[harthebar]

i deleted it

[harthebar]

i cant figure out to send a picture

[harthebar]

DB.JBG.jpg

[harthebar]

the picture is from 6-9-87 laurel 1 1/16 turf 1:43 allowance d. miller up

[harthebar]

DB.JBG.jpg

[harthebar]

test page ..sorry

[Dark Horse]

It is rarely if ever that a jock tests out how much horse he has with a burst of speed. If they did, many horses would run off at that point and not come back to the rider( settle down).
Things like this that I try and point out all lead to the same specific key element within a race. It is the pace. That is why it is vitally important to try and get a feel for the race setup prior too it's running.
I have talked about those 2 guys that I knew that were professional gamblers several times. I remember a race that I was in at Pimlico once that had two pure speeds horses in it. They were going into the gate and my horse loaded ( was one of the speeds) and as the other speed horse loaded, it did something dumb and had to be backed out and examined. Then it was announced that it was a late scratch. That was going to delay the race a couple of minutes. I looked back from my box near the front, and up into their box that was several rows higher and down some. Both of them were scrambling out of there chairs and running to the machines to cancel there tickets and bet on my horse . The complexion of the race had taken a whole new shape. I was now the lone speed, at Pimlico, going long , with a great speed rider aboard. Those two guys looked like they were running for there lives. I started laughing so hard , I had to explain it to my owner. Very funny and yes , my horse walked the dog and could have gone around again if it needed too.
Pace makes the race, plain and simple. I can't say it often enough.

lol.

Yes, I didn't mean testing as such. I meant a jockey getting much more of a horse than expected, when asked, and then backing off to preserve the energy for later in the race. It looked like that to me, but Prado was controlling the pace. Makes me wonder how many jockeys do so (that are not in the front).

Pity you can't cancel tickets that late online. Something similar happened at Santa Anita not long ago. All horses loaded, and one breaks through the closed gate, going off on his own race. He was scratched with a slight injury, and it was at least five minutes before the other horses were reloaded.

About pace. Can you compare Ultimate Eagle's last two races? He didn't get his race today, unlike the last time. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...lls-in-big-cap

[harthebar]

str ,good morning did you have a chance to look at tiger walk....how is this for a thought.....here is a thought...right now in the advanced ky derby hansen is listed at 20-1 ...union rags 4-1...after that win yesterday...i think 20-1 is a solid play...yes i know its risky ....he might not start.....buy 20-1 is 20-1....it will be way better ,,,as of now...thoughts

[str]

lol.

Yes, I didn't mean testing as such. I meant a jockey getting much more of a horse than expected, when asked, and then backing off to preserve the energy for later in the race. It looked like that to me, but Prado was controlling the pace. Makes me wonder how many jockeys do so (that are not in the front).

Pity you can't cancel tickets that late online. Something similar happened at Santa Anita not long ago. All horses loaded, and one breaks through the closed gate, going off on his own race. He was scratched with a slight injury, and it was at least five minutes before the other horses were reloaded.

About pace. Can you compare Ultimate Eagle's last two races? He didn't get his race today, unlike the last time. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...lls-in-big-cap

When I was being so pointed about pace, it was for the benefit of those that might not realize it's importance. Hope that you know that.

Late scratches when betting online can be tough to take but it does not happen all that often when it comes too changing the complexion of the race . But it is always tough when they have not yet started the race and you already know you have lost in all probability.


About pace. Can you compare Ultimate Eagle's last two races? He didn't get his race today, unlike the last time. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...lls-in-big-cap

This is a perfect example. Ultimate Eagle actually ran great to do what he did. It was a fine effort . Every bit the same solid effort that he put forth when he won. The efforts are very similar yet the results and Beyer numbers are so vast.
At a much smaller scale, when I posted that video of Kindest Cut winning, the race that he got beat was every bit as solid an effort as any of his wins. Again, equal efforts, and vast differences in results and Beyer's. That is why it drives me crazy when people equate Ultimate Eagles race yesterday to a bounce effort off of the win. That is crazy. The term has been tossed out there to help hide flaws within a numeric system and it could not be further from the truth. And as I have said before, yes, bounces do occur, but probably about 10% of the time that many people presume they do.

[str]

str ,good morning did you have a chance to look at tiger walk....how is this for a thought.....here is a thought...right now in the advanced ky derby hansen is listed at 20-1 ...union rags 4-1...after that win yesterday...i think 20-1 is a solid play...yes i know its risky ....he might not start.....buy 20-1 is 20-1....it will be way better ,,,as of now...thoughts

After Hansen won yesterday, the odds dropped too 8-1 in advanced wagering, at least that is what I have read. At those odds, I would not think that you are getting any real bargain. Too me, future Derby wagering is sooooo risky that I would only consider the "all other"pool in the first round of wagering, not this one , or a very long shot , if I had seen something that caught my eye.

[TonyP]

Future Derby wagers a bad bet. and I know the derby winner will not be Rags or Hansen

[str]

Future Derby wagers a bad bet. and I know the derby winner will not be Rags or Hansen

I agree Tony. I don't care for Derby futures either.

[Dark Horse]

When I was being so pointed about pace, it was for the benefit of those that might not realize it's importance. Hope that you know that.

Late scratches when betting online can be tough to take but it does not happen all that often when it comes too changing the complexion of the race . But it is always tough when they have not yet started the race and you already know you have lost in all probability.


About pace. Can you compare Ultimate Eagle's last two races? He didn't get his race today, unlike the last time. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...lls-in-big-cap

This is a perfect example. Ultimate Eagle actually ran great to do what he did. It was a fine effort . Every bit the same solid effort that he put forth when he won. The efforts are very similar yet the results and Beyer numbers are so vast.
At a much smaller scale, when I posted that video of Kindest Cut winning, the race that he got beat was every bit as solid an effort as any of his wins. Again, equal efforts, and vast differences in results and Beyer's. That is why it drives me crazy when people equate Ultimate Eagles race yesterday to a bounce effort off of the win. That is crazy. The term has been tossed out there to help hide flaws within a numeric system and it could not be further from the truth. And as I have said before, yes, bounces do occur, but probably about 10% of the time that many people presume they do.

Pace is a big topic, and I hope this is not too big of a question, but if you had to break it down into a few basic scenarios, involving speeds, stalkers, and closers, how does the advantage swing from one type to another, depending on the participating horses? I do set up a race by speed-press speed-stalk-close-deep close, but I feel that I should improve my understanding of how the participants influence the pace. What pace is each type looking for and why (related to energy distribution)? In the earlier example Prado made it clear he wanted a faster pace, because that favored his stalker. It was absolutely crystal clear to him why. But not to me. lol Was he, on a stalker, looking for a particular split (and are speed horses not as precise in what they are looking for?). Other example. An early speed duel between two speeds is not to their advantage later in the race, but if that is so obvious why would they get into such a duel anyway? Is that adrenaline taking over or just hoping for the best?

[str]

Pace is a big topic, and I hope this is not too big of a question, but if you had to break it down into a few basic scenarios, involving speeds, stalkers, and closers, how does the advantage swing from one type to another, depending on the participating horses? I do set up a race by speed-press speed-stalk-close-deep close, but I feel that I should improve my understanding of how the participants influence the pace. What pace is each type looking for and why (related to energy distribution)? In the earlier example Prado made it clear he wanted a faster pace, because that favored his stalker. It was absolutely crystal clear to him why. But not to me. lol Was he, on a stalker, looking for a particular split (and are speed horses not as precise in what they are looking for?). Other example. An early speed duel between two speeds is not to their advantage later in the race, but if that is so obvious why would they get into such a duel anyway? Is that adrenaline taking over or just hoping for the best?

Q. depending on the participating horses?

Yes. One speed only and the advantage is with the speed, 3-4 speeds, will help with a quicker pace hopefully and should help the closers.

Q. but I feel that I should improve my understanding of how the participants influence the pace.

When the jocks and trainers look over the race, we all pretty much see it the same way.
Put yourself in the shoes of the jock or trainer with several speeds in the race and breaking near the turn, like a 1 1/16th race might be, that has the one hole. That horse will need to go as hard as it needs to go to make sure that it stays within a neck of the lead until the first turn arrives. Once the turn arrives, things take care of themselves for the one horse. He saves the ground and comes out at least a 1/2 a length in front without too much energy used hopefully.
Now , put yourself in the shoes of the next speed out from the one hole. Let's say the 3 horse. As a trainer, I have pointed out the inside speed to the jock and made a decision based on my horses likes and dislikes as to whether I am going to gun at all costs to outrun the one and slam the door on him ( put him on my heals into the first turn if possible) or if I am going to try and conserve some energy and float the other 2 speeds outside of me, and be happy to lay a 1/2 a length off the one horse and try and have a moderate pace going , and worry about pinning the one horses right eye as I go to the far turn.
Maybe that works and maybe it does not, but that is the strategy that will be applied if everything goes according to plan.
If I am the 3rd speed out I must decide how I want too play it. Can I possibly outrun both inside horses into the 1st turn? Or do I take back and tuck in because my horse , although a speed horse, can eat a little dirt around the 1st turn and then go get them at the 1/2 mile pole.
If I am the 4th speed outside, what do I do? Run, scratch, just do the best you can out there and hope for the best? It ll depends on the horse and situation.
Now, if the race is a flat mile out of the chute going down the backside , it is a completely different approach. The one hole that was so good around 2 turns breaking near the turn, all of the sudden, stinks and you are at a disadvantage. Now, the outside speed ( all speeds being equal or close to equal) has the advantage because it has the box and will look too pin the right eye of all the speeds , thus making the inside riders burn more energy early too keep there horse comfortable and willing to continue too try. In many cases the inside speeds around one turn, if pinned, will tire right?
So, the starting point of the race and the post positions of those races mean a lot. Hope that makes sense.

Q. In the earlier example Prado made it clear he wanted a faster pace, because that favored his stalker.

Yes. If he had just sat still, the solo speed would have set very slow fractions and would have had plenty left to try and fight off the others including fighting off Prado. Prado did not want a fast pace, just a faster pace that the crawl that was starting too take place. A moderate pace helped Prado because it helped use the speed horse but he was close very easily and was going to have plenty left to fight off horses that were behind him.

Q. Was he, on a stalker, looking for a particular split (and are speed horses not as precise in what they are looking for?)

What he was looking for was too avoid the front runner comfort by cutting a 25 and change. He needed to cut a 23 and change for the 1st quarter but was going to have a chance to get his horse to relax and Edgar would not allow it.

Q. (and are speed horses not as precise in what they are looking for?)

Correct! They are not looking for a particular fraction, just the slower the better. Speed horses are ALL hopeful of being comfortable for at least a part of the race. They have used more energy than the others to establish there front position. They need a breather. Not necessarily a real slow 1/4 somewhere but comfort can be a breather. Remember, Game On Dude in his race before the Classic. He did not run slow I don't think. If memory serves me, he ran fairly quick. But he was comfortable. That is the key. Comfort = relaxed= breather.

Q. but if that is so obvious why would they get into such a duel anyway? Is that adrenaline taking over or just hoping for the best?

Because you can't not try for the lead even though you have a disadvantageous post. You do not know if the opposition is going to break well or not or if you are going to break great and be able to outrun the inside horse. You don't know until it is too late. Once you commit, you can't hit the brakes and save the energy. It has already been used too the extent that it needed too be .And, for the horse, yes, some adrenalin has been used early. They want to go.


The Factor can cut crazy fractions and keep on running if he is comfortable. Hook him and make him uncomfortable and he flips his palate and runs last. Horses like that will dig in to win from the 3/16s pole if given comfort during the earlier stages but push them , press them, make them feel uncomfortable before the stretch and they will spit the bit almost every time.
That is the way that trainers and jocks are piecing the race together( at least that is how I did it and many do it).
Seeing it from that angle makes you identify winners before 1/2 the race is won more times than not. The flow of the race, who is comfortable and who is not.

So, as long as the horses in any particular race have roughly the same ability:

Speed horses need comfort and a breather.

Position stalkers need some pace to help weaken the speed but not a ton of it.

Closers need pace to weaken speed and to a lesser degree, stalkers.They have very little to say about it. For them, it is all about how the race takes shape.

Deep closers need plenty of pace and have absolutely no say in it. They are pretty much done, if the pace is slow early.

Of course, this is all things being fairly equal. A dominant horse can simply dominate.

Hope this helps.

[Dark Horse]

Wow. Exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks!

[unusialsusp5]

dark horse and str should be committed to an asylum for reiiterating all this useless gobblygook about pace and speed. how is this useful to picking a race ahead of time. what an insipid waste of time these two partake in constanly clogging up this forum.

[matrix1022]

thanks for the info!

[Dark Horse]

dark horse and str should be committed to an asylum for reiiterating all this useless gobblygook about pace and speed. how is this useful to picking a race ahead of time. what an insipid waste of time these two partake in constanly clogging up this forum.

He's ba-aack. Last time you started out like this you ended up with a big apology. But you must have forgotten. Which begs the question if you're already in that asylum you keep going on about.

Anyway, good luck to you.

[str]

thanks for the info!

Anytime.

[Dark Horse]

So when you refer to pace, that covers the shape of the race and energy distribution. I suppose the final question is always who has the most left in the tank in the stretch (relative to the decreasing ground to to the wire).

Peaking. Every trainer with a promising horse wants to peak in May, so the races leading up to the Derby have horses that are all over the place in terms of their progress, depending on the vision and method of the trainer. Considering the number of horses within a race it would seem that such an event, where horses participate for different reasons, becomes far less defined than a preseason NFL game, where trainers also have an agenda that may have little to do with winning the game. Would you agree with the general characterization that this part of the year is preseason? Does it even make sense to bet during this part of the season without clearly understanding the trainer's objective for the race? And how can one pinpoint those objectives without resorting to a vague guessing game? Of course, horses do have to qualify for the Derby, but so far earnings don't seem to be too much cause for concern (mid March). Will that change in April?

(On a personal note, I've tried to closely follow the development from 2 to 3 year olds, because I thought it would continue my learning curve, but I think it's safe to say that, by comparison, observing 2 year olds and Derby hopefuls was mostly a waste of time. It was worth the try, but to the relatively untrained eye things are just too fluid and undefined during these months. So I'm fairly certain I'll set my horse calendar from May to November in the years to come.)

[RawBillyIce]

What can u tell me aboutAustrailia
Races and would u advocate them over USA tracks?

[Dark Horse]

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that impression of 2 years olds as a negative comment. I have to define, as clearly as possible, the territory I wish to cap in every sport. Because when that territory becomes vague, it's much harder to gain an edge. Usually, that means more work, and more time invested, for a lesser return. So I prefer to keep it simple. I thought I could learn about those young horses, but half the time trainers don't know what those horses are going to do, so why bother?

[str]

So when you refer to pace, that covers the shape of the race and energy distribution. I suppose the final question is always who has the most left in the tank in the stretch (relative to the decreasing ground to to the wire).

Peaking. Every trainer with a promising horse wants to peak in May, so the races leading up to the Derby have horses that are all over the place in terms of their progress, depending on the vision and method of the trainer. Considering the number of horses within a race it would seem that such an event, where horses participate for different reasons, becomes far less defined than a preseason NFL game, where trainers also have an agenda that may have little to do with winning the game. Would you agree with the general characterization that this part of the year is preseason? Does it even make sense to bet during this part of the season without clearly understanding the trainer's objective for the race? And how can one pinpoint those objectives without resorting to a vague guessing game? Of course, horses do have to qualify for the Derby, but so far earnings don't seem to be too much cause for concern (mid March). Will that change in April?

(On a personal note, I've tried to closely follow the development from 2 to 3 year olds, because I thought it would continue my learning curve, but I think it's safe to say that, by comparison, observing 2 year olds and Derby hopefuls was mostly a waste of time. It was worth the try, but to the relatively untrained eye things are just too fluid and undefined during these months. So I'm fairly certain I'll set my horse calendar from May to November in the years to come.)

Q. Considering the number of horses within a race it would seem that such an event, where horses participate for different reasons, becomes far less defined than a preseason NFL game, where trainers also have an agenda that may have little to do with winning the game. Would you agree with the general characterization that this part of the year is preseason?

A. No, maybe more like a regular season game. Most do not care at all as to results of preseason. The trainers really do want to win but they are learning about their horse as they go just as much as the horse is learning about 2 turns and the added distance as well as experience.

The trainers objective is pretty easy to figure out. Not all have the luxury of not winning any preps as a 3 year old and still remain eligible. I was talking more in terms of Hansen or last year, Uncle Mo and those types that will remain eligible though not winning in the few months before May.

It might not seem like these guys care about winning but if you listen to post race interviews, what else can any trainer say when asked about losing but put a well, he will be alright, type spin on it.

More on your followup question to this one.

[str]

What can u tell me aboutAustrailia
Races and would u advocate them over USA tracks?

I really can not tell you much about Australian racing or even European racing for that matter. There are multiple posters in here that hopefully read this thread that I hope will respond to you. Please feel free to respond within this thread anyone that can speak to this. Really wish I could be of more help but again, there are posters in here that can help. I hope that they jump in and add.
Thanks for the question. I hope I am more help on the next one.

As to USA racing, the # 1 problem that I see is field size. It is not good. Being an advocate of paying close attention to which ever track you are playing, small fields can severely limit your plays especially during a weekday.
Summer racing at places like Saratoga and Monmouth are excellent choices for following a meet. There are others as well but being from the east coast, that is my comfort zone.

[str]

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that impression of 2 years olds as a negative comment. I have to define, as clearly as possible, the territory I wish to cap in every sport. Because when that territory becomes vague, it's much harder to gain an edge. Usually, that means more work, and more time invested, for a lesser return. So I prefer to keep it simple. I thought I could learn about those young horses, but half the time trainers don't know what those horses are going to do, so why bother?

I think that a fair analogy to this might be if you and others within a challenge had to build an airplane from scratch , get it to fly, and be able to fly around the world in the craft that you put together within a set period of time from start to finish. If that were the case, some would never get out of the hanger, some would crash on takeoff, some on landing after test flights and some in the ocean. Some however would make it. All because they were racing against a learning curve , physical ability and limitations of the pilot and crew, and time to be ready to fly for that great a distance.
I think that it is kind of the same thing here. If this race was run in September, there would almost assuredly be a different winner. Or as 4 year olds. Or even if the race was run at a 1/2 mile track. All different results. So people attempt things that they might not want to attempt due to time.
I agree that trying to follow these young horses to the Derby is different than handicapping claimers or even olders coming up to grade 1 races but if you look back at Drosselmeyer this past fall, wasn't his path to the Classic similar in hind sight to what you are trying to do here? Trying to piece together mystery efforts along the way to find the winner?
I think that it is all about understanding what is taking place for each horse and seeing it if you can. Yes, it is a crap shoot, and yes it is a different approach to typical handicapping( if there is such a thing) but at the end of the day, it is a solvable mystery at least sometimes, and the payoffs for being right in races like the Derby can be enormous. Too me, it is well worth it , but I do realize that you put many hours into what you do.
You have to do what makes sense to you.
Hope that helps.

[chargers4222]

str... to start have always respected you from afar. one of the few posters i respect on the site, very knowledgeable and know how to post a pick without touting their successes and ignoring losses. as for my question, i was just wondering what you make of the different tracks as far as placing weight on them when capping a race. for example, last weekend at Aqueduct a horse won that went off at 68-1. he opened at 30-1 and got bet up so i completely ignored him and he came out of nowhere and won it. looking back at the sheet, i noticed he ran several races at Belmont before Aqueduct, which i'm assuming is considered a higher-level track. do you think races going "down" in competition indicates weakness or, as in this horse's case, proves they have the potential to bring it home against lesser-tested competition?

[Dark Horse]

I think that a fair analogy to this might be if you and others within a challenge had to build an airplane from scratch , get it to fly, and be able to fly around the world in the craft that you put together within a set period of time from start to finish. If that were the case, some would never get out of the hanger, some would crash on takeoff, some on landing after test flights and some in the ocean. Some however would make it. All because they were racing against a learning curve , physical ability and limitations of the pilot and crew, and time to be ready to fly for that great a distance.
I think that it is kind of the same thing here. If this race was run in September, there would almost assuredly be a different winner. Or as 4 year olds. Or even if the race was run at a 1/2 mile track. All different results. So people attempt things that they might not want to attempt due to time.
I agree that trying to follow these young horses to the Derby is different than handicapping claimers or even olders coming up to grade 1 races but if you look back at Drosselmeyer this past fall, wasn't his path to the Classic similar in hind sight to what you are trying to do here? Trying to piece together mystery efforts along the way to find the winner?
I think that it is all about understanding what is taking place for each horse and seeing it if you can. Yes, it is a crap shoot, and yes it is a different approach to typical handicapping( if there is such a thing) but at the end of the day, it is a solvable mystery at least sometimes, and the payoffs for being right in races like the Derby can be enormous. Too me, it is well worth it , but I do realize that you put many hours into what you do.
You have to do what makes sense to you.
Hope that helps.

Is it necessary to study 2 year olds? I didn't last year, and capped the Derby the night before, picking the first four horses (stupidly played in an exacta box). It was only then that I learned about the huge payout potential for that race.

Yes to Drosselmeyer in the Breeders Cup. Had I known then what I know now I would have included him with serious contenders. He showed me something that I had overlooked and that was a great help in the development of my model. But 2 year olds are not really transferable to that model.

The story of 2 year olds is one of unrealized potential. And my method, distilled into simple numbers, is about the ability to realize potential. So there is a disconnect. I am glad that I had an opportunity to study these young horses with your clarifications. And I'm also thankful that I didn't start out with them. ; )

[str]

str... to start have always respected you from afar. one of the few posters i respect on the site, very knowledgeable and know how to post a pick without touting their successes and ignoring losses. as for my question, i was just wondering what you make of the different tracks as far as placing weight on them when capping a race. for example, last weekend at Aqueduct a horse won that went off at 68-1. he opened at 30-1 and got bet up so i completely ignored him and he came out of nowhere and won it. looking back at the sheet, i noticed he ran several races at Belmont before Aqueduct, which i'm assuming is considered a higher-level track. do you think races going "down" in competition indicates weakness or, as in this horse's case, proves they have the potential to bring it home against lesser-tested competition?

Thank you for your kind words. They are very much appreciated.

Q. for example, last weekend at Aqueduct a horse won that went off at 68-1. he opened at 30-1 and got bet up so i completely ignored him and he came out of nowhere and won it.

A. So the horse opened at 30-1. Chances are, that was the morning line or program odds. If so, I would suggest not looking , other than a glance, at the morning lines of any horse higher than 10-1. Not because they can't win. They most certainly can, as this horse proved. It has more to do with the person setting the morning line. If you wander back into my thread, I have several posts that speak to this but without full detail, let me tell you why. The morning line is set roughly 2 days before the race without the knowledge of scratches or track condition. Some line makers are really good at what they do, but just as many are complete yahoos IMO. Either way, in a 10 horse field they will set them something like this: 5-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1, 8-1( most first time starters unless from a solid outfit or touted all over the track), 10-1, 15-1, 20-1, 30-1. There is only a slight difference between the 15-1 and the 20 or 30-1 shots. Too me, I would always pay attention to the 1st time the board blinked or changed( it used to be when over 1000 dollars was in the pool in Md.).Also, it is good to see the payoffs for pick 3s, daily doubles, or whatever. See if the payouts are in line with the odds or if some are lower than they should be. (Careful though with that advise if the handle is weak, but if it is N.Y. you will be fine). That might tell a story as to early money but the morning line IMO does not.

Add too that: Was he in a race full of speed and position horses and the only single gated( plotter) horse in the race? Was the pace hot early, and the speed came back to the pack with no true closers? If so, he was the only horse with finish.

Q. i noticed he ran several races at Belmont before Aqueduct, which i'm assuming is considered a higher-level track.


A. Belmont and Aqueduct are within the same circuit as you know. We all know that in the winter, N.Y. gets thinner with competition so it might be a natural thought to say that Aqueduct is a step down but I would not look at it that way. Leaving N.Y. and going to Phila. or Md. would be a step down . Yes, do factor in winter vs. spring when the heavier hitters are there but it is not the drop that the other places would be , at least not typically.
Without knowing the form, sometimes horses "do not" like or really "do" like the inner track at Aqueduct. Did that horse run on the inner track poorly and then run on the main track and pay well? I would always consider the inner track as a "horses for courses" style surface. Too some, it does not matter but to plenty, it does. Did the horses form show signs of life from the main Aqueduct surface ? That can definitely be a key in some cases.

Q. do you think races going "down" in competition indicates weakness or, as in this horse's case, proves they have the potential to bring it home against lesser-tested competition?


A. Going down in competition is always about "why". In this case, it was the time of year, not shipping to a lesser venue. In most cases, it is hard for the bettor to figure out. For those players that can watch a horse warm up and have previous warm ups to compare too , maybe it is apparent , maybe not, but for the vast majority of players it is an educated guess. Sometimes the horse is physically fine but has simply lost confidence and that edge that we all get when things are going well. Other times it is a physical problem that limits their stride or ability. Front bandages "on" sometimes tells that story. In almost all cases , it is a negative. Try to avoid those drop downs with fronts "on". It is also good to see how the trainer does with others when dropping them down. Some are very good while others are terrible % wise. It really depends on each horses situation but I have known players that, when in doubt , they would eliminate the drop down favorite or second choice every time. You won't go broke doing that but you might by chasing those drop downs.

But your horse was 60-1 and the best advise I can give you is as follows. Just because the horse is high odds or a long shot, do not sell the horse short. Spend at least as much time reviewing the pps on a long shot as you do on the others, at least initially .If favorites win roughly a third of the time, that means they lose roughly 2/3s of the time. Give each horse a chance when reading pps until you just see no way possible that they can win. Once you reach that point,throw them out and move on . Don't ever be afraid to lose on a horse at a price. With that kind of attitude, you will hit some prices. Without that attitude, you never will.

The bottom line is that properly gauging drop downs will never be easy. It is ,plenty of times, but not always, hard to figure out. Use those tips and see if it helps. And feel free to follow up on the subject if you have other questions.
Great questions. I hope I helped.

[str]

Is it necessary to study 2 year olds? I didn't last year, and capped the Derby the night before, picking the first four horses (stupidly played in an exacta box). It was only then that I learned about the huge payout potential for that race.

Yes to Drosselmeyer in the Breeders Cup. Had I known then what I know now I would have included him with serious contenders. He showed me something that I had overlooked and that was a great help in the development of my model. But 2 year olds are not really transferable to that model.

The story of 2 year olds is one of unrealized potential. And my method, distilled into simple numbers, is about the ability to realize potential. So there is a disconnect. I am glad that I had an opportunity to study these young horses with your clarifications. And I'm also thankful that I didn't start out with them. ; )

I do not think that it is necessary. The lure is the newness and excitement that goes with 2 year olds. If it is a disconnect within your model, and time consuming as well, do not spend the time and start following when it suits your model. That would be my advise.

[Dark Horse]

str, quick question about Chantal Sutherland. She's riding Game On Dude this weekend overseas for the World Cup, and had her best known races, including a near win in the Breeders Cup, on that same speed horse. I'm just wondering how hard it would be for her to ride a closer in, say, the Kentucky Derby. At this level, are all jockeys good enough to thread the needle through very tight traffic, like Borel has been doing, or like John Velazquez last year in the Derby?

[str]

str, quick question about Chantal Sutherland. She's riding Game On Dude this weekend overseas for the World Cup, and had her best known races, including a near win in the Breeders Cup, on that same speed horse. I'm just wondering how hard it would be for her to ride a closer in, say, the Kentucky Derby. At this level, are all jockeys good enough to thread the needle through very tight traffic, like Borel has been doing, or like John Velazquez last year in the Derby?

I do not know exactly how good Chantel Sutherland really is. I did watch her ride Game On Dude several times and she seems to have a very solid connection with him. He responds quite well to her. Having said that, I don't know her at all other than what little I have witnessed.
I know that she rides in California and if she did not have a decent amount of ability she probably would not be there but because she is a girl and because she rides for Baffert sometimes , if her ability was suspect, and I am not saying that it is, being female and riding for him could mask true ability. That is one of the only scenarios that exist in horse racing as far as masking ability goes when talking about jockey's. That is, females that ride for a top trainer. Again, not saying she is not really good, but because of the situation she is in, public perception assumes that she is well above average . If that is indeed true, and because there are many less female riders than male, does that make her one of the best female riders ever? In my book, she has a long way to go and a lot and I mean a lot to prove to show me that she is in the same category as Julie Krone. Having rode Julie for years, and knowing her very well, I can not believe that she is there. So, if you kind of do the math backwards so to speak, she might be getting a little more credit than she has actually earned. Again, really do not follow Cal. racing and never did for reasons I have discussed in previous answers, so I don't want to be unfair to Chantel without knowing her ability, but that is how I see it.
Having seen her ride Dude, she seems to do what a lot of girls have a knack for when riding. Girls riders more so than boys, have certain horses that really turn it up a notch for them as compared to boys. It is a true connection that is hard to describe but absolutely exists. Certain horses just simply "run for them".
As too closing or speed, as I said before almost every rider is better at one part of the game than the other. Understanding that is a huge edge. We see the leading rider and see that jocks percentage and figure that that percentage is solid through and through. But if you break it down there is much more to the story most times. Like a batter that hits .300 but when you understand inside those numbers, he hits .230 against lefties with junk and .370 against righties that throw hard. Jockeys are for the most part , the same way.
Knowing a jocks strength is a solid asset that most players do not have.
As too the exact questions: I would not assume that Chantel is as good on a closer as she might be on Dude. She would have to prove that to be and I would not assume that she is. Borel has made a living staying on the fence, and while that is an art all of itself, the fence does not move, so splitting horses while closing is way different than sitting on the fence. John V. is probably just that darn good. Having said that, and if indeed he is, he is in rare air. Most jockeys are definitively better at one more so than the other but the best of the best are better at there weaker of the two than the vast majority of riders are at there best of the two.
Hope that makes sense.

[Dark Horse]

thanks str, that helps a lot. I had the general impression of what you describe here, but didn't want to assume too much. I can't see Chantal doing what Velazquez did in last year's Derby until she proves it. Also, very interesting that some horses run better for girls. In my model Game On Dude was running 'too well' for her, by normal standards. Could it be an intuitive thing? I rode a horse once that had been trained by a horse whisperer to pick up the rider's thoughts. I didn't know anything about riding, but he followed my thought instructions exactly. Could it be that there are two types of jockeys, one intuitive, as in seeking to attain a level of oneness with the horse, and the other more forceful, as in trying to dominate the horse?

[str]

thanks str, that helps a lot. I had the general impression of what you describe here, but didn't want to assume too much. I can't see Chantal doing what Velazquez did in last year's Derby until she proves it. Also, very interesting that some horses run better for girls. In my model Game On Dude was running 'too well' for her, by normal standards. Could it be an intuitive thing? I rode a horse once that had been trained by a horse whisperer to pick up the rider's thoughts. I didn't know anything about riding, but he followed my thought instructions exactly. Could it be that there are two types of jockeys, one intuitive, as in seeking to attain a level of oneness with the horse, and the other more forceful, as in trying to dominate the horse?

While all riders try and create the oneness that you refer too, girls have a knack for certain horses that just don't respond the same to most male riders.


There are indeed two different types of riders. I am sure that you have seen jockeys that always look busy on horses ( we used to say that all you can see when they ride is asses and elbows) and others that seem so still that you wonder what they could possibly be doing too help the horse.Those guys rode like you could put a cup of coffee on there back and they would not spill a drop. Physical and finesse. Different styles for sure.

[Dark Horse]

Chantal was not in the front today, and Game On Dude just ran of gas in the World Cup. Did you see that showoff jockey on the winning horse, drawing all that attention to himself as he crossed the wire? Made me realize how much I appreciate the jockeys here who always give credit to the horse. Meanwhile, Leparoux got stuck behind horses with Union Rags, and couldn't find a way out. Makes me wonder if Leparoux needs more space than some of those other jockeys, and may not be a Derby winner. I like Daddy Nose Best for the Derby, and he may have opened up for Chantal (regular rider Leparoux is on Union Rags, and Borel who might have been interested in this closer, now seems set with Take Charge Indy). But Daddy Nose Best is a closer... Even if the horse would run huge for her, would it make sense to match her up with a closer in a field of twenty? If someone like Leparoux couldn't even find an opening in a much smaller field with (then) Derby favorite Union Rags, what chance does she have? I've only seen her upfront or passing on the outside; never threading the needle through tight traffic.

Am I rambling? lol Getting prepared for the Derby. Horses now old enough to fit my model. Was great to see Take Charge Indy beat both El Padrino and Union Rags today. That's the upset stuff the Derby is made of. This is going to be one heck of an April.

[str]

Chantal was not in the front today, and Game On Dude just ran of gas in the World Cup. Did you see that showoff jockey on the winning horse, drawing all that attention to himself as he crossed the wire? Made me realize how much I appreciate the jockeys here who always give credit to the horse. Meanwhile, Leparoux got stuck behind horses with Union Rags, and couldn't find a way out. Makes me wonder if Leparoux needs more space than some of those other jockeys, and may not be a Derby winner. I like Daddy Nose Best for the Derby, and he may have opened up for Chantal (regular rider Leparoux is on Union Rags, and Borel who might have been interested in this closer, now seems set with Take Charge Indy). But Daddy Nose Best is a closer... Even if the horse would run huge for her, would it make sense to match her up with a closer in a field of twenty? If someone like Leparoux couldn't even find an opening in a much smaller field with (then) Derby favorite Union Rags, what chance does she have? I've only seen her upfront or passing on the outside; never threading the needle through tight traffic.

Am I rambling? lol Getting prepared for the Derby. Horses now old enough to fit my model. Was great to see Take Charge Indy beat both El Padrino and Union Rags today. That's the upset stuff the Derby is made of. This is going to be one heck of an April.

Q. Chantal was not in the front today, and Game On Dude just ran of gas in the World Cup.

A. Dude broke very flat footed. She actually did all that she could have been asked too do with what she had. If you watch the replay, after breaking flat footed, she tucks him in and just before she can get up inside the other outside horse, he comes over thus making her put on the brakes and costing herself probably 3 lengths. Not her fault, just the way the race took shape.That was within the 1st 15 seconds of the race. She allowed him to get in to contention down the back side but watch the tape again and you will see that he did not run out of gas, he gave up as most front runners will do when they realize they are inferior. This occurs just as they go in to the far turn, ( lousy camera angle but you will see it) and the eventual winner runs right past him on the inside of him. He immediately drops the bit and you can see Chantel react by aggressively shaking the reins at him trying to get him to pick the bit back up. He drops back more in that 1/8th - 3/16s of a mile than he does through the stretch when she concedes defeat as well and just rides him out. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that the trip with front runners is so important and that when it seems as though they are out of gas, what they really are is out of compete. They are not nearly as tired as you might think.

Q. Did you see that showoff jockey on the winning horse, drawing all that attention to himself as he crossed the wire? Made me realize how much I appreciate the jockeys here who always give credit to the horse.

A. Jocks should act as though they have been there before even if they have not. Mix in a little humble once in a while. Groom, trainer, owner, blacksmith, etc. didn't have anything too do with it. It was ALL the jockey! Pathetic.

Q. Meanwhile, Leparoux got stuck behind horses with Union Rags, and couldn't find a way out. Makes me wonder if Leparoux needs more space than some of those other jockeys, and may not be a Derby winner.

A. Yes, he needed too be patient down the backside but Union Rags had AMPLE time to run on if he wanted too or was able too. He did not. I do not know if the horse was just not " all set" to run in the Fla. Derby or what, but that was a poor performance . He had no kick when asked. Looked like a horse that might need blinkers if indeed there was no other excuse. If he can't run inside or in between horses in that race he won't be getting any easier trip in the Derby in all probability. No visible excuse in my book. Poor effort on the horses part as far as I am concerned but maybe there was a reason for that. We will see.

Q. I like Daddy Nose Best for the Derby, and he may have opened up for Chantal (regular rider Leparoux is on Union Rags, and Borel who might have been interested in this closer, now seems set with Take Charge Indy). But Daddy Nose Best is a closer... Even if the horse would run huge for her, would it make sense to match her up with a closer in a field of twenty?

A. I can't answer that because I have not seen her over or under achieve on closers before. I just do not know her level of skill on closers.

Q. If someone like Leparoux couldn't even find an opening in a much smaller field with (then) Derby favorite Union Rags, what chance does she have?

A. The chance to win was there, the horse did not fire when needed. Again, with Chantel, she might be a great rider on a closer, but I have not seen her ride enough to say that she is or is not.