smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sek,
> I'm sure everyone is as sick of this as I am, so
> I'm gonna account for the horses I used, the
> criteria I used, and then you come back and inform
> me where else my, still not finished, information
> is wrong. At any rate, I'm done responding to you.
>
Why are you getting so hostile because I pointed out flaws in your approach?
> Brother Derek is in the 4th slot in the group of
> numbers 11-0-0-1-1. I know he ran a negative at 1
> M. He didn't win, that's my point on him.
This is a poor point, because he paired his negative. Why can't you just acknowledge that he didn't fit the bill?
> Soldat. I know he ran a negative in his 1st 3 year
> old race, he also ran 11th and you'll find him in
> the other 11th spot. Okay?
Yes and he had a terrible pattern coming into the Derby.
> sek. Would you please quit interjecting a horse
> like Smarty Jones who ran the previous year.
> Would you please understand that horses that ran a
> negative in the 3rd or 4th start were not in THIS
> criteria. You've managed to merge different
> criteria all into the same sample group and that's
> not how it works.
>
Smarty Jones is cited because if his 3yo debut were just 3 days earlier, he would have run a negative-3 in his second 3yo race. But it just so fits perfectly for your system that offer no logical rhyme or reason behind these horses who run Jan-Mar negative figures are coming up short in the Derby other than "just because it fits my criteria".
> TGJB. I apologize for having to defend something
> that I haven't finished all the components to yet.
> I seem to recall you using a small sample on
> Baffert or someone in the seminar in order to
> alert the viewers that there is or may be an
> emerging oddity to look at. When the initial
> sample is small, we use the numbers that are
> available at that time. Sometimes its pays
> dividends and sometimes it doesn't. As the years
> go on, the sample increases and then stronger
> conclusions are made or dismissed. Initially, the
> unknown result still exists.
> What I find, if anything, wouldn't even benefit me
> until the next Derby.
> If sek chooses to address this post, that's fine,
> cause I'm done explaining to him.
>
> Thanks. And apologies to the guys for these
> exchanges.
There are no apologies necessary to anybody. You can choose not to discuss it if you want, but YOU are the one who is being out of line here, not me. I am bringing up points and discussing the merits and flaws of your system and you are getting completely bent out of shape because somebody (in this case, me) is poking holes in the parts that make no sense.
We can have a reasonable handicapping discussion without you putting on an emotional high-strung defense of it. If you don't want to have that kind of discussion then you can just stop replying to me, that's up to you.
I'm looking for the logical reasons why your system is suppose to work, and why I shouldn't think of it as some sort of short-sample-sized retro fitted theory that will fall apart in future years. You've yet to provide anything concrete behind this.
