last week: diana @ saratoga
(1st - wonder again)
(2nd - riskaverse)
(3rd - ocean drive)
1 - sand springs
\"strong contender. value\"
2 - ocean drive
no nutshell comment, implied middle of pack
3 - intercontinental
\"a contender, but an underlay\"
4 - wonder again
\"...puts her in a large group of contenders\"
5 - spice island
\"usable\"
6 - halory leigh
\"live at a very big price\"
7 - riskaverse
\"yet another contender\"
8 - spiderman 2
\"unstoppable!\"
I don\'t need anybody telling me that every horse in the field is a contender.
could you please be a little more specific this week?
thank you.
Lets see... female tag that\'s a reference, only responds to TG posts/comments, and then only negative... wait a minute, almost got it...
The point, as I said in my comments about Riskaverse, was that this was a race where the favorites were no better than the longshots, and that odds-on favorite Intercontinental was worse than that.
Did you move to Chicago, or are you just using an internet service there?
I moved to chicago quite a while ago, fyi ---- are you cyberstalking me?
and I\'m quite aware of your overall opinion, thank you.
it\'s right there at the bottom:
\"value may come from playing exotics against ocean drive, intercontinental, and wonder again.\"
Correct. As opposed to what you originally said, we did give an opinion. But hey, keep it up-- you\'re probably convincing people. Of something. Because here\'s the thing-- we put those ROTWs up every week, and an average of about 600 people look at them and draw their own conclusions. And if your drawing attention to ROTW gets people who haven\'t read them to do so, all the better.
Jerry, you suck. Why can\'t you be correct 100% of the time? So what if you nabbed Ticker Tape at $26 a few weeks ago. What have you done for us lately??
The ROTW is a learning tool. This was a situation where several horses were competive, nothing really stood out. Favorites didn\'t have any real advantage, so TGJB suggested playing some longer priced horses that numerically had a chance. Didn\'t work out this time. But the lesson to be learned was despite the outcome of this specific race, this is the correct strategy in the long run. Throw in the inclement weather and there are many reasons why this was a difficult race to bet.
\"I don\'t need anybody telling me that every horse in the field is a contender.
could you please be a little more specific this week?\"..........Translation \"I could get that type of analysis over on the other board. Please give me a specific winner because I really suck on my own.\"
I agree with the lady, for $25 who needs that opinion,no real opinion, no charge???
I am in this room everyday so that I can see what's happening to better my handicapping skills...But like TGJB said - 600 people will have a different opinion on the outcome of the ROTW...fortunately for me I nailed the exacta and trifecta on the WALL...For all those who are complaining about TG analysis...checkout the ROTW archive...One thing that have skyrocketed my ROI is the pattern info that has been in effect since 6/27...It is unreal!!...P.S. whatever happened to CtC – is he still with us??
The ROTW is different than the T-Graph analysis (obviously users know this, I am posting for those who haven\'t bought the analysis before). After reading the ROTW each week for the past year or so, and also purchasing the analysis, it is clear they have different goals. The analysis is direct and says \"box 2,3,4 because the favorite is no faster than the rest\" or \"take #3 at 3 to 1 or better\". The ROTW seems to be more about giving potential customers a look into the figures and how they work and providing a little bit of analysis. There are often non-definitive conclusiions but just comments. For example, a previous poster mentioned the ROTW \"nailed\" Ticker Tape at $26. That is not really true. I am grateful that T-Graph said he was a strong contender. I hit the NTRA pick four that day for the 2nd best score in my life with the horses and my ticket consisted of three strong opinions I had on my own and then using T-Graph\'s contenders for the last race, which I had absolutely no opinion on. T-Graph listed Ticker Tape as a strong contender and I am grateful, but I wouldn\'t say after reading that ROTW that it was clear that they nailed the winner. That overall conclusion of the race was that there were a few serious contenders of which Ticker Tape was one.
But if you look at this week\'s ROTW, there is a stronger opinion. It is pretty clear that JB expects Lion Heart to win and would use Pies Prospect behind him for value.
Last week\'s ROTW was probably the least conclusive of the one\'s I have read. Boxing a bunch of horses except the favorite was the conclusion, but I really haven\'t seen that kind of conclusion too often.
ok, save the persecution complex for another thread, please, and quote the part of my post where I lambasted the actual picks.
I really think my post was pretty straightforward -- it looks stupid to note that every horse in the race is a \"contender\".
if that\'s your conclusion, maybe you could possibly find one other race during the week to post up.
I couldn\'t care less whether he (or whoever else) cashed it, or not.
I can explain it to you, but I can\'t understand it for you.
by the way.....
tgjb wrote:
\"Correct. As opposed to what you originally said, we did give an opinion.\"
what I originally said:
\"I don\'t need anybody telling me that every horse in the field is a contender.
could you please be a little more specific this week?
thank you.\"
all the rest were from the rotw --- that\'s what those little \" \" things are for.
(except spiderman -- I made that one up)
I will go check the haskell for improvement, as per my suggestion.
unfortunately, I won\'t be playing that track, tomorrow.
Jimbo,
I didn\'t say he \"nailed\" the race. But the anlysis stated about TT:
1)She had the best grass figures
2)She was better than 50-50 to at least pair her top
3)She was the value in the race.
He also stated that:
1)Dance in the Mood was a contender, albeit the favorite
2)Hollywood Story had the best races by far(although on dirt), a big question mark. Also noted Shirref\'s strong ROI and 25% stat.
3)Western Hemisphere, with a ground saving trip, was squarely in this
4)Eternal Melody likely to get a check
Those were basically the 5 horses he felt were contenders. Of those 5, which one would you key on? Probably the one with the best figs, 50-50 to pair/top, and 12-1. JB talks about price all the time. I don\'t know how you wouldn\'t say that he hit this race pretty well with his analysis.
Oh BTW, 3 of those 4 completed the Superfecta.
there\'s the play: box those 5 contenders!
Who taught you how to wager?? Where does it say to box all 5?? Key TT on top and play the other 4 underneath. No wonder you\'re so frustrated, you don\'t know what to do with a race regardless of how its put to you. You\'re a waste of everybody\'s time.
jerry is notorious for boxing half the field and hoping the chalk runs out --- I guess it was an inside joke.
lighten up.
hold on...let me go copy something from The Sheets board.
http://www.bulletinboards.com/TreeMsg.cfm?msgid=691475&comcode=mech0603&caller=cftree&x=x&MgrCalling=No&CatName=Handicapping&UseNoFrame=yes
this would be george white\'s (tg employee) reply to len\'s whitney post, in which len made a nice pick of roses in may at 7-1 in a very tough race.
len:
\"Peace Rules: One of the lastest horses going in, but at the weights
is no better than several others and in the ML fav. Last number is a little negative to me and even with the 5 weeks I\'d expect a couple of points bounce that will likely put him out of the exotics as there\'s enough speed inside of him that he\'s unlikely to get a ground saving trip. The play against for me, especially if he\'s a heavy fav. \"
\"Roses in May: Fastest horse in the race going in and gets weight from several as well as a probable ground saving trip as the inside speed in two turn race. Pattern is only neutral at best, but number power against 12-1 ML odds is very strong. Has five weeks into the race for strong trainer and is the value key for me (sory to have nothing more than a gorilla low number play). Good luck to all. \"
george:
(trying to foist jerry up on the bandwagon w/an embarrassing \'me, too...me, too!\')
\"Great minds think alike - TG\'s analysis said to oppose Peace Rules and box Perfect Drift, Roses in May, Bowman\'s Band and Gygistar. Four out of the first five and the exacta and trifecta. \"
Lucy,
You really must get your facts right. I didn\'t reply to Len\'s Whitney post - it was to an inane comment by Patrick Suppes. If he hadn\'t had posted neither would I. And why is it embarrassing? Is fighting your corner embarassing in your book? And why was Len\'s Whitney alalysis so superior to TG\'s - am I missing something or did Seattle Fitz finish second after all?
You say \'Len made a nice pick of roses in may at 7-1 in a very tough race\' but he actually said the horse was value at a 12-1 ML. Would he have thought the same if the ML was 7-1? TG\'s analysis gave four of the first five finishers - are you saying that doesn\'t compare? And as for JB boxing half the field, Len suggested five horses as a \'use in exotics.\' In your book using five is less expensive than four I presume.
George
PS: Everyone knows who I am - have you got the balls to tell us who you are? Personally I think pseudonyms on the internet are great fun but others get upset about it so if you want to play you\'ve got to follow the rules too. Otherwise get back to the Kool-Aid.
george,
patrick was pretty much on the mark, although I don\'t think I would\'ve brought jerry up over there, myself.
jerry has made his career bashing and slandering len (and len) --- he would like to leech blood from their customer base by portraying their #\'s as useless, and len\'s handicapping, baseless.
the fact is, len has volunteered a great many good opinions, as evidenced by the whitney (along w/his tournament success).
but, I digress....
to answer your questions, I see that post as embarrassing for pretty much the reason I mentioned in my earlier post.
if you want to pat yourself (or your boss) on the back, this is the forum to do it in, right here.
trying to piggyback jerry on The Sheets board, especially after the fact, is really.....well, I wouldn\'t do it.
I don\'t remember making any claim that one analysis was \'so superior\' to another, as I haven\'t read jerry\'s (nor do I wish to).
it was a tough race w/a deep field, and len made a nice pick --- doesn\'t make him jesus, but I think it merits a congrats, rather than trying to jump in the spotlight w/your 4 horse box \'my boss had it, too!!!1\'.
len posts that stuff in order of preference, and it\'s pretty clear that he made the winner his key, while judging by my \'rotw\' post, you guys like to make every horse in the field a contender, and play lottery boxes so you can post up that you \'HIT THE TRI!!!1\' --- I DO see a difference in those approaches.
I really wouldn\'t have any idea whether len found 7-1 fat enough, or 4/5 on rock hard, for that matter (though, I doubt it), and he already takes plenty of ribbing on the \'use in exotics\' from both camps.
that just seems to be the way he plays --- he prioritizes the horses based on both Sheet reads and price, keying some and using others in various weights in gimmicks.
that\'s what\'s called structuring a bet and having an opinion.
I always enjoy his analysis because that\'s what it is -- analysis.
not \'box the top half of the field\', or \'everyone in this race is a contender\'.
ps
I\'m afraid I don\'t have your celebrity status.
in the past, I really didn\'t post here -- just sporadically read, if I was bored.
one day, I saw a post that I wanted to reply to from mall, who\'s sort of the t-graph community\'s charlie brown -- hence, I reg\'d as lucy from peanuts.
like I said, up until a couple days ago, I didn\'t post here often enough to bother changing to anothe rname --- what\'s the point?
if I continue to post here, and avoid the inevitable ban, maybe I\'ll change it.
xoxo
*sets up football*
Post Edited (08-09-04 00:31)
Lucy,
That\'s really quite a funny post. You say that you don\'t remember \'making any claim that one analysis was \'so superior\' to another\' and then proceed to praise Len\'s and denigrate TG\'s. Maybe you didn\'t say it but I was obviously right to imply it.
You\'re also confusing the rotw - a learning tool for clients - with a betting strategy.
I agree with you both boards should promote their own products not attack the opposition\'s. I\'ve had many \'debates\' with Jerry over that. But the simple fact is that the other board allows frequent, baseless and libellous attacks on Jerry and myself. If that\'s the game then I\'m happy to play it.
If you\'re ever on a UK racetrack ask the bookmakers where they make their money. The answer will be opposing bad favourites. Jerry and professional backers do the same thing. Len did it in the Whitney by labelling Peace Rules a play against at his forecast ML. Maybe you should show us where we\'re all going wrong.
Cheers,
George
\"But the simple fact is that the other board allows frequent, baseless and libellous attacks on Jerry and myself. \"
hehehe...
oh, and you think you\'ve got a handle on irony...?
ps
I should probably add that most of the stuff w/jerry\'s name in it gets deleted over there, and most of what\'s left is posted by one particular individual who flourished in this greenhouse until he and jerry had some kind of falling out, and he was banned.