Okay, we\'re going to put the BC sheets with the numbers they ran in the ROTW. A few comments, and I\'m sure there will be a lot of discussion.
One of the differences at BC is that since the incident with Dickenson and Bond at GP a few years ago the BC has gotten serious about trying to stop hanky panky-- they post guards at the barns. The guards vary in competence and conscientiousness (I heard some funny stories after Saturday, including one where they were watching the wrong horse-- the one they were supposed to be watching won a non-BC race. Some also got bored and went home Friday night, and one enraged trainer then went to the stewards and got them called back, but there was an hour in between). In any event, this was why I made the point in advance that certain guys might not be able to get the numbers they got at other times, and for the most part they didn\'t. But at the time I made the comments there was no way to know for certain how that was going to go, so all I could say was to watch how the horses of the magic trainers were running. Which makes it awful tough to make picks in advance.
Beyond that, I would point out that I am in a different position than you guys, given my position in the industry and that this is my board, and I\'m not anonymous. I have to be somewhat circumspect in my comments.
Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, the only ticket I cashed was a future book bet on PP in the Classic. I do not, however, think my comments were that bad at all, given the point on the Eastern shippers, the comment that grass shippers had historically done much better (and did again), and the heads-up on the magicians, which made some short priced beaten favorites suspect. But the seminar is still available for free-- you guys can judge for yourself.
As for the figures run on the day, you guys will have your own thoughts, but I will say the Euro numbers held up extremely well (again). I will also say that I saw Ragozin\'s numbers on his site, and he blew this the same way he did the 01 Cup at Belmont-- the track was getting faster as the day progressed (and had done exactly the same thing the previous 2 days, so there is no excuse for missing it, other than that dogmatic one-track-speed-fits-all nonsense. I think you Ragozin guys will notice as those horses come back how few horses from the early races 10/23 to 10/25 got tops on Ragozin). There are also a bunch of ground loss mistakes (again, and I had 2 different people do it to check), and if I get the energy I might go through some of them.
i feel some interesting discussions on the sprint figs coming.
More innuendo of wrong doing without proof. Jerry, I expect more from you than this. There\'s been \"guards\" watching barns on BC days before Bond & Dickenson down at GP, what\'s that got to do with the often discussed subject of just how much illegal activity\'s are being conducted and accusations made without disclosing proof? To me it\'s an easy excuse to explain away whatever the real reasons certain trainers just did not get their runners to do as well as they had previously. It couldn\'t be the tougher competition. It couldn\'t be they were over the top. No, folks are cheating the rest of the year but not on BC day. That does not make sense to me.
Phil
UpperNile---
That\'s fine. Ignore what TGJB and some of the other posts here are alluding to and keeping playing the Frankel and other \"magic\" trainers on BC day. The rest of us need players like you, who refuse to believe what you can\'t actually see, so that we can feast on days like this.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I\'m a new poster here but have been using Thorograph now for a few years. I\'ve found them quite useful, and intend to continue to use them. But herewith some comments, my own $.02.
I don\'t use Ragozin. And I find the constant sniping to be very unprofessional. You need to let your product speak for itself. And the comments about mistakes being made in the calculations of ground lost certainly applies to the TG numbers as well- take a good look at Heat Haze\'s race in the Flower Bowl. She is listed as running a 2-3/4, which is a new top (just barely). She is listed as being 3w3w. But looking at a tape of the race you can see that in the first turn she is between the one and two path. Taking this into account gives her at least a 3-3/4, if not more, and some indication of tailing off. So who is checking for accuracy on these numbers?
But thanks for the heads up on Cajun Beat; sure was reminiscent of Thunderello last year. But why no better endorsement of Pleasantly Perfect given that you were also betting him? This year I bought both the pre-entries as well as the seminar, since last year without the seminar I had completely overlooked Starine (but caught Orientate-Thunderello and Volponi). But this year\'s seminar seems only to have lead me astray. Not complaining (much), just admitting that I needed a reminder that it was just one person\'s opinion. While I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that you had the winner, for us out here it leaves questions concerning the analysis presented in the seminar.
Your comments regarding possible shenanigans is new to me, and certainly troubling. Particularly troubling were the races of Peace Rules and Tates Creek. Sightseek I can excuse given that she had just run a pair of -3\'s, was clearly peaking in her last (given that at that time Azeri would be her next main foe), and a filly to boot.
Thanks for the opportunity to share some thoughts. I do like the product, and intend to continue to use them.
jbelfior, Why do you assume I played Frankel\'s horses on Saturday? I never said I did-and I didn\'t. I eliminated them for other reasons however and not because of the unproven belief of some that he and others are involved in activity\'s during the year that they cannot get away with on BC day. There are some logical reasons given by others on this board that clearly explain the poor performances which I happen to agree with more than the accusations of wrong doing thrown about without the evidence to back it up.
Phil
Heat Haze-- Interesting you mention this one. Before the Flower Bowl Alan and I debated (and bet a cup of coffee) on whether she would save ground on the first turn. When she dropped back to last we both though she had got to the rail also, and stopped watching, and assumed he had won the bet. So when I was looking at the pre-entries to do the seminar I noticed the same thing you did, and told Litfin to go back and recheck. He did, and he was right the first time-- she was 2.5 around the turn, which is rounded off because of space constraints when we print the product. If you sign up with racereplays.com you can watch the race yourself (9/27 8th Bel, I just checked again), and you will see she caught up with another filly by the time they got to the turn, and raced outside her. You won\'t be able to see that the other filly is off the rail unless you look at a head-on shot.
What changed after GP is that the horses had to be on the grounds 24 hours out. Again, I have to be circumspect about my comments, but the test is not whether horses win, but what figures they run. From what I heard California has been all over Frankel all year long (more at some locations than others), and the only horse I can think of who ran a big # there was MDO, who did it again Sat. There may be others, but I can\'t think of them.
Re \"sniping\"-- this is the only forum I have to deal with the manure the Ragozin operation spreads about me and my figures daily, coast to coast. It is also my chance to point out the theoretical and practical differences in the product, especially when I have a group of horses that everyone in the game is focusing on, which happens twice a year. It doesn\'t seem to be a bad idea from a business point of view-- on-line sales on BC day were up about 70% from last year, and 588 purchased stuff as opposed to 375 last year. We\'ll see what they thought of the product and seminar by how many stick around.
On PP-- I bet him at 55-1 for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post, meaning I thought he was an overlay at that price. I didn\'t push him harder in the comments because I didn\'t think he was that likely to win (I sent it in on Congaree, and would again at the price), and did not think he would jump that much-- I thought his best shot was if the race collapsed.
Michael D-- see if you can get Friedman to post the sheets for the first race of the day, the non-BC sprint stake, or at least the numbers those fillies ran. It would help the discussion.
Upper Nile--
I stand corrected. You definitely did not say that you played any of Frankel\'s horses on Saturday. As I have mentioned in a previous post, I have a tough time logically explaining how a top trainer like Frankel can have a 2-57 (3%) record in the Breeders Cup.
It certainly raises some doubts in at least my mind as to what is going on differently during the year (20-30%, record # of GR I wins, etc.)that consistently does not go on in the BC.
As for SIGHTSEEK, you\'ll never see a horse put up two negative 3 performance ratings any easier. I don\'t buy the explanation she was peaking/over-the-top/bounced...etc..or whatever the other explanations for SIGHTSEEK have been on this site.
Anyway, you certainly are entitled to your opinion on what you think causes Frankel\'s problems on BC days. Unfortunately we may never find out which side is right.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Joe,
You say, \"unfortunately we may never find out which side is right.\"
That is the big issue that I don\'t understand. If Frankel is cheating, why areen\'t all the other trainers who he routinely beats up on raising heck and making sure that something is done to catch him? Why are they willing to play on an uneven playing field?
The ones who race against several trainers (not just Frankel, there are lots of others getting amazing numbers around the country) are not happy about it at all. For the most part there has not been much they can do, but there is a move afoot in California that may help-- I\'m supposed to keep my mouth shut for now.
Hint-- IF it\'s a drug (I stress the hypothetical), a very big question concerns whether it\'s a race day drug or longer lasting one like EPO. New York begins testing for EPO Saturday, and race day problems are easier to deal with, so help may be on the way.
TGJB, Interesting observation about California being all over Frankel. Everyone knows how he all but completely has left sunny CA, leaving behind a smaller group of his 2nd string, and is now back home in NY with most of his best runners. At least til it starts to snow.
I assumed he left CA because he got home sick or because of the better climate here in the east or to get away from the high workers\' comp insurance or because as he puts it they\'ll run better on the east coast tracks-I\'m not that gullible.
With that said I don\'t believe the idea that NYRA is being less diligent in monitoring guys like Frankel than CA is. For me what this really comes down to is that I\'d rather base my final wagers on my interpretation of your data rather than factoring in the unknown of who might be using what substance.
Back to Heat Haze-
I do have a copy of the race (Flower Bowl Hcp) from the BC web site. Which path she is in on the first turn is relative. The horses on the hedge are clearly NOT in the one path, but are racing a little wide. Heat Haze is lapped on Prime Time Valentine, who is racing behind Dimitrova. Notice where Dimitrova is. If she gets a 1w in the first turn, how can Heat Haze get more than a 2w?
This brings forward a very significant problem: how to interpret, or assign values for, turns where the path changes, and also the problem you mentioned, which is rounding of path values. In high class races, differences of 1 point become very important.
We do not round off ground loss when we make figures. We round off the ground we use when we PRINT it for public consumption to save space on a crowded pp line.
Trackmen give us ground like this: 2-3, 2-3-4, 5-4 (Halfbridled first turn Sat), etc. The computer averages the paths, which can sometimes get complicated-- we used to have a guy in Maryland who would give calls like 1122345, for every horse. There are some guys who give half paths. We recently re-hired Bill Spillane as head of field operations, and one of his jobs is to oversee all of this to make sure it\'s uniform, as well as speak to track superintendents about maintenance.
When we PRINT the paths we round away from 2, which is sort of neutral ground loss. In other words, 1.5 (2-1 on a turn) will print as 1, 2.5 (2-3) will show as 3, 3.5 as 4.
I just watched the replay of the Flower Bowl again. There is no one inside Dimitrova or the other filly around the turn, and without a head on no way to tell if they are directly in line with each other. The most that is in question here is 1/2 path, which is 1/4 point, for any of the three fillies.
Jerry-
While I respectfully disagree about the path for Heat Haze, enough of beating this dead horse. What I truly appreciate is being able to have this discussion with you as well as your prompt responsiveness.
Thanks,
Doug