Reality is a slippery thing that often eludes the grasp of man. Throughout history, scientists and pseudo-scientists have attempted to define reality by attaching a measurement or number to it. The theory underlying phrenology, a significant influence in 19th century psychology, was that the precise measurement of the human skull provides evidence of the personality traits and attributes of an individual. The use of numeric measurements afforded phrenology\'s adherents with a sense that it was a true science. It was, of course, nothing of the sort.
The results of today\'s Derby amply demonstrate the false sense of security that is provided by certain handicapping tools that depend upon systems of numeric quantification. One such system is the Dosage Theory which suggests, with great scientific and statistical pretension, that horses with certain Dosage Indices cannot win the Derby. Today\'s results would suggest otherwise.
The readers of this board could, I would suspect, think of other handicapping approaches which attempt to provide numeric quantification to that which is immune to such approaches. When their numbers fail to provide the desired result, the \"true believer\" must devine reality by resorting to theories which are an inherent part of their \"scientific\" approach, but are always available to explain away the failures of that approach (e.g., this horse or that horse \"bounced\"). Alternatively, the congregants of this church protect its orthodoxy by alleging that its \"truth\" was silenced by sinister outside forces (e.g., the super trainers and their drugs).
The truth is simple --- reality is complex and numbers are only numbers.
Post Edited (05-07-05 22:20)
Why is it I can still count on one hand the number of horses who won the Derby and didn\'t qualify on dosage?
Strike the Gold
Real Quiet
Charismatic
Giacomo
is that it?
Problem is so few of them dont qualify now, but they keep winning.
Ah hem....Problem is these horses are an over rated bunch of garbage cans.
But it was pointed out that Bellamy, Afleet, Greely, Bandini, Noble Causeway were all bounce candidates. Just that nobody figured that all of them would bounce at the same time.
It was also noted in the analysis that Closing Argument was one of the ones most likely to move forward. This race gets a 0 or a 1, but not a negative #.
very clever response, it was the first thing that made me laugh today. so i\'m a sore loser but for the betting public how does one explain the point that all the king\'s horses and all the king\'s men could not beat a couple of thus far mediocore horses. Steinbrenner should be incensed. The trainers and jockeys in Trump\'s world would be fired.
Mo:
Dosage was developed, in large measure, by looking back over history and picking out sires who were stamina influences in horses pedigrees who ALREADY WON THE DERBY!
Guess what? Those horses, who had pre-ordained good Dosage Indices, qualified under the system. Hence, most of the qualifying Derby winners had to qualify because the system was, by its very nature, retroactive in its orientation. The problem is in its prospective application which depends on a number of factors. For example, sires must be classified in the correct chef-de-race group. The most glaring error in this regard was the classification of Raise A Native as a Brilliant chef-de-race. Dr. Roman would have you believe that all those Derby winners from that sire line won despite the presence of Raise A Native. I would suggest it was because of his presence.
I could go on to discuss other flaws in the theory (e.g., the failure to represent the influence of dams and non-chef-de-race sires, etc.), but it isn\'t really worth the effort. Dosage Theory has been marginalized since almost all of the Derby horses qualify. What is really funny is that Derby winners can be found among the few horses who do not.
P.S. The retroactive orientation of the Dosage Theory has continued beyond its inception. It is not unusual for sires to become chef-de-races or be switched in chef-de-race categories AFTER their non-qualifying progeny win a classic race. This has the intended affect of lowering the Dosage Indices of their offspring.
Numbers are only numbers.
Post Edited (05-08-05 10:04)
Albany, I liked your post.
Numbers are only numbers. Thats why I\'m impressed with in depth scrutiny like Hoss\'s friend was involved in this year.
I still want to see the number and how Giacomo fairs from here on. I\'m not overly optimistic about him, because I think that was a slow derby, but will defer to TGraph. Its gonna be a wing dinger to score. I know that much.
CtC,
Very tough scoring the figs, hot pace and a rousing 53.4 last half.With 126lbs and being wide, don\'t be surprised if the winner gets a fast fig, even though the racing reality tells a differeent story.Pathetic performances by 15 or so participants.
Albany -
I\'m taking the liberty of reposting something that Derby 1592 posted last September (9/2/04) and that seems relevant to your comments:
---------
This whole thread (and several recent related threads) is starting to sound a lot like a philosophical debate.
One camp echoes Peter Berstein\'s lament, \"Our lives teem with numbers, but numbers are only tools; they have no soul... The result is a culture that threatens to become so complex and frequently so arcane as to constitute a new religion.\"
While the other camp resonates with Lord Kelvin who once stated, \"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it into numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: It may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.\"
Unfortunately, as R. J. Heuer of the CIA astutely observed, \"It is a common experience to discover that most available evidence really is not very helpful, as it can be reconciled with all the hypotheses\" and as Bart Kosko depressingly summarized, \"If you can prove a statement 100% true, it does not describe the world. If it describes the world, you cannot prove it.\"
So I think some of as are going to just have to \"agree to disagree\" on this topic and move on to more pragmatic tasks such as dodging yet another hurricane (hope Catalin and all the rest of you in Florida make it through the big storm with no major damage) or figuring out who will win tomorrow's feature...
Chris
\"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn\'t go away.\" Philip K. Dick
Bitplayer:
I very much enjoyed your post and recognize the wisdom of your practical advise.
Albany -
All credit goes to Derby 1592. I just reposted his stuff (which IMO is among the best stuff you\'ll read on this board).
I do have one suggestion that might fit with your approach to the game. There is a school of economic thought that says (generalizing here): You can\'t understand economics by looking at how a rational person with complete information would act. You have to look at how people really act. Real people not only act irrationally, they tend to reproduce the same types of \"irrational\" behaviors over and over again.
This school of thought is described in one of the later chapters of Peter Bernstein\'s book \"Against The Gods\" (which I read after Derby 1592 mentioned in his ROTW). My father has suggested that one potentially productive approach to horseplaying would be to familiarize myself with this school of thought and see if any of the the \"irrational\" behaviors they found are applicable to horseplayers. Identifying such behaviors could identify profitable betting opportunities. Thus far, I\'ve been too lazy to take my father\'s suggestion, but, given your initial posts on this site, it might interest you (or maybe you\'re already doing it).
BitPlayer:
Your post was quite interesting. I think your father may be on to something. There can be little doubt that horseplayers in specific, and gamblers in general, are often engaging in irrational behavior. This is reflected in the mutual pools when \"one theory\" handicapping (e.g., the influence of speed figures) produces overbet horses. When a disproportionate amount of the money is flowing in one direction based on one handicapping theory, bettors must, in my opinion, find the weaknesses of that approach and send their money toward the overlays which must, as a matter of simple mathematics, be present.