SA Derby - ROTW

[tread]

Wow, I am really surprised at the number USST ran last out, didn\'t realize it was that big a race for him.  The ROTW looks pretty haphazard since all the good horses will likely bounce, but I do hope that one of the speed horses holds off USST to keep him at good odds for the Derby.

Also, a comment about the analysis.  The comment about Thunder Gulch being the ONLY horse to run a big number in Feb and run back to it in the derby is a little misleading.  Monarchos ran a zero in the first week of March last year, bounced, and ran back in the derby.  Same idea as TGulch, does it really make a difference that it was a week after Feb?

Throw IInk into the mix and you have another horse that ran big in the winter, bounced in spring, and ran back in the derby.  I don\'t see the relevance of saying you are only looking at big races run in Feb.  When you look at it from this perspective, 2 of the last 7 winners followed this pattern, along with a place horse who paid a $50 mutuel (which is better than picking a $20 winner in my book).

[Marc At]

I also wonder if the Paco Gonzalez stat cited in the analysis was a bit misleading. 26% overall and 40% off of layoffs, the analyst made a simplistic (?) case that Paco is the type of trainer that gets them to pop off the bench, and their form declines after that... Is that really true? If only 10-20% of his runners are layoff runners, and he clicks at 40% with those runners, then what would that make him with his other runners? 20%? Higher? If it\'s ~20%, doesn\'t that make Paco Gonzales an *excellent* trainer in races other than \"off the bench\"?

It would seem to me he may specialize in layoff situations, but he\'s excellent all-around, no?

[TGJB]

Treadhead wrote:
>
> Wow, I am really surprised at the number USST ran last out,
> didn\'t realize it was that big a race for him.  The ROTW
> looks pretty haphazard since all the good horses will likely
> bounce, but I do hope that one of the speed horses holds off
> USST to keep him at good odds for the Derby.
>
> Also, a comment about the analysis.  The comment about
> Thunder Gulch being the ONLY horse to run a big number in Feb
> and run back to it in the derby is a little misleading.
> Monarchos ran a zero in the first week of March last year,
> bounced, and ran back in the derby.  Same idea as TGulch,
> does it really make a difference that it was a week after Feb?
>
> Throw IInk into the mix and you have another horse that ran
> big in the winter, bounced in spring, and ran back in the
> derby.  I don\'t see the relevance of saying you are only
> looking at big races run in Feb.  When you look at it from
> this perspective, 2 of the last 7 winners followed this
> pattern, along with a place horse who paid a $50 mutuel
> (which is better than picking a $20 winner in my book).

TG--You\'re right, it\'s a little misleading. What I was trying to say was that horses aren\'t able to run big numbers beginning in Feb. and sustain them through the Derby. That was why I didn\'t like Monarchos last year (I forgot about him, probably blocked it out), and while he fooled me, he was done soon after.

Invisible Ink was different--he hit the number, tailed off, and came around, which is very unusual for a top spring 3yo--usually they run a top at least every other race.

Finally, I would point out 1. patterns are changing, probably because science is a wonderful thing, and 2. a big number 10 years ago is not a big number now, probably for the same reason.

[TGJB]

Marc At wrote:
>
> I also wonder if the Paco Gonzalez stat cited in the analysis
> was a bit misleading. 26% overall and 40% off of layoffs, the
> analyst made a simplistic (?) case that Paco is the type of
> trainer that gets them to pop off the bench, and their form
> declines after that... Is that really true? If only 10-20% of
> his runners are layoff runners, and he clicks at 40% with
> those runners, then what would that make him with his other
> runners? 20%? Higher? If it\'s ~20%, doesn\'t that make Paco
> Gonzales an *excellent* trainer in races other than \"off the
> bench\"?
>
> It would seem to me he may specialize in layoff situations,
> but he\'s excellent all-around, no?

TG--My comment and yours are not mutually exclusive. His horses do best off layoffs, not as well after that, and win a good % anyway. Came Home went back last time, and won. But you are better off betting his horses when fresh, and if they run big numbers and go off short subsequently, sometimes betting against them.

[derby1592]

Regarding the SA Derby: I like Easy Grades. He is lightly raced and his last may not be as big a jump as it seems given that the previous two were on the turf. Of the main contenders, he seems to be the most likely not to react and the best suited to the distance and pace. I do respect Mayokovsky though. He looks ouchy but very fast and a threat to wire the field.

Regarding the effect of big early 3yo figs: You point out two good exceptions last year with Monarchos and Invisible Ink but, prior to that, Thunder Gulch was about it. In past years, reacting to a 3yo effort prior to the Derby was normally not a positive sign so you have to wonder if last year was not jsut an anomaly.

Here is an updated excerpt from a post I made last year on this topic. As with all such similar guidelines, take it with a grain of salt.

Derby winners don\'t \"bounce\" - Not surprisingly, Derby winners tend to have consistently forward moving lines throughout their 3yo year prior to the Derby. 17 of the last 20 Derby winners did not \"bounce\" or \"regress\" after their first start as a 3yo. By this I mean that each start was either as good (if it is worse by less than a point, then consider that to be \"as good\") or better than any previous 3yo race.  The only 3 Derby winners that \"bounced\" as 3yo’s prior to the Derby were Monarchos, Swale and Thunder Gulch. Note that these three all regressed in the race immediately prior to the Derby (with the bounce induced by a peak effort in their penultimate Derby preps) and then rebounded in the Derby. No horse has regressed in an even earlier 3yo effort and still gone on to win the Derby. Apparently, bouncing in early 3yo preps (with the one possible exception noted above) is a sign that a horse is unlikely to run a peak performance in the Derby.

Good luck to all.

Chris.

[fastspeed]

...and (resuming a debate from approx 12 months ago) it is in my view debatable how much Monarchos really did \"bounce\" in the wood last year.  That day there was a truly diabolical speed bias so his \"effort\" was in any event way better than the actual figure.  Plus I believe that was the only two turn race on the day and it could have been made faster had Jerry wanted.

Not wanting to go over old news - just emphasizing the point you made in general.

[HP]

I could see Tinosa pairing up here, or backing up a little and still winning. The thing that jumps out is if Came Home runs another big one he\'ll be set up to take money in the Derby and run up the track. Big races from Tinosa and Mayakovsky wouldn\'t bode well for them next month either. HP

[MO]

I agree. I think USS Tinosa, proven at this distance, is the bet to win here, and the key to the exacta should he get beat.

Mark