Yet another wagering scam

[traynor]

Last Saturday I was approached by a representative of a betting syndicate with a "too good to be true" offer. I have known most of the syndicate members for several years, but have had no business dealings with them.

The key point of the offer revolved around the huge profit potential the syndicate had amassed by wagering on a specific type of race. The type of race varied, and wagers were made based on the consensus opinion of the group memebers; when they agreed on a race, the win percentages were (really high!), with place percentages even higher.

The pitch was made that with such high win and place percentages, every race so selected offered a great opportunity for profit. When rebates were added, the projected return was impressive.

I was offered the opportunity to take advantage of this remarkable offer in exchange for putting up an amount of capital that would cause more than a few people to choke on their biscuits, and possibly even a few to suffer coronaries.

A complex explanation of why they needed such a large sum for their sure-fire, guaranteed-to-make-huge-profits scheme was interesting, but not germane. The bottom line is that, because of their stunning track record in consensus selections, I should invest in their wagering syndicate.

Because we use the Delphi Method extensively in our own handicapping and wagering, I was very interested in their selection process. They provided impressively detailed records of previous wagers, but seemed reluctant to go into detail about their methods.

When pressed for details, they argued that it was impossible to predict more than a few minutes in advance which race, and which entry, would be the consensus choice. There might be 5-10 wagers on a given day, or several days could pass with no races meeting their criteria.

When I asked for a modest test on future races, rather than claims about past races, I was informed that I had to decide immediately, because "a number of other investors" were eagerly awaiting the opportunity to join their syndicate and reap the rewards of that association.

For those of you who may have led sheltered lives, the strategy is typical of a "long con," in which the mark (me, in this case) is carefully developed to believe in the ability of the cons to do a specific thing. The con may involve anything from financing a movie to buying shopping centers at distressed prices, but always contains the "too good to be true" offer, in conjunction with a hint of illegality. In this case, the strategy of funneling huge amounts of capital through wagering venues that offer rebates, in conjuction with a "can't lose" wagering strategy.

If you are approached with such a scheme, I strongly suggest you view it with a healthy degree of skepticism. Especially at the point where you are asked to hand over a very large sum of money to one or more people to "wager for you."
Best suggestion is to request they provide you with a list of pre-race selections that you can independently verify (with foreknowledge that multiple investors may be getting different selections) over a large enough sample to verify their accuracy (that means "a lot more than 10 races").

Lastly, always be skeptical of schemes that involve last minute, subjective decisions by "experts" who are unable to define before the race what decision criteria they will use.
Good Luck

[bigmack]

Sound advice with a long explaination. When approached with such offerings I display the same response everytime. Pure unadulterated laughter.

[NoDayJob]

:lol: There must be enough chumps out there, otherwise this scam wouldn't work. I wonder if they work the old "pigeon drop" too?

[Suff]

They ruled a bettor off at Suffolk a few weeks ago. He was dropping $1000 or $1500 on horses in the morning. Then canceling the tickets with just a minute to post and betting on his own horses. He is/was an owner of some note. Reluctant to repeat his name because I heard it 3rd party.

[traynor]

Sound advice with a long explaination. When approached with such offerings I display the same response everytime. Pure unadulterated laughter.

There was an interesting twist, normal in a "long con." A friend made a modest contribution, and earned a substantial return over a period of about a month. That is, his minor investment appeared to be generating a substantial return, and he was acting as both a character reference and testimonial for the group. It used to be called "salting."

I was surprised that anyone would seriously think that people would be willing to invest in such a "project," especially given the amounts of money involved. Anyway, it is likely to be floating around awhile, so be aware of it.
Good Luck

[dylbert]

From the comfort of your own home, you can refresh your memory that "there ain't no free lunch", "money don't grow on trees", and "fish rot from the head down"...

First watch classic movie, "The Sting", then, watch gritty "The Grifters". Annette Bening as Myra Langtry is bonus...

As my college racetrack friend (who is now CEO of large company) always said, "The only way to double your money at the racetrack is to fold it in half and keep it in YOUR POCKET." He was executive material as 20-year old. He and our other betting buddies had another mantra, "If you can't pick 'em, you shouldn't play 'em." Beware the tout, the tip sheet, and as Rainman referred to lady in Vegas lounge, "sparkly... very sparkly" women.

Come back tomorrow and we'll discuss why you shouldn't date your mother's friends...

[NoDayJob]

Many years ago a close friend of mine made the price line at a couple of 'B' race tracks. He had a "tout scam" going on the side. He bragged to me how the stupid betting public was putting more than 2 yards a week into his pocket. A couple of his clients figured they were being scammed and reported him to the track management. Yep, they canned him and he never worked at a race track again. Moral of the story, ya can't fool 'em all of the time.

[traynor]

Back in the dark ages when I first became interested in racing, there were numerous touts who had been "barred" from various tracks in the area. Essentially, they would strike up a casual conversation and mention the fact that they liked a particular entry in the next race. Several conversations guaranteed at least one winner, and at least one excited racing fan chasing them down for a pick in the next race.

I have no idea how they managed to keep track of all the people and all the choices, but one managed to make a pocketful of cash almost every visit to the track (a daily occurence) by offering a "sure winner" in the next race in exchange for a $10 ticket (this was MANY years ago) on that horse. I remember thinking at the time that it was a really hard way to make money.

Later I encountered various "selection services" that ran the same con. They provided different selections in the same race to different people, so they were virtually guaranteed a small number of happy winners every day. The group of happy winners would get multiple choices again, until the hapless bettor believed the selector had a direct pipeline to fame and fortune.

Two wins in a row resulted in a cutoff (too hard to go three in a row), followed by coy offers of "special selections" at premium prices. I know--anyone stupid enough to fall for such childish cons probably couldn't hold on to the money anyway, but it is still annoying,
Good Luck

[betovernetcapper]

Speaking of scams, just came across a site offering 10-30 "Insider Best Bets" for $300 for 30 days, BUT if for some reason the mark can't /won't come up with $300, they offer 10 to 30 "Insider Best Bets" a day for 30 days for $100. :ThmbDown:

[JPinMaryland]

... one managed to make a pocketful of cash almost every visit to the track (a daily occurence) by offering a "sure winner" in the next race in exchange for a $10 ticket (this was MANY years ago) on that horse. I remember thinking at the time that it was a really hard way to make money.




I dont get it. You tell the guy the horse, he buys a $10 win ticket on said horse, gives it to you?? Does sound like a hard way to make money. What if the horse doesnt win? What if the guy doesnt bring you back the ticket??

[Red Knave]

I dont get it. You tell the guy the horse, he buys a $10 win ticket on said horse, gives it to you?? Does sound like a hard way to make money. What if the horse doesnt win? What if the guy doesnt bring you back the ticket??The hardest part is remembering which horse you gave to which mark. And perhaps being able to outsprint the marks that lost!

[traynor]

Speaking of scams, just came across a site offering 10-30 "Insider Best Bets" for $300 for 30 days, BUT if for some reason the mark can't /won't come up with $300, they offer 10 to 30 "Insider Best Bets" a day for 30 days for $100. :ThmbDown:

This fairly clearly illustrates why many people lose; they see what they want to see, rather than what is in front of them. There are any number of explanations for why people have problems processing information, but the bottom-line is an important one for handicappers--if you cannot process information accurately, you might want to consider a hobby other than handicapping.
Good Luck

[traynor]

The hardest part is remembering which horse you gave to which mark. And perhaps being able to outsprint the marks that lost!

Especially in large fields.

Another conspiratorial scam;
"Did you get that exacta?"
"So did I." (Small talk, schmoozing, establish rapport)
"Tell you what, I'll cash your ticket for you, so you don't have to report it to the IRS. Only 10% (or 5%, or $50)."
The longer the line at the IRS window, the more mercilessly (and skillfully) you will be harangued to take advantage of the opportunity.

Does anyone ever actually fall for something like this? Quite a few? Why don't you hear about it more? How many bettors would confess that they had handed a $600+ mutuel ticket to a stranger (or casual acquaintance) who then sprinted off shouting for Security because they were trying to steal his mutuel ticket (or the cash after the ticket had been cashed)?

The essence of a good con is that it is so simple, and so obvious afterwards, that the mark is ashamed to admit that he or she fell for such an obvious scam. Personally, I think a couple of years hanging out at the track is at least the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in psychology.
Good Luck

[betovernetcapper]

This fairly clearly illustrates why many people lose; they see what they want to see, rather than what is in front of them.


You may be right. Much as I hate to blame the victim, cons such as the "Insider Best Bets" couldn't persist if people engaged in a rigorous examination of the sport or at least the offer.

[BIG RED]

Come back tomorrow and we'll discuss why you shouldn't date your mother's friends...

OK, I'm a little late, discuss............. :cool:

[Pace Cap'n]

Come back tomorrow and we'll discuss why you shouldn't date your mother's friends...

Nor your friends' mothers.

[traynor]

You may be right. Much as I hate to blame the victim, cons such as the "Insider Best Bets" couldn't persist if people engaged in a rigorous examination of the sport or at least the offer.

The point is in the details. "Rigorous examination" implies that is what was performed before your original comment. To avoid being labeled as "attempting to peddle my wares" on a thread, the issue is best viewed as set theory; one subset exists within another set, and also exists as a standalone set. If you had processed the information presented rigorously, you would already know that.

This also points up another cognitive fallacy; self-serving bias. People tend to see what they want to see, despite overwhelming disconfirming evidence. That is a useful fallacy to be aware of in handicapping. For example, if you are heavily biased toward distinctions based on a given criteria, you will tend to overemphasize the effect of that criteria.

You will literally remember more times when the criteria was successful, and forget the times when it was not. As silly as that sounds, people do it every day; the cognitive process is strongly influenced by individual biases, misconceptions, preconceptions, and memory availability.

Because "pleasant memories" (winning) are remembered more strongly because they flatter the self-image and ego than "unpleasant memories" (losing) that threaten the self-image and ego, the handicapper's cognitive processing can be seriously skewed in favor of a completely false perception of expertise.
Good Luck

[betovernetcapper]

People tend to see what they want to see, despite overwhelming disconfirming evidence. That is a useful fallacy to be aware of in handicapping.
I don't know how useful it is in handicapping, but I can see how it would be very useful if one was attempting to sell the Brooklyn Bridge-magic beads or "Insider Best Bets". :lol:

[traynor]

I don't know how useful it is in handicapping, but I can see how it would be very useful if one was attempting to sell the Brooklyn Bridge-magic beads or "Insider Best Bets". :lol:

I don't suppose you would care to offer support for your original warrant? There is an old saying, RTFM, which is "read the .. manual." That sometimes involve more complexity than picking out a few key words to have something to talk about.

It sounds to me that you may have had a preconception going in that prevented you from competently processing what you were seeing. That is the point.
Good Luck

[Robert Fischer]

Even the accomplished con-man, with his smooth delivery and enticing offers will always need the help of an accomplice.
Do not con yourself.

[traynor]

Even the accomplished con-man, with his smooth delivery and enticing offers will always need the help of an accomplice.
Do not con yourself.

Only sometimes, depending on the situation, and the complexity. I agree completely that it is wise to be highly skeptical of "testimonials," including those from your own friends and known acquaintances, but it could be misleading to always assume an accomplice will pop up.

Your last sentence is an impressive display of syntactic ambiguity. Have you ever read any of Milton Erickson's works, or Grinder and Bandler's analysis of that work?
Good Luck

[Robert Fischer]

It was accidentally ambiguos.
I should have said that the accomplice that the con-man will need to move forward, and is hoping to obtain is in fact YOU(and not necessarily anyone else). Do not be that accomplice, do not be that mark. When you allow yourself to easily buy into something that is "too good to be true" then your are practically working with the con man. And without your participation, he(or she!) must move on.

[betovernetcapper]

I confess to having some preconceptions, that make me an unlikely purchaser of the Brooklyn Bridge, magic beans or "Insider Best Bets". :D

[traynor]

It was accidentally ambiguos.
I should have said that the accomplice that the con-man will need to move forward, and is hoping to obtain is in fact YOU(and not necessarily anyone else). Do not be that accomplice, do not be that mark. When you allow yourself to easily buy into something that is "too good to be true" then your are practically working with the con man. And without your participation, he(or she!) must move on.

Thanks for the clarification. It also points up one of the most interesting features of language--the intent of the speaker (or writer) is not always as clear to the listener (or reader) as it may be to the speaker (or writer).

Managers, especially upper management, go to great lengths to say almost nothing that cannot be interpreted in several different ways, then interpreted after the fact "correctly" to their advantage. The instructions given to Lt. William Calley before the My Lai massacre are an almost classic example of, "But I thought you meant ..."

The relevance is that people tend to hear what they want to hear, and gather from written text only what they want to gather, ignoring the rest. In action, many people listen for (or search for) key words and phrases that they can use to "interpret" what they are hearing or reading, without bothering to process the rest of the communication.

"One-dimensional" handicappers are especially adept at picking out some small factor or angle, and using that as a selection criteria. The interesting part is that many do so without realizing it; the decisions are made with absolute conviction that they have "thoroughly analyzed" a race or other situation, when in fact they have only superficially scanned the information for minor details that fit their preconceptions. The minor details are the basis for the decision, not the "thorough analysis."

Not funny. I used to be a "seat-of-the-pants" handicapper at harness races, "analyzing" each race "comprehensively." One of my current associates was (and is) a computer buff, took a stack of races that I had "analyzed," ran them through a bootstrap analysis and discovered that more than 90% of my "decisions" were made on the basis of a single (easily evaluated) factor.

In short, he could duplicate what took me 10-15 minutes or more for each race in about 5 seconds, and more than 90% of the time, come up with the same win bet. The frustrating part was that I had absolutely no idea I was using that criteria "subconsciously" as the primary reason for my selection.
Good Luck

[traynor]

I confess to having some preconceptions, that make me an unlikely purchaser of the Brooklyn Bridge, magic beans or "Insider Best Bets". :D

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you actually believed what you had written, which would have been sad.
Good Luck

[betovernetcapper]

Even the accomplished con-man, with his smooth delivery and enticing offers will always need the help of an accomplice.
Do not con yourself.
Robert I don't find this ambiguous at all-The sale of the Brooklyn Bridge-magic beans and "Insider Best Sets" couldn't go on without at least some participation of the victim.

[traynor]

Robert I don't find this ambiguous at all-The sale of the Brooklyn Bridge-magic beans and "Insider Best Sets" couldn't go on without at least some participation of the victim.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I strongly suggest that anything I post on the Selections thread that is labeled "Insider Best Bets" should be avoided like the plague. Above all else, do not even THINK about wagering on those selections. People will laugh and point at you afterwards, snickering and whispering that you are yet another foolish victim. :(

[betovernetcapper]

While I've always made my own selections (even at Sha Tin), I accept your advice that your selections should be avoided like the plague. I shall continue to avoid Brooklyn Bridge and magic bean purchases. :)
.
.
.

[traynor]

While I've always made my own selections (even at Sha Tin), I accept your advice that your selections should be avoided like the plague. I shall continue to avoid Brooklyn Bridge and magic bean purchases. :)
.
.
.

Thank You! Sha Tin is a great track, easy to handicap, and can take large bets without so much as a quiver in the mutuel pools. I highly recommend it. The Buenos Aires circuit, especially San Isisdro, is also highly productive, and extremely easy to handicap. Like Sha Tin, very stable, very predictable.

[betovernetcapper]

Sha Tin is a great track, easy to handicap, .

You would think so but I ran across a post in another forum in which a US "expert" offered to trade his "Insider Best Bets" for some Sha Tin pics. :)

[traynor]

You would think so but I ran across a post in another forum in which a US "expert" offered to trade his "Insider Best Bets" for some Sha Tin pics. :)

Absolutely correct. I am a professional bettor, and I look for every advantage, every edge, every bit of added information I can get. Doesn't everyone? If I can play the dummy and let some knowledgeable local teach me something I don't already know about the inner workings of Sha Tin, why would I not do that? You would be surprised at how much information people are willing to share with their peers, as opposed to those who pretend to have The Answer.

[JPinMaryland]

Thank You! Sha Tin is a great track, easy to handicap...

Uhh, how exactly does that work? Everyone at the track shows a positive ROI? All favorites win all the time? Track variant needs doesnt exist? Boy you've got me confused.

[traynor]

Uhh, how exactly does that work? Everyone at the track shows a positive ROI? All favorites win all the time? Track variant needs doesnt exist? Boy you've got me confused.

Sha Tin provides a huge amount of information. If that information is parsed to extract the meaningful information from the noise, Sha Tin is highly predictable. The situation is similar to many other tracks--there is so much information available that the primary difficulty is deciding which information is actually useful, and which is irrelevant. There are also a number of supplementary information sources (on trainers, etc.) available that can be used productively.

The situation is similar to that found at UK and Australian tracks; if you go in with the same mindset that you would use if you were handicapping Aqueduct or Santa Anita, you might have a problem, because the information provided may not be what you are accustomed to using to make decisions.

The typical US handicapper has been so swayed by Beyer, Brohamer, Sartin, Quirin, and other authors that they tend to overemphasize final speed, internal fractions, and track variants, as if that were all it is necessary to consider. Just find the horse that ran the "fastest" two weeks ago, or three weeks ago, and you have the most likely winner. For pace handicappers, it is internal fractions, "moves," and comparing pace figures.

At most tracks in the UK, you get a final time (that is often suspect), and not much else. The tracks all seem to be different distances, with uphill, downhill, and dogleg configurations mixed in randomly. Professionals there do well, some very well, and manage to get along without the mass of data available to US handicappers.

The situation at Sha Tin is much better; there is a lot of data available. The trick is to extract the important stuff and use it to make decisions, while ignoring the rest.
Good Luck

[betovernetcapper]

The trick is to extract the important stuff and use it to make decisions, while ignoring the rest.


Or one could simply trade some "Insider Best Bets" for tips. :lol:

[traynor]

Or one could simply trade some "Insider Best Bets" for tips. :lol:

Yes, that is an option. And one I use regularly for some very good information for San Isidro, among others. Works really well. Why, are you peddling Sha Tin tips?

[betovernetcapper]

No, not peddling Sha Tin tips or as the professional bettors say "Insider Best Bets". If however I were to be peddling "Insider Best Bets", magic beans or the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd buy a sponsored link. :)

[traynor]

No, not peddling Sha Tin tips or as the professional bettors say "Insider Best Bets". If however I were to be peddling "Insider Best Bets", magic beans or the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd buy a sponsored link. :)

To each his own. If I thought a sponsored link would be profitable, I would probably buy (or at least rent) one, too. At least we agree on hypotheticals. Or am I missing an implication that if someone wants to pull a scam, all that is necessary is to buy a sponsored link? Or are you suggesting that the sponsored link is the first step in setting up a long con?
:confused:

[betovernetcapper]

Were I attempting to sell "Insider Best Bets", magic beans, the Brooklyn Bridge or anything else, I would sponsor a link, because that seems to me to be the correct ethical behavior. That's just me.
Regarding the setting up of a con or scam, I wouldn't presume to offer you any suggestions. :)

[dylbert]

Nor your friends' mothers.AMEN, Pace Cap'n, AMEN!

As this thread continues chugging along, I wonder if this alleged syndicate has ever approached the nice folks from Nigeria that have large sums of money. I get email from them almost daily. Mmm, do you think I would receive handsome commission for my effort?

[traynor]

Were I attempting to sell "Insider Best Bets", magic beans, the Brooklyn Bridge or anything else, I would sponsor a link, because that seems to me to be the correct ethical behavior. That's just me.
Regarding the setting up of a con or scam, I wouldn't presume to offer you any suggestions. :)

I think you are probably every bit as ethical as you are adept at handicapping. And I think you come up really short in the handicapping department. You write like a loser afraid to look in the mirror to see the source of your failure.

[traynor]

Were I attempting to sell "Insider Best Bets", magic beans, the Brooklyn Bridge or anything else, I would sponsor a link, because that seems to me to be the correct ethical behavior. That's just me.
Regarding the setting up of a con or scam, I wouldn't presume to offer you any suggestions. :)

Pay attention, folks. Here we have the setup; by his own definition, the writer engages in "correct ethical behavior," implying not only his own "code of ethics," but that anyone not buying a supported link is, by extension, "unethical" if he or she is attempting to sell anything.

I don't recall making any overt or covert "sales pitches" for Insider Best Bets. In fact, I have studiousy avoided such. I post selections, and when I have time, I post the results. If I don't have time, I don't post anything, other than comments on other topics. If I were trying to sell Insider Best Bets, it would be a bit more obvious, and a bit more contrived.

As several people on this forum have pointed out, if I am trying to sell Insider Best Bets on PaceAdvantage, I am doing a really poor job of it. Some have even been kind enough to offer their services (for a large fee, I'm sure). However, as I have repeatedly stated, I am NOT trying to sell Insider Best Bets on this forum.

Why then do I include the name on the selections threads? Because we have different types of ratings, and the type "Insider Best Bets" is posted to differentiate them from other ratings for those who have downloaded free samples from our website over the last six months. I call that "identification to help forum members," not selling.

"Correct ethical behavior" implies reciprocity; if I were selling Insider Best Bets on PaceAdvantage, a sponsored link would be quid pro quo. I am not selling on PaceAdvantage, hence sponsored links are a non-issue.

[betovernetcapper]

Just paid a visit to your site and noted the following:
"To protect the value of ddss thoroughbred ratings and ddss harness ratings, we will no longer provide free samples to non-subscribers".
Given the above I think calling your unpaid link "identification to help forum members" a little disingenious. :ThmbDown:
To be fair the site made no overt offers of magic beans. :)

[traynor]

Just paid a visit to your site and noted the following:
"To protect the value of ddss thoroughbred ratings and ddss harness ratings, we will no longer provide free samples to non-subscribers".
Given the above I think calling your unpaid link "identification to help forum members" a little disingenious. :ThmbDown:
To be fair the site made no overt offers of magic beans. :)

Purely in the interest of fairness, it should be made clear that for the past six months we have offered 3-day Free Samples to anyone who requested them. To avoid charges of providing different samples to different people, we also posted those same selections online. Those samples were discontinued a week or two ago.

We do not regard posting selections on PaceAdvantage (or any other forum) as being "free samples with an intent to market." If we did, we would post selections every day to gain maximum "exposure." That, obviously, is a long way from being the case.

As for magic beans, we go to great lengths to avoid misconceptions and false promises. We believe thoroughbred racing can be profitable if viewed as a business enterprise, but avoid terminology catering to gambling addicts, get-rich-quick hopefuls, or others who might be better off away from race tracks.

That is, we intentionally avoid use of "marketing terminology" to entice that same group; "rush," "excitement," "thrill," "huge profits," and specific details that imply mechanical consistency in racing; "In a sample of 300 races at Aqueduct, our win percentage was 42% and ROI was a WHOPPING 941%" or some similar drivel that implies all anyone need do is mechanically bet selections to gain an equivalent (or greater) profit.

Our avoidance of marketing strategies and ploys catering to "emotional" handicappers and racing fans is not because we lack knowledge of those strategies and ploys, but rather because we cater to a different clientele. Professional bettors tend to regard "emotional" bettors as a small step up from total incompetency. Barry Meadow posted an interesting comment on that topic on another thread on PaceAdvantage.

I appreciate your integrity in reporting your findings. In regard to marketing, you might visit our recent posting on the Selections thread. If we were actively marketing on PaceAdvantage, we would have used that posting to anchor commentary on how wonderful we are, or some similar comments. The fact that we did not should make clear that we post selections for the (possible) benefit of PaceAdvantage forum members, rather than to market our ratings.
Good Luck

[traynor]

Just paid a visit to your site and noted the following:
"To protect the value of ddss thoroughbred ratings and ddss harness ratings, we will no longer provide free samples to non-subscribers".
Given the above I think calling your unpaid link "identification to help forum members" a little disingenious. :ThmbDown:
To be fair the site made no overt offers of magic beans. :)

I disagree, but because you seem to be representing PaceAdvantage (who had previously agreed that signature links were perfectly acceptable if "marketing" commentary was avoided), please note the "unpaid link" has been removed.

[PaceAdvantage]

Having a link to your website as a signature is perfectly acceptable, whether the site is commercial in nature or not....this has ALWAYS been the case....

[traynor]

Having a link to your website as a signature is perfectly acceptable, whether the site is commercial in nature or not....this has ALWAYS been the case....

Thanks, PA. I wanted to make sure I was not doing something inappropriate.
Good Luck

[toetoe]

Ambiguity? Hell, it's rampant poliguity. And that's ... o-KAY.

[boomman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Having a link to your website as a signature is perfectly acceptable, whether the site is commercial in nature or not....this has ALWAYS been the case....


Pace: I had hesitated to post the link to my website also..wanted to make sure that doing so fell within this site's guidelines-Thanks for clearing it up! Boom


www.boomerhandicapsraces.com (http://www.boomerhandicapsraces.com)

[orrug2k]

Telling people you can sell them contenders and how to win more than they can make in a month in one day is marketing something you can do. 100 people betting the same horses does not create overlays on those horses. It creates overlays on the others. Maybe we should sign up for those picks and bet the other horses. True overlays. Plus saying you dont market when picks are posted daily, which by the way is not picks when you post 4 horses a race, then you wait till one pays double figs and a sucker buys your subscription is pure marketing. Plus the green and white print is not an accident. Ask on of them for a free trial, offer to subscribe with winnings, and notice how quick they dont email you back. Instead they will come up with some answer like, "you dont want to win, thats why your not winning. Then the usual, this service is too good for you, we dont want you. Knowing all along the reality is you didnt fall for the hype. Reminds me of the Richard Pryor movie where he runs a scam called "dare to be rich"

[orrug2k]

Jcapper posted on his site the exact thing that I was referring to. Sold 100 copies of his software and his horses were getting overbet to no value.