I didn\'t bet the La Canada or even look at the ROTW. Just having reviewed it, congrates to Alan for scoring on that race.

Several factors jump out at me however. Pussycat Doll had that one Huge figue at 7 furlongs on a wet track. That was it. Taking a stand against that figure for whatever reason left her very vulnerable to try and win upon her other numbers. She was stretching out to 1-1/8. Just how repeatable was her previous figure? and thats assuming if it was Projection assigned, as we suspect, it was a legit negative 2.

Maybe Alan took something from the Strub and applied it to the La Canada. Pussycat Doll may have bounced. Then again, she may not have. I read she ran rank early. She did fold up pretty good late.

The race that interested me was the San Vincente. A six furlong test between Too Much Bling and Lost in the Fog is gonna be worth the price of Admission. I\'m on the record with Bling.

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Bob,
>
> Nice to meet you. I am well aware of
> projection,pars, et al. For about 10 years I used
> to informally \"make\" TG figs of all the races in
> New York.I have used TG Figs for 18-20
> years(about) with great success.Alan Rosenthal was
> unofficially promoting the product back then at
> the Staten Island simulcast.The figs were chicken
> scratch on graph paper and came with a rubberband.
> The figs were \"gold\" for a long time.
>
> In the process of \"making\"/ projecting the tg fig
> after the card back then,I would come very close
> to Jerry\'s fig as would several others TG users.I
> stopped doing that about 6 years ago.When you use
> any product for a long time it is easy to spot
> change. Jerry can argue but the product/figs have
> changed dramatically lately and I am NOT the only
> user saying it.After investigating for about two
> years, I can only conclude that the current
> projection method is the root cause. I suspect
> Jerry will confirm that he has not changed
> anything in this regard.
>
> There has NEVER been so many \"ugly\" TG pairs,
> EVER.I say that from my experience with the
> product.There has been and will be issues with
> figs( like Bob and John, a very ugly group of
> pairs). NO other figure maker that I checked,
> agrees with TG on this except Beyer who is still
> several lengths off TG.Jerry has stated that he
> only considers Beyer credible.I should have the
> figs of the five  fig makers at some point fairly
> soon. I\'ll post them but don\'t know if they will
> stay up.
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 02/13/06 11:26AM by
> miff.

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jerry,
>
> There was a post by a new name TGPOSTER that
> compared the splits of the two races and made some
> suppositions. I read it.It\'s gone.

I read it too and tend to agree with with TGPoster. His position was that in all likelihood \"Bob and John\" ran faster than scored here and High Limit ran slower than scored here. My best approximation using site numbers is about a 1-2 for High limit and about a 2-3 for Bob and John. If you deduct 3 points from ALL in the Sham the race is still viable. If you Add 2 points to all in the Strub the same is true. In the Sham there were young, improving age horses. In the Strub there were comeback and questionable horses.

The individual that deleted TGPosters response is probably the same individual that removed CTC\'s \"Ask the Experts\" access.

Silver Charm, the older Derby patterns are probably not as applicable for a number of reasons. One of which being the current vogue of \"Projection\" and strict adoption of \"Changing Track Speed Theory\". Assignment of Pairs is more likely with that methodology, as is assignment of some really big numbers, when the Pairs don\'t actually occur.

TGJB, its entirely possible that I could be persuaded by perusal of the Sham/Strub card MSW race past performances with the figures earned. For that matter it wouldn\'t hurt to see the entire card with post race figures earned. By offering only the subject races with the figures earned all that is suggested is Projection dictated that the assigned numbers be assigned. We know that. My take on it at this point is signficantly different than a 5 for \"Bob and John\" and a Negative 1 for High Limit. I believe the track was quirky early, but speeding up by the 7th to be as about as fast as the 3rd race.

You\'re position is fast early, really slow by the 4th, despite watering, and then no water beginning with the 6th and then a quickening trend due in part to drying, but never getting so quick as the 3rd when watering was suggested to be keeping the strip glib. Understanding nature plays an enormous role, its very hard to follow the logical consistency of fast, very Slow, Quickening, but still slower than the early races when watering ostensibly made the track faster. In the face of that, the 9th race final time looms.

There may be a difference, at this point, there is no objective basis to believe it is a 6 point difference.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Silver Charm began this thread with a quasi
> thought provoking post
>
>
> Quasi thought provoking post?.....this
> thread has you up half the night then editing what
> you said late morning the next day.

The fact that I was up late had nothing to do with your post. The edit was a single edit for a typo because the issue was whether the track \"sped\" up, not \"speed\" up. Clearly the track was getting faster late. The issue is whether it was slowed down by multiple lengths in 30 minutes before it started a \"generally faster time trend\" Thorograph thinks it did took a substantial \"slowing hit\" in one race that applied to the Strub as well. I don\'t.

>
> >then intimating that Bob and John may be the
> next fast horse.......High Limit as the next great
> handicap star.......
>
> >which Silver Charm is correct, the sincere one
> or the disingenuous one? The inside money is on
> the proposition that he doesn't know.
>
> >Would the Real Silver Charm please stand up?
>
> This apparently has turned into a Handicapping
> Board version of \"To Tell the Truth\". Between
> church, 10-K readings, and the competitors
> conference call I haven\'t an opportunity to
> respond properly. Also out of respect to the
> proprietor of this Board and his highly competent
> staff I reserved my opinions.
>
> However I have decided my considerable reputation
> has been challenged and to withhold my opinion
> could be interpreted as a sign of cowardness.

Still not sure where you stand. Maybe, you dont have a firm conviction either way.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTC-- You are using raw times, comparing rough
> classes of horses. We are using figure histories
> of the exact horses in question, with previous
> efforts adjusted for track speed, weight, ground
> etc. Who do you think has a better handle on what
> happened?

Actually, I predicted before the figures were published that the efforts of High Limit and \"Bob and John\" would be controversial and
scored disproportionately.

The quote below is interesting.
 
> \"For what it\'s worth, they watered the track before
> each of the first 4 races, again before the 6th,
> and no more afterward. The first 3 races held
> together. The track got much slower for the
> fourth, and gradually speeded up slightly
> thereafter as the day went on, possibly because it
> was drying out...\".

In this quote you state the track got very slow with the 4th race, which by the way involved 3YO 32 Thousand Maiden Claiming Fillies. Just how many races had these fillies run to establish a sound pattern of repeatable figure races?

I\'ve bet upon a lot of cheap young maiden claiming fillies in my life and there is only one truism that I can take from that class of race and it is this:

\"Maiden claiming fillies are notoriously unreliable.\"  

Just how much stock are you willing to invest in the notion that those fillies were reliable enough to gage a major track \"Slow Down\" upon? By your analysis the track was speeding up post 4th race. What if you were incorrect about the track becoming abysmally slow in the 4th? If the track actually remained static or sped up slightly by the Strub what would that say of High Limits effort? Could it mean that \"Bob and John\" may have actually run faster than High Limit?

Is there any reason to believe the following pedigree may be finding maturing form?

http://www.pedigreequery.com/bob+and+john

Silver Charm began this thread with a quasi thought provoking post, then intimating that Bob and John may be the next fast horse. He then made a sudden retraction to defend the host assigned number. Would the Real Silver Charm please stand up? Is he the One that impliedly questioned the number assigned or is he the Silver Charm that abandoned the implied theme of his post to embrace High Limit as the next great handicap star? But even more importantly, which Silver Charm is correct, the sincere one or the disingenuous one? The inside money is on the proposition that he doesn't know.

First, lets look at the entire card, omitting Grass, rather than three races.

1-4^ 25kMdnClm 1.10.96
2-4  50KClm    1.10.34
3-3  100Stk    1.49.15
4-3f 32kMdnClm 1.27.62
6-3f MSW       1.18.29
7-4  300Stk    1.49.14
9-3  MSW       1.16.66

The contention is the 3YO maiden claimer fillies in the 4th race went so slow its an indication the track was \"Slowing Down\". Arguably, that was the worst race on the card however. What about the 9th race when 3YO maiden special weight colts went close to two seconds faster than the same age fillies in the 6th? In light of that race, Was the track really Slowing Down after the 3rd? Or, was it speeding up?

The key to the Sham/Strub reality, does not exist in the Sham or Strub. It exists in the 3YO MSW sprints. Those two races are the races I\'d like to see post race figure assignment Past Performances upon. On the numbers assigned, the horse coming off the win in the 9th race has to be considered a Monster. I don\'t think he is.

On the numbers High Limits Strub is appoximately 12 lengths faster than \"Bob and John\" despite the same raw time, same relative path and co equal weight. That is incredulous. This is the time of year that good 3YOs move forward. \"Bob and John\" did not move forward a snails eyelash per Beyer and TGraph.

Not saying Bob and John is the horse to beat, but this is clearly a problematic result. Again.

The two Turf races were also very interesting as far as final time and quality of animal.

Great card for future handicapping.





TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC-- I did basically what Andy did. What people
> keep forgetting is that we don\'t just look at the
> winners-- there were other horses in those races--
> and other races on the card as well. Just after
> the Bob and John race the track got MUCH slower,
> and it showed more in the sprints than routes--
> next race was slow horses (for SoCal), but they
> went 7f in 1:27:62.
>
> Hey Chuckles-- why aren\'t you posting under your
> \"own\" name? As I recall, I gave you a warning, but
> didn\'t toss you, and if I had, do you think we
> wouldn\'t be able to tell it\'s you?
>
> The two stakes are attached.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could someone please explain what if anything
> happened at Santa Anita on Feb 4th. Bob and John
> in the 4th race ran an identical time as High
> Limit did in the Strub. However according to
> Beyer, High Limit received a Best Year-to-Date
> North American route figure of 109 while Bob and
> John got the same thing Judge Smells in Caddy
> Shack gave Spalding, \"You\'ll get nothing and like
> it\". Obviously Beyer thinks the Track changed
> speed somewhere mid-day.
>
> Bob and John may or may not be a major Derby
> contender, a figure identical to High Limits at
> one mile and one eighth this early would stamp him
> as the horse to beat. A few years ago some had
> Smarty Jones fast, some slow.
>
> Has history repeated itself again.........

And Beyer apparently doesnt even factor Wide.  You have to remember Beyer thought Bellamy Road was the second coming and has NEVER selected a Derby winner.

That track was hard to get a handle upon and appears to have fluctuated. For the two races in question however, its an issue of \"Which way did it fluctuate\".

Anyone relying upon Projection for that card (aka Give some of the horses what they usually run and calculate the others off those usuals) is making a monumental mistake and is going to lose credibility with knowledgeable handicappers upon later results.

My inclination? Up factor Beyers reading of \"Bob and Johns\" effort. Down factor his view of High Limit\'s effort. There appeared to be more pace in High Limit\'s race, but \"Bob and John\" came home like a good thing. Head to head at the Derby distance, it\'s \"Bob and John\" and thats a no brainer.

More evidence that if you Live upon Mass Produced figures be prepared to Die upon them.

Article on the above horse in the DRF, the pertinent part reads:

\"\"I don\'t think he liked the surface,\" said Cerin. \"He was struggling with it and was really tired after the race. We\'ll evaluate his condition, and see if we want to go in the Santa Anita Handicap or the Dubai World Cup.\"

http://www.drf.com/news/article/72052.html

This horse gets loose in the off going. You can see it in his action. He overcame it and posted a nice figure in the Hawthorne Gold Cup, but otherwise would have won off by plus lengths.

His break cost him a chance to win the B.C.Classic. Not sure where he\'s going, but if he elects to run the Gulfstream Park Handicap, he will motor on a dry surface there. The Artax last year was a big effort off the bench.

This horse wants some ground and the new trainer has been good for him. Knock on wood.

davidrex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i\'m the reason your living such a rich,full life
> i don\'t know who pix the rotw but if they were to
> put an entire card together and sell it as a
> package....i\'d be first in line....don\'t mean the
> pic-a-trac gizmo either
> thats what this country needs...a hand picked
> competitive card to be sold at a premium,yet save
> the customer ALOT of time in weeding thru the
> junk.

Agree that on most cards you are usually fortunate to isolate 1 solid play. I\'d go further to say you may get 1 juicy opportunity a week at your track.

I\'m all in to try and stay on top of NYRA, Churchill Downs and Calder/Gulfstream. Thats it for me, any more than that is just not feasible. So if you don\'t have the time to find that one play a day at various tracks the theory of someone else identifying that play is interesting.

Don\'t know though, is cashing the only reason you wager? Isnt\' there a sense of satisfaction in predicting the future through your own efforts? I\'d probably let someone else do the groundwork if it was purely profitable, but it sure would take a lot of the fun out of it.
 

marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Giacomo ran alot of races before improving  when
> running a pair of 4 1/2 pt tops , then bounced
> badly which was followed by about a year lay off
> .
>
>  Greeley\'s Galaxy ran down to a negative number
> aka kimmel style  in 4 races , then backed up
> almost 6 pts next time and then after that ,
> another 4 pt backward move in the Pim race ,
> ending the year with another terrible number @ SA
> , then on short rest , he runs his 2nd best number
> in his 1st 4 yo race and again on short rest to
> the Stub .


Granted, Greeley\'s recent Past Performances lack the spacing he started his career with. The other thing that became clear after the Illinois Derby is that Greeley suddenly wasn\'t as forwardly placed. Perhaps that was due in part to training to get the Triple Crown distances. That trend held until the San Fernando when he finally showed signs of life again and raced near the front. Saturday, he was set to pop, but was four lengths back in the early running, however he was facing better horses again. Interestingly he\'s faced Giacomo 3 times now and can\'t seem to finish in front of him.

The race may come when someone wants to speculate that Greeley can return to that Negative 2 in the Illinois Derby. You\'ll want very good odds to make that speculation, certainly much higher than 7-2, because you\'re not going to win that race with Greeley on the basis of that Negative 2 Back Figure.

To win again against better horses at 1-1/8 miles, Greeley is going to need to catch the good part of a carrying track and he\'s going to have to have a pace advantage so he doesn\'t get discouraged running from behind.


>
>  GG had a number he could run back too but didn\'t
> is not an anomily . Probably needed more time in
> between the last few races .
>
> So what are you saying , that you don\'t agree w/
> the numbers or that the horse ( or a horse ) could
> not run off that line ? If your point is that you
> where right about a race ok but remember that
> doesn\'t necesarily mean everybody else was wrong
> and you might very well be right about a race but
> not for the reasons you think - it happens all the
> time , specially if one becomes a little too ego
> involved .
>
> As far as 20/20 hind site on trip or pace stuff -
> my personal inclination is in many or most of
> these previously run races is that , I don\'t care
> how a horse runs a number . To say a horse ran or
> didn\'t a number due pace is as viable as saying
> that a horse not taking to a particular surface
> was cause for failure and is subjective to a large
> degree .
>
> I don\'t have Brass Hats sheet in my computor  ...
>
>
>
> Edited 3 times. Last edit at 02/07/06 07:57AM by
> marcus.

marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok tab your fly  + but 7-1 or so on GG isn\'t bad
> , of course better still to have won . your
> getting some milelage out of this . but like many
> rag post\'s , (and apparently this one is another
> ex) , it isn\'t going anywhere . anytime you\'d like
> to discuss specific patterns on this site or
> wagering strategies for future races  , let
> someone know  ... you\'ll invaribly boast a better
> roi  !

Patterns?

You seriously want to discuss Patterns and mention Greeley\'s Galaxy in the same breath?

Greeley\'s Galaxy didn\'t have a pattern in his Past Performances. He had a \"One Time\" factored upon the losing efforts of Monarch Lane and Magna Graduate. Subsequent to that effort he worked a mile for the Kentucky Derby and stopped running before the work distance was completed. He made nice middle moves in the Derby and Preakness and stopped in both like a horse trying to cross Silver Charm\'s \"A bridge too far\". He was a non factor in the Malibu and then ran a 3 and finished a weakening 3rd in the 1-1/16th San Fernando.

Saturday, Greeley\'s Galaxy had to run 1-1/8. He ran about 1-1/16, what made anyone believe their was a Pattern to read or that he really wants that much ground? And this doesnt even consider the legitimacy of the Negative 2 in the Illinois Derby.

Wanna talk about Patterns and One times? Look at Brass Hats Figures. As a three year old he repeated Negative .5\'s in different form cycles. He was then injured and came back a year later. In his comeback his figures \"forged\" from

4
0
Negative .5

The last equaling his 3YO top. What kind of race did you expect in the Donn with the plethora of speed present? The only issue was the track condition and this horse has carried it\'s track with him.

If we learned something in the Strub, maybe it was this: \"Dont\' take 7-2 on a \"One Time\" when theres been no evidence the horse wants to repeat it and other horses in the race have faster figures than the One Timers second best.\"

Dang, betting against Stevie Wonder was good for another cash or two. Now he\'s out.

marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spa , I understand and look forward to that next
> time , where does the horse go from here ?

That depends upon whether they want to increase his chances of winning.

Non Winner of 3 Races other than maiden, claiming or starter allowance for 3YO and up Colts. One turn mile might be a nice distance. He gives every appearance of a horse with distance limitations and chances are a 3 or 4 won\'t win there either.

What High Limit proved yesterday was that Giacomo needed a race and probably needs 10 furlongs.

High Limit proved that Top This and That was a 3 horse sitting on a regression going in and is a 3 horse that regressed coming out.

High Limit proved that Greeley\'s Galaxy has figure issues that are bigger than form and which tend to suggest Greeley is a member of a substantial list of horses that were assigned very fast figures last year, for open daylight wins, calculated upon the usual efforts of the beaten horses.

The Blue Grass is another matter entirely.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> High Limit clearly proved yesterday he is a top
> notch horse and once again as usual TG got the
> figure correct in the La Derby and Blue Grass last
> year.

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bobphilo:
>
>    How bout those fast times at Hallandale High...
> Ah those precocious kids are at it again.. they
> broke the track 6f record with their internal
> fraction, and broke the track record for the
> likely seldom run 7.5 mark distance... would be
> interested to see what the gallop out past a mile
> was...close to track record I
> would imagine.

Maybe those werent track records. Maybe they were Negative 5\'s?

 
>    Are racehorses getting faster? Are surfaces
> getting faster? Are teletimers accurate? Are they
> less accurate in inclement weather? Do you think
> horsemen were happy that a track which was
> absorbing so much moisture was yielding fast
> times?

Can\'t complain with the Donn results, but did anyone else like the old Hallandale better?

>    As to the winner of the Holy Bull, he looked
> professional, but still has not won over a fast
> track. I look forward to trying to beat him at
> short odds in his first try over a fast
> surface.

If Barbaro is special that second place horse ain\'t bad either. Not sure they are the ones, but they have to be closer to it than First Samurai.

Super Frolic needed one. You can\'t say the same for Greeley\'s Galaxy. Doubt it was much of a factor but despite the Hawthorne Gold Cup, Frolic does not relish goo.

High Limit ran his race, the race he ran last time was even better than it looked. He was in front of Giacomo in the Preakness under much tougher early pressure and was only beaten 2 lengths. High Limit was the standout in this race and did not run an obscene negative number. He\'s a good horse, not a special one.

\"Bob and John\" and High Limit both covered the circuit in 1.49.15

Will their numbers be equivalent? Don\'t count on it.

The Saturday Santa Anita card is going to be a wonderful exercise in handicapping acumen.

The Sham for 3YO\'s was run as the 3rd Race

The Strub for 4YO\'s was run as the 7th Race.

The times for the races were identical.

Will \"Bob and John\" and High Limit earn similar figures or will Projection Methodology consider their efforts to be significantly different?