Beyer's advice for the Sheik

[jimbo66]

SoCal,

Logic 101?

CH didn\'t write that there is ZERO chance that this can work.  He said there is zero evidence that this approach increases the chances of winning.

One winner in 57 years, means it CAN work, but statistically, with a relatively small sample, the evidence suggests it is not the best and most successful approach.

I really don\'t want to debate how you read CH\'s remarks, with how I read his remarks.  I am pretty sure that I understand what he said, since we debated it in February on a different thread.

My only point was that in my opinon you were a little overboard with your \"arrogance and poor judgment\" comment.  You are taking a minority opinion on the Dubai approach to the Derby, and you will be rewarded with a great value bet (I would presume). But those of us that feel the evidence is to the contrary are not arrogant or in poor judgment.  

We\'ll see in about 6 weeks.

[SoCalMan2]

mrhill

I am just looking for the fastest horse in the race to win about 20% of the time at average odds of 8-1 or better.

In all seriousness, if the fastest horse in the race (by a considerable margin) is long odds, that is a great bet.  That is all I am saying.  I have already said it might result in my biggest loss, but I am still okay with that.

Although I might appear to be a caveman, I do understand that the race does not always go to the swift nor the bread to the wise, but time and chance happeneth to them all.

That was done by memory, so apologies if i screwed up the quote.

[SoCalMan2]

Jimbo66

Are you suggesting that when I quoted Classhandicapper\'s utterance, I misquoted him?

[jimbo66]

So Cal,

Do you think the correct way to treat the Derby is the same as every other race?  If so, then great for you.  I do think the Derby is a little different.  Asking horses to run farther than they have ever before, this early in their 3 year old year, is a tall task and I think patterns that would fit races like your normal stakes race or Breeders CUp race, may not hold true in the Derby.  I personally believe that preparation is important (not the only factor for sure).  But, that doesn\'t mean that I ignore number power.  The first thing I look for (we all have our approaches) is for a fast horse, with tactical speed (to avoid traffic.  Then at the next level of importance to me are a trainer with triple crown experience, a horse with experience at CD, a horse with the proper foundation to get 1 1/4 (for me this is three preps)

Treating the derby like any other race would be akin to using the sheets to judge how 8 horses who are all first time turf, first time route, having raced only in dirt sprints and handicapping the race using only their dirt sprint T-Graph figures.  I think you have to look at other factors.

[SoCalMan2]

Dear Jimbo66

Just to make a point.  When I said \"arrogance and poor judgment,\" I was quoting from Beyer\'s article.  Those were not random words but were selected to show just how crazy Beyer is.  Remember, this is a thread about an article written by Beyer.  Just read the article and you will see him accuse the owner of a horse of being arrogant and of poor judgment. He threw the first stone not me.

[NoCarolinaTony]

SoCal,

What do think the horse ran in terms of TG numbers? -1?  It was an awesome display visually. Don\'t think TG has posted a FIG yet on that race but would be very interesting to see it.

Smarty J had by far the best Figs going into last year\'s race and still paid over $10.00 with the right amount of preps. No one accepted his breeding for 10F.

War Emblem also was fastest going in.

Evolution of the species is occuring before our eyes. Even the Filly Horse has a shot this year. (I am discoutning performance enhancement for this discussion)

NC Tony

[SoCalMan2]

NC Tony

I did not see the race and cannot answer the question intelligently.  I would not trust my own visual judgment anyway. I am not in any rush and am happy to wait for people who know more than me to do their work.

Finally, somebody who does not think I am nuts.  Thank you for the vote of confidence.

SCM2

SoCal,

>I am pointing out that since there is one example, he is CLEARLY wrong when he utters \"There\'s clearly ZERO evidence.\" <

One win is not evidence that coming in with a single prep or two is a \"good thing\" - which was my point (GOOD THING). At best, it is a small piece of evidence that it\'s not a total disaster to do so.

To be evidence that\'s it\'s a good thing you would have to show some postive correlation between fewer preps and POSITIVE performance.

SoCal,

>Are you suggesting that when I quoted Classhandicapper\'s utterance, I misquoted him?<

It was an honest misunderstanding of what I was saying.

[davidrex]

     
      s.cal.man2
  you definitely have not been gelded

[SoCalMan2]

Dear Classhandicapper,

Looks like I got stuck at the office and got an opportunity to fire off one last response before off to bed --

I am saying there IS a correlation between Sunny\'s Halo\'s derby preps and how he ran in the Derby. You are saying there is none and it is purely coincidence.  We will never resolve that one, but you said there was a clear zero of countervailing evidence to your position. Not any old zero, not approximately zero, but a CLEAR ZERO.  

Pretty fancy footwork this -- \"oh that, it was just a coincidence\" -- is.

So, let\'s put Sunny\'s Halo aside.

How do you explain Jerry\'s post about Victory Gallop running a top in the Derby off two preps?  Remember -- a top that was the best fig in the race.  Do you think that Victory Gallop ran a worse effort than Real Quiet did?  Are these now two pure coincidences where horses happened to run the best figure in the Derby off two preps?  

I guess the clear zero needs some more fancy footwork to pull it out, but lets assume you do and Jerry and me are wrong about Victory Gallop, Real Quiet really ran the better race.

You are very confident this means (enough to say there is clearly zero countervailing evidence) that it was Real Quiet\'s three preps that got him the victory over Victory Gallop\'s two preps.  That is putting an awful lot of weight on that January debacle which for some reason is considered a prep.  If I were asking you to show some correlations, I would like to see how that one works.

Anyway, why should I have to show any correlation between the great races Sunny\'s Halo, Victory Gallop, and Real Quiet ran off two preps? Yep, I am not counting the January Debacle but since people play fast and loose in this argument, why can\'t I?  My whole point is that this is an area of something we philosophers call \"uncertainty.\"  Your whole point is that I am unequivocally wrong.  Wrong to the point that there is \"clearly ZERO\" countervailing evidence to support me.  

Shouldn\'t you have the burden of proof here not me?  Shouldn\'t you have to prove the absence of a correlation (yes I am asking you to prove a negative -- but when things are 100% clear that is not so hard to do --it should be as easy as proving that 2 plus 2 do not equal 5).

Maybe you can prove the correlation between three races and a good effort? Just like the one that Sunny\'s Halo threw in the Preakness, right? I know, I know -- he had a rash.

Well, I am going to get a few hours sleep.