This is a place for friendly and civil discussion of horse racing of all types including handicapping.
Latest 5/4/22 by princeofdoc
Latest 6:41 PM by RAESFAN
Latest 2:40 PM by smartyslew
Latest 2:18 PM by smartyslew
Latest Feb-4 by princeofdoc
Latest Feb-4 by smartyslew
Latest Feb-2 by SameSteve G
Latest Jan-30 by Gerh
Latest Jan-29 by TexSquared
Latest Jan-28 by pianot
Latest Jan-28 by smartyslew
Latest Jan-22 by Wintertrian
Latest Jan-20 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-14 by TexSquared
Latest Jan-7 by pianot
Should be a muddy to sloppy track for the Oaks.
Probably a dry track for the Derby according to weather reports i've been reading.
Wow! Thanks for the lesson! Looks like I have some midnight oil to burn....
I found Oaks race could be interesting.
I am starting to wonder if this one breaks down on the front end due to too much pressure and speed up front. A couple of horses got nothing to lose here by going out early, yet Zos breaking from so far out, thrown in so many that want to JUST SIT OFF the lead and that leaves no room, and a messy race.
Looks like there are 6 - 8 Good horses, 4 -6 that are so so and 8 that dont belong
If it goes under 1:12 for six, will be surprised.
sovereign1 said...Thanks for the lesson! Looks like I have some midnight oil to burn....
not really, because it's only using a single theory. There are lots more, as you know. I often do not know how to interpret, for instance, horse who actually ran in a wet race during prep season and IF THAT RACE even means anything, based on who they beat? And all "slop" isn't the same consistency, at Oaklawn, which is only one I know for certain because I've stepped on it, picked it up, and held it in my own hands, and watched hooves in it, it gets "sticky like peanut butter" which is not a characteristic of all muddy tracks, and not even true of Oaklawn when they seal it and make it really fast for the bigger stakes races.
So really, I don't know how to quantify mud or mud stats so I use what I do know or have observed.
Somebody gave me a list of mud sires for Oaklawn track a long time ago and so far, it has worked pretty good but the sires are now way outdated.
KY Derby is always a messy chaos type race, esp at the break where the green horses run into each other, and the nervous ones are already all worked up due to the huge crowds. Sometimes, the far outside posts are somewhat better, gives a horse more leeway and can see what they have to do, i.e. dive in or sit back and see what is happening in front of them.
I know this is a favorite race but for me, it's really not. The whole thing makes me nervous every year and I find myself happy that everyone just comes home safely (after I rip up my losing ticket!!!)
That said, if you're betting on the speed, make sure it's tactical and high quality. One of the reasons I liked WA just on visual is that in FL Derby he just looked like one of those fast sports cars that "hum along" w/out much effort, not a care in the world. He also has a neck that he will stick out. At the wire, that counts. On the other hand, maybe I just described a grinder. ?? Is he tractable? I don't know for sure. I liked Causeway's races because he's a good gate horse, like he was shot from a canon.
I think you GOTTA gotta find something "special" to like about a horse(s) otherwise don't go on just numbers.
When all is said and done, in horse racing everyone always says track performance beats breeding, but for the KY Derby and Belmont, I think breeding matters a whole lot more than other races. I think it has to be in your breeding to win this kind of race, and the "track performance part" for me is more about who has the bravado to not be intimidated by other horses all around you, and muscle their way in and out of situations when guided by their jockey.
So, in order for me: Fitness (always #1 cuz you don't run 1-1/4 if you were standing around the barn), breeding (has to be there somewhere), track performance (not just speed and final late pace numbers) but the AGILITY and TRACTABILITY to move both forward, laterally, in and out, in and out, like a really good tennis player.
This latter is something no number can every quantify......and something that the PPs don't show, because they don't describe the difficulty of each prep race very well! (and I have my nose stuck in Oaklawn during prep season, so I am not even a little bit good at the peculiarities of the prep races, but hope to change that next year, esp. if Baffert doesn't run and I drop out of my oaklawn contests for first time in 15 years).
I took a peek back at the last 20 runnings or so using your theoretical formula.... And wow... It works in practice. If you add the DPs of the Sire, BM and BMS, it should be > 60, even if one of the three is 50. Sure there will be outliers, but for this particular race it seems very useful. Looks interesting to work out in the off-season and if it would work for ITM on a dry-track Derby.
sovereign1 said...Sure there will be outliers, but for this particular race it seems very useful. Looks interesting to work out in the off-season and if it would work for ITM on a dry-track Derby.
I have never really tracked it for dry fast tracks, there would be too many, and slop tracks come up less often so it was easier to track for me to just find some TC races that were sloppy as of late.
Lets just say that Steve Roman knew what he was doing in some areas, and I truly miss his PFs (performance figures) which I found utterly helpful while capping the KY Derby (better for me than Equibase and Beyer figs at least but he was also able to fit his PFs into those "languages" for those that only understood those). That, and his "energy ratings", how much energy horses expended doing what they did. Nobody really quantifies this stuff like he did. There is no need to toss out every part of what was on his chef-de-race pages, if you combed over them enough. Whether or not the "dosage theory in general as a whole" works or not, parts of it worked great.