Travers - Postscript (934 Views)
Posted by:
jimbo66 (IP Logged)
Date: August 28, 2004 09:21PM
JB (and Cozzene)
A couple of closing points on this race. JB, please don't retrofit the result of the race into a T-Graph justification. I saw your comment (after the race) about the distance not being a problem. It is,was and always will be with Lionheart. In none of his races this year, has he looked the part of a horse that wants 1 1/4 miles. He was caught late in all his derby preps, albeit in fast races. He ran on well over a sloppy track in the derby that carried speed, then ran his "true" distance races (IMO) in the Preakness and today in the Travers. They couldn't have went slower in the race today early and still Purge and Lionheart backed up badly.
The original point I tried to make is that I honestly think that the Analysis product specifically overlooks many handicapping angles that should be used in conjunction with the T-Graph figures themselves. And I also wanted to encourage some intellectual debate from horseplayers about two parts of the "T-Graph" thesis that I have trouble with. Those parts being that pace is meaningless (except for allowing the frontrunner to save ground) and also to a lesser extent that "class" is meaningless. I can understand the "class" statement to a degree, but have great trouble with the "pace" part.
In the end, my goal (and everybody else's probably) is to figure out how to use the T-Graph figures best to enhance my handicapping and betting results. I tried the analysis product, in conjunction with the sheets themselves, so I could understand the logic that a T-Graph expert uses, but the analysis product doesn't work for me.
I am well aware that picking one race right (The Travers) doesn't prove anything. I only bothered with the posting because I thought it was an excellent race to refute some of the problems I have with using T-Graph figures. I posted that the two fastest horses were not going to finish in the money and Birdstone (a slower horse) would win. I explained the logic ("traditional handicapping" as musingly pointed out by Cozzene).
Now, that doesn't mean I am not convinced that T-Graph figures are helpful. I wouldn't bother posting on this board if I thought it was useless. But even the biggest of experts (and I don't mean that sarcastically JB), should be open to questions about their thesis and opinions.
thanks,
Jim