Bit,

Thanks for the link. I respect Tony and know a friend a good while back that spoke with him at length about what he does. Much respect.

That said, if you go back and look at the charts and the PP's as they discuss at least the first two races they covered (I didn't have time to continue when I listened earlier this week), you can see where his computer thoughts are not accurate on odds either for every race. In fact, some major errors. He did have a good opinion or two where I may not have but his computer misses some things that the human eye and mind might pick up quicker or process better. For example, one horse that he discussed what his computer would say involved a horse who has done well with lasix and not as well without it. He didn't account for this difference if I had to bet in his algo. This is an angle that still has some use as these rules continue to be inconsistent as lasix is phased out. I recall discussing this a touch with JB and Sean at Saratoga this summer.

There were other places where I saw that his comments and projections maybe indicate his algo misses a mark or two. I like he didn't want to mention the weakness of the whale computer players but did say where less info is a place they are weak basically. It makes the mind work on where there are still a few spots available.

I do agree over time as he says a computer can be more accurate in some ways. But they are not infallible by any means. Opportunities are far, far less as we all know esp at larger odds which makes the game less appealing in many ways. This fits with the idea that the lowest goal for them is to grind out a profit after the rebates are sent their way for their large handle.