Rite Moment & Laysh Laysh Laysh
 

Aqueduct 2/18- Laysh Laysh Laysh ...had a little traffic trouble

Aqueduct 2/9- Rite Moment... forgot to start running when the gate opened, still finished a closing second.


We'll see how they do (and where they are spotted) next time out.

I agree on the prices though both certainly did encounter unnecessary trouble. In terms of Rite Moment, if Contessa waits for a race like the Distaff BC and an out of town shipper comes back then the price may be decent.

NT

Rite Moment obviously was at least several lengths better than the ( weak ) field she lost to the other day. However, I am dubious as to how long she will maintain her form. If she is to be taken at face value then she could have a solid year. I'll believe it when I see it.

Laysh Laysh Laysh would have won with a very good trip if he managed to get clear ( and win which is questionable ). I'm not particularly thrilled with anyone in that race. I know the Beyer fig was solid but I'll take a wait and see approach. The inner is creating a lot of figs I have trouble with.

Don't you ever have anything nice to say?

No he doesn't , and Andy is right about Laysh, worst ride I've seen at Aqueduct all Winter IMO

:rolleyes:

Entered on Thursday's 8th race at Aqueduct. 2-1 morning line, so we'll see if there's any value here.

8th race - Aqueduct - March 06, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
4 Rite Moment 4.90 3.10 2.60
6 Morning Gallop 6.50 3.50
3 Bold Assurance 3.90


$2 Exacta 4-6 31.20
$2 Trifecta 4-6-3 137.50
$2 Grand Slam 1/2/4/5/7-4/5/7-1/2/5-2/4 (4 correct) 18.00


Won for fun...

The moment was right but the price wasn't. Good one, otherwise.

Not that it mattered but I thought Stewie Elliot's ride was a hoot in that race.

Every day I see him ride Smarty Jones looks better and better.

I had a much better opinion of Elliot when I didn't get to watch him ride as often.

I hear you. The same happened to me when he came to NY for the winter of 2005. I had never seen him ride and gave him the benefit of the doubt......and then I saw his performance.

Matt Carothers of TVG went on and on about what a great rider Stewart Elliott is after the Broadway last Sunday. He talked about what a great gate rider Stewie is- WRONG, then he talked about how tough he is to get by in the stretch- WRONG.

Take Asmussen away from Stewie and he wins at 10% maybe.

NT

Laysh Laysh Laysh to go in Gotham...with good ole Mario aboard

I really thought Bartola would be there if not win the race. When she pressed the pace with Devil House for the first half mile, I knew she was done.

The whole mindset of TV handicappers going on and on about riders is nothing more than a substitution for lack of work and handicapping accumen. If you truly handicap the races, and have a general understanding of them, you don't even have time for filler on riders....much less any interest in discussing them.

As for crediting riders, when the absolute credit belongs with the horse 95% of the time, and any real human credit probably belongs to the training staff, I just won't ever get it. I guess it's all part of generally leading people in the wrong direction.

Watch Desormeaux's ride on A Bee C yesterday in the last at GSP. He was bound to get wide, then he decides to use the horse to gain the lead, then he decides he cant get the lead so he hangs himself 5 wide around the track. It was a criminal ride. In Kent's case the jockey should always be considered when making a wager

You really need to watch the replay again. This time, a bit more objectively. While he was wide both turns and without cover on the backstretch, Kent rode the horse flawlessly otherwise. He never asked on the turn and just went with the pace. If he tries for the lead or bids prematurely on the turn, as most of these jock normally do, he's dead. Instead, he just went with the flow and lost because he had a wider trip than the others. Then again, breaking from the 12 hole and not having enough speed to do what the 13 did, clear the field, it was expected he'd be wide. Kent is guilty of some terrible rides; this wasn't one of them, however.

If the 6 horse, don't remember his name, wasn't hemmed in the whole stretch, and was able to extricate himself sooner, he would have won.....albeit with a perfect trip.

TFM, he used the horse for no reason coming down the backside. He ran up to either get postion, or the lead, instead he ran up and idled. That move in its self left the horse nothing in the stretch. Im pretty objective when I watch rides, and although it may not be one of his worst, it certainly cost the horse any chance to win

No doubt. But let's try an experiment. Compare the trip of this horse vis a vis that of Must be Gold, GP-02-28-08_R1. Who would you want to bet next out with your last dollar?

Here's how I've settled into looking at things. I can watch races very closely and notice many subtle things that I feel cost a horse a race. And, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this approach, as it's worked for me in the past and I still rely on it AFTER I've identified a potential big race by a horse. Or, I can look at broader issues; specifically, how did the horse perform given the way the race was run?

I then have 2 options: I can make 'excuses' for horses that didn't get the best of trips but didn't exactly put in stellar performances, either (for an example, we have Smokin Rosell, today's 6th at GP ---why did some feel she had bad trips last 2 races?)
OR
I can pick out the trips where a horse ran huge in spite of the race setup or trip/ride. Now, it might seem, at first glance, that the 2nd option would typically involve only chalk. Not the case, however. If you focus on horses that ran exceptionally given the shape of the race, you'll typically get a good performance next out at decent odds. To do this, you need to be able to 'view' the entire race, not just the numbers or trip of the individual horse.

My $.02 for what it's worth.

kent is one of the best in the world. he made me TONS OF MONEY AT SARATOGA AND EVEN MORE AT BELMONT SPRING.. BEFORE SARATOGA.