One last thing and then I will depart the board forever having spoken my piece. Today at Belmont where the races were taken off the turf, it was evident in the comments by Steve Mathews in Newsday that he was handicapping races that were taken OFF the turf. Same in the Daily News and NY Post. Guess who the only handicappers who made Turf picks for Belmont\'s Sunday card. If you guessed the guys who charge $25 for their picks...bingo...you win the prize. For $1 cause it was Sunday\'s paper....during the week it only cost 35 cents....I got the picks of handicappers with enough responsibility to their patrons to make picks for prevailling conditions. For $25 you didn\'t have that same \"edge\".
One thing I\'ll agree with is that if they can\'t get good analysts then they should just sell their figures and get out of the tout business. I wonder where they find their \"analysts\" and I keep thinking about that commercial where these guys are running around telling people \"I\'ll give you $100 for 15 minutes work\" and wonder if they go to OTBs and hire their analysts that way.
Just got back from Baltimore. Briefly-
1) We gave out both Turf and Dirt picks at Belmont.
2) Preakness day results were bad. Friday Pimlico was decent. Sunday Churchill was better, with one of the three winners paying $18. That\'s the way this goes.
3) We have never made any claims to the contrary. For the hundreth time, the analysis is for those who don\'t know how to use the data. Picks made a day in advance, without odds or track condition or late scratches, are unlikely to show a profit. They should do better than a non-TG handicapper would, and that\'s what they\'re for.
Players who \"don\'t know how to use the data\" should learn on their own, without learning the (sometimes) bad habits of others. People learn these bad habits and they are then reinforced, and then these players then blame the numbers for their losses, when the numbers are perfectly fine but what they are doing wrong is taking others\' advice on how to use them. These beginners would be better off making their own mistakes and thus learning from them rather than having an \"expert\" tell them how to use them. Don\'t treat your customers like little children unable to decipher your sheets, as they\'re easier to understand than a Racing Form. One suggestion is to use the red board room to post certain races and them some \"look back analysis\" to show someone WHY a horse won, improved, or declined.
*** Regarding your third point in your response to Mr. Howard , it certainly doesn\'t address his issue and it\'s also rather condesending to any customer who purchases your analysis . Whether a purchaser of your analysis can use the data themselves or not is irrelevant , they are paying for the opinion of the author . If the picks perform poorly on a given day , expect to take some flak .
I have seen you boasting about positive results of your picks here as so you can\'t have it both ways . The \"picks are there\" , because there is a demand for them and they generate revenue for Thorograph .
The proper response to Mr. Howard would be - \" Yes , our picks did suck on Preakness Day , but we hope to do better next time , so please try us again \" . Otherwise stop selling your analysis altogether , questioning the motivation and competence of your customers is not wise . I post here rather infrequently now , and for the record i have alot of respect for Thorograph - but on this issue , i think you are missing the mark .bj
I didn\'t say I didn\'t expect to take some flak. I don\'t recall boasting about the successes except in reply to flak, but I could be wrong.
I don\'t encourage anyone to take the analysis--I far prefer they learn to use the data. They\'ll do better, I\'ll take less flak, and it\'s less labor intensive(we\'ve already cut way back on the number of tracks we handicap). I don\'t question the motivation or competence of my customers. It\'s the \"customers\" I question.
I\'m an infrequent user who\'s unable at present to access the complete product, so I use the analysis as a filter for my own opinions. I find it useful. But, I don\'t use it the way I used Lawton\'s tout sheet in the 50\'s.
Before the Derby, I told friends that WE would be tough if he got the 1st 3/4s in abt.
1:12. In the Preakness, he must have been abt. 8 lengths faster, and still lasted. In the Belmont, he\'ll be beatable if mayube WF
pulls him too fast early. PC was wide on both turns. Ran huge. I\'ll be interested in the analysis for the Belmont, but I won\'t expect pure science.
Too much carping on this page.