I\'m having a hard time understanding how Unbridled Forever won the Ballerina at 3-1 odds and why this horse was bet so heavily. Prior to the race I felt that even if she ran a new top she was a borderline contender at best. With a big crowd and large pools it took a ton of money to pound this horse to 3-1 and the odds were at 5-2 earlier. For education purposes does anyone have an angle as to how this horse ran so well? What did I miss?
I can\'t attest to the performance, but I think the scratch of La Verdad played a roll in her going off lower. Also, she was only 5-1 on the ML so the drop to 3-1 really isn\'t that significant in my opinion.
Patrick
Billk5300,
There are a few potential answers to this. Take your choice:
1. Sorry, but this is another horse that looks much better on PPs than thorograph. There were certainly examples of the reverse yesterday, but the TG figure this one was given for his last race looks shaky to me. I circled it on his sheet with a \"???\" before the race.
2. Even if you believe the last TG figure given, she was first time 4 year old back to her top. You could argue a forward move is logical next (although I still think 3-1 is short to bet this horse \"on the come\" if you believe his TG figure.
3. Sometimes your eyes have to play a factor. Watch her replay last time out if you haven\'t seen it. This track and this distance. I needed Stonetastic for a nice score and Paco Lopez hand rode around the turn, looking like a 100% winner. Unbridled Forever was shot out of a cannon late and ran her down. Nobody else making up ground. The second place horse wasn\'t stopping. A VERY visually impressive race at this track at this distance.
4. SHe was every public handicapper\'s pick. Watchmaker and others in the DRF all liked her, even with La Verdad in the race. Even Serling, who may be 1 for the meet, liked her.
I thought she would be 3-1 or so after the scratch and wasn\'t surprised.
Not sure how you handicap, but even though the TG figs are something I look at for every race, I look at the DRF PPs as well, along with a couple other things (bias/pace stuff). When you just look at a sheet, you often can\'t explain to yourself why money \"appears\" for a horse that looks slow to you. At a minimum, it helps you from doing too much \"uh oh, smart money is showing up for the horse\" and over react to it.
Good luck
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for the feedback, you make excellent points. I do use PP\'s but rely more on TG. If I note a track bias I adjust accordingly. You had some in depth observations which is a good reminder that when something doesn\'t look right it needs more research. If I had been playing live I would have given her a second look based on the board. I played early (stakes races are the only time I will do this) and found myself somewhat confused on what I missed on this horse.
Thanks and Good Luck!!!!
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Billk5300,
>
> There are a few potential answers to this. Take
> your choice:
>
................
>
> 2. Even if you believe the last TG figure given,
> she was first time 4 year old back to her top.
> You could argue a forward move is logical next
> (although I still think 3-1 is short to bet this
> horse \"on the come\" if you believe his TG figure.
>
.................................
> Not sure how you handicap, but even though the TG
> figs are something I look at for every race, I
> look at the DRF PPs as well, along with a couple
> other things (bias/pace stuff). When you just
> look at a sheet, you often can\'t explain to
> yourself why money \"appears\" for a horse that
> looks slow to you. At a minimum, it helps you
> doing too much \"smart money is showing up for the
> horse\" and over react to it.
>
> Good luck
>
> Rob
All good points! just to supplement the one point I have quoted -- when you are looking at a horse coming back in its 4yo year and its first race matches its 3yo top, there becomes the issue of yes, the horse is going to move forward, but by how much? It is a real delicate balance to decide how much to move it forward by. There is no science here but the difference between moving her forward two points versus three points could have a huge impact on your analysis of the race and the reality is the move forward doesn\'t have the precision you need. You need to make sure when you are doing something like that and then you see what you perceive as funny money on a horse, is the situation one where the funny money could be giving a clue into the horse. Maybe here the whole barn knew the filly was not tightened up for the first out and was now ready to blast off. I am not saying you should be handicapping funny money and motives all the time, BUT, when you have a horse that you are not sure what to do with, and you have that other piece of evidence, then you need to look.
I will note that when I attended the seminar, our wise leader pointed out the conundrum of assigning efforts to Jacobson horses at Saratoga. Basically, he said you needed to look at the sheet from the perspective of is the barn on or off and based on that decide whether to assign the horse a on or off figure. The way to know if you are going to get on or off is that you watch recent horses by Jacobson and see how the horses are being bet and how they are running in relation to the betting. Basically, when the horse is on, somebody knows and you get indicia about it and you use that when handicapping the same barn\'s horses.
Re 2-- the race went 2 full seconds slower than the Kings Bishop (next race), and the second finisher was also around the 3 level going in. The fast fillies did not fire-- DD was predictable, MM not so much but obvious within 100 yards when she didn\'t make the lead in slow fractions. Jacobson\'s filly was always a question mark to run her race (Salutos Amigos didn\'t either).
Heard that they were soaking the track during the card and the variant will probably move around, but the race will still come up slow.
For what it is worth I had the horse.
My internal question a lot of times is if the odds are worth the risk,yet if I think that horse is the winner do I still wager on him even if the odds are a bit low?
My main angle on this hore was what was mentioned previous,first of the layoff hit his 3 yr old top,Unbridled\'s Song tend to improve from their 3-4 year old. Stewart showed a 18% chance of having a new top and a 41% chance to pair,combine that with coming in at 117lbs and Johnny V on him for his last 2 mounts add to that 2-2 at the distance I liked his chances.
I hit my first 3 races yesterday, feeling good with a nice single malt at hand went heavy on the Big Beast,beggining of the end.
No more tix cashed..
Good Luck
Johnny
I liked her in the Shine Again, I should\'ve stayed on the bandwagon. It looked like Merry Meadow didn\'t get the best of trips there either. Not saying she would\'ve won though. The winner really likes this track and maybe she was put in the wrong spots last year.