Not raced at two results

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

That list has about 35 horses on it.. over a 50 year period. When you have a 20 horse field and 19 of those raced at 2, 1 did not, I think it is logical to say one of those 19 will win every year when you add in race trouble, post positions, etc.

There are some good finishes in that list. A few in the money. I don't see why this "curse" cannot be broken. I understand that foundation should be important, but if the most talented horse in the race did not race at two, I dont think the "curse" will be the difference maker.

If Curlin is the best horse in the race (I am not saying he is, but I feel he is one of the top few along with SS, Nobiz and Scat Daddy), and he does not have any or much trouble, he will win. I dont put too much weight on that racing at 2 thing. He has had three very solid races this year and seems to be as fit as any horse in here.

Horses arent "supposed" to win million dollar races in their third start (unless its the Delta Jackpot or BC Juvi), and he has already done that. Geldings arent "supposed" to win the Derby, and Funny Cide did that. Barbaro wasnt "supposed" to win the Derby off of a 5 week layoff, but he did that.

I dont put any weight on the Juvi curse either. A lot of the Juvi winners peak at 2, so of course they are not going to win on the First Saturday in May when others have improved. Some of the Juvi winners also get injured and dont have the opportunity to run for the roses, and there is also distance limitations.

I hope that Street Sense and Curlin dead heat so everyone shuts up about curses.

i agree with your thinking in general.

the way I see it its the same as saying that horses that are racing with a disadvantage win the derby less often. Clearly horses that don't start racing until they are three have started late compared to the derby date and are at a disadvantage to the more experienced in the class.
making it hard and fast 2 vs 3 is not enough. A marginal horse may be off the hook relative to the curse because he started once in December. That doesn't mean he is a better play than a standout horse who didn't start until January.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i agree with your thinking in general.

the way I see it its the same as saying that horses that are racing with a disadvantage win the derby less often. Clearly horses that don't start racing until they are three have started late compared to the derby date and are at a disadvantage to the more experienced in the class.
making it hard and fast 2 vs 3 is not enough. A marginal horse may be off the hook relative to the curse because he started once in December. That doesn't mean he is a better play than a standout horse who didn't start until January.

I don't think anybody is saying that...I get tired of repeating myself but...angles are another handicapping tool, they can be of value in determining whether a horse is a good bet or not. They don't take the place of normal handicapping or common sense. Last year, I bet Barbaro despite the RAN Curse, I bet (unfortunately) Point Given despite his running afoul of a couple angles...they are tools, nothing more!

[Antitrust32]

while I do think curses are meaningless, the one thing that makes me not want to bet Curlin (eventhough I will bet him in all exotics, on top and all) is the fact that he is going to be the favorite or second choice and he really has not had the toughest of competition in his last two starts.

As Andy said on the radio today, he beat Storm in May by 10 lengths, a lot of horses should beat SiM by 10 on Saturday. Curlin IMO deserves to be 10-1 not 4-1 on Derby Day, and that is the only reason I am a little put off by him.

[todko]

It's not a statistically significant sample. The sample is too small.

Some of those horses could also have won in different years.

I'll take Curlin any day over some of these with the obvious phyical issues and 2 preps at 3.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by todko

It's not a statistically significant sample. The sample is too small.

Some of those horses could also have won in different years.

I'll take Curlin any day over some of these with the obvious phyical issues and 2 preps at 3.

Again, your call! Consider them or not, but being "statistically significant" is pretty much irrelevant in horse racing due to an almost unlimited number of intervening variables (yes, I had graduate level statistics too).

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by todko

It's not a statistically significant sample. The sample is too small.

Some of those horses could also have won in different years.

I'll take Curlin any day over some of these with the obvious phyical issues and 2 preps at 3.

And...when commenting on sample size, keep in mind that the list is from 1956 to present, there were 74 years prior to 1956 without a winner also!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't think anybody is saying that...I get tired of repeating myself but...angles are another handicapping tool, they can be of value in determining whether a horse is a good bet or not. They don't take the place of normal handicapping or common sense. Last year, I bet Barbaro despite the RAN Curse, I bet (unfortunately) Point Given despite his running afoul of a couple angles...they are tools, nothing more!

You may get tired of repeating yourself, but I also get tired of seeing these angles portrayed as handicapping tools. Frankly I don't see these rules, or angles, as just ANOTHER handicapping tool, I see them as BAD handicapping tools. As you say, normal handicapping and common sense should apply to this race, like it does to other races.

Not having raced at two does not apply to many derby starters, so it doesn't rule out many horses. The far more difficult task is what to do with all the horses that did start at two.

You mention that you posted that list to show what Curlin is up against. To me that kind of thinking is wrong, he is not up against all that history, he is only up against this field on Saturday.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You may get tired of repeating yourself, but I also get tired of seeing these angles portrayed as handicapping tools. Frankly I don't see these rules, or angles, as just ANOTHER handicapping tool, I see them as BAD handicapping tools. As you say, normal handicapping and common sense should apply to this race, like it does to other races.

Not having raced at two does not apply to many derby starters, so it doesn't rule out many horses. The far more difficult task is what to do with all the horses that did start at two.

You mention that you posted that list to show what Curlin is up against. To me that kind of thinking is wrong, he is not up against all that history, he is only up against this field on Saturday.

Amen brother!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You may get tired of repeating yourself, but I also get tired of seeing these angles portrayed as handicapping tools. Frankly I don't see these rules, or angles, as just ANOTHER handicapping tool, I see them as BAD handicapping tools. As you say, normal handicapping and common sense should apply to this race, like it does to other races.

Not having raced at two does not apply to many derby starters, so it doesn't rule out many horses. The far more difficult task is what to do with all the horses that did start at two.

You mention that you posted that list to show what Curlin is up against. To me that kind of thinking is wrong, he is not up against all that history, he is only up against this field on Saturday.

If they aren't tools what would you like me to call them? Past Performances can be criticized the same way...what Curlin did in the Ark Derby doesn't necessarily translate into how he will run Saturday but most handicappers ( myself included) study PP's...why? Because they are useful tools along with others. A tool isn't good or bad, it's how you use them. There are dozens of angles I don't list cause I fail to see any causal relationship in them...the ones I do list I can defend (except for Damascus one and I state that). Call me stupid but I think a lot of folks who are thinking about betting Curlin to win might want to know that no horse without a race at two has won the Derby since 1882 and with less than 5 LT starts has won since 1918...of course Curlin may win but betting him should be a decision based on all available info not just that which you favor.

[randallscott35]

Somer, training is different than it was just decades ago. So going back a 100 years doesn't do it for me. The layoff issues are much less of a problem for me. Silly things like geldings being an issue was thankfully disproved. Flukes happen and slow horses like Giacomo occasionally win. Essentially it isn't meaningless but it isn't meaningful either. Races at 2, maybe is an issue. I don't like Curlin who is light on experience, but if he had the same number of races so far and his first one was on Dec 31st I doubt that would drastically change anyone's view of him.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Somer, training is different than it was just decades ago. So going back a 100 years doesn't do it for me. The layoff issues are much less of a problem for me. Silly things like geldings being an issue was thankfully disproved. Flukes happen and slow horses like Giacomo occasionally win. Essentially it isn't meaningless but it isn't meaningful either. Races at 2, maybe is an issue. I don't like Curlin who is light on experience, but if he had the same number of races so far and his first one was on Dec 31st I doubt that would drastically change anyone's view of him.

Randy...I've been waiting for you....
Nor should it...FuPeg raced the last week in December for his only 2yo race...not many of us jumped off him and we wouldn't if he raced a week later. Again...common sense! I list angles with the assumption that most handicappers have common sense. I agree that training (and breeding) has changed over the past century but these angles have held the last 20, 10, 5 years as well. Again, if I like Curlin, I'll bet Curlin but part of "liking" him is being able to convince myself that he can do what the likes of Pulpit, Indian Charlie and so many others couldn't.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Randy...I've been waiting for you....
Nor should it...FuPeg raced the last week in December for his only 2yo race...not many of us jumped off him and we wouldn't if he raced a week later. Again...common sense! I list angles with the assumption that most handicappers have common sense. I agree that training (and breeding) has changed over the past century but these angles have held the last 20, 10, 5 years as well. Again, if I like Curlin, I'll bet Curlin but part of "liking" him is being able to convince myself that he can do what the likes of Pulpit, Indian Charlie and so many others couldn't.

LOL, I feel like Darth Vader....Curlin won't do it so your angles will be safe another year.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

If they aren't tools what would you like me to call them? Past Performances can be criticized the same way...what Curlin did in the Ark Derby doesn't necessarily translate into how he will run Saturday but most handicappers ( myself included) study PP's...why? Because they are useful tools along with others. A tool isn't good or bad, it's how you use them. There are dozens of angles I don't list cause I fail to see any causal relationship in them...the ones I do list I can defend (except for Damascus one and I state that). Call me stupid but I think a lot of folks who are thinking about betting Curlin to win might want to know that no horse without a race at two has won the Derby since 1882 and with less than 5 LT starts has won since 1918...of course Curlin may win but betting him should be a decision based on all available info not just that which you favor.

Let me ask you, what is the causal relationship between Showup losing to Barbaro, et al, last year, and Curlins chances against this group on Saturday.

[letswastemoney]

Why aren't geldings supposed to win the Derby again?? I mean aren't they the same thing as male horses except without the thingamadobber.

I guess it's because there are less geldings out there? If it was 50 percent geldings, then they'd probably win about half of the Derbys.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I guess it's because there are less geldings out there? If it was 50 percent geldings, then they'd probably win about half of the Derbys.

Your point seems very obvious, but people seem to have forgetten some fairly obvious points around here. A lot of horses that win the Derby were very good 2yo colts. Very good 2yo colts aren't often gelded. That probably has more to do with it than the fact that geldings are somehow mysteriously jinxed.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Why aren't geldings supposed to win the Derby again?? I mean aren't they the same thing as male horses except without the thingamadobber.

I guess it's because there are less geldings out there? If it was 50 percent geldings, then they'd probably win about half of the Derbys.

There have been studies which indicate that a colt gelded early in life will develop physically a bit slower than one not gelded...if true, this would put the gelded horse at a physical disadvantage early in the 3yo season at a distance....but probably the main reason is that well-bred colts and those that show early promise aren't gelded as this would cost the owner potentially millions in stud fees. Look at the famous geldings...the ones that excelled on the track...most ran their best races well after their 3yo season...Kelso, Forego, John Henry as examples.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Let me ask you, what is the causal relationship between Showup losing to Barbaro, et al, last year, and Curlins chances against this group on Saturday.

There is a causal relationship between not racing at two and having an adequate foundation to race 10 furlongs the first Sat in May against a field of 15-20 horses. Since Showup and Curlin are different horses, the effect will be different...I can't say that because Showup didn't win, neither will Curlin...all I am saying is that they share the same circumstance (no race at two) and I cite data regarding the results of Derby horses with no race at two. I can see from the data (43 horses since 1956, probably over 100 easily since 1882) that 0% of horses with no races at two have won the Derby while approximately 6-7% of all horses running in the Derby have won...what one makes of that is up to the individual, it is simply data!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

There is a causal relationship between not racing at two and having an adequate foundation to race 10 furlongs the first Sat in May against a field of 15-20 horses. Since Showup and Curlin are different horses, the effect will be different...I can't say that because Showup didn't win, neither will Curlin...all I am saying is that they share the same circumstance (no race at two) and I cite data regarding the results of Derby horses with no race at two. I can see from the data (43 horses since 1956, probably over 100 easily since 1882) that 0% of horses with no races at two have won the Derby while approximately 6-7% of all horses running in the Derby have won...what one makes of that is up to the individual, it is simply data!

In a way man, I feel for you. I know you are just providing people with info and letting them figure out what to do with it.
I guess the problem is.....I don't think they should do a damn thing with any of it. If Curlin had run a 5f race last September, and then sat on the shelf for months (for whatever reason) before making his 3yo debut, he would be off the list, but would he actually have a more solid foundation?