I\'m a big believer in the numbers, so please don\'t view this as criticism but rather as a quest for information, but how does one divine Dreaming of Anna\'s performance in the Pucker Up after looking at the sheets for the race?
At the price she was an automatic toss, but it\'s not like she won by inches and you could say, \"Well, I got my money\'s worth. If they run this race 100 more times, maybe I win enough to come out ahead.\"
No, she destroyed the field, and it would be hard to argue that she would ever lose against that bunch.
So, how much should class factor into handicapping? Are the cues to look for that even though the numbers might be even the talent is not?
Thanks
EJXD2,
Dreaming of Anna\'s running style does really not lend itself to getting big figs because she is quick to the hedge and rarely loses any ground.To me, a horse like her is faster (not fig wise, racing wise) than a constant wide runner with equal or slightly better figs because of her superior tractability.
Class is tough to define but it obviously revolves around the competition a horse keeps and how fast those horses run.
Mike
She\'s one that I\'ve never guessed right on - maybe someday ...
To me \"class\" encompasses all the more difficult to measure aspects of thoroughbred ability like stamina, acceleration, gate speed, versatility, heart, determination etc.... As you move up the class ladder, horses tend to earn faster speed figures, but they also tend to run faster paces and have more of the qualities from above.
IMO, most horses earn their best figures when they run against other horses of similar or weaker quality because the pace, race development, and demands of the races tend to be easier for them. There are exceptions, but IMO typically when horses make sharp moves up and down the class ladder it matters (especially if they tend to get involved on or close to the pace).
Numbers are not the whole story. She got the lead and slowed the pace down, if i remember 23+, 47+ 112+, and nobody was really pressing her hard, She didn\'t have to run hard except for the last 3/8 and then she just clicked off those 12\'s. She\'s older and improving. also there was a bit of a logjam at the beginning that may have compromised some of the others. I had her over lemonlime, who may have gotten 2nd if she could have waited just a bit longer.
Josephus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers are not the whole story. She got the lead
> and slowed the pace down, if i remember 23+, 47+
> 112+, and nobody was really pressing her hard, She
> didn\'t have to run hard except for the last 3/8
> and then she just clicked off those 12\'s.
Got the lead is an interesting way to put it.
I would say she \"lept\" to the lead as was forecastable;
the second speed in the race was second, etc. She was
effortlessly in front of better horses in VA. Not arguing
that she was a win bet, but she was a bit of a no brainer
on top at least. As apparently you thought.
I bet the 4 and he came in dead last.
With that said,let me say that other than Lawyer Ron,this was a beat-down you just don\'t see too often.Especially on grass.
The announcer on T.V. said it best when he stated that Anna had Quarter-Horse speed from the gate.
Still,I was surprised how poorly the rest of the gang ran.
Where does she go from here?Dirt or turf...oh yeah,or poly(3 varieties)
Twice this season, Team Valor fillies have run against Dreaming of Anna.
We beat her in the Gaily Gaily Stakes at Gulfstream with Audacious Chloe.
We ran second in the Pucker Up with the German import Touch My Soul.
Last season we ran against Anna at Woodbine.
I have seen her train and race a lot.
She is totally back on her game.
In the Pucker Up she set legit fractions, was tried twice before a half was run and simply ran the field off its legs.
I would like to say that the comments in general in this thread are very good, especially the part about numbers not being the whole story, especially with a front runner.
Here is one more insight: numbers, by and large, are not effective in assessing the form of grass races.
Nobody\'s numbers: especially Beyers, which on grass are the absolute worst.
Grass racing is not about numbers.
Numbers work on dirt, maybe synthetic surface, never on grass.
Most grass numbers, by the way, are pulled out of thin air, because they don\'t run enough grass races on a card each day to make an accurate number. And using numbers from the day before or the day after only serve to confuse the issue.
Barry,
I have to respond to your statement that grass racing is not about numbers and your assertion that numbers never work on grass. You are dead wrong.
I have used TG numbers for many years, even had some success on occasion. And without a doubt the biggest hits I have made have been on the grass. Consistently so and over a long period of time. And the idea that these grass numbers are pulled out of thin air is both ridiculous and unfair to this site\'s host.
Frank
Barry Irwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most grass numbers, by the way, are pulled out of
> thin air, because they don\'t run enough grass
> races on a card each day to make an accurate
> number. And using numbers from the day before or
> the day after only serve to confuse the issue.
Barry, you\'ve obviously never used Jerry\'s sod figures. he rarely (if ever) relies solely on the clock. they are performance figures. it\'s a number that a guy with years of experience assigns to a race, going off the horses in that race. trust me, they are worth something. I\'ll pull up a few $50 hits from this forum if you need a bit of proof.
Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barry Irwin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most grass numbers, by the way, are pulled out
> of
> > thin air, because they don\'t run enough grass
> > races on a card each day to make an accurate
> > number. And using numbers from the day before
> or
> > the day after only serve to confuse the issue.
>
> Barry, you\'ve obviously never used Jerry\'s sod
> figures. he rarely (if ever) relies solely on the
> clock. they are performance figures. it\'s a number
> that a guy with years of experience assigns to a
> race, going off the horses in that race. trust me,
> they are worth something. I\'ll pull up a few $50
> hits from this forum if you need a bit of proof.
I would say that Barry\'s statement is self evident and in harmony with Jerry\'s comment on the front of this week\'s promo, ROTW, concerning grass racing. No matter their value, (it is not in our/your interest to give examples - and Mr Brown is doing fine it would seem), they are by definition more subjective than dirt numbers for reasons that both Barry and Jerry state as recently as today. We could just be simplistic and realize that paceless races on surfaces that are not standardized/maintained the way main tracks (were I want to say) are have to be a bigger challenge. That this product is superior is why we are all here, I would expect, including Mr Irwin. I will give him this, he saw the same filly I did last Saturday, and no one else mentioned it all week. So, I would be less critical of his statement than you are.
skip
To make Michael\'s point, and Barry\'s about the Beyers without being overly dramatic, a check of yesterday 09.13.09, 3BEL would reveal the relative value of the Beyer on grass, and make Michael\'s point about the host\'s product. Goes against the grain to encourage others publically, so I will probably not say anything like this again. Rebellion.
skip
Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barry Irwin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most grass numbers, by the way, are pulled out
> of
> > thin air, because they don\'t run enough grass
> > races on a card each day to make an accurate
> > number. And using numbers from the day before
> or
> > the day after only serve to confuse the issue.
>
> Barry, you\'ve obviously never used Jerry\'s sod
> figures. he rarely (if ever) relies solely on the
> clock. they are performance figures. it\'s a number
> that a guy with years of experience assigns to a
> race, going off the horses in that race. trust me,
> they are worth something. I\'ll pull up a few $50
> hits from this forum if you need a bit of proof.
The best grass numbers in the world are made by Timeform.
There are two Timeform numbers: a) Timefigure, a raw number reflecting the time of the race and b) Timeform Rating, a subjective number assigned in pounds to reflect the quality of the animal.
Because grass races generally lack pace, Timefigures are relatively useless.
Timeform ratings, on the other hand, offer the worl\'s best assessment of the quality of a racehorse.
It is the assessment of a horse that is worth considering.
Timefigures are worwhile only in learning if a horse ran too fast recently to make him react to it.
There are no ratings in the United States that are comparable to Timeform\'s and, until somebody develops them, numbers generated in our country will remain sketchy at best.
FYI, I have never relied on numbers in this country for grass racing, because they offer little help in running a stable.
I am sure that Jerry does the best job he can and that he has had his share of good winners. Jerry is no dummy. It is just that the very nature of grass racing makes numbers for individual races impossible to quantify.
By the way, not to make this a commercial, but in the last 20 years horses both owned and managed by me have won virtually every grass race worth winning in the United States with the exception of the Breeders\' Cup Mile (and we could have possibly won it one year when a horse broke down a day before the race that had a big shot). We have also won some of the biggest international races in the world and raced numerous champions. All without numbers. That must mean something.
Well after that comprehensive glowing advertisement. I think it\'s only right that everyone gets a comped card for the final Classic meet of the turf season. It\'s St. Leger day at the new improved Town Moor at Doncaster.
http://www.timeform.com/images/BF_Leger.pdf
Enjoy losing :-)
>There are no ratings in the United States that are comparable to Timeform\'s and, until somebody develops them, numbers generated in our country will remain sketchy at best. <
Some people have developed personal methods for measuring the \"quality\" of fields and horses.
All the pieces of the puzzle are generally discussed, but few people put it all together. Most horse players identify themselves as speed handicappers, trip handicappers, pace handicappers, class handicappers, trainer handicappers etc... They typically argue about the merits of their own approach and the weaknesses of others instead of drawing upon the strengths of each to compliment and enhance their overall understanding and to address any weaknesses from another direction.
Your post does read like a commercial. And you are entitled even if some may consider bragging in poor taste. But in the context of this board, the races you have won with horses you have owned or managed is irrelevant. And the fact that you have won these races without the assistance of the best numbers available leads me to the conclusion that you may have done even better had you also used the numbers.
What is relevant here is how you do at the windows. And I surmise that those handicappers with any ability using TG numbers are significantly outperforming the rest especially on the grass. I use the timeform ratings as well in my handicapping process. They\'re not even close to the figures TG is producing.
Frank
Barry Irwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best grass numbers in the world are made by
> Timeform.
>
> There are two Timeform numbers: a) Timefigure, a
> raw number reflecting the time of the race and b)
> Timeform Rating, a subjective number assigned in
> pounds to reflect the quality of the animal.
>
> Because grass races generally lack pace,
> Timefigures are relatively useless.
>
> Timeform ratings, on the other hand, offer the
> worl\'s best assessment of the quality of a
> racehorse.
>
> It is the assessment of a horse that is worth
> considering.
>
> Timefigures are worwhile only in learning if a
> horse ran too fast recently to make him react to
> it.
>
> There are no ratings in the United States that are
> comparable to Timeform\'s and, until somebody
> develops them, numbers generated in our country
> will remain sketchy at best.
>
> FYI, I have never relied on numbers in this
> country for grass racing, because they offer
> little help in running a stable.
>
> I am sure that Jerry does the best job he can and
> that he has had his share of good winners. Jerry
> is no dummy. It is just that the very nature of
> grass racing makes numbers for individual races
> impossible to quantify.
>
> By the way, not to make this a commercial, but in
> the last 20 years horses both owned and managed by
> me have won virtually every grass race worth
> winning in the United States with the exception of
> the Breeders\' Cup Mile (and we could have possibly
> won it one year when a horse broke down a day
> before the race that had a big shot). We have also
> won some of the biggest international races in the
> world and raced numerous champions. All without
> numbers. That must mean something.
Nobody is questioning your competence Barry. I\'m handicapping the WO Mile now, looking at your Becrux, who won the race last year and figures a shot this year. You know turf racing.
You just need to know that TG and Timeform use very similar methodology when it comes to turf figures. If you spent the least bit of time going over the TG numbers, you would see this.
Good luck with Becrux.
Barry, Barry, Barry.
I\'ve also won many of the top grass races in this country, INCLUDING the BC Mile, twice, and I\'ve used my data to do it. As you may or may not recall (or in fact may not even know), you were only able to buy Prized because the previous owner backed out of a verbal committment to sell us the horse the day before that maiden race, regardless of the result. I told my client to get it in writing...
Which is not to say you haven\'t done better than most, you have. But as I have demonstrated 76 times to date, you can use Thoro-Graph figures to find and manage stake horses, dirt and grass.
As far as I know you use Ragozin, and you are right that TimeForm makes better figures than that operation, dirt or turf. You have not as far as I know made any serious attempt to see whether our grass numbers hold up. We do them (and dirt figures) entirely differently than Ragozin does, and there is absolutely no comparison. I think you will also find that the European figures we publish are the most accurate available-- IF YOU ACTUALLY DO THE WORK TO FIND OUT.
Those jumping all over Mr. Irwin should realize he is not attacking Thorograph\'s quality. It\'s a question of the nature of turf racing vs. dirt racing, and how turf racing is best understood (and measured).
Can you bet top figure horses or pattern horses on the turf and get a fair number of winners? Yes
If you were an average turf handicapper before you got into Thorograph, will it move you up? Probably
Are final-time based speed figures, even excellent ones like Thorograph, the best way to judge a turf race? No!
And that\'s not a slam on Thorograph in any way. They make great figs, and their accompanying stats range from useful to groundbreaking.
But if you handicap a turf race using speed figures as your No. 1 measurement, you are going to miss a big part of the picture.
The great thing about Beyer figures is that they are not very good for turf racing, yet they have a strong influence on the wagering.
Not that it matters, but I wish I had said this. The last line is one of the biggest current edges in No America - I don\'t even know why I would say that in public, old and soft I guess.
skip
Ill-bred Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those jumping all over Mr. Irwin should realize he
> is not attacking Thorograph\'s quality. It\'s a
> question of the nature of turf racing vs. dirt
> racing, and how turf racing is best understood
> (and measured).
>
> Can you bet top figure horses or pattern horses on
> the turf and get a fair number of winners? Yes
>
> If you were an average turf handicapper before you
> got into Thorograph, will it move you up?
> Probably
>
> Are final-time based speed figures, even excellent
> ones like Thorograph, the best way to judge a turf
> race? No!
>
> And that\'s not a slam on Thorograph in any way.
> They make great figs, and their accompanying stats
> range from useful to groundbreaking.
>
> But if you handicap a turf race using speed
> figures as your No. 1 measurement, you are going
> to miss a big part of the picture.
>
> The great thing about Beyer figures is that they
> are not very good for turf racing, yet they have a
> strong influence on the wagering.
Ill-bred and Stillinger are, of course, correct.
The fact that people still rely on Beyer numbers to buy, let alone bet, grass races, is an edge for buyer and player alike.
EJXD2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the price she was an automatic toss.
I don\'t even agree with this. She was dominant in front, and she finishes and she loves the surface, and she is back in form. It\'s even true that the turf courses in VA and ILL have overlap in terms of type and length in general - Red Giant ran big both places for instance.
Who was supposed to keep up with her early? To beat her, you have to keep her wide, slow up the ground, her be out of condition which would have been hard to argue off her race in VA, and following her career, period. She was best! AND the speed. Like other turfers that ran in front. If you can finish and you start that from in front? Lure, Sabin, even John Henry was best when he ran in front when he was old. regardless the figure, if you get to choose, choose the one that can lead and finish.
I don\'t think you should BELEIVE in a figure, rather in your ability to use a figure to your advantage. In fact, that\'s probably what the vendor would counsel.
This is not a pace figure. It is not impossible to beat her, you just need some other pace elements than were present last week. If you run it again, maybe the connections of the second speed will figure out an angle to cut into her advantage, and like a man said here, there was a little jam, she got a great break, but she breaks great. This number, good as it is, ain\'t magic, especially on the turf. There is probably a disclaimer to that effect somewhere on site.
Maybe she could draw the rail and have to stand in the gate a long time, and get hot? Those horses didn\'t have much chance, and Jerry\'s comment that she was a dead underlay is sound overall, but you couldn\'t have paid me to bet against her in the win slot. I am very old fashioned. There are easier things to do. The stake tomorrow isn\'t one of them to me.
You hit the nail on the head.