I think that most of the responses to my post about the effect of ground loss on a horse's time in a race were snarky and abusive. That's ok because it's kind of what this board is about.
But what if my claims were well founded? What if I really have been able to establish a useful metric for this otherwise elusive fact about racing? What if you just suspended your disbelief to ask 'what if this guy is telling the truth?'
Curiosity should alone be enough for you to ask a few questions; to get under the claim to an understanding of what I am saying. Maybe I can help you understand this if I put it in different terms.
There are two laws of physics at work in a horse race that tend to slow a horse down if it has to battle against them. Without getting scientific, let me point them out. In a straight-away a horse loses its momentum when it has to change paths to get in the clear. Angling in or angling out have the same effect. I've determined that the loss of time or speed is about one percent for each path that a horse has to cross to get clear in a straight-away.
In a turn there is a different force at work. A horse has to battle against the force to keep its path and stay in line during a turn. This is especially difficult because there is NO straight line in a turn path; the ground loss is continuous. I've estimated that a horse loses about four percent of its time or speed if it has to race in the 2 path in a turn and another single percent for each additional path that it is forced out.
These may seem like small amounts of speed loss, but they add up. Especially in a two turn or three turn race. When you add the time back in to a horse's speed it tends to smooth out the wildly varying times they show for multiple races over the same distance and the same surface. The calculation gives you a view of the horse's basic ability under a specific set of conditions.
I made a comment that this is mostly true with mature horses, because younger horses tend to improve greatly as they learn more and get stronger from race to race. There is no hard metric that helps predict this. But even with younger horses, this approach separates the contenders pretty well.
There is so much data available about racing that all that I've done is grapple with some of it in order to understand it better. This is not an attack on the TG metrical base. It's just a little bit more insight. And it does result in the outcomes that I discussed previously. If you don't believe it, I am sorry for your loss.
Without being snarky or abusive, I will pose the same query that I have posed
on this board in relation to the way TG measures, and possibly overemphasizes
at times, ground loss:
If a runner is racing wide in order to avoid traffic or a dead part of the
racing strip, is ground loss necessarily a negative? On the other hand, ground
loss can result from a horse bearing out, even slightly, which might be the
result of the need for an equipment change, a stronger rider or addressing a
physical infirmity.
So now I have expanded the inquiry to not only (a) was the ground loss truly
detrimental and (b) what were the underlying causes of the ground loss, which
might prove more significant long term than the ground loss in one race itself.
You say the effect of your metric is increased when horses are running two and
three turn races, but the only race that 80% of posters care about now is the
one turn race to be run at Belmont on June 7.
\"It does result in the outcomes that I discussed previously. If you don\'t
believe it I am sorry for your loss.\"
I will need to see more empirical amplification on your part before accepting
your condolences.
In the fifth paragraph regarding loss of time and speed around turns you say the wider the horse runs the more time and speed he loses. I understand the loss of time due to the longer running distance, but I don\'t understand the loss of speed. It seems to me a horse running 25mph in the 2 path is no different from a horse running 25mph in the 4 path. They\'re both running the same speed just not the same distance which is nothing more than ground loss.
He didn\'t mean that kind of question (or the ones I\'ve asked), he means the kind that accept his unproven assertions.
Alm - you seem to make an annual appearance around this time of year and discuss your numbers. You regularly make general statements about how your figures are superior but provide no detail on why that is the case or offer any evidence to back it up. When specific questions are asked, you choose not to answer, instead reiterating your original claims. I\'m a little puzzled why you choose to post on this site - you do realize this is related to tg figs? Do you have a specific critique of what jerry and team should be doing differently so that he can respond? Are you trying to sell something? Or do you just like to stir things up?
I re-read all three of your posts on this topic and wonder if you\'re in the right forum.
Some of the guys here do win on occasion and when you say in your May 21 post, \"Like the Derby and the Preakness this race isn\'t worth betting unless you toss the favorite and hope. That\'s fine if you\'re desperate to bet it, but it\'s not a strategy.\" Then can you explain how I managed to NOT toss the favorite and am still holding on to several $ 340.00 exactas, several $ 1,700.00 tri\'s and a couple of $ 7,500 supers? Had I followed you\'re suggestion, I would have just passed on the race. Others using TG had very profitable Derby\'s even though Chrome was on their tickets also. 100% of the people on this board WILL bet the Derby every single year, as well as the Preakness AND the Belmont regardless of how daunting the task to cash may be.
You continued on that same May 21 post by saying, \"I didn\'t expect anyone to leap up and congratulate me for my post and I don\'t intend to explain or defend it.\" Huh? Seems when people chose not leap up and congratulate you about your concept you did choose to try to explain and defend it.
In your May25 post you say, \"The calculation gives you a view of the horses basic ability under a specific set of conditions.\" What happens when the conditions change in that horse race? I doubt any horse racing in a race and his subsequent race will under the same specific set of conditions.
You\'ve spent a lot of time on this concept and if it works for you then bravo.
You almost imply that the ground loss figures that Jerry and TG supply are inferior to your concept, if that\'s the case then start your own website and see if others are interested in using your methodology. To me, TG offers the best ground figures I\'ve seen, its just one more puzzle I don\'t have to unravel because it\'s already done for me. I, like most others, don\'t have the time to watch every race and put a magnifying glass on each and every horse in order to determine which horse is in which path.
Keep up the good work alm, I\'m not being snarky I just think you need to go to a site where there\'s a lot less knowledgeable base of people to convince.
Good luck
I\'m still trying to figure out where he gets the ground loss on straightaways from, let alone all the stuff that comes after.
As far as time lost on turns goes, he\'s reinventing the wheel. I don\'t think there\'s been anyone even making their own figures (let alone selling them) for 75 years who hasn\'t built in a turn correction. I think we use 3 or 4/5ths, changes slightly with distance (they\'re moving slower in longer races), would have to check to be sure.
What this means in practice is that for your speed chart to make sense the relationship has to be 3 points different between 6f and a mile at tracks with a one turn mile than where there is the usual two turn mile. When you get into angled chutes (Widener turf etc.) you deal with fractions of that.
How do you translate that one percent into speed for the race? In the turns this can be approximated well enough because we know how long the turn is. I assume you don\'t mean switching paths on the straight adds 1% to the total time (that would be a lot). If its some momentum measure, wouldn\'t you have to know the mass of the horse? Why couldn\'t a horse regain that momentum?
etc.
alm,
I have to post one more time about your topic.
I checked out a few of your past posts prior to the Derby, including your Derby selections.
2012 Alpha, Hansen, Gemologist;
2011 Soldat, Uncle Mo, Mucho Macho Man;
2010 Sidney\'s Candy, Awesome Act;
2008 Colonel John, with Big Brown a toss
In 4 separate years, you crushed the Derby with a total of MMM in the super.
I\'m not sure what your think your revolutionary concept is, but with results like that I just gotta say no thanks. Now I understand why you think the Derby is a race not worth betting.
Look forward to reading your newest concept sometime after the 2015 Derby.
By the way, you PROMISED JB in 2012 that you wouldn\'t continue to talk about your homemade numbers, remember?
In track and field, the runners run the same distance regardless of the lane in the 200 meter and 400 meter dashes. There is no ground loss; the staggered start insures that. But, nobody want to draw the inside lanes since it is harder to maintain top speed with the turn(s) being tighter. Lane eight would be the most preferable since it has the widest turns but it\'s a negative psychologically since you can\'t see the competition. When given a choice, everybody wants lane four.
Years ago, when Roosevelt had the International Trot, these monsters would come from France and since the 1/2 mile track was so tight compared to what they were used to, they would trot first over in lane two around all four turns and still win. If they drew the rail or wound up on the inside, they had trouble getting around the turns. Une de Mai comes to mind for any oldtimers out there.
In Animal Kingdom\'s Kentucky Derby win, Trakus showed that the two horses that raced widest of all finished first and second.
Just a few anecdotes of the inside not always being the place to be. The problem is anecdotes are not easily quantifiable.
Except that ALM just taught me that the Belmont Balcony Move never worked, so I need to erase a lot of history and get my head straight.
alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If you don't believe it, I am sorry for your loss.
Yeah, the reason for snarky remarks totally eludes me, too.
Appreciated the post Dick, would reply that the inside is seldom the place to be.
My own estimate is that 80% of the breed runs their best outside of horses.
The weekday turf heats and precipitation driven maintenance aside, ground loss, ground coffee and ground under repair are similar in that once you use it once ... you discard it!
bbb
Yeah, you\'re another one. Show me the data behind the 80% estimate.
So if I remember Une de Mai I\'m an old timer?
Never heard of \"him\"
You\'re right. She was a mare. 1971 seems like yesterday but 43 years is a long time.
On the show that WOR had with Stan Bergstein, Spencer Ross interviewed one of the trainers. In typical style, he asked a long-winded question, answered his own question and then asks if he agrees. The translator goes through the entire question and the trainer says \"Oui.\" End of interview.
Mr Powell--
In standardbred handicap races in the olden times weren\'t the top runners always
posted outside?
Sounds like a Charlie Rose interview.
Thats funny ... speaking of Ground Loss, Mike Smith did wonders with Live for Now in the SA 4th.
i\'ll vote for that. i had him singled in pk 4 and pk 5. chart: broke out fanned 5 wide 1st turn, stalked 4 wide then bid 4 wide on backstretch and second turn and into the stretch, drifted in and continued willingly to the wire. got beat 3/4 length @ 7-1 by a 4/5 shot.
Can we at least agree on wind effects on times and accurate figure making....
JB can you tell us why Beyer is not interested in this component? Speaking of track and field, wind aided results are disallowed for record setting.
You \"young\" trotter guys forgot the great Roquepine!
Couple of things. Wind-aided results are disallowed for world records in straightaway or one-turn races. The problem is when it is a windy day and the field is going two turns. How do you measure it\'s impact other than it usually slows the whole race down?
when they run the qualifiers for the all-american futurity at Ruidoso Downs, it is a long day with at least 15 heats. As the day goes on and the conditions change (wet track might be drying out, air temperature might be coming down, a headwind develops, etc.), some of the top horses do not make the final. The track changes can be dramatic and since the running times can determine who makes the final, there is a lot of luck involved.
Yes, harness handicap races put the better horses on the outside. At Vernon Downs, where the race secretary might assign posts for the open handicap, they give the lesser horses the inside posts but the data shows that the five hole is the best so you are actually penalizing the horse you put on the rail.
bellsbendboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My own estimate is that 80% of the breed runs
> their best outside of horses.
> bbb
Are these the classier horses?
Funny enough Rick, but ignoring class is your mistake. The host works overtime to provide quality integers, yet the better players here, employ those numbers and incorporate a variety of other variables, some offered, some not, such as workouts, pedigree, current form, etc.
While there is little argument against class being the biggest determinate of how a horse may finish, your stance against, whether above your pay grade, or your choice to ignore, is costing you at the windows; which many reading this relish.
As for horses being more comfortable outside it may be 66% or even 85%; ask someone for their opinion; who knows. Ten cents on the dollar they are in my range. bbb
bellsbendboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny enough Rick, but ignoring class is your
> mistake.
I can\'t consider what can\'t be defined, and I am
*still* waiting for the \"class\" crowd to tell me
how to quantify it.
I contend that it is merely something that
manifests itself in another measurable component,
such as tactical speed, or the ability to carry speed
at longer distances, or a dozen other things that
make one horse more competitive than the other.
But this \"they stared each other down, and both knew
who was better...\" stuff is just so much crap.
> While there is little argument against class being
> the biggest determinate of how a horse may finish,
> your stance against, whether above your pay grade,
> or your choice to ignore, is costing you at the
> windows; which many reading this relish.
More ASSumption that can\'t be quantified.
Class movement is rather easily defined as a horse going into a race to run against faster horses or to a race to run against slower horses than it usually does.
Horses moving to face slower horses than it normally faces is said to be getting class relief,ie, running against slower rivals than he usually does, just the opposite for horses moving to a race against horses that are faster than the ones it normally faces.
All else equal, a horse facing GR 1 completion for the first time would be facing faster horses than it ever has before. If you stick with \"faster\" and \"slower\" you usually find the elusive word \"class\"
Also, without question, most horses run far better to daylight, outside, and are trained that way.Many a horse intimidated by kickback and being pinned inside.Get him out in the clear is the most common instruction you will hear trainers give a jockey.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you stick with \"faster\" and \"slower\"
> you usually find the elusive word \"class\".
So, class is speed.
(Which is ALWAYS how these \"what is class\" discussions end.)
Why can\'t the \"class\" folks just admit it?
Rick,
Not saying class is as easy as speed, it\'s who\'s consistently \" faster\" at the various levels which is, not coincidentally,found as you go higher up the racing ladder.
What the class crowd is really saying is consistently faster, we just define it differently but really agree.
Mike
I\'ve always looked at class as the willingness of a horse to run to the maximum of their ability, especially under adverse conditions. Holy Bull\'s Travers and Personal Ensign\'s Distaff come immediately to mind. In this view neither class nor speed trumps the other outside of a specific event. The problem is it can\'t be quantified by anything beyond gut feeling.
Mike one of the more rewarding qualities of handicapping thoroughbreds is defining the class of a race. Since it is much more art than science (difficult to quantify) opinions vary.
Speed, performance measures, raw times etc. are just a part of the class puzzle. A more direct assessment, in a word, is accomplishment. Horses who have successfully competed (won) at the level of todays race will more often than not beat horses who have not achieved said success.
Yesterdays ROTW illustrates this nicely. There were only two grade one winners in the field and they were far in front of the others at the wire. Tough trip Emotional Kitten had plenty competitive number power yet was a bit short on class, at least in my mind. She was a tagged up 2yo, and had never beaten older. bbb
Fuster,
Put that more in the \"character\" category.Some horses always give it their all,very brave, emboldened when hooked, others become intimidated when confronted and retreat.
Mike
\"Horses who have successfully competed (won) at the level of todays race will more often than not beat horses who have not achieved said success\"
Bell,
You are back to consistently faster, it\'s always reverts back there.Take any level you wish and filter it, you will find the most accomplished to be consistently faster than their peer group...pretty much commom sense.
Mike
That one is hilarious.
So it should be no problem to give us these examples of \"class\" before some races.
The concept of class goes back to a time when people did not have access to speed figures unless they made their own, it was a way of generally figuring out the relative strengths of fields ON AVERAGE, which is what Miff basically said. In that way it\'s no different than using claiming pars to make figures. But you\'re not handicapping the average 10 claimer, you\'re handicapping this one, and those races are full of horses who accomplished a lot in better races at some point in their careers. Along the way they seem to have lost some class.
IMO he concept of \"class\" has really changed over the years. Before good figures were widely available I think it meant something different than it does now. But this is the information age, plain and simple. And I have no problem playing a top figure horse stepping up in \"class\" to faster competition so long as the figure was earned honestly (see Utley in the Dixie as a recent example, or for those who remember Zaftig on the undercard at Belmont a few years ago).
Did Wise Dan win his last two on \"Class\" although he didn\'t run his best number? Did Zenyatta win her races on \"Class\" as she seemed to always run just fast enough to win. Did Shackleford or Animal Kingdom have \"Class?\" What about Secretariat? Did Ghostzapper have class or was he just fast?
I dunno, I think it makes sense to look at graded stakes horses a little differently than claimers, especially on turf. You can\'t measure heart or a will to win. But you can measure fast, medium or slow. They time the races for a reason. And again, I will play a top figure horse that earned it\'s figure honestly and is doing something it probably wants to do anytime, and I don\'t care about it\'s \"Class.\"
This CLASS discussion really surprises me; as MJ points out it has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. Those of us that play 250 days or more a year have seen Oscar, Pistol, Gas Man, Johnny P, Scott Lake, Frank Passero, Jorge Navarro and on and on and on at your venue de jour claim a lot of CLASS horses. How else do they suddenly get so much faster?
Hay, Oats and CLASS; remember what Oscar Barrera said when asked why he claimed Shifty Sheik, what did he see that no other trainer could? Oscar\'s reply was he had a good Mother!!!
The creme does find its way to the top.
Good luck,
Frank D.
Speaking of cream Frank, how about Cream Freich(sp)?
Oscar was the best, and if you gave him a dirty look.........he gave you one back.
Cherry picking some random race to prove a point, sorry, not buying it.
A nebulous concept like \'class\' is never going to be defined here, or anywhere.
My best shot, the willingness to try just a little harder when asked.