Blue Grass

[dlf]

Forgive my ignorance, as I\'m new to T-Graph, and \"sheets\" in general, but why does \"everyone seem to agree that Consolidator has a nice line\"? He went from a 6 to a 1 (a big new top). Doesn\'t this make him a likely bounce candidate?

[msola1]

SoCalMan2,

What troubles you in particular about HL\'s two-year-old line?

[jbelfior]

BLUE GRASS:

I think CLOSING SWORD will continue to regress. I never like \"bore out\" horses in their next race. It\'s either a sign of a physical problem or a problem with the distance.

CLOSING ARGUMENT: Not against this bunch and not off of the 2 month layoff.

SPANISH CHESTNUT: Souring; the only thing I can think of is what another person on this site mentioned....he\'s a rabbit for BANDINI.

CONSOLIDATOR: Ran his best 2yo # over the track....did not beat much in California but he did it impressively. Has terrific turn of foot...unlikely to bounce for Lukas in a race Lukas loves to win.

HIGH LIMIT: The most likely winner if you project that he pairs-up for Frankel...do not want at 2-1 or less. Will root that Dominquez tries to send and he losses ground into the first turn.

SUN KING: I was never a fan of this guy. Likes to run wide which helped him at Belmont but will cost him dearly in here.

BANDINI: Missed training and tough post...perhaps he picks up some pieces in the lane if pace is too hot and perhaps we can look at him as a relatively fresh PLETCHER ready to run a new top which he will probably need to do to get into the Derby.


For value purposes, let\'s try CONSOLIDATOR over BANDINI and reverse for half the amount.

[SoCalMan2]

Dear Jimbo66,

Thank you.  You are in fact correct and I misread the ROTW. Correcting for my misread, I would reduce the chance of a negative number to 20% and increase the chance of the pair up to 50%.  

As to High Limit, I am still giving him a 66% chance of running a \'1\' or better, so it is not like I am tossing him.  I am just saying that if his two year old campaign were different, I would increase those percentages.  

I do not put any stock in \'how\' any of his numbers were earned. Although there are times when looking at circumstances surrounding an effort may be relevant, I do not consider any of what you or others have offered as being relevant.  I do not like his second Delaware number for precisely the reason you like it -- it was a small step backward after a very fast number. It would have been better if he paired up, moved ahead, or ran a lot worse.  The pair up and new top are obvious positives.  The bounce is not such a surprise for a 2 year old coming off a debut fig of a 2. The small step back can be problematic sometimes and a tip off of greater problems.   It means he was on (likely not injured), but could not run his race (could not replicate what he had done before).  It makes me wonder some about the first number too.  Also, with only three races, he could really be an ouchy horse which introduces another area of risk.  He and Birdstone had the same debut number (although Birdstone earned it earlier his two year old year, so B\'s was better) and look what that did to Birdstone.  Birdstone also went backwards off his 3 y.o. debut (although he may have add an excuse).  Anyway, High Limit is obviously a very fast horse, and it would not surprise me if he won with a big number.  However, I do see some risk in him (both in terms of the type of trip I see him getting and the type of effort I see him putting out).

I just really do not see this race as a good betting race.  First off, having only 7 horses makes it much harder to find value (the take is spread out over less options and therefore eats more of the possible prices).  Second, the top three choices all have a strong chance and are all likely to be well supported.  The fourth choice is the only possible bet against in my opinion.  There are some long horses to like here (Closing Argument and Mr. Sword), but having only 7 horses hurts how long they might be.  To me, it is just one of those races that is too tough.

Now, on a completely different matter, you said you thought I was wrong about my analysis of Point Given\'s Kentucky Derby, so I decided to go back and look at the chart.  

According to the chart I read, he was 3 and 3/4 lengths back of a 6 furlong split of 1:09 and 1.  According to Thorograph, he was in the 4 lane on the first turn.  To me, that has him running the first 6 furlongs of the Kentucky Derby in 1:09 and 2. In fact, other than he and Congaree, all the other horses who were within 7 lengths of the 44 and 4 half were tiring badly (if you accept my wide adjustment, his half mile was 45 and 2).  By the mile, it was only him and Congaree still standing to face the closers.  Given what this pace did to the others who were caught up in it, he did not do so badly.  

In general, I think pace is overrated, but I do think if a horse runs too (and I mean too) fast early, he pays for it in final time because it is an inefficient way to spend an effort compared to spreading the effort out better.  This does not happen as often as people think, but it does happen and when it does, I am forgiving of the horse\'s off effort in that case (see my race of the week analysis and forgiveness of two off efforts by Don Six in Spring/Summer 2004).

Some people say that Point Given ran a poor derby because he only had two preps.  It is interesting that his only one prep for the Santa Anita Derby had no ill effect (he was able to move forward off one prep down to a zero).  

To me, this pace scenario is as much of an explanation for his poor figure in the Derby as the idea that having only two prep races caused the bad effort.  People are free to disagree with me.  Quite frankly, I am happy about it -- I hope gobs of money are bet by people based the Kentucky Derby prep angle espoused by Classhandicapper. It is things like this that still leave nice prices for us sheetplayers.

Hey SoCal,

I happen to agree with your analysis of Congaree and Point Given completely so you may want to reconsider it. :-)

Seriously, I have no theory about prep races into the Derby other than \"all else being equal I\'d rather bet on a horse using a method that has already been proven effective\".



Post Edited (04-15-05 14:55)

[SoCalMan2]

Classhandicapper,

Thank you, I guess.  The only thing that worries me is that people might not believe my argument now. I do not want to be as rude as the following will sound, but do you realize how surd your response was?  And yes, I mean surd not absurd.

You DO have a theory on prep races into the Derby, and a lot of us disagree with your theory.  Your theory is succinctly (will wonders never cease) summarized in your reply to me where you state you have no theory (surd again).

Okay, one more try -- you believe, think, feel, know, have some sense, whatever you want to call it that makes you UTTER that there is \"a method that has already been proven effective.\"  Please do not disavow that UTTERANCE as you normally do (people are sick of you saying things and then saying you did not say them).


I dispute your utterance.  You have never given proof, and we challenge you left and right.  It just falls on deaf ears (that is where surd comes in).

All you do is say things (e.g on the Ragozin board recently) like your complex ideas cannot sink into our deficient brains because we are looking for mathematical certainty. While, no surprise here, it is you who is stuck in (and cannot get out of) the mathematical certainty mindset in the debate on Derby preps. Your \"proven effective\" statement comes from all your earlier pronouncements using numbers like \'0\' and \'100\'.  It pains me too much to dig them back out now, but if you actually join me in a real debate (chances of that are slim and none and slim just left town), I would go show you yourself again.

Anyway, for the part that will fall on your deaf ears, I have seen TONS (literally) of horses lose in the Kentucky Derby off 3 or 4 preps (trust me, I have lost lots of money on them).  These are horses that looked really good and had no apparent excuse (I guess a few of the trainers may have said the track was \'cuppy\').  I also see lots of people on this board saying that horses often hit their top before the Derby and back off it in the Derby.  All of this tells me that there is at least a modest peppercorn of evidence that MAYBE 3-4 preps before the Derby might, could possibly be, in some circumstances, actually, a bad thing.  I realize how shocking that is to you, but maybe the shock is what is causing you not to hear it.

Anyway, my position (which you would know if you read anything I wrote) is that I have no idea how to train a horse.  I suspect there is no one right way and multiple different approaches may work.  I do not think anything is proven on this.  I also do not think this is a relevant consideration anyway (but that is neither here nor there).  I assume that on any horse I bet on in the Derby, there is always a chance that his prep was perfect and there is always a chance that his prep was deficient.  And, I have not seen any data that would help me sort this mystery out (if it is even capable of being sorted, which is a big if).

YOU are the one who believes that it is proven that 3 or 4 preps is not a bad thing.  Where is that proven?  Bring it on baby!!!  Don\'t, as you always do, try to shift the burden of proof on to me.  I am telling you I cannot prove anything.  YOU are the one alleging something is proven, not me.

That proven CERTAINTY is the ENTIRE premise of your \'argument\' which you use to assert that you need to discount a horse coming into the Derby off one or two preps.  If you lose your mathematical certainty, there goes the linchpin.

Bracing myself for the fancy footwork bit again.

SoCal,

I don\'t believe I ever said that any method was proven to be superior to another or better for all horses.

At most, I am operating on the assumption that all the great trainers of the last few decades concluded that a minimum of 3 preps worked well and that they were reasonably competent men.

On my own I can see that many horses did peak that way.

I also once saw a study (in a handicapping book) that suggested that the average horse ran his peak speed figure in his 4th race after a layoff.

It also always seemed logical to me that given the demands of the Derby a little extra seasoning would help a horse. The fields are big. Seasoning running between/inside horses, having dirt kicked in your face, dealing with crowds, dealing with a competitive pace etc... can\'t hurt.

So there was no reason I could think of to think it was a generally bad idea.

None of this proves a thing.

If you would like to classify this as a theory, OK, then I agree.

I have a \"theory\" that all else being equal I\'d rather have a horse prepared traditionally. The key word is \"equal\". Under many conditions (especially odds) I would gladly buck that.



Post Edited (04-15-05 16:05)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

First off since this is the TGraph ROTW, I\'ll take a moment to review it with the Tgraph figures but will do so after running down the field.

SunKing - Everyone is looking at his Tampa race and saying \"oh my, poor horse, he fell off\". Really?....it looks to me like no one wanted the lead, he sat chilly on it, repulsed everything that came his way and widened late in good finishing order. Nicky used Tampa in a different pace fashion for TCE last year and things went pretty well for him in the Bluegrass. Nicky has said he dearly loves Tampa as a conditioning track. I know something about that. Anyone pooh poohing this horse on his Tampa T Fig is probably in error. This horse is also far quicker than folks realize. My issue is 9 marks with him. I\'m not altogether sure he can run as fast as he is probably going to be asked to run this race and still finish strong. Beating Survivalist and Monarch Lane is suddenly looking like that and a buck in your pocket will get you a cup of coffee. I can\'t see where hes ever really trained on a track hes run on so I wont hold that against him. Tough Call, with the added weight and post I\'m leaning against him for the win, but Nicky is so very hot right now, I know I\'m taking a chance.

Closing Arguement - I don\'t care if they did put the for sale sign up. I would too. They didn\'t sell him did they? This horse drew very well, doesnt have to have the lead and is sneaky quick. I don\'t like his breeding, but that last race rocks and hes working beautifully at Keeneland. Major Player.

Bandini - He\'s a Fupig so my inclination is to toss him, but the problem is he\'s speed juiced by Pletcher and you can\'t do that. He\'s also much quicker than folks may understand. He\'s acclimated to the track as well. Still I\'m thinking the post/trip, weight, my disdain for his sire and the tough company is enough to keep him out of the winners circle. I\'m even more leary of leaving this one out of the top than Zito\'s and may cover with him. I\'m not sure yet.

Spanish Chestnut - No weight bugaboo. Is acclimating too but I dont like his steps near as much as Bandini or Closing Arguement. I think this horse plays a large role in the outcome. From the hole with a good break he rockets. His layoff and mud races have to be viewed with an eye towards less than top form in my opinion. Though I\'m not altogether sure his speed is up to the east coast speed, the circumstances, depending upon the track, could play in his favor to land a minor piece at a very solid price. Though I\'m more inclined to think he mucks it up for the others.

Consolidator - Suddenly beating Giacomo and Don\'t Get Mad doesnt look like much of an accomplishment either and this horse has LESS speed than most think and really caught a biased surface in my opinion last. Is picking up some weight, but has carried it before, and is working listen carefully here(Lights out). I like him to rate just off and move past some of the others late.

to be continued...
ok where was I...

Mr. Sword - I like this horses stalking pace style for this race and notice he was picked up late by two closers last. Theres really no closers to pick him up this race and if he can get first and only run on battling pace horses he may be able to pick up some pieces late. The weight is kind, the jockey change positive for Keeneland.  I\'m not altogether sure he can\'t step it up a bit. The price will decide if I work him in.

High Limit - Jimbo66 said I couldnt talk about pace potential and bias so I\'m afraid I can\'t really discuss this horse. Jimbo66 wants to hear good things, so here it is...hes carried the weight and is working extremely well. There was something else I wanted to add about figure maturity and trainer impact too...oh well.

Now TGraph\'s modifications:

Mr. Sword - Moves further up on Tgraph, will definitely work him into wager.

Closing Arguement - Tfigs both temper and confirm my enthusiasm. The pace style and pattern are positive. The layoff is the concern but I think he\'s moving forward.

Spanish Chestnut - TFigs dont shed kind light on him. I still think he has minor piece potential

Consolidator - More or less where I made him. I think he regresses slightly this race but that can still be good enough.

High Limit - Right where I anticipated him, but can\'t talk about it.

Sun King - Has his work cut out Saturday is my belief and I\'m paying little mind to the Tampa number. Theres more important hurdles for him to overcome.

Bandini - Despite it all, I get the feeling he can move a little forward I\'m not quite as big on him winning, but I\'ll put him on top for one save provided he\'s in the 5-1 range I anticipate.

Good Luck



Post Edited (04-15-05 17:23)

[jbelfior]

CH--

I tried that last year with READ THE FOOTNOTES (2 preps) and back in the early 90\'s with BEST PAL....never again no matter the value.

You put 20 in the gate with a faster than average pace going a mile and a quarter for the first time. You better have some bottom.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[BitPlayer]

davidrex -

I\'m not trying to talk you off Closing Argument.  In fact, I may end up using him tomorrow.  I was just pointing out the small sample, with the possibility of being skewed by any number of factors.  You mention one.  Another is that only the best of Successful Appeal\'s offspring may have been stretched out to this point.  Unless Successful Appeal is really something special, a decline in the five point sprint-route differential seems inevitable as the sample gets larger.

On the flip side, Successful Appeal offspring may turn out to be fine at 10F, and a lot off bettors may abandon Closing Argument because of his breeding (think Funny Cide/Distorted Humor and Smarty Jones/Elusive Quality).  So far, Closing Argument doesn\'t seem to have gotten less effective as the distances have gotten longer.

Disclosure:  Successful Appeal cost me money once or twice as a spring 3yo.

[SoCalMan2]

CH

You are truly remarkable.  Have never seen anybody like you EVER.  Here (in asterisks) is, in full, what you posted (after your edit whatever that was) --

*****Hey SoCal,

I happen to agree with your analysis of Congaree and Point Given completely so you may want to reconsider it. :-)

Seriously, I have no theory about prep races into the Derby other than \"all else being equal I\'d rather bet on a horse using a method that has already been proven effective\".*****

Look at how I responded to that, and then look at your \'response\' to my response.  

How is it possible for anybody to ever discuss anything with you?  If you want to know why people think you are rude and show no respect to other people, it is because you do not listen to other people.

SoCal,

I have no idea what you are talking about. So let\'s just move on.

[SoCalMan2]

CH

Interesting -- you did not understand what I said, so, instead of asking me to explain, you said let\'s just ignore it.  Fine with me.  At least you apparently read what I wrote, so progress is detected.

[TGAB]

Forgive my ignorance, as I\'m new to T-Graph, and \"sheets\" in general, but why does \"everyone seem to agree that Consolidator has a nice line\"? He went from a 6 to a 1 (a big new top). Doesn\'t this make him a likely bounce candidate?

DLF--Consolidator went from 6 to 1 this year in his two starts. However, last year at 2, he established a top of 3-1/2, so the development is not 5 points, rather it\'s 2-1/2 points.

You have to figure he wasn\'t cranked for his return this year. Often horses need a race or two, if they\'re real good, to get back to their 2yo top. Trainer styles obviously can affect conditioning but as a general rule good younger horses should be running tops at least every other race. Consolidator\'s juvenile tops, 6-1/2 and 3-1/2, affected him, but he did develop and improve with time as he should since he\'s in a dynamic growth phase.

The debut 6 this year wasn\'t great, but it wasn\'t terrible either. It was his 2nd best effort ever, what we term an off effort, more than 1 point but less than 4 points worse than his top at the time--an abeyance figure. In other words we\'ll wait to the next performance to see where he\'s at, and come through he did with the new top.

So he fulfilled our general rule--new top 2nd out. He improved on his 2yo top, but not so much as to project an automatic bounce. Storm Cat sires early developers and his get on average improve 2-3/4 points from 2 through 3 (sire profile--TGI age columns). So Consolidator is within the threshold albeit just about at that limit. But the good ones might exceed it a bit. Remember the TGI is an average of all foals--good and bad.

Now there is a question as to how much more Consolidator might develop at this time but vis-a-vis the entrants here, he\'s within 1 or 2 lengths of Sun King at his best and that makes him a contender here.

And JB notes in the ROTW 3yos at this time of year tend to pair up, Lukas is good in Kentucky and Consolidator has run well at Kee before.

Forward movement is always good although tops can be double-edged. Too much can be tough to handle in the short-term but good stakes quality, healthy 3yos should be able to pump out repeated good efforts.

[gvido]

Welcome dif:

I wouldn\'t consider Consolidator\'s sheet a nice line. It\'s a typical Lukas sheet littered with irelevant numbers.

A horse with a nice line in this weeks ROTW is Closing Argument. Backed up a few points in his 1st rte try but has moved forward in every race since.

As to Con\'s 1.0: It is a decent new top, but it is measured from its previous best a 3.5 as a 2yo, not the 6 he ran at SA.

Feel free to ask more as you go along.