[Mitch44]

FTL:


First of all I call it cherry picking when you constantly and always come up with an ideal solution to a race after the fact. Fact of the matter also is that not once have I ever seen you put up a pick before a race goes off. I call that cherry picking and a classic definition of such. They don't pay off for after the fact and only prior to the gates opening.


Ah another perfect solution to why the # 1 horse won his 4th race. Bravo!! It caught my eye in briefly looking at the PP of this race. And based on your guidelines the horse would be a toss. There are many reasons why that race could be a toss besides the few you mention.
"Its' winning race in line 4 is just NOT the mystery you make it out to be!" Its absolutely no mystery to me however to anyone following you're guidelines it would be a mystery and winners they would never get. Your rules / guidelines probably give up at least 25% winners of a race going into without ever laying eyes on it.


"Bill V posted it, not me." Perhaps he did but I recall in the last 2 weeks or so you specifically asked Bill Lister to find a race that meets your guidelines for posting which he did . Naturally it payed well. Now if that not a classic definition of cherry picking than I don't know what is. Sartin was accused of cherry picking races, his answer was to do the whole card. Any single race in Follow Ups were sent in by followers or deemed problem races by followers. Now that may be going a little far . I and other followers would like to see some before the race goes off. Heck we can even pick a race ,track and date a week out for fairness to all and another as an alternate just in case it happens to be a MSW.


In fact your guidelines were mostly previously published by Sartin before and they were meant to get contenders for those that couldn't. That advise goes way back to the old Yellow Manual page # 12, prior to 1990. He specifically said that those that can get the winner 94% of the time in their contenders can ignore the guidelines. What he expounded on was to put 5 contenders into the program ,pick appropriate pace lines and let the program sort them out.


Also on pg. 13 he states in reference to 90 day horses that " Look to see if the horse has ever run well first time out after a long layoff." Even back then he didn't automatically throw out long layoff horses. Even in later writing he paid less attention to the layoff factor.



I also don't need help to read past performance. I consider myself pretty good in analyzing PP which is why I get winners and many at good prices which I have posted here numerous times. All I can say is its no coincidence and their before the gates open.
Would I have had the #1 horse in that 4th race , well in all honesty I can't say without all the other data of that race but there is no doubt long layoff horses win. Judging by the payoff it fooled many bettors on that day. I do know and say one thing and that is you would not have had it as its an automatic toss for you're guidelines. Myself it would not be an automatic toss, whether it survived the rest of my scrutiny is unknown after the fact.


Have a great day FTL and let me know when your interesting in doing some races before the gates open.
Mitch44