Justify

[PowerUpPaynter]

How good do you think this horse is? Can he break the Apollo curse? Worth noting he is also of the 0-51 Storm Cat sire line. I think he is really good BUT I dont think he will win the derby.

[f2tornado]

How good do you think this horse is? Can he break the Apollo curse? Worth noting he is also of the 0-51 Storm Cat sire line. I think he is really good BUT I dont think he will win the derby.

Goldencents Junior.

The horse has those curses going against him but manages to beat of four non winners other than maiden in the slop that could conceivably lose at Fonner Park... and he's suddenly the Derby favorite? It did make for better odds on others.

[jocko699]

Goldencents Junior.

The horse has those curses going against him but manages to beat of four non winners other than maiden in the slop that could conceivably lose at Fonner Park... and he's suddenly the Derby favorite? It did make for better odds on others.

The silliest statement of the year so far, congratulations!

[TheGarMan]

I gather he will get "one shot" to get derby points probably via the Santa Anita Derby.

And if he does it, he will have done it by beating the likes of Bolt and or McKinzie to get in. (That's a pretty tall order in his third race ever)

How good is he? We are about to find out. :ThmbUp:

(Futures bettors are a strange bunch, we just made a horse with zero qualifying points who 6 hours ago was eligible for "non winners of 2" the favorite, over a few horses who have been grinding at it for a while with some nice wins) :bang:

EDIT: In full disclosure I am actually by accident "invested" in Justify via a decent sized wager in the "all others" from future pool 2 , so I suppose in that regard am in essence rooting for him.

[f2tornado]

The silliest statement of the year so far, congratulations!

Care to provide insight or just meaningless drivel? I merely seconded PowerUp's comment that any handicapper can verify minus the Nebraska humor. What do you have to offer besides insult? That horse is going up against a lot of history. If he breaks it then great. Even the Cubs win once every hundred years.

[dilanesp]

Care to provide insight or just meaningless drivel? I merely seconded PowerUp's comment that any handicapper can verify minus the Nebraska humor. What do you have to offer besides insult? That horse is going up against a lot of history. If he breaks it then great. Even the Cubs win once every hundred years.

Derby "curses" are hasty generalizations based on insufficient sample sizes, Plus, the Derby has changed, a lot.

[f2tornado]

Derby "curses" are hasty generalizations based on insufficient sample sizes, Plus, the Derby has changed, a lot.

From my statistics class, n=51 is a statistically large sample. Storm Cat is 0-51 in the Derby in spite of taking up more than 10% of the gates since 1994. I have also read years back Storm Cat was something like 1 for 128 at 10F in all races. Big enough sample for you? Raise A Native horses make up 25% of Derby starters yet win half the races. Is it some "hasty generalization" Raise A Native is winning at twice the expected rate while Storm Cat is not winning at all? To suggest it is the case is to suggest breeding is meaningless.

Since 1937, I believe 59 horses ran in the Kentucky Derby after not running as a two year old. My text book says n=59 is a statistically large sample. They all lost. Why? Maybe foundation means something? Steve Haskin writes about it every week in his Blood Horse column.

The Derby hasn't changed at all. The only thing that has changed is the trainer approach to getting there. Now if a horse bucking the two trends comes out a Derby winner then great. In the meantime, I'll continue to utilize statistics in my wagering. I have Justify in my use of All Others from Pool 1 & 2. More power to my wallet if he hits with the right horse. I'm just not expecting it to happen (yet). If he shows me a 37.6 final 3/8th in a 9F prep then I'll find the bandwagon.

[PowerUpPaynter]

I gather he will get "one shot" to get derby points probably via the Santa Anita Derby.

And if he does it, he will have done it by beating the likes of Bolt and or McKinzie to get in. (That's a pretty tall order in his third race ever)

How good is he? We are about to find out. :ThmbUp:

(Futures bettors are a strange bunch, we just made a horse with zero qualifying points who 6 hours ago was eligible for "non winners of 2" the favorite, over a few horses who have been grinding at it for a while with some nice wins) :bang:

EDIT: In full disclosure I am actually by accident "invested" in Justify via a decent sized wager in the "all others" from future pool 2 , so I suppose in that regard am in essence rooting for him.

McKinzie is gonna go to Arkansas...

[depalma113]

The Derby hasn't changed at all.

The Derby has changed dramatically. Sprinter speed is no longer involved.

[dilanesp]

From my statistics class, n=51 is a statistically large sample. Storm Cat is 0-51 in the Derby in spite of taking up more than 10% of the gates since 1994. I have also read years back Storm Cat was something like 1 for 128 at 10F in all races. Big enough sample for you? Raise A Native horses make up 25% of Derby starters yet win half the races. Is it some "hasty generalization" Raise A Native is winning at twice the expected rate while Storm Cat is not winning at all? To suggest it is the case is to suggest breeding is meaningless.

Since 1937, I believe 59 horses ran in the Kentucky Derby after not running as a two year old. My text book says n=59 is a statistically large sample. They all lost. Why? Maybe foundation means something? Steve Haskin writes about it every week in his Blood Horse column.

The Derby hasn't changed at all. The only thing that has changed is the trainer approach to getting there. Now if a horse bucking the two trends comes out a Derby winner then great. In the meantime, I'll continue to utilize statistics in my wagering. I have Justify in my use of All Others from Pool 1 & 2. More power to my wallet if he hits with the right horse. I'm just not expecting it to happen (yet). If he shows me a 37.6 final 3/8th in a 9F prep then I'll find the bandwagon.

1.Have you ever calculated the variamce in horae racimg? It is huge. 51 is a TINY sample of horse races. 59 is a TINY sample of horses. In poker- which has LESS variance than horse racing because there are no animals involved, you need at least 10,000 hands before you know anything.

2. Since 1937, the Derby has changed enormously. For one thing the fields are a lot bigger. Citation faced 6 horses in 1948. As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

For another thing, ALL the horses are less experienced. Derby starters used to have 10, 12, even 20 starts. Now they have 5.

Third, the point system has eliminated speedballs who used to enter, so the pace has slowed.

In fact, the Derby has changed as much as almost any race in America.

[GMB@BP]

1.Have you ever calculated the variamce in horae racimg? It is huge. 51 is a TINY sample of horse races. 59 is a TINY sample of horses. In poker- which has LESS variance than horse racing because there are no animals involved, you need at least 10,000 hands before you know anything.

2. Since 1937, the Derby has changed enormously. For one thing the fields are a lot bigger. Citation faced 6 horses in 1948. As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

For another thing, ALL the horses are less experienced. Derby starters used to have 10, 12, even 20 starts. Now they have 5.

Third, the point system has eliminated speedballs who used to enter, so the pace has slowed.

In fact, the Derby has changed as much as almost any race in America.

good post, I would tend to agree, this stuff about dosage, 2 year old starts, etc just seem outdated to me as you outlined.

[f2tornado]

1.Have you ever calculated the variamce in horae racimg? It is huge. 51 is a TINY sample of horse races. 59 is a TINY sample of horses. In poker- which has LESS variance than horse racing because there are no animals involved, you need at least 10,000 hands before you know anything.

2. Since 1937, the Derby has changed enormously. For one thing the fields are a lot bigger. Citation faced 6 horses in 1948. As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

For another thing, ALL the horses are less experienced. Derby starters used to have 10, 12, even 20 starts. Now they have 5.

Third, the point system has eliminated speedballs who used to enter, so the pace has slowed.

In fact, the Derby has changed as much as almost any race in America.

There Derby has not changed appreciably since Storm Cat began siring contenders. Storm Cat does not apply in the 1937 renewal of the Derby. Unfortunately, in horse racing we deal with smaller sample sizes than card sharks in Vegas. I gotta play with what I have.

Is the slowing pace perception or reality?

1997 23.57 47.55 112.23
1998 22.75 45.75 110.62
1999 23.52 47.88 112.52
2000 22.47 45.99 109.99

2014 23.04 47.37 111.80
2015 23.24 47.34 111.29
2016 22.58 45.72 110.40
2017 22.70 46.53 111.12

I don't see much difference. Do you? We still have speed balls like Danzing Candy that find a way to make the gate.

[Tom]

As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

Actually, big fields started in 1981, with 21 entries.
Most since then have had 17-20 horses.

The main gate hold 16, right? That's what I went by.

[dilanesp]

Actually, big fields started in 1981, with 21 entries.
Most since then have had 17-20 horses.

The main gate hold 16, right? That's what I went by.

They had sporadic big fields even way back when. Clyde Van Deusen won a Derby in the 1920's with 22 horses or something in it.

But it wasn't every year, and lots of Derbies had normal sized fields. Secretariat's Derby, for instance, wasn't a large field. At the same time, the year after Secretariat they had the biggest field in history.

The main gate holds 14. The last one to fit within the main gate was 1997. But through the 1980's and 1990's, there were plenty of them with less than 20. 16-18 was the usual number.

In recent years, it's been 20 every year unless there has been a scratch. That's never been the case before historically.

[Mc990]

Yes, the derby is ever evolving with the most pronounced change being in how trainers are mapping out the 3 year old preps as they've realized 2 preps (and preferably 5+ weeks coming in) are optimal.

However from 1980-2012 compared to 2013-2017, the mean and median pace has not been appreciably different.... the narrative that it has is just noise

[dilanesp]

There Derby has not changed appreciably since Storm Cat began siring contenders. Storm Cat does not apply in the 1937 renewal of the Derby. Unfortunately, in horse racing we deal with smaller sample sizes than card sharks in Vegas. I gotta play with what I have.

Is the slowing pace perception or reality?

1997 23.57 47.55 112.23
1998 22.75 45.75 110.62
1999 23.52 47.88 112.52
2000 22.47 45.99 109.99

2014 23.04 47.37 111.80
2015 23.24 47.34 111.29
2016 22.58 45.72 110.40
2017 22.70 46.53 111.12

I don't see much difference. Do you? We still have speed balls like Danzing Candy that find a way to make the gate.

Well we used to have speedballs who became sprint champions or won the Breeders' Cup Sprint, like Coaltown, Groovy, and Trinniburg, in the race. We don't have those anymore.

And in your small sample I see two sub-46 halfs in 1997-2000 and only one in the last 4 years.

At any rate, the big problem isn't simply a matter of "how much the Derby has changed?". The big problem is more glaring.

Go to a roulette wheel in Las Vegas sometime. Look at the screen with the past winners, and I GUARANTEE you that over 50 spins or so you can discern some sorts of "patterns" or "tendencies" of the wheel. You know why? Because that's how variance works. Things that are actually random seem like they have patterns.

There's nothing magical about the Storm Cat line that would make a horse able to perform in any other race other than going 1 1/4 miles on the first Saturday in May. What's the theory here? That Storm Cats are bad in 20 horse fields? That Storm Cats run better against older horses than they do against 3 year olds? That Storm Cats can't carry 126 pounds?

Have you analyzed whether Storm Cat has produced any seconds or thirds or fourths in the Derby? That's often an indicator that a theory is bogus-- for instance, people who swear that inexperienced horses can't win the Derby need to explain how Curlin almost won it (and would have won it had Calvin Borel not gotten through on the rail!).

Without a theory, the most likely explanation for ANY Derby "statistic" is random chance. Two years ago, I cashed pretty big on Exaggerator in the Preakness after a lot of people here told me that Derby runners up don't win the Preakness. Statistically they didn't. But there's no mechanism that explains why that would be.

[dilanesp]

Unfortunately, in horse racing we deal with smaller sample sizes than card sharks in Vegas. I gotta play with what I have.

I think this is worth highlighting, because it is telling. If you don't have enough data to conclude something, the response shouldn't be to calculate it anyway and hope it turns out to be correct and relevant. The imperative isn't to come up with something and gamble-- it's to come up with good data that actually allows you to make advantage plays.

If you tell me that in 100 runnings of a race, a gray or a gelding has never won it, I don't go looking through the past performances and crossing off grays and geldings. That's not looking for an edge.

You need good data. I have enormous respect for some of the people here who strive to come up with good data. But unfortunately, the handicapping angles that treat the Derby as a special race unique from any other races are almost certainly unsupported by good data.

I have also read years back Storm Cat was something like 1 for 128 at 10F in all races.

I forgot to address this. Just off the top of my head, I came up with Tobasco Cat (who won two thirds of the triple crown!) and Giants Causeway as Storm Cats who had plenty of stamina and could easily get 1 1/4 miles. I am sure there are others.

[jocko699]

Well we used to have speedballs who became sprint champions or won the Breeders' Cup Sprint, like Coaltown, Groovy, and Trinniburg, in the race. We don't have those anymore.

And in your small sample I see two sub-46 halfs in 1997-2000 and only one in the last 4 years.

At any rate, the big problem isn't simply a matter of "how much the Derby has changed?". The big problem is more glaring.

Go to a roulette wheel in Las Vegas sometime. Look at the screen with the past winners, and I GUARANTEE you that over 50 spins or so you can discern some sorts of "patterns" or "tendencies" of the wheel. You know why? Because that's how variance works. Things that are actually random seem like they have patterns.

There's nothing magical about the Storm Cat line that would make a horse able to perform in any other race other than going 1 1/4 miles on the first Saturday in May. What's the theory here? That Storm Cats are bad in 20 horse fields? That Storm Cats run better against older horses than they do against 3 year olds? That Storm Cats can't carry 126 pounds?

Have you analyzed whether Storm Cat has produced any seconds or thirds or fourths in the Derby? That's often an indicator that a theory is bogus-- for instance, people who swear that inexperienced horses can't win the Derby need to explain how Curlin almost won it (and would have won it had Calvin Borel not gotten through on the rail!).

Without a theory, the most likely explanation for ANY Derby "statistic" is random chance. Two years ago, I cashed pretty big on Exaggerator in the Preakness after a lot of people here told me that Derby runners up don't win the Preakness. Statistically they didn't. But there's no mechanism that explains why that would be.

I think quite a few of us hit Exaggerator in the Preakness. Really was a shame when the track came up sloppy:D:D:D

[dilanesp]

I think quite a few of us hit Exaggerator in the Preakness. Really was a shame when the track came up sloppy:D:D:D

Yep. And "horse who has previously had a couple of smashing wins on off track is likely to run well again on the slop" is a handicapping angle with A LOT of data behind it. :)

[f2tornado]

I think this is worth highlighting, because it is telling. If you don't have enough data to conclude something, the response shouldn't be to calculate it anyway and hope it turns out to be correct and relevant. The imperative isn't to come up with something and gamble-- it's to come up with good data that actually allows you to make advantage plays.

I have the data. Are you suggesting breeding is meaningless? Storm Cat 0-51. Raise A Native was 18-155 through 2012 and added American Pharoah and Always Dreaming since. If you want to chalk the success of Raise A Native to random chance then be my guest. That's why we have wagering windows.

If you tell me that in 100 runnings of a race, a gray or a gelding has never won it, I don't go looking through the past performances and crossing off grays and geldings. That's not looking for an edge.

Grays have had plenty of success finding the winners circle at classic distance (and at times great odds like Giacomo) so there is nothing to contend here. Monarchos was gray and by the Raise A Native line. Now, if someone says a legit contender has no shot from the "cursed" 17 hole then I'd be happy to beg to differ given winners from just inside and outside that post.

You need good data. I have enormous respect for some of the people here who strive to come up with good data. But unfortunately, the handicapping angles that treat the Derby as a special race unique from any other races are almost certainly unsupported by good data.

Angles used for the Derby can be applied to the Preakness and Belmont with good success. Some even translate to the Breeders Cup. I've used Derby angles to come up with upsets in the prep races. I enjoy the Derby but my wagering experience encompasses much of the prep season. Angles are just that. They are not the be all end all. Would I be stunned if a horse like Justify wins the Derby? No. I'm just not taking him at 6-1 in a future pool off a maiden and short allowance win. If he does get a bona fide 9F prep and lands the numbers I like then I might even jump on the bandwagon. Seven out of 10 Derby winners including the last six renewals were a horse that ran a final 3/8th in 37.6 or less. It makes sense. In general, you gotta have a gear at 9F if you're gonna survive 10F. Or you can be like Andrew Beyer and pick the horse with the best BSF and be oh fer infinity... well, maybe Big Brown pulled it off.

I forgot to address this. Just off the top of my head, I came up with Tobasco Cat (who won two thirds of the triple crown!) and Giants Causeway as Storm Cats who had plenty of stamina and could easily get 1 1/4 miles. I am sure there are others.

Maybe that's the one. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Of course, Pat Day was an angle in and of himself back in those days.

[CincyHorseplayer]

How about any bloodline not Raise a Native or Nasrullah?

All the Nearctics(Northern Dancer) since 1970(48 years) have only won 4 Derbies.

The Royal Chargers have only won 4 as well. But this is not nearly a world acclaimed line like Northern Dancer.

The Nasrullah line while winning 7 of 10 during the 70's before fading and only winning 2 from 1980 to 2010. But since 2011 have won 4 of the last 7.

The Raise a Native and 3 sons of Nearco lines have accounted for 40 of 48 wins. With 19 for Raise A Native and 13 for Nasrullah.

I think the Nasrullah ine is resurging but it still has a ways to go. Since 1990 the RAN's have won 16 of 28(57%).

Just for giggles Charismatic traces back to Storm Cat's sire Storm Bird! But the complete futility of such a powerful line like ND is negatively impressive.

[f2tornado]

The three most recent non Raise A Native, Nyquist, Chrome, and Orb all had Buckpasser in the x. It’s a small sample size but Buckpasser-x horses have hit the Derby exacta about 50% of the time they close well in a 9F prep. Bluegrass Cat was one Storm Cat that did well by hitting the place pool beaten by Barbaro. Bluegrass Cat had Buckpasser-x.

[horses4courses]

Pat Day was an angle in and of himself back in those days.

Yes.
I particularly liked the Pat Day/Unbridled angle.

Pat Day gave Unbridled one of the worst rides ever
seen on a racehorse in the 1990 Fountain of Youth.
From then on, it was Craig Perret in the saddle.
The rest is history........;)

[dilanesp]

Yes.
I particularly liked the Pat Day/Unbridled angle.

Pat Day gave Unbridled one of the worst rides ever
seen on a racehorse in the 1990 Fountain of Youth.
From then on, it was Craig Perret in the saddle.
The rest is history........;)

Not quite. Pat Day subbed for Perret, gave Unbridled an amazing ride from post 14, and won the 1990 Breeders' Cup Classic at 8 to 1 or so.

[PowerUpPaynter]

In a year where I was lucky enough to secure futures bets off shore late last summer of Bolt at 200-1, Solomini at 150-1, and McKinzie at 85-1 of course the Apollo curse is gonna get broken just to shove it up my ass one more time... Fml:puke:

:bang:

[Musket Man]

New member of the forum, so take it easy on the new guy. Kidding aside, one of the first things I do look for with colts on the TC trail is the RAN sire line.

The proven success, recently, is well documented. Obviously, as many have mentioned, there are other factors that I use as well, but colts w/RAN sire line get extra attention, especially w/Buckpasser in the X.

I'm totally aware of the Storm Cat sire line, Apollo and the lack of foundation relative to Justify. Most handicappers will agree. This colt is certainly "up against it" from that perspective.

With that, Justify passes the eye test to this point. Will he pass it next out? We will soon find out. I have no reason to believe that he won't, but again, that is why they run the races.

Training and the methods to get to CD on the first Saturday in May have changed as well. We can save that argument for another day.

I look forward to adding my 2 cents in the forum going forward. I'm glad I found the site.

Shout out to f2tornado as I reside in North Dakota as well.

[f2tornado]

New member of the forum....I reside in North Dakota as well.

Welcome. I look forward to reading everyone's insight here. As you can see, we don't always agree but that's how we get odds in the game we play. I agree, Justify meets the eye test, for now. Storm Cat horses tend to mature a little faster which might be one reason they look sharp early on the trail only to come up short later. I recently moved to Bismarck from Williston. Got that changed.

[PowerUpPaynter]

New member of the forum, so take it easy on the new guy. Kidding aside, one of the first things I do look for with colts on the TC trail is the RAN sire line.

The proven success, recently, is well documented. Obviously, as many have mentioned, there are other factors that I use as well, but colts w/RAN sire line get extra attention, especially w/Buckpasser in the X.

I'm totally aware of the Storm Cat sire line, Apollo and the lack of foundation relative to Justify. Most handicappers will agree. This colt is certainly "up against it" from that perspective.

With that, Justify passes the eye test to this point. Will he pass it next out? We will soon find out. I have no reason to believe that he won't, but again, that is why they run the races.

Training and the methods to get to CD on the first Saturday in May have changed as well. We can save that argument for another day.

I look forward to adding my 2 cents in the forum going forward. I'm glad I found the site.

Shout out to f2tornado as I reside in North Dakota as well.

Musket Man was one of my all time favs. Brought it every time.

[exactatom]

I look at Justify as I did Curlin? Both unraced at 2 year olds and appear to be loaded with talent.

However, Curlin ran in two Derby preps, the Rebel and the Arkansas Derby. Justify will be facing quality competition only once.

However, when the Derby came around Curlin just did not get the job done. He improved from the Derby to the Preakness and took off from there.

Call me a traditionalist (no, I do not mean the curse), rather I believe that horses need a strong foundation to go 10 furlongs in May of their 3 year old year. You simply do not get this foundation by workouts. I think trainers do not test these young horses nearly enough.

While most of this has to do with breeding more for speed than stamina, some if it has to do with the trainers simply running and working horses less. It is rare now to find a mile work, when it used to be common place.

It struck my eye last Breeders Cup when a horse had run 10 times before one of the juvenile races.

I guess my conclusion is that I just feel Justify does not have the foundation to get 10 furlongs in Louisville on Cinco de Mayo.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The three most recent non Raise A Native, Nyquist, Chrome, and Orb all had Buckpasser in the x. It’s a small sample size but Buckpasser-x horses have hit the Derby exacta about 50% of the time they close well in a 9F prep. Bluegrass Cat was one Storm Cat that did well by hitting the place pool beaten by Barbaro. Bluegrass Cat had Buckpasser-x.

Nyquist, Chrome, and Orb were all from the Nasrullah line. 2 being the AP Indy branch. I think this line will put up some competition for the RAN line even though there isn't much from it this year. These things change abruptly. In the 1950's the Bay Ronald line dominated. By the end of the 60's it never won another Derby again. The Nasrullah line largely through Bold Ruler descendants dominated the 1970's before going on a lengthy hiatus. The RAN line didn't really come into it's own til the descendants of Mr Prospector started to take hold. This could fade at any given time too.

[dilanesp]

I look at Justify as I did Curlin? Both unraced at 2 year olds and appear to be loaded with talent.

However, Curlin ran in two Derby preps, the Rebel and the Arkansas Derby. Justify will be facing quality competition only once.

However, when the Derby came around Curlin just did not get the job done. He improved from the Derby to the Preakness and took off from there.

This, to me, is completely wrong, and indeed, is an indicator of what is wrong with these "theories".

If the curse of Apollo were a real handicapping factor, Curlin should not have gotten close. Remember, Street Sense, who won the race, got extremely lucky. Without that dream run up the rail under Calvin Borel, he probably doesn't win the thing.

So Curlin got beat by two horses, one of whom only beat him because of racing luck. Curlin himself beat 16 horses in the race. 16 well seasoned horses. 16 horses with more starts. 16 horses with 2 year old form. 16 horses that the "theory" says he could never beat.

If you want a workable theory, you need to account for who runs well in the Derby, not simply who wins it. If the curse of Apollo really worked as a handicapping angle, it should apply just as much to hitting the board as to winning it.

And if you want to study a handicapping angle, saying "X out of 40 Derby winners" is basically guaranteed to be statistically invalid. You need to include every Derby runner up, every Derby third place finisher, etc., in the study. In fact, you should include last and next to last and third from last finishes-- if the handicapping factor is really dispositive, not only should they be less likely to win, they should also be more likely to finish last.

The reality is that if you start doing this, you will find that the theories don't "hold". For instance, dosage, even in its heyday, was absolutely terrible at predicting who would finish in the money in the Derby. It only "forecast" the Derby winner. Which basically proves that it was a random effect of variance.

Similarly, if a handicapping angle works on the Derby, it should also work on the Preakness, which is basically the exact same race as the Derby, run two weeks later. Yet Curlin won the Preakness! Indeed, he ran the fastest correctly timed Preakness in history.

The bottom line problem with all of these angles is the assumption that the Derby isn't a normal horse race. You don't look at Storm Cat versus Raise a Native sire lines, or 2 year old experience, or number of starts in the 3 year old season when handicapping a $16,000 claiming race on a Friday at Santa Anita. Why do these irrelevant factors suddenly not only become relevant, but controlling, in this ONE race in May at Churchill Downs? There's no reason to do this other than people really want to gamble on the Derby and not pass the race because of its psychological and societal importance, and these "angles" give people an excuse to do it.

[f2tornado]

This, to me, is completely wrong, and indeed, is an indicator of what is wrong with these "theories".

If the curse of Apollo were a real handicapping factor, Curlin should not have gotten close. Remember, Street Sense, who won the race, got extremely lucky. Without that dream run up the rail under Calvin Borel, he probably doesn't win the thing.

So Curlin got beat by two horses, one of whom only beat him because of racing luck. Curlin himself beat 16 horses in the race. 16 well seasoned horses. 16 horses with more starts. 16 horses with 2 year old form. 16 horses that the "theory" says he could never beat.

Curlin: Raise A Native. Street Sense: Raise A Native. Steet Sense followed up that effort, dream trip or not, by getting nosed in the Preakness. The Raise A Native exacta. The theory or angle doesn't suggest Curlin couldn't finish well in the Derby. It suggests the probably of winning is lower based on the assumption a horse needs some foundation to nail a 10F race. Further, there's often reasons for non racing at two. Temperament or late maturation could play a role. Regardless of reason, the angle has worked and Curlin was defeated in the Derby.

If you want a workable theory, you need to account for who runs well in the Derby, not simply who wins it. If the curse of Apollo really worked as a handicapping angle, it should apply just as much to hitting the board as to winning it.

And if you want to study a handicapping angle, saying "X out of 40 Derby winners" is basically guaranteed to be statistically invalid. You need to include every Derby runner up, every Derby third place finisher, etc., in the study. In fact, you should include last and next to last and third from last finishes-- if the handicapping factor is really dispositive, not only should they be less likely to win, they should also be more likely to finish last.

It's far easier to hit the board then it is to win. This is why the show pool typically pays far less than the win pool. Nobody ever said a non-raced two year old cannot perform well. The doubters simply question their edge. It's perfectly reasonable until they start wearing roses.


The reality is that if you start doing this, you will find that the theories don't "hold". For instance, dosage, even in its heyday, was absolutely terrible at predicting who would finish in the money in the Derby. It only "forecast" the Derby winner. Which basically proves that it was a random effect of variance.

That's the idea. Pick the damn winner. That is, unless you enjoy making place and show bets. All the boxcar gimmick wagers require picking the winner. If some pattern makes the job easier then I'm game. [/QUOTE]

Similarly, if a handicapping angle works on the Derby, it should also work on the Preakness, which is basically the exact same race as the Derby, run two weeks later. Yet Curlin won the Preakness! Indeed, he ran the fastest correctly timed Preakness in history.

Fact of the matter is many Derby angles carry well into the Preakness and Belmont. The Preakness is NOT even close to the same race as the Derby. It is shorter and less crowded. Many Derby runners skip it while new horses come in. Who won it last year? That's right. Raise A Native with Buckpasser-x.

The bottom line problem with all of these angles is the assumption that the Derby isn't a normal horse race. You don't look at Storm Cat versus Raise a Native sire lines, or 2 year old experience, or number of starts in the 3 year old season when handicapping a $16,000 claiming race on a Friday at Santa Anita. Why do these irrelevant factors suddenly not only become relevant, but controlling, in this ONE race in May at Churchill Downs? There's no reason to do this other than people really want to gamble on the Derby and not pass the race because of its psychological and societal importance, and these "angles" give people an excuse to do it.

I look at all that stuff when wagering on younger horses. That said, these claimers are not running at 10F. I might look for Speightstown of a lightly raced horse in a sprint race or a Tapit stretching out to 8.5F.

Care to share how you wager the Derby or are you going to keep dumping on existing thoughts?

[PowerUpPaynter]

This, to me, is completely wrong, and indeed, is an indicator of what is wrong with these "theories".

If the curse of Apollo were a real handicapping factor, Curlin should not have gotten close. Remember, Street Sense, who won the race, got extremely lucky. Without that dream run up the rail under Calvin Borel, he probably doesn't win the thing.

So Curlin got beat by two horses, one of whom only beat him because of racing luck. Curlin himself beat 16 horses in the race. 16 well seasoned horses. 16 horses with more starts. 16 horses with 2 year old form. 16 horses that the "theory" says he could never beat.

If you want a workable theory, you need to account for who runs well in the Derby, not simply who wins it. If the curse of Apollo really worked as a handicapping angle, it should apply just as much to hitting the board as to winning it.

And if you want to study a handicapping angle, saying "X out of 40 Derby winners" is basically guaranteed to be statistically invalid. You need to include every Derby runner up, every Derby third place finisher, etc., in the study. In fact, you should include last and next to last and third from last finishes-- if the handicapping factor is really dispositive, not only should they be less likely to win, they should also be more likely to finish last.

The reality is that if you start doing this, you will find that the theories don't "hold". For instance, dosage, even in its heyday, was absolutely terrible at predicting who would finish in the money in the Derby. It only "forecast" the Derby winner. Which basically proves that it was a random effect of variance.

Similarly, if a handicapping angle works on the Derby, it should also work on the Preakness, which is basically the exact same race as the Derby, run two weeks later. Yet Curlin won the Preakness! Indeed, he ran the fastest correctly timed Preakness in history.

The bottom line problem with all of these angles is the assumption that the Derby isn't a normal horse race. You don't look at Storm Cat versus Raise a Native sire lines, or 2 year old experience, or number of starts in the 3 year old season when handicapping a $16,000 claiming race on a Friday at Santa Anita. Why do these irrelevant factors suddenly not only become relevant, but controlling, in this ONE race in May at Churchill Downs? There's no reason to do this other than people really want to gamble on the Derby and not pass the race because of its psychological and societal importance, and these "angles" give people an excuse to do it.

Alot of what you say is true, BUT this is the first time these horses are running 1 1/4 miles and all of these horses to this point have been pointing to this one day. The derby is not like the Preakness, Pimlico is a 'quirky' track that seems to be more favorable to certain types of horses. Its a smaller field and not nearly as tough of a race. If you run the Storm Cat vs Raise A Native numbers and include top 2 finishers it favors Raise A Native even more. Its not a statistical anomaly like the 17 post. Its bloodlines and breading and it matters in handicapping the derby. Will a Storm Cat win the Derby someday or maybe even this year? 100% absolutely! But if you play the odds its a much better chance a RAN will. 17 of 19 horses in the past 10 exactas ran 38 flat or less in the last 3/8 of there final prep (Excluding Eight Belles who did not run at 1 1/8 in final prep) is that by chance too? There are some angles that have merritt and some that dont.

[PowerUpPaynter]

Here is a good video about Justify

http://derbypowerrankings.com/acloserlook.htm

[dilanesp]

Alot of what you say is true, BUT this is the first time these horses are running 1 1/4 miles and all of these horses to this point have been pointing to this one day. The derby is not like the Preakness, Pimlico is a 'quirky' track that seems to be more favorable to certain types of horses. Its a smaller field and not nearly as tough of a race. If you run the Storm Cat vs Raise A Native numbers and include top 2 finishers it favors Raise A Native even more. Its not a statistical anomaly like the 17 post. Its bloodlines and breading and it matters in handicapping the derby. Will a Storm Cat win the Derby someday or maybe even this year? 100% absolutely! But if you play the odds its a much better chance a RAN will. 17 of 19 horses in the past 10 exactas ran 38 flat or less in the last 3/8 of there final prep (Excluding Eight Belles who did not run at 1 1/8 in final prep) is that by chance too? There are some angles that have merritt and some that dont.

If the Derby is so different from the Preakness, how come 15 of the last 39 Derby winners to run in the Prraakness won it? My answer is small sample size, but you know....

[Vinnie]

Justify tentatively pointed for Arkansas Derby. Read about it at Horse Racing Nation just a little bit ago. Can't wait... Approximately a month out!! Can't wait!!! :)

[PowerUpPaynter]

Justify tentatively pointed for Arkansas Derby. Read about it at Horse Racing Nation just a little bit ago. Can't wait... Approximately a month out!! Can't wait!!! :)

Would of rather of seen him vs Bolt d'Oro and McKinzie but no reason for Baffert to do that obviously.

[señorclipclop]

Not only does he have the Apollo curse against him, he also has the Storm Cat 0-fer against him. Sprint heavy top of his pedigree, and a do-nothing Derby bms line. A lot of foolish money in Pool 3, especially at 6-1.

[Vinnie]

Would of rather of seen him vs Bolt d'Oro and McKinzie but no reason for Baffert to do that obviously.

In the famous words of Football Coach Dennis Green (may the Coach Rest in Peace) I firmly believe that when he does meet up with the likes of Bolt d' Oro and McKinzie if they could talk they would more than likely say something along the lines of "He was who we thought he was". (Coach Green, "They were who we thought they were". :lol:

[letswastemoney]

If Justify wins his 9F prep race and looks good doing so, there is no reason he can't win the Derby.

[Vinnie]

A very interesting look at Justify the horse from somewhat of a historical perspective with concern to his first couple of outings as a young racehorse.

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

[Vinnie]

What a specimen. Confirmed for the Santa Anita Derby this weekend... Can't wait!!!

https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Justify_confirmed_to_take_on_Bolt_dOro_in_Santa_An ita_Derby_123

[f2tornado]

What a specimen. Confirmed for the Santa Anita Derby this weekend... Can't wait!!!

https://www.horseracingnation.com/news/Justify_confirmed_to_take_on_Bolt_dOro_in_Santa_An ita_Derby_123

Thankfully no longer what could have been a walkover with the absence of McKinzie. I have been less impressed with Justify as others but should the horse do one of two things I look for in the Santa Anita Derby then I'll be impressed. First, win or lose, does the horse run 6-9F in less than 38 seconds. Second, is the final time less than 1:48. That second point may be less reliable this year as the track seems to be running slower. In recent decades, Santa Anita to Kentucky Derby winners tended to hit or break that 148.00 barrier, most recently Chrome @147.52 and I'll Have Another @147.88. This in contrast to Dortmund @148.73 and Goldencents 148.78. Tote bomber Giacomo in 2005 did hit on point 1 coming home in approximately 37.6 but missed my final clock angle.