Why it is so tough to win.

[Vegas711]

The book Power of Early Speed which I just began to read, at the beggining lays it out why horse racing is so difficult to beat and what we are up against.( First for anyone who beats the game CONGRATS you deserve it.) What we are up against are a couple of powerful forces 1. The track take and dime breakage and 2. Randomness 3. limmited opportunities.

The first 2 work together in such a way that makes the game tough to beat. Everyone here knows that the track takes away anywhere from 17 % to 25 % before the race has been run, the thing that i didn't realize is that how many races you have to win to overcome this it can be several hundred if you get off to a poor start , the higher the take the more races you have to win over what the public does. The lower odds you accept the more races you win but your chances of overcoming the take nears zero on the other hand if you play high odds horses you BETTER be a very good player and very patient, if you play too many longshots the odds catch up with you and again you lose.

Randomness every race has a degree of randomness a few races its small, but most races have a very large amount of randomness. It is this factor that will operate against you in picking enough winners more than the public to overcome the track take.

Limmited opportunities you have to be very sharp at spotting them and know how to take advantage of them.

[JackS]

Vegas- Everything you state is true. To overcome the track take you must be able to come to some reasonable terms with the ML and then only play into overlays.
Someone in a book (Mitchell?) suggested using 50% above fair pay for all exotic wagers. The 50% accounts for the track take and also minimizes any error in an opinion you may have as to the true abilities of the horse being considered. A simple example would be a DD in which two 1-1 favorites are entered in each half. The fair pay on this combo would be $10 ($8 plus the $2 wagered). Since we do not want a fair pay, if we use 50% as our base acceptance, this wager can be made if the DD with both of these horses pays $14. This concept can be used at all odds but probably best applied to those horses going off below 10-1 or horses that in your opinion should be below 10-1. Some of this is abratrary and others could have another reasonable opinion or you may have your own opinion. Good luck

[boxcar]

The book Power of Early Speed which I just began to read, at the beggining lays it out why horse racing is so difficult to beat and what we are up against.( First for anyone who beats the game CONGRATS you deserve it.) What we are up against are a couple of powerful forces 1. The track take and dime breakage and 2. Randomness 3. limmited opportunities.

The first 2 work together in such a way that makes the game tough to beat. Everyone here knows that the track takes away anywhere from 17 % to 25 % before the race has been run, the thing that i didn't realize is that how many races you have to win to overcome this it can be several hundred if you get off to a poor start , the higher the take the more races you have to win over what the public does. The lower odds you accept the more races you win but your chances of overcoming the take nears zero on the other hand if you play high odds horses you BETTER be a very good player and very patient, if you play too many longshots the odds catch up with you and again you lose.

Randomness every race has a degree of randomness a few races its small, but most races have a very large amount of randomness. It is this factor that will operate against you in picking enough winners more than the public to overcome the track take.

Limmited opportunities you have to be very sharp at spotting them and know how to take advantage of them.

In the interest of being "fair and balanced" :) , permit me to counter your "doom 'n' gloom" outlook with a more positive one.

While the game is tough to beat, nonetheless one need not be a brain surgeon or an Einstein-type to whoop it good. The primary reason why it is beatable is because it's a game of skill and chance. And the former element, in the long run, will always win over the latter one.

The second major reason it's beatable is because the public (i.e. the competition) is not only fallible, but is prone to playing "repeat performances" in terms of the kinds of mistakes it makes. And the crowd can make big enough whoppers to make it one's worthwhile to cultivate the good habit of keeping sharp vigilance.

Another reason it's beatable is because the Form Factor of horses is often misinterpreted because this most important factor, above all the others, is the most difficult to master. But even so, it is indeed possible for a student of form to get a good handle on it and, thus, have a big edge over the public.

Also, as stated previously on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that the public's Achille's Heel is the Class Factor. While it is true that this factor is a major one and is deserving of careful consideration, it is often mishandled by the public mainly because the crowd seems to give inordinate weight to it -- not realizing that before a horse can exert its class over the race track, it must not only enjoy good current form, but it must also be on the upward curve of its current form cycle.

And last, but by no means least, is that this speculative game offers the investor a valuable dimension that is simply not available with other forms of investment, i.e. the Trainers' Intentions Factor. This factor follows right on the heels of the Form Factor in terms of significance, as far I'm concerned. A selector who learns how to think like a trainer has another big edge over his competition; for the data in the pp charts (and sometimes in the result charts, also) will frequently telegraph the trainer's intentions (albeit sometimes quite subtly) for his horse in today's race.

Moreover, I never considered "limited opportunties" to be a downside to turf speculation. You can no more find a good investment opportunity in every race or even most races than you can find great bargains every day on the housing market, for example. The deals, the bargains the right opportunities are out there for those able to recognize them ane who are willing to exercise patience to wait for them. I never considered myself to be anything more than a opportunist when I played. I didn't create the opportunities, I just patiently waited until they presented themselves, which they invariably did.

Boxcar

[Vegas711]

Boxcar, I hope you are right.


What I wrote was what i got from Kliens book, other than using his early speed method the book does give a person the sence that we are fighting a game that is extremely tough to beat. Randomness is something that even Pizzolla talked about in one of his seminars. One of his speakers went as far as saying that the game is almost entirely random.

Randomness more than any other factor may be the reason why people lose.
Maybe it comes down to " shit happens "


Anyone who can beat the game year after year has done something and they deserve a big congrats.

[Buckeye]

Pizzolla once said "this game is actually tough to beat BECAUSE it is so predictable," and not the contrary.

I agree.

What is needed is prediction which is not reflected by the odds.

My statement.

[Vegas711]

If you refer back to not this years seminar, but the last seminar that erik was in(2 years ago ), he made one reference to how random the game is, i heard it in one of his tapes( tape 8, 9,or 10) it followed the talk that the trip player gave, i don't remember his name.I am absolutely correct on this I just cleaned the wax from my ears:lol: .

[Buckeye]

Vegas,

not disputing that any way.

However, if horseraces were closer to 100% random like roulette or dice, with a fixed set of odds to boot, all bets would be off!

There is a tremendous amount of predictability in this game which is usually reflected by low odds-- overcoming the high take-out requires something more.

Two ways to go:

1) pick even more winners than they do, or
2) pick winners that pay more than theirs do.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, I hope you are right.

I know I'm right. I couldn't have made money playing, otherwise. And for that matter, neither could anyone else. This is not to detract from the randomness element that inheres in the game. But it is this very high risk element which demands that a player get very good prices on his selections if he hopes to reap decent profits for his time and effort.

Boxcar

[podonne]

I think the reason this game is tough is because the crowd is so good at predicting the odds going into the races (many studies support the effeciect market hypothesis when applied to racing, fav\long bias non-withstanding) and also because the "edge" that information gives you is so mich smaller now that so much information is available to the betting public.

Ask some of the older guys how much harder speed handicapping once Beyer started printing his figs in the DRF.

[twindouble]

Boxcar, I hope you are right.


What I wrote was what i got from Kliens book, other than using his early speed method the book does give a person the sence that we are fighting a game that is extremely tough to beat. Randomness is something that even Pizzolla talked about in one of his seminars. One of his speakers went as far as saying that the game is almost entirely random.

Randomness more than any other factor may be the reason why people lose.
Maybe it comes down to " shit happens "


Anyone who can beat the game year after year has done something and they deserve a big congrats.

I can't quote from anyones books, only my experience. It's not hard for me to figure out why most lose, just who they all are. No matter how many peope I got to know at the track, I could tell if they were losers or winners just by watching what the do, how they bet and talk the horses. It would be a big list on the do's and don't that's for sure. One of many things that stands out it is for some reason losers get negitive on just about every aspect of the game. No confidence in themselves as handicappers or gamblers, that might the root cause. Most of the do's and don'ts are common sense and that lacks in the majority of losers.

T.D.

[boxcar]

Most of the do's and don'ts are common sense and that lacks in the majority of losers.

T.D.

Common Sense: There is an abundance of supply of the stuff but, alas, too many underestimate its value which puts it in very short demand.

Boxcar

[TravisVOX]

While a viable concern, I think a lot of our mainstream horseplayers, thoughs that write the books etc., use that medium as a way to voice their opinion. The take-out, breakage etc...yea, they don't help and certainly add up, however, if they really felt the game was that tough, and against us, why are they wasting time writing books about it?

[boxcar]

While a viable concern, I think a lot of our mainstream horseplayers, thoughs that write the books etc., use that medium as a way to voice their opinion. The take-out, breakage etc...yea, they don't help and certainly add up, however, if they really felt the game was that tough, and against us, why are they wasting time writing books about it?

In most cases to relieve losers of more of their money.

Boxcar

[TravisVOX]

thoughs = those :rolleyes:

[twindouble]

Common Sense: There is an abundance of supply of the stuff but, alas, too many underestimate its value which puts it in very short demand.

Boxcar It all depends on who your talking about, those that I was refering to, lack it.

[Buckeye]

I believe many of those currently losing once had common sense. What happened? Too much reading? By definition most people have it, so what is it that causes so many horseplayers to lose theirs?

[46zilzal]

1. The track take and dime breakage and 2. Randomness
Promote randomness as a major factor all the time, but have been regularly scoffed at....Now when appears in a BOOK well, it has legitamcy

[classhandicapper]

I think the thing that makes it tough to beat is that the consesus of public opinion is pretty good at setting the odds relative to the horse's chances. Even when the public makes mistakes, they are usually not large enough to overcome the track take. The mistakes just cut into it.

Another problem is that information is flawed.

We handicap races by looking at speed figures, pace figures, formulas combining these things, speed points, trips, trainer and jockey stats, class etc... with the assumption that they are actually accurate. The reality is that at best they are reasonable estimates. You can tell that's true by looking at multiple sources of any kind of data. They often disagree, sometimes widely.

A lot of the time that we look at the board and see something we disagree with, it's not the public that's wrong. It's the set of figures we are using. If we were using another set of figures, we would come to a completely different conclusion about the same race.

As a result, we often bet horses that we think are overlays when they aren't. Even when these supposed overlays win (like a sample of almost anything will here or there) we automatically assume our figures were correct when they were actually wrong. In other words, winning by luck often deludes people.

I think the best overlays come when you know a horse will be bet, you know why it will be bet, and you strongly disagree with the rationale (or vice versa) because you have a very specific insight.

[Nickle]

Other than the lottery and casino games the horses are the third most unpredicatable form of gambling.

[boxcar]

It all depends on who your talking about, those that I was refering to, lack it.

What I wrote about "supply and demand" doesn't contradict or negate what you meant. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I think the best overlays come when you know a horse will be bet, you know why it will be bet, and you strongly disagree with the rationale (or vice versa) because you have a very specific insight.

As a believer in the existence of false longshots, I had a very different view. I always thought the best overlays were when I knew a bonafide contender would go off at big odds, knew exactly why it was being ignored in the wagering, and strongly disagreed with the public's mistaken rationale because I had insights into the race problem that my competition didn't.

Boxcar

[classhandicapper]

As a believer in the existence of false longshots, I had a very different view. I always thought the best overlays were when I knew a bonafide contender would go off at big odds, knew exactly why it was being ignored in the wagering, and strongly disagreed with the public's mistaken rationale because I had insights into the race problem that my competition didn't.


Boxcar

What I was doing was demonstrating how you identify true false favorites - which in turn leads to overlays.

What you are suggesting is exactly what I meant by "vice versa". ;)

[twindouble]

What I wrote about "supply and demand" doesn't contradict or negate what you meant. :)

Boxcar

Yes, I know it didn't. Here's an example of what I'm talking about but just keep in mind I could go on for an hr listing. One guy comes up to me and says, quote; "I love this horse at so and so track, I just bet $100 to win on him." I ask him, who the horse is along with the distance, jock and trainer and why he likes him. The dummy didn't know the distance or the trainer, just that he bet him the last three times he ran and was due. :bang:

[traynor]

twindouble wrote: <One of many things that stands out it is for some reason losers get negitive on just about every aspect of the game. No confidence in themselves as handicappers or gamblers, that might the root cause. >

There is a flip side to that coin, that was common among the "Sartin people." So many wanted so much to believe "positive thinking" influenced behavior (and results) that they literally ignored losses. The "eliminate the negative" concept was taken literally, and a few seminar attendees went so far as to carry boxes of winning races clipped from the DRF to "prove" their "winning percentages." Those same attendees ignored long strings of losses and dismal win percentages to "accentuate the positive" of thinking only about winning races.

Having confidence in your ability is essential--providing it has a basis in fact. Anyone who believes that believing should come first, and skill (and wins) will somehow follow is doing it backwards. Overconfidence will break you almost as fast at the track as it will at the blackjack table. The best way to develop self-confidence is to develop whatever skills, knowledge, or expertise you can use as a basis for that confidence first. By the time you have done that, you will have all the self-confidence you could possibly use.
Good Luck

[twindouble]

twindouble wrote: <One of many things that stands out it is for some reason losers get negitive on just about every aspect of the game. No confidence in themselves as handicappers or gamblers, that might the root cause. >

There is a flip side to that coin, that was common among the "Sartin people." So many wanted so much to believe "positive thinking" influenced behavior (and results) that they literally ignored losses. The "eliminate the negative" concept was taken literally, and a few seminar attendees went so far as to carry boxes of winning races clipped from the DRF to "prove" their "winning percentages." Those same attendees ignored long strings of losses and dismal win percentages to "accentuate the positive" of thinking only about winning races.

Having confidence in your ability is essential--providing it has a basis in fact. Anyone who believes that believing should come first, and skill (and wins) will somehow follow is doing it backwards. Overconfidence will break you almost as fast at the track as it will at the blackjack table. The best way to develop self-confidence is to develop whatever skills, knowledge, or expertise you can use as a basis for that confidence first. By the time you have done that, you will have all the self-confidence you could possibly use.
Good Luck

I agree Traynor; It's tough to be clear on what type of players we are talking about, I was including people that have or had some handicapping ability but when things go wrong they get negitive and indecisive, that just compounds the problem.

T.D.

[JackS]

Take a first timer to the track with you one day.
Explain a little about class and final time and where to find it , and you have a very good possibility that this novice will beat your sox off all day long.
Call it beginners luck and remind this person that you taught him everything he knows about horse racing and at the very least, he owes you dinner.

[Overlay]

Other than the lottery and casino games the horses are the third most unpredicatable form of gambling.

To me, the forms of gaming you mention (other than horse racing) are very predictable in the one respect that most directly impacts the player: if you play them long enough, you will lose. Horse racing's "take" is much larger, but it is still a pari-mutuel game that pits you against other players, rather than against an unchanging set of adverse odds. And there are still aspects of thoroughbred performance that show regular patterns of long-term consistency or repetition, allowing the winning chances of horses to be forecast with a remarkable degree of accuracy (as the public does on an aggregate basis year in and year out in terms of the odds it establishes with its wagers).

[Buckeye]

Take a first timer to the track with you one day.
Explain a little about class and final time and where to find it , and you have a very good possibility that this novice will beat your sox off all day long.
Call it beginners luck and remind this person that you taught him everything he knows about horse racing and at the very least, he owes you dinner.What causes that winning novice to later lose their "common sense" and become a loser? Or perhaps keep it?

[wes]

Just remember false overlays pay the same as false favorites. Also there are more false overlays than there are favorites. How many times do you bet on two overlays and lose both bets? There was only one crowd favorite and it won.

Get away from the basics of how the horses run and win races and see how you finish or visit the win window. There has to be a certain amount of work to anything you do.

Major, Captain and 1st Lt. ask a recruit what percent of making love was work. The major said it was 90% pleasure and 10% work. The cpt said it was 90% work and 10 % pleasure. The Lt said it was 50/50. Recruit said it was 100% pleasure. They all asked how he came up with 100% pleasure. He stated if it was less than 100% pleasure he would be doing all the work.

wes

[boxcar]

And there are still aspects of thoroughbred performance that show regular patterns of long-term consistency or repetition, allowing the winning chances of horses to be forecast with a remarkable degree of accuracy (as the public does on an aggregate basis year in and year out in terms of the odds it establishes with its wagers).(emphasis mine)

Bingo! These patterns coupled, I might add, with the betting habits of the public are what lift this game from the morass of randomness and elevate it to the more secure level of predictablity.

As a former angle handicapper, I can attest to the existence of "patterns". For example, a horse who has recently manifested certain performance atributes and also is in a certain form cycle mode very often means the animal is ready to run a big race today. Or certain kinds of performances coupled with specific types of trainer maneuevers will frequently point to a sharp, well meant horse today.

And since we're all creatures of habit (whether we like to admit it or not), we can frequently rely on the poor handicapping habits of the public, as these are reflected through the wagering, to provide us with viable, juicy long shot plays. As stated many times already, the public is quite prone to repeating its mistakes.

All a serious player has to do is learn how to identify these patterns and habits, and how and when to capitalize on them.

Boxcar

[JackS]

Here's my take on false favorites. They can and do win at a reasonable or unreasonable clip depending on how you look at it.
My unresearched and unsubstantiated guess is somewhere around 20%.
Think back to the last time that 6-5 favorite ran first and your first thought was "never with my money would I have had this horse". The possible flip side of this 6-5 are the very astitute handicappers who actually had a very good reason to beleive this horse woud win which might explain a large portion of this horses favoritisim. Still, I count my money as well spent playing against these unexplainables and in the long run well ahead.

[First_Place]

The reason this game is "so tough," because more than ever, you have sharks competing against sharks. Period.

What this game, sport or profession (take your pick) needs so that it is less "tough" for us "sharks," is an infusion of much "dumb money."

Regards,

FP

[Dave Schwartz]

First Place,

I disagree. IMHO, the reason the game is so tough is that we all get the same data. As such, we naturally get the same horses.

The way to win is to use an approach that is different while still being reasonably effective.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[boxcar]

The way to win is to use an approach that is different while still being reasonably effective.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Everyone should print this succinct advice out in very large, bold print and hang it in a prominent place where it will be seen daily by you. Dave has nailed what should be everyone's primary objective squarely on the head.

As he said, everyone is working with the same data; therefore, in order to realize the greatest return on your investments, you need an approach that will allow you to see things from a different perspective -- that will permit you to come up with a different interpretation of that same 'ol raw data. This is precisely what I have beein saying on my long shot thread.

Great minds do think alike. :D

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

I disagree. IMHO, the reason the game is so tough is that we all get the same data. As such, we naturally get the same horses.

The way to win is to use an approach that is different while still being reasonably effective.


we don't get the same data unless everyone, and everyone does not, uses the DRF

[boxcar]

we don't get the same data unless everyone, and everyone does not, use the DRF

Ahh...a nit picker. I bet you swallow camels and strain at gnats really well, too.
:D

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

I often compare notes with others who use different data providers....they are many times so different I wonder if we are looking at the same race...

Have to believe what I see, right in front of my eyes.

[First_Place]

Dave,

It's true what you say. I've always fantasized about having races timed every 330 or 660 ft. with the horses' actual fractions (and/or mph) being recorded--not the antiquated lengths behind estimates--and no one else.

Back to reality, I still feel strongly that an large infusion of less-than-educated (I'm brushing up on my political correctness :) ) money still wouldn't hurt.

As far as using a different approach based upon the same data goes, indeed I do. You should see some of my avante-garde methods and angles based upon readily available data. Sorry folks, for my eyes only.

Regards,

FP

p.s. Oh Boxcar, btw, your posts are very refreshing, informative and stimulate further ideas. And I thank you for doing so.

[boxcar]

I often compare notes with others who use different data providers....they are many times so different I wonder if we are looking at the same race...

Have to believe what I see, right in front of my eyes.

Interesting. Of course, up to about 9 years ago, I was still 'cappin' out of the Form. Then when I had my methdology put into software format, I used two data providers: ITS and TM. I did a side-by-side comparison of the two out of curiosity, and while there were differences, I considered the vast majority of them to be minor in nature. As I recall, the bulk of the discrepancies were in horses' running lines.

Boxcar

[First_Place]

Boxcar said:

"...up to about 9 years ago, I was still 'cappin' out of the Form. Then when I had my methdology put into software format,"

That is something that I just have to do. Any suggestions who could do it? And once written, how can I make sure my program is not shared with the programmer's buddies?

Thanks.

FP

[Dave Schwartz]

46,

Do you really think that the data is that different between BRIS, DRF, HDW, TrkMstr, EqB etc.?

Think of it this way... If you remove all the common elements (i.e. call positions/lengths, earnings box, trainer, jockey and sire stats) how much smaller would the data feed be?

And are the speed ratings really that different?

Instead of making the data different from the next guy, we need to make the analysis of the data different.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[mcikey01]

First Place,

I disagree. IMHO, the reason the game is so tough is that we all get the same data. As such, we naturally get the same horses.

The way to win is to use an approach that is different while still being reasonably effective.

Instead of making the data different from the next guy, we need to make the analysis of the data different.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Yup, Dave.....The (investment) value of racing information is inversely proportional to its (conventional) use.

[46zilzal]

46,

Do you really think that the data is that different between BRIS, DRF, HDW, TrkMstr, EqB etc.?


I can only tell you what I have SEEN first hand, and they are different. I don't even KNOW what their various providers were.

probably seeing filtered data however

[boxcar]

Boxcar said:

"...up to about 9 years ago, I was still 'cappin' out of the Form. Then when I had my methdology put into software format,"

That is something that I just have to do. Any suggestions who could do it? And once written, how can I make sure my program is not shared with the programmer's buddies?

Thanks.

FP

I was very fortunate, as I met a very sharp gentleman online and over time we developed a mutual rapport with and respect for one another. Believe it or not I actually met him on a GEnie racing forum (now I'm really dating myself).
:D

At any rate, there was a great handicapping discussion going on, and I shared some of my insights, etc, and ignorantly blurted out that it would be "impossible" to program my methodology. Well, this gent publicly answered my post and challenged that assertion, saying that all that would need to be done was for clear, concise parameters to be written for each angle. Then privately, he demonstrated to me how this would be done with one of my simple angles. Shortly thereafter, we struck up a deal whereby I would write the parameters, he would write the code and in exchange I would teach him the methodology. This arrangement worked out very well.

Perhaps the best way in your situation, FP, is to pay to have a non-racing fan write your program. It's probably unlikely that a disinterested programmer would violate your trust.

Boxcar

[Valuist]

Why is it tough to win?

Laziness. Most people aren't willing to do the work needed to win.

[PaceAdvantage]

I was very fortunate, as I met a very sharp gentleman online and over time we developed a mutual rapport with and respect for one another. Believe it or not I actually met him on a GEnie racing forum (now I'm really dating myself).

I remember that forum. It had many of the same folks from the Prodigy forum. Those were the days, eh?

[Vegas711]

The question that I have is that I am noticing more and more winners either paying less than $ 6.00 or they are paying more than $ 40.00 . It seems as tho the winners paying $ 12.00 to $ 20.00 are less frequent, is this something new or is this the way it has always been ?

[TRM]

Perhaps the best way in your situation, FP, is to pay to have a non-racing fan write your program. It's probably unlikely that a disinterested programmer would violate your trust.


Boxcar,

That's exactly what I have done with my program. This has been the best thing I could have done. It has taken about 6 months to get 2 reports done (by the time you work through all the bugs) but this saves so much time when you have a family and other obligations.

Dave,

Your right on the money with your thinking, you do have to believe that you can win, and of course the data analysis MUST be unconventional to get those big prices.

Good thread guys!!

[First_Place]

Boxcar said:

"Perhaps the best way in your situation, FP, is to pay to have a non-racing fan write your program. It's probably unlikely that a disinterested programmer would violate your trust."

Yes, true...that's what a friend suggested to me. Finding this "non-racing fan" will be the hard part.

Regards,

FP

[boxcar]

Boxcar said:

"Perhaps the best way in your situation, FP, is to pay to have a non-racing fan write your program. It's probably unlikely that a disinterested programmer would violate your trust."

Yes, true...that's what a friend suggested to me. Finding this "non-racing fan" will be the hard part.

Regards,

FP

Not necessarily. Have you considered putting out feelers in some of your local community colleges? Posting on their bulletin boards, for example? They're loaded with nerdy types. I would think there would be at least a few "hungry" students out there wanting to make a few bucks doing something other than bussing tables, bagging groceries, etc.

Boxcar

[First_Place]

Boxcar,

Thanks for the advice.

Regards,

FP

[First_Place]

Dave,

I'm curious, if you had your way to collect data, i.e., measure it on-track (let's just fantasize for a moment), how would you have it done? What would be the distance between race segments, for example?

Any other way of measuring a race--if you had the ability to have it measured your way?

And what's your theory/logic behind measuring/collecting data your way?

Thanks for your time.

FP

[boxcar]

I remember that forum. It had many of the same folks from the Prodigy forum. Those were the days, eh?

Actually, those were the good ol' days. :) Many great discussions were to be found on those forums, and I met some really neat people -- some of which I'm still in touch with to this day!

And those were the days of slow modems, and "blazing fast" 'puters. Mine was was a speedy 286 that ran at 20 MHz. :D

Boxcar