Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That's not true. I bet if you check every single post I have made on this board since its inception, you won't find a single post where I boasted or "trotted my resume". I did it in this thread but that was in response to someone telling me that I don't have any expertise in watching a race. If a guy cites his credentials once a year and it's only when his credibility is questioned, I don't know how you could categorize that as being the king of trotting my resume.
I remember once when you were talking about sports, someone said that you probably don't even play sports. You responded by telling them that you are a good baseball player and had played at many different levels. That's not boasting or trotting your resume. That is simply defending yourself to someone whose assessment of you was incorrect.

I just want to echo what you said. I've read a lot of your posts and I never remember you going into so much detail about your resume or what you do. I actually found it interesting even if it wasn't exactly relavent. When I think of flashing resumes others come quickly to mind.

BTW I think when you say "I did it in this thread but that was in response to someone telling me that I don't have any expertise in watching a race.", I think you are referring to something I said. I didn't use those words nor was I trying to imply that. I was trying to make another point and its not that important to review again. From reading your posts it's clear that you have expertise in watching a race.

Originally Posted by War Emblem

Final Verdict ... Mayan King Is A Fraud...

Final Verdict: that "other" racing forum is for p-whipped wusses ...

... with just a handful of exceptions.

Nice to hear from you again, War ... you fit in better here than there.

Speaking of that "other" site ... I have a question ...

I publicly posted ... ten days before the BC Sprint ... that Lost In The Fog would crack and splatter in the final furlong of that race ...

... did anyone else make a similar specific prediction before the race ... on this site ... or any other one?

Just curious.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Speaking of that "other" site ... I have a question ...

I publicly posted ... ten days before the BC Sprint ... that Lost In The Fog would crack and splatter in the final furlong of that race ...

... did anyone else make a similar specific prediction before the race ... on this site ... or any other one?

Just curious.

It's not all about you dude.

The past is the past, winners picked...losers picked...none of it matters after the race.

But you know that.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's not all about you dude.

Of course it's all about me ... what else is there for it to be about?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Of course it's all about me ... what else is there for it to be about?

Underappreciated Martin Scorcese movies.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

That’s it? All you have to offer are unrelated questions as to whether I show a yearly profit and analogies about betting football games? I’ve stayed right on topic offering you my take on LITF and backing it up completely with facts. You don’t even mention anything I’ve offered. You merely say that you don’t know anything about Bris numbers. Well you wouldn’t necessarily have had to because I explained everything I posted and it actually is rather hard to deny the patterns. I guess you’re still more comfortable with the vague “he didn’t fire” hypothesis for those races.

Yes the Bris numbers are very reliable. I have improved tremendously using them. Like I said they give you a view of the race that you cannot find elsewhere. I am not touting them as some kind of simple solution to picking winners. Like I said I also relied heavily on replays in order to come to an opinion about LITF’s true class. I use several tools when handicapping. The Bris numbers did not predict that LITF would lose. That was my conclusion after noticing the consistent pattern of his performances. By no means am I implying that these numbers lead me to easy winners and yearly profits, there is much more to it than just looking at numbers. In an earlier post you were trying to back up your assertion that LITF had as much early speed as any horse running by stating that he ran a 43.2 half mile and won by ten lengths at GG. If you want to talk about data that is unreliable, it’s hard to beat looking at raw times.

Also I’m not implying that having an opinion that a horse will not win has much value. However when the horse routinely goes off at odds between 2:5 and 1:1 there is a great chance to make a nice score if you play the rest of the race or races correctly, but that’s no gimme. You can still screw it up like I did in the big pick five last week. I had 4 of 5, of course not using LITF, but I relied too much on Dubai Escapade so I didn’t have the winning combo.

I heard your explanation loud and clear as to why LITF got beat in those 3 races. If you believe in those Bris figures, then your assessment sounds logical. I don't buy it. I've watched the horse a million times. I know he didn't fire in those races and I don't think it had much to do with who he was facing. If LITF would have run at Golden Gate this past Saturday against a bad field, I don't think he would have run 1:07 1/5. I think he would have run lousy on Saturday no matter where he ran. I would say the same for Dubai Escapade. She didn't have it on Saturday. If I explained to you that I had some figures that showed that Dubai Escapade ran her best this past Saturday and she got beat because she was totally overmatched, I don't think you would buy it.
I never said that LITF's going :43 1/5 at GG proved he was as fast as anyone. I know the track at GG is scorched and it is hard to compare to other tracks. But LITF has only run at GG a few of times. He's run all over the country. In every race he ever ran last year including the BC Sprint, LITF was always within a length of the lead no matter what the fractions were. I think he can pretty much keep up with anyone when he has it. There may be a few horses that have a little more early speed than him, but he has enough speed so that nobody is going to really get away from him.
To me, a horse "not firing" is not a vague hypothesis. To be a successful handicapper, you have to be a good judge of this. We've seen many really good horses lose. When they lose, we always have to ask the question of whether they simply were not good enough or did they lose because they didn't fire. When Saint Liam didn't hit the board at Santa Anita, was it because he wasn't good enough or was it because he didn't fire? It may have been a combination of both. I would say he definitely didn't fire, but I don't know if he would have beaten Rock Hard Ten even if he did fire. You could argue that RHT wasn't that impressive that day. He only beat Congrats by about a length. Congrats is not a good horse at all. I disagree. I think Congrats ran huge that day. He's never been the same since, but that day he ran great.
Anyway, you're not going to change my mind about LITF and I'm not going to change yours. And even though I'm confident that I'm right, it's possible that I have misjudged LITF. I've been wrong before and I could be wrong in this case. I don't think I'm wrong but it is certainly possible.
There is a chance that the truth is somewhere in between. LITF may not have fired in those races but even if he would have fired, maybe he would have still lost. He may have finished much closer but he may have still lost.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

As far as your question about whether or not someone has made money using BRIS figures ( personally I do NOT advocate computer generated numbers but to each his own ), I understand your point, but I will say that I don't know one successful horseplayer ( and I know many ) who believed the hype last year about Lost in the Fog. In fact, of the successful players I know, I actually ( mistakenly ) liked him more than any of them. I am also a successful horseplayer. I have made money in 14 of the previous 16 years and am well on my way to another successful year. So, if you want to equate successful horseplaying to validity on opinions about LITF, I would say the recent post by Bold Brooklynite pretty much hits the nail on the head. He is a very talented horse but neither as good as his popular reputation nor as good as the top sprinters annually.

Did he run his best race this past weekend? Probably not. But, I would say it is a fairer estimation of his true relative ability, as was his BC performance, than the estimation he seemed to earn while valiantly beating up on vastly inferior competition. Nobody seems to be saying he's a bum. He's hardly that. But, without a very favorable pace scenerio, he is unlikely to be able to handle the top ten sprinters in the country.

I have a question for you. You say your friends were correct that LITF would not win the BC Sprint. It sounds like one of the things they thought was that LITF was not that good of a horse. He only looked good because he was facing 3 year olds and the 3 year olds were not nearly as good as the older sprinters. Even though LITF was the top 3 year old spriner going into the BC sprint, he would have no chance because the 3 year olds were not as good as the older horses. If this was their assessment, then they were totally wrong becasue two 3 year olds ran 1st and 4th in the Sprint. Did your friends think Silver Train or Attila's Storm had good chances? If not, then you can't say that they called the race so well.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Underappreciated Martin Scorcese movies.

Bingo !!!!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I heard your explanation loud and clear as to why LITF got beat in those 3 races. If you believe in those Bris figures, then your assessment sounds logical. I don't buy it. I've watched the horse a million times. I know he didn't fire in those races and I don't think it had much to do with who he was facing. If LITF would have run at Golden Gate this past Saturday against a bad field, I don't think he would have run 1:07 1/5. I think he would have run lousy on Saturday no matter where he ran. I would say the same for Dubai Escapade. She didn't have it on Saturday. If I explained to you that I had some figures that showed that Dubai Escapade ran her best this past Saturday and she got beat because she was totally overmatched, I don't think you would buy it.
I never said that LITF's going :43 1/5 at GG proved he was as fast as anyone. I know the track at GG is scorched and it is hard to compare to other tracks. But LITF has only run at GG a few of times. He's run all over the country. In every race he ever ran last year including the BC Sprint, LITF was always within a length of the lead no matter what the fractions were. I think he can pretty much keep up with anyone when he has it. There may be a few horses that have a little more early speed than him, but he has enough speed so that nobody is going to really get away from him.
To me, a horse "not firing" is not a vague hypothesis. To be a successful handicapper, you have to be a good judge of this. We've seen many really good horses lose. When they lose, we always have to ask the question of whether they simply were not good enough or did they lose because they didn't fire. When Saint Liam didn't hit the board at Santa Anita, was it because he wasn't good enough or was it because he didn't fire? It may have been a combination of both. I would say he definitely didn't fire, but I don't know if he would have beaten Rock Hard Ten even if he did fire. You could argue that RHT wasn't that impressive that day. He only beat Congrats by about a length. Congrats is not a good horse at all. I disagree. I think Congrats ran huge that day. He's never been the same since, but that day he ran great.
Anyway, you're not going to change my mind about LITF and I'm not going to change yours. And even though I'm confident that I'm right, it's possible that I have misjudged LITF. I've been wrong before and I could be wrong in this case. I don't think I'm wrong but it is certainly possible.
There is a chance that the truth is somewhere in between. LITF may not have fired in those races but even if he would have fired, maybe he would have still lost. He may have finished much closer but he may have still lost.

You're right, no one is changing their mind. I am confident in my view on this.
To me those results have everything to do with who he was facing and little or nothing to do with misfires. In every race last year, he may have been near the lead at the half, but only one time was he beaten badly at the wire. It was at the same track where previously in the year he took a liking to and won a G2 against 3yo's. Hmmm.

What's funny is that I actually am the one that believes that he is running overall very honestly and consistently. Actually I very much admire this horse. OTOH you've got him mis-firing three of the last four races which describe a lesser horse in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I've watched the horse a million times. I know he didn't fire in those races

Aren't you repeatedly stating the obvious ... I mean ...

... has any horse who ever finished a distant sixth or ninth ever "fired"?

The reason Lost In The Fog didn't "fire" in his two races against quality opposition ... is because he was too worn out by the other horses to do so.

I wonder what psychologists have to say ... about this syndrome of denying reality by affirming reality?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have a question for you. You say your friends were correct that LITF would not win the BC Sprint. It sounds like one of the things they thought was that LITF was not that good of a horse. He only looked good because he was facing 3 year olds and the 3 year olds were not nearly as good as the older sprinters. Even though LITF was the top 3 year old spriner going into the BC sprint, he would have no chance because the 3 year olds were not as good as the older horses. If this was their assessment, then they were totally wrong becasue two 3 year olds ran 1st and 4th in the Sprint. Did your friends think Silver Train or Attila's Storm had good chances? If not, then you can't say that they called the race so well.

You are arguing points that aren't relevent.

A horseplayer's job is to make money. In order to do that they make judgements about races being run on a given day. I have often bet, and sometimes won money on, horses that I didn't even think were best going into a race. There are many odds-on horses that I bet against knowing full well they are the likeliest winners of the race ( they VERY rarely aren't ). The bottom line is cashing...ie. making money. Being right is for losers. Knowing how to make money by making correct relative choices, and betting them properly, is ALL that matters.

On the point of LITF, if you choose to suggest that his ability is close to the reputation he gained prior to last year's BC be my guest, but it is a stubborn and difficult to logically defend position. I would guess you know that in this game it is very important to learn from your mistakes. There is nothing wrong with making incorrect judgements in individual cases, we all do it more often than not, but there is something very wrong ( and expensive ) about making the same mistakes over and over again. Luckily, one of the many great things about this game, is there are always future opportunities to correct mistakes of the past. How one deals with this ultimately seperates the winners and losers or the successful and unsuccessful.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You are arguing points that aren't relevent.

A horseplayer's job is to make money. In order to do that they make judgements about races being run on a given day. I have often bet, and sometimes won money on, horses that I didn't even think were best going into a race. There are many odds-on horses that I bet against knowing full well they are the likeliest winners of the race ( they VERY rarely aren't ). The bottom line is cashing...ie. making money. Being right is for losers. Knowing how to make money by making correct relative choices, and betting them properly, is ALL that matters.

On the point of LITF, if you choose to suggest that his ability is close to the reputation he gained prior to last year's BC be my guest, but it is a stubborn and difficult to logically defend position. I would guess you know that in this game it is very important to learn from your mistakes. There is nothing wrong with making incorrect judgements in individual cases, we all do it more often than not, but there is something very wrong ( and expensive ) about making the same mistakes over and over again. Luckily, one of the many great things about this game, is there are always future opportunities to correct mistakes of the past. How one deals with this ultimately seperates the winners and losers or the successful and unsuccessful.

I agree that we need to learn from our mistakes. Some of my best winners have been horses who I changed my mind about. I was dead-wrong about Your Tent or Mine at the Fasig-Tipton Calder Sale. I didn't like him at all. He was tall and gangly and I just didn't like his work. When he madehis first start at Del Mar, I obviously did not like him at all. I had seen him work at the sale and didn't like him. Needless to say, he won that day. Not only did he win, but I thought he won very impressively. I completely changed my mind about him after his maiden race. I couldn't believe how wrong I was about him. He looked like a totally different horse from the horse I saw work in Florida. He had really grown into himself nicely. Here was a horse who I didn't like at all just 6 1/2 months earlier and now I thought he was a stakes horse. Anyway, I made a big bet on him in his next race which was the Hollywood Prevue. I bet $900 ($450 to win and place) on him that day. He won the race and went off at 6-1. I made a nice score on him.
With regard to LITF, I didn't particularly like him in the BC Sprint. I thought he was definitely one of the main contenders, but I was going to try to beat him. The horse I really liked was Atilla's Storm. He was 45-1. I bet on him to win and place. I also played some small exactas and trifectas using him along with Taste of Paradise, Imperialism, and LITF. I didn't use Silver Train. It wasn't that I didn't think he was good enough. I thought he was good enough. I had always liked him a lot. I liked him so much that he was actually on my watch list. The reason I didn't like him any more was because I thought there was something wrong with him. If my memory is right, I think he had been scratched at the gate by the vet a short time before the BC. I think it was in July or August.
If LITF would have run his best in the BC Sprint, he probably would not have won. But I do think he would have finished very close. I think he would have definitely hit the board.

[SentToStud]

When was the last time a sprinter gave at least 8 lbs to every other starter in a Grade 1 or Grade 2 race?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Ok, I'll offer my analysis on why LITF didn't win those three races. I have very good explanations on what happened to him.

BC SPRINT-No other horse in the BC sprint had traveled around the country and had a grueling campaign like LITF did last year. Just like LR did in the Derby, LITF was too weary and tired. That is why he gave around the final turn. I believe that the horse's physical problems are a direct result from this race because while the connection's intentions have always been noble, they went a step too far and pushed LITF over the edge.

CARTHAGE-LITF was coming off of a huge layoff and was not fit. He ran into a monster in Carthage in which the trainer of Carthage specifically announced that this would be the only time he could beat LITF. LITF ran a good second to a horse that was 100% fit and ready for this race.

SMILE SPRINT-LITF was never into the race. I don't know how this race can even be debatable. The horse was clearly not himself. You have to watch the races. I think the horse is having some serious physical problems combined with the fact that he didn't take to the track. Something was wrong with him. That is why he may be retired. I mean LITF was seventh at the quarter pole. In what other race in his career has he been seventh at the quarter pole and sixth at the half? NONE. This race can hardly be used to debate that the horse is not good against older quality sprinters. This particular race was clearly indicative of physical problems/not taking to the track. Not that he isn't good enough.

The proof lies within the Aristrides. If LITF was not that good of a horse, the nice Kelly's Landing would have easily beat him. I am very confident in that althought like Rupert, I could be wrong. It definitely wouldn't be the first time.

Also, LITF will never live up to the reputation that has been set for him. He was supposed to be an undefeated horse according to most. He is never supposed to get beaten. Hardly any horses throughout the history of the sport could have lived up the the expectations that have been set for LITF. I really like the horse and I hope they can find out what is wrong with him and fix it. He isn't one of the greatest ever, but he is definitely not as bad or a fraud like some of the posters are making him out to be.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Ok, I'll offer my analysis on why LITF didn't win those three races. I have very good explanations on what happened to him.

BC SPRINT-No other horse in the BC sprint had traveled around the country and had a grueling campaign like LITF did last year. Just like LR did in the Derby, LITF was too weary and tired. That is why he gave around the final turn. I believe that the horse's physical problems are a direct result from this race because while the connection's intentions have always been noble, they went a step too far and pushed LITF over the edge.

CARTHAGE-LITF was coming off of a huge layoff and was not fit. He ran into a monster in Carthage in which the trainer of Carthage specifically announced that this would be the only time he could beat LITF. LITF ran a good second to a horse that was 100% fit and ready for this race.

SMILE SPRINT-LITF was never into the race. I don't know how this race can even be debatable. The horse was clearly not himself. You have to watch the races. I think the horse is having some serious physical problems combined with the fact that he didn't take to the track. Something was wrong with him. That is why he may be retired. I mean LITF was seventh at the quarter pole. In what other race in his career has he been seventh at the quarter pole and sixth at the half? NONE. This race can hardly be used to debate that the horse is not good against older quality sprinters. This particular race was clearly indicative of physical problems/not taking to the track. Not that he isn't good enough.

The proof lies within the Aristrides. If LITF was not that good of a horse, the nice Kelly's Landing would have easily beat him. I am very confident in that althought like Rupert, I could be wrong. It definitely wouldn't be the first time.

Also, LITF will never live up to the reputation that has been set for him. He was supposed to be an undefeated horse according to most. He is never supposed to get beaten. Hardly any horses throughout the history of the sport could have lived up the the expectations that have been set for LITF. I really like the horse and I hope they can find out what is wrong with him and fix it. He isn't one of the greatest ever, but he is definitely not as bad or a fraud like some of the posters are making him out to be.

As you said, he positively didn't fire on Saturday. It's not even debatable. One could argue that he wouldn't have won even if he did fire. I don't have a problem with that argument. But for someone to say that the horse ran his best is absurd. I read that Gilchrist had even said in interviews before the race that he was not confident in the horse's chances because he didn't think the horse was doing well. He was confident that Victorina would run well, but not LITF. If a trainer says before a race that his horse is not doing well, and then the horse runs poorly, I think you'd have to be very foolish to think that the horse ran their best. They're contemplating retiring the horse. Yeah, the horse is doing great. He's better than ever. That's why they're thinking of retiring him in July. He's never trained better. He's as sound as a dollar.

[sham]

Anyone ever notice how much ink LITF generates? Was there ever a more talked about and argued about horse? He remains a "star" if for only that reason alone. People will tune in for his races, some hope he wins, some hope he loses, but they will certainly watch when Fog runs, and that makes him a star in my opinion.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Ok, I'll offer my analysis on why LITF didn't win those three races. I have very good explanations on what happened to him.

BC SPRINT-No other horse in the BC sprint had traveled around the country and had a grueling campaign like LITF did last year. Just like LR did in the Derby, LITF was too weary and tired. That is why he gave around the final turn. I believe that the horse's physical problems are a direct result from this race because while the connection's intentions have always been noble, they went a step too far and pushed LITF over the edge.

CARTHAGE-LITF was coming off of a huge layoff and was not fit. He ran into a monster in Carthage in which the trainer of Carthage specifically announced that this would be the only time he could beat LITF. LITF ran a good second to a horse that was 100% fit and ready for this race.

SMILE SPRINT-LITF was never into the race. I don't know how this race can even be debatable. The horse was clearly not himself. You have to watch the races. I think the horse is having some serious physical problems combined with the fact that he didn't take to the track. Something was wrong with him. That is why he may be retired. I mean LITF was seventh at the quarter pole. In what other race in his career has he been seventh at the quarter pole and sixth at the half? NONE. This race can hardly be used to debate that the horse is not good against older quality sprinters. This particular race was clearly indicative of physical problems/not taking to the track. Not that he isn't good enough.

The proof lies within the Aristrides. If LITF was not that good of a horse, the nice Kelly's Landing would have easily beat him. I am very confident in that althought like Rupert, I could be wrong. It definitely wouldn't be the first time.

Also, LITF will never live up to the reputation that has been set for him. He was supposed to be an undefeated horse according to most. He is never supposed to get beaten. Hardly any horses throughout the history of the sport could have lived up the the expectations that have been set for LITF. I really like the horse and I hope they can find out what is wrong with him and fix it. He isn't one of the greatest ever, but he is definitely not as bad or a fraud like some of the posters are making him out to be.

You called Carthage a monster. Well the problem for LITF in the Smile is that there were 5-6 horse with Carthage type speed. LITF has never shown the ability to handle this situation.

I don't know why it's considered not even debatable that he ran pretty much his usual effort considering the data I posted yesterday.

It happens every day at every track and if you've been doing this awhile you'll know what I mean. Take any horse you want other than a superstar. If you keep moving them up into tougher and faster fields you will find a point where their performances start to decline both in terms of the running lines and the speed figures. Have you never seen a maiden winner with a huge figure like a 90 move up to alw level and lose a close battle to a seemingly much inferior horse.

Why is it just assumed that LITF, if he fires, will win all sprints or at least be in the photo. Why is it? What performance has stamped him with such credentials? What top sprinter has he defeated? The best answer I can come up with is the Aristides when he beat Kellys Landing, a nice G2 or G3 sprinter for sure, but not one that is even ranked amongst the very best sprinters.

Who you are racing against is of fundamental importance.

FYI, look at the pace numbers I posted for LITF to the 1/4 and 1/2 in the Smile. LITF was running his normal pace to the 1/4 and faster than normal to the half. Bottom line he just doesn't have the tools to dominate a field like that. He has only one winning style.

Why is it impossible to think that he fired his best shot and lost?

And the ultimate facts ... not speculation or projection ... the ultimate FACTS are ...

In his entire career ... Lost In The Fog never won a race against open G1/G2 sprinters ... in fact ... in his two efforts in those races he finished sixth and ninth ... not even close.

All the apologetics and 'splaining can't alter that.

I arrest my case.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

So what are you saying? That he was a deserving champion? There may not have been a "worthy" champion last year and LITF may have been the best of a bad lot. But does that mean he still wasnt overrated?

You said earlier in this thread that you wont "judge him when he doesnt fire" but when do you judge him if that is the case? When he is dancing past overmatched garbage?

Let me give you what i have heard over the last couple of months and tell me what you think:

Sept 05- he doesnt need to go to belmont for a prep. Nah...he just needs to stay home and collect a check and not tire himself out before the big dance. This is one of the best sprinters of all time.

Oct 05- (after bc loss) he just wasnt himself today. It just wasnt him. I mean- look who beat him. Those horses arent any good and it proves that he just wasnt right. Too much travel.

April 06- He doesnt need to go to gulfstream for the richter scale or Aqueduct for the carter. For the first time out, lets just give him an easy preop.

May 06- (after loss) The layoff and the weight took its toll. It wasnt the real foggy. You will see next time.

June 06- (after aristides win) That was the real fog today. It didnt matter what he beat, he beat what dared to load against him.

July 06- (after loss in smile) He didnt show up today. Nope- he didnt fire. Hes acting studdish. He has a quarter crack. The post hurt. He didnt like the track. He was giving too much weight. This wasnt the real fog.



When is it ever going to be "the real fog" that loses? Horses dont "fire" for a reason and when you disregard the factors that lead to a hrose not "firing" you are being blinded by the hype. It seems fog doesnt "fire" when there is a horse in the race that is capable of beating him. Its as simple as that.

He isnt a pig but he isnt close to being the best sprinter in the country. And if that is the case, he is a fraud.

Now, look at kentuckyrosesinmay's "reasons" as to why LITF didnt fire and tell me that there arent some shocking similarities.

Amazing.

Goo-gooism at its finest.

The fact that this horse has NEVER beaten a decent field and has lost every time he has faced one is not enough to convince the goo goos that this horse was overrated.