I have a question regarding betting.
When you have set a price on a horse, and that horse doesn\'t reach the odds threshold you set, do you still use that horse in gimmicks? I have always wanted to know the answer to this question.
From what I have observed over the years the answer seems to be: yes. Why is that? Isn\'t the horse an underlay in the gimmick pools just like in the win pool?
Who was the handicapper for the Pimlico analysis on Friday and Saturday? Vic? Jerry? Other?
Roger did the analysis for Pim Saturday, he’s good, I was pretty much straight down the line with him and the Preakness play was mine.
The issue is whether (for example) the exacta price as a whole is an overlay. If I like a 20-1 shot and the favorite is overbet (8/5 when it should be 3-1), I’m still going to protect under it because it has a good shot to win, and the $100 price is still an overlay, because of the second horse.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roger did the analysis for Pim Saturday, he’s
> good, I was pretty much straight down the line
> with him and the Preakness play was mine.
I\'m really interested in your rundown of the Preakness field. I hope you post it here, or on your YouTube channel.
We didn’t do a seminar. Personally my big position was against CT. I boxed MS and MB, and used Rombauer and the 4 (Chad) with them in tris and supers.
There’s a lesson to be learned from this, and I should have learned it a few years ago at Saratoga. At the seminar I said a Romans filly was screaming that she was gonna run a néw top, but she was too slow. She won the Alabama by a pole at about 13-1.
If they’re going to run a new top don’t try to guess whether it will be 1,2 or 4 points. They’re value. Rombauer had the Commanding Curve pattern. My guess is he ran about a zero.
So I am really confused...the analysis always says has back numbers to run back to...has a good pattern,etc. The analysis always references patterns..I do not get how romabuer was NOT mentioned considering the Com Curve reference......I wasnt aware I needed to buy both the sheets and the analysis to get what tg was thinking..in fact I would have thought the analysis was all I needed.
The Analysis is recommended plays with a brief description of why (and if there was more said it would have been about Concert Tour). The data is for your own analysis. When there is a seminar-- and there will be one for the Belmont-- I go over each horse.
The other problems are that we have to do it in advance, and have limited space and time. If I had done it Saturday I would have added there were two other horses that can be used in exotics but mostly underneath-- I didn\'t think Rombauer could beat the other two.
A thought I have had and a question to others.
If you handicap the card prior, then on game day purchase the analysis, how much influence is the analysis in your final decision?
Fair enough. But if that is the case it feels diluted. It will be the same price as the belmont seminar I am asuuming. So why not narrow it down to 3 or 4 solid opinions as opposed to every race and give more detail. There was obviously a pattern play here with the winner and by paying I would have thought we would have been privy to that. Instead I would have had to buy the sheets, then go to the archives and try to figure it out. It seems there is an easy way to improve this product. Less is more.
If it mentions a horse I like it is a big impact.
Here\'s Rombauer\'s Blue Grass. Essential Quality runs wide and wins wearing down a horse that based on the day\'s card was making relatively easy fractions. It wasn\'t easy for Essentially Quality to do all the work reining in the front runner. Essential Quality had the crops best numbers until the Preakness. Note the bit of trouble Rombauer had at the break...how he appears outrun, but then saving ground on the final turn regains what he\'s lost. Do you detect a slight bear in towards the rail about mid homestretch? He\'s beat pretty good, but its not a bad race vs the current crop leader and then note his post race gallop out. When he came out dancing, he appeared to be sitting on a good one. Figure wise he was on a Forge.
Blue Grass Stakes (https://www.facebook.com/Keeneland/videos/268415081491320/)
makrmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fair enough. But if that is the case it feels
> diluted.
Re: Diluted
I\'m not making any comment on the analysis specifically. It\'s fine with me. I just check it from time to time to compare myself to the \"experts.\"
What I would want to get out of any analysis, or seminar, done by a member of the Thoro-Graph team, is a \"pure\" sheet read based on the numbers on the sheet. When you start factoring in trip, bias and pace that\'s when I think things get \"Diluted.\" Just my humble opinion.
Different TG users can analyze a race and come up with totally different selections. Two examples from yesterday. Vic on the TPGS seminar loved the turf sprint winner, Steve Byk on his website didn’t have the horse in his top 4. In the BE/Preakness double, Byk had 3 A selections and 2 B’s, none of them the winner.
I’m not picking on Steve as I am a fan of his. Just trying to show that two very experienced TG users came come up with totally different selections on the same race. Which is always why I personally use the sheets in handicapping a race and if I get the analysis, it is more as a “double check†on my handicapping.
I said none of that. Im talking about a pattern that was obvious to them. The analysis often mentions patterns. Where you got trip/pace/bias from is beyond me.
TGJB Wrote:
------------------------------------------------
> There’s a lesson to be learned from this, and I
> should have learned it a few years ago at
> Saratoga. At the seminar I said a Romans filly was
> screaming that she was gonna run a néw top, but
> she was too slow. She won the Alabama by a pole at
> about 13-1.
>
> If they’re going to run a new top don’t try to
> guess whether it will be 1,2 or 4 points.
> They’re value. Rombauer had the Commanding Curve
> pattern. My guess is he ran about a zero.
Got it. Good advice. I think I learned a couple of things in the first two legs of the Triple Crown. Unfortunately lessons cost money. ðŸ˜,,
Question: How did you distinguish between ROMBAUER and UNBRIDLED HONOR? Both seemed similar. Both could throw a top and you wouldn\'t be surprised, but there\'s no real indication on the sheet that you could count on it from either of them.
you are missing the point...I am specifically referring to pattern that was talked about as being similar to comm curve which obviously was a great call that year...it was talked about on board prior to race...as having purchased the analysis it seems I was left out on a strong pattern play. They often give out 3 horse boxes in analysis. They didnt in this race. To hear that horse was being used and cashed based on that pattern I feel slighted. What Vic and Byk had has NOTHING to do with this. I made my point. Right or wrong I have no idea.
I just borrowed one word from your post that corresponds with what I\'m making a comment on. That\'s all.
Trip, bias and pace are mentioned by Jerry in his seminars all the time. And that is fine. I\'m just making a comment on what I want to get out of it.
I\'m definitely what they would call a \"purist.\" I focus on the numbers on the sheet.
News on Mr. Ragozin today has me reflecting on my early years playing around with sheet methodology.
Would you say the two Lens are sheet purists, Jerry? How could they not be after listening to those old seminar tapes. They pretty much disregarded everything on the sheet but the number.
Jerry, you\'ve been around sheet players a long time, in your opinion, are there more sheet purists today, or back in the day?
Do you want them to place the bets for you as well?
Not JB, but I can take a stab at answering your question.
Rombauer was fast(ish) at 2. Ran back to the number first out at 3YO, then made modest improvement at Keeneland. Another move forward was not out of the question.
Unbridled Honor wasnt quick at 2YO, came back as a 3YO and took two starts to pair the 2YO top, then moved forward 5 points next out at Keeneland. Another move forward off that effort was unlikely. Further, the improvement came over a sloppy track, which can at times often produce wonky figures (generally speaking, not specifically this product).
Oh, I appreciate it. Thank you. Good stuff.
wow blue, you are also missing the point. I will take it as you havent read the string...for the last time, the point is there was a horse mentioned by tgjb, whose pattern reminded him of their great call on CC.
It was prior to the race and NOT mentioned in the analysis. Maybe you are not aware of it but you do not get sheets with the analysis. I get that TGJB didnt think the horse would win however I paid for the TG analysis of the race. And some angle as strong as CC you would think would get mentioned. And then to see how they cashed is bad form in my opinion. They gave crazy opinions on prices all weekend so why just give the 2 chalks in preakness. Maybe I am the only one who bought the analysis and has a problem with it. So be it. If it was not brought up on the board prior to the race I would have no issue. Its over with. I just hope going forward they are sensitive to the issues I brought up.
What he said.
Far fewer sheet purists and I\'m not commenting beyond that, this isin\'t the time.
FWIW, your complaint sure seems valid to me.
makrmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wow blue, you are also missing the point. I will
> take it as you havent read the string...for the
> last time, the point is there was a horse
> mentioned by tgjb, whose pattern reminded him of
> their great call on CC.
>
>
>
> It was prior to the race and NOT mentioned in the
> analysis. Maybe you are not aware of it but you do
> not get sheets with the analysis. I get that TGJB
> didnt think the horse would win however I paid for
> the TG analysis of the race. And some angle as
> strong as CC you would think would get mentioned.
> And then to see how they cashed is bad form in my
> opinion. They gave crazy opinions on prices all
> weekend so why just give the 2 chalks in
> preakness. Maybe I am the only one who bought the
> analysis and has a problem with it. So be it. If
> it was not brought up on the board prior to the
> race I would have no issue. Its over with. I just
> hope going forward they are sensitive to the
> issues I brought up.
If the horse was brought up on the board as looking similar to CC, and you saw it, why didn\'t you just add it yourself??
I didnt know it was Rombauer...horse was never mentioned by name...a few others posted who they thought it was. One was right the other wasnt.
makrmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didnt know it was Rombauer...horse was never
> mentioned by name...a few others posted who they
> thought it was. One was right the other wasnt.
True.
One was a Maker, the other a Diodoro.
Unbridled Honor jumped over 11 points from his 2 year old top to his last race. That is why the difference between the two. Jerry covers that in the Derby seminars yearly, that is too much.
Just curious what were your thoughts on C.T?
Wasn’t fast enough, especially at a relatively short price, not a great pattern (should have moved forward last time). Especially for Baffert, his TC horses tend to get to good figures before the TC. Also Smith from an outside post and he wasn’t going to do anything to interfere with Medina, which meant a wide trip.
To a lessor degree as far as looking for one to throw a new top- it seemed to appear that Rombauer was being pointed to the Preakness all winter/spring. Yes his first race was on turf but he ran well at two on dirt, so bringing him back in a race that was an automatic entry to the Preakness, The El Camino Real, and then skipping the derby despite having enough points after the 3rd at Keeneland seemed to confirm this was the plan all along.
If a top trainer seems to be pointing toward a particular race all season, and he’s got a decent pattern to boot, I think you can expect the horse to be ready to roll in that spot more often than not all things equal.
I think the interesting point to take away from this discussion is what TGJB said in regards to distinguishing tops, if you think a horse is sitting on a new top but is a bit slow, not to assume that if he does run a new top it won’t be enough to get it done. That was a mistake that I seemed to make repeatedly as of late, and more than once on the Derby card. As to the Preakness, I personally thought he’d run well but didn’t think he could beat all three of the chalk, the BB’s & MB. But after reading here in the forum I piggybacked off Johnnym’s pick/post that he wrote indicating he was taking a decent swing with the winner, and boxed a small tri as opposed to only keying the BB’s as I otherwise would have. (Thank you Johnnym!)
As to CT, he was walked off? WTF is going on there, bleed? Hurt? Just didn’t fire so why have him finish?? The optics of that seem pretty awful considering the past two weeks unless there’s something seriously wrong. I never would have expected that to happen. I thought there was good chance he’d scratch, and when he didn’t walking off is the absolute dead last outcome I expected.
absolutely agree with what you said. I just wanted to keep it to the sheet. But yes, Mike was pointing here. He wanted to re-route to the derby and they said no (ITM Oaks Podcast was where I saw this). So it was to the preakness they went. And went they did...
For what it is worth, I used the horse only underneath (third). Not on top.
The analysis is a great tool to double check if you missed something. My personal perception is they seem to be outstanding on turf races and very good on dirt. My only gripe with the analysis is that they should rename their best bet pick to best value pick. To me a best bet is a most likely winner but that’s just me. I’ve been a TG customer for over 25 years and wouldn’t bet on a race without it!!!