right one at a price
Thanks for another outstanding ROTW winner.
Great Call, Have the 1 and the 6 in the pik 4 ,any ideas how to cover myself
Need this
Grand arch was a gift at 8-1....thanks for posting the race!
Hats of to you.
I have the 1,2,3,5,6 to end it.
whew , got it
Congrats to all who had it. Did anyone else think Castellano misjudged the finish? It looked like he started to stand up at the Longines clock.
Does seem like he stood up early...might have made a difference..ill take it though..thanks TG
Great call..many thanks JB.. Got out for the meet!
John
TVG often talks about the Thorograph product when discussing races.
Maybe I missed it, but I don\'t recall hearing anything about Grand Arch before the race. Why wouldn\'t they mention that Grand Arch was the pick in the ROTW?? Not as a promotional tool for Thorograph, but just as a piece of handicapping information? Anyone that saw the ROTW couldn\'t help but bet on Grand Arch.
I thought LaDuca mentioned him prior to the race but did not tie it in with TG.
Arch I believe floated as high as 13-1 went of 8-1 decent amount of late $$.
Me I would rather have the better odds then have them talk about the 13-1 we were all on.
Again nice pick
johnnym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought LaDuca mentioned him prior to the race
> but did not tie it in with TG.
> Arch I believe floated as high as 13-1 went of 8-1
> decent amount of late $$.
> Me I would rather have the better odds then have
> them talk about the 13-1 we were all on.
>
> Again nice pick
The odds would not have moved if he mentioned Thorograph.
He was 9-1 in the Will Pays so whatever late action he received was unlikely influenced by any prerace analyst prattle, as he went off right about where expected.
Apparenlty Serling didn\'t look at the ROTW either as he tweeted right after the race that he got \"knocked out of a juicy Pick-4 by an 8:1 shot that I made a big bet on in its prior start. It just warms my heart.\"
Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was 9-1 in the Will Pays so whatever late
> action he received was unlikely influenced by any
> prerace analyst prattle, as he went off right
> about where expected.
>
> Apparenlty Serling didn\'t look at the ROTW either
> as he tweeted right after the race that he got
> \"knocked out of a juicy Pick-4 by an 8:1 shot that
> I made a big bet on in its prior start. It just
> warms my heart.\"
Such a shame that some may have plunged on the rehearsal, before the reversal.
Grand Arch finally got a calm ride/trip/setup
I\'ve been on him a few times going back to last year with no cashing and was very close to bailing Saturday if not for the ROTW push.
Ironicus looks tough moving forward if he catches a mile field with some pace.
\"Ironicus looks tough moving forward if he catches a mile field with some pace
...no bet in there,Ironicus was tons the best.
Mike,
How many times do horses like Ironicus look \"tons the best\" because they drop back to last, have to navigate traffic and/or circle the field.
I did have a bet, so I am biased, but if you looked at the PPs and the TG figs for the race, it was pretty clear King Kreesa would make the lead and Grand Arch was extremely likely to get a pocket trip and Ironicus would drop back to last, as he did in his previous race.
I have to admit, without the TG figs, i am not using Grand Arch. Very thankful he looked as good as he did on TG. But I am never betting Ironicus in this situation. Without TG, I \"stand\" with King Kreesa (and lose).
Ironicus ran huge, agreed. Better than the winner. But he isn\'t tactical and HAS TO RUN HUGE to win, barring a parting of the red seas like he got in the Pimlico race.
Rob
Rob,
All true.Stood with loose leader KK,can\'t bet winner or Jack Milton with their ground loaded figs, both empty in their prior starts but got big figs off ground loss.
The run Ironicus made was off the charts. Viciously fast into very real ground loss.
Mike
I actually thought Ironicus had another forward move in him. The Pimlico race he looked like he was shot out of a bazzoka once he got room on the rail. And the last Allowance race was an easy race for him.
However the mistake you are making here Mike in your assertion is that Ironicus was \"tons the best\". He probably got the best figure but it was the best figure of his career and he needed it to just run 2nd.....AT 2-1 odds.
The winner had already run as fast (3 times) as Ironicus was going to have to prove he could run and the Winner was off AT 8-1 odds. I\'m guessing the winner got a 1 and the runnerup got a 0....in a ground loaded figure. The winner was TONS the better bet and over the long haul this is how you win.
Silver,
My post referenced that Ironicus was tons the best in the race as it was run, not tons the best going into the race.Surprised that Ironicus was favored over King Kresa.
Mike
Rob,
A tenet that has held for fifty or so years is that deep closers, on turf, are at a severe disadvantage when the rail is out!
One of the many reasons I do not bet NYRA is that they run weekend stakes with huge rails.
bbb
A tenet that YOU have held for 50 years.
We get the tenet stuff, and they are basically generalities.
I\'ve seen horses enter a race 1 for 32, and leave 2 for 33. We\'ve heard the TV analysts say after don\'t know how you could play him, blah blah. Never play a horse that has just 1 win in over 25 starts.
I\'ve seen closers win with the rails out, and I do agree with your basic premise,
Its odds and probabilities. If you are getting compensated with a fair price, all of the tenets/assertions go out the window. If I can get a closer with solid numbers, at a fair price, with a contested pace, with the rails out....I\'m playing him.
I like playing maidens that are doing something different. Adding/subtracting blinkers, distance switch, surface switch, adding lasix, etc... I\'ve hit some very nice prices looking for this. I need a price. I could say its a tenet to play these horses. I have no data to back up these assertions, They look awful on pure figures, I just know I\'ve hit some.
Its fine to use tenets/assertions to guide you, but thats all they should do. Be a guide. The tote board trumps all, and if you feel you are getting sufficient value for the risk thats all that matters.
Now, that\'s a post. Nice.
I googled \"turf rails out\" and see posts on this from bellsbendboy from 2006. What I don\'t get is BBB saying he does not bet NYRA but if he has this insight why not bet with both hands if you know something about this that others may not?
My quick conclusion was that this is yet another thing that should be included in the Racing Form? I would think a one mile turf race with a rail out 25 feet is longer than one with no rail and that could affect final time? Or how you would judge relative final times (and maybe fractional times) of horses? I also think TG numbers may compensate for this to some degree by including run up but I\'m not quite sure how these factors (rails out and run up) may or may not work together. Maybe it\'s esoteric enough to give an edge to someone who kept close track of it.
I can\'t see all of the posts and sites on this because of work firewall but most of what I read agrees with BBB, that the belief is that as the temp rail moves out it favors frontrunners. John Piesen wrote something along these lines with some of HIS other tenets! There was one guy who posted that he thought \"in my observation\" (I love wording like this because...who else\'s observation could it be if you aren\'t quoting someone?) closers were favored when they moved the rails out and he thought it was because it added distance to the race and helped the closers catch up because they had more ground to do it.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, that\'s a post. Nice.
Do you mean this in a general sense.......
....or do you mean.....\"Its about time THAT guy wrote a decent post\".
I would say both, but after what you went through on the Rag board I haven\'t got the heart.
Re rails: unless the distance says \"about\", it\'s an exact distance. They move the start to compensate for the rail. In NY it\'s zero, 9 feet, 18 feet. We get the data from Equibase for every race at every track, at least the ones I do. If someone has data supporting an advantage to a certain running style with a certain layout I would like to see it.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say both, but after what you went through
> on the Rag board I haven\'t got the heart.
>
> Re rails: unless the distance says \"about\", it\'s
> an exact distance. They move the start to
> compensate for the rail. In NY it\'s zero, 9 feet,
> 18 feet. We get the data from Equibase for every
> race at every track, at least the ones I do. If
> someone has data supporting an advantage to a
> certain running style with a certain layout I
> would like to see it.
LOL!! I knew you would say both.
That\'s very interesting because a bunch of the stuff I just read seemed to assume that the horses were running further if the rails were out but based on what you are saying they are not since \"they move the start to compensate for the rail.\" They do post this on Equibase in scratches and changes page so if it helps you the info is there.
Brad Free(DRF)did something about Cali turf races with rails out, speed horses/ up close runners had a win rate improvement over when rails at zero.
Someone may have the DRF article, it was at least a couple of years ago and maybe just about Santa Anita turf not sure but he concluded speed/up close had an edge when rails out.
I\'m open to data, and I\'m open to someone making a case (i.e., a short stretch hurts closers because they have to move earlier on the turn and lose ground). What I\'m not open to is people simply making assertion after assertion with no backup. Gimme a break. This board is supposed to be better than that.
JB, The assertion is that horses run faster on straights than they do on turns. Nothing more than that! bbb
Does that apply just to frontrunners, closers, or both?
Suspect your question is tongue in cheek but...
If you accept that horses run faster on straightaways then connecting the dots is rather simple.
First, it is correct that when a race is carded and stays green the distance is locked in. Moving the rails out does NOT change the distance. About distances vary from track to track but generally the gate is moved outward.
In order to run the race with rails at the carded distance, the starting gate is moved closer to the finish line. This movement causes \"more\" of the race to be run on turns. Conversely, if the race is on the hedge horses have a longer run to the turn; hence the pace is faster!
Most would agree that a faster pace would flatter a closers chances.
An infrequent poster, Dick Powell wrote an article for brisnet some fifteen years ago and maybe if he reads this he can regurgitate that piece. In it, he only used Gulfstream Park and while he did not quite spell it out; it is worth reading.
Years ago a crack turf sprinter (Morluc?) was in the Randy Morse barn. He was a Housebuster gelding and needed a prep before shipping overseas for a seven figure purse where he would be one of the favorites. Morse lobbied Churchill for an allowance heat at five panels and they wrote it for him. Unfortunately they set the rails at twenty two feet and an incensed Morse scratched. His comments ( I believe they were in the Bloodhorse, but could not locate) gave a very cogent, convincing argument supporting the tenet. bbb
I have no idea whether there\'s any data to back up the idea that rails give a certain running style an advantage or whether there\'s a good reason it should, but that \"logic\" is nonsense. Horses take longer around turns not because they\'re expending any less energy, but because it takes more time to run around a turn. That\'s why every figure maker uses a turn correction in his figures. The difference between a one turn mile and two turn mile in final time is about 3 points. If all that was happening was they were going slower because they were all saving energy on the turns they would all have more energy left for the straightaway, and final times would be the same. If you don\'t believe that, look at the final fractions for some of the slow pace races, like the 3yo filly grass stake at Saratoga opening weekend.
In general, the more turns, the more advantage to having the lead because of saving ground. But there are very few (if any) races where the number of turns changes because there\'s a temporary rail up.
I don\'t necessarily subscribe to this but assume the rationale is that as the rail moves out the track and therefore the turns get larger in circumference. A one turn mile with the rails out 25 feet ends up being run more on the turn than with the rails in. With more of the race run on the turn inside position gained by a front runner (or any other horse) would benefit them more than a typical race.
This may be a little stupid, but let me ask a question -- how does this play out with tracks inside of tracks? At Aqu, we have the dirt and inner dirt right next to each other. At Belmont and Saratoga, there is the main turf and inner turf. They are like concentric ovals. Woudlnt moving the rails all the way out on the inner result in the next oval up?
Those courses are a lot wider than 18 feet.
Why would this apply to just front runners when closers (particularly deep closers) could have the same rail and ground saving trip?
It applies to anyone who saves ground, but it\'s a lot tougher to save ground coming from behind than with no-one in front of you. Except, evidently, in the Whitney.