longshot stab - rapid proof (20-1 ml). has shown class in the past, running a buried \"4.5\" as a three year old and as a four year old. stepped it up a bit this year with two nice #\'s running a bit wide. has some tactical speed in a paceless race, gets a nice inside post, and gets a jock who tends to save ground. may only need a repeat of last to win in this big field. timing is the concern. this will be his fourth race since dec 31, and the trainer is a bit weak in the 11-29 day category, i will get good odds for the risk though... RP across the board.
Solid choice at 12-1. With weight and trip has the top figs. Lucky to see 5/6-1
5-1 ?? wins at 30-1 !!
$65.20 ......
Post Edited (03-19-05 17:36)
Nice read, Michael D!
Yeah Michael, I didn\'t look at it until just now, but certainly one of the top 2 or 3 contenders on number power alone (a lot faster than Burning Sun), and some kinda price. This was another horse turned down on vetting for us, but it was two years ago, and until just now that looked like a good thing, so I can\'t really complain.
TGJB,
well done on the #\'s for that one.
Well done on sniffing it out. Looked to me (after the fact) like there were only 4 horses you could really use-- RP, Honor In War, A To The Z, and America Alive. With three of them running 1-2-3, hope somebody played tris.
i hit the tri good. i used seinne too much, cost me the super. i had bailey in the third and fourth spots only, and light. the horse looked too slow for me, especially at those odds.
Way to Go Michael D.
I did not play today but watched the races. Great Handicaping Job. What did the tri\'s pay?
NC Tony
Michael,
Glad you cashed.
Chris
Very nice job Michael and thanks for sharing the insight.
I hit the exacta hard and used rapid proof and A to z in my pk 4 which I had wheeled back to the 10th. Was hoping for a longshot winner of 10th but 2K for a buck a\'int bad.
Was a great day as my horse - who I was questioning was really capable of ever winning a race - won the 2nd at FG in a nice turnaround. Of course, he figured on TG as his top numbers coupled with ground saving made him a nice play.
TG\'s turf numbers seem to be so much more precise than other speed figures out there. My biggest scores have been on turf using TG. Anyone else find this? Thanks TGJB.
michael
What\'s truly unbelieveable is the FG analysis had the race as a pass and in parenthesis A to Z [the fav. btw high weight out of the 10 hole] okay in exotics. Rapid Proof 1pt slower, moving inside getting 6 pounds ML 12-1 and you pass the race???? My goodness a major blunder.
Congratulations to Michael D.
Great handicapping BEFORE the race was run.
Terrific figures by TGJB. I had the win play, but used BURNING SUN projecting a Frankel jump. I thought the horse seemed to do better when rested....wrong. Overbet with no visible excuse.
FG has a quirky turf course which has led to 3 parimutual bombs winning this race in the last 3 years (who can forget CANDID GLEN in \'03).
My hats off to TGJB on this. I\'m assuming RAPID PROOF was given his 2 recent performance #\'s not only based on his wide trips, but due to the fact that a wide trip on the FG turf course may carry more than a wide trip on say the Churchill or Belmont courses. Any comment on this?
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Joe B-- no, ground loss is ground loss, it\'s straight math whichever track you are at. Miff will disagree.
And Gvido, you are right. That race should not have been a pass-- the handicapper did not look closely enough to see that some of the fastest horses were prices-- he should have.
Handicappers have habits and patterns-- I\'m sure all of you do as well. Some people look to see if there is one (or two) clear stickouts in a race (the guy who did FG is like that, and there were not), to find the winner. Some look to find a horse (one) they can key at a price, and hook up with other contenders (Julian, who has given dozens of seminars for us over the years , is like that). Others look to see if there are some short priced horses to play against in the race, and work out an exotic play against them (I do that often).
All of these are right under certain circumstances, but it\'s a mistake to think only one way (see the betting strategies in the archives, found on the homepage). It\'s tough to teach some of these old dogs new tricks, when they\'ve been successful doing what they do. Nick, who did FG, comes up with a lot of bombs I would not have found, but he missed this one.
JB said,
\"Joe B-- no, ground loss is ground loss, it\'s straight math whichever track you are at. Miff will disagree.\"
JB,
I never disagreed with the premise that at ALL tracks, a horse travelling in a wider path is covering more ground than the runners inside of him. The math/ logic used in this part your calculation is unquestioned, speaking for myself.
I am definitely aware that on some occasions(Belmont especially) the wider path is \"tighter/firmer\" returning much better energy to the the runners in the wider paths as oppposed to runners inside on the deeper/dead paths.Just about everyday during Belmont I get feedback on paths, directly from the agents/connections of The Mig, Aaaron Gryder,Angel Cordero and others.I also look very closely at this and feel I have a good handle on judging it.I know that is NOT science but it\'s strong.These jocks are out there warming up/riding searching for the best paths.I have record of all track profiles in NY for several years with notes on wind direction, speed, trips, run up changes etc.
My issue has always been that on those \"outside days\", TG methodology/formula still REWARDS the wide runner who is benefitting from being wide while really NOT being disadvantaged by ground loss,only by the math.I am aware that on those occasions that TG uses an X to denote the dead rail.
I have seen dead rails and pronounced outside biases reap havoc on the performance of runners, good and bad.Thats what I mean when I say wider figs are not necessarily faster notwithstanding the correct math is being us.More importantly, how does TG tie back to figs when there was a pronounced/obvious bias which had a big impact on all runners on the card. A bias aided figure is not a \"true\" figure, IMO.I have tossed many favorites with superior BIAS AIDED figs with very good success.
What consideration/allowance is made by TG when a runner is obviously affected by a bias? If none, why not? given that you are trying to make superior figs and no other product is even CLOSE on this important factor.
Probaby a good discussion for a dead period, if there are any.
Miff-- you know I do agree that there are dead rails, so the question will come down to what constitutes \"obviously affected by bias\". When there is a dead rail, it means by it\'s very nature that we are giving those horses bad figures, not giving them their usual figures and giving the horses outside extra credit. The classic example of this was the last BC held at Belmont-- I wrote a whole explanation, which can still be found in the archives here, about how the rail was dead and the dry track changed speed, and how Ragozin got the day completely wrong (as Freidman said, they had an enormous number of horses who ran outside running tops). At the time I made a prediction about something like 25 horses who ran inside or in the first 3 races that day going forward on Ragozin next time out-- I think 23 did.
Dr. Pratt of MIT agrees with you about different paths being different speeds (see my DRF EXPO presentation on the homepage). Problem from a figure making perspective is, between horses moving from path to path and conditions changing and the track not necessarily being the same all the way around, there aren\'t enough data points to use to make serious decisions. On days when it\'s dramatic, we can see the dead rails. On others, there may very well be some slight differences, but there is no reasonable way to quantify them.