Quote:
Originally Posted by Whosonfirst
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.
|
Where in his handicapping book does Lehane use "other methods" than the RED SCAN to pick his contenders? In the edition that I have, he raves about his "red scan" technique...and in the race that I used as an example in this thread, he used only the "red scan" to eliminate the other serious contenders in the race. ..and he didn't even use those other obvious contenders in his exotics bets in that race.
I'm not trying to tell people how to handicap, you understand...I just voice my opinion about books that I've read. And when I disagree with a book...I like to voice my disagreement, while stating the reasons behind it. I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone...or to pretend that I know everything. To each his own.
