Ask the Experts

It has been very interesting watching this board basically wither and die over the last three weeks.  First, you take a run at becoming an Oprah\'s Book Club site, then TG \"The Master of Understatement\" JB decides to adopt a Ragozian -- or is it Friedmanian? -- editorial policy.  Instead of \'Factoid\' man, the pet name for our dearly departed Soup, I dub TGBJ \'Factor Man.\'

And there was the predictable.  One minute Jason L. is a reasonable human interested in discussing important handicapping points.  The next -- after he dared question Jerry\'s underlying methodology -- he is a raving lunatic.

But I\'m not here to talk about Brown vs. Ragozin methodology.

Let\'s talk handicapping.

We\'re going to have a contest July 13 and/or 14.

Here is my proposal to make sure that it is a handicapping contest instead of a money management contest and to minimize the odds that some weasel will do poorly in the contest but well at the windows and crow about his tax tickets.

THE PROPOSAL

The contest will award points to prognosticating ability with no wagering as part of the contest.

Contestants will select their picks, in order, for the top three finishers in each race that is part of the contest.  My preference would be that each handicapper must select choices for every race on a chosen card -- no cherry picking.  We might eliminate 2 y.o. races if people are squeamish about picking winners in a field of 90% first time starters where there are no sheet numbers.

Points will be awarded as follows for a correct placing:

1st -- 20 points
2nd -- 10 points
3rd -- 5 points

Thus, if you nail the tri in order you would receive 35 points for that race.  You can get points for being off one or two places if your horse still finishes in the top three according to the following schedule:

If the horse you selected for first finishes second, you get 10 points.  If it finishes 3rd you get 5 points.  Off the board = zero.

If the horse you selected to finish second wins you still get 10 points.  If it finishes third you get 5.  Off the board = zero.

If the horse you selected to finish third wins or finishes second, you get 5 points.  Off the board = 0.

I tried to come up with a point system that would reward accuracy but also gave some credit for picking non-winners if they ran well.  This is similar to what we do in betting.  It\'s not all about picking the horse who finishes first, b/c exotics play a big role.

As an initial matter, we should first decide whether we want betting to be a part of the contest.  If not, then we can move on to the right point system.  I\'m sure that there will be disagreements about the right way to structure the points but I took a shot at something which we can modify as appropriate.

HP -- What are your thoughts?

Also, what track(s) should we use for that weekend?



Also,

Hello David,

Here are my thoughts

1) I would say both boards are equal in terms of scintillating handicapping discussions. There are a few interesting things buried in a lot of hoohah. In fact, this really covers ALL of handicapping related books, articles, etc. If you prefer the other board and find it more stimulating, great. I can\'t help noticing that we will have the contest (again) HERE, which is all I need to know about the relative merits of the respective bulletin boards.  

2) Jerry banned superf. There is no comparison between the editorial policies of the respective boards. Friedman deletes so much more stuff it\'s not even close.

3) As for the contest, I accept your conditions with one suggestion. This format will reward you points regardless of mutuel payoff. Shouldn\'t there be some greater reward for picking a 10-1 winner as opposed to a 2-1 winner? I would suggest you figure out some scale of increased point value for longer priced horses. Like maybe an additional 5 points for 5-1, an additional 10 points for 10-1, and an additional 20 points for 15-1 or better. You can have this apply to winners ONLY or otherwise. I would lean to making these bonus points for higher priced horses for winners only, and leave the 2nd and 3rds alone, but you\'ll have to weigh in on this.

Otherwise I would prefer Saturday July 13 only. And how about $500 on the outcome, just between you and me? Let me know, HP

I still can\'t for the life of me figure out the attraction of a contest that doesn\'t reflect the reality one faces at the track, even if little dave, littleandy, tiznow, tizlater & the rest of your pals on the other Bd all entered & had to explain their handicapping theories in print, even though I feel certain that would make for interesting reading indeed.

More to the point, let\'s not get too far ahead of ourselves. Beginning with a very tough Independence Day card tomorrow, Bel is offering some pretty good racing this weekend, including the best Handicap race of the year on Sat. Oddly enough, the nitecap tomorrow, a 1 mile NW2 on the turf for NY breds, may offer a good opportunity for a  score if you conclude, as I have, that the Bailey/Mott runner will be a very overbet & very vulnerable favorite. Besides, I\'m pretty sure based on my reading of history that our forefathers wanted us to celebrate the 4th at either the local track or OTB. So get out there this weekend & demonstrate your independence through, not from, gambling on the ponies.

Alydar was wrong—you are not basically a good guy. I don’t blame him, I blame you—because you know every single thing I am about to post already, and have intentionally mischaracterized them all. As you know, Alydar got me to agree to not “hit you going out the door” when you agreed to stop posting here (which I did not request), and out of respect for him I didn’t respond to your last couple of posts at that time. Your performance above is absolutely in keeping with the character (and lack of it) you have demonstrated here from the start.

1- Friedman’s policy is to censor any points or questions showing flaws in their methodology, product, etc., and those he knows (or even thinks) come from yours truly. Ours is to encourage those posts, and I have invited Friedman and Jake to post here. Soup was banished not because he made points (his posts had no content), but because he insulted people and pissed all over the site, and was getting paying customers upset. I heard from several (not all here) who said they were going to stop coming here if I didn’t do something about it. I didn’t ban you or Jason, and you were attacking my methodology.
    Nice try.

2- Soup is Factoid Man because he consistently recited “facts” that were untrue, or intentional mischaracterizations, just as you do. You are slicker—he is transparent. It was productive for me to have him here, and I would have let him stay if not for how the customers felt. Given his behavior since he was tossed, it’s also clear his elevator doesn’t run to the top floor.

3- As to your Harvard Law classmate Litt, I took the same position with him as I did with you. When you both first came, it was under the pretext of it being a serious discussion, and I had (and have) no problems with discussions of methodology—I encourage them, unlike Len “Changes In Physical Resiliency Of The Track” Friedman. Incidentally, any comments about that hilarious marketing attempt last week?
    Problem was, both you and Litt employed the same bad faith, chicken dropping arguing style. You would post, I would respond in detail, you wouldn’t respond, then a day or two later you would start a new string as though I hadn’t already shot the hell out of your “arguments”. I don’t remember calling Litt a lunatic, just a cutey-pie, but I can think of a few other names for both of you, since I don’t have a shred of respect for either of you. You will be happy to know that just last night I heard from someone who learned a lot about figure making from the exchanges I had with you and Jason.

4- The contest is the business of those who participate, but I will offer the following—your proposal rewards picking underlaid 3 to 5 shots. A variation I would suggest would be to pick one horse in every race and have a flat across the board bet. I will also take this opportunity to challenge Friedman (for I think the fifth time) to a public handicapping contest.

David,

Only you could fire off two paragraphs lambasting JB and this board and then try (unsuccessfully) to claim the moral high ground by saying \'But I\'m not here to talk about Brown vs. Ragozin methodology.\' If you\'re not here to do that then why do it?

Regarding the contest why all the trouble of counting points - why not just use the pari-mutuel returns? That would ensure the winner was the person who found the best value, not the one who threw all their handicapping principles out the window and went for the obvious.

Mall,

Whether or not the contest reflects the realities one faces at the track, if all things are equal for both parties, the contest does reflect something about the respective skill of the participants. HP

Geez, Jerry, lighten up.

I was actually joking about the Friedmanian/Ragozian policy.  Why do you think I keep coming back to this board?

As for \'factor\' man, come on.  You don\'t really think that your ROI is 1000x Friedman\'s?  And they don\'t really censor 100x the posts you do, do they?  Was it really so crazy for me to call you lightly on that?

I went back to our posts from the year 2000 on figure making methodology and was stunned by the civility of the discussion then versus now.  All that I will say at this point is that I believe that both sides have overstated their cases (that includes you, sir) and my attempts to needle you earlier clearly had the intended effect and then some.  Your comment about starting new strings to confuse the argument, however, is mistaken.

Anyway, we\'re moving on.

I\'m mindful of HP\'s and your comments regarding a longshot premium.  I will think that over and have something in response in the next day or two.

Sounds good. Will look forward to your Amended Proposal, Esq. If you decide you want to stick with your original thing, that\'s fine too. But I would really prefer having some real money riding on this one. HP

Obviously. My argument is the \"something\" it reflects is not all that relevant to the game we play, just as a putt-putt game between Tiger & I would reflect something about our relative skill level which has nothing to do with winning a professional golf tourney. I do like your suggestion that there be some cash on the line because, as I have argued in the past, the game & one\'s approach to the game changes as the price of poker increases. That of course was part of the thinking behind the heavy-handed challenges I issued to the one whose name will never be written or spoken, even though there would have been much more pressure on yours truly, since I had reached the decision that my only option was to give up the game for good if I lost. That\'s also why you\'ve never heard me criticize the \"use lightly in exotics\" approach, even though it is entirely foreign to me. At some levels return of capital becomes a major consideration. But hey, I don\'t want to rain on anyone\'s parade. Have the contest & have some fun. When you get down to it, that\'s what this game is mostly about anyway.

HP,

Right.  Forgot about the money thing.  I don\'t feel like I want to bet $500 on this.  Call me a wimp, esp. since I should be playing with house money.

I do have $70 in tickets left over from Belmont day when the \"1\" horse got scratched in the 11th race and I never thought to cash my \'losers\'.  I\'d be willing to put that up at least.  Maybe an even $100.  Is that enough to keep you interested?

Back soon with the ultimate handicapping algiorhythm.

Although we have no live racing here in New Orleans right now, my wife and children are away for the weekend, so I have 7 cards printed out for a 4th of July celebration tomorrow at one of the fine Fairgrounds OTB facilities.  I am sure I will bet at least $2 on all 70 of the races, money management and value handicapping be damned.  From the 1st race at Belmont to the nightcap at Hollywood, I will be enjoying my independence from all tyrants.

Laissez les bon temps rouler and God Bless America.

JB: David should have left the jabs out of his post, but that\'s done now. He\'s a good guy who has a big mischievous streak. I can certainly relate to that. If necessary, please go back and take a look at some of the shots he has received here. He was wrong about methodology, and he got hammered. Now it is time for the three of us to put a stop to this. I want you to meet David at Saratoga. I think you two will become friends. As a peace offering, please give him the Halle Berry \"scene.\" Then he can give it to me. I am going to get that tape from you--one way or the other.

David: 1: What Superfreakicus has been doing here, almost from day one, is cyber-vandalism. He stacks one vacuous post on top of another in order to be a nuisance. He has a mistaken view of the history of the conflict, which leads him to think he is justified in disrupting this site. It is as if he has no idea how many Raggies--including employees and ex-employees--have been here over the years. JB\'s posts on the Sheets board are not even remotely comparable to what Superfreakicus has been doing.

 2: Jason Litt is fond of this type of sentence: Now I\'m not calling you a thief, JB, and anyway, the statute of limitations has expired.

  As you know, David, this is a politician\'s and lawyer\'s trick to get an accusation in without taking responsibility for making it. Litt did this more than once, and he deserved what he got.

Mandown: Who the hell are you? You pop up at strange times and act as if you have been here forever. Et votre modele, il est si familier.

O.K., I have thought about the issue of odds and if they should affect our scoring system and here\'s where I come out:

If we are treating this contest as a test of handicapping skill where we are competing on our ability to select the horses that will run the best (which will be a reflection of both sheet reading ability and the accuracy of the product we use), then the price of the horse should play no role in the contest results.  Any impact we let price have on our selections necessarily adds an incentive to change or disregard our handicapping opinion.

For example:  I like the horse that\'s likely to be 3:5.  I give him a 50% chance of winning based on the sheets.  There is a horse likely to go off at over 10:1 who I give a 15% chance of winning.  If we are doing a pure handicapping contest I should select the 50% horse for first because that\'s who the sheets tell me has the best chance of winning.  If we let price play a role, then I should probably select the 15% horse because the expected return to me is higher.  But then I am picking a horse for first who I don\'t really believe is the best horse.  We do that in betting all of the time but that\'s a money management issue, not a handicapping issue.  And when the contest is over, the excuses are going to fly -- I have mine ready.  

My problem with using price in this contest is twofold:  1) We had complaints in the previous contest that not being able to know the odds or scratches ahead of time necessarily negated our bets (a scratch) or our bets would have been different if we had been able to wait until post time (the odds were not what we thought they would be).  We will have the same problems in this contest if price plays a role.

2) I thought there was some desire to focus somewhat on the accuracy of the numbers and to concentrate on horse picking ability over money management.  Letting the odds come into play negates our ability to accomplish those goals.  

So, let\'s decide what we are trying to test and be clear on how the rules of the contest will affect our behavior (politicians should try that some time).

I\'ll throw it open for more discussion.

We still need to select the track(s) for the 13th.

I\'ve decided not to let you ruin my day. The ROI comment, which you have taken out of context (of course), was obviously hyperbole. The censoring comment was not--it was probably more than that at the time I said it. Soup\'s flatulance has changed the equation a little, but not the underlying issue as to WHY each of us censor.

I don\'t have the scene, haven\'t even seen it.

Mandown hasn\'t been here forever, just since a couple of years before the old man decided to go swimming from a boat.

Wrong. Money Management is the optimal use of betting capital over a long series of wagers, using the Kelly Criteria for example. In other words, what percentage of bankroll should be risked on particular bets.

In contrast, deciding what horse to bet on based on your judgment of its percentage chance to win in comparison to the crowd\'s judgment of is the essence of handicapping. Under your proposed system, & using your example, someone who selects a 3/5 shot with a 50% chance of winning is awarded 20 pts, even though the dopester in question is guilty of dreadful handicapping. Someone who has correctly determined that a 6-1 shot has a 50% chance of winning is also awarded 20 pts, despite his or her excellent handicapping. Depending on the system you use & your risk tolerance, the dopester who decided to bet the 6-1 shot might also decide to ratchet up the amt of the bet because he or she decided that it was a particularly juicy overlay. That would be a money management decision, not a handicapping one, or at least that\'s what I told myself when I took a stand against the even money fav in the nitecap today.

Maybe you should consider using the same system used in the qualifiers & National Championship, so at least those who enter can tell themselves the contest is a practice round. Otherwise, the only appropriate track under the rules you are proposing is Fantasyland Downs.

JB wrote: \"I don\'t have the scene, haven\'t even seen it.\"

JB wrote: \"Mandown hasn\'t been here forever, just since a couple of years before the old man decided to go swimming from a boat.\"

The wordplay in your first sentence notwithstanding, your inability to link \"No Halle Berry tape\" to \"Mandown\" is to your eternal discredit.

David,

Whatever you want to do is fine. We\'ll go with your point system, just post it again when you post your picks so there\'s no confusion. Call me Chalky. I\'ll go toe to toe with you picking 4/5 shots any day. You pick the track and the date, either the 14th or the 15th. I don\'t want to spend more than one day on this. You\'ll have no excuses since you picked the terms.

$100 is fine. I will reserve the obvious comment. HP

Mall,

I don\'t really care what system we use and we all need to acknowledge that there is no
perfect system.  I\'m simply pointing out
that if we allow the odds to affect scoring then we are getting away from a \'skill at picking the best horse\' contest and introducing a number of complexities that I thought we were trying to
eliminate.

As a side note, I don\'t agree with your definition of \'handicapping\'.  Since to \'handicap\' is to assign weights or hindrances to equalize chances of winning,
and since a \'handicap\' race adds (or substracts) weight to horses to
modify their chances of winning, to handicap a race simply means to assign the correct probabilities of winning to each entrant.  There is nothing about handicapping that requires or suggests that one then
incorporates the crowd\'s views and modifies one\'s decisions based on the crowd\'s opinion.

Since HP has accepted, we\'re on.  Let\'s do it
Saturday the 13th.  HP, any preference for tracks?  Also, how will we settle up?  Do you use PayPal?

David,

I accept your terms.

I will point out that this has nothing to do with anything anyone anywhere does at the track. In handicapping, the odds ARE the score, and finding value is the ONLY thing that affects your ability to have (and you, DP, have previously singled this out as the MOST important thing) long-term positive ROI. As long as we both have to cope with the same thing, it\'s fine with me. It\'s an unusual set of conditions, so maybe you think you have calculated this to some advantage. Could be an interesting exercise in any case. I\'ll try to learn something.

As for settling up, I don\'t use PayPal. I\'m in New York. If anyone in the Sheets office will agree to accept your money, I will deliver it personally over to 11th st. Can you manage something similar in New York? We\'ll work it out. Where are you? HP

The definitions are not mine David. They are the ones which are used in the literature and, as far as I know, widely accepted in the sport. Whether or not you choose to accept them is of course up to you.

A \"lurker\" was kind enough to email me yesterday\'s \"Wizards National Simulcast Best Bets\", which I am told usually costs $15 but was made available for free yesterday at brisnet. His point was that the Wiz had 5 winners out of 13 selections, not bad & worth 100 pts & perhaps a win in the contest, but that the payoffs were so low($3.60, $4, $6.60,etc) that he barely broke even. He also had an 8-5 shot that ran 2nd & a 4-5 shot which ran 3rd, for which he would additional points. Perhaps someone knows him & could extend a personal invitation to enter the contest. After all, yesterday the Wiz was apparently an excellent handicapper as you define it.

HP,

I live in Vegas.  If you are going to be at Saratoga on July 27 we can settle up there as I will be in attendance.  If not, I am not averse to giving you my mailing address, though, you may not be as willing.  I\'m happy to use the Ragozin office as an intermediary.  Maybe they can charge my card and give you the cash?

BTW, I have never entered a handicapping contest and have no idea how these rules will play out, though you won\'t here any excuses from me and I\'ll only crow about how I really did at the track if I win more than $20,000.  Then you\'ll really hate me.

Mall,

I love the Wizard!  Can we get Lawton too?
Next contest we\'ll try some other rules.  The permutations are endless.

Agree. Again, it seems to me you can solve the problem (making it about handicapping, not betting strategy or money management) by simply picking a horse to wager a flat $2 across the board on in every race.

I was tired. I guess this was comeuppance, then.

Until last yr, the self-proclaimed Wizard appeared on a Capitol OTB TV show during the Sar meet to offer his opinions & be interviewed by Mig\'s agent, who has a great sense of humor & is a much better dopester than the Wiz, who I\'m pretty sure did not understand about 75% of the digs. Anyway, I lost any possible respect I might have had for the Wiz when he touted an alw horse based on a work in company with a stakes horse which he claimed to have witnessed. It turned out that the 2 horses\' works actually took place hrs apart.

As for Lawton, I honestly did not know that he actually existed until the methodology debate. Perhaps you could invite the great Dahlman instead, since he\'s in the desert mulling over his notebook of shoe changes. I wonder what he\'d have to say about your definition of handicapping.

David,

Vegas huh? Do you bet for a living or do you have another trade?

Hate is a pretty strong feeling and I can\'t really muster up \'hate\' for you. As superf pointed out, I am very sensitive.

I\'m looking at a busy summer work-wise so I will not be up at the Spa. It\'s my worst track anyway besides Gulfstream. The Ragozin office thing sounds good. I\'ll bring them cash for you or you can figure out a way for them to pay me.

Just figure out what track you want to do and the date and the \'deadline\' for posting and put it up as soon as you can (I would guess late next week).

Toodle-oo --HP

JB wrote: \"I was tired. I guess this was comeuppance, then.\"

I would have thought you got your comeuppance on the 13th of June, possibly at the airport. But you New Yorkers are so self-conscious.

HP,

I am not anything close to a professional gambler.  My new job took me to the city.

BTW, please pick what track you want to use for the contest.  It\'s only fair to let you make the selection.  We could go with one or two.

As far as I\'m concerned, Trevino got it right when he observed that most golf bets were decided on the 1st tee. If I remember correctly, one of David\'s methodology arguments was that TG\'s method results in too many noncontenders looking like they have a chance, whereas Rags tend to eliminate these horses. The flip side of course is that Rags\' method eliminates many horses who actually win, often at long odds. I\'m not saying that the pts system was selected with this in mind, although I must admit that the thought crossed my mind.

Given that you have allowed David to select, probably coincidentally, a pt system which is consistent with his methodology argument, there is no reason I can see for you not to select the track or tracks. There was mention earlier of the inflated Rags\' nos at Del & Pim, which seems to be consistent with what I\'ve seen recently. Assuming you have some familiarity with either, perhaps one or both should be on your short list. Mtr might also be worthy of consideration. Nor have I seen anything in the rules thus far which prohibits you from consultations regarding your selection. Choose wisely HP, as your undefeated record & legacy are both hanging in the balance.

All I can say in response to Mall\'s comment on the point system is -- and I say this with a smile -- that the people on this board are, collectively, the most paranoid group of otherwise reasonably sane people I have ever come across.

As for the track, the only suggestion I will make regarding the selection is that it I would prefer that it be carried by Bally\'s race book -- they carry all of the major tracks and all of the tracks mentioned by Mall.  Otherwise I won\'t be able to watch the results as they come in.  So, no Yavapi downs, please.

David: Didn\'t you see the version of \"Dream Lover\" with James Spader and that divine vamp, Madchen Amick? \"Sometimes, what looks like paranoia is really just heightened awareness. Sometimes, everything is a clue.\" Your original title is a clue, for example, a clue that your real goal here is to induce us to sell our children for human consumption.

David,

Saturday July 13, Belmont Park. One day, one track.

Belmont generally attracts enough shippers to highlight any differences in the numbers on varying circuits.

As for some of your other points, I have never heard of a contest with these criteria. The usual \'contest\' rules are win bets, and there is a \'cap\' on the odds. I\'ve also heard of contests where you can play how you want (like the first one we had). A contest with \'points\' instead of \'dollars reflecting payoffs\' makes very little sense to me. Most contests reward abilities and skills that come into play in the selected \'event\'. This contest has NOTHING to do with anything anyone does when they handicap and, if possible, even less to do with how someone will play. You use the figures to make money, not to pick short-priced horses. You don\'t use Rags to play favorites. Good figures by definition will help you find value. That\'s why we use them. I would say this contest will indicate nothing about handicapping skill or the quality of the respective products. Your comments about these criteria are total nonsense and convince me that there is much less to you than I originally thought. We all make mistakes.

I\'m agreeing to your terms simply to take away your excuses. Now you will have to content yourself with past-posting your big day if you lose (again). I wouldn\'t put it past you to come up with some reason that Belmont was not truly indicative of something or other, but we\'ll see.

In sum, you came back for a second go-round (not on your home turf, of course, but then again, this contest is not really \'handicapping related\' as per my comments above), you call the tune and make the rules, and you refuse to go for $500 to back your play. You should look in the mirror before you comment on anyone else\'s character traits or \'paranoia\' -- you\'ve got your hands full.

I say we post before midnight Friday, July 12. Let me know if this is agreeable. HP

Paranoids have enemies too.

TGJB,

Take a look at the post on the Rag board entitled \"Volponi...\" by JLS and JLS\' girlfriend if you haven\'t already. Funny. HP

Alydar,

I knew that you were the most likely person to figure out the reference in my original post.

HP,

Belmont it is.  My ROI there is great this year!  But then, you previously defeated me in a handicapping contest there.  Hmmm.

Regarding your comments on the rules, which, since you have accepted (and got to pick the track), you really have no business bashing:

You wrote: \"This contest has NOTHING to do with anything anyone does when they handicap\".  

Sorry, HP, but that is just not right.  What we are doing for the 13th is really no different than what the beleaguered public handicappers do every day, which is to place, in rank order, the horses in the race by their probability of winning.  It is also what you and I do every time we handicap a race.  At least I hope you do it.

What I think we are not including in the contest are the next three steps, which are to 1) make some attempt to quantify the difference in probabilities then 2) look for a mismatch of great enough magnitude between your assessment and the public\'s assessment of the odds for each horse and then 3) wager accordingly.

I have never claimed that this contest is the ultimate test of skill or anything like that.  It isolates one of the key skills necessary to be a successful bettor.  Next time we can do it your way or Mall\'s way or Rasputin\'s way.  I\'m game for anything.  Give me some credit.

HP, even you have to chuckle at the suggestion that somehow I had cooked the rules to favor me because Ragozin sheets allegedly result in more throwouts of high-priced winners than TG (a hypothesis that I would dispute) and that I would be more likely to win because I would be picking off a bunch of low priced chalk that TG would somehow miss.  Paranoia, by the way is not a character flaw.

I\'ll post my picks by 11:59 p.m. EDT on the 12th.  No, that\'s not an excuse if I lose.  And since you have pre-accused me of a legion of offenses (past-posting, coming up with some reason that Belmont was not truly indicative of something or other, etc.) I assume that you will step up and offer the appropriate mea culpas if those do not come to pass.

\"It isolates one of the key skills necessary to be a successful bettor.\"

Totally false. Knowing a 3 to 5 shot is more likely to win than a 20-1 shot is useless. Knowing the 3 to 5 shot is 40% and the 20-1 20% to win is crucial.
Favorites win about a third of the time. Simply by picking the public choice one would do well under your rules in the long run.
In fact, I would guess that the winner of your contest will have a flat-bet negative ROI, unless he sweeps the card.

Jerry,

Do you really believe that one can be a successful bettor and not be able accurately to rank which horses are more likely to win than others?

It\'s easy to take one extreme example to dispute a statement.  If every race was full of one 3:5 shot and a bunch of 20:1 shots your statement would hold water, but over the long run, day in and day out we are faced with many subtle \'calls\' to make on horses and whoever does a better job at ranking the horses will have an edge -- an edge that can definitely be overcome by superior quantification of the edge and wagering -- but an edge nonetheless.  Do you really disagree with this?  Is this skill not a foundational skill upon which the other key success skills rely?

A reminder:  this contest is not about ROI and was not intended to be about ROI.

David,

1) I\'m not bashing anything, I\'m expressing my opinion. We disagree. I write what I please, same as you.

2) You make it sound like picking the track is a big deal on a par with the making the rules. You don\'t like Belmont? It\'s only Monday. Pick another track. I could care less. Any one will do. You\'re calling the shots here and it suits me fine. It also does not prohibit me from posting my opinion.

2) I don\'t think you cooked the rules, but the rules are odd and not indicative of any of the skills traditionally associated with handicapping. As long as we both have to do the same thing, it\'s fine with me. I accept your rules because the rules don\'t matter to me. Arguing about this kind of crap and rules is what guys like you do. Guys like me, who have the strength of ten men, chop off heads and put them on sticks. And then eat them. Later.

3) The time to make your point with me and others, David, is in the contest, not at the windows or on a bulletin board. I won last time and I was gracious about it, so you don\'t have to give me any instructions on how to behave. Where I grew up, if you got out of line in this kind of thing you caught a nice beating, and this would have done you a world of good. I wouldn\'t have said a thing after my last stunning victory (given my negative ROI) if you didn\'t make your past-post review. If I lose, I will arrange to deliver the money to the Rag office, congratulate you, and keep my effin\' mouth shut, providing you with a real life lesson in how to behave.

4) I \'pre-accuse\' you based on your conduct after the last contest. You lost and posted about how great you did. Nothing I\'ve said lacks justification.

5) I continue my gracious ways by granting you a re-match, and I let you make the rules. I could have denied you this opportunity and basked in my huge victory forever. You are clearly overwhelmed in the face of my impeccable contest conduct and you should be thanking me for giving you another chance instead of reviewing my comments. A simple \"Thank you Mr. HP, Defending Champion, for this chance\" would suffice.

In a competition between Man and Jello, the outcome is all but certain. All the pressure is on you here, even if you refuse to back your convictions with $500 instead of $100 and a lot of froufrou on a bulletin board. After all, if I lose, we\'ll have a tie; one contest for me and one for you. But if you lose...again...well, if I were you, I wouldn\'t even want to think about it.

Good luck and mea culpa my ass. Catch you Friday.

Signed, The Man Who Won The Last Contest And Lost Big At The Track And Had To Pay His Wife And Was Damn Happy About It, HP

Thank you Mr. HP, Defending Champion, for this chance.

You\'re welcome David.

Got to work now. Who cares what anyone else thinks? It\'s all you and me. Catch you later. HP

Clinically, paranoia can only be said to be  present when the delusions of persecution are well-systemized. Mine aren\'t. Besides, the friendliest of friendly competitions is one where both participants are fully committed to victory. But the thing that really has me curious is the amount of time which elapses between when HP chops off the heads & eats them, as he puts it, \"later.\"

Dusty Effsky, you need to drink less coffee. How do you cook the heads?

Mall,

I\'m not paranoid. I\'m an egomaniac. Even if everyone was out to get me, it wouldn\'t do them any good. I have too much power.

As for your question, it varies from head to head. HP

Again, it is completely irrelevant to rank the horses in order.
Here\'s what we\'ll do--you rank the horses in order, and bet the races the night before, without looking at odds. I won\'t put them in order (I never do), but I will look at odds and bet with 5 minutes to post. Like your chances?
It has just occurred to me that your belief may be a function of Friedman\'s listing the horses in order in his old DRF articles and on his website. Is this true?
The only questions (in win betting) are how likely each horse is to win, and what odds is he going off.

Jerry,

No, I don\'t like my chances under your scenario.  But I\'ll bet that when you bet you are undertaking some form of rank ordering, at least implicitly.

Look, if this contest is not satisfactory to the contestants (this does not include you since you are abstaining), we\'ll try something new.  That is, if HP wins and deigns to offer me a third crack at him.