Pricing the Derby

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by JJP

I Secondly, we have no idea if Colonel John will handle real dirt. Just because he beat Gayego on the carpet, doesn't mean Colonel John would've won that race yesterday at Oaklawn.

I'm always curious why people say things like this.
why don't we have any idea if Colonel John will be able to handle dirt? Can you name one synthetic star that has bombed on dirt because of not being able to handle it?

shippers from California pretty much owned the big stakes at Oaklawn this year. I can think of numerous examples that have handled the switch (synth to dirt), but I can't think of any who failed big time.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I don't really disagree with you, but was the field Empire Maker faced as bad as this one?

Absolutely not... Empire Maker (foot and all) would be 3/2 against this group. 2003 was actually a pretty good field, off the top of my head their prep achievements-
* Empire Maker won the Fl Derby & Wood in impressive fasion, with 110+ Beyers
* Funny Cide had shown a lot at 2, ran well while wide in La & Fl, before a big run in the Wood with a 109 Beyer
* Peace Rules had won 3 graded stakes already with 105+ Beyers
* Buddy Gil won the SA Derby with a 105+ Beyer
* Ten Most Wanted ran a huge race in the Ill Derby with a 105+ Beyer
* Indian Express ran a big 2nd in the SA Derby
* Atswhatimtalknbout was everyone's wiseguy horse with his crazy closing rushes
* Scrimshaw finished 3rd in Calfornia and won the Lexington with a 107 (i think) Beyer

So the top 5 I listed would DEFINITELY be favored over everyone in this year's KY Derby, save Big Brown. The next 3 would have been no worse than the 2nd or 3rd choice.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i've never seen a year where anyone thought there was a good field.

every year the complaints are the same.

so in terms of perception by those betting in 2003, there isn't much difference.

Disagree. I have never seen a worse field than this- 1993 was close though. 2003's field absolutely LAYS OVER this one.

[ArlJim78]

lol, it wasn't long ago for my derby handicapping I would separate the contenders from the rest by just looking at horses who had run at least a 105 beyer. lately the benchmark has been more like 100.

This year above 95 gets attention!

[JJP]

Who is a "synthetic star"? Is there such a thing? Just because Tiago and Heatseeker ran 1-2 in the Oaklawn Cap and Gayego won the Arkansas Derby, it has no bearing on whether Colonel John will handle real dirt. Tiago HAS run on real dirt before so he can't even be included.

I contend that fall Churchill is now unplayable due to the heavy diet of 2YO racing and the majority of them have run all their previous races at Keeneland, Arlington and Turfway over Polytrack. I remember seeing some very chaotic results there last November and the underlying reason was so many horses who'd never run on real dirt and nobody really knew if they'd handle it.

Synthetic racing is certainly closer to grass than dirt and one cannot use grass form to project how a horse will run on converntional dirt.

BTW, I did think of a "synthetic star": Dominican. How has he done on dirt since the 2007 Blue Grass?

[wac]

I agree the 03 derby was a really good one. quality all over the place. I swear i think if all goes well with the trainging and he doesnt get a bad post i see BB at 5-2 when they spring the gate. and 2-1 when they get to turn 2 damn that aggravates me so much when that happens. Horses i bet tht win there odds always go down during the running of the race never up. Well i'll take it if its a winner. This weekend was a weird one i knew that pyro wasn't going to win the BG but didn't expect that kind of a performance. There was no reason for the horse to give it all but would like to have seen something. I told my mom who was gonna bet on pyro anyway in KD that was the best thing that could happen as long as he's not hurt. Should bump him up to at least 6-1 when they spring the gates.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by JJP

Who is a "synthetic star"? Is there such a thing? Just because Tiago and Heatseeker ran 1-2 in the Oaklawn Cap and Gayego won the Arkansas Derby, it has no bearing on whether Colonel John will handle real dirt. Tiago HAS run on real dirt before so he can't even be included.

I contend that fall Churchill is now unplayable due to the heavy diet of 2YO racing and the majority of them have run all their previous races at Keeneland, Arlington and Turfway over Polytrack. I remember seeing some very chaotic results there last November and the underlying reason was so many horses who'd never run on real dirt and nobody really knew if they'd handle it.

Synthetic racing is certainly closer to grass than dirt and one cannot use grass form to project how a horse will run on converntional dirt.

forget synthetic stars then, name ANY prominent horse. i contend that synthetic to dirt is nothing at all like the consideration for turf horses going to dirt. far more synthetic horses run just fine on dirt compared to turf horses.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

lol, it wasn't long ago for my derby handicapping I would separate the contenders from the rest by just looking at horses who had run at least a 105 beyer. lately the benchmark has been more like 100.

This year above 95 gets attention!

While Beyers/speed figures don't necessarily tell the whole story, it's certainly a logical place to start, and I agree 100%- 105 was the number, then it was 100... this year, 95! There was a pretty hard and fast rule that any horse that hadn't run two 100+ Beyers coming in was a pretty easy toss, only Sea Hero in 25+ years had broken that (and I believe he had a 99 and a 103). Giacomo broke that rule, and this year, ONLY Big Brown even qualifies!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm always curious why people say things like this.
why don't we have any idea if Colonel John will be able to handle dirt? Can you name one synthetic star that has bombed on dirt because of not being able to handle it?

shippers from California pretty much owned the big stakes at Oaklawn this year. I can think of numerous examples that have handled the switch (synth to dirt), but I can't think of any who failed big time.

they did a lot of work on oaklawns surface after last season. the change has been remarkable, since a year ago not one horse won at oaklawn who made their previous start on an AWT.
will it translate to churchill? i don't know. they claim that the hot springs and louisville track are remarkably similar. we'll see.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by philcski

While Beyers/speed figures don't necessarily tell the whole story, it's certainly a logical place to start, and I agree 100%- 105 was the number, then it was 100... this year, 95! There was a pretty hard and fast rule that any horse that hadn't run two 100+ Beyers coming in was a pretty easy toss, only Sea Hero in 25+ years had broken that (and I believe he had a 99 and a 103). Giacomo broke that rule, and this year, ONLY Big Brown even qualifies!!

is lack of racing a factor? are the horses doing less, as they aren't as far along racing-wise as in years past?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Danzig

is lack of racing a factor? are the horses doing less, as they aren't as far along racing-wise as in years past?

Possibly... I remember the average # of starts pre-Derby was around 8, and now it seems like this year it will be around 6. I've always thought most horses don't reach their peak until their 10th start or so. No statistics to back that up, just an observation.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Danzig

they did a lot of work on oaklawns surface after last season. the change has been remarkable, since a year ago not one horse won at oaklawn who made their previous start on an AWT.
will it translate to churchill? i don't know. they claim that the hot springs and louisville track are remarkably similar. we'll see.

I think the surface at Oaklawn is top notch. I just wish the meet was a little longer.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I think the surface at Oaklawn is top notch. I just wish the meet was a little longer.

No turf racing is why I never play it. It is a filler track for me when I am bored

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Scav

No turf racing is why I never play it. It is a filler track for me when I am bored

plenty of other places for turf, one is in your backyard!

i just found that if you study oaklawn a bit its pretty consistent, formfull, with decent payouts.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

plenty of other places for turf, one is in your backyard!

i just found that if you study oaklawn a bit its pretty consistent, formfull, with decent payouts.

Old guy at the Carbondale OTB told me when I was in college just to box the four inside horses, regardless of odds

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Scav

Old guy at the Carbondale OTB told me when I was in college just to box the four inside horses, regardless of odds

i think that same guy told me the same thing.

only he was talking about Maywood.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

plenty of other places for turf, one is in your backyard!

i just found that if you study oaklawn a bit its pretty consistent, formfull, with decent payouts.

I like Oaklawn a lot, but they run in my offseason. No turf course is fine by me.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

forget synthetic stars then, name ANY prominent horse. i contend that synthetic to dirt is nothing at all like the consideration for turf horses going to dirt. far more synthetic horses run just fine on dirt compared to turf horses.

Just from stakes winners on the synthetics that are clearly better on it then on the dirt. I'm sure I could find far more if I used stakes placed as well.

Dominican
Panty Raid
Piratesonthelake
Steve's Double
Slew's Tizzy
Christmas Kid
Off Duty
Stream Cat
Danzon
Lewis Michael
Lady Belsara
Silent Name
Mary Delaney
Massive Drama (might be fine in a dirt sprint)
Texas Fever
(spot reserved for Monba)
(spot reserved for Cowboy Cal)


On the contrary I only found three horses that fit the profile of the turf horse flourishing on the synthetics that wouldn't be able to run a step on the dirt that did actually come back to win at similar levels on the dirt:

Asi Siempre
Heatseeker
Spotsgone

[HaloWishingwell]

Who cares about the odds , TALE OF EKATI wil pay out $31.60.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by HaloWishingwell

Who cares about the odds , TALE OF EKATI wil pay out $31.60.

Why the bold and italics???? Do you feel the need to try and standout with your post?

[sumitas]

i won't say it again. i'm playin the long odds this year.