why can't Jason Blewitt...

[point given]

just shutup. I 've gotta turn the damned audio off and try to time it so I can hear Jan Rushton who has things to say, but avoid him. Just rubs me the wrong way ; I gain absolutley nothing from listening to what he frothes up.( bad visual there, sorry) Just another loud mouth kid . Whats the use, its NYRA. :blush:

[tribecaagent]

just shutup. I 've gotta turn the damned audio off and try to time it so I can hear Jan Rushton who has things to say, but avoid him. Just rubs me the wrong way ; I gain absolutley nothing from listening to what he frothes up.( bad visual there, sorry) Just another loud mouth kid . Whats the use, its NYRA. :blush:

Point Given,

On one hand, I agree with you. Jason adds zero to the telecast. However, I don't think he's a loudmouth kid, just lazy. He's been doing the show for quite a while now (at least 5 years) and it seems like he's not gained an ounce of knowledge. I doubt he's ever picked up a handicapping book. Hopefully, The Little Guy will put a pepper up his ass and teach him a thing or two.

[point given]

Point Given,

On one hand, I agree with you. Jason adds zero to the telecast. However, I don't think he's a loudmouth kid, just lazy. He's been doing the show for quite a while now (at least 5 years) and it seems like he's not gained an ounce of knowledge. I doubt he's ever picked up a handicapping book. Hopefully, The Little Guy will put a pepper up his ass and teach him a thing or two.
5 years ? really ? How time flies when you're havin' fun :faint: . I don't play BiG A or Sandie much anymore , so maybe thats why. He just seems like a kid in an OTB to me. At least TLg has something to add to the mix, like him or not. Like him when he puts you onto a good thing and not when he puts you off a good thing you liked. You think that pepper will give him salmonella :lol:

[JustRalph]

I don't know the guy, and have only seen him since I started taping/DVR'ing the Saratoga Race Replay show on HRTV at night. I was kind of wondering about the skinny tie and dark suit thing I have seen him wear a few times. He looks like a Mafia Mook doing the replay show? :lol:

I have only watched about 5-6 shows...........so I guess I am not tired of him yet. Didn't seem like he was that bad though.

[PaceAdvantage]

I 've gotta turn the damned audio off and try to time it so I can hear Jan Rushton who has things to say...You see, this is where it's different strokes for different folks. I have seen many folks post the same type of negative comments about Rushton, as you have for Blewitt. Are you wrong? Are they correct? Who knows?

[point given]

I don't know the guy, and have only seen him since I started taping/DVR'ing the Saratoga Race Replay show on HRTV at night. I was kind of wondering about the skinny tie and dark suit thing I have seen him wear a few times. He looks like a Mafia Mook doing the replay show? :lol:

I have only watched about 5-6 shows...........so I guess I am not tired of him yet. Didn't seem like he was that bad though.
You'll have to pay more attention to the trite hackneyed phrases and lack of substance . Plus if you can talk fast and loud and point out the obvious and look like a mook. then you've got it. No clubhouse would let the preppy wannabe in their place though. :eek:

[tribecaagent]

5 years ? really ? How time flies when you're havin' fun :faint: . I don't play BiG A or Sandie much anymore , so maybe thats why. He just seems like a kid in an OTB to me. At least TLg has something to add to the mix, like him or not. Like him when he puts you onto a good thing and not when he puts you off a good thing you liked. You think that pepper will give him salmonella :lol:

You know what, P.G., I think Blewitt has been there 7-8 years. Wow!

How can anyone do something for that long and not progress? That's pathetic.

I heard he doesn't make that much anyway. Something like $100-150 a day. That's like $50k a year. You can't get too far in NYC on 50k a year.

[Bubbles]

I honestly don't mind Blewitt. I think Rushton pays more attention to her choice of hats than to the horses sometimes, but she's not HORRIBLE.

Like the boss man says, different strokes for different folks.

[BUD]

I honestly don't mind Blewitt. I think Rushton pays more attention to her choice of hats than to the horses sometimes, but she's not HORRIBLE.

Like the boss man says, different strokes for different folks.

I just watch for Jans hats anyway.....I thought thats what everybody was watchin' for:liar:

[toetoe]

I see Blewitt as a tolerable version of the GREAT, insufferable Bob Costas.

[tribecaagent]

I see Blewitt as a tolerable version of the GREAT, insufferable Bob Costas.

Bob Costas & Jason Blewitt? HHMM...

Mr. Toe, that is a serious stretch. I don't wish ill will toward anyone, and I hope some day he does become racing's version of Bob Costas, but he has to evolve as a handicapper & racing personality. I'm sure you've read the posts on this thread. Jason Blewitt is a "mafia mook", etc. We all know he's not a thug, but he should go and see a speach therapist for his accent. Costas doesn't sound like he grew up in the suburbs of St. Louis, does he?

Maybe NYRA wants him to only speak about face value stuff, but he never brings anything new to the telecast.

[RichieP]

What happened to the lady that used to be on the show? Can't remember her name as it has been a couple of years at least since I saw the Nyra show.

Sh** she picked more winners than these guys least from what I have seen over the last 10 days or so.

:14:

[tribecaagent]

What happened to the lady that used to be on the show? Can't remember her name as it has been a couple of years at least since I saw the Nyra show.

Sh** she picked more winners than these guys least from what I have seen over the last 10 days or so.

:14:

Jan Rushton?

[sandpit]

What happened to the lady that used to be on the show? Can't remember her name as it has been a couple of years at least since I saw the Nyra show.

Sh** she picked more winners than these guys least from what I have seen over the last 10 days or so.

:14:

Are you talking about that older lady with the horribly high-brow voice who dressed very proper? Mary something or other, I think?

[Spendabuck85]

Mary Ryan ??

[KirisClown]

What happened to the lady that used to be on the show? Can't remember her name as it has been a couple of years at least since I saw the Nyra show.

Sh** she picked more winners than these guys least from what I have seen over the last 10 days or so.

:14:

I think it was Kelly something... I cant remember her last name...

[slewis]

I once asked a former NYRA executive why Jason Blewitt still has a job and he responded "Because he works very cheap, very cheap".

You get what you pay for. The kid's a total idiot and it's fun goofing on him.

As for Kelly G. The gal that occasionally appeared with picks and analysis, she works in the racing office as an assistant racing sec.

[slewis]

You know, Ive been giving this Blewitt thing a bit of a thought since today's card at the spa is dull.


What NYRA should do is fire Blewitt, Donovan, and Jan Rushton and go out and hire Andy Serling and Jessica Pacheco.

BUT, there's a caveat. Offer two salaries. 1) $125,000 per and 2) $60,000 per.
Whoever picks more winners the first week between Andy and Jessica gets the $125,000, the other the $60,000.

Of course once Andy finds out that I'll be helping Jessica with her picks that week, well, let's put it this way:
EVER SEE A DWARF SHIT HIS PANTS?? :lol: :lol:

[foregoforever]

BUT, there's a caveat. Offer two salaries. 1) $125,000 per and 2) $60,000 per.
Whoever picks more winners the first week between Andy and Jessica gets the $125,000, the other the $60,000.

Should that be the criteria? I'd go with payoffs. Otherwise, it gets to be a chalk eating contest.

[OTM Al]

I honestly don't mind Blewitt. I think Rushton pays more attention to her choice of hats than to the horses sometimes, but she's not HORRIBLE.

Like the boss man says, different strokes for different folks.

Got some bad news for you. She doesn't pick her own hats.

[tribecaagent]

You know, Ive been giving this Blewitt thing a bit of a thought since today's card at the spa is dull.


What NYRA should do is fire Blewitt, Donovan, and Jan Rushton and go out and hire Andy Serling and Jessica Pacheco.

BUT, there's a caveat. Offer two salaries. 1) $125,000 per and 2) $60,000 per.
Whoever picks more winners the first week between Andy and Jessica gets the $125,000, the other the $60,000.

Of course once Andy finds out that I'll be helping Jessica with her picks that week, well, let's put it this way:
EVER SEE A DWARF SHIT HIS PANTS?? :lol: :lol:

I think Jan is pretty good but for the sake of this post, here's my suggestion if they were to clean house.

Everybody loves Andy so keep Andy. Jessica Pacheco is easy on the eyes and she has a cute personality, but she's an airhead. No thanks. I would add Donna Barton-Brothers and Steve Byk. Steve's radio show is superb and I think he can become the Jim McKay of our era.

[point given]

I think Jan is pretty good but for the sake of this post, here's my suggestion if they were to clean house.

Everybody loves Andy so keep Andy. Jessica Pacheco is easy on the eyes and she has a cute personality, but she's an airhead. No thanks. I would add Donna Barton-Brothers and Steve Byk. Steve's radio show is superb and I think he can become the Jim McKay of our era.

They should also get a new TV production crew/director. Each of the on air talent is taught the same stuff, hence the poor presentation. The post parades show the stable ponies instead of the horses half the time, they do not have the 2 half screen shots like all other tracks, so you can see the frontrunners on half and the entire field on the other. When they do tv at belmont, its like watching ants on tv. The person who puts up the running order numbers during the race is wrong quite often as well. Not one of your crack TV production outfits to me, and i bet they get paid pretty well for substandard coverage. :eek: :bang:

[cnollfan]

I don't think Jessica's an airhead. She's not afraid to pick against the chalk.

[exactatom]

I disagree with the opinion that Jessica is an airhead. I respect the fact that she is an anaylst that not only picks against almost all the favorites, but she does her homework and when given expanded broadcast time (as she was in the later races on the Million card) can go through each horse with what she likes and doesn't like about each horse. One thing that did impress me was that it became evident she did a lot of her handicapping as the day progressed. There was a small stakes in which two divisions were run. She went back three races in some of these and pointed out how horses in the 6 th race (second diviison) and commented on how they did against horses in the first edition when they went head to head earlier in the meet. I think a lot of times that when female analysts are attractive (as she is) that people pay more attention to looks then substance. Most postings on here are more about her physical attractiveness then her ability to pick winners at decent prices. She does get quite animated sometimes and I think the enthusiasm is great for the game. I am from St. Louis and this was my first time seeing her in person after seeing her and several of the intertrack people weekly at the simulcast area of the local track and I did tell her that I admired how she does pick against the chalk. Her response was "Well that wouldn't be any fun now would it?" I thought it was funny.
FYI, Jan Rushton does not pick out her own hats and began wearing them becasue she did not have time to fix her hair for the TV show after she got done galloping horses in the morning. This is my first post and I really like this site.

[TravisVOX]

Jessica Pacheco could probably out-handicap half of the folks on this board. She's sharp. While at LAD, she was never afraid to go against the chalk, and even booted home a few double digit winners (not 10-1 winners, but 30-1 winners). She's also a lot of fun, has tremendous enthusiasm and has the looks to boot.

[46zilzal]

Jessica seems like an airhead tossing her hair around like a girl from the movie Clueless. I can hear the director now: Lay on the CUTE!!!

Ms. Rushton on the other hand it all business on the air: competent and knowledgeable......always looking for the new hats.

[tribecaagent]

Since when does "picks against almost all the the favorites", "never afraid to go against the chalk", and "not afraid to pick against the chalk" make Jessica a good handicapper? Are you guys kidding me?

I agree with you guys one one thing though. She's cute, funny, has a great smile, etc. However, we're talking about gambling not sex, right?

Check out Andy Serling in New York.

Check out Brad Thomas in New Jersey.

Check out Jon White and Kurt Hoover in California.

Randy Moss on ESPN.

None of em' are much to look at, but they all bring something to the table.

Sorry guys, Jessica is great for a date, but not for a date at the races.

[cj's dad]

You know, Ive been giving this Blewitt thing a bit of a thought since today's card at the spa is dull.
What NYRA should do is fire Blewitt, Donovan, and Jan Rushton and go out and hire

CJ. I know he's my son, but hell the kid is good looking (like his old man) has a good personality ( again - oh never mind) and has a wlidly popular web site. that some are dying to subscribe to. Then again , he would have to leave Ok. and I'm not sure he wants to do that. Ok, if you insist, I'll sit in while he decides.

[tribecaagent]

CJ. I know he's my son, but hell the kid is good looking (like his old man) has a good personality ( again - oh never mind) and has a wlidly popular web site. that some are dying to subscribe to. Then again , he would have to leave Ok. and I'm not sure he wants to do that. Ok, if you insist, I'll sit in while he decides.

Who?
What?
What website?

[The Hawk]

Since when does "picks against almost all the the favorites", "never afraid to go against the chalk", and "not afraid to pick against the chalk" make Jessica a good handicapper? Are you guys kidding me?

I agree with you guys one one thing though. She's cute, funny, has a great smile, etc. However, we're talking about gambling not sex, right?

Check out Andy Serling in New York.

Check out Brad Thomas in New Jersey.

Check out Jon White and Kurt Hoover in California.

Randy Moss on ESPN.

None of em' are much to look at, but they all bring something to the table.

Sorry guys, Jessica is great for a date, but not for a date at the races.

Who the hell cares who anyone picks? Is anyone on this board playing a host's picks?

[tribecaagent]

Who the hell cares who anyone picks? Is anyone on this board playing a host's picks?

Hey Hawk,

It's not about "who anyone picks". If a sharp public handicapper presents a key piece of information that makes sense, you're not going to listen? Of course you will.

The brain is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it's not open.

[westny]

just shutup. I 've gotta turn the damned audio off and try to time it so I can hear Jan Rushton who has things to say, but avoid him. Just rubs me the wrong way ; I gain absolutley nothing from listening to what he frothes up.( bad visual there, sorry) Just another loud mouth kid . Whats the use, its NYRA. :blush:

I watch NYRA race day program EVERY DAY.

Blewit is as good as ANY public handicapper. In person, he is much better looking and taller than he appears on camera. Blewit's only fault is he packs too much info into one sentence.

No one is holding a gun to your head to watch the NYRA program. Go watch some third tier track. .
YOU seem to be envious...Blewit's handicapping is as good as any in the NY papers, including Litfin. :p something you ignore.
Obviously, YOU are stuck on form over content.

[tribecaagent]

I watch NYRA race day program EVERY DAY.

Blewit is as good as ANY public handicapper. In person, he is much better looking and taller than he appears on camera. Blewit's only fault is he packs too much info into one sentence.

No one is holding a gun to your head to watch the NYRA program. Go watch some third tier track. .
YOU seem to be envious...Blewit's handicapping is as good as any in the NY papers, including Litfin. :p something you ignore.
Obviously, YOU are stuck on form over content.

You can't be serious.

So, because he is much better looking and taller than he appears makes him interesting and intellingent???

Wait. I forgot. His only fault is he packs too much info into one sentence. This is also known as "talking with marbles in your mouth". He sucks. Get him outa here!

[The Hawk]

Hey Hawk,

It's not about "who anyone picks". If a sharp public handicapper presents a key piece of information that makes sense, you're not going to listen? Of course you will.

The brain is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it's not open.

And it absorbs like a sponge...when there's something to absorb.

I prefer to do my own work, as opposed to waiting for someone to tell me, and thousands of others, I might add, something I should already know.

Just curious: Are these sages always correct with their "key pieces of information?"

Get your own edge.

[cj]

The good thing about having informative broadcasts is that it might actually spark interest from potential new fans.

[GARY Z]

I said it before, I'll say it again..


Bring back Harvey Pack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thespaah]

Mary Ryan ??yep..to my knowledge she still does the Breakfast at Saratoga stuff..Horrible speech impediment....Think Barbara Walters before she got rid of her issues.

[ex21940]

Leave the kid alone, will ya? Damn bullies.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, that picture just blew out the side of my monitor, and I'm working with 22 inches here....:lol:

With that said, I tend to agree that Blewitt is no better or worse than the majority of track analysts out there, so I don't really understand why there is this huge thread devoted to him all of a sudden....he's been on the air in NY what seems like forever now....

Is someone out there gunning for his job?

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, I had to downsize that photo...that's why that post reads "Edited"

[thespaah]

Leave the kid alone, will ya? Damn bullies.
Ya know what?..I think it's jealousy. Al the mopes on here who are taking swipes at Blewett are most likely regular work a day joes. They see this young guy having the time of his life, getting to live and work horse racing AND...He gets to be in Saratoga Springs for 6 weeks every summer.

[point given]

I said it before, I'll say it again..


Bring back Harvey Pack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yupper :jump: THe most entertainng guy going. Thanks to the DRF for keeping a forum for him and the crew at Siro's, Also the Crist blog. :ThmbUp:

[HUSKER55]

has anyone ever tracked how well those peoples picks do? Do like I did. pick 5 days and keep a tallly. Use random days. Jan was correct more than the others when I did. I have no idea how well they stack up for the meet.

BTW, how would you like to be the person paying for all of her hats? You would have to be rich or correct at the track. If it is the later I would like a chat with him. :D

husker55

:)

[Tape Reader]

WESTNY

Blewit's only fault is he packs too much info into one sentence.


As a tote board player, I only watch for his commentary after the race.

I like Jason very much. What I particularly like is how he puts so much info into one sentence.

[Rise Over Run]

Seven years after his predicted demise the Kid is still doing his thing at NYRA on a daily basis. I love his passion and knowledge of the sport of horse racing, especially the NYRA circuit.

Is Jason Blewitt Elite?

[DeanT]

I missed this this thread in 2008, so now that it has been resurrected, let me add my name to the people who enjoy Jason's commentary, too.

:)

[Stillriledup]

Seven years after his predicted demise the Kid is still doing his thing at NYRA on a daily basis. I love his passion and knowledge of the sport of horse racing, especially the NYRA circuit.

Is Jason Blewitt Elite?

Was this a predicted demise thread? Seems like the consensus was that he SHOULD be replaced not that he's going to.

Also remember that Grunder and the guy from Charlestown still have announcing jobs so in racing you don't actually have to be good at your job to retain it.

I'm neutral on Blewitt, don't have a feeling either way on his talents, but I don't reach for the mute button when I hear him.

[Rise Over Run]

Was this a predicted demise thread? Seems like the consensus was that he SHOULD be replaced not that he's going to.
I wanted to work a "calls for his ouster" into the post, but it didn't flow right. But I think you know where I was heading with the post anyway.

[Stillriledup]

I wanted to work a "calls for his ouster" into the post, but it didn't flow right. But I think you know where I was heading with the post anyway.

I gotcha. I knew what you meant, I just had to be a ball buster, sorry. :D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've been a public handicapper on camera and still publish selections for the NYRA tracks daily, and I can attest any public handicapper has supporters and detractors. What I was always counseled was this.

- The top three most important things are pick winners, pick winners and pick winners. If you can get some prices in there, great, but pick winners. Picking ten races a day, missing nine and having a $24 winner won't keep you in the spotlight long. You're a public handicapper picking far more races than you'd likely bet if you were in it for profit so pick winners, in case I didn't mention that.
- Understand that more accomplished horseplayers are going to be looking for something they don't already know or can't see. The accomplished horseplayers already have an opinion so they aren't just looking for a pick. I think the champ at giving useful information that is not in the form is Maggie Wolfendale.
- Mostly you're talking to the people who aren't accomplished handicappers looking for either confirmation, a cogent explanation why a particular horse is the likely winner, or an interpretation of information.
- Treat disagreeing opinions with respect.
- Don't oversell and don't undersell.

That being said, I have no use for Blewitt. While Serling can have a "fingernails on chalkboard" effect on some people, he will occasionally toss a nugget out there. My issue with Serling is that he can oversell a pick and he occasionally violates the "treat disagreeing opinions with respect" rule. Like most public handicappers, I believe in my opinion but I'm not so egotistical to believe handicappers I respect might not have a better insight than me. Blewitt certainly doesn't fall into that category for me.

[cbp]

Every so often Serling has the day off and Blewitt goes it alone. This is when I turn the volume wayyyyyy down. Blewitt has very basic knowledge and really has nothing of value to offer. It's like going over to ESPN expecting Van Gundy and getting Doris Burke. Shit happens

[no breathalyzer]

I missed this this thread in 2008, so now that it has been resurrected, let me add my name to the people who enjoy Jason's commentary, too.

:)



ME TOO

[Stillriledup]

I've been a public handicapper on camera and still publish selections for the NYRA tracks daily, and I can attest any public handicapper has supporters and detractors. What I was always counseled was this.

- The top three most important things are pick winners, pick winners and pick winners. If you can get some prices in there, great, but pick winners. Picking ten races a day, missing nine and having a $24 winner won't keep you in the spotlight long. You're a public handicapper picking far more races than you'd likely bet if you were in it for profit so pick winners, in case I didn't mention that.
- Understand that more accomplished horseplayers are going to be looking for something they don't already know or can't see. The accomplished horseplayers already have an opinion so they aren't just looking for a pick. I think the champ at giving useful information that is not in the form is Maggie Wolfendale.
- Mostly you're talking to the people who aren't accomplished handicappers looking for either confirmation, a cogent explanation why a particular horse is the likely winner, or an interpretation of information.
- Treat disagreeing opinions with respect.
- Don't oversell and don't undersell.

That being said, I have no use for Blewitt. While Serling can have a "fingernails on chalkboard" effect on some people, he will occasionally toss a nugget out there. My issue with Serling is that he can oversell a pick and he occasionally violates the "treat disagreeing opinions with respect" rule. Like most public handicappers, I believe in my opinion but I'm not so egotistical to believe handicappers I respect might not have a better insight than me. Blewitt certainly doesn't fall into that category for me.

I think more important than picking winners is laying out a case as to why you're making the pick you're making, this way, 99 percent of cappers who aren't blind followers can decide for themselves if this is a pick they want to wager on.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think more important than picking winners is laying out a case as to why you're making the pick you're making, this way, 99 percent of cappers who aren't blind followers can decide for themselves if this is a pick they want to wager on.

Clearly if you make a pick you need to make your case for a horse's chances, but at the end of the day you're judged based on your record of selection. I'd be surprised if most public handicappers wouldn't agree the pressure is to pick winners. I would agree that good public handicappers have a way of presenting their case in a way that helps instill confidence.

[castaway01]

Every so often Serling has the day off and Blewitt goes it alone. This is when I turn the volume wayyyyyy down. Blewitt has very basic knowledge and really has nothing of value to offer. It's like going over to ESPN expecting Van Gundy and getting Doris Burke. Shit happens

He's the play-by-play guy, not the color commentator.

[mountainman]

I've been a public handicapper on camera and still publish selections for the NYRA tracks daily, and I can attest any public handicapper has supporters and detractors. What I was always counseled was this.

- The top three most important things are pick winners, pick winners and pick winners. If you can get some prices in there, great, but pick winners. Picking ten races a day, missing nine and having a $24 winner won't keep you in the spotlight long. You're a public handicapper picking far more races than you'd likely bet if you were in it for profit so pick winners, in case I didn't mention that.
- Understand that more accomplished horseplayers are going to be looking for something they don't already know or can't see. The accomplished horseplayers already have an opinion so they aren't just looking for a pick. I think the champ at giving useful information that is not in the form is Maggie Wolfendale.
- Mostly you're talking to the people who aren't accomplished handicappers looking for either confirmation, a cogent explanation why a particular horse is the likely winner, or an interpretation of information.
- Treat disagreeing opinions with respect.
- Don't oversell and don't undersell.

That being said, I have no use for Blewitt. While Serling can have a "fingernails on chalkboard" effect on some people, he will occasionally toss a nugget out there. My issue with Serling is that he can oversell a pick and he occasionally violates the "treat disagreeing opinions with respect" rule. Like most public handicappers, I believe in my opinion but I'm not so egotistical to believe handicappers I respect might not have a better insight than me. Blewitt certainly doesn't fall into that category for me.

My creed, although, I'm sometimes very bold in expressing my opinion, is to supply as much insight as I can and sprinkle it with the kind of local knowledge that can justify good handicappers taking the time to watch our show. The template for this, in my opinion, entails quickly explaining what the public is likely to key on and why, and then agreeing or veering in a contrarian direction. Through all this, the nerve to fearlessly knock weak chalk is indispensable.

But before a tv analyst offers self-styled opinion, the preliminary bases must be touched. I also believe that an analyst should know MUCH more about handicapping and thoroughbred racing than he(she) would touch on in a telecast. In other words, I may see myself as an intuitive, comprehensive handicapper-but if I don't know how sophisticated speed-figures are made, what an impact value is, or even an energy distribution model, I probably should not be on the air. It's also my belief that nobody who hasn't read, say, 150 books on handicapping should be presented on tv as an expert. I also think an analyst should have considerable experience in the trenches-playing horses, that is, in a very serious manner.

I also think it's desirable for an analyst to have some unique background or knowledge of racing that sprawls well beyond the handicapping arena. For some, it's a background in training, for me, it's 26 years as a racing official.

My ego isn't small, and I'm proud of my work, but I'm not quite a Brad Thomas or an Andy Serling-guys with the force-of-nature handicapping talent that justifies itself. I need, at least once in awhile, to teach my viewers behind -the-scenes aspects of the game, stuff they weren't aware of.

I also think a good analyst is creative enough to spot and weave together things in a horse's form that an average handicapper would miss-a storyline, if you will, information that may prove useful even beyond this particular race. Poor analysts recite the form, good analysts interpret it.

Incidentally, in this era of extreme fluctuations in odds, as every tote move seems carefully timed, pre-meditated, and strategically conceived to influence other players, I think a good analyst should possess the insight to accurately predict how the board will end up.

These are just my opinions, and I enjoyed your post. It's fun to communicate with a peer. it seems like announcers congregate and support each other online, whereas analysts keep to themselves or have prickly exchanges.

[westny]

Every so often Serling has the day off and Blewitt goes it alone. This is when I turn the volume wayyyyyy down. Blewitt has very basic knowledge and really has nothing of value to offer. It's like going over to ESPN expecting Van Gundy and getting Doris Burke. Shit happens

It is obvious you "turn turn the volume"wayyyyyyy" down because you fail to grasp the FACT that Blewitt has an encyclopedic knowledge of NYRA racing; past races, stakes winners, pedigrees, trainers, competitors in various races, past and present. He has an excellant memory and recall of nyra racing.

Beer of Timeform is OK with those stats. But handicapping is not all statistics. Blewit has been a NYRA analyst for at least 15 years and he is as accurate as any...

[Maximillion]

I've been a public handicapper on camera and still publish selections for the NYRA tracks daily, and I can attest any public handicapper has supporters and detractors. What I was always counseled was this.

- The top three most important things are pick winners, pick winners and pick winners. If you can get some prices in there, great, but pick winners. Picking ten races a day, missing nine and having a $24 winner won't keep you in the spotlight long. You're a public handicapper picking far more races than you'd likely bet if you were in it for profit so pick winners, in case I didn't mention that.
- Understand that more accomplished horseplayers are going to be looking for something they don't already know or can't see. The accomplished horseplayers already have an opinion so they aren't just looking for a pick. I think the champ at giving useful information that is not in the form is Maggie Wolfendale.
- Mostly you're talking to the people who aren't accomplished handicappers looking for either confirmation, a cogent explanation why a particular horse is the likely winner, or an interpretation of information.
- Treat disagreeing opinions with respect.
- Don't oversell and don't undersell.

That being said, I have no use for Blewitt. While Serling can have a "fingernails on chalkboard" effect on some people, he will occasionally toss a nugget out there. My issue with Serling is that he can oversell a pick and he occasionally violates the "treat disagreeing opinions with respect" rule. Like most public handicappers, I believe in my opinion but I'm not so egotistical to believe handicappers I respect might not have a better insight than me. Blewitt certainly doesn't fall into that category for me.

I would be more interested in following the public handicapper who occasionally puts up that one $24 winner out of 10 races vs the one who routinely picks 3 or 4 winners on every card at very short prices....but i dont know if this is an opinion that is shared by other horseplayers.

[thaskalos]

I've been a public handicapper on camera and still publish selections for the NYRA tracks daily, and I can attest any public handicapper has supporters and detractors. What I was always counseled was this.

- The top three most important things are pick winners, pick winners and pick winners. If you can get some prices in there, great, but pick winners. Picking ten races a day, missing nine and having a $24 winner won't keep you in the spotlight long. You're a public handicapper picking far more races than you'd likely bet if you were in it for profit so pick winners, in case I didn't mention that.
- Understand that more accomplished horseplayers are going to be looking for something they don't already know or can't see. The accomplished horseplayers already have an opinion so they aren't just looking for a pick. I think the champ at giving useful information that is not in the form is Maggie Wolfendale.
- Mostly you're talking to the people who aren't accomplished handicappers looking for either confirmation, a cogent explanation why a particular horse is the likely winner, or an interpretation of information.
- Treat disagreeing opinions with respect.
- Don't oversell and don't undersell.

That being said, I have no use for Blewitt. While Serling can have a "fingernails on chalkboard" effect on some people, he will occasionally toss a nugget out there. My issue with Serling is that he can oversell a pick and he occasionally violates the "treat disagreeing opinions with respect" rule. Like most public handicappers, I believe in my opinion but I'm not so egotistical to believe handicappers I respect might not have a better insight than me. Blewitt certainly doesn't fall into that category for me.

If that is indeed the case...then I am flabbergasted. The guy who hits one $24-winner in ten races is EXACTLY the guy who should be in the spotlight...IMO. If "picking winners" is the name of the game...then sticking close to the race favorite accomplishes this very nicely, but it doesn't contribute anything of value to the listener. The guy with the $24 winner is earning a 1.20 ROI...and is one one of the very best handicappers in the country. If HE doesn't deserve to be in the spotlight...then who does?

[thaskalos]

I would be more interested in following the public handicapper who occasionally puts up that one $24 winner out of 10 races vs the one who routinely picks 3 or 4 winners on every card at very short prices....but i dont know if this is an opinion that is shared by other horseplayers.

Had I seen your post, Max...then I wouldn't have submitted my own. :ThmbUp:

[iceknight]

Seriously whoever follows public handicappers and looks for a longshot choice from them prefers being spoon fed. It is one thing to learn from their style of thinking but completely another thing to whine that they do not give you enough good price winners.

[burnsy]

Seriously whoever follows public handicappers and looks for a longshot choice from them prefers being spoon fed. It is one thing to learn from their style of thinking but completely another thing to whine that they do not give you enough good price winners.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Seriously, I don't even understand this thread. Who gets their bets from public handicappers? Its a damn show, mostly for the public that can't (don't know how) play. NYRA actually has some of the better ones. But the whole idea is to find the "not so obvious horses". If someone has to complain about public handicappers...their picks and opinions...they have a problem.....they'll never be any good at this. The whole idea is to develop your own opinions. "Gee, honey....if I listen to this guy on TV picking horses.....I can quit my job."..... :rolleyes: My definition of a "horse player" must differ from others........because an experienced horse player doesn't pay much mind to the public handicappers....what will that get me?

[OTM Al]

Seriously whoever follows public handicappers and looks for a longshot choice from them prefers being spoon fed. It is one thing to learn from their style of thinking but completely another thing to whine that they do not give you enough good price winners.
You are also forgetting the other type of person who follows them. The type that, shall we say, has a slightly inflated sense of their own capabilities and loves to tell everyone about it.

[burnsy]

You are also forgetting the other type of person who follows them. The type that, shall we say, has a slightly inflated sense of their own capabilities and loves to tell everyone about it.

Then why would they complain about them? If they think they are better? Those guys are pretty good compared to some of the "chalky Pete's" out there....Plus, its supposed to teach people......screw the picks...its how they talk the talk where people could learn. I don't understand this unless someone is new at betting. If one is not and think they are good, why would they bitch about public handicappers? I just don't get it, because at some point, the actual bet is up to that individual. What do people do? Lose and then blame someone else for it?

[OTM Al]

Then why would they complain about them? If they think they are better? Those guys are pretty good compared to some of the "chalky Pete's" out there....Plus, its supposed to teach people......screw the picks...its how they talk the talk where people could learn. I don't understand this unless someone is new at betting. If one is not and think they are good, why would they bitch about public handicappers? I just don't get it, because at some point, the actual bet is up to that individual. What do people do? Lose and then blame someone else for it?
You don't get it because clearly you are an intelligent and thoughtful person. What you say is exactly what the people complaining do. Clearly it is someone else's fault when something doesn't line up with what their superior intellects determined.

[burnsy]

You don't get it because clearly you are an intelligent and thoughtful person. What you say is exactly what the people complaining do. Clearly it is someone else's fault when something doesn't line up with what their superior intellects determined.

Thanks OTM Al, but my feeling is if someone is new to this, those guys are great to listen to. A new fan or bettor can gain a lot but after some time its sink or swim on your own. Once that happens, you are a big boy and win or lose on your own. If you consider yourself knowledgeable you don't need to complain about any of them.......one even described the pressure on here. That's a tough gig picking every race. Winners, winners, winners (he said)......anyone that bets for a while knows it does not work like that. But people seem to think it does. I've listened to a lot of them, for angles not picks, Andy and the boys know their sh!t. The picks are a product of thought, learn the thought process, then make your own picks. (That's me) They are actually different than most of them too, by taking more shots. People should appreciate that. Then they should learn to pick their own and take it like a true sport, win or lose.

[Tom]

We want to add new fans to the game,s but then complain that they need someone to explain things to them?

If I were a newbie, I'd go someplace else.

These guy s have their place in the game and we have out mute buttons.
How is that not fair? I get tidbits of info I would not know about from them, but I use it to make my own picks.

[lamboguy]

We want to add new fans to the game,s but then complain that they need someone to explain things to them?

If I were a newbie, I'd go someplace else.

These guy s have their place in the game and we have out mute buttons.
How is that not fair? I get tidbits of info I would not know about from them, but I use it to make my own picks.exactly

[thespaah]

We want to add new fans to the game,s but then complain that they need someone to explain things to them?

If I were a newbie, I'd go someplace else.

These guy s have their place in the game and we have out mute buttons.
How is that not fair? I get tidbits of info I would not know about from them, but I use it to make my own picks.:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::Thm bUp::ThmbUp:
Tom, that is a SPOT ON comment.

[thaskalos]

Then why would they complain about them? If they think they are better? Those guys are pretty good compared to some of the "chalky Pete's" out there....Plus, its supposed to teach people......screw the picks...its how they talk the talk where people could learn. I don't understand this unless someone is new at betting. If one is not and think they are good, why would they bitch about public handicappers? I just don't get it, because at some point, the actual bet is up to that individual. What do people do? Lose and then blame someone else for it?
No, burnsy...here's what I think happens. Human nature being what it is, people tend to forget the losers that they themselves pick, and remember only their "brilliant" moments. So...when they see all the losers that the TV analysts pick...they are naturally angered because they feel they deserve the analysts' paycheck more than the analysts do.

[mountainman]

No, burnsy...here's what I think happens. Human nature being what it is, people tend to forget the losers that they themselves pick, and remember only their "brilliant" moments. So...when they see all the losers that the TV analysts pick...they are naturally angered because they feel they deserve the analysts' paycheck more than the analysts do.

Very perceptive, my good friend. And welcome to MY world. Typical call I get from horseplayers : "Hey, Mark, just wanted to tell ya, I don't understand why you missed last night on races 2, 4 and 7. I LOVED all three winners and cashed big! Keep up the great work!"

Or: "Hi, Mark, didn't get to watch the show last night , but was just wondering who you liked in races 2, 4 and 7?"

Nary a PEEP about winners I picked or races they lost. And it would NEVER occur to them that cherry picking winners they've already cashed on skewers things a bit in their favor (lol) when comparing picks after the fact.

[Stillriledup]

No, burnsy...here's what I think happens. Human nature being what it is, people tend to forget the losers that they themselves pick, and remember only their "brilliant" moments. So...when they see all the losers that the TV analysts pick...they are naturally angered because they feel they deserve the analysts' paycheck more than the analysts do.

How many horseplayers are out there who could out handicap and out bet Jason Blewitt?

If you think there are hundreds or even thousands, than all those people are right to think this, it's only the people who can't out handicap him who shouldn't be thinking this.

[thaskalos]

How many horseplayers are out there who could out handicap and out bet Jason Blewitt?

If you think there are hundreds or even thousands, than all those people are right to think this, it's only the people who can't out handicap him who shouldn't be thinking this.

Not as many as you think.

The vast majority of the betting public harbor a totally distorted view of their own ability as horseplayers. They know that they are losing...but they attribute their losses to "bad luck"...which they are confident will "even out in the long-run".

If all the horseplayers somehow realized their true playing ability in this game...then 75% of them would switch to roulette.

[magwell]

Not as many as you think.
.

If all the horseplayers somehow realized their true playing ability in this game...then 75% of them would switch to roulette. :D or bingo.......

[Stillriledup]

Not as many as you think.

The vast majority of the betting public harbor a totally distorted view of their own ability as horseplayers. They know that they are losing...but they attribute their losses to "bad luck"...which they are confident will "even out in the long-run".

If all the horseplayers somehow realized their true playing ability in this game...then 75% of them would switch to roulette.

How many horseplayers in America do you think I think?

[thaskalos]

How many horseplayers in America do you think I think?
By the way you phrased the question..I think you think THOUSANDS.

[Stillriledup]

By the way you phrased the question..I think you think THOUSANDS.

If we are talking horse racing knowledge, hes a lot higher up on the food chain than if we are talking ability to make money gambling. Its also tougher if betting is your sole source of income, he has a nyra paycheck thats coming in, so he has less pressure to win at gambling than pro bettors do.

Since hes the host and not the 'color guy' i might ask if the guy is even more than a 2 dollar bettor, so putting 2 and 2 together i would think its a safe guess that there hundreds, if not thousands, of horse players who are better.

But, i dont know for sure, he could be in the top 100 best players in america today, but if i had to guess hes probably not in the top 100.

[thaskalos]

If we are talking horse racing knowledge, hes a lot higher up on the food chain than if we are talking ability to make money gambling. Its also tougher if betting is your sole source of income, he has a nyra paycheck thats coming in, so he has less pressure to win at gambling than pro bettors do.

Since hes the host and not the 'color guy' i might ask if the guy is even more than a 2 dollar bettor, so putting 2 and 2 together i would think its a safe guess that there hundreds, if not thousands, of horse players who are better.

But, i dont know for sure, he could be in the top 100 best players in america today, but if i had to guess hes probably not in the top 100.

You are only seeing half the picture, SRU...the TV analyst's job isn't just about "handicapping". You and I might be just as good at handicapping as Andy Serling and Mark Patterson are...but what would happen if they placed a microphone in front of us and turned on the cameras...and asked us to articulate our handicapping knowledge to a wide audience? Would we be able to match Serling and Patterson in on-air presentation too?

Of course, there is a tendency to answer "YES" to that question. But like film director Elia Kazan once said..."You only find out how strong you really are, when they chain you to the radiator".

[Robert Fischer]

Blewitt is OK.

There aren't a lot of Serlings around and most wouldn't give out their insights.

He's kind of an everyman in terms of handicapping, but that's also his role on the show, and I sense that he greatly respects NYRA and the game, and he will at times defer out of a 'public stance' rather than cynically call-out certain horses as dressed-up underlays.

[GatetoWire]

This may be the stupidest thread I have ever read on PA and that is saying something.
The guy is the host.....say that very slowly so you can understand. He is the host.
Who cares who he picks.
He is there to give out info, engage Andy and set up the race.

Do you dopes complain about everything? Take a look at some of the other in house hosts and TVG/HRTV talent. Jason is the last person any of you should be complaining about.

[v j stauffer]

My creed, although, I'm sometimes very bold in expressing my opinion, is to supply as much insight as I can and sprinkle it with the kind of local knowledge that can justify good handicappers taking the time to watch our show. The template for this, in my opinion, entails quickly explaining what the public is likely to key on and why, and then agreeing or veering in a contrarian direction. Through all this, the nerve to fearlessly knock weak chalk is indispensable.

But before a tv analyst offers self-styled opinion, the preliminary bases must be touched. I also believe that an analyst should know MUCH more about handicapping and thoroughbred racing than he(she) would touch on in a telecast. In other words, I may see myself as an intuitive, comprehensive handicapper-but if I don't know how sophisticated speed-figures are made, what an impact value is, or even an energy distribution model, I probably should not be on the air. It's also my belief that nobody who hasn't read, say, 150 books on handicapping should be presented on tv as an expert. I also think an analyst should have considerable experience in the trenches-playing horses, that is, in a very serious manner.

I also think it's desirable for an analyst to have some unique background or knowledge of racing that sprawls well beyond the handicapping arena. For some, it's a background in training, for me, it's 26 years as a racing official.

My ego isn't small, and I'm proud of my work, but I'm not quite a Brad Thomas or an Andy Serling-guys with the force-of-nature handicapping talent that justifies itself. I need, at least once in awhile, to teach my viewers behind -the-scenes aspects of the game, stuff they weren't aware of.

I also think a good analyst is creative enough to spot and weave together things in a horse's form that an average handicapper would miss-a storyline, if you will, information that may prove useful even beyond this particular race. Poor analysts recite the form, good analysts interpret it.

Incidentally, in this era of extreme fluctuations in odds, as every tote move seems carefully timed, pre-meditated, and strategically conceived to influence other players, I think a good analyst should possess the insight to accurately predict how the board will end up.

These are just my opinions, and I enjoyed your post. It's fun to communicate with a peer. it seems like announcers congregate and support each other online, whereas analysts keep to themselves or have prickly exchanges.

Mark, IMO the show you and Nancy do is the standard by what all paddock shows should be compared against.

What I'm looking for in the presentation is for you to be my eyes and ears on track since I'm not there. Anything that might effect my decision making process that I can't know unless you fill me in.

A good opinion is icing on the cake. While I'm never going to change my mind no matter how strong the push. I'm certainly open to looking at a race from a different approach.

Your very low key presentation is a perfect fit for a night signal. It's a pleasure to listen to.

I also think the presentation at NYRA is excellent. It plays much more like a TV show but IMO that's appropriate. Both Jason and Andy's strong suit is they are locals. By that I mean covering this circuit for many years an asset to be sure. Even more than the Mountain I personally don't care who they pick. However I do believe selections is very important because the ratio of novices is much higher at a place like Saratoga.

If a casual or first time player really listens to the two of them it can only be an asset. First they'll hear things that will help them learn how to cultivate their own opinion. Furthermore if they use Jason's and or Andy's picks they'll have a MUCH better chance of not going bust. They'll either lose much slower or even eke out a small profit. That's a good thing indeed. Andy needs to be careful to not talk over the head of the beginners.

One of the things I especially like about Jason and Andy is they always come with a high energy level. A sleepy Thursday for them might be a new fan's first time to the Spa. They never phone it in. Believe me I know some days it'very tough to come with the A game.

Maggie is the icing to the cake. She clearly knows what she's looking at. That is extremely helpful for me as paddocks and warm ups are certainly not my strong suit.

Keep up the excellent work.

[Stillriledup]

Mark, IMO the show you and Nancy do is the standard by what all paddock shows should be compared against.

What I'm looking for in the presentation is for you to be my eyes and ears on track since I'm not there. Anything that might effect my decision making process that I can't know unless you fill me in.

A good opinion is icing on the cake. While I'm never going to change my mind no matter how strong the push. I'm certainly open to looking at a race from a different approach.

Your very low key presentation is a perfect fit for a night signal. It's a pleasure to listen to.

I also think the presentation at NYRA is excellent. It plays much more like a TV show but IMO that's appropriate. Both Jason and Andy's strong suit is they are locals. By that I mean covering this circuit for many years an asset to be sure. Even more than the Mountain I personally don't care who they pick. However I do believe selections is very important because the ratio of novices is much higher at a place like Saratoga.

If a casual or first time player really listens to the two of them it can only be an asset. First they'll hear things that will help them learn how to cultivate their own opinion. Furthermore if they use Jason's and or Andy's picks they'll have a MUCH better chance of not going bust. They'll either lose much slower or even eke out a small profit. That's a good thing indeed. Andy needs to be careful to not talk over the head of the beginners.

One of the things I especially like about Jason and Andy is they always come with a high energy level. A sleepy Thursday for them might be a new fan's first time to the Spa. They never phone it in. Believe me I know some days it'very tough to come with the A game.

Maggie is the icing to the cake. She clearly knows what she's looking at. That is extremely helpful for me as paddocks and warm ups are certainly not my strong suit.

Keep up the excellent work.

Great post, totally agree, excellent points about the 'local information' that comes out sometimes in analysis, that's worth it's weight in gold for people who are not putting full time work into a circuit.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I would be more interested in following the public handicapper who occasionally puts up that one $24 winner out of 10 races vs the one who routinely picks 3 or 4 winners on every card at very short prices....but i dont know if this is an opinion that is shared by other horseplayers.

Fascinating how you might think picking winners equates with picking favorites. Anyone who picks at 10% is unreliable and would simply not last as a public handicapper. And read the sentence. "OCCASIONALLY puts up that $24 winner..." If I have to guess which race you're going to pick a price horse because you are inherently unreliable as a handicapper, I'm not likely to pay attention to you for long. You know as well as I do that you don't pick longshots unless you believe they have a realistic chance of winning. This was my results for Saturday at Saratoga. Posted and public.

1st - $5.10 win, $10.20 exacta
2nd - $12.60 win, $51 exacta
3rd - $12 win, $346 P3
4th - $4.10 win, $54 exacta, $212.50 P3
5th - $4.90 win, $83 P3, $762 P4, $2,805 P5
8th - $19.80 win, $187 exacta
9th - $5.50 win
10th - $4.40 win, $35 exacta, $178 P3

8 winners in 12 races. The point, and this is a really critical point, is that unless you pick the winner of a race, your win ticket is worth exactly zero. Sometimes favorites win, sometimes price horses, and as a public handicapper you have to discern when is the time to pick each. Your followers trust you when they believe you are steering them in the right direction. On Wednesday I gave out a $24.40 and a $50 horse, hardly favorites. Picking winners means picking winners, not picking favorites. I don't know how well all the people who follow me do, but I get feedback from enough of them to know that I'm on the right track.

You know the statistics as well as I do. Two thirds of all races are won by one of the first three choices. If you are a horizontal bettor, you need reliable selections, not stabs at double digit horses. And you definitely want to know where the favorites are vulnerable.

Pick winners. Think about it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

My creed, although, I'm sometimes very bold in expressing my opinion, is to supply as much insight as I can and sprinkle it with the kind of local knowledge that can justify good handicappers taking the time to watch our show. The template for this, in my opinion, entails quickly explaining what the public is likely to key on and why, and then agreeing or veering in a contrarian direction. Through all this, the nerve to fearlessly knock weak chalk is indispensable.

But before a tv analyst offers self-styled opinion, the preliminary bases must be touched. I also believe that an analyst should know MUCH more about handicapping and thoroughbred racing than he(she) would touch on in a telecast. In other words, I may see myself as an intuitive, comprehensive handicapper-but if I don't know how sophisticated speed-figures are made, what an impact value is, or even an energy distribution model, I probably should not be on the air. It's also my belief that nobody who hasn't read, say, 150 books on handicapping should be presented on tv as an expert. I also think an analyst should have considerable experience in the trenches-playing horses, that is, in a very serious manner.

I also think it's desirable for an analyst to have some unique background or knowledge of racing that sprawls well beyond the handicapping arena. For some, it's a background in training, for me, it's 26 years as a racing official.

My ego isn't small, and I'm proud of my work, but I'm not quite a Brad Thomas or an Andy Serling-guys with the force-of-nature handicapping talent that justifies itself. I need, at least once in awhile, to teach my viewers behind -the-scenes aspects of the game, stuff they weren't aware of.

I also think a good analyst is creative enough to spot and weave together things in a horse's form that an average handicapper would miss-a storyline, if you will, information that may prove useful even beyond this particular race. Poor analysts recite the form, good analysts interpret it.

Incidentally, in this era of extreme fluctuations in odds, as every tote move seems carefully timed, pre-meditated, and strategically conceived to influence other players, I think a good analyst should possess the insight to accurately predict how the board will end up.

These are just my opinions, and I enjoyed your post. It's fun to communicate with a peer. it seems like announcers congregate and support each other online, whereas analysts keep to themselves or have prickly exchanges.

There was a time when I followed racing at MTR, and when I did I always paid attention to you and Nancy. We actually have a mutual friend in Frank Scatoni since we were both contributors to Horseplayer Magazine and he speaks highly of you. I absolutely agree with what you have said. Above all, I think the analyst has to be honest. People are interested in YOUR opinion, and they want to know when you have a strong one, either for or against a horse, or a weak one. I found the toughest part of the job was having to find the right balance in discussing races you might think are not good betting races.

I agree with Stauffer. You are the standard for on air handicappers.

[Maximillion]

Fascinating how you might think picking winners equates with picking favorites. Anyone who picks at 10% is unreliable and would simply not last as a public handicapper. And read the sentence. "OCCASIONALLY puts up that $24 winner..." If I have to guess which race you're going to pick a price horse because you are inherently unreliable as a handicapper, I'm not likely to pay attention to you for long. You know as well as I do that you don't pick longshots unless you believe they have a realistic chance of winning. This was my results for Saturday at Saratoga. Posted and public.

1st - $5.10 win, $10.20 exacta
2nd - $12.60 win, $51 exacta
3rd - $12 win, $346 P3
4th - $4.10 win, $54 exacta, $212.50 P3
5th - $4.90 win, $83 P3, $762 P4, $2,805 P5
8th - $19.80 win, $187 exacta
9th - $5.50 win
10th - $4.40 win, $35 exacta, $178 P3

8 winners in 12 races. The point, and this is a really critical point, is that unless you pick the winner of a race, your win ticket is worth exactly zero. Sometimes favorites win, sometimes price horses, and as a public handicapper you have to discern when is the time to pick each. Your followers trust you when they believe you are steering them in the right direction. On Wednesday I gave out a $24.40 and a $50 horse, hardly favorites. Picking winners means picking winners, not picking favorites. I don't know how well all the people who follow me do, but I get feedback from enough of them to know that I'm on the right track.

You know the statistics as well as I do. Two thirds of all races are won by one of the first three choices. If you are a horizontal bettor, you need reliable selections, not stabs at double digit horses. And you definitely want to know where the favorites are vulnerable.

Pick winners. Think about it.


The only handicapping show I have watched enough of to have an opinion on is the Mnr show and i think its great...but honestly im not really tuning in for the selections,more so just for some food for thought on some of the races.

Its sort of like when we occasionally talk about an upcoming race on this board.....I dont really see it as a contest as to who can get the winner,but rather a chance to exchange some insights and ideas.

Imo a public handicapper should not be judged on his win percentage...but like i said before others may see it differently.
Nice job at Saratoga on Saturday :ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The only handicapping show I have watched enough of to have an opinion on is the Mnr show and i think its great...but honestly im not really tuning in for the selections,more so just for some food for thought on some of the races.

Its sort of like when we occasionally talk about an upcoming race on this board.....I dont really see it as a contest as to who can get the winner,but rather a chance to exchange some insights and ideas.

Imo a public handicapper should not be judged on his win percentage...but like i said before others may see it differently.
Nice job at Saratoga on Saturday :ThmbUp:

Thanks for the compliment. One of the things I think the Saturday results illustrate is that two $12 horses with a favorite can produce huge overpays on the P3. You don't necessarily need a big longshot to make some nice collections. The first two P3's paid a combined $558. I actually think that 5-1 is a real sweet spot for selections. Low enough odds to make a confident case, high enough so that it knocks out a lot of tickets on the combinations.

When I was on camera at the track, my "performance" was measured by how many winners I picked, but I think it would be fair to say how I presented the selections definitely had a lot to do with how I was perceived by the public. I'm not sure other public handicappers found this, but I could wander through the crowd between races and it wasn't that common for people to say something, although when they did most of the time it was either a nice compliment or a question on a horse they liked. I think most handicappers realize that at the end of the day, they were responsible for putting their own money through the mutel machines, even if they were influenced by other handicappers. I think that when you mature as a handicapper you become much better at filtering the information you might get from others with opinions, but most of all you take responsibility for your bankroll.

Ironically, I've written a lot a criticism about handicappers being too selection oriented, as opposed to being value oriented. So from a mature handicappers point of view you are right - measuring success through win percentage doesn't necessarily tell if the person picking is getting good value. I always think my selections are solid, but whether I bet a race or how I bet a race should be based on the value proposition.

I always found it comical when I would go to the NY tracks and the touts would be outside shouting about how many winners they had yesterday. Clocker Lawton, Clocker Wilson and a bunch that come and go. Whether or not their picks made money, the public selectors probably cleared $20 grand at the meet just selling a sheet of paper. I never bought them, but I knew people who couldn't bet a race without checking Lawton first.

[mountainman]

There was a time when I followed racing at MTR, and when I did I always paid attention to you and Nancy. We actually have a mutual friend in Frank Scatoni since we were both contributors to Horseplayer Magazine and he speaks highly of you. I absolutely agree with what you have said. Above all, I think the analyst has to be honest. People are interested in YOUR opinion, and they want to know when you have a strong one, either for or against a horse, or a weak one. I found the toughest part of the job was having to find the right balance in discussing races you might think are not good betting races.

I agree with Stauffer. You are the standard for on air handicappers.

Tx very much, but my impression is there are things I could learn from YOU. Say hi to Scatoni for me. I like Frank, and his editing helped immensely on at least one piece I can remember.

[mountainman]

Mark, IMO the show you and Nancy do is the standard by what all paddock shows should be compared against.

What I'm looking for in the presentation is for you to be my eyes and ears on track since I'm not there. Anything that might effect my decision making process that I can't know unless you fill me in.

A good opinion is icing on the cake. While I'm never going to change my mind no matter how strong the push. I'm certainly open to looking at a race from a different approach.

Your very low key presentation is a perfect fit for a night signal. It's a pleasure to listen to.

I also think the presentation at NYRA is excellent. It plays much more like a TV show but IMO that's appropriate. Both Jason and Andy's strong suit is they are locals. By that I mean covering this circuit for many years an asset to be sure. Even more than the Mountain I personally don't care who they pick. However I do believe selections is very important because the ratio of novices is much higher at a place like Saratoga.

If a casual or first time player really listens to the two of them it can only be an asset. First they'll hear things that will help them learn how to cultivate their own opinion. Furthermore if they use Jason's and or Andy's picks they'll have a MUCH better chance of not going bust. They'll either lose much slower or even eke out a small profit. That's a good thing indeed. Andy needs to be careful to not talk over the head of the beginners.

One of the things I especially like about Jason and Andy is they always come with a high energy level. A sleepy Thursday for them might be a new fan's first time to the Spa. They never phone it in. Believe me I know some days it'very tough to come with the A game.

Maggie is the icing to the cake. She clearly knows what she's looking at. That is extremely helpful for me as paddocks and warm ups are certainly not my strong suit.

Keep up the excellent work.
Your own stints on tvg seem to have faded into history, but you were smooth on camera and spoke with authority. A man of many talents.

Knowledge and authority, right? Whatever the analyst's style, he'd better possess those attributes.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Thanks for the compliment. One of the things I think the Saturday results illustrate is that two $12 horses with a favorite can produce huge overpays on the P3. You don't necessarily need a big longshot to make some nice collections. The first two P3's paid a combined $558. I actually think that 5-1 is a real sweet spot for selections. Low enough odds to make a confident case, high enough so that it knocks out a lot of tickets on the combinations.

When I was on camera at the track, my "performance" was measured by how many winners I picked, but I think it would be fair to say how I presented the selections definitely had a lot to do with how I was perceived by the public. I'm not sure other public handicappers found this, but I could wander through the crowd between races and it wasn't that common for people to say something, although when they did most of the time it was either a nice compliment or a question on a horse they liked. I think most handicappers realize that at the end of the day, they were responsible for putting their own money through the mutel machines, even if they were influenced by other handicappers. I think that when you mature as a handicapper you become much better at filtering the information you might get from others with opinions, but most of all you take responsibility for your bankroll.

Ironically, I've written a lot a criticism about handicappers being too selection oriented, as opposed to being value oriented. So from a mature handicappers point of view you are right - measuring success through win percentage doesn't necessarily tell if the person picking is getting good value. I always think my selections are solid, but whether I bet a race or how I bet a race should be based on the value proposition.

I always found it comical when I would go to the NY tracks and the touts would be outside shouting about how many winners they had yesterday. Clocker Lawton, Clocker Wilson and a bunch that come and go. Whether or not their picks made money, the public selectors probably cleared $20 grand at the meet just selling a sheet of paper. I never bought them, but I knew people who couldn't bet a race without checking Lawton first.

A bit off topic but I remember the tip sheet THE CENTAUR who had a good opinion based on hard work. Paul Sentnor was the handicapper of this sheet. . I spoke to Paul on a number of occasions and he was a pleasant man who appreciated a compliment when he had a nice double digit horse on top.

[PaceAdvantage]

This may be the stupidest thread I have ever read on PA and that is saying something.
The guy is the host.....say that very slowly so you can understand. He is the host.
Who cares who he picks.
He is there to give out info, engage Andy and set up the race.

Do you dopes complain about everything? Take a look at some of the other in house hosts and TVG/HRTV talent. Jason is the last person any of you should be complaining about.Took you a helluva long time to find it though... :lol:

[Tall One]

It is obvious you "turn turn the volume"wayyyyyyy" down because you fail to grasp the FACT that Blewitt has an encyclopedic knowledge of NYRA racing; past races, stakes winners, pedigrees, trainers, competitors in various races, past and present. He has an excellant memory and recall of nyra racing.

Beer of Timeform is OK with those stats. But handicapping is not all statistics. Blewit has been a NYRA analyst for at least 15 years and he is as accurate as any...


Uncanny really... :ThmbUp:

I like the guy for what he brings to the screen. As mentioned before, he's the setup for Serling, Maggie, and Richie, and he's sharp with his particular commentary. He knows his role, and really doesn't stray from it.

Another positive: Blewitt will respond and interact to questions and comments on twitter. Also get a chuckle when he fans the flames when the Rangers are playing the Isles..or when they make the playoffs, and it's no holds barred.. :D