Couple of Questions - JB

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

A couple of questions, when you have a chance.  

1.  I don\'t want to go back to the entire discussion with CH about \"pace\", but generally speaking, how would you characterize your view on \"pace\" and the effect on figures.  I know in the past you have said that you feel it can matter but not nearly as often as some people think. And I know it is not factored into your figures (nor do I think it should be). But in reading all of the ROTW\'s I don\'t remember ever reading anywhere where you discounted a horse\'s chances because of \"pace contention\" or gave a horse a greater chance to win because of being \"alone on the lead\".  Usually, you reference a horse\'s pace in the context of having the ability to clear and get to the one path.  Just wondering what your \"official\" view on it is.

2.   Often, when I buy the sheets and handicap with T-Graph figures, I like to look the next day and compare who I bet using your figures, with who you or one of your employees picked/bet using the same figures (in the analysis).  Obviously, people can read the same figures and come to different conclusions, but I do find it interesting to compare my picks and see where/why I disagreed with you.  I would like to ask you about the Afleet Alex race on Saturday.  When I looked at the sheets and saw him run a negative number two weeks ago and then gallop out strongly past the wire and have a pretty sharp work since, I figured him for a \"bounce\" candidate.  I am not redboarding, as I posted Saturday morning that I took Rockport Harbor at 5-2 in a \"matchup\" bet versus Afleet Alex.  After the race, I saw you post a comment about people not believing in \"bounces\", which led me to believe you also felt he was vulnerable.  But when I looked in the redboard room, I see that T-Graph recommended betting Afleet Alex in doubles and NOt betting against him.  

I am just curious as to the logic, as I surely thought T-Graph would view him very very likely to bounce off the short rest and I thought he was a prime \"bet against\".  

Thanks,

jim

Jimbo,

>And I know it is not factored into your figures (nor do I think it should be).<

Do you think races should be broken out and a seperate variant created in situations where most people would agree that the pace impacted the outcome and possibly the final time?

I have seen examples of where Beyer did it for very slow paces.

As far as I am concerned, I think a figure maker should \"asterisk\" every figure that is broken out or somewhat suspect. That way a handicapper can decide how much weight to put on the figure and back out any subjective judgements about track speed that he disagrees with.



Post Edited (03-21-05 15:38)

[TGJB]

Jimbo--

1-- You characterized my comments correctly, but there are some interrelated issues here. First, I do believe that pace (and certainly extremely slow ones) can affect final time, and if you don\'t adjust for it, affect the figures you assign. For me that issue comes up pretty often in turf races, but not nearly so often as it does for Time-Form in making figures for Europe, where most of the races have false paces followed by a sprint home. TF publishes two figures for the race, and the relevent one is NOT based purley on raw time, but on what they call \"collateral form\"-- that\'s the one you see published in the DRF. It\'s a performance figure, if you will, not a pure \"speed figure\".

I do NOT believe that the fractions run by one horse will affect the performance (final time) of another horse. I do believe that under extreme circumstances fast fractions can cause a horse not to run his race (spit it out), I do believe that very occasionally the pace can be so slow as to eliminate certain far back horses from contention simply because they are in a situation where their fastest sprint quarter can\'t catch them up (that one is pretty complicated, a discussion all it\'s own).

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the proper use of projected pace is to try to figure out expected ground loss. If there is very little speed, closers will be faced with having to go around a bunched up field, or risk getting blocked-- and since most trainers and jockeys undervalue ground loss, it probably means ground loss. If there is a lot of speed, the field will usually string out, making things a lot easier. If you don\'t use figures that factor in ground loss, you might not be able to properly evaluate the two performances, since the RESULT of the same performance will be better in one case than the other.

I do look at lone speed, and agree with CH in that I favor speed (all other things being equal), because of ground loss and trip considerations. As many have said before me, there is a universal bias towards speed at American racetracks-- and it\'s because we have more turns than, say, major British tracks.

On this note, I suggest all go back and calmly and dispassionately look at the sheets for those 3 FG races that I posted at the top of the \"Nonsense\" string. OPM talked about an inside speed bias-- well, if you look at those figures closely, you will see that speed and paths affected results, but NOT the figures they ran. You had 3 top quality races, with 3 extremely different pace scenarios (by memory 11.80. 10.15, 13 and change), and the figures held up unbelievably well relative to each other, regardless of running style and path. And as far as pace goes, this is what Time-Form, which has been making figures since WWII, has found as well.

2-- I commented on the analysis to some degree in the \"AnalyzeThis\" post below. I don\'t know what I would have done with the Rebel if I was doing the analysis-- it would have been tough to find a play at the expected odds (your getting 5/2 head-to-head was a different story), but if you pass a race like that you can get customers awful mad. I think Nick\'s thinking was he was the most likely winner (I agree, you might too), you can use him in a double if you want, he\'s not worth a bet on his own.

I also agree that the horse was a major bounce candidate. Chris has made this point here before-- you can have a horse who is the most likely winner of a race, but still has a very high percentage chance to run a stinker and run out.

All of this and more is why we urge everybody to learn how to use the data for themselves. We do the analysis because there is a market for it, but this race and the FG bomb are examples of how those who use our data can sometimes do better than those who follow the analysis.

Good, open ended questions. I like these a whole lot better than deconstructing someone else\'s statements.

[jimbo66]

CH,

I don\'t calculate or make my own figures as some on this board do, so my opinion on when to \"break out\" races should be viewed with for what it is, just an opinion, not a point I want to debate too much, since I am not confident about it.

But, \"no\", I don\'t want the figuremaker to break out races because of pace, where \"most people would agree pace affected the final time\".  The problem with your proposal is deciding on what races constitute races where \"most people would agree pace affected the final time\".  The discussion that started this thread was about High Limit.  Before the LA Derby, you questioned how he earned his figures at Delaware and you expressed that because of how he earned those figures, you questioned his chances of winning the La Derby.  Before the race, I said I thought you were off base about High Limit and about T-Graph overstating figures versus Beyer in \"runaway winner\" type races.  High Limit won, as I thought he had a very good chance to do and immediately after the race you start up about pace affecting the La Derby and how AGAIN you will discount High Limit\'s chances in the future.  To me, he was a fast horse before the race, and ran a fast race in the race, and I based this on T-Graph\'s figures, since Beyer did NOT have him fast at Delaware.  You cannot convince me differently.  I was right, T-Graph was right, and frankly, in this case you were wrong.  I am not gloating, but the proof in this case was the race itself.  

If the Delaware races were broken out as you suggest the figure maker do in these types of scenarios (HL was alone on soft leads in both races), then JB would have given him worse figures in those races and then we would not have realized how fast the horse was capable of running (as he ran in the LA Derby). And many of us would NOT have bet him in the LA Derby.

I don\'t think the LA Derby was as influenced by pace as you suggest.  It certainly should not qualify as a race where \"most people would agree the outcome was affected by pace\".  

Now, a couple of points that would seem to contradict what I just wrote.  I don\'t have anything against somebody saying that they don\'t think HL can run back to his LA derby if he faces Lost in the Fog next race because the early pace will be fast and it could compromise his chances.  I am not convinced HL can \"rate\", as I think he will need to do, to win the Derby.  Secondly, I happen to think that Wanderin Boy will race a better race next time when he isn\'t being pushed by a horse like Badge of Silver on the front end.

But like I said, I don\'t want the figure maker breaking out too many races because of pace.  I prefer to make my own handicapping decisions with regards to pace.  I want accurate figures that represent speed and ground loss.  I am a thorograph user but not a \"disciple\", meaning that it is one piece of my handicapping decision.  I believe distance, pace, probable trip, trainer, and pedigree are also factors and I use all of them.  Like a lot of people, I struggle with how to weight all of the factors to come up with the decision of who to bet.  It seems to me CH that you \"overstate\" the effect of pace.  You can disagree, but from what I read of your posts, you give it more credence that I think is correct.

[NoCarolinaTony]

TGJB

As a Handicapper of sorts, I enjoy and learn from these types of posts/strings and hopefully can continue to improve my handicapping skills and ability to utilize the data generated by your product.

This is Good Stuff!!

NC Tony

[Michael D.]

jim,
HL will be running head to head with consolidator in the blue grass. sun king will be tracking close behind. i\'m sure a few of the other top candidates will be involved as well. it\'s shaping up to be the best of the \'05 preps.

[beyerguy]

Except for one thing, its run at Keeneland, which is not a good place to prep for the Derby.  I could start a list of Blue Grass flops that would span many pages.

Jimbo,

Let\'s back up a bit.

I never said I thought HL\'s Delaware TG figures coming into the LA were wrong.

I proposed a possibile reason for the wide discrepancy between TG and Beyer figures based on my opinion that a dominant front runner (like HL) can wipe out other speed horses by setting a pace that impacts inferior speed horses negatively when they try to run with the much better horse on the lead. If I am right about that \"theory\", it would cause a major and consistent discrepancy if one figure maker tended to break those races out and another did not. I know what I would prefer. That\'s all.  

I also said I had no idea if that was the case with HL because I didn\'t know any of the horses at Delaware and I obvously didn\'t know if TG broke the race out. I still don\'t know.

The reason I was considering betting against him had to do with other issues that made me think he would be an underlay. I passed on the race.

IMHO, his performace at LA proved that he will run really fast for \"Frankel\" as a \"3YO\" if \"loose on the lead\" setting a \"moderate pace\" on a track that \"may have been kind to horses on the rail\". (I also think the pace was moderate/average and did not impact much else). Right now I think it\'s about 50-50 whether he will improve a bit further or get exposed as only a decent horse by a higher quality field when challenged. Even Frankel said he had a easy trip. IMO, you never really know unil they face the heat.

As to when you should or should not break a race out due to your opinion about the impact of pace, I agree with you that it\'s a major problem because handicappers will constantly disagree. That\'s the essence of the problem for me!!!!! and one of the reasons I started the whole conversation to begin with. I had no idea what went into HL\'s figures from Delaware last year.

I often don\'t know what I am working with no matter whose figures I am using unless I actually check them myself. I just know the tendencies of some of the figure makers.  

That\'s why my suggestion is to simply asterisk the race and let handicappers know what you did. I see no downside to making all broken out figures \"bold\" (or something similar) so that handicappers have extra information.

In the mean time, Jerry has agreed to let me know if he broke any controversial figures out so I can apply my own theories as I see fit without expressing personal views on what should have been done. I am satisfied with that.



Post Edited (03-21-05 17:07)

[Michael D.]

hey beyer,
no doubt - take a look at the BC floppers coming from kee, it\'s even worse. zito did win the blue grass last year from behind though, i guess he could pull of the same feat this year.

as for beyer\'s #\'s, he definitely should let us know when he adjusts a final speed figure for pace. if we don\'t know which races are adjusted or not, how do we know when to adjust for pace ourselves?



Post Edited (03-21-05 17:30)

Michael,

>as for beyer\'s #\'s, he definitely should let us know when he adjusts a final speed figure for pace. <

He doesn\'t do it for dirt races very often(not sure about turf). The few times I have seen him do it the pace was extremely slow, but I can\'t even be sure that was his actual thinking on the matter. All I know is that I\'ve seen a few where the pace was preposterously slow, the real speed figure was ridiculously slow for the horses, but the Beyer reflected their actual ability. He broke it out.  

I don\'t recall seeing him break a race out if the pace was extremely fast and all the contenders were collapsing at the end. He just gave the race a slow figure.

[TGJB]

CH-- you might want to check out the DRF Expo panel for Andy\'s comments about breaking races out. His basic position is the same as mine, although there are differences in execution I\'m sure.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Beyerguy,

You Could say that with all the big prep races over the years, they had all had their fair share of flops and winners.

NC Tony