Head-scratcher at Parx

[cj]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

You are in error, the opening 1/4 was :22.1, the 1/2 in :46.2 and the 5/8 in 1:00, and this is a MSW finishing in 1:13.3.....guess that's what you get from PA-bred races.

Anyone watching the 1970's Parx graphics can be excused for not seeing fractions clearly.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by cj

Anyone watching the 1970's Parx graphics can be excused for not seeing fractions clearly.

Since smoking is not allowed at most places, there's no nicotine stained monitors to cloud your vision.....Should be crystal clear, no?....

[horseplayer]

There is quite bit of claiming going on at Parx and these horses seem to pay big while the race that Thaskolos pointed out - the was not exactly to be ruled out based upon the company in previous races but was claimed in next to last race.

My point is that a lot of these claims don't look strong on paper but the trainer has seen something to halter the horse - ex is 10/14 Parx race the horse Caniform was claimed next to last race and wins - only this time it is $42.00

Horses claimed within last 2 or 3 races back and quoted at big odds have to be looked at carefully especially at Parx - more so if they look bad on paper.

BTW - today race Parx - Howard Brown is running another horse that he claimed in the next to last race the Stay West 30 - 1.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Tell me...if YOU were making a betting line for this race, what price would you list the at?

Wrong question.



I said I probably would not be interesting in betting it at short odds, but at the same time , don't have the hubris to claim I know what the price should be.



Too much going on under the hood here to know that .




Folks make too much of setting odds lines with only a fraction of the information needed.

[Tom]

The line I made was

2-1
5-2
9-2

The race looked like a Cramer "When Wife and Lover boh show up race."

and were the primary contenders and I played a two horse box, then a /.

No straight bets at the odds.
Was tempted to bet the but the lower odds on the made me pretty sure he was the one.

The drop into restricted claimers was the key - stranger danger in these kinds of races.

[Maximillion]

the head scratcher track for me ued to be Parx.....but now I think its Thistledowns.
Odd rides,odd betting,races unfolding in strange ways....maybe Im just doing a bad job of handicapping it,wondering if anyone else is seeing the same thing?

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

You are in error, the opening 1/4 was :22.1, the 1/2 in :46.2 and the 5/8 in 1:00, and this is a MSW finishing in 1:13.3.....guess that's what you get from PA-bred races.

What you get with such fractions in such a slow final is a set-up for closers.
Just look at the video replay of this race and you will see the early pace horses crawling like snails in the stretch - easy prey for the closer who was just crawling a little faster. Just an optical illusion of a "huge late kick". If this is typical of Pa.-breds, it is what it is. Doesn't violate the laws of Physics and Equine Bioenergetics.

.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

Anyone watching the 1970's Parx graphics can be excused for not seeing fractions clearly.

The video relay was clear enough to show, and the fractions and laws of Equine Bioenergetics clearly indicate that this was a bunch of slow horses trying to set a pace that they could not sustain. No surprises here.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

the head scratcher track for me ued to be Parx.....but now I think its Thistledowns.
Odd rides,odd betting,races unfolding in strange ways....maybe Im just doing a bad job of handicapping it,wondering if anyone else is seeing the same thing?

Just take into account the crazy odds and bone head rides and the results start to make a lot more sense.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

The video relay was clear enough to show, and the fractions and laws of Equine Bioenergetics clearly indicate that this was a bunch of slow horses trying to set a pace that they could not sustain. No surprises here.

I'm just joking. He was correcting you on your "21 and change" when it fact it was 22 1/5. Doesn't really change much else, the race fell apart.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

What you get with such fractions in such a slow final is a set-up for closers.
Just look at the video replay of this race and you will see the early pace horses crawling like snails in the stretch - easy prey for the closer who was just crawling a little faster. Just an optical illusion of a "huge late kick". If this is typical of Pa.-breds, it is what it is. Doesn't violate the laws of Physics and Equine Bioenergetics.

.

1. I posted the replay of this race in this thread

2. The winner was not a closer if you look at his previous races

3. My name is ReplayRandall, I've analyzed over 200K replays on a pro-level since 1983

4. You're starting to sound like Cratos….not good, Sport

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

1. I posted the replay of this race in this thread

2. The winner was not a closer if you look at his previous races

3. I've analyzed over 200K replays on a pro-level since 1983

4. You're starting to sound like Cratos….not good, Sport

1) I saw the replay on Bloodhorse. So what?

2) The winner in question was a closer in the race we are discussing.

3) Perhaps you need to watch a few more replays if you consider the winner's crawl in that race a "huge late kick". You can call yourself whatever you like. Doesn't change the laws of Physics which hold true for everything in the world, including horse racing.

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The first race at Parx today(Monday) featured a competitive field of 7 horses (after the obligatory 2 late scratches)...and after spending considerable time handicapping it, I concluded that the would be a solid bet if I could get odds of about 3-1. The only other serious contenders in the race seemed to me to be the and the ...and they shared identical front-running styles which figured (to me at least) to be a disadvantage in a race seemingly loaded with early speed. The figured to get a perfect trip in the race...and had the ability to take proper advantage of it. But, to my great surprise, I noticed that the nondescript was getting hammered on the board...eventually going off at the unbelievable odds of 3-2!. Although I make it a point to never ignore seemingly illogical betting action such as this, I couldn't persuade myself that the "overbet" was a legitimate contender in this race...and I proceeded (although gingerly) to place my money on the "logical" .

The and the jumped into the predictable early speed battle, my settled into the golden trip that I had envisioned, the overrated was languishing in last place...and all was right with the world. Alas...my smug feeling was short-lived, because the uncorked a furious late rally which saw him swallow up the entire field...including my "logical" . And I have come here hoping to learn that someone here can make a convincing case for the betting action on this ...otherwise, my dark suspicions are sure to interfere with my sleep.

Thanks in advance.

I went back and handicapped the race using figures as well as Early and Late fractions. From my chart below, you will see that I also came up with as the early speed in the race (hence the GREEN bold)

If I had to narrow this race down to three horses, my order of preference would be . If I were making an odds line for WIN bet purposes, I would probably go no lower than 3 or 4-1 on the .

The only reason I could see the public making this horse that much of a favorite is his OFF track figure of a 104 (using Brisnet figures) as well as the 3 for 3 in the money on the off track.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm just joking. He was correcting you on your "21 and change" when it fact it was 22 1/5. Doesn't really change much else, the race fell apart.

Explanation accepted. On my part, sorry about the time error and the misunderstanding., though as you said, the race did fall apart in any case and the dumb pace explains it.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

1) I saw the replay on Bloodhorse. So what?

2) The winner in question was a closer in the race we are discussing.

3) Perhaps you need to watch a few more replays if you consider the winner's crawl in that race a "huge late kick". You can call yourself whatever you like. Doesn't change the laws of Physics which hold true for everything in the world, including horse racing.

Bottom-line, quit with your over the top nonsense with me, GOT IT? I could have shown everyone what a fool you're making of yourself in various threads, one mistake after another, but I chose to hold back until NOW...

BTW, Thaskalos and I are good friends, and for a FACT he has shown great restraint with your antics, maybe because he's a Mod here at pace, or he's just showing you mercy. Whatever the case, watch what you say from now on. I've proven myself countless times on this board, and there is no point in any further conversation with you....You're now on ignore, deservedly so.

Go ahead, have the last word....again.