Any comparative comments on the Gold Cup?
I\'m not DP, who maps out his horse racing schedule months in advance & previously posted that he would be out of commission until Oct, but I\'ll bite if you\'ll explain something. Everyone agrees that the ML is wildly off, yet the ROTW analysis determines if a horse is an \"overlay\" in comparison to the ML. A logical disconnect, no?
The huge difference between the two is the dope for EA. On TG, EA, HH & R are the prime contenders, & EA looks to be the fastest & a bet at 5/2 or higher. In contrast, EA has no chance whatsoever on Rags, with a mere 2% chance of winning. Rags rates R as the proverbial stickout, & has LP as 2nd choice.
I know some of you don\'t consider pace, but those who do will agree that the pace scenario for this 10f contest is very tricky. Abreeze looks to be the only confirmed front runner & while he has run well at this distance, & seems to run better when he gets an uncontested lead, he is a 7 yr old who has almost 25% of his races in the last few mos. Perhaps he didn\'t like Turfway, but perhaps his last was a sign that he needs some time off. If that\'s the case, presumably LP, life & death to beat Gander in his last, will inherit the lead. EA should be close enough, & there is at least the possibility that it will be too late for the win when Repent, who I think will be a lot lower than his 7/2 ML, finally kicks into gear. At the same time, the chances of this happening are not such that I would fail to include R in pk3-4s & exotics.
Mall,
I agree with all you say including the pace scenario. I think Frankel may send LP hoping that he can either shake loose early or set the table for MWB. However, I also think that HH will be pressing from the start and could be the one that opens up turning for home. Should be a good race with EA and Repent flying late.
At 8-1, HH looks like a good play but I have to believe those odds will come down. On the other hand, EA may drift up from the morning line given the lack of any big-name connections and he has paired big efforts before and loves an off track. Those two look to be the likely value.
Good luck.
Chris
P.S. What is your opinion on Parting in the AW Lassie at AP? She is as fast as any in the race and looks as likely as all but the fav to get the distance. Shipping from a small-time track for small-time connections should help ensure a price.
I give her a very big shot & intend to play her with Ashraaf & to a much lesser degree Souris. HH makes logical sense, especially from a pace standpoint, but seems slow to me for this level of competition. I guess we shall see. Good Luck.
Personally I hope EA tosses in a clunker here. A non-effort would be better for a BC attempt, say a # in the 2 range. His huge effort becomes \"hidden\" and becomes a solid value play vs the euro\'s in the BC.
Later,
jb
On the overlay question, I have problems with \"everyone\", \"wildly\", and the idea that the ML is always off. When we comment about probable overlays it\'s after estimating what the horse will go off at, and one element in the decision is the ML. Alan and I had lively debate about what the horses would go off, as we often do.
Judging by the difference between Ragozin and us on Essence Of Dubai, I have to guess HH looks different(they come out of the same race). EA is a contender(I think around 20%), but with only the one big number there is no way he can be an overlay at 5/2, even independent of pattern. The good news for you is that he\'ll be longer. I make him third most likely (ROTW should make clear who the others are) but I will certainly be using EA.
I guess the results of our respective research on the possibility of a horse like EA \"bouncing\" is very different, although if you require a large enough overlay cushion there is room for error. Speaking of research, I recently concluded a study of ground loss at 9f tracks for different running styles which involved 2k races & did not see a single instance where a horse was more than 5w. Coincidence, or is there a self-imposed limit? Finally, we\'ll just have to agree to disagree re the ML, which does not even reflect basic mathematics. Repent 7/2? Give me a break.
What\'s the definition of \"a horse like EA\"? Looks to me like a couple of other horses in this very race bounced. But congratulations on the score I assume you made-- I didn\'t make any win bets, and LP split me for the exacta. I also ran 2-3-4 in the AP Lassie,which would have been a hell of a score. Did cash the winner of the Futurity,and I got a feeling we\'ll be discussing the AP rail over the next few weeks.
The ground loss we print is based on average path on the turn only-- a horse that is 34567 comes out 5. Also, we round off.
Just because the ML is sometimes nuts doesn\'t mean it\'s always nuts. Alan and I almost bet last night on whether Repent would go off at 2-1 or less (he would have won). I think an awful lot of that was Ragozin money, and there is no way the guy who makes the ML can know that.
Looks like I\'m coming to Chicago. Let\'s try and get the TG crew together for a drink, maybe Fri?
Poppa posted three times on this thread and only two of them mentioned Ragozin? You are slipping Poppa Jer.
I only played Turfway today and the Sheets were awesome! I do know Repent ran a one last time and figured to be a bounce candidate today. Looked like a whole lot more than a bounce to me, but what do I know?
I\'ll be at the Breeders\' Cup, please leave your lethal weapons at home.
Jerry, JR.
The ML isn\'t always nuts, but even at its best is an effort to predict what the public will do, as opposed to the horses\' chances of winning, with two exceptions. Exception 1 is that the probable odds on heavy favs are usually overstated, & the odds on hopeless shots are usually understated. But the more fundamental problem is that the percentages never add up to 100, as in the JCGC, where the ROTW ML odds of the horses gave them a 124% chance of winning the race. Rather than converting to 100%, it makes more sense IMHO to disregard the ML altogether & do your own estimate of each horse\'s % chance of winning.
If it\'s any consolation, Catelin & I made the same bet in the Lassie, & I know from his post & approach that Derby1592 at a minimum had Parting to win. It\'s always tough when a 60-1 shot beats your 16-1 key.
I\'m not leaving Kee until Fri night after the races, but am staying over Sat & going back to AP on Sun, so presumably we can work something out. I\'ll know re the nom tix the 1st weekend of the Kee meet & will call then to see if you\'re still interested.
Finally, if the subject comes up again, you might want to consider suggesting a comparison of the Euro nos you\'re adding, as they are of critical importance beginning now & continuing up to & including the BC. The ones I have seen from others over the yrs have not been, shall we say, bet-worthy.
You mentioned a possible dead rail at AP on Saturday. It seems like a dead rail is more common on the bigger tracks (e.g., Bel and AP). I guess that might be because of wider, sweeping turns that require less banking and thus may be more prone to uneven drainage. Anyway, it looks like there is a chance that we may have another BC dead rail and I wanted to ask a few relevant questions given that possibility.
First - This may be covering old ground, but I will ask it anyway. If you think there was a dead rail and you are making figures, do you take the ground loss out of the initial \"crunched\" figures when you estimate a variant? It would not seem to make sense to give a horse credit for a faster figure for going wide in such circumstances (or conversely to penalize a horse for saving ground).
Second - Assume that after the first 3 or 4 races, it appears that there is a dead rail (think back to last year\'s BC), do you then ignore ground loss in your handicapping? Or do you still assume a slower adjusted fig for horses likely to lose ground? Or do you actually assume a faster adjusted fig for horses likely to lose ground (or conversely, a slower adjusted fig for those likely to save ground)? Or do you just simply toss all the horses likely to be stuck down on the rail? Or something else entirely?
Thanks in advance.
Chris
P.S. I have a dumb tough luck story on the Lassie and the Gold Cup yesterday. I had to coach a double-header baseball game so I was definitely going to miss the Lassie and probably going to miss the Gold Cup. I hate to bet in advance without knowing the odds but I was pretty sure that Parting was going to be a big price so I bet her before I left to win and in trifectas. I acutally had the top 3 finishers on my trifecta ticket but I did not have the winner on top so I failed to cash a ticket. I was not so sure about the odds on Evening Attire. As I said in the earier post, I thought there was a good chance that he would go off above his morning line but I was not sure and I thought I might get home before the race anyway. As Murphy would have it, I raced home and got back just in time to see EA win at big odds. I did not get any bet down and definitely would have had the win and the trifecta if I had done so.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
1- Don\'t know what causes a dead rail. Could be different things, at different tracks.
2- In making variants on dead rail days,I disregard the horses who raced on the rail, and basically do everything else the same way. It does not appear that it becomes a different variant in each path, just that those stuck on the the rail (and sometimes one path out, in extreme cases) don\'t fire.
3- When handicapping for a dead rail, I don\'t try and make fine line adjustments. I play against horses who figure to be inside, which means taking into account how the race figures to be run, and how the jocks ride (which can mean betting on a rider who I normally hate).
would you care to elaborate on which jocks you hate to bet?
Those who don\'t save ground.
TGJB,
When a horse runs behind another horse (or group of horses), he most likely will not be able to achieve or maintain full momentum for a good part of the race. When a horse is not running behind another horse, he has the ability to achieve and maintain full momentum at will. Many horses only run their best races when they are able to achieve full momentum early, and maintain the momentum throughout the race (this does not mean sprinting early, but simply running at a comfortable, unhindered pace)........ Let me give you the cliff\'s notes to \"The Jose Santos Comeback Story\": Santos figured out that you can win a race by running around horses............... Saving ground is not as important as most die-hard sheet players think it is.
It looks like you now have the distinction of having your posts removed from BOTH bulletin boards.
Personally I think this is good stuff. Saving ground is not that important. Santos wins by going around the other horses, which allows his mount to maintain its full momentum. I only wish you had posted this before Santos won five yesterday, but you probably saw it coming and didn\'t want to kill your prices. I thought it looked like a win-by-losing-ground-and-going-around-the-other-horses (LGGAOH bias) kind of track yesterday, but I didn\'t catch on until it was too late. Next time I\'ll go with my gut instead of these lousy figures. Congrats and thanks. HP
Jerry,
As Mall alluded, I have not even looked at the Sheets (except for one race at BM last week where a friend of mine had a horse) since July, but based on his reading of the JCGC, EA looked like a great bet. I would not have gone near Repent based on the \'1\' he supposedly ran in his last (see all of my previous comments about 3 y.o. running 1s), but I don\'t know enough.
My current schedule calls for a busy schedule of racing in October (5, 12, and 26) followed by 2-3 months of inactivity -- a winter \'freshening\' if you will. Since I have received special dispensation to attend the races this coming weekend for the trio of BC preview schedules at Bel, Kee, and SA, maybe we can have some dialogue about those races when the sheets come out.
I have printed the Sheets for Preakness day and set up a schematic for recording the numbers and calculating the various averages and St.Dev.. This is going to be a lot of work -- probably about 15 to 20 hours -- and since I have a day job I won\'t be able to do much work on it until Oct. 11-13, when my wife is visiting family out of town. I hope to have the results posted here by the 15th of October.
Are you going to split by region and 1/2 turns?
HP,
Just answer one question for me: What was the purpose of this post? oh... by the way, the post deleted over there was a rather friendly one. I had just stated that two of the popular nominees for whatever the hell award they were talking about (something bad) were Santos and Bridgmohan. I only wanted to make the point that those two jockeys have been brilliant lately, winning quite a few races over the past few days. I also pointed out that most of those wins were with wide moves. Furthermore, I pointed out that you could have made a ton of money betting on those horses because of the money pissed away by players who were posting on that thread (and other like them), players who think saving ground is the key to winning every horse race. I thought it was one of my better posts, and I advise the other guys to leave up such heedful posts......
ps... nice to hear from you HP
HP,
My rather thoughtful post is back up over there (I think they have a rookie doing the deletion duties today). I still do hold the distinction, however, of being deleted on both boards (partially thanks to you).
You\'re making my point right here MD. You are making an assumption (\"players who think saving ground is the key to winning every horse race\") about the people who were posing on that thread to make your point. Your assumption is incorrect and you seemed pissed off in the bargain, which is an odd position for someone who I presume was sharp enough to make \"a ton of money betting on those horses because of the money pissed away by players who were posting on that thread.\"
Although I know players who use TG and the Sheets, I don\'t know of ANY who believe \"saving ground is the key to winning every horse race.\" I know people who consider it as one factor among many others. Some think it\'s more important, some think it\'s less important. Kind of like the jockey issue. Just because someone doesn\'t emphasize jockeys is no reason to assume they don\'t consider them at all.
You insisted on assuming and exaggerating their position to make your point. You could make your points by saying that many sheets players (I think you called them something else in your post - \"numbers somethings\" - I can\'t remember what, but it was insulting) fail to consider jockeys and then give your examples. I welcome insight that doesn\'t exactly correspond with mine, so I\'m interested in what you have to say. You go the extra mile (often) and that\'s probably why they booted you. They also are probably more interested in posts that have to do with sheets-related handicapping, but that\'s another story.
The success of the wide trip at Belmont, has been described (at least for the 20 years I have gone there) as the \'balcony move.\' The story I\'ve heard is that since the turns are so much longer than on the conventional mile ovals that a horse can actually pick up some speed with that sweeping wide move off the turn and into the stretch. Other posters may be able to identify the source of this term. It\'s nothing new. It stands out as a marked contrast to Saratoga and Aqueduct. Your success in identifying jockeys who may have picked up on this is somewhat offset by the way you went about it. Judging by the prices paid on Santos\' winners on Sunday, I would guess that quite a few of the people that you insulted over there cashed tickets, even though they might have picked those horses for different reasons. Maybe you can speak your mind without dropping the proverbial anvil on their foot. Live and let live. That\'s the point. HP
\"Number monkeys.\" That was it. Even though I disagree with you, I managed to write a whole post without calling you names (even though I would say \"number monkeys\" ain\'t so bad). HP
HP,
Why did you waste so much of your time with this ridiculous post? Once again, you prove to be nothing but a blabbering fool. (I think the Bridgmohan/Santos winners over the past few days paid well, indicating that the fools on that string cashed nothing; why make such stupid comments?)
Santos winners Sunday 11.80, 10.60, 10.40, 7.90 and 8.40. Not bad, but SOMEBODY was playing them (besides you, of course). You probably retired off of these.
I didn\'t waste much time on my post, but since any time spent trying to talk to you is a waste it was quite enough. TG and Sheets users have one thing in common, they\'re all fools but you. Good luck. HP
Okay, look-- both you guys need to grow up. You both sometimes post garbage-- if I remember correctly, Michael, you once E-mailed that you assume I change the numbers I sell to the public so that I can buy horses for my clients at a bargain, and HP knows my opinion of a couple of his posts. Knock it off, guys.
Jerry,
I am going to split (arggh, there\'s that awful word) by type of race (sprint, route, and turf) not region. The key stat I\'m looking for is Standard Deviation and that should not vary by region, just the scale. If you think that assumption is wrong, let me know.
TGJB,
I don\'t address this character. I really don\'t know why he has interest in my posts, which are usually about racing topics until he gets involved. These strings will never start if he just discusses topics with others..... I do not address public posts to you personally, I think you can handle the personal e-mails.
I don\'t know if it will split by region or not, but it definitly could-- different figure makers, different circumstances.