Ask The Experts
General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: TGJB on December 26, 2004, 07:19:33 PM
-
Given the degree of trouble, the timing of it (little time to recover), and how close he came anyway, I have to believe that business 100 yards out cost HA the race. While the ROTW is a teaching tool, some of us took the 21-1.
-
after mass media cut off harvard avenue, MM got bothered himself. who knows who was best there, but i couldn\'t use RHT on top at 2-1, as brilliant as stevens is. HA was an excellent use at 21-1 though, could have easily been HA and MM on top (which would have worked well for you guys).
Post Edited (12-26-04 19:41)
-
JB,
Excellent analysis.
question for you. I heard several of the super socal trainers are on the move, mitchell and mullins. coincedence?
Is this going to be a hard meet to handicap? if the \"norms\" are not in the game its going to be like the old fashioned days, well we can dream right?
-
well perfect moon started freaking out when he went to the whip and shifted all over the place, had to cost him a bit as well
Post Edited (12-26-04 20:21)
-
It\'s a shame your horse had a bit of trouble at 21-1. He might have won. He was a bit fortunate to not lose as much ground as he often does, but he ran very well.
I thought this was a great prep for RHT. He couldn\'t have been wound up even close to 100%. 7F can\'t be his best distance and he did well to come from last against an average/moderate pace. He may be fun to watch this year.
-
why cant 7 furlongs be his best distance? he is 2-2 at it ( :
-
A BIT OF TROUBLE??? Harvard was much the best and it was a great handicapper who picked him!!!! At 20-1, I went back and played a show bet.
-
Nice call. Bad break.
Tough when you uncover a 21-1 shot and run into traffic trouble.
The \"overview\" was a good addition this week and I doubt anybody will throw fruit on this one!
-
>why cant 7 furlongs be his best distance? he is 2-2 at it ( :<
Usually when they start their careers at 7F and immediately stretch out it\'s a pretty good indication that the barn thinks they want a route. Plus he\'s such a monster, it\'s hard for me believe he won\'t do better stalking the slower paces of routes than coming from the clouds going short. Usually you can tell by the numbers, but he\'s too lightly raced and likely to get better to tell anything yet.
-
I agree, was just having some fun with RHT.
The race fell apart yesterday and RHT got a dream trip, he probably should have finished a very credible 4th. That being said, with Mandellas tutalige I could see this horse as the dominant force out in a very weak division.
-
Mullins isn\'t leaving. His owners didn\'t want to run in Florida so he will be in So Cal. He gave his stalls back he got at Palm Meadows
Mitchell is supposed to send some to GP. Don\'t know if he will.
xichibanx
-
>I could see this horse as the dominant force out in a very weak division.<
He looked really good to me late in the race (like he had another gear if he needed it). That\'s the same thing I saw in his first two starts. It made me think he was going to be very good by the end of the year. He\'s had two debacles. The Belmont when he was used early for no good reason chasing Smarty in a fast pace (Smarty was freaky that day in defeat) and then at Monmouth when he didn\'t even lift a hoof against an overrated Lion Heart.
I think he\'s going to have some fun early in the new year, but Ghostzapper will be waiting with a -6 or something like it (or will we be up to -8s this year). :-)
-
well ghostzapper is a special horse but will be confined to the east coast, and there are several nice races for RHT out west.
really given how he was rushed RHT performed admirally. now he gets the huge trainer upgrade, and I cant think of a rosier picture for an owner
-
Yep. Plus Ghost will probably only show up for 3-4 races. :-)
-
Saddle-- Steve Allday was originally Paulson\'s vet, and went to Byrne after Paulson died, and several trainers have had their best days while training for that outfit (De Seroux, for example). Mandella is a great trainer, but it remains to be seen whether that\'s a move up under the circumstances-- he\'s one guy who doesn\'t want any help. I\'m guessing RHT did not run a big number this time, we\'ll see how it goes.
Jimbo-- Yeah, no fruit, and there might have been some without the summary-- RHT was an underlay. This also goes to show how different it is when you discuss a race, or just list your preferences as Friedman does, compared to making definitive plays where you can be held accountable. I came out of ROTW looking good-- but our play in the analysis, a win bet on HA and a box with MM, was a loser (I myself just bet win and under MM). A couple of weeks ago Friedman analyzed a race, listing Rare Gift as the key. It was a good read on a slow horse to go forward, and he was given a lot of credit. But I would be very surprised if Len made money, and he might have lost everything he bet-- the filly went off much shorter than she figured to, so he might not have bet to win, and the second finisher was his first throwout, at a short price.
It\'s much tougher to look good when people have a chance to keep score.
-
JB,
I can\'t see how it could be a very fast figure for RHT.
>(I myself just bet win and under MM).<
Personally, I think this type of saver wager is a bad idea. This is the exact situation I was referring to in a prior post about betting strategies. This kind of stuff cost me a lot of money over the years. It kills value (ROI).
MM was probably just as much of an underlay at RHT (IMO at least). Even if he wasn\'t there\'s no way that the MM exacta over HH was as much of an overlay as HH to win.
Putting an underlay or close to break even type horse over a huge overlay may still be an overlay, but it\'s almost never as big an overlay as the huge overlay to win or the huge overlay over another huge overlay (if you can find one).
You can argue that you don\'t want to throw out the ticket if the big overlay comes in 2nd. I understand the psychology. It\'s just definitely costing you a lot of money over time.
Over the years I turned dozens of 10-1 shots into 8-1 shots (on a net basis) by using them under suspect horses at short prices trying to save. Sure I cashed a few extra tickets, but it cost me money over time.
One year I looked at all my results over a several year period on a flat bet to win basis and noticed that I would have done a million times better if I just bet the same anount of money on every horse to win instead of playing around with saver exactas or varying the size of the bet. I refined that further by eliminating supposed overlays at 2-1 and less that created a ton of action and no profits.
You should check the ROI on all your short priced horses and see if you are really just spinning a lot of money through the windows. Almost everyone I know that did this check found that they were either losing money on shorter priced horses or winning so little they couldn\'t even be sure they were within the margin of error.
I never bother with exactas anymore unless I have 2 clear cut overlays in a race and even then I only play them with each other. That creates more value.
When I stopped doing stupid crap like varying wager sizes and playing savers my ROI went through the roof.
Post Edited (12-27-04 16:09)
-
The short answer to this is, something is either an overlay, or it is not. It\'s not tough to figure out what the right price is for an exacta based on your own handicapping, and compare it to what the exacta is paying. The same thing applies to boxes, etc.
There is no reason to limit your overlay to the win pool only, especially with 20-1 shots, and an exacta involving a horse that is not an overlay (and sometimes even one which is an underlay) can still SOMETIMES be a significant overlay. What I try to do is get 10-1 on a 5-1 event, rather than 20-1 on a 10-1 event-- it helps with the spiking over the course of a year, and allows me to bet more on good betting races.
I do agree with what you have said in earlier posts about betting short priced horses. There is a degree of randomness in all this, and it since it works equally for and against all, it cuts against the short ones. There is almost always less edge there than people think.
-
Let\'s be honest about this Harvard Avenue...when you bet a horse with his style, you have to expect trouble. Its a big part of why he was 21-1 to start with. Not saying it was a bad bet, but you bet deep closers, you live with the consequences of his trip.
-
i agree, coming from behind was part of the problem, but i wouldn\'t call HA a \"deep closer\". he got to the half in quicker than :45 in his last two starts. he was plenty close enough, just got steadied off his heels midway through the stretch.
-
TGJB,
I tend to think strictly in terms of ROI.
If I am willing to put $100 into a race, I would much rather have the entire $100 to win on a 21-1 shot that I know is a huge overlay than $80 to win on him and a $20 saver exacta with him under a horse of suspect value. The exacta may have a positive expectation because of the huge value of the 21-1 shot as part of the ticket, but not nearly as much as with him on top. I want to maximize the return for every dollar invested. This type of thinking has enhanced my results.
If you think in terms of seperate backrolls (win and exoctics) and you are going to make the same flat win bet on every horse but supplement that bet with exacta tickets when apropriate that makes some sense. But if you are cutting your win bet to play savers you are probably costing yourself a lot of money over the long term.
I try to make the same flat win bet on every horse. If I think there are 2 overlays in a race I bet that same amount on both horses to win (doubling my usual per race bet). Then as a seperate bet I will box them in an exacta because the combination of 2 overlays usually has a significantly higher ROI than either horse alone. However, I won\'t hook them up with other horses even if the tickets are overlays because the rest of those tickets are usually not as big an overlay as simply betting to win. If I wanted to bet more money, I\'d just bet more to win or on the exacta box.
Post Edited (12-28-04 08:45)
-
Rock Hard Ten got beat in the Santa Anita Derby with \"still developing\" as his only excuse. He got soundly beaten in the Preakness is my recollection and then dusted again in the Belmont and Haskell. (Some say by overrated horses.) I think he\'s a little better \"two turn\" horse than those last two efforts indicate, but winning the Malibu, against those horses, doesn\'t fill me with conviction. Assuming RHT is the division leader, the division lasts one more day and then he\'s a handicap horse. I can\'t rank him with GZ, RIM, Saint Elmo\'s Fire or even Perfect Dread just yet.
CtC
-
Agreed CtC,
Could probably think of about 10 more older horses I\'d like more than him, starting with even Funny Cide.
-
CTC,
Are you saying that only losing by a neck in the SA Derby in your 3rd start is somehow \"not\" extremely impressive?
If you are, I can\'t possibly agree.
True the loss in the Preakness was a wipeout, but that had more to do with SJ\'s advanced ability than RHT\'s lack of it. IMO, that race put RHT second in the division at that time after only 4 starts. That was no small feat.
The Belmont was a complete throwout. Many horses don\'t want 12F to begin with and he was used hard against SJ early in a fast pace. That was a suicidal ride and certainly accounts for the dreadful finish.
The Belmont and Preakness are the best arguments for SJ\'s greatness at that stage. They aren\'t an argument against RHT.
RHT followed that up with a very good improved win. He then put in the first poor performance of his lifetime against a garbage can field that LH wired. He was stopped on after that, so obioviusly something happened that accounts for the poor performance.
No one is saying he\'s the best in the division off a sprint win against a very subpar Grade 1 field in December.
However, it doesn\'t take a genius to see that this horse was quite advanced in the spring for such an extremely lightly raced 3YO horse. He is in a very solid barn. With the typical development you might expect from his springtime 3YO form (maybe even more than average because he was so lightly raced at the time), he could develop into a formidable racehorse. Coming out like he did with a win when he was clearly not wound up 100%, raises the probability that we will get to see that development. That\'s what makes him a hot prospect for 2005.
He may not reach the same level at GZ or RIM, but barring more physical problems, I would be surprised if he doesn\'t have an excellent year based on his PPs and this comeback.
Post Edited (12-31-04 17:37)
-
Opinions are what make for backing different horses. Don\'t get me wrong, I think RHT has potential. But its still pure potential to me. For me, he hasn\'t demonstrated enough to merit low odds.
Regarding his ability to run with handicappers, I would point out he was staggering and gotten to late in the Santa Anita Derby. He caught Lion Heart a little tired in the Preakness and Lion more than made up for that in the Haskell. RHT likes California racing, thats well enough established. That Swaps was against second and third notch horses and run over a track that carried speed a long way that day. I don\'t interpret that front end Swaps effort as evidence of the heart to run with better, but we\'ll see.
Winning the Malibu sort of confirms my theory about RHT. Mandella got a Grade I on his resume and I think that was the goal. Currently, my opinion is the horse wants about a mile, but if I can get 15-1 on him at 9 marks against Saint Elmo and Perfect, I could be tempted. It\'s not gonna happen though.
CtC
-
>Don\'t get me wrong, I think RHT has potential. <
I think everyone agrees with that.
Sometimes \"potential\" is more likely to be fullfilled than at other times. In this case I think it is extremely likely given how much he showed after just 3 starts, the fact that he was still developing when something went wrong with him in the Haskell, and just simple visual impressions.
We\'ll see.
I don\'t think I am going to get a bettable price on him any time soon. I\'m just expecting him to blossom this spring.
-
I\'ll watch with baited breath keeping in mind another recent winner of the Malibu named Southern Image.
I think he could blossom too, its just that I can\'t predict it on his p.p.s. I know Jerry is holding aces on Kris S. 3 to 4 yr old figure improvement and if he does improve at distance, he could be a handful.
-
IMO Southern Image was already darn good for a couple of races. I haven\'t been following his story, but since they stopped on him in a serious manner I\'m assuming he got hurt. If anything, this is the type of horse I\'d be looking to bet against when he returns.
RHT has a reputation that has yet to be filled. But IMHO, barring injury it\'s highly likely he will improve. So I don\'t see a way to bet on him or against him \"yet\". You are going to have to wait until he runs up against a better horse or demonstrates that he won\'t improve (which in IMO is low probability) .
When a horse with a reputation gets hurt (like SI), they often get bet off that reputation and those back races for 2 or more starts even though they don\'t come back the same. If SI\'s first race back looks anything less than impressive, I\'ll be happy to bet against him the next time out. If he comes back great, so be it. I\'ll wact him. Point being though that he\'s on my hot list for a \"bet against\" due to injury and reputation and the probabilities of returning sub par due to that injury.
-
Southern Image came up with a \"none too serious\" hoof problem before the Holly Gold Cup. Machowsky said there would be a 2005 campaign, but no works thus far....Never liked him, he lucked into a very, very soft Big Cap field last year.
-
Wow, you didn\'t think SI ran a couple of very impressive races before going down. I thought at that point he was about to move to the head of the division.