I believe he also worked for John Kimmel for a few years too, if I am not mistaken.....  Dave Druggan would have been a good one, but i am not quite ready to put him on the list just yet. He has a long way to go before he joins the likes of....

Steve Ass-juicin
Drug O\'Neil
Vlad Syringe
Juice Levine
Patrick Biancobra



-Bull

Hey Richie, I agree Vijay has a good shot this weekend at a nice price of 25-1. He does have some elbow problems and he has not performed well in the majors recently, but coming off of a good 2nd in the Canadian Open two weeks back, it looks like his game is rounding into form. He\'s won this tourney twice, and is a prime contender......

That being said, as horseplayers, let\'s go after a huge price this week. This major tends to produce longshot wins, so let\'s look at a few bombs who I think are overlays and could make some noise this week....


KJ Choi (40-1)
 Aside from Hunter Mahan, this guy is the hottest player on tour. Followed up a nice win at the AT&T (tiger\'s tourney) with a solid 8th place finish in the British Open. Last week, he just missed cracking his third straight top 10 by finishing T11 at Firestone. His game is scorching hot right now and is currently 5th on this year\'s money list....has a great shot this week.

Scott Verplank (75-1)
 Not the longest hitter on the tour, but given the heat, the ball should be flying. If anyone knows the heat and humidity, it is this Oklahoma native who played his college golf at Oklahoma State. Playing solid golf right now with five top 10\'s in his last six events. Won the Byron Nelson this year in impressive fashion. He\'s 20th on the tour in driving accuracy and 38th in putting. We\'ve been waiting for him to breakthrough at a major and given the homecooking, this could be the week at a great price.

Jonathan Byrd (150-1)
 Many of those reading this probably have never heard of him, but the guy can play. Won the John Deere two starts back and followed it up with a top 25 effort (T23) at the British Open. Has not had too many shots in majors, but if you\'re looking for a SUPER BOMB to play, look no further. Ranked 2nd on the tour in putting (putts per hole) and leads the tour in Sand Saves. More importantly, he leads the tour in birdies per round at 3.85 per round this year. At a tournament that habitually produces low scores, give me a birdie machine who can flat out putt the golf ball. Not saying he\'s got a monster chance, but christ he\'s 150-1, and has more positives than negatives coming into this week.



Seeing as how this is a horse racing board, i will throw in a horse comment.... How many of you caught Maimonides almost 12 length debut romp today at the Spa?
Ran fractions of 22, 45.3, 57.6 to finish the 5.5 furlongs in 104.4 under a hand ride by Bejerano. Just effortless!!!


Good Luck!!!


-Bull

CTC that\'s the second time you mentioned Commentator\'s stud fee. You do realize he is a gelding right??? If you were being sarcastic, it wasn\'t presented as clear as some of your other quips.




-Bull

Just thought I would chime in and add to the discussion on lasix and how it works in horses. Alm pointed out that the bladder is so close to the horse\'s lungs that the extra pressure of a full bladder causes problems on the lungs. I am not sure this is the EXACT reason why a horse bleeds.

For a horse to get administered Lasix by a vet, it has to be diagnosed with EIPH, which stands for Excercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage. During strenuous activity, internal fluids inside the horse place extreme pressure on the lungs, forcing the capillaries to burst, and therefore bleed. The blood is obviously visible as it comes up through the lungs and is often exhaled out of the nose. The point of Lasix is to curb the capillary bleeding in a horse\'s lungs. This is done by reducing the amount of water/fluid found mostly in the veins and arteries. creating less stress on the capillaries and making them less likely to break.

Furosemide (the clinical name for Lasix) is considered a \"Loop Diuretic\". It works by forcing the kidneys to remove water from the blood and put it into the urine. This basically increases the amount of urine, hence the extra \"peeing\" of the horse.

Hope this helps.



-Bull

I just wanted to comment on William Nack\'s agist and innacurate bashing of the Sheets and Sheet methodology, I am not sure how it turned into an argument about the Bluegrass. I was trying to take a stand that united both operations in the context of Nack\'s article, somehow it manifested into people driving wedges between the two (which is your right TGJB, they are your competition). Don\'t worry I will keep my anti-drug, pro Sheet posts to myself in the future.


In much the same manner Len assigns quit numbers to horses on extremely fast paces, he does so in extremely slow paced races. I am not positive if this is done by formula or includes a degree of subjectivity. It is Len\'s opinion of what the horse would have run had the fractions been more honest, giving the horse an opportunity to run his true effort. My point is that Len makes NO attempt to state the P~ numbers are just as accurate as the normal figures. He will probably be the first to tell you that there is a degree of uncertainty in the numbers and his customers should be well apprised of that fact. It is very hard to take any P~ figures at face value and tougher to make pattern reads off them than normal (as Len has said in the past, I believe).

I saw the Bluegrass was a P~ race in which Len gave big efforts to a number of the horses. I found it a tad strange too I admit, but I understood where he was coming from. I did not give a ton of weight to those figures, the same way I would have not given much credence to yours or anyone else\'s, The truth is when the pace is that slow, the final time is much less meaningful, and the resulting figures are too, no matter who\'s figures you use. You had the number different then Len\'s, obviously you think his was wrong. It is up to the customers how they want to handle those P~ races and to who\'s they believe are correct. I personally don\'t lend P~numbers much credence in anybody\'s set of figures (yours, Lens, Beyer etc).



Good luck to all
-The Bull

TGJB im not going to throw Len under the bus if that\'s what you want. I do however question the Derby numbers for the top few horses. As I said, the Preakness result makes more sense if you give Street Sense and Curlin a faster number. In my opinion (and you can give yours since your a pattern guy too) Street Sense\'s Ragozin pattern would have looked better heading into the Preakness had he received a 1\"-2 for the Derby. It meant he surpassed his 2yo top and was ready to move forawrd (though it was less likely than normal given the timing).

All of my speculation comes after I see the Preakness number, which may just be post race handicapping. In general, you can\'t just see the results and then fit previous numbers to make the outcome make more sense. Personally, i think the Preakness # was an out of whack result that was difficult to predict on any level. If Len had made the Derby number 3 or 4 pts faster, I would still be negative on the top 3, and it would still be hard to predict a negative number for Curlin, though not as difficult given the new pattern.

Jerry, honestly I have no idea about the Bluegrass #. The point about the pace being so slow is valid. \"The horses did not do much running until the final few furlongs, so it\'s hard to imagine that some of those put forth efforts that big numbers wise\" is that what you are trying to say??? First, I want to say I did not bet Bluegrass Day, I have no access to their variant or ground loss formula information. I had no access to other final times that day to compare it to, so my opinion is not really all that informed in this spot. To answer your question directly, I would say it is possible that Street Sense\'s effort in the Derby was similar to the Bluegrass effort. From a ground loss perspective alone, Street Sense made a sustained wide run into a hot part of the race in the Bluegrass, while he skimmed the fence virtually both turns in the Derby. That being said, it is also possible that the Derby was a better effort. I do not know, I am not a figure maker. I would defer to guys like you and Len, and in this situation you differ. I have been a Ragozin user for a while, and I have made consistent money with them, so I would tend to give Len the benefit of the doubt in this case (this is not to say any figure making process is infallible).

I did not bet Bluegrass Day so I did not have access to the sheets before hand to compare the previous tops and histories of each horse. I do have the updated Sheets for the five Bluegrass participants that raced in the Derby. I am not sure which horses you are referring to running HUGE new tops. I do know Len had Teuflesberg and Dominican running at least 2 pt tops. I would say those numbers held as Dominican and Teuflesberg reacted to those big tops on short rest in the Derby and ran poorly. I do not know the other horses who ran tops, but if you are referring to Times Squared, I would say it\'s possible he had a new top. I could be wrong but he did have slower numbers going in, and in the Bluegrass he was about 7 wide, and managed to lose by only 3 lengths. He did run a nice race. Like i said, I did not see the sheet of Times Squared so I do not know how to take the context of his Bluegrass, nor do I recall where or if he ran next. Therefore it is hard for me to determine if the figure held up.

I do not want to really get into an argument Jerry, I respect you greatly. I know you think Len got the Bluegrass and the Derby wrong. I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am saying I use Len\'s numbers with the assumption they are correct, and I have been rewarded with consistent profits year after year. Are there times I question certain numbers? Yes, but that does not mean I would not question yours if I had access to them. I am a natural skeptic, it\'s what I do. Am I saying Len and crew are infallible and never make mistakes? No, but I would think the same thing about your operation as well, so my comments do nothing to validate what you are saying.

All I know is, Len\'s numbers are very accurate in most if not every race, and I have used them with great confidence and success in the past and will continue to do so in the future. This is not to say your numbers are any more or less accurate. Im sure you have a great product as well that provides value for you and your customers. Have a nice day.



Here\'s hoping we can all just get along,
-The Bull

Richie, Im sure you knew I was referring to HAJ\'s ability to get big efforts out of a horse in a short period of time, that\'s what I meant by short term. In no way do I want to diminish Jerkens\' longevity and success in this game. I just was using him as an example of a guy who\'s not afraid to run a horse on short rest, and can get a good effort out of him in the process.

Your comments on RD2 are right on the money.


-Bull

Fkach,

That is a valid point you\'re making. You\'re referring to the opportunity cost of not running the horse in certain spots, to keep him fresh for spots down the road. It makes sense, yes it is a drawback to the \"softy\" philosophy. But to counter I would posit that if the spots you are gunning for are consistently bigger purses than the sum of the races you are skipping to stay fresh, than that could conceivably cancel your theory out....especially when considering the potential breeding windfall from winning in those \"big spots\" such as the Derby, Met Mile, BC etc.... Just playing devil\'s advocate.


-The Bull

Miff,

Im not saying that I do not use race shape, or lone lead theory in my handicapping. I do, but only as a guide post as to who will be wide, and situations where one of the speed horses figures to clear and GET THE RAIL. My reasons have nothing to do with pace, but more so ground loss. As far as lone speed goes, I believe that seriously gets overbet in many parts of the country, and with so many tracks going to Poly or Synthetic, I don\'t want my horse on the lead anymore anyway lol.

We all have different strategies and styles. That\'s what make the game great Miff, as you know. The key is being able to make your style work for you. I am not nearly as dogmatic as you think. My post was heavily Sheet versed because that was the topic. I will say that Sheets are the main component in my aresnal,but i am not \"strictly sheets\" and I do pretty well with it. That\'s not to say others aren\'t or can\'t do well with other methods. Good luck to all.


-The Bull

Miff,

I agree, there are other factors necessary in the handicapping equation. The Sheets are the cornerstone of my approach yes, but they are not the whole bowl of wax. I will say that I give very little to no credence to pace. My methodology is designed to predict change. I feel that in this game, too many people think in a linear manner. When you try to predict deviations from the typical, that\'s where you get an edge. I attempt to determine the number that each horse figures to run today, based on NUMEROUS factors, some of those non sheet related, if that makes sense. For instance, at Philly Park, if Jayne Vaders claims a horse off of some low % trainer, you can give the horse credit for running at least 2-3 pts better today than what you would have predicted without the trainer change. The bets with my biggest edge come from those where my predicted number is in stark contrast with the horse\'s recent history.

My comments on the Triple Crown horses were intended to be an overall generalization, not specific to this year. I said \"some top 3yos\", not \"all top 3yos\". I agree, that Preakness went FAST.

As for your Ragozin # questions...... I did not bet the Preakness, with the exception of the Pick 4. I saw no value whatsoever. That being said, I will go on record as saying I was a little disappointed in the way the figures \"performed\" in the Preakness. Given the Ragozin #\'s, you would have to find the result of the Preakness implausible. If Street Sense is struggling to get back to his 2yo top (as Ragozin says) it\'s hard to imagine he moves forward to a 0 on 2 weeks rest. If Curlin reacted 3 pts in the Derby to his Ark effort, again it\'s hard to imagine he moves forward almost 7 pts off the Derby to a negative # off of two weeks. My analysis (as was Len\'s, I believe), that Curlin was more likely to go backward again than he was to go forward.

Let me continue by saying this is a game of %\'s and my analysis given the Derby numbers, was that it was unlikely that both Street Sense and Curlin would improve to that level. It was certainly possible, but given the patterns, I would say the % would be low, and given the odds, made neither one a bet. I don\'t want to put words into Len\'s mouth, but I would assume he would echo that.

I believe in the Ragozin numbers, I believe in Len\'s ability to get the right number. However, I do question if the read on the horses would have been different had he had the Derby a few pts faster for the top horses. Personally, I would still be a bit negative on Street Sense and Curlin in the Preakness if he gave Street Sense a 2 or 1\" and Curlin maybe a 3-4, but I would not have been nearly as surprised by the result, particularly Street Sense. I am not trying to say the numbers were wrong in any spot. Im just saying from a % standpoint, I would give Street Sense a greater % chance to get to a 0, had his Derby been given a faster number. If Curlin had been given a number in the Derby which was slightly faster than his Ark Derby, the case could be made that he had another forward move in him (though on two weeks rest, that would be tough), as opposed to the 6 which he got, which could be viewed as the signal that he had no more forward moves in him for the time being given his races and spacing. That being said, I believe had Curlin skipped the Preakness, given his 6 in the Derby, you could play him to move forward, maybe even past the 3 top when Belmont Day came around.

I will finish by saying that I am not as good at reading patterns as Len, so I will not dismiss his reads. I may disagree at times, but I always have respect for his opinion and always understand where he comes from with his argument. Actually our reads were similar on the Preakness. We were both negative on the top 3. Some people will say the numbers were right, but it was just a crazy, outlier type result that occured in the Preakness. Others will say that the Derby (and maybe Bluegrass) figures were wrong in the first place, which explains many Sheet users being fooled by the resulting Preakness figures. I will tend to side with the first reason, but I understand where you\'re coming from if you want to side with the second reason.


Licking my chops for the Belmont Day pick 4,
-The Bull

Miff,

I knew I might get roasted by a few here on this board, here\'s hoping we can continue to keep the discourse civil....

My qualifications, I am a professional gambler with about half of my income coming from horses (the rest poker). I have been a serious student of the game since I was 6. I grew up around horses and managed my Grandfather\'s horses up until his death in 2004. You may remember a stakes winning grass mare named Merry Princess. We bought her for 5500 and she won 3 stakes and almost 400k all in turf sprints. She was actually bred to Point Given (though the offspring only brought 40k at auction last week). I am also a horse owner myself.

When I questioned Nack\'s authority to speak on the matter, I was referring to his authority to question sheet methodology. Clearly from reading his article it is apparent that he does not fully understand the process. As a devout (Ragozin) sheet user since the age of 15 and serious pupil of the handicapping/management ideology of the Sheets, I feel I was qualified to make an intelligent comment on the article.

I am not saying that there are set in stone rules when it comes to racing horses. I acknowledge that there are guys who have had short term success giving horses little to no rest (Jerkens, RD2 come to mind). In my opinion, the reason why some of the top 3yos are able to make it through the rigorous Triple Crown races with a fair amount of success has nothing to do with the way they are handled by their connections. They are facing other, lesser quality 3yo\'s, facing the same rigors of the same schedule. Most of the \"new shooters\" who skip the Derby and run in the Preakness are bums who did not run in the Derby because they didn\'t belong there. It would take a supreme regression by the top 3yos to even allow the \"new shooters\" to contend, let alone win.

Your comments in analyzing the Triple Crown success and failure of TAP compared with Lukas and Baffert are obviously accurate. Todd has not even come close to sniffing the overall success of the other two. That is not proof, however, that the Lukas methodology is superior, or vice versa. As I said, it took Lukas a while to win his first Derby. TAP deserves a little more time before he gets ripped for his TC failures.

As a few posters already mentioned, the beauty of the sheet methodology is that it gives the horses the best chance to be able to perform at a top level for a greater amount of time. You want to have a star for two months and then nothing for the remainder of his career, then let someone with the Lukas ideology train your horses. No one is denying that you can coax big efforts short term out of horses with little rest. Many guys have proven that. All we are saying is that sheet methodology can also get those big efforts short term, and that way appears to be much better for the longevity of the horse.

I knew my post might bring its critics, and that\'s ok. I enjoy the civil debates with my fellow racing fans, especially the posters on this board, who are some of the most knowledgable and insightful fans the sport has. My main gripe was the way Nack completely dismissed the Sheets as a valuable tool on the Triple Crown trail,as if horses with good spacing and rest never won a TC race, or a horse with Sheet connections never won a TC race either. Throw that in with his obvious bias against the younger generation of trainers, and you can see why I found the article a bit offensive.


Nothing but love,
-Bull

Ok I just got done vomitting, and here are my thoughts....

Who the hell is William Nack, some horse racing fan with a journalism degree? What is this guy an expert because he wrote a biography on Secretariat, or he used to work for Sports Illustrated? I guess that makes you qualified to criticize something you obviously know nothing about (sheet related horse management questions). The guy has probably never looked at a sheet in his life, let alone seek out sheet experts for help correctly identifying the methodology. As stated here earlier by a previous poster, he inaccurately simplifies the whole sheet reading process required to handle horses.

Being a young man, I really do not mean to bash old people, but this is a perfect example of what is wrong with way too many people when they hit their "golden years". They become venomous and bitter towards anything remotely younger, fresher, and contrary to their ancient, time honored ideologies. I am sure I am not the only victim of this, but it's disgusting.

Notice how Nack did not rip the older horsemen who use sheets (Frankel comes to mind); his specific attack was directed at the younger horsemen, which is why Todd Pletcher gets thrown under the bus. Pletcher's sheet methodology seems to be working quite fine when he's winning multiple Eclipse Awards, multiple Breeder's Cup races, two Kentucky Oaks, and setting numerous records for stakes wins and purse earnings. I like Baffert, but how is the Baffert/Lukas methodology doing in the classics the last few years? That style has left them without starters able to even compete, because the strenuous over-extending of their young horses leaves them with little come Derby time. Remember it took Lukas a while to finally get the Derby. Leave Todd alone for a few years. If I want to have a top level horse compete effectively into his late 3yo and 4yo campaigns, Id much rather have a Sheet trainer. Where are all those top older horses in the Lukas and Baffert barns?

I don't see Nack criticizing Michael Matz for his handling of Barbaro. Couldn't he be considered a "softy" for his well spaced campaign of Barbaro including a five week layoff heading into Louisville? Did Barbaro have to win by 10 to make Nack a believer?

The old timers spend too much reminiscing about the "good old days" to ever see the present day clear enough to comment intelligently on it. The whole "I'm older so I know more than you" attitude speaks volumes about a person. I found Nack's article inaccurate, poorly researched and unprofessionally biased. I would think an old timer, who has done this for so long, such as Mr. Nack, would know better.


Yours never afraid of change,
- The Bull

Well two of the names on your list already did....

Shireffs - Giacomo
Drysdale - Fusaichi Pegasus

and Frankel and Oneil are two of the rare ones who get horses to run well outside of California. And i am about as \"anti\" california as it gets, but have to keep things real on the board Shanny.



-Bull

Wait, so you guys are saying there are big races going on in Dubai right now??? Those of us with TVG have no idea. But in TVG\'s defense, they did give us extensive coverage of the Tampa Bay Race 2 post parade, and a rousing interview with John Lee at Aqueduct to talk about Inner Track racing. Give me a break!!! If anyone has TVG through Direct TV, please write them and ask them to put HRTV on the pacakge instead or in addition to TVG. I need real racing, real coverage and real insight. This is a joke.



-Bull

I am not a track superintendant, so I could be wrong..... but I find it really odd that Turfway needed to \"restructure\" the composition of the polytrack in the first place. Trainers saying that the new poly tends to create..... \"potentially hazardous conditions for horses and jockeys, especially during wet and colder weather\", pretty much stops the train at the tracks for me. The only kind of weather you are going to have in Northern Kentucky in the winter is \"wet and colder\". Wasn\'t the whole point of the polytrack to reduce breakdowns and create a safer, more raceable surface in extreme conditions? The old polytrack seemed to be doing its job. Why tinker with it at all? They needed to speed the track up??? I guess there weren\'t enough horses winning on the lead LOL. We wonder why the drug problems, \"after the bell\" wagering problems, and takeout issues continue to go unresolved. Look at what the higher ups are spending their time doing. There are so many things in racing that need fixing, why are people wasting their time on something that was not broken.


-Bull