BB Food for Thought

[Dudley]

Bouncing to a negative one. (While winning under wraps!) Seems almost an oxymoron. Just think about that for a bit. How many 3yo in recent memory have been accused of that feat? I\'m sure Alan and Jerry could comment from a statistical perspective.

Here\'s a scenario:

BB was toying with his inferiors and could have replicated the negative 4.75 at will. He eats up, rests up, juices up with a dose-a-day for the next 3 weeks. Draws the outside post in a field of 10-12. Fires off to the front, wins by a pole while needlessly 5W around both turns. Earns a negative 9.5 with steam blowing out his nose and flames shooting from  his ass. The awestruck crowd gasps as Brown gets airborne just past the wire and lands in Lexington two hours later as the fading sound of \"Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee.....\" emanates from a giddy Kent D..

[miff]

Cov,

He\'s only one point faster in his LAST race, held!. The figure is correct, imo, but not totally reflective of the performance.As far as the others with the so called figs, there are many holes to be shot in those one fig wonders.To suggest that any horse in here is close to being as fast BB is a leap of faith.

BB only gets beat if runs down to the level of his competetion otherwise it\'s just a matter of how far he will win by.As in the derby and preakness it comes down to whether or not this horse reacts enough to get run over.

Mike

[smalltimer]

CD packed 123# in his Japan race against unknown quality and on a track rated as good, with no drugs listed.
It\'s up to the individual capper to decide what importance to attach.

[covelj70]

Mike,

thanks for the thoughts.

If you agree with the 1 negative, then he doesn\'t have as much room to move backward in the Belmont and still win as he did in the Preakness where he could (and did) back up 4 points and still crush the field.

Totally agree that we can poke holes in the O\'s that were run by those lining up in the Belmont but isn\'t it likely that at least one of the horses fast enough to run a 0 can hit that number on June 7th?

If they do, Brownie can\'t back up anymore and still win.

I know the argument from many is that that 1 negative could have been any number Kent wanted it to be had he asked for more but I just don\'t see that.  He ran right with the leaders for the first 6 furlongs and then took off like a rocket for the next 3f and then coasted for the last f.  He ran hard for all but the final furlong and the fact of the matter is that the race just wasn\'t that fast (if we believe the 1 negative which was my original point).

Thanks again for the dialog, really enojoying it.

[miff]

\"Totally agree that we can poke holes in the O\'s that were run by those lining up in the Belmont but isn\'t it likely that at least one of the horses fast enough to run a 0 can hit that number on June 7th?\"


Cov,

No I don\'t think so judging from there past performances esp the two derby runners. Both hung going shorter off good trips and were outrun by the filly 8 Belles. Why would they top going even longer?


Mike

[ajkreider]

As miff said in another post - it\'s not a matter of agreeing with the number.  The number is the number.  The issue is whether or not going from a -4 to a -1 one in this case adequately reflects a change in form.

[jbelfior]

My feeling is that Tale of Ekati was compromised by an inside post similar to the way Curlin was last year.

He gets shuffled back early, has to middle move to get into position to make a move to the lead, has Cool Coal Man backing up into his face which forces him wide, then flattens out.

TOE can certainly get back to a zero. He loves the track and his running style will be better served around the sweeping turns and softer pace. Two wins over the track can\'t be ignored.



Good Luck,
Joe B.

[covelj70]

I very much agree with Joe B\'s TOE analysis and I would also argue that Dennis of Cork has alot of room for improvement in the Belmont given that he only had 1 race in 7 weeks coming in.  Couldn\'t that be the reason he \"flattened out\"?

[SoCalMan2]

.....following is an excerpt with emphasis supplied by SCM2.....

mjellish Wrote:

> I understand the theory behind form cycles and
> regression.  It is a theory I happen to agree with
> and this has been quite profitable for me.  The
> theory, however, is best predicated upon seeing a
> hard recent effort on the track which is later
> confirmed by the figure and then followed by
> inadequate rest.  True, BB has run some very big
> figures, and one that was very big.  But
> amazingly, I don\'t think he has even run hard yet.
>  He didn\'t have a drop of sweat on him after the
> derby, and he hardly took a deep breath during the
> Preakness.  So while he has run those big numbers,
> I do not believe that they were necessarily big
> for him. And that is a very big key to regression
> theory.  Let\'s face it, BB may just be that good,
> a FREAK, and if he is he will probably now be at
> the peak of his form cycle and therefore very
> likely to get even better in the near future.
> Remember, this horse did not train consistently
> until the immediate weeks proceeding the Derby.
> Look at the way Kent had to hand urge him to go
> after the leaders approaching the far turn at
> Churchill.  At Pimlico he just sat there and BB
> did it all on his own.  This horse is moving
> forward.  He is also learning and putting it all
> together.  He has overcome a very wide trip from
> the 20 post, he has shown he can either stalk or
> set the pace, he can be pulled back and steered
> clear of trouble if it develops and still retain
> his push-button acceleration, he waits for his
> cues to run, he can make multiple moves in a
> race...  I don\'t know what more anyone wants to
> see this horse do before they admit that this is
> just not a normal grade one 3 year old horse.
> This is a special horse, and special horses do
> special things.  
>
> That being said, I don\'t know what is going to
> happen when another horse finally comes along that
> has the moxie to run eyeball to eyeball with BB in
> the lane.  That is when we will find out what type
> of heart he has, and that is what will ultimately
> determine how good he really is.  Still, I
> personally find it hard to imagine that Casino
> Drive, or any other 3 year old for that matter,
> will also be freakish enough to run a negative
> 3,4,5 or whatever else it may take to run with BB.
>  So I maintain that if there are no physical set
> backs, if BB trains well leading up to this race,
> I don\'t think he can be beat unless he gets the
> most nightmarish of all trips.  Hoping that he
> gets a bad trip or hoping that he regresses simply
> because he has run a big negative number seems
> like a bad strategy to me.  In my opinion hope is
> a strategy for the bar or for trying to get laid.
> It is usually not a good strategy for risking
> money, or at least not my money.  So I am going to
> get my plane ticket, fly out to Belmont and watch
> BB and a few of these other horses train in the
> week leading up to the race.  Hopefully the
> weather will be cool enough in the morning to see
> the air coming out of their nostrils.  If by
> watching BB I can find a first hand reason to
> believe he is going to regress then I will post it
> here on this board.  But if I can\'t find a
> negative, or if I can\'t find a reason to hate
> Casino Drive, or if there is no reason to love a
> bomber, then I am regrettably going to have to
> pass another Triple Crown race and simply watch a
> champion go about his business.
>
> Happy Hunting,
>
> MJ
....excerpt....emphasis supplied by SCM2

Dear MJ

Your posts are very appreciated here -- please keep them up.  The following are just a few contra points for discussion grist.  I will not make my final Belmont determination until shortly before the race; however, my feeling is that Big Brown is exactly the type of regression play I look for.  Also, apologies to all for the length of this post.  If I had more time, it would have been a lot shorter.  

First, let me give you some background -- I have a terrible eye for horseflesh.  I cannot tell you how many times I thought a horse just looked spectacular and ran like a dud and how many times I thought a horse looked suspect and ran great.  The only thing I have learned is that I cannot trust my visual opinions of horses.  I have found some people who do have such a talent, but there are very few such people around (a lot less than is supposed).  

Second, for a great regression play to work, you need a couple of things...you need the horse to look good to people who do not believe in sheetplaying theories.  If even the guy reading the DRF or watching in the paddock is sceptical, then there is no special edge from the sheet reading.  A corollary of this is that you need the favorite to take a lot of money (in fact, way too much money).  I, like you, singled Big Brown in the first position in the Derby, so I am not afraid to take a position with a heavy favorite in the first spot.  I agree that it is not a good thing to bet against heavy favorites on a knee jerk basis.  There needs to be thought that goes into it.

Third, any player is going to lose more regression plays against heavy favorites than they win.  There is no question about that.  However, if you can win 50% of these plays, then, with the likely fat returns, you are really doing superbly.  Sometimes the horses that look too good to be true end up being true and beating the regression player.  That is just a fact of life and you live with it -- here it is not so bad if the consequence is the sport gets a triple crown winner.  The problem from the betting perspective is being able to tell the \"too good to be true\" from \"the true.\"  Sometimes you can do that, but sometimes one can get too fancy trying to parse this question.  I am looking at BB as a case where trying to make \"the too good to be true\" versus \"the true\" determination is a case of trying to get too fancy, but, unlike you, my takeaway is that he is likely to be a great bet against.

Coming into the Derby, I felt just like you did that he was extremely likely to win (I didn\'t win as much as you did, but I did have a very good financial result).  At that point, he was only two races into his campaign.  Although the FLA Derby was a big jump up, he had five weeks coming into the KY Derby and the fact that the FLA Derby was a big jump up was good -- it indicated that he was not facing resistance yet (e.g. if a young inexperienced horse is making regular big jump ups, there is no telling where the reaction point is going to be.  As the jump ups get smaller and smaller, then the resistance or drag suggests the reaction is approaching).  Also, the trainer was completely free to train the horse exactly as he wanted to get him into the Derby.  Dutrow kept him in Florida in surroundings he was accustomed to and was able to control all variables with a singleminded focus.

Coming into the Belmont, the situation is entirely different.  He is a young three year old who has run three consecutive negative numbers. He is now running the fifth race of his campaign. For the five weeks since he ran a -4.75 he has not been trained the way the trainer wanted him to be trained. Rather, the trainer has been forced to adjust to an arbitrary schedule created by the Triple Crown scheduling which includes shipping, training, and racing over surfaces that might not be his first choice at times that are definitely not his first choice.  Also, the fact that the Derby figure was a much smaller jump up than the FLA Derby figure was suggests that Big Brown was finally reaching the resistance point in early May.

The Florida Derby and the Kentucky Derby are simply two enormous efforts.  The fact that he looked great after the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness are not relevant on Belmont Day.  A horse cannot use that extra preserved effort it has in the tank on the days it ran those big figures in subsequent races three or five weeks later. Chances are that a young three year old who has run such huge efforts is going to be set back by them.  It is not a matter of \"hoping\" for a regression, it is a matter of percentages.  Nothing is 100% -- he might even jump forward in the Belmont.  However, after such huge efforts and then continuing deep into the campaign and into a race that is likely to be tougher, the chances of a setback coming increase rather than decrease.  There were plenty of people who thought he was going to regress in the Derby.  Whoever thought that has to think the chances of a regression are greater now.  It seems to me that the chances of a significant regression (into positive territory) are definitely more than 50% (and definitely a lot higher than the people betting on Big Brown are taking into consideration).

The only horse who comes close to what Big Brown has done is Smarty Jones.  I admit that looking at Smarty Jones\'s sheet is a little scary.  However, I note that Smarty had established a much lower top as a two year old than Big Brown did plus Smarty ran his huge early 3 yo figs without the benefit of lasix and was getting his first lasix in the Derby itself.  Big Brown\'s monstrous figures have come as second and third tries on lasix and he has been racing on Lasix since his first start of the year.

All things being equal, Big Brown may well run a huge number and win the triple crown and all the power and credit to him if he does.  By the same token, he may well run poorly and there will be boxcar payments to be had if that is the case.  As I mentioned before, it is not a matter of \"hope.\"  It is a matter of percentages and when you are offered fat returns, you do not have to always be right.  Ragozin has written about betting on Dark Star against Native Dancer.  We all know that Jerkens beat Secretariat twice when Secretariat looked like the second coming of Man O War.  Jerkens\'s horses (Onion and Prove Out) were not chopped liver, but they were not so different from a few of the candidates that are going up against Big Brown.  The fact is that most 1-10 shots usually did win their prior races very convincingly and looked great doing it and afterwards.  Nevertheless, there have been times where it makes sense to bet against 1-10 shots.    So far, I have not heard a good reason why Big Brown\'s Belmont is not such a case.  That he wouldn\'t have blown out a candle after any of his last three negative numbers just does not carry weight with me for the race weeks later.

They all get beat.  And sometimes, when they get beat, it did not look plausible that they would get beat.  That is why the payoffs are so good at those times.

[mjellish]

SoCalMan2-

I think your approach is well thought out and your points have significant merit.  I don\'t yet have a final opinion about the Belmont, but I will tell you this.  The \"fan\" in me hope BB wins in a romp.  It would be great for the sport and end a 30 year wait.  There is a little bell in my horseplayer head, however, that is going ding ding ding and reminding me not to anoint this guy quite yet.  We do not yet know how this horse is going to react if another horse eyeballs him in the stretch and says \"bring it, I\'ve got stuff too.\"  This is what separates the truly great ones.  I have seen too many horses coming off easy wins fold when they get pressure in their next race.  Fact is most easy wins are deceptive and don\'t mean as much as people would like to think.

The main point of my post was that saying this horse is going to regress simply because of his pattern seems to me to be at best a guess.  The truth is no one out there can say they are 80% or more certain they know exactly what to expect from BB.  That is exactly why I am going to watch him gallop and train first hand.  My guess is that Tricky will give him an easy 4F or 5F breeze on the Sunday before the race.  I do not feel the final time of this work will be important.  What will be important is how he gallops out afterwards (prefer to see another 1/8 in 13 or so or less or even a double gallop out).  I want to see this horse look like he wants to do more.  I am also going to look very, very closely at how hard this horse is blowing afterwards.  These two things will, to me, be a much more clear indicator of how likely this horse is to regress than his pattern or sheet numbers.  I plan to post my observations here.  Hell, even if I find myself still scratching my head afterwards at least I will be there.

[fkach]

>We do not yet know how this horse is going to react if another horse eyeballs him in the stretch and says \"bring it, I\'ve got stuff too.\" This is what separates the truly great ones. I have seen too many horses coming off easy wins fold when they get pressure in their next race. Fact is most easy wins are deceptive and don\'t mean as much as people would like to think. <

This is the point I was making the other day.

When horses win handily it almost always means they either got a very good trip or faced inferior competition and weren\'t challenged hard at any point.

However, within that category you can get two different results when they do get challenged.

1. They demonstrate that the only reason they ran so fast and looked so good was because they were getting easy trips and went unchallenged by inferiors.

2. They demonstrate that they have very significant reserves of stamina, determination, heart, and speed and run even faster.

Most horses that win a race easily have significant records to evaluate. So they have already revealed their true level of ability. However, evaluating lightly raced horses can get very tricky because you don\'t where the bottom is yet.  

There are sometimes clues in the pedigree, the barn the horse races for etc... IMO, there are no easy answers though. I don\'t have the formula either, but I think visual skills and evidence of high levels of other intangible ability help a lot.

IMO, there was something a little special about the way BB accelerated away from the Preakness field in just a few strides. The overhead shot of it was spectacular. Granted, he was moving away from a subpar group, but IMO there\'s a difference between a move like that and a horses that simply pulls away from the field slowly and then gets geared down. Very few horses can turn it on like that.

IMO, there was also something really special about the way he came home as a first time starter on the turf. The race itself wasn\'t super fast, but the final 3/8ths or so was incredible for a 2YO making his debut.

This horse has push button maneuvrability both early and late and also has brilliant acceleration whenever required. To me those are clues about his true level of ability and where his bottom might be. I think this is a pretty special horse.

Obviously there\'s a risk of him going off form after a hard campaign or not liking the 12F, but I think his figure pattern is pretty much irrelevant in that regard for a variety of reasons I won\'t get into.

[miff]

\"Third, any player is going to lose more regression plays against heavy favorites than they win. There is no question about that. However, if you can win 50% of these plays, then, with the likely fat returns, you are really doing superbly\"


Hi So Cal,

The most successful players in the country do not win anywhere near 50% of their plays unless they are playing filtered short priced horses.Did you mean 5% of the time?

Historically,odds on 2/5 shots win at more than a 50% rate, so probability wise it\'s not possible to cash 50% betting against all of them.Maybe you meant you are looking at strictly filtered regression plays,like the one you see here against BB.After BB and CD,I think the odds will be all overlays, so the possibility of a monster payoff does exist if both run out or if BB runs out.


Mike

[BitPlayer]

Fkach -

One thing to note with regard to Big Brown\'s move at the top of the stretch in the Preakness is that the two horses he was running away from (Gayego and Riley Tucker) finished last and next to last, seven lengths behind the rest of the field.  It seems likely that their deceleration made his acceleration look more impressive than it really was.

[covelj70]

Bit,

very much agree with this and would take it a step further that the whole field being slow made the race alot more visually impressive than it really was.

That\'s why I think the number and pattern are alot more important than many seem to want to believe.

The horses he will face in a few weeks are alot faster and more acomplished than the nags he beat in the Preakness and, on the pure sheet pattern (which I know many don\'t believe), he looks headed in the wrong direction.

[fkach]

Agreed. Good point.