Albany, you are right-- we don\'t hit every race, so the theory is flawed.
Pace-- as I said late yesterday, the pace was hot. While it may very well have been a factor, it was not the overriding factor-- several who were far behind it did not run well. Some were trained by Pletcher and Zito.
If Chris and I are correct, and the drug testing brought several trainers and horses back to earth (Dutrow, Frankel, Pletcher, Zito, and not just in the Derby), then there is no point in trying to draw any other conclusions from the result-- it\'s apples and oranges. The big question at the moment is, under what conditions will the Preakness be run.
Miff--
1-- As we said in the seminar, of the last 125 horses that ran in the Derby, only 30% paired (within a point either way) or ran a new top. I beat the point to death-- there was only one pattern that produced even 40%, despite spring stake 3yos usually hitting at around 50%.
2-- If I am right about the drugs (and I know you agree it\'s going on), trying to figure out whether past figures are right based on this race is pointless.
3-- What do you want to do with the BG, add 10? If you add 2 or 3 does Bandini look more or less likely to X? It wasn\'t like BR, Bandini, HL, and the other Pletcher and Zitos only went back a point or two. We\'ll have to see what happens with an awful lot of horses down the road.
Jimbo-- the approach we have taken has held up extremely well in the Derby, as a matter of public record. There was only one approach you could have taken to get to this one, and while I didn\'t go that way myself, I made the point TWICE in the seminar to watch how the supertrainers were doing in the other graded stakes.
If I am not mistaken, McLaughlin uses Allday.The result of this race was unimaginable going in.
Look at the drug implications,JB. If so, the entire Data Base is laden with unreliable info going forward especially for you trying to look back at prior \"juice\" performances to establish \"ranges\"
Miff-- we don\'t know everything that went on. I\'m still trying to deal with Donna Brothers saying AA wasn\'t in his stall because he was in another stall being hosed off-- not outside? Not in his own stall? Was anyone in there with him? Who knows? And we don\'t know whether all the ones using are using the same thing. We\'ll see how it goes. Again, everyone should take a look at all the charts for the graded stakes run so far at CD (and some of the other races as well-- there may be horses in other stalls that guards can see).
You don\'t seriously think when I do a race I\'m going to look at horses who were fast in the past and got beat ten lengths and say hmmm, I\'ll give them their numbers, and the 5 horses who beat them all 8 point tops. Do you?
Yeah, I\'m going to do the Derby pairing BR to his neg 5...
TGJB wrote:
> Miff-- we don\'t know everything that went on. I\'m still trying
> to deal with Donna Brothers saying AA wasn\'t in his stall
> because he was in another stall being hosed off-- not outside?
The above pertains to Pre Race Jerry? Are you implying the Derby Entry stalls were monitored but other stalls not monitored and Alex briefly slipped into another stall? Can you elaborate?
Still if the testing is thorough won\'t the test reveal the substance or are you implying sneaking away to an unmonitored location for an injection or dosage of something that can\'t be detected by the supertest? What are you implying? Alex bounced on that Derby by all appearances, but I wont draw firm conclusions until i learn what the number folks think.
> Not in his own stall? Was anyone in there with him? Who knows?
> And we don\'t know whether all the ones using are using the same
> thing. We\'ll see how it goes. Again, everyone should take a
> look at all the charts for the graded stakes run so far at CD
Pletcher won the Three Chimneys just prior to the Derby. One race doesnt disprove certainly, i\'ll look.
> (and some of the other races as well-- there may be horses in
> other stalls that guards can see).
\"There may be horses in OTHER stalls that guards CAN see\"?
What does that mean? Typo? Horses in other stalls that guards CANT see?
I already put this up on a separate thread, but look at the GP charts for 2/5.
Closing Argument and Bandini both ran 1 1/8 mile races that day (in fact there was a 3rd 3 y.o. race at the same distance that day). Compare those races and tell me which one you would want to bet?
There was definitely a reason to use Closing Argument - and his numbers agreed.
Well, maybe Deb if you could project the Fab Four Folding. The Bluegrass kinda spoke volumes about Bandini and Closing Arguement too.
Thunder Gulch and Unbridled did not run well in the Blue Grass (3rd and 4th I believe) after good races at GP...why do you think that CA should be penalized for a pedestrian Blue Grass?
TGJB:
No theory or system of handicapping is perfect, they are all flawed.
The problem I have with figure handicapping is not that it is flawed. The issues that I have with speed figure handicapping are as follows: (1) the wide spread use of this approach has resulted in underlays for those winners that are identified; (2) over reliance on figures, which is an easy habit to fall into, conflicts with the basic need to adopt a more comprehensive approach to handicapping; (3) the use of nurmeric values has the effect of affording speed figures an appearance of objectivity and scientific validity that simply does not comport with reality. This glean of scientific veracity has the concomitant effect of making people feel that the numbers are not influenced by subjective factors and are, therefore, beyond reproach.
Please do not misunderstand my position. I believe that figures are an important part of the puzzle. However, they are useful only if the bettor understands their impact on the mutual pools and he/she is well-versed in the other aspects of handicapping.
albany i love vocabulary and if you were a woman i\'d kiss you
but seriously, did you factor Giacomo
YO Albany,
You sound like you come from Brooklyn, are you?
Chuckles:
Unfortunately, I didn\'t bet Giacomo. With the benefit of hindsight, there was a possibility of picking Giacomo if you accepted two propositions.
Proposition 1: Due to the presence of so many speed horses and pace pressers, it was likely that there would be a pace collapse in the Derby. This proposition would reduce the field of contenders to intermediate and deep closers.
Proposition 2: The California contingent wasn\'t as bad as most people thought. Following through on Proposition #1, the three California closers were Wilko, Giacomo and Don\'t Get Mad.
As my earlier posts indicate, I liked Wilko because I thought he was sitting on a big race. I preferred Wilko over Giacomo because he beat him in the SA Derby after enduring a less favorable trip. Yet, in retrospect, it should be noted that Giacomo was only a couple of lengths off Wilko in the SA Derby. As you may recall, I selected Don\'t Get Mad fourth.
My analysis wasn\'t far off the mark, but it wasn\'t right on. Close only counts in horse shoes.
As always, thanks for your insights.
Post Edited (05-08-05 21:04)
Wilko supposedly bled. He was my all bounce horse too. (he and High limit) Though I didn\'t bet him to win. My analysis said Afleet was running through it all, but in hindsight the fact he got little out of the Rebel should have been factored in.
Amazing Race. I\'m still intrigued with it.
Post Edited (05-08-05 16:11)
Where can I find it?
Chuckles:
I hadn\'t heard about the bleeding. Boy, its a tough game.
Pletcher did win the 2yo stake that was NOT graded. His horses flopped all weekend in GRADED stakes. Supertesting is being done ONLY ON GRADED STAKES.
Amazingly, Pletcher says he will not be starting any of his half dozen recent 3yo stakes winners in the Preakness. I am assuming that Pimlico will also be doing supertesting in the Preakness (not sure about that - if anyone knows please let us know).
I think this last point speaks volumes even if you want to make excuses for all of Pletcher\'s other horses that ran poorly at CD this weekend in GRADED stakes.
Supertesting just might be working. At least for a while...
Chris
derby1592 wrote:
>> Amazingly, Pletcher says he will not be starting any of his
> half dozen recent 3yo stakes winners in the Preakness. I am
> assuming that Pimlico will also be doing supertesting in the
> Preakness (not sure about that - if anyone knows please let us
> know).
hmmmmmmmm
very sneaky
Not a one? Pletcher isn\'t gonna send a single one his overpowering pedigreed animals to the Preakness to try and catch Lukas one day? I can\'t believe that.
One Last point Chris, if you were onto this theory for the pick 4 and Derby, its a bit surprising you didn\'t have Giacomo in considering you did have Wilko.
Post Edited (05-08-05 16:51)
Pletcher Did win a graded stakes with Limehouse on Friday
I dont think that one was graded either NC.
I got burned for more money on bandini than i would have otherwise thinking the Three Chimneys was graded...it wasn\'t....freaking Youbet
Derby,
Glad you mentioned the 2yo winner Pletcher had. That one HAD to be JUICED!! Thinking wretched Pletcher left his syringe at home, I omitted him from p3s, and played all others.
I agree Churchill made a difference with their super-testing and 6 hour detention(if I got that right). I\'m with you regarding the Preakness, I\'d like to know the Pimlico plans for testing.
raz
Pletcher will probably run FLOWER ALLEY.
I\'m hoping Zito runs HIGH FLY. Perhaps the Derby race is just what he needed off of the 5 week layoff.
I do not agree with you TGJB when you say that pace was not the overriding factor. An overly hot pace at a distance never traveled throws all prior performance ratings into the trash. Sorry, that\'s just the way it is.
Performance ratings are a terrific tool, however they do not hold up under ALL circumstances. Horses with 5\'s and 4\'s as their best numbers do not suddenly step up and win the Derby unless something unusual (e.g. an overly hot pace) causes the others who have superior numbers to not run their normal race.
Now on to the PREAKNESS with no rabbits, less horses, and hopefully a sensible pace where the numbers can be used with confidence to help solve the next puzzle.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
>I agree Churchill made a difference with their super-testing and 6 hour detention(if I got that right). I\'m with you regarding the Preakness, I\'d like to know the Pimlico plans for testing.
No doubt it made a difference.
I also the think that the message should be sent that if Pimlico does not implement similar procedures EVERYBODY should bet elsewhere for the day.
The testing & detention were probably most important, but another step which might have played an important role was the presence of what were described as \"plainsclothes\" agents on the backstretch throughout the week. Exactly what that meant was never described, but the strong impression I had was that the atmosphere was much different, & I\'m guessing for some much riskier, than ever before.
I went over on Thursday to pick up some tickets and two plain clothes bums were hauling off a handcuffed drunken bum.
If these kind were wandering around the backstretch anybody willing to try and cheat was possibly taking their career into their own hands.
The supertesting regime was introduced last year by the American Graded Stakes Committee of TOBA; implementation had been stalled until this weekend.
Here\'s the way it works: if a racetrack wants to keep graded status for its stakes races, it must perform the supertesting as specified. Therefore, you can look forward to supertesting in the Preakness, Belmont, Breeders Cup, etc. Assuming the test protocol remains in force, of course (its easy to see where some \"powerful\" forces may not be too pleased with yesterday\'s result.)
Interesting how it took an auxilliary body, such as the American Graded Stakes Committee, to finally put a policy in place.
>you can look forward to supertesting in the Preakness.
What about the rest of the card.
Business as usual.
I\'m sure the Dutrow boys will be shipping several in from Delaware and isn\'t that where Gil/Shuman are home based.
I\'ll take that 11:30 Tee Time.
I agree: there\'s no excuse for not implementing the supertest across the board.
Still, considering how long it has taken to get this far, it\'s an admirable start. Now, they can steal the crumbs, but not the cake.
SC: Sounds like you had a terrific time. I\'m sure you saw the expansive local coverage of the gala, but I\'m not sure if you followed the admonition in my post on wolf teeth. Removing them apparently doesn\'t make a horse run faster, although I\'m sure there are some here who might argue that HL would have finished even farther back in last if the operation hadn\'t been done.
RVL: It was interesting that it came in through the back door, so to speak, & equally interesting were all of the groups & individuals who were opposed on the grounds that the Committee was exceeding its authority. Good thing they didn\'t back down for once.
>I\'m sure you saw the expansive local coverage of the gala
And the National Coverage also. Pick-up the USA Today tomorrow. When Michael Jordan drops by to see whats going on, you know something is working.
Sixteen months since I last saw you Mall and six since I last saw Catalin. Too long for two people who I think so highly of.
For those who posted Summerly lost at Keeneland because she couldn\'t handle a pressured pace...
Wrong.
The word came indirectly from two direct sources (jockey/trainer) toss the Keeneland race, they were sending and look for here to win.
I had a nice score but gave it all back on Saturday. Others I know wheeled her in the Oaks/Derby double and are still counting $100 dollar bills.
Now that Keeneland has addressed the Drug Issue maybe they can throw some of their millions into a new racing surface. The piece of %&#@ has got to go.
Silver Charm wrote:
> Now that Keeneland has addressed the Drug Issue maybe they can
> throw some of their millions into a new racing surface. The
> piece of %&#@ has got to go.
I\'ll second that motion.
Way too big of an inconsistency between that surface and Churchill. The proof is in the performances.
For those of you who make figures, its probably a rub your hand thru your hair experience each day when you sit down to do a card.
And while they are at it, tear down the whole plant. The 10,000 seat, pinky waving, set-up they have now is obsolete.
What if a Slots Bill passes. Where are they going to put it, at John T. Wards house.
Think Outside the Box Keeneland.
Assuming the polytrack which is being installed at TP works out reasonably well, I am told that it will be installed at Kee, the US distributor, before spring. It\'s gotten very positive reviews from horsemen since it was installed at the Kee training track a number of mos. ago.
Ah yes, Summerly. I played Rush Bay into Summerly in the 9th-10th double on Fri, & then tried to play her with the winner of the last, but there was no 10th-11th double, which is why I played her into the wrong derby horses in the Oaks/Derby double. The reason her performance is interesting, however, is that prior to the races on Fri & again on Sat, I took the position that the track was playing pretty close to fair & was favoring horses with the best late kick. One or more posters questioned the assessment because Sis City wired the field, which is actually beside the point. She had the best fr3 in the race, much better than Sis City, & was every bit as fast if you were willing to ignore one race. Same thing happened in an early race on Sat, a horse with the best fr3 wired or came close to wiring the field, which was enough for some handicappers to, in my opinion, mistakenly conclude that the track was favoring early speed. CD has a history of getting faster throughout the day when it\'s dry & sunny, but for 4 days in a row competitive number horses with the best fr3 won and/or ran well in a much higher pct of races than usual, even for CD. In other words, very favorable conditions for those with accurate performance figures who understand the difference between pace handicapping & the one component of pace handicapping which is sometimes discussed on this Bd.
Mall,
Can you explain what an fr3 is? I thought it was a typo, but then you repeated it 4 more times!!
Thanks.
an abbrev. for 3rd fraction.
Mall assuming Fr3 is late pace, but Churchill appeared to play to speed but for the 8th and Derby. The race battle won, finished first in was interesting if thats the race you\'re referring to.
The Derby melted down on torrid pace, bounce and fate, The Humana apparently had a bouncing lifetime top Madcap on the agenda. Had she been right she certainly could have set the track record Battle Won almost matched.
The day still needs to be carefully reviewed but all that outside for the top two in the Derby may not have been all that bad. If you give them 2\'s or 3\'s which seems logical, the wides are gonna pad everyone else into the twilight zone. Its gonna be an interesting figure.
I like that one Mall.
And it has been a profitable one for me too.
>The Humana apparently had a bouncing lifetime top Madcap on the agenda. Had she been right.....
She came back rundown on one heel. That is the key one heel only.
Every kind of scope and scan you can imagine is being done as we speak.
TGJB,
\"Pace-- as I said late yesterday, the pace was hot. While it may very well have been a factor, it was not the overriding factor-- several who were far behind it did not run well. Some were trained by Pletcher and Zito.\"
And the ones that weren\'t close to it either were terrible to begin with, had shown little in the stretch of prior races and were suspect at 10F, or both.
Seriously JB, we all know there\'s a drug problem in racing. However, it stretches credibility to blame every bad/superior performance on drugs and every bad handicapping selection on the same. These are horses. Sometimes they run like crap for no reason. Sometimes they run like crap for very obvious reasons that just don\'t happen to show up in speed figures alone.
Post Edited (05-09-05 11:09)
Since you mention two races that were a lot more interesting to me than the big one, here\'s my possibly idiosyncratic take on what happened. I went in believing that one or more of the undercard races would be a putovers, & I think Simon\'s winner in the 5th & Roman\'s winner in the 11th fit the bill. With the win Sat, Simon has shipped 5 horses to Ky over the last month or so & won with 3, & Battle\'s price Sat was the lowest. I think the only way you could bet the horse was to close your eyes & hope he was the one, although I do know some who bet the horse based on a comparison of what the pk3 will pays should have been paying vs what they were actually paying.
ME is a much more interesting case, since she appeared extremely vulnerable from a lot of different standpoints(one big race off a long layoff & surgery, very weak fr3, very little if any number power, etc) & with all the \"experts\" touting her as a pk4 & pk6 single, the race shaped up as a terrific betting opportunity. The question was how. Do you play all or almost all of the field in pk3s or pk4s, or do you invest in exotics in the race itself, & hope she runs out. The problem with the former approach, of course, is the possibility that the result of at least one race in the sequence was impossible to predict. The problem with the latter is that a horse which was pretty close to impossible to find runs 3rd, which is what I\'m guessing happened to JB, since I have to believe that \"all\" is the only option for the 4th slot for anyone betting against ME in supers. Although neither approach was profitable Sat., the race is nonetheless a good example of why the \"how\" is often every bit as important as the \"who.\"
Silver,
>For those who posted Summerly lost at Keeneland because she couldn\'t handle a pressured pace... wrong<
I want to comment on this because I think it\'s relevant to a lot of things that aren\'t clear to me.
I\'m not sure what the correct figure for Sis City\'s big race actually is. We should keep in mind that no one else had that race really fast.
a. If the race was really fast, then Summerly\'s performance within it was not especially out of line with prior performances. It would actually be fairly consistent with the view that she would not run as fast and win as easily with pace pressure as without it. I know I didn\'t expect her to get beaten that badly. I just expected her to lose. However, a really dominant speed/pace performance often \"takes out\" many of the other horses.
b. If the Sis City race was not that fast, then Summerly\'s performance that day was dreadful. If that\'s the case, then she didn\'t run poorly because of pace considerations. She ran that poorly for other reasons. In fact, I said as much on another board. However, that does not mean that I was wrong about her prior races with loose leads in easy paces not being as good as they looked.
I haven\'t seen Summerly\'s figure for this recent win (more of a legit performance), but I\'d guess it wasn\'t much faster than she had run in her prior races despite making the lead and being loose for a portion of the race. She certainly didn\'t win as easy or all wrapped up the way she did when she was loose and loafing.
Post Edited (05-09-05 12:50)
In the ME race, I invested in exotics in the race itself AND pick 3\'s and pick 4\'s, she ran out, and it\'s a good thing I backed up to the exactas since that Puxa screwed my biggest play.
It looked like they were pretty evenly matched past the favorite, except for Josh\'s Madelyn who I weighted a little more...
I went five deep and ended up making about 5/2 on the race, and another nose and I would\'ve got nothing.
Whew.
HP
It might be a rationalization, but in these kinds of situations I tell myself that the important thing is to have made the right plays, since that is the only thing within your control. Actually, there is one other thing. You can make sure you don\'t lose one of the seven $1 tix sold on the biggest super in history. Today\'s story about the guy who made the play, never got the ticket, & left the OTB with nothing, only to get a call on the way home from a mutuel clerk who found the ticket has to be one of the most remarkable betting stories ever. Now that\'s one clerk who actually deserves a nice tip!
Mall,
FWIW, I wrote down
Lion Tamer
Pomeroy
Battle Won
Leveltheplayingfield
for that race.
I thought Battle Won had a shot at the weights and liked the price.
I got stuck working a little bit of overtime and I didn\'t get to play it (figuring the two shorter priced horses LT and POM had good chances), drooling over the ME race a little later.
HP
We posted simultaneously...that is an amazing story, to say the least. I heard there were 12 winning super tix total... HP
RVL-- that is very interesting information about the supertest-- I had actually spoken to a couple of the TOBA guys last Summer, and forgot that was where they were going.
Which brings us to trying to decide whether it was the test or the plain clothes operatives...
CH-- what a nonsense BS post that is. I \"blame every bad/superior performance on drugs and every bad handicapping decision on same\"? Get a clue.
I said BEFORE the race, TWICE in the seminar, that this was a unique situation because of the supertesting.
I don\'t know what FWIW means, but I hope you\'re an investment banker, as it\'s one of only a few ways that your overtime pay could make up for missing that $8k tri. Assuming you didn\'t peak Sat, I get the impression you might be sitting on a new top when a week from Sat rolls around. If memory serves, you\'re still the undefeated & undisputed Champ, & if you\'re in the mood, the Preakness card might be a good opportunity for a little game of one on one. Patent\'s working too hard & is hardly ever around, but there is one poster who keeps reminding me of my tongue in cheek comment to David that the only track where the match he originally proposed could take place was Fantasyland Downs. Before you decide, keep in mind that even though you\'d probably be a heavy favorite, the stakes would be huge--for all of us. On the other hand, it could be a lot of fun, assuming the person I have in mind has the courage to accept your challenge, & is capable of demonstrating a little more humility & a little better sense of humor than I have seen so far. Whadda ya say Champ?
Mall,
For What Its Worth
CH
>I\'m not sure what the correct figure for Sis City\'s big race actually is. We should keep in mind that no one else had that race really fast.
Are talking about their pace figure of final time figure. Because the final time figure is totally irrelevant for the reason you stated she lost at Keeneland.
Sis City was given a Neg 1 and Summerlys figure was not good. She ran terrible that day.
All the rest of what you said is classic mumbo jumbo. More of the same. The people involved with the horse said the Keeneland race was a total throw out and they fully intended to set whatever pace was necessary and fully expected to win. Maybe pace had nothing to do with the Keeneland result.
Maybe she HATED THE TRACK!
I think the Derby has more to do with Pace than Drugs but drugs are an important part. If it\'s all drugs, how do you explain the great performance of Arguement and Buzzard BAy(who may end up with the best #). For once, I was hoping that they were using since my group were sitting on a $2 pk4 live to AA, BR, Wilko, Sun King and High Limit, how this ticket loses is mind boggling, but that\'s horse racing. If they are doing super testing for the Preakness, I guess Giacomo is still in play along with AA.
Silver Charm,
There is no mumbo jumbo in any of my posts if you read them carefully. It\'s actually quite simple.
1. I originally said that Summerly benefitted from a loose and easy lead in the Fair Ground Oaks and she wouldn\'t have run as fast had she been tested by a quality speed horse.
2. I said she got tested in the Ashland and lost.
3. In a conversarion with Len (on the other board), I conceded that she ran way worse than I expected and that pace alone probably didn\'t account for her terrible performance that day.
4. In her race on Friday \"I estimate\" that she ran no faster than she was running in her FG races (probably slower). Given that she won the FG Oaks race all wrapped up, you would think that when she\'s right (like Friday) she would be capable of running a faster race than she ran on FG Oaks day - especially now after two months of further maturation. Given that she didn\'t, then maybe I was correct all along in my opinion that in her Fair Grounds race she benefitted from the slow pace and easy lead.
5. IMO, Friday she earned a figure very in line with her current real ability.
I am not disputing the contention that she hated the track on the day of the Ashland, was sick, or any other excuse her connections made for her. I am saying that there\'s nothing that happened on Friday to disprove my opinion of her Fair Ground Oaks race where she got loose in an easy pace. Had she run a Beyer of 102 or something like that Friday, I would readily admit I was in error just like I did today when it came to Closing Argument (who I hated in the Derby and who I think ran the best race) and Bandini (who I liked and is still running).
I have no problem with being wrong. I do it all the time. Thankfully, not often enough to cause red ink. :-)
Post Edited (05-09-05 23:45)
OPM
Theres a significant issue with the notion that the drug screening made the Derby clean and its this:
Drugs became a serious issue on figures in 2001. Suddenly many of the big race winners were popping unheard of low figures. Assuming a substance was enabling those low figures AND that the supertest has prevented use of that substance in this years Derby we have a problem. TGraph is going to assign the winner of the Derby a Zed. The last time we suspect the killer substances were not in use was 2000. At that time Horses did not run Zeds in the Derby.
Thus,
either the drug screening is not in place and the result of the Derby is a result upon bounce, pace and bias, or
Closing Argument and Giacomo were somehow administered drugs and the others probably not, or
Closing Argument and Giacomo ran faster without drugs than horses in the past ever have and are therefore liable to run away with the Preakness or bounce to the moon, or
If the drug testing was in place for Closing Argument and Giacomo TGraph may have got their Derby number wrong since it is not in line with 2000 and earlier year races.
Now, the issue is determining which of the four outcomes is most probable.
Post Edited (05-10-05 00:18)
>If they are doing super testing for the Preakness, I guess Giacomo is still in play along with AA.
OPM it takes a tough beat on a Pick 4 to bring you out of the bushes. Man where the hell have you been.
When you find out about the supertesting and security let me know.
The golf pro said he would hold my 11:30AM tee time. Everybody understands but certain track managements.
Mall,
I think \"contests\" are good because you actually have a chance to illustrate what the hell you are talking about beforehand. I\'m always up for them.
I don\'t have \"elective\" overtime, I have a certain amount that\'s mandatory on the weekend and I screwed up this week. Unfortunately I still have to put my job ahead of the track, but someday...
Preakness Day Contest sounds great. Jerry can figure out the prize. Heh. HP