I will be surprised if it was much. If anything it might be more based on \"pace\".
Whether he bounced or not...that was an amazing performance. When I saw the splits go up, I said \"yessssss!,\" thinking he would be toast at the end. Horses aren\'t supposed to be able to do that. It helped him a little that Hansen didn\'t show up and add pressure, but hats off to Bodemeister...really extraordinary. HP
And when he turned for home and opened up I said Spend a Buc!! But not to be.
Fast and talented horse. I think the Apollo thing will be broken but it makes sense why its lasted so long.
You have do drink lots of Kool Aid to call Bodes performance a bounce,ie, a performance adversely affected by a prior effort/efforts. It is not unreasonable to look at his derby as an equal performance notwithstanding what his figure will be.The dynamics of this race, more than anything,will cause the figure regression.
Derby winner received a weak fig like Beyer of 101(TG 1/2)Bode like a TG 1.5, a lesser fig for sure, a lesser performance another story.
Mike
A spectacular effort. As a \"bounce\"...I don\'t know. He certainly outran my expectations. If he backed up a little on figs it\'s probably because he didn\'t lose any ground. The time of the race looked respectable. HP
HP,
Agree,on the surface the raw time of the derby looked ok until you do the day.
The track speed came up way on the plus side and more so later.A 4 yr old filly, Groupie Doll, ran an incredible 7f in 1.20.2. Beyer settled on 112(Neg TG -5ish) That in spite of having the track speeding up. Groupie Doll outran some fast boys at the same distance a few races prior.GD carried more weight than the boys and was wide although that should be somewhat discounted, the outside being the better place to be Fri and Sat.Wide runners should be viewed as neutral instead of getting \"credit\" in their figs the way that surface played Fri/Sat.
Derby comes up weak on my scorecard, can\'t imagine it coming up fast.
Mike
The bounce would be relative to his even more spectacular performance at OP. I think what impressed us in the derby were the raw fractional times (which we can\'t judge without context, ie. track speed) and our expectations for him to regress significantly, which I doubt he did.
Having watched both races, the Derby performance is MUCH more impressive to me. He beat nothing at OP. In the Derby, he ran FAST and carried it to the finish line. I don\'t need a whole lot of \"context\" to say that a horse running a 45 and change half mile and being right there at the finish ran an AWESOME race. Maybe the most impressive Derby performance I\'ve seen.
I don\'t get into the specifics of making the figures, one race vs. another, but I will say Groupie Doll is another who forgot to bounce.
HP
HP,
You are certainly right about the \"bounce\". Sheets theory took an awful hit on Derby day IMO. Groupie Doll was certainly one that was to be \"played to bounce\"(I think TGJB mentioned it in the analysis, which I redboarded today). Bodemeister was a \"play against\" in the Derby and the whole \"paired tops\" strategy turned out to be an awful result. I won\'t redboard that, because as I listened to the seminar it made a lot of sense to me, but the fact is that the four horses coming in off that pattern ran DISGUSTING. Not a step of running for El Padrino, Gemologist, Take Charge Indy and Union Rags. I will give a mulligan to Union Rags for the despicable ride by the Frenchman, but that is it. (No mulligan for the injury to Take Charge INdy, for the same reason that those playing horses to bounce who stumble out of the gate say that the stumble was due to the effort in the previous race. (if the horse was ready to fire and was coming in off paired tops, he should be less likely to get hurt). Pletcher horses were horrific. The only thing more horrific than the Pletcher horses performances and the Frenhcman\'s ride are some of the posts on this board over the past 2 days. Past posting a million dollar win bet in the Derby? REally? And \"Thanks to Thorograph for making my day with that 9-5 shot in the 12th race?\" When I read that one it reminded me of some of the \"shill posts\" I have seen on the Sheets board. The reality is that it was not a good Derby for TG users and seminar users. It happens.
The real question becomes what to do in the Preakness. Does Baffert really bring Bode back again? Doesn\'t he HAVE to regress off another huge effort? If he runs, he is CERTAINLY going to be the Preakness favorite. What about the Derby winner? He has certainly been handled like a fragile horse. Not sure I would want him back in 2 weeks, although kudos to O\'Neill for backing off the horse after the February race and then having him ready to fire in the Derby. For my money, the first two horses are the only horses that did any real running in the race. Yes, the 3rd and 4th place finishers will get ground loss, solid figures. However, off those fractions, horses are supposed to suck up at the end. Bode ran a vicious pace, and only faded late, while the winner left the gate, got position and ran down the winner, refusing to get \"bottomed out\" chasing, like the other frontrunners did. He ran a LEGIT race IMO.
I will be stubborn and will give Union Rags one more chance if/when he runs back in the Preakness or Belmont. I hate to start giving multiple mulligans, but can\'t like the trip he got in either of his last two races.
Good luck,
JIm
Bode was allegedly bouncing around his stall Sunday morning, feeling just fine.
I think Bode is one of the most impressive natural talents we\'ve seen in a long time. My impression was he was just cruising those fast fractions, at his comfort level, with Smith having a light hold on him, his ears flicking back and forth. Bode was asked at the head of the stretch, but when he was challenged at the 3/16, he came back, dug in and fought. He lost, but he gave more.
This is a truly amazing horse.
He has such a free running style, with his body just all elongated, his neck stuck out and extended, but still balanced. Very weird, and not the typical \"Baffert\" style of horse at all.
I don\'t know if sheets theory took such a big hit. Before the race I thought there were about 10-11 horses that could win, and I\'m not SHOCKED by the result. With a good trip, Bode figured to be right there even with a small regression. I didn\'t play it that way simply because of all the other contenders that were better prices. I probably spend more time on the Derby than other races (and wondering if that is such a great idea) but I don\'t see any \"sheet theories\" I have were not destroyed by the result. If I think a short priced horse may bounce that\'s how I play it. Works plenty. Just not here.
Plus I don\'t have enough info on Bodemeister to say he should\'ve bounced. I THOUGHT he would, and even up to the mile I thought, \"great, he\'ll start backing up soon.\" But beyond the three runners up it looked (literally) like most of the field hit the wall about a furlong out.
I agree with Sight\'s points. Horse is just special. They aren\'t supposed to do what he did Saturday. It happens.
HP
HP,
Did you listen to the seminar? the four horses that figured to run well all \"shit the bed\". I would say that is a hit.
But that is just me.
Jim
Any theory that could take a \"hit\" in one race was not a theory worth thinking about in the first place.
Really, Jimbo, would you make bets based on a theory that you feel is only one bad result away from being called into question?
Rich,
As I said, I can\'t \"redboard\" TGJB, as I thought the case he made for the four horses to run well was a good one.
The point I was making is that they all ran like mules.
It happens.
I am not going to suddenly not believe that horses won\'t bounce.
If the Derby were held tomorrow, I would probably bet Union Rags AGAIN. (assuming Matz fired Leparoux)
I probably wouldn\'t have even made the comment except I was vomiting when I read \"Thanks Thorograph for that 9-5 shot in the 12th race\".
The winner was a very tough read. As some of the posters who know me on this board are aware, I had a strong futures position on I\'ll Have Another in pool 1, as I thought he ran a GREAT race in February. That said, off the Santa Anita Derby, where he won, but seemed to be being \"scrubbed on\" in the turn, I interpreted that win as a negative on Creative Cause and not a positive on I\'ll Have Another. I tossed him from the top 2 slots in all my supers, despite thinking his February race was the 2nd best prep race (behind Bodemeister\'s Arkansas Derby).
IMO, he is a tough read in the PReakness as well.
The Derby is a unique race. It\'s nice to have the winner in the big one, but this year struck me as very contentious, and for the first time...ever...I was standing there with my money thinking I should pass. It\'s a good idea to bet the Derby like every other race, but personally I can\'t do it. If you can\'t narrow it down to less than 6-7 horses, give it a rest?
They\'ve never gone that far and it\'s a fact that none of them have been in a 20 horse field and they will never be in a 20 horse field again. I agreed on the horses JB figured to run well. But again, I thought half the field had a shot.
The figures measure how well the horses have run. The winner had run well enough to win and so did the other horses in the tri. I thought Gemologist was the most likely winner and looking back on it I\'m not seeing it differently. When I saw the draw I thought Take Charge Indy moved up, and still do.
Personally I put a lot of stock on the likely pace of the race and used horses I thought would be running late. That\'s what I used to separate the half of the field that I thought had some shot at winning. Did I think Bode would lead Trinni? No. Did I think he could run 45 and change and be there at the end? Hell no. Did I think shock wave therapy and the vet list was a good thing? No.
Lots of horses look good and don\'t fire for all kinds of reasons. My only conclusion is that Bode was a lot better than I gave him credit for, given the entire history of horse racing. Not really seeing it as a defeat for sheet theory or anything else.
HP
I think you\'re being way too hard on the product, Jimbo. I only used the sheets, not the analysis, and they pointed me to a lot of scores on Oaks and Derby Day.
TG numbers don\'t exist in a vacuum, and I\'ve read enough of your posts to know that you do not just blindly apply them without any context. And there was a lot of context: the track was clearly playing toward forwardly placed horses on both days, and seemed to be favoring outside paths. If you factored that in, you could then eliminate a lot of horses which otherwise did look good on TG.
The 9/5 shot in Race 12 was a gift; there was no other horse in the race that was even close on TG; on Beyer, there were a few horses who looked like they could challenge him if they ran back to a good fig - if you linked him up with the very plausible 20-1 winner in Race 13 and spread a bit in the Derby, you had a nice Pick 3. Or if you just took half of whatever you lost in the Derby and put it on his nose, at least you got out for the day.
The analysis is written about 48 hours ahead of time - we have to do our own handicapping at some point. Even so, of course it is going to be wrong more often than it is right. Why should the Derby be any different? If it were perfect, the analysis would have pointed us all to IHA, and you would have gotten 1-9 on him.
Was TG \'wrong\' on the Derby (and the Oaks)? Yeah, I guess, but as JB has stated, it\'s just one race. We would all be well-served to remember to treat it as such. And yes, I did get crushed in the Derby - but there is no way can you say that IHA was an inexplicable winner - he just wasn\'t a standout. It\'s the springtime, they are 3 year olds; unexpected sh#t happens. Horses with good recent figures must be used in horizontals - there is no reason, in the age of fractional betting, not to run some 50 cent P3 and P4 savers through horses such as Groupie Doll and Silver Max and IHA, who clearly don\'t have to bounce, even if they are likely to.
I know I am not telling you anything you don\'t know, but I think you\'re speaking more from frustration than belief.
If you look at the archives, the horses that look like I\'ll Have Another...big race early in the year, back up a bit next out...these horses are perennial sucker bets. And out of the 19? He was on my list of contenders and I threw him out, and I would do it again. This is one that \"bounced back.\"
The VAST majority of Derby winners either pair a number good enough to win, move slightly forward off a good pattern or pair, or throw a new top off a good pattern. Moving up off a regression or getting back to the top after a regression...does not happen too often. Monarchos? And he had more bottom? More races? HP
Go back to the past seminars and you will find one thing that is consistant.
If the horse up to that time wasn\'t fast enough to win he would not win. There are a few exceptions but very few. Again the 4 fastest were bode, trinnie,CC and IHA. all had a 1 or less
thats it
Dlf,
I don\'t buy the analysis, I do my own. And I am not killing the analysis at all.
I certainly bet the 9-5 shot in the 12th, as I agree he was a standout. But to say that the 9-5 shot \"made the day\" is a horrific post.
And \"no\", I am not frustrated. As I said, I had a nice futures position on the winner, so I have nothing to be frustrated about. My view of the Derby on Derby Day was not good, as I mostly agreed with TGJB. I had Union Rags as my key horse, pressing Take Charge Indy and Gemologist in the underneath slots, with savers on Bodemeister on top, because I did fear he was a potential monster.
Kudos to you for finding \"lots of winners\" on Oaks and Derby day. You read the sheets much better than I did.
Hey Jimbo,
Hope you and yours are well?
Don\'t feel bad as I too had readers block all derby week while reading the sheets.
A great big ouchie for my favorite betting week of the year as I was completely horizontally inept.
See you and the rest of the cast soon.
Frank D.
That\'s a pretty good post. Having said that, it\'s clearly not that simple-- there\'s a danger to weighing this one result out of proportion because it\'s the Derby. The right way to bet is to have the percentages in your favor, and your better off betting horses with patterns that have in the long run yielded good results than ones that have not.
The other thing is even if I was going to bet one of the fastest horses (and you left out Hansen), the winner would have been clearly behind the other three with big route figures, for a LOT of reasons-- slow 2yo top, backward move, proven unsoundness, post, shock waves... can\'t bet that one, ever, in that situation. If he wins I can\'t cash.
You left out Hansen.
Jimbo - you\'re making me laugh on the 9/5 thing. I don\'t know if I\'d take 9/5 on Secretariat, never mind posting about it. Just not what I do. HP
For those who follow statistics.Beyer goes on to pan this slow bunch in a DRF Column, second slowest derby since the slug Giacomo.
Andy Beyer:
In the Derby's 137 previous runnings, a total of 10 horses had sped the first half mile in 45.4 seconds or less. There were some legitimate contenders among them, but all 10 of them virtually collapsed after this exertion. All finished in 10th place or worse. Yet Bodemeister kept on going.
If you go by the numbers alone it will look like he bounced or ran an off effort. But I don\'t lend any credence to that because the numbers just don\'t tell the story here.
When they put up the 1/2 mile time and it was 45 and change I said, \"No way he can, he\'s cooked.\"
When the 3/4 came up in 109 and change I said, \"He\'d have to be a super horse to hold on. I don\'t know if Secretariat could do it.\"
I know the track was kind to speed on Sat. But these were way too fast fractions. Bode should have died at the top of the lane. He had every right to finish last. The fact that he didn\'t fade to the back of the field, dub in, held on for second and nearly won the thing says a lot about this colt. He was TONS the best. I have no doubt about it whatsoever. Colts just don\'t do what he did.
I believe in patterns. But I believe my eyes and experience watching races even more. I dunno what Bode\'s sheet is going to look like, but I\'m pretty sure it\'s a slower number than his ARK Derby effort. Still, to categorize his KY Derby as an off effort or a bounce and try to formulate a pattern out of that is just plain silly and dogmatic. To me, this is almost a perfect example of where the numbers don\'t even matter.
What Bode did in the KY Derby was really something special. Period. He was the best horse, he ran the best race by far, and he took second.
Jimbo,
I mis-read your post on the issue of the analysis. Apologies.
But I was principally responding to your claim that \'sheet theory took a big hit on Derby Day\'. The Derby is one race, and a chaotic and unique one at that - \'sheet theory\' may apply less to the Derby than to any other race all year long (ie how many times do you see five horses in the same race coming off paired tops all \'x\'?!).
Horses occasionally run big new tops (Groupie Doll) and then come back and do it again the next race.
The larger point is that you are looking at the results of a few races and claiming that they may invalidate the entire basis for using this product. Sorry, I\'m just not buying it.
And while I\'m certainly glad that I didn\'t write that \'a 9-5 winner made my day\', the fact is that you could have played a Pick 3 using the 10 fastest horses in the most chaotic and flukey race of the year, a very strong 9-5 single, and the three or four logical contenders in the finale, for a 100-1+ return, all while staying within reasonable confines of \'sheet theory\'.
Good luck in the Preakness.
\"I dunno what Bode\'s sheet is going to look like\"
MJ,
I\'ll take a swing. How about 0 2 (X impending) Could anything be less represesntative or more misleading?
Mike
Guys both of you are the SERIOUS Pro\'s and I will post and step away for the day. But to drive home Jellish\'s point watch replay nearing the far turn and see Trinninburg the real sprinter laboring to keep up while Bode was in a glide....
Mike tried to kick away a little from there and actually did once he turned for home. But all that effort caught up with him and give that 1st time starter Jock a TON of credit for having HIS horse in position to take aim on the target steer him off Bode when he want want rub and get the job done in an outstanding maiden ride.
Was Bode\'s race more visually impressive than normal because all the horses behind him sucked? He ran his final 1/2 in 52.33 and only one horse was able to run him down. The only speed figure we have at this point is the 101 Beyer... only Giacomo\'s 100 is slower over the past 20 years. Bode lost no ground. IHA had a dream trip from the 19 hole, never once was he stopped or forced terribly wide.
The slowest TG horses the past dozen years are Funny Cide (1 1/2) and Super Saver (1 1/4). Considering how fast the track was playing on Saturday (track records both Friday and Saturday) I wouldn\'t be surprised if the winner\'s number was as slow as any in the recent past. Bode absolutely had to regress, if not, there will be too many new tops (IHA, WTDW, Dull, CC) considering how wide they all ran.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you go by the numbers alone it will look like
> he bounced or ran an off effort. But I don\'t lend
> any credence to that because the numbers just
> don\'t tell the story here.
>
> When they put up the 1/2 mile time and it was 45
> and change I said, \"No way he can, he\'s cooked.\"
>
> When the 3/4 came up in 109 and change I said,
> \"He\'d have to be a super horse to hold on. I
> don\'t know if Secretariat could do it.\"
>
> I know the track was kind to speed on Sat. But
> these were way too fast fractions. Bode should
> have died at the top of the lane. He had every
> right to finish last. The fact that he didn\'t
> fade to the back of the field, dub in, held on for
> second and nearly won the thing says a lot about
> this colt. He was TONS the best. I have no doubt
> about it whatsoever. Colts just don\'t do what he
> did.
>
> I believe in patterns. But I believe my eyes and
> experience watching races even more. I dunno what
> Bode\'s sheet is going to look like, but I\'m pretty
> sure it\'s a slower number than his ARK Derby
> effort. Still, to categorize his KY Derby as an
> off effort or a bounce and try to formulate a
> pattern out of that is just plain silly and
> dogmatic. To me, this is almost a perfect example
> of where the numbers don\'t even matter.
>
> What Bode did in the KY Derby was really something
> special. Period. He was the best horse, he ran
> the best race by far, and he took second.
Agreed with every word and iota of info stated in this post...This horse if and when he recovers from this effort will likely be the Breeder Classic winner in the fall at Santa Anita which is more conducive to the running style of Bodemeister....Do not care about any Beyer numbers posted..based on pace and energy exerted,this horse is better than Cat Thief who did win the BC Classic in his three year season. This was a huge energy race and he carried 126 lbs running those early fractions. This horse vested Ruhlmann number in the Viking stakes, it has been a long time since any horse even came close to his energy exertion over a distance of ground...Left Bank and Ghostzapper were the others, BUT they did it in their 4 year old season or older. Just one word..WOW...
Mike Smith rode that race as if he knew the path he was in would be the best part of the track. Was there some type of \'track maintenance\' before the derby? They had 90 mins to play around out there.
I just needed another few feet to get Bode off the board, that would have been sweet and more lucrative for me...me yelling \"GO AWAY\" at the TV didnt prevent Bode from holding on for 2nd when he really had no business to be in the money considering the pace of the race.
Seeing is believing.
IHA traveled 41 feet further than Bode and still beat him by 1 1/2 lengths. Creative Cause traveled 29 more feet than IHA and was three lengths behind him... so IHA will have the best TG fig and CC will get a similar fig. Bode will have no better than the third best fig, possibly the 4th best, depending on how much ground WTDW lost.
I guess the final pace number doesn\'t count for Bode? Bottom line is he flew for six furlongs and WALKED for a half mile, period. His internal fractions were 22.32, 23.07, 24.41, 25.39, 26.94... yes that\'s right, the final 1/4 mile was in 27 SECONDS.
If you\'re so sure about Bode being the Classic winner, I\'d go bet it right now in Vegas, he was 25-1 before the Derby. I think you\'d be throwing your money away...
The facts are that the runner with the best three year top has won twice in the last 10 years (Smarty Jones and Big Brown) which is the same as the one ranked 18th (Giacomo and Mine That Bird) or 11th (Animal Kingdom and Barbaro). The rest had a three year top ranked 10th, 4th, 5th and 6th. The #1 rank horse has also run 2rd twice, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 11th twice and 16th (the infamous Sinister Minister).
So I think it\'s a lot tougher than finding the one that has run the fastest.
Yes it was an outstanding ride but it was made a little easier for him by the fact that Bodie went so fast that the field spread out and IHA was able to take a spot on the inside relative to his post pretty quickly. In a normal bunched up Derby field he would have to either be stuck outside (4 path?) or drop way back to get inside or use him more to be in a more forward position on the field.
Once we get final numbers I bet that this field had less lost ground than normal because of the fast pace.
dlf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And while I\'m certainly glad that I didn\'t write
> that \'a 9-5 winner made my day\', the fact is that
> you could have played a Pick 3 using the 10
> fastest horses in the most chaotic and flukey race
> of the year, a very strong 9-5 single, and the
> three or four logical contenders in the finale,
> for a 100-1+ return, all while staying within
> reasonable confines of \'sheet theory\'.
There are any number of races that, after the fact, someone can structure a winning combination. If this solid single wasn\'t used this way by someone, it\'s not relevant.
Coming up with these plays under fire is what separates winning players and losing players. I have a buddy that finds logical, winning bets after every race. If only he found them a bit earlier.
In no way am I suggesting you don\'t win or aren\'t a fine handicapper. I just think finding winning combinations after the fact is pointless, unless you file it away for the next time.
It poured on that track the night before. Tracks drain to the inside. They dry out (underneath, next to the base) during the day. Inside last.
I think Bode could have won had he drifted out to the 3-4 path in the stretch, rather than staying on the inside.
jeez im sorry for the original thread....i was greatfull and honest granted it wasnt a reach to play and no i was not redboarding
Perfect D
I guess u and I see this differently. Your statement about the closing fractions is a fair one. But who passed Bode? Exactly one horse, when half the field should have.
Imo the fact that the front runners did so well on All Dirt CD races that day is the only saving grace the stretch runners get. Dead speed backed up in the sat races, but no one passed anyone.
The fact that Bode wasn\'t dead speed is what matters.
For all I know he\'s fried now. But that was an incredible effort. If he trains well and holds his weight I would bet him back in the right situation with both fists.
Wasn\'t my comment. Not sure who you meant to direct your post to.
Sorry. I corrected.
\"IHA traveled 41 feet further than Bode and still beat him by 1 1/2 lengths. Creative Cause traveled 29 more feet than IHA and was three lengths behind him... so IHA will have the best TG fig and CC will get a similar fig. Bode will have no better than the third best fig, possibly the 4th best, depending on how much ground WTDW lost.\"
PD:
The Trakus data has WTDW travelling 4 feet fewer than IHA. It also has IHA finishing 1 length ahead of Bode, and CC finishing 2 1/2 lengths behind IHA.
If the Trakus data is used, then Bode will be lucky to get the 6th best number in the race, assuming of course, that the TG ground will agree with the Trakus measurements. I\'m willing to bet that there will be differences, however, as there was for last year\'s Kentucky Derby, and as there was for this year\'s Florida Derby as well as for this year\'s Blue Grass. The differences in some cases are really significant.
He ran slower than Liaison, so he certainly didn\'t go forward.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"I dunno what Bode\'s sheet is going to look like\"
>
>
> MJ,
>
> I\'ll take a swing. How about 0 2 (X impending)
> Could anything be less represesntative or more
> misleading?
>
> Mike
Doesn\'t the response to this idea about the pattern depend upon whether or not you believe the TG numbers going into the race? Do those numbers square with the complete outcome of the race? Not just the outcome of the first two finishers? I think not. Some horses regressed who figured to go forward...what\'s that about? Did they all get hurt? Or were the numbers off base to begin with? Mike, what about your posts regarding the problems with West Coast TG numbers? If I accepted what you posted ahead of the Derby, I would have been far more likely to have had the exacta, no?
Al,
As you know, figures are not science and after the race, you can back into almost any theory.On the West Coast TG runners, it is my opinion that some numbers do not reflect the true ability of the horses vs similar runners at other venues.Not that relevant when they race amongst themselves in California,when they ship east,have found another story with quite a few,not all.
As an example,converted,Bodes last three looked like TG -1.5 TG 3/4 and TG 1/2(and yes the horses behind were adjusted in conversion)Had him laying over,gambled accordingly and lost.
Confirmed in my mind and on the racetrack that he was much the fastest going in and coming out.Being correct and tearing is no consolation in this game but going forward maybe better dynamics gets the money.
As far as the numbers being wrong, I say no but the methodology has serious issues on days like Fri and Sat.The final TG derby figs are sure to show at least two horses that did little running in far superior paths,\"faster\" than Bode.... not even close to being representative on what happened on the racetrack.
Mike
I haven\'t seen the Rags numbers for the derby but they must have projected the same outcome because it doesn\'t sound like anybody over there hit the race either.
JR,
Pre Derby,spoke to maybe 20 long time sheet readers,few more Rags than TG. All but one or two had Bode a toss on either 3 weeks spacing, big new top or both. That would be the conventional read for most sheet readers that I know.After the figs come out,you will also be told by those same sheet readers that Bode bounced in the Derby.
Powerful stuff that Kool Aid.
Mike
I\'m guessing TG will also show a Bode bounce. Your reference to Kool Aid is throwing me off. Are you questioning the numbers or their interpretation?
The numbers will be correct by the methodology but not reflective of the race, e.g. Creative Cause did not run faster than Bode... not even close!
Mike - if you know better why do you post here? If I knew as much as you do and could make my own figures I wouldn\'t bother. What exactly is the point? Do you want us to say, \"gee Mike you\'re right, we\'ve drank the Kool Aid. We\'re wrong. Thanks.\" If so, okay, I agree with you. Now what?
Your superior knowledge should give you an edge that you wouldn\'t want to blunt by telling us the truth? Your posts are sometimes interesting but I\'m mystified as to why you feel the need to go to such lengths to say you think the figures are wrong, or going to be wrong, or we don\'t know how to read or use them. Can we buy YOUR figures instead?
And as far as I can tell you are just another guy who lost, so what good is all of this? I\'m sure you do well otherwise, but all this hoohah and at the end of the day you\'re tearing up your Derby tix just like me. Please use all your conversions, etc. and let me know who to bet in the Preakness. I\'d much prefer to read something forward looking.
HP
HP,
Someone posted \"Did Bode Bounce\" and many different opinions were advanced, my posts included
Your transparent support of the product is noted.Won\'t post on this anymore.
Good Luck
Mike
MIFF - I don\'t transparently support the product. I think you have some valuable points, but how can I USE what you\'re saying in a constructive way?
Pointing out errors and coming up with a better way of doing this are two entirely different things.
Like I said, you\'re right, now what? Personally I\'m not going to run 2,000 or however many races through any conversion. So the fact that YOU are doing this does ME...absolutely no good at all.
Can you translate this into something constructive for the Preakness, when it gets a little more finalized? If not the Preakness, ANY race at all where you can show us what you\'re doing and what conclusions you\'re drawing? You\'d make more headway picking a race, showing us your thinking and specifically how it diverges from TG, and then tell us how you\'d play. If you just did it once it shouldn\'t kill your profits too much? That would help and that\'s all I\'m saying.
If you\'re not drinking Kool Aid show me some orange juice or whatever.
HP
Miff that would be me!
And even if the Derby # does look like a \"Bounce\" I would be very surprised if his figure did\'nt also include
h_pace Unusally fast pace
I heard some # a few days again like a 3.25 for Bode which would technically be an X. This was not an X effort!!
The Figure Makers have their work cut out for them. Which might be why its taking so long to Post the Numbers. And please do not make this your last comment on the subject. You are to knowledgable.
Mike-- I tried, but actually lost track of how many adjustments you would have to make-- not just in the figures coming into the race but in the figures they got IN the Derby-- for your thesis to have been \"confirmed\" correct, as you say.
One example-- Bode runs fast splits and gets a final figure (roughly) 4 points worse than his previous one, and you say that confirms the previous one should have been a point faster. Why not 4 points slower, or 4 points faster?
JB
Not at all,it was stated that Bodes last fig was about 1 point faster, not 4 ,you I previously exchanged where you felt you could not make Bodes last faster without giving the rest of that field new tops.I completely understand your take but I stay closer to the adjusted clock than you,hence the difference.
Re Bodes derby fig,I stand by my assessment that he did not bounce but dynamics caused his fig to be slower than his true performance. From what has been hinted I believe the figure you give him will be perfect but NOT representative of his performance on this occasion.That was my only point on the bounce question from the outset.Apologies to HP for posting.
Mike
You need to read my post again re 1 vs.4 points.
We\'re giving the race an \"H pace\", and people can analyze Bode\'s performance themselves-- our figures only represent effort over the whole distance. But out of curiosity-- this horse ran a 52+ last half. I don\'t doubt he would have run a faster last half if he ran 2 seconds slower for the first half-- but a) what makes you so sure he would have run more than 2 seconds faster for that half, and b) if he had run the same 52 last half and got run over by a bunch of horses running 1\'s would you still be impressed, and c) is there ANY last half he could have run where you would NOT be impressed? I mean-- 52?? That impresses you, 53 would not?
By the way, I don\'t have a firm opinion one way or the other on the question of whether he would have run a better final figure. I suspect he might have run a little better if he had gone 47, but there\'s no way anyone can look at a horse who ran fast early then stopped to a crawl and say it DEFINITELY means he could have run faster otherwise, let alone confirming he ran faster than we gave him in an earlier race. And the question of what you do with this horse next time is complicated no matter what you do with his Derby-- whether you take his figure as true, give him credit for running better, or throw the figure out with an excuse, you still have to deal with a big top, another race, and coming into a third one, all in 5 weeks.
There may be a few others running for the 3rd time in 5 weeks and some for a 3rd time in 6 weeks but he is going to have 6 races in 5 months where others will be on their 4th race. I will be playing against him if he runs based on his expected low odds from all of the pro-Bode talk.
JB,
Really don\'t what get into a pissing contest but on your point B, there is almost no chance imo that horses with 1s were running over Bode if he ran one second slower much less 2 seconds.Would love to bet on that if it were possible.You are completely ignoring the fourth fastest 6 f in derby history and ALL others at that pace were up the track, best finishing 10th.Track glib for sure but this horse smoked under flank pressure for like 7f.
Next time out etc who knows but he was on his belly Sat, never a good bet back short spaced ,regardless of figs.Think more damage done this race than if Bode ran slower early and won the race with a faster paired TG fig.
Mike
Mike
To simplify things, I view the sheets methodology as consisting of two parts. First there are the numbers. The numbers science focuses on speed, the numbers art is in interpreting the relative values of external events: such as but not exclusively what happened in other races on a given day; what happened to change a racing surface during the day etc. The second part of the methodology is the interpretation of a horse\'s pattern of races. There is no science to that, rather there is an art.
To me, the strength of the method, particularly at TG, is in the latter part of this simplified equation. I have learned a lot from this board and from the founder. It has made me a far better informed participant in the sport.
However, as you have pointed out in relation to West Coast figures, the numbers can be questioned on occasion. There are personal, non-scientific decisions lumped into them in order to make them work or fit across a large platform of data. When these decisions are wrong, you end up with a number analysis that is wrong as was the analysis for this year\'s Derby. It was really wrong....really, really wrong.
I don\'t question the pattern part of the analysis, since I believe the underlying numbers were skewed. That falls into the category of garbage in, garbage out.
Frustrated I printed out the equibase pages for the Derby. As someone pointed out the BRIS numbers that are used there are computer generated. On this board that means they are flawed. And in some respect they are flawed...but they are not meaningless. If I had to trust in a baseline of information before I started handicapping, I might want to know that it follows a rigid path. That allows me to interpret what it means; to make adjustments; to fit it into my analysis.
As I explained in an earlier post, the BRIS numbers showed very different progressions for the numbers, as opposed to the TG numbers, for horses like El Padrino, Gemologist, Creative CAuse, and the list goes on. Even after adjusting the BRIS numbers for ground loss, which I did, some things stood out. Except for Bode, IAH and Dullahan, every other horse in the race was too slow or in a regressing pattern. It was obvious and palpable.
I am not saying that you need to accept this as a new gospel, but if you just noodle the BRIS numbers, it will get you thinking. A lot of people on this board think a lot, but a lot of them have drunk the Kool Aid and can\'t even imagine that something was flawed with the Derby. If you read most of these posts it sounds something like: \"well most horses don\'t run well in the Derby and that explains why the TG selections ran badly.\"
This entire race was about two fast horses coming in from the West Coast and two others who had improving patterns, racing in the East. They stood out, but not on the TG metric. So now we should blame some cosmic force that slowed down the other 16 horses? Excuse me, but that\'s just a lot of noise. It\'s like the \'yada yada\' on the Seinfeld show. A lot of talk about nothing.
It\'s been nice getting to know you, Mike, if only through a blog, but don\'t bother answering this post. It\'s my last one. God knows there are better things to do with my time.
Al
Before this goes too far:
1-- Someone cashes after every race. Good bets lose, bad bets win, all the time. The test of figures and theories comes in the long run, not with the result of an individual race.
2-- The fastest horses-- ones with the fastest TG tops-- ran well. Several of them came from California. There\'s no basis for the idea that making those figures faster changes anything.
3-- BRIS and other speed figures do not take into account weight and ground loss, and will be different on that basis alone (aside from, as Michael said, being based on large-population figure making methods-- meaning averages-- which have nothing to do with serious figure making, by anyone, and haven\'t for a very long time, like 25 years).
ALM - you are aware that Bode, IAH, and Dullahan all fit numbers-wise as possible winners on TG, right? For me, tossing Bode was about what you call \"pattern analysis.\" I thought he would regress. Apparently he did, but only IAH could muster anything and get by him. Threw IAH out knowing full well he had the numbers and even a pattern that could win, but did not like the 19 hole or the damn electro-blanket story.
You can make your points without this constant deprecation and \"Kool Aid\" stuff. Jerry\'s worked long and hard on this stuff. You want to be critical, I think that\'s good and NECESSARY, but there\'s ways to do it. You don\'t have to advance your argument by downgrading others. I wouldn\'t say the BRIS numbers are flawed OR meaningless. You can just say what you have to say without assuming how the rest of us think. If the Kool Aid here inspired you onto better things that\'s not bad either.
HP
Find it hard to believe that Bode regressed based on the race dynamics. He was the only horse that did any running for much of the race. If the race ends at the 9F that he ran in the Arkansas what do you think his final # is? That top was on an easy unpressed lead, this number was earned every step of the way. I think he will bounce off THIS effort which considering race dynamics, I will treat as a max effort coming back on short rest, not because of any 0-2-X created by the Ark Derby top.
nice post sadly there seems to be a trend to make anyone who posts on this thing look like fools instead of using it as a learning tool.
i\'m here to learn more on how to win more and more often . i keep score each and everyday after the bets are made. lets try to get back to the why and how\'s you like a horse and a pattern of why and how you like one instead of ripping everyone who post a new a#$hole.
On the overhead shot, Bode is in a dead heat with IHA at the 16th pole, FWIW.
JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven\'t seen the Rags numbers for the derby but
> they must have projected the same outcome because
> it doesn\'t sound like anybody over there hit the
> race either.
Thats because Smith is a moron, at least according to \"that guy\".