Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
Now, that hurt. 
Do you have any idea how much of a kick I get out of your KEE analysis? You're spending hours to get info that I generate in a matter of seconds. Why in the world would you spend all this time on ONE track, Phil? I can understand if your analysis was novel or advanced but you're at the most basic of levels when it comes to race analysis. Of course, that 9:2 winner has made it all worth while. And, that's all part of being 'special'.
Go away, will you. You simpleton doofus.
Thanks for the enternaiment, otherwise.
So much for attempting something useful here. |
This is exactly why everyone here makes fun of you and brushes you aside as a useless piece of trash. I answered your question with my thoughts, and instead of actually discussing what I said, right or wrong, you attack me and others. I poke fun at your bike analyses because HORSES ARE NOT BIKES AND RACETRACKS ARE NOT VELODROMES. If you actually got on the back of a horse and rode it you would realize they don't operate like a piece of human operated machinery where you can pick and choose when or how fast they go.
Analyzing Keeneland this meet has nothing to do with one specific winner. That was the first one to run back. It has plenty to do with being able to refer back to my notes on how the track was playing- because if you haven't noticed your precious polytrack has a significant bias which changes daily. You still haven't responded to what you said was an incorrect analysis of a race a couple weeks ago- well guess what, one of the horses I suggested might be a good play against is the 5/2 favorite in tomorrow's 5th. Perhaps you could do everyone a favor and explain why she's a great play or not because clearly I'm not smart enough in your mind to do it.
I completely but respectfully disagree that your charts can determine what happened inside of a race because at the core they're no different than looking at a raw running line.