134th Preakness Field Close to Set

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by gales0678

just think how much more this horse would have looked better in those 4 races if a former NYRA jockey wasn't riding this horse last year in CAD

Marty,

I'm sorry... Not trying to be flippant or insulting, but please try to restructure this into a comprehensible sentence. I've read it 8 times and have yet to decipher its' intent. I'm confident it includes our neighbor to the North ('CAD'); Chantel Sutherland ('former NYRA jockey') and Mine That Bird ('this horse' x 2).

Other than that, I'm stymied.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Marty,

I'm sorry... Not trying to be flippant or insulting, but please try to restructure this into a comprehensible sentence. I've read it 8 times and have yet to decipher its' intent. I'm confident it includes our neighbor to the North ('CAD'); Chantel Sutherland ('former NYRA jockey') and Mine That Bird ('this horse' x 2).

Other than that, I'm stymied.

steve - the wording is bad , i tried to edit it 1x and botched it again, i am paranoid about using the edit button too much on one post because of comments from the peanut gallery

what i'm trying to say to lori is this - chantal rode the horse last year in CAD , maybe if a better jockey was on MTB in the WO races he would have even won by more in those races and thus looked better in the form

she a great looking gal , no question about it , but there was a reason that she had to move back to CAD no? was she getting a lot of business down here? there were some pretty crazy rides by her down here at NYRA , i think even some people pointed it out on this board. Did i watch all the races at Wo for MTB no , i can only specualte that maybe she won races because the horse was simply the best , but , maybe another jock would have moved MTB up even more

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by gales0678

what i'm trying to say to lori is this - chantal rode the horse last year in CAD , maybe if a better jockey was on MTB in the WO races he would have even won by more in those races and thus looked better in the form

she a great looking gal , no question about it , but there was a reason that she had to move back to CAD no? was she getting a lot of business down here? there were some pretty crazy rides by her down here at NYRA , i think even some people pointed it out on this board. Did i watch all the races at Wo for MTB no , i can only specualte that maybe she won races because the horse was simply the best , but , maybe another jock would have moved MTB up even more

There are worse riders, but overall, she's a bit of hazard out there. She rode the horse OK at Woodbine. Her ride in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile though was dreadful. The kid in New Mexico rode him lousy too and further darkened any form/potential anyone could possibly have uncovered as a result. He looked like a horse that hadn't progressed a step from 2 to 3.

Had any of us covering the race bothered to ask Borel or Woolley their strategy beforehand, it might have come out that they were changing their approach with him by planning to take back and come with one run. And even knowing that there was still little to go on to bet him as anything more than a super/high five filler.

They sought out Borel as his jock for a reason, as Woolley and Calvin told ATR this week. And I talked extensively with Jerry Hissam, Borel's agent, Monday, and he had some interesting background to add as well. As Baffert said, they had a plan and they got the racetrack and path they needed to execute it and the horse was ready and willing. Amazing really.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Kasept

There are worse riders, but overall, she's a bit of hazard out there. She rode the horse OK at Woodbine. Her ride in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile though was dreadful. The kid in New Mexico rode him lousy too and further darkened any form/potential anyone could possibly have uncovered as a result. He looked like a horse that hadn't progressed a step from 2 to 3.

Had any of us covering the race bothered to ask Borel or Woolley their strategy beforehand, it might have come out that they were changing their approach with him by planning to take back and come with one run. And even knowing that there was still little to go on to bet him as anything more than a super/high five filler.

They sought out Borel as his jock for a reason, as Woolley and Calvin told ATR this week. And I talked extensively with Jerry Hissam, Borel's agent, Monday, and he had some interesting background to add as well. As Baffert said, they had a plan and they got the racetrack and path they needed to execute it and the horse was ready and willing. Amazing really.

Steve - you bring up a good point here , things like this happens a lot in racing , the trainer knows he has the goods sometimes and doesn't want to show them off until a later race (this is not cheating imo, some others may disagree), what's more perfect than the KY Derby (big pools)

As people pointed out the horse should have been 200/1 or more , yet he was only 50/1 (this should have set off alarm bells as the tote-board don't lie)

[TheSpyder]

At 50/1 does anyone know just how much was $ was on the horse to win?

[gales0678]

the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag

its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher

it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that

[blackthroatedwind]

The bettors on the Derby understand the pps as well as you understand the mathematics.

[Gander]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag

its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher

it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that

The problem with this is the winner's odds werent the only odds that were "too low" and should have signaled alarms in your head.

What about General Quarters (8/1), Hold Me Back (12/1) and Chocolate Candy (9/1)? All huge underlays and justifiably low enough for you to say, someone has a lot of money bet on that horse. I dont think any of these ran particularly good.

How, as a bettor, can you use this theory to your advantage in a race like the Derby? I dont think you can.

Two horses whose odds were pretty decent, if not overlays, ran 2nd and 3rd (PON and Musket Man).

It may have worked in the 7th at Belmont that same day with Top it (6/1 screamed bet me), but I dont think this theory ever works in a race like the Derby. Too many horses and too many people who bet only once a year are involved.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the pool are huge , who knows the actual $ amount , the point is if a horse was 50/1 and in theory he should have been 200/1 maybe 300/1 maybe 500/1 based on his form - poeple who make their own internal odds should have seen this as a red flag

its no different than say if a horse is even money on the board and his form suggests he s/b 4/1 or higher

it all can't be explained by someone picking a favorite # like 8 or picking a favorite jockey like Borel - those types wagers would be small , by hunch players , i mean is someone going to really bet 50k to win on a horse if 8 is there favorite number or borel is their favorite jockey - that i can't believe , this stable had to make a big score - and good for them nothing wrong with that

ummmm... didnt the trainer say he bet on another horse so he'd have the gas money to drive back to NM.

You are becoming worse than michael Moore, Marty.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

Steve - you bring up a good point here , things like this happens a lot in racing , the trainer knows he has the goods sometimes and doesn't want to show them off until a later race (this is not cheating imo, some others may disagree), what's more perfect than the KY Derby (big pools)

As people pointed out the horse should have been 200/1 or more , yet he was only 50/1 (this should have set off alarm bells as the tote-board don't lie)

I 100% disagree with this though... Its crazy to think they were hiding his potential to get in the Derby.

Wooley to jock in NM "Hey make sure you stiff this ride because we're going to pay 100 bucks in the Derby... eventhough there is a good chance he wont get in the derby with his earnings.. lots of horses have to drop out... still.. make sure you ride for 4th at best."

[Gander]

I also think its very possible the connections had a good amount of money on their $100 horse, but my guess is to make this horse 51/1 required more money than they bet. You dont honestly think these guys accounted for more than 2 or 3 percent of the win pool do you?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I 100% disagree with this though... Its crazy to think they were hiding his potential to get in the Derby.

Wooley to jock in NM "Hey make sure you stiff this ride because we're going to pay 100 bucks in the Derby... eventhough there is a good chance he wont get in the derby with his earnings.. lots of horses have to drop out... still.. make sure you ride for 4th at best."

didn't he have the $ already because of the 2 yr old races?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

didn't he have the $ already because of the 2 yr old races?

hell no he didnt.

you really should give up the "didnt try in New Mexico" angle. Its pretty crazy, even for you lately Marty..

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Kasept

There are worse riders, but overall, she's a bit of hazard out there. She rode the horse OK at Woodbine. Her ride in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile though was dreadful. The kid in New Mexico rode him lousy too and further darkened any form/potential anyone could possibly have uncovered as a result. He looked like a horse that hadn't progressed a step from 2 to 3.

Had any of us covering the race bothered to ask Borel or Woolley their strategy beforehand, it might have come out that they were changing their approach with him by planning to take back and come with one run. And even knowing that there was still little to go on to bet him as anything more than a super/high five filler.

They sought out Borel as his jock for a reason, as Woolley and Calvin told ATR this week. And I talked extensively with Jerry Hissam, Borel's agent, Monday, and he had some interesting background to add as well. As Baffert said, they had a plan and they got the racetrack and path they needed to execute it and the horse was ready and willing. Amazing really.

100% agreed. It was impossible to pick Mine That Bird in the derby. I couldnt have even picked that horse out of a hat. No one in their right mind could have wagered hard on this horse unless their favorite number is 8 of course!

The change in running style and jockey really made a huge difference. Not at all saying this to you Steve, cause you've never said anything of the sort, but everyone already seems to be writing him off in the future and saying this was a fluke... and I just believe Mine that Bird deserves a few more chances on the big stage with his new jock and running style before he gets written off... what do you think??

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

There are worse riders, but overall, she's a bit of hazard out there. She rode the horse OK at Woodbine. Her ride in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile though was dreadful. The kid in New Mexico rode him lousy too and further darkened any form/potential anyone could possibly have uncovered as a result. He looked like a horse that hadn't progressed a step from 2 to 3.

Had any of us covering the race bothered to ask Borel or Woolley their strategy beforehand, it might have come out that they were changing their approach with him by planning to take back and come with one run. And even knowing that there was still little to go on to bet him as anything more than a super/high five filler.

They sought out Borel as his jock for a reason, as Woolley and Calvin told ATR this week. And I talked extensively with Jerry Hissam, Borel's agent, Monday, and he had some interesting background to add as well. As Baffert said, they had a plan and they got the racetrack and path they needed to execute it and the horse was ready and willing. Amazing really.

Agree with most of this, except for the part about the ride in the BCJ... I bet him a little in that race hoping he'd move forward off the Grey and he really did nothing, he ran the same race (think he paired 8's off the top of my head?)- I can't fault the ride.

Originally Posted by sumitas

You cannot dismiss that tgraph tapped him as one of the few eligible for a new top . And MTB delivered that top . It seems he will probably be a couple of points off that top in the Preakness but that might be good enough to win . We need to look at the form cycle for horses ready for a new top for the Preakness.

This is true. He still needed to improve 8-10 lengths, however. Not impossible but it's a lot to ask in the Derby.
He probably regresses back to a 4-5 range assuming the track is dry, which wouldn't be good enough to win- but a 1-2 might be.

[Pedigree Ann]

Kasept, that's a great shot of Stymie. He was the ultimate Cinderella horse; claimed for $1500, he went on to head the US earnings list with $918,485. In those days, the Wood Memorial was $25K-added and so was the Pimlico Special and the JC Gold Cup. Post-WWII, when he was 5, purses went up, so that some of the big East Coast races went up to $50K added, even a couple to $75K or (gasp!) $100K. Still, the Met Mile was only $25K-added when he won it in at 6 and 7. By the way, Stymie was as good at 2 miles as he was at 1 mile. And he's in Sunday Silence's pedigree.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Kasept, that's a great shot of Stymie. He was the ultimate Cinderella horse; claimed for $1500, he went on to head the US earnings list with $918,485. In those days, the Wood Memorial was $25K-added and so was the Pimlico Special and the JC Gold Cup. Post-WWII, when he was 5, purses went up, so that some of the big East Coast races went up to $50K added, even a couple to $75K or (gasp!) $100K. Still, the Met Mile was only $25K-added when he won it in at 6 and 7. By the way, Stymie was as good at 2 miles as he was at 1 mile. And he's in Sunday Silence's pedigree.

For some reason, Stymie misses out on 'great horse' conversations. He was #41 on the B-H Top 100 which puts him ahead of many that seem to receive more mention.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by Kasept

For some reason, Stymie misses out on 'great horse' conversations. He was #41 on the B-H Top 100 which puts him ahead of many that seem to receive more mention.

From the pictures Ive seen of him....WOW...One of the best looking horses in history.

[Kasept]

Al Stall signs Jeremy Rose up for Terrain.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Al Stall signs Jeremy Rose up for Terrain.

Blinkers on I assume