Jeez, I promised to myself to avoid this site after reading the thirty-millionth post from CthC that would make Pim Fortuyn blush in terms of its race- and sex-baiting. But I can't hold back after reading you boast of the superiority of your figure making vis-a-vis the fifth at Belmont. I don't see any--any!--substantive differences between the Sheets and your product on the race. A read of either would have significantly ID'd the four horses who looked positive in that race: the rail horse, the older horse with the 14 in his last (sorry, can't remember the name), the winning filly, and the Dickenson horse on the outside. Taking account probable ground loss, if one were insane enough to play this race--which offered virtually no value--any figures player would have leaned against the Dickenson horse at a short price. What's your point? The key in the race wasn't the filly, but the rail horse (at, if I remember, somewhere in the neighborhood of eightish to one), and the older maiden (even he was a bit of a question, though, given short time into the race off a top). The responsible approach to the race would have been PASS and wait for something with value. (I don't see any difference in picking that horse based on past Thoro numbers and doing the same by looking at the Beyers). And if you were willing to gamble on a race THAT OFFERED ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE, you would have advocated a four-horse box of those four (which you would have cashed). As it were, you advised that the filly was the bet, and to protect w/the Dickenson horse. How was that any different from the way a novice player, simply looking at best last effort combined with the odds, would have approached the race (especially with the knowledge that grassers rarely run their best effort first out on turf). An extremely lame way to tout your product...