yes Exaggerator is a mud horse

[dilanesp]

I'm really getting tired of a horse I have cashed on twice on off tracks being described as not a mud horse. So I went back and found his other win on the mud, besides the Santa Anita Derby and the Preakness.

Here it is, the 2015 Delta Jackpot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5_XQPfFYgY

Notice how just like in his other two mud starts, he rushes up into contention really quickly. The only difference is where he does it-- in this race he does it passing the stands the first time with a lap to go on the bullring.

His mud starts are far different from his grind it out fast track starts. Every time this horse runs on the mud he makes a HUGE rush, and twice he did it prematurely. He just loves running on wet ground and can't contain himself.

And the most notable thing about the Delta Downs race? There was no pace setup. There was actually no pace setup at Santa Anita either-- Exaggerator sat way back from a lone speed horse, which is NOT a good pace situation. But a number of handicappers convinced themselves that this was some sort of setup. The only pace setup was in the Preakness.

Exaggerator clearly loves a wet track. It isn't just getting pace set-ups.

[Dahoss9698]

And the most notable thing about the Delta Downs race? There was no pace setup. There was actually no pace setup at Santa Anita either-- Exaggerator sat way back from a lone speed horse, which is NOT a good pace situation. But a number of handicappers convinced themselves that this was some sort of setup. The only pace setup was in the Preakness.



First off, HUGE congrats in order for cashing on a 5/2 and 3-1 shot.

But this paragragh is just wrong. There was a huge pace set up in the SA Derby. Danzing Candy wasn't a lone speed horse. The race was full of speed. He ran off (to a lone lead), set a suicide pace (which did him in) and collapsed like the race did. Kind of like Mine That Bird's Derby win.

Exaggerator is a very talented horse that loves the mud like you say. But don't kid yourself. He had a huge set up in the SA Derby.

[JustRalph]

First off, HUGE congrats in order for cashing on a 5/2 and 3-1 shot.

But this paragragh is just wrong. There was a huge pace set up in the SA Derby. Danzing Candy wasn't a lone speed horse. The race was full of speed. He ran off (to a lone lead), set a suicide pace (which did him in) and collapsed like the race did. Kind of like Mine That Bird's Derby win.

Exaggerator is a very talented horse that loves the mud like you say. But don't kid yourself. He had a huge set up in the SA Derby.

If you wanted to teach a newbie about a typical "pace falling apart" or a collapse, that Santa Anita Derby would be the perfect race to use. A gift to the winner

[dilanesp]

If you wanted to teach a newbie about a typical "pace falling apart" or a collapse, that Santa Anita Derby would be the perfect race to use. A gift to the winner

Races like the Santa Anita Derby are often won by a horse sitting second or third. Those horses were not going too fast in that race. They just had a mud freak behind them.

Watch the Delta Jackpot. It's all there in the video.

[the little guy]

Races like the Santa Anita Derby are often won by a horse sitting second or third. Those horses were not going too fast in that race. They just had a mud freak behind them.

Watch the Delta Jackpot. It's all there in the video.

Thank you so much for your contributions. You are truly my favorite poster.

[Fager Fan]

Races like the Santa Anita Derby are often won by a horse sitting second or third. Those horses were not going too fast in that race. They just had a mud freak behind them.

Watch the Delta Jackpot. It's all there in the video.

Uh, it was both. A pace collapse won by a mudder.

I agree the horse is a mudder and would gladly bet against him in the Belmont if there's another horse near his class. I don't know who that is though.

[Tom]

Who said he was not a good mudder?

[Fager Fan]

Who said he was not a good mudder?

It does seem most think he'd be equally good on a fast track but I don't see the evidence of that.

[SuperPickle]

Races like the Santa Anita Derby are often won by a horse sitting second or third. Those horses were not going too fast in that race. They just had a mud freak behind them.

Watch the Delta Jackpot. It's all there in the video.

Yes he's certainly a horse that moves up in the mud. However he got the setup of all setups in both races. Preakness was bet as a two horse race. He was 5/2 and the derby winner was 4/5. Once Mario decided to go 22 and 46 it was over. It didn't matter if he didn't like the track or not. The only other logical horse burned himself up.

In the Santa Anita Derby it was bet as a three horse race. He was third choice, the Baffert horse and Danzing Candy were both around 9/5. Danzing Candy got dueled into defeat and the Baffert horse didn't run a step most likely because of the mud.

I've cashed on him twice but this horse is very suspect. All three of his big wins are on off tracks, two of which where his primary opponents got dueled into defeat.

Until he beats a good horse with a fair trip on a fast track he's just a horse who gets it down when he gets his track and his setup. The great ones win when things don't go there way.

[the little guy]

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that he improves in the mud. In fact, his KY Derby performance makes it pretty clear that he doesn't. He seems to be a horse that handles the mud well. Many horses do not. That's why you frequently see large gaps in sloppy track races.

[classhandicapper]

His overall record is better on wet tracks, but he also had very good setups in the SA Derby and Preakness. So how much was wet and how much was setup is the question you have to answer.

His Derby was excellent and the track labeled fast, but it rained heavily during the day and that track "may" have still had some moisture in it. I do not know. I was not there. If there was some extra moisture in the track it was still closer to fast than off.

Either way, if you look at his overall record and development, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest he's clearly a lot better on wet tracks. The only races you can point to are his first start (almost always excusable) and the San Felipe (where he made a somewhat premature move into a fast paced race with a lot of speed and ran well anyway).

IMO, if he's better on wet, it's definitely not by a significant amount. I'd rate it a pretty small question mark.

[Robert Fischer]

his dirt races tower over the belmont field

What am I missing?

[bisket]

his dirt races tower over the belmont field

What am I missing?
Is he like his dad? similar time frame of development..... I liked his Preakness much more than his history coming into the race. He's tough to bet against in the Belmont.

[dilanesp]

Thank you so much for your contributions. You are truly my favorite poster.

Well, I don't troll. Wish I could say the same for you.

[Mc990]

If you use objective measures (speed figures) and not subjective measures (the old eyeball test!) then he does not move up on an off track, he simply handles it. By the same objective measures, he certainly does not tower over this field. Both Pletchers have races they can run back to that would give them a great shot in here.

[NTamm1215]

There are two fallacies concerning pace in this thread. The first, and most egregious, is that the SA Derby did not provide a gigantic pace setup. It absolutely did.

The second is that the Preakness provided some great pace setup for Exaggerator. Yes, the pace was strong, but he moved at the wrong time. Middle moves in fast paced races often serve as a death sentence. Cherry Wine was much more a beneficiary of dynamics in the Preakness than was Exaggerator.

[dilanesp]

If you use objective measures (speed figures) and not subjective measures (the old eyeball test!) then he does not move up on an off track, he simply handles it. By the same objective measures, he certainly does not tower over this field. Both Pletchers have races they can run back to that would give them a great shot in here.

I think the mid race moves are objectively visible and don't happen on fast tracks.

[cj]

There are two fallacies concerning pace in this thread. The first, and most egregious, is that the SA Derby did not provide a gigantic pace setup. It absolutely did.

The second is that the Preakness provided some great pace setup for Exaggerator. Yes, the pace was strong, but he moved at the wrong time. Middle moves in fast paced races often serve as a death sentence. Cherry Wine was much more a beneficiary of dynamics in the Preakness than was Exaggerator.

I agree with this 100%.

[Mc990]

I think the mid race moves are objectively visible and don't happen on fast tracks.

You need to re-watch the San Felipe.

[Ruffian1]

There are two fallacies concerning pace in this thread. The first, and most egregious, is that the SA Derby did not provide a gigantic pace setup. It absolutely did.

The second is that the Preakness provided some great pace setup for Exaggerator. Yes, the pace was strong, but he moved at the wrong time. Middle moves in fast paced races often serve as a death sentence. Cherry Wine was much more a beneficiary of dynamics in the Preakness than was Exaggerator.

A very astute post IMO.

Totally agree.

[RXB]

There are two fallacies concerning pace in this thread. The first, and most egregious, is that the SA Derby did not provide a gigantic pace setup. It absolutely did.

The second is that the Preakness provided some great pace setup for Exaggerator. Yes, the pace was strong, but he moved at the wrong time. Middle moves in fast paced races often serve as a death sentence. Cherry Wine was much more a beneficiary of dynamics in the Preakness than was Exaggerator.

I agree with you on the first paragraph. On the second one, the first 2f in the Preakness were very fast; the second and third quarters were near normal and that's when Exaggerator was moving forward without really being asked after dropping well behind in the hot opening quarter. And the track certainly wasn't favouring off-the-pace horses that day. I don't think Exaggerator moved at the wrong time in the Preakness.

[classhandicapper]

Whether Exaggerator's setup in the Preakness was good or bad is dependent on how you view and handicap races.

If you are trying to adjust his speed figure or his performance for what appeared to be a somewhat premature move into a fast pace before KD settled him back down, you may think it wasn't an ideal setup.

If you are comparing his trip relative to the horses that were in front of him early (Nyquist, Uncle Lino, Awesome Speed and possibly even Collected and Stradivari), he had a way better setup than the first few and possibly even better than the latter two who were wide chasing.

I view things the second way.

To me, he got a good setup relative to a lot of other good horses in that race, including the horse to beat (Nyquist) or Nyquist probably would have won and several others would have been a lot closer to him at the end. Maybe he got a worse setup than Cherry Wine.

If we are talking about the fact that he saved ground on a day that a lot of riders seemed to be avoiding the rail, these are my notes for that card.

"Dirt - Some riders avoided the rail, but not enough clear cut evidence it was bad. (raining heavily before Preakness and track may have changed for that race anyway)"

This is one of those things like bias. People can agree but use different ways to express it.

Is a track favoring speed when 6 of 9 sprint races go W2W and the other 3 were stalkers if that's the standard profile for that track?

It depends on if you keep your notes relative to that track on a normal day or relative to the normal track in America.

[porchy44]

Throw out all of Exaggerator races except the last three. The Santa Anita Derby is where he changed his running style.

[Mc990]

Throw out all of Exaggerator races except the last three. The Santa Anita Derby is where he changed his running style.

Did he change his running style or did the faster paces in his last 3 just put him further back? His running lines seem fairly congruent. Regardless, he's a huge underlay Saturday

[Fager Fan]

If you use objective measures (speed figures) and not subjective measures (the old eyeball test!) then he does not move up on an off track, he simply handles it. By the same objective measures, he certainly does not tower over this field. Both Pletchers have races they can run back to that would give them a great shot in here.

Objective measures have a degree of subjectivity in them. I bet Ragozin and TG don't agree on his numbers which proves the point. They also give too much credit for ground loss in my opinion.

I believe it was TG that had a low opinion of Nyquist going into the Derby which left their followers with a lot of torn up tickets. The old eyeball test told us his Florida Derby proved he was the best horse in the Derby field.

He'll get his chance this Saturday to prove he can win a big one on a fast track. I'm betting against it.

[Fager Fan]

There are two fallacies concerning pace in this thread. The first, and most egregious, is that the SA Derby did not provide a gigantic pace setup. It absolutely did.

The second is that the Preakness provided some great pace setup for Exaggerator. Yes, the pace was strong, but he moved at the wrong time. Middle moves in fast paced races often serve as a death sentence. Cherry Wine was much more a beneficiary of dynamics in the Preakness than was Exaggerator.

What were his fractions during that middle move?

[classhandicapper]

Did he change his running style or did the faster paces in his last 3 just put him further back? His running lines seem fairly congruent. Regardless, he's a huge underlay Saturday

In an interview with the connections at that time it sounded like they didn't think the trip in the San Felipe was ideal because he moved prematurely (into the fast pace). The "plan" in the SA Derby was to take him back and make a later run. They did same thing in the Derby. Perhaps they felt they waited too long in the Derby and that's why he was moved a little sooner in the Preakness. I have no idea. IMO, the horse has a good turn of foot and could easily lay close if they want (he was close to Nyquist at 7F). I have no idea what they might do in this race.

[classhandicapper]

What were his fractions during that middle move?

The ironic thing is that Cherry Wine actually ran the faster 4F after the first 2F were run. These are the raw fractions. You can adjust them by a track variant if you have one, but it's not necessary to just comparative their middle moves
(assuming the beaten lengths at those calls are even reasonably accurate). lol

Exaggerator = 24.35 - 23.33 - 24.66
Cherry Wine = 26.48 - 23.33 - 24.16

The major difference is that Exaggerator put himself right into the race with his middle move and Cheery Wine was still way behind.

[Robert Fischer]

The Preakness cooked Nyquist(the only horse at Exaggerator's level).

That's a hell of a good trip to get!



Look, we've seen Exaggerator run a million times. He's right at the top of the crop. Forget the weather and the setups. No one is fooling us about Exaggerator at this point. His Delta his San Vicente his Santa Anita his Derby his Preakness, = all the same damn horse! We should know this guy by now.

Whether it rains, snows, drought, or they race the Belmont Stakes on the moon...
Exaggerator will have the highest percentage chance of winning and be slightly underlayed as the crowd favorite in the Belmont.

[classhandicapper]

The Preakness cooked Nyquist(the only horse at Exaggerator's level). That's a hell of a good trip to get!

Exaggerator will have the highest percentage chance of winning and be slightly underlayed as the crowd favorite in the Belmont.

I was a little interested in Stradiveri because I thought he had the tougher trip in the Preakness chasing that fast pace wide. I make him closer to Exaggerator than the official margin. Plus, being so lightly raced, he may have some more upside. But it seems like a lot of people are on his bandwagon and I suspect the pace could be a little faster than it looks. Gettysburg is going to go early and all these horses are stretching out. Sometimes horses that look like more like ratable "near the lead" types wind up running faster than you would think on a huge stretch out.

The most interesting thing will be how Exaggerator runs.

Will they make one late run, do that middle move, or will they lay closer from the start?

[rastajenk]

Are you suggesting Gettysburg can lay down a Commendable trip?

[classhandicapper]

Are you suggesting Gettysburg can lay down a Commendable trip?

No.

He looks more like a rabbit to me.

[classhandicapper]

I guess this debate is going to continue for at least one more race. The people that think he's better on wet tracks are going to feel vindicated and the rest of the people will point to other factors that may have caused a disappointing effort.

[Fager Fan]

Since I'm one of those calling him a mudder, I feel vindicated.

He had a wide trip, but to me this is just further evidence that the mud moves him up.

[cj]

Since I'm one of those calling him a mudder, I feel vindicated.

He had a wide trip, but to me this is just further evidence that the mud moves him up.

I'll have to watch again, but my thought during the race was "what the hell is Kent doing." I thought he was up to close on a fast pace (for the distance) while losing ground. He also totally quit riding with more than a 1/16th to go so the margin he was beaten is greatly "exaggerated".

[woodbinepmi]

I'll have to watch again, but my thought during the race was "what the hell is Kent doing." I thought he was up to close on a fast pace (for the distance) while losing ground. He also totally quit riding with more than a 1/16th to go so the margin he was beaten is greatly "exaggerated".
Typical Kent ride

[JustRalph]

Kent made that Super a great ticket✅

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Typical Kent ride

Agreed. He pulls that off more often than not.

[classhandicapper]

I think I'm starting to figure this horse out. I don't think he actually wants to close from way out it. That's why he seems to make so many mildly premature moves. It looked to me like KD had him under hard restraint yesterday, but the horse pulled him into that move on the backside.

He didn't have the best of trips yesterday chasing wide on both turns. He may not have liked 12F either. But at this point I think he's just a pretty good horse whose record has been flattered by a series of fast paces, wet tracks, and generally good setups relative to the others.

[acorn54]

a lesson in betting horses. no way to factor in jockey strategy BEFORE the bet. there is an old adage,"the best jockey, in the race is the one that hinders their horse the least".
so you better get a price and lower priced horses like exaggerator, i must take my hat off to those bettors who bet their precious money to win on him.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You are almost guaranteed to get a bad ride in the Belmont no matter who you like since everyone has bought into the idea that the only way to win is to forget all you know about riding your horse and just follow the pundit template for riding that one race.

[Tom]

The maiden beat him.
I don't think mud itself is that powerful.
A lot of people beforehand had bad things to say about the horse, particularly the way he worked out. You could fool me, i have no idea how a work out should look, but when that many point it out, I guess it made the odds on him look pretty poisonous.

Had I bet past the first race, he was not going to be on any of my tickets.
But, neither were either of the top two finishers! :blush:

[classhandicapper]

Had I bet past the first race, he was not going to be on any of my tickets. But, neither were either of the top two finishers! :blush:

The winner wasn't the kind of horse I play, but I could see someone else coming up with him. He lost all chance in the Derby when he was taken up and generally appeared similar to or better than Suddenbreakingnews before that (trips considered). I'm not sure why the odds were so far apart on those two. So on a relative value basis, maybe you could make a case.

I didn't think he had shown enough prior to the Derby to think he was very likely yesterday even if you knew to throw out his Derby and factored in that Gettysburg was likely to ensure an honest/fast pace. He got a very good trip in the Arkansas Derby. Then again, he won yesterday, but I don't think he was the best horse.

[Fager Fan]

Nyquist is the only top tier colt among the 3yos.

[dilanesp]

The winner wasn't the kind of horse I play, but I could see someone else coming up with him. He lost all chance in the Derby when he was taken up and generally appeared similar to or better than Suddenbreakingnews before that (trips considered). I'm not sure why the odds were so far apart on those two. So on a relative value basis, maybe you could make a case.

I didn't think he had shown enough prior to the Derby to think he was very likely yesterday even if you knew to throw out his Derby and factored in that Gettysburg was likely to ensure an honest/fast pace. He got a very good trip in the Arkansas Derby. Then again, he won yesterday, but I don't think he was the best horse.

Given the results of the Belmont over the last 20 years or so, I think it's a reasonable betting strategy to look only at longshots.

The basic notion is that 1 1/2 miles on the dirt is so completely foreign to American racing that nobody knows who will get the trip and who won't (which includes riding tactics as well as stamina). Therefore, by definition, the favorites are going to be underlays in this race, and the longshots are going to be overlays.

[dilanesp]

I will say it again now. Yes Exaggerator is a mud horse.

[PaceAdvantage]

So how do you explain his wins over fast tracks with basically similar speed figures? Were some of those fast tracks win "not fast?"

I don't see how you can say he's much better on an off track if he runs the same numbers on both. If he's a mud horse, he should be running better numbers on off tracks.

[dilanesp]

So how do you explain his wins over fast tracks with basically similar speed figures? Were some of those fast tracks win "not fast?"

I don't see how you can say he's much better on an off track if he runs the same numbers on both. If he's a mud horse, he should be running better numbers on off tracks.

It may be that speed figures aren't gospel here. Think about the following- suppose a horse slows down less on off tracks than his or her competitors. Whether that horse runs a better figure depends on whether or not there are other horses on the card entered who do the same thing (and thus affect the track variant).

The point is, Exaggerator's best races have all been on off tracks, he has now flopped several times on fast tracks, and the only real outlier is the Kentucky Derby where the track was actually somewhat wet despite the fast label.

I think that's a stronger piece of analysis than slavishly relying on speed figures.

[SuperPickle]

I will say it again now. Yes Exaggerator is a mud horse.

Here's why you're not right...

The reason why they went to the Haskell was he hated the track at Saratoga. His works were awful and Keith flat sad he doesn't like the track.

Getting on here and saying it was the slop when he's struggled training over the surface for weeks just isn't accurate.

Possibly his best race was the troubled 2nd in the derby over a fast track.

I think you're not applying logic to the situation. Just because he races well in the slop doesn't mean he doesn't race well on a fast track. The two are not mutually inclusive.

They probably shouldn't have ran him in the Travers but he was in form the race is a million dollars and there's no other races against three year olds that a victory would help his value or his title consideration.

Sometimes as a trainer you're in the crappy spot of running a horse in a less than ideal spot.

[classhandicapper]

So how do you explain his wins over fast tracks with basically similar speed figures? Were some of those fast tracks win "not fast?"

I don't see how you can say he's much better on an off track if he runs the same numbers on both. If he's a mud horse, he should be running better numbers on off tracks.

I mentioned this a couple of times, but no one paid much attention even though I thought it might be critical to understanding this horse going forward. It rained during the racing card Derby day. The official track designation for the Derby was fast, but that doesn't mean there wasn't still moisture in the track. I don't know the answer because I wasn't there, but I suspect it was still wet underneath.

In the years before "wet fast" became a more common designation in the PPs, I knew a pro player in NY that used make notes on tracks that were labeled fast that still had moisture in them so he could upgrade/downgrade horses that either loved/hated them off those mislabeled tracks.

I'm going to guess he keyed against Exaggerator yesterday. Nothing is 100% and I didn't cash anyway, but I keyed against him and I expected him to get a fast pace.

[dilanesp]

I mentioned this a couple of times, but no one paid much attention even though I thought it might be critical to understanding this horse going forward. It rained during the racing card Derby day. The official track designation for the Derby was fast, but that doesn't mean there wasn't still moisture in the track. I don't know the answer because I wasn't there, but I suspect it was still wet underneath.

In the years before "wet fast" became a more common designation in the PPs, I knew a pro player in NY that used make notes on tracks that were labeled fast that still had moisture in them so he could upgrade/downgrade horses that either loved/hated them off those mislabeled tracks.

I'm going to guess he keyed against Exaggerator yesterday. Nothing is 100% and I didn't cash anyway, but I keyed against him and I expected him to get a fast pace.

Yep. The rain on Derby day is very much an important part of the puzzle here.

[Mc990]

IMO he's most likely a miler who caught wet/sloppy tracks as the distances increased and was able to carry his form a little further than he otherwise would have. Needs a turn back ASAP. Dirt mile...

[Robert Fischer]

surface seems to be pretty far down on the list of what's important with this guy

[Fager Fan]

Anyone who doesn't realize by now that this horse moves way up on a wet track is in some kind of denial. It doesn't hurt my feelings as I tossed him totally yesterday (it's just too bad I didn't have the winner), but the fact that it's still being argued after yesterday is strange at best.

[Robert Fischer]

Anyone who doesn't realize by now that this horse moves way up on a wet track is in some kind of denial. It doesn't hurt my feelings as I tossed him totally yesterday (it's just too bad I didn't have the winner), but the fact that it's still being argued after yesterday is strange at best.

Wasn't aware that the Travers was some sort of tie-breaker prop bet for surface affinity...

Yesterday we had a Travers where the pace held together, the only closers with any success battled for 4th, a Baffert masterpiece broke the track record with literally no battle for 1st, and Exaggerator (a horse at the mercy of the pace) was asked to close from last...

and somehow that race is supposed to be compared to pace-collapse races that he won on an off-track, and it is going to tell us that he hates the surface?