"Overlay at 1-9"

[marcus]

difficult to say what the race looked like on rags , based on the TG #\'s that Al posted , that horse is indeed remarkable - but  a caution sign goes up when evaluating the pattern .  

[TGJB]

DJ-- so you would have (or did) go down with Friedman on the horse at 2/5?

Tmon-- people don\'t claim off Dutrow because they know they won\'t get the same efforts. And that\'s one of the problems in taking a short price on one of his horses-- what if he didn\'t move them up that day? (And by the way, take a look at what his last fast track effort was).

[diamond-joe]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DJ-- so you would have (or did) go down with
> Friedman on the horse at 2/5?
>


   I\'m sorry, I\'m sure you\'re talking to me but I don\'t know what you\'re responding to. I didn\'t play that day at all. I don\'t know what he looked like on The Sheets, but he looks like a freak on Thorograph, if you were looking for my opinion. I don\'t play horses at those prices unless I think I\'ve got a bomb to hook them up with, but based on the race posted here, I probably wouldn\'t have expected him to be beat by 15. What was your opinion of him before the race?

[TGJB]

DJ-- as I\'ve said before about this, he was the most likely winner (meaning more likely than any other horse), but not a bet at a short price, let alone an \"overlay at 1-9\". I looked, in fact, to check the price on the horse that ended up winning, thinking Friedman\'s horse would actually be 1-9, and I might get 10-1. I didn\'t bet him at 6-1.

The larger issue concerns giving out horses like that, because a) there\'s very little upside, and a lot of things can go wrong, making the margin for error very small, and b) as Richie Scwartz used to say, what do we know that the public doesn\'t? In fact, there were things the barn could know that we and the public might not, in this case, and they were all potentially bad-- as bearing out in the race shows, using one example.

I\'m out of here for the weekend, golf and Springsteen in Jersey.

[diamond-joe]

......I don\'t play horses of this price unless I can hook them up w/some serious value, which seems to be the approach Len also advised. I read Len\'s post, as well as going through a few of the previous week\'s ROTW\'s, and frankly, I don\'t see that you have much room to criticize, but I understand you have a competing product to sell. Looked to me like a fun stab Len took for Father\'s Day that looked like a walkover on Thorograph. After all, you can afford a few misses when you give out a $170(?) Preakness exacta. I hope nobody will lynch me when I pick my first loser.
     Have fun at the golf course, and hope it isn\'t inappropriate to discuss a competing product on your board. Thanks again for posting the race.

[fillway56]

IF U GOT THE WINNER PLUS 2\'ND & 3\'RD THAT\'LL WORK

[TGJB]

On the contrary, there is a long tradition of Raggies coming here, and it always ends up the same.

Keep looking through those ROTW\'s. When you get one where we said a horse was an overlay at 1-9-- or even that a horse was the right play at odds-on-- let me know. We intentionally pick races where we are pointing out something DIFFERENT than the public sees-- you won\'t find one.

Len did not give out an exacta in the Preakness, or any other play, BEFORE the race. Or, to put it another way, he gave out LOTS of exactas, as he does every time he makes a list, checks it twice, and says more than half the field should be used in exotics. With each other? With just the horse listed on top? In tris? Supers? Hmmm...

His ANALYSIS of the Preakness was good, saying the winner didn\'t have that good a chance to repeat, but was a bet at 10-1 or more. Mine was to take a position against Barbaro, but I also made a small win bet on the winner at the ridiculous price, for the same reason. The problem for me was the third horse.

[TGJB]

DJ-- By the way, I liked your \"fun stab\" comment. \"Overlay at 1-9\" means close to 100% to win-- that\'s a stab? And \"fun\", as in, they take play money at the windows at Monmouth?

As for looking like a walkover on TG, as I said before, a little more price and I was betting the winner, so no. But that\'s not even the point.

For the fourth time-- it\'s not just that the horse lost. It\'s that Len gave out, as a lock, a horse that every public handicapper and everybody with a DRF could have come up with, without sheets. And by saying it was a lock he encouraged everyone to empty out on it-- fun stab my $*#&.

[miff]

The winner of the 4th at Belmont was coming off the X rail.Dutrow off good spacing, signature works, dead rail in last and 8-1.Sometimes slower fig runners have other big angles going in.


Mike

[bellsbendboy]

Hope you had him Mike.  The rail at Churchill, last Saturday, Stephen Foster day, was also dead. The track maintenance report for that day had the word \"conditioned\"; any idea what that means?  BBB

[miff]

Bell,

I had  a modest win bet, but lost him in the pick 3 and 6,no big result.As far as \"conditioned\", I can only imagine. It goes to my gripe about race track management not having a clue as to what followers of the game want to know.It\'s like pulling teeth to get certain info and you would think management would want to inform all players as much as possible.

Bell, I\'d pick up the phone and call Churchill(track super) to find out what it means.

Good Luck,
Mike

[diamond-joe]

  Jerry wrote,
 

\"As for looking like a walkover on TG, as I said before, a little more price and I was betting the winner, so no. But that\'s not even the point.

For the fourth time-- it\'s not just that the horse lost. It\'s that Len gave out, as a lock, a horse that every public handicapper and everybody with a DRF could have come up with, without sheets.

Keep looking through those ROTW\'s. When you get one where we said a horse was an overlay at 1-9-- or even that a horse was the right play at odds-on-- let me know. We intentionally pick races where we are pointing out something DIFFERENT than the public sees-- you won\'t find one. \"

(Can I use HTML code here?)
test

   This is what it sounds like to me, based on this quote and your previous posts:    after the race, the winner was your pick out of the rest of the field, as far as finding a horse to beat the chalk, but you would have needed 10-1 to play this pick to beat that chalk. Have I understood you? Frankly, no offense, but you\'d have a little more credibility on all this if you had posted your criticism of the post and analysis of the race prior to it\'s running rather than jumping on after they hit the wire, especially if you claim it\'s not about the horse losing. Also, it doesn\'t sound like you gave that chalk much chance at being beat.

   Was that invitation to go over the ROTW\'s legit, or simply hyperbole, because as a guest here, I think this has already digressed a little too far into Rikki Lake territory, and maybe we should just end it here? In case it was an actual invite, I saw you remind someone here about your successes in the ROTW, and you mentioned the Arkansas Derby, so I\'ll start with that one:

Overview – Lawyer Ron (paid $3) is the most likely winner, but Steppenwolfer (3rd choice) is the value, and solid for the exotics. Exacta paid $13.80.

    Out of all the races that weekend, you chose this one. Not only is this exactly what you accuse Len of doing, giving out plays that every public handicapper has without Thorograph, but you even felt so good about the $13 exacta that you wanted to remind someone about it.

    However, in the Honeymoon ROTW at Hollywood, you delivered the promise which you made earlier by playing AGAINST the public. You played against the 2 favorites (who ran 1-2) and your most likely winner was up the track.


    Don\'t get me wrong on this, I\'m not trying to beat you up for a bunch of bad picks, or poor results, I just find it odd that someone with this kind of record would stick his neck out on a post lambasting someone else for not cashing a race. Hope you\'re enjoying The Boss, and maybe you can address some of this when you get back on Monday.

[diamond-joe]

Len did not give out an exacta in the Preakness, or any other play, BEFORE the race. Or, to put it another way, he gave out LOTS of exactas, as he does every time he makes a list, checks it twice, and says more than half the field should be used in exotics. With each other? With just the horse listed on top? In tris? Supers? Hmmm...

Buzzards Bay - ...he is a contender...

Seek Gold - Non-contender. (winner)

West Virginia is competitive.

there a lot of reasons to think Cosmonaut may run well. (ran last)

Wiggins - ... makes him a contender.

M B Sea - Non-contender.

Perfect Drift may get a minor piece of this

Brass Hat - Contender.

Love of Money - At the weights his top would make him competitive.

hmmmmmmmm...........

[diamond-joe]

Bottom Line—Stream Cat is vulnerable favorite. He concedes weight to several faster
horses and although he has a good pattern and could win, he an underlay and worth
taking a shot against. Second choice Go Between is solid but shows a tendency to run
wide and could do so again from the outside post. Third cho ice Kid Deville is fastest, has
speed, but enters off a big top and has distance questions. Fourth choice Showing Up is
somewhat of an unknown. Frankly we have no strong convictions as to a winner, but in
this situation, where the first four all exhibit some vulnerability we're inclined to hunt for
prices. Outperformance, Can't Beat It, Roman Dynasty satisfy this pursuit and I'm going
throw in Prime Diamond for a little piece because at times I'm irrational.

  = I have no opinion. Top 4 may or may not run, and I\'ll use 4 others.



hmmmmmmmmm........

[TGAB]

Now that\'s me you\'re talking to. And I think it\'s pretty clear what I\'m doing.