TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC-- any post of yours containing the words I,
> me, my, etc., or concerning yourself in any way,
> will be deleted from now on. Nobody cares, and
> that's being charitable. Write about the game and
> it will stay up.
>

But Jerry, some handicappers had very good days yesterday. You, ut oh, is it o.k. to use "Jerry"? or "You"? Imagine it is, anyway, even considering the circumstances where Barbaro was such a strong bet against, why would "You" want to curtail post race examination of why he was such a strong target? Especially when he was a relatively weak Derby wager? There were an awful lot of reasons consistent with Tgraph methodology to take a stand against him. Some are experienced enough to recognize those reasons, the least of which not being the fact he went off at a ridiculously low 1-2. How can handicappers discuss the merits of wagers without reference to how "They" faired personally in their wagers? That would appear to be awfully difficult. In that regard, one that scrutinizes all things generally might point out the rest of "Your" statements from the subject post. Of course, it is "Your" website and "You" are always at liberty to do as "You" please, but for the sake of illustration here is what "You" said, EMPHASIS ADDED:


"I" ended up having a good day (mostly because of the Gallorette), but "I" feel like "I" left a lot of money on the table. "I" actually took a little of the winner when "I" found out you could get 15-1 on Thursday (and as it turned out you could have found higher later if you looked hard). But "I" didn't especially think he was going to run well-- it was a hedge. "M"y only real position on the race was that Barbaro was a massive bet-against, and "I" cashed every prop "I" bet (BD vs. him getting 2-1, SNS getting 3-1, laying 17-10 against a TC). That and the saver win bet enabled "ME" to get even money despite losing every single bet "I" made into the pools, and "I" made a bunch-- Zito's horse getting third killed "ME".

Boy, when "I" said Nader was drowning his sorrows, it didn't even occur to "ME" Bernardini might pass the Belmont. Poor NYRA.

Jerry, "some" did very well in the pools, including the Trifecta but in attempts to winnow down combinations didn't have Hemingways Key third in the Super. Maybe "they" didn't even post about it. It was clearly an exotics race, even if a winner could not be selected with confidence. But that wasn't the key, was it?

When "you" take 9-1 on the fastest horse in a race "you" can forgive the probability of bounce. "You" can forgive that probability when you include a competitive big figure last horse at 12-1. The problem of course is that a lightly raced big figure horse at 1-2 becomes a liability. "Some" understand when a Cigar is not a Cigar, even if "they" can't talk about it.

CtC