Congrats HP, but I'll take real money anytime

[Friendly]

Oh well, just another day on the TG board.

Jerry, Jr.

[TGJB]

David, you\'re the kind of lawyer that gives lawyers a bad name. Congratulations on any scores you might have made, although I don\'t think you have a lot of credibility with anyone who has been following your posts. On the \"IRS ticket\" thing, the question is what kind of return you get on the race. You and Friedman spread out a lot (even when keying short price horses like Personable Pete), and a $1000 return on $200 is no different than a 4-1 win bet.

As for Sarava, I personally know 3 TG players (including one in this office, not me) who bet him to win (mostly savers), and he definitely looked better on TG because of the forward movement (and possibly his top relative to the others). For that discussion (and a lot of others) I will wait until both sets of Belmont day sheets are posted, with the numbers run that day in all races.

[superfreakicus]

hey, I was at the otb, and a guy I know showed me his winning ticket --- I think he usually bets on horses w/the same name as his cat.

I also knew a guy a few years back who told me he bets every horse in the race (no joke) --- I\'m sure he had it too.

nice work, everybody.

[Michael D.]

Where is the guy who had the win bet on Sarava? I thought he won this thing easily. And superfungus, I did beat you by a small amount, but we will need the battle of Saratoga to determine the real winner. And DP, just turn off your computer for the rest of the day, it was a real bad performance.

[Alydar in California]

David Patent wrote: \"There\'s been a lot of trash talking by a couple people on this board (not by you HP)and I\'ll be glad to photocopy my W2s for you Alydar if you doubt me...\"

David: I have very little interest in message-board handicapping contests, and I did no \"trash talking\" about who would win, who would lose, or who was a better handicapper than who. Why did you write this?

What I did do was write that your comments about figure-making were idiotic. I also wrote that you were inept, that you contradicted yourself constantly, and that you didn\'t have the slightest idea what you were talking about. And now I would like to add that you are a complete disgrace. Plever has been topped by a cretin who will say anything, no matter how imbecilic, if he thinks it will hurt another man\'s business. You are sickening, David. Go back and read our old exchanges, the ones you said you didn\'t want to go over because you didn\'t want to lose your son. If you have an ounce of conscience or intelligence, your words will sicken and embarrass you.

[Mall]

And maybe if you had a better understanding of the game you wouldn\'t ridicule the winner because he \"only\" made two bets. And maybe if you had a modicum of skill you wouldn\'t be so frightened of the possibility of entering a contest where, gasp, real money & actual wagering was involved. And maybe if you were a man of your word you would have disappeared gracefully by now. And maybe if you weren\'t a cyberpunk who has nothing to offer other than snide comments,etc,etc.

[Alydar in California]

And then Superfreakicus was run over because he unwisely got between Patrick Morgan and some free sheets.

[Anonymous User]

I know its stupid for me to even speculate, but stupidity has been following me around the last couple days. But Jerry Jr. can\'t be Jerry Brown\'s son. The acorn never falls that far from the oak.

[Anonymous User]

I didn\'t really mean that. I\'m just in a foul mood again. It happens when I lose.

[superfreakicus]

bring it oooooonnnnnnnn, buttercup!

we\'ll keep running and separate totals.

ps

I\'m not sure if sarava fan won --- I didn\'t add his entry, but the $28 to win isn\'t clearly better than nunzio\'s bet on it\'s own.
I think nunzio had $500 to win on 4-1?

[superfreakicus]

\"And maybe if you had a better understanding of the game you wouldn\'t ridicule the winner because he \"only\" made two bets. \"


well, we\'ll see which one of us has a better understanding of what they\'re talkin\' about.
there aren\'t any impartial judges around, so I\'ll settle for a very partial one.
HP can decide the case --- just because he\'s partial, doesn\'t mean he\'s dishonest.

HP:
my understanding of this contest was that it was to be an exchange of handicapping selections --- a comparison of different approaches to the card.
personally, since there was no real prize, I would add that it was for the fun of comparing picks.

I am in NO WAY denigrating nunzio\'s entry --- I encouraged everybody to participate, and they should all go their own way.

HOWEVER, I ask HP\'s HONEST opinion:
between nunzio and myself, which of us do you feel more embodied the spirit of this contest as you intended it.
(go check my entry, if you haven\'t already)

I believe nunzio\'s was:
$500 to win apple
$500 to win gyg (or whoever)

if you can\'t give an honest answer, you can always simply decline.

again, congrats to nunzio, and if he only wants to pick one horse next time, god bless him.

[JRL]

A couple of comments about some of the inane comments that have been posted.  It is true that professional handicappers give picks the day before and that is how they are judged.  But anybody who listens to professional handicappers is an idiot.  Why do any of you bother buying the sheets if you are concerned about what a professional handicapper thinks?  The point is that the sheets are tool to do well at the track.  Regardless of what anyone posted in the handicapping contest, the sheets were invaluable that day.  

The handicapping contest only allowed the betting of $1,000.  Obviously, DP keyed Perfect Drift in the contest because he did not want to blow half his money on the Belmont.  But if you believe that an even money favorite is going to run out of the money, but have no strong opinion on the other horses, then you should be willing to spend a lot of money to make a lot of money.  On the sheets, Sarava had a good pattern, but was a little to slow to be competive.  Any sheet player who says he was the most likely winner in the race is probably lying.  But I considered him to be the only horse in the race with a positve pattern, and I often bet horses who are not the most likely winner if the odds deserve it.  Sarava at 70-1 definitely deserved it, as did MDO for that matter.  I thought Perfect Drift was the most likely winner, but at 5 to 1, there were better bets in the race.  That is why pre-race handicapping contests are stupid and certainly not a test of the quality of the respective sheets (Even though I did post a contest entry because everyone else did, I was on record as saying these contests are stupid before the race.  This day confirmed that).

As both DP and I have said on different occassions on this board well before this contest ever arose, the ability to throw out horses is at least as valuable as the ability to pick winners, and often more so.  JB\'s comment about ROI is pretty lame.  A $15,000 tri and a $145,000 super (eminently hittable if you were willing to spend the money) will make any ROI look good.

I love how people always say that a horse \"would have won\" if he only had a good start.  Touch Gold would have won the Preakness a few years ago, but for his bad start.  He ran a huge race despite his almost fall, which was worse than WE\'s, and almost won.  Touch Gold then came back to win the Belmont.  WE stumbled and then ran like the bounce candidate he was, and I will be surprised if see him running again anytime soon.  So, he only would have lost by 10 lengths if he had not stumbled.  Big deal. Only Secretariat has ever run a good Belmont off of a pattern similar to WE\'s pattern (actually, I should say similar to Secretariat\'s Derby and Preakness, Secretariat had a much stronger pre-derby pattern than WE), and as we now know, WE is no Secretariat.

Look, just about everyone did pretty badly in the handicapping contest.  There were many important scratches and one race was taken off of the turf, wich rendered any contest results suspect to begin with.  Maybe some of you spent the time to handiap each race for scratches and surface changes, but I doubt most spent the time.  Further, declaring victory because you lost less money than the other guy is kind of lame.  If any of you took the results of this handicapping contest as evidence of what sheets to buy, then you deserve whatever choice you make.

If you don\'t want to believe DP, fine.  If you think it is tacky to post about hits at the track when you made picks ahead of time, fine.  But if any of you think the Ragozin Sheets were not effective on Belmont day, then you guys are even more myopic than I thought.  Personally, I can\'t tell you whether the TG sheets were also effective, as I have not seen them and the handicapping contest certainly told me nothing.  I will be interested in comparing them when JB posts them.

[Mall]

It\'s like comparing what amateurs & professionals talk about after a round of golf. One group talks about how far they hit the ball & what clubs they used, & the other talks about the only thing which matters in golf & horseracing, final score. My point, which I\'m not surprised was lost on you, was that the overall approach Nunzio took in the contest is much more likely to result in a long term positive roi, which in the end is all that matters.

[HP]

Supe, I don\'t know what \'embodied\' the contest means. Nunzio employed his betting strategy and won. That\'s part of the deal. I can\'t make the argument that the way you chose to play was inherently in the spirit of the contest, and Nunzio\'s focused win bet approach wasn\'t. Maybe you should reconsider your attitude a little bit, as this sounds a little like sour grapes, and given your results you should have had nothing but a positive experience, both here and at the track. It would be great if your posts could reflect that.

If I can give you an HONEST opinion, when the game is over and you lose, the thing to do is show some class, congratulate the winner and see if there is something of value for you to learn from his performance. They taught me this in Little League, and maybe it\'s time for you to learn.  

Nunzio has class all the way, and if you can\'t learn anything from how he bets, maybe you can learn from how he posts.  

I think Nunzio\'s performance provides a valuable lesson and it will have some impact on my approach. Money management and maximizing your wins is as big a part of this game as handicapping. I think I need to focus more on win bets (when I get my price) and use exotics to support them as opposed to my current approach which is doing it the other way around.

Jason, I have to wonder who you are talking to. I don\'t think I\'ve seen one post that said the Ragozin SHEETS were not an effective handicapping tool in this challenge or any other day. I posted as much on their board. I can only imagine what tune would be sung if Patent had trounced me in the contest.

As for your other point, quite a few people had a positive ROI in the contest, and despite your comments, I think it does have value and reflects in a positive way on those involved. It tells me that both products can be used with some effectiveness. I wasn\'t looking for an either/or scenario, where Rags or TG would come out ahead. If anything, I think the challenge demonstrates that other factors (i.e., betting strategy and personal views of handicapping) may have as much of an impact as the product you happen to use, which should quiet some of the more vocal partisans on both sides.

For example, Nunzio took a certain betting approach and he took a more favorable view of Gygistar than I did given that horse\'s last big race. If this tells you \'nothing\', I have to wonder what you\'re looking for. HP

[Michael D.]

\"I often bet horses who are not the most likely if the odds deserve it. Sarava definitely deserved it, as did MDO for that matter. I thought Perfect Drift was the likely winner, but at 5-1, there were better bets in the race.\"......   Another guy who bet Perfect Drift BEFORE THE RACE, then has Sarava and MDO as the best bets AFTER THE RACE. I especially love the \"definitely deserved it\" confidence for Sarava AFTER THE RACE. My friend, there were at least four on-line polls BEFORE THE RACE that gave us all a good indication of the odds. Now help me understand this, are you saying that you did not like Sarava at all on top when you thought he would be 50-1 or 60-1, but if you had only known that he would be 70-1, then the horse \"definitely deserved\" to be bet on top? Please stop this nonsense. I realize that \"day before\" handicapping contests do not prove a lot, and I am sure if we did it again next week, you could beat me and everybody else. I do, however, have a favor to ask for next time. If you are going to back away from your PRE RACE selections, and claim you loved the winners AFTER THE RACES, don\'t bother getting involved.