Well, I just wasted one of my alloted "Red Board" visits for Santa Anita's 3rd from Monday regarding winner "Dee's a Legend." The horse that finished second (Sugar Deputy) was second choice and was in my opinion the horse to beat on pattern. She had run well in the past fresh and had never regressed or bounced in consecutive races. She appeared due for a good one, perhaps in the "13" range. The Question is did she run it?

Purrfect Vixen had run 19's, if she repeated that means that Rushin Conductor jumped to a new top.

However the third race was clearly the slowest race on the card again. What is it about 25,000K 3YO fillies?

I don't know what to say. Yes on analyzing the overall figures it seems unlikely that a 27 won that race. However, it seems unlikely that a 13 won it also. A 20 may have won it, which was a number that most of the field had run to at one time or another. (Including Dee's a Legend, even if you give her 6-7 points slower for her winning effort Strub Day.)

Have to conclude by reiterating what was said in the Strub string:

"Its extremely hazardous to try and evaluate these things on this quality of animal."



> Miff--
>
> 1-- GG has a few good numbers and several worse
> ones. And we already know there's something wrong
> with him, since he hasn't been able to get back to
> his top. The fact that he ran a stinker on short
> rest is no surprise.
>
> 2-- As I have said here before, it's generally
> more significant (in figure making terms) if a
> horse runs well, than if one runs poorly. Horses
> can always run an off race, but they can only run
> as fast as they can run.
>
> 3-- You keep focusing on a couple of horses out of
> a couple of races. There were a lot of horses that
> ran on that day, in lots of other races. One of
> them is the filly I mentioned-- look at her in the
> RBR. This is an example of 2 (above)-- ain't no
> way you can think she has any chance if she's off
> a pair of 27's, as opposed to the forward move to
> a level that put her at least in some range. If I
> hadn't split the day, she would have had to move
> forward 10 points or so to contend yesterday.
>
> 4-- The right way to do this is by looking at
> large numbers of horses from the day coming back.
> Here's what we'll do-- remind me of this around
> March 5th or so, when lots of them have run back.
> We'll split them into two groups (before and after
> where I split the day), and do a count of how many
> from the day have gone forward next out, and how
> many have gone back. Since there were 4 maiden
> races that day (lightly raced horses), I think it
> will come out that slightly more will have gone
> forward than back, in each group. We won't use
> ones that were making their first starts that day.
>
>
>
> Len F.-- re your comment about GG: you are the
> master of the red-board. I notice that in your
> Thoroughbred Times pieces (where it calls Ragozin
> "the modern father of speed figures", which I
> guess means you could call a twentieth century
> president the "modern father of his country") you
> have even stopped talking about races in advance,
> and now just give out figures that stakes horses
> ran after the fact. This goes along with your
> posting of sheets for races retroactively on your
> site, but just occasional ones that make your
> product look good-- not all sheets, for all
> tracks, every day, like we do in the Red Board
> Room.
>
> If you want to be a mensch, post sheets for last
> year's Jockey Club Gold Cup, and the last two dirt
> races from 7/27 Saratoga, with the figures the
> horses have run since. Then we can have a
> conversation. Come on, surprise me.
>
>






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2006 04:35PM by Chuckles_the_Clown2.