The "Whales" big time

[karlskorner]

www.bismarktribune.com/articles/2003/07/30/news/state/sta03.txt

[superfecta]

Looks like these guys are somehow screwing up with a potential gold mine.If you are a business,you better pay your taxes or you will not be in business long.But lookin at it another way,since they are not paying the taxes,are they making money?Or are they a legit business?That deal about hooking up with a charity to open an account sounds like the old bingo charity scam we had in OKla.

[gino]

in new jersey if you bet $100, you get a hunnert back? and this "racing official" thinks that in NoDak if youse bet a hunnert you make $108...this guy should take the next plane to CA, he's a shoo-in for Guv, or at least the Califonia Horse Racing Board...
gino
political animal

[VetScratch]

If six horseplayers wagered $68-million with RSI in the first eight months of 2000, their rebate average of 8% (or more likely 10%) lowers effective takeout by too great a margin to suggest any long-term venture other than money laundering.

If you examine the allocation percentages mandated by law in each racing jurisdication, takeouts reduced by 8% to 10% leave nothing for the racetracks and RSI if these whales are just average losers. and it is a totally unstable proposition if the whales are winning.

Such a scheme is doomed unless the whales lose at the track but prosper by doing so. The only industry that can thrive by losing is money laundering, which sells cash that must be hidden at a discount to buy legitimate income. What the rebate does is give the launderers a better discount deal.

The GP whale and others can strive to win, but the underlying business model sustains long-term growth, as these whales multiply and dilute potential profits, only when laundering is at the foundation.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by VetScratch
If six horseplayers wagered $68-million with RSI in the first eight months of 2000, their rebate average of 8% (or more likely 10%) lowers effective takeout by too great a margin to suggest any long-term venture other than money laundering.

If you examine the allocation percentages mandated by law in each racing jurisdication, takeouts reduced by 8% to 10% leave nothing for the racetracks and RSI if these whales are just average losers. and it is a totally unstable proposition if the whales are winning.

Such a scheme is doomed unless the whales lose at the track but prosper by doing so. The only industry that can thrive by losing is money laundering, which sells cash that must be hidden at a discount to buy legitimate income. What the rebate does is give the launderers a better discount deal.

The GP whale and others can strive to win, but the underlying business model sustains long-term growth, as these whales multiply and dilute potential profits, only when laundering is at the foundation.


As I understand it, the rebates are adjusted depending on the cost the the simulcast signal & the takeout rate of the host track -- so RSI's cut is guaranteed, just like if you bet through BrisBet or YouBet. Whether the bettor wins or loses doesn't matter to RSI any more than it matters to the track because the rebate is on the amount wagered. RSI just takes a smaller percentage slice of a larger pie.

If the rebate scheme offers an attractive deal to a money-launderer, I won't disagree, but why can't a whale just be a whale? I hope to be a whale someday. I am aware of a couple of individuals who bet enough that they could have been responsible for that $68 mil practically by themselves.

Why do people seem to be so afraid of whales? I'm happy to take their money just like anybody else. Having lots of money to spend doesn't automatically mean you're beating the take. As I write this, there are big bettors preparing to dump another few million into the pools tomorrow, just like they do everyday; and I'll be there to take my cut, just like I am everyday. What's the problem?

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,
What's the problem?
There is no problem, but the purpose of my post may not have been stated clearly enough.

The original Beyer article on the RSI whale, as well as other reports in the press, suggested big profits aided by a high-velocity wagering link. The Beyer article presented only one example in which the RSI whale made a profit of $220,451 on a single GP race. As a result of this publicity, many players think whale-sized play must be driven by profits, as in, "why else would anyone wager that much?" The truth is, whale-sized play must be driven by losses or whale-sized advantages would not be offered.

From the Article: "the bettors receive a percentage of the wagers back after fees and taxes are taken out. Because race tracks charge different rates for their simulcast signals, the margin of return varies, Diaz said, declining to offer a range. The Daily Racing Form reported that rebate amounts typically range from 7 percent to 10 percent."

You pointed out that what was "literally" reported may be misleading. I can't quibble with that. The "rebate amounts" received by whales may be less than 7% to 10% depending on how you interpret what the DRF statement means. I took it to mean the net rebates ranged from 7% to 10% because "race tracks charge different rates for their simulcast signals, and the margin of return varies." However, I have no problem with your interpretation as I understand it: rebate percentages (instead of amounts) vary between 7% and 10%. This would reduce net rebate amounts to a range of approximately 5% to 8%.

One point clearly made in my post is that each racing jurisdiction mandates allocation percentages for track takeout. For example, when takeout is 17%, the track's share of takeout may be 7% with the other 10% guaranteed to state treasuries, purses, etc. Thus, the track has only a 7% gross margin.

RSI appears to favor "charities" as betting outlets, probably to reduce taxes on their slice of the pie.

In any case, neither the tracks nor RSI have a big gross margin to work with. Now, when you factor in the rebates (my way or your way), the gross margin gets smaller yet.

This is not a good business model to sustain racing if the whales are soundly beating the horses because it will attract a larger and larger percentage of gross handle to enter the system where gross margin is substantially reduced by rebates.

Casinos don't cater to successful Blackjack card counters, and racing doesn't cater to winners. The whale-sized rebates are offered to attract whale-sized losers.

The purpose of my post was to suggest that money laundering improves the whale business model by attracting handle from betting interests who achieve their objective even when they lose. The rebates are the carrot that attracts illegitimate money into the pari-mutuel system as opposed to other laundering alternatives.

BTW, money laundering is the primary focus of both the IRS and other government agencies with respect to horseracing.

Undercover investigations have recently discouraged one practice that was widespread fifteen to twenty years ago when quite a few big public claiming stables were nothing more than laundry machines.

Today, when the IRS audits a big player, profit and loss substantiation is a backseat issue. If you play big (i.e., wager millions), you better have verifiable audit trails to your legitimate source of all funds and your legitimate destination for all winnings. Big-time audits often focus entirely on laundering. If your funding is legitimate, unless a red flag is evident, or you fail to comply with Rev. Proc. 77-29, the IRS has better things to do than paw through your detailed wagering records of wins and losses. Because few players actually win, catching profit/loss cheats is a low priority audit recovery target (i.e., a poor way for the IRS to utilize it's audit/recovery resources).

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by VetScratch

The original Beyer article on the RSI whale, as well as other reports in the press, suggested big profits aided by a high-velocity wagering link.

Yeah, that's a special case, and that link has been severed. You could argue unfair advantage in that case.



The truth is, whale-sized play must be driven by losses or whale-sized advantages would not be offered.


I really don't think they care if you win or lose. They get their cut just like the host track. But since the volume is so huge, they still make good money after giving back a rebate. While I have no direct knowledge of their workings, my indirect knowledge about RSI and those who use them does not come from the media. That's about all I can say. And if you think there aren't whales making money, I can tell you for certain you're not correct. Some win, some don't. The thing about rebates is you can have a 5% loss on your wagers and still be 3% in the black, so they can win without winning, so to speak, because they are operating with effectively less takeout. Most of us on this board could manage a 5% loss on ROI -- why bother laundering?



This is not a good business model to sustain racing if the whales are soundly beating the horses because it will attract a larger and larger percentage of gross handle to enter the system where gross margin is substantially reduced by rebates.

Casinos don't cater to successful Blackjack card counters, and racing doesn't cater to winners. The whale-sized rebates are offered to attract whale-sized losers.


This is the part I don't understand. The rebate comes out of RSI's pocket -- not the track. The track gets the same amount as it would from BrisBet or anyone else they sell their signal to. What is unique about racing is that the track couldn't care less if you win or lose -- they make the same in any case. What is different here?

RSI probably wants their customers to win (if they aren't money-launderers) so they'll keep betting with RSI.

Now if you're saying the whales are hurting the rest of us because they're winning, then that is true to some degree. But there are winning whales & losing whales, and pari-mutuel games have a way of equalizing things. I don't fear some whale "winning all the money". Won't happen.



The purpose of my post was to suggest that money laundering improves the whale business model by attracting handle from betting interests who achieve their objective even when they lose. The rebates are the carrot that attracts illegitimate money into the pari-mutuel system as opposed to other laundering alternatives.


I agree the rebates might be a lure for launderers. But I don't think that is the reason they're offered, and I think the RSI's of the world can do just fine without them.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,
This is the part I don't understand. The rebate comes out of RSI's pocket -- not the track. The track gets the same amount as it would from BrisBet or anyone else they sell their signal to. What is unique about racing is that the track couldn't care less if you win or lose -- they make the same in any case. What is different here? The difference is that RSI does NOT get a pass-through rebate from the tracks. The six players who bet $68-million in eight months had better lose, or RSI has NO incentive to retain them as customers. If they win, why not drop them like a hot potato!

Whale tanks like RSI cannot persist unless then cater to losers.

How could RSI possibly want players to win?

[GameTheory]

I still don't get it -- the rebate is on the amount of the wager, win or lose. If you bet $100, and the rebate is 7%, you get back $7 no matter what. In effect, you get to bet $100 for $93.

RSI makes the exact same amount no matter if you win or lose, just like the track does. Let's say the track take is 20%. RSI buys the simulcast signal from the track, giving them the right to take wagers and keep a portion of that 20% for themselves. Then they pass most of that portion onto you. It comes out of their cut, but it is never more than their allotted portion. You get the rebate merely by betting -- if you lose the bet they still pay it. The winnings come out of the returned portion of the total co-mingled pool like always -- RSI will make the exact same amount no matter if you win or not. And that amount is determined by the amount you wager. The payoff amounts on winnings are not affected at all.

I really don't get where you're going with this -- RSI operates EXACTLY like the racetrack with one exception -- when you make a wager they turn around and give you a portion of it right back. Whether that wager is a winner or not doesn't matter.

What am I not getting?

[VetScratch]

Example When NY Takeout Was 14%:
Track takeout = 14%.
OTB takeout = 14% (if no add-on percentage is authorized).

The track gets 4% or less of OTB handle from out-of-state OTBs (NYRA out-of-state take has been about 4%, which is split 50/50 with horsemen).

New net OTB takeout = 10%. (14-4)

Local mandated allocations from gross OTB takeout may equal or exceed 10%. Let's say 8% for our example.

New net OTB takeout = 2%. (10-8)

This why simulcast takers have vigorously opposed reductions to track takeouts, such as the latest reductions in NY. In the past, OTBs have boycotted to protest takeout reductions.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,

Well, I did some research concering RSI. What I found doesn't satisfy me, but it does provide more information.

Example:
$100 - bet to win at BEL (when takeout was 14%).
$86 - Payout reserve.
$4 - NYRA take (4%, split 50/50 with NYRA horsemen).
$3 - ND take (3% mandated by ND law).
$? - Fee/percent to wagering outlet operator.
$? - RSI operating cost.
$? - Rebate to player (roughly $6.00 to $8.60 at 7% to 10%).

Compared to other states, ND at 3% take, is a sweet deal for RSI.

The "charities" that operate many RSI wagering outlets probably charge less than for-profit operators.

However, I could not verify that RSI has the option co-mingle with BEL or not co-mingle. I found legislation elsewhere that gives this option, but nothing specific for ND.

What is obvious, is that if RSI co-mingles with BEL, there is simply not enough money to make the RSI rebate program a profitable business model.

Although I couldn't find the absolute proof, I still maintain that RSI cannot offer the publicized rebates and co-mingle with the host track without taking a financial beating.

I think RSI has to depend on player losses, by not co-mingling, to make their formula work. Otherwise, the numbers don't suggest RSI can be profitable.

The fact that RSI is delinquent by $5.5-million in tax payments to ND would make me nervous if I was a RSI shareholder.

[GameTheory]

I believe they co-mingle. That's why people were complaining -- the pools were taking a beating at the last second at GP when that guy had a direct link to bet at the very very last second.

They don't necessarily offer every track in the nation either, and the rebate scenario is apparently different for every track. NY has the lowest takeout, after all. I highly doubt they are putting themselves at risk by giving rebates more than their share of the takeout, else they would tell their winning players to take a hike, which they haven't done to my knowledge (and they do have winning players).

When exchange wagering becomes legal in the U.S., you can bet it will be due to RSI. They already had it put on a bill in the ND legislature last year, but then had it taken off at the last minute because everyone wanted to study it some more. The ND government may be investigated them, but they ain't gonna shut them down because they're a cash cow.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,
they ain't gonna shut them down because they're a cash cow
They are delinquent by $5.5-million in payments to the ND racing commission, which means they haven't paid the ND takeout on $183-million in handle. Thus, the state has not received it's share of takeout for almost a year.

I would still be nervous if I were a shareholder.

[GameTheory]

So they owe some taxes -- they claim it is from the racetracks being slow to pay them. I assume that is for their simulcasting stuff (computers, networks, software, satellites, etc.) which is actually their main business, not taking wagers. They've got the state legislature in their pocket, and the new racetrack about to open in Fargo has RSI to thank for its existence. They'll be just fine...

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,

Here is RSI's own description of the services you describe as it's main business:

"RSI processes all of the wagering data activity, reconciles it between jurisdictions and provides system generated audit trails and reports to regulators in each jurisdiction."

The quality/integrity of RSI's product has to be questioned in view of it's performance:

"RSI originally reported $172.1 million in bets in 2002, but the company recently corrected that amount to $214.5 million in a report to the state Racing Commission. RSI also amended its handle for Jan. 1 to April 30 of this year from $55.5 million to $112.1 million."

If $100-million "slipped through the cracks" in North Dakota, is there any reason to expect investigators will find accurate reporting in the other states/countries where the RSI system is installed?

The corrections to betting handle were reported by RSI only after investigations were launched.

What kind of a system loses track of almost $1 out of every $2?

Something is fishy.

[Figman]

Could it be that RSI is "booking" some bets itself or sending them out of the country to Mexico and sending or comingling other wagers (where RSI might get hurt like Tris-Pick Sixes,etc) on to the race track pari-mutuel pools???????

[VetScratch]

RSI successfully lobbied to reduce gross ND takeout from 3.5% to 3.0%. Here was the RSI argument:

"Earlier this year (2003), state legislators passed a bill granting Racing Services a tax break on its handle. In published reports, legislators said they were told that if the tax break was not passed, a bettor in North Dakota who wagers $160 million a year might leave the state for a better deal."

At the time when the legislature acted to reduce takeout, RSI had officially reported $172 million as the total ND handle for 2002.

Thus, legislators were being asked to give a tax break to a single player who bet $160 million out of $172 million (93%).

Whatever else you may think about ND legislators and RSI, any company which discloses that it depends upon a single customer for 93% of its business is strictly a "risky business."

[VetScratch]

Figman,
Could it be that RSI is "booking" some bets itself or sending them out of the country to Mexico and sending or comingling other wagers (where RSI might get hurt like Tris-Pick Sixes,etc) on to the race track pari-mutuel pools???????

What makes RSI hard to figure is the ambiguous way they describe their method of operation:

"Through RSI, the locations, which are licensed and regulated, receive the live closed circuit satellite feeds of racing programs from horse and greyhound racetracks. RSI links the network of locations through its central computer system to the racetracks transmitting the data into national pools for conducting interstate pari-mutuel wagering. RSI processes all of the wagering data activity, reconciles it between jurisdictions and provides system generated audit trails and reports to regulators in each jurisdiction."

Compare this to typical legislation in states that provide simulcast operators with options to co-mingle with host tracks or participate in other forms of simulcast pooling:
An in-state simulcast facility receiving simulcast races from an out-of-state host track may participate either in a pari-mutuel pool or in an interstate common pool. The commission shall permit an operator of an in-state simulcast facility participating in an interstate common pool to adopt the takeout percentage of the out-of-state host track for such interstate common pool, so long as such in-state simulcast facility's takeout does not exceed twenty percent of win, place, and show wagering and twenty-five percent of all other pari-mutuel wagering on such simulcast races.

What does RSI mean by "national pools for conducting interstate pari-mutuel wagering?" Seems like it fits either method.

However, I'm not qualified to render a legal opinion... so that's all I can say.

[VetScratch]

To All Posters In This Thread:

Please pardon me for succumbing to temptation, but I find it curious that a serious thread about a wagering controvery and wagering alternatives has attracted no posts from the Bathhouse Boys.

I guess you need a caterer to elicit widespread participation!:D :D :D

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe most just don't give a shit?? We're a little busy actually wagering....

[Derek2U]

When I read vet scratch type ... "and thats all i will say" ...
now thats a dream come true. VS ... u type 2 much.

[VetScratch]

Plenty of time left...

All we have to do is decide how best to use #6 Greeley's Best in the 9th at LAD (6:41 EDT/5:41 CDT).

[superfecta]

Intelligent discussion and PA posts an inane post?Ironic.I fall on Vets side on this one.While I personally (that I know of)don't get hurt by the rebates and business practices of RSI,I do find it unusual the way RSI operates.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by superfecta
Intelligent discussion and PA posts an inane post?Ironic.I fall on Vets side on this one.While I personally (that I know of)don't get hurt by the rebates and business practices of RSI,I do find it unusual the way RSI operates.

Sorry you feel that way. I simply gave a reply which I felt to be equally flippant to VetScratch's prior posting.




==From one who's seen this song and dance before.....

[VetScratch]

Superfecta,
I was a bit flippant:

"It's A Boy" won the 9th at LAD at 20/1 :D :D :D

[GameTheory]

VS --

You really are a die-hard trouble-maker, aren't you? Just stirring things up to stir them up. One of the most schizophrenic personalities I've ever seen on a message board. You've made some of the best posts ever seen on this board, but probably 70% of your total posts are garbage with no other point than to be mean-spirited and obnoxious. What gives?

[PaceAdvantage]

One thing VetScratch isn't is original.....this has all been done before....

[Suff]

Homosexual inuenndo on the internet? Thats not new?

Really Baffling how someone this intelligent can be so wierd and Juvenile. To bad.

[VetScratch]

I can be feisty, but my attempts at humor are usually good-natured as opposed to mean-spirited, and you certainly can't accuse me of descending to the "little boys room graffiti" that many resort to when they want to bully their way through a thread. I think "Bathhouse Boys" is like ivory soap compared to all the gender junk and insinuations that have been aimed my way. I further think that a list of feisty male posters would be quite lengthy indeed!

Why is it OK for Suff to brag about giving me a "bitch slapping," but when I quote him in a reply, PA warns me to take my "bitch slapping" somewhere else. You can't find a post where I have used to "bitch" or similar moronic appellations unless it was a direct quotation. Furthermore, I never whine like a pup when someone pokes fun at me, even if their intent is clearly mean-spirited as in all the gender barbs (which one member collected and forwarded to me in an email) or the crazy and obscene stuff posted by Freeneasy. I grew up in a male-dominated society which rivals the PA board. Females have to take a lot of shit (to quote PA) at every racetrack. The ones who last as trainers, jockeys, or in other pursuits don't get run off the backside by intimidation (which never ceases).

I can count on the fingers of both hands how many regular posters are interested in exploring horseracing issues in a manner that benefits the majority of PA visitors/members. Most of the posts read like Instant-Messenger or Chat-Room exchanges that might as well be encrypted if you haven't been hanging out here 7/24 for an extended period.

I think I am representative of many handicappers who have seriously played the horses and/or have been intimately involved in the horseracing industry. In this respect, there seems to be a presumption that guests or newbies must already know something about the members and products featured on this board. However, insofar as public recognition is concerned, if you are not a Beyer, Ainslie, Davidowitz, Brohamer, Quirin, or another author who has reached mass audiences, you are just another John/Jane Doe on the Internet. You flatter yourselves if you think your products are household brand names. This has no reflection on quality or merit; it is merely the consequence of merchandising power. To most folks, anything less than a prolonged full- or half-page advertising campaign in the DRF is associated with the huckster segment of the industry, where all you can be sure of getting is a dramatic increase in junk mail. On the Internet, BRIS/TSN, DRF, and EquiBase have spent millions to achieve brand name recognition which becomes associated with all their products (good and bad). This is unfortunate, because it demonstrates that market share is more easily won with promotional dollars than investments in product quality.

I have engaged in heated debates and prolonged discussions with Game Theory, SMTW, Shacopate, Storm Cadet, and about a dozen others where misunderstandings and disagreements lead to something other than personal acrimony. It is no coincidence that these are the same members who post with the most awareness of the audience, which always far outnumbers the posters in a thread. In recent threads, I have been corrected by Game Theory and Tom for missing the crux of Kenwoodall's method or not understanding Sartin turn-time concepts. That's what should happen (to my benefit). However, I get the distinct impression that many members have difficulty engaging in peer-to-peer discussions or debates with females. When Game Theory tells me something like "pay attention, the link is where I said it was," I don't sense any gender problems. In essence, he's just saying, "Wake up dummy, what do you think the Website button is for?" On the other hand, many of you exhibit symptoms of sexually oriented discomfort when a female treats you like a simple peer instead of a demigod.

[Suff]

Hey Boss

See what your working with here? The pretend worlds and multiple personalities that have been created and Lived out have taken there toll.

He's to far gone. He can't be worked with. This is the best your gonna get.

If you wanna keep him around for laughs and entertainment value then thats the Call.

But if you had any notion you might be able to work with him...This post should take care of those.


two in the hat. sianara.

[Derek2U]

why dont u ever post picks? u just keep typing. hey, are u
related to Lefty? u his wife or grandma?

[GameTheory]

VS--

I would suggest you are less persecuted than you perceive you are, and maybe that you are not that good at "good-natured ribbing" as many of your one-liners cause me to be taken aback and say, "Where the hell did THAT come from?" You seem downright vicious much of the time. You may not mean it, but that is the impression I get. It is also partly a lingering first impression because some of the first posts you made on this board were some rather uncalled for (I thought) nasty comments to Bruddah just because you thought he was "anthropormorphically" analyzing a horse. Why not just disagree instead of throwing around insults as well? There are others around here who act like toddlers, yes, but most of them don't have anything useful to say *ever* while you're obviously highly intelligent. The moronics are best left for the morons, I'd say. I also don't think anyone cares if you're a female or not -- you get a hard time about that only because you keep bringing it up. Do you see anyone giving Observer or So Cal Fan a hard time?

It is certainly not up to me to tell you how to behave, but I'd be much happier to see your name on a new post if I knew there was better than a 6/1 chance it would contain some content. The signal to noise ratio is rather low, I'm afraid. Please take this in the spirit is offered, which is friendly...

[VetScratch]

Derek2u:
why dont u ever post picks?

What is the rationale for posting picks unless you join this group:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20030802-9999_1b2tipsheet.html

All picks can do is dilute winning returns or multiply losers unless they produce value in some other way.

[Suff]

How about personal pride Vet scratch? You got any of that?

The guy that owns this place has made it pefectly clear to you that he does not care for you. He'd prefer you'd seriously tone down or go away. He's had to speak with you more times in a month that the other 900 members COMBINED in an entire year.

Have you fallen so in love in 45 days that despite this you stay?

Does'nt take a rocket scientist to tell , that Him and Many people wish you would go away. Yet you stay. Have you no dignity?

[VetScratch]

Suff,

Before you bet the farm, a few dollars spent with a linguistic analyst would be a wise investment.

[VetScratch]

Leaving:
All PA has to do is ask!

[Suff]

He has.

How many ways must he spell it out for you?

[Derek2U]

u take urself 2 serious. just pick em & i wanna see if ur any
good.

[Suff]

I'm done with you. If you stay...stfu once in awhile,,, if you go , even better.

I'm not a MF by nature,, You bring it out of me. I gotta wash my hands of you... I only got back in your WEB over that Rocajack thing.

Good Night Irene.

[VetScratch]

"Dialing down the middle," as the ad says, is necessary for YouBet and many on-line banks, but not for everything.:)

[Tom]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Superfecta,
I was a bit flippant:

"It's A Boy" won the 9th at LAD at 20/1 :D :D :D

Those are my favorite cigars: "It's A Boy's"

[PaceAdvantage]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VetScratch
I can count on the fingers of both hands how many regular posters are interested in exploring horseracing issues in a manner that benefits the majority of PA visitors/members. Most of the posts read like Instant-Messenger or Chat-Room exchanges that might as well be encrypted if you haven't been hanging out here 7/24 for an extended period.

You're free to find another board which better suits your needs. Or better yet, create your own!

I think I am representative of many handicappers who have seriously played the horses and/or have been intimately involved in the horseracing industry. In this respect, there seems to be a presumption that guests or newbies must already know something about the members and products featured on this board. However, insofar as public recognition is concerned, if you are not a Beyer, Ainslie, Davidowitz, Brohamer, Quirin, or another author who has reached mass audiences, you are just another John/Jane Doe on the Internet. You flatter yourselves if you think your products are household brand names.

Careful, you just might tip your hand with that paragraph....


On the other hand, many of you exhibit symptoms of sexually oriented discomfort when a female treats you like a simple peer instead of a demigod.

Ooops....too late.....


BTW, is it tough waking up in the morning with that much ego to tote around all day?? Your public postings do not do justice to your true beliefs about this board. Why not let it all hang out??? Why hold back??


==PA

PS. My replies to you in no way are influenced by your claim that you are of the female persuasion. To me, everyone here is gender neutral, simply because there is no way of verifying anyone's claims. To me, you are a nickname, and nothing else, unless we were to meet in person of course. So don't try and lay that "beating up on the poor defenseless girl" crap on me. I for one ain't buying, because quite frankly, you could be some cat just lounging around in his underwear, having fun with a bunch of yahoo handicappers.

[kenwoodall]

I'd rather pick everone's brains than pick on anyone! Vetscratch- Sunday Del Mar 4f work median time was 48.4, faster than fast and dirt favorites responded with 5 wins in 8 races for a 40% profit! I'm in email contact with a retired female jockey with a long career who is telling me a lot about workouts.

[Tom]

OK, PA has convinced me to come out of the closet here.
In real life, I am, in fact, a monkee!
The avatar is real.
There, I feel better already :D