Post 20

King Glorious · #1 05-05-2008, 03:28 PM

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.

ArlJim78 · #2 05-05-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

King Glorious · #3 05-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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.

jpops757 · #4 05-05-2008, 04:54 PM

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.

ELA · #5 05-05-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

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

Thanks.

Eric

MaTH716 · #6 05-05-2008, 08:30 PM

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.

King Glorious · #7 05-06-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELA

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

Thanks.

Eric

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.

Danzig · #8 05-06-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

Antitrust32 · #9 05-06-2008, 09:07 AM

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

Travis Stone · #10 05-06-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Being 3-4 wide is absolutely meaningless.

This is good for an early morning chuckle.

King Glorious · #11 05-06-2008, 10:07 AM

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.

freddymo · #12 05-06-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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?

King Glorious · #13 05-06-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

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.

ArlJim78 · #14 05-06-2008, 10:40 AM

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

Travis Stone · #15 05-06-2008, 11:16 AM

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.

blackthroatedwind · #16 05-06-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

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.

hoovesupsideyourhead · #17 05-06-2008, 11:46 AM

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

King Glorious · #18 05-06-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

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

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.

King Glorious · #19 05-06-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

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.

blackthroatedwind · #20 05-06-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

You missed my point completely.

You used inaccurate information to attempt to make a point.