Post 20
 

Now 2 for 16 in the Derby: 12.5%

It really is not that bad of a post. I rather be there than in the 1 or 2. He has a wide trip but a clear one.

thats fine if you have that much horse under you.

Of all the issues, post position was the least of my concerns. Going 10f at Churchill, post is never an issue. Being 3-4 wide is absolutely meaningless.

this is of course completely untrue.

I don't think so. There are so many things that go on during a race that being one or two paths out further than desired is not that big a difference to me. I'd rather be outside an extra path and be in the clear than be on the inside and maybe having to steady or be blocked in.

If you think you have the best horse. You try to prepare him to run his race and not to depend on luck, If you have the best horse the only luck is bad luck.The best way to avoid bad luck is to be on the outside.

Just to clarify, being 3 or 4 wide -- around both turns -- is absolutely meaningless?

Thanks.

Eric

That was one of the reasons he was a toss for me. I didn't think he would be able to handle being wide near the front of what I thought was going to be a very fast pace. Let alone the whole way around. At the half I thought I was going to be ok, waiting for the Col Johns and Pyro's to show up. Boy was I wrong. I also didn't expect him to rate as nicely as he did. I thought Kent would have had a stranglehold on him. All I can do is just tip my hat, they ran a big race.

Unless you believed that the winner was going to be a horse that went wire to wire on the rail, any horse that was going to win was going to come from off of the rail. So how much different is it going two wide around a turn as opposed to three? How much different is three as opposed to four. Colonel John was the second choice and he was coming from post 10 so that means that he was going to be wide also. Because of BB's early speed, I had just assumed that he would get a better trip than Colonel John. I figured on every major contender being 3-5 wide around the turns no matter how the race played out so it wasn't a consideration in my handicapping.

People make such a big deal about him being in post 20. I've heard countless times how a horse hadn't won from that post since 1929. How many have started from that post since then? How many of those that started in post 20 were horses that were considered legit contenders going in? Those factors are more relevant than just saying it hasn't been done in 79 years.

good point. you always have a runner in post 1, but obviously the # will go lower the further out from the rail.

Unbridled's Song broke from post 20... he ran a good race too considering he had bar shoes on.

This is good for an early morning chuckle.

From Equibase:
Saturday at Churchill:

Race 1-winner was 3 wide
Race 2-winner was 6 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 3-runner up was 3 wide and lost by a neck
Race 4-winner was 4 wide, runner up was 3 wide, show horse was 3 wide
Race 6-runner up was 4 wide and lost by a neck
Race 8-winner was 3 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 10-winner was wide (Big Brown)
Race 11-winner was 3 wide

So of nine dirt races, the winner was at least 3 wide in six of them. In two more, horses that were at least that wide lost by a neck. In three of them, the exacta was completed by horses that were at least three wide.

You can't think this makes your point useful do you?

Nope. Obviously, if a horse goes 3 wide or more, he has no chance of winning. Everyone knows that all horses that win from off the pace do so while racing down on the rail.

I'll continue to not worry about horses that run wide. It's worked for me for years. There is a reason why many trainers prefer for their horses to be outside of others.

i've seen winners come from off the pace, and winners go wire to wire.
I'm now declaring pace to also be meaningless.

I've seen horses win on dirt, I've seen horses win on turf and I've seen horses winning synthetics. I'm now declaring racing surface to be meaningless.

I've seen gray, brown, chestnut and dark brown horses all win races. I determine colors to be meaningless.

If nothing else, you all are good for a laugh.

Look, all things being equal, a horse on the inside has a shorter path to run. I do realize this. But how often are all things equal? Horses down on the inside may not lose the same ground on turns that horses that go wide do but they often encounter different problems that have a way of evening things out. A horse down on the inside may have to check or steady and lose some lengths there. A horse on the inside may be running on a heavier part of the track. There are many different things that happen in a race that have a way of evening things out and in my opinion, being three wide is not as big a deal as most people make it. It's not ideal but it's not the kiss of death either. How much ground is lost by going five wide on the turn at Churchill as opposed to three wide? A lot of people also don't realize that it varies from track to track. Being five wide at Belmont is not the same as being five wide at Santa Anita because of the track layouts. I just think it's overblown. But hey, whatever works for you is fine.

jim made a good point. pace is important.

i assume you're just piling on king and completely missed the point. or actually think color is important.

Just a hint, in case you ever want to bet and hope to have a chance to win, do not believe the " wide " comments in charts. Where the charts claimed horses are often is in the stretch, and even that is exagerated, and they do not accurately portray where horses were on the turn(s) and are thus massively misleading in terms of ground loss.

Watch races.....don't believe the charts. Make it your mantra.

try winning form the 10 hole at belmont this spring...at 1 mile and 1/8th on the turf.....

Bet? What is that? Tell me more about this betting thing.

Charts are not completely accurate? Nonsense.

Why the hell would I ever watch a race? Why should I end my streak of not watching races and not ever betting at 22 years? That would be stupid.

Obviously, different distances on different tracks will determine where you want to be at certain points on the track. But what you are talking about here is something totally different. The hole you break from doesn't necessarily correlate to where you will be on the track. For instance, breaking from the #20 post in the Derby won't effect Street Sense as much as Hard Spun because of the style of race they run. Starting from the 10 post in a mile race at SA will be different than starting from the 10 at 10f there. Do you think that the 10 at 9f on the turf at Belmont is going to effect Better Talk Now? I don't.

You missed my point completely.

You used inaccurate information to attempt to make a point.

No, I got your point. And it was a good one. I just thought it could have been better made without the insinuation that I must not bet on races because if I was to actually bet and feel the effects of my opinions, I'd have different ones. Or that if I do bet, that I don't win. And saying I don't watch races could have been left out too.

I actually didn't mean it that way. I realize it looks that way but I meant it as a general statement. In other words, anyone that wants to bet and not lose needs to watch the races and not believe chart comments.

And I agree. Watching is the best option always. Charts alone only tell part of the story. In this instance, I wasn't trying to use them to say exactly how wide the horses were, only that they were probably out further in the track than the horses they were going around.

Getting back to Big Brown, I didn't expect him to be on the lead so in visualizing the race, I automatically figured that he'd be coming 3-4 wide around the first turn and 2-3 wide around the second turn and that it wouldn't play a part in the outcome.

One thing I also want to add is that I think sometimes people look at the post and forget that there is a long run into the first turn at Churchill. Through the stretch, he ran no further from the 20 hole than the horse did from the 2, the 10, or the 15. By the time they get to the first turn, because of his speed, he could have a better position than a horse that breaks from the inside but has horses come over on him and has to take back and go around them.

Actually, not to nitpick, but my point is the charts exagerate more often than not. I realize the charts in KY will probably change with the unfortunate recent passing of their chart caller, but I can't tell you the number of horses that were listed in charts as six wide, or even eight wide, that were actually on the inside or two path on the turn, only to angle out in the stretch.

Personally, I am not a big ground loss guy, and that is one of the reasons I have major problems with the Sheets and Thorographs. Obviously I understand the concept of more ground being covered, but there is a great deal more going on concerning racetrack placement that can often make ground loss very misleading.

Ummm....I think you missed the point that Jim and Travis were trying to make.

I didnt miss any point ****ers

how bout this, would you rather have your horse running two wide with horses inside and outside of him, or four wide with only horses inside of him? I have noticed over almost 30 years of horse ownership and watching races the horse running in between horses almost always do not give there best efforts and in fact if you notice a horse making his best move while between horses he will almost invariably improve in his next start all being equal.

so then...color is a factor in your handicapping?

Poor Lori

yes that and length of the jockeys dick are my two highest ROI producing handicapping methods.

damn, i only get the regular drf....i feel so cheated!

:D

Do you look at the Trakus charts for KEE? You'd probably be as surprised as I was at the number of winners running significantly LESS than the others in the race.

Ground covered goes a long way towards explaining trips; both good and bad.

Too bad the industry is light years away from accurate data, including ground covered (which eliminates, to a great extent, the part of the trip process dealing with position on the turns.)

I agree that ground loss can be mis-leading in certain situations (such as the Fair Grounds turf course this winter, or Keeneland early on when every horse was travelling in the 5 path or out), but when the difference between winning and losing is inches, the shortest distance to the finish line can be very important.