Cali Horses

[Footlick]

and you are sure if he was closer to the pace he would have closed that well?  I\'m not sure of that.

[JR]

He didn\'t have a clean trip. Not too far fetched to imagine him closer at the finish with one. We\'ll see in the Preakness if they decide to run him back. Knowing his connections, I won\'t be surprised if they pass the race.

[alm]

> I believe Brisnet uses a computer model (correct
> me if I\'m wrong). A computer model has no way of
> putting an accurate speed figure on a single
> two-turn race. You need to look at anything and
> everything to get something like that right,
> especially when they\'re all going 9f for the first
> time.
>
> It\'s possible Gem did react to the Wood, or maybe
> there\'s some physical issue that the vets find.
> And it\'s possible Alpha wasn\'t right either. But
> it\'s also possible that the Wood just wasn\'t that
> good.


Thank you for your thoughts.  However, my point was that the BRIS numbers for Gemologist, all the numbers and not just the Wood number, indicated that he hit a new top in the Wood, by MANY speed points.  I am not saying their system is better than the TG approach, computer driven or not.  In other words, I am not making a value judgment at all.  Within THEIR system he was primed for a bounce off that steep advance.

TG had him pairing up his last two races.  And the TG analysis made a MAJOR point that horses coming in off pairs of a new top tended to go forward in the Derby, while others do not.  You can choose your poison, but had I drunk the BRIS poison on this Derby I would have cashed.  The TG poison just killed me.  In this instance.

Oh,by the way...the BRIS numbers were good for just about every race on Derby day, including that Lucas stinker that won.  Had him right in the mix.  Sorry.  And, by the way, I just finished using them at Belmont today.  Had 8 winners in mixed bets on 10 races.  Must be a hot period for the computer.

[Michael D.]

alm, we\'re just not gonna see eye-to-eye on your Brisnet 10 point new top/bounce and come in 16th theory, which is fine, but I do like the company, and I wish you well in your Preakness and Belmont handicapping.

cheers.

[slewzapper]

The TG analysis showed that entering the Derby with paired tops (at his level), it was almost twice as likely that Gem would run the way he did - up the track - than be in the exacta (18% new top vs. 33% bounce).

Disappointed, sure. Surprised? No way.

[P-Dub]

slewzapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The TG analysis showed that entering the Derby
> with paired tops (at his level), it was almost
> twice as likely that Gem would run the way he did
> - up the track - than be in the exacta (18% new
> top vs. 33% bounce).
>
> Disappointed, sure. Surprised? No way.


This statement is simply incorrect.

You might want to include all of the analysis.

You conveniently left out the 33.3% that pair, which is the information that led the TG analysis to conclude that it was 50-50 that horses such as Gemologist would run a good race.

Horses with this pattern, that you dismiss, were given positive comments from the analysis.

[slewzapper]

Yes, Gem had a similar chance to pair. And Gem was a few points slower than three faster going in, and presumably needed to go forward. And I bet him, hoping that 18% chance of forward was coming.

That doesn\'t make the statement incorrect (unless a wide 2 or 3 makes the exacta).

The point I was making was that despite it being a better pattern then other patterns going in, the likelihood of a backwards effort was still significant - roughly as likely as a good one, just like you point out. So, with a still reasonable chance of bouncing despite the 50% chance of pairing/moving forward, there wasn\'t a need to dispute his prior number in the Wood and claim his pattern was misrepresented to explain his backward performance, any more than the first two finishers patterns were wrong because they ran OK off their patterns.  

The TG analysis pointed out it was a better pattern than others, but all patterns have a significant backwards potential for this race (most run poorly).

[P-Dub]

The only thing I disputed was the bigger chance of a poor race.  It was 50-50.

Agree with everything else, you make some very good points.

I bet him too.  I bet more into this race than I usually do, which is just ridiculous.  I tell myself not to, that its just another race.  Then I see the pools, the large payouts in previous Derbies, and I pour 5x as much as normal trying to hit a score. On a horse that I like, but don\'t love. On a race that is confusing and chaotic (20 horses). A race that is often times a crapshoot, despite all of the excellent data available beforehand.

I loved the #8 in the Tampa 6th today ($62.60) and the #2 in GG 5th ($13.20). Loved them. Really liked the closer at HOL 6th at $44.  Yet, I didn\'t put close to the amount of money in those races than what I put into the Derby. I hit them, and made some decent money, but it makes no sense to bet less in those races than what I poured into the Derby pools.

I don\'t know if I will ever figure this damn game out, but it sure is fun trying.

[drbillym]

Actually, P-Dub, I think it does make sense to bet more in the Derby.  It really does offer a chance at a life changing score, whereas the pools at the lesser races have limits.  And in my opinion, hitting a big one is the ultimate goal.  My claim to fame is having the Giacomo exacta, 50-1 over 70-1, paying $9860 for $2.  At Tampa, or other tracks, that exacta woulda paid maybe $1500.  So keep plunging, my friend!
On other topics, I also don\'t believe there is a lotta post start betting.  I think someone, like the Sheik himself(tho I don\'t think he is allowed to bet for religious reasons), or a wealthy Baffert owner, just went to the window with a cashier\'s check or pre arranged a huge wager with instructions to put in at the last minute.  It would take the tote more than a few seconds to digest.
Regarding Gemologist, what a loser Pletcher is.  Keeps his horses in Florida as long as he can without subjecting them to more rigorous testing in Kentucky.  Maybe Super Saver just didn\'t need any \"help\" but Gemologist surely does.  And then Todd just scoots outta town without talking to reporters-loser!  
Wel, on to the Preakness.  Ya know, Went The Day Well did gallop out after the finish line nicely, but I\'LL have Another didn\'t let him pass.

[TGJB]

Listen, everything else aside, if there\'s not an investigation into that odds drop it tells you all you need to know about the people running this game. Forget about whether it actually was cheating-- that stuff clearly affects people\'s confidence in the integrity of the pools, and has to be dealt with. Only apathetic incompetents would not understand that.

How long before Drape runs the shock wave story?

[MonmouthGuy]

Drape already ran his \"teaser\" on O\' Neill prior to the 2010 Breeders Cup (paragraphs 3-6)---link attached. Hard to believe there will not be more robust follow up prior to the Preakness.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/sports/04racing.html

[Caradoc]

Here is Drape\'s O\'Neill story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/sports/trainer-of-kentucky-derby-winner-has-a-troubled-record.html?_r=1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nyt%2Frss%2FSports+%28NYT+%3E+Sports%29&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimessports

[Edgorman]

Is it possible that O\'Neill gets it now and goes straight going forward???  His stats look indicative of what needs to be addressed.

[TGJB]

Couple things about this. First of all, it\'s a completely fair article, fairer than it has to be and fairer than O \'Neill had any right to expect. Second, someone has given O \'Neill some PR pointers.