From the talk I\'ve heard and most of the posts I\'ve read, I would suspect that many people are looking to find a reason to play against BB in the Belmont. Most of the focus seems to be on the spacing of BB\'s races, his overall pattern, negative numbers, probability of a bounce, suspect breeding for the distance, etc. So I thought I would chime in my two cents along these lines and open a few things up for debate.
I would love to find a compelling reason to bet against BB in the Belmont. I live to play against heavy favorites, especially in big betting pools. I was hoping to find one for the Preakness... short story is I couldn\'t. I also couldn\'t find any compelling reason to play a bomber in the exacta, or a big tri or a semi-spread super. I liked Kentucky Bear underneath but so did everyone else and it turned out to be an underlay. So I did what I thought was best: I passed the race and watched a champion go about his business.
So now we come to the Belmont. We can talk about BB\'s breeding all we want, but as far as I can tell my eyes say this horse has done nothing to suggest he won\'t get the 1 1/2. Just watch his gallop out after derby. He has stamina to spare and just keeps going and going... I think this is exactly what he will do in the Belmont.
I understand the theory behind form cycles and regression. It is a theory I happen to agree with and this has been quite profitable for me. The theory, however, is best predicated upon seeing a hard recent effort on the track which is later confirmed by the figure and then followed by inadequate rest. True, BB has run some very big figures, and one that was very big. But amazingly, I don\'t think he has even run hard yet. He didn\'t have a drop of sweat on him after the derby, and he hardly took a deep breath during the Preakness. So while he has run those big numbers, I do not believe that they were necessarily big for him. And that is a very big key to regression theory. Let\'s face it, BB may just be that good, a FREAK, and if he is he will probably now be at the peak of his form cycle and therefore very likely to get even better in the near future. Remember, this horse did not train consistently until the immediate weeks proceeding the Derby. Look at the way Kent had to hand urge him to go after the leaders approaching the far turn at Churchill. At Pimlico he just sat there and BB did it all on his own. This horse is moving forward. He is also learning and putting it all together. He has overcome a very wide trip from the 20 post, he has shown he can either stalk or set the pace, he can be pulled back and steered clear of trouble if it develops and still retain his push-button acceleration, he waits for his cues to run, he can make multiple moves in a race... I don\'t know what more anyone wants to see this horse do before they admit that this is just not a normal grade one 3 year old horse. This is a special horse, and special horses do special things.
That being said, I don\'t know what is going to happen when another horse finally comes along that has the moxie to run eyeball to eyeball with BB in the lane. That is when we will find out what type of heart he has, and that is what will ultimately determine how good he really is. Still, I personally find it hard to imagine that Casino Drive, or any other 3 year old for that matter, will also be freakish enough to run a negative 3,4,5 or whatever else it may take to run with BB. So I maintain that if there are no physical set backs, if BB trains well leading up to this race, I don\'t think he can be beat unless he gets the most nightmarish of all trips. Hoping that he gets a bad trip or hoping that he regresses simply because he has run a big negative number seems like a bad strategy to me. In my opinion hope is a strategy for the bar or for trying to get laid. It is usually not a good strategy for risking money, or at least not my money. So I am going to get my plane ticket, fly out to Belmont and watch BB and a few of these other horses train in the week leading up to the race. Hopefully the weather will be cool enough in the morning to see the air coming out of their nostrils. If by watching BB I can find a first hand reason to believe he is going to regress then I will post it here on this board. But if I can\'t find a negative, or if I can\'t find a reason to hate Casino Drive, or if there is no reason to love a bomber, then I am regrettably going to have to pass another Triple Crown race and simply watch a champion go about his business.
Happy Hunting,
MJ
Good post. I would very much like to read your observations the week of the race, so please post them here.
Does anyone know if Pyro is going in the Belmont?
Also, I found this stat interesting. Got it from Haskin\'s Preakness report on Bloodhorse: \"BB came home his final three-sixteenths in :19.08 against a strong headwind, which ranks among the fastest closing fractions in Preakness history.\"
Posted by: Uncle Buck (IP Logged)
Date: May 21, 2008 12:32AM
Good post. I would very much like to read your observations the week of the race, so please post them here.
Does anyone know if Pyro is going in the Belmont?
Also, I found this stat interesting. Got it from Haskin\'s Preakness report on Bloodhorse: \"BB came home his final three-sixteenths in :19.08 against a strong headwind, which ranks among the fastest closing fractions in Preakness history.\"
Here are the the final 3/16ths from the last few Preakness runnings:
2008 19.08
2007 18.78
2006 18.92
2005 19
2004 19.15
2003 19.19
2002 20.14
Not sure how much the headwind had to do with the final time this year, or as equally important for other years. But there they are to save some time. I think Haskin is reaching here. In my opinion if anything it was average.
I will post anything I see of significance, hopefully others will do the same. Pools will be big enough so I don\'t think we have to worry too much about giving away too much money.
MJ,
Thanks so much for the posts, much appreciated. Your thoughts are terrific.
Question. How do you reconcile the lower numbers that BB received on TG, Rags and Beyer for the Preakness with the idea that he just keeps getting better?
It would seem like he bounced pretty hard in the Preakness on any scale and I know one of the arguments is that he didn\'t run hard but a) I don\'t agree with that, and b) even if I did and he could have run another point or so on TG if he had been asked more, that would still represent a pretty big regression from his race in the Derby.
Do you a) not believe the numbers, or b) think he will bounce back to the big efforts in the Fla and Ky Derbies in the Belmont?
Thanks again so much for your thoughts
Is it a \"bounce\" if the horse runs a slower race by design -- hence the lower TG, Beyer, Rags numbers?
To me, a bounce is when a horse is asked for and tries to run back to his most recent best effort, and can\'t replicate it.
Anyone that thinks that\'s what happened with Big Brown in the Preakness should be betting against him in the Belmont, with all they can afford to bet.
And if I\'m right, I\'ll be having some of that money from the \"Bet Against Big Brown\" crowd -- I don\'t think Big Brown was asked to do much in the Preakness (except for those 5 or 6 strides where he gapped the field).
In my eyes, he didn\'t bounce at all -- he simply ran fast enough to win.
Rick,
Totally fair view, that\'s why I asked the question.
BTW, those of us who believe he bounced are few and far between, I wouldn\'t be expecting anything better than 1-5 on the horse in the Belmont.
The folks on this board are alot more sophisticated (and therefore more likely to look for a reason to play against the fav) than the average player and this board is about 80/20 adament that BB can\'t lose.
I am not saying that the view is crazy by any stretch. Obviously I disagree with it but it\'s certainly a very legitimate view. My point is that anyone who thinks that there will be enough people betting against Big Brown to create some value in playing him is kidding themself.
Without knowing the track speed and wind velocity/direction for each Preakness, the raw split, 19.08, is difficult to assess.
Mike
Cove
No value in playing on him no matter what.
The only value in the race if you think BB jogs is getting Casino Drive out of there.
Icabad Crane one of the long ones that is good on pattern and pedigree.
\"Pyro, like Curlin, is being prepared for a June 14 start at Churchill Downs, with his target race being the Grade 3 Northern Dancer Stakes on the Stephen Foster undercard.\"
http://www.drf.com/news/article/94698.html
Very interesting the path and free pass Pyro is taking and has gotten. For a horse who was so widely regarded as \"THE HORSE TO BEAT\" in the Derby as late as late March he is now totally off the Triple Crown Trail and not even contending in the second tier 3YO races.
He burned a lot of money Derby Day and now he is a Northern Dancer Stakes, Barbaro Stakes type horse.
Hmmmmmm
No matter what the number is, he still won by 5 lengths or so. That\'s plenty of margin. So the way I see it focusing on the fig is a bad way to look at the Preakness. Horses are not numbers on sheets. By taking your view and focusing on the number, what you are really saying is if BB doesn\'t win by 12 he bounced. That just doesn\'t seem right to me. This is a smart horse that listens to his jock. Look at the 3 subtle moves he made in the Preakness.
So in my opinion the question you should be asking yourself is could BB have won by 12 if he wanted to?
Re: BB Food for Thought (66 Views)
Posted by: covelj70 (IP Logged)
Date: May 21, 2008 08:20AM
MJ,
Thanks so much for the posts, much appreciated. Your thoughts are terrific.
Question. How do you reconcile the lower numbers that BB received on TG, Rags and Beyer for the Preakness with the idea that he just keeps getting better?
It would seem like he bounced pretty hard in the Preakness on any scale and I know one of the arguments is that he didn\'t run hard but a) I don\'t agree with that, and b) even if I did and he could have run another point or so on TG if he had been asked more, that would still represent a pretty big regression from his race in the Derby.
Do you a) not believe the numbers, or b) think he will bounce back to the big efforts in the Fla and Ky Derbies in the Belmont?
Thanks again so much for your thoughts
MJ,
thanks again for the thoughts.
One final follow-up, isn\'t it relevant for the margin of victory argument that the horses he beat in the Preakness weren\'t really legit G1 animals? Only one of the other horses in the Preakness had won a graded stake. That had to have something to do with the margin of victory or how much he could have won by if asked.
He will be facing some better beasts in the Belmont if not defined by TGs, then by graded stake wins.
Thanks again for the thoughts.
QuoteSo in my opinion the question you should be asking yourself is could BB have won by 12 if he wanted to?
This is just it. It seems mere speculation to say that he could or would have won by however many lengths. We just can\'t say.
That said, it seems pretty clear that BB\'s final time was not determined by the limit of his effort. He was placed just where his jockey wanted him to be, made his move where he needed to make it, and made a big enough move to win comfortably. Now, I suppose it\'s possible that this kind of trip coincided perfectly with the limit of his ability - such that if the pace on the front end would have been faster, BB would have been farther back,or would not have finished as well, etc.
But there\'s no reason to believe this either, and thus no reason to think the -1 shows a true bounce.
\"He will be facing some better beasts in the Belmont if not defined by TGs, then by graded stake wins\".
Cov,
Really no such thing as \"better\" at this level, only faster counts. There are no fast ones in there,the X factor being CD who will have to pick up 10 lbs and run a few points faster to even be competitive with BB near his best.
Mike
Miff,
I guess it really gets back to if you believe in the 1 negative for the Preakness.
If you don\'t believe the number, then BB is much faster than the competition he will face in the Belmoont and he could bounce and would still be 85-90% to win.
If you do believe the 1 negative, then he\'s only 1 point faster than three others in the race with a terrible pattern and running his 3rd race in 5 weeks he\'s only maybe 25% or so likely to win.
Everyone will need to decide for themselves if they believe the 1 negative in the Preakness.
Bouncing to a negative one. (While winning under wraps!) Seems almost an oxymoron. Just think about that for a bit. How many 3yo in recent memory have been accused of that feat? I\'m sure Alan and Jerry could comment from a statistical perspective.
Here\'s a scenario:
BB was toying with his inferiors and could have replicated the negative 4.75 at will. He eats up, rests up, juices up with a dose-a-day for the next 3 weeks. Draws the outside post in a field of 10-12. Fires off to the front, wins by a pole while needlessly 5W around both turns. Earns a negative 9.5 with steam blowing out his nose and flames shooting from his ass. The awestruck crowd gasps as Brown gets airborne just past the wire and lands in Lexington two hours later as the fading sound of \"Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee.....\" emanates from a giddy Kent D..
Cov,
He\'s only one point faster in his LAST race, held!. The figure is correct, imo, but not totally reflective of the performance.As far as the others with the so called figs, there are many holes to be shot in those one fig wonders.To suggest that any horse in here is close to being as fast BB is a leap of faith.
BB only gets beat if runs down to the level of his competetion otherwise it\'s just a matter of how far he will win by.As in the derby and preakness it comes down to whether or not this horse reacts enough to get run over.
Mike
CD packed 123# in his Japan race against unknown quality and on a track rated as good, with no drugs listed.
It\'s up to the individual capper to decide what importance to attach.
Mike,
thanks for the thoughts.
If you agree with the 1 negative, then he doesn\'t have as much room to move backward in the Belmont and still win as he did in the Preakness where he could (and did) back up 4 points and still crush the field.
Totally agree that we can poke holes in the O\'s that were run by those lining up in the Belmont but isn\'t it likely that at least one of the horses fast enough to run a 0 can hit that number on June 7th?
If they do, Brownie can\'t back up anymore and still win.
I know the argument from many is that that 1 negative could have been any number Kent wanted it to be had he asked for more but I just don\'t see that. He ran right with the leaders for the first 6 furlongs and then took off like a rocket for the next 3f and then coasted for the last f. He ran hard for all but the final furlong and the fact of the matter is that the race just wasn\'t that fast (if we believe the 1 negative which was my original point).
Thanks again for the dialog, really enojoying it.
\"Totally agree that we can poke holes in the O\'s that were run by those lining up in the Belmont but isn\'t it likely that at least one of the horses fast enough to run a 0 can hit that number on June 7th?\"
Cov,
No I don\'t think so judging from there past performances esp the two derby runners. Both hung going shorter off good trips and were outrun by the filly 8 Belles. Why would they top going even longer?
Mike
As miff said in another post - it\'s not a matter of agreeing with the number. The number is the number. The issue is whether or not going from a -4 to a -1 one in this case adequately reflects a change in form.
My feeling is that Tale of Ekati was compromised by an inside post similar to the way Curlin was last year.
He gets shuffled back early, has to middle move to get into position to make a move to the lead, has Cool Coal Man backing up into his face which forces him wide, then flattens out.
TOE can certainly get back to a zero. He loves the track and his running style will be better served around the sweeping turns and softer pace. Two wins over the track can\'t be ignored.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I very much agree with Joe B\'s TOE analysis and I would also argue that Dennis of Cork has alot of room for improvement in the Belmont given that he only had 1 race in 7 weeks coming in. Couldn\'t that be the reason he \"flattened out\"?
.....following is an excerpt with emphasis supplied by SCM2.....
mjellish Wrote:
> I understand the theory behind form cycles and
> regression. It is a theory I happen to agree with
> and this has been quite profitable for me. The
> theory, however, is best predicated upon seeing a
> hard recent effort on the track which is later
> confirmed by the figure and then followed by
> inadequate rest. True, BB has run some very big
> figures, and one that was very big. But
> amazingly, I don\'t think he has even run hard yet.
> He didn\'t have a drop of sweat on him after the
> derby, and he hardly took a deep breath during the
> Preakness. So while he has run those big numbers,
> I do not believe that they were necessarily big
> for him. And that is a very big key to regression
> theory. Let\'s face it, BB may just be that good,
> a FREAK, and if he is he will probably now be at
> the peak of his form cycle and therefore very
> likely to get even better in the near future.
> Remember, this horse did not train consistently
> until the immediate weeks proceeding the Derby.
> Look at the way Kent had to hand urge him to go
> after the leaders approaching the far turn at
> Churchill. At Pimlico he just sat there and BB
> did it all on his own. This horse is moving
> forward. He is also learning and putting it all
> together. He has overcome a very wide trip from
> the 20 post, he has shown he can either stalk or
> set the pace, he can be pulled back and steered
> clear of trouble if it develops and still retain
> his push-button acceleration, he waits for his
> cues to run, he can make multiple moves in a
> race... I don\'t know what more anyone wants to
> see this horse do before they admit that this is
> just not a normal grade one 3 year old horse.
> This is a special horse, and special horses do
> special things.
>
> That being said, I don\'t know what is going to
> happen when another horse finally comes along that
> has the moxie to run eyeball to eyeball with BB in
> the lane. That is when we will find out what type
> of heart he has, and that is what will ultimately
> determine how good he really is. Still, I
> personally find it hard to imagine that Casino
> Drive, or any other 3 year old for that matter,
> will also be freakish enough to run a negative
> 3,4,5 or whatever else it may take to run with BB.
> So I maintain that if there are no physical set
> backs, if BB trains well leading up to this race,
> I don\'t think he can be beat unless he gets the
> most nightmarish of all trips. Hoping that he
> gets a bad trip or hoping that he regresses simply
> because he has run a big negative number seems
> like a bad strategy to me. In my opinion hope is
> a strategy for the bar or for trying to get laid.
> It is usually not a good strategy for risking
> money, or at least not my money. So I am going to
> get my plane ticket, fly out to Belmont and watch
> BB and a few of these other horses train in the
> week leading up to the race. Hopefully the
> weather will be cool enough in the morning to see
> the air coming out of their nostrils. If by
> watching BB I can find a first hand reason to
> believe he is going to regress then I will post it
> here on this board. But if I can\'t find a
> negative, or if I can\'t find a reason to hate
> Casino Drive, or if there is no reason to love a
> bomber, then I am regrettably going to have to
> pass another Triple Crown race and simply watch a
> champion go about his business.
>
> Happy Hunting,
>
> MJ
....excerpt....emphasis supplied by SCM2
Dear MJ
Your posts are very appreciated here -- please keep them up. The following are just a few contra points for discussion grist. I will not make my final Belmont determination until shortly before the race; however, my feeling is that Big Brown is exactly the type of regression play I look for. Also, apologies to all for the length of this post. If I had more time, it would have been a lot shorter.
First, let me give you some background -- I have a terrible eye for horseflesh. I cannot tell you how many times I thought a horse just looked spectacular and ran like a dud and how many times I thought a horse looked suspect and ran great. The only thing I have learned is that I cannot trust my visual opinions of horses. I have found some people who do have such a talent, but there are very few such people around (a lot less than is supposed).
Second, for a great regression play to work, you need a couple of things...you need the horse to look good to people who do not believe in sheetplaying theories. If even the guy reading the DRF or watching in the paddock is sceptical, then there is no special edge from the sheet reading. A corollary of this is that you need the favorite to take a lot of money (in fact, way too much money). I, like you, singled Big Brown in the first position in the Derby, so I am not afraid to take a position with a heavy favorite in the first spot. I agree that it is not a good thing to bet against heavy favorites on a knee jerk basis. There needs to be thought that goes into it.
Third, any player is going to lose more regression plays against heavy favorites than they win. There is no question about that. However, if you can win 50% of these plays, then, with the likely fat returns, you are really doing superbly. Sometimes the horses that look too good to be true end up being true and beating the regression player. That is just a fact of life and you live with it -- here it is not so bad if the consequence is the sport gets a triple crown winner. The problem from the betting perspective is being able to tell the \"too good to be true\" from \"the true.\" Sometimes you can do that, but sometimes one can get too fancy trying to parse this question. I am looking at BB as a case where trying to make \"the too good to be true\" versus \"the true\" determination is a case of trying to get too fancy, but, unlike you, my takeaway is that he is likely to be a great bet against.
Coming into the Derby, I felt just like you did that he was extremely likely to win (I didn\'t win as much as you did, but I did have a very good financial result). At that point, he was only two races into his campaign. Although the FLA Derby was a big jump up, he had five weeks coming into the KY Derby and the fact that the FLA Derby was a big jump up was good -- it indicated that he was not facing resistance yet (e.g. if a young inexperienced horse is making regular big jump ups, there is no telling where the reaction point is going to be. As the jump ups get smaller and smaller, then the resistance or drag suggests the reaction is approaching). Also, the trainer was completely free to train the horse exactly as he wanted to get him into the Derby. Dutrow kept him in Florida in surroundings he was accustomed to and was able to control all variables with a singleminded focus.
Coming into the Belmont, the situation is entirely different. He is a young three year old who has run three consecutive negative numbers. He is now running the fifth race of his campaign. For the five weeks since he ran a -4.75 he has not been trained the way the trainer wanted him to be trained. Rather, the trainer has been forced to adjust to an arbitrary schedule created by the Triple Crown scheduling which includes shipping, training, and racing over surfaces that might not be his first choice at times that are definitely not his first choice. Also, the fact that the Derby figure was a much smaller jump up than the FLA Derby figure was suggests that Big Brown was finally reaching the resistance point in early May.
The Florida Derby and the Kentucky Derby are simply two enormous efforts. The fact that he looked great after the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness are not relevant on Belmont Day. A horse cannot use that extra preserved effort it has in the tank on the days it ran those big figures in subsequent races three or five weeks later. Chances are that a young three year old who has run such huge efforts is going to be set back by them. It is not a matter of \"hoping\" for a regression, it is a matter of percentages. Nothing is 100% -- he might even jump forward in the Belmont. However, after such huge efforts and then continuing deep into the campaign and into a race that is likely to be tougher, the chances of a setback coming increase rather than decrease. There were plenty of people who thought he was going to regress in the Derby. Whoever thought that has to think the chances of a regression are greater now. It seems to me that the chances of a significant regression (into positive territory) are definitely more than 50% (and definitely a lot higher than the people betting on Big Brown are taking into consideration).
The only horse who comes close to what Big Brown has done is Smarty Jones. I admit that looking at Smarty Jones\'s sheet is a little scary. However, I note that Smarty had established a much lower top as a two year old than Big Brown did plus Smarty ran his huge early 3 yo figs without the benefit of lasix and was getting his first lasix in the Derby itself. Big Brown\'s monstrous figures have come as second and third tries on lasix and he has been racing on Lasix since his first start of the year.
All things being equal, Big Brown may well run a huge number and win the triple crown and all the power and credit to him if he does. By the same token, he may well run poorly and there will be boxcar payments to be had if that is the case. As I mentioned before, it is not a matter of \"hope.\" It is a matter of percentages and when you are offered fat returns, you do not have to always be right. Ragozin has written about betting on Dark Star against Native Dancer. We all know that Jerkens beat Secretariat twice when Secretariat looked like the second coming of Man O War. Jerkens\'s horses (Onion and Prove Out) were not chopped liver, but they were not so different from a few of the candidates that are going up against Big Brown. The fact is that most 1-10 shots usually did win their prior races very convincingly and looked great doing it and afterwards. Nevertheless, there have been times where it makes sense to bet against 1-10 shots. So far, I have not heard a good reason why Big Brown\'s Belmont is not such a case. That he wouldn\'t have blown out a candle after any of his last three negative numbers just does not carry weight with me for the race weeks later.
They all get beat. And sometimes, when they get beat, it did not look plausible that they would get beat. That is why the payoffs are so good at those times.
SoCalMan2-
I think your approach is well thought out and your points have significant merit. I don\'t yet have a final opinion about the Belmont, but I will tell you this. The \"fan\" in me hope BB wins in a romp. It would be great for the sport and end a 30 year wait. There is a little bell in my horseplayer head, however, that is going ding ding ding and reminding me not to anoint this guy quite yet. We do not yet know how this horse is going to react if another horse eyeballs him in the stretch and says \"bring it, I\'ve got stuff too.\" This is what separates the truly great ones. I have seen too many horses coming off easy wins fold when they get pressure in their next race. Fact is most easy wins are deceptive and don\'t mean as much as people would like to think.
The main point of my post was that saying this horse is going to regress simply because of his pattern seems to me to be at best a guess. The truth is no one out there can say they are 80% or more certain they know exactly what to expect from BB. That is exactly why I am going to watch him gallop and train first hand. My guess is that Tricky will give him an easy 4F or 5F breeze on the Sunday before the race. I do not feel the final time of this work will be important. What will be important is how he gallops out afterwards (prefer to see another 1/8 in 13 or so or less or even a double gallop out). I want to see this horse look like he wants to do more. I am also going to look very, very closely at how hard this horse is blowing afterwards. These two things will, to me, be a much more clear indicator of how likely this horse is to regress than his pattern or sheet numbers. I plan to post my observations here. Hell, even if I find myself still scratching my head afterwards at least I will be there.
>We do not yet know how this horse is going to react if another horse eyeballs him in the stretch and says \"bring it, I\'ve got stuff too.\" This is what separates the truly great ones. I have seen too many horses coming off easy wins fold when they get pressure in their next race. Fact is most easy wins are deceptive and don\'t mean as much as people would like to think. <
This is the point I was making the other day.
When horses win handily it almost always means they either got a very good trip or faced inferior competition and weren\'t challenged hard at any point.
However, within that category you can get two different results when they do get challenged.
1. They demonstrate that the only reason they ran so fast and looked so good was because they were getting easy trips and went unchallenged by inferiors.
2. They demonstrate that they have very significant reserves of stamina, determination, heart, and speed and run even faster.
Most horses that win a race easily have significant records to evaluate. So they have already revealed their true level of ability. However, evaluating lightly raced horses can get very tricky because you don\'t where the bottom is yet.
There are sometimes clues in the pedigree, the barn the horse races for etc... IMO, there are no easy answers though. I don\'t have the formula either, but I think visual skills and evidence of high levels of other intangible ability help a lot.
IMO, there was something a little special about the way BB accelerated away from the Preakness field in just a few strides. The overhead shot of it was spectacular. Granted, he was moving away from a subpar group, but IMO there\'s a difference between a move like that and a horses that simply pulls away from the field slowly and then gets geared down. Very few horses can turn it on like that.
IMO, there was also something really special about the way he came home as a first time starter on the turf. The race itself wasn\'t super fast, but the final 3/8ths or so was incredible for a 2YO making his debut.
This horse has push button maneuvrability both early and late and also has brilliant acceleration whenever required. To me those are clues about his true level of ability and where his bottom might be. I think this is a pretty special horse.
Obviously there\'s a risk of him going off form after a hard campaign or not liking the 12F, but I think his figure pattern is pretty much irrelevant in that regard for a variety of reasons I won\'t get into.
\"Third, any player is going to lose more regression plays against heavy favorites than they win. There is no question about that. However, if you can win 50% of these plays, then, with the likely fat returns, you are really doing superbly\"
Hi So Cal,
The most successful players in the country do not win anywhere near 50% of their plays unless they are playing filtered short priced horses.Did you mean 5% of the time?
Historically,odds on 2/5 shots win at more than a 50% rate, so probability wise it\'s not possible to cash 50% betting against all of them.Maybe you meant you are looking at strictly filtered regression plays,like the one you see here against BB.After BB and CD,I think the odds will be all overlays, so the possibility of a monster payoff does exist if both run out or if BB runs out.
Mike
Fkach -
One thing to note with regard to Big Brown\'s move at the top of the stretch in the Preakness is that the two horses he was running away from (Gayego and Riley Tucker) finished last and next to last, seven lengths behind the rest of the field. It seems likely that their deceleration made his acceleration look more impressive than it really was.
Bit,
very much agree with this and would take it a step further that the whole field being slow made the race alot more visually impressive than it really was.
That\'s why I think the number and pattern are alot more important than many seem to want to believe.
The horses he will face in a few weeks are alot faster and more acomplished than the nags he beat in the Preakness and, on the pure sheet pattern (which I know many don\'t believe), he looks headed in the wrong direction.
Agreed. Good point.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Third, any player is going to lose more
> regression plays against heavy favorites than they
> win. There is no question about that. However, if
> you can win 50% of these plays, then, with the
> likely fat returns, you are really doing
> superbly\"
>
>
> Hi So Cal,
>
> The most successful players in the country do not
> win anywhere near 50% of their plays unless they
> are playing filtered short priced horses.Did you
> mean 5% of the time?
>
> Historically,odds on 2/5 shots win at more than a
> 50% rate, so probability wise it\'s not possible to
> cash 50% betting against all of them.Maybe you
> meant you are looking at strictly filtered
> regression plays,like the one you see here against
> BB.After BB and CD,I think the odds will be all
> overlays, so the possibility of a monster payoff
> does exist if both run out or if BB runs out.
>
>
> Mike
Hi Mike!
You are correct. 50% was a bad number for me to use. I was just trying to explain (albeit poorly) that there are plenty of cases where a bettor can make very good bets where chances are high he/she will not cash. The classic example is if you are able to find 100-1 to win on a horse that has a 10% chance of winning (assume we know the 10% chance is correct). Obviously, the bettor will lose that bet 90% of the time. However, the bettor is unconcerned about losing 90% of the time (and in fact expects it to happen) because he/she only needs to cash every once in a while (one out of ten is just fine) to show a very healthy profit. Unfortunately, nothing is ever as simple as that example, and I expect that constructing the correct play will prove very challenging. Also, one needs to make sure his/her bankroll can withstand the inevitable streaks of a lot longer than 10 times without cashing because randomness is naturally streaky (as strange as that sounds). In any event, you caught me on a bad piece of reasoning. Thanks for keeping me honest.
SCM2
So Cal,
Understand your methodology and thinking. Very true that strict exotic/bomb players must be able to withstand long droughts until they hit. Good Luck
Mike
Coupla things. First of all, no, I do not think it would be good for the game if we have the first TC winner in 30 years, and it\'s trained by Dutrow.
Second of all, I agree that nobody can tell with 80% certainty what BB (or any horse) will do-- that\'s why he\'s a bet against at 3-10 or whatever, as So Cal says. As you said (in effect) when going through your Derby analysis, it\'s about percentages, not picking winners.
Third of all, not specific to you, but to this discussion in general:
THE LAST ELEVEN OF THESE HAVE GONE DOWN. Not one, not two, eleven in a row. There are reasons for that (fkach, leave it alone). Sure, this could be the one, and maybe he has a better chance than most of putting in another one just because of Winstrol, etc. But it can\'t be wrong to take a shot against him, given the odds vs. the history alone-- even if you don\'t look at our data.
>But it can\'t be wrong to take a shot against him, given the odds vs. the history alone-- even if you don\'t look at our data.<
I don\'t see anyone advocating betting on him. I think it\'s universally accepted that he will be an underlay. It\'s how much of an underlay that\'s debateable. Just because his expectation is for a negative ROI, that doesn\'t translate into profits elsewhere unless he\'s a \"huge\" underlay.
In order to tell whether it\'s correct or not to take a shot against him, you have to be able to evaluate the chances of his form deteriorating, not being able to get 12F, getting an unforeseen disaster trip, or someone moving past him. Then you have to compare the probabilities to the odds.
I think the real discussion is trying to estimate the probabilities of the various negative scenarios. IMO the only way to do that is to look at the individual horse in question and not the failures of other horses.
SCM2 -
Always enjoy your posts. I was struck by the similarities between your inital Belmont post and all the discussion of \"bubble\" economics that one reads these days.
I have a comment and a question.
Comment: You posted \"There were plenty of people who thought he was going to regress in the Derby. Whoever thought that has to think the chances of a regression are greater now.\" I don\'t think that\'s necessarily true. When a horse puts up one big number, there are three explanations I can think of:
(1) He\'s really good.
(2) He had a really good day.
(3) The figure is off. (I know it\'s rare, but it must happen occasionally.)
Explanations (2) and (3) will both generally lead to a regression next time out and had to be considered for Big Brown going into the Derby. After Big Brown put up a second big figure in the Derby, those explanations became much less plausible, and those looking for a regression must now rely on other reasons for one to occur.
Question: Based on the information you now have, how likely (in percentage terms) do you think it is that Big Brown will win the Belmont?
Bit-- your reasons leave out the entire reason we put the figures on a graph (CTC thinks this way too). We can think that a horse will regress BECAUSE he ran \"really good,\" or because of the cumulative effects of really good efforts.
TGJB -
I understand. In my post, that would fall into the category of other reasons for regression to occur.
My point was simply that one-hit wonders (like Barbaro, Bandini, and Bellamy Road), which is what Big Brown was prior to the Derby, aren\'t in the same category as horses who have shown the ability to replicate a top effort, which is what Big Brown was after the Derby. In my mind, the salient examples going into the Belmont are Afleet Alex and Smarty Jones.
AA wasn\'t coming off big efforts in the Derby and Preakness. SJ is the closest thing we have to a model, though there are differences.
I was initially betting very small amounts on races and recently started deploying a bit more capital.
What is glaringly apparent, however, is that with a bit more knowledge on how to efficiently construct a bet once analysis is complete, I could be doing significantly better. I\'ve read and learned an ENORMOUS amount of information from this board and am ever grateful for the education. When I first started reading the Board I was on google every other minute looking up stuff - didn\'t know Fager from Furlong. I still have a LONG way to go.
One thing that I haven\'t seen yet (and is most likely here somewhere) is a discussion on constructing a wager. I read with great interest MJ\'s post on his Derby analysis: What I wasn\'t sure is how you figured the $7K layout - was it a function of a predetermined bankroll, or was it simply the total of your bets? In races like the Derby, Preakness, Belmont, BC, etc., the pools are orders of magnitude greater than an ordinary day of racing. It follows that those are the races where it would seem to make sense to ratchet up one\'s typical bets.
What I haven\'t quite wrapped my brain around is the efficiency of an exotic strategy vis a vis the size of the pools and separately, some of the vanilla payouts. Does anyone have a good resource or advice on this topic? I think fkach started to discuss something a couple of days ago related to place / show pools and overlays that I didn\'t quite understand - any further comment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
I was pointing out that on big race days there are much larger betting pools partly because a lot of unsophisticated money gets bet. That creates more inefficiencies (overlays) than you typically see on a day to day basis. The reason I like to look at the place and show pools on days like that is because the sophisticated big money bettors do not look for overlays in those pools. So the odds do not get corrected by late betting. THey stay at overlaid prices.
Basically you need to learn how to translate a horse\'s chances of winning into his chances of placing and/or showing. Then you have to compare those chances to the payoff range on the horse to see if you are getting good value. If the lowest possible payoff is about break even, then I start getting interested because very often I\'ll get a bigger price than that if my horse comes in with a longshot.
I don\'t know how much you know about calculating place prices etc... but it\'s a little tricky these days because of \"Net Pool Pricing\".
Other than that, ask a specific question or contact me via PM.
A couple of years ago Steve Crist filled a gaping void in the handicapping/horseplaying literature with \"Exotic Betting\".
It\'s a wonderful treatise on constructing exotic wagers to represent your genuine opinion of a race or races, regardless of the size of your bankroll or level of expertise. Plenty of other interesting insights too.
Wager Construction / fkach/MJ (75 Views)
Posted by: Beginner (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2008 04:09PM
I was initially betting very small amounts on races and recently started deploying a bit more capital.
What is glaringly apparent, however, is that with a bit more knowledge on how to efficiently construct a bet once analysis is complete, I could be doing significantly better. I\'ve read and learned an ENORMOUS amount of information from this board and am ever grateful for the education. When I first started reading the Board I was on google every other minute looking up stuff - didn\'t know Fager from Furlong. I still have a LONG way to go.
One thing that I haven\'t seen yet (and is most likely here somewhere) is a discussion on constructing a wager. I read with great interest MJ\'s post on his Derby analysis: What I wasn\'t sure is how you figured the $7K layout - was it a function of a predetermined bankroll, or was it simply the total of your bets? In races like the Derby, Preakness, Belmont, BC, etc., the pools are orders of magnitude greater than an ordinary day of racing. It follows that those are the races where it would seem to make sense to ratchet up one\'s typical bets.
What I haven\'t quite wrapped my brain around is the efficiency of an exotic strategy vis a vis the size of the pools and separately, some of the vanilla payouts. Does anyone have a good resource or advice on this topic? I think fkach started to discuss something a couple of days ago related to place / show pools and overlays that I didn\'t quite understand - any further comment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Hey Beginner,
Not sure how much this will help, but here goes.
I guess the short answer is this. This was not a pick 6 type bet, in which case you sometimes have to play at least $xxxx amount to feel you have a reasonable chance of winning. So my bet size was determined first by my confidence in my position & second by the amount of capital I was comfortable losing. I will usually play about $200- $300 on any race that I have some type of position. I may go as much as $1500 if I like my position and am getting very good value. 5k is usually about the absolute most I will bet on a single race if I have maximum confidence and am getting ridiculous value. In this case it was the derby so I reached a bit and stretched to 7k. I will bet more into a pick 6, pick 4, multi race gimmick, etc, but only if I feel I have a strong position (meaning a single that is not a favorite, or better yet a long shot, and also preferably another race or two in the sequence where I like a few bombers and/or hate the favorite - and of course there has to be a carryover or guaranteed pool).
So in the case of the derby, I decided what I was comfortable betting and then structured what I thought was the optimal way to bet the race.
One word of advice. IMO most people play this game exactly the wrong way. For example, they like a horse and make him even money to win. He goes off at 8/5 so they bet $200. If he goes off at 3-1 they bet $100, and if he goes off at 5-1 they still bet $100 or maybe even less. Right way to play this is the opposite. If you like a horse and he goes off at 5-1 you should bet more on him than you would if he went off at 8/5. That way you are putting your money on value, which is the key to this game. If you like a horse and he offers no value (like taking 5/2 on BB to Win the derby), see if you can find a way to get value by going to the exotics and muti race exotics.
Hope this helps.
Happy Hunting,
MJ
He just was not remotely in the same speed ballpark as the faster horses. What was remarkable was that he went off at nearly the same price Street Sense did. You gotta love the folks that bet down horses upon conjecture. It took some doing, but I finally talked Steve Haskin off him.
I have some statistical research for our friend Rags to Richie. Which trainer has the most last place finishers in the Derby?
He would have to really suck wouldn\'t he? I mean stink to high heaven and be without a shred of horsemanship and never know when to run a horse and when not to run! He would be a charlatan.
2008-Monba
2007-Cowtown Cat
2006-Keyed Entry
2005-Bandini (2nd to last)
2004-Pollard\'s Vision (2nd to last)
2002-Wild Horses
2000-Graeme Hall
This guy has 5 last place finishes and 2 second to lasts. I don\'t think anyone has ever done worse than that.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very interesting the path and free pass Pyro is
> taking and has gotten. For a horse who was so
> widely regarded as \"THE HORSE TO BEAT\" in the
> Derby as late as late March he is now totally off
> the Triple Crown Trail and not even contending in
> the second tier 3YO races.
>
> He burned a lot of money Derby Day and now he is a
> Northern Dancer Stakes, Barbaro Stakes type horse.
>
>
> Hmmmmmm
Very good post, let me chime in with my thoughts.
BB\'s Beyer fig in the Derby was 109 and his Preakness number was 100. The way people are talking, Big Brown is being hailed as an all time great. Commentators like Gary \"conflict of interest\" Stevens and laffit Pincay III have talked in terms that i don\'t think i\'ve ever heard used for a thoroughbred. I can\'t imagine that any commentator in 1973 ever used MORE glowing terms for Secretariat.
I haven\'t heard one person anywhere in the world mention that Big Brown is anything less than the greatest thoroughbred of all time. \'Secretariat who\' is what everyone is saying.
So, if Smarty Jones ran 118 in the Preakness and BB ran a 100, what am i missing?
Isn\'t an all time great thoroughbred supposed to run 120 or 125 in at least ONE of their lifetime starts? Didn\'t Mineshaft and Ghostzapper run 120 or faster on the Beyer scale?
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SCM2 -
>
> Always enjoy your posts. I was struck by the
> similarities between your inital Belmont post and
> all the discussion of \"bubble\" economics that one
> reads these days.
>
> I have a comment and a question.
>
> Comment: You posted \"There were plenty of people
> who thought he was going to regress in the Derby.
> Whoever thought that has to think the chances of a
> regression are greater now.\" I don\'t think that\'s
> necessarily true. When a horse puts up one big
> number, there are three explanations I can think
> of:
>
> (1) He\'s really good.
>
> (2) He had a really good day.
>
> (3) The figure is off. (I know it\'s rare, but it
> must happen occasionally.)
>
> Explanations (2) and (3) will both generally lead
> to a regression next time out and had to be
> considered for Big Brown going into the Derby.
> After Big Brown put up a second big figure in the
> Derby, those explanations became much less
> plausible, and those looking for a regression must
> now rely on other reasons for one to occur.
>
> Question: Based on the information you now have,
> how likely (in percentage terms) do you think it
> is that Big Brown will win the Belmont?
Bitplayer,
Thank you for the compliment. As to your question, I would say 20-25% is how likely I think it is that Big Brown will win the Belmont. When I can find the time to explain, I will. However, that is a very rough estimation at this point. There are a ton of variables that can change things.
SCM2
imallin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very good post, let me chime in with my thoughts.
>
> BB\'s Beyer fig in the Derby was 109 and his
> Preakness number was 100. The way people are
> talking, Big Brown is being hailed as an all time
> great. Commentators like Gary \"conflict of
> interest\" Stevens and laffit Pincay III have
> talked in terms that i don\'t think i\'ve ever heard
> used for a thoroughbred. I can\'t imagine that any
> commentator in 1973 ever used MORE glowing terms
> for Secretariat.
>
> I haven\'t heard one person anywhere in the world
> mention that Big Brown is anything less than the
> greatest thoroughbred of all time. \'Secretariat
> who\' is what everyone is saying.
>
> So, if Smarty Jones ran 118 in the Preakness and
> BB ran a 100, what am i missing?
>
> Isn\'t an all time great thoroughbred supposed to
> run 120 or 125 in at least ONE of their lifetime
> starts? Didn\'t Mineshaft and Ghostzapper run 120
> or faster on the Beyer scale?
Sounds to me like a great indictment of why Beyers are so far inferior to sheet based figures.
Obviously, BB\'s Beyers do not reflect the double headwind/single tailwind issue in the KY Derby (or the paths wide info).
If one wanted to, they could use these examples to show exactly why the sheets are better than Beyers, but I am not sure I would like that so much as I prefer for us to be seen as kool-aid drinking crazies rather than people who might be onto something.
Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He just was not remotely in the same speed
> ballpark as the faster horses. What was remarkable
> was that he went off at nearly the same price
> Street Sense did. You gotta love the folks that
> bet down horses upon conjecture. It took some
> doing, but I finally talked Steve Haskin off him.
>
> I have some statistical research for our friend
> Rags to Richie. Which trainer has the most last
> place finishers in the Derby?
>
> He would have to really suck wouldn\'t he? I mean
> stink to high heaven and be without a shred of
> horsemanship and never know when to run a horse
> and when not to run! He would be a charlatan.
>
> 2008-Monba
> 2007-Cowtown Cat
> 2006-Keyed Entry
> 2005-Bandini (2nd to last)
> 2004-Pollard\'s Vision (2nd to last)
> 2002-Wild Horses
> 2000-Graeme Hall
>
> This guy has 5 last place finishes and 2 second to
> lasts. I don\'t think anyone has ever done worse
> than that.
Clownteaugay:
With all the relevant conversation being undertaken, you are looking at last
place finishers?
I think a lot of people on this Board have a strong rooting interest in D of C
completing the course in the Belmont; it doesn\'t have anything to do with pari
mutuel wagering.
I get the point. You think Pletcher is a hack. He ends up on Union Avenue in
Saratoga, you end up a broken down horseplayer.
Pletcher won one Triple Crown race in his career-- one more than Bill Mott or
H Allen Jerkens, the same number that Frankel or Shug won.
One thing I will say, by focusing on Pletcher\'s last place finishers you have
struck a vein that Beyer and Crist and Haskins (not to mention most posters on
this Board) have totally missed in their Triple Crown analysis. WHAT AN ANGLE!!
I think we should all abandon our search for the live horses in the Belmont and
devote all of our energies towards determining whether Behindatthebar can trail
the field.
Congrats on another classy and relevant post!!
With apologies to the Great Society/ Jefferson Airplane:
One pill makes you larger/
One pill makes you small/
When the Clown forgets/
To take his meds/
He makes no sense at all/
Fusarichiebee Pegasus
Richandriano
This is why I win the Derby 5 of 7 years Fusahchee Peg and Plech finishes last 5 of 7. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff and go after whats truly relevant.
You\'ll never see me discussing a horse on the basis of what other horses did. You\'ll never see me trying to apply 20% or 30% or 50% to an animal. Others may work the probability angle for the Belmont. They may consider the subtle intricacies of getting 4-1 or 9-2 to beat a Grade I 3YO. I\'m just not going to bother going there. The data goes out the window every time a horse adds new variables.
The 4 current threads are inane to me. An absolute waste of space. If you think they are worthy of investing time all I can say is that I had Ichabad Crane in the Preakness exotics and Macho Again was the very last horse I tossed. What does that mean?
The Plech Derby Data is the best data currently playing. I\'m gonna save the variables gem for now.
The winsterol post was a good one. When they outlaw it and test for steroids I think the Great Derby Loser will do even worse.
By the way I watched Fusachee Peg\'s Derby again the other day. That horse sucked at 5-2. Talk about a weak field.
D of C was a very tired horse post Derby. He was dead on his hooves.
Wonder what Prado is thinking of his Derby selection. Now theres a topic ready for development!
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He just was not remotely in the same speed
> > ballpark as the faster horses. What was
> remarkable
> > was that he went off at nearly the same price
> > Street Sense did. You gotta love the folks that
> > bet down horses upon conjecture. It took some
> > doing, but I finally talked Steve Haskin off
> him.
> >
> > I have some statistical research for our friend
> > Rags to Richie. Which trainer has the most last
> > place finishers in the Derby?
> >
> > He would have to really suck wouldn\'t he? I
> mean
> > stink to high heaven and be without a shred of
> > horsemanship and never know when to run a horse
> > and when not to run! He would be a charlatan.
> >
> > 2008-Monba
> > 2007-Cowtown Cat
> > 2006-Keyed Entry
> > 2005-Bandini (2nd to last)
> > 2004-Pollard\'s Vision (2nd to last)
> > 2002-Wild Horses
> > 2000-Graeme Hall
> >
> > This guy has 5 last place finishes and 2 second
> to
> > lasts. I don\'t think anyone has ever done worse
> > than that.
>
> Clownteaugay:
>
> With all the relevant conversation being
> undertaken, you are looking at last
> place finishers?
>
> I think a lot of people on this Board have a
> strong rooting interest in D of C
> completing the course in the Belmont; it doesn\'t
> have anything to do with pari
> mutuel wagering.
>
> I get the point. You think Pletcher is a hack. He
> ends up on Union Avenue in
> Saratoga, you end up a broken down horseplayer.
>
> Pletcher won one Triple Crown race in his career--
> one more than Bill Mott or
> H Allen Jerkens, the same number that Frankel or
> Shug won.
>
> One thing I will say, by focusing on Pletcher\'s
> last place finishers you have
> struck a vein that Beyer and Crist and Haskins
> (not to mention most posters on
> this Board) have totally missed in their Triple
> Crown analysis. WHAT AN ANGLE!!
> I think we should all abandon our search for the
> live horses in the Belmont and
> devote all of our energies towards determining
> whether Behindatthebar can trail
> the field.
>
> Congrats on another classy and relevant post!!
>
> With apologies to the Great Society/ Jefferson
> Airplane:
>
> One pill makes you larger/
> One pill makes you small/
> When the Clown forgets/
> To take his meds/
> He makes no sense at all/
>
> Fusarichiebee Pegasus
\"Isn\'t an all time great thoroughbred supposed to run 120 or 125 in at least ONE of their lifetime starts? Didn\'t Mineshaft and Ghostzapper run 120 or faster on the Beyer scale\".
Imallin,
BB is 3, those horses ran those Big Beyers at 4-5. BB has the fastest TG Derby fig in history.Since he won\'t run at 4, he may never get one of those 120 Beyers you speak of.If you adjust BB\'S Derby Beyer for ground and wind, he ran about a 118 Beyer,as a 3yr old.
If he wins the TC,he deserves to be considered with the all time best 3yr olds, why not?
Mike
How long can you live off War Emblem and Funny Cide? Since then your \'WINNERS\" are 3 chalks and a second choice(by 60 cents on the dollar).
Re: BB Food for Thought (155 Views)
Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2008 01:51PM
Coupla things. First of all, no, I do not think it would be good for the game if we have the first TC winner in 30 years, and it\'s trained by Dutrow.
Second of all, I agree that nobody can tell with 80% certainty what BB (or any horse) will do-- that\'s why he\'s a bet against at 3-10 or whatever, as So Cal says. As you said (in effect) when going through your Derby analysis, it\'s about percentages, not picking winners.
Third of all, not specific to you, but to this discussion in general:
THE LAST ELEVEN OF THESE HAVE GONE DOWN. Not one, not two, eleven in a row. There are reasons for that (fkach, leave it alone). Sure, this could be the one, and maybe he has a better chance than most of putting in another one just because of Winstrol, etc. But it can\'t be wrong to take a shot against him, given the odds vs. the history alone-- even if you don\'t look at our data.
Jerry,
You make a good point about Dutrow. But the average person out there doesn\'t know diddle about Tricky. They only know the horse and what the media tells them. With all of the recent fallout and scrutiny from the breakdown in the derby, references to Barbaro, etc., I think a win by a Dutrow trained horse, coming after an admission of Winstrol use, may actually turn up the heat and bring even more media attention to issues like steroids, other drugs, move up trainers, 2 year old racing, breeding for speed, industry oversight, regulatory boards, etc. These are all important issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps the industry will finally feel compelled to change. After all, it\'s only yours, mine and the public\'s money that is at stake...
I also agree that there is no easy way to play BB to win in the Belmont. I don\'t care how much Japanese money pours in on Casino Drive, this sucka is going to be 1/5 or thereabouts and probably on 85% + of all the exotic tickets. That being said, playing against 1/5 simply because of the odds is a quick way to lose a good chunk of your bankroll if that 1/5 turns out to be legit. Also, in my opinion what has happened in the last 11 Triple Crown tries has no bearing whatsoever on this year\'s Belmont. It is as irrelevant a point as it was to say that no horse has won the derby from the 20 post since 1919 or whatever, etc. To me, playing against BB for simply historical reasons is the same as betting the Green Bay Packers to win the Super Bowl this year because they have won more NFL championships than anyone else. It just doesn\'t make sense.
I also don\'t think it makes sense to play against BB simply because of his pattern. I am not convinced this deserves to be the dominant handicapping factor for this particular race. To me the horse just hasn\'t run hard enough and there is no clear cut indicator, not even on paper, that he is more-than likely to go off form. I am not trying to knock pattern handicapping. It just happens to be my opinion that in this case BB\'s pattern is irrelevant because we can\'t make an accurate assessment of his Preakness. So I think anyone that wants to play against him because of his pattern is hoping and crossing their fingers. To each his own if someone wants to play that way, but not for my money.
Believe me, I want to play against this guy as much as anyone out there. But before I do that I am going to look for one or more, horseflesh based reasons to do so. I want to see him have a poor gallop out after a work, or blow like a bus, or run erratically on the track as if something may be bothering him. For all I know BB may get the 10 post and there could turn out to be a strong speed on the rail bias on Belmont Day, or the track could come up muddy, or he washes out and acts nuts in the paddock, or he winds up wearing a bar shoe at the last minute. I think any of these reasons would be FAR better reasons to take a position against BB, and believe me I will then be all-in and in more than one betting pool.
Got to love this game. Nothing else compares.
Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 4 current threads are inane to me. An absolute
> waste of space. If you think they are worthy of
> investing time all I can say is that I had Ichabad
> Crane in the Preakness exotics and Macho Again was
> the very last horse I tossed. What does that mean?
It means you didn\'t cash.
Which of course, we already knew.
Because if you did, we would have heard about it 50 times by now.
I can\'t wait for DOC to live past the Belmont.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The horses he will face in a few weeks are alot
> faster and more acomplished than the nags he beat
> in the Preakness and, on the pure sheet pattern
> (which I know many don\'t believe), he looks headed
> in the wrong direction.
When you run the fastest Derby of all time, where do you go from there?? I think saying he\'s going in the wrong direction is a little strong. That number he just threw is still pretty good.
He\'s definitely a play against at the 1/5 or less odds. But if he\'s the freak some think he is, it won\'t matter what direction you think he\'s going.
Even if BB regresses further, all this talk of boxcars means nothing unless you find the horse going in the \"right direction\". Just who will that horse be??
Agree with a lot of points on this thread.
Interesting to me that some on this board, especially JB, were quite willing to give Pyro and their connections a pass for slow figures (at least prior to Bluegrass), by saying he had a manufactured pattern, and was being set to peak in the Derby. this despite the very negative fact that he couldn\'t get back to his 2 year old top in the first couple of 3 year old races AND the fact that there were no visual signs of his not being \"all out\" in his first couple races this year.
However, Desormeaux clearly not asking Big Brown for his best, clearly gearing him down in the stretch after just a few strides at the top of the stretch, thus making the preakness a \"regression\", doesn\'t fall into the category of \'manufactured pattern\'.
Other than the odds and this the potential ROI in beating Big Brown versus beating Pyro, these two facts don\'t reconcile at all.
Jim
Jimbo,
My thought on this would be that it\'s impossible to \"manufacture\" a pattern when you are talking about 3 races in 5 weeks, especically considering how monstrous of an effort the first race was. As was discussed yesterday, once you throw in an effort like BB did in the Derby, a horse would need a signifciant amount of time off before the next race to recurperate from such an effort.
You can theoretically manufacture when you are talking months, not weeks.
In the pick 3\'s/4\'s, my play will be that one of the 4 horses in the race that had perviously run a 0 can pair or top that number. As was discussed in a previous post, I believe it was 9 out of the last 11 Belmont winners ran a new top in the Belmont so it wouldn\'t be shocking if one of those 4 put up a negative number which would be good enough to beat BB if he doesn\'t improve on the Preakness number.
All it takes is one of those 4 to put up a number that will produce a monstrous payout.
\"once you throw in an effort like BB did in the Derby, a horse would need a signifciant amount of time off before the next race to recurperate from such an effort\"
Cov,
The classic error of all dogmatic sheet players.Instead of saying \" a horse would need a signicant....\" it is far more correct to say \"SOME horses would need......The question was whether BB needed significant time to recuperate from the derby and he answered in the Preakness, NO!It could easily be argued that if the Preakness came up tougher, he could have possibly ran neg -3 or whatever it took to win.
Now he has to answer again in the Belmont.
Mike
and a 3 negative wouldn\'t have been a bounce from a 5 negative in the Derby?
what Midnight Lute did in the Forego and BC Sprint in pairing the 7 negatives was amazing.
what Big Brown did in the Preakness was bounce. That fact that he won so easily obfuscated the bounce and the arguments about how he could have run faster if he wanted to made people feel better about it but the fact of the matter is that he bounced.
Cov,
The \"pure\" term bounce,in my interpretation, I use to describe a lesser effort by a runner which was probably caused by the stress/exertion of a previous race/races.
If that\'s what you saw in BB\'s Preakness you are one of very few informed racing people that SAW regression in BB\'s Preakness effort. What you are really seeing is a number on paper which you are interpreting as bounce,other sheet players will read it that way also.It\'s just a matter of exclusively looking at the figs or looking at the figs and the race.
Mike
Excerpted from
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the pick 3\'s/4\'s, my play will be that one of
> the 4 horses in the race that had perviously run a
> 0 can pair or top that number.
Largely agree with this item.
Tale of Ekati and Denis of Cork will run a lot faster than people are expecting them to. I do not think how far they were behind BB on May 3 (even after BB had a worse trip) is the death knell to say that they have no chance in the Belmont -- a lot of things can happen to three year olds between May 3 and June 7.
It is pretty clear to me that BB will run slower in the Belmont than he did in the Derby and that both Tale of Ekati and Dennis of Cork will run faster than they did in the Derby. The big questions are how much slower will BB run and how much faster will TOE and DOC run. I do think that BB will need to run faster than he did in the Preakness, and, even if he could have ran faster on Preakness day, I do not see that \"h?\" translating into him reliably being able to run faster in the Belmont.
What I am really hoping for is the multi-race wagers that include the Belmont to have some good angles in the relevant surrounding races, so that I can hopefully not have to work out a strategy for the Belmont itself. If left with only the Belmont, I would look at some form of win wagers and exactas largely. The only trifectas or superfectas I would include would be a relatively light part of my play and only be those that have Big Brown finishing all the way out.
So how do you explain Afleet Alex sheet, just to use one example. He ran a new top prior to the derby, \"bounced\" several points in the derby (at this point, you would say he is going the wrong way) comes back in only 14 days and pairs.
http://www.thorograph.com/archive/files/bel2005.pdf
Point Given comes to mind as well. He ran a new top, \"bounced\" in the derby came back in 14 days and paired.
http://www.thorograph.com/archive/files/bel2001.pdf
I use these examples to say, just because a horse goes backwards or \"bounces\" does not mean he is going off form. Sometimes sh!t just happens as is in the Point Given case. Usually the good ones, if they\'re sound, come right back and fire a goodie. Every horse is different, and you\'re putting a blanket over all of them. Agreed, they all loose (Cigar comes to mind), but to say BB regressed in the Preakness while winning in a jog (I\'ve seen horses expend more energy in workouts than he did) so there for he is going the wrong way is trying to find facts to support your position. Its like watching MSNBC or FOX, depending what side of the fence you fall on, you will get a different spin to the facts.
I will end with this. Special horses do special things.
CTC-- I\'m looking forward to barring you.
Re: \"Manufactured Pattern\" (1 Views)
Posted by: ronwar (IP Logged)
Date: May 23, 2008 02:04PM
So how do you explain Afleet Alex sheet, just to use one example. He ran a new top prior to the derby, \"bounced\" several points in the derby (at this point, you would say he is going the wrong way) comes back in only 14 days and pairs.
[www.thorograph.com]
Point Given comes to mind as well. He ran a new top, \"bounced\" in the derby came back in 14 days and paired.
[www.thorograph.com]
I use these examples to say, just because a horse goes backwards or \"bounces\" does not mean he is going off form. Sometimes sh!t just happens as is in the Point Given case. Usually the good ones, if they\'re sound, come right back and fire a goodie. Every horse is different, and you\'re putting a blanket over all of them. Agreed, they all loose (Cigar comes to mind), but to say BB regressed in the Preakness while winning in a jog (I\'ve seen horses expend more energy in workouts than he did) so there for he is going the wrong way is trying to find facts to support your position. Its like watching MSNBC or FOX, depending what side of the fence you fall on, you will get a different spin to the facts.
I will end with this. Special horses do special things.
Ronwar,
I agree with some what you said, but I don\'t think you can call what happened to Afleet Alex or Point Given a \"bounce.\" IMO the term \"bounce\" should apply when a horse has an otherwise inexplicable flat or sub par effort.
Afleet Alex did not bounce in the derby. He was too close to the fast early pace (109.59 to the 3/4) made a premature move into it and was one of the only horses anywhere near that pace to be around at the finish. He ran a superb race in the derby! A clear indication that he was the best horse and lost, which he later came back to prove in the Preakness and Belmont.
Same thing with Point Given, to close to the fast early pace of 109.25, made a premature, wide move into it and had nothing left for the stretch. He also came back to dominate the Preakness and Belmont. In fact as I recall he never lost another race.
Just because a horse runs an off number does not mean he bounced if there are other valid handiapping reasons to explain it such as the above, or tough trips, bad starts, etc.
If you want to see a bounce see Gayego in the Preakness. He set a slightly above average pace which he should have easily handled, but tired badly in the stretch anyway. He is a tired horse. His connections should give him a minimum of 2 months off now if they want this horse to be around at all in the fall.
Mjell-- this has nothing to do with saying the Packers will win because a different Packer team won in the past. The comparable stats would be how pitchers do on 3 days rest (terrible), or how NBA teams do on the back end of back to back nights (much worse than on the front end). Or predicting that batting averages for visiting teams in the old Colorado ballpark would be higher than anywhere else. I\'m talking about the conditions affecting the results-- namely, young horses being asked to run 3 times in 5 weeks. It\'s not just about how good they are, it\'s about resilience, and this is a situation where having come back quick once does not mean they can do it twice-- lots have done it once. Three big ones in 5 weeks is another story.
On a more important front, for reasons that I can\'t go into publicly right now, I believe there will be significant progress on some of the issues you mention before the year is out. And I am not optimistic about this game by nature.
mjellish,
I totally agree, and that was kind of the point I was trying to make. covelj70 in his post is saying that BB \"bounced\" and that he is going the wrong way. And if I didn\'t see any of the races, and disregarded any other info and just looked at the sheet he would be right. I guess what I\'m trying to say is a bounce in the sheet term is not always IMO an indication of going off form. It simply indicates for that particular race under those circumstances he earned said figure. I do believe the figure is the figure (and these are the best we got), but as you pointed that off number does not mean the horse is regressing or going off form which is sometime the case with cheaper animals and one hit wonders.
Let me just add this, if BB had not ran the Florida Derby number, I would look at him differently, because he would just have that huge derby number. The fact he threw that negtive 3 and came right back with a negative 4 and change, tells me that the negative 3 didn\'t hurt too much. No one here expected him to run another negative 4 on 2 weeks rest. I love the last race, and the number he earned. Now, he has 5weeks since the negative 4 with only what looked very much like a workout to me and should be ready for his absolute best.
Re: BB Food for Thought (36 Views)
Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: May 23, 2008 02:42PM
Mjell-- this has nothing to do with saying the Packers will win because a different Packer team won in the past. The comparable stats would be how pitchers do on 3 days rest (terrible), or how NBA teams do on the back end of back to back nights (much worse than on the front end). Or predicting that batting averages for visiting teams in the old Colorado ballpark would be higher than anywhere else. I\'m talking about the conditions affecting the results-- namely, young horses being asked to run 3 times in 5 weeks. It\'s not just about how good they are, it\'s about resilience, and this is a situation where having come back quick once does not mean they can do it twice-- lots have done it once. Three big ones in 5 weeks is another story.
On a more important front, for reasons that I can\'t go into publicly right now, I believe there will be significant progress on some of the issues you mention before the year is out. And I am not optimistic about this game by nature.
Appreciate your thoughts Jerry.
And I hope there is progress. It\'s about time. Part of the reason I got out of the game professionally, other than getting married and starting a family, was watching horses inexplicably jump up. You\'d see a guy claim horse, lay em off for 30 days and then triple jump him up and class, run him back and win easy. I must admit I managed to make money on this, but it really did reek havoc on my confidence. I know some trainers are better than others, but some of that stuff just defies logic.
When I was playing a meet seriously, I always kept a file of every winner or surprise runner filed alphabetically by trainer. That way I could go back and reference a trainer\'s pattern for other winners or other horses that ran well unexpectedly. When you found someone who was regularly baffling you, even if you didn\'t know exactly how they were doing it you still had to factor it in to your handicapping. I always referred to this as \"getting beat by the juice.\" Maddening stuff... There was a guy down in Florida named Oscar Delgado that I was making a killing off of back in the late 90\'s. His horses would suddenly go off at 9/2 and pay like a 20-1 shot in the exotics. I remember crushing a race down at Calder on one of his horses named Mr. Sanchowitz or something very close to that.
Then there was the guy that turned out to be rubbing Cayenne pepper on his horses...
Not trying to be a brown nose or anything, but it\'s good to know that there are knowledgeable, concerned people like you that the industry may finally start to listen to. What the hell took em so long....
I\'m pretty sure that Cayenne pepper wasn\'t moving up Passero\'s horses that much.
We have the \"last 90 days\" stat to reference the kind of thing you did with move-ups in a broader context because of space limitations.
What took so long is right. But there finally is some interesting stuff going on, and it\'s coming from unusual places.
I find the term \"bounce\" to be too broad.
The TG Sheets themselves note \'dead rails\', extreme \'hot and slow paces\', and other significant trip info. Clearly that\'s to let handicappers know that conditions were extreme enough that they could have impacted the result and final time of some of the horses.
I think there needs to be two different terms for a backward move in a horse\'s figures.
One should refer to a horse whose figures moved backwards because one or more tough races put him on the downside of his form cycle.
One should refer to a horse whose figures moved backwards because of some specific trip issue that impacted his final time.
Seperating the two can (and should) lead to an entirely different read of the figure pattern.
Of course, there are also less extreme and more subjective trips that handicappers might disagree about. As a result, categorizing a figure move may not always be that easy. But I really don\'t see that as a problem.
If one person thinks a horse \"bounced\" from exertion in his last start and another thinks he got used in the pace and was running on one of the slower paths, they may come to different conclusions about today\'s race and bet different horses, but what\'s wrong with that?
If one person thinks that BB \"bounced\" in the Preakness because of his tough races in the FL Derby and KY Derby and another thinks his Derby trip wasn\'t as tough as it looked and he could have run a lot faster in the Preakness if he was urged, what\'s the big deal?
The figures are the figures and the handicapping and use of them is personal.
At least people won\'t misunderstand each other.
Thanks all -
very helpful all around. I went to Barnes & Noble yesterday and bought the Crist book and another called Expert Handicapping by Dave Litfin. I\'ve read the first few chapters of the Exotic Betting book this morning - eye opening (at least for me).
I had no idea (as my username suggests) that there are separate pools for the doubles, pick 3, pick 4, etc. I naively presumed the payout came from the win pools. Once I read that, the efficieny of taking advantage of the takeout percentages became quite clear. It\'s like eliminating double taxation in certain instances.
Can\'t wait to get throught the rest of the books. As a totally unrelated aside, for those in NYC, the B&N on 20th and 6th in NYC closed and move to within 150 feet of the B&N flagship store in Union Square - totally absurd.
The more I learn about this game, the more I love it - it\'s too bad it\'s not marketed the right way - this would have enormous appeal to so many young wall streeters who are already enamored by the risk / reward premise. Throw in the possibility of \"getting an edge\" on the competition and it\'s a slam dunk in terms of appeal - MJ, you\'re right, what a game!