-2
2-2-3
etc.

Logically, this was based upon personal paceline selection, but as he said for years, "90% of the time you will use one of the last 2 lines."
(Near the end of his life, Howard told me that quote was the 2nd worst quote he ever made. It was right up there with "The first race of the day is more important than the last hundred races.")

I contend that this had merit.
Possibly even enough to win back then.

Back on track.


So, was Howard a fraud?
Well, his betting was a bit faked at times.
But that wasn't his strength.

He gathered really good minds together and, between them, they came up with amazing ideas, tried them, improved them... and things were stepping forward.

Just look at who some of those people were.

Tom Brohamer
Dick Schmidt
Mike Pizzolla

I named these because I know... ABSOLUTELY KNOW... that these 3 guys were the real deal.

I have personal stories about all three that are amazing.

Of these, it was Dick Schmidt who was actually the biggest winner, but Tom Brohamer was the better player.

When I get some time, I'll record a video about the two 5-Day MASTER CLASSES that Dick & Michael did.

It changed Dick's life as a handicapper.
In those two weeks he went from being a $5 player to a $200 player.

So, at the end of the day, I would say that Doctor Howard Sartin deserves a whole lot of credit for being a giant in the world of handicapping.

Just my somewhat learned opinion on this topic.

[MJC922]

I'm a believer in analysis of internal fractions to assess race shapes and bring some context to trip observations. So in that respect I think they were on the right track. Where I start to part ways is when things like wind and surface speed which impact internal fractions sometimes significantly are barely getting any mention which I suspect may tie back to the sunny socal weather where this approach gained its initial foothold. Where I part ways completely though gets back to what classhandicapper said earlier about his research which seems to be similar to my own earlier research which clearly shows one line to be inferior in a predictive sense to using more lines. If you're going to ignore that research then what you're saying is essentially I think I can somehow more accurately predict a horse's chances by using a less accurate technique.

There are people who can rationalize that somehow. If you're one of the folks that makes some sense to then have at it. Most of the software is probably built around picking a line so not a lot of you I suspect who really want to follow the approach probably have much of a choice in the matter anyway. I wish everyone went that route of choosing a line but I can almost certainly tell you the primary oddsmakers of today are quick to discard less accurate methods.

IMO the real problem is that race to race consistency is without a doubt a part of class and one line can never be considered more than ability on its own, so you're hanging this mini-blind over the form every race and trying to get a handle on something (the horse's probability) which you can only get so close to by using one line. Like I said I hope more people use it. I don't deny that in the right hands it can probably be somewhat effective but anyone effective with it could probably do a notch better by using other tools.

[Suspicious Tendons]

I still use it. However, you have to get creative with spotting what combinations of categories work for certain distances, surface, and/or projected running types. Things will run as they should, until they stop working. You have to constantly adapt your skills, including handicapping tools. I try separating everyone on a visual running style first, and then use Sartin to gauge if the early types are legit, effective etc... and go down-the-line to the S-types, if they exist. I try to find a comparable line that is within 1 furlong of today's distance, firm/fast surface, and similar class level. It has to be within 105 days or less to be usable (or within 5 races within that timeframe). It is rare if anything beyond Line 3 is winning line, but sometimes it does happen. If it goes beyond 105 days, I take into account past history, workout tab, previous class levels, and if the trainer's stats on 90+ day layoff within the last 12 months.

With E types running tracks with short stretch runs, I give a stronger lean on the SC category, and crosscheck the TS. Tracks like Del Mar, Charles Town, Tampa Bay Downs, Santa Anita, and even Gulfstream... you have to take that category into account. Will the early speed still be on the lead coming out of that final turn? Once it goes to the bigger stretch run tracks like Fairgrounds, Saratoga, Aqueduct etc..., then you have to look if the SR, HID, and TTL on such a front runner shows if he/she has enough gas in the tank to hold on. Going in-order from E to S within the field is a methodology that works for me until I find the likely one.

If there is ONE thing that works well, and has some consistent backing to it, it is making a track profile for energy distribution running styles. You won't see 70% Early-types win at Santa Anita on any of their surfaces, but maybe a handful of those at the dirt distances at Charles Town. Late and sustained pressers are consistently found as the majority of the winners going five panels on Del Mar's turf. Switch to 9.0F turf at Del Mar, and it is Late, Sustained, and Sustained Pressers that totally dominate. Knowing what energy distribution quirks work at each track is absolutely vital to having a one-up on the general betting public. I cannot reiterate that enough.

[Johnny V]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Whenever this stuff comes up I feel compelled to tell it like it is, or was. Or, at the very least as I understood it to be.

I knew Howard very well.

First, the topic of current conversation.

Did he ever practice psychology?
I believe he did, based upon what he told me.

Was he a psychologist?
Absolutely.

Did he have a degree in psychology?
Absolutely not.
He has admitted that he bought his original diploma.

My understanding is that therapists were not always required to have a PhD in psychology in California in order to diagnose. When the law was enacted, those with license to practice were grandfathered in.

Let's focus on horse racing.
Did Howard invent incremental velocity?
Certainly not.

I was first introduced to incremental velocity by Bob Baskett and Huey Mahl back in 1976, when they both touted me onto a paper written by somebody.

I was still playing Blackjack at the time and really had zero interest. A year later was a different story.

Although there were flashes of brilliance, I just couldn't get it to work for me.

Until I connected with Howard in 1987.

Before everybody convicts him of his failings, consider what he truly accomplished.

He built a methodology.

It started with the concept, then he added some modeling. Not the Brohamer stuff - that came later.

I'm talking about that EP-SP-W stuff that was in the Yellow Manual (Phase 3).

I mean the stuff where he banged in races and came up with a solid hit rate for:

1-1-1
1-1-2
1-1-3
1-2-2
1-2-3
1-3-3
2-2-2
2-2-3
etc.

Logically, this was based upon personal paceline selection, but as he said for years, "90% of the time you will use one of the last 2 lines."
(Near the end of his life, Howard told me that quote was the 2nd worst quote he ever made. It was right up there with "The first race of the day is more important than the last hundred races.")

I contend that this had merit.
Possibly even enough to win back then.

Back on track.


So, was Howard a fraud?
Well, his betting was a bit faked at times.
But that wasn't his strength.

He gathered really good minds together and, between them, they came up with amazing ideas, tried them, improved them... and things were stepping forward.

Just look at who some of those people were.

Tom Brohamer
Dick Schmidt
Mike Pizzolla

I named these because I know... ABSOLUTELY KNOW... that these 3 guys were the real deal.

I have personal stories about all three that are amazing.

Of these, it was Dick Schmidt who was actually the biggest winner, but Tom Brohamer was the better player.

When I get some time, I'll record a video about the two 5-Day MASTER CLASSES that Dick & Michael did.

It changed Dick's life as a handicapper.
In those two weeks he went from being a $5 player to a $200 player.

So, at the end of the day, I would say that Doctor Howard Sartin deserves a whole lot of credit for being a giant in the world of handicapping.

Just my somewhat learned opinion on this topic.

Thanks for that post. I know really nothing about the Sartin methodology except in some very general terms. I would really be interested in watching that video of the class that Schmidt and Pizzolla did when you have some time to record it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I'm a believer in analysis of internal fractions to assess race shapes and bring some context to trip observations. So in that respect I think they were on the right track. Where I start to part ways is when things like wind and surface speed which impact internal fractions sometimes significantly are barely getting any mention which I suspect may tie back to the sunny socal weather where this approach gained its initial foothold. Where I part ways completely though gets back to what classhandicapper said earlier about his research which seems to be similar to my own earlier research which clearly shows one line to be inferior in a predictive sense to using more lines. If you're going to ignore that research then what you're saying is essentially I think I can somehow more accurately predict a horse's chances by using a less accurate technique.

There are people who can rationalize that somehow. If you're one of the folks that makes some sense to then have at it. Most of the software is probably built around picking a line so not a lot of you I suspect who really want to follow the approach probably have much of a choice in the matter anyway. I wish everyone went that route of choosing a line but I can almost certainly tell you the primary oddsmakers of today are quick to discard less accurate methods.

IMO the real problem is that race to race consistency is without a doubt a part of class and one line can never be considered more than ability on its own, so you're hanging this mini-blind over the form every race and trying to get a handle on something (the horse's probability) which you can only get so close to by using one line. Like I said I hope more people use it. I don't deny that in the right hands it can probably be somewhat effective but anyone effective with it could probably do a notch better by using other tools.

Are you sure you aren't my long lost brother or something?

We think a lot alike. Maybe that's because we've both done a lot of actual research.

If I could add one other thing.

One of the problems with the 1 line method is that if you are losing, the easy response from advocates of Sartin methodology is going to be "well, you are just picking the wrong lines". I suppose that could be the case, but it could also easily be the method. You need some objective way of testing the method predictive ability and value.