ROTW and Study

[Silver Charm]

You wrote in your analysis that Pleasantly Perfect may have another New Top coming. I know that Mandella has a very good history and the Thorograph Trainer-based Statistics to support his record second off the layoff.

However if I\'m reading the study correctly there is only a 12% chance of him running a new top. The percentages of him equalling his new top are matched by the possible \"off\".

When presented with different conclusions regarding the statistics, which way should the handicapper fall? Is the layoff between the last two starts something that causes The Study to be the lessor of the two indicators?

Personally, I am not expecting Pleasantly Perfect to run new top. He\'s a 6 year old horse that has already won the BC and DC. IMO, a 6yo with 16 starts who was already wound up enough to win 2 of the sports biggest races has already shown his best stuff. I would be more inclined to believe he could improve further if he was 4, had fewer races, and was slowly moving up the ranks.

I didn\'t even think his last race was all that hot. He had a clear lead into the stretch in what looks like a slow paced race (I\'ll watch the replay later) and couldn\'t hold off Choctaw Nation. If anything, it\'s the latter that is better than he looks on paper based on speed figures. (probably still not good enough to win though)

I am not saying PP isn\'t going to improve and win 2nd off a layoff - especially at these weights, but if anything, I would  look to beat him at 6-5 or less. IMO, at 6-5 you have to believe that he\'s fairly close to certain to improve off that last race and run one of his better ones.  

There are a couple of horses in here than can beat him if he\'s not 100% or gets the worst of the trip.

[TGAB]

JB wrote the Rotw this week, but he\'s up in Saratoga so I\'ll respond in his stead.

Silver Charm: This pattern study looks at all horses 5 and up in this time period. It does not distinguish by class. Pleasantly Perfect has established himself as one of the best, if not the best, dirt route racer in the world. And what distinguishes top class horses from their lowly brethren is not only their ability to achieve stratopheric peaks, but also their ability to maintain a consistently high performance level overall. Pleasantly Perfect\'s last effort was an \"off\" effort as defined by the pattern study parameters, roughly 2 to 3 points, slower than his best efforts. But he still earned a negative 0-3/4, not bad. But the point here is that the X category is overstated. 10% is perhaps more realistic, which means you have to divy up the other 90% among the 3 categories.

Pleasantly Perfect ran a good prep race considering the layoff, especially a layoff preceded by a trip to Dubai, historically, a tough ship.

Mandella is good 2nd off the layoff. Pleasantly Perfect, himself, is at his best 2nd off a layoff. In general I agree with classhandicapper\'s contention that 4yos are more apt to improve since they are more lightly raced and still maturing. But Pleasantly Perfect is one of those exceptions we\'ve alluded to on many occasions. He got a late start to the races and as a 6yo with 16 races, I would term him as lightly raced. He only ascended to his present performance last October. Pleasant Colony, the sire, gets late developers, so maybe Pleasantly Perfect with the tightener, will put up a new peak figure.

That\'s rather long winded, but analyze the differences between the statistics. Make sure you know what each is measuring. In this case, frankly, you can downgrade the significance of the pattern studies.

Classhandicapper: Indeed I was surprised that Pleasantly Perfect got beat. But 10 pounds is a lot to concede. Not so this time, and Pleasantly Perfect is far more likely to run an effort than Choctaw Nation. He\'s already done it and there\'s little reason to think he won\'t again. Choctaw has to elevate his game. He may but he may not as well, at least not now.

JB,

I pretty much agree with your analysis completely.

I think \"perhaps\" Choctaw Nation\'s last race is just a tad better than you are giving him credit for. That last race looks like a slow paced race to me. I don\'t think it was an easy task to close down those horses from well off the pace given how fast they were running late. Given a better pace scenario I believe he might have run a faster figure. (that\'s another debate) :-)

I agree completely that he will have to improve a lot more to win (especially at the weights). I also agree that PP is very likely to improve 2nd off a layoff.  

I\'m going to have a tough time finding a bet in there because I believe the odds will more or less reflect my order of preference. If I do bet, it will probably be Perfect Drift. It won\'t be PP at 6-5.



Post Edited (08-21-04 16:01)

[Silver Charm]

TGAB,

Thanks for taking away time from your super-busy schedule to answer, TG and the rest of us are lucky to have you.

I actually thought of what you said about removing the X from the equation because of a horse like PP this really is not going to happen. However this is the results from when I did: Top 16.7%, Pair 43.3% and Off 40%.

With PP being a 40% chance to run another Off number and his odds being even money, I will either try and beat him or pass the race.

Also bear in mind that Mandella himself is 29% Off, 2nd off the Layoff so there is evidence within his personal training statistical category to indicate PP is no cinch. The last race could be excused from the standpoint of the study, Mandella is one of the best pure conditioners in the game, and when you are dealing with arguably the best handicap horse in the world stats may be misleading.



Post Edited (08-21-04 18:05)

[TGJB]

SC-- the broader answer to your question about the pattern studies (we\'re going to have to give them a name with Thoro-Graph in it) is this-- they only measure short term patterns. There is also the issue of long term patterns-- rate and degree of development, layoffs, which efforts previously set him back, and for how long, pedigree (late or early), age (the studies don\'t differentiate between 5 and 8 year olds), etc.

[Saddlecloth]

That was a great explanation of the question, thanks.

[Silver Charm]

>There is also the issue of long term patterns-- rate and degree of development, layoffs, which efforts previously set him back, and for how long, pedigree (late or early), age (the studies don\'t differentiate between 5 and 8 year olds), etc.

I understand, however with the additional data from the TG Studies, which by the way I think are very good, the handicapper is presented with sometimes conflicting evidence to the TG Trainer Based Profiles. So which one should the handicapper weight more heavily, and I ask that knowing that there is no single answer. We are probably looking at a case-by-case decision but are there guidelines??

Another good example over the weekend was Stellar Jayne. The Study indicated a 35% likelihood of running back to her TOP which made her equally as fast as the 3-5 favorite Ashado. Stellar Jayne was 10-1. However confusing the decision making process was the Trainer Based Stats indicated that in this category the Trainer himself was 34% likely to run a horse who would completely X.

This sort of, I Zigged when I should have Zagged and I Zagged when I should of Zigged can become frustrating.

Guidelines please from anyone who wants to weigh in.

[Lucy]

\"Guidelines please from anyone who wants to weigh in.\"


anyone...?

[TGJB]

I\'ll discuss this filly when I go over the Saturday card later in the week, but I should have mentioned trainers as well re long term patterns. There ain\'t too many horses Baffert or Lukas have trained throughout their careers that keep developing as older horses. Mandella is the opposite. On the other hand, he doesn\'t win Triple Crown races.

[Silver Charm]

Not really sure what that means (not you TGJB, but Lucy)so I will ignore it. I am not trying to stump anyone here with this question but the Studies are new, hell the Trainer Based Profiles are less than a year old. So when a handicapper is trying to make a solid decision in the face of conflicting data is there something he can fall back on.

Don\'t expect an answer in the next 10 minutes so give this answer some time if need be.

And if you don\'t have anything to say, go find yourself a Park Bench and talk to yourself.



Post Edited (08-24-04 14:59)

[Lucy]

this doesn\'t take much time.
if this is really open to anybody, I\'d venture that jerry slaps up all the news that fits in print, so that after the race he can always point out some positive angle on the winner, and tell the world \'I HAD IT!!1\' -- \'CHECK THE REDBOARD ROOM!!1\'
good luck sorting out the \'contenders\'.
but, ordinarily, I\'d keep this kind of opinion to myself, as this isn\'t the place for it.

[TGJB]

Like I said, you\'re doing a great job! Keep it up! It\'s not like the people who read your post are actually reading ROTW and would notice if I were doing anything like that, or anything.

SC,

I had similar feelings about Stella Jayne.

IMO, she was probably an overlay in that race.

I thought SJ was no worse than the 2nd and 3rd choices in that race. Since Ashado\'s overall record was superior to SJ and the track was wet (which Ashado clearly likes and SJ was slightly suspect on) I thought Ashado deserved to be the favorite. I thought she was overbet though.

I\'m not sure what kept me out of the race other than I think there were a lot of conflicting pluses and minuses that made it difficult for me to create an accurate enough odds line.

IMO, when presented with a lot of conflicting stats and data you are better off passing unless the odds are so darn high you \"know\" you have an overlay even if you don\'t know how big.



Post Edited (08-24-04 16:13)

[jbelfior]

Classhandicapper--

It was interesting to see how well Stella Jayne ran,especially after Lukas had mentioned in DRF that she doesn\'t like the off going.

I think it just goes to show that Saratoga slop/mud is not the same as Belmont or CD.

As far as track profiles are concerned, especially the nuances with a track like Saratoga, we now have 2 horses this month (PURGE and SOCIETY SELECTION) who have won impressively around 2 turns when their PP\'s indicated that they were strictly one-turn animals.

Coincidence?? Expert horsemanship on the part of Jerkens and Pletcher?? Any thoughts?