Match Up 2 Question

[Wiseguy]

This post is directly related to The Match Up 2 book. Anything written here that is in blue indicates that it is text taken directly from the book. It is in my nature to ask questions when I don't understand something so please don't misconstrue my questions as contentious.

Beginning on page 27 (LaD #2, 6f D):

We will use Pretty Girl Slew as the "key" for this race, although we will change the quarter mile time to 22.2 from her third race back. The projected pace for today's race is:
22.2 / 46.4 / 111.3

I see that Pretty Girl Slew's last running line (LaD 6f D) reads:
23.0 / 46.4 / 111.3

On page 26 Mr. Bradshaw states: "Find the horse that has run the best against the fastest pace in his last race, at today's track, and at today's distance." So what is wrong with the last running line as is? Why go back three races, to a different track(OP), at a different distance (5½ f), and pull a first fraction out to use today? I understand that he wants to make the change, but there's no reason given as to why such a change is in order. And does it not seem to contradict what was just stated on the previous page?

*** I will make sure Jim sees this ok? He is taking care of some other things right now so please be patient. Thanks man. *** - RichieP

[RichieP]

I just got off the phone with Jim about this question. He said he does not remember the reason he changed the 1st fraction but he did.

**Note**
Try to understand that he works races different from us.

He asked me to look at the race and horse so let's look please.

Here is Jim's book and what he says about the race

From "Matchup2"

[RichieP]

So let's look at a screenshot showing both the race winner (#3) and the horse in question(#1)

Let's try considering both the original last line on the #1
23.0 - 46.4 - 111.3
and Jim's "virtual line" of
22.2 - 46.4 - 111.3

Now let's match BOTH those lines to Jim's Powerline choice of the second race back on the winning #3
22.1 - 46.1 - 111.4

In addition the 3 is a THREE call FIGHTER as pointed out by the Hat in the book. Something which has been expanded upon in this forum for over a year.The power of the FIGHTER in Hat's mind.

So regardless of what we do with the #1's last line (Fwiw I personally think Jim was trying to "help" the horse by changing fractions to see if he could matchup with the 3 who I believe his mind already saw as the winner as soon as he glanced the pp's) the question is:

Can he beat the #3?

First screen shot is Jim's description of the winning #3.
Second screen shot are the pp's of both the #1 and winning #3 shown together.

Both taken directly from Matchup2 by Hat Bradshaw

Wiseguy I hope this helps a bit and I apologize for the delay in responding.
Richie

[RichieP]

(Fwiw I personally think Jim was trying to "help" the horse by changing fractions to see if he could matchup with the 3 who I believe his mind already saw as the winner as soon as he glanced the pp's)


I have worked a couple of cards of races with Hat before they ran. The most humbling of experiences man.

Jim - " Ok Rich let's do the first race. Tell me who you see and why"
Rich - " Ok Jim let me look. Looks like the 2 runs early. projecting him off a 22.2"

10 seconds later:
Jim - " I have my horse Rich"
Rich - " WHAT? I just started looking Jim"
Jim - " I have my horse Rich.
Rich - "Are you serious?"


What's the point?
Jim makes virtually instantaneous decisions picking his horse. He "sees" the winner right away. Then spends a few seconds looking at the others to see if he might have missed something.

Without actually knowing I KNOW when he wrote that thing about changing the horses 1st fraction that was his "minds eye" writing that. That's what he does all the time in his head. Change fractions to help horses or clear up a picture about a race or horse.

He was trying to beat the 3 who he saw as the winner at first pass through the race. He wrote what what his mind did.

[admin]

Hello Rich

I was thinking - When Jim named his running styles
He named both the 1 and 3 as EARLY

The 1 will go all out to get the lead
the 3 would take the lead if it got it but would do fine just off the lead
Perhaps Jim made the 1's third line faster to show that in this match up the 1 was truely the lead early horse in this match up ?
and that the 3 could match it

[RichieP]

Hello Rich

I was thinking - When Jim named his running styles
He named both the 1 and 3 as EARLY

The 1 will go all out to get the lead
the 3 would take the lead if it got it but would do fine just off the lead
Perhaps Jim made the 1's third line faster to show that in this match up the 1 was truly the lead early horse in this match up ?
and that the 3 could match it

Hi Bill
Could very well be!

[Wiseguy]

First, Richie, you sure didn't have to go through all the trouble of scanning the pages, etc., but thank you.

As for the answer to my question, believe it or not, it is the answer I expected. I think you could have saved all your hard work and simply said the answer was "Intuition," am I right?

And your "answer" actually does help because now I can refrain from asking the handful of similar questions I have from book 2. I suspect I will get the same answer on most or all of them because they are also examples of Mr. Bradshaw's application of his experience from thousands and thousands of races. Perhaps a fair question would be; if Mr. Bradshaw were to work the illustrated race above would he do the exact same thing again? And if so, would he be able to then recall the reason he made the adjustment in the first place? Those who say otherwise are just limiting themselves.


When I first "worked" the race I also concluded that the #1 couldn't beat the #3 anyhow, even after the adjustment. But that has no relevance to my question really. There certainly, over time, would be races that the mysterious adjustment would effect the outcome. It is those races that concern me. If there is no explainable reason why such an adjustment should be made, and, if there is no "signal" or "trigger" that indicates an adjustment should be made, then the odds are extremely high that no adjustment will be made. How important are those adjustments Mr. Bradshaw makes, and how would an abscence of them affect the overall results?

I could be wrong, but I believe that the ability to "see" the race as Mr. Bradshaw does is an ability that can be learned, but requires an extreme amount of time in applying (practicing) it. The comment above: "Try to understand that he works races different from us" is exactly what I'm driving at. I don't want to work races differently than Mr. Bradshaw. I see numerous comments here in the forums to the effect that no one can possibly be as good as The Hat. Why not? I've never met the man but from what I've garnered Mr. Bradshaw, by all accounts, appears to be human. His ability to pick winners might not be. Nevertheless, history is replete with records that would never be broken...yet they are, all the time. I see no reason why I (we) can't achieve the same success as Mr. Bradshaw. If I never reach that level I guarantee I will be all the better for trying, and that's good enough for me. But there will come a time when someone (one of us?) comes along and does just as well, or better, than The Hat, impossible as that may sound. But that can only happen to those who believe it can.

[RichieP]

[QUOTE=Wiseguy;30859]
I could be wrong, but I believe that the ability to "see" the race as Mr. Bradshaw does is an ability that can be learned, but requires an extreme amount of time in applying (practicing) it.[QUOTE]

Excellent!

If I may offer 2 VITAL keys to accomplishing this:

1) Work races when your surroundings are QUIET and you can quiet your mind.

2) Trust your FIRST instincts about a horse/race. ACT on that immediately before the second guessing starts up. LISTEN to the little voice when it talks to you. Intuition.

This is Jim Bradshaw's Matchup