Caracortado's Next Start

[Leamas57]

While I agree that it\'s a fascinating topic, this business about pedigree and distance, I subscribe to the pedigree side, but am at least interested in the incremental effect on pace and ride on the situation.

An 8 furlong horse by pedigree and record can get (win the race) an extra sixteenth or even eighth if the track is fast and they are the only speed. My point is that I would normally dismiss by breeding and history unless you have a setup. Pace and variant seem to be able to alter the outcome of a race manhy lengths lengths for routes and while I will usually start with pedigree for a new distance, these other component are right there in the decision-making process.

Leamas

[mjellish]

NYC guy.  No, I don\'t think it\'s an unfair way to look at this.  I don\'t have time to go back and check the archives, but as I recall many of the horses that show up in the Belmont have not run on short rest or in the two prior TC races.  Just look at this year as an example, both the Derby winner and the Preakness winner are skipping the race, and now so is Dublin.

I think we just have to agree to disagree about how TG numbers transfer across distances.  I don\'t see a lot of difference between 8F around two turns and 9F around two turns most of the time, but I do see some type of barrier going from 9F to 10F or longer.  That\'s the way I see it, and that\'s the way I play it.  I think the percentages would bear that out if someone did a study on it.  We see more tops on dirt at 1 1/8th than we do at 1 1/4, and I think it is all a direct result of the horses not being really suited to get the distance, and that is a direct result of what we have done to the breed over the past 30 years.  That\'s not to say that we won\'t find exceptions.  We will.  But it\'s all about the percentages.  And that is exactly why I don\'t think you can apply the type of rigid approach that you seem to endorse in veiwing these numbers.  There is more to horses than pattern and rest.  But if that is working for you then I would suggest you stick with it as long as it continues to work.  I just happen to think that if you added a little flexibility to your approach you could do better.  That and quit betting to show.  Look at it like this:  

You liked JB in the Preakness at about 12-1.  You wagered $3200 to show, which got you back $10560, profit of $7360.  If you are going to wager $3200k to show on a horse like JB, why not do it roughly like this instead:

$800 Win JB = $800
$20 Tri JB/top other five/top other five=$400
$5 Tri JB/top other five/bottom 6=$150

$100 EX top other five/JB =$500
$50 EX bottom 6/JB=$300

$20 TRI Top five/top five/JB=$400
$12 TRI Top five/bottom 6/JB=$360
$6 TRI Bottom 6/top five/JB=$180
$3 TRI Bottom 6/bottom 6/JB=$90

If you bet it that way, if JB wins you have profited $9280 for sure.  If your other top five hit both 2nd and 3rd in a race like the Preakness you\'re going to cash a $20 tri for another $20k-$80k depending upon who your top five are.  If JB wins and one of your top 5 takes second but something you overlooked takes 3rd, you still get bonused a $5 tri that will probably pay another $5k-$15K.

If JB takes second to one of your top 5 you will cash a $100 EX that will probably pay you $7k - $15k.  If something you overlooked beats JB you will still cash a $50 EX that pays from $4k-$12K.

If JB runs 3rd you are going to cash either a $20, $12,$6 or $3 Tri that will either get you your money back or make you $5k - $15K.

By using JB underneath in the exotics you are still effectively betting show, but you are giving yourself the possibility of winning $20k - $80k more if he happens to win or hits the board with others you like.  And with a little more finesse than simply breaking the field down into top 5 / bottom 6 you can structure this so that you are likely to do a whole lot better.  

IMO, the only time to ever bet show is if there is a big bridge jumper out there and you hate the horse they are on.  

Like I said earlier, if it\'s working for you than stick with it.  But I think you could make a lot more money if you took the time to structure what is effectively a show bet beneath in the exotics.

[nyc1347]

MJ

based on what you said \"I think we just have to agree to disagree about how TG numbers transfer across distances. I don\'t see a lot of difference between 8F around two turns and 9F around two turns most of the time, but I do see some type of barrier going from 9F to 10F or longer.\"


Can you give me an example of a horse who fits this statement?  A huge percentage of horses who go longer are right in line with their efforts.  Even nobles promise on derby day.  you say he had a perfect trip and asked why he didnt fire.. well under those conditions and brutal pace that day many horses didnt fire.  he and LAL have pretty much been running the same efforts the last 6 starts or so and LAL came out next out and fired great.. not saying that NP would def do that same but NP just as LAL simply didnt run his best derby day regardless of the trip he got.  Distance to me had nothing to do with that as if they went 8F I would have to assume he wouldve run the same effort. NP was right in line with his efforts.

 Jackson Bend also had a perfect trip in the Preakness, fired his best and still didnt win.. people on here were saying JB was distance limited.. he isnt.. hes in a developing process and is an established 2 turn horse.  A horses individual \"barrier\" and wall should be his top effort plain and simple.  From that point we can establish if a horse is regressing from it, consistent at it, or running better from that point at the 2 turn mark.  Taking the numbers as they are can help us project his next effort whether they are going 8, 9, or 12F.. the way I see it is that its all relative.  A horse that can run a 4 effort going 9F can and will most likely run an effort in line going 12F.. and it happens all the time very consistently..  unless its a bounce or huge top effort.

[albany]

Your position is, in my view, both well-founded and well-stated. In fact, I\'m surprised that it engenders much debate.

[mjellish]

I happen to be of the camp that Jackson Bend is distance limited.  That\'s part of the reason why he didn\'t win the Preakness.  That\'s as good as that horse can probably run at that distance.  Cut him back to 1 1/16 and I bet he runs a new top that same day.  That\'s really my point about distance.

There are a whole slew of examples sitting right here in the TG archives.  Just go through them yourself if you want examples.  Caracortado may be another example.  Aikenite may be another.  I would tend to bet them that way now, but we won\'t know for sure until they try a classic distance.  Or rather, IF they try a classic distance.

It\'s ok if we disagree.  I don\'t think Jerry agrees with me either.  But that\'s how I roll.  When it comes to the TC races, I start by looking at the numbers.  I then look at who is likely to get the distance, and who may actually prefer it.  And then I pay very close attention to how these horses train, which is probably the most important part.  I don\'t care how a horse looks on paper, if he isn\'t training very well leading up to the derby I won\'t play him.  And I will play a horse who isn\'t quite there numbers wise but is training lights out, is bred to handle the distance and has shown me something talent wise.  But that\'s just me.

[Rich Curtis]

MJellish wrote:

\"I happen to be of the camp that Jackson Bend is distance limited. That\'s part of the reason why he didn\'t win the Preakness. That\'s as good as that horse can probably run at that distance. Cut him back to 1 1/16 and I bet he runs a new top that same day.\"

Please take another look at Jackson Bend\'s Preakness figure and Super Saver\'s Derby figure. Question: When you say a horse is distance-limited, is there anything that horse can do, short-term, to falsify your claim?

[mjellish]

Sure there\'s something they could do.  Win a race at 1 1/4 or longer against a top quality field on a fast track.  Let me see them come running down the stretch passing horses acting like they appreciate the added ground as they run a new top.  Or let me not see them backing up down the stretch.  JB had every reason to go by First Dude, but he couldn\'t.  Lucky got a much wider trip and he still got there.

[Rich Curtis]

OK, so winning the Kentucky Derby is not sufficient to disprove your theory, and neither is running a new top in the Preakness. This is fine as far as your own handicapping is concerned because that is a situation where you need not reach agreement with anyone. But if you are in an argument with someone like NYC, I think it might be a good idea for you to say up front that when you claim that a horse will dislike a certain distance, the horse can then go out and win the Kentucky Derby at that distance or run a new top at that distance (or do both) without having disproved your theory. This might cause the argument to head in a better, more fruitful direction: toward a discussion of \"confirmation bias.\"

[bellsbendboy]

MJ

Your posts have been terrific, as usual, regarded this years top sophomores and I am certain many solid handicappers who frequent this site would concur.  With that written please do not continue down this thread.............with all apologies.....you are dead right, yet, beating a dead horse. bbb

[mjellish]

Jackson Bend did not run a new top in the Preakness, nor did Super Saver in the Derby, and I am not arguing with anyone.

Look, my take is this.  JB ran well in the Preakness.  Very well.  He was sitting on a huge effort and I liked him to hit the board.  Said that right here on this board, and I found it laughable that Len said he was the only certain toss.  Nonetheless, I said that I did not regard JB as a win candidate because I didn\'t think he could get the distance.  I figured someone would step up and out kick him down the lane, and I was right about that.  Furthermore, I would contend that if that effort would have taken place at a distance JB actually was well suited for he would have run a new top and beat a really good field.  As it was, he did well to pair an effort he ran back in October of his 2 year old campaign.  And now, knowing this was a bif effort for this horse at this distance, I would make him a HUGE bet against at almost any distance in his next race if he doesn\'t get at least a month off with very little work and another 2-4 weeks after that before he races again.    

With regards to Super Saver, I would also contend that he too was sitting on a top effort leading up to the Derby.  He then caught a perfect trip over a sloppy race track that he loved, and he even made a slight forward move, which surprises me.  But it wasn\'t a new top, and I always regard figures over a sloppy track somewhat sususpiciously anyway.  I was there for the derby.  I know how much the wind was changing and how the rain came and went in spurts.  Now something obviously went wrong for this horse in the Preakness.  He is better than what he showed there.  But I haven\'t seen anything to make me feel I was wrong about this horse.  When he beats a good quality field under less than ideal circumstances at 1 1/4 or better on a fast track I will rush to a computer and post in capital letters that I WAS WRONG about him.  He\'s obviously a quality colt, but I think his true potential is at 1 1/8th or so.

It\'s funny.  But I don\'t post here on this board to try to always be right or convince someone else that they are wrong.  I\'m fairly opinionated about certain things.  When I disagree with someone I will say it, but it\'s always with respect.  There\'s a lot of really good players here on this board.  I\'m here more or less to share some thoughts with them and for the comradary of it all.  I never brag, and I never lie.  In fact, I usually will only post a pre-race bet on a day when I know the pool is going to be huge, for obvious reasons, and these are often not the best betting races.  I think I even said that before the derby, but that race is sort of like a day of holy obligation for me.

The Belmont could be very juicy though.  I just wish SS, JB and DUB would be around to eat some of what I would regard as dead money.

With any luck the proof will be in the puddin later this summer.

[mjellish]

You\'re probably right.  But it was too late.

[Rich Curtis]

MJellish wrote:

 \"Jackson Bend did not run a new top in the Preakness\"

  I\'m not sure what kind of a point you are trying to make here, but let me ask: What number did Jackson Bend run in the Preakness, and what was his best number before the Preakness?

 \"nor did Super Saver [run a top] in the Derby,\"

  What was his Derby number, and what was his best number before the Derby?

  \"I never brag, and I never lie.\"

   What brings this on? I accused you of neither.

[mjellish]

I\'m not going to get into a symantics discussion.  How do you define a new top? 1/4 pt better than previous lifetime best?

[moosepalm]

Since most of these arguments appear to be of the \"what works for me\" variety, for me, the fact that a horse runs back to a prior top at least suggests he might not have been terribly challenged by the distance.

mjellish, you have \"scoreboard,\" here, and in my greatest lapse into hubris, I wouldn\'t attempt to compare lifetime ROI\'s with you, but, the arguments about \"distance challenged\" as they relate to Super Saver and Jackson Bend seemed to be based on their inability to get past horses in the final moments of a race.  Now, you may have pedigree analysis to back that up, but, I have read other sources who would differ.  Regardless, if that works  for you, than nothing more need be said.  However, in looking at matters objectively, the retro-fitting of races to fit one\'s theory is questionable.  Super Saver runs well in the Derby, but, that gets excused.  Others don\'t run well, and it is because of the distance.  If theories are to have any use beyond your own personal needs, they should have more consistency of application.  

As for the betting against Super Saver when he runs back to a classic distance, you are on safe historical grounds.  Going back to Sea Hero, Derby winners have three wins, a second and a third out of seventeen lifetime starts at a mile and a quarter after the Derby.  Sea Hero had one of those wins.  

While I differ with a conclusion or two you might have made, I will continue to give serious credence to any points you make about handicapping, and wish you continued success.

[big18741]

First Dude ran his first quarter in 22.91 faster than they went in the 6 furlong sprint stakes on the same card.He was under pressure from Super Saver.Then Caracortado and LAL took turns attacking.

Jackson Bend sat in the pocket-perfect trip other than the early stretch traffic.Once clear he still couldn\'t go past First Dude.Put me in the distance challenged camp.