Giving out the \"X\" for Oaks day.
Bias guys Oaks day \"outside paths, stalkers best,negative speed rating of 100 on a 300 scale\"
Derby Day \"all paths honest, all running syles fair\"
Frontrunners tend to go to the rail, so if the rail is dead they don\'t do as well.
Agree, now why cant I get you to mitigate/neutralize ground loss for wide runners on dead rail days, notwithstanding extra ground travelled.
Mike-- I\'ve been trying to explain that we DO. We disregard the inside horses, just use the others to make figures. The outside horses don\'t get extra credit, the inside horses get penalized.
When you see Oaks day you\'ll see, hopefully.
Ok, but in fairness, why isnt the dead rail day subject to an inverted adjustment for ground?
Because rather than making an assessment of how many lengths the rail is costing (which I don\'t think can be quantified) we just mark them with X.
I do not believe it\'s a gradual thing, 4 path better than 3 path etc. I\'m not saying that never happens, but I don\'t see it in the figures. What I see is bad rail, others okay.
Reasonable conclusion. So if two horses went all around in the 1-2 path, on a dead rail day,finished in a dead heat, same weight, they get the same figure with an X notating the inside horse got the worst of it.
The outside horse would get the better figure, but it\'s no more likely to be a new top than on any other day. The inside horse gets an X and almost always a bad figure. You\'ll see when we post Oaks day that MM paired her top, everyone else on the rail ran an off or X. You will see the others on the day as a group ran no better than usual.
Will look at Oaks day, know you are busy.
When you have time,forget tops in my example. Thought you said on dead rail days no ground loss adjustment for the horse in wider superior 2 path is made, which to me meant they get the same fig with an X denoted for rail runner.
No. Ground loss is used, but the best way to explain it is with an actual day. We\'ll have Oaks and Derby days up tomorrow afternoon when Alan is in.
Doing Derby day now, and your friend was right. Track speed was all over the place. In this case it wasn\'t subtle, you can\'t miss it. Except, of course, if you start with the assumption it CAN\'T happen. I would pay to have Friedman post the whole Derby day with figures. That might cost them even Vito.
Re posting Oaks and Derby days here, it\'s a chance for Raggies to see what actual reality based figures look like, going in and coming out (not that it will make the slightest difference to the psychologically invested ones). But we were up 30% both in seminars (to 565) and pre-entries, up about 12% Derby day revenue overall, and a lot came from new people. I have a pretty good idea where some of them are coming from.
I\'m a guy who buys the seminar every year. Honestly, IF Rags had a track history of being equal or superior on the big days, I would not let another
$ 15.00 - 25.00 stop me from buying both. I\'m assuming anyone who plays horses year around is planning on spending a larger portion of their bankroll than they would on a typical Saturday, so that little extra money is a small price to pay if it yields something significant.
I say keep putting out a highly successful seminar, don\'t HIDE the numbers or who you feel will run well and not run well. If a competing product wants to crow about something, let them crow about their results. Isn\'t that how a competitive business works?
Why don\'t you consider asking the guys on a scale of 1-10 how good they think the seminar was in terms of content, in terms of selecting high placement horses, and who felt they were helped or not helped by having paid for it.
If that happens, invite the competitors to survey their customers.
Both entities took a hit on Upstart, no advantage either way on that horse. I don\'t know, I\'m guessing they like Carpe Diem a bit, and no one can hold Materiality\'s start as a poor horse to select.How did the other 17 horses do compared to the seminar analysis?
For the overall content, the paying attention and pointing out stats, things to consider in the seminar, that is always top notch methodology by JB.
I\'m giving the survey a solid 8 out of 10 and I don\'t even think a 9 of 10 or 10 of 10 is possible unless Upstart wins that race at 20/1 and Carpe lands somewhere on the board.
Sorry to ramble.
How did a rocket ship like Private Zone barely outrun Dame Dorothy by only 13/100ths, same 7f distance, only 90+ minutes later?
Exactly. And crucially, you have to look at not just the winners, but all the ones that ran in those and other races.
Isn\'t it just as important to have Commanding Curve as a really live horse at large odds like last year? That horse made everyone\'s ticket worthwhile behind Chrome.
I know giving stuff away isn\'t always the best business model, but speaking for myself I always felt that 10% of something was a helluva lot better than 100% of nothing.
As a guy who gladly purchases the seminar, I would not have any issue if you decided next year, to offer the Derby seminar free or at a reduced price for first time seminar purchasers. Why not give those people a reason to take a serious listen to all that you provide in that seminar? No question, you will retain many of those in the coming years.
Some people are really dogmatic, really loyal, they let personalities get in the road, but at the end of the day gamblers want results that put money in their pocket. If I really liked a dude and I was paying for his data and it wasn\'t performing for me, I would walk away and find somebody who\'s getting the job done.
I have no idea what you think about the suggestion about the free/reduced price for first time seminar buyers, but JB, we have free stuff all over this site!! I must have been pulling up Archives 500 times in the last month for the Derby looking to validate what I was thinking. We get to download for free every day almost to see TG figures from a track or race that we didn\'t even purchase.
Every year you give away a week or more of free data for as many tracks as a guy wants to look at.
Your numbers are creeping up because the data is good, your numbers are creeping up because the product isn\'t cheap, but it also performs.
When I download the Triple Crown races or the BC days, its with the idea that there will jewels in there that I didn\'t/wasn\'t able to uncover doing it my own way.
Again, sorry to ramble, but I check out that other board on occasion and I see mostly disgruntled users. If I\'m a Rags user (never spent a penny there), I say give me something I can sink my teeth and wallet into, or I\'m taking a hike to the site that\'s returning value to its customers.
That\'s all I gotta say about this topic.
Friday\'s Oaks review alone was worth the price of admission.
I heard a lot of mentions of Thorograph on TVG. Mike Joyce gave a great on-air plug for the Seminar.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How did a rocket ship like Private Zone barely
> outrun Dame Dorothy by only 13/100ths, same 7f
> distance, only 90+ minutes later?
Island Town, a $75k Optional Claimer, outran both of those G1 animals at 11am. Hell there were 6 horses in that race that were faster than Nate\'s Mineshaft and Pants On Fire.
Any figure maker who doesn\'t use a trending variant on that card is going to get mauled.
On raw time. And on figures that start with the assumption that tracks don\'t ever change speed during the day except for \"rain, freeze, or thaw\" (Ragozin quote from his book, co-written by Friedman. Where Len says he \"knows\" this).
So if they posted figures for all of Derby day either a) their guys would see entire fields of horses get crazy bad and crazy good figures, or b) they would see that Friedman/Jake decided the track changed speed. Which latter would mean they are hypocrites, and that decades of figures were based on an assumption which was false (and has absolutely no basis in science, as I discuss in Changing Track Speeds, in the Archives).
So they won\'t be posting Derby day sheets except for the Derby.
JB,
What is interesting is Beyer gave Private Zone only 95 and Dame Dorothy 93, obviously using the 13/100 raw as the sole differnce between the two races.Beyer did not have the track changing speed between the time the two 7f races were run.
..weird.
Mike
Yeah Mike and they will swear they don\'t use par times anymore!
After the first race, I went to look at the track. I was on the first turn. The area closest to the rail where I was standing up close and personal was hard and wet, similar to sand on the beach where the waves just washed it down flat as could be. You could see the dark brown wetness. From that point at the outter rail over to the inner rail, the surface was progressively more light and fluffier in appearance. But my thought was that just below that initial layer of \"lighter\" material was a hard surface the horses were running on in that first race just like what I was seeing on the far outter area.
They ran the tractors over it right away after that first race. I didn\'t follow as closely all day but they played with the water and tractors all day long.
That first race was a super highway I declared to my friends (watching on the tv) which led me to go look closer right then.
I thought it changed throughout the day. That final Derby time still has me perplexed.
Frank,
Been busting chops with a Beyer guy since Sat.He said Nate\'s Mineshaft dragged the fig down for Private Zone once Bayern, Pants on Fire and even Cee Zee ran off races.Tough to figure the 2 7f races coincidentally come up exact off raw clock...dunno about that.
Beyer definitely had the track slowing down. Watching the replay carefully(surface not horses) you can see a cloud of dust kicking up indicating a dried out surface.
It is highly unlikely, unless the surface slowed from earlier,that no derby horse could break 25.61 the last quarter, which was run by Materiality.
Mike
Mike,
We could debate why\'s why not\'s and figs for this group for weeks. Many were coming in with chinks in their armor and the draw killed a few as well.
There is no doubt in my mind the track slowed throughout the day. Still have to really look deep into this bunch turning the Derby into a boat race, 1,2,3 all the way around?
Frank,
A reasonable explanation by two respected fig makers was that the pace was much faster than thought given how much the track slowed.Two numbers off a solid variant system says the derby was run like minus +1.69 in total or adusted to 2.01.33, plausible.
Lotta offs and X\'s for sure and top three finishers broke the Beyer 100 mark which is rare for the derby according to them.
Interested to see how JB has derby.AP adjusted for ground comes up like TG -2.75 if JB agrees with Beyer.
Mike
Mike do not want to get long winded but Churchill under extended blue skies and limited humidity gets very cuppy. Even twenty thousand gallons of water a day does little to help. When the track is cuppy, it breaks away from the pressure caused when trying to push off with the hoof (shoe), causing horses to tire dramatically.
Late fractions in both the Oaks and Derby remarkably slow; a figure makers nightmare. bbb
I\'m in agreement that the track definitely slowed down throughout the day, but I want to add another opinion of these two races.
Because of the pace setup, Dame Dorothy had an opportunity to utilize nearly perfect energy distribution. She ran 23.6/23.2/23.6 and was able to kick home in 12.4.
Private Zone, on a slightly slower, slightly more tiring track, ran a 22.4/22.2. Private Zone\'s performance was significantly stronger than DD\'s.
I\'m fully own board with changing track speeds. Data is conclusive.
Honest question: For the slow derby time, how can you differentiate between the track speed and the fact that many of the horses can\'t get 10F at the same speed as they can get 9F. Do internal fractions come into play? The mile fraction looked legit. It was only the last 1/4 that they slowed to a crawl. And does Mubtaahij past races help since he has run a bit farther twice?
Thanks for the great work
Maybe an X on Oaks day is appropriate, but it sure also looked to me like the rail was not the place to be in the Derby. There was no closing on the rail, by some proven closers.
beazley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m fully own board with changing track speeds.
> Data is conclusive.
>
> Honest question: For the slow derby time, how can
> you differentiate between the track speed and the
> fact that many of the horses can\'t get 10F at the
> same speed as they can get 9F. Do internal
> fractions come into play? The mile fraction
> looked legit. It was only the last 1/4 that they
> slowed to a crawl. And does Mubtaahij past races
> help since he has run a bit farther twice?
>
> Thanks for the great work
The track may have slowed down but if it did, it retained it\'s character. My belief is that you saw some relatively mediocre efforts based upon problems with the distance. At the end the top 3 were gassed, but there were only three other horses in the race and 2 were out of the picture on trouble.
Sure they\'ll be numbers, but
Any idea what Frosted ran the last 4f or last quarter? He made a long sustained run from 15th to 4th.
Thanks,
Patrick