Ask The Experts
General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: derby1592 on April 10, 2005, 01:53:03 PM
-
What if Hi Limit wins the Blue Grass (which certainly could happen)?
Then we have the following dilemma for the dogmatic players who insist that a horse cannot win the Derby off more than 28 days rest or with less than 3 preps as a 3yo.
Bellamy Road – Only 2 Derby preps
High Limit – Only 2 Derby preps
Blues and Royals – Only 1 Derby prep and only prepped in Dubai
High Fly – 5 weeks since last prep
Noble Causeway – 5 weeks since last prep
Do they toss all 5 or do they reluctantly admit that \"times, they are a changing.\'\"
Cheers.
Chris
-
Chris,
\"Do they toss all 5 or do they reluctantly admit that \"times, they are a changing.\'\"\"
Obviously, I have a huge problem with dogmatism to begin with.
Can\'t some people believe that training methods are changing, downgrade the chances of horses that don\'t fit their preferred method of preparation, and still think there\'s a very good chance that one of those 5 will win?
Personally, I don\'t get the 5 weeks since last prep angle at all.
Where did that one even come from?
I think they used to say that about the Belmont at one time, but I never heard it about the Derby until this year.
Post Edited (04-10-05 17:09)
-
Good Post Derby and it deserves to be brought back to attention.
The horses you mentioned above may not win because of a variety of reasons and it may include the lack of an extra prep. But how about the trainers running this week who do not want to run too good with only three weeks rest.
Your point is well taken that times are changing. Should make for some good prices Derby Day particularly if the public hammers Bellamy Road.
-
SC,
\"Should make for some good prices Derby Day particularly if the public hammers Bellamy Road.\"
I\'ve already read enough skeptical thoughts about his performance to make me believe he will only be a lookwarm favorite at best given the analysis the Derby preps are likely to get in the build up to the race.
-
Very good post, Chris!
So, Classhandicapper, you have a problem with dogma? That\'s a new one! Maybe we should call you Chuckles the Handicapper because I sure got a chuckle out of that one! Where were you when I was pointing out that Beyer\'s article on Blues and Royals was overly dogmatic? Yes, on exactly the same issue of this thread!!! Oh yeah, you said Beyer was echoing your very own sentiments and you came to his rescue to point out that there was zero countervailing evidence! Chris even went through the trouble of doing a study to try to get to the bottom of things. I guess he and I are just symptomatic of the closedmindedness on this board which stifles your ingenuity. You just KNOW that 2 or less preps are bad for a horse due to your brilliant reasoning.
I know, I know, here comes the very special fancy footwork again!
Maybe dogma is okay as long as it is sticking it to the Arabs? But if you are attacking an Italian or Jewish trainer, then that is going too far? Is that it?
Anyway, I hope that your genius influences lots and lots of bettors with lots and lots of money.
-
You forgot the \"the Holy Grail\" fewer than 5 lifetime starts before the main event [none have ever hit the board]:
Blues and Royals 4
Flower Alley will have 4
Greeley\'s Galaxy 4
High Limit will have 4
-
The toteboard will call the tune. If I get a huge price on one of these horses it may be tempting to use him, and to hell with dogma. For me, the five weeks rest is a bigger deal than the two preps, but dogma at 3-1 ain\'t dogma at 25-1!
HP
-
SoCal,
You should re-read my thoughts on the subject because you obviously misunderstood them.
This is the gist of what I said:
All else being equal, I would rather back a horse prepped traditionally because I know 100% for sure that that method works. There isn\'t enough evidence to satisfy me 100% that 1-2 preps is equally as effective. IMO there is at least some evidence that it is not. All of that evidence was rejected here because of the strong belief in speed figures as being able to explain almost everything (the small sampled TG study). No problem with the belief in speed figures, but I like to look at things from a lot of perspectives. (less dogmatic)
If I backed a horse with 1-2 preps I would insist on a slightly higher margin of safety in the price until such time that I am convinced 100% that it is just as effective.
I would be more likely to back a horse with 1 or 2 preps if it was trained by Bobby Frankel or some other equally talented trainer at prepreparing a horse off a layoff to go a distance of ground etc...
I agreed with Beyer\'s article that they were making a mistake with B&R, but thought he was dramatically overstating the case by saying the horse had no chance etc.... I used the word \"silly\" to describe his comments. Heck, at the right price I\'ll back that horse!
My only argument was that IMO bettors should be more conservative when it comes to betting these lightly prepped horses and insist on an extra tick on the board for taking on what could be slightly higher risk.
Others think there is no extra risk at all. That\'s cool, but I am less convinced. I can\'t lose anything by not betting unless I get an extra tick.
Post Edited (04-11-05 09:00)
-
A question?
If Nick Zito could get BIRDSTONE to win the Belmont at a 1 1/2 off of a 5 week layoff and the Travers off of a 2 month layoff, then why can\'t he get HIGH FLY or NOBLE CAUSEWAY to win the Derby at 1 1/4 off of a 5 week layoff?
Anyone think either one of these colts lack seasoning or conditioning?
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
\"If Nick Zito could get BIRDSTONE to win the Belmont at a 1 1/2 off of a 5 week layoff....\"
I agree.
Frankel won the Belmont off 5 weeks also.
There is nothing intuitive to me about why 5 weeks would be much tougher than 4. There was nothing in any statistics I have ever compiled or seen that suggests that 5 weeks would be very difficult for a competent trainer (assuming it was intentional and not because of an interrupted training schedule).
-
\"If Nick Zito could get BIRDSTONE to win the Belmont at a 1 1/2 off of a 5 week layoff....\"
Apples and oranges. The Derby ain\'t the Belmont. It\'s a totally different situation.
The Derby generally has about 20 entrants. They are on their toes and ready to go, pointed for the race. The best horses are in their best form, ideally after a few preps, before getting too chewed up.
The Belmont is a TOTALLY different story. Beating 8 horses in the Belmont, half of whom are whacked out from running tough races in the Derby and Preakness, is a lot different than winning the Derby.
Birdstone was ALL OUT to beat a horse that ran about the fastest spring campaign EVER (and danced every dance!). And he needed plenty of help to do it, as the pace experts can detail... Zito did a good job, but there were significant circumstances in his favor (weaker field, more tired horses).
Caveat emptor.
HP
-
CH--
Agreed. I would think at this point Todd Pletcher would rather have BANDINI coming in off of the Florida Derby than the Blue Grass. Interruptions in April are anything but good.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
HP--
I used the Belmont example only to illustrate trainer competency.
Agreed the Belmont is a different story....now how do you explain how he did it in the Travers. Those horses were not \"whacked out.\"
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
Hey Joe,
How do I explain what he did in the Travers? He was a nice little horse on his good days!
Seriously, I can speculate...
1. By the time August rolls around these horses have gone through some changes mentally/physically and maybe they can handle the variations in training a little better.
2. The Travers doesn\'t have an auxiliary starting gate because of all the horses in the race.
3. The horses have generally gone two turns a few more times...
Some combination of these factors may help a horse do a better job of running well off a longer break. Just the professionalism that comes with the experience... Or I\'m just wrong.
I just have a feeling winning the Derby on five weeks or more rest is a real long shot. I like the idea of coming in off a regular routine. Can\'t wait to see the tote!
HP
-
One thing is certain. There are a lot of different opinions. I\'m getting pretty pumped about this race. With so many break out performances recently (and another set of preps to go) it\'s really shaping up to be a great Derby.
-
CH,
What do you consider a \"lukewarm favorite\". I don\'t know what will happen this weekend obviously, but I would set the \"over-under\" on Bellamy Road\'s closing odds on Derby day at 5-2, which in a 15-18 horse field is a pretty strong favorite. I don\'t think this board represents the betting public at all. Very few people on this board bet favorites and people here are always looking for reasons to dislike the solid horses. Bellamy Road ran huge on Saturday, forget about the pace, the competition, the track condition and whatever else anybody wants to be skeptical about. No matter what you do to \"discount\" his figure slightly because of those factors, he still ran huge. He will be a deserving favorite on Derby day. And he will be tough to beat.
-
jimbo,
I was a little surprised by the futures pool. I guess he will go off shorter than I first thought unless someone runs especially well in the Blue Grass or Arkansas Derby.
I read 2 articles at the DRF right after the races Saturday that mentioned that the track was playing well for speed. I also saw some skepticism on another message board about how well he actually ran. So I thought that he might go off a little longer.
It doesn\'t appear that I was right about that.
Personally, I thought he ran very well. I just don\'t think he\'s going to duplicate that -4 / 119.
-
CH,
I would bet against him duplicating the -4 also. But look at my other post, the next fastest figure is a \"0\", barring this weekend.
He could bounce 4 points and win.
On this board in the past, there was a posting about how few horses win the Derby with a \"top\". Let\'s say the winner of the Blue Grass runs a \"0\", which is supposition, but also reasonable. That would mean going into the Derby, betting against Bellamy Road you would be asking him to bounce 4 points PLUS, have somebody run a new top.
I need solid odds to bet that.
Believe me, I have favorites. I bet a favorite about once every 30 races and usually only in exotics, but Bellamy Road looks solid right now. (obviously I am not going out on a limb with that statement) I just wish there would be as many skeptics the first Saturday in May as there are on this board. 7-2 on this horse would be a nice wager, a wager that I for one, would be willing to go \"all in\" on..........
-
jimbo,
I think you make a good case for him.
-
jim,
bellemy is 3.4-1 now, in the future wager, with the four month risk premium. how are you going to get a higher price come derby day? tough not to like bellamy though. could be a interesting race if horses like consolidator, rockport, and high limit are still involved. if the other speedballs don\'t run, however, i don\'t know how they are going to beat this guy.
-
Michael,
I didn\'t say I expect to get 7-2. Read my earlier post, I was critical of CH for saying Bellamy would be a \"lukewarm\" favorite. He will be a solid favorite.
What I said was that I wish there were as many skeptics in the betting pool for the Derby as there were on this board, so I COULD GET 7-2. I don\'t expect to get it.
Right now, I can\'t figure out a way to get any value on Bellamy. He is 5-2 offshore where I bet, which is worse than \"pool 3\".
What I am considering is taking a different approach to betting the horse. Right now, I can get 8-1 on a horse winning the Triple crown. I might take that bet. (not Bellamy doing, ANY horse doing it).
8-1 seems short, considering nobody has won it in 26/27 years, but I don\'t know how many horses have had the numerical advantage that Bellamy has. And if he loses the Derby, I get the Derby winner at 8-1 to parlay the Preakness/Belmont. Tough, but also possible.
-
jim,
bellamy is no lukewarm favorite (not sure where class somes up with that). he really has no chinks. look at his pedigree. not so sure about concerto, but the guy is bred to go for miles on bottom. i will try and beat him if three or four other speed horses run, but he is a very good horse. .....the triple crown wagers are intersting. the house has run into problems over the last few years with this bet. they have gone into the belmont holding a bet where they have to pay out over 10-1 on an event that people are giving a 4/5 chance of happening. makes it tough to hedge. wouldn\'t surprise me if the odds drop well below 8-1.
Post Edited (04-11-05 13:39)
-
for over 2 decades Ive been listening to n.y. players over estimate horses trained by Shug,Mott etc.
Mott ships a horse that has blistering #\'s on INNER track.this horse got nothing but praise in reference to the certainty he was going to run big. And yet on many occasions[and correctly] these same players dismiss the results of said track when the outer loop opens.
This isnt a knock on handicapping as much as a swift boot in the keester to remind everyone that winter racing in the northeast corridor sucks[unless your last namw happens to be dutrow]
PARTYpokerON
-
Classhandicapper --
1 - You said -- \"You should re-read my thoughts on the subject because you obviously misunderstood them.\"
My reply -- Why should I? You do not re-read anybody else\'s thoughts even when you obviously misunderstand them (or just do not understand them). How many times has Jerry asked you this same thing you are now asking of me? Why should I do something you are never willing to do.
2 - You said -- \"This is the gist of what I said:
All else being equal, I would rather back a horse prepped traditionally because I know 100% for sure that that method works. There isn\'t enough evidence to satisfy me 100% that 1-2 preps is equally as effective. IMO there is at least some evidence that it is not. All of that evidence was rejected here because of the strong belief in speed figures as being able to explain almost everything (the small sampled TG study). No problem with the belief in speed figures, but I like to look at things from a lot of perspectives. (less dogmatic)\"
My reply is -- I am not going to even consider whether your summary is correct or not. I assume it is wrong. However, if we assume for the sake of argument that you have accurately summarized yourself, you are skewering yourself. Why don\'t you read what you wrote? Maybe you misunderstood yourself.
You are saying you know something 100% and there is only one thing for sure. Isn\'t that what Dogma is? You are certain that one way to train a horse is better than another. We think different strokes for different folks. We think Suroor, Frankel, and Zito might know what they are doing. You know better about training horses than they do. Who is the dogmatist?
Then, you have the gall to say we rejected your \'evidence\' due to our dogmatism. People here weighed and considered your evidence. What the hell do you think all the discussions about statistical sampling, the explanations for why those statistics may have arisen, and the counter examples are? Those are people listening to what you wrote, evaluating it, and then discounting it. What kind of response have you offered? As far as I can tell, your only response is to call us dogmatic and yourself a supremely openminded and complex person who is able to consider many different perspectives unlike us dogmatists. Do you see how silly and weak (if not absent) your argument is?
Lets recap -- this whole argument started with a thread on a Beyer article about the right way and wrong way to prepare for the Kentucky Derby. Beyer was taking what we call -- \"a very dogmatic approach\" -- when he said that the fastest horse of the generation should be a toss because he was prepared improperly.
A few people, yourself included, agreed that there was a right way and a wrong way to prepare a horse for the Kentucky Derby -- although some people, yourself included, think he may have gone too far in his conclusion. However, judging by your latest emission, you still seem to think it is incontrovertible that one approach is better than another.
I pointed out that such a dogmatic approach was dangerous for the people who espouse it and would create opportunities for those of us who are less dogmatic. Ever since, you have been arguing that we are dogmatists and you are not. How can you possibly be serious? I am saying that there might be multiple successful ways to train a horse to win the Kentucky Derby and you are saying it is certain that one approach is worse than the others and any horse coming in that way needs to be discounted because it is so obvious one way is better than another.
I just wish I faced opposing counsel like you. It would actually make my job fun.
-
I thought SKIP AWAY was a lock too after he crushed the Blue Grass by 12.
One never knows. It will be a totally different situation for BELLAMY ROAD come Saturday, May 7th. If he handles a different set of variables, then he gets a tip of the hat from me. Until then, you can have 5/2.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
-
SoCal,
\"You are saying you know something 100% \"
You are correct.
I do think it is 100% certain that 3-4 preps is generally not a bad thing. I also think anyone that argues otherwise is probably arguing with that conclusion just for the sake of arguing - because he dislikes me.
\"However, judging by your latest emission, you still seem to think it is incontrovertible that one approach is better than another.\"
Absolutely not. I never said anything even remotely resembling that. If I were a trainer though, I\'d let someone else prove it.
I know that 3-4 preps is fine based on the history of the race.
I do not consider a sampling of speed figures from the last 10 or so Derbies to be 100% conclusive. I consider it worthy evidence to be considered, but I am not as focused on figures as some people and the sample is just as small.
\"Then, you have the gall to say we rejected your \'evidence\' due to our dogmatism.\"
I never asked anyone to accept countering evidence. I was explaining how I use the \"concept\" of \"margin of safety\" in my betting when I am unsure of something.
I must admit I was a little surprised at the resistance to the thinking - but not to the stats.
The ROI evidence suggested that the group had been a very poor bet so far. It also seems as though if you refine it a little further by looking at odds and finish position, they still underperformed.
That evidence is also very far from conclusive.
Hence \"my\" dilemma.
As far as \"I\" am concerned there isn\'t enough evidence one way or the other about whether 1-2 preps is just as good as 3-4.
It may be.
It may not be.
It may be for some horses and not others.
It may be for some trainers and not for others.
Forgive me if my standard of proof is higher than yours and if I tend to take a conservative attitude when I bet my money. Until I am convinced, I think it is prudent for me to insist on a slightly higher price on the board for horses like B&R than I would otherwise ask for.
Post Edited (04-11-05 15:26)
-
SoCalMan,
I don\'t want to start the two prep debate again, but I have to tell you, nobody on this board proved that two preps is the right way to go. I looked at all the sheets JB posted and reviewed them carefully and I was less impressed than Chris and others were with the results of the two prep horses. I still don\'t see how they got the 39% paired or tops. Anyway, the figures are posted and we can all analyze them. One fact that is incontrovertible is that only one horse has won the Derby off of less than three preps in 50/60 years.
I think JB\'s point about analyzing the reasons why many of these horses had only 2 preps is very key and frankly I had not thought of it. That point being that many had reduced schedules unintentionally, due to injuries, physical ailments etc.etc. And I think we can all agree that thinks need to go pretty perfectly physically and training wise to win the Derby.
But the \"two preps is the right way to go\" is the wrong conclusion to make, based on the evidence.
Sounds like you are a lawyer, so let me try this analogy. If there was a trial being held on whether two preps is the right way to go, your best case would be a hung jury.
-
jimbo,
\"I think JB\'s point about analyzing the reasons why many of these horses had only 2 preps is very key and frankly I had not thought of it. That point being that many had reduced schedules unintentionally, due to injuries, physical ailments etc.etc.\"
I agree that that accounts for a lot of the sub par stats.