Changing Track Speeds: A Derby Contender Case Study Perhaps

[JimP]

Miff: \"I do not have Bob and John\'s sheet.\"

TGJB posted it. Check it out. Then let me know what you find ugly about it. Or are you saying that ALL pairs are ugly? I\'m not really following your point, I guess.

[JimP]

TGJB, if you add 7 as you suggest, then the 1st and 3rd place horses would have paired their previous race (not an extraordinary outcome) , and the 2nd place horse would have regressed about 7 points ( a pretty large X). Except for the 7th place horse, those are the only ones with enough starts to make any sense out of \"patterns\'. I can\'t see any logical basis within this race for choosing between \"as is\' or \"plus 7\". I.E. I can\'t find the basis for an argument within this race to either accept or challenge how you figured it. But then I would have to say the same thing if you did just add 7 to all the figures. There\'s really not much data here. IMHO.

[miff]

Jim,

No, all pairs are not ugly. On the contrary, most pairs stack up very well. The term \"ugly\"(my description) relates to a group of races by a runner that come up the same on the sheets but defy racing logic when viewing them, taking into account all pertinents.I am now fairly certain that \"ugly\" pairs are the by product of the projection method and must be graded in the way they are but eyed with suspicion.

I firmly believe that a horses\' performance on the track should STRICTLY be graded by what it does that day as opposed to what someone THINKS it should have done or NORMALLY does.Then to try to fit that square peg into the round hole is calamity in waiting.

If you are around the game and the animals themselves you will find an endless list of reasons why horses vary in their performances,sometimes widely,sometimes only marginally.

[miff]

Jerry,

With respect, I completely understand where you are coming from. If you wish, I will not post anymore. As a friendly gesture, let me say that it does you no good to have employees/friends post praises/defenses of your product that are transparent to a blind man.

You should have welcomed constructive criticism and dissenting opinions  to improve your product since someone may chance upon something that you cannot see from your understandably parochial seat.

Regards,
Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- I\'m going to say this one more time and that\'s it, because I\'ve covered it dozens of times, and you are completely missing it.

The relationships between horses in a race are completely fixed by beaten lengths, weight, and ground. I CAN\'T just \"project\" a figure for a horse, and do the same thing for another in that race-- if Bob and John gets a 5, the second horse has to get an 8, etc. You could do what you are suggesting for exactly one horse a race.

What this means is, the very fact that you see so many pairs means the figures are falling into place, not being forced-- having horses run back to previous figures, or in their own tight ranges, is how you HOPE it comes out when you make figures. The whole concept of making figures by whatever specific method (to say nothing of betting with them) is based on the idea that past figures are a guide to future efforts. Each time it comes out that way, with lots of horses running back to previous figures, it is not only evidence that this figure is correct, but that previous figures for several horses, coming out of different races, are as well, which in turn means evidence the figures for the OTHER horses in THOSE races are too.

Jim-- Young, very lightly raced horses are at least 50% to pair their top or run a new one in any start, and can\'t be more than 25% (probably way less) to run 7 points off it. You really want an entire field to run 7 points off their tops? For four of them to do it, even using 25%, would be 25x25x25x25, which works out to less than 1%. And that\'s just with four. And even the way I did it, several ran way off their tops-- and only two ran new tops, which is far less than usual for a field with this many making only their second or third start.

[johndrj]

wow

[NoCarolinaTony]

P-Dub,

Have you ever watched an episode of Sienfeld?

George Costanza really exists and is posting on this board today.

Your points well taken, If you don\'t like the product express your complaint and move on. If you don\'t believe that a track can change speeds during a course of the day move on. Race track People are stubborn to a fault.

I wish we could talk handicapping  patterns more often and challenging figs less often. We should challenge eroneous figures from time to time but you got the RAG faction always trying to prove a point and in sabotage mode. Jerry doesn\'t help his own cause either because he takes strong defensive positions.

If I were him, I\'d take the high road.

Maybe it\'s time to have two boards, one for handicappers (private with ID etc) and one for complaints.

NC Tony

[NoCarolinaTony]

Miff,

I don\'t have access to Rag\'s ROTW what\'s their record?

NC Tony

[miff]

Tony,

I did not know RAGS had a ROTW.No clue on its overall performance or TG\'s for that matter.

[P-Dub]

NCT,

I do watch and thats not a bad analogy.

I respect Miff. He writes plenty of intelligent posts, has thought provoking things to say, and is obviously a knowledgeable racing fan.  I have never made figs and don\'t pretend to know how.

My frustrations are not with whats being said, but the amount of dialogue involved. It just never stops, and some people are NEVER satisfied until they have the last word. You all know who you are.

Its always a good thing to question why things are. But when an answer is given to a question, that should be the end of it. Its not. Look at the length of this thread, it practically takes up the front page of the message board and involves mainly 3 authors with the sporadic comment from another person.

I come to this board to read about handicapping and hopefully improve my game, the occasional update on racing news, and the clever and funny comments from several of you. Lately, its as though people with another agenda (I don\'t know, maybe discrediting this products validity) are flooding the board. And the disappointing thing about it is that these people are obviously intelligent and can add so much to the discussion of handicapping races. Instead, they go on about the methodology of the product. Well guess what....MOST OF US DON\'T CARE. Thats why we use TG. If we didn\'t like the product or if it didn\'t work for us, we wouldn\'t use it nor would we visit this site to read about it. The other site is such a complete waste of time, with among other things the childlike name calling, that its no wonder this is such a popular forum to express views.

About the ROTW I can recall from memory several nice wins, including the juicy 12-1 on Ticker Tape in the American Oaks and the same race the following year when Cesario romped and the next 3 finishers were the 3 fastest fig horses in the race (Super pd at least 1000+, similar to last year\'s Classic with the big fig horse winning and the next 3 fastest completing the Super for a 12k payout). I would think that providing an analysis with full sheets BEFORE a race would be something to be proud of, as I don\'t know of another fig provider that does this. This shows a certain level of confidence in the product to even do this regardless of the outcome. And for those that criticize this gesture........have they ever gone on record BEFORE a race and provided an analysis?? Or do they not have enough confidence in their product to go on record??

[Delmar Deb]

TGJB -

Can you tell us the TG numbers that Sayhellotolarry and Rockport Harbor ran on February 11th at Oaklawn, per Bobphilo\'s note below.

The 3 y.o. maiden, Sayhellotolarry, carried 121 lbs and ran every fraction faster than the 4 y.o. Rockport Harbor, who carried only 115 lbs, in the race immediately following.  Yet Beyer gave Larry a speed figure of 89 and Rockport a 99.

Should I add Sayhellotolarry to my watch list or Rockport Harbor to my bet against list?


bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jerry - Here's an even more dramatic example of
> track speed changing from race to race.
>
> Rockport Harbor won the G3 Essex Hcp in 1:47.68
> for the 1 1/16 miles.
>
> The race immediately before this, a Maiden Special
> Weights, was won by a 3YO named Sayhellotolarry in
> 1:47.42 for the same distance in similar front
> running fashion while setting faster early
> fractions.
>
> Either a) Rockport Harbor is a very poor graded
> stakes for older horses winner or
> b) Sayhellotlarry is suddenly a new Derby
> contender or,
> c) there was a dramatic change in track speed from
> one race to the next.
> What kind of maintenance did they perform to the
> track between these 2 races? I'd be interested in
> seeing what figures these 2 get relative to each
> other.
>
> Bob
>  
>

[TGJB]

Deb-- I did something similar to what Andy did. I also put the 3yo race on my list to review.