ROTW

[horsegoer]

Must say I respectfully somewhat disagree with the read on Voya.
I don\'t think it\'s a good sign at he did not race at 2yo, did not break through or get back to his early 3yo top at 3 and was laid up for a few months early 4yo.now he\'s coming in off a number that, based on the past, could surely cause a regression. However I do think that a pair up might possibly get him a win and at anything over 10-1 you have to take a shot given his #\'s, odds and lack luster patterns of the other horses. Good luck.

[Rick B.]

More outright craziness on the ROTW favorite:

* Work All Week...\"could run his race and lose\"...possible.

But play the race with him OUT of the top three because
he is \"vulnerable\"?

That is just pressing the greed button. Favorites run
1st or 2nd around 50% of the time, and in the top 3 spots
70% of the time...and this is no ordinary favorite!

[ringato3]

Rick

Your point being what that we should play the favorites because numbers suggest they are in the money such a high percentage of the time

Not saying I necessarily agree to throw work all week out of the top 3 slots, but I certainly disagree with your statement that he is \"no ordinary favorite\"

I think he is exactly that.   Comes in with a higher than deserved reputation off of winning a weak version of the BC Sprint, add in a layoff and he spots weight.  

Personally I plan to toss him horizontally, not vertically, as getting him off the top spot is a bit easier than the top 3.

But my point is that this is the exact type of favorite I like to bet against.  You can certainly disagree, but to call it \"outright craziness\" a bit over the top, no?

Rob

[Rick B.]

Let\'s not overthink this:

Does Work All Week look like the kind of favorite
that you can easily dismiss from the top two spots?

(Before answering, please examine 12 wins from 15 starts
and an incredible looking sheet filled with 0\'s and negative
1\'s.)

[ringato3]

Rick

He is a very good horse.  Only 2 of the 15 starts were against graded company, which he faces today.  His last 2.  

He returns now, at 6, off of a layoff and spots weight.

I happen to think the better bet is using the 1 and 5 in the pick 4 and tossing him.   Because both are fast enough to beat him and the other fsctors mentioned (layoff, weight and also no CD experience)

That said, I could box 1-5 but I don\'t like that bet.  Where I disagree with the ROTW is that I think the 2 is a no shot slug.   But that is just my read.

My point for posting is that this is exactly the type of favorite I want to attack.  I am just attacking him differently than the ROTW did.

That and u posting favorites in the money stats is just like waving a red flag in front of a bull.   So what.   Favorites run well.   Pick the ones u want to attack and do so with gusto.  Don\'t fall into the \"favorites run well a high percentage of the time so I have to use them\" way of thinking.  I haven\'t figured out how to best this game, but I know THAT gives u no shot.

Good luck

Rob

[Rick B.]

ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don\'t fall into the \"favorites run well a high
> percentage of the time so I have to use them\"
> way of thinking.
 
> I haven\'t figured out how to best this game, but I
> know THAT gives u no shot.

No shot? Come on. That\'s the same dogma that says \"we
can beat EVERY favorite\".

Sorry, the math is incontrovertible on this. Favorites
MUST be considered, and possibly used.

If you try to toss the favorite EVERY week the way
ROTW seems to, you will just end up with a stack of
losing tickets.

[ringato3]

Rick

U want to debate effectively, u need to read what the other person writes and attempt to consider it.

Your incontrovertible comment is incontrovertibly wrong.  Do the math on betting favorites every race.  Let me know what the ROI is.  

The ROTW, which I don\'t write, picks one race from the hundreds that are run and us usually structures a bet around beating and often completely tossing the favorites.

There is little doubt that selectively looking at a broad range of races and zeroing in on races where the favorite is vulnerable and the masses are wrong, is the right way to go.

Next time u go to an OTB or race track, look around you.   Those people decide who the favorites are.   They may be your \"peer group\", but they aren\'t mine.   Will take my shot picking at times when they are wrong.   U keep waiting for the, to decide who the favorite is, and then bet on them.

Good luck

U will need it

Rob

[Rick B.]

ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> U want to debate effectively, u need to read what
> the other person writes and attempt to consider
> it.

...then you promptly attributed a whole bunch of stuff
to me that I didn\'t write: I never said to \"bet the
favorites\". I said you can\'t just arbitrarily toss them.

Your comment about the ROTW is closer to the mark; it
is somewhat of an abstract view of one race, an example
of how the TG Analyst uses the Sheets. It is not intended
as a compendium of betting instruction.

Finally, there is no need to be rude (\"good luck, u will
need it\").

I do OK. I might even point out that my name
is on the ThoroGraph Handicapper\'s Hall of Fame page.

(Go on, take a look.)

So...what did you say your name was, again?

[TGJB]

Rick-- you\'re completely missing the point re ROTW. We choose the races to show the differences between TG handicapping and conventional handicapping (i.e. first or second 15 out of 18 times). That will result on its face in betting against the favorites (who are picked by the public generally using conventional handicapping) in THAT race. It\'s a whole different issue than betting against favorites in general. And it may or may not work out-- I didn\'t write ROTW either, been working on the seminar and haven\'t even read it.

[Rick B.]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick-- you\'re completely missing the point re
> ROTW. We choose the races to show the differences
> between TG handicapping and conventional
> handicapping (i.e. first or second 15 out of 18
> times)

No, I get it. I just did a poor job of qualifying
my comments. Besides, who wants to read a ROTW that
says \"We just LUUUUV the 3/5 shot, get some!\".

Where I tend to part company with you and Alan is
I won\'t summarily toss a favorite from all my tickets
just because I don\'t think he can win -- you are
bucking some pretty stiff percentages when you do that.
Some pretty nice exactas go by the boards when the ROTW
analyst nailed the winner but didn\'t use the favorite
in the 2 spot.

And when you guys try to beat a legit favorite simply
because you suspect he will be overbet -- no other
knocks -- that just leaves me shaking my head.

These are minor quibbles. The ROTW is a fantastic
opportunity to see how the TG Analyst interprets
the TG numbers. That is the gold at the end of the
rainbow.

[P-Dub]

Rick B. Wrote:

> Where I tend to part company with you and Alan is
> I won\'t summarily toss a favorite from all my
> tickets
> just because I don\'t think he can win -- you are
> bucking some pretty stiff percentages when you do
> that.
> Some pretty nice exactas go by the boards when the
> ROTW
> analyst nailed the winner but didn\'t use the
> favorite
> in the 2 spot.

Rick,

If you don\'t think a favorite can win, why bet him to place (exacta)?  

The numbers you cite are general. If you think a favorite can\'t win, using TG or whatever method you prefer, how many times does THAT horse run 2nd?

What you are saying, talking about WPS percentages of favorites, is precisely the type of analysis we are trying to beat. The general public knows this, adds the favorite to many combinations, and the results are an underlaid exacta return.

I went to an OTB on Derby day, the room was loud when favorites were rolling down the stretch.  When I was rooting, I was usually rooting alone or with another person or two.

If I\'m handicapping a race, and I like a 10/1 ML horse and he\'s now 3/1, I will pass the race. Even if I think he will win. They won\'t win enough to justify my involvement.

Do I use favorites in exactas? Of course I do.  Do I just arbitrarily add them because of some general statistics about being in the money often?  No, I don\'t. The horse has to figure on MY handicapping in order to add him to my ticket.

[Tavasco]

Rick:

You are not the only reader who believes there appears to be a ROTW handicappers bias. The quest to beat the short priced horse seems paramount and detrimental to winning exactas.

Thanks for speaking up.

[Rick B.]

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I use favorites in exactas? Of course I do.  Do
> I just arbitrarily add them because of some
> general statistics about being in the money often?
>  No, I don\'t. The horse has to figure on MY
> handicapping in order to add him to my ticket.

Same here. I mentioned the percentages for emphasis:
we better have a pretty good reason for tossing the
favorite off the ticket completely.

Just because the horse will be an underlay in the win
pool seems a terrible reason to leave him out of exotics.

[Rick B.]

Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick:
>
> You are not the only reader who believes there
> appears to be a ROTW handicappers bias. The quest
> to beat the short priced horse seems paramount and
> detrimental to winning exactas.
>
> Thanks for speaking up.

Listen, I love these guys at TG. They are the contrarian\'s
Master Contrarians. That is the highest praise I can think
of for horse handicappers.

Alan posted a $47+ ROTW horse that put me over the top
in the Orleans contest a few years back. I\'ll never forget
that, nor will I ever stop being grateful for it.

I\'m just trying to cash more tickets and maximize profit.

[P-Dub]

Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick:
>
> You are not the only reader who believes there
> appears to be a ROTW handicappers bias. The quest
> to beat the short priced horse seems paramount and
> detrimental to winning exactas.
>
> Thanks for speaking up.


JB already mentioned the point of the ROTW.

What\'s detrimental to your bankroll is playing short priced or underlaid horses. You can apply to this to any wagering endeavor.

Ask people who religiously wager on big favorites and top pitchers how their baseball bankroll is doing.

As I stated, arbitrarily adding the favorite to your exactas just because they are the favorite may make you feel better when it comes in, but the prices are underlaid because the public overplays favorites in the exacta pool.

There is a difference between winning exactas (cashing a ticket) and profitable exactas.

You may win playing Pitcher X at -170, but do it all year and your bankroll will be smaller. Same with exactas.

Nobody is saying never play a favorite in the exacta. Play them if they have a reasonable chance.  Favorites miss the exacta too. If a favorite is a poor wagering choice for the top spot, why on earth would you play him to complete an exacta??