Belmont Blathering -- Somewhere between Trivia and Science

[jbrown007]

Jimbo if you really think 5 weeks is enough time for him to fully recover and run a big number, not to mention that he has to now go a mile and half. I see that is very longshot at his price. 4 weeks rest going into the derby and he puked turning for home. He didn\'t come home exceptionally fast in the wood but ran a good overall race. I would agree with Rich that this horse is a play against. He most likely needs much more time to run his best and I\'m not positive he wants to go this far either. Battle of midway was 3w,3w, classic empire 3w,6w, both ran better against the \'bias\'. I can\'t even predict his odds but I would expect if he does run he will be somewhere around 4-1 line. Let\'s not forget Motion was super high on him going into the derby too.

[Gerard]

I won\'t feel nearly as good playing against him as I did playing against AD, lot of good that did. Just trying to justify beating CE as the potential short price favorite in this race. His pattern may well point to a new top on TG and he wins for fun.

[jimbo66]

Jbrown,

I can understand a negative position against the horse.  And I can\'t really argue strongly against it.  It is possible that I am sticking too long with a horse that I liked in the Derby and putting too much faith in a trainer who I think is one of the best.

I would not worry about the distance.  He has as much distance breeding in the bottom of his pedigree as any in this race.  

Saying he ran \"good overall race\" in the Wood is not an accurate statement.  He ran an EXCELLENT race in the Wood, faster than any race anybody in the Belmont has run.

These \"in and outers\" who seem to alternate good races are tough to gauge.

I haven\'t seen the sheets of any of the other new contenders in the belmont.  But handicapping the race starts with Classic Empire. While I won\'t argue with the \"math\" of the TG figure in the Preakness, the performance of CE in the Preakness was no \"pair up\" of his Derby.  That just isn\'t reflective of how he ran.  He buried a talented horse on the front end, through pretty fast fractions and then got run down late by a horse that tripped out, who also happened to be a fast/young/rested horse trained by the 2nd best trainer in our game.  CE was much the best in the Preakness and took a big step forward in that race, when you factor in pace and race dynamics.  So, those saying that \"he still hasn\'t broken through his 2 year old top\" being a reason to bet against him, I am not buying that.  (nor do I recommend anybody else).  That said, this will be the horse\'s 4th race in 8 weeks and if I buy my own logic that the Preakness was a forward move, then that makes it a bit more likely that it took something out of him.  Not sure the 1 1/2 miles does CE any favors (also not sure it hurts him, wouldn\'t mind some breeding experts taking a stab that question).  If 14 horses go, CE figures 2-1.  Eh.  Most likely winner, but potential reasons to bet against.  The problem for me is that while I would be comfortable taking 4-1 on IWC if he runs, because I know his best race is faster than CE\'s best, who else can we say that about.  Lots of love on this board for Tapwrit.  I don\'t know.  A few points too slow.  A forward move needed. What odds do we get on the early nominee for \"wise guy horse\" of the Belmont?  I would need 10-1 to get excited.  I don\'t think I get it, especially if IWC doesn\'t run.  Offshore is insane with the stupid odds I saw on the Japanese horse.  That horse isn\'t going off 4-1.  Maybe higher than 14-1.  There aren\'t enough stupid people betting to make this horse that short of a price.  (insert multiple punch lines there)

Jim

[sekrah]

If Tapwrit is a few points too slow then every horse in the race is a few points too slow except the one you are stuck on, and I haven\'t seen a pattern yet more likely to move forward than his.

The first thing Graham Motion needs to do is dump Rajiv Maragh.

[richiebee]

Jim:

My biggest problem with IWC is Motion\'s lack of commitment to running in the race;
of course he doesn\'t have to commit until early next week.

Casse has done a great job with Classic Empire. He has trained CE very lightly
after the KD. I would imagine he will be very keyed up for the Belmont and if you
like him you have to hope The Leper a/k/a Frenchy can (with apologies to Tom
Durkin and all of his many imitators) \"ration out the speed\". As you say, CE will
likely be 2/1, but in a 14 horse field that is acceptable in the horizontal
wagers.

Sekrah mentioned patterns for the Belmont. I am on record as saying pattern
analysis is not overly reliable with young 3YOs, many of whom only have 8-12
lifetime races.* Because of the Belmont distance, I might be likely to ignore a
great pattern if the pedigree is not suitable for the distance, or forgive what
some might perceive as an unfavorable pattern if the pedigree says 1-1/2 miles
will not be a problem.

---------
* To me the best utilization of pattern analysis is when TGAB, at one of his
marathon Spa seminars, points out a 6YO currently in awful form, but informs the
group that the current 6YO pattern is similar to the horse\'s pattern as a 4YO
which resulted in a win. This hypothetical 6YO sometimes wins at a boxcar mutuel;
whether TGAB bets is another matter.

[Tavasco]

Richiebee wrote:

\"My biggest problem with IWC is Motion\'s lack of commitment to running in the race\"

Reading between the lines, do you interpret GM\'s lack of commitment to be a function of the horse\'s health and/or condition/timing?

I for one am suspicious of the horses health after watching him drop an anchor and stop in the Kentucky Derby. An inability to keep up or a gradual fade I can reconcile to a sub par race. When do breathing or bleeding problems have to be disclosed?

Jimbo - a couple of posts which were terrific reads, the tranquility a plus.

[jimbo66]

Yes Sekrah,

They are all several points too slow.

So, as I said, handicapping the race starts with CE.  If he runs a 0 to negative 1, he wins.  Nobody besides IWC is likely to go there.

If you think CE bounces off the 4th effort in 8 weeks, then the race is wide open and I think I would look for even longer prices than Tapwrit will be.  Tapwrit is about as fast as a few who will be double his odds.

[sekrah]

jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you think CE bounces off the 4th effort in 8
> weeks, then the race is wide open and I think I
> would look for even longer prices than Tapwrit
> will be.  Tapwrit is about as fast as a few who
> will be double his odds.

Of the known patterns, none are as likely to run their figure as Tapwrit, who is also a prime candidate to move forward.

What good is a horse having a bigger price if they are unlikely to run their best figure?

[jimbo66]

Richie B,

I guess we will agree to disagree on trainer intent with IWC.  I read the fact that Motion is EVEN CONSIDERING the Belmont as an extreme sign of confidence.  

I assume we all know that the owner is the daughter of Amory Haskell, for whom the HAskell is named after.  Their target for the Jersey Bred, Haskell family owned horse, is the Haskell.

The best way to win the HAskell is likely skip the Belmont and run fresh in the Haskell or prep in early July in some Monmouth race.  Not to run 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont.  I am sure Motion thinks/believes this, which is why I am guessing they won\'t run in the Belmont.

The fact that he feels compelled to consider the Belmont, in light of the Summer target, to me is a sign the horse has to be tearing down the stalls.

If he runs, he won\'t run poorly.

Jim

[jimbo66]

Sekrah,

I don\'t care much about patterns going 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont.

Patterns achieved going a mile to a mile and eighth or even mile and a quarter mean less to me going 1 1/2 miles.

So, if I am going to bet a slow horse \"on the come\" in the Belmont, I don\'t want the second choice, which Tapwrit may be if IWC doesn\'t run.

[Furious Pete]

\"I am on record as saying pattern analysis is not overly reliable with young 3YOs, many of whom only have 8-12 lifetime races.\"

This is surprising to me and I don\'t really get it, I love to bet explosive patterns in both 2yo\'s and 3yo\'s by using TG. In fact I think that identifying/predicting these big forward moves in lightly raced horses by applying sheet theory on patterns is one arena where TG and the theories really have an edge on the rest of the market.

That said, there are traps one have to avoid, and for me it\'s all about identifying the \"real deal patterns\". If the figure doesn\'t reflect the horses capacity at the time the figure was earned, it produces \"false patterns\", at least that\'s how I see it. AD coming into the Derby was a great example of a \"negative false pattern\", because the horse was obviously not extended in any of the races as a 3yo (before FLA Derby). Practical Joke, on the other hand, was a decent example of a \"positive false pattern\", that looked more explosive than it really was because of his somewhat ground-loaded figures (and him failing to pass the eye test every time when racing as a 3yo).

Edit: Your other point about this distance might be valid, it sure brings additional chaos to the read.

[sekrah]

First time that I\'ve seen it suggested that because a race is longer, it changes the horse\'s condition going into it.  That\'s a bold strategy, Cotton.

[jimbo66]

Yes Sekrah,

Distance not a factor.  Just like bias not a factor.

Completely irrelevant.

[richiebee]

Furioso:

We will agree to disagree.

To me, Preakness winner Cloud Computing, with 3 lifetime races going into Baltimore,
did not have a \"pattern\" of any sort.

I think a pattern requires some sort of repetition before it is validated. I won\'t
even get into how many races you need to see from a 2YO before you can say that you
have identified a pattern.

[sekrah]

Furious Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"I am on record as saying pattern analysis is not
> overly reliable with young 3YOs, many of whom only
> have 8-12 lifetime races.\"
>
> This is surprising to me and I don\'t really get
> it, I love to bet explosive patterns in both 2yo\'s
> and 3yo\'s by using TG. In fact I think that
> identifying these big forward moves in lightly
> raced horses by applying sheet theory on patterns
> is one arena where TG and the theories really have
> an edge on the rest of the market.
>
> That said, there are traps one have to avoid, and
> for me it\'s all about identifying the \"real deal
> patterns\". If the figure doesn\'t reflect the
> horses capacity at the time the figure was earned,
> it produces \"false patterns\", at least that\'s how
> I see it. AD coming into the Derby was a great
> example of a \"negative false pattern\", because the
> horse was obviously not extended in any of the
> races as a 3yo (before FLA Derby). Practical Joke,
> on the other hand, was a decent example of a
> \"positive false pattern\", that looked more
> explosive than it really was because of his
> somewhat ground-loaded figures (and him failing to
> pass the eye test every time when racing as a
> 3yo).
>
> Edit: Your other point about this distance might
> be valid, it sure brings additional chaos to the
> read.


Agree with your first point.  Form patterning young horses is one of the most profitable angles out there. If you\'re not doing it, you\'re leaving a ton on the table.

Don\'t agree with your Practical Joke point.  10 furlongs was probably too much for him in hindsight.  He ran very credible (5th at 30-1) in the most chaotic race of them.  He may just not be a classic distance horse, or he may have just not liked the wet track.  I\'ll have no hesitation targeting him this summer.

The key is to take note of the figures that may be understating a horse\'s form when you are handicapping his chances.