Nack Talkin Smack

[Silver Charm]

Interesting bit of editorial journalism from Bill Nack. Calling \"Sheet Philosophy\" a Charmin effect on how to handle horses.

Nack is missing the point. In the short-term horses can handle short spacing and severe or compressed training leading up to and during the Triple Crown.

The long term effects are the issue he needs to justify.

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=38935

[marcus]

imo - Pretty unsophisticated view put forward forward about Sheets in the piece .  Sounds to me like Nack ,  Baffart and the unnamed  \"Sheets Guy\" are a little out of their league when disscussing or understanding the relavance and  significance of sheets . Some of these people look better imo if they talk
about the many previous past success and their horses  ...

[Bull]

Ok I just got done vomitting, and here are my thoughts....

Who the hell is William Nack, some horse racing fan with a journalism degree? What is this guy an expert because he wrote a biography on Secretariat, or he used to work for Sports Illustrated? I guess that makes you qualified to criticize something you obviously know nothing about (sheet related horse management questions). The guy has probably never looked at a sheet in his life, let alone seek out sheet experts for help correctly identifying the methodology. As stated here earlier by a previous poster, he inaccurately simplifies the whole sheet reading process required to handle horses.

Being a young man, I really do not mean to bash old people, but this is a perfect example of what is wrong with way too many people when they hit their "golden years". They become venomous and bitter towards anything remotely younger, fresher, and contrary to their ancient, time honored ideologies. I am sure I am not the only victim of this, but it's disgusting.

Notice how Nack did not rip the older horsemen who use sheets (Frankel comes to mind); his specific attack was directed at the younger horsemen, which is why Todd Pletcher gets thrown under the bus. Pletcher's sheet methodology seems to be working quite fine when he's winning multiple Eclipse Awards, multiple Breeder's Cup races, two Kentucky Oaks, and setting numerous records for stakes wins and purse earnings. I like Baffert, but how is the Baffert/Lukas methodology doing in the classics the last few years? That style has left them without starters able to even compete, because the strenuous over-extending of their young horses leaves them with little come Derby time. Remember it took Lukas a while to finally get the Derby. Leave Todd alone for a few years. If I want to have a top level horse compete effectively into his late 3yo and 4yo campaigns, Id much rather have a Sheet trainer. Where are all those top older horses in the Lukas and Baffert barns?

I don't see Nack criticizing Michael Matz for his handling of Barbaro. Couldn't he be considered a "softy" for his well spaced campaign of Barbaro including a five week layoff heading into Louisville? Did Barbaro have to win by 10 to make Nack a believer?

The old timers spend too much reminiscing about the "good old days" to ever see the present day clear enough to comment intelligently on it. The whole "I'm older so I know more than you" attitude speaks volumes about a person. I found Nack's article inaccurate, poorly researched and unprofessionally biased. I would think an old timer, who has done this for so long, such as Mr. Nack, would know better.


Yours never afraid of change,
- The Bull

[spa]

Bull, older is smarter..........

[miff]

\"Bull said:

The old timers spend too much reminiscing about the "good old days" to ever see the present day clear enough to comment intelligently on it. The whole "I'm older so I know more than you" attitude speaks volumes about a person. I found Nack's article inaccurate, poorly researched and unprofessionally biased. I would think an old timer, who has done this for so long, such as Mr. Nack, would know better\"



Bull,

You have swallowed the dogma, hook, line and sinker.All horses are different with some NOT needing long breaks between races.There is zero science or results to suggest that EVERY horse needs 3, 4, or 5 weeks rest after a tough race, just look at the recent Preakness.Granted most horses are not the hard hitters they once were because of the more pure speed breeding of today.In spite of his methods and enormous stock TAP has never and may never accomplish what Lukas or Baffert did with their methods in TC racing.


Allen Jerkens snickers at the thought of leaving a sharp horse in the barn just because he just ran a big race. Run them when they are good, rest them when they need it, he says.

The idea that a performance fig alone is the way to manage a horse is straight form the dogma book. How\'s that working out by the way and what is your license to comment on Nack\'s article(not that I agree totally agree with him)


Mike

[miff]

Spa,

My doc is 38 and brilliant, he\'s smarter than me(like many),SOMETIMES older is smarter.

The problem with the dogma sheet guys is they don\'t understand the word \"SOMETIMES\" and follow rigid and inflexible thinking.

Mike

[Saddlecloth]

I love the sheets and thier affect on the game, I cant wait until we get a 3 race season from top horses!

Wonder if that guy Allen Jerkins uses the sheets?

[Bull]

Miff,

I knew I might get roasted by a few here on this board, here\'s hoping we can continue to keep the discourse civil....

My qualifications, I am a professional gambler with about half of my income coming from horses (the rest poker). I have been a serious student of the game since I was 6. I grew up around horses and managed my Grandfather\'s horses up until his death in 2004. You may remember a stakes winning grass mare named Merry Princess. We bought her for 5500 and she won 3 stakes and almost 400k all in turf sprints. She was actually bred to Point Given (though the offspring only brought 40k at auction last week). I am also a horse owner myself.

When I questioned Nack\'s authority to speak on the matter, I was referring to his authority to question sheet methodology. Clearly from reading his article it is apparent that he does not fully understand the process. As a devout (Ragozin) sheet user since the age of 15 and serious pupil of the handicapping/management ideology of the Sheets, I feel I was qualified to make an intelligent comment on the article.

I am not saying that there are set in stone rules when it comes to racing horses. I acknowledge that there are guys who have had short term success giving horses little to no rest (Jerkens, RD2 come to mind). In my opinion, the reason why some of the top 3yos are able to make it through the rigorous Triple Crown races with a fair amount of success has nothing to do with the way they are handled by their connections. They are facing other, lesser quality 3yo\'s, facing the same rigors of the same schedule. Most of the \"new shooters\" who skip the Derby and run in the Preakness are bums who did not run in the Derby because they didn\'t belong there. It would take a supreme regression by the top 3yos to even allow the \"new shooters\" to contend, let alone win.

Your comments in analyzing the Triple Crown success and failure of TAP compared with Lukas and Baffert are obviously accurate. Todd has not even come close to sniffing the overall success of the other two. That is not proof, however, that the Lukas methodology is superior, or vice versa. As I said, it took Lukas a while to win his first Derby. TAP deserves a little more time before he gets ripped for his TC failures.

As a few posters already mentioned, the beauty of the sheet methodology is that it gives the horses the best chance to be able to perform at a top level for a greater amount of time. You want to have a star for two months and then nothing for the remainder of his career, then let someone with the Lukas ideology train your horses. No one is denying that you can coax big efforts short term out of horses with little rest. Many guys have proven that. All we are saying is that sheet methodology can also get those big efforts short term, and that way appears to be much better for the longevity of the horse.

I knew my post might bring its critics, and that\'s ok. I enjoy the civil debates with my fellow racing fans, especially the posters on this board, who are some of the most knowledgable and insightful fans the sport has. My main gripe was the way Nack completely dismissed the Sheets as a valuable tool on the Triple Crown trail,as if horses with good spacing and rest never won a TC race, or a horse with Sheet connections never won a TC race either. Throw that in with his obvious bias against the younger generation of trainers, and you can see why I found the article a bit offensive.


Nothing but love,
-Bull

[miff]

Bull,

Nice post, totally understood. I use TG for a very long time.Imo,no one will ever have long term success gambling, owning or whatever by SOLELY looking at a number on a piece of paper and making decisions only off of that alone. I do not think you can beat the game without good data and TG and Rag players have an edge over non users,assuming they understand the other things that go into pickings winners consistently.

Your comments regarding the participants in the derby and preakness are non sheet like. Many sheet players figured a regression for SS, Curlin and HS as they all came off strong derby efforts, had weak spacing, yet still ran their eyeballs out.I do not think that the lack of new shooters meant much, the race went fast!

If you look at Rags you believe that Curlin ran app 12 lengths better than his derby and SS ran 6 lengths better than his derby.Bull,loyal Raggie or not,how many people who really know the game believe in those preakness Rags figs as they relate to the prior derby figs? I\'m familiar with evaluating figs and I would like to know from a rag guy, what you thought of the Rag Bluegrass figs and the derby figs.Looking at the three races together on the Rags sheets, they make little sense on any racing/performance fig level and are widly different from all other credible data.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Bull]

Miff,

I agree, there are other factors necessary in the handicapping equation. The Sheets are the cornerstone of my approach yes, but they are not the whole bowl of wax. I will say that I give very little to no credence to pace. My methodology is designed to predict change. I feel that in this game, too many people think in a linear manner. When you try to predict deviations from the typical, that\'s where you get an edge. I attempt to determine the number that each horse figures to run today, based on NUMEROUS factors, some of those non sheet related, if that makes sense. For instance, at Philly Park, if Jayne Vaders claims a horse off of some low % trainer, you can give the horse credit for running at least 2-3 pts better today than what you would have predicted without the trainer change. The bets with my biggest edge come from those where my predicted number is in stark contrast with the horse\'s recent history.

My comments on the Triple Crown horses were intended to be an overall generalization, not specific to this year. I said \"some top 3yos\", not \"all top 3yos\". I agree, that Preakness went FAST.

As for your Ragozin # questions...... I did not bet the Preakness, with the exception of the Pick 4. I saw no value whatsoever. That being said, I will go on record as saying I was a little disappointed in the way the figures \"performed\" in the Preakness. Given the Ragozin #\'s, you would have to find the result of the Preakness implausible. If Street Sense is struggling to get back to his 2yo top (as Ragozin says) it\'s hard to imagine he moves forward to a 0 on 2 weeks rest. If Curlin reacted 3 pts in the Derby to his Ark effort, again it\'s hard to imagine he moves forward almost 7 pts off the Derby to a negative # off of two weeks. My analysis (as was Len\'s, I believe), that Curlin was more likely to go backward again than he was to go forward.

Let me continue by saying this is a game of %\'s and my analysis given the Derby numbers, was that it was unlikely that both Street Sense and Curlin would improve to that level. It was certainly possible, but given the patterns, I would say the % would be low, and given the odds, made neither one a bet. I don\'t want to put words into Len\'s mouth, but I would assume he would echo that.

I believe in the Ragozin numbers, I believe in Len\'s ability to get the right number. However, I do question if the read on the horses would have been different had he had the Derby a few pts faster for the top horses. Personally, I would still be a bit negative on Street Sense and Curlin in the Preakness if he gave Street Sense a 2 or 1\" and Curlin maybe a 3-4, but I would not have been nearly as surprised by the result, particularly Street Sense. I am not trying to say the numbers were wrong in any spot. Im just saying from a % standpoint, I would give Street Sense a greater % chance to get to a 0, had his Derby been given a faster number. If Curlin had been given a number in the Derby which was slightly faster than his Ark Derby, the case could be made that he had another forward move in him (though on two weeks rest, that would be tough), as opposed to the 6 which he got, which could be viewed as the signal that he had no more forward moves in him for the time being given his races and spacing. That being said, I believe had Curlin skipped the Preakness, given his 6 in the Derby, you could play him to move forward, maybe even past the 3 top when Belmont Day came around.

I will finish by saying that I am not as good at reading patterns as Len, so I will not dismiss his reads. I may disagree at times, but I always have respect for his opinion and always understand where he comes from with his argument. Actually our reads were similar on the Preakness. We were both negative on the top 3. Some people will say the numbers were right, but it was just a crazy, outlier type result that occured in the Preakness. Others will say that the Derby (and maybe Bluegrass) figures were wrong in the first place, which explains many Sheet users being fooled by the resulting Preakness figures. I will tend to side with the first reason, but I understand where you\'re coming from if you want to side with the second reason.


Licking my chops for the Belmont Day pick 4,
-The Bull

[miff]

Bull,

Playing as long as you and know several of the NY professional gamblers, Raggies and TG. I am very surprised that you as a pro \"give little to no credence to pace\" or in my parlance \"race shape\" I note that you \"speak\" strickly sheets and not other racing stuff and wonder how you could possibly beat the game.

Honestly Bull,I\'m glad that you don\'t have any regard for the countless \"loose lead\" winners I have caught over the years. As far as pure racing angles go, probably the most powerful,imo.

Good Luck,
Mike

[davidrex]

To paraphrase an old \"I Love Lucy\"program...For once the bull is full of t.g.

[Bull]

Miff,

Im not saying that I do not use race shape, or lone lead theory in my handicapping. I do, but only as a guide post as to who will be wide, and situations where one of the speed horses figures to clear and GET THE RAIL. My reasons have nothing to do with pace, but more so ground loss. As far as lone speed goes, I believe that seriously gets overbet in many parts of the country, and with so many tracks going to Poly or Synthetic, I don\'t want my horse on the lead anymore anyway lol.

We all have different strategies and styles. That\'s what make the game great Miff, as you know. The key is being able to make your style work for you. I am not nearly as dogmatic as you think. My post was heavily Sheet versed because that was the topic. I will say that Sheets are the main component in my aresnal,but i am not \"strictly sheets\" and I do pretty well with it. That\'s not to say others aren\'t or can\'t do well with other methods. Good luck to all.


-The Bull

[Flighted Iron]

Bull,

  Have faith Bull.I can definitely name an old-timer(50 years in the biz)who was
training and winning before the sheets,but has an open mind and is a sheets guy
and has been for the last twenty years.Hint: The Dizzle\'s little snizzle might
just sizzle on the 31st.

[TGJB]

Bull-- only stopped in the office for a minute, so I won\'t see your answer until tomorrow. But--

Do you think that Street Sense ran no better in the Derby than the Blue Grass? Do you think that 3 of the 7 runners in the BG (which featured a 1:16 6f split) ran big new tops?

According to Ragozin, they did.