BC #'s

[Michael D.]

jimbo,
re your touch gold point:
i usually do this only on w/e\'s, and am forced to bet a lot of horses off paper, horses i have not seen run recently. if a horse broke ten lengths slow, and i did not see the race, i would want some info, more than the three or four words that the drf gives you. i want that factored into the #. just my opinion.........after watching the BC race a bunch of times on that tiny screen, to me it looks as though c\'stopper\'s head probably was there with the rest of them when the gates opened. day then yanked the horse back after a second or so. my questions are: 1) did c\'stopper get checked right at the start. if the answer is no, then i can find no reason for the adjustment made by rags, and 2) if the horse was checked, causing him to lose a few lengths at the start, why is that different from getting checked midway through the race, where no adjustment would be made. and, would this be considered a \"poor start\" in ragozin methodology. if so, why? some good points made here, especially from jimbo, who certainly has no dog in this fight. unfortunately, still waiting for my response from the other side.......... BTW, to me, it looked like day did yank the horse back quickly, then start riding him a bit. as a general point, what do you guys make of that? ....and guys, how about some more pre-race post from some of you? we all agree that these issues are best solved at the windows, right jerry? my recent posts have been on the other board, but i will try posting more here using TG when GP opens. the real discussions only take place when guys give pre-race opinions, because some guys will use figures to pick winners, and some guys will use figures to pick losers..... these issues then become very easy to solve.



Post Edited (12-11-04 22:34)

[Michael D.]

ctc,
 i don\'t mind a bit of fire in somebody, just as long as they have that fire in them before the race from time to time.

[Michael D.]

two,
don\'t go back and edit these kind of posts, just have the balls to stick with the words you used originally. i\'m a big boy, i can take it.

[Michael D.]

hey two,
do me a favor, go back over your recent posts and tell us how many simply mocked other people, and how many gave an opinion on a horse race before the race (just a guess, but i say very few pre-race opinions are floating out there). ...... all of my recent handicapping posts are on the other board, you are welcome to take a look.

[jimbo66]

Michael,

You are right in that as good as this board is about having discussions about methodology, there is not much about taking these methodologies and making some pre-race opinions.  December is slow for a lot of bettors, but even during the peak summer months, there wasn\'t a lot of handicapping here.  It would be nice to throw in a bit of that next year.  Theory is nice, but only if theory can be parlayed into winners.  I, for one, have no altruistic interest in this game, just handicapping as best I can and getting to cash some tickets, hopefully enough to offset the losers.

[Michael D.]

jim,
agree, and i hear you on touch gold. i had him in the Lex stakes a month or so before the preakness, and bet him every race after (until i bet victory gallop in the BC). a few scores there, but a lot of pain to go along with that horse......

take it easy

Mark,

I don\'t think Nick (Logic Dictates) did trip notes for the BC. I just looked through my notes and couldn\'t find any. If I find them, I\'ll post his comments. I agree with you on the quality of his work and product. I wish he would expand it to include all graded stakes races.

[Michael D.]

jim,
just for the hell of it, i looked to see if touch gold set the track record that day at Kee. sorry to say he didn\'t. interesting though, round table ran 9f in 1:47.1 back in 1957 (126 lbs). that guy has to be included somewhere on the list of all time greats. anybody here old enough to remember him?

[jimbo66]

Michael,

1:47.1 in 1957 isn\'t that impressive.  The tracks were much much faster back then, especially in routes..    (different set of postings)

Touch Gold was a very very good horse.  I saw the Lexington and remember Gary Stevens saying that he had to give serious thought to getting off Touch Gold to stay on Silver Charm.  But he would have been villified for getting off the derby winner.

I sitll can\'t believe I bet Free House in the Belmont that year instead of Touch Gold.  I really thought the PReakness was so good he would \"bounce\" in the Belmont.  I don\'t remember the BC that year.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I\'ve made some pre race ROTW commentary. Not that I\'m an expert on TGraph patterns. Next decent dirt race I\'ll chime in.

CtC

[Michael D.]

ctc,
i seem to remember a solid call on the derby. you give a nice pre-race analysis from time to time.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Michael D. wrote:

.
> interesting though, round table ran 9f in 1:47.1 back in 1957
> (126 lbs). that guy has to be included somewhere on the list of
> all time greats. anybody here old enough to remember him?
>
No, but I think you\'re right, in his era he was spectacular. Three time Turf Champion. 66 Starts 43 wins. Imagine that?
http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.php?query_type=horse&search_bar=horse&h=ROUND%20TABLE&g=5&inbred=Standard&x2=n&pedloggedin=0

I\'ve always paid attention to him in pedigrees. (Not that I factor pedigree first) Though something else I think I first heard from you on a subconscious level is that \"pedigree matters even less today\" and I\'ve thought about it and I think you\'re right. Its place always debatable, has further diminished.

CtC

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Thank you,

I do it time to time on races our hosts discuss, utilizing TGraph to some extent, my methods as well. I also pick the Derby,  which to me is the ultimate handicapping challenge. I\'ve selected the Derby winner here the last three years, which ties my previous best run. I\'ll post again this year trying for my personal record. I\'ve also selected Anees here, so take that with a grain of salt, but thats a long story.

[Michael D.]

i am a big fan of the breeding part of this game. i just hold the opinion that horses are bred more for speed today than they were years ago. i like the round table\'s, secretariat\'s, and northern dancers, horses who ran incredibly fast at the longer distances years ago, despite the lack of drugs and other fancy tools they use today. the point being, when you handicap a 10f or 12f dirt race these days (very few 12f anymore), many of the horses will not be bred for the distance, so sometimes it makes sense to just focus on the figs and patterns, as you did in this year\'s derby (being stubborn, i still tend to focus on the pedigree angle though).

[Michael D.]

my father bet anees every time he ran, except for the BC juv of course. he even bets his 2yr olds now, and he still loses.