A matter of judging: Survival at the Shore

Click to enlarge image.

On Day 9 of the Monmouth Survival at the Shore contest, I was eliminated for having no winners in three races. Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) got me that far, however, since I remained among 3,634 players after 2,426 had been eliminated through Day 8. Last year, I survived until Day 10.

The contest pointed out the difficulties of judging. The remote viewing worked: the information was definitely there in all three races, but I ranked other photosites higher.  In the first two races, the winners had my third-highest confidence ranking, and in the last race, the place horse had my second-highest ranking.

In addition to Monmouth’s contest, on Saturday I viewed eight races at Fairmount Park, with ARV hits on the winners of races one, three and seven. Sadly, I didn’t pick winners in the races with my highest confidence rankings (which I bet the most on since I was at the track). How does that happen? Still, it was fun. As I reviewed my sessions, I noticed at least three clear examples of displacement between the races (e.g. images I viewed for one race matching a photosite on the photoset for the next race). Between the two contests, I viewed 11 races that day, which may have been a factor.