NEGATIVE NUMBERS-JERRY

[high roller]

hi jerry,

i am not as smart or talented as you, but one thing you really need to do, is take some time and re-think what you are doing. these negative numbers are being given out like candy on hallowean.

horses like nothern stag or wildcat shoes are getting faster numbers than grade 2 horses like harvard avenue.

this is crazy stuff. then when they lose its because of a bounce. the whole premise of these numbers was to say that they cut across class lines.

honestly nothern stag would be wiped out against graded sprinters.

it devalues a negative number and makes them meaningless. just my opinion

[bloodline bob]

Agreed. Its hurting the credibilty of TG.

[TGJB]

BB-- well, since you said \"clear\", and \"please\", that\'s it then. Case proved.

CTC-- I don\'t know. That\'s the point. But I\'m having a hard time figuring out how people are taking the position that what I\'m saying is wrong, since as far as I know I\'m the only one who brought up the question of some trainers\' horses not firing BEFORE the weekend, repeatedly. I told everyone to watch the other graded stakes, and to all of you who wanted to know why the Sat analysis went up so late, it was because I WAS WATCHING THEM before making picks. There were indications, but it was not conclusive. It\'s still not-- although there is a lot more evidence of horses trained by those trainers not running.

And I meant CAN see them. Take a look at the chart for the first, not graded. Wonder where that horse\'s stall was.

By the way, the 2yo stake Pletcher won was not graded.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

TGJB wrote:

>
> By the way, the 2yo stake Pletcher won was not graded.
>

WTF, I posted too much. I was sure that was graded. Its says graded on some data i have, i\'m sure of it.

sob

Ok time to look at some charts.



Post Edited (05-08-05 14:08)

[mbeychok]

Look it is way too early to make any conclusions be they broad or specific about what detention barns and better testing will do or are doing. The facts are that Frankel\'s horses in Ky. have NOT run to their figures on a whole. Multiple losing favorites at both KEE and CD over the past week. Did he win some races? Sure, but I would guess no new tops.  Pletcher isn\'t going to just suddenly stop winning races. C\'mon! He\'s got better stock than Lukas/Baffert in their heyday. He\'ll win races because he\'s a good trainer (okay that\'s debatable)and he has superior stock. Romans had an un-Romans like Kee and CD as well. Now, I\'m not pointing fingers but in the last week Dutrow had an un-Dutrow like 1-fer-10 at Belmont.  What this does for those of us that use Thorograph figures and bet on these trainers is put us in a real dillema. I also use trainer patterns without figures (I know this is blaspehmous) but it works for me. I don\'t ask how a trainer gets a figure off a layoff or claim I just bet it. But, using figures that were earned by supertrainers\' horses in the past is going to a difficult proposition going forward. How to subjectively evaluate a past figure with a general knowledge that the horse won\'t be on juice is..well, making this game much more difficult.  It\'s still a wait and see what happens mode but I\'m certainly taking closer looks at races where juice trainers\' horses are going off big favs based on past figures if those juicers are cold.  

By the way, have to post this. I bet Giacomo in the first future pool. IT was the only future I bet this year. But, i wouldn\'t have bet confederate money on him yesterday. I profited only because of my bad read on him in March.

Michael

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

mbeychok wrote:

> Look it is way too early to make any conclusions be they broad
> or specific about what detention barns and better testing will
> do or are doing. The facts are that Frankel\'s horses in Ky.
> have NOT run to their figures on a whole. Multiple losing
> favorites at both KEE and CD over the past week. Did he win
> some races? Sure, but I would guess no new tops.

They guys who were onto the new testing have postulated a theory that on its face cannot yet be disproven by track results. I still don\'t know precisely where or when the testing changed, so I can\'t investigate the theory fully. What seems even more important now is where the same or more stingent testing will be applied.

>   Pletcher
> isn\'t going to just suddenly stop winning races. C\'mon! He\'s
> got better stock than Lukas/Baffert in their heyday. He\'ll win
> races because he\'s a good trainer (okay that\'s debatable)and he
> has superior stock.

Bandini was only a 500K purchase. Coin Silver 65K. Pletcher has undoubtedly been juicing and if they are able to dry him up who is to say where he will rate. Has he been relying upon horsemenship or the juice?

 Romans had an un-Romans like Kee and CD as
> well. Now, I\'m not pointing fingers but in the last week Dutrow
> had an un-Dutrow like 1-fer-10 at Belmont.  What this does for
> those of us that use Thorograph figures and bet on these
> trainers is put us in a real dillema. I also use trainer
> patterns without figures (I know this is blaspehmous) but it
> works for me. I don\'t ask how a trainer gets a figure off a
> layoff or claim I just bet it. But, using figures that were
> earned by supertrainers\' horses in the past is going to a
> difficult proposition going forward. How to subjectively
> evaluate a past figure with a general knowledge that the horse
> won\'t be on juice is..well, making this game much more
> difficult.  It\'s still a wait and see what happens mode but I\'m
> certainly taking closer looks at races where juice trainers\'
> horses are going off big favs based on past figures if those
> juicers are cold.  

There was more to juice horses running without juice in the Derby (assuming they ran without it) Bandini and High Limit did not crash and burn on the juice issue. Frankel supposedly had High Limits foot looked at, but he\'s also supposedly headed to Pimlico, so the foot issue could be cover for inability to apply the mojo and lo and behold form reversal in the Preakness. I\'m just skeptical of juice being that decisive a factor. Its an advantage, not a panacea.