Saturday February 17 Fair Grounds ROI Wagers go here

[Real Quiet]

Originally Posted by JolyB

From time to time I've gotten up on my soap box to criticize the quality of a card's morning line. Today's ML at the Fair Grounds seems to be egregiously off of the mark. On a card of 14 races, there is only one horse listed at ML odds of less than 5-2, and that one (Nash) looks as if it will go off at odds on rather than the listed 9-5. Would anyone like to suggest an over/under of the number of horses on this card who will in fact go off at odds of less than 5-2?

It would be nice JB if we got those morning line prices on all those horses. Getting a favorite that pays $8.00 makes it easier to make a few bucks. However I think you are 1000% correct in that the majority of winning favorites and perhaps a second choice or two will pay less than $7.

[Real Quiet]

And yes Ruff. We go by the rules. Nobody eliminated any of your 14 races. We all have our opinions and nobody infringed on your choice.

[cal828]

As I get older, a lot gets by me, but I didn't see any whining or complaining about the venue or race 14. If I were the former Potus, I would say the whole things sounds like a "witch" hunt to me.

[RUFFIAN]

PURRR ANOTHER GREAT PRESIDENT

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A BUNCH OF “ MALARKY”

PURRRHAPS JUST MY PURRRSPECTIVE
BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A LOT OF
DISGRUNTLEMENT, DISSATISFACTION REGARDING
MY SELECTION OF FULL CARD

THERE IS NO “WITCH” Hunt
But for me
I almost felt I was going to burn at the STAKE
WHICH WOULDN’T BE GOOD BECAUSE I’M A VEGETARIAN

[RUFFIAN]

Race 14 - $50 to win on #4 (Sierra Leon)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
NJS

PURRRRRFECT PURRRRSPECTIVE PICKINS

[JolyB]

Originally Posted by Real Quiet

It would be nice JB if we got those morning line prices on all those horses. Getting a favorite that pays $8.00 makes it easier to make a few bucks. However I think you are 1000% correct in that the majority of winning favorites and perhaps a second choice or two will pay less than $7.

I took a look at the charts to see if my rant about the morning line was valid. Turns out that in the 13 races that can be analyzed (Race 3 with only 3 runners can't be included in this discussion), there were 8 horses who went off at less than 2-1, including 2 of them in race 8. It was a rough day for the chalk players since of those 8, only 2 were winners, although a number of them finished 2nd. The 9/5 favorite in race 5 was in fact the 4th choice in the ML at 4-1.

I don't envy the job of the linemaker; I couldn't do it 5 days a week, with the requirement that it be available 2 days before the race. Add to that some of the other less mentioned factors, such as if you list a horse that will be an overwhelming favorite at 2/5, you must list some other runners in that race at 25-1 or higher for your numbers to work, and that can be viewed as an insult to the owners and trainers of those horses. I suspect that some linemakers take this factor into account. The fellow who does the line at Mountaineer mentioned this on one of his insightful race previews. Nonetheless, for races where I am looking at any significant play, I find that I need to put the ML aside and make my own in order to have any real feel for the race. That takes a lot of time and just can't be done for more than a couple of races per day.

OK, rant over. Just thought some of you might find this of interest.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by JolyB

I took a look at the charts to see if my rant about the morning line was valid. Turns out that in the 13 races that can be analyzed (Race 3 with only 3 runners can't be included in this discussion), there were 8 horses who went off at less than 2-1, including 2 of them in race 8. It was a rough day for the chalk players since of those 8, only 2 were winners, although a number of them finished 2nd. The 9/5 favorite in race 5 was in fact the 4th choice in the ML at 4-1.

I don't envy the job of the linemaker; I couldn't do it 5 days a week, with the requirement that it be available 2 days before the race. Add to that some of the other less mentioned factors, such as if you list a horse that will be an overwhelming favorite at 2/5, you must list some other runners in that race at 25-1 or higher for your numbers to work, and that can be viewed as an insult to the owners and trainers of those horses. I suspect that some linemakers take this factor into account. The fellow who does the line at Mountaineer mentioned this on one of his insightful race previews. Nonetheless, for races where I am looking at any significant play, I find that I need to put the ML aside and make my own in order to have any real feel for the race. That takes a lot of time and just can't be done for more than a couple of races per day.

OK, rant over. Just thought some of you might find this of interest.

You are a true student of the game Joly and your knowledge of it is impressive and instructional. Two observations from me. One, I thought whoever made the odds wouldn't even be close considering the track was a river, but they certainly had it right in the big race and luckily, I went along with them and glad I did, but in the waning moments before it went off I wasn't all that confident. Chad's horse had already proven himself on a muddy track, but I wasn't sure that would translate to a sloppy track and the other thing was I noticed that Asmussen's maiden winner was 3-1 and I left him out. The other thing that might have had some effect on the odds making was the absence of the Ortiz brothers. Obviously, whatever, Irad rides is often made the favorite and often deservedly so.

Anyway, I do appreciate these asides from you. Like I said, instructive.

[JolyB]

Originally Posted by cal828

You are a true student of the game Joly and your knowledge of it is impressive and instructional. Two observations from me. One, I thought whoever made the odds wouldn't even be close considering the track was a river, but they certainly had it right in the big race and luckily, I went along with them and glad I did, but in the waning moments before it went off I wasn't all that confident. Chad's horse had already proven himself on a muddy track, but I wasn't sure that would translate to a sloppy track and the other thing was I noticed that Asmussen's maiden winner was 3-1 and I left him out. The other thing that might have had some effect on the odds making was the absence of the Ortiz brothers. Obviously, whatever, Irad rides is often made the favorite and often deservedly so.

Anyway, I do appreciate these asides from you. Like I said, instructive.

Thank you Cal. Very kind of you. I've always enjoyed the analysis aspect of the sport, sometimes to the detriment of my attempts to cash a winning ticket. We have so many knowlegable and talented horseplayers in our group and I wish we had more discussions of our experiences of races gone by or debates about races yet to be run. I think we could all learn a lot from one another.

By the way, congrats to you on your astute single of Sierra Leone in your exacta array.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by JolyB

Thank you Cal. Very kind of you. I've always enjoyed the analysis aspect of the sport, sometimes to the detriment of my attempts to cash a winning ticket. We have so many knowlegable and talented horseplayers in our group and I wish we had more discussions of our experiences of races gone by or debates about races yet to be run. I think we could all learn a lot from one another.

By the way, congrats to you on your astute single of Sierra Leone in your exacta array.

Thanks. Not sure it was all that astute considering the exacta was the favorite and the second favorite, but I'll take it anyway considering how badly I've played in recent weeks.

You are right. We do have a lot of good and talented players which is sometimes obscured by the second part of the task of horseplaying which is, of course, the betting, but I would say that's probably universal except for a very small minority that always seem to do it right. Not easy, but I guess if it was we wouldn't be interested in doing it and still pursuing it after, for some of us, what seems like a lifetime.