5/15 (PIM): 135th Preakness S. (G1)

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

What did we learn from the Preakness today?

Nothing.

It was already obvious that trips matter (look at the winner). I guess those who kept saying Lookin at 'Sucky' was a terrible horse and also said that his bad trips were perfect trips have nothing to say.

The other already obvious thing was that Super Saver is a one track wonder.

Hmmm, maybe you should replace "we learn" with "I learn"? Agree with you on Lucky. The people saying he made his own trouble, as if it would therefore continue, have been proven wrong. On the other hand, he did not exactly demolish this field. On the other other hand, he is very tough in the stretch.

Super Saver may or may not be a "one track wonder". Maybe he is a wet track wonder. Or maybe two weeks wasn't enough for him, my usual stance on turnaround time notwithstanding.

Most likely conclusion: this is a mediocre class of 3-yr-olds, and any one of several might turn up his game in any given race enough to win it.

--Dunbar

[lemoncrush]

My missteps was not doing any tickets without SS. I used Jackson Bend and First Dude liberally, but I just had such a hard time believing SS could finish outside of the money, based on past Preakness's for the most part, and the lack of a real strong group of new faces.

During the past week, First Dude and Fly Down have flattered the 3-yo's that wintered at Gulfstream Park this year. Although, i still don't know how Pleasant Prince nearly won the FL Derby.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

My missteps was not doing any tickets without SS. I used Jackson Bend and First Dude liberally, but I just had such a hard time believing SS could finish outside of the money, based on past Preakness's for the most part, and the lack of a real strong group of new faces.

During the past week, First Dude and Fly Down have flattered the 3-yo's that wintered at Gulfstream Park this year. Although, i still don't know how Pleasant Prince nearly won the FL Derby.

and a horse named grasshopper almost won the travers. he got bet i don't know how many times based on that one performance. inexplicable runs happen some times.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Hmmm, maybe you should replace "we learn" with "I learn"? Agree with you on Lucky. The people saying he made his own trouble, as if it would therefore continue, have been proven wrong. On the other hand, he did not exactly demolish this field. On the other other hand, he is very tough in the stretch.

Super Saver may or may not be a "one track wonder". Maybe he is a wet track wonder. Or maybe two weeks wasn't enough for him, my usual stance on turnaround time notwithstanding.

Most likely conclusion: this is a mediocre class of 3-yr-olds, and any one of several might turn up his game in any given race enough to win it.
--Dunbar

i agree.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Hmmm, maybe you should replace "we learn" with "I learn"? Agree with you on Lucky. The people saying he made his own trouble, as if it would therefore continue, have been proven wrong. On the other hand, he did not exactly demolish this field. On the other other hand, he is very tough in the stretch.

Super Saver may or may not be a "one track wonder". Maybe he is a wet track wonder. Or maybe two weeks wasn't enough for him, my usual stance on turnaround time notwithstanding.

Most likely conclusion: this is a mediocre class of 3-yr-olds, and any one of several might turn up his game in any given race enough to win it.

--Dunbar

What impressed me the most about Lucky was how long he sustained his run and it was AGAINST the biased rail.

Jackson Bend is some kind of racehorse.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What impressed me the most about Lucky was how long he sustained his run and it was AGAINST the biased rail.

Jackson Bend is some kind of racehorse.

Agree on both accounts.

[tjfla]

Jax Bend is a nice horse too bad he can't go 1 1/2 cause would love to see him in the Belmont

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Jackson Bend is some kind of racehorse.

Agree. Not too many horses can get the absolutely PERFECT trip that he did and still hang like a rat.

[CSC]

I've never been this disinterested in a crop of 3 year olds, maybe a few of these will go on to establish themselves as the year progresses; however the lack of excitement this year on the triple crown trail has been very evident on me.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Agree. Not too many horses can get the absolutely PERFECT trip that he did and still hang like a rat.

Rat? He is distance challenged. 9.5f is way beyond his scope but he is still right there.

That little horse is about as honest as it gets.

[CSC]

I bet if they ran this race again next weekend, we would have another random winner. No one truly stood out yesterday, these are a very mediocre bunch.

[westcoastinvader]

Originally Posted by CSC

I bet if they ran this race again next weekend, we would have another random winner. No one truly stood out yesterday, these are a very mediocre bunch.

I dunno.

I see Lookin at Lucky differently.

He stumbled in The Rebel on the Oaklawn surface and still finished strong to win.

He was stopped and steadied on the Santa Anita surface and still rallied to catch 3rd.

He had a unanimously accepted horrible trip on sloppy dirt in the Kentucky Derby and still was fighting and closing in the stretch.

He then goes to the Pimlico surface and is tested in a stretch fight and rallies to pull away for the win.

He's 7-1-1 in 10 career starts with a laundry list of 9 G-1's and G-2's on his 10 race resume.


He's 3 years old this month and is already a winner of over $2,000,000.

I think he's pretty good.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by westcoastinvader

I dunno.

I see Looking at Lucky differently.

He stumbled in The Rebel on the Oaklawn surface and still finished strong to win.

He was stopped and steadied on the Santa Anita surface and still rallied to catch 3rd.

He had a unanimously accepted horrible trip on sloppy dirt in the Kentucky Derby and still was fighting and closing in the stretch.

He then goes to the Pimlico surface and is tested in a stretch fight and rallies to pull away for the win.

He's 7-1-1 in 10 career starts with a laundry list of 9 G-1's and G-2's on his 10 race resume.


He's 3 years old this month and is already a winner of over $2,000,000.

I think he's pretty good.

He's a grinder that will win his share of races, I haven't seen anything yet from him to say here is a horse that will go on to the top of the male division this year or against his elders. Sure I would be happy if I owned him, he's already been a great investment to his connections for a okay horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by westcoastinvader

I dunno.

I see Lookin at Lucky differently.

He stumbled in The Rebel on the Oaklawn surface and still finished strong to win.

He was stopped and steadied on the Santa Anita surface and still rallied to catch 3rd.

He had a unanimously accepted horrible trip on sloppy dirt in the Kentucky Derby and still was fighting and closing in the stretch.

He then goes to the Pimlico surface and is tested in a stretch fight and rallies to pull away for the win.

He's 7-1-1 in 10 career starts with a laundry list of 9 G-1's and G-2's on his 10 race resume.


He's 3 years old this month and is already a winner of over $2,000,000.

I think he's pretty good.

Looking at lucky is far more accomplished than good

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by CSC

I bet if they ran this race again next weekend, we would have another random winner. No one truly stood out yesterday, these are a very mediocre bunch.

That might be the case that this is a mediocre bunch but its not like Lucky got up in some head bob. The winner sustained a long and powerful run 4 wide against a strong inside bias. What could have possibly changed the result besides maybe the 11 or the 8 running alone uncontested on the rail?

There was no magical seam, no rail card and no pace help. The winner wins that race a majority of the time.

[Indian Charlie]

I love how early criticisms on LAL included him being too fast for his own good.

Now he's slow and a grinder.

I don't get the love for Jackson Bend nor do I get the dislike for LAL. They are kinda similar horses, except LAL is the better of the two.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That might be the case that this is a mediocre bunch but its not like Lucky got up in some head bob. The winner sustained a long and powerful run 4 wide against a strong inside bias. What could have possibly changed the result besides maybe the 11 or the 8 running alone uncontested on the rail?

There was no magical seam, no rail card and no pace help. The winner wins that race a majority of the time.

He finishes a well beaten third in last year's Preakness IMO with the same trip fighting it out for the minors with Musketman, that's the reality of it when analysing the type of field that ran yesterday.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What impressed me the most about Lucky was how long he sustained his run and it was AGAINST the biased rail.

Jackson Bend is some kind of racehorse.

Horses dont run against the track, they run against other horses. The rail 'bias' seemed to help First Dude but LaL shouldnt get credit for beating an inferior opponent who was aided by some neblous bias. While the rail seemed like a good place to be the path taken by LaL wasnt necessarily a negative. Lookin at Lucky got a clean trip and was simply the best of a bad bunch.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Horses dont run against the track, they run against other horses. The rail 'bias' seemed to help First Dude but LaL shouldnt get credit for beating an inferior opponent who was aided by some neblous bias. While the rail seemed like a good place to be the path taken by LaL wasnt necessarily a negative. Lookin at Lucky got a clean trip and was simply the best of a bad bunch.

Biases and bad setups have been instrumental in good/great horses losing to fields they towered over. Your 'perspective' is exactly what's wrong about the game. This is the good-ole-boy, cut-'em-and-put-'em-on-the-outside mentality: if they're good enough they'll get the job done. Forget about what it costs a horse to do all that extra work. Maybe a better approach would be to teach these horses how to 'handle' being ridden more efficiently.

So, getting the worst of it tripwise, in terms of ground covered and timing of move AND doing it against a (perceived) bias is not something that's noteworthy for you, huh?

Good thing you're training rather than trying to win betting.

[Indian Charlie]

TFM is unusually lucid this weekend.