Why is Bolt d'Oro the measuring stick? I don't get it

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

And then before the race Victor made it sound to me like he was going to try and go a bit, maybe thats just hind sight after the race.

I thought the same from the interview, although Espinoza is basically unintelligible in his responses. I guess making the horse "happy" was blowing his wad after 3/4s of a mile.

I was surprised he did not settle him as well and what were those new silks, I kept wondering how that horse was pushing the pace.

Ruis said earlier in the week the horse would run in B. Wayne Hughes' silks (Spendthrift has a share in his stallion career) for the Derby. I forget the specific reason. Obviously it was not for good luck...

[cj]

Originally Posted by LoneF

Exactly .... I use speed figures as a piece of the puzzle but they are hardly the only thing I use. For example if going strictly off of speed numbers than one would use the highly inflated SA Derby figures and come to the conclusion that Core Beliefs who was a well beaten also ran in the SA Derby was more impressive than Magnum Moon was in romping home in the Arkansas Derby against a much deeper field than the SA derby had.

The gift that keeps on giving.

[Tom]

You can't teach that!

[CincyHorseplayer]

Wow. If you have ever shot trap and have made a perfect shot you just see an orange dust cloud. That is Lone F!

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by rabrown36

Stop making excuses for Bolt in the Breeders Cup. Every race at every track, everyday horses are wide, lose ground and have to run farther. Every horse cannot be on the rail and go the short way around. Good horses overcome wide trips, great horses can make their own trip. You really love beyers. The slow horse Good Magic, was also a slow two-year-old, who came west and beat the " fast horse". I guess those numbers don't mean as much as you think.

They don't! But you can't convince some people......even when it constantly blows up in their face. Its like watching an episode of Road Runner.


They are not useless but if that's the sole source of decision making just follow the smoke this money burner has laid to rest. Which I said would happen 2 months ago.

[cj]

Originally Posted by burnsy

[/B]


They don't! But you can't convince some people......even when it constantly blows up in their face. Its like watching an episode of Road Runner.


They are not useless but if that's the sole source of decision making just follow the smoke this money burner has laid to rest. Which I said would happen 2 months ago.

This comes up pretty frequently here at PA. Who are these people the use numbers as the sole source of decision making? I hear about them but I don't think I've ever actually met one.

The point of this thread was wondering why Bolt d'Oro was a measuring stick. Well guess what, the two horses in the Derby starting gate that beat him completed the Derby exacta. Seems like he was a pretty good measuring stick.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by cj

This comes up pretty frequently here at PA. Who are these people the use numbers as the sole source of decision making? I hear about them but I don't think I've ever actually met one.

The point of this thread was wondering why Bolt d'Oro was a measuring stick. Well guess what, the two horses in the Derby starting gate that beat him completed the Derby exacta. Seems like he was a pretty good measuring stick.

Really? You must not of read some of these threads before the derby. Don't make me bring up the one where one guy declares the order of finish in the race by the numbers. His post is something like we know Bolt will beat Good Magic because he got a higher number last out. "We know" are his exact words. I'm the one that replied Good Magic already beat him. Don't make me pull it up but I can if you want. I was not even referring to you but you are in denial or you don't read this crap. Yeah, he was a measuring stick, 6 to 10 of these horses are better despite the numbers he got and I stated it weeks ago.
Its the same people on the Triple Crown deal and there are a few of them that constantly throw the numbers out like gospel. I've never seen them post picks , they just talk about "how fast" a horse is by numbers. You just don't want to hear it...……..Cause then they'll stop buying into chalk and numbers. What? All the rest of us are seeing and reading things that don't exist? Give me a break.

One of my other theories on this game is the public handicappers and number sellers don't want people to actually learn...…….then they wouldn't be dependent on buying products. Some of these guys don't have an original thought to share and its so obvious by reading it. They are quoting numbers! How can you not see it? I do fine at this and football gaming, because I took the time and effort to learn. I don't buy crap, that just keeps that much more money where it belongs. Some of these guys don't even understand that they would do a lot better, by learning for themselves. I'm the kind of "people" the sellers don't want around. I've spent 40 years teaching myself how to gamble. And I don't buy or sell shit! I don't have to.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Really? You must not of read some of these threads before the derby. Don't make me bring up the one where one guy declares the order of finish in the race by the numbers. His post is something like we know Bolt will beat Good Magic because he got a higher number last out. "We know" are his exact words. I'm the one that replied Good Magic already beat him. Don't make me pull it up but I can if you want. I was not even referring to you but you are in denial or you don't read this crap. Yeah, he was a measuring stick, 6 to 10 of these horses are better despite the numbers he got and I stated it weeks ago.
Its the same people on the Triple Crown deal and there are a few of them that constantly throw the numbers out like gospel. I've never seen them post picks , they just talk about "how fast" a horse is by numbers. You just don't want to hear it...……..Cause then they'll stop buying into chalk and numbers. What? All the rest of us are seeing and reading things that don't exist? Give me a break.

One of my other theories on this game is the public handicappers and number sellers don't want people to actually learn...…….then they wouldn't be dependent on buying products. Some of these guys don't have an original thought to share and its so obvious by reading it. They are quoting numbers! How can you not see it? I do fine at this and football gaming, because I took the time and effort to learn. I don't buy crap, that just keeps that much more money where it belongs. Some of these guys don't even understand that they would do a lot better, by learning for themselves. I'm the kind of "people" the sellers don't want around. I've spent 40 years teaching myself how to gamble. And I don't buy or sell shit! I don't have to.

I've been using nothing but numbers to post 736 (current count before today's action) overall profitable win bets in the VIP section. How many have you posted with your numberless method?

[jay68802]

Yesterday in the 9th at Belmont, the numbers told me the ,, and were strong contenders.

The letters told me that I should be careful of the .

And in the end the numbers told me the was a good play.

The horse neither the numbers or the letters told us anything good about was the , but the discussion was why this horse was in the race.

Both ways work in the right circumstance's. Both can fail also.

[GMB@BP]

you cant ignore numbers but any bets strictly based on numbers will hard pressed over the long haul to make money.

Numbers identify contenders but so do other factors. The other factors tend to pay much better.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

you cant ignore numbers but any bets strictly based on numbers will hard pressed over the long haul to make money.

Numbers identify contenders but so do other factors. The other factors tend to pay much better.

Number can represent LOTS of different things. Not just speed & pace figures.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Number can represent LOTS of different things. Not just speed & pace figures.

yea, my bad, thought we were talking about speed figures. everything I use revolves around a rating of some sort.

[f2tornado]

Speed figures are a useful tool but certainly are not the be all end all. Some stats from US Racing about five years ago:

HIGHEST LAST-RACE BRISNET SPEED FIGURE

Number: 52,003
Winners: 15,235
Win Rate: 29.3%
$2 Net Return: $1.71
ROI: -14.72%

Betting a singular morning line favorite produced a better win percentage but slightly more negative ROI. In all likelihood, the majority of these favorites also had the best last out or previous figure that topped the field:

Number: 58,704
Winners: 19.590
Win Rate: 33.3%
$2 Net Return: $1.64
ROI: -18.16%

Other factors are winning the other 66.7 to 70.7% of races.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Speed figures are a useful tool but certainly are not the be all end all. Some stats from US Racing about five years ago:

HIGHEST LAST-RACE BRISNET SPEED FIGURE

Number: 52,003
Winners: 15,235
Win Rate: 29.3%
$2 Net Return: $1.71
ROI: -14.72%

Betting a singular morning line favorite produced a better win percentage but slightly more negative ROI. In all likelihood, the majority of these favorites also had the best last out or previous figure that topped the field:

Number: 58,704
Winners: 19.590
Win Rate: 33.3%
$2 Net Return: $1.64
ROI: -18.16%

Other factors are winning the other 66.7 to 70.7% of races.

Can you provide another handicapping factor that produces 33% winners over a large large sample?

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Can you provide another handicapping factor that produces 33% winners over a large large sample?

Depends on how you define large sample and what time scale you want. Trainer Jason Servis has won 33% of his 204 starts this year. Owner Maggi Moss won 34% of 106 starts this year. Pat Day had a couple years where he hit 30%. Jerry Bailey piloted 33% of his 166 graded stakes mounts to victory in 2003. While the above examples contain far less plays, they produced the same percent of wins and probably a higher ROI.