Been looking at some previous Breeders Cup Thoro-Graph figs. Was wondering if anyone has found it useful/profitable to use the \"historical profiles\" as a baseline for contenders.
For example, looking at the last 7 editions of the BC Juvenile, there are some common themes to the winners: one, there must be a paired number or an improvement in figs from first lifetime start to second start. Two, last fig in the prep must be as good as, slightly better or substantially better than first lifetime start (no regression). Third, final prep fig should be 6 1/2 or lower. Fourth (and this relates to the 1st point above), any gain of 5+ points from first lifetime start to second start will likely result in a regression in one or both of the next two starts (examples, Classic Empire went from 15.2 in his first start to 2.2 and his next was a regression to 3.2. And, Nyquist went from a 7.3 to 2.3 and regressed in both of his next two starts).
The 4th point may not be so good. Not This Time ran a game second to Classic Empire losing by a close neck. Not This Time\'s TG figs before the BC Juvenile were 14, 6.3, and 3. Therefore, he had a 7.1 increase from first start to second start and didn\'t regress in the last prep nor in the BC Juvenile, which he was given a 0 TG fig.
Do any of you think this is a useful way of getting to a list of contenders or does it have no value/dangerous???
The minute you come up with a rule or rules like this based on data sets, and become dogmatic about it you will watch your money burn up at the windows. IMO, of course. Stuff like this is best used to uprade or downgrade entries, but not eliminate. See dosage, center of distribution, et al.
MJ:Respect your handicapping,with the recent Derby winners you still believe in dosage index and C.O.D?
I think it\'s a safe guess he was using them as examples of past \"rules\".
Looking at trends yes, rules no.
Agree, and would add that IMO it is much better (also much more difficult and time consuming), to look for trends/qualifiers/etc. of horses that ran well vs. just winners.
As an example, when I fall down the rabbit hole each year, and look back at the last 5-10-20 Derbies, I am looking at the horses that won or ran fast enough to win if they\'d benefited from an average trip.
Agree. Which is why we break down the seminar studies the way we do.
Just trying to work through my handicapping process. I respect handicapper Jim Mazur very much. His products in PROGRESSIVE HANDICAPPING uses a lot of criteria from the past that eliminates some and puts some in a contender list. For example, it\'s good in some Breeders Cup races to have had a Beyer top in the prep race and in others it\'s been proven that a top Beyer in the prep has not been successful; or horses in certain races need to have raced within the past 35 days; or horses in one of their past two races need to have recorded a 200 when adding their Brisnet E2 and LP figures; or 17 of past 19 winner ran a final prep of 8 furlongs or longer. The percentages on the winning horses that have met this criteria are 100% at times and not perfect in others. But for the most part, the winning horses have met the minimum criteria. I don\'t construe these as RULES, but rather a sort of Class criteria to be able to compete in a particular Breeders Cup race.
Is that just luck that the winner won? Coincidence that the horse just happened to meet the exact criteria that has been established? Or, alternatively, given the high % of horses that meet the \"class criteria,\" can\'t it be argued that those horses that don\'t match up well with the \"class criteria\" coupled with a wrong running style for the distance or a bad post are bad bets?
Jim Mazur\'s cartel at Mohegan Sun last year did hit the pick 6 in the Breeders Cup last year for a 292K payoff, FWIW.
I was part of that cartel and here is great video of the final moments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1eKp7RuE_Q
I love when people root for a horse by number. \"C\'mon 6\"
As if he\'s a lotto ticket.
Horse has a name. So does the jock.
Good Luck,
Joe B
I do it all the time myself. \"C\'mon six\" just rolls off the tongue better than \"C\'mon Eskendreya\". Sometimes, I even just use the jock\'s first name (clutches pearls!)
Great vid.
When playing from home:
I like to put my finger(s) on the competitors images and yell stop repeatedly often followed by sh*t!
My thread has gotten way off topic. Been going through some past topics on this ASK THE EXPERTS. Doesn\'t seem like there\'s any discussion by experts on Thoro-Graph analysis or ways to apply the patterns. Was hoping for more here.
A) I think it\'s pretty well established that patterns are pretty easy to find, and most of them don\'t track anything in the real world (this applies generally, and not just to racing). There\'s a basic fallacy at issue - post hoc ergo propter hoc.
B) If you\'re looking for magic pattern, you won\'t find one, even on TG. Thoro-pattern is just one tool.
C) The pattern that matters most is, did a horse jump up to a good figure in his last? He will probably regress. Of lesser importance, is there enough time/spacing since the last big figure to think he might hit it again (see Gunnevera/Travers). Is the horse coming of a paired top, or is young and shows steadily improving figures? Bet a forward move.
D) You\'ve been a member of the board for three weeks. Try not to take yourself so seriously. (PS, you clearly didn\'t go back to pre-derby discussion.)
Edit: Not a pattern issue, but should have added this: is the horse fast enough to win if everyone runs their race? This is obviously a relative measure, and has nothing to do with hitting a particular number.
I thought that I was the only one who did that.
What Jerry said.