DRF Selections - Questions

[King Ritchie]

Do any of you follow the DRF selections?

Is there anyone of the DRF handicappers that you really like or don't like?

Do you like the "Closer Looks" - comments on the right hand side?

[Overlay]

Of the ones that provide comments (including the "Closer Look" section), I don't think I have a particular favorite. I do my own handicapping first, and then scan whatever comments are available to see if there are any angles or statistics that I might have missed or not given adequate consideration to. Of the selectors who just post their top three selections (without odds), over the years I think I've found myself most often in agreement with Sweep (for whatever reason), although many different individual Form handicappers would have used that name. (But, for me, it's the consideration of odds that mainly matters, not just who the most likely winner is.)

[cnollfan]

Same as Overlay -- I handicap first, but glance at Closer Look afterwards to see if they make a valid point I hadn't considered.

[King Ritchie]

Do any of you follow the DRF selections?

Is there anyone of the DRF handicappers that you really like or don't like?

Do you like the "Closer Looks" - comments on the right hand side?


Maybe I should have opened up the question as:

Is there anyone's picks at DRF or elsewheres that you follow closely?

[shanta]

Maybe I should have opened up the question as:

Is there anyone's picks at DRF or elsewheres that you follow closely?

If I am playing a track that Gary G or John Del Riccio post a single horse selection at I am looking at it closely.

[the little guy]

I follow Karl's redboards religiously.

[oddsmaven]

I don't track how they do, but having often perused their comments, I think that Dave Litfin is solid and some of the others pretty bad...the one thing that Dave has an affinity for that I think is often overblown, is "horses for courses"...otherwise he knows class, pace and the rest of it pretty well...he will generally have more conservative picks than the others, so you probably won't find too many interesting longshots with him... as for the side comments, I'm interested in them only for first time starters or first time turf, mainly to see what per cent their offspring click at first time out, or first time turf.

[cj's dad]

Do any of you follow the DRF selections?

Is there anyone of the DRF handicappers that you really like or don't like?

Do you like the "Closer Looks" - comments on the right hand side?

I have found the Tomlinson turf #'s to be helpful and accurate most of the time

[point given]

While I donot use the DRF much anymore; I used to glance to see who they were picking. When I would see all of 'em selecting the same horses, it was a bummer. race. I didnot follow any one capper, but there were a couple who would tab some nice LS picks. There was one guy I met ontrack who had his own drf selector system. He would only bet the lone horse for a particular race mentioned by one capper, he was happy with it without regard to whichever capper it might be providing the dissenting choice. I seem to remember that the "circuit handicapper" ususally chose more chalk than the other selectors. I also found that I couldnot trust the stats printed under the pp's. The sidebar comments per horse were useful at times in stating something I didnot know or overlooked; but was heavily dependent upon the capper providing the comments. The one I always avoided reading was I think Jennifer Learn Morrison or somesuch name which i have now butchered. There was a Fairgrounds guy years back who was good, and I always avoided Piesen for Monmouth before they wisely replaced him. I am always interested in the BC picks issue though for haha's.

[cj]

Dan Ilman is pretty good. I use Watchmaker like Trotter uses Loony in Let It Ride.

[1st time lasix]

Brad Free in California.....Litfin in NY....Klein in mid-west all try hard to do well. Each has their angles and way of doing things. Tough job to make selections without the odds to determine if they are truly a play on race day. Could be scratches, surface changes and track activity that might sway a decision. I only use them in Pick fours when i like a specific horse in the sequence and I want to make sure I use enough horses in a "spread" race that I don't particularly have a handle on.

[dav4463]

Anyone ever checked how you would do playing the lowest odds horse left that is not mentioned by any of the selectors? Just a random thought, but it might offer value. Or how about a horse that is mentioned only once?

[JustRalph]

I stopped looking at their picks after this

http://www.justralph.com/2002_derby_drf_picks.jpg

[the little guy]

9 people gave their picks and one had a 20-1 winner on top? Looks pretty good to me. I'm both surprised and impressed.

Congrats on your score in that Derby Ralph. And, further congrats on nailing every Derby.

[46zilzal]

Do any of you follow the DRF selections?

Is there anyone of the DRF handicappers that you really like or don't like?

Do you like the "Closer Looks" - comments on the right hand side?
Klein the fellow at Churchill, when he is on, really knows that course.

[john messina]

He would only bet the lone horse for a particular race mentioned by one capper, he was happy with it without regard to whichever capper it might be providing the dissenting choice..

I believe someone coined the phrase "The Informed Minority" as a rational for the above. The name escapes me at the moment, but I do remember a large study years ago, which showed a positive ROI.

[PaceAdvantage]

9 people gave their picks and one had a 20-1 winner on top? Looks pretty good to me. I'm both surprised and impressed.

Congrats on your score in that Derby Ralph. And, further congrats on nailing every Derby.I think the joke here that may have been lost on you, is that not one of the DRF Handicappers had War Emblem even LISTED....but, the WEBMASTER, who, presumably isn't a regular handicapper, nailed the race winner....

[the little guy]

I think the joke here that may have been lost on you, is that not one of the DRF Handicappers had War Emblem even LISTED....but, the WEBMASTER, who, presumably isn't a regular handicapper, nailed the race winner....

Thanks.....I'm more than a little slow.

Still not quite sure why not picking a 20-1 shot in an impossible race is a condemnation of any handicapper.

[ManeMediaMogul]

Jack Karlick, who was "Sweep" for the Daily Racing Form for years is an excellent handicapper. Brian Mulligan, who replaced Jack is also very good and still makes "Closer Look" selections. The Mackdaddy of them all is Jeff Siegel, who is a regular on HRTV. Even Karlick and Mulligan ask him who he likes. Jeff is a great handicapper and supplements his income at the windows every year. The problem is these guys work days in advance for their public selections. That's why it is good to read what they have to say about a pace scenario or horse for course or trainer angle but worrying about how many winners they pick in the paper is a gigantic waste of time. They might not even bet their 'pick" when price, track condition, late information or post parade inspection puts them on another horse.

[JustRalph]

Thanks.....I'm more than a little slow.

Still not quite sure why not picking a 20-1 shot in an impossible race is a condemnation of any handicapper.

Sorry if I stepped on the toes of your buddies up there in the DRF-Horse racing Intelligentsia, but PA got the point. And I was serious. I had only been playing a year or so and this one blew me away. Maybe I cashed on that Derby because I was new to the game. You have to admit that was the one Derby that was way "over thought" I have done pretty damn well on the Derby in the short time (relatively speaking) I have been playing. I know we don't all run in the high end circles that you do........and we know you are one of the names that people know etc. You drop in every once in a while to mingle with the serfs........ I get it. No need to fuss. I actually like most of your stuff. I know you are a Saratoga Celebrity and such. But come on..........? You gotta have tougher skin that that?

I don't know you Andy, so I won't start a pissing match with you. But anytime somebody on this board goes after one of your buddies you get defensive. This was a very broad whack at a group that was the subject of the thread.......... sorry if it offended you.

[the little guy]

Sorry, Ralph, I honestly wasn't trying to give you a hard time. I just always find it unfair that people somehow use a poor Derby opinion as an example of bad handicapping.....and especially in a year when a 20-1 shot won. If I didn't despise emoticons I would have used one somewhere to show I was at least trying to be lighthearted.

I actually hadn't looked at the names on the list that you used when I posted, but now that I have gone back I did see that two of them are friends of mine, and I'm not sure I've even met the majority of them.

However, I think it's unfair to be too broad in criticizing public handicappers, as they have a very short time to get their picks in on many days before the paper goes to press, and they are, of course, made before scratches. I imagine most of us would do a mediocre job, at best, if we had just two hours to handicap most cards. I would be more interested in hearing more specific criticisms, such as a handicapper that seems to only rely on chart comments, without seemingly ever watching races, as we all know those comments can be deceptive. Maybe that also falls into the category of " too little time " but those kinds of criticisms are at least a little fairer than " he didn't pick the Derby winner. " None of us should ever be absolutely judged by how well we pick one race among thousands.

Yeah, that being a Saratoga celebrity is really working for me. In fact, when I was up there a few weeks ago I actually managed to get a drink at 9 Maple in under five minutes. I'm not sure.....but I think it was because the bartender recognized me.

[JustRalph]

Andy, Fair enough.

[Burls]

Every once in a while, I'll see a top pick agreed on by a couple of handicapppers on the Selections Sheet for the PHA Drf that is still at 6/1 or higher at 2 minutes to post time.
So I'll bet it on that basis.
I've gotten a couple of decent hits that way.
Usually though, the Selections sheet is pretty chalky.
It's just the M/L favorites.

[Murph]

Sorry, Ralph, I honestly wasn't trying to give you a hard time. I just always find it unfair that people somehow use a poor Derby opinion as an example of bad handicapping.....I think that Derby is a perfect example of poor public handicapping.
Those handicappers had 6 weeks to evaluate the IL Derby
speed figure and almost every one of them disregarded
and downgraded that performance.

They were most, all terribly wrong. What did that same group select
when Barbaro won?

Murph

[Cratos]

I think that Derby is a perfect example of poor public handicapping.
Those handicappers had 6 weeks to evaluate the IL Derby
speed figure and almost every one of them disregarded
and downgraded that performance.

They were most, all terribly wrong. What did that same group select
when Barbaro won?

Murph


I disagree because Andy Beyer went on the nationally televised PTI show on ESPN the Friday before the Derby and told the co-host, Tony Kornheiser not only that War Emblem would win, but why the horse would win and it was in part because of his Illinois Derby performance.

[cj]

I disagree because Andy Beyer went on the nationally televised PTI show on ESPN the Friday before the Derby and told the co-host, Tony Kornheiser not only that War Emblem would win, but why the horse would win and it was in part because of his Illinois Derby performance.

I am as big a Beyer fan as anyone. He did not, however, pick War Emblem to win the Derby. He even jokes about not doing so often.

[Tee]

Whatever happened to The Handicappers Show?

Wasn't Beyer on Essence of Dubai in 2002?

[the little guy]

I think that Derby is a perfect example of poor public handicapping.
Those handicappers had 6 weeks to evaluate the IL Derby
speed figure and almost every one of them disregarded
and downgraded that performance.

They were most, all terribly wrong. What did that same group select
when Barbaro won?

Murph


I understand what you're saying but I simply don't agree. No handicapper or horseplayer should ever be judged by one day or one race.

I am sure there are some very talented horseplayers on this board and all of them have many horrendous days at the racetrack. The point being that in order to judge anyone it needs to be done over time. I am not saying that there aren't necessarily mediocre handicappers on the list that was offered......just saying that taking one race, from one day during the year, doesn't offer an oppportunity for a fair judgement. If you were able to see my Derby picks from 1987 and 1994 you might consider me a genius. However, if you saw my picks from many other years you would perhaps consider me an idiot. Hopefully I'm somewhere in between....and a very random selection would not have labeled me accurately. I imagine the same could be said for a great majority around here.

[Grits]

I understand what you're saying but I simply don't agree. No handicapper or horseplayer should ever be judged by one day or one race.

I am sure there are some very talented horseplayers on this board and all of them have many horrendous days at the racetrack. The point being that in order to judge anyone it needs to be done over time. I am not saying that there aren't necessarily mediocre handicappers on the list that was offered......just saying that taking one race, from one day during the year, doesn't offer an oppportunity for a fair judgement. If you were able to see my Derby picks from 1987 and 1994 you might consider me a genius. However, if you saw my picks from many other years you would perhaps consider me an idiot. Hopefully I'm somewhere in between....and a very random selection would not have labeled me accurately. I imagine the same could be said for a great majority around here.

I think it unfortunate and in poor judgement, when anyone finds fault with the job of a public handicapper. Including yourself. I find it even more--unfair. The guys at home can say . . . this, that, the other. They can all do it better. It is easy to do so in the safe haven that is home. As you state, they have never worked days in advance, nor have they faced deadlines. Most of all--they have NEVER been held to public scrutiny. (That one's the kicker.)

Did I say . . . they can do it better?

I look at this the same way I look at the careers, and the skill of jockeys--including Jorge Chavez. The patrons at the track, or those wagering at home give a great amount of lip service--the same given to public handicappers. Not a single one of them has EVER gotten a leg up in the afternoon to guide a horse around a racetrack. Most, at best, may know which end the bridle and bit go on--and that's about it.

Funny though--they can all do it better every afternoon.

[cj]

I don't recall a single poster ever saying they could have ridden a horse better. That doesn't mean they can't recognize a bonehead ride.

I can't throw a football better than Tom Brady, but I sure know he threw some crappy passes against the Chargers.

[Grits]

I agree. A bonehead ride, a hopeless handicapping choice; both occur each afternoon. And entire career of either, I hope not. Certainly, for their sake.

I don't recall a single poster ever saying they could have ridden a horse better. That doesn't mean they can't recognize a bonehead ride.

I can't throw a football better than Tom Brady, but I sure know he threw some crappy passes against the Chargers.

[eastie]

Thanks.....I'm more than a little slow.

Still not quite sure why not picking a 20-1 shot in an impossible race is a condemnation of any handicapper.

A little slow ?.....more like sharpest guy at the track with the best sense of humor around. They should let you take over for Carson Daly and watch ratings soar through the roof.

[46zilzal]

I think that Derby is a perfect example of poor public handicapping.
Those handicappers had 6 weeks to evaluate the IL Derby
speed figure and almost every one of them disregarded
and downgraded that performance.

Often, very often, these handicappers consider the track the horse ran on and not the real performance.

I have seen this repeatedly when Hasting's Park horses go to California. Many of the better ones have been in the money at ridiculous odds.

I have seen this with many horses through the years: talented, improving and moving to the big time yet their home track's position in the overall pecking order overwhelms the evaluation of the horse right in front of them.

It works the other way too: Big guns going to small venues are preached as unbeatable rather than evaluate the competition right there that day.

[Greyfox]

Brad Free in California

:ThmbUp: Brad Free is good. If he names a horse that I haven't picked I look it over carefully. Also in the actual form itself, if Brian Mulligan suggests that you can't leave a maiden runner out take note. Reading between the lines on some of his comments can also lead you to astutely toss out a "figure" pick that just won't do anything today.


46Zil - Sometimes when "Big Guns" move to tracks like Hastings they just can't handle the bull ring turns so well. They may be the best there, but not for that oval. A great time to pick local overlays.

[46zilzal]

46Zil - Sometimes when "Big Guns" move to tracks like Hastings they just can't handle the bull ring turns so well. They may be the best there, but not for that oval. A great time to pick local overlays.
What I find typical, is that their connections send their 8 furlong oval riders with them, with little day to day 5 furlong oval experience to ride them!

Bull rings require short coupled (as the British are fond of saying) HANDY horses and yet, all the time, long coupled gallopers are sent in to do what none have been able to do before. Go figure.

[The Hawk]

I don't recall a single poster ever saying they could have ridden a horse better. That doesn't mean they can't recognize a bonehead ride.

I can't throw a football better than Tom Brady, but I sure know he threw some crappy passes against the Chargers.

You may THINK you can recognize a bonehead ride, and you can use that to justify a bad pick on your part, which is what a lot of people do. But even if you've watched races for decades you don't know what it's like to ride a thoroughbred in a horse race. What if the horse was rank, or unsound, or spooked, or doesn't want to go up the rail, or through a hole? You can blame the jockey for not making that move, and there are occasions where you're right, but you don't know.

Same goes for football. You can watch 10,000 games, and one day think you saw some bad passes. Maybe a ball was tipped. Maybe a receiver ran the wrong route. Maybe the QB lost his footing. Even given experience in the saddle/pocket, sometimes you just don't know what happened.

[cj]

Why do people resort to saying a criticism is the result of a losing bet? It is just silly.

I am not allowed to watch races and notice which horses receive good and/or poor rides? Do you not think bad rides happen? Please, get real.

I do not have to know how to ride a horse to have a pretty good idea if a ride was poor. I think after watching thousands and thousands of races I can tell if a horse is rank, sore, whatever with a pretty high degree of accuracy. Of course there are times I might be wrong about a ride, but it won't be often.

[boomman]

:ThmbUp: Brad Free is good. If he names a horse that I haven't picked I look it over carefully. Also in the actual form itself, if Brian Mulligan suggests that you can't leave a maiden runner out take note. Reading between the lines on some of his comments can also lead you to astutely toss out a "figure" pick that just won't do anything today.


46Zil - Sometimes when "Big Guns" move to tracks like Hastings they just can't handle the bull ring turns so well. They may be the best there, but not for that oval. A great time to pick local overlays.

As a public handicapper myself for nearly 30 years, I 100% agree with the postings on this thread that have stated that judging a public handicapper on his/her selections in one race (such as the Ky Derby) is utterly ridiculous! I also agree with Greyfox that Brad Free does an excellent job. I know Brad very well and he takes great pride in his selections and works very hard at not only his picks, but also in his written analysis of each race. As a poster also noted however, remember this: When we are making selections for print publications, we usually have to make them as far as 4 days in advance, which doesn't allow for weather conditions, late scratches, jockey changes, etc. My advice when following public handicappers is to carefully read their analysis of the race. To me that sort of easily defines how much time they actually spent handicapping the race.......;)

Boomer

[the little guy]

The notion that a horseplayer cannot spot a bad ride is just flat out wrong. Are we right 100% of the time? Probably not, but that's one of the great things about this game, that keeps us interested, we are always going to be wrong a lot. But, if you watch thousands of races carefully, as I'm sure many here do, you should, and do, learn a great deal.....and one thing you learn is what kinds of rides work and what kinds don't. Sometimes it is circumstance and sometimes it is jockey error. It doesn't really matter which, ultimately, but an experienced trip watcher can pretty much tell for sure.

I will offer one of the most famous bad rides of my lifetime....Kent Desormeaux on Real Quiet in the Belmont Stakes. Sending Real Quiet into a drive at the 3/8s pole, against Grand Slam and Chilito, in a 1 1/2 mile race, was needless and absolutely cost that horse the win.....and the Triple Crown. Now, it also took a brilliant ride by Gary Stevens on Victory Ride for Real Quiet to ultimately lose a close decision. But, make no mistake, Desormeaux's ride was a bad one for the ages. Even if the horse had won it would have been a poor ride.

But that's just a glaring example. If you want to see a strawberry patch of bad rides just watch any day on the Aqueduct inner track carefully. There's a whole laundry basket of incompetence out there on a daily basis. Rajiv Maragh gets a horse out of the gate cleanly about as often as I date a supermodel.

[46zilzal]

I told several friends, we were at a Saturday/Sunday seminar at a big hotel, to come up to one of their rooms to watch the race. It appeared that no one could stay with Real Quiet, but if they tried it would really hurt him. The longer race, the early pressure and the rider switch were positive factors in this win. It appeared that he had the distinct chance of being caught at the marathon distance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRP4UbrCg8
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800EFD7163AF934A35755C0A96E9582 60

NY Times: "Real Quiet became the 14th to lose it in the final race in the series, and lost by the narrowest margin among those 14. Afterward, the stewards suggested that he might have been disqualified if he had won the race because he brushed Victory Gallop twice in the homestretch."

BONE HEAD RIDE OF THE DECADE: Julie Krone in Forty Niner in the B.C. Classic. Takes a speed horse back on a dead rail and tries to rate a colt that was prominent both times he tried 10 furlongs ON , or near the lead. You don't mess with a horse's best style as Bailey was quoted after Arcagnes win.

[JustRalph]

I tend to notice the really good rides.........because they are usually beating me......... :lol:

[Tee]

Bonehead rides can at times be directly linked to trainer instructions.

[King Ritchie]

Personally, I like Kristen Sadler. I love her "closer looks", especially in the Maiden races - she seems to look them all up and gives one information that is not normally available. Seems to me I remember her as the only DRF handicapper picking Monarchos in the Derby.

[The Hawk]

The notion that a horseplayer cannot spot a bad ride is just flat out wrong. Are we right 100% of the time? Probably not, but that's one of the great things about this game, that keeps us interested, we are always going to be wrong a lot. But, if you watch thousands of races carefully, as I'm sure many here do, you should, and do, learn a great deal.....and one thing you learn is what kinds of rides work and what kinds don't. Sometimes it is circumstance and sometimes it is jockey error. It doesn't really matter which, ultimately, but an experienced trip watcher can pretty much tell for sure.

Totally agree. I said there are occasions when we're right. We're just not right 100% of the time, which is all I'm saying. Sometimes it IS circumstance and sometimes it is jockey error. Lots of times, though, more than many care to admit, it's our own fault.

Why do people resort to saying a criticism is the result of a losing bet? It is just silly.

I am not allowed to watch races and notice which horses receive good and/or poor rides? Do you not think bad rides happen? Please, get real.

I do not have to know how to ride a horse to have a pretty good idea if a ride was poor. I think after watching thousands and thousands of races I can tell if a horse is rank, sore, whatever with a pretty high degree of accuracy. Of course there are times I might be wrong about a ride, but it won't be often.

So if there are times when you are wrong, as you say, I ask: Why do you resort to blaming jockeys when you simply played the wrong horse?

Yes, we're all allowed to watch races and notice which horses receive good and/or poor rides.

I know bad rides happen. I also think there are many times when bettors blame jockeys as an excuse for a losing play/pick.

I know this is off topic, so I'll stray no further, but this study in egomania is truly fascinating to me. I can't believe you actually admitted you might be wrong about a ride a jockey gave a horse, even with the benefit of watching the race on a 17" screen from thousands of miles away.

[the little guy]

I know bad rides happen. I also think there are many times when bettors blame jockeys as an excuse for a losing play/pick.

I know this is off topic, so I'll stray no further, but this study in egomania is truly fascinating to me. I can't believe you actually admitted you might be wrong about a ride a jockey gave a horse, even with the benefit of watching the race on a 17" screen from thousands of miles away.


There's a lot wrong with this.

Yes, there is no doubt that bettors often incorrectly blame the rider when a horse they bet loses, however this has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here. I might bet a third of the live races I watch carefully on a daily basis. There are probably 150 horses in these races, of which I have a financial investment of possibly as much as 10%, so most of the horses I am watching I am not betting. Not surprisingly, there are far more " bad rides " or " bad trips " on horses I didn't bet. Plus, I watch about 25-30 replays per day in preparation for betting. I see a reasonable amount of bad rides and bad trips watching these replays. None of these are horses I am betting on and I am not looking to imagine bad trips so that I can foolishly lose money in the coming days. Simply put, if one is doing his job correctly, he or she only sees bad trips ( be they rides or circumstance ) that actually exist. Your skill at this will be reflected in your bottom line.

As for the final part, well I watch on a 24" screen, and sometimes smaller, and I am quite able to determine a great deal. And, if need be I watch a race over and over again to ascertain what actually happened. How far away the actual live event happened is of absolutely no relevance. Why is it different to watch a screen in my apartment as opposed to at the track? And, are you suggesting one can absolutely see the entire race better watching it live than on television? Perhaps some can....but I think it's fair to say more can pick up all the action on a screen with the option of repeated viewings.

[RXB]

I remember about 10 years ago, it was a Monday at Saratoga and I watched the replays of the first couple of races and told my friends to avoid Jerry Bailey for the day, he looked completely out of synch on his first two mounts. Well, he didn't finish in the exacta on Monday... or Wednesday... or Thursday... finally won a race in the latter part of the Friday card after running out of the exacta with more than 20 consecutive mounts. This is a guy who was finishing in the exacta with about 40% of his horses at that time.

Watching from a 24" TV screen.

We can't know everything, and we all have our prejudices, but there are plenty of times when you can tell that a rider has made a mistake, or seems out of sorts on a particular day.

[The Hawk]

There's a lot wrong with this.

Yes, there is no doubt that bettors often incorrectly blame the rider when a horse they bet loses, however this has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

That's all I'm saying, though. Bettors incorrectly blame the rider when they bet the wrong horse. We all agree on that.

I might bet a third of the live races I watch carefully on a daily basis. There are probably 150 horses in these races, of which I have a financial investment of possibly as much as 10%, so most of the horses I am watching I am not betting. Not surprisingly, there are far more " bad rides " or " bad trips " on horses I didn't bet. Plus, I watch about 25-30 replays per day in preparation for betting. I see a reasonable amount of bad rides and bad trips watching these replays. None of these are horses I am betting on and I am not looking to imagine bad trips so that I can foolishly lose money in the coming days. Simply put, if one is doing his job correctly, he or she only sees bad trips ( be they rides or circumstance ) that actually exist. Your skill at this will be reflected in your bottom line.


Absolutely agree on all counts. I think our difference is in the perspective. You are a detailed player and are looking at this from your own point of view. I'm talking about the guys who blame jockeys for losing when the horse they bet, likely because a lack of preparation on their part, was just not good enough. You're apparently not one of those guys, but we can agree they exist.

As for the final part, well I watch on a 24" screen, and sometimes smaller, and I am quite able to determine a great deal. And, if need be I watch a race over and over again to ascertain what actually happened. How far away the actual live event happened is of absolutely no relevance. Why is it different to watch a screen in my apartment as opposed to at the track? And, are you suggesting one can absolutely see the entire race better watching it live than on television? Perhaps some can....but I think it's fair to say more can pick up all the action on a screen with the option of repeated viewings.

I agree with this as well. I mentioned being far away because CJ said he can tell if a horse is "sore, rank or whatever," which you might agree would be a lot easier to do in person than on any sized screen, as you're not at the mercy of the cameraman. That's why it has relevance.

BTW...I watch most races on tapes, but I've picked up a lot of trips over the years watching a race live and noticing something that was tough or impossible to pick up on the pan shot.

[the little guy]

I think you can tell " rank " from TV but personally I couldn't tell you if a horse was sore or lame under any circumstances.

In general, jockeys get way too much credit in all circumstances. In general they have very little to do with the final results. However, they are far more responsible for horses finishing worse than they should have than for improving a horse's final finish. A rider should not be judged by how many he wins, as that is a product of the number of live horses he ( or she ) rides, but by the number of horses they ride that lose that should have won. The best riders get these home a very high percentage of the time.

[46zilzal]

Years ago some of the best advice was given, simply, by Chris McCarron: " We can make a logical horse lose more often than we can make a sub-par horse win."

[Cratos]

I am as big a Beyer fan as anyone. He did not, however, pick War Emblem to win the Derby. He even jokes about not doing so often.

Sorry to disagree with you and I stand to be corrected, but he did. However if memeory serves, he named Essence of Dubai in the USA Today poll. I will contact ESPN PTI for confirmation. They should have the archived tape of the show for April 30, 2002.

[cj]

So if there are times when you are wrong, as you say, I ask: Why do you resort to blaming jockeys when you simply played the wrong horse?


Again, why do you assume someone criticizing a ride and having a losing bet on the horse must be related? It is a stupid assumption.

[The Hawk]

Again, why do you assume someone criticizing a ride and having a losing bet on the horse must be related? It is a stupid assumption.

Ok. There's absolutely NO correlation between someone having a losing bet and that same someone criticizing the ride on said horse. Why not? Because you said so. And I made a stupid assumption.

Sharp guy.

[Rexdale You]

I find it valuable when the handicapper reminds you the horse is exiting a

KEY race,,,It tells me they are actually digging for clues,,,

Rex you :jump: ;) :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

Hell anyone who has watched racing for any period of time can tell a bad ride from a good one irrespective of having a wager on same.

I can't tell you how many times I have been simply amazed at Dominguez, Prado, and even Pat Valenzuela (about whom I have a strong negative bias yet marvel all the time when he put in rides like SS against Easy Goer in the Preakness) or the many many great ones from Laffit and Shoe and not having a single dime on the contest.

Conversely, a rider getting themselves in un-necessary trouble deserves the "boo - birds."