Nyquist and the numbers?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

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

How do "numbers" pick a horse. Just curious how "they" picked Exaggerator this time and last time.

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by cordep17

what a weird way to interpret

He lives in his own little handicapping world..

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

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

Which "numbers" are you referring to Al? Certainly not the pace and speed figure "numbers". What "numbers" did Exaggerator have that beat Nyquist's "numbers" before the Derby and the Preakness? And, are you saying that none of the P&P cappers use those "numbers" too? Yes, Nyquist was a bad "bet" in the Preakness, because of his low odds, but he definitely had the "numbers" to win the race, the best "numbers" in the field as a matter of fact, he just happened to run the wrong "numbers", at the wrong time, in the Preakness, and got beat by a stronger finishing horse that day.

Now, in the Belmont, the published "numbers", at least the very best "numbers" (as qualified by many of the better players on this forum), might be a bit in error, due to the over-compensation, IMO, by pace and trip/pressure in the Preakness. If indeed Nyquist's pace battle and trip/pressure, in the Preakness, were as tough as most think, then that harrowing battle and the resulting high speed figure given him versus that of Exaggerator and Cherry Wine could result in another low priced horse who finishes up the track in the Belmont. And lots of torn up tickets, again.

Now, let's hear you say your "numbers" are better than CJ's/TFUS'. I know that's what you want to say, and the reason for your post. So, go ahead, and let's see what that gets you.

[Tom]

What about the P&P players who wrote down the numbers?

[Capper Al]

Like most Derbies, the crowd is moved by the news coverage. I can only speak to my system which had Exaggerator both times. But with Nyquist, the crowd did have something to go on. He was undefeated until now.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Tom

What about the P&P players who wrote down the numbers?

Dude, you just blew my mind.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Tom

What about the P&P players who wrote down the numbers?

LOL - that's a good one!

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Like most Derbies, the crowd is moved by the news coverage. I can only speak to my system which had Exaggerator both times. But with Nyquist, the crowd did have something to go on. He was undefeated until now.

It wasn't all about the news coverage, the horse had the best numbers going into the Preakness, meaning everything except late pace, and if he doesn't get embroiled in a significant early pace battle he probably wins the thing, even with lower late pace numbers. More often than not, higher early numbers win versus higher late numbers, on the dirt, especially in the slop.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

He lives in his own little handicapping world..

And that's were one has to be to be profitable.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

What about the P&P players who wrote down the numbers?

Writing down numbers and adding up a few verse dozens if not hundreds of calculations by a software program. I hoped they used different color ink for fun.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by cj

How do "numbers" pick a horse. Just curious how "they" picked Exaggerator this time and last time.

They don't. People that can look at the PP's, figure out the expected pace and weigh out the value of the odds.....pick winners or better yet, winning combinations. The numbers are just one fraction (part) of the equation.

That's why I don't rely on numbers that much. I rely on my wits...but that's just me. I'm pretty much pencil and paper, born and raised.

[Capper Al]

Putting together an image of what the coming race might look like is a gift that some have. A few of my old track buddies, were form readers and did better well.