Curlin to be m/l fav - Page 6

Dunbar · #**101** 04-24-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I wish I felt the same way... how do you bet first time starters?

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

somerfrost · #**102** 04-24-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

Inside information is usually unavailable to most of us, breeding and dosage aren't. I'd love to know what every first timer's connections know prior to wagering...trends can tell you a lot (trainer's record with that owner, with first timers etc.) but otherwise, you are on your own...breeding and dosage MAY help!

somerfrost · #**103** 04-24-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I sort of agree with this. Dosage definitely, I don't think I have ever looked at it and breeding is a bit overated tool. It's useful for stuff like trying to figure out who might like turf, or in baby races who is more apt to be precocious, but after that I think it takes a back seat to trip handicapping and handicapping the race itself.

Pretty much agree with the exception of the Derby and some BC races (for foreign horses...example will a horse running on grass in Europe take to dirt?). In the Derby, you have a lot of horses who have never faced each other...breeding (RAN and other factors) and dosage can help! Belmont also...so few 12 furlong dirt races in the US, breeding can often provide a clue!

Cajungator26 · #**104** 04-24-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

Well... I don't pay attention to dosage for most races, but I do look at the pedigree on first time starters. Let's say there's a Smart Strike or a Lemon Drop Kid on the weeds for the first time... I can promise you that I'll give that horse a second look based upon their 'turfy' pedigree. Sorry, but I find the whole pedigree angle fascinating. I agree that once a horse has had a few starts, you can't really base anything on their pedigrees, but how many of these horses have run 10 panels in a race before the Kentucky Derby? You don't think their pedigree has ANY bearing at all on how far they can go? I do.

somerfrost · #**105** 04-24-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I see what you are saying, I just disagree. What figure will tell me if a turf based Euro will take to the dirt or not? You never know. And we all know in the Derby like everything else, the best horse doesn't always win. Trips and pace matter IMO, not the RAN or dosage. I think of them like the Juvenile jinx, useless.

Well, breeding will tell you a lot about surfaces....Giant's Causeway wasn't a surprise in the BCC because we pretty much knew the dirt would be no problem. The best horse doesn't always win any race, from maiden to BCC...again, tools are just that, part of a very large and complex puzzle. Handicappers have always looked to breeding...off tracks, grass etc. The fact that no winner of the BCJ has won the Derby isn't a jinx, it's a fact! There must be reasons...among the possible ones are early development and difficulty with subsequent prep scheduling. Bottom line...these angles are useful and speak for themselves...maybe this year Curlin will win and the 125 year gap since the last winner who didn't race at 2 will be no more as well as the 89 year gap since a winner had less than 5 starts...if you want to bet the farm on Curlin though, I personally think you'd want to at least be aware of those facts!

dr. fager · #**106** 04-24-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The fact that no winner of the BCJ has won the Derby isn't a jinx, it's a fact!

Skewed data in my book, the Derby has been run exactly how many times compared to the BCJ? 131 to 22

I agree this stuff is fun to look at but it's kind of narrow sighted. First time I saw it Funny Cide won, made me think well exactly how many geldings have ran in the Derby compared to colts. I'm sure if the ratio was reversed we'd have #5 as beware of colts in the derby.

cassie · #**107** 04-24-2007, 04:07 PM

without reading this 6 page thread what horses in this years derby have this ran curse sounds like a mummy movie

somerfrost · #**108** 04-24-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Where did I say I liked Curlin or was going to bet him? Giant's Causeway wasn't a surprise because he was arguably the best horse in the race. He won something like 6 group 1 races in a row in Europe, which at that point was a record. He was a monster.
Like I said, I look to breeding when trying to figure out if a horse will like the turf, but they aren't the end all be all. But bottomline I trust my instincts and eye when I bet. Not some number someone has figured out. I don't proclaim ridiculous betting wins or that I make a living doing it. But I think I do okay. Do you bet Somer?

Yes I bet and I was using Curlin as the example cause this is a thread about him. Again, I post the angles and people can use them or not...no skin off my back.

somerfrost · #**109** 04-24-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassie

without reading this 6 page thread what horses in this years derby have this ran curse sounds like a mummy movie

I posted them before...since you obviously only want to ridicule the concept I feel no obligation to list them again for you.

cassie · #**110** 04-24-2007, 07:04 PM

sorry you took it as ridicule didnt mean for it to cme across like that found the thread thanks for the information

Java Gold · #**111** 04-24-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

really? I may be mistaken, but I thought Baffert said he wouldn't have changed PG's training leading up to the derby. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that 3 preps is a good idea, I just don't think a horse should be completely tossed based on it.

Zippy...instead of exchanging jabs with each other lets just work on our picks. You have your thoughts..I have my trends/angles. May you do well on Derby day...

Java OUT

PS: Really don't think Baffert was content losing the derby with PG do you? The fact remains he was short on Derby day. I contend he would have blown the field away if he was tighter.