Stan
You are limiting your response to the time period 1992-2012, if you go back to 1973 then how does Buckpasser in an X passing position standing alone perform. You are diverting to your big score again, and I have told you more than once that it was a nice piece of handicapping, however, the winner did not qualify on the Belmont time indicator and you have admitted more than once that it was your handicapping strategy and not the method formulated in your book that is responsible for the big hit.
DDT
Secretariat and Buckpasser
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: Thats BS. The reason I had the big hit was that I recommended KEYING Tonalist with 8 horses underneath in the Trifecta and Superfecta pools. I recommended Tonalist because he had Buckpasser in the X passing position and also raced a final 3/8 of the Peter Pan in 37 4/5 or less. It is irrelevant that he did not technically qualify because he went wire to wire in the Peter Pan. I recommended Commissioner as one of three LONGSHOT plays along with Tonalist and Commanding Curve. I recommended the Exacta by way of an exacta box.
The bottom line is that I recommended the exacta, the trifecta and the superfecta and longshot plays on Tonalist to all my customers at American Turf Monthly. And certainly part of the reason for those recommendations was that they raced a fast final 3 furlongs in major prep stakes along with carrying Buckpasser in the X.
Why did I recommend Commissioner who was 28-1? He had Buckpasser in the X passing position and also raced the last 3 furlongs of the Peter Pan in 37 4/5 or less.
The bottom line is that I recommended the exacta, the trifecta and the superfecta and longshot plays on Tonalist to all my customers at American Turf Monthly. And certainly part of the reason for those recommendations was that they raced a fast final 3 furlongs in major prep stakes along with carrying Buckpasser in the X.
Why did I recommend Commissioner who was 28-1? He had Buckpasser in the X passing position and also raced the last 3 furlongs of the Peter Pan in 37 4/5 or less.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
It is all BS with you, you and I know why you do not want to include the time period covered in the Derby section of your book, and no matter how you attempt to spin the facts, the big hit went against the rules published in your book and without the benefit of your handicapping strategy your readers and the runners it identified as contenders would do no better than second place.
DDT
It is all BS with you, you and I know why you do not want to include the time period covered in the Derby section of your book, and no matter how you attempt to spin the facts, the big hit went against the rules published in your book and without the benefit of your handicapping strategy your readers and the runners it identified as contenders would do no better than second place.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: You continue to mud sling: The time period in my Derby angle included every horse that ever started in the Derby thru history that carried Buckpasser in the X and also qualified on my Derby Indicator #1 which is basically achieving a final fraction time of 37 4/5 or less in certain major 9 furlong prep races.
When are you going to answer my question as follows: Why do you think that my Belmont stakes angle of combining Buck in the X with final fraction time along with a few other rules is NOT an Excellent Tool for getting Belmont Winners, and runners that fill the exactas, trifectas and superfectas?
After all from 25 qualifiers since 1992 I got 7 winners, 5 seconds, 3 thirds and 2 fourth place finishers. Thats an amazing 15 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta.
Just a minor role from the Buck in the X angle? I think not. Go find another stallion in the X other than Buckpasser who has done just as good as the above angle when combined with final fraction times of 37 4/5 or less in a major 9 furlong stake. You can't.
When are you going to answer my question as follows: Why do you think that my Belmont stakes angle of combining Buck in the X with final fraction time along with a few other rules is NOT an Excellent Tool for getting Belmont Winners, and runners that fill the exactas, trifectas and superfectas?
After all from 25 qualifiers since 1992 I got 7 winners, 5 seconds, 3 thirds and 2 fourth place finishers. Thats an amazing 15 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta.
Just a minor role from the Buck in the X angle? I think not. Go find another stallion in the X other than Buckpasser who has done just as good as the above angle when combined with final fraction times of 37 4/5 or less in a major 9 furlong stake. You can't.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
If calling it BS is mud slinging then you started that, not me. I do not care if the Belmont method discussed in your book is good, bad or indifferent, the point is that if you look at the results generated by following the method and rules published in your book, qualifiers under those guidelines finished 2nd, a dead heat for 4th and two finished off the board. If one were to consider all of the runners that started in the Triple Crown races that had Buckpasser in an X passing position for the last 40 years, the win percentages, impact values and ROI's would indicate that having Buckpasser in an X passing position does not provide an advantage and therefore is incidental to the methods formulated in your book.
DDT
If calling it BS is mud slinging then you started that, not me. I do not care if the Belmont method discussed in your book is good, bad or indifferent, the point is that if you look at the results generated by following the method and rules published in your book, qualifiers under those guidelines finished 2nd, a dead heat for 4th and two finished off the board. If one were to consider all of the runners that started in the Triple Crown races that had Buckpasser in an X passing position for the last 40 years, the win percentages, impact values and ROI's would indicate that having Buckpasser in an X passing position does not provide an advantage and therefore is incidental to the methods formulated in your book.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: So now your making predictions without any data to support your prediction. I will make the same prediction from the other side. If you listed all the runners that ever ran in the Belmont stakes thru history that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position and tabulated the full results of those runners since way back in time when the very first runner with that pedigree raced in the Belmont (probably around 1980s) I predict that you would get a strong positive ROI on all of them.
That would be an interesting study and I will partake of that study in the next few weeks to prove you WRONG once again.
That would be an interesting study and I will partake of that study in the next few weeks to prove you WRONG once again.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I am not wrong Stan.
DDT
I am not wrong Stan.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: YES YOU ARE WRONG AND I WILL PROVE IT.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
Go for it.
DDT
Go for it.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan wins again! 
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
DDT: You are WRONG once again. I completed my analysis of the Belmont stakes thru history and found the following:
From 1970-2014 there were a total of 50 Belmont starters that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position. 10 of these qualifiers Won the Belmont: Coastal 1979, Easy Goer 1989, AP Indy 1992, Touch Gold 1997, Lemon Drop Kid 1999, Empire Maker 2004, Rags to Riches 2007, Summer Bird 2009, Drosselemeyer 2010, and Tonalist 2014.
The total return on these 10 winners comes to $178. Since the total investment was $100 (50 qualifiers times 2 bucks each), the profit realized is $78. Profit over investment equals an ROI of 78%.
So there you have it. Wagering ONLY on runners that had Buckpasser in the X passing position thru history results in a strong ROI of 78%.
Note: The greatest amount of starters with Buck in the X passing position was this year when there were 7 Belmont starters that qualified on this method.
From 1970-2014 there were a total of 50 Belmont starters that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position. 10 of these qualifiers Won the Belmont: Coastal 1979, Easy Goer 1989, AP Indy 1992, Touch Gold 1997, Lemon Drop Kid 1999, Empire Maker 2004, Rags to Riches 2007, Summer Bird 2009, Drosselemeyer 2010, and Tonalist 2014.
The total return on these 10 winners comes to $178. Since the total investment was $100 (50 qualifiers times 2 bucks each), the profit realized is $78. Profit over investment equals an ROI of 78%.
So there you have it. Wagering ONLY on runners that had Buckpasser in the X passing position thru history results in a strong ROI of 78%.
Note: The greatest amount of starters with Buck in the X passing position was this year when there were 7 Belmont starters that qualified on this method.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan
I thought you were going to list them, but that is fine, I will take your word on it, so my assumption was wrong on the Belmont, it certainly is not wrong for the Derby.
DDT
I thought you were going to list them, but that is fine, I will take your word on it, so my assumption was wrong on the Belmont, it certainly is not wrong for the Derby.
DDT
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
stancaris wrote:DDT: You are WRONG once again. I completed my analysis of the Belmont stakes thru history and found the following:
From 1970-2014 there were a total of 50 Belmont starters that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position. 10 of these qualifiers Won the Belmont: Coastal 1979, Easy Goer 1989, AP Indy 1992, Touch Gold 1997, Lemon Drop Kid 1999, Empire Maker 2004, Rags to Riches 2007, Summer Bird 2009, Drosselemeyer 2010, and Tonalist 2014.
The total return on these 10 winners comes to $178. Since the total investment was $100 (50 qualifiers times 2 bucks each), the profit realized is $78. Profit over investment equals an ROI of 78%.
So there you have it. Wagering ONLY on runners that had Buckpasser in the X passing position thru history results in a strong ROI of 78%.
Note: The greatest amount of starters with Buck in the X passing position was this year when there were 7 Belmont starters that qualified on this method.
It is doubtful that anyone will change their position but from 1970 until 1991 Stan stated that there was 25 starters that qualified. Two won and paid a total of $16.00. Net cost $50.00. Net loss -$34.00. Hard to jump on that train. The 92 to 14 period is totally different. The money return is entirely in the last 23 Belmonts. Evidently the X passing position didn't work when Buckpasser was closer up in the pedigree and had a more realistic influence on a horse. It appears that the X has to regress in the pedigree to be effective. Counter intuitive to me.
Give the Pope and the King of England a horse and in thirty days, they'll be stealing halters.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Hpkingjr: I NEVER Stated That from 1970 to 1991 there were 25 starters. You have NO basis for that claim whatsoever.
From 1970 to 1991 there were ONLY 5 qualifiers that started in the Belmont Stakes that carried Buck in the X passing position. Cost $10 and return of $16 on the two winners.
From 1970 to 1991 there were ONLY 5 qualifiers that started in the Belmont Stakes that carried Buck in the X passing position. Cost $10 and return of $16 on the two winners.
Re: Secretariat and Buckpasser
Stan:
Perhaps I didn't read what you wrote correctly. You had previously stated that there were 25 starters from 1992 to 2014. You then stated that when you went back to 1970 until 2014 there were 50. I simply subtracted the 25 from 92 to 14 and that left 25 from 70 until 91. Maybe I confused myself. Are you now saying there were only five qualifiers from 70 to 91? I certainly apologize if I have misread your posts. 50 starters from 1970 to 2014 minus 25 from 1992 until 2014 left me the 25 from 1970 until 1991.
"After all from 25 qualifiers since 1992 I got 7 winners, 5 seconds, 3 thirds and 2 fourth place finishers. Thats an amazing 15 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta."
Quoting George C. Scott from the Flim Flam Man, " you figure much too rapidly for me".
Perhaps I didn't read what you wrote correctly. You had previously stated that there were 25 starters from 1992 to 2014. You then stated that when you went back to 1970 until 2014 there were 50. I simply subtracted the 25 from 92 to 14 and that left 25 from 70 until 91. Maybe I confused myself. Are you now saying there were only five qualifiers from 70 to 91? I certainly apologize if I have misread your posts. 50 starters from 1970 to 2014 minus 25 from 1992 until 2014 left me the 25 from 1970 until 1991.
"After all from 25 qualifiers since 1992 I got 7 winners, 5 seconds, 3 thirds and 2 fourth place finishers. Thats an amazing 15 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta and 17 of 25 qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta."
Quoting George C. Scott from the Flim Flam Man, " you figure much too rapidly for me".
Give the Pope and the King of England a horse and in thirty days, they'll be stealing halters.