Huge class edge in today's 6th at Belmont

[cees with dees]

Cashcall Notes is dropping from open to statebred claimers.
This is about a nine class drop and the people rarely pick this up.
Bottom line is we'll get probably $9 on a legitimate 4/5 shot.
Trainer change isn't positive but Hennig more than capable and this one should control things from start to finish and as long as Coa stays off the rail, filly should do nothing but widen the margin of victory.
Good start to the late pick 4.
My ticket looks like this: 10/3,5,8,9/ALL/10,11.
Good luck to all.
Ben

[Suff]

My ticket looks like this: 10/3,5,8,9/ALL/10,11.
Good luck to all.
Ben

A super? The 10 is non sequitur in the 4 hole.

[Cesario!]

It's a Pick 4.

Thanks for the tip -- I agree. I reached a similar conclusion but through different means. It's amazing how class drops are usually surrogates for other ways of viewing the race, i.e. internal speed, etc. The 6 seems the only threat..and not a very strong one at that. 4/5 is a good estimation.

[Ron]

Good luck with your selections.

[46zilzal]

somewhat the right profile for a baby learning to run.

[Dave Schwartz]

46,

What number scale is this output? Sheets?

And what program is it?

Dave

[Suff]

Good luck with your selections.

Wrapping a selection around a methodology, and placing it in the general handicapping forum is something I'd like to see more of.

In the above mentioned race, I have an interest in the 4. I need to see if she's wrapped. Gyarmati wrapped her in front, understandably debuting on grass as a 2YO. Now she goes for a tag, and may wrap again to "simulate" a tendon issue, or my unwrap to hint all is fine.

I need to look at the Girl in the paddock/post parade and make a call.

#4 Chestnut Glitter. 20-1 on the Morning Line.

Mind you , Gyarmati is 26% at a $4.74 ROI going Turf to Dirt. From a 19 horse sample

[46zilzal]

46,

What number scale is this output? Sheets?
And what program is it?


Guy Wadworth's Speculator and is reported in his version of beaten lengths. this is only a single screen in 8 of them.

[46zilzal]

same data different screen.

[46zilzal]

or the energy balance on another screen. Babies about to graduate sprinting usually have a higher than normal early balance (norm being around +10-12)

[46zilzal]

one more giving an overview.

[46zilzal]

only bet the winner, but the program often gets the top three as in the 2nd today at the big sandy. My goodness the payoff was supposed to be a lot higher when I bet it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Okay... here is an early look at that race. Since the probabiltiites actually change as the odds change, I will post it again after the race is over using the final odds.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/Sep22Bel06-00.jpg


Dave Schwartz

[toetoe]

Dave,

Good read. :ThmbUp:

One not to leave out is 5, Flying Sappho, race 9. If she can stand up on the greensward, she may head winners-circle-ward, WHY-er to wire. Let this be an olive branch from me to all the Bay Area lesbonic terrorists that have beset me over the years. Sisters of Sappho, peace unto you, and may you cash on this filly. Also a good read: playing ALL in the feechah. Either Frankel runner is definitely beatable. I like Clement's Burren Rose, though she's no "dead crab." Just cover her, or hit ALL.

Thanks, Dave. Win or lose, it's the right play, though more than $6.00 would pleasantly surprise. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

Statebred races are often value races. Class handicapping situations.

[46zilzal]

horses can't read the condition book they just run.

[Cesario!]

horses can't read the condition book they just run.

But handicappers can...

BTW, what does that possibly mean? :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

But handicappers can...

BTW, what does that possibly mean?
ability vs. ability nothing else to consider.

Horse is competitive or it's not.

[Cesario!]

ability vs. ability nothing else to consider.

Horse is competitive or it's not.

Ok. Not what I thought you were implying -- which seemed very out of character. I think performance vis-a-vis race strength is a great proxy for ability.

All good.

[46zilzal]

Ok. Not what I thought you were implying -- which seemed very out of character. I think performance vis-a-vis race strength is a great proxy for ability.


A good comparison is a baseball pitcher. If he is a triple A player or a major league player, does his fastball change speeds? nope. The ability is with the player not the league.

[BIG49010]

Where do we deposit commisions, nice call !

[Cesario!]

A good comparison is a baseball pitcher. If he is a triple A player or a major league player, does his fastball change speeds? nope. The ability is with the player not the league.

Agree, but because there are so many intangibles involved in the measurement of ability, you never know if the same fastball will get out major league hitters.

[46zilzal]

there is no defense in racing....other than the occasional racing luck type (trip).

[Suff]

10 was much the best, dominated the field, pressured throughout, and withstood late speed.


It was an excellent call, and at $11.00 , beating a $1.00, in a big field, means a very nice ticket is alive.

:ThmbUp:

[samyn on the green]

Nice job on the single, won easy and paid $11. I don't think a computer program is the best way to select winners of a 2YO statebred maiden claimer and here is more proof. Over the long haul the wise man trusts the human intelliect over a machine. This game is an art not a science. Cashcall Notes is dropping from open to statebred claimers.
This is about a nine class drop and the people rarely pick this up.
Bottom line is we'll get probably $9 on a legitimate 4/5 shot.
Trainer change isn't positive but Hennig more than capable and this one should control things from start to finish and as long as Coa stays off the rail, filly should do nothing but widen the margin of victory.
Good start to the late pick 4.
My ticket looks like this: 10/3,5,8,9/ALL/10,11.
Good luck to all.
Ben

[Cesario!]

there is no defense in racing....other than the occasional racing luck type (trip).

Never implied defense -- just that there's more to a fastball then just the measurement of speed.

[schweitz]

Never implied defense -- just that there's more to a fastball then just the measurement of speed.


Location, location, location and of course movement

[JimG]

Very nice call on the 10 and $11.20 is a nice winner.

[46zilzal]

Nice job on the single, won easy and paid $11. I don't think a computer program is the best way to select winners of a 2YO statebred maiden claimer and here is more proof. Over the long haul the wise man trusts the human intelliect over a machine. This game is an art not a science.
so is using the software. One learns WHICH aspects work on what type of race. With babies it is projection (improvement) from competitive 2nd call velocity.

babies reproduce this often enough to show a steady profit.

[samyn on the green]

You make a valid point. You are very right that the crucial moment of the capping process is in the interpetation of the information. so is using the software. One learns WHICH aspects work on what type of race. With babies it is projection (improvement) from competitive 2nd call velocity.

babies reproduce this often enough to show a steady profit.

[Dave Schwartz]

Updated with final odds.

I would have stood against the winner in this race.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/Sep22Bel06-01.jpg

[bellsbendboy]

Always cool to post, then score, but I cannot fathom ANY computer progam outperforming ANY competent capper. BBB

[46zilzal]

one interpets...it is not a black box

you learn what to look for.

For instance THIS program was crap for turf until I learned how to use it. Now it simply amazes me. DIFFERENT selection method altogether.

[46zilzal]

9th race - Woodbine - September 22, 2006
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
9 Pozzo 94.50 29.40 16.50
1A Skipped Bail 3.00 2.70
13 Academy King 14.10

I did not bet this race as I found it too confusing, but using Pizzola's idea in Handicapping Magic (on turf races you simply consider their BEST turf lines as their form cycle is not like the dirt) the program picked the following, to my amazement.

Would this happen a lot? No, but since I followed his advice, and look the way he described, I have had many a double digit winner including the longest one I ever cashed at 42-1.

[bigmack]

I cannot fathom ANY computer progam outperforming ANY competent capper
18

[toetoe]

Dave,

I risked $52 in pick-fours with no regrets. I figured the pick-four HAD to pay more than the $290 or so that a $52 win bet would pay. Of course, the 6-7-8 pick-three doesn't exist at NYRA and, you guessed it, I missed the nightcap. I play speedspeedspeed in those turf sprints, and 2's 50-second halves in routes looked diplodicus-like. I LOVED Sappho-something, little knowing that JVel was replaced by Victor's black-sheep brother Jose Espinoza. JEEZ! At least he didn't fall off. We'd BOTH be geniuses if that "horse" won.

Well done. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Horse had my top early speed rating, which is pretty much all I consider in maiden sprints. Class is speed, speed is class. :D

[Turntime]

Bigmack:

Although chess is a very complex game, it's played in a fairly finite universe of 64 squares and pieces of pre-determined powers. In horse racing the variables are changing right up to post time, so it's my gut feeling that computers have a long way to go before they can outperform humans in handicapping ( if they ever can).

By the way, Garry was clearly off form in this match against Deep Blue. I don't understand why, after choosing such a conservitive opening like the Caro-Kann, he then played a risky and complex continuation, allowing the computer to sac a piece for all the play. What a horrible position to have to play, with the king stuck in the center and all his pieces stepping on each other's toes. 14....b4 was another idea, keeping the queenside closed for the moment, although white would probably win eventually in any event.

Sorry to get so far off track of this thread.

[bigmack]

Sorry to get so far off track of this thread.
T2 - Threads have little chance of maintaining focus with my involvementhttp://board.carstyling.net/images/smilies/offtopic.gif

The Caro-Kann in the Steinitz Variation has been rolling around for a bit

Keep the faith with computers doing the job in handicapping - they can sift through data like jelly passing through a junebug (or something)

[twindouble]

Nice call cees and dees; Extra credit being a 2yo race, I tend to avoid those races.


T.D.

[Robert Fischer]

a bit of a run on, please excuse the length...

I don't know how much semantic flexibility is accepted with the term "class". I tend to include quality of race(s) within a condition, as well as the conditions and grades themselves.

I see the horse won that race, good call on the 10.

These statebreds are different from open races. That fact remains whether we use raw times, human judgment, or ratings (or any method). For example; There have been times when NY statebreds at shorter distances, say 7f, have been a relatively higher quality(class) compared with the 9f NY statebred variety. Both the observant handicapper, and the ratings systems will pick this type of thing up. The public however will continue to underlay the NYSTATEBRED that has won two of his last four running raw times of 1:53 @9f vs. the NYSTATEBRED entering the same race coming off a close 4th in a 1:23@7f NYSTATEBRED.

The human will look for anything coming in from the open ranks, and if this current race is mediocre enough, almost anything coming in from open ranks has a chance to be competitive.

Of course there is room for any software to be programmed and updated to look for subtleties that sharp human judgment look to detect within specific "class universes".

Can the computer program outperform a competent handicapper?
Well within spot plays, I think the answer is no. Until the human brain is modeled and animated within software (which may be farther off than we estimate), Humans will out-perform software in any one given race.

However a useful program can quickly scan all of a days races and pull up quite a few "spot plays", and Quickly rank contenders in every race of the day by a number of variables. These type of operations would take hours and hours for a handicapper.

Another word on software; When competent software and a competent handicapper independently agree on a win candidate, there are a lot of factors going the way of that horse. When Macro-handicapping(the opposite of a spot play? soft focus?) the limiting factor is the humans speed at competently handicapping the large number of races, substitutes such as the public(tote) can be used to assist in macro handicapping given they meet a criteria for win percentage.

[Light]

Nice analysis here.There is another interesting angle why you could have played this horse. In a sprint,notice his first three calls were staying close to the leader and maybe losing a length or so between the 1st and 3rd call. The last call is absurd. A complete and total fold. Basically this is a prep race. It not only works for 2nd time starters but you get some big prices on older horses second race off a layoff with that prep race pattern.

[JPinMaryland]

Bigmack: where the hell did the link to that chess site go? I lost that link a ways back and havent been back since. Take a look at Korchnoi/Karpov game 29/W.Ch.1978. Guess who kibbitzed on Keenes suggestion for move 64?

[bigmack]

Bigmack: where the hell did the link to that chess site go? I lost that link a ways back and havent been back since.
It's in the vault.

Anywho, pick a Russian off the street in any town over yonder and snatch one from any town in the US - The yank would stand little chance in a test of wills and oftentimes drop cold in a test of intelligentsia.

I say these Russians are smart and stand by that statement.

Karpov withstanding as I could mate the goof in 20

[JPinMaryland]

What the hell does that mean? "its in the vault." What vault? WHere? Can you give me a link? Serious, I used to go there a lot. Can you tell me what is going on w/ the site?

[sq764]

A good comparison is a baseball pitcher. If he is a triple A player or a major league player, does his fastball change speeds? nope. The ability is with the player not the league.
Horrible comparison. There is a reason each is where they are at.

[Tom]

We see horses everyday drop in class significantly and run faster races than anything they have ever approached before. I guarantee FL is not 4-5 seconds faster than Belmont, yet MSW shippers from Bel to FL regularly improve by 15-30 lengths at th elower class.

How many hot NW2X wininers step into stakes and get trounced in slower times?.

Ability is not the only thing at work here. Call it class, seasoning, whatever.

[46zilzal]

Horrible comparison. There is a reason each is where they are at.
you missed the word SPEED then

[schweitz]

you missed the word SPEED then

There is a lot more to it than just SPEED.

[cees with dees]

Why did this simple race become such a log jam of a thread??
I mean I see talk about chess and computers and plenty of other irrelevant stuff.
Computers are all well and good for people either too lazy to do the work on their own, don't know how to watch a race or don't know how to interpret the information thats given them.
Someone posted on a computer thing that 84% of the winners come from the top 4 of his programs selections.
My problem is this, the program gave fair odds to the 3 of 6/5 and fair odds to the winner of 8-1.
When I first saw this race in the form, I thought Cashcall had a shot to be odds on.
$11 was ridiculous and because a computer makes fair odds doesn't mean thats the case.
A computer can't take into account dead rails, track bias, dead barns,whether a horse was vetted out pre race, trainer intent or a horse being strangled into submission while in front and about a million more variables that I don't have time to list. Also, no one can afford to bet the top 4 selections of any program and have it win only 84%. You'd lose your shirt.
This particular horse who happened to win, and mind you, I'm wrong far more times than right, ran for $50k at Del Mar, got carved up while wide on a closers track, was only purchased for the same $50k prior to the race and now was running under optimum conditions, speed favoring outside surface, against tons weaker.
She wasn't impressive but did get the job done and any computer that tells me 6/5 is fair on the 3 when the horse hass tripped out and come up empty before and goes out for a barn colder than the tundra, is no help to me. NOt to mention choice two, the one, hard to recall one single sprint this meet, outside of the slop days, that was won from the rail draw.
Keep your computers and your stats. A stat is only good if you know the particulars. Example, people bury Chantal Sutherland, or right in this thread, Jose Espinoza. He happens to be a tremendous rider. He's strong, good out of the gate, smart and never overbet.
Maybe he's a 10% rider because 88% of the time he's not on a contender.
One of the best riders in the country is Raul Rojas and most think he's a clown because he's like a 5%er But note the horses he rides. 99% of them are over 20-1.
He is a factor on every contender he rides and wins on most of them.
Anyway, enough out of me.
Oh and by the way, I also don't need a computer to tell me dirt form has nothing to do with grass form. My dad told me that when I was 7.
Good luck today.
Ben

[Stevie Belmont]

Who was that masked man?

Why did this simple race become such a log jam of a thread??
I mean I see talk about chess and computers and plenty of other irrelevant stuff.
Computers are all well and good for people either too lazy to do the work on their own, don't know how to watch a race or don't know how to interpret the information thats given them.
Someone posted on a computer thing that 84% of the winners come from the top 4 of his programs selections.
My problem is this, the program gave fair odds to the 3 of 6/5 and fair odds to the winner of 8-1.
When I first saw this race in the form, I thought Cashcall had a shot to be odds on.
$11 was ridiculous and because a computer makes fair odds doesn't mean thats the case.
A computer can't take into account dead rails, track bias, dead barns,whether a horse was vetted out pre race, trainer intent or a horse being strangled into submission while in front and about a million more variables that I don't have time to list. Also, no one can afford to bet the top 4 selections of any program and have it win only 84%. You'd lose your shirt.
This particular horse who happened to win, and mind you, I'm wrong far more times than right, ran for $50k at Del Mar, got carved up while wide on a closers track, was only purchased for the same $50k prior to the race and now was running under optimum conditions, speed favoring outside surface, against tons weaker.
She wasn't impressive but did get the job done and any computer that tells me 6/5 is fair on the 3 when the horse hass tripped out and come up empty before and goes out for a barn colder than the tundra, is no help to me. NOt to mention choice two, the one, hard to recall one single sprint this meet, outside of the slop days, that was won from the rail draw.
Keep your computers and your stats. A stat is only good if you know the particulars. Example, people bury Chantal Sutherland, or right in this thread, Jose Espinoza. He happens to be a tremendous rider. He's strong, good out of the gate, smart and never overbet.
Maybe he's a 10% rider because 88% of the time he's not on a contender.
One of the best riders in the country is Raul Rojas and most think he's a clown because he's like a 5%er But note the horses he rides. 99% of them are over 20-1.
He is a factor on every contender he rides and wins on most of them.
Anyway, enough out of me.
Oh and by the way, I also don't need a computer to tell me dirt form has nothing to do with grass form. My dad told me that when I was 7.
Good luck today.
Ben

[46zilzal]

Computers are all well and good for people either too lazy to do the work on their own, don't know how to watch a race or don't know how to interpret the information thats given them.

keep looking at all those EXTRANEOUS factors which are considered. Do yourself a real favor, go to the library and read BLINK by Malcolm Galdwell and it will change your outlook on the storm of irrelevant data.

Evaluating a race comes down to form cycle, speed and how the horse apportions that speed to the pressures of the other horses. THAT's IT.

Speed is intrinsic to the horse and the competition pressure of other entrants is the variable. Simple as that. Making it any more complicated is a waste of time.

The computer makes things as objective as possible. Not for the lazy but for viewing lots of data quickly. With the internet one needs to review many cards to find the good mismatches. A computer allows you to do that. It is anything but LAZY. A seconday, and very important thing the computer allows, is the following of trends without the subjectivity of the evaluator.

My LAZY computer readouts lsolated the winner on two screens.

[cees with dees]

Hey Stevie, whats that link???

I'm home for 5 more minutes. Forget it. I'll call you.

[46zilzal]

.
Keep your computers and your stats. A stat is only good if you know the particulars. Example, people bury Chantal Sutherland, or right in this thread, Jose Espinoza. He happens to be a tremendous rider. He's strong, good out of the gate, smart and never overbet.
Maybe he's a 10% rider because 88% of the time he's not on a contender.
One of the best riders in the country is Raul Rojas and most think he's a clown because he's like a 5%er But note the horses he rides. 99% of them are over 20-1.
He is a factor on every contender he rides and wins on most of them.
Anyway, enough out of me.
Oh and by the way, I also don't need a computer to tell me dirt form has nothing to do with grass form. My dad told me that when I was 7.


ah the old myth that a rider can change a horse. ONLY when the horses are very close and your name is Cordero, Bailey, Shoe, Pincay, or Arcaro.

All a rider does is keep the horse out of trouble. THE HORSE runs, these guys steer.

[46zilzal]

There is a lot more to it than just SPEED.
restating this for all, the SINGLE factor of baseball throwing velocity by a pitcher will not change if the pitcher is in Pocatello Idaho or Fenway Park. Same with a horse.

Differences become in reaction to competition. Horses need to apportion that speed and the pitcher needs to control placement.........

This was a quote about the single factor of speed and just like a horse, speed is intrinsic to the animal.

[toetoe]

CeeDee,

Great post. Downright trenchant, and pithy to boot. Horrible coincidence that I needed that Espinoza horse for the pick-four in race 9 (paying 563-to-1), and JEsp looked like Flip John Nollar, hanging on for dear life. The apparent speedster looked determined to win from midpack, and the only way to fail, it seemed, was to run into traffic at every opportunity. :bang: :)

[bigmack]

I also don't need a computer to tell me dirt form has nothing to do with grass form. My dad told me that when I was 7.
Yeah, computers suck. We don't need no stinkin' computers.
Anybody that uses a computer to handicap a race is out of their mind :rolleyes:


http://www.speeds-cartoons.com/animations2/24481.gif

[twindouble]

Yeah, computers suck. We don't need no stinkin' computers.
Anybody that uses a computer to handicap a race is out of their mind :rolleyes:


http://www.speeds-cartoons.com/animations2/24481.gif

Mack, we all know computers have had a huge impact on our way of life, heck if it wasn't for computers I still wouldn't know how to type. :D

It's just that some of us are skeptical when it comes to computerizing horse racing, thinking it has limits when it comes to handicapping, I think you would agree with that. What those limits are spark varied opinions here on the forum. Maybe there's no right or wrong opinion, there's no question in my mind the traditional way of handicapping is more rewarding on a personal level, do I resent being pushed aside by a computer, sure I do. No different than those craftsmen of the past that the rich of today seek out for quality things. I don't think anyone here should relegate me or others like me to the trash cans like some useless thing of the past. Hell, even trash is recycled.



I really think computers in horse racing cut out the heart and sole of what's good about racing. Regardless of what computers come up with, I'll still have a place in this game, horses will still run like they always have, like the right wood that's crafted into a durable unique Shaker Chair.


T.D.

[cees with dees]

Computers go right in line with speed figures.
I mean, if a horse runs a 103 speed figure when he's loose on the lead on a speed favoring track, what does that number mean if he's getting caught wide in a duel today???
That question is rhetorical.
I have yet to see a numbers system inluding Beyer, Brown and Ragozin that incorporate enough of the important variables to obtain a reliable result.
and whats really hideous is that they constantly adjust published numbers if horses don't return like they expect.
Mr. Sam I am is a classic example.
rEceived a huge figure in debut and was subsequently made 1-5 off of that race.
When he ran off the board and nothing out of the "fast" debut came back to win they adjusted the original number down 17 points.
Beyer speed numbers make the majority of the favorites at all of the tracks.
I completely ignore them but love that they are there.
the only time I even look at them is when I'm stunned by a favorite on the board.
It's always because he has higher speed figures than the field.
You want value?? And just for the record, any time I cash a ticket I consider it good value. But if you really want value, bet against the high beyer figures.
Period.
Not much on any of the cards today so really not playing but will post if something comes up.
good luck to everyone that is playing.
Ben

[cees with dees]

CeeDee,

Great post. Downright trenchant, and pithy to boot. Horrible coincidence that I needed that Espinoza horse for the pick-four in race 9 (paying 563-to-1), and JEsp looked like Flip John Nollar, hanging on for dear life. The apparent speedster looked determined to win from midpack, and the only way to fail, it seemed, was to run into traffic at every opportunity. :bang: :)


That was unfortunate. He definitely would have won there.
I was wondering why J.V was listed to ride for Wolferseder.
Now we know.
Tough beat but the good news is, keep setting the table like that and you will be rewarded aplenty.
Nice pickins, just tough luck.
Next time buddy!!!!!!

[bigmack]

It's just that some of us are skeptical when it comes to computerizing horse racing, thinking it has limits when it comes to handicapping, I think you would agree with that.
I really think computers in horse racing cut out the heart and sole of what's good about racing
I'm with you all the way on craftsmanship td, as the adherence to that school is stylized and flavorful.

I get confused when the old school guys scoff at computers and their worth in this game. There are serveral offerings that are very comprehensive that can give a player a tremendous amount of edge.

I don't go looking for class drops as that angle is not enough for me to jump on a 9-2 baby. And for anyone who said Cashcall won easily they didn't see the same race I did. Finding spots that have you licking your chops is an enviable place to be. I have several angles and the night before racing I can push a few buttons and the program will direct me to those spots. In the old world there's no way I could go through every card run and pick out my spots. IMO - those that scoff at computers oftentimes don't know the various offerings and the comprehensiveness of their worth

I don't know about you or the other cats but I do this FT and can more than vouch for computers being a real asset.

I agree that computers can take a bit of soul out of the game but going back exclusively to the form would take a big chunk out of my daily bread

[twindouble]

cees and dees; There's some guys here that make their own speed figures for the same reasons you mention on the Beyer figures. Continue to post, guys like you make me feel at home.



Good luck,

T.D.

[cees with dees]

I'm with you all the way on craftsmanship td, as the adherence to that school is stylized and flavorful.

I get confused when the old school guys scoff at computers and their worth in this game. There are serveral offerings that are very comprehensive that can give a player a tremendous amount of edge.

I don't go looking for class drops as that angle is not enough for me to jump on a 9-2 baby. And for anyone who said Cashcall won easily they didn't see the same race I did. Finding spots that have you licking your chops is an enviable place to be. I have several angles and the night before racing I can push a few buttons and the program will direct me to those spots. In the old world there's no way I could go through every card run and pick out my spots. IMO - those that scoff at computers oftentimes don't know the various offerings and the comprehensiveness of their worth

I don't know about you or the other cats but I do this FT and can more than vouch for computers being a real asset.

I agree that computers can take a bit of soul out of the game but going back exclusively to the form would take a big chunk out of my daily bread


I think you misunderstood.
Computers are great for storing information and for use as a quick reference tool but to rely solely on stats and a computerized selection based on I don't care what you punch into the thing is a mistake, UNLESS, like I said before and this is not meant to be an insult, yuo don't know how to watch a race and or you're too lazy to do the work yourself.

I have dear friends that can watch the same race I do and see completely different things.
It doesn't make them stupid or bad people. It takes a bit of know how and you have to know what to look for to watch a race correctly.
Time and again I see people betting horses off of "trouble" trips and they may in fact have had trouble, but to overemphasize it back in a completely different spot is also a huge mistake.
i used to bge a BIG replay guy.
Now I go back and watch a race if I need to.
I remember most of them anyway but the pace scenario of a race along with the bias if any is my first order of business.
I don't want to preach or teach. Just want to make some money and have some fun posting and sharing insight.
So before I make any enemies, i'm going to shut up.
Later.
Ben

[bigmack]

Now I go back and watch a race if I need to.
I remember most of them anyway but the pace scenario of a race along with the bias if any is my first order of business.
You should camp with The Adipose of Hot Walks, The Spare Tire of Cycling, The Protruding Paunch of Replays, Captain Flab of Trip Capping, the one, the only:
The_Fat_Man

http://www.stickfigureninja.com/images/belly.gif

[46zilzal]

once you WEAN yourself from watching, the computer data can be reviewed and understood.

Without the computer we would not have the options we do today and would be limited to our local circuits/

[Show Me the Wire]

restating this for all, the SINGLE factor of baseball throwing velocity by a pitcher will not change if the pitcher is in Pocatello Idaho or Fenway Park. Same with a horse.

Differences become in reaction to competition. Horses need to apportion that speed and the pitcher needs to control placement.........

This was a quote about the single factor of speed and just like a horse, speed is intrinsic to the animal.

So true the pitcher does not change, but the batter may, The batter in Pocatello may not be able to turn on a 92 mph fastball. The batter in Fenway Park will definately turn on a 92 mph fastball. Same pitch different result, good example of class. It is the level of competition.

[46zilzal]

I only turn with my blinkers on

[Show Me the Wire]

I only turn with my blinkers on

Sometimes I practice civil disobedience and I don't.

[twindouble]

I'm with you all the way on craftsmanship td, as the adherence to that school is stylized and flavorful.

I get confused when the old school guys scoff at computers and their worth in this game. There are serveral offerings that are very comprehensive that can give a player a tremendous amount of edge.

I don't go looking for class drops as that angle is not enough for me to jump on a 9-2 baby. And for anyone who said Cashcall won easily they didn't see the same race I did. Finding spots that have you licking your chops is an enviable place to be. I have several angles and the night before racing I can push a few buttons and the program will direct me to those spots. In the old world there's no way I could go through every card run and pick out my spots. IMO - those that scoff at computers oftentimes don't know the various offerings and the comprehensiveness of their worth

I don't know about you or the other cats but I do this FT and can more than vouch for computers being a real asset.

I agree that computers can take a bit of soul out of the game but going back exclusively to the form would take a big chunk out of my daily bread

Mack, like I told the Fat, I'm mean skinny man I'll at least give you computer guys the benefit of doubt, I have no reason to think your handing me a lot bull. By the same token others here should give us traditional handicappers the same when we say we can and have made money over the years.

Will I challenge anyone to prove my point? Hell no, because now my game becomes something it shouldn't be, competing with your fellow player is just a distraction and your more apt to make mistakes. The game is tough enough without adding unnecessary burden to prove that point. Beside one run at each other doesn't prove anything, it boils down to how long anyone can sustain themselves over the long haul gambling. I always stress "gambling", because I've said many times being a good handicapper and lousy gambler don't go together, don't matter if your using the form or the computer.

When others here say they aren't gambling, to me that's a red flag and I become skeptical about what they have to say. Just can't help it.




Good luck,



T.D.

[bigmack]

Good luck
GL to you as well td

May I ask if you play professionally and if so, how many tracks you play?

By the way, my post about Jumbo was in jest - He seems like a nice enough fellow.

[the_fat_man]

[/b]

Mack, like I told the Fat, I'm mean skinny man I'll at least give you computer guys the benefit of doubt, I have no reason to think your handing me a lot bull. By the same token others here should give us traditional handicappers the same when we say we can and have made money over the years.

Will I challenge anyone to prove my point? Hell no, because now my game becomes something it shouldn't be, competing with your fellow player is just a distraction and your more apt to make mistakes. The game is tough enough without adding unnecessary burden to prove that point. Beside one run at each other doesn't prove anything, it boils down to how long anyone can sustain themselves over the long haul gambling. I always stress "gambling", because I've said many times being a good handicapper and lousy gambler don't go together, don't matter if your using the form or the computer.

When others here say they aren't gambling, to me that's a red flag and I become skeptical about what they have to say. Just can't help it.

Good luck,

T.D.



I'll jump in here.

I think there are merits to both systems and, as such, an effort to combine them would probably prove optimum.

The more we rehash the same issues, the more apparent it becomes to me that we are essentially identifying the same things; however, we're looking at them from different perspectives and thus interpreting them differently.
Moreover, any given method has its strengths and weakness. I might have a strong opinion in a certain race and be correct, a number/DB person might be clueless in that race but get it right in another where I'm clueless. I sneak a peak at CJ's figs, every so often, for races where I have an opinion. Why wouldn't I?

There are certainly many ways to determine if a horse is improving and the only part of it that's important (outside of BSing about it on a forum) is identifying the improving horse.

The issue for me, is how technology can facilitate my daily routine. As a first step, allowing me to do my work in less time while increasing efficiency. And from there, allowing me to build up a database from which I can derive speed/pace figures and such things. The more ways one has of looking at things, the more likely that one will have a broader understanding of it.

At the end, it's just grunt work.

[twindouble]

GL to you as well td

May I ask if you play professionally and if so, how many tracks you play?

By the way, my post about Jumbo was in jest - He seems like a nice enough fellow.

There was times when I felt I could do it for a living but the kids came one after the other and that I couldn't ignore. The negative aspect of being a gambler wasn't what the wife could deal with nor I when it came to the children. I had some years at the track that put my business to shame as a matter of fact, it was a key factor in getting it off the ground. Also it put me in a position to out maneuver three major oil companies for a prime piece of property with the help of another "gambler".

T.D.

[twindouble]

I'll jump in here.

I think there are merits to both systems and, as such, an effort to combine them would probably prove optimum.

The more we rehash the same issues, the more apparent it becomes to me that we are essentially identifying the same things; however, we're looking at them from different perspectives and thus interpreting them differently.
Moreover, any given method has its strengths and weakness. I might have a strong opinion in a certain race and be correct, a number/DB person might be clueless in that race but get it right in another where I'm clueless. I sneak a peak at CJ's figs, every so often, for races where I have an opinion. Why wouldn't I?

There are certainly many ways to determine if a horse is improving and the only part of it that's important (outside of BSing about it on a forum) is identifying the improving horse.

The issue for me, is how technology can facilitate my daily routine. As a first step, allowing me to do my work in less time while increasing efficiency. And from there, allowing me to build up a database from which I can derive speed/pace figures and such things. The more ways one has of looking at things, the more likely that one will have a broader understanding of it.

At the end, it's just grunt work.

Skinny, I propose to those that create numbers to tie you with a triditional handicapper at each track they play, partnerships always made sense to me me. They just ignored it.

I have disagree somewhat on the the last paragraph, what's in bold. There should be limits on how much information any handicapper indulges in, I'm sure you'll find yours if you haven't already.

T.D.

[the_fat_man]

Skinny, I propose to those that create numbers to tie you with a triditional handicapper at each track they play, partnerships always made sense to me me. They just ignored it.

I have disagree somewhat on the the last paragraph, what's in bold. There should be limits on how much information any handicapper indulges in, I'm sure you'll find yours if you haven't already.

T.D.

Yeah, I agree. Witness the Lehane, CJ pairing.

If I were a well grounded logician, doing proofs by hand

there would be a period of adjustment if I were to switch to an automated proof tool (a theorem prover or model checker)

however, once I got the hang of using the tool, as I was grounded in the fundamentals, the daily aspect of my work would be much easier

if I happened to pick up PVS (prototype verification system)
and started using it like a video game
nonetheless developing very strong intuitions as to how to use it (how to prove theorems)
I would be very competitive with the aforementioned logician

in fact, I'd probably be able (at lease initially) to do simpler proofs much quicker than the logician

but I wouldn't be able to handle complex ones as I just didn't have the proper grounding in the game

my point:
if you have a grounding in the game, and you're able to use technology to get more information, information that you could apply advantageously, why wouldn't you?

[Suff]

Keep your computers and your stats. A stat is only good if you know the particulars. Example, people bury Chantal Sutherland, or right in this thread, Jose Espinoza. He happens to be a tremendous rider. He's strong, good out of the gate, smart and never overbet.
Maybe he's a 10% rider because 88% of the time he's not on a contender.
One of the best riders in the country is Raul Rojas and most think he's a clown because he's like a 5%er But note the horses he rides. 99% of them are over 20-1.
He is a factor on every contender he rides and wins on most of them.
Anyway, enough out of me.
Oh and by the way, I also don't need a computer to tell me dirt form has nothing to do with grass form. My dad told me that when I was 7.
Good luck today.
Ben

Jiminey man!. That was an 11 dollar winner you had? Then you drop your racing curriculum vita on the board, and harken back to racing discusions with your dad? Wow, I thought I bloviated after a nice winner. Additionally you brought out the other experts to engage in the proverbial -"professional" discussion.- Minga!. I feel compelled to quote one of my favorite posters.../ "I love the Internet"

[twindouble]

Yeah, I agree. Witness the Lehane, CJ pairing.

If I were a well grounded logician, doing proofs by hand

there would be a period of adjustment if I were to switch to an automated proof tool (a theorem prover or model checker)

however, once I got the hang of using the tool, as I was grounded in the fundamentals, the daily aspect of my work would be much easier

if I happened to pick up PVS (prototype verification system)
and started using it like a video game
nonetheless developing very strong intuitions as to how to use it (how to prove theorems)
I would be very competitive with the aforementioned logician

in fact, I'd probably be able (at lease initially) to do simpler proofs much quicker than the logician

but I wouldn't be able to handle complex ones as I just didn't have the proper grounding in the game

my point:
if you have a grounding in the game, and you're able to use technology to get more information, information that you could apply advantageously, why wouldn't you?

Skinny, don't think for one second I understood all of what your talking about, even though I'm well grounded in the game. What's logical to those that program may very well have little to do with the race in hand. Tell me, who in their right mind will watch balls with numbers and colors floating around on a screen when there's a live race in front of them. To scale the race after the fact may be helpful, position, loss of ground, times and so on. The fact will remain, beaten lengths will still have little to do with final times, only your eyes and experience can figure out what horses had something left that wasn't used.

I can sight so many examples of elusion when it comes to pace and making up ground. Here's one, a closing sprinter stretching out beyond it's ability, makes a huge run from the back of the pack into a early fast pace to the lead, then is actually flattening out at the 1/8 pole, a solid router runs his race and blows by him creating the elusion of being a closer while winning the race. That closing sprinter next race gets in agains't lesser company going a shorter distance that got beat by 7 or 8 in his last, is now 10-1 not 5-2. Primarlly because speed figures support others. Can this example be logically programmed?



T.D.

[twindouble]

I would like to add another factor in that example, it's easy to pick up on when a horse is hopelessly beaten and is "eased up" after that big run no whip or urging of any kind just the run, saved for another day.


T.D.

[Tom]

Speed/pace figs, or Energy espenditure will tell you, usually, what races were not normal for the hrose so you do no use them. See it al lthe time - a slow early pace is more than enough reason for me to throw out a line and look deeper.
Every race in the PPs do not represent what the horse can do.

[twindouble]

Speed/pace figs, or Energy espenditure will tell you, usually, what races were not normal for the hrose so you do no use them. See it al lthe time - a slow early pace is more than enough reason for me to throw out a line and look deeper.
Every race in the PPs do not represent what the horse can do.

Tom, explain to me how your or other's program deciphers what I did watching the race? Not all of what I deducted was in the PP's. Can I assume you watch the races as well as using speed and pace figures?



T.D.

[Tom]

The pace figure will tell if the paces was fast or slow. I do not watch races as part of my handicapping, usually. If they show them on TVG, I watch them bewteen races, but never use them as part of my handciapping process. The figure tell me if the paces was hot or not, and if the races came home fast or collapsed. In your example, I would see the horse made a big move into a fast pace at a longer distance and tired. I wold not use the speed fig for that race if it was low. The races tell me the horse is in good condition and I would go back for a good race at a shorter distance like today's. I don't have to see anything to make that call. what I see is a horse stretching out, making a good moveinto a fast pace, then tiring, dropping and shortening up today. The last race would not be one to use to rate the horses, only to judge his condition. About the best you could do is look at what his SF would be if you used the beaten lengths at the stretch call, but I prefer to look back for races closer to today's conditions.

[xciceroguy]

Nice call dude!!!!

[twindouble]

The pace figure will tell if the paces was fast or slow. I do not watch races as part of my handicapping, usually. If they show them on TVG, I watch them bewteen races, but never use them as part of my handciapping process. The figure tell me if the paces was hot or not, and if the races came home fast or collapsed. In your example, I would see the horse made a big move into a fast pace at a longer distance and tired. I wold not use the speed fig for that race if it was low. The races tell me the horse is in good condition and I would go back for a good race at a shorter distance like today's. I don't have to see anything to make that call. what I see is a horse stretching out, making a good moveinto a fast pace, then tiring, dropping and shortening up today. The last race would not be one to use to rate the horses, only to judge his condition. About the best you could do is look at what his SF would be if you used the beaten lengths at the stretch call, but I prefer to look back for races closer to today's conditions.


When I handicap a race I'm also creating a pace scenario in my mind via the same raw fractions and variants that you and cj say you improved upon. What differs is, in some cases that pace may not develop because in this race others in the race may very well deny it for the simple reason those that figure to go the lead in the PP's will not have it today. So, I end with an entirely different take on the race when it comes to "pace". By denying, it could be as simple as the lack of the ability breaking from the gate verses others, not that they don't have the fastest times overall. Some horses need that lead to repeat those figures.

T.D.

[the_fat_man]

When I handicap a race I'm also creating a pace scenario in my mind via the same raw fractions and variants that you and cj say you improved upon. What differs is, in some cases that pace may not develop because in this race others in the race may very well deny it for the simple reason those that figure to go the lead in the PP's will not have it today. So, I end with an entirely different take on the race when it comes to "pace". By denying, it could be as simple as the lack of the ability breaking from the gate verses others, not that they don't have the fastest times overall. Some horses need that lead to repeat those figures.

T.D.

Twin

No matter what one's perspective may be, there are certain components of a race that are beyond contention; in other words, no matter what the theory/method, the interpretation is essentially the same.

This will be very simplistic.

Take your basic chart:

it has fractional times/splits

and the number of lengths a horse is ahead of the horses behind it

if you take the these lengths, in combination with the running order at that point of call, and sort them, you get a 'shape' for the race

at each point you'll 'know' what the running order of the horses is
and
the number of lengths behind the leader

so, I can take these 'numbers', graph them

and I have a(n abbreviated, yet very precise) visual shape of the race

I can also take the same numbers
and using the lengths behind calculate the fractional splits of each horse

and my system, whatever it may be, orders them at each point, giving me a race shape (this is simplistic as there would be pace adjustments, etc.)

so, in either case, visual, or numeric, representation, I 'know'
whether there was a speed duel, a loose horse, a collapsing race, a premature move, etc.

I can thus take a 'quick peek' at a 'race' and know, essentially, how it was run. I, at least, have a starting point for further investigation. Was there a lone horse running well late in a race where speed went 1-2-3 around the track? Was there a speed duel, with a race collapse, where one of speed horses held better than the others? etc.

Once again, these are all very simplistic examples as I'm sure our pace/tech friends do much more complicated calculations.

now, if you watch the same race, assuming you're competent, YOUR INTERPRETATION, at a very basic yet integral level, cannot be different from that of the the visual-graph person or that of the pace person.

You're arguing that there's more to a race than the above.
The pace/whatever group is arguing that they have more than enough information using this method to be able to make an informed decision on the race. What to you is important info, to them, is fluff or noise.

Here's a live example:

Yesterday's Matron.

Bill Cullen (I believe I have that right) posted a few days ago that the pace scenario favored Octave. And it did. There were a bunch of speeds or pseudo speeds in the race. That's all he essentially needed to know. He had an advantage and he almost won the race. (I have taken some liberties here on behalf of Mr Cullen. I apologize for any misrepresentation.)

You, on the other hand, having watched the races of the entrants would know that:

1) speed or otherwise, there was a single horse in the race, including Octave, that had demonstrated the ability to go 7F --the eventual winner
the favorite was terrible last time out, collapsing late in the stretch, and was stretching out today --

2) Octave got an inside trip last out; was under heavy whipping mid turn, and won because the leader absolutely collapsed a few strides from the wire (A matter of the dead beating the deader).

Now, if you don't like any of the speeds and you don't like Octave, you have a very real chance of betting the 5 at 30:1.
And, getting 'lucky' and winning by a nose.
Well, actually, not exactly, as the 5 did all the running and Octave came through on the inside to hook essentially tired horses and just wasn't good enough to get by.

Cullen (I take liberties again) says, "I got skunked", I made the correct play
and lost by a nose to a 30:1 outsider. If I keep making informed plays like this, I will turn a profit."


Hope this addresses some of your issues :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

...
I can sight so many examples of elusion when it comes to pace and making up ground. Here's one, a closing sprinter stretching out beyond it's ability, makes a huge run from the back of the pack into a early fast pace to the lead, then is actually flattening out at the 1/8 pole, a solid router runs his race and blows by him creating the elusion of being a closer while winning the race. That closing sprinter next race gets in agains't lesser company going a shorter distance that got beat by 7 or 8 in his last, is now 10-1 not 5-2. Primarlly because speed figures support others. Can this example be logically programmed?

T.D.

I'll guess that an example like that will elude speed figures. That is not to say that Distance factors, and running styles, couldn't be programmed into software at a basic level. Would be possible to identify a less subtle scenario like the one in your example.
I think many handicappers are suspect of a closing sprinter that stretches out on form. Even if you haven't seen the horse run , you will be wary of him flattening out. It takes that analysis a step further, when you incorporate it into future races.

[bigmack]

So, I end with an entirely different take on the race when it comes to "pace"
There's no question that there's information that one can glean from watching race after race that they wouldn't have off the chart or through well devised pace/speed figs. The overriding point is how much work does one have to put in let alone how many of those types of races can one find during the course of a day.

Have a ball with your mehtod td and I wish you well - Just as long as you don't hold a secret shadenfreude for us that utilize 'cutting edge' methodology
:jump:

[Tom]

When I handicap a race I'm also creating a pace scenario in my mind via the same raw fractions and variants that you and cj say you improved upon. What differs is, in some cases that pace may not develop because in this race others in the race may very well deny it for the simple reason those that figure to go the lead in the PP's will not have it today. So, I end with an entirely different take on the race when it comes to "pace". By denying, it could be as simple as the lack of the ability breaking from the gate verses others, not that they don't have the fastest times overall. Some horses need that lead to repeat those figures.

T.D.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I never said anything about predicting a pace scenario for the next race - you asked about a specific case, I talked about that case only and why I would consider the horse a contender next time out.

[twindouble]

There's no question that there's information that one can glean from watching race after race that they wouldn't have off the chart or through well devised pace/speed figs. The overriding point is how much work does one have to put in let alone how many of those types of races can one find during the course of a day.

Have a ball with your mehtod td and I wish you well - Just as long as you don't hold a secret shadenfreude for us that utilize 'cutting edge' methodology
:jump:

I'll start with you Mack, "Have a ball with your method TD and I wish you well." Heck I used to say that to my kids, knowing they had it wrong to begin with. :D Come on Mack give me a little credit for hanging on in this game for so long. What does shadenfreude mean?

Like I said before, trip handicapping is just one factor in my handicapping and I don't put a lot work into it by watching replays over and over, I pick up on the obvious things quit readily watching the race as a whole, not just the horse or horses I bet. In most cases I know pretty much know how some are going to run prior to start. When the race unfolds close to what I predicted, I'm happy, I can just zero in on those that ran better than I thought or got in trouble. You can't totally rely on the comments, for example, "checked" what I saw was the horse was making a good move got squeezed out and almost came to a stop. Another example 6 wide first turn, when in reality the horse was 9 wide and continued wide for about another 1/16 of a mile, it was either fall back to last or hope to get room to move over.

I don't over analyze anything.

T.D.

[twindouble]

I'll guess that an example like that will elude speed figures. That is not to say that Distance factors, and running styles, couldn't be programmed into software at a basic level. Would be possible to identify a less subtle scenario like the one in your example.
I think many handicappers are suspect of a closing sprinter that stretches out on form. Even if you haven't seen the horse run , you will be wary of him flattening out. It takes that analysis a step further, when you incorporate it into future races.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting others here aren't in tune with such a basic factor.

T.D.

[twindouble]

The pace figure will tell if the paces was fast or slow. I do not watch races as part of my handicapping, usually. If they show them on TVG, I watch them bewteen races, but never use them as part of my handciapping process. The figure tell me if the paces was hot or not, and if the races came home fast or collapsed. In your example, I would see the horse made a big move into a fast pace at a longer distance and tired. I wold not use the speed fig for that race if it was low. The races tell me the horse is in good condition and I would go back for a good race at a shorter distance like today's. I don't have to see anything to make that call. what I see is a horse stretching out, making a good moveinto a fast pace, then tiring, dropping and shortening up today. The last race would not be one to use to rate the horses, only to judge his condition. About the best you could do is look at what his SF would be if you used the beaten lengths at the stretch call, but I prefer to look back for races closer to today's conditions.

Well I got carried away a bit, I was refering to you creating those pace figures and how I could come up with something different as to how I see the race unfolding from the break. Hardly anyone talks about how the break can effect pace and the out come of the race. All they have is the fractions at the calls and finish.

T.D.

T.D.

[bigmack]

Come on Mack give me a little credit for hanging on in this game for so long. What does shadenfreude mean?
td, it's a good one from the Germans:

scha‧den‧freu‧de 
–noun satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune

Hey buckaroo, I think it's great that you do the voodoo that you do. I'm just hanging with it for the sake of dicsussion. Neither of us are going to sway the other. Variety is the spice. Unward & upward td.

[twindouble]

td, it's a good one from the Germans:

scha‧den‧freu‧de 
–noun satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune

Hey buckaroo, I think it's great that you do the voodoo that you do. I'm just hanging with it for the sake of dicsussion. Neither of us are going to sway the other. Variety is the spice. Unward & upward td.

Voodoo? If that's what you think that's fine with me. They called me lucky the first couple years, I would laugh that off as well. What does "Unward" mean?

T.D.

[bigmack]

Voodoo? If that's what you think that's fine with me. They called me lucky the first couple years, I would laugh that off as well. What does "Unward" mean?
I don't think there's anything I could say that you wouldn't find offensive -
Voodoo is just a word td - lighten-up. Unward is upward with an n.

[Tom]

Well I got carried away a bit, I was refering to you creating those pace figures and how I could come up with something different as to how I see the race unfolding from the break. Hardly anyone talks about how the break can effect pace and the out come of the race. All they have is the fractions at the calls and finish.

T.D.

T.D.

Actually, if you do a search, you will see I have boght that point up several times. The race starts at the break, not the first call. I always look at how well a horse breaks.

Horses that show break/first calls like this:

4 1
3 1
2 1
4 2


as compared to one like this:

1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1

Have more work to do to get the lead in 2 furlongs. If my figs have them pretty clsoe, I will prefer the fast breaker (assuming both are true need to lead horses). Can't qualify it, just note it and keep it in my mind when looking at the match ups.

[twindouble]

I don't think there's anything I could say that you wouldn't find offensive -
Voodoo is just a word td - lighten-up. Unward is upward with an n.

Offensive? Hell no, it just befuddles me as why you would categorize my handicapping as "Voodoo". Anyway, I did get a laugh. I'm not sitting here loading guns plaining an attack. I enjoy this, believe it or not. Hell, I don't even know what you mean when you say we can't agree on anything, I thought otherwise.


T.D.

[Tom]

I don't even know what you mean when you say we can't agree on anything, I thought otherwise.

T.D.

See? :lol:

[twindouble]

See? :lol:

:lol: I just read it again.

[bigmack]

Hell, I don't even know what you mean when you say we can't agree on anything, I thought otherwise. :lol:

A linguistics professor was lecturing to her class one day. “In English,”
she said, “A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though,
such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is
no language wherein a double positive can form a negative.”

A voice from the back of the room piped up, “Yeah, right.”

[twindouble]

:lol:

A linguistics professor was lecturing to her class one day. “In English,”
she said, “A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though,
such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is
no language wherein a double positive can form a negative.”

A voice from the back of the room piped up, “Yeah, right.”

Aside from my poor English. We better get back on topic, I don't want to be a party to another thread being locked.


T.D.

[toetoe]

Now I think I understand how my Dickinson/Bailey lock could lose that turf race a coupla years back --- I mean besides the fact that Bailey took her 6-wide on each turn. The filly, Dynamia, had better Beyers from a turf race than older stakes males, same turf, same distance, same day. Now I recognize that the males' Beyers were maybe lowered ex post facto, thereby unduly flattering the filly's effort. Anyway, I had hundreds if she completed the pick-three, and all in the following race, guaranteeing hundreds more if she won. Of COURSE Jose Santos got a perfect parting-of-the-Red-Sea voyage after race-long rail-skimming strangulation. Santos won on Lucifer's Stone, Bailey ran second, the exacta paid $24 for $1(!!), I got a fistful of lint, and my fellow loser at Bakersfield simulcast said, "I always just box 'em." :bang:

Mack,

You call that fellow fat? He's an adiposeur.

[Stevie Belmont]

One word........wow

[Fastracehorse]

Offensive? Hell no, it just befuddles me as why you would categorize my handicapping as "Voodoo". Anyway, I did get a laugh. I'm not sitting here loading guns plaining an attack. I enjoy this, believe it or not. Hell, I don't even know what you mean when you say we can't agree on anything, I thought otherwise.


T.D.

If someone classified my 'capping as voodoo I would take that as a compliment :)

fffastt

[twindouble]

If someone classified my 'capping as voodoo I would take that as a compliment :)

fffastt

Then pull out that doll, stick a pin in his brain where he thinks I'm giving him a hard time and wipe that thought righ out. Better yet make him agree with everything I say. :lol:

T.D.

[bigmack]

I have a whole collection - one for each of the jocks that give a rotten trip to an othewise "board hitter" if not for their ineptitude

http://www.tvdance.com/shop/-00-images/halloween-costumes/12435.jpg

[twindouble]

I have a whole collection - one for each of the jocks that give a rotten trip to an othewise "board hitter" if not for their ineptitude

http://www.tvdance.com/shop/-00-images/halloween-costumes/12435.jpg

If that was my doll all you would see is pins. :D

Seriously, I get over it real quick like I do with any other loss for obvious reasons. First and foremost your state of mind is important, ESP when your gambling.

T.D.