So as it turned out the Calder day featured a pretty strong wind (not a news story, considering), and showers on and off. I ended up cutting loose the LITF race, adding about 3 points. I will go back to look at it again after the horses have run back a couple of times-- it\'s probably right, but it\'s worth following. I will also check Belmont day in a couple of weeks-- with WUD running a neg 4 1/4, and LITF also running a new top (neg 2 1/2), it\'s worth at least taking another look at the races run before they sealed and unsealed the track that day.
It was 1 to 20 you would cut the race loose on my book, LOL :)
Would you agree the big variation in pace scenarios *may* have been a factor in the apparent change in track speed? This seemed to be one of the extreme situations you have mentioned in the past in my opinion.
Beyerguy-- don\'t know whether pace was a factor in the final time, but given the weather conditions it would be pretty tough to go with a definitive \"yes\", from anybody.
Definitely not one of the examples I had in mind, though-- those concern fractions so slow the final time is ADVERSELY affected, or so extremely fast the frontrunners may quit. In LITF\'s case he ran FASTER,and the other two were on or near the fast pace, and ran big nubers anyway-- without the races being cut loose.
TGJB,
I think this is one of the \"proof and evidence\" problems we run into from time to time here.
When races are broken out, they become a self fulfilling proof that negates pace as a factor and reason for needing to break out the race to begin with.
I\'m not saying you were wrong to break any specific race out. I\'m saying it\'s one thing that has been a source of constant confusion in many discussions that went off on the types of repetitive tangents and explanations from me that you dislike so much.