This is a place for friendly and civil discussion of horse racing of all types including handicapping.
Latest 6/17/19 by PISTOL9
Latest 1:43 AM by smartyslew
Latest Jan-16 by smartyslew
Latest Jan-11 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-11 by princeofdoc
Latest Jan-11 by TexSquared
Latest Jan-10 by PISTOL9
Latest Jan-10 by PISTOL9
Latest Jan-9 by Gerh
Latest Jan-3 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-30 by cubs.fan
Latest Dec-26 by Pedigreestar
Latest Dec-23 by Gerh
Latest Dec-23 by ChiefsCrown
Latest Dec-20 by horseman1985
Spinoff stood out to me too based on both sire side and female side profiles. If you want a good longshot on your ticket to my mind I would include him. I may even have a ticket using him as the key. :) WoW is a class call. Even if I don't like a horse's numbers for a race, if they are the class of the field, I can't see not including them? For Tacitus, I just don't think he has the right numbers for Belmont. Then again, many of the Taptit's do not, but they have tapit-belmont-magic, so I never know whether to use them or not. LOL
As for the conduits, sorry, I was confusing that with Bruce Lowe's division of the females into families, but I see that was not included in the analyses.
I keep an "angles that work" sheet going, so every year I am tracking what angles appear to have the most significance. Unfortunately, some of them, like Dr. Roman's performance figures, were very powerful, but we don't have them anymore. :( There were years where you could have used just 3 or 4 angles and hit the superfecta or trifecta.
For instance in 2017, you could have just used the PPs and brisnet distance figs for the trifecta.
In 2010, all you really needed was 3 angles: Trainer won belmont, horse worked sharp or ran well at Belmont, and horse had previous belmont winners somewhere in their pedigree. If you used those, and only those, you had not only the trifecta, but the superfecta as well that year.
You could have just boxed them (and icebox would have been your only non-itm "extra" there.) If you wanted to properly place/tier them, then you had to look closer, i.e. First Dude was coming in off very little rest, there was little chance he was going to run the race of his life and top his other figs that day. (and he did run 3rd).
Over the years I just got rid of the truly difficult more "woo woo" angles, because it's a PITA to do them and oftentimes, it's just too hidden to track down. It really depends on the amount of time I have during the time and year when race is run. 12F+ is a tough category esp in the U.S. racing universe
The hard part is figuring out WHICH angles are going to be significant *this year*. I sluiced thru my records and I think I have a playable 5 horse box. If I add in Everfast (really only a hunch play since he is not coming out well on most angles) That would make 6 horses. And using him also requires that I leave out Tacitus on my trifecta. Which I think I'm sorta okay with. ;)
I’ve got Everfast down for a pretty significant regression in this race, such was the size of his Preakness “jump up”. But with only 9 or 10 horses in the race he could hit the super. Right now I’m thinking about just betting (if I bet) on a Spiniff-Intrepid Heart exacta box and maybe a little on Spin-off to win if he’s over 8 or 10 to 1, which he should be. And maybe a couple of savers on WoW and Tacitus.
Oldbettowin said...I’ve got Everfast down for a pretty significant regression in this race, such was the size of his Preakness “jump up”.
Yes, I can see that and again, he is more of a hunch / sentimental thing like Win Win Win was for me. Some horses, I just look at their photos and find they "make my heart happy" and I have no way to explain the why's of this. Some people had that with bodexpress, I did not.
I "think" winner comes from here---IF you don't want to play the chalk --but still waiting on PPs to fill in rest of my angles. Last 2 listed I'm really not sure about but I have a *weird* formula I use and they made it into that framework:
11 of the last 14 Belmont winners have Princequillo in a passing position
BTW, I liked Spinoff in the derby somewhat, but he either didn't like "that" mud at CDX, or he just doesn't love mud. Something to think about, not sure I would play him if track comes up muddy, but I do like him.
smartyslew said...11 of the last 14 Belmont winners have Princequillo in a passing position
Well that's good as all except for one horse that would "match" my post above (winners come from here). I wasn't, however, using that angle when I posted my list. ;) Like I said, I have my own weird angle(s) that usually give me similar results though, but I'm glad to have most all of them in my above post, despite that I didn't use the actual princequillo angle to arrive at them......but happy that they have merit under THAT angle as well. That sort of gives me more confidence that I'm in the right ballpark.
I used to do a big ol' chart and map out all the angles we have used here over the years, but my approach is way simpler now, I only use about 6 or so angles that I personally like, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I just do NOT have the time or energy anymore to do 30+ angles or the research that involves.
I didn’t like him at all in the derby, and Pletcher said he didn’t care for the going—and he may not have, but I thought he would regress off his race in Louisiana. One thing I like to look at in the Brisnet pp’s are the CR and RR ratings. If you look at his, he ran a 232 (CR and RR combined) in August then came back in February with a 231 before Boom! He runs a 237 in the La. Derby. I’ve found that anything over a 4 point jump almost always signals a regression in the next outing and sure enough he ran a 233 in Louisville. Same with Tax—230 in the Withers before a 236 in the Wood. He ran a 234 in the derby. It doesn’t tell you who’s getting ready to run a big race but it’s pretty good at telling you who probably isn’t.
Look at Everfast: 228-232-231-231-231-238. If he duplicates that Preakness run I’ll eat my hat lol. But there’s exceptions to every rule as we all know and I’m the last person that would ever try to talk anyone off a horse :)