Parx race 9 May 15

[sekrah_]

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The guy made a nice score using the product, and
> gave it a compliment.
>
> Everyone needs to get over this red board crusade.


I\'m kinda here.. I really don\'t care if anyone is tooting their own horn.  He\'s excited to make a huge score and Thorograph benefits.  We can look at the sheets in the Redboard room and see if we came to the same conclusion.  Either way, Thorograph wins.

Except for a handful of regulars, this forum is pretty much dead outside of Triple Crown/Breeders Cup season.  We shouldn\'t be running off noobs who don\'t know \"protocol\".

Personally, I like seeing these posts, even when I\'m getting stomped (I got demolished on Derby day).  At least someone is winning.

[Rich Curtis]

P-Dub:

Take a look at this from Banditbeau\'s post:

 \"you have arguably the top weapon in the game in Aaron Rogers (TG numbers for us). But, your defense(wager construction) is so terrible that you never win as often as you should.\"

Then take a look at this from Banditbeau:

\"Before TG, I spent many years with the Sartin crew. Day after day, including seminar days lead by Doc, the vast majority of the crew would head to the bus with comments like \"I had 7 winners, but lost money on the day\". They were big on dutching wagers, but they had a plan.\"

Now this stuff is obviously well-intentioned, but does any of it strike you as a little off? As if possibly the definitions of \"handicapping\" and \"ticket construction\" are being conflated in a manner that flatters the handicapper by filing his failures in the \"bad ticket construction\" pile?

[P-Dub]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub:
>
> Take a look at this from Banditbeau\'s post:
>
>  \"you have arguably the top weapon in the game in
> Aaron Rogers (TG numbers for us). But, your
> defense(wager construction) is so terrible that
> you never win as often as you should.\"
>
> Then take a look at this from Banditbeau:
>
> \"Before TG, I spent many years with the Sartin
> crew. Day after day, including seminar days lead
> by Doc, the vast majority of the crew would head
> to the bus with comments like \"I had 7 winners,
> but lost money on the day\". They were big on
> dutching wagers, but they had a plan.\"
>
> Now this stuff is obviously well-intentioned, but
> does any of it strike you as a little off? As if
> possibly the definitions of \"handicapping\" and
> \"ticket construction\" are being conflated in a
> manner that flatters the handicapper by filing his
> failures in the \"bad ticket construction\" pile?


Rich,

I can\'t disagree with this. I think using horses properly with regards to \"bet construction\" is a part of handicapping.

For me, when I say \"bet construction\" is more important...it apllies when I have all of the right horses, yet I can\'t cash a meaningful ticket. Last weekend\'s Oaks and Derby a prime example. The seminar practically handed you the trifecta in each race, which in turn made the super \"gettable\" with the right ticket. Size of bankroll also plays a large factor in this, as the larger the bankroll the more creative you can get.

My downfall was stubbornly not playing the 2 favorites on top of supers, trying to beat them...even though both winners were anything but bad favorites. They were just underlays compared to the competition.....and one can say that is part of the handicapping process with regards to how you used them.

Your point is a valid one, appreciate you making me look at this in a different light.

[statuette]

🤦