1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th.
Cal horses had 3 of the 4 fastest tops-- the question wasn\'t if they were good enough, it was if they would fire.
The two shock wave horses both ran well.
True. Who\'s the other ESWT horse?
Creative Cause. Who was very wide.
They all ran well, even Liaison and Rousing Sermon. What\'s inexplicable is how poorly TCI, EP and Gem ran.
I was basically only watching TCI throughout the entire race as I had a rather large futures position on him. He had the perfect trip. He and IHA were side by side 1w and 2w the whole way, they started to move together on the turn (and TCI was still inside as opposed to IHA who had to go wider) and then TCI just stopped. Not sure what happened.
TCI and GEM...almost impossible to believe how bad they both ran.
I think El Padrino may have a little nagging something going on, that explains this week and this race. I will love him in the Belmont.
Bodemeister: what an awesome horse. Class act. I\'ll by a stallion share right now.
Kudos to I\'ll Have Another - he got a terrific, perfect ride that enabled him to shine. He\'ll only improve. Jock deserved the win, as did Team O\'Neill
Dullahan: new respect for that bloodline. Just grinds it out. Gritty and tough.
Union Rags: still a fan. Another gritty horse that overcame a terrible race to finish well. Honest horse, tries hard. Class.
Shockwave therapy on the back, other ancillary sports therapies: They work. I knew that. That\'s what I do for a living :-) Welcome to the 21st century, horsemen, we can help horses like we do humans :-)
The Herd Whisperer: He was right on about the horses personalities. There is no magic there, just good observational horsemanship. Well done.
My handicapping: as soon as tri\'s pay off 2-3-4 finishers, and supers 2-3-4-5, I\'m turning Derby-Oaks pro. Until then, I definitely have to keep my day job!
Don\'t be too hard on them. It was an extraordinarily hot and humid day at Churchill.
All five horses with paired tops going in (the \"good\" pattern) ran poorly - which is indicative of how poorly most horses perform in this race, because even the \"good\" pattern had a nearly 50% chance of running off or Xing.
Gem was well placed early like TCI, and both fell back without encountering trouble.
The blimp shot really showed what a great ride Gutierrez gave him. They were all by their lonesomes just galloping along. And I thought that was super classy for a young jock like that to give a shout out to the grooms, with some of the first words out of his mouth as a derby winner.
TCI didn\' t run worth a sh!t in the BCJ either. Not really a surprise. I think he prefers GP.
The track excuse can\'t be used for Gem, though.
Head scratcher for sure.............
BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The blimp shot really showed what a great ride
> Gutierrez gave him. They were all by their
> lonesomes just galloping along. And I thought that
> was super classy for a young jock like that to
> give a shout out to the grooms, with some of the
> first words out of his mouth as a derby winner.
agree Bob. that was fun to watch.
meanwhile, Union Rags had a full coat of mud after a quarter. what a nightmare that was. some here warned of the risk, which, in hindsight, was significant going in. he could be a Lookin At Lucky, who had a very similar trip before winning the 3 yr old title. can\'t imagine there\'s gonna be any value in that view, however. and the trip risk will be there next time as well.
looks like the Wood was a slow horse race. wind hindered the one-turn races that day, the crazy internals suggested that (no?), but not the one 9f race, which goes the same distance both ways. 1:50.4 was apparently slow. the final 1/8 was horrific, that\'s for sure. I\'m no expert, but that was my view heading in, and I think it was confirmed.
and it could be that most figure makers had the SA Derby too slow. I don\'t know.
Dull ran well. kudos to Kent D who did the best he could under the circumstances. he also took a ton of mud.
as for Bode, well, he\'s a Congaree type. he\'s real. stopped badly at the end with a :14 final 1/8, and you rarely win triple crown races with that fraction. but he was a legit runner-up after setting historic fractions. brutal fractions. he was game on three weeks rest. he was 2nd best. note that Congaree was the wise-guy horse of the year in the Preakness, nearly stealing favoritism from Point Given, only to run a weakish 3rd.
You know, Bode was running those fractions freely, well within himself. He didn\'t have any pressure.
Shout out to Went the Day Well. Flying down the stretch - made up 8 lengths.
Matz saying something went wrong with him, he was limping a bit afterwards. Too bad. Given that he\'s already a grade 1 winner and with his pedigree...I\'m afraid we might not see him on the track again. Hope I\'m wrong.
I don\'t know, and I emphasize, I don\'t know....I don\'t know how the therapy benefited I\'ll Have Another. I do know that trainers and vets and/or their equivalents have been employing various treatments/methodologies to horses for a very long time in attempting to improve performance/profit. It\'s understandable. It\'s evident, and it would be great if it would end.How great would it be if the playing field was even for all involved, including us, the bettors? It\'s very easy to imagine that serious attempts to create systems of analysis, on that hypothetical playing field, would benefit the bettors, the trainers, the breeders....the horses. I support those endeavors completely. I recall an idea that every wagering opportunity would offer the opportunity to pony up an extra buck or two to support jockey or equine charities or support funds. I recall that not a single player in my local otb thought it was a good idea. Not one, here in southeastern Va., ten years ago. Small sample? Sure.
It\'s odd, really...and perhaps inexplicable that just a short time ago I sat, with my wife, daughter, granddaughters watching the Derby at her house...chanted Mario in the stretch drive and high-fives all around afterwards. I recall my Dad years ago coming home one Saturday afternoon and saying..\"...It\'s the Belmont...there\'s a Virginia-bred running, I hear he\'s pretty good.\" It was the only time we ever watched racing, before or after. But I never forgot it. I chose I\'ll Have Another to win because of the finish in the SA Derby. Horse and jockey in unison...the subsequent work/gallops at Churchhill Downs. He looked *serious*...Smarty Jones serious. What am I saying in the end? Clean it up? Absolutely. Count on me to support it. A world without thoroughbred racing is the worst for it. But in the meantime, look at that race...It was a fine performance by both horse and jockey. With any luck at all, they\'ll take him back to the west coast and await the Travers. I\'ve rambled here, and offer myapologies. Thanks again to all who\'ve posted here over the past few years. I\'ve learned a lot...though clearly not enough to become a ThoroGraph user. Soon though, I\'m sure. Good Luck to all. And thanks again.
Dead on. I can understand the 1st through 5th placings but 13th, 16th and 19th? Bad showing.
For everybody.
Sometimes things are GOOD for the horse. The whole point is to \"improve performance\". There is nothing wrong with that.
You breed or buy genetic potential. That leaves you nutrition, training and conditioning to separate the men from the boys.
Nobody wants illegal drugs used.
Yeah, but that sucks the life out of horses. They can\'t breath. They can\'t cool. They tire more quickly.
Matz? His was the only one of the \"local\" bunch that ran a lick. And he had an excuse.
For the most part I had a good day at Churchill yesterday, except for the Derby on which I followed the TG analysis for the most part (threw out TCI on a personal call.) But the TG analysis also missed the Oaks very badly when coupled with JV\'s bonehead ride.)
So last night I went back and looked at the Derby through a different microscope...adding groundloss estimates to BRIS speed numbers. 5 points for a wide trip; 3 points for a partly wide trip. And I came up with a different take on the race.
Here\'s what that approach showed:
TCI and UR both regressed significantly in the FLA Derby, suggesting they were tailing off; Hansen clearly regressed in the Blue Grass, same conclusion; Gemologist actually set a new top in the Wood by almost 10 points, suggesting a bounce; Daddy Nose did the same thing at Sunland by 11 points, a bounce candidate; El Padrino\'s numbers were regressing seriously in his past two races; Alpha was steady; Creative seriously regressed in the SA Derby. All of this left 3 contenders whose patterns were steady or improving: Bode on top, IAH and Dullahan close behind.
When you add to this Miff\'s point of view about TG\'s West Coast numbers, you get a feeling some adjustment needs to be made here.
Gem finished the Wood in 13 seconds +.Do you really think he bounced off that crawling finish?
I\'ll Have Another ran back to his fast RB Lewis.There was nothing wrong with the # assigned to him for that race.Thinking he could get back to that is another issue.His 10f breeding is better than most.
Bodemeister was the fastest horse in the Derby field on any #\'s.If you didn\'t think he would bounce who would be more logical to hit the board.
Dullahan was an improving horse who finished fast in both 9f races and his dirt effort in last years juvenile was as good as his poly race and better than his grass races at two.Thought he would run best at 10f\'s with a trip.
UR found more trouble-no way of knowing what he is.
You can spin it a lot of different ways after the race has been run but I see nothing wrong with the #\'s here.Applying them was the difficult part.
big18741 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gem finished the Wood in 13 seconds +.Do you
> really think he bounced off that crawling finish?
>
> I\'ll Have Another ran back to his fast RB
> Lewis.There was nothing wrong with the # assigned
> to him for that race.Thinking he could get back to
> that is another issue.His 10f breeding is better
> than most.
>
> Bodemeister was the fastest horse in the Derby
> field on any #\'s.If you didn\'t think he would
> bounce who would be more logical to hit the
> board.
>
> Dullahan was an improving horse who finished fast
> in both 9f races and his dirt effort in last years
> juvenile was as good as his poly race and better
> than his grass races at two.Thought he would run
> best at 10f\'s with a trip.
>
> UR found more trouble-no way of knowing what he
> is.
>
> You can spin it a lot of different ways after the
> race has been run but I see nothing wrong with the
> #\'s here.Applying them was the difficult part.
big, you wrote the following a few weeks back, and while it\'s too soon to tell for sure, I think you might have nailed it.
\"His sheet looks pretty good and he\'s undefeated with wins at CD.My problem with Gemologist is the slow finish against the clock in the Wood.
Anyone else having trouble with his final 1/8th in a little over 13 seconds?
His running style suggests ground loss as well.If he draws inside is there any evidence he wants to sit down in traffic eating dirt?Right or wrong I\'m leaning towards tossing him at what should be single digit odds.\"
alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the most part I had a good day at Churchill
> yesterday, except for the Derby on which I
> followed the TG analysis for the most part (threw
> out TCI on a personal call.) But the TG analysis
> also missed the Oaks very badly when coupled with
> JV\'s bonehead ride.)
>
> So last night I went back and looked at the Derby
> through a different microscope...adding groundloss
> estimates to BRIS speed numbers. 5 points for a
> wide trip; 3 points for a partly wide trip. And I
> came up with a different take on the race.
>
> Here\'s what that approach showed:
>
> TCI and UR both regressed significantly in the FLA
> Derby, suggesting they were tailing off; Hansen
> clearly regressed in the Blue Grass, same
> conclusion; Gemologist actually set a new top in
> the Wood by almost 10 points, suggesting a bounce;
> Daddy Nose did the same thing at Sunland by 11
> points, a bounce candidate; El Padrino\'s numbers
> were regressing seriously in his past two races;
> Alpha was steady; Creative seriously regressed in
> the SA Derby. All of this left 3 contenders whose
> patterns were steady or improving: Bode on top,
> IAH and Dullahan close behind.
>
> When you add to this Miff\'s point of view about
> TG\'s West Coast numbers, you get a feeling some
> adjustment needs to be made here.
I don\'t see the point in any of this, but I guess it\'s possible that the grueling stretch run of the Wood had some negative impact on Gem, led to some sort of \"bounce\". He hadn\'t been used hard in nearly 5 months.
I was not trying to analyze the Wood as a race, guys. I pointed out only that the BRIS numbers, adjusted for ground loss, suggest that Gemologist\'s Wood was nearly 10 speed points higher than his previous top, according to BRIS. That being the case, he was a bounce candidate, regardless of his overall ability. In other words, Big\'s call on the horse was very accurate and if my hindsight analysis is correct, the horse may have been too slow AND he bounced on top of that.
If you think the TG numbers for him were spot on, you don\'t have a logical explanation of what happened to him. Pointing out he had a slow last eighth in the Wood makes no sense if the TG number was right. TG suggested that Gemologist paired up in his last two races. BRIS suggested that that was not the case.
Which is my point. I realize that I am at great risk on this site, mentioning stuff like this, but how many of us are right all the time? You did not pick the winner of this Derby with the TG analysis. NFW
alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was not trying to analyze the Wood as a race,
> guys. I pointed out only that the BRIS numbers,
> adjusted for ground loss, suggest that
> Gemologist\'s Wood was nearly 10 speed points
> higher than his previous top, according to BRIS.
> That being the case, he was a bounce candidate,
> regardless of his overall ability. In other
> words, Big\'s call on the horse was very accurate
> and if my hindsight analysis is correct, the horse
> may have been too slow AND he bounced on top of
> that.
>
> If you think the TG numbers for him were spot on,
> you don\'t have a logical explanation of what
> happened to him. Pointing out he had a slow last
> eighth in the Wood makes no sense if the TG number
> was right. TG suggested that Gemologist paired up
> in his last two races. BRIS suggested that that
> was not the case.
>
> Which is my point. I realize that I am at great
> risk on this site, mentioning stuff like this, but
> how many of us are right all the time? You did
> not pick the winner of this Derby with the TG
> analysis. NFW
I believe Brisnet uses a computer model (correct me if I\'m wrong). A computer model has no way of putting an accurate speed figure on a single two-turn race. You need to look at anything and everything to get something like that right, especially when they\'re all going 9f for the first time.
It\'s possible Gem did react to the Wood, or maybe there\'s some physical issue that the vets find. And it\'s possible Alpha wasn\'t right either. But it\'s also possible that the Wood just wasn\'t that good.
UR was the only horse not named WTDW who did any real running late. Everyone else was flattered by Bode dropping anchor. Rags was 20 lengths back at one point, and he\'s not a deep closer. A decent start was all that horse needed to be right there.
and you are sure if he was closer to the pace he would have closed that well? I\'m not sure of that.
He didn\'t have a clean trip. Not too far fetched to imagine him closer at the finish with one. We\'ll see in the Preakness if they decide to run him back. Knowing his connections, I won\'t be surprised if they pass the race.
> I believe Brisnet uses a computer model (correct
> me if I\'m wrong). A computer model has no way of
> putting an accurate speed figure on a single
> two-turn race. You need to look at anything and
> everything to get something like that right,
> especially when they\'re all going 9f for the first
> time.
>
> It\'s possible Gem did react to the Wood, or maybe
> there\'s some physical issue that the vets find.
> And it\'s possible Alpha wasn\'t right either. But
> it\'s also possible that the Wood just wasn\'t that
> good.
Thank you for your thoughts. However, my point was that the BRIS numbers for Gemologist, all the numbers and not just the Wood number, indicated that he hit a new top in the Wood, by MANY speed points. I am not saying their system is better than the TG approach, computer driven or not. In other words, I am not making a value judgment at all. Within THEIR system he was primed for a bounce off that steep advance.
TG had him pairing up his last two races. And the TG analysis made a MAJOR point that horses coming in off pairs of a new top tended to go forward in the Derby, while others do not. You can choose your poison, but had I drunk the BRIS poison on this Derby I would have cashed. The TG poison just killed me. In this instance.
Oh,by the way...the BRIS numbers were good for just about every race on Derby day, including that Lucas stinker that won. Had him right in the mix. Sorry. And, by the way, I just finished using them at Belmont today. Had 8 winners in mixed bets on 10 races. Must be a hot period for the computer.
alm, we\'re just not gonna see eye-to-eye on your Brisnet 10 point new top/bounce and come in 16th theory, which is fine, but I do like the company, and I wish you well in your Preakness and Belmont handicapping.
cheers.
The TG analysis showed that entering the Derby with paired tops (at his level), it was almost twice as likely that Gem would run the way he did - up the track - than be in the exacta (18% new top vs. 33% bounce).
Disappointed, sure. Surprised? No way.
slewzapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The TG analysis showed that entering the Derby
> with paired tops (at his level), it was almost
> twice as likely that Gem would run the way he did
> - up the track - than be in the exacta (18% new
> top vs. 33% bounce).
>
> Disappointed, sure. Surprised? No way.
This statement is simply incorrect.
You might want to include all of the analysis.
You conveniently left out the 33.3% that pair, which is the information that led the TG analysis to conclude that it was 50-50 that horses such as Gemologist would run a good race.
Horses with this pattern, that you dismiss, were given positive comments from the analysis.
Yes, Gem had a similar chance to pair. And Gem was a few points slower than three faster going in, and presumably needed to go forward. And I bet him, hoping that 18% chance of forward was coming.
That doesn\'t make the statement incorrect (unless a wide 2 or 3 makes the exacta).
The point I was making was that despite it being a better pattern then other patterns going in, the likelihood of a backwards effort was still significant - roughly as likely as a good one, just like you point out. So, with a still reasonable chance of bouncing despite the 50% chance of pairing/moving forward, there wasn\'t a need to dispute his prior number in the Wood and claim his pattern was misrepresented to explain his backward performance, any more than the first two finishers patterns were wrong because they ran OK off their patterns.
The TG analysis pointed out it was a better pattern than others, but all patterns have a significant backwards potential for this race (most run poorly).
The only thing I disputed was the bigger chance of a poor race. It was 50-50.
Agree with everything else, you make some very good points.
I bet him too. I bet more into this race than I usually do, which is just ridiculous. I tell myself not to, that its just another race. Then I see the pools, the large payouts in previous Derbies, and I pour 5x as much as normal trying to hit a score. On a horse that I like, but don\'t love. On a race that is confusing and chaotic (20 horses). A race that is often times a crapshoot, despite all of the excellent data available beforehand.
I loved the #8 in the Tampa 6th today ($62.60) and the #2 in GG 5th ($13.20). Loved them. Really liked the closer at HOL 6th at $44. Yet, I didn\'t put close to the amount of money in those races than what I put into the Derby. I hit them, and made some decent money, but it makes no sense to bet less in those races than what I poured into the Derby pools.
I don\'t know if I will ever figure this damn game out, but it sure is fun trying.
Actually, P-Dub, I think it does make sense to bet more in the Derby. It really does offer a chance at a life changing score, whereas the pools at the lesser races have limits. And in my opinion, hitting a big one is the ultimate goal. My claim to fame is having the Giacomo exacta, 50-1 over 70-1, paying $9860 for $2. At Tampa, or other tracks, that exacta woulda paid maybe $1500. So keep plunging, my friend!
On other topics, I also don\'t believe there is a lotta post start betting. I think someone, like the Sheik himself(tho I don\'t think he is allowed to bet for religious reasons), or a wealthy Baffert owner, just went to the window with a cashier\'s check or pre arranged a huge wager with instructions to put in at the last minute. It would take the tote more than a few seconds to digest.
Regarding Gemologist, what a loser Pletcher is. Keeps his horses in Florida as long as he can without subjecting them to more rigorous testing in Kentucky. Maybe Super Saver just didn\'t need any \"help\" but Gemologist surely does. And then Todd just scoots outta town without talking to reporters-loser!
Wel, on to the Preakness. Ya know, Went The Day Well did gallop out after the finish line nicely, but I\'LL have Another didn\'t let him pass.
Listen, everything else aside, if there\'s not an investigation into that odds drop it tells you all you need to know about the people running this game. Forget about whether it actually was cheating-- that stuff clearly affects people\'s confidence in the integrity of the pools, and has to be dealt with. Only apathetic incompetents would not understand that.
How long before Drape runs the shock wave story?
Drape already ran his \"teaser\" on O\' Neill prior to the 2010 Breeders Cup (paragraphs 3-6)---link attached. Hard to believe there will not be more robust follow up prior to the Preakness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/sports/04racing.html
Here is Drape\'s O\'Neill story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/sports/trainer-of-kentucky-derby-winner-has-a-troubled-record.html?_r=1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nyt%2Frss%2FSports+%28NYT+%3E+Sports%29&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports
Is it possible that O\'Neill gets it now and goes straight going forward??? His stats look indicative of what needs to be addressed.
Couple things about this. First of all, it\'s a completely fair article, fairer than it has to be and fairer than O \'Neill had any right to expect. Second, someone has given O \'Neill some PR pointers.