Shackleford

[Mineshaft]

so much for washing out before the race and not doing anything

[PaceAdvantage]

This horse is very good...I love speed horses with heart...

[Tee]

Shack has a history of washing out - no?

[Some_One]

Totally agree, although it looked like AK never really seem comfortable travelling over that track...but the washing helped his price on Betfair, got a 20-1 SP

[elysiantraveller]

He is a damn good horse.

[MNslappy]

So PUMPED for Romans and Shackleford.

I had him on top of all my tickets in the Derby...
BUT no, today...I DIDN'T put him on top.

Shoulda been a fanboy today and just bet with my sentiments, I woulda won, darn it.

:bang:

[Tape Reader]

Way to go Pace. Great analysis!

[chazbme99]

Animal Kingdom should have made a move earlier. He was back too far taking dirt before he made the move. I think the Belmont will be a great race. I wonder who the favorite will be Nehro, Schakelford, or Animal Kingdom.

[PaceAdvantage]

I doubt Shack is going to the Belmont...I think they're convinced it's too far for him...I'm not totally convinced, but Romans probably is...

[Valuist]

Just more evidence the inside was bad at CD on Derby day. I also think the pace wasn't nearly as slow as the raw fractions in the Derby indicated. Either it was due to wind, or a teletimer malfunction. Watching a tape of the race I never got the feeling they were going that slow.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just more evidence the inside was bad at CD on Derby day. I also think the pace wasn't nearly as slow as the raw fractions in the Derby indicated.The numbers I am using (CJ's figs) didn't indicate to me that the pace was as slow as people were saying in the Derby either...but I chose to focus more on the bias than I did the actual pace of the race...

The fact that all the other speed in the Derby died hard, leaving Shackleford the only one standing at the end impressed the hell out of me...

[MNslappy]

how bout the way he held off Astrology and then just threw him away :ThmbUp:

Shack's actually got some decent stamina influences in his pedigree and with his controlling speed, why NOT go in the Belmont? Just think, we could be looking back in a month and saying, "if not for the closer bias at CD that day we might have had a triple crown winner this year."

[Bruddah]

I doubt Shack is going to the Belmont...I think they're convinced it's too far for him...I'm not totally convinced, but Romans probably is...

Congratulations on the nice handicapping PA. I was on it with you. I had some concern that he might bounce but he has heart. I too love speed with heart.

I had $200 win and place along with a $20 exacta. This bet more than made up for my $500 loss in the Derby. It's great when you nail them and you certainly nailed this one. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

so much for washing out before the race and not doing anything

He always does that. This is a big problem with physicality handicapping. It only works if you know how a horse usually looks, and even then it isn't foolproof.

[cj]

Just more evidence the inside was bad at CD on Derby day. I also think the pace wasn't nearly as slow as the raw fractions in the Derby indicated. Either it was due to wind, or a teletimer malfunction. Watching a tape of the race I never got the feeling they were going that slow.

I know we've both said this from day one. I think part of the track was just very deep, the other not so much. In the end though, the reason doesn't really matter.

[point given]

Way to go Pace. Great analysis!

Ditto. You da man . wish i'd gotten on your train. Hope you made a killing:ThmbUp:

[Valuist]

The numbers I am using (CJ's figs) didn't indicate to me that the pace was as slow as people were saying in the Derby either...but I chose to focus more on the bias than I did the actual pace of the race...

The fact that all the other speed in the Derby died hard, leaving Shackleford the only one standing at the end impressed the hell out of me...

Absolutely. Good call. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

The numbers I am using (CJ's figs) didn't indicate to me that the pace was as slow as people were saying in the Derby either...but I chose to focus more on the bias than I did the actual pace of the race...

The fact that all the other speed in the Derby died hard, leaving Shackleford the only one standing at the end impressed the hell out of me...

Just so people understand, the fact that most winners came from off the pace does have an influence on the pace figures I make each day because I use the WINNER of each race to create the variants, not the leader. It has served me very well over the years.

I also had the track as biased as well and indicated that in my program. As a figures guy, I will admit you didn't need figures to like this horse. Just watching the Derby as PA did told you a lot.

[strapper]

Shackleford was indeed washy going to post today but he fooled all the body language people I guess. I threw him out, somewhat reluctantly, when I figured there would be four or five gunning for the lead. Oh well. Congrats to his connections. Since he's by Forestry I can't see him going on the NY (he is out of an Unbridled mare, however).....we'll see. I think it will be a big field in the Belmont, and hopefully, will include Animal Kingdom, Nehro, Dialed In, and others.

[Vinnie]

This horse is very good...I love speed horses with heart...

Congratulations Boss! I too had the Exacta, but, I didn't think that Shackleford would hold on to get the win. He showed a hell of a lot of intestinal fortitude in the race today.

Have a great weekend.

Vinnie :)

[Shemp Howard]

Nifty bit of race riding, as well.

[CryingForTheHorses]

This horse is very good...I love speed horses with heart...


Wow he has a ton of heart..I was waiting for him to fold,Great race,It was all his after the first half.Congrats to his people.

[toussaud]

He always does that. This is a big problem with physicality handicapping. It only works if you know how a horse usually looks, and even then it isn't foolproof.
with all due repsect, that can be said about any form of handicapping.


Heck, we don't even have to use a different example, we can use shackleford. What if you came into this race, concluding that his last 2 races, lhe has gotten the benefit of not so grueling paces, and that because of flashpoint and the track bias (who folded like the braves in the MLB playoffs mind you) he would be exposed.

when shackleford crosses the wire first, would you dismiss the entire premise of pace handicapping? no you would not. sometime stuff happens. that's why it's racing and that's why we love the game so much.


off the top of my head, I can think of a horse that never ever looks good ("blind luck). I can also think of a horse that never looks bad, ever looks bad (blue Chagall). I remember empire maker always was real quirky when he got at the gate, I saw a horse at arlington park yesterday, actually caused me to toss the horse, the 5 horse in one of the turf races, just throw a complete temper tantrum in the paddock, and won basically under wraps at like 4 to 1.

maybe, shackleford was just that much better than the rest of the horses today, anyone ever stop to consider that? just because a horse is off doesn't mean he isn't going to win, if his B game can beat your A game. Zenyatta won plenty of races probably with her C game. If anything he had every reason, every reason to NOT win today and he won.


sway away was just as bad as schckleford was and he's still running lol


People by nature will always try to make cases for why what they do works and why what other people do don't work, but I think this comes from insecurity. YOu have to understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[BetHorses!]

He always does that. This is a big problem with physicality handicapping. It only works if you know how a horse usually looks, and even then it isn't foolproof.


100% agree

Shackle also bobbled at the break

[BetHorses!]

Great call PA :ThmbUp:

[canleakid]

;) TY

[LemonSoupKid]

If Animal Kingdom breaks better, though, guys (let's say to about 7-8th vs. 13th) ... doesn't he stand a much higher shot at passing Shackleford?

I'm not taking anything away from Shackleford. I agree, great picking and reasoning by Pace. One of the lessons is to not take front running derby horses lightly who seem to be around because of trip, command, and less distance traveled. He was game. I had a super that was 10-11-1-5 and 11-1-10-5, but Shackle really gave me the business. I'm not sold that Shackle is the better horse, but it is indeed very close. Great effort.

[elysiantraveller]

If Animal Kingdom breaks better, though, guys (let's say to about 7-8th vs. 13th) ... doesn't he stand a much higher shot at passing Shackleford?

I'm not taking anything away from Shackleford. I agree, great picking and reasoning by Pace. One of the lessons is to not take front running derby horses lightly who seem to be around because of trip, command, and less distance traveled. He was game. I had a super that was 10-11-1-5 and 11-1-10-5, but Shackle really gave me the business. I'm not sold that Shackle is the better horse, but it is indeed very close. Great effort.

Its just the kick-back from turf/synth to dirt. I don't think in most fair playing dirt scenarios he is going to be up on that kind of pace any closer.

[toetoe]

Gary Stevens prerace: "Shackleford is a mess. He will go out too fast."

Gary Stevens postrace: "Shackleford relaxed nicely. Piece of cake."

[Bettowin]

Great call on Shack guys. Didn't think he would win and it cost me big time. Got the exacta and tri once each but if AK gets there it's really enough to play until the end of the world.

[magwell]

Great race, Shack nice colt, he gets hot before all his races {a exception to the rule}......but it looked like JV fell asleep first 1/2 mile JMO......:cool:

[nijinski]

I didn't think he would do it but congrats to those who picked him , I know I saw PA had him .
Not terribly disappointed in AK , he may want more time between races and
he didn't get away that well . he's a versatille horses though .

IMO Shackleford should skip the Belmont , he ran a super race but I'm not
convinced he would be be up to distance .

[RXB]

http://www.drf.com/news/preakness-shackleford-proves-gutsier-more-talented-rivals

However, his {Shackleford's} performance at Churchill Downs seemed to contradict the normal logic of handicapping. He set an extraordinarily slow pace, by Derby standards, which should have left him with reserves of energy after he turned into the stretch with the lead. But he surrendered and faded to finish fourth. Why did he run poorly under seemingly favorable circumstances?

Romans had a theory. “I’m a firm believer,” he said, “that when the pace is slow you keep the closers in the race. The closers flew home in the Derby. But [in the Preakness] they didn’t have the same kick.

I'm a firm believer that 98% of trainers should stick to conditioning horses and leave the handicapping to people who know what they're doing.

I'm also a firm believer that the crack DRF staff seem to have completely missed the fact that Shackleford was running against a rather obvious bias two weeks ago.

[IrishRail76]

He is a damn good horse.



Yes Sir. I know that it's a bad habit, but I get my picks from the prep races. When I saw Shack at the Florida Derby, geeze. This guy was 50-1 and ran wire-to-wire, even though be was beaten at the end by about 4 inches. He went on my list, right there. Paid about $35 to Place.

Yes, his almost-wire-2-wire win was impressive, but, like Soldat, he is one of those horses who just loves to run. I might be wrong, but even in the lead or past the finish, he's hard to slow down. He loves to run. Belmont? I don't know.

PaceAd, you did a fine job with your picks. I had never figured him to Win, I just had him in a W/P/S, but he just kept going.

[BIG49010]

Great call on the winner, I haven't cared much for this horse all winter, he has been washy in all his races and up close he is a rather ackward looking sort.

He reminds me of Skipaway, he has great a heart.

[pandy]

This horse is very good...I love speed horses with heart...

Me too. This horse reminds me of Hard Spun, a speed horse who was a fighter too. If Shackleford stays sound and runs as an older horse he could be a killer sprinter/miler. Hopefully they skip the Belmont and freshened him for the summer.

[nijinski]

Romans needed his Pony to help keep in calm for saddling up along with the two Grooms so Im hearing. Straightened him out I see.

[cj]

with all due repsect, that can be said about any form of handicapping.


Heck, we don't even have to use a different example, we can use shackleford. What if you came into this race, concluding that his last 2 races, lhe has gotten the benefit of not so grueling paces, and that because of flashpoint and the track bias (who folded like the braves in the MLB playoffs mind you) he would be exposed.

when shackleford crosses the wire first, would you dismiss the entire premise of pace handicapping? no you would not. sometime stuff happens. that's why it's racing and that's why we love the game so much.


off the top of my head, I can think of a horse that never ever looks good ("blind luck). I can also think of a horse that never looks bad, ever looks bad (blue Chagall). I remember empire maker always was real quirky when he got at the gate, I saw a horse at arlington park yesterday, actually caused me to toss the horse, the 5 horse in one of the turf races, just throw a complete temper tantrum in the paddock, and won basically under wraps at like 4 to 1.

maybe, shackleford was just that much better than the rest of the horses today, anyone ever stop to consider that? just because a horse is off doesn't mean he isn't going to win, if his B game can beat your A game. Zenyatta won plenty of races probably with her C game. If anything he had every reason, every reason to NOT win today and he won.


sway away was just as bad as schckleford was and he's still running lol


People by nature will always try to make cases for why what they do works and why what other people do don't work, but I think this comes from insecurity. YOu have to understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Well, first off, your premise is wrong. Shackleford came in off of two races where the pace was quite fast once, and honest against a bias the second time.

I'm not knocking physicality handicapping, but I'm saying you can't use it if you don't know the history of the horse in that regard. With pace/speed/class/etc. handicapping, you have it all in front of you in black and white.

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/preakness-shackleford-proves-gutsier-more-talented-rivals

However, his {Shackleford's} performance at Churchill Downs seemed to contradict the normal logic of handicapping. He set an extraordinarily slow pace, by Derby standards, which should have left him with reserves of energy after he turned into the stretch with the lead. But he surrendered and faded to finish fourth. Why did he run poorly under seemingly favorable circumstances?

Romans had a theory. “I’m a firm believer,” he said, “that when the pace is slow you keep the closers in the race. The closers flew home in the Derby. But [in the Preakness] they didn’t have the same kick.

I'm a firm believer that 98% of trainers should stick to conditioning horses and leave the handicapping to people who know what they're doing.

I'm also a firm believer that the crack DRF staff seem to have completely missed the fact that Shackleford was running against a rather obvious bias two weeks ago.

That really is an amazingly bad quote by Romans, and even worse miss by DRF.

[CryingForTheHorses]

This horse is very good...I love speed horses with heart...

After the first half,The race was his.I was waiting for him to fold.Congrats to his conections

[Cardus]

Me too. This horse reminds me of Hard Spun, a speed horse who was a fighter too. If Shackleford stays sound and runs as an older horse he could be a killer sprinter/miler. Hopefully they skip the Belmont and freshened him for the summer.

Don't we want the three-year-olds to run in the Triple Crown classics, especially the horses that win the first two legs (to run in the Belmont Stakes)?

[menifee]

That really is an amazingly bad quote by Romans, and even worse miss by DRF.

I think I know what he means though I don't think it happened to Animal Kingdom or Dialed In. There are certain races where blazing speed can bottom out a field. Usually doesn't happen in G1 races, but on the lower levels. The closers just give up.

[Spalding No!]

http://www.drf.com/news/preakness-shackleford-proves-gutsier-more-talented-rivals

However, his {Shackleford's} performance at Churchill Downs seemed to contradict the normal logic of handicapping. He set an extraordinarily slow pace, by Derby standards, which should have left him with reserves of energy after he turned into the stretch with the lead. But he surrendered and faded to finish fourth. Why did he run poorly under seemingly favorable circumstances?

Did Shackleford run "poorly" in the Derby? Didn't he in fact open back up after being collared by Nehro on the far turn? Couldn't he have simply found the 10f too far at that class level even if he had a favorable setup?

Hopefully that quote from Dale Romans doesn't mean that Shackleford will be going balls out early in the Belmont even without a pace rival, trying to keep the closers out of the race.

[RXB]

Did Shackleford run "poorly" in the Derby? Didn't he in fact open back up after being collared by Nehro on the far turn? Couldn't he have simply found the 10f too far at that class level even if he had a favorable setup?

Hopefully that quote from Dale Romans doesn't mean that Shackleford will be going balls out early in the Belmont even without a pace rival, trying to keep the closers out of the race.

The nominal pace of the Derby was slow. But when a bias really kicks in, it is stronger than pace. The jockeys were taking a good early hold on Derby day, especially in the routes, and still the off-pace animals did well. So Shackleford did run well, even though the fractions were clearly slower than normal. Crist and Beyer seem to have missed that point, which is a bit surprising as they're both sharp guys.

As far as Romans' quote is concerned, when I read it I laughed and thought exactly the same thing that you did. A slow pace mostly benefits horses that would normally prefer a shorter distance, and those horses tend to congregate nearer to the front rather than the back of the field in the early stages since they have greater natural speed.

[Valuist]

What does Shackleford have to do to get respect? Going into the FL Derby, I believe only he and Soldat had wins at 1 1/8 miles. In a race loaded w/speed, he's almost 65-1, puts them all away and gets run down in the final jumps. No question he ran a superior race to Dialed In.

Yet at CD he's over 20-1. Going against a speed killing track as well as a track where the inside 2-3 paths were deep, he holds together for 4th, looking like a winner at the 3/16ths pole. Factoring in the bias, I felt he was the 2nd best horse in the Derby. We've already discussed the so-called "slow pace" which fooled many. If the pace truly was that slow, would Dialed In have been 18 lengths out of it.....and be able to make up 10? Very unlikely.

So they go to Pim and he's 12-1 despite probably being the 2nd best horse in the Derby and going to a distance 110 yards shorter. So he contests a fast pace and has the energy left to hold off the Derby winner. Best horse? Shackleford.

After all this, I wouldn't be shocked to see him 10-1 if he runs in the Belmont. We all know ALL horses bounce :rolleyes: nobody can put another big effort together. :rolleyes: Ask yourself this: how stupid would you feel if Shackleford won the Belmont at odds of 10-1?

[Grits]

I'm sorry, but Midnight Interlude won the Santa Anita Derby at 1 1/8th as well.

Maybe ask yourself, instead. How much longer do I need to keep pressing onward and upward concerned solely with pace.

[Valuist]

I'm sorry, but Midnight Interlude won the Santa Anita Derby at 1 1/8th as well.

Maybe ask yourself, instead. How much longer do I need to keep pressing onward and upward concerned solely with pace.

Midnight Interlude didn't race in the Florida Derby. I said Shackleford and Soldat were the only runners in the Florida Derby with wins at 1 1/8 miles.

I don't focus solely on pace. But in dirt racing, it just happens to be one of the most important factors.

[Spalding No!]

I'm sorry, but Midnight Interlude won the Santa Anita Derby at 1 1/8th as well.

Midnight Interlude didn't run in the Florida Derby.

Maybe ask yourself, instead. How much longer do I need to keep pressing onward and upward concerned solely with pace.

Yep. He should turn his attention towards reading comprehension, too.

[Spalding No!]

After all this, I wouldn't be shocked to see him 10-1 if he runs in the Belmont. We all know ALL horses bounce :rolleyes: nobody can put another big effort together. :rolleyes: Ask yourself this: how stupid would you feel if Shackleford won the Belmont at odds of 10-1?

Somewhat similar to what you describe, Hansel, the beaten Derby favorite in '91, won the Preakness at 7-1 or so by 7 lengths. Despite that, he went off at 4-1 in the Belmont.

A lot of Shackleford's chances in the Belmont hinge on whether or not another sprint-type like Flashpoint enters the Belmont. Maybe Nick Zito or Barry Irwin have a rabbit to pull out of a hat somewhere.

[Grits]

Midnight Interlude didn't race in the Florida Derby. I said Shackleford and Soldat were the only runners in the Florida Derby with wins at 1 1/8 miles.

I don't focus solely on pace. But in dirt racing, it just happens to be one of the most important factors.

I'm mistaken, yes, (and Spaulding, Valuist can read fine, I'm the one that can't.) HE DID SAY THE FLORIDA Derby. I'm sorry, Valuist, I apologize.

[Valuist]

I'm mistaken, yes, (and Spaulding, Valuist can read fine, I'm the one that can't.) HE DID SAY THE FLORIDA Derby. I'm sorry, Valuist, I apologize.

No problem.

[Spalding No!]

(and Spaulding, Valuist can read fine, I'm the one that can't.)

Oh. Do you have a problem detecting sarcasm as well?

[Grits]

Oh. Do you have a problem detecting sarcasm as well?

With sarcasm? Yes I do because generally speaking, I don't anticipate someone trailing behind me with a one liner such as yours, after I've apologized to a poster. Still, thank you for alerting me to your dig.

[Spalding No!]

With sarcasm? Yes I do because generally speaking, I don't anticipate someone trailing behind me with a one liner such as yours, after I've apologized to a poster. Still, thank you for alerting me to your dig.

Don't flatter yourself. I was looking to comment on Valuist's post on Shackleford (you know, the subject of this thread) not yours. But then you made a "correction" that was dead wrong followed up with a complete negation of his post with a cutting and presumptive remark that he only focuses on pace. Sorry if you didn't like being taken to task in turn.

Also, the only apology you had offered at that point was the one where you were sorry that Valuist was so wrong about Midnight Interlude.

[JustRalph]

minutiae makes for an unbecoming argument.

I say we call it square and everybody agree this isn't worth the heartache

[Grits]

Don't flatter yourself. I was looking to comment on Valuist's post on Shackleford (you know, the subject of this thread) not yours. But then you made a "correction" that was dead wrong followed up with a complete negation of his post with a cutting and presumptive remark that he only focuses on pace. Sorry if you didn't like being taken to task in turn.

Also, the only apology you had offered at that point was the one where you were sorry that Valuist was so wrong about Midnight Interlude.

The only apology I offered? When might you have been given the ability to read my mind? You don't have such an ability, not to read mine or anyone else's here. Sorry, if I don't agree the primary focus in racing is dependent upon pace, and if I believe it, I'll say it, just like everyone here doesn't mind stating their own opinions. Will I apologize for this, or state I negated someone's post? I don't think so. This is your own mistaken and negative opinion.

The one who should be apologizing here is yourself, with your unnecessary remark directed at me in an exchange that in no way involved you. I made the mistake, and I readily, and immediately, apologized to Valuist, and sincerely so. The only thing you were looking for was a blatant hurry to speak for him, which you're still doing. You're doing nothing more than hammering something that was misunderstood by me, while being straighten out between he and myself. Is there a particular reason you're still speaking for this man? No one here is in need of help speaking for themselves.

Ralph is right. And this is over nothing. Again, I apologized and Valuist accepted my apology which was the gracious thing to do. It was wrong of you to involve yourself, I'm sorry you did so.