Anybody See the 6th at Laurel Today?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He only dropped 6 lengths back after he checked the first time. He fell 10 lengths back after he checked sharply the second time. The horse was literally 10 back at the 5/16th pole.

This is not correct, and will be obvious to anybody that watches the race, and you are making up things to suit your agenda with this horse. I get it. People do this all the time to convince themselves to like a horse more than they should. Kind of like making up excuses for a girlfriend or boyfriend that you don't want to believe is the jerk that it is readily apparent that they are.

[slotdirt]

Who is this blackthroatedwind character?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is not correct, and will be obvious to anybody that watches the race, and you are making up things to suit your agenda with this horse. I get it. People do this all the time to convince themselves to like a horse more than they should. Kind of like making up excuses for a girlfriend or boyfriend that you don't want to believe is the jerk that it is readily apparent that they are.

So you think he fell 6 lengths back because he simply didn't have the speed to stay close? He didn't have enough speed to stay within 2-3 lengths of a :48 half? You think the fastest this horse can run a half is :49? In his debut, he stayed within 5 lengths of a :46 half.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So you think he fell 6 lengths back because he simply didn't have the speed to stay close? He didn't have enough speed to stay within 2-3 lengths of a :48 half? You think the fastest this horse can run a half is :49? In his debut, he stayed within 5 lengths of a :46 half.

I didn't say why he dropped off.....I simply implied it wasn't because he checked. He was mildly tight, and I mean mildly, when they hit the exact start of the turn, but that almost always happens to an inside horse when they are lined up at that point ( which I'm sure you know ).

If I had to guess why he dropped off it was because the jockey ( wisely ) didn't feel a need to go after three horses vying for the lead, so the horse probably dropped back naturally. It isn't as thought the rider was either particularly urging or restraining him....he just seemed to be riding him. If, in fact, he could have stayed closer ( sorry, but we don't know this ), it might not be unfair to say that in retrospect he should have tried to extracate himself form the other horses, but that's in hindsight knowing he was forced to steady.

Look, you got me to waste ten minutes of my life viewing the pan and head-on a few times. I suggest you do the same.

He might improve, but getting excited about his race yesterday doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I didn't say why he dropped off.....I simply implied it wasn't because he checked. He was mildly tight, and I mean mildly, when they hit the exact start of the turn, but that almost always happens to an inside horse when they are lined up at that point ( which I'm sure you know ).

If I had to guess why he dropped off it was because the jockey ( wisely ) didn't feel a need to go after three horses vying for the lead, so the horse probably dropped back naturally. It isn't as thought the rider was either particularly urging or restraining him....he just seemed to be riding him. If, in fact, he could have stayed closer ( sorry, but we don't know this ), it might not be unfair to say that in retrospect he should have tried to extracate himself form the other horses, but that's in hindsight knowing he was forced to steady.

Look, you got me to waste ten minutes of my life viewing the pan and head-on a few times. I suggest you do the same.

He might improve, but getting excited about his race yesterday doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I did watch both the pan and the head-on several times. I agree with alot of what you're saying. The second check was severe. The first check was only slight. The horse actually probably checked himself somewhat because he was in so tight. But I still view that as trouble and something that cost the horse position. And the 2nd check was obviously severe and was something that most horses would not recover from.

With an outside post, I think the horse would have won by 9-10 lengths.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With an outside post, I think the horse would have won by 9-10 lengths.

And I think this is the kind of indefensible wishful thinking that causes people to lose their money. You have a horse that had an otherwise perfect trip, but had three lengths of trouble at most, somehow turning a 1 3/4 length win into a nine to ten length romp. It's typical racetrack over-exaggeration if you ask me.

He was 30 cents to the dollar yesterday. What would have been the appropriate amount of lengths he should have won by with an absolute perfect trip, as you are suggesting, given his competition?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And I think this is the kind of indefensible wishful thinking that causes people to lose their money. You have a horse that had an otherwise perfect trip, but had three lengths of trouble at most, somehow turning a 1 3/4 length win into a nine to ten length romp. It's typical racetrack over-exaggeration if you ask me.

He was 30 cents to the dollar yesterday. What would have been the appropriate amount of lengths he should have won by with an absolute perfect trip, as you are suggesting, given his competition?

I'm not sure I understand your question. How many lengths would he have won by with a perfect trip if he's an average horse or if he's a really good horse? How many lengths did the general public think he'd win by? As you said, they made him 1-3 so they obviously thought he was a stand-out that would win easily. I guess they probably thought he would win by 5-6 lengths.

[blackthroatedwind]

Thus he didn't overachieve. He was about five lengths the best.

I am going to guess that you liked him at the 2YO sale, and perhaps recommended that some people could have or should have purchased him. Therefore, should he turn out to be OK, you will look good and perhaps be able to use this for your benefit. Now, don't get me wrong, if I am correct here, I see nothing wrong with that, and can't imagine what smart person wouldn't do the same. But, I do think it may be clouding your judgement and affecting your objectivity.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

In case anyone was looking for an update on this thread ....

Cowboy Gets Even returned to run 2nd in an ALW race at Laurel. His Beyer did improve 3 points to a 69.

Tempted to Tapit ran 2nd in the Risen Star at 8/1.

[the_fat_man]

$3 to place, $2.40 to show and completed a $15 exacta under the favorite. But, more importantly, he bumped up his Beyer 3 full points.

These are the kind of gems that TROUBLE TRIP handicapping gets you. This is why there's a whole army of bettors out there following the NYRA gang and watching all these races so carefully (for trouble).

Well DONE.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

$3 to place, $2.40 to show and completed a $15 exacta under the favorite. But, more importantly, he bumped up his Beyer 3 full points.

I only mentioned the speed figure part to needle Rupert a little. The horse was very slow on everyones figs - and he said it didn't matter.

That is certainly not a horse I was interested in at all... and certainly not a trip handicappers type of 'look to playback' horse.

In fact, I wasn't even aware that he ran back until earlier tonight when I did a little work on another track. I don't bet Laurel.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you. The field he beat was terrible. There is no question about that. But that doesn't mean he's not a good horse.

Rup, a recap ... the horse sold for 160K in a really tough 2yo sales market last year. His sire stands for just $7,500 - the horse was just a 42K yearling in a far more seller friendly market.

It's not like this is some lowly underdog Laurel based horse like Magic Weisner who we can all root for.

His maiden win came the same day as Tempted To Tapit's...a far less sexy horse (18K yearling who had lost 3 straight maiden races - 2 at Philly and 1 at Delaware)

You started a thread about the slow and sexy prospect saying he could be an interesting one to watch on the Derby Trail...

And when BTW responded that "Tempted To Tapit would beat him by a city block and no one is getting revved up about him" .... you actually responded by saying "it's how they do it, not how fast they run. I don't pay attention to speed figures"

You deserve some needling - not so much for starting a thread about a horse that beat a bad field and still hasn't yet proven he's even good enough to beat Hotep... but for using silly bologna talk on us that should be saved for fooling rich, naive, owners into thinking that its some kind of big advantage that you don't have a good understanding of figures.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Rup, a recap ... the horse sold for 160K in a really tough 2yo sales market last year. His sire stands for just $7,500 - the horse was just a 42K yearling in a far more seller friendly market.

It's not like this is some lowly underdog Laurel based horse like Magic Weisner who we can all root for.

His maiden win came the same day as Tempted To Tapit's...a far less sexy horse (18K yearling who had lost 3 straight maiden races - 2 at Philly and 1 at Delaware)

You started a thread about the slow and sexy prospect saying he could be an interesting one to watch on the Derby Trail...

And when BTW responded that "Tempted To Tapit would beat him by a city block and no one is getting revved up about him" .... you actually responded by saying "it's how they do it, not how fast they run. I don't pay attention to speed figures"

You deserve some needling - not so much for starting a thread about a horse that beat a bad field and still hasn't yet proven he's even good enough to beat Hotep... but for using silly bologna talk on us that should be saved for fooling rich, naive, owners into thinking that its some kind of big advantage that you don't have a good understanding of figures.

I think speed figures are one small piece of the puzzle, no more, no less. What percentage of races are won by the horse who has run the highest speed figure? I bet it's a relatively small percent. It's probably around 30% or less.

Don't get me wrong. Even though I think speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle, I still believe that if a person had access to accurate speed figures and this person was one of the only people using speed figures, this person would have a big edge. But in this day and age, everyone has access to speed figures. Horses with the highest speed figures are usually over-bet. In a game with 16% vig, I think it's pretty tough to get an edge focusing on the same info as everyone else.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think speed figures are one small piece of the puzzle, no more, no less. What percentage of races are won by the horse who has run the highest speed figure? I bet it's a relatively small percent. It's probably around 30% or less.

Don't get me wrong. Even though I think speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle, I still believe that if a person had access to accurate speed figures and this person was one of the only people using speed figures, this person would have a big edge. But in this day and age, everyone has access to speed figures. Horses with the highest speed figures are usually over-bet. In a game with 16% vig, I think it's pretty tough to get an edge focusing on the same info as everyone else.

How about trying this one:
You guys are right the horse either sucks because he is hurt or sucks because he is slow eitherway the people that bought him have a sack of crap. It goes to show you how tough the biz can be. The horse looked great brought great money for his type and became a frog for one reason or another..

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think speed figures are one small piece of the puzzle, no more, no less. What percentage of races are won by the horse who has run the highest speed figure? I bet it's a relatively small percent. It's probably around 30% or less.

Don't get me wrong. Even though I think speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle, I still believe that if a person had access to accurate speed figures and this person was one of the only people using speed figures, this person would have a big edge. But in this day and age, everyone has access to speed figures. Horses with the highest speed figures are usually over-bet. In a game with 16% vig, I think it's pretty tough to get an edge focusing on the same info as everyone else.

You're using an argument that is not applicable here. Using figures to bet the races is completely different than what you did. You overrated a slow horse. You overrated the trouble he had, you exagerated his talents, and then ignored his lack of talent. The figure mattered and you didn't want to admit that it disproved your assessment.

You were wrong before and wrong now. No big deal. I'm publically wrong day after day. But, when proven wrong, you need to accept it...and move on. At least you better in this game.