Youbet's Playing to Win

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Check it. You be the judge.

Andy, again just funny the way you reacted to Watchmaker. I think you need to get Coach Harvey on to keep you smileing, or loosen you up.

Spyder

if i'm ever on tv and anyone is parsing my expression down to milliseconds please remind me to be stiff.

that has to be preferable to this.

i was worried my "shuffling papers" comment would be too much.

good show btw. stop reading what the unwashed masses think.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

if i'm ever on tv

HIG, if Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, and Oral Roberts have never been able to get HIM on tv, what on Earth makes you think a horseplayer's gonna be able to pull it off.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Grits

HIG, if Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, and Oral Roberts have never been able to get HIM on tv, what on Earth makes you think a horseplayer's gonna be able to pull it off.

"HIM"

"hi_im_me"?

i'm naturally stiff. put me on tv and you got it.

did you really say jimmy swaggert? is this a straight line? i feel like a barry bonds looking at a 87mph fastball down the middle letting this go by.

[Cajungator26]

Andy has a great smile.

[docicu3]

Andy because you seem to be a guy who says what you really think rather than what people want to hear I am going to tell you the truth as I see it about PTW.....

With the exception of the 2-3 minutes on hidden horses.

Show 1 of PTW was very average.....

The AS I have come to respect and learn this game from has stronger, well thought out messages that build concepts of fundamental handicapping for just about every play he makes. (eg the ticket structure and rationale of P3 or multirace wagering) You sounded so unAndy when co-host rudely challenged your P3 ticket scheme on your first show.

The surly Serling from DT would have singed his nostrils with a smart salty soliquy that would gelded Watchmaker with a rusty rumination on the spot after Mike essentially said your P3 ticket had "risk" without reward if Great Hunter and AGS win their races.

Andy your racing smart, funny and articulate when you just share your real thoughts on a subject. Dont cheat the public out of things like the thoughts you laid out here on DT relative to multirace wagering when we were all playing a SA carryover a few months back.

The show was very vanilla and you are anything but in your usual opinion delivery.


DrDave

[Scav]

Originally Posted by docicu3

Andy because you seem to be a guy who says what you really think rather than what people want to hear I am going to tell you the truth as I see it about PTW.....

With the exception of the 2-3 minutes on hidden horses.

Show 1 of PTW was very average.....

The AS I have come to respect and learn this game from has stronger, well thought out messages that build concepts of fundamental handicapping for just about every play he makes. (eg the ticket structure and rationale of P3 or multirace wagering) You sounded so unAndy when co-host rudely challenged your P3 ticket scheme on your first show.

The surly Serling from DT would have singed his nostrils with a smart salty soliquy that would gelded Watchmaker with a rusty rumination on the spot after Mike essentially said your P3 ticket had "risk" without reward if Great Hunter and AGS win their races.

Andy your racing smart, funny and articulate when you just share your real thoughts on a subject. Dont cheat the public out of things like the thoughts you laid out here on DT relative to multirace wagering when we were all playing a SA carryover a few months back.

The show was very vanilla and you are anything but in your usual opinion delivery.


DrDave

Dude, it was his first show, he will get into all of that. Also, he can't go absolutely crazy on there, he has to have some restraint as he is representing alot of parties, not just himself

[blackthroatedwind]

No, that's cool, I appreciate everyone's comments. I don't totally disagree but it's a fine line and sometimes it's easier said than done. I think I did a reasonable job of getting my point across that you don't worry about the small payoffs as you are trying to hit the multi-race bets if your main opinion wins as if you play correctly you will get the big payoffs over time.

There is a difference between having the time to type thoughts as opposed to spontaneously reacting to situations. I also think my comments here are often taken as aggressive when they aren't meant to come across that way. Blunt is not necessarily aggressive.

I will definitely take Docicu's comments to heart but ultimately I have to make the decisions that I feel make the show work best. But, once again, even if I end up disagreeing ( which I am not saying I do or don't here ) I am very happy to hear anyone and everyone's thoughts.

[MaTH716]

Andy, I really enjoyed the a lot. I know that you are one of the biggest
proponents of watching every replay of every race that there is. The fact that you showed the replays of the horses that you were discussing was great. I really wasn't expecting much for the production side, but I was wrong. The whole show, in every aspect was very good. I have two suggestions, 1 - Maybe you should give the lesson before you do the handicapping. What I mean was that you talked horses getting bad trips on speed bias tracks, or tracks with golden rails. You gave the lesson about it after you handicapped them with Watch. If you gave the lesson first, than people could have applied the lesson to the replays that you showed during the handicapping section. 2- Keep the Handicapping segments together. You did the segment with Watch, then you went on another topic (maybe it was the explination was speed tracks) and then you went on to talk about your selections in other stakes races around the country. I just think that there are people that tune in just for your picks and analysis and after that they tune out. In this case they missed out on some good stuff. But overall it was a very good show. Can't wait for next week!

[SOREHOOF]

Very good show, looking forward to next week. Don't sweat the shuffling papers.
Thanks for the link Gator.

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

There is a difference between having the time to type thoughts as opposed to spontaneously reacting to situations. I also think my comments here are often taken as aggressive when they aren't meant to come across that way. Blunt is not necessarily aggressive.

Speaking of this...I told a judge the other day I was drawing a blank. If it's any comfort. hahaha

[Grits]

Originally Posted by docicu3

The surly Serling from DT would have singed his nostrils with a smart salty soliquy

Andy your racing smart, funny and articulate when you just share your real thoughts on a subject.

Doc, Andy's building of this program and I know that's what he's working towards, can be likened to that of a General Contractor building a custom home for 2 million vs a spec home for 200K.

When the contractor is building for the customer that he's already signed a contract with he can put whatever they desire into the home, regardless of expense or tastes. When building for the market, for speculative sale, he knows he must be more moderate, temper the amenities, the paint colors, the cabinets, etc, everything so that it will have a wider appeal among realtors and prospective buyers, therefore selling quickly.

The show would not build if he flamed his guests, it simply would not. I wouldn't think its meant to center on debate, but rather, inform--and that's what I felt I was getting yesterday, between he and Watchmaker.

Keep in mind, he also spoke of not only playing multi-race wagers in this discourse, but backing his choices with WIN bets, as well.

And in his defense, he doesn't need a prompter or papers, maybe an outline for a guide, that's it.

When one speaks and represents the one corporation, and he is billed as "The Daily Racing Form's Andy Serling", it is a large responsibility. There is no other name anywhere that is synomynous with the sport of horseracing as THIS ONE. The recognition and the respect is greater than all others with any connection to the sport, including the Blood-Horse.

This is a lot to keep in mind. The professional has to abound, and did; the key here being, assertive as opposed to being agressive.

As assertive, the program will build and amass a good following of viewers.

I don't think he has a thing to worry about.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

how many hits did you get the first day?..grits well done but doc has a oppinion and it may represent a few people out there so its good to hear i would guess..we cant all blow sunshine up his ass..lol

[ArlJim78]

The show exceeded my expectations. It was very well done I thought.
I was surprised at the production values that were used, it looked good.
I thought the tone of the debate was about right. Opinions were expressed and debated which is good, but it didn't go to the point of roasting each other like we do around here. Remember this show should be targeted to reach a general audience and while some might enjoy the pointed barbs, other newcomers may find it off putting.

Love the hidden horse feature, that is a winner. I really like the inclusion of replays right in the discussion of the races. It adds so much.

I'm sure there will be some fine-tuning and the show will evolve after getting feedback and experimenting with different ideas. Some will work and maybe others won't.

Good job Andy, you looked very comfortable and in your element. Hats off also to YouBet and DRF for bringing this about. I think webcasts are the way to go for horseracing.