Question for TGJB, and other "No Triple Crown" Predictors

[jimbo66]

There has been a lot of talk on the board about the regression in the Preakness and what it really means and whether he could bounce into positive territory now, etc.etc.

And I preface this question by saying that I know I am backtracking a bit because I posted before the Preakness that I would double my bet against Big Brown in the Belmont if he wins the Preakness.  Which, I still may do, but he at least scared me in the Preakness.

Anyway, the question is what IS the number that Big Brown could have won the Preakness with that would make you believe he WOULD win the Triple Crown?  He backed up 3.5 points, but won handily.  If he had paired up the negative 4.75, with a vigorous ride, would THAT make him more likely to win the Belmont?  Three races in five weeks, the first two ridiculously fast and full efforts?  I say no.

I don\'t know what others will say, but I am guessing that Jerry will say that no matter what BB did in winning the Preakness, he would be betting against him in the Belmont.  Paired, x\'d, new top, whatever.  And this doesn\'t make full sense to me.

[covelj70]

I look forward to Jerry\'s answer for sure but isn\'t the issue that when you fire a number as big as BB ran in the Derby, you simply shouldn\'t be running back that quick?

Of course I know its the triple crown and of course the horse is going to run but once you run back so quick off a huge number, the wheels are set in motion to start going backwards.

A horse that runs that kind of number should have 8 weeks off.  If you run back in 2 weeks, you are very likely going to bounce and if you ran back three weeks after that, you are very likely to bounce again.

So, it\'s not a matter of what a good number in the preakness would have been, it\'s a matter that a horse shouldn\'t be running back that quick after a big number.

That\'s why DoC\'s connections gave him the extra time off after the 0 in the Southwest.  Big numbers from young horses require extra time before the next start.

[Michael D.]

jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, the question is what IS the number that
> Big Brown could have won the Preakness with that
> would make you believe he WOULD win the Triple
> Crown?  He backed up 3.5 points, but won handily.
> If he had paired up the negative 4.75, with a
> vigorous ride, would THAT make him more likely to
> win the Belmont?  Three races in five weeks, the
> first two ridiculously fast and full efforts?  I
> say no.


anything around \'0\' (negative 1 is ok) and an easy win is not what you wanted to see if you are betting against this guy in the Belmont imo. another huge negative 5 or so, and I would have made him over 50% to bounce badly. after that effort, I make it about 15%. I also make it just 15% that he doesn\'t get the distance (or get it well enough to win).

I guess I make BB about 70% to win the Belmont. at 1-5, I still might have to look elsewhere for a key though.

[Dudley]

For my money, the only number that matters in the equation is the 1/9 or 1/5 odds on BB. It\'s horse racing. It\'s 12F. If you\'re playing the race at all, playing against BB is the only play, imo. I may pass altogether.

[fkach]

I have the same problem.

Basically, some people are saying that if he ran fast again in the Preakness it would make him more likely to bounce. However, if he ran slower in the Preakness relative to the Derby, that means he\'s already feeling the effects of the tough campaign and is ready to bounce. There is no figure that satisfies the anti-BB fans.  

This is all gibberish to me.

There is a probability associated with horses wearing out as a tough campaign proceeds. But to estimate the chances of BB going south in the Belmont, you have to look at the specifics of his case relative to what\'s typical.

IMO, there\'s no way his slower figure in the Preakness means a thing because he won wrapped up and could easily have run faster. If anything, the choice to gear him down helped his chances of holding his form until the Belmont (even if it\'s just by a very small amount).  In addition, I\'m still not convinced his trip in the Derby was nearly as tough as it looked. My view is that this horse is around a negative 3 horse (give or take a little) and is delivering rather consistent high level performances all spring.  

The chances of him going off form in the Belmont due to the strains of the campaign are higher than for the Preakness and they were higher in the Preakness than for the Derby, but IMO they are still not very high. He\'s been winning easily, has shown no signs of distress, is eating well, and this is only his 5th start this year, not his 6th or 7th. Many horses peak in their 3rd or 4th start of the year. The 5th start is not really that far into a campaign.

I\'d be way more worried about the 12F than his form cycle because lots of horses don\'t have both the kind of speed that BB has and also have the ability to carry it 12F.

[Uncle Buck]

Jimbo. As you know I\'ve been touting BB as a super horse since April. The BB situation is a rare one in that I actually beleive what the connections are saying to be true. Dutrow hasn\'t BS\'d much at all this Spring. What he says will unfold, unfolds. What he says about the horse\'s health and his chances bear fruit. That\'s rarely the case as most connections are blinded by ambition.

But here is my main question for all those trying to beat Big Brown. Why are you SO obsessed with beating this horse in Belmont? I totally understand everyone trying to get him to run out of the money slots in the Derby as there\'s six figure implications to that payoff scenario and maybe even a million dollar hit if you get lucky (see 2005 Derby). But you can beat chaulk 100\'s of times per day. Why is it so imperative that you beat BB in the Belmont with pools that are 50% smaller than Derby Day? Won\'t you find any joy in rooting on a legit TC winner?

I LOVE beating chaulk and false fav\'s. I relish it. I also love watching the great ones do their thing. The Belmont is strictly a watch-only event for me.

[jimbo66]

Covelj,

You didn\'t answer my question (or perhaps you did).  So, you are saying, screw the triple crown, don\'t run back.  No matter what he ran, he is a bet against.

Michael D,

Because I EXACTLY agree with you, is why I might skip the Belmont.  Running around a \"0\" with seemingly minimal effort is what I DIDN\'T want to see from Big Brown.  I think in my pre-preakness post, I said I would triple my belmont bet if Big Brown had to run a negative 3 or so to win the Preakness.

[miff]

Whether BB wins or loses the Preakness, you won\'t find too many with an informed racing opinion that would call the Preakness a regression,in the true sense of the word, all things considered.Very tough to get a fast fig projecting against slow horses behind him,and a horse geared down.I think he will be better off in the Belmont not having run faster in the Preakness, others see the lighter fig as a sign of being over the top,that may be.

Everyone sees things differently. Someone saw a tired BB??.I saw a horse difficult to pull up afterwards and from one owner \"a fresher horse than the one after the derby\".I think that most of what is being written positive or negative about BB\'s Preakness will be irrelevant on June 7th.

Since they all get beat sooner or later it will be no revealtion if he loses.  It will add no credence to the theory that all horses than run fast figs with short spacing figure to off/X,only some do.Sooner or later all theories about the performance of horses are disproven.


Mike

[covelj70]

Buck, easy answer

Did you see the pick 4 will pays for the Preakness?

18k to Kentucky Bear who was the second choice.

There\'s a million dollar guarenteed pk 4 ending with the Belmont and if anyone other than BB wins, a $10 pick 4 will produce a 6 digit payout.

Beating the favs on Wednesday at the Big Sandy don\'t produce those kinds of payouts.  

In my opinion, that\'s why this is such a big deal.

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- first of all, if he had paired up the figure I think he would have been scarier now, because then a 3-4 point bounce from his current level would still have a very good chance to win. That kind of backward move from his Preakness level makes him very beatable (and as I said in an earlier post, I think looking at the race that he could only have run maybe a point faster if asked).

Second of all, this goes to a discussion I had with Elliot Walden about Distorted Humor years ago, which I brought up here in a different context (Denis of Cork passing that Spring race), and which goes to Covello\'s point-- sometimes you are in a situation where there is no good number a horse can run, so if you are managing the horse, you just give him extra time. (In the case of DH, it related to running big at Keeneland, and whether he should run in the Carter or go straight to the Met. They ran in the Carter and lost the Met, though a wet track for the Met caused the debate to be unresolved).

In the TC you can\'t do that. But once BB runs the big race in Kentucky, the clock is ticking. There is no number he can run two weeks later that will make him likely to get back to his top 5 weeks after first running it-- the best shot of that by far is not to run in between. So the guessing game is how far off his top a 1-5 shot will run.

[covelj70]

Jimbo,

Of course I understand that they are going to run back given it\'s the triple crown but I think that once you run that big a number in the Derby, there\'s not alot you can do to prevent two big bounces in the ensuing two races given how quick back they are.

the connections can hope (and we as bettors can analyze) that the horse is good enough to win with a bounce in the next two.  In the case of the Preakness, that\'s just what happened.  He bounced big and won easy.  In the case of the Belmont, given where his last number is and given where the competition is coming in, he can\'t bounce again and win which is why this race is so interesting to me.

[TGJB]

You know, it occurs to me (and I don\'t want to do the work, maybe somebody else does)-- it would be interesting to know how the horses that ran a new top in the Derby and went back in the Preakness did in the Belmont, figure wise. If nobody else does it, maybe we\'ll do it for my Belmont comments.

[fkach]

JB,

>Jimbo-- first of all, if he had paired up the figure I think he would have been scarier now, because then a 3-4 point bounce from his current level would still have a very good chance to win. That kind of backward move from his Preakness level makes him very beatable (and as I said in an earlier post, I think looking at the race that he could only have run maybe a point faster if asked).<

One question and then I\'ll leave this specific issue alone.

If he had earned a negative 2 or 3 in the Derby and then came back with his negative 1 (H) in the Preakness, would you like his line better?

[miff]

\"So the guessing game is how far off his top a 1-5 shot will run\"

JB/ALL

Your overlooking the obvious, which is how fast the proven common bunch behind him might run,except for the unknown Casino Drive.Can\'t remember a slower all around Belmont field.All I keep hearing about is what BB maybe won\'t do, nothing about those inconsistent slow, distant challanged, rats he will face.

Mike

[TGJB]

Better, yes, like it, no. He would still have that neg 3 1/2 sitting back there, and while his pattern wouldn\'t be healthy, there would be less reason to think the last two would send him reeling.