Summer Bird could be HOY

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Another behind the times dirt lover who can't come to grips with the NEW PARADIGM.

Kind of sucks that I can WIN, and win at a ridiculously HIGH RATE, playing POLY with NO FIGURES, doesn't it Phil?

My ****in ROI at WO, is RIDICULOUS, bro.

Put down the figures, and join the FAIR RACING club.

Do you read anything or just assume everything? How many times have I disparaged Beyer figures on here as useless and unimportant?

Slow horses, however, should not benefit from ANY surface, and the fact of the matter is SLOW horses win too many races on synthetics.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your ROI is at Woodbine, either.

[Revidere]

I make a motion to have another board. This Rachel Alexandra can do no wrong board is too full.

This is very disturbing. When RA beats a horse like Macho Again, it's a great achievment. When Summer Bird and Quality Road do it, a slow older horse is just a slow older horse and SB has just gotten lucky against some suspect fields. Hmmm. So, when Rachel beats Flashing by 20 lengths it's awe inspiring, even more so when Flashing wins the Test. But the beyer guys are noticeably silent when that Test victory earns a high 80's beyer. And since those guys like to crow about Zenyatta's low beyers and suspect competition, I can honestly say I'm confused about what a good horse is or what a bad horse is, what a fast horse is, or a slow horse is.

All I know is it's October and we've had some real nice performances this year. I would even venture to say it's been a really good year.

Can't we enjoy them all?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Revidere

This is very disturbing. When RA beats a horse like Macho Again, it's a great achievment. When Summer Bird and Quality Road do it, a slow older horse is just a slow older horse

I would suggest perhaps making an effort to learn basic fundamental handicapping skills.


Trader Pete ... like everyone else with an IQ over 40 ... realized that Macho Again was the #1 horse to avoid type bet against coming out of Saratoga.

* Macho Again (Arrived at Saratoga off of a mediocre Grade 1 win in the Foster. His final time that day was 0.16 seconds slower than Miss Isella and Swift Temper went in a similarly paced Grade 2 stake on the same card - at the same distance. I know Miss Isella is a different kind of horse at Churchill and Swift Temper came back to beat Icon Project with a perfect trip next out - but it was still as soft a Grade 1 win as you'll see in the handicap division.

Got a great 116 pace figure to close into when 2nd in the Whitney. In the Woodward, he was more than 15 lengths off of the blistering 22.86 opening quarter .. 8 lengths further back than the horse racing 2nd to last at that stage. In spite of being positioned perfectly and getting a dream run through the pack without looping the field .. he hung badly and never looked like he was going to pass a very softened up Rachel Alexandra at any point. He's less than nothing special .. and his resume looks strong off of his last 3 races.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

Do you read anything or just assume everything? How many times have I disparaged Beyer figures on here as useless and unimportant?

Slow horses, however, should not benefit from ANY surface, and the fact of the matter is SLOW horses win too many races on synthetics.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your ROI is at Woodbine, either.

Maybe the problem, then, PHil, is what I've been alluding to all along: that the METHODOLOGY is flawed. Since these aren't time trials, with horses running individually or restricted to lanes, maybe the 'fastest' notion in terms of a number is not the way to go. If so many SLOW horses are winning on synthetics, then, I know that if I were a trainer or owner, I'd get my stock over there and win a whole bunch of races with my fast dirt horses. That this isn't happening sort of works against the methodology, don't you think?

I mean, arguing that these horses are SLOW is like the learned Jesuits of Galileo's era arguing for an Aristotelian view of the world because the CHURCH told them to save that view at all cost. What exactly is the excuse for all the BEYERITES here continuing to argue that these horses are SLOW? Time for a paradigm shift when your theory leads to ridiculous results.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Maybe the problem, then, PHil, is what I've been alluding to all along: that the METHODOLOGY is flawed. Since these aren't time trials, with horses running individually or restricted to lanes, maybe the 'fastest' notion in terms of a number is not the way to go. If so many SLOW horses are winning on synthetics, then, I know that if I were a trainer or owner, I'd get my stock over there and win a whole bunch of races with my fast dirt horses. That this isn't happening sort of works against the methodology, don't you think?

I mean, arguing that these horses are SLOW is like the learned Jesuits of Galileo's era arguing for an Aristotelian view of the world because the CHURCH told them to save that view at all cost. What exactly is the excuse for all the BEYERITES here continuing to argue that these horses are SLOW? Time for a paradigm shift when your theory leads to ridiculous results.

Beyer's methodology is flawed in that the projection method has allowed the person in charge of assigning the number at each specific track too much leverage in massaging the numbers to make them "fit" what they think should have happened. If a number comes up "too fast" or "too slow" they allow themselves the liberty of splitting the variant multiple times to move the number. That being said, even if the numbers were accurate, it's up to the handicapper to determine how the prior trip affected the number and what today's trip will project. Betting speed figures, even good ones, blind is a road to the poor house- we agree on that. However, what they are supposed to do is separate the contenders from the pretenders. If a trip horse stepping up in class has never run a race within 5 lengths of a winning one for said new level, is he worth a bet at 3-1? 5-1? 10-1? 20-1? None whatsoever?

The problem I have with polytrack is with horses like Fatal Bullet- a horse I happen to like quite a bit having met the owner & trainer and the horse. He is a remarkably good horse on synthetics, obviously, with a record of 8 wins and 2 seconds in 10 starts including a great 2nd in last year's BC Sprint behind an absolute beast. The problem is, he can't even stand up on real dirt. His last two starts on dirt he's gone off at 5-1 and 6-1 and has been beaten a combined 34 lengths even though his early speed should work well on supposedly speed biased real dirt. How is this stuff supposed to be a replacement for dirt when the best horses in the world on poly can't run on real dirt? Conversely, Fabulous Strike, unquestionably one of the world's best sprinters- and beat Fatal Bullet like a drum at Saratoga on real dirt- clearly has problems on synthetic. There are very few Einsteins that perform admirably on both surfaces and a lot more Fatal Bullets and Fabulous Strikes.