For what it\'s worth-- I expected RA to go back off the pair of big efforts, though that didn\'t necessarily mean she would lose. I played the Wolfson, and protected under RA.
RA had never before run 2 in a row that big, let alone 3 (cue Miff, \"Kool-Aid\", etc.). Keep in mind that fillies are 3 points slower than colts, that was like a colt coming off a pair of neg 6 1/2\'s. It\'s not clear either way from this one whether she handles 1 1/4.
If I were managing her she would go straight to the BC from here, no more preps. Nothing good can happen if she runs in October. I would probably run in the FM race, not because of the distance, but because no-one she would be facing has ever run a figure anywhere near RA\'s best, Z included, and if she doesn\'t run near her best she won\'t win either one. Having said that, IF she goes straight from here to the Classic she would be a definite use for me at a price in that race, getting 5 pounds.
At this point I think there\'s a very good chance RA and Z will never meet. Asmussen and Jackson like to have the best of it, and they\'re unlikely to run RA at 1 1/4 again. The Z camp figures to run in the Classic, thinking (correctly) that a win there would be huge, and a loss would cost them very little. I hope I\'m wrong.
Jerry:
Agree that she would be better off going to Churchill a fresh filly. Still won\'t be easy with the 3yo ladies likely to improve by then..
We can agree to disagree that 5 lbs does nothing for her at 1 1/4 against the boys and Zenyatta.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
\"RA had never before run 2 in a row that big, let alone 3 (cue Miff, \"Kool-Aid\", etc.). Keep in mind that fillies are 3 points slower than colts, that was like a colt coming off a pair of neg 6 1/2\'s. It\'s not clear either way from this one whether she handles 1 1/4\"
JB,
Since you brought up the bounce theory and the TG pair of neg-3\'s, you are the only one who had her that fast. Rags and Beyer had her in the TG neg -1 1/2 range, hardly bounce type figs for a well \"rested\" carefully spaced campaign.
Bounce or not to get beat by a legit 40-1 shot is not forgiveable.
Mike
Miff-- So basically you want to argue with me using figures I don\'t agree with to base your case on.
Even if I thought the other figures were relevant, that would be the equivelant of neg 4-5s for a colt.
And I don\'t.
JB,
Only those without racing knowledge would base a case on figs alone or ignore them.You feel she bounced, I feel she was pressed,maybe distance challanged and does not have the same ability as last year.Same result, different reason, however when a horse goes in 10+ lenghts faster and gets beat in pedestrian adjusted time, thats a helluva bounce.
Beyer at 95 for Persistently-Slow has her like a TG 3(ugh) Rachel about the same for a 6-7 point TG regression.Can\'t resist, a Kool Aid drinker told me Rachel wins if Calvin does not float wide on the first turn.
Mike
Miff-- only those who took geometry in high school think that ground loss matters.
Maybe someday I will have racing knowledge.
JB,
Forget geometry and go ask a few top jocks about the number of days that the inside is far less firm than the outer paths.Then go talk to a few trainers who will tell you about horses that do not run the innner most paths/turns well from kickback and or conformation.
Mike
Miff-- okay, for this one you get a real answer. And just a reminder, it\'s not coming from an anonymous poster on a board. It\'s coming from a guy who has managed a bunch of very succesful stables, bought 84 horses that have won stakes for my clients (including most of the ones at Saratoga, excluding the Travers (by a head) and the 2yo stakes), and who creates data that is bought by an awful lot of very serious horseplayers, including you. Not all opinions are created equal.
1-- The only things more overrated than jockey\'s opinions are trainer\'s opinions.
The way to tell whether the rail is off is by statistical analysis of how horses run on it, not by some guy telling you how he feels.
As far as trainers go, it makes a huge difference a) which trainer, and b) what they are offering an opinion about. Among other things, this goes to an issue I raised here many years ago, about making assumptions-- \"The two sides of the house I can see are white\". It is one thing for a trainer to say that a horse is doing well. It\'s quite another to say he will run well. Example I cited here recently-- horses who just ran big tops often look and act great, then run lousy. Related example for jockeys I gave a year ago-- Borel saying that Rachel didn\'t handle the track in the Preakness. What he knew was that she wasn\'t striding the same as in the Oaks. He ASSUMED it was because she didn\'t handle the track.
2-- I dealt with the specific point you raised at the DRF Expo a few years ago.
It\'s a FACT (a real one, not one of your \"facts\") that the wider you are on the turns the further you travel. There is no escaping that, unless you missed that class in high school.
Now-- a) The vast majority of the time the inside is not bad, so by using ground loss you are more accurately reflecting the horses\' measurable performance.
b) The times when the rail is bad the figure will not reflect that WHETHER YOU USE GROUND LOSS OR NOT. If 2 horses finish together Andy doesn\'t give one an 80 and the horse that ran on the bad part of the track an 85. The only difference is that we measure the distance the horse actually traveled.
c) You are free to make adjustments based on your opinion of the rail, or of trouble a horse encountered racing inside. Have to say though, the old chestnut of horses not liking it inside, with the exception of lightly raced 2yos, is riotously funny. I have been through that so many times with trainers, and disproved it EVERY SINGLE time. No exceptions. The way you do that? Make them give instructions to stay inside on the turns.
JB,
When John Velasquez tells Cordero the rail is dead/nfg on a given day, I\'ll defer to that rather than some man made inexact computer program looking at numbers.
To each his own.
Mike
I know many old bookmakers who have and are living very well in retirement taking action from jock\'s and trainers !!!
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> When John Velasquez tells Cordero the rail is
> dead/nfg on a given day, I\'ll defer to that rather
> than some man made inexact computer program
> looking at numbers.
>
It comes down to science vs. subjective interpretation of an experience - not to mention the unknown motivation of making such a statement.
I\'ll take science every time.
Josh
\"Unknown motivation\" is dead on. It can be an easy excuse to take the path less risky.
Bet,
A made man computer program is hardly science.
Mike
Mike,
I\'m not sure what man made computer program we\'re talking about - what I\'m saying is I trust in using statistical analysis on actual results more than I do a person\'s explanation of why his horse ran bad or why he rode the horse the way he did. The latter is entirely subjective with little or no facts to back it up. Numbers don\'t lie - you can interpret them wrong but they never lie.
Bet,
This is no data on this planet that is close to the opinion of the jockeys riding on the same surface just about every day, 5-6 times a day.Not speaking of the incidents where an excuse is made for a bad ride by not threading the needle inside and going wide.
What statistical analysis are you speaking of re biases? Please don\'t tell me you are suggesting that an x on a piece of paper is more indicitive of a dead rail that the opinion of the people on the ground.
Mike
Mike,
If I was in the jock\'s room and heard multiple jockeys agree that the rail was dead I would probably give that some serious weight. I do not however, give a lot of weight to a single individual who I hear through the grapevine say that the rail is dead, especially when the data suggests otherwise. So yes, since the \"x on the piece of paper\" represents a conclusion based on evidence, as opposed to something I hear from a friend of a friend of a friend who knows this girl that once dated the jockey\'s sister - I would put more value on the \'x\'.
Bet,
In the case you cite, the x on the paper is better. I was not talking about that type situaton.
Mike
Here\'s what you wrote miff
\"When John Velasquez tells Cordero the rail is dead/nfg on a given day, I\'ll defer to that rather than some man made inexact computer program looking at numbers.\"
So now Bet Twice is posting saying if A LOT of jocks said this he might give it some creedence and you are backing off your original example of ONE jock saying it. John Velazquez is ONE person, right? This is the example you gave.
25 posts from you on this page of the \"forum list\" alone. Why don\'t you give it a rest? You prefer comments from jocks and trainers to the numbers. We get it.
HP
Miff-- the analysis we do is to determine what has happened, so it\'s not done until after the races. There is not the slightest doubt-- zero-- that we are able to form a better idea of whether the rail was dead than the jockeys, through looking at how fast the horses ran.
During the card, we aren\'t doing that. So in terms of making decisions-- like telling riders how to ride-- you have to go by what you see or hear. There have been several times I gave instructions to stay off the rail. Several others where I was concerned about it, watched, and discounted the \"dead rail\" stuff. Super Frolic in the BC Classic was one of those days.
\"There is not the slightest doubt-- zero-- that we are able to form a better idea of whether the rail was dead than the jockeys, through looking at how fast the horses ran\"
JB,
...beyond chutzpah, delusional. your computer program is superior to the guys on the racetrack, okie dokie!
HP,
If you have something to add, please do, or shut your uniformed mouth.We are debating join in with an opinion.
Mike
Mike,
Do you use the numbers that JB and company create? Based on your posts it seems like you don\'t subscribe to the thinking behind them - honestly wondering why you\'d waste your time on this board? No judgement there, just wondering what the motivation/benefit is.
Strange how the attack dogs show up when complex questions about figs, etc are asked when philosophies other than sheet theories are presented,hmmmmm, I wonder about that.
Are you referring to my post? It was an honest question....which you didn\'t answer.
Bet,
Last post, HP is counting.I probably began using TG before 98% of the people on this board ever heard of them, with great success.Over time, when one is looking for answers,one comes to certain conclusions based on repeated observations and results.My observations were from very close up(at the racetrack, 5 am until after the races,for many years)
I beg to differ with some of the traditional sheet theories based on my personal experience/obsrvations over a very long period of time(40 years), thats all.
Mike
Fair enough - I got the impression you had no use for the sheets or the thinking behind them, which begged the question \"Why are you here?\".
Yeah, you\'re probably right. In fact, I\'m going to let the jockeys make the figures, too, since they have a much better idea what the horses are doing. Who needs a data base!
JB,
Will those figures be available in English or will I need to hit the SAP button on my computer ?
I\'m not an attack dog. My opinion is that if you are making money doing what you\'re doing you should keep doing it. You\'ve made your opinion clear. You think what you hear from the people doing the riding and training has more validity than the numbers. I respect your opinion.
You seem intent on branding people. I use TG and look at some other factors as well. Lighten up on your \"Kool Aid\" crusade. A few of us are major thinkers just like you.
HP
What\'s most interesting to me about Mike\'s methods is how he mentions using and comparing or calibrating it seems several different sources of figures. I own a little small time stable and I can tell you when my own horses are racing is when I do my best handicapping. What I do then is compare TG, Beyer and Brisnet figures on the PP\'s for every horse in the race or races. It really helps me spot phony figures as there really are some glaring discrepancies. There is especially a lot of disconnect between Brisnet and Beyer figures. The TG\'s help me get a true read on these calls. If I was going to use only one I\'d do TG figures but they are more expensive of course. I\'m too busy or lazy lately to put in the time to do serious handicapping so I watch more than I bet these days mixed in with a few stupid impulsive plays here and there. It takes so much time and effort to do it right though I think. I love reading here about how you guys hit some big ones and how you analyze a race. I haven\'t had much luck taking the easy way out and buying spot plays or daily analysis picks from any service.