Post 20

[King Glorious]

From Equibase:
Saturday at Churchill:

Race 1-winner was 3 wide
Race 2-winner was 6 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 3-runner up was 3 wide and lost by a neck
Race 4-winner was 4 wide, runner up was 3 wide, show horse was 3 wide
Race 6-runner up was 4 wide and lost by a neck
Race 8-winner was 3 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 10-winner was wide (Big Brown)
Race 11-winner was 3 wide

So of nine dirt races, the winner was at least 3 wide in six of them. In two more, horses that were at least that wide lost by a neck. In three of them, the exacta was completed by horses that were at least three wide.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

From Equibase:
Saturday at Churchill:

Race 1-winner was 3 wide
Race 2-winner was 6 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 3-runner up was 3 wide and lost by a neck
Race 4-winner was 4 wide, runner up was 3 wide, show horse was 3 wide
Race 6-runner up was 4 wide and lost by a neck
Race 8-winner was 3 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 10-winner was wide (Big Brown)
Race 11-winner was 3 wide

So of nine dirt races, the winner was at least 3 wide in six of them. In two more, horses that were at least that wide lost by a neck. In three of them, the exacta was completed by horses that were at least three wide.

You can't think this makes your point useful do you?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You can't think this makes your point useful do you?

Nope. Obviously, if a horse goes 3 wide or more, he has no chance of winning. Everyone knows that all horses that win from off the pace do so while racing down on the rail.

I'll continue to not worry about horses that run wide. It's worked for me for years. There is a reason why many trainers prefer for their horses to be outside of others.

[ArlJim78]

i've seen winners come from off the pace, and winners go wire to wire.
I'm now declaring pace to also be meaningless.

[Travis Stone]

I've seen horses win on dirt, I've seen horses win on turf and I've seen horses winning synthetics. I'm now declaring racing surface to be meaningless.

[Antitrust32]

I've seen gray, brown, chestnut and dark brown horses all win races. I determine colors to be meaningless.

[King Glorious]

If nothing else, you all are good for a laugh.

Look, all things being equal, a horse on the inside has a shorter path to run. I do realize this. But how often are all things equal? Horses down on the inside may not lose the same ground on turns that horses that go wide do but they often encounter different problems that have a way of evening things out. A horse down on the inside may have to check or steady and lose some lengths there. A horse on the inside may be running on a heavier part of the track. There are many different things that happen in a race that have a way of evening things out and in my opinion, being three wide is not as big a deal as most people make it. It's not ideal but it's not the kiss of death either. How much ground is lost by going five wide on the turn at Churchill as opposed to three wide? A lot of people also don't realize that it varies from track to track. Being five wide at Belmont is not the same as being five wide at Santa Anita because of the track layouts. I just think it's overblown. But hey, whatever works for you is fine.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I've seen gray, brown, chestnut and dark brown horses all win races. I determine colors to be meaningless.

jim made a good point. pace is important.

i assume you're just piling on king and completely missed the point. or actually think color is important.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I've seen gray, brown, chestnut and dark brown horses all win races. I determine colors to be meaningless.

Ummm....I think you missed the point that Jim and Travis were trying to make.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

From Equibase:
Saturday at Churchill:

Race 1-winner was 3 wide
Race 2-winner was 6 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 3-runner up was 3 wide and lost by a neck
Race 4-winner was 4 wide, runner up was 3 wide, show horse was 3 wide
Race 6-runner up was 4 wide and lost by a neck
Race 8-winner was 3 wide, runner up was 5 wide
Race 10-winner was wide (Big Brown)
Race 11-winner was 3 wide

So of nine dirt races, the winner was at least 3 wide in six of them. In two more, horses that were at least that wide lost by a neck. In three of them, the exacta was completed by horses that were at least three wide.

Just a hint, in case you ever want to bet and hope to have a chance to win, do not believe the " wide " comments in charts. Where the charts claimed horses are often is in the stretch, and even that is exagerated, and they do not accurately portray where horses were on the turn(s) and are thus massively misleading in terms of ground loss.

Watch races.....don't believe the charts. Make it your mantra.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

try winning form the 10 hole at belmont this spring...at 1 mile and 1/8th on the turf.....

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

try winning form the 10 hole at belmont this spring...at 1 mile and 1/8th on the turf.....

Obviously, different distances on different tracks will determine where you want to be at certain points on the track. But what you are talking about here is something totally different. The hole you break from doesn't necessarily correlate to where you will be on the track. For instance, breaking from the #20 post in the Derby won't effect Street Sense as much as Hard Spun because of the style of race they run. Starting from the 10 post in a mile race at SA will be different than starting from the 10 at 10f there. Do you think that the 10 at 9f on the turf at Belmont is going to effect Better Talk Now? I don't.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Just a hint, in case you ever want to bet and hope to have a chance to win, do not believe the " wide " comments in charts. Where the charts claimed horses are often is in the stretch, and even that is exagerated, and they do not accurately portray where horses were on the turn(s) and are thus massively misleading in terms of ground loss.

Watch races.....don't believe the charts. Make it your mantra.

Bet? What is that? Tell me more about this betting thing.

Charts are not completely accurate? Nonsense.

Why the hell would I ever watch a race? Why should I end my streak of not watching races and not ever betting at 22 years? That would be stupid.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Bet? What is that? Tell me more about this betting thing.

Charts are not completely accurate? Nonsense.

Why the hell would I ever watch a race? Why should I end my streak of not watching races and not ever betting at 22 years? That would be stupid.

You missed my point completely.

You used inaccurate information to attempt to make a point.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You missed my point completely.

You used inaccurate information to attempt to make a point.

No, I got your point. And it was a good one. I just thought it could have been better made without the insinuation that I must not bet on races because if I was to actually bet and feel the effects of my opinions, I'd have different ones. Or that if I do bet, that I don't win. And saying I don't watch races could have been left out too.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

No, I got your point. And it was a good one. I just thought it could have been better made without the insinuation that I must not bet on races because if I was to actually bet and feel the effects of my opinions, I'd have different ones. Or that if I do bet, that I don't win. And saying I don't watch races could have been left out too.

I actually didn't mean it that way. I realize it looks that way but I meant it as a general statement. In other words, anyone that wants to bet and not lose needs to watch the races and not believe chart comments.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I actually didn't mean it that way. I realize it looks that way but I meant it as a general statement. In other words, anyone that wants to bet and not lose needs to watch the races and not believe chart comments.

And I agree. Watching is the best option always. Charts alone only tell part of the story. In this instance, I wasn't trying to use them to say exactly how wide the horses were, only that they were probably out further in the track than the horses they were going around.

Getting back to Big Brown, I didn't expect him to be on the lead so in visualizing the race, I automatically figured that he'd be coming 3-4 wide around the first turn and 2-3 wide around the second turn and that it wouldn't play a part in the outcome.

One thing I also want to add is that I think sometimes people look at the post and forget that there is a long run into the first turn at Churchill. Through the stretch, he ran no further from the 20 hole than the horse did from the 2, the 10, or the 15. By the time they get to the first turn, because of his speed, he could have a better position than a horse that breaks from the inside but has horses come over on him and has to take back and go around them.