Nyquist and the numbers?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Nitro

All of which was pointed out well before the Derby! But many here were just looking for a price.

And on top of all this it won on 4 different racing surfaces with various running styles.

Nyquist is maturing very nicely. Who knows just how fast he can run? Will we ever know? Because all he ever wants to do is just win the race. Isn’t that all that really matters?

You don’t need "numbers" to define CLASS.

I looked for a price. 2/1 was absurd.

And is always absurd in a 20 horse field.

[Tom]

Sorry to spoil a good rant, but he did have the numbers. There no question he was in top of the field. The top two finishers and Exaggerator had the figs. Danzig Candy had the fig but ran too early.

One could have hit the exacta and never looked at any past performances.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Tom

Sorry to spoil a good rant, but he did have the numbers. There no question he was in top of the field. The top two finishers and Exaggerator had the figs. Danzig Candy had the fig but ran too early.

One could have hit the exacta and never looked at any past performances.

A guy walking in off the street could have hit the $30 Exacta. Chalk/Chalk.

I still can't believe the love for Danzing Candy. He was a speed/fade as easy as anything in the race.

Do people still believe that speed will win the Derby?

[Speed Figure]

For me there was no question that Nyquist was by far the top class horse by a lot in the field, but he was not the top numbers horse on my numbers. Exaggerator had the best derby prep race for me. This is how they look going into the Preakness.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

• 7 for 7 lifetime
• 6 Graded Stakes wins
• 2YO Champion
• 4 G1 Graded Stakes wins
• Put away the supposed Derby favorite handily in his final prep before the Derby.

All of these items towered over the rest of the field.

The biggest nick on Nyquist were his times and his figures.

He was undoubtedly the deserving favorite. My whole problem was 2/1. Regardless of the outcome of the race, 2/1 was an underlay. For crap's sake, he was 8/5 (2nd choice) in a 10 horse field in which it was considered a duel..... and 8 tomato cans.

He did have distance questions as well, although they were likely overplayed. EVERY horse in the Derby has distance questions until they actually prove they can run well at 10F or more.

That's why the Pen and Paper cappers made him the deserving favorite.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

That's why the Pen and Paper cappers made him the deserving favorite.

...whereas quant-driven models didn't use him?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

That's why the Pen and Paper cappers made him the deserving favorite.

And who was/were your losing favorite(s)?

I tried to beat Nyquist with the

All that according to my Pen and Paper caveman tactics.

[raybo]

Maybe Al meant "uneducated" pen and paper handicappers?

Lots of people look at the wins/starts records of horses, and when a horse is undefeated, they think that's the best horse, automatically. In this particular case, they were right. But, in other races, sometimes that very good win record just isn't enough. So, a pen and paper player that looked at that simplistic "perceived" class, certainly would have favored Nyquist, whereas, a non-pen and paper player would have used other factors in their analysis, and maybe Nyquist just didn't look unbeatable, based on those other factors. I have 20 rankings methods in my program, and only 3 of those had Nyquist ranked in the top 3. So, in my view, Nyquist was beatable, and his price sucked also, which made it a no-brainer to bet against him.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by raybo

Maybe Al meant "uneducated" pen and paper handicappers?

Lots of people look at the wins/starts records of horses, and when a horse is undefeated, they think that's the best horse, automatically. In this particular case, they were right. But, in other races, sometimes that very good win record just isn't enough. So, a pen and paper player that looked at that simplistic "perceived" class, certainly would have favored Nyquist, whereas, a non-pen and paper player would have used other factors in their analysis, and maybe Nyquist just didn't look unbeatable, based on those other factors. I have 20 rankings methods in my program, and only 3 of those had Nyquist ranked in the top 3. So, in my view, Nyquist was beatable, and his price sucked also, which made it a no-brainer to bet against him.

Being undefeated is one thing, nearly winning more Graded Stakes races than the entire 20 horse field combined is another.

4 G1 wins prior to the Derby. FOUR. Pen, paper, mathematics. Doesn't matter. He was the class of the race. Period.

My fault was thinking that some other horses would go with the crap horse who went out in fractions that I fully predicted and expected. I failed miserably in that nobody went with him. Nobody.

[Tom]

How many Gr1 HORSES has he beaten?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Tom

How many Gr1 HORSES has he beaten?

Who?

Nyquist?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Being undefeated is one thing, nearly winning more Graded Stakes races than the entire 20 horse field combined is another.

4 G1 wins prior to the Derby. FOUR. Pen, paper, mathematics. Doesn't matter. He was the class of the race. Period.

My fault was thinking that some other horses would go with the crap horse who went out in fractions that I fully predicted and expected. I failed miserably in that nobody went with him. Nobody.

My statement about him being undefeated was too simplistic. He could have had more wins than the others, even if he had losses, and the player that focus on his wins/starts stat would have still thought he was the best horse in the race, automatically, and again, in this case, they were right. But, in other races they might be wrong (and frequently are) because other factors override that one. The "obvious class" mindset works sometimes, and other times it fails miserably, especially in the long run where price plays such a large role.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by raybo

My statement about him being undefeated was too simplistic. He could have had more wins than the others, even if he had losses, and the player that focus on his wins/starts stat would have still thought he was the best horse in the race, automatically, and again, in this case, they were right. But, in other races they might be wrong (and frequently are) because other factors override that one. The "obvious class" mindset works sometimes, and other times it fails miserably, especially in the long run where price plays such a large role.

Take Big Blue Kitten in the race before for instance. Class edge from hell but a deep marathon closer off a layoff in a 9f race. 9 ball side pocket Ray. Good point.

[Capper Al]

The numbers had Exaggerator again in the Preakness. The P&P cappers lost this one.

[cordep17]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The numbers had Exaggerator again in the Preakness. The P&P cappers lost this one.

what a weird way to interpret