CH-- I printed out the posts from after I left to address in detail when I have time, including the Afleet Alex one, and the other where you said us figure makers would be \"confused\" by certain circumstances. Somebody is-- you are completely missing the point that I have now made several times, which is that the amount and level of accuracy of the data we use to make those decisions is about 100 times as great as you could imagine in your wildest dreams. You said, if I recall, that circumstances on the FG day led to certain results-- well, take a good look. As you can see, the data was so tight as to make the variant decisions inescapable-- for example, my choice in the Derby was to do it the way I did, or add 1/2 point (which I still might do). Period. If you look at how EACH horse came up, you will see that it\'s nothing like your simplistic view of \"good\" or \"bad\" figures-- we have the ability to make micro decisions, based on super accurate data. When you look at results, you are working with very crude info, some of which is gained second hand from others using very crude info (in some cases, slightly less so, but still way, way off what we\'re talking about here). You have an abstract theory that you can\'t prove or even supply serious evidence for (cherry picking anecdotal examples is not evidence), and have no idea what you are talking about regarding figure making using the data and variables we use. If you spent one day looking in this office you would know it.
I\'ll get to Afleet Alex later.
Miff-- you are right, and I\'ve decided to take it a step further. I\'m not only going to stop using ground loss, I\'m abandoning beaten lengths and weight carried as well. Haven\'t decided yet about time. I\'m going to go strictly by your subjective appraisal of whether horses are \"empty\".
Look- forget about science (you know, physics, trigenometry, stuff like that). I\'m sitting here looking at sheets for about 800 horses a day, often seven days a week, with the past histories AND the figures they ran on the day I\'m looking at, and how those past and present figures relate to each other, and relate to the others in the races I\'m making figures for. You really think it wouldn\'t have become completely obvious 20 years ago that ground loss corrections were causing distortions? It would have jumped right out at me-- the outside horses would be getting an inordinate percentage of tops all the time. They probably do get a slightly higher percentage than those bottled up and risking trouble inside-- but there is nothing remotely like that going on.
I\'m going to tell you the same thing I told CH-- LOOK CAREFULLY AT THOSE FG RACES. See how tight they came out. Then figure out how the figures would have come out without the ground loss counted-- use 1/2 point per path per turn to make it easy, since all 3 were routes. You will see that HL and BOS would get MUCH better figures relative to the fields-- one of the problems CH doesn\'t know he has when working with crude data, as Jimbo pointed out when this subject first arose.
TGJB,
Please! You are either missing or avoiding the point. I would prefer not discussing it with you further. \"I\" don\'t have the time for this nonsense either. I never said there was anything wrong with your FG figures for Saturday. I said a couple of individual horses had trips that either helped or hindered their performances. So I would perceive their performances differently from the final time figures you (and everyone else) gave them. That is entirely different from saying you made a mistake.
The impact of a dominate pace setter issue has nothing to do with the FG races. See the Bellamy Road discussion.
As far as Afleet Alex goes, I asked 2 simple questions to which I do not know the answer.
Did you give that race a much faster figure than Beyer?
Did you break the race out?
Based on everyone else\'s pace and speed figures, that race came back slower than Afleet Alex and several others had been running coming in. IMO, it deserved to be slower because the obviously fast pace impacted the final time for several horses.
Post Edited (03-18-05 13:53)
Miff-- you are right, and I\'ve decided to take it a step further. I\'m not only going to stop using ground loss, I\'m abandoning beaten lengths and weight carried as well. Haven\'t decided yet about time. I\'m going to go strictly by your subjective appraisal of whether horses are \"empty\".
True to form, your arrogant reply was expected to a loyal customer of 20 years. Anyone who watches and understands racing will most proably conclude that KCB was empty(me, jockey, trainer, and many others I\'m fairly certain)Maybe against a inside speed bias, maybe no blinks, etc, etc.
Again your dogmatic approach rears it\'s head.Read carefully!! your fig(4) is math/science PERFECT, but the horse did not \"run well\"as you stated. You must have seen a different race or have poor overall knowledge of what is a good performance vs a bad one.
CH-- I am going to reply to the Afleet Alex stuff later, and I am neither missing nor avoiding the point. If you intend to ever talk about this stuff here again we will straighten it out-- if you don\'t want to, leave the subject alone entirely. I\'m not going to have someone saying on this board that a set of circumstances can \"confuse\" me, producing incorrect figures, when he doesn\'t have the slightest idea of what he\'s talking about, or the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. If you produce any comments on this subject in the future, be prepared to supply real evidence to back them up-- you will be called on it.
I know you didn\'t say the FG figures were wrong-- you said the figures (performances)were affected by pace. Look at the damn figures, and show me the ones that would look better on the page if they were a different number-- given HL\'s figure history, meaning a 1 and a 2.5 AT TWO, would a 3 or 4 make more sense on the sheet than a 1? Without knowing anything else but his figure history, what was the most likely range for Wanderin Boy to run in-- 0, or 2.5-3?
Now, when you watched the races, BEFORE YOU SAW ACCURATE FIGURES ADJUSTED FOR GROUND AND WEIGHT, it looked different-- you didn\'t know HL was so unbelievably fast at two, and it looked like he beat the field by more than he did on figures, so you needed an explanation for his \"improvement\". Right? And you probably didn\'t know Vicarage was not running a new top, that he was just coming back to a figure he had already run, so you tried to find some explanation for his \"improvement\"-- right? And you had no idea KCB actually got the same figure as his last, so you needed an explanation for his \"bad\" performance. Right? And you didn\'t know Wanderin Boy\'s \"terrible\" performance was as good as two of his last three \"good\" ones. Right? YOU COULDN\'T KNOW THIS unless you had all the data we did.
Miff-- my \"arrogance\" is anything but dogma-- it\'s a function, as I said, of experience. I\'m looking at about 4,500 sheets and figure histories a week, compared to each other-- I would have known even before you started using my data that the ground loss correction was wrong. You don\'t want to use it, don\'t-- you can see the paths upper left, just adjust the figures.
> know you didn\'t say the FG figures were wrong-- you said the figures (performances)were affected by pace. Look at the damn figures, and show me the ones that would look better on the page if they were a different number<
None of them silly.
Please just calm down and stop assuming I am being critical of your figures when I am just using them differently. For crying out loud!
You gave Wanderin Boy the right speed figure. Read that again please!
However his speed figure is not an accurate refection of how well he ran because he battled with BOS in too fast a pace for him!!! That battle impacted HIM alone and specifically!
That fast pace did not impact the other horses in the race because they were either far enough off it for it to not matter or because in BOS\'s case he\'s good enough to run that fast early and for it not to hurt him. (plus he was on the good rail)
So when I read Wanderin Boy\'s chart alone, I consider his last race to be as least as good as anything else he ran and maybe even better. Everyone\'s else\'s figure for that race I take at face value.
> given HL\'s figure history, meaning a 1 and a 2.5 AT TWO, would a 3 or 4 make more sense on the sheet than a 1?<
I couldn\'t give a rat\'s behind what you, Beyer, Bris, Rags or anyone else gives him. Whatever they all give him I think he earned it under optimal conditions. So if you say he ran a 1, I believe you. If Beyer says it was a 105, I believe him. I just say all else being equal he would have run slower had he been pressed that day with a faster pace against a quality opponent. He probably also would have run slower in a couple of his 2YO races because he got away easy in the route as a 2YO at a minimum. He\'s had all easy trips so far.
CH-- You are repeating yourself, and COMPLETELY missing the point. I know EXACTLY what you mean. I am pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE to support that position, and I\'m showing you the evidence that supports a contrary position. Read my last post again, and look at the examples (evidence) again carefully, individually. Make an attempt to understand the data outside the context of the theory you have.
TGJB,
The evidence to support my conclusion comes from 25 years of making pace figures and watching how horse\'s final time speed figures vary when they duel in too fast a pace vs. when they get loose on easy leads in moderate paces.
The evidence comes from years of cashing overvalued tickets on horses I knew to be better than their speed figures indicated.
In the race in question I threw out Wanderin Boy beforehand because I believed he was facing a tough trip vs BOS and could not repeat his fastest figure under tougher circumstances. That\'s one race, but horses I throw out like this are constantly underperforming and vice versa.
The evidence comes from dozens of other people who also make pace figures or that use visual skills to evalauate pace that have come to the exact same or very similar conclusions.
Pace matters. Almost everyone that has worked with decent pace figures or that has good visual skills agrees. It\'s so darn obvious to everyone that\'s been around the game for awhile that the discussion should not be about whether it matters, It should be about refining the pace figure making process and understandng the impact on specific horses in different scenarios better.
On the pace figure boards, they don\'t argue about whether it matters. They argue about complexities of making the figures. Much tougher than final time figures.
Post Edited (03-18-05 14:44)
None of that is evidence. Show us real evidence here, like I did when I posted the three stakes from FG.
Everyone who has a handicapping theory has what they consider \"evidence\" to back it up, a history of results that they cull to find the ones that conform to their theories. It don\'t mean squat. If you broach this subject again, bring hard evidence.
Find attached sheets for the Hopeful, 8/21 at Sar, won by Afleet Alex. I remember that day well, I was there, it was Alabama day and my best day of the meet, despite losing the photo in that race that cost me about 10k in pick 4s. But I looked anyway-- the track had water in it from the start of the card, it rained again before the second race, and the track changed speed several times, and did slow down before that race. Yes, I gave it better than Beyer-- AND LOOK HOW IT HELD UP. AA got the same figure for that race as the one before and EVERY OTHER RACE HE RAN AT TWO-- pretty good evidence it\'s right. Flamenco ran a new top, AND RAN EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER IN HIS NEXT TWO STARTS-- pretty good evidence. The rest of the field did not run tops-- AND DOING THE RACE SLOWER WOULD HAVE ONLY GIVEN THEM WORSE.
Now, again, some of the discrepency has to do with weight and ground-- AA was 2-3-4w, and the whole field was carrying more than average that day (122), which slowed the time of the race a point or so (about 3 Beyer).
So no, there was no problem with the figure in that race. As for horses closing into the pace getting inflated figures, the only one who closed was AA, and that figure held up pretty well on ours-- but not on those of the other figure makers. Right?
http://www.thorograph.com/hold/sar082104r9.pdf
TGJB,
>AND LOOK HOW IT HELD UP.<<
Of course it held up. You adjusted the slower figure by assuming the track slowed down. However, it is very possible the track did not slow down. The fast pace slowed the race down.
However, the fast pace would not impact all horses in the race equally. It depends on where they raced.
You assuming the track slowed down gave equal credit to all.
My notes on everyone\'s speed and pace figures for that race are 1 example of an endless supply about how the pace impacts the final time, but for the conversation to have meaning you would first have to have and work with accurate pace figures for awhile and accept the possibility.
I promise I\'ll leave the issue alone.
I know what I know and don\'t feel the need to prove it to you. I don\'t get paid for my effort here. If you would spend some time working with good pace figures and looking at some of the applications I have highlighted over the months, I am certain you would agree with me. With your resources you could supplement your product and process in a way that would blow the Rags out of the water for good. Instead you are leaving wiggle room for guys like pacefigures.com and logicdictates.com to supply what a lot people know to be important.
If anything, I am doing myself a gambling disservice my promoting ideas and concepts that are not well understood and are the single most important factor to my gambling success..
Post Edited (03-18-05 20:32)
There is no EVIDENCE that the pace affected anyone\'s figure in that race-- the second and third finisher made the pace, one went back a little (Devil\'s Disciple), the other (Flamenco) ran a new top. None of the ones who raced off the pace give any indication of being helped by it-- AA ran just what he was running and did run the rest of the year, the others ran WORSE, not better. You haven\'t got a leg to stand on with this race, no matter how you cut it, other than that you THINK (or feel) pace should have had an effect.
I have always been open to the idea of pace affecting final time for a whole field, and even possibly of it affecting performances within a race-- that\'s why we use \"S pace\" and occasionally, in extreme circumstances, \"H pace\". But that has nothing to do with what this conversation has been about-- your contention that we are making bad figures out of confusion or ignorance. You have no idea what you\'re talking about when you say that-- again, you have no idea of the degree of sophistication and amount of data we are looking at when doing this. This has nothing to do with looking at some figures that don\'t account for wind, ground loss, or weight, and drawing some anecdotal conclusions. This is the big leagues.
Enough nonsense is right.
Why don\'t the two of you intelligent men read what the other is saying instead of yelling at each other? You\'re arguing apples and oranges. Even a halfwit like me can understand. Jerry - you make accurate figures and CH uses them to handicap. A 1.5 is a 1.5 is a 1.5. However, sometimes a horse has to overcome serious adversity to run the number and might be expected to improve and sometimes he had it all his way and might not be expected to even repeat the figure under more difficult conditions. But it was still a 1.5 on the day he ran it.
Now cut it out and play nice.
Frank
TGJB,
Sometimes I feel like am speaking another language. Either I am the worst communicator in the world or you would rather protect your ideas at my expense than being open to the possibility that you can improve your product by listening to something I have to say.
There is plenty of evidence if you look at the final time figures that \"every other\" speed handicapper gave to the race (slower), the pace figure everyone gave to the race (very fast) and your own opinion that \"YOUR FASTER FIGURE HELD UP\"!
Well it\'s 6 to one and 1/2 dozen to another.
You made the track slower.
They made the race slower but gave it a very fast pace - meaning that some of the horses were capable of running faster than the slow figure they assigned to the race.
The two methods (pace + final time or breaking the race out) are often equal in terms of speed figures assigned to the race, but not exact for individual participants because the pace does not effect horses equally within a race. They all have different abilities and run different fractions. (I know I have no proof, just years of success with pace analysis and all the great handicappers that agree with me)
Please we have to stop this.
Those of us that use these concepts profitably will continue to do so.
If I analyze a race here (because I enjoy that much) I will express the concepts without saying your figure should be adjusted for a specific horse because of the impact of pace or could be suspect because of process etc....
I\'ll word it like this if you find this acceptable.
My figures indicate the Champagne Stakes was a slow pace. Proud Accolade got the jump on Afleet Alex. IMO, under a more favorable pace scenario, Afleet Alex would have won that race. I also think his unfavorable trip in the BC cost him that race. IMO, he should be undefeated going into tomorrow\'s race.
IMO, Rockfort Harbor set a slightly fast pace in the Nashua and drew off under wraps indicating he could run faster under a more favorable pace scenario or if asked to give his all.
Rockfort Harbor beat the gate in the Remsen and got loose on the lead against Galloping Grocer. He set an average pace. IMO, the combination of getting loose early and getting pressed late enabled him to perform at his highest possible level at that time.
Given that AA has had the rougher trips, raced against the better quality horses, and RH has had a tough few weeks preparing for this race, I\'d have to think that AA will be and deserves to be a solid favorite.
Is that OK?
No mention of how I am adjusting the your figures or the Beyer figures for my pace figures. Just generalized trip and pace analysis.
Post Edited (03-18-05 17:05)
Frank-- he doesn\'t use our data, that\'s only one part of what he\'s saying, and I would never call you a halfwit, no matter what the Ragozin office says.
TGJB,
I use your data. I get it downtown at the Yankee Clipper. I buy it when I go to the track and for major stakes cards when there are several races in a single day I might bet. I don\'t buy a full day for a single stakes race outside NY because it doesn\'t make economic sense \"for me\" to do so. I rarely bet anything except stakes. I don\'t bet many of the races I actually handicap because there\'s no value. When I do bet I don\'t bet a lot of money very often. I could never recover the cost the way I play.
CH-- Not okay.
You said 1) the Hopeful figure was wrong, and 2) the pace affected different horses in the race differently.
1) Even if I were to place credence in the figures other guys were making (without wind, weight, and ground, no less), you would have to show me not just the figures they gave in this race, BUT HOW IT COMPARES TO THE FIGURES THEY GAVE THOSE HORSES IN OTHER RACES, to see whether it held up. And/or how the figures fitted together within this race, and with their previous races, as I did with the FG races. Quoting some figures for THAT race-- which may have been a function of a dogmatic approach like (but not limited to) failing to recognize that tracks change speed (as Ragozin generally fails to do)-- is absolutely meaningless, let alone not rising to the level of evidence. Again, this is what I mean about you not understanding the degree of sophistication here. When I say evidence, I mean evidence, not opinion.
2)Not only did you not offer evidence the pace affected individuals differently within the Hopeful, the evidence shows exactly the opposite, whether you look in relative figure terms or at order of finish. Two of the only three horses who ran well (finished 2-3, ran good figures) ran on the lead, the ones who didn\'t contest the \"hot\" pace, as a group, ran much worse. It\'s the opposite result than what a hot pace would figure to produce.
I don\'t have a problem with your comments about AA and RH tomorrow. But I will point out that we gave RH a much better figure for his two starts before the Remsen that anyone else did (meaning Beyer and Ragozin), and had him running the exact same figure in all 3 races (3 1/2), pace etc. notwithstanding. That would convert to about 90 Beyer or 7 Ragozin for all three.
I\'ll look at future comments as they come up, but be prepared for requests for evidence as required by your statements. Glad to hear you use our data.
TGJB,
I don\'t have all the data required to make the presentation you are asking for because I don\'t have Andy\'s entire speed figure data base at my disposal accompanied by every pace figure for every horse\'s race and the adjustments I would make to their final time figures.
I can usually only demonstrate the principle at work based on individual performances or certain duels that come up in major stakes now and then etc..
ex: Wandering Boy (before and after a race), my analysis of the pace matchup between Bellamy Road/Dearest Mon at GUL earlier today etc...
I also did it for Afleet Alex. I remembered that race as being an obviously very fast pace visually, fraction wise, and as reported by pace figure makers. I remembered the slow speed figure assigned to the race by virtually everyone. I also remembered adjusting the Beyer Figure for Afleet Alex \"up\" when he came back in the Champagne because I knew he was negatively impacted by racing too close to that pace.
That adjustment smoothed out what appeared to be a crazy slow Beyer figure for the Hopeful and was verified.
That\'s what prompted the question did you break it out and make it much faster?
When you see the principal at work on an individual horse level with the degree of certainly pre race and result wise that I have seen it for as many years as I have been doing this, it isn\'t necessary for \"me\" to have a sheet on every horse with pace calculations to know I am right. However, I can\'t satisfy your request because I don\'t have the data except for the various comments I can make here or there as the races come up that will support the view consistently.
I can tell from your last commentary that you are not familiar with the types of adjustments pace figure guys make, when, and by how much. That\'s why you would conclude the data doesn\'t support my view. That much is expected because you don\'t use or believe in this crap to begin with.
If you have a sincere interest in this though, let me suggest pacefigures.com.
He has a layout that will come closer to your requirements.
Read the commentary about what he is doing. Look at his pace figures, speed figures and performance figures(the combination).
Then look at the results he is producing without any handicapping at all.
http://www.pacefigures.com/weekend.html
He is not doing exactly what I am doing. I also use visual skills, chart analysis, intermediate fractions and other things. I also have another source for pace figures in NY. Sometimes we have a disagreement on a figure/pace because of that (who doesn\'t), but he\'s the closest I have seen to doing what I am doing and he does it well. In a private conversation he verified to me that he adjusts certain performance figures for closers and slow paces (over and above what is shown) in a way that is identical to my own observations. It\'s hard to explain, but maybe he talks about it on the web page in some of his explanations.
For additional support, I believe several of your customers that post here often use his data also.
If his data does not convince you, I will not be able to either. However, I will keep cashing overlay tickets based on this stuff and I will keep on identifying rare situations where figure makers that are not pace sensitive enough can be lead astray in the figure making process.
I think we can end it on this note.
I hope you will look at his data.
Post Edited (03-18-05 18:41)
Nope. Fuller answer maybe later, but no one gets to come on this site and say I got a figure wrong, especially a GI at Saratoga, based on their account how good a handicapper they are. Ain\'t gonna happen.
I\'m starting to wonder if you are actually reading what I write. In the case of the Hopeful, you don\'t need anyone\'s entire data base for evidence-- you just need (for example) the DRF pps with Beyers for the horses that ran in that race, both before and after. You don\'t need pace figures at all. We just have to see how the figures for the horses that day stacked up with what they ran before or after
Now, we already have anecdotal evidence as to how that will work out-- you said yourself that you had to upgrade the performances from what Beyer gave them. We also have the pps of Afleet Alex, who is in tomorrow, and we can see that his figure that day was significantly worse than those before or after. Now all we need is to see the other horses in the race-- see how easy that is? When the smoke clears you will see(or should be able to) that the problem wasn\'t pace at all, it was that others didn\'t figure out the track was changing speed.
And, of course, you have completely ignored the other point that I have made at least twice-- the effect of pace in that race, if any, appears to be exactly the opposite of what pace players would claim.
More another time, I\'ve got work to do. But it don\'t come down to a matter of opinion. It comes down to data, and evidence.
1 AFLEET ALEX 6-5 PS
OP 03/05/2005 6.0 105*
LS 10/30/2004 8.5 103
Bel 10/09/2004 8.5 104
Sar 08/21/2004 7.0 98*
Sar 07/29/2004 6.0 96*
Del 07/12/2004 5.5 90*
Del 06/26/2004 5.5 73*
The pace figures guy has all his races very similar, including having the Hopeful as his fastest race to that point.
Beyer has it as an off race, as you already know. It looks like you are both getting to the same conclusion via different methods.
TGJB,
If you are trying to drive me off the board, just ban me. It will be easier on me and make you happy because no one will question anything about your methdology!
>You don\'t need pace figures at all. We just have to see how the figures for the horses that day stacked up with what they ran before or after<
NO. You need all speed figures and pace figures in and out for every horse. That is the only way all the performances can be measured and adjusted accurately to know if they are consistent!
If you can\'t understand this, it is hopeless to discuss this issue at all!
Post Edited (03-18-05 19:26)
Jmiller,
>The pace figures guy has all his races very similar, including having the Hopeful as his fastest race to that point.<
Exactly. At least someone gets it.
That is because pacefigures.com goes through the process of giving you a final time figure and performance figure adjusted for the pace. Beyer only gives you the final time figure. You always have to adjust all Beyers for pace yourself if you want to incorporate it into yor handicapping.
Pacefigures performance rating for the Hopeful is higher and more sensible than the final time figure. He realized that the pace was very fast and caused the slow final time figure. Beyer may also have realized it (as a private trip handicapper), but he doesn\'t provide performance figures publicly.
Post Edited (03-18-05 19:28)
I may ban you someday, but it won\'t be for this discussion. Because what is happeneing here is that everyone (except possibly you) is learning how to decide whether a figure is indeed correct, and finding out that we got that one correct when everyone else did not. As Miff probably doesn\'t think I recall, he brought up that exact race last fall, thinking we got it wrong.
Anyway-- WRONG. We are not discussing whether the pace figure is right or wrong, and comparing the pace figure to the final figure is apples/oranges. I absolutely stipulate the pace figure is spot on. But in the end, the others you mentioned also gave out final figures-- and they have not held up. Mine did. And that\'s how you know which is right-- that\'s what I mean by evidence, as I have said 5 or 6 times now.
It\'s also why people review races they have problems with, where the figure is in doubt, AND IT\'S HOW THEY DETERMINE WHETHER THEY GOT IT RIGHT. Get it? That\'s how the pros work.
And in fact, there is a big question about a figure of Afleet Alex right now-- but it\'s his last one. Andy and I both did the same thing, which is cut it loose, and in this case it\'s amazing we did it the same way because both of us tied it not to the day, and not to any solid previous numbers, and we still came out the same. Ragozin tied it to the day, which I know courtesy of the free figs (yippee!) in the Thoroughbred Times-- if I had done that AA would have got about a negative 4, Beyer would have given him about 115 or so. I will be reviewing this one in a couple of months-- BY LOOKING AT WHAT ALL THE HORSES CAME BACK AND RAN. That\'s how you know.
TGJB,
>But in the end, the others you mentioned also gave out final figures-- and they have not held up.<
Because you have neither the data or knowledge to adjust all the final figures for the Hopeful pace, the previous paces, or the subsequent paces of all the horses to see \"if\" they held up.
Afleet Alex\'s figure obviously held up. Just look at the pacefigures.com \"performance ratings\" (which is the final time speed figures adjusted for pace) for all his races. They indcate that he ran a slower final figure in the Hopeful, but when adjusted for pace he ran his best race to that point - which translates into the race should not have been broken out.
I volunteer to leave myself. You need not ban me. I have had enough of you.
I am sorry to say I believe you have no comprehension of the issue at all. If anything, I am now even less likely to trust any of your figures in controversial races.
You think within a narrow box of final time figures that square away just by adjusting the variant without any consideration for other things might have impacted the time and accounted for a faster or slower race than expected. This is not how I think or handicap.
Post Edited (03-18-05 20:45)
As I have said on this string and elsewhere, I do believe pace can affect final time. There is no evidence it did so here-- in fact the opposite, given the performances of those who ran near the pace vs. those who did not.
Say hello to our mutual DRF friend for me.
JB wrote
\"As Miff probably doesn\'t think I recall, he brought up that exact race last fall, thinking we got it wrong\"
JB,
I do recall questioning the fig in the Hopeful for AA since I was there for both the Sanford and Hopeful and felt the Sanford was better( as did Beyer).How do you determine that you got it right?
No external audit? Isn\'t that a little self serving? Aren\'t you \"backing into\" the confirmation of your fig by rigidly sticking to YOUR guns which are not necessarily without possible error or other reasonable interpretation.
Wow I missed all the acton today. I see both points. It\'s like two good lawyers trying to prove a poaint. As an old Harness guy I always believed paced dictated who the winner was going to be(although todays harness racing is so different with the gun to the front speed style and see if you last). CH\'s point is valid in that certain horses cannot sustain a certain type of pace and will crumble and look worse on paper, BUT when the same horse has ideal pace conditions it looks like a Graded stakes type, But If Im getting Jerry\'s point, the horse is what he is, if he can\'t stand the heat (so to speak) his final results (pace included) speak for themselves.
If CH want\'s to factor the the fast pace as a positive for that horse is its next race, go for it, but it\'s at your own handicapping discretion.
Lets Face it BOS ran a fast pace and still won. The next one to go head to head better be able to go faster and last....or if the two fast ealy pace horses kill each other well..you know the rest of the story.
I think Jerry is trying to tell us that the horse is what he is, and don\'t try to make them something they are not. Don\'t make excuses for the animal.
I could be wrong, and I am not not speaking for Jerry, but this is how I\'m reading into this. (It could be the Maker\'s mark too...)
Good luck to all this weekend!!-
Nc Tony
Nice concise review, NoCarolinaTony, Makers Mark notwithstanding.
I think this discourse is frustrating to all because the examples being used are not very helpful to Classhandicapper\'s case (in fact, these examples blow his case away). With all due respect, Classhandicapper, I think TGJB has refuted your arguments and you have failed to refute his.
First, some background. I think that pace is something that handicappers always have to consider because sometimes it can be of paramount importance. However, even though I always consider it, for the most part, I think it is irrelevant. I would say that pace considerations change my overall view of a race maybe 1 out of every 10 races I handicap (but that one time it can really alter my opinion sharply).
For the purposes of figure making, there is no question WHATSOEVER that pace should NOT be reflected in final figures. To the extent pace is relevant, it should be treated the same way a trouble notation is treated. Relevant information, but not something that is incorporated into the figure assigned.
The idea that High Limit ran a better figure than he was capable of because of favorable pace conditions makes no sense to me. He ran the figure he ran, and he was obviously capable of it. If he had been challenged earlier in the race, maybe he would have run a worse number and that worse number can be excused because of the duel. However, I want my figure maker to make the number without regard to the duel. Let me decide how much I want to forgive the off effort due to detrimental pace. People like Classhandicapper are free to think that High Limit is not capable of running a \'1\' because the time he did he had an easy race. I for one will always consider that High Limit was capable of running the \'1,\' and I do not want my figure maker to screw around with that because of some unquantifiable notion of \'easy.\'
Classhandicapper, I think that this discourse would be better if you would use examples that benefit your case instead of ones that benefit TGJB\'s case. Unfortunately, I personally do not know of any such examples right now -- but maybe if somebody did some research they could find some. I recall that when I did the ROTW, I was very surprised by the race run by Taste of Paradise. Perhaps that is a horse that from a pace perspective looked live in the race while on the sheets he looked dead. I do recall looking at some of his SoCal races and being impressed with some of the fractions he ran with some very fast horses. While I did think he might surprise some people by flashing more early run than expected, I did not expect him to finish as close as he did to horses I thought were clearly going to run better races than him.
SCM2,
\'People like Classhandicapper are free to think that High Limit is not capable of running a \'1\' because the time he did he had an easy race.\'
If CH said that and I missed it I apologize but I don\'t think he said or meant to say that at all.
This is about the science of figure making versus the art of handicapping.
CH - I hope I\'m not about to put wrong words in your mouth. I took from this argument the idea that CH believes that because, in his opinion, High Limit ran a 1 under optimal conditions he will be less likely to reproduce that effort under a different race setup. Isn\'t that handicapping? Isn\'t that different from saying the figure for the FG race was wrong?
CH is also saying that if these pace scenarios were somehow baked into the figures just as ground loss, weight, wind etc. are, the figures would be superior and would blow the competition away. I don\'t agree because I believe that accurately quantifying pace would be far too subjective and is the job of the handicapper and not the figure maker.
I hope I didn\'t misrepresent anyone\'s thoughts too badly here.
Frank
ScMan,
There is a communication issue between what I am saying and what you think I am saying.
I want figures that represent exactly how fast the horses ran. Period!
That\'s what most figure makers including Jerry try to give us!
Then as a private handicapper, I want to determine if there were aspects of the race that either contributed to an individual horse\'s figure or hurt it. That would be part of my subjective handicapping process. So you and I actually agree. I think Jerry\'s \"1\" for High Limit is entirely appropriate.
When High Limit returns, as a subjectve handicapper I would adjust that figure for my personal belief that it was earned under extremely favorable conditions. I definitely don\'t want Jerry to do that for me and he doesn\'t.
The same is true of Wandering Boy.
Jerry gave me the figure I wanted.
As a subjective handicapper, I believe that Wandering Boy did not put up his best figure in that race because he dueled with a much superior horse in a pace that was too fast for him. So when he returns against softer competition, I will view him differently than someone that is just looking at his numbers. I see no problem with that and I really doubt that Jerry does either.
These are the subjective issues on which Jerry and others might agree or disagree. Most experienced handicappers would agree with me. People that don\'t believe in some of these pace and trip issues would not. No big deal.
Those views are not criticisms of his product though. If Jerry started incorporating this subjective stuff right into his figures, it would be a mistake and I \"would\" criticize him.
So as you can see, I believe some of the discussion was the result of miscommunication and different views on pace that were not a criticism of the product.
The real point of contention is the occasions when a pace is very extreme or impacts many horses within a single race. When that happens (asuming you believe me when I say it does happen) it is more difficult to interpret the result and for anyone to make a high quality figure. If you do not believe me, then there is no need to read any further. It is simply a theory that most pace handicappers share.
Basically, there are times I believe a race comes up a lot slower than expected because of pace and not because the track changed speed.
If you will grant me the small benefit of the doubt that this occasionally does happen, I do not want the track variant for those races to be broken out so the figures square better. I just want the slow incorrect looking raw figure.
In these rare cases, I would rather have lumpy inconsistent looking figures that don\'t square because I am making EVEN LARGE personal subjective adjustments related to pace in these cases too.
These adjustments can and often do differ quite sharply from what would happen if you assumed the track changed speed, broke the variant out and made the race square and the figures look prettier the way Jeery sometimes does.
The reasons are too complex to get into.
So when I question whether a race was broken out or not, I am trying to get at the information I need to make the figures I want because of my different views on the impact of pace and because I might not agree that the track changed speeds.
Personally, I don\'t care if anyone agrees with me on this issue or not. I don\'t care if anyone agrees that the track did or did not change speeds.
I just need to know if a figure that came up slower for all the other speed figure makers vs. TG was the result of TG breaking out the variant or not.
If I don\'t have that information, I can\'t use the TG figures at all. They would adversely effect my results because I would be making subjective adjustments to figures that were already adjusted for the author\'s belief that the track changed speeds (which I would disagree with).
If I ask and explain what I am doing and why, I am sure to get tarred and feathered for disagreeing with TG methodology and conclusions about the speed of a race, and for offering no proof of a theory that is making money for a lot of people.
I hope this explains my view better because I won\'t be around much anymore. I am going into self imposed exile to discuss these issues on a more pace/class oriented board where I will find people that share my views and where I can gain more insights and profits.
Good Luck.
Post Edited (03-19-05 12:09)
Miff-- NO, I\'M NOT-- that\'s the point. The way you know that we got it right-- and that the others did not-- is by tracking those horses on the various sets of figures. We posted the sheets on the horses earlier this string, and as I pointed out, AA not only held to his earlier numbers, but his later ones, and Flamenco, the horse you questioned, ran the 4 again in his two only other starts. The rest ran WORSE that day than in their other races, so if you made the race slower it would look much worse. You could not ask for more confirmation.
As for Beyer, as I said on this string, get the DRF pps for the same horses, and you will see that that one race is out of line-- all the horses in the Hopeful ran much better in their other races. That\'s how you know-- by doing research.
TGJB,
i have no reason to question the hopeful #, but - are you suggesting that because AA ran similar #\'s in his next two starts, a pair of two turn races run on fast tracks, that you got the hopeful correct?
Frank-- he also said that when a \"superior\" horse gets optimal conditions figure makers will be \"confused\", and likely to get the figures wrong. He also said that we got the Hopeful figure \"wrong\", and that we were \"wrong\" to break it out (on a day where the track was wet all day, and then it rained during racing, no less). His evidence of this was that other people, who may or may not believe that tracks change speeds during the day, did it differently-- not that there was any evidence to show they got it right.
The point of that excrutiating exercise yesterday was this-- this is a Thoro-Graph board. We make this about rigorous examination and science to the degree we can. This ain\'t a place where anybody can float an idea without serious evidence to back it up, ESPECIALLY when by the statement\'s very nature it means we are getting figures wrong regularly, and I personally ain\'t standing for somebody saying a figure for a GI at Saratoga was wrong, when all evidence is to the contrary. If someone questions a figure-- as Miff did with this one originally, and has with others-- we check it out. NOBODY is doing the amount of work, or the level of work, that we are to make sure we get it right. If you want to put a theory out there as nothing more than that, fine. But if you challenge me on the methodology or the data, bring evidence with you, and be ready to go. This is a serious place.
Michael-- I\'m suggesting that AA\'s figures the rest of the year (and those were one turn at Belmont, I think, until BC) were one piece of evidence, along with lots of others. We posted the sheets very early on this string-- look at the horses, and see what happens if you add 3 to the race, as everyone else did.
You keep saying noone else got it right, but I posted that the PaceFigures site did get it right. The race fit right in with the others. There are more ways to measure a race than with final time alone. I don\'t think anyone doubts that you guys make the best final time figures available anywhere. Isn\'t it possible that there could be more to measuring performance than final time? Like I said earlier, you can\'t argue with the results the guy is getting.
JMiller-- I have no idea what results your guy is getting, and as I said earlier, I\'ll stipulate that ALL the pace guys got the pace figure right. It\'s not the point. The point is that others got the FINAL figure different, and CH said they were right.
pace figures is no more, drf has sent them the cease letter a few sites have gotten before, suprise suprise after reading this discussion. anyone, for a measly $100 you can buy their program and use the Bris data files.
TGJB,
>he also said that when a \"superior\" horse gets optimal conditions figure makers will be \"confused\", and likely to get the figures wrong.<
Incorrect.
I said that IMO when a very superior horse cuts a blazing pace it can impact the final time of several of the inferior horses in that race negatively if they raced too close to it. When this situation occurs and I see a wide discrepancy between your figure for the race and the Beyer/Ragozin/Logic/PaceFigure figure for same the race, I want to know why you are only one that thought that race was a lot faster. Often I conclude you are right. If you broke the race out though, I would like to know that because it is possible I might disagree with your conclusion that the track changed speeds. I never know until I analyze the race, watch the replay and look at my pace figures. Sometimes I come to the conclusion that pace was a factor.
I would then prefer to work with the slower figure everyone else assigned the race and make specific upward adjustments to individual horses instead of working with your faster figure. It doesn\'t matter whether you agree with me or not.
I need what I need and express why I need it for the benefit of anyone that is interested in pace.
The end result is often six to one half dozen to another, but most often I would be working with very different numbers than everyone. My performace figures end up looking completely different than the figures anyone else assigned to the horses.
I just need to know if a race was broken to get to the figures I want. That goes for Beyer, Ragozon, Logica, Bris and anyone else. If one of them totally disagrees with the conensus, I want to analyze why.
>He also said that we got the Hopeful figure \"wrong\", and that we were \"wrong\" to break it out (on a day where the track was wet all day, and then it rained during racing, no less).<
I said that my theory of pace indicates that the pace of the Hopeful was fast enough to have impacted the final time for several horse. I don\'t care if you agree with me or not. I needed to know it you broke it out so I would work with the figures I wanted.
You did break it out, so I wanted to work with the slower figure that everyone else assigned to that race and make specific pace related adjustments to it. If I made my pace related adjustments to your faster figure, I would have screwed up \"my personal analysis\" of the performances of the horses.
>His evidence of this was that other people, who may or may not believe that tracks change speeds during the day, did it differently-- not that there was any evidence to show they got it right.<
The only evidence is that pace handicappers work with these numbers regularly and make adjustments to figures we feel explain many things that final time figures alone do not. It doesn\'t matter if we are right or wrong or you believe us. We need the information we need in the form we need it.
Well, partly. CH, I\'ve also been using something similar to what you are talking about for the last 1 1/2 year with much success. HOWEVER, Jerry is right when he says there are really no to qualtify this \"effort\" and he just gives you accurate # and you can adjust them as you see. Also, just becuase a horse dueled inside means he should have earned a better figure. There could have been a rail bias that carried him along( I think this was present at FG on LA Derby day). So you have to make a qualitative adjustment not a quantitative adjustment. Also, if there was no rail bias, then the fig. is actually much better than give n but this horse may bounce next time, so as in all races you have to play the odds.
In regards to comments such as horse won easily, was all out, tank empty- in my experience this is all NONSENSE. I would just depend on the pattern of the horses and not these old time comments. I know a handicappper in SCAL who publishes these things and they are invariably wrong!!
Just adding gas to the fire!!!
J. Miller,
Thank God someone understands what I am saying and is willing to at least contemplate the thinking.
We don\'t all have to agree on how or why some races come up slower than expected.
As to why pace guys need what we need here is an example:
If Pacefigures.com had concluded that the Hopeful track had slowed down and assigned it a faster figure like TG, then on top of that made the same adjustments to that final time figures for pace that he always makes in order to produce \"performance figures\", he would have turned AA (and some of the others) into some of the greatest 2YO sprinters ever. None of \"us\" believed that.
If he had concluded that the track had slowed down, he would also have had to conclude that the fractions might even be faster than they looked when adjusted for the slower track speed. None of \"us\" believed that either.
Those two conclusions would have produced \"performance figures\" (as opposed to final time figures) that would have been wildly inconsistent with what we believe in general. So the obvious conclusion to us was that the track didn\'t change speed much, if at all. The fast pace was a factor in the slow final time.
It doesn\'t matter who is right because we produced the \"performace\" figures that squared perfectly. TG produced the final time figures he believed in and the stars lined up for both camps.
When you understand what pace figure guys are doing as opposed what people not familar with pace say or think we are doing, you understand why we are satisfied that the stars lined up.
It is unfair to say Pacefigures (or anyone else) got it wrong when you don\'t even understand the methodology used to adjust the final time figures for pace and how they verify their own results.
There are plenty of excellent books on pace if people are interested in the subject.
It is very complex and not everyone agrees on everthing. My thinking just happens to be amazingly similar to PaceFigures. It is not my job to write a book here to explain or prove why I believe this.
Thank you for being open to the thinking.
Post Edited (03-20-05 20:07)
OPM,
I agree with you. It is certainly hard to quantify these impacts. It\'s my view that I would rather have the appoximately right answer for the exactly right reason than the approximately right answer for the wrong reason. It doesn\'t matter which camp you believe is in which category as long as you have the data consistent with your views to work with.
CH-- it\'s pretty clear you won\'t (and can\'t) address the points I made over and over, but it would be nice if you at least read what I wrote. I don\'t have to know how the pace figures were made-- I said twice that I will stipulate that they are right. But that has nothing to do with whether the final figures for the race we all made are right, and yes, I read what you wrote about the internal logic they (and you) used. The evidence that the logic is wrong is a) the overwhelming evidence, on ALL our final figures, that mine were right and the others were wrong (and I have described this extensively on this string, so I don\'t have to do it again), and b) that the horses who ran CLOSE to the hot pace are the ones who ran well, and the others did not.
What you have is a theory. A theory is not evidence. Again, if you come here saying we got something wrong, or our methods are wrong, come armed. You will be challenged every step of the way.
The other post really is nonsense-- not because it\'s untrue, but because it\'s completely misleading in the context of this discussion. You didn\'t JUST say you wanted to know whether we broke those races out-- you said it was wrong to do so, and that we got \"confused\", and made incorrect figures. You have yet to provide one iota of evidence of this.
Did you find out whether Beyer uses pars at any step of the process?
TGJB,
>Again, if you come here saying we got something wrong, or our methods are wrong, come armed. You will be challenged every step of the way.<
I won\'t challege your figures or methdology publicly anymore. I have no vested interest in this. I don\'t have time for circular conversations that are related to business and not related to improving the handicapping process. I have nothing for sale.
Just tell me honestly whether you broke a controversial figure with a fast pace out or not when I ask. At that point I will have all the information I need to use your figures. Whether I think you figure is right or wrong privately doesn\'t matter. I\'m still going to handle it the way \"I\" think is right.
Post Edited (03-20-05 15:51)
CH-- nice edit.
Just so we all understand this-- checking the accuracy of your figures by seeing what figures the horses run in the future is at the heart of what we do. It\'s in fact the way we MAKE figures-- that\'s what the projection method is, looking at past figures to determine today\'s.
The part of the conversation in contention is neither about business or handicapping-- it\'s about figure making. And I have no problem telling you when I break out races, although it\'s often a question of degree, since most tracks change somewhat over the course of the day.
TGJB,
I understand how and why you check your figures the way you do.
My method of checking my opinions is different because I am incorporating pace figures into all the raw speed figures in and out. I am not just looking at the speed figures out the way you are. That would not make sense. I don\'t have a database available with all this information for every horse. I had it for Afleet Alex and it was posted.
The races of interest will generally only be the ones where there is a huge discrepancy between various figure makers. I don\'t care much about a fifth here or there.
Post Edited (03-20-05 20:00)
Saddlecloth,
>pace figures is no more, drf has sent them the cease letter a few sites have gotten before, suprise suprise after reading this discussion.<
This was a terrible development. He supplied a high quality product for multiple tracks that IMO incorporated pace into final time analysis properly. He also documented the validity of the concepts with flat bet profits for an extended period of time.
I hope something can be worked out because his work was very valuable to me. He saved me a significant amount of personal effort for races outside of NY.
The only other set of pace figures I trust are available for NY races only packaged with trip information.
Post Edited (03-20-05 20:39)
TGJB,
By the way, I am totally satisfied in the methodology and technique Beyer uses to cross check his figures when horses ship from track to track. I do not know why there are often disagreements between the two camps on out of town races and I don\'t always have the data needed to form an opinion.
I do not know if he makes projection figures for all the very small tracks, but the verification process is not an issue.
Post Edited (03-20-05 20:44)
CH-- as I pointed out before, Beyer had real track to track problems through at least last year, although he may be making changes based on what I\'ve seen recently. Having said that, some problems were still evident in his figures for the Muniz at FG Saturday-- the California figures were again inflated relative to the locals.
But anyway, that\'s not what I asked you. You mentioned you were going to be able to find out whether he used pars at any point in the process, even as a check. Did you?
TGJB,
I think they are related questions/issues.
This is the way I see it.
If he is using projection figures at all the major tracks (which he certainly is) then he would have no need to use PARs. I\'ve never seen him describe his process of making projection figures as being related to PARs.
If he is using PAR based figures at a handful of very minor tracks (don\'t know), he probably would develop \"sync\" and \"quality\" problems.
The \"sync\" problems would be corrected quickly via the shipper cross check process which would then update the PARs to reflect reality.
It\'s this sync issue that is most important to me.
However, PAR based figures would obviously be inferior to projections. I am less concerned about that because I don\'t play any of the really tiny tracks and there aren\'t any stakes shippers coming from them. If I played a very tiny track, I would be more skeptical of the figures until I checked out what he was doing.
I think only Andy and his crew know if they are using projection based figures for every track in the country or not.
Post Edited (03-21-05 10:21)
CH-- the issues of whether Beyer is using pars at ANY point in the process and whether his figures will correlate track to track are DEFINITELY related-- that\'s the context in which I brought up the question in the first place, and I thought you said our mutual friend would know the answer.
As I pointed out before-- I believe they do the individual days by \"projection\". But I suspect they use pars as a check not race to race, but over a period of time-- meaning, if they find they are running better or worse than pars for the classes they will make a global correction for the track, like \"add 3\". My reason for thinking this is not just seeing that they have had some circuits out of whack, but which ones-- they have had the ones with overinflated claiming levels (California being the most extreme) way too fast, and the deflated claiming tracks (Delaware, for example) way too slow. I\'m not shooting from the hip here-- I probably know more about this than anyone alive, having spent a lot of time not just thinking about how to avoid such problems, but fielding calls and posts over the years from those who think a circuit is overrated or underrated, and I\'ve looked at our stuff (and to a lesser degree Andy\'s and Ragozin\'s) pretty close cicuit to circuit.
I will also say that I\'m not the only one who has figured it out. Don Brauer, the top bloodstock agent in the country, figured out without me a few years ago that he had to deduct several Beyer points from California and Canada, based upon the performance of those horses when they went elsewhere, and those of other horses (notably from Calder, his base), when they were purchased and went to California.
Again-- it now appears Andy may be on his way to solving the problem. But he may have two systems in conflict-- if you use pars AT ALL you will have a circuit to circuit problem.
TGJB,
OK, I understand what you are saying about spot checking figures against pars over time.
If they did that, the crossing checking process they use for horses moving from track to track would quickly notify them if there really was a problem.
If track \"X\" was coming up 3 points slower than PAR, it would foolish to change all those figures unless those horses were also coming up 3 points slow relative to other tracks.
If they were 3 points slower than other tracks and 3 points slower than PAR, they could adjust all the figures up by 3 points. End of problem.
If the cross check process said everything was OK, then at some point they might decide to change the PARs that are published for information purposes to reflect the changing stock.
I am comfortable they have excellent controls in place, but that\'s about all I can say.
As to any controversial figures, my guess is that they mostly related to methodolgy and judgments about the speed of the track for an individual race or day.
Post Edited (03-21-05 15:26)