I can\'t wait to make a serious play against you June 6th.
Wynn posted +200 to win TC, -240 no, FYI.
Yeah, he may be the type not to withstand the pressure of the three races. I was thinking that too. I think he\'s better than Pharoah was at this point, but most likely not as durable. Plus the race was super fast even with the souped up track--I mean you\'d have to think a bounce is coming. I\'ll say one thing for O\'Neill, he can def. get a horse ready for a big race. He looked amazing in the paddock and post parade. Never looked like losing for one second. And super Mario is so cool, he\'s looking back like he\'s got ice water in his veins. Strange how in a 20 horse field you have two incredible standouts and they actually run 1-2...uggghhh not my kind of scenario. The jackasses at TVG had their site go down so people in the east couldn\'t even bet, but I wasn\'t too excited really b/c I didn\'t think anyone was going to get near those top two. Boring from a betting standpoint. I like Mario so I\'m happy for him. Rock on.
Dana,
I have to disagree, this horse is not better than AP was at this stage. AP was much faster.
I\'ve lived through plenty that won the first two legs, and ran up the track the second Saturday in June. To me, this one has the feel of exactly that.
You bring up the word durable and you\'re exactly right. AP was faster than this horse and durable. Something Nyquist is going to have to prove. Even if he does prove his durability, I have a big problem with an Uncle Mo running a superior race at 1 1/2 mile. After a double top, 0-1, or 0-2; the Belmont\'s going to be rough.
Hopefully Nyquist wins the Preakness and rolls into NY undefeated. That\'s when the media will frenzy. By the time June 11th rolls around, this horse will be 2/5, and I\'ll be locked and loaded to play against.
Comparing this horse to AP is plain silly.
You know this is what\'s going through everyone\'s mind. Hope he wins in Baltimore, the media will go sick.
Too bad Woody Stephen\'s isn\'t alive. He would LOVE beating this horse, and he\'d be sitting in the weeds somewhere with some ace up his sleeve.
Speaking of Woody, have to pay close attention to the Peter Pan on Saturday.
Tale Of Ekati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dana,
> I have to disagree, this horse is not better than
> AP was at this stage. AP was much faster.
> I\'ve lived through plenty that won the first two
> legs, and ran up the track the second Saturday in
> June. To me, this one has the feel of exactly
> that.
> You bring up the word durable and you\'re exactly
> right. AP was faster than this horse and durable.
> Something Nyquist is going to have to prove. Even
> if he does prove his durability, I have a big
> problem with an Uncle Mo running a superior race
> at 1 1/2 mile. After a double top, 0-1, or 0-2;
> the Belmont\'s going to be rough.
> Hopefully Nyquist wins the Preakness and rolls
> into NY undefeated. That\'s when the media will
> frenzy. By the time June 11th rolls around, this
> horse will be 2/5, and I\'ll be locked and loaded
> to play against.
Geezus, we get it. Every year after the Derby, we want him to win the Preakness, then we bet against in the Belmont.
I enjoy the buzz of a TC possibility as much as the opportunity to cash a nice ticket.
Lmao...rough night?
Thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Tale Of Ekati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lmao...rough night?
> Thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the
> conversation.
Great night.
You give yourself a little too much credit if you think stating how betting against a TC possibility is bringing something to the conversation. I mean, thats just pure genius.
You mentioned it twice in the same thread. I guess repeating something that\'s obvious to everyone is \"bringing something to the conversation\". Ok.
TGJB,
We will see what your numbers day.
But this horse was certainly more impressive in winning the Derby than AP was. For at least awhile the Derby was in doubt with AP. Granted, AP went on and smashed foes the next two legs.
But Nyquist is undefeated and for the most part, toyed with the field yesterday.
I am not a fan, having bet against the horse 6 times and bet on him zero times. But he was very impressive winning yesterday. Can\'t take that away from him. Many (yourself included based on the seminar), thought he was a horrible 2-1 shot. (I am in that club as well).
But today is not the day to get beer muscles criticizing this horse. HE did it on the track. End of story. At least this chapter.
Rob
Criticizing the horse and saying he\'s not in the same league with AP are not the same thing. And he was a terrible 2-1 shot, they\'re all 1/9 after they win. You give me one like that every day to bet against and I\'ll retire by the end of the year.
A race and a horse are not the same thing. A race is one data point, a point is not a line. Bad favorites win sometimes. This is a game of percentages, and it is as incorrect to draw a firm conclusion from one performance here as it was with Cathryn Sophia in the Ashland.
When there are lots of data points, that\'s a different matter, but it\'s still a game of percentages. We know enough now to say it\'s good to come into the Derby with only two preps, and pair of tops is a good pattern-- eyeballing it, looks like the first and third finishers ran new tops.
And it\'s better to not race wide.
TGJB,
Nyquist has achieved MORE on the racetrack than American Pharaoh did, at this point in their respective careers. Nyquist is undefeated and and won the BC Juvenile.
What happens going forward is certainly up in the air.
But far from ridiculous to make the comparison. Many, including you, didn\'t have AP doing what he did from the Derby forwards either.
Yes, I know that the TG figs to date aren\'t comparable. Perhaps this is a weaker crop, but Nyquist has beaten them all.
Rob
Nothing on this site is about accomplishment. It\'s about ability. To know he\'s undefeated all you have to do is pick up USA Today.
Yes the crop isn\'t as good, and AP was faster going into and coming out of the Derby. By a lot.
I say go after him in Baltimore. That was a gut wrencher yesterday and you never know if an O\'Neal 3yo is going to make it to the third one.
Good Luck,
Joe B
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say go after him in Baltimore. That was a gut
> wrencher yesterday and you never know if an O\'Neal
> 3yo is going to make it to the third one.
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B
I agree. While this horse is talented and a great competitor, he was flattered by a confluence of conditions. The CD track was very fast (variant 02-04?)--custom made for him--and the field of 20 consisted of only a handful (3?) of horses with any tactical speed who had shown staying power. You had to expect Mohaymen or DC to pull a Lazarus, or you needed a closer to avoid traffic in a huge field. Ex almost did; his number might be the same with ground loss. We\'ll see. . .
Assuming the Pimlico track is something less than lightning fast,and you reduce the field to 12 where traffic wont play as big a role, I am going to find a couple of these three-year-olds who can jump up and beat him.
While at this point, I can already hear the chorus of \"Okay, who then?\", the potential challengers will have to emerge from the form, but the public will bet this guy down to 4-5 thinking they had already seen this movie just last year. I am mostly saying that if the track is just a little slower, he will not have his way in two weeks.
Leamas
Think you guys are really underestimating this horse..
I was sold On this horse after his Breeders Cup he had no business winning that race.
Early word looks like a lot of pace shipping in for the Preakness..
Ship in a track variant of 10 or 12 or higher and we will have a race IMO.
Leamas
\"Nothing on this site about accomplishment\".
Fair enough JB, yet if accomplishment equals class, there is often going to be, in any give race, an 800 pound gorilla that looms the \"horse\" to beat for performance figure players.
Not at all a knock, nor a revelation, perhaps an assertion.
bbb
Two assertions, one in the premise.
My question about this horse is whether it is a horse that has immense talent but will only unleash that talent if needed or is he a horse that just hit his peak and is ready for a reality check.
I just knew this was coming. LOL Gotta love it. Just like everyone last year was wrong for playing AP on top every race as well. GL to ya Joe though...I certainly won\'t be.
Chas04 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just knew this was coming. LOL Gotta love it.
> Just like everyone last year was wrong for playing
> AP on top every race as well. GL to ya Joe
> though...I certainly won\'t be.
And they were right the previous 37 times. You can keep backing the Derby winner every year for the rest of your life. I won\'t try to stop you, I promise.
touche. they all go down its just being right when they do. this one looks to me tough as nails tho.
nyquist will fall apart soon.
Why do you say that?
And you can say this without even knowing who he will be running against?
What do you see that you say that?
Can\'t say that on here. You\'re upsetting too many people who can\'t wait to wheel the Derby winner next Saturday.
Good Luck,
Joe B
It doesn\'t really matter who he\'d be running against. An X is an X.
JimP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you can say this without even knowing who he
> will be running against?
A few years ago I was at a Jockey Club party a few days before the Belmont, and in telling Alex Waldrop why they needed to spread out the Triple Crown, I said whatever happens Saturday, I\'ll Have Another won\'t be around long. He was retired the next morning.
There\'s probably an X and a layoff coming with Nyquist. The X might not come this time, but it\'s coming.
This horse ain\'t AP, and it ain\'t trained by Baffert. Go through the Archives and find the ones who ran big in all three... that were not trained by Baffert.
Charismatic ran well in all 3. Smarty Jones and Aleet Alex also did. Funny Cide kinda sorta! Victory Gallop also counts doesn\'t he?
Look it\'s a tough road to go down. A few of those I.mentiomwd above never ran a again after the Belmont. Syndication, injury etc!
A friend of mine who used to be a jockey agent had talked with Bill Mott on Friday nite and Mott had stated nobody was training better than Nyquist. I didn\'t get him because he was 2-1 in a 20 horse field. This horse won the Juvenile and the Derby. That\'s a rare feat. Next Saturday is another set of circumstances. We will see...
Only three Derby winners have X\'d since 1993 -- Orb, Barbaro and Monarchos.
He\'s a good horse in capable hands. Not many have Baffert\'s knack or mojo, but O\'Neil was knocking right there before.
Now, I\'m not gonna bet him at 3-5, that just won\'t stand and there is some speed in this next race.
American Pharaoh was susceptible to speed. If you\'re gonna beat a tactically placed horse you have to make him run early. They gifted Pharaoh the Belmont and Breeders Cup. If someone doesn\'t make him run Nyquist figures to win this too.
A 2-1 in a 20 horse field might be even money in a 10 horse field. Or 4/5 to 6/5 depending on who he was running against. And I don\'t bet even money shots anymore. May single in the Pick 4 or something, try and beat the horse or pass the race. But it was the Derby so I\'m not gonna pass after evaluating the landscape for months. I was more upset about losing the Woodford Reserve by a head at 11-1 to a horse I had bet the race before than losing on Brodys Cause at 24-1. I was over it all in 10 minutes. There was about 10 horses who ran who I was dead right on by tossing. I had a hot date she had the $30 Exacta and thought she won a Million. Sometimes you win when you lose...
Whats another set of circumstances? The horses he\'s going to run against next Saturday are not fast. Slow animals. He\'s a fast animal. Simple to me.
Simple if he runs back as fast, that\'s far from a certainty.
He doesn\'t have to run as fast...thats the point. He can regress and still win. They posted all the Raggie numbers and he got a 3. Thats faster then AP. I certainly don\'t think he is the Pharoah either...but that is a serious fig. He can regress in the Preakness and still win. If he completely falls apart of course anyone could win...but I don\'t see it. He jogged 2 miles today and looked incredible everyone is saying.
If I had a dollar for every horse that looked incredible after a big effort that bounced,I\'d be rich. The toll of a previous effort more often presents under stress during the next race, not while galloping 2minute licks.
Nyquist a very nice horse but has not yet established resiliency which gets tested Sat, his first race within two weeks of his previous.
Exaggerator also reportedly thriving out of derby.
If he goes off at .05 in the dollar with another horse 8n the race equally as fast as he is I will play a gins him. Maybe it\'s a golden speed biased Pimlico rail and he drew outside. Maybe he draws the 1 hole and the rail is dead. Maybe it\'s another flood. Maybe he wakes up with a pin in his hoof. It\'s a week out. We will see
Valid points.
I WANT to beat him....and if I think it can happen I will bet accordingly.
Right now I just don\'t see it. Still a week to go tho.
This again kinda goes back to original point. I have a friend who boxed the whole field in 2006. We all laughed at him before the race and told him it was a dumb idea. Anything can happen in a horse race....stepping on a pin, etc like u said as well. These are rare occurrences though and I don\'t like to bet on rare occurrences. If a race is run fairly who will win and why. Thats how I like to approach it.
Just to be clear, the man said Jake had Nyquist\'s Derby faster than AP\'s.
Great point.
Reading this board after a horse wins the derby with all the \"wait till the Belmont\" stuff reminds me of the old NY Post articles on Monday after football season by Steve Serby - entitled \"loser\'s lament\".
Don\'t get me wrong, I unloaded both barrels against Nyquist but I (and many on this board, were just plain wrong). I don\'t get TGJB\'s post \"an X is coming, maybe not the next time but it is coming\". This can be said about every horse who ever ran. They aren\'t machines. Of course an \"X\" is coming. But who knows when. Just like the Martingale system. Keep doubling your bet, the coin can\'t keep coming up heads.
I don\'t know, let\'s take an objective look at Doug O\'Niell (I don\'t like him, but lets be objective here). He had I\'ll Have Another run a big number in February, often the kind that put a horse over the top (see Pletcher) and then got the horse to run big in the Derby and the Preakness, running down an extremely game Bodemeister, trained by \"Mr Triple Crown\" - Bob Baffert. Sure he got hurt before the Belmont, but the guy was 2 for 2 with 2 huge races by any reasonable measure.
Then we get an early developer in Nyquist, who seemingly didn\'t get better at 3. He ships cross country to Florida to take on Mohaymen in his own back yard, a move many here and elsewhere said was the wrong move, chasing bonus dollars instead of prepping for the Triple Crown. He crushes Mohaymen. Then the talk was that no horse had come into the Derby with less foundation (in furlongs of preps) than Nyquist and he was \"flatlining\" from a development perspective and a huge underlay at 2-1. Well, he crushed the field. Make no mistake, he crushed the field. As somebody who was 5 deep against him to nice scores, I felt sick 100 yards into the race. He looked a winner every step.
The horse has done everything right. The trainer has been good in these spots. (and while I think the Rags guys are clowns, in many respects, saying that Nyquists derby was as good as AP\'s is NOT the best example of that. He ran fast, looked a winner every step and was never under duress. AP, despite the ground loss loaded final figure, gutted out a win and at times looked like Firing Line would beat him).
All that doesn\'t mean that Nyquist can\'t be a play against at 3-5 next time, but I wouldn\'t be taking out second mortgages to do it....
Rob
Smarty, Afleet Alex, and Funny Cide all ran at least 3 points off their tops in at least one TC race. VG was 18 years ago (gulp) and went back 2 in the second one. I\'ll have more in my Preakness comments, but it\'s been a long time since someone other than Baffert got 3 top efforts.
Let me clarify. I mean soon, next two. And by an X, I mean a significant backward move, doesn\'t have to be more than 4 points off his top.
I sure hope you\'re not saying Nyquist ran better than AP because it looked like he won easier. And given what happened later, that \"ground loaded\" figure turned out to look pretty good.
I agree with some of this. I think when TGJb says \"an X is coming\" he means very soon probably in the next two races. I also agree with this.
I don\'t know if Nyquist is a better derby winner than AP or not. There is also a chance that he was running on a souped up track. But I will say that if AP was running close to fractions of 45 and change in his derby he would not have won. Or if Danzig Candy had run last year there would of been no triple crown winner.
I personally California Chrome would of destroyed either one.
I am also not going to have Nyquist in first or second on any of my tickets. I did however make the same mistake last year. Hard headed.
And by the way, Nyquist\'s figure was also \"ground loaded\", though not to quite the same degree.
You either believe in geometry or you don\'t. I know the \"argument\", but that\'s what it comes down to. Some of those \"ground loaded\" horses get the same wide trip again, due to running style, rider or instructions. But they did what they did.
TGJB,
You have a product with a methodology, which becomes the way you measure performance. I respect that. Otherwise wouldn\'t use the product and post on the board.
That said, for some of us, your figures are a PART of the way we measure performance, not the only input. Nyquist pressed a much faster pace than AP did. Not even close. Last year\'s derby was a \"merry go round\" race. The top 3 ran around the track together, with AP proving best of the 3. The Beyer figures between the two Derbies are similar, the main reason you have AP faster is the ground loss, which I get. But the race flow/pace Nyquist faced isn\'t factored into your figure, nor is the fact that the pace went 1-2-3 all the way around the track last year. For some of us, the ground loss sort of nets to the soft pace. I am not saying Nyquist\'s derby was better. I think they are similar.
On a related thread, a number on this board questioned the Wood figure. Not that Andy Serling is any kind of \"end all\", but he was railing on the variant \"many figure makers\" used for the Wood day prior to the Peter Pan yesterday. Said he expected them to correct the figures soon. (or that they should - I forget the exact words). Watching how the Wood horses ran in the Derby and how the Peter Pan winner ran yesterday (nowhere near the negative 2), wondering if you are looking at Wood day again?
Rob
Andy Beyer and Mark Hopkins could not make heads or tails of the Wood, the Beyer came an unimaginable 85( like TG 6) After wrestling with the raw data, they decided to use creative license to \"make\" the figure.
It is doubtful that the track changed speed by that much from the filly 9f race.The extreme early pace of the Wood took a huge toll late on the winner, last 1/8th in 14 seconds.Also if the track slowed as much as thought here there is no way the horses run that fast the first half.
Saying other things matter is not the same as saying ground loss does not.
It wasn\'t just ground loss, I had last year\'s Derby faster than Beyer and Ragozin, and the evidence is clear I was right. Not just because AP ran back to that figure twice (with less ground loss), especially indicative given how few 3yos run neg 3, but because of Keen Ice and the others.
Nothing you could do with the Wood could make it fit for the Derby, nothing that\'s happened so far makes me think it\'s wrong. If a lot of the field doesn\'t get back to that level down the line I would take a look at it. But I don\'t expect it to be an issue. I don\'t know what conclusion he thinks you\'re supposed to draw from the Peter Pan winner, I\'ll ask him when I see him.
Re Miff\'s post, I didn\'t do the filly race that much different, and tracks change far more than that in less time every day, even without water in the track and a lot of wind.
Mick Peterson would wholeheartedly disagree with that assertion.
That is factually wrong. And that\'s not an assertion. Ask him, he was one of the people I went to for \"Changing Track Speeds\".
Put it this way, according to Peterson, if one is using multiple variants on a \"normal\" day, you\'re on a slippery slope.
There\'s no such thing as a track changing speed several times on a normal day, sans weather, maintenance changes.Most importantly,without very sophisticated equipment there is no way to identify if a track changed and by how much.Going off the horses previous races is without any merit in determining if a change in track speed has occurred.
Wrong on all counts. Watch \"Changing Track Speeds\" for his input. He said specifically in an email to me, which I quoted there, that using the horses is the best way to go.
Using the horses previous races to make a variant today? Works on Mars only.
All figure makers do that, the only difference is some use averages more than others. Until they make a machine that goes over the track (all of it), during (not before or after) each race, and measures energy return to an extremely accurate degree, regression analysis is the only way to do it.
Strongly suggest you watch \"Changing Track Speeds\" so we\'re all starting with an understanding of how we do what we do. And keep in mind how small the things we measure are-- if a mile is 100 seconds, a 1% difference is a full second. We\'re talking about fifths, and tracks changing speed that much, or that little.
How else would you do it? If you\'ve ever tried to make figures yourself you would see both that tracks change speed all the time, and that you might as well ask a monkey to throw darts for what variant you should use, if you are going to commit to a single one barring a storm. I think it\'s incredible that people still reject these ideas.
Pete,
Tell me you are kidding. I know most of the top fig makers who make variants every day and they don\'t have 3-4 different ones during the day. At best, they may split a day now and then.
They might have worked 40 years ago
You got me there, I don\'t know 3 or 4 top figure makers. Didn\'t even know there were three or four.
Ragozin famously does not, which is why his figures are often out there on an island. He just assumes the track doesn\'t change speed, because, well, he knows it doesn\'t. Whatever Peterson and the rest of the people who have studied racing surfaces say. Which is why they are not a top figure maker.
Beyer didn\'t do it much until I gave the presentation at the DRF Expo, where he was sitting right next to me. Right after that I saw them starting to change what they did. They definitely have tracks changing speed.
But seriously, I guess this discussion boils down to what one thinks of as a speed figure. If you are really die hard old school I guess you would think that a speed figure should measure speed, and nothing else, and that every yard one runs matters just as much and that it is the time from A to B that counts. Then you can look at the results, times etc, maybe you have a par time chart or something \"shrewd\" like that and you assign a variant and you get maybe 80 % of totally worthless speed figures because they don\'t say anything about the relative performance of the horses, and they will also be extremely fragile to different pace scenarios, wind differences, errors in timing, and changing track speeds, things you can\'t control or be confident about. This is a kind of \"top down\" speed figure making that maybe was the logical approach 50 years ago, when everything \"modern\" was \"scientific\", normative and top-down. The projection method or regression analysis etc is the \"bottom up\"-approach, the opposite, where you use the horses to project the most likely scenario and frankly you could to this just fine without any variant at all (as long as your database is up and running and in the right ballpark, to get there is a different story). I think TGJB and Thoro-Graph does the right thing in general when they try to keep it some place in between, you use the horses, you try to generate a picture of the day as a whole, you (prefer to!) tie races together, you try to create a picture of how the track was playing out and you go from there. The more datapoints, the lesser the chance to get a race completely wrong, or to produce totally meaningless figures that can\'t be used to anything.
I think it\'s sad that one would still debate the premises of whether track changes speed, of course they do and it\'s obvious for anyone that try to make figures with an open mind. This is sad because these kinds of discussions hinder progress, because you for one Miff have raised many very valid points that really should be where the differences lie between the different figure makers, and what the discussions should be about. What values should one assign a path of lost ground and a pound of weight, and are there \"thresholds\" or whatever where this doesnt matter as much or matter more? What should one do with different pace scenarios both regarding to adjusted figures (if one can \"add\" or \"subtract\" to a final figure because of unfavorable/favorable pace scenarios), and to the values of ground loss (could one find a \"solution\" to the problem of slow pace on ground loss which would create inflated final figures?)? How should one use projection when you have runaway winners on the slop? I really think these are the issues where figure makers should differentiate oneself, and not on the crazy assumptions that tracks don\'t change speed or on a methodology that try to make \"best fits\" of a variant across a whole raceday, it\'s simply to much going on for that approach to ever make sense. The only reason those approaches worked 50 years ago was because before that everyone was betting on grey horses with number 7, or on horses of a different \"class\". Then those numbers represented an edge, but today they can\'t compete. What do you make of traditional speed ratings and the results they can show for in turf racing, doesn\'t that tell a story about flawed methods? Those guys essentially \"gave up\" on turf racing !
Not sure how anyone soups up a track that was on the business end of a 15-minute torrent 90 minutes prior to post. Too big a variable to account for that close to the race. Whatever contrivance CD *might* have had in mind was undone in that pelting rainstorm.
Nyquist survived that pace on the level. Pace dynamics, imo, are more impactful than ground loss for young horses. Pharoah ran a terrific race but at no point was he made uncomfortable. Straining after 45/1:10, on the other hand, is never comfortable. The two performances were not incomparable.
Horses on the pace finished 1-3 and ran new tops. Saying the pace hurt them is an assumption, not a conclusion.
Six horses were within 4 1/4 lengths of the lead after 6 f. They finished 1-3-12-14-15-18.
Which, combined with the two new tops, barring any other info, would lead one to believe it had no effect.
pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with some of this. I think when TGJb says
> \"an X is coming\" he means very soon probably in
> the next two races. I also agree with this.
>
> I don\'t know if Nyquist is a better derby winner
> than AP or not. There is also a chance that he
> was running on a souped up track. But I will say
> that if AP was running close to fractions of 45
> and change in his derby he would not have won. Or
> if Danzig Candy had run last year there would of
> been no triple crown winner.
>
> I personally California Chrome would of destroyed
> either one.
>
> I am also not going to have Nyquist in first or
> second on any of my tickets. I did however make
> the same mistake last year. Hard headed.
Good horses like American Pharaoh, Nyquist and Smarty Jones have an energy reserve you have to get to in order to beat them. At some point in the race you have to take something out of them or they will rebreak and find a way to win.
Nyquist just ran a tough Derby and found a way to win. How much faster a pace can they ask him to chase in the Preakness? To bet with conviction against him wouldn\'t you like to see some bona fide speed and tactical competition?
Travers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwNSRNd9SiY)
The Derby track still has me scratching my head. I don\'t think we\'ll know just what to make of it until after the Preakness.
Yea JB, running too fast early has never had an effect on the outcome of the finishing positions of the runners.
Because that\'s exactly what I said. And why we have a \"h pace\" designation.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I had a dollar for every horse that looked
> incredible after a big effort that bounced,I\'d be
> rich. The toll of a previous effort more often
> presents under stress during the next race, not
> while galloping 2minute licks.
>
> Nyquist a very nice horse but has not yet
> established resiliency which gets tested Sat, his
> first race within two weeks of his previous.
>
> Exaggerator also reportedly thriving out of derby.
Then note this: Baffert says the Preakness is really a fairly easy race for a Derby winner to win as he\'s in great form and can easily take it another two weeks. Think of all the many winners wot the first 2 legs. It makes sense. If there\'s no horse equal to Nywuist in ability and current form, then better to sit the race out than throw money away trying to beat him.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to be clear, the man said Jake had Nyquist\'s
> Derby faster than AP\'s.
That seems believable to me. I found this winner more impressive than last year\'s.
Good thing you\'re not making my the figures then.
Don\'t forget Curlin and Hard Spun. I think most agree they ran well in all 3 and they also finished the year strong. I\'d count Chrome too.
A lot of good horses skip one or both the Preakness and Belmont these days so that takes a lot of horses out of consideration.
Bramlage told me a few years ago that the reason we hadn\'t seen a TC winner was the lack of break being given the top 2yos. He stated that when the right horse comes along and he\'s given a Winter break, he\'ll win the TC. AP had a break. And Nyquist had a break.
Performances aren\'t all measured by figures.
I would also note that while I respect all the major figure makers, they\'re not infallible.
I stand by thinking AP\'s Derby was unimpressive, and Nyquist\'s was impressive. And the Secretariat\'s Preakness was his best race, regardless of times, figures, or public opinion. ;-)
Formulator: for the stat guys
Over the last 5 years,Doug ONeill is 31% (9-29) w/ a $2.28 ROI with horses coming back in 14 days or less on dirt off lifetime top Beyers
Abiding Star,more early gas, trying to clear quarantine and run in Preakness.
I agree with this, but not the part to sit it out. Why not play the exotics? A longer shot or two behind Nyquist can make the pay out more interesting.
Agree. But saying it didn\'t hurt them is also an assumption.
That a track changes speed during the day is an assertion until it is proven. So why hasn\'t a test been run to prove it? Seems relatively easy to prove yes or no. Much harder to measure the degree of change between races in a specific racing day, but such precise real time measurement is not necessary to prove, or disprove, the principle that changes in the energy return characteristics of a track surface do occur.
Good feeling its a complete slop fest like last year. 85% downpours forecast showing. Wow. Changes things up. Would think with all the money on Exag you may get much better value on Nyquist.
It\'s going to be a nasty nor\'easter. There is hope in that it moves slowly enough where the bulk of the rain does not get there until after the race.
Too early to time it at this point.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Good point. Very early on...but that really could be huge. Will effect everything.
Chas,
Extremely unlikely to \"change things up\" regarding the betting in the race. (of course may change the results)
Lots of tourist money in the triple crown races. maybe you get 1-2 instead of 2-5 on Nyquist, if you call that \"value\", god bless.
Without analyzing the race and having the draw happen, after AP won the triple crown last year and Nyquist won the Derby this year as an undefeated horse, there is going to be an inherent tendency for the masses to view Nyquist as unbeatable in the Preakness. He is going to be shorter than he should be (which may be completely irrelevant to whether he wins or not, just whether you are getting value).
while I have no opinion yet, I am likely to feel compelled to at least take a mild swing against the horse based on \"perceived value\' in beating him.
I do think Exaggerator ran better than any other closer on dirt all day long on Derby day. When you go over the charts for Derby day it is very hard to find any horse making a sustained late run. On the other hand you can\'t call the track a classic \"golden rail / early speed bias\" either. Not a single horse really wired on dirt. All dirt winners were in the pace pressing category. Makes the result tricky to read.
I guess my view would be that if you liked Exaggerator going in (as I did), you can find reason to like him again between the nice close and brief trouble he had on the far turn. (although \"nice close\" aside, he was NOT getting to Nyquist late - but that also doesn\'t mean he can\'t this next time).
If you thought Nyquist was a beast going in, you got confirmation of it, and aren\'t likely to jump off the bandwagon now.,
Rob
Or is Exaggerator this year\'s Best Pal?
Good luck,
Joe B.
The difference is I\'m looking at data, specifically that two horses ran new tops. Regardless, I\'m not even saying it didn\'t hurt them-- I\'m saying there\'s no evidence to back up that it did.
Rob,
Thanks. That was a great explanation and makes a lot of sense.
I\'d guess they also had the FL Derby faster than TG. A lot of sore players on this board, including me, had little respect for Nyquist after seeing his TG number going into KY. Perhaps a lot of residual doubt based on that GP figure?
Gun Runner reportedly will not run in Preakness
None. Zero. I made that race as fast as it could be made.
If I am right, Exaggerator closed into a very fast surface when no one else could. But a wet track, if sealed, may not change much except that this time you have more speed trying to steal it, and perhaps Ex gets incrememtal benefit for liking a wet surface. An article from Cleveland.com confirms my belief that the Derby Day track was lightning.
\"The track bias over a glib dirt surface was so strong at Churchill Downs that even NBC race caller Larry Collmus was fooled by it. When he saw the opening quarter of a mile split of 22 2/5 seconds and a half-mile in 45 3/5 seconds, he said \"(it) could help the late closers here.\"
Collmus\' opinion was based on fact. The half-mile split was the third-fastest in Kentucky Derby history, yet Nyquist, pushing along the pacesetters from either second or third place, didn\'t miss a beat as he powered to the front and kept right on going.\"
The article goes on to point out that the first 8 of 8 winners on dirt were frontrunners or stalkers that day.
Leamas
http://www.cleveland.com/horseracing/index.ssf/2016/05/nyquist_pushed_pace_to_win_ken.html
Per jock:
\"The hard rain [before the race] made it 45 and change but it was really like 46 and change,\" said Mike Smith, Danzing Candy\'s jockey. \"The track was very, very, very quick.\"
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-preakness-story-lines-20160517-story.html
Thank you! I thought I was the only one who thought wetting down a track made it faster--if that was possible.
Leamas
Few other articles furthering the evidence that the timely rain tightened the surface. Listened to Peterson on a few YouTube speeches.More evidence or probably factual that the stretch became even faster after the first pass.