Here are my calculations of historical Derby performance (not including this year\'s race) based on turn 1 path:
1w (91 horses): 3% top, 21% pair, 26% off, 49% X
2w (62): 10%, 15%, 32%, 44%
3w (82): 11%, 30%, 18%, 40%
4w and wider (72): 13%, 13%, 17%, 58%
Of somewhat greater significance to me, is whether 3 wide was the place to be on May 2, 2015 by the 11th race.
Somewhat illustrates my point that ground loss is overweight in sheets methodology.
Being 3 wide would only be the place to be if the inside paths became dead by the 11th race which is doubtful.The dirt race prior to the derby featured Private Zone battle along the inside before pulling away.The surface was also slowing down by then as affirmed by the Dame Dorothy race which went only slightly slower, notwithstanding DD is not in the same area code as PZ figure wise.
\"Lies, damned lies, and statistics\".
It could be that paths is overweighted in the figures. It could also be that the speed on the rail hasn\'t fared too well in the derby, that \"20\" horses on the outside is a stressor, and that those jockeys confident that they had a lot of horse prefered to steer out wide to get out of trouble and have clean running room. It\'s a good way to begin a discussion, though!
Pete,
Agree but you also have to realize that while it is true that speed horses race on inside there are always some stalkers/closers that race inside too.
Mike
The obvious question would be why if ground is overweighted why 4w doesn\'t do better than 3w.
More obvious is why 2,3,4 wide produce more tops than 1 wide
There\'s a lot more logic to that-- there\'s more trouble in there, especially a big field. Some of those 1w\'s started from post one, like Lookin At Lucky.
But if there\'s logic as to why, if ground is weighted too much, 3w should produce better figures than 4w, I would like to hear it.
That gets into the silly zone. Is it reasonable to think that 6,7,8 wide should produce more tops 2,3,4 wide?
A point we are not addressing here is also critical. A horse travelling the first turn 3 wide in 13-14 seconds gets the same adjustment as a horse travelling 3 wide in 11-12 seconds.As you know, there is a profound difference in where those horses would probably finish, all else equal.
One I could think of, all though I\'m reaching here, is that 4wide on the 1st turn is a horrible spot either way, that most jockeys probably will feel a little desperate if finding themselves in, perhaps making them do some stupid moves, OR it could indicate that those horses already had been in some kind of trouble forcing them to go very wide OR that horses in the 4th path on the first turn probably also are coming from a horrible draw (pp 18-20) which were forcing them to try to use a lot of horse early in hope of getting themselves a better position (a gamble), that might have an impact on the final figure. From the top of my head. It is a small sample.
I think Miff\'s point is a valid one, and I have been wrestling with that problem myself for a long time, have you ever done some studies where you\'ve been trying to \"weigh down\" the effects of paths to the figures from turns were there have been obviously a slow pace (it really should almost only apply to the 1st turn)? I think those races may be the most notorious producers of what I\'ve seen Miff been calling \"ground-loaded\" figures or something like that, and it would be really interesting to me if someone ever did a study like that using the TG-figures. Because if that was the case, if Miff is proven right, then the next horrible question that remains to be answered is just how big an effect a \"slow pace path\" really should be given. Obviously there must be some (they\'re still running further). Using the figs and the other horses to see what makes most sense seems to be the way to go to find out about just that. (and maybe you did already!)
I don\'t \"know\" that, and neither do you. If you have data to back it up I would love to see it. And even if it were true, the same thing would apply to horses in the 2 path, etc. It wouldn\'t just be for horses that were wider.
If you were right, the wider the path the more tops there would be. Because it would mean they were not actually running better, I was just giving them better figures. We\'re talking about figures, not finish position.
Not if them being wide is caused by trouble earlier in the race (which would impact the figure), or poor tactical decisions by desperate jockeys, or because of sub-optimal energy distribution because of the \"hopeless draw\" and a gamble of gunning forward that did not pay off. All those things will impact the final figure as well as the final position.
But you\'re absolutely right, we don\'t know this (all though you should have a better idea about this than I have, and I absolutely respect that). I just thought that if this might be an issue regarding the validity of (just some of) your figures, it could be worthy of further investigation.
First of all, my reply was to Miff. Second, all those things will wash out if the sample size is large enough-- except logically horses on the inside will have more trouble.
That I agree upon. And I also agree that paths is of huge impact, and I would much, much rather have them in there as they are than not. A study about these effects with a larger sample would be of great interest to me.
I think a good study would be to look at the first quarter fractions of horses by starting gate.
Theoretically we should see faster fractions being set by the inside and outside horses, and since both are likely to be inside or far outside on the first turn, you are seeing this set of numbers showing the 3 path, which is most likely to be occupied by horses with middle 7-14 post positions, as the strongest path. The inside and outside horses are far more likely to distribute their energy poorly.
Finish position is relevant to the fig too often to discount it. Horses 3-4 wide losing ground in fast early going usually can be picked up with a blotter somewhere late in the race, not so much for ground losers running slowly early.Obviously, fast early slow late always applies.Losing ground, hung wide while running fast into the first turn is disasterous and possibly a trip that cannot be overcome as to final placing.
Lots of data to support this, pick up charts for any normal day of racing and look for the the scenarios that fit this discussion.
In the perfect world of all things equal in a race all of the time, ground loss critical but that only happens maybe half the time.
Another idea I want to throw out there is this: Horses that are 4+ wide in the first turn are more likely to hit their wall earlier in the stretch, and when you only have 5 payout spots to 20 horses, when these horses who may be pairing up are finding themselves behind 8 horses in the stretch (because they were so wide), the jockey puts the whip away and just gallops home, blowing the pair-up. If it\'s a 8-horse field, they are likely to keep whipping and pushing for the 4th spot because it\'s cash in their pocket.
I give up.
Horses moving through outside paths on the turn cover more ground, but also are on a less severe radius which may suit some horses more than others. Banking might come into play as well as the general tendency of traffic to be denser closer to the rail. None of this seems measurable from a figure standpoint. I typically will watch a lot of replays to \'fine tune\' interpretations of the numbers, especially on days like the Derby.
Energy sapped from too much drinking?Briliant advice from an old college professor(not applicable to any of our strings)
\'Never debate a subject matter with someone who knows much more or much less than you about it, you cannot win\"
You shouldn\'t.
Furious Pete wrote:
\"have you ever done some studies where you\'ve been trying to \"weigh down\" the effects of paths to the figures from turns were there have been obviously a slow pace (it really should almost only apply to the 1st turn)? I think those races may be the most notorious producers of what I\'ve seen Miff been calling \"ground-loaded\" figures or something like that, and it would be really interesting to me if someone ever did a study like that using the TG-figures. Because if that was the case, if Miff is proven right, then the next horrible question that remains to be answered is just how big an effect a \"slow pace path\" really should be given.\"
This will get you nowhere unless you take into consideration where the wide horse was in relation to the early lead--because the same principle that you are relying on for your groundloss-into-crawling-pace point is also at work in a manner that is totally unrelated to groundloss. It is even at work with horses who ran the whole way on the rail.
In other words, a pace that is slow enough to defang groundloss is also slow enough to raise hell with speed figures in a whole bunch of other ways.
Unless you\'re content to pull a pebble off a beach, you need to take this thing further.
You can add to the list arguing (or even conversing) with those that intentionally don\'t want to see. The string on the other board re Competitive Edge is as disingenuous as the one about Condo Commando.
Guys-- my point had nothing to do with betting the race or the result of it. I bet against Competitive Edge (and Condo Commando) myself, and took public positions against them. But there is only one place on planet earth where someone would say CE\'s last race was 6 points slower than Gimme Da Lute\'s and no faster than the Hillbilly horse ran twice. There is no form of handicapping, analysis or figure making that could ever get you to a result so ridiculous, save one. Beyer doesn\'t make mistakes that big. Same for Power Alert\'s race two back. No matter who any of us bet.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can add to the list arguing (or even
> conversing) with those that intentionally don\'t
> want to see. The string on the other board re
> Competitive Edge is as disingenuous as the one
> about Condo Commando.
>
> Guys-- my point had nothing to do with betting the
> race or the result of it. I bet against
> Competitive Edge (and Condo Commando) myself, and
> took public positions against them. But there is
> only one place on planet earth where someone would
> say CE\'s last race was 6 points slower than Gimme
> Da Lute\'s and no faster than the Hillbilly horse
> ran twice. There is no form of handicapping,
> analysis or figure making that could ever get you
> to a result so ridiculous, save one. Beyer doesn\'t
> make mistakes that big. Same for Power Alert\'s
> race two back. No matter who any of us bet.
The funniest part is the clown suggesting Vito made more than you this weekend.
Let\'s see. Vito posts a 2/1 winner, and gets props from the stooges over there for it. I mean, they celebrated that accomplishment.
You post a clear 26/1 key that triggers nice vertical payouts.
Yet somehow Vito won more.
More fun with numbers.
Paul-- You know you\'re talking to deaf people over there, right?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul-- You know you\'re talking to deaf people over
> there, right?
Deaf and dumb.
Don\'t shortchange them.
He deleted my account, because he couldn\'t handle the truth. After he deletes this one, I\'m done.
I have 2 dogs, user names after them. I don\'t have anymore dog names to use, so I guess I\'ll just stop.
When you need a good laugh, its an easy site to get one.
I\'m realitively new to TG but not to racing. One thing that I have noticed whether it be in sprints or in routes some tracks play better on the outside. Being wide at Belmont is not the same as being wide on the Aqudect inner track. Actually being wide at Belmont appears to be an advantage, running freely without have to hold your horse. Also, wide at Santa Anita in sprint races also appears to be an advantagous postion. Just one persons thoughts.
The \"Belmont sweep\" of the late 80\'s was as real as it gets, the wider the better on many days.