Jimbo66

I am a customer of TG and I do futz around with sheet reading methodology.

As I have said, we have a difference of opinion and we are fortunate enough to be able to settle it at the betting windows. I am also happy to engage in discourse.

I am curious in those 48 years how many horses ran in the derby off 2 preps? It might be pretty rare.

If they only averaged one lightly prepped horse each year...then the ratio is 1 out of 48 which is better than 2%. If the derby averages 15 other horses in the race losing with three preps or more, then the percentage for such a type of horse would be 47 out of 768 or about 6%. If this year a horse wins off 2 or less preps, then the 2% for this type of horse increases to over 4% and the percentage for the other horses drops below 6%. When you consider that our sampling amounts to one week's worth of races at one track, then to me these statistics are meaningless (and the fact that the outcome of one race could have a significant impact on the statistics we are using proves the meaningless of these statistics even further). Think how many times you have seen a weird streak at a track in one week.

This reminds me of all the streak talk people used to espouse about dosage Experimental Highweight etc. (also reminds me of Ray Kerrison style handicapping). While I do think breeding is important and needs to be heeded, I think that trying to construct a theory based on a streak of numbers in unconnected events is not a rational way to bet horses. This is akin to looking at the last 50 spins at the roulette wheel and trying to say they have some impact on the next spin. Other than the running histories of the horses in this year's race, what happened in the last 50 years is irrelevant to this year's Kentucky Derby.

In any event, I am talking about the best horse. The notion that the fastest horse will lose because of the number of preps he has run just seems silly to me. We have a difference of opinion on Point Given, but he is only one horse in 48 years. Is there another horse in the last 48 years who was the best horse and lost because of his preparation?

As I mentioned, I am a sheet reader. I do not understand why I should alter my view on a horse if my sheet reading indicates he will run the best figure by a healthy margin and trip and weight are neutral?