I've been away for a few days or would have replied to Treadhead sooner re: Nick's picks.
Nick is arguebly the best handicapper in the TG office and the results prove it. Yes, the sample days haven't been his best but if you were to review his record since he began handicapping you would find more then 20 horses who paid $40 or more. 10 who paid $50 or more and 3 who paid $70 or more. Add on a 69-1 shot (Ten Times Nobility) who was disqualified in a $100,000 stakes race at Churchill in June. This man is the KING of the price winner.
To your complaint that he was picking to many short priced horses as well as horses off tops; As anyone who followed Hollywood's meeting knows the small field size made finding longshots impossible. (Don't take my word ask anyone of any handicapping style). Nick changed his style to try to pick winners, regardless of the price. Perhaps this had some carryover effect into Santa Anita. Yes, at Santa Anita , with greater field size Nick should be picking more longshots and longshot winners. I think if you continue to follow the redboard room you will see that happen. As everyone knows all handicappers go through peaks and valleys. I don't care how good you are. Keep watching Nick's picks and I'm sure you will find out what I already know. This guy is the best!
And just curious on this. While it is certainly ok to question Nick's picks, why no mention of what was ptobably the single best day of handicapping put out by any service this year. I'm talking about Saturday's Calder picks where there 6 straight picks threes given out which included winners paying $47 and $59. In two races (including the $47 winner) you only needed to use one horse and in only one race did you need to use as many as three, and that race yielded a $59 winner. The single best day of handicapping in 2002. Wish I had bet more but oh well..Happy New Year to all!



subversive chick