Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, my comment was textbook irony. The question
> is whether it was bitter or harsh enough to
> qualify as sarcasm too. Do you see the problem I
> had? If I call the post sarcasm, I violate the
> Richiebee rule (as presented on the Rags board),
> which states that insults should always be as
> subtle as possible.
Rich, I do not believe I am a major or even minor offender in terms of insults.
Yes, I confess I called some of the Raggies \"lovestruck teenagers\" when they rose,
i]en banc[/i], to come to the defense of Breeders Cup winning trainer scorned
Maria Borell. Yes, I confess to wanting to lambaste those who redboard, because
they do not have the understanding of the pari-mutuel system to realize why
redboarding is unsavory.
It pains me to hold my tongue sometimes, because what is better than a good
insult, or even better an insult followed by a sharp reply? (Gladstone to
Disraeli: \"I predict sir, that you will either die by hanging or some vile social
disease\". Disraeli to Gladstone: \"That all depends on whether I embrace your
principles or your mistress.\")
> Anyway, I always look forward to your posts,
> Richiebee, but I have a question for you: Why do
> you so often chastise the commoners while sparing
> the royalty?
>
> If you dislike the way \"pattern\" is used by
> everyone (well, with one exception) who uses
> sheets, why not attack the source of the problem?
> Go into the archives here and listen to the
> seminars in which JB says of a third-time starter
> that \"There is no better two-number pattern than
> his.\" Or read Len Ragozin\'s book, in which he says
> that \"decades of pattern analysis\" taught him that
> \"lightly raced horses who make small jumps are big
> threats to make big jumps in the near future.\"
> These are the people who wrote the dictionary that
> you take exception to.
I believe that I fairly clearly stated that I did not rely heavily on
patterns in handicapping the Triple Crown. I did not disparage those who do choose
to utilize patterns to handicap these races. While some might say that Cloud
Computing had a forward moving pattern going into the Preakness (or that he \"never
went backwards\"), to me this was a lightly raced colt who improved in each of his
starts. As Sekrah astutely pointed out, my choice not to call this trio of races a
\"pattern\" is a matter of \"semantics\".
With regards to the Belmont, I stand by my assertion that even a runner with a
good pattern heading into said race will not be an appealing win candidate if his
pedigree will not support a top effort at 12 furlongs. (This brings into the
debate another question: How many generations back in the pedigree should one go
to find the \"staying\" influence?).
As to confronting Jerry Brown or Len Ragozin, I must say that with regards to the
former (and TGAB), I have been at Saratoga seminars where the whole notion of the
Thoro-pattern (effort distribution, to borrow a phrase) has been questioned, and
both TGJB and TGAB have admitted that it is not perfect; that is it does not take
into account spacing, surface switches, trainer changes, etc.
With regards to the Lens, I have a feeling they would be very interested in back
and forth with me seeing as I have some graded stakes winning Communists in my
pedigree.
Again since it is my OPINION (sorry I\'m yelling now), I feel no need to \"attack
the source of the problem.\" It is not a \"problem\" for me.
> And finally, it would take Ludwig Wittgenstein to
> clear up all the confusion here: something like
> your picture of one TGAB-touted pattern becoming
> indelible and interfering with your ability to
> process the larger language-game properly. But the
> following trick may help:
>
> If you have it in your head that a pattern
> requires repetition, then consider that the
> repetition need not come from the horse on the
> sheet. In other words, if a horse has a two-number
> pattern of 14 followed by 13, look at \"pattern\" as
> representing the combined results we have seen
> from other horses with this pattern. That will
> give you your repetition and permit you to say
> that the horse has a good pattern for his third
> start.
Regarding the example above, your explanation of looking for a different sort of
repetition is quite logical. Lets assume you are talking about a 2YO or young 3YO.
Lets say the expected result is 14- 13 - 111, based on the repetition
you speak of. The first thing I might mention is that if the third race is a stake
race, a stretch out or a surface switch... can we still expect the forward move?
(Cue Vito chorus--\'The number is the number\").The second note is that I am cursed
(as you know from PTP exchanges between us) that I spent some time at the end of a
lead shank (hotwalker), with a hoofpick in my hand (groom), and with a six pack in
the knee tub (night watchman). My experience working with thoroughbreds has made
me a bit reluctant to \"handicap by the numbers\", feeling as I do that all
thoroughbreds and thoroughbred trainers are individuals.
I have been reduced to wagering only on \"BIG DAYS\" (thankfully there seem to be
two of these per month), but I assure you, on those days, I look at the numbers,
and to a lesser extent the patterns. I do not find the patterns that useful with
lightly raced runners, possibly to my detriment. Would love to see someone dive
into the Archives and shine a light on a pattern common to all or some Belmont
winners from this Century.
