Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


September 17, 2014, 06:44:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Contest: Claiming Crown  (Read 4058 times)
Horse Voice
Guest

« on: July 23, 2009, 10:01:15 AM »

Let's do the Claiming Crown races (R3 - R9) and add the local stake (R10), the Lady Canterbury (turf).

The first Claiming Crown race goes off at 2:35 pm CDT. Honor system. No one has past-posted yet, don't embarrass yourself by being the first.

$2WP format. Scratches revert to post-time favorite if you don't supply an alternate (or if your alternate ALSO scratches).
 
Winner gets bragging rights and "huzzahs" from fellow contestants.

With 8 races, you only need a little more than a $32 return to have a positive ROI. Not too tough, right?
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2009, 11:57:15 AM »

OK here goes. Someone has to start this!! LOL

Race #3 - #1 Calm and Collected
        alt - #2 Bright Hall

Race #4 - #5 Mizzcan'tbewrong
        alt - #6 R Vicarious Girl

Race #5 - #2 Max Ahead
        alt - #1 Grand Traverse

Race #6 - #9 Chasing The Prize
        alt - #8 Ready's Rocket

Race #7 - #4 Miranda Diane
        alt - #1 Thunder and Belle

Race #8 - #11 Drivingmaxandmitzi
        alt - #6 Gran Estreno (ARG)

Race #9 - #2 Furthest Land
        alt - #6 Glamour Guy

Race #10 - #2 Euphony
         alt - #4 Happiness Is

GOOD LUCK Y'ALL!!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Lusty Tar Heel
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 865




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2009, 08:58:40 AM »

I will take a stab

R3 Mr Meso
    Roboponi

R4 Mizzancantbewrong
    Bartoks Bling

R5  Max Ahead
     Grand Traverse

R6  Readys Rocket
     Norjac

R7  Met a Miner
     Danas Bell

R8  Sipcy Dubai
      T Harry

R9   Antrim County
      Glamour Guy

R10  Lady Carlock
       Euphony


GOOD LUCK
Report to moderator   Logged
ChitownSteve75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3392




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2009, 10:28:47 AM »

Race 3) #8 Illinois Moonshine

Race 4) #5 Mizzcan'tbewrong

Race 5) #4 Pete's Pride

Race 6) #9 Chasing the Prize

Race 7) #6 Sky N Mighty

Race 8) #10 Stormy Surge

Race 9) #6 Glamour Guy

Race 10) #7 Lady Carlock
Report to moderator   Logged

ZENYATTA THE GREAT! NOT RA!
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2009, 10:40:19 AM »

3.) #2 Bright Hall

4.) #6 R Vicarious Girl

5.) #1 Grand Traverse

6.) #7 Stormin Six

7.) #4 Miranda Diane

8.) #7 T Harry

9.) #6 Glamour Guy

10.) #2 Euphony
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2009, 12:14:41 PM »

I thought there would be more price shots, so this is either going to be a fairly tight contest, or I have misread the races and I'm going to put up a bad score.

R3) #1 Calm and Collected: ultra-consistent gelding.
Alt #2 Bright Hall: fresher of the two Autrey horses.

R4) #5 Mizzcan'tbewrong: expect perfect stalking trip.
Alt #1 Love to Tell: inside post is big advantage over #6.

R5) #6 All Joking Aside: has local experience & ability.
Alt #4 Pete's Pride: must stay closer to leaders.

R6) #10 Mojito Man: still circling back to best race.
Alt #9 Chasing the Prize: fires huge fresh, but no price.

R7) #7 Met a Miner: TG "number power" horse.
Alt #4 Miranda Diane: Okie monster says "get a good look at my butt, g'bye!".

R8) #11 Drivingmaxandmitzi: different jock & track every time, whatever -- just wins.
Alt #6 Gran Estreno: almost as gutsy, dead-heated with top pick two races ago.

R9) #6 Glamour Guy: blooming at age 5, hcp. division next?
Alt #5 Antrim County: won Claiming Crown Iron Horse race last year, short price.

R10) #2 Euphony: very much tried to find one that can beat her at 3/5 here; can't.
Alt: #4 Happiness Is: will try to give top pick a battle every step of the away, but simply a cut below.

I'll gladly take a zero if it means they all come home safe. Too many breakdowns lately.

Good luck to all.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2009, 03:03:33 PM »

Nice start, Mel! That was a pretty tough read on the winner.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2009, 06:48:03 PM »

My primary selections stunk, for a piddly return of $14.80 on $32 in wagers.

Hope someone played all my alternate selections, which did much better: $69.60, with 5 winners and a 2nd. (Nope, I didn't. Caught my 3 el chalko exactas in the 3rd, 4th, and 10th, and that was about it.)

Russell Baze supporters should be smirking, as he knocked me out of the only two races I completely whiffed on. All I know is, I want some of that Lloyd Mason special sauce, because both of those winning horses were at least 5 lengths slower than the top contenders in their races. Especially Frisco Fox winning -- that was an absolute joke.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2009, 08:07:28 PM »

My primary selections stunk, for a piddly return of $14.80 on $32 in wagers.

Hope someone played all my alternate selections, which did much better: $69.60, with 5 winners and a 2nd. (Nope, I didn't. Caught my 3 el chalko exactas in the 3rd, 4th, and 10th, and that was about it.)

Russell Baze supporters should be smirking, as he knocked me out of the only two races I completely whiffed on. All I know is, I want some of that Lloyd Mason special sauce, because both of those winning horses were at least 5 lengths slower than the top contenders in their races. Especially Frisco Fox winning -- that was an absolute joke.

Well, it's possible that the measurements of previous races weren't entirely accurate, you know!  Wink

The Claiming Crown races are the hardest I ever handicapped, due entirely to all the horses coming from hither and yon that you really can't compare from track to track. (Including their speed numbers, of all ilk.) I didn't try at all today because we don't get Cby here and I was fishing anyhow, but congratulations to whomever won this contest. It wasn't easy!
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2009, 09:10:06 PM »

Well, it's possible that the measurements of previous races weren't entirely accurate, you know!  Wink

If it were one scale that might be "off", I'd have to agree, but the two Mason horses that won were consistently rated lower by TG and Beyer. I'll check the Rags tomorrow, but I suspect I'll find the same thing.

Mason, coming from a state with stringent testing and race-day meds policies to one that isn't as stringent, got these horses to "jump up" to lifetime best performances. I should have factored this in. My bad.
Report to moderator   Logged
pamwaggy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8173




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2009, 09:39:48 PM »

I'll have to say that we  (in California) were shocked Baze won a race there.  No one I know bet him.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2009, 10:14:10 PM »

I'll have to say that we  (in California) were shocked Baze won a race there.  No one I know bet him.

When you see those "inhale the field" type performances from horses that don't figure, race day use of clenbuterol is the most obvious suspect. (It's what Ted West used to do in SoCal before the authorities realized that testing only the urine will not show clenbuterol -- it doesn't break down that fast. You must draw blood to find it if it has been administered on race day.)

Minnesota has only the most basic testing in place at the moment, according to the RMTC. Easy to put one over there.

And before anyone asks, no, I have no proof...but the jump-up performances by Mason's horses today are definitely evidence.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2009, 10:28:19 PM »

If it were one scale that might be "off", I'd have to agree, but the two Mason horses that won were consistently rated lower by TG and Beyer. I'll check the Rags tomorrow, but I suspect I'll find the same thing.

As you well know, my personal opinion is that any speed number is an approximation at best.

Quote
Mason, coming from a state with stringent testing and race-day meds policies to one that isn't as stringent, got these horses to "jump up" to lifetime best performances. I should have factored this in. My bad.

This is curious. You're usually the first to downplay the meaningfulness of any drug positive or claim by anyone (usually clockerbob) that drugs have played a part in any specific incident, but in this thread, two posts in a row, you assert that these horses must have had chemical help to do what they did, as if that is the only possible explanation.

What are the differences between the medication/testing policies in the two states? I always thought Minnesota was pretty thorough.
Report to moderator   Logged
pamwaggy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8173




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2009, 10:45:05 PM »

I don't care what anyone says.  Something wasn't right in those races.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2009, 12:21:12 AM »

As you well know, my personal opinion is that any speed number is an approximation at best.

Yes. We don't need to rehash this. But you have to agree, if more than one speed figure service says a horse is slower than the competition, it probably is. Sort of like, there are three major credit bureaus, and while there methodologies might differ and the end number and scales don't exactly line up -- if all three of them say you have stinky credit, you probably do.

This is curious. You're usually the first to downplay the meaningfulness of any drug positive or claim by anyone (usually clockerbob) that drugs have played a part in any specific incident, but in this thread, two posts in a row, you assert that these horses must have had chemical help to do what they did, as if that is the only possible explanation.

Vastly different situations and assertions.

A clockerbob post that video (or removal of same) is an indication of drug use in a fatal breakdown is in the category of "things that make you go, huh??", as in, how can any sort of viewing of a race (live or taped) lead to that conclusion? Does a drugged leg snap differently from a non-drugged leg?

I "assert" that it's likely that the Mason horses had chemical assistance to produce today's performances, because of the evidence.

These were not young, unpredictable, growing horses that are prone to sudden and dramatic improvement -- these were older, established claimers, who have remarkably predictable form cycles BTW, and who had already proven that they were slower than a good portion of today's competition.

They weren't changing trainers -- the argument I have applied in the past is that some trainers are fantastic at improving other trainer's horses, without necessarily doing anything shady. But these horses came in with the same trainer -- Lloyd Mason.

The only thing different is the track, and I find it had to believe that both of these horses were laboring over Tapeta but suddenly were "free" to run giant numbers over a conventional dirt track.

And when the final numbers come in -- TG, Rags, Beyer, et.al., I'm fairly sure that on each speed figure's scale, today's performances will show vast improvement, as compared to each horse's previously recorded performances and figures. If it does turn out this way -- that the three figure services all had these horses rated slower than the competition coming in, but then all award lifetime best figures for today's races -- and you want to continue to dismiss this as "approximation" or some such, I can't help you.

(I learned long ago to not try to argue with or even try to explain things to members of the Flat Earth Society; they believe what they believe, and that's that. Is this you with speed figures, Terry? It's more of a question you should ask yourself, rather than answer out loud.)

What are the differences between the medication/testing policies in the two states? I always thought Minnesota was pretty thorough.

California has "super-testing" in place -- urine, blood, freezing blood for later testing (not every horse, not every race), testing for CO2 levels, etc.

Minnesota has urine testing, and the option (but not the obligation) to draw blood and test.
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2009, 08:31:21 AM »

Having looked at the 2 Mason races on TG, nothing looks suspicious nor would I be making accusations about illegal substances.
Report to moderator   Logged
ChitownSteve75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3392




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2009, 09:04:52 AM »

I think I had 2 winners.
Report to moderator   Logged

ZENYATTA THE GREAT! NOT RA!
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2009, 09:47:27 AM »

Having looked at the 2 Mason races on TG, nothing looks suspicious nor would I be making accusations about illegal substances.

1. Well, that's your read...both horses regularly at least 5 lengths slower than the main contenders, OK bud...

2. ...which, even if I agreed with it, is only half the picture anyway. Let's see what TG assigns for their performances yesterday -- then we'll have the expert opinion on whether they jumped up or not.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2009, 09:52:51 AM »

I think I had 2 winners.

I didn't tally anybody else's stuff, but there were no stickouts...except for my other persona, "AL T."    Grin, who did well....but his picks don't count.

No more effing alternate picks for me -- all I did was torture myself with them.  Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2009, 10:07:26 AM »

Looking at My Boy Blue I'm trying to see where he is 5 points slower.
Looking at the other Mason winner, the horse was slower but the race had 3 horses get bad starts as noted by the chartmaker, and had a pace meltdown with fractions of 21.31 and 44.44 in a race that finished in over 1:11.
Eikleberry's horse was too slow on paper but passed some horses for 3rd with the hot pace, he must have been "juicing" too. Grin

Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2009, 11:31:54 AM »

Yes. We don't need to rehash this. But you have to agree, if more than one speed figure service says a horse is slower than the competition, it probably is.

It probably is in a purely numbers world, but it doesn't mean it has to finish that way in every single race against different groups of horses, with different post positions and jockeys and race strategies and states of health and racing luck and so on, on different tracks. If speed numbers exactly predicted the outcome of races, Beyers and Sheets numbers would run the races, not flesh-and-blood horses. There are untold non-drug variables that go into the outcome of horse races. Speed numbers measure only one aspect of a horses PAST performances.

Quote
Vastly different situations and assertions.

Only because you are the one making the assertions, based on your idea of what constitutes valid evidence, and saying that evidence can mean only one thing. People like clockerbob are probably equally convinced of the rightness of their own cause.

Quote
And when the final numbers come in -- TG, Rags, Beyer, et.al., I'm fairly sure that on each speed figure's scale, today's performances will show vast improvement, as compared to each horse's previously recorded performances and figures. If it does turn out this way -- that the three figure services all had these horses rated slower than the competition coming in, but then all award lifetime best figures for today's races -- and you want to continue to dismiss this as "approximation" or some such, I can't help you.

Yes, they're all still only approximations, an admittedly imperfect measurement of one horse's final time on one given day, and despite the claims of their makers, DO NOT necessarily translate all that well from one track to the next or one population of horses to the next. California is a tougher circuit than most. One might readily expect California horses to shine against horses from lesser circuits, and one might as well easily expect a jockey like Russell Baze to totally outshine the likes of a Derek Bell or Dean Butler. You're My Boy Blue paid only $16.20. Not a giant surprise to many bettors, apparently. Frisco Fox $25.20, still hardly a totally unfathomable surprise. Someone out there was looking at things you were not, or seeing the speed numbers in a different light.

If it's of any interest to you, on the BRIS pp's and numbers, It's My Boy Blue rated only marginally behind Grand Travers and Max Ahead in that race. He was a bettable contender at a price. Frisco Fox looked to have several horses better than her, but ahead of time to me it looks like this would probably be a race dictated by the pace and who rode smart, with all the E! type horses in the race with all the high speed points, especially Miranda Diane, Met a Miner, and Margie Marie, in addition to Frisco Fox. Well, as it turned out, six horses stumbled, bumped, or otherwise missed the break (including their customary "on the lead" position), leaving the field to Margie Marie, who, the chart says, was "used up" while clear on the lead. All Frisco Fox had to do was stay close and pick up the pieces. That, to me, looks primarily like an outcome based on "racing luck". Did the sheets predict such an awful start for six of the horses in the race?     

Quote
(I learned long ago to not try to argue with or even try to explain things to members of the Flat Earth Society; they believe what they believe, and that's that. Is this you with speed figures, Terry? It's more of a question you should ask yourself, rather than answer out loud.)

From my perspective, your type with the religious belief in speed figures is the Space Alien Society, seeing myriads of things that are just not there. You should try owning a few horses, and learn just how shaky some of the heads-down number-cruncher assumptions that go into making - and interpreting - some of the speed numbers really are. 

Quote
California has "super-testing" in place -- urine, blood, freezing blood for later testing (not every horse, not every race), testing for CO2 levels, etc.

I don't believe they do all that for mere claiming and starter allowance races, which is where these claiming crown horses have been laboring. That is primarily a regimen for stakes tests.

Quote
Minnesota has urine testing, and the option (but not the obligation) to draw blood and test.

Do you know if they put in place any of their optional tests for a big event like this?

I will believe your assertion of chemical assistance to these horses when a positive test of some sort is produced. Meanwhile, you're simply doing the same thing you always berate others for doing - noting something you do not understand and immediately blaming it on drugs.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2009, 11:33:31 AM »

Eikleberry's horse was too slow on paper but passed some horses for 3rd with the hot pace, he must have been "juicing" too. Grin

Yup. 78.5-1 horse finishes 3rd. Clear indication of juice.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2009, 11:42:31 AM »

Looking at My Boy Blue I'm trying to see where he is 5 points slower.

I took another look at the race, and My Boy Blue clearly had the slowest figs coming in. He had the highest lifetime top (6) when everyone else was a 3 or 4, with the second place finished logging a zero once. His "effective" number range (what he has been running lately), was ~8, about 4-5 points slower than every other horse but one.

Looking at the other Mason winner, the horse was slower but the race had 3 horses get bad starts as noted by the chartmaker, and had a pace meltdown with fractions of 21.31 and 44.44 in a race that finished in over 1:11.

True enough, but Frisco Fox was running 10's coming in to yesterday's race, with absolutely no hints of improvement, or reason to believe one was coming...yet was somehow able to run what I believe will come back in the 4 - 5 range. That's a jump up -- I don't care who stumbled at the start.

Eikleberry's horse was too slow on paper but passed some horses for 3rd with the hot pace, he must have been "juicing" too. Grin

That horse was 5 or 6 lengths back for 3rd, so a) he ran pretty much his normal race, and b) even if he didn't, to quote Barry Meadow regarding why you have to spread out on the bottom of your trifecta tickets, "...even Living Filth can get up for 3rd".

Also, you are likely familiar with the phenomena of suck-along types in harness races routinely run eye-popping final times that are meaningless, because they can't replicate that time in a winning performance -- that probably best describes the Eikleberry horse. In any case, a 3rd place finish isn't really part of the issue here.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2009, 12:14:46 PM »

It probably is in a purely numbers world, but it doesn't mean it has to finish that way in every single race against different groups of horses, with different post positions and jockeys and race strategies and states of health and racing luck and so on, on different tracks. If speed numbers exactly predicted the outcome of races, Beyers and Sheets numbers would run the races, not flesh-and-blood horses. There are untold non-drug variables that go into the outcome of horse races. Speed numbers measure only one aspect of a horses PAST performances.

Thanks for the info, Teach. I had no idea.  I was certain that horses are simply machines, and that the Sheets, like the Pope, are completely infallible. Roll Eyes

Only because you are the one making the assertions, based on your idea of what constitutes valid evidence, and saying that evidence can mean only one thing.

Don't put words in my mouth. Assertions and evidence, yes. "Saying the evidence can mean only one thing"? Didn't say that. There is a huge chasm between the borders of "evidence" and "proof" (in case you were thinking of giving me another lecture).


Yes, they're all still only approximations, an admittedly imperfect measurement of one horse's final time on one given day, and despite the claims of their makers, DO NOT necessarily translate all that well from one track to the next or one population of horses to the next. California is a tougher circuit than most. One might readily expect California horses to shine against horses from lesser circuits, and one might as well easily expect a jockey like Russell Baze to totally outshine the likes of a Derek Bell or Dean Butler. You're My Boy Blue paid only $16.20. Not a giant surprise to many bettors, apparently. Frisco Fox $25.20, still hardly a totally unfathomable surprise. Someone out there was looking at things you were not, or seeing the speed numbers in a different light.

Some valid points here regarding tougher circuits and jockeys, but both of those horse paid like the outsiders they were. Payoffs were no doubt diluted by the presence of Baze, don't you think? 

From my perspective, your type with the religious belief in speed figures is the Space Alien Society, seeing myriads of things that are just not there. You should try owning a few horses, and learn just how shaky some of the heads-down number-cruncher assumptions that go into making - and interpreting - some of the speed numbers really are.

Ah, yes -- the "I-own-horses-so-I-automatically-know-more-than-you-argument".

Please, spare me. The owners of Thoro-Graph not only own horses, they are also very successful bloodstock advisors and consultants, who use the very figures they create to help their clients decide which horses to buy, with the most recent one being the private purchase of Rachel Alexandra by the folks who owned her before Jess Jackson -- the TG guys are the ones I am getting the info from on (among other things) drug testing, differences in same by circuit, and how to spot possibly chemically-enhanced performances.

"Space Alien Society?" You have no idea how way off you are. You might as well be talking out of your ass.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the "Space Aliens", who are transacting in millions of dollars of horseflesh all over the world, over the knowledge of a guy who has owned part of a few VOP platers.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2009, 12:47:48 PM »

Ok, I'll chime in since I enjoy handicapping.  I didn't play because I haven't handicapped races for some while.  But I haven't given up handicapping. Anyway, I figure it this way, that a horse will run to it's average number, usually, and if its average ain't significanty higher or lower than that of the others, it probably isn't any faster or slower, usually, than the others.  By this, you can tell I am not a speed handicapper, but I consider speed when I look at a race just the same, but look with less emphasis.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.102 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy