Rachel

[TGJB]

For what it\'s worth-- I expected RA to go back off the pair of big efforts, though that didn\'t necessarily mean she would lose. I played the Wolfson, and protected under RA.

RA had never before run 2 in a row that big, let alone 3 (cue Miff, \"Kool-Aid\", etc.). Keep in mind that fillies are 3 points slower than colts, that was like a colt coming off a pair of neg 6 1/2\'s. It\'s not clear either way from this one whether she handles 1 1/4.

If I were managing her she would go straight to the BC from here, no more preps. Nothing good can happen if she runs in October. I would probably run in the FM race, not because of the distance, but because no-one she would be facing has ever run a figure anywhere near RA\'s best, Z included, and if she doesn\'t run near her best she won\'t win either one. Having said that, IF she goes straight from here to the Classic she would be a definite use for me at a price in that race, getting 5 pounds.

At this point I think there\'s a very good chance RA and Z will never meet. Asmussen and Jackson like to have the best of it, and they\'re unlikely to run RA at 1 1/4 again. The Z camp figures to run in the Classic, thinking (correctly) that a win there would be huge, and a loss would cost them very little. I hope I\'m wrong.

[jbelfior]

Jerry:

Agree that she would be better off going to Churchill a fresh filly.  Still won\'t be easy with the 3yo ladies likely to improve by then..

We can agree to disagree that 5 lbs does nothing for her at 1 1/4 against the boys and Zenyatta.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[miff]

\"RA had never before run 2 in a row that big, let alone 3 (cue Miff, \"Kool-Aid\", etc.). Keep in mind that fillies are 3 points slower than colts, that was like a colt coming off a pair of neg 6 1/2\'s. It\'s not clear either way from this one whether she handles 1 1/4\"


JB,

Since you brought up the bounce theory and the TG pair of neg-3\'s, you are the only one who had her that fast. Rags and Beyer had her in the TG neg -1 1/2 range, hardly bounce type figs for a well \"rested\" carefully spaced campaign.

Bounce or not to get beat by a legit 40-1 shot is not forgiveable.

Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- So basically you want to argue with me using figures I don\'t agree with to base your case on.

Even if I thought the other figures were relevant, that would be the equivelant of neg 4-5s for a colt.

And I don\'t.

[miff]

JB,

Only those without racing knowledge would base a case on figs alone or ignore them.You feel she bounced, I feel she was pressed,maybe distance challanged and does not have the same ability as last year.Same result, different reason, however when a horse goes in 10+ lenghts faster and gets beat in pedestrian adjusted time, thats a helluva bounce.

Beyer at 95 for Persistently-Slow has her like a TG 3(ugh) Rachel about the same for a 6-7 point TG regression.Can\'t resist, a Kool  Aid drinker told me Rachel wins if Calvin does not float wide on the first turn.

Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- only those who took geometry in high school think that ground loss matters.

Maybe someday I will have racing knowledge.

[miff]

JB,

Forget geometry and go ask a few top jocks about the number of days that the inside is far less firm than the outer paths.Then go talk to a few trainers who will tell you about horses that do not run the innner most paths/turns well from kickback and or conformation.

Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- okay, for this one you get a real answer. And just a reminder, it\'s not coming from an anonymous poster on a board. It\'s coming from a guy who has managed a bunch of very succesful stables, bought 84 horses that have won stakes for my clients (including most of the ones at Saratoga, excluding the Travers (by a head) and the 2yo stakes), and who creates data that is bought by an awful lot of very serious horseplayers, including you. Not all opinions are created equal.

1-- The only things more overrated than jockey\'s opinions are trainer\'s opinions.

The way to tell whether the rail is off is by statistical analysis of how horses run on it, not by some guy telling you how he feels.

As far as trainers go, it makes a huge difference a) which trainer, and b) what they are offering an opinion about. Among other things, this goes to an issue I raised here many years ago, about making assumptions-- \"The two sides of the house I can see are white\". It is one thing for a trainer to say that a horse is doing well. It\'s quite another to say he will run well. Example I cited here recently-- horses who just ran big tops often look and act great, then run lousy. Related example for jockeys I gave a year ago-- Borel saying that Rachel didn\'t handle the track in the Preakness. What he knew was that she wasn\'t striding the same as in the Oaks. He ASSUMED it was because she didn\'t handle the track.

2-- I dealt with the specific point you raised at the DRF Expo a few years ago.

It\'s a FACT (a real one, not one of your \"facts\") that the wider you are on the turns the further you travel. There is no escaping that, unless you missed that class in high school.

Now-- a) The vast majority of the time the inside is not bad, so by using ground loss you are more accurately reflecting the horses\' measurable performance.

      b) The times when the rail is bad the figure will not reflect that WHETHER YOU USE GROUND LOSS OR NOT. If 2 horses finish together Andy doesn\'t give one an 80 and the horse that ran on the bad part of the track an 85. The only difference is that we measure the distance the horse actually traveled.

      c) You are free to make adjustments based on your opinion of the rail, or of trouble a horse encountered racing inside. Have to say though, the old chestnut of horses not liking it inside, with the exception of lightly raced 2yos, is riotously funny. I have been through that so many times with trainers, and disproved it EVERY SINGLE time. No exceptions. The way you do that? Make them give instructions to stay inside on the turns.

[miff]

JB,

When John Velasquez tells Cordero the rail is dead/nfg on a given day, I\'ll defer to that rather than some man made inexact computer program looking at numbers.

To each his own.

Mike

[FrankD.]

I know many old bookmakers who have and are living very well in retirement taking action from jock\'s and trainers !!!

[Bet Twice]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> When John Velasquez tells Cordero the rail is
> dead/nfg on a given day, I\'ll defer to that rather
> than some man made inexact computer program
> looking at numbers.
>
 It comes down to science vs. subjective interpretation of an experience - not to mention the unknown motivation of making such a statement.

I\'ll take science every time.

Josh

[TGJB]

\"Unknown motivation\" is dead on. It can be an easy excuse to take the path less risky.

[miff]

Bet,

A made man computer program is hardly science.

Mike

[Bet Twice]

Mike,

I\'m not sure what man made computer program we\'re talking about - what I\'m saying is I trust in using statistical analysis on actual results more than I do a person\'s explanation of why his horse ran bad or why he rode the horse the way he did.  The latter is entirely subjective with little or no facts to back it up.  Numbers don\'t lie - you can interpret them wrong but they never lie.

[miff]

Bet,

This is no data on this planet that is close to the opinion of the jockeys riding on the same surface just about every day, 5-6 times a day.Not speaking of the incidents where an excuse is made for a bad ride  by not threading the needle inside and going wide.

What statistical analysis are you speaking of re biases? Please don\'t tell me you are suggesting that an x on a piece of paper is more indicitive of a dead rail that the opinion of the people on the ground.

Mike