Did RICH STRIKE check all three boxes?
1. Three or less preps
2. Pair of tops, or small new top
3. Has not developed more than four points off 2yo top
Does a pair-up of the 2yo top qualify under criteria #2?
Very astute observation; he checked all three boxes.
10.5 then 9.75 by the TG definition is a pair if I recall correctly. So yes, #2 applies. Perhaps the little flowery symbol next to those TP numbers is the key to this ex post facto analysis. Fat lot of good it will do us now...
I\'m only comparing the 9 and 9.75 this year to the 9 last year as a 2yo.
by definition, paired top
\"a top is defined as more than one point faster than
the previous top, a pair is defined as within one point either way of the
previous top\" - yes, it was a paired top, three checks.
Good Lord, the race is over.
Nobody here had it.
He was by far the slowest going in, and even if you thought he would move forward nobody would have played him.
Can we stop reverse engineering this race??
Unless you know doc brown and steal some plutonium
Maybe maybe not
My question is regarding the Derby seminar and the Derby profile outlined in the seminar.
Any horse can have the pattern. It just so happens it\'s RICH STRIKE in this particular example.
I think the answer to my question is: NO. He doesn\'t fit the profile because the 3yo top wasn\'t a breakthrough of the 2yo top.
I guess we\'ll never know, though. You closed the thread, P-Dub ;-)
It doesn't have to be a breakthrough and it isn't really a profile, we never even put those things together in one table before. It just shows some things that indicate a horse in the Derby is likely to run well relative to himself. We also said a horse had to be fast enough going in— we don't make a practice of predicting 8 point tops.
> We also said a horse had to be fast enough going in— we don't make a practice of predicting 8 point tops.
Correctamundo. That\'s solid advice, JB. Thanks.
I just thought it was an interesting factoid if he did fit the profile/\"individual criteria for horses that run well in the Derby.\" Many in the race didn\'t.
We'll be posting sheets for last weekend today or tomorrow, but the most noticeable thing about the Derby is how many ran Xs (again).
Another obvious noticeable thing is that there were three Baffert/Yakteen horses that ran Saturday, none well.
The best horses in this race didn\'t win because, and this has happened in the past for sure, it\'s really, really difficult to get through a 20 horse field on a track that\'s not designed for it. And let\'s acknowledge that the jockey on the winner rode a brilliant race. His main goal was to stay out of trouble and make one clean run.
There\'s also no doubt that the transition to and from a synthetic track covered up the horse\'s progress that finally showed up on the dirt. I was at Keeneland every day and can report if you look closely that there were upsets like this frequently through the short meet...given that Turfway is a feeder track for some of the horses running against what seems to be tougher company.
A guy sitting at my table had the winner and when I asked him why he made the bet, he showed me his ticket. He bet on the favorite and 3 others with odds spacing up to the longest shot in the field. I just looked to the sky to resolve the nutso factor that I don\'t have in my handicapping.
Since they ran the pace of a mile race, how about we just rate every horse to the mile pole? Not so many X\'s, eh?
That is one of my most important factor in finding overlays, 6 and 8 furlong fractions on route races shortening up. Most of the time the fraction is fast but the figure is slow.