Justify

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

There Derby has not changed appreciably since Storm Cat began siring contenders. Storm Cat does not apply in the 1937 renewal of the Derby. Unfortunately, in horse racing we deal with smaller sample sizes than card sharks in Vegas. I gotta play with what I have.

Is the slowing pace perception or reality?

1997 23.57 47.55 112.23
1998 22.75 45.75 110.62
1999 23.52 47.88 112.52
2000 22.47 45.99 109.99

2014 23.04 47.37 111.80
2015 23.24 47.34 111.29
2016 22.58 45.72 110.40
2017 22.70 46.53 111.12

I don't see much difference. Do you? We still have speed balls like Danzing Candy that find a way to make the gate.

Well we used to have speedballs who became sprint champions or won the Breeders' Cup Sprint, like Coaltown, Groovy, and Trinniburg, in the race. We don't have those anymore.

And in your small sample I see two sub-46 halfs in 1997-2000 and only one in the last 4 years.

At any rate, the big problem isn't simply a matter of "how much the Derby has changed?". The big problem is more glaring.

Go to a roulette wheel in Las Vegas sometime. Look at the screen with the past winners, and I GUARANTEE you that over 50 spins or so you can discern some sorts of "patterns" or "tendencies" of the wheel. You know why? Because that's how variance works. Things that are actually random seem like they have patterns.

There's nothing magical about the Storm Cat line that would make a horse able to perform in any other race other than going 1 1/4 miles on the first Saturday in May. What's the theory here? That Storm Cats are bad in 20 horse fields? That Storm Cats run better against older horses than they do against 3 year olds? That Storm Cats can't carry 126 pounds?

Have you analyzed whether Storm Cat has produced any seconds or thirds or fourths in the Derby? That's often an indicator that a theory is bogus-- for instance, people who swear that inexperienced horses can't win the Derby need to explain how Curlin almost won it (and would have won it had Calvin Borel not gotten through on the rail!).

Without a theory, the most likely explanation for ANY Derby "statistic" is random chance. Two years ago, I cashed pretty big on Exaggerator in the Preakness after a lot of people here told me that Derby runners up don't win the Preakness. Statistically they didn't. But there's no mechanism that explains why that would be.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Unfortunately, in horse racing we deal with smaller sample sizes than card sharks in Vegas. I gotta play with what I have.

I think this is worth highlighting, because it is telling. If you don't have enough data to conclude something, the response shouldn't be to calculate it anyway and hope it turns out to be correct and relevant. The imperative isn't to come up with something and gamble-- it's to come up with good data that actually allows you to make advantage plays.

If you tell me that in 100 runnings of a race, a gray or a gelding has never won it, I don't go looking through the past performances and crossing off grays and geldings. That's not looking for an edge.

You need good data. I have enormous respect for some of the people here who strive to come up with good data. But unfortunately, the handicapping angles that treat the Derby as a special race unique from any other races are almost certainly unsupported by good data.

I have also read years back Storm Cat was something like 1 for 128 at 10F in all races.

I forgot to address this. Just off the top of my head, I came up with Tobasco Cat (who won two thirds of the triple crown!) and Giants Causeway as Storm Cats who had plenty of stamina and could easily get 1 1/4 miles. I am sure there are others.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well we used to have speedballs who became sprint champions or won the Breeders' Cup Sprint, like Coaltown, Groovy, and Trinniburg, in the race. We don't have those anymore.

And in your small sample I see two sub-46 halfs in 1997-2000 and only one in the last 4 years.

At any rate, the big problem isn't simply a matter of "how much the Derby has changed?". The big problem is more glaring.

Go to a roulette wheel in Las Vegas sometime. Look at the screen with the past winners, and I GUARANTEE you that over 50 spins or so you can discern some sorts of "patterns" or "tendencies" of the wheel. You know why? Because that's how variance works. Things that are actually random seem like they have patterns.

There's nothing magical about the Storm Cat line that would make a horse able to perform in any other race other than going 1 1/4 miles on the first Saturday in May. What's the theory here? That Storm Cats are bad in 20 horse fields? That Storm Cats run better against older horses than they do against 3 year olds? That Storm Cats can't carry 126 pounds?

Have you analyzed whether Storm Cat has produced any seconds or thirds or fourths in the Derby? That's often an indicator that a theory is bogus-- for instance, people who swear that inexperienced horses can't win the Derby need to explain how Curlin almost won it (and would have won it had Calvin Borel not gotten through on the rail!).

Without a theory, the most likely explanation for ANY Derby "statistic" is random chance. Two years ago, I cashed pretty big on Exaggerator in the Preakness after a lot of people here told me that Derby runners up don't win the Preakness. Statistically they didn't. But there's no mechanism that explains why that would be.

I think quite a few of us hit Exaggerator in the Preakness. Really was a shame when the track came up sloppy

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by jocko699

I think quite a few of us hit Exaggerator in the Preakness. Really was a shame when the track came up sloppy

Yep. And "horse who has previously had a couple of smashing wins on off track is likely to run well again on the slop" is a handicapping angle with A LOT of data behind it.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is worth highlighting, because it is telling. If you don't have enough data to conclude something, the response shouldn't be to calculate it anyway and hope it turns out to be correct and relevant. The imperative isn't to come up with something and gamble-- it's to come up with good data that actually allows you to make advantage plays.

I have the data. Are you suggesting breeding is meaningless? Storm Cat 0-51. Raise A Native was 18-155 through 2012 and added American Pharoah and Always Dreaming since. If you want to chalk the success of Raise A Native to random chance then be my guest. That's why we have wagering windows.

Originally Posted by dilanesp

If you tell me that in 100 runnings of a race, a gray or a gelding has never won it, I don't go looking through the past performances and crossing off grays and geldings. That's not looking for an edge.

Grays have had plenty of success finding the winners circle at classic distance (and at times great odds like Giacomo) so there is nothing to contend here. Monarchos was gray and by the Raise A Native line. Now, if someone says a legit contender has no shot from the "cursed" 17 hole then I'd be happy to beg to differ given winners from just inside and outside that post.

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You need good data. I have enormous respect for some of the people here who strive to come up with good data. But unfortunately, the handicapping angles that treat the Derby as a special race unique from any other races are almost certainly unsupported by good data.

Angles used for the Derby can be applied to the Preakness and Belmont with good success. Some even translate to the Breeders Cup. I've used Derby angles to come up with upsets in the prep races. I enjoy the Derby but my wagering experience encompasses much of the prep season. Angles are just that. They are not the be all end all. Would I be stunned if a horse like Justify wins the Derby? No. I'm just not taking him at 6-1 in a future pool off a maiden and short allowance win. If he does get a bona fide 9F prep and lands the numbers I like then I might even jump on the bandwagon. Seven out of 10 Derby winners including the last six renewals were a horse that ran a final 3/8th in 37.6 or less. It makes sense. In general, you gotta have a gear at 9F if you're gonna survive 10F. Or you can be like Andrew Beyer and pick the horse with the best BSF and be oh fer infinity... well, maybe Big Brown pulled it off.

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I forgot to address this. Just off the top of my head, I came up with Tobasco Cat (who won two thirds of the triple crown!) and Giants Causeway as Storm Cats who had plenty of stamina and could easily get 1 1/4 miles. I am sure there are others.

Maybe that's the one. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Of course, Pat Day was an angle in and of himself back in those days.

[CincyHorseplayer]

How about any bloodline not Raise a Native or Nasrullah?

All the Nearctics(Northern Dancer) since 1970(48 years) have only won 4 Derbies.

The Royal Chargers have only won 4 as well. But this is not nearly a world acclaimed line like Northern Dancer.

The Nasrullah line while winning 7 of 10 during the 70's before fading and only winning 2 from 1980 to 2010. But since 2011 have won 4 of the last 7.

The Raise a Native and 3 sons of Nearco lines have accounted for 40 of 48 wins. With 19 for Raise A Native and 13 for Nasrullah.

I think the Nasrullah ine is resurging but it still has a ways to go. Since 1990 the RAN's have won 16 of 28(57%).

Just for giggles Charismatic traces back to Storm Cat's sire Storm Bird! But the complete futility of such a powerful line like ND is negatively impressive.

[f2tornado]

The three most recent non Raise A Native, Nyquist, Chrome, and Orb all had Buckpasser in the x. It’s a small sample size but Buckpasser-x horses have hit the Derby exacta about 50% of the time they close well in a 9F prep. Bluegrass Cat was one Storm Cat that did well by hitting the place pool beaten by Barbaro. Bluegrass Cat had Buckpasser-x.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Pat Day was an angle in and of himself back in those days.

Yes.
I particularly liked the Pat Day/Unbridled angle.

Pat Day gave Unbridled one of the worst rides ever
seen on a racehorse in the 1990 Fountain of Youth.
From then on, it was Craig Perret in the saddle.
The rest is history........

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Yes.
I particularly liked the Pat Day/Unbridled angle.

Pat Day gave Unbridled one of the worst rides ever
seen on a racehorse in the 1990 Fountain of Youth.
From then on, it was Craig Perret in the saddle.
The rest is history........

Not quite. Pat Day subbed for Perret, gave Unbridled an amazing ride from post 14, and won the 1990 Breeders' Cup Classic at 8 to 1 or so.

[PowerUpPaynter]

In a year where I was lucky enough to secure futures bets off shore late last summer of Bolt at 200-1, Solomini at 150-1, and McKinzie at 85-1 of course the Apollo curse is gonna get broken just to shove it up my ass one more time... Fml

[Musket Man]

New member of the forum, so take it easy on the new guy. Kidding aside, one of the first things I do look for with colts on the TC trail is the RAN sire line.

The proven success, recently, is well documented. Obviously, as many have mentioned, there are other factors that I use as well, but colts w/RAN sire line get extra attention, especially w/Buckpasser in the X.

I'm totally aware of the Storm Cat sire line, Apollo and the lack of foundation relative to Justify. Most handicappers will agree. This colt is certainly "up against it" from that perspective.

With that, Justify passes the eye test to this point. Will he pass it next out? We will soon find out. I have no reason to believe that he won't, but again, that is why they run the races.

Training and the methods to get to CD on the first Saturday in May have changed as well. We can save that argument for another day.

I look forward to adding my 2 cents in the forum going forward. I'm glad I found the site.

Shout out to f2tornado as I reside in North Dakota as well.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by Musket Man

New member of the forum....I reside in North Dakota as well.

Welcome. I look forward to reading everyone's insight here. As you can see, we don't always agree but that's how we get odds in the game we play. I agree, Justify meets the eye test, for now. Storm Cat horses tend to mature a little faster which might be one reason they look sharp early on the trail only to come up short later. I recently moved to Bismarck from Williston. Got that changed.

[PowerUpPaynter]

Originally Posted by Musket Man

New member of the forum, so take it easy on the new guy. Kidding aside, one of the first things I do look for with colts on the TC trail is the RAN sire line.

The proven success, recently, is well documented. Obviously, as many have mentioned, there are other factors that I use as well, but colts w/RAN sire line get extra attention, especially w/Buckpasser in the X.

I'm totally aware of the Storm Cat sire line, Apollo and the lack of foundation relative to Justify. Most handicappers will agree. This colt is certainly "up against it" from that perspective.

With that, Justify passes the eye test to this point. Will he pass it next out? We will soon find out. I have no reason to believe that he won't, but again, that is why they run the races.

Training and the methods to get to CD on the first Saturday in May have changed as well. We can save that argument for another day.

I look forward to adding my 2 cents in the forum going forward. I'm glad I found the site.

Shout out to f2tornado as I reside in North Dakota as well.

Musket Man was one of my all time favs. Brought it every time.

[exactatom]

I look at Justify as I did Curlin? Both unraced at 2 year olds and appear to be loaded with talent.

However, Curlin ran in two Derby preps, the Rebel and the Arkansas Derby. Justify will be facing quality competition only once.

However, when the Derby came around Curlin just did not get the job done. He improved from the Derby to the Preakness and took off from there.

Call me a traditionalist (no, I do not mean the curse), rather I believe that horses need a strong foundation to go 10 furlongs in May of their 3 year old year. You simply do not get this foundation by workouts. I think trainers do not test these young horses nearly enough.

While most of this has to do with breeding more for speed than stamina, some if it has to do with the trainers simply running and working horses less. It is rare now to find a mile work, when it used to be common place.

It struck my eye last Breeders Cup when a horse had run 10 times before one of the juvenile races.

I guess my conclusion is that I just feel Justify does not have the foundation to get 10 furlongs in Louisville on Cinco de Mayo.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

The three most recent non Raise A Native, Nyquist, Chrome, and Orb all had Buckpasser in the x. It’s a small sample size but Buckpasser-x horses have hit the Derby exacta about 50% of the time they close well in a 9F prep. Bluegrass Cat was one Storm Cat that did well by hitting the place pool beaten by Barbaro. Bluegrass Cat had Buckpasser-x.

Nyquist, Chrome, and Orb were all from the Nasrullah line. 2 being the AP Indy branch. I think this line will put up some competition for the RAN line even though there isn't much from it this year. These things change abruptly. In the 1950's the Bay Ronald line dominated. By the end of the 60's it never won another Derby again. The Nasrullah line largely through Bold Ruler descendants dominated the 1970's before going on a lengthy hiatus. The RAN line didn't really come into it's own til the descendants of Mr Prospector started to take hold. This could fade at any given time too.