Funny is my key all the way. I will bet him at even money. I think the value is dropping Empire Maker out of the top two so that is where my bet went. Funny on Top of Dynever in a straight per and Funny on top of Dynever and Ten in second in Tris. You dance with who brung ya. He\'s been good to me.
CtC
I did it again. I always stick a little too long with horses that have been good to me. And Empire Maker is a good horse. Bobby beat me today, but I\'ll get him next year...lol I think that quick work was a factor. I knew it goin in but you get attached to horses that have treated u well.
Maybe Funny\'s not as good as I thought. You\'ll always make more money betting the next horse is not a super horse, but its hard when you\'ve caught him rolling and he\'s rewarded you.
CtC
CtC,
Very interesting what you say about the loyalty factor that we all have when it come to betting horses. The heart sometimes can be the deciding influence over the mind when making the final wagering decision.
When Silver Charm got to the Belmont I just passed on the race because he was not a good price. I felt there would be so much joy if he did win (ie-Triple Crown) that it would make up for any lost winning wagers.
--I just copied this from your other post and had to edit mine to add this in:
\"I lost money, but Dang I\'m more bummed this horse didn\'t win the Crown.\"
When Silver Charm lost I was depressed for a week. Seriously.
I actually bet Real Quiet in the Belmont ($50 to win at 4-5) because I wanted to see a Triple Crown winner after I had bet Victory Gallop in the Preakness. OUCH !!!
I did switch to EM in the Belmont but I only had Funny in the Preakness. I had TMW in the Derby, hey he might be a good race horse afterall, so my loyalty didn\'t run as deep as some of the rest of you guys.
If people out there bet Funny don\'t beat yourself up.
Funny will be back and this thing is far from settled with he and EM. This has the look of an Easy Goer/Sunday Silence. I want to go into this in much more detail but now is not the time.
I\'m going to lay low for a couple of days because I have the feeling this Board will have more fireworks than the Manhatten harbor July 4th show.
I do want to raise the question of how in the world does Friedman come up when TMW when the only horse on Sheets he was faster than was Supervisor. He was slower than all the rest had a very bad Derby number and the guy says you shouldn\'t look at works, look at Sheets only.
Did he know something that he didn\'t share with the paying customer?
Post Edited (06-09-03 09:40)
I think that Silver Charm was the victim of a bone head ride in the Belmont. The rail was dead all day. SC had handled Free House at 10 panels, so at 12 panels, FH was no threat, but Touch Gold was. TG broke from the rail and instead of burying TG on the rail , Stevens goes 6 wide, trying to park Free House.
Silver Charm,
You make a great point about Robes and TMW.
Where were all the menions after the Derby when he picked me, Supah Blitz, who are now over on their Board screaming Robes your the greatest. The guy picks a Triple in a 6 horse race telling you to use the 3 favorites.
Man what pro you are Robes, your the greatest!
Since he had the Illinois Derby much slower than Thorograph,where does he come up with him. Go back and read their posts after the KY Derby where they criticized Thorograph for their Ill Derby number--(saved ground, carried light weight)Brown blew the number again!! The horse is overrated and then Belmont Day he says use him?? Go figure.
He will probably spend all week talking about how its all in his seminar tapes.
After I listened to his garbage and bet Supah Blitz in the Derby is when I decided to make the switch to Thorograph and I\'m glad I did. Saturday was a great Day!!
(The following from David is based on Ragozin numbers, not TG-- JB)
If you were to make assessments of horses based on their likely next number instead of their fastest prior number -- which you should always always do -- then TMW was a logical third pick in the race.
In terms of numbers overall, TMW was faster than Scrimshaw but for Scrimshaw\'s freakish 6f effort last year. And his last race was only 1 point slower than Dynever\'s Avventura fig. His Derby number was 3 points faster than Dynever\'s last race.
In terms of pattern, he certainly looked more likely to go forward than Dynever and also more likely to run faster than Scrimshaw, given that he was already nearly 2 points faster and had more time going into the race.
Len wasn\'t the only one who thought TMW was the third most likely winner in the race. The analysis I posted -- which went up before Friedman\'s post -- had TMW as third choice -- based on both past numbers and pattern.
I did not hit the race, because I saw no value and chose not to bet the race (except for a sentimental win bet on FC), so I have nothing to crow about, but let\'s not slice the bologna so thin, please.
I respect your analysis and opinion.
I do not use Sheets so I\'m curious just what were the last two numbers for TMW.
David-- The term \"fastest\", as used by both Friedman and me, means best top. I didn\'t see Ragozin sheets so I don\'t know, but was TMW really the second slowest horse going in on Ragozin?
By the way, I don\'t think you will find a single TG player who thought TMW was WORSE than third most likely winner, for whatever that is worth. He was third fastest going in on our sheets.
Jerry,
Please read my post carefully. I did not use the term \'fastest\' in a general sense. I spoke of \'fastest\' prior number and whether a horse was overall \'faster\'.
On Ragozin, TMW had paired up 5- in his last two races. Scrimshaw\'s best route number was a 6\". Dynever had a 4- but had bounced to an 8 in the LS Derby with trouble.
Supervisor had an 8 top.
So, TMW was the 4th fastest in terms of top but was -- in my view -- a better play than Dynever to run better in the Belmont, given Dynever\'s lack of foundation, the large move to the 4- two back, and the size of his reaction in the LS Derby.
Again, I didn\'t cash on the Belmont but I don\'t think that anybody was hiding anything in their analysis of TMW.
The case is along these lines. The problem resulting from the \"ear incident\" was thought to have been resolved, which explained his big jump up in the Ill Derby. He trained phenomenally leading into the Ky Derby which, along with the fact that he is as magnificent a looking racehorse as you\'re ever going to see, is why he was the wiseguy underlay horse. He refused to run after being hit when the gate opened, very much in keeping with his nature. He trained very well again coming into the Bel & was unlikely to run into trouble in a 6 horse field in a 10 furlong race. His trainer, one of the best in the game, is very conservative about entering & shipping for TC races. He was 9-1.
The more interesting thing to me at this pt is how one interprets the stretch drive. As I saw it, EM did not switch leads and TMW shied when he got along side. TMW looked to me to be, & at the very least to have the potential to be, the better horse. Someone who\'s opinion I respect a great deal is of the different view that EM intimidated TMW, and that the order of finish would not have changed if they had gone around a 2nd time. I\'m thinking that if Dollase figures out a way to make TMW a little more aggressive, then the match race in the Travers may not involve the two horses most people are currently concentrating on.
The pairing up of the 5- in the Derby was somewhat important in reading TMW positively on Ragozin. The number at age 2 helped, too, giving some sense that future development was imminent. If you liked him on Derby Day (I did, more than Friedman) but couldn\'t really bet him because he was such an underlay, you were likely to like him more on Belmont Day. His line looked healthier than *any* horse in the field, just slower than the top 2. Either of whom a case could be made were bounce candidates, especially FC.
I didn\'t play the Belmont other than singling EM in multi-race wagers. But Friedman\'s read on this race was an easy one-- not hard to come up with on the numbers.
David,
While you addressed your post to Jerry I\'m going to repond then step aside.
This is Robes analysis of Scrimshaw before the Preakness:
\"Scrimshaw: Recovering very slowly toward that big 2yo effort and could see another 1-2 point move forward off his last which would make him borderling competitive for exotics\"
Scrimshaw made another small move on Sheets in the Preakness--if people don\'t believe me they can look on the left side of their Board--they have both the Derby and Preakness there.
In the guys own words he says, \"he is recovering to that 2YO old top\". Says nothing about ignore the number because it was in a sprint.
So now on Belmont Day you are to ignore the number because it was in a sprint. Doesn\'t work that way with me, sorry. WHERE IS THE CONSISTENCY??
But I don\'t want to talk about Scrimshaw, I want to talk about TMW.
He had TMW in a pairup in the KY Derby of his Ill Derby number. Wally Dollase is a pretty smart trainer and after the Derby he was livid that the track was too hard, said his horse had hurt his back, needed chiropractic help and couldn\'t wait to leave KY.
Pat Day is a Hall of Fame rider who said when called on the horse on the backstretch of the Derby he got no response--I repeat, HE GOT NO RESPONSE.
Now both of these guys are a lot closer to the horse than some guy in the Ragozin office in NY. Do you think they feel like he exerted the same effort on Derby Day as Ill Derby Day?
But hey Robes says he did, so what the heck do those two guys know?
So I repeat how does he come up with the horse if he was only faster than one horse in the race--Supervisor??
David, I did read your post carefully, I know exactly what you said, and why. You don\'t have to play games, just say that even though he was slow he had a good pattern, so he could be used. From my memory of what those horses looked like on Ragozin I would agree with that.
Silver,
I think you should make sure to suggest to Jerry and Len that they include trainer and jockey opinions about a horse\'s effort in determining numbers, as you apparently are doing.
Just keep grinding that axe. It\'ll cut something someday.