I\'m not getting what is discarded and replaced that creates a flaw in projection.

Also, \'creative license\' is also required in making clock based variants, so to hang that tag on projection as if it were a weakness doesn\'t get anywhere.



miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eck,
>
> Agree but also highlights a flaw in the projection
> methodology. Whatever does not \"add up to norm\" is
> discarded and replaced by creative license.Keeps
> things nice and tidy and allows Lebron, and the
> rest to, on rare occasion,score 8 but get credit
> for 28.
>
>
> Mike

I have no problem with their numbers, I was only suggesting it might flagged. It\'s clear the turf mile was v.slow. However, that doesn\'t mean it has no merit. What definitely has no merit would be to give the turf mile a 100% clock based speed figure. (Especially for pattern readers like TG folks)

Wrote TG 7 -- 2w2w -- 1.37.41s
Court Vision TG -1/4 -- 2w3w -- 1.37.05s

2L diff of time plus 1L diff of ground does not equate anywhere near to 7.25pts diff of TG. On purely time, the diff between them would be only TG 1.5 (Not to mention the track being changed gd - fm during the day)

Just illustrating the point that TG are not making time based speed figures here, but performance based figures.  

If you look at the mile. None of them have ever ran as \"quick\" as -1/4 except Goldikova (once) and Gio Ponti (twice). Yet we know the race was far from quick in absolute terms. I think a sl_pace designation might be warranted to put some more perspective on the number itself.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those guys make very good European figures, though
> they have problems with certain things I won\'t go
> into. Their American figures aren\'t nearly as
> accurate, just ballpark.


Personally, I don\'t use them, I make my own, always have done.
I do know that they they have recently finished the first phase
of doing US numbers comprehensively. i.e. not just stakes level
but all levels at (nearly) every track. They are now owned by
betfair so it makes sense to provide data for that market should
it ever take off. (You yourself had a generous protracted free
data deal with them a while back.) The methodology behind it is
not speed (timefigures) which could never provide a complete
database for pace reasons. Neither is it yardstick handicapping
whereby you consider all horses toward the objective of finding
the animal(s) that \"ran it\'s race\" and basing everyting around
that. They use race standardisation. Here are some taster about
this methodology by the guy responsible for building Timeforms
new north american dbase.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Timeform have given The Factor 119.

Timeform rate the horse 127p. For the race yesterday they gave it 114+.

Paco Boy confirmed to run. Btn nk,nk,0.5L in three attempts by Goldikova this season. Retires to stud after this race, owners want one last shot against the mare.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of these days you\'re going to explain your
> idea of geometry to me.


I\'ve asked about this before. Wouldn\'t it be worth finding an empirical solution to the ground loss issue because there could be more to it than a length lost on a bend is (effectively) worth a length at the line.

I\'ve already suggested using pairs of horses who reoppose with differing ground loss profiles to their first meeting. Many such matches would be required to smooth out the variance but hopefully a useful picture may emerge from the data. Or any better idea would suffice, so long as it was empirical.

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The panelists said they
> have no more information, or racing data, than any
> other player,

Really no pre-race access to trifecta, superfecta, multi-race pool data?

magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could one of our Euro-savvy posters weigh in on
> how things have been in the UK and Ireland with
> their evening post times on Fridays? The way I
> understand it, in the late Spring and early
> Summer, they take advantage of the 10PM sunsets
> and have Friday evening cards at places like
> Newmarket and the Curragh. It sounds great.
> Anybody?


In the UK 2008, there were 916 flat racing cards. 364 of these were evening cards. Evening racing has been standard fare at most tracks for decades.

I have the going allowance (ie track variant) as +0.64 secs per furlong (vsoft).
which give it a rating of 63. Add in the 35lb WFA for a 2yo in midAugust and you get a final rating of 98. Tad below G3. Not bad for a bow. The 2nd home is a half to a G1 winner and 3rd home is out of multi G1 winning Shawanda. Solid as you can get.

Don\'t see what\'s funny about throwing out Jacksons Bend first. Simply horrible pick IMO.

Click

Any case made on comparitives on TG numbers from different surfaces is flawed to begin with.

The antipathy of players to polytrack etc is all about their malcontent as handicappers at losing the front speed dirt bias at these tracks and their fear that a roll out might spread further still. All the other chatter is just that.