“The Logical Choice is a great piece of work. Well done!” That was the email message I received from Ed Watts on May 14, 2013. Mr. Watts often sends me direct messages on Twitter about his successes, and on May 25, he Tweeted, “Playing by the suggestions in The Logical Choice at Prairie Meadows. Hard but profitable. Have wagered $12 and won $80 after 4 races,” and on June 9, he Tweeted, “Always exciting to hit those 15-1 long shots!”
Not everyone, however, thinks my way of handicapping works. I received my first negative review on Amazon.com on June 19, 2013. You can read the complete review here.
It is quite obvious the individual who wrote the review did not thoroughly read the book as he began his introduction with, “Most handicapping books present a method that the author declares is ‘way and the truth.’ To prove it, selective sample plays, and oftentimes, a week or two of selective results using the method (often bending the rules of the method) are presented to validate the method. This method fits the bill.”
Several questions popped into my head when I read this.
One: I wrote in the preface to my book, “Most folks who read this will never be able to make the concepts presented within this book work for them, even if they see its merits.” I declared up front that the concepts would not work for everyone, so how did this individual come to the conclusion I declared my method is the ‘way and the truth.’ On the same page, I wrote, “I am sure I will hear someone complain that the information contained within these pages is hogwash. So be it. This process works for me, and opinions of others are of no real importance.” I stand by that declaration.
Two: How does one present a method to others without presenting sample races to demonstrate the process? I’m almost certain that every handicapping book I have ever read provides examples.
Three: How can one bend the rules of a method? A method is not a ‘follow the rules, and you cannot lose’ selection system. It is a procedure; a way of doing things. There is nothing about my handicapping process as is evidenced by one of Mr. Watts’ Tweets that can be defined by hard and fast rules in such a way that it can be duplicated by a computer program, which is apparently what this particular individual attempted to do. It appears he ran some sort of ‘after the race had already run’ computer analysis on all races carded over the two days he references in his review because he claims in the review “There were a total of 96 playable races” and “a total of 284 playable horses.” That leads me to ask additional questions, which I will do in my post tomorrow.