Random post-Derby thoughts

[blackthroatedwind]

Speed figures certainly help. But it's also a matter of reasonable judgement of talent. Call this vague if you want but it's not necessarily definable.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Speed figures certainly help. But it's also a matter of reasonable judgement of talent. Call this vague if you want but it's not necessarily definable.

OK. That's fine. But it also means you will never have to admit you are wrong about POTN. Right?

Thus, this debate will always continue. Which is fine. I'm just sayin'.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by justindew

OK. That's fine. But it also means you will never have to admit you are wrong about POTN. Right?

Thus, this debate will always continue. Which is fine. I'm just sayin'.

Can you honestly say that while watching him down the stretch in the Derby you felt like you were watching a good horse?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Can you honestly say that while watching him down the stretch in the Derby you felt like you were watching a good horse?

I think the jury is still out, which is part of the reason for my post.

I thought he ran a pretty nice race in the Derby. He was up close early, put away the front-runners (who were of questionable ablity, I agree), and then held off two pretty good horses (while possibly interfering) for 2nd. On a track that he had every right (as did everyone) to dislike, I feel like it was a pretty solid effort.

I think Pioneerof The Nile will win a Grade I on dirt someday. Does that make him "good"? No. Frost Giant is a Grade I winner. But POTN has faced 47 opponents in his last 5 races, and he's beaten 46 of them. And he's won two Grade Is in the process, and finished 2nd in another Grade I on dirt.

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Can you honestly say that while watching him down the stretch in the Derby you felt like you were watching a good horse?

Can you honestly make something out of that quagmire.
You may be absolutely correct, POTN might be just
a good old fashioned effort horse without much talent.
Really a very run of the mill 3yo.

But if you can take the Derby, and make definitive statements
about POTN, I would like to know how.

Further more if you can claim that probably the two best 3 yo
that are unable to run would have won in that slop by at the very least 7 lengths
I would like to know how you figure that given the conditions.
Because some have claimed Revenge AND Quality Road would
have filled out the exacta.

[Bobby Fischer]

POTN was a terrible bet for the Derby.
He was probably one of the top 5 contenders, and possibly worse. He was bet to 6-1. He had little potential to run a big race.

We had a very odd Derby where 2 more talented horses had nightmare trips (FF, Dunkirk).

POTN finished 2nd in slow time, and needed a foul by his jockey to hold 2nd.

The people who said that Pioneer of the Nile had no value were correct. The result doesn't change that.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

POTN was a terrible bet for the Derby.
He was probably one of the top 5 contenders, and possibly worse. He was bet to 6-1. He had little potential to run a big race.

We had a very odd Derby where 2 more talented horses had nightmare trips (FF, Dunkirk).

POTN finished 2nd in slow time, and needed a foul by his jockey to hold 2nd.

The people who said that Pioneer of the Nile had no value were correct. The result doesn't change that.

Pioneerof The Nile was 6-1 in the Derby. In a manner of speaking, this represents a less-than-15% chance of winning.

Now, let's say you were planning to bet against POTN, yet you would have admitted before the race that if he DID handle the dirt, he was among the most likely winners. By betting against POTN, you are essentially saying "I think there is less than a 15% chance that POTN will handle dirt." (I know, I'm simplifying this for effect, but for the sake of argument...)

To put it another way, if you thought that POTN was a potential winner IF he handled dirt, AND if you felt the likelihood of him handling dirt was higher than 15%, then it is easily arguable that he DID offer value.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by justindew

Pioneerof The Nile was 6-1 in the Derby. In a manner of speaking, this represents a less-than-15% chance of winning.

Now, let's say you were planning to bet against POTN, yet you would have admitted before the race that if he DID handle the dirt, he was among the most likely winners. By betting against POTN, you are essentially saying "I think there is less than a 15% chance that POTN will handle dirt." (I know, I'm simplifying this for effect, but for the sake of argument...)

To put it another way, if you thought that POTN was a potential winner IF he handled dirt, AND if you felt the likelihood of him handling dirt was higher than 15%, then it is easily arguable that he DID offer value.

here is an approximate percentage distribution of how I handicapped the race;

friesan fire = 40%
dunkirk = 12%
chocolate candy = 7%
desert party = 7%
pioneerof the nile = 7%
papa clem 4%
Join in the dance 2.5%
musket man 2.5%
ABOVE 8 = 78%
ALL other 11 = 22%


these above percentages were not conditional in any way - including POTN. As I said I believed he would be fine on dirt, I did have some question about his stamina and I didn't see him as having a lot of talent.
Friesan Fire was much the best , I felt Dunkirk had a shot to win , and after that there were 3 horses who I felt had about even chances (CHocolateCandy,DesertParty,POTN). CHocolate candy may have liked the distance a lot more than Pioneer of the Nile and was a lot better price. Desert Party could have been anything - there was a small probability that he even had enough talent to win outright and he was paying much more than Pioneerof The Nile.

IN HINDSIGHT: After the race, I obviously underestimated Musket Man . I also underestimated POTN - although not by much!, and I overestimated chocolate candy and Desert Party.
I also greatly underestimated Mine That Bird. Given Borel's tactics he would win his share of Kentucky Derby 135's should they run an infinite amount of races in some kind of time warp, and he deserves at least 15% of Friesan Fire's dominant share of the win probability.
[assigning Mine That Bird anywhere near that extra probability is beyond my handicapping skill without hindsight, Musket Man was probably my most correctable error- given that his trainer was being praised for his stamina building methods, and my knock against him was stamina.]


SUMMARY
I did include POTN on some coverage tickets where I used 5 or 6 horses in a slot. However as you can see, with my opinions he was a ripoff to use on narrower tickets and there was no contingency about the surface involved.

[Pedigree Ann]

Comparing Colonel John to Pioneerof the Nile is inappropriate because the pair ran on surfaces that were not the same.

Are your memories so short? Don't you remember what a mess the Santa Anita Cushion Track was last year? The asphalt base that didn't drain? The lost racing days? The days when maiden claimers ran in 1:08 and change? Only to be followed after the triage work by days when the track was slow by anybody's standard?

That track was dug up including the base, and an entirely new track laid down, a different formulation called Pro-Ride on top. This track has been used only since last Oak Tree meeting. No 3yos have come into the Derby after having prepped on Pro-Ride before.

Pro-Ride is not Poly is not Tapeta is not Cushion, just like Churchill is not Gulfstream (which is not the previous Gulfstream) is not Belmont is not Aqueduct inner track. Synth tracks can vary from one another as much as dirt tracks do.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Comparing Colonel John to Pioneerof the Nile is inappropriate because the pair ran on surfaces that were not the same.

Are your memories so short? Don't you remember what a mess the Santa Anita Cushion Track was last year? The asphalt base that didn't drain? The lost racing days? The days when maiden claimers ran in 1:08 and change? Only to be followed after the triage work by days when the track was slow by anybody's standard?

That track was dug up including the base, and an entirely new track laid down, a different formulation called Pro-Ride on top. This track has been used only since last Oak Tree meeting. No 3yos have come into the Derby after having prepped on Pro-Ride before.

Pro-Ride is not Poly is not Tapeta is not Cushion, just like Churchill is not Gulfstream (which is not the previous Gulfstream) is not Belmont is not Aqueduct inner track. Synth tracks can vary from one another as much as dirt tracks do.

I am 100% sure DrugS knows plenty about synth tracks.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

OK. That's fine. But it also means you will never have to admit you are wrong about POTN. Right?

Thus, this debate will always continue. Which is fine. I'm just sayin'.

Certainly you realize I couldn't care less about admitting whether I am right or not.......right? I do it all the time....it's basically a given considering my job. If Pioneer of the Nile excedes my opinion of him I will certainly let you know.

I get it, I have a big ego, but it's so big that it allows me to readily admit when I am wrong.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Certainly you realize I couldn't care less about admitting whether I am right or not.......right? I do it all the time....it's basically a given considering my job. If Pioneer of the Nile excedes my opinion of him I will certainly let you know.

I get it, I have a big ego, but it's so big that it allows me to readily admit when I am wrong.

Well, wait a minute Andy. I don't think you're being fair here. You and others have been calling those of us who think POTN is good "wrong" for a while. And you are entitled to your opinion. I'm less interested in hearing you admit you are wrong (which I have heard you do before) and more interested in what the standard is for this one particular horse. That's all.

This is a debate. And I like debates about racing. But I don't see anything wrong with agreeing on what the actual debate is, so to speak.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

Well, wait a minute Andy. I don't think you're being fair here. You and others have been calling those of us who think POTN is good "wrong" for a while. And you are entitled to your opinion. I'm less interested in hearing you admit you are wrong (which I have heard you do before) and more interested in what the standard is for this one particular horse. That's all.

This is a debate. And I like debates about racing. But I don't see anything wrong with agreeing on what the actual debate is, so to speak.

Well, in this case my record of disagreeing with you has some relevance.....and I think you know that it's been pretty strong overall.

No, that doesn't necessarily make me correct this time, but it surely gives my opinion the necessary credibility in this case.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Well, in this case my record of disagreeing with you has some relevance.....and I think you know that it's been pretty strong overall.

No, that doesn't necessarily make me correct this time, but it surely gives my opinion the necessary credibility in this case.

I disagree with this entire post.

And Zanjero came within half a length of winning a Grade I. We'll call that one a tie.

And Bittel Road has yet to appear in a claiming race. Score one for me.

I'll concede that Nobiz Like Shobiz was NOT the best of his generation.

Justin: 1
Andy: 1
Tie: 1

[blackthroatedwind]

That was funny.

[ateamstupid]

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

Ok. And if speed figures are the measure, and if they are accurate, then you are correct.

Although, I have to point out that a number of people (maybe not you) said he was a turf horse because he started his career on turf and Mott felt dirt was his 3rd-best surface.

[gales0678]

Justin - i would love to see POTN run against Quality Road

Maybe after the TC BB can keep him here in NY and run in the Jim Dandy and then the Travers stakes

If he can win those types of races my guess is that people's opinion of him will chage

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.

The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.

Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.

For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.

Gimme a ****in break already.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.

The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.

Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.

For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.

Gimme a ****in break already.

fat man if the stewards had done their job, POTN would have been placed fourth - as much as some on here talk about cheating by trainers , there needs to be more attention to what the stewards are doing and why they are doing it , regardless if coa or papa's jock claimed foul the stewards should have taken the horse down no ands or if's about it

the public was given virtually no reason why this didn't happen , i don't even remember nbc mentioning it once, just a travesty to anyone who had MM for place of had him in the 2nd spot for the exacta's