Dubai Cup

RIM wil be the deserving favorite.

Anyone give Lundy\'s Liability a small chance at a very big price after racing on what might have been a dead rail.

[elkurzhal]

Any chance there will be a special set for the Dubai card Sat.?



Post Edited (03-24-05 15:35)

[TGAB]

We\'ll going to put up the Dubai card as a regular track, Nad, and will offer sheets and new TQ.

[elkurzhal]

Thanks!

[Michael D.]

alan,
how are you guys coming up with the dubai #\'s? do you rely a lot on timeform?

[TGJB]

Time-Form is one of the things we use, although their weight and beaten length corrections are a mess, aside from the issue of a 112 for a spring 3yo colt having nothing to do with a 112 for a 2yo filly or a 5yo horse. We look a lot at how the horses from here have done in Dubai to make figures for those they have run against there, and between that and how European horses have done when they come here we are able to get a sense of scale.

[elkurzhal]

Where did you get the pars for the Euro, Dubai, southern hemisphere horses?

Just kidding

[jbelfior]

CH--

I expect a nice race out of LL. He may actually be facing a better field here than he did in the Big Cap so even an improved effort may not be enough. Perhaps LL is at his best at 1 1/8...we\'ll soon find out.

RIM is a deserving favorite and this race is usually won by an on the pace horse except when it is won by a monster like PLSNTLY PRFCT.

Interesting entry is YARD-ARM. I am wondering why this guy is not in the grass race. I guess there may be \"4 million\"  reasons for that. Trainer is a sharp guy over there and last may have been just a conditioner for him. I\'m sure his dirt action is good and the turf to dirt move over there looks to be a commonplace thing. Will be an interesting use if 20-1 or better and he has the #3 post (I guarantee you half the DRF readers will think he\'s breaking from Post # 13.  


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[TGJB]

Elkurzhal-- pretty funny.

Raz-- think maybe the mildness of Len\'s reply could because CH didn\'t accuse him of getting figures wrong because he didn\'t pay attention to pace?

TGJB,

Assuming pace theories are correct, I think Len\'s methodology is more likely to resemble Beyer\'s in these extreme cases unless he uses earlier point times to make his figure.

If he does not, his final time figure will not represent the ability of the horses. It would represent how fast the horses ran. It would then be up to the handicapper to decide whether to pump some of the horses up because an extreme pace impacted many of them. If the handicapper pumped the figures up it would result in a more squared looking set of figures. Len, obviously breaks fewer races out.

I also have no problem with using earlier fractions in the race (like the 6F fraction in a 7F race) to try to determine how good horses are when the entire race collapses due to pace. It could get complicated though because if I am correct, the pace would impact some horses more than others and you might be better off using the 6F point for some of the horses and the 7F point for others - which would produce a reasonably accurate representation of ability but a set of figures that doesn\'t square within the race itself (beaten lengths) at all.  

Maybe that\'s what Len is doing in some of the races where his figures don\'t square with yours inside the same race. I do not know.

As always, the key is to know what the hell you working with so you can do what you want with the data.



Post Edited (03-24-05 18:11)

Joe B,

I agree, this is a tougher spot.

I don\'t give him an especially high probability of winning the race. I agree that 9F might be better too. However, if you are ever going to get some value out of a \"potential\" bias (key word \"potential\" since we don\'t really know yet), it\'s going to be a horse from CA racing in Dubai. :-)

I\'m not even sure what price I would need, but it would have to be big.

[TGJB]

CH-- for some reason, a lot of assumptions get made and issues get mushed together real fast when you get involved.

1-- my comment was strictly about Len\'s reaction to your post, not about how he does figures, or your pace theories. For about the hundredth time, the bone of contention between us was not your theories, but your claim we got (and get) figures wrong. And contrary to an assertion you made elsewhere, I did not say the way to see whether others got the figures right was  whether OUR figures \"squared\"-- I said it was to see whether THEIR figures squared. That is how you check all figures-- ask Len that one.

2-- Not for nuthin\', but you are wrong about how Andy does figures (I\'m talking about breaking out races, independent of pace issues), and he said so outright at the Expo-- he was in direct opposition to Len about this one. Watch the DVD. My position is closer to Andy\'s on this, and I think I said so, although the example they were discussing was too simplistic.

TGJB,

Len understands what I am saying and I understand what he is saying even if we disagree a bit. He didn\'t say he was analyzing races with a level of sophistication that was beyond my comprehension. I think we could disagree about a figure or technique without him assuming it was an assault.  

That\'s why our conversation was mild.

I\'m not sure what Andy said at the expo, but IMO he doesn\'t break races out for the impact of pace nearly as often as pace handicappers think the pace impacted the final time or as often as some other figure makers do.



Post Edited (03-24-05 22:00)

[TGJB]

CH-- that\'s a pretty amazing \"response\" to my post.

Forget it.