An article on the TBred Times site today reports that scientists & racing officials are attempting to produce equipment which would \"objectively measure racetrack surface conditions such as moisture content and cushion flexibility on a daily basis.\" The article suggests that measurements would be taken at different locations on the track, rails & turns for example, after morning training & after the races were run, & that the results would \"possibly\" be given to the betting public as well as horsemen & track supers. At present, the only thing I know of which is available, assuming you can find it, is a soils composition chart which I have never figured out how to use or interpret. If you are persistent, you can also arrange a meeting with an asst. track super where, if my single experience is any indication, you will learn that deciding what to do to the track on any given day is considered an art among hardboots whose only interest is safety, & who do not thoroughly understand or particularly care about subjects like track variants & biases.
It would certainly be interesting, but you would still have to make the figures using the histories of the horses. There ain\'t no other way to do it, until they have some kind of machine that races over the track in a known time, and they run it over the track WHILE each race is taking place, and clock it.
That said, I would love to see what they come up with, and look to see what kind of correlation exists.
Mall wrote quoting the TBred times,
\"The article suggests that measurements would be taken at different locations on the track, rails & turns for example, after morning training & after the races were run, & that the results would \"possibly\" be given to the betting public as well as horsemen & track supers\".
Not to be a contrarian which I have been accused of before. What happens on the days where the racing surface is changing throughout the day. I remember a day a few years ago at Churchill Downs, it was Tuesday during Derby week, where the racing surface changed three times. There was some moisture in the track from overnight rain and the track had been sealed tight as a drum because the expectation was for more rain.
The first race that day was a 4 1/2 furlong \"baby\" race that was won by Chilluki(?). She set a new track record and the track crew immediately \"loosened\" the racing surface. After about four more races the rain came pouring in and the track crew quickly resealed the surface. The end result was that the last five races were won in wire-to wire fashion, regardless of how quick the early fractions were run and the class of the horse setting those fractions.
There was another aberration from that day and it was the fact that Beyer gave Chilluki a 110 Speed Figure for her race, a number she did\'nt come close to matching until late in her three year old season(at Churchill Downs I might add, hmmmmm).
Their analysis would probably be useful but it will still require the expertise of people like TGJB to properly quantify just how fast all horses ran on any given day, throughout the day.
Seriously unbelievable that you would use that day at Churchill as your example. I swear guys, this is not a plant, I don\'t know who Silver Charm is, he doesn\'t work for us, but thank you.
Yes, you are absolutely right.
1- On the Chilukki (sp?) day, I didn\'t know they did work on the track. But I knew it rained, and I knew that (especially in Kentucky) sometimes the first and last races have significantly different variants than the other races even when there is no weather (my guess would have been work on the track, but it ultimately doesn\'t matter what the reason is, just that it changed, you know it, and how much). The first race that day had I believe an entire field of first time starters, so there was not enough information available (in fact, none) to use the horses histories as a guide in making figures. This meant that the only way one could make figures would be to make assumptions about the track being the same (and therefore the same speed) as later in the day. Beyer and Ragozin did figures for the race, I left a box. Could it have been the same speed? Sure. Was it? Who knows. Given that it turns out they were working on the track, was it a safe assumption? Uh-uh.
2- Which brings us, once again, to the infamous 00 Wood Memorial day, where they both sealed and unsealed the track and it rained during the card. In the internet storm that followed, Friedman said no problem, they gave out the huge tops in the Wood by tieing it to the surrounding races.
And in June of this year he said, \"we only slide our variant when the physical resiliency (sic) of the track changes-- a practice that produces accurate, objective numbers\".
For the many of you who are new here, there are a lot of posts that deal with the complex questions of variant making. Some are \"Figure Making Methodology\" (5/2/00), \"Changing Track Speeds\" (11/17/01), \"Split Variants, Bruno\'s Take\" (1/3/02), and \"Figure Making Methodology II\", 6/10/02.
Don\'t think of yourself as a contrarian. The points you raise are good ones. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was not suggesting that accurate nos. would not be necessary if this info becomes available. It is entirely possible that they would become more valuable, depending on how widespread the new info is & what use people make of it. My thought was that, assuming one has an open mind, it was an interesting development & that there might be instances where the new info might confirm the nos. Besides, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that there will always be a certain amount of judgment involved, which to me is what made the recent exchange with the competition interesting, even though it was lopsided.
...AND BY THE TIME THAT INITIAL RACE FOR CHILUCCI WAS ON THE BOTTOM OF HER PP\'S, BEYER
HAD PEARED DOWN HER FIGURE T ABOUT A 96. EACH TIME SHE RAN THE NUMBER KEPT GETTING LOWER & LOWER. WHATS UP WITH THAT ?
NUNZIO
Mall, I was not trying to be a contrarian with what you quoted as though this was your own personal belief, but rather the fallacy of taking a reading of the track surface after morning works and after the last race and saying we now know what the condition of the race track was throughout the day.Baloney!
There are numerous occasions where the track condition does not change over several racing cards. However, on the instances where the track condition is changing, not just on a daily basis, but changing after a couple of races, even without changes in climate, the variant must be adjusted or the resulting quantification is flawed.
I will give another anecdotal example. The Breeders Cup was run at Churchill (forget the year) and Concern was the Classic winner.
In the first race that day they ran a 100K listed stake sprint for Fillies and Mares going six furlongs. The winner ran the distance in 1:09 and 3/5. Two races later ( this was when they ran the Sprint as the first race on the Breeders Cup card) Cherokee Run won the Sprint in the exact same time. Surely no one believes the horses in the listed stake were equal to the best sprinters in the world. The winner was not a run off the picture victor, she won by maybe two lengths in a typical Pat Day handride. Meanwhile, only two races later after no rain, temperature drop, or sudden shift in wind, Mike Smith gave Cherokee Run the kind of ride only he could give back then. Shoulders pumping, the stick moving at the speed of an AK-47, to get this horse up in time. Does someone actually believe the condition of the race track did\'nt change and both horses should be given the same figure?
TGJB you have now shed some light on why Chilluki was such a prohibitive at Gulfstream in the BC Juvenile Filly. Your numbers showed her as being only modestly fast (straight 7\'s) and she had distance limitations. If Ragozin gave her a number in that first race then the Ragozin players had to be fooled into believing that she was cycling back to this number. Wonder if Ragozin gave his players a refund after the race was run?
Nunzio, Beyer was not as quick as you might remember in adjusting his figure. As a matter of fact, I believe at the risk of putting a blemish on what is truly a legendary career, Beyer went on the defensive. Let me explain. Later that summer Beyer went on a trip to Del Mar and wrote a column, that was printed in the DRF, stating that Chilluki was the next Ruffian. I repeat, Chilluki was the second coming of Ruffian. What was the foundation of his argument, the 110 Speed Figure he gave her in that first race and the fact she had not lost since. Beyer himself should have known the number was flawed with each subsequent race because Chilluki only ran in a range of 93-97 on his scale. Since Beyer does not believe in the bounce theory how could he explain such a subsequent drop-off in performance. Simple, put her on par with one of the greatest horses of all time. You are kidding me!
I have noticed for years how Beyer Figures change from race to race. Its almost like
he takes his \"best guess\", looks a future results, and than \"shoe-horns\" the figure to
reflect what has subsequently happened.
Bizarre....
As you might guess, I a not a fan of his work. I find it comical that he gave WAR EMBLEM the best figure of any 3yo going into the Derby and doesn\'t select him to even hit the board. This is the guy who also doesn\'t beleive in bounce ? Very odd....
Nunzio
i wouldn\'t agree that beyer doesn\'t believe in the bounce. although he took a few shots at sheet users, he seemed to agree that there was something to form cycles and reacting from big efforts.
Silver Charm wrote:
\"TGJB you have now shed some light on why Chilluki was such a prohibitive at Gulfstream in the BC Juvenile Filly.
Your numbers showed her as being only modestly fast (straight 7\'s) and she had distance limitations. If Ragozin gave her a number in that first race then the Ragozin players had to be fooled into believing that she was cycling back to this number. Wonder if Ragozin gave his players a refund after the race was run?\"
Silver: On the Ragozin Sheets, Chilukki never got back to her first race number during her 2 y.o. year and by the time the BC rolled around, her limitations had been grossly exposed on Ragozin sheets too. Her other numbers were no faster than the rest of the field and she was a big underlay on the Sheets. Anyone who was holding out for her to get back to that first number given what she had done in subsequent races deserved what they got.
I am not going to opine as to what the \'right\' number was for her first race, but regardless of one\'s view, since she earned her number at 4 1/2f I don\'t see how one could have used that race to predict much of anything as she developed down the road. The number Ragozin gave her (a 6-, I believe), was the kind of number that figured to set her back for some time. She did, though, break through that first Ragozin number substantially as a 3 y.o.
You responded to this particular point because you feel it is the most significant issue in this string? Come on, David-- if you want to get involved, comment on the larger figure making issues, especially since it was a back and forth between you and me that focused attention on this stuff to begin with.
Stipulating for the sake of argument the facts as I presented them here, what do you think the right approach to making figures for that race was?
Jerry,
I don\'t have any issue with the way that you treated the race.
David,
And I don\'t have any issue with the way you handled Chilluki in the Breeders Cup either, as a matter a I think you are to be applauded. You actually have the ability to distill a bad speed number from a good one.
The reference I made to the Ragozin players and this Breeders Cup race was because I have the belief that Sheet/Graph players as a whole, control the tote. There is no way Thorograph players were betting her down to 6-5 because she was\'nt even the fastest horse in the race, Surfside was.
You made reference to the fact that Ragozin gave Chilluki a 6 in her first start. OK, if I\'m not mistaken there is generally about a two point difference in the Ragozin scale and Thorograph scale. This means that on the Thorograph scale Chilluki would have received a 4. Four days later, on the following Saturday, Charismatic won the Kentucky Derby and was given a 3.
Now Beyer gave her a 110 Speed Figure. The Champion Older Female that year was Beautiful Pleasure who generally ran Speed Figures in the range of 109-113.Do you see where I\'m heading with this. There are a lot of people out there who are not smart as you (I mean that seriously)and can\'t keep themselves from discounting that first race figure. Lets\' also add in the incredible hype that Baffert and his horses receive from his personal public relations team of Privman & Hammersly (now known as Privman, Hammersly & Moss)and now things begin to make sense.
You referred to the fact that Chilluki broke through her Ragozin two year-old top significantly as a three year-old. Go back and check when, because I\'ll bet you it was about fifteen months later. What kind of a form cycle is this? For a lot of horses fifteen months is an entire career. If you scratch out her first race figure what you have is horse who made a very logical progression throughout her two and three year old campaigns. Not that she bounced or regressed off that first race and it took her over a year to break through that top.
Finally, last night I went shopping and bought a Year 2003 calendar. When I opened it up I noticed the corresponding days and dates for the month of January were wrong. When I took the item back and asked for a refund they told me the other eleven months were right, and to quit complaining. Do you think I will continue to do business with people who produce this kind of work?
Silver,
You are assuming/stating that Chilukki was pounded down by Ragozin bettors. Fact check: she was 3:2, not 6:5.
Your hypothesis/belief that it was Raggies behind Chilukki\'s short price is 1) very speculative as a general matter, since there was no public or private information indicating this; in fact, she was a classic public favorite given her record, and large margin of most of her victories 2) the result of very shaky handicapping because it suggests that, with the 6 she had run at 4 1/2f she was somehow would look to be a good value on Ragozin\'s sheets among large sophisticated bettors despite never having gotten near that number again, and 3) ignores the fact that Friedman was negative on this horse at the B.C. seminar (I know that because I was there).
There are reaches and there are reaches. Your Chilukki example is a reach even among reaches.
Sorry about your calendar.
you should\'ve waited \'til the end of january on that calendar --- you probably could\'ve gotten a big discount.
Silver,
you wrote: \"there are a lot of people out there who are not as smart as you and can\'t keep themselves from discounting that first race figure.\"
I don\'t think there was anything the Ragozin group could do to help those handicappers. A four and a half furlong race has little to do with a mile and a sixteenth race, and I am sure the Rags people pointed this out when they analyzed the race. I have no idea how accurate the Ragozin # in question was, but blaming that # for the low odds on Chilluki in the BC race is nonsense. Your logic would lead one to believe that Congaree was a lock on Rags in the Met Mile, because he was the fastest horse in the race. In fact, Congaree\'s Rag # in the Wood had very little to do with his brilliant performance in the mile race, as the Rags people admitted. Two different races with very different conditions. As for your analogy regarding the calendar, you might want to ask TGJB if he thinks he gets every number exactly correct. It\'s not an easy job these guys are doing, and the room for error is bigger than you think.
As Gordon Gecko said to Bud Fox in the movie \"Wall Street\", \"There are all kinds of sheep out there who can\'t beat the S & P 500. I don\'t use people who throw darts.\"
Good Luck guys and continued Happy Holidays.
I\'ll be taking a little break from here. Santa Anita opens a week from today and then Gulfstream somewhere after that (its that calendar thing, my January is all screwded up). My attention will be looking forward not backwards. Lets go pick some winners!
Nothing to say, put down...Soup.
was that comment addressed to me?
sorry, I have a little trouble with this board format, sometimes.