Saturday Night Delta Stakes Sprint - Projected "E"

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by PeteC

Scratch #1 and #12…




#6 and #8 have been beaten recently by the 2…OUT

…

Hi Pete

If you look at #8's overall picture you can draw conclusion that #8 didn't run to it's normal ability at FG on Dec 10, which puts a ??? at side of that tandem.


Chuck that race and tandem, scratch #1 and your contenders are #2 and #8 imho


Hope this helps

[DaveEdwards]

Was lay thinking about this race and thought there just had to be a rational explanation. I know The Hat advised against going over past races, but I felt there was a lesson for me to learn.

I agree with Charlie in his post above. The last race for 8 was not representative. Going back to the previous race at CD we have it pressing a faster pace. Applying the 2 For 1 concept to this line & rematching has this horse getting up late to win from the 2 for me now.

Perhaps I was a little naive going that far back for an all blue paceline there when the more recent green 2:1 adjustment would have been more appropriate.

[RichieP]

Here is the result chart.

Partsnut nails the 15 buck winner ( he likes these matching races eh? ) while Charlie D lays out a perfect horse by horse matchup getting the winner in his final 2 contenders. Dorianmode has the winner in his final mix as well (welcome to the Matchers area btw!)

Dave Edwards - for a 2nd time matcher you are doing good work man. If I can make a suggestion going forward please:
Next race posted here make sure you do NOT look at any other feedback before you analyze the race. Now make 2 "groupings" of "Early" and "Other than early (OTE) horses.

Because I am deliberatly posting larger field (and hopefully contentious)races get each grouping down to 2 horses for a total of 4 final contenders. Now with THESE horses open the pps up all the way and use any and all info you find there to try and reduce to the best E and best OTE final contender. Please use Hat's definition of running styles found in the 5 step approach for this.

I am posting the above for Dave because he wants to work races in Jim's style. Jim worked hundreds and hundreds of races with me and he never paid attention to recency, biases, jockeys etc. The caveat is he would look with caution at early horses who in its last race or 2 could not "get on top of fractions" it could previously. The quote is his exact terminology. The ONLY class allowance he made was to not evaluate horses off maiden lines. Period.

ALL forms of matching are welcome here and I have to say this weeks race had a tremendous response and for this I want to give EVERYONE a huge tip of Jim's "HAT"!

[DaveEdwards]

Thank you very much for the pointers Richie. Looking forward to the next already.

[Dorianmode]

Richie,

I often fail to explain myself clearly..so just an additional word, about why I thought I should have passed this race, whether or not the dutch payoff was better.

It goes to Dave Edwards comment : "thought there just had to be a rational explanation."

I do think there may be some races that DO defy analysis, but this is not one of them. (Because probabilities are multiplied..there will always be one, rarely, that pops out of the 95% paradigm of two standard deviations...bal bla bla). In my db I keep a column, which is mostly blank, but now and then, AFTER I look at it "post-op", I declare, (for myself), "race not subject to analysis"). Anyway, I think THIS race WAS subject to analysis, but NOT a "wagering opportunity"... (not merely because the dutch of my top two was unacceptable), but also because, just as parsnut said, "the 8 may just wake up today". The thing is, I thought I had no way of knowing WHY, exactly, the 8 had been "sleeping". It did seem obvious it had run well in the fairly recent past, but I could not see a reason for the outcomes from the past 2 races. (Using the "best preceptor" rule, it would be #1 in RDSS, but, could not justify betting on it just because a computer program put it #1.) I saw no reason why I should think it would "wake up" today.

Charlie D said " If you look at #8's overall picture you can draw conclusion that #8 didn't run to it's normal ability at FG on Dec 10, which puts a ??? at side of that tandem". Agree, but how do we know it will "wake up" TODAY ? (That's what I meant when I said it was "making me twitch")

So my question is : Are there clues somewhere, that should have told me the 8 WAS going to "wake up" TODAY ? (I looked at the workouts, and saw nothing special).

I was left with a choice ; pass because I could not tell what the 8 was going to do, or, bet it anyway, hoping it WAS going to "wake up"?

Thanks.

[For The Lead]

I thought I would post "clips" from the various people responding to this match up, specifically with regard to the winner or references to the winner, before offering some further information about the winner.

Originally Posted by PeteC

Scratch #1 and #12…

#6 and #8 have been beaten recently by the 2…OUT

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Now looking for horses that can win or run well just below the Projected Pace.
These are #1 - #2 and #8.
FG Match Up of #2 and #8 suggests #2 wins it

#8 - OUT

Originally Posted by partsnut

The (#8) is the class of the race, has raced against much better and could wake up here and put the rest of the field to sleep.

Originally Posted by Dorianmode

Seems the pace will be very fast, (maybe sub 45). In that case the 5 and 8 can't do it ?

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

No 8, Race 5. 420 days ago. Possible the horse may have matured, but the SR for recent races are relatively similar.

8. Old line & competitive at this pace. 2 would still have the positional advantage I think. The most recent line looks a little worse also. Out.

Originally Posted by Dorianmode

The 8 did have a big apv/class adv. If you use 3rd race back, (the best perceptor line), it puts 8 on top of RDSS 2.0, but don't like making excuses...makes me "twitch". Pass anyway. (Ritchie did have proj pace exactly correct).

Originally Posted by Charlie D

If you look at #8's overall picture you can draw conclusion that #8 didn't run to it's normal ability at FG on Dec 10, which puts a ??? at side of that tandem.

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

I agree with Charlie in his post above. The last race for 8 was not representative. Going back to the previous race at CD we have it pressing a faster pace. Applying the 2 For 1 concept to this line & rematching has this horse getting up late to win from the 2 for me now.

Perhaps I was a little naive going that far back for an all blue paceline there when the more recent green 2:1 adjustment would have been more appropriate.

Originally Posted by RichieP

The caveat is he would look with caution at early horses who in its last race or 2 could not "get on top of fractions" it could previously. The quote is his exact terminology.

I am not a doctor and I am not a veterinarian, but I have learned things about horses and horse racing through my life, so I will give you my take on the winner (#8), since it is such a good example.

As you can see by reading the above clips, it's not that the posters didn't "like" the #8 horse, the horse just provided question marks in their minds, so I'll pose one more question for all of you.

Why would a horse, who had 4 wins and 3 seconds, from 7 lifetime races, suddenly stop racing in the first week of February in its' 3 year old season and be OFF for more than 9 moths? To answer that question is to get a better understand of the horse...today.

The answer to my question is, "INJURY!"

The most common injury in young horses (2 yr olds and early 3 yr olds) is called "bucked shins" and the remedy for this injury, in most cases, is rest. When the injury is consider healed, the process of getting back to the races starts and the idea is NOT to take the horse out and see how fast it can run! Training will be light and not necessarily fast.

For me, this horses first race back against lesser quality horses than it was meeting prior to the injury, was a good race. 28 days later the horse was entered in race race comparable to the competition it faced prior to the injury. This race was a test to see how far the horse had come and not necessarily a race it was "trying" to win. One of our members is a previous NYRA owner, so I'm sure he will understand. Not wanting to rush the horse, it was given 56 days off prior to today's race. After having to races under its' belt, the horse was ready to run. Can you arrive at this conclusion before the race? Yes, as long as you know what the horses situation is. Although there are several ways in which this horse is better than the rest of the field, I will just point to one that all can see, APV, which is twice as good as any other horse in the race.

All you have to do is read the signs.
1 - a young horse
2 - for no apparent reason, the horse suddenly stops training
3 - the horse is off for an lengthy period of time

For those who are interested, below are a couple of links where you can read about this condition.

http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/in...m/bc/90742.htm

http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/aaep...0102000076.pdf

http://equine.vetmed.lsu.edu/bucked%20shins.pdf

[partsnut]

RichieP.

I am posting the above for Dave because he wants to work races in Jim's style. Jim worked hundreds and hundreds of races with me and he never paid attention to recency, biases, jockeys etc. The caveat is he would look with caution at early horses who in its last race or 2 could not "get on top of fractions" it could previously. The quote is his exact terminology. The ONLY class allowance he made was to not evaluate horses off maiden lines. Period.

I cannot or will not find fault with Jim's style. I will say however, that the winner of this race was completely contrary to Jim's style and I can readily understand that happening more times then we would like it to.

Although Jim did not advocate class the fact remains that in this race, back class prevailed. It was obvious to those that seek to get value out of a race, that this horse had been up against much better then what he was facing in the race at hand. As suggested by the race shape, the race set up for and favored a sustained runner in a fast pace. In my opinion, these are the factors that are unforeseen by most and that is why this horse was a $15.00 winner.

Ritchie, thanks for posting these interesting races.

[Dorianmode]

For The Lead,

Thank you ! That goes a long way in explaining to me why "what happened, happened". Your "injury" comment is EXACTLY what goes through my mind when I see this situation.

Can I please ask a further question ?

"having to, (two ?) races under its' belt, the horse was ready to run. Can you arrive at this conclusion before the race? Yes, as long as you know what the horses situation is.

Why/how do you come to the conclusion that the 8 was "ready to run" after 2, (specifically TWO) races ? How would I know that ? Is there a study or statistic known somewhere that I could have/should have known regarding that situation. (Not knowing anything about it, is one of the reasons I passed the race). How would I know "2" is the "magic number" ?

Thanks.

[PeteC]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Hi Pete

If you look at #8's overall picture you can draw conclusion that #8 didn't run to it's normal ability at FG on Dec 10, which puts a ??? at side of that tandem.


Chuck that race and tandem, scratch #1 and your contenders are #2 and #8 imho


Hope this helps

Thanks Charlie. Yep, it does help. I just didn't have the foresight to question the tandem beforehand as you and others did.

Well done to those who had it.

Thanks to all the posters here too. Great layouts and insights. Very nice to have a large group doing this race.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Dorianmode

For The Lead,

Thank you ! That goes a long way in explaining to me why "what happened, happened". Your "injury" comment is EXACTLY what goes through my mind when I see this situation.

Can I please ask a further question ?

"having to, (two ?) races under its' belt, the horse was ready to run. Can you arrive at this conclusion before the race? Yes, as long as you know what the horses situation is.

Why/how do you come to the conclusion that the 8 was "ready to run" after 2, (specifically TWO) races ? How would I know that ? Is there a study or statistic known somewhere that I could have/should have known regarding that situation. (Not knowing anything about it, is one of the reasons I passed the race). How would I know "2" is the "magic number" ?

Thanks.

Sorry. I missed the "w" in two.

You were right to "think" injury, but then you have to know what the injury is, what the path to recovery consists of and what can be expected after recovery, as I'm sure you know.

I never said "2" races were "specifically" the magic number of races.

In this case, "2" races are what we have to evaluate after returning from the injury. It could have been one and an evaluation made on that one race. I would caution, the longer the horse goes without showing the expected improvement, the worse it is and perhaps the horse will NOT return to its' prior form. In my opinion, after years of watching this, if this horse had not returned to form last night and ran another dull race, the next time it ran it would have been out of excuses as far as I am concerned. If a horse coming back after this injury doesn't get the job done in the 2nd or 3rd race back, I believe it is not getting back.

I'm sure there are situations with humans where, after and injury, the patient doesn't recover to the extent once anticipated and there comes a point at which 100% recovery is written off. I can only guess that point doesn't take real long to be reached.

To my knowledge, there are no studies or statistics kept on this, unless a place like the New Bolton Center or facilities like it keep them, but my guess is, they are more concerned with the health of the horse, not how fast it can run.

Trainers will know, but I doubt that they are keeping records. I also doubt that you will find anything about this in any handicapping book. Seriously, ask the next ten handicappers you meet if they know anything about "bucked shins". It is something "you" have to know and observe for "yourself". It really isn't that difficult. If you see a long layoff, glance at the age of the horse at the time the layoff began. If the age at that point "fits", you have it. In this case there were no apparent signs in the horses last race, which makes the condition stand out even more, since there was no visual reason for the horse to stop training. In other cases the horses last race before the long layoff is a bad one, for obvious reasons, if you know what you are looking for.

I hope this helps.