Call me crazy but Tsonga has a shot tonight against Nadal.
+280 is worth a $40 wager.

Just hope Tsonga's serve is on point.

not crazy at all.

this fricken kid is moving like his ass is on fire compared to last year.

h'es been playing great and riding a high.

the only concern is that he's fit but is he fit enuff to stay with nadal. nadal will make him run back and forth till his head is swiming and don't know up from down.

i think its worth a 40 shot. no doubt

Tsonga knocked out the 3 guys I backed - Murray, Gasquet and Youzhny.. cant believe how well he's playing...

Wow,Tsonga blew Nadal away ......Reminds me of Safin(at his very best,) but even better....Trust me,Nadal had no shot against what this guy had.

That is exactly who popped into my head while watching Tsonga play Youzhny the other morning. I thought he had a great shot to win this match...in four, probably five sets. I never thought he could dust Nadal, though - incredible, inconceivable, out-of-body performance. I think he was even a little surprised after match point by how he dominated. I can't wait to see him in the final. But before that, we still have Federer-Djokovic to look forward to.

Tsonga was unreal. Glad I woke up early to pee and turned it on. That was just an overwhelming show. How could Nadal look slow but he did, and the power from behind the base line was awesome. I;ve never seen the announcers so blown away. Had not seen him play before but if this is what he's got, the finals going to be special. Can he continue at this level? Sure got a confidence booster today!

And for us old enough to know, the young Ali look and manner is unmistakable.

Spyder

Pillow,

You are the man...nice call.

tsonga was unreal.

he imposed on nadal his own game-i think nadal got a hell of a work out

those volley dropshots where unreal, even nadal couldn't believe it

last game-final set all nadal could do was smile himself

Have no idea what he will do when people are expecting to see that again(in the finals.) Also,Nadal is more of a shotmaker/speed player.He lacks power.The other 2 (in the semis) don't lack power.I wouldn't bet against this guy though.They were saying a year ago,he couldn't keep shots in the court long enough to rally.Are you kid'n me? I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody hit the ball(so many times) exactly where they wanted to hit it.Nadal was not playing poorly at all.This guy was playing too well.Hitting it hard,and had huge accuracy on difficult angles.He and Safin have that same look on their faces(when they are doing well.) They know they are playing well,but they don't seem to be really thinking much.It's very natural.Like "I wonder if I am gunna bang 4 chicks tonite.Last nite I did 3,and I could have done 1 more." Nadal and Federer etc.,are both thinking,ploding,thinking(actually,Federer has an extra gear he goes to.)If Federer goes to that gear,and still loses an important game,then that's it.He pouts...It's over.He quits.It doesn't happen very much,but he does quit.He doesn't quit physically,but mentally he doesn't believe he will come back.Nadal was 1 point away from getting him into the pout stage at Wimbledon.He had 2 or 3 break points,but could not get enough power on any of the returns of serve.That is a difference between Tiger,and Federer.I've never seen Tiger give in.It's so rare that guys can beat Federer when he pushes the pedal all the way down though.Safin in the 2005 Australian semi-finals,and obviously the French Open(that's different though,because he is giving 100% at all times at the French,and just isn't good enough on the surface.........he has no final gear there.)

You are a machine.

Now destruction by way of Federer.
Although hes gonna get pushed.

I don't think he'll get pushed.

-265 is tempting...but never worth it.

Incorrect.Can't wait to see him get his butt kicked at the French.Be saaaweet like da candy cane.

Wow. Here I thought there wasn't a player left (outside of Nadal at the French) who believed they could beat Federer.

Should be a great final.

At Wimbledon,Federer is the best on that surface.On any other surface,it really is a matter of whether guys are willing to step up and play well.That's all this guy did last night.He did what you need to do to beat Federer.He took care of his own serve,and didn't make a bunch of errors.If you do that,you got a pretty damn good shot.If you don't do that,then yes,Federer will feast on ya.It wasnot like the match the previous night.That match was about TSONGA'S amazing offense against Nadal.This was about the Serb refusing to make the errors that Federer expects his opponents to make.Just look at the final point.That pretty much described the whole match.The Serb refused to make an error.He didn't fire a winner.Federer got tight and (for no reason at all) jammed one right into the net.A totally unforced error.On grass,Federer wins with offense.On other hard courts,he wins mainly by waiting for other guys to make mistakes on serve or during long rallies.Sure,on hard courts,he hits the ball too powerfully for weak guys like Nadal or Blake to be able to hang,but there are other guys(like the winners of these last 2 night's matches)that can hit the ball hard enough with him on hard courts.Those guys usually are simply unable to keep hitting the ball back without making errors.They make more unforced errors than he does.They can't use their 1st serve consistently enough.On hard courts,if you do what this Serb did(control your 1st serve n' keep hitting the ball back,) you can beat Federer.Grass is much different.Roger uses offense there.He doesn't just hit the ball back until they make errors.He is by far the best grass player I have ever seen.Nadal is by far the best clay player anybody will ever see.Both are obviously very beatable on other surfaces.Nadal should just play on clay.Doesn't take a genius to see the guy is way underpowered on any surface that isn't clay.I don't know why he doesn't have power,but he just doesn't have it.If you can't get aces(when you have to get them) with your serve,then how you gunna win majors on hard courts? Seriously needs to get some power from somewhere.

Ana Ivanovic is +385 for the match.

Worth A $25 WAGER

Bottom line is Federer blew it.
He had the first set in his hands
and blew easy volleys. He just played
awful. And when you play a Serbian
with big hair you had better be playing
well and he was not.

Federer is still the best.

congrats to maria !!!!!!!

job well done.

Completely even in the mens final.....1 set a piece. Tsonga may have more natural talent but I'll take the Sharapova impersonator...


620AM

Now 2-1 sets and they call this damn trainers time out with the Serb whining but still grandstanding with the strut and WWF grunt......what have they done to this sport? If you win by wearing the opposition down so be it but get rid of these lame massage breaks....

700AM

The timeout changed everything as the Serb was on the ropes after having things under control. When tennis was actually a sport of stamina especially grand slam tennis this garbage was never tolerated. You got blisters too bad.....your tired..let me get you a crying towel!! The Serb became a player to be hated for years to come because of his lack of class on the court after points he would win....should be fun at the US Open this year as a few more players make things competitive. A couple new stars for the game were born in this tourney..

i didn't care for djokovic's chest thumping while playing federer. my first thought when he won was 'blind squirrel'...yeah, he beat roger (which i still can't believe) but i did not like his antics. poor display of sportsmanship.

well done btw!!

Nice call scuds...
AFTER the event.

I think there is a name for that.

Well,the key to this match came down to 1 thing:TSONGA'S tired legs..By the middle of the 2nd set this guy was struggling with his 1st serve,because his legs were leaving him.Then came a lot of unforced errors.It was obvious to most that he wasn't moving as well as earlier in the match,or against Nadal.He had the crowd on his side,and the Serb didn't like that.I think he would have been able to grind out a win if he had some legs left.Like he showed in the 1st set,he is able to come up with great shots to win important points.They said he did a lot of work in the gym about 7 hours earlier.That may have cost him a grand slam.I don't know about anybody else,but I have most energy in my legs (consistently)about 3-7 hours after I have overeatin'.When I do that,I have almost no resistance from my body to the exertion of working out.All other times (when I work out,)I have some resistance from my body (to working out.)I've heard the theory on it.Something about glycogen(from all the calories) still being in the liver(available for easy energy.)That's just my body,though.My least amount of muscle energy would be like 7-12hours after working out. ... Sure,some of it is the Serb making him work harder for points,but I still think it was too early to get that tired.It was a little like the Baghdatis-Federer final 2 years ago,but TSONGA tried harder late in this match.I don't think TSONGA is a one n' done like Baghdatis has been(he could be a major contender if he would get fitter,and stop partying all night with the Greeks.)

That's not a call,and you know it.Just shows everybody what a manipulative bitch you are,and always will be.As far as I'M concerned ,you didn't make a call.You didn't say to go out and take odds on Federer at a low #.It was just you supporting Federer chalk.I said if he gets down in the match,and calls on his "A" game,then if that doesn't work quickly,then he mentally quits.He did that.He pouted.Just as he always does in his losses.Now,if you want a call,then go to yesterday's Anita selections to find me pick "ONEFUNSONOFAGUN." that was a "CALL." She got deadheated.I had the win bet,and exacta,and didn't make much.That's why I say to play the multi-race bets.That's what I should have done.Sometimes you get caught by somebody putting all their inside win money in a p3,p4 pool.You get a bad break on the payoff,but it pays too good on a regular basis to worry about that.The good far outweighs the bad(if you bet it consistently.)Remember I had the p3 at Churchill that paid $5800 for what would have been a $1800 win parlay payoff.Ask Hooves, If ya forget,cuz I (unfortunately) had to beat his to get mine.His was paying over 10k.

If you pick the right pik 3 or 4 races. If you were going to bet those 3 or 4 anyway. But I see very few cards where I feel comfy 3 or 4 races in a row. So I gotta go deep and the risk taken most of the time outweighs the unknown reward. Why is that so hard to understand?

I am just getting back to the horses. The last horse bet and pick I made was Kip Deville on this board. And after I won that bet and got praised, I noted that the horse got a perfect trip, and it worked out perfectly because probably the best horse in the race had a horrible outside post. ie, I needed some luck and got it. It just astounds me after people like you get a win, it was pure genius. Its never pure genius. How many times have you had the best horse in the race and lost? How many times have you had a horse that was clearly going to compete in a race and won, and then go back and look at the race and say, By God, things worked out well for me. If that 4 horse had not got blocked I would not have won. Do you EVER do that?

As far as Federer. I knew he was playing a very tough smart player. I wrote he would get pushed. Well he got pushed out of the tournament. You somehow think cause you dont like him this will dictate the outcome. I dont revel in a loss like just because I think he is a clay court specialist and not much more. Oh, and a great competitor, better than Federer in this category, just not as talented.

As far as Hooves goes, I think he does an incredible job
keeping a handle on so many tracks. I could never do this,
I dont have the time or the memory.
And a few of his picks in the past that have coincided with
my own have won on a pretty consistent basis. So I really like
it when our picks match up.

No,it's not pure genius.If you can get a single to win,then you can get thru the other 2 legs without even having a huge opinion in them.For 6 racing days in a row(DEC. 28th,29th,30th,31st,JAN 1st,3rd) I posted the winning single of the last race at Anita.15-20 years ago,I would have tried to beat some of those horses(and lost win bets,)but because of p3,p4 betting,I can bet what I think is gunna really win.That's because if you can get some prices in the other legs,then being right about a $5-$8 horse will pay something.If you don't do that,then you're gunna have to bet more to make less(win betting.)I mean $30 on a $7 horse is gunna pay you $105,but $30 on a p3 ending in a $7 horse often pays $200.What win betters do is get they ass in a sling because they want that $200.So,they up their wager to $55-$60.They bet more to win the same,and lose twice as much when they lose.I know.I use to do it.P3,P4 has made a big difference for me.Yea,I have losing streaks,but they sure don't cost what they use to cost.If you like playing $5-$8 horses,then you better be playing p3-p4 because it just takes quite a bit of money to make money win betting those.Also,if you lose doing it,you will find yourself trying to find 5-1 to 9-1 type horses to win with(because you need to.)That's how they get they ass in a sling.That's the recipe.Be smarter...win as much with half the money bet,and lose half as much when you go cold.That isn't genius.It's taking what they give you.

See,PGRDN,you aren't a typical individual.You go out to the track and win bet a race if you get your price etc.Most people aren't like little brats that will turn their nose up at everything until they get their desired plate of mac n' cheese(which momma finally makes them.)

well I can go out to the track and just enjoy the running without a dime on a horse. And I have played pik bets just because its fun for the people I am with.

But they dont understand that when one has to go deep in a race or two, the amount you bet sky rockets. They just like to play. Then they come up with a 400 dollar ticket and get all excited, but they risked 128 bucks to get it.

I take a single in one leg.In the other 2 legs,I force myself to win with just one of my top 2-3 selections in either of those races(people should be able to do this.)So,it gives you 2 races to go deep in.So,it costs $20-$42.Also,it gives you a chance to win the pick 3 twice.

1st ticket....
_________________________
1st leg) two or 3 horses I like
2nd leg) 5-7 horses
3rd leg)single

2nd ticket..
_______________________
1st leg) 5-7 horses
2nd leg) two or 3 horses I like
3rd leg) single

In the race you single do you find a horse you really think is going to win against an obvious public favorite? I think so many people have a key race to single that involves a heavy favorite that the pool will be diluted with so many winners.
Or do you go deep on a heavy favorite race hoping the favorite falters but taking him to back it up?
Just seems to me that one cant do what everyone else is doing because of pool dilution.

I think knowing which race to single is very important. It cant be the race everyone and his mother single. It would seem this single would have to involve a race that have a number of possible winners as deemed by the public, but you have a clear reason to take one of them.

Can't be the dominant favorite.The last race at Anita often has a m32 claiming race,and they really are not that difficult,but there are usually 3 - 5 horses that have a shot.There are usually another 7 or 8 horses from trainers that don't win.To answer your question,it has to be a horse that has atleast 1 horse being played equally against it.It can be one of the 2 top choices,but not anything less than 8/5 or 9/5.That week,I think I had a 6/1,a 4/1,two 5/2 shots, a 2/1 etc. Any of that will work. Out here,we have cheaters,and they are gunna shove horses down your throat.You can hope for like 4/1 etc.,but they will get bet down(and win) at 5/2 etc.So,it's really meant as a way to make money off a 5/2 that wins the last race.Everybody needs a bigger price.So,they try to beat Mitchell,Sadler,Mullins etc.,but if they are dropping into a m32cl,then it's usually gunna win.If there is a horse that came close to winning for mcl32,then people will always play that almost as much(or more) as the dropper.Then,the dropper wins.Coming close in m32cl is no match for Sadler dropping something who has had one dull start at straight maiden level.The key is to have a horse or two who have come close to winning at m32cl.They will bet those again.

I guess my real problem is I very rarely see 3 or 4 races in a row that are bettable. Im one of the retards that requires certain odds or I wont hit the print ticket on the machine as they enter the gate.

And of course the odds change a bit. Sometimes a whole bunch, which hacks me off to no end. Im lucky because the facility down here has so many open machines with the TV set right in front. Or machines that you can look directly at the track tote. There just are not huge lines like some people describe at other tracks.

Some tracks aren't good for p3/p4.I think one of them was Sunland.One time I looked at a weeks race results there,and a lot of the time it was paying less than the parlay.All I am saying is,out here, I just don't see that many logical horses going off at prices higher than they should be.Horses with a "chance" to win? Sure,but out here the same group of trainers win a ton of the races.So,p3/p4 betting is probably more important out here.