follow up to Elysian Traveller quote..

[JPinMaryland]

again from a now closed thread but this was interesting:

"If you buy the fact that there was a negative inside bias affecting the pace in the derby, which a lot people here do, then Animal Kingdom ran essentially the exact same race in the Preakness as he did in the Derby.

A pace in the Derby in the 1:11 neighborhood puts him back 15 lengths and essentially the same setup as he had in the Preakness. This is just simple comparison's between what was widely accepted to be a fair track (Preakness) and an unfair track (Derby).

Hence my point that on a fair surface the kickback is going to always leave Animal Kingdom with a lot of work to do. He certainly can win the Belmont, but at anything between 8-10f on dirt I think he will be exposed as a one run closer."

First of all it makes an excellent pt. on how we view bias; most people here were saying that the track was biased to late speed, or some such, however, ET makes the pt. that it was more like a dead rail.

Not sure it is possible to separate these two concepts: dead rail, late speed, if one or the other or both is a factor it might be very difficult to discern the difference. I am more of the dead rail opinion but I think one would really have to watch the maintenance of the track and have some sort of historical perspective on the Ky derby to get any sort of objective analysis.

To me it makes me think of Damascus sort of hanging in the '67 derby, or Little Current's wide run in '75 or Giacamo/Afleet Alex a few years ago.

the other pt. I was thinking about was this:

What if Borel had Animal Kingdom this year? Would it make a difference?

Be interested in what others think.

[Dahoss9698]

If Borel was on Animal Kingdom he wouldn't have won the Derby IMO. Velazquez rode him perfectly in the Derby and Preakness. He couldn't have done anymore than he did.

The horse was good enough at CHurchill and 2nd best at Pimlico.

[JPinMaryland]

yeah but wouldnt he have made a better run at him from up the rail?

[Dahoss9698]

I'm confused by what you are asking. Are you talking about the Derby or Preakness?

IMO Velazquez rode two perfect races. He did everything right in both races.

Borel, despite what is said on the internet isn't some magician on horseback.

[gm10]

I'm confused by what you are asking. Are you talking about the Derby or Preakness?

IMO Velazquez rode two perfect races. He did everything right in both races.

Borel, despite what is said on the internet isn't some magician on horseback.

It baffles me that anyone would call JR's Preakness ride 'perfect'. It wasn't exactly a disaster, but it certainly wasn't of the level that I expect from an elite jockey.

[JPinMaryland]

for the record, I was talking about the Preakness since that was the race were AK came up a bit short. of course Astrology was doing pretty good for most of the trip along the rail, but I guess something would have opened up at the top of the stretch...

[FenceBored]

Borel, despite what is said on the internet isn't some magician on horseback.


Traveled the globe? - Check.
Amazed the 'crowned heads of Europe' (and Asia)? - Check.
Uncanny ability to escape being boxed in? - Check.

Sorry, that looks like the Great Borel-dini is indeed a magician on horseback.




:)

[theguarantee]

It baffles me that anyone would call JR's Preakness ride 'perfect'. It wasn't exactly a disaster, but it certainly wasn't of the level that I expect from an elite jockey.

His ride in the Derby, I agree, was completely perfect. So tactful and patient...I know we hate to give jockeys too much credit around here and I agree, but you can't ask for more in the 20 horse stampede in my opinion.

I just went back and re-watched the Preakness and I can't find any type of fault with JR? He used some tactical zip just prior to turning for home, got in position, made an unbelievably smooth move to angle out, and simply didn't have enough horse to get past Shackle.
Unless you're faulting him for having AK too far back, which I find dubious....it's actually amazing how clean his trip was after the start considering he was in behind a wall of horses, JR got him clear without having to do anything abrupt.

[gm10]

His ride in the Derby, I agree, was completely perfect. So tactful and patient...I know we hate to give jockeys too much credit around here and I agree, but you can't ask for more in the 20 horse stampede in my opinion.

I just went back and re-watched the Preakness and I can't find any type of fault with JR? He used some tactical zip just prior to turning for home, got in position, made an unbelievably smooth move to angle out, and simply didn't have enough horse to get past Shackle.
Unless you're faulting him for having AK too far back, which I find dubious....it's actually amazing how clean his trip was after the start considering he was in behind a wall of horses, JR got him clear without having to do anything abrupt.

I think he kept AK too far off the leaders. They were going 24+ fractions, and not exactly duelling. My guess is that he (correctly) felt that the opening quarter had been quick, and therefore assumed that the pace would stay honest, and from then on became too focused on Dialed In.

[Dahoss9698]

It baffles me that anyone would call JR's Preakness ride 'perfect'. It wasn't exactly a disaster, but it certainly wasn't of the level that I expect from an elite jockey.

It's okay, your "opinion" baffles me daily.

Animal Kingdom was 2nd best in the Preakness. When he came to Shackleford, Shackleford re-broke. Yes, they slowed it down a bit, but had Velazquez asked earlier, his run would have been compromised late.

I'm not the biggest Velazquez fan, but he rode two very good races. He just got beat by a better horse in the Preakness.

[thaskalos]

IMO...JV made the same mistake that the vast majority of the handicappers - PA EXCLUDED - made; he thought that Animal Kingdom was tons the best going in...and rode him as such.

And, looking at the Derby...who could blame him?

Yes, he kept the horse further back than usual...but the pace figured to be much faster than the Derby's - and it was.

Other than the fact that Shackleford chose to save his best for the Preakness...I would say JV's assessment of the race was quite accurate.

As Beyer would say..."it was another wonderful testament of the uncertainty in this game."

[elysiantraveller]

Other than the fact that Shackleford chose to save his best for the Preakness...I would say JV's assessment of the race was quite accurate.

OR...

Shackleford's chances were severely compromised in the Derby.

[thaskalos]

OR...

Shackleford's chances were severely compromised in the Derby.
Debatable...

[Sugar Ron]

Velazquez must've thought he was on Zenyatta.

A real big-race jock (like a McCarron back in the day) would've found a way to get AK into the winner's circle...

[Dahoss9698]

Velazquez must've thought he was on Zenyatta.

A real big-race jock (like a McCarron back in the day) would've found a way to get AK into the winner's circle...

This pretty much confirms how well Velazquez rode. Thanks one trick pony.

[Sugar Ron]

Thanks

No problem

I enjoy separating the winners from the chokers...

[riskman]

No problem

I enjoy separating the winners from the chokers...

Are you requesting a Heimlich maneuver ?

[Dahoss9698]

No problem

I enjoy making a fool of myself...

FTFY

[gm10]

IMO...JV made the same mistake that the vast majority of the handicappers - PA EXCLUDED - made; he thought that Animal Kingdom was tons the best going in...and rode him as such.

And, looking at the Derby...who could blame him?

Yes, he kept the horse further back than usual...but the pace figured to be much faster than the Derby's - and it was.

Other than the fact that Shackleford chose to save his best for the Preakness...I would say JV's assessment of the race was quite accurate.

As Beyer would say..."it was another wonderful testament of the uncertainty in this game."

It wasn't a fast pace. A first quarter of 22.7 does not equate fast pace, especially when the next two quarters go in 24.2 and 25.1. Combined, they form a false pace. I'm not 100% sure JV SHOULD have noticed, but I am sure that a few other jockey's WOULD have noticed.

[Dahoss9698]

It wasn't a fast pace. A first quarter of 22.7 does not equate fast pace, especially when the next two quarters go in 24.2 and 25.1. Combined, they form a false pace. I'm not 100% sure JV SHOULD have noticed, but I am sure that a few other jockey's WOULD have noticed.

What should he have done though? It's not like AK is push button and had he asked earlier I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been able to sustain the run. It's not a video game.

He got beat by a better horse that day.

[gm10]

What should he have done though? It's not like AK is push button and had he asked earlier I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been able to sustain the run. It's not a video game.

He got beat by a better horse that day.

That's your opinion.

JV should have given the horse a smarter ride. Being 5 lengths closer to the pace would not have made him go 5 lengths slower in the final half mile.

[Dahoss9698]

That's your opinion.

JV should have given the horse a smarter ride. Being 5 lengths closer to the pace would not have made him go 5 lengths slower in the final half mile.

Smarter ride....:lol:

Never right and never in doubt.

[gm10]

Smarter ride....:lol:

Never right and never in doubt.

You, on the other hand, never get it wrong. You just blame the racing schedule that day :D.

[Dahoss9698]

You, on the other hand, never get it wrong. You just blame the racing schedule that day :D.

Was this a comeback?

[Sugar Ron]

If AK is good enough to overcome his competition (and his overrated rider) and win this next one at the REAL classic distance, the failed Triple Crown bid will be ALL on Velazquez...

[raybo]

I don't have all the answers to why AK didn't get up to win, but I'm pretty sure that had Pat Day, or one of the other great "internal clock" riders, been on AK, the result, quite possibly, would have been reversed.

With the shorter distance, vs the Derby, and only a so-so early pace, you can't let a closer get too far back before you make your move, unless the closer is a "monster".

AK may have felt like running the early race that he did, who knows, but at some point the jockey has to decide if the horse is where he needs to be or not, and he has to make that decision before it's too late to do anything about it.

With the pace slow down, after the 1st quarter, in the Preakness, and Shack being able to run comfortably up front, he had enough left to hold off a closing AK, and I'm not too sure the extra 1/16th would have been enough to reverse it, with the pace that existed early.

Lots of pace 'cappers did not allow for the possibility of the pace not being as fast as they, or their software, predicted it would be, me included. I expected the pace to continue after the 1st quarter, when it didn't I knew things wouldn't turn out the way I thought they would.

Pace is fickle, one has to take into account that it might not be what it looks to be and have a backup just in case. I did not have a backup, as I hardly ever have more than 1 horse to win, but if I were a win bettor, you can be sure I would make that a priority.

Glad I didn't wager on the race.

[Dahoss9698]

If AK is good enough to overcome his competition (and his overrated rider) and win this next one at the REAL classic distance, the failed Triple Crown bid will be ALL on Velazquez...

Serious question....when is the last time you bet on a horse race?

[Sugar Ron]

Serious question....when is the last time you bet on a horse race?

Please try to stay on topic

They hit the 6f mark in a moderate 1:12 ... and Velaz still had no less than eleven runners in front of him.

Who the hell did he think he was on ... Forego???

[cj]

Please try to stay on topic

They hit the 6f mark in a moderate 1:12 ... and Velaz still had no less than eleven runners in front of him.

Who the hell did he think he was on ... Forego???

1:12 was moderate compared to what?

[Dahoss9698]

Please try to stay on topic

They hit the 6f mark in a moderate 1:12 ... and Velaz still had no less than eleven runners in front of him.

Who the hell did he think he was on ... Forego???

Does the year at least start with a 2? Come on, you can admit it.

[gm10]

1:12 was moderate compared to what?

There is 1:12 and there is 1:12. In this case they got out ultra-quick and then went a slow half mile. That is a lot more benign to the leaders than running 23.6 24 and 24.4 per quarter. It allowed Shack to take a serious breather.

[raybo]

There is 1:12 and there is 1:12. In this case they got out ultra-quick and then went a slow half mile. That is a lot more benign to the leaders than running 23.6 24 and 24.4 per quarter. It allowed Shack to take a serious breather.

Agreed, the faster 1st quarter allowed a slower 2nd and 3rd, and enables the 1:12 to be considered, at this level, conservative.

[cj]

There is 1:12 and there is 1:12. In this case they got out ultra-quick and then went a slow half mile. That is a lot more benign to the leaders than running 23.6 24 and 24.4 per quarter. It allowed Shack to take a serious breather.

I agree, it wasn't an "even" 1:12. I'm mostly talking for that distance and that track speed, how do the fractions relate.

I had the 1/2 at 127 Beyer scale, very fast. I had the 3/4 at 110, which is about average for the Preakness but is still quick for these horses. I have the finish at a 99. They finished very slow. It isn't like the leader flew home, and AK still couldn't get up.

If you break those down by fractions, you get this:

1/2: 127
1/2 to 3/4: 76
3/4 to finish: 80

I wouldn't give much credit to any horse outside those that ran during the 127 and stuck around late, which numbers exactly one I believe.

[Tom]

This is why I say it is a bad crop - this year, normal figs are considered fast.

[cj]

Agreed, the faster 1st quarter allowed a slower 2nd and 3rd, and enables the 1:12 to be considered, at this level, conservative.

At this level historically, yes, but for this this group of horses, not so much. It is as bad a crop as I have seen and I'm not one to call crops weak.

[Sugar Ron]

Fine work, gm10 and raybo

As expected, AK was game. Unfortunately, his little (overrated) partner had some difficulty handling the PRESSURE...

[toetoe]

Fine work, gm10 and raybo

As expected, AK was game. Unfortunately, his little (overrated) partner had some difficulty handling the PRESSURE...



Explain yourself.

[maddog42]

That's your opinion.

JV should have given the horse a smarter ride. Being 5 lengths closer to the pace would not have made him go 5 lengths slower in the final half mile.

This is not one of your better quotes. It would have cost him something. This is an almost universal law of pace handicapping. How could you or anyone else know what it would have cost him? My guess would have been a minimum of 2 lengths.

[raybo]

This is not one of your better quotes. It would have cost him something. This is an almost universal law of pace handicapping. How could you or anyone else know what it would have cost him? My guess would have been a minimum of 2 lengths.

Yes, I agree it would have cost him something late, but a very slight increase after the 1st quarter would probably have put him slightly closer to the leader by the stretch run. If memory serves he lost by only 3/4 length or so.

Now, I stated in my earlier post that I'm not sure that being closer down the stretch would have reversed the win/place order, but I'm relatively sure that being that far back, at the distance of the race, lessened his chances of winning the race.

[cj]

This is not one of your better quotes. It would have cost him something. This is an almost universal law of pace handicapping. How could you or anyone else know what it would have cost him? My guess would have been a minimum of 2 lengths.

It all depends. When was he going to move up that five lengths? Was he going to do it very quickly, or gradually?

Positions are generally established during the first call. If he moved then, it obviously would have cost him a lot. If he moved later when the pace slowed down, it still costs a lot because for one he he already run part of the race, and two, this isn't Gallop Racer. You can't just suddenly move a horse five lengths closer then ease off without costing the horse a lot of energy. Even when the pace had slowed down, to gain five lengths would at that time would have hurt.

[Sugar Ron]

Explain yourself.

Shirley

Velazquez CHOKED.

[maddog42]

It all depends. When was he going to move up that five lengths? Was he going to do it very quickly, or gradually?

Positions are generally established during the first call. If he moved then, it obviously would have cost him a lot. If he moved later when the pace slowed down, it still costs a lot because for one he he already run part of the race, and two, this isn't Gallop Racer. You can't just suddenly move a horse five lengths closer then ease off without costing the horse a lot of energy. Even when the pace had slowed down, to gain five lengths would at that time would have hurt.

Well we agree on a couple of things. My usual opinion would be that 3/4 length in a horse race is nothing. I think an optimum perfect ride, might have gotten ak the win. It might not. Ak certainly didn't get a bad one. This was a close damn race with ak coming on at the end. Very tough to blame the jockey.

[maddog42]

That's your opinion.

JV should have given the horse a smarter ride. Being 5 lengths closer to the pace would not have made him go 5 lengths slower in the final half mile.

My research in to the fulcrum effect leads me to believe, it would have cost him 5 lengths. Just not always. Closers and deep closers respond a little differently to pace than E or P. We have all seen the phenomenon where an E horse is forced to run 3 lengths faster than normal to second call and falls completely apart. As related to 3rd fraction a sustained closer will often lose exactly what he gained from stalking a faster pace. I know this from using the Phase 1 program from Pace Makes the Race. The reason I use often, is some horses enjoy a distance increase and these things are often not linear.

[gm10]

This is not one of your better quotes. It would have cost him something. This is an almost universal law of pace handicapping. How could you or anyone else know what it would have cost him? My guess would have been a minimum of 2 lengths.

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I know it would have cost him something, just not 5. I'm guessing, based on his previous races, it would have cost him between 1-2 lengths.

[maddog42]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I know it would have cost him something, just not 5. I'm guessing, based on his previous races, it would have cost him between 1-2 lengths.
This is one of the fundamental questions of Pace handicapping. If you or me could answer it 3 times out of 5 we would probably be rich. I respect your Opinion, but I believe it would cost him a minimum of 2 and probably 5 or more.
Jim Bradshaw of Match-up fame said an early horse would lose 2 for every lengths he was forced to go faster. I believe we both agree that closers are Less sensitive to pace pressure, but you are forcing a horse to be closer to the lead than he wants. Pincay used to say the first fraction belongs to the horse.
I was actually being very conservative saying it would cost him a minimum of 2 lengths.

[cj]

This is one of the fundamental questions of Pace handicapping. If you or me could answer it 3 times out of 5 we would probably be rich. I respect your Opinion, but I believe it would cost him a minimum of 2 and probably 5 or more.
Jim Bradshaw of Match-up fame said an early horse would lose 2 for every lengths he was forced to go faster. I believe we both agree that closers are Less sensitive to pace pressure, but you are forcing a horse to be closer to the lead than he wants. Pincay used to say the first fraction belongs to the horse.
I was actually being very conservative saying it would cost him a minimum of 2 lengths.

That is the whole point really. Just how was he going to suddenly keep him five lengths closer. Was he going to push faster early (bad), make a middle move while the pace was slow to gain five lengths (again, bad, very bad actually), or just accelerate his cruising speed a bit for 1/2 a mile or so (sketchy)? None of this is set in stone, but to think keeping him 5 lengths closer would only cost him a length or two seems off to me in any of those scenarios.

[raybo]

There appears to be, basically, 3 belief groups, in players, regarding pace.

One group seems to think that the horse succeeds only when he/she is allowed to run how and where it wants, speed-wise or positionally. "The horse runs the race, the jockey is just along for the ride".

The 2nd group seems to think that, for a horse to be successful, the horse runs the 1st quarter or so, and then the jockey must help the horse decide where he/she should be, speed-wise and positionally. "The 1st fraction belongs to the horse".

And then we have the 3rd group that seems to think that, for the horse to be successful, the jockey must be responsible for where the horse should be, speed-wise and positionally, for the entire race. "The jockey is the captain of the ship".

Personally, I believe that if the player believes any of these 3 philosophies, bull-headedly, that player is falling into a trap that he/she won't be able to escape.

Let me present a 4th group. That group, me included, thinks that the jockey must have the ability to gauge, both, the horse's "need for speed", or lack thereof, and, the ability to gauge the pace as being too slow or too fast for this horse's capabilities. He also must have the guts to go against the trainer's pre-race instructions, as situations dictate.

There are poor jockeys, good jockeys , and, great jockeys. There are horses that must run their own race, others that need a little help, and, others that need a lot of help.

The great jockey makes the correct decision, as to how much control he/she must exert on the horse, most of the time. The good jockeys make correct decisions, of this nature, some of the time, and the poor jockeys make correct decisions rarely.

All this adds up to the dilemma we, as handicappers, must face every time we play. We must be able to recognize each horse's "needs", regarding pace and position, and we must be able to know if the jockey can make the correct decisions or not. The combination of these 2 abilities, IMO, will decide if the handicapper is successful enough, with his handicapping, to allow him/her to have a chance at being successful.

Would AK have won with a more skillful ride? I think so, "unless" Shack just had too much left.

We'll never know that one, unfortunately. But then, that's the nature of our game, we will never know what would have happened, with a different scenario, because each race is only run once.