FTL:

All the data in my spread sheet came from the PP preview info (not the charts), the 2nd of your posts, so all positions and BL were from the lead;

I acknowledge the PP info that we get from Trackmaster shows only 4f, 6f and stretch info as per usual. My info showed positions and beaten lengths from 1/4 - 1/2 - 3-4- -mile - and finish positions [I omitted the actual stretch call info], so Oxbow was 2nd by 1/2 length at the mile call in the Derby being that distance behind Normandy Invasion as per the PP running line preview info (your 2nd attachment).

The mile call info is important because that call was THE call from which to gauge horses at Marathon distances using The Hat's methods.

So in RDSS the PPs showed Oxbow's Derby as 5-2-4 up to the stretch call, whereas my data showed all four locations, thus, [1/4] 6 -[1/2] 5 - [3/4] 2-[mile] 2 where the last "2" is really the placement at the mile call in the race. My table incorrectly labeled this as the "Stretch" call and perhaps that is causing the interpretational questions.

I can see how my info caused concern.

Regards,

Jim G.

Thanks for your reply:

I was writing a quick reply; I didn’t think someone would have scrutinized every word.


With regards to your thoughts; I have to agreed that it is harder to close into a slow pace; Orb won the Derby by “default” where the rapid early pace caused a toll on all runners near this “toxic pace” as stated by Randy Moss. Orb won the Derby because he was so far away from this “toxic pace”

In the Derby, all of the first five finishers , except for Normandy Invasion, were all 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th positions, far away from the early “torrid pace”.

The “bounce” interpretation, I should have quoted Jerry Brown from Thorograph, as those were his exact words.
Re: Rosario (192 Views)

Posted by: TGJB (IP Logged)

Date: May 19, 2013 02:33PM


By not firing we mean didn't run his best race, not necessarily that he ran worse than everyone else.

As I've mentioned here before, the only thing Michael Dickinson and I ever agreed on was that horses who run tops sometimes come out of them looking great, and come out of the next one-- when they run far worse-- looking knocked out. I would not be surprised if that's how this goes for Orb.

As far as patterns go, I've got one guy telling me he bet against Orb because he was off a pair of tops, another because he was off an 0-2.

I always believe there will always be two or more interpretations of form cycles and matchup analysis depending on which school of thoughts one holds more prominence to. We can always have opposite points of views that we can fill endless posts to contradict one opinion after another.

I do understand your point of view, Jim…and very well…I worked with energy numbers many years ago which always gravitated to horses who can exert higher pace fractions as being the best or most overlooked horses. The come from behind horses always ranked lower in energy numbers and they always seem to give false hope to the next race or when the distance got longer. Someone posted in another board that whenever the Derby winner goes to a Preakness field with 9 runners or less; the Derby winner is 0 for 10 in the last 30-35 years.. Don’t quote me on that stat as I am going off my memory….

I wish you success Jim and thanks for the question..:)

My apologies, Bill.

When I read what you said about PP's being 3.5 lengths and charts being .5 lengths, I guess that is where I became confused.

Like I said before, good job targeting this horse for a possible win.

I meant no offense. I was a bit confused by the earlier statement regarding Orb and you cleared it up for me nicely in your latest reply. Continued success to you as well.

Jim