Re: Repost-- first 3 of 124 questions

[TGJB]

David--Bull, of course.

4-- Call him on his behavior in public, as you have done on a non-issue with me.

And you DO know where TOTB was on the turn-- I told you at the time I was letting you off easy by not asking you to defend Friedman about it, and you thanked me for not doing so. Right here. Publicly. If you want I can find the post.

And bull on the other stuff, of course. If the Ragozin office sent ME a letter along with a transcript of my employees lying about them, and made it public on their site, and I failed to respond, you would probably assume I was innocent, and not call me on it. Right?

The larger point, of course, is this-- a lot of the decision about whose figures to use (and which we find inferior) depends on the credibility of the figure makers. And when Ragozin employees tell prospective clients we don\'t use live ground, they are attempting to hurt ours.

[dpatent]

Mandown:

I am not calling you a liar or any other name.  Sorry you felt that way.  I think that reasonable readers know exactly what my point was and it was about appearance of impropriety and the futility of trying to erase that after the fact.

I absolutely agree that one needs to judge arguments on the merits and you are obviously welcome to post whatever you want; but like it or not, there is always going to be extra scrutiny because of your affiliation.  That\'s just life in the big city.

And to be a bit more pointed, some if not many of your posts are not factual or logical in nature -- such as your personal attack on me because of the fact that I was formally a lawyer.  Would a reasonable person conclude that your affiliation with Brown might have had something to do with your motivation to make that comment?  You bet.

It\'s not just the affiliation, it\'s the attempt to cover it up and/or deny it\'s influence -- like Brown has done with the unnamed poster and perhaps others -- that causes Jerry all these additional headaches.  Ask Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton about that.  

And it\'s too late to make that go away.  Thus, Brown\'s continued use of diversionary tactics to make it seem that however wrong he was, everybody else is even wronger.

As for Jerry\'s post:

You can say \'Bull\' all you want, that doesn\'t make it so.  I have never seen the TOB replay.  I don\'t know where he was on the turn and it would be to your benefit to keep quiet about it because then you can cash more tickets.  

And as for Ragozin\'s alleged lies,  I have not seen the transcript, nor do I have the context to this dispute and I think I posted a bunch of stuff before on this last year which I think still stands.

[mandown]

David,

If you\'re not a lawyer you should be. What exasperates me with you is the way you can stand things on their head. You are clearly an astute person - and you clearly have the right approach to handicapping. But you also have a unique talent for doing one thing and saying another, and for criticising other people for things you do yourself.

I have tried to debate with you on points of issue. You have ignored all of them. In my last post I asked you to say what was intrinsically wrong with my posts, why my relationship with Jerry devalued my arguments, what was your opinion on some of the more grotesque aspects of the other board.

What do I get - Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton, some asinine remark about that\'s life in the big city and a critique of Jerry. Then to cap it all you accuse him of diversionary tactics. Only you could totally ignore specific questions and then accuse somebody else of failing to answer the point.

And the reason I thought your criticism (on the other board, of course) of Jerry\'s Preakness analysis was so underhand was that you had done a similar thing when you had the handicapping contest with HP. Remember that? You lost the contest but tried to justify yourself by saying that you might have lost the contest but you\'d made money at the windows.

When Jerry did his Preakness analysis the perceived wisdom was that Funny Cide would be extremely short and a complete underlay. There was also good reason to think Midway Road (a good play on both TG and Ragozin) would also start much shorter thn his ML. But when Jerry saw the odds on the day he revised his betting strategy. I guess you do the same. You make your own line and doubtless identify potential bets by looking at the ML. But if the pre-race odds are different from the ML then presumably you change your strategy. If you don\'t you\'re wasting your time making your own line.

Was Jerry right to change his betting strategy? Of course. Was it dumb to tell people he\'d hit the race even though he hadn\'t done so in the analysis. Unquestionably - but then you\'d know that as you did exactly the same thing with HP. Pots shouldn\'t call kettles black.

One question: Do you think it noble to attack somebody and then deny them the right of reply? If it happened to you or somebody you knew would you feel aggrieved about it?

Mandown

P. S.: Second thoughts - if you can lose a handicapping contest to HP you might not be that good a handicapper.

[HP]

Mandown,

I pay you the supreme Brooklyn compliments of calling you a \"wiseass\" and a \"foreigner\" and this is what I get in return? Ouch. Next time I\'ll roll out the heavy artillery.

David,

Glad you\'ve gotten out of the law game. Bunch of snakes. Hopefully you are doing something worthwhile with your life now.

HP

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Professional Courtesy

[TGJB]

David--

Mandown handled your nonsense well enough, but I just want to add one point: the difference between you and Mandown in terms of intellectual honesty, acted out bias, and overall class, can be seen clearly in just one example. When it came to discussing the Preakness, he made a point of saying MR looked good on Ragozin as well, even though it wasn\'t germaine to his point. When you discussed the Preakness, you went out of your way to make it look like we made false claims about the race, and had not done a good job of handicapping it. You ain\'t got a whole lot of credibility here.

[dpatent]

Mandown:

I am sorry that I frustrate you, but I think that I have been pretty clear on where I stand with regard to the issues and anybody who wants can read the posts and make their own judgments.

A couple of small clean-up points:

1) I did not criticize or critique Jerry\'s Preakness analysis.  I criticized the boosters who posted on the Ragozin site and just happened to overlook the fact that anyone who bet the race based on the analysis would have lost everything.  I don\'t fault Jerry at all for changing his bet in real life.  The risk Jerry takes when he posts an analysis coupled with a specific betting strategy is that he can look pretty bad if the posted strategy fails but then he makes money and draws attention to that.  You acknowledged as much.  Friedman has the benefit of posting an analysis coupled with a morass of wishy-washy nonsense about using lightly, sprinkling, use a tad, a dash, a heavy dose, etc. that is useless for anyone looking for specific betting guidance.  And, by the way, I have criticized Friedman for this and parodied it last year on both sites -- that is right -- both sites.

By the way, Jerry\'s Belmont analysis should have produced a decent profit to anybody who rationed out their betting units reasonably, so good for him.

2) I do think that I apologized for some over-exuberance in celebrating my obviously pyrrhic victory at the windows last year.  If not, then, I apologize.

Finally, a series of related questions, Mandown that I am sure you will answer.  

As you know, I post under my real name on both sites.  Since I have a propensity to lose passwords, sometimes my name shows up a bit differently, but everybody knows exactly who I am.

Obviously, your real name is not Mandown, but I wonder, do you post under any assumed names either on this board or the Ragozin board?  Since you feel it is important to be above-board and consistent on both boards, do you agree that would be important for you to disclose it if in fact you post under a different name on the Ragozin board?  Particularly if you were to make posts on that board attacking Ragozin?  Especially given your affiliation with Brown?  Just curious.

By the way, I know the answer to all of those questions, but wanted to give you a chance to out yourself yet again.

[dpatent]

Jerry,

The difference between me, you, and all of your cohorts in the areas of class and honesty can be seen in the fact that I post under my name on both sites and have never ever tried to hide who I am on either site.

Can we say the same for you, Mandown, and others?

Speaking of nonsense, all I did was call your buddies on their B.S. when they posted on the Ragozin site.  And I reposted exactly what I said on this site at your request.  

Where was the hue and cry about my terrible behavior except from the usual suspects over here?  Give it up, Jerry.  You should have taken your medicine and been quiet after the Preakness, just as you had reason to crow somewhat after the Belmont.

Bye.

[TGJB]

David--

I could not have come up with a better example of your greasy behavior than that \"take your medicine\" crack if I tried, as everyone who read my analysis and our back and forth about the Preakness knows. Thank you.

Not that I have ANY reason to doubt your integrity, but the reason we are supposed to take your word for it about posting under other names is...?

[mandown]

David,

Now I know you\'re just trying to wind me up. You duck my questions but then climb on that high horse and expect me to answer yours. Sheeesh. You cannot be serious - I hope. Just tell me you do know what you\'re doing and you do do it deliberately just to rattle our chains. I\'ll give you credit - you\'re good at it.

OK you didn\'t criticise JB\'s Preakness analysis. The preamble to the cut and paste job you did on the other side was just scene-setting wasn\'t it? Sorry I got that wrong.

I\'ve posted on the other site as Thermidor as you no doubt know. Interesting name eh? But again the posts were to defend someone who couldn\'t defend themselves and because he told me I wouldn\'t get paid if I didn\'t and he knew where I lived and where my son went to school. And worse still he had my e-mail address.

Mandown

PS: Sorry to those who want handicapping but if I start on about that I will be out on my ear.

[tonyk]

           I don\'t know how you could see Funny Cide as or Midway Road as being that short,the whole key to the race was the fact that Peace Rules was going to take alot of money.I have been wanting to say something about JB\'s analysis but shied away until now.Peace Rules did not look like the most likely winner of that race to me.Whether there was any thing unethical about it I can\'t say.About the only value i can get out of these endless posts about who did what to whom is that i get a feel for the players involved,so there is some value in reading this stuff.

[bdhsheets]

Both products are about finding legit bombers that don\'t look as good to the general public.

What I find most distastefull about your comments on JB\'s analysis is that you believe we are all little commies that can\'t think for ourselves and couldn\'t possibly put together a strategy using the logical price shots. Using Midway as the key horse is what mattered in the Preak. Top bottom middle at 25-1, but I guess only Lenny is sophisticated enough to use lightly with everyone, LOL You\'re insulting at best.