Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
You took a first look at Lehane's "red scan" technique, and it impressed you with its performance. Will you now make it a permanent feature of your handicapping process? Is that how we should come up with our contenders when we handicap...either a horse fits the "red scan" criteria, or it gets eliminated from consideration at the very start of the handicapping process?
If Lehane offered this technique as an additional factor to consider, then I would have no problem with it. But he offers it as the foundation of his contender-selection process...and as such, the method fails miserably...because its restrictive rules eliminate the most accomplished horses in the race from the very start.
|
My memory must be getting fuzzy, because you forced me to reread what I'd written. I thought it was reported accurately what had transpired on the few races attended for CT, without having once said I was impressed, or wow, this is the ticket. To answer your question, no it will most likely not be a permanent feature of my handicapping. To be honest, I consider myself a contrarian when it comes to horses and stocks. Since Jim's technique seems to identify not-so-obvious contenders, it caught my attention. Haven't yet finished the pdf that was shared, but thought he also advised using the final fraction or 1/4 mile time with his angles including red scan, but I may be wrong on that note. Without double checking the pdf, it appears like he has four or five angles in addition to his red scan, so that would most likely not eliminate other serious contenders. I think this game has enough variety, that making a selection can done by an almost infinite number of methods. My selection process uses some angles, early speed, class, form, and a bigger emphasis on tote analysis of my own design.
