Good DD Hit Chafles Town R3-4 4-24

[atlasaxis]

Originally Posted by dadams6357

Pook
I hear yah ...hind sight is always 20/20.
Tim keeps showing the way.
Don

Don, honest question.

When you say “Tim keeps showing the way,” what exactly is he showing?

Before the race we see a list of contenders. After the race we see a winning ticket. The part that’s missing is how that ticket was actually constructed from those contenders.

Did you personally have that double the way it was played?

With all due respect, any decent software can generate a top 4 or 5 contender list that will include the winner most of the time. That’s not where the edge is.

The edge is in how you turn those contenders into an actual wager. That’s the part no one is seeing beforehand, and that’s where the learning really is.

So I’m just asking, what is the actual takeaway people are getting from this? Thanks.

Tom

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by atlasaxis

Don, honest question.

When you say “Tim keeps showing the way,” what exactly is he showing?

Before the race we see a list of contenders. After the race we see a winning ticket. The part thatÂ’s missing is how that ticket was actually constructed from those contenders.

Did you personally have that double the way it was played?

With all due respect, any decent software can generate a top 4 or 5 contender list that will include the winner most of the time. ThatÂ’s not where the edge is.

The edge is in how you turn those contenders into an actual wager. ThatÂ’s the part no one is seeing beforehand, and thatÂ’s where the learning really is.

So IÂ’m just asking, what is the actual takeaway people are getting from this? Thanks.

Tom

Hi Tom,
I am friends with Tim and have met him several times at Saratoga. I.M.O. what he offers is showing people how he gets his contenders (backs it up with statistical backtests of them over different time periods to show if what he does is still valid). Once he gets them he explains his capping process and how he moves horses up and down his contender list based on things Like form points, off track line usage and elimination, not using horses best speed rating if an older horse etc. He has done this in many posts here (not on a daily basis when posting his contender mix.) He honestly wants to help people because he was given help decades ago and became a consistent winner after that. He is trying to "give back" in the way he knows how to.

One thing I can suggest for someone looking to gain more of an understanding of what he does is to look at the winning tickets he posts, see who he uses and who he does not and then look at the race to see why. His "mix" of contenders and the way he structures tickets is HIS way and often is VERY different from most folks .

I get that some would feel he should "do more" to "prove" what he does works. All I can say is that he is most definitley a consistent winner at the races and has been for a LONG time. What is really cool to me personally is that he has been able to maintain this winning with all the changes in the last few years that has hit racing from smaller fields to Computer teams etc etc. The same issues that has chased MANY people from the game as it became unwinnable for them with the time commitment they can devote or methods they used. And for the record I AM one of those people. Outside of the Derby and an occasional card I have been out for years now.

Man I went long on this ha? LOL I hope you are well Tom and I respect your skills and wish you the best !
Richie

[atlasaxis]

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