Hi Guys
I have a question, in the red board room, the analysis mentioned this horse has a potent pattern, can you elaborate on that. I did not play and would have probably missed that. How did he figure?
Thanks
There were two classic 02X patterns in the race. TOE and Macho Again. In my opinion Macho Again had the positive (likely to get back to his top or run a new top) 02X pattern. TOE\'s 02X pattern in relation to his overall pattern of development was less likely to get back to his top having shown no development thru the 2yo camaign and at the start of the 3yo campaign. Not only was TOE\'s top a bit slower than Macho Again\'s but the off race and the bounce race was much worse than Macho Again\'s. Plus TOE is basically a one number horse.
Macho Again on the other hand Paired his 2yo number 1st start at three and then ran a nice three point top next out. Then the expected bounce followed by the new top (the start of the 02X pattern). Then ran the off/bounce race (2 1/2) that was significantly better than the previous bounce after the previous new top back in Feb. Then comes the X race going 1 1/2 miles that was more like an off race than an X. The icing on the cake was the race spacing-7 weeks since the X race and the 3 months since the top for a still developing 3yo not to mention the price. Jerry\'s insight into the difference between the seemingly two similar 02X patterns at the seminar was spot on with both TOE and Macho Again.
thanks
makes perfect sense
Upper Nile--well explained!
Jerry and/or Alan, congrats on the great call with Macho Again. I am, however somewhat confused on this particular application of the 0-2-X pattern. The 3 races involved show a wide range of distances. It just seems odd to allow a 7-½ furlong sprint to count as the \"Top\" for the same horse in which an 8-½ furlong race represents the \"2\" and a 12-furlong marathon counts as the \"X\", as if all 3 races were at or near the same 9-furlong distance of today's race. Couldn\'t the difference in the distances in which the figures were earned be just as much an indication of a horse's differing distance abilities as they are of his current form? Furthermore, isn't ability at the distance too important a handicapping factor to ignore? True, Macho Again's last 3 figures are a good example of the 0-2-X form pattern, but they are just as good an example of a horse who's best performance came at 7-1/2 furlongs and who's figures declined as the distances increased.
In a broader sense, what I'm trying to say is that the conditions (such as distance, extreme pace, and trip) under which a horse earned the figures in a pattern, be considered before they can be considered as representative of the horse's form. Obviously, in this case the numbers alone were the key factor. However, it just seems that totally ignoring the distance at which figures were earned, especially over such a wide range, can be a dangerous practice.
I'd appreciate clarification of the 0-2-X from Upper Nile, Jerry, Alan, or anyone else who is able to help clarify the situations in which the 0-2-X pattern is useful despite other factors that may negate it.
Bob
Bob, I considered the distance question and I said the same thing you are asking about to myself. When I saw the 0 top for Macho Again was going 7 1/2F and the previous top of 3 in Feb was going 6F I wanted to know if Macho Again would be a good fit going 9F.
The 2 1/2 in the Preakness along with the sire stats showing a TGI for Macho Uno being a point better going 1 mile and over compared to 1m and under gave me confidence the 02X pattern applied and MA should be fine going a distance of ground. If it were not for the sire stats and the Preakness number I would have had 2nd thoughts about MA\'s distance abilities. One of the reasons MA went off at 8-1 may have been the distance question for many bettors.
Phil
Upper Nile, thanks for your answer. However, I should have been more precise in my question. I was not so much questioning Macho Again's ability to run the fastest 9 furlongs, though that could have also been an issue with 4 other horses in the race having exceeded the 2 he earned in Preakness (3 horses by 2 whole points). I was posing a broader question that is, this truly a 0-2-X pattern if the figures in the pattern cover such a wide range of conditions (distance)? The whole basis of this pattern is that the figures represent a change in the horse's efforts. If the distances change significantly from race to race, the difference in the figures can just as likely show differences in distance preference, rather than effort. From my reading of the description of the 0-2-X pattern in the Introduction, it is a repeatable change in efforts, with the "0" representing a "top" and "the 2 representing a reaction to that top". With a change in distance, the change in the figures may not represent a reaction to that top but instead just less ability at the distance, and therefore, no real pattern of efforts.
Even when there is a pattern, it only shows that "a horse often returns to the "0" level". In MA's case, that level was a 0 at 7 1/2 furlongs. At the 9-furlong distance, several horses in the race showed higher ability.
Don't get me wrong; I congratulate you on betting MA on the basis that his ability at the distance was better than his previous route figures indicated. I missed out on the Exacta because I thought that Tiz Now Tiz Then was the one being undervalued and I had him underneath Pyro. My only point is that the 0-2-X pattern doesn't apply unless the conditions in which the 3 figures were earned were similar enough so that the numbers were indicating a change in efforts rather than a change in ability at the different conditions. That also automatically means that the \"Top\" will represent a return to that effort under similar conditions - including distance.
Bob
Bob, nice post - one question about the distances regarding reading an 0-2-x pattern:
Where do you cut it off? In other words, is 9f = to 8f, but 7.5f is definitely a different distance...or do you give 1/2 furlong as being same distance?
Thanks Shanahan, The question of where one draws the line as far as similar distance is tricky because different horses have different abilities to stretch out or cut back.That\'s why one method will work on some horses and not others.
Personally, I treat half a furlong difference as basically the same distance. With most horses I can also accept up to a one furlong difference, though one has to be careful at the shorter distances. Some horses who run big figures at 6 furlongs can\'t do the same at 7F.
In rare cases when a horse\'s figures are superior to the others, I might even stretch it further, especially at a distance like using a 10 furlong figure for a 12 furlong race. Sometimes no horse has been within a furlong of today\'s race. We basically all accept that when we bet the Belmont. Just as a length is less significant at a longer distance, so is an extra furlong or quarter.
So the short answer to your question of what I consider a similar distance in the 0-2-X pattern is within 1 furlong, with room for exceptions.
Aside from the 0-2-X pattern, this is also how I deal with distance changes in general. In these cases, this is for a horse that has not run the distance before. If a horse has shown it can run the distance (or similar) at some point in the past, I\'ll accept a good recent effort at a different distance as an indicator that it has regained that form. However, I won\'t necessarily accept the different distance figure unless it had shown in the past about equal ability at the 2 different distances.
I actually had Macho Again underneath Big Brown in the Preakness partly on the basis of his big figure (0) at 7 1/2 furlongs, but that was only because it had shown in the past that its ability at both distances was about the same. As the improved sprint figure indicated improved form, I thought that it\'s route figure would improve similarly, which it did (2) and was good enough to get 2nd in the Preakness, though not quite as good as his sprint figure.
In the Jim Dandy, MA\'s route figure could have improved a bit more. That could either be due to the mud or maybe he had bounced a bit in the Preakness. On the other hand, it could have run the same Preakness figure and won because both Pyro and Tiz Now Tiz Then bounced a bit and Mint Lane and Da\'Tara knocked themselves out in the pace duel.
The Jim Dandy figure should explain which was the more likely case and should be somewhere between 0 and 2. I\'d guess about a 1.
Bob
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Shanahan, The question of where one draws
> the line as far as similar distance is tricky
> because different horses have different abilities
> to stretch out or cut back.That\'s why one method
> will work on some horses and not others.
>
> Personally, I treat half a furlong difference as
> basically the same distance. With most horses I
> can also accept up to a one furlong difference,
> though one has to be careful at the shorter
> distances. Some horses who run big figures at 6
> furlongs can\'t do the same at 7F.
>
> In rare cases when a horse\'s figures are superior
> to the others, I might even stretch it further,
> especially at a distance like using a 10 furlong
> figure for a 12 furlong race. Sometimes no horse
> has been within a furlong of today\'s race. We
> basically all accept that when we bet the Belmont.
> Just as a length is less significant at a longer
> distance, so is an extra furlong or quarter.
>
> So the short answer to your question of what I
> consider a similar distance in the 0-2-X pattern
> is within 1 furlong, with room for exceptions.
>
> Aside from the 0-2-X pattern, this is also how I
> deal with distance changes in general. In these
> cases, this is for a horse that has not run the
> distance before. If a horse has shown it can run
> the distance (or similar) at some point in the
> past, I\'ll accept a good recent effort at a
> different distance as an indicator that it has
> regained that form. However, I won\'t necessarily
> accept the different distance figure unless it had
> shown in the past about equal ability at the 2
> different distances.
>
> I actually had Macho Again underneath Big Brown in
> the Preakness partly on the basis of his big
> figure (0) at 7 1/2 furlongs, but that was only
> because it had shown in the past that its ability
> at both distances was about the same. As the
> improved sprint figure indicated improved form, I
> thought that it\'s route figure would improve
> similarly, which it did (2) and was good enough to
> get 2nd in the Preakness, though not quite as good
> as his sprint figure.
>
> In the Jim Dandy, MA\'s route figure could have
> improved a bit more. That could either be due to
> the mud or maybe he had bounced a bit in the
> Preakness. On the other hand, it could have run
> the same Preakness figure and won because both
> Pyro and Tiz Now Tiz Then bounced a bit and Mint
> Lane and Da\'Tara knocked themselves out in the
> pace duel.
> The Jim Dandy figure should explain which was the
> more likely case and should be somewhere between 0
> and 2. I\'d guess about a 1.
>
> Bob
Bob,
MA\'s Jim Dandy figure might fit well with his Preakness number. He had an extra two and a half months to develop, and the race was a 1/16 shorter. A \'1\' or \'1.5\' makes sense. Weight was a big factor in this one.
The race is not an easy one to put a figure on however. Two of the runners dueled themselves into defeat, leaving just 5 horses to go off. If you rely heavily on Pyro\'s fast 2 yr old figure, MA\'s big one-turn figure, and ToE\'s fast Wood, you could get the super looking like \'0\', negative \'1\', \'0.5\', and \'1.5\'.
Or you could roll the dice and just go off the clock (a daring proposition so far).
Michael,
I tend to agree with the scenario you suggest and which I proposed earlier that MA improved a bit off his Preakness figure. The weight and development factors you mentioned, as well as the slightly shorter distance would make that even more likely. Thanks for pointing that out.
As for making a figure for this race, I don\'t think I would use the tops for all the horses, especially their 2Y0 tops. I wouldn\'t use the horses who didn\'t run well, especially Mint Lane and Da\'Tara. I think looking at the horses who ran well gives a clear picture. I would take Pyro\'s last 0 as his top and consider the possibility that he reacted a bit to that effort but still ran well because of the ideal pace set-up and mud. Tiz Now Tiz Then could well have repeated his last 2 1/4 or improved a bit. With MA improving on his 2 1/2, we get a figure of about 1 or slightly better, which would be consistent with the performances of the horses that ran well. It\'s also possible that Pyro paired and that both TNTT and MA improved so the final figure would by closer to 0, so I\'m guessing something between 0 and 1
I\'m not considering the other races before and after which Jerry will do, but I\'m just proposing what I think would be likely figures based on the horses that ran well in that race, ala Timeform, since the conditions changed so often and so much between races, like in Europe. Of course, Jerry will do a more precise analysis but I suspect his figure will not be far from the 0-1 range. I am prepared for being way off too, LOL. Hopefully, he will post this figure so we can know for sure.
Bob