September 29 Bel/SA All Stakes Points Picks go here . . .

[DonGuido]

Post time for Race 7, The Vosburg, at Belmont is 4:09 eastern. Please have all picks and wagers in by then.

The race order will be:
1. Bel Race 7
2. Bel Race 8
3. Bel Race 9
4. Bel Race 10
5. SA Race 6
6. SA Race 9
7. SA Race 10
8. SA Race 11

Thanks for playing and Ga'luk to all!!!

[RUFFIAN]

BODACIOUS @ BELMONT + SUPURRCILIOUS @ SANTA
OR ~ Bodaciously Bad @ Belmont + Supurr Stupid@ SA?

*** BELMONT***

R7 = VOSBURGH
6 5 4 7 3

R8 = HIRSCH
1 8 3 6 2

R9 = PILGRIM
5 7 9 8 2

R10 = JCGC {Skip Away Memory: Carolyn Hine Sent Me Skippy Shoe!}
6 3 2 8 7

*** SANTA ANITA ***

R6 = PHAROAH
2. 4. 1. 3. 5

R9 = CHANDELIER
6 1 4 5 2

R10 = RODEO DRIVE
6 8 1 4 7

R11 = AWESOME AGAIN
6 5 4 3 2

[Real Quiet]

1. Bel Race 7....6-7-3-4-5
2. Bel Race 8....6-7-1-3
3. Bel Race 9....5-1-7-9-8
4. Bel Race 10...6-7-3-2-8
5. SA Race 6.....4-1-2-5-3
6. SA Race 9.....6-4-1-5-2
7. SA Race 10....8-6-7-3-1
8. SA Race 11....6-5-3-4-1

Thanks to Plenilune for her coast to coast scoring

[cal828]

Belmont

R7 6,3,7,5,4

R8 1,8,6,2,5

R9 5,3,7,8,9

R10 6,8,2,3,7



Santa Anita

R6 4,2,1,3,5

R9 6,1,5,2,3

R10 6,8,4,2,7

R11 6,5,3,4,2

[ElPrado]

1) 6 3 5 4 2

2) 2 1 6 4 5

3) 5 4 8 6 7

4) 2 6 8 3 4

5) 4 2 3 1 5

6) 1 3 4 6 5

7) 4 7 6 8 1

8) 5 6 4 1 3

That's all folks!!

[cruzan200246]

Belmont
R7. 6-4-5-7-2
R8. 4-1-3-6-5
R9. 10-8-5-9-2
R10. 6-5-2-3-8

Santa Anita

R6. 4-2-1-5-3
R9. 6-4-5-2-3
R10. 8-6-4-1-3
R11. 6-5-2-1-4

[Roamin42]

Belmont
R7) 6-2-3-5-1

R8) 3-8-4-1-7

R9) 8-5-4-1-2

R10) 8-6-1-7-4
----------------------
Santa Anita
R6) 2-1-4-3-5

R9) 5-2-1-6-4

R10) 8-6-7-3-1

R11) 5-6-3-4-2

[DonGuido]

1. 6-5-7-4-3
2. 1-8-6-7-3
3. 5-7-9-8-2
4. 6-3-2-8-4
5. 4-2-1-3-5
6. 1-6-5-4-2
7. 6-8-7-3-4
8. 6-5-3-4-2
Ga'luk to all!!!

[JolyB]

Bel R7: 6-5-7-4-3
R8: 1-3-8-6-4
R9: 5-7-2-8-9
R10: 6-2-8-3-7

SA R6: 4-2-3-1-5
R9: 6-5-2-4-3
R10: 6-8-7-4-1
R11: 6-5-3-2-4

Good luck to all and thank you to Plenilune for scoring our races on both coasts, separated by three time zones.

[JolyB]

I want to take a minute and express a concern that I've had for some time, but that has been placed into clear relief by this week's contest card. That has to do with the way in which the points contest format tends to push most of us into selecting lots and lots of the same horses and tends to stifle handicapping creativity. In this week's group of races, the small fields and relative lack of bad favorites (you know, those horses for which you would say, "I wouldn't bet on that horse with YOUR money") has left us with picking many of the same horses on top (well, why in the world wouldn't you put Imperial Hint on top?) and often putting many of the same picks in the second slot. That means that there is a high likelihood that the winner will be the player who does the best job of picking a some third place finishers out of a few equally matched candidates. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but to me it is sort of disappointing.

Of course, I could be all wrong in this. The Turf Classic has the potential of having real surprises and when you are dealing with 2 year olds stretching to two turns for the first time, just about anything can happen. But it seems that most of us are looking at a lot of these races the same way, and that our experience in trying to win a contest with the points contest format has driven us in that direction.

I wish I had some proposal that might be a solution to this concern, especially if anyone else might happen to share this concern. Unfortunately I don't. This post is designed to provoke reaction and perhaps ask whether we ought to think about any other format that we would find more to everyone's liking. There may be a majority who say, "I like the format exactly as it is", in which case I'll try to keep my concerns to myself.

Thank you for listening, my friends.

[RUFFIAN]

AGREE JOLY
That Said: Here Is ''The Cat's Meow''
Probably Not Well Received ~ But You Did Ask For Feedback

On MY Forum Contest: {TBRF}
Our Results Are Based On ===> MOST $$$ For The Day
*** NOT A POINTS SYSTEM Based On Exacta / Trifecta

* It Proves To Be EXCITING Due To Unexpected Long-Shots!

* Anyone Can Win ~ Not Just Those Who Play 'Chalk'

Would LOVE Seeing THAT Format Here Instead Of 'Points'
But Highly Doubt, That Would Ever Happen ~

[Plenilune]

Bel 7: 6 2 5 alt: 3 4
Bel 8: 8 1 3 alt: 7 4
Bel 9: 9 7 5 alt: 2 8
Bel 10: 6 3 2 alt: 8 7
SA 6: 4 2 1 alt: 3 5
SA 9: 4 6 3 alt: 5 2
SA 10: 8 6 7 alt: 3 4
SA 11: 6 5 4 alt: 2 3

[Plenilune]

Originally Posted by JolyB

I want to take a minute and express a concern that I've had for some time, but that has been placed into clear relief by this week's contest card. That has to do with the way in which the points contest format tends to push most of us into selecting lots and lots of the same horses and tends to stifle handicapping creativity.

This post is designed to provoke reaction and perhaps ask whether we ought to think about any other format that we would find more to everyone's liking. There may be a majority who say, "I like the format exactly as it is", in which case I'll try to keep my concerns to myself.

Thank you for listening, my friends.

No one should keep one's thoughts to one's self. I use a formatted excel sheet that automatically calculates everyone's points. I have to enter all picks on one tab, then the horses on a second tab then on a third tab everything is calculated. Unfortunately, I have to do a lot of QC because there are glitches in the formulas and I haven't been successful in fixing them. So it sounds easy but it does take time because I QC a lot. I'd still rather have the templates though!

As I enter contestants' picks I also notice a lot of "same picks" however, a lot of them are in different orders. As you noted JolyB, it's even more obvious when we play stakes only and less races on our card.

We tend to only play the "big" tracks and see the same horses over and over. We rarely play Laurel (can't remember the last time), never played Remington Park, a few times we've been to Golden Gate Fields. Would it make more of a difference if we played at tracks with horses who are less well known, where more consideration would have to be given about our choices of horses?

Thank you for explaining your contest Ruff. However, I would not be able to look at everyone's horses and how much they paid, etc. I have to admit it seems like more work than I am willing to do.

I hope others will share their thoughts and ideas as to how we can "refresh" our contest!

[DonGuido]

Originally Posted by JolyB

I want to take a minute and express a concern that I've had for some time, but that has been placed into clear relief by this week's contest card. That has to do with the way in which the points contest format tends to push most of us into selecting lots and lots of the same horses and tends to stifle handicapping creativity. In this week's group of races, the small fields and relative lack of bad favorites (you know, those horses for which you would say, "I wouldn't bet on that horse with YOUR money") has left us with picking many of the same horses on top (well, why in the world wouldn't you put Imperial Hint on top?) and often putting many of the same picks in the second slot. That means that there is a high likelihood that the winner will be the player who does the best job of picking a some third place finishers out of a few equally matched candidates. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but to me it is sort of disappointing.

Of course, I could be all wrong in this. The Turf Classic has the potential of having real surprises and when you are dealing with 2 year olds stretching to two turns for the first time, just about anything can happen. But it seems that most of us are looking at a lot of these races the same way, and that our experience in trying to win a contest with the points contest format has driven us in that direction.

I wish I had some proposal that might be a solution to this concern, especially if anyone else might happen to share this concern. Unfortunately I don't. This post is designed to provoke reaction and perhaps ask whether we ought to think about any other format that we would find more to everyone's liking. There may be a majority who say, "I like the format exactly as it is", in which case I'll try to keep my concerns to myself.

Thank you for listening, my friends.

Maybe we only play races with minimum of 8 entries. All races with 7 or less are "no plays", or we only pick tracks where top entries don't run or we stop the points picks contest and focus on the ROI after all that's what handicapping is really about . . . those are stupid answers but hey . . . what do I know since I suck in the ROI contest anyway. All that said maybe Joly is, I think, kind of suggesting it might be time to come up with a new format for our contests or contest.

[Real Quiet]

Originally Posted by JolyB

I want to take a minute and express a concern that I've had for some time, but that has been placed into clear relief by this week's contest card. That has to do with the way in which the points contest format tends to push most of us into selecting lots and lots of the same horses and tends to stifle handicapping creativity. In this week's group of races, the small fields and relative lack of bad favorites (you know, those horses for which you would say, "I wouldn't bet on that horse with YOUR money") has left us with picking many of the same horses on top (well, why in the world wouldn't you put Imperial Hint on top?) and often putting many of the same picks in the second slot. That means that there is a high likelihood that the winner will be the player who does the best job of picking a some third place finishers out of a few equally matched candidates. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but to me it is sort of disappointing.

Of course, I could be all wrong in this. The Turf Classic has the potential of having real surprises and when you are dealing with 2 year olds stretching to two turns for the first time, just about anything can happen. But it seems that most of us are looking at a lot of these races the same way, and that our experience in trying to win a contest with the points contest format has driven us in that direction.

I wish I had some proposal that might be a solution to this concern, especially if anyone else might happen to share this concern. Unfortunately I don't. This post is designed to provoke reaction and perhaps ask whether we ought to think about any other format that we would find more to everyone's liking. There may be a majority who say, "I like the format exactly as it is", in which case I'll try to keep my concerns to myself.

Thank you for listening, my friends.

I don't know how other players handicap the points but I play the horses that my style tells me to pick. As a result I infrequently win the points contest. My only hope (and I've never delved into it) is that our points players don't strictly play morning line odds. I have to disagree with you Joly that picking a "third" place horse is disappointing. My bread and butter is finding the value in the 2 or 3 slots or even going 8 deep in a superfecta. I believe in the chaos factor and that anything can happen. Of course even when I go 8 deep I am picking horses I think have a chance. As for Ruffs reply I find it disappointing to pick 4 or 5 winners on a card and get beat by one improbable horse. To sum it up I have no solutions or suggestions at the moment but like JB I am open for new idea's.

[JolyB]

Originally Posted by Real Quiet

I have to disagree with you Joly that picking a "third" place horse is disappointing. My bread and butter is finding the value in the 2 or 3 slots

RQ, I didn't mean to imply that it is "disappointing" to pick a third place horse, especially one with value. Indeed, sometimes a trifecta is made worthwhile by an astute play in the third slot (especially in the Derby). I only meant that I find it disappointing that our points contest can sometimes be decided by player A getting an "ABC" for 35 points while player B only gets "ABx", creating a 10 point difference. That 10 points is the same as picking the overall winner in another race. I guess my difficulty with our format is that there is absolutely no premium placed on finding value, whereas the horseplayer's credo is to find value wherever it may be hidden.

I share your negative feeling over getting 4 or 5 winners and being beaten by an improbable horse. Some handicapping contests have tried to address that by placing "caps" on the maximum win or win/place payouts. In major tournaments, the players at the back are still stabbing for price plays just under the cap near the end of the tournament. I don't know how low the caps might have to be to avoid just random stabbing.

I'm sort of rambling here, between races at Belmont. Back to the Pilgrim.

[DonGuido]

Originally Posted by JolyB

RQ, I didn't mean to imply that it is "disappointing" to pick a third place horse, especially one with value. Indeed, sometimes a trifecta is made worthwhile by an astute play in the third slot (especially in the Derby). I only meant that I find it disappointing that our points contest can sometimes be decided by player A getting an "ABC" for 35 points while player B only gets "ABx", creating a 10 point difference. That 10 points is the same as picking the overall winner in another race. I guess my difficulty with our format is that there is absolutely no premium placed on finding value, whereas the horseplayer's credo is to find value wherever it may be hidden.

I share your negative feeling over getting 4 or 5 winners and being beaten by an improbable horse. Some handicapping contests have tried to address that by placing "caps" on the maximum win or win/place payouts. In major tournaments, the players at the back are still stabbing for price plays just under the cap near the end of the tournament. I don't know how low the caps might have to be to avoid just random stabbing.

I'm sort of rambling here, between races at Belmont. Back to the Pilgrim.

Lets discuss changing the format so someone other than DG JB RUFF and RQ can gain a Gallivan. I'm tired of the same'ol same'ol. Suggestions??? . . . and for that matter I'm thinking of giving up the "Monitorship" or what ever it is. Suggestions??? It's time for me to just be a regular or irregular player and that's all.