Treadhead wrote:
>
> Wow, I am really surprised at the number USST ran last out,
> didn't realize it was that big a race for him. The ROTW
> looks pretty haphazard since all the good horses will likely
> bounce, but I do hope that one of the speed horses holds off
> USST to keep him at good odds for the Derby.
>
> Also, a comment about the analysis. The comment about
> Thunder Gulch being the ONLY horse to run a big number in Feb
> and run back to it in the derby is a little misleading.
> Monarchos ran a zero in the first week of March last year,
> bounced, and ran back in the derby. Same idea as TGulch,
> does it really make a difference that it was a week after Feb?
>
> Throw IInk into the mix and you have another horse that ran
> big in the winter, bounced in spring, and ran back in the
> derby. I don't see the relevance of saying you are only
> looking at big races run in Feb. When you look at it from
> this perspective, 2 of the last 7 winners followed this
> pattern, along with a place horse who paid a $50 mutuel
> (which is better than picking a $20 winner in my book).

TG--You're right, it's a little misleading. What I was trying to say was that horses aren't able to run big numbers beginning in Feb. and sustain them through the Derby. That was why I didn't like Monarchos last year (I forgot about him, probably blocked it out), and while he fooled me, he was done soon after.

Invisible Ink was different--he hit the number, tailed off, and came around, which is very unusual for a top spring 3yo--usually they run a top at least every other race.

Finally, I would point out 1. patterns are changing, probably because science is a wonderful thing, and 2. a big number 10 years ago is not a big number now, probably for the same reason.



TGJB