Exaggerator top fig for year Beyer 103 (TG - neg 1/2 adjusted.
Outwork Beyer 93 without wicked early pace adjustment(TG 2.5 ish) With slow 2nd place finisher JB may have slower but times reconcile if you use them that way.
Brody Cause Beyer 91 on closers biased Kee surface (TG 2.5 area)
\"He was the fourth horse that I rode in the mud today and the others felt like they had ice skates on,\" Desormeaux said. \"Exaggerator felt like he had track shoes on. He really liked the going and I think that was part of his incredible effort today. He enjoyed the mud.\"
miff,
Would you explain the physics of a closers bias as attributed to KEE on Saturday?
Tav,
Each day, at most tracks, the \"bias\" guys run computer programs looking at the dynamics of how races were run.The program checks to see if the results show a track bias(could be path bias,inside/outside or running style bias, speed/closer)
While less sophisticates run around yelling about bias, the computer program is very comprehensive in its search.Could list many components but won\'t.Keep NY and Cali every day, for years, looking for an edge but the level of the sophisticated money being bet today mitigates it.Bias reports can be purchased.
TGJB not a fan but a bias, when present,can make a number better or worse than it is on paper.No longer feel the number is the number period,sometimes there are circumstances to be considered.A perfect example of that would be the figure for Exaggerator on Sat.
Much the same goes for trips, as the string today discusses. Regardless of whether the barn scored, some serious money was also gambled by the \"trip\" guys.
While we all bitch about takeout, legitimately, the facts are that the proliferation of solid useful data makes that 6-1 shot, back when, 3-1 today.Add the computer program guys to the mix and voila, the toughest game in the world to beat.
Mike
Excellent post Mike.
Would certainly concede California pick four payouts have shrunk last five or six years, due as you point out, to the plethora of data available.
As for the \"number being the number\" many here and across the street take it as face value, yet how the figure is \"earned\" is much more relevant and largely ignored. Cappers should take into account that horses running against/with bias, grain of the race, surface, configuration on turf etc. will have more variance in their figures.
Bottom line, traditional players that put in the time and correctly value germane data points will trump todays ubiquitous \"microwavers\" in most cases and certainly over time.
bbb
Assertion Man is back!
Re the Wood, is there a way to tell if the payouts came back light considering the 81-1 placing? A friend had Ex and TRI and thought he was in for a windfall. Thanks
Eight horse field. A 2-1 shot winning over your friend\'s no shot..........$319 exacta (remember there are plenty that wheel)...... 4th betting choice filling the tri worth $1,955.
I think your friend did fine.
Good Luck,
joe B.
Niall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re the Wood, is there a way to tell if the payouts
> came back light considering the 81-1 placing? A
> friend had Ex and TRI and thought he was in for a
> windfall. Thanks
The payouts were actually a little generous based on the discounted Harville calc, which takes into account the fact that horses don\'t run 2nd, 3rd and 4th at the same rate as their win odds (the probabilities get more uniform as the slots go down).
$2 Ex payout was $319 vs. $258 expected
$2 Tri payout was $1,955 vs. $1,874 expected
The payouts did come in light based on straight conditional probability (Ex: $495, Tri: $4,822). That may explain why your friend was expecting a windfall, but for the reason noted above, that\'s not what the empirical evidence has shown to be the best estimator of payouts.