To address this topic, I'm taking the liberty or reposting something that derby1592 (who regrettably seems to have stopped posting after his legal run-in with TGJB) posted last year under the subject line "Of frogs legs and Derby preps":

---

A group of trainers tried an experiment, they gave a horse 1 prep and entered him in the derby, then they gave a horse 2 preps and entered him in the derby, and then they gave a horse 3 preps and entered him in the derby...

As Mark Twain did once say – "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

So I tried to do the best I could with the facts to try and see what they tell us about 2 or fewer preps vs 3 or more preps for the Derby.

I used the TG stat categories of top/pair/off/X and I looked at all the Derbies for 1997 to 2004. (I did not have any sheets before 1997.)

Note: I included Aptitude and Real Quiet in the "3 preps or more" group and I left out a few horses that did not have figures to establish their pre-derby top.

The sample size is still small for the 2 or fewer preps but the sample size is pretty large for the other group.

Here it is:

First for the "3 or more preps" group:

New top: 5%
Pair: 25%
Off: 29%
X: 41%

And, now ...drum roll please... here are the results for the "less than 3 preps" group:

New top: 17%
Pair: 22%
Off: 22%
X: 39%

I will let you all draw your own conclusions and I am sure both camps can "distort" or rationalize things in either direction but I would have a hard time making a case that 2 preps is a bad thing, at least based on these "facts." Given that the prevailing wisdom is that the less than 3 preps is bad, I would think that you will be getting some built in value with any horse that has 2 preps or less going into the Derby.