VALUE BETTING / DAVE JOHNSON

[PlanB]

DR JOHNSON, I paid ten dollars on Saturday for your ValueLine at Belmont.
I want you to make your product better and so I have 2 suggestions:
#1 ... For early scratches you MUST re-compute your PRs. I know your
site asks the user (the Payer) to redistribute, but that's poor service.
I'm NOT talking about very late scratches, but the early program ones.
#2 ... What good are your figs when the races are switched from the Turf
to the Dirt. Not only are there many scratches, but the surface switch makes
your Turf figs wrong. So, after all your efforts these 2 changes seem minor.

[bigmack]

Please be advised that I recently paid $8.69 for a quart of your ice cream entitled Chunky Monkey. By the time I arrived home it had melted all over my new slacks.

#1 Please make your ice cream so that it won't melt and/or put a large sticker on it so that I can calculate it's melting ratio of un-refridgeratedness to time.

#2 What good is your ice cream if it just melts. I don't think that's fair and I think you should re-evaluate your ethics and/or policies.

[Red Knave]

un-refridgeratedness#3 If this isn't a real word, it should be. :mad: ;)

[rrpic6]

Bigmack:


New and Funny twist to the "if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle".:ThmbUp:

[BillW]

#3 If this isn't a real word, it should be. :mad: ;)

Good scrabble score. :jump:

[PlanB]

Guys I am appalled. u LACK sensativity.

[Pace Cap'n]

A horse ran at Woodlands Saturday named "Go, Kreed".

[BillW]

Guys I am appalled. u LACK sensativity.

No scrabble score there - spelling penalty. :p :lol:

[Tom]

#4 - Also, I found NO monkeys! :mad:

[ValueBetting]

TO PLAN B:

Thanks for your reply.

As far as early scratches are concerned, they are always re-computed.
Same with jockey (or trainer) changes available before race-day.

If races are switched (early) from turf to dirt, they are also re-computed.

New York (Belmont) presents an unusual situation, but it is New York's, as
Belmont takes entries for different track surfaces In The Same Race. I'll look
into this further.

(Note, however, and this is contrary to common opinion, my studies of
turf/dirt performance, show considerably less differentiation than believed. In fact, some of The Valuline's best values (longest shots) win in turf races. That is, whereas horses who favor the grass are considerably up-graded (up-scored) in turf races, dirt horses also win these races and vice-versa.

ALSO, for your information,(and contrary to common opinion) are my testing results of good front-running horses in turf races - their win performance is
surprisingly high at overlay prices.)

I'd like to clarify one point also for all viewers:

((My recent reply to Jim, which had implications for everyone viewing
this website, was to "Jim" also known as NJCurveball who posted on
this site 9-26-06 and I responded.))

Sincerely,
Dave Johnson

[PlanB]

I know what you're thinking, I'm complaining again, but I'm Not, it's just that
anyone who has studied horse racing as deeply as you must realize that the
integrity of the data is the 2nd step. (The 1st step is HOW that data was
collected, but the user is never privy to the HOW) ... So, I want your VL
ValueLine to be interactive: WHY CAN'T US PAYING CUSTOMERS DECIDE
THAT HORSE #2 IS A NON-COMPETITOR, and hence, functions as if he were
Scratched? IOWs, allow us to determine who are the players. Why Not?
The problem I (YES I, Derek) have with these programs is that the user, who
is also the PAYER, gets no chance to hang himself. After all, you PhDs are
always bragging, so why not provide US with some elegant programing?
If the last minute scratch is horse #5, let me be able to re-compute. Why
do I need even to ask for this sub-routine? Collect your fee, but earn it.
Thank you, ...............

[ValueBetting]

To Plan B, Derek::eek:
Frankly, I am confused by your response, after my lengthy writing to you.
Please also review my replies to others tonight.

Indeed you CAN, as other senior handicappers do, take my list of win
contenders (and odds) and see how your selections measure-up, and
whether you may be getting sufficient odds on your selections or betting
losing underlays.

You don't have to use The Valuline as a stand-alone product!

If you examine "The Guide" in any one of my free previous days reports
you will see the answer to your question is spelled out - how to re-compute in the event of a late scratch.

I don't know what you mean by "elegant" programming or its application
to The Valuline? The Valuline is as elegant as it can get, and its now
a matter of moving on to The Valuline Bet Analyzer for strategies.

It seems to me the main problem I have with viewers on this website, perhaps including you, is that "you" are snake-bit, and don't trust anyone's opinion -intimating there's something fishy about my 300,000 race test from 2001-2006 which has verified The Valuline. You want reams of computer paper?

I DID NOT do my verification for readers or viewers! I did not even expect
to write the book when I started and did most of the study. I did it
for myself, and as a basis for profitable betting strategies. Pure and simple!

WHEN I discovered something that I THOUGHT would be useful to the
horseplayers of North America (and to thoroughbred horse racing
scholarship) I wrote the book.


MY MAIN COMPLAINT ABOUT VIEWERS ON THIS WEBSITE IS THAT MOST
HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK ABOUT WHICH THEY REVIEW. This is unfair
and unreasonable. Jokesters:lol: and wise guys:cool: are one thing,
but the nonsense reviews intermingled with some good reviews is very
shabby.

(For those who may want to read the book without "paying me anything",
go for it. I expect to have it in libraries shortly, and will so announce where
you can find free).

Dave Johnson

For the free Guide, go to:
www.thevaluline.com (http://www.thevaluline.com)

[PaceAdvantage]

For the record, Mr Johnson has never requested that any false or libelous info be removed from this website, so I don't quite understand where this "unfair, unreasonable, nonsense reviews" complaint is coming from.

I've informed Mr. Johnson in quite explicit terms that if he ever finds anyone trying to pass off misinformation as fact, that I will happily review his complaints and take swift action if I agree with his allegations. To date, no such requests have been made, except for the removal of a poll, which I VERY RELUCTANTLY agreed to delete.

Most reasonable folks that I've talked to about this massive, ongoing thread devoted to a product which is getting massive, free advertising say that they think the responses have been quite reasonable and make plenty of sense.

Stop crying foul Mr. Johnson. There have been plenty of highly intelligent folks replying to this thread with highly intelligent comments and criticisms, many of which you fail to adequately address, in my opinion.

I'm sure additional intelligent comments and criticisms will arise out of this most recent exchange, and it is my hope that your replies to such won't leave me scratching my head once again.

[xfile]

MY MAIN COMPLAINT ABOUT VIEWERS ON THIS WEBSITE IS THAT MOST
HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK ABOUT WHICH THEY REVIEW. This is unfair
and unreasonable. Jokesters:lol: and wise guys:cool: are one thing,
but the nonsense reviews intermingled with some good reviews is very
shabby.

I, for one, read your book. Ordered, bought and paid for your book. It now lines my bird's cage. He gives a good review of your book every morning with a swoosh of his tail. :cool:

[PlanB]

Like Xfile I bought the book & paid for it & read it. Really, I was only keen
on giving us players the ability to re-cast your PRs. Early & Late scratches
make the data yucky, so lighten up Dr.

[banacek]

.


MY MAIN COMPLAINT ABOUT VIEWERS ON THIS WEBSITE IS THAT MOST
HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK ABOUT WHICH THEY REVIEW. This is unfair
and unreasonable. Jokesters:lol: and wise guys:cool: are one thing,
but the nonsense reviews intermingled with some good reviews is very
shabby.


We all have the same complaint. I have no idea why you wrote a book and claimed it to be the rosetta stone before you verified that the approach was profitable. (I know, you are working on it)

The haughtiness of your replies is a major turn off. As you are an academic, I would assume you have had many, many peer reviews. I hope any suggestions made by them would not have had similar responses. But this is a different situation than a usual academic paper. You do not submit it to your peers at the Journal of Applied Probability because they would not have enough background in the subject to comment effectively.

Having your publisher give the only (5 star) review on Amazon.com is not the answer. (Somewhat undignified as well)

We are your peers in this case. There are many here more computer adept than you in handicapping applications. Many have a stronger statistical background than you. And most of us have at least as much handicapping knowledge as you. And to a person we understand that an odds line has to be verified that it is profitable before there is any reason to publicize it. You don't seem to seem to get that.

I had sincerely planned to buy your book, but there have been reviews by several respected members on this site who have read the book and the general conclusion was that it was an adverisement. Ah, now I think that I have answered the question I posed in the first paragraph.