I have been a thorograph user since they were hand written and sloppy and if there is a more enthusiatic supporter of the product then me I would be shocked. But I have to say \"uncle\" on these new figures. I just don\'t get it and need help. I respect the time and effort that went into producing them but they seem to me like a bit of \"number overload\". I took today\'s [2/25] Aqueduct card as a typical race day. I could not find one instance where I felt the new figures helped me discern a live horse that was not otherwise indicated from the numbers themselves or the \"runs based figures\". Can anyone help? What am I overlooking?
In addition, if the assumption is that you are looking for the trainer to have a good figure in the top% or at worst the pair% column for the conditions under which the horse is entered today, then make a fast eye search, in general, of the following trainers; First look at the figures for LaBocetta, Lake and Levine then look at the figures for M.Sedlacek, Aquilino and Hertler. Which set would you think is the more successful group of trainers? So, I\'m really confused. Can anyone please offer some guidance.
Furlong,
I will let the TG folks give a more complete answer but let me give you one example. The big difference with these stats is that they help a sheet user handicap by telling you what figure to play a horse to run relative to its effective top (and the chance that the horse will run that number). Keep in mind that a \"pair\" means the horse ran within +/- a point of its EFFECTIVE TOP. It does NOT mean that it paired its previous figure.
Let\'s take a horse off a layoff for an example.
Say the trainer wins 5% of the time and finishes ITM only 25% of the time off a layoff. The poor % could be the result of a trainer that typically runs the horse in over its head off the bench rather than one that seldom has such a horse fit?
What you want to know rather than win% is does the horse in question have a top fast enough to win this race and, if so, what is the chance that the horse will run that top off the bench?
The new stats tell you that. Look at the more than 90 days stat and see what % of the time the trainer gets a new top or a pair. Lets say its 25% for each. That means you probably have a 50/50 chance of seeing the horse run equal to or above its current top. If that is good enough to win and the horse has odds of much better than even money, then it is probably good value regarless of the win% off a layoff.
Of course, you might want to bump the chances up or down a little depending on the age of the horse and how strong the overall line is (the younger the horse and the stronger the line the more likely to run a top or better off the bench). (Note it would be nice to get some of these stats by age but that cuts the sample size and makes it even more confusing.)
That is just one example. There are many, many others.
These stats really are leading edge stuff.
I hope that helps a little. Keep experimenting with them and I think you will begin to see their value.
I will try to remember to point out a few more examples on the board (in advance of the race, if I can remember to do so). Maybe TG can do the same in the ROTW.
Good luck.
Chris
The figure-based trainer statistics are new and they will take getting use to. They are meant to illuminate to a greater degree a trainer\'s proficiency in the specific categories listed.
But there are caveats one has to bear in mind when using them. Chris mentions one--age. Obviously trainers with younger horses in their barn are going to get higher percentages of tops and pairs, and conversely lower percentages of off and X races. Young horses are constanting developing therefore are apt to run many more new tops, etc.
Another factor to keep in mind is the type of stable a trainer keeps. Furlong, you mention Lake, LaBoccetta and Levine. These guys train claimers for the most part, and lots of them. Sedlacek, Aquilino and Hertler
also oversee claiming stables but not nearing as large as Levine and especially Lake. (We\'ll get to LaBoccetta in a moment.)
The point is that Lake and the like run many older horses, claimers, and the older horses are far less likely to run tops or pairs than their younger counterparts. But that doesn\'t mean Lake can\'t win in this spot. He can and does often but that\'s a function of the competition, the performance level, figure, needed to win given the conditions.
Laboccetta is tricky. But as a New York player, Furlong, when you see a Laboccetta entry, isn\'t your first query--is this first off the claim? And how many Laboccetta trainees do you see develop over a period of time? Not many, right? Laboccetta obviously has his strengths, mostly getting a new trainee to run 1st or 2nd off the claim, which means, generally, a horse doesn\'t run back to the big initial effort. That\'s not too surprising.
Chris cites a good example using these new profiles and others will present themselves as you continue to look at them. But unfortunately, they\'re not necessarily transparent. It\'s not like looking at a 5 when others are running 8s.
I make reference to both profile sets in the rotw and will continue to do so.
This is after the fact, redboarding, but didn\'t New York Rudy look a little better factoring in McGaughey\'s prowess after new tops?
Chris
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and for the clarity of your response. In your example of the layoff horse coming back you are actually framing my concern. Let\'s say the horse is a solid contender if he runs back to or beyond the effective top of his last 6 races/1year. If the layoff stats. of the trainer are as you suggest [25% top, 25%pair] and that was the only stat we were looking at then great we have an edge. But supposing his numbers are 10% top 10%pair with the rider he\'s using today and 10% and 10% in 2 turn races and that\'s today\'s distance. Then the liklihood of the horse\'s performance today being in the neighborhood of his effective top is made much more uncertain I think. I have found in looking at the figures that if you take the figures that are applicable to today\'s race there are many conflicts such as this which really leaves me shaking my head. I know these exist in the \"runs based\" stats also but they seem more confusing and contrary in these new figures.
If the horse runs well do we say \" well it was right there in the trainer\'s layoff \"figure based numbers\" or if he runs poorly do we say\"of course, look at the figs., he never puts this rider on a live horse\".
It seems to me that the overwhelming strength of the Thorograph product is the way it frames a race. Eight horses in. Four are too slow. Then you look at the other four horses. How much statistical information do you need before it becomes overkill. There are so many factors. Rider,trainer,distance,post position,etc. in addition to figuring the number pattern. I find the runs based figures straightforward and very helpful. Do I really want more figures that are very often contradictory to look at? I really don\'t unless it\'s sure thing helpful.
I understand the merit of your argument as you expressed it and certainly respect your right to want and use these figures but from what I\'ve seen so far or rather understood so far I feel they are more information than I need and tend to confuse me as much as help me. I will however keep trying and thank you again for responding.
TGAB
As I said to Chris, let me also thank you for reponding to my inquiry. I really appreciate your taking the time. In response to your comments about the various trainers, the examples I used were just to make a point of generalities. If you took the runs based stats of Labocetta Levine and Lake and displayed them next to the stats of M.Sedlacek,Aquilino and Hertler and removed the trainer\'s names it would be pretty apparent which set of trainers is the more successful. The reverse is true if you line up the new figure based stats. My point is, isn\'t it reasonable to think that if you have created a trainer based product that that product will project the top trainers transparently, otherwise there is the risk of confusion.
Yes, of course there\'s more to the case than saying that a Hertler horse, off a layoff, is likely to run within a point or better than, his effective top 44% of the time and Lake is only likely to do so 18% of the time. But is it necessary to produce statistics as a handicapping aid that require you to make the many distinctions that you have to in using them when you already have the runs based figures that give, I think, a much clearer definition of the trainer\'s prowess. I don\'t mean to suggest that the new figures are without merit. I\'m not smart enough to make that evaluation. I just think of the work you must be doing to produce them and what there value is relative to that effort.
At the risk of also redboarding, the New York Rudy race was actually a good example of what I\'m saying. It was a 6 horse race, Hill Top Man and Chute the Breeze looked too slow. Anties Boy figured to bounce. Cape Hogue had a decent pattern but with the Correa/Espinoza combination was more likely to bounce to a 10 or 11 then match or go forward off the 9. That left Lord Langfuhr at even money who could certainly have run back to his 7 but could also bounce a little [especially since JJ is not having his best meet] or New York Rudy at 5 to 1 who has certainly been on the improve since McGaughey got him back. I was certain he was going forward again today and he did run a 5 early on as a 3yo when McG. last had the horse. So he could certainly run the best number in the race today, especially at 5 to 1 when his only competitor was even money. I did have this race cold yesterday for the reasons just expressed and am glad that you used it as an example. I don\'t believe McG. new tops prowess added to my conviction nor did his weak statistics when using Castillo deter me. I was already there without the added statistics. I guess for now that is really my point. But I will continue looking at them and try to get a better grasp on them and hope you don\'t judge me too harshly while in that process. Thanks again for taking the time to address my questions.