willa on the move

[pete]

a sheets theory question:  relevant to \"Willa on the move\" among others.  A horse who shows an op- (4 back) and yesterday took up severely (big T) gets a figure on the effort made during the rest of the race.  Why do both sheet figure makers refuse to improve the figure by estimating the trouble?  I do not want to hear that you can not quantify the amount of trouble so you leave it out of the figure.
   
     You pride yourself on such highly accurate figures that 1/4 to 1/2 point incremental improvements plus appropriate spacing may yield an \"explosive\" situation.  Yet the failure to measure an op- or t or T renders the figure meaningless, when it may be the key to the horses whole line (and future reads).

     I have no clue as to Willa\'s trouble 4 races back (off poor 1-2-3-4-5 lengths?).  And if I am supposed to take such extensive trip notes so that I can modify the figures, why would I want to pay for such an inaccurate figure?? And how am I supposed to monitor so many tracks and races in this manner.

     It seems to me that you can improve your figures by making them more accurately reflect the totality of the horses effort.

    If you can post her sheet after yesterday\'s fig is inserted it may make for a intersesting discussion of her line if the first op- is viewed as a 1 or a 2 and Saturday\'s fig is also adjusted 2 points better for her early trouble.

[Michael D.]

how much info do you want out there? if these guys put out any more information, every horse will pay $4.60 to win. (except the ones Carrero rides, they will still pay 40 bucks)

[TGJB]

1- We do not claim 1/4 point accuracy. That silliness was a marketing ploy from the other guy.

2- Whether you want to hear it or not, there is no way to quantify trouble during the race. Attempting to do so would be hubris, and highly subjective (different trackmen).

3- We don\'t put op\'s in the # because some horses do it chronically, and you can be seduced into betting them off big #\'s that will in effect be gross, not net. You can adjust the figures yourself--use approximately 1 length (not point) for op-, 2 for op, 4 for op+. This info is found in the front of every hard copy set, and via a link on the \"Order On Line\" page.

[Alydar in California]

JB wrote: \"You can adjust the figures yourself--use approximately 1 length (not point) for op-, 2 for op, 4 for op+.\"

This is perfect bunk. Just kidding.

[derby1592]

That happens a lot more often than chronically OP but you don\'t make us do the math for ground loss (thank goodness). Of course, we can factor it in if we want to.

Why make us do the math for OP? Why not build it in to the figure and let us decide if it looks chronic and then we can subtract it out if we want to.

I would much prefer that. I think it would typically be a better representation of the horse\'s effort if the OP was factored in. A horse that is OP but finishes on even terms with another horse ran the better race (assuming equal weight and ground loss). It seems like you could watch the replays and get a pretty good estimate. At least for the OP- and OP.

Just one man\'s opinion.

Chris

[Alydar in California]

    Chris,

      As far as effort is concerned, 3w = 3w. Bad starts are different. If the effort required for a \"normal\" break = the effort required for this particular OP + the extent of this particular OP, you are on solid ground. But if it doesn\'t (and given the variety of reasons for slow breaks, it usually won\'t), I believe you are asking for the illusion of accuracy over something that is more valuable: the knowledge that this particular figure should not necessarily be read literally.

[pete]

Alydar,
     The figure with T or op IS an \"illusion of accuracy\" (brilliant term on your part).
I would prefer TG to make an \"educated guesstimate\" of the horse\'s effort as opposed to the current figure that I must adjust myself more crudely or just toss out.

[tegger]

Jerry,

I would like you to estimate numbers for horses that flip over the railing, horses that act up before the gate and exert energy prior to the race especially if they have to be run down by a lead pony (those lengths should be included in the number - can\'t wait to see those negative 33 and 1/5ths!), horses that bear out should get faster numbers particularly if they run sideways at some point in time and if a horse breaks down during the race but still makes it across the finish line you should estimate what number it would have run if it had remained healthy during the race.  It would also be helpful if you could determine if a trainer and/or jockey was really sincere in wanting the horse to run its best number - if not you should make the number faster to reflect the horse\'s true potential.

The day Thorograph adjusts numbers to reflect the op is the day I stop being a customer.  There is no real way to adjust the number due to several reasons.  If a front running horse is left in the gate the jockey may not choose to push the horse or the horse may not run well when in the unusual position of being behind the whole field.  Perhaps the jockey feels he must rush the horse up to the lead and the horse tires from the extra effort.  Maybe the horse is a come from behind horse and actually prefers to lag the field and runs well despite the off poorly (Ferdinand winning the Derby would be a good example).  Maybe the horse is going op due to being green or being injured and will continue to go op in the future.  I believe the current system of op-, op, op+, op++, etc. combined with the real number run is the appropriate way to deal with op races.  

By the way, I continue to cash more tickets as I learn how to best utilize the trainer stats and TG breeding stats.

[Alydar in California]

Peter Freundlich wrote:

\"Alydar,
The figure with T or op IS an \"illusion of accuracy\" (brilliant term on your part).
I would prefer TG to make an \"educated guesstimate\" of the horse\'s effort as opposed to the current figure that I must adjust myself more crudely or just toss out.\"

     No. The figure with a T or OP is a modest admission that complete accuracy is probably unobtainable in this case. Let\'s say a horse breaks about two lengths slowly. How much energy did this slow break require? As much as a normal break? What if he broke slowly because he was bumped at the start? Or went to his knees? What if he simply left the gate lazily, conserving energy for later? This is a guessing game, and it\'s better to be clear about that than to adjust the figure, which would surely lead people to take it literally.

If you want to adjust the figures yourself, this chart may help:

One length equals:

5f:   .96 (of a point)
5.5f: .87
6f:   .80
6.5f: .74
7f:   .68
7.5f: .64
8f:   .60
8.5f: .56
9f:   .53
10f:  .48
12f:  .40

I believe the type of request you and Chris have made is counterproductive. It diverts attention from more important requests: the ones I have made over the last two years.