|
Richie, I appreciate you taking the time to lay that out and I understand what you’re saying about Tim’s process and intent.
From my perspective, I’m not questioning that he has a method or that he’s trying to help. I’m simply offering a possible reason why there seems to be more interest in the posts after the races are run than before.
What people see before the race is a list of contenders. What they see after the race is a winning ticket. The step in between, which is how that ticket was actually constructed from those contenders, isn’t visible beforehand.
The wager itself is the decision, not just the contenders. That’s the part people are trying to understand.
I think that’s where the disconnect is. It’s not disappointment, it’s that people are trying to understand the wagering decision itself, not just the contenders or the result.
Looking back after the race and trying to piece together why certain horses were used is very different from seeing that decision made before the outcome is known. That’s the part that most people are interested in because that’s where the real learning is.
So when Tim mentions that views come after the races are run, my feeling is that people are trying to see the result and then figure out how it happened, because they didn’t get to see that step beforehand.
I’m not attacking him or what he’s doing. I’m just offering a perspective on why the engagement might look the way it does.
I do appreciate this conversation with you and Tim.
Tom
|