Order Online |
Complete Menu of
TG Data products |
Customize a Value
Package of Select
TG Data |
Order The Last Figure for Any Horse |
Free Products |
Download and Review previous days' data. |
With detailed comments |
Email notification when your horse races |
Information |
For newcomers.
Samples and Tutorials |
Consulting services and Graph Racing |
Where to buy TG around the country |
Historical
races and handicapping articles |
Handicapping |
Major handicapping contest winners |
|
|
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1000 Views)
Posted by: SoCalMan2 (IP Logged)
Date: March 21, 2006 08:57AM
Dear Basket777
Fair point. I also appreciate you making arguments rather than just saying I am stupid. While I understand what you are saying, I still believe my play is a case of what using the sheets is about. One of the beautiful things about horseracing is that reasonable minds can genuinely differ.
Here is what my thinking was --
First, you cannot really say whether the "0.25 h?" was a regression due to (a) the "h?" and (b) the fact AOT a young 3 yo. If there is ever a time you are saving a horse for a later race it is now.
Second, these are top 3 year olds. Sure horses bounce, but high quality three year olds early in the season are much less prone to bouncing to many other times of year and circumstances.
Third, I did not think the numbers he had ran were so beyond the pale huge that a bounce was inevitable....he is a horse that has never reacted (or only had just reacted to the negative number by a fraction of a point if you disagree with my reasoning under my first point). At seminars, Len Friedman use to always say he does not give a horse a reaction until the horse gives you one first. In my book, AOT had never given a reaction. On a horse like AOT it was hard to really say what a baseline is for judging when a jump up is just too much. If you ascribe to your theory, you have to throw out Like Now. He had reacted to an "11" as a 2 yo and was coming off a "2" just a few months later. I am not saying that Like Now was a throw out, I am just saying that these sorts of horses run their numbers a lot and it is not a good time to be applying normal bounce theories (although i was doing exactly that with Keyed Entry....although in my view the circumstances with KE were different...also I did not throw him out...i just made sure that he would not ruin an otherwise good ticket if he came in the super with a nice price horse).
Fourth, my play was not 8-5. I did not bet him to win. I bet superfectas trying to get a better effective price because the sheets told me that some good prices could come in underneath (and some short horses might not run). If you do some research, you can find that you can get some very nice supers with 8-5 shots on top as long as the field is large and you have some big price horses coming in underneath.
Fifth, normally, the trainer change would give me pause, but with this particular owner and this particular trainer, how do you know what to make of it? I just assumed it was par for the course drama with them and whoever the trainer is would be irrelevant. I think I recall reading somewhere that Amonte (or Paragallo) had basically been the trainer since December anyway.
Sixth, while passing the race may have been the best call, I think a player (who had no reason to think that AOT's foot was warm or that the exercise rider had said he was not himself on the Friday) who wants to make a play has to take a position on AOT. Either he runs his race and wins easy over these or he runs out. I was certainly not comfortable with throwing him out. I was tempted to pass, but thought there was a very good chance that the Super with him on top could pay well.
Look, the results are what the results are, I lost. If he was not already injured before the race, I lost fair and square and I have no beef with that. It happens all the time, and my bet assumes it would lose more than two thirds of the time anyway. I do not think it is fair to say that a person is not using the sheets correctly if they use a heavily favored horse in the first position. I think the sheets are about looking for value and I think that this sort of play does tend to produce value. If you and others disagree, then that is fine. It just means the inefficiences that I seek to take advantage of will not be corrected by the marketplace. In any event, I do appreciate that your comments were in a reasoned form, and I believe that this is something on which reasonable minds can differ.
SCM2
Gotham (1579 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/17/2006 09:07PM |
A little more on the Gotham (1263 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/18/2006 11:45AM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1056 Views)
|
spa |
03/18/2006 01:05PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (944 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/18/2006 02:17PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (947 Views)
|
richiebee |
03/18/2006 02:37PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (922 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/18/2006 02:49PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1012 Views)
|
richiebee |
03/18/2006 03:09PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1064 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/18/2006 04:14PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (982 Views)
|
Michael D. |
03/18/2006 05:08PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (969 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/18/2006 05:17PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (982 Views)
|
richiebee |
03/18/2006 05:43PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1237 Views)
|
TGJB |
03/18/2006 05:48PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (971 Views)
|
Ron G. |
03/18/2006 05:57PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1065 Views)
|
bobphilo |
03/18/2006 06:04PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1273 Views)
|
marcus |
03/18/2006 08:18PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1084 Views)
|
bobphilo |
03/19/2006 10:01AM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham - thanks, Alan! (1085 Views)
|
shanahan |
03/18/2006 11:23PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1085 Views)
|
miff |
03/19/2006 10:48AM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1002 Views)
|
JohnTChance |
03/19/2006 12:28PM |
Re: A little more on the Gotham (1453 Views)
|
Ron G. |
03/19/2006 01:13PM |
Seriously, this is an issue (1225 Views)
|
SoCalMan2 |
03/20/2006 06:19AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1016 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/20/2006 07:16AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1105 Views)
|
congaree1 |
03/20/2006 11:18AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1090 Views)
|
SoCalMan2 |
03/21/2006 07:00AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (926 Views)
|
marcus |
03/21/2006 07:40AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (979 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/21/2006 08:06AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1000 Views) |
SoCalMan2 |
03/21/2006 08:57AM |
Good posts SoCalMan2 (827 Views)
|
BitPlayer |
03/21/2006 09:40AM |
Re: Good posts SoCalMan2 (1135 Views)
|
bobphilo |
03/21/2006 11:51AM |
Re: Good posts SoCalMan2 (951 Views)
|
SoCalMan2 |
03/21/2006 11:54AM |
Re: Good posts SoCalMan2 (867 Views)
|
BitPlayer |
03/21/2006 12:32PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (863 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/21/2006 11:46AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1036 Views)
|
SoCalMan2 |
03/21/2006 11:58AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (946 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/21/2006 12:14PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (935 Views)
|
cubfan0316 |
03/21/2006 05:40PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (900 Views)
|
richiebee |
03/21/2006 09:08AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (974 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/21/2006 11:31AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (913 Views)
|
Uncle Buck |
03/20/2006 11:30AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (975 Views)
|
miff |
03/20/2006 11:38AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (928 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/20/2006 06:18PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (917 Views)
|
miff |
03/20/2006 06:33PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1042 Views)
|
bobphilo |
03/20/2006 06:48PM |
Sheets for dubia? (883 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/21/2006 11:33AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (3423 Views)
|
Jkev |
03/20/2006 12:00PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1162 Views)
|
TGJB |
03/20/2006 12:34PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1116 Views)
|
Jkev |
03/20/2006 12:44PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1209 Views)
|
TGJB |
03/20/2006 01:50PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1065 Views)
|
Jkev |
03/20/2006 02:18PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1356 Views)
|
TGJB |
03/20/2006 02:32PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1010 Views)
|
dlf |
03/20/2006 02:40PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1339 Views)
|
Jkev |
03/20/2006 02:42PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1166 Views)
|
TGJB |
03/20/2006 03:05PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1149 Views)
|
shanahan |
03/20/2006 03:45PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1168 Views)
|
miff |
03/20/2006 04:14PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1145 Views)
|
shanahan |
03/20/2006 04:49PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (994 Views)
|
basket777 |
03/20/2006 02:51PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (1056 Views)
|
richiebee |
03/20/2006 12:53PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (868 Views)
|
marcus |
03/21/2006 10:26PM |
Any Ex-Trainers Out Here (1198 Views)
|
SoCalMan2 |
03/22/2006 09:14AM |
Re: Any Ex-Trainers Out Here (946 Views)
|
sighthound |
03/22/2006 04:05PM |
Re: Any Ex-Trainers Out Here (1141 Views)
|
marcus |
03/22/2006 04:28PM |
Re: Any Ex-Trainers Out Here (977 Views)
|
sighthound |
03/23/2006 01:21AM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (991 Views)
|
richiebee |
03/20/2006 12:29PM |
Re: Seriously, this is an issue (965 Views)
|
miff |
03/20/2006 12:44PM |
Achilles and Superman (1068 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
03/20/2006 07:30PM |
Re: Achilles and Superman (925 Views)
|
NoCarolinaTony |
03/20/2006 10:54PM |
Re: Achilles and Superman (888 Views)
|
bobphilo |
03/21/2006 12:00AM |
Re: Achilles and Superman (1033 Views)
|
NoCarolinaTony |
03/21/2006 12:24AM |
Re: Achilles and Superman (937 Views)
|
bobphilo |
03/21/2006 12:33AM |
Re: Gotham (1149 Views)
|
tmon |
03/18/2006 12:20PM |
Re: Gotham (1079 Views)
|
elkurzhal |
03/18/2006 08:38PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|