TGJB,
these views are indeed difficult to follow. firstly, did you adjust c\'stopper\'s # for the bad start?
Post Edited (12-11-04 09:55)
while waiting........ how good was kela in that race? sure s\'town got the nice post to work from, and i love bailey, but my guess is that if pletcher had trained kela up to that race, he would have brought much more tactical speed to the game, would not have been forced to run so wide, and would have won.
I disagree. One of the things to which Mike Mitchell attributed Kela\'s success this summer at Del Mar was that they had finally learned how to ride him. He won\'t run inside horses. Wide trips are part of the deal with him, and large fields like the BC obviously make the wide trip wider.
I also suspect that Kela\'s bad performance in the Underwood this past weekend may have been partially due to the fact that Nakatani kept him relatively close to a hot pace, rather than taking him back and letting him make one run, as Tyler Baze and Jerry Bailey had done in the past. Of course, his fever the previous weekend and the wet going may also have had a hand.
could be right bit, i don\'t see many of pletcher\'s mounts with that problem though. pletcher and JR seem to be able to get most of them on the engine, in a good spot, without ruining their game. i think just a bit more tactical speed in that race, and kela gets a much better trip. but point well taken; with some horses, it is difficult to get them to change styles without taking away some of their zip, and sometimes the trainer just has to let the guy run wide.
bit,
watched the race gain. i think kela ran the final eighth in about :11.5 (very fast). don\'t you think if they had trained just a bit more speed in him, he still would have been able to finish strong? tough call. in his future races, i would imagine kela will show a bit more speed than he did in the BC, but as you say, if mitchell can\'t get the horse to run between (or if the horse won\'t, period), he is always subject to a tough trip (forget his last, the sloppy track made that race very unpredictable).
Michael-- We don\'t adjust figures for bad starts, but aside from that, CS didn\'t get a bad start. He broke with the field, then dropped back, which is a whole different matter.
JB,
>CS didn\'t get a bad start. He broke with the field, then dropped back, which is a whole different matter.<
I agree with you, but if RAGOZIN routinely notes and applies these unusually poor beginnings in their figures, that might account for the difference. Then it\'s not a matter of quality but of methodology. I addressed the issue further over there (along with the Derby).
Post Edited (12-11-04 17:26)
still waiting on a reply over there, but TGJB said that \"the only way clockstopper could have gotten a much better number (as Ragozin gave it) would be if he was significantly wider.\" now TGJB knows that len adjusts for slow starts, so i\'m not sure why he wrote that. class, you are correct, it looks like a matter of methodology (and one\'s opinion on the question of whether CS broke slow or not), not a mistake in ground loss as TGJB seems to think. but i can not be sure until i get an answer from len.
Post Edited (12-11-04 17:20)
JB,If you know Rags theory:
Why would breaking bad have anything to do with a horses final fig? I can understand a notation \"OP\", but why a fig adjustment?
Michael, let me make this perfectly clear-- I was in the Ragozin office for 9 years, some of it working there, and some having a desk there when I ran a stable and bet for a living. FOR SURE, unless there has been an EXTREME change in Len\'s thinking, they DO NOT adjust figures for a horse running slowly in the rearly stages. They only do so if the horse LEAVES THE GATE AFTER THE OTHER HORSES. The theory is that you would be measuring his actual time for the distance once he is running that way. I do it differently, for reasons I have discussed here.
Clockstopper left the gate with the field. Razzle, since you made the snide comment, why don\'t you go to NTRA.com and take a look at the replay. You will see that there is no doubt about it, and why we have multiple trackmen look at it. I won\'t hold my breath waiting for an apology.
So Michael, the right phrasing would have been, that they would assign him that figure if they had him wider, or incorrectly had him off poorly (a lot, to cause that big a difference).
Look, this is business as usual. Friedman is not answering the questions, and the cult members not only don\'t care, they blast those who ask. WE\'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BREEDER\'S CUP AND DERBY, FELLAS. WAKE UP.
I am certainly not one of the guys who always agrees with Jerry on everything.
But I just watched the replay and it is clear. The horse broke with the field and then dropped back. I don\'t get it. That happens all the time with deep closers like Clockstopper. I certainly WOULD NOT want a figure adjustment for this type of trip.
What would be good is if Len bothered to answer the questions asked on his board. I don\'t see too many posts from him and one thing you have to give Jerry is that he responds to almost all the questions and his opinions and views are in print all the time on this board. So much so, that many of us regular posters are constantly questioning him.
On the other board, you have some good posts by Michael D, with selections and race analysis, but you don\'t see any questions about methodology or what I would consider \"deeper\" topics. And there definitely isn\'t anybody taking Len to task for his views, like people occasionally do here with Jerry.
Anyway, my two cents worth, and it might not even be worth the two cents.
OCCASIONALLY do here???
You are right, of course. As I\'ve said before, it\'s not strange that Len does what he does-- he\'s running a business, and while his behavior might not be moral or \"stand up\", it\'s understandable from a practical point of view. What\'s really amazing and disappointing is the reaction (and lack of it) from his customers. What a low expectation, lackadaisical bunch-- and their reaction to the screw-ups only guarantees more of them. Why change? No one holds them accountable.
given the fact that the horse was so far back early, and len put an \"s\" next to his fig (meaning slow start), i think TGJB should have focused on that to begin with (at least to some degree), and not focus solely on a mistake in ground loss. but now that we have everything cleared up, i have to watch the replay a few more times here to see if i would prefer to have the bad start (if you can call it that) included in the fig. seems some of the smarter guys here say no. a response from len would help, but with a few pk6 carryovers today, i would be selfish to demand an immediate answer. (why do i get the feeling that everybody here will say no, and everybody over there will say yes).
Michael-- it\'s not a question of whether you would prefer the \"slow start\" be put into the figure. There was no slow start, not the way Ragozin uses the term. It\'s a flat-out screw-up, one way or the other. Again. And that\'s only one of the screw-ups I brought up-- we still have to deal with the relationships between the other horses in that race I mentioned, and the Derby beaten lengths. A 3 length error for 15 horses in the biggest race of the year is pretty important stuff.
Its important stuff. If the ground loss is so off, how can you be comfortable that the weight is always factored correctly, let alone the variants. And if they are having trouble with the basic observations, how can you reach a comfort zone with the expertise and extrapolation? Its a tough gig, I know, because I screwed it up. But if you screw it up, you HAVE to correct it don\'t you? If the B.C. and Derby are off, my god, what about that 12,500K claimer at Delta Downs last July?
i\'m just curious...... given the fact that len has an \"s\" next to c\'stoppers figure (which means slow start), how many people on this board think that if len made an error (if that is), it was because he took into account a slow start when he shouldn\'t have, or it was because he made a ground loss error. i just want the focus to be where it needs to be, otherwise this is a waste of time.
Michael, I can\'t get to the other board to verify what is being said. TGraph uses an \"OP\" designation and leaves it to the handicapper to determine how the performance figure was impacted. If Rags uses an \"s\" and that means the performance figure is adjusted and it was adjusted, that seems consistent with a different figure for that horse. If thats the case the issue for Clock Stopper becomes \"Did he dwell enough out of the gate to merit an \"s\".\" However, Per SoCalMan2, and corroborrated by TGJB, there were other horses in that race with questionable figures. Does \"s\" mean adjusted figure?
CtC
Michael,
I don\'t think it is a waste of time either way.
1. If he made a ground loss error, that obviously matters. The fact that it occurred in a Breeders Cup race is very bad. Mistakes happen in every profession, but if he made that mistake on the biggest day of racing, that counts more.
2. If he adjusted his figure because of a slow start, that would either represent bad methodology or a mistake again. My unbiased view is that CS broke with the field, then dropped back. If Rags methodology calls for an adjustment in this situation, I would view that as a mistake. Of course, that is just me and I am no authority. But logically, I can\'t see making an adjustment for a horse that breaks and drops back.
But until Len gives some kind of answer, we really are all guessing at what the issue is.
Jim has it exactly right. And I would add a point I made in my original post when I brought up the error-- we put three guys on the BC because they are important races with big fields. Ragozin clearly had only one guy on it, or whatever mistake they made would have been caught. This has happened before (Touch Of The Blues a couple of years ago in the Mile), and Ragozin reacted by... doing nothing to fix the problem.
good point ctc, does \"s\" mean adjusted figure? something we will find out when (or if) he replies. seems guys here don\'t think c\'stopper started \"slow\", and guys here don\'t want that in the figure even if he did. call me an idiot, but i don\'t think it\'s that obvious from the replay. i will search the internet, see if i can find any quotes from day (he usually has an excuse when he comes flying too late).
You can\'t tell from that replay whether he left the gate with the rest of the field??
OK you\'re an idiot - he broke with the field and was quickly taken in hand - as per usual.
Just watched again because I felt a slight pang of guilt. I wouldn\'t have called you an idiot unless you asked - you did - and after further review the play stands as called.
Post Edited (12-11-04 20:06)
Michael,
Certainly wouldn\'t call you an idiot. It is just that after watching the replay, I don\'t see the slow start. But different people can see the same replay and view things differently. I just don\'t want an adjustment in the figure for slow starts - my preference. I just think a notation to denote what happened and allow the handicapper to decide how much weight to put into the slow start.
I will give you an example, albeit an obvious bad start and not a subtle one. Do you remember the Preakness with Silver Charm Free House, Captain Bodgett and Touch Gold. One of my more frustrating TC races ever. I loved Touch Gold and he was 5 or 6 to 1. The gates opened, he dropped on his nose and spotted the field 10 lengths. Actually moved to within a quarter length in the stretch and flattened out slightly, getting beat about 1 length (from memory). I didn\'t need a figure adjustment to know how much the best he was. Neither did anybody who watched the race. The only question in the Belmont (which wound up causing me to get off him), was whether the huge race in the Preakness might have taken too much out of the horse.
Anyway, I digress. This slow start brought back painful memories from that year\'s Triple Crown. The point is that a notation is enough.
>There was no slow start, not the way Ragozin uses the term.<
To be fair, you have to acknowledge that he DID denote a slow start.
If he does have a slow start noted, then that does probably account for the figure. Thus, the debate should be whether or not it was a bad start by HIS DEFINITION (AS IT IS NOW), whether it was appropriate to consider this one bad start, and not whether the figure is wrong.
IMO, this is probably about methodology.
Trust me on this one-- leaving with the field but running slowly early is not supposed to be counted in the figure with Ragozin.
That actually becomes another way of getting to this-- maybe one of his players will have the guts to ask Friedman a theoretical question...
Nah.
>If Rags methodology calls for an adjustment in this situation, I would view that as a mistake. <
I am entirely against putting OFF SLOWLY into the figure, but then again I am against putting ground loss into the figure. ha! ha! ha! I want everything as a seperate trip note. :-)
However, if you are going to include it, it MIGHT (repeat MIGHT) make sense in some rare instances where a horse is typically not so sluggish out of the gate or where he got bumped slightly or cut off coming out of the gate and that caused it. I would have to see the head on shot to know.
On the flip side, some horses are off a little slowly every time they run and it\'s crazy to give them extra credit for being off slowly.
CH -
Point of interest. What did Nick denote? SG1; SG2 - taken up shortly after or unhurried? I have a lot of confidence in his opinion. I use him only for the meat of the year for me - Belmont Spring and Saratoga into the first part of Belmont Fall.
Mark
a small s = off poorly by 2L\'s and thats what they have next to CS number, meaning do they adj. for that by 2l\'s ???
jimbo66 wrote:
The point is that a
> notation is enough.
When you start trying to determine how a slow start impacted a performance figure, you delve further into the realm of subjectivity. Thats why I assume TGraph doesn\'t go that route. It\'s not consistent with their objective tenor. Yes, I know theres a certain subjectivity to figuring an effort, but the key is to minimize the subjective variables. It also helps to have a thorough understanding of the \"subjective\" variables and thats a key distinction between the two concerns in my opinion.
Long story short, exactly Jimbo. Tell me he was off poorly, let me decide.
Two,
Michael is certainly not an idiot. I just don\'t think that helps the debate. He\'s got a different view or a different interpretation of the start I guess. Thats what makes for wagering opinions. He framed this debate on this board: \"Is the figure divergence related to a ground loss error or is it related to the Rag interpretation of the start of the race.\" The next question is of course, \"If the difference is related to starting gate interpretations is that explanation satisfactory?\"
Post Edited (12-11-04 22:17)
jimbo,
re your touch gold point:
i usually do this only on w/e\'s, and am forced to bet a lot of horses off paper, horses i have not seen run recently. if a horse broke ten lengths slow, and i did not see the race, i would want some info, more than the three or four words that the drf gives you. i want that factored into the #. just my opinion.........after watching the BC race a bunch of times on that tiny screen, to me it looks as though c\'stopper\'s head probably was there with the rest of them when the gates opened. day then yanked the horse back after a second or so. my questions are: 1) did c\'stopper get checked right at the start. if the answer is no, then i can find no reason for the adjustment made by rags, and 2) if the horse was checked, causing him to lose a few lengths at the start, why is that different from getting checked midway through the race, where no adjustment would be made. and, would this be considered a \"poor start\" in ragozin methodology. if so, why? some good points made here, especially from jimbo, who certainly has no dog in this fight. unfortunately, still waiting for my response from the other side.......... BTW, to me, it looked like day did yank the horse back quickly, then start riding him a bit. as a general point, what do you guys make of that? ....and guys, how about some more pre-race post from some of you? we all agree that these issues are best solved at the windows, right jerry? my recent posts have been on the other board, but i will try posting more here using TG when GP opens. the real discussions only take place when guys give pre-race opinions, because some guys will use figures to pick winners, and some guys will use figures to pick losers..... these issues then become very easy to solve.
Post Edited (12-11-04 22:34)
ctc,
i don\'t mind a bit of fire in somebody, just as long as they have that fire in them before the race from time to time.
two,
don\'t go back and edit these kind of posts, just have the balls to stick with the words you used originally. i\'m a big boy, i can take it.
hey two,
do me a favor, go back over your recent posts and tell us how many simply mocked other people, and how many gave an opinion on a horse race before the race (just a guess, but i say very few pre-race opinions are floating out there). ...... all of my recent handicapping posts are on the other board, you are welcome to take a look.
Michael,
You are right in that as good as this board is about having discussions about methodology, there is not much about taking these methodologies and making some pre-race opinions. December is slow for a lot of bettors, but even during the peak summer months, there wasn\'t a lot of handicapping here. It would be nice to throw in a bit of that next year. Theory is nice, but only if theory can be parlayed into winners. I, for one, have no altruistic interest in this game, just handicapping as best I can and getting to cash some tickets, hopefully enough to offset the losers.
jim,
agree, and i hear you on touch gold. i had him in the Lex stakes a month or so before the preakness, and bet him every race after (until i bet victory gallop in the BC). a few scores there, but a lot of pain to go along with that horse......
take it easy
Mark,
I don\'t think Nick (Logic Dictates) did trip notes for the BC. I just looked through my notes and couldn\'t find any. If I find them, I\'ll post his comments. I agree with you on the quality of his work and product. I wish he would expand it to include all graded stakes races.
jim,
just for the hell of it, i looked to see if touch gold set the track record that day at Kee. sorry to say he didn\'t. interesting though, round table ran 9f in 1:47.1 back in 1957 (126 lbs). that guy has to be included somewhere on the list of all time greats. anybody here old enough to remember him?
Michael,
1:47.1 in 1957 isn\'t that impressive. The tracks were much much faster back then, especially in routes.. :) (different set of postings)
Touch Gold was a very very good horse. I saw the Lexington and remember Gary Stevens saying that he had to give serious thought to getting off Touch Gold to stay on Silver Charm. But he would have been villified for getting off the derby winner.
I sitll can\'t believe I bet Free House in the Belmont that year instead of Touch Gold. I really thought the PReakness was so good he would \"bounce\" in the Belmont. I don\'t remember the BC that year.
I\'ve made some pre race ROTW commentary. Not that I\'m an expert on TGraph patterns. Next decent dirt race I\'ll chime in.
CtC
ctc,
i seem to remember a solid call on the derby. you give a nice pre-race analysis from time to time.
Michael D. wrote:
.
> interesting though, round table ran 9f in 1:47.1 back in 1957
> (126 lbs). that guy has to be included somewhere on the list of
> all time greats. anybody here old enough to remember him?
>
No, but I think you\'re right, in his era he was spectacular. Three time Turf Champion. 66 Starts 43 wins. Imagine that?
http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.php?query_type=horse&search_bar=horse&h=ROUND%20TABLE&g=5&inbred=Standard&x2=n&pedloggedin=0
I\'ve always paid attention to him in pedigrees. (Not that I factor pedigree first) Though something else I think I first heard from you on a subconscious level is that \"pedigree matters even less today\" and I\'ve thought about it and I think you\'re right. Its place always debatable, has further diminished.
CtC
Thank you,
I do it time to time on races our hosts discuss, utilizing TGraph to some extent, my methods as well. I also pick the Derby, which to me is the ultimate handicapping challenge. I\'ve selected the Derby winner here the last three years, which ties my previous best run. I\'ll post again this year trying for my personal record. I\'ve also selected Anees here, so take that with a grain of salt, but thats a long story.
i am a big fan of the breeding part of this game. i just hold the opinion that horses are bred more for speed today than they were years ago. i like the round table\'s, secretariat\'s, and northern dancers, horses who ran incredibly fast at the longer distances years ago, despite the lack of drugs and other fancy tools they use today. the point being, when you handicap a 10f or 12f dirt race these days (very few 12f anymore), many of the horses will not be bred for the distance, so sometimes it makes sense to just focus on the figs and patterns, as you did in this year\'s derby (being stubborn, i still tend to focus on the pedigree angle though).
my father bet anees every time he ran, except for the BC juv of course. he even bets his 2yr olds now, and he still loses.
well ctc, that\'s it for me. stayed up late so i could wake up late tomorrow, then bet the big sha tin international races through youbet tomorrow night (12:00 am post time). some of the best racing in the world, so i promised myself i would watch it this year.
the races are now!!!! good ones start in 20 minutes. got a bit confused there
Michael -
I\'ve given pre-race comments before. Some worked out okay (Birdstone in Belmont), others not so great (recently True Direction in Defrancis.) I edited that post because I wanted to look at it again - I jumped on your word but I clearly don\'t think you are an idiot. I do think it\'s pretty clear Clock Stopper broke with the field. I\'ll make a pre-race comment again when I have a pretty firm opinion on a race of interest here. And I\'ll watch the tone when I have something to say.
Mark
CH -
Thanks. I know he does stakes of interest away from NY from time to time but as I said I\'m done using his product by the end of October. If you do find it let me know. Just interested - he\'s very precise away from the gate.
Mark