Numbers on closers

[billk5300s]

A couple of weeks ago while wagering from \"living room downs\", I was listening to the \"handicappers\" on TVG.  I don\'t remember their names so bare with me.  One of the regulars often refers to TG and is by far the most knowledgeable.  They were debating about graph numbers being misleading for closers.  The opinion was based on the fact that closers are more likely to lose ground while passing tiring horses.  I understand that the final number is based on more than just lost ground but ground loss is part of the formula.  Do any of you factor in or take off points for closers or simply toss them?  The reason why I ask is that I know a lot of players who will only bet speed but don\'t know of many who key on closers because of the likelihood that they will have traffic problems.  Would love to hear opinions!!!  Thanks and Good Luck to all!!!!

Bill

[Tavasco]

billk5300s Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of weeks ago while wagering from \"living
> room downs\", I was listening to the \"handicappers\"
> on TVG.  I don\'t remember their names so bare with
> me.  One of the regulars often refers to TG and is
> by far the most knowledgeable.  They were debating
> about graph numbers being misleading for closers.
> The opinion was based on the fact that closers are
> more likely to lose ground while passing tiring
> horses.

This idea is not limited to closers. All else being equal,  A TG 5 will beat a TG 5 which loses ground. That ground loss could occur while trying to wrest the lead up front or passing horses outside back in the pack. To generally claim that a TG # is misleading is to not really understand the composition or to pollute the analysis with some other idea. IMHO.


 I understand that the final number is
> based on more than just lost ground but ground
> loss is part of the formula.  Do any of you factor
> in or take off points for closers or simply toss
> them?
 
Remembering the TG sheets & methodology do not designate horses as leaders or closers the concept of same comes from another handicapping discipline. That said, doesn\'t it make simple sense to project those contenders that are expected to lose ground.

The reason why I ask is that I know a lot
> of players who will only bet speed but don\'t know
> of many who key on closers because of the
> likelihood that they will have traffic problems.

Restricting one\'s investments exclusively to front runners, from post position # 1, with the leading rider and trainer could be considered an approach to picking winners. However, for many of those that frequent this board the delusion is to earn a profit. The guys you mention, I assert, will have touble in horizontal wagers, vertical wagers, turf and route races?
 
> Would love to hear opinions!!!  Thanks and Good
> Luck to all!!!!

Back to the TVG discussion. The argument of early speed in relationship to TG #\'s has been around for years. I believe, most today utilize a hybrid approach. Keeping things simple has merits. Handicapping horse races profitably is anything but simple. The agenda of specific TVG\'s commentators is anybody\'s guess. They are paid to say something.

>
> Bill

[Bet Twice]

A big number earned due to a wide trip can said to be \"ground loaded\" (which would be fairly common for a deep closer)....not necessarily fast in terms of the timer but fast when the extra ground is taken in to account.  There is a school of thought that believes that such a number is not as legitimate as one earned without losing ground and would therefore downgrade the performance.  I never quite understood that position but have seen some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board (Miff for one) allude to it.