I have had 4 or 5 real bad days, once 0-5, once 3-13, can't remember the others on my posted plays. On those occassions I posted several plays for many more units than the standard one or two, and believe me the unit results were a killer. Bottom line, those days really put the ytd record in the tank. But I am going to try and work it down and to the plus side on a grind away approach. Just like today's Pitt under, I really liked and played it 2 units. I could have posted it a much higher pick , but anything can go wrong with a play, so I choose to grind . All has been going well, with some of the other guys selections, they helped make up for my bad days. If I can get my posted record to the positive side, I will consider it a good year. It really looks weird to have a POD record what it is and ytd record what it is. I think it says a couple of things about my capping. One, I don't do well picking too many games. Two, those 4 or 5 days of multiple unit losses killed my ytd record, believe me ,it was awful. Three, it doesn't pay to get reckless. Four, no parlays , just a recommendation, if one must. I am considering starting a 2nd half of the season record, which might give a better idea of how I am actually doing of late. I hope this helped in some form to answer your curiousity. The longer I look at it , it is enough to make one curious. Something just don't look right, does it. Basically , there were a few days where I got reckless and screwed up big time. Still learning. Any more quations , feel free to ask. Actually it is nice to know that someone is looking that close at the numbers and reading the picks. Later.
Also, the ytd total unit results also include the outcome of a 5-25 parlay unit record. I do not post parlays anymore, but chose to leave the unit results in my ytd unit record. If I get to zero or on the plus side, it has been a good year. If I had wiped out the parlay unit record , it would have totally distorted the real picture. Kind of like using liquid paper
------------------
"A group is better than any individual"
[This message has been edited by Allnet (edited 06-28-2001).]
