Congratulations Mall!

[Linda]

On qualifying for the National Championship and pocketing a nice check at Churchill\'s big contest at the Trackside OTB in Louisville. You deserve to be there Mall, and you know I\'ll be pulling for you to win it all. Good Luck when you get to Las Vegas!

[Mall]

Thanks Linda. I hope things are going well for you back in Pgh. As for the check, apparently no one from the IRS was in the contest, but I\'m half-expecting a knock on the door Mon. morning.

Any success I\'ve had over the last few yrs is almost entirely due to my partners, so you can imagine how happy I was to learn after we talked that derby1592, the best turf race handicapper I have ever met, also qualified on Sat, via the YouBet contest. The fact that he also liked Quidditch Player, whose $14 place payoff helped & who should have won the 5th at Elp at 22-1, gave me the confidence to make him a contest play. On the other hand, when I heard the news I was concerned that OPM, who had another banner day Sat & almost qualified in the YouBet contest himself, might have missed out because he was talking to me on the phone about the winner of Sar\'s 4th & didn\'t get his bet in. Of course, while he was talking to me he was also giving his new baby a bath & watching & betting on races on his computer. Multi-tasking, he calls it. Thks as always for your insights Sat.

After reading HP\'s excellent post on betting strategy, I had planned, & still hope, to do a post on the \"real money, make any bet you want\" Canterbury contest, as not listening to Caitlin & thereby making what turned out to be a wrong decision on betting strategy cost me the contest, which Caitlin would have won if his careful planning had not been interrupted by a hurricane. His custom software for deciding which contest races to focus on is unique & was invaluable Sat, & it\'s hard for someone as technologically challenged as I am to imagine it coming from someone who was preparing for his 1st contest. Then again, I\'ve learned to expect nothing less from the guy who\'s responsible for bringing the four of us together. If you\'re able to read this Caitlin, enjoy your time in the islands & toast yourself once or twice on my behalf.

[prist]

Congratulations you guys! Good luck in Las Vegas!

Pete

[miff]

In a TV interview Mark stated that he and Andy Beyer did extensive research on the weight factor and the ground loss factor in races and concluded they are not significant to the final figure.The weight up to three pounds was completely no factor and beyond three pounds was not significant(1 beyer point per two pounds)

Regarding ground loss they conclude, on dirt racing only,(not turf),that horse racing wide are sometimes benefiting from a much better wide racing surface(eg BELMONT)where the outside path is often firmer than the inside paths.They further concluded that the Rags and the TG#\'s never account for \"live\" outside paths when making their #\'s thereby producing a poor number relative to the reality of the dead inside/superior outside paths. Comments please JB.

[derby1592]

Mall,

Great job.

I am looking forward to Vegas.

Chris

[Michael D.]

well done guys ...... hope to see you both at the top of the list in vegas.

[Upper Nile]

Im not JB but I did see and carefully listen to Mark Hopkins on Tom & Nick\'s show on Sunday. Some personal observations while I held myself back from calling into the show. I\'d love to see the \"extensive resarch\" Mark mentioned and then did not produce or elaborate on which leads him and Beyer to conclude that weight does not play a factor in the outcome of races.  He must have been in a coma 2 weeks ago when Roses in May won the Whitney and when Pleasantly Perfect ran in The San Diego or when Colonial Colony ran in the Styephen Foster. Just to name a few recent handicaps where weight likely played a factor in the outcome. Racing history is littered with examples of weight likely being a factor.  The real question is how much of a factor will weight likely play in the race you are presently handicapping.  In fairness, what Mark Hopkins actually said was that weight as a factor in the outcome of races was \"subjective\" and then he went on to say they have done \"extensive studies\" that as far as I know have never been published.  He then went on to dismiss the ground loss issue by making the statement that because some horses actually \"benefit\" from wide trips (for various reasons) therefor ground loss should not be factored into figure making.  The show was entertaining as always and reinforced my conviction in the accuracy, superiority and the model used to make TG figs.  Interestingly, Cary Fotias of EquiForm made almost the same statements regarding ground loss and weight just the previous week (or the week before that) on this same show.  The most interesting part of the show was listening to Mark Hopkins discuss his confusion with the reason(s) some trainers have recently incresaed their win percentages significantly. Implying that because HE couldn\'t figure out why some trainers are winning more races than previously something must not be on the level. His trainers\' success however is of course easily understood.  Other trainers successes are confusing to him.
Phil

[miff]

The most accurate figures for TG and RAGS will come when ground loss isn\'t automatically used to lower a horses figure, IMO. There are many, many days at Belmont especially, where  the outside paths are far superior to the inside paths thereby benefiting the wide sweeping ground loss runner.In those instances, after using the sheets for over 15 years,I have often found those ground loss numbers to be weak and have tossed those horses with good success on many occasions.I have also been beaten by those horses,very infrequently.

[OPM]

I know this is very controversial but ground loss in certain cases no matter how much is useless.  That being said, TG figures are 100x more accurate than Beyers ever will be.  It is not necessarily the accuracy of the fig but the pattern of the figures.  I have not been able to successfuly define patterns with great reliabilty using Beyers but obviously have done so using TG.  How do you tell if a horse is explosive on Beyer?  I can easily tell this using TG.

[miff]

TG figs are better than Beyers,IMO, but surely not 100X more accurate.No doubt about TG\'s superior patterns or buried #\'s.

I think part of why the TG numbers are steadier and  more readable than Beyer figures is that they build some other aspects of trip \"BESIDES ground loss\" right into the number.  

For ex. if there is a small impact on the final time related to the pace or competitive nature of the race, it often winds up getting baked right into the TG figure via the track variant assigned. TG often breaks races out from the day in order to assign figures according to what the horses \"should\" have run.

I think perhaps JB would disagree with some of what I am saying above because I am sure he is very careful about doing that. But I do think it happens sometimes.

Beyer and Rags on the other hand are less apt to give figures that represent the ability of the horses in those minor pace instances. They would give you a rawer speed figure that does not include the impact of pace. Apparently they are also not as careful as JB is about when to break a race out for reasons like wind, moisture etc... and instead present a faulty figure.

I would prefer it if ground loss was not included in the figure. I want it to be part of a seperate trip line. That way I could make a subjective judgement about how the track was playing and whether or not being outside losing ground was a positive or negative on that specific day.

[Silver Charm]

Hopkins is certainly entitled to his opinion even if it is both biased and inaccurate.

Finding LIVE LONGSHOTS is much easier using TG than Beyer simply because of the ground loss and weight-carried calculation. Horses can be getting much faster numbers on TG because the ground loss and weight is factored in but probably not reflected on the tote because most of the betting public doesn\'t have this data.

Where else but on TG can a horse with back-to-back 80 Beyers be just as competiive with horses who have run in the low 90\'s. If someone wants me to concede that a 110 Beyer is just as reliable and therefore useful as a Neg 2 on TG, then you can have that. But it is the hidden numbers that in the Long Run prove more profitable.

With Beyer numbers what you see is what you get, nothing more. Thats why they are virtually free to begin with.

[mandown]

As I understand it the Beyer people had the DRF programmers run various studies on the database a few years ago. It was as a result of this that Beyer accepted that weight did play some part rather than no part, his previous view. Interesting also that Mark Hopkins considers a point per two pounds \'insignificant.\' Given that a weight range of 8lbs (especially with bugs) is not uncommon then it\'s not saying much for his confidence in the figures\' accuracy.

[Saddlecloth]

Speaking of ground loss, dont you have to look at each race as its own picture to make a determination if it benifited a horse or hindered them?  I will use two high profile races from del mar last weekend.

I the Rancho Bernardo Dream of Summer stalked three wide and made a move three wide into the stetch.  Barbara Orr was on the rail facing pace pressure from another runner and then from Dream of Summer.  At the finish Dream of Summer gamely held off Barbara Orr by a head.  Now when the numbers are assigned Dream of Summer is going to get the higher number (have no clue by how much), but in my opinion she had the ideal trip despite losing ground, its my favorite trip sprinting, stalking from the three path.  I would give Barbara Orr the better figure.

Now in the Pacific Classic Total Impact lost more ground than any other horse, and would not surprise me to see him get a figure better then perfect drift, who picked up the late pieces. In this situation a figure like that is totally justified and will add value in future plays.

Am I clueless or does anyone else see this in relation to ground loss?

[Lucy]

I think what gets confused in these discussions, is the difference between raw data and analysis.
figs are meant to be raw data --- if you build in some kind of subjective analysis of which horse ran \'better\' you end up w/something closer to timeform \'performance\' figs.
these kind of figs are designed to measure the actual measurable quantities in a race --- distance, weight, time, and in the case of variant, an estimate to better quantify the time.
personally, I\'d rather make my own handicapping decisions based on trips, or whatever, than have them insinuated into the #\'s.