Barry?

[Michael D.]

Step up my friend.

You have something to say ??

TG turf figures are not \"sketchy\" and made \"out of thin air\" .......

[Barry Irwin]

Congratulations to one and all, especially Jerry and to those who cashed.

I don\'t know how anybody could come up with the winner, considering that he\'s already lost at least one race in his life.

Amazing!

Houdini is quaking in his grave, the poor bastard.

[P-Dub]

Cmon Barry.....You usually post many intelligent comments.  Now you sound like a poor mans CTC.

Shakespeare was listed as the most likely winner.  It was Galantas, at 30-1 ML, that was listed as a must use in exotics.  He hit the board and made for a very nice tri and super.

TG turf numbers speak for themselves. I\'ve hit some of my biggest scores using TG turf figures. But nobody ever said that the ONLY way to win is by using these figures.  I have a good friend that never uses them, but routinely hits turf races. There\'s more that one way to handicap a race.

Your record speaks for itself, but so does TGJBs.  Isn\'t it possible for both of you to have success despite using different methods??

[stillinger]

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cmon Barry.....You usually post many intelligent
> comments.  Now you sound like a poor mans CTC.
>
> Shakespeare was listed as the most likely winner.
> It was Galantas, at 30-1 ML, that was listed as a
> must use in exotics.  He hit the board and made
> for a very nice tri and super.
>
> TG turf numbers speak for themselves. I\'ve hit
> some of my biggest scores using TG turf figures.
> But nobody ever said that the ONLY way to win is
> by using these figures.  I have a good friend that
> never uses them, but routinely hits turf races.
> There\'s more that one way to handicap a race.
>
> Your record speaks for itself, but so does TGJBs.
> Isn\'t it possible for both of you to have success
> despite using different methods??

I have a stupid newbie question on these last two races of the week.
It\'s obvious that the figs are superior and I asked Barry in fact last week
to review if possible a horse named Rebellion for an example of a decent priced winner on the turf that I don\'t see any other way to get with out JB\'s #.

While it\'s obvious that Jerry  generates figures that are invaluable for bomb gimmicks, being an old pace oriented, spot player, a dinasaur if you will, it seemed to me that Dreaming of Anna was dismissed an underlay with no regard for her front dominance and that while Shakespeare was \"the most likely winner\", coming from as far off the pace as he would on a track that had been carrying speed, with Grabby Gomez, at a distance that is not his best, around one turn for the first time, he was dicey. I did finally bet since he held at 2/1 until after I had bet, late, but thought that a skinny deal, and while I posted here that I liked Kip Deville second, and though he would throw a 1 at least, the exacta was too thin I thought to play.

From people that are inclined to spread and tackle supers, trifectas, etc.,and having heard JB mention his own p6 play, I wonder does anyone but me still care about value on the front end, unless it\'s student council or one of his ilk? Take pity on a old guy that lives so remotely and in such a flag waving are of the coutry I have lived here for over 4 years after moving from Tahoe and told no one what I do in this office all day. So, a lonesome old man. Looking for the off chance of a little indulgence here, EVEN THOUGH I USED TO DO BUSINESS downtown and should know I will get a little run for the sad assed way this sounds.

You guys have ruined win betting.
not quite kidding.

Evolution killed dinasours,too

[Michael D.]

Barry Irwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congratulations to one and all, especially Jerry
> and to those who cashed.
>
> I don\'t know how anybody could come up with the
> winner, considering that he\'s already lost at
> least one race in his life.
>
> Amazing!
>
> Houdini is quaking in his grave, the poor bastard.



Jerry gave out the $937 super. He had the 21-1 3rd place finisher solidly in the picture, and tossed Becrux at 7-1 and Art Master at 6-1.

You didn\'t put much thought into that post, now did you Barry?

[Sandie]

Funny posts here.  See both your points: the ease of picking favorites (though I can\'t do it yet).  But sitting them in with the next 3 contenders, now that\'s a pricey feat.  Wish I cashed.  

Let\'s all try to get along until at least until the Breeder\'s Cup where I plan on cashing my own SUPERS, with the help of you all.  esp. the great Barry Irwin (Team Valor !!) and that Jerry guy.  Oh, and my own handicapping abilities that I\'m honing on this site.  

thnx.

Sandie

[stillinger]

Sandie,
I am sure you read this in the form, but just in case,
one of our TEXT BOOK authors is quoted as saying:

\"I favor a comprehensive kind of handicapping in which success depends more on understanding the realities of the game than on memorizing rules. I absolutely deny that there is such a thing as the marvel that players so often wonder about, \'The Most Important Factor in Handicapping.\' I insist that no handicapping factor is more important than the others. That assertion disappoints a good many people, which is understandable. But the perfectly logical truth is that all handicapping factors are interdependent. You cannot get the most from one of them without considering it in relation to the rest. To take a factor out of context and make a stand-alone big deal out of it is to plunge into the abyss . . . of suckers who buy miracle systems that promise vast riches to anyone following three simple rules.

\"There are no miracles in the endlessly fascinating game of handicapping. But it is a game in which a little sense goes a long way and a little patience and self-control carry you a lot further. Stick around. We\'ll have some fun here.\"

Tom Ainslie
Sandie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny posts here.  See both your points: the ease
> of picking favorites (though I can\'t do it yet).
> But sitting them in with the next 3 contenders,
> now that\'s a pricey feat.  Wish I cashed.  
>
> Let\'s all try to get along until at least until
> the Breeder\'s Cup where I plan on cashing my own
> SUPERS, with the help of you all.  esp. the great
> Barry Irwin (Team Valor !!) and that Jerry guy.
> Oh, and my own handicapping abilities that I\'m
> honing on this site.  
>
> thnx.
>
> Sandie

[TGJB]

Barry-- the result of that race is besides the point. Michael taking you up on your ridiculous comments and my response to your earlier post are not, and you did not assress any of the points.

You use Ragozin, and apparently have no idea of the differences between the way TG and Ragozin make figures, especially on grass. I have written about this several times, including one detailed post about turf figures that fkach might be able to find.

In general, our approach is similar to the one TimeForm uses. Ragozin is much more dogmatic, as he is in all things.

[fkach]

There are a lot of relevant TGJB posts in the archives. Anyone that is interested in figure methodology can locate a bunch of them easily and quickly that way.

Here are a couple I found quickly.

I am not sure if they are the most complete discussions.  


http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,12156,12204#msg-12204

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,25550,25575#msg-25575

[Sandie]

That was a great read skip & thnx.  So many variables, as I\'ve learned in the past when I thought I had it handicapped to perfection only to have a %$&^ come out of nowhere.  But the more good/solid info you have, the more you can go with what feels like your gut at the time.  And ultimately its what we all want to do, I think from the novice to the pro: go with our gut and WIN !!

thnx.

Sandie

[stillinger]

Barry,

I have weighed in on this issue, and up to now, expressed a sincere appreciation for both the difficulty of making numbers for the turf as you stated, AND how well it is done here. In the race you criticize, Shakespeare\'s win in CAN, Jerry\'s summary  was that the horse was the likely winner. In my opinion that is in fact not a \"favorite\" pick and there the story only starts. The horse is going to get bet, no matter what, because as you say, his record draws money. But to leave him on top, around one turn, and given that the traffic was considerable, was in fact a professional statement. Many public consultants would have dismissed him as you have, simply BECAUSE he was obvious, but while OBVIOUS, it wasn\'t easy at the distance and knowing they really want the BC, to stay with him. The commentary about Kip Deville was insightful, and pointed me to believing he would throw a big number, and Galantas was heavily suggested when a ML of 30/1, something I would never do on my own, as I don\'t play gimmicks very often.

As other posts have mentioned and matching my experience, solid looking mid range horses were eliminated for reasons that are verifiable if you saw the races, Art Master, Becrux, for instance. I don\'t think you could argue you got a pretty good trip in CA, and failed. So did Art Master.

If what you might mean when you say \"from thin air\" implies the use of judgement, you would be right. That\'s one of the things people pay consultants for. I am sure that many people have made use, and profitably, or your own. To not notice or acknowledge Jerry\'s work on the turf seems almost petty, and I know that can\'t be true, so there must be something I don\'t understand here.
skip

Barry Irwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congratulations to one and all, especially Jerry
> and to those who cashed.
>
> I don\'t know how anybody could come up with the
> winner, considering that he\'s already lost at
> least one race in his life.
>
> Amazing!
>
> Houdini is quaking in his grave, the poor bastard.

[fkach]

I don\'t see this particular ROTW as requiring much discussion. IMO, thinking Shakespeare was the most likely winner didn\'t require any speed figures at all. However, the rest of the race analysis was excellent because of its value to exotic players and obviously deserves kudos.

[stillinger]

You warm my heart, and my dominant Right Brain;
Jerry says it\'s a game of %, and that\'s what we buy
from him. To win, I agree, and I am not kidding,
while risking as I do the ire of a Male Dominated, Logic driven
board, with what Sandie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I think
> from the novice to the pro: go with our gut and
> WIN !!
>
> thnx.
>
> Sandie
It takes both hemispheres, profit to make and maintain.
Left and Right. Data and GUT.
What do we think Jerry uses at the last
minute when he lets a BIG VISIBLE number fly? His biocomputer
and I don\'t blame him for denying it, if he does.
That\'s why the thin air thing slays me. Everyone can add.
And everyone has a computer. The icing is not the cake,
but it makes it one. Gut, girl, you said it. Guts too, I
might add. That\'s the boy part. People accuse us of sin,
if we don\'t win, the B-Belt being what it is now.

[TGJB]

Still-- first of all, if \"we\" have ruined win betting, it\'s because we\'re in the win pool, which answers your own question.

If you go to the Archives section you will find my suggestions for how to play races involving different situations. Too many people apply cookie-cutter approaches, always looking for a horse to bet to win, or always looking for a longshot to key (Julian), or always playing pick 3\'s or tris whether the situation calls for it or not. I don\'t know whether Friedman or I said it first, but that really doesn\'t matter-- the idea is to have your bets express your opinion, which is not as simple as it sounds.

For last week\'s ROTW there was clearly no significant value in betting anyone to win, though you could have made a case for keying Galantis at the price. But my real opinions on the race (as expressed in the \"Bottom Line\" of ROTW) were a) Shakespeare was strong, and b) there were some horses that were going to be on a lot of exotic tickets that didn\'t figure to get there. What I did myself was make tri and super boxes of all the live ones, then come back heavy with Shake on top in tris, supers and exactas. I got about 11-1 on my total play, much better than the win price, and I could have cashed the race without Shake winning.

This week\'s ROTW features a similar, but more extreme situation, as you will see. It\'s unlikely the right play here will be a win bet.

Check out the Archives section.

[stillinger]

I dont\' agree with this, as to make him 2/1 around one turn at 8f
isn\'t easy as I already stated. If he doesn\'t get through, everyone
looks stupid. If this looks that obvious, there are favorites that will
fool you, or cost you the ability to top only them. Obvious, not easy to
only take in the top slot. Although that\'s the public opinion, not based on
all the facts. Gomez wasn\'t kidding when he said, I thought maybe the distance
was too short.
fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t see this particular ROTW as requiring much
> discussion. IMO, thinking Shakespeare was the most
> likely winner didn\'t require any speed figures at
> all. However, the rest of the race analysis was
> excellent because of its value to exotic players
> and obviously deserves kudos.