I'll Have Another - Pattern Question

[mjellish]

I\'m not sure what to make of I\'ll Have Another\'s current cycle, so I would be curious to hear what others on this board think.  To me he\'s a very interesting colt, but a difficult read.  Do you read his sheet as the start of an 0 - 2 - X, or do you feel he\'s had enough time since the new top to recover and cycle back?

Thanks in advance!

[TGJB]

Meanwhile-- there\'s a Q and A on the \"Ragozin\" board which, if accurate, qualifies as a) Holy S--T, and b) something that will have them looking at the Derby contenders a lot different than those using our data.

They have Union Rags going back 4 points in his last.

[covelj70]

I have been struggling with the same question.

I am inclined to take the approach that he has had a lot of time since his big figure and the bounce in the last wasnt that bad so i am currently planning on playing him to come back to the big number.

I am more inclined to play a big number ruining a horse if the horse runs back very quickly post the big number.  More time a horse is given post the big figure, less likely it knocks them out for an extended period.

That\'s the way I have always approached it.  Of course this isn\'t always right since there\'s unfortunately no one size fits all approach to this game

I love the tactical speed this horse has and I don\'t think he will have a problem with the distance. I wish he had a different jock but I think I will be getting compensated for that risk with his odds

Pending the post draw, I think he\'s on my ticket.

Would love everyone\'s perspective

[Michael D.]

I\'m not good at predicting performances based on patterns consisting of two numbers, but the backwards move first try 9f tells me he\'s probably not a star, and it might take a star this year. but with the nice timing from both the top and the last race, the strong cruising speed that could result in a very valuable trip, and the solid pedigree, this guy could be a decent trip play at long odds, even if he runs something inbetween. I\'ll probably use him underneath.

[Michael D.]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile-- there\'s a Q and A on the \"Ragozin\"
> board which, if accurate, qualifies as a) Holy
> S--T, and b) something that will have them looking
> at the Derby contenders a lot different than those
> using our data.
>
> They have Union Rags going back 4 points in his
> last.


http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/racing-news/2012/04/06/ragozin-kentucky-derby-doesnt-look-too-good-for-union-rags.aspx

[mjellish]

Jerry,

I would assume you will save most of your comments about the horses for the seminar.  But if Rags has UR backing up almost 4 points, that also means they should have TCI and El Padrino backing up because they have the FL Derby too slow and the ALW race at Gulfstream on 1/29 too fast.  This is an inevitable result of the way they do their figs over there by refusing to split out a varient on a wet, drying out, goofy day like that ALW race at Gulfstream, and by not going off of the horses instead of the varient when the early pace is slow early in a race like the FL Derby.

I understand, in a purist sense, wanting to stay just with the timer and one varient with no subjectivity thrown into making a fig.  But I can\'t understand sticking with that approach through hell and high water when the numbers AND the track conditions clearly defy that logic.  A sticky, drying out track on a breezy day that is first sealed for the first couple of races and then harrowed is probably as good of an example as I can think of where the conditions are going to play hell with a varient. And if you don\'t adjust for that IMO you are going to wind up with bad figs.  That\'s exactly the case with TCI/EP ALW at GP on 1/29.  I defy anyone to make a set of figs for that day that make sense just by working off the teletimer.  Especially at the new 1 1/16 distance at Gulfstream this year.

Another example of this, although it may not be as obvious, are individual races with slow early race shapes.  I\'ve said it before on this board, but when the leader goes 112 for the first 3/4 and everyone else lays back according to running style, even the best presser with a perfect 1w trip around the turn can\'t close their last 3/8ths in 33 and change to make up for the slow early fractions on the teletimer.  So again, you wind up with bad figs if you just stick to the time and the varient.  The FL Derby and the Oaklawn Handicap are two very recent examples of exactly this.  I bet dollars to donuts that rags has all those figures slow by 3-4 points because of their dogmatic approach, and IMO they may have the SA Derby wrong as well.  

Even more importantly, there\'s not only going to be a big difference in how TG data users play the KY Derby compared to Rags, there\'s going to be another big difference on how some these overall patterns look for the individual horses after the KY Derby when they run back.  For example, if UR were to cycle back and run a new 1 pt top in the Derby, on TG his form cycle will look like pair, pair, small top.  On Rags he is going to look like pair, bounce, new top (assuming you guys have the Fountain of Youth about the same).  That\'s a big difference on two weeks rest headed into the Preakness.

At least we probably don\'t have to worry about both sets of sheet users being on the same horses this year.

[mjellish]

Thanks Jim.  I\'m leaning on looking at it that way myself.  If we go that way that makes IHA a pretty good play at double digit odds.  I would think he would go off at 15 or 20-1.  That\'s kind of unusual for the SA Derby and Lewis winner anyway.  For whatever reason this horse just isn\'t getting much respect.  

Think O\'neill skipping the San Felipe looks like a pretty good move so far.  But it\'s tough to see much of a forward move given what this guy did at 2 unless you figure a move up from synth to dirt.  The Hopeful is an absolute throw out for this horse.

[TGJB]

Originally posted this by accident before it was done, should be okay now.

MJ-- I\'ll leave the pace thing to those who specialize in it, but agree 100% on the rest.

The GP allowance was a tough one to figure, which was why I put it down for review, and added a point to it later. They got the Fla Derby pretty close on the relative scale. But they have the FOY way fast-- on a day with only one 2 turn race and high, gusty winds. In a situation like that, you can\'t make any assumptions about tying anything to anything else.

For all the reasons I go into in \"Changing Track Speeds\" (Archives this site) it\'s a bad mistake to make assumptions even on days where you DON\'T know of obvious reasons the track could be changing speed, or the relationship between distances could be affected. But when there\'s an obvious possible reason-- such as you cite for 1/29 GP-- it\'s completely amatuerish to do so. And that\'s not the worst one.

I\'m going to bring this up again, because it\'s a clear example of the differences between the two services, and between rationality and the dogmatic fundamentalism of a  rigid set of assumptions and rules. The Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies was run over a track that started the day muddy/sealed and was opened up after the fourth race. There is no logic whatsover to the assumption that the track was staying the same speed or changing in a predictable manner-- every serious figure maker would know you have to go by the horses. In that situation, \"Ragozin\" (but given recent events almost certainly not Len) gave the first three finishers 3 points off their tops, and the rest of the field at least 6 points off their tops. 2yos run at least their previous tops something like 2/3 of the time, and here they decided none of them came close-- in a GI stake. I can\'t even imagine what the true odds on something like that would be.

Completely nuts. As I said at the time, figure making malpractice.

[mjellish]

So if Rags has the FOY too fast, does that mean they also have the BC Juv too fast in your opinion?

Reason I ask is I think on both Rags and TG Union Rags FOY is shown as a pair of his BC Juv.  Or at least I think I read that in the link from Michael D\'s post.

[TGJB]

Yes. That\'s another day with a drying out track, by the way-- good first two, drying, and with the added factor of darkness late. The track got significantly faster as the day went on until darkness when it slowed down again (which was probably not a coincidence, but who knows). They presumably got to the Juvy figure by using an average variant for the card-- I would have to take a good look to figure that out.

When I looked at their BC figures-- still posted on their board-- I was so blown away with what they did with Friday I didn\'t look closely at Saturday. Seriously, I\'ve never seen anything like that.

[JR]

Scan the Derby sheets in the archives. My review tells me not too many do well off a regression.

[covelj70]

JR,

I agree, most don\'t do well of a regression.  That\'s why I\'m not interested in using Hansen, creative cause and alpha (other obvious reasons for alpha as well).

The reason I am leaning more toward giving IHA a break on this is that he would have had alot more time to recover from the top than is usual for a horse in the derby. I believe that\'s what MJ was referring to when he talks about it being a very good thing the horse skipped the one prep.

MJ,

It seems like he\'s not getting alot of respect because of O\'Neil outside of Cali but I seemed to remember that Thor\'s Echo ran pretty dam well at CD in the BC a few years back.

[alm]

Was Hansen\'s Blue Grass really a regression?  On the surface of it, yes, but it was the fastest poly number he earned...significantly faster.  What if Hansen is a dirt horse that is compromised on poly?  Does he have the opportunity here to move forward pretty significantly from the slower BG number...perhaps closer to his best dirt number, which would make him very dangerous in here?  If they run the sprinter at Churchill, Hansen may get first move on him in the turn.

[Beginner]

Can anyone comment on the whole blue dye thing with Hansen at the BG.  I watched the CNBC (yes, CNBC) coverage and they were talking about it a lot pre race.  As I understand it, the handlers dyed Hansen\'s tail blue at the direction of Dr. Hansen.  The stewards then told them to get rid of the dye and then owner and trainer had a spirited argument about who was at fault .  Seems like an enormous distraction and something that would take the horse out of his routine.  It\'s not like Hansen went crazy in the paddock, but I wonder if he got worked up a bit with all those people playing with his tail.

[TGJB]

I know I would.