BB Food for Thought

[mjellish]

From the talk I\'ve heard and most of the posts I\'ve read, I would suspect that many people are looking to find a reason to play against BB in the Belmont.  Most of the focus seems to be on the spacing of BB\'s races, his overall pattern, negative numbers, probability of a bounce, suspect breeding for the distance, etc.  So I thought I would chime in my two cents along these lines and open a few things up for debate.

I would love to find a compelling reason to bet against BB in the Belmont.  I live to play against heavy favorites, especially in big betting pools.  I was hoping to find one for the Preakness... short story is I couldn\'t.  I also couldn\'t find any compelling reason to play a bomber in the exacta, or a big tri or a semi-spread super.  I liked Kentucky Bear underneath but so did everyone else and it turned out to be an underlay.  So I did what I thought was best: I passed the race and watched a champion go about his business.  

So now we come to the Belmont.  We can talk about BB\'s breeding all we want, but as far as I can tell my eyes say this horse has done nothing to suggest he won\'t get the 1 1/2.  Just watch his gallop out after derby.  He has stamina to spare and just keeps going and going...  I think this is exactly what he will do in the Belmont.  

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

[Uncle Buck]

Good post. I would very much like to read your observations the week of the race, so please post them here.

Does anyone know if Pyro is going in the Belmont?

Also, I found this stat interesting. Got it from Haskin\'s Preakness report on Bloodhorse: \"BB came home his final three-sixteenths in :19.08 against a strong headwind, which ranks among the fastest closing fractions in Preakness history.\"

[mjellish]

Posted by: Uncle Buck (IP Logged)
Date: May 21, 2008 12:32AM


Good post. I would very much like to read your observations the week of the race, so please post them here.

Does anyone know if Pyro is going in the Belmont?

Also, I found this stat interesting. Got it from Haskin\'s Preakness report on Bloodhorse: \"BB came home his final three-sixteenths in :19.08 against a strong headwind, which ranks among the fastest closing fractions in Preakness history.\"


Here are the the final 3/16ths from the last few Preakness runnings:

2008 19.08
2007 18.78
2006 18.92
2005 19
2004 19.15
2003 19.19
2002 20.14

Not sure how much the headwind had to do with the final time this year, or as equally important for other years.  But there they are to save some time.  I think Haskin is reaching here.  In my opinion if anything it was average.

I will post anything I see of significance, hopefully others will do the same.  Pools will be big enough so I don\'t think we have to worry too much about giving away too much money.

[covelj70]

MJ,

Thanks so much for the posts, much appreciated.  Your thoughts are terrific.

Question.  How do you reconcile the lower numbers that BB received on TG, Rags and Beyer for the Preakness with the idea that he just keeps getting better?

It would seem like he bounced pretty hard in the Preakness on any scale and I know one of the arguments is that he didn\'t run hard but a) I don\'t agree with that, and b) even if I did and he could have run another point or so on TG if he had been asked more, that would still represent a pretty big regression from his race in the Derby.

Do you a) not believe the numbers, or b) think he will bounce back to the big efforts in the Fla and Ky Derbies in the Belmont?

Thanks again so much for your thoughts

[Rick B.]

Is it a \"bounce\" if the horse runs a slower race by design -- hence the lower TG, Beyer, Rags numbers?
 
To me, a bounce is when a horse is asked for and tries to run back to his most recent best effort, and can\'t replicate it.

Anyone that thinks that\'s what happened with Big Brown in the Preakness should be betting against him in the Belmont, with all they can afford to bet.
 
And if I\'m right, I\'ll be having some of that money from the \"Bet Against Big Brown\" crowd -- I don\'t think Big Brown was asked to do much in the Preakness (except for those 5 or 6 strides where he gapped the field).

In my eyes, he didn\'t bounce at all -- he simply ran fast enough to win.

[covelj70]

Rick,

Totally fair view, that\'s why I asked the question.

BTW, those of us who believe he bounced are few and far between, I wouldn\'t be expecting anything better than 1-5 on the horse in the Belmont.

The folks on this board are alot more sophisticated (and therefore more likely to look for a reason to play against the fav) than the average player and this board is about 80/20 adament that BB can\'t lose.

I am not saying that the view is crazy by any stretch.  Obviously I disagree with it but it\'s certainly a very legitimate view.  My point is that anyone who thinks that there will be enough people betting against Big Brown to create some value in playing him is kidding themself.

[miff]

Without knowing the track speed and wind velocity/direction for each Preakness, the raw split, 19.08, is difficult to assess.


Mike

[big18741]

Cove

No value in playing on him no matter what.

The only value in the race if you think BB jogs is getting Casino Drive out of there.

Icabad Crane one of the long ones that is good on pattern and pedigree.

[BitPlayer]

\"Pyro, like Curlin, is being prepared for a June 14 start at Churchill Downs, with his target race being the Grade 3 Northern Dancer Stakes on the Stephen Foster undercard.\"

http://www.drf.com/news/article/94698.html

[Silver Charm]

Very interesting the path and free pass Pyro is taking and has gotten. For a horse who was so widely regarded as \"THE HORSE TO BEAT\" in the Derby as late as late March he is now totally off the Triple Crown Trail and not even contending in the second tier 3YO races.

He burned a lot of money Derby Day and now he is a Northern Dancer Stakes, Barbaro Stakes type horse.

Hmmmmmm

[mjellish]

No matter what the number is, he still won by 5 lengths or so.  That\'s plenty of margin.  So the way I see it focusing on the fig is a bad way to look at the Preakness.  Horses are not numbers on sheets.  By taking your view and focusing on the number, what you are really saying is if BB doesn\'t win by 12 he bounced.  That just doesn\'t seem right to me.  This is a smart horse that listens to his jock.  Look at the 3 subtle moves he made in the Preakness.

So in my opinion the question you should be asking yourself is could BB have won by 12 if he wanted to?



Re: BB Food for Thought (66 Views)
Posted by: covelj70 (IP Logged)
Date: May 21, 2008 08:20AM


MJ,

Thanks so much for the posts, much appreciated. Your thoughts are terrific.

Question. How do you reconcile the lower numbers that BB received on TG, Rags and Beyer for the Preakness with the idea that he just keeps getting better?

It would seem like he bounced pretty hard in the Preakness on any scale and I know one of the arguments is that he didn\'t run hard but a) I don\'t agree with that, and b) even if I did and he could have run another point or so on TG if he had been asked more, that would still represent a pretty big regression from his race in the Derby.

Do you a) not believe the numbers, or b) think he will bounce back to the big efforts in the Fla and Ky Derbies in the Belmont?

Thanks again so much for your thoughts

[covelj70]

MJ,

thanks again for the thoughts.

One final follow-up, isn\'t it relevant for the margin of victory argument that the horses he beat in the Preakness weren\'t really legit G1 animals?  Only one of the other horses in the Preakness had won a graded stake.  That had to have something to do with the margin of victory or how much he could have won by if asked.

He will be facing some better beasts in the Belmont if not defined by TGs, then by graded stake wins.

Thanks again for the thoughts.

[ajkreider]

So in my opinion the question you should be asking yourself is could BB have won by 12 if he wanted to?

This is just it.  It seems mere speculation to say that he could or would have won by however many lengths.  We just can\'t say.

That said, it seems pretty clear that BB\'s final time was not determined by the limit of his effort.  He was placed just where his jockey wanted him to be, made his move where he needed to make it, and made a big enough move to win comfortably.  Now, I suppose it\'s possible that this kind of trip coincided perfectly with the limit of his ability - such that if the pace on the front end would have been faster, BB would have been farther back,or would not have finished as well, etc.  

But there\'s no reason to believe this either, and thus no reason to think the -1 shows a true bounce.

[miff]

\"He will be facing some better beasts in the Belmont if not defined by TGs, then by graded stake wins\".


Cov,

Really no such thing as \"better\" at this level, only faster counts. There are no fast ones in there,the X factor being CD who will have to pick up 10 lbs and run a few points faster to even be competitive with BB near his best.


Mike

[covelj70]

Miff,

I guess it really gets back to if you believe in the 1 negative for the Preakness.  

If you don\'t believe the number, then BB is much faster than the competition he will face in the Belmoont and he could bounce and would still be 85-90% to win.

If you do believe the 1 negative, then he\'s only 1 point faster than three others in the race with a terrible pattern and running his 3rd race in 5 weeks he\'s only maybe 25% or so likely to win.

Everyone will need to decide for themselves if they believe the 1 negative in the Preakness.