Jerry,

There weren\'t any faster paces at 9F at Saratoga since 2005, but as I said, there were only a handful of races for Grade 1 older males at 9F since 2005. Prior to 2005, there were several faster paces. I can list them tonight or tomorrow with the dates if you\'d like.

If we can\'t get beyond raw fractions though, we can\'t really have a discussion because we already agree on the fractions at Saratoga since 2005. We also agree that Commentator\'s 2005 Whitney pace was very fast.

My point is that when adjusted and rated properly vs. other races, I see faster paces from time to time every year. You can either accept that as fact or not. If you don\'t or can\'t accept it, just say so and we can end the discussion.  

As I also said, IMO pace is not the only issue.

For example....

In his race following that Whitney (The Woodward), the pace was actually a bit slower to the 6F call than the Whitney. However, IMO that was a massively more taxing pace because he was being double teamed by suicidal rabbits. He was pushed to his limit under pressure in spots instead of running fast but evenly on his own while loose. He was also racing on a more honest race track instead of a biased one.  

I\'ve already said all there is to say on this horse and will bet accordingly. At this point, I\'d rather just throw in the towel on this place and not post here anymore. Not only is no one interested in any potentially valuable pace insights that can be used with figures, they don\'t want them here. This is the only place I\'ve ever visited where people complain about insights that will lead to greater profit potential. Not my loss.

Jerry,

I have the fractions for every race run at Saratoga at 9F since 2000 very handy and can go back further if need be.

There were a lot of races faster to the 2F call, some races faster to the 2F and 4F call, and 4 races faster to the 2F/4F call and similar at the 6F call. Those are raw times at a quick glance.

However, there are very few Grade 1 races for older horses run at 9F at Saratoga to make a valid comparison. Most of the races are for mediocre horses that run much slower. Last post to answer the question.

Jerry,

I\'ll admit that my analysis was not a literary masterpiece. LMAO.  I was on my way out and spent about 1 minute writing it. If I had more time I would have done a better job explaining my points. In the follow up, I explained what I was trying to say. I was NOT trying to make a pick. I was saying other things. Some of which turned out to be irrelevant at the prices. Given all the gibberish posted here from time to time, I don\'t think that post should have been singled out.

On the other issue...

Pace is a very complex issue. IMO, there is a difference between battling your equal in a sustained fashion and being loose or stalking a wildly inferior opponent even when the paces are similar.

I considered his trip in the first Whitney to be an easy one because he got loose on a track that I made highly speed favoring. I rated the race 123 Pace - 119 Final on the Beyer scale and made the bias an S+. The race was fast-fast, but the pace was not absurd relative to the final time. IMO it was an easy trip for him. I recall hating him next time out for those very reasons when I posted here.  

I haven\'t seen the final speed/pace figures for his race yesterday. So I can\'t comment too much yet. However, I don\'t think the trip was a very tough one even if the pace figure comes back faster than the final time. I did like his race a lot though. It was probably one of his best ever.  

I realize we will never see eye to eye on this issue (or bias either etc..). That\'s partly because the process of making pace figures is more subjective and complex than making final time figures. The relationships between pace and final time are also very difficult to pin down because every horses has different qualities, has a different level of overall ability etc... and there are so many possible pace and racetrack combinations. Like anything else, you develop insights and work from there.

However, IMO from time to time there are uses of the pace factor that are an ideal compliment to your final time figures. I focus on that because that\'s where I find value and because others know more than I do about patterns. Your Race Shapes product concedes the point. I was offering \"quality of pace match up\" as another valuable tool in the arsenal. The impact the probable pace was going to have on Commentator was going to be different depending on which Commentator showed up, but it was certainly going to be a major problem for the other horse regardless. That\'s all.

>Maybe commentator will get \"compromised\" in the BC Classic, like you thought he would get compromised yesterday by the 54-1 shot. Heck, he only won by 14. If he wasn\'t so compromised, he would have won by 18 or 20. <

My pace ideas have obviously been beyond your comprehension for some time, but to enlighten you a little, I was suggesting that there is a huge difference between a Commentator\'s \"A\" game against the slug he faced yesterday and Commentator\'s \"C\" game against a slug like he faced yesterday. If he came with his \"C\" game (which I thought was unlikely but which was suggested as possible in the ROTW analysis), he was going to be in a lot more trouble that it looked because he was going to get that pressure.

In the Classic, his \"A\" game will be probably be compromised because he will be facing other Grade 1 speed horses.

This is easy to explain mathematically, but if you think about it for ahwile it may sink in.

Let\'s spare Jerry and leave this alone. If you have a problem with me, ignore me like many others do. I have no problem with that. But don\'t insult things or people you don\'t even understand.

SC and Richie,

I don\'t think the average person has paid much attention to the best horses in racing other than the Triple Crown contenders and a handful of legendary geldings for several decades. There are some exceptions, but they are rare.

Saratoga did all they could to promote Curlin this summer (already well known), but from what I gather attendance was pretty disappointing.

The general public simply doesn\'t care about horses like Indian Blessing because it has no objective way of measuring how good she\'s been lately. That takes handicapping. That knowledge is what makes her of interest here.  

I think putting on great races would help. So would keeping horses around for long enough to actually generate a fan base. But I\'m not sure racing is ever going to be more than a niche business unless it generates many more serious handicapping/gambling fans. That\'s pretty difficult when betting it is generally a losing proposition for most.

SC,

I think these comparisons get silly unless you specify the conditions.

How do you think Commentator is going to make out in the Classic when he either tries to outsprint or is forced to stalk and move past another legitimate Grade 1 speed horse that won\'t spit the bit so easily?

I think you\'ll see an outcome similar to the Met or worse depending on several things.

Commentator runs huge figures when he\'s not hurting and gets an easy trip on the front end, but he only tends to get those trips in weak spots.  

IMO, BB is still pretty much an enigma because it\'s very hard to know where his form is heading or how to evaluate his turf race. If you know please tell me. :-)

In a match race with BB, I\'d take Commentator. But in the Classic with other quality speeds in the race, I think BB has an excellent chance of finishing ahead of him if he rates a bit, even if he also loses.

>People on this board actually bet on horses, at least most of us. <

Maybe instead of complaining about my analysis, you should either agree/disagree with it or ignore it.  

Personally, I don\'t bet on races with a legitimate 1-5 shot when there are three similar contenders for the place spot whose odds are not all that far apart and the only sure loser goes off way too long to matter. IMO, the race was unplayable as bet. That\'s not my fault. I didn\'t select or bet the race.

If you spent less time complaining about me you might actually learn something and turn a long term profit.

Basically to offer a few insights that weren\'t covered in the ROTW analysis.

1. I didn\'t think Commentator was very likely to run one of his poor races (he\'s been working well and not like a horse with problems right now).

2. If he did bounce a bit, the risk of him losing despite only a small move backwards was higher than you would otherwise think because Riversrunrylee was also highly likely to give him pressure on the front end. (a cumulative negative). Basically, I was saying that anyone that disagreed with my first point should probably consider him even more vulnerable.

3. If Riversrunrylee ran with Commentator I thought it was highly likely he would be last. I expected River to be shorter than 54-1. If he was, throwing him totally out of triples etc... might be worth something. At 54-1, it\'s clear that everyone else knew that running with Commentator was suicide. So there was no incremental value in the insight he\'d finish last.  

Personally, I really didn\'t see the race as playable, but congrats on the exacta.

IMO, Commentator is having his best season ever. He\'s beaten a few weak fields along the way (much like in the past), but he\'s relaxing better, racing off horses when he has to, holding his form better, has raced on all honest tracks, and IMO would be in the running for HOTY if he could get 10F on synthetic.

The presense of Riversrunrylee can\'t help Commentator. He doesn\'t have the same quality speed as Commentator, but he\'s fast and only runs well when he gets the lead. If they make a legitimate effort to get in front of Commentator, they might finish last (assuming Commentator runs a decent race), but it could take just enough starch out of Commentator to make for an upset if that one isn\'t close to 100%. It\'s not highly likely though.

I think Won Awesome Dude, Dr. Pleasure, and Cuba are all similar. I think whoever gets the best trip gets the place or pulls off the upset.

jimbo,

I obviously didn\'t say that big odds on favorites are a winning bet. rotflmao

I said they outperform the take.

For example, if the track take is 17%, you will typically lose less than 17% on big odds on favorites and more than 17% on longshots. That bias used to be stronger years ago than it is now, but it\'s still there. The bias also exists in the place pool.

>>For example, I loved Past the Point in the Woodward, but I knew he couldn\'t beat Curlin at equal weight. I passed the race. One might ask why didn\'t you play the exacta; why?....to collect $40 while my 53-1 shot runs his eyeballs out but inevitably gets beat by a superior animal. <<

Joe,

If I loved the value on Past the Point in the Woodward I would have made a small bet on him to win and a large cold exacta with Curlin on top.  

Finding value in the exotics is not limited to eliminating the favorite. If you find a longshot that should be the 2nd or close 3rd choice, but it\'s 50-1 on the board, the exacta combination with the favorite is almost always a good value unless for some reason the favorite is very wildly overbet. IMHO, Curlin was not a good value bet on the win end, but he was no worse than the typical very big odds-on favorite (which tend to outpeform the take by a little).

I have no opinion on Pick3s, 4s, 6s etc...but the exactas do tend to be fairly efficient.  However, there are times when the favorite looks so darn weak you can leverage your opinion to greater value by excluding it from the place slot also. There are also times when you have a strong negative opinion, but the complexities of the race make it difficult to form a positive opinion on a single horse. You can then spread around a little and feel confident you have value despite not having a high level of confidence on any given horse.

IMO, the choice of pools should NEVER be about how big a score you might make. It should always be about the expected ROI. Typically, since the take is higher for exotic bets, you are better off in the win/place/show pools. To get greater value in the exotics, you really need to have \"two\" value oriented opinions in the same race or series of races. If you do have two value oriented opinions though, you can do MUCH better in exotics.

IMO, you absolutely do need figures.

I also agree that it\'s always a value decision.

What I think Joe was suggesting is that sometimes the top figure is more vulnerable to diappointment than others and he believes that those with very weak \"win records\" tend to underperform (and vice versa). I agree with that observation.

>I\'m quickly learning that I would prefer a turf horse who runs in the 2.5-3 range and shows wins (e.g 13/5-2-1) rather than a turf runner who averages 1-2 and consistently loses (e.g. 13/2-5-4). <

I think that\'s true on dirt also, but to much less of an extent. Those slower paces, resultant tighter margins, and even some trips on turf tend to mask the true differences in ability between horses at times. Those great \"records\" are sometimes just the result of randomness, but sometimes they are telling you things about ability. You have to try to tell the difference.  

The only problem is that the public gives full weight to that kind of winning consistency on the odds board. So there is very little value in the insight.

The only upside is that you stop playing horses that you \"think\" are overlays just to watch the super consistent favorite kick your butt on a regular basis. Knowing that winning ability often signals something allows you to find real overlays better.

I don\'t know Richie.

IMO, the gap between the best European turfers and Proudinsky/Shakis is probably much larger (haven\'t seen PPs yet) than the gap between the best synthetic horses in CA and Proudinsky/Shakis. The best synthetic horses out there right now don\'t look too special to me.

If I were IEAH, the things that would worry me the most about the Classic are:

- Whether the new synthetic surface is more forgiving to speed horses at 10F than some of the others have been.

- Whether Commentator and several of the speedy horses from the Pacific Classic are going to run and make for a very lively early part of the race.

- The list of eastern based horses that seemed to be strong contenders in prior CA BCs that didn\'t do as much running as expected on the ship.

- The greater potential for top European shippers to take a shot on that surface and love it.

It\'s rare to find a horse that excels on both dirt and turf like BB, but when you find one, I have to think it\'s pretty likely he\'s going to like synthetic because turf form tends to translate fairly well. The real question is whether Curlin is going to go now that BB passed this test.