Battalion Runner Sheet and 2YO Top

[Molesap]

As a neophyte sheet reader, but long time handicapper I have some questions about Battalion Runner. I am still trying to figure things out in terms of reading patterns and wanted some feedback on this horse. He debuted in June, broke slow, had a ton of trouble and was green, yet still finished second getting a double digit number. Off for almost seven months, he came back on December 31 where he easily won a GP 7f MSW race and earned a much lower figure. He then ran three points worse while winning a month later in a GP AOC, where the X could be considered a bounce. Pletcher gave him two months off and he returned as the Wood Memorial favorite, pairing his top that he earned on December 31 when running second.

So my question is what do you consider his 2YO top? Is it as cut and dry that since he was a 2YO for 8 or so more hours that you use the December 31 number? Or do you use his debut as a 2YO where he had a ton of trouble in June and ended up on vacation for over half a year until his race on New Year's Eve? I remember from some of the previous seminar's that when considering the effort distribution for Kentucky Derby, horses that had less development from their 2YO top (less than 3 points I believe) fared better than those that had 3 or more points of development. So the question of the actual 2YO top seems pertinent as Battalion Runner will either have a huge number in terms of development if you use the debut race or he paired his 2YO top in the last if you use his second race. I was under the impression if it was the latter, pairing a 2YO top as a 3YO often signaled that the horse may be ready to move forward the next out. His top, which he has run twice, looks fast enough to possibly be competitive.

I know there are many other factors to consider and I understand that Battalion Runner is a Pletcher, so it is tough to project him moving forward based on Pletcher's history, but from a pure sheet read does he look like he has a chance? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Tavasco]

Someone else may be able to help you with the two year old top dilema, in the keep it simple context:

In seven words or less, what do you think is most important about Battalion Runner?

[SoCalMan2]

Molesap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a neophyte sheet reader, but long time
> handicapper I have some questions about Battalion
> Runner. I am still trying to figure things out in
> terms of reading patterns and wanted some feedback
> on this horse. He debuted in June, broke slow, had
> a ton of trouble and was green, yet still finished
> second getting a double digit number. Off for
> almost seven months, he came back on December 31
> where he easily won a GP 7f MSW race and earned a
> much lower figure. He then ran three points worse
> while winning a month later in a GP AOC, where the
> X could be considered a bounce. Pletcher gave him
> two months off and he returned as the Wood
> Memorial favorite, pairing his top that he earned
> on December 31 when running second.
>
> So my question is what do you consider his 2YO
> top? Is it as cut and dry that since he was a 2YO
> for 8 or so more hours that you use the December
> 31 number? Or do you use his debut as a 2YO where
> he had a ton of trouble in June and ended up on
> vacation for over half a year until his race on
> New Year's Eve? I remember from some of the
> previous seminar's that when considering the
> effort distribution for Kentucky Derby, horses
> that had less development from their 2YO top (less
> than 3 points I believe) fared better than those
> that had 3 or more points of development. So the
> question of the actual 2YO top seems pertinent as
> Battalion Runner will either have a huge number in
> terms of development if you use the debut race or
> he paired his 2YO top in the last if you use his
> second race. I was under the impression if it was
> the latter, pairing a 2YO top as a 3YO often
> signaled that the horse may be ready to move
> forward the next out. His top, which he has run
> twice, looks fast enough to possibly be
> competitive.
>
> I know there are many other factors to consider
> and I understand that Battalion Runner is a
> Pletcher, so it is tough to project him moving
> forward based on Pletcher's history, but from a
> pure sheet read does he look like he has a chance?
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.

From my read, there is no cut and dried answer to your question and you need to have some flexibility in the read.  As to his debut, it was almost in May.  That is insanely early for a 2yo.  A \"10\" with a lot of trouble in that context is a fairly nice figure....but i would caution against trying to adjust it to some figure to give you a 2yo top.  Just know that the 10 is not a meaningful fig to try to use as a top or a reaction point.

As to the NYEve figure, you are right, a few hours later and that is a three year old number.  

You have a set of problems in trying to figure a two year old top, but this is not unusual.  Other times, you also have horses that never ran as a two year old and you also have horses that never reacted as a two year old and these horses create the same conundrum.   For Battalion Runner, he could have a two year old top that makes his three year old improvement not too much or too much.  Putting aside trainer and other external factors to the sheet read, one common answer is that if the horse is being ignored at the betting windows, give him the benefit of the doubt in the direction of a better 2yo top, if he is being overbet at the windows, then don\'t give him that benefit and assume a worse 2yo top.  

From a different perspective, I would also consider looking at the horse as if the New Years Eve race was his debut.  On the theory that anything he ran so early in his 2yo year is an unreliable figure, just ignore it, and read the sheet without it.  Remember, there are 2yo in training sales in June.  In theory, those horses\' workouts should show up on the sheet and how are you going to read that?  We are all already ignoring early two year old efforts from these sales anyway, so why not also just ignore an extremely early 2yo race.

[TempletonPeck]

SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one common answer is that if
> the horse is being ignored at the betting windows,
> give him the benefit of the doubt in the direction
> of a better 2yo top, if he is being overbet at the
> windows, then don\'t give him that benefit and
> assume a worse 2yo top.

I\'d be careful with this, for a couple reasons: 1) the market is giving you an additional piece of information in either scenario, either that your horse is live or dead in their eyes, and that\'s valuable information, and 2) you\'re downgrading the likelihood of his good performance on the basis that he is underlaid in your eyes (you\'re double-counting - downgrading his appeal as a bet once for the low price, and then again downgrading his likely performance because of the low price).

[TempletonPeck]

\"Outwork still owes me money!\"

Two words to spare! ;-)

Seriously though, his sheet isn\'t a perfect match for Outwork\'s, but a few things in common, very early 2yo start, exiting the Wood, pattern that may suggest improvement, trained by Pletcher.

[SoCalMan2]

TempletonPeck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCalMan2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > one common answer is that if
> > the horse is being ignored at the betting
> windows,
> > give him the benefit of the doubt in the
> direction
> > of a better 2yo top, if he is being overbet at
> the
> > windows, then don\'t give him that benefit and
> > assume a worse 2yo top.
>
> I\'d be careful with this, for a couple reasons: 1)
> the market is giving you an additional piece of
> information in either scenario, either that your
> horse is live or dead in their eyes, and that\'s
> valuable information, and 2) you\'re downgrading
> the likelihood of his good performance on the
> basis that he is underlaid in your eyes (you\'re
> double-counting - downgrading his appeal as a bet
> once for the low price, and then again downgrading
> his likely performance because of the low price).


One needs to make an assessment taking into consideration your points.  

For example, if the odds are low because of unusual betting (such was when Thorograph gives the \"$\" designation), then you need to take that into consideration, I agree.  Similarly, if the connections of a horse are known to bet their own horses heavy and a horse from such outfit should be bet and is not, then I would take that \"death on the board\" as very relevant.  However, if the odds do not suggest some hidden evidence that is influencing the betting, then I would not agree.  

Where the board is not giving you information, then you have to remember that nothing is 100% one way or the other and that if you are taking a long horse, you have a lot of room to be wrong, but if you take a short horse you do not have very much room if any at all.
 
In terms of double-counting one\'s opinion in making these assessments, you need to be mindful when you are making these assessments of the possibility of double-counting and adjust your thinking in light of that.  This is no different from when you project how you think the crowd will bet a horse versus how you think they should bet that horse.