Anybody See the 6th at Laurel Today?

[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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sharp Post

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are partially right. I did like him at the 2YO sales but I didn't have any clients that were buying at either one of those sales (he was in 2 different sales) so I didn't recommend him to anyone.

A horse's work at a 2YO sale definitely influences my opinion because it gives me an opinion about a horse before he has even run. This is not to my detriment. Quite to the contrary, it makes me a lot of money betting. It often makes me more money in their 2nd or even 3rd career starts than in their debut. It's not easy to win first-time out. I obviously couldn't bet the horse yesterday because he was no price but there are plenty of times where these horses will just run mediocre first-time out and will come back and win 2nd time out or even 3rd time out.

With regards to the horse yesterday, my opinion of him at the 2YO sale definitely affects my opinion of him now. However, it doesn't affect my opinion on how much trouble I think he had.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are partially right. I did like him at the 2YO sales but I didn't have any clients that were buying at either one of those sales (he was in 2 different sales) so I didn't recommend him to anyone.

A horse's work at a 2YO sale definitely influences my opinion because it gives me an opinion about a horse before he has even run. This is not to my detriment. Quite to the contrary, it makes me a lot of money betting. It often makes me more money in their 2nd or even 3rd career starts than in their debut. It's not easy to win first-time out. I obviously couldn't bet the horse yesterday because he was no price but there are plenty of times where these horses will just run mediocre first-time out and will come back and win 2nd time out or even 3rd time out.

I know DrugS and you are no DrugS

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regards to the horse yesterday, my opinion of him at the 2YO sale definitely affects my opinion of him now. However, it doesn't affect my opinion on how much trouble I think he had.

I hope your overall opinion at the 2YO sales is better than your assessment of his performance yesterday.

[Dunbar]

I should probably let this thread die a typical death, but reading some posts here really bugged me. The dismissive tone of many of these posts is unfortunate for a number of reasons.

I consider Rupert an invaluable source of information on 2-year-olds and other lightly raced horses. His eye for running ability is pretty much the only thing that will get me to bet on a maiden race. If he likes a horse in a maiden race, I will bet it, period.

I didn’t always have this view. I’m a speed figure guy, and Rupert is disdainful of speed figures. (If Rupert ever quotes a speed figure, it would probably be with the qualifier, “for you speed figure guys…”) So I was full of skepticism when I first encountered Rupert about 6.5 years ago. I had the same view as some of the posters in this thread: “I can’t believe this guy puts so much emphasis on how a horse LOOKS running!!”

Over the course of 2 years, I followed Rupert’s picks on over 600 races. He showed a remarkable 9% profit from those picks. These results were not skewed by one or two gigantic payoffs, either. They were all win or win/place bets on medium priced horses. The chance of getting a positive result over that many races by luck alone (without the help of big exotic payoffs) is pretty small.

Although Rupert included all kinds of races in his picks, it’s my opinion that his biggest strength was with the maidens he had personally seen work at Ocala and other sales. This was the kind of information that just wasn’t accessible to the vast majority of the betting public.

Speed figures are still the starting point for my own capping, but I would never dismiss any opinion of Rupert’s. And I bet seriously on any post of his with a title like “nice first-timer in 3rd at Oaklawn”. I wish he'd make more posts like that, or better yet, email them to me privately!

--Dunbar

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I consider Rupert an invaluable source of information on 2-year-olds and other lightly raced horses. His eye for running ability is pretty much the only thing that will get me to bet on a maiden race. If he likes a horse in a maiden race, I will bet it, period.

No doubt he's good at this. But, he's clearly not an expert at TRIP HANDICAPPING. First thing a trip handicapper learns is to not give too much weight to the inside troubled trip (especially if the race sets up well for the troubled horse). Hard to believe that something as ELEMENTARY as this, borne out by simply watching races over time, is so difficult to comprehend for so many. To BTW's credit, he's still trying to educate while so many others have given up.

Then again, when one is an EXPERT in a given area, who can fault him for thinking he's an EXPERT in another (unrelated) area.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I should probably let this thread die a typical death, but reading some posts here really bugged me. The dismissive tone of many of these posts is unfortunate for a number of reasons.



--Dunbar

Your first thought, as is often the case, was your best thought.

Or, perhaps I misunderstood, and it was Rupert that you were needlessly chastising for being dismissive. Pardon my silliness. Maybe I should have followed your original advice....that you ignored.