Maybe no Analysis is Better

Maybe JB is making a mistake by providing the analysis to begin with. I would have guessed that anyone willing to pay $25 for speed figures would probably already have plenty of handicapping experience and  insight. Maybe learning how to use the sheets should be a seperate exercise.

I always read Jerry\'s analysis because I think he\'s an excellent handicapper, but it rarely, if ever, sways my opinion.

I think the numbers were excellent and some of the horses identified as possible value were horses that were worthy of taking a better look at.

I think it was certainly possible to come away from the day with profits (I did) using the figures even though I didn\'t capitalize on one of the longshot turf winners that was \"gettable\".

One day in a horseplayers life is like a blink of an eye. Again, the figures were excellent. It just happened to be a day where some favorites that were probably underlays won and a hard to get (for anyone) bomb took the juvenile colt race.

[TGJB]

In general, there are 2 levels of products, 3 on BC day. The \"analysis\" is for those who don\'t know how to use the data themselves, which we encourage everyone to learn to do-- those picks are made before we have a lot of information, like track condition (which may have made a difference in the turf races-- I\'ve never given out a dead rail on grass, but I\'m going to take a good look at it). On this particular day, there was other info we didn\'t have at the time I had to make the picks regarding trainers and shippers, as well-- decisions a handicapper could make for himself during the day. The seminar comes for free with the data, twice a year, and for someone who is doing their own handicapping should be more interesting (and possibly more useful) than just picks.

The \"blink of an eye\" comment is dead on. Unfortunately (in this case), there are a couple of times a year when everyone is looking at my eyes. Worked out better with War Emblem and Volponi, but those were also blinks, and that\'s the way it goes.

JB,

>I\'ve never given out a dead rail on grass, but I\'m going to take a good look at it).<

I didn\'t notice anything, but I knew I wasn\'t betting any of the turf races beforehand so I wasn\'t paying much attention. :-)

I know some people that pay very close attention to when the rails get moved in and out because the turf tends to get beaten up -especially after rain. Moving the rails in or out can make some paths fresher and different than the beat up sections.

So I\'m pretty sure turf biases exist.

[Delmar Deb]

According to the Lone Star Track Superintendent on the air that morning, the turf \"rail\" - or the inside 3 lanes - were being used for the first time all meet.

Most likely, the grass was thicker, higher and perhaps softer as it is unlikely that it had not been \"rolled\" or run on. Comments from some of the trainers who walked the course on Thursday indicated that the turns were still soft, and there was another 1/2 inch of rain late Friday-early Saturday am.

Because of the \"first-time inside\" angle, I specifically looked for Europeans and American horses who liked yielding that figured to stay or be on the rail most or part of the way, figuring that it would help them run their best numbers. This also made Star of the Bay an absolute throwout for me because he had never run on anything other than firm and I thought the inside would be extremely tiring for him (even though he is a Cozzene and should like it off).  I also thought Prado would tuck in, but I knew that the F&M race started on the far turn and it would be a miracle for him to be able to be anywhere near the pace with that handicap.  On the other hand, JR excells at inside stalking or pace trips on the turf, and from the two hole he figured to be right there.

However, I did not bet the race because when OB went to 3/5, I knew that the English books were unloading as they had already stated that her win would kill them.  Some of the books actually stopped taking bets on OB the Wed prior to the race.  And since the inception of the filly/mare turf race, the English books have been dead-on in that the winner has either been the favorite at the start or the close of the antepost betting - although OB closed as the heavy fav she was not the original one...that honor belonged to Wonder Again - who perhaps with a different post would beaten OB.  And if the English books still thought WA could pull it off from the 12 hole, they would have left OB at 8/5 rather than driving her down to 3/5.



Post Edited (11-01-04 19:49)

[HP]

Dead rail on the turf?  

I don\'t see one horse that ran in the top three in the turf races that didn\'t figure to handle a soft or yielding course.  On the other hand, I threw out a few who figured to have a tough time with the yielding conditions.  Especially Special Ring!  I read an interview on Sportinglife.com (thank you Delmar Deb) with Michael Dickinson and he was emphatic that he thought Special Ring wanted very firm ground and I think the PP\'s made that pretty clear.  He went off well above the M/L.  

I think yielding turf hurts front runners big time as well, but this is another debate.  In any case it looks like you could make the argument that the soft turf had more of an impact than any dead rail, and I am sure my opinion will have a huge influence on your decision.  

My \"trip\" memories of these races are fading, but I\'m pretty sure Film Maker ran on the inside and hung in there pretty well...  I tabbed her trip as \"against the bias\" in the sense that she was one of the few grass entries that looked like she pressed/stalked the pace and was still there at the end (as opposed to the Turf where they chased down the loose leader SOTBay).  

HP

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Delmar Deb wrote:

> However, I did not bet the race because when OB went to 3/5, I
> knew that the English books were unloading as they had already
> stated that her win would kill them.  Some of the books
> actually stopped taking bets on OB the Wed prior to the race.
> And since the inception of the filly/mare turf race, the
> English books have been dead-on in that the winner has either
> been the favorite at the start or the close of the antepost
> betting - although OB closed as the heavy fav she was not the
> original one...that honor belonged to Wonder Again - who
> perhaps with a different post would beaten OB.  And if the
> English books still thought WA could pull it off from the 12
> hole, they would have left OB at 8/5 rather than driving her
> down to 3/5.
>

Deb, interesting theory. I\'ll be sure to keep it in mind for next year and I\'d be inclined to wager right now that I will overcome this \"trend\". My belief is that as soon as you identify a \"trend\" that runs counter to probabilities without an objective reason for doing so its time to bet against a continuation of that trend. I see no reason to suspect that English bookmakers and bettors should indentify a favorite as the winner in this race with any more frequency than any other race. As a matter of fact I\'d think they\'d be less apt to identify such a winner in such a race on a course with configuration like  Lonestar Park. I did pass this race however.

CtC



Post Edited (11-01-04 21:52)

[Delmar Deb]

The fact is that it has not always been the raceday ontrack favorite in the FM turf who was either the early or late antepost favorite over there ...there was a filly that Bailey rode for Jimmy Toner who was 7-2 here on BC Day.  

The part about the favorite only comes into play (for me) on any BC race when they stand to lose big enough to wipe out all profit if a certain odds-on antepost horse wins, and if they dump their bets on the American tote driving the prices here down but assuring them of at least some return - as was the case with OB.

[spa]

    I always use the analysis. I\'ve been betting the horses for over 45 years. I understand the numbers.
     Saturday was the single worst day betting that I\'ve experienced. The disaster was compounded by multiple wagers. I had three bets that almost hit at boxcars.
   Thorograph and the \"posters\" have made me alot of money. Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you. Cowboys don\'t cry.

[P.Eckhart]

I\'m sorry, but you are quite wrong about the british bookmakers\'involvement.

[jimbo66]

DD,

I will be nice and call your post one of the most ridiculous comments/betting angles I have seen in a while.

Two points:

1.  Oiuja Board \"drifted down\" no more than many other favorites on Breeders Cup day, in fact, less than some.  For example:
Ghostzapper from 9-2 to 5-2
Ashado from 7-2 to 2-1
Nothing to Lose from 7-1 to 7-2
Midas Eyes from 8-1 to 7-2
Favorites often drift down, even moreso when you have a string of them winning like we did on Saturday.

2.  Much of the bookmaker\'s liability (at fixed prices) was in the 3-1 to 5-1 range, based on Oiuja Board\'s declared preference for the Turf.  Later in the week, the price was slashed, but much early liability was at higher odds.  A bookmaker doesn\'t put up 6 times as much at 3-5 to \"hedge\" bets he is paying off at 3-1!!!  Nobody in the world does that.  Sorry.  In the US where bookmakers are paying track prices, you see them \"laying off\" action, but when you have to up 6 to 10 times as much as your liability, that isn\'t \"laying it off\", that is what is commonly called \"throwing good money after bad\".

[Delmar Deb]

The \"liability\" at 3-1 to 5-1 was in the Turf, not the F&M Turf.  When the decision was finally made to go in the F&M turf she was already odds-on.

[jimbo66]

Deb,

I had her at 5-1 to win the F&M Turf with Stan James.

Unfortunately, a very small bet, which didn\'t cover my other losses on the race.

[Delmar Deb]

That was a great bet!

No wonder you threw her out at 3-5...just like the TG raceday analysis did!

However, Stan James is not one of the sites that covers with the American tote.  And there was no need to cover the early plays at your odds on OB because the big houses could handle those payouts.  It was the ones that flooded in the last few days before the antepost was closed when her odds were less than even, and then some books actually closed off the betting on her.

If you read the articles from Coral\'s site, you\'ll see what I mean.

In any event...congrats on your selection and payoff!

[shanahan]

one last comment...I agree with classhandicapper that Jerry is an excellent handicapper...a few comments on why people (like me) will pick up the comments rather than the sheets - trust his judgement (which is why I asked that the author of the analysis be included), no time to handicap a card if I am just going for one race and want to reinforce something I see in the form (or not), and am willing to pay th epremium based on that trust.  I too, have won more using the sheets than the analysis, but have ideas on how to use the analysis - make it a small premium to the sheet purchase and include it.

[gowand]

I use both the sheets and the analysis purely depending on whether I have the time to handicap.  Was in Las Vegas a few weekends ago and knew that I would be betting sports and not focusing on the horses but I wanted some action, so I bought all 3 available analysis and had an ecellent day. Used the sheets on BC day and got killed.  There have been plenty of days when I have done well with the sheets and when redboarding the analysis see no winners.  It is always better to pick your own horses but if done right it can sometimes be too time consuming.