Wasn\'t most of his time off due to two colic operations? Isn\'t it possible that Sky Jack will get an easy lead on a track that has been favoring speed in routes all meet? Is it just a coincidence that Sky Jack did not get the lead in his only poor race this year? Can Sky Jack get the distance? These seem like important questions in trying to decide if Sky Jack can beat Milwakee Brew and Dollar Bill, or at least run a competitive race, because I\'m wrestling with the idea that a horse which was vanned off two races ago and then ran two very fast races is poised for a big effort.
For what it\'s worth I agree with you that Sky Jack needs to be approached with great caution. Spacy line, another big effort in last, questionable ability to get the distance (at least to me) and short ML price.
So I am not accused (as I have been in the past) of posting something on the other board to dig at TG and not post it here, here is what I wrote on the Rag. site re: the Hollywood Gold Cup:
\"I have a similar view [to Friedman] of the race, though Sky Jack is 9:5 ML and will probably take a lot of $ b/c he is the supposed lone speed. I\'m somewhat less positive on SJ, because I think he\'s ouchy and has shown me nothing to make me believe he can run a top effort at 10f. To me, SJ and Momentum are the play againsts and Dollar Bill is the definite key.
Looking at the TG sheets as posted on that site, the one major difference is Momentum. Strong play against on Ragozin, neutral to slightly positive on TG. Please don\'t chop this post, Len.\"
There is at least one serious question relating to DBill which has nothing to do with his pattern. The TG analysis often makes the pt that bearing in & bearing out is \"often\" a sign of impending trouble, which I have understood to mean physical problems. No doubt it can be a portend of physical problems, but IMHO as often as not relates to other things. One is that Tbreds have an incredible range of peripheral vision, a full 180 degress in each eye with a blind spot directly in front & behind. Another is their strong tendency to shy or be spooked, whether by shadows,the rail,other horses,unknown reasons,etc. Finally, they are creatures of habit, good & bad. Sometimes bearing in or out can be cured by training, which can be progressively harder as the horse gets older. Other times it can be kept under control by blinkers, which sometimes introduce new problems.
Ben Jones is credited with discovering that a one cup blinker on the rt eye, leaving unobstructed vision to see the rail with the left eye, discourages a horse from bearing out. This was used with Whirlaway, one of the most famous horses with a bad problem of bearing out. In the case of DBill, he began his career bearing in, but after encountering serious trouble in 2 of his 1st 4 races as a 3 yr old, started bearing out. Equipped with bl for the Travers, he ran a significant new top. However, even with bl, DBill either drifted or bore out in his last race after being bumped at the start. So you\'re left trying to decide if DBill is up to his old tricks, or rather the last race was an aberration, or rather the last race was a sign of soreness, or the last race was,etc. There is also the possibility that Dallas has or will change the type of blinkers, for as has been pted out, there are 30 plus types of blinkers & no reqiurement to obtain Stew permission or inform the public of a change in type. Looking at the running styles of the 2 horses to his inside & outside, one can make a case that DBill should get a good break for a change & shld get a decent trip, assuming Guidry can keep him away from other horses. However, if you\'re looking for a horse to save ground in the stretch, that is highly unlikely. DBill always finds a way to run on the outside, a bad habit which in my opinion even bl does not seem able to cure. Then of course there\'s his running style, which is not particularly good given the pace scenario of this race. All in all, one heck of a lot of questions if you\'re considering him in the win slot at approx 5-1, underlaid odds in my opinion. That said, he should run well enough for his usual 2nd or 3rd placing. The key to this race in my view is figuring out who to play on top, not that DBill will earn yet another good number as an also ran.
Well said, Mall but IMHO there are a lot of bad patterns in this race (Frankel\'s horse is the only horse I\'m neutral on) and at 5:1 I\'m betting DB like Johnny Chan.
If you want to see a couple of major differences between us and Ragozin (and I\'m psoting this after the race), look at Sunday\'s 5th at Belmont.
1st & foremost, the nos. Despite DP\'s hedging, Momentum was much better than \"neutral to slightly positive\" on TG, although DP was deadly accurate when he said Mo was a \"strong\" play against on Rags because of the 0-2-X pattern. This was exactly the kind of situation I was talking about when I described my 70+ race comparison, namely horse figures on TG & is a toss on Rags.
2ndly, the handicapping. I used to think that whatever his employees might do, Robes was pretty much above the fray, a gentlemen with a wry sense of humor, as it were. That changed when I read his silliest handicapping opinion of the yr post, as if there is a single one of us who hasn\'t made a mistake like the one he decided to take a cheap shot at. Now it looks like his Gold Cup analysis ought to get at least an honorable mention. AB\'s assessment was on the money, but the pace scenario & speed bias were such that the best horse didn\'t win today. I think AB is due some credit & an apology, but I wouldn\'t hold my breath waiting for the latter.
Mall,
Thanks for not showing up in this week\'s handicapping contest. I was afraid that David Patent might have some competition for last place. As it turns out, he finished up where he usually will: in last place.
I must admit that I am at a loss to understand this & your Rags post, which was deleted. I do recall needling you about something when I confused you with someone else, but I\'m pretty sure I apologized for the mix-up. In contrast, I offer no apologies for the facts that I hold strong opinions & have a tendency to express them aggresively. At the same time, rest assured that I have learned the one lesson this game teaches you over & over & over again, namely humility. No matter. I offer the same congrats on your victory that I would have offered absent your post.
So you do recall acting like a child? That is good. Take a look at your apology my friend, then come back to me....... I would like to add a new rule to postings on these boards: You can only be an expert BEFORE A RACE IS RUN. Those who are unable to post intelligent remarks BEFORE A RACE IS RUN, should not act like experts. The only expert I can find is the guy who writes up the race of the week on this site (that is why when I disagree with the analysis, I state it BEFORE THE RACE IS RUN, and usually wind up being wrong). So for your future \"strong opinions\", I suggest you post them BEFORE A RACE IS RUN. I also suggest you refrain from including me in your personal attacks in the future. If you can manage to do this, you will not see any future posts like this from me. This will be my last post on the subject, apologies to all for wasting space.
and yes, my rule still applies: \"those who have brilliant ideas talk about ideas, those who have no ideas talk about other people.\" I plead guilty to having no ideas at the moment. (though I will next w/e)
Not exactly how I wanted to spend my lunch hr, but I did finally find what I assume is the comment, about the Mr T video, which offended you so much, & the apology, & I\'m at even more of a loss to understand where you\'re coming from. No worse as I see it than the fun I poked at myself in the above title. Moreover, my wisecrack came in connection with my pre-race dope re the Mass Cap, & if you scroll up a little you\'ll see that my opinions on why DBill was not the right key in the Gold Cup were posted well before the race. This time you must have me confused with someone else if you think I engage in past-posting. More to the pt, I try & usually do stick to the subject in my prerace posts, with a little humor at times, because it is only a matter of time before the person who takes the cheap shot(Robes in the above example) gets his or her comeuppance from the person who is the subject of the cheap shot(AB). Bask in the glory of your win & don\'t let some real or imagined slight from me or anyone else ruin your day. I know I never do. Life\'s too short & too much fun for that.
Hear, hear. And hopefully, here, here.
Jeez, I promised to myself to avoid this site after reading the thirty-millionth post from CthC that would make Pim Fortuyn blush in terms of its race- and sex-baiting. But I can\'t hold back after reading you boast of the superiority of your figure making vis-a-vis the fifth at Belmont. I don\'t see any--any!--substantive differences between the Sheets and your product on the race. A read of either would have significantly ID\'d the four horses who looked positive in that race: the rail horse, the older horse with the 14 in his last (sorry, can\'t remember the name), the winning filly, and the Dickenson horse on the outside. Taking account probable ground loss, if one were insane enough to play this race--which offered virtually no value--any figures player would have leaned against the Dickenson horse at a short price. What\'s your point? The key in the race wasn\'t the filly, but the rail horse (at, if I remember, somewhere in the neighborhood of eightish to one), and the older maiden (even he was a bit of a question, though, given short time into the race off a top). The responsible approach to the race would have been PASS and wait for something with value. (I don\'t see any difference in picking that horse based on past Thoro numbers and doing the same by looking at the Beyers). And if you were willing to gamble on a race THAT OFFERED ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE, you would have advocated a four-horse box of those four (which you would have cashed). As it were, you advised that the filly was the bet, and to protect w/the Dickenson horse. How was that any different from the way a novice player, simply looking at best last effort combined with the odds, would have approached the race (especially with the knowledge that grassers rarely run their best effort first out on turf). An extremely lame way to tout your product...
I was going to let this drop for 2 reasons--first, I posted after the race, and it\'s easy to cherry pick spots where your product looks good (Friedman does it all the time, or at least when he can find good examples), and second, because I don\'t know what our handicapper was thinking.
But since you brought it up:
On Ragozin, two horses were co-fastest, and much faster than anyone else--the winner, and the Dickenson horse, who was 7/5 and finished up the track. On TG, there were also 2 horses who were much faster than anyone else--the winner and second horse. On Ragozin, the Dickenson horse was 4 points faster than the second finisher. On TG, the second finisher was 2 1/2 points faster--a net difference of 6 1/2 points.
Again, I don\'t especially like red boarding (although sometimes I\'ll do it with high-profile races), but if you want to pursue this we\'ll post the sheets for the race.
I should also let this drop, since you at least admit that the \"analysis\" was inconsistent with your red-boarded claim. But I still think you\'re wrong on this one. I discarded Sunday\'s Sheets, but I\'m virtually certain that the fastest horse on the Sheets was the older horse that ran second (a 14, if memory serves, in his most recent). If not fastest, he was second fastest. Of course, I didn\'t consult his trainer stats, jockey\'s record on Sundays, hot walker\'s record less than 14 days after Fourth of July, blahblahblah. You seem to be saying that this was a gorilla play based on the filly\'s last. If that\'s the case, you should red board this one, because you won\'t have many opportunities to boast w/recommendations of this nature.
Yes, you should have let it drop. The older horse won the race and was co-fastest on both (actually slightly fastest on TG), As I said (read it again), the big difference concerned I Sweep Again and Straphanger. They had Straphanger faster, we had I Sweep Again (who finished second) much faster. Ragozin had the winner and Straphanger (up the track at 7/5) at the 15 level with I Sweep Again running a 19. We have attached the race so you can see how it looked on TG. Why not ask Friedman to post theirs so we can compare?
There are lots of great plays on trainer patterns. This was not one of them--just number power.
Here is the race.