The post-contest yapping on this board has motivated me to sign-up and post for the first and probably the last time. I know this is like paying attention to the adolescent punk who is always being obnoxious to get your attention but when he keeps farting in your face, you almost have to respond.
Here is a brief recap of Superfreaky\'s contest wagers.
First race: Hooked-up the two favorites in an exacta: $266 gross return minus $120 wagered on the race for a $166 net return (about 3/2). Not bad but not something most people would brag about. Note that one of those 2 exacta horses (the 9/5 fav) was a Mott/Bailey horse that had not run in 8 or 9 months. You must have been using those awesome jock/trainer and trainer/layoff stats that come with the Rags to make that pick.
Second race: I tip my hat to you. You pegged a 12/1 shot making its first US start. This horse looked so good on Rags that they did not even bother to include a sheet on him. I guess they must have sent out a subliminal message to all raggies that, based on their precise Euro variants and measurements of runnups and weather charts, this horse was running monster figs in Europe. Dave Patent must not have had his subliminal decoder working at that time. This was a very nice score. One worthy of crowing about. You cashed a $475 daily double (keying this no-fig horse with the 2 favs in the first race) and you also cashed a $275 win ticket (on this no-fig horse) but failed to cash any of your other bets in the race using horses that actually had Rag figs. This was a nice score: $750 and the reason you managed to end up in the black in the contest but it was all thanks to a horse that did not even have a Rag sheet. In other words, the sheets did not help you at all except to guide you toward the two favs in the first and to some losing tickets in the second. I am not sure what you based your winning wagering decision on in this race but it was certainly not on Rag figures. You made a good bet. Maybe you had some inside info. Maybe you work for or know K. McLaughlin. Maybe you use info sources other than the Rags. Nice score but certainly not one you can give Rags any credit for.
Other than that, your only other cash was on a $10 exacta box in the 8th race. That may have been a good bet or may have been simply a lucky one given that the rest of your rag-based bets with the $650 remaining in your contest bankroll failed to return anything despite spreading it out on multiple horses in multiple races. In fact, you owe most of your success in the contest to a single horse without a sheet! Yet you chide the winner of the contest for picking only two horses and hitting with one of them. If you had followed his approach and not used the Rags and attacked the card as a precision marksman with a rifle rather than a hillbilly with a shotgun, you probably would have won the contest going away.
Maybe you could learn something from all this.
As for your cohort, David Patent. I actually thought he did a pretty good job handicapping but he was hurt by the scratches. That being said, I wish he could see how totally classless his post-contest remarks were. I believe he may have hit those trifectas on Belmont Day. But to crow about them after he failed to select any of them beforehand in the contest is just beyond my comprehension, particularly, given all the hoopla leading up to the contest. David, grow up. Show some class. You are a good handicapper and maybe even a good guy but you made a very bad decision with that post.
Nice post. If you had said something positive about MY handicapping, it would have been perfect. Regards, HP
Seattle Slew,
What an amazing post! I\'ve always thought that I was in the upper strata of intelligence but this board can be humbling at times.
I hope you continue to post once a month or so just to set us all straight. Your analysis of Super\'s picks was dead-on and really a convincing counter argument to Super\'s claim that he was only able to win because of the superiority of Rags. Super will probably tell us that Rags\' accurate numbers allowed him to ascertain that all the horses with numbers were too slow to beat a foreign horse.
I see a few errors in that post, and a few notable omissions.
if you\'re trying to make a point, you might want to think things through next time you post up some frustrated diatribe.
if you\'re just trying to pander, rock on.
by the way, as far as I know, the next one of these is saratoga\'s opening day, if we don\'t have one earlier.
looking forward to your entry.
I don\'t really care about \"the Freak\'s\" picks, but I disagree with your analysis on which horse\'s the sheets provide valuable information.
First, on a horse coming off a layoff. I never look at trainer stats, but when a two year-old runs a good number first time out and then comes back off a layoff as a 3 year old, they often move forward. I make money on these plays all the time (though this one was not a great price). You cannot make this play if you don\'t know what number the horse ran at 2.
Second, on Euro horses. It is not that hard to approximate timeform ratings into sheet numbers. Thus, you can often make good money either throwing out horses or using horses by comparing the timeform ratings to the sheet numbers. That horse\'s timeform ratings made it very competitive in that race at a good price.
Author: superfreakicus
Date: 06-11-02 14:35
I see a few errors in that post, and a few notable omissions.
if you\'re trying to make a point, you might want to think things through next time you post up some frustrated diatribe.
if you\'re just trying to pander, rock on.
****************************************
Hey superfreakfeces:
Funny how there were a few errors and a few notable omissions, but you didn\'t bother correcting them, geee I wonder how come??? The Rags didn\'t help you win squat, yet you keep yappin\'. Same old, same old
\"Funny how there were a few errors and a few notable omissions, but you didn\'t bother correcting them, geee I wonder how come??? \"
I don\'t think that should be so tough to figure out.
Author: Jason L.
Date: 06-11-02 17:38
I don\'t really care about \"the Freak\'s\" picks, but I disagree with your analysis on which horse\'s the sheets provide valuable information.
First, on a horse coming off a layoff. I never look at trainer stats, but when a two year-old runs a good number first time out and then comes back off a layoff as a 3 year old, they often move forward. I make money on these plays all the time (though this one was not a great price). You cannot make this play if you don\'t know what number the horse ran at 2.
Second, on Euro horses. It is not that hard to approximate timeform ratings into sheet numbers. Thus, you can often make good money either throwing out horses or using horses by comparing the timeform ratings to the sheet numbers. That horse\'s timeform ratings made it very competitive in that race at a good price.
****************************
Jason:
You should try using trainer stats of some kind, it\'ll help your bottom line. 2yos off a big number coming off the layoff (they look fast on everbodys speed figs) are usually huge underlays, not sure how you\'re making money on them when they miss more often than not.
Your comment on Timeform is silly. If it were easy to project a \"sheet fig\" from their ratings don\'t you think TG or Rag would be doing so on a consistent basis?
Good Luck anyhow.
Though I don\'t look at trainer stats, I do look at how a horse has trained up to a race off a layoff. As to your point that they are usually shorts odds, that is not my experience. People tend not to bet on horses coming off of a layoff, particularly when there are other horses in the race that have run well recently. It depends on the race and it depends on how the racing form shows that prior number. I have gotten a good price on many of these types of horses.
My comment on timeform is not silly. Ragozin\'s European numbers are extremely accurate and have made for some very good scores in the Breeder\'s Cup, particularly in the pick 6s. But they only make such numbers for days like the BC, probably because it is too much work and not enough demand. Though you cannot get anything as accurate as such numbers from the Timeforem rating alone, you can get a good approximation, as they seem to be better than Beyer numbers. The approximation can tell you if a horse is competitive, too slow, or much faster than the U.S. competition. And because people like you don\'t know how to make such an approximation, and don\'t seem to really care to learn, those who do know how can bet competitive horses at good prices and throw out the short price one\'s that are too slow.
Did David B. Patient post his Belmont Day W-2\'s here? If he did I wanna see the signature before I acquiesce to him having cashed ANYTHING....lol
As for Harvard, hell anybody with funds can get in there. There are Kennedy\'s and other "familied" N.Easters to prove that. It means nothing.
I won\'t enter these contests. I learned something else Belmont Day, I won\'t try and determine who merits respect by their selections either. Its too time consuming and interfered with my analysis. (Thats my story and Im sticking to it.) Although Nunzio moved way up in my estimation, not just for making two very competent selections, but for demonstrating he didn\'t need the prize by donating it away. I was scared to DEATH of Yankee Gentleman and the pace analysis probably was lost on me. I thought in all likelihood he would overcome it. Nunzio please post more, I\'m dyin to read you\'re opinions...lol
Tabi
That last sentence is the best one you have ever written.
Tabitha wrote: \"As for Harvard, hell anybody with funds can get in there. There are Kennedy\'s and other \'familied\' N Easters to prove that. It means nothing.\"
David has left, Tabitha. It\'s time to leave him alone. For the record, he is extremely intelligent. And I have no doubt that he is a good guy.