The Golden rail.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO Classic Empire was definitely the best horses in the race. So the strategy did not work.

IMO, had he stalked Always Dreaming to keep him honest but without engaging him aggressively in a battle through the early part of the race, he would have won.

I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

I agree with all 3 points above and especially . Your handicapping has changed quite a bit from your posts of a couple of years ago.

It's as if you're now leaning towards a pace scenario type of handicapping.

EDIT: I just read your subsequent posts and definitely agree again with you.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I agree with all 3 points above and especially . Your handicapping has changed quite a bit from your posts of a couple of years ago.

It's as if you're now leaning towards a pace scenario type of handicapping.

EDIT: I just read your subsequent posts and definitely agree again with you.

I remember about 5 years ago I told you that if I were you I would hang around R Moss until he called security to toss me out. I think he's the Guru of pace scenario handicapping especially with his access to those graphics.

[luisbe]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

He didn't regress figure wise?

Not only figure wise, 2nd of 20 against 4th of 10, without considering the quality of the fields.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The fact that he lost isn't really relevant to the point I am making (which seems to go against the commonly held view anyway). Even if had he won I'd still think it was the wrong thing to do. All it would tell me is that he ran an even better race being able to put the favorite away and still win. I would think that had he stalked in a less aggression fashion he would have won by more. Over a lifetime of races, imo you win more often by being a little less aggressive and you save the place and show way more often in the situation where the other horse is superior. It's no biggie. We don't have to agree. No one agrees with me about anything. My name is classhandicapper for crying out loud. :-)

I agree about Castellano. I'm not sure how he could have ridden any better.

I think you're ignoring that Cloud Computing was very close to the pace as well. It's not like he's a deep closer who picked up the tiring pace setters. He was hustled out of the gate (terrific tactic by Castellano) to secure his spot right behind AD and CE.

Maybe CE ran a little better because he put away AD, but CC ran his eyeballs out.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I think you're ignoring that Cloud Computing was very close to the pace as well. It's not like he's a deep closer who picked up the tiring pace setters. He was hustled out of the gate (terrific tactic by Castellano) to secure his spot right behind AD and CE.

Maybe CE ran a little better because he put away AD, but CC ran his eyeballs out.

I'm not ignoring that.

I think the pace was fast based on what I saw visually, the horses involved, and the fractions, but I don't think it was so fast that it had a negative impact on Cloud Computing. It wasn't a meltdown pace. It was enough to get Classic Empire beat by another very good horse.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not ignoring that.

I think the pace was fast based on what I saw visually, the horses involved, and the fractions, but I don't think it was so fast that it had a negative impact on Cloud Computing. It wasn't a meltdown pace. It was enough to get Classic Empire beat by another very good horse.

Classhandicapper...I can never find myself in disagreement with you when you analyze the race, AFTER it's run. Is there any chance that I will eventually see a thorough PRE-RACE analysis from you?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I agree with all 3 points above and especially . Your handicapping has changed quite a bit from your posts of a couple of years ago.

It's as if you're now leaning towards a pace scenario type of handicapping.

EDIT: I just read your subsequent posts and definitely agree again with you.

Pace has always been a pretty big part of my handicapping, but previously I used to focus most of my attention on fractions and final times.

Now I tend to focus more attention on the makeup of the field, how many speeds there were, what the quality of the speeds were, and watch how the race actually developed. It's not that is didn't already do that on some level. It's that after I struck up a friendship with Kenny Peck at DRF and had an opportunity to work with him it crystallized my thinking on the subject. Now I have a more formal process for it.

I'd say what I am doing now is kind of like comparative classing handicapping at the pace level.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Classhandicapper...I can never find myself in disagreement with you when you analyze the race, AFTER it's run. Is there any chance that I will eventually see a thorough PRE-RACE analysis from you?

I thought you liked to win money?

If I had had written up my pre race analysis for the Derby and Preakness you would have played Gunnevera/Classic Empire in the Derby and Conquest Mo Money in the Preakness.

I don't get any pleasure from putting myself "out there" and making picks publicly. I've seen too many threads where public handicappers that actually get paid for their selections get a lot of grief for the occasional embarrassing selection or bad meet. I'm not as thick skinned as some people.

You can usually tell who I like and dislike from post race stuff and miscellaneous comments, but the betting decisions are always a last minute thing based on price and how I think the track is playing.

I was planning on making a prime bet in the Kentucky Oaks on the eventual winner but pulled it because I thought the inside was much better that day up to that point.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not sure how many times we have to watch this exact scenario unfold before people realize there is something between allowing another horse to control the pace on a clear lead (which would also be a bad strategy) and actually trying to beat him into submission with heavy pressure in a fast pace. Stalking in an average pace gives you very chance to win if you actually have the better horse. The latter may weaken the favorite, but usually loses you positions.

If Classic Empire didn't aggressively engage Always Dreaming in the early stages of the race...then the pace wouldn't be fast. And Classic Empire would have found himself several lengths behind the "comfortable" impressive Derby-winner...who was now being asked to run a SHORTER race than he ran in the Derby. Would that have been a more favorable pace scenario?

When you merely "stalk" the leader instead of "engaging" him...how can you guarantee that the pace will be "average", rather than "comfortable"? I mean...we are talking fifths-of-a-second here! Can you afford to allow an impressive Derby winner to "get comfortable" on the lead...in a SHORTER race than the one he just BEAT you in?

That's why I agree with Rsetup, when he shows frustration when people get "too smart" AFTER the race.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by no breathalyzer

congrats that is impressive

It's now over 450 races ignoring jockeys and betting on value, and my ROI has only gone up since I last posted here.

PS. Best not to post while drinking heavily...

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

He didn't regress figure wise?

I'm not saying the rail was good or bad on Derby day, but couldn't the figure regression just be simple case of losing more ground for the Preakness than for the Derby?

I'll use Beyer, Preakness went 102 and he lost be 5.25 lengths. The Derby was given a 102 and he lost be 2.75 lengths. Could the difference in ground loss between the two races explain the 2.5 lengths?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Pace has always been a pretty big part of my handicapping, but previously I used to focus most of my attention on fractions and final times.

Now I tend to focus more attention on the makeup of the field, how many speeds there were, what the quality of the speeds were, and watch how the race actually developed. It's not that is didn't already do that on some level. It's that after I struck up a friendship with Kenny Peck at DRF and had an opportunity to work with him it crystallized my thinking on the subject. Now I have a more formal process for it.

I'd say what I am doing now is kind of like comparative classing handicapping at the pace level.

It's just that I've noticed a change from just a couple of years ago.

I haven't been using DRF in quite sometime.

Who is K Peck?

Is he the individual who came up with the running style addition in the DRF?

I've never heard of "comparative classing handicapping at the pace level". I kind of like it. If it's your original term you may want to copyright it. If you don't and others start using it at least ...... We'll know who actually came up with it.

Something like the term "trip handicapping".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If Classic Empire didn't aggressively engage Always Dreaming in the early stages of the race...then the pace wouldn't be fast. And Classic Empire would have found himself several lengths behind the "comfortable" impressive Derby-winner...who was now being asked to run a SHORTER race than he ran in the Derby. Would that have been a more favorable pace scenario?

When you merely "stalk" the leader instead of "engaging" him...how can you guarantee that the pace will be "average", rather than "comfortable"? I mean...we are talking fifths-of-a-second here! Can you afford to allow an impressive Derby winner to "get comfortable" on the lead...in a SHORTER race than the one he just BEAT you in?

That's why I agree with Rsetup, when he shows frustration when people get "too smart" AFTER the race.

I've been saying the same thing about this type of setup over and over again and the results keep coming up the same. I could go all the way back to Honest Pleasure vs. Bold Forbes and show you the same lesson.

What makes it a losing strategy is that the better horse wins the pace battle. So if you are the inferior horse, trying to beat him into submission doesn't improve your chances of winning. It improves your chances of finishing off the board. If you are the better horse, it improves your chances of putting the other horse away quicker, but it also raises the chances of taking just enough out of your horse to allow an inferior horse to beat you. So either way it's not a very good idea.

IMO, the way Beholder was ridden against Songbird was closer to the optimal way to ride in that situation. Ideally you probably want to be even closer, but she was at least close enough to collar her on the turn and beat her if she was actually better (which she was). Had she gone out and pressed Songbird hard, she might have put Songbird away earlier, but she would have raised the risk of a 3rd horse nailing her.

There are no guarantees in anything. These are tough decisions for riders, handicappers etc.. But obviously you would never back off to the point where you are several lengths off the leader and allowing the pace to be very slow. You want to be within a length or so but without the pushing.

Classic Empire was hand pushed out of the gate because the plan was to try to pressure Always Dreaming and beat him. That was announced publicly in multiple places. That's why the first 4 furlongs were fast (according to a couple of pace figure sources and a casual look at the fractions). IMO that was the difference between winning and losing. Had he not pushed, Always Dreaming would have run a couple of 1/5ths slower early, but as long as he was within a length if he was the better horse (which he was Saturday) he would have colored him on the turn and held off Cloud Computing.

The after the race analysis complaint is a red herring. It's nonsense.

Exactly where did I claim I was so smart?

Projecting this stuff and adjusting your plays is tough. It's not highly predictable. I congratulated fat-man on an excellent call in one of the threads.

I played a horse that was up the track even though I read and heard that Casse was going to press. So I guess I was an idiot.

Every single competent handicapper on earth looks at past races to try to determine what happened, who was best, who they might like out of the race, who got an easy trip etc.. The only difference between the post race conversations on this forum right after the race is the timing. Instead of doing the analysis before a horse's next race it's being done right away.

In other words, when Classic Empire and Cloud Computing come back you won't have to ask me what I think of their performances. I already told you I think Classic Empire was the mildly better horse on that day, at that distance, on that track.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Who is K Peck?

Is he the individual who came up with the running style addition in the DRF?

I've never heard of "comparative classing handicapping at the pace level". I kind of like it. If it's your original term you may want to copyright it. If you don't and others start using it at least ...... We'll know who actually came up with it.

Something like the term "trip handicapping".

Kenny Peck is a race flow handicapper at DRF.

The very first time I heard someone talk in terms of comparing the quality of speed horses was at Saratoga decades ago. There was a big filly sprint that matched up 2 of the best sprint fillies in the country (can't recall their names). I happened to be standing next to Paul Cornman (who I did not know personally) and he was discussing the race. He said, "I'm not sure who is going to win, but if so and so tries to run with so and so she will be last". She tried to run with her and she finished last. The other horse tired and finished 3rd. At that time, it was a huge lesson for me. He wasn't thinking just in terms of fast or slow pace, he was thinking in terms of the quality of the 2 horses that were going to battle and how running with the better horse spelled doom.

[no breathalyzer]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It's now over 450 races ignoring jockeys and betting on value, and my ROI has only gone up since I last posted here.

PS. Best not to post while drinking heavily...

i just saw this now.... i don't post my plays here often... heck i don't bet a lot nowadays.... i wait and strike hard.. like i said earlier congrats and good for you i don't hate on anyone doing well in this game no matter how they are doing it.... go ahead and track my roi on the select picks i have posted here in the past... feel free.... i stopped when the quality of the board went to shit