|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-25-2006, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Saucon: I apologize for misidentifying which Carmouche it was. I have recieved some conflicting emails, but the ones from Louisiana identify yesterdays jock as the "fog" boy. When doing my research many articles also had it wrong. My fault.
Hoss: I agree the horse had no on paper chance. What the others are missing is HOW fast he ran. I have used up my Thorograph privileges but if you go to their redboard room I would be interested in his previous. I see 15's at best and yesterday he put up a 5??? AP Jim: I love other peoples opinions and value yours. Your analysis of the horse is spot on. I would add front bandages are added as a precaution by most trainers when their horses move from one track to another, experience turf, or dirt, for the first time, or drop in selling price, and in these cases generally, should not be viewed as a negative. Paying attention to detail is indeed what unlocks the holy grail of value. By the way your selection of the horse that finished second is somewhat enigmatic. I realize Amoss trained, but I would urge you avoid; playing any horse on short rest, dropping way back in distance, picking up huge weight, and at a short price. Hooves: I apologized for my post a few weeks back, that was intended as private and see little reason for your continued animosity. I do not attempt to talk down to people. FYI: buzzers are used primarily on rainy/sloppy days for three big reasons. Dan your post is terriffic. Some horses run from the joint and some do not. Same as blinkers on. Most cappers go foolishly go to the DRF statistic and it is, as false a stat as in the drf. I once again apologize for besmirching the elder Carmouche; it was unintentional. BBB 
|
|
#2
12-25-2006, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Regarding your comments about my selection? All I can say is that sometimes horses do win on short rest, cutting back and putting on weight. You can't just assume that when those conditions are present the horse can't win. Its all relative to the competition. And personally I don't know why you call 4.4 to 1 a short price. He was the fourth favorite in a field of eight. The horse that did barely beat him ran a new top figure that you yourself can hardly believe and my horse was clear of the third place horse by six lengths. I do not look back on that race and kick myself for betting the wrong horse. BTW I handicapped the entire card and posted it on another site. I had five winners and two seconds out of the ten races.
|
|
#3
12-26-2006, 10:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Direct Splash's best Thorograph figure before Sunday was a 9. That number doesn't match up with the best figures put forward by the rest of the field (6-7)-- but their form is only sporatically good at best as well. His comebacker after the break was a turf try (conditioning? failed experiment? either way it didn't work). His form improved markedly once the wraps came off at Delta last out. Note also that in his first five starts he never broke a 19, then all the sudden in two races in December of last year he raced once earning a 20, and came right back on short rest to earn a 10 -- that indicates to me that he's capable of taking huge jumps forward in form at just about any time even if they are without any consistency. Given that his career best figure easily puts him within a half-dozen lengths of the other horses' respective best figures, and given the inconsistent nature of all of the entrants figures -- he could very well have been seen as an exotics contender at a fat price. Once you add in the track condition, it appears that it was the sort of race where anything could happen -- and it did. The runner-up Saucey Tiger was coming off of both of his career top numbers (6) in his 36th and 37th career starts....given the nature of that improvement at that stage in his career....it would not be an asylum-worthy thought to wonder how many more times this horse could pair up that effort. The favorite Setemup Joe had figures that were generally better (6-9), and some modicum of consistency that was lacking in the rest of the field. However, his off-track performances indicate that with track conditions like Sunday's, he was more likely to toss a figure somewhere around 11 or 12, which we've already established would not be good enough to beat Direct Splash's best. Second choice Cutoff Time doesn't seem to have too much going for him on paper outside of the trainer change.....so there are some glaring holes in that one too. Finally, to your beef with him running a better time than Teuflesburg....that can easily be explained. Look at who that two-year old was up against. He most likely wouldn't have needed to run any better than an 8 or a 9 to win that stakes race, as only the second choice Probation Ready had run a number that would be competitive if Teuflesburg ran a 9 (which seems likely, as it's generally about his "par" race. He pops better numbers and slouches off at worse numbers, but it is not crazy to believe that he would run an 8 or 9 in the stakes race Sunday as that number is basically his "average"). Given all of this -- it seems likely that Direct Splash, with the lead, the slop, and the rail probably only improved his best figure by a point or two at best -- I wouldn't be shocked for his Thorograph figure from Sunday to come back around a 7. It would certainly fit. I would never have played him, but given all of the intangibles, it certainly was not the most shocking outcome we will ever see in this lifetime...certainly not the type that merits the sort of dickhead post that started this thread. It all sounds like a lot of losing tickets and sour grapes to me. Quote:
Last edited by paisjpq : 12-26-2006 at 01:36 PM.
|
|
#4
12-26-2006, 11:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
nice job brian spencer..
|
|
#5
12-26-2006, 11:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by paisjpq : 12-26-2006 at 01:36 PM.
|
|
#6
12-26-2006, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim: I was not using the front bandage comments for this case in particular. Most handicappers view there addition as negative, and that is often not always the case.
As far as 4-1 being good odds, they are not to me. I am strictly a pick 4 player. Other than my posted pick 4's, I played a horse everyday at Keeneland (Fall meet). I made maybe six or eight other win bets thruout the year (either $20, $50 or $100 increments) and, made a handful of bets when I lost early in a pick 4 and "liked" a price in a later leg using win and/or trifecta pools. I try and often succeed to get odds of at least 40-1 and hopefully 100-1 or more on those pick 4 bets, by "bending". My smallest hit was $118? when Silver Train won the Met Mile. My bet was posted on TG, cost $8 and most of the board posted the winning ticket. (the other 3 legs were turf heats with the rails way out and all were won by wire to wire favorites). My largest was $10,265 on a $32 ticket at Oaklawn (posted @ dmtc) on a 4x4x2x1 configuration. I was lucky running 1,2,3,4 in each of the first two legs with the longest priced horse winning both legs. The next smallest was $480 opening night at Delmar on a $12 wager winning both stakes by a nostril and next largest at Louisiana Downs, hitting twice on consecutive Sundays; once for $2000 ($36) and once for $379 three times, when they paid 3 of 4 on a $18 configuration. The "Nottawasaga" $969 pick 4 @ Keeneland (dmtc) ( I made almost as much on the win bet!) and another paid $706.40 on 3/12/06 at Oaklawn that I do not recall were under a grand. Oddly the six others, paid between $1026 and $1473, on bets from $16 to $36. When I bet $48 tickets, about ten times, I lost every time. I estimate maybe 65 pick 4 plays. I had a career year. I never (anymore) get sour grapes and seldom lose my objectivity. I also do not cherry pick playing almost every Sunday on the best Midwest track running. Getting back to Direct Splash you and/or Brianspenc said that DS ran a life time top by a couple of TG points. ( He did). Question: How many horses ever have run a new lifetime top by ten to fifteen lengths in their 17th start after an X x x pattern? Answer: None. Do I think Carmouche plugged the horse in? Absolutely. Does Carmouche have a track record indicating such behavior? Absolutely. I recieved some emails from some Nola people, all of them concurring and several suggested he buzzed the horse the last time the horse won. The TG people had some interesting posts. One by a very good capper related that in the late 80's in Louisiana in a 6f, 12 horse field, after they were all loaded the starter announced that the stewards called down and said they knew a rider had a joint. But if the rider dropped it there would be no investigation! The gate opened and the assistant starters found seven batteries. I do not know how to paste, cut or copy. Nice job in the slop Jim w/5of 10. My last bet of the year will be in the Malibu tonite and you did not mention the horse I like! Perhaps he is a scratch. Good cappin. BBB
|
|
#7
12-26-2006, 06:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Are you implying that he ran a new lifetime top by 10 lengths (you say 'he did')? That is implying that his TG figure is going to be somewhere around a 0 or a -1 as at that distance each TG point equals roughly one length. We all know that the likelihood of his TG number coming back at 0 or below 0 is about ten trillion to one. We also know that he would be running in graded stakes races were that the case. So how do you create this conjecture that he ran a lifetime top by "ten to fifteen" lengths? Let's leave the anecdotes out in favor or numbers and handicapping for a minute. The stories are all good and great and I enjoy them terribly, but the reality remains that on paper -- he wasn't entirely hopeless. Wasn't the first $100+ horse...won't be the last. Doesn't make them all cheaters. Last edited by brianwspencer : 12-26-2006 at 06:12 PM.
|
|
#8
12-26-2006, 06:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In anther post of yours, you related your "expertise" was specialzed on midwestern area tracks including Fairgrounds. You also obviously post on some Louisiana based horse forum. Yet now you demonstrate disdain for Cajun state racing? Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense. None. How can you focus so very hard ("all with lots of homework," you said), play one ticket in a week and even remotely consider playing there? It just seems every post you make circles back to a nice win you accomplished. What I found least appealing was the title you chose for the post, "Fixed Race ..." Not, "Odd looking race ...," etc.... Bottom line is you do not know what happened. Do you?
|
|
#9
12-27-2006, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
B spencer Sorry for the foray into Thorograph and muddying the waters. Lets use Beyers:
Beyerwise Direct Splash is at best a 70 horse, with lousy form (your assessment that he improved dramatically in his last is mostly meritless, his time would not have beat $4000 claimers on the same card) and could not be expected to run his lifetime best given that form. Three winners on the same card also won their last. High adventure (last race Beyer 88), Teuflesberg (86) and Nowand forever (97). All won impressively. Lets foolishly assume Beyerwise all regressed. Direct Splash was faster than all of these. If he Beyered as low as 80 he improved roughly fifteen lengths. His win price dictates the owners, the exercise boy and the jock were all that were in on it. The win price caught my attention, the horses pp's and subsequent final time confirmed the fix. STS I love the Fairgrounds and adore Louisiana Downs but hold disdain for Evangeline and Delta and bet them once or twice every decade or so. Similarly, I relish Keeneland and CD but do not care for Ellis or Latonia. My "circuit" would be the best midwest track running. I posted my successes because this will be my last post for a week or more (vacation) and all the flack I recieved questioning my hits. I have some very interesting theories on playing the pick 4 and would rather have shared them than defend myself even if it was my best year. One of my techniques I employ I have termed "bending" (the ticket) and it is as much statistical as it is handicapping. I hold a degree in finance from the university of Ky (13 yrs and they give you a diploma to get rid of you, gpa 2.08 thank you). and one of my professors in ststistics gave me a head start. "Bending" minimizes investment while maximizes payoffs!! As far as What happened I do not know. But I can guarantee Sylvester will not be charged. Louisiana only has 4 million people and it would be hard to find twelve impartial jurors regarding this case out of such a small pool. LOL Congrats to the pick 4 players in Arcadia last night, good solid analysis by all with a winner to boot. Nice work. Also over the last year, 99% of the horses that Wayne Lukas worked has had the same comments from everyone..." sharp early speed, dull finish" I do think "pegasus is a very nice colt and if he moves on will be a nice 3yo. Happy new year to all. Good cappin. BBB
|
|
#10
12-27-2006, 01:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I still take issue with your contention that he improved 15 lengths, as that would make his TG figure a negative number, which is impossible. I haven't pulled up the TG sheets again for this post, but I also believe that he had some 3-5w trips in the recent past and hugged the rail with a mostly uncontested lead in this one. I DO know that Teuflesburg's par number is about an 8 or a 9 from looking at the sheets yesterday. That makes his par about the same as Direct Splash's best race. So if Teuflesburg runs his par (which is all he needed to do to win that race), and Direct Splash runs his top, then by all means Direct Splash could have been faster by fractions of a second. Perhaps in the DRF there was no way, using Beyers, that you could have had this horse even coming close -- but that would prove the folly of relying on Beyer numbers. There were certainly hints in the TG numbers that the horse could run a big one and contend, while there were not only hints, but glaring items tarnishing the race's favorites' form. I just don't think that any of it points to as you say, "confirm[ing] the fix." That's pure conjecture on your part, and the more we dig into the numbers of the whole thing, the more it looks like wild and false conjecture. Do you get this way everytime a $100 horse wins? They normally don't look the winner on paper --- or they wouldn't be $100 horses in the first place -- they're animals, not machines and therefore anything can happen. So when a race unfolds like Sunday's race and there are some signs on paper (as I've laid out quite brilliantly more than once, may i add) that it was not an impossibility -- you have to just let it be what it is...an upset.
|
|
#11
12-27-2006, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW, the more you explain your wagering techniques and successes the more unbelievable it becomes. You're in a hole, I would just stop digging. It sounds like interesting stuff but the successes ($1,800 > $32,000) are not believable to me.
|
Hybrid Mode
