TVG vs Scav Selection Thread

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That was a lousy beat.

Agreed, was a nice payoff for a good ticket and I thought he was home free at the top of the lane.. Had no problem with him taking a stand against the #7 at 4/5, either.

On a completely unrelated side note, my friend hit the late pick 4 at Aqueduct today with a $48 ticket. Talk about a ROI! Congrats to him!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agreed, was a nice payoff for a good ticket and I thought he was home free at the top of the lane.. Had no problem with him taking a stand against the #7 at 4/5, either.

On a completely unrelated side note, my friend hit the late pick 4 at Aqueduct today with a $48 ticket. Talk about a ROI! Congrats to him!

That was nice for your friend....but unless he also used the second horse ( who I needed for the late Pick-3 ) he was extraordinarily lucky.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That was nice for your friend....but unless he also used the second horse ( who I needed for the late Pick-3 ) he was extraordinarily lucky.

The absurdity of that comment is surpassed only by the consistency of your perpetual desire to demean and devalue the success of other handicapping opinions....the individual who won that Aqu. P4 obviously made superb handicapping decisions that brought success for his effort. Because the guy didn't use a horse that you used doesn't make him any less intelligent on this particular day. To characterize that as "lucky" reveals how seriously you take your own opinion and how little you think of the rest of horse playing nation.......geez give the guy a break he brought down an incredible score.

[Scav]

I don't know Doc, I don't think he is around here to 'demean' anyone. I have read what he said about 10 times and I still can't figure out what he is trying to say (probably becuase I am tired) but it could very easily be one of those message board statements that is 'read' wrong.

He has been nothing but cool with me.

[Scav]

7: 1,2,3,4,6,8
8: 4,7
9: 1
10: 1,9,12,13

$48

7: 1
8: 4,7
9: 1
10: 9

$2

[docicu3]

Scav I hope he says he was kidding and I'l recant but we would have no credibility as a community if this type of thing went uncommented upon.

Would you not agree that it reads a bit "unfortunate" to be kind. The only question I have is why Phil has nothing to say about the comment...maybe there is another level to this one to be fair. I am fine with the benefit of the doubt...

[robfla]

the way I read it is that the horse that came in second had a bad trip and should have won.

not demeaning, just race analysis maybe

[outofthebox]

thats how i read it. But everyone knows that you need that fortunate trip to make the big score. Most of the time we seem to be on the bad end of the trip. Nice score....

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by docicu3

The absurdity of that comment is surpassed only by the consistency of your perpetual desire to demean and devalue the success of other handicapping opinions....the individual who won that Aqu. P4 obviously made superb handicapping decisions that brought success for his effort. Because the guy didn't use a horse that you used doesn't make him any less intelligent on this particular day. To characterize that as "lucky" reveals how seriously you take your own opinion and how little you think of the rest of horse playing nation.......geez give the guy a break he brought down an incredible score.

Demeaning someone? Give me a break and stop misreading what I write to suit your ridiculous personal agenda.

[blackthroatedwind]

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

it was already obvious you weren't demeaning anyone outside the original poster's head.

and i doubt they are subject to your persuasion.

so...don't take this wrong but...

if you managed to accomplish anything with this long explanation, you got extremely lucky.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

if you managed to accomplish anything with this long explanation, you got extremely lucky.

It would be the first time in a while.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

I didn't need this guy...I just needed "He got a bad trip and should have won"

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Scav

I didn't need this guy...I just needed "He got a bad trip and should have won"

I got the impression that wasn't enough for everyone.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

I saw this and expected Ron Popeil to respond.

What a good thread.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

For anyone confused....

The last winner was a first timer on the turf with some breeding and was certainly not an illogical winner on paper and hardly a surprising winner per se and just as unsurprising a use by someone playing the race. However, after the race was run, a proper analysis of the race reveals that he was a fortunate recipient of extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

First of all, take a good look at the pps of the entire field and tell me honestly that the pace figured to unfold in the advantageous manner it did for the winner. Magic Wand dueled in a 22 and 45 pace in her debut. Vivacious Vivian was involved in reasonable paces in sprints in her two races ( both on the turf ). Justinline was on or very near the lead in three previous turf sprints. Stormy Miracle, the winner, also had shown real speed, but to predict that the horse would easily make the lead, and be able to run his middle half in 53 seconds, while on the lead, would have been near inpossible. The pace was so helpful to the frontrunner that Justinline, who stalked him, was able to hold to the finish of this mile race even though he had lost ground in the stretch in all of his previous efforts going a quarter of a mile, or more, less ground.

But there's more....much more. While the second place finisher did benefit from a ground saving trip, as the winner did, she was shuffled a bit into and around the turn, but more importantly when she tried to get outside for clear running into the stretch she was completely shut off. This forced her rider to alter course back to the inside where she moved up and was only able to get clear when it was too late. Like many horses, she clearly did her best running when free and outside of horses, and had she split at the top of the stretch she most likely would have won. Now, she would have done so with a sweet trip, but considering the pace dynamics of the race, and the fact that little ground was gained by any closers, she hardly ran in a race that suited her running style. You combine these factors and she was an unfortunate loser.

But there's more......the fourth place finisher Kristi with a K blew the break by breaking to the far outside and continued with a wide trip against the aforementioned slow pace. In a mildly fairly run race, even with the ground loss, she too would probably have beaten the winner.

In my opinion had the race been run fairly, and by this I mean an honest and not crawling pace, not a blistering speed duel either, both the second and fourth finishers would have beaten the winner. If this doesn't make the winner fortunate I simply don't know what does.

Somebody cashes every bet that pays off at the racetrack. That does not change the reality of any given race and how it played out upon reflection. Explaining this obviously doesn't demean anyone, and certainly we have all cashed when we got lucky, but perverting the events to somehow suit some ridiculous additional personal need would be absurd.....and I'm sure Phil was neither doing that nor would he disagree about this race.

I think it's worth revisiting this thread, and the 9th race at Aqueduct on November 17th, considering the results of both the 4th and 8th races at Gulfstream today.

[the_fat_man]

Damn, wish I would've seen this. I was SO IMPRESSED by ALWAJEEHA's last race, you know, the one where she would've won if she wasn't steadied early, that I figured the 12 (2nd in the former's maiden win) was a lock.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think it's worth revisiting this thread, and the 9th race at Aqueduct on November 17th, considering the results of both the 4th and 8th races at Gulfstream today.

She should have won, had a ton of trouble AGAIN and was 3 in front past the wire. I was way wrong on the post time price though, 9.50-1.

I think the problem was she was running with my money on her back today, which apparently was an anchor.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Demeaning someone? Give me a break and stop misreading what I write to suit your ridiculous personal agenda.

Obviously others look at your post and see it differently that being the case I apologize for my own interpretation since it seems incorrect.

I have no personal agenda with you other than you seem to write consistently negative of others thoughts. I am glad on this occasion that this is not the case. Rather than try to defend this any further I again admit to being incorrect and have added the "cap" to my own attire for the day.

[blackthroatedwind]

Of course most of my posts disagree.....it's a message board and disagreements provoke discussion.

And, in the selections thread, it's even more important to post disagreeing viewpoints. It should be implicit that others have a right to a completely different opinion than me just by the very fact that I think I have a right to give my opinion. It's a discussion. I occasionally post a dissenting opinion here when I feel a poster is specifically off the track. I may be wrong, but if I offer a reasonable opinion as to why I disagree at least I offer an alternative viewpoint that the original poster then has the option to think about or dismiss.