David G. Patent wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> 1) There is a difference between running 6 points off a
> lifetime top and bouncing 6 points in a race. If you take
> each horse individually in that 11th race, you'll see your
> mistake. And again, stake, shmake. The only young,
> potentially developing horses in the race were Tenpins and
> Bowman's Band and both were coming off of big big efforts.
>
> Tenpins -- Off of his 9 point new top 1- a 6 point bounce is
> entirely possible if not likely, don't you agree?
>
> Lightning Paces -- His prior race was already 6.25 points off
> of his top, which was an ugly number -- heavily raced 5 y.o.
> who had been laid up after that 4" was a huge x candidate.
> 90%+.
>
> Tactial Side -- Another 5 y.o. who had just run .25 off of a
> top that was 5 points better than any other race he had run.
> Two 4s and a bunch of 9s or worse. This horse was also 90%+
> to run a 9 or worse in the race.
>
> Bowman's Band -- See my previous comment.
>
> Ground Storm -- A 6 y.o. who was now two races removed from a
> 1, which we know is a knockout blow for most horses (save
> Cigar, Alysheba, Skip Away, etc.). When this horse ran a 3
> at 4 it killed him. When he ran a 2 at 5 it knocked him out
> for the rest of the year. You're surprised now that a 1 will
> set him back in a big way?
>
> Grundlefoot -- Another older horse coming off a layoff. His
> average race in 2001 was 5.5 points off of his top. He had
> to be at least 65:35 to run no better than 6 points off of
> his top.
>
> First Amendment -- Yet another heavily raced horse with a
> very ugly line. His average race this year was 4 points off
> his top and he had just come off a major effort (2 points off
> his top). Probably 80:20 to run 6 points off his top.
>
> So please stop throwing up the term 'Stake Horse, Stake
> Horse!! This is my whole problem with your arguments and the
> people on this site. Evaluate the specific evidence and give
> a basis for conclusions.
>
> 2) So I guess the answer to my question whether you have any
> evidence from past experience that a turf course can firm up
> 6 points in a couple of hours -- and it was in the 60s Jerry
> with a lot of clouds -- is 'No'. Again, you predetermined
> the number, so how can anyone argue with you?
>
> 3) I'd love to see the 13th race posted. Anyone who wants to
> buy that race for $10 can do it. I don't work for Ragozin
> and have no idea why it hasn't been posted.
>
> To HP -- You need to relax a bit about all this. In case you
> haven't noticed, my 'redundant' post that was on the Rag.
> board is now on this board for the world to see and respond
> to if they want. My reference to Friedman was in answer to
> Tiznow's question about whether he would respond to Jerry's
> 'Maryland, My Maryland' post here. I was right, wasn't I?

TG--You haven't noticed that stake horses, who are given more time between races, treated better, and less often run with injuries, have different patterns? Please.

1. See my previous post--not one of these is 80% to bounce AT LEAST 6 POINTS. If they are all 50%, the chance of them all doing it is 2%. I said, 50% is way too high, and what does Bowman's Band do to the %?

2. The answer is not no, it's yes--and the way I (and you) can tell, in this and all other cases, is by what numbers the horses ran. And again, it was less than 4 points.

3. So you're going to post on the Ragozin board, right? I mean, it's kind of funny they posted all but one race, right? If you request it I'll explain to you why they didn't post if--which, since you are intellectually honest, is something you must surely want to know.



TGJB