A Modest Proposal

[Alydar in California]

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.

[HP]

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

[TGJB]

Paranoids have enemies too.

[HP]

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

[dpatent]

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.

[TGJB]

\"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.

[dpatent]

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.

[HP]

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

[dpatent]

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

[HP]

You\'re welcome David.

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

[Mall]

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.\"

[TGJB]

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

[HP]

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

[TGJB]

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.

[dpatent1]

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.