A Look @ Derby Using some Matching Principles

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

FTL:

Thanks for the continuing thoughts. Here are two more races done in this manner, the 9F turf race just before the derby and Friday's Oaks (I've only done three so far). The turf race went wire to wire as did the Oaks, or virtually so, and in both cases the winners PPs showed very near early lead with the ability to pass horses and/or gain lengths to a significant degree.

Take a look at these two races and see what conclusions or observations fit these situations.

Happy studies,

Bill

I chose to do the turf race just because it was on a different surface. Here are my conclusions.

POSITION (Top 5)

GET 2.2
SMART 4.2
MORYB 4.5
TEAKS 4.8
AL KHA 5.2
As you can see, there is a significant break between GET and SMART

POSITION (Bottom 5)

DOUBLE 6.3
STATEl 6.6
COURT 7.5
MEMOR 7.6
PRINCE 7.8
Everything else is between these two groups

TOP 5 based on speed at FIRST call
Get
SMART
MORYB
COURT

NOTE: The scratches eliminated 4 of the top 5 horses from this group, leaving GET as the sole survivor from the original group. This widens the gap between GET and SMART than the simple “rankings” would indicate. As I noted in my post on the Derby, the winner of ALL RACES come from the top 5 in this category. Because the 5th horse was so far removed from the top horse, I only listed the top 4 horses.

I think it is clear that given the big gap in first call position and the big gap in first call overall times, “GET” is by far the early horse that will go unchallenged.

As noted in my prior post, this analysis is in an effort to narrow the field to the winner and not the exacta, trifecta or superfecta.

[raceman5]

Just wondering lead if your choice in the peter pan was the # 6 Alternation? Seemed like he had all your parameters. Seemed like the race set up for him

Bob

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by raceman5

Just wondering lead if your choice in the peter pan was the # 6 Alternation? Seemed like he had all your parameters. Seemed like the race set up for him

Bob

As was the case with the Derby and the turf race I posted about, I did not bet nor handicap the Peter Pan. I only posted about those two races to provide another point of view in the matching of those fields. Therefore, in answer to your question, no, the winner was not “my choice” as I did not even look at the race. Here is the way I would have looked at the race. Since there are just 10 horses, I will list the top 4 and bottom 4.

Top 4 by position at first call (in order):
Bold
Adios
Joe
Prime

BOTTOM 4 by position at first call (in order):
Monz
Alter
News
Beer
The remaining horses are in between these two groups.

Now the TOP 5 based on first fraction times (in order): (this is the group from which 75% of all winners are found)
Joe
Prime
Alter
Bold
Adios

As you can see, the TOP 5 first fraction horses based on times are the same as the TOP 4 first call position horses, with the exception of ALTER, who ranks 3rd in this category. This shows that although ALTER ranks in the BOTTOM 4 based on first call position, the horse is capable of running against the fastest first call fractions put up by the horses in this field, with the benefit of being able to close on those fractions. This makes ALTER a very solid contender in a very poor field for a Grade II race.

[raceman5]

Thanks Lead , how many lines do u use for your figures?

Bob