Derby Win Pick

[socalsportsbook]

In reviewing all the various selections made in the Derby, Handicapping Magician had War Emblem ON TOP and it had the horse "ouy-of-the-box.

[JustRalph]

Equisim had him on top when running the sim several different ways. It was just icing on the cake for me.

[TomC]

Snap Cap Pro had War Emblem right on top too, and TBI had it selected as the top longshot. No models or anything fancy, just right there in plain view. Not bragging, just sending my congrads to all that played it.

[andicap]

For chrissakes! The horse had the top Beyer fig!!!
Every computer program had him on top!!!!!
Look at my post for my figures and my picks. I had him on top (but didn't bet him like a moron.).

He had a great line last time -- the point was no one believed it was real!!!!!!!!!

[TomC]

Of course EVERYONE had it, Thats why it was the heavy favorite paying $43. Just like when Charasmatic won and paid odds on $60+. Because it was so obvious and EVERYONE had it (after the race). Guess the slight difference is I bet it.

[cj]

Originally posted by TomC
Of course EVERYONE had it, Thats why it was the heavy favorite paying $43. Just like when Charasmatic won and paid odds on $60+. Because it was so obvious and EVERYONE had it (after the race). Guess the slight difference is I bet it.

TomC,

Great post, until you throw in the "I had it", making it no more than a cheap redboard!

CJ

[TomC]

I didnt say I "HAD IT". I said I BET IT.

Here is my question. How can you "HAVE" a horse, but not bet it?
I can see maybe at 6-5...."Well I really like it, but at 6-5, its not worth the risk"
But 20-1 and you "HAVE IT", but dont bet it? Whats the excuse? You were holing out for 40-1? The only thing can be you didnt really have it. You either have it or you dont at 20-1. You cant "HAVE" a 20-1 shot, but not bet it because it doesn't look GREAT. How many 20-1 shots look great? Thats why I never buy a Racing Form. I look to see what the program picks. If I believe in my program, then theres no reason to pass a 20-1 top pick. Sure, there are many I bets that lose. I will hear comments like "You are betting the 3? He never ran the distance before". Well, I can't hit $40 and up horses if the horse is a standout.
Equisim, another good program, had the horse. It is a PACE program. Based on pace, the program was saying "This horse will win". How can anyone NOT bet it because they think the horse cant hold up? Why use the program then?
My point is if you are using any program or method, you should either belive in it, or find something else. If you always have to second guess it, why bother? This is of course based on playing prices and my opinion only. If you are betting chaulk, then qualify them to the hilt!

[anotherdave]

If anyone wants to prove the ability of a program, they should post selections before the race. Then everyone has a fair chance of rating the ability of the software. Think of how great your software would have looked! It is quite possible your program did have it, but when you drop in here after the derby (your last post was July 27, 2001) and say your program had it, you can expect some doubters.

AD

[TomC]

My main reason for dropping in was that I heard someone put a nice post about my software, so I stopped in to read it. Then I read the "If its so good, why would you want anyone else to use it?" comments. The idea that my software or ANY method can influence the odds is still so funny.....
Lets see, I have 25,000 people using my program. I think 11,000 are in Southern Ca. So if they all use it, play the same horse and bet $200 to win on it...holy cow, no wonder my picks go from 8-1 m/l to 1-9 post time!
Or is it more like on any given day there may be 25 people at Hollywood using it....some looking for prices, others looking for tifectas, others playing top ranked favorites. And most betting more like $20 to $50. So by the time it filters out, what is my program doing...adding a few hundred to the win pool?

[andicap]

I'm not doubting that your program "had it".

All I am saying is even if you had just used Beyer figures, available to everyone, you would have had the horse. Obviously very few people believed the Beyer was legit, hence the $43 payout.
I posted some figures somewhere else that I came up with that had War Emblem on top. No redboarding, just the facts. But I didn't "have it" because I possibly overhandicapped.

[weatherman]

Tomc
25,000 users , that would be nice, no wonder you don't bet, the 25k plus users and upgrades, plus daily downloads for the program, i would just like to have what you pay in taxes haha. if you run churchill or hollywood for wed post'em or email them to me i can use the money... will be married forty years next month, if the picks are good then i can buy viagra instead of using fix-a-flat

[at the wire]

funny if u go to the itsdata.com i read pizzols comments on the derby, he never mentioned war emblem, but of course he said he had not finished his work yet on the derby, bottom line pizzola was afraid to take a stand, but i am sure he will be touting on how he had war emblem.

[Tom]

Everyone and their brother had WE now that the race is over.
I am sticking to my guns, however...WE cannot win the Derby!
So there!
It is going to take a lot more than reality to convince me.
~G!~

[cj]

Originally posted by at the wire
funny if u go to the itsdata.com i read pizzols comments on the derby, he never mentioned war emblem, but of course he said he had not finished his work yet on the derby, bottom line pizzola was afraid to take a stand, but i am sure he will be touting on how he had war emblem.

Where is that ATW? It either vanished in a hurry or I can't find it.

CJ

[TomC]

Tom:
I like that...sticking to your guns. AND for all of you that want MY PICKS...here is the 100% lock.....I PREDICT that Tom will be right and you will all see that War Emblem will NOT win the Derby....next year!
Weatherman....I hope you realize my sarcasm in the 25,000 figure. If I had 25,000 sales, I sure would not be excited about a $43 winner.
OK, so let me get this right to the other "post your picks people". I am supposed to spend much $$$$ and more importantly all my time and years of study I put into this game, THEN give away free picks just for the hopes that someone will buy a program from me. If I relied on profits from my program, I would be in sad shape. So again, I am not out to impress. On occassion I will defend myself, but I really dont have anything to prove. I am sure there are many better handicappers out there than myself (Actually I am certain of it). Some may be reading this post. I just found a way that works for ME. And when I see an opportunity to improve it, I do....only a fool would not. Finally, if anyone wants what I use, they can buy it. I risked years and years and many opportunities in other areas to get to where I am. Surely it is not a lot to expect someone to risk a meager amount of money and 5 minutes for a money order to try and acheive the same. Imagine...if I only could have paid someone $500 to get all what it took me years to get! WOW

[anotherdave]

I would expect that to sell your product, the customer would expect some proof that it works. Redboarding a selection is not the way to prove that. Post your picks for a week or so (not forever!) let me see how effective the software is, then I can make my mind up. Other people with software posted what they thought would happen BEFORE the race. Don't drop in after a 9 month absence and say that your software had it.

AD

[cj]

I think I'm starting to miss RayGordon!

CJ

[TomC]

You've been a lovely audience...see ya in Maryland!

[socalsportsbook]

Hold on here. Did I start something? I put up the post about HM having WE on-top. I did not mean to say I had it, just that the software had it. Not trying to promote anything just stating a fact.

I do not buy that statement that every software program had WE on top because of the Beyer. If that was so then BEIS and HDW and everything else I looked at needs to update their programs.

Listen fellas, it was just a statement of fact. No reb boarding. I lost but give the program some credit--it had the horse.

[anotherdave]

Sorry about getting on Tom C's case, but we have gotten a few of these book writers and software developers in here lately with very strange sales pitches. Telling me what races you hit in the past doesn't interest me. If they have this kind of attitudes when pushing their products, I just don't want anything to do with them. Some of the people who do software on this board are not like that - Equisim especially comes to mind among others. They come here tell us about their product - let us try out a demo. That is what will get me interested. I bought Jim Lehane's book from his website because he sent free emails with selections and analysis BEFORE the race. The book had some interesting stuff, but wasn't really my cup of tea. But I have no problem with that. Still a good investment. I just bought "Four Corners of Horse Investing" off a suggestion on this board. I liked that one a lot. I've bought quite a few books off the suggestions from this board and have been pleased. I appreciate that the reviews were honest and intelligent. That's the kind of information that I want to hear before I buy something.

AD

[Bob Harris]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski


Where is that ATW? It either vanished in a hurry or I can't find it.

CJ

You didn't miss anything, CJ. The note Michael posted was very clear and simple...if you were handicapping the Derby with the Master Magician, he suggested users turn the Aberrency Filter (it tosses races which are atypical) off. He mentioned a couple of horses which were getting messed up by having the filter on in his opinion. It was simply a suggestion from him to users of TMM...nothing more exciting than that.

Have a great week!

Bob

[tanda]

These comments could appear elsewhere but this place is as good as any.

I am struck by two huge handicapping errors made by many people in relation to the Derby. These errors are not because they failed to "pick the winner". You can handicap well but not bet the winner. Instead, they are more fundamental mistakes that no good handicapper should make.

First, as mentioned by some people, including whipping boy Steve Christ at drf.com and Tom Brohamer at turfpedia.com, there were only four horses intended for the Derby who had ran Derby quality speed and pace figures: Buddha, Medaglia D'Oro, Sunday Break and War Emblem. Using figs to select contenders would make War Emblem a contender, especially with the no-gos of buddha and Sunday Break.

Now, War Emblem's figure should rightly be viewed with suspicion and handicappers had good reason for that view (one time number, lose on lead, questionable field, idiosyncratic track, etc.). For that reason, you downgrade his chances. But you do not throw him out. Note: if his figs were legitimate, he should have been the favorite. By downgrading him from favorite to merely one of four or five contenders, you have sufficiently adjusted for the questionable figure. Throwing him out is over-correction. No play at 5:1, play at 20:1.

Logically, there are unquestionable flaws in many handicappers' thinking that really cannot be denied. Most of these handicappers dismissed War Emblem because his figure was quite possibly a fluke. But these same handicapppers accepted as contenders horses who had NO figures indicative of Derby winning quality (Perfect Drift, Saarland, Essence of Dubai, Castle Gandolfo, Johanasburg, arguably Harlan's Holiday and Came Home, Private Emblem, and som e more as well). If ONE set of qualifying figs makes you a throw-out, than does not ZERO sets of qualifying figs require a throw-out?

Imagine this dialogue:

"War Emblem's figures are a fluke so I am going with Saarland. I don't think War Emblem can repeat the numbers since they are not legitimate."

"Yeah, but Saarland has not indicated he can run fast enough to win."

"But Saarland has every right to improve"

"Yes he does, but War Emblem does not necessarily have to improve to win, he may only have to run his normal race."

"Yes, but it is not a certainty that his last race was his normal race"

"Yes, and it is not a certainty that Saarland will improve."

The Saarland supporter really makes no sense. Yet, this is how many prominent handicappers thought. They throw out a horse with one good fig but accept others with none.

We all know that if one horse runs a 95 Beyer and the other runs a 112 Beyer that it is much more likely that the latter will be able to run a 112 Beyer in the future than the former. True, the opposite may occur, but we know one thing about the latter that we do not know about the former: he can, maybe only with the help of a perfect trip, run a 112. The former may be unable to do so under ANY circumstances.

The second error, not as clear cut, was this belief that the pace would be fast. I posted on this topic elsewhere so I have little to add. Still, I saw handicappers repeating this but I never really heard a basis for it. A good handicapper should have realized that there was a resaonble chance there would be a reasoanble pace.

Avoiding these errors does not guarantee a bet on the winner, but it does guarantee that the winner is a contender. If you failed to consider War Emblem a contender (I considered him one of the two most likely winners - Medaglia D'Oro the other), I do believe you made a huge error which calls into question basic handicapping ability. Crude speed handicapping makes him a contender. Quality handicappers may disagree on the most likely winners, but they should almost always agree on the contenders.

[cj]

Tanda,

If people bet the Derby like all other races, War Emblem would have paid about $9. You could probably go the entire year and never find another horse anywhere with the top last race Beyer go off at 20-1.

As for the pace, trying to predict the probable pace is risky at best. If someone bets against a favorite because of a potentially negative pace situation, I can understand, but to pass up a good price horse about something that might happen is crazy. The same theory caused an obvious pace standout, Squirtle Squirt, to pay $20+ this year in the BC Sprint.

CJ

[rrbauer]

tanda

You may recall my post concerning Medaglia's "cough" mid-week. Over the years, horses that have any sickness or physical setbacks, training up to a big race, have become automatic throw-outs for me when handicapping the winner. I haven't kept a tally, but I do it anymore with impunity; and, I can't remember the last time that it cost me!

[nucsub]

Well,

My program also had War Emblem on top and I too made a nice bet. But, what I find interesting is the bantering back and forth at this site. Stuff like, if your program is so good, why do you sell it? Why not just use it for your self and make a killing? Well, I can speak for myself... Programming is a way I relax, and I get a lot of enjoyment from it's results. And as TomC once said, we are not making a lot of money especially with the time/cost of programming.

TomC,
I hope you dont mind... as the programmer for SNAPCAP PRO, I can assure you Tom is using very sound handicapping methodologies. I have my own program, but I alway check against Tom's. Two heads are better than One, especially when they agree.

Several people sent me email congrats because War Emblem was on TOP. Well, like others here said... it wasn't hard and nothing hidden. My program actually had "BUDDAH" on top, but with the scratch I bet on my second pick and the rest is at the payout window.

What's interesting is a program I am developing for someone else had "Proud Citizen" on Top....

I also like Black Jack and Craps but I haven't figured out how to bet the mathematical odds...but with pari mutual... I love the fact that everyone thinks their system/method is the best.

To the public, please keep on using your method.

www.jzambuto.com

[tanda]

I threw Squirtle Squirt out because of the pace scenario - even though I thought on the fundamentals he was the best sprinter in the world.

Worse yet, my dad, who is a recreational handicapper, wanted to bet Squirtle Squit and I told him "throw 'em out" while scratching his name out of the DRF with extreme prejudice. He deferred to my "wisdom". My dad shot me an evil look after the race. But I told him, "You gotta' have confidence in your own handicapping. You should have bet him."

Now, he wanted to play Saarland and I, just as arrogantly, told him to "throw 'em out" and put him on War Emblem. Redemption of sorts!

My main point was that it is unacceptable/not logical to throw out a one qualifying fig horse but accept others with no qualifying figs. That error is not one that falls in the gray area.

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
The same theory caused an obvious pace standout, Squirtle Squirt, to pay $20+ this year in the BC Sprint.

CJ

Hey that one I got! The only one that day unfortunately.

AD

[Derek2U]

TomC ... what's your proggy called?

RE: WE & the Beyers ...... On Saturday, May 4th, Andy Beyer
wrote in the DRF: "My Derby picks: (1) Essence of Dubai;
(2) Buddha; (3) Medaglia d'Oro.

RE: War Emblem & his 112 Beyer, Andy said this:
"The only Derby entrant with a better performance at 1-1/8 miles
is War Emblem, who warned a 112 with an unchallenged early
lead at speed favoring Sportsman's Park, favorable circumstances
that he won't enjoy Saturday."

Well so much for the obvious in handicapping.

[keilan]

Tanda

I'm one of the guys that also didn't use War Emblem as my key horse for all the reasons you mention and more "one time last number(SPT) top". "Lose on the lead" "questionable field" "not good enough"

All previous efforts where War Emblem was asked to run early - he was not able to produce a final fraction number worthy of winning the Derby. In his prep race War Emblem had things pretty much his own way and was then only able to record a quality figure. If War Emblem had felt any pressure in the Kentucky Derby and run 6,7 or 8 lengths quicker to the 1st call (1/2 mile) would he have been good enough to win? Those lengths run early are not linear and can not be subtract at the end of the race.

But most handicapping the Derby surly did not visualize War Emblem comfortably on the lead in fractions that would be considered slow to moderate at best, on a track that was fast all day. I thought the race would see War Emblem, Medaglia d Oro, Came Home, Proud Citizen, Private Emblem and Wild Horses and possibly others getting into the fray early, setting a honest pace with pressure on the lead horse which would likely be War Emblem as he has a need to lead running style. If this had materialized would War Emblem have won the race or have lit the board ????

Most guys I know race shape the race and they are either right or wrong. But to say "not to have War Emblem as the number 1 or 2 horse this is a fundamental mistake". Fundamental mistake #2 "A good handicapper should have realized that there was a reasonable chance there would be a reasoanble pace". What the hell does that mean?

Those of you who saw the race unfolding like it did congratulations! All of us see that race scenario in 8 and 9 horse fields at some racetrack across America everyday but to think that's what will happen in the Kentucky Derby. That's not where I put my money.

There are for me only two possibilities why War Emblem won the Derby - either it was the "perfect trip" or he "got real good since the 1st of April". Time well tell.

Something to ponder - Kentucky Derby Owners/Trainers who feel they have any chance of winning the Derby do not sell their horse three weeks before the running for any amount of money. Most simply don't need the money that badly to forego a once in a lifetime opportunity. For them it is the biggest reason they are in the game!
Not only was this Derby one of the few where the Winner went wire to wire but it was the only Derby to my knowledge to include the top three finishers to be 1-2-3 after the race was 1 furlong old.

By the way War Emblem was my programs top pick, to this point I've only used the program as a tool in assisting me in my selection process. Maybe that's my first mistake!

In closing I would like to say I view you "Tanda" as the most thoughtful writer on any web site I visit and to Tom from Canadaigua if you happen to read this post, you make me laugh out loud way to often, Tom you are surely a good handicapper and certainly entertaining, nice exactor combination. I always look forward to both your posts.

[JustRalph]

I can tell you why the pace was slower. The Trainers and Jocks and therefore public were scared to death of being involved in another Derby where the Balto Star-Song and a Prayer scenario develops again. I realized that this was going to happen and made allowance for it. I also watched the Wood and ILL.Derby video several times and therefore made my bets the night before the Derby. I was willing to put Buddha (galloped out weak after wood) and MeglaDoro up against War Emblem in a moderate pace (remember I anticipated an honest pace) scenario and I was confident that WE would prevail. He galloped out better after the ILL. Derby and his allowance race prior to the Ill. Derby showed he was for real. I posted a note on this site about how good he looked in his workouts. I watched them on TVG and saw him after the workouts. He was prancing to the point of almost dancing! He was in good spirits and he was improving. It was obvious he would either run to the figures in the Ill. Derby or improve. I anticipated improvement. Not sure what the speed numbers are, but I was right. I was excited when Buddha was scratched. My bets were already down. I figured he would only have to beat Frankels MeglaDoro. WE had an extra week off compared to the horses in the Wood Mem. I think that was an advantage. The Frankel horse I think bounced, costing me my Exotics. I had the rest except you could exchange Proud Citizen with MeglaDoro. I didn't have Proud Citizen on a ticket. I just didn't think he would get there. But I should have seen his improvement coming too. The win money was very nice, but Proud Citizen hurt me bad.

[tanda]

My fundamental mistake #2 is, indeed, less clear than the first. I just did not think it was so obvious that the pace would be fast. I anticipated an average pace. I knew that, even if my reading was correct, the pace could get hot anyway. Such is pace handicapping.

Everybody said "the pace will be fast, throw out front-runners". More attention should have been paid to the first part of the statement. Was it really right to expect it to be fast?

For example, the USA Today writer who quickly dismissed front-runners because of a fast pace also listed Harlan's Holiday as a horse that would contribute to a faster than normal pace. Huh?