DDT wrote: " I challenge you to explain how impact values have any meaning whatsoever to predicting the outcome of a horse race."
Here are many examples of how I used impact values to recommend the outcome of the Belmont stakes:
The impact value in the Belmont stakes for having Buckpasser in the X passing position plus a final fraction time of 37 4/5 for the last 3 furlongs of a major stake at 9 furlongs is approximately 2.75. This means that horses fitting the above criteria are winning the Belmont almost 3 times more often than statistical expectation.
This year there were 6 horses in the Belmont stakes that fit the above criteria: Tonalist, Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and Commanding Curve.
I recommended an exacta box of the above horses and that came in and paid $174 fro $1.
I recommended a Trifecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin, Commanding Curve, Medal Count, Matterhorn and Matuszak in the place and show positions and that came in and paid $3,390.50 for $1
I recommended a Superfecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with the above 8 horses in the place and show and fourth positions and two supers came in: one 10cent super paying $573 with Wicked Strong fourth and one paid $380 with California Chrome fourth.
In total the use of impact values led me to recommend to my customers at American Turf Monthly tickets worth $4,517 for an investment of $280.
Thats a hefty return and is based on an impact value that give handicappers an edge by using Buckpasser in the X passing position as a major criterion. Sure the final fraction indicator is important but I proved you wrong on your contention that Buckpasser standing alone without the final fraction would get a negative impact value. $4,517 speaks loud and clear as to why the above method is a strong one (Four of the six qualifiers comprised the Superfecta).
In 2010 I recommended a WIN wager on Drosselmeyer in the Belmont stakes to all my customers at ATM and he won and paid $28 for a $2 wager. Drosselmeyer carried Buck in the X and also ran a final fraction of less than 37 4/5 in a major 9 furlong prep.
In 2009 I recommended an exacta box of Summer Bird and Dunkirk and that won and paid $121. I recommended Summer Bird as a longshot and he paid $25.80 for a $2 wager.
In 2009 there were 4 horses in the Belmont that carried Buckpasser in the X and had a final fraction time of 37 4/5 or less in major 9 furlong prep race. 3 of these qualifiers were in the Superfecta: Summer Bird won, Dunkirk was second, and Charitable Man was fourth. Flying Private the other qualifier ran out of the money.
In 1999 there were only two qualifiers that carried Buck in the X and achieved a final 3 furlong time of 37 4/5 or less and they ran first and second: Lemon Drop Kid and Vision and verse and if I remember correctly I think the exacta came back over $1,000. And Lemon Drop Kid paid around 30-1 for a $2 wager.
Impact values can point out winners and is an effective method for handicapping the Derby, Preakness and Belmont stakes.
Secretariat and Buckpasser
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
There you go, dancing around again. I did not ask you why you like impact values, I asked you to explain what value they add to handicapping and predicting the outcome of a horse race, not why you use them or what you think of their place in handicapping. You did not address the other challenges. Now, why do you think impact values are a good tool for handicapping the Triple Crown races, not that you claim success with them, why do you think using them provides an edge for predicting winners?
DDT
There you go, dancing around again. I did not ask you why you like impact values, I asked you to explain what value they add to handicapping and predicting the outcome of a horse race, not why you use them or what you think of their place in handicapping. You did not address the other challenges. Now, why do you think impact values are a good tool for handicapping the Triple Crown races, not that you claim success with them, why do you think using them provides an edge for predicting winners?
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: I use impact values because they give handicappers an edge in the Derby, Preakness and Belmont stakes.
See my post above July 7, 2014. That clearly explains a few examples of that edge at work.
See my post on June 20,2014 where I delineated all qualifiers on my Buckpasser angle from 1992-2014. That illustrates why it gives handicappers a clear cut edge on the Belmont stakes.
As far as why I used data only from 1992-2014 is as follows: I incorporated Beyer figs in the angle and they were not published in the Form before then.
See my post above July 7, 2014. That clearly explains a few examples of that edge at work.
See my post on June 20,2014 where I delineated all qualifiers on my Buckpasser angle from 1992-2014. That illustrates why it gives handicappers a clear cut edge on the Belmont stakes.
As far as why I used data only from 1992-2014 is as follows: I incorporated Beyer figs in the angle and they were not published in the Form before then.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
You did not answer the question Stan, why you use them without a satisfactory explanation does not explain the purpose of their use in handicapping, or for that matter their value in doing so. You incorporated the Beyer figures into the tweaked time factor for both the Preakness and the Belmont because you wanted another avenue to score winners and the original time indicator developed for the Derby did not offer that, although it does provide some merit for the method and is worth the price of the book standing alone. You continue to rave about the success in this year's Belmont and when asked why you keyed a horse that did not qualify under the rules and guidelines published in that book you responded by saying you were free to use horses that did not qualify under the rules and advice provided in the book. You also go against the advice concerning not betting the favorite in the Derby to win by using Orb on top in an exacta wheel. Your advice in the book does not say "if the top qualifier is the favorite wheel him on top in an exacta" you said your advice was not to wager on the favorite.
You continue to use the handicapping success as a means of somehow connecting it to the method formulated in your book, however when you stated the bottom line is your selection and wagering strategy that matters you admitted that the rules for your method carry little weight for final selections.
You continue to ignore all of the factors that are involved and continue to believe that having Buckpasser in an X passing position is the primary reason for success of your method and you have stated on this thread that the primary reason for selecting Tonalist was having Buckpasser in an X passing position and not based on the impact value.
You accuse me of making stuff up, however I am only guilty of assuming the ROI would be negative if you looked at all Belmont runners and not providing the caveat "I could be wrong, but". That is okay because we all know what you become when you assume.
You accuse me of degrading your book, I am not degrading the book, I am in disagreement with your book because it is based on the false premise that having Buckpasser in an X passing position which implies, and is discussed in your book, that it is the genes carried on his X chromosome that are the reason it is a primary factor in all three Triple Crown races. I have not and do not attempt to degrade your book, you do a pretty good job of that all by yourself.
DDT
You did not answer the question Stan, why you use them without a satisfactory explanation does not explain the purpose of their use in handicapping, or for that matter their value in doing so. You incorporated the Beyer figures into the tweaked time factor for both the Preakness and the Belmont because you wanted another avenue to score winners and the original time indicator developed for the Derby did not offer that, although it does provide some merit for the method and is worth the price of the book standing alone. You continue to rave about the success in this year's Belmont and when asked why you keyed a horse that did not qualify under the rules and guidelines published in that book you responded by saying you were free to use horses that did not qualify under the rules and advice provided in the book. You also go against the advice concerning not betting the favorite in the Derby to win by using Orb on top in an exacta wheel. Your advice in the book does not say "if the top qualifier is the favorite wheel him on top in an exacta" you said your advice was not to wager on the favorite.
You continue to use the handicapping success as a means of somehow connecting it to the method formulated in your book, however when you stated the bottom line is your selection and wagering strategy that matters you admitted that the rules for your method carry little weight for final selections.
You continue to ignore all of the factors that are involved and continue to believe that having Buckpasser in an X passing position is the primary reason for success of your method and you have stated on this thread that the primary reason for selecting Tonalist was having Buckpasser in an X passing position and not based on the impact value.
You accuse me of making stuff up, however I am only guilty of assuming the ROI would be negative if you looked at all Belmont runners and not providing the caveat "I could be wrong, but". That is okay because we all know what you become when you assume.
You accuse me of degrading your book, I am not degrading the book, I am in disagreement with your book because it is based on the false premise that having Buckpasser in an X passing position which implies, and is discussed in your book, that it is the genes carried on his X chromosome that are the reason it is a primary factor in all three Triple Crown races. I have not and do not attempt to degrade your book, you do a pretty good job of that all by yourself.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT wrote: " I have not and do not attempt to degrade your book, you do a pretty good job of that all by yourself."
So now you are resorting to insults.
On July 3, 2014 DDT with his usual deliberateness in trying to degrade my research DDT said:
"Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI and no impact value at all."
You stated the above as if it were actual facts and NOT as you say an assumption.
I proved you wrong on each of the parts of the above manufactured falsehoods:
The winning percentage thru the history of the Belmont stakes for this factor of having Buckpasser in the X passing position is 10 winners in 24 years or 41.6 percent winners.
The ROI is 78% profit thru the history of the Belmont
The impact value for having Buckpasser in the X passing position as the only factor is a strong 1.73 (41.6 divided by percent of starters which is 24%.
So now you are resorting to insults.
On July 3, 2014 DDT with his usual deliberateness in trying to degrade my research DDT said:
"Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI and no impact value at all."
You stated the above as if it were actual facts and NOT as you say an assumption.
I proved you wrong on each of the parts of the above manufactured falsehoods:
The winning percentage thru the history of the Belmont stakes for this factor of having Buckpasser in the X passing position is 10 winners in 24 years or 41.6 percent winners.
The ROI is 78% profit thru the history of the Belmont
The impact value for having Buckpasser in the X passing position as the only factor is a strong 1.73 (41.6 divided by percent of starters which is 24%.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
It was not meant as an insult and my statement about the winning percentage, ROI and impact value was indeed an assumption on my part and not a willful attempt to degrade your book or your method, and as you know that statement was in reference to all runners in every Triple Crown race and not your book, but I must keep in mind that I am dealing with the king of misquotes who only uses parts of statements to appear as something entirely different.
All you have to do Stan is say that Buckpasser in any position in a 5 generation pedigree is a great handicapping angle, then all you will hear from me is praise, however, circumstances prevent you from doing that, and what that means is there is never going to be an end to our disagreement.
DDT
It was not meant as an insult and my statement about the winning percentage, ROI and impact value was indeed an assumption on my part and not a willful attempt to degrade your book or your method, and as you know that statement was in reference to all runners in every Triple Crown race and not your book, but I must keep in mind that I am dealing with the king of misquotes who only uses parts of statements to appear as something entirely different.
All you have to do Stan is say that Buckpasser in any position in a 5 generation pedigree is a great handicapping angle, then all you will hear from me is praise, however, circumstances prevent you from doing that, and what that means is there is never going to be an end to our disagreement.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
On July 3, 2014 DDT wrote:
"Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI and no impact value at all."
Now we know that having Buckpasser in the X passing position thru the history of the Belmont has good winning percentage of 41.6% (10 winners in 24 years) .
Now we know that the ROI is a strong 78% thru the history of the Belmont stakes.
Now we know that the impact value is a strong 1.73.
You were wrong on all counts and stated the above as if they were FACTS without doing any research at all to support these wild FALSE claims.
If you are going to critique someone's research the least you should do is have supporting evidence for your statements. You had no evidence because you never even looked at the data regarding Buckpasser in the X passing position.
Your quote above was a deliberate attempt to try to degrade my research on the Belmont stakes. And that is what you have been trying to do all along with FALSE claims and insults.
"Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI and no impact value at all."
Now we know that having Buckpasser in the X passing position thru the history of the Belmont has good winning percentage of 41.6% (10 winners in 24 years) .
Now we know that the ROI is a strong 78% thru the history of the Belmont stakes.
Now we know that the impact value is a strong 1.73.
You were wrong on all counts and stated the above as if they were FACTS without doing any research at all to support these wild FALSE claims.
If you are going to critique someone's research the least you should do is have supporting evidence for your statements. You had no evidence because you never even looked at the data regarding Buckpasser in the X passing position.
Your quote above was a deliberate attempt to try to degrade my research on the Belmont stakes. And that is what you have been trying to do all along with FALSE claims and insults.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I will let everyone decide who is providing false statements with no statistical data to support the claims. I am not guilty of making up data. And like you stated earlier, I deny you allegations and I don't like the alligator.
DDT
I will let everyone decide who is providing false statements with no statistical data to support the claims. I am not guilty of making up data. And like you stated earlier, I deny you allegations and I don't like the alligator.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT on July 3, 2014 wrote: "Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in the X passing position is an insignificant factor because standing alone it produces a very low winning percentage, a negative ROI and no impact value at all."
You stated the above as if they were facts but you did no research at all to verify whether or not the above had a statistical basis.
I proved you wrong on all three parts of the above sentence. I put in countless hours of research in developing the impact values in my book and you keep trying to degrade that research with FALSE claims and irrelevant information.
Yes, let the members of this forum decide whether or not Buckpasser in the X passing position is insignificant or plays an important role in the success of a racehorse running in the Belmont Stakes (Derby and Preakness also included).
You stated the above as if they were facts but you did no research at all to verify whether or not the above had a statistical basis.
I proved you wrong on all three parts of the above sentence. I put in countless hours of research in developing the impact values in my book and you keep trying to degrade that research with FALSE claims and irrelevant information.
Yes, let the members of this forum decide whether or not Buckpasser in the X passing position is insignificant or plays an important role in the success of a racehorse running in the Belmont Stakes (Derby and Preakness also included).
-
Pan Zareta
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
- Location: west TX boonies
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
What put Tonalist a neck in front of Commissioner in this year's Belmont S., resulting in lucrative payouts for anyone that keyed Tonalist to win, can't be defined in terms of Buckpasser's x-passing influence. On avg., Commissioner received twice as much Buckpasser x.
Buckpasser appears in x-passing position in the pedigrees of 10 Belmont S. winners, as majority x-passer in 3 of those, Coastal, Easy Goer, and Touch Gold. The latter's sire, Deputy Minister, equals that benchmark as broodmare sire of Sarava, Rags to Riches, and Jazil.
In the pedigrees of 5 of the 7 Belmont winners with Buckpasser in a subordinate x-passing position his average influence in that capacity is equalled (Tonalist, Drosselmeyer) or exceeded (Summer Bird, Rags to Riches, A.P. Indy) by that of Princequillo, who is found in x-passing position in six additional Belmont winners (Palace Malice, Afleet Alex, Commendable, Danzig Connection, Secretariat, High Echelon) for eleven total. Actually, there are more than 11 but x-passing at <6.25% wasn't counted.
Buckpasser appears in x-passing position in the pedigrees of 10 Belmont S. winners, as majority x-passer in 3 of those, Coastal, Easy Goer, and Touch Gold. The latter's sire, Deputy Minister, equals that benchmark as broodmare sire of Sarava, Rags to Riches, and Jazil.
In the pedigrees of 5 of the 7 Belmont winners with Buckpasser in a subordinate x-passing position his average influence in that capacity is equalled (Tonalist, Drosselmeyer) or exceeded (Summer Bird, Rags to Riches, A.P. Indy) by that of Princequillo, who is found in x-passing position in six additional Belmont winners (Palace Malice, Afleet Alex, Commendable, Danzig Connection, Secretariat, High Echelon) for eleven total. Actually, there are more than 11 but x-passing at <6.25% wasn't counted.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
You are wrong about the ROI in the Derby, during the period 1978-2014 there were 63 runners that have Buckpasser in an X passing position standing alone, a $2.00 win wager on all of them would cost $126.00. The payout for the 6 winners during that time frame comes to $107.80 which produces a negative ROI in the amount of -$18.20.
DDT
You are wrong about the ROI in the Derby, during the period 1978-2014 there were 63 runners that have Buckpasser in an X passing position standing alone, a $2.00 win wager on all of them would cost $126.00. The payout for the 6 winners during that time frame comes to $107.80 which produces a negative ROI in the amount of -$18.20.
DDT
Last edited by DDT on Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I want to point out to you that I found the July 3, 2014 post you were referring to and you can plainly see that I am talking about Buckpasser in the X passing position concerning the Derby, not the Preakness or the Belmont. The reference to the winners in a 40 year period clearly points that out, and as you can see by my above post the facts demonstrate that it was a correct statement not a FALSE or MISLEADING statement.
DDT
I want to point out to you that I found the July 3, 2014 post you were referring to and you can plainly see that I am talking about Buckpasser in the X passing position concerning the Derby, not the Preakness or the Belmont. The reference to the winners in a 40 year period clearly points that out, and as you can see by my above post the facts demonstrate that it was a correct statement not a FALSE or MISLEADING statement.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Remarkable statistics Stan,
Had we taken your wise council, we'd all have a few bucks in our pocket.
Sounds like somebody might be bitter and envious that your predictions came true,
quote="stancaris"]DDT wrote: " I challenge you to explain how impact values have any meaning whatsoever to predicting the outcome of a horse race."
Here are many examples of how I used impact values to recommend the outcome of the Belmont stakes:
The impact value in the Belmont stakes for having Buckpasser in the X passing position plus a final fraction time of 37 4/5 for the last 3 furlongs of a major stake at 9 furlongs is approximately 2.75. This means that horses fitting the above criteria are winning the Belmont almost 3 times more often than statistical expectation.
This year there were 6 horses in the Belmont stakes that fit the above criteria: Tonalist, Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and Commanding Curve.
I recommended an exacta box of the above horses and that came in and paid $174 fro $1.
I recommended a Trifecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin, Commanding Curve, Medal Count, Matterhorn and Matuszak in the place and show positions and that came in and paid $3,390.50 for $1
I recommended a Superfecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with the above 8 horses in the place and show and fourth positions and two supers came in: one 10cent super paying $573 with Wicked Strong fourth and one paid $380 with California Chrome fourth.
In total the use of impact values led me to recommend to my customers at American Turf Monthly tickets worth $4,517 for an investment of $280.
Thats a hefty return and is based on an impact value that give handicappers an edge by using Buckpasser in the X passing position as a major criterion. Sure the final fraction indicator is important but I proved you wrong on your contention that Buckpasser standing alone without the final fraction would get a negative impact value. $4,517 speaks loud and clear as to why the above method is a strong one (Four of the six qualifiers comprised the Superfecta).
In 2010 I recommended a WIN wager on Drosselmeyer in the Belmont stakes to all my customers at ATM and he won and paid $28 for a $2 wager. Drosselmeyer carried Buck in the X and also ran a final fraction of less than 37 4/5 in a major 9 furlong prep.
In 2009 I recommended an exacta box of Summer Bird and Dunkirk and that won and paid $121. I recommended Summer Bird as a longshot and he paid $25.80 for a $2 wager.
In 2009 there were 4 horses in the Belmont that carried Buckpasser in the X and had a final fraction time of 37 4/5 or less in major 9 furlong prep race. 3 of these qualifiers were in the Superfecta: Summer Bird won, Dunkirk was second, and Charitable Man was fourth. Flying Private the other qualifier ran out of the money.
In 1999 there were only two qualifiers that carried Buck in the X and achieved a final 3 furlong time of 37 4/5 or less and they ran first and second: Lemon Drop Kid and Vision and verse and if I remember correctly I think the exacta came back over $1,000. And Lemon Drop Kid paid around 30-1 for a $2 wager.
Impact values can point out winners and is an effective method for handicapping the Derby, Preakness and Belmont stakes.[/quote]
Had we taken your wise council, we'd all have a few bucks in our pocket.
Sounds like somebody might be bitter and envious that your predictions came true,
quote="stancaris"]DDT wrote: " I challenge you to explain how impact values have any meaning whatsoever to predicting the outcome of a horse race."
Here are many examples of how I used impact values to recommend the outcome of the Belmont stakes:
The impact value in the Belmont stakes for having Buckpasser in the X passing position plus a final fraction time of 37 4/5 for the last 3 furlongs of a major stake at 9 furlongs is approximately 2.75. This means that horses fitting the above criteria are winning the Belmont almost 3 times more often than statistical expectation.
This year there were 6 horses in the Belmont stakes that fit the above criteria: Tonalist, Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and Commanding Curve.
I recommended an exacta box of the above horses and that came in and paid $174 fro $1.
I recommended a Trifecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin, Commanding Curve, Medal Count, Matterhorn and Matuszak in the place and show positions and that came in and paid $3,390.50 for $1
I recommended a Superfecta Key of Tonalist in the win position with the above 8 horses in the place and show and fourth positions and two supers came in: one 10cent super paying $573 with Wicked Strong fourth and one paid $380 with California Chrome fourth.
In total the use of impact values led me to recommend to my customers at American Turf Monthly tickets worth $4,517 for an investment of $280.
Thats a hefty return and is based on an impact value that give handicappers an edge by using Buckpasser in the X passing position as a major criterion. Sure the final fraction indicator is important but I proved you wrong on your contention that Buckpasser standing alone without the final fraction would get a negative impact value. $4,517 speaks loud and clear as to why the above method is a strong one (Four of the six qualifiers comprised the Superfecta).
In 2010 I recommended a WIN wager on Drosselmeyer in the Belmont stakes to all my customers at ATM and he won and paid $28 for a $2 wager. Drosselmeyer carried Buck in the X and also ran a final fraction of less than 37 4/5 in a major 9 furlong prep.
In 2009 I recommended an exacta box of Summer Bird and Dunkirk and that won and paid $121. I recommended Summer Bird as a longshot and he paid $25.80 for a $2 wager.
In 2009 there were 4 horses in the Belmont that carried Buckpasser in the X and had a final fraction time of 37 4/5 or less in major 9 furlong prep race. 3 of these qualifiers were in the Superfecta: Summer Bird won, Dunkirk was second, and Charitable Man was fourth. Flying Private the other qualifier ran out of the money.
In 1999 there were only two qualifiers that carried Buck in the X and achieved a final 3 furlong time of 37 4/5 or less and they ran first and second: Lemon Drop Kid and Vision and verse and if I remember correctly I think the exacta came back over $1,000. And Lemon Drop Kid paid around 30-1 for a $2 wager.
Impact values can point out winners and is an effective method for handicapping the Derby, Preakness and Belmont stakes.[/quote]
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
You are also wrong about the Preakness. During the period covered in your book, 1992-2012, you document 5 winners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position and the total amount returned for those 5 winners equaled $53.20 and since there were 12 qualified runners the amount of the wager was $24.00. When standing alone it tells a different story. During the time frame of 1992-2014 you get another winner with California Chrome and one must add the $3.00 return to the $53.20 which makes the total payout for the 6 winners to be $56.20. During that same time period, 1992-2014 there were an additional 28 runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position, added to the 12 runners that qualify on your Preakness time factor the total number of runners is 40. A $2.00 wager to win on all 40 comes to a total of $80.00. With a total payout of $56.20 and the total cost of the wagers you have a negative ROI in the amount of -$23.80. If we do not extend the time frame to include 2013 and 2014, the results still produce a negative ROI because for the time period 1992-2012 there were 36 runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position and 5 winners of the Preakness that generated a payout of $53.20, the total cost of the wager is $72.00 and the ROI is a negative in the amount of -$18.80.
DDT
You are also wrong about the Preakness. During the period covered in your book, 1992-2012, you document 5 winners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position and the total amount returned for those 5 winners equaled $53.20 and since there were 12 qualified runners the amount of the wager was $24.00. When standing alone it tells a different story. During the time frame of 1992-2014 you get another winner with California Chrome and one must add the $3.00 return to the $53.20 which makes the total payout for the 6 winners to be $56.20. During that same time period, 1992-2014 there were an additional 28 runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position, added to the 12 runners that qualify on your Preakness time factor the total number of runners is 40. A $2.00 wager to win on all 40 comes to a total of $80.00. With a total payout of $56.20 and the total cost of the wagers you have a negative ROI in the amount of -$23.80. If we do not extend the time frame to include 2013 and 2014, the results still produce a negative ROI because for the time period 1992-2012 there were 36 runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position and 5 winners of the Preakness that generated a payout of $53.20, the total cost of the wager is $72.00 and the ROI is a negative in the amount of -$18.80.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: See Jeff's post on July 9th, 2014 at 2:29 AM.
See my post on July 8th 2014 at 12:56 PM.
See my post on June20th which delineates all of my qualifiers on Buckpasser in the X passing position plus final fraction time since 1992 in the Belmont stakes. The evidence is powerful in the Belmont stakes for this angle.
You called me on doing the research for the Belmont stakes of having Buckpasser in the X passing position ALONE. And the results of that study clearly proved you wrong: And you were well aware of what race I was analyzing as per your posts and mine on the following dates: July 3, 2014 at 2:34PM, July 3,2014 at 3:07PM, July 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, July 3, 2014 at 7:15 PM, July 3, 2014 at 11:14, July 4, 2014 at 11:48PM and July 5, 2014 at 11:51. You just tried to worm your way out of the situation by saying you were referring to the Derby and not the Belmont stakes.
Thru history with no other factors involved but Buckpasser in the X we get 51 starters in the Belmont stakes and the following finishing in the first four positions: And Thats with Buckpasser ALONE with no added factors.
Belmont Stakes results:
10 Winners
8 Second place finishers
3 third place finishers
4 fourth place finishers
Amazingly this angle gets 21 of the 51 qualifiers or 41% finishing in the Trifecta of the Belmont stakes
Amazingly this angle gets 25 of 51 qualifiers or 49% of its qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta in the Belmont.
Amazingly this angle ONLY requires a horse to carry Buckpasser in the X with no other handicapping factors attached.
I never really analyzed the Preakness with regard to the factor of Buckpasser in the X alone. But the Preakness in general has much lower prices than the other two big events as evidenced by a very high percentage of favorites that win the second leg of the crown.
See my post on July 8th 2014 at 12:56 PM.
See my post on June20th which delineates all of my qualifiers on Buckpasser in the X passing position plus final fraction time since 1992 in the Belmont stakes. The evidence is powerful in the Belmont stakes for this angle.
You called me on doing the research for the Belmont stakes of having Buckpasser in the X passing position ALONE. And the results of that study clearly proved you wrong: And you were well aware of what race I was analyzing as per your posts and mine on the following dates: July 3, 2014 at 2:34PM, July 3,2014 at 3:07PM, July 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, July 3, 2014 at 7:15 PM, July 3, 2014 at 11:14, July 4, 2014 at 11:48PM and July 5, 2014 at 11:51. You just tried to worm your way out of the situation by saying you were referring to the Derby and not the Belmont stakes.
Thru history with no other factors involved but Buckpasser in the X we get 51 starters in the Belmont stakes and the following finishing in the first four positions: And Thats with Buckpasser ALONE with no added factors.
Belmont Stakes results:
10 Winners
8 Second place finishers
3 third place finishers
4 fourth place finishers
Amazingly this angle gets 21 of the 51 qualifiers or 41% finishing in the Trifecta of the Belmont stakes
Amazingly this angle gets 25 of 51 qualifiers or 49% of its qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta in the Belmont.
Amazingly this angle ONLY requires a horse to carry Buckpasser in the X with no other handicapping factors attached.
I never really analyzed the Preakness with regard to the factor of Buckpasser in the X alone. But the Preakness in general has much lower prices than the other two big events as evidenced by a very high percentage of favorites that win the second leg of the crown.