This One's for Phil goes nuts...

[sumitas]

very nice cj . it's more difficult to visualize a form cycle with the bsf . but your adjustments bring this race into a more understandable event.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Thx CJ. That's a great analysis and big help to understanding the performances.

Does this mean you are in full accord that Dutrow's miraclous "move up" isn't exactly explictable with sheet interpetation? Horse made a bunch of starts and had a decent race or two and now low and behold is running better G1 beyers... maybe the horse just likes South Beach or maybe it was the South Beach diet?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Does this mean you are in full accord that Dutrow's miraclous "move up" isn't exactly explictable with sheet interpetation? Horse made a bunch of starts and had a decent race or two and now low and behold is running better G1 beyers... maybe the horse just likes South Beach or maybe it was the South Beach diet?

You have to be so cynical? Maybe Rickie is just THAT good.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

You have to be so cynical? Maybe Rickie is just THAT good.

I would assume DT has contacted him to do some "THAT" special training...Why not deal with the very very best? Don't answer that one Steve its loaded

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Kasept

You have to be so cynical? Maybe Rickie is just THAT good.

i hear he has a good dentist...

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I am interested to know Dunkirk's figure (7F, 1:25). I read Haskin's report for Bloodhorse on his Saturday debut, and it was his opinion that the track was playing slowly for the first five races on Saturday. I remembered that sentence after I read BTW's opinion that there was no evidence of a change in condition warranting a split variant.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48930.htm?id=48930

77

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I am interested to know Dunkirk's figure (7F, 1:25). I read Haskin's report for Bloodhorse on his Saturday debut, and it was his opinion that the track was playing slowly for the first five races on Saturday. I remembered that sentence after I read BTW's opinion that there was no evidence of a change in condition warranting a split variant.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48930.htm?id=48930

Hmmm...Haskin vs Serling and Beyer? I know which opinion I would give the most weight.

[cmorioles]

OK, lets be objective and see how the card looked. First, 2 of the first 5 were on turf, so we'll ignore those.

Race 1: Radio Relay wins and gets an 81 Beyer. In five previous starts, the horse never bettered 60. The runner up had run high 70s a few times, so it probably makes sense RR improved a lot.

Race 3: Indy's Sonata, Run All Day, and Won Token battle it to the wire and get a 69 Beyer. Two were first time starters, while Run All Day had three starts on surfaces other than dirt, had run mid 60s. It can be argued that if anything, turf and synthetic figures are a little inflated when the figures are that low. The race is a crapshoot, but it is tough to argue for a much higher figure.

Race 5: 1ster Dunkirk romps and gets a 77. He beats another 1ster and Spanish Fortune, a second time starter that Beyered 53 first out. The figure given means despite getting dusted, he improved to a 61.

If you split the variant there, you have to increase the figures of the three races mentioned, or decrease the later three dirt races. While the 7th is a very fast race, if the track had indeed sped up, it is really tough to explain the times and figures you would have to give the last two races.

[Kasept]

Blistering column by Andy Beyer in DRF about work of Dutrow vis a vis the performance of 'Phil'. Indicts other 'supertrainers' as well.. Important read.

Latest supertrainer feat raises suspicion
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...9&subs=0&arc=0

Thoroughbred racing has become less a test of horses than it is a competition among trainers. The most successful have been dubbed "supertrainers" because they achieve results almost without precedent. They compile winning percentages that dwarf the records of horsemen enshrined in the Hall of Fame. They acquire horses and transform them in ways that history's greatest trainers never dreamed of. Accordingly, bettors disregard the normal logic of handicapping when they evaluate horses saddled by Rick Dutrow in New York, Bruce Levine or Jason Servis in New Jersey, Marty Wolfson in south Florida, Kirk Ziadie and Jamie Ness at Tampa Bay Downs, Jeff Mullins in California and countless other miracle workers.

[cmorioles]

He has written this basic article a few other times. I'm glad he writes them, and I hope he continues to do so until things change.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Accordingly, bettors disregard the normal logic of handicapping when they evaluate horses saddled by Rick Dutrow in New York, Bruce Levine or Jason Servis in New Jersey, Marty Wolfson in south Florida, Kirk Ziadie and Jamie Ness at Tampa Bay Downs, Jeff Mullins in California and countless other miracle workers.

There's not a problem then. If everyone knows/assumes these guys are cheating, and adjusts their game accordingly, I don't see why this seems to be at top of the list for handicappers to bitch about.

Why, I wonder, do we continually focus on this issue, rather than others that actual DO have an affect on one's ROI? Like:

1) after the bell betting
2) lack of accurate data (this is the 21st century, right?)
3) availability of free (live) video
4) INCOMPETENT stewards
5) ridiculous TAXATION

I can easily account for a juicer: I just use his horse to cover my ass when I have an opinion in the race. I can't really compensate for the others, however. The powers that be, who, most of us think are idiots or incompetent, must get a kick out of horseplayers' obsessive focus on this lesser issue at the expense of the more important ones.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

There's not a problem then. If everyone knows/assumes these guys are cheating, and adjusts their game accordingly, I don't see why this seems to be at top of the list for handicappers to bitch about.

Why, I wonder, do we continually focus on this issue, rather than others that actual DO have an affect on one's ROI? Like:

1) after the bell betting
2) lack of accurate data (this is the 21st century, right?)
3) availability of free (live) video
4) INCOMPETENT stewards
5) ridiculous TAXATION

I can easily account for a juicer: I just use his horse to cover my ass when I have an opinion in the race. I can't really compensate for the others, however. The powers that be, who, most of us think are idiots or incompetent, must get a kick out of horseplayers' obsessive focus on this lesser issue at the expense of the more important ones.

I agree to an extent, but how do you explain to a potential new bettor that some people cheat, but it is OK, just account for it when you handicap? Guys that have been around a while learn to adapt, but new people looking for a new hobby will probably find something else. It also makes for smaller fields which is not good for bettors either.

Further, we need owners and trainers to compete and make the game what it can be. Clowns like Dutrow drive potential owners/horsemen to other interests.

[pweizer]

I think it is very unfair to include Marty Wolfson on that list.

Paul

Originally Posted by Kasept

Blistering column by Andy Beyer in DRF about work of Dutrow vis a vis the performance of 'Phil'. Indicts other 'supertrainers' as well.. Important read.

Latest supertrainer feat raises suspicion
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...9&subs=0&arc=0

Thoroughbred racing has become less a test of horses than it is a competition among trainers. The most successful have been dubbed "supertrainers" because they achieve results almost without precedent. They compile winning percentages that dwarf the records of horsemen enshrined in the Hall of Fame. They acquire horses and transform them in ways that history's greatest trainers never dreamed of. Accordingly, bettors disregard the normal logic of handicapping when they evaluate horses saddled by Rick Dutrow in New York, Bruce Levine or Jason Servis in New Jersey, Marty Wolfson in south Florida, Kirk Ziadie and Jamie Ness at Tampa Bay Downs, Jeff Mullins in California and countless other miracle workers.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It also makes for smaller fields which is not good for bettors either.

This is debatable. Small fields are not good for bettors looking to make big scores. You know, the once in a while hit; the pick 4 horses in a race and see what happens crowd.

IMO, they're just what the doctor ordered for someone who can consistently pick winners and has strong (and singular) opinions. I've recently discovered GG. Hard to find many races with more than 6 going to the post there. YET, the track is a ****in goldmine.

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Really? Why? Who has had more dramatic move ups (off very good trainers I might add) than he?

Is that a serious question? You really lump Wolfson with the Dutrow's and Ness' s of the world? The man is a great trainer. He doesn't ever have 45% winners at a meet like the above and that says alot.

Paul

[MISTERGEE]

dont forget Ikigai, who is also now a world beater that he took over, as far as This ones for Phil, Kathleen O connell has been training for about 30 years and is a very adequate horsewomen. there probably nothing she doesnt know about horses and their training. but now her and the likes of her are either idiots or the rest is as obvious as we all know it is, and even though we may all be bothered by it i guess for now as some have said just use it in your handicapping and hope for the best

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Is that a serious question? You really lump Wolfson with the Dutrow's and Ness' s of the world? The man is a great trainer. He doesn't ever have 45% winners at a meet like the above and that says alot.

Paul

Yeah, he was just 53-for-131 (40% wins) with a $2.38 ROI with all starters in 2008 at high takeout Calder.

He was a mere 46-for-90 (51% wins) with a $2.96 ROI with all dirt starters at Calder in '08.

But you are right - anyone who takes washed up old claimers from Bill Mott and gets them to draw off in the Breeders Cup Mile should never be grouped with those others.

[MISTERGEE]

hahahahahahah, i laughed my ass off

[The Indomitable DrugS]

As for the 117 figure... it looks pretty cut and dry.

I think CJ pretty much covered the straight forward obvious way to look at it. Here's more of an esoteric way...

When Lost in the Fog won the '05 Sunshine Million Dash at GP - he ran 0.44 seconds faster than Alix M did in the F & M dirt sprint at the same distance 30 minutes later.

By comparison, This Ones for Phil ran 1.45 seconds faster than High Resolve did in the F & M dirt sprint one hour later.

Both Alix M. and High Resolve got 96 Beyers for those wins. LITF got a 102 and TOfP got a 117 .. as one full second at 6fs equals 15 Beyer points.

If you want to try and make a case that the track got much slower after TOfP ran ... well, thats a hard case to make, because the previous dirt races earlier on in the card all could have been timed with a sundial.

[MISTERGEE]

compound that with High Resolve ran an unbelievable great race as it is