Kentucky Derby...and Beyond?

[Sharkey]

Race 5 at Charles Town - #2 Talento 4/1 (NPT, E2, HLS) (20.1% = 4/1 fair odds)

I'm just going to bet it and forget it at whatever odds I get. W/P for $4/$4. I need a before dinner nap really badly.

 

[Black Paladin]

P.S. I need some new names for these angles. These ones suck. Help me out someone won't you?

I'll get you covered.

EDIT: on second thought, I am coming up with shit that is even cornier. I pass.

 

[Sharkey]

I'll get you covered.

EDIT: on second thought, I am coming up with shit that is even cornier. I pass.

Well, thanks for giving it a try at least, BP. I didn't give much thought to the names originally. Just attached a name to them within a few seconds. I can't think of much better when I put thought behind it, thought. I thought about calling one of them a positive reverse pace pattern, but that really doesn't explain what it is. Not that any of them do mind you. Maybe something will come to me in time.

 

[Sharkey]

I also did the numbers for the Travers as well this morning, although I'll defer to @t6p if he comes up with some ideas for it;

==========

#9 Good Magic 2/1 - 578.6
#10 Tenfold 8/1 - 557.0 (HLS)
#4 Bravazo 12/1 - 552.6
#11 Catholic Boy 8/1 - 551.0
#5 Vino Rosso 10/1 - 548.2
#3 Gronkowski 4/1 - 528.6 (estimate based in part on international ratings)
#2 Wonder Gadot 5/1 - 521.0
#1 Trigger Warning 30/1 - 519.8
#7 King Zachary 15/1 - 504.6
#8 Mendelssohn 12/1 - 455.8
#6 Meistermind 30/1 - 442.6

==========

How does this look to you @t6p?

- #10 to win
- #9, #10, #11 exacta box
- #9, #10 over #9, #10, #11, #5 over #9, #10, #11, #5 in trifectas
- #9 over #10, #4, #11, #5 in supers

I'm not crazy about using Bravazo despite him ranking high on these. But I do have enough respect to use him a little bit in the super if he's going to go off as a longshot this race, which is very likely to be the case. The money that Gronkowski, Wonder Gadot, and maybe even Mendelssohn take tomorrow should ensure we get a great price on at least 2 or 3 of our top ranked horses.

 

[Sharkey]

Warming up for tomorrow's fantastic Saratoga card by focusing only on that track today (at least early, as I did a couple of Hastings races later tonight as well), although it's tough seeing where the value can be found since some shorter prices rank very well on the numbers. There looks to be some opportunities for me to key a horse on top in some of these races, though, so perhaps value can be found underneath rounding out a exacta or trifecta.

==========

Race 2 (10:35);

4- 466.7
3- 426.9
1- 414.4
7- 405.1
2- 392.5
5- 388.0
1A- 363.3
6- 320.5

==========

Race 3 (11:10);

7- 464.0
6- 444.1
4- 438.7
5- 419.6
1- 399.3
2- 384.6
3- 340.1

==========

Race 6 (turf)(1:05);

6- 457.6
9- 442.4
2- 403.1
11- 393.2
3- 390.9
7- 382.7
1- 368.3
4- 367.8
8- 343.8

==========

Race 8 (turf)(2:15);

7- 534.0
5- 461.9
2- 459.3
3- 448.4
8- 426.8
9- 393.4
4- 370.9
1- 366.8
6- 352.3

==========

Race 9 (2:49);

11- 479.6
3- 478.1
2- 437.4
7- 403.5
1- 397.8
9- 395.0
6- 388.8
10- 374.0
4- 340.5
5- 334.9
8- 319.1
==========

Race 10 (turf)(3:23);

6- 544.7
10- 448.7
11- 447.2
4- 445.4
5- 439.9
1- 434.5
7- 414.6
2- 408.5
8- 403.1
12- 376.4

==========

 

[Sharkey]

Six big G1 races tomorrow at Saratoga. The main event with the Travers itself, and then five more G1 races on the undercard featuring some of the best horses from all the divisions save for the older dirt males. Outstanding. And we are going to be crushing it the whole day. By "we" I'm meaning @t6p and anybody else on here who plays the races. I'll be crushing something else tomorrow. i.e. The wall after my head slams against it a bunch of times.

 

[t6p]

How does this look to you @t6p?

- #10 to win
- #9, #10, #11 exacta box
- #9, #10 over #9, #10, #11, #5 over #9, #10, #11, #5 in trifectas
- #9 over #10, #4, #11, #5 in supers

I'm not crazy about using Bravazo despite him ranking high on these. But I do have enough respect to use him a little bit in the super if he's going to go off as a longshot this race, which is very likely to be the case. The money that Gronkowski, Wonder Gadot, and maybe even Mendelssohn take tomorrow should ensure we get a great price on at least 2 or 3 of our top ranked horses.

Love it Shark! I was actually just trying to decide how I want to play the race and I was thinking about something very similar. I'm going to take one more look over everything before I finalize.

 

[Sharkey]

Last year's Travers day card was actually the first time I used this formula system that I use so often nowadays. It was a very early version back then, though, with maybe only about 20 different variables for each horse. Now there's at least 75 per horse or something like that. Last year it helped me with objectivity and landed me on a couple of horses that I know I wouldn't have played without them. Practical Joke stands out. I went into last year's King's Bishop (Jerkens now, but it's always the King's Bishop) thinking I'd be betting American Anthem that race just because I always liked the horse and was bias. But that early version of the formula had Practical Joke way ahead of every body else, so that's who I ended up going with that race at basically the same odds if I'm remembering right. Just wished I had a little more trust in it last year since I could have crushed the Travers itself had I relied on it more back then.

 

[Sharkey]

Love it Shark! I was actually just trying to decide how I want to play the race and I was thinking about something very similar. I'm going to take one more look over everything before I finalize.

I kinda like it too. I'm getting great value on the win bet if the morning line odds hold up on Tenfold, which they very well should. Have a couple of nice prices included in that exacta box. I have Catholic Boy covered in the exacta already, so I don't feel I need him in 1st the way the trifecta is structured, which is also in line with my own opinion. Have the best horse in the race keyed in the super and that allows me one more insurance horse underneath with Bravazo, who should be a great price. The only position I don't have covered is Vino Rosso in 1st. But I don't think he's as strong a win candidate as some others here, and will be bet down more than some considering his trainer, jockey, New York owners, etc. Plus if Vino does win that likely has much to do with the pace dynamics of the race, and if he gets the pace, that means Gronkowski will also be getting the same benefits of the pace and stands a chance to hit the board. I want to be against Gronkowski completely to even finish in the super, so by default I have to be against Vino in the win spot. Vino is the better horse of the two, though. He ran the better race in the Belmont of the two despite finishing a bit behind Gronkowski, who got a perfect and lucky rail trip that race after all the other horse had already taken their shots at Justify around the turn and then faded. That was a classic "suck up" effort by Gronkowski that race. We see that quite often in these big 3 year-old races. Commanding Curve, Golden Soul, Tale of Verve, Lookin At Lee, etc, etc. Horses who don't get involved in the race at all until the very end and only do so after the other horses in the race have taken their shots at the leader, have been repelled, and start to tire out/give up the chase. Then we never hear from them again because they weren't that good to begin with. Just got the ideal "suck up trip" one time in their careers on a big stage. Until he proves otherwise, to me that's Gronkowksi. He had a racing post progression of 95-100 in his previous races before the Belmont, but then all of a sudden was given a 119 or something like that under ideal circumstances for him (and perhaps the benfitted from some medical "help"). Plus there's just the natural regression that usually comes with horses who run figures so much better than what they had done previously. I'm pretty sure I gave out the stats it the past when it comes to horses running a new top figure by a big margin, but you can pull up any random PP's from any given race and see for yourself. Very few maintain that figure. The vast majority regress and a lot of them in a huge way. A horse who runs recent speed figures of 63, 86, 79, 84, 83, 85, and then suddenly jumped up to a 105 isn't really a 105 horse. That's not a true representation of his ability. That's a mid 80's horse who just happened to have a career best day one time due to race dynamics and everything working in his favour (trip, pace, race shape, etc). But he'll be bet like he's a 105 horse by so many people when it comes to big days like tomorrow. Especially when that 105 came on a day when a triple crown was on the line and when millions and millions of people were watching. Plus he's got the name as well. But yeah, getting back to Vino, Gronkowski is a big reason why I don't want to include Vino in 1st, because even with a regression on the horizon, Gronkowski will have a chance to hit the board again just because the race will have played out similar to the Belmont where race dynamics are in his favour once again. Make sense?

 

[t6p]

I kinda like it too. I'm getting great value on the win bet if the morning line odds hold up on Tenfold, which they very well should. Have a couple of nice prices included in that exacta box. I have Catholic Boy covered in the exacta already, so I don't feel I need him in 1st the way the trifecta is structured, which is also in line with my own opinion. Have the best horse in the race keyed in the super and that allows me one more insurance horse underneath with Bravazo, who should be a great price. The only position I don't have covered is Vino Rosso in 1st. But I don't think he's as strong a win candidate as some others here, and will be bet down more than some considering his trainer, jockey, New York owners, etc. Plus if Vino does win that likely has much to do with the pace dynamics of the race, and if he gets the pace, that means Gronkowski will also be getting the same benefits of the pace and stands a chance to hit the board. I want to be against Gronkowski completely to even finish in the super, so by default I have to be against Vino in the win spot. Vino is the better horse of the two, though. He ran the better race in the Belmont of the two despite finishing a bit behind Gronkowski, who got a perfect and lucky rail trip that race after all the other horse had already taken their shots at Justify around the turn and then faded. That was a classic "suck up" effort by Gronkowski that race. We see that quite often in these big 3 year-old races. Commanding Curve, Golden Soul, Tale of Verve, Lookin At Lee, etc, etc. Horses who don't get involved in the race at all until the very end and only do so after the other horses in the race have taken their shots at the leader, have been repelled, and start to tire out/give up the chase. Then we never hear from them again because they weren't that good to begin with. Just got the ideal "suck up trip" one time in their careers on a big stage. Until he proves otherwise, to me that's Gronkowksi. He had a racing post progression of 95-100 in his previous races before the Belmont, but then all of a sudden was given a 119 or something like that under ideal circumstances for him (and perhaps the benfitted from some medical "help"). Plus there's just the natural regression that usually comes with horses who run figures so much better than what they had done previously. I'm pretty sure I gave out the stats it the past when it comes to horses running a new top figure by a big margin, but you can pull up any random PP's from any given race and see for yourself. Very few maintain that figure. The vast majority regress and a lot of them in a huge way. A horse who runs recent speed figures of 63, 86, 79, 84, 83, 85, and then suddenly jumped up to a 105 isn't really a 105 horse. That's not a true representation of his ability. That's a mid 80's horse who just happened to have a career best day one time due to race dynamics and everything working in his favour (trip, pace, race shape, etc). But he'll be bet like he's a 105 horse by so many people when it comes to big days like tomorrow. Especially when that 105 came on a day when a triple crown was on the line and when millions and millions of people were watching. Plus he's got the name as well. But yeah, getting back to Vino, Gronkowski is a big reason why I don't want to include Vino in 1st, because even with a regression on the horizon, Gronkowski will have a chance to hit the board again just because the race will have played out similar to the Belmont where race dynamics are in his favour once again. Make sense?

Makes perfect sense Shark and I agree completely. Like I said before, I was hoping from the get-go that you'd be on board with fading Gronkowski.

 

[Sharkey]

Makes perfect sense Shark and I agree completely. Like I said before, I was hoping from the get-go that you'd be on board with fading Gronkowski.

You do know me very well by now and the capping concepts I have, T, since you've been in this thread from the start. Thank you for that too. Look at Mendelssohn as one example from this year going into the Derby. Ran out of his mind in the UAE Derby the race before largely because of the race and track dynamics (insane bias there all spring that favoured his position/style). He did have talent, though. You don't win the BC Juvenile Turf if you don't. But he was bet by the public as something close to what he showed in the UAE Derby. I didn't want any part of him because he had the pattern of a horse who was going to regress significantly after that UAE Derby performance because it wasn't representative of his true ability. And he did shit the bed in the Derby. I believe he finished last. But that last place finish is also not representative of his true ability either. He's something in between those two races. Not nearly as good as one race and not nearly as bad as the other. Basically what he is as a dirt horse was shown in the Dwyer. He didn't run out of his mind. Nor did he shit the bed. He was just mediocre and to me that's what he is. He ran about as good as he did early this year when running on synthetic dirt overseas and winning that race by about a half length. He's a mediocre dirt horse at this level of racing, and who's future might be best spent going back to the turf.

But anyways, enough of that for now. We've talked about regressive patterns plenty on here over the last couple of years. Getting time for me lose some money on this Saratoga card today, and prove that my handicapping ideas is just me talking out of my ass.

 

[Sharkey]

#4 over #1, #3 over #1, #3, #7 in trifectas in race 2 at Saratoga.

 

[t6p]

#4 over #1, #3 over #1, #3, #7 in trifectas in race 2 at Saratoga.

Tailing this one. GL bud.

 

[Sharkey]

#4 over #1, #3 over #1, #3, #7 in trifectas in race 2 at Saratoga.

Ended up going with a #4 over #1, #3, #7 exacta instead.

 

[Sharkey]

Tailing this one. GL bud.

Shit, I guess I have to play that now too, T. Haha. Good luck.

 

[Sharkey]

I'm just playing these really small today (practice, plus saving for tomorrow), so an extra $4 on the trifecta won't kill me.

 

[Sharkey]

I think I'd have more luck just betting random by picking numbers out of a hat or something.

 

[t6p]

I think I'd have more luck just betting random by picking numbers out of a hat or something.

Don't worry Shark. Once we crush the Travers tomorrow our accounts will be sitting pretty.

 

[Sharkey]

Gonna try the #5 in race 3, along with #7 over #5, #6 exactas.

 

[Sharkey]

Don't worry Shark. Once we crush the Travers tomorrow our accounts will be sitting pretty.

I said otherwise, but I've already accepted the fact that I'll have to add to my account by tomorrow, T, unless I hit something big today. As much as I hate the thought. I don`t want to nickel and dime the Travers itself or even the undercard races.