11/18/2008 9:24AM

Weekend thoughts, Beyers

Email

Here are the winning Beyer Speed Figures from last week's stakes races:

*Alysheba (Med):  Get Serious (J. Forbes/P. Fragoso) - 102
*Chuck Taliaferro Memorial (RP):  Semaphore Man (K. Von Hemel/M. Berry) - 101

*Stuyvesant (Aqu):  Dry Martini (W. Turner Jr./C. Hill) - 98
*Pass the Tab (Aqu):  National Pride (S. bin Suroor/E. Coa) - 94
*Fairy Garden (Aqu):  Chestoria (W. Badgett Jr./A. Garcia) - 93
*No Le Hace (Ret):  Lee's Spirit (R. Schultz/D. Simington) - 93
*Cardinal (CD):  Indescribable (W. Mott/K. Desormeaux) - 92
*Copano (Crc):  Jeux de Danse (M. Wolfson/J. Bridgmohan) - 92
*Northern Dancer (Lrl):  Sweet Goodbye (G. Grove/J. Acosta) - 92
*Flip's Pleasure (Aqu):  By the Light (R. Dutrow Jr./E. Prado) - 91

*Meadow Star (Aqu):  Tar Heel Mom (S. Hough/A. Garcia) - 88
*Jack Coady Sr. (TuP):  Bingham (K. Lewis/G. Corbett) - 87
*Audrey Skirball-Kenis (Hol):  You Lift Me Up (M. Smith/J. Hollendorfer) - 87
*Si Cima (FG):  Sammie Sam (S. Ducoing/F. Torres) - 86
*Glorious Song (WO):  Selva (D. Carroll/E. Wilson) - 85
*Mr. Sulu (FG):  Desert Wheat (W. Mott/P. Valenzuela) - 84
*Too Much Coffee (Hoo):  Heza Wild Guy (B. Rhone/T. Pompell) - 84
*Charlie Iles (Alb):  Loves Bonus (C. Sedillo/M. Fuentes) - 83
*Moccasin (Hol):  Evita Argentina (J. Sadler/T. Baze) - 82
*Lady's Secret (RP):  Nice Inheritance (S. Asmussen/L. Quinonez) - 82
*Chandler (TuP):  Briecat (V. Cerin/C. Potts) - 81
*My Sister Pearl (CT):  Julie B  (G. Yetsook/L. Reynolds) - 81
*Blushing K. D. (FG):  Stormy West (W. Mott/P. Valenzuela) - 80

*Centennial (RP):  Cashinmywranglers (J. Hare/B. Murphy) - 79
*Cimarron (RP):  Megan's Tough Love (W. Calhoun/M. Berry) - 78
*Coronation Futurity (WO):  Active Duty (M. Casse/C. Fraser) - 77
*South Ocean (WO):  Double Malt (M. Pierce/E. Da Silva) - 75
*Alison McClay Overnight (Pen):  Our Khrysty (L. Stickler Jr./T. Clifton) - 70

*Christopher Elser Memorial (Pha):  Not Up for Love (K. Wagner/J. Rose) - 66

*Dennis Dodge Memorial (PM):  Who's Your Next Ex (A. Peery/D. Hoonan-Trujillo) - 56
*Donna Freyer (Pha):  Oh So Clever (J. Jones/G. Saez) - 53
*Lassie (PM):  Catalina Harbor (J. Fergason/M. Anderson) - 50

Here are the lifetime past performances for the highest and lowest Beyer stakes performers of the week:

Download GetHarbor.pdf

Back tomorrow morning with my HandiGambling plays.

Take care,

Dan

Lane More than 1 year ago
Crist is a god. It's amazing what he has done lately, but it is more amazing that he did it years ago before being a part of the form as pointed out by the great Harvey Pack. Not only is he an amazing handicapper and bettor, but he is an incredible writer and always has been both and has done so much to produce the incredible form with loads of info we(the small bettor) pay a small price for. I suggest both of Crist's books as I have read "Exotic Betting" 5+ times and I just finally got a copy of "Betting On Myself" and read that in a day. It's also worth reading Pack's "May the Horse Be With You". It's a great book to have around when you've been humbled at the track. Sorry to chime in, but Steven Crist has made betting affordable for me with the A,B,C wheels that has allowed me more coverage than I could have ever dreamed of with my bankroll. Now if I could just handicap. :) Dan still is the coolest DRF personality though. Watchmaker rounds out the top 3 with the s*** he gives Carothers. Lane
Dale More than 1 year ago
Handigambling 111: $20 DD 6-11 / 10 $15 DD 6-11 / 1 $10 DD 6-11 / 12 $5 DD 6-11 / 11 Not really that big of a Lukas fan, but I think the #6 horse in the 9th might be ready to improve. Definitely has been tons better the last 3 races and seems to be handling the CD surface ok in the morning. He has not shown much dirt form so could get a decent price if he handles the surface in the afternoon. IMO, he should like the one turn mile distance. Dale
Van Savant More than 1 year ago
cannibal; Mr. Brohammer's book, "Modern Pace Handicapping" is a difficult, yet important read. I own the earlier version, and highly recommend it. I must warn you, however, that is not "entertaining". It is a text book. The math is manageable, but you need to make a notebook full of notes as you progress through it. You need to review your notes, and re-read many of the chapters as well. Practicing the art of pace handicapping is another thing. Don't expect to read the book, and come away with a "holy-grail" of information. It won't work. Pick a track. Don't begin with synthetic surfaces for your first foray. Stick to dirt surfaces, and avoid using the knowledge for turf racing (it has never worked for me) Make your plays based on what you have learned. Make sure your plays are action-plays only (small bets...very small bets). Record your bets, and the thought processes. After a while when you see that you have lost more than you have won, go back, and re-read the book. Look at your notes from the book, and then look at your wagers, and your accompanying race-notes. After a while, you will think that you have lost your mind, and that none of this makes sense. But give it another try, only this time, be more creative, and less dogmatic in your wagering strategies. Keep your bets small, though, until you get a feel for the tracks you play, and the wagers you make. If you get to the point where you can break-even by incorporating the techniques and philosophies of "Modern Pace Handicapping", then re-read the book, and look at all of your information that you have compiled as a pace handicapper. If a light goes on for you, then you may have learned and developed a very special technique to aid in practicing the craft of handicapping. But understand that you will not be magically transformed into something that you are not. In fact, this book may be merely a barometer for helping you decide if pace handicapping should be a part of your arsenal, or not. If so, then it is probably worth the $25 for that only! It's a great book, a difficult read, and Mr. Brohammer is a genius. But the book is only a tool, and ultimately it depends on how you handle and use this potentially valuable tool. If you do read it, I would be interested to know your thoughts, as I am always interested in what others have to say about this masterpiece. I consider pace handicapping as my strength, but I still struggle with it as well. And synthetic surfaces have presented a new set of rules, and a new paradigm. But they can be managed, and I have come to the point where I am now more comfortable playing synthetic tracks on the west coast, than dirt anywhere else. I never believed it possible. And that is without the aid of a book, or anything else. Of course, I have my fellow FormBloggers to thank for that. Good luck. And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my vicstuvian post (snort!)
Steve T. More than 1 year ago
HandiGambling 110 $10 DD #7 Blackwater Legend/#1 Masrawy, #2 Flying Warrior, #7 Getta Rhythm, #10 Indygo Mountain ($40) $5 DD #2 A.U. Miner/#1 Masrawy, #2 Flying Warrior, #7 Getta Rhythm, #10 Indygo Mountain ($20) $5 DD #10 Wayward Groom/#1 Masrawy, #2 Flying Warrior, #7 Getta Rhythm, #10 Indygo Mountain ($20) $5 DD #11 Duke of Pearl/#1 Masrawy, #2 Flying Warrior, #7 Getta Rhythm, #10 Indygo Mountain ($20)
chicago gerry More than 1 year ago
turnbackthealarm, Great pictures with SR vegas in Vegas, and the captions were funny!
David W More than 1 year ago
HG 110 $60 DD 6-1 $20 DD 2-1 $10 DD 3-1 $10 DD 11-1
chicago gerry More than 1 year ago
Zayat Stables, I am confident, Masrawy will have a much better start on Wednesday, and I personally think, he has a great shot at winning. Good luck to your team!
chicago gerry More than 1 year ago
steve t. My guess is Track number 2 (Two)-Emerald Downs. Have fun!
vicstu More than 1 year ago
Slew and Cayman are right, you know. There have been some very good points made IF we were talking about penalizing riders for a simple bad ride, race strategy or any other number of things. But that was not the argument or issue. We are talking about jockeys being held accountable for stiffing a horse, or riding in such a reckless manner that strategy does not factor in at all. In any event, I cannot debate when people keep reframing the issue. The issue is NOT screwed up race strategy. The issue is NOT simply a bad ride. Rather, the issue is soley whether a jockey deliberately stiffs his mount. Rides the horse in such a manner that a reasonable jockey in his position would know that to do so would negatively affect the horse's chances of factoring or winning the race. "You cannot legislate strategy. No matter how hard you try. It is simply impossible (Greg)". Really? Yes you can. When the strategy and intent are to stiff the horse, you most certainly can (or should). Again, Greg, its not the result (a bad ride, a screw up) but the intent. Yes it is entirely possible a good jockey screws up. The process should be set up to ensure that is not punished. It can be done. "You can't do that in football" What? Try telling that to Roger Giddell. Today a Defensive lineman was fined tens of thousands of dollars for hitting the Buc's Jeff Garcia after he had gotten rid of the ball. He split Garcia's chin open. I am sure it was his strategy to hit him before the ball was released, but he did not. Oops, rule broke. Every week, numerous players are fined for what boils down to strategy ("knock his head off") which was not quite done within the rules. Bad example, Greg. And, BTW, NFL and NBA coaches are routinely lambasted and eventually fired if their gameplans are not sucessful. Gameplans are fair game. And Spy-Gate with the Patriots was part of Bill Bellichek's strategy too, I suppose. After all, scouting is part of strategy. It determines it. Yet, the way he conducted his strategy was in violation of leauge rules. Coach B said he had no intent to break any rule. Oops, he broke the rule anyway and his "strategy" on how to win cost him a few million bucks and his team a 1st round draft pick. So much for that argument. Only in horseracing does there appear to be such tolerence for failure, bad rides and mediocrarity. The fact that racing has many nuances and possible strategies does not mean that by holding jocks accountable that stiff their rides is not the thing to do to insure the game's integrity. Again, not bad rides, stiffs. Greg further posited: "Further, as others have said, by throwing every rider into some sort of judicial system every time a low-odds horse loses, all you will do is create even more of a negative perception of the sport, more doubt in the eyes of the public, and put more on the legs of the stewards, who we should want less to do with. Basically you are trying to legislate something that cannot be legislated. There is absolutely nothing good that can come from that." What on earth are you talking about? Not one of us has suggested that we throw a jockey into a judicial type stystem "every time a low odds horse wins." I challenge you to point to where I have stated this. Is that what you think "stiffing a horse is"? If it is, you are way off the mark. And spare us the "legislate every decision" argument. That is what business executives say all the time when they are charged with engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. These buisinesses and the decisions made are far more complicated than a horse race, yet they are held accountable if they "stiff" their shareholders, or consumers or whatever by their actions. Count on it. And the same is true for the argument that holding jokeys accountable for stiffing their mounts will actually be counterproductive by requiring "untold number of races to be under inquiry" and further eroding the public's confidence. Please get the facts straight. In Australia and Europe, where this is done by rule, they do not hold up any race on "inquiry" if they think a jock may have stiffed a horse. Rather, its the jockey's ride itself that is investigated, along with all the relevent facts, WELL AFTER a race has been held final and the handle has been paid out. And, even then, on the chance that the board of inquiry feel that the facts warrant charging the jockey, only then is the public made aware. And most are not paying attention. The fact that you are equating Pino's ride on Hard Spun in the Preakness, where a clear tactical error was made by moving the rated horse out early and he bolted, To Gomez's Belmont, is telling. These races did not happen in a vacuum. Clearly, even Pino's worse detractors admitted that he goofed (at worse) and that maybe HS was too much horse to rate at that distance for Pino. And note he was penalized for this simple error by the connections who received numerous offers from agents of jockeys, chief among them the agent for Gomez. Given these facts, and the video of the race, it is obvious Pino did not stiff HS, or intentionally move the horse early. And while it probably cost the horse the race, it was an ACCIDENT. What Gomez did in the Belmont was not an accident. It was intentional. He admitted as much. It was also in complete disregard for the race plan given to him by Larry Jones. Jones told him to take HS to the front and make sure he hit the half in about 48 or 49. Instead, Gomez set him off a pace of 51 and change in 3rd or 4th place, next to the closers. Gomez had a beef with Jones, because he wanted to ride Rags to Riches while Jones expected him to honor his commitment. So, Gomez was seen choking and fighting with HS, holding him off the pace, not even giving the rank horse his head until after RTR and Curlin had passed him at the top of the stretch. At that point, the colt's chances of winning were at 0 percent. You know it. I know it. Gomez knew it. And so did the many journalists and the few jocks who dared to speak out and call his "ride" a "stiff". When you add to that Gomez celebrating on the back of HS with Johnny V after RTR won, well, that little celebration is all the mea culpa you need to see or hear--it's obvious who Gomez wanted to win the race. Otherwise, he would have at least had the dignity to contain himself and congratulate Johnny in the locker area. When you couple that in with Jerry Bailey, considered an expert and a standard for jockey analysis; and Angel Cordero,Jr. the same, who both stated before the race that the ONLY way HS could win was on the front end controlling the pace. And that was Jone's instruction. Well, Gomez's "strategy" looks more and more like a "strategy to lose". And a bad break? As Bailey said, the pace is usually so slow in the Belmont, and HS is the sole legit speed in the race, that he could get the lead by the first turn running backwards. That is, unless Gomez slaps a choke like rating hold on the horse right out of the gate and does not allow the horse to get anywhere near the lead and does not allow the horse to run anywhere near a comfortable pace. Instead, he fights with the horse the entire way, wasting energy. A fool would know this was the kiss of death. All these facts are what make Gomez's Belmont ride worthy of at least an inquiry. Instead, nothing. Instead, many journalists and jocks accuse Gomez of stiffing the horse wile the NYRA does what it does best: nothing. That is so damaging to the integrity of the sport. The were more than enough questionable circumstances here. This was not simply strategy gone wrong, it was more... Was it stiffing? I think it may have been. It may not. But we will never know, and it deserved an inquiry. Period. The arguments advanced by C, Greg, Lilly, Blue, etc. are used to underpin to the following argument: A. Guns are usually used in lawful self defense by gunowners in their homes, but there are some times where the situation mandates charging the shooter with murder if the facts so mandate. B. What? Since most times guns are used for legitimate reasons while shooting and killing people, we should never charge anyone who shoots and kills someone with a lawfully owned handgun in their home. Because who decides what is reasonable and what is not reasonable use of the gun? After all, doesn't it undercut the 1st Amendment to charge everyone who shoots someone with 1st degree murder?" B's argument is flawed. There are exceptions to the rule, and these are the ones subject to criminal prosecution. Indeed, many people kill their spouse and scream self defense, although it is obviously premeditated once all the facts are broken down. At the very least, a shot to the back of the head, or while sleeping, warrants a criminal investigation. Likewise, there are exceptions to the general rule that jockeys ride to win and should be allowed room for negligent rides and backfired strategy. Stiffing, premeditated decisions to take a horse out of the race and place him at a huge disadvantage, or rides that are so reckless they ignore proper strategy, should easily fall into that category. There needs to be an inquiry into the ride. So stop trying to bundle the two together, a stiff is very different than a failed racing decision or strategy. Obviously, a stiff is a succesful one because the strategy was to not win the race or hit the board! I agree with Australia and Europe here in principle. Maybe not in their nitpicking, but in principle I do. "Who would decide" what rides were subject to sanctions?(C). Human beings. Trained professionals fully aware of the game and its nuances. Who are trained to operate in prudence and to err on the side of the jockey, if at all, but to pursue those cases which obviously need clarification or which are obviously a stiff or fix. No conspriracy theories. Just the examination of facts when warranted. And the jocks that are cleared could benefit as well. See, no one is saying we penalize all questionable rides. Thats insane. And if that is how it would be enforced, than that is wrong and not what I am talking about. But, please, stop reframing our argument. Intentionally stiffing a horse or recklessly riding a horse in disregard to safety or results. Mere negligent rides, or failed strategies are not what we are talking about and not what we have issues with. Turnbackthealarm, Yes, I am back. Its been a few days, and all is well at this time. Thanks for your thoughts. Blue Horseshoe, You posted, "I guess this is my attempt at a Vicstuian effort…" Yes. And while I do not agree with all you wrote, you supported your comments and reasoned well. In other words, you did me proud (and actually were not that long winded). Chicago Gerry, Enjoyed your last few posts, especially about the dogs...
buffalo joe More than 1 year ago
HG 110, On the fly, tried to leave Asmussen out last week, I'll use him this week. I'm a sucker for second off the layoff, I always said they they fire there best bullet 2nd race back. Also don't overlook the Ramsey's horse in last they were trying to steal, in for 30K last, they may be this good. $70 DD 8-10 $10 DD 8-12 $ 5 DD 4,7/10,12