We\'ve corrected the figure-based trainer profile data category for horses entering off new tops. However, the 3yo Apr-Jun still looks a little light so we\'re looking into it some more.
We\'ve put up a new version of Derby/Oaks probables with the new top correction so to all those who\'ve downloaded this, you can download again using the same account and will NOT be recharged. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks.
This is why you guys are the best. I saved a set earlier and compared some of the Fig-Based Stats and they make a difference.
My compliments on your figure-based data. The approach makes a lot of sense to me.
I\'ve seen a couple of mentions on this board about bugs in the data. I\'m curious about the table of collective data that you include in the ROTW package. Are you comfortable with that data?
One stat that really caught my eye is that horses who just ran a new top (by at least a point) are much more likely to run a new top next race out (38.2%) than horses who just paired (17.2%), ran an off race (11.1%), or ran an X (8.8%). It seems hard to reconcile that data with the bounce theory.
Bitplayer,
Isn\'t data a wonderful thing?
I have always preferred it to theory.
Chris
Keep in mind that study makes no distinction as to the degree of top, pattern that preceded it, age, amount of previous races, etc. We have studies broken out by pattern, age etc. coming soon (hopefully very soon), that will allow more serious analysis.
Understood. I\'m envious of your data set. I did some analysis of the kind you\'re talking about on my own (with a lower quality set of numbers than yours). The analysis part was fun. Pulling together the data was a pain. Your results so far look consistent with mine, but you\'re also looking at lots of issues I couldn\'t begin to explore with my limited data set.
Have you played at all with using something other than than a horse\'s top as the anchor for your analysis? I\'m no statistics expert, but most of what I\'ve read on the subject suggests using median or mean (rather than high or low) to establish the \"location\" of a distribution. In my own dabblings, I found a horse\'s median figure to be more useful than its top or mean figure.
We are using \"effective top\", as defined in the tables. As a practical matter it means best of last 6 races.
The problems with using mean, etc., are a) that\'s not how people handicap, we work relative to a horse\'s top, and b) it would mean working out the mean on every horse you handicap.
If this new stuff works out like we hope it will knock your socks off. We have been shooting for having it ready by the Derby, but historically everything takes longer than we hope, so we\'ll see. We are running the tables now.
What are you hoping to achieve by doing all of this?? Meaning if you come up with enough data saying horses that blah blah blah will run a new top next out 50% of the time, won\'t you have you alot more people betting the same horse and knocking down the odds??
So we should take out some of the data to make it tougher?
The goal is to give customers the most accurate, complete picture possible, and I don\'t think there is any question that we are the leader in that regard. With the data, you are free to decide that a given horse is worth a given price, or not. But you are going to have a hard time convincing me that it is better to be less informed.
Thats nice and all, but let me ask this again.............Won\'t it drop the odds?? I know I know we are free to decide, you act like I was bad mouthing you or something the way you came back to my question.
By definition, anything that gives information that points bettors in a direction will cause odds to drop. But does that mean that having the information is a bad idea? You will have information that those who do not use TG will not have, which should provide an edge.