Gotta love Watchmaker....

...it is obvious who he lost his money on at 8-5 in the Champagne

http://www.drf.com/news/article/79671.html

[Rupert Pupkin]

I must be blind because I thought the horse got a great trip. He hugged the rail the entire race, he swung out two-wide at the head of the lane and he got run down fairly easily by a horse who went three-wide all the way around the turn. I think Scat Daddy was much the best.

If every horse I bet got the trip that NoBiz had, I would be very happy. How often is a come-from-behinder able to hug the rail like that and have such a huge gap open up on the rail in the middle of the turn? It doesn't happen very often. That ground saving trip more than made up for the sluggish start that he had. Overall, I think he had a great trip. I think the best horse clearly won.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I must be blind because I thought the horse got a great trip. He hugged the rail the entire race, he swung out two-wide at the head of the line and he got run down fairly easily by a horse who went three-wide all the way around the turn. I think Scat Daddy was much the best.

If every horse I bet got the trip that NoBiz had, I would be very happy. How often is a come-from-behinder able to hug the rail like that and have such a huge gap open up on the rail in the middle of the turn? It doesn't happen very often. That ground saving trip more than made up for the sluggish start that he had. Overall, I think he had a great trip. I think the best horse clearly won.

I couldn't agree more....I'm not saying he had a 'perfect' trip, but he ceratinly had as good a trip as the winner IMO, and I think the winner won far easier than the final margin based on the greeness I saw the final sixteenth.....

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

So getting shut off at the start and losing a few lengths is a "great trip".

His bad break is overrated. IMO...go back and watch it...Scat had a worse break in his debut and in the Sanford IMO....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

So getting shut off at the start and losing a few lengths is a "great trip".

As I said, his ground-saving trip more than made up for his losing a couple of lengths at the start.

It would be one thing if he broke slow and was flying late but couldn't catch the winner. But that's not what happened. He had the lead and got run down. I don't see any way that he was the best horse. If he and SD reversed trips, SD still wins the race easily. SD probably wins the race even easier if they reverse trips.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said, his ground-saving trip more than made up for his losing a couple of lengths at the start.

It would be one thing if he broke slow and was flying late but couldn't catch the winner. But that's not what happened. He had the lead and got run down. I don't see any way that he was the best horse. If he and SD reversed trips, SD still wins the race easily. SD probably wins the race even easier if they reverse trips.

Agreed....................

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

So he won easily? This is getting to be funny. This is when I have to throw in the towel. It's been fun, and extremely informative. Thanks as always.

He won by a length. I think that's a relatively easy win.

I just watched the race one more time. I think that Nobiz had a little more of an excuse than I originally thought, especially consdiering that this was only his second career start. For a horse with no experience, it was a pretty eventful trip. I wouldn't say that he should have necessarily won, but I will say that he probaly learned from the experience and should move forward.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

So getting shut off at the start and losing a few lengths is a "great trip".

The start was real bad, but it wasn't the only problem. He got back into the action a little too quicky and had to be checked for some time for lack of room. being down on the inside I don't think was the best position for this big colt.

This may be the biggest waste of space ever put on this board. We needed 77 posts to sum up a simple race?
Allow me to sum it up easily if you would.

1) Nobiz like Showbiz had a trip that all in all wasn't awful, wasn't great, was right in between. He was green in the lane, and in making only his 2nd start while diving into stakes company, would certainly be the one with the most projected upside. He was indeed ridiculously overbet at 8-5, but the horses' odds or any bets anyone made do not change the fact that his trip was his trip and the facts are the facts.
2) Scat Daddy was indeed an overlay at 5-2 for several reasons, first and foremost being his experience and performance in stakes races up to that point, and the fact that as a stallion prospect with a pedigree that suggests two turns may be a challenge, the barn definitely had aimed at that one turn mile as the best possible chance to get that grade one on the resume and the horse was trained for the Champagne as if it were the main goal.

In a nutshell? It's not Nobiz's fault that he was overbet, and I find it hard to understand why it matters what his price was in dissecting a race. A horses' odds have NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS TRIP OR PERFORMANCE AND SHOULD NEVER,EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE FACTORED INTO A TRIP OR RACE ANALYSIS!!!!
I can't possibly stress that enough. Every time I hear some mentally challenged person explaining a trip or performance to me and mentioning the odds the horse went off at, I immediately assume that their parents were eating lead paint chips when they were conceived.
Odds and horses performance are not related, not at all. In order to properly analyze a race, the horses odds must not be considered.
Nobiz ran a great race for a horse who had a little trouble at the break and was green in the stretch in making only his 2nd start and first in stakes company. He'd be the one I'd say has the most possible upside.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by oracle80

This may be the biggest waste of space ever put on this board. We needed 77 posts to sum up a simple race?
Allow me to sum it up easily if you would.

1) Nobiz like Showbiz had a trip that all in all wasn't awful, wasn't great, was right in between. He was green in the lane, and in making only his 2nd start while diving into stakes company, would certainly be the one with the most projected upside. He was indeed ridiculously overbet at 8-5, but the horses' odds or any bets anyone made do not change the fact that his trip was his trip and the facts are the facts.
2) Scat Daddy was indeed an overlay at 5-2 for several reasons, first and foremost being his experience and performance in stakes races up to that point, and the fact that as a stallion prospect with a pedigree that suggests two turns may be a challenge, the barn definitely had aimed at that one turn mile as the best possible chance to get that grade one on the resume and the horse was trained for the Champagne as if it were the main goal.

In a nutshell? It's not Nobiz's fault that he was overbet, and I find it hard to understand why it matters what his price was in dissecting a race. A horses' odds have NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS TRIP OR PERFORMANCE AND SHOULD NEVER,EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE FACTORED INTO A TRIP OR RACE ANALYSIS!!!!
I can't possibly stress that enough. Every time I hear some mentally challenged person explaining a trip or performance to me and mentioning the odds the horse went off at, I immediately assume that their parents were eating lead paint chips when they were conceived.
Odds and horses performance are not related, not at all. In order to properly analyze a race, the horses odds must not be considered.
Nobiz ran a great race for a horse who had a little trouble at the break and was green in the stretch in making only his 2nd start and first in stakes company. He'd be the one I'd say has the most possible upside.

Spot ****ing on, Mike. Nice job.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Spot ****ing on, Mike. Nice job.

Thanks Joey but really I don't see how anyone could arrive at any conclusion but that one.
I think its pretty obvious when a green horse making his 2nd start and 1st time in a stakes gets beat only one length by a horse who is making his 4th start and 3rd start in a stakes race, that the one whose green and 2nd is gonna be the one who gets the ink about having more upside.

When I say odds shouldn't be considered in analyzing a race, I mean AFTER the race when dissecting it. I ,like many here, was stunned to see Nobiz at 8-5 and stunned to see that Scat wasn't favored. But that doesn't mean squat after its over and you pick the race apart.
Nothing is more hysterical(actually its sad) than listening to people make excuse after excuse for a favorite or well regarded horse after a race. Its as if they think that only faves can get bad trips and there's the old "well he only won by a neck but it was so easy and measured, blah blah blah". Thats garbage 99% of the time. How come noone ever says a 12-1 shot won by an easy measured neck? And how come when a favorite has some traffic everyone is always screaming that so and so should have won, but when you point out a tough trip that a longshot had, people respond with "doesn't matter, he wasn't gonna win anyway"? They are allowing their ideas before a race to interfere with the perception of reality
The first time you watch a race you are always going to tend to focus on the horses you have bet, thats normal. But when you go back to watch the replay(or replays) you really have to forget who you bet, and your preconceived notions about horses. You just have to watch the race and make notations about what you perceive happened.
That being said, Nobiz like Showbiz may have been one of the most overbet horses I ever saw in my life in terms of what I perceived to be value before the race. I thought his debut was aided by sitting behind a speed duel of 3 very subpar horses in blistering fractions and that his ten length win was more a product of a perfect trip where the others were stopping in the lane moreso than he was running away. So When he was 8-5 I didn't even cosider using him in my DD's. I pressed Scat Daddy and saved with Pegasus and Imanumbersguy.
But the reality of what I saw is that I misjudged his debut and didn't give Nobiz enough credit. Nobiz had that trouble at the gate(not horrible trouble) and when he made the lead he acted green tossing his head about like he was waiting on horses and running in spots. To do that in his 2nd start in that company I think hes the horse I would wanna bet next time out against this same group and can't see how anyone else could see it any other way.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Thanks Joey but really I don't see how anyone could arrive at any conclusion but that one.
I think its pretty obvious when a green horse making his 2nd start and 1st time in a stakes gets beat only one length by a horse who is making his 4th start and 3rd start in a stakes race, that the one whose green and 2nd is gonna be the one who gets the ink about having more upside.

When I say odds shouldn't be considered in analyzing a race, I mean AFTER the race when dissecting it. I ,like many here, was stunned to see Nobiz at 8-5 and stunned to see that Scat wasn't favored. But that doesn't mean squat after its over and you pick the race apart.
Nothing is more hysterical(actually its sad) than listening to people make excuse after excuse for a favorite or well regarded horse after a race. Its as if they think that only faves can get bad trips and there's the old "well he only won by a neck but it was so easy and measured, blah blah blah". Thats garbage 99% of the time. How come noone ever says a 12-1 shot won by an easy measured neck? And how come when a favorite has some traffic everyone is always screaming that so and so should have won, but when you point out a tough trip that a longshot had, people respond with "doesn't matter, he wasn't gonna win anyway"? They are allowing their ideas before a race to interfere with the perception of reality
The first time you watch a race you are always going to tend to focus on the horses you have bet, thats normal. But when you go back to watch the replay(or replays) you really have to forget who you bet, and your preconceived notions about horses. You just have to watch the race and make notations about what you perceive happened.
That being said, Nobiz like Showbiz may have been one of the most overbet horses I ever saw in my life in terms of what I perceived to be value before the race. I thought his debut was aided by sitting behind a speed duel of 3 very subpar horses in blistering fractions and that his ten length win was more a product of a perfect trip where the others were stopping in the lane moreso than he was running away. So When he was 8-5 I didn't even cosider using him in my DD's. I pressed Scat Daddy and saved with Pegasus and Imanumbersguy.
But the reality of what I saw is that I misjudged his debut and didn't give Nobiz enough credit. Nobiz had that trouble at the gate(not horrible trouble) and when he made the lead he acted green tossing his head about like he was waiting on horses and running in spots. To do that in his 2nd start in that company I think hes the horse I would wanna bet next time out against this same group and can't see how anyone else could see it any other way.

What's worse than over-excusing a horse's trip as the cause of a lost wager is failing to note when you have a winner that benefitted from other horses' poor racing luck or unexpected race flow. I long ago learned not to think every winner I've cashed was the best horse in the race. We all benefit as well as suffer from racing luck.

[Suffolk Shippers]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

...it is obvious who he lost his money on at 8-5 in the Champagne

http://www.drf.com/news/article/79671.html

Ladies and gentleman, our winner Mr Joel Cunningham...

This is typical Watchmaker. Runs us up and down about how untouchable his choice is (in this case No Biz), who gets bet down to overwhelming favorite. Then moans that the star may not have been the winner (Scat Daddy). If No Biz had won, Mikey would have been crowning him BC Juvy champ already. Typical Watchmaker, beats his drum so loud and then when the tap goes faint, he changes his tune. But if he's right, we would not have heard the end of it...EVER.

I'll say it again, 5-2 on Scat Daddy was borderline overlay of the year, and was easy pickens if you were paying attention

Originally Posted by Suffolk Shippers

Ladies and gentleman, our winner Mr Joel Cunningham...

This is typical Watchmaker. Runs us up and down about how untouchable his choice is (in this case No Biz), who gets bet down to overwhelming favorite. Then moans that the star may not have been the winner (Scat Daddy). If No Biz had won, Mikey would have been crowning him BC Juvy champ already. Typical Watchmaker, beats his drum so loud and then when the tap goes faint, he changes his tune. But if he's right, we would not have heard the end of it...EVER.

I'll say it again, 5-2 on Scat Daddy was borderline overlay of the year, and was easy pickens if you were paying attention

No, you are the winner, SS.....ding, ding, ding

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Suffolk Shippers

Ladies and gentleman, our winner Mr Joel Cunningham...

This is typical Watchmaker. Runs us up and down about how untouchable his choice is (in this case No Biz), who gets bet down to overwhelming favorite. Then moans that the star may not have been the winner (Scat Daddy). If No Biz had won, Mikey would have been crowning him BC Juvy champ already. Typical Watchmaker, beats his drum so loud and then when the tap goes faint, he changes his tune. But if he's right, we would not have heard the end of it...EVER.

I'll say it again, 5-2 on Scat Daddy was borderline overlay of the year, and was easy pickens if you were paying attention

I agree with you. I would be willing to make a large wager that Watchmaker bet NoBiz.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you. I would be willing to make a large wager that Watchmaker bet NoBiz.

And that would make his analysis of the race null and void?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And that would make his analysis of the race null and void?

It would at least provide a serious conflict of interest....I read the article and seriously disagreed with much of what he thinks he saw....Your perception gets a little derailed when you are nervously holding a losing ticket on a false favorite you took a ridiculous 8-5 on off of a win over Bullara - a Pletcher colt who I watched at CD this summer and will likely be in for maiden claiming $50K very shortly....

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

It would at least provide a serious conflict of interest....I read the article and seriously disagreed with much of what he thinks he saw....Your perception gets a little derailed when you are nervously holding a losing ticket on a false favorite you took a ridiculous 8-5 on off of a win over Bullara - a Pletcher colt who I watched at CD this summer and will likely be in for maiden claiming $50K very shortly....

By the same token then everything you are saying about Scat Daddy represents a serious conflict of interest.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

It would at least provide a serious conflict of interest....I read the article and seriously disagreed with much of what he thinks he saw....Your perception gets a little derailed when you are nervously holding a losing ticket on a false favorite you took a ridiculous 8-5 on off of a win over Bullara - a Pletcher colt who I watched at CD this summer and will likely be in for maiden claiming $50K very shortly....

How is 5/2 ever a good price in a two year old race? Was Awesome Ashley a good bet at 5/2 in the Frizette?

These are TWO YEAR OLDS... anything can happen, and it usually does. You better believe 5/2 on Scat Daddy will be a tremendous UNDERLAY in the BC Juvy (and I actually think he's a decent horse.)

Those that bet down Nobiz to 8/5 were probably taking the worst of it, however considering he was 10 lengths faster than the rest of the field in his last start and the 2nd start of a horse's career is nearly always his/her biggest improvement, I can understand the favoritism. He had to run back to his last race to win, which is a reasonable assertation for an 8/5 favorite... he regressed about 3 lengths (probably the amount he lost at the start). If the public assessed his probability of winning properly, he was a 40% chance to win. Seems reasonable to me on the limited data available with this group. Scat Daddy was 5/2 not because he wasn't a quality runner but because he was uproven at a mile and didn't look to care for more distance in the Hopeful. If he was 8/5 instead of 5/2, we would be calling HIM an underlay.

End result, anyone who had the other 3 in the NTRA pick 4 and didn't use both in this race in equal amounts is an idiot (namely, me.)

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Gee, wonder who you bet. I'll be sure to pay more attention for those 5-2 overlays. Take a look at my link to Mr. Cunningham's post race analysis of the Hopeful and tell me there aren't striking similarities there.

No, the difference is that I MADE money on Circular Quay winning because he was coupled with Scat Daddy that day.....CLEARLY different motive than Watchmaker's story and situation...