LOOKIN AT LUCKY !!!

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by cj

Again, the only thing real thing I'm debating is that Borel just won the biggest race of the year with one style and changed it up yesterday. I think that is questionable. In the end it didn't matter, the horse wasn't winning in any case.

No quarrel from me on that thought - it's a decent point. Your original quote that HRF linked to above was read by me and a couple of others as not what you state above, so I'll take responsibility for not understanding your initial meaning.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What numbers are you looking at? Looking at Lucky's best number prior to yesterday came on the dirt at Oaklawn, where he got a 98 in his return race for this year (not a bad number for a return race and one in which he had some trouble).

Lucky's 2nd best number was a 94, which he recorded over the dirt slop at Churchill.

First Dude's best number prior to yesterday was the 90 he got in an allowance on dirt at Gulfstream, and his 2nd best an 89 again on the dirt at Gulfstream.

I suppose you are refering to BSF? As good as they can be, I think the makers are struggling a bit with the new surface - so I prefer to use my own. They are still up on the website if you want to have a look.

The speed figures for the Preakness are there, as well (just click on a horse to see its PP's). Lucky got a 83 which is pretty much what I expected.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by gm10

I suppose you are refering to BSF? As good as they can be, I think the makers are struggling a bit with the new surface - so I prefer to use my own. They are still up on the website if you want to have a look.

The speed figures for the Preakness are there, as well (just click on a horse to see its PP's). Lucky got a 83 which is pretty much what I expected.

I don't mean to sound insulting, but doesn't it appear that with these two horses at least, the Beyers seemed to more accurately peg these horses then did your figures?

I've got nothing to really say about First Dude - congrats to those who saw that one stepping up yesterday, because I certainly didn't - but I don't find Lucky a surprise at all performing at the top level on dirt.

[Deepsix]

Pre-race Borel engaged in a conversation with the NBC person. She asked him IF he intended to settle and go to the rail like he has in his recent big races. He said no, that that was not his plan. He was very firm (take from that what you will). Then, as Super Saver was loading the gate Donna Brothers (I believe it was her) mentioned that SS was "tucked up and looks like he's lost some weight since CD"... meaning she noticed that he looked a bit off.

[cj]

Originally Posted by DeanT

No quarrel from me on that thought - it's a decent point. Your original quote that HRF linked to above was read by me and a couple of others as not what you state above, so I'll take responsibility for not understanding your initial meaning.

I'm not always the best at expressing what I think.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by gm10

The synthetic 'holding them back' is total and utter bollox.

The word you are looking for is "demonstrable."

I think maybe your numbers are the ones I should avoid.
I have a conversion from synth to dirt I use on horse that should do better on dirt. I works quite well. Nothing in the BG was worth the bother. It was a slow race. All it was good for was conditioning, since poly is more a training track surface than a racing surface, like wearing ankle weights. You take them off and put on running soes and off you go.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What does anything I said have to do with what the exacta paid? If someone had First Dude, it's not from some great insight they had in his past performances - the horse was a deserving longshot considering he'd not done very well when stepping up before. And those unremarkable races were run over both dirt and synth.

What I said was that it's puzzling to be puzzled when good horses run even better on the dirt. They're very likely bred for the dirt, so, if I could put it so succinctly: No duh they run better on dirt.

I should have used a smiley in my original post. It was late

Synth to dirt and dirt to synth is really not all that puzzling, and no great conspiracy. As others have stated on this and other threads (sometimes shouted down, but that's the way it goes sometimes), it happens often and good horses can and do do well on both.

If it was such a big part of things, other than to stir our emotions, trainers would not be able to make a move with success, and there would be no fig correlations when doing it, with pos IVs. Go to Turfway and watch Joe Woodard; he knows what to do, and what he is doing is not by accident; he is sharp. A guy like him would more than likely have a chuckle at all the dirt to synth hand wringing that goes on in this world. When someone goes 6 for 14 with a top fig horse and runs a fig top with some on 1st time poly, it aint the track, its the horse. When he brings them back they do just fine on dirt too. Sometimes as cappers we look for bogeymen who simply are not there, imo.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I don't mean to sound insulting, but doesn't it appear that with these two horses at least, the Beyers seemed to more accurately peg these horses then did your figures?

I've got nothing to really say about First Dude - congrats to those who saw that one stepping up yesterday, because I certainly didn't - but I don't find Lucky a surprise at all performing at the top level on dirt.

I couldn't say, as I don't have the BSF.
But they would have to be pretty darn accurate. Lucky ran 83 - and his most comparable races would be the Rebel Stakes (86) and the Juvenile (80). Three points is 1 length, so I'd say Lucky ran bang in the middle of a narrow range of 2 lengths.
First Dude had run 84 86 before yesterday and ran 82 in the Preakness: three performances that are less than 1.5 lengths apart.

Do you have the BSF for the races that I am using?

[Deepsix]

Tom, that is interesting. I recall reading here a couple weeks ago- someone posted split/final times for races at SA. The approach was to take a specific equal sample size of SA races at each distance (dirt/poly, routes/sprints) and from the data that was posted poly times were pretty uniformly faster that historic dirt times at the same distances. I didn't see much comment/followup concerning this person's post. Maybe that person will recognize this topic.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Tom

The word you are looking for is "demonstrable."

I think maybe your numbers are the ones I should avoid.
I have a conversion from synth to dirt I use on horse that should do better on dirt. I works quite well. Nothing in the BG was worth the bother. It was a slow race. All it was good for was conditioning, since poly is more a training track surface than a racing surface, like wearing ankle weights. You take them off and put on running soes and off you go.

Well, the second was third in his next race (Derby), the third was second in his next start (Preakness), and the sixth was fourth in his next start (Derby). You don't a PhD in speed figure making to come to the conclusion that it wasn't that bad a prep. What odds will you give me on Victor if he shows up at Belmont in three weeks?

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Deepsix

Tom, that is interesting. I recall reading here a couple weeks ago- someone posted split/final times for races at SA. The approach was to take a specific equal sample size of SA races at each distance (dirt/poly, routes/sprints) and from the data that was posted poly times were pretty uniformly faster that historic dirt times at the same distances. I didn't see much comment/followup concerning this person's post. Maybe that person will recognize this topic.

Yes that was me. Nearly all the synthetic tracks are faster than they used to be.

I'm not talking track records, they tell you nothing. You want to look at how the bad animals fare. And they are running quicker than before.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by gm10

I couldn't say, as I don't have the BSF.
But they would have to be pretty darn accurate. Lucky ran 83 - and his most comparable races would be the Rebel Stakes (86) and the Juvenile (80). Three points is 1 length, so I'd say Lucky ran bang in the middle of a narrow range of 2 lengths.
First Dude had run 84 86 before yesterday and ran 82 in the Preakness: three performances that are less than 1.5 lengths apart.

Do you have the BSF for the races that I am using?

Gray is synth, brown is dirt.

Lucky:
Ky Derby - 94
SA Derby - 89
Rebel - 98
Cash Call - 83
BC Juvy - 91
Norfolk - 89
DM Futurity - 82
Best Pal - 85
MSW - 78

First Dude:
Blue Grass - 85
FL Derby - 89
Allow - 90
MSW - 83
MSW - 66
MSW - 61

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Gray is synth, brown is dirt.

Lucky:
Ky Derby - 94
SA Derby - 89
Rebel - 98
Cash Call - 83
BC Juvy - 91
Norfolk - 89
DM Futurity - 82
Best Pal - 85
MSW - 78

First Dude:
Blue Grass - 85
FL Derby - 89
Allow - 90
MSW - 83
MSW - 66
MSW - 61

Thanks for that ... I think that the current problem with BSF is glaringly obvious from these numbers. First Dude did not regress in the Blue Grass as BSF would suggest, but improved instead. Give him a 95 and his 100-101 from yesterday becomes perfectly logical.

Lookin At Lucky's numbers look a bit better, though I'm not sure that I would had given him a bigger number in the KD than in the Juvenile.

[cj's dad]

Originally Posted by gm10

Thanks for that ... I think that the current problem with BSF is glaringly obvious from these numbers. First Dude did not regress in the Blue Grass as BSF would suggest, but improved instead. Give him a 95 and his 100-101 from yesterday becomes perfectly logical.

Lookin At Lucky's numbers look a bit better, though I'm not sure that I would had given him a bigger number in the KD than in the Juvenile.

So, your figures BEFORE the race are posted where ????? and/or your selections ???

[racefinder2]

Im actually glad that Lucky ran his A race and won !!!!

I was completely fooled, thinking that the horse had so many bad trips and excuses, that maybe he WAS the excuse...ie, he was a great two yr old that
just wasnt panning out as a 3yo at this level. In retrospect, the JS might have been 'the answer', what a great move by Baffert...

I knew well enough not to make any kind of serious bet here, I was looking at Paddy but when he was at what, 7/1 ??? I said 'no way'. This was one of those situations when the odds are telling you what NOT to do. So I ended up with a few token exactas w Super Saver who I thought was clearly best. Yep-much the best - LAST RACE....

Another thing I noticed was the pace set up in this race is what usually happen s in the Derby--ie, it gets hot and heavy and the real contenders--winners--- come to the front/rise to the occasion>> And Im beginning to think the Ky Dby was not the race that separated out the good horses from the second tier ones, the Preakness was, simply because it was honestly run over a dry track.