Post 20

[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.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

Actually, not to nitpick, but my point is the charts exagerate more often than not. I realize the charts in KY will probably change with the unfortunate recent passing of their chart caller, but I can't tell you the number of horses that were listed in charts as six wide, or even eight wide, that were actually on the inside or two path on the turn, only to angle out in the stretch.

Personally, I am not a big ground loss guy, and that is one of the reasons I have major problems with the Sheets and Thorographs. Obviously I understand the concept of more ground being covered, but there is a great deal more going on concerning racetrack placement that can often make ground loss very misleading.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Personally, I am not a big ground loss guy, and that is one of the reasons I have major problems with the Sheets and Thorographs. Obviously I understand the concept of more ground being covered, but there is a great deal more going on concerning racetrack placement that can often make ground loss very misleading.

Do you look at the Trakus charts for KEE? You'd probably be as surprised as I was at the number of winners running significantly LESS than the others in the race.

Ground covered goes a long way towards explaining trips; both good and bad.

Too bad the industry is light years away from accurate data, including ground covered (which eliminates, to a great extent, the part of the trip process dealing with position on the turns.)

[golfer]

I agree that ground loss can be mis-leading in certain situations (such as the Fair Grounds turf course this winter, or Keeneland early on when every horse was travelling in the 5 path or out), but when the difference between winning and losing is inches, the shortest distance to the finish line can be very important.