Ummmm....

[mjellish]

IMO this is a game of percentages.  The horse racing landscape is littered with examples like Mendelssohn where a horse runs off the screen and produces a huge fig relative to what they have historically run, arguably aided by the racing conditions.  We generally only talk about them when they occur by big names in big races (see Frosted, Dreaming of Julia, Quality Road, et al).  But this type of stuff happens in claiming races too.  These horses almost never reproduce that big fig in their next effort.  They usually back up.  And I would argue that on an absolute scale, huge negative numbers on huge jump ups are even less likely to repeat (yes that is an assertion but I am pretty sure I could support it with data).

So from a pure sheets point of view, regardless of how this colt looks, I would say you have to play Mendel to regress.  Sight unseen, right here, right now I would put those percentages at about 90% or maybe even better.  The question is how much will he regress, where will that put him relative to the field he will face in the KY Derby (if he even makes it to the race), and what type of odds are you getting associated with that unknown risk.  At 30-1 this would be a no brainer to still use the colt.  But we aren\'t likely going to see that.  So at what odds would you take him as a win candidate.  12-1? 8-1? 6-1? 4-1?  

And if you like a different horse to win the Derby that is one of the favorites, would you use Mendel underneath, as a saver, or would you just let him beat you?  What about if you like a bomber?  

Those are all things to consider IMO.  Some other things to consider are that he is impeccably bred, he is handled by an ace, he has already shipped over here and won, dirt may be his preferred surface, etc.

Probably too soon for most of this.

[TGJB]

Lots of really good posts here recently, I guess the wackos are waiting for warmer weather before they bloom.

I shouldn’t be scooping my own Derby seminar, but the Archives contain several who came in off big negs, results vary, hence the percentage issue is dead on.

None bigger than Sinister Minister...

[johnnym]

Would like to see OBriens training stats.
Does TG keep those for Euro trainers?
Great Posts Mike TY

[johnnym]

TG would you consider Always Dreaming in that catagory?

[wrongly1]

Keep in mind AD\'s Derby was on a conveyor belt of a track, No Dosing should have proved that during the day.  Unless like me your were drinking, way too much.

[mjellish]

I know I did.  A 9 pt jump up, a colt that wasn\'t listening to his jock in the AM leading up to the race and had to be put in draw reins, trained by Pletcher coming out of Florida.  He wasn\'t even the fastest horse in the race and was sent off as the 9/2 favorite.  That was an easy play against.  I decided to let him beat me.  And he did - that day.  But I would play it the same way all over again, and he hasn\'t done anything since.  IMO the 2nd big effort fried him for good.

I played Irish War Cry last year.  Meh...

But what was really tough for me, and a few people on this board can verify this, was that I really liked Lookin at Lee to hit the board along with IWC last year.  I even considered structuring my whole bet around keying LAL.

There was no way I was going to play an AD/IWC exacta.  But knowing how much I liked LAL, what I should have done is at least covered that AD/LAL Exacta.  I was getting over 150-1 on that.  That\'s better than the percentage chance I gave AD of being able to pair or move forward off his big jump up top, and I thought LAL had a shot to even win the race.

It would have been worth playing.

But I\'m stubborn and not that smart I guess.

[FrankD.]

Freakin Stubborn epidemic has hit epic proportions !!!
I’m on a 45 year roll of it with the 4 legged beasts🐎

[BitPlayer]

Last decade, TG did a a few studies of horses (not just Derby horses) that had run negative 1 or better prior to July of their 3yo year and run back within 42 days.  The last version I have (from 2009, covering 2000 through 2008, n=58) shows 15.5% ran a pair or better in the next start.  32.8% ran an off race and 51.7% X\'d.  The percentages were a little uglier if Smarty Jones was excluded.

One other Mendelssohn-related thought:  My recollection is that, back when there were more synthetic surfaces, people used to play horses going synth-to-dirt for a \"poly pop.\"  If memory serves, the poly pop was usually followed by a bounce.

[johnnym]

I’ve moved to the acceptance phase.

[mjellish]

It’s a contagion for us all or nothing types.  Guess its a good thing, for us, that people dont walk around carrying swords anymore.

[FrankD.]

Michael,

Breaking News:
Swords are out, haven’t you heard? It’s our 2nd amendment right to be able to fire 200 rounds per minute....... Our forefathers with their single load muskets said so.

Sorry guys we have to sneak in common sense today whenever we can! It’s certainly not in abundance. Back to 🐘ðŸ¦"🐎 wagering on 4 legged beasts. After all Santa Anita is now running Arabians.... Miff texted me the 10 is a lock tomorrow pairing his top running 7f in 1:32.

[trackjohn]

We AKL do it... might be ______(winner of the 1984 Flamingo)...

[trackjohn]

All do it!!

[Niall]

So the strategy should be to play him to react, right? Given his development, what is a realistic regression and where does that leave him? Does the turf-synth-dirt change the equation at all? Timeform has him going to 127 from 116. Is that a lot for them? The early future odds say there’s value created. Hey, enjoy the racing tomorrow, and good luck

[Furious Pete]

As for two people coming up with the same result, that only proves reliability. What you need is validity.