BB Food for Thought

[SoCalMan2]

imallin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very good post, let me chime in with my thoughts.
>
> BB\'s Beyer fig in the Derby was 109 and his
> Preakness number was 100. The way people are
> talking, Big Brown is being hailed as an all time
> great. Commentators like Gary \"conflict of
> interest\" Stevens and laffit Pincay III have
> talked in terms that i don\'t think i\'ve ever heard
> used for a thoroughbred. I can\'t imagine that any
> commentator in 1973 ever used MORE glowing terms
> for Secretariat.
>
> I haven\'t heard one person anywhere in the world
> mention that Big Brown is anything less than the
> greatest thoroughbred of all time. \'Secretariat
> who\' is what everyone is saying.
>
> So, if Smarty Jones ran 118 in the Preakness and
> BB ran a 100, what am i missing?
>
> Isn\'t an all time great thoroughbred supposed to
> run 120 or 125 in at least ONE of their lifetime
> starts? Didn\'t Mineshaft and Ghostzapper run 120
> or faster on the Beyer scale?


Sounds to me like a great indictment of why Beyers are so far inferior to sheet based figures.  

Obviously, BB\'s Beyers do not reflect the double headwind/single tailwind issue in the KY Derby (or the paths wide info).  

If one wanted to, they could use these examples to show exactly why the sheets are better than Beyers, but I am not sure I would like that so much as I prefer for us to be seen as kool-aid drinking crazies rather than people who might be onto something.

[richiebee]

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He just was not remotely in the same speed
> ballpark as the faster horses. What was remarkable
> was that he went off at nearly the same price
> Street Sense did. You gotta love the folks that
> bet down horses upon conjecture. It took some
> doing, but I finally talked Steve Haskin off him.
>
> I have some statistical research for our friend
> Rags to Richie. Which trainer has the most last
> place finishers in the Derby?
>
> He would have to really suck wouldn\'t he? I mean
> stink to high heaven and be without a shred of
> horsemanship and never know when to run a horse
> and when not to run! He would be a charlatan.
>
> 2008-Monba
> 2007-Cowtown Cat
> 2006-Keyed Entry
> 2005-Bandini (2nd to last)
> 2004-Pollard\'s Vision (2nd to last)
> 2002-Wild Horses
> 2000-Graeme Hall
>
> This guy has 5 last place finishes and 2 second to
> lasts. I don\'t think anyone has ever done worse
> than that.

Clownteaugay:

With all the relevant conversation being undertaken, you are looking at last
place finishers?

I think a lot of people on this Board have a strong rooting interest in D of C
completing the course in the Belmont; it doesn\'t have anything to do with pari
mutuel wagering.

I get the point. You think Pletcher is a hack. He ends up on Union Avenue in
Saratoga, you end up a broken down horseplayer.

Pletcher won one Triple Crown race in his career-- one more than Bill Mott or
H Allen Jerkens, the same number that Frankel or Shug won.

One thing I will say, by focusing on Pletcher\'s last place finishers you have
struck a vein that Beyer and Crist and Haskins (not to mention most posters on
this Board) have totally missed in their Triple Crown analysis. WHAT AN ANGLE!!
I think we should all abandon our search for the live horses in the Belmont and
devote all of our energies towards determining whether Behindatthebar can trail
the field.

Congrats on another classy and relevant post!!

With apologies to the Great Society/ Jefferson Airplane:

One pill makes you larger/
One pill makes you small/
When the Clown forgets/
To take his meds/
He makes no sense at all/

Fusarichiebee Pegasus

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Richandriano

This is why I win the Derby 5 of 7 years Fusahchee Peg and Plech finishes last 5 of 7. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff and go after whats truly relevant.

You\'ll never see me discussing a horse on the basis of what other horses did. You\'ll never see me trying to apply 20% or 30% or 50% to an animal. Others may work the probability angle for the Belmont. They may consider the subtle intricacies of getting 4-1 or 9-2 to beat a Grade I 3YO. I\'m just not going to bother going there. The data goes out the window every time a horse adds new variables.

The 4 current threads are inane to me. An absolute waste of space. If you think they are worthy of investing time all I can say is that I had Ichabad Crane in the Preakness exotics and Macho Again was the very last horse I tossed. What does that mean?

The Plech Derby Data is the best data currently playing. I\'m gonna save the variables gem for now.

The winsterol post was a good one. When they outlaw it and test for steroids I think the Great Derby Loser will do even worse.

By the way I watched Fusachee Peg\'s Derby again the other day. That horse sucked at 5-2. Talk about a weak field.

D of C was a very tired horse post Derby. He was dead on his hooves.

Wonder what Prado is thinking of his Derby selection. Now theres a topic ready for development!

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He just was not remotely in the same speed
> > ballpark as the faster horses. What was
> remarkable
> > was that he went off at nearly the same price
> > Street Sense did. You gotta love the folks that
> > bet down horses upon conjecture. It took some
> > doing, but I finally talked Steve Haskin off
> him.
> >
> > I have some statistical research for our friend
> > Rags to Richie. Which trainer has the most last
> > place finishers in the Derby?
> >
> > He would have to really suck wouldn\'t he? I
> mean
> > stink to high heaven and be without a shred of
> > horsemanship and never know when to run a horse
> > and when not to run! He would be a charlatan.
> >
> > 2008-Monba
> > 2007-Cowtown Cat
> > 2006-Keyed Entry
> > 2005-Bandini (2nd to last)
> > 2004-Pollard\'s Vision (2nd to last)
> > 2002-Wild Horses
> > 2000-Graeme Hall
> >
> > This guy has 5 last place finishes and 2 second
> to
> > lasts. I don\'t think anyone has ever done worse
> > than that.
>
> Clownteaugay:
>
> With all the relevant conversation being
> undertaken, you are looking at last
> place finishers?
>
> I think a lot of people on this Board have a
> strong rooting interest in D of C
> completing the course in the Belmont; it doesn\'t
> have anything to do with pari
> mutuel wagering.
>
> I get the point. You think Pletcher is a hack. He
> ends up on Union Avenue in
> Saratoga, you end up a broken down horseplayer.
>
> Pletcher won one Triple Crown race in his career--
> one more than Bill Mott or
> H Allen Jerkens, the same number that Frankel or
> Shug won.
>
> One thing I will say, by focusing on Pletcher\'s
> last place finishers you have
> struck a vein that Beyer and Crist and Haskins
> (not to mention most posters on
> this Board) have totally missed in their Triple
> Crown analysis. WHAT AN ANGLE!!
> I think we should all abandon our search for the
> live horses in the Belmont and
> devote all of our energies towards determining
> whether Behindatthebar can trail
> the field.
>
> Congrats on another classy and relevant post!!
>
> With apologies to the Great Society/ Jefferson
> Airplane:
>
> One pill makes you larger/
> One pill makes you small/
> When the Clown forgets/
> To take his meds/
> He makes no sense at all/
>
> Fusarichiebee Pegasus

[miff]

\"Isn\'t an all time great thoroughbred supposed to run 120 or 125 in at least ONE of their lifetime starts? Didn\'t Mineshaft and Ghostzapper run 120 or faster on the Beyer scale\".

Imallin,

BB is 3, those horses ran those Big Beyers at 4-5. BB has the fastest TG Derby fig in history.Since he won\'t run at 4, he may never get one of those 120 Beyers you speak of.If you adjust BB\'S Derby Beyer for ground and wind, he ran about a 118 Beyer,as a 3yr old.

If he wins the TC,he deserves to be considered with the all time best 3yr olds, why not?


Mike

[gowand]

How long can you live off War Emblem and Funny Cide? Since then your \'WINNERS\"  are 3 chalks and a second choice(by 60 cents on the dollar).

[mjellish]

Re: BB Food for Thought (155 Views)
Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2008 01:51PM

Coupla things. First of all, no, I do not think it would be good for the game if we have the first TC winner in 30 years, and it\'s trained by Dutrow.

Second of all, I agree that nobody can tell with 80% certainty what BB (or any horse) will do-- that\'s why he\'s a bet against at 3-10 or whatever, as So Cal says. As you said (in effect) when going through your Derby analysis, it\'s about percentages, not picking winners.

Third of all, not specific to you, but to this discussion in general:

THE LAST ELEVEN OF THESE HAVE GONE DOWN. Not one, not two, eleven in a row. There are reasons for that (fkach, leave it alone). Sure, this could be the one, and maybe he has a better chance than most of putting in another one just because of Winstrol, etc. But it can\'t be wrong to take a shot against him, given the odds vs. the history alone-- even if you don\'t look at our data.



Jerry,

You make a good point about Dutrow.  But the average person out there doesn\'t know diddle about Tricky.  They only know the horse and what the media tells them.  With all of the recent fallout and scrutiny from the breakdown in the derby, references to Barbaro, etc., I think a win by a Dutrow trained horse, coming after an admission of Winstrol use, may actually turn up the heat and bring even more media attention to issues like steroids, other drugs, move up trainers, 2 year old racing, breeding for speed, industry oversight, regulatory boards, etc.  These are all important issues that need to be addressed.  Perhaps the industry will finally feel compelled to change.  After all, it\'s only yours, mine and the public\'s money that is at stake...  

I also agree that there is no easy way to play BB to win in the Belmont.  I don\'t care how much Japanese money pours in on Casino Drive, this sucka is going to be 1/5 or thereabouts and probably on 85% + of all the exotic tickets.  That being said, playing against 1/5 simply because of the odds is a  quick way to lose a good chunk of your bankroll if that 1/5 turns out to be legit.  Also, in my opinion what has happened in the last 11 Triple Crown tries has no bearing whatsoever on this year\'s Belmont.  It is as irrelevant a point as it was to say that no horse has won the derby from the 20 post since 1919 or whatever, etc.  To me, playing against BB for simply historical reasons is the same as betting the Green Bay Packers to win the Super Bowl this year because they have won more NFL championships than anyone else.  It just doesn\'t make sense.  

I also don\'t think it makes sense to play against BB simply because of his pattern.  I am not convinced this deserves to be the dominant handicapping factor for this particular race.  To me the horse just hasn\'t run hard enough and there is no clear cut indicator, not even on paper, that he is more-than likely to go off form.  I am not trying to knock pattern handicapping.  It just happens to be my opinion that in this case BB\'s pattern is irrelevant because we can\'t make an accurate assessment of his Preakness.  So I think anyone that wants to play against him because of his pattern is hoping and crossing their fingers.  To each his own if someone wants to play that way, but not for my money.

Believe me, I want to play against this guy as much as anyone out there.  But before I do that I am going to look for one or more, horseflesh based reasons to do so.  I want to see him have a poor gallop out after a work, or blow like a bus, or run erratically on the track as if something may be bothering him.  For all I know BB may get the 10 post and there could turn out to be a strong speed on the rail bias on Belmont Day, or the track could come up muddy, or he washes out and acts nuts in the paddock, or he winds up wearing a bar shoe at the last minute.  I think any of these reasons would be FAR better reasons to take a position against BB, and believe me I will then be all-in and in more than one betting pool.

Got to love this game.  Nothing else compares.

[P-Dub]

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 4 current threads are inane to me. An absolute
> waste of space. If you think they are worthy of
> investing time all I can say is that I had Ichabad
> Crane in the Preakness exotics and Macho Again was
> the very last horse I tossed. What does that mean?

It means you didn\'t cash.

Which of course, we already knew.

Because if you did, we would have heard about it 50 times by now.

I can\'t wait for DOC to live past the Belmont.

[P-Dub]

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The horses he will face in a few weeks are alot
> faster and more acomplished than the nags he beat
> in the Preakness and, on the pure sheet pattern
> (which I know many don\'t believe), he looks headed
> in the wrong direction.


When you run the fastest Derby of all time, where do you go from there??  I think saying he\'s going in the wrong direction is a little strong. That number he just threw is still pretty good.

He\'s definitely a play against at the 1/5 or less odds. But if he\'s the freak some think he is, it won\'t matter what direction you think he\'s going.

Even if BB regresses further, all this talk of boxcars means nothing unless you find the horse going in the \"right direction\". Just who will that horse be??

[jimbo66]

Agree with a lot of points on this thread.

Interesting to me that some on this board, especially JB, were quite willing to give Pyro and their connections a pass for slow figures (at least prior to Bluegrass), by saying he had a manufactured pattern, and was being set to peak in the Derby.  this despite the very negative fact that he couldn\'t get back to his 2 year old top in the first couple of 3 year old races AND the fact that there were no visual signs of his not being \"all out\" in his first couple races this year.

However, Desormeaux clearly not asking Big Brown for his best, clearly gearing him down in the stretch after just a few strides at the top of the stretch, thus making the preakness a \"regression\", doesn\'t fall into the category of \'manufactured pattern\'.

Other than the odds and this the potential ROI in beating Big Brown versus beating Pyro, these two facts don\'t reconcile at all.

Jim

[covelj70]

Jimbo,

My thought on this would be that it\'s impossible to \"manufacture\" a pattern when you are talking about 3 races in 5 weeks, especically considering how monstrous of an effort the first race was.  As was discussed yesterday, once you throw in an effort like BB did in the Derby, a horse would need a signifciant amount of time off before the next race to recurperate from such an effort.

You can theoretically manufacture when you are talking months, not weeks.

[covelj70]

In the pick 3\'s/4\'s, my play will be that one of the 4 horses in the race that had perviously run a 0 can pair or top that number.  As was discussed in a previous post, I believe it was 9 out of the last 11 Belmont winners ran a new top in the Belmont so it wouldn\'t be shocking if one of those 4 put up a negative number which would be good enough to beat BB if he doesn\'t improve on the Preakness number.

All it takes is one of those 4 to put up a number that will produce a monstrous payout.

[miff]

\"once you throw in an effort like BB did in the Derby, a horse would need a signifciant amount of time off before the next race to recurperate from such an effort\"

Cov,

The classic error of all dogmatic sheet players.Instead of saying \" a horse would need a signicant....\" it is far more correct to say \"SOME horses would need......The question was whether BB needed significant time to recuperate from the derby and he answered in the Preakness, NO!It could easily be argued that if the Preakness came up tougher, he could have possibly ran neg -3 or whatever it took to win.

Now he has to answer again in the Belmont.


Mike

[covelj70]

and a 3 negative wouldn\'t have been a bounce from a 5 negative in the Derby?

what Midnight Lute did in the Forego and BC Sprint in pairing the 7 negatives was amazing.

what Big Brown did in the Preakness was bounce.  That fact that he won so easily obfuscated the bounce and the arguments about how he could have run faster if he wanted to made people feel better about it but the fact of the matter is that he bounced.

[miff]

Cov,

The \"pure\" term bounce,in my interpretation, I use to describe a lesser effort by a runner which was probably caused by the stress/exertion of a previous race/races.

If that\'s what you saw in BB\'s Preakness you are one of very few informed racing people that SAW regression in BB\'s Preakness effort. What you are really seeing is a number on paper which you are interpreting as bounce,other sheet players will read it that way also.It\'s just a matter of exclusively looking at the figs or looking at the figs and the race.



Mike

[SoCalMan2]

Excerpted from

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the pick 3\'s/4\'s, my play will be that one of
> the 4 horses in the race that had perviously run a
> 0 can pair or top that number.

Largely agree with this item.

Tale of Ekati and Denis of Cork will run a lot faster than people are expecting them to.  I do not think how far they were behind BB on May 3 (even after BB had a worse trip) is the death knell to say that they have no chance in the Belmont -- a lot of things can happen to three year olds between May 3 and June 7.    

It is pretty clear to me that BB will run slower in the Belmont than he did in the Derby and that both Tale of Ekati and Dennis of Cork will run faster than they did in the Derby.  The big questions are how much slower will BB run and how much faster will TOE and DOC run.  I do think that BB will need to run faster than he did in the Preakness, and, even if he could have ran faster on Preakness day, I do not see that \"h?\" translating into him reliably being able to run faster in the Belmont.

What I am really hoping for is the multi-race wagers that include the Belmont to have some good angles in the relevant surrounding races, so that I can hopefully not have to work out a strategy for the Belmont itself.  If left with only the Belmont, I would look at some form of win wagers and exactas largely.  The only trifectas or superfectas I would include would be a relatively light part of my play and only be those that have Big Brown finishing all the way out.