I would like to use this occasion to raise some questions I have about your figure making methodology and I would love to hear others input about the issues as well! I\'ll use examples from the sheets for this Breeders Cup as I do have spent a lot of time in them these last days anyways and I thought I should be man enough to stick my neck out up front; who knows, maybe we get some good bets out of it too! And if you get proven right on my behalf, that is perfectly fine too!
The questions really boils down to: Do you always use all horses in a race to project figures?
I\'ll provide you with some examples of the kind of figures I\'m talking about.
Stonetastic, obviously. I have noticed this a few times, that a horse that ran away with a lot got crazy figures, and by making figures myself over here in Europe I also understand well how it could happen. Races where everything can\'t possible make sense no matter how you do it. And it shouldn\'t be impossible to run big figures, either! But could Stonetastic really have ran that figure that made her to just about the greatest filly, ever? Here\'s what makes me even more skeptical. I see in the race shapes and by reading the sheets that Stonetastic has run two really great races in her racing career, both where runaways victories (neg 6,25 and 15,75 lengths to the 2nd place finisher, and neg 2,25 as a 3yo filly in august with 8,5 lengths to the 2nd place finisher). What I also see is that in those two races she ran INCREDIBLE fast first quarters, compared to herself! 21.16 and 21.06 is more than 4 lengths faster in the first quarter than she\'s ever done before or since (according to the race shapes). And since those fractions in the race shapes are adjusted for track speed, weight etc etc it means that she actually beat her quickest self by more than 4 lengths in two furlongs in those two starts were she earned those big tops. No matter the difference between the horses in such a race, if you watch a 2 furlong race they seldom finish 4 lengths apart and here she beat herself by 4. Something is weird. And the race should be threated weird, imo. Isn\'t it possible that horses (or/and jockeys!) in a race that have such a superior runaway horse in it in some kind of way just \"gives up the win and concentrate about becoming 2nd?\", with completely new tactics/herd dynamics? And which also, in a figure making kind of view, would mean they all ran \"off\" races? I don\'t like this race personally from a betting point of view and think I\'ll go soft on it, but I do anticipate a regression to the mean for Stonetastic which won\'t give her a piece of this.. And I don\'t like Fioretti! Let me get to that one.
I\'ll illustrate my problem further with a different kind of example that\'s up the same alley, and I\'ll use Fioretti. These ones I call \"sloppy figs\". Are you really sure that what happened was that Fioretti ran a more than 3 points new top in the mud last time out? These I see a lot, runaway winners at off tracks earning huge figures. It just seems so strange that these horses have waited all their lifes to race at awful racing conditions! Isn\'t it more reasonable to think that some horses don\'t thrive, but just don\'t hate the slop or mud just as much as others? Like the off tracks stat for Bernardini, Fioretti\'s Sire also indicates, they win 20 % of these races which is huge. (Can I just say btw, that the off track stat for different sires is worth the price of the form alone on off track racing days, it\'s the most incredible stat I\'ve ever seen!). So, in the cases, where a horse suddenly runs away from them and earning a huge new top, isn\'t it in those rare cases more likely that everyone behind ran poorly than a horse like Fioretti, a 5 yo at the end of a long season (11 races in 11 months), run a new top like that? And I wonder, what did you actually do to come up with that figure, did it come from using all the horses behind when projecting or did you turn around every stone possible to see if it would be reasonable to give every runner in the field off numbers in that race except the winner (so that Fioretti ran a 5 or a at least not better than a 4?). What\'s your policy in these cases? Greenpointscrusader is another one who fits this category perfectly, and this one will be heavily bet! I for one will bet against for the same reason as not betting Fioretti, I just don\'t buy it. And specially not at a short price. Those I will use for what it\'s worth is Conquest Big E and Exaggerator (whose pretty similar sheet I read completely different btw; didn\'t earn that figure by running away but was close to Brody\'s Cause and figured to run a good one either way (route distance, decent pattern; I like this one). Sire stat doesnt indicate anything special on off tracks either!)
Next category is the perfect set up-figures, let\'s use Keen Ice as an example and there it is pretty obvious what you did because we have Frosted and American Pharaoh in that race too. You paired up Frosted and I would say you paired up Pharaoh too (what he normally does). So, you gave Keen Ice that figure because he beat Frosted and Pharaoh who \"normally\" runs a neg 1 or thereabouts, that was expected. But my question is, instead of projecting with \"Pharaoh and Frosted\", shouldn\'t you have been projecting with a \"totally knackered Frosted and Pharaoh\", they collapsed and Keen Ice picked up the pieces and should not therefore have gotten a neg 3 indicating that he ran a faster race than Frosted has ever done or as when Pharaoh won the Derby and almost as fast as Tonalist has ever done? I thought that was the point, why do you still insist on using all the horses when making the figures for a race like that instead of concentrating on getting Keen Ice right and then let the others get what they get? I\'ll not be using Keen Ice in the classic, I think this race will go to either American Pharaoh or Tonalist and I will play the race as a spectacularly unspectacular boxed exacta, even though I ain\'t proud of it!
Another issue in the same kind of alley all though not exactly the same are the \"ground-loaded figures\", and I think there are some great examples of it on these sheets. I read Grand Arch\'s sheets, which I really like for this race and will be keying, and notice the X behind his last figure indicating the dead rail. That is fine and is one of the reasons I want to use him heavily in this years cup. But, what I becomes sceptical about is that I read on and find the sheets belonging to Tourist and Tepin. They too also ran on that same turf track that day and they both ran incredible well; in fact both earned a two point lifetop. That is completely possible, of course, but what troubles me is that they earned those figures by being wide throughout. Tourist made his insanely great figure of neg 1,25 by being 5w5w, while Tepin earned her great figure by being 4w3w. I know I have read somewhere on these forums that you do remove the railhorses from your considerations when you project figures on days with a dead rail, so there you have an exception to the rule, however, isn\'t it also possible that on these days where there is a dead rail also the 2path would be slower than the 3path, the 3path would be slower than the 4path etc and that the part of grass where \"noone ever runs\" would be the fastest part of the track? So that what is happening on these days is an \"inflation\" of paths in the figures? I know this is one issue that would be difficult to deal with in a good way anyway, you would probably be better off by go easy on the tops and meet up somewhere in the middle, but in any case, shouldn\'t a figure like that at least come with an annotation in the same way Grand Arch\'s dead rail comes with an X? I for one would love to know about when a figure has been in doubt. As I said I will use Grand Arch as a key in this race and I won\'t be using Tepin and I probably won\'t use Tourist either, but I would if he was drawn inside and by all of these examples I mention I think this is the one that is most likely to come back and bite me in the arse. I really like his pattern, even if the last one maybe was a regular 1 and not a neg 1. Still, a regular 1 probably make him come up just a neck too short here to have anything to do with the exotics, if they can\'t find a dream trip for him, that is..
I won\'t go into the cali-figures vs other track-figures, and the euro turf-figures vs US turf-figures as I\'m sure this is one spot where TGJB and the crew knows better, and that the differences can be related to other things, but I have one thing to say: It is hard to believe that being beat 1 length at a 75 k stakes race on the turf at Gulfstream without horrific ground loss should be worth 1 point better than being beat the same length in a 1000 k sprint at Meydan (where it\'s almost free to enter in the race and the sheiks seem to cover all expenses for owners and trainers; at least that\'s my impression!). We live in a stupid world, but THAT stupid?? Ah well, at least THIS is a spot where I can be proven right this weekend! (Go Green Mask!).
Good luck everyone,
And let me be clear,
I would never touch US racing without buying Thoro-graph first!
That\'s what I need, 75 questions to answer right before BC. Some of those would be interesting to discuss if you can rephrase them without the \"do you still beat your wife\" assumptions built in. Re Stonetastic, you might notice Breen has others in at Kee today, all recently ran big new tops at Parx.
JB,
You have never ever been up this early in your life!!!! Take Noah out for breakfast and tell him to trust his fastball tonight.
Good luck on all fronts,
Frank D.
Frank-- going back to sleep. Mets and BC don\'t help. I\'m thinking more off speed, less fastballs.
Almost unbelievable Mets in do or die game 3,thought they would win in 5 or 6.Harvey and De Gromme losing back to back? What were the odds vs Royals pitchers?
I think Harvey, deGrom and Syndergaard have to be suffering from various degrees
of dead arm after throwing at 95-100 mph throughout the season and now the playoffs...
Last thing any Met fan wants to see tonight is Bartolo galloping in from the
bullpen, man boobs a bouncin\'.
Good point Bee but these young guys in WS for first time are surely geeked up on adrenaline would think.
So the dead arms happened suddenly between the NLCS and the WS? Or maybe the Royals have a pretty good team.
JimP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the dead arms happened suddenly between the
> NLCS and the WS? Or maybe the Royals have a pretty
> good team.
Jim I\'ve been following the Mets since 1964 but can remain objective.
The Royals have a VERY good team, having \"paired\" WS appearances.
The Royals are certainly better than the teams in the NL Least who the Mets
dominated the last 2 months of the season.
But the truth is in terms of velocity and more importantly MOVEMENT, deGrom and
Harvey\'s arms look tired. The truth is that deGrom was nowhere near as sharp in
the NLCS as he was during the regular season.
If it sounded like I am a whiney Met fan making excuses or if I sound like I am
not giving the Royals enough credit, sorry.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the truth is in terms of velocity and more
> importantly MOVEMENT, deGrom and
> Harvey\'s arms look tired. The truth is that deGrom
> was nowhere near as sharp in
> the NLCS as he was during the regular season.
Cubs fan here so no dog in this hunt, just wish we
had a crack at Mets pitchers in their current form,
which is decidedly off. They are making a very good
KC team look even better than they are.
Bobby Ojeda had what I thought was a very valid observation yesterday on Michael Kay\'s show. He thought Harvey and deGrom both were pitching more to the advanced scouting reports and being over analytical as opposed to doing what they do best.
He also stated that everyone pitchers and position players are all \"gassed\" by the world series and its about who can gut it out, make a big pitch, get a big hit etc... There is a lot to be said for the team that was right there the year before coming right back with the experience of the war?
The Royals are good but I believe the Mets have over scouted. A vast majority of the Royals hits - in The clutch- have come from balls left over the plate and resulted in hits up the middle or to opposite field. If I am Syndergard I use the fastball to set up the off speed stuff and not the other way around. With two strikes you have to pound the inside and plant some doubt in KC hitters. Harvey and Degrom almost never went inside. (and I agree with those who like the 12 in the 8th race today. If you watch the Woodbine race he exploded and has worked well. Not such a reach with ease connections to go from an 11 to a 7 second time out.Likely to be 25-1 based on overseas betting.)- Good luck to all and the Mets this weekend.
As a Cubs fan that lives in St. Louis, I absolutely have no dog in this fight as I\'ve told one board member by text recently. And I also told him the same thing Frank, the Royals have the \"been there, done that\" factor going for them. The only reason they lost last year was Madison Bumgarner pitched in every WS game when he was unhittable........(bit of hyperbole there obviously)
With that said, the Chicago Cubbie-Bombers going into the season had a major problem with their lineup, strikeouts. The Oakland A\'s are still wondering why they couldn\'t beat the Reds in 90.....same problem. Home run teams struggle against post-season pitching and contact hitting is the best attempt at beating a rotation like the Mets have this year. The stats on the Royals making contact on deGrom with 2 strikes were pretty unbelievable. The Mets pitchers are the real deal but are facing a team that doesn\'t \"swing for the downs.\" And frankly, Game 1 could have gone either way.
Rumors abound that Mike Piazza is making a comeback for Mets fans tonight to try to get back in it.
Race 4 today: Billy\'s Star is my play today. Turf bullet matches stablemate Tower of Texas. Distance of 1 1/8 miles should allow him time to work out a trip although Joel aboard. TG figs are competitive on poly, thinking it will translate to turf today, and he just ran against Lucky Lindy of Hawthorne Derby fame while having a shade of trouble. 3, 9, and 10 boxed along with the win ticket on the 10. (8 passed the Haw Derby of $150k for this $100k race so I\'m not sure what to make of that but I\'m tossing the front runner who I\'m thinking prefers FIRM).
Best of Luck to everyone today.
The Cubs are the exact opposite of the Royals. The Cubs strike out a lot. The Royals are successful because they don\'t say \"the strike outs are okay because it\'s a trade off for power.\" The Mets pitchers get two strikes and it doesn\'t do them any good. They need to keep the ball down and get ground balls. The Royals got everything in the air against DeGrom and that did not go well. They should also put Uribe in instead of Wright but that won\'t happen.
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a Cubs fan that lives in St. Louis, I
> absolutely have no dog in this fight as I\'ve told
> one board member by text recently. And I also
> told him the same thing Frank, the Royals have the
> \"been there, done that\" factor going for them.
> The only reason they lost last year was Madison
> Bumgarner pitched in every WS game when he was
> unhittable........(bit of hyperbole there
> obviously)
>
> With that said, the Chicago Cubbie-Bombers going
> into the season had a major problem with their
> lineup, strikeouts. The Oakland A\'s are still
> wondering why they couldn\'t beat the Reds in
> 90.....same problem. Home run teams struggle
> against post-season pitching and contact hitting
> is the best attempt at beating a rotation like the
> Mets have this year. The stats on the Royals
> making contact on deGrom with 2 strikes were
> pretty unbelievable. The Mets pitchers are the
> real deal but are facing a team that doesn\'t
> \"swing for the downs.\" And frankly, Game 1 could
> have gone either way.
>
> Rumors abound that Mike Piazza is making a
> comeback for Mets fans tonight to try to get back
> in it.
>
> Race 4 today: Billy\'s Star is my play today.
> Turf bullet matches stablemate Tower of Texas.
> Distance of 1 1/8 miles should allow him time to
> work out a trip although Joel aboard. TG figs are
> competitive on poly, thinking it will translate to
> turf today, and he just ran against Lucky Lindy of
> Hawthorne Derby fame while having a shade of
> trouble. 3, 9, and 10 boxed along with the win
> ticket on the 10. (8 passed the Haw Derby of
> $150k for this $100k race so I\'m not sure what to
> make of that but I\'m tossing the front runner who
> I\'m thinking prefers FIRM).
>
> Best of Luck to everyone today.
Thanks for the 1990 reference. Fond memories. Those A\'s teams were known for power but had many who didn\'t. They lost because Cincinnati had an outstanding pen, and their lineup got hot at the right time. They just got outplayed for 4 games. It happens.
KC is doing what they do. Grind ABs, aggressive on the bases, solid staff with a very good pen. They don\'t depend on one guy. They make pitchers work.
Its not over yet, let\'s see what happens tonight.
Furious Pete -
I hope you can understand why TGJB was not completely receptive to getting into a discussion of figure-making philosophy when trying to prepare for one of the biggest betting days of the year. On the flip side, I can also understand why you wanted to post when you did, to avoid being branded a \"redboarder.\"
To get to the substance of your post, I would ask what you would do differently. I suspect that people who use TG figures regularly have a very good idea how they are made and which figures might be more predictive than others. The important thing is that TGJB have a consistent approach, so that customers know what has already been done and what they need to do on their own.
Stonetastic: I would agree with you that figures where one horse runs away from an inferior field are probably hard to make and need to be taken with a grain of salt. Did the rest of the field just ignore the winner and run about what they normally would, or did they exhaust themselves trying to keep up with an inferior animal? In making that decision, I\'m guessing that TGJB is guided not only by the horses\' prior figures, but also by what he can learn about track speed by looking at the rest of the card. Would it really matter to your handicapping if Stonetastic\'s Parx figure was a negative 3 or 4 rather than a negative 6. The critical thing is that whatever TGJB does with the Stonetastic figure, he has to do the same thing with the rest of the field. I don\'t think users want TG to start making figures on a horse-by-horse basis. (I don\'t know where you got Stonetastic\'s first-quoter splits. They don\'t agree with what is in the DRF.)
Fioretti: I think most handicappers take a skeptical view of big new tops earned in the mud. TGJB did give out a lot of poor figures to other horses in the TCA field (e.g., Judy the Beauty, Sweet Whiskey). Should those figures have been even worse? I haven\'t seen the figures for the whole field. I\'m guessing Heykittykittykitty about paired her top. If TGJB downgraded Fioretti, he would also have to downgrade Heykittykittykitty.
Keen Ice: Are you suggesting that TGJB should make figures off just Keen Ice, rather than looking at the whole field? How would he decide what to give Keen Ice? It was not unrealistic to expect that he would improve at 10 furlongs. How would you decide how much he improved?
Ground loaded figures: There has been a lot of discussion about this on the board in the past. Miff posts about it often. I suspect that users have developed their own philosophies about how to deal with ground-loaded figures. The nice thing about TG is that the ground loss is right there on the sheet, so the data is there for you to take into account.
Thanks BitPlayer, for providing me with some good arguments on the subject and in a manner I found very polite and respectful.
Stonetastic: First of all, the the first quarter-splits was from the race shapes that followed the form so it\'s all relative first quarters that I would guess has some kind of relationship with the relevant track speed for the race (correct TGJB?). I don\'t know exactly what to read into those but I just found it incredible that she ran those first quarters so much faster than her normal in those two races where she also earned those remarkable figures. I would love to hear from the man himself what one could possibly read into that, if anything, and if the track variants those days were particularly hard to determine, extraordinary or something like that. I\'m fully aware that one have to change all the horses the same amount if one wants to change one of them, and therefore I too find it a superior strategy to make them that way, in general. I also understand that the track variants in the races around will be a factor in the decision, specially in very difficult cases like these. I would truly love to hear more details about the thinking and the thought process behind this particular figure (which is an extreme case). However, all though I find it the best strategy to always look at all horses when deciding I think there are these rare cases were you gotta throw away your usual way of doing things and use ones judgement and common sense instead, which I\'m sure TGJB is better suited than anyone to do anyway. I\'m not saying that hasn\'t happened here but some comments I\'ve seen here comparing this process with linear regression did make me wonder (because in such a mathematical process you would just find the variant that fits the best with everyone, right?). I guess I just wonder about how much \"leeway\" you give yourself when making these decissions, Jerry? To get to the question, what I would have done different: I think I would have probably pushed the new top as low as I reasonably could and in this particular case just decided that (most of if not all) those behind ran poorer than they\'re capable of because of the way the race was ran, the track played etc. I do think that can happen in races that are out of the ordinary, and I would rather have poor figures that I can excuse in my handicapping than having an insane figure that make the next race unbettable no matter whom it\'s up against. I\'m also not sure that I would have come up with the first big one with my method of making figures either, because it looked like a pretty similar situation. If so it would\'ve been even harder to give out the neg 6, all though it looks like they both should still be tops. But of course, I know way to little about the details here to conclude either way and I\'m sorry if I came across as rude or judgmental in my previous post; that was not my intention, I just wanted some discussions going on about these issues.
Fioretti: For me this is all about making figures that best describe the reality, and that often boils down to probability. That\'s also why the linear regression-analogy is a good one in general when it comes to figure making because that process is all about finding the fit that is most likely given all the datapoints (previous numbers). However I do think there are these rare cases where this model don\'t fit very well and one should rather go with judgment or \"creative license\", as I\'ve seen someone call it here. Again, I\'m not saying that TGJB hasn\'t done just that but if so I would again like to hear more about how this thought process looks like. To me it is just very unlikely that Fioretti would suddenly run that figure that day in those conditions and that would certainly guide my personal thought process, given the circumstances in this particular race. Again, when I face these rare situations where the standard of doing things seems just wrong and for a reason (here: conditions), those are luckily not that many, I usually go easy on the huge and very unexpected new tops and are more inclined to make the race slower for everyone. I still prefer having figures to excuse than figures that are hard to ignore (if one doesn\'t have this religious belief in bounce theory that makes one never bet a horse that have just ran big). And in any case I prefer what\'s closest to reality (event though that is obviously still up for discussion).
Keen Ice: This is the one example where I\'m pretty sure what I would have done or at least in which ballpark I would\'ve ended up in. To me, again, this is about connecting what you see and common sense with your figure making methodology. To me there are two things in this race that would influence my decision, all though I admit I don\'t know how it \"paired up\" behind the top three horses in the race. First I would look at the sheets, then I would watch the race, and I would ask myself: Is it really likely that Frosted and American Pharaoh, the way this race was ran, the way American Pharaoh looked (before and after), the way his sheet were, his season, the way he looked so extremely tired at the end, the pace scenario, the fact that he for the first time had to face a serious challenge; all these things considered is it likely that Frosted pairs up his best efforts and Pharaoh pairs up his next best effort? It\'s possible of course, after all Pharaoh had probably never been asked so hard and Frosted did impress, and tbh, to me that race is American Pharaohs most impressive effort. Because he showed so much heart! But still, the race was a disaster for him tactically and he didn\'t look in top form so all though it\'s possible he ran a good figure I still think it\'s unlikely. And with that theory in mind, which always is flexible btw, I would take a hard look at Keen Ices sheet and the way he ran, and I would probably conclude that he really benefited from the way those two in front duelled and I would give him some credit for it anyway but I guess this is where we differ; I\'d rather slow it down a few points and \"punish\" Pharaoh and Frosted for the way theirs was ran, and probably end up at a neg 1 or thereabouts for Keen Ice. Because to me at least it just seem more likely that way, and it\'s just more aligned with what I just saw and felt and what my judgment tells me. And I\'m actually not even sure if track variants and numbers could trumph that because there are so many weird things going on with pace and tactics, sudden changes in track speed etc that it\'s so easy to go wrong. That\'s why I personally always prefer to \"check\" with my common sense as well.
About Ground; I\'m actually a big believer in ground in figures in general and don\'t usually get very skeptical about horses earning good numbers by being very wide, and I usually treat those figures as opportunities rather than something else because they often will be underbet. When that is said there are some exceptions to that rule, an example being very slow pace or as in this scenario, a race track where the inside is slower than the outside. Here I don\'t really see a clear, possible practical solution to the problem of getting the figures to reflect the reality the best; that\'s why I would love to hear more about how Jerry thinks about this problem. I guess my approach here again would be to \"punish\" the inside horses just a bit more than giving big new tops to the outside horses (specially when they\'re experienced), all though I think this is the most difficult one of the subjects I raised. And if anything I\'m \"calmer\" about that now after Tepin ran big again. I would however personally like an annotation like the \"X for dead rail\", maybe one could give out those X\'es for all the horses in that race and not just the rail horses or something like that so one could easier make those personal adjustments to how one uses the form. I don\'t follow US racing that often any more and it was just by coincidence/extra BC-awareness that I even noticed that the big numbers to Tepin and Tourist was the same track/day as the dead rail on Grand Arch\'s Sheet. (A shame really as that extra awareness and possibly faulty idea about those kind of figures maybe cost me a fortune; as I had boxed Grand Arch/Mondialiste big on the top two places in the exotics in that race!)
Pete-- look, I know you come to this with good intentions. But you still are framing the conversation in terms of how you would approach things and assumptions about how I did, rather than asking me open ended questions. Briefly:
Stonetastic race. We\'ll post the race later this week, remind me. But by EVERY measure, that figure is correct. By that I mean what the other horses have done before AND since, and how that race fits with the day. There are 4 one turn races before and one after, it\'s right in line.
Look at it this way. If she had won by ten, and got a neg 2, would that make sense to you? If she beat that field by 5 and got a 2, would that make sense? All three things are the same thing (assuming the time is correspondingly slower). Stonetastic ran almost 12 POINTS faster than the second filly.
Fioretti-- When you were handicapping that race you said, Fioretti can win this just by running what she has been (while racing 4w)? I doubt it. a) As noted, if you give her worse you have to give the others even worse, and I gave them plenty bad already-- I added about 1 1/2 compared to the surrounding sprints, and marked the race for review, to see if it was BETTER. But b), if you make figures that way you\'ll never give anyone a new top.
Keen Ice-- I will only say on that one if I ever started making figures that way-- making assumptions that horses SHOULD not have run well, or should, there\'s a guy who lives in Staten Island who posts here who would stop using my figures, but not before he hired a hit man.
But that aside, you again are making all kinds of assumptions about how I got there. There were other horses in that race (like Upstart), and there was also another 2 turn race earlier in the card, and the variant was 1/4 point different. I will break a race out when it\'s clear what the race should be, but not when it\'s just clear that the track has changed speed, and I\'m guessing. When that happens I leave a box.
Your position is basically the opposite of Miff\'s. He thinks it should be assumed that the track does not change speed unless you have a specific reason that it did, which is the Ragozin position, and I should use as little judgment as possible. You think every figure made is a handicapping decision. You guys can have some interesting conversations.