Layoff logic

[gl45]

Kee Race 6

In the last 3 races that Bwana run, he did sucks. For the purpose of find the true contenders I did leave the horse in. I didn't post my original readout from Syn2 with my projected paceline selection and TPR. After I discuss the race with Shoe I decided to post only the contenders readout, big mistake. I know Richie would love to see this. Notice the FT (Final Time) and TPR. We have two counter energy #1 and #5. Based on SCBL we going to concentrate on SP ranking, and what we see!!!! One step further, lets see LP ranking, ooopsy again. Enjoy.
Pino

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by gl45

Kee Race 6

In the last 3 races that Bwana run, he did sucks. For the purpose of find the true contenders I did leave the horse in. I didn't post my original readout from Syn2 with my projected paceline selection and TPR. After I discuss the race with Shoe I decided to post only the contenders readout, big mistake. I know Richie would love to see this. Notice the FT (Final Time) and TPR. We have two counter energy #1 and #5. Based on SCBL we going to concentrate on SP ranking, and what we see!!!! One step further, lets see LP ranking, ooopsy again. Enjoy.
Pino

Oh My

[Fast4522]

The follow up is ok but can one make a case in speculator with printouts in the same format as that follow up. Something that is current may prove to be the defacto standard of what people like to see and understand. I guess I am not current myself not having Speculator. Do we have a strong Speculator person in our membership that is not Binder and is willing to step forward and make the case properly in speculator that # 6 was seriously lacking? Ok the race is cold and old now but feel current is good.
Steve

[shoeless]

Pino,I dont know how you got that horse 1 like that I sure cant.Check out how the 1 rates on FW,DR and turn time fraction.He is the only one 1st or 2nd in all 3 like that guy's article said.I had one like that today at Keen he went off 9-1 and ran 2nd.This is something to keep an eye on.Shoeless

Originally Posted by Fast4522

The follow up is ok but can one make a case in speculator with printouts in the same format as that follow up. Something that is current may prove to be the defacto standard of what people like to see and understand. I guess I am not current myself not having Speculator. Do we have a strong Speculator person in our membership that is not Binder and is willing to step forward and make the case properly in speculator that # 6 was seriously lacking? Ok the race is cold and old now but feel current is good.
Steve

Don't know how to present a screen copy in Spec to show you the screen so private e-mail and I will

analysis was the same, but even if this one did not fire, according to these lines it had to be CONSIDERED. Note that it was the LAST line used, not three back.

[Fast4522]

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. No Current followup case has been made for this horse who can not win at this class level against older horses. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Fast4522

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. No Current followup case has been made for this horse who can not win at this class level against older horses. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

Hi Steve
While it is true in THIS race spec made a horse a contender that Val didn't ( who turned out to be a p.o.s.) it also goes the other way in a different race. I think that's the beauty of the programs whether it's val,spec,k-19,"proggie" etc. The 17 dollar winner is right there on ALL the programs to be had.

The part the program can't show is the decision making on pass/play and which horse(s) to wager on. That will always come from within. This is the biggest seperator of winners/non winners in my opinion. DECISION MAKING. Not one's software of choice.

Just my 2 cents
Richie

Originally Posted by Fast4522

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

Basing a decision of dominance (Val or Spec) on a SINGLE sample is LUDICROUS. Sample error abounds in projecting HISTORY upon FUTURE performance. As many times as ONE program scores, I can give you just as many times it is the OTHER way round. Imagine that you were an advanced guard of Martians coming to invade the Earth and landed in a field in Wisconsin and ONLY saw rabbits hopping around then based your ENTIRE strategy for invading based upon that SINGLE observation. "There are no strong beings here to conquer. Only these weak rabbits." SAMPLE ERROR

Secondly, the winner was right there on the SAME readout. The reason we are told to BET TWO horses is based on the fact that even with a solid PROJECTION, many times a horse does not fire again.

Ever hear of "leaping to conclusions?" I'm afraid you did that here.

Originally Posted by Fast4522

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

Basing a decision of dominance (Val or Spec) on a SINGLE sample is LUDICROUS. Sample error abounds in projecting HISTORY upon FUTURE performance. As many times as ONE program scores, I can give you just as many times it is the OTHER way round. Imagine that you were an advanced guard of Martians coming to invade the Earth and landed in a field in Wisconsin and ONLY saw rabbits hopping around then based your ENTIRE strategy for invading upon that SINGLE observation. "There are no strong beings here to conquer. Only these weak rabbits." SAMPLE ERROR

Secondly, the winner was right there on the SAME readout. The reason we are told to BET TWO horses is based on the fact that even with a solid PROJECTION, many times a horse does not fire again.

No credentials??? 40% SPRINT winner vs some of the best competition around, solid works, one of the leading trainers in the country?? sound certified.

Ever hear of "leaping to conclusions?" I'm afraid you did that here.