Lookin At Lucky seems to be improving at the right time.

[andymays]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/racing-news/2010/october/25/lookin-at-lucky-fires-classic-warning-with-bullet-workout.aspx

Excerpt:

Lookin At Lucky also seems to be improving at the right time. He notched a career-best Ragozin figure of “1” (lower numbers better) for his 1 1/4-length victory in the Indiana Derby on October 2 at Hoosier Park.

“He’s getting faster, you have to remember he’s a really late foal,” Baffert said. ”I think that’s part of the reason he’s getting better; he was a late-May foal. He’s getting better with age. … He’s also coming into [the Classic] the right way. That little race at Hoosier was just perfect for him. We still have a ways to go, a couple of weeks to go, but he looked great today and we’re very happy with him.”

[garyscpa]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/racing-news/2010/october/25/lookin-at-lucky-fires-classic-warning-with-bullet-workout.aspx

Excerpt:

Lookin At Lucky also seems to be improving at the right time. He notched a career-best Ragozin figure of “1” (lower numbers better) for his 1 1/4-length victory in the Indiana Derby on October 2 at Hoosier Park.

“He’s getting faster, you have to remember he’s a really late foal,” Baffert said. ”I think that’s part of the reason he’s getting better; he was a late-May foal. He’s getting better with age. … He’s also coming into [the Classic] the right way. That little race at Hoosier was just perfect for him. We still have a ways to go, a couple of weeks to go, but he looked great today and we’re very happy with him.”

Can't wait to get the PP's on Wednesday and see how his closing fractions are compared to Zenyatta's.

[Cardus]

Can't wait to get the PP's on Wednesday and see how his closing fractions are compared to Zenyatta's.

Since May, how many of Lookin At Lucky's closing fractions will be compared to Zenyatta's?

[garyscpa]

Since May, how many of Lookin At Lucky's closing fractions will be compared to Zenyatta's?

I can't tell without looking at them.

[Cardus]

I can't tell without looking at them.

How many synthetic track races has Lookin At Lucky run in since the Derby?

[garyscpa]

How many synthetic track races has Lookin At Lucky run in since the Derby?

I can't tell without looking, as I already said, but since this race is on dirt, some estimation is going to be necessary. Basically, I'm just looking to see who to bet to beat what I think is a false favorite.

[Cardus]

I can't tell without looking, as I already said, but since this race is on dirt, some estimation is going to be necessary. Basically, I'm just looking to see who to bet to beat what I think is a false favorite.

What I am getting at is that you can't compare "closing times," or any times, on different surfaces.

[andymays]

I didn't like him earlier in the year but he does seem to be moving in the right direction. I'm looking forward to the race.

[garyscpa]

What I am getting at is that you can't compare "closing times," or any times, on different surfaces.

I may not be able to do it accurately, but I can do it. :)

[garyscpa]

What I am getting at is that you can't compare "closing times," or any times, on different surfaces.

Then I guess Beyer and those guys are wasting their time.

[Robert Fischer]

Excerpt:

Lookin At Lucky also seems to be improving at the right time. He notched a career-best Rag...

I was going to say it was unexpected that whoever was writing the article would have the know-how and/or the guts to say a sort of purse snatcher race like LaLs ID was one of his better efforts.
But then i see the figure thing.
So it's possible this is one of those things where I guy uses a good longshot to advertise a fig, and if it comes through they can pimp the fig.

to be fair I didn't go and read the article or "handicap" the author beyond stated above.

LaL's ID was very good. I don't know if it is "moving in a direction" or not... much like Zenyatta's last two preps, the challenge for LUCKY in the ID came from opposing forces (bias), rather than rivals, which always makes it a bit more subjective, but really this all evens out - because in a perfectly fair race with strong rivals - you can be wrong about the rival's actual ability just as much as you can be off about the extent of the bias in a race like Lucky's ID.
If this article was an orchestrated advertisement for Rag figures, it stands on it's own, because like I said this really was a strong effort, and it is constructive for the weekend warrior type of players because this may not be an easy race for them to figure out as a big effort, due to it being a purse-grab with unknown names "on paper".

While Lucky is showing no signs of slowing down and possibly peaking, his earlier races weren't exactly much weaker (to indicate he is definitely improving now). He was much the best in the Santa Anita Derby, Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Haskell.

[garyscpa]

Here's a recent article by Gary West which discusses the late pace issue:


http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/


Lucky and the older generation (http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/west_points/2010/10/lucky-and-the-older-generation.html)

Many unanswered questions, Bob Baffert said, will accompany the horses into the Breeders' Cup Classic on Nov. 6 at Churchill Downs. And for the sake of illustration, he identified a few: the question of Quality Road and the distance, for example, and the question of Zenyatta and the surface. But Baffert didn't mention the question of whether Lookin At Lucky can step up to challenge the older competition. For Baffert, that question has been answered.

Early in the year, the Hall of Fame trainer explained, he struggled to find a suitable workmate for Lookin At Lucky. The other 3-year-olds in the Baffert barn either weren't up to the task or weren't ready for it.

"I had to work him with older horses," Baffert said about Lookin At Lucky. "And I worked him with some good horses, stakes horses, and he could just run by them. . . . He can get to a good horse in a hurry."

For the most part, Lookin At Lucky has done what's necessary to win and little more. Of his nine victories, in six the winning margin was a length or less. And all of his losses, three of them, were like Montezuma's revenge: They followed a bad trip.

In other words, Lookin At Lucky never has given a poor performance, and he might be even better than his good performances suggest. In the Haskell, probably his best effort, where he drew clear in the stretch to win by four, he ran the final three-eighths of a mile in 37.22 seconds. Compare that to the Woodward, where Quality Road covered the final three furlongs in 38.48. Granted, the circumstances and the tracks differed; still, that Haskell performance suggests Lookin At Lucky could indeed be ready and capable to meet the challenge of the Classic.

Eskendereya aside, this season's 3-year-olds weren't especially impressive. But aside from Quality Road's moments of brilliance, the older horses didn't dazzle either.

To say Lookin At Lucky is best and most accomplished among the 3-year-olds might sound like faint praise, as if boasting that a towering structure is the tallest building in Wichita Falls. But Fly Down, the Travers runner-up, finished two lengths behind Blame in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. And Lookin At Lucky's Haskell performance was only about three lengths shy of the sort of effort that would probably put him in the thick of the Classic. Can he step forward three lengths? Possibly.

"When they turn for home, that's where they'll separate themselves," Baffert said about the Classic. "And I don't think there's going to be much separation."

A race down to the wire for Horse of the Year would make this a Classic indeed.








(http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/#ixzz13QJscDVd)

[cj]

The "Rags" people are nuts if they think that race at Hoosier was his career best.

[andymays]

The "Rags" people are nuts if they think that race at Hoosier was his career best.

Do his figures show an improving pattern according to your figures?

What's your opinion of the "late foal" comment? Is there more upside for him than the others?

I don't have his PP's here to look at.

[cj]

Do his figures show an improving pattern according to your figures?

What's your opinion of the "late foal" comment? Is there more upside for him than the others?

I don't have his PP's here to look at.

This is what I have for him:

http://www.pacefigures.com/images/LAL.jpg

Track, date, distance, average track/distance bias rating, race pace, race speed, horse pace, horse speed, late pace, bias symbol, performance figure (graphed)

[andymays]

This is what I have for him:

http://www.pacefigures.com/images/LAL.jpg

Track, date, distance, average track/distance bias rating, race pace, race speed, horse pace, horse speed, late pace, bias symbol, performance figure (graphed)

Thanks for the information. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

What's your opinion of the "late foal" comment? Is there more upside for him than the others?

It's something that smooth trainers like Baffert mention in interviews for 2 or 3yos especially prior to BC or TC races.

not a huge difference for a horse who was trained aggressively and given the most potent medications for quite some time like Lucky has. If this were like the BC Juvenile for 2yos and it was like his 3rd start and he didn't have a ton of works and was green his 1st start etc... then you would weigh into it more.

[cj]

For the record, my overall numbers already have an adjustment built in for maturity. Notice the overall higher performance figure for his 2yo races compared to his interior numbers.

[garyscpa]

For the record, my overall numbers already have an adjustment built in for maturity. Notice the overall higher performance figure for his 2yo races compared to his interior numbers.

So it does look like he's showing improvement.

[Robert Fischer]

I may not be able to do it accurately, but I can do it. :)

don't be discouraged ...
raw final fractions can be good.

be sure to take advantage of CJ's generous post here, looks like a 104 Late pace in the last, 107 haskell, 99late pace preakness etc...

[garyscpa]

don't be discouraged ...
raw final fractions can be good.

be sure to take advantage of CJ's generous post here, looks like a 104 Late pace in the last, 107 haskell, 99late pace preakness etc...

I was just responding to Cardus' post that comparing late fractions on differing surfaces couldn't be done.

[Robert Fischer]

anyone know if that bonehead Garcia has the 'Lucky mount??

he actually could be good for the horse in the Classic because he probably isn't afraid of "losing" the race if they happen to "bottom out" and has a better probability than some wiser jocks may of asking Lucky(Earlyish move, long drive) for the extent of his stamina.

[keithw84]

anyone know if that bonehead Garcia has the 'Lucky mount??

DRF story says he does

[Robert Fischer]

I was just responding to Cardus' post that comparing late fractions on differing surfaces couldn't be done.

saw that.

it usually works ok, even raw across sufaces

however on turf or synth routes, if there are several fast closers in the same race, it is usually less impressive

[KingChas]

Hard to fault this horse.
But one thing to keep in mind.
His loses have come with bigger fields........Over 10 entries.
So in essence, the pp and # of entries is very important concerning this horse.

[Spalding No!]

I wonder if the 10f is a bit much for Lookin At Lucky, especially since Martin Garcia has typically moved early on him.

That was quite a group that was all over him late in the 9.5f Preakness (ie First Dude, Jackson Bend, Ywanna Twist).

That Indiana race was only 8.5f IIRC.

[andymays]

For the record, my overall numbers already have an adjustment built in for maturity. Notice the overall higher performance figure for his 2yo races compared to his interior numbers.

Approximately what number usually wins the Classic on a dirt surface? I'm guessing Lucky needs to move up 5 or more lengths to have a shot.

[gm10]

For the record, my overall numbers already have an adjustment built in for maturity. Notice the overall higher performance figure for his 2yo races compared to his interior numbers.

a high early/middle/late and an even bigger overall is the hallmark of a very good horse who is in very good form
as I posted before the PE, Rachel A did it consistently last year but couldn't manage it this year

whether it will be enough to win the Classic ... we'll see

[gm10]

saw that.

it usually works ok, even raw across sufaces

however on turf or synth routes, if there are several fast closers in the same race, it is usually less impressive

It can't be done. Synthetic and especially turf are much quicker towards the end, and usually overall too.

[RXB]

Approximately what number usually wins the Classic on a dirt surface? I'm guessing Lucky needs to move up 5 or more lengths to have a shot.

On a Beyer scale, about 116. This field, I think, is more likely to be slower than faster.

[gm10]

For the record, my overall numbers already have an adjustment built in for maturity. Notice the overall higher performance figure for his 2yo races compared to his interior numbers.

Adjustment for maturity is good. It's essentially a personal preference, but I do it too.

However I struggle to understand how you can rate his Preakness as the best of his career. Surely races like the Norfolk and Haskell should rate higher than the Preakness?

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/lookin-lucky-displays-good-late-kick-prepping-bc-classic

Excerpt:

At one point, Spectacular Slew must have thought he was working alone, leading by as many as 12 lengths on the backstretch. The margin did not stay that way for long. Lookin At Lucky displayed a strong rally in the stretch of the six-furlong workout to finish in front.

[Robert Fischer]

saw that.

it usually works ok, even raw across surfaces

however on turf or synth routes, if there are several fast closers in the same race, it is usually less impressive
It can't be done. Synthetic and especially turf are much quicker towards the end, and usually overall too.

thank you so much for the correction. i know i left the door open when i wrote:
QUOTE=FISCHER.'s PRICE]it usually works ok, even raw across surfaces

however on turf or synth routes, if there are several fast closers in the same race, it is usually less impressive/QUOTE]

:faint:

[cj]

Adjustment for maturity is good. It's essentially a personal preference, but I do it too.

However I struggle to understand how you can rate his Preakness as the best of his career. Surely races like the Norfolk and Haskell should rate higher than the Preakness?

The Norfolk was close when I account for surface. I just haven't brought myself to changing the scale yet because I don't want to be tempted to use synthetic figures on dirt. If I did, his Norfolk would be about 105.

The Haskell, he ran his best race late as you can see by my finish rating. However, finish alone is not enough on dirt. Even with the moderate pace, I would never want to rate a horse on dirt on his late run alone, especially when he doesn't have a history of running any faster.

[Robert Fischer]

...finish alone is not enough on dirt. Even with the moderate pace, I would never want to rate a horse on dirt on his late run alone, especially when he doesn't have a history of running any faster.

Generally very true :ThmbUp:

What has the juices flowing for now is the Breeders Cup Classic
6 November 2010 @ Churchill Downs.

Only the events of that race will determine which types of runner, if any, will favour the goddess. These events will be like a burden or a great relief to to the various contestants with their range of styles.

[Cardus]

Then I guess Beyer and those guys are wasting their time.

I didn't address the making of speed figures. I reacted to your post about comparing closing times.

[garyscpa]

I didn't address the making of speed figures. I reacted to your post about comparing closing times.

[QUOTE=Cardus]
What I am getting at is that you can't compare "closing times," or any times, on different surfaces.

What are speed figures if not comparisons?

[chickenhead]

I haven't seen CJs for the rest of the field, but those are pretty weak PFs for a BCC winner. I like LAL, but you really need to seriously downgrade QR and move up LAL by quite a bit to lean on him here.

[cj]

I haven't seen CJs for the rest of the field, but those are pretty weak PFs for a BCC winner. I like LAL, but you really need to seriously downgrade QR and move up LAL by quite a bit to lean on him here.

He can't beat Blind Luck, let alone the Classic field.

[garyscpa]

I haven't seen CJs for the rest of the field, but those are pretty weak PFs for a BCC winner. I like LAL, but you really need to seriously downgrade QR and move up LAL by quite a bit to lean on him here.

It would probably require a major pace meltdown for LAL to win. But I think it will require a major pace meltdown for Zenyatta to win.

It would be interesting to see the CJ's for Zenyatta, even though almost all are synthetic.

[cj]

Here you go...


http://www.pacefigures.com/images/Z.jpg
Together with these two links you can see her whole career:

http://www.pacefigures.com/archives/bc09/srace9.html

http://www.pacefigures.com/archives/bc08/frace7.html

[gm10]

The Norfolk was close when I account for surface. I just haven't brought myself to changing the scale yet because I don't want to be tempted to use synthetic figures on dirt. If I did, his Norfolk would be about 105.

The Haskell, he ran his best race late as you can see by my finish rating. However, finish alone is not enough on dirt. Even with the moderate pace, I would never want to rate a horse on dirt on his late run alone, especially when he doesn't have a history of running any faster.

Ok thx for the clarification

I dont know what it is about the Preakness, whatever I do his number comes out belowmost of his others - the ones he beat have run similar numbers as they did in that race so I think a moderate number for Lucky is justified.

I have doubts about the distance as well, for both him and Blame.

[cj]

Ok thx for the clarification

I dont know what it is about the Preakness, whatever I do his number comes out belowmost of his others - the ones he beat have run similar numbers as they did in that race so I think a moderate number for Lucky is justified.

I have doubts about the distance as well, for both him and Blame.

I suspect you don't follow racing at Pimlico very closely. Who does these days?

The 9.5f distance is very rare and it does not really fall in line with other routes like you think it would, at least at that track.

[Cardus]

Can't wait to get the PP's on Wednesday and see how his closing fractions are compared to Zenyatta's.

Here, you are comparing raw times. You didn't mention speed figures of any kind.

I am not discussing speed figures.

I reacted to what you typed, above.

[cj]

Also, the numbers in the top line with each horse are, after the name, age/sex, state:

Style on EPS scale, Quirin Speed points, then my own personal overall early speed and late speed ratings. Zenyatta gets a 98 compared to LAL 90.

[garyscpa]

Here, you are comparing raw times. You didn't mention speed figures of any kind.

I am not discussing speed figures.

I reacted to what you typed, above.

Well, where else are you going to get speed figures from if you don't have raw times?

[Cardus]

Well, where else are you going to get speed figures from if you don't have raw times?

If we used emoticons, both of us would use the "banging my head against a brick wall" action figure.

If you implied that you were going to use one set of speed figures' pace figures to compare their closing fractions (CJ's, e.g.), then I missed it.

It looked like you were interested in comparing the fractions in raw terms.

[Robert Fischer]

i've seen several assertions that raw times are not of value or can't be used, and implications of how valuable pace figures are.


PACE OR SPEED FIGURES are simply one step beyond RAW TIMES


*my definitions may vary - feel free to interject/correct/suggest/ask/etc..

RAW TIMES = The amount of time in seconds or the velocity. Raw indicates unadjusted in any way. Run-ups may or may not be accounted for, but do not generally make any difference when considering the late fractions. Beaten Lengths across calls are accounted for.

SPEED FIGURES = RAWTIMES are measured as above, then adjusted for a factor called the trackVariant(or trackWeight or howthetrackwasPlaying or peanutbutterJelly etc...). By far the most common way of determining the trackFactor is by comparing different races that day and/or certain runners deemed as consistent "yard sticks" and working backwards. This method works well but has 'COME UNDER FIRE'(:rolleyes: very dramatic terminology maybe Denzell Washington can play CJ in the movie?) in particular regarding situations like when race forces strongly contribute to bunch finishes and most extreme with bunch ups on turf or synthetic surfaces.


Pace figures, just like raw times should not be "used in a vacuum"(or a wind tunnel and probably not a microwave oven)- especially not a late fraction pace figure,
as the sole determinant of the likely winner of a unique race such as the BCC 2010 where they are going to go 10 furlongs on Dirt with a bunch of Good horses.


Just like you wouldn't use raw times , you wouldn't use the pace figures either.

However they both can provide info. Some people like to look at the raw times since it can be calculated so easily, and has not been adjusted.

These people should not be reprimanded, humiliated, shamed, dehumanized, or labeled as a horseplayer in public.


Both pace and rawTimes are useful ways to compare who are the best late fraction runners. They both have strengths and weaknesses. If the pace Figures are done accurately - and (extremely important!!! -->)the other forces in the races done with figures did not significantly oppose or aid the horses being compared(<--muy importante'!!!) then the pace figures will give more insight into which runner is actually a better late fraction runner.
For the best insight in trying to draw meaningful conclusions, the raw and pace numbers themselves should be understood in their own right.

ideally the actual performance should be understood in a comprehensive perspective as a symbiotic part of the whole.
At that point a number can be assigned (a performance number) or a horseplayer may have had enough numbers and simply has their non-numeric appraisal.

[garyscpa]

If we used emoticons, both of us would use the "banging my head against a brick wall" action figure.

If you implied that you were going to use one set of speed figures' pace figures to compare their closing fractions (CJ's, e.g.), then I missed it.

It looked like you were interested in comparing the fractions in raw terms.

:bang: You mean like that? :)

[Cardus]

:bang: You mean like that? :)

Oh, yeah, that's it, and I think I might use it to respond to the third-party interruption above!

[Robert Fischer]

i prefer my rap name/turf star alias/hightimes reference

:cool:"Baltasar Grassyman":cool:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Baltasar-gracian.gif

[PhantomOnTour]

My rap name is BrownButterBabyBay.

[Tom]

I'm Tommy Malice.

[gm10]

I suspect you don't follow racing at Pimlico very closely. Who does these days?

The 9.5f distance is very rare and it does not really fall in line with other routes like you think it would, at least at that track.

I don't follow Pimlico much, no and I have noticed that the 9.5F races there aren't always what you'd expect in terms of figures, but whichever way I look at it, it wasn't one of his best races. Maybe he was dead tired after the TC campaign, maybe 9.5F is already past his optimum trip, maybe both.

[Robert Fischer]

My rap name is BrownButterBabyBay.
I'm Tommy Malice.

good to see we have something to fall back on.

We just need one more guy (maybe PA aka Biggie Boss) and we could be "the Four Horsemen"

[cj]

I don't follow Pimlico much, no and I have noticed that the 9.5F races there aren't always what you'd expect in terms of figures, but whichever way I look at it, it wasn't one of his best races. Maybe he was dead tired after the TC campaign, maybe 9.5F is already past his optimum trip, maybe both.

Or, maybe, you have it wrong and I have it right. It happens. I certainly wouldn't claim to have every figure right.

[Robert Fischer]

LAL got what a Beyer of 102? in the Preakness , and a 105?? in the Haskell(often referred to as his best)

Not much difference there by Beyer's camp.

Reasonable to give the Preakness higher if Beyer had it that close

but whichever way I look at it, it wasn't one of his best races. Maybe he was dead tired after the TC campaign, maybe 9.5F is already past his optimum trip, maybe both.

[gm10]

I don't follow Pimlico much, no and I have noticed that the 9.5F races there aren't always what you'd expect in terms of figures, but whichever way I look at it, it wasn't one of his best races. Maybe he was dead tired after the TC campaign, maybe 9.5F is already past his optimum trip, maybe both.

--

[gm10]

Or, maybe, you have it wrong and I have it right. It happens. I certainly wouldn't claim to have every figure right.

Hey weirder things have happened.

Can you also give us the PP's for Fist Dude and Jackson Bend? How were their performances post-Preakness?

[gm10]

LAL got what a Beyer of 102? in the Preakness , and a 105?? in the Haskell(often referred to as his best)

Not much difference there by Beyer's camp.

Reasonable to give the Preakness higher if Beyer had it that close


Why would that be reasonable? The Preakness is allegedly 4 points higher, and as a consequence better than the Haskell.

That is quite a statement imo.

[cj]

That is quite a statement imo.

Why? When I disagree with a number I at least give reasons.

As for your other question, Jackson Bend has been dreadful. I'm not sure how you could try to compare his last two with his Preakness. His prior races (In Reality, Holy Bull, Wood) fell in line with the Preakness.

First Dude, regressed a bit in the the Belmont and Haskell before getting returning to his Preakness for the last two.

[Robert Fischer]

Why would that be reasonable? The Preakness is allegedly 4 points higher, and as a consequence better than the Haskell.

That is quite a statement imo.

this is really basic stuff GM

if Beyer had the two races only 3 pts apart, it is quite reasonable for someone else to have them 3 or 4 pts apart the other way.
These figures are not accurate past 5 or so pts, and a small difference in methodology or opinion of how the track was playing could easily be the difference. You wouldn't play a horse because of 3 or 4 pts difference would you? It's the same fundamental principle here.

[cj]

this is really basic stuff GM

if Beyer had the two races only 3 pts apart, it is quite reasonable for someone else to have them 3 or 4 pts apart the other way.
These figures are not accurate past 5 or so pts, and a small difference in methodology or opinion of how the track was playing could easily be the difference. You wouldn't play a horse because of 3 or 4 pts difference would you? It's the same fundamental principle here.

3 or 4 points is a couple lengths at a route so I'd certainly play horses based on this, or even less. If you waited to play horses as overlays with 5 point or higher edges you will be waiting a long time between bets.

[Robert Fischer]

Why? When I disagree with a number I at least give reasons.

As for your other question, Jackson Bend has been dreadful. I'm not sure how you could try to compare his last two with his Preakness. His prior races (In Reality, Holy Bull, Wood) fell in line with the Preakness.

First Dude, regressed a bit in the the Belmont and Haskell before getting returning to his Preakness for the last two.

And lets not forget First Dude's miracle dream fantasy trip in the Preakness.
The speed figures were MUCH MUCH closer than the performance figures would have been between Lucky(who did much more running) and Dude(who got one of those patented RD breezes up front)

[Robert Fischer]

3 or 4 points is a couple lengths at a route so I'd certainly play horses based on this, or even less. If you waited to play horses as overlays with 5 point or higher edges you will be waiting a long time between bets.

well, you ARE a figure maker.

(not that you have a dog in this fight - rather, that you have more knowledge of this subject and that I defer to you here. ) :ThmbUp:

[gm10]

Why? When I disagree with a number I at least give reasons.

As for your other question, Jackson Bend has been dreadful. I'm not sure how you could try to compare his last two with his Preakness. His prior races (In Reality, Holy Bull, Wood) fell in line with the Preakness.

First Dude, regressed a bit in the the Belmont and Haskell before getting returning to his Preakness for the last two.

You need reasons as to why this is quite a statement? Do you remember both races? First Dude and the average Jackson Bend finished relatively close to Lucky in the Preakness, who wasn't exactly going away from them. First Dude (a reliable yardstick) and the rest were completely dominated in the Haskell. I am afraid I have to side with Andy Beyer on this one: the Haskell was the better performance.

FWIW, here are my figs (point of reference: 90 is enough to win most grade 1's). Keep in mind that my DTV is based on par times, not projection, so there is always a chance of a lower number than you'd expect in a high class race. I'm not a fan of the projection method even if they produce more stable figs.


Lookin At Lucky

02-Oct-2010 [HOO #12] 89
01-Aug-2010 [MTH #12] 90
15-May-2010 [PIM #12] 79
01-May-2010 [CD #11] 69
03-Apr-2010 [SA3 #6] 69
13-Mar-2010 [OP #10] 85
19-Dec-2009 [HOL2 #9] 86
07-Nov-2009 [SA3 #5] 83
04-Oct-2009 [SA3 #8] 91
07-Sep-2009 [DMR2 #8] 90
09-Aug-2009 [DMR2 #4] 90
11-Jul-2009 [HOL2 #6] 87


The two runs before the Preakness are excusable, but the 79 in the Preakness reflects the fact that he didn't run his best race that day, even if he won.


First Dude

25-Sep-2010 [PHA #11] 89
28-Aug-2010 [SAR #12] 69
01-Aug-2010 [MTH #12] 78
05-Jun-2010 [BEL #11] 76
15-May-2010 [PIM #12] 77
10-Apr-2010 [KEE2 #9] 76
20-Mar-2010 [GP2 #11] 78
21-Feb-2010 [GP2 #3] 81
30-Jan-2010 [GP2 #6] 86
28-Nov-2009 [CD #7] 78
22-Oct-2009 [KEE2 #3] 74


His Preakness (77) is very much in line in what he did before and after, suggesting that the 79 for Lucky is accurate.

Zenyatta

02-Oct-2010 [HOL2 #7] 88
07-Aug-2010 [DMR2 #9] 89
13-Jun-2010 [HOL2 #8] 89
09-Apr-2010 [OP #10] 89
13-Mar-2010 [SA3 #7] 87
07-Nov-2009 [SA3 #9] 92
10-Oct-2009 [SA3 #8] 90
09-Aug-2009 [DMR2 #8] 89
27-Jun-2009 [HOL2 #4] 90
23-May-2009 [HOL2 #8] 90
24-Oct-2008 [SA3 #7] 89
27-Sep-2008 [SA3 #5] 89
02-Aug-2008 [DMR2 #9] 92
05-Jul-2008 [HOL2 #5] 85
31-May-2008 [HOL2 #5] 90
05-Apr-2008 [OP #8] 90
13-Jan-2008 [SA2 #9] 89
15-Dec-2007 [HOL2 #5] 83
22-Nov-2007 [HOL2 #6] 82



These numbers speak for themselves.


Blame


02-Oct-2010 [BEL #10] 70
07-Aug-2010 [SAR #10] 91
12-Jun-2010 [CD #10] 89
15-May-2010 [PIM #8] 88
27-Nov-2009 [CD #11] 88
31-Oct-2009 [KEE2 #9] 86
19-Sep-2009 [LAD #11] 85
02-Aug-2009 [SAR #8] 87
02-Jul-2009 [CD #10] 88
12-Jun-2009 [CD #10] 86
17-Oct-2008 [KEE2 #10] 81
13-Sep-2008 [TP2 #16] 67



Big contender if he gets the 10F.

[Robert Fischer]

something that hasn't been a big focus in looking at LookinAtLucky, is that he may be versatile.

He has been a late-runner, but he has some tactical speed. He's a horse that could make some headway and even lead going into the stretch if need be.

Where as Zenyatta is more married to her running style , LaL could conceivably start sooner, should the race dictate it.
On one hand this "versatility" could be risky given the(lack of) experience of her jockey, - however the flipside is that Garcia may not be "limited" by a conservative approach...
If the race comes up huge because of something early failing to come back, LaL could be sent up after the pace, last-moves be durned! Those are the situations where a horse runs "amazing" because usually they wouldn't be asked like that. Secretariat's Belmont comes to mind - A lot of jockeys wouldn't have let him run away from the pack like that. Turcotte wasn't a baby but still had to be about 30 years old, and LaL is NOT Secretariat!, but Garcia has shown that he will at times ignore the wise "safe" strategy and ignore group strategy as a group of jockeys targeting a horse like Zenyatta(who arguably should not be targeted due to more parity in the BCC) in favor of running a bit more selfishly.

if this run-on thought even made sense = i don't know ;), but Versatility versatility versatility...

[Robert Fischer]

First Dude... finished relatively close to Lucky in the Preakness. First Dude (a reliable yardstick)...

thanks for posting the numbers, and I'm looking at them now, trying to understand what they represent(EDIT- GOOD NUMBERS FOR WHAT I'M GUESSING ARE FINAL TIME BASED FIGS :ThmbUp:)...

But you do realize that the fact that the finishing marging of beaten lengths between First Dude and Lookin At Lucky in the Preakness means very little about their relative ability(EDIT-CHANGE "RELATIVE ABILITY" TO "RELATIVE PERFORMANCE") right?

FD and LaL's Preakness is a TEXTBOOK example of when speed figures and (good)performance figures happen to be at odds w/ each other.

[cj]

I don't have time to go over all of this, but that number for the JCGC for Blame is poor in relation to the others. Sure, he didn't run his best, but the drop off you have is ridiculous in my opinion.

[gm10]

thanks for posting the numbers, and I'm looking at them now, trying to understand what they represent...

But you do realize that the fact that the finishing marging of beaten lengths between First Dude and Lookin At Lucky in the Preakness means very little about their relative ability right?
FD and LaL's Preakness is a textbook example of when speed figures and (good)performance figures happen to be at odds w/ each other.

They are speed-based figures (based on times, and adjusted for DTV/weight/age). I hesitate to use the term 'speed figures' as I find that a bit of a misnomer. In a strict sense, Speed = distance/raw time.

[gm10]

I don't have time to go over all of this, but that number for the JCGC for Blame is poor in relation to the others. Sure, he didn't run his best, but the drop off you have is ridiculous in my opinion.

Well it is what it is. As Phil Bull said, a 'speed rating' tells you how bad a horse isn't, not how good he is. I don't claim that he is only as good as that 70. He just wasn't worse than 70 that day. Under more suitable circumstances he is worth 91. Whether he will meet those circumstances next Saturday ... don't know. If the odds are right, I'll assume that he will.

[Robert Fischer]

They are speed-based figures (based on times, and adjusted for DTV/weight/age). I hesitate to use the term 'speed figures' as I find that a bit of a misnomer. In a strict sense, Speed = distance/raw time.

DTV = daily track variant?

the numbers look good to me, although I'm not an expert with the subtleties of the figures like you and CJ may be.

However what I'm trying to say about the Preakness is that the speed figs for Dude and Lucky should be less than a length apart, but Lookin at Lucky ran much better than that margin- in terms of performance.

Well it is what it is. As Phil Bull said, a 'speed rating' tells you how bad a horse isn't, not how good he is. I don't claim that he is only as good as that 70. He just wasn't worse than 70 that day. Under more suitable circumstances he is worth 91. Whether he will meet those circumstances next Saturday ... don't know. If the odds are right, I'll assume that he will.
Cool quote :eek:.
might be true, bit of a brain-bender...
I would argue that for example FD could have been worse than a 77 in the Preakness(or you could stick to the quote and say NEVER DOWNGRADE EASY TRIPS/ ALWAYS UPGRADE HARDER TRIPS and say that Dude ran a 77 but Lucky's performance was in the 80s... ) sorry for the "broken record"

[toetoe]

Well it is what it is.



ARG !!! :bang: .

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/59674/haskins-bc-report-hello-zenyatta

Excerpt:

Anyone who hasn’t seen Lookin At Lucky since the Triple Crown is going to be in for a big surprise when they see the colt now. A late May foal, he has had a growth spurt since then, having grown three inches in the last five or six months, and has put on a great deal of muscle. In short, he looks magnificent.

[cj]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/59674/haskins-bc-report-hello-zenyatta

Excerpt:

Anyone who hasn’t seen Lookin At Lucky since the Triple Crown is going to be in for a big surprise when they see the colt now. A late May foal, he has had a growth spurt since then, having grown three inches in the last five or six months, and has put on a great deal of muscle. In short, he looks magnificent.

He may have grown, but his Hoosier race wasn't any faster than the past.

[andymays]

He may have grown, but his Hoosier race wasn't any faster than the past.

I still think he can beat Zenyatta. Not only that I think he had more to give in his last couple. Right now I'm putting Blame on top.

[Rackon]

He may have grown, but his Hoosier race wasn't any faster than the past.

It didn't need to be, nor was the goal to have him go as fast as he could, especially after losing training time.

Visually, he did it easily, and he looked like fine after the race too, despite the mud and glop.

I respect speed figures, but I also use my own eyes. I liked what I saw at HP.

[WinterTriangle]

However I struggle to understand how you can rate his Preakness as the best of his career.

Me too, since that was the replay I watched a few times and caused me to put him in lower part of exotics for this.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I still think he can beat Zenyatta...

I tend to think so too or at least I think I may get the right price for what I see as a real chance. I never got into him on the Triple Crown trail because he seemed "unlucky", but was really just a combination of things, one of which was he just seemed a little unprofessional, not very polished, so to speak.

In his last few, he seems to have added that polish, that racehorse professionalism that indicated that the light bulb may have come on some for him since early summer. He seems like he's in the ballpark with this field on tangible attributes and is able to boast some flexibility in terms of running-style. I do think that there is enough of a chance that he's able to produce a career best at this point in his development that he seems like a pretty easy key-type play if the price is right and I'm not completely busted.

[cj]

It didn't need to be, nor was the goal to have him go as fast as he could, especially after losing training time.

Visually, he did it easily, and he looked like fine after the race too, despite the mud and glop.

I respect speed figures, but I also use my own eyes. I liked what I saw at HP.

That is fine, but he couldn't help but look good in that race against inferior horses that went WAY too fast. I think he'll be a big underlay in the race.

[cj]

Me too, since that was the replay I watched a few times and caused me to put him in lower part of exotics for this.

What does watching a replay have to do with making figures? How did your viewing of the Preakness sway you that he didn't run his best race figure wise?

[andymays]

I tend to think so too or at least I think I may get the right price for what I see as a real chance. I never got into him on the Triple Crown trail because he seemed "unlucky", but was really just a combination of things, one of which was he just seemed a little unprofessional, not very polished, so to speak.

In his last few, he seems to have added that polish, that racehorse professionalism that indicated that the light bulb may have come on some for him since early summer. He seems like he's in the ballpark with this field on tangible attributes and is able to boast some flexibility in terms of running-style. I do think that there is enough of a chance that he's able to produce a career best at this point in his development that he seems like a pretty easy key-type play if the price is right and I'm not completely busted.

Garcia isn't going to be able to keep him way wide and still win like the other recent races. I'm probably going to use Lucky mostly in the second, third, and fourth spots.

After looking at the PP's I really don't think this group is as tough as some are saying. The Japanese horse could even step up.

[andymays]

'Lucky' Likes What He Sees at Churchill

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/59677/lucky-likes-what-he-sees-at-churchill

Excerpt:

“There’s ‘good,’ and then there’s ‘super good’,” Baffert said in a statement around 8:30 a.m., as the Smart Strike colt galloped once around. “I like it when it’s super good. He looks so different on dirt; he looks like he’s happier, he enjoys himself. He moves so much smoother over the dirt than he does on synthetics. He’s doing well.”

[PaceAdvantage]

I was always cool to LAL during the early part of this year...his Haskell kind of warmed me up a little, but looking at his form and his numbers, I still can't get excited about this one much at all.

And I agree with CJ (big surprise). A major underlay IMO.

[PhantomOnTour]

I was always cool to LAL during the early part of this year...his Haskell kind of warmed me up a little, but looking at his form and his numbers, I still can't get excited about this one much at all.

And I agree with CJ (big surprise). A major underlay IMO.
His figs do fall short of Blame, Haynesfield, and Quality Road. Heck, I have the Penn Dby faster than Lucky's Haskell, which is my best fig for him.

Still though, he has proven himself a winner and one tough dude. Tries older for the first time here, but the expectation of improvement isn't far fetched at all. His figure pattern, and I will have to defer to CJ's and Beyer's numbers as I have no fig for the Indy Dby, sets up well for improvement here imo:

Lifetime top in the Haskell (by both CJ and Beyer) then a two month rest and he runs his 2nd best lifetime fig (again by both CJ and Beyer), now a month off...I'm expecting him to produce another top fig on Sat. That fig may or may not be good enough to win it, but he's one runner I am sure will improve. Also note, by CJ's figs he has shown his best two late pace numbers in his last two races.

***I used CJ's speed fig and not his performance fig for the above comparisons

[joanied]

Don't forget, Lucky was a late May foal...he was actually a 2 yr old in both the Derby & Preakness...he's just recently really caught up to his peers in age, and still will be the youngest horse in the Classic field.

I've been crazy about him since his second start, and if any horse can beat Zenyatta on Sat., I hope it's him.
I still have the big mare to win...I also don't think Blame is gonna run his race...IMO, his best are behind him...but if you really think about it, with an exception or two, any of them can win the Classic...I'm also looking at First dude to run big, and Musket Man will do like he always does, try hard to fall short.

[Charlie D]

FWIW Ladies and Gentlemen. I have Lookin as a bet at 5-1 or above.

[tucker6]

Don't forget, Lucky was a late May foal...he was actually a 2 yr old in both the Derby & Preakness...he's just recently really caught up to his peers in age, and still will be the youngest horse in the Classic field.

I've been crazy about him since his second start, and if any horse can beat Zenyatta on Sat., I hope it's him.
I still have the big mare to win...I also don't think Blame is gonna run his race...IMO, his best are behind him...but if you really think about it, with an exception or two, any of them can win the Classic...I'm also looking at First dude to run big, and Musket Man will do like he always does, try hard to fall short.It's sad but true what you say about MM. I wish he'd win a big one to validate the heart we know he has.

[Deepsix]

At this point in time....... why was I implecated?

[Tom]

The more I look at Lucky, the more I like him.
Blame, QR, Haynesfield, whose turn is it now?