Preakness Pattern

[ronwar]

Pattern wise, who do you thing looks the best going into the Preakness? Not necessaryly the most likely winner.
I like the way Borrego looks.  He got down to the 2, paired it, then backed up to a 5( 2yr old top)and now looks ready to move forward after making a nice middle move in the Derby.  Any thoughts?

[RICH]

I liked his pattern into the derby, and of course off the excuse race, he may be the one most likely to move foward,its definetly a pattern play. The only issue is there are a few faster. At 25-1 I still like him in there.

[elkurzhal]

In Litfin\'s Book \"Expert Handicapping\" he talked what TGJB called the \"Spring 3 yo Pattern\"  Hansel, and Strike the Gold were two of the examples in the book.  The pattern is; paired tops, followed by a off race, then a big new top.  Hansel ran the new top in the Preakness, Strike the Gold in the Belmont.  A lot has changed in the 10 years or so since the book, but Borrego\'s pattern fits to a \"T\".  

TGJB ~ Do you think this pattern is a viable today as it was 10 years ago?



Post Edited (05-10-04 13:15)

[Silver Charm]

You left out Thunder Gulch.

Without him we may have never heard of TGJB.

LOL

[TGJB]

Now wait a minute...

Actually, I don\'t think the pattern is as strong as it was, and you don\'t see it as often. Horses just don\'t bounce like they used to.

Good news is, very soon you won\'t have to go by my opinion/memory. We are re-running the trainer and figure pattern studies to take out some bugs, but they should all be available by the end of the month.

[miff]

Horses don\'t bounce as much anymore because there\'s much better juice,errrr, I mean trainers.

[derby1592]

I am looking forward to the TG pattern study info.

In the mean time for what it is worth - this is a summary of various informal and incomplete pattern studies I have done or others have done and shared with me. Keep in mind that these are general and not specific to Derby-caliber, spring 3yos which are probably stronger than 3yos in general. Also, keep in mind that some of this data is a few years old and it does not take into account how big a recent new top was (either absolute or relative to previous top) or the \"excuses\" for recent off/X races or changes in distance, pace, breeding, etc. and most importantly it does not account for \"Super Trainers.\" These are just very \"raw\" data and that other stuff needs to be factored in but this is probably in the ball park, regardless.

Smarty Jones (-3.75) top: 10%, pair: 20%, off: 20%, X: 50%

Lion Heart (-1) top: 15%, pair: 20%, off: 25%. X: 40%

The Cliff\'s Edge (-1) top: 15%, pair: 25%, off: 20%. X: 40%

Rock Hard Ten (1) top: 20%, pair: 25%, off: 25%. X: 30%

Imperialism (1.5) top: 20%, pair: 30%, off: 25%. X: 25%

Borrego (2) top: 15%, pair: 30%, off: 25%. X: 30%

Let\'s assume it will take at least a \"-1\" to win the Preakness:

SJ: 40-50 chance at a -1 (30% at a -3.75 or better)
LH: 35% chance at a -1  
TCE: 40% chance at a -1
RHT: 10-20% chance at -1
Imp: 10-15% chance at a -1
Borr: 5-10% chance at a -1

So SJ is clearly the most likely winner but there is a 50% chance that he runs an X. So, as contradictory as it may seem, there is probably not going to be a good value win bet in this race but you might get some value in the exotics by tossing out SJ and hoping for the X even though he is the most likely winner by far.

This may just add to the confusion but I thought I would share it with you anyway.

Chris

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Derby,

I\'m not sure I understand your data...you appear to be making winning projections based upon Tops and not aggregate previous races.

I\'d point out that Smarty has just paired -1.75s if you\'re inclined to believe the T-Graph Derby figs and I certainly am.

I don\'t know, maybe your data is so expansive it calculates TCE\'s 9 mark Blugrass -1 followed three weeks later by a 10 mark slop 5 or 6 or whatever he ran ...followed two weeks later by a projection of likely win probability at 9.75 marks.

Maybe you don\'t consider the slop and distance. I think the bounce-return to form probabilities are a bit harder to handicap than that. Especially in consideration of distances these horses are attempting to negotiate for the first time in their lives. The data that has to be compared has to be compared specifically for the current backdrop. Personally, I dont think theres a good way to factor that off poor efforts at the first crack at distance. Its distance that separates good ones.

My conviction at this time is that Lion Heart is much more likely to run well at distance here on out than TCE.

[derby1592]

CTC2,

This is just data plain and simple. You may decide that it has no value whatsoever in handicapping the Preakness.

More specifically to your question regarding The Cliff\'s edge - The percentages are all relative to the current top (-1 for TCE) just like the new TG trainer stats. TCE just ran an X after a big new top. The percentages I showed approximate how other 3yos with the same top-X pattern did in their next race (with no change in surface (turf/dirt) or distance (sprint/route)). For example, 15% ran a new top, 25% bounced back to the old top, etc. Lots of other factors have not been considered or \"filtered\" out. For example, some in the sample may have had \"super trainers\" or excuses for the \"X\" such as a sloppy track or \"lost shoes\" or \"didn\'t like the cuppy surface\" or \"got caught in a speed duel\" or whatever else you might think could excuse a poor effort.

If you get too specific you tend to end up with very small sample sizes. This is the \"tension\" you have to manage to get any value out of such pattern studies. TGJB and I and others have had some interesting conversations on this topic and it really is a challenge to provide something that is specific enough to be useful but general enough to be reliable.  

Once TG comes out with the pattern study info, just consider it another weapon in the arsenal. Certainly not THE answer.

Along the lines of some earlier comments in this and other threads, the pattern studies (or your own pattern reads) should only influence your expectations of a good or bad race. They CanNOT predict with certainty the outcome of a particular race.

Using the pattern info above (if you choose to do so), you cannot predict with certainty that Smarty Jones will bounce in the Preakness or conversely that he will win for fun. Either result is consistent with the data but one (the bounce) is more likely than is the other (pair-up or new top which likely leads to an easy win since he is so much faster than the others). The way you should wager depends on how the public is going to play the race. I am guessing that they will likely bet SJ down to about fair value in the win pool but they may overbet him in the exotics since they probably will not believe that the most likely winner of the race also has a 50% chance to run a clunker.

Also, in defense of TGJB\'s derby analysis (not that it needs one), I think this is pretty much what he said. Smarty Jones was fastest and could possibly blow the field away but there was also a good chance that he could X and that was how TGJB was recommending you play the race since he thought there was better value in the latter approach.

There is no way you can validate or invalidate his assumptions based on the outcome of that single race.

This is concept that seems to be very hard to grasp for most people, which is actually a good thing for some of us given the competitive nature of this game.

Chris



Post Edited (05-10-04 19:46)

[bccassidy]

Ronwar, I am sure this can look like hindsight to some, but how can you expect Smarty Jones to bounce now? or Lion Heart for that matter? I predict the exact same order of finish for 1st and 2nd in the Preakness, but that is why they will run the race; to make some of us look like fools, this game can humble you. Of coarse we haven\'t seen the post draw and for sure someone is going to try and press these two into awfully fast fractions, but I am already leaning towards betting on the same outcome with the possible exception of using the Cliff\'s edge underneath as well. From what I have seen nobody\'s beating Smarty Jones and I am not betting on his bounce coming now, this horse looks for real to me. The Belmont will be his test and I don\'t think we will see his best until then. It could be another Secretariat coming down the lane ahead by many, they would be fools to do that in the Preakness with the Belmont still to run, but the Belmont is where we may see what this horse really has. I hope I am not just getting caught up in emotion here but I think this horse is the real deal, I have never seen any horse like him. He attacks the ground with every stride.

[miff]

Another SECRETARIAT??, that is truly a leap of faith.Today, SJ is unquestionably the fastest three year old.I don\'t think we may ever see a horse go a mile and a half doling out 24 second quarters for almost the entire distance like SEC did.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I hear your point Derby and as always you do a fine job with statistical comparisons.

My preference would be to compare Derby Horses running \"0-2-pair\" patterns with what their projected Preakness effort would figure out to. Secondly, I\'d give some weight to the statistics re: 3yr old races in May coming off a \"0-2-Pair\" patterns.

The other issue to me is the development from the 2yr top. How does 3 or 4 point development factor into X races off an \"0-2-Pair\" history?

I just don\'t think you can accurately project the probability of a negative 1 at this point or an X. We\'re in a whole new ballpark regarding 3 yr olds and speed. And I don\'t know that the old data can reflect upon the new trends.  I\'m still not completely comfortable with this. I don\'t know Jerry\'s pars and variants. I\'ve come to believe he doesn't really create variants any longer. I think he utilizes cross reference, split between one turn and two turns, (Jerry correct me if I\'m wrong about that) but I\'ve seen the numbers drop amazingly over the last 3 years. I swear I can remember an uproar about Officer running a 4 or even a 6 as a juvenile.Irrespective of that its clear that whatever figure you want to assign the horses the development from 2 has not been huge.

What I will do when the Preakness is over is compare the probabilities you posted with the results. We\'ll see how well the old stats hold up.  

I hear your desire for jerry\'s new statistical breakdown and I\'m quite sure you are uniquely positioned to take advantage of the data with your mathematical mind.

I\'d add you did not indicate your projected negative number probablities for Eddington. Was that an oversight, or did dismiss him because no probabilities were statistically available?



Post Edited (05-10-04 21:19)

[BitPlayer]

miff -

I second your admiration of Secretariat, but I think your description of him \"doling out 24 second quarters\" in the Belmont does him injustice.  The day of the race, there was an article (I think it was in the Daily Racing Form, or was it the Morning Telegraph back then?) describing two scenarios that could lead to Big Red\'s defeat.  One was Sham loose on the lead and setting a dawdling pace.  The other was a speed duel that would exhaust Secretariat.  The article gave sample fractions for each scenario.  Secretariat surpassed the \"unsustainable\" fractions at every pole.

I just looked up the fractions.  The half went in 46-1/5.  6f in 1:09-4/5.

[Boscar Obarra]

 Hey, how fast would Big Red have been if he was running on today\'s high octane fuel?

[bdhsheets]

\"Hey, how fast would Big Red have been if he was running on today\'s high octane fuel?\"

He never would have won the TC. With all the steroids they use today, he likely would have broken down on the track.