So much to work with. so little time...

[TGJB]

Back from a weekend away from the office (and a computer), to find Lucy/Soup/Raggie Dave in full spin mode, and lots of stuff flying around the Rag board. I\'m going to be catching up today so I may not have time to get into everything (and this weekend was loaded, you guys have no idea unless you looked at both sets of sheets for the Haskell), but I\'ll try to get to it all before I head up to Saratoga later this week.

1-- To Indulto-- yes, it\'s that George White, and the reason we didn\'t make a big deal about it before is that GW didn\'t want me to. Given what followed his post, you might guess why, especially since (as he said) he doesn\'t think I should get as involved as I do with combatting the garbage. But even saintly George has been driven to distraction by what he has seen, and felt compelled to reply.

So Indulto (and others), you are having a hard time reconciling George\'s long time affiliation with us with the image you have of us. Check your premises.

2-- We have made it clear before, and Jimbo had it right-- the ROTW is a device with which to teach people to use the data, all of it, and at this point there is so much that it is intimidating to newcomers, which we are going to have to address. As such, we don\'t make picks in ROTW-- but we do in the analysis for the race which is the ROTW. Actual picks, that can be determined to have won or lost. For example-- in the Diana I didn\'t like the favorites. I don\'t remember my play, but it lost-- down one unit. In the Whitney, I gave out a 4 horse box that ran 1-2-3-5. I didn\'t specify which pools to go into (different players have different resources), but if you played $2 exactas, tris, and supers it cost you $120 (24+48+48), and you got back $603 (78+525), a return of 4-1. Plus 4 units-- see how simple that is? And by the way, we gave out specific plays that gave us the exacta in the Jim Dandy exacta on a 2 horse box (9/2 return), and the Haskell tri on a pretty tight play (win bet on Pies Prospect, exacta under LH, tri part wheel LH/3 horses/PP-- return depends on how you weighted it, but I got about 8-1).

Now, LF did have the Whitney winner on top. But here\'s the question, which I have raised before-- what was his play? We know he liked the horse at 12-1, but was the horse a win  bet (before the fact) at 7-1? This, by the way, is why we give minimum odds requirements for win bets in the analysis. Was his play diluted by exotics? Ask yourself this-- if Seattle Fitz had won and RIM run second, would Friedman have been given credit for a hit? In point of fact, given how many horses LF says to use when discussing a race, does anyone think he got 7-1 on this race, or anything like it?

Soup, it is nice of you to bring up the boxing-against-the-favorite thing again, and not just to confirm it was you (since absolutely every other individual who has ever come here gets it, as do you-- but you seem to think the readers here are morons). No, it\'s good because you once again allow me to bring up the race you are referring to, the 02 Derby, one of my favorite memories. That day, in the 20 (?) horse field, I put together a group that made a weighted 7 horse tri and super box, since we didn\'t like the favorites (including Harlan\'s Holiday, Friedman\'s pick in the race). We put in (by memory) $2,600, and took out about $108,000 (a buck on the super which paid 180k for $2, $2 on the 18k tri). Plus an awful lot of units.

If I\'m wrong and you really don\'t understand, see if you can get someone to explain the leverage and thinking behind that play and the one in the Whitney. If you still don\'t get it, I suggest you stop playing horses.

Anyway-- you said you were going to check out the Haskell in ROTW. Hope you liked it. More to follow on that beauty later.

[Lucy]

I thought I was alydar......?
cyberstalker.

thanks for reminding us about your cicadian scores, and I hope you will be honest enough to continue posting your rotw boxes so that we don\'t short you on your returns.
just so we can start this out right --- how many horses did you box to get snookie in that tri?

I DID indeed check out the haskell......

lion heart -
\"all in all, most likely winner\"

snookie -
\"a bounce is likely\"

pie -
\"has a chance to win it outright\"

rock hard -
\"likely to get a check...underlay on top\"


so, sorry if you feel I slighted you by not posting this one up.
I certainly offer you a hearty congrats on tabbing the 9/5 winner and doping out the 4/5 fav as an underlay.
I also offer my condolences to len on his 40-1 key running to it\'s odds.
looking forward to what\'s following that \'beauty\'.

ps -- george

I hope you can see how he is goading me into these kind of posts.
I think he\'s like one of those kids that craves negative attention, because it\'s still attention, and they can\'t get their fill.

edit:
also, if I might quote one of my previous posts:
\"you guys like to make every horse in the field a contender, and play lottery boxes so you can post up that you \'HIT THE TRI!!!1\' \"



Post Edited (08-09-04 14:45)

[TGJB]

I had just amended the previous post to make clear the answers to what turned out to be your \"points\", specifically about the Haskell play. Boy, you think people are dumb-- you think that by selectively excerpting from something they have all read (ROTW is still up) you\'re going to sell them something?

There must be a political campaign somewhere that can use a man of your talents.

[mandown]

Hi Lucy,

You\'re right about the craving attention thing - just not sure you got the right person, though. I don\'t want to be an enabler so you\'ll hear no more from me on this.

Byeee

George

[Lucy]

george,

not to dispute your earlier claim, but I have no idea who you are.
HOWEVER, if you were associated w/the racing times I would offer my sympathies, as I was one sad customer when you guys closed shop.
I would have no way of knowing, but I\'ve always liked to imagine that you guys were pivotal in getting the drf to clean up it\'s act, a bit.
so, in that respect, the racing times still lives on every time I pick up a drf that isn\'t full of typos.

r.i.p. racing times.


ps -- jerry

I\'m not the one pushin\' product around here...


edit:

as you have posted a great many times reminding us that you don\'t have time to post, I was going to ask george for clarification on this one, since he seems to have the stronger math background, anyway.
now that he has bowed out, maybe you want to field it --- that is, if you\'re not too busy to keep track of the half dozen, or so, posts flying around here.

\"in the Diana I didn\'t like the favorites. I don\'t remember my play, but it lost-- down one unit.\"

1 race = 1 unit???

so, can I assume that the \'one unit\' consists of a 4 horse tri, exacta, and super box for each race?
just asking so I can figure in the diana, along w/next week\'s.
are we also playing 4 horses in the win pool, because I don\'t want to shortchange you on lion heart?
if next week turns out to be a 7 horse box, just let us know in advance, so the calculations are legit.

*tees up football*



Post Edited (08-10-04 02:55)

[mandown]

OK, Lucy, I\'ll take the bait just once more. You write:

\'not to dispute your earlier claim, but I have no idea who you are.\'

If you don\'t want to dispute something then don\'t. And why use a perjorative term such as \'claim\' if you\'re not disputing the statement. And what sort of a world do you live in if you think I\'d fabricate something like that? You\'re judging others by your own standards again.

Still at least we now know for certain that you are Souper - there can\'t be two of you so mean of spirit in Chicago.

George

PS: Glad you liked the RT. Most of the innovations we introduced - Beyer, enhanced horse, trainer and jockey stats etc - are now to be found in the DRF, of course. We always liked to think we had attracted the more intelligent end of the market. You\'ve shattered another of my illusions.

[TGJB]

Lucy-- first you are the only one in the history of the board not to understand the concept of using a box against favorites for leverage, now you are the only one not to understand the concept of units. I\'m starting to wonder if you actually bet on horses... in fact, it now occurs to me that all your posts have been snide attacks, and you never have put yourself on the line with an opinion in advance, let alone a specific play, as we do with the analysis every day. Is that because you don\'t know how to handicap, or don\'t know how to bet, or because you don\'t have any confidence in your opinion?

In any event, some remedial Betting Strategy 101. A unit is whatever you usually bet on a race. If you are a $100 a race bettor, your unit is $100, and you would divide up the play to come out to $100-- for example, if the play was a win bet and an exacta under 2 horses, you might bet 60 to win and 20 on the exactas. If the horse won and paid $20 you would get back $600 for a profit of $500, or a profit of 5 units (5x100). See how easy that was?

In our analysis, we grade the bets B, B+, etc. This serves two functions-- first, it allows the player to adjust his unit for the strength of the bet-- B might be a single unit play, B+ a double unit. Secondly, we often give minimum odds requirements-- if a horse is a B bet at 4-1 or more, he could be a B+ at 6-1, etc. A case in point was the Haskell-- when they made RHT odds-on and Pies Prospect over 20-1, it became one of the best betting races of the year, and I bet accordingly (about 4 units).

Point is, when you keep score of you can use any amount as a unit that gives you enough room to bet a decent number of combinations-- I used $120 in discussing the Whitney yesterday here for that reason. In point of fact, I got a much better return on that race-- I would never bet as much on supers as on tris, and I don\'t play 4 horse exacta boxes unless the horses are long (not enough leverage). I played a $15 tri box and a $5 super box, and ended up getting about 10-1 on my play when the tri hit. Having said that, I would also have downgraded the strength of the race when they failed to overbet Peace Rules like they figured to. It was a single unit play.

Follow all of that?

[Lucy]

\"... in fact, it now occurs to me that all your posts have been snide attacks, and you never have put yourself on the line with an opinion in advance, let alone a specific play, as we do with the analysis every day\"


well, that\'s certainly not true.
if your memory\'s that poor, maybe you should try to get in the habit of talking less.
usually, it\'s best to have some knowledge of a subject when offering one\'s opinion.

[TGJB]

That, I guess, would be yet another example not of a snide attack, but of you giving an opinion in advance on a race? Was the rest of the stuff also over your head?

As for the need to have knowledge when offering an opinion-- lets talk boxes and units...

[Lucy]

\"If you don\'t want to dispute something then don\'t. And why use a perjorative term such as \'claim\' if you\'re not disputing the statement. And what sort of a world do you live in if you think I\'d fabricate something like that?
Still at least we now know for certain that you are Souper - there can\'t be two of you so mean of spirit in Chicago.\"



I don\'t know if that one line merits all this discussion, but the \'claim\' I refer to was your line: \'everyone knows who I am\'.
although, I have no idea who you are (george white means as much to me as mandown), I\'m perfectly willing to accept the fact that I may be the sole exception, and so will not refute your claim.
lighten up.
I\'m beginning to think all you brits really do have sticks up your asses.



\"PS: Glad you liked the RT. Most of the innovations we introduced - Beyer, enhanced horse, trainer and jockey stats etc - are now to be found in the DRF, of course. We always liked to think we had attracted the more intelligent end of the market. You\'ve shattered another of my illusions.\"


heh...you\'ve shattered my illusion.

[Lucy]

as far as \'the rest of the stuff\' goes, I don\'t really see what there is to discuss, but apparently you\'re not so busy today, and maybe looking to kill time?
the statement:
\'I don\'t remember the play, but it was a loser - down one unit\' is certainly subject to ridicule.
if you have a set amount that you bet on each race, I\'m sure it makes perfect sense to you, however.
what day do you guys pick the rotw?

ps

where\'re steve, dave p, and hp --- did they swear this place off, or are they banned?

[TGJB]

HP and Patent are not banned, Plever was and I made the mistake of letting him back on-- I assumed your tag was a reference to his nasty spin attempt of a few weeks ago.

By the way, what George meant was that he had identified himself, not just that he had a credible body of work in this industry. And heheh is so you.

[Lucy]

\"assumed your tag was a reference to his nasty spin attempt of a few weeks ago.\"

what??

and yes, I think it\'s pretty clear what george meant, but thanks for belaboring the point for us.
has the racetrack really soured you people so badly?