TGJB,
I bought the special last week and decided to wait a few days before I posted this because I wanted to closely look at all the figures.
I know you have the race faster than Beyers and much faster than Rags (as others have posted on the board). And faster than Mjellish\'s guy as well for that matter.
I am having a very hard time swallowing/accepting the figure and the race was important to get right in that it has the favorite in it and also one of the horses who I think has a puncher\'s chance to at least be in the super at a decent price (awesome act).
It isn\'t the negative 3 for Eskendereya, but it is the pairup for Awesome Act. I would ask anybody that has any interest in this figure to watch the replays of the Gotham and the Wood consecutively, which I have done about 10 times in the last week. Focus on Awesome Act when you do. I know our eyes can deceive us, but I just can\'t believe Awesome Act winning the Gotham, opening up effortlessly in the stretch, is a pair up with his Wood, where he had zero punch, and got beat for 2nd by an out of gas and distance challenged Jackson Bend.
TGJB, when you were asked about this race, you said the only other way to go was even faster. BAsed on what? Can you elaborate? Awesome Act and Jackson Bend were floundering badly. Hard to believe you could consider a new top for Awesome Act.
Secondary question to anybody who may know the answer. What effect does \"throwing a shoe\" have on a horse? As I watched the Wood, approaching the far turn, if i was ever sure that a horse was \"loaded for bear\" and going to run huge in the stretch, it was Awesome Act. Leparoux had an absolutel handful of horse and I was 99% sure we were going to see Eskendereya tested. Actually, approaching the turn, I would have made AA 4-5 and Esky 6-5 for the race. But then he had nothing in the stretch at all. Is it even possible that the shoe had anything to do with this? I know he was \"pulling\" early and didn\'t rate well in the race, so perhaps this was the issue. But I can\'t help but think this horse has a much better race in him and that the fast pace and stretched out field will help him in the Derby. (yes Covello, count me as being on the \"wise guy\" horse too!)
THanks for any feedback.
Jim
Jim and Jerry,
Hope you don\'t mind me jumping in here. This is a really interesting race this year......
I worked for Dutrow Sr. in \'88.
When a horse throws a shoe, the issue is where do you put the nails next time. If the hoof is large enough, it may not be an issue. If the hoof is small, you can do more damage by reshodding. Then its a HUGE issue. same with bar shoes. In general, losing a shoe is bad news, but not necessarily fatal.
As for the horse, how the f&%K do you get shut off like that in a 7 horse field - unless it was a deliberate schooling attempt for the Derby? My money is that it was deliberate. They knew they were running for 2nd money anyway. So why not get paid to school him? He scares me and is a must use.
Wind is clearly what TG is using to come to the figure.
12-15 mph SSE would have negatively affected them into and around the first turn as well as the stretch drive. Where as the 1-turn race would have been less-affected. I just can\'t believe AA paired either. Esky did not come home in 12.1 against a 12-15 mph head/crosswind.
My only comment here is that this is a great product, but it\'s not perfect.
Does anyone actually think that Awesome Act\'s Wood was better than Sidney\'s Candy\'s Santa Anita Derby?
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Jimbo,
Not you on the wise guy horse....say it ain\'t so!!!
lol
Joe B,
That is a good point, but I wasn\'t even going to go there. The whole \"slow California figs\" discussion is getting old! But I will say that it exists with the Oaks fillies as well. Several California \"slugs\" running 6\'s and 7\'s out West, suddenly come East and \"jump up\" 5 points. Including the Oaks favorite (jumped up 3 or 4 points, not 5 I believe).
When these jump ups on the surface switch involve the favorite, it makes the race even harders, because IMHO deciding what to do with the Favorite in each race (especially a short-priced favorite), is the first gambling question that needs to be answered in each race.
Jim
Jimbo-- here is the Wood. The race before it was also 1 1/8th, graded older horses. I gave out no new tops in that race, mostly off races, not even pairs-- and I made the track a point FASTER for the Wood.
By the way, wind has nothing to do with 1 1/8th at Aqu, which is exactly once around-- any positve effect at any point is cancelled out at another point.
I have dealt with the Cal figure thing a few time, Most recently in a post to Miff yesterday or the day before, and there will be more in the seminar.
TGJB,
Thanks for posting the sheet, but it looks to me like the pairup for Awesome Act makes no sense. I add about 2 points and it makes more to sense to me, but that is just me. I can\'t see the race before, but I bet on it, and I watched and I thought they ran incredibly slow. Not surprised at all that you gave no new tops there, as it was not a good race IMO.
As for California figs, I know you have been getting questioned on it and it gets tiresome, I am sure. But there are some people on this board who have been watching and betting on races for a long time and it strains the line of reality to believe that Awesome Act ran faster in the Wood than Sydney\'s Candy did in the Santa Anita Derby. It just does.
Jimbo-- I sure hope it strains credulity, that\'s the advantage of having accurate figures (whether SC jumps on dirt or not).
See attached. Ground loss, ground loss, trouble for others, ground loss.
I wanted to say \"credulity\" but wasn\'t sure it was a word.
Impressive.
I guess you are still dating that author........... :)
Thanks for that. Very helpful to see SC\'s number in context of the race.
To have the race 2 pts faster, you would have had horses 5, 6, 7 and 8 running 2 to 3 point tops which certainly would strain credulity.
Monmouth Guy,
You are assuming that the prior synthetic figures in the patterns are also NOT TOO SLOW. When you see the race prior to the Santa Anita Derby that Sydney\'s Candy ran, you believe that was a 2 point regression?
THis is not an isolated issue with the Santa Anita Derby.
That is a very fair point that I will take into consideration. Thanks.
Jimbo-- I\'m not going to get into this again every time someone raises it, I\'ll deal with it in the seminar. In the meantime, just for the hell of, go back on this board to a few days after the Pacific Classic, where I posted the sheets for the horses who ran in that race. They had come from all over the country, and it would be impossible for a race to tie together better than that.
Yes, the Pacific Classic fit well.
Seeing as you are coming out of a legal battle, I will use a legal term for you. The \"prepondernace of the evidence\" doesn\'t mean ALL the evidence.
I will drop it. I look forward to the seminar.
The only one that sees all the evidence when it comes to TG figures is me. Seriously doubt anybody else is looking at the synth/dirt horses that run BAD.
Survivorship bias
From Wikipedia:
Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that \"survived\" some process and ignoring those that didn\'t. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may literally be people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than being just lucky. For example, if the three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who \"survived\" the top-five selection process.
Survivorship bias is a type of selection bias.