Hangovers?

[TGJB]

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.

[SoCalMan2]

Sorry about that.

[TGJB]

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)

[TGJB]

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.

[SoCalMan2]

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?

[SoCalMan2]

Amen

[Michael D.]

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.

[jimbo66]

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.

[jimbo66]

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.

[TGJB]

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)

[jimbo66]

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. :-)

[TGJB]

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.