TVG vs Scav Selection Thread

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

BTW

If you would learn how the turf rail affects the dynamics of the race you might get "luckier" more often. BBB

I prefer to not have to worry about getting lucky......but from reading your stuff on multiple boards I can certainly understand how important this is to you.

If you think some convoluted ideas about turf rail placement somehow caused all the events from yesterday's 9th race to occur then you are in even more dire need of handicapping self-examination than I realized. Why don't you peruse the chart, and even take some of your valuable time to watch the replay, of the other turf race run at Aqueduct yesterday. Perhaps then you can explain how your theories about turf rail placement created that outcome.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

this has potential to be the best thread ever.

That would require BBB to be at least two things he isn't.......not a hit and run poster and also interested in having an actual discussion about racing based on reality.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Demeaning someone? Give me a break and stop misreading what I write to suit your ridiculous personal agenda.

Obviously others look at your post and see it differently that being the case I apologize for my own interpretation since it seems incorrect.

I have no personal agenda with you other than you seem to write consistently negative of others thoughts. I am glad on this occasion that this is not the case. Rather than try to defend this any further I again admit to being incorrect and have added the "cap" to my own attire for the day.

[blackthroatedwind]

Of course most of my posts disagree.....it's a message board and disagreements provoke discussion.

And, in the selections thread, it's even more important to post disagreeing viewpoints. It should be implicit that others have a right to a completely different opinion than me just by the very fact that I think I have a right to give my opinion. It's a discussion. I occasionally post a dissenting opinion here when I feel a poster is specifically off the track. I may be wrong, but if I offer a reasonable opinion as to why I disagree at least I offer an alternative viewpoint that the original poster then has the option to think about or dismiss.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

I didn't need this guy...I just needed "He got a bad trip and should have won"

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Scav

I didn't need this guy...I just needed "He got a bad trip and should have won"

I got the impression that wasn't enough for everyone.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That was nice for your friend....but unless he also used the second horse ( who I needed for the late Pick-3 ) he was extraordinarily lucky.

In the last? I bet that horse yesterday. Left with too much to do. Said he liked her but didn't use her in the pick 4.

Obviously you have to get extremely lucky to cash a ticket like that, he said he only used two in the first leg and bet his other selection- he only threw in the semi-ridiculous Peperoni because he thought he might make the lead (which was a valid reason, and had decent pace numbers to support it). The other two legs were very reasonable, and while I didn't bet Hunting I certainly would have covered that spot in the pick 4. I didn't post his success to start a pissing match betweeen anyone (obviously), just wanted to share his incredible success.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

I think logic goes out the window on the Aqueduct turf. There is no way to judge the pace dynamic prerace; the jocks all seem very content to run ridiculously slow fractions.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

I think logic goes out the window on the Aqueduct turf. There is no way to judge the pace dynamic prerace; the jocks all seem very content to run ridiculously slow fractions.

I don't disagree, but in a way that makes the winner luckier, as in a crapshoot like you suggest, he was the absolute lucky beneficiary.

[Scav]

Guys, gonna have to take a pass on the rest of this contest. I need to focus on some other things for a while now and won't have time to continue.

Pertaining to this, I actually have some respect for the TVG people now because it is REALLY this is hard to do. I have no idea what would have happened in the long run but I think a decent conculsion to this is that $50 is a low level ticket into the type of pools that we are trying and the type of races that are being contested. At the larger tracks you can be comfortable with putting $90-$150 and getting some coverage and it paying decent. At small tracks where the talent level really varies, I wouldn't recommend that type of ticket size. Look at Churchill's recent PK4 results and the payouts, and put them with what they paid to win, it is out of control how well they paid IMO.

[blackthroatedwind]

I don't blame you. I was thinking similarly earlier today.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't disagree, but in a way that makes the winner luckier, as in a crapshoot like you suggest, he was the absolute lucky beneficiary.

I didn't like the winner at ALL at the price she went off at, but the second time Dutrow and first time Prado certainly suggested "move up".
That being said, she had pretty average turf breeding and Dutrow's magic doesn't work as well on the grass.

Curious to know what the willpay on the pick 4 was to the 7. Had to be $100k. What was the pick 3 willpay, $3k?

[blackthroatedwind]

It was just under $2800. I don't know the Pick-4 probables.

I wasn't a fan of the winner either, but I can understand using her, and it was really the whole confluence of events that enabled her to win that annoyed me. Watch the race again, after getting shuffled, Espinoza tries to get outside and clear into the stretch and is shut off. He gets out then and even with the pace it's history. Plus, Tagg's horse never had a fair chance, but considering the post that's not a shock.

It's another situation in a maiden race where the winner can never, and will never, beat a number of its opponents should they meet again down the road.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It was just under $2800. I don't know the Pick-4 probables.

I wasn't a fan of the winner either, but I can understand using her, and it was really the whole confluence of events that enabled her to win that annoyed me. Watch the race again, after getting shuffled, Espinoza tries to get outside and clear into the stretch and is shut off. He gets out then and even with the pace it's history. Plus, Tagg's horse never had a fair chance, but considering the post that's not a shock.

It's another situation in a maiden race where the winner can never, and will never, beat a number of its opponents should they meet again down the road.

Saw it the same way. Will likely win next out, problem is she'll be 2-1 instead of 12-1. At least your friend has a nice one...

[bogeydaman]

Originally Posted by Scav

Guys, gonna have to take a pass on the rest of this contest. I need to focus on some other things for a while now and won't have time to continue.

Pertaining to this, I actually have some respect for the TVG people now because it is REALLY this is hard to do. I have no idea what would have happened in the long run but I think a decent conculsion to this is that $50 is a low level ticket into the type of pools that we are trying and the type of races that are being contested. At the larger tracks you can be comfortable with putting $90-$150 and getting some coverage and it paying decent. At small tracks where the talent level really varies, I wouldn't recommend that type of ticket size. Look at Churchill's recent PK4 results and the payouts, and put them with what they paid to win, it is out of control how well they paid IMO.

The frequency of hitting the bet is also a function of the size of the fields. I am not privy to the average field size of NY racing, but if you make the assumption of 8 starters per race the number of possible combinations is 4.000. If field size is 10 starters then possible combinations is 10,000. A $50 ticket betting into an average field size of 8 means the average person would hit a ticket every 80 "chances" (200 for 10 horses). You can also make certain assumptions that you may be twice as likely to hit the wager "vs the average" based on experience, info available, etc to come up with "your probability". Bottom line is that it should not be a real surprise that after 30 or so tickets a ticket has not been cashed based on such a small sample size.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

Saw it the same way. Will likely win next out, problem is she'll be 2-1 instead of 12-1. At least your friend has a nice one...

Yeah, it seems like that. I think she could turn out to be more than OK.

Unfortunately, from a betting perspective, you usually only get one chance.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Scav

Guys, gonna have to take a pass on the rest of this contest. I need to focus on some other things for a while now and won't have time to continue.

Pertaining to this, I actually have some respect for the TVG people now because it is REALLY this is hard to do. I have no idea what would have happened in the long run but I think a decent conculsion to this is that $50 is a low level ticket into the type of pools that we are trying and the type of races that are being contested. At the larger tracks you can be comfortable with putting $90-$150 and getting some coverage and it paying decent. At small tracks where the talent level really varies, I wouldn't recommend that type of ticket size. Look at Churchill's recent PK4 results and the payouts, and put them with what they paid to win, it is out of control how well they paid IMO.

TVG wants to generate handle so their personalites need to have picks every sequence.

it's the same with any public handicapper. no one pays for advice that a race or sequence of races doesn't offer any value and you should pass.

i think anyone attempting what you were trying won't be successful in the long run because you've eliminated the possibility of saying "there is no value". and that's a perfectly logical conclusion after handicapping some races.

and money you didn't lose is no different than money you won.

[ALostTexan]

Originally Posted by Scav

Guys, gonna have to take a pass on the rest of this contest. I need to focus on some other things for a while now and won't have time to continue.

Pertaining to this, I actually have some respect for the TVG people now because it is REALLY this is hard to do. I have no idea what would have happened in the long run but I think a decent conculsion to this is that $50 is a low level ticket into the type of pools that we are trying and the type of races that are being contested. At the larger tracks you can be comfortable with putting $90-$150 and getting some coverage and it paying decent. At small tracks where the talent level really varies, I wouldn't recommend that type of ticket size. Look at Churchill's recent PK4 results and the payouts, and put them with what they paid to win, it is out of control how well they paid IMO.

I think you have done a great job seeing it out this far, and I have really enjoyed watching how this has played out. I also agree that I have a bit more respect for the TVG crew, but I still wish they wouldn't post those plays and have the attitude that they will actually hit something...

[Rootdog1]

I would love to take the tourch....just not sure of time.....will consider it.

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Rootdog1

I would love to take the tourch....just not sure of time.....will consider it.

Bring it home Root.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

I saw this and expected Ron Popeil to respond.

What a good thread.