1. I really don't have a problem with you providing analysis. It takes a long time to become a proficient sheet user and this is obviously a service to some of your customers. I do have a problem with comparing your analsyis to Friedman's, as they are done for different purposes and are irrelevant in any event to the determining the quality of the sheets.

2. I am not saying that $1,000 was not enough for the contest. My point was that unless you spent half your money on the Belmont in the contest, you were unlikely to hit that trifecta. On Belmont day, it was worth spending several hundred dollars to hit that trifecta. (As one who got cheap and shaved a few horses off of the top of my tri, I wish I had bet a little more).

3. I believe you on Sarava. Some Ragozin people did not think he had a positive pattern. I liked it more than others, and thought he had a good shot to hit the board. But many here keep missing the point. The key to that race was not Sarava per se, but in confidently throwing out War Emblem completely and being very negative on Proud Citizen. I will agree that Friedman did not make these comments, but that was my reading of the sheets. That only left about 6 horses who had any chance to finish in the tri, Sarava being one of them. Also, as Sarava was the best value in the race (Perfect Drift ended up being no value), I bet him to win.

4. The ROI comment was lame because, the tri was a $15,000 one. Further, it is a generalization that minimizes the value of the sheets. In some races, you have a strong horse that you bet to win and key in exotics. Those races obviously have the best chance of hitting and certaily a more predictable ROI. Some races, are races like the Belmont where you throw out an even money favorite in an 11 horse field. There, you may bet dozens of races before you hit one. If your only point was that stating that you hit a tax ticket does not mean you made money, then we are agreed.

5. I don't disagree, but it is often also true that the series of efforts is the reason for the excuse. As an owner of a few horses over the years, if a horse is sore, it not unusual to stumble at the start.

6. Well, this debate keeps shifting. I will reiterate that I don't see any point in determining who are better handicapers. We are trying to determine who makes better sheets. By constantly criticizing Ragozin's methodology, you are arguing that his sheets are not a good handicapping tool and yours are better. That is how this contest started. My point is that the Ragozin Sheets did very well that day. I am open to comparing TG's when they are posted. Also, I would be interested in hearing other TG's users big scores on the day and their reasons for playing them, as I really do not know whether Ragozin patterns work the same with Thorograph.