Belmont by the Hat's Marathon Method

[Bill Lyster]

Here is how I see it:

The top five are my win contenders. Over Analyze's best race was last November and the 1-4-6-8-11 are coming off allowance races or slow graded races

I think the middle 3 are too far back in a race without a lot of pace to be win contenders, but could run someone down for Pl or show.

Based on all its races I doubt that Palace Malice goes to lead again, besides he is not comfortable there. Freedom's Child gets early lead with Unlimited Budget sitting right behind with Oxbow and Palace Malice next in line; Orb trails these.

If Freedom goes unchallenged I like Freedom, Unlimited Budget and Oxbow as win candidates. Individually they have the 2nd, (5th & 7th) and 3rd best mile times respectively. If Orb runs mid pack he could be good enough, but I like Orb and Palace Malice as place horses for this race.

Good luck,

[Bill Lyster]

Quite frankly, I missed this one. But with Palace Malice, Oxbow and Orb finishing 1-2-3 the top three finishers in this Marathon had the 4th, 1st and 3rd best mile times.

I note however that traditional line picking and entering same in RDSS would not get the winner near the top, but if you use the best miles as guidance and enter the top five here is what you get.

I would note one thing here. These horses in many cases have not fully developed their best running styles, or maybe better put, there are conflicting pieces of evidence that need to be looked at in order to get a clearer view of the race.

For instance, we saw Orb rally off a very fast Derby and one very fast Florida races to win both races; he did not rally as spectacularly in the Preakness, so we suspect that Orb will have a late run most of the time. Problem is none of his races when entered in RDSS show him good enough to be top 3.

Palace Malice on the other hand had been either a P or SP until he ran off in the Derby. But the Derby showed that he could run a mile in very fast time. The Hat said that when pressers inherited the lead they would be in a place of discomfort and most would not win from this position. This is exactly what the Derby showed. I expected an upgraded performance from Palace Malice from off the lead, especially since others looked to actively need the lead.

The interpretation, admittedly post race, is that with a little more reserve PM can run a pressing race with something in reserve for the end. However, none of his pressing races were good enough to be top 3 using traditional line selection methods. I suspect that this is why The Hat "made up" lines for certain horses - in the absence of directly viewable info when the race scenario set up for a situation not directly seen in the PPs. Similarly Orb closed against a 108 and change, but that race when put in RDS
S showed him best early - a position in which obviously he would not attain.

Of course The Hat's marathon method was developed after observing the winning characteristics of horses in races 10 furlongs and longer - and not too many horses have enough race experience to predict that, especially in races like the Belmont.

Just another argument to use all the information for races like this and not use RDSS (in these kinds of races)

[lone speed]

Bill Lyster….

Great work on analyzing the 2013 Belmont contenders even though you didn’t zoomed in on the winner. It was clearly in the top five of your true win contender rankings using Jim Bradshaw’s Marathon Method. I have been following your postings on the Hat’s Marathon Method for some time with great interest and with some of my own research using the ideas presented by the “Hat” and motivated by the stats that you presented in certain “marquee races”.

Some random thoughts:

You posted that the Hat “made up some lines”……this stirred up some memories and I went back to some of my old Sartin seminars’ notes.

Tom Brohamer was giving a presentation with Doc Sartin at the side of the podium. Brohamer was talking about the races at Pomona Fairplex racetrack. This racetrack is considered a bullring track with a short stretch to the finish line. Brohamer said that he would put a tape vertically on his computer monitor right before the finish line of Thoromation. When the first horse touched his vertical tape line, Brohamer would paused the running of Thoromation by hitting the “pause” button on his computer keyboard. This “ad hoc” method determined his win contenders at the bullring racetrack. Brohamer improvised………

The “General” was Glen Connelly from Baltimore, Maryland but the”Colonel” was Bruce Jorgensen from the Northwest. His specialty was playing the races where it rained most of the year. I think it was like 365 days a year….. Jorgensen attacked the races using only deceleration pars or an old Sartin program using deceleration models to isolate the win contenders. Jorgensen improvised………..

Marion Jones was an expert on “tandem races” and he focused mostly on these situations. He always wanted to know what “condition” was a horse in when he last raced in the matchup versus today’s tandem race matchup. A horse lost by two lengths in the last matchup to the winner of the race, today is a rematch of the same two contenders. Jones would give the same beaten lengths to both contenders. Sartin was at the side of the podium when Jones spoke. Jones added that when a race had Group 1 or Group 2 horses from Europe, he entered his own pacelines. (?????WHAT?????) Jones improvised…..

Marathon races are unique races and are tough to dissect, using available Sartin programs. Bill Lyster, you have made a great presentation post under the Preakness Undercard thread started by Ted Craven. Some may disagree with the ideas and the approach of the “Hat” but we all have stood back and watched as Bradshaw focused on the mile times in marathon races. We watched or we have read the “ad hoc” ways that Bradshaw “cut and pasted” pacelines for today’s matchup. Sometimes, Bradshaw would choose the 9th paceline back to “match up” a race. Sometimes, Bradshaw would change the internal fractions of the early pace horse in today’s matchup. When someone asked Bradshaw for an explanation, Bradshaw responded that the horse would not need to run so fast early in today’s matchup. Bradshaw improvised…..

Bill Lyster, I believe firmly that you are on the right track with this approach for dissecting marathon races. You clearly identified the major contenders in each race of this year’s Triple Crown races. Great work.

[Mr.Pagine]

Bill,

I wish I would have read your post before today. You absolutely hit it out of the park - Well Done.

Your posts are truly one of a kind - Thank You.

Keep it up my friend.

JD Lee

[Bill Lyster]

Many thanks to both of you for your kind thoughts.

I too remember something about that discussion about Fairplex. I don't recall exactly what was said, but it was similar to what Lone Speed mentioned. It was something like mentally changing the visual running style of horses by one designation, but I forgot which way it went or maybe it was mentally changing the old Phase III varigate from E to EP or EP to E - at FPX only due to bull ring nature of the track.

So if a horse was an EP you either considered them an E or a P for Fairplex races for the reasons LS mentioned.

Again,

Thanks for the kind words,

[lone speed]

Bill...

What do you do with the mile times of the top contenders????

I am serious with my question....

Do you match them up....with any old Sartin programs???

In my limited race samples.... (Less than 25 races) I have match the races using the mile as the distance and 9.5 for Preakness races....my sample size is limited, but I am please with the results so far....I used new and old thoromation.....

Any thoughts???

Thanks in advance....

[Bill Lyster]

I do not use RDSS to handicap marathons, except to get the times from the PPs. There is so much more info being used by the program and the method for these races is so simple (relatively) that I write down the info and Matchup manually using The Hat's methodology.

Here is the info I put on the site prior to the Belmont. In this case I do not show horses that I did not consider to be contenders.








Two things here. I did not pick Palace Malice to win the Belmont, but I have been studying The Matchup quite a bit lately and with recent understandings in place here is how IT MIGHT GO. 2ndly, The Hat cautioned against handicapping beyond the stretch call, saying that doing so would put you on too many sustained horses. That being said and the fact that horses on or near the lead at the mile call win most races at 10 f and beyond, why do it?

If you considered FC and PM as early horses and matched up their lines, PM would put FC away after 6 furlongs and then await the charge of Orb, Oxbow and UB. But where is UB going to be in this pace scenario. She likes to press, but only off mid 111+ fractions - that puts her either further back or exhausted if she stays in 3rd pressing. She cannot make up ground from that far back and would not have anything left if she pressed; Orb and Oxbox go past her. Based on the Derby mile positioning Oxbow would be closer than Orb. In this case the 4th 3rd and 1st/or 9th best mile times hit the podium.

Sorry its after the fact, but that is how I would handicap it today.

For the Preakness Oxbow had the best mile time and won; and for the Derby Orb had the best mile time from the 2/23/13 GP race. I did get those two races.

Regards,

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

I do not use RDSS to handicap marathons, except to get the times from the PPs. There is so much more info being used by the program and the method for these races is so simple (relatively) that I write down the info and Matchup manually using The Hat's methodology.

Here is the info I put on the site prior to the Belmont. In this case I do not show horses that I did not consider to be contenders.








Two things here. I did not pick Palace Malice to win the Belmont, but I have been studying The Matchup quite a bit lately and with recent understandings in place here is how IT MIGHT GO. 2ndly, The Hat cautioned against handicapping beyond the stretch call, saying that doing so would put you on too many sustained horses. That being said and the fact that horses on or near the lead at the mile call win most races at 10 f and beyond, why do it?

If you considered FC and PM as early horses and matched up their lines, PM would put FC away after 6 furlongs and then await the charge of Orb, Oxbow and UB. But where is UB going to be in this pace scenario. She likes to press, but only off mid 111+ fractions - that puts her either further back or exhausted if she stays in 3rd pressing. She cannot make up ground from that far back and would not have anything left if she pressed; Orb and Oxbox go past her. Based on the Derby mile positioning Oxbow would be closer than Orb. In this case the 4th 3rd and 1st/or 9th best mile times hit the podium.

Sorry its after the fact, but that is how I would handicap it today.

For the Preakness Oxbow had the best mile time and won; and for the Derby Orb had the best mile time from the 2/23/13 GP race. I did get those two races.

Regards,

Hi Bill,

I just have a couple of comments.

When you say not to handicap past the stretch call, you mean the call that is in the shadow of the wire, correct? (actually its' and eighth of a mile out)

As far as Unlimited Budget is concerned, it's a filly! You have to dismiss that one out of hand!

And you don't have to apologize for any recreation you do "after the fact" as long as you are following the same guidelines you would follow prior to the race. Too many people are too caught up with what people say after the race.
How do you think I learned most of what I know? From reading things AFTER THE FACT (like the follow up, as an example) and then putting them into practical use.

Here's what DOC had to say on the subject.

[Bill Lyster]

FTL:
Only put the filly in to see if she was a Winning Colors or Rachel Alexandra, but she wasn't.

And thanks for the encouraging words as usual.

Bill

[jma1143]

First, Jim Bradshaw did not use a computer with the Matchup.

Second this is a Spot play of Jim Bradshaw's as explained in the Matchup Forum.

Actually, Bill L's method is not exactly the same as Jim Bradshaw's as
explained in the Matchup forum.

I too use the Method for Marathon races, but as put forth in the Matchup
Forum.

Go read it in the Forum, Spot play#4. No excel sheet needed.