Talented apprentice in New York

[Bobskim]

Highly impressed with 10 pound bug Luis Cardenas. Seems to have a solid head on his shoulders. Decision making is far beyond the usual rider early in their career. Will be no surprise if he becomes a very good journeyman rider, or better perhaps.

[Bobskim]

AQU race 7 #1 Imaginar coincidentally picks up Luis Cardinas. More importantly watching the head of his last race shows a very difficult trip.. Stumbled from the gate losing ground, but more importantly position. Started to move into position before the turn only to get slightly steady, as well as losing momentum, costing him a few lengths. Swung out and finished decently.

Running back in 7 days which he has done successfully in the past a few times. Not much speed in the race so hopefully Cardinas will send him early. Doubtful will see his 15/1 morning line.

The head on replay is a great example of a trip for a horse that most players never pick up. Never did the jockey grab hard or check hard, yet he lost position and momentum at 2 key points of the race. This type of trip is the kind that sometimes get’s overlooked at the windows. Patience and overlays for me.

Have not seen any threads discussing trip handicapping, or as i like to call it race watching. If there is enough interest in discussing trips, not a selection thread solely, but actually pointing out better than looked performances. Perhaps a discussion may ensue.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

Highly impressed with 10 pound bug Luis Cardenas. Seems to have a solid head on his shoulders. Decision making is far beyond the usual rider early in their career. Will be no surprise if he becomes a very good journeyman rider, or better perhaps.

He might be the best ten pound bug rider I have ever seen. Still hard to make the transition, but he's shockingly professional for someone with such limited race riding experience.

[Bobskim]

Guess I won’t be discussing race watching.
Didn’t expect much interest though.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

Guess I won’t be discussing race watching.
Didn’t expect much interest though.

Your horse was scratched, which might have led to the lack of interest. I'm also not sure that was a particularly subtle trip. Personally, I still thought he would have been a fringe player, though David Aragona liked his chances.

I think you left out an important part of his trouble last time....that track was playing very strongly towards inside speed, the race was wired by a 13:1 shot, yet Imaginar, despite his trouble, still managed to close outside for 4th.

[Bobskim]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Your horse was scratched, which might have led to the lack of interest. I'm also not sure that was a particularly subtle trip. Personally, I still thought he would have been a fringe player, though David Aragona liked his chances.

I think you left out an important part of his trouble last time....that track was playing very strongly towards inside speed, the race was wired by a 13:1 shot, yet Imaginar, despite his trouble, still managed to close outside for 4th.

Agreed, not a subtle trip, but so many trip handicappers often miss it. Without obvious trouble, hard checking and such, most miss it i believe. Purposely omitted the way the track was playing, was interested in seeing how many would point it out.

Obvious to me there is no interest in my style of preparing for a race card. Reviewing previous races has always been and continues to be, a tremendous edge if done properly. Not saying speed figures are not important, just not as important for me.

Regarding Aragona having a similar opinion, i would say great minds think alike, except i know myself quite well, therefore cannot.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

Agreed, not a subtle trip, but so many trip handicappers often miss it. Without obvious trouble, hard checking and such, most miss it i believe. Purposely omitted the way the track was playing, was interested in seeing how many would point it out.

Obvious to me there is no interest in my style of preparing for a race card. Reviewing previous races has always been and continues to be, a tremendous edge if done properly. Not saying speed figures are not important, just not as important for me.

Regarding Aragona having a similar opinion, i would say great minds think alike, except i know myself quite well, therefore cannot.

I would imagine that there are still plenty of good trip handicappers in NY. A lot of horses that had traffic problems get bet down. My favorite trip is against the bias.

[Bobskim]

Originally Posted by pandy

I would imagine that there are still plenty of good trip handicappers in NY. A lot of horses that had traffic problems get bet down. My favorite trip is against the bias.

Definitely many fine trip handicappers around. Agree, many get bet down and are overbet to the point of being undervalued. Normally those are the obvious poor trips, which is not what a trip handicapper these days should be looking for. Just no value left in the obvious. Bias handicapping is not so easy, so definitely value can be had.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

Agreed, not a subtle trip, but so many trip handicappers often miss it. Without obvious trouble, hard checking and such, most miss it i believe. Purposely omitted the way the track was playing, was interested in seeing how many would point it out.

Obvious to me there is no interest in my style of preparing for a race card. Reviewing previous races has always been and continues to be, a tremendous edge if done properly. Not saying speed figures are not important, just not as important for me.

Regarding Aragona having a similar opinion, i would say great minds think alike, except i know myself quite well, therefore cannot.

I can call myself a doctor because I'm reasonably good at putting on a band aid, but no actual "trip handicapper" would have missed that horse's trip, just as he or she would have also implicitly understood the role the track played in theoretically exaggerating it.

I don't agree with the assertion that begins your second paragraph. I'm quite confident there are a number of people that read this site that have much more than "no interest" in your "style" of preparing for a race card. In general, the people that don't respond may be much more interesting than those that do....or at least that's how I look at things.

I don't believe in labels in general, and specifically for horseplayers, as to have any reasonable chance at success ( especially these days ) you need to be looking at multiple factors. Understanding trips is great, but if you don't use the tools to let you know whether or not your horse is fast enough under relatively ideal circumstances, your skills as a trip handicapper will cost you money, both coming in and going out. Just as if you don't understand how a figure was earned, you risk over, or under, rating it....and that's just scratching the surface.

[Bobskim]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I can call myself a doctor because I'm reasonably good at putting on a band aid, but no actual "trip handicapper" would have missed that horse's trip, just as he or she would have also implicitly understood the role the track played in theoretically exaggerating it.

I don't agree with the assertion that begins your second paragraph. I'm quite confident there are a number of people that read this site that have much more than "no interest" in your "style" of preparing for a race card. In general, the people that don't respond may be much more interesting than those that do....or at least that's how I look at things.

I don't believe in labels in general, and specifically for horseplayers, as to have any reasonable chance at success ( especially these days ) you need to be looking at multiple factors. Understanding trips is great, but if you don't use the tools to let you know whether or not your horse is fast enough under relatively ideal circumstances, your skills as a trip handicapper will cost you money, both coming in and going out. Just as if you don't understand how a figure was earned, you risk over, or under, rating it....and that's just scratching the surface.

No winning or diligent trip handicapper would miss it. Wonderful and accurate 2nd paragraph. Definitely you know the make up of this website better than i do. Since no interest was expressed in a thread regarding trip handicapping and many of the nuances involved, i just see no need to put the time into it.

You get down to Florida over the winter anymore?

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

You get down to Florida over the winter anymore?

I went on Thursday for the Eclipse Awards, but pretty much have no interest in being there.

[Bobskim]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I went on Thursday for the Eclipse Awards, but pretty much have no interest in being there.

Those of us old enough to remember the old GP, like myself, might agree. The way it was rebuilt, live racing was not very important to them. Something like 850 seats to watch the race live. Don’t miss the wind tunnel though, first floor clubhouse.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Bobskim

Those of us old enough to remember the old GP, like myself, might agree. The way it was rebuilt, live racing was not very important to them. Something like 850 seats to watch the race live. Don’t miss the wind tunnel though, first floor clubhouse.

I spent many days at the old Gulfstream. I miss it badly.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by pandy

I would imagine that there are still plenty of good trip handicappers in NY. A lot of horses that had traffic problems get bet down. My favorite trip is against the bias.

The best thing about biases is that your view on a bias will at least partially be dependent on your views going into the race. Since opinions vary going into the races, so will the opinions on biases on some days. Also, the more arrogant you are about your opinions going into the races, the more likely you are to find imaginary biases when your horses get beat.

Also, not much has been written about track consistency. I'm not sure a lot of people grasp that if a track is playing "inside" or "outside" that does not mean it's consistent like that around the entire track.

Sometimes it's almost impossible to make up ground outside on the turn, but swinging out 3-4 wide in the stretch is fine.

Sometimes horses are rallying fine up the rail on the turn, but if they stay inside in the stretch they are dead.

Sometimes the turn and stretch are the same.

The backstretch can be a total enigma because so many horses race well off the rail almost the entire backstretch coming out of the gate or they swing out coming out of the first turn in two turn races.

Everyone sees the same speed figures, pace figures, same trouble, same ground loss, same trainer data etc... but there are huge disagreements about biases all the time.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Everyone sees the same speed figures, pace figures, same trouble, same ground loss, same trainer data etc... but there are huge disagreements about biases all the time.

I've been frequenting this board for 14 years...and I don't recall ever seeing a "huge disagreement" about a track bias. But then again...my memory is no longer what it used to be.