being a sheet player every day,this horse looked like a good bounce horse-due to the fact of the out of sight race he ran-also the trainer was not a top trainer and would not be expected to bring this horse back to run close to his last figure.for jb to think this was a solid bet seems crazy or maybe we should just take every horses last figure ?
please respond
Bellamia, I have the exact same question and I am a long time sheet player.Mr.Obrien had an explosive hard ridden top, was back on short rest and to me was a high bounce probable.I\'ve seen the same people praising this pick who, for weeks were tossing SJ who had excellent foundation to perhaps pair. Would love to hear some opinions.
He looked like a good bounce horse to me at 4/1. At 12/1 he looked like a pretty solid key in that anything close to his last put him right there in a race I had a hard time finding anyone else to like.
First and foremost, he only needed a \"2\" to be very competitive for the win spot. The other \"fast\" horse, Warleigh at 1.0, was the highweight spotting O\'Brien 5#\'s and his recent figs were nothing to write home about. 2nd. It wasn\'t a huge top only 0.75pts and grass figures don\'t react as often as dirt. 3rd. 5yo\'s in general are in their racing prime and handle top efforts and short rest better than their peers.
bd sheets,Is it a percentage fact or your personal experience that 5 yr olds can handle short rest off tops better than there younger peers.
I don\'t have his sheets in front of me, but didn\'t he run several fast dirt races last summer?? I believe he ran several 1\'s. If he was able to run efforts consecutively on the dirt, why not the grass?? His turf top isn\'t that much faster than his dirt top and he was able to pair up those efforts. Also as twoshoes points out, the odds made it easier to accept him as a contender. I\'m not advocating blindly taking every horse\'s last figure, but at some point the odds force you to overlook a possible bounce situation if the payoff makes the risk acceptable.
I did not think Mr. O\'brien was the play either. He looked like \"speed\" along with several others in the race, had not gone 1 1/8 before, and never figured to close as he did. It was a smart ride but not a predictable win to me.
Mr O entered the race with the top fig. Whenever the top fig goes off at a big price , you \"bet a bunch\" (like I did) and hope for the best. I also backed him up in 2nd with Herculated and Millenium. Damn, shoulda boxed them..........
1-- Turf horses bounce much less than dirt horses, and run a much higher percentage of tops.
2-- He had handled big numbers in the past without falling apart, and this number was only slightly better. And there was a definite possibility that he was a \"new\" horse off the layoff, especially on turf.
I don\'t buy into the \"hard ridden\" stuff-- they are almost all hard ridden, even if they are not for the last 5% of the race. The short rest lowered the percentage chance for a repeat, but much less than if this was a dirt race (see 1). On balance he was at least 25% to win the race, making him a great bet at the price-- I put him up as a bet at 6-1 or more. And I bet too much in pick 4\'s, not enough straight. Of course, if one of 6 other horses had won the Preakness I wouldn\'t be saying that.
Mr O was 2nd off almost a 4 month layoff so the 14 days rest after his zero race(1point better than 3 of his dirt races last Summer) didn\'t bother me .
I\'m glad I took this view in this case but am wondering if it\'s a good strategy for the long term (i.e. not emphasizing short rest in the 2nd race after a layoff).Asfufh
I agree w/p-du, the horse did pair 1\'s as a top last year and nobody appeared overwhelming in this race. these were dirt races but you could see that he was capable of repeating a top around the same time of year.
I should probably stay silent but I have to chime in on this one. Call me a sheet heretic but I think short rest is essentially meaningless in terms of what to expect in a horse\'s next race (longer term effects may be a very different story). I have never seen any data to support the theory despite its immense popularity among sheet users.
Don\'t take my word for it. Look at the overall TG figure-based stats for short rest compared to longer rest. Look at several other published studies by others that looked at win% and ROI after short rest. Do a study yourself.
As painful as it may be for some, this is probably not the last sheet \"myth\" that will get debunked by some of the ground-breaking stuff that TG is doing now.
If anyone has some contradictory info, I would be interested in hearing about it.
I understand the thinking behind the theory and I don\'t claim to understand the underlying reasons why the theory is invalid but I simply have never seen any data (using results from real races) that backs the theory up.
Chris
The fact that he had run a new top as a 3 yr. old on yielding turf and had yet to establish a level on turf mad him a play for me. The yielding turf tops seem to show an affinity for the surface that was only confirmed in his comeback effort.
In my early days of sheet play, the competitors guru had a 10-1 pair up rule that I still subscribe to today.
Seems to me the most consistent horses on the track are 5 yr.old geldings. When they get good, they stay good. I\'m sure JGB has numbers on that and may have already spoken to the issue.
Mr. O had a lot to like.
Thanks.