http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/p-valenzuela-churchill-downs-usa-p-val-lined-up-for-kentucky-hope-comma/847960/latest/
QuoteJockey plans elsewhere are still up in the air - notably concerning Ballydoyle contender Master Of Hounds.
The agent for Calvin Borel, who has ridden three of the last four Kentucky Derby winners, is on record saying he would be contacting Aidan O\'Brien about the mount.
Oh plleeeeeeease make this happen. Would love nothing more than to see MoH bet down under 15-1.
calvin worked Stay Thirsty, so that is a possibility
Do Uncle Mo and Stay Thirsty run coupled in the Derby?
I wonder when people will stop talking about him. He had his moments of incredible luck over the last few years. Absolutely random, freaky luck--the kind you have once in a lifetime if the stars are aligned properly. He might never finish in the money in the Derby the rest of his career.
No, there\'s no couplings no matter what. 20 unique betting interests.
Yeah, he was very lucky to find a way to be 1w1w all three times he won. That\'s an edge of at least 4 lengths on the average Derby starter in EACH race.
Yes, very lucky that he knows Churchill about as well as anyone, and very lucky that he\'s the only jockey with stones to get right on top of the rail.
:-/.
I\'m wondering when people will get over the fact that they blew last years Derby silver platter opportunity. (i.e. a very competitive TG fig/pattern that was guaranteed[/u] to be 1w1w).
I can\'t even guarantee that my wife will still love me tomorrow. No way you can ever guarantee a horse will get a 1w 1w trip. But yes, after SS drew the 4 post you could figure if he broke well and with Borel on him he would have as good or better of a chance as anyone to save ground. But if the rail had been poor, which is how it was playing until late in the day, that wouldn\'t have helped him.
Michael.. dead rail that day? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l20r2GgSeoY
Please. I escalated my Derby straight win bets based on this \"dead rail\".
And you can\'t say, \"which is how it was playing until late in the day\".. Borel did the same exact thing with Zimmer in the 2nd race. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tWKUs8329o&feature=fvwrel
Let me guess, it was dead between races 3 thru 8 right?
Add in the 1w1w ride on Denis of Cork in 2008 to get into the tri.
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder when people will stop talking about him.
> He had his moments of incredible luck over the
> last few years. Absolutely random, freaky
> luck--the kind you have once in a lifetime if the
> stars are aligned properly. He might never finish
> in the money in the Derby the rest of his career.
I know it\'s Easter...but this is one of the more ignorant and ill-informed posts I\'ve ever seen on a horse racing forum. I simply can\'t hold back.
Dana, I challenge you (or anyone else) to come up with another jock that consistently finds and uses the best part of the racetrack like Borel does.
Borel\'s nickname, \"Bo-Rail\", is cute but misleading -- he\'s not some crazed kamikaze that has to scrape the paint off the rail in order to win a race once a week or so. He wins from all over the track, but if there is a rail or path bias, he\'ll find it and put all his horses there before half of the rest of the jockeys even know wtf is going on. That is the result of paying attention and being in touch with what is going on with the racing surface.
Finally, your \"freaky luck\" comment is what I find most absurd. For the five year period ending 12/31/2010, Borel tallied $37.6 million in earnings from just under 4500 mounts; remove the earnings from the three Derby wins, and Borel still shows some pretty damn lofty numbers. What, he won millions of dollars in earnings via smart, competitive race-riding for all those years...but then got bullshit lucky on Derby days only? Dana -- does that make ANY sense at all??
If you don\'t like the guy, say so -- nothing wrong with that. Just don\'t continue to trivialize Borel\'s three winning Derby rides...at least, not if you want to be taken seriously around here.
No Sek. That\'s not what I am saying. My main point was that you cannot GUARANTEE a 1w 1w trip ever, for any horse. Even if they run by themselves around the track. A ground saving trip is either likely or not, or more likely or very unlikely, but it is never guaranteed. That\'s all I was saying.
But for what its worth, I was at the Churchill last year for Oaks and Derby day. The rail was more or less dead both days. And on Derby day the weather was rainy and windy, off and on, all day and the way they groomed the track between races changed off and on all day, which really messes with the varients and the way the track plays. They were sealling it, then a few races later they harrowed it, then they started sealing it again. They went back and forth all day because you just couldn\'t tell what the weather was going to do. About 40 minutes before the Derby it quit raining and the sun came out for the first time all day. And most importantly, through all of that, there is an area of tightly packed dirt left right down, and I mean RIGHT down, by the rail from the maintenance equipment because the harrower doesn\'t get in that far. Go to Churchill sometime on a sloppy race day. You can actually see it. And that is where Calvin, and for the most part ONLY Calvin, often tries to ride. He rides closer to the rail than any other jockey I\'ve ever seen. And this is important because if you go out 1 foot from there it is a completely different track. Ever notice how Calvin, when he\'s down on the rail in the stretch at Churchill, is still all right hand with the whip? If his horse moves away from the whip he wants it to go closer to the rail, not away from it, because the track there is different.
There are weird things like this at some tracks. The old Keenland used to get it\'s \"Golden Rail\" in part because of the way the shadows fall on the track, which keeps more moisture in that part of the track. I\'ve seen Belmont get a pretty deep tire rut from the tractor as well. In fact, I remember one Breeders Cup, can\'t remember the year but I know Cigar was running, when any horse that got in that tire rut and stayed there had a huge edge.
So yes, I am saying that the track changed during the races. Happens all the time. If you try to make your own figures for any length of time you will see this, which is why sometimes you can\'t come up with a consistent varient and also why it\'s important to go off the horses and make projections. If you don\'t do it that way and just go off the raw times you get some really wacky numbers.
\" He might never finish in the money in the derby for the rest of his career \"
With all due respect that\'s a ridiculous statement.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No Sek. That\'s not what I am saying. My main
> point was that you cannot GUARANTEE a 1w 1w trip
> ever, for any horse. Even if they run by
> themselves around the track. A ground saving trip
> is either likely or not, or more likely or very
> unlikely, but it is never guaranteed. That\'s all
> I was saying.
He was 95%+. Barring a stumble or being squeezed (He had a substantial edge in gate speed on #1 LAL, #2 Ice Box, #3 Noble\'s P). Super Saver getting a 1w in that first turn was nearly a lock of the century. Give me a top 5 figure/pattern horse and there\'s a 95% chance he\'s catching a 1w1w, only a fool tosses him.
> So yes, I am saying that the track changed during
> the races. Happens all the time. If you try to
> make your own figures for any length of time you
> will see this, which is why sometimes you can\'t
> come up with a consistent varient and also why
> it\'s important to go off the horses and make
> projections. If you don\'t do it that way and just
> go off the raw times you get some really wacky
> numbers.
Okay your changing your story from your first post. You said it was dead until late in the day. Clearly it was not. Now you claim it was fluctuating back and forrth. I\'ll concur that there are changes to a track throughout the day, but you really have absolutely no idea how to quantify it as far as path bias goes. What\'s your evidence? You see a favorite that figures to be the best in the race in a decent spot on the rail and he doesn\'t fire in the stretch, you automatically assume the rail must have been dead? This is nonsense. It was ONE RACE. It is far, far more likely the horse wasn\'t in the same condition today as he had in the past.
The facts are you\'ll never have enough of a sample to determine the true path bias changes throughout the day. Looking at 2 or 3 races in a row where the favorite didn\'t win on the rail is about as flimsy as it gets. Whoops.. A 10-1 won on the rail the next race, the track maintenance MUST have did something differently right?
Ridiculous. I love watching the two Mountaineer handicappers make fools of themselves chasing these perceived biases with their small samples of evidence. They\'ll declare a bias after the 2nd race \"The front runners hit a wall there\" then pick closers next 3 races and then watch the speed win, then they move back to the speed and a closer finishes up the day. They are ALWAYS hunting for these magical biases and the vast majority of the time the track was playing perfectly fair throughout the day.
You are the guys in Vegas who see that the roulette wheel landed on red 13 of the last 15 spins so you think \"Red Is Hot\".
Sek,
I don\'t know why you seem to have such a hard on for me anytime I disagree with you. Let me make this clear to you.
NO - I\'m not changing my story at all. I just added the details of why I said the rail was better later in the day.
YES - Calvin does ride closer to the rail than just about everyone else. And YES this makes a difference at Churchill, especially in the slop. So NO - Calvin is not lucky. He makes his own luck.
YES - Supersaver was likely to get a 1W trip around the first turn.
NO - Supersaver was not guaranteed to get that trip. Especially around turn 2.
NO - I do not look for patterns on a Roulette Wheel (dunno where you came up with this or where you are trying to go with it).
And - for what it is worth - I would agree that all too often people see one type of runner winning and assume this means there is a bias. For example, I think someone on this board, maybe even you, said that speed was backing up at Oaklawn on ARK Derby day and that closers had the best of it. But I didn\'t see it that way. I saw front runners with suspect form run out of gas or solid horses go too fast early, and the pressers and closers reaped the benefits exactly as they should have. But when a fit front runner caught soft fractions that day they punched their ticket, just like they should have.
I don\'t want to bogart this board with a back and forth.
So YES - this is all I have to say about this. You can have the last word.
It\'s only relevant if you have horse.Horses 1w 1w run in toliet every day if they are empty. All equal,fence a edge.
Re Calvin, don\'t think he can hold a candle to Rosario, Bejarano and neither has a mount to my knowledge.
Mike
> YES - Supersaver was likely to get a 1W trip
> around the first turn.
>
> NO - Supersaver was not guaranteed to get that
> trip. Especially around turn 2.
Just two more questions Michael I\'d like your opinion on:
#1. What were the odds off Super Saver throwing Borel at the gate? That\'s about the only way he wasn\'t getting 1W in the first turn. Even if he stumbled or was caught flat footed, he still would have gotten the rail into the first turn (although obviously it would have hurt his chances).
You are acting as if this was a 70%-75% shot. I simply don\'t see, barring a disaster of some sort, how he doesnt get 1w in the first turn.
Given who was riding him (who had already won 2 races that day by bolting his horses to the rail within the furlong), it was a 99.99% certainty he was 1w going into the first turn. Say Borel gets Shackleford this time and draws the 4 post. Dialed In, Nehro, and Toby\'s Corner are to his inside. Do you think he\'s not getting the rail?
#2. Who was going to move inside Borel once he got 1W first turn? The expected suspects took the lead in front of him, Borel had to navigate around 1, it took less than 3 seconds. And like you said, nobody goes where he goes. So who was getting inside Borel after the first turn?
I believe Rosario has a mount (Brilliant Speed).
Sek,
Since you asked, I think you are missing my point. I\'m not trying to debate whether SS was 75% or 99% sure to get a 1w 1w trip. My issue was with your word \"Guaranteed.\"
Been playing this game long enough to know that you\'ve got to stay humble and not use words like Guaranteed. And the best time to be humble is not when you lose, it\'s when you win. Because it could be the last time you cash a decent ticket for a long time. I\'ve seen some really bad players tote horses that win and then act like they\'re a genius when they in fact constructed a poor a wager and made very little money or maybe even lost. I\'ve also seen very, very good players go on 0-for whatever streaks, lose some tough photos, etc., go on tilt, develop health problems, get busted out, sometimes permanently. But I\'ve also seen a few people, and I mean a few, who consistently stay at it and seem to stay ahead of the game. And at the end of the day they are all humble, at least about the game. That\'s not to say that they don\'t get a little brash or throw their money around or talk a little smack here and there or party a bit too much or whatever. But even after a decent score, they don\'t let themselves stay too full of themselves for too long because they know that if you play this game long enough, especially professionally, it will eventually humble you. There just isn\'t anyone who knows it all, no one approach that will always work, no so such thing as a \"guarantee.\" It\'s a game of information, the ability to interpret that information, construct a wager, and it\'s a game of percentages. The way I see it the people on this board are already ahead of the masses simply because they have better information. And I may even be willing to Guarantee that.
Sekrah -
See Eternal Prince...... I\'d guess that was all MJ was trying to say. Better yet, talk to Mig and see if he doesn\'t still harbor a bit of a pit in his stomach from the break in that race.
I backed off the guarantee. I say 99% first turn. 95% second turn. Agreed? Any one of the 20 horses could break down or throw the jockey out of the gate. If anyone is worried about that happening they shouldn\'t be playing.
QuoteI\'ve seen some really bad players tote horses that win and then act like they\'re a genius when they in fact constructed a poor a wager and made very little money or maybe even lost. I\'ve also seen very, very good players go on 0-for whatever streaks, lose some tough photos, etc., go on tilt, develop health problems, get busted out, sometimes permanently. But I\'ve also seen a few people, and I mean a few, who consistently stay at it and seem to stay ahead of the game.
I agree with this. I know a mix of these same kind of people as well, but you missed a group. I know a few really good handicappers who totally boot a race by failing to spot the logical obvious play and then just chalk the loss up to bad flukey luck the rest of their lives.
Sekrah-- I tell you what. Next time you see a situation where you think a horse in a 12 horse field (let alone one with 20), who is not lone speed, is 99% to have the rail one turn and 95% on the other, you let me know, and we\'ll make a bet. I\'ll take 4-1 he\'s not, which is a big overlay for you.
In the meantime, AGAIN, knock off the name calling and characterizations. You\'re lowering the tone of this board, and there\'s no need for it.
Dana - you must live in NY or LA I am guessing...the guy owns CD like no one since Pat Day...reconsider -as that comment makes little sense. There are many great jockeys who have never won the Derby. You shortchange Mr. Borel, who has a fearless mission of going inside when the option is easy. Take note.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sekrah-- I tell you what. Next time you see a
> situation where you think a horse in a 12 horse
> field (let alone one with 20), who is not lone
> speed, is 99% to have the rail one turn and 95% on
> the other, you let me know, and we\'ll make a bet.
> I\'ll take 4-1 he\'s not, which is a big overlay for
> you.
>
Deal. Contact me and we\'ll make this happen. I\'d be willing to make numerous of these wagers as soon as Churchill fires up.
Sorry for lowering the tone of the board.
Horseracing has a primal taste that holds a matter of attraction. Many times in a lifetime a man will go down inside with no fear and risks life not out of need but in the face of who he is.
Just shoot me a person to person message when you see one.
I don\'t like or dislike him. And I\'m not discounting the hard work (for years) it takes for almost any jockey to just get a derby mount, but if you don\'t understand how the luck factor plays into his recent success, I can\'t possibly explain it. But I\'ll try.
So he works that 1w trip that Jerry loves so much out in his mind, and it goes exactly according to plan as all the other riders magically open up the rail just so he can come through, it also just happens to rain on one day when he\'s on a horse who loves the mud, and on and on. And out of 100 derbies, how many do you see Mine That Bird winning? Seriously, how many, really, 1 in 100 -- oh yeah, he won that one. Yeah, that\'s not randomness, that\'s all skill, sure.
Please, there\'s nothing wrong with luck -- but you all are attributing way to much to the man rather than the situations that presented themselves, which, to be fair, he took full advantage of.
What you\'re not getting is the bias in the human brain to try and link cause and effect to results. We can convince ourselves of many of these so called links to causality when most of it is completely random. This is especially valid when considering one person\'s amazing success when matched against others who are seemingly just as talented or whatever; this one dude stands way above the crowd; well, if that\'s the case, don\'t assume it\'s anything special he\'s doing, assume it\'s randomness first and then maybe time will tell if there\'s some other factors in play. I think this observation particularly relevant to Borel in this case. How many riding titles did he win in New York or California, traditionally anyway, the real testing grounds for riders?
Look, if you cashed tickets with Borel, I couldn\'t possibly convince you in a million years that\'s he\'s not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but, again, that could be a bias in your mind due to happy brain chemicals you associate with the big score, not necessarily anything real.
If you hate the thought, don\'t shoot me, the messenger -- better yet, shoot Nassim Taleb; he\'s the one who honed this philosophy of understanding the world. I just happen to agree with him.
It\'s not a ridiculous statement at all. A million and one things could happen to him. You\'re assuming he\'ll ride in many more derbies -- how do you know that anymore than I say he might never be a factor in the Derby again? I said might, nothing guaranteed. Why would you assume his success is guaranteed?
Sounds like some randomness in play here, no?
Terrific post. Lots of wisdom there! You might have a PH.D. in the school of hard knocks!
I read Talib too and your full of it. By your definition every single jockey thats ever won a Derby is a luckbox. We\'re all luckboxes too for just winning the million man sperm race right? Doubting that Borel has a level of skill and instinct above his peers at Churchill Downs is absurd. His track record there passes sample size muster.
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you\'re not getting is the bias in the human
> brain to try and link cause and effect to results.
Then, a few sentences later:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this observation particularly relevant to
> Borel in this case. How many riding titles did he
> win in New York or California, traditionally
> anyway, the real testing grounds for riders?
Well, there it is -- the exact bias you refer to above, only in reverse:
Borel never won a riding title in NY or California, therefore, his winning the Derby is a fluke; that he\'s done it 3 times in the last 4 years is merely a testament to the power of the fluke angle. Right?
Really...I can\'t remember the last time I\'ve read such disrespectful and poorly-reasoned rubbish on a horse racing forum. You are completely wrong about Calvin Borel, and you owe him an apology -- NO jockey wins 3 Kentucky Derbys in 4 years simply out of luck! If you can\'t bring yourself to apologize, fine, but at least quit talking out of your behind.
Interesting battle between Dana and Rick about Borel, i\'ll chime in with 2 cents. I think Borel\'s derby wins are mostly skill and have very little do with randomness or luck. We just need to realize that most Derby jocks are some of the best and most accomplished jocks in the world, the Derby jocks are mostly made up of people who have won the majority of the big races in America, so these guys have carved out a great living for themselves.
Here\'s what happens in the Derby, jocks understand that riding the rail in the Derby has its inherent risks, meaning, if you get blocked in the Derby and botch the ride and lose with a horse who might otherwise have won, you carry that around the rest of your career...you\'re the guy who screwed up the Derby by getting blocked.
Calvin rides like he doesnt really care if people think he\'s the guy who got blocked in the Derby.....he realizes this is the fastest way between Point A and Point B. This is kind of like Bailey\'s ride on Arcangues, Jerry rode that horse in a specific way because he was a million to one and he knew he had to get \'lucky\' to win. If Jerry got blocked, he would had had his excuse all ready, he wasnt riding a 3-5 shot.
Calvin rides CD better than anybody and when he rides the Derby, he knows he\'s going to figure out a way to NOT get blocked, he\'s just riding with amazing confidence that this is \'his\' track and he\'ll find a way to know every nook and cranny of this place.
I think his Derby RIDES were all skill, but his results (winning a bunch of them) was part skill and part luck....obviously you need a lot of luck to win a Derby even if you ride a perfect race, but Calvin\'s rides in these races were flawless, he\'s the only guy with the balls to do what he does, and that has to count for something.
Perhaps the most convoluted post ever written on this board. You are essentially stating that there is no correlation between Borel\'s success at Churchill and his success in the Kentucky Derby, which coincidentially is run at Churchill. In addition, you are dismissing the ability of a jock to get a 1w1w trip in a 20 horse Cavalry charge that sometimes has the fastest horses in a race (i.e. Brother Derek) running 5W7W as providing illusory happiness. Perhaps you are still upset that Zenyatta didn\'t \"eat Blame for lunch.\"
The rail skimming rides are one thing.
Borel doesn\'t get enough credit for changing up the running style on both Super Saver and MTB.
A very interesting emotional string on Calvin, some facts a lot of fiction.
I\'ll throw my 2 cents in from 35 plus years of watching races and riders. CB is an above average journeyman rider and would be a top 10 rider on any circuit anywhere any time. Would he be or have ever been a top gun in NY or Cali ? I seriously doubt it.
However at Churchill Downs he is Eddie Arcaro, Bill Hartack, Angel Cordero and every other HOF jock all wrapped up in one !!! The man just owns this track and his record speaks for itself on a daily basis there.
How can anyone discount his Derby record ? He\'s one of 5 jocks to win 3 Derby\'s, Shoe won 4, Arcaro and Hartack 5 each. It took Willie the Shoe 26 rides to get 4, Arcaro 21 to get 5 while Calvin has 3 on only 8 mounts ? His percentage is surpassed only by Bill Hartacks amazing 5 wins from only 12 Derby mounts. Throw in a 3rd on Denis of Cork and the man is 50 % in the money in 20 horse Derby fields. Come on guys !
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dana666 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What you\'re not getting is the bias in the
> human
> > brain to try and link cause and effect to
> results.
>
> Then, a few sentences later:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think this observation particularly relevant
> to
> > Borel in this case. How many riding titles did
> he
> > win in New York or California, traditionally
> > anyway, the real testing grounds for riders?
Can\'t recall Pat Day, the \"Head Waiter\", winning any NY/Cali
riding titles either.
I must have been overating him all these years.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dana666 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What you\'re not getting is the bias in the
> > human
> > > brain to try and link cause and effect to
> > results.
> >
> > Then, a few sentences later:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I think this observation particularly
> relevant
> > to
> > > Borel in this case. How many riding titles
> did
> > he
> > > win in New York or California, traditionally
> > > anyway, the real testing grounds for riders?
>
> Can\'t recall Pat Day, the \"Head Waiter\", winning
> any NY/Cali
> riding titles either.
>
> I must have been overrating him all these years.
I was actually complimenting you. Not sure why you\'re so miffed.
Also, not sure you really understand Taleb b/c what you\'re implying is seemingly completely contradictory to what he teaches, not that I\'m the authority on his work or anything, but that\'s not even what I said anyway. I was specifically referring to Borel\'s last 3/4 derbies, and all the hype about him--please don\'t put words in my mouth. No one would say he\'s not in the top ten or twenty riders in the country, but I don\'t think there\'s much separating riders at that level anyway.
What kind of sample size are you speaking of? Again, I was specifically referring to the Derby, not the rest of his career. Maybe I wasn\'t clear on that point. The sample size for the Derby is completely meaningless having riders in so few of them. And if you don\'t see Mine That Bird as completely random, a black swan in Taleb\'s words, then I really can\'t discuss this with you b/c we\'d be so far apart in our perception of reality.
No big deal, that\'s what\'s makes life interesting. I haven\'t picked a derby winner since black and white TV, so you\'re probably way ahead of me in this case. No worries.
I know exactly what I\'m saying or writing as the case may be, and as far as I know, nothing is coming out of my ass either. I don\'t post here so people with agree with me, so I really don\'t care!
I also don\'t think I\'m being the least bit disrespectful. Perhaps you haven\'t read my posts completely. I wasn\'t trashing the guy or his body of work or what it took to get to the Derby in the first place.
And yes, I do think the better riders usually find there way to the coasts and prove their skills against the other top riders. I hardly think that\'s a radical point of view.
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also don\'t think I\'m being the least bit
> disrespectful. Perhaps you haven\'t read my posts
> completely. I wasn\'t trashing the guy or his body
> of work or what it took to get to the Derby in the
> first place.
I read your posts thoroughly. Incredulously, too -- as in, AYFKM? Is Dana just pulling our collective leg here? Slowly, it dawned on me that you were not kidding. I\'m still shaking my head as I write this.
No, you didn\'t trash Borel\'s body of work or what it took for him to get to the Derby -- you merely took what some consider to be his crowning achievements (I sure do), and reduced them to \"luck\"...as if he should have just been happy to be there at the Derby, but only as a rank outsider: \"...alright now Calvin, you just stay in the back seat and don\'t play with the radio, while the Superior East Coast and West Coast Kingpins sort out the real matter at hand\".
What a crock. That was quite disrespectful of you. I stand by my original assessment.
> And yes, I do think the better riders usually find
> there way to the coasts and prove their skills
> against the other top riders. I hardly think
> that\'s a radical point of view.
No, it\'s not radical at all. It\'s pedestrian, at best, insulting at worst, and an old, tired subset of the \"nothing ain\'t nothing unless it happens on one of the coasts\" crappola I\'ve heard my whole life here in the Midwest.
Went right past Richeebee\'s mention of Pat Day in this regard, did ya? What a schlub THAT guy was, eh? (Not Richee...).
I gotta throw my 2c in. 99.9% lurker here, but I\'ve been reading your guys\'s opinions for many years (and respect quite a few of you) and am suprised at this conversation. Calvin is NOT just a Churchill jock. He may come across as a yocal, but he\'s no dummy. If he recognizes a bias, he tries to use it to his advantage. Other pinhead jockeys follow suit after seeing 3 wtw jobs and figure front speed is king and then go hell bent for leather setting unsustainable pace up front (If Calvin sees this, he can take advantage of this, too). We see this scenario play out every week at any number of race venues. Do you just dismiss this as a \"lucky\" set- up for an otherwise ordinary plodding closer that had no chance, withstanding the ridiculous early pace?
Calvin doesn\'t just react. He anticipates.....sometimes I supsect with knowledge. \"knowledge\"....you ask? Go and dig up a replay of the \'93 ARK derby. Anyone here think that Rockumundo won that race just by luck (because he paid $200+)? Wake up. The man\'s been doing this for a couple of decades. MTB needed luck to win, but no way he\'s in position to capitalize on that \"luck\" without Calvin\'s ride. Do you think these are just aberations and random paths chosen by Calvin?
Not me.
End of rant
\"MTB needed luck to win, but no way he\'s in position to capitalize on that \"luck\" without Calvin\'s ride\"
John,
MTB was a ton the best that day,luck??? ran one of the fastest last 4f\'s in derby history but needed Calvins ride to win?? Could have circled that field with any warm body on his back and won on that particular day.
Calvin anticipates, really? Dominguez, Bejarano, Rosario and many others don\'t? Thats it, Calvin Borel for President!!
Mike
Well, the only thing you understood was, yes, I am saying there may well be a great deal of luck or randomness or whatever else you want to call it that is indeed responsible for his recent success in the derby, and people might well be making way too much of his skills esp. in comparison to the other riders --exactly! That\'s my only point here.
Regarding the rest of your post, it makes no sense. If you\'re going to argue that there aren\'t huge differences in jockey colonies, I mean, you\'re seriously going to say the colony at CD is as generally as good as Saratoga or Gulfstream or Oak Tree or Del Mar -- generally speaking--year in and year out for the last, say, 50 years? I\'m mean that just makes no sense. Bringing up one, guy, Pat Day? That makes your case? You know how flimsy that argument sounds -- it\'s laughable, honestly.
Watch the race again and try to imagine a circle the field win. Guess i\'m just not that creative or have a need to understand the \"why\". Tons the best? I figure Pioneer of the Nile wins if you take the overland route. But maybe you\'re right and i just don\'t get Geometry!
John,
Geometry is for Kool Aid drinkers as it applies to the totality of the particular dynamics of a race.
Mike
Uh-huh. And for those of us who do believe in geometry, MTB got a little better figure, but if you flip the trips Pioneer wins the race. Probably a coincidence that in all 3 wins by Borel and all 3 by Cordero they were 1w1w (one coming from last in a 24 horse field).
Dana--
1-- the Southern California jocket colony has been weak overall for years, Gomez is the only one recently who is really a top rider, though Talamo is close. Hardly anybody even tries to come through inside.
2-- AGAIN-- you are completely disregarding the fact that Borel was 1w both turns in all three wins (as well as with Street Sense in the BC Juvenile). If he only did it once, or had won a couple with wide trips, it would be a different story, and you could say it was luck. Sure, the horse matters, and there is a ton of randomness involved. That\'s why the trip and that it happened three times matters.
Double uh-huh, no horse ever won any race SOLELY because he was 1w 1w, he also had to have enough run to take advantage of that trip.
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am saying there may well be a great deal of luck or
> randomness or whatever else you want to call it
> that is indeed responsible for his recent success
> in the derby, and people might well be making way
> too much of his skills esp. in comparison to the
> other riders --exactly! That\'s my only point here.
It\'s a desperately flawed point, Dana. Seriously -- you are the ONLY person I\'ve ever heard, anywhere, insist that Borel\'s Derby success has anything to do with luck or randomness. You have several esteemed posters here (no, I don\'t count myself in this group) trying to tell you oh so kindly, that you are simply wrong about this. Yet, you persist, and I have no idea...
Wait a minute. Dana? You sneak! I\'m back to thinking that you ARE pulling our legs: even my ex-wife -- the most miserable, stubborn cur on the planet, according to Guinness -- would back down after a half-dozen people (other than me, of course) told her she was wrong. So this HAS to be a tardy April Fool\'s Day gag.
I salute you! You got me, good. My gullibility is on display for all to see.
Well, I\'m glad I amuse you! What do I care if people agree? That, a couple bucks, and a metro card gets me a ride on the subway! I\'m usually better off in most things (racing included) if everyone disagrees with me.
Why should I back down? I\'m just making an observation.
The mere fact that so many people reacted so strongly tells me I\'m hitting upon some valid point. People usually react more calmly if they disagree with an idiot b/c they figure, hey, you can\'t argue with an idiot, but they seem like I insulted their family or something here and that really tells me something.
It is a little painful sometimes to acknowledge that so many of our successes are due in very little measure to our talents and abilities and often more a question of luck or being in the right place at the right time.
Our entire society puts way too much faith in the credibility of experts or successful people than they should. I think Trump is basically a celebrity and nothing more, yet some people say he would make a great president. What can I say, they are assuming he is something special, and that\'s why he\'s wealthy or whatever-- same with Bill gates, you really think he was so much smarter than all those other geeks? But Microsoft became the gold standard.
We like winners and give them magical attributes. We read their books about success! They might not be any smarter than the homeless guy at the train station--if not for the grace of God kind of thing.
I never said Borel wasn\'t a good rider. I just said he\'s not that much better than all those other guys. I did say he was able to take advantage of the luck or randomness and that carries some weight for sure.
I\'m kind of bored with this topic, so I\'ll let you all have the last words. I agree with Jerry, the California colony hasn\'t been as strong in recent years, but I was thinking of the last 50 years or so. In the 70\'s, for example, if you were the man, you eventually tried California, you had to, that was the real proving ground for the best of the best.
Dana, I know it\'s not worth much but I understood your point about the role of randomness in these matters and how it might be related to Borel\'s recent Derby results. I think you stated your case very well and I appreciated your contribution to the subject. But you\'re not likely to ever win this particular argument on this particular board.
I found that out! LOL
The blimp shot of the ride on Dennis of Cork was really a thing of beauty.
Luck is the residue of design.
Simply stated, Calvin put himself in a position to be lucky while others failed to do so.
Dana, I believe most discussions of randomness teeter on a slippery slope, particularly in a game where the notion of \"luck,\" real or imagined, lurks around every corner. At what point is there a pure sense of randomness in a race that is not influenced in the least by some conscious prior determination of trainer, jockey, etc.? There\'s randomness to the picking of balls, or whatever they do, to set up the order of post position selection. Beyond that, it\'s not clear to me. I can only look at a cluster of events, suggestive of individual choice, skill, etc., and hypothesize that something produced a result that appears to defy pure randomness. For me, Calvin Borel\'s performance in the past four derbies strongly suggests that he is either the luckiest SOB who ever set foot on a race track, or that randomness was augmented by his skill and racing acumen.
Initially you asked, \"I wonder when people will stop talking about him?\" I think the obvious answer is when he stops winning the most publicized race in the thoroughbred game. Regardless of your opinion of him, I don\'t know why you would even ask that question. Even if his accomplishments were pure luck, people would still be talking about him. You then finished the post by saying \"he might never finish in the money in the Derby the rest of his career.\" Indeed, but might that not also be random, and if so, why bother talking about anything at all?
Rick B wrote:
\"It\'s a desperately flawed point, Dana. Seriously -- you are the ONLY person I\'ve ever heard, anywhere, insist that Borel\'s Derby success has anything to do with luck or randomness.\"
You can add MTB\'s trainer. He said after the Derby that it was a super ride, and that \"everything fell together,\" and that \"we were really lucky to get through there.\"
Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The mere fact that so many people reacted so
> strongly tells me I\'m hitting upon some valid
> point. People usually react more calmly if they
> disagree with an idiot b/c they figure, hey, you
> can\'t argue with an idiot, but they seem like I
> insulted their family or something here and that
> really tells me something.
I would draw an equally strong reaction if I came out here and made an equally ridiculous announcement that all TG figs over 20 are slow by 35%, and all TG figs under 10 are fast by 35% -- ESPECIALLY if I didn\'t or couldn\'t provide any proof!
> It is a little painful sometimes to acknowledge
> that so many of our successes are due in very
> little measure to our talents and abilities and
> often more a question of luck or being in the
> right place at the right time.
>
> Our entire society puts way too much faith in the
> credibility of experts or successful people than
> they should. I think Trump is basically a
> celebrity and nothing more, yet some people say he
> would make a great president. What can I say, they
> are assuming he is something special, and that\'s
> why he\'s wealthy or whatever-- same with Bill
> gates, you really think he was so much smarter
> than all those other geeks? But Microsoft became
> the gold standard.
>
> We like winners and give them magical attributes.
> We read their books about success! They might not
> be any smarter than the homeless guy at the train
> station--if not for the grace of God kind of
> thing.
This whole passage speaks volumes about you, Dana, and what you believe; it\'s not human effort that moves us forward -- it\'s predetermined...all in the cards...and when your number comes up, you win. It\'s simply not in your control. You are not responsible for being a loser, and you get no credit for any success that comes your way.
This is, in effect, what some early Protestant church Reformers believed, most notably, a 16th century Reformer by the name of...John Calvin. His doctrine and beliefs became known as Calvinism; his followers, Calvinists.
What delicious irony! Dana is a CALVINIST!
Interesting! I never thought of myself that way. I would say, at the very least, I believe in some degree of co-creation though I\'m not sure what the percentage. Not a Calvinist, but not a new-age guru either--thinking we create our reality entirely or some such stuff like that. I\'d be more of a Taleb-ist in this case. I do think humans completely flawed in almost everything we do, esp. when we try to link cause and effect or invent narratives to explain life.
Taleb might say, perhaps, the random (favorable in this case) black swan isn\'t enough to come your way or Borel\'s way -- we need at least to do two things: take freaking advantage of it (which, of course, your man Borel certainly does well), and the other thing is don\'t take the success too personally.
What I mean by that, not so much for jockeys but more for investors (or gamblers) is don\'t assume you had anything to do with the favorable black swan coming your way--not your skills or brilliant mind or whatever, just some randomness, and, most importantly, if you make a freaky score--afterwards, play it very conservatively for the most part, thinking, if indeed it is a favorable black swan, there may never be another series of events like this in my lifetime, so I shouldn\'t expect this success to follow me for the next twenty years. Don\'t take too much credit for it and let it go to your head, or you will have your own unfavorable black swan in the near future that will most likely wipe you off the face of the earth.
My posts, if they have any relevance at all, are more geared toward the way people look at Borel, rather than the man himself. Has nothing to do with him. If he\'s buying Porsche\'s bad idea, if he\'s playing it cool, saving the cash for a rainy day--good move. That kind of thing.
Not a 1w 1w trip, but suprised nobody comments on my \'93 ARK Dby reference. I remember their being a lot of grumbling about track maintenance (the innermost part of track, right on top of the rail was extra tight due to the tire tracks). Calvin rode Rockumundo right on top of the track marks on his way to victory on a hapless 100/1 shot. No way that horse wins with any other trip.