Jan 24th at GP just keeps looking weirder and weirder

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

BUT

If every other horse in the race backs up in relation to the winner, the performance isn't impressive UNLESS the final time was (figure) fast --- cause he didn't run fast enough to drop them? How did he drop them then? No answer.

He dropped them simply because they quit and he didn't.

The first half mile of that race was run in fractions similar to what you'd expect to see from stake horses going the distance. The last three furlongs of the race was BY FAR the weakest part of the race .. and I really don't care what happens in that part of the race.

Yes, Dunkirk came back and won in eye-popping fashion at 6/5 odds.

But - the three horses involved in the pace ... they are who you want from the race ..

a.) because they performed best in the strong part of the race - the first half

and

b.) because they performed poorly in the weak part of the race .. the final 3fs.

It's only because of part b that you get a price on them the next time they run. And like I mentioned in the post ... of the three .. two won back next out - one running 30 points faster Beyer wise and the other 40+ points faster and winning at 16/1 odds. The only remaining horse of the three involved in the pace - he hasn't run back - and I believe he was the 1st timer that John Velazquez took off of Dunkirk to ride.

horses who are in 7th place behind a pace meltdown - even if only 4 lengths off the pace - and win big ... they are not horses I want any part of next out even though they can win. I'd always rather have one who is burned up in the meltdown and stops. They can improve result dramatically in a softer pace race .. and they are more likely to get ignored in the betting rather than pounded.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

He dropped them simply because they quit and he didn't.

The first half mile of that race was run in fractions similar to what you'd expect to see from stake horses going the distance. The last three furlongs of the race was BY FAR the weakest part of the race .. and I really don't care what happens in that part of the race.

Yes, Dunkirk came back and won in eye-popping fashion at 6/5 odds.

But - the three horses involved in the pace ... they are who you want from the race ..

a.) because they performed best in the strong part of the race - the first half

and

b.) because they performed poorly in the weak part of the race .. the final 3fs.

It's only because of part b that you get a price on them the next time they run. And like I mentioned in the post ... of the three .. two won back next out - one running 30 points faster Beyer wise and the other 40+ points faster and winning at 16/1 odds. The only remaining horse of the three involved in the pace - he hasn't run back - and I believe he was the 1st timer that John Velazquez took off of Dunkirk to ride.

horses who are in 7th place behind a pace meltdown - even if only 4 lengths off the pace - and win big ... they are not horses I want any part of next out even though they can win. I'd always rather have one who is burned up in the meltdown and stops. They can improve result dramatically in a softer pace race .. and they are more likely to get ignored in the betting rather than pounded.

I really cant take anymore... but a sock in it...You think you are going to teach the fat man..the guy is so pompous he wouldn't let Beyer Crist or any handicapper teach him never mind a jerk from Erie

[the_fat_man]

You constantly DWELL on the OBVIOUS. No doubt, if a number of horses are dooking it out and the pace falls apart, you want them back. Though you'd be surprised how often the horse doing the most running in terms of the setup just doesn't run well next out. (This is an angle I follow and it disappoints in relation to some others.)

The POINT of this thread, however, is that THE WINNER ran a HUGE EFFORT

AND

he wasn't supposed to given the FIGURE and, by most interpretations, THE SETUP. By all conventional accounts he 'sucked up', 'got a perfect trip', etc.

Either he's an anomaly or the system needs tweaking.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

You constantly DWELL on the OBVIOUS. No doubt, if a number of horses are dooking it out and the pace falls apart, you want them back. Though you'd be surprised how often the horse doing the most running in terms of the setup just doesn't run well next out. (This is an angle I follow and it disappoints in relation to some others.)

The POINT of this thread, however, is that THE WINNER ran a HUGE EFFORT

AND

he wasn't supposed to given the FIGURE and, by most interpretations, THE SETUP. By all conventional accounts he 'sucked up', 'got a perfect trip', etc.

Either he's an anomaly or the system needs tweaking.

Let me get you an account over at on of my finer betting establishments.. I would love to earn on your betting angles.. How about 10% back with a red?

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Let me get you an account over at on of my finer betting establishments.. I would love to earn on your betting angles.. How about 10% back with a red?

Could you imagine having to deal with the fatman everyday? Even if he made you 100% on your money it wouldnt be worth dealing with that whining b#tch.

Everytime the idiot loses it's the jocks fault...Nyra's fault...the track super's fault.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Could you imagine having to deal with the fatman everyday? Even if he made you 100% on your money it wouldnt be worth dealing with that whining b#tch.

Everytime the idiot loses it's the jocks fault...Nyra's fault...the track super's fault.

lack of trakus....

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Could you imagine having to deal with the fatman everyday? Even if he made you 100% on your money it wouldnt be worth dealing with that whining b#tch.

Everytime the idiot loses it's the jocks fault...Nyra's fault...the track super's fault.

I thought the Big Boy would've come around (excuse the pun) if given the right environment.. The guy is brilliant but just needs to chill in the right room were people knew he was what he was... Then he might have flourished and stopped this insane my kock is bigger then your kock stuff..

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I thought the Big Boy would've come around (excuse the pun) if given the right environment.. The guy is brilliant but just needs to chill in the right room were people knew he was what he was... Then he might have flourished and stopped this insane my kock is bigger then your kock stuff..

I figured, when I took you off iggy, that'd it be the typical **** from you. Do you ever contribute ON TOPIC?

DrugS just can't get over the fact that this horse ran well AFTER he (and others) went on and on about how it wouldn't. Any way he spins it, he can't account for its performance. Sounds like we need a conceptual shift.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I figured, when I took you off iggy, that'd it be the typical **** from you. Do you ever contribute ON TOPIC?

DrugS just can't get over the fact that this horse ran well AFTER he (and others) went on and on about how it wouldn't. Any way he spins it, he can't account for its performance. Sounds like we need a conceptual shift.

fatty I am your biggest fan begged my boys and girls to welcome you to a better place..That is why stone said imagine having to deal with your BS daily.

As for my Handicapping... I know 5 times more then most but am smart enough to realize I know a fraction of what folks like You, DrugS, BTW, and others know.. I am smart enough to listen and read to all the best work.. BTW I am a fairly substantial bettor and willing to take a serious shot at them when I am told to.