Belmont possibles

[Tavasco]

OK - I\'m convinced, maybe just a $1 ebx.

[TGJB]

After the race all winners are 100%. It doesn\'t mean they were good bets (or bad ones). There are plenty of times where the most likely winner is a bet against because of his price relative to his actual chance of winning. Which in this game is subjective, to a degree. In some cases more than others.

And re an earlier conversation, overlay (or underlay) is defined as the relationship between a horse\'s odds and actual chance of winning, per a handicapper\'s opinion. It drives me nuts when the TVG/HRTV guys say that because a horse was 6-1 in the ML and goes off 12-1 he was an overlay. ML (as all here must know) is the oddsmaker\'s assessment of what the public\'s opinion will be, has nothing to do with actual chance of winning, even his own opinion on that question.

[toppled]

At 1/44 with a history of bouncing off fast last Derby preps, I\'d have to get some amazing odds in order to back a Pletcher horse in the Derby.  He\'s almost always an underlay.  Factor in post 3 after the draw and 11.50 to 1 odds in an 18 horse field was a bad bet.  Some day Pletcher will win another Derby.  Most likely, I\'ll be among the losers that day, but I won\'t whine about it as if I was right like Chuckles.

[jbelfior]

I shut the sound off when I tune into TVG. It only goes back on when they\'re in the gate.

Question to the board:  Has anyone ever heard/learned 1 thing from the talking heads at TVG that made you a better player?

Good Luck,
Joe B.

[ruthlessman]

HRTV was much better. That channel has been diluted and therefore destroyed. Shrupp is absolutely unbearable.

[ringato3]

toppled,

why is the 1 for 44 relevant?  (not saying it isn\'t, but what is your theory as to why it is statistic that matters)

1.  Pletcher can\'t train horses to get 1 1/4?
2.  Pletcher can\'t win in Kentucky because of testing?
3.  Pletcher\'s derby horses all were slow?

I can\'t connect any of those dots.  Maybe you can.  I have to look at each case individually (in this case each horse individually).  

If a coin lands heads 10 times in a row, unless I can\'t assume heads is more likely unless i can explain why it keeps happening.

I read the Covello post about all of Pletcher\'s horses being over the top before they come to the Derby because he squeezes them so hard earlier in the campaign to get them there.  Maybe, but really, could Carpe Diem have come to the derby any more softly raced and ready for a new top or a good race?

The game isn\'t so simple so you can say \"Pletcher is 1-44 so he is a toss\".  You can bet however you want of course, but the game has MANY MANY dimensions to it, which is why many of us like to play it.  (we like to believe we are smart enough to figure out all the dimensions).

As for the Derby bet, as the exotics payouts showed, AP was more like 8-5 than 5-2 in exactas, tris, supers, pick-3s and pick 4s.  My LOSING BET was that he was an underlay in those pools and made Firing Line and Frosted my \"A\'s\" and Materiality and Upstart my \"B\'s\" on all multirace bets.  I lost.  Would make the same bet again.  (post positions switched, Materiality and Upstarts would be \"A\'s\".

You can keep tossing Pletcher on principle, I will keep analyzing his horses individually and make decisions based on form and price.  (I hate the guy, I think  I was the first to post how lame it was that he continues to skip the preakness while Baffert continues to be smart enough to adjust his style to win off the two weeks rest).

Best

Rob

[toppled]

When Caton Bredar is on, she has some good paddock observations.

[toppled]

I\'m a big believer in trainer stats.  They\'re important enough for Jerry to put them on every sheet.  I like to refine them further using Formulator. When someone asked who was most likely to bomb in the Preakness I answered Firing Line and backed it up with trainer stats. Baffert\'s Preakness stats also said AP wouldn\'t bomb (3/3 with Derby winners going in 4/4 coming out).  FL\'s ardent supporters reacted the same way you just did. They said the stats were meaningless.  The stats proved correct.  They\'re a big part of the puzzle.  

When a trainer has reached any category where they stand out positively or negatively, I take notice. As I said, Pletcher horses are underlays in the Derby.  I\'ve bet enough of them in past Derbys to not want another one. The one he won on was only 8/1.

I don\'t know why Pletcher fails so miserably in Derbys.  I don\'t have to, the stats tell me that the probability is he won\'t win.  If he trains the next Secretariat, I won\'t toss him automatically.  If he trains another Materiality, I have to say let him beat me.  I don\'t know anyone who can win betting on a horse whose trainer in that situation wins around 2% of the time.  Especially when they are bet like Pletcher\'s horses are.

[P-Dub]

ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul,
>
> I am not defending chuckles\' point.  let him do
> that.
>
> But you, of all people, shouldn\'t be criticizing
> backers of either Upstart of Materiality.  I say
> \"you of all people\", because I have come on the
> board many times over the past couple years
> (mostly as a lurker) and saw you post about
> picking some horse that frankly I thought had no
> shot, because you like to beat favorites.  (and
> some of your picks have won while you looked for
> \"value\".
>
> Upstart, at 19-1 or whatever he was in the Derby,
> and Materiality, at 14-1, were bets I would take
> every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Yep,
> they lost.  I don\'t have to be right every time
> when I am looking at horses like that.  You have
> to be right almost every time when you want to bet
> horses that are odds on.  
>
> Upstart being \"sick\".  I don\'t know.  I thought
> TGJB was lobbying them to run in the Preakness?
> He had a nice sheet, great 2 year old foundation
> and fast numbers to run to, as well as spacing.
> He was horrible  on Derby day.  It happens.  
>
> Materiality was faster than AP heading into the
> Derby.  On ALL NUMBERS.  Not just one or two
> figure makers.  I would have agreed that if he was
> a short price, with Pletcher\'s record and the lack
> of 2 year old foundation, he would be a bet
> against, but at 15-1, those things were MORE THAN
> FACTORED into the price.  he stumbled out of the
> gate and ran OK afterwards.
>
> And nobody that understands this game should ever
> say that a horse would win the Derby 95 times out
> of 100.  That is right up there with the guy who
> said yesterday that Frosted undoubtedly ran the
> best race in the Derby, with the \"eye test\".
>
> Silly stuff.
>
> Good luck
>
> Rob

I didn\'t criticize anything.  I gave an analysis, based on historical results. If that\'s criticizing, then everyone with a different viewpoint is a critic. How many horses have fired in the Derby with the same foundation Materiality had?

As for posting horses that had no shot, I have no idea what you are talking about.  I don\'t do it often, but they are far from no shots or run up the track. I was the first person to post BC weekend with a $25 winner.  Posted on Derby day 2 horses that ran second at 9/1 or better. I specifically posted that I liked Firing Line, and was well aware of the number Materiality had run. I liked the foundation and preparation for FL much better, despite the \"inferior\" numbers.

Maybe you can dig in the archives and find a few horses that ran up the track, like you can do for anyone that posts a pick beforehand. Look no further than the last 2 TC races.  The board was littered with selections that ran up the track. When you play longer shots, they can lose miserably. That\'s far from a revelation.

Yes, I like to beat favorites. We all do. I\'m aware of the number of times you need to be right to win playing long shots every day.  Of course we all pick horses that run up the track. What you may see as no shot, I see a horse that has one.  I hit a $70+ horse at SA Saturday that my buddy said had no shot, None. I don\'t care that you or he or anyone else has a different opinion.  That what makes the game tick.

When citing figs, I like to keep them in context.  Materiality may have been fast enough, but with his foundation I thought the likelihood he would run to it wasn\'t very good. You can cite whatever excuse you want, he didn\'t. 15-1 was worth the risk to some, it wasn\'t for others.

[ringato3]

toppled,

Will just agree to disagree.  I speak french, you german.  Or something like that.

Trainer Stats are NOT a big part of the puzzle.  (unless you define \"big\" differently than I do.

I can think of 8 things that are more important to me.  

1.  Speed figures.
2.  competition in the race.  (speed figures of those horses)
3.  track bias for all recent races so i can see how the speed figures were earned.
4.  track surface the day of the race, especially if sloppy.
5.  pace scenario in the race
6.  i watch the recent replays of all the horses in the race, so i can understand trips and therefore again know HOW the figures were earned (and either adjust up or down)
7.  distance the race is being run at.  Specifically, each horses propensity run better at shorter or longer distances based on past performances
8.  Pedigree, especially as it relates to things like trying a classic distance of ground.  

Then I get around to trainer stats.

There are exceptions:

1.  Layoffs - trainer stats are crucial
2.  first time starters - trainer stats again crucial

You can toss on principle.  i can\'t.  Just because I look at more factors, think about more variables and make a more well informed decision, doesn\'t mean I will be right, at least not in the short term, but I am comfortable in the long term results being better for me when I am not closed minded.  Closed minded is rarely the right way to go on any topic......

Good luck

Rob

[P-Dub]

Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub:
>
> I commend you on a cogent level headed objective
> post. Having witnessed your occasional \"excitable
> boy\" side. When I saw that you had responded here,
> my first thought was oh boy here we go!

> Go Warriors!

I think that\'s a compliment. =)

We haven\'t had any Mike Smith bashing in awhile.

Even JB was shocked when he met me. I\'m actually not a bad guy.

Yes, Go Dubs.

[ringato3]

P-Dub,

Moving on.  You missed my point.  Perhaps I didn\'t write it clearly enough.  Not criticizing your picks.  actually the opposite.  Citing your style of play.  with your style of play, as I can discern from your posts, you are always looking for prices.  As such not sure why you feel inclined to jump on the anti-Upstart, anti-Materiality bandwagon, after the fact, when they were both very fast horses with a right to win, at double digit odds, with both being faster than the favorite.

Me thinks if AP was an east coast horse, you wouldn\'t have posted at all.  But that is just me.

Rob

[flushedstraight]

toppled Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t know anyone who can win betting on a horse whose trainer in that
> situation wins around 2% of the time.  Especially when they are bet like
> Pletcher\'s horses are.

Maybe by using as key in exotics?
BG Cat was 30-1
Invisible Ink was 55-1
Both only needed to pair up their TG top to crack the exacta

but you don\'t know me and I didn\'t have Invisible Ink

[JimP]

\"When something happens time after time and you ignore the obvious reasons and look for others, it is often a reach.\" I think you posted this in another thread.

[P-Dub]

ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub,
>
> Moving on.  You missed my point.  Perhaps I didn\'t
> write it clearly enough.  Not criticizing your
> picks.  actually the opposite.  Citing your style
> of play.  with your style of play, as I can
> discern from your posts, you are always looking
> for prices.  As such not sure why you feel
> inclined to jump on the anti-Upstart,
> anti-Materiality bandwagon, after the fact, when
> they were both very fast horses with a right to
> win, at double digit odds, with both being faster
> than the favorite.
>
> Me thinks if AP was an east coast horse, you
> wouldn\'t have posted at all.  But that is just
> me.
>
> Rob

I completely missed your point, my apologies.

As for after the fact comments about those 2 horses, I posted I liked Firing Line. Posted 10 min or so before post time. I said the others didn\'t have to fire their best shot, I think it\'s reasonable to infer I didn\'t like either Mat/Up based on a) the comment about the others not firing and b) playing a horse lower in odds despite being \"slower\".  That\'s hardly an after the fact comment.

As for the east coast comment, I\'ll just say you are wrong and leave it at that.