MORE ON ROGAZIN SHEETS

[mamaluke]

I have been a "SHEET" user for over 30 years.

I played mostly New York and overlays were abundant years ago.
When LASIX came to New York things changed.
Horses did not bounce as before and patterns were not as
prevalent.Also many overlays diminished over the years,that at
times a good sheet horse that was 15-1 ML would go off at 3-1.
Thorograph,run by Jerry Brown,who originally worked for Rogazin
started his own company,and added another reason overlays on sheet
horses became harder to find.
Also Sheet horses do not take pace in account,so it seems to me
this is where the "NEW" overlay is today.

This is not a knock on the product just the reality of the times
and $35 bucks is a stiff price to pay and not get value plays

I would like to add certain trainers defy gravity since "lasix"came to
New York.They seem to duplicate Oscar Barreras great juice run.
Perhaps the lasix masks the other drugs they give.All this "extra help"
certain trainers give horses has not helped sheet analysis.Its a new
game now and other angles must be deployed to be successful


Just sharing my thoughts with you on the sheets

[xfile]

I have been a "SHEET" user for over 30 years.

I played mostly New York and overlays were abundant years ago.
When LASIX came to New York things changed.
Horses did not bounce as before and patterns were not as
prevalent.Also many overlays diminished over the years,that at
times a good sheet horse that was 15-1 ML would go off at 3-1.
Thorograph,run by Jerry Brown,who originally worked for Rogazin
started his own company,and added another reason overlays on sheet
horses became harder to find.
Also Sheet horses do not take pace in account,so it seems to me
this is where the "NEW" overlay is today.

This is not a knock on the product just the reality of the times
and $35 bucks is a stiff price to pay and not get value plays

I would like to add certain trainers defy gravity since "lasix"came to
New York.They seem to duplicate Oscar Barreras great juice run.
Perhaps the lasix masks the other drugs they give.All this "extra help"
certain trainers give horses has not helped sheet analysis.Its a new
game now and other angles must be deployed to be successful


Just sharing my thoughts with you on the sheets

Once about 10 years ago I heard from OB's son (from his mouth to my ears)about "the power of the juice". You know the guy who trains up at Finger Lakes now. He said he had the formula, blah, blah. I don't know how he has been doing up there but one thing I do know - OB Jr won't step a foot in NYRA...I wonder why...lol...:D My opinion is that Dutrow has or had something they just can't trace yet......Anyway on your pace realization and your $35 SHEETS azz whuppin.....welcome to the dark side :cool:

[NY BRED]

a:various versions of thorograph sheets exist on jerry's web site,and
its possible to reduce costs by @least 50% of what was indicated in your post
for anyone invlined to use his data.


for anyone interested in the tragedy happening in ny with illegal med, watch the replay of yesterday's 4th race with the winner actually zigging
and zaging throughout the stretch run and appearing, at least to me, to be
accelerating in the last quarter.

aside from the fact that my horse was in this race, and obviously
i'm p/o'd by the result, one look at the way this cheap
philly horse beat ther fav( a 375k purchase) leaves me wondering if
nyra actually employs stewards or monkeys/robots/retards.

[xfile]

a:various versions of thorograph sheets exist on jerry's web site,and
its possible to reduce costs by @least 50% of what was indicated in your post
for anyone invlined to use his data.


for anyone interested in the tragedy happening in ny with illegal med, watch the replay of yesterday's 4th race with the winner actually zigging
and zaging throughout the stretch run and appearing, at least to me, to be
accelerating in the last quarter.

aside from the fact that my horse was in this race, and obviously
i'm p/o'd by the result, one look at the way this cheap
philly horse beat ther fav( a 375k purchase) leaves me wondering if
nyra actually employs stewards or monkeys/robots/retards.

That zig-zag horse was a Dutrow horse correct?

[hurrikane]

Yes it was.

Lets do a reality check here NY.
This is very typical in MSW green horses. ducking, bearing out, tiring, and no he was not accelerating.

And what big fav? Memphis Mon? Lets see, Jenkins is 1-24 with first starters. you thought yesterday would be the day to pick up his second FTS?
Why would you think that?
Add to that he worked him as little as 3 days before and pretty hard works every 6 days prior. Looks like he left his race on the workout ciruit.

This is they type of thing that make opportunity. fools logic. The public made this horse the fav and IMO that makes the public stupid.

On the other hand
I guess you didn't win so someone cheated?

[NY BRED]

first,as you seemingly have no clue about racing, and are red boarding a
maiden special weight race AFTER the fact:

a: memphis mon was the horse most discussed on the backstretch during the past month.The horse was entered on 4/8/ 06 and scratched due to illness,
and not a sloppy track which most people thought was the case.


b: guess what: the winner came out of a 22k (not 42k)md sp wt race under another trainer's name at pha park,goes long to short,arrives at
aqu under dutrow's name runs an eratric race in which the sunday post devotes about 20 lines, and you think this is a normal md sp wt race?


c:dutrow uses edgar prado, has the 2 post goes off at 5-1 (opened at 6-1)
and you feel you are a wise guy taking those odds?


d:since you like stats, kindly tell everyone the dates and times james
jerkens and rich dutrow have been suspended and investigated on medication issues.


i rest my case

[GlenninOhio]

If we can put cheating issues aside for a moment, one commonality between Brown's and Ragozin's calculations is that ground loss can be a major factor - so much so that a ground saving wire-to-wire winner is often given a worse (i.e., higher) speed number than a closer who was wide on both turns and finished a length or two behind the winner.

How do you folks feel about this? One criticism I've heard is that a closer is always going to lose ground so why give him extra credit for doing so?

[NY BRED]

as respects the thorograph issue, speed figures are developed/"crafted"
based upon time of race/lengths beaten(other than drf practices),
ground loss or saved(your issue)weight of horse,wind and adusted upon
proprietary variants.


while i am not an active sheet user, it is the overall form cycle and nuances
associated with numbers(lower the better) ,layoffs,surface changes
that make sheet players either swear by or at the sheets.

five players can in fact, come back with five different possibilities of
a predicted winner, but usually will agree on horses to toss from a
race which should be similar to pace handicappers or readers of the form.

the huge difference with the sheets and the form, is you can get lifetime
starts on all surfaces which might not appear in the racing form.

added to that, you'll appear to be a pro even if you don't win

[cj]

All ground loss is not equal, but is treated so by TG/Rags. I think that is a big problem.

[kingfin66]

Welcome to Pace Advantage!

[GlenninOhio]

All ground loss is not equal, but is treated so by TG/Rags. I think that is a big problem.


Would you mind expanding a bit on this cj?

Would be greatly appreciated.

[Storm Cadet]

first,as you seemingly have no clue about racing, and are red boarding a
maiden special weight race AFTER the fact:

a: memphis mon was the horse most discussed on the backstretch during the past month.The horse was entered on 4/8/ 06 and scratched due to illness,
and not a sloppy track which most people thought was the case.


b: guess what: the winner came out of a 22k (not 42k)md sp wt race under another trainer's name at pha park,goes long to short,arrives at
aqu under dutrow's name runs an eratric race in which the sunday post devotes about 20 lines, and you think this is a normal md sp wt race?


c:dutrow uses edgar prado, has the 2 post goes off at 5-1 (opened at 6-1)
and you feel you are a wise guy taking those odds?


d:since you like stats, kindly tell everyone the dates and times james
jerkens and rich dutrow have been suspended and investigated on medication issues.


i rest my case




Gary: Where are you getting your stats? I have the Dutrow horse racing on 12/13 going 5.5f in a MSW 23k race, then on 12/27 going 6f in a MSW 21k, then going long on 3/23 in a MSW 44k race at AQU inner. Theres nothing wrong on sending a young horse to PHIL park. 1st out he runs a pace/pace of 88/88 with an above average final PF of 86. I would not have brought him back on 2 weeks rest, but Dutrow did. The horse showed excellent early pace/pace speed of 91-89 before tiring (2 weeks off...needed more). Rested for 90 days then routed for endurance and a tightener, then brought back to his sprint race where he won against a horse (the 8) that ran a posted pace/pace 95/86 numbers and a PF of 82, this after only 14 days off after racing on a sloppy track. I thought the 8 would regress off that that very tough performance and I projected him to a 75 yesterday also.

So yesterday the 2 races back to 6.5f. He had an OK pace /pace of 80-77 last out. I had him projected to post a 84 compared to my projected 75 of the 8 horse. They were my 2 pick 3 horses. The 2 was a stronger play when I saw his 24% 2nd off 45-180 days win % AND his 18% route to sprint %.

[cj]

Would you mind expanding a bit on this cj?

Would be greatly appreciated.

I think, and I know some others may not agree, that losing ground when the pace is faster is much more detrimental than when the pace is slow. In dirt races, this is usually the first turn of routes, while in turf races, it is many times the second turn, but more unpredictable.

Picture if you will two humans capable of running a 1/4 mile in 1:00 exactly running on a two turn 1/4 mile track. If Human A runs on the inside, and Human B runs on the far outside, and they go :30 for the first half of the race, it will hurt B a ton, while A not at all. But, if they do the same exact thing in a slow :45 seconds, neither one is likely to be affected at all as this is well within their capability. I know this is extreme, but just used to state my case. The quicker they are running, the more it will hurt the wide person.

I don't see any reason why horses would be any different.

[the little guy]

The problem, as I see it and have argued many times with Jerry Brown on this specific issue, is baically as CJ says it, interpreting ground loss numerically, based solely on distance covered, misrepresents many horses' performances. While I fully understand the concept that one horse who covered a longer distance of ground than another theoretically should run a faster race, I do not agree with this in practice, and there are numerous contra examples.

First, and simply, while they now label " dead rails ", they still don't take them into account in their figures. What's even more egregious, IMO, is a situation on a track like Belmont, which often has an " outside flow " bias to its races. While they reward horses numerically the more ground they cover, I actually think there is a strong argument that the opposite is true.

It is easy to segue from that idea into the whole horses performing best when rallying unencumbered outside of other horses. How often have we seen horses intimidated from moving inside of others, while rallying once the jockey is about to angle them to the outside. This is, of course, not always the case, but many horses simply refuse to move inside, especially in the stretch.

I am not suggesting there is no validity to using ground loss, and would not be so presumptuous to do so, but I think it perverts the numbers in ways that CAN make them useless. Personally, if I were to use ground loss in making figures, I would use them only for the first turn of two turn races, when horses are jockeying for position and getting hung out wide can often dramatically affect positioning, and never for either the second turn or in one turn races at all.

[cj]

Yes, I agree with the horses running better on the outside thing too.

Which horse would you rather have in a three wide battle around the last turn, the middle horse or the one on the outside, that is losing more ground? Give me the outside horse every time.

[headhawg]

I don't know exactly what factors make up the figures in the "sheets", but it seems to me that -- statistically speaking -- adding more of them introduces more error. The effect of wind and ground loss are two in particular that I question the accuracy of measurement. And wouldn't the effect of ground loss differ by track, tighter turns and all that?

[cj]

Certainly some tracks have more banked turns than others, which also would cause differences.

[the_fat_man]

While there are many qualifying factors that need to be considered when accurately evaluating a horse in terms of a speed (and/or pace) number
(these could be any of those mentioned above and others that have not been mentioned)
it is not correct, IMO, to make the claim that, ceteris paribus or even otherwise, a horse running more distance is not at a disadvantage.

Anyone who runs or bikes knows this to be the case.

What is it different for horses? (Nothing like forcing the phenomena to fit one's theory.)

Bobby Knight made an interesting statement when asked about a missed layup by one of his players at the close of a game: why is the focus on the last shot but not on any other layup that was missed during the course of the game?

[RXB]

On the dirt, I don't pay much attention to ground loss unless the horse is extremely wide on the stretch turn or four-wide on the first turn.

Grass is a different story. Losing ground is not good.

[cj]

fat man,

Here is an example for a cyclist. Two riders in a two lap race on a six lane track. It is a tactical race, and they take 2:00 to negotiate the first lap. Cyclist A hugs the inside, Cyclist B travels on the far outside the entire lap, lane 6. Both riders are capable of going much faster than 2:00.

Now, for the second lap, Cyclist B sneaks inside of A, and they travel the second lap in 1:00 with B in lane 1 and A in lane 2. Assuming they are of equal ability, who wins? B travelled more distance than A, but did he have a worse "trip"?

[RXB]

it is not correct, IMO, to make the claim that, ceteris paribus or even otherwise, a horse running more distance is not at a disadvantage.

Anyone who runs or bikes knows this to be the case.

What is it different for horses? (Nothing like forcing the phenomena to fit one's theory.)


Human runners and bikers who are travelling behind other competitors are not getting clouds of dust and clods of dirt thrown back in their faces.

[the_fat_man]

fat man,

Here is an example for a cyclist. Two riders in a two lap race on a six lane track. It is a tactical race, and they take 2:00 to negotiate the first lap. Cyclist A hugs the inside, Cyclist B travels on the far outside the entire lap, lane 6. Both riders are capable of going much faster than 2:00.

Now, for the second lap, Cyclist B sneaks inside of A, and they travel the second lap in 1:00 with B in lane 1 and A in lane 2. Assuming they are of equal ability, who wins? B travelled more distance than A, but did he have a worse "trip"?

So lap 1:

a) lane 1
b) lane 6

lap 2:

a) lane 2
b) lane 1

If they're of equal ability, the difference, if any, being hundreths of a second, and there's no drafting, a very important factor in a bike race, then the cyclist travelling the shorter distance wins.

This opens up a can of worms: in track racing, the superior racer never wants to be in front. No matter how fast or slow the pace (sometimes they're reduced to trackstanding) the superior cyclist will always win in a race to the wire.

But, you've indirectly agreed with me, while also acknowledging the difficulty of evaluating the factors involved.

Any given perforamance needs to evaluated within the context of the race.
A horse can win with a less than ideal trip (in terms of distance or otherwise). It doesn't mean that distance covered is not relevant. It could be the case of a horse being better than its competition or conditions being favorable that date/race for that kind of trip.

Lack of lead changes (following the leads around the track)
Loss of the whip
Inability of the jockey to finish strongly (bugs usually)
Drafting
Wind (gusting, swirling, etc.)

Are all factors (among others) that should be considered when making a number. Makes it a bit difficult to quantify.


I think dirt in the face is a factor when it's wet or a horse is green.
Let's not make more of it.

[cj]

So lap 1:

a) lane 1
b) lane 6

lap 2:

a) lane 2
b) lane 1

If they're of equal ability, the difference, if any, being hundreths of a second, and there's no drafting, a very important factor in a bike race, then the cyclist travelling the shorter distance wins...

I don't see how you can say this in this example. B will win every time, despite covering more distance. The reason is that the lost ground was irrelevant on the first lap, but very relevant on the second lap, even though less ground was lost. No drafting is involved.

I don't disagee with anything else you said, I'm just trying to support my assertion that all ground loss isn't equal.

[mamaluke]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man
So lap 1:

a) lane 1
b) lane 6

lap 2:

a) lane 2
b) lane 1

If they're of equal ability, the difference, if any, being hundreths of a second, and there's no drafting, a very important factor in a bike race, then the cyclist travelling the shorter distance wins...



I don't see how you can say this in this example. B will win every time, despite covering more distance. The reason is that the lost ground was irrelevant on the first lap, but very relevant on the second lap, even though less ground was lost. No drafting is involved.

I don't disagee with anything else you said, I'm just trying to support my assertion that all ground loss isn't equal.
================================================== =====
I would think that in lap 1 B was in lane 6 and covered more ground
than A who was in lane 1.
Even though they were even at the end of lap 1 the lane 6 biker used more energy to stay even,and if we agree they were of equal ability,I would think
the biker who saved ground in the first lap{A] gets the nod,even though
he was in lane 2 the second lap

[hurrikane]

first,as you seemingly have no clue about racing, and are red boarding a
maiden special weight race AFTER the fact:

sorry, didn't mean to rattle you. Not as tackful as I use to be.
You basically accused a top trainer of drugging a horse in a race for no other reason than the horse you thought should win didn't.
I wasn't readboarding. I didn't play this race. I was just saying the horse that won was not unreasonable. In fact one of my outputs has 2 winning and the 5 second just as it came in.


a: memphis mon was the horse most discussed on the backstretch during the past month.The horse was entered on 4/8/ 06 and scratched due to illness,
and not a sloppy track which most people thought was the case.


all this talk and the horse is the favorite. so much for inside information



b: guess what: the winner came out of a 22k (not 42k)md sp wt race under another trainer's name at pha park,goes long to short,arrives at
aqu under dutrow's name runs an eratric race in which the sunday post devotes about 20 lines, and you think this is a normal md sp wt race?


I dont' believe anywhere I said this was a normal msw race. I said it isn't inconceivable for this to happen in a msw and didn't think you should be implying the race was affected by a trainer drugging a horse.


c:dutrow uses edgar prado, has the 2 post goes off at 5-1 (opened at 6-1)
and you feel you are a wise guy taking those odds?


At no time did I say I would have bet this horse. Nor did I play this race. Ijust said the fav was not a good fav and I am not surprised he didn't win. You suggest it is the result of a trainer drugging a horse


d:since you like stats, kindly tell everyone the dates and times james
jerkens and rich dutrow have been suspended and investigated on medication issues.


Check the sec pages for suspensions.


It was not my intention to bust your chops bud. I was just saying I dont' think anyone should accuse someone of drugging a horse on such shaky evidence. It does a lot of damage for the industry especially if people on the backstretch are running around publicly accusing each other without cause.

If he test positive throw Dutrow out of friggin racing. I am all for permanate suspension and cleaning up the mess. I'm not for making baseless accusations.

[the_fat_man]

I don't see how you can say this in this example. B will win every time, despite covering more distance. The reason is that the lost ground was irrelevant on the first lap, but very relevant on the second lap, even though less ground was lost. No drafting is involved.

I don't disagee with anything else you said, I'm just trying to support my assertion that all ground loss isn't equal.

In a world of theories yes; not in the real world, however.

2 cyclists are evenly matched, in other words, they time trial WITHOUT DRAFTING within hundreths of seconds of each other. Your hypothesis is that in a time trial ---since they're not drafting in your example, then it's essentially a solo time trial--- the one covering the greater distance will win. How can that be?

I ride a sizeable distance daily at the park against geared cyclists and less frequently at the velodrome (1/4 mile with bank) against other track cyclists. Try pushing 90+ gear inches over more distance and tell me if the first lap (wide trip) takes a toll on the second.
No way I beat someone at my level when I travel more distance UNLESS I have a better trip (I draft). Or I'm pushing (and am able to push successfully) higher gear inches; or I can spin faster than he can and thus am able to rock a lower gear. But, then we wouldn't be evenly matched, would we?


Bobsledding and speed skating would be other examples ---notice all the successful wide trips here.


What you really want to be saying is that the horse travelling more distance, with a favorable circumstance (or circumstances), be it trip, bias, track setup, whatever, was not at a disadvantage travelling more distance because of that favorable circumstance. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's why you can't really quantify trips, IMO.

1) too many factors involved (or too many unquantifiable factors which
means COPIOUS trip notes)

2) the process of quantification is subjective ---not meaning this as a slight
but your figures guide your 'view' of races.

We're all biased in one sense or another.

[kev]

Some people don't want to even mess with ground loss-weight-wind in their figures, maybe too much work who knows. Seems like Beyer is one of them. Adding all of this into figures might not make them pinpoint, but there sure in hell getting close. They have to be close when form reading, cause that little move from a 2yr # to a 3yr # means eveything in the world to sheet reading. Depends on how your using whose number's. Rag's hasn't stay in business for over 40 years by making a sub-par product and TG for 25 years.

[toetoe]

Has anyone ever considered that not only do turns vary track to track, but Belmont's turns are more punitive to wide runners than say, Pimlico's? The main reason would be that in a sprint at Belmont, a greater part of the race is run on the turn. The sharpness of the turn is not so great a problem if the horses are handling the turn. Also, I wonder how turn times are affected at Belmont by the longer time they're racing on the turn.

Homo Corpus Magnus,

"ceteris paribus:" "all things being equal?" Am I right? :jump:

[trigger]

If traveling a longer distance in racing doesn't count, why do they stagger the starts of human races?

[toetoe]

Um, to protect the betting public?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Humans know to stay within their lanes or be DQ'd.

Longer human races don't necessarily have lanes. Certainly the longer (> 1 mile may not, and they could theoretically go all over the place in a marathon.

Perhaps if they wanted to compare final speeds, horses should run one at a time, like a bobsled run, or slalom skiing. But the true test of the horses is when they are facing each other, in pairs or packs, and do they measure up on class, stamina, as well as the effects of pace and final time speed.

Ah, if only they could race horses in a vaccum. But alas, horse and rider would suffocate. Oh those unstoppable outside influences.

[Vegas711]

Which horse is better, the horse that go's wire to wire in 22 45 110 or the horse who comes 3 lenghts off the pace of 21.4 44.4 and finishes in 110. The second horse although he is running 22.2 45.2 and 110 is still able to overcome a 21.4 44.4 pace of the race. So who wins?

[RXB]

Perhaps if they wanted to compare final speeds, horses should run one at a time, like a bobsled run, or slalom skiing. But the true test of the horses is when they are facing each other, in pairs or packs, and do they measure up on class, stamina, as well as the effects of pace and final time speed.

Ah, if only they could race horses in a vaccum. But alas, horse and rider would suffocate. Oh those unstoppable outside influences.

:ThmbUp:

[traynor]

vegas711 wrote: <Which horse is better, the horse that go's wire to wire in 22 45 110 or the horse who comes 3 lenghts off the pace of 21.4 44.4 and finishes in 110. The second horse although he is running 22.2 45.2 and 110 is still able to overcome a 21.4 44.4 pace of the race. So who wins?>

After a LOT of handicapping and analysis, I am not really sure that the second horse needs to be "able to overcome a 21.4 44.4 pace of the race." That is not so much heresy as observed behavior. At tracks all over, every day, there are races in which morning glories, impetuous entries, or whatever term you prefer, run "fast early." It may not be that such a performance has an overwhelming outcome on the race unless the entry running the fast early fractions is controlling the pace. That is a separate issue, and less easily quantified than looking at the fractions.

Impetuous entries have to lead, or they give up and sulk. There is a fundamental difference between an entry controlling the pace, leaving something in reserve, and then hauling off in the stretch. Prime example, Secretariat in the Belmont. In many races, the fast early fractions are almost irrelevant to the outcome of the race, except for the foolish few who try to chase that impetuous entry going all out just to stay ahead for the first part of the race.

It is not an easy issue, and one that takes a bit of thought and analysis to determine. Still more to quantify. In many, many races, I think it is more an issue of a competent jockey not allowing his charge to expend all its energy in the first part of the race than of the horse "overcoming" a fast early pace. In short, the opposite of the "Kent Desormeaux School of Jockeying."

I don't have an easy answer, nor am I commenting to be argumentative. The issue of "what does the pace of this race really mean" is a large one, and one I have spent a good many hours analyzing. I don't think fast early pace is either a plus or a minus unless it is controlled. That is, fast early fractions in which an impetuous horse takes off at warp speed are only significant if that horse is being rated by a competent jockey, slows the race enough to conserve energy, then accelerates late. Fast early fractions posted by an entry that folds in the stretch to finish 7th by 10 or something similar does not overly influence the outcome of the race, nor should its competitors in that race be rated more highly for having overcome that pace.
Good Luck

[Hosshead]

... .. I think it is more an issue of a competent jockey not allowing his charge to expend all its energy in the first part of the race than of the horse "overcoming" a fast early pace. In short, the opposite of the "Kent Desormeaux School of Jockeying."

Traynor, are you saying that in your opinion, you don't think that Kent D. is competent?

[NY BRED]

the issues go deeper than the maeuvering and my losing the race

the only guaranty in this game is there are none, and
you win when you live to have another bullet next out.

but... i'm not sure this was dutrow's horse to begin with.If it were,
why wouldn't it go to one of his relatives (tony dutrow).

if you have race replay, the head on shots of the winner are staggering
as his zig zagging is costing him lengths, yet he is romping to
victory unaffected by the early contested figures.

with a young three year old i really found this race bizzare
and disturbing.

sorry for the venting to all members

[hurrikane]

NY,
I agree with everything you said. And it does raise some questions.

I guess we will wait for the drug test to come back.

good luck

[PaceAdvantage]

NY,
I agree with everything you said. And it does raise some questions.

This is a bit of an 'about-face' from your earlier comments, is it not?

[Tom]

Are we talking about the 2 horse - Glitternmeporridge?

He had a few things going for him:

HTR ratings -
K - #3
HTR - #1 (thesest wo arthe "big" ratings)
Workout-90 (very positive)

Trainer-#1
Jock- #1
TJ combo - 29% winners
Front running style, best first fraction by more than 1.0 fps
Second start afte a layoff, made a middle move last out at a mile
Second best pace figure

Fair odds of 5.6-1

Favorite as FTS

This was one of those I wait for and pulled the trigger. I get 5-1 with that many good things going for it, first thing I do is clean my monitor screen to be sure I read it right! :rolleyes:

[NY BRED]

i promised not to again discuss the subject, but, i have to break this vow
based upon your use of htr analysis factors to support why the #2
was a fabulous bet:


a:the only 3 year olds with experience in this race were the 1,2,3 4, 6,8

b; the #1, who somehow can not get to win had a 91 beyer(if you want to use a "speed") figure @6fg/inner track at aqu, vs the winner"s 78 @ 5 1/2
fg @ pha.The # 2's speed figure developed from the horse breaking from the #3 post, the # 1 from the 6 post.

c: the #1 ran in a purse virtually 100% higher than the #2 and the #2 died while on the lead@ 8-1 in one of his races, an extremely negative sign

d:finally the #1 was running with 120lbs vs the #2 carrying 115 lbs @ in previous races, setting the #1 up in better shape for the race in question


htr #'s don't anticipate the fact the race probably sets up for a first timer such as the #5 0r #7.Collectively, both the # 1 and #2 (#@2) horses had lost their races by
@42 lengths! You are simply looking at rankings based on races run,
as against analysis which might show fts being superior to horses unable to win.If the all the runners had lost 20+ races, the fts,on htr analysis would never be ranked first, even if trained by dutrow and ridden by prado!!

were the #2 sitting on the board @8-5, and the firsters at 5-1 or higher,
most rational handicappers would look to beat the dutrow horse,even with
the poor stats of jerkens firsters,based upon the works of #5,INFINTELY
better than the #2 and #1 horses since march 1st.

that being said, you are looking at a horse which probably just came to dutrow, had nothing to do with him when the horse ran @pha,
and your whole theory of htr being a valuable program falls apart.

finally, how would you have bet the horse if robert seeger's name appeared rather than dutrow?And if seeger's stats were equal to dutrow based on pha
statrs vs ny starts what would you do, call htr?

saturday's races, for the most part played heavily in favor of horses on the rail,or able to get to the rail,which greatly helped the winner.

finally, next time you use htr ,note your statement the winner
was a favorite as a fts(first time starter) is wrong

his actual odds were 8.30-1, which again proves the weakness of
the htr analysis of a md sp wt.



while i agree the jerkens horse was overbet, dutrow horses are generally overbet when well meant which was not the case in this race.

in fact, had the horse not run its eratic pattern it would have won by @15-20 lengths which would lead to another discussion on trainer patterns

[Valuist]

I think Glitternmeporridge will be able to handle a class hike. My notes on him said, "won handily despite both bearing out and lugging in." How much does he win by if he runs straight? Or if the jock let him run at all?

[ezpace]

is a great great mask for some powerful dope.

It is the first thing they do. Little is said about the amount of lasix and that many trainers administer it themselves with a vet who just certifies it depending on the jurisdiction. fwiw.

Also , IF you're into works by maidens and you see a horse breakout so to speak with a much better work and then see this maiden entered to run within a short time with lasix for it's 1st race .. that is usually 2nd time lasix. First time was the GOOD WORK.

[hurrikane]

This is a bit of an 'about-face' from your earlier comments, is it not?

No it is not. He said the race looked funny and I agreed.

My position was NY was saying the horse was drugged by Dutrow and I was saying there is no reason to say that he was.

He said the horse was weaving and charging and he thought it looked funny.
Ok, I agree. I guess we'll wait for the drug test.

I wasn't saying bet the horse don't bet the horse.

I'm just saying everyone quit jumping on the 'trainer drugged the horse' band wagon every time you lose a bet.

That's it.

[hurrikane]

htr #'s don't anticipate the fact the race probably sets up for a first timer such as the #5 0r #7.Collectively, both the # 1 and #2 (#@2) horses had lost their races by
@42 lengths! You are simply looking at rankings based on races run,
as against analysis which might show fts being superior to horses unable to win.If the all the runners had lost 20+ races, the fts,on htr analysis would never be ranked first, even if trained by dutrow and ridden by prado!!


Before Tom gets into you let's just just say that you sir, in this arena, do not know what you are talking about.

[cnollfan]

memphis mon ... was entered on 4/8/ 06 and scratched due to illness

I don't know anything about Memphis Mon or this race, but I make it a point in my handicapping/betting to bet against favorites that missed a race due to illness or injury.

[Hosshead]

htr #'s don't anticipate the fact the race probably sets up for a first timer such as the #5 0r #7.Collectively, both the # 1 and #2 (#@2) horses had lost their races by
@42 lengths! You are simply looking at rankings based on races run,
as against analysis which might show fts being superior to horses unable to win.If the all the runners had lost 20+ races, the fts,on htr analysis would never be ranked first, even if trained by dutrow and ridden by prado!!

Your statements couldn't be farther from the truth...Sounds like you don't know the specifics of HTR and FTS's.

[traynor]

Hosshead wrote: <Traynor, are you saying that in your opinion, you don't think that Kent D. is competent?>

Not at all. I could as easily have called it the "Santa Anita" or "Hollwood Park" style. It is a generic, "Go as fast as you can as far as you can, and hope you cross the finish line first." That is fundamentally different than a race "dominated by pace." Consider the difference between European riders and North American; I know that Steve Cauthen made the transition, but not many others could.
Good Luck

[NY BRED]

first, i'm quite familiar with htr and won a major handicapping contest
by making my max bet on a fts years ago without even knowing
about htr.

secondly, i've been an owner of 2yr ols and upwards for over 20 years and know what to expect in a md sp wt based upon breeding works,trainers,trainer/jocks combos yada yada.No handicapper will ever
disagree these are difficult races to bet, although profits can be made
with careful analysis of form prior to the race and observing the horse
in the paddock and on the track prior to being loaded in the gate.


third i happen to use htr for @ 5 months for minor analysis of races,
and thus far am unimpressed.


here is the point:

if you could,which you can't,manipulate the factors on htr to show
bob seeger as the trainer/edgar prado as the jock, would the
factors be as strong,and would you bet the horse?

do you believe dutrow's original owners sent the horse to pha
to run, and by the way run eratically, and come to score in
ny against a field which included at least on well regarded fts?

does the htr program even suggest such an issue or call your
attention to it? Guess what, the answer is no


if you blindly bet the htr selections in maiden races such as the one in question,with horses having superior pace figures with ineffective non winning
trainers arriving at the ny circuit and winning,i'll forever stop on this
subject.

run the test and show the members of the board the real facts before
supporting the virtues of a black box approach.

[hurrikane]

if you could,which you can't,manipulate the factors on htr to show
bob seeger as the trainer/edgar prado as the jock, would the
factors be as strong,and would you bet the horse?

knowing that Seeger doesn't run at AQU and I dont' believe has ever used Prado (I could check but it's not worth the effort) the answer is no, the factors would not be as strong.


do you believe dutrow's original owners sent the horse to pha
to run, and by the way run eratically, and come to score in
ny against a field which included at least on well regarded fts?


Who knows. You don't. I don't. Only Dutrow and the owners know. Why don't you ask him. Of course after accusing him of drugging the horse he may have issues with you.


if you blindly bet the htr selections in maiden races such as the one in question,with horses having superior pace figures with ineffective non winning
trainers arriving at the ny circuit and winning,i'll forever stop on this
subject.

Who said they were doing this?


run the test and show the members of the board the real facts before
supporting the virtues of a black box approach.
Run what tests?
if after 5 months you believe HTR to be a black box approach I'm guessing HTR is not too impressed with you.

Anyone knowing Jerkins record with FTS would not have played your horse esp at dirt odds. Especailly against Dutrow putting prado up. Especially showing a strong work 6 days before.
Well, I guess someone would.

The deal is, I didn't bet the race but was offended that you accused people of using drugs for no reason other than you lost.
I pointed out how the horse that won was not off the wall.
A couple of people had the horse, told you why they had the horse and now there is something wrong with them

So, they had the horse. You didn't. That makes them wrong and you right.
I'm thinking maybe they should do a drug test on you.

[Tom]

Before Tom gets into you let's just just say that you sir, in this arena, do not know what you are talking about.

Do I have to give the money back? :lol:

[Tom]

“I promised not to again discuss the subject, but, i have to break this vow
based upon your use of htr analysis factors to support why the #2
was a fabulous bet:”



It figured strongly and paid over $13…it WAS a fabulous bet., thank you.

“a:the only 3 year olds with experience in this race were the 1,2,3 4, 6,8”

Only 5 out of 7…..ok, if you say so!

“…..the #2 died while on the lead@ 8-1 in one of his races, an extremely negative sign”



His maiden start, “died” to finish second at 8-1. Finishing second at 8-1 is considered a Positive sign. Overachiever according to Mark Crammer. And died is not usually a descriptive term of finishing second, but to each his own.



“htr #'s don't anticipate the fact the race probably sets up for a first timer such as the #5 0r #7.Collectively, both the # 1 and #2 (#@2) horses had lost their races by
@42 lengths! You are simply looking at rankings based on races run,
as against analysis which might show fts being superior to horses unable to win.If the all the runners had lost 20+ races, the fts,on htr analysis would never be ranked first, even if trained by dutrow and ridden by prado!!”



Boy oh boy….I might miss lunch today! Set up for a FTS. OK, let’s look at that one. The 5 horse did have a work out rating of 88, which is very good. His trainer was 4% with FTS, a negative. At 1.3 –1, should play the 4% against the 96%. Now I am not the most value oriented guy on the board, but even I know a huge risk when I see one like this.

If you read my post, I was focused on the first fraction advantage of over 1.0 fps – not the final times, although the 2 did project to be the third best final fig today. And workouts and velocity ratings have nothing to do with trainer and jockey – so you are wrong, if Gilligan had trained the 2, it still would be F#1 WO#1. HTR would probably not be #1, but the fact is, Dutrow WAS the trainer and Prado WAS the rider. I cannot change that to suit your argument, sorry.



“were the #2 sitting on the board @8-5, and the firsters at 5-1 or higher,”



If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. If the 2 were 8-5 and the 5 were 5-1, I would have passed the race. But again, I cannot change the odds to suit your argument. Sorry again.



“most rational handicappers would look to beat the dutrow horse,even with
the poor stats of jerkens firsters,based upon the works of #5,INFINTELY
better than the #2 and #1 horses since march 1st.:



Not ones I know. A Dutrow horse that figures at 5-1, but I have not surveyed rational handicappers – have you? What are the final figures, I’m dying to know. But INFINITLEY is a strong term – HTR says the 2 had a better workout pattern than the 5, 90 to 88. It was based on massive research and the reliability of the rating is demonstrable. What database is your workout opinion based on, and can I see the results?





“that being said, you are looking at a horse which probably just came to dutrow, had nothing to do with him when the horse ran @pha, and your whole theory of htr being a valuable program falls apart.”



Huh? That makes no sense. As I told you, only one rating was based on trainers, The F1 fps advanatage and the WO rating have nothing to do with trainers or tracks. And if you look at the chart comment two back at Pha, under SEEGER, it say “very erratic stretch.”

Go figure.



“finally, how would you have bet the horse if robert seeger's name appeared rather than dutrow?And if seeger's stats were equal to dutrow based on pha
statrs vs ny starts what would you do, call htr?”



I would have made the bet. If, if, if…..why do you have such a hard time focusing on reality?



“saturday's races, for the most part played heavily in favor of horses on the rail,or able to get to the rail,which greatly helped the winner.”



Is there point to this statement or is it filler?



“finally, next time you use htr ,note your statement the winner
was a favorite as a fts(first time starter) is wrong ”his actual odds were 8.30-1, which again proves the weakness of the htr analysis of a md sp wt.”



No, what I meant was the 5, the favorite, was a FTS, and was looking at a 4% change of winning based on trainer stats. That "as" should be "was."


“while i agree the jerkens horse was overbet, dutrow horses are generally overbet when well meant which was not the case in this race.”



Thus, the bet! Duh?

”in fact, had the horse not run its erratic pattern it would have won by @15-20 lengths which would lead to another discussion on trainer patterns”



In your opinion maybe, but that is not substantiated by any facts now, is it. In fact, the horse ran very erratic in Philly, under Seeger.



“if you blindly bet the htr selections in maiden races such as the one in question,with horses having superior pace figures with ineffective non winning
trainers arriving at the ny circuit and winning,i'll forever stop on this
subject.
run the test and show the members of the board the real facts before
supporting the virtues of a black box approach.”



What a leap of faith! Do read post before you attack the posters? I suspect not.

My analysis was based on considering multiple factors, not a black box approach..

And Dutrow had the horse last time out, first time after a 3 month layoff, ran a nice race within a race prep and cracked down today in a weak filed with an over bet FTS from a trainer with very poor results with FTs..

Fact is, YOU made a bad bet on a favorite and got beat and now you need to whine about it. With all your years of experience, you failed to recognize a bad bet when you saw it.

Now you are rationalizing it by attacking anyone who had the winner. Classy guy. And the only real arguments you have area what if this and what if that? In all those years of so-called experience ( or was it really one year of experience 20 times?) have you ever had a result changed or gotten paid off on a what if?

Now, excuse me, I have a couple of cards to look at with HTR. I prefer to handicap my races BEFORE they are run!

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm just saying everyone quit jumping on the 'trainer drugged the horse' band wagon every time you lose a bet.

That's it.

And I agree 200%.

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe NY Bred actually owned one of the horses in said race....he's not simply a disgruntled bettor....although, the only real difference is one of degrees (and in the case of some whales, that may not be a very fair description).

[the_fat_man]

first,as you seemingly have no clue about racing, and are red boarding a
maiden special weight race AFTER the fact:

a: memphis mon was the horse most discussed on the backstretch during the past month.The horse was entered on 4/8/ 06 and scratched due to illness,
and not a sloppy track which most people thought was the case.



The 'most discussed horse on the backstretch' sat a perfect trip and took a serious beating from a horse that (arguably got the 2nd worst trip in the race and) was playing lead change hopscotch through the stretch.

Imagine what he wins by if he doesn't run greenly (i.e. actually ran straight.)

I had to watch the replay, what, with all the crying going on about it.

The inference being that:

'The most discussed horse on the backstretch' couldn't possibly have gotten such a huge butt kicking, running under such favorable circumstances, by a horse running under less than favorable circumstances UNLESS
the latter was juiced up.

Makes sense to me.

Of course, I'm a very complex thinker (not to mention I have a complex as well). Anyone else would draw the less complex conclusion that 'the most discussed horse on the backstretch' probably ain't much horse.

Now that's breaking (shifting?) the paradigm.

[RXB]

I don't think that there's anything strange about a horse that can't win at Philly, going to New York and romping home while zig-zagging wildly through the stretch. Hell, I see things of this nature so often now that I scarcely bat an eye.

Dutrow knows how to fix the horse's back end. That's all it is. He's said so himself. It's downright shameful for anyone to suggest that illegal drugs might be responsible for these improvements.

[Hosshead]

NY.----- I'm not saying that HTR is the end-all, /always right SW. I'm simply saying that I don't think you realize how FTS's are now computed in HTR. In recent years HTR has refined the method of rating FTS's.
They are often highly ranked. Their rating depends on several factors, even though they don't have a paceline to work with. Things such as workout patterns, pedigree, trainer jockey combos.

In the race you are referring to, HTR's TOP 2 winning trainer/jockey combos were the First 2 Finishers, in EXACTLY that order.

HTR had the FTS picked to come in 2nd, which is EXACTLY what he did.

The winner was the Top Pick on the "htr" screen.

And the Top 3 PL-5 (K-ranked) horses, Finished 1-2-3, albeit in different order.
Doesn't sound too far off to me.
But I guess since I'm not a horse owner, I don't know anything.

Anyway, good luck with your horses, and I hope you don't feel cheated next time.

[NY BRED]

i am toasted on this race, and for the record, i'm past the anger,
and venting about the winner and his connections.

yes, my horse did compete in this race, and i really felt we were overmatched
due to the quality of the firsters and not by the actual winner.

that stated, my venting revolves around the frustrations of this game with seemingly unchecked form reversals, disproportinate exotics, non
consistency of steward decisions and the like.

While such issues have always existed, in today's high tech era,
it should be possible to lower the incident rates which apparently continue affecting all members of the betting puiblic.

for those able to see why i spent such an inordinate ammount of time
on this race, try getting the pan and head on shots to get the true
flavor of what i consider to be an unusual win.

sorry for the outbursts, but i'm an owner that simply looks for
the game to be on a level playing field for all of us.

[PaceAdvantage]

sorry for the outbursts, but i'm an owner that simply looks for
the game to be on a level playing field for all of us.

Amen to that....a level playing field is what we ALL want!

[hurrikane]

sorry for the outbursts, but i'm an owner that simply looks for
the game to be on a level playing field for all of us.

I'm there 100% NY.

good luck in a tough business

[andicap]

At the risk of beating a very dead horse, as another HTR user I feel its important to let others know the flexiblity and resourcefulness of HTR. I feel strongly that NY BRED has unfairly criticized the program and has obviously not worked at it very hard.

I use a custom copy that Ken Massa has continued to adapt for me over the past few years, much of the time making small changes for free. It is geared toward my style of play using both HTR figures and some custom-made ones derived from the HTR IMPACT figure.

Currently my program can compare the pace matchups of all the horse's last 5 races at a glance on a single screen. I can see each race-pace, race-final, horse-pace and horse-final.
My finals are NOT speed figures; I use two of them: the PER, an AP type velocity-based figure and IMPACT a very very strong figure that skews in favor of horses that run faster early. But I bet you didn't even know that NY BRED, did you?
I have also come up with a pace-derived formula that is excellent at pointing at the best early horses in the race, often at long odds. The winner had the TOP FIGURE of all the experienced horses in the race.

My screen also tells me at a glance that the winner, had a 101-100 Pace-Pace figure coming out of his last sprint race two PPs back. That means he pressed a 101 pace and ran a 100 pace while running within 4 or 5 lengths at the pace call. The 6 had a stronger 104-101 but the 6 finished with a 227 IMPACT rating in that race compared to a 244 to the 2. That's about 5-6 lengths.

The race in which you said the 2 had collapsed had a much higher than average pace!! How do I know that? By looking at my HTR screen.

And if you compare the 101-100 pace-pace rating with sprint figures of allowance races, the 2's number compares extremely well. So, yes you can use HTR to figure out if a FTS had a shot. If the experienced horses have weaker than average figures for MSW I would give a FTS a longer look.

Add that he's 2nd off a layoff, has a 90 workout rating, and is likely to improve on the 244 IMPACT rating from 4 months ago -- and the generous odds -- and the horse looks good even without considering Dutrow.

In my handicapping I get down to three contenders and key the longer odds unless I feel one of the other two are just too strong. The contenders here were the 1, 2, and the 5. The 2 was 5-1, the 1 was 3-1 and the 5 was 6-5. End of story.
Plus the 1 had a suspect form cycle having not been able to get back to his new "top" three races back. That's a bad sign for lightly-raced horses.

I haven't even mentioned how to use the ROBOT modeler effectively, not necessariliy to back-fit data to set up spot plays but as guidance as to which factors are stronger in certain situations at different tracks. For instance in March, trainers with ratings at 350 and up were 6 for 17 in MSW sprints at a 119% profit. Would I bet a horse off that limited sample? No, but it would be another reason to bet a 5-1 horse.
It also told me that horses in MSW races in sprints with strong SP ratings lost 62 cents per dollar. Not an elimination factor due to the small sample, but nice to know. (I always use PL-4 or PL-1 because they are the most consistent.)

And I haven't even mentioned how you can download a detailed race-by-race track profile to a spreadsheet to keep track of what's happening at on a daily basis. I can sort by distance, date, track condition, do all sorts of %E analysis, even compute rough "pars" on the run to see if a horse's figs match up with what it takes to win.



.

[classhandicapper]

I think the best way to deal with ground loss is to watch the race developments of the races that day and the race development of the race in question. If you are reasonably competent at measuring ability, watching races and determining the pace and biases etc... you can sort of get a feel for whether being wide was an advantage, neutral or disadvantage. In general I'd rather be saving ground. If I'm wide on a turn I'd rather be doing when the pace is slow so I can gain position without much stress. I think the idea of measuring ground loss exactly and incorporating into the figures probably creates almost as many problems as it solves.

[sevenall]

Excellent post Andicap.

Somebody finally brought some logic & handicapping into this thread.

Nobody knows how a FTS will run...and it's about the odds!

[hurrikane]

sheeshhh Andi

Another post about black box software... you ditto head. :bang:

[Jake]

At the risk of beating a very dead horse, as another HTR user I feel its important to let others know the flexiblity and resourcefulness of HTR. I feel strongly that NY BRED has unfairly criticized the program and has obviously not worked at it very hard.

I use a custom copy that Ken Massa has continued to adapt for me over the past few years, much of the time making small changes for free. It is geared toward my style of play using both HTR figures and some custom-made ones derived from the HTR IMPACT figure.

Currently my program can compare the pace matchups of all the horse's last 5 races at a glance on a single screen. I can see each race-pace, race-final, horse-pace and horse-final.
My finals are NOT speed figures; I use two of them: the PER, an AP type velocity-based figure and IMPACT a very very strong figure that skews in favor of horses that run faster early. But I bet you didn't even know that NY BRED, did you?
I have also come up with a pace-derived formula that is excellent at pointing at the best early horses in the race, often at long odds. The winner had the TOP FIGURE of all the experienced horses in the race.

My screen also tells me at a glance that the winner, had a 101-100 Pace-Pace figure coming out of his last sprint race two PPs back. That means he pressed a 101 pace and ran a 100 pace while running within 4 or 5 lengths at the pace call. The 6 had a stronger 104-101 but the 6 finished with a 227 IMPACT rating in that race compared to a 244 to the 2. That's about 5-6 lengths.

The race in which you said the 2 had collapsed had a much higher than average pace!! How do I know that? By looking at my HTR screen.

And if you compare the 101-100 pace-pace rating with sprint figures of allowance races, the 2's number compares extremely well. So, yes you can use HTR to figure out if a FTS had a shot. If the experienced horses have weaker than average figures for MSW I would give a FTS a longer look.

Add that he's 2nd off a layoff, has a 90 workout rating, and is likely to improve on the 244 IMPACT rating from 4 months ago -- and the generous odds -- and the horse looks good even without considering Dutrow.

In my handicapping I get down to three contenders and key the longer odds unless I feel one of the other two are just too strong. The contenders here were the 1, 2, and the 5. The 2 was 5-1, the 1 was 3-1 and the 5 was 6-5. End of story.
Plus the 1 had a suspect form cycle having not been able to get back to his new "top" three races back. That's a bad sign for lightly-raced horses.

I haven't even mentioned how to use the ROBOT modeler effectively, not necessariliy to back-fit data to set up spot plays but as guidance as to which factors are stronger in certain situations at different tracks. For instance in March, trainers with ratings at 350 and up were 6 for 17 in MSW sprints at a 119% profit. Would I bet a horse off that limited sample? No, but it would be another reason to bet a 5-1 horse.
It also told me that horses in MSW races in sprints with strong SP ratings lost 62 cents per dollar. Not an elimination factor due to the small sample, but nice to know. (I always use PL-4 or PL-1 because they are the most consistent.)

And I haven't even mentioned how you can download a detailed race-by-race track profile to a spreadsheet to keep track of what's happening at on a daily basis. I can sort by distance, date, track condition, do all sorts of %E analysis, even compute rough "pars" on the run to see if a horse's figs match up with what it takes to win.



.


I spent some time working with Ken when he was first working with MPH, even before moving to HTR. He's an extraordinary handicapper and one of the good guys. It's been great to follow his success with HTR. Nathan at Equsim is also an superior handiicapper/programmer. Two excellent programs with custom options.

[Tom]

Are we talking about the 2 horse - Glitternmeporridge?

He had a few things going for him:

HTR ratings -
K - #3
HTR - #1 (thesest wo arthe "big" ratings)
Workout-90 (very positive)

Trainer-#1
Jock- #1
TJ combo - 29% winners
Front running style, best first fraction by more than 1.0 fps
Second start afte a layoff, made a middle move last out at a mile
Second best pace figure

Fair odds of 5.6-1

Favorite as FTS

This was one of those I wait for and pulled the trigger. I get 5-1 with that many good things going for it, first thing I do is clean my monitor screen to be sure I read it right! :rolleyes:


OK, looks like history might be repeating itself today at Aqueduct, race #3.
Dutrow has another recetn claim who looks similar to this nice winner.
Today's runner - #1 Htr, #3 K (same ratings) third off a short layoff, last out showed speed at a mile (him CJ rotue pace rating beats the other's final ratings), same with HTR fings, and last out was a new pace top to boot. Has the best WO rating and has a the best form cycle rating.
This time, #2 trainer rating and #1 jockey rating. Best F-1 rating.
Fair odds 6-1.
ML favorite is only ranked 3 on K - a negative, courtesy of Hurrikane's excellant research, ML second chice last on K.....

We shall see.......