Keith: You said: "Too many variables for any formula, method, or scientific analysis can be useful etc
See my post on June 20, 2014 at 9:38 PM. In that post I have clearly illustrated how combining Buckpasser in the X passing position with final fraction time is a powerful indicator for selecting Belmont Stakes winners. From 25 qualifiers since 1992 my method got 15 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta.
Secretariat and Buckpasser
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
As always, you continue to ignore the fact that to achieve those wonderful results on this year's Belmont, and Belmont's during the time period covered, you have relied upon your handicapping skills and not the method developed in your book. Today I decided to let you do the talking, here is a quote from your post on this forum on Sat. June 21, 2014 at 9:06 a.m., "The checklist is only a guide and the bottom line is still what I recommend". That is a true statement and is an admission by you, the author, that the results (checklists developed using the method) are only a guide and therefore not a primary function or handicapping success of your method.
DDT
As always, you continue to ignore the fact that to achieve those wonderful results on this year's Belmont, and Belmont's during the time period covered, you have relied upon your handicapping skills and not the method developed in your book. Today I decided to let you do the talking, here is a quote from your post on this forum on Sat. June 21, 2014 at 9:06 a.m., "The checklist is only a guide and the bottom line is still what I recommend". That is a true statement and is an admission by you, the author, that the results (checklists developed using the method) are only a guide and therefore not a primary function or handicapping success of your method.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT,
You have no admission from Stan of anything, you are just making stuff up, really think your time would be.better spent over on Louise' Phalaris thread: equally yoked.
You have no admission from Stan of anything, you are just making stuff up, really think your time would be.better spent over on Louise' Phalaris thread: equally yoked.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Jeff
Go to page 10 of this thread and near the bottom of the page you will find the post to which I am quoting from. I do not make things up.
DDT
Go to page 10 of this thread and near the bottom of the page you will find the post to which I am quoting from. I do not make things up.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT,
Read the whole of page 10. Only. thing one can glean from any admission of Stan's is the Excellency of Buckpasser in the X.
Read the whole of page 10. Only. thing one can glean from any admission of Stan's is the Excellency of Buckpasser in the X.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Jeff
Sorry, I do not see it that way, you are entitled to form your own opinion, but as you can plainly see, I did not misquote Stan.
DDT
Sorry, I do not see it that way, you are entitled to form your own opinion, but as you can plainly see, I did not misquote Stan.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: You misinterpreted my statements as usual in trying to deliberately degrade my research My method outlined in my post on June 20, 2014 at 9:38 PM clearly illustrates the power of using Buckpasser in the X with final fraction time as a handicapping tool for the Belmont stakes. An amazing 15 qualifiers from 25 total qualifiers finished in the Trifecta. And 17 of the 25 qualifiers comprised the Superfecta from 1992 to the present.
Regarding the last paragraph in that post on June 20th. I recommended the exacta, the trifecta and the superfecta this year to my customers at American Turf and the $1 exacta paid $174. The $1 Trifecta paid $3,390.50 and the two superfectas for 10cents paid 573 and 380. A total of $4,517 for an investment of $280.
Whether or not the above horses technically qualified on all my rules is immaterial because the bottom line is still what I recommended in my picks and my customers, if they followed my recommendations hit the Belmont Stakes big this year.
Furthermore, there were 6 horses in this years Belmont stakes that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position and also ran a final 3 furlongs of a major stake at 9 furlongs in 37 4/5 or less: Tonalist, Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and Commanding Curve. The first Four listed above finished in the superfecta.
Regarding the last paragraph in that post on June 20th. I recommended the exacta, the trifecta and the superfecta this year to my customers at American Turf and the $1 exacta paid $174. The $1 Trifecta paid $3,390.50 and the two superfectas for 10cents paid 573 and 380. A total of $4,517 for an investment of $280.
Whether or not the above horses technically qualified on all my rules is immaterial because the bottom line is still what I recommended in my picks and my customers, if they followed my recommendations hit the Belmont Stakes big this year.
Furthermore, there were 6 horses in this years Belmont stakes that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position and also ran a final 3 furlongs of a major stake at 9 furlongs in 37 4/5 or less: Tonalist, Commissioner, Wicked Strong, California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and Commanding Curve. The first Four listed above finished in the superfecta.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
Your statements speak for themselves no matter how you spin it. My purpose has never been to degrade your book or your methods, my statements reflect the fact that having Buckpasser in an X passing position is incidental to your method and that the time indicator formulated by you is the primary factor involved. Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in an 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. When you add the Buckpasser in an X passing position to the time indicator you raise the ROI a few percentage points and obtain a higher impact value, however, you also eliminate 23 of the 27 winners over the 40 year period covered by your book. Adding the Buckpasser factor returns a $40.00 profit, standing alone the time indicator returned $162.00 profit.
DDT
Your statements speak for themselves no matter how you spin it. My purpose has never been to degrade your book or your methods, my statements reflect the fact that having Buckpasser in an X passing position is incidental to your method and that the time indicator formulated by you is the primary factor involved. Statistics confirm that having Buckpasser in an 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. When you add the Buckpasser in an X passing position to the time indicator you raise the ROI a few percentage points and obtain a higher impact value, however, you also eliminate 23 of the 27 winners over the 40 year period covered by your book. Adding the Buckpasser factor returns a $40.00 profit, standing alone the time indicator returned $162.00 profit.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT wrote: Your Absolutely Wrong--- Standing alone Buckpasser in the X passing position has a positive ROI on the Belmont Stakes since 1992.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
Do you care to explain why the time periods covered for the Preakness and the Belmont are limited to the period 1992-2012.
DDT
Do you care to explain why the time periods covered for the Preakness and the Belmont are limited to the period 1992-2012.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: Do you care to explain why you think my research outlined in my post on June 20, 2014 involving the Belmont Stakes and Buckpasser in the X passing position plus my final fraction indicator is NOT an EXCELLENT TOOL for selecting Belmont winners?
Re-read that post in its entirety. That data clearly illustrates the power of my method which includes Buckpasser in the X plus final fractions.
Do you also care to explain why you continue to post WRONG statements to try to degrade my research?
Re-read that post in its entirety. That data clearly illustrates the power of my method which includes Buckpasser in the X plus final fractions.
Do you also care to explain why you continue to post WRONG statements to try to degrade my research?
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I do not believe that any of my statements are wrong, I simply mean that to obtain a true indication of the value of having Buckpasser in an X passing position you must consider all runners that share that fact. I never said your method did not achieve a positive ROI for the Belmont what I said and continue to say is the success of the Belmont method and the Preakness method only cover the time period 1992-2012, and again I am asking you why the 1992 cutoff?
DDT
I do not believe that any of my statements are wrong, I simply mean that to obtain a true indication of the value of having Buckpasser in an X passing position you must consider all runners that share that fact. I never said your method did not achieve a positive ROI for the Belmont what I said and continue to say is the success of the Belmont method and the Preakness method only cover the time period 1992-2012, and again I am asking you why the 1992 cutoff?
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT wrote: " I do not believe that any of my statements are wrong."
See your above post on July 3, 2014 where you state that having Buckpasser in the X passing position alone produces a negative ROI.
That is NOT TRUE. In the Belmont stakes since 1992 wagering on horses that have Buckpasser in the X passing position alone with no other factors at all produces a strong ROI.
If you are going to make statements degrading my research the least you can do is back up your statements with facts.
When you explain to me why my angle on the Belmont outlined in my post on June 20,2014 is NOT an excellent tool for selecting Belmont winners, I will answer your question as to why I used data from 1992 -2014 for my Buck in the X angle.
See your above post on July 3, 2014 where you state that having Buckpasser in the X passing position alone produces a negative ROI.
That is NOT TRUE. In the Belmont stakes since 1992 wagering on horses that have Buckpasser in the X passing position alone with no other factors at all produces a strong ROI.
If you are going to make statements degrading my research the least you can do is back up your statements with facts.
When you explain to me why my angle on the Belmont outlined in my post on June 20,2014 is NOT an excellent tool for selecting Belmont winners, I will answer your question as to why I used data from 1992 -2014 for my Buck in the X angle.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
If you are talking about the above post that states the amounts of profits realized, I was referring to the Derby not the Belmont, you know that Stan, you never indicated 27 winners for the Belmont, why are you saying that information posted is wrong, it is correct, your assumption that it included the Belmont or the Preakness is wrong.
DDT
If you are talking about the above post that states the amounts of profits realized, I was referring to the Derby not the Belmont, you know that Stan, you never indicated 27 winners for the Belmont, why are you saying that information posted is wrong, it is correct, your assumption that it included the Belmont or the Preakness is wrong.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: The fact that the Belmont stakes shows a strong ROI when Buckpasser in the X is used as the ONLY factor speaks volumes for the value of the method.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question: Why isn't my angle on the Belmont stakes an excellent handicapping tool for selecting winners and also exotic payoffs?
See my post on June 20, 2014 at 9:38 PM. That summarizes how strong the angle is over the time frame 1992-2014. From 25 qualifiers I got 15 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 finishing in the Superfecta. Its a great angle.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question: Why isn't my angle on the Belmont stakes an excellent handicapping tool for selecting winners and also exotic payoffs?
See my post on June 20, 2014 at 9:38 PM. That summarizes how strong the angle is over the time frame 1992-2014. From 25 qualifiers I got 15 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 finishing in the Superfecta. Its a great angle.