Congrats to Gabby

[linrom1]

I never understood why anybody would like Gaby. I had always found her to be bubbly, silly air head. She tended to pick hopeless long shots that were overlays.

On the other hand, Acacia Courteny always seemed like voice of reason, who would give logical contenders when the two were paired up at GP.


Picking winners is hard, but public handicappers, are impediment to the sport. They generally give out favorites, yet as a group they can hardly even match favorites' win percentage. Their only purpose is to give public false confidence in betting,

The sport would be better off without them

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by linrom1

I never understood why anybody would like Gaby. I had always found her to be bubbly, silly air head. She tended to pick hopeless long shots that were overlays.

On the other hand, Acacia Courteny always seemed like voice of reason, who would give logical contenders when the two were paired up at GP.


Picking winners is hard, but public handicappers, are impediment to the sport. They generally give out favorites, yet as a group they can hardly even match favorites' win percentage. Their only purpose is to give public false confidence in betting,

The sport would be better off without them

I am going to say something extreme, but which I believe:

The sport would die without public handicappers.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by linrom1

I never understood why anybody would like Gaby. I had always found her to be bubbly, silly air head. She tended to pick hopeless long shots that were overlays.

Frankly, this is a compliment to Gabby ( yes, it has two Bs ) as you aren't even the proverbial broken clock. However, to describe her as a "bubbly, silly air head" isn't even insulting to anyone but you, as it insinuates you have never even watched her. You might hate her picks, or whatever, but your description of her could not be farther from the truth.


Gabby doesn't need my defense, especially from the likes of you, but she is one of the best people I was ever fortunate enough to have worked with, in racing or anywhere, and your "opinion" has no basis whatsoever in fact.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Frankly, this is a compliment to Gabby ( yes, it has two Bs ) as you aren't even the proverbial broken clock. However, to describe her as a "bubbly, silly air head" isn't even insulting to anyone but you, as it insinuates you have never even watched her. You might hate her picks, or whatever, but your description of her could not be farther from the truth.


Gabby doesn't need my defense, especially from the likes of you, but she is one of the best people I was ever fortunate enough to have worked with, in racing or anywhere, and your "opinion" has no basis whatsoever in fact.

I'm sure she'll defend herself when she gets around to checking back in here! Sorry, couldn't help it.

His post wasn't even worthy of a reply, but you made it a worthwhile venture anyway.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Frankly, this is a compliment to Gabby ( yes, it has two Bs ) as you aren't even the proverbial broken clock. However, to describe her as a "bubbly, silly air head" isn't even insulting to anyone but you, as it insinuates you have never even watched her. You might hate her picks, or whatever, but your description of her could not be farther from the truth.


Gabby doesn't need my defense, especially from the likes of you, but she is one of the best people I was ever fortunate enough to have worked with, in racing or anywhere, and your "opinion" has no basis whatsoever in fact.

I've had interactions with her as well and I agree with you 100%.

Linrom doesn't contribute often, thankfully.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by linrom1

I never understood why anybody would like Gaby. I had always found her to be bubbly, silly air head. She tended to pick hopeless long shots that were overlays.

On the other hand, Acacia Courteny always seemed like voice of reason, who would give logical contenders when the two were paired up at GP.


Picking winners is hard, but public handicappers, are impediment to the sport. They generally give out favorites, yet as a group they can hardly even match favorites' win percentage. Their only purpose is to give public false confidence in betting,

The sport would be better off without them

Christ! You gotta be one sad SOB.

She’s a beautiful young woman in a sport dominated by men and most of those men are old school hard asses. Yet she is apparently flourishing.

That’s no easy task.......

I found your pic online

[PaceAdvantage]

^^^ this

[parlay]

Originally Posted by linrom1

I never understood why anybody would like Gaby. I had always found her to be bubbly, silly air head. She tended to pick hopeless long shots that were overlays.

On the other hand, Acacia Courteny always seemed like voice of reason, who would give logical contenders when the two were paired up at GP.


Picking winners is hard, but public handicappers, are impediment to the sport. They generally give out favorites, yet as a group they can hardly even match favorites' win percentage. Their only purpose is to give public false confidence in betting,

The sport would be better off without them

She is excellent. I can't see how anyone who actually has listened to here would make the statement you did.

[DeltaLover]

I pay absolutely no attention to racing analysts or journalists. Since they depend on the game organizers for employment and maintain very close relationships with many of the insiders it makes perfect sense that they never raise their voice to criticize the the shortcomings of the game.

Instead of exposing things like fraud, inefficient jockey efforts, favorites that show up in terrible condition, bad betting cards, super trainers etc these “pro analysts (!)” are always quick to forget and move on, with their sole objective to convince the betting crowd that the next race worth a try.

[elhelmete]

A panel of Gabby, Acacia, Caton, and dare I say Dawn Lupul would be fantastic. I enjoy and appreciate every bit of their discourse.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I pay absolutely no attention to racing analysts or journalists. Since they depend on the game organizers for employment and maintain very close relationships with many of the insiders it makes perfect sense that they never raise their voice to criticize the the shortcomings of the game.

Instead of exposing things like fraud, inefficient jockey efforts, favorites that show up in terrible condition, bad betting cards, super trainers etc these “pro analysts (!)” are always quick to forget and move on, with their sole objective to convince the betting crowd that the next race worth a try.

How would you know what they do, or don't do, given that you ( apparently ) "pay absolutely no attention" to any of them.

It's a rhetorical question.

[dkbigsky]

I really enjoy Gabby. I hardly ever get to the track, I watch on TV. Gabby is honest and tells you if a horse looks good in the paddock or washed out. I think she is the best analyst on TV.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I pay absolutely no attention to racing analysts or journalists. Since they depend on the game organizers for employment and maintain very close relationships with many of the insiders it makes perfect sense that they never raise their voice to criticize the the shortcomings of the game.

Instead of exposing things like fraud, inefficient jockey efforts, favorites that show up in terrible condition, bad betting cards, super trainers etc these “pro analysts (!)” are always quick to forget and move on, with their sole objective to convince the betting crowd that the next race worth a try.

1. Lots of public handicappers DO write about those things. Andy Beyer spent half his career doing so.

2. You don't understand the importance of public handicappers.

All betting pools depend on attracting casual players willing to lose a bit of money to get their gamble on.

Now the lottery or slot machines don't have to do anything to attract them. But other forms of gambling do. The televised poker boom, with tons of shallow, superficial analysis that didn't delve into the darker sides of poker (and there are many), convinced many new players to try it.

Sports betting is helped by all the analysts picking point spreads and fantasy teams, even if the advice is pedestrian.

And horse racing has public handicappers, who educate the public on the basics of handicapping and betting.

[castaway01]

I was originally going to say that Gabby is very well spoken, but I thought that was self-explanatory. Then you read a post like Linrom's and realize you might have to say it anyway. So I'll say that I think she's very well spoken and polished, and she also knows her horses. She can fill either the host or color analyst role, and that's pretty rare in sports broadcasting (especially for someone so young). May she continue to be successful for many years to come.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by the little guy

How would you know what they do, or don't do, given that you ( apparently ) "pay absolutely no attention" to any of them.

It's a rhetorical question.

He must have missed his own signature!

whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent