Splint - out until summer.
That may be some evidence that the Wood was a genuine Negative 5
MO said he felt the horse was done.
What\'s the matter Class? Cat got your tongue? How are your pace figures useful without wind? It\'s a direct question. I wish you\'d answer it before you post any more nonsense here.
Maybe the wind affected Bandini\'s final time and you and the others who ignore wind missed it?
Not part of your BG analysis eh?
HP
HP,
>How are your pace figures useful without wind? <
There is no doubt that wind is a bigger complication for pace figures than for final time figures.
However, when there are multiple races at the same distance on a card or you supplement the fractional times with visual observations of the race development and knowledge of the running styles of the horses, it is possible to get a very good line on the pace of a race.
Unlike final time figures however, it isn\'t necessary to have pace figures accurate to a 1/5 of a second or so for them to be very useful. That\'s because only paces beyond a certain point (fast or slow) have a measureable impact on the final time of various horses in a race (not all equally). It\'s more often than some think, but certainly not every race.
The idea is not to get the perfect pace figure (although that would be nice and we all try) or create the perfect formula for measuring the impact of the pace on individual horses (that would be nice too). The idea is to get an accurate enough measurement of both to interpret results in a much more accurate way than is possible with final times alone. That process leads to making better speed figures because you can tell the difference between changes in track speed/form that account for quirky final times/results and when the pace was the real culprit.
Post Edited (05-10-05 13:21)
How about that it may be a convenient excuse that \"He\'s out\".......of gas.
Two and out last year as a 2yo and two and out again this year. It\'s Jim Dandy followed by the Travers if ol\' Saint Nick is smart.
Good Luck,
joe b.
Just out of curiousity, what in the world does Bellamy Road being out have to do with wind and pace figures? Seems a strange place to mount an attack.
That Wood may have started the unraveling for Bellamania. That popped splint could also be the lack of foundation the stats for Derby winners support. It could also be overextending trying to catch horses he couldn\'t outfoot for the first time in his life.
Even suspecting all that and more and betting him out of the money is little consolation when your desk and floor are littered with cyber confetti losing tickets.
The Supertrainers ducking?
Beyer,
Class started another thread and I followed him. It\'s not an \"attack.\" He just leaves stuff out. I felt like asking again. Since you\'ve interjected yourself before, another way to put it is that it\'s really none of your business. I hate self-appointed board police.
Class,
Everything you say is true but besides the point, as usual.
\"However, when there are multiple races at the same distance on a card or you supplement the fractional times with visual observations of the race development and knowledge of the running styles of the horses, it is possible to get a very good line on the pace of a race.\"
What if Bandini runs at Keeneland into a 30MPH wind and HORSE X runs the same exact time at Aqueduct without any wind? Assume for the sake of our example that all other variables are exactly the same (fractions, track variant, all this \"running styles\" mumbo jumbo) EXCEPT for the wind.
Won\'t the figures for the two horses come out about the same? Are they good figures? Useful in any way? Shouldn\'t Bandini get a much better figure given the wind? Is Bandini\'s figure an accurate representation of his performance?
How can you generate accurate pace figures without wind? Wind can have a lot more impact than 1/5 second. Horses can run identical times on the clock and turn in wildly different performances.
How about this...Jerry\'s final figures with wind are better than anyone\'s pace figures without it.
There are about a hundred other things wrong with pace figure methodology (I had a LOOOONNNGGGG talk with a Colt\'s Neck guy at a Belmont handicapping Expo once upon a time), but really, you seem like a somewhat intelligent guy and I can\'t see you believing that the no-wind pace figs are more accurate than TG\'s final figs.
It\'s easy to leave stuff out. But if you leave out wind, then it\'s garbage in, garbage out. Enough with your Blue Grass theories, address .45 half no wind vs. .45 half 30MPH wind and how your pace figures (or anyone else\'s) have any value whatsoever if they don\'t take this into account.
HP
Board police? I thought I was missing something, that\'s all. You are a cranky guy HP.
CH,
As the pace guy on this board,sn\'t \"Bike Mike\" the pace figs guru these days, I fool with some other data.
I\'m not cranky. I remember a prior thread where you had to stick your two cents in. Stick with your bookmaking plans...I want to hear how good the pace figures are leaving out the 30MPH wind...
I would think a guy like Class would have given a lot of thought to the methodology behind his (or other) pace figures.
HP
I didn\'t realize your threads were private, my bad. But since I\'ve stuck my nose in already, why would you think pace figure variants don\'t take the wind into account? Of course they do.
quit while your ahead, explaining this will take to much effort
beyerguy wrote:
> I didn\'t realize your threads were private, my bad. But since
> I\'ve stuck my nose in already, why would you think pace figure
> variants don\'t take the wind into account? Of course they do.
Bguy,
Class posted his thoughts on this above, and he didn\'t say anything about \"pace figure variants taking wind into account.\"
He did say,
\"There is no doubt that wind is a bigger complication for pace figures than for final time figures.\"
And then he explained how HE THINKS you make pace figures and what\'s involved and he basically sidestepped the wind issue. I\'m trying to get him to address a specific question -- how can you generate accurate pace figures without wind.
I\'m really not interested in YOUR opinion. Can\'t you let him answer for himself? It certainly isn\'t a private thread, but so far you haven\'t really contributed anything except to call my post an \"attack,\" so for the second time, could you mind your own business?
FWIW, you don\'t post longwinded nonsense diatribes about pace, bias or anything else that pops into your head on this board almost every day, so there\'s a compliment for you, courtesy of my sunny disposition.
Come on class, .45 first half no wind vs. .45 first half 30MPH... Now that Beyerguy gave you some ammo (I certainly didn\'t hear anything about this \"wind in pace figure variant\" from YOU) you could probably say something.
I guess ground loss couldn\'t affect pace figures either, right?
HP
I\'m guessing you didn\'t read my post re the $8k tri you missed while working overtime, which I\'m not saying made you cranky, but I\'m pretty sure would have made me cranky. Very cranky in fact. Among other things, I asked what in the world FWIW means. I assume it\'s an acronymn & the 1st three words are something along the lines of \"Fight With Iconoclastic..\" but I can\'t for the life of me come up with the last word. Wildebeest? Wildman? Wimp? Weasel? My post also contains a suggestion re how you & class can settle this matter once & for all. Read it, think it over, get back to me, & and while you\'re at it, let me know if you see any singles in tomorrow\'s pk6 at CD, tell us who the hell Bike Mike is, & explain to me why the two guys from Jersey who hit the super sat in a car together outside the Meadowlands for an hr to do their handicapping. I mean, really, handicapping in the car is very uncomfortable. There\'s no room, the papers don\'t stay organized & it can be hard to find your pen if you drop it. Why not go inside & sit down? And what about the food vendor from Chinatown who hit the derby tri by clearing his mind of all greed & doing some Buddha chant? And then there was Mike Smith on Letterman last night claiming, when he did the top ten list, that the reason he won was that he shaved Giacomo to eliminate wind resistance. Dovetails with your position quite nicely, if I\'m not mistaken, but why weren\'t the bettors informed of this in advance of the race? I\'m pretty sure I would have had him on top if I only knew.
HP,
Wind is built into the track variant for the pace call. A separate variant is made for the pace call and the final time. That\'s why I said it\'s very helpful if there are multiple races at the same (or a similar) distance on the same day. The wind will be accounted for.
If there aren\'t several races at a similar distance or the wind changes direction, it gets trickier unless you were at the track to take notes on the wind.
That why i said it\'s also helpful to have a lot of experience watching races develop.
I look at the jockey\'s hands to see how hard they were urging their horses.
I look at the stride of the horses to see if they were moving easily or were all out.
If the horses in the front distance themselves from the rest of the pack that\'s a clue that it might have been fast.
If they are all bunched up that tells you it might have been slow.
If the horses in the front are well known unrateable speedballs that tells you it might be fast.
If the horses in the front are usually mid pack racers that tells you it might be slow.
All of these more subjective items (and others) combine with the fractions themselves to form a view that will usually be very accurate because they tend to reinforce each other. On the occasions, I am unsure what happened, I dig deeper and ask others that might know something I missed. If I am still unsure, you wind up getting one of my annoying posts with \"if this\" or \"if that\".
What I am doing would be a monumental task if you wanted to do it for every race. I don\'t. With only some exceptions, I only bet stakes races and usually just on dirt. It\'s no big deal for me to watch replays of most of the majior stakes and analyze the charts, fractions, and PPs of all the horses to get a good line on the results.
I hope this explains why pace figures and insights are more than accurate enough to be useful even if they aren\'t of the same accuracy as final time figures.
Post Edited (05-10-05 18:56)
Mall,
You\'re right I did not read your other post but I will now.
FWIW -- For What It\'s Worth.
I\'ll probably play Belmont/Churchill Thursday.
All I know is that Meadowlands parking lot is magic.
Class,
You write
\"I look at the stride of the horses to see if they were moving easily or were all out.\"
Have you spent any time around horses? Ridden them? Fed them? A friend of mine\'s father bred horses in his backyard, and I once spent a few months down there and I did everything including mucking the stalls. Though it was literally a backyard, the guy did okay and he actually had a homebred filly that was stakes placed at Gulfstream (Lucky Ho) and another that ran in some decent claiming races (the name escapes me).
We would drive to a place called Okechobee City to get feed and they had a combination diner/counter and auction in a big barn, so you could eat and watch them auction off horses, cows and other livestock and bid on it over your scrambled eggs. LOVED it!
Having spent this time getting REALLY close to horses and even watching them work, I can\'t tell if a horse is moving easily or all out. I really can\'t. My impression is that it is VERY HARD WORK to stop horses from hurting themselves and they are basically nuts. Furthermore, I would say if a guy spends EVERY DAY looking at the same horse run he may know what\'s really going on (even then it\'s hard to say). In fact, I really think most guys go by how the horses act when they come back (do they eat, etc.?).
Point being, I really don\'t think you can go to the track, look at a horse you\'ve never seen run, and know with any certainty whether he was \"easy\" or \"all out.\"
I can\'t go through the other points right now, but you are making an awful lot of dubious assumptions. I guess I should just wish you the best.
HP
HP is ready & willing, & I know from past contests that he\'s able. Here\'s your chance to demonstrate how your various theories actually work in practice, not to mention the possibility of bragging rights. Plenty of stakes on Preakness Day, which ought to be right up your alley. No reason I can see for passing up a golden opportunity to unseat the Champ.
MO said he felt the horse was done.>
When Ghostzapper entered the BC with those negative 6\'s, I had to think long and hard if they would knock him out too. I thought \"even if he bounces 3 points, he wins.\" Tapped out on him only to get robbed of my price while the race was already running.
Anyway, the difference between my assessment of Ghost and Bellamy was that Bellamy was barely a 3yo whose bones were not fully developed. Ghostzapper was done developing.
I expect to hear shortly that Bandini will be the next casualty.
\"I guess I should just wish you the best\". AMEN
PARTYpokerON!
HP,
I\'ve been watching races for about 30 years.
It isn\'t that difficult to tell if a horse is running hard or easy. Heck, my girlfriend doesn\'t have a clue about horseracing yet sometimes when we watch the big races together she blurts out \"that horses is done\" on the turn and is almost always correct. She can see it and she is clueless.
Personally, I don\'t get all the hostility on this board.
We just witnessed a Derby where the pace was obviously a factor in determining the outcome.
We just saw a situation in which certain horses that looked like that they had good enough figures to contend were trashed by pace oriented handicappers because of the expectation of this very pace scenario. Regardless of all the possible reasons these speed/pressers lost, would you really want to bet any of them now knowing what you know about how the race developed?
IMO, you\'d have to be a NUT to!
I come here and post my views on pace, often under attack for various reasons, and usually respond in a courteous manner despite that.
I thought by now we would be beyond the \"classhandicapper\" is an idiot that posts gibberish stage and would be having a mutually beneficial conversation on applications of the pace factor to the TG figures.
WTF was I thinking?
Class,
You wrote,
\"It isn\'t that difficult to tell if a horse is running hard or easy.\"
I just spent a relatively friendly post telling you that it absolutely IS hard to tell. I\'ve been watching horses for 30 years and taken care of them and ridden them for months at a time. Your girlfriend watching a horse tire on the turn is not what I thought we were talking about.
This is where the hostility comes in...but I have other things to do today.
Would you put your picks up for Preakness Day, with an analysis of how you get there? That might result in a constructive dialogue, as opposed to post-race speculation about pace and bias. Otherwise I don\'t see the point of batting this around anymore.
HP
HP,
I wasn\'t talking about her watching a horse tire. I was talking about her watching a duel in action and realizing beforehand that the horse would never survive it because she could see how hard the horse was being used.
I\'m sure I\'ll discuss the Preakness next week. Good luck.
Under the circumstances, the \"I don\'t understand why everybody\'s being mean to me\" argument is nonsense. I haven\'t read all of the exchanges, but the recent ones consist of you taking a position & others either disagreeing with or questioning the thinking behind your position. If you think I\'m wrong, let me suggest one possibility which never seems to enter your mind, namely whether you\'ve brought any of the hostility you think you\'re being subjected to on yourself. Let\'s take an example I\'m familiar with. derby 1592 offers the opinion that supertesting & security had an important impact at CD over the weekend. I agree. JB agrees. In short, two handicappers who spent many hrs doping, betting & watching the races in question, along with someone who has devoted his life to the subject, are of the same opinion. Your response? In words or substance, it was that the three of you are wrong about the Derby, & that we won\'t be able to tell if you\'re also wrong about the other races, the ones I didn\'t handicap or bet on, until I check on them & get back to you. Do you understand why someone might interpret your response as being just a tad bit on the arrogant side?
I tried, unsuccessfully obviously(I do know what FWIW means & Mike Smith didn\'t really shave Giacomo), to diffuse things by interjecting a little humor into your discussion with HP. More to the pt, the reason I suggested a contest was I thought that perhaps I could get some idea of exactly what it is that you\'re trying to say. I know you\'re explaining your own brand of handicapping, & I know that it\'s not pace handicapping as most people understand the phrase, but I didn\'t know until today that your method requires what some might consider expertise in making subjective judgments about how each race was run. I\'ve been watching races longer than you or HP, though not as long as both of you combined, & I\'m more than a little skeptical on this one, but maybe that\'s because I don\'t understand how this factor fits into your equation. If you post your analysis of all of the stakes on the Preakness card, maybe we could all learn something.
As someone who\'s been around racing for three decades, you must understand that it makes sense to be skeptical & raise questions when anyone claims or implies that he or she has discovered some version of the holy grail of handicapping. Personally, my skepticism increases exponentially when that person takes the position, as you did today, that in the \"typical (speed) duel ... the race collapses in the late middle and allows the closers to get into contention with ease.\" If you have a study or studies which supports this, I for one would love to see it, both because it contradicts every other study I\'ve seen(including but not limited to the 2yr, 200,000 race one I have in my hands now), & because I think what you\'re doing is repeating an old wives\' tale which has been proved wrong many times over. Putting aside the question of what constitutes a \"typical\" speed duel, & forgetting about all of the reasons why a \"paper\" speed duel might not materialize, in races with a lot of early speed, early speed horses still have an impact value considerably above 1, with an r.o.i. which is significantly higher than in races where there are less early speed horses. Until I read your post, that was something I thought all serious students of pace understood.
Mall,
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.
There have been many cordial exchanges and disagreements between myself and others, but I have also been attacked by a few people even when I attempted to be cordial.
>Let\'s take an example I\'m familiar with. derby 1592 offers the opinion that supertesting & security had an important impact at CD over the weekend. I agree. JB agrees.....Your response? In words or substance, it was that the three of you are wrong about the Derby, & that we won\'t be able to tell if you\'re also wrong about the other races, the ones I didn\'t handicap or bet on, until I check on them & get back to you. Do you understand why someone might interpret your response as being just a tad bit on the arrogant side?<
If that\'s the way it came off, I understand your point of view.
It\'s my opinion that there\'s not much evidence from the results of K Derby to indicate that drugs played a major role.
I base that on my assessment of the abilities of horses coming in and the impact of the pace on the outcome.
If I were only using a set of speed figures, I\'d probably agree with you guys because I\'d have no way of explaining several of the performances that IMO were very respectable and in line with prior performance.
I could go through the list of all the horses that raced for \"supposed drug trainers\" and their performances, but obviously we might disagree on how good they were coming in, how well they actually performed in the Derby, and what else could account for their subpar performance. That\'s an endless loop. It would also require that we include all the horses that ran for \"supposed drug trainers\" and not just the ones that help make the case.
That\'s a conversation worth avoiding, but obviously since I have 30 years of experience at this also I am entitled to an opinion that I have a lot of confidence in.
Since I respect all your opinions too, I said I would look at the results of some of the other races at CD for the week for some other evidence because as far as I am concerned there\'s little or none from the K Derby.
There \"were\" some interestng results from the rest of the week though. :-)
If there was any \"attitude\" on my part it was because of the story about Afleet Alex and/or Closing Argument being washed/moved to another barn - which I guess supposedly accounts for why they ran well for their \"move up trainers\". That sounded a lot more like an episode of the X-files and excuse making than an analysis of the Derby.
>but I didn\'t know until today that your method requires what some might consider expertise in making subjective judgments about how each race was run.<
Most trip handicappers do not use numeric pace figures. They use subjective visual skills etc...
Most numeric pace figure makers don\'t spend a lot of time watching races. They crunch numbers.
I have found flaws in both methodologies (or probably weaknesses on my part in using both).
I use both because they tend to either reinforce or contradict each other. When they reinforce each other, it adds confidence to my opinion. When they contradict, I have a problem and know it. I consider confidence level to be highly valuable at the windows.
I don\'t consider myself to be a super expert at either, but I think using both is somewhat unique and gives me a bit of an advantage over people that work with just numbers and those that are all visual. So you might say I stole from everyone and made something that works better for me than either of the parts.
>you must understand that it makes sense to be skeptical & raise questions when anyone claims or implies that he or she has discovered some version of the holy grail of handicapping.<
This really blows my mind more than you can imagine.
I haven\'t discovered anything and never claimed to. People were making and writing about pace figures before I was even born. (I\'m 46). People have been using and writing about trip handicapping for just as long. Dozens of books have been written on making your own pace figures, combining them with final time figures, subjective trip handicapping etc...
I have done 3 things.
1. Read and studied all those books and gone through the process of making my own pace figures for a very long time, watching thousands of races, studying race results, and finding applications of that information that seemed to not be reflected on the odds board or understood by the general public.
2. Studied my betting results endlessly until I knew what I was winning at and what I was losing at and then only betting on the stuff I was winning at.
3. Developed a high degree of self control and discipline and now only got to the windows when I feel I have a very sigificant long term edge.
If you go to some of the pace forums you will literally find hundreds if not thousands of horse players
that have gone through the same process as I have and come to many of the same conclusions and use the same applications. (just ask beyerguy. he\'s aces!!!!) I learn from them all the time and hopefully I occasionally provide a nugget of info that helps them too.
>Personally, my skepticism increases exponentially when that person takes the position, as you did today, that in the \"typical (speed) duel ... the race collapses in the late middle and allows the closers to get into contention with ease.\">
The point was that a race can be faster than average from start to finish (like the Wood)or it can faster than average to a certain point and then be slower than average in the middle to late portion. Those are obviously 2 different race developments and could impact closers differently depending on when they move and how vigorous that move was.
>>Putting aside the question of what constitutes a \"typical\" speed duel, & forgetting about all of the reasons why a \"paper\" speed duel might not materialize, in races with a lot of early speed, early speed horses still have an impact value considerably above 1, with an r.o.i. which is significantly higher than in races where there are less early speed horses. Until I read your post, that was something I thought all serious students of pace understood.<<
Yes I do understand that early speed is generally an advantage and that races loaded with early speed do not always produce a speed duel that compromises their chances.
IMO it\'s a factor that has to weighed by asking questions like this.
What are the probabilities that a duel develops or that the pace will be very slow and how will either of those scenarios impact the race and individual horses?
What are the chances that some of these speed horses might be able to rate and win anyway?
What are the chances of horse \"X\" getting loose and gaining an advantage?
What are the chances of a certain closer getting better position than he usually gets and not being impacted by a slow pace?
I ask lots of questions like that.
To give 2 specific examples from Derbys:
I hated High Limit because I thought it was highly likely that this pace would be fast (1 clear cut rabbit, one cheap speed that always goes, a quality speed, and a load of pressers) and it would impact him negatively because of what I had seen from him to date -which was a horse that was dead at the end of the BG after facing one cheap speed at 9F.
I bet War Emblem even though I knew a pace duel could happen that would compromise his chances because it was much less certain than on this last Saturday. He has also shown one race where he rated OK and had more stretch punch. However, when I made my odds line on him I absolutely and certainly reduced his chances of winning relative to his very fast speed figures because he wasn\'t highly likely to get loose like he did his prep. He was still an overlay though.
For me it\'s all about value and handicapping the probabilities of various scenarios. No one can get them all right. I am wrong constantly, but I am right often enough to add value.
Post Edited (05-11-05 20:01)
You very much need to do something about this fixation you have with the Ky Derby. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing or reading your views on that race again, ever. What I\'m trying to say is that I have no interest at all. None. Zero. Nada. In fact, I\'d be very much obliged if you never mention the Ky Derby & how you feel pace impacted the race again, ever, if there is even the slightest chance that I might have to read or hear anything you have to say on the subject. Are we clear on that? Because if we\'re not, then I\'ll have to join those who have reached the conclusion that it\'s impossible to have any kind of dialogue with you.
The original posts were clear that we were also talking about the other races & it\'s not possible for you to have confused what I said above. With respect to those races, it\'s not a question of \"if\" you came across as arrogant, although given what you\'re saying now, I\'m not surprised that you still don\'t seem to grasp that. And it really doesn\'t make sense or matter to me that your excuse is that Jerry said something about the Ky Derby that you don\'t agree with. If you have a dispute with Jerry on that subject, take it up with him. Just do it when I\'m out of earshot.
Standing alone, your suggestion that I go to some of the pace forums to learn how people are using pace & trip handicapping together doesn\'t make a great deal of sense. Are you suggesting that I quit the one I\'m a prominent member of in favor of some other one(s) that you think are better, or are you operating under the assumption that you are the only one who has read the books & understand & use their methods? Comments like \"...if I were only using a set of speed figures, I\'d probably agree with you guys..\" suggests it\'s the latter. What baffles me is how you could read & post here & not understand that us \"guys\", as you put it, are not \"only\" using a set of speed figures.
Based on what I\'ve read & confirmed with a member of our group who many consider an expert on the subject, some of your views on trip handicapping & what certain clues may or may not mean, are a little, shall we say, out of the mainstream. No problem. I\'m all in favor, but what I would like to see, even if it\'s just once, is for you to identify, in advance, a horse that you bet on or against entirely or partially because of the way a jockey was moving his hands in a previous race, or because of your interpretation of a horse\'s stride in a previous race, or for that matter, because of any of the clues which you say \"might\" indicate a race was slow or fast. That is & will always be the test, & with replays as widely available as they are, everyone would then have an opportunity to look at the previous race(s)& make their own judgment.
I\'m open to the idea that you are particularly adept at watching & interpreting races, but what strikes me as odd is how & when the question came up. Maybe this is something you\'ve been emphasizing all along & I missed it, but it sure seems like you spent a great deal of time explaining your theories, over & over & over again, as one poster put it, & then presto, at the last minute, when HP was pressing you for an explanation of how your pace figures account for wind, you turn around & say, by the way, did I mention that my approach requires that you be something of a grandstand horse whisperer?
Nonetheless, it is the last part of your post which concerns me the most. You quote what you said originally which, as I pointed out, is simply wrong. There\'s no getting around it. It\'s not something you can change by going over the Ky Derby again, or by changing the subject, or by being long-winded. I\'m wondering, of course, what happened to the studies you claimed you did, since I\'m sure it would be instructive to compare & contrast them with the one I mentioned, since that one was done by someone who is widely considered to be one of the top pace experts in the country. But there is a more fundamental problem we need to deal with. When you\'re as wrong about something as you were on this one, you need to just admit you made a mistake, whatever the reason. I promise to do the same. That way you save the time involved in typing a long & superficial recitation of general handicapping principles, & readers avoid the time involved in reading what they already know, only to learn that you did not even attempt to address the question.
I\'m with Mall on this one...the TG guys are avoiding a lot of ? lately...we all make mistakes, why the doubt? I still believe TG is the best, and one oddball day doesn\'t change that.
Well that didn\'t take too long. Here\'s the report:
http://tcm.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=28085
Post Edited (05-12-05 08:13)
mall,
I responded to you.
1. If there was anything in my responses about the Derby it was because the \"supposed drug issue\" first came up in reference to the Derby results.
Do you think I should blindly accept the views of other handicappers just because they are experienced and not look at results I haven\'t analyzed myself?
Sorry, I respect other people\'s opinions but still want to form my own.
2. I\'ve given plenty of examples and insights of what I do before the races. I don\'t expect that you read them all or even remember them all.
3. Unlike others, I have never had any problem admitting any of my mistakes. I bet on Bandini and Greely\'s Galaxy. That was freakin brilliant wasn\'t it? LOL
4. Personally, I don\'t know why anyone wouldn\'t want to go other forums to discuss racing insights. I know very little about claiming races/trainers, breeding, and first time starters. If I could find a forum where guys specialize in those things, I\'d surely go there to learn about those topics instead of the paceadvantage and pacefigs forums and vice versa.
5. As far ideas that are out of the mainstream, you can read any of these books. These guys couldn\'t be any more mainstream.
\"Beyer on Speed\" and \"The Winning Horseplayer\" by Beyer.
\"Figure Handicapping\", \"Class of the Field\" and \"The Handicappers Stakes Festival\" James Quinn.
\"The Four Quarters of Horseracing\" Mark Cramer.
Anything by Steve Davidowitz, who IMHO, is the best!
Those books contain over 90% of what I do. Plenty of good pace/trip techniques in these books - both numerically and subjective race watching.
Post Edited (05-12-05 09:10)
Due to the stressfull situation brought about from a particular race last Saturday in Kentucky...I find that {some} divulgence is in order.
Please do not take what I am about to divulge on this board as eavesdropping.
I am the personal physician to a certain party that posts rather frequently with a somewhat laborious style.
Although I am not here to defend my client ,I must condemn the brutal treatment he has recieved from EVERYONE at this spot.
As a matter of aside.....you gentlemen would make terrific psycho-analyists.{Do you have any idea how many mirrors my client has in his tiny apt.?!}
PARTYpokerON!
david,
Thanks for making my point.
There are 2 mirrors in my apartment and they are both hers. I don\'t care much about how I look these days. Unlike others, I prefer cashing tickets and learning from people that might help me accomplish that by discussing their techniques and opinions. :-)
Post Edited (05-12-05 09:07)
Class,
I\'m not ready to conclude its drugs off either. I know the Graded Stakes were rough on the Supertrainers, but even they cycle poorly sometimes. Summerly won. I rank Asmussen in that bunch.
Pace, Bounce, Bias, Injury played the predominate roles.
If it was drugs off they wouldn\'t have run Zed\'s in my estimation. And Dutrow wouldn\'t be bringing Golden Man in.
Post Edited (05-12-05 10:00)
Take a look at the races from Wood Memorial day - April 9th.
I thought that speed seemed like it \"might\" have an advantage through the first 6 races that day. Most of the winners were logical chalk, but a 48-1 shot (with good pace figures that I believe Beyerguy hit) wired the 5th and a 51-1 shot lasted quite well before tiring in mid stretch in the 4th.
I have offered this insight several times.
When a track is speed favoring, the smartest jockies will often figure that out by mid card and get more aggressive early to get position. That sometimes offsets the advantage of being in front because they use their horses up.
Watch the race developments of the 7th and 8th races. You didn\'t need to look at the fractions to know that these were fast paced races. The horses that went for the lead were urged a bit and running hard early. They opened up on the rest of their respective fields and they looked like pretty quick horses to begin with. That was a windy day, so I suspected that fractional analysis might be more difficult than usual, but I was fairly confident the paces were fast based on watching the races. In fact, the fractions did verify my subjective conclusions despite the complications of wind. (beyerguy can verify that) These races were easy, but they are examples of how I use race watching and an analysis of the horses to verifiy numerical pace analysis.
Taking it one step further, we had 6 races where speed seemed like it might be an advantage and then 2 where fast paces may have offset any advantage those horses had by being speed types.
Then comes the Wood memorial. The favorite (BR) gets loose on the lead running well within himself (visual) and runs a -5TG and a 120 Beyer.
Given my theories and analysis of the day, can you understand why I might be somewhat skeptical of the full quality of BR\'s performance and his price at 5-2 in the Derby?
It doesn\'t matter if you agree with anything I have to say. You asked for an example of my using visual skills to compliment numbers and this was a good day.
CTC,
\"I\'m not ready to conclude its drugs either.\"
I\'m not naive. I know that some of these guys are drugging their horses. When they get caught or testing/security gets hightened it\'s an issue and you have to watch the performances of the horses going forward. IMO, there\'s a few guys at Belmont right now that seem to not be doing as well as they were. I\'m just less anxious to blame every result that doesn\'t conform to my handicapping theories as being because of \"drugs on\" or \"drugs off\". Especially when there are other explanations like the ones you have identified and a couple of horses in the race that may have actually run lifetime bests (all things considered) for the same category of trainers.
Nothing about the impact of pace on the race I asked you not to talk about. That part was good. Most of the rest, well, to be honest it wasn\'t so good, but I did learn one thing, namely why others have expressed frustration with your penchant for changing the subject. Let\'s deal with that issue by limiting the discussion to one subject & one subject only. I\'ll suggest the 1st topic & you suggest the 2nd topic, & so forth. Eventually we\'ll get to the question of whether you responded to the study I mentioned, but it might be better if we start with something simple, something which does not require any handicapping skill at all. Something you don\'t have to take my word for, because you can independently verify what I\'m saying by talking to whoever you\'ve been going to the races with for 30 yrs.
You\'re proud of your r.o.i, & well you should be. It\'s better than the published stats for the RGS bettors who wager more than $3 million per yr on avg, & who use & have access to some very sophisticated handicapping materials. A lot of very knowledgeable people in the business think they\'re the best handicappers in the world, but I know from your posts that their roi is less than yours. I\'m fine with that. In fact, the main reason I\'m willing to go through what will apparently be a very long exercise is because I want to see if I can learn something from you, starting with the stakes races on the Preakness card.
I can\'t imagine that anyone has a problem with someone who is proud of their accomplisments. The problem occurs when that pride becomes overbearing & is evidenced by a superior manner toward others,to wit, the definition of arrogance. Blindly accepting what others have to say has nothing to do with it. The right to having & forming an opinion has nothing to do with it. Drinking cool aid has nothing to do with it. It\'s all in the attitude of superiority, evidenced in this case by your saying that the validity of others\' opinions on a subject you hadn\'t looked at or considered would depend on the final word from you. There are many, many ways you could have said exactly the same thing without being arrogant, & I\'ll be glad to help you come up with a few if necessary.
Maybe that example is a little complicated, so let\'s try another. You\'re in a group of people that you know includes a number who have bet a lot of money on a certain longshot at 23-1. Some have used the longshot in pk4s which are paying more than $100k. After the race is over, you announce for the 1st time to everyone assembled that the longshot was the easiest toss in the race, which is roughly equivalent to saying that anyone who bet on the longshot was an idiot who doesn\'t know how to handicap. Arrogance of the highest order, not to mention extraordinarily bad form. It\'s something that just isn\'t done, by anyone under any circumstances. In fact, I can only remember one instance of it happening in close to 45 yrs. That time the person was in close proximity, so I was able to deal with the matter promptly & effectively. You\'re not, which is why I\'m explaining it to you in a post. Capisce?
Well, It would seem CH\'s feeling that High Limit would cave was based upon the \"need for the lead\" reflected in his Past Performances and the realization it was gonna be pretty hot up front.
In that horses defense he did rate in the Bluegrass and he did have a finish compromising stretch run. He had a horror trip in the Derby and came back cut up but not knocked out. Personally, I tend to think if he\'d have rated in the 3 path he\'d of won that race. But, we\'ll never know and its off to the next one.
Going into the race, you had to figure that a Zed would be a good number to win it. There looked to be some good odds horses capable of Zed if the Fab Four crashed and burned:
High Limit
High Fly
Noble Causeway
Sun King
Probably in that order
Its not entirely unreasonable that a bona fide pace handicapper would have eliminated High Limit on Pace. The pace was very hot and sure looks to have done in High Fly, among others.
Handicappers are always looking to validate their analysis. Its hard to do when a horse like Giacomo wins and while losing you take solace in where you were right and try to go on from there. For me it was Bellamania, who I believed was more SuperHype than superhorse. For CH it was High Limit. (CH questioned Bellamania from the outset as well however) I don\'t think he meant any disrespect pertaining to handicapping ability. An Afleet Alex, High Limit top two finish would have made me very giddy, but its hard to take offense to the notion he was a toss. At least this time, he did finish last.
Mall,
I\'ll address the gist of your post.
My opinions on the Derby pace and how it might impact certain horses were expressed before the race. I had no idea who had selected who or who had bet on what. I never saw the TG Derby presentation until you guys posted it (2 days later??).
However, now that it\'s over why wouldn\'t we want to discuss it? I think I\'ve used the word idiot in reference to my picks several time. :-)
I didn\'t came here to display any arrogance, brag about my results, or tell everyone how wonderful a handicapper I am. I know virtually nothing about breeding, claiming races, first time starters, and trainer patterns. I barely have enough insights to play stakes turf races profitably. Anyone that is playing all those sorts of races profitably knows a hell of a lot more than I do. If I do anything well, it\'s stick to what I know and don\'t gamble.
I started out posting opinions on the stuff I think I know something about. I got blasted by some people \"for having theories\" that run counter to the views expressed here etc... Others asked that I post my views before races to demonstrate if anything I had to say had any value.
I did both.
I still get blasted semi-regularly. I still get called names. I am still asked to post opinions before races to prove if anything I have to say has merit.
I wouldn\'t have to list anything I was ever right about or tell you about my results if I weren\'t asked to defend everything I have to say on a daily basis.
When I say \"I was right about something before the race\" or point to some \"success at the windows\" to try to gain some acceptance for what I am saying, I then get blasted as being arrogant, a braggard, etc....
If I have an attitude at times, it\'s probably because of how I\'ve been treated at times.
I will certainly express my opinions on the Preakness and any other major stakes races on that card that I might consider betting on.
Post Edited (05-12-05 12:36)
CTC,
>I don\'t think he meant any disrespect pertaining to handicapping ability<
Absolutely correct. I didn\'t even know who everyone was playing or selecting until later.
If I deserve to be trashed for one thing it\'s not paying for the TG derby analysis before the race, but I\'m not working these days and need for my horses to run better than Bandini to afford luxories. :-)
I want to be clear before I get accused of saying things I did not say in the future when HL runs well.
I think HL will have a much better chance at Pimlico in a smaller field, at a shorter distance, with much less speed in the race.
His performance in the Derby was so dreadful that my opinion about him was not verified by his performance in the Derby. He was too bad to believe that that was an honest reflection of his ability. He\'s a much better horses than that. So is Bandini.
However, given the race development was very much in line with what I thought was highly probable before the race, I have a tough time imagining HL winning that Derby on his best day - even if he improved. I would have a tough time even believing anyone that said that.
In hindsight I may have been an idiot for using Greely\'s Galaxy. He has a presser style. I thought he was more likely to be rateable and finish well at 10F. Perhaps, I should have downgraded his chances a lot more than I did.
Live and learn.
Post Edited (05-12-05 13:24)
No mention anywhere on the difference between a fast pace (e.g. SPEND A BUCK) going :45 and change versus a pressured pace similar to last week ??
If one is going to do a pace analysis, time and variant are not the only variables to consider.
Anyone think that a horse like SPEND A BUCK would have waltzed to a Derby win if ETERNAL PRINCE had broke well that day and was breathing down his neck.
That\'s what made GZ\'s thoro number in the Woodward that much more impressive...it was accomplished under extreme pressure. Bellamy Road\'s was not.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Mall -
I have a couple of naive questions triggered by a recent post of yours.
You wrote: \"in races with a lot of early speed, early speed horses still have an impact value considerably above 1, with an r.o.i. which is significantly higher than in races where there are less early speed horses.\" Is that true generally, or more true for certain types of races than others (e.g., sprint v. route; dirt v. turf).
You also referred to \"a 2yr, 200,000 race [study] I have in my hands now.\" How does one acquire that sort of thing?
Thanks for your help.
Respectfully,
BitPlayer
Joe,
\"That\'s what made GZ\'s thoro number in the Woodward that much more impressive...it was accomplished under extreme pressure. Bellamy Road\'s was not.\"
I\'m in your camp on this one big time.
I thought GZ was absolutely amazing that day.
I also thought RIM had a spectacular race last year (I think it was in Saratoga) when he held off a good field after a blazing battle.
I remember the race. I was standing on the finish line at Saratoga and could not believe my eyes.
I spoke to Edgar Prado that nite and he said it was as if the horse surged one more time for a brief moment as soon as PERFECT DRIFT passed him. .....CLASS!!!
To get back to the point. Jerry\'s #s are the best in the business. That being said, we all have the right to use them and interpret them as we see fit. That includes how and under what conditions were the numbers accomplished.
My experience leads me to believe that a negative 1 accomplished under pace pressure against graded animals is a better performance than, say, a negative 3 accomplished under allowance n/w 3 while on an uncontested lead.
Not as simple when trying to compare a negative 2 accomplished by a NAJRAN in a swift pace versus a negative 2 accomplished by an ALDEBAREN in a slow pace.
My opinion in the Derby was that HIGH FLY\'s 1 at GP was as impressive as BELLAMY ROAD\'s neg 5 at Aqueduct. Incorporating the track variants and pace analysis (not pace numbers) led me to that opinion. Unfortunately using HIGH FLY resulted in a severe dent to my bankroll.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Mall,
One comment about ROI...an ROI by itself is not that meaningful without taking into context the volume of races one is playing. CH says he only plays Top Stakes, so we know his volume is pretty low. I\'ll take a 2% ROI playing 100 races a day over a 25% ROI playing 10 races a week every time. Actually, I\'d take a -2% ROI over that same 25%.
Bit: Nothing naive about your questions. The study I was referring to was limited to fast dirt races between 5.5 & 10f. Be glad to see that you get it when I get back next week if you can figure out some way that I can contact you.
Beyer: I follow what you\'re saying, but wouldn\'t it depend on the amt bet per race? I think the roi would be the same if one person bet 1x on ten races & another person bet 10x on one race.
beyer,
I absolutely agree with you about ROI.
I\'ve made that point about my own results several times. I explained why I was able to produce such a high ROI because I sensed that some people thought I was FOS.
I think I can increase almost anyone\'s ROI with 3 simple rules.
1. Don\'t bet any horse at less than 3-1 even if you think it is an overlay. (with some rare exceptions)
Most of the money \"most\" profitable horseplayers put through the windows on horses going off at less than 3-1 produces a very low +ROI. I\'d be willing to bet that some \"net profitable\" players lose money on these lower priced horses. They just don\'t know it. All most people do is create a lot of handle with these horses.
2. Don\'t make saver wagers in the exacta pool (with some rare exceptions)
If you have a horse that you think is an overlay it is almost always a much bigger overlay on top than it is underneath in the exactas.
Many people can\'t stand the thought of watching a longshot finish second. So instead of betting $X to win or $X worth of exactas with him on top, they use him underneath a bunch of underlays as a saver. The savers almost always have a lower ROI than the tickets with him on top. So the net for the $X investment produces a lower ROI over the long haul than a straight bet on top even though you win more often and feel good about that.
3. If you have 2 overlays in the same race, make sure you box them for something - but don\'t play other savers (as in rule #2).
The ROI of compounded value is much higher than from a single horse alone.
I learned much of this from a friend of Dave Litfin\'s father (nice guys) back in the early 90s at the \"Downtown Select Club\" when I was still more or less a break even player. He turned me into a winner, by changing my betting.
I probably pass on many profitable situations these days, but I don\'t get much pleasure out of the gambling action or handicapping cheap races. I would prefer to move in the direction of betting very large sums of money on a smaller number of races where I think I have a large edge and enjoy watching and handicapping the race for sporting reasons.
Since there are many weekend warriors like me out there, I think they would be smart to review their betting records and see if what I was taught would improve their results too.
Post Edited (05-12-05 17:56)
Fair enough. I think if you\'re a little more cautious about how you say things, stay on subject, & not repeat yourself too awful much, 99% or more of your problems will disappear. With few exceptions, the posters here are friendly & reasonable, not to mention very good handicappers. Don\'t be defensive if someone asks you to post in advance of a race. It\'s one of the best ways to get a concrete idea of what the person is saying, & the posters here understand that the results of any particular race mean very little, if anything.
Your comments re the Wood anticipated my next subject. You say that one of the things you\'re looking at is the stride of the horses. You may recall the wolf teeth post where I mentioned that the person who told me the story had done a stride analysis of a recent, important race in Ky. The gentleman in question was a trainer for many yrs, is a private & commercial clocker now, & is paid to analyze horses\' stride. Maybe I didn\'t explain it very well, but he seemed puzzled by what you seem to be saying. I looked at the replays & quite frankly, I don\'t see anything which is any different than what I see everyday. Nothing, as far as I could tell, which would have any predictive ability, at least for me.
And there is a fundamental & important aspect of observing horses in general, & their stride in particular, that you seem to have overlooked entirely. I noticed that the list of books you\'ve read didn\'t include anything by Takach or Ledbetter. If you read Takach\'s daily report on the condition of horses in the paddock, or you\'re getting his real time assessments over your computer, or you have someone else doing these sorts of things for you, one of the things which had to strike you right away is the number of horses, including many, many stakes horses, which are running with quarter cracks, frog problems, walking short, walking wide, wearing a martingale, using various types of shoes to try to overcome foot problems, etc.,etc. These are all things that can change a horse\'s stride dramatically, & they are all things that change from race to race. Even assuming you can educate me re exactly what it is about some horse\'s stride that you are looking at, it seems to me that absent a lot more information than you have, it would still be impossible to determine anything which could possibly be reliably predictive from examining a horse\'s stride in any particular race. I think this is what is sometimes referred to as irrefutable logic, but maybe you don\'t see it that way.
Mall,
Some of the things you are talking about go far beyond anything I am looking it. If there is value in those things, you should be explaining it to me.
I am talking about a much more basic visual impression of whether the pace was fast or not. I can sometimes sense how hard the horses are being ridden early and how hard they are reaching out much the way you can see it in the stretch run. Sometimes you can see a horse that is really reaching out vs. one that is tired and shortening stride.
The main thing however is just looking at the horses records themselves (how much speed they have) and whether they open up on the field, are in a duel, are all bunched up, are under restraint etc....
The visual impression of the pace just verfies the numeric and vice versa.
If you would like to take the conversation somewhere the people at TG would appreciate, I have a lot of interest in the breeding stats/figures you guys produce and have said so in other forums.
Potentially profitable applications of stats about which pedigrees develop early vs. late interest me a lot because I play plenty of stakes races for 2YOs and 3YOs. I think projecting improvement potential based on breeding would help. Right now I think in more general terms of what is typical/average for a young horse. I compiled plenty of data on that years ago.
MO - I agree , a 20 point bounce can\'t bode well for the career or general wellbeing of any race horse and is something that, unless there was an equipment or an equine type flu like condition , would mean that there is a serious problem . I really hope that for this horse retierment is next - Bandini has earned his and now I\'m begnning to come around to the idea that so hasn\'t Bellamy Road ...
Mall,
Absolutely it would depend on the amount bet. The problem is that if you are only betting a small number of races and you bet a lot more per race, you risk goes up exponentially. Anyway, I\'m off subject, this definitely has nothing to do with Bellamy Road being out! :)
beyer,
>The problem is that if you are only betting a small number of races and you bet a lot more per race, you risk goes up exponentially.<
I agree.
I believe that with a very high ROI though, the risk of a bust goes down a bit relative to the same percentage of bankroll with a low ROI.
I know I feel more comfortable betting a slightly higher percentage of my bankroll the way I play now than I would if my ROI was thinner.
There\'s probably a good way to calculate how to maximize profits in terms of ROI/RISK.
That\'s not what this is about for me. For me it\'s about pleasure. Handicapping and playing claiming races all day would be like work for me even if I could grind out some extra profits at a lower ROI.
Now that I\'m not working though, I did make a trip to Belmont the other day and hit a dirt allowance race. :-)
Post Edited (05-13-05 09:36)
I expected there would be some backsliding, but it was still a little disappointing to read your suggestion that we change the subject to 2yr old vs. 3yr old pedigrees. Maybe we can discuss that somewhere down the road, but for now I would ask that you try a little harder to stick to the subject we are discussing now, which is the factors you have identified as aspects of your brand of handicapping.
We\'ve discussed one so far, namely the way you use visual interpretation of horses\' stride to help you decide if a race was fast or slow. If you\'re willing to be fair & objective, I think you have to agree that these are the things we\'ve learned about that: (a) it plays much less of a role than it seemed when you 1st raised it in response to a question about how your pace figures account for wind; (b) it\'s a factor which cannot be explained in terms other than \"sometimes I can sense\" & \"sometimes you can see\", which in my estimation is the same thing as saying it has no predictive value; & (c) forgive me for not figuring out some way to sugarcoat this, but the bottom line is that you were doing an \"analysis\" which you had said \"isn\'t that difficult\" without having or even knowing about the basic information necessary to even attempt the analysis in the 1st place.
Each and every one of the things which \"go far beyond\" anything you\'re looking at are things I didn\'t know when I started posting here. They are all things I learned from others who post here, something you might want to keep in mind in future discussions, whether or not HP is on the other side.
The next handicapping factor you mentioned was how you \"look at the jockey\'s hands to see how hard they were urging their horses.\" When I get back Tues, we can go through the same kind of discussion we just went through, but your statement that the \"main\" thing you look at is the horses\'s records leads me to believe that it might be another waste of time, particularly if at the end of the day all we\'re left with again is something you can\'t really describe, but is rather nothing more than something that you can \"sometimes sense\" & \"sometimes see.\"
Until then, best of luck on all the stakes races you bet on this weekend.
Mall,
I think the problem is that you are looking for a formula/method by which I can transfer visual perception skills to you immediately or that you think there is more here than there is.
I don\'t think I can transfer perception. It took awhile before I could tell when a horse changed leads in the stretch.
However, I consider what \"I\" am doing to be so basic, that there really isn\'t much of a conversation to be had. I\'m not sure why you are complicating the matter.
Virtually every experienced horseplayer friend I have can watch a race and see the obvious duels/very slow paces by watching the race development and having a general familiarity with the horses.
The weight of each aspect of it (horses opening up on the field or bunched up, hard jockey hand urging/tight hold, horse stride extention, a past record of early speed/lack of speed, going head to head/loose etc... is not the same.
It\'s a package and I couldn\'t weight them for you even if I tried.
The use of these visual skills for me is singular.
There are sometimes complications to making numeric pace figures. When I am not sure of the numbers, I watch the race and look for additional clues.
Some people I know develop all their opinions on pace by the subjective/visual methods I described above.
Some people I know develop all their opinions on pace using fractions and numeric pace figures.
I use both because they tend to either verify or contradict each other and I believe that helps me get a more accurate appraisal. There\'s no rocket science here. It doesn\'t extend beyond that and I never implied it does.
I believe there are several popular handicapping books that have chapters on race watching skills and pace (The Winning Horseplayer is one), but they\'re probably not worth the trouble. They are going to say in a chapter what I said in a paragraph.
Post Edited (05-13-05 12:09)
My 1st reaction when I read this one was that this game would be quite a bit easier, though probably not as much fun, if the horses were as predictable as you\'re becoming. I particularly enjoyed the reference to the book where, if memory serves, Andy finally admitted that much of what he had writing about sheet players over the yrs was what might be characterized as idiotic gibberish. Sort of like someone saying something along the lines that I would probably agreee with you guys if I too was only looking at speed figures.
You keep using slightly different words, usually in the form of handicapping cliches, to make the point that only certain aspects of racing can be measured, & that subjective judgment will always be important. Nobody disagrees. The fundamental flaw in your logic comes when you start reaching conclusions based on the fact that someone is interested in knowing what factors can be measured & what those measurements show. Wanting that information doesn\'t mean that the person requesting it is going to rely on the information to the exclusion of everything else. It doesn\'t mean that the person doesn\'t know about or understand what the other factors are. It doesn\'t mean that too much weight will be placed on what one learns. In fact, the one & only thing it does mean for sure is that the person is interested in learning what the information is, which is how we reached this point in the discussion.
Your response to HP\'s question re whether your early speed calculations take wind into consideration was that wind was tricky & that your approach was to take notes on those days when you attended the races in person. You very easily could have said any number of things, such as incorporating wind is too much time & work for someone who plays a couple of stakes on weekends, or I\'m willing to live with however much this impacts what I\'m doing, or etc, etc, etc. However, the answer you did give was so nonsensical & wrong that it led me to question some of the other things you raised in your response.
The pt of our just concluded exercise, then, wasn\'t so you could give me a formula to improve my visual perception skills. It was to see if you understood the basics of one of the factors you cited, & were using it the way it can & should be used. I now have answers to both of those questions, & am more than willing to let the hardy few who are still reading this thread decide what they think the answers are for themselves.
I should probable end this now, but think it only fair to give you a chance to surprise me with your answer to a softball kind of question which is likely to be very important to the accuracy of your early speed calculations for the races which will take place in Baltimore this weekend, namely: How do your calculations account for run ups? Now this is one you should be able to knock out of the park with one short, make that very short, sweet swing.
Mall,
\"How do your calculations account for run ups?\"
Ideally I would have that information all the time, but I do not.
However, you are making many assumptions that are very false.
The biggest error is that I am saying someone can create perfect pace figures or a perfect formula for using them. I\'ve said repeatedly that that isn\'t possible for many of the reasons we\'ve discussed.
Wind, runnups, only one race at the distance on a given day, horses rating instead of being all out, etc... are all issues and complications .
The idea is to make the best pace figures you can.
Race watching, familiarity with the horses, and other techniques compliment well researched numeric measurements and vice versa and allow fairly accurate appraisals much of the time.
Pace handicapping is best summed up by a discussion by the great stock investor Warren Buffett when talking about depreciation accounting.
When an investor in Berkshire Hathaway (of which I have been since the late 80s) suggested that the depreciation of certain company assets was an accounting fiction that often doesn\'t match the economic reality, Mr. Buffett agreed. However, he was very clear that just because actual depreciation could often not be measured perfectly, one should still not ignore it.
The exact quote went something like this.
\"I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong!\"
Repeat that 3 times and click your heels.
Post Edited (05-17-05 17:56)
The bite that annoyes me is when you attempt to convince your antagonists of the differences you espouse,but then concentrate soley on listening to yourself ramble trying to explain yourself as if on trial by your peers for thinking in such a one of a kind philosophy.
Such self serving rationalization{good for you possibly}is most frequently mistaken for debate,which i\'m thinking is what fuels these long and tiring responses.
Not exactly a home run, & maybe a bit longer & more repetitive than necessary, but very much improved. I\'m not familiar with that specific quotation from the Oracle of Omaha, but can say unequivocally that it contradicts one of he & Charlie\'s key tenets, to never act until you gather & understand the best data available. Exactly the opposite of what I think you\'re doing. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall, very vaguely, being told that Warren was seen using TG at Ak-Sar-Ben before it closed, but I suppose it\'s possible it was Warren Zevon they were talking about. I even liked your advice, which would make it next to impossible to put one\'s foot in one\'s mouth. If you had thought of it before your 1st visit, maybe things would be different today.
Mall,
\"to never act until you gather & understand the best data available. Exactly the opposite of what I think you\'re doing.\"
If someone could provide pace figures that incorporated run up and wind information for every race every day so they could capture the instances where there was a \"significant change within a day\" it would probably help the analysis.
However, they would still run into many of the other problems of accuracy that have been discussed. IMHO, one would still be required to watch the races and know the horses. In the end, you\'d pretty much be right back where you started.
Setting all that aside, the biggest reason for putting a lot of emphasis on pace now despite the lack of perfection of the figures is that they are an extraordinary source of betting value now despite the limitations!
Most people focus on final time exclusively.
I also suspect that many of those that attempt to use pace figures are not using them properly because they haven\'t studied the issue well enough.