i love Justify, but he is a big time bet against on Belmont day

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Sure. They'd say that Justify was a little better than Bravazo...but they'd still insist that Bravazo would win given the added distance of the Belmont.

Looks like they'll both be running.



Wondering what a Bravazo v Justify line might look like?

[classhandicapper]

Mine that Bird never came close again in eight starts. Derby winner or not, he had little going for him before the Derby and not much at all after the Preakness. Would anyone be surprised if Bravazo or Tenfold turns out to be a better horse than Mine that Bird? The 3rd and 4th finishers in Rachel's Preakness also did squat the rest of their careers.

I would be shocked if Bravazo and Tenfold don't go on to be better than Mine that Bird, but I think MTB was better than Bravazo in this Derby/Preakness snapshot in time. MTB got pretty good for 3 races, but never got any better. So he never got good enough to compete with older horses.

I'm not going to debate figures because to me this is typical stuff.

If you lay out Beyer, TG, Rags, Timeform, and any other set of figures, they are going to disagree on horses fairly often. The input figures they use to project are different, their figure charts are different, and the subjective judgement of the figures makers is different. So you get different results.

I think that's an argument for thinking about races as very fast, fast, average, slow and very slow and not worrying too much about a few points in either direction. No one is getting them all right.

That's why I also do comparisons in a more "class and race flow oriented" way instead of just looking at fractions and final times. Sometimes when viewed from another direction it clarifies the situation.

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I would be shocked if Bravazo and Tenfold don't go on to be better than Mine that Bird, but I think MTB was better than Bravazo in this Derby/Preakness snapshot in time. MTB got pretty good for 3 races, but never got any better. So he never got good enough to compete with older horses.

I'm not going to debate figures because to me this is typical stuff.

If you lay out Beyer, TG, Rags, Timeform, and any other set of figures, they are going to disagree on horses fairly often. The input figures they use to project are different, their figure charts are different, and the subjective judgement of the figures makers is different. So you get different results.

I think that's an argument for thinking about races as very fast, fast, average, slow and very slow and not worrying too much about a few points in either direction. No one is getting them all right.

That's why I also do comparisons in a more "class and race flow oriented" way instead of just looking at fractions and final times. Sometimes when viewed from another direction it clarifies the situation.

I agree w/not debating the figures as no one system is gonna get em' right every time. However, when several systems show the same trend, it gives the trend added value. With respect to the class and race flow, considering what Bolt did at two, I thought he was a classier horse than Justify and Bolt had no excuses in the California and the Kentucky but nevertheless, Justify handed it to him both times . . . so the swiftys are making class distinctions a bit blurry.

[Robert Fischer]

Our job as horse players is mainly about deciding who the 'best' horses are. When the best horse is clearly a good price and/or when the public favorite is clearly not the best horse we have a fair chance at taking a gamble in what can generally be an inequitable game. A 'rigged' game with mostly terrible prices.

Our job as horse players is best left to deciding who the best horses are. Tactics, strategy of the jockeys certainly are impactful factors, but they are generally much more useful in hindsight than as a poor predictive factor. A few major angles (e.g. 'lone speed') are valuable as part of a larger model that demands a significant accompanying value. Situations even as strong as lone speed often don't play out to our expectations.

Thus to bet on jockeys (tactics, stats, or otherwise) is wisely regarded as a 'fools errand'. A futile, trifling, trivial pursuit. Many players will go so far as to say "jockeys don't matter!". Aside from those lost souls known in racing circles as 'Trip Handicappers', it's become one of the 'truths' of handicapping; "This is horse racing, not jockey racing!". Even trip-handicappers relegate jockey tactics to hindsight. A project post-mortem.

Mine that Bird and Super Saver are rare, extreme examples of jockey tactics capitalizing on an opportunity, when the horses were not even among the top tier of contenders, much less 'best'. This can trigger a lot of cognitive dissonance. How can you say the 15th best horse in the Kentucky Derby won because of the jockey?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Our job as horse players is mainly about deciding who the 'best' horses are. When the best horse is clearly a good price and/or when the public favorite is clearly not the best horse we have a fair chance at taking a gamble in what can generally be an inequitable game. A 'rigged' game with mostly terrible prices.

Our job as horse players is best left to deciding who the best horses are. Tactics, strategy of the jockeys certainly are impactful factors, but they are generally much more useful in hindsight than as a poor predictive factor. A few major angles (e.g. 'lone speed') are valuable as part of a larger model that demands a significant accompanying value. Situations even as strong as lone speed often don't play out to our expectations.

Thus to bet on jockeys (tactics, stats, or otherwise) is wisely regarded as a 'fools errand'. A futile, trifling, trivial pursuit. Many players will go so far as to say "jockeys don't matter!". Aside from those lost souls known in racing circles as 'Trip Handicappers', it's become one of the 'truths' of handicapping; "This is horse racing, not jockey racing!". Even trip-handicappers relegate jockey tactics to hindsight. A project post-mortem.

Mine that Bird and Super Saver are rare, extreme examples of jockey tactics capitalizing on an opportunity, when the horses were not even among the top tier of contenders, much less 'best'. This can trigger a lot of cognitive dissonance. How can you say the 15th best horse in the Kentucky Derby won because of the jockey?

This is what I had thought happened at the time, but I stopped believing that after the Belmont. I don't know WHY MTB got so good, but he got really good for 3 races.

If it was just Borel, why did he run so good in the Preakness? Bear in mind, if the filly hadn't been transferred to Asmussen, he would have won 2/3 of the TC.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is what I had thought happened at the time, but I stopped believing that after the Belmont. I don't know WHY MTB got so good, but he got really good for 3 races.

If it was just Borel, why did he run so good in the Preakness? Bear in mind, if the filly hadn't been transferred to Asmussen, he would have won 2/3 of the TC.

If you think a Bravazo type of horse in a weak 3yo crop is 'so good' than we agree.


--opinions on 2009 Preakness/Belmont--

2009 Preakness was worse than the 2018 Preakness, but not by a ton.

A prime Rachel ran similar to an 80% gut-it-out Justify

No Good Magic was the biggest difference in literal quality. Big Drama, the Florida series sprinter played the role of a poor-man's Good Magic.

Musket Man was similar to Tenfold.

Mine That Bird's 2009 Preakness was similar to Bravazo's 2018 running, albeit different running styles.

-
Then the 2009 Belmont was even worse...
Mine That Bird was 6/5 and Rachel was out.

Imagine a Belmont without Justify, where Bravazo is sent off at 6/5 odds!



They did not disappoint in the running of the race.

Dunkirk, at one point an interesting "curse of apollo" triple crown trail horse whose best redeeming quality at that point may have been 'GRAY' ran well enough to contend for a mediocre win. That was his last lifetime race. Although he managed to re-pass the hanging MTB, he did so while gutting-out a condylar fracture. Had Borel not tried a gimmicky premature middle-move (more suited to a pace-collapse Kentucky Derby, than a somewhat forward-favoring Belmont Stakes), Mine That Bird would have likely contended with Dunkirk for a mediocre win. Summer Bird may or may not have joined that duo in a classic 3-horse bunching finish.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is what I had thought happened at the time, but I stopped believing that after the Belmont. I don't know WHY MTB got so good, but he got really good for 3 races.

So his winning 3 stakes (consequetively) in Canada as a 2 year old (before he ran in the TC races in the U.S and did well). don't count? (purses were $100K, $150K, and $250K).

Then he went to high altitude racing up there in Sunland, (he ran 2nd in the Borderland and 4th I think in the Sunland) before coming to the ky derby. That put some peak oxygen and heart "fitness" into him.

He also had the pedigree for classic distance.

At any rate, he was good for more than 3 races.

[Tom]

His big improvement came when he switched from poly to dirt - not uncommon for horses to explode with that move, and he set a monster new pace top in the Sunland Derby, another move that often signal a big move ahead.
His TC races look to me to be a perfect storm of impending moves. Right place, right time.

So why didn't I have him in the Derby?

[alhattab]

I like Hofburg in the Belmont at this point. Got into a friendly debate with a good racetracker friend- he's on this board- at Monmouth yesterday about Hofburg's lack of credentials going into the Belmont. He's still eligible for a NW1X and is graded stakes placed (FL Derby 2d). My view is that for a race like the Belmont a talented horse with the right breeding- heavy emphasis on breeding- is much more important than winning races at much shorter distances. His view was that he's still eligible for NW1X, which is effectively an indictment of Hofburg's talent, and that the Belmont will be Justify's easiest race due to weak competition (I don't like Justify based on his pedigree).

I decided to look myself at past winners going back to 2000 to see what credentials they had going into the race, and figured I'd share. The complete list is below. Of the 18 winners:

-5 were still eligible for NW1X
-2 were eligible for NW2X (including Drosselmeyer, making his 9th start in the Belmont)
-1 was a non-graded stakes winner
-10 had won at least a G2 stakes

I didn't look at all the prices, but from recall the NW1X winners were all big prices except Jazil (nearly 7-1). Summer Bird was around 12-1. Da Tara was 38-1. Commendable was, somehow, 18-1 (in my view he should have been 118-1, but just goes to show how bad that Belmont was). Sarava with only a SW was also a huge price. You won't get paid anywhere near that for Hofburg. I think he's going to be something like 9/2.


2017 Tapwrit- G2 Stakes Winner
2016 Creator- G1 SW
2015 American Pharoah
2014 Tonalist G2 SW
2013 Palace Malice G2 SP, elig for NW1X
2012 Union Rags MGSW
2011 Ruler on Ice MGSP, elig for NW2X
2010 Drosselmeyer MGSP elig for NW2X
2009 Summer Bird GSP, elig for NW1X
2008 Da Tara SP, elig for NW1X
2007 Rags to Riches MG1SW
2006 Jazil GSP, elig for NW1X
2005 Afleet Alex MG1SW
2004 Birdstone G1SW
2003 Empire Maker MG1SW
2002 Sarava SW
2001 Point Given MG1SW
2000 Commendable elig for NW1X

[SkunkApe]

Originally Posted by alhattab

I like Hofburg in the Belmont at this point. Got into a friendly debate with a good racetracker friend- he's on this board- at Monmouth yesterday about Hofburg's lack of credentials going into the Belmont. He's still eligible for a NW1X and is graded stakes placed (FL Derby 2d). My view is that for a race like the Belmont a talented horse with the right breeding- heavy emphasis on breeding- is much more important than winning races at much shorter distances. His view was that he's still eligible for NW1X, which is effectively an indictment of Hofburg's talent, and that the Belmont will be Justify's easiest race due to weak competition (I don't like Justify based on his pedigree).

I decided to look myself at past winners going back to 2000 to see what credentials they had going into the race, and figured I'd share. The complete list is below. Of the 18 winners:

-5 were still eligible for NW1X
-2 were eligible for NW2X (including Drosselmeyer, making his 9th start in the Belmont)
-1 was a non-graded stakes winner
-10 had won at least a G2 stakes

I didn't look at all the prices, but from recall the NW1X winners were all big prices except Jazil (nearly 7-1). Summer Bird was around 12-1. Da Tara was 38-1. Commendable was, somehow, 18-1 (in my view he should have been 118-1, but just goes to show how bad that Belmont was). Sarava with only a SW was also a huge price. You won't get paid anywhere near that for Hofburg. I think he's going to be something like 9/2.


2017 Tapwrit- G2 Stakes Winner
2016 Creator- G1 SW
2015 American Pharoah
2014 Tonalist G2 SW
2013 Palace Malice G2 SP, elig for NW1X
2012 Union Rags MGSW
2011 Ruler on Ice MGSP, elig for NW2X
2010 Drosselmeyer MGSP elig for NW2X
2009 Summer Bird GSP, elig for NW1X
2008 Da Tara SP, elig for NW1X
2007 Rags to Riches MG1SW
2006 Jazil GSP, elig for NW1X
2005 Afleet Alex MG1SW
2004 Birdstone G1SW
2003 Empire Maker MG1SW
2002 Sarava SW
2001 Point Given MG1SW
2000 Commendable elig for NW1X

Good info. Thanks.

(For what it’s worth, at this point I’m think your buddy has the right of it regarding Hofburg.)

[LemonSoupKid]

Great info, yes, thanks hattab. I'm with you, inclined to side with the breeding and multiple generational connections Hofburg has to Belmont Stakes winners, but I do understand the sentiment of your friend --- I'm sympathetic to the reality that this run has been fairly easy overall for Justify.

Yes, it will depend on price.

The other counter you can give to your friend is that like running in the Derby with 20 horses, the Belmont is yet another example of (at least on dirt) we rarely see again in a year, and certainly not for 3yo, the 12f distance. That makes it an oddball to handicap, without a doubt.

[GMB@BP]

Hofberg will be no more than 5/1 and feels like the belmont wise guy horse.

[CincyHorseplayer]

There doesn't have to be an overwhelming case load of evidence to bet against Justify in the Belmont. A few hints is good enough. This is pile on against time not to be timid. This is just reflex for any seasoned player. If he wins I'll be glad to see another Triple Crown winner but I will hate it and move on to the next race as a player. I will equally relish his lack of seasoning catching up with him in the stretch and will be an annoying asshole at the track because of all the Peter Puffing about him up to this point! Hopefully blowing up tickets at his expense! The Curse of Apollo has been broken. Maybe the Blessing of Apollo can begin by this Belmont failure! C'mon! Anyway happy holiday all! In the less exciting world of Cincyhorseplayer racing I hit 3 exactas all $50 or less at win bet prices and tore it up yesterday. Not as exciting as the above scenario but getting it done. Yee haw!

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by clicknow

So his winning 3 stakes (consequetively) in Canada as a 2 year old (before he ran in the TC races in the U.S and did well). don't count? (purses were $100K, $150K, and $250K).

Then he went to high altitude racing up there in Sunland, (he ran 2nd in the Borderland and 4th I think in the Sunland) before coming to the ky derby. That put some peak oxygen and heart "fitness" into him.

He also had the pedigree for classic distance.

At any rate, he was good for more than 3 races.

'Good' if you mean a decent G3/Ungraded-Stakes type.
'Not Good' if you mean a top-tier 3yo.

• Broke MDN 2nd start in a 62500 Maiden Claimer @ 9/1
• Won 2 ungraded stakes and the G3 Grey with Bris Speed figures of 88,89,85 each was a 6 horse field
• Was dead last in the Breeders Cup Juvenile while posting the highest speed figure that he managed his entire Pre-Derby resume (90 Bris)
• Went off 7/2 (2nd choice or so?) In the unheralded Sunland prep ungraded stakes and finished 2nd. Can't entirely trust comments, but reads "2nd Best"
• Did not take money in Sunland Derby (13/1), made a middle-move into a hot pace coming from mid-pack to 3rd/2nd and flattened out to 4th late. 88 bris speed figure, but at least a reasonably decent pace adversity
• Had now racked up only the 12th best earnings out of 20 Derby entrants, in spite of winning some soft stakes at Woodbine to start his career
• Bris Prime Power was now 17th out of 20 Derby entrants
• Derby Morning line was 50/1
• Poor speed figures relative to the Derby contenders
• 4/6 on Synthetic at that point and 0/2 on Dirt (but did show his only decent pace figures on Dirt in the Sunland Derby)
• Running Style was "E/P 4" (as opposed to the "S 0" Borel would use in the Derby)

You guys continue to remember him positively and defend him, but he was not a top-tier Derby contender by any means.
17th best if you go by the sloppy inaccurate Bris Prime Power.
Now, if you really favored some of his strong suits (good pace in the Sunland Derby and a nose for the wire in some cheaper stakes early on), while ignoring his non-contending speed figures, you could make a realistic case that instead of 17th best, that he was actually 9th or 10th best in that field and a mildly interesting long shot at a big price.

[classhandicapper]

Mine That Bird was a tough horse to come up with in the Derby if you were trying to come up with the most probable winner, but it was very easy to know he was better than looked on paper. It just wasn't that easy to think he'd also move forward a lot off that fast paced race at Sunland.

He got a very good trip in the Derby, but his races in the Peakness and Belmont proved his win in the Derby was not just some fluke result of the off track and rail skimming ride. He had gotten much better also.

He was what he was.

He was a lower quality stakes horse that peaked at the perfect moment, was competitive in all 3 Triple Crown races at that higher level, and then never developed further. So he was never competitive against older stakes horses.