Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docicu3
True enough.....It doesn't mean the product can't be improved for the fans. Name me another sport where a participant is punished and an explanation isn't expected.
While it is certainly true that you are more likely to improve your handicapping by learning from your losses or misreads. To understand why a DQ occurred is useful.
I would actually like to see the rule explained literally when DQ's occur but then again I would like to see the polytracks go away too and that has about as much a chance of happening as uniform takeout does at 8-10% for all wagers.
|
I think a sport where the THIRD BEST finisher is put up as the winner really needs to go a VERY LONG WAY to gain credibility. You can't make WINERS out of LOSERS while ignoring any sense of consistency. Someone hates a horse, is COMPLETELY WRONG, and gets to cash, nonetheless. WTF is that about?
But I've given up trying to make sense of the idiots involved with the game. This includes TRAINERS, STEWARDS, JOCKEYS, and BETTORS. You know why there's never going to be any pressure on the stewards to clean up their act? Because the bettors, as a group, are CLUELESS when it comes to trips and wouldn't know a good one from a bad one. Take 10 arbitrary bettors and have them watch a race: at least 9 will get it ALL WRONG. You can thus never has a consensus on even the most simple of events.
Problem is UNSOLVABLE.
P.S. you don't learn anything from these events. If you liked Admiral Bird, you were CORRECT; if you liked My Man Lars, you were WRONG. Same last week in the Les Antique race. It's like hitting a home run and having the umpires rule it foul.