I use Brisbet.  Originally signed up for the free $100 with your first $100 deposit...figured it was a no-lose bet on the Kentucky Derby.  I have had no problems with them.

Advantages:  free past performances as long as you make a wager on the card you download (and it can be a $2 wager).  they also have easy deposit/withdrawal which gets money into your account quickly and out into your bank account within a couple of days.  Once in a while they offer rebate days if you bet a certain track...i.e. on Pimlico day, because they couldn\'t offer it, they gave a rebate on all dollars wagered on CD.  And sure enough, the money was there the next morning.

Disadvantages:  I think the video is poor, but I only have dial-up modem, so that could be the reason.  I don\'t even view the races.

All in all, to get a bet down when you can\'t be at the track, I am satisfied with Brisbet.

Thanks for your input, James.

In essence I think you are saying they were clear plays.

Somehow, at the odds, they seemed like bets-against to me.  The intervening races just seemed too far from the top for too long.  I reckon that is just cheaper horses for you.

I was hoping for some insight/advice on the patterns of the winners in 5/18/04 Calder 7th and 9th.  Maybe CTC can redboard them tomorrow.

Looking back on my notes from the races,  I had scibbled \"cripple\" next to Don Hector in the 7th, and had a \"negative\" next to Show Us the Check in the 9th.  Both horses had tops which would win the race, but I just didn\'t like the vet scratch and terrible intervening races of Don Hector, and I also didn\'t like the off races of Show Us the Check.  Those two horses were the only two horses I made notes next to, and both ended up winning.

At least with Show Us the Check you could argue a circling back pattern, but all in all I thought it was a negative pattern.

Any feedback on either of these reads?

Thanks.

dpatent,

I also use Excel and similar mechanics, although a bit more automated with fixed probability distributions based on several factors--top, post position and probable ground loss, last few races relative to top, weight, age.  I was just surprised to see your line so similar.  My initial concern after doing my spreadsheet was that 4-1 and 5-1 were pretty low odds--as pointed out by the other post.  It is a problem I have noticed...my program gives my \"favorites\" a better chance than maybe they should have and dismisses other horses at ridiculously long odds.  As you mentioned, a small tweak in assigning probabilities has a potentially huge effect on the longer horses.  

I was just curious.  Because I focus soley on overlays, I want my line as accurate as possible.  I know I am on the right track focusing hard on a good morning line since I now have more good days than bad.  Because I don\'t play so often and haven\'t had much extra time to do a proper statistical validation of my lines, I guess I was just looking for validation in some other way.  It probably was coincidence, though, since you manually assign probabilities and I do not.

Thanks for your input.

Interesting odds line.  For what it\'s worth, I had it:

FunnyCide: 4-1
Empire Maker: 5-1
Indian Express: 10-1
Peace Rules: 11-1
Supah Blitz:  17-1
Brancusi:  17-1
Ten Most Wanted: 18-1

I\'m curious what methods you used to come up with FunnyCide at 4-1 and Empire Maker at 9-2.  Our top 2 both came out similar and the methods I use I am still \"experimenting\" with.