DRf;
Kentucky Oaks winner Rags to Riches will take on the boys in Saturday\'s 139th Belmont Stakes, trainer Todd Pletcher told Daily Racing Form Tuesday morning.
\"There are a number of reasons, first and foremost, the filly is doing very well at the moment,\" Pletcher said. \"Second, she\'s bred for it\"
Never saw TAP so desperate to get off the schneid.Another example of one of his runners pointed elsewhere but ending up in a 1 1/2 Mile race against the colts.Yeah, we know her breeding.TAP must be very unimpressed with the field on the whole to pass up an almost sure triple tiara.
Mike
Not desperate in my opinion.
Curlin and Hard Spun are running in their third race in 5 weeks.
Rags To Riches has 5 weeks rest. The Belmont is worth $1 million. She hasn\'t run as fast as those two yet, but she is improving. There is a good chance that the top two will regress on Saturday. If so, she has a good shot.
The distance should be no problem for her either.
The Triple Tiara (all 3 races are worth $800k) and all 3 races are three weeks apart. I think it makes sense to take the shot.
\"Curlin and Hard Spun are running in their third race in 5 weeks.
Rags To Riches has 5 weeks rest\"
....meaningless, how horses fare with different spacing is always the x factor. Her five weeks off may not be enough just as three weeks may not be enough for Curlin or HS.Recuperative powers are unknown and strictly tying them to figs or days off is not possible.
How does her pattern look on Thoro?
She is prime for a forward move based on Rags.
I\'ve been reading this board for about a month - I\'m very impressed with the quality of content and the \"on point\" messages as opposed to Yahoo finance message boards. I\'ve been trying to figure out a lot of this information - but it\'s a bit difficult for me. Can anyone suggest a primer of any sort to better understand the patterns, or predict the patterns. I\'ve tried the ROTW, but I feel like there\'s still something missing, particularly when I read the posts here and have difficulty deciphering some of the lingo. I recognize that there are no hard and fast rules to the patterns, but I find the quantitative angle intriguing. Any suggestions are most welcome. Thanks in advance.
Miff,
I understand that spacing is an x factor, but I think you go too far when you say it is \"meaningless\".
Curlin might be a freak. But how many times have we heard in the last 20 years that a horse \"might be a freak\". It usually pays to bet against them actually being freaks. I admit I was the first on this board to post that Curlin was a bet against in the Preakness and I couldn\'t have been more wrong. But the Belmont, at 1 1/2 miles, will be Curlins 6 race in 18 weeks, with no 2 year old foundation. He comes in off a 3 point new top, 3 weeks ago. At a probable 4-5 or even money, I have to bet against this horse. I think there is a chance he runs off the board, but I certainly bet against in the win pool.
I bet Hard Spun in the Preakness and despite the lousy ride by Pino, that horse didn\'t offer any resistance when SS went by. It could be that a more patient ride helps this horse, but I have a strong suspicion that the horse is distance challenged and obviously I am not alone in that belief. I don\'t see this horse relaxing real well in the Belmont. Do you remember how uncomfortable Funny cide was in the first 1/2 mile of his Belmont? And comparatively speaking, Funny Cide had shown more of an ability to rate than Hard Spun has to this point in their respective careers. Also, the entry of Digger into the race, is no help to this horse. The owner is talking about 44 halfs, which seems unlikely, but it does seem likely that this horse will run fast early, open up major lengths on the field which turns this into a race that probably doesn\'t play to Hard Spun\'s strength. I could have seen this horse sitting 1 length off a 48 opening half, set by Slew\'s Tizzy, then surging to the lead around the far turn, and maybe winning. But I don\'t see him sitting well off a 46 half and timing his move perfectly, but more likely moving too soon and getting passed later in the race.
Tiago could be interesting, but I think this horse will get way overbet. I will say here first that Tiago might go off second choice, behind Curlin. I would be surprised if you see the 6-1 that would make this horse a reasonable bet. Way too many mentions of the \"gallup out\" after the Derby. I will still use the horse, but he comes in off one figure that is very marginally competitive here (the 1 in the derby).
I have not seen the filly\'s thorograph sheet yet, but I know she had paired up 1\'s before the Oaks and it seems likely she at least paired up in the Oaks, if not moved forward. She will get 5 pounds (or is it 3?). She has tactical speed and is relatively fresh, coming in off the 5 weeks rest. Johnny V knows Belmont and will make the move at the right time. At 5-1 or so, she seems like a reasonable bet, barring her Oaks figure being very different than I expect.
I believe Rags to Riches gets 5 lbs. How many points/lengths is that worth at 1 1/2 miles?
Jim,
Theory after theory wilt away in time when you look at the history of racing:
The Dosage was all the rage for years. It is now hardly relevant.
The two year BC champ theory just went down the tubes when SS won the derby.
The three prep theory bit the dust when SS won the derby off one solid prep race and a strong work( the BG)
The six weeks out in theory was demolished by Barbaro last year.
The top three in the preakness put a hole in the spacing theory with the top two running their eyeballs out, two weeks after the derby.
I have probably missed a few but when you read how well HS and Curlin are reportedly doing, you have to somewhat weary of them bouncing.Curlin being a freak or not will have little to do with him winning against this rather commom bunch(sans SS).RTR ran very well in all of her races and reportedly did not love the sticky track at CD, even though she won.Gomez getting on HS is a huge racing change,imo.
Figure wise, RTR will somewhat fit and the weight she gets compensates for her gender and I\'m not certain you can view that as a \"point\" in her favor.Trainers Jones and Asmussen have to be inept to send tired/over the top nice horses a mile and a half with little at stake(compared to entire future of the horses)
Anyway, if you told me that Curlin and HS were laying down in their stalls for a day or so following the Preakness I would be concerned about their spacing otherwise I think it\'s meaningless. Good Luck.
Mike
Curlinfan,
According to TG under heading of Basics: 5 pounds in weight=1 point at all
distances.Handicap well my friend.
5 pounds equals one TG point, and one TG point at the Belmont distance is 2 1/2 lengths.
some interesting idea\'s being thrown around w/ spacing of races & R2R , i belive miff estutely pointed out that time off between races is relative in a context of the individual horse and , the time off issue is ever a tricky read becouse one horses % 90 right might be supirior to anothers % 100 .
looking at the sheets in the 3 yo negative top study_07 again , and of those who had more than a race after a neg 3yo top ( circular quay and imawildandcrazyguy notwithstanding ) , aprx %25 got back within their next 2 races . i bring this up with R2R in mind - i belive ( not sure why ) that she did run a point or two top in the oaks and that probably brings her into the negative scale .
right now pre-draw , i\'ve got the race down to 4 horses who get some consideration : the fillie ( and not becouse she is set up for anther top as some might think but rather becouse she might not bounce too severely now ) and HS ( off the bounce , and in a context of his pattern - imo , i\'m viewing the preakness effort as a real bounce ) . i\'ll have to contemplate the chances for the other two horses getting some consideration around the tough muckelson style media tent / loop de loop shot while \"miniature\" golfing - i\'m a real bitch around the clowns nose and windmill ...
Beginner wrote \"I\'ve been reading this board for about a month - I\'m very impressed with the quality of content and the \"on point\" messages as opposed to Yahoo finance message boards. I\'ve been trying to figure out a lot of this information - but it\'s a bit difficult for me. Can anyone suggest a primer of any sort to better understand the patterns, or predict the patterns. I\'ve tried the ROTW, but I feel like there\'s still something missing, particularly when I read the posts here and have difficulty deciphering some of the lingo. I recognize that there are no hard and fast rules to the patterns, but I find the quantitative angle intriguing. Any suggestions are most welcome. Thanks in advance\"
I suggest you go to the introduction page and listen to the introductory seminar. Download the accompanying sheets. The seminar makes reference to them.
The seminar presents the basics of sheet methodology--how the figures are derived, the factors measured, and some preliminary insights into pattern analysis. The seminar is about 30 minutes or so and provides a good foundation from which to start at looking at sheets and patterns. There are lots of nuggets in the seminar which for a beginner may go by unheeded or unrecognized. So at some point soon after the initial listen, play it again. In between go to the ROTW achives. Long winded as some may be they point out patterns, reads and factors to take into account handicapping particular fields. I suggest you look for Rotws that focus on 2yos, 3yos, 4yos and older. The title page in each should tell you the race conditions. Both the seminar and Rotws will also make you more familiar with the sheets dialect as well.
After reading several of these for each grouping you\'ll be able to start identifying factors which are more germane to each grouping. Also we provide a redboard room which you can sign up for. This will allow you to download past day\'s materials (up to 10 a month) for free and you can look at these vis-a-vis results to see how the figures and patterns obtain. This will give you experience provided you do the work. What happens is that subconsciously you\'ll begin to recognize and retain patterns, tendencies which work and don\'t work.
Of course when dealing with mere mortals there are no immutable patterns, but there are some immutable laws as pertains to TG sheet methodology. 5 pounds difference in weight carried is equal to 1 point. Each path wide on a turn results in one lost length. Realize that each race is but one observation in a universe of races, a large distribution and distributions can be described to some degree by various quantitative measures. (NCtony and Bob Philo and perhaps others are more grounded than I in formal statistical principles and either I bet could elucidate on sheets handicapping with regards to these principles.)
Stating the obvious, the object to handicapping is to make money. Traditionally handicapping literature breaks this discipline into two basic phases: 1. handicapping--analyzing information to project the outcome of a race and; 2. money management--how to bet to optimize a return based upon the handicapping. Thoro-Graph information is a tool which aids the first phase of the process (and of course, we think an invaluable one at that). There\'s plenty of literature out there to help you in the second phase. You might want to start with JB\'s betting guidelines, a link for which, you\'ll find on the archives page.
This should give you a good start and feel free to ask questions on the board.
R2R, off the board....................
Thank you - I will do that and post questions along the way.
TGAB Wrote in part:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course when dealing with mere mortals there are
> no immutable patterns, but there are some
> immutable laws as pertains to TG sheet
> methodology. 5 pounds difference in weight carried
> is equal to 1 point. Each path wide on a turn
> results in one lost length.
Is one path wide always equal to one lost length? Let us assume that a horse is exactly one path wide in a 4 1/2 furlong race at Charles Town and another is exactly one path wide in a 5 furlong race at Belmont. Did each horse lose exactly one length of ground versus running on the rail? I am not a geometry expert by any means (in fact it was one of my worst classes), but I thought the circumference at issue has an impact.
Imagine for example two people racing around the globe. If the race is taking place at one of the poles, going wide is deadly and probably not capable of being overcome (going one lane wide might actually more than double the distance needed to be covered). If the race is at the equator, post position is irrelevant.
It is the same principle as a needle on a record player seeming to accelerate towards the center of the record as it gets closer -- even though the turntable is always going the same speed. (I suppose that dates me).
Maybe the answer is that there is a difference, but it is so small it is less than a quarter point on our system. However, if we talk about horses going 10 wide at Charlestown versus going 10 wide at Belmont maybe it even then starts to have an impact?
Apologies if I am just dead wrong and off in right field here.
SoCalMan,
Take a track diagram, any one, and remove the straightaways. Put the remaining two pieces together and you will have a circle. The circumferenceof the circle is 2*pi*r, where r is the radius and pi is about 3.1416.
If you move out from the rail an amount x, then the circumference of the new circle will be 2*pi*(r+x). Since you have increased the radius by an amount x, the new radius is r + x [multiplying this out it becomes 2*pi*r + 2*pi*x].
The difference between the two circumferences will then be
outer circle.........inner circle
(2*pi*r + 2*pi*x) - 2*pi*r = 2*pi*x.
So the extra amount a horse runs x feet further out from the rail is independent of the radius of the track. On a one-turn race, the amount will be
(1/2)*2*pi*x = pi*x.
I hope this helps.
Mike
PS: Are you not still pretty far east of us?
misola,
What if the turns aren\'t identical in width...say belmont compared to pimlico?
seems to me ,turns vary at tracks just like a stretch run to the wire.
David,
Look at my post gain. I used r, any radius, that is, the turn of any \"width,\" and x, any distance out. As long as the track turns are semicircles, which they are, the actual \"width of turn,\" by which I assume you mean tighter vs. wider turn, is not a factor in the measurement. That is not to say it will not have an effect on horses trying to negotiate it, but that is not the question.
Regards,
Mike
Correct.
Very nice math. Very precise. I know what Pi is, but I\'ve never attempted to solve the equation.
All things being equal it is a very useful equation. But are things always equal? Are things ever equal?
Was the base and cushion laid down equally all along the track? Was it equally laid down around the entire circumference as well as equally distributed along the width of the course?
Is the Base and Cushion maintained uniformly by the heavy equipment that travels over the surface to condition it? You say the base can\'t change from the way its originally laid down? Really? What about drainage and erosion? How much does a John Deere weigh compared to a horse? Does the base of the surface bear equally the weight of the heavy equipment? Are all areas of the track compacted equally by machine and horse?
Can the Cushion be altered by wind? By wind and rain? By wind, rain and sunlight? Can those elemental forces extert their influence more upon one part of the earthen track than another? Can certain parts of the surface dry faster than other parts? Or can certain areas hold moisture better than other parts?
Pi is a very precise formula. Its very comforting isn\'t it?
msola1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCalMan,
>
> Take a track diagram, any one, and remove the
> straightaways. Put the remaining two pieces
> together and you will have a circle. The
> circumferenceof the circle is 2*pi*r, where r is
> the radius and pi is about 3.1416.
>
> If you move out from the rail an amount x, then
> the circumference of the new circle will be
> 2*pi*(r+x). Since you have increased the radius by
> an amount x, the new radius is r + x .
>
> The difference between the two circumferences will
> then be
>
> outer circle.........inner circle
> (2*pi*r + 2*pi*x) - 2*pi*r = 2*pi*x.
>
> So the extra amount a horse runs x feet further
> out from the rail is independent of the radius of
> the track. On a one-turn race, the amount will be
>
> (1/2)*2*pi*x = pi*x.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Mike
> PS: Are you not still pretty far east of us?
Stick to the issue: the distance a horse runs by being further out. Unless the track were laid out in hills and valleys along the rail, nothing you said has anything to do with the question.
Dear Mike,
Thanks for the education, and, yes, I am still 8 time zones east of Varick Street -- dunno when they will let me out of this gulag.
In terms of my question, think I was confusing two things. While going three feet wider than your competitor on a circle will always result in running the same qauntum of extra distance regardless of the circumference of the circle (as you have well educated me), the CONSEQUENCES of that extra distance are only meaningful in the context of how long the race in question is.
To use the example of round-the-world races at the poles versus at the equator, if a race is only 6 feet long and you have to go 18 feet longer because you were three feet wide, the disadvantage is insurmountable. However, if the race is a 100 million feet long, that extra 18 feet that results from going three feet wide is not going to amount to very much.
I am guessing that the differing impact is the reason that a point on the scale is not always worth the same distance and that it varies by the distance of a race.
Anwyay, even if I am still getting it wrong, I think I still understand better.
Thanks,
SCM2
very intersting - how does the degree of the banking of a turn figure in terms of mathematic\'s as part of the ground loss equation . also , a side issue in regard to a horses energy dispersion - on wide turns ( such as at Bel ) a horse is able to extend in stride more fully . on a theoretical basis , how is the degree of banking of a turn or the energy dispertion level issue on the wider turns addressed or expressed in the mathematical equation ...
Mark,
You have also come close to revealing something I have long felt. When they are virtually \"walking\" around the first turn( e.g.Slow early pace grass races races, Bluegrass)I doubt that ground loss is of equal importance as when they are runnning full bore off the second turn.
Re the first turn, I\'m not saying the outside horse is not travelling more distance but what real energy are they spending when all the jocks are completely snugged up.
Mike
Mike -
Your post and that of SCM2 both touch on an issue that I first read about in a post on this board two or three years ago. The argument is that, either because horses are pack animals or because jocks want to maintain position, horses who are going wide generally don\'t drop back by a distance equal to their ground loss. Rather the horses tend to maintain their position relative to each other, which means the outside horses are running slightly faster to stay even.
On the sweeping turns at Belmont, since the same amount of ground loss is spread out over a longer distance, the difference in velocity required to stay even is smaller than on the inner dirt at Aqueduct. Hence the reduced disadvantage of being wide at Belmont.
With respect to the first turn versus the second turn, since the horses are running closer to full-out on the second turn, the physical effects of the same difference in velocity are greater than when they are coasting through the first turn.
I\'m not sure how significant any of this is, but I thought it was interesting when I first read it, and it seems relevant to the current thread.
mike - your exactly right imo . these might be some of those difficult to quantify or intangible factors whose best value is perhaps in the eye of the estute and experienced handicapper as yourself and the other many on the board .
during the recent bc at lone star , i noticed for instance that horses in relatively tight quarters down low were altering their stride to a degree to accomendate the very tight turns when coming out of the turn where it meets the straight away - it looked to me as about as close to a 45 degree angle as one can get in a semi-circle ...
of course it always helps one know in advance that a horse has the numerical ability to cover ground loss or not , though as i\'ve been learning on this board and through my own experiences , that many other pertinent issues - like energy dispersal , breeding , attending vet or what exactly is in a given horses tank or heart - seem relative in an abstract or intangible sense .
mark n.
Bit,
The methodology looks at the whole number and does not compensate for a very slow run around the first turn only. If a horse is 3w and they are crawling, it does not matter in the formula but it may in reality.I personally feel that energy spent is more relevant than ground alone and horses running very slow are not spending much energy, if any at all.
The purist look at ground loss only and have no regard for the pedestrian early run around the first turn.I can\'t see how it could be dealt with any other way, formula wise.If the whole pace is very slow then of course we get the slow pace designation.
Mike
Somebody should go back and look at the KY Derby in Point Given\'s year. On the first turn in that race, they were winging it and there were horses 5 wide. If the first half was in 45 flat and somebody was on that pace but 5 lengths wide, it is almost like they did the first half in 44. One of the problems I have with looking at fractions is that there is so much that goes into what happened that is not reflected. Run ups is the most obvious issue, but weight and ground loss are not reflected in fractions and can have an even bigger impact than they do on final time.
On the flip side, when they do run hard on the first turn (usually speed horses), those that are wide are getting a horrible trip because they are running even faster fractions than it looks because of the ground loss.