Bellamy Road Out

david,

Thanks for making my point.

There are 2 mirrors in my apartment and they are both hers. I don\'t care much about how I look these days. Unlike others, I prefer cashing tickets and learning from people that might help me accomplish that by discussing their techniques and opinions. :-)



Post Edited (05-12-05 09:07)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Class,

I\'m not ready to conclude its drugs off either. I know the Graded Stakes were rough on the Supertrainers, but even they cycle poorly sometimes. Summerly won. I rank Asmussen in that bunch.

Pace, Bounce, Bias, Injury played the predominate roles.

If it was drugs off they wouldn\'t have run Zed\'s in my estimation. And Dutrow wouldn\'t be bringing Golden Man in.



Post Edited (05-12-05 10:00)

Take a look at the races from Wood Memorial day - April 9th.

I thought that speed seemed like it \"might\" have an advantage through the first 6 races that day. Most of the winners were logical chalk, but a 48-1 shot (with good pace figures that I believe Beyerguy hit) wired the 5th and a 51-1 shot lasted quite well before tiring in mid stretch in the 4th.

I have offered this insight several times.

When a track is speed favoring, the smartest jockies will often figure that out by mid card and get more aggressive early to get position. That sometimes offsets the advantage of being in front because they use their horses up.

Watch the race developments of the 7th and 8th races. You didn\'t need to look at the fractions to know that these were fast paced races. The horses that went for the lead were urged a bit and running hard early. They opened up on the rest of their respective fields and they looked like pretty quick horses to begin with. That was a windy day, so I suspected that fractional analysis might be more difficult than usual, but I was fairly confident the paces were fast based on watching the races. In fact, the fractions did verify my subjective conclusions despite the complications of wind. (beyerguy can verify that) These races were easy, but they are examples of how I use race watching and an analysis of the horses to verifiy numerical pace analysis.

Taking it one step further, we had 6 races where speed seemed like it might be an advantage and then 2 where fast paces may have offset any advantage those horses had by being speed types.

Then comes the Wood memorial. The favorite (BR) gets loose on the lead running well within himself (visual) and runs a -5TG and a 120 Beyer.

Given my theories and analysis of the day, can you understand why I might be somewhat skeptical of the full quality of BR\'s performance and his price at 5-2 in the Derby?

It doesn\'t matter if you agree with anything I have to say. You asked for an example of my using visual skills to compliment numbers and this was a good day.

CTC,

\"I\'m not ready to conclude its drugs either.\"

I\'m not naive. I know that some of these guys are drugging their horses. When they get caught or testing/security gets hightened it\'s an issue and you have to watch the performances of the horses going forward. IMO, there\'s a few guys at Belmont right now that seem to not be doing as well as they were. I\'m just less anxious to blame every result that doesn\'t conform to my handicapping theories as being because of \"drugs on\" or \"drugs off\". Especially when there are other explanations like the ones you have identified and a couple of horses in the race that may have actually run lifetime bests (all things considered) for the same category of trainers.

[Mall]

Nothing about the impact of pace on the race I asked you not to talk about. That part was good. Most of the rest, well, to be honest it wasn\'t so good, but I did learn one thing, namely why others have expressed frustration with your penchant for changing the subject. Let\'s deal with that issue by limiting the discussion to one subject & one subject only. I\'ll suggest the 1st topic & you suggest the 2nd topic, & so forth. Eventually we\'ll get to the question of whether you responded to the study I mentioned, but it might be better if we start with something simple, something which does not require any handicapping skill at all. Something you don\'t have to take my word for, because you can independently verify what I\'m saying by talking to whoever you\'ve been going to the races with for 30 yrs.

You\'re proud of your r.o.i, & well you should be. It\'s better than the published stats for the RGS bettors who wager more than $3 million per yr on avg, & who use & have access to some very sophisticated handicapping materials. A lot of very knowledgeable people in the business think they\'re the best handicappers in the world, but I know from your posts that their roi is less than yours. I\'m fine with that. In fact, the main reason I\'m willing to go through what will apparently be a very long exercise is because I want to see if I can learn something from you, starting with the stakes races on the Preakness card.

I can\'t imagine that anyone has a problem with someone who is proud of their accomplisments. The problem occurs when that pride becomes overbearing & is evidenced by a superior manner toward others,to wit, the definition of arrogance. Blindly accepting what others have to say has nothing to do with it. The right to having & forming an opinion has nothing to do with it. Drinking cool aid has nothing to do with it. It\'s all in the attitude of superiority, evidenced in this case by your saying that the validity of others\' opinions on a subject you hadn\'t looked at or considered would depend on the final word from you. There are many, many ways you could have said exactly the same thing without being arrogant, & I\'ll be glad to help you come up with a few if necessary.

Maybe that example is a little complicated, so let\'s try another. You\'re in a group of people that you know includes a number who have bet a lot of money on a certain longshot at 23-1. Some have used the longshot in pk4s which are paying more than $100k. After the race is over, you announce for the 1st time to everyone assembled that the longshot was the easiest toss in the race, which is roughly equivalent to saying that anyone who bet on the longshot was an idiot who doesn\'t know how to handicap. Arrogance of the highest order, not to mention extraordinarily bad form. It\'s something that just isn\'t done, by anyone under any circumstances. In fact, I can only remember one instance of it happening in close to 45 yrs. That time the person was in close proximity, so I was able to deal with the matter promptly & effectively. You\'re not, which is why I\'m explaining it to you in a post. Capisce?

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Well, It would seem CH\'s feeling that High Limit would cave was based upon the \"need for the lead\" reflected in his Past Performances and the realization it was gonna be pretty hot up front.

In that horses defense he did rate in the Bluegrass and he did have a finish compromising stretch run. He had a horror trip in the Derby and came back cut up but not knocked out. Personally, I tend to think if he\'d have rated in the 3 path he\'d of won that race. But, we\'ll never know and its off to the next one.

Going into the race, you had to figure that a Zed would be a good number to win it. There looked to be some good odds horses capable of Zed if the Fab Four crashed and burned:

High Limit
High Fly
Noble Causeway
Sun King

Probably in that order

Its not entirely unreasonable that a bona fide pace handicapper would have eliminated High Limit on Pace. The pace was very hot and sure looks to have done in High Fly, among others.

Handicappers are always looking to validate their analysis. Its hard to do when a horse like Giacomo wins and while losing you take solace in where you were right and try to go on from there. For me it was Bellamania, who I believed was more SuperHype than superhorse. For CH it was High Limit. (CH questioned Bellamania from the outset as well however) I don\'t think he meant any disrespect pertaining to handicapping ability. An Afleet Alex, High Limit top two finish would have made me very giddy, but its hard to take offense to the notion he was a toss. At least this time, he did finish last.

Mall,

I\'ll address the gist of your post.

My opinions on the Derby pace and how it might impact certain horses were expressed before the race. I had no idea who had selected who or who had bet on what. I never saw the TG Derby presentation until you guys posted it (2 days later??).

However, now that it\'s over why wouldn\'t we want to discuss it?  I think I\'ve used the word idiot in reference to my picks several time. :-)

I didn\'t came here to display any arrogance, brag about my results, or tell everyone how wonderful a handicapper I am. I know virtually nothing about breeding, claiming races, first time starters, and trainer patterns. I barely have enough insights to play stakes turf races profitably. Anyone that is playing all those sorts of races profitably knows a hell of a lot more than I do. If I do anything well, it\'s stick to what I know and don\'t gamble.  

I started out posting opinions on the stuff I think I know something about. I got blasted by some people \"for having theories\" that run counter to the views expressed here etc... Others asked that I post my views before races to demonstrate if anything I had to say had any value.

I did both.

I still get blasted semi-regularly. I still get called names. I am still asked to post opinions before races to prove if anything I have to say has merit.

I wouldn\'t have to list anything I was ever right about or tell you about my results if I weren\'t asked to defend everything I have to say on a daily basis.

When I say \"I was right about something before the race\" or point to some \"success at the windows\" to try to gain some acceptance for what I am saying, I then get blasted as being arrogant, a braggard, etc....

If I have an attitude at times, it\'s probably because of how I\'ve been treated at times.  

I will certainly express my opinions on the Preakness and any other major stakes races on that card that I might consider betting on.



Post Edited (05-12-05 12:36)

CTC,

>I don\'t think he meant any disrespect pertaining to handicapping ability<

Absolutely correct. I didn\'t even know who everyone was playing or selecting until later.

If I deserve to be trashed for one thing it\'s not paying for the TG derby analysis before the race, but I\'m not working these days and need for my horses to run better than Bandini to afford luxories. :-)  

I want to be clear before I get accused of saying things I did not say in the future when HL runs well.

I think HL will have a much better chance at Pimlico in a smaller field, at a shorter distance, with much less speed in the race.  

His performance in the Derby was so dreadful that my opinion about him was not verified by his performance in the Derby. He was too bad to believe that that was an honest reflection of his ability. He\'s a much better horses than that. So is Bandini.

However, given the race development was very much in line with what I thought was highly probable before the race, I have a tough time imagining HL winning that Derby on his best day -  even if he improved. I would have a tough time even believing anyone  that said that.

In hindsight I may have been an idiot for using Greely\'s Galaxy. He has a presser style. I thought he was more likely to be rateable and finish well at 10F. Perhaps, I should have downgraded his chances a lot more than I did.
Live and learn.



Post Edited (05-12-05 13:24)

[jbelfior]

No mention anywhere on the difference between a fast pace (e.g. SPEND A BUCK) going :45 and change versus a pressured pace similar to last week ??

If one is going to do a pace analysis, time and variant are not the only variables to consider.

Anyone think that a horse like SPEND A BUCK would have waltzed to a Derby win if ETERNAL PRINCE had broke well that day and was breathing down his neck.

That\'s what made GZ\'s thoro number in the Woodward that much more impressive...it was accomplished under extreme pressure. Bellamy Road\'s was not.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[BitPlayer]

Mall -

I have a couple of naive questions triggered by a recent post of yours.

You wrote: \"in races with a lot of early speed, early speed horses still have an impact value considerably above 1, with an r.o.i. which is significantly higher than in races where there are less early speed horses.\"  Is that true generally, or more true for certain types of races than others (e.g., sprint v. route; dirt v. turf).

You also referred to \"a 2yr, 200,000 race [study] I have in my hands now.\"  How does one acquire that sort of thing?

Thanks for your help.

Respectfully,

BitPlayer

Joe,

\"That\'s what made GZ\'s thoro number in the Woodward that much more impressive...it was accomplished under extreme pressure. Bellamy Road\'s was not.\"

I\'m in your camp on this one big time.

I thought GZ was absolutely amazing that day.

I also thought RIM had a spectacular race last year (I think it was in Saratoga) when he held off a good field after a blazing battle.

[jbelfior]

I remember the race. I was standing on the finish line at Saratoga and could not believe my eyes.

I spoke to Edgar Prado that nite and he said it was as if the horse surged one more time for a brief moment as soon as PERFECT DRIFT passed him. .....CLASS!!!

To get back to the point. Jerry\'s #s are the best in the business. That being said, we all have the right to use them and interpret them as we see fit. That includes how and under what conditions were the numbers accomplished.

My experience leads me to believe that a negative 1 accomplished under pace pressure against graded animals is a better performance than, say, a negative 3 accomplished under allowance n/w 3 while on an uncontested lead.

Not as simple when trying to compare a negative 2 accomplished by a NAJRAN in a swift pace versus a negative 2 accomplished by an ALDEBAREN in a slow pace.

My opinion in the Derby was that HIGH FLY\'s 1 at GP was as impressive as BELLAMY ROAD\'s neg 5 at Aqueduct. Incorporating the track variants and pace analysis  (not pace numbers) led me to that opinion. Unfortunately using HIGH FLY resulted in a severe dent to my bankroll.  



Good Luck,
Joe B.

[beyerguy]

Mall,

One comment about ROI...an ROI by itself is not that meaningful without taking into context the volume of races one is playing.  CH says he only plays Top Stakes, so we know his volume is pretty low.  I\'ll take a 2% ROI playing 100 races a day over a 25% ROI playing 10 races a week every time.  Actually, I\'d take a -2% ROI over that same 25%.

[Mall]

Bit: Nothing naive about your questions. The study I was referring to was limited to fast dirt races between 5.5 & 10f. Be glad to see that you get it when I get back next week if you can figure out some way that I can contact you.

Beyer: I follow what you\'re saying, but wouldn\'t it depend on the amt bet per race? I think the roi would be the same if one person bet 1x on ten races & another person bet 10x on one race.

beyer,

I absolutely agree with you about ROI.

I\'ve made that point about my own results several times. I explained why I was able to produce such a high ROI because I sensed that some people thought I was FOS.

I think I can increase almost anyone\'s ROI with 3 simple rules.

1. Don\'t bet any horse at less than 3-1 even if you think it is an overlay. (with some rare exceptions)

Most of the money \"most\" profitable horseplayers put through the windows on horses going off at less than 3-1 produces a very low +ROI. I\'d be willing to bet that some \"net profitable\" players lose money on these lower priced horses. They just don\'t know it. All most people do is create a lot of handle with these horses.

2. Don\'t make saver wagers in the exacta pool (with some rare exceptions)

If you have a horse that you think is an overlay it is almost always a much bigger overlay on top than it is underneath in the exactas.

Many people can\'t stand the thought of watching a longshot finish second. So instead of betting $X to win or $X worth of exactas with him on top, they use him underneath a bunch of underlays as a saver. The savers almost always have a lower ROI than the tickets with him on top. So the net for the $X investment produces a lower ROI over the long haul than a straight bet on top even though you win more often and feel good about that.

3. If you have 2 overlays in the same race, make sure you box them for something - but don\'t play other savers (as in rule #2).

The ROI of compounded value is much higher than from a single horse alone.

I learned much of this from a friend of Dave Litfin\'s father (nice guys) back in the early 90s at the \"Downtown Select Club\" when I was still more or less a break even player. He turned me into a winner, by changing my betting.    

I probably pass on many profitable situations these days, but I don\'t get much pleasure out of the gambling action or handicapping cheap races. I would prefer to move in the direction of betting very large sums of money on a smaller number of races where I think I have a large edge and enjoy watching and handicapping the race for sporting reasons.

Since there are many weekend warriors like me out there, I think they would be smart to review their betting records and see if what I was taught would improve their results too.



Post Edited (05-12-05 17:56)