Pomeroy

[p3991r]

Quote from the race of the week analysis, \"the grass conditioner had him all set for the race of his life last time\"

Interesting analysis considering your stats indicate Biancone is much better 3rd off the layoff than 2nd (30% winners vs 10% winners and 29% tops vs 24% tops)

care to explain your reasoning behind this statement?

I personally feel he\'s now set for the race of his life, but will the odds be juicy enough to inspire a play, condering a new top may not be good enough.

[p3991r]

oops,,,not sure what \"condering\" means, so make that \"considering\"

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

p3991r wrote:

> I personally feel he\'s now set for the race of his life, but
> will the odds be juicy enough to inspire a play, condering a
> new top may not be good enough.

P, your rationale is similar to mine. Re: Pomeroy that Turf race was his first in months. Regardless of Biancone\'s overall comeback stats Pomeroy missed in the Gotham. (His other significant layoff)

The distance, open class and blinkers on, blinkers off confusion is more troubling to me. Prado\'s move to Love of Money is also noteworthy, but have to agree he\'s sitting on his best race.

One other item I just noticed is that he was reluctant at CD on Derby day. The big crowd may have had him slightly rattled. I never like a horse fighting the gate crew, it usually seems to take something out of them or its already out of them on nerves.



Post Edited (05-30-05 12:02)

[TGJB]

On Pomeroy-- with healthy 4yos coming off a layoff, you almost always get what they are capable of in one of the first two starts, and which it is is a function of training style. His first out non-effort can be attributed to grass or being a race short, but the last one should be about it-- I think he might have a point or so better in him than that short term, but I would be surprised if it is more than that.

[p3991r]

appreciate the response. I\'ll still take a positive view and play, assuming I get the ML or better

[Saddlecloth]

I wish I read more of these type of things more around here.  Will keep that in mind, and it makes alot of sense.

I am almost afraid to post form cycle questions as its rarely discussed here.

TGJB wrote:

> On Pomeroy-- with healthy 4yos coming off a layoff, you almost
> always get what they are capable of in one of the first two
> starts, and which it is is a function of training style. His
> first out non-effort can be attributed to grass or being a race
> short, but the last one should be about it-- I think he might
> have a point or so better in him than that short term, but I
> would be surprised if it is more than that.
>
>

[gvido]

Saddlecloth:

You\'ve hit the nail smack dab on the head. TGJB\'s comments were the most informative on this board in quite some time. Far more interesting than reading Krybaby the Klown bellaching endlessly about Ghostzapper [when the issue is Frankel] or classhandicapper\'s inane musings.

Occasionally I\'ve posted asking folks to check out certain horses in the Red Board Room, but to no avail. People can ramble on endlessly if Beyer gave a certain number. Who gives a flying ratz azzz!!!!!!!

[Saddlecloth]

I have started studying cycles a bit more to try to uncover more overlays as it seems more and more players are dependent on the last race speed figures.

I thought this would be a good place to post questions and the such.

one question I have is how a horse is viewed in the following:

2yo turns three 3yo, or 3yo turns 4yo.. who shows solid figs the year before and solid figs so far this year, but there has been no improvement in the numbers.  The horse appears competitive with the field, but it seems hard to project a new top or best figure.  I note on my sheets a non developing horse.  I am just wondering how others viewed this type of horse as you see them all the time.

Saddle,

IMO you have to do a subjective analysis of the individual horse\'s record when you are talking about newly turned 3YOs/4YOs and improvement potential.

Sometimes you will see flat figures but only because the trainer has been trying to stretch out a horse that really prefers sprinting. Once he goes back to sprinting, the horse\'s real ability will show.

Sometimes a horse that should have been routing will develop rapidly once it gets a chance to stretch out.

Sometimes, the pedigree screams early or late development.

The fewer the number of starts, the more likely you will see further improvement.

Some trainers bring them back very short and some of them bring them back quite fit off layoffs.

Some trainers are MUCH better at developing lightly raced high quality stock than others.

Some trainers get many more horses with the potential to develop to work with.

IMO, one good example of subjective analysis earlier this year was Rock Hard Ten. He didn\'t look like he was improving much from his early 3YO form based on figures alone, but it was pretty obvious to me that he had room to improve this year once you realized that his Belmont was the easiest kind of throw out (12F and a duel up front with a vastly superior horse) and he had physical problems in his race at Monmouth.



Post Edited (06-01-05 16:50)

[Upper Nile]

Saddle:
To look at an example (although I\'m sure others will finds reasons to not use this as a good eaxmple), At least 4 Derby runners this year fit the no-development profile you bring up.  Greater Good, Spanish Chestnut, Closing Argument and Giacomo. Go figure. 2 apparantly hit their non-developing ceiling at least in the short term and X\'d, One ran a 2 point new top and was good enough to get 2nd, and one improved 4 points to win.  I understand your (our) dilemma and here are some questions I ask myself when figuring out what to do with these types. First, I look for reasons I might expect improvement.  I\'ll consider the trainer stats: What is the trainer\'s win % and ROI over the last 90 days? Has there been a trainer change since the last race and how well does the new trainer do 1x trainer change?  Is there an equiptment or jockey change and what are the trainers stats with the change(s)  Do the sire stats point to something like a possible improvement with maturation? Second, I\'ll look for potential reasons to excuse the non-development so far like troubled trips, unfavorable post positions, off tracks, a long layoff or the opposite racing too many times to close together or even recent health issues. Third, I ask, will I be getting what I consider is good value when I decide to take a shot with a runner that has not developed but, as you mention in your example appears competitive with the rest of the field.  This is by no means all inclusive and I hope others will have more to add.
Regards, Phil

[HP]

Saddle,

When you look at the \"solid figs\" from year-to-year, I\'m assuming that the horse is not breaking through his/her top.  So it ran a 10 top as a 2yo and a 10 top as a 3yo?  Here are some questions/issues...

Is the horse reacting to top efforts?  How much?  Is the horse reacting LESS to top efforts as a 3yo than it was as a 2yo?  This may signal some progress to come...  Is he reacting MORE to the top efforts?  May be a bad sign.  

I will tolerate some bouncing around as a 2yo.  The older the horse gets, the less extreme reactions to tops I want to see.  The more they react to tops the longer it\'s going to take them to get back to the top and the more unlikely they are to move on to a new top.  For me it\'s much harder to guage the 2-3yo jump than it is to guess the 3-4yo jump.  Ten point jumps off breaks aren\'t uncommon for first out 3yos.  You don\'t see as many of those with first out 4yos.  

I like to see 4yos that come back a point better than their 3yo top.  With 3yos, I like to see them come back to their 2yo top right away.  If they do that, I\'m willing to make some allowances in the time it takes for them to move up, provided they don\'t bounce to the moon in the meantime.  

I think a long layoff, frequent layoffs or infrequent starts mean improvement is less likely.  Improving, healthy horses run on a regular basis, like every three or four weeks, and they should be able to run for a couple of months without falling apart.  If a 2-3yo is not running on a regular basis there is usually something up.  A guy is not going to keep a top quality horse on the shelf for nothing!  If you look at a 4yo and hasn\'t broken through his 3yo top and he\'s the type of horse that runs two races every six months or so, he probably is not going to run a new top.  

There are a few exceptions to this, most notably at the very top of the scale, where you have very fast horses that can crank it up every once in awhile, but in your everyday run of the mill race card, I would give the steady eddie type more of a chance to improve than the horse that has shown flashes of brilliance and spent a lot of time doing nothing.

Also, there are quite a few turf horses that will throw you for a loop at 5 or so.  I think routers are more likely to be late bloomers than sprinters.  

I\'ll tell you one expensive lesson I\'ve learned - there are VERY FEW trainers who you can really count on to have a horse ready to win off a 90+ day layoff, especially going two turns.  I think most layoffs come out of necessity (there\'s something wrong or the horse needs a rest) as opposed to design (the guy is going to crank the horse and win off a layoff).  By the time the horse is 4yo, you should have a good read on his \"layoff pattern\" and be able to see if something may be wrong.

Good luck!

HP

[Saddlecloth]

well I had typed a very detailed response to the above three posts and my computer crashed.......errrr

thanks for everyones input....

its actually easier for me to make decisions when I see obvious reasons to dismiss a bad effort, its when the figures are tight that it can be tough.  I mean a horse is likely to pair up but its hard for me to say he is going to move forward.  Guess thats where old fashioned handicapping principles come into play.

\"I mean a horse is likely to pair up but its hard for me to say he is going to move forward.\"

In allowance and preliminary stakes races:

All else being equal, you are better off with well bred, lightly raced horses from top barns.  

Among very lightly raced 2 and 3 year olds of quality, a much improved workout line is often a tipoff to a big step forward.

All else being equal, I\'d rather have a horse in his 2nd-4th race off a layoff vs. one that has had a long campaign.
 
Personally, I believe a lot of fluctuations in figures are related accuracy issues, trips, paces, biases, the competitive nature of races, and day to day ups and downs that are no different than why I shoot pool well on day and poorly the next (not much of a reason).



Post Edited (06-01-05 18:09)

[HP]

Saddle,

This is actually an area where the TGI stat can help a little.

Let\'s say you have tight numbers and no real year to year improvement.  Like in your original point.  Assuming the horse CAN run a little better, you have to imagine HOW MUCH better can he realistically run.  

I will look at the TGI and if there\'s a nice big sample there and the TGI for overall 2yo is 19 and for 3yo it is 16, I may figure that the horse, at best, could improve three lengths.  So if he\'s running 11\'s, and I think he might get better, maybe he\'ll run an 8.  If an 8 puts him in the mix at a price, I might use him.  If I spot some other thing I like, I might go for more.  If he\'s not a price, I\'m probably going to pass.  It gives you a starting point at least to IMAGINE how much he can move up...  I originally couldn\'t imagine what to do with the TGI thing but I\'ve found it does help in this year to year stuff...

I would add that this is exactly where old fashioned handicapping principles DON\'T come into play for me.  You\'ve got to have faith in the figures and your ability to read the patterns.  Falling back on the old stuff just turns it into mush.  

As just one example, how many \"well bred, lightly raced horses from top barns\" will be prices?  Especially if they have an \"improving workout line\" that everyone on Earth will see?  Sure they stand a chance, maybe a damn good chance, but how many of them will be more than 3-1?  Not too many!  The TOTAL STIFFS that fit this description will be 4-1.  

The whole point of TG is to bet on the horse that looks best on TG!  Get rid of this class/old barn crap.  If the class/old barn horse isn\'t as fast on TG as a 10-1 shot that has a pattern to run you better play the 10-1 shot or you\'re wasting your time!  If you\'re going to use TG and bet what looks best elsewhere you\'re wasting money somewhere along the line.  

I don\'t usually play California, but that 4th at HOL looks interesting tmw. (Thurs.).  Charbonnier (!) and Charmvictor look better than the favorites (Rush Country and Tiz Afire).  Will that morning line hold up?  Let\'s hope!

HP

\"As just one example, how many \"well bred, lightly raced horses from top barns\" will be prices? \"

Coin Silver, Flower Alley, and Bandini paid pretty good prices this spring if you understood their ability/potential and the flaws in some of their competitors.  

I cashed on Coin Silver in the Lexington.

Flower Alley was my second choice behind Texcess in the Lanes End. I actually had a ticket on him punched, but pulled it at the last second. That was a betting error, but not an error in understanding his chances of winning.

Realizing that Bandini was very likely to improve in the Blue Grass kept me off a bunch of underlays in the race that others seemed to like so much.

It\'s not JUST about finding a big price to cash.

It\'s also about understanding the actual chances of various horses to win. If you underrate certain horses, you will overrate others and bet them as underlays.  If you hate the favorite, you might bet the wrong horse against him.

\"The whole point of TG is to bet on the horse that looks best on TG!\"

The whole point of using TG or any other set of speed figures is to have an objective measurement of ability/performance.

Despite the fact that the classing system is relatively efficient (meaning that higher class designations tend to contain better/faster horses), there are many uses of speed figures.

IMO...

They are especially useful in evaluating lightly raced limited winners because there\'s often a wide range of ability within the same class. Those races contain horses that will go on to be stakes champions and others that are destined for the claiming ranks.

They are very useful when the 3YOs start running against older horses for the first time because various crops are stronger or weaker than others.

They are very useful for comparing horses racing in different parts of the country at the same class designation.

Etc....



Post Edited (06-02-05 09:24)