Preakness Odds

Silver Charm · May 11, 2009, 08:44:30 AM

I think the Belmont in five more weeks is a better move.

Controlling speed, tackling tired Triple Crown battle tested colts, Bigger Stage.

The owner who I\'m sure is calling this shot needs to realize its this one then a pretty good break. The Belmont there would be another dance perhpas as soon as mid-July then the Spa.

Racing needs this kind of shot in the arm

miff · May 11, 2009, 08:47:35 AM

JB,

One thing that is fairly constant in my unsophisticated translation of TG/Rags/Beyer is that when there are differences going in, the results usually show the same difference coming out. My guess is that you are projecting off a data base which, on some horses, differs from theirs going in.I did not translate RA\'s last three TG figs but that might give me an idea.You noticed yourself some substantial difference between you and Rags pre derby.

Was not aware that Rags don\'t give out big wet figs. Unless Beyer changed something, beaten lengths carry the same Beyer point value at a 1 length win or 20 length win at the same distance.

I have heard you say on many occasions that the \"figure is solid\" or in this case 100% right but I can\'t imagine that there is way to verify that outside of your own data base.Any ideas on my hopeless endeavor?

Mike

ajkreider · May 11, 2009, 09:05:24 AM

Since both of BD\'s routes were at two, I\'m not sure how to weight them.

Funny Cide · May 11, 2009, 09:57:24 AM

Don\'t believe the numbers. Believe your eyes. Believe Arazi demolishing the BC Juvenile field with no effort at all. Believe Big Brown\'s \'easy\' Preakness win (confession -- I did). Believe IWR\'s \'easy\' non-effort Wood off of his big top that took nothing out of the horse. And Believe that a 3 y.o. filly runs a big negative number without even putting forth an effort.
--------------

Can\'t resist this one!

You really believe Arazi bounced in the Derby off his BC Juvy effort? I think the chip surgery, recovery, inane prepping (one short turf race), and travel had much more to do with the difference in races that occurred 7 months apart.

Big Brown\'s Preakness was easy, so don\'t be embarressed to confess, your eyes didn\'t deceive you. Bad feet and the toll of the TC can make the weird happen. It certainly wasn\'t a bounce.

Don\'t even know how to comment on IWR since he was injured coming out of a work.

I believe my eyes. They\'re certainly as right as any number out there. If Rachel doesn\'t win or doesn\'t even run well, it\'s not going to be because she regresses off a big effort that was, incidentally, effortless. It\'s going to be because she\'s finally met some good competition.

Silver Charm · May 11, 2009, 09:57:44 AM

Hey wasn\'t the Chilukki figure they gave out on a Wet Track?

~6 for a 2YO Filly in late April. The same figure they gave Charismatic five days later when he won the Derby.

And Beyer had no problem dolling out a 109.

Leamas57 · May 11, 2009, 10:13:00 AM

Since all the animals who ran at CD will be carry close to the same weight of their last race, does weight really matter in the sense of comparing last figs?

miff · May 11, 2009, 10:28:31 AM

Leamas,

First off,the filly RA gets 5 pounds, picks up no weight. All derby participants carry 126 again. Horses like Big Drama picks up 6 lbs, Hull 9 lbs.

Mike

MonmouthGuy · May 11, 2009, 10:59:28 AM

If you truly believe that Rachel Alexandra\'s Oaks was effortless, then I imagine that you would conclude that she could have run a faster fig if she exerted herself, which is almost impossible.

No one is going to run an equal or better number in the Preakness than she did in the Oaks. If she pairs that figure, she wins for fun.

If she doesn\'t pair or improve on her Oaks figure Saturday, she will have regressed, period, whether or not it is still enough to win.

The \"good competition\" argument will just be an excuse, just as Big Brown\'s \"loose shoe\" was.

MonmouthGuy · May 11, 2009, 11:18:15 AM

Hull to Woody Stephens.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/horseracing/bal-hull0511,0,3532125.story

jimbo66 · May 11, 2009, 11:48:44 AM

Mike,

I know the filly gets 5 pounds, but in comparing figs, I believe it is irrelevant that Big Drama and Hull pick up weight, as the figures are already \"normalized\" for weight carried, as part of the compilation. (unless I am wrong)

TGJB · May 11, 2009, 11:50:45 AM

Miff-- there is no chance the figure is slower. Period. If anything it\'s faster. And yes, since we all use the horses\' previous figures, garbage in, garbage out. It will be hard for bettors to test the figures going forward, since Rachel may never run that fast again, and all but the second filly (who paired) X\'d out. But the way you know as a figure maker IS with your data base.

I would be surprised if Beyer was using the same length/point relationship at all distances (to say the least). The question is whether he is using the right one for 1 1/8.

SC-- if I remember correctly, the Chilukki race was fast sealed, the next wet harrowed, the rest wet sealed, and Ragozin lumped them together.

Leamas-- you need to check the part of the intro seminar that deals with weight.

P.Eckhart · May 11, 2009, 12:16:50 PM

What are the reasons against pairing the winner at -0.5 or slight new top?

Funny Cide · May 11, 2009, 12:23:04 PM

If you truly believe that Rachel Alexandra\'s Oaks was effortless, then I imagine that you would conclude that she could have run a faster fig if she exerted herself, which is almost impossible.

No one is going to run an equal or better number in the Preakness than she did in the Oaks. If she pairs that figure, she wins for fun.

If she doesn\'t pair or improve on her Oaks figure Saturday, she will have regressed, period, whether or not it is still enough to win.

The \"good competition\" argument will just be an excuse.
-------------------

Horses don\'t run figs. Humans assign them figs. Of course she could run faster -- weren\'t you watching?

You really think that good competition can\'t bring her down, but some human-assigned number can?

MonmouthGuy · May 11, 2009, 12:29:55 PM

I was watching and I don\'t think she could run faster.

There is no horse in the Preakness that can beat her if she runs as fast as she did in the Oaks.

The competition will only look \"good\" in the Preakness if she regresses.

TGJB · May 11, 2009, 12:43:23 PM

It wouldn\'t fit with either the day or the horses. You would be giving all the other fillies just horrible figures-- they ran bad enough giving them 4 points better. If it worked for the horses I would have had no problem breaking it out, and in fact did so a little not to give RA better. But there is no, and I mean NO, chance that race was slower.