While watching a PBS special on Sir Isaac Newton on PBS last night I was reminded of the current debate as to whether evidence of track maintenance is required before a race is cut loose from others. We consider Newton as the quintessential man of science but when he proposed his Universal Law of Gravitation he was severely criticized for the "unscientific" statement that gravity can be assumed solely from it's effects with no evidence of how one body would "magically" attract another. To this day, physicists are still struggling for the solution with everything from gravitrons to a bending of space-time.
This is a lot like saying that one cannot acknowledge a phenomena, whether it be the falling of an apple to Earth or a change in track speed, from it's effects, without an explanation in terms of track maintenance, drastic weather change, etc.
To say this additional "evidence" is required to justify cutting a race loose is like saying we can't trust gravity because we don't have proof for why it works.
Bob
It\'s funny you bring up the gravity thing, because that\'s the exact analogy I have used myself. My cat can\'t explain how it works, but he knows enough not to jump off a roof. As did most of the people who came in the centuries before Newton, even if they were unlucky enough not to have been hit by apples. And if they didn\'t, they found out they had a problem whether they understood why or not.
I have one small problem with your analogy. If I am sitting under an apple tree and get hit in the head with an apple, it was probably gravity. But it could also be some kids throwing apples or something else I\'m not paying attention to. So be before I blame gravity, I should look around carefully. :-)
Oy vei.
WE DON\'T CARE WHETHER IT WAS GRAVITY. WE DON\"T EVEN HAVE TO KNOW WHAT GRAVITY IS.
GET IT?
In some cases it might not be changes in track speed (gravity in this case) that cause the variations in final times we see. If you always assume it was a change in track speed (or any other single factor), but it was actually something else, you could make a mistake in result intepretation.
\"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.\"
Werner von Braun
CH-- you are getting perilously close to convincing me that you are an idiot. And I\'m not going to waste time going through this with you again-- if you don\'t understand what we\'re saying from what\'s been written here already, there is no hope.
Some day\'s I\'m just amazed by this board.
From Sir Issac Newton to Earnest Hemmingway, The former Rev James Jones (cool Aid) to Freidman/Ragozin, to Beyer and TGJB, Six Sigma, Binomial Distributions, variables and variants both known and unknown, Dutrow to Lukas,Drug Oneil to Jeff \"Degenerate Gambler\" Mullins, EPO to Other meds, East coast vs west coast, Chucles the Clown and DavidRx, Barry Irwin to Classhandicapper (sorry Barry), you have got to admit this board can be very entertaining and has lots of diversity.
NC Tony
Class,
That\'s the whole point. If my aching head tells me I\'ve been beaned, I don\'t need to know whether it was an apple falling from a tree, some punk kids, or low flying aliens are responsible, to know I have a bump on my head.
Similarly, if the horses\' performances tell me the track speed changed, I don\'t need to know if track maintenance, weather, shift in ground water tables, etc caused it. I\'m much more concerned with quantifying it\'s effects so I can make the appropriate adjustment to the variant for that race.
Bob
TGJB,
\"To say this additional "evidence" is required to justify cutting a race loose is like saying we can't trust gravity because we don't have proof for why it works.\"
I won\'t rehash the obvious point I am making because I\'d prefer not to be cofrontational, but insults are not necessary.
We may not require proof of track maintenance to break a race out, but the variations of times we see are not always related to changes of track speed just as an apple hitting us in the head is not always gravity. There\'s a important point there and I think you know you what it is.
bob,
\"Similarly, if the horses\' performances tell me the track speed changed
I don\'t need to know if track maintenance, weather, shift in ground water tables, etc caused it.\"
You are missing my point. You are assuming that performances measured based on the final times always tell you whether or not the track changed speeds when it could be something else that caused some or all of them to run faster or slower.
This is my last point on the subject with you. And your next one will be your last.
YOU ARE MAKING CAUSE AND EFFECT ASSUMPTIONS. We are not.
\"it could be something else that caused some or all of them to run faster or slower.\"
You mean something like.....pace!.....right, Class?
TGJB,
Fine, my point requires a detailed discussion that is not worth the trouble and would only lead to more hostility. I know the point I am making and why and that\'s enough.
HP,
Any number of things that are tough to quantify, measure, and prove that are part of the general thinking of many horseplayers.
TGJB,
You must have enough evidence that you have compiled over the years that perhaps you can share with us as to which tracks are more susecptable to changing speeds more than others on both rainy and non rainy days, what is the typical change vs extreme change? Particulaly of the major circuits how does lets say an Aqueduct change as compared to Saratoga for instance. On non rainy days, what has been the wildest swings to track speed you have noticed. Just to give us an idea of what you are dealing with. Is wind really the biggest factor that is causing variant changes during the course of a day?
How good is the DRF variant - can it be used as a guide?
NC Tony
Class,
Got it. Doesn\'t take a deep thinker to know where you\'re going. You\'ve already said this or some slight variation ten thousand times. Here\'s another thread you just had to get into to say it again...
HP
Since this is so, and the variable is already incorporated in the Speed Figure itself for future handicapping puroposes of future races and we believe in the figure and that the figuremaker has it right, the real art is trying to adjust on the fly to the track changing speeds/condition on the actual day it occurs if you are wagering on that day. How do you know what to look for other than final time and fractional time relationships?
Otherwise if we accept the speed figure with incorporated variant as is (ie Gravity) then really there is no discussion.
NC Tony
Tony-- I\'m not going to go through all the tracks. That Delaware day I mentioned (8 point swing) is extreme for a day without either weather or the track being sealed, Belmont day was another, maybe even more extreme at the end of the day when they stopped watering it a couple of hours before the end of the card. If the track is dry and nothing noticeable out of the ordinary is being done to it, most of the big swings take place over a couple of hours-- more than a 4 point swing from one race to the next is unusual.
I\'m new to all this so forgive my ignorance but what would you have done on that Delaware day that changed speed so much if the only 2 turn race of the day had been in the middle of the card and was a two year old maiden race? Did you have trouble on the CD day a couple of weeks ago that was composed of only two year olds? Thanks in advance.
classhandicapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are missing my point. You are assuming that
> performances measured based on the final times
> always tell you whether or not the track changed
> speeds when it could be something else that caused
> some or all of them to run faster or slower.
Class,
You are misstating my position. I have NEVER stated that performances ALWAYS tell you whether or not the track speed has changed. Only that they are the best indicators of such change. Big difference. I readily acknowlege that races can collapse due to extreme pace scenarios.
I, probably more than anyone else on this board agrees with you on the effects of pace on a race, but this in no way changes the justification for breaking races out. One of the first things I do to determine if the change in performances is due to a change in track speed or because of pace is to do a pace analysis. If I find the pace was hot enough to account for the slower times of only those affected by it, I infer that there probably wasn\'t a change in track speed. If the pace was reasonable and performances were affected without regard to proximity to the pace, I can make the likely inference that a change in track speed had occured. You CANNOT use a belief in the effect of pace to argue against the justification of breaking out races. I beleive in and use both with no contradiction.
Bob
Bob
Texas Dolly-- SOMETIMES CHRISTMAS COMES A MONTH EARLY!!!!!
See, here\'s the thing. What I can see on my screen that you guys can\'t see on yours is the IP address of all the posters. Which in this case is:
livengood.Ragozindata.com
Swear to God. So:
1) Yes, under the circumstances I will forgive your ignorance, Dolly.
2) You guys are the ones that won\'t let our guys post, barred me, won\'t answer a tough question, AND MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT PEOPLE POSTING UNDER ALIASES. Right?
3) On that CD day, all the races were one turn, and the day was not tough-- total spread for the dirt races was just 1 1/4 point. But yes, a day of only 2yo races could be a problem-- no matter what basis you use. And if you don\'t agree with that, please tell me what data you would use other than how fast the 2yos themselves ran in the races, and their figure histories.
Most of the time when you do a 2 turn race you have a reasonable amount of data to work with-- the 2yos have already run a few times, and there are usually other routes on the card. The right question to ask is what do you do when it\'s the only GRASS race, with all the horses first turf, very few dirt figures to work with, a dark day before it, and rain after the card? Answer-- you are screwed. So what I do-- which you guys don\'t-- is leave a box. Whether it\'s that example or lots of others where there is not enough data to be reasonably sure I\'m on solid ground, I don\'t guess-- and I don\'t make the unwarranted assumptions you guys do, as I\'ve explained before.
Anyway, since you were so brave (heh heh) as to come here, let me ask you a couple. And they are not hypotheticals.
1) By now you have probably seen the Expo DVD. Tell me please--since you guys make figures for the 4 1/2f 2yo races at Keeneland-- how do you do it? a) The course is downhill, b) part of the race is run over a different track that no other horses run on so there is no way to judge its speed, c) the horses are all first time starters, and d) NO older horses ever race over the course, making it impossible to set up a speed chart. You guys are much better than Andy and me-- how do you do it?
2) A few years ago, Friedman and I had a public dispute concerning Chilukki\'s debut race. These were the circumstances-- it was the first race of the day, track fast, and it was sealed. The track was harrowed after the race, so the next race it was track fast, harrowed. Then it started raining, so it was harrowed track wet-fast. Then track sloppy, then sealed with water in it.
The Chilukki race had all first time starters in it except for 2 fillies that had run horribly first time out. You guys gave out figures for the race. On what did you base them?
That\'s it, CH. The original conversation was about whether it is correct to make the assumption that the track changes speed without direct physical evidence. You have once again forced everyone-- including me, and it\'s my board-- to have and/or listen to the conversation you wanted to have.
Take a rest, try us again in January. If you behave differently then, I\'ll let you stay. If you post again here now-- even to say goodbye-- you\'re gone for life.
Yes you caught me. Hint-you knew my brother long before you met Ragozin. And yes I agree that it is somewhat unseemly for anyone with a vested interest to post pseudonomously. It was my first, only and will be my last posting on matters of variant making, but would I be going out on a limb to infer that several such postings have emanated from your office?
No I know next to nothing about the Expo DVD. It held no interest on my part. Anecdotaley(forgive my spelling) the 4 1/2 Kee numbers seem to hold up as the season progresses but this is far from proof. Similarly L\'affaire Chilluki has been debated to death. At this point it would be like debating who has been a better/worse President Clinton or Bush or who would you hire as your General Manager someone who is Sabremetricaly oriented or someone who relies on scouts. Jerry I disagree with your conclusions on the 4 1/2 numbers at Kee and Chilukki but I would not be so arrogant as to say your position is meritless.
Im in a minority in both camps in that I think it is good for each service to have competition. Each service will develop customers who will drift back and forth. Also the presence of two Sheets services bestows an imprimatur of authenticity on the business. Eventually the market will sort this all out.
Eric (I think)-- I\'m not sure whether you are referring to posts on this board or yours. If you are suggesting that I have put posts on my own board under another name, I did it exactly once, years ago, a one line wisecrack about a certain individual that was posting (Howard Dennis). If you mean on your board, 99% of the times that I did it over the last 2 years of your old board were in response to attacks to me, and 100% of the time I made it clear it was me (\"Scarlet Pimpernel\" etc.). I always said I or us when referring to TG, never they, and I usually used the same construction (a short technical question) to identify myself-- unless I was responding to one of hundreds of personal attacks, where I didn\'t ask a question, but made it crystal clear it was me.
I have not posted on your board since you changed the format. As far as I know, nobody here has.
You missed the point of the questions about the Kee and Chilukki figures-- anyone can say \"the figures hold up\", just like anyone can make unproveable statements like \"our guys win\" (unproveable unless we\'re talking about tournament results, of course). What I asked you was-- how do you make those figures? I meant that literally, and the answer would be instructive. I would very much like you to answer it-- you always struck me as an intellectually honest guy,and that\'s not a wisecrack. There are some rabid partisans over there-- but you don\'t strike me as one of them.
There are always things (like an advantage in marketing resouces) that can render a market imperfect (as I\'m sure your anti-capitalist friends would agree). But it is true that as the market becomes more perfect, market forces themselves will sort things out. And as more and more people get their data through the internet, that is happening-- the screen is the same size for everybody.
Say hello to your brother for me. And to the other guy that is evidently a relative of mine, that I never met. And feel free to post here under your own name.
I thought I remembered you once admitting to posting on our board two or three times under a pseudonym. Maybe I\'m wrong. Anyway though we were never friends I always thought that we were friendly rivals whenever we ran into each other at the late 14th st OTB or took the bus from the Meadowlands home together. I honestly think your business is good for us and vice versa.
Eric-- I did, way back in the early days of this board, though not often. My conversation with Friedman about pars was one of those (about 5 years ago now, I think), and there were a few other posts. Every one, to my knowledge, took the form of a question. And even those were because Len would not let any opposing views see the light of day (and no, CH, that\'s not why you were banned, you had the chance to give your views ad nauseum), and deleted my posts as soon as he knew they were mine.
The later ones were as I said, written so that it was obvious they were mine. And virtually all were responses to attacks-- the idea that there would be something wrong in responding to public attacks in the forum that the attacks occurred is ridiculous, and Len\'s shutting the board down so that I could not reply, while leaving (and in fact encouraging) the attacks, is morally repugnant-- an end-justifies-the-means approach. Fortunately, I think most readers worked that out for themselves.
Meanwhile
a) I guess I\'m not going to get my answers to the figure making questions, and
b) how come I haven\'t seen you in any of these TV poker tourneys?
Anyway, you are right. I have no problem with you personally.