Notice you didn\'t respond to my question (\"back, briefly\"). Please do, as it will help kick off the discussion of your post on the Ragozin board.
Or, you can just withdraw your comments, with an apology, and I\'ll leave it alone.
If not, here\'s another one-- if I had just listed horses for the Preakness, as Friedman did, what do you think the order would have been? Think I might have had MR second, where he finished? I clearly liked PR more than Friedman, but which of us had a more positive comment on FC?
Jerry,
I\'m not biting. Sorry.
My post speaks for itself and has nothing to do with comparing your analysis to Friedman\'s analysis (I posted my own response to his analysis prior to the Preakness, which also speaks for itself).
My post dealt specifically with two disingenuous comments that your boosters posted on the Ragozin site. I simply cut and pasted, verbatim, the analysis and betting strategy posted on this site to clarify exactly what the results would have been for somebody wagering according to the recommendations given. Again, anybody who follows either or Len\'s or TG\'s \'picks\' deserves their fate.
Glad you did o.k. I did a little better than o.k. but not much more.
That won\'t do at all-- you did NOT just post my comments, you prefaced them with some of your own. When things quiet down, probably in a day or so, I\'ll address them.
Which two comments were you responding to? That might help us focus the discussion.
Your \"not biting\" is a nice try, but right now my points about Friedman\'s list stand unchallenged.
Jerry,
Briefly. I did not say that I \'just\' posted your analysis. I said I posted your analysis. Of course I had comments of my own, which were completely fact-based.
These were the two posts from Midway Road TG on May 17, 2003 at 22:34:44:
\"Like who cares about your personal vendetta against JB? And typical of you badmouthing him when his analysis made Midway Road his key.\"
And by: Brant-o-rama on May 17, 2003 at 23:03:19
\"He singled out Midway Road as a win bet at 8-1 or more in his analysis product.
And don\'t forget the $123 horse they gave out with the 2nd and 3rd place finishers at Belmont on Friday.\"
Notice what these posters do not say -- i.e. that MR was a key win bet but used only with PR in exacta -- and that is disingenuous because it leaves out crucial facts about the analysis -- which yielded a $0 return.
Your comment on the $1000 bet with Friedman does indeed remain unchallenged and will remain so -- at least from me. I\'m not into defending a betting strategy based on either yours or Len\'s analysis.
There, that\'s better. I\'ll deal with what you said (and implied) here, and in your BS on the other board, probably tomorrow.
DP
Once again you use a lawyer\'s weasely way with words. You deny you said you \'just\' posted Jerry\'s analysis. True - you said you \'simply\' posted his analysis. So let\'s get this straight - \'simply\' posting implies more than \'just\' posting does it? If you \'simply\' post then it is obvious you are adding comments of your own but if you \'just\' post then you wouldn\'t be. Beats me. But then if you get paid to lie, sorry, represent your client\'s best interests, then recognising the truth must get awfully difficult. Be honest. You put the worst possible spin on Jerry\'s analysis and the best possible on Robespierre\'s \'thoughts.\' Why not get Robes to give actual plays then we can all compare like with like?
Of course, given your previous head-to-head with HP - OK I lost the contest but I won at the windows - I would have thought you would have been on JB\'s side. Is what he did - revised his picks when he saw the actual odds - anything different to what you did?
Surely if the odds change, so should your opinion? You make your own morning line. What\'s the point of doing that if you are not going to revise your opinion based on the actual pre-race odds? If you make one horse 9-5 and the other 7-2 and the track morning line says 7-5 and 4-1 does that decide your betting strategy? Or do you take more notice of the fact that 5mins before post the first horse is 5-2 and the second 3-1?
Please, Ragozin\'s not your client so look at the situation honestly and without bias.
Why do we waste time talking about the other board\'s \"analysis\"?? Every horse can be used with every horse. Use lightly underneath, possible exotics saver, etc... Those comments are used with virtually every horse in the race. Sure you could have had the exacta, but how many combinations did it take to have it? And to say that the tri and super were had is also ridiculous, yet thats what some are saying over there. Just once can they give actual plays for a race?? Then perhaps you can have a discussion on a race analysis.
Mandown,
I am not a lawyer. I get paid to do many things but never to lie. Please stick to the facts from now on.
DP
Sorry for the unwarranted slur. Do I presume your silence on the other points indicates agreement?
David since your into cutting and pasting someones analysis I thought I would bring up this one you posted regarding Buddy Gils chances in the Santa Anita Derby. You kind of disappeared for awhile after this one but some of us have pretty good memories.
\"I don\'t know what the TG Sheets will show on BG, nor do I know what Rag. says he ran in the San Felipe, but the number he ran in the down-the-hill race on Ragozin was enough to kill him for awhile. He probably bounced 3-5 points in the San Felipe and I would expect further regression in this race -- again, on Ragozin sheets. He may have a beautiful pattern on TG for all I know. I will not, however, wait until I see TG sheets before making my final judgment on him -- for obvious reasons. Good luck.\"
Buddy looked great on Thorograph, won and paid $14.00.
Think Ragozin may have blown the number in the down-the-hill turf race and caused your analysis to be off?
All that being said good job on your Derby and Preakness analysis. You were dead on.
You must have used Jerry\'s Wood numbers.
Silver,
Yup, I was wrong on B.G. in the SA Derby. Luckily, I didn\'t bet the race since there was no value. I\'m still not sure what to make of that =1\" down the hill.
For the Derby I drew an \'X\' through it and ignored it. I made B.G. about 20:1 in my ML, which made him a \'light use in exotics\'. :)
David,
The quality and class of your response was exceeded only by your analysis of the Derby and Preakness. They were truly ones for the ages, the kind that people use nicknames for on Bulletin Boards.
I researched Jerry’s analysis of Buddy Gil in their Race of the Week Archives and he said the following:
“Of the ones who have run fast enough to win this, this gelding is the one who figures to get by far the best trip—he has tactical speed and a great draw, with all the serious competition outside him. He’s probably about 50/50 to run another big one, and if he does, someone losing ground is going to have to run around a 1 to have a chance to beat him, which makes him the horse to beat.”
Just as you struggled to find the Preakness numbers on the other Board I’m having a difficult time finding LF’s analysis of the Santa Anita Derby. I find it very unusual that a professional handicapper doesn’t actually have a place where potential customers can research and verify his personal track record.
Oh well the Belmont is in two weeks and I’m eagerly anticipating reading what you have to say on that Days Races.
Continued Success,
Silver Charm