richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC:
>
> The man gives you the sheets for the ROTW GRATIS
> every week, yet your posts contain the usual
> "Chucklespeak". Where's your TG based analysis?

You want TG analysis on that Five horse card?....are you serious?...lol I think TGraph picked it thinking Scrappy was gonna be vulnerable going in. Hard to back that position. He did scratch though, so maybe they were right. You TG analyze it for us. Its only five horses..I'll bet even you can get close to that one. :)

> Great point yesterday about the lack of betting
> value in turf races. If you bet $2 on EVERY horse
> that ran on the turf at Belmont Saturday, I
> believe you came out a winner.

I'll stick by the lack of betting value in turf racing position, though yesterday's belmont card was interesting. There was a lot of burnt money on some of those high odds winner races. It wasn't mine, but I may have got close to the MSW big payer if I was foolish enough to wager on turf. Bad day yesterday Richie?...mine wasnt :)

Later: Did a quick TGraph Red Board on the off chance there might be statistical merit to your Belmont 7/16 rebuttal.

1st-winner at 15-1 decent back numbers on year layoff.

4th-40-1 winner. This is the type of race I was referring to where Turf can be wagered upon. The winner didn't figure on TGraph, he certainly did on breeding and first effort.

8th 26-1 winner. I don't think this horse figured a lick on Tgraph. But you're free to draw you're own conclusions.

The Mig on an almost 5-1 winner also occured. Don't find that out of bounds so didn't bother red boarding that race.

You're rebuttal was thoroughly rebutted on the red board unless you like one year layoff cheap animals...lol

lol



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2005 09:39AM by Chuckles_the_Clown2.