Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill V.
Follow Up 84
|
So what's the problem?
QUESTION #3:
"Doc" says you may go back "as far as 5 lines" (THAT'S ALL, JUST 5 LINES),
BUT ONLY if there are two intervening races that are non-comparable. So if there are NO intervening races that are non-comparable YOU DO NOT go back 5 lines!!! This is so you get to see 3 lines that ARE comparable. He also noted that one should keep records of these instances so that you can make a determination as to whether following such a procedure is worth while OR NOT.
I have already stated, that from the last 100,000 races I have, the winners came from line 1 or line 2 over 90% of the time, with line 1 being the greatest majority from that percentage.
Next, "Doc" says he would take a "second rated" line over a "first rated" line if taking a "first rated" line means going back too far OR projecting or xtracting, which is a practice I personally NEVER use.
Again, "Doc" is talking about taking a recent line over an old line even if the recent line isn't as good as the old line. Why? It's more recent and therefore more predictive of the horses current condition and form.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about with regard to the #8 horse discussed earlier. Whether the last line was the "best line" or the "second best line", "Doc" is making it clear that the last line (in this case) IS THE LINE! It is the line because it is more recent. And for other reasons as I already stated.
All things considered, it seems "Doc" and I are pretty much in agreement, wouldn't you agree?