Jerry Brown of TG
 

I will preface this by saying I have immense respect for his accomplishments and contributions to our beloved game. I am familiar with TG but by no means an authority.

Some friends of mine attended the TG seminar today at Siro's. Jerry was emphatic about taking a strong position against Indian Blessing and Zenyatta. They were essentially "throw outs" in his opinion. OK, we know the result and I'm not here to provide hindsight. But my question to you TG'ers out there is why was this the gospel? Especially Zenyatta who was racing against NOBODY!

It's one thing to take a wagering stand against a strong favorite and try to make some money in a race. It's another to say horses like those two were throwouts. That's just silly, IMO. Basically, it's like saying something crazy, hoping for lightning in a bottle, and being looked at with reverence for years if it happens but if it doesn't, nobody remembers you said it next week.

Is he still hooked up with Linda Ronstadt?:rolleyes:

I don't know what Zenyatta's sheet was, but I do know Indian Blessing's. You could have done one of two things with Indian Blessing today, using any kind of information, you were either singling here and keying her on top, or completely tossing.

Indian Blessing ran absolutely monsterous last time, but it was a 'slop top' and it was a large improvement. I think Baffert running back fairly quickly was a sign of her health, and from my recollection, even if she moved back a couple points on the sheets, she was still going to win. I have no idea how to make a figure, but if she moved back 2 pts and Baffert tries to stretch her out to a mile within 40-50 days, I would think she is a great play against if you believe in the 0-2=x theory.

not sure about zenyatta but i know indian blessing ran a -4 her prior race which was the best figure ever by a 3yo filly and the expectation was she would bounce.

What was his reasoning behind the "throwout" remark? Did he pick Model to win the Del MAr race?

But just expecting a bounce is not enough. The opposition has to be taken into account. She could have bounced to the moon and still been good enough to beat that field. So many times I see people say they expect a horse to bounce and automatically assume that means they can't win when in actuality, even huge regression is still much better than anything else the opponents can do.

the question was did you want to bet her at 3-5 or one of the other's.

it's a difficult argument to make after the fact but i think the smarter bet was trying to find the one to beat her.

i don't try to beat every heavy favorite. but i thought there was a reason to think she was vulnerable today.

Well, I think you hardly ever want to play any horse at 3/5 odds. But I think there's trying to beat a favorite that's vulnerable because you really believe it and then there's trying to beat a favorite just because the odds are good on another horse. For me, this was one of those races where instead of doing what I felt was wasting money trying to beat a favorite that looked like a lock, it was better to just pass the race. Some people like to look at a race and even if they don't like a horse's chances to win, they will let the odds tell them otherwise. Me, if I don't think a horse has a shot to win, it wouldn't matter if the odds were 1/5 or 50/1.

Why pass when you can she can be singled in a massive pick 4 pool?

and you were clearly correct.

prior to the race i thought there was a reasonable argument for some of the others.

like i said, it's very thin ice to be arguing after the race. but tg sheets do identify vulnerable favorites often enough that i'll pay attention in a race like this. that was the original question.

Well, I thought the question wasn't whether or not she was vulnerable but why would he call them throwouts. I think there's a difference between the two classifications.

okay. i guess that's just good marketing.

no one pays a lot for vulnerable favorites. but favorites you can throw out. that's money.

Jerry is right much more often than he is wrong and while he looks for vulnerable favs with TROW he gives out. They are by no means intended to completely throw out talented horses like Indian Blessing. The way to play that one in the multi's is to construct a ticket that singles IB with deeper combinations in the multis while putting at least a third of your play on horses you think can pull the upset like Taquilla or Palanka City. Keep following that weekly give away the guy will make you money and it doesn't cost you a dime for those sheets.

I read his comment in his pdf sheet for today, and he never said throwout. He just expected a bounce, in which she could win, but will try to beat her.

Was this before or after my orgy with six supermodels?




It's all about accuracy.....and at the actual seminar at Siros today nobody was stupid enough to even suggest that Indian Blessing could lose.

The suggestion from Jerry Brown was that Indian Blessing was worth playing against given the huge prior effort, the outside post and her conceeding weight. He used the two fillies as examples of spots where scores are made LONG TERM betting against..

He was amazed at how terrificly Indian Blessing ran, no matter who she was running against, and expects that she paired up her (neg) -4. And note how she came down he lane like an arrow...

Wasn't her effort two back enough of a jump to cause a bounce (if there was such a thing) - then what happened? Outside post in a six horse field? An extra six pounds max? :zz: :wf

He said the same thing about Solar Flare in the Whitney last week (for similar reasons, probable bounce candidate off of two strong previous efforts) and was spot on - take it for what it is

Yeah but I also totally dismissed Solar Flare's chances in that race too and that was without having any figures to lead me in that direction. I did it soley on the premise that the horse wasn't close to good enough to win.