Was just checking out the archives and was reminded of two important points
1) that the best nubmer that Rags to Riches had run before the Belmont was a 1 which equated to a 0 adjusted for the 5 pound weight break she got. Much has been made on this board of how slow the other horses are coming into the race but there at least 4 others aside from BB that have run a zero coming in. Casino Drive, Denis of Cork, Macho Again and Tale of Ekati. I am not sure about Ready\'s Echo, don\'t remember his sheet numbers. So, bottom-line, there are at least 4 horses coming into this race other than Big Brown that are as fast as last year\'s winner was coming into the race.
2) Curlin reacted to his big preakness number in a pretty big way. He ran a 3 negative in the Preakness and bounced back to a 0 in the Belmont. Now, I know the argument will be that he was all out in the Preakness to catch Street Sense (compared to BB who could have run backwards for the last 1/16th and still won in the Preakness) but the fact of the matter is that the big effort caused a regression for Curlin in the Belmont which it usually does in young horses. A pure read into the sheets say that BB\'s big efforts in the Fla Derby and Ky Derby caused a reaction in the Preakness. I understand the adjustments that some understandably want to make becuase it wasn\'t an all out effort which is why I said a \"pure\" read.
Bottom-line for me is that it doesn\'t seem like much of a stretch to see one of the 4 horses that had run as fast as Rags to Riches did last year before the Belmont stepping up like she did last year and it\'s not much of a stretch for me to expect Big Brown to (continue to?) regress off the big efforts like Curlin did last year.
If we wake up on Sunday and BB is the triple crown winner, I will tip my hat to him and his connections and recognize him for the super horse that he would then be by doing all of the things that so many before him have been unable to overcome, particularly not being able to fully train up to the race because of the quarter crack.
However, if we wake up Sunday morning and his pattern is 3.75 negative, 4.75 negative, 1 negaitve and 1 positive, why would that surprise anyone? How many other horses have we seen with that kind of pattern (albeit different absolute numbers). And, if that is the pattern, he will have lost and there will have been some big paydays.
To me, these two things are likely enough to warrent a big shot against BB.
Throw into the mix new top possibilities.Listed below 2.0 or better tops:
2007 Rags 2.5
2005 Andromeda 3.0 exacta
2005 Nolan Cat 3.0 bottom tri
2004 Birdstone 3.5
2003 TMW 2.25 exacta
2002 Sarava 3.5
2001 PGiven 3.0
2001 APV 2.0 exacta
2000 Commendable 4.5
1999 V+V 3.5 exacta
1996 Editors Note 3.0
1992 AP Indy 2.0
Great point Big, thanks so much
So With the exception of 2006, every year since 1999 a horse has jumped 2 points or more. If one of the 4 that has already run a 0 do that this year, then there\'s your likely winner.
thanks so much for that
It\'s also woth noting that none on that list had anything better than a 2. It seems much more likely (all things equal) that a horse with a 2 will run to a new top than a horse with a zero runs to a new top. And that\'s because horses of the quality to run negatives are just rarer than horses that can run a zero.
I don\'t think this is exactly right.
For example, Rags to Riches improved 2 points from a 1. Her starting point was a 1 if I\'m not mistaken.
Sorry if I misunderstood your point though.
No, you\'re right. I misread that list. Sorry.
And to boot he\'s developed a quarter crack.
Only if you believe that BB will move back ward off of his Preakness number should you even attempt to try to beat him in this race.
I would be very surprised if he does not run a faster number in the Belmont than the Preakness. He is much more like Smarty Jones, Point Given, and Afleet Alex than his is Charismatic, War Emblem, etc. in that BB is consistently fast and the -1, while faster than you\'d like to see a 3 y.o. run in May is not a disastrous number, given the races behind it. SJ, PG, and AA all were able to run strong races with big numbers in either their prior race or two back.
I am usually very averse to watching \"how a horse did it\" in a particular race and project the next effort off of that, as horses generally tend to put out close to 100% efforts, even when they are eased somewhat in the late stages, but BB basically galloped for the first 7 1/2 furlongs in the Preakness, ran hard for 1/8 mile, then galloped the last 1/8. The Preakness was a non-effort and if Touch Gold could win the Belmont with a hoof as bad as he had, BB should not have a problem with the small quarter crack he suffered.
The bottom line with BB is that his slowest number this year is faster than the fasted number (or very close to it) for every other horse in the race, ex. CD.
I love to try to beat favorites but save your money trying to beat BB.
CD is an interesting toss given 2nd start US and if you can get him out of the Super there is value there.
Don\'t say I didn\'t warn you.
With all of the opinions being posted here ranging from performance ratings and patterns to cracked hoofs, perhaps a weak crop of 3 year old colts, steroids, Dutrow, Casino Drive\'s unusual work patterns, etc....it still really comes down to handicapping principles.
If you look back at prior Belmont winners, and yes before some of you jump down my throat there are exceptions such as Jazil and Editor\'s Note, you had better have a colt with a turn of foot if you are thinking of making a win bet.
You rarely win the Belmont with the running style of a Anak Nakal, Denis of Cork, or Ready\'s Echo. Past winners such as Rags to Riches, Thunder Gulch, Touch Gold, Afleet Alex, Lemon Drop Kid, Victory Gallop, Tabasco Cat, A.P. Indy, Colonial Affair all had dominant wins sprinting or at a mile.
As a 2yo, Victory Gallop had 2 huge efforts going 7f. Although he became a one run closer as a 3yo, he still had that explosive mid-race move needed to get into a position to win the race as opposed to being a suck-up 3rd.
Combine this with the Thoro numbers and patterns and you may have something!
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Thanks for the post. Good thoughts.
One thing though, there are 4 horses that have previously run 0\'s. Only one of them has to jump up 2 points to be faster than BB\'s last race. As we saw from big\'s post earlier, such a jump has occurred nearly every year from 1999 through last year. Why not this year?
Also, it\'s one thing to say BB\'s last race didn\'t take alot out of him but he hasn\'t been able to train leading up to this race the way he did heading into the Derby. It\'s tough to head into the toughest race of your life not being able to train fully because of the quarter crack. So, it might be alot to ask for him to run any bigger than the 1 negative he ran last time and that\'s a number that makes him vulnerable here, let alone if he backs up at all which is what his pattern would suggest.
Cov,
A clarification:
DOC has to jump 4.5 points from his LAST race to run neg 2
TOE has to jump 5 points from his LAST race to run a neg 2
CD has to jump 2 points from his last to run neg 2
How do you read from the pattern of either TOE or DOC that they look to be \"sitting\" on a huge move up from their last effort and new top? CD has no pattern but looks to have more talent than either of those two despite having only one race in the USA.
Mike
David-- assume you mean neg 4 1/2. There certainly is a chance that BB will hold together. And if you want, you can get 10 cents higher than the tote price from me on the question, which will represent at least a 20% advantage in price. You know where to find me.
By the way, if I knew nothing but that it was his third start in 5 weeks and that he had physical issues that caused him to miss training I would be going against him at 1/2 or lower. I said a couple of weeks ago here-- there\'s always a \"reason\". Stepped on a pin, worked too fast, stumbled start, pace too fast-- something. It\'s never the third start in 5 weeks.
I did an interview with Vic Zeigel that\'s in today\'s News. He did a decent job of getting what I said right.
Mike, thanks for the message
On DOC, my thinking is that he came into the Derby having had only 1 race in 7 weeks. It seems ridiculous to think of a horse \"needing\" the Derby in order to run his best race in the Belmont but I think there\'s good reason to believe that he can run back to the 0 or better in the Belmont with the 0, 6, 2, ? pattern. He could be headed back down to the previous top or better with the 5 weeks rest and coming in more race fit in the Belmont than he did for the Derby.
On Tale of Ektai, I think the pattern is tougher to argue for a big one and for Macho Man, he\'s doing the same 3 races in a short time as Brownie is (although his is 3 in 6 weeks).
By the way, High Finance is going to skip the True North in favor of the sprint stakes down at Philly Park at the end of June. Same purse, easier company. The True North seems to be coming up a bit salty and we need to try to save HF\'s one big race a year since the big efforts always set him back. HF is a poor man\'s Commentator (very poor man in my case)!
Cov,
High Finance is very fast when right, good luck. I like the idea of taking on lesser runners at Philly Park for the same money.
Re pattern reads, put 5 sheet readers in a room and you could get 5 different opinions.I hear you on the read you\'ve made and it\'s reasonable,imo.Looking at the field from a racing perspective, this is a slowish bunch with one beast BB, and one mystery horse CD with \"knocks\" all around for every runner.
Mike
Chris Russo spent around 10 minutes on the article today during drive time---5:30-6:00. Quoted the article and referenced you extensively.
Covel. Instead of telling us all about how you\'re going to take a big shot against Big Brown in 20 different threads over the past two weeks, tell us exactly what you\'re going to do, how much you\'re gonna spend doing it and then actually walk up to the window and take off the rubber band. That\'s what I want to read about.
If you want Brownie you got him brother. He will be served up on a silver platter with an apple in his mouth this Saturday. This will be your last chance. Call your shot.
As Dirty Harry said..\"Right now, you\'re wondering if Brownie fired five or six shots from his pistol. It\'s a .44 magnum and can blow your head clean off. Do you feel lucky? Well do ya punk?\"
Joe,
I tend to agree with you. Some handicappers associate a deep closing running style with stamina, but that\'s not always the case. A lot of those deep closers are dead tired by the time the real running starts and don\'t have near enough kick to make up all the ground.
Jerry: I\'ll save you the dime. There are 13 races on the card so hopefully there will be some better betting opportunities than the Belmont.
I will have $2 win on BB just for a souvenir. I will probably key him in a Super on top of every horse not named \"Casino Drive\". If I bet more than 10% of my day\'s bankroll on the Belmont than I am in big trouble!
Opinions are cheap (mine included). As Harvey Pack used to say -- \"That\'s why they make you run around the block.\"
TGJB,
I agree that it\'s difficult to keep a horse at his peak for three tough races. However, I don\'t think it\'s very wise to dismiss legitimate excuses for specific horses that won\'t be applicable in this case when you are trying to determine what the probabilities are this time.
I guess horses players can debate which excuses were legitimate and which were nonsense suggested by people that don\'t know what they are talking about or nonsense promoted by the connections trying to save the reputation of the horse.
However, to me, some of the horses that lost had little or no edge over several horses going in. They were no better than 2-1 or 3-1 to win. One or two may not have even deserved to the be favorite despite winning the first two.
On the flip side, IMO, Smarty\'s trip was more like a mugging. I think he was clearly best despite the loss. He ran a huge race. That kind of thing is way less likely to happen to BB than Smarty because of running style and jockey.
Holding BB together (especially considering the lost training) is a legitimate incremental risk, but on sheer ability, he has a much bigger edge and fewer question marks related to running style than most of the other recent horses that tried and failed. Weighing it all is the tough part.
dpatent,
I think you have it exactly right by pointing out that BB is NOT like some of the other horses that failed. He may fail himself, but the probabilities have nothing to do with the probabilities of horses like Charismatic, War Emblem, and others.