Cal Derby Horses

[smalltimer]

I\'ve done a little pre-homework for your consideration.
This will be a short exercise and subject to being discounted by anyone.

I used the following horses, Tres Borrachos, Indian Sun, Gayego, Bob Black Jack, Colonel John, and I included Tiago. So this sample only pertains to 6 horses and a total of 14 prior races. For what it\'s worth, this is what I found.

The three horses that ran in the Arkansas Derby were all moving from smaller to larger fields than they faced in California.  (13 horse field at OP).
Regarding Tres, Gayego and Indian Sun they all 3 ran between 4.5 and 6.5 lengths faster to the 4f mark than they did in any of their prior races in California that were at least 8.5f, they all displayed more early speed even though they were going an extra 1/2 furlong.  Although there\'s a difference between the 4.5 and the 6.5, it still indicates they were improved on the surface. (Subject to positioning, etc, all the normal variants).

Their second pace figures were all faster by 11/14/14 which is @ 5.5 to 7 lengths faster than their Cal synth races.  On its face, the closeness of the figures 11,14,14 indicate that this could be a decent indicator. So I could logically guess that the second portion of their race was a pretty solid improvement for all 3 horses.  

Their late pace numbers improved also.  Not dramatically, but improved nevertheless, part of it being the added distance.  Keep in mind that Tres and Gayego set the pace and Indian Sun was off the pace and also wide on the turn and into the stretch.  I found Tres and Gayego improving @ 1+ lengths each.  Not significant, but with the added distance, still could be viewed as a non-factor or a minor positive factor.

Each of their Speed Ratings (I used Brisnet, cause I understand it), showed improvement.  Tres moved up 6 points, Indian Sun moved up 7 points and Gayego moved up 7 points also.  So the numbers, even though the sample is really small are very close and consistent with all three horses.  Everyone will have their own interpretation if it means anything.

Each of the 3 horses ran roughly 7 seconds slower in time at the 9f compared to their earlier 8.5f times on synthetic.  This one is subject to impact value.

To jump to Tiago for a second, he ran 9f at SA on synthetic in 1:46.4 with a Spd rating of 99 and then moved to OP and won there in 1:48.30 (-1.9 sec slower), yet had a Spd of 106, or like the previous 3 year olds, Tiago improved 7 points.  So this one shows some correlation, even in a small sample.  It could mean something, it may mean nothing.

Regarding Bob Black Jack and Colonel John.  For the purposes of this illustration, they may move up.  Yes, I know, 10f, untested on dirt, etc.  I\'m accepting that premise just for the sake of this example. It could be argued that both of these horses are better than any of the 3 Ark Derby horses, in the case of Colonel John, there\'s no question he is the superior animal (on paper).

By using the same methodology in a 9f dirt race, it would move Bob Black Jack to a Spd of 104 and Colonel John to a 105.  That would put either of them in range of the top 5 in the Derby field.  Their late pace numbers could be pretty strong, obviously, I\'m not taking into account the trip, post position, etc.  Just using some raw info here.  In theory, it would put Colonel John in a position to pick up in the area of 11.5 lengths on Brown during the stretch.  (Don\'t yell at me).  I based that on the 98 late pace that Brown ran in the Fla Derby, and yes he would be clear by many lengths over Colonel John prior to the stretch.  

Feel free to shoot down these comments, I welcome the discussion.  I certainly am not going to argue with anyone who has an opposing point of view.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Is it that the California horse improved moving to dirt, or was it merely that the data for similar or even the same effort comes back differently on dirt. I think its clear that it is the latter, but the problem still arises which California horses will run similar or same efforts on dirt. Some do, some don\'t.

smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ve done a little pre-homework for your
> consideration.
> This will be a short exercise and subject to being
> discounted by anyone.
>
> I used the following horses, Tres Borrachos,
> Indian Sun, Gayego, Bob Black Jack, Colonel John,
> and I included Tiago. So this sample only pertains
> to 6 horses and a total of 14 prior races. For
> what it\'s worth, this is what I found.
>
> The three horses that ran in the Arkansas Derby
> were all moving from smaller to larger fields than
> they faced in California.  (13 horse field at
> OP).
> Regarding Tres, Gayego and Indian Sun they all 3
> ran between 4.5 and 6.5 lengths faster to the 4f
> mark than they did in any of their prior races in
> California that were at least 8.5f, they all
> displayed more early speed even though they were
> going an extra 1/2 furlong.  Although there\'s a
> difference between the 4.5 and the 6.5, it still
> indicates they were improved on the surface.
> (Subject to positioning, etc, all the normal
> variants).
>
> Their second pace figures were all faster by
> 11/14/14 which is @ 5.5 to 7 lengths faster than
> their Cal synth races.  On its face, the closeness
> of the figures 11,14,14 indicate that this could
> be a decent indicator. So I could logically guess
> that the second portion of their race was a pretty
> solid improvement for all 3 horses.  
>
> Their late pace numbers improved also.  Not
> dramatically, but improved nevertheless, part of
> it being the added distance.  Keep in mind that
> Tres and Gayego set the pace and Indian Sun was
> off the pace and also wide on the turn and into
> the stretch.  I found Tres and Gayego improving @
> 1+ lengths each.  Not significant, but with the
> added distance, still could be viewed as a
> non-factor or a minor positive factor.
>
> Each of their Speed Ratings (I used Brisnet, cause
> I understand it), showed improvement.  Tres moved
> up 6 points, Indian Sun moved up 7 points and
> Gayego moved up 7 points also.  So the numbers,
> even though the sample is really small are very
> close and consistent with all three horses.
> Everyone will have their own interpretation if it
> means anything.
>
> Each of the 3 horses ran roughly 7 seconds slower
> in time at the 9f compared to their earlier 8.5f
> times on synthetic.  This one is subject to impact
> value.
>
> To jump to Tiago for a second, he ran 9f at SA on
> synthetic in 1:46.4 with a Spd rating of 99 and
> then moved to OP and won there in 1:48.30 (-1.9
> sec slower), yet had a Spd of 106, or like the
> previous 3 year olds, Tiago improved 7 points.  So
> this one shows some correlation, even in a small
> sample.  It could mean something, it may mean
> nothing.
>
> Regarding Bob Black Jack and Colonel John.  For
> the purposes of this illustration, they may move
> up.  Yes, I know, 10f, untested on dirt, etc.  I\'m
> accepting that premise just for the sake of this
> example. It could be argued that both of these
> horses are better than any of the 3 Ark Derby
> horses, in the case of Colonel John, there\'s no
> question he is the superior animal (on paper).
>
> By using the same methodology in a 9f dirt race,
> it would move Bob Black Jack to a Spd of 104 and
> Colonel John to a 105.  That would put either of
> them in range of the top 5 in the Derby field.
> Their late pace numbers could be pretty strong,
> obviously, I\'m not taking into account the trip,
> post position, etc.  Just using some raw info
> here.  In theory, it would put Colonel John in a
> position to pick up in the area of 11.5 lengths on
> Brown during the stretch.  (Don\'t yell at me).  I
> based that on the 98 late pace that Brown ran in
> the Fla Derby, and yes he would be clear by many
> lengths over Colonel John prior to the stretch.  
>
> Feel free to shoot down these comments, I welcome
> the discussion.  I certainly am not going to argue
> with anyone who has an opposing point of view.

[smalltimer]

Clown,
I\'m just throwing it out there.  You can believe what you want.  If it\'s possible, give me some specific examples that indicate what you\'re saying is true.
My entire post had disclaimers and qualifiers in it, it wasn\'t based on a large research project (like yours apparently is).
As far as your comment, \"which California horses will run similar or same efforts on dirt.  Some do, some don\'t.\"
Chuckles--this specific group of horses DID, others may not. The larger the sample would become, the more anomalies.  
Give me some specifics, I\'d love to agree with you.

[mkram]

Smalltimer,

Thanks for the pace figures insights.  I don\'t use the methodology, but still find other angles informative.

Being a TG user, I focus on pattern and development as well as the actual performance figure.  This holds true when looking at the horses going from synthetic to dirt.

From my perspective, the horses you mention were not illogical candidates for improving/running well based on their patterns. One never knows if a horse can take to the dirt, but assuming they can, one can evaluate in the context of pattern and development.

Colonel John appears to have done a tremendous amount of development since his August debut.  Whether it\'s dirt or synthetic, at some point he may be at the end of the line at least in the short-term.  That said, he still is a contender.

Good luck the rest of the way.

[smalltimer]

mkram,
Thanks for the comments.  As I\'ve stated, I have virtually no knowledge of Thorograph methods and that\'s a reason I\'ve began frequenting the forum in the last 3-4 days.  
The thoro is in such stark contrast to my normal methodology, that I find it refreshing and insightful to read what others are focusing on.  At this early point, each side may support the other in small ways.
That being said, I hope to incorporate much of the Thoro rationale when it\'s finally time to pull the trigger in a couple weeks.
The exchange of some meaningful dialogue among two opposite methods can sometimes be helpful.
Trust me, its gonna be some period of time before you read the words, \"pattern and development\" coming from any of my posts.  For me, that would be inviting ridicule.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

First of all, you\'re discussing these things in BRIS and we are not going to to do that here. No one thinks BRIS is worth a damn anyway. But if you\'re trying to extrapolate a Syn to Dirt move up for all respective Syn horses, thats not what is happening, but good luck with it. Colonel John will be one of the favorites regardless of the theory, whether he runs well or not will depend on his affinity for Churchill, not statistics of other syn to dirt runners.

The best horse in the Arkansas Derby was Z Fortune.

smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clown,
> I\'m just throwing it out there.  You can believe
> what you want.  If it\'s possible, give me some
> specific examples that indicate what you\'re saying
> is true.
> My entire post had disclaimers and qualifiers in
> it, it wasn\'t based on a large research project
> (like yours apparently is).
> As far as your comment, \"which California horses
> will run similar or same efforts on dirt.  Some
> do, some don\'t.\"
> Chuckles--this specific group of horses DID,
> others may not. The larger the sample would
> become, the more anomalies.  
> Give me some specifics, I\'d love to agree with
> you.

[alm]

Mkram

Please explain why you think Col John may have reached a short term development peak?

[miff]

\"The best horse in the Arkansas Derby was Z Fortune\".




...now, now Chuck, don\'t tell me you drank the Kool Aid. Gayego was the best horse in the ARK derby and did ALL the running, Z Fortune got a better fig being wide.Watch the replay carefully focusing on:

1. Gayego, involved in the ENTIRE race including a very fast pace and holding Z. Fortune safe the entire stretch.

2. Z Fortune,floated wide on the first turn, a perfect relaxed pocket app 6th, down the backside(while Gayego is mixing it up), a nice bid running after an embattled Gayego, wide off the turn, and held safe.

Better fig, Z Fortune, better race Gayego. Just in case you missed it.Both not without a longshots chance in the big dance.


Mike

[smalltimer]

Clown,
At no point did I ever say there would be a move up from synth to dirt.  I only used these few horses to suggest it. Colonel John, no doubt will be one of the 4-5 favs in the race, regardless of any additional factors.
You\'re probably correct in that Z Fortune was the best horse in the Ark Derby, that\'s why he was in the winner\'s circle. (Sometimes the best horse doesn\'t win that day).
I\'m fully capable of addressing a lot of issues that have to do with handicapping and nothing to do with Bris.  I simply was throwing out some things for \"some\" people to consider, I thought I was being helpful to at least show some numbers why a horse(s) may or may not have run when moving from the Cal synth to OP, by using some concete examples.
It may surprise you, but I\'m a lot more in agreement with you on some things than you think. I.E. you and I have similar thinking regarding Big Brown as well as Pyro.  When push comes to shove in a couple weeks, you and I are apt to make the same type conclusions in the race. (Gulp) Of course, your decision as well as mine will be shaped and finalized by using totally different reasoning and reasons, and your pre-race rationale will have the same impact on me as any of my comments will have on you.  One thing I know, I won\'t be on here making excuses, or dogging somebody for their picks. I\'ll leave that up to the experts like you.
I\'m not on here to suggest anyone do anything other than what they\'ve been successful at.
Have a good one.

[jimbo66]

Smalltimer,

Interestng stuff and nice job on trying to attack an issue that all of us on this board should be thinking about, \"what to do with the poly/synthetic horses\".

As I read through your analysis though, I don\'t really see a way to use it in a derby hypothesis, which is what it is all about, at least for those of us that are gamblers and not fans (which is most on this board, I would imagine).

yes, it is certainly true that the early pace figures are faster on dirt than poly/synthetic.  And yes, the late pace figures of Colonel John are faster than the east coast dirt horses.  But to me, both those statements are just the \"norm\" for poly/synthetic racing.  And if Colonel John translates his form to dirt, he might be the 1st or 2nd most likely winner.  But to me, this just brings me back to the same question, will he be as likely to run well on dirt as poly/synthetic?  And while your small sample points to horses that did, as yo point, it is way too small to be statistically relative, and unfortunately, I don\'t have the time to do a huge study on my own.  

But now to my question for Jerry or Alan.  When I look at your poly figures, they seem to be much more similar to your turf figures in the way they are bunched in a tighter range.  I had a discussion with Alan last year about Saratoga about a problem I have with comparing turf and dirt figures for \"top quality\" runners.  This tighter range results in the BEST dirt horses being faster on the t-graph scale than the BEST turf horses.  For example, we have horses running negative 3 to 6 over the last few years every year.  These are the BEST dirt horses.  However, if you look at the same time period for turf horses, the BEST turf horses run from 1 to negative 1.  So, at the TOP of the scale, the best dirt horses are 4 points or so faster than the best turf horses.  THis doesn\'t cause a huge problem in handicapping in that most of the best turf or dirt horses don\'t try to run on the other surface, so accounting for this relative difference doesn\'t come up much.

But if I am correct that your poly figures are more closely aligned with your turf figures, than it does cause a problem.  Let me explain.  I would bet that if all other things were considered equal, and Big Brown ran the same exact race at Keenland instead of Gulfstream, he wouldn\'t have got the negative 3.5.  It would have been slower because the figures are in a tighter span on poly.

Now, let me relate that to a real situation.  I don\'t know Colonel John\'s SA Derby figure, but before that race he was running 5\'s on poly.  Let\'s say he jumped to a 2 in the SA derby.  Ok, he is still too slow to really contend in the Derby based on raw number power, without another move up in the Derby and off a 3 point forward move, he is unlikely to have another forward move in him, which would make him a toss and a huge underlay.  However, if that 2 is really a bit faster because of the tighter range of poly figures, and really kind of equates to a 0, then he suddenly looks a lot better.

The same way I don\'t see a way to use smalltimer\'s bris points above to help with poly handicapping, I am finding problems using t-graph as well, even though I am certainly not a tg newbie (no offense smalltimer!!).  THe part of tg that I do find extremely valuable in handicapping the poly tracks is the sire stats.  Poly sire stats to me are as valuable as first timer sire stats.  But translating the numbers back and forth is a problem, at least for this gambler.

[smalltimer]

miff,
Thanks, I couldn\'t have said it better myself.

[jimbo66]

Miff,

Order me a double kool-aid.  

I just watched the race again and tried to find what you are looking at, but I don\'t see it.

To me, one of the best \"trips\" in racing is sitting second off a cheap speed, having a nice soft target, no matter what the pace.  Gayego got that trip, while Z Fortune had a very wide trip with what I personally call a typical poor Albarado ride.  

As I watched the stretch drive, it reminded me of my favorite Derby prep of all time (of course because it led to my biggest derby score of all time).  Indian Charlie sat the trip that Gayego sat, in the SA Derby, while Real Quiet was much further back and in the stretch Real Quiet didn\'t make up much ground, but was not asked the last 150 yards or so by Desormeaux.  Charlsie Kanty (not about the spelling) interviewed Kent after the race and he was beaming like I couldn\'t believe, talking about he loved his chances in 4 weeks, with the extra 1/8th of a mile.  I made a huge futures bet at 25-1 seconds after the interview ended.

I hope one of my offshore accounts offers a Gayego-Z Fortune matchup bet, because I would unload on that in favor of Z Fortune.  

Better figure, better horse, better pattern this year too I believe and despite a bit of pedigree problem on the dam\'s side, a better a pedigree to get the 1 1/4 than Gayego.

[smalltimer]

jimbo,
Great post, and some interesting observations as well. I did a very detailed project on Poly and all synthetics several months ago.  I included about 9 tracks which I separated into the different surfaces.  I\'m fortunate in that I have 2 assistants with the data collection, and I sort it and try to make some sense out of it.  My main point always being to \"let the data come to me and not have any preconceived idea on how I want it to turn out.\"
Someone posted a couple days ago that the poly horses \"bounce by smaller margins\", or something to that effect, and I\'m in total agreement.  My numbers show that the \"bounce\" or whatever you call it here,  has been a smaller, I think you call it range, between the poly repeaters and the regular dirt horses.  
I used some basic parameters.  No MCL or MSW races, no claimers less than 30K, no horses taking class drops, and I used sprinters sprinting and routers routing.  In other words, I tried to compare apples to apples.  I didn\'t want to use some maidens jumping from a 40 Beyer to an 78 for no apparent reason, I also didn\'t use horses moving from 50K claimer into a 30K claimer.  I also tried to use nothing less than 10 horse fields.  So I used reasonable parameters.
As I was doing that, I also was developing spreadsheet to input all the bloodlines that in the money horses were out of.  It didn\'t take long to see some real strong indicators that certain bloodlines were high producing and others were pretty crappy.  I have some detailed examples in anyone is interested.
Before I address your other posted comments, I will say at Arlington, for example, I did land on Rahy who was winning at 54% on 11 starts, as well as Tactical Cat, Pembroke, Danzig and Concerto who also were winning at 40% on that Poly surface.
When I moved to the Hollywood data I wound up with Running Stag at 50% winners on 12 starts, and 3 others with over 30% flat out winners.  Another was Put It Back, who was good for 34% on all synthetic surfaces including Poly.  (It also showed me the really unproductive sires, which is equally important).
The last thing I did with the bloodlines was sort them and that\'s when I discovered the generation type breeding that sets most of those sires apart from the rest.  Hence, my earlier comments regarding the sons of Relaunch or the grandsons of Relaunch, or the broodmares of of Rahy.  The numbers were compelling and made the research time well spent.
Please understand, I\'m not passing myself off as an expert on the artificials, but I do have some knowledge which was acquired through my own detailed work.
I\'m shutting this message down, its getting to long.
Also, I won\'t disagree that some/much of what I say has little to do with the Derby.  Sorry bout that.

[mkram]

I haven\'t seen his SA Derby number, but I assume he moved forward again from his 2008 debut number.  From his 08/19 debut to his 03/01 race we know that he has already developed 5 points, so it\'s conceivable that he developed 7 or more points after factoring in the SA Derby.

His development from his 2YO top may be around 3-4 points if not more, which isn\'t terrible in its own right, however, his 2YO top, while solid but not spectacular, was achieved in late November/December.  I view him as a somewhat slow 2YO compared to many of the other entrants\' 2YO campaigns.

I view his pattern as a solid, long (development over a long period of time), progressive march down to a number that is fast but may need another forward move in the Derby.  I really need that SA Derby number to make my final evaluation, but I feel he has already come a long way.

That in addition to the unknown dirt transition and the only two races as  a 3YO strike has we leaning away from him.

With all that said, I still work for a living.

[miff]

Hi Jim,

The energy spent chasing ANY speed, cheap or not,is spent.I could write a book on this type of trip, featuring a couple like Affirmed vs Alydar, Sunday Silence vs Easy Goer and hundreds of others. The wide horse gets the better fig and loses EVERY TIME,all things equal.The perfect trip you refer to is only when the pace is slowish, I agree a perfect cheap target.This was hardly the case.

Instead of a book, I\'ll tell you something that I have proven many many times,i.e wider isn\'t faster in every case and if they run that race again,and again, Gayego will win every time, all things equal.

As far as a head to head,Z Fortune does not seem to be a better horse to me and could never \"make\" an entire race as Gayego did.Re the breeding, etc, I no longer buy into that, as horses are continuing to outrun their breeding, distance wise.


You are also disregarding the fact that quite a few slow TG fig cali synth runners are outperforming those figs a high percentage of time but from a smallish sample.Remember, I am one who believes that most dirt horses do not run as fast on poly/synth, regardless of what their figs say.

Anyway, buddy, be careful this derby as history tells us \"Remember The Giacomo\"

Regards,
Mike