8/28 (SAR): Travers Day

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Oh..you mean like most handicappers do? What is so hard for people to understand about that. Track bias is part of the game. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out who's going to run the fastest for the final 50 yards on rubber.

and that is a flaw in tfm's logic. he derides bias on a dirt track, but isn't there a bias on poly? so, it seems the issue for him isn't a bias, he just prefers to bet poly. good for him-perhaps not good for everyone tho.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

What's dumb and beneath me is having to play BIASED tracks on major racing days. Unlike you, and some of the others here, racing for me is about handicapping and trying to make money. So, give me a fair course OR a consistently biased course, and I'll be just fine. It doesn't really matter to me which horse shapes up better historically or which horse is 'faster' on a given surface. Until a system is in place that can accurately measure 'speed', and reconcile it, over the different surfaces, it probably shouldn't matter to you either.

why do you act like dirt tracks are the only ones with bias? Did you play Del Mar at all last weekend? A horse couldn't win on the lead if they had a 100 yard head start.

[cmorioles]

105 Beyer for the Travers.

Discreetly Mine, 93.
Rightly So, 100.
Rapport, 103.
Dynaslew, 99.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

105 Beyer for the Travers.

Discreetly Mine, 93.
Rightly So, 100.
Rapport, 103.
Dynaslew, 99.

So Discreetly Mine regressed 18pts gotcha.. Maybe that 111 is the product of 6.5f Spaland?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

So Discreetly Mine regressed 18pts gotcha.. Maybe that 111 is the product of 6.5f Spaland?

I don't think so. Surely the scintillating fractions, which were 180 degrees from his last race, were a big part of it. It does show the bias was absolutely brutal, the closers sucked big time, or both.

I had him running 103 pace, 109 speed last time. This time, if I agree with the 93, it will be 129 pace, 93 speed. Those are actually pretty similar overall, but rare to see the same horse change so much. I think it was the bias. It caused the jockeys to sell out for the front end

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't think so. Surely the scintillating fractions, which were 180 degrees from his last race, were a big part of it. It does show the bias was absolutely brutal, the closers sucked big time, or both.

I had him running 103 pace, 109 speed last time. This time, if I agree with the 93, it will be 129 pace, 93 speed. Those are actually pretty similar overall, but rare to see the same horse change so much. I think it was the bias. It caused the jockeys to sell out for the front end

I agree - I don't think the final time is indicative necessarily of a huge regression. DM's much preferred running style is to stalk, but Todd had to call an audible and change tactics thanks to the track bias. Any horse would be cooked by those fractions, so his closing that slowly doesn't bother me. Had he run his usual stalking race, he wouldn't have been tiring like that. Steve Crist and Andy discussed this on Talking Horses. Everyone knew the race would come up slow in terms of final speed figures, but the pace guys would conclude that DM ran very well.

Unless the colt is dog tired, I hope Todd changes his mind and runs him once more before the BC

[cmorioles]

He will be hard pressed to win a 6f BC in my opinion, unless he had another prep and showed more ability.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

He will be hard pressed to win a 6f BC in my opinion, unless he had another prep and showed more ability.

He doesn't have enough ability?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Betsy

He doesn't have enough ability?

In my opinion, he has not shown it yet. He'll be a big underlay in the BC.

[ateamstupid]

Might have been posted elsewhere, but what was Uncle Mo's fig?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Might have been posted elsewhere, but what was Uncle Mo's fig?

I couldn't find it because no other horse in the race had run yet either.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I couldn't find it because no other horse in the race had run yet either.

OK, any idea what the raw number was though?

[cmorioles]

Well, by the Beyer chart, it was faster than all the stakes. However, 5f races can vary wildly from the standard chart at Saratoga as well as many other tracks. Do a search of "Beyer Speed Chart" and you can look them up very quickly.


I just saw it posted somewhere else as a 102.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Might have been posted elsewhere, but what was Uncle Mo's fig?

Early fig was a 102. But Beyer is consulting with PG1985 later to make sure it's correct.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Early fig was a 102. But Beyer is consulting with PG1985 later to make sure it's correct.

He might want to consult with somebody on the Travers.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

He might want to consult with somebody on the Travers.

What did you get for the Travers?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

What did you get for the Travers?

Slow. Do some work.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

What did you get for the Travers?

I'm not sure yet, but it won't be near 105. 100 is pushing it in my opinion.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

In my opinion, he has not shown it yet. He'll be a big underlay in the BC.

I think he's very good, but I guess we'll see come BC day.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not sure yet, but it won't be near 105. 100 is pushing it in my opinion.

Thanks.