Did Bode Bounce?

[dlf]

I think you\'re being way too hard on the product, Jimbo. I only used the sheets, not the analysis, and they pointed me to a lot of scores on Oaks and Derby Day.
TG numbers don\'t exist in a vacuum, and I\'ve read enough of your posts to know that you do not just blindly apply them without any context. And there was a lot of context: the track was clearly playing toward forwardly placed horses on both days, and seemed to be favoring outside paths. If you factored that in, you could then eliminate a lot of horses which otherwise did look good on TG.
The 9/5 shot in Race 12 was a gift; there was no other horse in the race that was even close on TG; on Beyer, there were a few horses who  looked like they could challenge him if they ran back to a good fig - if you linked him up with the very plausible 20-1 winner in Race 13 and spread a bit in the Derby, you had a nice Pick 3. Or if you just took half of whatever you lost in the Derby and put it on his nose, at least you got out for the day.
The analysis is written about 48 hours ahead of time - we have to do our own handicapping at some point. Even so, of course it is going to be wrong more often than it is right. Why should the Derby be any different? If it were perfect, the analysis would have pointed us all to IHA, and you would have gotten 1-9 on him.
Was TG \'wrong\' on the Derby (and the Oaks)? Yeah, I guess, but as JB has stated, it\'s just one race. We would all be well-served to remember to treat it as such. And yes, I did get crushed in the Derby - but there is no way can you say that IHA was an inexplicable winner - he just wasn\'t a standout. It\'s the springtime, they are 3 year olds; unexpected sh#t happens.  Horses with good recent figures must be used in horizontals - there is no reason, in the age of fractional betting, not to run some 50 cent P3 and P4 savers through horses such as Groupie Doll and Silver Max and IHA, who clearly don\'t have to bounce, even if they are likely to.
I know I am not telling you anything you don\'t know, but I think you\'re speaking more from frustration than belief.

[HP]

If you look at the archives, the horses that look like I\'ll Have Another...big race early in the year, back up a bit next out...these horses are perennial sucker bets.  And out of the 19?  He was on my list of contenders and I threw him out, and I would do it again.  This is one that \"bounced back.\"  

The VAST majority of Derby winners either pair a number good enough to win, move slightly forward off a good pattern or pair, or throw a new top off a good pattern.  Moving up off a regression or getting back to the top after a regression...does not happen too often.  Monarchos?  And he had more bottom?  More races?  HP

[basket7777]

Go back to the past seminars and you will find one thing that is consistant.

If the horse up to that time wasn\'t fast enough to win he would not win.  There are a few exceptions but very few.  Again the 4 fastest were bode, trinnie,CC and IHA. all had a 1 or less

thats it

[jimbo66]

Dlf,

I don\'t buy the analysis, I do my own.  And I am not killing the analysis at all.

I certainly bet the 9-5 shot in the 12th, as I agree he was a standout.  But to say that the 9-5 shot \"made the day\" is a horrific post.  

And \"no\", I am not frustrated.  As I said, I had a nice futures position on the winner, so I have nothing to be frustrated about.  My view of the Derby on Derby Day was not good, as I mostly agreed with TGJB.  I had Union Rags as my key horse, pressing Take Charge Indy and Gemologist in the underneath slots, with savers on Bodemeister on top, because I did fear he was a potential monster.

Kudos to you for finding \"lots of winners\" on Oaks and Derby day.  You read the sheets much better than I did.

[FrankD.]

Hey Jimbo,

Hope you and yours are well?

Don\'t feel bad as I too had readers block all derby week while reading the sheets.
A great big ouchie for my favorite betting week of the year as I was completely horizontally inept.

See you and the rest of the cast soon.

Frank D.

[TGJB]

That\'s a pretty good post. Having said that, it\'s clearly not that simple--  there\'s a danger to weighing this one result out of proportion because it\'s the Derby. The right way to bet is to have the percentages in your favor, and your better off betting horses with patterns that have in the long run yielded good results than ones that have not.

The other thing is even if I was going to bet one of the fastest horses (and you left out Hansen), the winner would have been clearly behind the other three with big route figures, for a LOT of reasons-- slow 2yo top, backward move, proven unsoundness, post, shock waves... can\'t bet that one, ever, in that situation. If he wins I can\'t cash.

[HP]

You left out Hansen.

[HP]

Jimbo - you\'re making me laugh on the 9/5 thing.  I don\'t know if I\'d take 9/5 on Secretariat, never mind posting about it.  Just not what I do.  HP

[miff]

For those who follow statistics.Beyer goes on to pan this slow bunch in a DRF Column, second slowest derby since the slug Giacomo.

Andy Beyer:

In the Derby's 137 previous runnings, a total of 10 horses had sped the first half mile in 45.4 seconds or less. There were some legitimate contenders among them, but all 10 of them virtually collapsed after this exertion. All finished in 10th place or worse. Yet Bodemeister kept on going.

[mjellish]

If you go by the numbers alone it will look like he bounced or ran an off effort.  But I don\'t lend any credence to that because the numbers just don\'t tell the story here.

When they put up the 1/2 mile time and it was 45 and change I said, \"No way he can, he\'s cooked.\"

When the 3/4 came up in 109 and change I said, \"He\'d have to be a super horse to hold on.  I don\'t know if Secretariat could do it.\"

I know the track was kind to speed on Sat.  But these were way too fast fractions.  Bode should have died at the top of the lane.  He had every right to finish last.  The fact that he didn\'t fade to the back of the field, dub in, held on for second and nearly won the thing says a lot about this colt.  He was TONS the best.  I have no doubt about it whatsoever.  Colts just don\'t do what he did.

I believe in patterns.  But I believe my eyes and experience watching races even more.  I dunno what Bode\'s sheet is going to look like, but I\'m pretty sure it\'s a slower number than his ARK Derby effort.  Still, to categorize his KY Derby as an off effort or a bounce and try to formulate a pattern out of that is just plain silly and dogmatic.  To me, this is almost a perfect example of where the numbers don\'t even matter.

What Bode did in the KY Derby was really something special. Period.  He was the best horse, he ran the best race by far, and he took second.

[dlf]

Jimbo,
I mis-read your post on the issue of the analysis. Apologies.
But I was principally responding to your claim that \'sheet theory took a big hit on Derby Day\'. The Derby is one race, and a chaotic and unique one at that - \'sheet theory\' may apply less to the Derby than to any other race all year long (ie how many times do you see five horses in the same race coming off paired tops all \'x\'?!).
Horses occasionally run big new tops (Groupie Doll) and then come back and do it again the next race.
The larger point is that you are looking at the results of  a few races and claiming that they may invalidate the entire basis for using this product. Sorry, I\'m just not buying it.
And while I\'m certainly glad that I didn\'t write that \'a 9-5 winner made my day\', the fact is that you could have played a Pick 3 using the 10 fastest horses in the most chaotic and flukey race of the year, a very strong 9-5 single, and the three or four logical contenders in the finale, for a 100-1+ return, all while staying within reasonable confines of \'sheet theory\'.
Good luck in the Preakness.

[miff]

\"I dunno what Bode\'s sheet is going to look like\"


MJ,

I\'ll take a swing. How about 0 2 (X impending) Could anything be less represesntative or more misleading?

Mike

[Silver Charm]

Guys both of you are the SERIOUS Pro\'s and I will post and step away for the day. But to drive home Jellish\'s point watch replay nearing the far turn and see Trinninburg the real sprinter laboring to keep up while Bode was in a glide....

Mike tried to kick away a little from there and actually did once he turned for home. But all that effort caught up with him and give that 1st time starter Jock a TON of credit for having HIS horse in position to take aim on the target steer him off Bode when he want want rub and get the job done in an outstanding maiden ride.

[Perfect Drift]

Was Bode\'s race more visually impressive than normal because all the horses behind him sucked?  He ran his final 1/2 in 52.33 and only one horse was able to run him down.  The only speed figure we have at this point is the 101 Beyer... only Giacomo\'s 100 is slower over the past 20 years. Bode lost no ground.  IHA had a dream trip from the 19 hole, never once was he stopped or forced terribly wide.

The slowest TG horses the past dozen years are Funny Cide (1 1/2) and Super Saver (1 1/4).  Considering how fast the track was playing on Saturday (track records both Friday and Saturday) I wouldn\'t be surprised if the winner\'s number was as slow as any in the recent past.  Bode absolutely had to regress, if not, there will be too many new tops (IHA, WTDW, Dull, CC) considering how wide they all ran.

[streetbull]

mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you go by the numbers alone it will look like
> he bounced or ran an off effort.  But I don\'t lend
> any credence to that because the numbers just
> don\'t tell the story here.
>
> When they put up the 1/2 mile time and it was 45
> and change I said, \"No way he can, he\'s cooked.\"
>
> When the 3/4 came up in 109 and change I said,
> \"He\'d have to be a super horse to hold on.  I
> don\'t know if Secretariat could do it.\"
>

> I know the track was kind to speed on Sat.  But
> these were way too fast fractions.  Bode should
> have died at the top of the lane.  He had every
> right to finish last.  The fact that he didn\'t
> fade to the back of the field, dub in, held on for
> second and nearly won the thing says a lot about
> this colt.  He was TONS the best.  I have no doubt
> about it whatsoever.  Colts just don\'t do what he
> did.
>
> I believe in patterns.  But I believe my eyes and
> experience watching races even more.  I dunno what
> Bode\'s sheet is going to look like, but I\'m pretty
> sure it\'s a slower number than his ARK Derby
> effort.  Still, to categorize his KY Derby as an
> off effort or a bounce and try to formulate a
> pattern out of that is just plain silly and
> dogmatic.  To me, this is almost a perfect example
> of where the numbers don\'t even matter.
>
> What Bode did in the KY Derby was really something
> special. Period.  He was the best horse, he ran
> the best race by far, and he took second.

Agreed with every word and iota of info stated in this post...This horse if and when he recovers from this effort will likely be the Breeder Classic winner in the fall at Santa Anita which is more conducive to the running style of Bodemeister....Do not care about any Beyer numbers posted..based on pace and energy exerted,this horse is better than Cat Thief who did win the BC Classic in his three year season.  This was a huge energy race and he carried 126 lbs running those early fractions.  This horse vested Ruhlmann number in the Viking stakes, it has been a long time since any horse even came close to his energy exertion over a distance of ground...Left Bank and Ghostzapper were the others, BUT they did it in their 4 year old season or older.     Just one word..WOW...