After my earlier impassioned plea for deployment of the scientific method, let
me attempt to lead by example, starting with the basics and resorting for the
most part only to the absolutely free TG archives.
Starting real simple:
Column A:
(1)Probable starters who ran in Derby and Preakness: Classic Empire, Looking at
Lee.
(2)Probable starters who ran in Derby only: Gormley, Irap, J Boys Echo, Patch, Tapwrit.
(3)Probable starters who ran in Preakness but not Derby: Senior Investment, Multiplier, Conquest Mo Money.
(4)Probable starters who did not run in Derby or Preakness: Epicharis, Meantime, Twisted Tom.
Column B:
(1) Average number of 3YO races prior to Belmont for winners between 2010-2016: 4
(2) In the last 10 Belmont Stakes, five were won by runners who competed in the
Kentucky Derby. In the 17 Belmonts run in the 21st Century, 11 were won by
runners who competed in the Kentucky Derby. The six winners during that time who
did not compete in the Derby also did not compete in the Preakness (see below).
(3) Since 2000, 31 runners have come into the Belmont after competing in the
Derby and the Preakness, with three of those -- Point Given, Afleet Alex
and American Pharaoh -- emerging victorious in the Belmont. All three of these
took the Belmont with a negative TG# (see below) and paid an average mutuel of
slightly above 4.20.
(4) Since 2000, no runner has skipped (or been excluded from) the Derby, run in
the Preakness, and won the Belmont.
(5) Since 2000, eight Belmont winners have raced in the Derby, skipped the
Preakness, and won the Belmont.
(6)Number of Belmont winners Between 2000-2016 who competed in neither Ky Derby
NOR Preakness: 6 (Sarava, Da Tara, Rags to Riches, Drosselmeyer, Ruler on Ice,
and Tonalist).
(7) The average win mutuel on the 11 Belmont winners who competed in the Derby:
19.10.
(8)The average win mutuel of the six Belmont winners who did not compete in the Derby or Preakness: 55.40.
(9) The only Derby WINNER to win the Belmont since 2000... American Pharaoh.
(10) Since 2000, six of 17 Belmonts have been won by high profile trainers who
have had very little Derby success: Pletcher (2),* Asmussen, Clement, Mott,
McLaughlin.
(11) For Gormley fans, the impact of California runners in the Belmont since
2010: AmPhar wins in 2015, Paynter is second in 2012, Cal Chrome is fourth in
2014. The only other Cal based Belmont runners since 2010: Make Music for Me
(10th in 2010); Dave in Dixie (11th in 2010); Trojan Nation (10th in 2016);
Exaggerator (11th in 2016).
(12) Hot Belmont sires 2010-2016 (Sires with multiple Belmont trifecta
finishes): Tapit rules. Two winners (Creator/Tonalist) a runner up (Frosted) and
of course third place Lani. Curlin has winner Palace Malice and third place
finisher Keen Ice. Awesome Again has two second place finishers, Oxbow and
Paynter.
Scratching the surface Thorographically: In the seven Belmonts contested since
2010, 81 runners have competed, 14 runners ran new tops, with four of these
winning the Belmont: Creator, Tonalist, Palace Malice and Ruler on Ice.
Average winning TG number for Belmonts run since 2010: close to TG 0.964
(i.e. slightly faster than TG 1).
Thorograph Negative Numbers for Belmont winners (since 2000):
-22, Point Given; -12, Rags to Riches;
-11, Birdstone; -1, Summer Bird;
-02, Afleet Alex and American Pharaoh.
After merging Column A with Column B, let me gingerly place one foot on the
TAPWRIT bandwagon. I do not know if I am welcome because before the Derby I was
calling him \"TAPwrat\".
1) Pletcher in the Belmont has been better than Pletcher in the Derby.
2) Tapwrit raced in Derby, skipped Preakness, a spacing which has produced
eight of the last 17 Belmont winners.
3) Tapwrit is BY Tapit, who has sired the winner of two of the last three
Belmonts. Both Creator and Tonalist ran new tops in the Belmont (as did Tapit
product Lani), allowing one to arguably draw the conclusion that Tapwrit should
get the Belmont distance.
4) My memory is that Tapwrit\'s TG# earned in the Tampa Bay Derby will make him
arguably one of the faster competitors coming into the Belmont, TG wise.
5) Tapwrit will have 4 starts as a 3YO coming into the Belmont (see the first
entry under Column B above).
Important note: I did not undertake this study looking to \"make a case for\"
Tapwrit, but after reviewing the data which I extracted, Tapwrit \"checks a lot
of the boxes\".
---------
*The new Pletcher spin on his Derby record is rather interesting. Instead of
saying that he is 2/52 or whatever the number, he is now saying that he is 2/17,
meaning he has been in the Derby for 17 years and had two winners. Ok. (He is
also saying he is undefeated with Derby favorites).
On the bottom Tapwrit\'s dam sire is Successful Appeal(not much help there) but the 2nd and 3rd dam sires are Hawkster and Seattle Slew.
There are some that come in faster but none of them have to run back to those tops at 12f\'s.
I like Tapwrit to at least pair up but with fourteen or more a possibility the draw is a big deal.
The two interesting pedigrees on the bottom are Twisted Tom and Epicharis who also come in with the most rest.
Twisted Tom has back to back to back Belmont winners with dam sire Thunder Gulch,2nd dam by Seattle Slew,3rd dam by Stage Door Johnny.
3rd dam Class Play was a Coaching Club 12 furlong winner.
Those are two that could run new tops at the distance.
Twisted Tom might be really slow(haven\'t seen his figures)and we know Epicharis needs to jump up a few points at a much shorter price.
Great betting race if you can get CE out of the money.
this is pretty awesome research. def a pros pro. thx in advance 4 all ur hard work in piecing together this valuable puzzle.
What about Irish War Cry? Seems to check a lot of those same boxes, and he\'s faster, better, smarter.
Proven in NY, too, and one got to be willing to excuse his effort in the Derby for at least a bit - after all he was one of the few horses that actually were a factor in the race, for a while.
I got too tempted by the 9/1\'s offered (still available: https://www.oddschecker.com/horse-racing/ante-post-racing/international/belmont-stakes/winner ), fully aware that he might not even show up. The bet I made is that IF he shows up, and by my handicapping of the trainers comments it looks like he\'s about to talk himself into it, it would be with a very live horse - that has a much bigger shot to win this than 10 %.
(And if he doesn\'t show up, that just means that the trainer didn\'t like his chances from what he sees in the mornings.. Might as well lose like that, from time to time. I think the odds compensate the risk.)
I mean, Epicharis at 4/1.. That doesn\'t exactly scream \"value\".
Classic Empire, a horse that didn\'t even want to run earlier in the winter, who had the latest prep coming into the derby and now is coming off a GRUELING effort in the Preakness (much the best that day) - running further than he ever has or ever will again - one can bet against that..
Looking at Lee? No way.. I hate deep closers stretching out. And he too has followed the exact same schedule as Classic Empire.
Who\'s left? Not many.
Yeah Tapwrit is a logical choice. But is it too logical?
Irish War Cry SHOULD be 2/1 or 5/2 if he get\'s there (not saying he will be).
(Not prepared to fight for this one though, just my two cents, there you have it. One additional forecast I can make is that I think the TG analysis/seminar and/or \"Sheet Theory\" will do much better in this race, than it did in the Derby. Wouldn\'t worry too much about the \"Elephant Dung Juice\", in this race. And hey, you got your redemption in the Preakness, anyway)
And, in addition to being Thorographically fast, he would have five weeks rest, which all the young swells (Motion, Pletcher, Chad Brown, Jerry Brown) like.
Multiplier. Poised to finally make his forward move. Just hope they enter him.
Thought he already did that in the Illinois Derby. Trippi on the dam side concerns me. You will be handsomely rewarded if you\'re right.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
My compliments to Richiebee for his effort and a great start to the Belmont Stakes 2017 discussion. A concern that many of us might have is that there are no 12F TG #\'s for the Belmont Contenders. That said, imo, there is a telling difference between a collapsing on the finish line TG 0 and a TG 1 closing at two jumps to one just behind him when projecting another 400-500 yards. While some purists can fall back on a generalization that the number is the number. The upcoming Belmont s/b easy just look for the smallest number, or the shortest odds. For the technical handicappers there is the project a number based on a series of numbers strategy. All, imo, legitimate methods for speculation, yet I\'m not convince its scientific.
By the way, do Tapit\'s offspring have any particular look or appearance?
Scientific Method
Scientific Method For Beginners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
An outline of the general steps involved in a Scientific Method as an ongoing process.
Iteration or Loop
Make Observations
Athletes (Human & Equine) that excel in sprints generally fail to do the same in marathons and vice versa. Picturing Usain Bolt standing next to Olynpic 5,000 meter gold medalist Mo Farrar 5\'9\" 60kg The sports world more and more is about specialization e.g. money ball.
Think of Interesting Questions
Is Belmont success a function of physique?
Is Belmont success a function of training regimen?
Formulate Hypothesis
The probability of winning a 1+1/2 mile horse race i.e., the Belmont Stakes is enhanced by specific body types and racing habits.
Refine, Alter, Expand or Reject Hypotheses
Woody Stephens excelled in the Belmont Stakes not unlike Bob Baffert in the Ky Derby. Suggests what trainers do matters.
Develop Testable Predictions
The more accomplished sprinters will be the least accomplished marathoners
Gather Data To Test Predictions
2016 (first glance)
1 Creator, while he has never sprinted I don\'t think I\'m reaching to assume he would be in deep @ 6F.
2. Destin, started career sprinting and with some success, proceeding to excel at roughly a mile with TG #\'s declining with distance or wear & tear.
3. Lani started his career @ 1+1/8m and even I don\'t have enough imagination that he could sprint at all.
4. GOVERNOR MALIBU began with a couple of 2nd place finishes sprinting while steadily improved with increased distances his Bel was arguably a bounce following a top.
5. STRADIVARI ho hum in intial race a sprint then got immediately good with additional distance.
6. BRODY’S CAUSE never sprinted, ran TG 3 as a 2 y/o but never improved
7. CHERRY WINE never sprinted another who could have bounced off a top in the Belmont.
8. GETTYSBURG never sprinted yet was a front running router.Seemingly just to slow vs his Belmont field.
9. SUDDENBREAKINGNEWS one of the few sprint winners in the field albeit a slow race vs lesser competition. Late closing running style atypical of sprint winners.
10. TROJAN NATION slow and inept at any distance
11. EXAGGERATOR - once ran a visually impressive 7f race @ 2 y/o then got fast as distances increased.
12. SEEKING THE SOUL - showed promise sprinting in his first race bounced then improved @ 1M only to flop on short rest in the marathon.
13. FOREVER D’ORO - a second by Dallas Stewart suggests he was just winging it and hoping on a couple of horses to really junp up for some reason, they did not.
Develop General Theories
Most of the 3 y/o sprinters have been culled out by prepping for TC prep races. Miler types can slip thru into the Kentucky Derby by performing well on speed favoring tracks in both south Florida & California. However most will be exposed as milers in Ky. The Preakness is obligatory for derby winners an opportunity for those which did not qualify for the derby or a second chance for troubled derby trippers.
A lot of also-rans from the 2016 derby were sent on to run in the Belmont suggesting plodders or late runners are expected, by connections, to be more likely to win at longer distances.
IWC a complete throw out off that line as far as I\'m concerned, cooked
CE has emptied the tank three times in six weeks and still hasn\'t broken through his 2yo top. Horses that ran well in the Ark/KD/Preakness triple have a good record hitting the exacta (SJ, Curlin, And AP), but ran closer to their Ark derby number. Those three also faced smaller fields in the Belmont. Bode ran well in all three races also, however BB decided to freshen him after the Preakness. Looking for CE to run back to his Ark derby number here.
I could see him moving forward but tough to see him moving enough to be competitive here off short rest. Maybe a piece but tough to support on the win end.
Alright Rich,
I hear the definitive statement. But why?
The horse ran big in the first Florida start when he trounced Classic Empire. Regressed badly in the next outing off the big number. Then got rest and ran even bigger in the Wood. As many predicted, he bounced in the Derby, but he was against it, racing wide against a strong inside bias.
Now gets 5 weeks. If his trainer decides to run him, that would be a strong move by a strong trainer, especially in light of the fact that he has NJ connections and the big goal (besides the Derby of course), is the Haskell.
if he runs, he is very very dangerous. And he won\'t be a particularly short price. Won\'t be long, but 4-1 to 9-2 seems about right.
Jim
Looking forward to seeing the other patterns from the new shooters (Twisted Tom might be interesting) but on first glance, it\'s going to be tough to find a better looking one than Tapwrit. Major contender.
Agree with Jimbo on this. Tough to toss given that number power coupled with the rest and trainer intent. That said, would have a tough time keying as well - would not be surprised if he won or finished up the track. A wildcard.
But a wildcard that can win the race if he runs.
Jimbo if you really think 5 weeks is enough time for him to fully recover and run a big number, not to mention that he has to now go a mile and half. I see that is very longshot at his price. 4 weeks rest going into the derby and he puked turning for home. He didn\'t come home exceptionally fast in the wood but ran a good overall race. I would agree with Rich that this horse is a play against. He most likely needs much more time to run his best and I\'m not positive he wants to go this far either. Battle of midway was 3w,3w, classic empire 3w,6w, both ran better against the \'bias\'. I can\'t even predict his odds but I would expect if he does run he will be somewhere around 4-1 line. Let\'s not forget Motion was super high on him going into the derby too.
I won\'t feel nearly as good playing against him as I did playing against AD, lot of good that did. Just trying to justify beating CE as the potential short price favorite in this race. His pattern may well point to a new top on TG and he wins for fun.
Jbrown,
I can understand a negative position against the horse. And I can\'t really argue strongly against it. It is possible that I am sticking too long with a horse that I liked in the Derby and putting too much faith in a trainer who I think is one of the best.
I would not worry about the distance. He has as much distance breeding in the bottom of his pedigree as any in this race.
Saying he ran \"good overall race\" in the Wood is not an accurate statement. He ran an EXCELLENT race in the Wood, faster than any race anybody in the Belmont has run.
These \"in and outers\" who seem to alternate good races are tough to gauge.
I haven\'t seen the sheets of any of the other new contenders in the belmont. But handicapping the race starts with Classic Empire. While I won\'t argue with the \"math\" of the TG figure in the Preakness, the performance of CE in the Preakness was no \"pair up\" of his Derby. That just isn\'t reflective of how he ran. He buried a talented horse on the front end, through pretty fast fractions and then got run down late by a horse that tripped out, who also happened to be a fast/young/rested horse trained by the 2nd best trainer in our game. CE was much the best in the Preakness and took a big step forward in that race, when you factor in pace and race dynamics. So, those saying that \"he still hasn\'t broken through his 2 year old top\" being a reason to bet against him, I am not buying that. (nor do I recommend anybody else). That said, this will be the horse\'s 4th race in 8 weeks and if I buy my own logic that the Preakness was a forward move, then that makes it a bit more likely that it took something out of him. Not sure the 1 1/2 miles does CE any favors (also not sure it hurts him, wouldn\'t mind some breeding experts taking a stab that question). If 14 horses go, CE figures 2-1. Eh. Most likely winner, but potential reasons to bet against. The problem for me is that while I would be comfortable taking 4-1 on IWC if he runs, because I know his best race is faster than CE\'s best, who else can we say that about. Lots of love on this board for Tapwrit. I don\'t know. A few points too slow. A forward move needed. What odds do we get on the early nominee for \"wise guy horse\" of the Belmont? I would need 10-1 to get excited. I don\'t think I get it, especially if IWC doesn\'t run. Offshore is insane with the stupid odds I saw on the Japanese horse. That horse isn\'t going off 4-1. Maybe higher than 14-1. There aren\'t enough stupid people betting to make this horse that short of a price. (insert multiple punch lines there)
Jim
If Tapwrit is a few points too slow then every horse in the race is a few points too slow except the one you are stuck on, and I haven\'t seen a pattern yet more likely to move forward than his.
The first thing Graham Motion needs to do is dump Rajiv Maragh.
Jim:
My biggest problem with IWC is Motion\'s lack of commitment to running in the race;
of course he doesn\'t have to commit until early next week.
Casse has done a great job with Classic Empire. He has trained CE very lightly
after the KD. I would imagine he will be very keyed up for the Belmont and if you
like him you have to hope The Leper a/k/a Frenchy can (with apologies to Tom
Durkin and all of his many imitators) \"ration out the speed\". As you say, CE will
likely be 2/1, but in a 14 horse field that is acceptable in the horizontal
wagers.
Sekrah mentioned patterns for the Belmont. I am on record as saying pattern
analysis is not overly reliable with young 3YOs, many of whom only have 8-12
lifetime races.* Because of the Belmont distance, I might be likely to ignore a
great pattern if the pedigree is not suitable for the distance, or forgive what
some might perceive as an unfavorable pattern if the pedigree says 1-1/2 miles
will not be a problem.
---------
* To me the best utilization of pattern analysis is when TGAB, at one of his
marathon Spa seminars, points out a 6YO currently in awful form, but informs the
group that the current 6YO pattern is similar to the horse\'s pattern as a 4YO
which resulted in a win. This hypothetical 6YO sometimes wins at a boxcar mutuel;
whether TGAB bets is another matter.
Richiebee wrote:
\"My biggest problem with IWC is Motion\'s lack of commitment to running in the race\"
Reading between the lines, do you interpret GM\'s lack of commitment to be a function of the horse\'s health and/or condition/timing?
I for one am suspicious of the horses health after watching him drop an anchor and stop in the Kentucky Derby. An inability to keep up or a gradual fade I can reconcile to a sub par race. When do breathing or bleeding problems have to be disclosed?
Jimbo - a couple of posts which were terrific reads, the tranquility a plus.
Yes Sekrah,
They are all several points too slow.
So, as I said, handicapping the race starts with CE. If he runs a 0 to negative 1, he wins. Nobody besides IWC is likely to go there.
If you think CE bounces off the 4th effort in 8 weeks, then the race is wide open and I think I would look for even longer prices than Tapwrit will be. Tapwrit is about as fast as a few who will be double his odds.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you think CE bounces off the 4th effort in 8
> weeks, then the race is wide open and I think I
> would look for even longer prices than Tapwrit
> will be. Tapwrit is about as fast as a few who
> will be double his odds.
Of the known patterns, none are as likely to run their figure as Tapwrit, who is also a prime candidate to move forward.
What good is a horse having a bigger price if they are unlikely to run their best figure?
Richie B,
I guess we will agree to disagree on trainer intent with IWC. I read the fact that Motion is EVEN CONSIDERING the Belmont as an extreme sign of confidence.
I assume we all know that the owner is the daughter of Amory Haskell, for whom the HAskell is named after. Their target for the Jersey Bred, Haskell family owned horse, is the Haskell.
The best way to win the HAskell is likely skip the Belmont and run fresh in the Haskell or prep in early July in some Monmouth race. Not to run 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont. I am sure Motion thinks/believes this, which is why I am guessing they won\'t run in the Belmont.
The fact that he feels compelled to consider the Belmont, in light of the Summer target, to me is a sign the horse has to be tearing down the stalls.
If he runs, he won\'t run poorly.
Jim
Sekrah,
I don\'t care much about patterns going 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont.
Patterns achieved going a mile to a mile and eighth or even mile and a quarter mean less to me going 1 1/2 miles.
So, if I am going to bet a slow horse \"on the come\" in the Belmont, I don\'t want the second choice, which Tapwrit may be if IWC doesn\'t run.
\"I am on record as saying pattern analysis is not overly reliable with young 3YOs, many of whom only have 8-12 lifetime races.\"
This is surprising to me and I don\'t really get it, I love to bet explosive patterns in both 2yo\'s and 3yo\'s by using TG. In fact I think that identifying/predicting these big forward moves in lightly raced horses by applying sheet theory on patterns is one arena where TG and the theories really have an edge on the rest of the market.
That said, there are traps one have to avoid, and for me it\'s all about identifying the \"real deal patterns\". If the figure doesn\'t reflect the horses capacity at the time the figure was earned, it produces \"false patterns\", at least that\'s how I see it. AD coming into the Derby was a great example of a \"negative false pattern\", because the horse was obviously not extended in any of the races as a 3yo (before FLA Derby). Practical Joke, on the other hand, was a decent example of a \"positive false pattern\", that looked more explosive than it really was because of his somewhat ground-loaded figures (and him failing to pass the eye test every time when racing as a 3yo).
Edit: Your other point about this distance might be valid, it sure brings additional chaos to the read.
First time that I\'ve seen it suggested that because a race is longer, it changes the horse\'s condition going into it. That\'s a bold strategy, Cotton.
Yes Sekrah,
Distance not a factor. Just like bias not a factor.
Completely irrelevant.
Furioso:
We will agree to disagree.
To me, Preakness winner Cloud Computing, with 3 lifetime races going into Baltimore,
did not have a \"pattern\" of any sort.
I think a pattern requires some sort of repetition before it is validated. I won\'t
even get into how many races you need to see from a 2YO before you can say that you
have identified a pattern.
Furious Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"I am on record as saying pattern analysis is not
> overly reliable with young 3YOs, many of whom only
> have 8-12 lifetime races.\"
>
> This is surprising to me and I don\'t really get
> it, I love to bet explosive patterns in both 2yo\'s
> and 3yo\'s by using TG. In fact I think that
> identifying these big forward moves in lightly
> raced horses by applying sheet theory on patterns
> is one arena where TG and the theories really have
> an edge on the rest of the market.
>
> That said, there are traps one have to avoid, and
> for me it\'s all about identifying the \"real deal
> patterns\". If the figure doesn\'t reflect the
> horses capacity at the time the figure was earned,
> it produces \"false patterns\", at least that\'s how
> I see it. AD coming into the Derby was a great
> example of a \"negative false pattern\", because the
> horse was obviously not extended in any of the
> races as a 3yo (before FLA Derby). Practical Joke,
> on the other hand, was a decent example of a
> \"positive false pattern\", that looked more
> explosive than it really was because of his
> somewhat ground-loaded figures (and him failing to
> pass the eye test every time when racing as a
> 3yo).
>
> Edit: Your other point about this distance might
> be valid, it sure brings additional chaos to the
> read.
Agree with your first point. Form patterning young horses is one of the most profitable angles out there. If you\'re not doing it, you\'re leaving a ton on the table.
Don\'t agree with your Practical Joke point. 10 furlongs was probably too much for him in hindsight. He ran very credible (5th at 30-1) in the most chaotic race of them. He may just not be a classic distance horse, or he may have just not liked the wet track. I\'ll have no hesitation targeting him this summer.
The key is to take note of the figures that may be understating a horse\'s form when you are handicapping his chances.
Thankfully it\'s a problem with an \"easy fix\".
If you like Tapwrit, just protect your bet with an exacta using IWC on top.
And if you like IWC, Tapwrit should be one of the better options to key with underneath.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes Sekrah,
>
> Distance not a factor. Just like bias not a
> factor.
>
> Completely irrelevant.
\"Distance not a factor\" is not what I said. As usual you are putting words into my mouth after you said something that was foolish.
You said \"I don\'t care much about patterns going 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont\". I would not recommend to prospective TG users to scrap patterns because of the uniqueness of the distance, unless your goal is to completely steer them off the cliff.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Furioso:
>
> We will agree to disagree.
>
> To me, Preakness winner Cloud Computing, with 3
> lifetime races going into Baltimore,
> did not have a \"pattern\" of any sort.
>
> I think a pattern requires some sort of repetition
> before it is validated. I won\'t
> even get into how many races you need to see from
> a 2YO before you can say that you
> have identified a pattern.
I think we\'re debating the semantics of the word \"pattern\". To me, CC\'s read was: Yet to react, 6 weeks rest with one of the fastest figures. At 12-1, that\'s a strong looking set of numbers in my eyes.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lots of love on this board for Tapwrit. I don\'t know. A
> few points too slow. A forward move needed. What
> odds do we get on the early nominee for \"wise guy
> horse\" of the Belmont?
>
> Jim
Jim:
Think the wise guy horse will turn out to be one of those who skipped first two
Classics.
Tapwrit is from a top trainer (remember, according to him, he is 2/17 in the
Derby, not 2/fiftysomething) who contends that Tapwrit would have been in the
Derby tri were it not for early trouble. Ridden by a top jock. BY America\'s top
stallion.
To me, too obvious to be the wise guy horse, but agree with you that he is
certainly an \"in and outer\", and not one I could back with much confidence.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we\'re debating the semantics of the word
> \"pattern\". To me, CC\'s read was: Yet to react, 6
> weeks rest with one of the fastest figures. At
> 12-1, that\'s a strong looking set of numbers in my
> eyes.
To me CC\'s read was: Improved in each of his three races, strongly endorsed by The
Guru Jerry Brown, and lets not forget its a Chad Chad world.
That made way too much sense.
When I found I was ending up on the same horses as Jerry about 90% of the time, I stopped buying the seminars.
What\'s funny about that is the other guy who ends up on the same horse as me is Jimbo.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richie B,
>
> I assume we all know that the owner is the
> daughter of Amory Haskell, for whom the HAskell is
> named after. Their target for the Jersey Bred,
> Haskell family owned horse, is the Haskell.
>
> The best way to win the HAskell is likely skip the
> Belmont and run fresh in the Haskell or prep in
> early July in some Monmouth race. Not to run 1
> 1/2 miles in the Belmont. I am sure Motion
> thinks/believes this, which is why I am guessing
> they won\'t run in the Belmont.
I can agree with all of this. I do not know if Amory Haskell\'s daughter has \"money
is not important\" type wealth, but a Wood/Belmont/Haskell winner is much
more valuable at stud than a Wood/Haskell winner, no?
Your comment reminded me of an old horseplaying buddy, long deceased, who used to
love to play against runners coming out of 12 furlong races when they cut back to
9 or 8-1/2 furlongs.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I found I was ending up on the same horses as
> Jerry about 90% of the time, I stopped buying the
> seminars.
I stopped buying the seminars when my wife cut my allowance.
Richie:
Fair to disagree. To me it\'s two different kind of patterns. The one you mentioned that TGAB is the expert on is the \"repeat pattern\", where you\'re looking at the history for a repeat of something that has occured earlier (the history we\'re talking about here is the history of one particular horse - i.e \"local\"). The explosive patterns are the patterns that \"makes history\", where you in effect (might be intuitively) draw data from a lot of horses to make predictions (i.e \"global\").
Sekrah might be right that this is a question of semantics.
If you have found out what\'s working for you and what\'s not I see no reason to change that. After all, isn\'t that whats getting old is all about? ;)
(Sorry Frank. Didn\'t mean to get cute).
Sekrah: Re PJ; Certainly a possibility.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That made way too much sense.
Your personal bias aside, what he said is true. Betting horses that have not bounced is a profitable angle.
I don\'t know what that was about, but mine was about betting a horse to win and protecting under a horse that might or might not fire, and I was serious. I do that all the time, and we do it in the Analysis. I played the Preakness that way, big win bet on CC and exactas under 3 horses to protect.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t know what that was about, but mine was
> about betting a horse to win and protecting under
> a horse that might or might not fire, and I was
> serious. I do that all the time, and we do it in
> the Analysis. I played the Preakness that way, big
> win bet on CC and exactas under 3 horses to
> protect.
Just pointing out the power of betting horses that have not gone back yet.
SEK, Knowing when a pattern (form cycle would be better) begins, is the edge an integer player perceives they possess. Many, if not most, often make mistakes in judging the beginning of the cycle.
Take the sophomore state bred stakes Memorial day in Arcadia. A strong assertion would be that the winner had a form cycle of exactly one race. bbb
I\'m starting to think (hope?) your stuff is satire.
Satire?
I would categorize his posts more in the \"greek tragedy\" bucket........
Some Facts and some derivations. Of course its late night and I made the mistake of stopping on Fox news for a couple of minutes(my max) after watching some really good basketball and now I\'m Drain Bamaged.
I have not doubled checked this consequently I may have some mistakes.
12 of the last 17 (70%) Belmont winners ran in the Kentucky Derby
3 of the 12 (.25*.7=17.5%) Belmont winners who ran in the Kentucky Derby and also ran in the Preakness
2001 - Point Given, 2005 - Afleet Alex, 2015 -American Pharoah
2017 - Classic Empire (9%), Lookin At Lee (9%)
9 of the 12 (.75*.7= 52.5% Belmont winners who ran in the Kentucky Derby but did not race again until the Belmont
2000 - COMMENDABLE, 2003- EMPIRE MAKER, 2004 - BIRDSTONE, 2006 - JAZIL, 2007 - Rags To Riches*, 2009 - SUMMER BIRD, 2012 - UNION RAGS, 2013 - PALACE MALICE, 2016 -CREATOR
2017 - Irish War Cry(10.5%), J Boys Echo(10.5%), Patch(10.5%), Tapwrit(10.5%), Gormley(10.5%)
5 of the last 17 (30%) Belmont winners did not run in the Kentucky Derby
2 of the 5 came from lesser stakes along the same spacing as Derby - Preakness - Belmont.
2002 - SARAVA, 2008 - DA\' TARA,
2017 - ?
3 of the 5 (.6*.3=18%) came from timing close to KD - Belmont
2010 - DROSSELMEYER, 2012 - RULER ON ICE, 2014 - TONALIST
2017 - Meantime(18%)
2017 New Path(12%) - True Timber)2.5%), Twisted Tom(2.5%), Multiplier(2.5%), Senior Investment(2.5%), Epicharis(2.5%)
Note - Some horses that I have been placed in the new path group (if stretching c/b considered near the Derby Preakness spacing ala Dross, ROI, Tonalist?
*Rags To Riches ran in the Ky Oaks and then to the Belmont.
Generally - The batch of horses moving from the Derby, skipping the Preakness to the Belmont has had, as a group noticeable success (surely because it is the largest group typically). Some in this category have jumped up considerably in a race that really doesn\'t have many significant jump up tops. i.e., Birdstone, Palace Malice.
Looks like he\'s in.
From BH-reporter Alicia Wincze Hughes on Twitter:
\"Graham Motion on Irish War Cry:\"I haven\'t spoken to (the owner) yet this morning but right now my inclination would be to go (to Belmont)\"
\"Added Motion on Irish War Cry\'s work this AM \"If he\'s going to run in the Belmont, he\'s got to have a proper work. And I think he did.\"
\"Motion said they would likely train Irish War Cry at Fair Hill Wed. morning and ship to Belmont later that AM.\"
https://twitter.com/BH_AHughes/with_replies
EDIT: Here\'s the full story: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/221900/irish-war-cry-likely-belmont-bound-after-fair-hill-move?utm_source=BHTW&utm_medium=social
Interesting data. Thanks. From my recollection, the Belmont does yield quite a few jump ups, maybe not in the top spot but filling out the verticals, ergo some of the juicy exotics. The key for me has always been fresh legs and forward moving patterns.
Usually a smaller field, plus because it\'s so big you get horses spread out with different tactics. Less likely to run into trouble = More jump ups.
Three-year-olds are too lightly raced to have forward-moving patterns.
Jerry,
The term \"jump up\" top was undefined previously. I was thinking in terms of 3 points or more. An improvement of 2+ points is significant in many cases. Especially when moving into negative numbers from a nice consistent pattern. In any event it is arbitrary and every one has their own opinion.
2000
Commendable +42 1st
2001
Point Given +3 1st
2002
Sarava +32 1st
2003
2004
Birdstone +43 1st
2005
Andromeda\'s Hero +3 2nd, Nolan\'s Cat +3 3rd
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Palace Malice +41 1st
2014
Commissioner +3 2nd
2015
Keen Ice +3 3rd
2016
Actually, it is most often 3 yos. who do have forward moving patterns because they\'re mature so much at 3.
My comment was irony aimed at Richiebee.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My comment was irony aimed at Richiebee.
Rich great to hear from you as always, although I think the shot you fired
across my bow was more \"sarcasm\" than \"irony\".
The Belmont stakes winners since 2000 have had an average of somewhere around 4
starts as a 3YO, still a little light for this handicapper to focus on patterns
though the numbers are of course a major consideration.
As to forward moving, only Commendable, Afleet Alex and American Pharaoh did
not make a forward move in the Belmont off their previous race. Some of the
dramatic forward moves resulted in nice mutuels. (Sarava, Birdstone, Summer
Bird, Palace Malice and Creator).
Well, my comment was textbook irony. The question is whether it was bitter or harsh enough to qualify as sarcasm too. Do you see the problem I had? If I call the post sarcasm, I violate the Richiebee rule (as presented on the Rags board), which states that insults should always be as subtle as possible.
Anyway, I always look forward to your posts, Richiebee, but I have a question for you: Why do you so often chastise the commoners while sparing the royalty?
If you dislike the way \"pattern\" is used by everyone (well, with one exception) who uses sheets, why not attack the source of the problem? Go into the archives here and listen to the seminars in which JB says of a third-time starter that \"There is no better two-number pattern than his.\" Or read Len Ragozin\'s book, in which he says that \"decades of pattern analysis\" taught him that \"lightly raced horses who make small jumps are big threats to make big jumps in the near future.\" These are the people who wrote the dictionary that you take exception to.
And finally, it would take Ludwig Wittgenstein to clear up all the confusion here: something like your picture of one TGAB-touted pattern becoming indelible and interfering with your ability to process the larger language-game properly. But the following trick may help:
If you have it in your head that a pattern requires repetition, then consider that the repetition need not come from the horse on the sheet. In other words, if a horse has a two-number pattern of 14 followed by 13, look at \"pattern\" as representing the combined results we have seen from other horses with this pattern. That will give you your repetition and permit you to say that the horse has a good pattern for his third start.
And BOOM! goes the dynamite.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, my comment was textbook irony. The question
> is whether it was bitter or harsh enough to
> qualify as sarcasm too. Do you see the problem I
> had? If I call the post sarcasm, I violate the
> Richiebee rule (as presented on the Rags board),
> which states that insults should always be as
> subtle as possible.
Rich, I do not believe I am a major or even minor offender in terms of insults.
Yes, I confess I called some of the Raggies \"lovestruck teenagers\" when they rose,
i]en banc[/i], to come to the defense of Breeders Cup winning trainer scorned
Maria Borell. Yes, I confess to wanting to lambaste those who redboard, because
they do not have the understanding of the pari-mutuel system to realize why
redboarding is unsavory.
It pains me to hold my tongue sometimes, because what is better than a good
insult, or even better an insult followed by a sharp reply? (Gladstone to
Disraeli: \"I predict sir, that you will either die by hanging or some vile social
disease\". Disraeli to Gladstone: \"That all depends on whether I embrace your
principles or your mistress.\")
> Anyway, I always look forward to your posts,
> Richiebee, but I have a question for you: Why do
> you so often chastise the commoners while sparing
> the royalty?
>
> If you dislike the way \"pattern\" is used by
> everyone (well, with one exception) who uses
> sheets, why not attack the source of the problem?
> Go into the archives here and listen to the
> seminars in which JB says of a third-time starter
> that \"There is no better two-number pattern than
> his.\" Or read Len Ragozin\'s book, in which he says
> that \"decades of pattern analysis\" taught him that
> \"lightly raced horses who make small jumps are big
> threats to make big jumps in the near future.\"
> These are the people who wrote the dictionary that
> you take exception to.
I believe that I fairly clearly stated that I did not rely heavily on
patterns in handicapping the Triple Crown. I did not disparage those who do choose
to utilize patterns to handicap these races. While some might say that Cloud
Computing had a forward moving pattern going into the Preakness (or that he \"never
went backwards\"), to me this was a lightly raced colt who improved in each of his
starts. As Sekrah astutely pointed out, my choice not to call this trio of races a
\"pattern\" is a matter of \"semantics\".
With regards to the Belmont, I stand by my assertion that even a runner with a
good pattern heading into said race will not be an appealing win candidate if his
pedigree will not support a top effort at 12 furlongs. (This brings into the
debate another question: How many generations back in the pedigree should one go
to find the \"staying\" influence?).
As to confronting Jerry Brown or Len Ragozin, I must say that with regards to the
former (and TGAB), I have been at Saratoga seminars where the whole notion of the
Thoro-pattern (effort distribution, to borrow a phrase) has been questioned, and
both TGJB and TGAB have admitted that it is not perfect; that is it does not take
into account spacing, surface switches, trainer changes, etc.
With regards to the Lens, I have a feeling they would be very interested in back
and forth with me seeing as I have some graded stakes winning Communists in my
pedigree.
Again since it is my OPINION (sorry I\'m yelling now), I feel no need to \"attack
the source of the problem.\" It is not a \"problem\" for me.
> And finally, it would take Ludwig Wittgenstein to
> clear up all the confusion here: something like
> your picture of one TGAB-touted pattern becoming
> indelible and interfering with your ability to
> process the larger language-game properly. But the
> following trick may help:
>
> If you have it in your head that a pattern
> requires repetition, then consider that the
> repetition need not come from the horse on the
> sheet. In other words, if a horse has a two-number
> pattern of 14 followed by 13, look at \"pattern\" as
> representing the combined results we have seen
> from other horses with this pattern. That will
> give you your repetition and permit you to say
> that the horse has a good pattern for his third
> start.
Regarding the example above, your explanation of looking for a different sort of
repetition is quite logical. Lets assume you are talking about a 2YO or young 3YO.
Lets say the expected result is 14- 13 - 111, based on the repetition
you speak of. The first thing I might mention is that if the third race is a stake
race, a stretch out or a surface switch... can we still expect the forward move?
(Cue Vito chorus--\'The number is the number\").The second note is that I am cursed
(as you know from PTP exchanges between us) that I spent some time at the end of a
lead shank (hotwalker), with a hoofpick in my hand (groom), and with a six pack in
the knee tub (night watchman). My experience working with thoroughbreds has made
me a bit reluctant to \"handicap by the numbers\", feeling as I do that all
thoroughbreds and thoroughbred trainers are individuals.
I have been reduced to wagering only on \"BIG DAYS\" (thankfully there seem to be
two of these per month), but I assure you, on those days, I look at the numbers,
and to a lesser extent the patterns. I do not find the patterns that useful with
lightly raced runners, possibly to my detriment. Would love to see someone dive
into the Archives and shine a light on a pattern common to all or some Belmont
winners from this Century.
Damn, Richie. You are the man. Post of the year so far.
Did Oscar Wilde write for Disraeli? If he came up with that on the spot he really did have Gears.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And finally, it would take Ludwig Wittgenstein to
> clear up all the confusion here:
Does that make richiebee Karl Popper (though he\'s more like a member of the faculty, than a visiting lecturer).
On patterns, looking for a pattern merely in the numbers is a fool\'s errand. I certainly don\'t want to put in the effort, but how many different \"3rd\" figures have horses run after, say, a 14 and a 13. Additional figures don\'t help much, as it\'s pretty well established that any string of numbers is compatible with being part of an infinite number of patterns. I don\'t think we want to turn TG analysis in the fibonacci \"head and shoulders\" nonsense so common to Wall Street witch doctors.
Better to focus on tops, big efforts, and their effects - which at least can be tied to something causal.
A personal favorite, in the same vein: Pierre Trudeau, when asked how he felt about the revelation that Nixon had called him an \'a--hole,\' and a \'pompous egghead,\' replied, \"I\'ve been called worse things by better people.\"
hellersorr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And BOOM! goes the dynamite.
Hellersorr:
The only one who lights the fuse, who sees me really get angry, is my wife, my shayna punim.
You will be invoiced for the continuing Yiddish lessons at a later date.
\"Does that make richiebee Karl Popper?\"
We\'ll find out when I suggest that he and I play poker.
\"Additional figures don\'t help much, as it\'s pretty well established that any string of numbers is compatible with being part of an infinite number of patterns.\"
Down this road lies:
1: The impossibility of making decent speed figures using the method employed here.
And:
2: The wisdom of blindly betting on the longest shot on the board.
Personally, I score it 10-9 Curtis (though RBee\'s Disraeli/Gladstone exchange is excellent), but I look forward to more WFB, Jr. vs. GV.
Bonus quotes from Merry Olde England:
Lady Astor: If you were my husband I\'d poison your tea.
Churchill: If you were my wife, I\'d drink it.
Lady Astor: Churchill, you are drunk!
Churchill: Yes, and you, Madam, are ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.
Richiebee wrote:
\"Rich, I do not believe I am a major or even minor offender in terms of insults.\"
I agree entirely. That\'s why I wrote that stuff about the Richiebee Rule. It contained neither irony nor sarcasm. The only person I remember you really insulting with a heavy hand is Ken Sherman. And since he once said, with typical (nay, Shermanesque) understatement, that I am \"the problem with the sport,\" I have a hard time working up a lot of sympathy for him.
\"It pains me to hold my tongue sometimes\"
I wish you wouldn\'t try so hard. You will correct me if I have been reading you poorly over the years, but it seems to me as if one of the things that annoy you most is lack of subtlety in others. If this is true, and if you have any inclination to try to modify behavior through your posts, then you are in something of a tricky spot: You have a style that is bathed in subtlety, yet you employ it on people who are immune to subtlety.
\"As to confronting Jerry Brown or Len Ragozin\"
They qualify in that context. Indeed, they were my examples. But please do not read \"royalty\" too narrowly.
\"Yes, I confess to wanting to lambaste those who redboard, because
they do not have the understanding of the pari-mutuel system to realize why
redboarding is unsavory.\"
I don\'t agree that lack of understanding of the pari-mutuel system accounts for redboarding. I think these exact same people would redboard a non-betting race in a second. Just look at what threatens to become the latest trend: Attempting to get around the no-redboarding \"rule\" by redboarding losers who lost in such a manner that they can be read as having flattered the handicapping (and in some cases the betting) of the poster. Add to this all the 2/3 redboards (pick 3), 3/4 redboards (pick 4), futures redboards (accomplished through delayed, selective unveiling), and redboards in the guise of product endorsement, and it is hard to see reasons for optimism.
\"I believe that I fairly clearly stated that I did not rely heavily on
patterns in handicapping the Triple Crown. I did not disparage those who do choose to utilize patterns to handicap these races. While some might say that Cloud Computing had a forward moving pattern going into the Preakness (or that he \"never went backwards\"), to me this was a lightly raced colt who improved in each of his starts. As Sekrah astutely pointed out, my choice not to call this trio of races a \'pattern\' is a matter of \'semantics\'.\"
You did state it clearly, and you certainly did not disparage anyone. You were unfailingly polite and in all ways the gentleman. What is more, I have no problem whatsoever with anybody who minimizes the importance of patterns or scoffs at bouncing (as Ernie Dahlman did) or departs from the orthodoxy in any other way, as long as he is prepared, as you are, to defend his point. While I don\'t think that redefining accepted terms in the middle of the Triple Crown while pushing (albeit with tongue in cheek) scientific method is necessarily ideal, I am not opposed to a little mischief from time to time. The real reason for my bafflement at your pattern posts lies in the following:
\"I think a pattern requires some sort of repetition before it is validated. I won\'t even get into how many races you need to see from a 2YO before you can say that you have identified a pattern.\"
For most people, it seems, the sexiest sheet patterns are on horses who are fairly lightly raced. As a group, they are the horses who have the most improvement in their futures, and sometimes they will give you a lot of it in one shot and at a big price. I have met few people who are itching to storm the barricades over a recovery pattern on an older horse. OK, asking, say, that a spring 3YO prove the validity of its explosive pattern by exploding is akin to asking that a virgin prove her virginity through the act of losing it.
\"Regarding the example above, your explanation of looking for a different sort of repetition is quite logical. Lets assume you are talking about a 2YO or young 3YO. Lets say the expected result is 14- 13 - 11.25, based on the repetition you speak of. The first thing I might mention is that if the third race is a stake race, a stretch out or a surface switch... can we still expect the forward move?\"
Although this is a lot neater and cleaner in theory than in practice, I would recommend taking the projected figure (which would actually be a range) and adjusting it up or down based on your estimate of how the different conditions will affect the horse, all the while taking solace in the fact that non-sheet players are probably busy making surface/distance adjustments of their own.
\"Again since it is my OPINION (sorry I\'m yelling now), I feel no need to \'attack the source of the problem.\' It is not a \'problem\' for me.\"
Oh, that merely reflects my martial tendencies when it comes to wording. My first declaration of war each morning is directed at my alarm clock. Certainly there is nothing here that genuinely qualifies as a problem. And of course I knew you were giving an opinion. What else could it have been?
I withdraw my Buckley-Vidal reference.
This might be the most gentlemanly dispute in the history of the Internet. I fully expect both Curtis and Bee to switch sides at any moment.
Hellersorr:
Any master debater should be able to argue both sides of an issue convincingly.
What about a master baiter?