In the past 20 years of the Preakness only 2 non Derby starters have won.
2000 Red Bullet
2006 Bernardini
In the years 1992,1993,1995,2002,2003,2004 & 2005 non Derby Starters placed.
In the years 1989,1994,1998,1999,2004 & 2006 non Derby Starters showed.

In the years 1986,1987,1988,1990,1991,1996,1997,& 2001 Derby Starters Ran 1-2-3.
In the years 1989,1994,1998, & 1999 Derby starters ran 1-2.
In the years 1992,1993,1995,2002,2003,& 2005 Derby starters ran 1,3.
In 2000 Derby starters ran 2-3.
In 2004 Derby starter won.
In 2006 derby Starter placed.

Horses that ran in the derby have a much better chance in the Preakness.
Running back in 2 weeks doesn\'t seem to matter.
The non Derby starters did not run in the Derby because they probably were not good enough to win so what makes their chances any better in the Preakness.

SoCalMan2: First, off, I am a wimp and probably skipping the Preakness because, to me, I cannot see an edge other than throwing out Curlin and thinking that Circular Quay will represent value.  If this race were not the Preakness, it is the typical type of race that my handicapping says to skip.

The problem is that I have a hard time throwing out either Street Sense or Hard Spun.  At the same time, there is simply no value in betting them.  I recognize that the study shows that they are serious bounce candidates.  However, the study focuses on something called minus 1.  As clear and straight as minus 1 may seem, it is not so simple.  A minus 1 in 2007 is very different from a minus 1 in 1997.  The point is not the number whatever that number is, but rather the concept of an outrageous performance in the context of the relevant norms.  An outside performance 5 years ago could be a normal performance today.  When you go into the archives and look at the sheets of horses like War Emblem, Funny Cide, Real Quiet, Charismatic, Silver Charm and others, you will see horses that made a top effort in the Derby and were able to hold that form for the two weeks necessary to the Preakness.  If you were to knock 3 points off the scale back then, all of a sudden you have a bunch of minus ones that did not bounce on two weeks rest.  The key to me is trying to see how the big effort number fits in with the rest of the context of the particular horse\'s sheet.  Unfortunately, that does not seem to help me with this year\'s Preakness.  

On Circular Quay, what a weird sheet.  If you were to imagine that instead of the sheet we have, he ran the Lousiana Derby figure late in his two year old year....then took two months of before starting his three year old season, you would see a horse that had a minus 1 as his two year old top who came back to a zero in his first race off the layoff.  Coming into his second start, you would expect him to really move forward (even setting a new top).  

Anyway, these are all random thoughts....wish I could translate them into a sound way to bet this years\' race.

flushedstraight: gohorse10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The non Derby starters did not run in the Derby
> because they probably were not good enough to win
> so what makes their chances any better in the
> Preakness.


Maybe they have better form patterns? Non Derby starters hit the exacta for the last 5 years. That\'s where the value has been. This year looks different though with the 4 top Derby figs coming back, unless you buy into those fast sprint figs on the newcomers or the horse for course angle.

gohorse10: Al I was trying to show was that horses that ran in the Derby dominate the Preakness. This has nothing to do with the numbers they ran. I just think you should look at the 4 horses that ran in the derby and find at least the winner of the Preakmess. They might even make up the super in any order. All 4 of the Derby staters could react or pair and win.