The post-contest yapping on this board has motivated me to sign-up and post for the first and probably the last time. I know this is like paying attention to the adolescent punk who is always being obnoxious to get your attention but when he keeps farting in your face, you almost have to respond.

Here is a brief recap of Superfreaky's contest wagers.

First race: Hooked-up the two favorites in an exacta: $266 gross return minus $120 wagered on the race for a $166 net return (about 3/2). Not bad but not something most people would brag about. Note that one of those 2 exacta horses (the 9/5 fav) was a Mott/Bailey horse that had not run in 8 or 9 months. You must have been using those awesome jock/trainer and trainer/layoff stats that come with the Rags to make that pick.

Second race: I tip my hat to you. You pegged a 12/1 shot making its first US start. This horse looked so good on Rags that they did not even bother to include a sheet on him. I guess they must have sent out a subliminal message to all raggies that, based on their precise Euro variants and measurements of runnups and weather charts, this horse was running monster figs in Europe. Dave Patent must not have had his subliminal decoder working at that time. This was a very nice score. One worthy of crowing about. You cashed a $475 daily double (keying this no-fig horse with the 2 favs in the first race) and you also cashed a $275 win ticket (on this no-fig horse) but failed to cash any of your other bets in the race using horses that actually had Rag figs. This was a nice score: $750 and the reason you managed to end up in the black in the contest but it was all thanks to a horse that did not even have a Rag sheet. In other words, the sheets did not help you at all except to guide you toward the two favs in the first and to some losing tickets in the second. I am not sure what you based your winning wagering decision on in this race but it was certainly not on Rag figures. You made a good bet. Maybe you had some inside info. Maybe you work for or know K. McLaughlin. Maybe you use info sources other than the Rags. Nice score but certainly not one you can give Rags any credit for.

Other than that, your only other cash was on a $10 exacta box in the 8th race. That may have been a good bet or may have been simply a lucky one given that the rest of your rag-based bets with the $650 remaining in your contest bankroll failed to return anything despite spreading it out on multiple horses in multiple races. In fact, you owe most of your success in the contest to a single horse without a sheet! Yet you chide the winner of the contest for picking only two horses and hitting with one of them. If you had followed his approach and not used the Rags and attacked the card as a precision marksman with a rifle rather than a hillbilly with a shotgun, you probably would have won the contest going away.

Maybe you could learn something from all this.

As for your cohort, David Patent. I actually thought he did a pretty good job handicapping but he was hurt by the scratches. That being said, I wish he could see how totally classless his post-contest remarks were. I believe he may have hit those trifectas on Belmont Day. But to crow about them after he failed to select any of them beforehand in the contest is just beyond my comprehension, particularly, given all the hoopla leading up to the contest. David, grow up. Show some class. You are a good handicapper and maybe even a good guy but you made a very bad decision with that post.