I had typed a few things about Cara leading into the Preakness about him being a Polytrack horse. I think after Saturdays race we can confirm this. Looking at his Thorograph pattern I wanted to comment on what I see for his next race and how Im projecting it.
His firt race out was on dirt running the 12.5 effort..
he jumped up HUGE 7.5 points to a 5 the very next time out. The KEY thing I see with him here is that if those numbers translated evenly (dirt to poly) that with 3 weeks off we should expected a pretty big bounce with no rest. He didnt bounce big he only went backwards 1.5 points with 3 weeks rest. This is a good sign! Naturally having another 3 weeks off he went back againto a 9.5. Well what happens next?
He gets well deserved rest and sets a new top next out running a 3.5 effort. With a full month off (that he never got before (only 21 and 42 days)) he was able to pair that effort which is a great sign. From that point he then took 3 weeks off and regressed 3 points.. as expected.
A few things we can establish here now..
a. 3 weeks off for him he regresses slightly a couple points at this level.
b. 30 days off he was able to come back to pair his best effort ever.
c. and 42 days off hes run a new top effort based on patern.
d. from the 5 (first top effort) to his next top effort (a 3) it took him 3 months to get thru that.
e. after taking 3 months to get there he was able to pair it because he got more rest than last time (only 3 weeks)
f. this horse is getting BETTER and developing great!
Well going into the Preakness he had 42 days off.. why didnt he fire? simple.. he ran DIRT! Hes NOT a dirt horse so this should tell us that the Preakness effort is a NON EFFORT.
According to what we see, the Dirt effort will do a few things here:
1. conceal his true pattern and form to the public.
2. allow us to get much better odds next time out on poly because of his last 3 non winning efforts... with the Preakness (last out)being the worst.
3. a new top should be expected next time he runs polytrack according to his set forward moving pattern.
4. this preakness race was a toss and even if his next race is on poly off short rest from this effort he should still be a play.
Im hoping that the read is correct and that this is a great example of a Recovery Pattern for us all! Put him our watch list boys.. in my opinion he should run HUGE next out on Poly!
This is raving lunacy IMO. Caracortado \"fired\" just fine, he made a huge sweeping move and got to the lead ever so briefly at about the 8 furlong point. His failure in the race was related to distance pedigree, not surface dislike. If that race is a mile long, he runs a 0 or a 1, would you then be saying that poly was his prefered surface?
I already showed you TONS of examples where 2 year olds made similar huge jumps in their second race out and if you were to plot that data and take note of which were based on surface changes there would not be anything close to a discernable correlation between surface change and jumpups.
This race was a huge effort for him, he needs rest. But if he is better spotted in a race around 8f on dirt or synth, he could run huge. I\'m not sure why you are so obsessed with labeling him as a horse that does not like dirt, but congrats on your show bet.
The horse is CLEARLY a Poly horse compared to dirt and runs much better on it. ANY number he ran in the Preakness that wouldnt be a new effort should prove that he runs better on POLY. According to his pattern entering the Preakness he runs new efforts after rest of 42 days his next start. HE DIDNT. If he comes out next time on poly and runs a top as I expect then his pattern read is consistent with my opinion on him. At that point this would be even more verification for me that the only reason he didnt set that top Preakness day was because him (as an individual horse) likes poly better than dirt. There wouldnt be any other explanation for it as his pattern would be consistent for it on the thorograph numbers.
What can u possibly think Cara ran in the preakness 12 lengths behind the top 3 at the finish? I understand he was wide but you are saying he ran HUGE. He hit the stretch and stopped like a rat and Im loving it cause imo he will be HUGE NEXT time on poly.
Take it for what it is TREAD, Im just typing my opinion for what the horse shows me on paper and trying to contribute to the board.
Agree with treadhead.
Caracortado made a good move on the turn for home and appeared to like the surface quite a bit. He ran his race but he tired in the final eighth.
Stamina was the issue. 6 or 7f to 1 1/16 is his sweet spot imo. I would not hesitate to to back him on the dirt at those distances.
I actually talked to his jock immediately after Preakness and he said Caracortado liked the dirt, but he felt he was forced to move a tad early to avoid getting shuffled when the winner moved outside of him.
It just doesnt make sense to me. A horse that shows a paired TOP effort and goes back 3 points cause of 3 weeks rest IS consistent with EVERYTHING he has shown us. He then runs ANY number (thats not a top) on Preakness day and you are convinced he is ok on the dirt? it makes NO sense to me based on EVERYTHING i see with all his previous starts in his career on the thorographs. If the Preakness was on Poly he wouldve fired HUGE. He didnt fire HUGE on dirt so my opinion is consistent with EVERYTHING the horse has shown thus far.
Plain and simple IF he did run AS GOOD on dirt saturday then he has done on his tops on POLY (since thats what his pattern suggested) he wouldve done it.. and i really dont think he ran a new top on Preakness so that should tell us the Dirt DOES NOT translate equally and should notbe considered as an effort next out on poly. Its been proven 3rd time out with only 3 weeks off and only a 1.5 backwards move and its proven again with him NOT running a new top Preakness day (im assuming of course). I will use the Preakness as a non effort next out (as it is non consistent) and expect a new top on poly flowing consistent with what i see. If he ran a new top Preakness day well then god help me lol.
If you do want a perfect example of a horse whos numbers translate completely consistent check out First Dudes thorograph. Everything is right in line the way its suppose to be after each start dirt or poly. Thats NOT the case with Cara but we will see when the numbers come out to verify.
I can \"possibly\" think he finished 12 lengths behind because he was distance limited, not surface limited. If he comes back and wins at 8.5 on poly, I will say that it is because he returned to a favorable distance and that he would have done the same on dirt. He clearly showed he can hang with a G1 bunch at around 8f on dirt.
You never answered my question. If they stop this race at 8f, he has run a zero. What is your read on his pattern then? You are being WAY too dogmatic about sheet numbers and not reading between the lines, you are going out of your way to label this guy a synth only horse that hates dirt, when he clearly does not.
Schoolyard Dreams was another Preakness runner whose distance limitation was exposed imo.
Tread you cant assume the horse wouldve run FASTER or better going shorter or do any better then they did. The fractions in the race wouldve been completely DIFFERENT and it wouldve set things up much differently for every horse. If the preakness was a 1M race i wouldve handicapped the same and I wouldve expected JB to run.
When a horse shows something CONSISTENT with form and pattern I am confident in its consistency to allow me to gauge how he will do next time out. Same thing went for Jackson Bend. Yes He didnt get thru his 2yo top BUT he was on a sort of 0-X-0-X pattern with this years tops and that last effort was a toss based on many variables hes never witnessed before.. the VERIFICATION was that he NEVER went backwards off 6 weeks rest and always ran a great effort. THAT was the key indicator that made my opinion consistent with JBs pattern.. the SAME goes for Caracortado. He shows after rest to run absolutely great and on Preakness he didnt. He witnessed a variable he hasnt since his first time out and didnt fire his best. To me THAT angle is consistent and has verification and hold within my personal opinion of how he shouldve came out. His first 3 effort is 3 months to the date NOW again and he primed for a new top NOW. he DIDNT though and to me the surface is the ONLY explaination. He ran a 9.5 THORO NUMBER going 8.5f then 2 tops running 8.5 F back to back.. why? its not cause he was DISTANCE LIMITED running the 9.5.. its because he had REST after his 9.5 AND 3.5 effort.
My opinion and angle as I have stated is CONSISTENT WITH verification of things i see from his thorograph pattern. The DIRT effort in the PREAKNESS is NOT CONSISTENT though. Theres a reason for that! Hes better on POLY.. and thats the only reasonable explanation.
Being distance limited is a PERFECTLY reasonable explaination for what happened, especially given the way he ran during the race. To say that your opinion is the only possible explaination is extremely narrow minded and shows an incredible lack of objectivity. I\'m done with this discussion, have fun with your dogmatic approach.
Im not trying to come across as HEY IM THE KNOW IT ALL.. im just trying to have you understand that my opinion and analysis is CONSISTENT with his INDIVIDUAL PATTERN. YOU say hes \"distance limited\" and have NO way of backing that up because hes NEVER run that preakness distance before! with MY opinion I have the horses HISTORY with rest.. dirt/poly figures and evidence to back all my claims and opinions up. YOU dont cause this horse only ran THIS distance ONE time. The horse has PROVEN WITH rest over time to be able to get the two turns and run great and develop.. YOUR narrow mindedness is tossing that ALL out the window cause you think its completely possible for him to run 8.5F BUT its impossible for him to run tops at 9.5F... THAT makes no sense.
My opinion is based on EVERYTHING the horse has shown from day one. YOUR opinion is based on something that happened only ONCE before (AND it JUST happened). I think your not being open to what I have to say.. if you had a way to back your words up I am all ears. You cant AND on top of it Caras pattern and efforts itself are in NO WAY consistent with what you are saying about him.
That\'s enough. Whether you are right or wrong you are repeating yourself over and over, figuring what, that if you do it one more time the other guy will agree with you? That aside, you think the other guy is not being open minded because he thinks there is more than one possibility, and that by simply coming over to your view, which is that there is only ONE possibility, he would be open minded? Because your theory is consistent with the facts, it\'s the ONLY possible one that is?
That\'s rhetorical, by which I mean drop it. Don\'t respond.
JB, rather than recapping the play by play, could you actually shed some professional light on what you think the correct read is here? Be interested to hear the thoughts of any of the other established handicappers here too.
Not sure I count as an \"established handicapper\", considering this year\'s Preakness was about my 10th in a row without cashing, but for what its worth, I would be willing to bet Caracortado back on dirt. I know that I have heard in the Saratoga seminars from quite a few good handicappers, that a number is a number, and you have to be careful about doing your own adjustments, etc.etc, because it can be a slippery slope, but I would agree with your assertion that THE WAY that Caracortado ran whatever number he ran, would seem to imply that the distance was a problem for him. A sweeping move on the far turn, going \"stride for stride\" with the winner, even for a brief moment looking like he might be going better, then flattening out the last 1/8th of a mile. Looks to me like he didn\'t want the distance.
However, because he has no form on dirt, it would only take his next effort on dirt, at a shorter distance, being poor, for me to switch off that view.
I guess what I am saying is that I can\'t blame either guy for having their view, but I would be inclined to agree with yours (although it is open for interpretation and wouldn\'t be sharply critical of anybody for viewing him as a synthetic horse)
Jim
As you guys will see when we post the day, you are both wrong.
I have no problem with being wrong, as long as there is some explaination that is understandable (which I have not seen yet). Given that there is no dialouge in the numbers you will post for the day, could you comment a little more about what you mean? Would like to use this as a learning opportunity.
Wait until the sheets for the day are posted.
Well I was wrong about Cara not running good on dirt but to me with the 42 days off it still shouldve been a top effort so imo I feel next out on Poly he will run a new top and a great effort.
Which was exactly my point. He was ready to run a new top. He did run a new top, if you would have stopped that race at 8.5f. But because it continued on, he ended up pairing instead of running a significant new top. And if that race had been another .5f longer, he probably would have run a 5 instead of a 3.
While this technically may not make him \"distance challenged\" relative to his previous figures (which I still think is debatable if the distance of the race caused a pair instead of a top), I think it is quite apparent he is \"distance challenged\" relative to the other horses in the race and in trying to predict what he might run next out, it would all depends on the distance of the race and spacing/rest.
For a paired up effort, I\'m willing to bet that was very taxing compared to other pair ups that occur in emerging horses. If he were to wheel back in 3-4 weeks, Id be treating that last as a top and not a pair, but I realize that might be too much reading between the lines for dogmatic pattern players to fathom. If I\'m wrong, wouldn\'t be the first time, but that\'s what I see.
Preakness came up on the fast side on TG.Winners fig ground loaded and those that follow benefit accordingly, beaten lengths/ground.
SS ran awful,totally empty, beaten a pole and only ran 2 3/4 points worse than his derby win.Very fast race on TG.
Mike
Miff wrote:
\"Winners fig ground loaded and those that follow benefit accordingly, beaten lengths/ground.\"
I\'d love to see you try to explain in detail how this variant was locked in top-down off a jump-up winner in a manner that would cause LAL\'s ground loss to speed up the figures of the other horses, but I won\'t see this because you can\'t do it.
Rich,
Not sure what you are talking about but:
Lets just say that TG had the winner at zero instead of neg -2(same ground loss of course but re-thougth track speed for the day.)What do you think would happen to the figs of all the other horses if the winner was a zero?
Rags came in at 4 unconfirmed (equal to a TG 1/2) and Beyer 102(equal to a TG -neg 1/2 adjusted for ground)
Whatever you like Rich, my point was the entire race came up faster on TG than I calculated, which affects ALL runners.
Mike
Miff,
I agree with your new point, which is that if TG made all of the horses slower, then all of the horses would be slower on TG.
Now here is your old point:
\"Winners fig ground loaded and those that follow benefit accordingly,\"
It strikes me as slightly more provocative than your new point. But that\'s fine. You have cleared things up with your new point.
as thorograph users we cant assume anything but what the numbers represent.. if the race went shorter or longer we have to take a stance.
if they went shorter, lets say 8F(like you are saying he cant get \"distance\"), Cara wouldve still run a top effort.. which is great! BUT even with that effort it wouldnt have been good enough to win in that race. with different circumstances such as fractions (in that given race), according to his performance and everything that took place, LAL wouldve still ran a neg 2 and still faster and probably won BUT by less lengths. Cara MIGHT have beaten other horses(who ran faster) because of a good trip lets say BUT the number would be the same.
Basically Cara wouldve still lost but by fewew horse lengths rather than about 12 or so lengths going longer like he did at this distance. The number would be the same either way
We are only allowed to take the figures and patterns at face value and are not supposed to \"read between the lines\" on anything? Find me others like you who agree that a strictly dogmatic approach like this is the right one, and I\'ll take back my comments. But I find that to be absolutely laughable.
this is my personal approach. i buy the thorographs for these figures and reasons i speak of. ANYONE can say its an unproven situation when they come up with ONE way of reading the figures as they are thats different than my own.. and vice versa. the point of these thorographs to me is to look for value that the public does not see and make money on it. IF the public does see the horse i choose its my decision at that point to pursue it or pass. my specific way is what each horse as an individual tells me its running based on the figure.. theres nothing else to it. I dont care what the sire of bla bla bla with the cross of horse X in the family of whatever runs.. THIS specific horse has unique abilities and will run within them. anything else to me means NOTHING other than the odds of the horse i am getting with other inner variable such as rest, medication (lasix), pattern, etc. dont know what else to say. u have your way and it is what it is.
If Baffert had put Midnight Lute in the BCC, would you have bet that he could run a negative 5 going 10F? I have found that there is no easier way to burn money using speed figs than by assuming that distance challenged horses can carry their TG # an extra 1 or 2 furlongs. Nobles Promise will never run a new top at 9+ furlongs. That is why his connections are cutting him back to a mile. It is the rare horse that outruns his breeding and distance limitations to win at classic distances. A Ghostzapper comes around once in a lifetime. Good luck.
I have found the discussions of pedigree and distance limitations to be one of the more interesting topics that have been kicked around here. My take is slightly different. I believe it can\'t be ignored in handicapping distance races, but, like many other predictive factors, my reliance on it \"all depends.\" For example, in handicapping the Derby, I will pay little attention to pedigree. If I see a horse has moved up, successfully to 1 1/8, with continuing signs of improvement, and has shown solid development from his 2-year old campaign, I will consider him regardless of pedigree. Will I get burned occasionally? Of course. But, in the past 10-15 years, this has not been much of an issue. Sadly, it\'s been true more frequently of horses that I haven\'t bet, than the ones that I have. Nonetheless, I don\'t find it determinative, just one more variable to be weighed, and in the Derby, I will weigh it less than other races for more experienced horses, where I\'ve seen a stronger evidentiary pattern which would support the pedigree concerns.
I seperate sprinters from distance horses only one way. I label them as either a one turn horse or a 2 turn horse (both). Once a horse goes 2 turns and proves within the thorographs he can run consistent with his 1 turn efforts then its all gravy. Midnight Lute ran in the sprint division cause he was not consistent running distance compared to his 1 turn efforts based on the thoros. Also, he never ran the distance after running those freak numbers so we really dont know how he wouldve ran.. he was previously only 2 points off his neg. 2 sprint effort going the distance so that is in line. If he was pointed to the classic im sure we wouldve seen a prep race to determine that but that doesnt exist so who knows.
For a horse like Quality Road he can run the distance very fast so the numbers automatically translate to 1 turn with no issues imo. Similar with Nobles Promise.. He ran his best effort going 2 turns so theres nothing keeping me from thinking he can go any different at 9F compared to 10F or even cutting back to 7F. His early 3yo top of a 0 going 2 turns is a great sign and he should be able to get thru it eventually with no problem. At what distance is yet to be known.. but it will most likely be 2 turns consistent with what we see on his thoro.
Did watching Noble\'s Promise completely shut down at the 1/8th pole after getting a near perfect trip in the Derby not mean anything to you?
My take is this. Horses do have preferred distance limitations that can be measured. A true miler like NP can get 1 1/8th under the right circumstances if most things go their way, but they will need a whole bunch of things to go their way in order to win at 1 1/4 and beyond,and rarely will they run a top. I would still contend that SS really doesn\'t want to go a classic distance, but he was able to win the Derby in a very slow time by catching a perfect trip on a wet track that he absolutely loved and by being the only horse who hugged the absolute best part of the track for nearly the entire race. The fact that some of the other leading contenders caught terrible or troubled trips also helped. He beat a weak group of 3 year olds, period. And I will bet against him accordingly in the future. There\'s a reason why in a typical derby field over half the field usually never winds up trying to go 1 1/4 or longer ever again.
Now that\'s just my take, and I will win or lose my money based on it, which is the whole idea behind parimutuel wagering. There aren\'t a lot of 3 year olds that want to go 1 1/4 or longer, and we don\'t see nearly as many tops in these races as we do at 1 1/8th and shorter races. The Belmont is 1 1/2, so you can take that even further. Given the normal pattern of development for 3 year old horses and how many of the Derby horses skip the Preakness and get 5 weeks to the Belmont, and how other newcomers come in as fresh as that or fresher, and the fact that the Belmont field is often the smallest and least troubled field of any of the TC races, we should see a number of top efforts if there is no difference between 1 1/2 and 1 1/8. Last year exactly one horse ran a new top, Summer Bird, and his dad won the Belmont. In 2008 it was DaTara and he hasn\'t done a thing since. Other horses that have run new tops in the Belmont
2007 Rags to Riches
2005 Andromeda\'s Hero
2004 Birdstone
2002 Sarava
2001 Point Given
2000 Commendable
1999 Lemon Drop Kid, Vision and Verse
1997 Freehouse
1996 Editor\'s Note
1992 AP Indy
That\'s nearly 20 years of Belmonts, and only 13 tops from the horses who hit the board.
The distance gets them, and sometimes the majority of the field backs up and we get a DaTara or a Sarava or whatever. And if Noble\'s Promise or Super Saver were in this field I would be willing to go ALL IN against them taking first or second no matter what their TG numbers were or how much rest they had.
The Belmont is not usually won by the best horse, it is won by the horse that gets the distance better than the rest of the field. Of all the trainers out there I would say Zito understands this better than any of them.
Wouldnt you agree that the Belmont stakes is an unfair example of using distance to make a point? there are MANY horses who ran the Belmont off very short rest.. how can we really expect top efforts when many of the horses who have run did not get the proper rest they needed? this goes ESPECIALLY for those who ran all 3 races in the triple crown such as smarty jones.
While I agree that it\'s a fascinating topic, this business about pedigree and distance, I subscribe to the pedigree side, but am at least interested in the incremental effect on pace and ride on the situation.
An 8 furlong horse by pedigree and record can get (win the race) an extra sixteenth or even eighth if the track is fast and they are the only speed. My point is that I would normally dismiss by breeding and history unless you have a setup. Pace and variant seem to be able to alter the outcome of a race manhy lengths lengths for routes and while I will usually start with pedigree for a new distance, these other component are right there in the decision-making process.
Leamas
NYC guy. No, I don\'t think it\'s an unfair way to look at this. I don\'t have time to go back and check the archives, but as I recall many of the horses that show up in the Belmont have not run on short rest or in the two prior TC races. Just look at this year as an example, both the Derby winner and the Preakness winner are skipping the race, and now so is Dublin.
I think we just have to agree to disagree about how TG numbers transfer across distances. I don\'t see a lot of difference between 8F around two turns and 9F around two turns most of the time, but I do see some type of barrier going from 9F to 10F or longer. That\'s the way I see it, and that\'s the way I play it. I think the percentages would bear that out if someone did a study on it. We see more tops on dirt at 1 1/8th than we do at 1 1/4, and I think it is all a direct result of the horses not being really suited to get the distance, and that is a direct result of what we have done to the breed over the past 30 years. That\'s not to say that we won\'t find exceptions. We will. But it\'s all about the percentages. And that is exactly why I don\'t think you can apply the type of rigid approach that you seem to endorse in veiwing these numbers. There is more to horses than pattern and rest. But if that is working for you then I would suggest you stick with it as long as it continues to work. I just happen to think that if you added a little flexibility to your approach you could do better. That and quit betting to show. Look at it like this:
You liked JB in the Preakness at about 12-1. You wagered $3200 to show, which got you back $10560, profit of $7360. If you are going to wager $3200k to show on a horse like JB, why not do it roughly like this instead:
$800 Win JB = $800
$20 Tri JB/top other five/top other five=$400
$5 Tri JB/top other five/bottom 6=$150
$100 EX top other five/JB =$500
$50 EX bottom 6/JB=$300
$20 TRI Top five/top five/JB=$400
$12 TRI Top five/bottom 6/JB=$360
$6 TRI Bottom 6/top five/JB=$180
$3 TRI Bottom 6/bottom 6/JB=$90
If you bet it that way, if JB wins you have profited $9280 for sure. If your other top five hit both 2nd and 3rd in a race like the Preakness you\'re going to cash a $20 tri for another $20k-$80k depending upon who your top five are. If JB wins and one of your top 5 takes second but something you overlooked takes 3rd, you still get bonused a $5 tri that will probably pay another $5k-$15K.
If JB takes second to one of your top 5 you will cash a $100 EX that will probably pay you $7k - $15k. If something you overlooked beats JB you will still cash a $50 EX that pays from $4k-$12K.
If JB runs 3rd you are going to cash either a $20, $12,$6 or $3 Tri that will either get you your money back or make you $5k - $15K.
By using JB underneath in the exotics you are still effectively betting show, but you are giving yourself the possibility of winning $20k - $80k more if he happens to win or hits the board with others you like. And with a little more finesse than simply breaking the field down into top 5 / bottom 6 you can structure this so that you are likely to do a whole lot better.
IMO, the only time to ever bet show is if there is a big bridge jumper out there and you hate the horse they are on.
Like I said earlier, if it\'s working for you than stick with it. But I think you could make a lot more money if you took the time to structure what is effectively a show bet beneath in the exotics.
MJ
based on what you said \"I think we just have to agree to disagree about how TG numbers transfer across distances. I don\'t see a lot of difference between 8F around two turns and 9F around two turns most of the time, but I do see some type of barrier going from 9F to 10F or longer.\"
Can you give me an example of a horse who fits this statement? A huge percentage of horses who go longer are right in line with their efforts. Even nobles promise on derby day. you say he had a perfect trip and asked why he didnt fire.. well under those conditions and brutal pace that day many horses didnt fire. he and LAL have pretty much been running the same efforts the last 6 starts or so and LAL came out next out and fired great.. not saying that NP would def do that same but NP just as LAL simply didnt run his best derby day regardless of the trip he got. Distance to me had nothing to do with that as if they went 8F I would have to assume he wouldve run the same effort. NP was right in line with his efforts.
Jackson Bend also had a perfect trip in the Preakness, fired his best and still didnt win.. people on here were saying JB was distance limited.. he isnt.. hes in a developing process and is an established 2 turn horse. A horses individual \"barrier\" and wall should be his top effort plain and simple. From that point we can establish if a horse is regressing from it, consistent at it, or running better from that point at the 2 turn mark. Taking the numbers as they are can help us project his next effort whether they are going 8, 9, or 12F.. the way I see it is that its all relative. A horse that can run a 4 effort going 9F can and will most likely run an effort in line going 12F.. and it happens all the time very consistently.. unless its a bounce or huge top effort.
Your position is, in my view, both well-founded and well-stated. In fact, I\'m surprised that it engenders much debate.
I happen to be of the camp that Jackson Bend is distance limited. That\'s part of the reason why he didn\'t win the Preakness. That\'s as good as that horse can probably run at that distance. Cut him back to 1 1/16 and I bet he runs a new top that same day. That\'s really my point about distance.
There are a whole slew of examples sitting right here in the TG archives. Just go through them yourself if you want examples. Caracortado may be another example. Aikenite may be another. I would tend to bet them that way now, but we won\'t know for sure until they try a classic distance. Or rather, IF they try a classic distance.
It\'s ok if we disagree. I don\'t think Jerry agrees with me either. But that\'s how I roll. When it comes to the TC races, I start by looking at the numbers. I then look at who is likely to get the distance, and who may actually prefer it. And then I pay very close attention to how these horses train, which is probably the most important part. I don\'t care how a horse looks on paper, if he isn\'t training very well leading up to the derby I won\'t play him. And I will play a horse who isn\'t quite there numbers wise but is training lights out, is bred to handle the distance and has shown me something talent wise. But that\'s just me.
MJellish wrote:
\"I happen to be of the camp that Jackson Bend is distance limited. That\'s part of the reason why he didn\'t win the Preakness. That\'s as good as that horse can probably run at that distance. Cut him back to 1 1/16 and I bet he runs a new top that same day.\"
Please take another look at Jackson Bend\'s Preakness figure and Super Saver\'s Derby figure. Question: When you say a horse is distance-limited, is there anything that horse can do, short-term, to falsify your claim?
Sure there\'s something they could do. Win a race at 1 1/4 or longer against a top quality field on a fast track. Let me see them come running down the stretch passing horses acting like they appreciate the added ground as they run a new top. Or let me not see them backing up down the stretch. JB had every reason to go by First Dude, but he couldn\'t. Lucky got a much wider trip and he still got there.
OK, so winning the Kentucky Derby is not sufficient to disprove your theory, and neither is running a new top in the Preakness. This is fine as far as your own handicapping is concerned because that is a situation where you need not reach agreement with anyone. But if you are in an argument with someone like NYC, I think it might be a good idea for you to say up front that when you claim that a horse will dislike a certain distance, the horse can then go out and win the Kentucky Derby at that distance or run a new top at that distance (or do both) without having disproved your theory. This might cause the argument to head in a better, more fruitful direction: toward a discussion of \"confirmation bias.\"
MJ
Your posts have been terrific, as usual, regarded this years top sophomores and I am certain many solid handicappers who frequent this site would concur. With that written please do not continue down this thread.............with all apologies.....you are dead right, yet, beating a dead horse. bbb
Jackson Bend did not run a new top in the Preakness, nor did Super Saver in the Derby, and I am not arguing with anyone.
Look, my take is this. JB ran well in the Preakness. Very well. He was sitting on a huge effort and I liked him to hit the board. Said that right here on this board, and I found it laughable that Len said he was the only certain toss. Nonetheless, I said that I did not regard JB as a win candidate because I didn\'t think he could get the distance. I figured someone would step up and out kick him down the lane, and I was right about that. Furthermore, I would contend that if that effort would have taken place at a distance JB actually was well suited for he would have run a new top and beat a really good field. As it was, he did well to pair an effort he ran back in October of his 2 year old campaign. And now, knowing this was a bif effort for this horse at this distance, I would make him a HUGE bet against at almost any distance in his next race if he doesn\'t get at least a month off with very little work and another 2-4 weeks after that before he races again.
With regards to Super Saver, I would also contend that he too was sitting on a top effort leading up to the Derby. He then caught a perfect trip over a sloppy race track that he loved, and he even made a slight forward move, which surprises me. But it wasn\'t a new top, and I always regard figures over a sloppy track somewhat sususpiciously anyway. I was there for the derby. I know how much the wind was changing and how the rain came and went in spurts. Now something obviously went wrong for this horse in the Preakness. He is better than what he showed there. But I haven\'t seen anything to make me feel I was wrong about this horse. When he beats a good quality field under less than ideal circumstances at 1 1/4 or better on a fast track I will rush to a computer and post in capital letters that I WAS WRONG about him. He\'s obviously a quality colt, but I think his true potential is at 1 1/8th or so.
It\'s funny. But I don\'t post here on this board to try to always be right or convince someone else that they are wrong. I\'m fairly opinionated about certain things. When I disagree with someone I will say it, but it\'s always with respect. There\'s a lot of really good players here on this board. I\'m here more or less to share some thoughts with them and for the comradary of it all. I never brag, and I never lie. In fact, I usually will only post a pre-race bet on a day when I know the pool is going to be huge, for obvious reasons, and these are often not the best betting races. I think I even said that before the derby, but that race is sort of like a day of holy obligation for me.
The Belmont could be very juicy though. I just wish SS, JB and DUB would be around to eat some of what I would regard as dead money.
With any luck the proof will be in the puddin later this summer.
You\'re probably right. But it was too late.
MJellish wrote:
\"Jackson Bend did not run a new top in the Preakness\"
I\'m not sure what kind of a point you are trying to make here, but let me ask: What number did Jackson Bend run in the Preakness, and what was his best number before the Preakness?
\"nor did Super Saver [run a top] in the Derby,\"
What was his Derby number, and what was his best number before the Derby?
\"I never brag, and I never lie.\"
What brings this on? I accused you of neither.
I\'m not going to get into a symantics discussion. How do you define a new top? 1/4 pt better than previous lifetime best?
Since most of these arguments appear to be of the \"what works for me\" variety, for me, the fact that a horse runs back to a prior top at least suggests he might not have been terribly challenged by the distance.
mjellish, you have \"scoreboard,\" here, and in my greatest lapse into hubris, I wouldn\'t attempt to compare lifetime ROI\'s with you, but, the arguments about \"distance challenged\" as they relate to Super Saver and Jackson Bend seemed to be based on their inability to get past horses in the final moments of a race. Now, you may have pedigree analysis to back that up, but, I have read other sources who would differ. Regardless, if that works for you, than nothing more need be said. However, in looking at matters objectively, the retro-fitting of races to fit one\'s theory is questionable. Super Saver runs well in the Derby, but, that gets excused. Others don\'t run well, and it is because of the distance. If theories are to have any use beyond your own personal needs, they should have more consistency of application.
As for the betting against Super Saver when he runs back to a classic distance, you are on safe historical grounds. Going back to Sea Hero, Derby winners have three wins, a second and a third out of seventeen lifetime starts at a mile and a quarter after the Derby. Sea Hero had one of those wins.
While I differ with a conclusion or two you might have made, I will continue to give serious credence to any points you make about handicapping, and wish you continued success.
First Dude ran his first quarter in 22.91 faster than they went in the 6 furlong sprint stakes on the same card.He was under pressure from Super Saver.Then Caracortado and LAL took turns attacking.
Jackson Bend sat in the pocket-perfect trip other than the early stretch traffic.Once clear he still couldn\'t go past First Dude.Put me in the distance challenged camp.
\"Put me in the distance challenged camp\"
Guys,
What distance is JB challenged at? He missed a length at the Preakness distance and finished with the horses in front of him.Distance challenged horses BACK UP thru the lane, he did not.Is that his best distance? Don\'t know,but he ran ok with a perfect trip which he made for himself.Many horses get a perfect trip and back up anyway because they are distance challenged.
JB is a nickle bred hard trier with little upside imo, does not possess the physicality to move up to the next level.Would be hard pressed to find a spot that I could stand with JB.
With this group, his best effort is competitive at whatever distance they run, which for the Kool Aid drinkers,numbers alone do not confirm/refute.With a faster crop, JB would be a constant also ran.
Mike
dont get it... first dude and LAL ran faster efforts than Jackson Bend.. if JB ran past them it wouldve only been bc he saved more ground. Has nothing at all with being distance challenged.. if he was in the same race next out with 6 weeks off running against horses that were running 6s and 7s im pretty much sure he would win at the distance (just as an example). He did set a new top effort last out and it was a career best.. Even though it was only a small new top.
MJellish wrote:
\"I\'m not going to get into a symantics discussion. How do you define a new top?\"
All-time classic.
I define a new top as a top that is faster than the old top--the same way the Thoro-Graph analysis defined it when saying Super Saver ran a slight new top in the Derby.
Listen, MJellish, I very much disagree with the way you frame the short-term evidence from these distance questions, but none of this should be considered anything close to important. This is a message board, not a horse race (or a betting window). If what you do works over the long haul, then in some sense you are \"right.\" And the same goes for NYC, and it goes even if what you and he are saying is completely at odds. This game doesn\'t allow for conclusive results about the distance preference of a given horse. What you wrote to discount Super Saver\'s new top at 10F? Someone else will employ similar-style reasoning to discount the importance of a future Super Saver 10F dry-track flop. Grant yourself a license to employ this technique and you are granting it to others as well.
Fair enough.