The Golden rail.

[Poindexter]

I am going to start this off by saying I am not a bias player. It seems like every time I have perceived a bias over the years it has been more costly to me as I start throwing out horses who win at big prices. It is just a confusion I really don't need. I honestly do fine without worrying about biases, so it just not part of my arsenal anymore (not saying that my way is right or wrong, it just works for me).

I keep reading people claiming the Always Dreaming won on a golden rail. Early in the day, because the track was sloppy I heard the analyst say that he thought speed was speed and inside was an advantage, but the races that followed did not seem to fit that mold. When I looked at the charts it seemed like on most dirt races the winners were off the rail a good portion of the time. I am not saying the rail was golden or not, nor do I care that much as it is not part of what I do as a handicapper. I am just curious what happened prior to the Kentucky Derby that leads people to think the rail was golden.

[dilanesp]

I am going to start this off by saying I am not a bias player. It seems like every time I have perceived a bias over the years it has been more costly to me as I start throwing out horses who win at big prices. It is just a confusion I really don't need. I honestly do fine without worrying about biases, so it just not part of my arsenal anymore (not saying that my way is right or wrong, it just works for me).

I keep reading people claiming the Always Dreaming won on a golden rail. Early in the day, because the track was sloppy I heard the analyst say that he thought speed was speed and inside was an advantage, but the races that followed did not seem to fit that mold. When I looked at the charts it seemed like on most dirt races the winners were off the rail a good portion of the time. I am not saying the rail was golden or not, nor do I care that much as it is not part of what I do as a handicapper. I am just curious what happened prior to the Kentucky Derby that leads people to think the rail was golden.

Sharp post.

[Ruffian1]

I am going to start this off by saying I am not a bias player. It seems like every time I have perceived a bias over the years it has been more costly to me as I start throwing out horses who win at big prices. It is just a confusion I really don't need. I honestly do fine without worrying about biases, so it just not part of my arsenal anymore (not saying that my way is right or wrong, it just works for me).

I keep reading people claiming the Always Dreaming won on a golden rail. Early in the day, because the track was sloppy I heard the analyst say that he thought speed was speed and inside was an advantage, but the races that followed did not seem to fit that mold. When I looked at the charts it seemed like on most dirt races the winners were off the rail a good portion of the time. I am not saying the rail was golden or not, nor do I care that much as it is not part of what I do as a handicapper. I am just curious what happened prior to the Kentucky Derby that leads people to think the rail was golden.

It would serve you well to take those comments with a grain of salt.
The rail was not a golden rail. I assume that golden would mean really good. Lol.
Whatever the case, the rail was a nice place to be and probably some advantage all day but the charts clearly show it was not golden, really good or whatever.
A slight advantage probably . A big or huge advantage ? The charts say otherwise.

What people should been pointing to is the incredible trip the winner got. Hard to figure that from the 5 post but he got it. And right with the trip was how in hand and relaxed the winner was early down the back side. He was mentally in complete control and no horse could challenge that.
The 2 horses outside of him could never get on even terms and put any pressure on the winners right eye. They tried to, but were just not capable of it.

That's the race I watched.

Hope that helps.

[dilanesp]

There's nothing wrong with post 5 in the Derby. Maybe it isn't the absolute perfect post, but it's not the rail and for a horse with tactical speed like Always Dreaming, it's a perfectly decent post. Remember, there's a long run into the first turn in the Derby and plenty of time to get position. Post positions in the Derby do matter to some extent (you generally don't want a midpack closer drawing post 1 or a speed horse who is likely to be part of a 3 or 4 horse contested pace duel drawing post 20), but don't overthink this issue.

[Ruffian1]

There's nothing wrong with post 5 in the Derby. Maybe it isn't the absolute perfect post, but it's not the rail and for a horse with tactical speed like Always Dreaming, it's a perfectly decent post. Remember, there's a long run into the first turn in the Derby and plenty of time to get position. Post positions in the Derby do matter to some extent (you generally don't want a midpack closer drawing post 1 or a speed horse who is likely to be part of a 3 or 4 horse contested pace duel drawing post 20), but don't overthink this issue.

What I was referring to was that a 5 post could go from the rail over to the outside of a cheap speed after 3/8ths of a mile without getting pinned down inside at some point. Then sit 2nd just outside a cheap speed and never have any pressure into his right eye the entire race.
I could not have foreseen that.

[sour grapes]

especially on a sloppy track with a big field and johnie v put him in perfect position.if anyone was gonna beat him it was gonna be irish war cry who got basically the same trip but was no match and the last quarter had nothing.

[BIG49010]

especially on a sloppy track with a big field and johnie v put him in perfect position.if anyone was gonna beat him it was gonna be irish war cry who got basically the same trip but was no match and the last quarter had nothing.. Irish War Cry got no where near the same trip, 4+ wide most of the way, I haven't seen trakus but I would think everyone in the race except the one horse, ran quite a way farther then the first two finishers.

[NTamm1215]

If you're trying to determine whether there was a bias, the charts are the last place you should go. You have to watch the races.

[Greyfox]

In 2009 Calvin Borel brought longshot Mine That Bird home to victory in the Kentucky Derby.
Borel said that when Churchill is wet or sloppy the rail is the only place to be.
I don't think that the composition of the soil at Churchill has changed much since Borel said that.
Winners on wider paths would have won by more had they chosen the rail.

[NorCalGreg]

Bias is something that's talked about AFTER the race...generally by those tearing up tickets.

Where's the advantage for the horseplayer....PRE-RACE?

[JustRalph]

Bias is something that's talked about AFTER the race...generally by those tearing up tickets.

Where's the advantage for the horseplayer....PRE-RACE?

Getting the bias right is tough. You are lucky if you're at the track and can see it in person.

CJ's Dad and I picked up on a speed bias at Belmont one day while at the track, after just a couple of races. We crushed the card.

A few months later we were sitting in a restaurant in Baltimore where they hooked us up at the bar with wifi and a television, set to TVG (Dennis had friends everywhere that knew he was a player) and we sat there almost 7 hours playing. After about 4 races we picked up on a front runners bias that we actually argued about being real. But we went with it and crushed again.

I can only think of one other time I actually picked up on a bias and it was so late in the card, everybody was on it. I think you really have to know the track to see it. I mean, really know the track.

[no breathalyzer]

There was a massive golden rail.. like stated the chart is the last place to look for it.

[pandy]

Based on watching the races that day, I didn't think the rail was golden but I did think that horses racing along the inside had an advantage, and that horses trying to rally wide on the turn and in the stretch appeared to be toiling... it looked to me that the outside part of the track was deep and horses struggled with the footing.

[classhandicapper]

Based on watching the races that day, I didn't think the rail was golden but I did think that horses racing along the inside had an advantage, and that horses trying to rally wide on the turn and in the stretch appeared to be toiling... it looked to me that the outside part of the track was deep and horses struggled with the footing.

I haven't even started my bias work on those days yet, but in watching the races live I thought the rail may have been more live on Friday (at least early in the day) than Saturday.

Sometimes people think in terms of golden rails and bad rails, but there are loads of shades in between those 2 extremes. It's just difficult to figure it out, especially when it's raining, the track is draining, some horse may not like it wet and others are getting pounds of mud kicked in their faces.

[cj]

:popcorn:I haven't even started my bias work on those days yet, but in watching the races live I thought the rail may have been more live on Friday (at least early in the day) than Saturday.

Sometimes people think in terms of golden rails and bad rails, but there are loads of shades in between those 2 extremes. It's just difficult to figure it out, especially when it's raining, the track is draining, some horse may not like it wet and others are getting pounds of mud kicked in their faces.

Of course it is also true that the rail is a natural advantage due to being the shortest way around the course. People tend to overlook that fact sometimes.

[NorCalGreg]

There was a massive golden rail.. like stated the chart is the last place to look for it.

Where did you see this "Golden Rail"? The best horse won the race...I can read that in the chart. Is your visual replay somehow different than what's reported here?

Every single "rail" horse failed when the real running started--EXCEPT the winner.

I know we all handicap differently...I just don't see any rail helping anyone here.

[Tom]

:popcorn:

Of course it is also true that the rail is a natural advantage due to being the shortest way around the course. People tend to overlook that fact sometimes.

I grew up under the idea that the rails was the place to be.
At FL, the 4 and five holes were talked about as "the outside.":D

Mark Hopkins held two seminars at FL and both times, he hammered home that the inside was a key factor at FL and handed out several good priced winners each time to emphasize his point.

[pandy]

:popcorn:

Of course it is also true that the rail is a natural advantage due to being the shortest way around the course. People tend to overlook that fact sometimes.

Except when the rail is dead, then it's not an advantage. Look at Parx, where the rail can be dead for months. I've seen many horses race four wide for the entire race, on purpose, and sometimes when they're the pacesetter. Gary Stevens winning the Preakness with Oxbow, kept him very wide on purpose.

[classhandicapper]

:popcorn:

Of course it is also true that the rail is a natural advantage due to being the shortest way around the course. People tend to overlook that fact sometimes.

I love this topic, but it's way more complex than people think. I watch a lot of races at a lot of tracks. These are the problems I run into every week when I sit down to do my notes.

1. There are a LOT of days at a lot of tracks where the advantage of saving ground seems to be LESS than the literal amount of ground saved relative to a horse that was wide.

Is that an honest track or one where the outside paths are just a little better than the inside and compensate for the extra ground to some degree? If it's not honest, what do you call it?

2. I see days where saving ground actually does equal let's say a 2-3 lengths advantage over some horse that was 3-4 wide.

Is that an honest track? Many people are so used to seeing type #1 they'll call this a good rail.

3. I see days where running on the rail is clearly leading to lifetime tops or wildly disappointing performances. Sometimes the area is 2 paths. Sometimes it's only right on the rail. Years ago I used to see dead rails at Belmont that were 3-4 paths and everyone was WAY out on the track.

4. I see days where the track is clearly carrying or killing off speed horses more than average. Sometimes only in one path and sometimes more broadly in multiple paths.

5. I see days where the turn clearly seems biased, but there's either no bias or it's really hard to tell what's going on in the backstretch because almost everyone is racing off the rail for huge parts of the backstretch.

People call some days good/bad rail and then start referring to the backstretch or stretch as if the straightaways (which are probably not banked like the turn and drain differently) are automatically the same as the turn. Maybe the rail is good/bad on the turn but not elsewhere, or only on the less used 1st turn/chute, or in the stretch? Different sections can be different.

6. Maybe when the maintenance crew waters or withholds water it changes the track mid card. Maybe the humidity changes sharply. How can you make a reliable bias determination off a couple of races?

And what about this?

7. Lets say track "A" typically carries speed really well. Do you call it a "speed" track practically every day or do you call that "honest"?

You have to decide whether "honest" is referring to the typical profile for that track or the national average because if he's moving from a speed favoring profile you are calling honest every day to a closer favoring profile you are calling honest every day those are 2 very different "honests".

What makes matters even worse is that bias determinations will often be based on people's opinions going into the races. So how horses are running relative to your own expectations will cloud your thinking about the results.

Who among us is arrogant enough to think all their opinions and information is complete and correct to begin with? (well we can probably find a few of those :lol:)

These discussions almost never make headway because there are 50 shades of grey and everyone is using different definitions in their bias notes to describe the same thing.

[mountainman]

What I was referring to was that a 5 post could go from the rail over to the outside of a cheap speed after 3/8ths of a mile without getting pinned down inside at some point. Then sit 2nd just outside a cheap speed and never have any pressure into his right eye the entire race.
I could not have foreseen that.

Good post. But the winner's trip DID involve travelling at a strong clip through the early fractions. And the pursuit of cheap speed has been the undoing of many favorites.

And your point is well taken about the absence of outside pressure. But bear in mind, sir, that right eye was always moving faster than the field.

The race I saw was dominated by a superior horse. And I'm not sure that conjuring up or envisioning a less fortuitous trip really detracts from that.

I'm thinking time will tell.

[pandy]

The Belmont dead rail that classhandicapper mentioned was pronounced at times, mainly when there had been an extended dry period or drought. This is when the term "balcony move" surfaced as almost every winner on the Belmont main track made a sweeping wide move on the turn and rallied from off the pace. It actually was pretty exciting racing, but if you didn't know how to spot horses with sustained pace and good turn time you were dead in the water.

[mountainman]

I love this topic, but it's way more complex than people think. I watch a lot of races at a lot of tracks. These are the problems I run into every week when I sit down to do my notes.

1. There are a LOT of days at a lot of tracks where the advantage of saving ground seems to be LESS than the literal amount of ground saved relative to a horse that was wide.

Is that an honest track or one where the outside paths are just a little better than the inside and compensate for the extra ground to some degree? If it's not honest, what do you call it?

2. I see days where saving ground actually does equal let's say a 2-3 lengths advantage over some horse that was 3-4 wide.

Is that an honest track? Many people are so used to seeing type #1 they'll call this a good rail.

3. I see days where running on the rail is clearly leading to lifetime tops or wildly disappointing performances. Sometimes the area is 2 paths. Sometimes it's only right on the rail. Years ago I used to see dead rails at Belmont that were 3-4 paths and everyone was WAY out on the track.

4. I see days where the track is clearly carrying or killing off speed horses more than average. Sometimes only in one path and sometimes more broadly in multiple paths.

5. I see days where the turn clearly seems biased, but there's either no bias or it's really hard to tell what's going on in the backstretch because almost everyone is racing off the rail for huge parts of the backstretch.

People call some days good/bad rail and then start referring to the backstretch or stretch as if the straightaways (which are probably not banked like the turn and drain differently) are automatically the same as the turn. Maybe the rail is good/bad on the turn but not elsewhere, or only on the less used 1st turn/chute, or in the stretch? Different sections can be different.

6. Maybe when the maintenance crew waters or withholds water it changes the track mid card. Maybe the humidity changes sharply. How can you make a reliable bias determination off a couple of races?

And what about this?

7. Lets say track "A" typically carries speed really well. Do you call it a "speed" track practically every day or do you call that "honest"?

You have to decide whether "honest" is referring to the typical profile for that track or the national average because if he's moving from a speed favoring profile you are calling honest every day to a closer favoring profile you are calling honest every day those are 2 very different "honests".

What makes matters even worse is that bias determinations will often be based on people's opinions going into the races. So how horses are running relative to your own expectations will cloud your thinking about the results.

Who among us is arrogant enough to think all their opinions and information is complete and correct to begin with? (well we can probably find a few of those :lol:)

These discussions almost never make headway because there are 50 shades of grey and everyone is using different definitions in their bias notes to describe the same thing.

Love this post. In my opinion, if pure geometry were truly a big factor in trips, the math invoked by trakus (and certain sheets services) would translate and apply to actual margins. Which it does not.

[Dahoss9698]

Where did you see this "Golden Rail"? The best horse won the race...I can read that in the chart. Is your visual replay somehow different than what's reported here?

Every single "rail" horse failed when the real running started--EXCEPT the winner.

I know we all handicap differently...I just don't see any rail helping anyone here.

With all due respect if you really believe that the charts are a good place to try and find which part of the track is good or not, nothing anyone is going to say will change your mind.

Quite simply, yes, a visual replay is much better than trusting what the chart caller thinks. Watch the replay, look at the horses who spent time on the rail and where they finished compared to those that didn't. Was it the worst bias ever? No, but it was there. It takes nothing away from the winner, he was winning regardless.

If you're going to trust an opinion on what happened, wouldn't you want to trust your eyes over someone else's? Heck, I'd trust the outrider who said almost immediately after the race to Johnny V something to the effect of "told you the rail was the place to be," over what a chart shows.

Lots of ways to play this game but sometimes we all get too caught up in our own methods to see something very obvious. As a trip handicapper sometimes I miss obvious situations have to do with pace. Just like I think people who are figure players miss obvious trips. It comes with the territory.

[mountainman]

With all due respect if you really believe that the charts are a good place to try and find which part of the track is good or not, nothing anyone is going to say will change your mind.

Quite simply, yes, a visual replay is much better than trusting what the chart caller thinks. Watch the replay, look at the horses who spent time on the rail and where they finished compared to those that didn't. Was it the worst bias ever? No, but it was there. It takes nothing away from the winner, he was winning regardless.

If you're going to trust an opinion on what happened, wouldn't you want to trust your eyes over someone else's? Heck, I'd trust the outrider who said almost immediately after the race to Johnny V something to the effect of "told you the rail was the place to be," over what a chart shows.

Lots of ways to play this game but sometimes we all get too caught up in our own methods to see something very obvious. As a trip handicapper sometimes I miss obvious situations have to do with pace. Just like I think people who are figure players miss obvious trips. It comes with the territory.

If I can't watch the race, path-info is primarily what I want from the chart. But so few provide the info I need.

In fact, I've sometimes thought that given the greater sophistication of modern players (in some instances), chart-callers should adapt their focus, and even lingo. It's not a craft that has fully evolved with the game.

[Dahoss9698]

If I can't watch the race, path-info is primarily what I want from the chart. But so few provide the info I need.

In fact, I've sometimes thought that given the greater sophistication of modern players (in some instances), chart-callers should adapt their focus, and even lingo. It's not a craft that has fully evolved with the game.

Agreed. A changing of focus is much needed.

[v j stauffer]

Bias is something that's talked about AFTER the race...generally by those tearing up tickets.

Where's the advantage for the horseplayer....PRE-RACE?

Exactly correct.

[SandyW]

Exactly correct.
Hi Vic, welcome back, enjoyed the Oaklawn meet. Good luck in your handicapping tournaments this year. Bring home a big one.

[no breathalyzer]

Where did you see this "Golden Rail"? The best horse won the race...I can read that in the chart. Is your visual replay somehow different than what's reported here?

Every single "rail" horse failed when the real running started--EXCEPT the winner.

I know we all handicap differently...I just don't see any rail helping anyone here.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: i was 15 drinks deep on Thursday and about 20 on Friday in the infield and could spot the pro rail..... i still have no beef with you but..... stick with e1 e2 software ok

[no breathalyzer]

Not a big Bias guy by any stretch.... yrs a go i refuse to acknowledge it ... but when its there you need to adjust .. too many times people are too quick to judge or falsely claim a bias But to think it doesn't exists is a leak in your game.... its just another tool of many to put the puzzle together.


I still stand by the ''golden rail'' for a greater part leading up to the derby.... Friday was massive pro rail

[Dahoss9698]

Getting the bias right is tough. You are lucky if you're at the track and can see it in person.

CJ's Dad and I picked up on a speed bias at Belmont one day while at the track, after just a couple of races. We crushed the card.

A few months later we were sitting in a restaurant in Baltimore where they hooked us up at the bar with wifi and a television, set to TVG (Dennis had friends everywhere that knew he was a player) and we sat there almost 7 hours playing. After about 4 races we picked up on a front runners bias that we actually argued about being real. But we went with it and crushed again.

I can only think of one other time I actually picked up on a bias and it was so late in the card, everybody was on it. I think you really have to know the track to see it. I mean, really know the track.

Exactly right. If you're able to see it, you can win a lot of money.

Think about the recently concluded AQU inner meet. On days where there was a crazy inside speed bias (most days) you might as well have been putting your money in the garbage disposal if you were playing closers.

Honestly, it takes an astute player to pick up on a real bias but I've made enough money over the years doing it that it can be done.

[NorCalGreg]

:lol::lol::lol::lol: i was 15 drinks deep on Thursday and about 20 on Friday in the infield and could spot the pro rail..... i still have no beef with you but..... stick with e1 e2 software ok

I don't have any beef with you--why so defensive?

[NorCalGreg]

With all due respect if you really believe that the charts are a good place to try and find which part of the track is good or not, nothing anyone is going to say will change your mind.

Quite simply, yes, a visual replay is much better than trusting what the chart caller thinks. Watch the replay, look at the horses who spent time on the rail and where they finished compared to those that didn't. Was it the worst bias ever? No, but it was there. It takes nothing away from the winner, he was winning regardless.

If you're going to trust an opinion on what happened, wouldn't you want to trust your eyes over someone else's? Heck, I'd trust the outrider who said almost immediately after the race to Johnny V something to the effect of "told you the rail was the place to be," over what a chart shows.

Lots of ways to play this game but sometimes we all get too caught up in our own methods to see something very obvious. As a trip handicapper sometimes I miss obvious situations have to do with pace. Just like I think people who are figure players miss obvious trips. It comes with the territory.

Okay here's what I'm talking about--it's right here in the chart. I didn't even have to see the race--I know what happened. It's not simply the chartmaker's comments--but the actual chart.

I can tell you right now who ran a big race--and who was basically a fraud. It's right here:

CLASSIC EMPIRE had a nightmare's worth of trouble and still came on well late. There's a chance, depending on odds--he may be a good bet in the Preakness.

BATTLE OF MIDWAY ---while not exactly stride-for-stride with the winner--ran HUGE @ 40-1. He may be prominent come Preakness time.

ALWAYS DREAMING was the best horse this day--front runner's get the best of it every time...and no different today.

The rest were just also ran's with the exception of LOOKIN AT LEE....who was slightly impressive coming on. With no speed at all--his chances aren't good in the immediate future.

I appreciate your intelligent feedback, dahoss :ThmbUp:

[Dahoss9698]

I think you're missing my point a little Greg. Let's assume for a second that the rail was indeed the place to be. Wouldn't you want to pay attention to runners who were not near the rail at all next time?

You won't see that in the chart. I know we probably play the game differently but that's how I look at things like dead or gold rails.

[Dahoss9698]

For the record, the rail was pretty good at Churchill again today

[no breathalyzer]

http://horseracingradio.net/show/jock-talk-presented-titos-handmade-vodka

here you go not like this is going to chance anyone's stubborn opinion.... but this is one of the games most under ratted jockeys thoughts on the rail...... great to know a jockey i greatly respect had the same thoughts i had about the track:)

[no breathalyzer]

:headbanger::headbanger::headbanger::headbanger: Jockey don't matter tho..... :rip: keep shipping it in :)

[EasyGoer89]

The rail was gold, Jerry.

Gold.

[NorCalGreg]

http://horseracingradio.net/show/jock-talk-presented-titos-handmade-vodka

here you go not like this is going to chance anyone's stubborn opinion.... but this is one of the games most under ratted jockeys thoughts on the rail...... great to know a jockey i greatly respect had the same thoughts i had about the track:)


I like my jockeys well-ratted before I chance my opinion.

[Dahoss9698]

http://horseracingradio.net/show/jock-talk-presented-titos-handmade-vodka

here you go not like this is going to chance anyone's stubborn opinion.... but this is one of the games most under ratted jockeys thoughts on the rail...... great to know a jockey i greatly respect had the same thoughts i had about the track:)

If Miguel Mena thought it was good I might have to change my opinion :lol:. He stinks.

[whodoyoulike]

Okay here's what I'm talking about--it's right here in the chart. I didn't even have to see the race--I know what happened. It's not simply the chartmaker's comments--but the actual chart.

I can tell you right now who ran a big race--and who was basically a fraud. ...

You have to realize all of us who have been "suggesting" people should watch the replays all started reading the charts.

If you still think you can gather enough info just from the charts, my suggestion to you is to watch a replay in conjunction with the chart and maybe you'll see some advantages of the replays.

Btw, it takes 000's of replays to get good at it but sometimes it still won't make sense to some people.

[NorCalGreg]

I don't have anything against anyone who handicaps the races by watching replays--it's just not my thing, whodo.

[whodoyoulike]

I don't have anything against anyone who handicaps the races by watching replays--it's just not my thing, whodo.

Okay, I think the suggestions were just trying to help you. I agree there are many ways to handicap. Like I stated not everybody can see it as those making the suggestion.

Btw, I think Dahoss is spot on with his prior post. And, I don't always agree with him but in this case I do.

With all due respect if you really believe that the charts are a good place to try and find which part of the track is good or not, nothing anyone is going to say will change your mind.

Quite simply, yes, a visual replay is much better than trusting what the chart caller thinks. Watch the replay, look at the horses who spent time on the rail and where they finished compared to those that didn't. Was it the worst bias ever? No, but it was there. It takes nothing away from the winner, he was winning regardless.

If you're going to trust an opinion on what happened, wouldn't you want to trust your eyes over someone else's? Heck, I'd trust the outrider who said almost immediately after the race to Johnny V something to the effect of "told you the rail was the place to be," over what a chart shows.

Lots of ways to play this game but sometimes we all get too caught up in our own methods to see something very obvious. As a trip handicapper sometimes I miss obvious situations have to do with pace. Just like I think people who are figure players miss obvious trips. It comes with the territory.

[PaceAdvantage]

:headbanger::headbanger::headbanger::headbanger: Jockey don't matter tho..... :rip: keep shipping it in :)They don't, at least for me...over the past 380+ races I've wagered on...

[no breathalyzer]

They matter for my ''sniper'' plays where i ship it in hard.. i don't scatter play .. when i bet i expect to win.. '' value play is the biggest bs in my book.. when i bet i look at the odds if i except them i bet and bet hard... my $$ aint going now on certain jockeys nomatter what is what im saying

[no breathalyzer]

when i here someone say its a good play at 5-1 but at 5-2 not so much... i shake my head... then pass on the fcking race shithead is what i say to myself... if you see something... someone else probably has too making the horses odds go down.. not saying take 4/5 but god damn u gotta trust your reads

[no breathalyzer]

They don't, at least for me...over the past 380+ races I've wagered on...

congrats that is impressive

[classhandicapper]

I thought the rail was gold on Friday until the KY Oaks. It's hard to make a bias call on the KY Oaks because that race melted down anyway. But from that race on, the outside looked much better than it did early in the card. So I am going to assume they worked on the track before the Oaks and changed the track to more honest.

I didn't see much of a bias on Derby Day. They may have worked on the track before the Derby and the race itself may have developed more "inside", but what I saw from then on wasn't screaming enough for me to call a rail bias off a sample of 3 races.

I think a lot of the outside closers in the Derby just ran poorly because it was a huge field, some of them lost a TON of ground, and they were buried in mud kickback. A trip like Lookin at Lee had saving all the ground relative to other closers is a great trip even when the rail is neutral.

The gap between the winner and the closers that were compromised by extreme ground loss and mud is a lot less than the official margins, but I'm not thinking in terms of a biased track in the Derby.

[dilanesp]

I thought the rail was gold on Friday until the KY Oaks. It's hard to make a bias call on the KY Oaks because that race melted down anyway. But from that race on, the outside looked much better than it did early in the card. So I am going to assume they worked on the track before the Oaks and changed the track to more honest.

I didn't see much of a bias on Derby Day. They may have worked on the track before the Derby and the race itself may have developed more "inside", but what I saw from then on wasn't screaming enough for me to call a rail bias off a sample of 3 races.

I think a lot of the outside closers in the Derby just ran poorly because it was a huge field, some of them lost a TON of ground, and they were buried in mud kickback. A trip like Lookin at Lee had saving all the ground relative to other closers is a great trip even when the rail is neutral.

The gap between the winner and the closers that were compromised by extreme ground loss and mud is a lot less than the official margins, but I'm not thinking in terms of a biased track in the Derby.

I would be very reticent to ever declare a bias based on one race, unless and until I saw the horses run back and confirm the bias with very strong evidence.

Heck, I've seen plenty of entire cards where, for instance, the front runners all won, but there was no bias-- they just won because they were either the best horse or caught a good pace scenario.

There's a ton of handicapping of TC races that assumes that the normal rules of handicapping don't apply to these races. (Such as the people last year who swore that Exaggerator couldn't win because the 2nd place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness.) This "bias" thing may be an example of it.

[Valuist]

when i here someone say its a good play at 5-1 but at 5-2 not so much... i shake my head... then pass on the fcking race shithead is what i say to myself... if you see something... someone else probably has too making the horses odds go down.. not saying take 4/5 but god damn u gotta trust your reads

So basically odds don't matter to you? You find it odd that a handicapper would like a horse at 5/1 but not at 5/2? There's a giant difference between the two prices.

[no breathalyzer]

So basically odds don't matter to you? You find it odd that a handicapper would like a horse at 5/1 but not at 5/2? There's a giant difference between the two prices.

only to a certain extent .. when i bet a horse i might love it at 5-1 but just because horse drops to 5-2 i might not like the drop in price but it still doesn't mean i don't love it. Nowadays i only bet horses i expect to win..... i'm not saying go take 4/5 .. no one should be that stupid.


I just find ''value'' in betting horses is retarded.... i hear a guy saying i bet the 5 horse because 8-1 is good value makes me laugh... hows that value when the horse finishes up the track? only time i can think its useful is if you like a couple of bombers and you like dutching

[dilanesp]

I just find ''value'' in betting horses is retarded.... i hear a guy saying i bet the 5 horse because 8-1 is good value makes me laugh... hows that value when the horse finishes up the track?

I don't know. How's that value when I call a turn bet in a poker game with a straight flush draw getting 4 to 1?

I mean, of course it all depends on the player getting the true odds right, but if you have never had a moment at the track where you said "how can this horse be 8 to 1? she's got a huge shot!", i don't know what to tell you.

[classhandicapper]

I would be very reticent to ever declare a bias based on one race, unless and until I saw the horses run back and confirm the bias with very strong evidence.

I agree. I do it once in awhile on tracks that I know have a certain tendency. After 40 years of watching races sometimes I can just sense when a race development does not look normal. But I'm not always right.

I think this is a case of some people having a different "definition" of a good rail than I do (I alluded to this earlier).

Yes, saving ground was an advantage over being wide, but that's different than thinking the horses on the inside were "moving up" by racing on the rail. To me a "golden rail" is a rail that is leading to new tops by many horses and carrying weak speeds further and faster than they usually run.

To me, in the Derby, the outside horses were disadvantaged due to all the ground loss (and perhaps some horses because of all the mud they accumulated from kickback). On some days at some tracks horses making outside moves like that don't seem to be disadvantaged as much as you would think despite the ground loss. These path biases can be very subtle. It's not black and white.

[classhandicapper]

but if you have never had a moment at the track where you said "how can this horse be 8 to 1? she's got a huge shot!",

Those are the only times I bet.

The rest of the time most people are just spinning wheels.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I just find ''value'' in betting horses is retarded....

When I hear that I look to the sky and say, thank you for sending that guy to the track.

[no breathalyzer]

it's simple when i bet i expect to win.... i don;t give afck if horse is 2-1 or 10-1
i have cutoff odds in my head... all im saying i expect to when when my moneys down-.. anything else is stabbing.. which is ok if you recognize that what it is

[no breathalyzer]

people that can't control action bets die of cancer period... that includes ''value bets''....you can be the smartest guy in the world and have no discipline and still lose

[no breathalyzer]

`the beauty of this game is... there is so many angles... and on top of that is to know when to apply and to know when each angle plays

[no breathalyzer]

`the beauty of this game is... there is so many angles... and on top of that is to know when to apply and to know when each angle plays

which ever wise guy thinks he knows....

[no breathalyzer]

I don't know. How's that value when I call a turn bet in a poker game with a straight flush draw getting 4 to 1?

I mean, of course it all depends on the player getting the true odds right, but if you have never had a moment at the track where you said "how can this horse be 8 to 1? she's got a huge shot!", i don't know what to tell you.

apples and oranges bro... trust me i know and seen it first hand

[dilanesp]

apples and oranges bro... trust me i know and seen it first hand

Mathematically, there are probabilities and odds offered, in any gambling game.

[no breathalyzer]

Mathematically, there are probabilities and odds offered, in any gambling game.

correct... in poker they are more obv. and clear

[dilanesp]

correct... in poker they are more obv. and clear

Quite true. But that's what makes poker such a great model for analyzing leaks in other gambling games.

We understand precisely the magnitude of the error when a poker player calls with a four out draw on the turn getting 7 to 1. And we have a pretty good idea of the psychological and skill issues that cause players to do it.

You move over to horse racing, the actual probabilities aren't knowable, but players make the same -EV plays for much the same reasons. And we know how much it costs them long term. Poker provides a great frame of reference precisely because it shows us that not precisely knowing the probabilities isn't the operative factor.

[Dahoss9698]

The Derby winner and runner up didn't have that same punch yesterday. Kind of bolsters the strong rail Derby day argument, no?

[classhandicapper]

The Derby winner and runner up didn't have that same punch yesterday. Kind of bolsters the strong rail Derby day argument, no?

I'm still not buying it.

Looking at Lee missed 3rd by 1/2 a length and ran a Beyer of 94 vs the 98 he got in the Derby. No matter how you slice it, he got a dream trip in the Derby. He was unlikely to get a similar trip yesterday. He didn't. So did he really run much worse? I don't think so.

Gunnervera lost a lot of ground in the Derby. He saved some ground yesterday and improved a bit but he didn't run like a horses that was wildly compromised in the Derby beyond the ground he lost. He's just not that good.

Hence is proving to be a horse that just got a perfect outside trip in a race flow that favored closers at Sunland.

Everyone saw that Classic Empire was compromised at the start of the Derby and lost a massive amount of ground in the race. So I don't think anyone is surprised he ran a lot better.

The argument depends more on what you make of Always Dreaming.

Is he a fluke horse that put away all the other speeds in fast fractions in the Derby because of a golden rail or is he a very good horse that did not carry his form forward from the Derby?

[dilanesp]

I'm still not buying it.

Looking at Lee missed 3rd by 1/2 a length and ran a Beyer of 94 vs the 98 he got in the Derby. No matter how you slice it, he got a dream trip in the Derby. He was unlikely to get a similar trip yesterday. He didn't. So did he really run much worse? I don't think so.

Gunnervera lost a lot of ground in the Derby. He saved some ground yesterday and improved a bit but he didn't run like a horses that was wildly compromised in the Derby beyond the ground he lost. He's just not that good.

Hence is proving to be a horse that just got a perfect outside trip in a race flow that favored closers at Sunland.

Everyone saw that Classic Empire was compromised at the start of the Derby and lost a massive amount of ground in the race. So I don't think anyone is surprised he ran a lot better.

The argument depends more on what you make of Always Dreaming.

Is he a fluke horse that put away all the other speeds in fast fractions in the Derby because of a golden rail or is he a very good horse that did not carry his form forward from the Derby?

+1

Lookin at Lee's Preakness performance, especially, is a very strong argument against a rail bias.

[Dahoss9698]

I'm still not buying it.

Looking at Lee missed 3rd by 1/2 a length and ran a Beyer of 94 vs the 98 he got in the Derby. No matter how you slice it, he got a dream trip in the Derby. He was unlikely to get a similar trip yesterday. He didn't. So did he really run much worse? I don't think so.

Gunnervera lost a lot of ground in the Derby. He saved some ground yesterday and improved a bit but he didn't run like a horses that was wildly compromised in the Derby beyond the ground he lost. He's just not that good.

Hence is proving to be a horse that just got a perfect outside trip in a race flow that favored closers at Sunland.

Everyone saw that Classic Empire was compromised at the start of the Derby and lost a massive amount of ground in the race. So I don't think anyone is surprised he ran a lot better.

The argument depends more on what you make of Always Dreaming.

Is he a fluke horse that put away all the other speeds in fast fractions in the Derby because of a golden rail or is he a very good horse that did not carry his form forward from the Derby?

That's fine. Opinions are what makes this game great. Not sure how much more evidence you need but I'll continue to bet accordingly.

Let me guess...you thought Leparoux moved too early yesterday, right?

[Dahoss9698]

+1

Lookin at Lee's Preakness performance, especially, is a very strong argument against a rail bias.
-1

The fact he regressed is a strong argument against a strong rail Derby Day? How so?

[dilanesp]

-1

The fact he regressed is a strong argument against a strong rail Derby Day? How so?

He didn't regress. He should have been near last based on his pre-Derby form. Instead, he delivered basically the same plodding performance to hit the board in the Preakness that he did in the Derby. Nobody told him that there wasn't a track bias this time. :)

[classhandicapper]

That's fine. Opinions are what makes this game great. Not sure how much more evidence you need but I'll continue to bet accordingly.

Let me guess...you thought Leparoux moved too early yesterday, right?


IMO Classic Empire was definitely the best horses in the race. So the strategy did not work.

IMO, had he stalked Always Dreaming to keep him honest but without engaging him aggressively in a battle through the early part of the race, he would have won.

I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

[dilanesp]

IMO Classic Empire was definitely the best horses in the race. So the strategy did not work.

IMO, had he stalked Always Dreaming to keep him honest but without engaging him aggressively in a battle through the early part of the race, he would have won.

I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

One of the most infamous Preaknesses in history occurred when Woody Stephens ordered Pat Day to gp out with Winning Colors rather than stalking her with Forty Niner. The resulting speed duel set the whole thing up for Eddie Dellahoussaye on Risen Star coming from behind.

[classhandicapper]

One of the most infamous Preaknesses in history occurred when Woody Stephens ordered Pat Day to gp out with Winning Colors rather than stalking her with Forty Niner. The resulting speed duel set the whole thing up for Eddie Dellahoussaye on Risen Star coming from behind.

Exactly.

If you have a fast horse you should use that advantage to get the lead or position when you can, but dueling is pretty much never a good idea.

Another high profile example was using Frosted in the Travers and thinking he actually had a shot to duel American Pharoah into defeat and still win. :lol: His only shot at winning that duel was if AP had an off day. But if AP was having an off day, then if you just stay close in a honest pace and you may beat him and actually win

There was an example at Saratoga (her name escapes me right now), where a filly was used really hard trying to beat Rachel Alexandra. Of course she lost the duel and finished up the track even though she got Rachel beat.

The better horse will win the duel, but if by chance you have the better horse (as Classic Empire was yesterday) if you just stay with the other horse you'll beat him by going after him a little later on the turn.

[Robert Fischer]

https://cdn2.iconfinder.com/data/icons/delicious-pastel-cupcakes/256/Pink_Cream_Cupcake-128.png

Path bias, and rest-between-starts both celebrating birthdays today

let them have their day and feel important

they do play a part in the game, after all

[Dahoss9698]

IMO Classic Empire was definitely the best horses in the race. So the strategy did not work.

IMO, had he stalked Always Dreaming to keep him honest but without engaging him aggressively in a battle through the early part of the race, he would have won.

I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

As I suspected. It's a lot easier to say that now, considering he lost by a nose. He put away the favorite and lost by a nose to a horse who had a perfect trip.

Castellano and Leparoux both gave flawless rides.

[Dahoss9698]

He didn't regress. He should have been near last based on his pre-Derby form. Instead, he delivered basically the same plodding performance to hit the board in the Preakness that he did in the Derby. Nobody told him that there wasn't a track bias this time. :)

He didn't regress figure wise?

[classhandicapper]

As I suspected. It's a lot easier to say that now, considering he lost by a nose. He put away the favorite and lost by a nose to a horse who had a perfect trip.

Castellano and Leparoux both gave flawless rides.


The fact that he lost isn't really relevant to the point I am making (which seems to go against the commonly held view anyway). Even if had he won I'd still think it was the wrong thing to do. All it would tell me is that he ran an even better race being able to put the favorite away and still win. I would think that had he stalked in a less aggression fashion he would have won by more. Over a lifetime of races, imo you win more often by being a little less aggressive and you save the place and show way more often in the situation where the other horse is superior. It's no biggie. We don't have to agree. No one agrees with me about anything. My name is classhandicapper for crying out loud. :-)

I agree about Castellano. I'm not sure how he could have ridden any better.

[whodoyoulike]

:1: IMO Classic Empire was definitely the best horses in the race. So the strategy did not work.

:2: IMO, had he stalked Always Dreaming to keep him honest but without engaging him aggressively in a battle through the early part of the race, he would have won.

:3: I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

I agree with all 3 points above and especially :3:. Your handicapping has changed quite a bit from your posts of a couple of years ago.

It's as if you're now leaning towards a pace scenario type of handicapping.

EDIT: I just read your subsequent posts and definitely agree again with you.

[whodoyoulike]

I agree with all 3 points above and especially :3:. Your handicapping has changed quite a bit from your posts of a couple of years ago.

It's as if you're now leaning towards a pace scenario type of handicapping.

EDIT: I just read your subsequent posts and definitely agree again with you.

I remember about 5 years ago I told you that if I were you I would hang around R Moss until he called security to toss me out. I think he's the Guru of pace scenario handicapping especially with his access to those graphics.

[luisbe]

He didn't regress figure wise?

Not only figure wise, 2nd of 20 against 4th of 10, without considering the quality of the fields.

[Dahoss9698]

The fact that he lost isn't really relevant to the point I am making (which seems to go against the commonly held view anyway). Even if had he won I'd still think it was the wrong thing to do. All it would tell me is that he ran an even better race being able to put the favorite away and still win. I would think that had he stalked in a less aggression fashion he would have won by more. Over a lifetime of races, imo you win more often by being a little less aggressive and you save the place and show way more often in the situation where the other horse is superior. It's no biggie. We don't have to agree. No one agrees with me about anything. My name is classhandicapper for crying out loud. :-)

I agree about Castellano. I'm not sure how he could have ridden any better.

I think you're ignoring that Cloud Computing was very close to the pace as well. It's not like he's a deep closer who picked up the tiring pace setters. He was hustled out of the gate (terrific tactic by Castellano) to secure his spot right behind AD and CE.

Maybe CE ran a little better because he put away AD, but CC ran his eyeballs out.

[classhandicapper]

I think you're ignoring that Cloud Computing was very close to the pace as well. It's not like he's a deep closer who picked up the tiring pace setters. He was hustled out of the gate (terrific tactic by Castellano) to secure his spot right behind AD and CE.

Maybe CE ran a little better because he put away AD, but CC ran his eyeballs out.

I'm not ignoring that.

I think the pace was fast based on what I saw visually, the horses involved, and the fractions, but I don't think it was so fast that it had a negative impact on Cloud Computing. It wasn't a meltdown pace. It was enough to get Classic Empire beat by another very good horse.

[thaskalos]

I'm not ignoring that.

I think the pace was fast based on what I saw visually, the horses involved, and the fractions, but I don't think it was so fast that it had a negative impact on Cloud Computing. It wasn't a meltdown pace. It was enough to get Classic Empire beat by another very good horse.

Classhandicapper...I can never find myself in disagreement with you when you analyze the race, AFTER it's run. Is there any chance that I will eventually see a thorough PRE-RACE analysis from you?

[classhandicapper]

I agree with all 3 points above and especially :3:. Your handicapping has changed quite a bit from your posts of a couple of years ago.

It's as if you're now leaning towards a pace scenario type of handicapping.

EDIT: I just read your subsequent posts and definitely agree again with you.

Pace has always been a pretty big part of my handicapping, but previously I used to focus most of my attention on fractions and final times.

Now I tend to focus more attention on the makeup of the field, how many speeds there were, what the quality of the speeds were, and watch how the race actually developed. It's not that is didn't already do that on some level. It's that after I struck up a friendship with Kenny Peck at DRF and had an opportunity to work with him it crystallized my thinking on the subject. Now I have a more formal process for it.

I'd say what I am doing now is kind of like comparative classing handicapping at the pace level.

[classhandicapper]

Classhandicapper...I can never find myself in disagreement with you when you analyze the race, AFTER it's run. Is there any chance that I will eventually see a thorough PRE-RACE analysis from you?

I thought you liked to win money? :lol:

If I had had written up my pre race analysis for the Derby and Preakness you would have played Gunnevera/Classic Empire in the Derby and Conquest Mo Money in the Preakness.

I don't get any pleasure from putting myself "out there" and making picks publicly. I've seen too many threads where public handicappers that actually get paid for their selections get a lot of grief for the occasional embarrassing selection or bad meet. I'm not as thick skinned as some people.

You can usually tell who I like and dislike from post race stuff and miscellaneous comments, but the betting decisions are always a last minute thing based on price and how I think the track is playing.

I was planning on making a prime bet in the Kentucky Oaks on the eventual winner but pulled it because I thought the inside was much better that day up to that point.

[thaskalos]

I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

If Classic Empire didn't aggressively engage Always Dreaming in the early stages of the race...then the pace wouldn't be fast. And Classic Empire would have found himself several lengths behind the "comfortable" impressive Derby-winner...who was now being asked to run a SHORTER race than he ran in the Derby. Would that have been a more favorable pace scenario?

When you merely "stalk" the leader instead of "engaging" him...how can you guarantee that the pace will be "average", rather than "comfortable"? I mean...we are talking fifths-of-a-second here! Can you afford to allow an impressive Derby winner to "get comfortable" on the lead...in a SHORTER race than the one he just BEAT you in?

That's why I agree with Rsetup, when he shows frustration when people get "too smart" AFTER the race.

[PaceAdvantage]

congrats that is impressiveIt's now over 450 races ignoring jockeys and betting on value, and my ROI has only gone up since I last posted here.

PS. Best not to post while drinking heavily...

[cj]

He didn't regress figure wise?

I'm not saying the rail was good or bad on Derby day, but couldn't the figure regression just be simple case of losing more ground for the Preakness than for the Derby?

I'll use Beyer, Preakness went 102 and he lost be 5.25 lengths. The Derby was given a 102 and he lost be 2.75 lengths. Could the difference in ground loss between the two races explain the 2.5 lengths?

[whodoyoulike]

:1: Pace has always been a pretty big part of my handicapping, but previously I used to focus most of my attention on fractions and final times.

:2: Now I tend to focus more attention on the makeup of the field, how many speeds there were, what the quality of the speeds were, and watch how the race actually developed. It's not that is didn't already do that on some level. It's that after I struck up a friendship with Kenny Peck at DRF and had an opportunity to work with him it crystallized my thinking on the subject. Now I have a more formal process for it.

:3:I'd say what I am doing now is kind of like comparative classing handicapping at the pace level.

:1: It's just that I've noticed a change from just a couple of years ago.

:2: I haven't been using DRF in quite sometime.

Who is K Peck?

Is he the individual who came up with the running style addition in the DRF?

:3: I've never heard of "comparative classing handicapping at the pace level". I kind of like it. If it's your original term you may want to copyright it. If you don't and others start using it at least ...... We'll know who actually came up with it.

Something like the term "trip handicapping".

[classhandicapper]

If Classic Empire didn't aggressively engage Always Dreaming in the early stages of the race...then the pace wouldn't be fast. And Classic Empire would have found himself several lengths behind the "comfortable" impressive Derby-winner...who was now being asked to run a SHORTER race than he ran in the Derby. Would that have been a more favorable pace scenario?

When you merely "stalk" the leader instead of "engaging" him...how can you guarantee that the pace will be "average", rather than "comfortable"? I mean...we are talking fifths-of-a-second here! Can you afford to allow an impressive Derby winner to "get comfortable" on the lead...in a SHORTER race than the one he just BEAT you in?

That's why I agree with Rsetup, when he shows frustration when people get "too smart" AFTER the race.

I've been saying the same thing about this type of setup over and over again and the results keep coming up the same. I could go all the way back to Honest Pleasure vs. Bold Forbes and show you the same lesson.

What makes it a losing strategy is that the better horse wins the pace battle. So if you are the inferior horse, trying to beat him into submission doesn't improve your chances of winning. It improves your chances of finishing off the board. If you are the better horse, it improves your chances of putting the other horse away quicker, but it also raises the chances of taking just enough out of your horse to allow an inferior horse to beat you. So either way it's not a very good idea.

IMO, the way Beholder was ridden against Songbird was closer to the optimal way to ride in that situation. Ideally you probably want to be even closer, but she was at least close enough to collar her on the turn and beat her if she was actually better (which she was). Had she gone out and pressed Songbird hard, she might have put Songbird away earlier, but she would have raised the risk of a 3rd horse nailing her.

There are no guarantees in anything. These are tough decisions for riders, handicappers etc.. But obviously you would never back off to the point where you are several lengths off the leader and allowing the pace to be very slow. You want to be within a length or so but without the pushing.

Classic Empire was hand pushed out of the gate because the plan was to try to pressure Always Dreaming and beat him. That was announced publicly in multiple places. That's why the first 4 furlongs were fast (according to a couple of pace figure sources and a casual look at the fractions). IMO that was the difference between winning and losing. Had he not pushed, Always Dreaming would have run a couple of 1/5ths slower early, but as long as he was within a length if he was the better horse (which he was Saturday) he would have colored him on the turn and held off Cloud Computing.

The after the race analysis complaint is a red herring. It's nonsense.

Exactly where did I claim I was so smart?

Projecting this stuff and adjusting your plays is tough. It's not highly predictable. I congratulated fat-man on an excellent call in one of the threads.

I played a horse that was up the track even though I read and heard that Casse was going to press. So I guess I was an idiot.

Every single competent handicapper on earth looks at past races to try to determine what happened, who was best, who they might like out of the race, who got an easy trip etc.. The only difference between the post race conversations on this forum right after the race is the timing. Instead of doing the analysis before a horse's next race it's being done right away.

In other words, when Classic Empire and Cloud Computing come back you won't have to ask me what I think of their performances. I already told you I think Classic Empire was the mildly better horse on that day, at that distance, on that track.

[classhandicapper]

Who is K Peck?

Is he the individual who came up with the running style addition in the DRF?

:3: I've never heard of "comparative classing handicapping at the pace level". I kind of like it. If it's your original term you may want to copyright it. If you don't and others start using it at least ...... We'll know who actually came up with it.

Something like the term "trip handicapping".

Kenny Peck is a race flow handicapper at DRF.

The very first time I heard someone talk in terms of comparing the quality of speed horses was at Saratoga decades ago. There was a big filly sprint that matched up 2 of the best sprint fillies in the country (can't recall their names). I happened to be standing next to Paul Cornman (who I did not know personally) and he was discussing the race. He said, "I'm not sure who is going to win, but if so and so tries to run with so and so she will be last". She tried to run with her and she finished last. The other horse tired and finished 3rd. At that time, it was a huge lesson for me. He wasn't thinking just in terms of fast or slow pace, he was thinking in terms of the quality of the 2 horses that were going to battle and how running with the better horse spelled doom.

[no breathalyzer]

It's now over 450 races ignoring jockeys and betting on value, and my ROI has only gone up since I last posted here.

PS. Best not to post while drinking heavily...

:lol::lol::lol: i just saw this now.... i don't post my plays here often... heck i don't bet a lot nowadays.... i wait and strike hard.. like i said earlier congrats:headbanger: and good for you i don't hate on anyone doing well in this game no matter how they are doing it.... go ahead and track my roi on the select picks i have posted here in the past... feel free.... i stopped when the quality of the board went to shit

[no breathalyzer]

Besides its best to post here while drinking :cool:

[no breathalyzer]

maybe i should make you show proof that they are not mind bets.... and when you do show..claim they are photoshopped :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:



ps hope you can take a joke .. im only joking

[PaceAdvantage]

:lol::lol::lol: i just saw this now.... i don't post my plays here often... heck i don't bet a lot nowadays.... i wait and strike hard.. like i said earlier congrats:headbanger: and good for you i don't hate on anyone doing well in this game no matter how they are doing it.... go ahead and track my roi on the select picks i have posted here in the past... feel free.... i stopped when the quality of the board went to shitActually, the quality of the board has gone WAY UP recently. No more constant whining about how jockeys have stolen victory from defeat. Yeah, jockeys give shit rides. Anyone who actually bets knows this. But it's not the reason you lose money in the long run.

And I'm not going to track your picks. If they were any good, you'd be tracking them yourself.