Must say I respectfully somewhat disagree with the read on Voya.
I don\'t think it\'s a good sign at he did not race at 2yo, did not break through or get back to his early 3yo top at 3 and was laid up for a few months early 4yo.now he\'s coming in off a number that, based on the past, could surely cause a regression. However I do think that a pair up might possibly get him a win and at anything over 10-1 you have to take a shot given his #\'s, odds and lack luster patterns of the other horses. Good luck.
More outright craziness on the ROTW favorite:
* Work All Week...\"could run his race and lose\"...possible.
But play the race with him OUT of the top three because
he is \"vulnerable\"?
That is just pressing the greed button. Favorites run
1st or 2nd around 50% of the time, and in the top 3 spots
70% of the time...and this is no ordinary favorite!
Rick
Your point being what that we should play the favorites because numbers suggest they are in the money such a high percentage of the time
Not saying I necessarily agree to throw work all week out of the top 3 slots, but I certainly disagree with your statement that he is \"no ordinary favorite\"
I think he is exactly that. Comes in with a higher than deserved reputation off of winning a weak version of the BC Sprint, add in a layoff and he spots weight.
Personally I plan to toss him horizontally, not vertically, as getting him off the top spot is a bit easier than the top 3.
But my point is that this is the exact type of favorite I like to bet against. You can certainly disagree, but to call it \"outright craziness\" a bit over the top, no?
Rob
Let\'s not overthink this:
Does Work All Week look like the kind of favorite
that you can easily dismiss from the top two spots?
(Before answering, please examine 12 wins from 15 starts
and an incredible looking sheet filled with 0\'s and negative
1\'s.)
Rick
He is a very good horse. Only 2 of the 15 starts were against graded company, which he faces today. His last 2.
He returns now, at 6, off of a layoff and spots weight.
I happen to think the better bet is using the 1 and 5 in the pick 4 and tossing him. Because both are fast enough to beat him and the other fsctors mentioned (layoff, weight and also no CD experience)
That said, I could box 1-5 but I don\'t like that bet. Where I disagree with the ROTW is that I think the 2 is a no shot slug. But that is just my read.
My point for posting is that this is exactly the type of favorite I want to attack. I am just attacking him differently than the ROTW did.
That and u posting favorites in the money stats is just like waving a red flag in front of a bull. So what. Favorites run well. Pick the ones u want to attack and do so with gusto. Don\'t fall into the \"favorites run well a high percentage of the time so I have to use them\" way of thinking. I haven\'t figured out how to best this game, but I know THAT gives u no shot.
Good luck
Rob
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don\'t fall into the \"favorites run well a high
> percentage of the time so I have to use them\"
> way of thinking.
> I haven\'t figured out how to best this game, but I
> know THAT gives u no shot.
No shot? Come on. That\'s the same dogma that says \"we
can beat EVERY favorite\".
Sorry, the math is incontrovertible on this. Favorites
MUST be considered, and possibly used.
If you try to toss the favorite EVERY week the way
ROTW seems to, you will just end up with a stack of
losing tickets.
Rick
U want to debate effectively, u need to read what the other person writes and attempt to consider it.
Your incontrovertible comment is incontrovertibly wrong. Do the math on betting favorites every race. Let me know what the ROI is.
The ROTW, which I don\'t write, picks one race from the hundreds that are run and us usually structures a bet around beating and often completely tossing the favorites.
There is little doubt that selectively looking at a broad range of races and zeroing in on races where the favorite is vulnerable and the masses are wrong, is the right way to go.
Next time u go to an OTB or race track, look around you. Those people decide who the favorites are. They may be your \"peer group\", but they aren\'t mine. Will take my shot picking at times when they are wrong. U keep waiting for the, to decide who the favorite is, and then bet on them.
Good luck
U will need it
Rob
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U want to debate effectively, u need to read what
> the other person writes and attempt to consider
> it.
...then you promptly attributed a whole bunch of stuff
to me that I didn\'t write: I never said to \"bet the
favorites\". I said you can\'t just arbitrarily toss them.
Your comment about the ROTW is closer to the mark; it
is somewhat of an abstract view of one race, an example
of how the TG Analyst uses the Sheets. It is not intended
as a compendium of betting instruction.
Finally, there is no need to be rude (\"good luck, u will
need it\").
I do OK. I might even point out that my name
is on the ThoroGraph Handicapper\'s Hall of Fame page.
(Go on, take a look.)
So...what did you say your name was, again?
Rick-- you\'re completely missing the point re ROTW. We choose the races to show the differences between TG handicapping and conventional handicapping (i.e. first or second 15 out of 18 times). That will result on its face in betting against the favorites (who are picked by the public generally using conventional handicapping) in THAT race. It\'s a whole different issue than betting against favorites in general. And it may or may not work out-- I didn\'t write ROTW either, been working on the seminar and haven\'t even read it.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick-- you\'re completely missing the point re
> ROTW. We choose the races to show the differences
> between TG handicapping and conventional
> handicapping (i.e. first or second 15 out of 18
> times)
No, I get it. I just did a poor job of qualifying
my comments. Besides, who wants to read a ROTW that
says \"We just LUUUUV the 3/5 shot, get some!\".
Where I tend to part company with you and Alan is
I won\'t summarily toss a favorite from all my tickets
just because I don\'t think he can win -- you are
bucking some pretty stiff percentages when you do that.
Some pretty nice exactas go by the boards when the ROTW
analyst nailed the winner but didn\'t use the favorite
in the 2 spot.
And when you guys try to beat a legit favorite simply
because you suspect he will be overbet -- no other
knocks -- that just leaves me shaking my head.
These are minor quibbles. The ROTW is a fantastic
opportunity to see how the TG Analyst interprets
the TG numbers. That is the gold at the end of the
rainbow.
Rick B. Wrote:
> Where I tend to part company with you and Alan is
> I won\'t summarily toss a favorite from all my
> tickets
> just because I don\'t think he can win -- you are
> bucking some pretty stiff percentages when you do
> that.
> Some pretty nice exactas go by the boards when the
> ROTW
> analyst nailed the winner but didn\'t use the
> favorite
> in the 2 spot.
Rick,
If you don\'t think a favorite can win, why bet him to place (exacta)?
The numbers you cite are general. If you think a favorite can\'t win, using TG or whatever method you prefer, how many times does THAT horse run 2nd?
What you are saying, talking about WPS percentages of favorites, is precisely the type of analysis we are trying to beat. The general public knows this, adds the favorite to many combinations, and the results are an underlaid exacta return.
I went to an OTB on Derby day, the room was loud when favorites were rolling down the stretch. When I was rooting, I was usually rooting alone or with another person or two.
If I\'m handicapping a race, and I like a 10/1 ML horse and he\'s now 3/1, I will pass the race. Even if I think he will win. They won\'t win enough to justify my involvement.
Do I use favorites in exactas? Of course I do. Do I just arbitrarily add them because of some general statistics about being in the money often? No, I don\'t. The horse has to figure on MY handicapping in order to add him to my ticket.
Rick:
You are not the only reader who believes there appears to be a ROTW handicappers bias. The quest to beat the short priced horse seems paramount and detrimental to winning exactas.
Thanks for speaking up.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I use favorites in exactas? Of course I do. Do
> I just arbitrarily add them because of some
> general statistics about being in the money often?
> No, I don\'t. The horse has to figure on MY
> handicapping in order to add him to my ticket.
Same here. I mentioned the percentages for emphasis:
we better have a pretty good reason for tossing the
favorite off the ticket completely.
Just because the horse will be an underlay in the win
pool seems a terrible reason to leave him out of exotics.
Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick:
>
> You are not the only reader who believes there
> appears to be a ROTW handicappers bias. The quest
> to beat the short priced horse seems paramount and
> detrimental to winning exactas.
>
> Thanks for speaking up.
Listen, I love these guys at TG. They are the contrarian\'s
Master Contrarians. That is the highest praise I can think
of for horse handicappers.
Alan posted a $47+ ROTW horse that put me over the top
in the Orleans contest a few years back. I\'ll never forget
that, nor will I ever stop being grateful for it.
I\'m just trying to cash more tickets and maximize profit.
Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick:
>
> You are not the only reader who believes there
> appears to be a ROTW handicappers bias. The quest
> to beat the short priced horse seems paramount and
> detrimental to winning exactas.
>
> Thanks for speaking up.
JB already mentioned the point of the ROTW.
What\'s detrimental to your bankroll is playing short priced or underlaid horses. You can apply to this to any wagering endeavor.
Ask people who religiously wager on big favorites and top pitchers how their baseball bankroll is doing.
As I stated, arbitrarily adding the favorite to your exactas just because they are the favorite may make you feel better when it comes in, but the prices are underlaid because the public overplays favorites in the exacta pool.
There is a difference between winning exactas (cashing a ticket) and profitable exactas.
You may win playing Pitcher X at -170, but do it all year and your bankroll will be smaller. Same with exactas.
Nobody is saying never play a favorite in the exacta. Play them if they have a reasonable chance. Favorites miss the exacta too. If a favorite is a poor wagering choice for the top spot, why on earth would you play him to complete an exacta??
P-Dub Wrote:
----------------------------------------.---------------
> Favorites miss the exacta too. If a
> favorite is a poor wagering choice for the top
> spot, why on earth would you play him to complete
> an exacta??
Chronic seconditis horse comes to mind. One can
profit on quitting rats with the right bet.
Tend to disagree with the idea that favorites
create exacta underlays.
In smallish fields, sure. On top? Mebbe.
Not necessarily so in larger fields, and that goes
double for the underneath.
Venture away from those GG micro-cards and you will
see what I mean.
Fun price on Gentlemen\'s Bet with 4 mtp.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub Wrote:
> ----------------------------------------.---------
> ------
> > Favorites miss the exacta too. If a
> > favorite is a poor wagering choice for the top
> > spot, why on earth would you play him to
> complete
> > an exacta??
>
> Chronic seconditis horse comes to mind. One can
> profit on quitting rats with the right bet.
>
> Tend to disagree with the idea that favorites
> create exacta underlays.
>
> In smallish fields, sure. On top? Mebbe.
>
> Not necessarily so in larger fields, and that
> goes
> double for the underneath.
>
> Venture away from those GG micro-cards and you
> will
> see what I mean.
I NEVER said don\'t play favorites. You\'re missing the point.
Favorites are underlaid in exactas more often than not. If you disagree with this, then fine.
Yes Rick, you can find situations to play the favorite. The point is that \"just add the favorite\" isn\'t a good idea every time.
Good luck to those that arbitrarily play favorites in exactas. Those people create additional value when they run out, and its much appreciated.
I play races all over the country, rarely play GG but they do have some nice scores at times. Just like any track.
Rick
U must have made the hall of fame during the steroid era....
U live in a world where \"maybe\" the favorite is an underlay in the win slot of exacta and NOt in the second slot.
Silly post.
Moving on.
Your horse lost.....
Rob
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I NEVER said don\'t play favorites. You\'re missing
> the point.
And I never said arbitrarily play favorites.
The only points I am allegedly missing seem to be
coming from the things I am NOT writing.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I NEVER said don\'t play favorites. You\'re
> missing
> > the point.
>
> And I never said arbitrarily play favorites.
>
> The only points I am allegedly missing seem to be
>
> coming from the things I am NOT writing.
You haven\'t mentioned when playing the favorite is a good idea either.
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick
>
> U must have made the hall of fame during the
> steroid era....
>
> U live in a world where \"maybe\" the favorite is an
> underlay in the win slot of exacta and NOt in the
> second slot.
>
> Silly post.
>
> Moving on.
>
> Your horse lost.....
>
>
> Rob
I think you all misread Ricks post. He never said to always include the fave. He said that you should not just throw out a legit fave as they more often than not make it into the exotics..in which case he was right as work all week finished second
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick
>
> U must have made the hall of fame during the
> steroid era....
Yes. I was snorting Winnie with Big Brown back then.
> U live in a world where \"maybe\" the favorite is an
> underlay in the win slot of exacta and NOt in the
> second slot.
Yes. Are you implying that this is not possible?
> Your horse lost.....
Yes. Thanks to ROTW, I had the correct horses on top
in my saver exactas, and made a damn nice score in
spite of my horse running SECOND.
(Learn anything today, Rob? Good. You are dismissed.)
You\'re still not getting this. But I\'m out.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. Thanks to ROTW, I had the correct horses on
> top
> in my saver exactas, and made a damn nice score
> in
> spite of my horse running SECOND.
>
$2 exacta paid $16.20
I guess we all have different ideas of what a nice score is.
Agree with JB, some people don\'t get it and I\'m done with it too.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $2 exacta paid $16.20
>
> I guess we all have different ideas of what a nice
> score is.
What, you think I had this for only a fiver or something?
I played the race correctly, to a profit. I guess I don\'t get it.
And if Work All Week didn\'t run second, you and several others
here would be jumping all over my ass.
Stop, already.
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > $2 exacta paid $16.20
> >
> > I guess we all have different ideas of what a
> nice
> > score is.
>
> What, you think I had this for only a fiver or
> something?
>
> I played the race correctly, to a profit. I guess
> I don\'t get it.
>
> And if Work All Week didn\'t run second, you and
> several others
> here would be jumping all over my ass.
>
> Stop, already.
Whatever Rick, Congrats for hammering a chalk exacta.
I didn\'t know this forum was all about celebrating 7/1 exactas.
Silly me.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re still not getting this. But I\'m out.
I\'ll listen, some other time when you have time.
But I am not independently wealthy, so I have
little use for academic theory that doesn\'t result
in parimutuel profits.
This business of using the favorite in lesser spots
is not something I cooked up this afternoon. For a
little bit of wagering capital, I protect and routinely
turn a slightly bad outcome into a money winner.
So...maybe I can peek ahead to the last page of the
book: is it about being exactly correct in your handicapping?
Or is it about playing to a profit?
I choose profit. I can\'t buy a damn thing with dogma.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > P-Dub Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > $2 exacta paid $16.20
> > >
> > > I guess we all have different ideas of what a
> > nice
> > > score is.
> >
> > What, you think I had this for only a fiver or
> > something?
> >
> > I played the race correctly, to a profit. I
> guess
> > I don\'t get it.
> >
> > And if Work All Week didn\'t run second, you and
> > several others
> > here would be jumping all over my ass.
> >
> > Stop, already.
>
>
> Whatever Rick, Congrats for hammering a chalk
> exacta.
>
> I didn\'t know this forum was all about celebrating
> 7/1 exactas.
>
> Silly me.
Now you are being silly. The two best horses ran 2-1,
without a sweat. Just how much *should* that pay? $20? $30?
And I am not celebrating so much as I am simply defending
myself from this \"Rob\" newbie / goober, who decided to come
out here and try to piss in my Post Toasties. Sorry, I\'m not
having it.
Jeezus.
You have a bad habit of setting up straw men so you can knock them down. The only one who mentioned dogma was you.
That\'s the end of this conversation. You were way out of line with the goober comment. Don\'t do it again.
Rick
I have forgotten more about this game than u will ever know.
Based on your ability to comprehend simple concepts, I am guessing this isn\'t the only topic u are likely to be \"challenged\" about.
Maybe u have good looks? Can\'t have everything.
Rob
Enough.
Okay, I see this thread went really wrong about here but I still think there might be some interesting points to discuss here if one stick to the topic,
P-Dub writes:
\"If a favorite is a poor wagering choice for the top spot, why on earth would you play him to complete an exacta??\"
Why couldn\'t this be a legit approach in a race like this where the favorite is almost sure to run his race that will put him right up there, while it\'s still more likely that at least one of the contestants would run the even bigger figure it would take to win the race? I see that one reccommended here to box the three horses that had bigger numbers in them and hoped that two of them would fire enough to beat the favorite who sure was overbet for the win, and that could well have been a good strategy. Still, if one do the math, is it really a superior bet to do just that than to for example play those three horses in the win spot with the \"overbet\" favorite alone in the 2nd-spot? And you could and probably also should weigh this bet so that it best represent your true opinion of who you like best on the odds to get up for the win.
I guess what I\'m saying is that it does seem a bit dogmatic to automatically assume that chosing the option with the favorite in 2nd is such a horrible bet compared to those where you toss it completely, specially in this case where that favorite is extremely likely to run his race while getting two of the more \"unstable\" ones to fire seems to be asking a lot, given the way those sheets look. My guess is that probably, in the long term, those two bets wouldn\'t fare so differently and I guess it comes down to a lot of other factors as well, like how comfortable you are with going on long losing streaks etc.
I can\'t really see that either of those approaches, as a rule, would be \"a sure way to bankruptcy\", because I don\'t really think that this game really can be reduced to such rules anyway.
I kinda like to look at the sheets and the way to use them for coming up with selections as a dance (cheeky I know) as much as anything, where a lot of feeling, intuition etc comes into play and where the whole point is to try to get the pieces to fall into place perfectly, for every single race you\'re playing. If what you like about a race is that the favorite will be overbet for the win given that there are a few horses in the race that on their very best could be able to beat him fair and square, however you don\'t really see that two or three of them would be able to because they don\'t run that good often enough, then I can\'t really agree that it would be a sure way to go bankrupt to construct your tickets accordingly.
The simplest way to answer this is that if you have to use an odds on favorite in the exactas you shouldn\'t be playing exactas, you should be betting to win or multi-race bets. The lone exception would be if you are playing a COLD exacta. Sure, you can cash some that way-- but the diluting effect it has when you hit one of the other exacta combos makes it a losing proposition. It either will have a negligible effect helping you, or you will have to bet enough to seriously dilute the other ones-- take your good results from 5-1 on the race to 5/2, something like that.
A play-- win, exacta, whatever-- is either an overlay or it is not. The idea that because a horse has some chance to come in is not a reason to use it-- if you think it has the same chance as a horse 5 times the price you should NOT be using it. Not underneath in exactas.
There are other situations where a horse CAN be an underlay in the win pool but usable. If I like a 20-1 shot, think he should be 6-1, I can use the favorite over him IF THE EXACTA ITSELF IS AN OVERLAY, independent from the win price. That\'s what betting software does.
Anybody who posts again on this string had better be on point and not calling anyone names or they\'re going on sabbatical. And for the larger picture, there\'s something in the Archives about What Do I Like About This Race. If you understand that you\'ll understand this issue.
DaveDuggan
If I believe a \"favorite is almost sure to run his race and be right there\", then I probably don\'t have him as a bet against.
One of the reasons this thread went off the reservation is that somebody posted a comment about \"another ROTW where the favorite is tossed for no reason\" or something along those lines.
The favorite in this race was 3-5 and The 3rd fastest horse in the race, at his top. He was coming off a layoff and spotting weight to faster horses, which was mentioned more than once. He was a \"name\" horse, having won one of the slowest BC sprints in recent memory (making him a further underlay) A TG negative 1 usually doesn\'t win that race. So, relative to his chances to win the race, he was overweight in all the pools. The question becomes how to bet against him. ROTW author tried to get two horses to beat him, as they liked the 1-2-5. So a vertical bet was recommended. Personally, as I posted pre race, I didn\'t like the 2. That left me with one in form horse, the 1, and one horse who was fast but had spotty form (the 5), he could win but if he didn\'t win, he could also be off the board. I chose to play horizontal using only the 1 and 5.
As the race played out, the 1 was much the best, and the 3/5 shot ran relatively poorly, but the 5 didnt Fire and nobody else was good enough to fill out the exacta.
As the multi race payouts showed in the pick 4 and pick 5, beating the 3/5 shot was ok.
As for other posts about making a \"score\" on the race with the exacta, let\'s look at the math. If u liked the favorite, and played him on top of ONLY one horse, and then reversed it for half as much, u got 3/2 on your money. If u used more than one horse and did that u got paid less than even money. No \"score\".
The game is too hard and the margin for error is too great, to make bets like that, no matter what u read here, or anywhere else.
Good luck
Rob
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for other posts about making a \"score\" on the
> race with the exacta, let\'s look at the math. If
> u liked the favorite, and played him on top of
> ONLY one horse, and then reversed it for half as
> much, u got 3/2 on your money. If u used more
> than one horse and did that u got paid less than
> even money. No \"score\".
Only, that is not at all what I did, so this is
a strawman.
I had Work All Week singled in all of my P4\'s. The
only exactas I made were savers with WAW in the 2nd
spot, essentially a place bet so there was no need
for me to have WAW on top.
I have similar view. If you have an edge to win on a solid overlay why reduce your expected value by using an underlaid favorite in second. Just stick to the win. Maybe play a smaller size saver straight exacta with favorite on top of your strong overlay pick if you think the fave is the primary threat to your top choice. That\'s a better play then a place bet.
Rick,
I mean this in as civil and respectful A way that I can muster. Your post inadvertently proved the point that I (and TGJB) were making.
U singled a 3/5 shot in your horizontal wagers, then backed up your 3/5 shot by playing him underneath in underlaid exactas, so u could effectively have a place bet on a 3/5 shot. (Your words, I wouldn\'t call it that, but not a big deal)
Who that pays 25 bucks for sheets, to look for angles the public MAY not see, plays 3/5 shots to place?
Who knows what to even root for in that situation. That race was the second leg of the pick 4 and 3rd leg of the pick 5, so do u want to be alive in a multi race bet or cash an underlaid exacta?
U made a bet where u can\'t really get paid off, at least in a way that most would call a score. (I venture to say that most that read this broad don\'t consider going dead on all horizontals to cash a saver exacta that was an underlay as a score)
When I bet a football game I am laying 105/100 or 108/100 depending where I bet it. So I can try to \"grind\" a profit. Horse racing has so many more variables and dimensions the gambler can\'t take even odds or 8/5 and anything like this. We have to get paid off when we are right at dramatically higher odds than things like betting 3/5 shots on top and then protecting under a 2-1 shot.
To put it another way, I wonder how many people would be interested in reading the ROTW if the suggestion was \"stand with the 3/5 shot in all horizontal wagers, but protect in exactas under the other two logical winners....
Rob
Cheers for the input and it\'s sinking in slowly, anyways, in this scenario where there were three horses that could run big enough to beat the favorite but it was unlikely that two or three of them would you would rather play those three horses to win or box them in exactas? Because I would never bet three horses to win, then I would rather take a stab at one of them. And I also like to play cold exactas, specially when favorites are involved. I guess the best way to use this race would be what Ringato did, to just play it horizontally and use it to get a 3/5 favorite beat. But I also wouldn\'t shrug at Rick\'s approach which was to use the favorite in the 2nd spot as a saver in some exactas.
I do understand where you\'re coming from TGJB when you\'re saying that a bet either is an overlay or it is an underlay, all though I have to admit it is a difficult concept to come entirely to piece with given that we never know when it actually is an underlay or overlay. I think what I struggle with, and I guess I still have to improve upon this part of my thinking, is that in a type of bet where many people play many combinations you could still get value by playing really focused (i.e an cold exacta, or maybe even a weighted wheel where you take a stab with one combination and settle for less with one or two other combinations).
Another tough concept for me is to only use a horse I like horizontally, I guess I always want to capitalize on my opinions as much as possible but maybe in that way of thinking end up doing the opposite, in the long run, I guess that\'s just a flaw in my money management which I also would have to improve upon to get closer to conquering this great challenge of beating the races..
Dave,
There was no \"right way\" to bet the race.
I truly believe the \"right way\" is to structure a bet that reflects YOUR OPINiON on a race, factoring in value.
For the ROTW author, they felt 3 horses could beat an underlaid 3/5 shot, so for THAT person a vertical wager makes great sense. For me, there were 2 horses that could beat the 3/5 shot and 1 was an \"all or nothing\" type (win or off board), so vertical was out and horizontal the way to go.
The reason I was critical of ricks wager is that if I single a 3/5 shot in horizontal wagers, which I do fairly often, then my OPiNION is that he is a horse i am comfortable standing with. For me to then turn around and play him underneath other horses is a contradiction to my initial opinion. I can \"protect\" price horses with saver exactas, but boy, protecting 3/5 shots with saver exactas is a rough way to bet.
Rob
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who that pays 25 bucks for sheets, to look for
> angles the public MAY not see, plays to 3/5 shots to
> place?
Not me.
There was some value in the exactas, if you could
be certain that you got the likely upsetters down
to a few. I felt that the ROTW did just that.
Where we parted company was on what to do with Work
All Week. I\'ve been on his bandwagon since almost
his first race...gave him out to everyone I know
for the BC Sprint last fall (when TG didn\'t even
have him as a contender).
I\'m ahead on this horse for life. I can make plays
like I did yesterday on a very select group of horses,
if they are as solid as Work All Week. Most 3/5
shots are not.
> To put it another way, I wonder how many people
> would be interested in reading the ROTW if the
> suggestion was \"stand with the 3/5 shot in all
> horizontal wagers, but protect in exactas under
> the other two logical winners....
The private comments I am receiving indicate that
I am not alone in altering the ROTW suggested bets.