David Patent

[TGJB]

You out there? Comments? Questions?

CTC-- I have an idea of what they did wrong after talking to Paul, who worked for Ragozin a few years ago. I\'m not sure I believe it, and I don\'t want to put words in Eric or Len\'s mouth-- let\'s see where this goes. The right response (again) would be, we checked it, we screwed up, we\'re human, we\'ll fix it. But that\'s way too simple for these guys. I\'m guessing that they will not say another word unless their players demand an answer. If they don\'t do so, it says an awful lot about them, as well as the Ragozin operation.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I understand giving them time to ascertain and explain the problem. If a reasonable amount of time wanes on and they are not forthcoming with an explanation I\'m sure you\'ll give us you\'re inside opinion as to what caused a figure error like that. This isn\'t a \"Republican\'s/Democrat\'s\" issue with me, I\'d like to know from a former figure making perspective.  I know I transposed numbers incorrectly down the whole finishing order before and I have to assume thats what happened until you tell us otherwise.

I don\'t use that board anymore since they went registered. The only person that was entertaining there was Robespierre and I never got the sense he was a good handicapper, but i wasn\'t there long enough to really say.

[TGJB]

I do think Len is a good handicapper, but he\'s using bad figures. I don\'t think he\'s a very good bettor (that goes way back to when I went to the track hundreds of times with him), and nothing in his posts indicates he has changed his approach. He doesn\'t know squat about making figures, and I mean that sincerely-- his responses to the Chilukki and Kee 4 1/2 issues made that clear.

If Paul is right, they did something that neither you, or I, or anyone else that made figures  who ever lived would do. I\'m not sure I understand it, and if I do I\'m not sure I believe it, and if Paul is right they didn\'t just do it for the Derby, they do it for all races. It is along the lines of Richard Prior\'s \"Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin eyes\". But again, I don\'t know for sure that\'s what they did, and we won\'t know until they tell us. And probably not then.

Meanwhile, they have now taken down the string with my post and the follow-up comments, leaving just Eric\'s statement. I leave the implications of that to Friedman\'s followers. Like, if they never address the problem, whether the Derby numbers they use to bet with are accurate. Or not.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Yes...i can remember their post axing technique...lol

They referred to \"the guillotine\" there and I\'m quite sure Robespierre picked his nick because of it...lol Ultimately however the real Robespierre lost his head as well.

If theres a legitimate discussion going there I\'d register but I tried once and I suspect they tracked my IP Address to chicago and decided they wouldn\'t authorize me...lol

But it doesnt sound like theres a legitimate discourse if they are playing guillotine with you.

It was a big race and if they are hiding from fudging it up it doesn\'t speak well of their day in and day out technique. When you\'re sure no answers are coming let us know I\'m curious as can be now.

[msola1]

You say that Len is not \"a good bettor.\" This brings up a subject I would be very interested in hearing more about.

I think I\'m probably a pretty good handicapper, but where I fall really short is in the structuring of my bets. After searching fruitlessly through the Internet for some coherent discussion of the subject (and not just recourse to the \"How to Win at the Races\" books), I am wondering if someone can open up some theoretocal and practical horizons.

For example,
1. When is it a good idea to focus on pick-3? trifecta? exacta?
2. How do you then structure any of those bets? What are the criteria one should consider when looking for a second- or third-place finisher?
3. People on this board often speak of \"going light\" with a horse in the exotics, or \"using [a horse] a little bit.\" Meaning what, precisely?

Anybody got something quantifiable, verifiable, reproducible, that might help me?

Thanks,

Mike

[Thehoarsehorseplayer]

As far as I can tell everybody who goes to the track is a \"pretty good handicapper\" but doesn\'t know how to maximize their bets.
And believe me I\'m certainly not one who has any right to be giving advice on this subject.
But.  But because you asked, and to open up on the discussion on this subject I\'m just going to throw out a few notions.
Now it seems to me that the bet that offers the best opportunity to capitlize on the confluence of knowledge and bankroll is the pick four.  That the pick four offers the best opportunity to cover yourself for the least amount of money and still occasionally make a score.
My strategy is this:  Play three horses in each race for $1.00.  Cost $81.00.  Then play two horses in each race for $1.00. Cost $16.00.  And since you\'re up to $97.00 you might as well play one horse in each race for $3.00 (on $1.00 tickets.)
So now you\'ve invested a $100 but you\'re in a position to hit the pick four for $5.00.
The key to this strategy being that you indeed must be a pretty good handicapper. But the results should prove that out.  For if, with this much coverage, you\'re not hitting at least one out of five bets for at least a dollar, you really aren\'t as good a handicapper as you think you are.
And my take on another one of your questions, namely how to fill out exotics is this:  Whenever possible use fresh horses and/or horses cutting back in distance for third and fourth.
But again, I offer these notions not dogmatically but just to open up the discussion.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I think bets have to be planned the same way you immerse yourself to handicap the race. Theres no secrets. Take the time to analyze your bets. If you spend an hour handicapping a race and I do many times, spend half an hour planning the bets for that race.

[msola1]

David,

I agree with your methodology of spending almost as much time structuring your bet on a race as handicapping it. But when you are looking at a race, let\'s say one with a full field, not a maiden claimer, no first-time starters, how, for example, do you decide to bet exactas as opposed to trifectas, or even both?

Can you give a hypothetical example of the process you go through?

Mike

[msola1]

Chuckles,

Sorry, meant to say \"Chuckles,\" not \"David.\"

[dpatent]

Yes, I am here.  I guess it is frustrating to not hear both sides.  I don\'t believe in the guillotine, esp. with the new secure board that they have.

Given the number of beaten lengths, maybe the track condition changed after Imperialism crossed the wire and they slid the variant?

[Silver Charm]

 Maybe the year

[TGJB]

Not bad... that\'s an explanation that did not occur to me.

Yeah, I\'d love to hear what they have to say. I may or may not go into what Paul says they do-- it sounds so crazy that I\'m concerned both about defaming them (believe it or not) and looking like an idiot if it\'s not what they do. Short form, they MAY not take the official beaten lengths at face value. Problem is, there ain\'t no way that 2 length gap is off by 3 lengths.

I think we would all agree by now that if they had caught something we missed they would have beaten me over the head with it. Which leaves us where we started, with a 3 length error in the Ragozin figures for either 3 horses or 15 horses in the Kentucky Derby, or a smaller error for all 18.