What a day at both tracks, but especially at Santa Anita, with 2 STAR horses winning ($12.40 & $6.80), 1 “V” horse winning ($31.++) and our Pop Out Key and Top Rated horse in the 8th, Rosarita ($26.00)… Entrechat co-Top Rated on PLUS also romped at $8.00)
Comparative Numbers — discussion #2
Comparing Nyquist , California Chrome and American Pharoah’s Kentucky Derby…
This is the 2nd discussion, that derives itself from our discussion on Ralph Siraco’s Race Day Las Vegas show. Myself and other guests of Ralph’s had distinct differences on this question, who ran the fastest KD of these three.
In my view of the of these three Kentucky Derbies, I viewed Nyquist as running the fastest KD, with Amerinca Pharoah running the 2nd fastest and with California Chrome running the slwest of the three. On the other side of the discussion, was an opinion that American Pharoah ran the fastest KD, with California Chrome 2nd fastest and with Nyquist the slowest. If you look back to last weeks, my basic argument was that in order to make CC’s KD faster than Nyquist, you would have to shift the variant so greatly, because of the difference of 2.35 seconds that Nyquist’s KD clocked faster than CC’s KD, that you would either have to elevate CC to being faster than American Pharoah, while at the same time slowing down (through variant manipulation) Nyquist to be slower than American Pharoah. This would cause horses like Brody’s Cause, Mohaymen, Destin and Suddenbreakingnews to be so slow as to not be much better than a Non-winners of 1 Allowance horse…
Interestingly, one of my horse racing buddies, who happens to hate speed figures, felt much like my opposition, so when I made this explanation to him, his response was, “Oh yeah, that makes sense, maybe you are right!” We have been friend for over 40 years and the only other time he told me that I might be right, was when I married my wife. We have had some pretty good disagreements over the years but remain steadfast friends… I think that’s interesting in itself…
One of the differences I have had with the way some of the other Number’s makers make their numbers, is they make “special adjustments” for slow or fast pace numbers. If a Grade 1 race has a very slow early factions clockings, then naturally the final number is a little on the slower side. The way I handle it is to let the number be what it is, and do my handicapping noting that the horse’s in the race, did lot’s of late running… Typically, I will play the horse’s on the early pace to be more likely to bounce (negative inference for next race), then the closers. The closer’s – especially the deep closers – are disadvantaged, but they usually get right back to running their number the next race. The point is, whatever the number is, that’s the number each horses earns… The reason for this, is if I make an “arbitrary adjustment either plus or minus” to anyone race, then why wouldn’t I be making arbitrary adjustments to all the races, to satisfy my feelings…
Here is why that is a terrible idea, this is a betting game and I do my share. So when I lose a bet, I am like everyone else, I am trying to find a reason and it could be as easy as saying someone else ran faster. It would be real easy for me to say, my horse ran as fast as I expected but some other horse ran even faster – surprisingly fast — and I could change the variant. Of course, it wouldn’t be long until my JJPP’s were all out of wack… And we cannot have that…
The basic summary of today’s discussion, is a theme that started in the first discussion… If you make an adjustment to one horses number, by manipulating the variant, then you also are making a manipulation of ALL the horses in that particular race and the races around them.
Last comment. A slow number does not equate to a slow horse! It just one race. What could be important is the “visual”. In the case of American Pharoah, he was in a hard fought duel with Firing Line. In the case of California Chrome, he won “eased up” to my eye (as I recall). Go take a look for yourself, maybe you will agree or disagree – either is fine. But for me I am sensing that CC had put away his field on the far turn, and didn’t have to extend himself to the max in the stretch. Yet from the 1 Mile pole to the finish, California Chrome had a faster “raw clocking” than American Pharoah! That’ right, CC was out the 1 Mile in 97.45, while American Pharoah was out the 1 MILE in 96.45. Which means that CC came the last 1/4 in 36.21, while Am Pharoah came the lat 1/4 in 36.57. And lets’ combine that with my visual that CC was not under a heavy drive and American Pharoah appeared to be in a drive with Firing Line. This all seems pretty confusing, but really, to me, if falls exactly into horse racing norm, “that thoroughbred horse racing is a game of “deceleration”, not acceleration. So in the case of American Pharoah, he ran much harder than CC did through the opening 1 mile, on a “slower” track and came home slower due to the harder the race was for the opening 1 MILE. While CC, on a faster track, had an easier Opening 1 MILE, therefore didn’t get as tired, so his deceleration curve wasn’t as severe as American Pharoah… Simply put, he didn’t run as fast (or hard because of the faster track surface ) in the opening 1 mile, therefore his close wasn’t quite as slow. Let’s go back to our earlier reference to “slow placed” races producing faster finishes but slower final NUMBERs, do to overall slower clocking because of the slower pace. The point is, that the slower the pace, the faster the finish, especially dealing with better class horses… We see this all the time on the Turf courses… And we see the converse all the time on the Dirt, especially in high class sprint races, when the first quarter gets closer to a 21+ first quarter, for those horses who ran the fast clocking, we see very slow final quarters.
An energy efficiency expert, addressed this idea which I presented as making great sense, he postulated (back to my hypothesis) that when a horse entered the gate he had 100% of his energy available, but if he ran to a higher rate of speed under a higher impost in the first quarter, than his overall remaining energy would be depleted for the run home. WE all know this by observation.
So my idea that CC was not pressed through the final part of the race, if correct, would additionally support the idea that CC was running over a track that was FASTER, than the track that American Pharoah was running over. And all that with CC having run slightly faster in the stretch while slower overall clocking. Also, it is possible that American Pharoah sensed he had defeated Firing Line and was simply coasting through the lane (although I didn’t have that take-away).
Okay, one last comment — really — when I reviewed all the horses figs from all the races that surrounded all three of these horses, one definitely great horses and two that are certainly terrific, the numbers for everyone else made sense, especially when looking at the top 4 finishers in each race. Everyone conformed. That you will have to take my word for, but if you think about the other horses that ran in each of the KD’s, that you can figure easily enough… Again, I ask the question, do you really think Moyhamen effort in the KD wasn’t good enough to win a NW1 Allowance race in New York, or Suddenbreakingnews or Destin couldn’t win a NW2 at Churchill.
Summary, I might be persuaded that American Pharoah ran a faster KD than Nyquist’s KD. That seems possible, but there is no way that I can see that California Chrome ran a faster KD than Nyquist. Unless you are prepared to say, that American Pharoah ran a slower KD than CC… And to that, I will once again point to the raw time, that American Pharoah, ran a faster interior 1 MILE clocking out to 1:36.45 compared to CC’s clocking of 1:37.45, with an overall final clocking for American Pharoah at .64 of a second faster than CC.
We will talk more about this in a couple of days… But for me this I am strong in my belief that Nyquist’s KD was much faster than CC’s Kentucky Derby… But, I want to add, the development of CC is outstanding,his abilities are flourishing right now, he is becoming a magnificent race horse — right now!
They are On-Track… at Belmont and also Aqueduct’s simulcast…
New Features – “Wagering Ideas and Jerry’s Jargon” —>
Try the new JJPP – PLUS — same as Classic JJPP, Plus a Contender’s List and more—>
With the following special Features, PLUS our new feature… the Pop-Out-Key — POK
- 1 or 2 Featured Play’s per card…
- Several exotic wagers are “considered” for your review…
- Handicapping commentary around our Featured Play
- Light betting strategy – around our exotic plays…
- A Contender’s List in every race
- PLUS… all the information of the Classic Jerry J’s Power Page
- The Pop Out Key, its a bit different than the “Featured-Play”, it’s an Alert, this might be a “win/place” horse to build an exotic spread around…It’s just an ALERT, for our customer’s to consider — price should be a factor in your decision – in my opinion…
Los Alamitos and the JJPP products… Both the Classic Jerry J’s Power Page and the new Jerry J’s Power Page – PLUS had exceptional success at the short Los Alamitos meeting… For the 12 day meet, the TOP RATED horses on the Classic Power Page, returned a positive ROI of $1.28 / $1.00 wagered. While the JJPP-PLUS, the Top Rated horse in our Contenders List yielded a positive ROI of $1.32 / per $1.00 wagered…
Even for a short meet, this is incredible, I mean really Incredible — especially for products as widely distributed as we are…
Track Bias Report for Thursday :
Belmont: Played Honest.
Santa Anita : All Speed through opening 4 races, turned HONEST for 6th and 7th, tracks get watered and change their play…
Race Day Plays for Thursday:
Belmont : Race #5… Truth off at odds of 8/5… as expected made all the running, except the last 1/8th, finished 4th… my comment “disappointing”…
Santa Anita: Race #8 …Rosarita… off at 12/1 … broke alertly, moved up to the lead about 100 yards out from the gate, moved easily on the front, turned for home and held sway while never in jeopardy… WINNING at $26.00, exacta paid $62.40/1…
ROI – 1.07 Total Plays = 189, —- wins = 42, —– place = 32, —– Total exacta 46/189
Total return $402.90
Total Cost $378.00