AP vs Big Brown

[sekrah]

12-1 and 15-1 winners aren\'t decent?  Tough crowd.

[Rich Curtis]

\"The whole card is typically a chalkiest. It\'s just not for me.\"

Knowing in advance what the winners will pay seems like a pretty big advantage. Maybe you should reconsider.

[smalltimer]

sek,
I\'m sure everyone is as sick of this as I am, so I\'m gonna account for the horses I used, the criteria I used, and then you come back and inform me where else my, still not finished, information is wrong. At any rate, I\'m done responding to you.
Point #1. SMARTY JONES WAS 2004. I DID 2005 - 2014. Not even in the right year.
Brother Derek is in the 4th slot in the group of numbers 11-0-0-1-1. I know he ran a negative at 1 M.  He didn\'t win, that\'s my point on him. He\'s also included in the group of numbers of the horses with a 3 year old debut negative, he appears in the 4 spot in that group. ACCOUNTED FOR BASED ON MY CRITERIA, NOT YOURS.
Next point.  My criteria doesn\'t fail before Smarty ran in \'04, the year before I started the sample group.  Brother Derek is accounted for in two different sets.
American Lion ran his first negative in his 3RD START of his 3 year old campaign, so HE ISN\'T IN THE CRITERIA OF first or 2nd race negative number. I account for American Lion who ran 11th.  He appears in the first group of numbers that goes, 6th, 7th, .....11th.  ACCOUNTED FOR IN MY CRITERIA.
Greeley\'s Galaxy and Bandini ran negatives in THEIR 4TH OUT OF the year, they were not a 1st or 2nd start negative, but I have both in the group as 11th and 19th place finishes.
Soldat. I know he ran a negative in his 1st 3 year old race, he also ran 11th and you\'ll find him in the other 11th spot.  Okay?
Some of the other horses, I already mentioned like Greeley\'s Galaxy, Bandini, Intense Holiday, Verrazano, Itsmyluckyday, Dunkirk, Circular Quay, Keyed Entry, Afleet Alex, Bellamy Road.  Curlin is not even in the conversation because he ran his negative in his 3rd start. I BELIEVE I HAVE ALL OF \'EM, according to the criteria I used on the initial project.
I didn\'t single out Pletcher cause I didn\'t single any other trainer out.  This was about horses, not trainers.  

sek.  Would you please quit interjecting a horse like Smarty Jones who ran the previous year.  Would you please understand that horses that ran a negative in the 3rd or 4th start were not in THIS criteria.  You\'ve managed to merge different criteria all into the same sample group and that\'s not how it works.

TGJB. I apologize for having to defend something that I haven\'t finished all the components to yet.  I seem to recall you using a small sample on Baffert or someone in the seminar in order to alert the viewers that there is or may be an emerging oddity to look at.  When the initial sample is small, we use the numbers that are available at that time. Sometimes its pays dividends and sometimes it doesn\'t. As the years go on, the sample increases and then stronger conclusions are made or dismissed.  Initially, the unknown result still exists.
What I find, if anything, wouldn\'t even benefit me until the next Derby.
If sek chooses to address this post, that\'s fine, cause I\'m done explaining to him.
 
Thanks. And apologies to the guys for these exchanges.

[joemama]

Those odds are fine, it just doesn\'t happen that often.

[joemama]

I\'ve always said I\'d love to have $2 and tomorrows results today.

[sekrah]

smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sek,
> I\'m sure everyone is as sick of this as I am, so
> I\'m gonna account for the horses I used, the
> criteria I used, and then you come back and inform
> me where else my, still not finished, information
> is wrong. At any rate, I\'m done responding to you.
>

Why are you getting so hostile because I pointed out flaws in your approach?


> Brother Derek is in the 4th slot in the group of
> numbers 11-0-0-1-1. I know he ran a negative at 1
> M.  He didn\'t win, that\'s my point on him.

This is a poor point, because he paired his negative. Why can\'t you just acknowledge that he didn\'t fit the bill?


> Soldat. I know he ran a negative in his 1st 3 year
> old race, he also ran 11th and you\'ll find him in
> the other 11th spot.  Okay?

Yes and he had a terrible pattern coming into the Derby.

> sek.  Would you please quit interjecting a horse
> like Smarty Jones who ran the previous year.
> Would you please understand that horses that ran a
> negative in the 3rd or 4th start were not in THIS
> criteria.  You\'ve managed to merge different
> criteria all into the same sample group and that\'s
> not how it works.
>

Smarty Jones is cited because if his 3yo debut were just 3 days earlier, he would have run a negative-3 in his second 3yo race.  But it just so fits perfectly for your system that offer no logical rhyme or reason behind these horses who run Jan-Mar negative figures are coming up short in the Derby other than \"just because it fits my criteria\".


> TGJB. I apologize for having to defend something
> that I haven\'t finished all the components to yet.
>  I seem to recall you using a small sample on
> Baffert or someone in the seminar in order to
> alert the viewers that there is or may be an
> emerging oddity to look at.  When the initial
> sample is small, we use the numbers that are
> available at that time. Sometimes its pays
> dividends and sometimes it doesn\'t. As the years
> go on, the sample increases and then stronger
> conclusions are made or dismissed.  Initially, the
> unknown result still exists.
> What I find, if anything, wouldn\'t even benefit me
> until the next Derby.
> If sek chooses to address this post, that\'s fine,
> cause I\'m done explaining to him.
>  
> Thanks. And apologies to the guys for these
> exchanges.


There are no apologies necessary to anybody.  You can choose not to discuss it if you want, but YOU are the one who is being out of line here, not me.  I am bringing up points and discussing the merits and flaws of your system and you are getting completely bent out of shape because somebody (in this case, me) is poking holes in the parts that make no sense.

We can have a reasonable handicapping discussion without you putting on an emotional high-strung defense of it.  If you don\'t want to have that kind of discussion then you can just stop replying to me, that\'s up to you.

I\'m looking for the logical reasons why your system is suppose to work, and why I shouldn\'t think of it as some sort of short-sample-sized retro fitted theory that will fall apart in future years.  You\'ve yet to provide anything concrete behind this.

[Leamas57]

If he gets in, and I suspect he will, I will key Materiality on top in the Preakness. I will use in him exactas with AP, but also on top of tris and supers that allow for AP for miss the board.

Leamas.

[smalltimer]

sek,
I\'m gonna renege one time about being finished with responding.
2014-13-12-11-10-09-08=07=06=05 That is the 10 year period I used, I could not have been more clear. You insist on including Smarty who ran in 2004. My initial sheet SPECIFICALLY says the last 10 Derby\'s.  I didn\'t include Seattle Slew either.
I already explain Brother Derek more than once.  I don\'t care if he paired his negative, has NOTHING to do with this sample. NOTHING. He\'s in the #4 spot where he belongs in this sample.

I wasn\'t apologizing to you.  I was apologizing to TGJB and everybody else in the room.  
You are bringing up points with no merit sek. Please do a 10 year sample study on something and we will see if this old forensic accountant can offer suggestions.

sek. I don\'t engage in \"systems.\" I am a methodologist.  I never referred to it as a \"system\" I never inferred it would work, because it is still incomplete. If it \"falls apart in future years\" it will have been a fun project to do. You think this is the first time I started with a random sample and found nothing useful? I do stuff like this because its fun.  

That\'s all sek.  Put something that consists of 10 years of data together, cause I\'d love to discuss its merits with you.

[sekrah]

smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sek,
> I\'m gonna renege one time about being finished
> with responding.
> 2014-13-12-11-10-09-08=07=06=05 That is the 10
> year period I used, I could not have been more
> clear. You insist on including Smarty who ran in
> 2004. My initial sheet SPECIFICALLY says the last
> 10 Derby\'s.  I didn\'t include Seattle Slew either.
>

1. You\'re again missing the point. Smarty wouldn\'t have fit under your criteria anyway so it\'s meaningless that you didn\'t use that year. The point is, he narrowly missed by 3 days. So if there\'s some logic hidden under the criteria, this blows it up.

2. You keep pointing out that you only used 10 years.  What\'s so special about the past 10 years that separates it from the previous 10 years?  


> I already explain Brother Derek more than once.  I
> don\'t care if he paired his negative, has NOTHING
> to do with this sample. NOTHING. He\'s in the #4
> spot where he belongs in this sample.

You don\'t care because it keeps your data perfect if you ignore it. That\'s why you dismiss it.  But you cannot take a horse that paired his negative and use his 4th place finish as evidence that your discovery is solid. That is absurdity.

Again, any logic behind your criteria is destroyed by Brother Derek, because he paired his negative.


> I wasn\'t apologizing to you.  I was apologizing to
> TGJB and everybody else in the room.  
> You are bringing up points with no merit sek.
> Please do a 10 year sample study on something and
> we will see if this old forensic accountant can
> offer suggestions.
>
> sek. I don\'t engage in \"systems.\" I am a
> methodologist.  I never referred to it as a
> \"system\" I never inferred it would work, because
> it is still incomplete. If it \"falls apart in
> future years\" it will have been a fun project to
> do. You think this is the first time I started
> with a random sample and found nothing useful? I
> do stuff like this because its fun.  
>
> That\'s all sek.  Put something that consists of 10
> years of data together, cause I\'d love to discuss
> its merits with you.


10-years of data? You have an 11 horse sample!  And that sample is weak on its face. I see nothing of value in pointing out the failure of these 11 horses to not win the Kentucky Derby. 1 paired his negative, a bunch of others had terrible patterns coming in, and a bunch of others were sprinters who didn\'t belong in the race.

If you come up with an 11-horse sample of something and tout it as evidence of something greater on a handicapping discussion forum about TG figures, then you should be prepared to defend it from criticism without becoming hysterical. Are you really shocked that someone would dare question an 11-horse sample that is rife with flaws? The now extinct Dosage Index had more data points supporting itself than this does.

[Chas04]

A \"toss\" out of the exacta?? LOL!!!! Good Luck. Thats not handicapping thats throwing darts. There is no foot issue. Haven\'t you listened to Baffert in all the interviews?  They wanted to take off the plate after the Rebel but he did so well w it they were like screw it...why fix something thats working so well...so kept it on for the Ark D.The only reason they even had it on in his comeback race was the weather and off the layoff for extra precaution. I understand there is absolutely zero value in playing AP..and I agree that race was grueling...but for everyone...not just AP. If he gets eased in the Preakness its throwing the right dart....not handicapping, Because he is just faster then this bunch and shades owns the Preakness.

[richiebee]

Nearly as scintillating as this exchange, but one which will be decided much more
quickly, Warren\'s Venada v Beholder at SA Saturday, in a matchup of two of the
better dirt females currently campaigning.

[Strike]

You seem to know everything about AP. Then, you must know that he is the only horse in Baffert\'s barn that runs with earplugs and that is because noise frustrates him. He is a very nice horse but like all other horses -- is not perfect and can be beaten under the right circumstances.

Also, don\'t believe everything you hear out of any trainer\'s mouth. Especially in the next week and a half.

[T Severini]

smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I learned was horses with a negative number
> in one of their first 2 starts and 4 preps are
> likely to run up the track.  I didn\'t know that
> going in, hence I played him.
> You\'re privy to the reason(s) he didn\'t run to
> expectations, so I can appreciate that.
> I\'ve been wrong before.


Smalltimer,

I\'m getting the distinct sense that TGJB has some inside information he\'s not going to directly share and that\'s certainly his prerogative.

Something was amiss. Not certain what it was, but that was a non effort and can\'t be factored as a pattern. You know, patterns are wonderful things, but patterns also have a way of exception.

[T Severini]

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nearly as scintillating as this exchange, but one
> which will be decided much more
> quickly, Warren\'s Venada v Beholder at SA
> Saturday, in a matchup of two of the
> better dirt females currently campaigning.


Richie.....wasssssssssup!

Santa Anita again?  Et tu, Brute, et tu?

[T Severini]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> None in Preakness can outrun AP so he has to back
> up, 3 races in 5 weeks. Also interesting is Firing
> Line who appears to like lots of time between
> races but comes back in just 2 weeks.Small field
> predicted so far.
>
>
> Mike


By outrun do you mean out pace? Or do you mean our score for a final figure?