Rachel

[Bet Twice]

Mike,

If I was in the jock\'s room and heard multiple jockeys agree that the rail was dead I would probably give that some serious weight. I do not however, give a lot of weight to a single individual who I hear through the grapevine say that the rail is dead, especially when the data suggests otherwise.  So yes, since the \"x on the piece of paper\" represents a conclusion based on evidence, as opposed to something I hear from a friend of a friend of a friend who knows this girl that once dated the jockey\'s sister - I would put more value on the \'x\'.

[miff]

Bet,

In the case you cite, the x on the paper is better. I was not talking about that type situaton.

Mike

[HP]

Here\'s what you wrote miff

\"When John Velasquez tells Cordero the rail is dead/nfg on a given day, I\'ll defer to that rather than some man made inexact computer program looking at numbers.\"

So now Bet Twice is posting saying if A LOT of jocks said this he might give it some creedence and you are backing off your original example of ONE jock saying it.  John Velazquez is ONE person, right?  This is the example you gave.  

25 posts from you on this page of the \"forum list\" alone.  Why don\'t you give it a rest?  You prefer comments from jocks and trainers to the numbers.  We get it.  

HP

[TGJB]

Miff-- the analysis we do is to determine what has happened, so it\'s not done until after the races. There is not the slightest doubt-- zero-- that we are able to form a better idea of whether the rail was dead than the jockeys, through looking at how fast the horses ran.

During the card, we aren\'t doing that. So in terms of making decisions-- like telling riders how to ride-- you have to go by what you see or hear. There have been several times I gave instructions to stay off the rail. Several others where I was concerned about it, watched, and discounted the \"dead rail\" stuff. Super Frolic in the BC Classic was one of those days.

[miff]

\"There is not the slightest doubt-- zero-- that we are able to form a better idea of whether the rail was dead than the jockeys, through looking at how fast the horses ran\"

JB,
...beyond chutzpah, delusional. your computer program is superior to the guys on the racetrack, okie dokie!

[miff]

HP,

If you have something to add, please do, or shut your uniformed mouth.We are debating join in with an opinion.


Mike

[Bet Twice]

Mike,

Do you use the numbers that JB and company create?  Based on your posts it seems like you don\'t subscribe to the thinking behind them - honestly wondering why you\'d waste your time on this board?  No judgement there, just wondering what the motivation/benefit is.

[miff]

Strange how the attack dogs show up when complex questions about figs, etc are asked when philosophies other than sheet theories are presented,hmmmmm, I wonder about that.

[Bet Twice]

Are you referring to my post?  It was an honest question....which you didn\'t answer.

[miff]

Bet,

Last post, HP is counting.I probably began using TG before 98% of the people on this board ever heard of them, with great success.Over time, when one is looking for answers,one comes to certain conclusions based on repeated observations and results.My observations were from very close up(at the racetrack, 5 am until after the races,for many years)

I beg to differ with some of the traditional sheet theories based on my personal experience/obsrvations over a very long period of time(40 years), thats all.

Mike

[Bet Twice]

Fair enough - I got the impression you had no use for the sheets or the thinking behind them, which begged the question \"Why are you here?\".

[TGJB]

Yeah, you\'re probably right. In fact, I\'m going to let the jockeys make the figures, too, since they have a much better idea what the horses are doing. Who needs a data base!

[FrankD.]

JB,

Will those figures be available in English or will I need to hit the SAP button on my computer ?

[HP]

I\'m not an attack dog.  My opinion is that if you are making money doing what you\'re doing you should keep doing it.  You\'ve made your opinion clear.  You think what you hear from the people doing the riding and training has more validity than the numbers.  I respect your opinion.  

You seem intent on branding people.  I use TG and look at some other factors as well.  Lighten up on your \"Kool Aid\" crusade.  A few of us are major thinkers just like you.  

HP

[martoon]

What\'s most interesting to me about Mike\'s methods is how he mentions using and comparing or calibrating it seems several different sources of figures.  I own a little small time stable and I can tell you when my own horses are racing is when I do my best handicapping.  What I do then is compare TG, Beyer and Brisnet figures on the PP\'s for every horse in the race or races.  It really helps me spot phony figures as there really are some glaring discrepancies.  There is especially a lot of disconnect between Brisnet and Beyer figures.  The TG\'s help me get a true read on these calls.  If I was going to use only one I\'d do TG figures but they are more expensive of course.  I\'m too busy or lazy lately to put in the time to do serious handicapping so I watch more than I bet these days mixed in with a few stupid impulsive plays here and there. It takes so much time and effort to do it right though I think.  I love reading here about how you guys hit some big ones and how you analyze a race.  I haven\'t had much luck taking the easy way out and buying spot plays or daily analysis picks from any service.