I'm not assuming he's making the potentially smart play I described. And I'm not assuming he's not (though you know it's a lot more likely his ticket reads 1x3x6 than 6x7x8). He's offering prelim. analysis of a dozen lines, which is all any player really does a day before the race.

I'm often curious on how sharp players (those who I respect for their ability to read a horse's form cycle) see races. But the rush to see the *specific* plays well in advance of the race, I never understand the obsession with that. For example, USS Tinosa made sense to me on both Ragozin and Tgraph as a potential key, but I was immediately off the horse when I saw the odds, a couple hours before the race-- 10-1, are you kidding me? The whole idea of that horse is that he goes off 20-1 or longer. With the low price, he goes from being a potential key to just another use.

The self-promotional angle of the book from 1997, I'm well aware of that, but that's a lot different than Len F. somehow posting disingenuously on his site hoping to get away with something.

Again: Even if every other criticism is true, I've heard nothing that convinces me that posting prelim analysis exactly the way he does is in any way bogus.

Again: HP and whoever else, you seem awfully silly when you dis Friedman *specifically* for "'using' eight horses in exotics in a twelve horse field," when in fact that is *possibly* a perfectly reasonable strategy.

I agree that posting after the fact about scores on the Pimlico card is something better saved for private e-mails to friends, but on a list of sins, I don't find it all that apalling.

The arguments on private backstabbing of competitors, the arguments on making of variants, those are big issues, to be sure.

But "using 8 horses in a 12 horse field" as an indicator of someone's moral failings? Doesn't make much sense to me.