Justify

[PowerUpPaynter]

How good do you think this horse is? Can he break the Apollo curse? Worth noting he is also of the 0-51 Storm Cat sire line. I think he is really good BUT I dont think he will win the derby.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

How good do you think this horse is? Can he break the Apollo curse? Worth noting he is also of the 0-51 Storm Cat sire line. I think he is really good BUT I dont think he will win the derby.

Goldencents Junior.

The horse has those curses going against him but manages to beat of four non winners other than maiden in the slop that could conceivably lose at Fonner Park... and he's suddenly the Derby favorite? It did make for better odds on others.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Goldencents Junior.

The horse has those curses going against him but manages to beat of four non winners other than maiden in the slop that could conceivably lose at Fonner Park... and he's suddenly the Derby favorite? It did make for better odds on others.

The silliest statement of the year so far, congratulations!

[TheGarMan]

I gather he will get "one shot" to get derby points probably via the Santa Anita Derby.

And if he does it, he will have done it by beating the likes of Bolt and or McKinzie to get in. (That's a pretty tall order in his third race ever)

How good is he? We are about to find out.

(Futures bettors are a strange bunch, we just made a horse with zero qualifying points who 6 hours ago was eligible for "non winners of 2" the favorite, over a few horses who have been grinding at it for a while with some nice wins)

EDIT: In full disclosure I am actually by accident "invested" in Justify via a decent sized wager in the "all others" from future pool 2 , so I suppose in that regard am in essence rooting for him.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by jocko699

The silliest statement of the year so far, congratulations!

Care to provide insight or just meaningless drivel? I merely seconded PowerUp's comment that any handicapper can verify minus the Nebraska humor. What do you have to offer besides insult? That horse is going up against a lot of history. If he breaks it then great. Even the Cubs win once every hundred years.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Care to provide insight or just meaningless drivel? I merely seconded PowerUp's comment that any handicapper can verify minus the Nebraska humor. What do you have to offer besides insult? That horse is going up against a lot of history. If he breaks it then great. Even the Cubs win once every hundred years.

Derby "curses" are hasty generalizations based on insufficient sample sizes, Plus, the Derby has changed, a lot.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Derby "curses" are hasty generalizations based on insufficient sample sizes, Plus, the Derby has changed, a lot.

From my statistics class, n=51 is a statistically large sample. Storm Cat is 0-51 in the Derby in spite of taking up more than 10% of the gates since 1994. I have also read years back Storm Cat was something like 1 for 128 at 10F in all races. Big enough sample for you? Raise A Native horses make up 25% of Derby starters yet win half the races. Is it some "hasty generalization" Raise A Native is winning at twice the expected rate while Storm Cat is not winning at all? To suggest it is the case is to suggest breeding is meaningless.

Since 1937, I believe 59 horses ran in the Kentucky Derby after not running as a two year old. My text book says n=59 is a statistically large sample. They all lost. Why? Maybe foundation means something? Steve Haskin writes about it every week in his Blood Horse column.

The Derby hasn't changed at all. The only thing that has changed is the trainer approach to getting there. Now if a horse bucking the two trends comes out a Derby winner then great. In the meantime, I'll continue to utilize statistics in my wagering. I have Justify in my use of All Others from Pool 1 & 2. More power to my wallet if he hits with the right horse. I'm just not expecting it to happen (yet). If he shows me a 37.6 final 3/8th in a 9F prep then I'll find the bandwagon.

[PowerUpPaynter]

Originally Posted by TheGarMan

I gather he will get "one shot" to get derby points probably via the Santa Anita Derby.

And if he does it, he will have done it by beating the likes of Bolt and or McKinzie to get in. (That's a pretty tall order in his third race ever)

How good is he? We are about to find out.

(Futures bettors are a strange bunch, we just made a horse with zero qualifying points who 6 hours ago was eligible for "non winners of 2" the favorite, over a few horses who have been grinding at it for a while with some nice wins)

EDIT: In full disclosure I am actually by accident "invested" in Justify via a decent sized wager in the "all others" from future pool 2 , so I suppose in that regard am in essence rooting for him.

McKinzie is gonna go to Arkansas...

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

The Derby hasn't changed at all.

The Derby has changed dramatically. Sprinter speed is no longer involved.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

From my statistics class, n=51 is a statistically large sample. Storm Cat is 0-51 in the Derby in spite of taking up more than 10% of the gates since 1994. I have also read years back Storm Cat was something like 1 for 128 at 10F in all races. Big enough sample for you? Raise A Native horses make up 25% of Derby starters yet win half the races. Is it some "hasty generalization" Raise A Native is winning at twice the expected rate while Storm Cat is not winning at all? To suggest it is the case is to suggest breeding is meaningless.

Since 1937, I believe 59 horses ran in the Kentucky Derby after not running as a two year old. My text book says n=59 is a statistically large sample. They all lost. Why? Maybe foundation means something? Steve Haskin writes about it every week in his Blood Horse column.

The Derby hasn't changed at all. The only thing that has changed is the trainer approach to getting there. Now if a horse bucking the two trends comes out a Derby winner then great. In the meantime, I'll continue to utilize statistics in my wagering. I have Justify in my use of All Others from Pool 1 & 2. More power to my wallet if he hits with the right horse. I'm just not expecting it to happen (yet). If he shows me a 37.6 final 3/8th in a 9F prep then I'll find the bandwagon.

1.Have you ever calculated the variamce in horae racimg? It is huge. 51 is a TINY sample of horse races. 59 is a TINY sample of horses. In poker- which has LESS variance than horse racing because there are no animals involved, you need at least 10,000 hands before you know anything.

2. Since 1937, the Derby has changed enormously. For one thing the fields are a lot bigger. Citation faced 6 horses in 1948. As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

For another thing, ALL the horses are less experienced. Derby starters used to have 10, 12, even 20 starts. Now they have 5.

Third, the point system has eliminated speedballs who used to enter, so the pace has slowed.

In fact, the Derby has changed as much as almost any race in America.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1.Have you ever calculated the variamce in horae racimg? It is huge. 51 is a TINY sample of horse races. 59 is a TINY sample of horses. In poker- which has LESS variance than horse racing because there are no animals involved, you need at least 10,000 hands before you know anything.

2. Since 1937, the Derby has changed enormously. For one thing the fields are a lot bigger. Citation faced 6 horses in 1948. As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

For another thing, ALL the horses are less experienced. Derby starters used to have 10, 12, even 20 starts. Now they have 5.

Third, the point system has eliminated speedballs who used to enter, so the pace has slowed.

In fact, the Derby has changed as much as almost any race in America.

good post, I would tend to agree, this stuff about dosage, 2 year old starts, etc just seem outdated to me as you outlined.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1.Have you ever calculated the variamce in horae racimg? It is huge. 51 is a TINY sample of horse races. 59 is a TINY sample of horses. In poker- which has LESS variance than horse racing because there are no animals involved, you need at least 10,000 hands before you know anything.

2. Since 1937, the Derby has changed enormously. For one thing the fields are a lot bigger. Citation faced 6 horses in 1948. As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

For another thing, ALL the horses are less experienced. Derby starters used to have 10, 12, even 20 starts. Now they have 5.

Third, the point system has eliminated speedballs who used to enter, so the pace has slowed.

In fact, the Derby has changed as much as almost any race in America.

There Derby has not changed appreciably since Storm Cat began siring contenders. Storm Cat does not apply in the 1937 renewal of the Derby. Unfortunately, in horse racing we deal with smaller sample sizes than card sharks in Vegas. I gotta play with what I have.

Is the slowing pace perception or reality?

1997 23.57 47.55 112.23
1998 22.75 45.75 110.62
1999 23.52 47.88 112.52
2000 22.47 45.99 109.99

2014 23.04 47.37 111.80
2015 23.24 47.34 111.29
2016 22.58 45.72 110.40
2017 22.70 46.53 111.12

I don't see much difference. Do you? We still have speed balls like Danzing Candy that find a way to make the gate.

[Tom]

As late as 1997 they did not need an auxiliary starting gate.

Actually, big fields started in 1981, with 21 entries.
Most since then have had 17-20 horses.

The main gate hold 16, right? That's what I went by.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Actually, big fields started in 1981, with 21 entries.
Most since then have had 17-20 horses.

The main gate hold 16, right? That's what I went by.

They had sporadic big fields even way back when. Clyde Van Deusen won a Derby in the 1920's with 22 horses or something in it.

But it wasn't every year, and lots of Derbies had normal sized fields. Secretariat's Derby, for instance, wasn't a large field. At the same time, the year after Secretariat they had the biggest field in history.

The main gate holds 14. The last one to fit within the main gate was 1997. But through the 1980's and 1990's, there were plenty of them with less than 20. 16-18 was the usual number.

In recent years, it's been 20 every year unless there has been a scratch. That's never been the case before historically.

[Mc990]

Yes, the derby is ever evolving with the most pronounced change being in how trainers are mapping out the 3 year old preps as they've realized 2 preps (and preferably 5+ weeks coming in) are optimal.

However from 1980-2012 compared to 2013-2017, the mean and median pace has not been appreciably different.... the narrative that it has is just noise