...an in-depth response from Mr. Tierney
I wrote to Mr. Tierney asking for some clarification. I also asked him to state the following three things:
A- How will you DEMONSTRATE your claim?
B- Under what CIRCUMSTANCES?
C- With what degree of ACCURACY (what do you propose will constitute a successful demonstration?)
Today I received the following response:
==============================================
A- DEMONSTRATION? I will demonstrate the ability to predict the future i.e. horse race results. I will demonstrate sustainable, repeatable profit. My selections are made with the use of a deck of 27 cards with various numerical symbols on them. These cards are shuffled and 1 card is randomly dealt to each horse in a race. From that a quick computation is made and a decision forthcoming. The only other information regarding the horses in any race used is the horse's betting number and the morning line odds.
B- Circumstances? Any race with the following restrictions:
1- I make selections for about 75% of the races I chart.
2- Profitability will be based upon a theoretical $2 place or show wager on each selection made.
3- Any selection scratched is a no-play.
4- If due to scratched the field of horses is reduced to 5 or less, the selection becomes a no-play.
5- All selections for turf races must be run on turf or selection is a no-play.
6- All selections are made utilizing only a horse's number, morning-line odds and the numbers derived from the random deal of the cards.
7- No person participating in the testing process shall be allowed to make an actual wager on selections offered as part of the testing process.
C- Accuracy? The degree of success is not necessarily the barometer in horse race predicting. By simply placing a SHOW bet on the favorite in every race and with a great deal of luck, I could theoretically have a 90% degree of accuracy and still lose money if each favorite only pays $2.10 for the show position.
The truest test for success in horse racing is the obvious one, tickets cashed, money earned or what is called ROI Return On Investment. From a quick glance at the success of ROI of the professional handicappers listed in the papers, it is obvious that they all operate in the red, over time. That is a negative RIO utilizing a lifetime of handicapping knowledge, an endless list of factors published in a horse's past performance sheets (not to mention computer assistance).
I measure my degree of accuracy for test purposes to be $1.48 ROI per dollar wagered on average, per 100 races.
It is my contention, however, that any monetary success would demonstrate a so-called PSI factor of between 13-17% at least, depending on what the track takes from the paramutual pool. Overcoming the negative expectation generated by this formidable obstacle to profitability is the true starting point for measuring a PSI factor at work.
I chose horse racing for this demonstration for two reasons:
1. Its immediacy. you get the results real fast.
2. Its sublime lack of ambiguity - either you cash a ticket or you don't. THAT IS THE INDISPUTABLE BOTTOM LINE. That is what I demonstrate; PROFITABILITY.
Yours, Robert Tierney
============================================
You know, I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but I'm terribly unsure as to whether or not this is even a paranormal claim.
I'm thinking that he is a professional gambler with some degree of success who has come to believe that his system of betting is based upon PSI phenomenon and not upon something more mundane; like Math, for example.
