Will Humble Janet scratch?
That\'s where we left it.
I thought she\'d win this race at a big,big price..........
The commentary on Bear Now does not address the fact that she has run different numbers on different surfaces. If all her numbers had been run on dirt, I would figure to run something very strong on the dirt in the ROTW. If her artificial track numbers were actually turf numbers, then, in my view, she would appear to be ordinary for the purposes of the ROTW. I have struggled mightily with how to contend with the multitude of new artificial surfaces. Any insights on what to make out of the surfaces she has run her figures on compared to the surface she is running on on Saturday?
The dirt \"bounce\" is actually a very good figure, about what you would have expected on any surface off the big top. I thought about discussing that, but it\'s tough to do in a sentence or two.
I know his win% and ITM% are above average 1st race after trainer change but his tops breakdown 17% 24% 24% 35% compared to the overall trainer average of 19% 18% 21% 42%.Why is he considered a move up trainer?
I\'m going with Moon Catcher here. last wasn\'t too bad, but at 12 lengths off an average pace (going a mile and a quarter), it wasn\'t her game. returns to 1 1/16m and gets the regular jock back. decent 1:00.3 work. nice post. gets 3 lbs from Octave.
I read Octave as a pretty simple 4 races, - move up, 4 races move up, an today I expect another move forward...sort price of course, my simple tri will be:
octave,talkin @ love/octave,talkin love/all
maybe split them as well.
I have made this point about Scott Lake. His \"runs based\" v \"figure based\"
stats are quite, well, disparate.
His \"overall\" stat is a good place to start: wins 23% (9269 starts), but off of
a 5,353 start figure based sample, Lake\'s runners have posted 10% tops, 24%
pairs, 26% offs, and 40% Xs. At Philly, Lake wins 23% of his starts (sample
size 2456), yet his figure based distribution at Pha (1458) is 12/26/26/37.
TAPs stats show less disparity: Overall,25% wins in last 4885 starts, with a
figure based distribution (2929) of 17/31/26/26. Mildly surprising that TAP
is able to win 25% of the time with slightly less than 50% of his runners
posting a top or a pair? Or is it wrong for one to expect more harmony in these
two sets of stats?
I\'ll ask the question again: High win %, relatively few runners throwing in top
performances....? Superior placement of entries by said trainer? Or is it a
statistical aberration?
Simple question: Why can\'t run based and figure based stats be derived from
same sample?
Gotta go golf. Best of luck, wagering warriors.
123,
Scott Lake always puts speed into horses when he takes them over. The work of Sept. 18 indicates he\'s put speed into this one. And his horses usually run to their works. The downside is he likes his horses to be on the front end and that\'s not the place to be in this race.
Another negative IMO is he\'s taking the horse over from a competent trainer. Helen Pitts is the original trainer of Curlin, for those who don\'t remember. As you would expect, he moves them up better when they\'re coming from less successful trainers.
3/2/4 and 3/4/2 straight
Cotillion another nice one - encore kudos. You were right on about this filly, and I coudn\'t get to the rail with the Love, but that wasn\'t the difference; she couldn\'t go forward as you feared; polytrack fitness, not a need of polytrack, and once more it\'s WO that transfers most easily it seems so far.
Off the top of my head, Lake does make money placing,
and he claims horses that are past their tops, and he
sends them, so when they lose, they are X\'s?
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have made this point about Scott Lake. His \"runs
> based\" v \"figure based\"
> stats are quite, well, disparate.
>
> His \"overall\" stat is a good place to start: wins
> 23% (9269 starts), but off of
> a 5,353 start figure based sample, Lake\'s runners
> have posted 10% tops, 24%
> pairs, 26% offs, and 40% Xs. At Philly, Lake wins
> 23% of his starts (sample
> size 2456), yet his figure based distribution at
> Pha (1458) is 12/26/26/37.
>
> TAPs stats show less disparity: Overall,25% wins
> in last 4885 starts, with a
> figure based distribution (2929) of 17/31/26/26.
> Mildly surprising that TAP
> is able to win 25% of the time with slightly less
> than 50% of his runners
> posting a top or a pair? Or is it wrong for one to
> expect more harmony in these
> two sets of stats?
>
> I\'ll ask the question again: High win %,
> relatively few runners throwing in top
> performances....? Superior placement of entries by
> said trainer? Or is it a
> statistical aberration?
>
> Simple question: Why can\'t run based and figure
> based stats be derived from
> same sample?
>
> Gotta go golf. Best of luck, wagering warriors.
Richie-- remind me of this when things slow down in December, and we\'ll take a look at changing the criteria for the figure based part.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The dirt \"bounce\" is actually a very good figure,
> about what you would have expected on any surface
> off the big top. I thought about discussing that,
> but it\'s tough to do in a sentence or two.
Maybe in December,
kidding, but I could have used the schooling on exactly this.
When I think of a move up trainer I was thinking of someone who could get better than 25% to 30% tops 1st start trainer change. I\'ll see if I can find any.
123
I am glad that someone is at least discussing or willing to discuss the entire
notion of a move up trainer. The \"move up trainer\" is mentioned frequently on
the board and might mean different things to different people.
Hopefully one day there will be a formal discussion of the \"MUT\" in the
archives the same way that there are discussions of track surfaces and whether
or not racehorses are running faster.
Part of the problem in discussing the MUT on this board would be that it would
automatically be assumed that all MUTs are involved in performance enhancing
methods which are illegal or in some grey area of legality; this assumption is
not an unfair one, but there are sometimes other factors involved with a
trainer improving the performance of a new acquisition.
With regards to your specific inquiry, I might suggest the following:
A) 25% tops might be something you will not find frequently in the figure based
trainer stats; and
B) is it possible to move a horse up without the horse running a top or even
a pair?
C) the statistic you mention is \"first race after trainer change\". I would
imagine that some trainers are proficient at getting a top performance out of
a new acquisition immediately, while others gradually get improved performance,
maybe in the second or third race after acquisition, maybe after some time off.
Sorry if I have misunderstood your question, or answered a question or
addressed an issue other than the one you are raising. Its the whole Big Ben
syndrome which Stillinger found so amusing.
The identification and understanding of move up trainers will be very important
to me this Winter. The Fair Grounds has migrated to HRTV, and If I cant watch
it, I will not bet on it. That leaves me with NYRA, the innercourse, the inner
tube, the squared circle.(Assuming of course that TVG doesn\'t lose the NYRA
signal, in which case they could change their name to HRBTTV (Harness Racing
and Bush Track Television)).
Unless there are sweeping changes under Hal Handel (not likely) I see winter
racing in NY being dominated by 3 trainers, and understanding when to bet them
(and when to beat them) will be important.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless there are sweeping changes under Hal Handel
> (not likely) I see winter
> racing in NY being dominated by 3 trainers, and
> understanding when to bet them
> (and when to beat them) will be important.
You do mean Ferriola, Moshera, and Serey, right?
richiebee, good point on the move up happening on the second or third start or even after a short layoff. I also noticed the relationship you were talking about between trainers with high win% yet not extraordinary high % of new tops after a trainer change. Maybe they just spot them better.
There is another phenomenon that is worth mentioning. I would call it the \"move back to top\" trainer. This is a trainer that might not get a new top out of the horse first time, but will often get it to return to its best recent form first out if it has been running poorly lately.
Your ROTW analysis convinced me Octave was vulnerable, but not that the filly was not the horse to beat, thus I hit the miniscule tri.
I should have paid closer attention to this post and gone straight on Bear Now.