Questions about Figures

[miff]

Jim,

In case you don\'t know.A couple of sharp bettors \"kill\"them at the windows just about every year with spot plays on GP shippers coming north, especially to AQU.

BR and Bandini certainly do fit that bill.Just about any trainer will tell you that most horses love coming to cool from hot.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

TGJB said:

\"all the routes were the same, and there is no other way to do the BG that makes any sense at all.\"

I know this question was directed at TGJB, but if a certain part of the track is better than other parts thats certainly a variable. Bandini was only one path wider than High Limit most of the race. The question is was there a positive bias in that one more path wide and how many lengths did it amount to? Its very hard to answer those questions. If you\'ve ascertained a wide bias however and the figure under consideration was earned on it, then it seems logical that figure has to be discounted compared to those running inside on the deeper part of the track, especially so if a \"projection figures\" are employed, because the 1 assigned to the inside horse is against the bias while the outside horse gets scored off that bias hindered 1 and gets lengths of credit for an easier strip to move on. (Extra distance run factored of course) Tough Stuff to sift through with any accuracy, assuming a legitimate bias existed.

The NX1X horses in the other distance races Bluegrass Day came home in about 6.5
Not great, not horrible. Bandini came home in about 13.40 after running on a faster pace. An extrapolated 8.5 marks for him would have been about a 1.43.46 or approximately 6-7 lengths faster than the NW1X horses who both ran 1.44.72

Thats factoring wide of course, but on raw time it appears High Limit would have been life and death with the NW1X\'s assuming the track remained the same. Now you can\'t really do this comparison fairly because of gate and pace issues, but I do think it sheds some light on High Limits effort. I don\'t know, maybe Gold Mask and Spun Sugar earned 1\'s. (Though they may have been wider than High Limit).

Tuff Stuff.

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- no, Sort It Out won\'t be on a lot of tickets. That was not the best 7 figure purchase in history, but if Baffert keeps him in against those west coast horses he\'ll do okay.

Miff-- come on, you know better. I DID NOT use any of the rail horses in making the variant on BG day-- the whole point of marking a dead rail is that you notice they ran bad. Why would I use them, and bring the figures to them? Go look at the BG figures I posted here-- Mr Sword gets an \"X\", rest hold with each other.

And no, I don\'t assume horses pair their tops in any races, though it sure helps make numbers when some do. I do know that in percentage terms good 3yos are somewhere around 50% in any given start to at least pair their tops, and again, look at what happens with that race if you do it any other way-- you end up with 6 of 7 GI 3yo\'s running off races at the same time. Very unlikely, independent of the convenient pairs, and the relationship to the other routes on the card.

Now, if the gap between HL and CA is different-- Houston, we have a problem. Or at least a question...

[miff]

CtC,

For several years I have questioned JB about the merits of penalizing/discounting a fig when it was earned in a \"superior\"running path(return of energy etc.)The dead rail X doesn\'t really do this issue justice in my view.A \"true\" bias can distort a runners performance very dramatically either way.

Notwithstanding my problems with figs earned by bias aided runners, I agree that any type of adjustment by JB would be heading into a dangerous area.

Having said that, I feel that something beyond the X is needed but not an adjustment to the fig.Most certainly, a tough issue all around which may be best left to the handicapper to deal with.

TGJB,

\"if he (HL) had gone a more realistic 1:11:3 (still very fast over that track), he would have looked a lot better through the stretch to finish in the same time.\"

I have to call a timeout!

According to my pace figures and those of another source, the 6F time for the BG was fast enough to impact the final time for a few horses (including HL).

I agree that he would have finished better, but IMHO, \"finish in the same time\" is just your theory. :-)

I want some browny points for staying out of this debate. :-)

miff,

I agree on all points.

[TGJB]

CH-- You get half a brownie point. You don\'t get the other half because you said \"the 6f time in the BG was enough to impact the time for a few horses (including HL)\".

Prove it. Keep in mind that the first two finishers ran close to the pace, how the figure relationships came out both within the race and relative to those coming from off the pace, and also compared to other races (at least one of which I did give an \"h pace\", and where the frontrunners did quit). I do agree the pace was strong-- there is no evidence it affected the time.

In fact, you don\'t even have to prove it. You just have to supply some evidence.

[miff]

JB said

In fact, you don\'t even have to prove it. You just have to supply some evidence.

TGJB


I have no dog in this discussion, but would you consider the last 3/8ths in 40+ seconds a bit slow for 3yr GR1\'s as \"evidence\" I know the surface was dull but the winner and the second place horse \"attended\" the pace but they didn\'t \"war\" in it.

TGJB,

I was just going for the laugh. Obviously, I can\'t prove it and neither can you in the other direction.

If you want my honest opinion, I am totally baffled by the race.

Before you get angry with me, please read the whole post. I acknowledge that much of this is just \"my opinion\" etc.... and don\'t want to debate it. It\'s just an explanation for my confusion.  

When I first did the day using \"Beyer speed figure inputs\", I came up with a speed figure very similar to Beyer for the race based on the other routes - 103. However, 103 did not make much sense to me because it would mean that everyone else in the BG had run like crap - which I believe is very unlikely for G1 3YOs at this time of year. I agree with you on that point.

However, when I made the pace figure for the race it was fast. That suggested that Bandini had run better than a 103 (he was close enough to the pace to be impacted) and HL/CA had run similar races to their last efforts (according to my theory of course).
Spanish Chestnut is obviously also explained away by that pace figure. Only Consolidator\'s performance was a question mark. However, I was highly suspect of him going in because he earned his big figure on a wet rolled track. So using pace figures, the whole race made perfect sense to me.

Then you assigned the race a fast figure and said you didn\'t break the race out. That made no sense to me. I could see you giving it a big figure, but I thought you would have to break it out to get there. When you supplied your figures for the other routes to me (as per my request - thank you), your figures for the day made perfect sense to me.

So obviously there must be some huge discepancies between your inputs and Beyers for that day because you guys disagree on how fast the BG was by a lot. I am almost certain Beyer did not break out the BG and make it slower because he was afraid to give it a big figure. That\'s just the way it came up. (I haven\'t had a chance to study the issue further, but will before Derby day).

I am fairly certain the 6F call was fast and I am also highly confident in my pace theories even if I can\'t put them in an exact formula. (I often know beforehand when you are going to break a race out using my pace theories).

If you are correct that the BG was a very fast race and I am correct that the 6F pace was even faster than the final time (others have verfied my analysis), that would make some of these horses amazing according to my pace theories.

I can\'t reconcile this all.

I know you must believe that Beyer\'s figures are wrong and the pace didn\'t impact the final time, but I do not believe the 2nd part of that.

IMHO, the pace was fast enough to impact several horses. That opinion is based on many years of practical experience working with pace and final time figures and betting at the windows.

I do not know how to resolve this yet, but I will express my opinion at the windows after I get time to study the day further. :-)



Post Edited (04-25-05 20:18)

[richiebee]

ctc:

   What is sneaky about his breeding? His pop won 2/3s of the TC.

   I have been reading the Form since 1975. I have been using TGs for about 4 months, trying to get comfortable with patterns, etc. I am not yet certain neurally how much faster a horse who ran \"2\" is than a horse who ran a \"3\" etc.

   I am really grappling with the fact that Sun King\'s no factor BG effort earned him a TG # of 2 (Beyer 88), while High Fly\'s Fla Derby win was a TG# of 1 (Beyer 102).

   I\'m going to respond to your Sun King post using numbers I\'m more familiar with. If the numbers are wrong, so be it.

  Sun King\'s last race Beyer was 88. His Beyer at Tampa was 91. As we all know, Sea Hero was the last horse to win Ky Derby w/out Beyering over 100 in his last prep before the Derby. (Sea Hero Beyered 91 running 4th in the BG.)

  Sea Hero gives hope to Wilko and Noble Causeway supporters, with his relatively low Beyers coming in and the fact that the Derby was his first 3YO stakes win. Sea Hero and Real Quiet are the only 2 horses since 93 not to have won a stake as a 3YO before winning the Derby. If you think anything of this angle, eliminate Wilko, Noble Cause and of course Giacomo and Wild Desert from the top spot.

 This year some of the non numerical observations might be less important; I can not remember a year when some many animals are coming in off last race wins, in some cases dominant wins. Surprisingly, only 4 of the last 12 Derby winners won their final prep: Smarty, War Emblem, FuPeg and Sun King\'s pop, Charismatic.

[dlf]

Richie:
Funny Cide didn\'t even win a race as a 3 year old before winning the Derby!

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

richiebee wrote:

> ctc:
>
>    What is sneaky about his breeding? His pop won 2/3s of the
> TC.

First off let me say dosage deserves the lowest position on the totem pole. Additionally though Charismatics dosage is high, I think hes got some nice breeding in his pedigree. Notably no Mr. Prospector....Now:

Charismatic has not been a boom at stud. Sun King is by far and away his best to date:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.php?h=charismatic2&g=5&query_type=progeny&search_bar=progeny&done=y&inbred=Standard&x2=n&username=&password=&x=0&y=0

SunKing is even sneakier on the dam side, scoring a low dosage of about 1.8 with a niceish CD and the dam has gotten far more than Charismatic:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/clever+but+costly


http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.php?h=clever+but+costly&g=5&query_type=progeny&search_bar=progeny&done=y&inbred=Standard&x2=n&username=&password=&x=0&y=0

As good a producer as the dam has been however. I think her foals have had some distance limitations (Surprise...most do) I do think Traitor was a good horse that got hurt if my memory serves. Though I don\'t think he won over a mile.


>
>    I have been reading the Form since
>
>    I am really grappling with the fact that Sun King\'s no
> factor BG effort earned him a TG # of 2 (Beyer 88), while High
> Fly\'s Fla Derby win was a TG# of 1 (Beyer 102).
>
>    I\'m going to respond to your Sun King post using numbers I\'m
> more familiar with. If the numbers are wrong, so be it.
>
>   Sun King\'s last race Beyer was 88. His Beyer at Tampa was 91.
> As we all know, Sea Hero was the last horse to win Ky Derby
> w/out Beyering over 100 in his last prep before the Derby. (Sea
> Hero Beyered 91 running 4th in the BG.)
>
>   Sea Hero gives hope to Wilko and Noble Causeway supporters,

I would point out Sea Hero had won a Grade 1 as a two year old and had a back number to improve on. I think he finally did it Derby Day. Additionally, he didn\'t have to jump over so many other quality figures by others is my recollection. His Blue Grass was right there with an excuse. I had Sea Hero that year. He figured big as far as I was concerned.


 
>I can not remember a year when some many animals are
> coming in off last race wins,

Thats got me scratching my head.

>in some cases dominant wins.

I agree with the proceeding

> Surprisingly, only 4 of the last 12 Derby winners won their
> final prep: Smarty, War Emblem, FuPeg and Sun King\'s pop,
> Charismatic.

ok 4 of the last 12....but 4 of the last 6...remember we are in the modern age of handicapping
>



Post Edited (04-25-05 20:48)

[P.Eckhart]

TGJB wrote:
> My point is that it\'s not about pretty pairs or ugly pairs or
> about the way the races look-- it\'s about the data. You can\'t
> find another way to work with that race that makes more sense,
> even without the surrounding races tying in, which they do.
 
Out of curiosity how would you reject an alternative notion; say that Gold Mask and Spun Sugar paired up both their lasts at the 6 level, instead of moving them up to the 4 level as you decided to do.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Its crunch time and I defer to TGJB\'s crunch time numbers because no one does it better right now. Hes on it, but I do have to say I am absolutely preplexed this year.

[jimbo66]

Is it possible that these two quotes can come from the same person?

\"First off I don\'t use tgraph\"

and

\"Its crunch time and I defer to TGJB\'s crunch time numbers because no one does it better right now\"


So, Jerry\'s the best, but you don\'t use T-Graph?  

\"Junior\'s\" makes the best cheesecake ever.  I can attest to it, and one day I will try it.