[Ted Craven]

Patrick,

Turn this into a learning exercise. One single race may have no other outcome than the beat-by-a nose scenario you mention - 3 races gives more to work with, if you're looking for specifics.

The specifics would be two-fold: a) how did you analyse the true contenders in a race, b) what wagering decision did you make.

I propose the following (in a RDSS Topic if you like, or wherever):

1. identify 3 races you lost as described above (track, date, race); identify your contenders (program #) and your line or lines selected to represent them (e.g. MNR 6/24 race 2, #1 line 3, #2, line2, etc, etc); better still, post a screenshot

2. state what wagering decision you made in each case (e.g. 1 horse bet on #2, 2 horse bet on #3, #4, exacta #4 over #3, #6, PASS - yes PASS is an important wagering decision!, etc)

Then we can get down to work on some specifics. Maybe some program nuances are escaping you. Maybe your contender guidelines need tuning. Maybe your wagering strategy needs a makeover. Details, details.

Let's get to work.

Ted

P.S. if any RDSS or Spec160 or Val4 users want to help with this analysis, I am happy to provide past cards to work with.