Friday, August 21, 2009

FINOO bets (PUNE, Saturday, Aug 22)

FINOO bets for PUNE (Saturday, August 22)

Graces (1-1) [Lost, 3rd]
Weizhou (4-1) [Lost, 4th]
Catalyst (7-1) [Lost, 2nd]


  1. I have a strong feeling that tomorrow is going to be a big day for FINOO followers and the system. Hatrick on the cards, one of which might be at decent odds!

  2. All the very best.Two of these i like.CATALYST is doubtful, as of now for me.

    in the 7th i like classic


  3. Not have a "Cat"alyst in hell's chance........... as of now............I hope it drops a bombshell.........

  4. Graces has to beat Ran Banka, who is speedy and has the inside draw advantage. If jockey Parmar does not allow Ran banka to hold too big an advantage, then Graces can do the trick.
    Weizhou's trainer Faisal Abbas is doing very well in this Pune season. 'Should be a good betting prospect.
    Though Catalyst's jockey (Parmar again) is doing well, the trainer (Nina Lalvani) is not doing so well. Question mark as Swamybabu says.
    It does look like two out of three for FINOO.

  5. Finoo is all gas, less substance. Its like a magicians dope called hocus focus gili gili !!

  6. sir chanakya blogger has abused you on his blog. pl read and reply.

  7. Dear Vasha,
    I read it some time back and have just replied to it. I hope he publishes it.

  8. Dear Prakash:

    With due respect to FINOO, I feel today's selection in the first race that is GRACES do not appeal to me. On the other side the PP of Ran Banka behind Imperio and Golden Warrior is more enouraging.

    It looks extreamly difficult for Graces to beat Ran Banka today.

    The bet is RAN BANKA.

    Good luck

  9. Gosavi, chanakya has not publishee ur reply.

  10. Anonymous (Shivram),
    Good luck for your choice Ran Banka. May the best horse in the field win.

    That's his call. After all, it is his blog.

    Anyway, here is a copy of my reply to his post:

    Dear Mr Chanakya,

    I once again make it clear that I am not interested in your incoherent babble. However, that does not mean I will let you get away with outright lies.

    Your statement, namely, "A new dimension is being innocuously added now that ‘ on Derby day she [Set Alight] may have had some health issues’ Great – new dimension" is a lie.

    For your information, I have raised this point publicly, as conclusion, in my article dated April 21, 2009 on my blog.

    Here I reproduce the relevant part:

    "It is a matter of conjecture why Set Alight on this occasion, despite racing in leisurely pace, could not produce three sub-12s in the last four furlongs. The reasons, generally, are lack of class, health or stamina.

    Since we all know Set Alight is stuffed with class every ounce, it could be either health or stamina.

    If it is health, she may not race for a long time now; if it is stamina, we will have to wait for confirmation until she runs 12 furlongs or more against worthy rivals.

    I will wait until then before making further comments on this issue.

    Mr Chanakya, you are welcome to carry on your senseless babble and personal vicious agenda against me, but for God's sake, don't resort to lies just to substantiate your false accusations.

    Prakash Gosavi

  11. Prakash, I'm now beginning to think there is no fool proof system that can help make money in horse racing.

    I'm hoping I can stop using pen names and tell all that 'I invest in horses' someday, it doesn't seem near though.

    I don't mean to sound arrogant but a side note - you come across to be a good man and I suggest you handle any arguments/notes/even smears by other bloggers with polish instead of using strong words in response. You are of much better 'class' and it needs to show!! How about seeing you say you disagree or that you were misrepresented by the blogger so well and politely that you are owed an apology?

    All the best!!

  12. Dear Mr . Gosavi ,

    I would like to be civil with you though you have given no reason to be so, but for the last time I’ll ignore your remarks like babbler, stupid, incoherent and so on. I can assure you that without using any dirty, four -letter or abusive word I can also be very nasty with words, by using a very civilized language and format.
    It is strange that a person Vasha writes at 6.55AM and you respond immediately, after 3 minutes only, at 6. 58 AM with a reply as if waiting for a response of that kind and to another anonymous letter at 11.44AM your response comes at 12.12 pm – 28 minutes later! You are certainly very sincere with some of your responders though selectively, and this must have made you very popular.
    But I do have an issue with you. Your selections of words many times are wrong , inappropriate and misleading and shows lack of knowledge of the language you use . Example, Vasha says ‘ chanakya has abused you’ . Without knowing where and what abuse Chanakya has used you promptly reply within 3 minutes . though same Vasha fails to read –babble, babbler, stupid , incoherent etc. words used by you on a site , which perhaps he never visits – may be due to selective or filtered memory circuits ,very popular in electonics! Another example, take the word ‘lie’ which you have used has two entirely different meanings. What you perhaps meant, inferring from the context of your posting , was – to say or write something which is not true or to say some thing to deceive somebody ,etc.
    What did I write about you , I’ll reproduce now – “Another point projected by a real expert was that the winner did better time in last furlong than the loser. Well, Dr. Watson, it is elementary because a runner who is 2 ½ lengths behind the leading runner at 200m has to move faster and better to catch and beat the leader and do better fraction to win the race! “. Is it an abuse,an accusation ,a lie or a truthful statement – I leave it for your readers to decide.

    I thought you are a ‘real expert’ , but if you think otherwise I’ve no objection at all.

  13. Chanakya,

    I had decided to ignore you after the repeated vicious remarks that you have directly/indirectly made against me and my blog, but for once you admit that you want to be "civil" (after hinting that you can be otherwise too), I think you deserve a clarifying response.

    Please check the time stamp below, will you:

    Prakash Gosavi
    August 21, 2009 6:16 PM

    This time stamp is on your site under my response to your insinuating piece about me. So obviously I was online after 6 am yesterday, wasn't I? So when "Vasha" (God bless his soul, whosoever he is!) wrote that comment at 6:55am, I could read it instantly because of being online (I hope you know that when we are online, G-mail Notifier instantly alerts us of any new incoming message), and naturally responded to him immediately as I normally do. Many of the visitors to this blog will vouch for the fact that I make it a point to respond to "EVERY POST" immediately if I am online, or at least soon after I log in if I was not online at the time of their post.

    In this simple and natural act of courtesy to my visitors, why do you have to insinuate?

    I am sorry to say this but your habit of sowing the seeds of doubt by making, without any proof, insinuating statements about people seems to be very old. After using it for professioals, owners, jockeys etc, I am sorry to note that now you are using the same thought process for fellow bloggers!

    ..continued to next post

  14. ..... continued from last post

    But I am not surprised. Because you have done it with me many times in the past. Want to be reminded of some representative instances so that you at least are not allowed to carry your self-proclaimed "injured innocence?"
    "Advice to you - what can I give?
    many posters, fake or anonymous or real have posted their opinions...."

    [Your comment on my blog on May 11, what is that word "fake" if not defamatory?]
    But I ignored.

    "..Prakash Gosavi says that his blog has been visited by more than 600 persons very recently. ..."
    [On your blog on July 20. Why "Prakash Gosavi says", when my stats have been public long before you wrote this article?]
    I still ignored.

    "..In spite of this universal truth many ‘experts’ everyday try to justify the failures and success of their opinion by twisting the facts and sometimes – the figures too! I’ll talk about them later on.. ..."
    [On your blog on August 19. My blog is ONLY ONE at the moment that maintains "facts and figures" of recommended bets, and mind you Mr Chanakya, in a very truthful and transparent way]
    I still ignored.

    "..A great rider said she [Set Alight] was fighting with her rider for her ‘head’ and it is funny that he as a retained jockey to ride a runner in Derby seemed more interested in others rather than pushing his own filly!. ..."
    [On your blog on August 19. Again, without taking his name, you are clearly referring to jockey Srinath's article on my blog.. Any gentleman would have responded to that article there and then, instead of waiting for 4 months to ridicule a "great" rider at his own convenience and in his own blog, when in all probability the jock would not even know he is being attacked, that's the worst form of cybersin, I feel]
    I still ignored.


  15. ....continued from last post
    "Another point projected by a real expert was that the winner did better time in last furlong than the loser. Well, Dr. Watson, it is elementary because a runner who is 2 ½ lengths behind the leading runner at 200m has to move faster and better to catch and beat the leader and do better fraction to win the race!"
    [On your blog on August 19. The timings were given to show that Set Alight had failed to do three sub-12 fractions in the final four furlongs as a Classic horse would generally do. Your effort to ridicule such a researched article shows either your lack of understanding or lack of upbri.., oh sorry, I am committed to be civil, I almost forgot for a moment]
    Well, this was the limit really, and obviously I chose NOT to ignore it.

    You are free to continue your insinuations about me (or about jockeys and trainers or any other popular bloggers), if that gives you some kind of joy. But I have heard:Don't wrestle in the mud with a pig, because you can't win. You both get dirty--and the pig just loves it!. I love to follow good advice when I get, so you permanently go on my IGNORE list.

    Only one small point. Every fool has a right to opinion about horse racing, but that's NOT the case with the English language.

    I want to draw your attention to this remark of yours (August 21, on your blog):
    Mr. Prakash Gosavi , in his wisdom, has made several ‘amusing’ remarks .Perhaps he is undergoing crash course in English language with the help of a English professor!"

    My appeal to you is to go back to your blog, and first do the following: put the missing apostrophe marks, correct capitalization mistakes, set right punctuation errors, straighten out grammar of some sentences, and then we will talk about English, the Queen's language, okay?

    By the way, the stark contrast in your blog English and this your response to me exposes very clearly WHO between the two of us is actually taking lessons from a professor of English.

    I hate writing responses to personal hate mail, I am glad it's over.

    Goodbye and good luck Chanakya.

  16. Please don't send in any comments accusing or abusing Chanakya. They will NOT be published.

    Prakash Gosavi


Wish to post as "Anonymous"? Not a problem.
But a better way is to use the Name/URL option and take up some net name of your choice. That way your privacy is protected and other readers can associate your thoughts with your web personality. Think about it.
A sincere appeal by Prakash Gosavi, blog owner