I have to say, from what I\'ve seen the \"model\" is a joke.  It bears no relation to probability of winning, significantly underrates winners, and seems like a useless tool.  I also seriously suspect there is no computer model at all, but that this is just another of the crazies out here, like Jimmy from California who supposedly makes up his own numbers.  Oh,well, if you like to hear yourself talk, so be it.

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\".

Ok...Here is the reality. You suck. You picked one $6 winner on your analysis Derby day then had the nerve to brag about the score you made, which of course was not included in the picks you sold. Then you made a laughing stock of yourself yesterday at Pimlico failing to pick a winner the entire card and worse...failing to be close. We bought your vermin sheets and picks for Preakness yesterday and Belmont today. You and your sheets are ridiculous. Look at Tom\'s Thunder on your sheets in today\'s race 3 at Belmont. A total throwout right. He wins. Look at Longenot in Pimlico\'s last race Saturday. Can\'t lose or at the minumum can\'t NOT run well. Nowhere. You suck. Good luck to anyone who is dumb enough to use them. I won\'t be fooled again!