I would definately be interested to hear what you think about Hollywood, as it is one of my focus tracks for the time being (don\'t ask why, it\'s a long story).  I don\'t use TG for it yet, but I handicap the card and make personal odds lines for my contenders every day which get generated from a computer program I wrote and then adjusted after I look at the card.

CC

To figure out exactly how much was bet would require knowing all the payout changes, but here is a rough estimate of what it would take to move a DD pay from 130 to 54.

What we know:
Total early AQU DD pool -- $201,700
AQU DD Takeout -- 17.5%
Payout change on 3-1 -- from 130 to $54.

Now we just have to work backwards and figure out what the pool was before the bet.

In the end of the 201,700, about 166,402 gets paid out.  If the payout is $54 per ticket, then that means about 3081 winning tickets potentially.  

A little linear programming or simulation (thank goodness for Excel), you can work back to see that before the bet, the total pool would have been roughly 198,050 or 163,392 after takeout.  This means at $130 per ticket, there were about 1257 tickets.

3081 minus 1257 is 1824.  So if no othe combinations were bet on (obviously, not realistic), it would take about 3650 to move the payout from 130 to 54.

With other combinations obviously taking action as well, the number would have to be even bigger.

CC

Classhandicapper,

Good post.  As someone who made his living as a Wall Street analyst and then as a mutual fund and hedge fund manager, I agree completely.  The biggest move forward for me (and I would bet for most) was the day I moved away from being selection oriented and became value oriented.  

I could ramble on with discussion forever, but I will spare all!  Good stuff.

No Edge, No Bet!

CC

Can\'t wait to see the article and the discussion that will arise from it.  Here\'s a related article from Steven Roman\'s web site with \"Thoughts on the Decline of the Modern Thoroughbred.\"

http://www.chef-de-race.com/articles/thoroughbred_decline.htm\">

Derby,

With regards to Frankel, good points all.  I tried to throw out a different explanation, and you \"figuratively\" destroyed me!  

Point taken,

CC

Catman,

My long rambling post\'s conclusison was that if you are trying to determine which is \"best,\" it doesn\'t make sense to compare one or two specific examples.  It does make sense to compare specifics to try and figure out which is good or bad at what.

As far as which I plan on using, I haven\'t used either enough to make a good decision.  The only thing I have figured out is that probably either would be better than what I have been using.  I have until the end of the year to make a decision as I have a January 14th tentative start date for my first full year of full time thoroughbred investing.  That\'s why I am trying to soak up as much as possible from you guys here on this board, so that I can learn as much as possible.

As far as how BC day actually went, I had fewer winners that I can remember, but had by far my best day ever mainly because of exotics.  My whole day was primarily tied arouind four longshots:Ashado, Touch of the Blues, Cajun Beat, and Bien Nicole.  Three of the four helped to cash enough in the exotics to have a great day.  

I would say though, that my girlfriend who knows so little about racing that she asked me if it was against the rules to bet more than one horse per race, had the best day of all in terms of winners.  After listening to me tell her about big payoffs in the past (Arcangues and Volponi), she passed her normal $2 across the board strategy, and bet $2 to win on every horse that went off at greater than 10-1.  OUCH, 5 winners!  Adoration, Cajun Beat, Action This Day, Johar, and PP. So much for comprehensive handicapping!

Interestingly, and related to this discussion of Sheets vs. TG, I have used both, but have used neither for a long enough time to brag on, or bitch about, either.  In the past, I have always made my own numbers, and even at times used either the Beyer numbers, the Brisnet numbers, or others from many sources.  I could do this effectively since I in the past, have only used speed numbers and pattern analysis within the framework of a comprehensive handicapping attack where different factors get used more or less depending on the type or race.  That being said, I have been trying to figure out which of the big two I want to use on a go forward basis.  For the entire week of the BC, I invested at the track with three handiappers whom I respect immensely and try to learn from every time I\'m with them.  One of them would rather not get up in the morning if he didn\'t have his TG numbers. The other two bag on my first friend every time we are together since they have been Raggies since the dawn of time I think.  

As the post above pointed out, I had the same experience on BC day as the raggies couldn\'t believe some of the bets my TG friend was making (and cashing many).  But what the earlier post didn\'t say, which I experienced many many times over the week, were the times where my TG friend was almost puking over how bad the raggie bets were, and guess what, they cashed many as well.  Just as they both laughed at a number of my bets (which thankfully, many were cashed).  The point is that as JB has said, every methodology of fig making is going to have its strengths and weaknesses, and the key is to understand the framework you are working within.  Even if you put two TG users together, they probably won\'t make the exact same plays usually.

This is what keeps the parimutuel market happy and healthy!  

I have in the past made made my living managing mutual funds and hedge funds, and I have seen the same thing with stock market professionals.  Just because someone makes a bad (or good) investment doesn\'t mean they are bad (or good) investors.  The key is to make sure the framework is sound, then find value for your decisions, hopefully becoming a consistent winner over the longer term.

Sorry to be so long winded, but just figure I would add my two cents worth; well maybe 1 1/2 cents worth anyway.

CC

With regards to Frankel, here\'s another possible explanation for his poor record in the BC. I\'m not saying whether I believe it or not, just throwing it out there.

There are about a gazillon graded races throughout the year.  Maybe, he is just better than most at spotting his horses.  Obviously, money is not an issue when thinking about where to ship.  If he is better than everyone else at picking his sports, then that would explain his amazing record througouth the year.  But the BC is a different animal.  There\'s no ducking anyone there.  Everyone points for it (except Perfect Drift, haha), and the races are much higher in quality with regards to the depths of the fields.

Just another thing to think about,

CC