Super Saver and Rule

[Leamas57]

Nicely articulated MJ. And you might have added that they have to carry 126 lbs. this special race....

Leamas

[nyc1347]

> I am glad you belive in pattern handicapping.  I
> think it can be one of the best ways to spot
> horses on the improve and therefore at good odds,
> and you seem to know your way around a sheet.
> There are times when pattern handicapping is the
> key to making money on a race (provided you bet it
> correctly).  But there are also times when pattern
> doesn\'t matter at all, or when a horse will \"defy\"
> his pattern.  If you\'ve been using sheets as long
> as you say you have, you have got to know this to
> be true.


When you say \"defy\" you are using a very SMALL example of something that is out of the ordinary.  Typically we can categorize horses thru their specific patterns (consistent, forging, regressing, all over the place, etc).  I am specifically talking here about entering a race where we know what a horses line is and what his capabilities are.  
>
> The saying about a horse \"not getting the
> distance\" is very, very real, my friend.  In fact,
> most horses have fairly distinct preferences, and
> many of them have hard limits.  You don\'t need to
> take my word for it, and we don\'t need to debate
> it.  Just ask any trainer, the people who actually
> work with these animals every day.  


The FIRST and ONLY thing I do as \"distance\" is label a horse as a One Turn Horse, a Two turn horse or a horse who can run both in comparison to his thoro number.  That to me is that only thing I can say about a horse overall that would allow me to gauge his future distance efforts in the future going a certain distance.  Once I get past that small hump I can then move on with comparison of those type efforts to allow me to see what he will run next.   YES 6F is NOT 10F and should only be compared to when u are looking at form and some kind of pattern or consistent efforts.  The point is that if a horse has shown me he can run TWO turns going lets say 8F and everything is in line.. then THAT horse has in my opinion the same shot to run consistent efforts at 9F and up.  Distance at THIS LEVEL is completely overanalyzed as these are ALL horses who can get the 2 turns... if not they wouldnt be here right now.  Taking such a simple analyzation we can move forward to see who has what it takes to run the best figure that day using the pattern analysis.



>
> Now when it comes to knowing how far a horse can
> optimally run, I agree with your earlier post that
> you can\'t just go by breeding.  Horses outrun
> their breeding all the time, just like many
> underperform their breeding.  Trainers can usually
> get an inkling about how far a horse is going to
> want to go based on body type, stride,
> conformation and how they train.  But sometimes
> they have to try horses at longer distances in
> order to know for sure.  They have to take their
> shot.  
>


Once again if a horse gets 8F and runs bad at 9F theres a REALLY good reason for it.   I would like to have an example of a horse that was able to run 8F and not 9F that WASNT in line with his pattern or his numbers.. obviously bouncing would not count or something like poor rest such as a big brown situation etc...   MOST horses (like a HUUUUUGE percent) who can get the two turns run pretty much in line with those efforts between 8 and 10F.. look at any horses now and u will see urself.  If a horse runs in line but never wins at a certain distance, thats a much different story as he may very well be running against a faster horse every time.. and thats always a huge possibility... but that doesnt mean he cannot get that distance.

> I have gotten to know a few of these trainers over
> the years.  And I promise you, most if not all of
> them will tell you that there is a distinct
> diference between 9F and 10F.  Now you are right
> from the standpoint that a horse on the improve
> under the right circumstances can sometimes
> stretch his distance limitations.  And a horse can
> win a race at almost any distance if his
> competition lays down for him.  But very rarely
> will a horse deliver a peek performance at a
> distance that is either too short or too long for
> him.  And it usually takes a peek performance to
> win a Grade I at a 1 1/4 like the Kentucky Derby.

Yes it takes a peak performance but how about all the other horses in the derby who have run in line with their figures and HAVE NOT won the derby?  if a horse came into the derby with a 7 and ran a 6 he probably got blown out by the field but he DID get the distance correct?   Even look at last years Derby!   the top 8 finishers were perfectly in line with their top efforts for the year the KEY is that a horse like Chocolate Candy DIDNT win because he was simply not fast enough NOT because he couldnt get the distance..  u understand what i mean?  Same goes for the 6 others who ran within their top efforts BUT didnt win!
>
>
> Look at this way.  There aren\'t many track and
> field athletes that are just as effective in the
> 100M dash as they are at the 400M.  Same thing
> applies to horses.  Quite simply, the way horses
> are bred these days in North America there are now
> far more horses that can\'t deliver a peek
> performance than ones that can at 10F or longer.
> Why do you think so few races are run at 1 1/4 or
> longer?  How many dirt races are there a year at 1
> 1/2?  


100M to 400M for HUMANS is an example of a %400 distance increase!!!!  How can THAT compare to horses at all?!!?  AND with humans some of those athletes go on turns as well!  Cant compare it at all!


>
> If you think all it takes is a good pattern at 1
> 1/16 or 1 1/8 to run well at the longer classic
> distances, especially at the Grade I level, you
> are going to lose A LOT of money betting races at
> the classic distances.  I can almost promise you
> that.


I am not saying that is all it takes BUT as the year goes on the horses that are heading to those classic races eventually run races and prep at those distanceS AND the numbers are all pretty much in line.  As the Derby approaches these 3 year olds do not have the convenience for that so we can only go by what they have already run and take it as our best gauge just as the top 8 finishers in last years derby and the top NINE in the 2008 Derby.. check out Recapturetheglory when u get a chance.  17 horses right in line with their pattern on derby day the last 2 years and MANY others as well if u include obvious bounce patterns...these horses lose because they arent fast enough NOT because they cant get distance.. every horse has their own specific capabilities and have proven constantly to run top efforts and/or in line when it comes to one or turn situations deppending on the horse).. theres nothing else more i can say.. once a horse gets the 2 turns and is in line.. they are good to go from 8F to 10F as proven.

[sekrah]

mjellish, Why make this personal because we have a difference of opinion?    You think I\'m off my rocker and not being serious about the issue.  I disagree with your view of Esky, but I don\'t think you\'re off your rocker.  We see things differently here, that is all.   Goto the race track and randomnly ask two people how they handicap the races.  Do you think you\'re going to get the same answers?

I love using speed figures, especially TG numbers.  I purchase and use them to my benefit all the time.  Sometimes I come across figures I disagree with, but the vast majority I accept to be the best number out there.   However, I also use other tools in breaking down these speed figures. Those are my own pace figures along with my own energy distribution theories.

Eskendereya is obviously a very fast race horse, one of the fastest 3-year olds this year, no doubt about it.  But my methodology tells me Eskendereya has also been an ultra lucky horse the past 2 races.  I believe he had near-premium/ideal race setups both times to run the best possible figure he could have run.   These are factors out of Eskendereya\'s control.    A horse coming into the last year\'s Derby had a very similar go of it.  3 consecutive wins, each more impressive than the last, but in each of those 3 races the horse was given a premium race-setup.  That horse was Friesan Fire.   Friesan Fire went ahead with that blowout :57.4 workout and looked like the Derby winner, but he finally found the troubles that a 20-horse field is likely to present and he was unable to overcome them with his one-trick pony running style that I think Eskendereya shares.   On the flip side I see Super Saver, another very fast horse who I believe has yet to have that optimum trip.   He may or may not get that trip as well in the Derby, but I rate his chances to get it higher than Esky\'s based on better athletic agility.  And at 15 or 20-1, he\'s a much easier use for me.

We have different opinions, different methods.  I\'d like to think mine has served me well over the years as I\'ve had success with it.  You\'ve clearly been successful with your methods.  You\'ve had some great calls on here.  I had last years Brooklyn/Belmont double posted on here.  There\'s many paths to victory in horse racing.   Every single person on this forum has their own different quirks/methods to decide on a horse before they bet it.  I realize that you have a strong emotional tie-in to Esky because of the big futures wager you have going, but you\'re basically calling me a nutjob because I see some things differently than you?

[smalltimer]

Sekrah,

In which post did mjellish say you were \"off your rocker?\"
In which post did mjellish basically call you \"a nutjob?\"

I haven\'t seen anything in any of his posts to indicate a strong emotional tie-in to Esky because of his futures wager.  I take it a guy like mjellish is looking to capitalize a lot more on the Derby than his initial futures wager.  With the exception of yourself, can you name 5 people in this room that wouldn\'t like to have a 60/1 futures bet on Esk?  

Mjellish has shown he is on the very, very, very short list of the best cappers on this forum.  If you can\'t at least respect his rational and methodology, then, other than yourself,  who can do you respect?


Peace out.

[mjellish]

Sek,

You have stated that Super Saver will get the 1 1/4 better than ESK, and that ESK has not beat anyone.

I\'m not making this personal.  I\'m just calling you directly on your recent posts.  If you post it, be prepared to defend it, and preferably with something logical.

That\'s all.  Peace out.

[moosepalm]

There are some separate issues being discussed here.  One, is the notion of distance capabilities, in general, as a handicapping tool. It can\'t be ignored.  Now, how you determine this, and when you apply it, is a matter for discussion well beyond my scope, but, when discussed, I pay attention.  The other matter relates to the use of the phrase \"can\'t get the distance,\" when analyzing the Derby.  Here, we move beyond the technical or empirical to the anecdotal, but, all I can say is that I would have liked to have booked the bets in the past few Derbies from all the bettors who I read, or talked with, who wrote horses off because \"they couldn\'t get the distance.\"  Now, when mjellish uses that phrase, I won\'t book his bet because he knows more about handicapping in his little pinkie than I do in my whole cranium, but, it has nonetheless become a phrase in Derby handicapping that I look upon with caution, and is often used by handicappers as a convenient tool to dismiss horses who are not their anointed first choice.

[sekrah]

Yes I believe Super Saver will get 1 1/4 better than Esky..  I\'ve already explained why so.

The Gotham winner Esky beat threw a shoe at the gate and was strangleheld while going wide around the track.  You believe that was AA\'s best effort?

Do you seriously believe Ice Box was in the same condition Feb 20th in the FOY as he was on Mar 20th in the in Fla Derby?   I believe A) He was a better horse on March 20th than Feb 20th, and B) he got a horrible start in the FOY and spotted a super slow-paced race 10-lengths, and ran wide/wide.     A slow start in the Fla Derby actually benefited him because unlike the FOY, the horses in the Fla Derby actually ran real fractions that gave him a chance to close.

Jackson Bend is a horse that got overworked his 2yo career and has shown nothing since coming off the shelf.

Aikenite\'s career highlight was an August 09 MSW win.

I\'m not trying to be a provacative.  We have an honest difference of opinion.  Why does this make you so irate?

[TGJB]

MJ-- I disagree with you about the 9f-10f thing, and I\'ve learned that trainers think they know a whole lot more than they actually do, with very, very few exceptions. BUT-- given the large number of serious contenders in both the Derby and Oaks coming from certain barns, your above post about testing is crucial and right on the button, and a point I\'m going to drill in the seminar. I\'ll be watching the results of the other graded stakes that weekend pretty carefully.

[mjellish]

Ok Jerry.  Appreciate your thoughts.  Here\'s a question for you.  

If we follow the normal development of 3 year old horses, overall we should see an improving curve.  Meaning healthy, racing 3 year old horses tend to get better over their 3 year old seasons.  You can probably plot this curve on a graph and will see a sort of linear looking curve of development.  And with proper spacing and rest, most healthy 3 year olds should be following this curve to some degree or another.

Knowing this, that there is a normal curve of development behind the racing of 3 year old horses, then that curve is always there.  It is always present.  And we will still see the curve of development over time as horses stretch out and change distances.  Furthermore, if there is no difference in the relationships between changing distances, then we should still see this same curve across all distances; meaning the curve is there equally when horses change from 6F -7F, or 8F - 9F, etc.  Some should run new tops because it has been a month or 6 weeks since they last raced and they are developing and so on.  And if there is no difference between going from 8F-9F or 9F-10F then this curve should still show up. It should look the same because we expect that there is development occuring no matter what distances horses are running at, and since this development curve is always the same it should show up equally across all distances.  Some will be running new tops and others won\'t, but the percentages between new tops being run going from 1 mile to 1 1/8, and a 1 1/8 to 1 1/4 should be relatively constant and correlate with the curve.  

Now I haven\'t done this study on your numbers, but I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you run it on your own numbers and compare how often 3 year old horses run a new top the first time they go from 1 to 1 1/8th, and then compare this percentage to the first time they go from 1 1/8th to 1 1/4, and lay those over the developmental curve, you will find there is a significant statistical difference between the two.  And I am not just talking about in the KY Derby.  I am talking about other important races that come later in the year.   I would contend that this difference is because there is some type of thoroughbred threshold that is being crossed at the distance of 1 1/4.  Call it whatever you want.  And I think this is one of the reasons why even with proper rest and a whole spring geared towards delivering a peak performance the first Saturday in May, so few of these suckers ever run new tops.  I think it\'s less than 10%, and that doesn\'t follow the curve, and that has to mean something, and it\'s not unique to the KY Derby or just because of the traffic of 20 horse field.

Would be an interesting study, no?

[TGJB]

MJ-- my comment was specific to the discussion of whether there was a significant difference between 9 and 10 furlongs. One of the problems with doing a study is that there are so few races for 3yos (or anybody else) at more than 9f on dirt, and one of them contains a 20 horse field and other stressors (like having been pushed to earn enough to run, and some being run when they should not because it\'s the Derby). We do have a whole bunch of TC races in the Archives if someone wants to take a look.

[sekrah]

mjellish Wrote:
>
> Look at this way.  There aren\'t many track and
> field athletes that are just as effective in the
> 100M dash as they are at the 400M.  Same thing
> applies to horses.  Quite simply, the way horses
> are bred these days.

This is a terrible analogy.. 100m is only 1/4 of a 400m race.   9 furlongs is 90% of a 10 furlong race.   What do you think a Quarterhorse would do at 1 mile?   Not very well.


> Why do you think so few races are run at 1 1/4 or
> longer?  How many dirt races are there a year at 1
> 1/2?  


I\'ll ask this question, why don\'t Quarterhorse tracks run 6f and 7f?  Because they are Quarterhorse tracks.   The horses are trained to run in short bursts and run 300, 330, 400, 440m.   Put one of these horses running at a mile and you have a better


 
> If you think all it takes is a good pattern at 1
> 1/16 or 1 1/8 to run well at the longer classic
> distances, especially at the Grade I level, you
> are going to lose A LOT of money betting races at
> the classic distances.  I can almost promise you
> that.
>

So your saying I\'ve been extremely lucky and that the odds are going to catch-up with my poor handicapping sooner or later?

I respectively disagree.

[mjellish]

Sek,

Boy, you sure take things personally don\'t you?

I never got irrate at your posts stating that ESK hadn\'t beat anyone, which implied that he hadn\'t run fast, or that Super Saver was going to get the 1 1/4 better than ESK.  I simply ASKED you to DEFEND those points of view.  To that end, thus far you have said that Awesome Act didn\'t run his race in the Wood, that Jackson Bend was ruined as a two year old, the Ice Box that ran in FOY was not the same Ice Box who ran in FL Derby, and that Super Saver is going to get the 1 1/4 better because he can run faster early than ESK and will therefore get a better trip, but only if he can still find a way to rate.  You have added that you are good handicapper, that you have won a bunch of money, that you posted the Brooklyn Belmont cold on this board last year, that I think you are nuts or off your rocker and must have strong emotional ties to ESK, and so on and so on.

Geez.  You ask someone to defend what they said and I guess you are fair game around here.

With that being said, if what you have said so far is your defense then so be it.  But I don\'t agree with much of it other than Awesome Act lost a shoe in the Wood.  To me that really doesn\'t mean anything because had AA run with two EXTRA shoes he probably still wasn\'t going to beat ESK in the Wood because ESK ran really fast.  Fast enough to beat anyone, and that includes the Ice Box that ran in Fl Derby.  This was really the gist of my point.  

Your speculation about Super Saver is just that, speculation.  To defend my end, I would point out that Super Saver staggered home in the ARK Derby and barely galloped out afterwards in an all out effort, while ESK came home very fast easily and galloped out extremely strong after both the Wood and FOY.      

No hard feelings or ill wishes.  Just good ole fashion horse talk.  Good luck in the Derby.

[sekrah]

To defend my end, I would point out that Super Saver staggered home in the ARK Derby and barely galloped out afterwards in an all out effort, while ESK came home very fast easily and galloped out extremely strong after both the Wood and FOY.


You make this statement as if they both ran the same fractions and expended the same amount of energy early in their races.   If you don\'t think Super Saver would of finished very fast easily and galloped out extremely strong after those fractions or that Esky wouldn\'t have staggered home in the Ark Derby, then there\'s really no point in arguing anymore.  BTW.. That staggering home you called Super Saver, the final furlong he ran in 12.4.   Quite a stagger after setting 46.1/1:10.3.

[mjellish]

Sek,

Super Saver didn\'t go 46.1, 110.3.  He went 23.05, 46.82, 111.23, 136.56 149.44 without adjusting for his 1W 2W trip.  That equates to the following raw quarter times, 23.05, 23.77, 24.41, 25.33 and a final 1/8th of 12.88 or project that out to a final 25.76 if he had to go anther 1/8th,which in reality would actually be slower because he was slowing down at the end of the race.  That\'s over a track that was rated 10 points fast by Beyer.  Not only is that not very good when projecting out to 1 1/4, it also shows that he is a typical front running horse who progessively slows down during the race.

I agree with you that he spent more energy early than ESK does, but there is no evidence to suggest that he will go any slower in the Derby.  You can hope that he rates, and maybe he will.  But even if he does, he will then be further behind and there is nothing in his running line that says he will then suddenly run faster at the end.  Add to that the fact that he was swearving in and out down the stretch, and I think you have a horse that ran all out for a trainer that has had them cranked and ready to go 2nd off the layoff all year, which is exactly what he was.

For the record, ESk went 24.64, 49.45, 113.62, 137.73, 149.97 in the Wood over a track that Beyer had rated 3-4 points slow.  That equates to the following 1/4\'s, 24.64, 24.81, 24.17, 24.11, 12.24 or project that out to 24.48 or slower as well if he had to go another 1/8th without adjusting for his 2w 3w trip.  That was on a much slower track and/or into the wind.  That indicates a horse that relaxed early and ran progressively faster 1/4\'s for the first mile without slowing down as much as he should have, and the jockey never did ask him to run.  Now I\'m not saying he could have run faster if asked because I\'m not sure he could have.  But those are the numbers and they are much more indicitive of horse likely to get a 1 1/4.

[drbillym]

Right on about Pletcher being hot -and wondering about testing at KD-his horses just seem to have so much stamina lately.  Reminds me of Lawyer Ron\'s 2007 Whitney win when his record time was so out of whack with other races at Saratoga that day that it was questioned but eventually found accurate. TGJB response to your post was that he would keep an eye on certain barns-interested to hear both your conclusions from today.