Travers Stakes Analysis and Observations

[Turbulator]

First of all Ted made a great call picking Colonel John.

In this particular race I had a problem right off the bat. Matching up, how do I handle a horse like Colonel John? How do those internal fractions on the Santa Anita and Hollywood poly track races compare to the Saratoga dirt?

When I read Jim's first Matchup book back around 1995 I was applying all of his adjustments for tracks and distances. I was using his "universal" 6 and 2/5s adjustment as well as the three-year track record adjustment for track to track. I got to the point where I could do most of the adjustments in my head.

When I read the Match Up manuals four or five years ago Jim pretty much used those same types of procedures for adjustments. They helped me a lot and worked fairly well.

Lately I haven't used ANY adjustments at all. None. Like Jim, I think most people are adjustment happy. But Jim himself has given countless examples of races where he has adjusted, and, well, this race is one that certainly needed adjusting in my opinion. I just try not to go overboard with it.

I had no idea how those internal fractions for the west coast tracks compared to any dirt tracks. In no way did I think they could be linear--but could they be?

Enter RDSS. The inter workings of RDSS DOES adjust for track to track and also for distance, and I think that is a big part of the reason why Ted hit this race. Not only is he an excellent handicapper and great at working the program, but I believe that this was the type of race where the adjustments played a major role.

I made no adjustments matching up this race. In fact, I more or less just took the horse at face value.

I saw that he didn't match up and discarded him, although in the back of my mind I knew that could be a big mistake. So unless I wanted to take the time to find the three-year track records and do all of the leg work (which I didn't), I just gave it the quick and dirty look-see and moved on.

Now I'm curious as hell just exactly how well he DID match up AFTER adjusting track to track. RDSS might have already done the work for me, but I still would like to do it by hand--if I ever get around to it.

Let's take a closer look at Colonel John.

In his fourth race back he fought tooth and nail to secure the win with a 108 speed rating and then in his next race he comes from off the pace to win again with a 108--in graded stakes races no less. This is a fit, conditioned horse. This did not go unnoticed by me. What I DID focus on mainly was his 47.6 first call time in his third race back and his 50 first call time in his fourth race back. (My projected first call time was 46.7. The race actually went in 48--much slower than I originally thought.)

Now, Mambo in Seattle did have a line that matched up (six back). [Colonel John might have had a line or two that matched up also after adjustments.]

My selection, Macho Again, had several lines that matched up. There were three or four contenders in this race. Cool Coal Man was also a contender, but Harlem Rocker wasn't. Pyro was a contender, but I felt he came from too far back.

To my way of thinking Colonel John didn't match up, but with adjustments he could possibly have been a standout.

This is my dilema. In races like these I think I should be making adjustments. It just feels right.

These are the kinds of races where I loved to look at Jim's analysis afterwards. He would make it look so easy. This is exactly the kind of race where he would come up with some kind of "Voodoo" to get the winner--and then you'd learn something new about the matchup.

Maybe Richie has talked to Jim about these kinds of situations.

[Turbulator]

Charts and PPs.