1- It wasn\'t as obvious as last year, but there was a dead rail, which happens frequently at Arlington. The only horse who got a top racing on the rail on the backstretch, second turn and stretch was Thunderello. Among the horses who may have been compromised were Summer Colony, Santa Catarina, Whywhywhy, Dollar Bill, and Perfect Drift.
2- It\'s hard to know what to make of the Euro-numbers. The horses in the mile ended up running a couple of points better than I gave them for their European races, while the FM turf figures were dead on, unbelievably so. With the exception of Domedriver, I believe every horse that ran a \"new top\" was a 3 year old, so they in fact may have really done so-- I think it was only 3 or 4 of them, and a lot of the other 3 year olds ran right back to their Euro numbers. On balance, I think we had it right, with the possible exception of Domedriver\'s second race back, where I decided Time-Form had him too fast. I would add that Banks Hill ran exactly back to the figure I gave her in the same race.
3- Storm Flag Flying is the greatest 2 year old filly in history, by far. I said before the race that I didn\'t know what result would confirm our figures or Ragozin\'s for the 9/15 race-- I meant that she could be played to x on either (I didn\'t have her on a ticket). But she ran back to the 1 1/2, so it should be clear who was right, and that Ragozin not only got it wrong, but got it wrong by a whole bunch.
4- Rock of Gibraltar ran a very big figure, and is a very good horse. But he got no worse a trip than he figured to get from out there, and there were several horses who got really messed up by the break down, like Aldebaran.
5- Between the press party Thursday and Saturday at least 5 people told me they knew for a fact that Orientate was lame.
6- Starine got me back my losses from the early part of the card.
7- I think With Anticipation got the best BC grass figure ever, and lost, due to ground loss.
8- A win/place bet on Volponi and the exacta made me a decent winner. Not huge, decent.
We will post BC sheets, with the numbers they ran, in ROTW. Hopefully Ragozin will also post full sheets, but I doubt it. I\'ve seen them, and I\'ll let you draw your own conclusions.
\"I would add that Banks Hill ran exactly back to the figure I gave her in the same race.\"
Given that she\'s first time Frankel on Saturday, is this really even worth adding?
\"3- Storm Flag Flying is the greatest 2 year old filly in history, by far. I said before the race that I didn\'t know what result would confirm our figures or Ragozin\'s for the 9/15 race-- I meant that she could be played to x on either (I didn\'t have her on a ticket). But she ran back to the 1 1/2, so it should be clear who was right, and that Ragozin not only got it wrong, but got it wrong by a whole bunch.\"
She debuted with a ~6 on Ragozin. Even if they got 9/15 too slow, just about every Ragozin player I know thought she made perfect sense to break through the 6... Which she certainly did... I\'m not sure how Saturday\'s run by SFF show they got in wrong on the 15th-- they may have, but I don\'t understand how Saturday proved it...
TGJB,
Very well done on the #\'s concerning Storm Flag Flying. She looks to have inherited that Secretariat heart. I hope she stays sound enough to become one of the all time greats (who knows, maybe Vindication turns out to have the Slew speed...... could be a very interesting spring).
Banks Hill-- coming back to the number is not proof of anything, any more than Domedriver running a better number is proof the Euro numbers are wrong. But if I got the race wrong the number in Europe would be better, not worse, and if Frankel was a factor the number here would also be better.
Storm Flag Flying-- Which is more likely:
1- That a 2 year old filly that has never run that fast before would run that incredible a figure, or
2- one that has already run that fast would run back to it.
If the answer to that question is 1, we should all stop using figures. I would also point out that as it happens, the filly who won the Miss Grillo Sunday at Aqu was out of the 9/15 race.
Meanwhile, what ever happened to that joint venture you were talking about?
The reason Storm Flag is one of the greatest isn\'t just because of her impressive nos. She didn\'t see Composure until that one got by, but when she did you all saw what happened. Fortunately for her, Composure passed her early enough in the stretch to give her time to fight back. IMHO, the only way she was(and maybe is) going to lose was if she beat herself & she was perfectly calm in the paddock & on the track before the race. Give her connections credit for not giving the jock a leg up until she was through the tunnel, in light of her previous \"freezing\" episodes.
I have an open mind, but there is research which suggests that one of the few times that AP doesn\'t have a dead rail is when the main track is drying out, which was the case on Sat. I think looking at the charts & considering the relative abilities of the horses, one could make the case that at best the one path might have been at a disadvantage & that if anything the other inside paths were the place to be.
I was in the Orientate is lame camp long before it was fashionable, but know I wasn\'t the person who started it. And at least I can say that I did what I could to try to verify it. Who do you suppose started it all, or was it just one of those things that spreads like an urban myth?
Lukas having a lame horse and Lukas winning are not mutually exclusive.
I\'m well aware of that, but are you aware of how close my BC Review came to including candid digital shots of you, Roger, PGGM & others from Fri night at the steakhouse? But for a few scheduling problems, I would have finally met her & her husband & would have been able to use what I thought were some pretty clever captions for the photos. Maybe next yr.
TGJB,
Obviously respect your opinions as I but your numbers but:
\"banks hill ran exactly back to the figure....\" - then your figure is wrong. that piece of form (with clear sailing between 1,2,3,4,5 finishers - with 2nd to 5th going on to run great races next out) was exceptional and to compare it to an effort where she basically finished in the pack (I believe there were 6/7 horses in the bunch behind starine) is an insult to a great horse who was over the top.
if you think with anticipation could have beaten high chapparal but for the ground loss, then you must have been already in line for the volponi bet at the time.
\"Storm Flag Flying-- Which is more likely:
1- That a 2 year old filly that has never run that fast before would run that incredible a figure, or
2- one that has already run that fast would run back to it.\"
I really, genuinely, don\'t understand where you\'re coming from with this type of perspective, and I just don\'t understand why anyone trying to decide between different sets of Sheets would buy into this sort of logic.
1. Your initial post was \"who was right...who was wrong\". These imply absolutes. Now you\'re saying \"more likely\"... That\'s a different animal...
2. Moreover, I\'m highly skeptical of short 2-yr-old lines as a source for proving anything, especially the 2-yr-old lines of horses who are bred to do unusual things.
Let\'s assume (a guess) Ragozin has her BC number a 4.
So then her Rag line is
6, 12, 7, 4
You guys have it
7, 1.5, 4, 1.5
Isn\'t a ~1 a number that a 2-yr-old is incredibly *unlikely* to run back to? Since you\'ve been making figures, I suspect you\'ve never seen a 2-yr-old filly go 1-4-1, right?
A Ragozin 6 is an extremely fast debut number for a Summer 2-yr-old, especially from Shug, who doesn\'t usually wind them up all that hard.
A reaction of some sort could be expected in her next race. It certainly wouldn\'t be surprising. Rag has it a pretty big reaction, to a 12. Too big? Perhaps, but the filly was so far clear of a miserable field in her second start, she was notably green and goofy in the stretch... And the filly who won the Miss Grillo won it with a slow number, right? And had a *horrific* trip in the Matron-- surely that doesn\'t prove anything, does it?
Then, in a more professional effort in the Frizette, the Rags say SFF runs back towards her top in the third start. Finally, bred to love two turns, she breaks through and runs a new top at AP...
Look, I\'m *not* saying the Ragozin version is correct. I\'m *not* saying that they didn\'t have her second start as too slow.
I am saying that using the number *you* came up with for her performance at AP as some sort of proof that Ragozin blew it on the 15th, well, it leaves me uncomfortable, and I can\'t imagine that it does anything other than preach to the converted.
A savvy Sheets player I know (a purchaser of both products, depending on what track he is playing) told me that he thought that Ragozin clearly had some performances on 9/15 too slow and Tgraph had them too fast.
Perhaps this is the case, perhaps not.
But when you\'re talking about the wealth of unusual circumstances surrounding SFF (her breeding, the quality of the Matron field, the shortness of her line, etc.), I think it\'s the last place you should start to prove anything.
I\'m just stuck with this thought in my head. Every Ragozin player I know thought SFF was the most likely winner in the race, with Composure the only filly with a chance to beat her. I don\'t think they looked all that different on Tgraph... The exacta paid $12.80. Zzzzzzz...
If the answer to that question is 1, we should all stop using figures. I would also point out that as it happens, the filly who won the Miss Grillo Sunday at Aqu was out of the 9/15 race.
Meanwhile, what ever happened to that joint venture you were talking about?
TGJB
SFF\'s BC number on Ragozin-- a 5.25. Small new top.
1- In regard to your overall position: the 2 year old fillies who can run that fast are probably 1 in 10,000. Here\'s what we\'ll do-- next time a horse runs really fast, I\'ll take that one to run back to the number, and you take another horse who hasn\'t run that fast to do so, and we\'ll bet. As much as you want.
2- As I have indicated in earlier posts, there were lots of reasons even before this start to know that Ragozin got the 9/15 number wrong (like, it\'s completely ridiculous on the face of it that she would get 6 points WORSE for winning a G1 by 13 lengths than she got for winning a maiden race by 1-- they are saying that just to match her first out figure she would have to have won the stake by 23 lengths), and it was only by taking a dogmatic approach to the day-- tieing the variants together despite sealing and unsealing the track during racing, and torrential rains after the filly race and during the 2yo colt race-- that anyone could come up with that preposturous number (which I predicted in advance they would do).
Marc, try this-- the number in question was the filly\'s second. Take the sheet and cover up the last two numbers, and ask yourself what you think she would have gone on to do. Then do it with ours.
Bottom line, I\'m not going to change your mind. But I\'m doing this to encourage those with open minds to look and compare on an ongoing basis
\"In regard to your overall position: the 2 year old fillies who can run that fast are probably 1 in 10,000. Here\'s what we\'ll do-- next time a horse runs really fast, I\'ll take that one to run back to the number, and you take another horse who hasn\'t run that fast to do so, and we\'ll bet. As much as you want.\"
I guess I\'m missing your point here. I think it\'s far more likely for a 2-yr-old to run a Thorograph 1 and change only once, but you think it\'s more likely for them to run it twice in a 6 week span?
\"Marc, try this-- the number in question was the filly\'s second. Take the sheet and cover up the last two numbers, and ask yourself what you think she would have gone on to do. Then do it with ours.\"
Maybe I\'m just a bad Sheets reader. But when a 2-yr-old filly runs a 6 and a 12, my thought would be:
Next number should tell us a lot.
When she runs a 7 then a 1.5, my thought would be: 1 more big effort at most, probably a ~2 point regression, then the smart play is to expect a big bounce.
You didn\'t miss the point, you intentionally misstated my position-- as I said in my original post, I played against her. What I said was that a horse who has already run super fast is more likely to run that number again than ANOTHER horse who has never run that fast. And if you really don\'t believe that, you have the opportunity to take a lot of money from me.
After the first two races, here is what you know, on Ragozin: she backed up 6 points off a 6, so that 6 was probably a big effort for her, and she is not likely to better that in the short run (the next 2 starts came at 3 week intervals). Here\'s what you know on TG: she\'s a freak. The first out 7 took nothing out of her, and she has proved she is capable of running a 1 1/2.
JB wrote: \"You didn\'t miss the point, you intentionally misstated my position\"
He did nothing of the kind. You owe him an apology.
\"You didn\'t miss the point, you intentionally misstated my position\"
No, this is untrue. I don\'t do stuff like that.
\"What I said was that a horse who has already run super fast is more likely to run that number again than ANOTHER horse who has never run that fast. And if you really don\'t believe that, you have the opportunity to take a lot of money from me.\"
The specifics of this situation, I guess we do disagree on them then. Because I would think that it\'s more likely for one 2-yr-old filly to run that number once at age 2 who has never run it (but who has a healthy line that hints that she could do something like this), as opposed to a 2-yr-old filly running that number twice within 6 weeks (and you bet with skepticism that she could do it twice within 6 weeks, too, apparently). In other words, Composure made more sense to me than Storm Flag Flying.
\"After the first two races, here is what you know, on Ragozin: she backed up 6 points off a 6, so that 6 was probably a big effort for her, and she is not likely to better that in the short run (the next 2 starts came at 3 week intervals).\"
The 12 was a big question mark. The track was terribly strange that day, and it was tough to know how much that would play into an off number... Plus she was less than focused in the stretch, or so it seemed... It was a *classic* wait and see kind of number. The third number would tell us a lot... We know some horses run off numbers on off tracks, yes?
\"Here\'s what you know on TG: she\'s a freak. The first out 7 took nothing out of her, and she has proved she is capable of running a 1 1/2.\"
Interesting take, but from what I\'ve seen, 1.5s are so rare among 2-yr-olds (especially summer/fall) that it makes more sense to play them as the type of numbers that would be damaging to a horse, period.
You\'ve seen many more two-yr-old lines than me, for sure. Unless I\'m still misunderstanding you, I guess you are saying that it\'s more common to see 2-yr-old fillies run back to numbers in the 1 range than it is to see those who have lines like Composure\'s run them once and that\'s it...
To me, it seems like if you looked at every 2-yr-old filly who had ever run in the 1 range, you\'d find many more that did it once than twice...
I don\'t want to seem like I\'m avoiding your bet-- the single most likely scenario is clearly for a 2-yr-old filly to never run a number that fast.
I would think the second most likely scenario is that she would run it once, but that\'s it.
The third most likely scenario is that she would run it twice in 6 weeks...
Or so I think...
I haven\'t got time for any of this, but go back and read what I wrote again. I specifically said it was more likely than another horse.
All that restating my positions in the last few paragraphs is exactly what I was talking about. I don\'t need you to state (let alone recast) my positions-- I do a pretty good job expressing myself. Is Pleveresque a word?
Given that Pleveresque is less than a compliment, I\'d like to not be thought of that way.
Your words, so I won\'t be accused of misstating them:
\"In regard to your overall position: the 2 year old fillies who can run that fast are probably 1 in 10,000. Here\'s what we\'ll do-- next time a horse runs really fast, I\'ll take that one to run back to the number, and you take another horse who hasn\'t run that fast to do so, and we\'ll bet. As much as you want.\"
Respectfully, I will pass that wager because the term \"you take another horse who hasn\'t run that fast to do so,\" tells me too little to make an educated bet, as does \"horse runs really fast.\"
Also, when you have more time, I\'d like to hear your opinion on how much more common 7-1-4-1 is from a fall 2-yr-old filly than 6-12-7-5, with the second number in both lines coming over an off-track.
JB wrote: \"I haven\'t got time for any of this, but go back and read what I wrote again. I specifically said it was more likely than another horse.\"
I have a lot of patience with you because I like you, but you are extremely rude to people (plural intentional) who don\'t deserve it, and who are a hell of a lot nicer than you are. Marc gets first crack at the numbers argument. If he doesn\'t have anything to add, you and I can finish it--if you can find the time.
You did it again.
My remark to him was not about the numbers arguement, it was about him misstating my position-- which he has continued to do. Most of the positions he has assigned to me in his last several posts are straw men. I\'ll say it again-- it is more likely that a horse that has already proved it can run a super fast figure will do so again than one who has not proved it can do so will do it at all. I said nothing about whether the horse is more likely to do it again than not, nothing about Composure, nothing about which scenario is more likely once a horse has run a super fast number, or any of the other stuff Marc has tried to stick me with--none of which is relevent to the discussion at hand.
JB wrote: \"I said before the race that I didn\'t know what result would confirm our figures or Ragozin\'s for the 9/15 race-- I meant that she could be played to x on either (I didn\'t have her on a ticket). But she ran back to the 1 1/2, so it should be clear who was right, and that Ragozin not only got it wrong, but got it wrong by a whole bunch.\"
Please tell me you see the problem with this in light of what you later wrote to Marc.
Guys--
I think Alydar seems to understand where I\'m coming from and it\'s all his to try to explain it TGJB.
As for the comment that it is more likely that a horse who has run a super fast number is more likely to do so again than one who never has run a super fast number to do so at all, I guess I agree with that. But that general statement--without taking into account the specifics as they are discussed above-- strikes me as almost wholly irrelevant.
I\'ll refrain from further dialogue on this subject out of fear that I\'ll misinterpret anything further. Looking forward to reading and learning more here.
Assuming I understand what you mean, I\'ll say it yet again-- I\'m NOT saying that she was better than 50/50 to run back to the figure that day, which is why I bet her to X. I\'m saying that it was far more likely for her to run that figure because she had previously done so than if she had not. Is it more likely to see that 1 off 7-1-4, or 7-9-4? Because if I had done the day the way Ragozin did, that\'s how it would be (and I know the pattern is different on Ragozin, BUT THAT\'S A SEPARATE QUESTION FROM THE ONE UNDER DISCUSSION, WHICH IS THE ONE I STATED ABOVE}. If you are asking me in % terms, I would have made her maybe 30-40% to run back to the big number, as opposed to maybe 5% if her top was 3 points worse.
But all of this has taken us far afield (and I believe intentionally) from the point-- the BC number is just another piece of evidence, along with all the other things I mentioned (some of them before I saw what Ragozin had given her) that our figure is correct and theirs is not.
If you think this is loud, wait until tomorrow, but I have to check some stuff first.
JB wrote: \"But all of this has taken us far afield (and I believe intentionally\"
Intentionally by whom?
And since you guys insist-- I let Marc\'s comment that Ragozin players read SFF\'s sheet as ready to break through go by because I didn\'t want the discussion to get further sidetracked. This is a filly who, on Ragozin, has been unable to get back to a first out number in two susequent starts, who bounced 6 points off a 6 and now is coming off a 7, and is making her third start in 6 weeks, and you\'re going to expect her to run one of the best races a 2 year old filly has ever run? I don\'t think so, which is why I said BEFORE the race that she could be played against on either. My guess is that most sophisticated Ragozin players (!) did NOT expect her to break through.
Marc. I thought I made that clear. It goes the same way-- Plever, Patent (for a while), now Marc-- Ragozin guys come on here, sometimes starting without bad intentions (Patent, maybe Marc), and when the arguement starts heading South, start throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. Another example is the abuse I took this time last year when I brought up the dead rails-- go back and look at all the crap that was thrown at me, and when it turned out I was 100% right there was not a peep from any of those assholes.
I want to add that unlike Plever, Patent\'s been intellectually honest since the Spring, although his recent comment makes me nervous. I realize that this sounds harsh, and I\'m glad Marc recused himself, and maybe it will turn out that I am wrong-- but I\'m forced to deal with this stuff by the nature of the situation, and I\'m tired of it. There is also a lot of crap thrown at me on the other board, which of course I don\'t get to answer (Jim is back). Watch what happens tomorrow.
JB: Who is responsible for Plever no longer being here? Who is responsible for David Patent backing off?
JB wrote: \"Marc. I thought I made that clear...go back and look at all the crap that was thrown at me, and when it turned out I was 100% right there was not a peep from any of those assholes.\"
Watch your mouth. You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing Marc to Plever. This is by far the most despicable thing I\'ve seen you do on this board.
The figures part of this will come tonight. I want to tie it to a larger question.
1- Not Marc.
2- That\'s some ellipsis. Nice of you to ignore my parenthetical, and the next paragraph.
JB wrote: \"- Not Marc.\"
Not an answer. Answer the question.
\"That\'s some ellipse. Nice of you to ignore the next paragraph.\"
1: Save this BS for when you\'re talking to an idiot. Your entire post is RIGHT ON TOP of what I quoted. I will also deal with your last paragraph tonight--unless you decide that you want to end the discussion.
2: It\'s not an ellipse. It\'s an ellipsis. Don\'t you know anyone who can help you with this sort of thing?
Let me see, who was it... look, I didn\'t say anything that would cause you to have to defend yourself. The only one I accused of bad intentions (and I said he may have
started with good ones) was Marc.
There were a number of distinctions made that your ellipsis obliterated (and I had already fixed it).
She\'s in Turkey, comes back Friday.
I never wanted to have this discussion in the first place, remember?
JB wrote: \"Let me see, who was it... look, I didn\'t say anything that would cause you to have to defend yourself.\"
I wasn\'t defending myself. I wrote the Plever/Patent bit to remind you that you might want to trust me when I tell you that you\'re wrong about someone else.
\"The only one I accused of bad intentions (and I said he may have
started with good ones) was Marc.\"
You\'re wrong about his intentions.
\"There were a number of distinctions made that your ellipsis obliterated (and I had already fixed it).\"
I\'ll be happy to get to all of them in due course. My stamina has no end. By the way, are you the only person who gets to edit his posts?
\"She\'s in Turkey, comes back Friday.\"
You already know what I think you should do here.
\"I never wanted to have this discussion in the first place, remember?\"
You started the first one, and you started this one. So here we go. Marc did a superb job with this. All I need to do is retrace his steps--slowly. Beginning this string, you wrote: \"I said before the race that I didn\'t know what result would confirm our figures or Ragozin\'s for the 9/15 race\"
Then what the hell are we doing? I\'m perfectly willing to follow this through, and I have no end of opinions, but I think it best if we begin with your answer to this question.
From JB\'s review
\"The only horse who got a top racing on the rail on the backstretch, second turn and stretch was Thunderello. Among the horses who may have been compromised were Summer Colony, Santa Catarina, Whywhywhy, Dollar Bill, and Perfect Drift.\"
All of the horses named had other excuses besides dead rail. I loved Summer Colony, but I would accept your pre-race analysis that she may have been baked. Santa Catarina looked like a good bet to pair, but you could argue that she was a 2yo filly who just backed up off the top. Whywhywhy is a Mr. Greeley and a little suspect around two turns, also coming in off a pair of 4\'s, which are strong 2yo numbers. Dollar Bill ran a bunch of good ones (if memory serves about three or four 1-2\'s) and may have just thrown an off race. As for Perfect Drift, having seen him run like crap with my eminently logical money on his back before, his poor performance illustrates nothing to me.
Are these implausible explanations that have less currency than \"dead rail\"? Tough call, I would think, and I sure you gave it plenty of consideration. Thunderello was ripping, and that looked like evidence (big time) to the contrary to me. Sign me, curious (yellow). HP
That\'s why I said \"may have been\". This one is not as clear-cut as last year, and I\'m going to follow these horses. It\'s also why I didn\'t make as big a stink about it.
Quick question--
Was Volponi on the rail throughout the first run through the stretch? Charts indicated as much, but I don\'t remember either way...
He was on the rail on the first turn, I don\'t know about before then--I\'ll try and remember to take a look tonight. As I think I said in my original post, the horses who seemed to be affected were those who spent significant time on the rail backstretch, stretch turn, stretch. This one is not clear cut-- but if I don\'t mark it, how do you deal with Whywhywhy, Perfect Drift etc. when they come back? I guess we could have an X? designation and watch the horses run back-- we\'ll see how it goes.
TGJB,
Not enough patience to read through this entire string, but........ Whywhywhy is bred to sprint, and was aided big time by the wet fast strip in his last Belmont win (as you know better than anyone), and Perfect Drift simply has stamina problems. His Derby was average at best, absolutely no reason why he couldn\'t have cut at least a length or two into WE\'s lead down the stretch (and his Belmont was even worse). Don\'t read too much into those two particular horses, they are both overrated (i.e. Www will never be a star going 9F, and PD will never be a star going 10F. Forget the X, just say don\'t bet those horses when they try distances beyond their means). BTW...... what is your early opinion on a Vindication vs Storm Flag Flying spring matchup. I usually lose interest in horse racing after the BC, but I think I might have to shop around for some Derby futures odds. I really think SFF might be something special.
HP,
Just read your post.... I guess I should have read the entire string first (I said the exact same thing you said). Do we actually agree on something????
Michael,
I don\'t think I\'ve ever disagreed entirely with what you said, just your emphasis. All your points have some validity.
HP
The steakhouse dinner was certainly marred by the vicious attack upon a member of the party by a \"midwest Pigeon\". The animal is resting comfortably after having undergone a painful series of shots required when one bites am member of the legal profession. Rumors abound that the duck may also have attended Drexel University and migrated to Arlington from his Summmer home in th Catskills only a week before the race.
Starine was a great call and helped to salvage and otherwise mediocre day at the window. SFF was impressive and is only limited by her mental state becouse she did it with ease.
It\'s an in joke, folks, and you had to be there. Ray, myself and others were leaving the retaurant the night before the BC when Joe Friedberg, friend, lawyer, and author of the letter to Ragozin\'s office, decided to try to pet a duck in the parking lot. Friedberg got the pain, but we got the stitches.
I am trying to retrieve the Thorograph BC
sheets which you mentioned are available on-line. Despite my efforts I am unable to
download this data shown as the Race of the
Week. I show a 39 per cent transfer and can get no further. Please advise.