Thats the third time in a row!!
Big deal. 2-1.
Just 2-1, but a very solid winner by the figs. Hate to call 2-1 an overlay but in a 5 horse field with 3 hopeless horses, that was a square price.
il give you cha ching.. general quarters pays $4 to show AGAIN today! hope you all had him the horse is consistently the best or the best of the rest in every race hes run in this year!
\'Big deal. 2-1.\"
Jerry,
...pretty big,outran a 3-5 shot that just beat Rachel.
Mike
NYC.
Your past posting of a $4 show mutuel has been reported (by me) as OFFENSIVE.
Did you have a single dollar on the tri which paid $129 for GQ under the 2
favorites?
I am not being insulting, but inquisitive: How many TG users out there are making
serious show wagers? How do you utilize the TGs in selecting a good show runner as
opposed to a decently valued winner? Do you just identify the most likely winner,
then cut your own b--lls off, give up any value, and bet show?
I would much rather hear you say that GQ was very tough, pressing Battle Plan
and holding third, in what the trainer called a prep for the Arlington Million,
where GQ could go off a big price when facing top American and Euro turfers...
(and yes I\'m starting to like GQ a bit, but probably not enough to like him in the Arlington $1M)
Hopefully GQ will transcend the human interest story of his alta kokker trainer
and be given respect in his own right.
And speaking of human interest stories, and Bobphilo won\'t like this, but
ESPN/ABC/Disney\'s coverage of multiple human interest stories (Alan Seewald,
Alexis Barba and her Eddie Gregson connection, the physically mismatched marriage
of Mr Romans and Ms Fox) resulted in the Manhattan (and last years top male
handicap and turf horse) ending up on the cutting room floor.
Might be a great horse. Might have been a great race. But from an income perspective, you\'ll go hungry playing 2-1 shots. Shouldn\'t have been the ROTW. The Regret or the SF at CD were far better.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYC.
>
> Your past posting of a $4 show mutuel has been
> reported (by me) as OFFENSIVE.
I gotta say, I\'m going to be next to press that button.
NYC: We are all experienced horseplayers here, and we are all adults. I\'ll presume you are in both of those categories, too.
If that\'s right, then stop posting like a child: if you can\'t tell the board who you fancy before a race is run, then skip the after-party \"I had it!\" posts. No one f\'ing cares.
Jerry,
If you only play 2-1 shots, I\'ll agree.I think the angle on ROTW was that TG felt a 3-5 shot was vulnerable based on the big last race move up.
Mike
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Might be a great horse. Might have been a great
> race. But from an income perspective, you\'ll go
> hungry playing 2-1 shots. Shouldn\'t have been the
> ROTW. The Regret or the SF at CD were far better.
Who said the ROTW was about income?
There are different points TG tries to illustrate from week to week with their ROTW selection.
I took this week\'s selection as the classic case of the wildly overbet favorite who was almost certain to bounce off of her last effort -- not the \"How Can We Help Jerry Retire Today?\" example.
Right, both Rick and Mike. We try to pick a race where there is something we see that is different than what the public sees, basically, so we can make a point about using the data. At least when I write them.
Not only that, it is also an example when you CAN play a 2-1 shot with confidence.
There are good 2-1 shots and terrible 2-1 shots.
This was a great 2-1 shot.
ive been posting about GQ since his first race out this year on the board.. the topic here was \"cha ching\" and i had to make a comment about GQ racing very consistent this year as well as paying $4 or more to show in EVERY race hes run in this year being no worst than best of the rest. The horse never gets wagered as a fave and most of the time his ML odds are higher at post time.. he still runs his heart out every single race to make the money. To me personally having such a reliable horse to give %100 ROI or more this year every race on the show wager is CHA CHING! All my plays this year on GQ have been show and i will continue that for future reference as its something that has worked out great for me.
As far as what i determine to do show wagers is based on many factors such as money in show pools, who is overbet, public error, etc. If a horse like GQ is NOT wagered to win and his odds go up the show will pay more cause public money goes with who is wagered down. Anyway, Im having an amazing year so far and will continue thru the bashing to stick with what works for me.
With all due respect Richiebee and Rick, there are MANY people that post after a race is over talking about scores. Win bets, serial bets, etc..
Some may not be advocates of show betting, but slamming nyc for \"past posting\", when others do the same thing is a bit unfair. Haven\'t seen others get slammed for it, why this guy?? Give the guy a break.
Actually P-Dub alot of guys past post tough beats and bad trips and life changing
scores and I have no problem with it.
As for only picking out NYC, who I have no problem with, I usually jump all over
Sekrah when he posts his scores WITH ADW CONFIRMATION NUMBERS included.
These inane past posts, which are nothing more than end zone celebrations, seem
to have taken the place of more informative and challenging posts by NC Tony and
Jimbo and to an extent Michael D.
richie...you hit it right on the head...remember when we has handicapping discussions?
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Haven\'t seen others get slammed for it
> why this guy??
The \"others\" don\'t do it every week.
Enough, already. Continual redboarding is a pathetic cry for attention.
Fine. I\'m more interested in retirement right now than schooling.
Easy to say post fact but lesson 1 in this game is there are no good 2-1 shots.
Disagree here. This had a 2-1 who had a pair of 0\'s last two out with rest against a 1-2 Fav who had gone 5,3,0 in her last 3 with ok spacing.
The 2-1 also had the inside post, the controling speed and was receiving 3 lbs.
From a handicapping perspective this one was easy. As far a getting rich NO. There was a stumble 30 yds out of the gate that could have grabbed a quarter or worse. So things can go wrong.
But this gave me money to play with the rest of the day and I will take that every week.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easy to say post fact but lesson 1 in this game is
> there are no good 2-1 shots.
It was right there in the ROTW which was posted before the race. It was pretty clear who the horse to play was.
I\'m the last person to advocate playing 2-1 shots, but there is a time and place to play them and yesterdays race was one of those times. Picking up wagering capital in a race like this may enable you to play something else that may get you closer to retirement.
Playing every longshot in sight and ripping up tickets isn\'t any better.
Back later with Z comments, still at work.
Few of us will do cartwheels over a 2-1 shot as a stand alone proposition, but, such plays are also about leverage, and if you tell me that I can confidently have a 2-1 play as a stand alone in a Pick-4, I\'m going to like that ten out of ten times. Now, if it looks like there\'s another mortal lock chalk involved in the pick, then I\'ll probably pass, and look to the adjoining races, and if I have a strong feeling, there, about one or two horses, I can then leverage their value in doubles. I think from both a value and instructional perspective, it was a very helpful ROTW.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fine. I\'m more interested in retirement right now
> than schooling.
Then you need to skip the ROTW, which is all about schooling.
That, or find a different (free) dojo, that is dedicated to building your personal retirement wealth.
Those \"I am posting my betting records as proof of something\" posts are so meaningless that they are meaningful, very meaningful.
So if it\'s all about schooling, what\'s with the \"cha-ching\"?