Book Signers

[Bethz]

Has anyone read this book? I read in HorsePlayer Magazine that this is a unique handicapping book and especially because it is written by a successful woman.

[Blackgold]

I liked the book.

The author, Susan Sweeny, is the wife of Ed Bain, who has done quite well tracking Layoffs and Claims and even sells such information on his website and in his book, the 4+30 method.

Most of the book is the story of Susan and Ed, but that lays the foundation for how she arrived at her unconventional, yet successful, handicapping methods that she uses to attack serial bets and tris.

Do a google for them and you can probably get both books and more info off their website.

[The Skeptic]

Very disappointed in the book. Garbage. Nothing insightful in the book at all. Most of the information in the book can be obtained free at various spots on ed's website at edbain.com. Save the trees and your money.

[e bain]

I guess every message board has its resident pyrrhonian. But it is quite a statement you made without reading the book so I am accusing you of not reading the book. If you have, would you please be more specific in which parts of the book Susan wrote is garbage and please give your reasons why.
Normally I would not respond to a statement like that except you did not read the book so I don't believe your skepticism. I also know that there is only one excerpt on Susans book Signers on my web site so your trash talking is a reflection of your ability to handicap.
Ed Bain

[hurrikane]

Hey Ed,

happy to see you poke your head in. Hope you stick around

[Figman]

I echo Hurrikane's sentiments. From seeing you on Capital OTB Television, you certainly strike me as being one of the few decent, honest sellers of information out there in the handicapping world. All the best to you and your better half, Susan.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by e bain
I guess every message board has its resident pyrrhonian. But it is quite a statement you made without reading the book so I am accusing you of not reading the book. If you have, would you please be more specific in which parts of the book Susan wrote is garbage and please give your reasons why.
Normally I would not respond to a statement like that except you did not read the book so I don't believe your skepticism. I also know that there is only one excerpt on Susans book Signers on my web site so your trash talking is a reflection of your ability to handicap.
Ed Bain

Welcome Ed.Dont feel bad..Im TRASHED by the guys here all the time..Im tough!

[The Skeptic]

I did read the book. Too much filler not enough substance.

[JonW]

Skeptic -

Pardon my skepticism concernering your claim to have read the book, but since you made comment without any specific reference to anything in the book I am left with doubt.

If you can answer just one small question, my skeptical nature will be satisfied and I will accept your judgement on the book to be an honest view that is simply in disagreement with my own.

What was the name of Julia's horse that was mentioned in the book? (Hint: Page 31) (Another Hint: from the chapter "Betting A Little to Make a Lot")

[kitts]

I am reading the book now. It is entertaining for sure. I did not expect any handicapping lessons even though there are a few. I think it is a great book for a woman that has been dragged screaming and kicking into horseracing and needs some guidance.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by McSchell_Racing
Welcome Ed.Dont feel bad..Im TRASHED by the guys here all the time..Im tough!

Trashed and debated are two different things. You post, people respond. I don't see you being trashed. And in fact, I'm highly offended by your comment, because if you were being trashed, I would have stepped in, and I ALWAYS do my job.

PS. I'm moving this thread to the Handicapping Library section, where it belongs....

[e bain]

I thought the post on the book Signers would result in a discussion on handicapping.
The accepted approach to handicapping is with speed. Yet the question is, should speed be the primary handicapping tool, considering 15 billion a year is wagered on racing and that is predominately from part time recreational players.
The Kentucky Derby’s been run since 1875 so lets say, speed has been around since 1875 and speed has yet to be able to develop a cadre of players who make a living betting with speed even though 129 years have now passed.
Are there alternatives to speed? The answer is Yes, but as we saw in the Skeptics posting on the book Signers, he called it garbage and advises people not to read it. By using negative adjectives, we get side tracked and taken off the focus off the contents of the book and onto the emotions that the word conjures, when it is obvious he has never read the book.
This book is about how a horseplayer evolves and how decision-making develops. It is also about other handicapping factors rarely discussed like setting up a routine to find plays, how to apply discipline and then how to structure the correct bets to take advantage of those handicapping tools through simulcasting. The book Signers is an alternative book to speed.

[DonnieN]

Hey Ed....glad to see ya posting....don't worry 'bout the skeptic...think he needs an alka seltzer or enema or something.

I am strictly a database handicapper. I do not use data-mining, as I am a "spot-play handicapper". Have set up a db 4 years ago and have my "routine" down for helping me stay focused and organized. Really enjoy tournament play.

What do you mean "handicapping factors rarely discussed"? I know that most horsemen don't look at pace or speed numbers. Are you referring to the prep time going into a session? From your post it sounds as if "process" is the main theme or focus. Gonna head over to your site to read the excerpts from Susan's book. Always like a woman who is a handicapper....or puts up with one! :D (Our basement was flooded this past Spring and we are now getting around to redo-ing it....she is encouraging me to put a simulcast center down there! Wooo whoooo!!)

[JimG]

Originally posted by JonW
Skeptic -

Pardon my skepticism concernering your claim to have read the book, but since you made comment without any specific reference to anything in the book I am left with doubt.

If you can answer just one small question, my skeptical nature will be satisfied and I will accept your judgement on the book to be an honest view that is simply in disagreement with my own.

What was the name of Julia's horse that was mentioned in the book? (Hint: Page 31) (Another Hint: from the chapter "Betting A Little to Make a Lot")

Jon W:

Welcome to the board! I hoe you stick around as well and post some. For those that do not know, Jon is a very good handicapper and applies some neat "kinky handicapping" techniques to arrive at winners. He is also a power user of the trainer stats Ed produces.

Jim

PS...I would answer your question, but have not received the book yet. I ordered a long time ago and do not believe I cancelled it. I'll have to check.

[Blackgold]

Dear Ed and Susan,

I didn't pay attention to the "high schoolers" when I was in high school, much less now.

Have read about you and Susan in Mark Cramer's writings and have read your and now her book.

And I frequently visit your website, www.edbain.com

Both of your contributions to this game are valid, well thought out and welcome.

It's not that Skeptic hasn't read your book, it's that he has probably NEVER had a signer.

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by Blackgold
Dear Ed and Susan,

I didn't pay attention to the "high schoolers" when I was in high school, much less now.

Have read about you and Susan in Mark Cramer's writings and have read your and now her book.

And I frequently visit your website, www.edbain.com

Both of your contributions to this game are valid, well thought out and welcome.

It's not that Skeptic hasn't read your book, it's that he has probably NEVER had a signer.

Or it could be that he's never read any book

[e bain]

What do you mean "handicapping factors rarely discussed"? __________________
Hi Donnie,
What I was referring to is any handicapping factor other than speed. In boxing when they score, there are two types of punches; a jab, labeled a jab, and power punches, which is any punch other than a jab.
In handicapping, the dominant handicapping tool is speed. It is also the easiest way to handicap, the most written about, and understood by most players. Other approaches are thought of as secondary handicapping factors although to me they would be power punches.
I, myself, was a speed player for over 20 years, including my daily effort to record par times and track variants. Though I knew what I was doing and I understood what I was doing, the truth is, I cashed a lot of tickets but through my betting records I found that I was losing 10% and could not bet with speed and make a living. I think this is the same problem every speed handicapper faces and is the primary reason racing has not attracted a large group of new players. We learn from books, computers, videos and once we have completed our research, we still cannot make a living and I think this a serious issue. Sounds good, sounds reasonable but nobody comes out and tells us what works and what does not with speed and maybe because they do not know.
In 1993, I tracked my own database on trainers. In 1994, I committed to only betting trainer stats and have not had a losing year. I never had a winning year with speed. There are other factors that are just as effective, like the things that Susan does and explains in her book Signers. Susan is a statistical player, she looks at all statistics, including trainer and horse stats and bets completely different from me and wins.
Database players like you and other people who have the motivation to do the work with the purpose of making a living, have an advantage. The advantage is, they become a specialist, looking for plays through the use of statistics. Once this happens, a routine is set up to find them. Over any length of time, any player who has set up a routine to find profitable plays will only bet those plays. The need for entertainment is now set aside and the need to make a living takes over.

[timtam]

I read about Barry Meadows giving a review to your last book saying he thinks you make more money on selling your data than you do on actual betting. I was a member and paid $100 a month for the priviledge of receiving your data and found his review to be correct. I lasted one month and said goodbye but I can't speak for anyone else.

[e bain]

I read about Barry Meadows giving a review to your last book saying he thinks you make more money on selling your data than you do on actual betting. I was a member and paid $100 a month for the priviledge of receiving your data and found his review to be correct. I lasted one month and said goodbye but I can't speak for anyone else.
_________________

Hi Timtam,

My book came out in 2002 and I sent a copy to Barry Meadows for a review. When I sent it to him, I knew if there were any holes in my approach, he would find them and he did not.
By your posting, you can see that Meadows became sidetracked from the book to what he believed was how much money I was making selling my service, book and Newsletter which has nothing to do with either the book or my approach. Though I don’t believe that developing an income from any of these areas is a negative factor.
He did respond on my web sites Message Board to questions about what he said in his review. I’ve attached that link below for your review.

http://www.edbain.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27


I wish I won every month. I can tell you that I don’t. I can tell you nobody does. My statistics are tools. I can help in the way to use that tool, it comes down to application and it is a completely different way of betting. Sometimes players who played one way for years simply transfer what they are currently doing to statistics.

[wonatthewire1]

Ed,

Absolutely enjoyed the book - eventhough I'm only a weekend warrior - but have been going to the track for just over 8 years.

I especially found the exotic wagering "thought" process most interesting - though I have used some similar tactics (horses that run ITM often). But still, it was interesting to see a different approach and Susan did an excellent job in explaining her rationaliztions when placing wagers.

PS: if anyone wants to take a look at how poorly Barry Meadows does with "public handicapping"; I invite you to take a look at his picks on Saturdays (available for free viewing on Sundays) at Equibase's "expert selections" section. I'll let you decide!

[Donnie]

Ed-
Thanks for your response. You have piqued my interest in Susan's book. Except for my early days, speed figures have never ranked up in my top considerations. In fact the db I have used for the past 4 years ranks my contenders based on 6 factors, none of which is a speed figure. What I like about my approach is that those 6 factors are always in flux from race to race and horse to horse. Three of the factors just happen to be percentages, so you caught my attention when you mentioned percentages. I think one of the downfalls of many horseplayers is their adherence to what we are taught at the onset of our quest to beat this game. "You need to pick winners". And whatever you do, it better work ALWAYS! (blackbox mentality)

I used to datamine, but since this is not my livelihood, I don't have the time to devote to it right now. Some people think it is a waste of time, but the experience cannot be found elsewhere. Experience takes time.

Can anyone tell us how to win using speed figures? You know, with all the different approaches to this game, and the fact that handicapping involves ego and is very personal to every player, I don't know if the nature of the animal will allow a person to trully follow in another's direct footsteps. I have a hard time believing a person would write a book if they didn't believe what they are imparting hasn't worked for them personally. It takes time, committment and in many cases, outside financing to get that book to market. But how many people will follow the exact instructions, sometimes which need that experience to temper them properly? Not many!!

My sheets are a tool as well. I could give them to 10 people and those ten people would come up with 10 different horses. That's fine...no problem for me. I study them, decipher patterns and this leads me to the horses I play. An instrument is only as good as the person playing it. But without the experience, one can never master it.

[JonW]

Originally posted by timtam
I read about Barry Meadows giving a review to your last book saying he thinks you make more money on selling your data than you do on actual betting. I was a member and paid $100 a month for the priviledge of receiving your data and found his review to be correct. I lasted one month and said goodbye but I can't speak for anyone else.

Timtam,

If you paid $100 a month, I want a refund! I've been paying $129 each month for past 4 years.

As to your finding his "review" to be correct - I take it that you are saying that you failed to come out ahead using his layoffs/claims/debut stats despite following his recommendations in his book and in the articles at his site. And despite taking advantage of his offer to both provide you with his selections on the days that he was playing as well as critique your own selections. And despite taking advantage of the one month+ of previous data that is always available to both gain an understanding and to build experience with the stats without spending a dime on a bet. I've got to tell you the truth, after exhausting yourself in trying to understand how to best use the stats as your primary or lone information source to make a little on the ponies for a full month, I'm surprised that you didn't at least find some hope for the future as you gained experience in coming up with the select 3 or 4 potential bets a day that might come up as worthwhile with as Ed suggests.

Or, did you just "wing it" and hope for the best without knowing what you were doing as most horseplayers do most of the time trying to play just about every race?

The use of trainer statistics as a sole or primary source of betting information is not for everyone. That does not make Meadow's "review" correct. Had Barry actually tried to carry out Ed's strategies and reported on that, his review would have had merit. (Although someone as disciplined as I have read that he is in his own betting would have found enough in actual use that the review would have been quite different. Amazing what you can write when you don't know a darn thing about something.) As it is, he just guessed - and charged his own customers for his uneducated judgement. No need to test when you already know.

"Conformity-the natural instinct to passively yield to that vague something recognized as authority."
- Mark Twain

[timtam]

What did I wake up the Ed Bain admiration society?

[andicap]

Ed, Jon W.,
I have a question about the stats.

I noticed in the past that the 4+ 30 numbers are a loser by themselves. (For those of you who aren't familar -- that means trainers who show a profit over at least 30 races with Ed's layoff figures in which he goes back to 4 races off a layoff and breaks them down into routes and sprints.)

If those figures, which are based on how a trainer has done in the past, don't hold up, why should any trainer stat work going forward.

We've all see a trainer pattern work one year and not the next or work for several years and stop working for various reasons (different owners, different mix of horses in the barn, a prized assistant leaves the barn, bad luck, etc.)

And if the 4 + 30 numbers are money losers, why should someone use this methodology.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to learn.

[JonW]

Hi Andicap,

Actually, the 4+30 is just shorthand for a trainer statistic that has won 30 percent (or better) with at least 4 wins on the statistical category. On October 1st, Christophe Clement had won 6 races in 15 tries (40%) when running a horse for the 2nd time after a layoff in sprint races on the New York circuit - so he is a "4+30" trainer in that situation.

The "4+30" is a starting point for making a decision on whether or not to make a bet. We want to bet on a trainer that has demonstrated proficiency in a situation. That Clement is 6/15 does not mean that he should automatically be bet, but it does mean that he can be considered. The statistics are broken into subsets for the days specific situation. In the October 1st race Santos was the rider. Clement was 3 for 3 with Santos on the 2nd after a layoff in a sprint (L2-S) on the "today's jockey" subset. On the "track specific" subset, he was 5/8 at Belmont. He was 4/10 at the specific distance of 6 furlongs. All of those things enter into the decision process. Other things enter into the decision as well, such as whether Clement was on a particularly cold streak or a particularly hot streak. Whether Clement won on the statistic in Maiden Special Weight races was another factor to consider. That there is a "4+30" does not mean that a horse should be bet, but it is a good start towards making a decision. Ed "filters" the stat to assist in making a decision by tossing out a play if it does not meet various requirements. (Such as having poor subset categories. In the Clement example, it would be a toss out if his record with the jockey was 0/5 for instance.)

You are correct that playing a single factor comes out as a loser. The thing is, using Ed's layoff/claims/debut statistics is not a single factor process. The statistic does not replace thought, nor does it make a decision. On an average Saturday there are more than 40 "4+30" entries. After filtering, there are typically 4-6 that meet the Ed's requirements for considering a bet. That is precisely why using the stats is so tough for most horseplayers - they want a lot more "action" than just 4 plays on a day when there are over 300 races available for betting.

Why use the "4+30" as the basis of play? It provides a framework for decision making for those that are inclined to find a handful of good plays in a day. But it is not for everyone, particularly if you are looking for a magic system or just want to find a quick play in the next race.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions about the "4+30". I know that this answer is not adequate - but it was my best shot on a day when my brain seems stuck in neutral. If Ed responds, I'm sure that he can better address your questions.

Good luck.

[andicap]

Originally posted by JonW
Hi Andicap,

Actually, the 4+30 is just shorthand for a trainer statistic that has won 30 percent (or better) with at least 4 wins on the statistical category. On October 1st, Christophe Clement had won 6 races in 15 tries (40%) when running a horse for the 2nd time after a layoff in sprint races on the New York circuit - so he is a "4+30" trainer in that situation.
.

Oops, my bad.

Thanks for the prompt reply.

[e bain]

Originally posted by andicap
Ed, Jon W.,
I have a question about the stats.

If those figures, which are based on how a trainer has done in the past, don't hold up, why should any trainer stat work going forward.

The 4 + 30 is an approach to betting statistics. No different from a speed player betting speed. An individual trainer stat may be a 4 + 30 one year and the following year may fall below 30%, if he does, he is filtered. It is part of the approach, not to bet him. This approach is not betting one trainer and his 4 + 30, it is about betting all trainers who qualify and can pass the filtering. There is no organized approach that I have ever read on speed, nothing about filtering, and nothing about statistics.



We've all see a trainer pattern work one year and not the next or work for several years and stop working for various reasons (different owners, different mix of horses in the barn, a prized assistant leaves the barn, bad luck, etc.)

Very rarely does this actually happen. Something that works for several years, then stops working all together. It is one of the urban legends on statistics about racing. There are so many things said about racing that can be disproved with statistics. Even if you find one trainer who does not maintain his 30% win rate, say he is at 29%, he is passed because he does not meet the 30% threshold. It is not an issue if that trainer’s hit rate continues to drop. Trainers who are 4 + 30s off of the Layoffs train all horses, stakes runners to maiden claimers the same way and they give them all a chance to win.



And if the 4 + 30 numbers are money losers, why should someone use this methodology.

The 4 + 30 by itself is not a ROI method. It is the qualifier to place a bet. Then the 4 + 30 has to pass a series of filters or be on my automatics list. About half my bets are automatics. Automatics does not mean they hit every race. It means that they are a bet because of their extremely high win rates, which leads to very high ROIs.

The discussion we’re having on the 4 + 30 is an approach. I would like to hear any logical approach that speed players bet. The questions you asked on the 4 + 30 required facts and figures to explain how this approach works. Can any speed player explain how to bet speed with facts and figures? If there is a way of explaining it. Betting speed is the cause of the problems I see with racing and that problem is, it’s a recreational sport and that’s how I began my first posting. Speed cannot explain itself in a way that can turn a part time player or recreational player into a professional player.

[aaron]

Hi Ed,
Just as you have filters for your plays, speed players have filters for their plays.
For instance under what circumstances did the horse earn its number.Are those circumstances still prevelent today?Are there any horses in the race that figure to improve because of a bad trip or ride in its last race.Did a horse run against a track bias?Was there a negative trainer change?These are just some of the factors filtered into making a betting decision.An example race I'd like to refer to is Saturday's 9th race at Aqu.Bobby Frankel had a horse going from turf to dirt and appeared slow on the numbers.
Was she a throw out?She probably was not a 4+30 play,but she sure figured to improve.The Frankel factor must always be in the equation.I didn't bet this horse,but if you look at the race dynamics a strong case could be made.
To say nobody has ever made money betting speed is ridiculous.
Ernie Dahlman has used the sheets for years and is probably one of the most sucessful bettors of our generation.Does he use other information?Absolutely.
There are no magic bullets,but if you can simplify and avoid using too much information you are on the right track.After all,it is much easier to back fit statistics than to predict them.
I feel each individual should decide his/her method of play and be able to be consistent with it.
What I like most about your approach is that you are very organized and have simplified the approach.Perhaps,a speed player can explain their approach.It really doesn't matter what method you use as long as you can show a profit.An example of this would be you and Susan.

[The Skeptic]

Now that the dust has settled I hesitated in getting into a larger arguement defending my criticism of Signers. Since my criticism was clearly a minority it really made no sense for one man to fight an army. I still maintain my position I was disappointed and respect the others who feel differently.

I've got my book for sale on eBay. If you haven't read it or used Ed's or Susan's methods "I do recommend it". It will be new and refreshing as it was when I first read about them yrs ago. My apologies as I take it for granted sometimes that I've been around the block before and not everyone is familiar w/ Ed and Susan. I've been reading about Ed and Susan for almost 4 years? in Ed's publishers newsletter. I occassionally glance at Ed's website. So over the years I 've developed a pretty good grasp of there ways and discipline. Now that that establishes a point of reference of where I was coming from I certainly expected more from the book. This wasn't meant to be a personal attack on Ed & Susan as we need to separate them, from their stat products and from this book. Ed & Susan have a fine stat product and many will benefit from there teachings if they're new to the game or unfamiliar with them. A specific example is the first 40 pages of Signers which is there history and how they got to the point they're at. It seemed as though I've read about all this elsewhere or if I haven't it certainly felt like it. To someone new to the game or unfamiliar with Ed & Susan it may be new and refreshing? I was elated they won the Pick 6 and saved the house but those 1.5 pages just didn't inspire me like an old Beyer buildup or other classic work (now let's not get into Beyer bashing as we all have to admit he's colorful). Of the 82 large typed (typeset #14) approximately or the equivalent of 5+ pages were unnecessary (an odds to percentage chart, 30-50% blank pages, HDW screen shots and a with bc with bcd trifecta combinations cost this $x much). For me then there was probably 37-42 pages of material. The whole book can be read in 1 to 1.5 hours. The book is a valid work IF you haven't had the same exposure that I was priveleged to have had by reading about them elsewhere otherwise I wouldn't recommend it. If you're exposure to them is NIL then I would recommend it!

If you're an advanced player that still struggles - you may learn something from their discipline & their specific handicapping steps outlined in the book. That is the main theme of the book.

As I said earlier, it really doesnt' matter what I think. Check out eBay if you like to take a crack at this book.

The Skeptic

[e bain]

Has the dust settled?
What you should consider is whether you criticized the book Signers or whether you lied. I can tell you that you lied. You had not read the book when you called it garbage and said “save the trees”. You state in your last posting “This wasn’t meant to be a personal attack on Ed and Susan” but when you call something garbage that you have never read, it is a personal attack. We were the only ones who sold the book Signers when you posted your first message on 11/7, calling it garbage and the book had only been out 3 weeks.
The Racing Form did not receive their shipment until 22 November. I checked my sales for anyone from Illinois, there was one.
If you send me your name and address, I will verify whether you actually did read the book and if you did get it, I will eat crow. After all crow can be very good for you.
The reason you had to defend yourself is people believed you lied. Not because you made a critique and your critique was accurate.
Even in your last post, which it is obvious you may have read it, you still did not address the handicapping contents of the book. You instead went to everything except the handicapping concepts of the book like the size of the font, samples, spacing and things like the odds percent payout table, which is an absolute key to Susan’s approach. You did not mention any of the chapters in the book of how she handicaps and wins. Chapters like how she approaches betting Maiden Claimers with a bullet work.
It is a disappointment that somebody with such a strong opinion would not read the book first and then offer a critique on the text. Yet, you went from calling the book garbage and now that you have read it, to now recommending it. What an amazing turn around from telling a lie to reading the book and now recommending it and even suggesting advanced players may learn something from their discipline and their specific handicapping steps outlined in the book. You say that is the main theme of the book. The only reason you say this is you have read it now and now it is not garbage.
I decided on your first posting not to respond with calling you a liar. The reason is, my reaction to you calling the book garbage would have been the focus of the message board and not Susan’s book Signers. I also knew that it has been getting excellent reviews and you did not know that.
You mentioned in your posting, Andy Beyer. What does he have to do with either me or Susan’s book Signers? If you think, Andy Beyer speed numbers are worth mentioning to a guy that bets statistics, then explain how Beyer’s numbers are bet and how to bet them profitably. Or maybe you should just explain how you bet with number of races, wins, win %, average win mutuel and ROI or you can explain any style of handicapping that you employ with those five things.
Keep in mind, once you have been caught lying there is no reason to believe that you will not lie in the future.
A Skeptic is a doubter or someone who disbelieves. How can you be labeled a Skeptic when you offer criticism on something you have never read? That is not a skeptic.

[The Skeptic]

Ed

I really didn't need to defend myself as none of this is all that important to me. I think the book is a waste of money for an experienced handicapper whose are already aware of your contributions to the world of handicapping. In the world of handicapping it is quite wise to be Skeptical in fact it'd be foolish to be anything but.

I'm not a liar and I patiently waited a lengthy time for the delivery of my book. I paid for the book many months ago and waited through numerous publishing delays, re-editing by your editor, an incorrect cover including the most recent Florida storm delay. So don't call me a liar. Call me an a**hole or better yet "patient" but not a liar.

I don't think you're a liar nor do I think the 2 of your are crooks. I believe the 2 of you have made valuable contributions to the world of handicapping. I just believe the book is very basic and can be read in just over an hour. I also believe the first 40 some pages were fluff with little suspense or entertainment. At almost $30 it's sorta steep for what's within.

You mentioned the key's to Susan's approach weren't mentioned. Bullet Works in Maidens - I'm not sure why I'd mention that? Secondly, I didn't want to mention the various points specifically as I didn't want infringe on the details. There really was no way to do that without offering the complete book in an internet posting. It's only 40 additional pages. If you'd like I can post a complete summary chapter by chapter for all viewers of this board similiar to Cliff Notes. I don't think you'd have appreciated that. In the end what I think really doesn't mattter.

The reference to Beyer had nothing to do with his figures, handicapping, his ROI or support of his old speed methods. It was clearly a reference to his colorful writing style and not his handicapping. The first 40 some pages bored me with little suspense. The buildup to your succesful Pick 6 was let's say "bland" but the ultimate success with the it was commendable.

Yes we do need to separate Ed and Susan from there contributions. They're commendable. The book wasn't so good. They're two separate issues and call it a personal attack if you will however I don't feel the same and regret that you do.

The reason I didn't defend myself earlier was quite simple - I was clearly in the minority which you should be proud of. Secondly and equally important I knew it would come to this so why bother wasting our time going back and forth.

Take care,
The Skeptic