If you are interested....

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I just don't get where justin's coming from on Hard Spun. For every horse who finishes second in the Derby off a massive top, there are just as many who run equally as well in the Preakness. This just isn't a statistically relevant trend.

While all of these trends are only useful (or total tosses) to the point you are willing to use them, there is some validity to what he said just from a purely statistical view.

I wasn't aware of it until this morning, just how bad it is.

From: http://ntra.com/content.aspx?type=news&id=25389

The Preakness does not seem to elicit nearly as many of those history-based theories, but one that has become difficult to ignore over the last 40-plus years is the performance of second-place Derby finishers in the Preakness. Indeed, Derby runners-up have blazed an abysmal trail when moving from Churchill Downs to Pimlico, as only two of the last 46 have won the Preakness. That's not counting Forward Pass, who was awarded the Derby on disqualification in 1968 and went on to win the Preakness.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

While all of these trends are only useful (or total tosses) to the point you are willing to use them, there is some validity to what he said just from a purely statistical view.

I wasn't aware of it until this morning, just how bad it is.

From: http://ntra.com/content.aspx?type=news&id=25389

I dont know why they wouldnt count Forward Pass as another data pt. The bettors were paid for him as a runner up. And there is no way to know that Forward Pass would have won were it not for the drug...

So it's more like 4 data pts. out of 36, hardly a groundswell but not a death sentence either.