Ed Fountaine's article from todays NY Post

[golfer]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082007...ine.htm?page=0

[Kasept]

Happened to be with Fontaine while he was on the phone with JB yesterday... Got finished with him and turned to me and said, "Wow. That was great. Jerry Brown just gave me an entire column.." Ed will join me on the Show tonight at 5:45.

[golfer]

Steve, I heard you mention Dan Peitz's name the other day. Since we've been discussing the merits of Steppenwolfer, have you or will you be speaking to him?

[Kasept]

I will hopefully see him as he shares a barn with My Man Sciacca and I was planning on going there this morning. I would like to get a few guests that are involved in the other races tomorrow, and the Steppenwolfer angle for the Manhattan is a good one. Plus, Pietz is one of the really nice guys in racing. He was on last year during the Derby Trail run-up.

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by golfer

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082007...ine.htm?page=0

Very interesting!! Thanks for the article.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I would like to get a few guests that are involved in the other races tomorrow, and the Steppenwolfer angle for the Manhattan is a good one.

And that angle would be........ overmatched also rans in supporting stakes?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by golfer

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082007...ine.htm?page=0

More of the same misinformation that the NY Post prints on a daily basis. No doubt this is the final confirmation that bounce mumbo jumbo is total crap.

[miraja2]

So War Emblem lost the '02 Belmont because he 'bounced?' Give me a break. The horse lost because he stumbled badly at the start and (more importantly) because he couldn't have won a 12f race even if they strapped a motor to his ass.
I don't generally put much stock in the whole theory of the "bounce." If people want to convince me that it works.....I am willing to entertain the idea....but they better come up with better examples than War Emblem in the Belmont.

[alysheba4]

on an every day basis i believe there is some merit...........yeah, i dont know about war emblem.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Better handicappers than me believe in "cycles," "patterns," and "bounces," so I listen.

If I was going to listen to the opinion of everyone that was a better handicapper than I am, I would be listening to about 4 billion different opinions.

[letswastemoney]

I think if Curlin loses, it'll be because of his Smart Strike influence

[Dunbar]

I'm betting against Curlin, not because I think he will "bounce", but because I think he will be overbet relative to Hard Spun. If Curlin wins the race, at least now I'll have the satisfying consolation of knowing another nail has been driven into the "bounce" coffin. I may even have to change my avatar.

However, like Dracula and dosage, "bounce" is hard to kill!

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I'm betting against Curlin, not because I think he will "bounce", but because I think he will be overbet relative to Hard Spun. If Curlin wins the race, at least now I'll have the satisfying consolation of knowing another nail has been driven into the "bounce" coffin. I may even have to change my avatar.

However, like Dracula and dosage, "bounce" is hard to kill!

--Dunbar

I am far from an expert on Thorograph and their whole bounce theory. But I believe they have done a ton of research and they have a ton of data to support their theory. It sounds like you are saying that their whole theory is incorrect. What do you base this on? I know you are a numbers guy and you like to rely on empirical data. Have you done any research or do you have any data that debunks their theory?

With regard to dosage, it is far from perfect and it may or may not be a good indicator of which horses will be able to win the Derby. But dosage is still a very useful tool. There is a very high correlation between a horse's dosage and how far they want to run. The higher a horse's dosage, the shorther they want to run. Like anything else, the correlation is not perfect. It is not 1.00. But is probably .6-.7 or something in that vicinity. If you are at a sale and you are not that familiar with a horse's breeding, checking the dosage can be useful. I wouldn't rely solely on dosage, but I think it can be useful.

[Cajungator26]

Even if Curlin does 'bounce', he could still win if he doesn't regress too much. While I don't think he's going to win (like someone else said, I don't care for the Smart Strike), I can't see him finishing out of the money.

I also don't believe that Smarty Jones 'bounced' in the Belmont. He got caught up in a speed duel and got outfinished by a horse bred to go a mile and a half. JMO.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I'm looking up at about 5 billion!

Mine too.

[slotdirt]

Smart Strike has sired horses like Fabulous Strike, but he's also had some pretty good runners that like to go all day. English Channel comes to mind, even Sedgefield.

[Bobby Fischer]

Jerry Brown is making a profit selling his figures and graphs (I would guess).

It is the same way with Beyer or most of the successful figure salesman. - When you ask them about the big race, they are going to give you reasons like graph pattern,triple digit beyer earners etc...
It's all very interesting reading, but I take it with a grain of salt.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I am far from an expert on Thorograph and their whole bounce theory. But I believe they have done a ton of research and they have a ton of data to support their theory. It sounds like you are saying that their whole theory is incorrect. What do you base this on? I know you are a numbers guy and you like to rely on empirical data. Have you done any research or do you have any data that debunks their theory?

Rupert, I do not have my own data. But, I have to hope Jerry Brown was mis-quoted with the War Emblem reference. Anyone who remembers that race remembers that War Emblem barely survived the start, stumbling about as bad as you can stumble without going down. War Emblem was then used hard to make the lead that it otherwise would have had effortlessly. If War Emblem's failure to win the Belmont is the kind of data that support bounce, then forget it.

Some of my disdain for bounce is semantic. If a horse runs a fig that is far better than its past several races, do I expect it to repeat the fig? Generally, no. I will assume (if it's a Beyer-type fig that doesn't try to account for trip) that the horse had things especially easy when generating the big fig, and (for every type fig) that for some reason the horse was physically and psychologically ready to give a big performance. I will assume that the stars will probably NOT be aligned perfectly next time the horse runs.

That may sound something like "bounce" to you, but here's the difference. "bounce" usually implies that the race immediately after the big fig will be particularly poor. The horse will be "cooked", as Brown is quoted in the article that started this thread. Here's my challenge to you. (and I've made the same offer/challenge to others before). If you think Curlin will bounce in the Belmont, then pick a race further out that you think he will run better in. Maybe his race after the Belmont? The 2nd race after the Belmont? If he is so likely to "bounce" from his Derby/Preakness efforts, then you (or Brown) can afford to give me 6/5 and I'll take Curlin's Belmont Stakes BSF and you can choose (in advance) any subsequent Curlin BSF this year.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to dosage, it is far from perfect and it may or may not be a good indicator of which horses will be able to win the Derby. But dosage is still a very useful tool. There is a very high correlation between a horse's dosage and how far they want to run. The higher a horse's dosage, the shorther they want to run. Like anything else, the correlation is not perfect. It is not 1.00. But is probably .6-.7 or something in that vicinity. If you are at a sale and you are not that familiar with a horse's breeding, checking the dosage can be useful. I wouldn't rely solely on dosage, but I think it can be useful.

(emphasis added)

I don't dispute that dosage might be helpful in buying unraced horses or even helpful in betting on unraced horses. As a Kentucky Derby tool, it is useful to me only to the extent that people continue to rely on it as an "angle", creating potential value for non-dosage horses.

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Rupert, I do not have my own data. But, I have to hope Jerry Brown was mis-quoted with the War Emblem reference. Anyone who remembers that race remembers that War Emblem barely survived the start, stumbling about as bad as you can stumble without going down. War Emblem was then used hard to make the lead that it otherwise would have had effortlessly. If War Emblem's failure to win the Belmont is the kind of data that support bounce, then forget it.

Some of my disdain for bounce is semantic. If a horse runs a fig that is far better than its past several races, do I expect it to repeat the fig? Generally, no. I will assume (if it's a Beyer-type fig that doesn't try to account for trip) that the horse had things especially easy when generating the big fig, and (for every type fig) that for some reason the horse was physically and psychologically ready to give a big performance. I will assume that the stars will probably NOT be aligned perfectly next time the horse runs.

That may sound something like "bounce" to you, but here's the difference. "bounce" usually implies that the race immediately after the big fig will be particularly poor. The horse will be "cooked", as Brown is quoted in the article that started this thread. Here's my challenge to you. (and I've made the same offer/challenge to others before). If you think Curlin will bounce in the Belmont, then pick a race further out that you think he will run better in. Maybe his race after the Belmont? The 2nd race after the Belmont? If he is so likely to "bounce" from his Derby/Preakness efforts, then you (or Brown) can afford to give me 6/5 and I'll take Curlin's Belmont Stakes BSF and you can choose (in advance) any subsequent Curlin BSF this year.

(emphasis added)

I don't dispute that dosage might be helpful in buying unraced horses or even helpful in betting on unraced horses. As a Kentucky Derby tool, it is useful to me only to the extent that people continue to rely on it as an "angle", creating potential value for non-dosage horses.

--Dunbar

I don't really know much about Thorgraph. I've never purchased it before. I do know that there are some very smart people that swear by it. I think that thousands of races of data were used to come up with Thorograph in the first place.

I don't know for sure whether it works or not. I don't know enough about it. But I don't think that you do either. Neither of us have seen the data. There may be something to the theory.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So War Emblem lost the '02 Belmont because he 'bounced?' Give me a break. The horse lost because he stumbled badly at the start and (more importantly) because he couldn't have won a 12f race even if they strapped a motor to his ass.
I don't generally put much stock in the whole theory of the "bounce." If people want to convince me that it works.....I am willing to entertain the idea....but they better come up with better examples than War Emblem in the Belmont.

Not only did War Emblem put his nose to the deck at the start, he clearly had a panic attack from being behind horses on the backstretch. He KNEW that wasn't where he was 'supposed' to be and fought the jock strenuously to get to the front. However, I do think it was possible that if he had broken well and gotten the type of lead he had at Churchill, he would have had little trouble lasting out the distance.