beat-down,beat up,the other board has crucified the man
they never kicked brown like they did this guy
imo, if they ever do a re-make of taxi driver...well you know the rest!
Ironic that you mention Taxi Driver. Areyoutalkintome is running in the 1st at Santa Anita today.
I enjoyed Indulto\'s last comment -- imagery of benevolent prometheus-like Classhandicapper bringing fire to all us poor troglodytes dancing in my head.
Also, it seems that JB and LF can actually agree on something after all. All you need to do is sprinkle a little Classhandicapper somewhere and all of a sudden the most hardened enemies can agree on something. I guess Classhandicapper is Persia to LF\'s and JB\'s Sparta and Athens.
By the way, when do you think the big debate about the impact of the number and timing of Derby Preps will begin?
One thing that is interesting to me is that it looks like Brother Derek never really took any time off training. Having grown up following racing in the 70s, it seemed like the only thing everybody agreed on was that really good two year olds needed 30 or 60 days away from it all in order to mature and grow away from the stress of the racetrack. I really do not recall a serious derby contender being put through the mill from November - March after showing he was decent as a two year old the way Brother Derek has. (I think that Real Quiet and Charismatic probably raced all the way through that period, but I am not so sure they had put up the real quality efforts as a two year old (but I could be wrong)). Sunday Silence, Ferdinand, Gato Del Sol all may have prepped over a lengthy period, but I do not think any of them were top two year olds either and they probably needed to catch up. Of course, my recollections could simply be wrong. Anybody think that BD may peak early as a result of such potential \'overprepping\'? How do people like Private Vow\'s plans? Sort of reminiscent of Victory Gallop and Sunny\'s Halo. Maybe even if he does well in the two races people will stay off him for being lightly raced.
SoCal,
One thing is for sure, No One has demonstrated that Underprepping can with the Big Dance yet. GoDolphin has tried, Frankel Has tried, Coolmoore/Obrien has tried, and Zito tried it last year with Bellamy Road to some extent. Im sure the Board members can cite a few more experiments. What seems to work recently is Horses Like Funny Cide,Affleet Alex/Giacomo,Smarty Jones all were well conditioned and race ready.
I\'m sure someday a super horse or a total race collapse will allow one of the underprepped horse to win the Derby, but so far history tells us conditioned (and sound) runners are whats needed.
NC Tony
NC Tony,
I respectfully disagree, I just do not think there is a meaningful sample to draw the conclusions that everybody else relies on to suggest a horse cannot perform well in the Derby off 2 preps (or other form of light prep). I, personally, have no problem betting a horse off 2 preps (like Private Vow for example if he otherwise looks good on the sheet). Also, Victory Gallop and Sunny\'s Halo are certainly counter examples (and if we searched, I am sure there are more -- the issue is not looking at Derby winners only but to look also at horses who gave superior performances in the Derby (which for one reason or another may not have been a winning performance)).
I am glad I am on the other side of conventional wisdom because it will help my price.
Anyway, the whole debate over underprepping has already been had last year -- should be in the archives somewhere. What has not been discussed is the possibility of overprepping or peaking too soon. It seems to me like this might be a live issue with the current Derby fav Brother Derek.
Respectfully,
SCM2
SCM,
Agree with you 100% on the prep race issue. The 3 race minimum philosophy is based on a stistcal error in interpreting the data. It\'s like saying that grey horses are at a disadvantage because most winners of the race have been bays or chestnuts. Historically most horses pointed for the Derby have been given 3 or more preps so, of course, this group will have the biggest number of winners.
There is no good evidence to prove that horses coming into he Derby \"underprepped\" lost for that reason. On the other hand, there is a great body of data that says horses run their best races 3rd time off the lay-off.
The fact that this is the Derby does not change the laws of probabilities.
Didn\'t JB do a figures based study on this last year which debunked the 3 prep theory? Tell us what you found, Jerry.
Bob
To address this topic, I\'m taking the liberty or reposting something that derby1592 (who regrettably seems to have stopped posting after his legal run-in with TGJB) posted last year under the subject line \"Of frogs legs and Derby preps\":
---
A group of trainers tried an experiment, they gave a horse 1 prep and entered him in the derby, then they gave a horse 2 preps and entered him in the derby, and then they gave a horse 3 preps and entered him in the derby...
As Mark Twain did once say – \"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.\"
So I tried to do the best I could with the facts to try and see what they tell us about 2 or fewer preps vs 3 or more preps for the Derby.
I used the TG stat categories of top/pair/off/X and I looked at all the Derbies for 1997 to 2004. (I did not have any sheets before 1997.)
Note: I included Aptitude and Real Quiet in the \"3 preps or more\" group and I left out a few horses that did not have figures to establish their pre-derby top.
The sample size is still small for the 2 or fewer preps but the sample size is pretty large for the other group.
Here it is:
First for the \"3 or more preps\" group:
New top: 5%
Pair: 25%
Off: 29%
X: 41%
And, now ...drum roll please... here are the results for the \"less than 3 preps\" group:
New top: 17%
Pair: 22%
Off: 22%
X: 39%
I will let you all draw your own conclusions and I am sure both camps can \"distort\" or rationalize things in either direction but I would have a hard time making a case that 2 preps is a bad thing, at least based on these \"facts.\" Given that the prevailing wisdom is that the less than 3 preps is bad, I would think that you will be getting some built in value with any horse that has 2 preps or less going into the Derby.
The only thing I would add to this is that VG came into the Derby off 2 preps (not by design), and got the best number, by quite a bit. Last year Closing Argument came in off two preps, ran a good second.
Another factor to consider, as I have said before, is that there is often a reason that horses only get to make two preps-- they are compromised by a problem, and obviously that places them at a disadvantage.
All other things equal-- two year old pattern and top, 3yo top and forward moving pattern of last two-- I would rather have 2 starts than more.
SoCal and Bob,
I hear what you are saying. In fact If I dig through the thread from last year I can give you many names of lightly raced or under prepared horses in the recent past (ie since 1993 as I recall). I am not saying a two prep horse can never win the Derby. However you do have a 130 year history of it not happening. And you do have recent history, where horses which had stamina built into them were better prepared for the DERBy TRAIL (like that one Steve!!). We also have discussed ad infinitem that horses today are more fragile than they were in past due to breeding practices, Drugs including use of steriods etc, inbreeding towards speed. Yes someday you may get value for the \"under prepped\"horse which by your definition now is 2 prep races and possibly under raced as a 2 yo.
And as I recall last year we had quite a few that fit the under prepped scenario. Does Anyone remember a horse named Bellamy Road? if that is the kind of value you are looking for? I also Think a Horse by the name of High Limit was another 2 prep wonder. I don\'t remember if Bandini also went that route. But anyway. The value last year was definitely in the \"over\" prepped horse category.
None the less Bob what is the statiscal error you are talking of? 130 years of History? The Last 15 years? Maybe the last 5 years? How bout last year? Choose your sample to proove your theory instead of Rhetoric. Data talks. Any good statistician will tell you that. With Good Data you can make Good Decisions.
NC Tony
The real question you have to answer yeah yeah I hear all that....but what you need to know is what was the previous top in order to utilize that information to be of some value.
Last year as I recall we had quite a few runners bandini,High Limit,Bellamy Road all coming in off of Tops....What did they do?
NC Tony
Again..Your New Top may not be better than my regression from an old top!!
What does all that mean unless you have all the data and not the ratio\'s of x to y unless you know precisly what is x and what is y. All that tells you is a trend but you don\'t know where the starting poin is.
Hell I could have had a horse that just in the race for the owners prestige improve off of his previous 5 to a 3 or 7 to 5 and be part of the 22% horses that improve to new tops that only had two preps.
NC Tony
Tony-- due respect, but when we bet we know how fast they all are. The question is whether less races affect their chances of running fast compared to how fast they have been-- once we answer that question, we can compare them to other horses.
Tony,
Sorry if this sounds like mere rhetoric to you, but the best data in the world is useless unless it's used in a the appropriate statistical test and interpreted correctly. The worst use of it is to assume that 2 prep horses are at a disadvantage simply because more 3+ prep horses have won. That's just as bad as saying that grays are at a disadvantage because most Derby winners have been bays. The error is obvious. The correct way to do it is to look at how 2 prep vs. 3+ prep horses have done that is not distorted by the differences in the proportion of the field they make up. The study posted by Bit Player uses the data correctly and shows that those with less than 3 preps do slightly better in all categories and much better in terms of running new tops. This is in perfect agreement with a larger study done by Guirin that shows that horses generally run their best race 3rd off a lay-off.
Horses like Bellamy Road and Bandini, who were injured during the race, and High Limit who has distance limitations are terrible arguments for 3+ preps. Do you really think they would have run better after another prep?
I've yet to see a good study that says a horse needs more than 2 preps to run his best race in the Derby. In fact, all the good evidence is to the contrary.
Bob
Jerry,
I agree with what you said.
unlike the chart that apears in the sheets this data does not project what a specific figure or pattern is doing it is projecting how horses ran in the derby with two vs three preps and did they improve of fall back from their previous top as defined by the program. So we know the historical range of projected improvement or failure.
And as Bob astutely points out the population of the sample size is much smaller for two vs three therefore the range of deviation should also be greater for two vs three. Data with a larger sample size tends to have more meanigful data and has ironed out the anomolies better than a smaller sample does. Stated another way smaller samples can have data (anomolies or outliers) that can skew a data poplulation (ie Gray vs Bay).
I\'ll bet the Gray by the way.
You can use the data to say what you want or interpert it the way Bob or So Cal want. Maybe two preps is better in the so called Modern (Drug) era. The undisputed fact is they have yet to win a derby using this tactic since 1993...and the previous decades before that.
You may get value this way. You may not. There is no guarantee.
Bottom line is how you project the individual runner to run the next race off of their past pattern and or top and the realtion to the past top of their most recent races. Soundness is also very important to me for a race such as the Derby.
NC Tony
Bob yes I will agree they do better in categories that are meaningless.
Bob Did they WIN? Did they Place/ Did they Show? Did they finish out my Superfecta?
NC Tony
I honestly feel the difference between two starts, and three or more, takes a backseat to breeding,form,accomplishments,workouts etc. Perhaps putting up the statistics book and perusing the DRF would help. BBB
BBB,
Are you talking about Classhandicapping now?
We have come full circle on this thread!!!
NC Tony
I am on this forum to teach handicapping and to learn handicapping. The thread you have joined/started, between three (plus) preps and only two is pure prattle. Personally, I strongly suspect that class, is an vital component of who will win the race, but realize the most telling handicapping factor of all- is ALL of them. BBB
Tony,
The question is does having less than 3 preps hurt a horses performance so that it should be considered a negative factor. The reasearch clearly shows no such disadvantage. It also shows that a horse is usually ready to run his best after 2 preps. That means that, yes, he is more likely to Win, Place or fill out your Superfecta. Of course, the horse has to figure in the first place, but if he does, there is no reason that only having 2 preps will hurt his chances.
If you can show me any properly conducted study that shows that it does, I\'m all ears.
Bob
NoCarolinaTony Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> And as Bob astutely points out the population of
> the sample size is much smaller for two vs three
> therefore the range of deviation should also be
> greater for two vs three. Data with a larger
> sample size tends to have more meanigful data and
> has ironed out the anomolies better than a smaller
> sample does. >
> NC Tony
Tony, thanks for the reference to my astuteness, but I can tell you something even more astute (or more astuter, as we say in the Bronx). LOL. If the sample size of 2 prep horses is too small for meaningful conclusions about the fitness of these horses, it is also too small to draw conclusions about them not being fit. Since this is the only evidence that \"2 preps bad\" theorists have it makes their conclusion all the more shakey. Fortunately we do have studies like Dr. Quirin\'s using samples of thousands that show that the 3rd race post lay-off is the best. Whether you want to consider 2 preps ideal, at the very least, there is just no statitical justification that horses going into the Derby with less than 3 preps are less fit.
By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I hope your ultimate Derby pick has 3 or more preps. It won\'t help his chances but you\'ll probably sleep better if you think it does. LOL.
Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/15/06 06:33PM by
> NoCarolinaTony.
Well BBB teach me something then. Please don\'t lecture me or talk down you arrogant BBB
NC Tony
BBB You didn\'t get the PUN, This thread started with asshandicapping which was reffering to a previous poster Classhandicapper. Sorry you didn\'t get it but please don\'t give me this prattle crap.
Bob,
Lets agree.
In harness racing the third race back off a layoff was always key race and so it is with TBreds.
Hey Im out of this discussion. You\'re right third time off the layoff has always been a good angle to play. Especially on Derby Day. But never in the Derby itself for some reason.
So is your point your not going to rule out 2 prep only horses? If So, I agree. I won\'t rule them out by rule.
NC Tony
Tony,
You\'ve got a deal, my friend. Lets hope we both have the winner, regardless of whether he\'s had 2 or 3 or whatever preps.
Bob
Wow what an arguement. You guys are just chasing your tail on this. You are trying to find the DERBY WINNER, and not the horse that improves by five points and still finishes up the track. The raw numbers show that the WINNER must be seasoned at two and also at three. By trying to buck the trend, you are looking for a needle in a haystack! Yeah eventually it is going to happen, but when? Are you going to be the first to buck the trend. Like it was said before many great trainers and owners have tried to buck this trend. What do they have to show for it? Coolmore, Godolphin, Frankel and Pletcher nothing in the Derby except for some PRICEY broken down three year olds that ain\'t worth a crap anymore.
Fellas:
Its nice to try to attain an advantage in any wagering event, especially the event we most fancy.. the Derby.
But I sometimes fail to grasp why we all expect to be able to somehow codify the Derby using common handicapping logic, whether it be derived from pedigree or performance figures or dosage formulae or recent trends. I for one think the fact that no BC Juvie winner has come back to win the Derby is a statistical aberration.
My point is that although the Derby is almost always a great betting race.. and part of the best P4 of the year (the sequence which includes the Humana Distaff (won last year by long priced My Trusty Cat) and the Early Times turf race (won last year by long priced America Alive)).. there is no reason to subject it to a lot of the knowledge we employ every day in handicapping overnight races. Why?
1) How often do horses run in 20 horse fields?
2) How often do we bet a field of horses where almost every one of the contenders is untried at the distance?
3) How about the fact that 2 of America\'s top trainers (R. Frankel and T. Pletcher) have had very little impact on the race, and especially in the case of the latter, that might change in any given year?
As I have said in the past, go back to the endless though fascinating posts surrounding Giacomo\'s Derby. Do a search for Giacomo going back to January leading up to the race. Did any of the oft mentioned indicators point to Giacomo? How many of the brilliant posters (and I dont mean that facetiously) who like to post here especially at Derby time take a strong position on Giacomo?
Personally, I researched the 05 Derby as extensively as any Derby in the last 30. I ended up using 5 horses --25% of the field-- in a multiple race wager, and after 5/8s of a mile not one of them had an honest chance to win. I will be a passive observer of this years Derby debate, chiming in only when a post about the Derby offends my sense of \"taste and decency\". Might take all of a day.
In re 2Y0 experience, last years best 3Y0 was the most seasoned 2Y0.
As to Classhandicapper, Robespierre and Indulto have been pillorying him from the start, going back to about the first or second of his posts over there. The best thing about Class is his ability to sway from one end of an argument to another-- sometimes within his own post.
Have just returned from 10 days in that winter wonderland, Moscow. On the ninth of the ten days, I made my wife take me to the Hippodrome (opens for racing March 18) over her friend\'s and family\'s objections that only hardened criminals would be seen within 500 yards of the place. Took some photos of the facility, which dates back to 1834 and is just amazing to look at...
You say that we are chasing our tails while you continue to see an advantage that is just not there. Would you say that grays are at a disadvantage because most Derby\'s are won by bays and chestnuts. That\'s just the kind of logic you\'re using here. According to your reasoning, any gray that wins the Derby is bucking a trend. Your statements that the raw numbers support your position is based on the fact that the numbers tell you things. Sorry to tell you this but any statistician knows that raw numbers don\'t tell you anything until they are interpreted properly. Do you just use raw unadjusted times in your handicapping? No you interpret them in relation to the track variant. Raw number of winners tells you nothing unless you interpret them in relation to what proportion of the field has the value of the variable your trying to measure. Every properly done study shows no advantage for horses with 3 or more preps. If you want to bet your money on a theory with no statistcal merit where all the good evidence points in the opposite direction, feel free, it\'s your money.
Bob
RichieBee
I wish you had let me know you were in Moscow! I live just over 500 yards from the Hippodrome (ryadom byeloruskam vokzalam, if your wife is Russian). Although the facility is pretty impressive to look at, the racing is pathetic and the information is even worse. They also race dogs and camels there, but in recent years they have cut that down/out. If you want to bet horses in Moscow, though, you are far better off going to Metelitsa on Novie Arbat. They focus much more on English and South African racing, but you can usually bet Philadelphia Park and on occaison a few other American races. They have insane rules there, so you need to make sure you know them before you bet. Also, your wife may object to you going there because Metelitsa is very well known for its prostitutes. However, the racebook is downstairs (v podvale) and the prostitutes are upstairs, if you bring her along, she will realize that they might as well be a mile apart. Let me know the next time you are in Moscow if you are interested in meeting a stranded American horseplayer here. Were you here for the huge snowstorm this past weekend? I was taking a taxi to Korona (on Novie Arbat), and the driver told me that, if I thought the city was bad, I should see the suburbs. He said they got more than 2 meters (over 6 feet) of snow just over Saturday night/Sunday morning.
SCM2
got to correct a mistake in my Russian...it is ryadom s byeloruskim vokzalom
I\'ve taken some abuse in the past for correcting spelling and punctuation, so I was going to let this one slide ... thanks for keeping your own house clean, SCM2!
See it is like a friend of mine said. He was doing a seminar at GP park and mentioned that Phil Gleaves was 0/30 with layoff horses. Gleaves got upset about it and finally got a winner off the shelf. He saw him in the pressbox and snarled at him and said I can win off the layoff. My friend just turned and said you are now 1/31. See guys, there is an historical correlation between winning the derby and the proper prep path and seasoning. See some just want to bet numbers and disregard all the other factors. As for Giacomo last year the only thing he had going for him were improved works after his last prep before the Derby. Banged off a FAST 7F work after his last prep. When it comes to fast improving 2/3 yr olds, the workout pattern after taxing efforts is a sign of things to come. Works are improved relative to before the last race, expect improvement. If they are worse, into the tank he goes! Did I bet Giacomo? No I didn\'t but if you look into the BC races and the Triple Crown, watch the workouts and then lok for the numbers to either fall or rise.
King,
Of course the horse with \"the proper path and seasoning\" has an advantage in the Derby. The problem is you are assuming what you are trying to prove in your argument, that proper seasoning consists of a 3 prep minimum with proper evidence. For there to be a correlation, as you claim the link must not be caused by chance. If the ovewhelming numbber of contenders in a race have a certain trait, then that trait will win a vast majotity of the times by shear weight of more chances to win. That\'s chance and not true correlation. One of the most poweful angle in racing 3rd race of the lay-off. To play against this angle is just asking to lose.
If you want to compare 2 prep with 3+ prep horses you have to take into account the much greater number of chances the 3+ prep horses have had to win. When done properly the studies show these over-prepped horses do no better than those(which every study shows are optimally prepped) percentage-wise. You have go beyond the raw numbers.
Bob
By the way, King, I forgot to mention that your remarks about workouts displaying readiness are right on the money. Just before the Derby Giacomo worked 6 F in 1:11 and change. Before the Belmont he worked 6 F at the same track in 1:14 and change. That tells you something. Even if you go back in history, Secretariat signaled he was off before the few races he lost by poor (slower than usual) works.
Bob
Bob,
You make a valid point, there are many more horses with the 3+ prep angle.........but how many of them were hopelessy overmatched to begin with?? They could have had 2 preps and performed the same way. I think we are getting too carried away with this whole discussion. We are trying to quantify something that may not be possible. 3 preps, 2 preps, whatever. There are many factors that go into whether or not a horse will run well on Derby Day, and Frost mentioned another one that has merit.
P-Dub,
That\'s pretty much my point. There is simply not enough evidence to throw out or downgrade a live Derby contender just becuse he has 2 vs. 3 preps. Especially since he\'s showing a hot angle. I really don\'t know where this prep race controversy began. Maybe because the way the Derby is run, people are often disappointed in their choices. Maybe some think that turning around the principles of handicapping is a way of dealing with this. I think the Derby is more often decided by luck than how many preps a horse has.
Bob