Horrible 2-5 entry Aqu

[zico20]

Thursday at Aqueduct in the second race the entry is 2-5 and both of them look awful on paper. At first I didn't know which one was the reason for the 2-5 ML but then I decided it was the straight :1: on the class drop. Now, with that being said, the rest of the field is just down right terrible. It won't surprise me if the entry wins this race, not in the least, but how anyone could bet this huge favorite is beyond me.

If there was ever a race to take a stab against the big favorite, this is it. I like the :8: who has lost 25 in a row. Maybe the :10: who is lone speed with a solid trainer and jock could also win. :3: :4: :7: suck and the :2: isn't much better. This will be an interesting race to watch.

[cj]

It is a 12k maiden claimer, and while the entry doesn't exactly hold a promising future, the rest of the field is bad. The only one I could imagine using against the entry is the 10, but I doubt she'll offer any value.

[letswastemoney]

Maybe it's time to skip when you think the horse that lost 25 in a row has a good chance lol.

[arw629]

The entry will be 1-5 and the 10 will be 5-2....everyone else a million to one

[arw629]

I think the two offers the most value in an exacta....throw out the last 3 in the mud which leaves you form from 2013 lol and you got somewhat competitive back form!

[zico20]

I think the two offers the most value in an exacta....throw out the last 3 in the mud which leaves you form from 2013 lol and you got somewhat competitive back form!

Don't laugh about going back to 2013 form. I forgot which idiot on TVG went back 4 years on Mr. Commons to his SA derby race to justify his pick on the dirt for the San Pasqual.

[cj]

Don't laugh about going back to 2013 form. I forgot which idiot on TVG went back 4 years on Mr. Commons to his SA derby race to justify his pick on the dirt for the San Pasqual.

Idiot? Really? Come on, you may not agree with somebody but that is a bit much even if your version of what was said is 100% correct, and I'm assuming it is.

[Stillriledup]

Don't laugh about going back to 2013 form. I forgot which idiot on TVG went back 4 years on Mr. Commons to his SA derby race to justify his pick on the dirt for the San Pasqual.
I saw that and was like "if you really follow the game, and follow each horse's career and not just look at PP lines, you aren't picking Mr Commons on dirt vs this level"

That Commons horse has been in a steady decline over the years, he was really impressive at one point and then just slowly couldn't duplicate that form and this was obvious if you watched his races and did the work. Most of these TVG guys aren't handicapping these horses in that way, they're just going on paper and going race by race, there's no "context" to it for them.

[zico20]

Idiot? Really? Come on, you may not agree with somebody but that is a bit much even if your version of what was said is 100% correct, and I'm assuming it is.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. I know a bunch of very good handicappers, a couple of whom make some nice money every year. None of them have ever gone back four years to pick a winner now. I just think people who try to pick winners based on four year old past performances really don't know what they are doing. Ask any professional handicapper and I doubt they ever look at what happened 4 years ago.

CJ, I really don't get your comment. Can you please explain. Thank you!

[George Sands]

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. I know a bunch of very good handicappers, a couple of whom make some nice money every year. None of them have ever gone back four years to pick a winner now. I just think people who try to pick winners based on four year old past performances really don't know what they are doing. Ask any professional handicapper and I doubt they ever look at what happened 4 years ago.

How many years must one go back to find Mr. Commons' last dirt race?

[letswastemoney]

If a horse's last dirt race was 4 years ago, then that race is relevant if the next race is on dirt.

Of course, it's not the only factor, but something to look at.

[George Sands]

If a horse's last dirt race was 4 years ago, then that race is relevant if the next race is on dirt.

Of course it is, as are the dirt races that are even older.

[zico20]

If a horse's last dirt race was 4 years ago, then that race is relevant if the next race is on dirt.

Of course, it's not the only factor, but something to look at.

Thank you, now I understand. So if a horse ran ONCE at a certain track 50 races and 8 years ago that would be relevant to some people. Not to me, nor was Mr. Commons race 4 years ago. I just don't go back that far as to what is relevant. I don't have specific time frames or number of races, but I know 4 years is way past what I think is important. Thanks again for the clarification.

[cj]

Thank you, now I understand. So if a horse ran ONCE at a certain track 50 races and 8 years ago that would be relevant to some people. Not to me, nor was Mr. Commons race 4 years ago. I just don't go back that far as to what is relevant. I don't have specific time frames or number of races, but I know 4 years is way past what I think is important. Thanks again for the clarification.


I was referring to the idiot part, totally unnecessary.unnecessary. I also happen to a agree the race has some handicapping value.

[letswastemoney]

Thank you, now I understand. So if a horse ran ONCE at a certain track 50 races and 8 years ago that would be relevant to some people. Not to me, nor was Mr. Commons race 4 years ago. I just don't go back that far as to what is relevant. I don't have specific time frames or number of races, but I know 4 years is way past what I think is important. Thanks again for the clarification.I wouldn't rely on turf races to predict what a horse is going to do on dirt. I always thought Mr. Commons was overrated in the past so I didn't think much of him in the San Pasqual, but turf and synthetic races are not as important for dirt races, especially when the horse has dirt form already.

[JustRalph]

I was referring to the idiot part, totally unnecessary.unnecessary. I also happen to a agree the race has some handicapping value.

Oh man! Swing and a miss! Can't believe he didn't get it.....

[Stillriledup]

Thank you, now I understand. So if a horse ran ONCE at a certain track 50 races and 8 years ago that would be relevant to some people. Not to me, nor was Mr. Commons race 4 years ago. I just don't go back that far as to what is relevant. I don't have specific time frames or number of races, but I know 4 years is way past what I think is important. Thanks again for the clarification.

With this horse, its not nearly as relevant as if he had one lifetime start and that was it. If Mr Commons was a 2nd time starter and his only race was 4 years ago, i would watch the replay to try and gauge his stride and if i could make any determination of his talent level. But if he's had dozens of starts after that race 4 years ago, i dont need to back 4 years, to me, that wouldn't matter...i'd rather watch his recent turf starts, determine how good i think the horse was and rate him in the context of how horses like him do in races like the race he was in as well as other factors that can point me to the right answer, but his race 4 years ago wouldnt' matter to me....unless that was the only race i was able to go on.

[George Sands]

With this horse, its not nearly as relevant as if he had one lifetime start and that was it. If Mr Commons was a 2nd time starter and his only race was 4 years ago, i would watch the replay to try and gauge his stride and if i could make any determination of his talent level. But if he's had dozens of starts after that race 4 years ago, i dont need to back 4 years, to me, that wouldn't matter...i'd rather watch his recent turf starts, determine how good i think the horse was and rate him in the context of how horses like him do in races like the race he was in as well as other factors that can point me to the right answer, but his race 4 years ago wouldnt' matter to me....unless that was the only race i was able to go on.

Early in his career, Mr Commons ran three times on dirt. These three dirt races were surrounded by grass races.

Then he stayed on grass for several years.

Finally, he returns to dirt.

When evaluating his chances in this dirt race, do you think it is a bad idea to go back several years and see how his old dirt races compared to his old turf races?

[Stillriledup]

Early in his career, Mr Commons ran three times on dirt. These three dirt races were surrounded by grass races.

Then he stayed on grass for several years.

Finally, he returns to dirt.

When evaluating his chances in this dirt race, do you think it is a bad idea to go back several years and see how his old dirt races compared to his old turf races?

I wouldn't characterize it as a "bad idea" only because each player has ways and methods that they use, there's no "wrong way" to win, if someone said they want to go back and look at those races, than i wouldn't tell them they're wrong if looking at those races fit in the context of how they do things.

For me, the reason i wouldn't go back that far is because within the context of how i determine how Mr Commons "fits" in that race isn't determined by going back that far, especially since he's run many times in the interim.

Maybe i'm jaded because i feel that i have a very good handle on Mr Commons and who he can beat and where, its possible that if i was handicapping a race at a circuit i'm not as familiar with or handicapping a horse i'm not as familiar with, i'd look at those numbers just to see how fast he ran beyerwise and just try and fit that into context with all the other stuff i know about the other runners.

But, to sum up, i wouldn't ever tell anyone to not look that far back, its not a bad idea if that's how you handicap.

[zico20]

Oh man! Swing and a miss! Can't believe he didn't get it.....

I have been going to the track for 40 years and I have met hundreds if not thousands of people who bet and I have never met one person who ever went back that far to handicap. I had no idea anyone did this. I thought this was the first time in history someone handicapped four years worth of PPs. That is why I called him an idiot. To pick a horse on what he did 4 years ago to me is idiotic, under any circumstance. So now I get it. So what if I didn't get it right away. I never claimed to know everything on the planet. But I know I am an intelligent person overall, which you seem to imply I am stupid or something because I didn't catch it. So be it.

[cj]

Early in his career, Mr Commons ran three times on dirt. These three dirt races were surrounded by grass races.

Then he stayed on grass for several years.

Finally, he returns to dirt.

When evaluating his chances in this dirt race, do you think it is a bad idea to go back several years and see how his old dirt races compared to his old turf races?

Ding ding, that is the winner. It isn't about going back and assuming the horse could run to figure he ran four years ago (or whatver), it is about comparing his dirt / turf figures then to his turf figures now.

The last three figure for Mr Commons on turf from TimeformUS, new to old, were 108, 108, 104.

His three dirt races were sandwiched by turf races, oldest to new:

T-109, D-101, D-108, D-108, T-109, T-112, T-115

So to my eye, he is a better turf horse. He has run 108 last two on turf, so I'd expect something in the low 100s at best, which wasn't good enough to be a contender on Saturday. That is how I use old figures on a different surface, and it has worked very well for me.

By the way, he ran a 101.

[cj]

I have been going to the track for 40 years and I have met hundreds if not thousands of people who bet and I have never met one person who ever went back that far to handicap. I had no idea anyone did this. I thought this was the first time in history someone handicapped four years worth of PPs. That is why I called him an idiot. To pick a horse on what he did 4 years ago to me is idiotic, under any circumstance. So now I get it. So what if I didn't get it right away. I never claimed to know everything on the planet. But I know I am an intelligent person overall, which you seem to imply I am stupid or something because I didn't catch it. So be it.

I guess I have to spell it out. Calling someone an idiot for a handicapping opinion just isn't very cool. You want to disagree, fine, no problem, but do it like an adult, not a 12 year old. It wasn't about the disagreement, it was using the term idiot.

[Stillriledup]

I have been going to the track for 40 years and I have met hundreds if not thousands of people who bet and I have never met one person who ever went back that far to handicap. I had no idea anyone did this. I thought this was the first time in history someone handicapped four years worth of PPs. That is why I called him an idiot. To pick a horse on what he did 4 years ago to me is idiotic, under any circumstance. So now I get it. So what if I didn't get it right away. I never claimed to know everything on the planet. But I know I am an intelligent person overall, which you seem to imply I am stupid or something because I didn't catch it. So be it.

I think their point was that everyone has different ways of doing things, it doesn't make them an idiot if they don't agree with the way you do things. theres No wrong way to win and if going back 4 years (or 40) is what a capper needs to do, than its not wrong.

[bello]

The Bridgejumping hath started on #1.....Do you dare?

[Stillriledup]

The Bridgejumping hath started on #1.....Do you dare?

Amazing that the 8 couldn't pass the 3 for 2nd. (and then fell after the wire)

[the little guy]

I have been going to the track for 40 years and I have met hundreds if not thousands of people who bet and I have never met one person who ever went back that far to handicap. I had no idea anyone did this. I thought this was the first time in history someone handicapped four years worth of PPs. That is why I called him an idiot. To pick a horse on what he did 4 years ago to me is idiotic, under any circumstance. So now I get it. So what if I didn't get it right away. I never claimed to know everything on the planet. But I know I am an intelligent person overall, which you seem to imply I am stupid or something because I didn't catch it. So be it.


The people that did that with some Bill Mott horse, whose name escapes me now, were ahead of the game a few years ago.

I wish I could remember that horse's name. I think he died recently.

[classhandicapper]

One of the complications with Mr Commons was that his dirt form was from when he was a developing 3yo and he seemed to be declining from his absolute best the last year or so.

Personally, I am suspicious of horses that have been running fairly well on the turf for a long time even if they have good back form on dirt (If it's just a handful of races or an off the turf race against similar, that's different). I'm not sure if it's the different training style, simply getting used to running on a different surface, that running on turf despite good dirt form is a sign of physical problems or something else. But I feel reasonably comfortable saying that more of those horses are going to disappoint relative to those back dirt figures and a reasonable analysis of surface preference than is indicated. You will get better prices to compensate, but I think something else is going on. Trainer probably matters.

The fact that he went off at close to 25-1 might have said something.

[cj]

One of the complications with Mr Commons was that his dirt form was from when he was a developing 3yo ...


But wasn't he also a developing 3 year old when he ran on turf right around the same time? I think it was fine to use those dirt races in comparison to his turf races and project what he would run on Saturday...in fact it worked out perfectly.

Of course there isn't a lot of value in eliminating a 25-1 shot, but there are times this will add value, like say when Cigar tried dirt again when moved to Mott in New York as Andy alluded to earlier.

[classhandicapper]

But wasn't he also a developing 3 year old when he ran on turf right around the same time?

Yes.

I think you can argue he looked a little better on turf in 2011, but he was also improving and moving up the ranks. So how much was surface and how much was development wasn't clear to me. My guess would be that he was a tad better on turf, also developing, and has since declined. I'd put him back on turf if he's OK.

[Tom]

Beyer wrote about this kind of comparison in BOS.
I see it all the time at smaller tracks with turf courses.

It can be a nice play, especially when you can eliminate the favorite for other good reasons.