My point in this post is to warm against using one\'s eyes too much to determine how great a race was instead of looking at the numbers. Obviously, I am referring to how so many people seem to be willing to hand the Belmont to BB because of how easily he won on Sat even through the numbers say he\'s heading in the wrong direction.
Here\'s the anecdote.
I own a piece of a horse called High Finance. Last Memorial Day weekend, he won a nx3 at Belmont and ran a 4 negative on the sheets.
Off of that effort, he ran in the Tom Fool and won pretty easily with Velasquez hand riding him for the last part of the race. He got a 1 negative for the Tom Fool win.
We were all convinced that the 1 negative was misleading b/c Velasquez wasn\'t asking him for everything down the stretch so the numbers/pattern didn\'t mean as much as it would have otherwise.
Well, anyone who watched last year\'s Forego knows how this one ends as High Finance got an easy lead in 23 and change but then proceeded to spit the bit even though High Finance was coming into the race with 7 weeks rest.
BTW, Jerry did the seminar at the Spa that morning and said the horse was a throwout on the pattern.
Yes High Finance is a horse with a history of soundness problems so big races are more likely to take it out of one like that than they are some others but Big Brown\'s soundess history isn\'t perfect either.
Morale of the story is to not ignore the fact that the sheets say he is going in the wrong direction just because the effort looked easiy visually.
I\'m not an expert pattern reader, but I have been watching high level horses develop for over 30 years.
One difference between a horse like High Finance and Big Brown is that BB has been very fast and given evidence of being a special horse from his first race until now. I don\'t recall the details/trips of all of HF\'s races, but I recall enough to remember he was a decent prospect that seemed to get really sharp all of a sudden in a burst of improvement. Even if you don\'t look at trips and race conditions, that\'s already enough of a different development pattern to expect that the probabilities of him moving backwards were not the same as with BB.
I love trying to predict the direction a horse is going to take based on where he is in his form cycle etc...
However.....
Let me suggest that IMO the opposite is occurring here. People are starting with the conclusion that they hate BB (probably because they hate Dutrow or want to beat the favorite) and then coming up with interpretations of his figures to fit their desired conclusion or the general stats on other fast spring 3YOs.
The problem is that many of those other fast 3YOs had much different development patterns. Some got really good out of nowhere, some earned an isolated big figure under highly suspicious conditions, some earned a big top on an off track, some with a clearly favorable trip etc.... So the probabilities of BB bouncing are NOT THE SAME as a group that contains a bunch of horses that IMO were extremely likely NOT to duplicate their best figure.
Stats are helpful, but each of these horses is unique and IMO their development (or pattern) must be looked at individually. There are clues to be gained by looking at other horses and general tendencies, but you better be sure the sample of horses you are looking at reflects the probabilities for the horse you are trying to evaluate.
If BB ran another negative 4 people would be saying he\'s going to bounce because he ran too fast. Instead, because this race looks a bit slower people are going to say he\'s going backwards and has to bounce. It gets silly after awhile.
To me, there\'s no doubt that BB is eventually going to wear out from this campaign. Even if he doesn\'t wear down in the Belmont, he may lose because he can\'t get the 12F. But whatever figure he earned in the Preakness, I don\'t think it\'s telling us much about those probabilities because he\'s a legitimate top notch horse and he won the Preakness very easily.
Awesome post and I agree with alot of it.
In my case though, I am not strictly anti-Dutrow. I own a horse with IEAH and so Dutrow trains it (not my choice) so I certainly have no built in bias against him or the horse. Also, while I stupidly threw the horse out of the Derby (and therefore got wiped out), I did win alot on the pick 4 this weekend so I have no built-in negative preconceptions about the trainer or the horse.
My main point is that off of that effort in the preakness, he doesn\'t have anymore room to regress again before one of the 4 horses who could run a negative number in the Bemont would get to him. If he had run another 4 negative in the Preakness, sure he would be more likely to react in the Bemont but he would have alot more wiggle room than he has now.
I am still trying to determine how much wiggle room he has exactly and so I have ordered up the TG sheet on Casino Drive since I don\'t think we ever officially determined on the board here what number he ran in the Peter Pan.
So according to your theory Kent should have opened him up and won by 15.
Brilliant.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point in this post is to warm against using
> one\'s eyes too much to determine how great a race
> was instead of looking at the numbers. Obviously,
> I am referring to how so many people seem to be
> willing to hand the Belmont to BB because of how
> easily he won on Sat even through the numbers say
> he\'s heading in the wrong direction.
>
> Here\'s the anecdote.
>
> I own a piece of a horse called High Finance.
> Last Memorial Day weekend, he won a nx3 at Belmont
> and ran a 4 negative on the sheets.
>
> Off of that effort, he ran in the Tom Fool and won
> pretty easily with Velasquez hand riding him for
> the last part of the race. He got a 1 negative
> for the Tom Fool win.
>
> We were all convinced that the 1 negative was
> misleading b/c Velasquez wasn\'t asking him for
> everything down the stretch so the numbers/pattern
> didn\'t mean as much as it would have otherwise.
>
> Well, anyone who watched last year\'s Forego knows
> how this one ends as High Finance got an easy lead
> in 23 and change but then proceeded to spit the
> bit even though High Finance was coming into the
> race with 7 weeks rest.
>
> BTW, Jerry did the seminar at the Spa that morning
> and said the horse was a throwout on the pattern.
>
> Yes High Finance is a horse with a history of
> soundness problems so big races are more likely to
> take it out of one like that than they are some
> others but Big Brown\'s soundess history isn\'t
> perfect either.
>
> Morale of the story is to not ignore the fact that
> the sheets say he is going in the wrong direction
> just because the effort looked easiy visually.
I unloaded on High Finance in the Tom Fool (we talked about the race here). I made it a huge effort based on the pace and final 1/8. I sometimes rate an effort less if the horse is not ridden to the wire, but not when they run that fast through the early and middle stages of the race. that race was an effort based on the 6f run alone.
anyway, congrats on the win. is he still running?
Thanks alot, it was really sweet.
Believe it or not, the idea is to point him to the Tom Fool again. Maybe a prep race for him ahead of time but not likely given how much his races take out of him as an unsound horse and how well he usually fires fresh.
Kirian is training him now instead of Violette and Kirian has done some very good things with his feet/shoes and a chripractor after every breeze and it has really made a different with the horse\'s stride.
I am not sure you understood what I was saying in the original post. There are two points:
1) I don\'t believe he would have run that much faster if Kent has opened up on him. Fast horses go really fast even if the jocks aren\'t beating them to the wire. I don\'t believe that the time would have been that different if Kent had beaten him all the way. You may disagree with the point which is totally fine but that\'s the idea.
2) Even with the so called geared down effort, the bi and bo down the lane and the funny gallop out suggest that the cumulative effects of these big efforts are taking alot out of him. Again, you may disagree but that\'s the other big point.
Didn\'t people say the same thing about BB after the Florida Derby on the weaving? While there are now three weeks instead of five, there\'s at least some reason the thinking weaving does not mean exhausted with BB.
totally agree it\'s not conclusive but he didn\'t do it in the Derby so it could mean something.
The problem with the analysis is this.
You say that you\'d like him better if he ran faster in the Preakness, as he would have more \'room to bounce\' and still run a fast number.
What was the jock supposed to do? He coasted until the lane, and could have waited longer but it would be an embarrassment to hardly ride at all and win a race like that. You have to do a little work for the check.
If he runs slow, you\'d say he was regressing. BB was guaranteed to run a slower # in the Preakness.
So exactly what would BB have had to do to not generate a \'knock\'?
Covelj70,
With all due respect, the difference between what you call Johnny V not riding hard on High Finance and what Kent Desormeaux did on Big Brown is not NEARLY the same, not even in the same league.
I find this talk of \"regression\" in the Preakness and the \"weaving\" in the lane pretty funny. I think I was about the first and maybe the loudest on this board to take a stand against Big Brown in the Preakness, but it is hard to take that position in the Belmont with any kind of confidence. I generally agree that handrides in the lane don\'t necessarily mean a horse could have run faster. But Kent had a hold of this guy for the first mile of the race, let him out for only 5-7 strides at the top of the stretch and then did even LESS than hand ride him. He throttled him down to a gallup at the end.
To answer Jerry\'s post yesterday, I see a significant difference in Big Brown\'s position coming into the Belmont than Smarty Jones. Smarty was ridden hard in the Preakness, somewhat foolishly so, as he set a record for victory margin. Big Brown didn\'t exert himself. Kent could not pull him up after the race. Big Brown seems to have used much less energy in winning the Preakness win than Smarty Jones did. It also looks to me like Smarty faced tougher horses in the Belmont than Big Brown will. I loved Tale of Ekati in the Derby, but geez, anybody that watched his Derby knows he didn\'t want the 1 1/4. He got a nice ride from Coa and just didn\'t want the distance. The Clown called that before the race and Miff and Michael D pointed it out after the race. To think he will get 1 1/2 miles and beat Big Brown is a real stretch. Denis of Cork got a 1w/1w trip in the Derby from post 16 (which somehow got his rider fired). Even if he gets back to his zero, it won\'t be enough. The only case I can make even slightly is that Casino Drive could be a monster. We know he will get the 1 1/2 miles, but his brother and sister had QUITE A BIT more foundation before they won their Belmonts. This horse would really have to be something very special to beat Big Brown off two starts. Not sure the 4-1 or so would represent fair value on him being that kind of freak himself.
Good thoughts Jimbo, thanks. Everything you said makes great sense.
Only question I would come back with are why the thoughts about \"weaving\" funny. If it was as easy as everyone thinks, why was he weaving at all? He didn\'t weave in the Derby?
Did you see where Dutrow said that he burned down his back heels during the race? Maybe that accounts for the funny antics down the lane and after the wire.
I honestly don\'t know if that is a big deal or not but the work Dutrow will have to do for the next week or so will keep the training very light. I am sure this was the plan anyway though.
Cov,
BB goes with his head checked higher than most horses so his head movements are more pronounced, the weaving could be nothing or something, pick one.His heels will be ok as he ran down only slightly and the horse is not flinching when touched in that area. It\'s not going to be a factor according to his connections.
The most interesting thing is the read on BB\'s performance in the Preakness, fig wise. The more I look at the day, the slower the Preakness looks and with Ichabod Crane(a snail going in) finishing rather close, it\'s maybe not that surprising that Beyer only gave 100.Hopkins/Beyer felt that the track was fast all day.Translating adjusted Beyer to TG would be a zero,a regression of app 9+ lengths,I dont buy it.Don\'t know what Jerry will do but I was told of a strong headwind in the latter part of the card.
Jim,
The odds on Casino Drive will be tough to predict. The sushi crew bet a ton of Yen in the Peter Pan. That was not american bettors making that horse 6/5 for sure.The enormous pool on Belmont day may swallow the the Sushi crew\'s bet though as BB is sure to be over-bet countrywide.I agree that only two horses will be bet,all others will be big prices.
Going in, Casino Drive has a 101 Beyer(app 1/2 on TG if Jerry saw it the same)Interesting that Rags gave CD a 2 3/4(a neg 3/4 TG translated)and that seems very fast for Rags considering that there was almost no ground loss, light weight he beat a horse that wasn\'t that fast going in, TG fig wise.He\'s got the pedigree and is impressing most horsemen who see him, but he\'ll have to have an enormous engine to handle something close to BB\'s best.I was not that impressed that CD did not separate himself very quickly from a weak Peter Pan field but otherwise he ran very professionally for a \"short\" horse with just one start.They say he is quicker in the morning than he has shown in his two starts where he has broken a step slow.
Mike
Dutrow mentioned that second race off the quarantine was a regress race more times than not.
Casino Drive acted up on a quiet Peter Pan Day.He didn\'t wash out,but I think it might have been cool that day(anyone know the temperature?).Early June could be warmer and the place will be a freaking zoo.No lasix on top of that.Seems to me the only way to play the race is to get him out of the exacta-and hopefully the tri.He\'s going to take a ton of exotic money.
Covelj,
i saw the head on and I would not use the term \"weaving\", which is what I meant. I think that is a bit of a stretch. Let\'s see what the TG track man calls it, but I don\'t think you will see a bo/bi designation.
Miff,
I know you like Hopkins and I am not arguing for a better number in the Preakness, but I feel that Beyer is wrong on this horse for a number of races now. His Florida Derby was faster than he gave it, his Derby was faster than he gave it. According to Beyer, Big Brown is a below average Derby winner. He had one of the slowest Beyer \"tops\" before the Derby win and has an average derby, and one of the slowest preaknesses in 20 years.
I am \"selling\" on Beyer\'s numbers, not \"buying\". I think he is missing the boat. (I know you told me that the conversion of the Derby to TG \"fits\", but I have heard several times it doesn\'t (including from JB).
I also know this crop of 3 year olds is viewed as pretty slow and I agree, but I just can\'t justify the slow numbers Beyers is giving Big Brown, race after race. It just doesn\'t seem right to me. (agree in advance with anybody that plans to point out that Beyer has been doing this for 30 years and I have never made figures).
Jimbo,
Couldn\'t the slow Beyer number in the Derby be because he was 4w and 4w into a stiff headwind which is why the TG number was so big and why TG\'s are so much better than Beyer\'s in the first place?
Mike,
Got word this AM that High Finance will be coming back in the True North on the undercard on Belmont Day. Should be fun.
Jim,
Your point is well taken. I am a little surprised that Jerry thinks that Beyer has BB slow since by my conversion formula Beyer and TG are very close as is Rags in the Derby.
Jim, you must remember that Beyer people do not use ground loss and they admit that if you do consider ground loss in the derby then you could get the derby faster than they have it.Jerry also spoke of wind factor in the derby.All considered I think they all got it right in terms of their different formulas.
Many at DRFdo not argue that TG and Rags have the derby as the fastest ever run by their methodologies.Your last comment is something I completely agree with.In the absence of science, some figures will always be controversial whether you are a figure maker or just an informed follower.
Mike
Mike,
I can\'t find Jerry\'s post, but it was after the Derby when I commented about Beyer giving a slow figure. You posted about the conversion and he said something about you shouldn\'t have adjusted for weight, because they all carried 126. I could be wrong, but I took that to mean that by JB\'s calculation, Beyer didn\'t have the DErby as fast as TG did, even with the ground loss factored out.
JB and Michael D,
Since Michael is bringing up the \"are horses getting faster\" topic, would it be a good time for me to question the figure given to High Limit in the Louisiana Derby again??? :)
Jim
Jimbo-- No.
I know your overall point was larger than this one aspect, but isn\'t it ironic that your thread title was about how using visual over numbers is dangerous, yet you have several posts about how the horse \"apparently\" weaving in the stretch is a bad sign? Why use visual evidence in a thread about how visual evidence is less meaningful than numbers?
it is kind of funny but I think you understand that using visual to identify bear ins and outs (or not) is one thing but using visual to identify how great a race was given the margin of victory or suppossed ease of the win is another.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jimbo-- No.
LOL.
and Jim, Jerry brought it up, not me.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jimbo,
>
> Couldn\'t the slow Beyer number in the Derby be
> because he was 4w and 4w into a stiff headwind
> which is why the TG number was so big and why TG\'s
> are so much better than Beyer\'s in the first
> place?
>
> Mike,
>
> Got word this AM that High Finance will be coming
> back in the True North on the undercard on Belmont
> Day. Should be fun.
great, looking forward to it.
do you think 6f is long enough for him? wasn\'t his most impressive race at a flat mile at Bel? did you think Met Mile at all?
Mike,
you know this horse better than I do :)
One turn mile is definitely his best gig but he wasn\'t going to be ready to run a mile against that caliber right off the shelf so we try the True North at 6f with the idea that
a) not too many are likely to show up agaist Benny the Bull so we shouldn\'t catch too tough a field other than him, and
b) he can use that as a stepping stone to the Tom Fool which is 7f, a better distance for him as you point out.
The race he ran last Memorial Day would have been good enough to win the Met Mile a week later (on the sheets and other figs).
Miff,
For the record, Beyer did tinker with the Derby number because of the wind in the stretch. It would have been even lower if he didn\'t tinker. (I think it was about 3 points).