Beyer's advice for the Sheik

[MO]

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=63735&subs=0&arc=0

Sounds remarkably similar to comments I made about the differences between dirt and turf preparation a few days ago.

[razzle]

MO, interesting article, thanks for posting.  raz

[SoCalMan2]

...provide nice payoffs for people who play it right.  

Beyer says in the article that Blues and Royals\' chances are doomed due to the arrogance and poor judgment of his owner.  Yet, in the same article, he closes with this rousing conclusion

\"Blues and Royals might have a remote chance at Churchill Downs if the sheikh sent him to the U.S. for a second prep race, such as the Lexington Stakes on April 23 at Keeneland in Kentucky. But if the sheikh clings stubbornly to his discredited methods and sends Blues and Royals to the Derby with only one start as a 3-year-old, he can\'t win - even if the colt is the best dirt runner of his generation.\"

Who is guilty of arrogance and poor judgement here?  I have no idea how to train a Kentucky Derby winner, but I bet there is no one right way.  I also bet that having the best horse helps a lot.

I will take healthy odds on the best horse even if the trainer and the owner are numnuts (which may not even be the case here -- btw is this trainer the same guy who had some positives at Saratoga?). It seems pretty arrogant and a case of poor judgment to turn down a healthy odds bet on the best horse in the race just because you think the horse\'s owner is a moron.

I am glad Beyer wrote this.  I hope lots of people like Classhandicapper agree with him.  If this horse comes in with the best top by 3 points over any other competitor and a long price, he would be a great bet in my book -- EVEN WITHOUT ANOTHER START!

It is thinking like Beyer\'s that sent Arcangues off at healthy odds against a weak BC field.

I really think that all this \'prep\' handicapping is a bunch of malarkey and love that people get very distracted by it.  To me, all that matters is the effort you project the horse to run in the race and adjustments for trip and weight.  I will project this horse to pair up in the Derby off his Dubai number.  If that is a great number in relation to his competitors, then he is a good bet in my book (unless his odds are too low).  If you think this is unsophisticated like that other poster\'s wife\'s play, so be it!  If it works, who cares.  

What great horse lost the Derby because of insufficient preps?  It was not Point Given. That Derby was a race that was affected by pace. PG was too close to a brutal pace.  Only he and Congaree were not obliterated by that pace.  In fact, it was that blistering pace that probably made jockeys think differently in War Emblem\'s derby the next year.

Everybody cites all these horses that failed off the wrong \'prep\', but 19 horses a year fail in the Derby and a lot of them suck (Great Redeemer anyone?).  Does this mean 19 trainers are idiots every year and did the wrong thing?  Of course not!

To me, the bigger issue is how often has the best horse lost because of the wrong prep?  I would like to see a list of those.  I do not know the answer, but it would be very interesting.  In the meantime, I hope everybody keeps talking up this moronic \'prep angle\' so my odds can go higher and higher.

[jimbo66]

SoCalMan,

The list of horses is pretty long.  Nobody can argue that exactly one horse in the past 57 years has won the derby off of two or less preps.  You can say that doesn\'t matter, Jerry also has said he thinks the stat is deceiving because many of those horses had less than three preps because of physical ailments or other issues besides intentional light campaigns.  Maybe, but the facts are the facts, once since 1948 is a statistic and those of us that choose to follow it are not arrogant or showing poor judgment.  

Not sure if you are a T-Graph user and methodology follower, but if you are, not sure why you are blaming pace for Point Given\'s bad race in the Derby.  Point Given was not on the pace, he was several lengths off of the hot pace, further off than Congaree.  He came up flat in the stretch and ran a bad race, much worse than Congaree, who most would say was inferior to Point Given.  PG came back and trounced CG despite a very wide trip in the Preakness and then crushed the Belmont field.

The trainer, as well as many other horse players feel he was a short horse in the Derby and then ran to his true form in the Preakness and Belmont.  Maybe you disagree, more power to you.

You will get your price on Blues and Royal in the Derby.  Good luck with it.  The Dubai angle has been miserable in the Derby, which is another \"fact\" backed up by stats, not something Andy Beyer made up.  One prep in Dubai, then traveling to the US and running off a layoff in the Derby is not a winning angle, although the sample is admittedly much smaller than the \"one winner since 1948 with less than three preps angle\".

[Michael D.]

socal,
if TGJB is going to make the dubai world cup strip as slow as i think he is, he might be forced to give blues and royals a HUGE number. i think you have your derby horse.
.......

TGJB,
thanks for posting the FOY #\'s......



Post Edited (03-29-05 12:11)

I absolutely agree with Beyer. However, I wouldn\'t just toss the horse out the way Beyer suggests. I would discount his chances. In other words, if I thought he was clearly the most talented horse and would deserve to be 3-1 if prepped properly, I would insist on around 6/8-1 or so before considering a bet. I don\'t think any stat is black and white. Stats simply impact probabilities. There is obviously somewhat limited evidience in this prep race stat. However, based on my experience I think there\'s certainly enough evidence to conclude that a single prep CAN\'T BE OPTIMUM. It\'s either neutral or negative. Given that it might be negative, I want to be compensated for that risk until such time that we have enough evidence to indicate otherwise.



Post Edited (03-29-05 12:23)

[SoCalMan2]

Jimbo66

I am a customer of TG and I do futz around with sheet reading methodology.

As I have said, we have a difference of opinion and we are fortunate enough to be able to settle it at the betting windows.  I am also happy to engage in discourse.

I am curious in those 48 years how many horses ran in the derby off 2 preps?  It might be pretty rare.  

If they only averaged one lightly prepped horse each year...then the ratio is 1 out of 48 which is better than 2%.  If the derby averages 15 other horses in the race losing with three preps or more, then the percentage for such a type of horse would be 47 out of 768 or about 6%.  If this year a horse wins off 2 or less preps, then the 2% for this type of horse increases to over 4% and the percentage for the other horses drops below 6%.  When you consider that our sampling amounts to one week\'s worth of races at one track, then to me these statistics are meaningless (and the fact that the outcome of one race could have a significant impact on the statistics we are using proves the meaningless of these statistics even further).  Think how many times you have seen a weird streak at a track in one week.

This reminds me of all the streak talk people used to espouse about dosage Experimental Highweight etc. (also reminds me of Ray Kerrison style handicapping).  While I do think breeding is important and needs to be heeded, I think that trying to construct a theory based on a streak of numbers in unconnected events is not a rational way to bet horses.  This is akin to looking at the last 50 spins at the roulette wheel and trying to say they have some impact on the next spin.  Other than the running histories of the horses in this year\'s race, what happened in the last 50 years is irrelevant to this year\'s Kentucky Derby.

In any event, I am talking about the best horse. The notion that the fastest horse will lose because of the number of preps he has run just seems silly to me.  We have a difference of opinion on Point Given, but he is only one horse in 48 years.  Is there another horse in the last 48 years who was the best horse and lost because of his preparation?

As I mentioned, I am a sheet reader.  I do not understand why I should alter my view on a horse if my sheet reading indicates he will run the best figure by a healthy margin and trip and weight are neutral?

[SoCalMan2]

Apologies on my number mistake.  You were saying last 57 years, not 48 years which I clearly mixed up.  

In any event, I still stand by my argument as I believe the sampling is too small and the fact that a small streak of lightly raced horses winning the race would have an inordinate impact on the stats shows how delicate the statistical analysis is.

SOCal,

I agree that the sample is too small to be certain, but the stat is sort of consistent with common sense. If I knew close to nothing about conditioning horses, my first guess would be that it takes a lot of preparation to get a lightly raced 3YO ready for the 10F of the Derby.  

The most important point though is that there\'s cleary ZERO evidence that this is the right way to go. So it\'s either bad or neutral. I want to be compensated for the \"possibility\" this is a bad idea until we know more.

[SoCalMan2]

Classhandicapper,

I have never worked in a stable and know just about nothing about training horses. I do not know Saeed Bin Suroor, but, if he is the same guy who had a few horses come up with positives at Saratoga, I do not think he is a moron when it comes to training horses (although he may not be so good at getting away with using the juice).  

I also know that trainers have been able to get horse\'s to win big Grade 1 races off long layoffs (even Breeders Cup races) when they are training the best horse in the race (and have also done it off one or two race preps).  Now, maybe, the Derby should be different than all other races because of the age of the horses and the weight and distance run (you never hear about this stuff at the Breeders Cup).  

I also know that, in many things in life, there is no one right way and different strokes do work for different folks.  I am not saying light prep is the way to win the derby.  I am saying having the fastest horse is the best way to win the derby, and the people who say there is only one way to win the derby are more likely to be wrong than right.

As far as your most important point, Sunny\'s Halo will CLEARLY dispose of that argument right away.  There is obviously at least a peppercorn of countervailing evidence even if nobody wants to look at it.  

I do not know anything about training horses, so I do not have the answers.  I am just saying that the people who are saying there is only one way may not have the answers either. Horatio Luro used to say do not squeeze the lemon dry.  What does that mean?  Does it have applicability here?  Did he know what he was talking about?  Maybe the best trainers in the world will tell you that there is no one answer, and it depends on the horse.  How many preps did H. Allen give Sensitive Prince?  Just curious. Also, what happens if we decide to look at all Derbies and not just the ones from 1948 to the present?  Maybe there will be some evidence.  Who knows?  

Like I said, I am very happy to be in the minority here.  This is how outlandish prices come about.  If I can get 30-1 on the fastest (by a healthy margin) horse in the Derby, it will be the greatest horseracing day in my life -- even if I suffer my biggest loss on that horse.  I may not win, but, I will be doing the right thing. And, if you do it enough times, you will find some profits.

[jimbo66]

SoCalMan,

One horse since 1948 doesn\'t \"CLEARLY dispose of that argument\".  I thought from your previous post, you had some concept of statistics.  Saying one winner in 57 years, clearly disposes of the argument that the method is either \"neutral\" or \"negative\" is way out of whack.  I don\'t know how many horses have run with less than three preps since 1948, but I do know that 17 have done it in the last 5 years.  About 3 per year, which if that is the case going back to 1948 (I agree this is a very big \"if\"), than we are looking 171 horses with one winner.  

CH said \"neutral\" or \"negative\", which is very conservative.  I think that means negative.  

As for sample size, how big of a sample would you like?  1000\'s of races would be nice, but if that becomes the case, this will be a good theory for our great, great, great, great, great great grandchildren to bet with.

We have to settle for 57 years of data.

[SoCalMan2]

Jimbo66

This is Logic 101.

Classhandicapper wrote -- \"The most important point though is that there\'s cleary ZERO evidence that this is the right way to go.\"

I am pointing out that since there is one example, he is CLEARLY wrong when he utters \"There\'s clearly ZERO evidence.\" Since that race was in the last 25 years, I guess 4% of the time the race is won by a horse with 2 or less preps.  4% is CLEARLY more than zero.

Remember, my point is that I don\'t know the answer.  I am just skeptical of other people who are certain they know the answer when I think it is really a very unclear area.  However, I am very happy that there are people out there who feel certain about something which I think is uncertain.  It will provide good odds which at some point will be lucrative.

We can argue all the statistics we want; my point is that this is not an argument that can be won by statistics.  When I handicap any race, I do not care one iota about the history of the prior runnings of that race.  All I care about are the horses in that race and what kind of efforts I think they will put out and what kind of trips they will get and how much weight they are carrying.  What happened in last year\'s (or the year before\'s edition) is something that does not enter into my handicapping one iota.

[mrhill]

If the fastest horse won every race this would be a pretty easy game....

[SoCalMan2]

1)This is a website about handicapping horse\'s using sheets.  

2)Beyer (who thinks sheet readers drink Kool Aid) writes the fastest horse of the generation has no chance because his owner is an idiot.

3)a bunch of people chime in and say -- yeah, he\'s right.

4) one guy says -- I think the fastest horse in the race usually has the best chance and people who do not bet him because they think the owner is an idiot might just be idiots themselves instead of that owner.

5) Other people chime in and say this heretic must not be a sheet reader because any sheet reader would know Beyer\'s argument is right.  It is right on it face.

This makes no sense to me.  I am making purely sheets based arguments and everybody else is using an extraneous angle to say the sheets cannot be trusted.  Strange Days.