緊湊賽事水準是否高，實屬見仁見智。
七八十年代時，不少賽事是一字長蛇陣回來，頭馬贏二馬五馬位，二馬贏三馬三馬位等——當然那時候質素參差，評分不嚴謹，但馬主的名字如「同德」「祿怡」等瑯瑯上口。
如今香港賽馬是精英制，不少頂級分子都是世界前列之餘，就算在普通班次，實力也十分接近，實力馬騎師偶有失誤，也會落敗，而一次賽事十場裏，幾乎有七八場是要影相分先後，十分緊湊。
當然對馬迷來說，場場嗌影相，隨時是贏巨彩與一場空之間，刺激之餘也未必好受。而且群駒密籠的賽績。眾所週知往往是最不可依賴或作準的。
不過話雖如此，如果真回到八十年代，入直路已帶離五六馬位無得追，連嗌都無得嗌的確缺乏氣氛，現在跑馬若大家去看台一起看看眾生相，真是嗌到拆天，別有一番風味！
You are absolutely correct. By supporting a lot (as much as possible)
One can ascertain that one will achieve some kind of relative response depending on how co incidental the responsive data is to the attention. If the optimal supportive motivation is relative to the foundation (wether valid or not) a supportive return will follow.
Accuracy is the issue. This is an hypothetical deduction (not quite as comprehensive as educational requirements are about here in North America) but by any of the individuals motive intelligence. Linguistics and vocabulary play the most important part of communication. Gaps of data in verbal communication only provide confusion.
To express anything at all one must work untill one can say what one means in its entirety otherwise one will express a peer groups distrust and desire to avoid the issue. The bottom line is to study practical, basic, fundemental, primary, ground level technicalities of domestic level to know for sure one is known for sure and this aspect goes far and beyond the experience of the
marriage relationship which is considered by most the most complete education for the poor. From your good friend Bruce K. Paxton
