6/6 (BEL): Gr. II Brooklyn; Gr. III Hill Prince

[philcski]

Originally Posted by jcs11204

ok now i looked at the pp's for the race, and i love prussian, with the other 2 i named underneath him.

On Belmont Day, I like the 3 in the 1st, the 5 in the 2nd, the 11 in the 3rd, and the 6 in the 6th.

Mark it down.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by jcs11204

ok now i looked at the pp's for the race, and i love prussian, with the other 2 i named underneath him.

How the hell could you have possibly looked at the PPs and not like Hatta Fort OR Gio Ponti?

I suppose you could be shopping for value but I think it would be universally held that those two are the most likely winners.

NT

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by jcs11204

ok now i looked at the pp's for the race, and i love prussian, with the other 2 i named underneath him.

this is sad.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

How the hell could you have possibly looked at the PPs and not like Hatta Fort OR Gio Ponti?

I suppose you could be shopping for value but I think it would be universally held that those two are the most likely winners.

NT

You have to consider the source.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Do PP's matter? They should.

PP's matter when you aren't familiar with the horses. When it's horses that you've seen all of their races though, they aren't that important, IMO. For example, come Hollywood Gold Cup day, if Heatseeker, Tiago, Surf Cat and the rest of the usual California crew are in the race, I won't need to see the PP's cause I know the horses and have seen what they've done. Hope this makes some sense. I won't need to see the PP's for the Belmont Stakes either.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

PP's matter when you aren't familiar with the horses. When it's horses that you've seen all of their races though, they aren't that important, IMO. For example, come Hollywood Gold Cup day, if Heatseeker, Tiago, Surf Cat and the rest of the usual California crew are in the race, I won't need to see the PP's cause I know the horses and have seen what they've done. Hope this makes some sense. I won't need to see the PP's for the Belmont Stakes either.

It makes sense.....and it's also about as bad a piece of advice as one can give.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It makes sense.....and it's also about as bad a piece of advice as one can give.

Think that depends on who you are giving the advice too. If it's someone fairly new, yeah, it's not the best advice. But I would never tell you that I think you need to see pp's first. I'm going to assume that you already know the horses and have seen the majority of their races.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Think that depends on who you are giving the advice too. If it's someone fairly new, yeah, it's not the best advice. But I would never tell you that I think you need to see pp's first. I'm going to assume that you already know the horses and have seen the majority of their races.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I specifically disagree with this. One of the biggest problems almost everyone faces is personal bias and preconceptions about horses. There is a certain purity to seeing the pps for any race laid out in front of you and the best way to understand a race clearly is to analyze it evenly by working off the pps.

Horse racing is mostly nuance and not often obvious. If you don't take apart the pps for any race you eliminate the opportunity to see the nuances and thus remove the possibility of truly understanding the race.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I must have such a great fantasy record because I'm the only one immune to preconcieved stuff.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You drink??????

If he doesn't, he owes me for that round I bought last year

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

PP's matter when you aren't familiar with the horses. When it's horses that you've seen all of their races though, they aren't that important, IMO. For example, come Hollywood Gold Cup day, if Heatseeker, Tiago, Surf Cat and the rest of the usual California crew are in the race, I won't need to see the PP's cause I know the horses and have seen what they've done. Hope this makes some sense. I won't need to see the PP's for the Belmont Stakes either.

now you call Heatseeker one of the usual California crew.
But did you also not need PP's when he won at 30/1 and 8/1 in the last 5-6 months? If you are going to compete using only whats in your memory against people that are armed with objective data you are going to lose in the long run.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I must have such a great fantasy record because I'm the only one immune to preconcieved stuff.

Aside from understanding the game better than everyone else....this is probably true.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

If he doesn't, he owes me for that round I bought last year

When was this?

I was probably drinking so I don't remember.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

When was this?

I was probably drinking so I don't remember.

I bought the first round at Siros. Joey, Nicole, Scott, Jamie, all the Chitown boys were there, etc...

You were there...in all your glory

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GPK

I bought the first round at Siros. Joey, Nicole, Scott, Jamie, all the Chitown boys were there, etc...

You were there...in all your glory

No comment.

[blackthroatedwind]

What am I missing? I remember now.

It's a long summer. Luckily I forget a lot of what I do.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I specifically disagree with this. One of the biggest problems almost everyone faces is personal bias and preconceptions about horses. There is a certain purity to seeing the pps for any race laid out in front of you and the best way to understand a race clearly is to analyze it evenly by working off the pps.

Horse racing is mostly nuance and not often obvious. If you don't take apart the pps for any race you eliminate the opportunity to see the nuances and thus remove the possibility of truly understanding the race.

I couldn't agree more. It is a big reason why I laugh at these "horses to watch" lists and the such.

I purposely try to avoid remembering the names of horses. They are the 3, or the 5, or whatever, and I look at them fresh and compare them to the other horses running against said horse TODAY. Of course with the top horses, you'll remember some things, but even then it is best to avoid any preconceptions.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I couldn't agree more.

I purposely try to avoid remembering the names of horses. They are the 3, or the 5, or whatever, and I look at them fresh and compare them to the other horses running against said horse TODAY. Of course with the top horses, you'll remember some things, but even then it is best to avoid any preconceptions.

This actually gets me in trouble when I do shows about races....I honestly don't know a lot of horses' names. It's not a problem when it's a simple name but when it's the least bit complicated, and I haven't learned it, I end up embarrassing myself.

I have the same problem with jockeys, as I never know who's riding the horses I like and/or bet, as pretty much I consider them as important to my handicapping as the horses' names.

[the_fat_man]

PPs as presently presented are outdated. Is looking at each horse's races individually the best way to go? I mean, where's the important part, the CONTEXT of the race. And, as most handicappers are 'numbers' oriented, I don't expect things to change much in the near future. To me, they're basically useless.

[Bobby Fischer]

So Evening Attire is finished...

Imawildncrazyguy is too cheap and slow...

who is winning the Brooklyn?? This race could be the key to getting some brown money with that double. It may also have value of it's own.

Is Sightseeing a toss?