Re: TG v. Rags --big picture
Posted by Jerry B on May 03, 1999 at 17:27:28:
In Reply to: Re: TG v. Rags --big picture posted by Steve Plever on May 03, 1999 at 13:27:12:
: I was at last year's seminar -- Len F's bottom line was that Real Quiet as a win bet was the key to the race (like many Sheets players, alas I didn't agree). He never tried to take credit for an exotics score in that race. And you said yourself you have no beef with his pre-race posting this year. He's done no post-race misrepresentation either. Going back further, he's been totally honest about being totally wrong about Sea Hero (my last Derby score).
: So why bring up something from years ago in a book written by the other Len that had nothing to do with TG? I learned a lot from Len R's book, but also detected "artistic license" plenty of times. I'm not going to bother with page 96 -- not that I doubt your word, but it doesn't pass the "so what" test. Even if Len R "spun" Len F's public selection record inaccurately, Len F does not sell himself as a tout.
: I don't know anyone who buys Rags expecting guaranteed winners from the office there. I see a buncha opinionated guys drawing very different conclusions from the same #s. That's the fun of it. Those who find their own way to win, or at least improve their handicapping enough to stay in the game, stay customers.
: I appreciate your frank comments on the lack of upside for posting an ROI for TG picks. The part about roughly breaking even -- not the claim that it would be a pain in the butt. If you could claim a positive ROI long-term, the marketing value would be well worth your effort.
: As for the big picture, I think I do get it. I am confident your touting customers care more about your ROI than how you fare in an ancient, arcane, and very personal argument. Do well in the Preakness and your customers won't care what anyone else picked.
1. He had nothing to say this year or about Sea Hero because he wasn't close. The problem arises on the occasions he is close (or even on target).
2. The book came out just last year and the comments were about the 96 Belmont. It concerns TG because it's false advertising (as was Len's claim in the book that he won in Atlantic City when he actually lost), and influences potential customers--that's why they so it.
As it happens, Alan and I were sitting in the Supreme Court of the United States two weeks ago (seriously-a friend of ours was the plaintiff in College Savings Bank v. Florida) listening to arguments concerning this very question.
3. It's not about "touting" customers (boy, you like using that word)--the analysis and phone lines represent only a tiny percentage of our income, and we recommend to all that they learn to use the data themselves. But if people believe you succeed more than your competition they will buy your product. Again, that's why they make the claims--in fact, that's why we both wroteall the DRF columns.
4. The point of all this is not to berate them for past sins, but to make it a level playing field now. If that happens we'll let the chips fall where they may.