In one of my posts last week I mentioned that the 5 percent of people who play this game while having some sort of clue then have to battle the take-out, bad beats, pin head rides (let\'s add that in ) and chaotic results.
On Saturday, I was in the 95 percentile as Prime Cut looked as if he never belonged. I congratulate those on this board ( a board BTW that I think has quite a few in the 5 percentile) who touted Stay Thirsty (breeding plus surface), and Brilliant Speed (same reason).
You guys should have cashed big time. Both were double digit odds with reasonable explanations as to why they were able to run their eyeballs out. Then we get to a Ruler On Ice who defies explanation and logic........basically a chaotic result. Really don\'t want to get into the possibilities that are running through my head. I live near Monmouth Park and have my opinions on some of the guys who work their magic there.
Rough game. We\'re all nuts for doing this. Wouldn\'t want to be different, but sometimes wish I was born without the gene.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
\"Rough game. We\'re all nuts for doing this. Wouldn\'t want to be different, but sometimes wish I was born without the gene\".
Joe B,
Take heart.Only those who are delusional are not occasionally humbled by this indomitable game.
Mike
Not a chaotic result at all. ROI was one of the few in the race with a forward moving line who hadn\'t already peaked.
It this Chuckles the Clown or just somebody equally as willing to redboard to this extreme.
Yeah, Ruler on Ice was extremely likely to win, possibly the most obvious standout on the day, with the possible exception of the Chatterpaul horse in the turf race right before the Belmont.
I also like a horse that won the 5th yesterday at Churchill. I think he has a good chance....
You know, the horse that won the Manhattan was not crazy-- I ended up boxing 5 in tris and supers, using him light and pressing the others. Still didn\'t hit it. And as I said, I used him light in pick 3\'s, second or third finishers in the Belmont were hits for me.
You mentioned pre-race that the trainer had 2 speeds in there, when he scratched the other this horse figured to get the trip he got. Certainly had a history of running well fresh, and the trainer intent was obviously strong. He was going to run his race.
The Belmont winner was obviously a little tougher, though I know one guy who uses our stuff that hit the super for 30 cents. He\'s screaming about them putting the 3 tickets together in his NYRA 1 account and taking out the withholding.
Now, now now. I had him in the first position with 7 others in a total fruit basket of a 10ยข super using all but the 11 in the 3rd and 4th spots. But I did like him as well as any of the others who\'d already topped out in either the Derby or the Preakness and looked to be going the wrong way. He had a legitimate reason to move forward and not many others did and there was value in that bet.
Which, by the way, brings up to what I think is a really interesting discussion about the triple crown in the \"post steroid\" age. Big edge to the fresh horse.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a chaotic result at all. ROI was one of the
> few in the race with a forward moving line who
> hadn\'t already peaked.
Let\'s see: not much at 2 years old, a 6 first time out at age 3, then a 7 3/4, then right back to top in the \"X\" race...then a new top with a slight improvement to 3.75...
Dude. That\'s not much of a \"forward moving line\" -- it\'s more like a straight line. What, you bet on that alone?
Come on, give us a break from the aftercapping already: you make it sound like we all missed something on this one. These things just seem more obvious once the race is run, and the result is posted -- that\'s why redboarding is so frowned upon.
Definitely correct that Mission Approved had a shot after entry mate was scratched. With Approval is an outstanding soft turf sire, Espinoza is a good turf jock, and yes, the trainer intent was there.
So I did notuse him for two reasons, which are major faults in my handicapping:
I am afraid 1) to bet a horse claimed for a relatively low price and going into a stakes 2) although I know you should bet horses who outrun their odds, when I see one lose at 53-1 I figure he just got lucky that day.
Any tips on how to overcome these faults will be appreciated.
Not saying I had it or liked it, but chaos is a word thrown around a little too lightly. The game is riddled with Black Swans. Especially when SLOPPY tracks are in play. I think the slop had as much to do with the result as any other factor.
Strangely , the horse was 25-1 not 100-1, so the bettors had it about right.
Didn\'t your sister-in-law shoot you in your office at Ewing Oil?
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I think the \'chaos\' in the Belmont resulted from the overestimating the talent level of the \'usual suspects\'. The AK\'s, Shak\'s and others were \'raced out\' and this was their 3rd hard race in 5 weeks. The way to have this winner is to just believe that the entire crop is average and inconsistent and that any \'new shooter\' has a chance. Sometimes the Belmont creates havoc, look at Birdstone or Sarava, those horses probably looked like they had LESS of a chance than the winner on Saturday.
This was a hard horse to have no doubt, but i think that there was at least one way to see this result happening...and that was to just believe all these horses are interchangable and anyone can beat anyone on any given day.
Overestimating how good AK, Shak, Nehro, etc were was the downfall of many a handicapper.
Uh, to be fair, AK did have a spot of bother and Nehro finished 4th on a broken foot.
Plastic:
Sarava was coming off of a 4 length win in a stakes race at Pimlico on Preakness Day.
Birdstone was a highly regarded 3 yo early in the year after a solid 2 yo campaign and prior win over the course.
Ruler on Ice had no such credentials.
Which leads to another question. How did Sarava and Birdstone pay $142 and $77 respectively while ROI paid $51?????
Good Luck,
Joe B.
To me the 2 1/4 forward move was significant enough for me to put him in the first position allowing for the possibility he\'d have another forward move. I didn\'t single him. I used him with 7 others but, as I said, I felt he had as good a chance to go forward as some others had to go back. It simply ended up being a fortunate guess.
My guess is there have been enough bombs in Triple Crown races lately that no illogical horse is going off as long as it should.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn\'t your sister-in-law shoot you in your office
> at Ewing Oil?
Yeah, after he got her pregnant but didn\'t give her the Belmont winner. Bastard.
It\'s a little bit unbelievable that the readers on this board find this result so unbelievable considering the outcome of this year\'s derby. What was Animal Kingdom\'s best number before he won the derby? 3 1/2. And his best prior to that was a 7 on the turf. Ruler On Ice ran a 3 3/4 and prior to that a 6. His pattern isn\'t that different form AK\'s pattern going into the derby and is arguably stronger.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me the 2 1/4 forward move was significant
> enough for me to put him in the first position
> allowing for the possibility he\'d have another
> forward move. I didn\'t single him. I used him with
> 7 others...
Whoa. OK, that\'s a little different.
Kinda has me wondering, though -- do you REALLY need TG if you are only throwing out 4 horses? Wow.
They still help.
Does seem a little odd that you\'d be mocking my betting strategy when I won and I presume you didn\'t. Reminds me of the story about the guy in the casino chewing out his wife for losing $300 and she says, \"How can you be mad at me when I lost $300 and you lost $3000\" and he says, \"Because I know what the f--k I\'m doing.\"
Isn\'t he by Roman Ruler out of a Saratoga Six mare?
You ask me, this was simply a surface thing. No one was passing anyone over that greasy, sealed track.
Only possible way I could see using ROI in the Belmont was if you thought
#1 track surface was so quirky that almost any speed would stick (possible, but at 1 1/2?)
#2 that the favorites would misfire (I think most here played the race that way) and even then you would have to be willing to go very deep to get there
#3 that the Breen barn was suddenly getting big numbers and something was up.
Out of all those, I would say number #1 is hope at best, #2 is reasonable but like I said you would have to go very deep to get there and can\'t believe anyone would make ROI most likely winner, and #3 probably has some validity but difficult to prove.
You give me that race 100x and I never get to ROI. No way. Not at 1 1/2.
When this stuff happens I chalk it up to surface, possible steam and move on. Breen barn bares watching over next 30 days.
But that being said, I am glad you had it. No sour milk here. I am just glad that I got busted out of the Pick 4 early or this one is Da Tara all over again - and then some - because of my near miss on the Derby. But I suppose you people are pretty sick of me lamenting already.
Still the best game on the planet.
And I\'m almost over it...
Really
I agree completely with #1. Speed ruled. This wasn\'t a true mile and a half test. Felt the same way about Conquistador Cielo\'s Belmont. But I do think ROI will prove himself to be a legitimate stakes horse and more than just a fluke.
Excellent discussion thread Joe and good comments by JB ,Mj and All . Personally I agree with Mj about scenario #1 +#2 as the most plausible - but that option #3 really kicks the randomness factor up about at least 10 points (approx out of hand \'guesti-mation ) imho .
Although in my own view , the randomness factor had seemed to be heading in a direction to more normalcy - or a more acceptable level the past couple years compared to that of the early \"00\'s \" - however , this triple crown season has been the toughest I\'ve seen . Though I\'m confident that breeding , whether a cyclical anomaly or not - has a large roll to play in how the early 3 yo season played out - and also me simply not picking enough winners . ..
I\'m guessing we\'ll be looking at an entirely different looking ball game with 3 yo colts later in the year at the BC - and probably see some fillies coming over into open company .
TGJB,
He specifically mentioned the Belmont itself. Ruler on Ice was a big reach and I searched the board, JR posted nothing about the horse pre-race.
Although I will say that Ruler on Ice was NOT as big of a reach as recommending to toss the 1st or 2nd best sprinter in the country out of the exotics in the True North. Now, THAT was a reach.
I think a better word for Belmont stakes day is entropy instead of chaos. Entropy is defined as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system with a lack of order or predictability causing a gradual decline into disorder. Especially when bleeping Maragh runs his horse into Animal Kingdom and costs me doubles, triples and supers with AK on top.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does seem a little odd that you\'d be mocking my
> betting strategy when I won and I presume you
> didn\'t.
1. You should never presume. My key horses ran 2nd and 3rd, and anybody here who has been to the track with me will tell you which bets I cashed on the Belmont, and why / how.
2. I wasn\'t mocking your betting strategy, per se.
I was mocking your first entry into this thread, where you said that the results of the Belmont were \"not a chaotic result at all\": if the race was so formful, why did you need to use 8 horses on top?
Your bets ratted you out, not me. The redboarding allegation stands. Throwing a bunch of shit against the wall hoping something will stick, then later claiming the winner was logical won\'t pass without comment here.
Actually, in a race like this, throwing 8 against the wall and hoping one of them would stick wasn\'t a bad strategy after all. You just had to have the 3 as one of those 8. Again, I never claimed to have singled him. I just thought he had as good a chance as any.
If ti wasn\'t annoying, it would be funny.
The results were very predictable, that is why I went 8 deep on top in a 12 horse field......
I did notice Chuckles disappeared from the other board, perhaps he is back....
I think it was that the results were not very predictable and that is why I went 8 deep in a 12 horse field. But you almost got it right.
Sarava was the ONLY horse on a speed-crazy Preakness card to wholly thumb his nose at the bias. I was there, watching every blooomin\' race.
In addition to his foundation, Birdstone had two of the great throwout excuses of all time for his two races leading into the Belmont, and was absolutely one of the great Belmont opportunities in my lifetime.
All that said, Monmouth Guy is right. It\'s tough to get a fair price on a TC bomb these days, domestically. ROI was 50-1 all over Britain. If you\'re married to
the gimmicks, yeah, you\'re stuck, but domestic straight players who like this stuff now need realistic international outs and/or Betfair, no two ways about it.
Amen Jimbo. Annoying. Put up (before the race) or shut up. It\'s very simple. At most you can simply say \"I had it.\" One line. That\'s as far as you can go. You can\'t advance all of your theories after the fact. It\'s against all the rules. Throwing 8 in the bucket is not something too many of us need dissected after the fact...
This one tougher than average to get over. I did not like Stay Thirsty, should have (SHOULDA) thrown in at that price, but I had to bet 5 hours ahead of time. Congrats to whoever hit and for what it\'s worth I think the TGs were very useful in getting there. HP
I agree this has become annoying. Just to clarify and then let\'s drop it, I didn\'t post to say I had it. I posted in response to the suggestion that the result was \"chaotic\" or random. I think, in hindsight, there were reasons not to dismiss the winner so easily before the race and not to discredit his win after the race by saying it was simply a random event. That\'s all.
Come on. You have 11 posts on this thread. Dropping it would have been a great idea awhile ago. HP
Agree.
i wish 1 pressed the all button in the brooklyn double did that a few years ago with Big Brown no guts no glory lol
I already posted that BS blew up my tri and super. I keyed ROI and Nehro over ST, AK, Santiva, and Shack. Sometimes you have to take a shot and overlook some negatives, the main one being his sprint pedigree. I wish in hindsight I had posted before the race. I didn\'t want some of the big money on this forum to ruin my odds, but maybe someone would have thrown him in and made some serious money since I didn\'t. The front runner bias definitely helped since he was likely to be near the front with the blinkers. I am on a roll though. I predicted the last place finisher in all 3 triple crown races. Where do I bet on that.
MJ, I would vote for #3 and we\'ll see some action today. Pants On Fire won\'t tell us much, but if Breen pairs up the double with A Brilliant Idea, maybe you are on to something.
Thanks for pointing out Midnight Interlude on the grass-interesting to see where Baffert puts him next.
Fastest Magician for Barclay in the 8th at Belmont looks to be in a good spot at a good price. Really stepped up on turf(yielding) and should be able to control the pace.