Bloodhorse Belmont Preview.

[bobphilo]

Whether or not the horses will ever run this distance again is irrelevant to betting the race in the present.
Actually 12 second clips are not a slow pace in a long 12 furlong race.
Premature moves due to jockey ignorance of the Big Sandy are a big factor whether the horse is speed or a closer, as I said, and this is especially true in long distance races whether in the Belmont or not.

[ajkreider]

Agree about the early move worry, but you are exactly right about the pace.  These top level horses can run 12 second fractions all day, if by \"all day\" people mean 6F.  

A 1:36 mile is a winning time in most G3 races.  A 2:00 Derby almost certainly wins, and a 2:24 Belmont equals the record of whats-his-name.  In the past 20 years, exactly 2 Belmonts have been won in less than 2:27 (Point Given and last year). Nine times it\'s been over 2:29 - so if a trainer thinks he can get his horse to go around in :12 2/5 he should do it, since it will win this about half the time.

[mjellish]

I get that running 12 flat 1/8ths for a mile and half is Secretariat.  But to be clear, I said 12 and change 1/8ths, not 12 second flat 1/8ths.  And there\'s a big difference between those two statements.  Run the numbers and see what times you come up with.  

On the upper end, at 12.8 1/8ths you would have 6F in about 1:16.  That\'s crawling.

In the middle at 12.5 you would wind up with fractions that look like this: 25, 50, 1:15, 1:40, 2:05, 2:30.  That\'s still pretty slow early.
 
On the lower end, at 12.2 you get 24.4, 48.8, 1:13.2, 1:37.6, 2:02, 2:26.4 which would be a pretty strong race.

Of course horses don\'t usually run evenly every 1/8th.  But even if you take the 12.2 numbers above, if a front runner set those types of fractions early and gradually slowed down a few ticks for the last few, which is more representative of what actually happens, you would have a race that finished in 2:28 and change.  

The front runners are able to hang around at those kinds of splits, at least for a piece of it.

[cubfan0316]

Belmont preview

[ajkreider]

Everything you say is completely fair.  But my main point (and maybe it was more to sek) was that even for what seems like a slow pace, these top flight horses still can\'t keep it up at this distance.

At the 12.5 clip, all the way around - a final time of 2:30 wins 4 of the last 6 Belmonts - a career making score for the vast majority of horses and trainers.  The 2:26.4 is not only pretty strong, it\'s the 3rd quickest time going back to Secretariat.  

Union Rags and Tonalist both came home in :26 with opening fractions above :48.5. The danger isn\'t that the front runners get away with an easy early pace that allows them to cruise to the finish. It\'s that at this distance, the horses just aren\'t good enough to run that final 1/4 in under :25, regardless of the opening pace. Which means that for most horses, if they\'re behind at 10f, they probably aren\'t getting to the winner.

Unless you\'re the kind of horse who can negative split the race, like last year (hashtag #betterthannyqyuist).

[P-Dub]

cubfan0316 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Belmont preview

I was responding to the comment about specific races. He\'s saying the sample size is too small, I\'m pointing out that this race with a small sample size has had many good prices closers hit the board.

[bobphilo]

Too small sample sizes lead to unpredictable results in the long run, regardless of the prices paid by the insignificant sample. No reason to believe the results will continue.
I recall that someone once put out a book based on race specific data on the Derby. Filled with such nonsense that a horse must have at least 3 preps as a 3YO to win the race. Wonder what happened to that theory now?

[P-Dub]

bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too small sample sizes lead to unpredictable
> results in the long run, regardless of the prices
> paid by the insignificant sample. No reason to
> believe the results will continue.
> I recall that someone once put out a book based on
> race specific data on the Derby. Filled with such
> nonsense that a horse must have at least 3 preps
> as a 3YO to win the race. Wonder what happened to
> that theory now?

Its about odds Bob.

Closers at good odds have hit the board many times in the Preakness.  We can go back and forth about how many races are significant.

Your Derby example I agree with, but has no bearing on this discussion.

[bobphilo]

Odds, like everything else, are meaningless unless you have a significantly large sample to prove you have an advantage.
If the Derby is not relevant to this discussion, than the Preakness is not relevant to this discussion of the Belmont, as cabanfan has pointed out.
The thing these races have in common in this discussion is the irrelevancy of race specific theories.

[P-Dub]

bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Odds, like everything else, are meaningless unless
> you have a significantly large sample to prove you
> have an advantage.
> If the Derby is not relevant to this discussion,
> than the Preakness is not relevant to this
> discussion of the Belmont, as cabanfan has pointed
> out.
> The thing these races have in common in this
> discussion is the irrelevancy of race specific
> theories.

I wasn\'t talking about the Belmont.  I was talking about any race that could be labeled specific. In this case, The Preakness. That race has a specific distance at a specific track. Finding a constant, even if it doesn\'t go back 239 years, doesn\'t make it irrelevant.

Regarding sample size, its also important to get ahead of the curve.  While you wait for a larger sample size, you pass on winners. If race after race has closers hit the board at good odds, I\'m not going to wait until 2050 to use that data.

I never said, key these horses with every last dollar to your name.  But they can be used them to spice up exotics.

You cited an obscure piece of data regarding the Derby. I\'m talking about something specific to the running of the race.

\"The thing these races have in common in this discussion is the irrelevancy of race specific theories.\"

Your opinion, which your entitled to.  Results say otherwise.  

I\'ve got a 4th quarter to sweat through.

[Tavasco]

re: P-Dub\'s 4Q

That was nerve racking. I\'m watching the T.V. and not at all comfortable. Thinking how you and my Brother (the two most invested Warrior fans I\'m familiar with) must feel?

Great effort by Thompson!

[P-Dub]

Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: P-Dub\'s 4Q
>
> That was nerve racking. I\'m watching the T.V. and
> not at all comfortable. Thinking how you and my
> Brother (the two most invested Warrior fans I\'m
> familiar with) must feel?
>
> Great effort by Thompson!

Sharks go to the Stanley Cup for the first time in history.

Dubs force a Game 7 with a legendary performance from Klay. The entire team showed a lot of heart tonight.

And once again, my dogs had to leave the room. They got a victory treat to make up for the yelling tho.

Last year, when they won for the first time in 40 years, it felt like a fairy tale. This year, with all of the disrespect, it feels like a mission. This win tonight felt so good, I can\'t wait for Monday night.

What a week.

[bobphilo]

When have I ever said that one has to wait until 2050 to get a sufficient sample size? One can do a retrospective study (going into past runnings) where you can use a sufficient number of of races to assure a decent sample size today. The problem with that you have to go back too far and bring in out of date information, so that doesn\'t work either. I have already stated this.
The only solution is to use all the races run at this or similar distance run this year, there are hundreds.
If you think there is something supernatural about the Preakness that favors longshot closers, that\'s magical thinking. Closers are favored when there is a hot pace in any race and are disadvantaged when the pace is slow in any race, period. Why would anyone exclude this relevant data? Nothing weird about the Preakness.

[jerry]

If memory serves me correctly, it was 1 1/8 mile, the significance of which I can\'t imagine.

[johnnym]

Read that Smith is getting the up on SBN for the Belmont