12/12: AQU - $206,0000 Carryover

[blackthroatedwind]

To be honest, if this horse doesn't win it's next start it's even more disgraceful.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Jacobson

I have no idea how this guy stays in business. Everything he claims ends up dropping in class, he has Samyn as his go-to rider, and wins at like 8%.....I wish I could get paid to have production like that.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I hardly believe MM's effort last out was worthy of anything remotely close to a 111 especially considering were talking about, at the end of the day, the horse getting 1:09.3 over a sealed surface. Granted many other factors go in, yada yada, but you have to assume this number is hugely inflated based on how he embarassed a field that obviously wanted nothing to do with the off going. I don't posess the resourses for such data, but would love to see how others fared in similar conditions...I'm guessing closer to 101-104.

Funny that in this exact same race, Mr. Jacobson's Lazzrus style reinvigoration of the 3 I Ain't No Saint, taken off Linda Rice's goes completely unmentioned.

If one were interested in raising an objective "hairy eyeball" to anything in this race, my god man, it would have to be this. I however am more than willing to give Mr. Jacobson the benefit of the doubt here.

Since were talking BSF's here, I Ain't No Saint 3 starts prior to being claimed at Saratoga were 66/83/64. He ran a soundly beaten 3rd and turned in a 76 for the effort the day he was claimed.

Jacobsen claims the horse, gives it 7 weeks off and brings him back to record a 98 bsf 22 points better than the claim effort and miles better than anything in his then recent form. Cut to the next start in the Maria's Mon when he lost by a nostril in a blanket finish at the wire where he puts up a 102 bsf 26 points better than the claim effort. For what it's worth,
and again, many factors including the stake, the surface, etc. but the race was run over the same 6f track where MM was graced with a 111, the winning time of The Maria's Mon was 1:09:2 a fifth faster than MM.

So let me get this straight, because David Jacobson also has suspicion improvements then it is OK, or reasonable, that Gary Contessa does? Nobody here suggested Contessa was the only trainer in America that has these unreasonable performances, I wish it was true, but since he was the magician du jour we were focusing on him.

You say Missile Motor got an inflated figure. Based on what? Did you analyze the other horses' performances in the race or were you just trying to suggest that the improvement by Mr. Contessa couldn't possibly have been as outrageous as it was? A 104 would have seemed reasonable for this horse?

But, to be fair, let's take a look at the other participants in Missile Motor's Grade 1 type performance.....Fleet Valid finished second and earned an 88. His previous six figures were 81, 101, 75, 102, 80 and 108. Introspect, who finished third, got an 87. His previous figs were 75 ( off a layoff ), 84, 88, 83, 92, 88 and 87. He's a Pioneer ( 4th ) got an 81. His prior efforts earned 85, 93, 91, 68, 101 and 93. That Magic Moment was 5th and earned an 80. His prior numbers were 71, 85, 70, 67 and 81. Daddy Joe got a 66 for his 6th place finish. His prior numbers were 98, 78, 82 and 79. The Student, who was 7th, got a 64. His prior efforts earned 86, 90, 91, 87 and 93. And Sinkwich finished 8th and last and earned a 61. His prior numbers were 53, 88, 67, 83, 90, 88 and 88.

It appears that only That Magic Moment's number was even possibly out of line....but then again he too was running first time for the great Gary Contessa. Like it or not, the 111 stands up extraordinarily well under scrutiny.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

To be honest, if this horse doesn't win it's next start it's even more disgraceful.

The horse is 5-2-1-1 over an off surface...I wouldn't jump to this conclusion unless the track conditions are similar.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

The horse is 5-2-1-1 over an off surface...I wouldn't jump to this conclusion unless the track conditions are similar.

We were referring to today's wunderkind.

[dylbert]

Originally Posted by dylbert

3,8 // 2,6,9 // 3,7 // 5 // 2,5 // 7 = $48

3 // 1,3 // 7 // 2,7 // 6,7 // 7 = $16

Congratulations, Titan! I should have "spliced" these two tickets of mine and created WINNER.

Guess I will hold on to my self-ascribed title as "Mr. FiveOfSix". Bring on the next carryover...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

The horse is 5-2-1-1 over an off surface...I wouldn't jump to this conclusion unless the track conditions are similar.

Here are the career Beyer figures for the mighty Missile Motor, starting with his debut, and I have highlighted each wet track number....

67, 83, 73, 88, 93, 87, 75, 71 ( turf ), 90, 89, 91, 90, 89......and then the Big Daddy 111.

Based on this there is absolutely no evidence that he improves on a wet track.....in fact two of his three worst dirt numbers were earned on wet tracks.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Better stock of what?

his 10k claimers that run like 50k'ers, not just his 10k claimers that run like 10k claimers. Not to mention his ridiculous Winning Move purchases, which seem to have a runner in EVERY race these days.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight, because David Jacobson also has suspicion improvements then it is OK, or reasonable, that Gary Contessa does? Nobody here suggested Contessa was the only trainer in America that has these unreasonable performances, I wish it was true, but since he was the magician du jour we were focusing on him.

Not at all. In fact I believe I made it a point to not suggest this...What I am suggesting is that in my opinion this was more of an 11-14 point move up, and considering this horses affinity for an off surface, and the visually impressive win over a field that didn't particularly care for it - the figure seemed ridiculously high.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You say Missile Motor got an inflated figure. Based on what? Did you analyze the other horses' performances in the race or were you just trying to suggest that the improvement by Mr. Contessa couldn't possibly have been as outrageous as it was? A 104 would have seemed reasonable for this horse?

I don't have anything more to base my opinion on other than the replay and tomorrow's form. And the fact is that IANS was awarded a bsf 9 points lower going a 1/5 of a second faster at the same distance. I would love to find out what sort of bsf's MM was awarded in his previous 3 board hits over an off track. And furthermore my post was simply to point out an ironic observation that in the same race your point would have been more clearly served by a more flagrant example. Unless the point was to throw axes at Contessa, then it was spot on.

[pmacdaddy]

Nice work Titan!

[ArlJim78]

hey titan, fantastic! nice work.

[dylbert]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Here are the career Beyer figures for the mighty Missile Motor, starting with his debut, and I have highlighted each wet track number....

67, 83, 73, 88, 93, 87, 75, 71 ( turf ), 90, 89, 91, 90, 89......and then the Big Daddy 111.

Based on this there is absolutely no evidence that he improves on a wet track.....in fact two of his three worst dirt numbers were earned on wet tracks.

You say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe. Two of Missile Motor's fastest BSFs came on WET surface. I am using Olympic scoring here -- toss 67 debut and 111 inexplicable fig. History would suggest that 89-90 is tomorrow's number.

Overbet is probably real headline here. Finding "live" overlay is challenge for all.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I don't have anything more to base my opinion on other than the replay and tomorrow's form. And the fact is that IANS was awarded a bsf 9 points lower going a 1/5 of a second faster at the same distance. I would love to find out what sort of bsf's MM was awarded in his previous 3 board hits over an off track. And furthermore my post was simply to point out an ironic observation that in the same race your point would have been more clearly served by a more flagrant example. Unless the point was to throw axes at Contessa, then it was spot on.

First of all, you really don't understand speed figures, and to be surprised that similar times earned on different racing days received different figures only magnifies this. Your baseless claims about the 111 have been thoroughly debunked.

However, the latter part of your post is really outlandish. Once again, we were talking about Gary Contessa because of what took place in today's 9th race. " Throw axes at Contessa?????" You have to be kidding! I stated facts about his horses. If you don't like that these facts make him look bad then that's not my problem and I suggest you ask yourself why you feel a need to defend him if you don't think the situation is at all curious.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by dylbert

You say toe-may-toe and I say toe-mah-toe. Two of Missile Motor's fastest BSFs came on WET surface. I am using Olympic scoring here -- toss 67 debut and 111 inexplicable fig. History would suggest that 89-90 is tomorrow's number.

Overbet is probably real headline here. Finding "live" overlay is challenge for all.

And hopefully you don't use this kind of logic when you bet your money. The simple fact is that prior to Contessa having this horse the best he ever performed on a wet track was consistent with his current form.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Wow,horse was fighting jock on the 1st turn(wanted to go a lot faster than it did.)

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all, you really don't understand speed figures, and to be surprised that similar times earned on different racing days received different figures only magnifies this. Your baseless claims about the 111 have been thoroughly debunked.

Finally, common ground

I understand what they purport to represent, based on some subjective formula. I understand that a number of factors go into the formula each day based of various conditions and that a because 1:09.2 earned a 102 on one day may not necessarily mean that it's impossible for a 1:09.3 to earn a 111 the next. No surprise here. Got it.
I use them loosely as a minor confirmation of an opinion and perhaps a plausable snapshot of current form. Nothing more. I certainly would put no more credence in them than any other form of technical analysis available, and don't ever base my wagering dollar solely on them.

So as far as my "claim" being baseless and thoroughly debunked - Once again I never "claimed" anything, only offered an opinion - an opinion, as far as I'm concerned, that is as subjective as the science they are based on.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

However, the latter part of your post is really outlandish. Once again, we were talking about Gary Contessa because of what took place in today's 9th race. " Throw axes at Contessa?????" You have to be kidding! I stated facts about his horses. If you don't like that these facts make him look bad then that's not my problem and I suggest you ask yourself why you feel a need to defend him if you don't think the situation is at all curious.

I'm not defending Gary Contessa, have no need to defend him, and honestly couldn't care less. What I'm getting from you is that you don't care for him as a trainer because you feel his inconsistancies, particularly first off the claim, makes your life more difficult as a player - thus suggesting improprities...I just won't jump off that cliff with you, Andy..Lastly, I didn't see the last race today and only responed to your allegations about Missile Motor tomorrow. I think the number is high, you don't. C'est la vie.

[dylbert]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And hopefully you don't use this kind of logic when you bet your money. The simple fact is that prior to Contessa having this horse the best he ever performed on a wet track was consistent with his current form.

Brief answers sometimes create uneven ones. My point was best vs. worst is not real argument here. These times are neither best or worst -- I would suggest that 90-91 on wet track is par for Missle Motor. The 111 is an anomaly until it is repeated or refuted.

Bet against or pass race seem logical choices here. Heck, maybe Hemingway's Key awakes from his slumber tomorrow at 15-1. HK has fallen a long, long way from third in 2006 Preakness to 50K optional claimer on inner track on wintery Thursday afternoon.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

So as far as my "claim" being baseless and thoroughly debunked - Once again I never "claimed" anything, only offered an opinion - an opinion, as far as I'm concerned, that is as subjective as the science they are based on.




I'm not defending Gary Contessa, have no need to defend him, and honestly couldn't care less. What I'm getting from you is that you don't care for him as a trainer because you feel his inconsistancies, particularly first off the claim, makes your life more difficult as a player - thus suggesting improprities...I just won't jump off that cliff with you, Andy..Lastly, I didn't see the last race today and only responed to your allegations about Missile Motor tomorrow. I think the number is high, you don't. C'est la vie.

I debunked your baseless claim that the number was high by going horse by horse through the field and showing that each and every one of them ran a number consistent with their history of numbers. It is absolutely impossible for those seven horses to have run consistent numbers ( the only ones, in fact, seemingly out of line were actually lower than could have been expected ) and the winner to have run too high. His figure holds up....period. Your assertion was based on nothing other than you saying it. And, you said it from weakness.

I never said " I didn't care for him as a trainer " nor did I say the performances of his horses, whether off the claim or not, make things difficult for me as a bettor. I never said any of this. What I did was point out that his horses run inexplicably and outrageously well from time to time and seemingly at random. How this affects me, whether good or bad, is entirely besides the point. You are, and I don't know why, somehow trying to deflect the discussion towards me. I have nothing to do with it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by dylbert

Brief answers sometimes create uneven ones. My point was best vs. worst is not real argument here. These times are neither best or worst -- I would suggest that 90-91 on wet track is par for Missle Motor. The 111 is an anomaly until it is repeated or refuted.

I understand but my original point was different, defensible, and succinct.......prior to the 111 Missile Motor's speed figures did not suggest that he was a better horse on a wet track than he was on a dry track. The numbers back that up. I think that point you will find indisputable.

[Bobby Fischer]

Missile Motor didn't look all that much different in his romp at the meadowlands and his romp at Aqueduct. Maybe a little sharper , it was hard to tell.

Without adjusting the times the med race was actually a second faster.

Same loose on the lead style.

Maybe a tiny bit better, but the figure isn't reflective of the performance or talent of the horse. I am looking at bris here which shows a 12point jump from 98 to 110. But it wasn't a 12pt jump in performance.

He ran away from some claimers on an easy lead. Even less interesting on the mud.

Did Bruce Levine and Gary Contessa move up the horse from William Croll? yes.

Did Contessa move him up from Levine? I am not sure, but he certainly didn't regress.