Dana,

It may not be her fault that the race was on Pro-Ride, but the only way to compare their races is to assess the competition they ran against. While the BC Classic victory should not be ignored, you can\'t deny that she basically beat a couple of good turf horses and a bunch of dirt horses (which as a group are something like 0 for 100+ in the last 2 BC\'s) and yes I\'ll say what Jerry implied -- the best turf horses are generally slower than the best dirt horses. As a sheet user you also cannot deny that Rachel has consistently run better figures than Zen.  Mike Smith says she can run faster, but the fact remains that she hasn\'t and HOY voting does not and should not take into account speculation about a horses ability.

That said, the move Zen made down the stretch is one the greatest and most exciting things I\'ve ever witnessed.  But not HOY.

I think Kettleoneup will repeat the zero and Leah\'s Secret repeats the 1 (she repeated her top 8 times last year). Those 2 are my keys.  I will box them and then use them separately with Asi Siempre/Indian Vale/Fiery Pursuit. Savers with IV just because its Pletcher and the backside security is non-existent at CD.

Good luck.  I agree with your take on the 7th & I might single the 1.  Also the 7 in the 4th scares me a little.

4,5,8/3,4,5/2,6,8/1,7/4,5/6,9 = $432

Don\'t tell anyone but it has been going on all meet.  Check out the anomolies in the exacta, double and p3 payoffs and bet what you see.  The success rate at the DMR meet is unbelievable.

Jerry,

Here is my response to Indulto on other board:

\"If you read my prior posts on the subject on either board -- same handle on both -- you would know that I think the study is totally flawed and capable of proving nothing.  I was not celebrating anything because the study is worthless.  But when one side sticks there neck out and says the study will in fact show who has the more accurate figures, well that side has everything to lose.  I can guarantee you that if the results were the other way around, there would have been a lot of chirping on the other board.  I wasn\'t even following it until today when I noticed absolutely no discussion and it piqued my curiousity.  I don\'t really care who has the most accurate figures as I think reading patterns is the most important piece of handicapping and betting strategy/value plays are the rest.  I tend to use the TG product for Turf races because (a) to JB\'s credit I can buy a Turf only package online and (b) I have had success doing so.  At the track I usually buy the Rags.\"

I didn\'t think that activity on this board was in any way linked to your whereabouts.  I apologize for the sarcastic manner in which I simply posted the first weeks results. That is my personality and I\'m sticking to it.  I really have no dog in this fight.

Who is the arbiter of these new mid-contest rules?  Did the rags representative agree to this outcome or is it just you calling the shots?

Contest Rule:  \"If there are fewer than three figures for a given horse, average up what is there.\"

Changing the rules already after the fact!!!

Jerry wrote:  \"The idea of using last place finishers does not work, as a horse running terrible is often a function not of ability but of soundness. \"

Yes and at SAR and DMr a horse running well is very often a function of something other than ability (e.g. Pletcher/White Mercedes winning at a 50-60% rate the first several weeks of the meet).

If you want to increase the sample size, then you should also take each service\'s lowest rated horse and see which one finishes lower.  It would be just as meaningful (more meaningful to those that use the numbers more to eliminate horses from contention) if the only goal is to see which numbers are more accurate.  

Is it just me or does anyone else think that by throwing out the worst of the last 3 figs and averaging the other 2 that you are more likely to wind up with bounce candidates than horses that could be expected to run well.  It might be more relevant to throw out the best figure and average the other 2.  Alternatively, it would be more ideal from a statistical point of view to take the last 5 and throw out both the best and worse and average the other 3.  That way you don\'t wind up with a skewing to the high or low end.

Didn\'t see the analysis and liked the Rice horse only mildly underneath until the exacta over the fav wen\'t from 138 down to 94 in one click just before posttime.  I had originally keyed the 3 horse, but luckily had enough time to get a nice win bet in and the tri.

I don\'t think SNS would have beat Bernardini in any event, but does anyone else think that KJD got suckered into moving too early twice in the race -- once by going too fast early to stay in touch with Like Now and then trying to move with BD when that one made a premature move?

I\'ve seen far too many horses breakdown and seen them do a great many crazy things (e.g. run into the concrete retaining wall at crc because it refused to turn into the stretch; jump into the infield lake at Hia just a couple of strides from winning a turf race), but I have never seen a horse breakdown behind.  Very odd.

First let me say that any day that any horse breaks down at any track is a bad day for racing and leaves me with an empty feeling whether I\'ve won or lost (particularly when I am there to witness it in person).  But I\'m also keenly aware of the fact that if it weren\'t for the crazy owners and trainers that insist on running short-priced favorites on short rest coming off significant tops, there would not be very many really good betting opportunities out there.  If you are really concerned about all horses, then why not just make a rule that any horse that runs within let\'s say 6 Beyer points of his top or better, has to wait 4 weeks before it can race again.  This would save many more horse lives than just restructuring the TC races.