Any Ideas what it\'s going to be..
I am a little surprised at the selection here. The significant Tops run by IB in her last two are enough to send me looking elsewhere.
Good 3YO colts don\'t punch out 3 of those types in a row. IB will not either. I have never been a big fan of the bounce and win theory either. If this is truely the case in my book \"a race is a pass\".
Spring Waltz is a tricky read. She was supposed to run Derby week after the GP meet but took an extended break. The Delaware race was not visually good even though the number was ok..Frankel is good off layoffs but not this time. Hmmmmm.
Baffert sent two runners here. Why?
Copper State has moved up connections.
If Hurricane Hanna doesn\'t hit Hempstead, the mutuals may look it did after this one......
This is a pass race. IB may indeed bounce; but I have no confidence in anyone else in here.
Interesting race in Woodbine tomorrow. Better Talk Now, benefited by a strong pace in the Manhattan and a closer\'s bias in the Sword Dancer, figures to get heavily played.
Looking for Strike A Deal to return to his Monmouth performance. Nice conditioner over the Woodbine lawn by Goldberg on August 4th. At 117 lbs. and at double digit odds, an interesting look.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I have a tough time with the idea that Indian Blessing is the \"best 3YO filly of all time\", but she\'s certainly a terrific sprinter (though there might be a couple I\'d still take over her).
I think the interesting thing is going to be how they bet it. If they focus exclusively on her superior last couple of races, she\'ll go off as an extreme favorite and might be worth a taking a shot against. If they focus on the fact that she has ALWAYS looked like she might be better sprinting, then she\'ll still go off the favorite, but not a super strong one. In that case I\'d be more inclined to just watch the race.
I think Copper State is much improved, but I\'m a little skeptical of the Go For Wand. The pace was slow and Ginger Punch did very little running because she was trapped for quite awhile. I think the fact that CS finished fairly close to her overstates the actual performance. So far, Only Ginger Punch has come out of the race with a solid performance. The rest have been disappointing.
I\'d be more inclined to use Spring Waltz, Tough Tiz\'s Sis, or even Miraculous Mis unless Copper State goes off at something near her morning line (which I doubt).
\"Best Three year old of all time\"
I don\'t think so...This one can\'t beat Musical Note or Proud Spell now not to mention the past stars..
This horse is a total play against today at this distance going off what will probably be 8/5. This horse has faced bad 3 yr old horses in her past couple of races..How is she beating good older fillies today?..
I like Spring Waltz but I also have a feeling Rite moment is going to run her eyeballs out today staying close to Indian Blessing, who I believe will revert to her front running ways today, early and having more stamina in the stretch to run by in the end. It also helps that she has the best route number of the whole field..I\'ll box those two and play a win bet on Rite moment anywhere close to the M/L of 12/1..
Good Luck Everyone
\"Best Three year old of all time\"
....that ranks right there with Big Brown running \"the fastest derby ever\" Both statements are addressing the TG figs earned by these horses compared to those who came before them.The greatest horses did not necessarily run the fastest TG figs. It\'s much more a \"fig\" thing than a \"greatest\" thing.
JB once wrote that Smarty Jones would have beaten Secretariat by \"quite a bit\" had they met. Makes sense, especially at a mile and a half!
Mike
Indian Blessing is Scratched.
Oh, knock it off. I made a point of saying ON PURE ABILITY, as opposed to accomplishment, and I\'m pretty sure didn\'t say anything about a mile and a half. In fact, I would like to see the whole quote in context.
Indian Blessing was never \"the selection\", I made it clear (as in \'clearly the value\") that the play was Copper State. It was also clear IB was going to scratch, but I had to write her up in case she didn\'t. Baffert wasn\'t going to ship TTS 3,000 miles to run against IB, and IB wouldn\'t gain anything by winning this race. They are either going to sprint her or get her a race over Santa Anita, or both.
Miff, I have a question for you. If all the fractions in the Wodward were a second slower and the final time was the same, would it be a better race? Yes or no will do.
JB,
Sorry can\'t give a simple yes or no.
No from a performance fig perspective, better yes, but probably only visually.I have never seen Curlin run that slow from the 1/8th pole to the wire in any of his races. Maybe chasing that extreme pace took it\'s toll late. Great horse do not run the last eighth in 14 seconds on glib surfaces unless the final time is extraordinarily fast, this was not.
I think this is a classic example of using visual observation along with figs to completely evaluate his performance.This was his worst performance in a long time and more than the point or so difference that your figs may show, imo.I\'m assuming you have him in the neg -3 range with a Hot pace designation.
Mike
Great call:
Tough Tiz's Sis (119) (6-1) – has been hard hitting, and has showed she can
handle both dirt and artificial surfaces. But she's been racing against a very
weak group in California, with the exception of Zenyatta—and her two
efforts against that filly weren't nearly as good as they looked. In both starts
Tough Tiz's Sis got weight from Zenyatta and had a rail trip—her figures
are not that strong, and she's not a strong contender here.
This was a good call.........
Just wasn\'t going to go to the track today. But I opened up the website at around 3. Read that he again said the value play was cs. took a little drive bet 600 wp and drove home. nice surprise when i saw the place number.
if you come to the meadowlands sometime lets say hi.
Ridiculous!
You did a lot better than I did. I bet her to win, and under SW heavy and three others light. Which did not include the winner.
Man, Baffert\'s horses prefer dirt.
>Miff, I have a question for you. If all the fractions in the Wodward were a second slower and the final time was the same, would it be a better race? Yes or no will do.<
IMO, if all the fractions were a second slower, the chances those same horses would have run the same final time are pretty close to 0%. That pace was very fast (especially the middle when Curlin tried to get into the race) relative to that final time and IMO almost certainly not only impacted the final fraction, but the final time also.
TGJB,
I don\'t want to discuss CA figures because I think it would be fruitless, but it has been obvious for a very long time (I\'m actually talking decades now) that when CA horses ship to NY they are extremely dangerous. And, if anything, the opposite is true when they go in the other direction.
There are certainly some trainers that excel at bringing them here when they are ready to peak, (Baffert being one), but over the years many have been excellent at it. At a certain point I think you have to ackowledge that reality and upgrade their chances regardless of whether you think it\'s a figure issue, trainer issue, synthetic to dirt issue, or some less tangible aspect of racing.
That said, why would you conclude in the analysis that \"she\'s not a strong contender?\"
What exactly is the point of a message like this?
Would you prefer TG not put up a race of the week or have you never thrown a horse out that has gone on to win when you cap it yourself?
Nothing irritates me more than stupid messages like this.
I pick stocks publicly for a living and so, like Jerry with the race of the week, I never have the luxury of getting something wrong in private. Any mistake I make is out there for the whole world to see. Based on my experience at work, there is nothing more infuriating than armchair quarterbacks who never publicly make predictions but who are quick to ridicule others who are willing to go out on a limb
Here\'s a suggestions for you Alm,
Either shut up or start putting your picks up on the board so we can all criticize you when you are wrong.
Cov,
Agree picking is tough especially in advance of odds, weather, scratches and possible track profile. Yesterday, most dirt races were won by horses close up. Actually, never read any TG analysis pertaining to possible race shape/bias.The only things focused on is weight and the sometimes over rated ground loss.
One thing which has been confirmed and reconfirmed is that you can almost throw out the slowish Cali figs when those horses ship.Don\'t have records handy but another new top for a Cali shipper,this time Tough Tiz\'s Sis. Most of the Cali shippers do not look to be sitting on a top type performance either.
Mike
I think Alm\'s point involved circumstances in which there were a good number of accolades for a winning selection, without a winner. Tough Tiz was vastly superior.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What exactly is the point of a message like this?
>
> Would you prefer TG not put up a race of the week
> or have you never thrown a horse out that has gone
> on to win when you cap it yourself?
>
> Nothing irritates me more than stupid messages
> like this.
>
> I pick stocks publicly for a living and so, like
> Jerry with the race of the week, I never have the
> luxury of getting something wrong in private. Any
> mistake I make is out there for the whole world to
> see. Based on my experience at work, there is
> nothing more infuriating than armchair
> quarterbacks who never publicly make predictions
> but who are quick to ridicule others who are
> willing to go out on a limb
>
> Here\'s a suggestions for you Alm,
>
> Either shut up or start putting your picks up on
> the board so we can all criticize you when you are
> wrong.
Mike,
Good thoughts. It\'s very constructive to do a post mortem and think about what we could consider better next time, whether it\'s picking horses or picking stocks. I also agree that the Cali shippers have been good this year. I have been playing that trend as well.
As I know you agree though, just being a wise guy and saying \"great call\" for a pick that didn\'t wind up being right has no purpose.
Just like my stock picking, when I get a call wrong, I appreciate when a client offers some constructive post mortem thoughts as you do here about what I might consider next time around.
Thanks man, good luck today.
I don\'t think Jerry would argue that he nailed the race.
To the contrary, he posted that he didn\'t hit it because he didn\'t use TTS on top.
As Mike just did in his response though, it\'s always more helpful to offer some constructive thoughts as oppossed to just being a wise guy.
All can say is Tiznow is on a roll, and at this time of year you have to consider ALL of his offspring when they\'re routing.
Beyer guys gave her a 113!?!?!
Time to watch New Approach kick some booty...
You can \"pickle\" all wet track figs which are way out of line with a horses norm. TTS will never see a TG neg -3ish again (113 beyer) on a dry track ever.Put a bulls eye on this ones back next time on dry dirt or synth/poly/pro ride etc.
Mike
\"As I know you agree though, just being a wise guy and saying \"great call\" for a pick that didn\'t wind up being right has no purpose\".
Cov,
I agree completely. I can pick every winner AFTER the race. Some posters object to those who try to heap praise or shill for the product or team TG when it\'s uncalled for.I\'m sure they don\'t need or want it on such occasions.
Anyone who read the analysis and collected deserves it.
Mike
>That said, why would you conclude in the analysis that \"she\'s not a strong contender?\"<
I didn\'t do the analysis, but that was my point. I mentioned in another post before the race that the winner was very usable (even if you keyed on the 2nd place finisher as the best value). To me, the TG figures were almost irrelevant because there were so many reasons to think she would run faster than that.
Figures are an indespensible part of handicapping. But if you allow them to dictate every single betting decision and ignore clear cut evidence that suggests other possibilities, you become \"a man with only a hammer\". To a man with only a hammer in his tool box, everything looks like a nail.
Thisisn\'t a redboard posting, as I didn\'t have the winner yesterday, I thought Copper State was a good play, especially at 13-1 WITHOUT Indian Blessing in the race (I might have taken 13-1 with Indian Blessing in the race).
I read the thread and if you weed out the postings criticizing the ROTW and focus on the questioning of the California figures, I do think it points out a problem. I certainly can\'t agree with FKACH and say this has been happening for decades (jerry screwing up the california figs by having them too slow). I have only used the product for 8-10 years now, so \"decades\" is beyond what i can comment on. But I do see a problem/challenge for TG users that has materialized in the past 12 months or so. The synthetic figures are more \"bunched\" than the dirt figures. They seem to mirror turf figures in that respect. I know I have posted this before, but mathematically the scale comparison of dirt to turf doesn\'t work. We say \"a 3 is a 3 is a 3\", on any surface. Not that the horse can necessarily translate that figure to another surface, but the performance marked by a \"3\" on dirt, equates to the performance marked by a \"3\" on turf\". Well to me, that doesn\'t hold up at all, mathematically. The top of the scales are too dissimilar. The fastest dirt horses run negative 6, while the fastest turf horeses run 5 points slower. This happens not because the fastest turf horses are slower, but because the \"beaten lengths\" on turf are less than that on dirt, in general, thus affecting the scale. Well, the same thing happens with synthetic figures. The synthetic figures are more bunched, so the faster synthetic horses are not getting as fast a figure (in general), than the faster dirt horses. And since the top figures are \"off\", all the other figures are \"off\" as well. I have seen way too many California synthetic horses come east and run on dirt and run \"eyeballs out\" and run figures that they should not have been able to run. And we can see postings from our California posters about this showing the West coast horses being \"under-rated\" and we can see the pedigree people point to the \"dirt pedigrees\" as the reason, but this poster feels that this is because the synthetic figures are mostly useless in forecastinig how horses will run on dirt, because the scale is completely different.
The problem I have is that this is the way the game is headed. This is not a short term phenomenon that will go away. Granted, I can\'t prove I am \"right\" about the above, I can only believe what I see and having decided to believe it,adjust my gambling accordingly. But other than abstaining from races where any horse has a significant amout of synthetic races (like the Baffert winner yesterday), there isn\'t much to do about it. If you follow this policy, you are likely restricting yourself to betting claiming races, where most of the horses are local based and you won\'t get many grade 1 stakes races, where horses ship to run. Which is not an appealing thing, at least to me.
Anyway, off my soapbox for now.
Jim
Tend to agree with you Jimbo66, although I think the west coast thing was there before the synthetics. At the time I thought the racing was just different. Even the way they train is different. I would never see blistering works from the east coast tracks. In any case, your thoughts make sense, at least to me.
Hi Jim,
I\'ll add a little something. At the very beginning of the synth/poly thing I posted here that I felt that dirt horses were not able to run the same TG figs as on dirt. I saw it in the Beyer figs and talked to their people who agreed then. I felt that then and know it now, for most horses.
I recall JB jumping down my throat when I suggested this and he pointed to his expertise in nailing track speed. The painfully slow raw times at Del Mar were out of the norm but \"adjusted\" I was informed and the horses were running their norm.Turns out that many horses do NOT perform at equal levels dirt to poly/ synth or whatever and there is no question in that regard.
It is also worth pointing out that in spite of the adjutments made to these surfaces early speed is STILL not nearly the edge it is on most dirt tracks.There is still a general anti early speed bias at most of the poly/synths but not as bad as it was.
All these fake tracks were garbage then and garbage now. Incidentally, for the poly loons, 5 breakdowns during racing at Del Mar and 0 at the Spa.Thats 2 years in a row that dirt had less breakdowns at NY tracks.
Mike
Polyturf has certainly complicated things. There are \"race shape\" scenarios within the body of each race that are different from Dirt races. Two recent big race winners shed some light on the phenomena.
The Travers saw a Tiznow colt named Colonel John come in with inferior California numbers and he won a nice stretch duel.
The Ruffian saw a Tiznow mare come in with generally inferior California numbers and she won going away.
In each case the winners were certainly better on dirt than their Polyturf figures represented. The public backed each with more conviction than the Polyturf numbers would appear to warrant also.
To my eye Tough Tiz Sis was a good wager. She had run at Belmont as a filly in the Gazelle, finishing a close third to Lear\'s Princess and Rags to Riches, earning a 3. She came into the Ruffian as the Highweight and conceded significant pounds to Copper State who was a 1 or 2 mare. However, Copper State was coming off those top races and Tough Tiz\'s Sis was positioned to return to her 3YO top at Belmont and/or improve upon it with her added maturity and that proved to be what happened. The distance and one turn of the event didn\'t hurt either.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jim,
>
> I\'ll add a little something. At the very beginning
> of the synth/poly thing I posted here that I felt
> that dirt horses were not able to run the same TG
> figs as on dirt. I saw it in the Beyer figs and
> talked to their people who agreed then. I felt
> that then and know it now, for most horses.
>
> I recall JB jumping down my throat when I
> suggested this and he pointed to his expertise in
> nailing track speed. The painfully slow raw times
> at Del Mar were out of the norm but \"adjusted\" I
> was informed and the horses were running their
> norm.Turns out that many horses do NOT perform at
> equal levels dirt to poly/ synth or whatever and
> there is no question in that regard.
>
> It is also worth pointing out that in spite of the
> adjutments made to these surfaces early speed is
> STILL not nearly the edge it is on most dirt
> tracks.There is still a general anti early speed
> bias at most of the poly/synths but not as bad as
> it was.
>
> All these fake tracks were garbage then and
> garbage now. Incidentally, for the poly loons, 5
> breakdowns during racing at Del Mar and 0 at the
> Spa.Thats 2 years in a row that dirt had less
> breakdowns at NY tracks.
>
>
> Mike
>I read the thread and if you weed out the postings criticizing the ROTW and focus on the questioning of the California figures, I do think it points out a problem. I certainly can\'t agree with FKACH and say this has been happening for decades (jerry screwing up the california figs by having them too slow)
Jimbo,
This is the conversation I was trying to avoid, but you leave me no choice.
I said no such thing about the TG figures.
I said that horses have been shipping to the NY circuit from CA and winning a lot of these major events for decades (and they have), but the reverse is not true to anywhere near the same extent. I was implying that the Californians tend to run better than they look on paper from a variety of perspectives (speed, class etc...). TG wasn\'t even around at the time I was already playing CA shippers.
I think there are many possiblies for why. I listed some of them. But different things may have been relevant at different times. So it\'s not always clear what the reason was/is in any given case.
1. Some trainers are clearly skilled at being able to point to a specific race and have chosen to ship here when, and only if, they thought their horse was ready for a major effort. It pays to pay attention to who has been successful.
2. Before synthetics, the CA sprinters were trained for extreme speed and often were faster than the locals to the lead. Perhaps that\'s why they often did so well here.
3. The current synthetic figures may be compressed much like turf figures because of the slower paces. So the top level figures earned on that surface may not reflect the ability of the horses when compared to figures earned on dirt. That would be true of everyone\'s figures. In fact, I have already seen stats that suggest that and make my adjustments where appropriate based on the research someone else provided to me.
4. At any given time, the circuits may not be in perfect sync from either a quality or speed figure perspective. By quality, I mean at any given time the horses out there may be better than the horses here even though the class designations are the same and the speed figures are similar (and vice versa). IMHO, as a handicapper it pays to pay to attention to quality issues. It also pays for a speed figure maker to constantly cross check circuits.
5. Perhaps weather issues, earthquake issues, jet lag issues etc.... about which I know little are having an impact in one direction, but not the other.
The point I was making is that this phenonemenon is nothing new. It has been going on since the late 70s when I first started playing horses. It\'s not much different than when the Florida shippers from some barns tend to do very well here in the spring by dominating the local winter stock. That has also been going on for decades.
Once you know that, it doesn\'t really matter if we all agree on the reasons or not. It simply becomes silly to throw out horses from CA because they appear a length or two slow on any set of speed figures. That goes double if the trainer is Bob Baffert and has a record of doing very well on the ship here.
My intention wasn\'t to criticize the ROTW because it properly identified a very good horse to key on. It was to suggest that the winner was very usable in the exacta (as I suggested before the race) and elaborated on afterwards.
Jimbo –
I don\'t disagree with your basic point, but I\'m not sure it applies in this case. Tough Tiz\'s Sis had gone from synthetic to dirt and back several times, and (at least for me) it was difficult to look at her sheet and conclude that she would post a substantially better TG fig on dirt (or sealed slop) than she had on synthetic.
In hindsight, I\'m more inclined to think (as Jacimo posted) that, after almost a year of added maturity, she finally surpassed her 3yo top (admittedly in a big way). Getting Prado didn\'t hurt.
I think it\'s almost a 100% certainty that she ran a new top and that development was at least part of it.
The off track may also have been a part of it.
Baffert may have known she was ready for a better performance and that\'s why he brought here here to begin with.
Her recent races on synth may have masked some development that was already taking place relative to her dirt figures of the past because of the phenomenon Jimbo described.
I think these conversations never really get anywhere because everyone tries to fit the result into their own model of thinking about racing/handicapping.
The bottom line is that this was a horse that had already demonstrated a fondness for dirt and synth and there were a whole bunch of reasons to think she might run faster yesterday than she had in the past. So if you loved the value on the ROTW selection, I can\'t help but think it was mistake to not use her in the exactas (sorry Jerry, but I make plenty of my own mistakes)
Bit,
Sudden development like that after 6 races as a 4 year old where she couldn\'t break through her 3 year old top? I don\'t think so, but you are certainly welcome to buy that. One could argue the wet track, but I didn\'t see the wet track moving her up at Monmouth in the Breeders cUp last year.
How about, her \"development\" may have happened during the 4 year old season, not all at once yesterday, but any development was masked by the compacted synthetic numbers she has been running all year long. I lean to that explanation,
Jim
On horses shipping west and winning major events-- Even The Score, Student Council, Super Frolic (yeah, I know he didn\'t win, but with me giving the riding instructions he would have won at least one GI, maybe two, possibly even three). Also running to their figures or better most if not all the other horses I have sent to California-- most recently Accopela Choir and Holy Humor (hasn\'t won, but paired then improved his top). Both bought for a song, by the way.
For the record, Colonel John paired his Swaps figure in the Travers.
Jimbo\'s comments are interesting, and I said earlier this year that I didn\'t know what to make of what\'s going on. But I also have to point out that Baffert is something of a special case-- he (and his horses) hate synthetics, especially poly. Check out his Del Mar stats. He may be buying a certain kind of horse, shoeing them a certain way, or who knows what-- but they run a lot better on dirt.
Lava Man didn\'t do quite as well outside California.
Jim -
The hidden development theory may well be right.
One issue is that it suggests the synthetic figures are not just compacted (and thus not comparable with dirt figures), but also internally flawed. TTS ran her 3yo top on synthetic and then failed to replicate it in five attempts on synthetic this year.
I suppose it\'s possible that, as horses get bigger and stronger, they become less suited to synthetic surfaces.
As for the slop, Baffert said that TTS didn\'t like the mud flying in her face at Monmouth. He instructed Prado to \"keep her face clean\" yesterday. With little speed in the field, it wasn\'t that hard to do.
TGJB,
I think there are a lot of different issues going on here.
Some of the horses you mentioned are recent ships with a clear preference or proven record of handling synthetic tracks. The very long term record of which I speak (mostly dirt) is incredibly lopsided in the other direction and has included many trainers, the period long before the start of synthetic racing, and even periods before you had this company. Something explains that.
Lava Man has long been an exception in that he hasn\'t run well outside of CA virtually ever. Perhaps it was drug issue (bute or other). I think a lot of it had to do with his connections choosing impossible spots, races where he had just gotten vanned off the track for exhaustion like before before coming to Belmont, and him getting very difficult trips (like in the BC). He was never nearly as good as the best East Coast horses to begin with (other than perhaps for a race or two at his peak). I think his figures outside CA demonstrate clearly that something else was going on even if people don\'t agree on the details.
Pair or not on your figures, IMO it\'s obvious that Colonel John ran the best race of his life in the Travers. He had a bad start, got bumped, bulled his way between horses and beat far and away the best field he ever beat. I could never agree that was paired performance even if it was a paired figure. We would have to agree to disagree.
I am close to 100% certain the synthetic figures are flatter at the top (like turf). Someone whose opinion I respect has already analyzed the data throughout the country. To me, the only debate is why (probably pace) and whether a reasonable adjustment can be made for versatile horses (I am using one created by someone else that seems consistent with the data).
As has always been the case as long as you have been posting here, you are going to have your discussion in response to everything whether or not the facts support it or it\'s relevant.
Again, every horse I have sent to California has run at least to its numbers there. In the cases of SF and ETS, their races came on dirt. (There are plenty of issues about shipping into California, by the way. Especially as it gets colder here, and especially for dirt horses, for whatever reason).
You can also add Clearly Foxy to the list of ones I have sent out that ran well- she ran third in a GI (on grass) despite trouble, and ran a new top. Seems to me Clement\'s horses have run okay out there, too. And that was the specific point I was responding to-- it\'s not a one way street,as you claimed.
If you want to make the argument that Colonel John\'s race is better even though his figure is the same, do it somewhere else. That\'s how we measure things here.
>As has always been the case as long as you have been posting here, you are going to have your discussion in response to everything whether or not the facts support it or it\'s relevant. <
IMO it\'s \"all\" relevant if you are trying to pick winners, cash bets, and generate a positive ROI. Baffert\'s (and other trainers) long term record and ROI with shippers into NY is available.
As I said, I think there are multiple issues here, but if you want to limit the discussion to just the recent synthetic vs. dirt figures and not talk about the long term historical record, I think Jimbo and others would appreciate at least that.
As far as I can tell, the list of high profile synth to dirt horses (I have not even looked at turf) that moved forward when shipped out of CA dwarfs the list that paired or improved going out there even though there may be some individual examples that suggest otherwise. To be clear, this is not limited to TG figures in any way. It\'s true of all of them.
You can always find exceptions. Some may be due to randomness. Some may have been recent trainer changes. Some may have caught a fast synthetic pace (critical since that\'s a primary suspect in all this). Besides, the flattened figure issue is really only relevant at the top class levels, not with second string stakes horses and less. In the middle, the figures seem to correspond very well. That\'s the flattening.
We spent much of the spring discussing Colonel John\'s Derby prospects because several 3YOs (and a couple of other high profile older CA horses too) left CA synthetic for various parts of the country and their figures exploded forward on dirt. In fact, many of us used Colonel John in the Derby (and again in the Travers) at least partly on the expectation he could run faster than he had shown in CA. Same yesterday! So this isn\'t anything new and certainly relevant to yesterday\'s race and the winner\'s prospects.
That I added other considerations was an attempt to make clear that IMO her victory yesterday was probably only partly explained by the synth vs. dirt figure issue. Versatile horse\'s don\'t move forward that much because of the surface switch and this horse already had a dirt record under Baffert. It\'s not like she moved forward a point or so yesterday. It looks like a lot more than that. Something else was a factor too.
In any event, I think a study of some sort might be useful in the future as the data keeps coming in.
That would be an example of you doing it again.
The original comment I responded to was a comparison of horses traveling in both directions. I gave you lots of examples of ones that went west and ran just fine.
Far more stake horses travel east than west, because there are so many more opportunities in the east that horses have less need to go west, and so few in California that they travel here. When it\'s warm in the east, they run just fine shipping west.
The question of synthetics to dirt is a separate one. As I said.
TGJB,
>That would be an example of you doing it again.<
You did mention the synthetic to dirt issue, perhaps I responded to the wrong message.
I\'m not sure why you have an issue with me suggesting that some trainers (like Baffert and others) have been profitable on the ship to NY for the last 5 years (partly pre synth) and even before that etc.... Bringing up those other issues was an effort to point out to others that IMO there is good reason to believe that the synth to dirt issue (which was being discussed and which we agree is seperate) was not the determining factor yesterday. I would think you be pleased with that point of view. LOL
I said nothing at all about your CA figures other than make clear that Jimbo\'s interpretation of what I saying was wrong (if that\'s what you also thought).
As far as I am concerned we can drop this. I am going to keep interpreting the figures the same way I have been and wish everyone else good luck doing whatever they are doing.
Fkach,
You are dilluting the point, at least the one I started with my posting on the thread. I started with a very specific point about dirt to synthetic relationship. It wasn\'t a trainers that ship well like Baffert, or your view of the effect of pace on races,or about the TG figures in California.
And it is frustrating, because you post a lot, and your themes are often similar. If somebody wants to take a look at a different angle or point, it would be nice if you would not \"poison\" the thread.
Dirt to synthetic and vica versa is a challenge for most of us handicappers. If you have figured that out, congratulations. However, I doubt it. Considering the last gambling opinion you gave in this forum was the \"interpretation\" that Big Brown\'s show price in the preakness was a \"great bet\".
Tough Tiz's Sis has been hard hitting, and has showed she can handle both dirt and artificial surfaces. But she's been racing against a very weak group in California, with the exception of Zenyatta—and her two efforts against that filly weren't nearly as good as they looked. In both starts Tough Tiz's Sis got weight from Zenyatta and had a rail trip—her figures are not that strong, and she's not a strong contender here.
Translation: Clear cut evidence suggesting other possibilities; very usable.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jimbo,
I underststand your point, but if the discussion is dirt vs. synthetic figures and the race that prompted it was the Ruffian, I can\'t see how pointing out the other potential factors in the winner\'s performance cannot be incredibly significant to the discussion. If you can\'t see that, IMO you will never be able isolate the dirt vs. synth factor. It\'s obvious that the relationship between synth and dirt figures wasn\'t the primary factor in her huge effort on dirt because the difference looks massive and there\'s no evidence of that being typical. I think that was an important point to make.
I was happy with my first post on the subject until you misunderstood it and quoted me. Then I felt compelled to clarify that I WASN\'T talking about CA figures.
A discussion with Jerry that goes beyond a hand full of paired figures would be very helpful because he has a database that can be analyzed and is making the figures.
For the record, I don\'t have it all \"solved\" but I\'ll refrain from explaining the complexities of the issue because no one here apparently wants to hear, discuss, or try to understand and cope with them.
Fkach,
It isn\'t \"obvious\" to me that the difference in performance was more than dirt and synthetic. That may be \"obvious\" to you, but not to me. You mention the wet track, pace (again!!!!) and Baffert shipping east.
Well, the horse was never on the board in 3 previous wet track tries, so forget that. it is \"obvious\" that wasn\'t it.
Even if I concede that pace matters in a race, the Ruffian\'s result was certainly not pace-aided. The fractions were legit and leaning to fast and TTS pushed those fractions, so this is \"obvious\" that it isn\'t this.
So that leaves me with the choice of \"Baffert ships east often and wins/moves horses up\" or that the horse was developing this year but this development was masked by the synthetic figures, and that although she certainly ran a new top, maybe it really wasn\'t the 6 point new top that it will likely look like.
More importantly, at least to those of us that actually gamble, if this horse was faster than a \"3\" going into the race, let\'s say maybe a couple points faster, she goes from \"unusable at the price\" with a top of \"3\", to a \"strong contender with the right trip\", with a top of \"1\". Those of us that actually GAMBLE with our opinions realize how critical this is. Look at how JB played the race. He keyed a 13-1 shot, and used her with 4 horses. The 13-1 shot ran second, but he got nothing for his handicapping, because the Baffert was too slow to use, with a top of \"3\" and a pattern showing a stagnant 4 year old line, never having broken through her 3 year old top. Somebody posted that she was \"due\" to break through her 3 year old top and was thus \"usable\". They were lucky. Betting on a horse to break through a top that she had previously tried 7 times this year to do, all unsuccessful, and taking 7-2 on it, is a very very very bad bet, over the long haul.
This \"compacting\" of the synthetic figures has a large effect on how a horse looks. Even if TTS was just 1 or 1.5 points faster, her whole line looks different. Instead of \"stagnant\", she would have had a solid line, with no backward move, and just small development, with potential to move forward again, and thus a solid contender.
This a topic that GAMBLERS actually have to address.
Jimbo,
>It isn\'t \"obvious\" to me that the difference in performance was more than dirt and synthetic<
I haven\'t seen the figure that Jerry assigned to the Ruffian yet, but on the surface it looks like it will probably be a very fast number because of the margin. The difference between the synthetic figures she earned out in CA and the figure I suspect she earned in the Ruffian looks very large. It almost can\'t be just the syth to dirt issue. The reason I say that is that there is almost no evidence at all of other horses moving forward that much on the switch. IMO, this particular horse is a great one for study specifically because she has a prior dirt record.
As a matter of general discussion, I threw out the other possible contributions to her superior win, but I have no rock solid view about which factors made the primary contribution or even whether this was just a random new peak.
If you put a gun to my head, I\'d guess that Baffert knew she was doing extremely well and that\'s why he shipped in to begin with. I think it\'s also possible that some very mild improvement was masked by her racing on synth in CA.
It\'s also not unusual to see extremely large gaps between horses on very off tracks because some horses love it, some hate it, mud is getting kicked in horse\'s faces, horses get eased etc... I agree that there was nothing in her record that suggested that she liked the mud. But I did notice that the last 3 races that day (which is when the rains really came and the track became a mess) had winning margins of 10, 12 1/4, and 5. THey were all logical horses, but those are extraordinary margins. Two went wire to wire and TTS stalked a mediocre horse. So I through it out there.
These are all extraneous to the issue we would like to understand, but they complicate the analysis. I\'ve pretty much said all I can say on this.
Not that its completely irrelevant to the string, but Jerry could legitimately give TTS something like -5 or more. Just did the day and the race is completely off the charts. TTS topped by app 7-8 points without getting too creative.
Even if you regress Copper State(which I don\'t feel is too justified), the number is ginormous.
Mike
fkach-- \"... there is almost no evidence at all of other horses moving forward that much off the switch\".
Alan Greenspan said that everyone is entitled to their own opnion, but not their own set of facts. There is a TON of evidence of horses jumping foward a lot synth to dirt-- that\'s what prompted my original post a few months ago. Go find that string-- it has a partial list. You can also add Monterey Jazz, who jumped out of his mind when he shipped to Lone Star.
Here\'s the key point-- the fact that horses going East to West run their figures in California (I gave a bunch of examples, specifically all the ones I have sent there), means IT\'S NOT THE FIGURES-- those are right. So it\'s something else.
TGJB,
>Alan Greenspan said that everyone is entitled to their own opnion, but not their own set of facts. There is a TON of evidence of horses jumping foward a lot synth to dirt-- that\'s what prompted my original post a few months ago. Go find that string-- it has a partial list. You can also add Monterey Jazz, who jumped out of his mind when he shipped to Lone Star. <
Sorry for long post.
There are examples of just about everything. The problem was that many of the big move ups I noticed had other very logical reasons for their improved figures \"in addition\" to the potential synth/dirt relationship question. That makes it hard to seperate which factor contributed how much. I thought the Ruffian was another example of that. That\'s why I took the conversation off topic. There were other reasons that horse could have moved forward too.
We can discuss Montery Jazz, but I\'m sure you don\'t want to go there. You would just get pissed off at me for taking the conversation in another direction and tell me \"we don\'t handicap that way here\". MJ running a huge figure when he shipped to Lonestar was no shock to me or some others. I\'ll leave it at that.
Few may care what I think (especially you), but I offer this to those that do.
These are the things I am 100% certain about that I believe most would agree on.
1. The top horses on turf earn slower figures than the top horses on dirt.
2. Turf paces tend to be slower than dirt paces.
3. It\'s at least \"reasonable\" to suspect that the slower paces of turf races have something to do with the tightness of the finishes (I think that part is certain) and the flatter figures at the top (that\'s a maybe).
These are the things that I am already 100% certain about synthetic tracks because I have the data.
1. The paces at all distances for every synthetic track are running several fifths slower than they did for the same final times on dirt (all adjusted for track speed etc...)
2. The data compiled by a friend of mine suggests that the top of the scale is slower by a few fifths of a second - somewhat like turf. I didn\'t do that study, but I trust his data because he has everything in a database and is brilliant. He gave me a chart estimating it. It\'s a sliding scale chart. At the top it\'s a few fifths and it slowly moves to zero.
These are the things I suspect are true based on limited empirical evidence.
1. Every time I have seen a very fast speed figure earned on a synthetic track by a very high quality horse, I took a close look at the pace. There really aren\'t all that many. However, I\'ve already seen several that were accompanied by a very fast pace.
All of this suggests several things to me that I can\'t prove.
What I or anyone else should do with these insights is up to them.
Personally, I use my friend\'s chart to upgrade the synth speed figures for versatile horses moving from synth to dirt \"but only at the very top of the scale\" and not if the figure was earned by a closer coming off a very fast pace (and vice versa).
These are the things I am 100% certain about that I believe most would agree on.
1. The top horses on turf earn slower figures than the top horses on dirt.
2. Turf paces tend to be slower than dirt paces.
3. It\'s at least \"reasonable\" to suspect that the slower paces of turf races have something to do with the tightness of the finishes (I think that part is certain) and the flatter figures at the top (that\'s a maybe).
I\'m with you on one and two, but I don\'t agree on three. I don\'t think the slower pace of turf races has anything to do with it. Nor does the tightness of the finishes. The final track record times on turf and dirt are pretty close, despite the generally slower paces of turf racing (in fact, the turf track records over a mile are generally faster raw times than the dirt track records over a mile - so even if the pace is slow, the TG figure is based on the FINAL time, and the final times of the best turf races are equal to or faster than the best dirt races). Other variables are probably very close (the weight, wind, ground loss, etc.).
So in my opinion, the \"flatter figures\" at the top are probably attributable to...something in the track variant/adjustment that Jerry makes. Maybe grass surfaces don\'t change as much during the day. Maybe grass surfaces vary less from track to track than dirt surfaces.
I could be wrong about this, but I don\'t think what you are referring (flatter figures at the top of the scale) to has anything to do with slow pace or tight finishes.
HP
HP,
I wasn\'t actually saying the paces themselves are causing horses to run slower final times (though they may be). I was saying that the figures may look slower at the top because of the different paces. It could also be a process issue. In terms of tight finishes, I think it\'s a certainty that slow paced races produce tighter finishes.
Beyer had some interesting comments on this subject. I believe it has been discussed here a little too. Beyer eventually changed his beaten length charts for turf racing only, but as far as I am concerned he hasn\'t solved the problem. Not even close.
I would not argue that Curlin is as good a horse on turf as dirt, but if he was (theoretically), I would have bet large sums of money that he would not run the same figures. They would suggest he was slower.
No time to discuss this today. Gotta go. ;-)
My point was...the slower paces are NOT causing the horses to run slower final times. The final times of the best turf races are just as fast the best final times on dirt at comparable distances. This assumes you are talking about the BEST races at each distance (there are probably a lot of turf races where the slow pace does indeed yield a slower final time). Since we are talking about the PEAKS here, the FASTEST turf horses are running final times that are just as fast as the FASTEST dirt horses, so the pace is entirely irrelevant in these cases. Slower pace does not account for why Ghostzapper gets a minus six and the fastest turf horses can\'t do better than minus one or two.
As for the \"tightness of the finish,\" I would say this is also completely irrelevant, but of course JB would have the last word on this.
HP,
You may be forgetting that turf courses are much faster inherently than dirt, therefore a horse running a mile in 1.34 on turf is NOT running nearly as fast(fig wise) as a horse running the same time on a dirt surface, all else being equal.
Mike
I agree with you miff and I\'m not forgetting that fact -- I was just focused on the fact that \"slower pace\" probably has nothing to do with it. There are probably plenty of top level turf races where there was a fast pace and a fast final time. Your point probably has more to do with why the top turf horses don\'t get a minus six than anything about pace or \"tight finishes.\"
HP,
I agree. Also must consider,aside from pure breeding, that most horses go to the turf because they are too slow to compete on dirt.
Years ago,I asked about slow paces on the turf and a few NY jocks generally offered that most turf races are won by horses that can settle and make a big late run. Speed horses going slow on turf still seem to get run over more often than not, not so much on dirt. Remember a great dirt runner may shade 24 in the last quarter, a turfer 22-ish, thats app ten lengths difference,raw.
Mike
HP,
Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you are saying now.
I would simply question whether very fast raw final times on turf are so fast because turf surfaces in general are faster. That may not tell us about figures.
The tightness of the finishes and this pace issue are actually very significant to synth figures because it relates to a theory I have about the process of making turf figures (and now also synthetic figures) and some of the problems figure makers like Beyer run into.
WARNING WARNING WARNING - If you\'ve never made speed figures, have no interest in how they are made, and/or have no interest in my silly theories skip to the next message.
One of the first Beyer books had a interesting way of teaching novices why one second is more significant at a shorter distance than a longer distance.
Basically, if you are 1 second slower than the best 100 Meter runner, you are a mediocre sprinter. If you are 1 second slower than the best miler, you are still a world class miler. This phenomenon is built into all sophisticated figures. Jerry has touched on the issue from time to time.
Now, let me propose a possibility.
When the pace of a route race is very slow (let\'s call it an 8F race), it may effectively reduce the distance by some percentage because the horses are only running hard for part of the race. That allows inferior horses to finish closer in time and distance to their superior rivals than the true difference in their abilities. Yet when figure makers make their figures and use their beaten length charts, they use the 8F charts and formulas because that\'s how long the race actually was.
I have never seen the TG charts and formulas because they are proprietary information. So forgive me for illustrating this in Beyer terms.
Each 1/5 of a second is worth a hair over 2 Beyer points at one mile (8F).
A two turn mile in 137 is equal to a Beyer figure of 101 (source Beyer on Speed).
A two turn mile in 136 is equal to a Beyer figure of 112 (source Beyer on Speed).
But suppose my theory is correct and we should really be using the 6F chart or the 7F chart instead because many turf/synth races have such slow paces and the effective distance is actually shorter?
Then, each 1/5 of second would be worth more than a hair over 2 points and instead of a one turn mile in 136 being equal to a 112, it might be equal to a 113 or 115.
Using my new adjusted formulas would have the effect of suggesting that the very best turf horses in the world are as fast as the very best dirt horses in the world. The beaten length charts would also reflect the fact that beating a horse by a length or two on turf is more significant than on dirt. (all very relevant to the questions we are facing with synthetic to dirt figures)
All that said, you simply can\'t look at a few horses that ran massive new tops on the switch from CA synth to dirt and conclude that the entire figure move was related to that issue. Not when most of the horses were lightly raced 3YOs in the spring that can and often do explode due to normal development, one lightly raced potential champion filly on the improve, a horse from the Baffert barn shipping from CA to NY (since he and other trainers have been awesome with that move for decades), and a speed crazed unrateable horse that dropped in class, shortened up in distance, and got away with an easier pace.
Doing that will cause a massive misunderstanding of the issue and the type of move that can be expected \"on average\". That\'s what makes all my other extraneous comments on this issue ABSOLUTELY VITAL.
HP –
Perhaps I\'m misunderstanding what you are saying, but in my mind tightness of finishes has to be relevant. Imagine every race as represented by a stick, the length of which represents the range of TG figures earned by the field in a given race. Since turf races produce tighter finishes (and thus a narrower range of TG figures) than dirt races, the sticks representing turf races will generally be shorter than the sticks representing dirt races.
Now pile up all the sticks for a given period of time to create a structure. That structure represents the TG scale for that type of races. The rule for creating the structure is that sticks for races featuring horses who ran relatively well in both races have to overlap, so that those horses can be given relatively consistent figures. The rule applies because (oversimplifying a bit) TG is making figures \"using all the horses\" to judge the speed of the track (be it turf, dirt, or synthetic). Because the sticks representing turf races are shorter than those representing dirt races and there is lots of overlap between sticks (because turf horses run in a narrower range), the resulting structure (scale) for turf races has to be more compact than the structure (scale) for dirt races. That\'s the figure compaction to which Jimbo was referring (for synthetic figures) when he started this thread.
Now, because TG has only a single scale for both turf and dirt races, you have to line up the turf and dirt scales in some fashion. In theory, you could line them up any way you choose (e.g., so that the fastest horses on the two scales get the same figures). In fact, TG seems (sensibly, I think) to have lined them up so that the more compact turf scale is somewhere in the middle of the dirt scale. Thus, the dirt scale sticks out at the top end and the fastest dirt horses earn better figures than the fastest turf horses.
Why wouldn\'t there be at least one race where all the sticks bunched up at minus six instead of zero? Also, there are actually races on grass where they are not all bunched up and the winner wins by a few lengths and breaks a track record. And the winner still does not get a minus six or even close.
I\'m not saying the tight finishes are entirely irrelevant to why the turf figures come out the way they do in general, I\'m saying it does not account for the lack of peak races on grass that are comparable with peak races on dirt.
Miff\'s point about grass being inherently faster than dirt is arguable, but I think this may have more to do with it than the other points made about pace and tight finishes. Just my opinion... HP
>Why wouldn\'t there be at least one race where all the sticks bunched up at minus six instead of zero? <
Because if you start your scale in the middle and each 1/5 of second is actually more significant for a turf/synth race than for a dirt race (as I explained in one of my prior posts on speed figure methodology and distance), you won\'t get to -6 (or an extremely slow number either) because you are using an inappropriate unit per 1/5th.
http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,46631,46731#msg-46731
>Also, there are actually races on grass where they are not all bunched up and the winner wins by a few lengths and breaks a track record. And the winner still does not get a minus six or even close.<
Typically, the margins are smaller, but as I suggested in prior posts, empirical evidence suggests that the margins can actually expand a bit for turf/synth races when the pace is a little more like a dirt race (faster). That\'s what you are often seeing.
Regardless, it would be incredibly rare to get to a -6 if my theory is correct. It would require a truly great turf/synth horse, on his best day, in a race where the pace was more like a dirt race and he wasn\'t used up in it (to make up for the issue described above and previously). In other words, it doesn\'t happen, but it could if God intervened. ;-)
HP -
I don\'t think I can explain my opinion better than I already have, and I hate it when threads like this drag on with posters repeatedly talking past each other, so I\'ll address your question and drop it here.
Your question: \"Why wouldn\'t there be at least one race where all the sticks bunched up at minus six instead of zero?\" In my scenario, one stick represents one race, so I think your question is why there isn\'t a short turf \"stick\", representing a race run in very fast time, with a bunch of numbers near minus 6, instead of near zero. I think the answer is that TGJB would sooner believe that the turf was very fast for that race than that several horses in the same race ran very fast significant new tops. Where one horse runs a new top and wins by a lot, TGJB has to tie the race the to previous races run by the also-rans. If top turf figures are generally slower than top dirt figures, he\'d need an awfully long stick (a huge winning margin or lots of weight and ground loss) to stretch all the way out to minus 6.
The key is to think about making races fit neatly together in TG\'s database.
I notice that Jerry is not weighing in on this, and he would really be the only person who had a conclusive answer. However, I will say that I believe Jerry would be capable of separating ONE race and NOT tying it to previous races if the circumstances called for it. In fact he has been doing this on a gradual for years as the top figures have gotten progressively faster on turf and dirt, and I don\'t think this would be the case if he was totally rigid about tying the top figures together.
If I have seen one thing for sure over the past few years it is that Jerry does not shy away from putting a huge \"outlying\" number on a race if he believes it was indeed that fast. So I hear what you\'re saying, but I\'m not sure your point of view is a completely accurate reflection of what is going on with the numbers...