Anybody See the 6th at Laurel Today?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Lauren Stich, Moyer's Pond, Scuds, Mike Watchmaker, Rock Hard Ten 1985, Jay Hovdey, Vic Stauffer, and Shug.

oh god


No Sumitas?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

My bad.

How soon we forget.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think he just beat a TERRIBLE field in that Laurel win and you're reaching a bit for excuses. Look how the horses he beat have faired.....

The horse who was 2nd to him came back as the even money betting favorite in his next start and was beaten 8 lengths by a 2nd time starter who got beat a mere 27 lengths in his debut.

The 3rd place finisher from his win got beat 6.5 lengths at 8/5 odds in his next start.

The 4th place finisher was beaten 19 lengths and 14.5 lengths in his next two starts - the latter trouncing coming for a 25K maiden claiming tag.

As Mr. Eloquence said earlier in the thread - "there are no trips in slow races" .. or something like that.

While I wouldn't disagree that he was visually impressive in victory when you watch the race ... it obviously had a whole lot more to do with the bums that were running behind him.

The prettiest girl at the fat camp always looks irresistible ... until she surrounds herself with better company.

I agree with you. The field he beat was terrible. There is no question about that. But that doesn't mean he's not a good horse. Most of the good horses (horses that ended up being graded stakes winners) we've seen over the years that broke their maidens at tracks like Laurel, Delaware, Philly Park, etc. didn't beat any world beaters when they broke their maidens.

Whether this horse is any good or not, I don't think he's anything close to 100% right now. He's only had 2 works the last 7 weeks (and one of them was a 3 furlong work, 2 days before his race. In his race the other day, he was around 15 lengths back early and the pace wasn't even that fast (:47 2/5). The horse rarely works out and he's lost all his speed. The horse may not be any good but I certainly don't think he's anything close to 100% right now.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you. The field he beat was terrible. There is no question about that. But that doesn't mean he's not a good horse.

Rup, a recap ... the horse sold for 160K in a really tough 2yo sales market last year. His sire stands for just $7,500 - the horse was just a 42K yearling in a far more seller friendly market.

It's not like this is some lowly underdog Laurel based horse like Magic Weisner who we can all root for.

His maiden win came the same day as Tempted To Tapit's...a far less sexy horse (18K yearling who had lost 3 straight maiden races - 2 at Philly and 1 at Delaware)

You started a thread about the slow and sexy prospect saying he could be an interesting one to watch on the Derby Trail...

And when BTW responded that "Tempted To Tapit would beat him by a city block and no one is getting revved up about him" .... you actually responded by saying "it's how they do it, not how fast they run. I don't pay attention to speed figures"

You deserve some needling - not so much for starting a thread about a horse that beat a bad field and still hasn't yet proven he's even good enough to beat Hotep... but for using silly bologna talk on us that should be saved for fooling rich, naive, owners into thinking that its some kind of big advantage that you don't have a good understanding of figures.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Rup, a recap ... the horse sold for 160K in a really tough 2yo sales market last year. His sire stands for just $7,500 - the horse was just a 42K yearling in a far more seller friendly market.

It's not like this is some lowly underdog Laurel based horse like Magic Weisner who we can all root for.

His maiden win came the same day as Tempted To Tapit's...a far less sexy horse (18K yearling who had lost 3 straight maiden races - 2 at Philly and 1 at Delaware)

You started a thread about the slow and sexy prospect saying he could be an interesting one to watch on the Derby Trail...

And when BTW responded that "Tempted To Tapit would beat him by a city block and no one is getting revved up about him" .... you actually responded by saying "it's how they do it, not how fast they run. I don't pay attention to speed figures"

You deserve some needling - not so much for starting a thread about a horse that beat a bad field and still hasn't yet proven he's even good enough to beat Hotep... but for using silly bologna talk on us that should be saved for fooling rich, naive, owners into thinking that its some kind of big advantage that you don't have a good understanding of figures.

I think speed figures are one small piece of the puzzle, no more, no less. What percentage of races are won by the horse who has run the highest speed figure? I bet it's a relatively small percent. It's probably around 30% or less.

Don't get me wrong. Even though I think speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle, I still believe that if a person had access to accurate speed figures and this person was one of the only people using speed figures, this person would have a big edge. But in this day and age, everyone has access to speed figures. Horses with the highest speed figures are usually over-bet. In a game with 16% vig, I think it's pretty tough to get an edge focusing on the same info as everyone else.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think speed figures are one small piece of the puzzle, no more, no less. What percentage of races are won by the horse who has run the highest speed figure? I bet it's a relatively small percent. It's probably around 30% or less.

Don't get me wrong. Even though I think speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle, I still believe that if a person had access to accurate speed figures and this person was one of the only people using speed figures, this person would have a big edge. But in this day and age, everyone has access to speed figures. Horses with the highest speed figures are usually over-bet. In a game with 16% vig, I think it's pretty tough to get an edge focusing on the same info as everyone else.

How about trying this one:
You guys are right the horse either sucks because he is hurt or sucks because he is slow eitherway the people that bought him have a sack of crap. It goes to show you how tough the biz can be. The horse looked great brought great money for his type and became a frog for one reason or another..

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think speed figures are one small piece of the puzzle, no more, no less. What percentage of races are won by the horse who has run the highest speed figure? I bet it's a relatively small percent. It's probably around 30% or less.

Don't get me wrong. Even though I think speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle, I still believe that if a person had access to accurate speed figures and this person was one of the only people using speed figures, this person would have a big edge. But in this day and age, everyone has access to speed figures. Horses with the highest speed figures are usually over-bet. In a game with 16% vig, I think it's pretty tough to get an edge focusing on the same info as everyone else.

You're using an argument that is not applicable here. Using figures to bet the races is completely different than what you did. You overrated a slow horse. You overrated the trouble he had, you exagerated his talents, and then ignored his lack of talent. The figure mattered and you didn't want to admit that it disproved your assessment.

You were wrong before and wrong now. No big deal. I'm publically wrong day after day. But, when proven wrong, you need to accept it...and move on. At least you better in this game.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're using an argument that is not applicable here. Using figures to bet the races is completely different than what you did. You overrated a slow horse. You overrated the trouble he had, you exagerated his talents, and then ignored his lack of talent. The figure mattered and you didn't want to admit that it disproved your assessment.

You were wrong before and wrong now. No big deal. I'm publically wrong day after day. But, when proven wrong, you need to accept it...and move on. At least you better in this game.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I am wrong several times a week. I admit to that. Many of my losing bets are from overrating horses. I overrate horses all the time. I think we all do.

With this particular horse (Cowboy Gets Even), I may have overrated his talent. It is quite possible. But it also possible that the horse got hurt in that race (the race he won) and that is why he only has two works in the last 7 weeks and that is why he ran a weak race next time out. We'll never know for sure. If he takes the next 6 months off and comes back and turns into a stakes horse, then I will think that I was probably right about him. If he takes 6 months off and he is still no good, then I will think that I was probably wrong about him.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by freddymo

How about trying this one:
You guys are right the horse either sucks because he is hurt or sucks because he is slow eitherway the people that bought him have a sack of crap. It goes to show you how tough the biz can be. The horse looked great brought great money for his type and became a frog for one reason or another..

I agree with you that the horse sucks right now. I also agree with you about how tough the business can be. Horses are so fragile. Even if you have a great horse, all it takes is one mis-step for a $1 million horse to become worthless overnight.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I am wrong several times a week. I admit to that. Many of my losing bets are from overrating horses. I overrate horses all the time. I think we all do.

With this particular horse (Cowboy Gets Even), I may have overrated his talent. It is quite possible. But it also possible that the horse got hurt in that race (the race he won) and that is why he only has two works in the last 7 weeks and that is why he ran a weak race next time out. We'll never know for sure. If he takes the next 6 months off and comes back and turns into a stakes horse, then I will think that I was probably right about him. If he takes 6 months off and he is still no good, then I will think that I was probably wrong about him.

Make an offer 10 or 15k should suffice

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Make an offer 10 or 15k should suffice

It's way too early to count the horse out. We have no idea what is wrong with the horse. It could be something serious that he will never recover from. But it could be something relatively minor that will require 60-90 days at the farm and he may come back better than ever.

You see horses all the time that run a poor race and disappear for 6 months and come back better than ever.

If they were willing to take $10k or $15k for the horse, you wouldn't want the horse because you would know that he has a serious problem if they were willing to sell him that cheap.