TGJB

First, I want to say good job. I think that Unbridled Energy was an excellent play, and your sheets pointed him out ahead of time as one of only two possible winners. With the $9.60 payoff, I think he represented excellent value. When I said I thought the race was not bettable, I was revealing my prejudice against short fields. Usually the mutuel take is spread out over fewer combinations and results in a stiffer burden in short fields, so I generally avoid them.

In my original message, I meant that I find a lot of times with your sheets (and with good results, I might add) I am often betting against California horses when they ship elsewhere and am often betting on shippers into Southern California when I am betting there. The reason for this seems to be (and I apologize for being vague here) that horses seem to get numbers worse than you would expect in the races run in California by looking at them on the racing form. I realize how awful that sounds, but let me try to explain it a different way.

You ask a specific question comparing two of UE's races. I think the number you gave UE in the Malibu was right on, but irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. Since UE was coming off a layoff in the Malibu, I was willing to forgive it. GG did run some bad races elsewhere as you point out, but his two best races were outside California. When I analyze a race, I am looking at patterns and a horse's overall career to determine what number the horse will run today. In a graded stakes race for very young 4 yos, you expect them to be getting close to their tops or better (unless there is an extenuating circumstance). When I did that analysis, what impressed me in this race was that the horses with the two fastest tops ran those numbers outside California. No horse in the entire race every broke a '4' running in California. Look at the sheets...tons of numbers run in California winning good purses, but not one quicker than a '4'. Then look to see if any of the horses in the race have broken through 4. GG did it twice -- in Illinois and Kentucky. UE did it twice...in Florida and Kentucky. Sort it Out did it twice ......in New York and Kentucky. Now this race may not be the best example since those numbers run outside of California were largely run in open or graded stakes company whereas the California numbers were largely run in allowance races or restricted stakes. However, a lot of times with the speed figures we are trying to bet allowance horses running against stakes horses so that we can take money from class handicappers.

In the end, I am not complaining about anything. I just note that this is something that people discuss on the board from time to time, and I thought this race was a good illustration of the principle people have discussed. I am very pleased with the numbers. I think that the money bet on Canteen and Distorted was based on peoples' perception of the overall quality of California racing. From my read of your sheets, the quality of California racing is inferior to conventional wisdom. It is things like that which give you the edge...as long as it is correct (like it was today).

If people are going to follow up on this issue, another worthwhile race to look at is the sprint stakes that opened up the Breeders Cup card at Belmont in 2005. I know that I threw out a Mullins's horse (Squire something or other) and Ghostofachance (or something like that) both because the California numbers for them looked awful (who remembers a previous rendition of the Grade 1 Ancient Title providing its competitors such slow numbers?). Both of those horses ended up exceeding what I expected of them that day.

I really do not have an agenda or an axe to grind here. I am very pleased with the product and not looking for anything different. As I said before, I am just highlighting some examples that go with discussion that has been conducted on this board previously.