Ask The Experts
General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: TGJB on March 29, 2005, 02:22:37 PM
-
Alright, everybody calm down. I have a lot to say about the Beyer article and a lot of the other posts, so why don\'t you guys give me 20 minutes or so to post it before this conversation continues.
-
Sorry about that.
-
Okay, starting with Beyer--
1-- I haven\'t done the day yet, but I took a look at it, and Andy almost certainly has the figure for Blues and Royals significantly too fast. I can think of two reasons why just off the top of my head-- ground and weight. He probably worked off the Frankel horse who ran second, and had previously run here-- but that horse spotted the winner 9 pounds, and the winner got a rail trip. If you work backward from that, it comes out about what I estimated, and you\'ll all get to see that figure when we sell the next edition of the Derby futures.
2-- Not to overstate the obvious, but B&R just ran big off a layoff. This is in keeping with the European style in general, and this outfit in particular-- they have won many big distance stakes for 3yos off layoffs. If memory serves, somebody won one of the classics over there last year in their first start of the year, somebody might know who-- Michael?
I touched on this in ROTW about Zito, and was planning to get into it more as we got closer to the Derby, but the old style that he and others employed involved using several preps, but NOT having them wound up to start the campaign. Training styles (and Zito\'s) have changed, and the idea of using BOTH several preps AND having them wound up is a whole different story. We\'ve already seen Afleet Alex and Sun King run really big off layoffs, and not as well the next time (and by the way, Ritchey is quoted in DRF as saying that because AA got nothing out of the Rebel, he\'s going to work him 7f in 1:22 or 23 before the Aks Derby. Somebody should pull this guy\'s license).
In managing horses (and I don\'t always get to make the final call), here\'s what I do when pointing at a big race (or series of races) and considering whether to prep or rest-- I look at the sheet, and think about what number I would like to see there. If I can\'t come up with one, train him up to the race.
What number would have been good for AA 2 weeks after the big layoff effort? Another big one, so you have two huge efforts close together? A bounce (which means you ain\'t gonna win, and are going backward)? What two numbers would you like to see on Sun King after the big layoff number, so that he would be coming in going forward (which is almost always what wins the Derby-- SJ was able to win without a top because he was that much better than everyone else).
With B&R-- given that they are a layoff outfit and that he ran huge, what possible number would make you like the horse more than a six week break?
3-- I\'ve said this before-- Victory Gallop won the Derby off two preps. They just forgot to give us the damn trophy. And NOTE-- he is one of the small percentage of horses of recent years to run a new top in the Derby.
4-- As I said a few weeks back, most of the horses who raced on only 2 preps etc. made clear as time went on that they couldn\'t have won the Derby on their best day. If it was a question of fitness they would have improved subsequently, and they didn\'t. Keep in mind that given the big purses for Derby preps, there is usually a reason if a horse doesn\'t run-- see Closing Argument right now.
5-- Because we are focusing on one race (on which I would modestly put my record, much of which is a matter of public record, against anyone else\'s), we tend to forget that the ones doing the managing have (or should have) broader agendas. The Derby is the first of 3 races in 5 weeks, and the job SHOULD be to get good production from your horse overall, not just burn him up in the toughest race in the world to win. That so many of our stars don\'t perform much after the Derby tells you what kind of job everyone is doing.
There were several other posts worth commenting on, more later when I have time.
-
TGJB,
There\'s still no evidence that it\'s a good idea to use a single prep or two. \"At best\" it can be done effectively by a competent trainer. That\'s not enough of a reason for me to totally discount the generally poor results in my own betting.
Even though it\'s easy to find reasons why many of the horses that fall into the category shouldn\'t have won, they have still sharply underperformed their odds.
Some of them should have won for reasons we couldn\'t have foreseen just like they do in other races.
The losses should have approximated \"the take\" for flat bets.
The sample is too small of course, but like I keep repeating, there are only 2 possibilities.
Either 1 or 2 preps is not a factor and it can be done with no negatives or it\'s a negative.
Given those two possibilties and no clear cut answer, I will insist on a higher price for any horse coming in with a single prep or two until such time that there is enough of a sample of winners to counter the negative evidence to this point based on the ROI for horses like this.
I can\'t even contemplate why anyone would even consider not insisting on a greater margin of safety in their betting when there is certainly not clear cut evidence to refute the idea. You can\'t lose money by being cautious, but you can still win money by focusing on other overalys that might be even more valuable than you think if the other horse isn\'t prepped properly.
Post Edited (03-29-05 15:27)
-
CH-- You have a truly annoying habit of completely disregarding and not responding to any and all points I make in any of our discussions, (sort of like those guys running for president when they are asked a question). The last paragraph is only true (or even relevent) if the premise is true. If you want to do a real test, give me a list of those who came in on 1 or 2 preps or six weeks rest going back to 92 (earliest year we have stored electronically), and we\'ll post sheets for all of them. It will be informative to see how many of them EVER ran well enough to win the Derby, or what their careers were like later in general. Off the top of my head the only one who showed top ability later was Point Given, and I think we can all come up with a list of horses with MULTIPLE preps who threw in inexplicable stinkers on Derby day, and came back to fire big later.
-
Classhandicapper
Do you understand us to be saying that this horse should be bet at any price? All I have been maintaining is that IF he is the fastest horse by a healthy margin AND HE goes off at very long odds, THEN he is a good bet. It is your side of the argument that is saying it is unequivocal that his performance will be sharply compromised by his idiotic connections and he has little or no chance of winning. Did you read the article you are defending?
-
Amen
-
i love the enthusiasm. always seems to build around triple crown time (then dies after the belmont, when most involved miss all three races). anyway, we have plenty of races coming up. let\'s put up some thoughts BEFORE the races. the guys who are right can further their theories - the rest can listen.
-
CH,
I agree with you, but what you and I are saying is contrary from \"sheets methodology\", at least as far as I understand it. There is no way to justify three preps within that methodology and I guess you could debate it with JB until the cows come home and he won\'t change his mind.
I would just argue that the Derby should be treated slightly different than a normal race and that there are certain factors that might not come into play for the average 6th race at Aqueduct, that do come into play for 3 year olds going 1 1/4 the first Saturday in May.
-
Jerry,
I don\'t have the time today to go back to 1992 and do the research, but I did look at the last three years.
2004 was Read the Footnotes and Birdstone. I am guessing both ran fast enough to win the Derby at some point in their career.
2003 was Peace Rules. Same goes for him.
2002 was Johannesburg, Proud Citizen and Saarland. I don\'t know what their \"tops\" were, but i am guessing that they all ran fast enough at some point to win the Derby.
I read your postings on this subject, but I just think it is more likely that lack of foundation (less than three preps) is more likely a negative factor on a horse\'s ability to win the Derby, than it is that we have a statistical anomaly that the 100 or so horses that tried it and failed in the last 57 years all had physical ailments or were never capable of running fast enough to win the Derby, so their foundation was not relevant.
I don\'t think this viewpoint is outlandish. You have your viewpoint, but I disagree and I guess do does CH. But our view is pretty \"mainstream\", which although that doesn\'t mean it is correct, it should preclude you from acting as if we are crazy for having that view.
-
Jim-- I\'m not saying that it\'s ALWAYS right to have only two preps. Certainly in Real Quiet\'s case (assuming you count the first one) they were much better off having the last one than coming in off the layoff, and with those who are not either trained by layoff trainers or coming off big efforts 6 weeks or more out it can easily be the right thing to do. I\'m saying it\'s not NECESSARILY the right thing to do, and that Frankel and Godolphin are doing the right thing with their horses given what the situation is for those horses. Ritchey is doing what a lot of trainers before him have done.
Personally, I think that if SJ had been given a good break after his big 2yo efforts and just two starts into the Derby, he might have won the Triple Crown. And you know what? Looks like Servis agrees (maybe, given the foot problems). We\'ll never know.
-
TGJB,
As is often the case, you misunderstand my point (probably because of my writing skills). IMO, this is not fully a handicapping exercise yet because there\'s not enough of a sample and/or evidence to come to any conclusion on this issue with certainty yet.
This is more of an exercise in investing/risk.
Let\'s leave horses out of it for now so we don\'t have to get involved in subjective disagreements about ability.
Let\'s assume you and I are flipping a coin at even money and I am picking heads/tails randomly. Let\'s say the first 6 flips come up heads.
There is no way I am going to take tails at even money going forward. That may sound crazy, but it is totally logical.
There are only 2 possibilities to explain 6 heads in a row:
1. This was a fully understandable random event.
2. There is something wrong with the coin.
Even though it is extremely likely that this is a random event, there is some very small chance it is not. We don\'t know for certain yet.
Given that there could be something wrong with the coin, I would never take even money on tails.
Applying this logic to horses:
While it may be true that if we looked at a sample of horses many/most did not figure to win, they are still dramatically underperforming their odds. Some horses that didn\'t figure to run well, should have, just as horses that don\'t figure to win often do.
As in the case of the coin, I don\'t know with 100% certainty if 1 or 2 preps is enough for most horses yet. I don\'t see how anyone could be 100% certain based on the evidence to date.
All I know is that these horses are underperforming \"their odds\" and I don\'t think the intutive idea that it is hard to prep a 3YO for 10 furlongs in the spring is far fetched. It makes sense to me.
So in my own betting, I would insist on a greater margin of safety until such time as I know the answer with 100% certainty - just like with the coin.
That doesn\'t mean I might not trust Frankel more or someone else less or there couldn\'t be other specific exceptions, but as of now I want 3 preps and I don\'t want the horse to come out running too fast right out of the box.
SoCal,
I agree. If a horse is the fastest horse and he only has one prep he is still bettable. I would just insist on higher odds than is typcially the case all else being equal.
Post Edited (03-29-05 16:23)
-
CH,
I agreed with you until this coin flip analogy. So, next time you flip a coin six times and it comes up heads six times in a row, you would be willing to give me 7-5 on tails on the seventh flip? :)
-
Jimbo,
>So, next time you flip a coin six times and it comes up heads six times in a row, you would be willing to give me 7-5 on tails on the seventh flip?<
No. But I might be willing to give you 1.00000000000000000000000000000001 to 1. :-)
-
CH-- you\'re killing me. You really think the factors in a coin flip are comparable to those that decide a horse race?
Just taking your argument on it\'s face, that would have been a great approach to take with \"Dosage\" for the Derby. Until it wasn\'t, after it became clear that it was an artificial set of rules and several in a row that didn\'t qualify won the race. There\'s also a great example that can be found in the breeding industry about \"great broodmare sires\", but that\'s another story.
It\'s necessary to look at what is underlying the results, as I did in my post, which you have not responded to (again). Or, you can just take the position that a horse race is the same as a coin flip.
Jim-- we\'ll pull and post those horses later today, but I would prefer that someone give us a complete list so we don\'t have to do it twice.
-
Monarchos and Aptitude are two more that may have been light on preps and ran well in recent years -- if my memory serves....
I think bad timing may be a bigger issue than the number of preps. I could imagine that two well timed preps could do the trick.
I don\'t like the \"fresh horse\" in the Derby tack that\'s been taken a little more lately (Read the Footnotes - Perfect Drift). I think a horse needs to get roughed up at least a little bit on a regular schedule to do his best in the Derby.
HP
-
JB Said:
\"We\'ve already seen Afleet Alex and Sun King run really big off layoffs, and not as well the next time\"
Very true, but for what it\'s worth, Zito jogged/two minute licked Sun King in between starts and never pressed on him a little( he was too sharp and fresh in his initial outing).Zito was concerned that SK may be getting a little \"HOT\"as a new 3yr old and looked to dull him a bit.
I would not totally give him a reaction/ bounce for his last effort at TAMPA due to the above.His next race is really going to tell his story, one way or the other.
-
TGJB,
godolphin has done remarkable things off layoffs. sulamini took the big 12f race last year (maybe the year before) in his first start of the year. i don\'t recall any miracles with three year olds though... this B&R is a mystery to me. he beat a few nice colts last week, probably ran pretty fast. i think he is trading in the 15-1 range in europe though - too short for me.
-
Michael-- might not be Godolphin, but didn\'t somebody win a classic over there in their first start of the year last year?
-
HP,
Monarchos had three preps, two in Florida, then the Wood Memorial, in which in finished a non-threating 2nd to Congaree. (If Monarchos had been light on preps, then the statistic wouldn\'t be \"one horse in the last 57 years\", it would be \"two horses in the last 57 years\", since Monachos won the Derby.
Aptitude I am slightly less sure of, but I think he also had three preps, the last two being the Gotham and then the Wood, where he ran behind Fusaichi and Red Bullet.
-
Jim-- we\'re putting together those sheets now, plus Aptitude, whom I bet. I\'m still trying to figure out how Solis was wider from post 2 than FP was from post 11 or so.
Still wish someone had a list going back further.
-
JB,
Not sure what you consider the English Classics, I think that usually refers to the 1000 Guineas, 2000 Guineas, Derby and Oaks.
If so, Attraction, trained by Mark Johnston, won the 1000 Guineas off of a 10 month layoff.
-
JB,
Does your research point out that winning off a layoff is equally probable on dirt as it is on turf. I have read many times (not supported by stats), that it is much easier to get a horse to run well on turf off the layoff, since racing on turf is less strenuous on horses.
Just curious if your figures back that up.
-
jerry,
lundy won the UAE derby off a few races, and the winners of the epsom and guineas 2000 had a few preps. maybe a three yr old took one of the big ascot races? i think i would have remembered though, especially if it was done without a prep.
-
Michael,
You don\'t consider the 1000 guineas a classic?
-
I will not swear that all of these are correct or that the list is complete but it is probably pretty close going back to 1983. These horses all had 2 or fewer preps as 3yos prior to the Derby.
Chris
83 Sunny\'s Halo
(I probably missed a few but, believe it or not, I could not find another Derby entrant between 1983 to 1992 that had fewer than 3 Derby preps, which tells you a lot about how training has changed in just the last 10-15 years - which means such horse won the Derby 100% they ran in that time frame:-).
92 Arazi (euro)
92 Disposal
92 Dr. Devious (euro)
92 Thyer (euro)
93 El Bakan (PR)
94 Brocco
94 Powis Castle (longshot)
94 Ulises (PR I think...)
94 Valiant Nature
95 Talkin Man
95 Eltish (euro)
95 Ski Captain (euro)
95 Citadeed (euro)
97 Deeds Not Words (longshot)
98 Victory Gallop
98 Favorite Trick
98 Old Trieste
99 Lemon Drop Kid
99 Worldly Manner (Dubai)
2000 Anees
2000 China Visit (Dubai)
2001 Point Given
2001 Express Tour (Dubai)
2002 Saarland
2002 Essence of Dubai (Dubai)
2002 Johannesburg (Euro)
2002 Castle Gandolfo
2002 Proud Citizen
2003 Indian Express
2003 Outta Here
2003 Peace Rules
2004 Birdstone
2004 Castledale
2004 Friends Lake
2004 Lion Heart
2004 Read The Footnotes
2004 Tapit
-
hey jim,
missed your post
it is, i was thinking of the colts....the guineas 1000 and 2000 are mile races though. don\'t want to offend the irish, but, as these races relate to this discussion, you could consider them \"preps\". i would imagine it\'s easier to win one of those fresh compared to the derby or oaks.
going to be tough to solve the prep/derby issue this year. looks like it will be just rockport and B&R running off just two preps. they could both flop and i\'m not sure i would blame it on the preparation.
Post Edited (03-29-05 19:04)
-
We\'ve never looked at this, I can have George run a study, but the exact question may make a difference. My guess is that grass horses have a better record off layoffs because a) many are trained by Europeans or \"European style\", meaning wound up off layoffs, b)there are much fewer cheap grass races, and higher quality horses tend to be cranked more off layoffs, in part because they actually get rested, as opposed to only being stopped on because of injuries, and c) there are much fewer grass races and it\'s tougher to find a race, so trainers don\'t want to waste a start.
Hence the difficulty in asking the right question. If you can state one that draws a line through the variables we can run a study pretty easily, I think.
To quote one of the great sages, Ralph Kiner-- \"Statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, but not everything\".
I have a feeling that sometime over the next couple of days I\'m going to be talking about Mark Twain and jumping frogs again. Probably to CH.
We\'re going to work from Chris\' list, so it will take a while.
-
Now if it was a move of 4.1 to a 4.0 I called it a pair either way( 4.0 to 4.1 ), also if they came overseas which most had run here atless twice I wacthed these carefully. From 1997 to 2004: 131 horses ran in the derby 16 ran new tops and 16 paired up their tops.12% ran a new top, 24% either ran a top or paired up the old top.
-
Kev-- yeah, I think we did something with that question for last year\'s Derby, might be in the seminar, and it came out about like that.
Listen, we are doing something in Louisville. When you get a chance, do me a favor and e-mail Alan at alanb@thorograph.com so he can get your e-mail and ask you a couple of questions.
-
If the sheets for all these horses get posted, I think you will find that a high percentage of them run ran their top or better in the Derby. I would estimate about half of them ran their top or better which would almost have to be a higher percentage than those that came into the Derby with 3 or more preps (will be interesting to see all the sheets).
Also, note that many of these were shipping from another continent which has to be somewhat negative and is not the case for most of those with 3 or more preps.
Also, note that US-based horses, Lion Heart, Proud Citizen and Victory Gallop all ran big races and finished second (I think new tops for all but maybe Lion Heart). They did not win but finishing second is not a bad in a 15-20 horse field in the biggest race in North America and this is just over the last 7 derbies (also note that Peace Rules was just nosed out for second in a game effort).
If you look at the obvioius training trend over the last 20 years and you look at how 2-or-fewer prep horses have run in the last 8 or 9 years (appears to about when American trainers really started to use the less may be better approach for Derby preps), it is hard to make a case that 2 preps is bad. In fact, you could even make a case for just the opposite.
Chris
-
I don\'t know if this will help Jerry but here it is. This is from HTR they have large databases of stats like this.
180+ days off all horses, purse $10,000+ 1yr sample:
dirt sprint: 9,299= 9% won
dirt route: 1,115= 10% won
turf route: 1.691= 12% won
They also did a study of inside and outside speed horses from post position. They used their own method of seeing who they though was the speed of the speed.
For ex: The horse had to be ranked 1st in their ratings and either was on the far outside or on the inside ( rail )
Outside speed sprint: 31% 12,673 tested
Inside speed sprint: 31%
Inside speed route: 26% 6,311 tested
Outside speed route: 16%
Any post position (speed method) won at 23%......just goes to show ya the outside post is a killer for horses going wide into the turn. They did removed the one turn races in routes.
-
TGJB,
You crack me up sometimes. :-)
Of course the coin flip is not exactly comparable, but the default logic you should use in gambling/investing is.
When a sample of horses is \"dramatically underperforming its odds\", but the sample is not large enough to be statistically significant, you are STILL \"way better off\" not bucking that trend until you can be certain that you can account for that ROI underperformance.
By erring on the side of caution, you will ocassionally find that the stat was meaningless - as in the case of Dosage. Thus you may miss a few winners. However, you may have found some alternate overlays in those same races that you cashed that you wouldn\'t have cashed otherwise. The net being not particlulary meaningful.
Occasionally you will find that a negative stat \"WAS meaningful\" as more data came in. In those case you would have saved a ton of money by avoiding those horses until there was a statistically significant sample.
The net of all will be WAY better if you are cautious until you can be very certain that conventional wisdom is wrong.
IMHO, this is so basic a level of thought related to investing that I am shocked anyone would even debate it.
The only legitimate counter to it is that you are already close to 100% sure that 1 or 2 preps can\'t possibly be a negative in a particular circumstance. If you believe that, then OK, but I can\'t imagine anyone in the world being close to 100% about that based on the data to date and the sample size - especially considering it seems very logical that it would take an especially skilled trainer to do it.
Now if you want to make an exception for the Frankel\'s of the world, I am probably with you.
As of now though, I would generally downgrade the chances of anyone coming in with 1 or 2 preps until I know for certain one way or the other if it is a problem.
Given 2 horses with the same ability and the same odds I\'ll take the one prepped more traditionally every day of the week. This seems like a complete no-brainer to me given the huge underperformance of the prep short horses relative to their odds as a group.
Post Edited (03-29-05 19:20)
-
CH-- I want you to carefully read my posts on this subject explaining both my positions and the underlying logic regarding them, as to both the questions of the lighter raced Derby contestants and the differences between those questions and the coin flip. Then I want you to read them again. After that, do the same with Chris\' post. Then try to formulate a response that actually deals with someone else\'s points and responses to yours. For once.
Tomorrow, Mark Twain.
-
TGJB,
You don\'t give any weight to the theory that it\'s easier to bring horses back off a layoff on turf (Europe especially) because the paces of turf races tend to be slower and the races less demanding on fitness?
That\'s partly what Beyer and I have been theorizing.
Many Europeans horses win Grade 1 races off a layoff, but they primarily run on turf. However, it is possible that the same training method that CAN get a horse ready for a Grade 1 long turf route off a layoff may not be enough preparation for a dirt route and the trainers haven\'t figured that out yet because they are two different skills and they don\'t have enough experience with what it takes on dirt.
-
Having neither direct evidence either way (as I pointed out there are a lot of variables) or having trained horses, I don\'t have an opinion on the ease of getting horses to run off layoffs on turf and dirt. I have dealt with an awful lot of trainers, however, and none of them have raised the issue, including Dickinson, who is a major layoff trainer on both.
-
TGJB,
I\'m not sure what you are asking.
My understanding of what you are saying is that the proper preparation is dependent on the circumstances etc.... and that sometimes 1 or 2 can be OK or even better. Sometimes, more preps can be better. The idea is to get the horse to win the Derby without killing him.
I am saying, there is no real evidence that 1 or 2 preps is ever the proper preparation for this kind of race, but there\'s plenty of evidence that it is not.
If you are asking me to examine the figures and past performances of the horses in the sample to see how they did figure wise etc.., I am saying it that is not enough of an indication when they are dramatically underperforming their odds. Lousy horses should win sometimes and the ROI loss would approximate the take if this was a neutral factor.
So given the small sample why not ackowledge the possibility that 1 or 2 preps may not be ideal the vast majority of the time until we know more?
-
TGJB,
OK I understand your point.
My only evidence (no proof) is that I can easily see the pace differences in the race developments between turf and dirt and logically theorize that long dirt routes are tougher to prep for because they are more demanding.
I also have some stats on winning Grade 1 dirt races off a layoff and the horses sharply underperform their odds as a group. It is much easier and more neutral on an ROI basis to win lower level stakes.
I\'ve never done any stats on turf in Europe, but it seems rather routine to win Grade 1 races off a long payoff over there.
Hence a reasonable theory as to what is going on.
Post Edited (03-29-05 19:57)
-
chris,
because of the graded earnings requirement, maybe the two prep horses are the better horses (because they had to win a big race just to get in). maybe horses with two preps are more talented than the average derby horse, and should run better (not a question of preparation)? not sure, just a thought.
-
CH-- We are going to post all those sheets (right now we\'re having trouble getting the 92 horses, which should be there but don\'t seem to be), but soon thereafter we\'ll post them all and everyone can have a field day analyzing them. One of the problems we have in discussing things with you is that most people on this site realize that accurate performance figures (and in particular those we make) are the best way of measuring performance (erego their usefulness for betting, as opposed to simply looking at who has won in the past), especially when the randomness of results with 20 horse fields is taken into account. My suggestion is that if you are going to use results, you should be using top 4 or in the money finishes to reduce the randomness. In that and other regards, read Chris\' post, as I said.
-
TGJB,
OK, I\'ll examine the sheets.
I suspect they won\'t totally satisfy me because I generally believe that ROI evidence is quite indicative of factors that might not be well understood by the public. Even though I trust your figures, figure handicappers disagree on figures, people interpret results and figures differently etc.... Profits and losses relative to the take don\'t lie or get misunderstood when the sample is large enough.
Post Edited (03-29-05 20:09)
-
Okay, here are the sheets on the Derby starters with less than 3 preps. A couple of notes:
1-- Regarding a point CH made-- while those who make figures can disagree over a figure, when you do it over a significant sampling the discrepencies should even out, and there is no reason it should be an issue with something like this-- we\'re talking about 20 horse fields, and assigned figures affect ALL the figures in the race. This is as accurate a measure of performance as can be established, which is why we do it to begin with, and it enables us to examine how each horse performed relative to HIS OWN level of ability, as opposed to that of others in the race, which of course will affect win %, ITM% and ROI.
2-- We couldn\'t get the ones from 92. I also threw in Real Quiet and Aptitude, to show how these \"stats\" can be misleading-- both technically ran 3 times at 3 before the Derby, but both ran in January, AND THEN HAD A LAYOFF. Meaning, for all practical purposes, the January start was an extension of their 2yo campaigns, and they only had two preps AFTER the layoff before the Derby.
I also threw in Aptitude for another reason. I have mentioned here on several occasions (as has Chris) that Frankel\'s horses did some amazing things starting in the summer of 2001, which we later heard was when he began using Allday. Take a look at how much this SOB moved up.
Also, we may not have some Dubai starts (Worldly Manner?) for the earlier years-- Equibase has gotten better as time has gone on.
3-- I\'ll be very curious to hear not only the comments on the individual horses, but any carefully done breakdowns (Chris?). You can use Kevin\'s stats or whatever we did for last year\'s Derby seminar (should still be on this site), but keep in mind those stats include these horses.
http://www.thorograph.com/hold/k9304.pdf
-
I\'ll run threw them later, but just take the time and look at LEMON DROP KID coming into the bel. I had him that day, the pattern on him looked grrrreat. That\'s what people needs to be looking for in a fine looking pattern that will pay something, get the off race ( not to bad ) right after the little move.
-
Chris,
I would think that as a general rule we should expect spring 3YOs aimed specifically for the Derby to run lifetime peaks fairly often. Certainly that should be the case for some of the major contenders (some of the weaker horses could just get outrun or blown out by a fast pace and not run up to par etc..)
IMHO, simply running well, slightly better than previous efforts, or improving more than other horses would not really be indicative that one method of preparation is better or as good as another.
Suppose \"for example\" all the one/two prep horses showed an average improvement of 3 lengths and the ones with more preps improved by only 1 length.
Does that prove anything?
Suppose the better prepped horses were 4 lengths faster coming into the race on average because they had more racing experience.
How would that 3 length average improvement relative to 1 length improvement translate into 1 or 2 preps being a good idea?
It wouldn\'t. It would tend to indicate it was a terrible idea.
Even though many of them would peak, they would still often fall short of winning - possibly due to lack of preparation.
Suppose many of them never improved further after that?
Does that mean they were never that good to begin with or does it mean rushing a young 3YO to the 10F Derby without proper preparation knocks the horse out.
You really can\'t be sure.
I am just highlighting possible problems in the interpretation of these figures. The figures are somewhat subjective and the interpretation is even more so.
That\'s why even though I think examining the figures of the horses can be a useful supplement to ROI and other stats, you can\'t escape the fact that so far as a group these horses are wildly underperforming their odds on an ROI basis.
That means people are looking at their figures, the quality of their competition and everything else and concluding these horses have an \"x%\" chance of winning. Then they are not living up to those expectations even though many moved forward.
Granted the sample is still very small, but the ROI is a disaster (especially including all the horses from decades before for which we don\'t have data).
I can\'t escape the logic of \"assuming\" there is a problem here until they are winning close to their fair share of the races and/or the ROI stats prove otherwise.
There simply is not enough contrary evidence in the figures to counter the ROI and probability evidence we have seen so far. At least not with certainty.
I guess others can do as they please.
For me, \"all else being equal\" I would rather have the traditionally prepped horse over the non-traditionally prepped horse.
Post Edited (03-30-05 08:54)
-
I\'ll add one other thing.
IMO, the figures and patterns for the imports should be given much less weight in the discussion for several reasons.
1. It is hard to be as sure about the quality of the figures earned in overseas preps as it is for figures in the US.
2. Even if we assume the foreign figures are of equal quality, we can\'t be sure that many of the horses didn\'t improve when they got to the US for the Derby because of changes in drug usage and not because of changes in form.
3. Foreign imports of all ages, sex, and surface preference etc.. have generally shown a tendency to run big races first off the plane and then fall apart in their next start. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation, but the pattern has been written about and discussed by handicappers. I know several excellent handicappers that have been wagering profitably on that pattern for many years (against them in their second start after a huge first start).
The fact that some of the foreign based 3YOs improved sharply for the Derby and then didn\'t move forward further or went backwards simply can\'t be construed as evidence of anything related to proper Derby preparation or ability. This sub group falls into a larger category of foreign imports that has exhibited a similar pattern.
-
First, I hope they put that Beyer in print for all to see, I don\'t buy it for one second.
I also don\'t buy the \"three prep\" theory either. We\'ve heard the dosage theories, the no gelding rules, the Experimental rules, the NY or PA bred rules, the prep rules, the favorite rule, the front runner rules, etc, etc. They all bite the dust when a fast enough horse shows up break one or more of the so called rules.
In my handicapping, many times I find third off a layoff is the best you are going to get from a horse. Sometimes its second, sometimes fourth. To apply one rule to all horses seems silly to me. It\'s all about price. Give me a fast horse in the Derby with two preps at 20-1, I\'m betting. Make him 5-2, I\'m out.
-
I agree with your logic. I mean does anyone really think Lion Heart could have run better with another prep. I think you have to look at it case by case basis, the trainer, the horse, the previous races, and then handicap the horse, rather then implementing any rigid rules about two preps. Times are changing terms of breeding and training, I have no doubt that two preps will become the norm in the next few years, especially should someone win the derby.
beyerguy wrote:
> First, I hope they put that Beyer in print for all to see, I
> don\'t buy it for one second.
>
> I also don\'t buy the \"three prep\" theory either. We\'ve heard
> the dosage theories, the no gelding rules, the Experimental
> rules, the NY or PA bred rules, the prep rules, the favorite
> rule, the front runner rules, etc, etc. They all bite the dust
> when a fast enough horse shows up break one or more of the so
> called rules.
>
> In my handicapping, many times I find third off a layoff is the
> best you are going to get from a horse. Sometimes its second,
> sometimes fourth. To apply one rule to all horses seems silly
> to me. It\'s all about price. Give me a fast horse in the
> Derby with two preps at 20-1, I\'m betting. Make him 5-2, I\'m
> out.
-
Beyer and Saddle,
Am I allowed to agree with both of you guys but add what I\'ve been saying all along?
\"All else being equal\" (namely ability, odds etc..) In most cases I would rather back a horse that has been prepped via more traditional methods than one with just 1 or 2 preps. There is no betting downside to taking that conservative approach to making an odd-line given the horrid stats to date. However there is potential upside assuming the possibility that many trainers \"do\" have a tough time prepping a horse for 10F with a single prep or two.
I don\'t even think the proper way to think about this issue is black and white.
Beyer overstated the case by stating the horse is a total throwout. That\'s silly.
However, that doesn\'t make it right to totally ignore decades of statistical and wagering underperformance because of subjective figures and very subjective interpretation of them when the idea itself does intuitively has some merit.
It \"may\" just be tougher in general for most trainers to take a young inexperienced 3YO with limited routing experience and have him both ready to get 10F and sharp enough to beat other talented horses with more experience on the first Saturday in May.
Post Edited (03-30-05 10:26)
-
Beyer,
I think he is a most likely throwout becuase these dubai rarely repeat those performances.
-
Someday, Godolphin is going to win the Derby, BUT not this way; yes they can win in Britain (Lammterra won the English Derby-turf) but not here UNTIL THEY RACE HERE.
The ever-changing dynamics of the game have altered the prep schedule, and someone mentioned this earlier, but I DO wonder how much the \"graded earnings\" game has affected training schedules; on that note, looks like the Fla. race this weekend is coming up very small! They never should have played with moving it to this weekend!
-
After reviewing JB\'s sheets of those with 2 or less preps; I find what happened to them afterwards (PREAKNESS) quite interesting.
See LION HEART, PEACE RULES, WORLDLY MANNER, VICTORY GALLOP (ran 2nd but fig dropped), TALKIN MAN.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
Joe,
Do you think their subsequent performance is evidence that they weren\'t short in the Derby (they didn\'t improve so they couldn\'t have been short) or that they went backwards because they weren\'t properly prepared for the Derby and it took something out of them?
Neither?
What about the fact that other figure makers may show a slightly different pattern for the same horses or that other styles of handicapping could indicate something else about which race was better?
That\'s the thing for me. I don\'t know how you can come to any certain conclusions about any of this based on figures alone. They are one tool in the arsenal.
It\'s not like we have a scientific control where we know what figures the horses would have run under various different preparations.
What we do know is that a limited and very general sample of horses covering multiple decades has underperformed their representation and their odds so far.
Maybe that means something and maybe it doesn\'t. I\'d prefer to err on the side of caution.
-
I e-mail him, hope you got it.
-
CH--
My feeling is that their lack of \"bottom\" followed by the tough Derby race set them back in their Preakness start.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
110 beyer for B&R.
if rockport runs fast in the ark derby, three of the fastest horses in this year\'s derby might be coming in with two preps. this will be very interesting. i\'m undecided on the issue. i will definitely take a strong stand on these three horses before race though, let the results tell me if i am right or wrong.
.....
just found out that B&R is a half to limehouse. interesting horse. the connections of the horse he just dusted, parole board, look like they are coming to ky as well.
Post Edited (03-31-05 15:16)
-
Michael D-- there is a whole string on this horse and that article below, it\'s what started all this. I\'ll be doing NAD today, but Beyer almost certainly has it too good.
Which doesn\'t mean the horse didn\'t run well enough to be a strong contender.
-
i hadn\'t noticed the beyer figure. i ignore those unless something jumps out at me, like this 110...... do the europeans have the race slower? did you have live ground there? globeform has the world cup and the sprint pretty fast, although not so great compared to other world cup days..... i will defer to you though. i guess the weights and ground loss played a big role in the outcome as you said.
-
Michael-- Just did it. He saved ground and got weight from Frankel\'s horse, it ended up being good, but not off the charts like Andy had it. The dirt races were a little tricky, I had to break out the sprint-- we don\'t have wind and it could be why, since that race is down a straight. Do have ground off TV.
Big race wasn\'t tough, R&M got what he usually gets, Dynaver about what he gets. I\'m surprised someone had the sprint fast-- I had to take off a lot just to make it decent. Winner went back and won.
-
TGJB,
I wouldn\'t say Beyer has the race too fast or too good. I would say the horse earned a 110 with an easy trip and that\'s not as good as a lower Beyer figure with a more typical or tough trip.
-
Ch-- I\'m not biting. I\'ve got work to do.
-
TGJB,
OK. Keep up the good work. :-)