Your way of breaking down the analysis for ROI was close enough-- we did something pretty similar when we charted daily about 3 months of FG meet here a few years ago. I think it ended up even or a little down. But there is no question a meet is a very small sampling, where one or two photos or results can skew the whole study. But as I said, I think a long run study would have produced results that aren't that much better. I'm surprised that you're surprised-- we've been telling people for years this is the case, and that they are better off learning how to use the data themselves.

The ROTW is indeed a teaching tool, and we don't make picks. I think you could craft plays in conjunction with the odds-- but it would take a lot of work. (Note-- we did come up with a specific play for all those races. I could tell you they showed a large profit-- which they did-- but since the plays are no longer findable, there is no way to prove it).As a self-serving side note, think about what Friedman does in just listing horses in a race-- he is intentionally making it hard to track his results. For every race he lists, we are actually making a play that can be viewed for free the next day in the RBR, and judged to have won or lost.

You have made your OPINION clear on the pace issue. I did take pace into account in the ROTW-- I predicted the horse would be on the lead saving ground. Again-- instead of making a general statement that can be neither proved or disproved, give me examples in advance of where it WILL be a factor that will lead to a result contrary to what TG players would predict. Over a group of these we'll see how it turns out.



TGJB