Brilliant Speed

[Wild Again]

From the postings and from casual conversation with the simulcast players at Monmouth, Brilliant Speed was the most playable 2-1 shot that ever ran.

Maybe using Class?! or Breeding?! or maybe Biorythmys but from the Sheets I see a horse that has a Turf top of 6 and on pattern a classic O-2-X.

So for dummies like me I am hoping someone can please explain how at 2-1 this horse was such a good bet?

Thanks In Advance

Wild Again

[milwmike]

The tur 6 was 7 months ago.  Since then, he ran a 5 on Kee poly (like turf) and 3 races better than that on dirt. The horse appears to be a much better animal than he was in Feb.  The next fastest horses are somewhere in the 5.5 range, unless you think King Congie is getting back to 4.75 or 5.  By my read, I don\'t see anybody popping up several points.  
So you have a classy horse (should/could have won the Belmont), whose turf/poly top is good enough and his dirt form indicates he is much better than he was early in the year.

[miff]

Wild,

Some sheet readers saw BS\'s turf top of 6 back when to be old news.The horse had gotten faster since then, albeit on dirt, and many perceived that would translate to BS now being faster on turf. If you made that read, the horse looked very likely to be tough against a weak bunch, number wise.

As far as the 0 2 X read,BS\'s cycle was at various long distances on dirt and this was turf. Do not think that was a classic 0 2 X,if you believe in that.On the other hand, if BS had X\'d yesterday,some Kool Aid drinkers would say you had to be nuts to play BS at any price,sitting on 0 2 X>


good luck

Mike

[jimbo66]

Wild

Not sure about the most playable 2-1 shot ever, but I did think he was a very strong key in the pick-3\'s.

It all came down to how you read his development over the past 5 months.  3 year olds often develop quite a bit over time periods like that.  If you attributed the new tops to the horse being on a new surface (dirt), then you couldn\'t play him at 2-1 and you likely thought he was a dirt horse with a top of \"6\" on turf and therefore a huge underlay.  

However, many have not believed that this horse was a dirt horse and that he will always be better on turf/poly.  If you believed that, like I did, then you got beat by him being in the number in the Belmont, but you were waiting for him to come back to turf.  I read this horse as the fastest horse in the field, getting back to the surface he was bred for, and therefore a \"stick out\" against a relatively weak group for the level.  

As for 0-2-x, when the pattern crosses surfaces and distances, your call as to whether you give it the same level of credence.  I don\'t, but that doesn\'t mean you have to agree.  

Good luck

[TGJB]

Miff-- again with your assumptions about what sheet players think. I could not have pushed BS harder than I did in the seminar. A friend who comes to the track one day a year and makes just one bet asked me who to play, and I gave him that one.

[Wild Again]

I admit it I am a Kool Aid drinker.

While Miff and Jimbo 66 both give very reasonable explanations as to why they bet Brilliant Speed their reasoning was no different from the uninformed Monmouth Simulcast players.

What I would like to know is how using only Thorograph and all the associated betting strategies is Brilliant Speed a legitimate bet at 2-1.

Assuming only King Congie in a weird circle back, Shugg\'s horse with the 5 1/2 and the rest of the field as 1 entry I see BS as no better than a 1 out of 4.  Maybe the best of the 1 out of 4 but I have zero margin for error.  The only way I can bet a 2-1 and have margin for error long term (positive expected value) is if I can assume the entire field has no chance to win barring a random jump up and know Brilliant Speed\'s lone Turf # is not representative of his ability on the turf.

So the question using only Sheet\'s Theory is how to read the line based on 2 different opposing ideas.  If Sheet\'s players have any other ideas that I am not aware of please post.

Theory 1 Horses on Turf run in a very tight range.  If so the 6 is a big negative.

Theory 2 The entire line must be used in evaluating the horse and is more important than the turf #\'s.  If so the 6 is unimportant and the question becomes a value judgement.

If Theory 2 is true how many Turf #\'s are allowed before we can no longer say that the horse will not run as well on the turf or is Theory 2 always correct.

Thanks

Wild Again

[TGJB]

How is the 6 at that point in the horse\'s career a negative?

There was every reason to believe he is as good on grass as on dirt, based on his grass and poly figures, and being by Dynaformer. He was MUCH faster than anyone else in the field, and a) everyone had shown how fast they could run on grass (no fear of first-time-grass jumpup), and b) as you said grass horses run in a tight range so are unlikely to make big jumps and c) very few grass 3yos can run a 3 or better.

Surface aside, this horse has a close to perfect pattern (to the point I tried to get a big outfit to make an offer after the buried figure in his last). Miff is all wet on the \"Kool-Aid\" stuff-- as I have pointed out many times here, SHEET THEORY says healthy 3yos, especially stake level ones, should be running at least their previous top at least every other race. The exception would be a big jump or an unhealthy previous pattern, neither of which existed here.

[Wild Again]

TGJB

Because the horse is stakes quality and a 3 year old this becomes the predominant factor in the analysis of the line.

You can then expect a forward move.

OK.

Because it is a turf race the likelihood of a random jump up is greatly reduced.

OK

The only remaining question than becomes how much margin for error needs to be allowed.  That is answered on an individual basis based on record keeping.

Obviously the margin of error for you will be less than for me.  You can accept lower odds and this can be a very playable race.

Thanks

Wild Again

[TGJB]

If he had needed a forward move I would not have bet him at 2-1. His last three figures layed over the field.

[miff]

\"Maybe using Class?! or Breeding?! or maybe Biorythmys but from the Sheets I see a horse that has a Turf top of 6 and on pattern a classic O-2-X.\"

JB,

...hee hee all wet, too funny, you don\'t read too well, the guy posting referenced the 0 2 X \"theory\", I didn\'t!

Like you, I did not interpret BS to be anything less than a handful after looking at the race,on the other hand some of your customers saw 0 2 X.

Interpretation is always diverse.


Mike

[TGJB]

Interpretation is fine. Assigning all sheet players the same view of patterns is not.

[jimbo66]

Wild Again,

I am afraid my day is ruined now that you have likened me to your uninformed Monmouth simulcast players.  Lucky for me, it doesn\'t require me to give back the money earned from the rolling pick-3\'s into and out of Brilliant Speed.

This next statement may sound like \"retribution\" for your insult, but it isn\'t.  You sound like what Miff describes as a \"kool aid\" drinker.  If you really want to look at Brilliant Speeds pattern without the context of surface, distance, breeding, etc.etc, then you are a dogmatic sheets player, which may or may not be an insult.

At its simplest, Brilliant Speed was the fastest horse by far, who improved dramtically during his 3 year old season, while running on a surface he is not bred to run his best on.  He was returning to his best surface.  For you to expect him to run back to figures earned 5 months ago, when the horse was obviously a different animal, was really bad handicapping.  (which we all do alot of, but a willingness to recognize it and correct is what gives some players a chance to win)

The far tougher read would have been what would have happened if the dynamics were reversed.  Let\'s say the races 5 months ago were on dirt, he then jumped up on turf, the surface he was bred for, and he was returning to dirt. In that case, you would have to decide whether he \"developed\" during the 5 months, or whether he had just improved because he was running on the \"Right surface\" for him, and was then returning to the \"wrong surface\" for him.

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- very good, especially last paragraph.

Looking at patterns and looking exclusively at patterns are two different things. And looking at short term patterns (0-2-x or anything else) independent of age, surface,long term pattern, trainer changes etc. is a mistake. Three year olds are not 6yos, dirt horses are not grass horses, 2 point tops for healthy horses are not 4 point jumps for horses with histories of unsoundness. And on and on...