Can\'t say you are not consistent Jerry. Not even remotely close again in the ROTW. The \"underlay\" over the \"non-contender\" exacta.
The \"strongest contender\" up the track....
13 weeks and counting since you had a ROTW that actually pointed out an opinion that turned out to be \"correct\".
better luck next week.........
Always a pleasure to hear your opinion AFTER THE RACE.
betting at The Palms, 3 on and top box 5/1/8/9
I got a lot of run for my money....cowboys don\'t cry.
TGJB wrote:
> Always a pleasure to hear your opinion AFTER THE RACE.
>
lol, regarding post race opinions. But, I didn\'t know T-Graph was making ROTW selections. To my knowledge what they do is offer a race every week or so to prove the merit of their figures. I\'ve never seen them make a ROTW pick. Now, back in the early nineties, Jerry used to make picks on \"Post Time\" and that was my introduction to T-Graph and I thought he analyzed well even if the pick didnt show up for some reason. One of my all time favorites was his pick of Green Darling in the Delaware Handicap. Back then they went 10 marks is my recollection. One day the longest race in the country will be 7 furlongs.
CtC
CtC,
So, in your view the \"Race of the Week\" has more of an altruistic value than betting value? Verifying the validity of the figures.
Those of us that pay attention to this game that aren\'t owners, are gamblers. Those of us that buy T-Graph products do it because we think/expect it to give us an edge. When Jerry picks just ONE race per week to \"showcase\" his figues and patterns and show how this data can help us gamblers, it would probably be a more effective marketing tool if he was occasionally right.
Of course the ROTW doesn\'t \"pick a winner\", but as Jerry has often said on this board, \"if you go back over the archives of the ROTW you will see that if you had crafted bets around the opinions expressed in the ROTW, it would be a profitable strategy.\" That is not a diret quote, so I should remove the quotes, but it came up on this board in a discussion of the analysis product.
Jerry, as for me posting my opinion on this board \"before the race\", I have done that before, but my opinion isn\'t the one that your customers sometimes pay for, it is yours. Besides the figures themselves, there are the theories you often espouse that are part of your product.
Its a tough game Jimbo. I\'ve seen the race of the week for this week posted for at least a couple days. Picking winners at post time is hard enough, let alone three days in advance, but i understand your point.
I\'m past posting, but I did not see the race or hear its outcome and going over T-Graph I liked four horses and to my eye they were the four TGraph settled upon: Love that Moon, Weiglia, Built Up and Sing me back home. I tend to favor Weiglia, but no way I could pick a winner of the four without all the information that becomes available in the days and hours before postime. But TGJB didn\'t pick a horse to beat either. He strongly hinted its Weiglia and I think he\'s right, but he didn\'t put it on paper.
p.s. I checked equibase after my T-Graph selections and I guess Jerry is off the schnide...lol
CtC
Post Edited (11-14-04 02:05)
I forgot to mention in the previous post that I made two bets saturday. The second bet cashed to nullify the huge loss Breeders Cup Day. In the matter of the ROTW don\'t change a thing. Some days you get the bear!
Ctc,
You are absolutely right, this is a tough game!! That is for sure.
As I read this week\'s ROTW, I would disagree with you that Weigelia is one of the ones that Jerry settled on. He makes a long case about the horse, but then says 5-2/3-1 is about right for the horse. As the horse went off at 4-5, I would doubt that makes him usable at that price. If you followed the ROTW comments, I think that Built Up, as the fastest horse, at 4-1, was \"the bet\". Unfortunately, he was up the track.
Picking horses three days in advance is of course real difficult. But on the other hand, looking over the entire selection of weekend races and picking one that you really like, should result in better than the long run of \"losers\" that we have seen in the ROTW.
You have to go back 17 weeks, to the American Oaks on July 3rd, to find a ROTW, where Jerry liked a horse that won, that paid more than 9-5. And I am giving him a big benefit of the doubt on that race, since he \"liked\" about 5 horses in that race.
That recent record of ROTW\'s, combined with the miserable Breeders CUp day, doesn\'t give me (A T-GRaph user), a \"warm and fuzzy\" feeling about the product.
at least he puts his ass out there,
ragozin doesn\'t
Pheobe,
You are absolutely right. I was actually thinking the same thing after I wrote that last post. I have recently looked at the Ragozin web site and their product a little bit in the past few weeks. They don\'t show their \"record\" like Jerry does in the redboard room, nor do they offer their views for public consumption in a forum like the ROTW. And the added features that T-Graph has for trainers/jockeys etc., are a \"product differentiator\".
But it still would be nice to see Jerry be right once in a while with his handicapping!!
jimbo66 wrote:
> Ctc,
>
> You are absolutely right, this is a tough game!! That is for
> sure.
>
> As I read this week\'s ROTW, I would disagree with you that
> Weigelia is one of the ones that Jerry settled on. He makes a
> long case about the horse, but then says 5-2/3-1 is about right
> for the horse.
If you followed the ROTW
> comments, I think that Built Up, as the fastest horse, at 4-1,
> was \"the bet\". Unfortunately, he was up the track.
>
I went back and read what Jerry said. He discusses the pros and cons of his contenders, its a prudent thing to do. I agree he liked Built Up, who appeared to be cycling back to his best efforts. Which incidentally were on the track. However, Jerry was all over the potential of Weiglia and at this stage of his career (3 yrs) and the horse had been improving. He stressed the off strip last. Bottom line is Jerry hinted strongly but gave no firm and fast opinion. He doesn\'t in these ROTW\'s. He discusses what he sees in their patterns to instruct on the use of the T-Fig tool. Additionally, ANYONE can pick an odds on favorite. You don\'t need T-Figs for that. However there are times when a T-Fig favorite is the play because he lays over the others on the T-Fig. Which is not saying it was this weeks ROTW.
Anyway, maybe a public discussion of the next interesting ROTW is the way to go.
CtC,
Good idea Chuckles. Let\'s wait for next week\'s ROTW and pick up the debate.
By the way, just to be clear, I am not \"redboardinig\" and saying I picked the winner. I didn\'t either. I happened to like Built Up as well, along with FJ\'s Pace, and both ran up the track!!
Jim--
1-- You are redboarding, whether you had the winner or not. If you have a problem with our opinions, say so before the race.
2-- WE ARE NOT MAKING PICKS IN ROTW. Your paraphrase of my statement is probably close enough, and it doesn\'t contradict what I just said. This is a game of percentages-- if we say a horse is about 5/2 to win, and the public makes him even money, he is not a bet, and if they make him 4-1, he is, whatever the result. Obviously, ROTW gave Wegalia a good chance to win (maybe the best chance), so the position could be articulated as, strong contender, possibly most likely winner, but underlay at a short price. What\'s the problem?
3-- We do make picks, every day, and they can be examined the next day in the RBR for free. They include a minimum odds guidline for just the reasons found above. As you say, others in similar positions are not willing to put themselves on the record, and we have an overall body of work over the years several thousand times as large as the 13 race sampling you are referring too, aside from your misrepresentation of it as winning and losing, which can\'t be done except in conjunction with an odds board.
4-- The ROTW isn\'t about EITHER altruism or betting value, although in the long term it definitely has had a lot of the latter if you worked out an odds line based on it. (And by the way, we invite everyone to look at the American Oaks ROTW Jim refers to, and to decide whom we liked, see what the winner paid, and see how many weeks of \"losers\" that would pay for). ROTW is an attempt to educate people as to how to use the most powerful and complete handicapping tool on the market-- it\'s a free weekly mini-seminar that generally attracts around 5-600 viewers, depending on what race we choose.
5-- Jim, I don\'t get why you, and only you, keep going on about this. It\'s a free sample. You can use it or not, but either way we ain\'t getting a dime from you for it whether you win or lose. If you have something to say about the race itself or our opinion, say so before the fact. Resulting is a cheap shot, especially when you ain\'t paying for it.
Jerry,
1. I might be the only one who comments on this board about your ROTW, but I think it is a pretty good guess that if 5600 people download it each week, quite a few of them might be using it to structure wagers and if they are, they are losing for 3 months.
2. Me not paying for your ROTW is a stupid point. Check my account before you make comments about not paying for your product. $700 in a month is enough to pay T-Graph. Throwing in a couple of losing opinions in the ROTW is a \"bonus\".
3. You don\'t like me commenting about your ROTW on this board. Well, you are a public figure in the horseracing industry. You sell a \"premium\" product. You pick one race a week to give a \'seminar\' on. Thus, you are \"on record\" each week. When you are way off or wrong, for an extended period of time, then you should expect to hear about it, from whichever of your customers feels like talking about it. Ignore the posts if you think they are out of line, but it is a bit unrealistic for you to think some people will hold you accountable for your opinions.
4. I took you to task for a \"below average\" Saratoga meet this year for your analysis product. One of your responses was that your ROTW is a better barometer of your handicapping ability and the power of your product. Hence, I don\'t comment any more about the analysis product (mostly because I don\'t buy it), and I have looked at the ROTW each week to see if this is in fact a better barometer.
5. You can talk all you like about the \"seminar\" value of the ROTW, as opposed to it being a \"winner\" or \"loser\" in the end. But if the seminar continuously gives out views/opinions that aren\'t validated in the race afterwards, then the seminar isn\'t successful, by any means. If I give a seminar building my case to buy IBM stock and the stock tanks 20% in the next few weeks, I wonder if I can tell my customers that the seminar was just a \"teaching tool\". Teaching what?
Jimbo,
I don\'t see anything in the analysis that would lead you to bet against Wegelia. There are A LOT of positive comments in the analysis about the winner. The main negative comments are related to the fact that the horse figured to be a short price (he was).
I also didn\'t see any ringing endorsements of anyone else in the race. It seems cut and dried to me, you could try to beat Wegelia or pass the race.
The whole point of using TG is to identify value. You don\'t need to spend $25 (or read analysis) to tell you that Wegelia had a shot in this race. The Daily News probably had at least three handicappers that picked him.
The exacta paid $25. If there were terrific opportunities here, I would agree with you that they blew it. As it stands, a short priced horse that TG believed \"might be vulnerable off big efforts\" ended up winning. The winners are welcome to their $3.80 (!). I will try to beat them every time.
My main beef with this ROTW would be that perhaps they could\'ve found a more interesting race -- something where they could\'ve showcased how you could get a big price on something using the data, even if it was an allowance or something not of \"national interest.\" As a horse-by-horse review, it does have some value to show how someone can interpet the data...
HP
HP Wrote:
> My main beef with this ROTW would be that perhaps they could\'ve
> found a more interesting race -- something where they could\'ve
> showcased how you could get a big price on something using the
> data, even if it was an allowance or something not of \"national
> interest.\" As a horse-by-horse review, it does have some value
> to show how someone can interpet the data...
>
> HP
I did not peruse it, but I noticed the ROTW last week was a conditional allowance from a card at Hawthorne Race Course. Thats spreading it around some.
Assuming the ROTW analysis has been a bit rocky recently, though I have no idea upon that, its very difficult to say that recent record somehow frames an issue about the usefulness of the product. I know I\'ve lost 15 straight bets before and I don\'t know that T-Graph is picking races they have layover T-Figs on. My belief is that they try and pick interesting and competitive races to demonstrate the product. Regarding layover figs the last two that I\'m really aware of were Ghostzappers Classic and Smarty Jones Derby. 5-2 and 4-1 winners respectively.
I\'d like to mention one other little point at TGJB\'s expense. The T-Graph Figs are many times validated not in cashing but in projections. A notable projection they get big credit for is Brass Hat. They attempted to buy that horse for about 50,000 dollars is my recollection and their vet nixed the deal. Brass hat since has won a stakes at Turfway, the Indiana Derby and the Ohio Derby. I believe his total earnings are nearing 700,000 although he is on the shelf right now due to an infirmity. They knew he was infirm but they KNEW he was fast too.
CtC
Post Edited (11-15-04 11:54)
jimbo,
as for the free products (ROTW), i think an effective use of constructive criticism would involve your own pre race analysis (you give nice pre races opinions from time to time, chime in on the ROTW if you plan on commenting on the success of it afterwards). when they charge $25 for the picks, i think everybody is welcome to redboard the picks.
Michael D,
Fair enough point. I agree to disagree.
Cost is one issue.
But as somebody who likes to handicap, if you give me a choice between being graded on my top pick each week or being graded on how I do all 9 races at 4 tracks a day, I would probably pick the race that I feel most comfortable with.
jim
Okay Jim, looks like the things I said went right past your ear, and I\'m going to have to waste a bunch of time on this going step by step. Let\'s begin:
1-- Based on your reading of the ROTW, who did we think was the most likely winner?
2-- Who won the race?
Excuse me, all knowing Dr. Brown,
We don\'t have to base anything on my reading of the ROTW. Here are your words:
1. \"given the prospect of ground loss, the weight, the lingering concern about the big top and its affect (sic), and ONE FASTER HORSE, Weigelia is somewhat vulnerable.\"
2. \"a pair up or new top gives a real strong shot. The timing is right, about 4 months since the last big effort, and the pattern is pointing forward. It looks like Built Up is going to run and if he does, he\'s a strong contender.\"
Even without relative odds, sounds like #2 is the play. When you factor in 4-5 on #1, and 5-1 on #2, it becomes easier.
Let\'s try it again.
1-- The ROTW said the right price on Wegalia was 5/2 or 3-1, in a big field. Focus, and figure it out-- which horse did we think was most likely to win?
2-- Who won?
One word answers to each will do, then we\'ll move on to the other points you missed. Hopefully we won\'t have to do this every week.
Just a quick look at the other side of the coin - I look at the ROTW most every week and a few times in each of the last two years the analysis of the ROTW dovetailed nicely with my own notion of how those particular races might play (actually it did again this week - I thought Wegalia would be tough to beat and tough to take - so did the ROTW analysis.) That said, I made very good scores out of two of them... the King\'s Bishop at Saratoga in 2003 and The American Oaks this year. The ROTW analysis owes me nothing, especially since I paid nothing for it. It has also been very beneficial with regard to furthering my understanding of reading patterns and dealing with form cycles whether I\'m using Thorograph data or not.
1. unclear
2. Weigalia
Jerry, I have read enough of these ROTW\'s to know that you VERY OFTEN use the exact words \"most likely winner\". Sometimes accompanied by \"but no value\".
Even if I give you that you called him the \"most likely winnner\", which you didn\'t, you thought fair value was 5-2 or 3-1.
Okay, we\'re getting somewhere, albeit slowly. Another 5 or 10 posts should do it.
3-- We had Wegalia about 5/2 or 3-1 to win the race. From your reading of the other horses (like Built Up) do you think we had one of them shorter than that to win the race? If not, who was the most likely winner? Remember-- it\'s a big field, and you have to assign every horse some chance of winning. Try it.
4-- Regarding your second answer, you\'re honing in on it. Go look at my 5 point post to you from yesterday-- if Wegalia went off at 4-1, would ROTW have been good this week?
Jerry,
As I read your ROTW, I 100% believed that you felt the most likely winner was Built Up. So, yes, I thought you had Built Up at least the same odds of winning as Weigelia.
Obviously, this is open to interpretation, since you are not picking winners with the ROTW, but for me, Built Up had to win or at least run real well for you to be \"right\" this week.
When I read your \'somewhat vulnerable\' comment on Weigelia and the fact that Built Up was the fastest T-Graph horse going in, plus his pattern was \"pointing forward\", he looked like the \"play\".
Forgetting about my interpretation for a second, what was your point in picking this race as the ROTW? You have said before you select a race to showcase a specific point or illustrate a specific pattern or in some cases because of a \"bet against\" angle on a false favorite. In this race, you thought the 4-5 favorite was the most likely winner but was only value at 5-2/3-1. I doubt you were thinking you would get 5-2/3-1 on Weigelia. So what was the point?
First of all, Alan did ROTW and he isn\'t here today to say why he picked it. But we choose a race that either will be of public interest or enable us to illustrate ways to use or data, or both. It almost never has to do with whether there is a good bet in the race, but with whether there are things to discuss. It\'s a teaching tool.
Second of all, it\'s pretty tough on the math (or in looking at the sheets for the race) to think that anyone was BETTER than 5/2 to win the race with that many horses with competitive numbers. Here\'s the point-- Wegalia was either the most likely winner, co-most likely winner, or a likely winner, any way you look at it we gave him a very good shot. He was not a bet at a very short price, AND NEITHER WOULD ANYONE ELSE IN THE RACE BE. NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP WINNING.
This aside-- recognize the ROTW for what it is, as everyone else does. It\'s not a pick, and even if it were, we are giving away both data and analysis without charge. It has nothing to do with what you pay for other data, and if that\'s a problem, stop buying it. If you want to comment on ROTW before the fact, I welcome it, and from what little I\'ve seen you have a good opinion-- all the better. That kind of discussion is productive-- this is a pain in the butt for no reason.