I know this comparison was drawn before the Preakness and some posters punched a hole or two in, big brown had no real 2 year old foundation, and different spacing into the derby, but I really think after the preakness it is worth another look.
I didn\'t bet big brown in the derby and took another swing against him in the preakness. But after watching the Preakness I said \"I am not wasting any more money attacking that beast\". For those that don\'t remember the race that well, it is worth watching again. Desormeaux literally sat on his back, not asking him to run at all, until the top of the stretch, then asked him to run, he opened up 3 lengths in an 1/8th of a mile burst, then shut him down. It could not have looked any easier. Then, the figure came back. From memory, a couple point backward move. A dogmatic sheets player friend of insisted that made him a bet against in the Belmont. (Here u guys call them Kool Aid drinkers. I said the backward move was irrelevant, it was a manufactured backward move, based on the horse never being asked to run. The friend offered a friendly wager of dinner at smith and wolensky with spouses, I got big brown and he got the field. I did a rare thing and sat out a triple crown race and watched him go all in against big brown, with supers with him out of the top 2 slots on all tickets and out of all slots on many tickets. Of course, no D\'tara, so he was right but wrong.
The reason I bring this up again, is that I would be willing to bet anything that off the 1w/1w trip yesterday, TGJB is going to have AP sitting on a déjà vu like couple point backward move, in a race where he seemingly whistled and didn\'t expend a lot of energy.
I think the comparison is eerie. Yes, big brown had foot problems. Doesn\'t AP? Not the same. But similar.
And one thing I am 100% sure of is that the field AP will face, if they show up as planned, is 5 to 10 times better than the one big brown faced.
Just sayin... Worth considering
Rob
\"Guys\" don\'t call them (us) Kool Aid drinkers. Guy. One.
I boxed the entire Belmont field in supers that year, leaving out two horses. Big Brown and D\'Tara.
Hmm....
Sorry to reopen wound that may not have fully healed yet.
Once u make figures for yesterday and if u post them, would love to hear your view on the comparison (unless u do have a seminar and don\'t want to scoop it)
Sometimes history is meaningless but sometimes it repeats itself. As I see Twitter and other boards like this being full of \"converts\" today, it really reminds me of the big brown preakness aftermath. And there was no \"mud lark\" angle with big brown. (AP is more than a mudder but it is pretty clear after two races on it, that he skips over the top like mudders often do. It helped him and clearly hurt others.
Rob
Looked at the chart and have it a neg 1.25 and with the possibility of it being 1.5 points slower.No kidding and not taking a cheap shot. With the massive change in track are you somewhat inclined to vary the figure?
Thanks,
Flighted Iron
I\'m pretty sure I\'ve bet against every horse trying for the TC in my lifetime, some with more enthusiasm than others, some with more success than others.
I\'ll save my comments for the seminar or written comments but I\'m already on record as saying if AP won the Preakness I was coming after him big time in the Belmont. Best guess is he did go back a couple (based on distance to Divining Rod), but whatever you do it\'s his 4th race in 8 weeks. People keep thinking it\'s simply a question of ability-- it ain\'t.
Another sheet to look at is War Emblem.
Won\'t have much opinion until I look at it, but vary it how?
Good question. Your response to ringato(separation to diving rod)made the neg
1.25 logical,however track speed quantification is sketchy.Did the math on a selected race from another day with somewhat similar track conditions.Distance of said race was 9f and the horse received a 2 in winning.
internal fractions of preakness were faster than said race so i adjusted with
projection.Actually would have made AP slower had i forgotten about the difference in baggage.
Shorter answer: Had to project,however I\'m leaning in favor of the neg 1.25-
Spacing between DR worked well off DR\'s last.
Flight,
I mean this in a respectful way, but your post is way beyond one of us. (Perhaps me)
U looked at a track \"like pimlico\", on a \"similar surface\" for a race of 1 1/8th, and used it to project a negative 1 1/4 for AP.
No idea what \"like pimlico\" means, no idea how u can determine that the track speed on that sloppy track not named pimlico, on that day, can be used to back I to any figure for AP.
I hope the product I am paying 25 bucks for uses a SLIGHTLY different methodology.
Rob
In a situation like this there\'s nothing to use except the horses in that race and MAYBE the next one. Probably not. And since several horses in a field that wasn\'t that large to begin with didn\'t pick up their feet, it\'s makes these numbers less solid than usual.
Ring-- I\'m guessing you haven\'t been reading both boards long enough, but this kind of situation led to a fierce argument between me and Friedman years ago on their board, back when I posted there. (They changed the format many years ago to keep from having to answer my questions about methodology and I haven\'t posted there since). The subject was FuPegs Wood day, where (by memory) it rained and they sealed the track during the card, or maybe sealed it early and unsealed it during the card. Friedman said it was right to do the whole day with one variant, I asked if he was nuts.
TGJB,
Been reading both boards for awhile. And well aware of the \"do tracks change speed during the day\" debate, where they believe only in \"cataclysmic weather conditions\", can that happen. (And their view is that u start every race by assuming all horses pair) - slight exaggeration. I watched an expo years ago where u and Beyer were in agreement on the topic of changing track speeds. (I think)
Perhaps I misread the post by flighted. I thought he said he was looking at a wet track from a different day, at a different track, for a 1 1/8 race, where the winner got a \"2\". And was using that to estimate negative 1 1/4. E.g. 1 1/8th race at laurel in the slop where the winner got a 2.
And I have no idea what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Sloppy tracks are not homogenous from one location to another. Not even Len believes that....
Rob
Not to get too far into the weeds but think about what it would take to pair up horses who just ran 3,6, and 9, if they finished on the wire together. Or ran 5 points worse than each other, etc. Does it make any sense that I would intentionally make wrong numbers just to have them pair? Cause that would impress somebody somehow? I bet off these figures, and recommend purchases.
Agreed. But surely u have heard that argument before from Rags players/supporters? I have heard Len say it with my own ears. \"Pair up\" product.
I am the messenger, actually parrot. Not supporting the theory.
Lots of differences between the two camps, not just the end product. One is that there are Lots of lemmings on that board. Your boy Vito, king of that camp. Seems to follow and understand the game, and should have the ability to question or interpret a figure. Instead, if u ask him how he can believe a figure from Rags is accurate, he retorts with \"because Len said so\" or \"I don\'t make figures\"
Jim Jones told me to drink it. I can\'t question it, even if I have eyes, math skills,a brain and years of watching and betting on races....
Rob
Jim Jones is presumably where Miff got the Kool Aid line.
Yes, I\'ve heard the line. It\'s an attempt to make a strength look like a weakness. In the most general sense, if horses don\'t run back to or close to the figures you give them, what\'s the point of using them to handicap?
Anyway, it\'s not an argument, it\'s an assertion. And my point in the previous post was it doesn\'t stand up to critical analysis.
I hope the product I am paying 25 bucks for uses a SLIGHTLY different methodology.
Good one!! I do not make figures.I\'ve been using them for a time now.without question the most informative.I do like to within reason project what a figure
may come back prior to getting the sheets before the horse/horses race again.
No idea what \"like pimlico\" means, no idea how u can determine that the track speed on that sloppy track not named pimlico, on that day, can be used to back I to any figure for AP.
The race in question was run over the Pimlico strip. just not yesterday,or the day before and so on.
Mr Z looked like a good bet to pair or break through (per the analysis) but was too slow going in. He even has some trouble in KD as jock was instructed to keep clear of AP. He has run well on the slop. He looked like he handled it okay yesterday too. He was beat 17 lengths. Assuming he lost 2 lengths of ground, AP beat him by 7.5 on TG scale. Puts him -3 range again.
Dort clearly ran an off or X. If Dort is a point faster in SA Derby and a point slower in KY Derby (seems reasonable) he was primed to regress and did since he only finished a couple lengths ahead of Z.
It TB is 2 points faster Divining Rod has a nice line coming in (not choppy) and could have run a top yesterday. If he ran a 2 that puts AP in -2 range which could be a pair of Derby if you had that a point slower.
Not obvious that AP went backwards at all in Preakness.
Beazley
In that scenario Verve ran app a 10 point top....yikes! Verve did come into the Preakness in the TG 9 range on Beyer and Rags but still a huge move up to get to like a TG 2.
Ugly weather, track sealed, harrowed before Preakness then squeezed after, very tough to get a solid fig
Mike
A wet track won\'t necessarily cause horses to run poorly, but in extreme weather circumstances like yesterday (when clearly some totally spit it out) I would be less inclined to give out new tops than usual. Second horse has to get a big jump no matter what, less inclined to give out others, but we\'ll see what it looks like. We\'ll post the day when it\'s done.
Calculate is more appropriate.yesterday would require some projection.
Yikes is right. No matter what he gets he should bounce in Belmont. Agree weather was horrendous and impossible to make good figs. But in that case we should be careful reading AP pattern and automatically conclude he backed up. I gave a couple reasonable scenarios that would have him pairing although I readily admit my amateurism in this area.
At least 2 fig makers came close to pairing AP\'s derby fig
Do they use ground?
Was just talking AP\'s Preakness fig( no ground yesterday) No ground used but the adjustment to convert it to reflect ground is easy.
Tough to criticize any fig for the Preakness.Beyer actually had AP backing up from a derby \"performance\" Beyer of 111 to the performance Beyer of 102 in Preakness.
Pace adjusted Preakness fig from another service came very close to pairing AP\'s derby fig.AP set wicked early pace considering track speed.
Penciled you in for like a TG 0 assuming you would use 3rd place horse as main data point.
You may mean this already, but if they don\'t use ground and had him pairing they have him going back about two ground adjusted. Which is not far from what you have Beyer.
Yes,in one case, in the other the pace adjustment came up so strong that it coincidentally compensated for the value of AP\'s Derby ground loss in making the final Preakness figure. Actually AP backed up like 1 length there.
Strongly feel that type of pattern read Derby vs Preakness is a very slippery slope, on any data.
Of course, the rail might have been faster than the outside as well. Witness Verve on the rail most of the trip. Would explain a couple things....
Leamas
First look was at Preakness chart compared to TG. neg 1.25 is what it looks to be.
Secondly,it\'s very difficult to quantify the Preakness racetrack so each of us is going to supplement differently.
I could ask you if you\'ve ever spent months on the Pimlico backstretch followed by long days of handicapping at said track.Rainy days,cold days,cold
rainy days,warm rainy windy days...
I deleted my cheap shot and i have my boyz JCR and TKL to thank.
Their were some cool cats and cool dogs in town this weekend!
It seems like \"less solid than usual\" is being charitable when talking about the difficulties in assigning a number for the Preakness, especially when you yourself acknowledged that there was a 20 percent chance or so that you might have gotten the Derby 2 points fast.
Dead-- Presumably you realize that the fact someone says they have quarter point accuracy doesn\'t mean they actually do. What we do is not \"objective\", after assembling and entering ground, wind, weight and beaten lengths.
After that it\'s judgment, and what \"rules\" (assumptions) the figure maker uses. As I have said before, the most important handicapping decision you make is what data to use.
I\'m not saying any other figure maker is going to be more accurate than you and I wasn\'t taking a potshot or siding with Ragozin; I\'m just suggesting that getting the Preakness right (or even especially close) is a crap shoot given the circumstances.
(And, for the record, I don\'t use Ragozin unless attending Hardoon\'s seminars on a Spa weekday.)
Given you know what songs the Sex Pistols did, you\'re at least ten years younger than anyone else at Hardoon\'s seminars.
Couple of years ago I walked over there one day after doing ours, with a set of TG under my arm and a TG cap on my head. Stood there with everyone else listening, nobody looked at me twice.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given you know what songs the Sex Pistols did,
> you\'re at least ten years younger than anyone else
> at Hardoon\'s seminars.
>
> Couple of years ago I walked over there one day
> after doing ours, with a set of TG under my arm
> and a TG cap on my head. Stood there with everyone
> else listening, nobody looked at me twice.
Maybe you look older than you think.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Given you know what songs the Sex Pistols did,
> > you\'re at least ten years younger than anyone
> else
> > at Hardoon\'s seminars.
> >
> > Couple of years ago I walked over there one day
> > after doing ours, with a set of TG under my arm
> > and a TG cap on my head. Stood there with
> everyone
> > else listening, nobody looked at me twice.
>
>
> Maybe you look older than you think.
Have you seen what Johnny Rotten looks like lately?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given you know what songs the Sex Pistols did,
> you\'re at least ten years younger than anyone else
> at Hardoon\'s seminars.
>
> Couple of years ago I walked over there one day
> after doing ours, with a set of TG under my arm
> and a TG cap on my head. Stood there with everyone
> else listening, nobody looked at me twice.
Waiting for U2 to come on stage. First song is The Miracle Of Joey Ramone.
I saw Joey Ramone at a place where I was working long ago, he looked like he\'d already passed and was just hanging around for the fun of it.