I wouldn't say he has NO variant.
apparently, he's got 9 variants on 9 races for each card.
he bases each variant on what #'s he projects for each group of 5 or 6 horses.
which is why I find it so odd that he gives out terrible picks using his own data, and invited him to the contest.
in handicapping any given race, he must simply project the #'s each runner produces on that day ---- the exact same thing he's doing 100's of times a day already.
the only difference is, instead of using this process to pencil in new #'s, he's crafting wagers w/it.
you'd think a guy who could create such 'tight' peter pan #'s would be like nostradamus at the windows.

anyway.....
let me get back to the original question that guy asked about the bounce thing in the belmont.

first, let me present my philosophical 'credentials'.
a few years back, I was as much into breeding as anybody you could find.
I picked horses in dec. and jan. based on breeding (sea hero, go for gin), I was into dosage, the whole deal.
I even used the t-bred register to create this bigass family tree of all t-breds back to the 1800's.
I was a huge fan of breeding and the triple crown.
now, along comes len friedman, and while I won't put words in his mouth, he was a little skeptical of all that extraneous stuff, and relied mostly on sheet patterns.
I think he mostly looks at the derby as just another race, as opposed to some back breaking distance --- and after all, the derby is also at a distance these horses haven't run at (like the belmont).
in particular, when he spoke positively of a horse like Dance Floor, I scoffed.

as the years have rolled by, I notice more and more that these triple crown events DO play out like any other race.
the patterns hold up, and the breeding angles don't --- after all, are these horses really bred so differently?
just take a look at Came Home in the derby, as example.
the fact is, that before the derby and belmont everybody's got breeding angles.
the ones that pan out are remembered, and the many failures are forgotten.

I think the belmont distance makes little difference, other than as a handicapper's bogeyman, and as an exacerbating factor in expected x's, as mentioned in other posts.