And I think this is the kind of indefensible wishful thinking that causes people to lose their money. You have a horse that had an otherwise perfect trip, but had three lengths of trouble at most, somehow turning a 1 3/4 length win into a nine to ten length romp. It's typical racetrack over-exaggeration if you ask me.

He was 30 cents to the dollar yesterday. What would have been the appropriate amount of lengths he should have won by with an absolute perfect trip, as you are suggesting, given his competition?

I'm not sure I understand your question. How many lengths would he have won by with a perfect trip if he's an average horse or if he's a really good horse? How many lengths did the general public think he'd win by? As you said, they made him 1-3 so they obviously thought he was a stand-out that would win easily. I guess they probably thought he would win by 5-6 lengths.

Thus he didn't overachieve. He was about five lengths the best.

I am going to guess that you liked him at the 2YO sale, and perhaps recommended that some people could have or should have purchased him. Therefore, should he turn out to be OK, you will look good and perhaps be able to use this for your benefit. Now, don't get me wrong, if I am correct here, I see nothing wrong with that, and can't imagine what smart person wouldn't do the same. But, I do think it may be clouding your judgement and affecting your objectivity.

Sharp Post

You are partially right. I did like him at the 2YO sales but I didn't have any clients that were buying at either one of those sales (he was in 2 different sales) so I didn't recommend him to anyone.

A horse's work at a 2YO sale definitely influences my opinion because it gives me an opinion about a horse before he has even run. This is not to my detriment. Quite to the contrary, it makes me a lot of money betting. It often makes me more money in their 2nd or even 3rd career starts than in their debut. It's not easy to win first-time out. I obviously couldn't bet the horse yesterday because he was no price but there are plenty of times where these horses will just run mediocre first-time out and will come back and win 2nd time out or even 3rd time out.

With regards to the horse yesterday, my opinion of him at the 2YO sale definitely affects my opinion of him now. However, it doesn't affect my opinion on how much trouble I think he had.

I know DrugS and you are no DrugS

I hope your overall opinion at the 2YO sales is better than your assessment of his performance yesterday.

I should probably let this thread die a typical death, but reading some posts here really bugged me. The dismissive tone of many of these posts is unfortunate for a number of reasons.

I consider Rupert an invaluable source of information on 2-year-olds and other lightly raced horses. His eye for running ability is pretty much the only thing that will get me to bet on a maiden race. If he likes a horse in a maiden race, I will bet it, period.

I didn’t always have this view. I’m a speed figure guy, and Rupert is disdainful of speed figures. (If Rupert ever quotes a speed figure, it would probably be with the qualifier, “for you speed figure guys…”) So I was full of skepticism when I first encountered Rupert about 6.5 years ago. I had the same view as some of the posters in this thread: “I can’t believe this guy puts so much emphasis on how a horse LOOKS running!!”

Over the course of 2 years, I followed Rupert’s picks on over 600 races. He showed a remarkable 9% profit from those picks. These results were not skewed by one or two gigantic payoffs, either. They were all win or win/place bets on medium priced horses. The chance of getting a positive result over that many races by luck alone (without the help of big exotic payoffs) is pretty small.

Although Rupert included all kinds of races in his picks, it’s my opinion that his biggest strength was with the maidens he had personally seen work at Ocala and other sales. This was the kind of information that just wasn’t accessible to the vast majority of the betting public.

Speed figures are still the starting point for my own capping, but I would never dismiss any opinion of Rupert’s. And I bet seriously on any post of his with a title like “nice first-timer in 3rd at Oaklawn”. I wish he'd make more posts like that, or better yet, email them to me privately!

--Dunbar

No doubt he's good at this. But, he's clearly not an expert at TRIP HANDICAPPING. First thing a trip handicapper learns is to not give too much weight to the inside troubled trip (especially if the race sets up well for the troubled horse). Hard to believe that something as ELEMENTARY as this, borne out by simply watching races over time, is so difficult to comprehend for so many. To BTW's credit, he's still trying to educate while so many others have given up.

Then again, when one is an EXPERT in a given area, who can fault him for thinking he's an EXPERT in another (unrelated) area. :rolleyes:

a lot of doctors have gone broke in the stock market fat

a lot of stripper's have gone broke smoking crystal meth.

Shouldn't Obama be bailing out national treasures like Meth Stripper's Coach? Maybe we can organize a Charity Concert?

He should legalize prostitution and meth. That would solve the deficit.

It's unfortunate the religious nutters hate this fine country.

You are right. I am not a "trip handicapper". But you don't need to be a trip handicapper to know that taking up sharply at the 3/8th pole is not a good thing. Taking up sharply at the 3/8th pole is going to kill you almost every time.

If you have a horse stuck on the rail behind horses (but within striking range), saving ground all the way around the turn, I wouldn't call that a bad trip as long as the horse does not have to take up and as long as he gets out at the top of the stretch. Many people will mistaken that for a bad trip, when in reality, it is often times a really good trip.

If you are 7 lengths better then the field why is taking up at the 3/8th's SUCH a big deal. The horse laid over the field?

Kind of like the religious nutters that run this fine state that refuse to allow gambling? Williams should go back to his hole in eastern KY and never come back

Races are entities in and of themselves. There are flows to them and those part of the 'correct' flow for that race have a huge advantage.

Clearly, your horse had to check and lost ground. However, to that point it was saving ground and had the best of it, while 3 other horses were going at it on the front end. And, while it had to take back, it also, in a sense, got a break from chasing. Sooner or later, the speed was coming back and it was just a matter of who had done the least amount of running at the point where this happend. And this just happened to be your horse. It stumbled and bumbled its way home in poodle fractions (as all the others had run BEFORE it).

Now, there's no doubt it was probably the best in this race (the only horse I want back from it is the runner up) but I'd want to see it run in a FAIR race to see what it's made of. In other words, while your horse had trouble, it also got the advantageous setup. And, in its debut it showed that it can't run against it. Not saying the horse can't do it; just need to see it.

Your first thought, as is often the case, was your best thought.

Or, perhaps I misunderstood, and it was Rupert that you were needlessly chastising for being dismissive. Pardon my silliness. Maybe I should have followed your original advice....that you ignored.

happy gilmore..feelin' the flow..

AQU R7: #3 Hello Gold

CHECKED INSIDE at the rear of the pack going into the turn and had to take back

YET

she somehow, miraculously, worked her way between horses, came wide entering and got up late. :rolleyes:

another horse that wins after checking inside