Recently Steve Plever posted here about the differences in figure making methods between us and Ragozin. Steve and I have had our differences, but he is one of the more articulate and informed posters, and he raised some important issues, so while we wait for Friedman to post their BC figures (I fear we may be waiting quite a while, and note that none of their customers are calling them on it), I\'m going to address a few of the issues Steve raised. It will probably be done over a series of posts.
\"Your own answer also shows why those who say your figs are too self-fulfilling may have a case. Your strong feeling that it would be totally improbable for the whole Distaff field except PH to run more than 3 points off their tops comes from looking at your own figs-- figs generated by tweaking the variant, albeit sometimes slightly, in almost every race\".
1-- All figures are made by looking at one\'s own figures, no matter who makes them, and are therefore self-fulfilling, since by definition we try to make today\'s figures match up to past ones. The difference between the way Ragozin makes them-- as opposed to the way Andy and I make them-- is in WHICH figures he looks at. Len looks at unrelated events-- the figures in both one and two turn races, or those before and after sealing the track, just to choose two extreme examples-- and uses them in \"tweaking\" his figures (trying to get them to match up with historical figures). Because there are no figures without \"tweaking\"-- we don\'t have a machine that measures track speed (thank God).
The main point is that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR DOING THIS. It is pure dogma. There is no logic to tying together a race run over a sealed track and one run over a harrowed one-- and there is a lot of science that shows that even in much more ordinary circumstances the track is changing speed (again, see the work done by the physicists who actually studied racing surfaces. You can find it in \"Changing Track Speeds\" on this site).
2-- In his analysis of what I am doing, Steve misses two big points-- the horses are coming out of different races, and the relationships between the horses within each race (both in their prior races and now) are FIXED, by beaten lengths, weight, and ground. I CAN\'T have a whole field run within 3 points of their tops unless BOTH their figure histories in independent events AND their relationships to each other in the current race bear it out. If I have a horse with a 1 at Keeneland, and another with a 3 at Belmont and another with a 5 at CD, I can\'t give them those figures again today unless the relationships bear it out. The \"tweaking\" has to be done to all the horses in a race-- I can\'t just give them \"what I expect them to run\", to quote that nonsense from the other board.
More from Steve\'s post:
\"For me, the most logical thing to do would be to look at Belmont days with similar weather over many seasons and see what impact the watering had in the race or two following. I know they wouldn\'t drive exactly the same speed in those water trucks every time, but they\'re pretty close, and if we looked at enough races, we could probably get a general view of whether and approximately how much that water mattered. I\'m only an outsider with limited figure making experience looking in, but to me that approach is closer to science/probability than trying to use one field\'s worth of horses\' performances to determine exactly how extremely one filly freaked or how slowly a dozen others plodded\".
First of all, Steve obviously has not seen \"Changing Track Speeds\". This is very similar to an idea put forth in an e-mail to me once, and guys, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
1-- Among the conditions that would have to be identical, because all affect track \"speed\"--
Cushion composition (clay/sand ratio, type of each), depth of cushion. Possibly the same for the base. (There are long-term drainage issues).
Amount of rain the track had seen recently, condition of track when it rained (sealed or not). In general, whether it had been sealed often, harrowed often, or \"flaked\" recently-- how \"packed down\" it is. All these things can affect moisture content going INTO the day, and as the science shows, moisture content is a determinant in track speed, although the relationship is not a direct one-- the addition of water might make a track faster, but additional water might slow it down. And another surface might react entirely differently.
Humidity, temperature, wind, cloud cover, shade from the grandstand on some parts of the track (which varies at different times of the year). All these things affect evaporation.
And we haven\'t even gotten to the direct stuff-- track maintenance on the day (sealing, harrowing or flaking between races, or between some, or none) and watering of the track. Sometimes they water it before every race, sometimes not at all, sometimes just at certain points-- on BC day they just watered it once all day. And these variables are all interrelated-- watering it all day might have one effect if the track starts with a high moisture content, another with a lower level, another if it has been sealed the night before. And it might be completely different with a different track, or the same track a year later if the composition or depth has changed. Or if the sun is shining and the wind blowing-- or not blowing. Or if it is dry or humid.
2-- Assuming you actually could get moisture content readings for every single race, all around the track, AND all parts of the track were the same (no chance, according to the science), AND determine that all the other variables were identical, for the kind of approach Steve suggests to have meaning, you would have to have a meaningful sample to study-- many days with exactly the same circumstances, for all the different combinations. Good luck with that.
3-- But beyond that-- even if you had identical circumstances to work with, there is a little problem-- YOUR PREVIOUS VARIANTS WERE MADE SUBJECTIVELY. There is no other way to make figures-- that\'s the whole point of this exercise, to discuss whose judgment is more correct. So you would be looking at today using as an assumption that previous judgments were correct. If they were, looking at the results from before is a good idea. But if not, if someone is using bad assumptions in making their figures (as one of us must be, since we so fundamentally disagree), then you would just be reinforcing bad earlier conclusions.
So the only approach that makes sense is to recognize that circumstances change, and try to work through the variables to piece together the puzzle. Which is why one of the scientists said that the way we make figures (regression analysis) is the best way to determine track speed (\"Changing Track Speeds\").
Hey Jerry. I actually did go and read the stuff on changing track speed and learned some from it. I\'m not at all dismissive of it, or of your approach.
I guess if I\'m being blind here, I\'m not going to realize my own misperception, but I\'m not trying to be dogmatic or ignore the complexities of how weather and racing surfaces interact. Agreeing that conditions for each race may be different doesn\'t change my skepticism about anyone\'s ability to infer the precise changes in variant from race to race. That\'s why I suggested a little statistical research to test whether cutting a race off due to watering is valid.
I understand your objections to using averages of larger samples of races run under similar, albeit, I concede, far from identical conditions. But didn\'t you, like all figure makers, start out by generating pars from large samples of races run over many months, years, under very different conditions?
If the original pars that led to the original variants that led to the figures that enabled you to make the first projections that generated variants that eventually led to today\'s figures, projections & variants... if these were originally based on large samples with varying conditions, then couldn\'t that same \"start with a rough estimate and keep refining it\" approach be used to solve similar problems today? (how\'s that for a sentence?!)
Might there not be something to be learned if you could find a sample of, say, 100 late afternoon, temp in the 40s Belmont fast/dry track races that took place after the day\'s first watering? Add harrowing as a factor for analysis. Admit that each event was unique but look for trends anyway. You might learn that there was relatively little change from the prior race (which would reinforce Rag\'s view), learn a general trend (which would help you decide how to handle a race like the Distaff), or learn that the impact varied wildly (which would support your view that one can\'t generalize so you should continue to let horses\' past figs be the determining factor in the variant). Maybe you could never get such a sample, but from your posts, it seems like you keep notes on track maintenance the way some guys keep trip notes.
I understand that what I\'m advocating is imprecise, but in a race like the Distaff, even the most precise fig makers are left weighing which scenario is most improbable. Races like that, where you could have ended up with a different figure for 12 other horses if PH didn\'t run, point up the limitations of current methodology and the need to test and refine one\'s assumptions with more data.
Yes, of course Rags\' variants are also subjective because they too make projections. They\'re not making fewer assumptions, just different ones -- assuming that changing track conditions and the part of the track that is used in the race have less impact that than you thnk they do. My guess (feel free to call it a cop-out) is that their assumptions are generally correct on some days, and yours are generally correct on others. The \"tightness\" you see as verification of your approach isn\'t persuasive unless one shares your views of the consistency of equine performance. I can\'t think of a comparison test with any validity other than my own ROI with the product.
I appreciate any time you decide to spend on a response. I\'m going to read it & think, and leave it at that, so we can both get back to the rest of what we do. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Best,
SP
SP must be one of the good ones - he cares about his ROI ( how many Beyer + Rags users can say that ) and his post makes a nice read , Thanks to Jerry\'s post + others like yours SP , someday I\'ll actually understand and be able to assimilate all this varient stuff w/ expert ability - thanks !!! But seriously , even if SP\'s proposed theoretical study did show only a small difference in varients it still wouldn\'t hold that those \"might be\" differences are negligable or irrelevant and , in contrast , it would be pertinent information to know becouse most races are decided by a small margin and the difference between winning and losing on ones ROI is usually influened by many subtle nuances . The thing about averages for me is to try too use them in a meaningful way , steering me towards winners not away from them as seems to be the case with how RAGS applies their track variant data into their final figure\'s that they assign , RAGS distorts the variant sample - it\'s way too conveluded . In simple hypothetical terms , if a horse always runs an 8 or a 12 everytime his average would be 10 , a theoretical number and one that the horse never runs , so common sense and defernce are required protocols .
Sreve--
1-- I\'m glad you got something out of \"Changing Track Speeds\". For more on this subject, specific to the NYRA tracks, check out \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\", parts 1 and 1a, also in the archives. They contain comments by Jerry Porcelli about the NYRA surfaces, and what he was doing to them when he was in charge (he now assists Passero). Among the revelations-- he manually adjusted track speed himself, intentionally, race to race, by adding-- or not adding-- water.
2-- Yeah, pars and averages.
When you start your data base, you have no choice but to use large population studies, and averages, to get your speed chart, and winning figure pars. The whole point of the projection method is that we realize that doesn\'t work for knowing how fast THIS 10 claimer went-- just 10 claimers in general. So as soon as you have a decent data base as a starting point, you STOP using averages.
THE WHOLE REASON PEOPLE USE AVERAGES IS BECAUSE THERE IS VARIABILITY IN THE UNDERLYING DATA. What possible sense can there be in tying a specific result to an average when we know the average is made up of different values? Isn\'t it obvious you are better off looking at the data for the specific thing in question? If one actually could do the study you want, with every single variable the same (and there may well be some variables I can\'t think of, as well), if the results were variable, that by definition means that there are several possible outcomes with the same circumstances. Why would it then be correct to tie it to the average? Or even to the one with the most identical results, unless they were ALL the same? And again, those previous results were the result of judgment themselves. How can it be correct to rely on previous judgment OVER judgment about the exact case in question?
3-- No, I do NOT make as many assumptions as Ragozin. I make as few as possible, as I said to you in the \"Figure Making Methodology\" post years ago (\"The two sides of the house I can see are white\"). For example, I assume no fixed relationship between one and two turn races. I don\'t even assume that I have all the relevant data to work with.
Two examples-- the first is the one from that post of years ago. When it became obvious the two Belmont turf courses were independent of each other, one faster one day, the other on another, I didn\'t know why, but it was obvious from the horses that it was happening. Ragozin could not come up with a reason why it was happening (neither could I), so he refused to believe it, and did them at the same speed (he used an average). I split them. It was only a month later we learned that they had been watering the courses on different days.
The other example involves slow-pace races, which as you probably know we both cut loose and do strictly off the horses, because they simply can\'t run fast enough late to make up the time they lost early. Well, that works fine AS LONG AS YOU KNOW THE PACE WAS SLOW. But what if you don\'t have fractions, as used to be the case with some turf races at Calder at about distances? If there are two turf races on a day, Ragozin will do them with each other, independent of KNOWING why they should be split, so if one has a very slow pace-- and he doesn\'t know it-- he\'s screwed. I do NOT make that assumption, and if it\'s obvious something happened I\'ll split them, or if they are very lightly raced horses, not do a figure for the race.
The assumption I make, as I said to you years ago, is that the past histories of the horses can be used as a guide for how fast they will run in the future. It\'s really a premise-- without it you couldn\'t use these things to bet with, either.
Ragozin makes tons of assumptions-- I\'ve shown lots of them. Many I proved outright were false, in \"Changing Track Speeds\". And if Friedman ever posts the BC figures (any comment about that, by the way?), I\'ll show you more evidence.
Which is why they won\'t.
CH\'s inane comment notwithstanding (and you would be well advised not to make another on the subject), this is where we are at:
Friedman has posted the BC and Triple Crown figures on his website every year. AFTER they ran the races this year,he said he would be doing so again. It has now been over a week, and they have not done so.
This is a deeply cynical move, the latest of many (the worst was not correcting their beaten lengths error in the 04 Derby-- they decided to leave an error, in the data their PAYING customers use, for the biggest race of the year, rather than admit an error). They are willing to come across as having something to hide rather than do what they have done in the past and said they would do again-- let the public look at their work product for racings biggest day. They do this because they believe their paying customers are too brainwashed to hold it against them. And because they know what even those customers would think if they DID see the figures.
You might recall that I made a big deal about how ridiculously slow Ragozin had the Jockey Club Gold Cup going (he had Borrego going BACK 3 points to a 5, the rest running much worse than Borrego, and much, much worse than they had been recently). Well, 4 of those horses-- Flower Alley, Suave, Sun King, and Borrego-- came back in the Classic. On Ragozin, the first 3 will all \"go forward\" a huge amount-- FA about 15 points, S and SK about 7 points each.
Borrego, however, is the one that is keeping them from going public. Keep in mind that he won the Gold Cup by a block, with another big gap to third, and finished TENTH BEATEN TEN LENGTHS IN THE CLASSIC, as the second favorite, off his Gold Cup win. Ragozin will have his Classic figure at least as good as, and probably BETTER than his Gold Cup race. The only way he could not would be:
a) They give the Distaff really slow figures. I mean, AWFUL numbers-- much worse than we did, and you might recall I had only the winner running back to (in her case better than) her top. I had most running really bad-- DESPITE TAKING OFF ALMOST 4 POINTS COMPARED TO THE SURROUNDING RACES. Since the Distaff and Classic are back to back races, and they insist you must do them at the same variant, to get the Classic slow enough for Borrego just to pair up (instead of go forward) they would have to not only not TAKE OFF the 4 points, but need to ADD a couple of points to the race. Anything less gives Borrego a \"forward move\".
You will have no idea how silly those figures on the Distaff would look unless you see them all together-- 12 of 13 top fillies, on the biggest day of the year, running 5, 10, or more points worse than their tops, all at the same time. If you want to get some idea of how that would look, go look at our figures for the Distaff-- still available in ROTW-- and add 5 or 6 points to each horse.
b) Or-- they split those two races, despite having said in no uncertain terms-- in both Ragozin/Friedman\'s book and many times on their website-- that they never do that. They TAKE OFF from the Distaff, as I did, and ADD to the Classic. If they do that, they can get Borrego and the others running slower.
As you can imagine, if they do either of these things, we\'re going to be having a conversation. And that\'s why they are not making their work public.
TGJB -
I don\'t know about Hamlet or the ghost, but if you asked the scientists you quoted in Changing Track Speeds whether a study of the type SP has suggested could be done, I suspect you\'d get a different answer.
As I understand SP\'s proposal, the objective is to measure the effect of a single event (track watering) on track speed. I acknowledge that the effect will differ depending on the condition of the track before watering, but you have your variants to estimate that. You measure the variant for the race preceding watering and the variant for the race after watering. The results of your study would not be a single number, but a graph, with the change in track speed after watering on one axis and initial track speed on the other. To minimize the effect of some of the variables you list, you would do the study at a single track with relatively consistent dry weather. Southern California leaps to mind. You would also want the races to be at the same distance. All the points won\'t be on the curve, and there would be some of Bobphilo\'s outliers, but the points should cluster close to the curve. The curve would then serve as a guide to making future variants at that track.
It may be more work than you care to undertake, but it doesn\'t seem impossible. Studies with more variables are undertaken all the time.
BitPlayer
Alan....what do you think of this latest request?!
Bit-- I\'ll give you a lengthy reply to this later today when I have more time, to put this to bed once and for all.
TGJB,
\"The \"tweaking\" has to be done to all the horses in a race-- I can\'t just give them \"what I expect them to run\", to quote that nonsense from the other board.\"
If an entire race (meaning most/all of the horses and the relationships between them) comes up faster or slower than expected relative to the other races run that day, then you tweak the whole race and \"give them what you expected them to run\" based on their prior figures. (all else being equal regarding track maintenance, wind, etc...)
Correct?
Yes or No would be fine.
(That is not a criticism. It\'s a description of my understanding.)
CH-- Gotta love those compound questions that include characterizations.
a) I never give them what I expect them to to run. There is no correlation at all between what I expect them to run and the figures I assign.
b) Any corrections I make to a race are made to all the horses within the race.
c) I use the previous figure histories of the horses to make the figures, as do all figure makers. What I (and Beyer) do not do is make the assumption that Ragozin does that the track is staying the same speed, or that one/two turn relationships are constant. So we adjust the variants from race to race.
I suggest that you wait for my reply to Bit Player before following up on this. Later tonight, I hope.
OK. I think the issue may be my use of the term \"expect them to run\" vs. what I mean by it. I mean \"think they ran based on their prior figures and the result evidence\". I\'m pretty sure I understand what you are doing and when. If we communicated verbally it would be clearer. I\'ll wait on the later post for clarification.
JB said:
\"a) I never give them what I expect them to to run. There is no correlation at all between what I expect them to run and the figures I assign.\"
Jerry,
That is the most frequent criticism I hear from the RAG users that I know.I believe it comes from your pronouncements that:
1.Many horses run in tight ranges,( they feel you assume pairs going in which is why TG and RAGS look different too often)
2.It is unlikely that a high percentage of a certain group of runners will all X in a given race,(they feel you somewhat award figs based on this theory instead of whats happening on the track).
From all that I have read here since the BC, I have concluded that TG and RAGS can no longer be compared for confirmation of a horses fig.You are using far more variables and input than Rags and that may be why the scale of comparison has gone out of whack.
It would seem reasonable to think that the more relevant things that go into creating a fig, the more accurate the fig is, but I do understand that Rags believes \"it aint broke so they aint fixin it\"
Mike
Miff-- I don\'t assume horses run in tight ranges, and I can\'t make them do it if they don\'t. If Ragozin and I are both looking at a race where there the winner runs 15 points better than the last horse, we both have no choice but to give them 15 points better. That limits my options-- as I have said many times, I can\'t pair up the winner (or have him run in his usual range) AND the last finisher (likewise) and/or any in between, unless the relationships justify it. And that\'s even assuming I just want to break races out for no reason. As my treatment of the BC Juvenile Fillies shows, I don\'t.
What every serious figure maker knows-- including Ragozin (but probably not Friedman)-- is that if you are not screwing around WITHIN the races, the tighter ranges you have the horses running in, the more evidence it is that your data base is right. That\'s because the premise of the whole enterprise is that horses\' previous histories can be used as a guide to what figures they will run in the future, both in figure making and betting terms.
Because Ragozin assumes the track stays the same speed-- in situations where that assumption defies all logic (sealed, for example), let alone the many subtler ones I have described before-- there will absolutely be situations where there is no correlation whatsover between their figures and mine. And their figures and reality, for that matter.
Miff-- more on this.
We put BC day up, the whole day. This gives you a chance to see exactly what I\'m talking about, because it shows not only how we put the DAY together, but how it works out for the horses within each race. As you can see, I gave plenty of horses figures that I would not have \"wanted\" to give them-- ones that were outside their usual range. Buzzards Bay, Stevie Wonderboy, Silver Train, and Pleasant Home are examples of ones that got big new tops. I give horses big new tops all the time-- Borrego and Taste of Paradise got them the previous time. Lots of horses got figures much worse than their usual range-- Shakespeare and lots of others in the grass races (grass horses are usually VERY consistent), Yolanda B Too and several others in the Distaff, Gygastar, etc. Take a good look-- you CAN\'T put them all in their usual ranges.
Jerry,
I understand your comments.As far as the BC,I already said that what you did, with your BC figs, was in line with what I saw on the track and what I generally expected you would give.I have not read too many comments here which stated anything contrary to what you did on BC day.
Your dirt figs matched Rags pretty much.I mentioned that PH ran a \"pure\" huge fig (no ground loss). That\'s the one fig I had a minor issue with and you explained why the fig was given.
Mike
Bit-- to review, you are suggesting that we do a study of variant relationships and watering of the track, ignoring all other variables. Meaning, in the situations studied the variables would, well, vary.
1-- Just for starters, let\'s assume that we did it and it actually gave a result that showed the curve you are talking about.
a) The curve would be based on, in effect, an average of effects of the other variables, which could under individual circumstances have differing effects on the variant. It would therefore be useless in assessing the variant for a SPECIFIC situation where the other variables might be different than the average. Which as a practical matter makes it useless as a tool.
I\'ve raised this point as well here in a different context. In his book Ragozin talks about looking at the history of the effects of track maintenance BETWEEN days in deciding track speed. As a practical matter this is useless-- even if you knew that on AVERAGE the track runs 5 points faster Tuesday than Monday, you are not simply going to do a variant for Monday, and then add 5 for Tuesday. First of all, it\'s an average, and so of no use in specific situations, and second, why not look at the day itself, as you did for Monday?
I suspect what that comment in the book meant-- and it is idiotic on the face of it-- is something much worse, that Ragzoin starts from the assumption that different days-- not just individual races-- are run over a track of the same speed, unless he specifically knows of something that could change it. Like a history of getting faster on Tuesday (and don\'t even go down the road of how he could know that without looking at the figures for the horses that have run on past Tuesdays). This is a terrible assumption to make, especially if you don\'t have DIRECT information about something being done to the track, as opposed to a historical average.
b) One side of your study, the one involving my variants, is based on judgement-- mine. Worse yet, it too is based on an average, of my judgment.
If you assume my judgment is correct-- doing things the way I\'m doing them now-- why do the study? Why not just continue to use my judgment going forward?
Worse yet, if you don\'t think my judgment is correct, how can you use it in the study?
2-- Lets say the idea behind the study is not to use going forward, but to see whether various things done to the track cause it to change \"speed\"-- which is what this entire conversation is really about, whether my approach or Ragozin\'s is correct. Whether it is correct to ASSUME that the track stays the same speed, or changes without severe weather.
If so, there are better ways to test. And some of those tests have already been done.
Rather than send people back to the Expo presentation again, I\'m going to pull out a few things.
a) Former head NYRA track superintendent (now assistant) Jerry Porcelli has tested NYRA tracks for moisture content, and found that they range from 4 to 12%.
b) There was a study done by a group of physicists, with the catchy title of \"Interrelationships Between Moisture Content Of The Track, Dynamic Properties Of The Track, And The Locomotor Forces Exerted By Galloping Horses\". You can find details in the Expo presentation, and the whole study somewhere on the web-- that\'s where I got it, thanks to Mall of this site.
The scientists studied 5 different tracks, using various machines, including a \"Drop Hammer\", which measures energy return (which in our terms is what determines track \"speed\"). The study said:
\"The dynamic properties of the track surface vary with its moisture content, composition and compaction\". And, \"the water content of the track cushion may fluctuate widely\". And, \"Several studies have shown that the composition of the track surface alters the dynamic responses of the soil\".
And specific to what we are talking about, keeping in mind Porcelli\'s 4-12% figures, they found:
\"Changes in moisture content of the track cushion resulted in similar changes in both the percentage of energy returned and the impact resistance of the track. Energy return and impact resistance DECREASED at 8% moisture and progressively INCREASED from 8.5% to 14% moisture\" (emphasis added).
What that means is, if there is 7% moisture in the track (in the middle of Porcelli\'s range), and you add water, it will get slower. But if it is 9% (still in the middle of the \"normal\" range) and you add water, it will get faster. At least the specific tracks (5 of them) that they studied will.
Also, Dr. Pratt of M.I.T., who has studied more racetracks than anyone who ever lived, said in an e-mail to me:
\"Things can deteriorate quickly above 9% depending on the soil composition and fall apart at 6%, again depending on the soil composition. THE WATER TRUCK CAN CHANGE THE % OF MOISTURE CONTENT BY ABOUT 1/2 OF A PERCENT FOR EACH PASS\".
So we know that small variations in moisture caused MEASURABLE differences in energy return (track speed), but there is no cut and dried relationship between ADDING water and tracks getting faster or slower.
3-- Having said all that, there are some interesting REAL studies that can be done, although they won\'t be usable for specific variant making going forward, any more than the studies by the scientists were.
As I said yesterday, there are other studies being done currently on racetracks, and I tried to get involved with them. If they are doing them at tracks where racing is going on, and taking readings between races (moisture content, impact resistance, and of course energy return), I would love to do a blind study and find out if there is direct correlation between track speed (as judged by me) and any specific variables the scientists measure, and/or the results they get when they measure them. In fact, I think I\'ll send Mick Peterson another e-mail.
Which reminds me-- Dr. Peterson, who has probably done studies on more racetracks than anyone but Dr. Pratt, is the one who said about the question of judging track \"speed\":
\"I suspect that your information regarding the performance of horses, even given the other uncontrolled variables, may be the best data available\".
I would like to think he meant specifically Thoro-Graph-- but he most certainly meant the idea of using the past histories of the horses as a guide. And he would laugh at the idea of assuming the track stays the same speed all day.
Once again, I would suggest that anyone who has not already done so check out the Expo presentation in our archives section.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > b) One side of your study, the one involving my
> variants, is based on judgement-- mine. Worse yet,
> it too is based on an average, of my judgment.
>
> If you assume my judgment is correct-- doing
> things the way I\'m doing them now-- why do the
> study? Why not just continue to use my judgment
> going forward?
>
> Worse yet, if you don\'t think my judgment is
> correct, how can you use it in the study?
Good point, Jerry. There are times when the time and effort to conduct a well-controlled study are justified and times when they are not. The best way to, not only know whether the track conditions have changed enough to break a race loose, but how to quantify it is to look at how much the horses performances have deviated from what would be expected given their past figures relative to the other races for the day. The fact that track maintenance (such as watering) can change the variant has already been well established and just provides additional evidence that breaking the race loose is justified. To do a study to determine the exact extent to which every gallon of water influences this is not necessary and a waste of time. The figures the horses ran do that. Everybody here knows that I have no problem with getting into the excruciating details of research methodology when my training tells me when this is needed to gain relevant information, but I think some of you guys are just working too hard needlessly.
Bob
That sounds pretty good , your interpetation of what happend and subsequently your judgment when assigning values to the many variables for variants etc is the best idea and can be trusted - potential survey averages which measure factors out of context can not be . Incidently , my ex-wife has worked at MIT for over 20 yrs and she probably could find \"people\" over there who might be interested in getting involved in studies you\'d like to see happen and I\'ve heard she\'s still talking to me . So let me know , I\'ll be glad to check that out ( again ) at some point , no problem ...
I\'m guessing from your post that the \"stuff\" you read was JB\'s interpretation of the research studies, as opposed to the studies themselves. If that\'s true, this is an instance where I can invoke one of my favorite cliches: \"In God we trust. Everyone else we check.\" If you\'re as interested in this subject & have as open a mind as it seems, what you might want to do is read the actual studies & form your own conclusions. As explained & discussed approx 2 yrs ago in a thread entitled \"Moisture Content\", one conclusion I reached when I read the study in question was that because of the relationships between changes in moisture content on energy returned by the track, impact resistance of the track, & locomotor forces exerted by the horses running on the track, the impact of moisture content can vary with how fast the horses run. I\'m pretty sure that one of the specific points the five scientists made was that using their definitions, both \"slower\" & \"faster\" horses both got faster as moisture content increased up to a certain level, but after moisture content reached that level, the speed of the \"faster\" horses levelled off, while the speed of the \"slower\" horses got much worse. This is probably not something which would apply to the BC, but after the specified moisture level has been reached, could definitely come into play & justify a very different variant, to take an obvious & extreme example, even if the moisture content was exactly the same for the feature as it was for a not atypical nightcap consisting of slow NY bred mdns.
TGJB,
I prefer breaking races out when they don\'t logically fit with the rest of the day as long as we \"know\" there was track maintenance, it was the only 2 turn race of the day, there were other identifiable factors that could account for it - like a strong gusting wind etc....
It\'s breaking out races on the assmption of a track speed change in absence of any evidence that gets into a grey area for me.
My biggest problem is that in those cases you could occasionally be building in adjustments for things other than track speed that might have impacted the final time of several horses in a race, but \"not equally\". That could cause an incorrect interpretation of the result and a lower quality figure.
Also, it\'s extremely difficult to interpret the results of some races. Some races are loaded with fist time starters, surface switches, layoffs, trainer changes, distance changes, complications related to bias etc... that make projecting a figure for an individual race more of an educated guess than an art. Races like that aren\'t so infrequent. I skip multiple races every day because I have idea how well many of horses will run under the conditions.
One could say that in these situations the sample size (the results and the horses prior figures) is much smaller and of lower quality than required to be confident. Even very experienced handicappers can come to very different conclusions about what happened.
It\'s just my opinion or personal preference, but I think the default should be to not break races out absent clear evidence of a track speed change. When the resultant figures would seem nonsensical otherwise, I think they should be broken out and highlighted in some way so I don\'t mortgage the house on a figure that has less evidence for its accuracy than is typical (like a nice neat day where everything fits).
I know you track and follow up on these things, but that\'s after the fact for people betting.
Class,
There are several things that can change track speed from race to race and not all of them are always as apparent as track maintenance and gross changes in weather conditions. There are subtle things like changes in ground water levels or combinations of sunlight and wind drying out the track, which could have more than subtle effects on track speed. We can never have all the variables to quantify theses changes in any case. Scietists know that we can presume something to be causal by it\'s effects, even when we don\'t know excatly what the mechanism of causation is. I think, despite the possibility of error, we have to mainly go with what makes sense with relation to what what the horses are running. That\'s the way varients are calculted. Yes, by breaking a race loose, we are reducing our sample size, but by refusing to acknowledge what the horses performances are telling us because we\'re not sure what\'s causing the change in track speed is to make a geater error.
Bob
TGJB –
I appreciate the time and effort you obviously put into responding to my post. I know that long repetitive threads regarding figuremaking tend to be disfavored on this board, so I\'ll desist after making a few comments.
As a preface, I\'ll acknowledge that your judgment about what might or might not work with your data is much better informed than mine. You\'ve seen thousands of sets of your variants. I\'ve seen one.
I\'ll not respond to your Point 2 about using science to judge the validity of the Ragozin approach, since I\'ve already said I\'m in your camp on that one, and my suggestion assumes you are right.
I will, however, agree with Mall that anyone who relies on the material in Changing Track Speeds without looking at the underlying study is doing themselves a disservice. The study is more interested in assessing what types of surfaces are likely to reduce injuries than in what makes horses go fast. Indeed, it points out that energy return can be a bad thing, depending on its timing. Energy return before the horse starts its next stride just increases the stress on the horse\'s limb without propelling it forward. That aside, I think it is important to look at the data in the study itself, rather than the authors\' statements about it. Their curve relating moisture content to energy return doesn\'t fit their data very well, particularly in the range of 6-8% water content. It looks to me like their use of a polynomial function was misplaced, and that a positive correlation between moisture content begins about 6%, not 8% as their curve suggests. (See Bobphilo, I did learn something in statistics: always plot your residuals.)
On to TGJB\'s points:
1a) I think you tend to place too much emphasis on the number of other variables. As you state, the study lists only three variables affecting energy return: track composition, track compaction, and moisture content. (I\'m not sure that\'s right – what about temperature, for example? – but who am I?) The other things you often refer to such as sun, shadows, humidity, wind, etc. influence moisture content, but moisture content is still only one variable and changes in only one direction (down) absent precipitation or watering. Further, as you mention in Changing Track Speeds, the track superintendent (Jerry Porcelli in that case) is using his best efforts to keep those other variables as constant as he can.
As for the average (or mean) being \"useless\" in determining a specific variant, I think you are oversimplifying. I agree that you wouldn\'t blindly assume the mean is applicable to a specific case, especially when your evidence from the horses is strong, but when you are in doubt, the mean is (as a matter of probability) instructive about what is most likely to have occurred.
I won\'t defend Ragozin\'s book. I haven\'t read it.
1b) \" If you assume my judgment is correct-- doing things the way I\'m doing them now-- why do the study? Why not just continue to use my judgment going forward? Worse yet, if you don\'t think my judgment is correct, how can you use it in the study?\"
To quote Mall: \"In God we trust. Everyone else we check.\" The way I think science works in evaluating a system of measurement is that you apply the system to a case where you are pretty confident about what the measurements should show. If it shows something else, you start to question the system. My suggestion would serve as a check on your variants. If your variants show a racetrack under relatively constant conditions reacting very differently to watering (and subsequent drying), either something is rotten in Denmark (to continue the Hamlet thing) or something other than track speed (pace?) is reflected in your variants.
Beyond serving as a check of your system, the data could, as I suggested above, serve as a source of guidance in making figures for difficult races. I suspect you are already doing something like this on an informal basis, otherwise the track maintenance data you collect wouldn\'t be of much use to you. In the BC Juvenile Fillies, you were hesitant to have your variant depart much from the surrounding races, because nothing had been done to the track in the interim. Similarly, I\'m guessing that you have an idea that watering the track won\'t normally affect the variant more than some amount.
In closing, I don\'t know if the study I\'m suggesting is worth the time or not. On one hand, data collection is always the hard part, and you\'ve already done that. On the other hand, more projects like ThoroPattern and figure-based stats probably do more to enhance your product than what I am suggesting. I just thought SP\'s suggestion was an interesting one and worthy of being discussed more fully than it was.
As always TGJB, thanks for your willingness to discuss these issues and for hosting this board.
BitPlayer
Bit-- as I understand it, track \"speed\" is directly a function of energy return. Energy return, in turn, is a function of several things-- moisture content, compaction, cushion soil composition, cushion depth, and possibly others, like characteristics of the base of the track, and yet others I can\'t think of.
Moisture content is just one of those things. And
a) how it affects track speed (energy return) may be affected by things like compaction, soil content (sand/clay ratio) etc., and,
b) moisture content itself can be affected by many things. Among them is watering, as you said-- but also wind, sun, temperature, humidity, soil content (sand absorbs faster than clay, and at various times Porcelli would add sand and change the percentage).
What this means is that watering of the track is just one variable that affects just one variable (moisture content) that affects track speed. (This is why I wanted to get involved in the actual studies, where we could correlate our data more directly with actual hard data of more direct variables like moisture content, energy return, etc. themselves).
A point I made in the Expo presentation was this-- even if we assume that two variables are constant-- that the track is being watered before every race, and the amount of water is the same-- the moisture content of the track will only stay the same if the rate of evaporation is a) constant, and b) the same as the rate at which the water is being added.
Example-- lets say that under those circumstances, it\'s overcast and there is no wind for the first 3 races. Well, the track could be getting wetter, because the water is being added, but not evaporating. Then the sun comes out, and the wind picks up-- and the track starts to dry out. So you have it going up through various levels of moisture content, then going down through them. As we saw from the racetrack study, track speed will probably change, with no obvious major weather changes, and no significant track work (the watering is a constant, it\'s the climate that is not). But on top of that, HOW it will change will depend on what the moisture content of the track was when the day began-- and probably other factors as well, like the soil content of the track.
And finally this-- when I read a study that tells me that in some circumstances adding water speeds up a track, and in others slows the same track down (which by the way I have found myself), the last thing I\'m going to do is rely on an average to make a variant decision for me. Looking to see whether I can find something that would account for a change and applying a standard correction for the change are two different things.
All that aside, I would like to commend you and Bob for the high level of discourse. The more of that this site gets, the better.
bob,
I agree with you. However, IMO, there\'s a balancing act required between a potential track speed change (absent clear evidence) and the complications of determining what actually happened in the race. There isn\'t always clear evidence based on prior figures and sometimes races develop in a less than typical fashion confusing the issue further. I would prefer that the figure maker make the best judgement he can about whether to break it out (best guess) or lump it in with a few surrounding races to give a greater sample about what the variant is. No hard fast rule about what to do. But as long as are being honest enough to say some races and some days are tougher than others, I\'ve never seen the downside of a notation in those instances - other than a little extra prgramming work.
Class,
I understand your position. I was refering to a situation where, despite lack of \"physical evidence\" like track maintenance, the evidence of the horses performances points to a change in coditions for the race. I agree, it\'s a judgement call and that\'s why figure making is as much art as science.
I personally take for granted that this is likely the case in most of the figures I\'m looking at. As far as designating what is a \"tough call\", I frankly I\'m more confident with a figure that is strongly supported by the horses performance in that race, even if their is no other evidence, like track maintenance, than with a figure where there is other evidence but the horses figures are all over the place. Yet, I dont know how much it would help if Jerry designated which races were tough calls because the figures weren\'t tight fits
It would be even less important for me to know if there was maintenence which might have had no effect on the figure, save what has aready been shown by the horses\' performances.
Bob
CH-- you are missing the point. There is no basis for \"lumping it in with surrounding races\", because there is no basis for the assumption that the track stays the same speed-- as the science shows.
Furthermore-- I\'m not aware of anyone other than me that is attempting to even GET watering and other track maintenance information. Keep in mind that Ragozin does not regard it as relevant at all-- Friedman has said so many times, most recently regarding giving out those way slow figures (about 5 points, on their scale) for the last 2 dirt races on opening day at Saratoga AFTER THE TRACK WAS SEALED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CARD.
If you don\'t regard the information as relevant, you won\'t make any attempt to get it. Which in turn means you can\'t even really decide whether it is relevant.
How many times a year do you think there is work done like that affecting track speed-- and that\'s just extreme track work.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> All that aside, I would like to commend you and
> Bob for the high level of discourse. The more of
> that this site gets, the better.
Thanks Jerry, It is my great pleasure to participate in a forum which features intelligent discourse as opposed to many boards and groups where personal attacks pass for discussion. This is what I'm trying to do with my group:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/Horses_and_Racing_Forum/
Please excuse the shameless plug. It's just a small group but includes a couple of good handicappers including a South African who is a keen observer of international racing and provides good insights on Euro shippers. Any participation by you guys would be greatly welcome and is invited.
Bob
For some reason the name of my group didn\'t come up in my post so, if it\'s ok with you Jerry, I\'ll repeat it.
Horses and Racing Forum. It\'s at Yahoo groups.
Bob
TJGB,
>CH-- you are missing the point. There is no basis for \"lumping it in with surrounding races\", because there is no basis for the assumption that the track stays the same speed-- as the science shows.>
That\'s true, but the tendency is for track speed to cluster within a pretty narrow range except when there\'s an event that could have changed it drastically. (maintenance, weather etc...)
Specifically, I am talking about the \"lesser of two evils\" situation.
In a case where we are working with several first timers, young developing horses, surface switches, trainer changes, distance changes, a non typical race development, or any other combination of similar complications, it might be higher quality to look at the variants for the rest of the day than trying to make one for that really tough race. If all the other races cluster around a certain variant rather tightly (a plain vanilla day), I\'d much rather go with that information than my best guess of a very complicated situation.
That\'s my personal preference. If you don\'t agree, there\'s nothing I can do about that.
99% of everything I have ever annoyed you about is really related to this issue and my beliefs about how race development can impact final time.
At a minimum, I would like to know about days/races like that before the fact and not after further review. I wouldn\'t even bring it up, but I don\'t see the downside. I pester everyone that makes figures for that kind of information. It\'s not specific to you.
CH-- do you seriously think I\'m going to break out a race with a bunch of young horses trying grass for the first time, or something like that? Or even make a figure for something like Chilukki\'s first race, which had a field of first time starters running over a sealed track (first race of the day), that was unsealed after that race? (Note-- Ragozin did). Please. If I break a race out, it is with very good reason.
\"The tendency is for track speed for cluster within a pretty narrow range except where there is an event that could have changed it drastically (maintenance, weather, etc.)\".
I could have a field day with \"tendency\", \"narrow range\", or how you as someone without a team of field agents know when there are track maintenance or weather events (our guys tell us when it starts raining, before the track condition is switched). Or I could even ask you what in the world is the basis for you making that statement, since we are talking professional level figure making here.
Instead, I\'ll tell you this. I\'m working on a Delaware day (11/9) as we speak, where the track is fast all day, and I have no information of anything going on. The sprints go from minus 4 to plus 4, the routes from minus 4 to plus 2. Both do it gradually, and there ain\'t no doubt about it.
\"99% of everything I have ever annoyed you about is really related to this issue...\"
Wrong. It is not a question of content. You haven\'t done it today, so I\'m not going to go after you now. But it\'s not about your opinions, and I\'ve made that clear.
and the last race required a breakout....
john
TGJB,
\"CH-- do you seriously think I\'m going to break out a race with a bunch of young horses trying grass for the first time, or something like that? \"
I know you aren\'t going to do anything crazy. But there are different degrees of complication. I\'m sure some things fall into a grey area for you too. Those are the ones I am interested in.
\"I could have a field day with \"tendency\", \"narrow range\", or how you as someone without a team of field agents know when there are track maintenance or weather events (our guys tell us when it starts raining, before the track condition is switched).\"
I sure as hell don\'t know. Most figure makers don\'t know. They start off by making a logical track variant for each race. Based on the results, they decide whether to average them, split sprints and routes, break out individual races, slide them etc... I know you have more information to work with, so the quality has to go up.
Regardless, some days are tighter than others. On those relatively tight days - if one race sticks out like a sore thumb, its a grey area race, and we don\'t have a logical reason for it sticking out, I don\'t see the downside of noting it.
A notation like that would give people like me a chance to review the race more carefully before betting the house. You know my thinking by now. Right or wrong I am much more sensitive to race development and its impact on final time. I know other players that are similar in their thinking.
I am a customer of one other service that gives me that info for NY racing. It\'s an immense help, because in my mind, I can explain some of those thngs.
\"I am a customer of one other service that gives me that info for NY racing.\"
So Class, why don\'t you just pester that service to do more circuits instead of badgering Jerry?
HP
TGJB -
Is that a common pattern, in the absence of weather or maintenance, for a \"fast\" track to get quicker as the day goes on?
When you say nothing went on, does that include harrowing?
An unrelated question: You say in Changing Track Speeds that flaking resembles harrowing. Are your trackmen able to tell them apart?
BitPlayer
Bit-- \"Fast\" tracks sometimes get faster and sometimes slower without anything obvious going on, you see all combinations over time.
What I get from the trackmen varies. Litfin is very good in NY, but the ones who work full time for Equibase and only part time for us are spotty. I get watering info probably 75% of the time at the 10 or so major tracks I do myself, other maintenance info is catch as catch can-- which is another reason I am very careful about making assumptions. Since you can\'t directly correlate the variables-- or even know if you know all of them-- the right way to go is to gather the information you can, recognize that what you have is imperfect, and try to put the puzzle together, relying most heavily on the data comparing how fast the horses run compared to how they have run in the past.
That Delaware day is one where I did not have specific information as to track maintenance. And I don\'t know whether my trackmen can tell the difference between harrowing and flaking-- Litfin did give us that call once, but other than that who knows.
\"Assuming you actually could get moisture content readings for every single race, all around the track, AND all parts of the track were the same (no chance, according to the science),\"...
The composition that I gather from this? 100% manure, and plenty deep.
Sounds like you are saying that the speed of the track not only changes circumferentially around the track, but also radially across running lanes (paths from the rail). Circumferential changes explain why you feel justified in breaking out sprints from routes. Radial changes would seem to justify breaking out the horses on the rail from those in the 2 path, etc. Why, then, are you so dogmatic in your methodology that you refuse to tweak performances within a race when the horses run over different parts of the track?
Uneasy Goer-- My guess would be that this is the tenth time or so that I\'ve answered this. The problems with doing that include
a) that horses change lanes during the running
b) even if they stayed inlanes, the sample size would be too small to work with, especially given that the track may be changing during the day, AND not the same all the way around, assuming you are right.
The lanes that are run in most often are the inside ones. And we do have the computer flag potential dead rail days, which I then look at myself.
Just so we\'re clear-- I did NOT say what you said I did. From working with the data I know that there is no constant relationship between one and two turn races, and that it is a bad idea to make assumptions. I made no comment about lanes at all.