So far it seems like no horse can put two big races back to back. I had been high on Stay thirsty since way back and he finally showed what he can do. The question is, can he do it again? He has a classic pedigree and should have no problem with the distance.
I was also impressed with J W Blue's breeding and after the AK Derby in which he had a bad post and wide, rough trip, I had posted that you would hear from him down the line. He's lost two tight finishes in a row but I think he will really like the added distance. Will be closing and if he doesn't run into trouble I expect him to be there at the finish.
Coil doesn't seem to have a really classic pedigree but it looks good enough to put him up there. He actually has speed but has shown he can come off the pace.
I don't think Thirsty or Coil and maybe someone else is going to let Shack get away with backing the pace down. He may last for a part if he can hold off Ruler but doesn't have the breeding for this distance.
Ruler On Ice is very steady and usually throws a good race. Breeding is so-so.
Raison D'etat is nicely bred and can probably handle the distance. Rattlesnake Bridge is another with a lot of points in his pedigree and should get the extra distance.
Going mostly on pedigree this is how I see it; I am revising my first thoughts.
Stay Thirsty........will probably stalk Shack and be in good position in stretch...only one with big win this year
Coil....................will lay off the pace but not as far back as last time
J W Blue............makes a big run ala Dialed In and Animal Kingdom...could win if pace is fast
Shackleford........may be forced to set pace again but must back it down in order to last
Raison D'etat......shouldn't be far off the pace
Rattlesnake Bridge...could move up more with an off track
Ruler On Ice.......needs to stay close
If the track comes up sloppy I will make a change to:
Stay Thirsty
Coil
Shackleford
J W Blue
Rattlesnake Bridge
Raison D'etat
Really a tough race and it all hinges on whether Thirsty shows up with his game suit on.
Backstretch
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Haskell & Jim Dandy Recap
It has dawned on me that the reason this years 3 yr old crop has been so bad is that there are no quality front runners. Early on we had Uncle Mo until whatever happened to him happened. Then there was The Factor who was extremely fast but it was decided he was distance challenged. There may have been a few who, when the lone speed, could hang in but none of any real quality.
Shackleford just happened to be the best of a bad lot of speed horses. He has actually only held on to win one graded race and if Animal Kingdom hadn't had such a bad start Shack would have NO graded wins. This is a horse that was the front runner for 3 yr old of the year. Once again he gets caught by a horse coming from way out of it.
So what do these 2 races tell me?
Stay Thirsty has finally shown what he can do and this was the first graded win of the year won by open lengths and from a horse that didn't lay way back early. He is bred to run long and, if he moves forward off this race, will be mighty tough to beat in the Travers.
Coil is also bred to run all day and having had a bad start in the Haskell, he does have a ton of speed and should be able to be placed wherever the jock wants him. He has a lot of upside and could very well win the Travers.
I don't think Shackleford will go to the Travers for two reasons. The first is that I don't think he can handle 1 1/4 against the two mentioned above. The only way he can get that distance is if he's loose on the lead and can slow the pace way down.
The other reason is that if the connections want the 3 yr old title they don't want to take a chance against Coil again and also the distinct possibility of Thirsty winning. If Shack were in there and Thirsty beats Coil who has beaten Shack, the 3yr old title would be up in the air.
If a scenario develops like the one I just described then the title probably wouldn't be settled until someone wins another big race like the Jockey Gold Cup or the Breeders Classic and I don't think Shack can handle the distance of those races. I also doubt if any of these can win the BC unless Coil or Thirsty really step up to the plate.
To me the obvious thing for Shack is to go to another race and hope that Thirsty beats Coil in the Travers. I am also not totally discounting Alternation in the Travers. I thought he would be short in the Dandy, not having had a race in 2 months.
I'll look at the Travers when all the entries are in but it looks to be shaping up as one heluva race.
I'm starting to look at the pedigrees of this years 2 yr olds who might be heading to the BC. There's an awful lot to look at and is very time consuming but those big winners that are under the radar make it worthwhile.
Backstretch
Shackleford just happened to be the best of a bad lot of speed horses. He has actually only held on to win one graded race and if Animal Kingdom hadn't had such a bad start Shack would have NO graded wins. This is a horse that was the front runner for 3 yr old of the year. Once again he gets caught by a horse coming from way out of it.
So what do these 2 races tell me?
Stay Thirsty has finally shown what he can do and this was the first graded win of the year won by open lengths and from a horse that didn't lay way back early. He is bred to run long and, if he moves forward off this race, will be mighty tough to beat in the Travers.
Coil is also bred to run all day and having had a bad start in the Haskell, he does have a ton of speed and should be able to be placed wherever the jock wants him. He has a lot of upside and could very well win the Travers.
I don't think Shackleford will go to the Travers for two reasons. The first is that I don't think he can handle 1 1/4 against the two mentioned above. The only way he can get that distance is if he's loose on the lead and can slow the pace way down.
The other reason is that if the connections want the 3 yr old title they don't want to take a chance against Coil again and also the distinct possibility of Thirsty winning. If Shack were in there and Thirsty beats Coil who has beaten Shack, the 3yr old title would be up in the air.
If a scenario develops like the one I just described then the title probably wouldn't be settled until someone wins another big race like the Jockey Gold Cup or the Breeders Classic and I don't think Shack can handle the distance of those races. I also doubt if any of these can win the BC unless Coil or Thirsty really step up to the plate.
To me the obvious thing for Shack is to go to another race and hope that Thirsty beats Coil in the Travers. I am also not totally discounting Alternation in the Travers. I thought he would be short in the Dandy, not having had a race in 2 months.
I'll look at the Travers when all the entries are in but it looks to be shaping up as one heluva race.
I'm starting to look at the pedigrees of this years 2 yr olds who might be heading to the BC. There's an awful lot to look at and is very time consuming but those big winners that are under the radar make it worthwhile.
Backstretch
Friday, July 29, 2011
Haskell and Jim Dandy
With the 3 yr old situation as muddled as ever we may finally see one step up and assert itself. The next step after these two races would be the Travers followed by the JCGC and then the Breeders Cup. Right now I only see one 3 yr old horse that, in my opinion, has the goods to handle the derby distance of 1 1/4 and it's not Shack.
I am still, being as they are still 3 yr olds, sticking with pedigree handicapping coupled with their performance so far.
Even though the Haskell looks, on paper, to be the more competitive of the two races, I think the strongest horse is in the Jim Dandy. I have drawn a line through the Belmont because of the track condition that day. I watched the whole card on Belmont day and don't recall a closer making up any ground at all except for Animal Kingdom after his terrible start. The first 4 finishers in the Belmont were all right up there in the stretch and no closer gained on any of them. If any front runner couldn't hold on in that race they never will. Shack went awfully slow early in the Derby and still faded at the end. In the Preakness he was able to back the pace way down and barely held on.
Between both of these races I only see a couple of legit colts capable of getting the longer distances, and to go to the BC or to be 3 yr old of the year, it's going to have to be one that steps up to the plate and so far I haven't seen but one that I think has the ability to do so and that's Alternation. We have seen no where near his best yet, and if he starts to run the way I think he can, we may be looking at the 3 yr old champ.
The Haskell:
1- Coil............................this is about the only one I see with an upside...has a lot of speed but with blinkers off Garcia may be able to rate him....poly to dirt horses usually show big improvement in speed ratings for Baffert and he seems to own the Haskell
2- Shackleford.................probably the horse to beat but his speed has to be very carefully rationed.
3- Joe Vann.....................seems to be strictly a front runner...has a really nice pedigree and could take them a long way at big odds.
4- Ruler On Ice...............always seems to get a piece of the action...love his pedigree...
5- Astrology....................Asmussen horses almost always run their race...have to throw out last...may get a piece but doesn't seem to have the grit to win.
6- Pants On Fire.............another with nice breeding but is an in and outer...could be there on best race.
Jim Dandy:
1- Alternation.................really nicely bred....early on I had him right behind Archarcharch who I really thought would win the Derby till he broke down...had 1 bad race in the AK Derby but had a very rough trip in that one but was coming anyway...if not a bit short I think it's an easy win for him.
2- Stay Thirsty...............he may finally be close to running to his potential...great pedigree
3- Dominus...................looks to be the one to catch...lightly raced...never worse than second.
4- Scotus......................another steady lightly raced colt...sits just off the pace and may be in good position to repeat.
And that's the way I see it!
Backstretch
I am still, being as they are still 3 yr olds, sticking with pedigree handicapping coupled with their performance so far.
Even though the Haskell looks, on paper, to be the more competitive of the two races, I think the strongest horse is in the Jim Dandy. I have drawn a line through the Belmont because of the track condition that day. I watched the whole card on Belmont day and don't recall a closer making up any ground at all except for Animal Kingdom after his terrible start. The first 4 finishers in the Belmont were all right up there in the stretch and no closer gained on any of them. If any front runner couldn't hold on in that race they never will. Shack went awfully slow early in the Derby and still faded at the end. In the Preakness he was able to back the pace way down and barely held on.
Between both of these races I only see a couple of legit colts capable of getting the longer distances, and to go to the BC or to be 3 yr old of the year, it's going to have to be one that steps up to the plate and so far I haven't seen but one that I think has the ability to do so and that's Alternation. We have seen no where near his best yet, and if he starts to run the way I think he can, we may be looking at the 3 yr old champ.
The Haskell:
1- Coil............................this is about the only one I see with an upside...has a lot of speed but with blinkers off Garcia may be able to rate him....poly to dirt horses usually show big improvement in speed ratings for Baffert and he seems to own the Haskell
2- Shackleford.................probably the horse to beat but his speed has to be very carefully rationed.
3- Joe Vann.....................seems to be strictly a front runner...has a really nice pedigree and could take them a long way at big odds.
4- Ruler On Ice...............always seems to get a piece of the action...love his pedigree...
5- Astrology....................Asmussen horses almost always run their race...have to throw out last...may get a piece but doesn't seem to have the grit to win.
6- Pants On Fire.............another with nice breeding but is an in and outer...could be there on best race.
Jim Dandy:
1- Alternation.................really nicely bred....early on I had him right behind Archarcharch who I really thought would win the Derby till he broke down...had 1 bad race in the AK Derby but had a very rough trip in that one but was coming anyway...if not a bit short I think it's an easy win for him.
2- Stay Thirsty...............he may finally be close to running to his potential...great pedigree
3- Dominus...................looks to be the one to catch...lightly raced...never worse than second.
4- Scotus......................another steady lightly raced colt...sits just off the pace and may be in good position to repeat.
And that's the way I see it!
Backstretch
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Starting Gate
It's been said that more races are lost at the starting gate than anywhere on the track and I am inclined to believe it.
Even though I am a spot player and scan anywhere form 50 to 150 races in a day and only come up with a couple of plays per day, it's uncanny how many of these plays get off to a bad start. I notice that most of the poor beginnings are with horses in the middle post positions. A horse on either side comes out and swerves and drives the horse alongside into another horse which sometimes sets up a chain reaction. Horses down on the rail are also subject to getting squeezed and bumped at the start.
These bad starts are all too common in my opinion. Sometimes in a route race the horse is able to recover and have time to get into the race but in sprints, especially 5f races, a bad start means the race is usually over for that horse. Also, most jocks have a tendency to try to rush the horse into contention after a slow start and the horse is finished by the time it hits the stretch.
I watch a lot of races and it seems like in about 50% of all races run, one or more entries run into trouble at the gate. Although I am only playing a couple spots per day I think that about 10-20 % of my plays run into trouble coming out of the gate. If I'm only looking to get 20-25 % winners with my plays these additional losers that are eliminated at the start take a heavy toll on my bottom line.
I wouldn't think there is anything that can be done about it because the starting gate and all that happens in it are beyond any handicappers control. I suppose one could concentrate on only playing horses that show they are usually first out of the gate but this would severely limit your action. The problems at the gate are a blessing in disguise to a lot of fast breaking horses because they are sometimes able to get such a jump on the field that the race is over before anyone else can get into gear.
At any rate, the gate problems are just one of the many reasons one can never expect to attain a very high win % and is an especially good reason to NEVER plunge on any horse. When trainers are asked about the chances of their horses in any race the first thing they usually say is that they are hoping for a clean break.
Watch carefully to see if your bet got a clean start. You may not have bet the wrong horse if it loses but may have just been a victim of the starting gate chaos
Even though I am a spot player and scan anywhere form 50 to 150 races in a day and only come up with a couple of plays per day, it's uncanny how many of these plays get off to a bad start. I notice that most of the poor beginnings are with horses in the middle post positions. A horse on either side comes out and swerves and drives the horse alongside into another horse which sometimes sets up a chain reaction. Horses down on the rail are also subject to getting squeezed and bumped at the start.
These bad starts are all too common in my opinion. Sometimes in a route race the horse is able to recover and have time to get into the race but in sprints, especially 5f races, a bad start means the race is usually over for that horse. Also, most jocks have a tendency to try to rush the horse into contention after a slow start and the horse is finished by the time it hits the stretch.
I watch a lot of races and it seems like in about 50% of all races run, one or more entries run into trouble at the gate. Although I am only playing a couple spots per day I think that about 10-20 % of my plays run into trouble coming out of the gate. If I'm only looking to get 20-25 % winners with my plays these additional losers that are eliminated at the start take a heavy toll on my bottom line.
I wouldn't think there is anything that can be done about it because the starting gate and all that happens in it are beyond any handicappers control. I suppose one could concentrate on only playing horses that show they are usually first out of the gate but this would severely limit your action. The problems at the gate are a blessing in disguise to a lot of fast breaking horses because they are sometimes able to get such a jump on the field that the race is over before anyone else can get into gear.
At any rate, the gate problems are just one of the many reasons one can never expect to attain a very high win % and is an especially good reason to NEVER plunge on any horse. When trainers are asked about the chances of their horses in any race the first thing they usually say is that they are hoping for a clean break.
Watch carefully to see if your bet got a clean start. You may not have bet the wrong horse if it loses but may have just been a victim of the starting gate chaos
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Is handicapping for real or is it just a crock of doggy doo?
I happened to look at my bookshelf yesterday and noticed all the books I have on handicapping. I have read many of them several times, books by Ainslie, Christ, Beyer, Davidowitz, etc., and asked myself if I had learned anything from them. I have been reading and studying handicapping for over fifty years and have come to the conclusion that they are all full of sh*t. I was looking at Modern Pace Handicapping by Brohamer. One must be an MIT graduate to understand what he's talking about. Speed and pace handicappers, and I would bet that 90% of handicappers use that method, go through all those contortions to do what? Come up with the favorite? I can look at a race and in two minutes tell you the horses that figure to win and do it without a computer, calculator, or a pencil.
They can do all the figures they want but they are still losers, just about every last one of them. Stop and think a moment about what they are doing. There's a guy with a pair of binoculars watching a race while it's running and he's making an eyeball guesstimate as to where each horse is on the track and how many lengths ahead or behind they are. Now this fact in itself tells us that every thing that is derived from these rough estimates can only be another set of rough estimates. And yet, these handicappers are trying to split hairs in hundredths of a second to find a perfect number that doesn't exist and never will.
When thought about in a logical manner any reasonable person can see that to chase a fart in a windstorm is an exercise in futility and that's what handicapping is. Far from being an exact science, it doesn't even resemble science. No scientist in the world would place his faith in a foundation as shaky as the word of a chart caller.
There are ways to make money playing horses but it damn sure isn't by handicapping numbers. Anybody that tells me they are a success at making money with horse racing by speed and pace handicapping may be fooling themselves but not me.
Further proof lies in what one can see everyday on the internet, in newspapers and other media. There are dozens of "Handicappers" out there giving selections, some paid and some free. A lot of them sell ratings to guide the suckers to the best horses. A bunch of numbers that your supposed to decipher and apply to the horses.
I have subscribed to some of these just to see what goes on with them. One guy gave me 15-20 horses a day and hit for a good percentage but always ended up losing money. Why would anyone pay to have someone give them a bunch of odds on horses when all you have to do is look at the tote board.
Then you have the guys that give you 4 horses in every race at 5-6 different tracks. They advise you to box these at a cost of better than a hundred bucks a race. I don't know about you but I'm not putting up 5 grand a day to bet when these same handicappers have no idea of which horses might win what races.
The above thoughts are something I had posted on another website. Almost every day I am reminded of how true my words were.
Let's just stop and use a little common sense and logic. We know that the public favorites win about 30% of the races. These horses are, for the most part, horses that "Figure" on paper. That is; they are the fastest or classiest or the most consistent. We also know that to play these horses is a losing proposition. You may lose a little slower, but lose you must. So, what really is handicapping? I would suppose it's the art of comparing one horse to another and trying to decide who will beat who. When one undertakes this task decisions must be made as to which of a multitude of factors is going to carry the most weight. When looking back at races that have been run you will find that factor "A" carried the most weight and in the next race factor "A" didn't mean a damned thing but factor "B" did and on down the line it goes.
If one looks at the entries in a race with an experienced eye, most handicappers will come up with virtually the same horses. Oh, they may be a little different in the ranking order but they will be basically the same. The contenders are known and there are a whole bunch of reasons why one of these should win and one of them usually does but I'm only interested in the races they don't win.
So if it's a losing proposition to bet the figures, what is one to do? If you know that a certain percentage of figure horses, (favorites) are going to win, but at much deflated prices, then it's logical to assume that there are other methods that will give a certain % of winners and if they are not the favorites then one can expect to turn a decent profit.
I have devoted the better part of 60 yrs to finding horses that are well meant but have yet to show the form that would cause them to be hammered at the windows. One must learn to ANTICIPATE a big effort from a horse, that is, before it tips it's hand that it's actually in form. Many horses I bet run second or third at big odds but I seldom bet them back because they are usually low odds after the good effort. The only question I ask myself is, "Who's going to run good today?". If your always on horses that are going to try today, although a try doesn't mean they can win, your going to get a certain % that will win. I am constantly getting on horses at 20/1 or more, and even if they run second, I usually pick up a nice exacta.
Horse racing is far from being an exact science but there are so many handicappers out there, and I'm so glad there are for obvious reasons, that are looking for the magic number or the "Holy Grail" which does not exist. I have gotten into it many times with figure players who have the attitude that anything other than figures is totally false. What they don't understand is that I've been there and done that but they have never been where I am. It's sort of like talking to a kid where they can't understand that being near 80 yrs old, I have been where they are, but they can only hope to get where I am now.
In order to beat the races the first thing one must keep in mind is my signature; "People run horse racing, horses just run!". There are so many intrinsic things involved in horse racing, things that have no logical explanation, at least to humans, but may make perfect sense to the horse.
I'm hoping to find time in the near future to expand on this so stay tuned.
Backstretch
I happened to look at my bookshelf yesterday and noticed all the books I have on handicapping. I have read many of them several times, books by Ainslie, Christ, Beyer, Davidowitz, etc., and asked myself if I had learned anything from them. I have been reading and studying handicapping for over fifty years and have come to the conclusion that they are all full of sh*t. I was looking at Modern Pace Handicapping by Brohamer. One must be an MIT graduate to understand what he's talking about. Speed and pace handicappers, and I would bet that 90% of handicappers use that method, go through all those contortions to do what? Come up with the favorite? I can look at a race and in two minutes tell you the horses that figure to win and do it without a computer, calculator, or a pencil.
They can do all the figures they want but they are still losers, just about every last one of them. Stop and think a moment about what they are doing. There's a guy with a pair of binoculars watching a race while it's running and he's making an eyeball guesstimate as to where each horse is on the track and how many lengths ahead or behind they are. Now this fact in itself tells us that every thing that is derived from these rough estimates can only be another set of rough estimates. And yet, these handicappers are trying to split hairs in hundredths of a second to find a perfect number that doesn't exist and never will.
When thought about in a logical manner any reasonable person can see that to chase a fart in a windstorm is an exercise in futility and that's what handicapping is. Far from being an exact science, it doesn't even resemble science. No scientist in the world would place his faith in a foundation as shaky as the word of a chart caller.
There are ways to make money playing horses but it damn sure isn't by handicapping numbers. Anybody that tells me they are a success at making money with horse racing by speed and pace handicapping may be fooling themselves but not me.
Further proof lies in what one can see everyday on the internet, in newspapers and other media. There are dozens of "Handicappers" out there giving selections, some paid and some free. A lot of them sell ratings to guide the suckers to the best horses. A bunch of numbers that your supposed to decipher and apply to the horses.
I have subscribed to some of these just to see what goes on with them. One guy gave me 15-20 horses a day and hit for a good percentage but always ended up losing money. Why would anyone pay to have someone give them a bunch of odds on horses when all you have to do is look at the tote board.
Then you have the guys that give you 4 horses in every race at 5-6 different tracks. They advise you to box these at a cost of better than a hundred bucks a race. I don't know about you but I'm not putting up 5 grand a day to bet when these same handicappers have no idea of which horses might win what races.
The above thoughts are something I had posted on another website. Almost every day I am reminded of how true my words were.
Let's just stop and use a little common sense and logic. We know that the public favorites win about 30% of the races. These horses are, for the most part, horses that "Figure" on paper. That is; they are the fastest or classiest or the most consistent. We also know that to play these horses is a losing proposition. You may lose a little slower, but lose you must. So, what really is handicapping? I would suppose it's the art of comparing one horse to another and trying to decide who will beat who. When one undertakes this task decisions must be made as to which of a multitude of factors is going to carry the most weight. When looking back at races that have been run you will find that factor "A" carried the most weight and in the next race factor "A" didn't mean a damned thing but factor "B" did and on down the line it goes.
If one looks at the entries in a race with an experienced eye, most handicappers will come up with virtually the same horses. Oh, they may be a little different in the ranking order but they will be basically the same. The contenders are known and there are a whole bunch of reasons why one of these should win and one of them usually does but I'm only interested in the races they don't win.
So if it's a losing proposition to bet the figures, what is one to do? If you know that a certain percentage of figure horses, (favorites) are going to win, but at much deflated prices, then it's logical to assume that there are other methods that will give a certain % of winners and if they are not the favorites then one can expect to turn a decent profit.
I have devoted the better part of 60 yrs to finding horses that are well meant but have yet to show the form that would cause them to be hammered at the windows. One must learn to ANTICIPATE a big effort from a horse, that is, before it tips it's hand that it's actually in form. Many horses I bet run second or third at big odds but I seldom bet them back because they are usually low odds after the good effort. The only question I ask myself is, "Who's going to run good today?". If your always on horses that are going to try today, although a try doesn't mean they can win, your going to get a certain % that will win. I am constantly getting on horses at 20/1 or more, and even if they run second, I usually pick up a nice exacta.
Horse racing is far from being an exact science but there are so many handicappers out there, and I'm so glad there are for obvious reasons, that are looking for the magic number or the "Holy Grail" which does not exist. I have gotten into it many times with figure players who have the attitude that anything other than figures is totally false. What they don't understand is that I've been there and done that but they have never been where I am. It's sort of like talking to a kid where they can't understand that being near 80 yrs old, I have been where they are, but they can only hope to get where I am now.
In order to beat the races the first thing one must keep in mind is my signature; "People run horse racing, horses just run!". There are so many intrinsic things involved in horse racing, things that have no logical explanation, at least to humans, but may make perfect sense to the horse.
I'm hoping to find time in the near future to expand on this so stay tuned.
Backstretch
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Horse Forums
There are a few horse racing forums on the internet and I've visited most of them. For the most part they are friendly places where folks get together to express their opinions and select winners.
There is one however, that to enter is to step into a war zone, which in reality means; if you don't subscribe to speed and pace handicapping your regarded as a Neanderthal. They, and only they, have the answers to any and all questions regarding horse racing in any size shape or form
There are numerous characters on there that sell speed and pace ratings and various other useless stuff. A real bunch of hucksters whose main claim to fame is to try to discredit or defame anyone who isn't in the clan. Here's the kicker though, nobody on there actually offers anything constructive, but they do spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tear other people and their ideas apart.
I have been trying for some time to figure the motivation of these kooks and have finally decided it's the colors on the website which are mostly green, as in envy. They are all jealous of anyone with an original idea and are really pissed that they didn't think of it, but most of all, they envy anyone who might be successful ACTUALLY making money by betting. They may be hawking numbers and ratings but that's a far cry from actually picking the winners of races.
Now here's what's really funny. I have had a service for a number of years that bettors subscribe to and I send them my daily selections. Many of these subscribers have been with me for quite a few years. They just pay a monthly fee and they get the plays by e-mail. I have a couple of players that I don't even charge because they send me a % of their winnings. If they didn't make money I don't think they would be paying my fee for years. BUT WHAT I LOVE is that I keep picking up subscribers from that horse racing site. Now that's really funny.
There is one however, that to enter is to step into a war zone, which in reality means; if you don't subscribe to speed and pace handicapping your regarded as a Neanderthal. They, and only they, have the answers to any and all questions regarding horse racing in any size shape or form
There are numerous characters on there that sell speed and pace ratings and various other useless stuff. A real bunch of hucksters whose main claim to fame is to try to discredit or defame anyone who isn't in the clan. Here's the kicker though, nobody on there actually offers anything constructive, but they do spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tear other people and their ideas apart.
I have been trying for some time to figure the motivation of these kooks and have finally decided it's the colors on the website which are mostly green, as in envy. They are all jealous of anyone with an original idea and are really pissed that they didn't think of it, but most of all, they envy anyone who might be successful ACTUALLY making money by betting. They may be hawking numbers and ratings but that's a far cry from actually picking the winners of races.
Now here's what's really funny. I have had a service for a number of years that bettors subscribe to and I send them my daily selections. Many of these subscribers have been with me for quite a few years. They just pay a monthly fee and they get the plays by e-mail. I have a couple of players that I don't even charge because they send me a % of their winnings. If they didn't make money I don't think they would be paying my fee for years. BUT WHAT I LOVE is that I keep picking up subscribers from that horse racing site. Now that's really funny.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Belmont Stakes
I was hoping there might be some more speed in this race but there doesn't seem to be anything that can run with Shackleford. There are a couple with a little speed but nothing to speak of. In addition, even if there is one with enough speed to put a little pressure on Shack, it's doubtful if anyone wants to sacrifice themselves in a speed duel. So what does this say about the race? They are going to have to catch Shack again.
There has been a lot of speculation about the track on Derby day. Some say the slow fractions in the race were slow because of the track. I have a couple of questions concerning that. One is, if the track was so slow that day then how come just about every horse in it got the highest speed rating of their life? It's my opinion that Shack slowed the pace to a crawl and that's the reason the closers, except Animal Kingdom, had so much trouble trying to close. Luckily for Nehro, Nakatani realized how slow they were going and sent Nehro up after Shack but taken out of his element he couldn't hold off Animal in spite of the slow pace. If the pace hadn't been so slow Nehro would never have been chasing the leader so early.
We had almost the same situation in the preakness with Shack controlling the pace again. The difference was that Animal Kingdom had a terrible trip, thanks to JR. Shack stalked the sprinter and when that one folded he was able to back the pace down and with the others so far back Shack managed to hold on.
Here's how I see it; Shack will again go to the lead and slow the pace down. AK and MOH will try to be closer this time and will probably catch him because I don't believe Shack can get the distance of this race unless allowed to go really slow early.
I believe there has been a total misinterpretation of the Derby and Preakness by the numbers guys. Any horse that has a natural high cruising speed that is on the lead and allowed to throttle down is going to be hard to catch. Shack is a horse with a high cruising speed and is a push button horse in that, he can back the pace down when asked and step it right up when the pedal is put to the metal.
In the derby Shack was allowed to slow the pace to a crawl after 6f, and as Nakattani said, if he tried to hold Nehro back any longer he would have probably stopped from being strangled. It matters not what the numbers boys think, the only ones who know if they are ggoing fast or slow are the horses themselves and Nehro said,"We're going too damned slow!". So Shack, in spite of how much he slowed down, and the fact that Nehro who was out of his element being up on the pace, was still able to get by Shack at the end.
In the Preakness, the race started fast but as soon as the sprinter folded and Shack inherited the lead he backed the pace right down again. In both the Derby and Preakness, most of the jocks who were on closers were bound and determined to come from way off the pace come hell or high water. It was to Animal Kingdom's credit that he was able to sustain such a long drive to win the race.
There has always been a lot of talk about the ability of jocks to judge pace and I think those two races show that most can't really tell how fast the race is being run. They were all faked out in the Preakness when the race started so fast and then they didn't realize how much it was being slowed down until it was too late. This was another example of how good the Animal is because, in spite of how far back he was, he damned near won it anyway. Any decent jock can win on the front end with a high cruising push button horse but it takes a real judge of pace to bring a horse home from off the pace. This is why I give a lot of credit to Mike Smith for the enormous success of Zenyatta. He may have slightly misjudged once in awhile but he always managed to get her there in time. This just tells me what a superb jock Mike is, probably the best since Howard Grant and Eddie D. I sincerely believe if Mike was on the Animal he would be virtually unbeatable.
My pedigree horses are Animal Kingdom, Master Of Hounds, Macho Man,Santiva and Stay Thirsty. Nehro has been getting there but I really have my doubts about him getting the distance. Macho Man seems to have run his best races already and is just a tad below the best of these. Stay Thirsty is nicely bred but has yet to show the kind of speed needed.
My selections are;
Animal Kingdom...has shown he can be put into a drive a long way and is the one to beat.
Master Of Hounds....in most of his races has been able to track the leaders..has a great pedigree and can take it all with a good trip.
Santiva...pedigree says he can get this distance...is able to run closer to the pace but was another victimized by the slow pace in the derby...I think he is sitting on a big race...this is my long shot upset possibility
Nehro...don't care too much for his breeding but has been getting close so I can't discount him.
Shackleford...if he's able to control the pace and slow it down enough he can hang in for a piece.
I will use AK in the top 3 positions in the exotics with the other 4 under and over him.
9/1,4,6,12.....1,4,6,12/9/1,4,6,12.....1,4,6,12/1,4,6,12/9
Backstretch
There has been a lot of speculation about the track on Derby day. Some say the slow fractions in the race were slow because of the track. I have a couple of questions concerning that. One is, if the track was so slow that day then how come just about every horse in it got the highest speed rating of their life? It's my opinion that Shack slowed the pace to a crawl and that's the reason the closers, except Animal Kingdom, had so much trouble trying to close. Luckily for Nehro, Nakatani realized how slow they were going and sent Nehro up after Shack but taken out of his element he couldn't hold off Animal in spite of the slow pace. If the pace hadn't been so slow Nehro would never have been chasing the leader so early.
We had almost the same situation in the preakness with Shack controlling the pace again. The difference was that Animal Kingdom had a terrible trip, thanks to JR. Shack stalked the sprinter and when that one folded he was able to back the pace down and with the others so far back Shack managed to hold on.
Here's how I see it; Shack will again go to the lead and slow the pace down. AK and MOH will try to be closer this time and will probably catch him because I don't believe Shack can get the distance of this race unless allowed to go really slow early.
I believe there has been a total misinterpretation of the Derby and Preakness by the numbers guys. Any horse that has a natural high cruising speed that is on the lead and allowed to throttle down is going to be hard to catch. Shack is a horse with a high cruising speed and is a push button horse in that, he can back the pace down when asked and step it right up when the pedal is put to the metal.
In the derby Shack was allowed to slow the pace to a crawl after 6f, and as Nakattani said, if he tried to hold Nehro back any longer he would have probably stopped from being strangled. It matters not what the numbers boys think, the only ones who know if they are ggoing fast or slow are the horses themselves and Nehro said,"We're going too damned slow!". So Shack, in spite of how much he slowed down, and the fact that Nehro who was out of his element being up on the pace, was still able to get by Shack at the end.
In the Preakness, the race started fast but as soon as the sprinter folded and Shack inherited the lead he backed the pace right down again. In both the Derby and Preakness, most of the jocks who were on closers were bound and determined to come from way off the pace come hell or high water. It was to Animal Kingdom's credit that he was able to sustain such a long drive to win the race.
There has always been a lot of talk about the ability of jocks to judge pace and I think those two races show that most can't really tell how fast the race is being run. They were all faked out in the Preakness when the race started so fast and then they didn't realize how much it was being slowed down until it was too late. This was another example of how good the Animal is because, in spite of how far back he was, he damned near won it anyway. Any decent jock can win on the front end with a high cruising push button horse but it takes a real judge of pace to bring a horse home from off the pace. This is why I give a lot of credit to Mike Smith for the enormous success of Zenyatta. He may have slightly misjudged once in awhile but he always managed to get her there in time. This just tells me what a superb jock Mike is, probably the best since Howard Grant and Eddie D. I sincerely believe if Mike was on the Animal he would be virtually unbeatable.
My pedigree horses are Animal Kingdom, Master Of Hounds, Macho Man,Santiva and Stay Thirsty. Nehro has been getting there but I really have my doubts about him getting the distance. Macho Man seems to have run his best races already and is just a tad below the best of these. Stay Thirsty is nicely bred but has yet to show the kind of speed needed.
My selections are;
Animal Kingdom...has shown he can be put into a drive a long way and is the one to beat.
Master Of Hounds....in most of his races has been able to track the leaders..has a great pedigree and can take it all with a good trip.
Santiva...pedigree says he can get this distance...is able to run closer to the pace but was another victimized by the slow pace in the derby...I think he is sitting on a big race...this is my long shot upset possibility
Nehro...don't care too much for his breeding but has been getting close so I can't discount him.
Shackleford...if he's able to control the pace and slow it down enough he can hang in for a piece.
I will use AK in the top 3 positions in the exotics with the other 4 under and over him.
9/1,4,6,12.....1,4,6,12/9/1,4,6,12.....1,4,6,12/1,4,6,12/9
Backstretch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)