Brisbet take on Bernie - Page 2

ArlJim78 · #21 10-11-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revolution

Yes. It is 1:59.40 at Churchill, where Secretariat did it in the KY Derby. I could easily see them making the track very fast and I think Bernardini is going to break the record.

Well that would make it a very special day indeed!

Pointg5 · #22 10-11-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Well that would make it a very special day indeed!

I guess anything's possible, if Monarchos could come close, I assume Bernardini could, but he had trouble breaking 2:00 in a 1 turn 1 1/4 on a fast track and no one knows how he's going to fair against some pressure, to automatically assume he can go faster is rediculous...Also, a super fast track would favor Lava Man...

#23 10-11-2006, 10:29 AM

Chances are it will be raining on BCC day. It's that time of year.

Thunder Gulch · #24 10-11-2006, 10:35 AM

Bernardini retort #53....

Once again, this appears to be an amazing animal, but let's let him earn his coronation. Only three more weeks, then we can officially shower him with superlatives. In three weeks, if he runs away from Lava Man and Invasor among others, then there will be no disputing his enormous talent. Besides, there is no use in jumping on the bandwagon now because you're just siding with the obvious.

However, he hasn't matched Ghostzapper's or Formal Gold's figures yet, much less a Secretariat/ Spectacular Bid type track record. It's the apparent ease with which Bernie moves that really has forwarded his reputation, but who is to say he picks up another couple of lengths if they put the whip on him? With his current figures, he's a length or two better than Invasor and LM and somewhere in the range with Skip Away and Point Given. An advantage for sure, but not exactly an insurmountable advantage considering you'll get 3 or 4 times better odds on the others. Now I'm sure somebody sat back and tried to figure how to beat Secretariat in 1973, so this may be an exercise in futility. There's no value in a losing play.

Gander · #25 10-11-2006, 10:41 AM

Why is this irreponsible journalism? Hes just trying to get the public pumped up about a very special horse whos only flaw is not beating anybody, if you call that a flaw. Horses have been avoiding him and now they must finally face him in the Classic, hence the Classic may be his defining moment. I think everything written here is pretty accurate. While I wont be betting him or rooting for him in the BC Classic, I still appreicate this horse and its very possible he is the greatest horse to have ever run. Whos to say otherwise? I wouldnt judge his races by times, lengths of the wins or who hes beaten. Bernardini runs fast enough to win vs the competition (if you call it that).

blackthroatedwind · #26 10-11-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

There's no value in a losing play.

I do want to say that I agree with the other part of your post but this statement is completely false. " value " in wagering is totally unrelated to whether or not you win or lose. As the simplest example, if you give me 2-1 on heads coming up in a coin flip, even if it's tails, I made a value bet. The point of " value " is that, assuming you truly have it, over time you WILL make money and individual events are irrelevent.

blackthroatedwind · #27 10-11-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gander

Why is this irreponsible journalism? Hes just trying to get the public pumped up about a very special horse whos only flaw is not beating anybody, if you call that a flaw. Horses have been avoiding him and now they must finally face him in the Classic, hence the Classic may be his defining moment. I think everything written here is pretty accurate. While I wont be betting him or rooting for him in the BC Classic, I still appreicate this horse and its very possible he is the greatest horse to have ever run. Whos to say otherwise? I wouldnt judge his races by times, lengths of the wins or who hes beaten. Bernardini runs fast enough to win vs the competition (if you call it that).

I think it is irresponsible to pretend something happened that didn't. Sorry, but I find a lot of what I have read about Bernardini to bear little resemblence to reality. Wanting a horse to be good is fine, but pretending one has done something it hasn't, for the sake of drama, is irresponsible. That is what is going on in this article...IMO.

Slewbopper · #28 10-11-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I do want to say that I agree with the other part of your post but this statement is completely false. " value " in wagering is totally unrelated to whether or not you win or lose. As the simplest example, if you give me 2-1 on heads coming up in a coin flip, even if it's tails, I made a value bet. The point of " value " is that, assuming you truly have it, over time you WILL make money and individual events are irrelevent.

Value is certainly not betting a 4/5 horse to win, however there can be very good value with that horse on top in an exacta.

JJP · #29 10-11-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

The worthwhile BRISNET figures are the pace ratings, not the final speed rating. Those numbers give an indication of a horse's speed throughout the race. It's conceivable that a horse with a past higher speed rating than another might be distributing his energy in such a way that he is not superior to the so-called slower horse, given a race's pace scenario.

And the Beyer numbers have become ridiculous. I love them, for people cling to them.

The Sheets trump Beyer's numbers every day of the week.

First off, the sheets SHOULD trump Beyer's figs, considering the cost. And I would agree their grass numbers do. But the Sheets and T-Graph have their own issues; taking into account weight and wind but leaving out far more important variables such as pace and bias. A horse running in the 4 path on a dead rail/good outside track gets extra credit due to ground loss, when in fact they are getting an ideal trip.

As for Bris, I've heard a very neutral observer, Jerry Brown, state that those were the most worthless figs of all.

blackthroatedwind · #30 10-11-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Value is certainly not betting a 4/5 horse to win, however there can be very good value with that horse on top in an exacta.

Um....no. There could easily be a 4:5 shot that is " value " ( what if Bernardini had been 4:5 in the JCGC ).

" Value " is anything where the odds you are receiving are greater than the ACTUAL odds of the event occuring. Obviously this doesn't happen a lot in horse racing, due mostly to the takeout and partially to the efficiency of the betting pools, but it is can happen though its provability in racing is nebulous at best.

blackthroatedwind · #31 10-11-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJP

As for Bris, I've heard a very neutral observer, Jerry Brown, state that those were the most worthless figs of all.

I happen to agree with Jerry on this point ( and with you on yours )....but how could he possibly be considered a " neutral observer " in this discussion?

philcski · #32 10-11-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Value is certainly not betting a 4/5 horse to win, however there can be very good value with that horse on top in an exacta.

Sure it is, if you think the horse is 1/5 to win. I'm not ever going to do it (i'd rather play the goddamn slots than bet 4/5 shots all day), but if you have $100,000 lying around and you can get an 80% return on what you believe to be an 80% proposition, you take it every time.

philcski · #33 10-11-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Um....no. There could easily be a 4:5 shot that is " value " ( what if Bernardini had been 4:5 in the JCGC ).

" Value " is anything where the odds you are receiving are greater than the ACTUAL odds of the event occuring. Obviously this doesn't happen a lot in horse racing, due mostly to the takeout and partially to the efficiency of the betting pools, but it is can happen though its provability in racing is nebulous at best.

HA! impeccable timing... my thoughts exactly.

JJP · #34 10-11-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I happen to agree with Jerry on this point ( and with you on yours )....but how could he possibly be considered a " neutral observer " in this discussion?

I should clarify, he was talking specifically about Bris and Beyer figs. I guess maybe he isn't totally neutral, but I don't think he had any motive to say one was better than the other.

philcski · #35 10-11-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I do want to say that I agree with the other part of your post but this statement is completely false. " value " in wagering is totally unrelated to whether or not you win or lose. As the simplest example, if you give me 2-1 on heads coming up in a coin flip, even if it's tails, I made a value bet. The point of " value " is that, assuming you truly have it, over time you WILL make money and individual events are irrelevent.

The problem most people face is the number of trials... they either (a) don't have the proper bankroll for the number of trials required, or (b) don't play enough races WITH an advantage versus WITHOUT (myself included.)

90% of people that go to the track don't understand this concept anyways. A couple times a day at tracks with solid but lesser handle (Monmouth, Md, etc.) you'll see an exacta combination wayyyyy overbet leaving opportunity in other probable combinations. I'll say i'm betting the 5-6 combo even though i don't necessarily prefer either of them over my selection because the exacta's paying $50 for a buck when it should be $15. It invariable the comment comes up following, "well if you don't like them, why bet them??"

sham · #36 10-11-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I disagree. Invasor went from 108 to 111 to 113 in his three races. Bernardini went from 114 to 116 to 117 in his last three. Considering the standard error on those figures and that the figure from one race is used to compute the figure for the next there is really little that significantly separates the two. You could make the argument that Bernardini could have gone faster if pushed which may or may not be true but to say those figures aren't in the same league when statistically they aren't even significantly different wouldn't be correct.

I agree with this snipe. Any Beyer fig is +/- 4 points even if calculated with no preconceived notion of what fits the race or the horse. Unfortunately, politically correct figs are becoming prevalent nowdays. Want to see an example? Look closely at Bernardini and Henny Hughes last Saturday. HH ran the faster race relative to 6fl than Bern did relative to 10fl. HH got a 113, Bern got a 117 and there was no evidence to support a split variant.

sumitas · #37 10-11-2006, 03:35 PM

Bernie has run in soft spots.

SniperSB23 · #38 10-11-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumitas

Bernie has run in soft spots.

Yup, they looked at the calendar and said 'let's find the softest spots out there to race him' and they came up with the Preakness, Jim Dandy, Traver's and the Jockey Club Gold Cup.

sumitas · #39 10-11-2006, 03:39 PM

Those races came up soft.

#40 10-11-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Yup, they looked at the calendar and said 'let's find the softest spots out there to race him' and they came up with the Preakness, Jim Dandy, Traver's and the Jockey Club Gold Cup.

The naysayers spoke of his grandsire the same way: not enough races, weak competition, etc. We know how that turned out. He left the doubters in the dust. Bernardini is cut from the same swatch as Slew.