Not a lot to get excited about. Most of the 10 weekend stake races at Bel, Kee, and SA are 2-3 horse affairs with the morning line favorites stickouts on the Sheets.
Belmont
Frizette:
Two-horse race. If Santa Catarina goes off at 3:1 or higher she\'s worth a bet. Storm Flag Flying ran a huge first race but bounced 6 points in last. I would project a move forward but not nearly back to her first number. Santa Catarina hasn\'t been long yet but has good breeding and Baffert is good on the stretch-out. Her last sprint -- a 4 pt. bounce from her top --was faster than SFF\'s win in the Matron so a move forward from her last probably puts her in the winner\'s circle.
Kelso:
Very competitive race. No pattern or number stickouts. Top four horses on number/pattern are 4 of the 5 top morning line horses -- Patrol, Baptize, Forbidden Apple, and Volponi. I\'m willing to go against FA given the weight he is carrying and a pretty big number in last but not sure the other contenders will be any value.
Beldame:
Summer Colony has top two numbers in the field but figures to bounce 2-3 points off of her pair up top in last. Minister\'s Baby has one fast number 2 back. Imperial Gesture has run two very fast numbers, though slower than SC\'s tops. Looks o.k. to pair up or maybe move forward; unfortunately, she\'s the 8:5 second choice. Mandy\'s Gold also looks o.k. in here and a pair up or move forward puts her right there. If she\'s 4:1 or better, worth a play.
Champagne:
Ugh. Icecoldbeeratreds (a great name or a terrible name depending on your perspective), should win if he can come near his top sprint efforts. Pretty Wild has to bounce significantly off his last but if he doesn\'t he has a shot. There is no way that ICBAR is going to be 7:2 but if he is he\'s the play in the race.
Keeneland: Yawn.
Phoenix Gold Cup
Xtra Heat, is giving a lot of weight. Her last race was a big drop-off from her previous although she did win easily. She is vulnerable, possibly to Binthebest but short field will likely yield no value.
Lane\'s End Futurity
Sky Mesa\'s last was very fast but he will almost certainly bounce significantly off of it. Other horses\' tops are all 3-4 points slower or more and none have patterns that get me too excited about their propensity to even pair up. Truckle Feature is probably the most likely winner but can\'t see him being a price.
Santa Anita:
Ancient Title
Swept Overboard is the key. Ran 5 huge races on the dirt last year. Has been off since his negative number top in last. Can\'t see him running back to where he was last year in this first start -- vulnerable. Other horses are all puzzlers, most seem to be tailing off or coming off big races. Kalookan Queen, the filly, has the best pattern. Crafty CT is competitive as well with no real knocks but won\'t be a price.
Norfolk
No clue here. Kafwain, Bull Market and Listen Indy are the fastest but no price likely here.
B.C. Mile
I\'m tossing Congaree. He has tailed off badly since his first effor this year. His pattern could be read as circling back to a good number but he\'s no price and there are other faster horses who have proven their numbers on the grass. Congaree will save ground on the rail but gives 4 lbs. to the field which almost negates that advantage. I\'m leaning toward using Nicobar, who has a nice pattern and a small move forward in last. The horse with the fastest turf numbers is Spineless Jellyfish and, if you toss his efforts over 1 mile, has a lot of very fast efforts that win this easily. Has had enough time since his last strong effort two back. D\'Wildcat has two decent turf efforts and a nice 1 pt. move forward in his last. You can even make a case for using Night Patrol if you toss his last effort at Delaware. Price will dictate the play here but race is playable if you are willing to toss Congaree.
Yellow Ribbon
I smell an upset possibly here but it\'s nothing to get too excited about. The top 2 picks are both fast but vulnerable to run poorly here. Golden Apples is coming off a 2 1/4 point top that she is almost sure to bounce 2 or more points off. Banks Hill obviously has some good numbers but has been shuttled from East Coast to the West in search of firm turf. I\'m always leery of playing Europeans first time in California and horses who have had last minute changes to their agenda. Voodoo Dancer looks solid here but is unproven at 10f. The good news for her is that this is the race her connections are trying to win -- she is not B.C. bound. The only potential longshot with a prayer is Noches de Rosa who is 3-4 points slow off of her last but if finally getting a race at a longer distance, which she appears to relist. Third off a layoff with improving pattern make her a possibility at the right price.
a lot of hoopla surrounding the races tomorrow, but wet tracks and big favorites are most likely going to make it a day to sit back and watch (unless the forecast changes in NY, then I will compare notes with you tomorrow morning).
I can\'t believe that Ragozin has Storm Flag Flying going back 6 pts in her last race. On TG, she ran the fastest 2yr old filly # ever(?). The problem is she will most likely bounce tomorrow but it is the bounce that I want to see. She can bounce and still win.
OPM:
Fastest 2yo TG figure ever.
jb
Interesting & thoughtful analysis, but how is it again that we know that SC, SM, & GA are all almost certain to \"bounce\"?
Mall/David,
I agree with Mall about the bounce predicitions. The effect of a big move by a lightly-raced 2yo is always hard to predict until they establish some sort of level (and even then it is not a given).
One might argue that a reaction is likely given some sort of absolute threshold for all 2yos but again that is debatable and even tougher given the crazy surface changes for some of those races and the difficulty in making figures for lightly-raced 2yos under such circumstances.
Chris
Mall,
I base my bounce predictions on the horse\'s established level, if there is one, and with an eye toward the absolute number it ran and whether horses of a similar age and gender have been able to maintain those numbers in the past. Derby 1592 is right that 2 y.o. are the toughest to call but I\'m loathe to play any 2 y.o. not to bounce if they ran a 5 or better in their last race (Ragozin scale, of course). That doesn\'t mean that they can\'t win but that kind of number is not the kind of figure off which you see many pair-ups or move-forwards.
We\'ll find out eventually what Summer Colony, Sky Mesa, and Golden Apples ran but I can guarantee you that both SC and SM bounced. Tougher call on GA. Her race was pretty paceless and they came home in :22 and change so her fig may not look that good.
As it turns out, per my pre-race fears, there were not a lot of betting opportunities in the 10 stake races, or the other races on the three cards. I didn\'t bet the Beldame but tossing SC and boxing the top two was a good bet. The Champagne exacta was good and hittable if you were willing to eliminate the favorite -- which I was. The Ancient Title turned out to be a very good betting race. Kalookan Queen at 9:2 was huge value and the exacta with Crafty C.T. paid a very healthy $41 for a $2 bet.
Even though I did not hit the 6th at SA it was very gratifying to see Congaree finish out of the money.
I assumed as much. My pt was that perhaps you might want to reconsider and/or modify the theory itself. Big progress only comes after big jolts, usually provided by a protagonist with a healthy ego who\'s willing to stick his neck out in support of his or her theory. But after the conceptual issue has been conquered, the next step is the collection & evaluation of data to determine if there is empirical support for the theory. That never happened, at least not publicly. People do not like to hear that one of their key theoretical assumptions rests on a very wobbly base at best, but I am absolutely convinced that it does.
I assumed as an agnostic that after your original post you were going to access the RBR & do a fair comparison between the nos. One question that comes to my mind is whether it makes sense that SFF in fact experienced a \"big bounce\" in her last & then very easily ran what was presumably a new top in her latest.
More often than not I\'m willing to stick my neck out on the ROTW, but you & a few others will understand that this time I\'m not able to be objective. The Cards timed the sweep just right, so I\'m going to take my cyberscore & go \"all in\" on Victory Ride to finish 1st or 2nd. Keep your fingers crossed, as I\'m going to need all the help I can get on this one.
Mall wrote: \"But after the conceptual issue has been conquered, the next step is the collection & evaluation of data to determine if there is empirical support for the theory. That never happened, at least not publicly. People do not like to hear that one of their key theoretical assumptions rests on a very wobbly base at best, but I am absolutely convinced that it does.\"
Mall: Have you considered the possibility that your \"I know something that you don\'t\" routine will begin to grate? Please do me a favor. Tell me what you know: numbers, percentages, everything. Tell me right here. If it goes over my head, it goes over my head. If you don\'t want to tell me, tell me why you don\'t want to tell me. Then tell me why you hint at things you won\'t detail. Since you are one of the smartest and most delightful people to come to this board in a long time, I have high expectations for you. Please put your unit on the table.
Mall,
I didn\'t have any time Sunday to go to the RBR. It was \'birthday party Sunday\' yesterday and we traipsed around town attending various parties for newly minted 2 and 3 y.o. -- none of them Derby contenders. If JB can repost the SA, KEE, and BEL cards from Saturday I would be most grateful.
As to the intimation of \'I know more than you do,\' I agree with Alydar. You\'re a bit smug in your last post.
Here is what I do know about my ROI and the \'bounce\' theory as I apply it when handicapping:
First, I don\'t play a horse to bounce just because he/she ran a top. I look for instances where 1) there is a horse with a shaky pattern who just ran a top, 2) an older, heavily exposed horse who just ran a top, or 3) a horse who, regardless of prior pattern, just ran a ridiculous number on an absolute scale.
My four biggest non-p6 scores have come when I have focused an a favorite that I believe will be off the board or out of the top two due to a severe bounce, including this year\'s Belmont, Belmont 1999 and a couple forgettable allowance races. My ROI in these races is very positive.
Of course sometimes I am wrong, but here is why playing the bounce theory makes sense. The crowd almost always significantly overbets a horse coming off a big effort in last. There seems to be an ingrained assumption in many bettors that a horse will generally repeat his last effort (assuming it was not excused by some misfortune or an off-track). So big numbers often create big overlays and underlays.
To take this last weekend as a case in point, however, projecting a bounce does not always lead to a big bet. The only races where I projected a big bounce by the favorite where I even bet the race were the Ancient Title -- which I hit big, The Champagne, which I hit little, and the Lane\'s End Futurity, which I whiffed. In the other races, I just didn\'t see enough value to justify a bet.
Do I know what % of the time I am right when I really stick my neck out against a horse? No. I wish I tracked my results that granularly. But I do have a general sense of the kinds of scenarios that play out well for me and those that don\'t. My challenge is to avoide more races containing the latter and focus more on the former. Projecting big bounces, esp. in big races, is definitely one of the former for me.
I agree pretty much 100%. You know, I happened to be talking to a guy the other night who mentioned that on-line poker players use ready made programs to track the success of various types of plays they make (I can\'t really imagine what exactly they track, but it doesn\'t matter). Anybody know of anything like that for horseplayers?
Alan is back in tomorrow, and I\'ll see if he can re-post the days. It might be a real pain in the butt (meaning, someone might have to type all the entries again manually), so it would be better if you listed the individual races you want.
Jerry,
Just the 10 Graded Stakes would be great.
Thanks.
Whether it\'s a simple thank you for digging up & rereading 2 yr old research or access to the specific results of original research which took many hundreds of hrs to perform. As one poster pointed out recently, the value of such information is inversely related to the extent of its dissemination. Personally, assuming I was confident in the person\'s opinion, I would like to know if something I believed was wrong even if the person could not tell me exactly why. Finally, the last thing I would ever do is put my unit on the table, as I have no doubt that there are some who might try to take advantage of the fact that it was in an exposed position.
PS Chris: It appears someone let all of the dogs out. If you like the Giants in the next round, let me know so we can arrange a \"friendly\" wager. One thing I know for certain is that both of us are faster pay than any cyberbook. By the way, let me know if you know how I can get my hands on a rally monkey for use at the track. After Sun, I think I might need to resort to something a little out of the ordinary.
Fatso: Congrats on winning a place in the Championship. I\'ve tried 3 qualifying tourneys so far & think what you did is quite an accomplishment. If you\'re willing to share how you did it, I for one would be all ears.
David: If I seem smug, & I didn\'t read Alydar\'s post as accusing me of that, it\'s for two reasons. One is because I am confident in the research. The other is because of the law of large nos, which in my mind always trumps anecdotal evidence. Every approach produces its share of winners & longshot winners, & if your personal interpretation of the bounce theory has resulted in a positive long term roi, then my suggestion is that you ignore what I said & keep doing what you\'re doing.
Mall writes \"Personally, assuming I was confident in the person\'s opinion, I would like to know if something I believed was wrong even if the person could not tell me exactly why.\"
I can\'t believe this is true of you or anybody who takes their handicapping seriously, unless it was something you believed but didn\'t feel that strongly about, and even then...
You don\'t have to say anything, but if you want to talk, tell me exactly why you believe something, or at least try. The leap of faith you describe here is perhaps better employed in church.
Points on your unit were well taken. HP
Mall wrote: \"I didn\'t read Alydar\'s post as accusing me of that,\"
Mall: Right. I certainly was not accusing you of being smug. I was simply trying to put you in an impossible position. We do stuff like that here.
Mall wrote \"Whether it\'s a simple thank you for digging up & rereading 2 yr old research\"
Mall: I can\'t figure out what you mean here. Believe it or not, I am usually inordinately polite when politeness is in order. What did I fail to thank you for? There could be a gap in my memory. I lost more than my share of weekends--and weekdays--over the last year.
I went down to the local racetrack,
To get my horse jones filled,
I was standin\' in line with Dr. Jerry,
The man he did cash a single bet,
So we decided that we would split a wager,
My favorite combo a four horse box....
How have you been Alydar ?
I\'m starting to get BC fever. There doesn\'t seem to be a miler from the US that stick out in the mile turf race. Looks like the Euro\'s will have an edge there.
Nunzio
You didn\'t forget because it wasn\'t you who asked for an explanation of the regulatory system which governs the use of medications in various states.
Mall,
As to large numbers trumping anecdotal evidence I agree with you 137%.
But the bounce theory -- playing a horse to run \'X\' number of points or more off the last race -- has many possible scenarios under which we may say that it should play out, such as:
1) Horse just ran new top
2) Horse just ran new top at least \'X\' points greater than prior top
3) Horse of age \'X\' just ran either scenario 1 or 2
4) Horse just ran an absolute number greater than \'X\'
5) Horse with a particularly good(bad) previous pattern (of age \'X\') just ran a top under scenario 1 or 2 or ran an absolute number such as in scenario 4.
Then there are, of course, the trainer angles -- trainers whose horses supposedly don\'t bounce (Baffert, Lake, Dollase, etc.).
There are probably a dozen distinct scenarios with enough data points for us to draw conclusions about expected performance.
The question we want answered for each scenario is what the expected performance of the horse is in the next race (or, similarly, what % of the time does a horse \'bounce\' \'X\' number of points) and how does the horse\'s performance shake out relative to the horse\'s odds.
If I had been as rigorous over time in studying the actual performance of horses versus my prediction as I am in my day-to-day work I would have a better fact base upon which to pontificate, but I don\'t. And, since you would be a fool to reveal the eleven herbs and spices you use in your secret recipe I guess the string ends here. Chop.
Reading your post alerted me to the possibility that some might be left with the incorrect impression that I am the one who did the research in question. I wish that were so, but it isn\'t.
Your earlier post refers to what the \"crowd\" would do in a particular situation. What were you referring to?
Nunzio: I am doing very well, thank you. How are you? Great job with the song. I was afraid I would have to dip into my stash of Italian ditties to get you back here. The 1989 Stones-Guns N\'Roses concert at the LA Coliseum was one of the highlights of the last century. Did you ask JB about his favorite flavor? If it\'s still cherry red, he has some explaining to do.
Alydar,
Its been way to hectic around here, lots of distractions.... but when BC rolls around I need to get more in tune. I\'ll let you know who I like when the big day gets closer.
Thanks,
Nunzio
Mall,
By \'crowd\' I meant the betting public.
David wrote: \"By \'crowd\' I meant the betting public.\"
Mall: Are you going to let David get away with this?